[Senate Hearing 105-851]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 105-851
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 1999
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
on
H.R. 4328/S. 2307
AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND
RELATED AGENCIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1999, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES
__________
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board
Department of Transportation
General Accounting Office
National Transportation Safety Board
Nondepartmental witnesses
Office of Management and Budget
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
46-117 cc WASHINGTON : 1999
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC
20402
ISBN 0-16-058080-3
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
Joyce C. Rose
Peter Rogoff (Minority)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Monday, March 16, 1998
appalachian regional corridors
Page
Congressional witnesses.......................................... 1
Nondepartmental witnesses........................................ 1, 25
Material submitted subsequent to conclusion of hearing........... 53
Thursday, March 19, 1998
department of transportation major funding issues
Department of Transportation:
Secretary of Transportation.................................. 57
Federal Aviation Administration.............................. 99
U.S. Coast Guard............................................. 99
Tuesday, March 24, 1998
amtrak's future and passenger rail alternatives
Congressional witnesses.......................................... 197
General Accounting Office........................................ 217
Department of Transportation: Office of Inspector General........ 217
Nondepartmental witnesses........................................ 251
Office of Management and Budget.................................. 303
Material submitted subsequent to conclusion of hearing........... 321
Material Submitted by Agencies Not Appearing for Formal Hearings
Department of Transportation:
Federal Highway Administration............................... 325
Federal Railroad Administration.............................. 456
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration............... 607
Research and Special Programs Administration................. 707
St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation.................. 802
Related agencies:
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board... 817
National Transportation Safety Board......................... 828
Surface Transportation Board................................. 834
Nondepartmental witnesses........................................ 859
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 1999
----------
MONDAY, MARCH 16, 1998
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Birmingham, AL.
The subcommittee met at 9:33 a.m. at ``Great Hall'', Hill
University Center, University of Alabama at Birmingham,
Birmingham, AL, Hon. Richard C. Shelby (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senator Shelby.
APPALACHIAN REGIONAL CORRIDORS
Panel 1
CONGRESSIONAL WITNESSES
STATEMENTS OF:
HON. ROBERT ADERHOLT, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM ALABAMA
HON. SPENCER BACHUS, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM ALABAMA
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
STATEMENTS OF:
JESSE L. WHITE, JR., FEDERAL COCHAIRMAN, APPALACHIAN REGIONAL
COMMISSION
DON VAUGHN, ASSISTANT TRANSPORTATION DIRECTOR, ALABAMA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Opening Remarks
Senator Shelby. The subcommittee will come to order.
At this time, I would like to recognize Dr. William Deal
the dean of the School of Medicine at the University of Alabama
in Birmingham, for any remarks that he might care to make.
Thank you, Doctor Deal.
Dr. Deal. Thank you, Senator.
On behalf of the University of Alabama at Birmingham and
its 30,000 students, faculty, and staff members, I would like
to welcome you, Senator, and this subcommittee to this campus.
Senator Shelby has been very instrumental and supportive of the
development of this campus since he was elected to Congress in
1979 and we are very grateful for that. He, along with
Congressmen Bachus and Aderholt, have helped us and are fully
supportive of the School of Medicine and our human genetics
initiative which is well underway.
Senator Shelby is also the first Alabama Senator to serve
on the Senate Appropriations Committee since the legendary
Senate Lister Hill who had so much to do with the development
of the medical center. We are grateful for your leadership,
Senator, and again, welcome all of you to this campus. Thank
you.
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Dean.
I want to thank each of you for being here today as we
examine the cost and the benefits associated with the
completion of the Appalachian development highway system, and
specifically Corridor X.
Last year, as part of the Transportation appropriations
bill, this subcommittee provided $300 million of Federal funds
to the Appalachian highway system. About $40 million of that
went to the State of Alabama to advance the progress of
Corridor X. This $40 million was over and above the money the
State of Alabama received through the Federal-Aid Highway
Program.
The reason this money is necessary is to compensate for the
Federal Government's poor track record in living up to its
promise to finish this crucial highway system. The Appalachian
development highway system was created in 1965 with the intent
of linking the underdeveloped Appalachian region to the
National Interstate System. Today, 33 years later, we still
have large segments of the Appalachian highway system which are
incomplete. One of the largest unfinished sections of the
system in America is Corridor X here in Alabama.
When completed, Corridor X will be a 97-mile highway from
the Mississippi State line to I-65 here in Birmingham. In
conjunction with other routes in Mississippi, it will provide a
freeway-type route from Birmingham to Memphis and will
facilitate trade and economic development in northwest Alabama.
Not only will it make the movement of goods and people between
Memphis and Birmingham more efficient, but this highway project
will also bring much-needed jobs to the region. According to
the road information program, each $1 billion in new Federal
highway investment nationwide generates an estimated 1,018 jobs
in Alabama.
Completing Corridor X will also provide critical highway
safety improvements in this area. Anyone who has driven much in
northwest Alabama knows how dangerous the roads can be, and
this new highway will do more to improve highway safety than
any other project in recent memory. Highway fatalities in
Alabama increased by 11 percent from 1992 to 1996. Nationwide,
77 percent of all fatal crashes occur on two-lane roads while
only 14 percent of fatal crashes occur on roads with four or
more lanes. In Alabama, 53 percent of the roads on the National
Highway System, excluding the Interstate System, are two lanes.
Automobile accidents not only cost lives but they have
economic costs as well. Motor vehicle crashes cost Alabama
citizens about $2 billion per year or $471 for every resident
of the State for emergency services, medical costs, property
damages, and lost market productivity. Driving on roads in need
of repair costs Alabama $394 million a year or $126 per
motorist in extra vehicle repairs and operating costs.
Increasing the investment in our Nation's highways will help
change this and improve the lives of all of our citizens.
The purpose of this hearing today in Birmingham is to gain
a better understanding of how completing Corridor X and the
Appalachian highway system as a whole will benefit the people
of Alabama and other people in Appalachia. Our first witness
today will be Congressman Robert Aderholt who represents the
4th District in which most of Corridor X lies.
Congressman Aderholt is a member of the House
Appropriations Committee and also is a member of the
Transportation Subcommittee as well. He worked with me on last
year's appropriations bill to ensure that the funds for
Corridor X became a reality, and has effectively used his seat
on the Appropriations Committee to represent his district.
Congressman Spencer Bachus who represents most of the
Birmingham area is our next witness and has also been a staunch
advocate in Washington for Corridor X. He sits on the House
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and will continue
to have a strong voice in the final Federal Highway
reauthorization bill.
We will also hear from the Honorable Jesse White, the
Federal Cochairman of the Appalachian Regional Commission. The
ARC is responsible for administering the Appalachian
development highway system, and we are pleased to have Mr.
White with us here today in Birmingham.
The last witness on the first panel is Mr. Don Vaughn,
Assistant Transportation Director of the Alabama Department of
Transportation. Mr. Vaughn, along with Director Jimmy Butts, is
responsible for running the Department of Transportation of the
State on a daily basis and for setting the State of Alabama's
priorities for highway construction.
The second panel today will focus on the economic and
safety benefits of Corridor X. We will have Mr. William
Buechner, director of economics and research at the American
Road & Transportation Builders Association; Mr. Barry Copeland,
vice president of government affairs at the Birmingham Area
Chamber of Commerce. He is also the regional director of
BellSouth Communications. Mr. Frank Filgo, president and CEO of
Alabama Trucking Association, and Mr. Al Gibbs, director of
corporate affairs of the Alabama Chapter of the American
Automobile Association.
Congressman Aderholt, Congressman Bachus, we welcome you
here today to join me in this hearing. Your written statements
will be made part of the record in its entirety.
Congressman Aderholt, you may proceed as you wish.
Statement of Representative Aderholt
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Senator, for having us here today
and allowing us to speak on the importance of Corridor X. A
tremendous amount of progress has been made toward the eventual
completion----
Senator Shelby. Pull that microphone up closer to you, if
you would.
Mr. Aderholt. A tremendous amount of progress has been made
toward the eventual completion of this project in the past year
in Washington, and I look forward to the first day when
Corridor X is open.
When I was first elected to Congress back in 1996, Corridor
X was my No. 1 priority. Working with the Alabama congressional
delegation, the State Department of Transportation, local
elected officials, and interested citizens in north Alabama, we
were able to secure the largest general fund appropriation in
history, $45 million for the current fiscal year, before the
State match. Working together, we were able to get this done
and it is something we can certainly all be proud of. However,
this is just the first step toward the completion of Corridor
X.
This year will prove to be the crucial year when a sense of
fairness is restored to Alabama for transportation funding and
the necessary resources for the completion of Corridor X are
secured. Along with the annual preparations process, this year
Congress, as you know, will reauthorize the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act, also known as ISTEA.
Congress last authorized ISTEA legislation back in 1991.
Unfortunately, Alabama did not fare well in that legislation.
Alabama is a donor State, meaning we pay more in gasoline taxes
in transportation trust fund than we receive in return for
transportation infrastructure project. In fact, Alabama has
only got approximately 78 cents on the dollar since 1991.
The lack of a sound surface transportation infrastructure
is harming our ability to compete with other areas in the
Southeast. Congress has already responded with the largest
funding for surface transportation in history last year with
$23.3 billion which is up from $20.9 billion the previous year
and more than $1 billion over the President's request. And I
pledge to continue to build on this progress this year.
Certainly the Alabama congressional delegation has been
working together to ensure that this does not happen again with
the reauthorization. Thankfully we are in a much better
position this time around with members of the Alabama
delegation being on key committees.
The No. 1 concern of the delegation is to ensure that
Alabama does not receive the short end of the stick on the
overall amount of funding that comes from the Federal
Government. Certainly as you're well aware, the Senate, last
week, passed a 6-year reauthorization of ISTEA and the House
will shortly do the same. What is important to know is that all
competing long-term reauthorizations are better for Alabama
than the current law.
A central issue to ISTEA debate is specific funding
category for the Appalachian development highway system.
Historically, the main problem for the Appalachian development
highway system, which includes Corridor X, has been a stable,
dedicated source of funding.
Since the Appalachian development highway system is not
part of the Interstate Highway System, it is hard to rely on an
annual appropriations process. This is why, in some years,
Alabama has had significant levels of funding and other years
it received very small amounts. This makes it very difficult
for long-term planning and it is part of the reason that the
Appalachian development highway system is only 78 percent
completed while the Interstate Highway System is 99 percent
completed.
The House, the Senate, and the President have all decided
to include a specific funding category for the Appalachian
development highway system. The real battle seems to be what
level of funding will be secured in the final version of the
bill. The President's proposal includes $2.1 billion over 6
years for the Appalachian development highway system, the House
proposal includes $2.5 billion and the Senate's proposal has
$2.2 billion for the Appalachian development highway system.
The funds for the Appalachian development highway system
are disbursed by a funding formula based solely on the costs to
complete the entire system of which Corridor X is one part.
Alabama's share is 11 percent so under the competing bills, we
will receive over $200 million before the State match from the
highway trust fund. This figure does not take into account the
appropriations process, and as I mentioned earlier, and has
been mentioned, we worked together last year to secure $45
million in the Transportation appropriation bill last year.
Each year we will be in a position to steer additional funds to
Corridor X on top of the authorized funding from the highway
trust fund.
I have discussed the process to complete Corridor X up in
Washington because I know everyone here understands what is
important to complete this project. There are two very
consequential reasons why the highway must be completed now.
The first is economic development for northwest Alabama, and
certainly, the second, which is certainly just as important
and, in my opinion, more important, is safety.
It is unacceptable omission that there is no Interstate
Highway from Memphis to Birmingham. This makes it more costly
for businesses in Birmingham but also has slowed economic
growth in northwest Alabama. If you look at a map of Alabama,
the counties that are experiencing surging economic activity
are generally those with an Interstate Highway running through
them. Many of the counties in northwest Alabama will be able to
create more jobs when Corridor X is completed.
In addition, more businesses will be willing to locate
along Corridor X in northwest Alabama because the
transportation infrastructure is sound.
An equally compelling reason to complete Corridor X is
safety concerns. The current two-lane route on U.S. 78 is one
of the most dangerous highways in the Nation. In Marion and
Walker Counties, we have averaged one death per month over the
past 50 months. This simply must change and it will do so when
Corridor X is completed. U.S. 78 was designed and built more
than 50 years ago when traffic patterns were significantly
lower.
In addition, the decades of wear and tear have taken their
toll that have resulted in hundreds of traffic fatalities.
Completion of Corridor X will be a win-win situation for
commuters and businesses. And I'm pleased that the people in
Birmingham have linked hands with the people of northwest
Alabama to see Corridor X come to fruition. Working together, I
believe that we can ensure our transportation infrastructure is
ready to take us into the 21st century.
Prepared Statement
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Congressman Aderholt. We will
insert your complete statement in the record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Congressman Robert Aderholt
Thank you for having me here today and allowing me to speak on the
importance of Corridor X. A tremendous amount of progress has been made
toward the eventual completion of this project in the past year in
Washington and I look forward to the first day when Corridor X is
opened.
When I was elected to Congress in 1996, Corridor X was my number
one priority. Working with the Alabama Congressional Delegation, the
State Department of Transportation, local elected officials and
interested citizens in North Alabama, we were able to secure the
largest general fund appropriation in history--$45 million for the
current fiscal year before the state match. Working together we were
able to get this done and it is something we can all be proud of.
However, that was just a good first step toward the completion of
Corridor X.
This year will prove to be the crucial year when a sense of
fairness was restored to Alabama for transportation funding and the
necessary resources to complete Corridor X were secured. Along with the
annual appropriations process, this year Congress will reauthorize the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA).
Congress last reauthorized the ISTEA legislation in 1991.
Unfortunately, Alabama did not fare well in that legislation. Alabama
is a ``donor state'' meaning we pay more in gasoline taxes to the
transportation trust funds than we receive in return for transportation
infrastructure projects. In fact, Alabama has only gotten 78 cents on
the dollar since 1991.
The lack of a sound surface transportation infrastructure is
harming our ability to compete with other areas in the Southeast.
Congress has already responded with the largest funding for surface
transportation in history last year, $23.3 billion which is up from
$20.9 billion the previous year and more than $1 billion over the
President's request. I pledge to continue to build on this progress
this year.
The Alabama Congressional Delegation has been working together to
ensure this does not happen again with the reauthorization. Thankfully,
we are in a much better position this time around, with Members on the
key committees.
For example, in the Senate, Senator Shelby is the Chairman of the
Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee which actually appropriates
funding for the various transportation projects. Senator Sessions is on
the Environment and Public Works Committee which has prime jurisdiction
over the reauthorization of ISTEA.
In the House, Congressman Bachus is a member of the Transportation
and Infrastructure Committee and the Subcommittee on Surface
Transportation which has prime jurisdiction over the reauthorization of
ISTEA. Congressman Callahan, Congressman Cramer and I are members of
the House Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee which appropriates
funding for the transportation projects.
The number one concern of the delegation is to ensure Alabama does
not receive the short end of the stick on the overall amount of funding
that comes from the Federal government.
Last week the Senate passed a six-year reauthorization of ISTEA and
the House will shortly do the same. What is important to note is that
all competing long term reauthorizations are better for Alabama than
current law.
The debate for us is moving in the right direction. The central
question has been answered. The State of Alabama will receive far more
favorable treatment this time around. The real issue is how much more
will Alabama receive as compared with current law.
A central issue in the ISTEA debate is a specific funding category
for the Appalachian Development Highway System. Historically, the main
problem for the Appalachian Development Highway System which includes
Corridor X has been a stable dedicated source of funding. Since the
Appalachian Development Highway System is not part of the Interstate
Highway System, it has had to rely on the annual appropriations
process. This is why in some years Alabama has seen significant levels
of funding and other years it received very small amounts. This is why
in some years Alabama has seen significant levels of funding and other
years it received very small amounts. This makes it very difficult for
long term planning and is part of the reason that the Appalachian
Development Highway System is only 78 percent completed and the
Interstate Highway System is 99 percent completed.
The House, the Senate and the President have all decided to include
a specific funding category for the Appalachian Development Highway
System. The real battle seems to be what level of funding will be
secured in the final version of the bill. The President's proposal
(NEXTEA) includes $2.1 billion over six years for the ADHS, the House's
proposal (BESTEA) includes $2.5 billion for the ADHS, and the Senate's
proposal has $2.2 billion for the ADHS.
The funds for the Appalachian Development Highway System are
disbursed by a funding formula based solely on the cost to complete the
entire system of which Corridor X is one part. Alabama's share is 11
percent so under the competing bills we will receive over $200 million
before the state match from the highway trust funds.
This figure does not take into account the appropriations process.
As I mentioned earlier, Senator Shelby and I were able to secure $45
million this year in the Transportation Appropriations bill. Each year
we will be in a position to steer additional funds to Corridor X on top
of the authorized funding from the highway trust fund.
I have discussed the process to complete Corridor X up in
Washington because I know everyone here understands why it is important
to complete this project. There are two very consequential reasons why
this highway must be completed now. The first is economic development
for North West Alabama and the second is safety.
It is an unacceptable omission that there is no Interstate Highway
from Memphis to Birmingham. This makes it more costly for businesses in
Birmingham but it also has slowed economic growth in North West
Alabama. If you look at a map of Alabama, the counties that are
experiencing surging economic activity are generally those with an
Interstate Highway running through them. Many of the counties in North
West Alabama will be able to create more jobs when Corridor X is
completed. In addition, more businesses will be willing to locate along
Corridor X in North West Alabama because the transportation
infrastructure is sound.
An equally compelling reason to complete Corridor X is safety
concerns. The current two lane route on US 78 is one of the most
dangerous highways in the nation. In Marion and Walker Counties we have
averaged one death per month for over 50 consecutive months. This
simply must change and will do so when Corridor X is completed. US 78
was designed and built more than fifty years ago when traffic patterns
were significantly lower. In addition, decades of wear and tear have
taken their toll and have resulted in hundreds of traffic fatalities.
Completion of Corridor X will be a win-win situation for commuters
and businesses. I am pleased that the people in Birmingham have linked
hands with the people in North West Alabama to see Corridor X come to
fruition. Working together we will ensure our transportation
infrastructure is ready to take us into the 21st century.
Statement of Representative Bachus
Senator Shelby. Congressman Bachus.
Mr. Bachus. Thank you, Senator Shelby.
First of all, I want to thank you on behalf of everyone in
the Birmingham area for your strong, strong emphasis on the
corridor act and for the funding that you have been able to
direct toward this project.
I have been asked to address project status and also
funding issues. First of all, I think there has been a growing
recognition on the part of the Birmingham community and of
north Alabama for the need for this road. I would like to
commend the chamber of commerce, I would like to commend
Congressman Aderholt. He has made this his No. 1 project. And I
think anytime you get a Congressman who takes on one project
and concentrates on it, you see an effect. And I think that his
efforts, really daily efforts, have resulted in a lot more
emphasis on this project because it actually has a voice that
can be identified, and that voice is Robert Aderholt in the
House.
With you as chairman of the Transportation and
Appropriations Committee, I do not know that people in this
room realize the significance of that, but if you wanted to put
someone on any committee that would have more ability to
influence funding for this project, it would be transportation
chairman, Senate Appropriations Committee, and we just happen
to have Richard Shelby as the chairman of that subcommittee.
Senator Shelby. I thank you.
Mr. Bachus. I will say this, I think because of, not only
chamber of commerce but a group of mayors all along the route
pushing very hard for this project, informing us about the
importance for their communities, it has grown really to where
it is, in the Southeast, one of the top priorities of the
Surface Transportation Committee on which I sit. And I think I
have very good news for the community, for north Alabama,
today, as far as the status of the ISTEA bill, the House of
Representatives will increase funding, if the House bill--the
Senate and the House bill are very similar, and I want to
commend you and Senator----
Senator Shelby. Congressman, I think they would be
interested in your expanding your remarks on ISTEA right here
today.
Mr. Bachus. What we have is, Alabama has been receiving
about $335 million for highways from the Federal Government.
Under the new ISTEA bill, it will receive something in the
neighborhood of $555 million, so you're talking about a 65-
percent increase in funding.
In addition to that, prior to this year, there was no
funding for Appalachian highways. The Energy and Commerce
Committee funded the Appalachian Regional Commission and they
have dedicated about $10 million--now this is in addition to
the ISTEA highway money, they have committed about $10 million
through Energy and Commerce a year, prior to this year when you
and Congressman Aderholt increased the funding level about
fourfold.
Under the new Appalachian regional funding mechanism, and
Congressman Aderholt mentioned that our share, there is a big--
for the first time, there is a separate category for highways.
It is a several-billion-dollar category, and Alabama's share
will go from 8 to 11 percent of Appalachian regional money. And
what that means, bottom line, is that for Corridor X and
Corridor Y--I think it is Corridor Y--Corridor V across
Alabama, there will be about $40 million--and this figure could
change in the next few weeks, but will be somewhere between $40
and $44 million for those projects alone, per year.
Senator Shelby. In addition to everything else.
Mr. Bachus. In addition to the--first of all, we go from
$335 to $555 million in highway money under ISTEA. In addition,
we have an earmark for Corridor X and Corridor V of over $40
million a year.
Compare that with the present spending levels of about $10
million a year and you see that, in Federal money, we're
dedicating four to five times as much as we have been.
The Surface Transportation Committee estimates that about
62 percent of that money ought to go to Corridor X because
Corridor V is further toward completion. Now Mr. Vaughn could
speak to this probably a little better and give you the
completion ratio. But bottom line, we will--the Senate has
passed its ISTEA Bill. The House Surface Transportation
Committee, on March 24, which is very close to today, March 24,
we hope to report a bill out and have it pass the House before
April 1. It will then go to a conference. But Alabama will get
basically a bigger pie--I mean, there will be a bigger pie for
all the States and Alabama will get a bigger slice of the pie.
Now, as far as the impact of this project on the State of
Alabama, the Surface Transportation Committee believes that
this project, more than any other, will benefit metropolitan
Birmingham--will benefit north Alabama and northwest Alabama.
It is one of metropolitan Birmingham's two missing links; one
to the Midwest, the other to Florida and south Georgia and
panhandle of Florida. The other transportation need for the
City of Birmingham is actually a project that is not even in
Birmingham but will be an upgrading of the road between
Montgomery and Dothan to tie into I-10, which will have an
economic benefit for Birmingham.
We also--the third project for Birmingham that is basically
on a--I think a must-do basis, is the northern beltline.
Senator Shelby. Absolutely.
Mr. Bachus. That will have probably more impact on
commuters and on the economic development here in Birmingham.
That project, because we are increasing total spending by 67
percent of moneys given to the State, and those moneys are not
dedicated to any one project, so the State of Alabama will be
free to direct as little or as much as they want to to the
northern beltline and to Corridor X, in addition to these $40
to $50 million that both the authorization committee and the
Appropriations Committee have targeted for these projects.
I will say that, as much as you talk about the economic
benefit, and our whole second panel is going to talk about
economic benefit. The chamber has done a lot of work there, I
would simply say that what you're doing is you're linking the
Southeast and the Midwest which have more potential for growth
than any other sectors, any other regions in the country.
You're linking them with an interstate highway which they
presently do not have.
Other than the economic benefits, and for first time, I'll
read part of my written statement because I think this probably
says it best:
But even more importantly, Corridor X is needed to improve
safety. It seems that every week we lose another Alabamian on
the dangerous stretch of road that is now U.S. 78. The
completion of Corridor X will mean a safer commute and
community, not only for our residents along the road, but for
others traveling between Alabama and the Midwest.
Finally, I would like to compliment you, Senator Shelby and
Senator Sessions. In the House of Representatives we added a
University of Alabama Transportation Center.
Senator Shelby. That is right.
Mr. Bachus. I was pleased last week to see that the Senate
has also added $3.6 million--and we do not know exactly how
much this will be, but approximately or potentially $3.6
million over the next 6 years for the University of Alabama at
Birmingham, Tuscaloosa, and Huntsville to study the
transportation needs of our State.
We talk about multimillion-dollar projects, but I am as
excited about our future leaders, our present students being
involved in our universities and in planning our transportation
future based on our transportation needs. I think that any time
you direct money toward planning, you do it in a scientific,
scholarly way, you save a lot of money and you get a much
better system.
So with that, I'll close just by simply saying, Senator
Shelby, I think you having this hearing here today, one of the
few hearings nationwide, by the Appropriations Committee, shows
not only--you've already shown by the appropriations you've put
behind this project but also by being here today will make my
job in the Surface Transportation Committee--this hearing today
is going to make it a lot more to my advantage in gaining
additional funds.
Infrastructure Importance to Economic Development
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Congressman.
I just want to make an observation or two. One, Senator
Sessions is not present, but Congressman Bachus alluded to what
happened in the Senate last week as far as ISTEA, the
reauthorization bill. Senator Sessions serves on that
committee, a very important committee which is counterpart to
what Congressman Bachus serves on in the House.
Congressman Aderholt and I do not serve on the authorizing
committee, we serve on the Appropriations. So we have a good
balance, I believe, for Alabama.
A lot of you are here because you realize how important
infrastructure is for economic development, for safety, and so
forth. I believe that, if you look back, Corridor X should have
been finished 10, 12 years, 15 years ago, and perhaps we did
not have the clout, honestly, but we've got the positions now,
in Alabama. In the House, with Congressman Bachus, Congressman
Aderholt, Congressman Callahan, and in the Senate, and we're
going to do it.
I see Mary Buckelew here, and there are a lot of officials,
mayors, and councilmen from all over, but she is the
chairperson of the Jefferson County Commission. We've talked
about something we're not holding a hearing on today but
Congressman Bachus brought up, and that is the northern
beltline. The northern beltline. I would--I think after this,
down the road, we should have a hearing focusing only on the
northern beltline.
Everybody here in Jefferson County that drives through
Jefferson County knows what 459 has meant. Can you imagine what
the extension around tying on to 459 south of Bessemer and
tying on up into northern Jefferson County will mean to the
development of Jefferson County, especially west Jefferson
County. It will be like daylight and dark. And we're going to
do that. I know Spencer, you alluded to it, and that is very
important to you, but it is important to all of us. It is
important to economic development and I appreciate that.
I appreciate both of you appearing here today. Congressman
Bachus is my Congressman from Tuscaloosa, in my district, and I
remind him that when I want to get his attention, you know, I
say, look, we vote for you. You know, he likes that.
[Laughter.]
He says, keep voting for me.
But you understand what this hearing is about: Corridor X
and how it ties in with the system of highways in Alabama. You
serve on the committee dealing with ISTEA in the House. This is
a historic authorization bill that you're moving in the House.
What is the timetable, what do you think? I know you cannot
say exactly because nobody has an exact clock, an exact science
in Washington.
Mr. Bachus. Well, we had a breakthrough in the Senate,
really, not in the House. I wish I could come here and say that
the House of Representatives had had a breakthrough last week.
Senator Shelby. We had the breakthrough, but you all will
come back now.
Mr. Bachus. That is right.
And what that breakthrough was, though, that the--was that
the 4.3 cents which----
Senator Shelby. Explain that to the people here if you
would.
Mr. Bachus. Over the past 40 years, we've had a Congress
which I think we all realize has increased spending and gone
into deficit spending, sometimes called the tax-and-spend
Congress. And what it did is, of the gas tax which were
dedicated to roads, they diverted 4.3 cents to the general fund
for other projects.
Senator Shelby. And by 4.3 cents, that is----
Mr. Bachus. Out of each gallon.
Senator Shelby. You're talking about billions of dollars
down the road, aren't you?
Mr. Bachus. Talking about billions of dollars. You're
basically talking about about 45 cents in taxes, of gas taxes
for every gallon of gasoline. And they took about 10 percent of
that. That is where the figure came from and they took about 10
percent of it and diverted it into the general fund. You have
consistently voted against that, I've noticed, and----
Senator Shelby. Against putting it in the general fund, but
to use it for the intended purpose, right?
Mr. Bachus. And the intended purpose is for roads. So that
makes an $80 billion difference.
So when we go from our total appropriation of about one-
half the increase, little less than one-half is just from the
effort of you and I and Congressman Aderholt, and really I
think the Alabama delegation, with perhaps some exception,
voted to dedicate to highways.
Also Alabama is getting--as I said, they're getting a
bigger share of the pie, so the Senate was able to get the
votes to redirect that money toward highways. And so the House
Surface Transportation Committee will report out a bill, our
goal is by March 24, as I said. We hope to get it to the floor
and I think will get it to the floor before April 1. I think it
will probably be a 1- or 2-day process on the floor of the
House. Then it will go into a conference. And we ought to have
a new highway bill before May 1.
What the State of Alabama needs to do, as you and I know,
we are giving them the contract authority for 555 million
dollars' worth of spending.
Senator Shelby. That is a lot of jobs and a lot of
planning.
Mr. Bachus. Yes; this year they had contract authority for
about $340 million. I believe they let about $325 million of
that. They will need to be prepared to let those contracts and
to start moving dirt. I think that to a certain extent,
they've--there has been a lot of money spent on consultants. I
do not think that is necessary on this project. The design work
is complete, the route has been chosen. What we need is to move
dirt and lay concrete.
Senator Shelby. And fast.
Mr. Bachus. That is right. They can direct--they will have
$220 million more a year for all their projects. In addition,
they will have $44 million, somewhere between $40 and $44
million specifically for these two projects. I would urge the
State, as soon as that bill is passed, on or before May 1, to
be in a position to let contracts.
Senator Shelby. I'm not in the State legislature, I spent
some time as a State senator, but I--since I'm in Jefferson
County, I believe that the people of Jefferson County ought to
be treated equitably when it comes to building and finishing
their roads and their highways because they pay in more to the
highway fund in Alabama than any other county. And they have
not always gotten back what they paid in, and a lot of you have
raised this with me. I think you've got to raise that with the
Governor, with your State House delegation, with your State
Senate delegation. But it ought to be that way because this
area is very important. Congressman Aderholt----
Mr. Bachus. In fact, we've got two things that have hurt
us. There has--the money has not been directed back to
Jefferson County and Commissioner Gary White, I think, was the
first person that actually did an extensive study on that, and
I think has done a good job on----
Senator Shelby. He is a good commissioner, outstanding.
Mr. Bachus. He has done an outstanding job on letting
people in Jefferson County know that they have not been getting
back from the State nearly their fair share.
We also--if you look at the funding, north Alabama has not
gotten its fair share. So it has been a combination of those
two factors. And I think we need to insist on equity. We now
have equity from the Federal level and I want to stress--you
know this and I know this, but very little of this--now
Corridor X and Corridor V will have committed funds, but this
$550 million a year is unearmarked. The Governor's
association----
Senator Shelby. And I trust it will not be squandered,
don't you?
Mr. Bachus. Yes; and that will be--you do not come to
Washington to determine what projects will be built and which
will not, you go to Montgomery to make those determinations,
and that as we think it should be.
And so I hope people realize that----
Senator Shelby. I do, too.
Mr. Bachus. That we're not earmarking----
Senator Shelby. Well, I appreciate your remarks. We
understand.
Congressman Aderholt, I want to ask you one question. In
your opinion, what is the most important reason for Corridor X
to be finished and how soon----
Mr. Aderholt. Right. Well, first of all, I think safety has
to be the most compelling reason to complete Corridor X.
Economic growth, as you know, is normally the central reason to
upgrade transportation infrastructure and certainly that is an
important aspect here.
But really, in looking at U.S. Highway 78, as it currently
exists, and the completion of Corridor X, the lives that have
already been lost will continue to be lost until Corridor X is
completed and really the human cost cannot be--the cost there
cannot be tabulated and the dollar amounts pale in comparison
to the lives of loved ones that have been lost in northwest
Alabama.
But that is not to downplay that the economic growth is
very central, and I think to overlook that, certainly, would be
a mistake. But I have received a number of newspaper stories
and photographs from constituents to illustrate the need to
complete Corridor X and, as I mentioned earlier in my opening
statement, I think for the last 50 months, there has been an
average of one life per month that has been lost on Highway 78,
just in the Walker and Marion County area.
Senator Shelby. At this point, can we get Mr. Jesse White,
who is the Federal cochairman, Appalachian Regional Commission,
Mr. Don Vaughn, assistant transportation director, if you
gentlemen would come up, I wanted to get the Congressmen's
remarks first.
Your written statements will be made part of the record, if
you would. Mr. White, since you're a very important player in
this, since you represent the Appalachian Regional Council, the
people here in the room would be very interested in your
overview: where are we going, how soon we can get there, and
where we are today.
You might want to bring that microphone up close to you,
otherwise they will not be able to hear you.
Statement of Jesse L. White, Jr.
Mr. White. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. First
of all, let me commend you on bringing a hearing out into the
Appalachian region. We have started a practice of trying to
take at least one of our Commission meetings out into the
region every year, I think it is good for our people to be able
to join us.
Let me thank you personally for your strong support for the
ARC and that of the two Congressmen who joined me at the table,
as well as, really, the entire Alabama delegation. Those
Congressmen from Appalachia and Alabama, and I believe the
whole Alabama delegation has consistently supported----
Senator Shelby. Would you tell the audience, just to remind
them, where Appalachian area begins, as far as your group is
concerned? Just delineate it if you could.
Mr. White. My first day on the job, which was a little over
4 years ago, I was meeting with the staff and looking at the
map, and I asked them, I said, is Appalachia defined by God or
by Congress. And they said, young man, you must be new to
Washington, there is no difference.
Senator Shelby. Oh, there is no difference.
Mr. White. So it is geologically pretty pure. It runs along
the spine of the mountain chain, and it starts in southern New
York, comes down the mountain chain and includes, you know,
what we think of as Central----
Senator Shelby. You are referring to the map on the left
now?
Mr. White. Map on the left, that is the Appalachian region.
Senator Shelby. OK.
Mr. White. We are 399 counties in all of West Virginia and
parts of 12 other States, and that includes New York, parts of
New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Maryland, then western North
Carolina, western South Carolina, southwestern Virginia, parts
of Tennessee, north Georgia, and then we swing, of course,
across the South and get north Alabama and north Mississippi.
Senator Shelby. OK.
Mr. White. One thing that is very unique about the ARC, we
are unique in Washington in the sense that we are a true
Federal/State partnership. The Commission consists of a Federal
representative appointed by the President, and I sit with the
13 Governors. And the interesting thing about it is, Congress
gave us each one vote. I'm the only Federal official that does
not have the final authority to spend money or issue
regulations, I have to get the Governors to go along with me,
the Governors have to get me to go along with them, so it is
really a joint policymaking model that is about 30 years ahead
of its time.
Our origins go back to when John Kennedy was campaigning
for President in West Virginia in 1959 and was stunned at the
poverty he saw. Said he would do something about it, if
elected, and appointed, once he was elected, what was called
the President's Appalachian Regional Commission [PARC], the
PARC Commission.
It issued its report to President Johnson after Kennedy was
assassinated and Johnson pushed through the Appalachian
Regional Development Act of 1965.
It is interesting, the opening sentence of the PARC Report
says, the following, it is kind of a haunting sentence. It
says, ``We find that Appalachia is a region apart, both
geographically and statistically.'' And it went ahead to paint
a picture of a region that had really been left out of the
mainstream of the American economy.
And the first and foremost reason for that was its
geographical isolation. And one of its first findings was that,
right next to this huge population corridor going up and down
the east coast and along the gulf coast, stood this area that
had been left out of the Interstate System.
Senator Shelby. Isolated.
Mr. White. Isolated. And this report said, until this
region is connected to the mainstream of the American economy,
it will never be able to participate.
And so Congress authorized what has become a 3,025-mile
highway system designed to connect us to the interstate grid,
and that is really the heart of the work that the ARC does.
In addition, the Congress found that highways were the
first and most important condition of economic growth, but not
the only one, and so it authorized us to work in what we call
our area development program, which our local development
districts worked with us on, and that is everything in terms of
industrial parks, education and training, water and sewer, the
basic elements of community and economic development that you
have to have to capitalize on your highways.
And so we have a full gamut of economic development
programs, about two-thirds of the money that Congress has given
us in the history of the ARC has gone to building our highway
system. It is now about 79 percent complete, and I believe as
Congressman Aderholt said, the interstate is 99 percent
complete, so we're a little behind.
We have always been funded, our highways have basically
always been funded out of the general fund, and what is
historic this year, as the Congressmen have pointed out, and as
have you, Senator, is that for the first time in history, the
President and both Houses of Congress are now committed to
funding our roads out of the trust fund. This is a huge
development, because we've been able to get only about $100
million a year divided by 13 States to build our roads. And now
we're looking at something like $2.2----
Senator Shelby. We did better last year, didn't we?
Mr. White. Well, I'm going to come to that.
Senator Shelby. Go ahead.
Mr. White. But now we're looking at $2.2 to $2.5 billion
out of the trust fund.
Last year, thanks a lot to you and Senator Byrd in the
Senate and our colleagues in the House, we had a banner year.
In fact, the ARC had the highest appropriations level last year
in our history. In our regular appropriations, we went into
conference with $160 million from both Houses and came out with
$170 million. So that was pretty good. And then we had this
special $300 million earmark for our highway system.
So we want to thank you very much for your leadership. I
think the actions that the Congress took last year sort of
catapulted us to this position where we now have consensus on
really making a substantial investment in completing the
system. So not only on behalf of Alabamians, but on behalf of
the 22 million people that live in the Appalachian region, I
would like to thank you.
The way our system works, Mr. Chairman, is Congress has
authorized 3,025 miles for our highway system that you see on
the map on the left. The Commission then establishes what the
corridors are, and they are not numbers, they are letters. We
go from A to X. We are talking about two of the corridors here
in Alabama. X was actually one of the last ones added to our
system, I think it was added in the midseventies, if memory
serves correctly.
Of our entire system, 2,259 miles now are open, 117 miles
are under construction, which is about a 79-percent completion
rate as has been mentioned. The bad news is that the last 21
percent will cost more than the first 79 percent because we're
going through some of the toughest terrain and because,
obviously, prices have escalated. It would have been cheaper if
we had gone ahead and finished this sooner.
But now we are looking at a price tag of about $8.5 billion
for the system, the Federal share of $6.8 billion. There is
already some money in the pipeline, the remaining Federal cost
is about $6.2 billion. So as you can see, this proposal and
NEXTEA is really an investment to finish at least one-third of
the system in the next 6 years. So that is just tremendous
news.
Congress allocates this money to the Commission. I sit down
with the Governors once a year in this power-sharing
arrangement I mentioned, and we vote an allocation to the
States. And that allocation is based on the cost to complete.
In other words, Alabama's part of the cost of complete as a
percentage of the whole, determines what Alabama gets, and that
is, as has been mentioned, that is about 11.1 percent.
In terms of the two corridors in Alabama, X and V, there
are about 231 miles in these two corridors eligible for
funding, about 125 miles of that are open, about 40 miles are
being built, 66 miles are left remaining.
In terms of V, which is the road that runs down from
Tennessee through Huntsville, that is a 145-mile corridor.
Senator Shelby. Does that tie on through Chattanooga?
Mr. White. Yes, sir; I believe it does.
Senator Shelby. OK.
Mr. White. 100 miles are now open, 23 miles are under
construction, so you have got about an 85 percent completion
effort on V.
In terms of X, it is 95 miles authorized, 26 miles are
open, 17 miles are under construction so we only have about a
45-percent completion.
Senator Shelby. Mr. White, I know this is not on scale--it
was done by my staff--but does this give you a rough idea of
where we are as far as, you see, starting over in Mississippi
in the blue, the deep blue, coming into Alabama where----
Mr. White. Yes, sir; that is----
Senator Shelby. And then the red would be what is not
finished coming into Birmingham, is that correct?
Mr. White. Right. That is largely an accurate scale.
Senator Shelby. OK.
Mr. White. I myself will be driving that corridor this
afternoon. I grew up in Mississippi, I have driven it before,
so I have a personal passion for seeing it completed. I am
looking forward to the beautiful countryside of Alabama, I am
not looking forward to parts of the road that I will have to
travel this afternoon. I am going to Ole' Miss, my alma mater
tonight, where the President's Commission on Race is meeting,
and that will be quite an emotional meeting for me because I
was a freshman at Ole' Miss in the Meredith year. So that will
be quite an event.
So there is no question that this corridor needs to be
completed, Mr. Chairman. The economic benefits are obvious, the
safety needs have been mentioned. We are currently undertaking
a comprehensive study of the economic impact of our corridors,
we will be sharing that with you as it is completed this year.
And we are also undertaking a study of the safety impacts of
our corridors. We will also be sharing that with you, and I
look forward to working with you and our colleagues on the
Hill, the entire delegation from Alabama, in finishing our
work.
Prepared Statement
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. White. We have your written
statement and it will be made part of the record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jesse L. White, Jr.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be here in Alabama on behalf of the
Clinton Administration to talk about the importance of completing the
Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS). Today, more than 30
years after the first spadeful of dirt was turned on the ADHS, only 79
percent of the system is open or under construction. This
Administration believes strongly that it is in the national interest to
accelerate the day when Appalachia will be fully served by a system of
modern highways. We are pleased to join with your Subcommittee in
working toward this goal.
This Subcommittee's strong support this past year for the
Appalachian Regional Commission and its highway program has helped give
us the largest highway funding level in the Commission's history. Mr.
Chairman, thanks to you, Senator Byrd, and other key Members of
Congress, we are now able to make substantial progress toward
completing this critical highway system--and honoring the commitment
that the nation made to our region over three decades ago that we would
have a network of modern highways that could provide the engine for
economic growth in small communities all across Appalachia. On behalf
of our governors and our small towns and communities, I say a heartfelt
thanks.
There is no single item more crucial to the economic development of
Appalachia than completion of the Appalachian Development Highway
System. This highway system is the cornerstone of the Commission's plan
to develop the region, criss-crossing Appalachia and linking the region
to the national interstate highway system. From its inception--now
almost 33 years ago--the ARC highway system has been designed to be an
instrument of economic development, first, by improving commerce and
transportation within the region, and second, by opening the region to
the rest of the nation and linking it to national and international
markets.
background
A modern system of highways is a critical response to Appalachia's
isolation--a product of treacherous terrain, narrow winding roads, and
low travel speeds. That isolation itself accounts for much of the
region's relative economic stagnation. Because of high construction
costs and low traffic counts, the interstate highway system had largely
bypassed Appalachia, leaving vast areas of the region cut off from the
mainstream of American economic life. Moreover, the poor condition of
the roads that did exist within Appalachia made driving hazardous and
discouraged commerce and economic development.
Congress expressly authorized a regional highway system based not
on traffic counts but on its development potential--its ability to open
up the region, connecting communities and workers to broader markets
and fostering the prosperity that flows from this expanded commerce.
Corridors were chosen to close the gap between key markets on either
side of Appalachia that were not linked by the interstate system to the
region.
The old system of roads--characterized by low travel speeds, long
travel distances, poor design standards, and unsafe conditions--made
the delivery of basic services difficult, expensive, and occasionally
impossible, further impeding the region's opportunity for growth.
Without an effective system of highways, adequate health care, for
example, would be unavailable to literally thousands of Appalachian
citizens, and children would have to travel hours on dangerous winding
roads to school.
Thus those wise men and women who guided the creation of ARC in the
1960's declared that highways were an essential condition for the
region's future growth. In the intervening years, their wisdom has been
vindicated. Today the economic impetus to complete the system has never
been more compelling. In today's global marketplace, a modern system of
highways is a critical first step in fostering economic growth and
enabling Appalachia to become a net contributor to the national
economy.
status
Congress has authorized 3,025 miles for the Appalachian Development
Highway System. The Commission has established 26 highway corridors,
with each of the region's 13 states being served by at least one
corridor. To date 2,259 miles of the system are open to traffic, with
another 117 miles under construction. The good news is that 79 percent
of the system is open or under construction. The bad news is that the
remaining 649 miles are some of the most difficult and expensive to
build.
Last year ARC concluded a study of the cost to complete the system.
The estimated total cost, as of September 30, 1996, was $8.5 billion,
with the federal share of that cost estimated at $6.8 billion. After
deducting federal funds that were available for use in fiscal year
1997, the federal share was estimated at $6.2 billion.
The highways are planned, designed and constructed by the
individual state highway agencies using funds made available from
several Federal sources including appropriations to the ARC and funds
from the 1991 ISTEA and other appropriations, such as the special
appropriation your Subcommittee provided for fiscal year 1998. The
sequencing of the building of corridors within a state is the
prerogative of each respective governor.
The Commission allocates funds among our states based essentially
on each state's relative share of the cost to complete the entire
system. At lower appropriations levels, we do provide a floor and a
ceiling, in order to provide a bit more equity among the states.
According to our latest cost-to-complete study, Alabama's share is 11.1
percent.
economic impact
The economic benefits of highway improvements are remarkable. A
recent Department of Transportation report showed that historically
almost 30 percent of the nation's growth in the rate of productivity
can be attributed to highway improvements. The major performance
measures of the Appalachian Development Highway System are the travel
efficiencies and the regional economic development which the ADHS has
spurred. Even though the entire system is only three-quarters complete,
studies have found that the ADHS has significantly improved travel
efficiencies and measurably boosted employment, income and population
growth in the region, while enhancing safety and reducing the costs and
difficulty of extending health, education, and other critical services
to the region.
A 1993 study for the National Science Foundation, which examined 27
years of Appalachian regional development, found that economic growth
in the region was greatest in those counties with ADHS corridors. Those
110 counties with ARC highways grew 69 percentage points faster in
income, 6 percent faster in population growth and 49 percentage points
faster in earnings than did counties with similar socioeconomic
characteristics outside the region.
Last year ARC launched a major study of the economic impact of our
highway system. The study--which is a comprehensive analysis of
segments of 12 ADHS corridors that are 75 percent or more complete--
will look at safety benefits, reduced travel times, reduced vehicle
operating costs resulting from the completion of the segments, and,
most importantly, the job creation that has occurred as a consequence
of our highways. The study is being conducted under a contract with
Wilbur Smith Associates, a firm nationally recognized for its
feasibility studies and sophisticated econometric analysis. We are now
reviewing the preliminary data from the study and expect to have a full
report available later in the spring. We will certainly share those
results with you when they become available. I am confident that those
data will tell a compelling story of how the ADHS is transforming the
economic landscape of Appalachia.
At the request of your committee, we are also conducting a study of
the impact that the completed ADHS corridors will have on safety. Based
on information provided by state highway agencies, this study, which
the Federal Highway Administration is conducting for us, will compare
accident data from completed sections of the ADHS with data from
accidents on unbuilt segments of the ADHS. The analysis of the
information is expected to show a significant reduction in accidents
attributable to the highway improvements on the corridors under the
ADHS program. This report is expected to be completed in May, and we
will share it with you just as soon as it becomes available.
Mr. Chairman, these studies can quantify the impact of the ADHS,
but they fail to capture the human dimension of these highways. A year
and a half ago then-Highway Administrator Rodney Slater and I spent
three days traveling the ADHS in four states--the first time in history
that the ARC Federal Co-Chairman and the Federal Highway Administrator
had jointly examined our system. Along the route of the proposed
Corridor G in West Virginia, we cautiously--and nervously--navigated a
winding two-lane U.S. highway, coming to an abrupt stop at a railroad
crossing a couple of miles from our scheduled lunch engagement in
Williamson, West Virginia. We waited almost 15 minutes as two long coal
trains passed in front of us. For us it was only a minor
inconvenience--we were just a few minutes late for lunch. But what if
there had been an ambulance rushing a pregnant mother to the hospital?
Or a farmer needing immediate medical assistance? And imagine the
competitive disadvantage these kinds of inefficient and unscheduled
delays cause local companies in this area.
adhs in alabama
As you are aware, Alabama's portion of the system includes two
corridors, X and V, totaling 242.7 miles. Both of these corridors will
provide east-west access between the Appalachian region of Alabama and
the surrounding area while also providing missing links to the national
interstate system.
The completion of Corridor V from the Mississippi state line near
Red Bay through Decatur and Huntsville is well underway. The 145-mile
corridor follows State Route 24, Interstate 565, and U.S. 72 across the
state with over 84 percent of the corridor open to traffic or under
construction at a total cost of $289.2 million. The 1997 cost estimate
showed some $183.5 million of work remained to be completed on the
corridor. This includes construction on new location and added lanes on
Alabama Route 24 from Red Bay east to Moulton, completion of an unbuilt
section in Decatur, and upgrading the existing highway east of
Interstate 565 in Huntsville.
Corridor X linking Birmingham, Jasper, and Weston will be
instrumental in providing an outlet for the traffic congestion along
the U.S. 78 corridor, and it should contribute significantly to
reducing the number of serious accidents along U.S. 78. I will myself
be driving along this route this afternoon, as I travel to Oxford,
Mississippi, to join a discussion of the President's Initiative on
Race, so I will get a chance to experience first hand again--as I have
in the past as a native of this area--the congestion and safety
problems along this corridor that a number of your constituents have
written me about.
Portions of the 98-mile corridor are complete or under construction
from Jasper west to Mississippi, with 44 percent of the corridor open
to traffic or under construction at a total cost of $292 million. The
remaining work was estimated at $716 million in the 1997 cost estimate.
Remaining work includes construction on new location from Brilliant
southeast to Birmingham. Final design is under way from Brilliant to
west of Jasper, and final design and construction are under way on
various sections around Jasper. Final design is under way on sections
from Jasper to northwest of Birmingham, and an environmental study is
under way on the final section, including the connection to Interstate
65 in Birmingham.
The scope of the work, however, tells only part of the story. The
real impact of the Appalachian highway system in Alabama and throughout
the region is on the lives, and livelihoods, of the people who travel
these roads. Corridor X, when completed, will offer a safer, faster,
smoother alternative to the heavy traffic and hazardous intersections
that characterize the unimproved sections of U.S. 78 in Alabama.
Moreover, it will provide a non-stop freeway connection between
Birmingham and Memphis when it hooks up with the interstate-quality
section of U.S. 78 at Tupelo. When completed, Corridor X will save
time, money, and lives--it's just that simple and that important.
legislative status
This fiscal year, the Commission received a record $402.5 million
in appropriations for the highway system, thanks in no small part to
your efforts, Mr. Chairman, in providing a special $300 million in the
Department of Transportation Appropriations bill. This increase will
allow expedited work in Alabama and the 12 other Appalachian states. As
a result of this increase in funding, Alabama's ARC highway allocation
for fiscal year 1998 is just over $50 million--that is roughly $40
million more than Alabama would have had available without the special
$300 million appropriation, and Senator Shelby, we thank you again for
your work on this.
I am also pleased that the Clinton Administration has made an
unparalleled commitment to the timely completion of the Appalachian
highway system by requesting $2.19 billion for the ADHS in its six-year
NEXTEA proposal. This marks the first time that an Administration has
proposed funding for our highways out of the Highway Trust Fund. It is
my understanding that this is the same figure that is in the Senate's
version of the highway authorization. The bill that the House is
expected to consider in a few weeks also proposes funding our system
out of the Highway Trust Fund, at a six-year total of $2.25 billion.
These are significant developments that will, for the first time,
provide a steady and reliable source of funding for the system.
In summary, the completion of the 3,025-mile Appalachian
Development highway system is essential to bringing Appalachia into the
national and international economic mainstream. ARC is committed to
building the entire system and welcomes the kind of increase in funding
that Congress is considering. The proposed additional authorizations
would provide a multi-year source of funding which is essential to the
concentrated effort needed to complete the system as contemplated when
Congress established the Appalachian highway program.
Once again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your strong advocacy of
the Appalachian Regional Commission programs, and your untiring work on
behalf of the people of Alabama and Appalachia. It is because of people
like you that we have made the progress we have on the Appalachian
highway system, and for the first time, can look forward to the
prospect of completing the system in the foreseeable future, thereby
redeeming the promise that the nation made to our region over three
decades ago.
Favorable Outlook for ARC
Senator Shelby. Mr. White, just in a nutshell, can you sum
up where we are and where do you think we will be at the rate
we are going, you know, with all of the good news, assuming
that we work it out as Congressman Bachus says, between the
House and the Senate ultimately, in a conference, a favorable
conference for ARC plus additional money that we're going to be
working on every year with ARC.
Mr. White. Right.
Senator Shelby. The best strategy for us, as far as a
deadline, I know deadlines slip but, you know, this has slipped
too long. Where are we going to be in 5 years if we really work
like the devil on this?
Mr. White. Well, I think as just a rough rule of thumb----
Senator Shelby. Yeah, I know that.
Mr. White. If we get the NEXTEA enacted as----
Senator Shelby. What Congressman Bachus was talking about.
Mr. White. Within the range we are talking about, you could
see one-third of that red become blue and, of course, that is
just using the ADHS earmark. That does not count other moneys
that perhaps would be appropriated----
Senator Shelby. That is right.
Mr. White [continuing]. And applied to that, either by the
Congress or by Alabama.
Senator Shelby. What we can add each year as we did last
year makes that faster.
Mr. White. Makes it faster, yes.
Senator Shelby. So we are seeing the light at the end of
the tunnel----
Mr. White. I believe so.
Senator Shelby [continuing]. Although it is not bright yet,
it is getting brighter is it not?
Mr. White. Yes, sir.
Senator Shelby. OK. Mr. Vaughn----
Mr. Bachus. Senator Shelby, I might say this, when we talk
about the Federal match, we're talking about one-third within
the next 3 years. There also is a State match----
Mr. White. Right.
Mr. Bachus. Which--so we're talking about----
Mr. White. That's another 20 percent.
Mr. Bachus. Another 20 percent. So you are talking about--
you are talking about close to 40--closer to 40 percent
funding, I believe.
Senator Shelby. That is good. Mr. Vaughn----
Mr. Vaughn. Thank you, Senator Shelby.
Senator Shelby. You are the one to comment on where we are
going and how we're going to get there fast.
Statement of Don Vaughn
Mr. Vaughn. Well, we are going faster than we have been,
thanks to your leadership in the Senate and your ability to
bring more funds to Alabama.
Congressman Aderholt, Congress Bachus, along with
Congressman Callahan and Congressman Cramer, and all your
interest in transportation.
Senator Shelby. Senator Sessions, too.
Mr. Vaughn. And Senator Sessions, certainly. I did not mean
to forget Senator Sessions.
It has certainly done a lot to increase Alabama's clout as
far as transportation is concerned, and we look forward to
graduating from the donor State status into a State that can
receive additional funding to help us meet our transportation
needs.
The 4.3 cents that Congressman Bachus referred to earlier
is a major step in the right direction. That is a gasoline tax,
it is a user fee and it should go nowhere but to transportation
and we were very pleased to see that come out.
May 1, the Senate has met their goal, their deadline, and I
was real pleased to hear Congressman Bachus say that the House
was going to meet the May 1 deadline as well. May 1 is a
significant date because that is when the current extension
expires and no more Federal funding authorizations after May 1.
So we are very encouraged to hear that the House is moving and
hopefully will not allow that to happen.
Now let me address some of the merits and needs of Corridor
X. The basic route of Corridor X was included in the original
interstate and defense highway plans developed in the mid-
1930's. Unfortunately, when the Interstate System was approved
in the mid-1950's, this route was one of the final segments
deleted from the original 40,000 miles.
Public interest in the route was revived with passage of
the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965 which had the
stated goal to provide a highway system to open areas with
developmental potential where commerce and communication had
been inhibited by lack of access.
Corridor X was added to the Appalachian Development Highway
Program with the passage of the Surface Transportation Act of
1978. In June 1979, the Federal Highway Administration
authorized the Alabama Highway Department at that time to begin
work to determine the location of the 97-mile freeway project.
In 1978, Senator, I worked in the location section of the
Highway Department, was involved in making the original
estimate. It was 97 miles and estimated to cost $100 million,
and we were aghast it was going to cost $1 million a mile to
build this freeway system.
Senator Shelby. We should have built it, should we not?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Vaughn. To date, the Department has obligated $420
million for both Corridors X and V. Of that amount, Corridor X
has received $228 million Federal dollars which includes $91
million of special appropriations over and above the
Appalachian developmental highway funds.
This money has constructed 23 miles of freeway which are
open to traffic from the Mississippi State line to Marion
County Road 45, south of Hamilton. Additionally, there are 19
miles currently under construction. One section extends the
freeway from Marion County 45 to State Route 129 at Winfield
and another constructs a new segment from Walker County Road 11
to U.S. 78 near Seedrum. A third section, the Jasper bypass,
extends from U.S. 78 west of Jasper to the Bevill Industrial
Park Road east of Jasper. Currently all remaining sections of
Corridor X are in the final design and/or right-of-way
acquisition phases.
The cost to complete right-of-way acquisition and construct
the remaining portion of Corridor X is estimated at this time
to be approximately $600 million. The Department has an
available balance of $60 million to be spent on both Corridors
X and V. This balance consists of $9 million carried over from
previous years and $51 million allocated by Congress this year.
When Corridor X is completed, it is estimated that U.S. 78
will see an 18- to 50-percent reduction in the amount of
traffic that would have used U.S. 78 had Corridor X not been
built. Additionally, some studies indicate a 39-percent
decrease in traffic accidents along U.S. 78 with Corridor X in
place.
Currently in the Jasper area, the traffic using U.S. 78 is
a mixture of long-distance commercial trucks and local and
commuter vehicles. With the completion of Corridor X, safety
will be enhanced by the separation of these two classes of
traffic. Further the proposed freeway will encourage economic
development and diversification in an area dominated by the
coal industry. A completed Corridor X will result in easier
access from the rural areas of west Alabama to the State's
largest metropolitan area with its cultural, educational, and
medical facilities.
At current funding levels, the Department's plan would have
all segments of Corridor X either open to traffic or under
construction in a three-phase program over the next 12 to 15
years. The first phase, a 19-mile segment between Marion County
45 and the Jasper bypass will complete the freeway from the
Mississippi State line to east of Jasper at an estimated cost
of approximately $100 million.
The second phase, a 16-mile segment from U.S. 78 at
Graysville to I-65 will address an area of heavy congestion on
U.S. 78. This portion of the route is estimated to cost nearly
$300 million.
The final phase of construction, from east of Jasper to
U.S. 78 at Graysville is a 20-mile segment that will cost $200
million and complete Corridor X from the Mississippi State line
to Birmingham. This total 97-mile Corridor X freeway will
represent a nearly $900 million investment in transportation
infrastructure.
Thank you very much.
Prepared Statement
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Vaughn. We will insert your
prepared statement in the record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Donald W. Vaughn
The basic route of Corridor X was included in the original
interstate and defense highway plans developed in the mid-1930's.
Unfortunately, when the interstate system was approved in the mid-
1950's, this route was one of the final segments deleted from the
original 40,000 miles.
Public interest in the route was revived with passage of the
Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965 which had the stated goal
to ``provide a highway system to open areas with developmental
potential where commerce and communication have been inhibited by a
lack of access.'' Corridor X was added to the Appalachian Development
Highway Program with the passage of the Surface Transportation Act of
1978.
In June of 1979, the Federal Highway Administration authorized the
Alabama Department of Transportation to begin work to determine the
location of the 97 mile freeway project. To date, the department has
obligated $420 million for both Corridors X and V. Of that amount,
Corridor X has received $228 million, which includes $91 million of
special appropriations over the APD funds.
This money has constructed 23 miles of freeway which are open to
traffic from the Mississippi State line to Marion CR-45 south of
Hamilton.
Additionally, there are 19 miles currently under construction. One
section extends the freeway from Marion CR-45 to SR-129 at Winfield and
another constructs a new segment from Walker CR-11 to US-78 at Cedrum.
A third section, the Jasper Bypass, goes from US-78 west of Jasper to
the Bevill Industrial Park Road east of Jasper.
Currently, all remaining sections of Corridor X are in the final
design and right-of-way acquisition phases.
The cost to complete right-of-way acquisition and construct the
remaining portions of Corridor X is estimated to be approximately $600
million. The Department has an available balance of $60 million to be
spent on both Corridor X and V. This balance consists of $9 million
carried over from previous years and $51 million allocated by Congress
for this year.
When Corridor X is completed, it is estimated that US-78 will see
an 18 percent to 50 percent reduction in the amount of traffic that
would have used US-78 had Corridor X not been built. Additionally, some
studies indicate a 39 percent decrease in traffic accidents on US-78.
Currently, in the Jasper area, the traffic using US-78 is a mixture
of long distance commercial trucks and local and commuter vehicles.
With the completion of Corridor X, safety will be enhanced by the
separation of these two classes of traffic. Further, the proposed
freeway will encourage economic development and diversification in an
area dominated by the coal industry. A completed Corridor X will result
in easier access from the rural areas of west Alabama to the state's
largest metropolitan area with its cultural, educational, and medical
facilities.
At current funding levels, the Department's plan would have all
segments of Corridor X either open to traffic or under construction in
a three phase program over the next 15 years.
The first phase, a 19 mile segment between Marion CR-45 and the
Jasper Bypass, will complete the freeway from the Mississippi State
line to east of Jasper at an estimated cost of approximately $100
million.
The second phase, a 16 mile segment from US-78 at Graysville to I-
65, will address an area of heavy congestion on US-78. This portion of
the route is estimated to cost nearly $300 million.
The final phase of construction, from east of Jasper to US-78 at
Graysville, is a 20 mile segment that will cost $200 million and
complete Corridor X from the Mississippi State line to Birmingham.
The total 97 mile Corridor X freeway will represent a nearly $900
million investment in transportation infrastructure.
Importance of Transportation Projects
Senator Shelby. First of all, on behalf of the committee, I
want to thank Congressman Bachus, Congressman Aderholt, Mr.
White, and Mr. Vaughn for appearing here. And we are going to
keep working this, we are going to finish it, are we not? Thank
you.
This will complete the first panel. We appreciate this, and
all of your statements will be made part of this hearing record
in their entirety.
Mr. Bachus. Senator Shelby, let me make one final comment.
Senator Shelby. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bachus. Working on the Surface Transportation
Committee, I have come to realize that when we talk about
transportation projects, what we are really talking about is
our future.
Senator Shelby. That is right.
Mr. Bachus. Without them, there will not be any economic
growth in this area. With them, we and our children will
continue to prosper and a strong economy is a part of that
equation. And that is not going to be--that will not happen
unless we put the money behind the transportation
infrastructure.
Senator Shelby. We are going to make it happen working
together. It has got to.
Thank you, gentlemen.
panel 2
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
STATEMENTS OF:
WILLIAM BUECHNER, DIRECTOR, ECONOMICS AND RESEARCH, AMERICAN
ROAD AND TRANSPORTATION BUILDERS ASSOCIATION
BARRY COPELAND, VICE CHAIRMAN, GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, BIRMINGHAM
AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
J. FRANK FILGO, PRESIDENT, ALABAMA TRUCKING ASSOCIATION
AL GIBBS, DIRECTOR, CORPORATE AFFAIRS, AAA-ALABAMA
introduction of witnesses
Senator Shelby. Our second panel will focus on the economic
and safety benefits of Corridor X. We will have Mr. William
Buechner, director of economics and research at the American
Road and Transportation Builders Association. As I said
earlier, Mr. Barry Copeland, vice chairman of government
affairs, Birmingham Area Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Frank Filgo,
president and CEO of Alabama Trucking Association and Mr. Al
Gibbs, director of corporate affairs of the Alabama Chapter of
the American Automobile Association.
Gentlemen, if you would come to the hearing table.
All of your written testimony will be made part of the
record in its entirety for the purpose of this hearing and if
you will sum up briefly your testimony, you have had the
benefit of what was here today.
Mr. Buechner.
statement of william buechner
Mr. Buechner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is William
Buechner and I am the director of economics and research for
the American Road and Transportation Builders Association.
Senator Shelby. Do you want to take that microphone closer
to you? It is not very sensitive.
Mr. Buechner. Mr. Chairman, before I begin my statement, I
would like to express the appreciation of ARTBA and our members
for your leadership in expanding Federal investment in
highways, particularly the large increase provided for fiscal
year 1998 in last year's appropriations bill. Your leadership
has been instrumental in getting us to the funding level we
enjoy today, and that is widely recognized and appreciated by
our members.
ARTBA is a national association with more than 4,000
members representing virtually every segment of the
transportation construction industry that has an interest in
Federal investment in transportation infrastructure programs.
We have 32 State chapters, including a very strong chapter in
Alabama, the Alabama Road Builders where we have a very long-
time affiliation.
During the past year and a half, ARTBA has been doing a lot
of research into economics and safety aspects of highways, and
we want to represent some of the findings here this morning.
First, highways benefit a State in two ways. First is the
short-term stimulus that the local economy gets from highway
construction. The second and far more important is the long-
term benefit as the new highway facilitates new business and
expands the access of local firms to a larger market.
The transportation construction industry is a major
American industry and a major source of jobs. According to the
Department of Transportation, the industry of designing,
building, maintaining, and manufacture--and managing the
Nation's transportation infrastructure is a $140 billion
industry, more than 60 percent of those expenditures are for
highways, and in fact 70 percent of construction expenditures
for transportation are for highways.
And to put this in perspective, this industry is about 50
percent larger than the output of all of the farms in the
United States and it is about the same size as the electronics
industry, including the entire computer industry. So it is a
major industry in the American economy.
It is an industry that employs over 1.6 million people,
which is about 1.3 percent of all of the payroll jobs in the
United States, some of those jobs are with the private
contractors who do the construction work, a number of the jobs
are with the State and local transportation departments that
maintain and manage the highways as well as jobs in the
industries that supply materials and services to the highway
contractors.
In Alabama, the industry employs over 27,000 people. Again,
most of those are in design and construction and maintenance of
the highway system, which is about 1\1/2\ percent of all the
payroll jobs in the State. So it is an even more important
industry in Alabama than it is for the rest of the country. And
in general, these are very well paying jobs with average hourly
earnings about 20 to 40 percent above jobs in other sectors of
the economy.
You referred to a Tripp study this morning, we said that
for every $1 billion of highway expenditures, about 1,000 jobs
are created in Alabama. But that is kind of the trickle-down
effect from spending this money anywhere in the country.
When a project is done here, the job creation impact is
even much stronger and it is probably onsite, when the Corridor
X project is being built, we are probably talking well above
1,000, plus there are the jobs in the supplier industries which
add to that. And with a major company like Vulcan Materials
right here in Birmingham, the impact on Alabama is going to be
much bigger than the figure that Tripp was quoting.
But even more important for a State like Alabama is the
long-term impact that a project like Corridor X can have on the
State's economy.
Last year, ARTBA published a study on the importance of the
Federal Highway Program to the economic prosperity of the
individual States, and we have supplied a copy of that for the
hearing record. We found using data from the 1993 Commodity
Flow Survey which had just come out last year that 75 percent
of all the product shipments in the United States are carried
by truck, which means that the Nation's economy is
overwhelmingly dependent on highways for transportation.
In Alabama, the figures show that the State's economy is
even more dependent on highways than most of the rest of the
Nation. In this State, 82.6 percent----
Senator Shelby. Why is that? Go ahead, Mr. Buechner.
Mr. Buechner. Well, that is a good question. It is just--it
is a good question, and I don't know that I can answer it. It
may be the product composition and it may be the availability
of alternatives, but I expect it is the product composition.
Senator Shelby. That lends itself to surface
transportation?
Mr. Buechner. To truck transportation.
And there are only six other States that are more dependent
on highway transportation to ship their States' products to
market than Alabama. And I will just--Arkansas, North and South
Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, and Wisconsin. Those are the only
six States that depend more on highway transportation than
Alabama does.
Senator Shelby. And what are the others? Rail and air and
water?
Mr. Buechner. Rail and air and ports, water shipment.
The reason why highways are so important is the effect that
they have on cost savings and productivity growth for a State's
business firms. About one-quarter of the growth in productivity
after World War II is attributable to the expansion of our
highway system, particularly the interstates.
What this means is that firms, having access to good roads,
enjoy a cost and productivity advantage over those that do not.
High transportation costs limit the size of a firm's market,
which means that it cannot take advantage of the low cost and
economy of scales that occur as a firm's volume of output
grows. It takes the ability to produce for a national market to
achieve the economies of scale and low production costs that
makes a State's economy competitive, which is why, when a new
highway opens up, you almost always see an explosion of
economic activity.
So the completion of Corridor X should provide a strong
platform for significant economic growth and development in
northwestern Alabama.
There is another aspect of highway investment that is often
overlooked which is that highway investments are investments
that last for generations. The Commerce Department has just
released its most recent figures on the fixed reproducible
tangible assets of the United States, and they show that the
economic life of a typical highway is 67 years before it has to
be replaced. There is no other productive investment that lasts
that long. Office buildings, commercial buildings, factories,
30 to 40 years, equipment 10 to 15 years, even computers like 3
to 5 years before they have to be replaced. The only other
asset in the American economy that lasts so long is personal
homes.
So it does not mean that highways do not have to be
maintained any more than it means that homes do not have to be
maintained. What it means is that when you build a highway, you
are building a productive asset that will last for three or
four generations.
Finally, I want to say some words about safety to
complement some of the comments that were made earlier.
The United States has one of the safest highway systems in
the world. ARTBA is about to publish a major study on highway
safety. We find that since the early 1950's, the fatality rate
on U.S. highways has declined from 7 fatalities per 100 million
miles traveled to 1.7. About a 75-percent decline.
If we had the same fatality rate today as we had in the
early 1950's, more than 165,000 people a year would be killed
on the Nation's highways today rather than 42,000.
The available evidence--I mean, there are lots of reasons
for this, seatbelts, higher drinking age, improvements in
automobile design. But the available evidence suggests that
much of the improvement in highway safety during the past 40
years has been due to investment in building safer highways.
During the 1950's, most of our travel was on two-lane
roads. These roads are much less safe than interstate quality
highways. Even today, the fatality rate on local, rural two-
lane highways is about five times the rate on interstate
highways.
The good part of the reason for the decline in the fatality
rate has been the shift in travel from unsafe roads to safe
roads. The investment in highway improvements that we have made
during the last 40 years, we calculate, has saved more than 2
million lives.
Looking at Alabama, we find some very interesting
juxtaposition here. Alabama in 1996 had a fatality rate that
was one-third higher than the national average.
Senator Shelby. Say that again.
Mr. Buechner. The fatality rate per 100,000 vehicle-miles
traveled in Alabama was one-third higher than the national
average. This is Federal Highway Administration data.
Senator Shelby. Were we the highest in the Nation?
Mr. Buechner. Not the highest, seventh highest.
Senator Shelby. Who was the highest? Oh, boy, seventh
highest?
Mr. Buechner. Seventh highest.
Senator Shelby. OK.
Mr. Buechner. For fatalities.
At the other side----
Senator Shelby. If you will furnish that data for the
record.
Mr. Buechner. Pardon?
Senator Shelby. If you will furnish that.
Mr. Buechner. I will supply that, yes.
At the other end, it had a nonfatal rate about two-thirds
of the national average, which means accidents without
fatalities much lower than the rest of the country, the fifth
lowest.
And so what that suggests is that Alabama's drivers are
among the safest in the Nation, but when they get into an
accident, they are far more likely to be killed than drivers in
other parts of the country.
In our view, the main culprit is the composition of the
roads that Alabama drivers use. It is not that Alabama's roads
are worse than anyone else's, it is that in Alabama there is a
much smaller percentage of the total road mileage is interstate
quality and a much higher percentage is the two-lane, rural
roads.
And as a result, Alabamians do much less of their driving
on interstate-quality roads, which have one-fifth the fatality
rate as drivers in the rest of the Nation. In Alabama, 20
percent of vehicle-miles traveled are on interstate or
interstate-quality roads, the rest of the country is 30
percent.
So Alabamians appear to have a higher fatality rate because
they do more of their travel on roads that are not as safe and
are not as forgiving when an accident occurs than drivers in
the rest of the country.
So expanding the system of interstate-quality roads in
Alabama by completing projects like Corridor X should not only
have a beneficial impact on the economic growth and development
of the northwestern part of the State, it should also have a
big impact on highway safety and help save the lives of many
Alabamians in the years to come.
prepared statement
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Buechner. We have your
written statement and it will be made part of the record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of William R. Buechner
My name is William Buechner and I am the director of economics and
research for the American Road and Transportation Builders Association.
Mr. Chairman, before I begin my statement, I would like express the
appreciation of ARTBA and our members for your leadership in expanding
federal investment in highways, particularly the large increase
provided for fiscal year 1998 in last year's appropriations bill. Your
leadership has been instrumental in getting us where we are today, and
that is widely recognized and appreciated by our members.
ARTBA is a national association with more than 4,000 members from
every segment of the transportation construction industry with an
interest in federal investment in transportation infrastructure
programs. We have 32 state chapters, including a long-time affiliation
with the Alabama Road Builders, one of our strongest state chapters. I
have a Ph.D. in Economics from Harvard University and I served for 22
years as a senior economist with the Joint Economic Committee of
Congress before joining ARTBA, where I helped Committee members set up
more than 300 hearings. This, however, is my first opportunity to
appear as a witness before a Congressional committee and I am honored
that it is before your committee and on such an important subject.
I want to thank you very much for this opportunity to testify on
the economic benefits of highway investment, and I hope my comments
will be useful as you evaluate the potential benefits of the Corridor X
project.
During the past year and a half, ARTBA has been conducting research
into the economic impact of transportation investment, particularly
investment in highways, and we want to present some of the findings
here this morning.
Highways benefit a state two ways. The first is the short-term
stimulus to the local economy from highway construction. The second is
the long-term benefit as the new highway facilitates new business and
expands the access of local firms to a larger market.
The transportation construction industry is a major American
industry and a major source of jobs.
Designing, building, maintaining and managing the nation's
transportation infrastructure is a $140 billion industry, and more than
60 percent of those expenditures are for highways. To get a sense of
the size of this industry and its economic importance, it is almost 50
percent larger than the entire farming sector, whose total output in
1997, according to the national income and product accounts, was $94
billion. The total value of the services of all the lawyers in the
country was $105 billion. The total output of the electronics industry,
which includes the computer industry, was about $150 billion, virtually
the same size as the transportation construction industry.
Transportation construction is an industry that employs 1.6 million
people. Many of these jobs are with the private contractors who do the
actual construction, but equally important are the jobs created in
state and local transportation departments to maintain and manage the
highways, and jobs in the industries that supply materials and services
to the highway contractors.
In Alabama, transportation construction employs over 27,000 people,
again most in the design, construction, maintenance and management of
the state's highway system. That is about 1.5 percent of all of the
jobs on nonfarm payrolls in Alabama, which is above the national
average of 1.3 percent. In general, these are well-paid jobs, with
average hourly earnings about 20 to 40 percent higher than those in
other sectors of the economy.
And according to the Federal Highway Administration, each $1
billion of highway investment generates a total of 42,100 jobs,
including the jobs at the construction site, the jobs in the supplier
industries, and jobs that are induced by the increased economic
activity. The cost to complete Corridor X is apparently in the range of
$700 million, which means that at the peak of construction the number
of new jobs created will approximate 10,000, including the jobs in
supplier industries and the jobs generated as the new workers spend
their wages in Alabama.
But even more important for a state like Alabama is the long-term
impact that a project like Corridor X can have on the state's economy.
Last year, ARTBA published a study on the importance of the federal
highway program to the economic prosperity of the individual states. We
used data from the 1993 commodity flow survey, which had just been
released by the Department of Transportation, to determine how much
each state's economy depended on highway transportation to ship their
products. This survey covered all shipments of products at both the
factory and wholesale level, except for raw agricultural products.
We found that 75.1 percent of all product shipments in the United
States are carried by truck, when measured by value of shipment. This
means the nation's economy is overwhelmingly dependent on highways to
transport freight from producer to destination. For years, advocates of
highway investment have been saying that a strong economy depends on a
first-class highway system. These data show just how important highways
are, and I would like to submit a copy of the study for the hearing
record.
For Alabama, the figures show that the state's economy is even more
dependent on highways than most of the rest of the nation. 82.6 percent
of the state's products are shipped by truck. In 1993, total product
shipments by the Alabama economy came to $88.8 billion (with the strong
growth in the economy since then, that figure would be above $100
billion today). Of that total, $73.4 billion was transported by truck.
Only six other states are more dependent on highway transportation to
get their products to market than Alabama--Arkansas, North and South
Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee and Wisconsin--which indicates the
potential importance of a project like Corridor X to the state's
economy.
Economists have known for more than a decade and a half that
investment in highways, particularly the core Interstate and National
Highway System, has been an important source of cost savings and
productivity growth for the nation's private business firms. A recent
study by New York University for the Federal Highway Administration
attributes about one-quarter of the growth of productivity after World
War II to the expansion of our highway system.
What this means is that firms having access to good roads enjoy a
cost and productivity advantage over those that don't. High
transportation costs limit the size of a firm's market, which means it
can't take advantage of the low costs and economies of scale that occur
as a firm's volume of output grows. It takes the ability to produce for
a national market to achieve the economies of scale and low production
costs that make a state's economy competitive. When a new highway
opens, there is almost always an explosion of economic activity as
firms previously limited by inadequate roads now have access to a much
larger market and can take advantage of economies of scale that simply
weren't possible in a small local market.
The Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965 recognized this
even without the recent studies when it authorized construction of a
new highway network that would connect the isolated and underdeveloped
parts of Appalachia with the rest of the nation's economy. The act
recognized that these highways ``will open up an area or areas with a
developmental potential where commerce and communication have been
inhibited by lack of adequate access.''
More recently, studies by the Appalachian Regional Commission,
referred to in a recent floor statement by Senator Byrd, have found
that ``it is almost impossible for communities still awaiting
completion of their segments of these highways to attract businesses
and investment opportunities to their areas, largely due to an
inadequate transportation system inhibiting their access to the
national markets.''
Completion of the Corridor X project should provide a strong
platform for significant economic growth and development in
northwestern Alabama.
There is another aspect of highway investment that is often
overlooked, which is that highways are investments that last for
generations. Late last year, the Commerce Department released its most
recent figures on the fixed reproducible tangible assets of the United
States. The data showed that the useful economic life of a typical
highway is 67 years before it has to be torn up and replaced. No other
productive investment lasts as long. Office buildings and factories,
for example, have an average useful life of 41 years and 32 years
respectively. The only asset that lasts longer is personal homes. This
doesn't mean a highway won't require any maintenance during those 67
years, any more than it means a home won't need maintenance. What it
does mean is that a highway once built will benefit the economy for
three or four generations before it has to be rebuilt.
I would also like to say a few words about the contribution of
highway investment to safety.
The United States has one of the safest highway systems in the
world. Since the early 1950's, the fatality rate on U.S. highways has
declined from 7.0 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled to
1.7 in 1996. If we had the same fatality rate today as we had then,
more than 165,000 people would be dying in highway accidents each year,
rather than 42,000. The injury rate has also declined significantly, by
more than half.
Some of the decline in highway fatalities has been due to the
increased use of seatbelts and air bags, the higher drinking age and
reduced drunk driving, and improvements in automobile design. But the
available evidence suggests that much of the improvement in highway
safety during the past 40 years has been due to investment in safer
highways.
During the 1950's, virtually all travel in the United States was on
2-lane roads. These roads are much less safe than Interstate quality
highways. For example, the fatality rate on rural local roads in 1996
was 3.67 per 100 million vehicle miles traveled, compared to 0.76 on
the Interstate Highway System--almost five times as dangerous. The
interstates and similar highways have much wider lanes, better
visibility, wide shoulders, directional dividers, and a variety of
other safety features that make them far more forgiving even at high
speeds than 2-lane and unimproved four-lane roads.
Today, over thirty percent of all vehicle miles traveled are on the
Interstate Highways and Interstate-quality roads. This shift in travel
from relatively unsafe to relatively safe roads has been a major
contributor to the reduction in the highway fatality rate since the
early 1950's. Our nation's investment in highway improvements during
the past 40 years has saved more than 2 million lives.
Looking at Alabama, Alabama in 1996 had a fatality rate that was
one-third higher than the national average but, at the same time, it
had a non-fatal accident rate that was less than two-thirds of the
national average. Alabama, in fact, had the seventh-highest fatality
rate among the states, but the fifth-lowest accident rate. These
figures suggest that Alabama's drivers are among the safest in the
country, but when they get into an accident they are far more likely to
be killed than in other parts of the country.
I think the main culprit is the composition of Alabama's roads. The
number of miles of Interstate and Interstate-quality highways in
Alabama is a much smaller fraction of total highway mileage than in the
rest of the nation--less than one percent in Alabama compared to almost
one-and-one-half percent in the rest of the country--and, as a result,
Alabamans do much less of their driving on Interstate quality roads
than drivers in the rest of the nation--20 percent versus 30 percent.
Alabamans thus appear to have a higher fatality rate because they
do more of their travel on roads that are not as safe and are less
forgiving when an accident occurs than drivers in the rest of the
country. ARTBA's research indicates that every $9,000 invested by the
federal government in highway construction and improvements during the
post-war period eliminated one non-fatal injury and every $320,000
saved a life.
Expanding the system of Interstate-quality roads in Alabama by
completing projects like Corridor X should not only have a beneficial
impact on the economic growth and development of the northwestern part
of the state, it should also have a big impact on highway safety and
help save the lives of many Alabamans in the years to come.
Mr. Chairman, I hope this information is useful to you and I will
be happy to answer any questions.
______
The Road to Prosperity: The Importance of the Federal Highway Program
to the Economic Prosperity of Individual States
(A study prepared by the Economics and Research Division of the
American Road and Transportation Builders Association)
executive summary
During the past decade, numerous studies have demonstrated that
public investment in highways has contributed significantly to the
nation's economic growth by lowering transportation costs and
increasing private sector productivity. Although creation of the
Federal-aid highway program by Congress preceded this research by some
decades, this important federal program is clearly built on the
recognition that a good highway system is a critical component of a
healthy economy.
State governments are also well aware that highways make an
important contribution to a healthy state economy by lowering
transportation costs within the state and providing efficient
transportation for state residents. But the federal-aid highway program
is under attack, despite its proven contribution to the nation's
economic growth and prosperity. Serious proposals have been made that
would withdraw our government's long-standing commitment to build and
maintain a high quality national highway system. The ultimate example
of the threat is a bill introduced by Senator Connie Mack (R-FL) and
Congressman John Kasich (R-OH) to dismantle most of the federal-aid
highway program and turn most highway responsibilities over to the
states.
One factor contributing to this attack on the federal highway
program is that little information exists on how much each state's
economy depends on the transportation services provided by highways,
particularly highways located in other states. What fraction of each
state's products is shipped by truck over highways? How much is shipped
only on its own highways and how much is shipped over the highways of
other states? How vulnerable is each state's economy to highway
decisions made by policymakers in other states?
The purpose of this study is to determine how much the economy of
each state depends on out-of-state highways, i.e., our national system
of highways. The importance of highways to state economies can be
measured by the percent of the state's products shipped by truck.
Products shipped entirely within a state use only the state's own
highway system. Products shipped to destinations in other states by
truck depend on out-of-state highways and thus benefit from a national
system. Based on data from the 1993 Commodity Flow Survey, this study
uses the percent of a state's products shipped to out-of-state markets
by truck to measure the state's economic benefit from a national
highway system.
Figure 1 illustrates that state economies depend heavily on
highways, and out-of-state highways in particular, to ship their
products. The study findings include:
--Nationwide, 75.1 percent of the value of products are shipped by
truck, while 24.9 percent use some other mode such as rail or
air or a multi-modal combination.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ When measured by tons or ton-miles, the truck share is smaller,
largely because other modes like rail carry more high-weight but low-
value products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--One third of products by value are shipped by truck entirely within
the originating state and thus depend only on the state's own
highway system for transportation.
--Almost 42 percent of the total value of products are shipped out-
of-state by truck and thus depend on the highways of other
states. This means the economies of the individual states, on
average, rely even more heavily on out-of-state highways, or
the ``national'' highway system, to ship products to their
ultimate markets than on their own highways.
--Some states are more dependent than others on highway
transportation to move their products. The attached table
summarizes the importance of highways to the economies of the
individual states. In the table, the states are ranked
according to their dependence on the national highway system,
as measured by the percent of the state's products that are
shipped out-of-state by truck.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MA16.001
STATE ECONOMIC DEPENDENCE ON HIGHWAYS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of all State products shipped by truck
ranked by percent shipped out-of-State
State -----------------------------------------------
Out-of-State In-State Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arkansas........................................................ 63.1 24.5 87.6
Tennessee....................................................... 62.5 21.4 84.0
South Carolina.................................................. 59.0 27.7 86.7
Mississippi..................................................... 58.0 24.2 82.2
Delaware........................................................ 56.4 13.9 70.3
Nevada.......................................................... 56.2 24.4 80.5
Kentucky........................................................ 56.0 21.2 77.2
Rhode Island.................................................... 55.8 16.9 72.8
Connecticut..................................................... 54.9 18.1 73.0
Georgia......................................................... 53.9 30.8 84.7
Kansas.......................................................... 53.6 21.5 75.0
Indiana......................................................... 53.5 23.8 77.3
Maryland........................................................ 53.4 27.4 80.8
Nebraska........................................................ 53.3 27.0 80.3
North Carolina.................................................. 52.7 34.3 87.1
New Jersey...................................................... 52.7 25.5 78.2
Wisconsin....................................................... 52.6 31.2 83.8
Alabama......................................................... 52.4 30.3 82.6
Pennsylvania.................................................... 50.0 30.6 80.6
Missouri........................................................ 49.6 22.9 72.5
lowa............................................................ 48.9 31.4 80.3
Virginia........................................................ 48.1 33.1 81.3
West Virginia................................................... 47.3 17.6 64.9
New Hampshire................................................... 47.2 19.6 66.8
Illinois........................................................ 46.6 28.0 74.6
Ohio............................................................ 45.3 31.6 76.9
South Dakota.................................................... 44.7 35.5 80.1
Maine........................................................... 44.1 30.5 74.6
Massachusetts................................................... 43.6 28.4 72.0
Idaho........................................................... 43.0 27.5 70.5
Vermont......................................................... 42.5 32.4 75.0
New York........................................................ 41.4 34.6 76.0
Utah............................................................ 40.5 29.2 69.7
Oklahoma........................................................ 39.4 28.8 68.2
Minnesota....................................................... 37.8 32.9 70.7
Colorado........................................................ 37.3 37.2 74.6
Michigan........................................................ 35.1 41.9 76.9
Arizona......................................................... 34.8 37.4 72.2
North Dakota.................................................... 31.1 32.2 63.2
Oregon.......................................................... 30.8 33.4 64.3
Washington...................................................... 25.7 39.0 64.7
New Mexico...................................................... 25.7 39.8 65.5
Texas........................................................... 24.6 43.7 68.3
Louisiana....................................................... 22.0 26.5 48.5
Florida......................................................... 21.8 55.9 77.6
California...................................................... 21.2 46.3 67.5
Montana......................................................... 19.6 42.1 61.7
Wyoming......................................................... 12.9 16.9 29.8
Alaska.......................................................... 0.6 44.1 44.7
Hawaii.......................................................... .............. 61.4 61.4
-----------------------------------------------
U.S. average.............................................. 41.6 33.4 75.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. DOT. 1993 Commodity Flow Survey, Tables 1 and 8.
--Arkansas is the most highway-dependent state, shipping more than 87
percent of its products by truck. Another 14 states--led by
North and South Carolina, Tennessee and Georgia--ship 80
percent of their products by highway, while only three states--
Wyoming, Alaska, and Louisiana--ship less than half of their
products by highway.
--Arkansas is also the state most dependent on national highways,
shipping 63 percent of its products by truck out of state,
followed by Tennessee, South Carolina, and Mississippi.
Altogether, 19 states ship more than 50 percent of their
products by truck on out-of-state highways.
The core strategy for reauthorization of the Federal highway
program should be to preserve and strengthen the national highway
system, since the economic prosperity of the vast majority of states
depends even more on out-of-state highways than on in-state highways.
Devolving the highway program to the states would be self-defeating in
the long run even for states whose own resources for highways might
exceed their share of federal highway funds, if higher transportation
costs and limited access to markets for the state's products resulted
from a deterioration in the quality of the nation's highway system.
Ultimately, the state's output and income would fall below the
potential that could be attained with an excellent national highway
system.
In economic terms, the goal of federal highway funding should be to
allocate resources in such a way as to maximize the national benefit
from the highway system. This means looking at our national highways as
a single unit and allocating federal resources wherever they are needed
to yield the best possible national system. What each state should do
is ask what kind of highway system is necessary for maximizing the
state's economic prosperity--by minimizing the transportation cost and
maximizing the market penetration of the products made in the state, to
both in-state and out-of-state markets. Each state should then work
toward a distribution of federal highway funds that achieves this goal.
about the author \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Mr. Felix Ammah-Tagoe of the Bureau of Transportation
Statistics provided valuable comments. Any remaining errors are my own.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. William R. Buechner is director of economics and research for
the American Road and Transportation Builders Association in
Washington, D.C. He has a Ph.D. in economics from Harvard University
and was senior economist for the Joint Economic Committee of Congress
for 22 years. Dr. Buechner can be reached for questions or comments at
202-289-4434 or via e-mail at [email protected].
introduction--the threat to the nation's highway system
During the past decade, numerous studies have demonstrated that
public investment in highways has contributed significantly to the
nation's economic growth by lowering transportation costs and
increasing private sector productivity. Although creation of the
Federal-aid highway program by Congress preceded this research by some
decades, this important federal program is clearly built on the
recognition that a good highway system is a critical component of a
healthy economy.
State governments are also well aware that highways make an
important contribution to a healthy state economy. Good highways
attract businesses to a state by reducing the cost of transporting raw
materials and products. Highways will become even more critical to
state economic performance as companies increase their use of just-in-
time and other cost-cutting logistics. The quality of a state's highway
system also has a significant impact on workers and consumers,
particularly as it affects the economic cost of delays and congestion
and the safety of highway users. In addition, a good highway system can
help improve the environment, since cars are at their least efficient
burning fuel when idling in traffic jams. From almost every
perspective, highways are the catalyst that make a state's economy go.
Building and maintaining highways costs money. A significant part
of this comes from the federal government--financed by the federal
gasoline tax and other highway user fees. Each time the motorist pulls
up to the gasoline pump, twelve cents per gallon of the price goes into
the Highway Trust Fund.\3\ This is distributed back to the states
according to a complex formula for investment in highways. Currently,
the funding level for the federal highway program is almost $20 billion
a year. The only federal program distributing more money to the states
is Medicaid. Although the President's budget for fiscal year 1998 calls
for keeping Federal outlays for highways just under $20 billion per
year through fiscal year 2002, ARTBA and its allies in the
transportation construction industry--as well as many influential
members of Congress--are urging a substantial increase.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Although the federal gasoline tax is 18.3 cents per gallon, 2
cents per gallon goes into the Highway Trust Fund to be used for mass
transit and 4.3 cents per gallon is diverted into the Treasury's
general fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The federal-aid highway program, however, is under attack, despite
its proven contribution to the nation's economic growth and prosperity.
The current law authorizing the federal-aid program--the Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA)--expires on September 30,
1997. A new law must be enacted in order for the program to continue
into fiscal year 1998 and beyond.
While most Members of Congress support reauthorization of the
federal program, serious proposals have been made that would withdraw
our government's long-standing commitment to build and maintain a high
quality national highway system. The ultimate example of the threat is
a bill introduced by Senator Connie Mack (R-FL) and Congressman John
Kasich (R-OH) to dismantle most of the federal-aid highway program and
turn most highway responsibilities over to the states. Most of the
federal highway gasoline tax would be repealed, leaving highway funding
decisions up to individual states. Less radical approaches that have
also gained advocates would turn large parts of the federal highway
program into a block grant that states could use for highway needs as
they wish.
economic importance of highways to state prosperity
What such proposals overlook is the economic importance of a
nation-wide highway system and how much each state's economic
prosperity depends on the transportation services provided by highways,
especially those that lay beyond its own boundaries. While a top-
quality highway system is essential to a state's economic prosperity,
no state economy could survive without access to markets throughout the
rest of the country. Not only are top-quality highways in other states
an essential element of state economic prosperity, for some states, in
fact, data suggest that out-of-state highways may be even more
important for the state's economic prosperity than the state's own
highways. In this case, a state may find that the benefits of higher
investment in the national highway system could greatly exceed the
benefits of a ``better'' distribution formula for federal highway
funds. But no state could be expected to recognize the importance of
investment in a national highway system without information about the
contribution of highway transportation to the state's economy.
The purpose of this study is to determine how much the economy of
each state depends on out-of-state highways, i.e., our national system
of highways. The study addresses a number of questions that bear on
this issue: What fraction of each state's products is shipped by truck?
How much is shipped only on its own highways and how much is shipped
over the highways of other states? How vulnerable is each state's
economy to highway decisions made by policymakers in other states?
There are numerous ways products can be shipped--by rail, air,
barge, truck or some combination. The basic indicator used by this
study to measure the contribution of highways to state prosperity is
the percent of the state's products by value that are shipped by
truck.\4\ This overall measure of the importance of highways is then
allocated into two parts--the percent of shipments carried by trucks
that begin and end entirely within the same state and the percent that
begin in one state and end in another. This division makes it possible
to measure the importance of out-of-state highways to each state's
economy. Products shipped by truck entirely within a state are carried
only on the state's own highways and don't use out-of-state highways.
Products shipped by truck to destinations in other states, by contrast,
require the use of out-of-state highways and thus benefit from a
national system. For this study, the percent of a state's total
shipments that are carried to out-of-state markets by truck serves to
measure the state's benefits from the existence of a national highway
system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ While value of shipments by truck provides the best measure of
the contribution of highways to state economic prosperity, ton-miles
shipped by truck would provide a better indicator of highway needs,
including both initial pavement requirements and subsequent maintenance
expenditures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The data for this study were drawn from the 1993 Commodity Flow
Survey, which the Bureau of Transportation Statistics and the Bureau of
the Census conducts every five years as part of the Economic Census
program. For each state, the Commodity Flow Survey provides detailed
information on total shipments by establishments in mining,
manufacturing, wholesale, and selected retail and service industries by
mode of transportation and by destination.\5\ These data were used to
compute for each state the percent of all products shipped by truck,
both to in-state destinations and to out-of-state destinations. These
results were used to measure the contribution of highway transportation
to each state's economic prosperity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The Commodity Flow Survey does not cover shipments of raw
agricultural products from farm to processing plants like grain
elevators, but does cover shipments of food and kindred products from
processing plants through the manufacturing, wholesale and retail
levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
state economic dependence on truck transportation
Table 1 shows that the vast majority of states are heavily
dependent on highway truck transportation for product shipments. For
each state, Table 1 reports (1) the total value of product shipments
originating in the state, (2) the total value of products shipped by
truck, and (3) the percent of products shipped by truck. Table 1 lists
states in descending order according to the percent of products shipped
by truck.
Table 1 shows that, but for three states, more than 60 percent of
each state's products by value are shipped by truck and thus depend on
highways as the mode of transportation. This ranges from a low of 29.8
percent for Wyoming to a high of 87.6 percent for Arkansas. For the
nation as a whole, 75.1 percent of products by value are shipped over
highways. This means that only one-quarter of products by value in this
country are shipped by a mode of transportation other than truck, such
as rail or air.
Table 1 does not include products shipped by truck-based multi-
modal systems, such as truck-rail or truck-air, or the truck share of
parcel post and courier services, because the truck share of these
forms of shipments is not split out. In addition, shipments by
governments are not covered by the Commodity Flow Survey. The tables in
this study thus present the minimal or most conservative measure of the
contribution of highway-based transportation to state economies.
TABLE 1.--STATE ECONOMIC DEPENDENCE ON HIGHWAYS
[Percent of State's products shipped by truck]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ranked by percent shipped by truck
-----------------------------------------------
Total value of Value shipped by truck
State product -------------------------------
shipments
(millions) (Million) (Percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arkansas........................................................ $66,954 $58,661 87.6
North Carolina.................................................. 209,398 182,302 87.1
South Carolina.................................................. 83,621 72,531 86.7
Georgia......................................................... 210,143 177,921 84.7
Tennessee....................................................... 170,056 142,788 84.0
Wisconsin....................................................... 143,318 120,103 83.8
Alabama......................................................... 88,845 73,412 82.6
Mississippi..................................................... 56,268 46,263 82.2
Virginia........................................................ 114,590 93,116 81.3
Maryland........................................................ 98,508 79,553 80.8
Pennsylvania.................................................... 248,758 200,525 80.6
Nevada.......................................................... 19,597 15,785 80.5
Nebraska........................................................ 42,534 34,168 80.3
Iowa............................................................ 79,900 64,169 80.3
South Dakota.................................................... 9,585 7,682 80.1
New Jersey...................................................... 252,790 197,627 78.2
Florida......................................................... 172,045 133,567 77.6
Indiana......................................................... 178,704 138,203 77.3
Kentucky........................................................ 112,047 86,546 77.2
Michigan........................................................ 256,289 197,153 76.9
Ohio............................................................ 325,626 250,395 76.9
New York........................................................ 261,894 199,006 76.0
Kansas.......................................................... 70,519 52,923 75.0
Vermont......................................................... 8,599 6,445 75.0
Illinois........................................................ 346,604 258,562 74.6
Colorado........................................................ 58,765 43,816 74.6
Maine........................................................... 20,233 15,085 74.6
Connecticut..................................................... 71,357 52,075 73.0
Rhode Island.................................................... 19,475 14,174 72.8
Missouri........................................................ 136,929 99,285 72.5
Arizona......................................................... 68,569 49,497 72.2
Massachusetts................................................... 111,722 80,467 72.0
Minnesota....................................................... 110,180 77,928 70.7
Idaho........................................................... 16,518 11,645 70.5
Delaware........................................................ 16,140 11,340 70.3
Utah............................................................ 35,599 24,818 69.7
Texas........................................................... 451,847 308,561 68.3
Oklahoma........................................................ 48,702 33,214 68.2
California...................................................... 638,523 430,764 67.5
New Hampshire................................................... 16,465 11,002 66.8
New Mexico...................................................... 11,794 7,721 65.5
West Virginia................................................... 34,924 22,673 64.9
Washington...................................................... 123,245 79,757 64.7
Oregon.......................................................... 81,939 52,661 64.3
North Dakota.................................................... 10,528 6,657 63.2
Montana......................................................... 10,167 6,272 61.7
Hawaii.......................................................... 11,462 7,033 61.4
Louisiana....................................................... 96,194 46,621 48.5
Alaska.......................................................... 8,120 3,631 44.7
Wyoming......................................................... 9,012 2,690 29.8
-----------------------------------------------
U.S. total................................................ 5,845,601 4,388,793 75.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. DOT. 1993 Commodity Flow Survey. Table 1.
The fact that 75 percent of products by value are shipped to their
destination by truck does not mean these products require highway
transportation. Most could probably be shipped by some other mode if
the appropriate highways did not exist or were too costly. But for-
profit companies generally choose the least-costly mode of
transportation to move their products to market. The current evidence
indicates that for 75 percent of products the least-cost mode of
transportation is by truck over the nation's highways. While other
modes could ultimately deliver these products to their destinations,
the transportation costs would be higher and our national standard of
living would thus be lower.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ This would not be the case if highway transportation were
subsidized more heavily than other modes of transportation. But
highways are generally financed by user fees such as taxes on gasoline
and diesel fuels, tolls, etc. If subsidies for highways exist, they
would be relevant only in comparison with subsidies for other modes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
state dependence on in-state versus out-of-state highways
The next question is how much each state makes use of the national
highway system to ship products to markets beyond the state's own
borders. To estimate the dependence of state economies on a national
highway system, this study break each state's total highway use into
two categories according to the final destination of the product--(1)
products shipped entirely within the originating state and (2) products
shipped to other states.
This study assumes that products shipped entirely within the
originating state make use only of highways lying within the state's
boundaries. If we assume that each state has a goal of maximizing state
output and income by providing the least costly system for transporting
products within the state, the states alone could be responsible for
highways since each state would develop a highway system that is
optimal for the needs of its own state economy. There is no apparent
role for the federal government in building or funding highways to
facilitate product movements that occur entirely within individual
states. The final result--fifty separate state highway systems--would
be optimal for the nation, however, only if each state were a closed
economy, that is with no shipments of products to or from other states.
Table 2 shows how much of each state's economy consists of products
that are shipped entirely within the state. In addition to data on the
total value of all shipments from the first column of Table 1, Table 2
presents data for each state on (2) the value of products shipped
entirely within-state, (3) the value of products shipped within-state
by truck and (4) the percent of all products shipped within-state by
truck.
The final column in Table 2 thus provides an estimate of the
fraction of each state's economy that operates using just the state's
own highway system. For most states, this amounts to only a fraction of
the state's current value of product shipments.
TABLE 2.--STATE ECONOMIC DEPENDENCE ON INSTATE HIGHWAYS
[Percent of State's products shipped in-State by truck]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Value of products In-State
shipped in-State shipments
Total value -------------------------- by truck as
State of product percent of
shipments Total By truck total
(millions) (millions) (millions) shipments
(percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hawaii...................................................... $11,462 $10,616 $7,033 61.4
Florida..................................................... 172,045 108,737 96,105 55.9
California.................................................. 638,523 390,988 295,410 46.3
Alaska...................................................... 8,120 6,558 3,584 44.1
Texas....................................................... 451,847 271,287 197,271 43.7
Montana..................................................... 10,167 5,389 4,276 42.1
Michigan.................................................... 256,289 122,712 107,265 41.9
New Mexico.................................................. 11,794 5,700 4,694 39.8
Washington.................................................. 123,245 68,745 48,125 39.0
Arizona..................................................... 68,569 29,272 25,627 37.4
Colorado.................................................... 58,765 24,898 21,873 37.2
South Dakota................................................ 9,585 3,839 3,402 35.5
New York.................................................... 261,894 107,813 90,685 34.6
North Carolina.............................................. 209,398 79,789 71,847 34.3
Oregon...................................................... 81,939 33,992 27,395 33.4
Virginia.................................................... 114,590 41,861 37,963 33.1
Minnesota................................................... 110,180 44,081 36,245 32.9
Vermont..................................................... 8,599 2,940 2,787 32.4
North Dakota................................................ 10,528 3,948 3,388 32.2
Ohio........................................................ 325,626 121,973 102,954 31.6
Iowa........................................................ 79,900 28,082 25,108 31.4
Wisconsin................................................... 143,318 50,305 44,735 31.2
Georgia..................................................... 210,143 69,671 64,621 30.8
Pennsylvania................................................ 248,758 87,707 76,031 30.6
Maine....................................................... 20,233 6,972 6,165 30.5
Alabama..................................................... 88,845 30,050 26,878 30.3
Utah........................................................ 35,599 12,900 10,408 29.2
Oklahoma.................................................... 48,702 16,783 14,016 28.8
Massachusetts............................................... 111,722 37,469 31,708 28.4
Illinois.................................................... 346,604 117,910 97,218 28.0
South Carolina.............................................. 83,621 25,512 23,168 27.7
Idaho....................................................... 16,518 5,256 4,550 27.5
Maryland.................................................... 98,508 30,521 26,984 27.4
Nebraska.................................................... 42,534 12,357 11,477 27.0
Louisiana................................................... 96,194 47,385 25,500 26.5
New Jersey.................................................. 252,790 79,196 64,413 25.5
Arkansas.................................................... 66,954 17,584 16,434 24.5
Nevada...................................................... 19,597 5,081 4,776 24.4
Mississippi................................................. 56,268 16,174 13,644 24.2
Indiana..................................................... 178,704 50,699 42,545 23.8
Missouri.................................................... 136,929 36,318 31,356 22.9
Kansas...................................................... 70,519 17,839 15,128 21.5
Tennessee................................................... 170,056 43,550 36,450 21.4
Kentucky.................................................... 112,047 27,314 23,748 21.2
New Hampshire............................................... 16,465 3,651 3,233 19.6
Connecticut................................................. 71,357 14,820 12,896 18.1
West Virginia............................................... 34,924 8,874 6,163 17.6
Rhode Island................................................ 19,475 4,062 3,298 16.9
Wyoming..................................................... 9,012 2,630 1,524 16.9
Delaware.................................................... 16,140 2,388 2,240 13.9
---------------------------------------------------
U.S. total............................................ 5,845,601 2,394,198 1,954,344 33.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. DOT. 1993 Commodity Flow Survey, Tables 1 and 8.
Table 2 shows that, nationwide, just one-third of all products by
value are shipped entirely within the originating state by truck. This
ranges from a low of 13.6 percent for Delaware to a high of 61.4
percent for Hawaii. Among mainland states, only Florida ships more than
half of its products entirely within the state by truck. These
shipments, since they originate and end entirely within a single state,
do not make use of out-of-state highways. The highway systems of
individual states would suffice.
Product shipments by truck to other states, by contrast, require
the use of out-of-state highways to reach their destination.
Theoretically, it would be possible for the states acting together to
develop highway systems to move products across state lines. This would
be easiest, but still not easy, for states that share a common border,
since they share a common interest in minimizing the transportation
costs of shipping goods from producers to consumers.\7\ But it would be
immensely difficult for the states to coordinate the development of a
multi-state highway system which facilitates shipments among non-
adjacent states, since states have no economic interest in minimizing
the transportation cost for shipments that neither originate nor end
within their borders. In a federal system like ours, a strong case can
be made that only the federal government has an interest in developing
a national highway system that minimizes the cost of transporting goods
among non-adjacent states.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ In theory, a highway system to accommodate flows between
adjacent states could be developed entirely at the state level without
federal participation. The only requirement is that both shipping and
receiving states recognize the benefits of minimizing transportation
costs. The shipping state would benefit from expanded markets for its
products, thus increasing the real incomes of producers, while the
receiving state would benefit from expanded sources of supply for
purchasers, thus reducing prices and raising real incomes for its
households. The same would hold true for shipments in the opposite
direction. The results would be a mini version of the benefits from
trade, with both producers and households in both states better off.
The main bargaining issue between adjacent states would be the
distribution of the costs of an integrated highway system, since that
would affect the distribution of the net benefits between the two
states.
This process becomes more complex, however, when it is recognized
that most states border more than one other state. A state highway
system that minimizes transportation costs with one adjacent state may
not minimize transportation costs with another adjacent state. Florida
is a simple case, since it borders only two states. An integrated
system that minimizes shipping costs between Florida and Georgia might
be less than optimal between Florida and Alabama or Alabama and
Georgia. Beyond that, Georgia would have an interest in also
accommodating trade with North and South Carolina, while Alabama would
also want to take into account its own economic interests in trade with
Mississippi and Tennessee. Tennessee would face the most complex task,
since it is bordered by eight other states, each of which is bordered
by numerous other states. To the extent that development of integrated
highways between adjacent states were hampered by complex relationships
between multiple border states, their economies would be negatively
affected.
\8\ The most complex problems involve shipments between non-
adjacent states. While states have an economic interest in developing
highways to transport goods to and from adjacent states, they have no
inherent interest in shipments that neither originate or end within the
state. Why, for example, would taxpayers in Georgia spend any of their
own money on highways that would minimize the cost of shipping products
from Florida producers to South Carolina markets? Why would any state
spend its own money to facilitate trans-state shipments? States would
augment their own state highway systems to accommodate trans-shipments
only if they were paid to do so. But the potential costs and risks of
leaving this up to the states indicate the need for federal involvement
in developing a national highway system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3 presents data for each state on total out-of-state
shipments by truck, including shipments to both adjacent and non-
adjacent states, with states listed in descending order of dependence
on out-of-state highways. This table shows how much of the economic
activity in each state depends on the national highway system for
access to markets in other states.
Overall, about 42 percent of all products by value are shipped out
of state by truck. This means that states on average are significantly
more dependent on out-of-state highways to transport products to their
ultimate markets than on their own state highway systems. Dependence on
highways to transport products out of state varies from a low of 13
percent of shipments by value for Wyoming to 63 percent for Arkansas.
The following map, based on Table 3, suggests how much each state's
economy could suffer if the federal government's responsibility for
developing and maintaining a national highway system were to be
dismantled and replaced by a system where the states were responsible
for funding and managing their own highway systems. For 19 states, half
or more of the state's products by value are shipped to out-of-state
destinations by truck. The economies of these states are thus more
dependent on the national highway system than on all other forms of
transportation combined, including their own state highways and non-
highway-based modes such as air or rail. Any change in policy that
could result in a deterioration of the national highway system will
reverberate throughout their state economies, increasing the
transportation costs for their producers and reducing their access to
out-of-state markets. Another 19 states depend on the national highway
system to ship a third or more of their products to out-of-state
markets. The economies of these states would also be seriously affected
by a deterioration of the national highway system.
an index of national highway dependence
As a final step in measuring the contribution of our national
highway system to the economy of each state, Table 4 presents an index
of national highway dependence. The index number for each state is the
ratio of the percent of products shipped out-of-state by truck to the
percent of products shipped within-state by truck. An index number
greater than 1 indicates that more of the state's economy depends on
the national highway system than on the state's own highway system for
transportation. The higher the index number, the greater is the state's
dependence on the national highway system. The economy of Delaware, for
example, is four times as dependent on national highways to transport
its products than on Delaware's own highways. Rhode Island, Connecticut
and Tennessee are about three times as dependent on the national
highway system as on their own highways. The Colorado economy, by
contrast, is equally dependent on in-state and out-of-state highways,
while only 12 states are more dependent on their own highways than on
the national highway system. On average, state economies are 25 percent
more dependent on the national highway system than on their own highway
systems to ship their products.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MA16.002
TABLE 3.--STATE ECONOMIC DEPENDENCE ON NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM
[Percent of State's products shipped out-of-State by truck]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Value of out-of-State shipments by Out-of-
truck State ship.
Total value --------------------------------------- by truck as
State of product To percent of
shipments To adjacent nonadjacent Total total
(million) States States (million) shipments
(million) (million) (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arkansas....................................... $66,954 $20,111 $22,116 $42,227 63.1
Tennessee...................................... 170,056 37,367 68,971 106,338 62.5
South Carolina................................. 83,621 16,662 32,701 49,363 59.0
Mississippi.................................... 56,268 10,472 22,147 32,619 58.0
Delaware....................................... 16,140 3,778 5,322 9,100 56.4
Nevada......................................... 19,597 7,315 3,694 11,009 56.2
Kentucky....................................... 112,047 26,941 35,857 62,798 56.0
Rhode Island................................... 19,475 4,196 6,680 10,876 55.8
Connecticut.................................... 71,357 13,596 25,583 39,179 54.9
Georgia........................................ 210,143 61,697 51,603 113,300 53.9
Kansas......................................... 70,519 11,538 26,257 37,795 53.6
Indiana........................................ 178,704 46,388 49,270 95,658 53.5
Maryland....................................... 98,508 19,312 33,257 52,569 53.4
Nebraska....................................... 42,534 6,184 16,507 22,691 53.3
North Carolina................................. 209,398 36,890 73,565 110,455 52.7
New Jersey..................................... 252,790 49,300 83,914 133,214 52.7
Wisconsin...................................... 143,318 29,803 45,565 75,368 52.6
Alabama........................................ 88,845 17,615 28,919 46,534 52.4
Pennsylvania................................... 248,758 58,136 66,358 124,494 50.0
Missouri....................................... 136,929 26,094 41,835 67,929 49.6
Iowa........................................... 79,900 17,309 21,752 39,061 48.9
Virginia....................................... 114,590 17,795 37,358 55,153 48.1
West Virginia.................................. 34,924 7,1 16 9,394 16,510 47.3
New Hampshire.................................. 16,465 2,517 5,252 7,769 47.2
Illinois....................................... 346,604 48,834 112,517 161,351 46.6
Ohio........................................... 325,626 58,972 88,469 147,441 45.3
South Dakota................................... 9,585 2,078 2,202 4,280 44.7
Maine.......................................... 20,233 822 8,098 8,920 44.1
Massachusetts.................................. 111,722 16,894 31,865 48,759 43.6
Idaho.......................................... 16,518 2,426 4,669 7,095 43.0
Vermont........................................ 8,599 1,271 2,387 3,658 42.5
New York....................................... 261,894 47,668 60,653 108,321 41.4
Utah........................................... 35.599 3,585 10,825 14,410 40.5
Oklahoma....................................... 48,702 8,777 10,421 19,198 39.4
Minnesota...................................... 110,180 11,834 29,849 41,683 37.8
Colorado....................................... 58,765 6,311 15,632 21,943 37.3
Michigan....................................... 256,289 28,734 61,154 89,888 35.1
Arizona........................................ 68,569 12,537 11,333 23,870 34.8
North Dakota................................... 10,528 1,783 1,486 3,269 31.1
Oregon......................................... 81,939 16,641 8,625 25,266 30.8
Washington..................................... 123,245 6,868 24,764 31,632 25.7
New Mexico..................................... 11,794 1,804 1,223 3,027 25.7
Texas.......................................... 451,847 26,050 85,240 111,290 24.6
Louisiana...................................... 96,194 8,308 12,813 21,121 22.0
Florida........................................ 172,045 7,071 30,391 37,462 21.8
California..................................... 638,523 23,893 111,461 135,354 21.2
Montana........................................ 10,167 771 1,225 1,996 19.6
Wyoming........................................ 9,012 663 503 1,166 12.9
Alaska......................................... 8,120 0 47 47 .6
Hawaii......................................... 11,462 ........... ........... ........... ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. total............................... 5,845,601 892,727 1,541,729 2,434,456 41.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. DOT. 1993 Commodity Flow Survey, Tables 1 and 8.
TABLE 4.--INDEX OF NATIONAL HIGHWAY DEPENDENCE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of State products Index of
shipped by truck national
State -------------------------------- highway
Out-of-State In-State dependence
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delaware........................................................ 56.4 13.9 4.06
Rhode Island.................................................... 55.8 16.9 3.30
Connecticut..................................................... 54.9 18.1 3.04
Tennessee....................................................... 62.5 21.4 2.92
West Virginia................................................... 47.3 17.6 2.68
Kentucky........................................................ 56.0 21.2 2.64
Arkansas........................................................ 63.1 24.5 2.57
Kansas.......................................................... 53.6 21.5 2.50
New Hampshire................................................... 47.2 19.6 2.40
Mississippi..................................................... 58.0 24.2 2.39
Nevada.......................................................... 56.2 24.4 2.31
Indiana......................................................... 53.5 23.8 2.25
Missouri........................................................ 49.6 22.9 2.17
South Carolina.................................................. 59.0 27.7 2.13
New Jersey...................................................... 52.7 25.5 2.07
Nebraska........................................................ 53.3 27.0 1.98
Maryland........................................................ 53.4 27.4 1.95
Georgia......................................................... 53.9 30.8 1.75
Alabama......................................................... 52.4 30.3 1.73
Wisconsin....................................................... 52.6 31.2 1.68
Illinois........................................................ 46.6 28.0 1.66
Pennsylvania.................................................... 50.0 30.6 1.64
Idaho........................................................... 43.0 27.5 1.56
Iowa............................................................ 48.9 31.4 1.56
Massachusetts................................................... 43.6 28.4 1.54
North Carolina.................................................. 52.7 34.3 1.54
Virginia........................................................ 48.1 33.1 1.45
Maine........................................................... 44.1 30.5 1.45
Ohio............................................................ 45.3 31.6 1.43
Utah............................................................ 40.5 29.2 1.38
Oklahoma........................................................ 39.4 28.8 1.37
Vermont......................................................... 42.5 32.4 1.31
South Dakota.................................................... 44.7 35.5 1.26
New York........................................................ 41.4 34.6 1.19
Minnesota....................................................... 37.8 32.9 1.15
Colorado........................................................ 37.3 37.2 1.00
North Dakota.................................................... 31.1 32.2 0.96
Arizona......................................................... 34.8 37.4 .93
Oregon.......................................................... 30.8 33.4 .92
Michigan........................................................ 35.1 41.9 .84
Louisiana....................................................... 22.0 26.5 .83
Wyoming......................................................... 12.9 16.9 .77
Washington...................................................... 25.7 39.0 .66
New Mexico...................................................... 25.7 39.8 .64
Texas........................................................... 24.6 43.7 .56
Montana......................................................... 19.6 42.1 .47
California...................................................... 21.2 46.3 .46
Florida......................................................... 21.8 55.9 .39
Alaska.......................................................... .6 44.1 .01
Hawaii.......................................................... .............. 61.4 ..............
-----------------------------------------------
U.S. average.............................................. 41.6 33.4 1.25
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: ARTBA from 1993 Commodity Flow Survey data.
conclusion--preserving the national highway system
Although some policymakers would dismantle the federal highway
program, the central importance of the nation's highway system to the
economic prosperity of the nation and of the individual states
dictates, for most states, a different approach.
The core strategy for reauthorization of the Federal highway
program should be to preserve and strengthen the national highway
system, since the economic prosperity of the vast majority of states
depends more on out-of-state highways than on in-state highways.\9\
Devolving the highway program to the states would be self-defeating in
the long run even for states whose own resources for highways might
exceed their share of federal highway funds, if higher transportation
costs and limited access to markets for the state's products resulted
from a deterioration in the quality of the nation's highway system.
Ultimately, the state's output and income would fall below the
potential that could be attained with an excellent national highway
system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ As a corollary, the U.S. Department of Transportation has
recently released data, based on the 1993 Commodity Flow Survey,
showing how much of the truck traffic within each state consists of
through-state shipments compared to shipments that either originate or
end within the state. The large volume of through-state shipments also
supports the need for a federal highway program. See Bureau of
Transportation Statistics. ``Truck Movements in America: Shipments
From, To, Within, and Through States.'' BTS/97-TS/1, May 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In economic terms, the goal of federal highway funding should be to
allocate resources in such a way as to maximize the national benefit
from the highway system. This means looking at our national highways as
a single unit and allocating federal resources wherever they are needed
to yield the best possible national system. What each state should do
is ask what kind of highway system is necessary for maximizing the
state's economic prosperity--by minimizing the transportation cost and
maximizing the market penetration of the products made in the state, to
both in-state and out-of-state markets. Each state should then work
toward a distribution of federal highway funds that achieves this goal.
Statement of Barry Copeland
Senator Shelby. Mr. Copeland.
Mr. Copeland. Senator, thank you for allowing me the
opportunity to testify at today's hearing.
Senator Shelby. Do you want to use that microphone? You
probably do not need it.
Mr. Copeland. I am sorry. I am sure I do.
My name is Barry Copeland, I serve as volunteer chairman of
the Birmingham Area Chamber of Commerce, Governmental Affairs
Division. The chamber would, first of all, like to wish Mr.
White a safe trip this afternoon. We need his leadership in
Washington and we hope he's all right on Corridor X as he
travels today.
The Birmingham Area Chamber salutes you, Senator Shelby,
along with Congressmen Bachus and Aderholt for your outstanding
leadership on this critical matter of completing Corridor X.
This has emerged as the No. 1, most important objective of our
chamber of commerce and we represent 4,000 business members in
this five-county area of metropolitan Birmingham.
Just as an aside, those 4,000 members of the chamber employ
more than 280,000 people in this five-county area.
Senator Shelby. Two hundred and how many?
Mr. Copeland. More than 280,000 people employed by our
members.
Determining that this highway project would be our top
priority was not a decision arrived at easily, nor is it
considered lightly by the chamber. To reach this decision, the
chamber went through an exhaustive process of first surveying
the 4,000 members, then holding intensive planning sessions and
finally having recommendations reviewed, debated, and then
voted upon by our board of directors and trustees. The Corridor
X completion emerged as the No. 1 priority.
Midway last year, the chamber board voted to add work and
completion on the northern beltline as a coequal priority.
Additionally, we have worked very hard at the chamber to
achieve the full cooperation of a number of other chambers of
commerce, county commissions, mayors, and other publicly
elected officials all the way from Birmingham up through
Hamilton and we call this regional entity the Corridor X task
force. It is truly bipartisan in nature, many of the people on
the task force are here with us today demonstrating a broad-
based regional bipartisan support for the Corridor X project
throughout most of north Alabama.
The Birmingham area chamber and the Corridor X task force
believe this highway is critical because of two factors, and
you have heard discussion on this today: Highway safety and
economic development. We have initiated our own research as to
the number of accidents along the unfinished stretch of
Corridor X and have found some interesting numbers. Alarming
would be a better word.
Between 1993 and 1996, there were 5,353 accidents on
Highway 78, and those numbers are substantially higher than
those reported by the Alabama Department of Transportation and
Public Safety Department. The reason is, just as an aside, when
the Public Safety Department counts a traffic accident, if that
traffic accident occurred at an intersection on Corridor X and
was assigned to an intersecting road, the Public Safety
Department in Alabama might not have tally-stroked that as an
accident on the highway.
So we surveyed local municipalities up and down the highway
and the counties involved for Marion, Walker, and Jefferson
Counties and came up with a number that is roughly one-third
higher than those reported in the State but we feel a more
accurate----
Senator Shelby. One-third higher than the other parts of
the State?
Mr. Copeland. No; one-third higher than those reported on
the same highway by the State simply because the local
municipalities keep records of those traffic accidents at
intersections.
Senator Shelby. Did you compare the rate of accidents on
other roads in Alabama compared to 78----
Mr. Copeland. No, sir.
Senator Shelby. And see if that was higher?
Mr. Copeland. We did not.
Senator Shelby. OK.
Mr. Copeland. We were trying to gauge, Senator, as accurate
as possible a picture of the traffic accident rate. If you have
traveled the corridor, you know the high presence of white
crosses up and down that highway indicating fatalities, and you
have heard testimony this morning about that.
But the traffic accident rate itself we felt was
significantly higher than what we had access to and the surveys
indicated that.
Senator Shelby. All right.
Mr. Copeland. Without a doubt, having a two-lane highway
handle this huge volume of passenger and freight traffic
between cities such as Birmingham and Memphis is just a recipe
for disaster.
The completion of Corridor X will also mean tremendous
economic impact in this area of Alabama. In fact, it already
has. As jobs are being talked about now, as this new money
becomes available in that corridor, you are seeing communities
like Jasper advertise themselves aggressively as a great place
to live, the first time in many, many years.
We have strong expressions of interest from companies such
as Federal Express with headquarters in Memphis for the
completion of this highway. I think it is safe to say it will
effectively link Alabama's markets with a huge basin of markets
in the Midwestern United States; however, common sense would
dictate that Corridor X be completed before any other competing
corridors to Memphis from Atlanta because you already have
rights of way in place, you have a major interstate link of I-
20 which already links Atlanta to Birmingham. And so we look at
Corridor X as a de facto interstate that is just waiting to
happen and we hope that it will.
As an additional and equally important priority that the
chamber has established is the northern beltline, around the
northern part of Birmingham, which would relieve some very
serious traffic congestion. It is our hope that the last leg of
Corridor X will be the first leg of the northern beltline
because they will intersect.
We know that funding pledges have been made at the State
level to complete Corridor X or to have construction under way
from the Mississippi line into Jasper by 1999 and we have heard
today projections even beyond that. Now we urgently need the
Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation to
continue the very pressing funding needs for Corridor X, tying
it into the Birmingham metropolitan highway system and again,
ideally, linking Corridor X with the northern beltline.
In sum, much has been accomplished, and again we are
grateful to you and to the Congressmen who are here today for
your leadership. We urge your committee to continue
accelerating the funding timetable for this highway so that it
will be completed in a timely fashion for economic development
reasons and for the saving of lives and the damage to property
that we have heard about before.
Thank you again for your outstanding leadership and your
personal interest in this, and at the Birmingham area chamber,
we stand ready to do whatever we need to do to support you in
this.
Prepared Statement
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Copeland. Your written
statement will be made part of the record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Barry Copeland
Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to testify
at today's hearing.
The Birmingham Area Chamber of Commerce wishes to salute you,
Congressmen Bachus and Aderholt for your collective leadership on the
critical matter of completing Corridor X, the long awaited controlled
access highway between Birmingham and Memphis. This has emerged as the
number one objective of the Birmingham Area Chamber of Commerce, our
4,000 business members and the 280,000-plus employees represented by
these member businesses.
Determining this highway project to be our Chamber's top priority
was not a decision that was arrived at easily--nor is it considered
lightly. To reach this decision, our Chamber went through an exhaustive
process of first surveying our 4,000 members, then holding intensive
planning sessions and finally having the recommendations reviewed and
deliberated upon by our Board of Directors and Trustees.
Additionally, we have worked very hard to achieve the full
cooperation of multiple chambers of commerce, county commissions and
mayors all the way from Birmingham to Hamilton. We call this regional
entity the ``Corridor X Task Force.'' Many of them are here this
morning, proving what broad based, regional support there is for
Corridor X throughout Alabama.
The Birmingham Area Chamber and the Corridor X Task Force believes
that this highway is critically needed because of two factors: Highway
safety and economic development. We have initiated our own research as
to the number of accidents along the unfinished stretch of Corridor X
and have found that between 1993-1996 there were 5,353 accidents on
Highway 78--numbers substantially higher than those reported by the
Alabama Highway Department.
Without a doubt, having a two lane highway handle the huge volume
of passenger and freight traffic between two major cities such as
Birmingham and Memphis is a recipe for disaster. We urge you to
continue your efforts to identify funding quickly--otherwise, highway
accidents and fatalities will continue to mount.
Completion of Corridor X will also mean a tremendous economic
impact to all of Alabama. It will effectively link Alabama markets with
huge mid-western markets that are currently very difficult to access
using ground transportation. Furthermore, much talk has been made about
the need for a separate interstate highway link between Memphis and
Atlanta. However, common sense would dictate that Corridor X be
completed first so that a de facto interstate highway could then exist
between Memphis and Atlanta, running through Birmingham.
An additional highway priority for our Chamber of Commerce is the
Northern Beltline around Birmingham to relieve serious traffic
congestion. It is our sincere hope that the last leg of Corridor X will
serve as the first leg of the Northern Beltline. Funding pledges have
been made to complete Corridor X (or have construction underway) from
the Mississippi state line to Industrial Drive in Jasper by 1999.
Now we urgently need the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on
Transportation to consider the very pressing need of finalizing
Corridor X by tying it into the Birmingham highway system, ideally
linking Corridor X into the Northern Beltline.
It is our understanding that approximately $54 million has been
designated for Corridor X in 1998. That still leaves an additional $546
million necessary to complete this long overdue roadway. We urge this
committee to continue to accelerate the funding timetable for this
highway so that it will be completed in time to save lives and promote
vitally needed economic development in Alabama.
Thank you again for your outstanding leadership on this. Our
Chamber will continue to press as hard as possible on this issue.
Please keep up the good work and let us know whenever we may be of
assistance to you.
Statement of J. Frank Filgo
Senator Shelby. Mr. Filgo.
Mr. Filgo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The trucking industry is a significant catalyst to the
economy of the State of Alabama. Trucking's job is to deliver
the goods, cost effectively and safely. This not only benefits
our customers but the economic prosperity of the State of
Alabama and its communities as well.
Over 80 percent of Alabama's manufactured goods, some 237
million tons annually, are hauled by truck. Projections are, by
the year 2000, trucks will be asked to haul over 269 million
tons of Alabama's products to market. Furthermore, three-
quarters of Alabama's communities depend exclusively on trucks
where there are no rail or water routes.
In order for our industry to do its job efficiently, we
require a well-built transportation infrastructure which links
our communities with one another and to the markets outside our
State. Well-planned and maintained roads and bridges enable
trucks to deliver the goods to market at a reasonable cost on
time and with less instances of highway fatalities or
accidents.
Corridor X is a major truck route. Based on truck
classification counts, approximately 7.5 percent of the traffic
present on U.S. Highway 78 during the morning peak hour, and
approximately 7.2 percent of the traffic present during the
afternoon peak hour is medium or large truck traffic. Simply
put, the existing conditions are unsafe for all that share the
road. Our professional truckdrivers have families, too, and we
want our workplace to be a safe place for all.
As you know, Corridor X runs through or adjacent to
Fayette, Jefferson, Lamar, Marion, Walker, and Winston
Counties. The area's largest employers are manufacturers of
mobile homes, auto parts and trucks, textiles, among other
industries. Until Corridor X is completed, these six Alabama
counties will not be in a position to experience economic
growth. That, as I understand is the purpose of ADHS.
It has been said that Alabama is open for business, but
until Corridor X is completed, the six-county region which
includes the greater Birmingham area and impacts the entire
State of Alabama will never realize its true economic
potential. Alabama's economy cannot prosper off a north and
southbound truck route. Trucks need to travel east and west,
too, but cannot unless our roads head in that direction.
We in the trucking industry realize that good roads and
bridges are sound investments with the benefits far outweighing
the initial cost. Each typical five-axle semi-trailer pays over
$10,000 annually in State and Federal taxes. We would like to
see more of our highway user fees dedicated to the purpose for
which they were paid.
The trucking industry wishes to thank the Alabama U.S.
congressional delegation for support of Corridor X and the
overall need for better roads to move Alabama's economy. Senate
bill 1173, allocating more than a $26 billion increase for
highway funding recently passed U.S. Senate. Much of that
increase will be allocated to the States.
Now the U.S. House of Representatives must address the
highway funding issue. We urge all Alabama highway users to
join with the trucking industry in supporting the increased
funding for our Nation's roadways of which Corridor X is an
essential component.
Thank you.
Statement of Al Gibbs
Senator Shelby. Thank you. Mr. Gibbs.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, Senator Shelby. I am Al Gibbs,
director of corporate affairs for AAA-Alabama.
Senator Shelby. Take that microphone closer to you, please.
Thank you.
Mr. Gibbs. We are the State affiliate of the 40-million-
member American Automobile Association, and it is a pleasure to
be here this morning to address you on behalf of AAA-Alabama's
225,000 members and all Alabama motorists.
Anyone who has ever driven on Highway 78 between Birmingham
and Memphis will attest that completion of Corridor X should be
a priority item on our State's transportation improvement plan.
But we favor its completion not just for the economic benefits
it will have for the State or for the additional tourism that
Alabama will gain or for the congestion relief and air quality
improvement that will be derived, we advocate its completion
for the purpose of reducing injuries and needless deaths.
The simple fact is that the Highway 78 route is inadequate
to handle the volumes of cars and trucks that travel it, and
too many crashes and deaths occur that probably would not occur
if the route were a controlled-access interstate-quality
highway.
We automobile owners and drivers realize that we are not
the only users of our roads. By sharing our roads with big
trucks loaded with coal or timber or gasoline or large mobile
homes is just a part of everyday driving. We depend on them to
deliver the goods and services we need to live our lives and we
have become accustomed to their presence on the road, but we
are deathly afraid of their size and weight, especially on
noninterstate highways such as Highway 78 where drivers face
more driving variables and distractions.
Road conditions are a factor in an estimated 30 percent of
traffic fatalities. Highway improvements such as wider lanes
and shoulders, adding or improving medians and upgrading roads
from two lanes to four lanes can reduce traffic fatalities and
crashes.
You mentioned earlier that the Tripp information--the road
information program, Tripp, noted that 77 percent of all fatal
crashes occur on two-lane roads while only 14 percent occur on
roads with four or more lanes.
A study by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, this
report right here which you have, outlines the safety benefits
we can achieve if we invest our transportation resources
wisely. For example, by increasing lane width 1 foot, we can
reduce crashes by 12 percent. Removing hazards within 10 feet
of a road would reduce these types of crashes by 25 percent.
Removing hazards that are within 20 feet would reduce crashes
by 44 percent.
Every dollar we spend making these improvements on lower
grade roads actually produces a savings of nearly $3. In our
view, that's a wise investment. Allowing Federal gas tax
dollars to accumulate in the highway trust fund is not a wise
investment. It may look like a savings on paper but in reality
it merely shifts expenses to other areas of the economy. It
pushes up the cost of insurance, it pushes up the cost of
health care. It pushes up the cost of doing business and it
delays the inevitable time when road and bridge work not done
today will have to be done anyway, but at that point the work
will not only be more urgent, it will be much more costly.
Fortunately, there are obvious solutions. First, Congress
must pass the ISTEA legislation quickly, and we are pleased to
see the Senate and we see that the House has a sense of urgency
as well. Second, we should invest every penny in the highway
trust fund the way American motorists intended when they passed
the gasoline tax, to keep our transportation system running
safely and efficiently.
AAA's goal is to ensure safety and freedom of mobility for
this generation and generations to come. In addition to
improving roads and saving lives, spending the trust fund as it
was intended will produce two beneficial side effects: American
motorists will get what they are paying for. That is all they
want, and Congress and the administration will protect one of
their greatest assets, and I'm not referring to the
transportation infrastructure, I'm referring to the trust of
the American people.
The money has been collected for transportation, it should
not be hijacked. Returning highway tax dollars to the State
held hostage in the highway trust fund could go a long way
toward completing Corridor X.
We sincerely thank you for the work that you are you doing
on this important project and AAA-Alabama supports your
efforts.
Prepared Statement
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Gibbs. Your written
statement will be made part of the record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Al Gibbs
It is a pleasure to be here this morning to address you on behalf
of AAA-Alabama's 225,000 members and all Alabama motorists.
Anyone that has ever driven on Highway 78 between Birmingham and
Memphis will attest that completion of Corridor X should be a priority
item on our State's transportation improvement plan.
We favor its completion not just for the economic benefits that it
will have for the State, or for the additional tourism that Alabama
will gain, or for the congestion relief and air quality improvement
that will be derived * * * we advocate its completion for the purpose
of reducing injuries and needless deaths.
The simple fact is that the Highway 78 route is inadequate to
handle the volumes of cars and trucks that travel it, and too many
crashes and deaths occur that probably would not occur if the route
were a controlled access interstate quality highway.
We automobile owners and drivers realize that we are not the only
users of our roads. Sharing our roads with big trucks, loaded with coal
or timber, or gasoline, or large mobile homes is just a part of
everyday driving. We depend on them to deliver the goods and services
we need to live our lives, and we've become accustomed to their
presence on the road. But we are also deathly afraid of their size and
weight, especially on non-interstate highways such as Highway 78 where
drivers face more driving variables and distractions.
Road conditions are a factor in an estimated 30 percent of traffic
fatalities. Highway improvements such as wider lanes and shoulders,
adding or improving median, and upgrading roads from two lanes to four
lanes can reduce traffic fatalities and crashes.
According to information gathered and analyzed by the road
information program (TRIP), 77 percent of all fatal crashes occur on
two lane roads while only 14 percent occur on roads with four or more
lanes.
A study by the AAA foundation for traffic safety a copy of which
you should have in front of you outlines the safety benefits we can
achieve if we invest our transportation resources wisely.
For example:
--By increasing lane width one foot, we can reduce crashes by 12
percent.
--Removing hazards within 10 feet of a road would reduce these types
of crashes by 25 percent.
--Removing hazards that are within 20 feet would reduce crashes by 44
percent.
Every dollar we spend making these improvements on lower-grade
roads actually produces a savings of nearly $3. In our view, that's a
wise investment.
Allowing Federal gas tax dollars to accumulate in the highway trust
fund is not a wise investment. It may look like a savings on paper but,
in reality, it merely shifts expenses to other areas of the economy:
--It pushes up the cost of insurance.
--It pushes up the cost of health care.
--It pushes up the cost of doing business.
--And it delays the inevitable time when road and bridge work not
done today will have to be done anyway. But at that point, the
work will not only be more urgent, it will be much more costly.
Fortunately, there are obvious solutions.
First, Congress must pass the ISTEA legislation quickly and,
fortunately, the House and Senate now seem to have that sense of
urgency.
And second, we should invest every penny in the highway trust fund
the way American motorists intended when they passed the gasoline tax
to keep our transportation system running safely and efficiently.
AAA's goal is to ensure safety and freedom of mobility for this
generation and generations to come.
In addition to improving roads and saving lives * * * spending the
trust fund as it was intended will produce two beneficial side effects.
1. American motorists will get what they're paying for. That's all
they want. And * * *
2. Congress and the administration will protect one of their
greatest assets. I'm not referring to the transportation
infrastructure. I'm referring to the trust of the American people.
--The money has been collected for transportation.
--It shouldn't be highjacked.
Returning highway tax dollars to the State, held hostage in the
highway trust fund, could go a long way toward completing Corridor X.
We sincerely thank you for the work you are doing on this important
project and AAA-Alabama supports your efforts.
[Clerk's note.--The study referred to in Mr. Gibbs'
statement does not appear in the hearing record, but is
available for review in the subcommittee's files.]
Subcommittee Recess
Senator Shelby. Gentlemen, I am going to have some
questions for the record, but other than that, we want to thank
you, all of you, for appearing here today. We think this field
hearing is important. You heard the testimony earlier of the
two Congressmen and others. I think it defines where we want to
go and I believe we must, must finish this and we will.
Thank you very much, and let's keep working until this is
finished and, as Congressman Bachus brought up, let's then work
on--or perhaps before then, the northern beltline. It is so
important to the people of Alabama and to the American people.
Thank you. This hearing is recessed.
[Whereupon, at 11 a.m., Monday, March 16, the subcommittee
was recessed, to reconvene at 10:06 a.m., Thursday, March 19.]
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:]
Corridor X: Background, March 16, 1998
Project Description.--Corridor X is a 96.9 mile controlled access
facility from the Mississippi state line to I-65 that is part of the
Appalachian Development Highway System administered by the Appalachian
Regional Commission. Upon its completion, and in conjunction with other
routes in Mississippi, it will provide a freeway-type route from
Birmingham to Memphis. This road will greatly increase accessibility
into northwest Alabama which should significantly increase economic
development in the region.
Project Status.--For the corridor, approximately 23 miles have been
opened to traffic and 21 miles are currently under construction. The
environmental documentation has been completed on the entire corridor
and all of the Right-of-Way has been authorized, except for a 1.8 mile
segment at I-65 and U.S. 31 in Jefferson County.
Funding Status.--The total project cost is estimated to be $570
million (80 percent federal, 20 percent state), but the state of
Alabama is only seeking about $258 million in ISTEA and state funds
over the next five years. These funds will be used to complete two
portions of the Corridor: (1) the segment from SR 129 in Marion County
to U.S. 78 west of Jasper in Walker County and (2) an 11.9 mile segment
from U.S. 78 in Graysville in Jefferson County to I-65 in Birmingham.
These two segments should be finished by 2002. The rest of the Corridor
will not be completed until after 2002.
Economic and Safety Benefits.--The major economic benefits result
from the opening up of the northwest region of the State by providing
the transportation connection that will promote growth and development
in the region. The primary safety benefits will be the removal of
current U.S. 78 traffic from a rural two-lane highway to a freeway type
facility and eliminating U.S. 78 traffic conflicts through several
small towns.
Additional information:
--In fiscal years 1996 and 1997, Corridor X was eligible for an
average of $9 million in Appalachian Highway Funds.
--In fiscal year 1998, that figure increased more than 500 percent--
to about $50 million. $40 million of this amount were contained
in the Transportation Appropriations Bill.
--This additional money will allow the state to make significant
progress on Corridor X.
--Corridor X is critical to the state's economy. It will provide a
more direct link between Memphis and Birmingham, and will
foster job creation.
--Senator Shelby is committed to securing as much funding as possible
for the Appalachian Highway System, so that the state of
Alabama will have the ability to finish this important highway.
STATUS OF CORRIDOR X SEGMENTS
[March 16, 1998]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Length
Segment (miles) Status
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AL/MS State Line to County Road 45 23 Completed.
(south of Hamilton).
County Road 45 (south of Hamilton) 7 Under construction.
to SR 129 (Marion County).
SR 129 (Marion County) to County 16 Design phase.
Road 11 (Walker County).
County Road 11 to U.S. 78 (west of 4 Under construction.
Jasper in Walker County).
West of U.S. 78 to Burton Creek... 3 Design phase.
Burton Creek to Jasper Industrial 11 Under construction.
Park Road.
Jasper Industrial Park Road to I- 31 Design phase.
65 Birmingham.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Resolution of the City of Cordova, Alabama, Regarding Corridor X
Development
Whereas, the development of the Appalachian Regional Highway known as
Corridor X connecting Memphis, Tennessee to Birmingham, Alabama and
points between; and
Whereas, construction on this important artery for trade and tourism
has lagged in its funding and development; and
Whereas, Appalachian Highway dollars will soon be appropriated that far
exceed amounts appropriated in recent years, resulting in a major
increase of Federal funding for the two Appalachian corridors in
Alabama; and
Whereas, lives are being lost at an alarming rate because of
unacceptable conditions along the over-traveled roadway; and
Whereas, the Governor of Alabama has pledged to match with appropriate
funding all Federal money coming to the state for Appalachian
highway development; and
Whereas, the economic potential of northwest Alabama is largely at bay
until significant headway is made on Corridor X: Now, therefore, be
it
Resolved, That the officials of Cordova, Alabama, who below sign in
witness to this document, fully support and encourage the speedy
completion of Corridor X; and be it further
Resolved, That the Governor of Alabama, in full understanding of the y
and emergency nature of this important highway project, be urged to
appropriate additional funding to Corridor X until the citizens of
north Alabama are convinced the project is proceeding with haste
and appropriateness
Attest:
Elaine Stover, City Clerk.
Shelly Drummond, Mayor.
______
Letter From Barry Copeland, Vice Chairman, Governmental Affairs, the
Birmingham Area Chamber of Commerce
March 11, 1998.
Hon. Richard Shelby,
U.S. Senator, Alabama, Chairman, Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on
Transportation, 110 Hart Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Shelby: The Birmingham Area Chamber of Commerce
wishes to salute you for your outstanding leadership on the critical
matter of completing Corridor X, the long awaited controlled access
highway between Birmingham and Memphis. This has emerged as the number
one objective of the Birmingham Area Chamber of Commerce, its 4,000
business members and the 280,000-plus employees represented by these
member businesses.
Determining this highway project to be our Chamber's top priority
was not a decision that was arrived at easily--nor is it considered
lightly. To reach this decision our Chamber went through an exhaustive
process of first surveying our 4,000 members, then holding intensive
planning sessions and finally having the recommendations reviewed and
deliberated upon by our Board of Directors and Trustees.
The Birmingham Area Chamber believes that this highway is
critically needed because of two factors: Highway safety and economic
development. We have initiated our own research as to the number of
accidents along the unfinished stretch of Corridor X and have found
5,353 accidents on Highway 78 between 1993-1996--numbers substantially
higher than those reported by the Alabama Highway Department. Without a
doubt, this highway that is currently two lane for much of its route is
direly needed to be upgraded to interstate status to handle the volume
of passenger and freight traffic between the major cities of Birmingham
and Memphis. Otherwise, highway accidents and fatalities will continue
to mount.
Completion of Corridor X will mean a tremendous economic impact to
all of Alabama. It will effectively link Alabama markets with huge mid-
western markets that are currently very difficult to access using
ground transportation. Furthermore, much talk has been made about the
need for a separate interstate highway link between Memphis and
Atlanta. However, common sense would dictate that Corridor X be
completed first so that a de facto interstate highway could then exist
between Memphis and Atlanta running through Birmingham.
An additional highway priority for our Chamber is the Northern
Beltline around Birmingham to relieve serious traffic congestion. It is
our sincere hope that the last leg of Corridor X will serve as the
first leg of the Northern Beltline. Funding pledges have been made to
complete Corridor X (or have construction underway) from the
Mississippi state line to Industrial Drive in Jasper by 1999. Now we
urgently need the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation
to consider the very pressing need of finalizing Corridor X by tying it
into the Birmingham highway system, ideally linking Corridor X into the
Northern Beltline.
Thank you again for your outstanding leadership on this. Our
records show that over $50 million will be spent on Corridor X in 1998.
That is a step in the right direction but, as you know, the total price
tag to complete it is $600 million. Please keep up the good work and
let us know whenever we may be of assistance to you.
Sincerely,
Barry Copeland,
Vice Chairman, Governmental Affairs.
______
Resolution of the Walker County Commission
Whereas, redevelopment of the area parallel to U.S. Highway 78 from
Memphis to Birmingham is a highway project originally planned to
connect the last two major Southern cities not already connected by
a controlled access highway; and
Whereas, work on this project, begun 30 years ago, is presently
lagging, almost to a stop; and
Whereas, citizens of Walker County, Alabama, and other passengers and
drivers along the way continue to lose their lives at a rate of
almost one per month over the last four years; and
Whereas, trade and tourism are suffering because of the inability to
travel safely and with expediency along the present U.S. Highway
78: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Walker County Commission pledges its full support to
the efforts of the Birmingham Area Chamber of Commerce and the
Corridor X Task Force; and be it further
Resolved, That the Walker County Commission urges the full support and
assistance of The Honorable Jeff Sessions, The Honorable Richard
Shelby, The Honorable Robert Aderholt, The Honorable Spencer
Bachus, and The Honorable Bud Cramer, in efforts to complete this
valuable roadway with full expediency and with the knowledge that
it is according to the good pleasure and will of this body and of
the populace of our great County.
This the 1st day of April, 1997.
Bruce Hamrick, Chairman.
______
Resolution of the City of Jasper, AL
Whereas, accelerated funding for the completion of Corridor X has been
a top priority for the City of Jasper, Alabama, all this year and
in the past year; and
Whereas, we have received increased funding from the federal government
through the Appalachian Regional Commission; however funding from
the State, other than matching federal funds, have not come forth:
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the City Council of the City of Jasper, Alabama, That the
Honorable Fob James, Governor of the State of Alabama, be asked to
commit a minimum of Forty Million Dollars in State Department of
Transportation funds, exclusive of matching funds, for Corridor X
in the proposed Highway Bond Issue.
This the 2nd day of September, 1997.
Approved.
Don Goetz, Mayor.
______
Resolution No. 96-97-16, City of Sumiton, Corridor X Development
Whereas, the development of the Appalachian Regional Highway known as
Corridor X connecting Memphis, Tennessee to Birmingham, Alabama and
points between; and
Whereas, construction on this important artery for trade and tourism
has lagged in its funding and development; and
Whereas, Appalachian Highway dollars will soon be appropriated that far
exceed amounts appropriated in recent years, resulting in a major
increase of Federal funding for the two Appalachian corridors in
Alabama; and
Whereas, lives are being lost at an alarming rate because of
unacceptable conditions along the over-traveled roadway; and
Whereas, the Governor of Alabama has pledged to match with appropriate
funding all Federal money coming to the state for Appalachian
highway development; and
Whereas, the economic potential of northwest Alabama is largely at bay
until significant headway is made on Corridor X: Now, therefore, be
it
Resolved, That the officials of Sumiton, Alabama, fully support and
encourage the speedy completion of Corridor X; and be it further
Resolved, That the Governor of Alabama, in full understanding of the
urgency and emergency nature of this important highway project, be
urged to appropriate additional funding to Corridor X until the
citizens of North Alabama are convinced the project is proceeding
with haste and appropriateness.
Approved.
Pete Ellen, Mayor.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 1999
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 19, 1998
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:06 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard C. Shelby (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Shelby, Domenici, Gorton, Bennett,
Faircloth, Lautenberg, Byrd, Reid, and Kohl.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION MAJOR FUNDING ISSUES
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
STATEMENT OF HON. RODNEY E. SLATER, SECRETARY OF
TRANSPORTATION
Opening Remarks
Senator Shelby. The subcommittee will come to order.
We will focus on a few specifics of the President's budget
request later in the hearing, Mr. Secretary, but first I wanted
to say that it has been a pleasure working with you for the
past year. I venture to say that both you and I have learned a
great deal, though you probably knew a lot more than I did,
about our Nation's transportation systems. That was your first
as Secretary of Transportation and it was my first as chairman
of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee. But I have
enjoyed working with you and your staff.
Funding Priorities
Last year, we discussed some of the criteria by which we
should evaluate the cost effectiveness of transportation
programs. In putting together last year's Appropriations Act, I
tried to focus our limited Federal resources on programs and
projects that create jobs, create opportunities, create
economic activity, and improve mobility in America, while, at
the same time, reflecting the priorities articulated in the
President's budget request and in the programs highlighted by
members of the committee and the Senate.
I think that 1998 has been a good year for transportation.
However, in the budget constrained environment in which we all
must operate, the task of this subcommittee has been a
balancing act of allocating resources among a host of
worthwhile priorities. This year will be no exception.
The Senate-passed ISTEA reauthorization legislation
envisions highway obligation limitation levels significantly
higher than the record level we appropriated last year. I
support those increased levels. But I am also fully cognizant
of the pressure these levels will place on the other accounts
in this bill.
The first dollar in this bill will be a highway dollar. The
last dollar in this bill will be a highway dollar. And in
between, we will focus on safety programs.
We will have to wait and see what happens with the ISTEA
funding levels as the budget process moves forward and as the
House takes up consideration of the reauthorization bill. I
look forward to the completion of both these efforts because
this is one Senator who believes that investment in our highway
infrastructure is an investment in our future economic growth,
opportunity, and an improved quality of life for all Americans.
Last year, the administration's budget request effectively
called for a freeze on the obligation limitation for highways,
and I note that this year's request does effectively the same
thing.
So it seems that where goes the Congress on highway
investment the administration gets to within a year or so. I
applaud you for that conclusion.
Although your request is not at a level that I think is
realistic in light of where the authorization process seems to
be headed, it is only 12 to 18 months behind where Congress is,
and I think that is a major improvement over what we have had
in the past.
I will not comment at this time on the failure of the
President's budget to live within the discretionary budget
caps, but I am sure that the chairman of the Budget Committee,
the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, who is also a member
of this subcommittee, may have a few words for you on that
score.
Funding Challenges
Meeting the high level of highway funding needs will be
made more challenging this year by two factors: an increase in
the first year outlay scoring for Federal-aid highways, from 17
to 27 percent, and the need to fill some holes in the budget
where the administration has assumed they will reap receipts
from user fees in a number of programs, many of which are not
in place or even authorized.
So every dollar we put in highways will cost us more in the
first year of obligation. And, as we begin our attempt to meet
the authorized highway obligation level, we must also backfill
over $200 million in user fee holes.
I would also like to make the observation that the
subcommittee will be well served by moving a bill early this
year. If we move early, we maximize our ability to focus on the
issues related to transportation. If our bill is not completed
and sent to the President for signature by the August recess, I
am concerned that the highway number will come under pressure
from the administration, where highway investment clearly is
not the priority that it is in the Congress.
Today we are honored to have the Secretary of
Transportation, Hon. Rodney Slater, to testify. He will be
followed by a panel of two administrators, from the Federal
Aviation Administration, Jane Garvey, and the Commandant of the
Coast Guard, Adm. Bob Kramek.
Senator Lautenberg.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR LAUTENBERG
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
You have learned fast, Mr. Chairman, and though I would
gladly change places with you, I have great respect for the
work you have done and the leadership you have provided. We
have worked well together.
I am kind of getting used to second place. I am the ranking
Democrat on the subcommittee. I am also the ranking Democrat on
the Budget Committee. I heard your admonition, Mr. Chairman.
Last night, we passed the budget through the committee and,
hopefully, we will see it on the floor in the next week or so.
We have taken care of, in that budget, the ISTEA proposal that
passed the Senate. It will require, as you have suggested, Mr.
Chairman, quite a bit of juggling or balancing to get the
funding that we would like to see.
Mr. Chairman, I note the appearance here of Senator Byrd,
who brings a level of experience that none of us in the room
has in terms of matters of transportation. I get the feeling,
Mr. Chairman, that this is a particularly important
subcommittee meeting when Admiral Byrd--I mean, of course,
Senator Byrd--can find time on his schedule to be here with us.
So we will pay attention, Mr. Chairman, I am sure.
Also, I am glad to see our good friend and very successful
Secretary, Rodney Slater, here with us.
I want to take 1 minute, if I might, Mr. Chairman, to note
the fact that Adm. Robert Kramek is going to have his last
appearance before this subcommittee. He is finishing his tour
of duty, which he has done with distinction.
I want to thank you, Admiral, for your advocacy and your
diligence in making sure that the Coast Guard has the resources
it needs to function and that it does its tasks so admirably,
as it has in its long history.
I am very proud of the Coast Guard. I see all of the
responsibilities that they have and those that we continue to
give them, and they carry them out exceptionally. We wish
Admiral Loy well in his upcoming opportunity.
Infrastructure Investment
Over these past few months, critical events have shaped our
paths in terms of transportation investment. The Senate passed
its ISTEA reauthorization bill with historic levels for highway
and transit and with healthy investments for safety programs.
The Amtrak reauthorization bill was signed into law, spelling
out very clearly appropriate funding levels for Amtrak.
Now Congress and the public have spoken in favor of
increased investment in our infrastructure.
Mr. Chairman, so often we ignore the opportunity or the
obligation to make the long-term investments in infrastructure.
You can never quite make it up when you fail to put in
sufficient funds at the moment. The highways are, indeed, in
need of repair, upgrading, and so forth. But we need to make
investments in all modes of transportation service.
Congress and the public support that. Congress and the
public have also strongly endorsed the balanced budget
agreement that we adopted last year.
These three events--ISTEA and increased levels for mass
transit and highways, Amtrak reauthorization, and the balanced
budget--present enough challenges to our subcommittee than we
ever could have hoped for.
Investment Balance
Our goals should be to ensure that funding for our national
transportation system reflects the balance in a transportation
network that fills the needs and the special requirements of
regions or sectors or population centers in the country.
We need not punish one mode of transportation for the
benefit of another. The Senate just endorsed a balanced surface
transportation plan for the next 6 years. And a few months ago,
a funding plan for Amtrak to reach operating self-sufficiency
was put in place.
This subcommittee has been charged with meeting these
goals. We have met such commitments for years and we should
continue to do so this year.
We should not forget that spending Federal dollars on our
national passenger rail service is a wise investment in this
age of traffic-clogged highways, airport congestion, and
increased pollution controls. Also, to mention a very important
thing that we see happening around us, there is the continuous
rise in the importation of oil from abroad. This is not a
position I like to see us in and I am sure others share that
point of view.
While hundreds of billions of dollars are spent every
decade on highway and airport improvements, a mere fraction on
a relative basis is spent on the country's rail system. If we
underfund Amtrak, we must be ready to find somewhere else the
hundreds of billions of dollars that will be needed to build
more airports and highways to deal with the resulting
congestion.
Just look at our aviation system today. It is so crowded
that it is almost impossible to maintain timely schedules. You
see people sleeping in airports, having their meals while
sitting on the floor. All of these things need investment.
The congestion also causes health problems. We know that.
Air pollution is a very serious problem in the country.
We also have to remember how important mass transit is to
our national economy--our national economy, I point out--and
our quality of life.
Right now, U.S. businesses lose an estimated $40 billion a
year in economic costs due to traffic congestion, and if all
transit commuters drove to work, instead of taking transit, the
annual cost of congestion on our highways would climb, it is
estimated, by at least another $15 billion.
Transit has always played a key role in linking Americans
with jobs, education, health care, and other services, and will
increasingly do so in the future.
Unfortunately, our challenges do not stop with mass
transit, Amtrak, and highways. As I noted, we are confronted
with serious needs for FAA activities that affect the safety in
our skies--and I am pleased to see the administrator here--the
security in our airports, and the upgrading of equipment, the
accommodation of current and expected growth in commercial and
general aviation.
As the year 2000 looms ahead, the FAA is working its ``war
room'' to fix computers that may not recognize this simple
change of date. Our air traffic control mainframe computers and
equipment are so antiquated that the original manufacturers can
no longer provide support, and I can attest to that--having
come out of the computer business and having long ago discarded
equipment in my company that we still use in FAA.
Our air traffic controllers are stretched thin. But armed
with the ambitious plan proposed 1 year ago by the White House
Commission on Aviation Safety and Security, and educated by the
National Civil Aviation Review Commission report entitled
``Avoiding Aviation Gridlock and Reducing the Accident Rate,''
I call attention to the fact that they forecast that, unless we
invest in the aviation system worldwide, by the year 2010, we
can expect a major crash somewhere in the globe every 7 to 10
days. We cannot permit that condition to exist.
So we have to have some ideas as to where we will go.
Mr. Chairman, I do not mean to place a heavier load on you
than the one you already have, but you know what we have to do
and I know that you support these investments in
infrastructure.
Our collaborative working relationship during the last
appropriations process produced a balanced bill. I look forward
to getting the same result working with you, Mr. Chairman, this
year.
Thank you very much.
Senator Shelby. Senator Byrd.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR BYRD
Senator Byrd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the
leadership that you are demonstrating as chairman of this
subcommittee in promoting additional investments in our
transportation infrastructure.
I thank you also, Senator Lautenberg, for the continued
demonstration of efforts that you have put forth in the same
regard.
Infrastructure Investment
I wonder when the administration is going to catch on. I
don't see any indication that beefing up infrastructure is one
of the administration's top priorities. It should be.
When Mr. Clinton ran the first time for Presidential
office, he emphasized infrastructure. I have not heard much
about that lately. But the American people, and I think the
Congress, support increased funding for infrastructure.
So we are ahead of the administration. I hope the
administration will rush to catch up.
Darius the Great, who was King of Persia by virtue of the
neigh of a horse, ruled from 522 B.C. to 485 B.C. He was
defeated by the Greeks at the Battle of Marathon in 490 B.C.
But he recognized the importance of highways and the Persians
built great highways, linking the leading cities of Persia--
Susa, Ecbatana, Nineveh, Sardis, Smyrna, and all the way down
to Egypt. Reaching the Black Sea and the Mediterranean, the
Persians knew the importance, as I say, of highways.
Sir Francis Bacon recognized the importance of highways. He
said there are three things that make a Nation great and
prosperous--a fertile soil, busy workshops, and easy conveyance
for men and goods from place to place.
He was later sent to the Tower, but not for that belief.
[Laughter.]
He was sent to the Tower because he was impeached. We got
impeachment from our English brethren, the first impeachment
occurring in 1376, during the reign of Edward III, when Richard
Lyons and some other high officers were impeached.
Bacon was impeached for accepting bribes, and he admitted
it. But I remember him for what he said about transportation
modes.
Surface Transportation Bill
Now, recently, we passed a very important bill, and I am
sure you are aware, because I have discussed it with you, Mr.
Secretary, you are aware of the effort that Senator Gramm,
Senator Warner, Senate Baucus, and I put forth to add $26
billion to the ISTEA II, bringing the figure up from $147
billion to $173 billion.
Do you support that continued amount? Do you support that?
Secretary Slater. Clearly, Senator Byrd, you and Senator
Gramm, Senator Chafee, Senator Baucus, and all of the other
Members are to be commended for the strong voice that you have
given to increased investment in infrastructure. We support
record level investment. We want to do it, though, in a way
that is consistent with the balanced budget agreement. But that
is something we will work out over time.
Senator Byrd. Well, do you support that level?
Secretary Slater. This was a very strong statement. I
commended the bill on the day of passage and said that the
Senate had done a great job. I feel very good about that level
of investment.
Appalachian Highway System
Senator Byrd. Included in that level was $2.19 billion for
the Appalachian Highway System, which is 32 years past due.
That amount of money was recommended by the President in his
proposed ISTEA legislation.
Secretary Slater. Yes, sir.
Senator Byrd. That will be a great step forward toward
completion of those Appalachian highways, which are important
to the 13 States that are involved.
Do you support that $2.19 billion for Appalachian highways?
Secretary Slater. Most definitely, sir.
Senator Byrd. And the administration supports it?
Secretary Slater. Oh, yes.
As you noted, it was a part of the administration's
proposed budget for fiscal year 1999.
Senator Byrd. I can't understand why the President has
recommended a freeze in highway funding at the 1998 level over
the next 5 or 6 years.
Secretary Slater. That freeze, though, Senator, is at a
record level. I can tell you that the President, as you've
noted and as many others have noted, said early-on in his
administration that he was committed to rebuilding America. We
have seen an increase in investment by about 42 percent over
the period 1990 to 1993. But, again, we need to deal with these
issues in the context of putting our fiscal house in order,
ensuring that we have a balanced system, and we are definitely
poised to do just that, working in partnership with this
committee and with this Congress.
Senator Byrd. Well, I think it is important to repair and
to maintain and to further build the transportation
infrastructure in this country.
Secretary Slater. Yes, sir.
Senator Byrd. We have sworn fealty at the altar of a
balanced budget. But I think we have to also think of America's
competitive position in world markets. I think we have to
remember our own people who are engaged in business ventures.
They will benefit by public investments in infrastructure.
I have not heard the administration express support for the
$2.19 billion for the Appalachian Highway System recently. I
hope you will express support for it.
Secretary Slater. I do today, sir, and I do so with the
full commitment of the President in that regard.
Senator Byrd. Very well.
Now Henry Clay was a great advocate, as you will remember,
of the American system, which included Federal spending for
internal improvements. He helped to lead the way in building
the Old Cumberland Road. The Old Cumberland Road is sometimes
referred to, and was then, as the Old National Road. It
extended from Cumberland, MD, to Wheeling, WV, and on to
Vandalia, IL. It was begun in 1811, and by 1818, the Congress
had invested the huge amount of $3 million in that highway.
Henry Clay, who was a great leader, a great American
leader, a great U.S. Senator, and who was Speaker of the House
of Representatives early on in his political career, was an
advocate of that highway and assisted in getting congressional
appropriations for it. So I feel that we are working in pretty
big shoes when we support Clay's American system, at least that
part of it, improved infrastructure.
Well, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for giving me this
opportunity to speak of infrastructure and I thank the
Secretary for his appearance here today and for his support of
the Appalachian Highway System.
We are going to dedicate a link of that highway system this
year, and I am going to see to it that our Republican Governor,
who is a friend of mine from our first years in the
legislature, 52 years ago, together--he later became the
youngest Governor in the State of West Virginia and now he has
become the oldest Governor in the State of West Virginia,
though he is still about 5 years behind me--he is a great
friend of mine and I am going to ask him to be sure that
Secretary Slater is invited to that meeting and that he is on
the program.
I look forward to hearing Secretary Slater there.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Chairman, before we go on, whenever
I am with Senator Byrd, I always learn something new. I just
have a problem remembering the dates, the names, and all those
things. But, other than that, I conclude with ``I wish I had
said that.''
Thank you.
Senator Shelby. I think we all wish we had said it if we
had known about it, learned it, and remembered it. [Laughter.]
Senator Byrd could be a full professor of classics and I
think we would all benefit from it. Perhaps he is.
Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Senator Reid.
Senator Reid. The lectures that Senator Byrd gave on the
Roman Empire are the subject matter of a course that is now in
its third year of being taught at the University of Las Vegas.
The text for that is the lectures of Senator Byrd.
Senator Faircloth. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Senator Faircloth.
Senator Faircloth. I was really excited in that one time I
had thought he had said pork chops, but he had said workshops.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lautenberg. Is that from the hog farmer?
[Laughter.]
Senator Shelby. I want now to recognize Senator Faircloth.
We are now talking about infrastructure and highways. In a
previous life, in his State of North Carolina, he knew
something about highways, infrastructure, and transportation
because he was the man in charge of all of that.
Senator Faircloth, we are glad to have you as a member of
this committee and we recognize you now.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR FAIRCLOTH
Senator Faircloth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
all you are doing. I will be very brief.
The budget overall was very good. I found some things in it
that were disturbing, but we are going to need to find ways to
strengthen the highway budget. We are falling behind. But the
new ISTEA bill reflects this.
One thing that concerned me was the Amtrak budget when,
clearly, we appropriate money for capital expenditures, rails,
and cars, and then come right under it and say but if you don't
want to spend it for this, you can spend it for operating
expenses--salaries, people, whatever.
Why even budget it if we are going to leave all that
flexibility in there? I think it is a ridiculous way to be
committing money.
I am very much pleased at the increased commitment to
aviation. I think the Airport Improvement Program is critical
for the safety of this country. I am confident that Ms. Garvey
is going to do a good job to bring it about.
I had asked for a report from the inspector general on the
computer fiasco. I have not gotten it yet. But I would still
like to know anything Ms. Garvey can enlighten me with as to
what went on there and what is going on.
I cannot think of anything more frightening than flying in
airplanes in fogs, clouds, and rain with an antiquated control
system about which we are totally helpless. When you sit down
in the seat of that plane, you cannot do anything.
So I would even put that ahead of anything.
Senator Byrd, I can dodge a pothole, but there is not a
thing I can do if that pilot drives that plane in the ground.
In the proposed Coast Guard budget, the administration
proposes a new user fee as a source of funding. A user fee is
nothing but a tax increase, and I don't think we need any tax
increases.
I will not be voting for a user fee.
I have several questions of Mr. Slater and Ms. Garvey. But
thank you, Mr. Chairman for letting me be here.
Senator Byrd. Mr. Chairman, might I just answer my friend
from North Carolina----
Senator Shelby. Yes, Senator Byrd.
Senator Byrd. A State whose motto is ``To be rather than to
seem.''
Senator Faircloth. Absolutely that is the motto.
Senator Byrd. It is a motto of which one can be justly
proud.
As to dodging potholes----
Senator Faircloth. Well, you understand the context of what
I am saying.
Senator Byrd. I do.
Senator Faircloth. The driver has a little control over
that.
Senator Byrd. I was just going to point out, as I recall--
and perhaps Mr. Slater can correct me--I believe 42,000 people
lose their lives on highways every year.
Secretary Slater. That's correct.
Senator Byrd. If that is a correct figure----
Secretary Slater. It is.
Senator Byrd. It seems to me it would break down to about
110, perhaps, a day.
Secretary Slater. That's correct.
Senator Byrd. Can you imagine an airliner crashing every
day and killing 110 people? That is the equivalent.
If that happened, the administration would be out there
every day saying more money for highways, more money for
highways. I think when we reduce it to those terms, we realize
the significance of the importance of safety on our highways.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Senator Reid.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR REID
Senator Reid. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Slater, I saw you and your colleagues in the
gallery when ISTEA passed last week. I noted the pleasure in
all of your demeanor last week and I am sure it was because the
vote was so resounding in favor of ISTEA.
So I think that answers the question as to whether or not
you favor our additional funding. I was happy to join with
Senator Byrd and others in adding that additional money which
makes the bill a better bill than it was before.
I-15
The State of Nevada is growing so rapidly. I have spoken to
you personally about the tremendously difficult problems that
we have. In Las Vegas, we have about 300 people moving there
each day. That has created real problems in trying to maintain
our infrastructure.
We have come to realize the importance of, and we have a
joint venture now with California, trying to do something about
I-15--the connecting highway between southern California and
southern Nevada. It used to be just a Nevada problem because
people looked at that as a way of moving people to and from the
resorts in Nevada. But we have now come to a partnership with
the State of California because they now realize that it is
also a way to move commerce between California and the rest of
the country. When that road is clogged up, people stand and
wait, causing their employers tremendously increased costs for
moving the produce and other products that they have around the
country.
So moving people and goods quickly and efficiently through
the Nation is one of the most important things that ISTEA will
allow us to do.
The original ISTEA, as you know, Mr. Secretary, was one of
the most far reaching and innovative pieces of legislation ever
produced by Congress. We decided to no longer look at
completing the Interstate System but, rather, at focusing on
connecting different modes of transportation to meet the needs
of the future. That was the right thing to do.
ISTEA II will continue along those lines.
Lake Tahoe
I want to say, as part of that, how grateful I am to you
and the administration for your attention to Lake Tahoe, this
gem that the State of Nevada shares with the State of
California, which Mark Twain said was the fairest place on all
the Earth.
Now Mark Twain had not been to many other places. But the
fact is he, I think, in his mind's eye, like those of us who
visit Lake Tahoe, recognized that if there is a fairer place on
the Earth, it would take something to be.
You and the administration have stepped in and been very
responsive to the issues that are facing that very struggling
lake. I appreciate that.
Drunk Driving
I am glad to see that we have some requests for almost $40
million for alcohol incentive grants. These grants are designed
to encourage States to pass strong anti-drunk driving
legislation.
A couple of weeks ago, I had a very tough decision. I had
to vote against an amendment offered by my friend and
colleague, Senator Lautenberg, lowering the drunk driving level
from 0.1 to 0.08. It was difficult because I had stated
publicly before and have also since that I favor lowering that
rate. The problem is, in the State of Nevada, three successive
legislatures have turned that down. So I had to vote against my
friend and that was difficult to do.
Motor Carrier Safety
I see that you are asking for a 17-percent increase in
motor carrier safety grants. That is another program I support.
I don't want to make a big deal out of it here today. But,
again, the ranking member of this subcommittee and I have been
very concerned about triple trailer trucks, those large,
combination trucks.
I have tried over the last 4 months to work something out
with the trucking industry, and I think we had a real good
program worked out, a study program worked out. Some people
from the safety industry did not agree with what we were trying
to do. So, sadly, we are not going to be able to do anything in
this bill to provide more information on these combination
vehicles, especially in unresolved issues like length, weight,
infrastructure damage, environmental concerns, and, most
importantly, safety.
Therefore, I would hope, Mr. Secretary, that your office
would do what you can to get us more information about triple
trailer trucks. The information is simply not there. There is a
lot of information put out by various special interest groups
about how safe these vehicles are.
Well, anyone driving down the highway next to one of these
knows that that is a stretch. We badly need information and we
were going to put something in this bill to mandate that. But
that is not going to be the case now.
So I would hope that you and your agency, generally, would
take a close look at that.
Secretary Slater. OK.
Senator Reid. I have just a couple of more things, Mr.
Chairman.
Passenger Rail
I am a fan of Amtrak. We spend so much time here talking
about our airports, which are very important. I agree with
Senator Faircloth that we need to do everything we can to
assure the safety of our airports.
We spend huge amounts of money on our highways. But when we
spend a few dollars on a rail transportation system, people
become very concerned.
You know, it really is planes, trains, and automobiles. It
takes all three, and we need to devote more time to passenger
travel by rail. That is why Senator Moynihan and I, as a member
of this committee, have spent a great deal of time working on
magnetic levitation. There is some money in this ISTEA bill
that, hopefully, will allow that to proceed further than it
has.
Surface Transportation Board
I have another concern and that is with the new Surface
Transportation Board. I think they need a lot of work done. On
two almost identical programs dealing with railroads, they came
up with totally different answers. In Reno, NV, where we have a
Union Pacific-Southern Pacific merger, the Surface
Transportation Board refused to do an environmental impact
statement. That is too bad. They really should have done that.
The only thing I will say publicly here about the Surface
Transportation Board is that I am going to watch very closely
their funding level. I think, from what I have seen today, we
may have been better off keeping the Interstate Commerce
Commission than in coming up with this Surface Transportation
Board, which I think at this point has been a total failure.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the work that you have done on
this subcommittee. I also appreciate the work of the ranking
member. You have both been a pleasure to work with and I look
forward to our doing some good things this year as we complete
the conference on the surface transportation bill and doing
some good things with you, Senator Lautenberg, on the
Appropriations Transportation Subcommittee.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much.
Senator Shelby. Senator Bennett.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR BENNETT
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I won't attempt in any way to try to duplicate the memory
and history lesson from the Senator from West Virginia, but I
will comment in the spirit of the comments that have been going
around here that I do have a sudden flash of deja vu.
I remember sitting at exactly that same table where you are
sitting, Mr. Secretary, when I worked for the Department of
Transportation, and being questioned by the Senator from
Nevada, Alan Bible. I find that kind of an interesting flash
that I had not thought of again. It was in this room with the
same State being represented by a distinguished Senator on this
panel. I remember how hard I prepared for that particular
appearance.
Senator Faircloth. How did you come out? [Laughter.]
Senator Bennett. We did all right. We got all the money we
wanted. Yes; we got all the money we wanted. [Laughter.]
Senator Reid. Bible was much more generous than Shelby.
[Laughter.]
Infrastructure for Olympics
Senator Bennett. Mr. Secretary, I was in Nagano, Japan,
through the closing ceremonies of the Olympics and the closing
event of the Olympics over there. I did not spend all of my
time going to Olympic events, however. I went to see the
transportation officials there to ask them questions about
their challenges relating to putting on the Winter Olympics
because we are going to be faced with similar challenges in the
United States.
Their principal problem, of course, was the weather, and
you cannot control that. But they put in an enormous amount of
money and effort in creating an infrastructure that would make
it possible for the Olympic guests to get to and from the
various venues.
I came away with a more humble opinion of just how daunting
that challenge is--I guess I should say a more exalted opinion
and a more humble attitude. That would be the proper way of
describing that.
The folks in Japan did a tremendous job and required a
tremendous amount of preparation and infrastructure.
I want publicly to commend you for the way you, personally,
and Mr. Jack Basso, your Budget Director, institutionally have
responded to the challenges that we have had in Salt Lake City
as we have started to get ready for these Olympic games.
I note that your predecessor, Secretary Pena, was quoted as
saying that he wished he could have done more to help alleviate
the transportation snafus in Atlanta, but that he was
proscribed by the legislative and regulatory situation with
which he was faced.
We have worked with you and the Mayor of Salt Lake has
worked with you to try to make sure you don't feel those kind
of proscriptions or that your successor does not if you are not
Secretary in 2002 when it comes to the Salt Lake games.
I would just ask this question. Do you now feel comfortable
that you have all of the discretion you need in order to assist
Salt Lake City in putting on those games?
Secretary Slater. Senator, I do feel comfortable and I can
say, without reservation, that you and the citizens of Utah
will have the full support of this administration as we work
with the Congress to respond to your transportation needs and
challenges.
Senator Bennett. I sincerely thank you for that and for,
again, repeating your attitude and that of the members of your
staff in helping us work that out.
As a Republican, I am hoping there will be a different
administration when the games come along, of course, but I
recognize that these are America's games and they rise above
any kind of partisanship.
We are grateful to you and your staff members for your
willingness to work with us.
Senator Reid. Senator Bennett, there will be another
administration. It will be President Gore.
Senator Shelby. Well, I think that is debatable.
Senator Bennett. Yes; that is the subject for another time.
[Laughter.]
I do have some questions for Administrator Garvey with
respect to the air traffic control pattern around Salt Lake
International Airport, and I will save those questions for when
we hear from the administration.
Thank you.
Senator Shelby. Before I recognize Senator Domenici, and I
am sure he has some statements and questions, Senator Bond
wanted me to say to you, Mr. Secretary, that he is now chairing
a VA-HUD Subcommittee on Appropriations and could not be here.
But he told me to express to you his appreciation for the call.
He is, of course, a member of this subcommittee. He cannot be
at two places at once.
Senator Domenici.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR DOMENICI
Senator Domenici. Contrary to your thoughts, I don't have a
lot to say today, but I do have something to say.
Senator Shelby. All right.
Support for ISTEA Reauthorization
Senator Domenici. First, Mr. Secretary, I believe it is
imperative as the ISTEA bill works its way through the other
body and into conference that the administration, as soon as
possible--and maybe it is already too late--come out in open
support for it. We need the open support. Clearly, we cannot be
magicians.
If we are going to spend what is prescribed in that bill,
then we don't have enough money for everything else that the
President asked for. I personally hope that, because we cannot
support a few things that he wants--and I am not now talking
about the tobacco tax, Senator Lautenberg--if we cannot support
other things, I hope he will not remain silent on the fact that
we have had to spend substantial money to build the roadways of
America which are in disrepair, and the mass transportation
system. While it was slow getting started in America, mass
transit is a very desirable commodity across this land. It is
not just parochial. It is everywhere. It is as important as
highways in many places, and in many respects it is a very big
step up ahead of highways in terms of environmental
contributions and the like.
Now this is not a little bit of money. Again, we are not
magicians. If we are going to fund this bill, then we have to
find offsets to pay for it, and those normally will be
restraints in spending someplace else. We are choosing to use
the President's offsets, things that he found were not needed,
but, obviously, he has spent them elsewhere.
That creates a very serious problem.
You worked with us during that debate and during our
negotiations. We thank you for that. I do believe there are
some in the administration--I do not say it is you, and I do
not say it is the President at this point--but there are some
who have expressed great concern about how much we are spending
on highways versus other priorities that the President had
sought in his budget.
Let me assure you that I do not believe this is a
Republican initiative. I don't think we have to run around
saying we have ISTEA in our budget, and we are proud of it. I
think we are going to say everybody wants ISTEA in our budget.
I believe Congress will be there on that issue with over 90
percent of the votes in this U.S. Senate.
If I am reading the House right, it might get everybody in
the House by the time they figure it out how to dole the
funding out. I don't know whether they know how to do that yet.
[Laughter.]
In any event, excuse me. I should be a little more
cautious. [Laughter.]
I don't know that I can say it any stronger than that. I
hope that in due course my good friend, Senator Byrd, when we
proceed through this process, will assist us in trying to get
this done in terms of White House support for it.
We don't need it, and the Senator might remind me that it
is our prerogative to spend money and authorize programs. I
understand that. However, we still do have the President around
who has a bully pulpit, and we need him supporting highway
construction in the United States.
I am not going to be able to stay for questions, so I am
going to submit them through the chairman.
User Fees
I do want to mention to the committee one very serious
thing, and that is that part of the President's ability to pay
for transportation programs comes from three user fees, one big
and two small. The aviation user fee is $6-plus billion. I
think it is interesting that at this late date, you have not
submitted the language for that proposal to any committee. It
is very important that that be done because if you write the
legislation one way, it goes to the Finance Committee. If you
write it another way, there is a chance the appropriators could
do it if they wanted to.
Frankly, we need to see how you are imposing that fee. You
have two smaller fees, and there is no doubt about those. If
the committee chooses to do them, they can do them under the
leadership of our chairman.
I would also say to all the Senators and to you, Mr.
Secretary, there is a very strong movement abreast not to let
the Appropriations Committee put on user fees, even if they had
been within the jurisdiction of those committees heretofore.
That will be something to watch.
I don't know how we will meet some of these spending
targets without some of these proposals. That will be an issue
hovering around, and you will be confronted with it, Mr.
Secretary, in terms of whether we get the right amount of money
to spend or not.
Thank you very much and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
Senator Kohl.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR KOHL
Senator Kohl. Thank you very much, Senator Shelby.
Like the other Senators, Mr. Slater, I am very pleased to
have you here along with Ms. Garvey and Admiral Kramek. We are
talking about a tremendous expenditure over the next several
years for transportation in our society. It is fully justified
and I think fully necessary.
A country is judged by the condition of its roads, its
highways, its bridges, and its air transportation, and a
country's ability to compete in this world, I think, is
directly correlated with the condition of its transportation
system. That is one of the most important things we do here, to
appropriate money to see to it that the transportation system
in our country is as modern and up to date as that in any other
country in the world.
So I recognize how important this authorization is and how
necessary it is.
My State is like most other States. The condition of our
roads, our bridges, and our transit systems is not nearly what
it should be and the requirements, the financial requirements,
over the next several years are overwhelming. That money has to
come from somewhere and a good deal of it comes from those of
us here at the Federal level.
So, again, I am pleased that we are making that initiative.
Like Senator Domenici, I am concerned that we pay for it in
a way that is responsible and in a way that is bipartisan. It
is easy to say we are going to spend an awful lot of money
before you decide where it is going to come from. But that is
the hard part, deciding where it is going to come from.
I trust that we, in our wisdom, will do it in a balanced
and in a fair way. If we can do that, then I think we will have
made some very important decisions with respect to the future
of our country here, this morning and this year.
So I am pleased to have you with us this morning.
Thank you, Senator Shelby.
Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Senator Reid.
Senator Reid. I would ask if I could submit some questions
in writing.
Senator Shelby. Without objection, we will submit your
questions for the record and also those of Senator Domenici.
Secretary Slater, your written statement will be made part
of the record in its entirety. You may proceed as you wish.
Statement of Rodney E. Slater
Secretary Slater. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
committee.
Let me thank you for the opportunity to come before you
today to testify in support of President Clinton's fiscal year
1999 transportation budget proposal. I will submit my written
statement for the record.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
Secretary Slater. Let me say at the outset that a number of
questions have been asked by you. We had the occasion to answer
some of them as they came forward and I am sure that others
will be asked as you have the opportunity to individually ask
questions. But for those that were asked, such as the request
for information related to triple trailers, clearly understand
that we will be responsive to those kinds of requests.
Let me also say that I really thank the members for the
education in transportation that this audience has been
afforded as all of you have made your statements, dealing with
its importance to the economy, focusing on the importance of it
as it relates to safety, even dealing with the importance of it
as it relates to national security and the positive impact that
it can have on our environment.
I would like to address some of those issues as well, as I
come before you and talk about the President's $43.3 billion
transportation budget for fiscal year 1999.
This is a part of the first balanced budget to be submitted
by a President in more than 30 years, and yet it still provides
for a record level of investment in transportation.
It continues the President's commitment to creating--as
many of you have called for--a balanced, integrated
transportation system that is clearly international in its
reach, intermodal in its form, intelligent in its character,
and inclusive in its service.
In this regard, I am very pleased today to have the
Commandant of the Coast Guard, Admiral Kramek, who will talk
about the work we do in managing our waterways; and also
Administrator Garvey, who will talk about the importance of
aviation when it comes to working with maritime and giving our
transportation system an international reach.
Transportation Investment
When I took office a year ago, I reflected on what the
transportation needs were today and what they are in the
context of the 21st century and the new millennium. Clearly,
safety was recognized as our top priority, but also there was
the issue of wise investment.
Mr. Chairman, you reminded us that last year we talked
about cost effectiveness as it relates to infrastructure
investment.
We also have the question of integrating our transportation
systems so that they become one national, balanced, integrated
transportation system. And there is the need to bring a
commonsense approach to the way we work together and the way we
work with our partners in the private sector and the American
people.
We are working with the Congress to enact legislation that,
I believe, adopts and responds to the principles that I have
just referred to in an innovative and commonsense way. For
example, the Congress recently passed Amtrak reform legislation
that will allow Amtrak management, working with labor, to plan
for the long-term future of this most important part of our
transportation system.
As we look at ISTEA reauthorization we are concerned about
the issue of record-level investment, and we all want that. But
if we look carefully at this piece of legislation, as all of
you have noted in your comments, we see that we have the chance
not only to strengthen the highway program and the transit
program to deal with potholes and the like, but we also have
the opportunity to enhance the environment, to give access to
jobs for those moving from welfare to work, and to harness
technology so as to enhance the quality of our transportation
system.
I commend the Senate for taking a major step forward just
last week in passing ISTEA legislation that addresses all of
these concerns that are priorities of this administration. I
also note the fact that on that day, March 12, a year to the
day after the President unveiled our National Economic
Crossroads Transportation Efficiency Act [NEXTEA] proposal,
many of the principles that were talked about a year ago were
reflected in this Senate legislation. So, clearly, you have the
strong support of this administration to work with you to
figure out how we make the necessary tradeoffs--to provide for
record level investment in a bill that is also visionary in its
focus.
DOT Strategic Plan
Quickly, let me just talk about our strategic plan. I know
that you have interests in that. This is a plan that will help
us to put in place the kind of vision for a transportation
future that all of you have mentioned, one that will allow us
to enhance safety, to improve mobility, to promote economic
growth and trade, to protect the environment, and to support
national security.
If you look at our bill, we provide $3.1 billion for safety
programs, an 11-percent increase and a record 7.3 percent of
our total budget. We will do much on the aviation front and we
will do much across the board for transportation.
Record level investment for infrastructure investment is at
$30 billion, 42 percent higher than that of the previous
administration. There is $1.1 billion for technology, $250
million for ITS investment, $90 million for Flight 2000
investment, and on and on.
Let me close by saying that we also believe that, as
transportation officials, we can enhance the environment. So we
provide $1.9 billion in that regard, with $1.3 billion going
for the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement
[CMAQ] Program. Also, I would be remiss if I did not mention
the quality effort of the Coast Guard and all of the others who
work with our transportation programs as we deal with the issue
of national security.
But the Coast Guard, because of its drug interdiction
efforts--so vital to America's future and its security--is to
be commended. That is why we have in our budget an increase to
an amount of $437 million for their efforts.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I look
forward to the questions that you have already thought of and
will offer forthwith. But, more importantly, I look forward to
working with you and ensuring that our Nation has the best
transportation system in the world and a transportation system
that can meet the challenges of a new century and a new
millennium.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to come before
you, and members of the committee, thank you as well.
Prepared Statement
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Secretary Slater. We will insert
your prepared statement in the hearing 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 1999 budget
proposals for the Department of Transportation.
overview
President Clinton's historic budget for fiscal year 1999, the first
balanced budget in 30 years, ends the deficit three years ahead of
schedule while continuing to invest in America and preparing us for the
21st century.
As the President said in his State of the Union Address:
``Americans have pursued a new strategy for prosperity: fiscal
discipline to cut interest rates and spur growth . . . investments in
education and skills, in science, technology and transportation, to
prepare our people for the new economy.''
A budget of $43.3 billion is proposed for critical Department of
Transportation (DOT) programs. This budget level is evidence of the
Administration's continuing commitment to building an integrated
transportation system that is intermodal in form, international in
reach, intelligent in character and inclusive in service. The fiscal
year 1999 budget request provides the resources to ensure a safe,
efficient, accessible and convenient transportation system that meets
our vital national interests and enhances the quality of life of the
American people.
When I took office one year ago, I reflected on what we need to
address transportation programs now and into the 21st century. In
looking to the future, we can learn from the past. Today our
transportation system is the best in the world. Why? Because of:
technological innovation; infrastructure innovation; and institutional
innovation.
In the intervening period, we have developed a Strategic Plan that
has been called the best in government.
strategic goals
Philip Guedalla said in his book ``The Hundred Years'' that ``the
true history of the United States is the history of transportation.''
Helping us to give form to our vision for a transportation system that
will address the needs of the coming century are the Department's
strategic goals to meet America's transportation needs by: enhancing
safety; improving mobility; promoting economic growth and trade;
protecting our environment; and supporting national security.
Our vision of transportation for the new millennium is of an
integrated transportation system that serves the United States by being
fast, safe, efficient, accessible and convenient. It is a
transportation system that is not just about concrete, asphalt and
steel--but rather is about providing opportunity for all Americans.
This vision for America's transportation system is supported by the
goals and programs funded in the fiscal year 1999 budget.
measuring performance
It is important not only to make transportation investments but
also to determine their effectiveness. Fiscal year 1999 is the first
year that we will formally submit performance measures. We have in fact
developed aggressive measures, and I look forward to working with you,
Mr. Chairman, and this committee, to examine the performance of our
investments and thus ensure the best possible management of our
resources.
safety
After taking office a little more than a year ago, I stated that
safety must be the Department's number one priority. To give life to
that concept, the Department's programs promote public health and
safety by working toward elimination of transportation-related deaths,
injuries and property damage.
The fiscal year 1999 budget proposes a total of $3.1 billion in new
appropriations for safety programs. This is an 11 percent increase over
the fiscal year 1998 level and a record 7.3 percent of total DOT
resources.
Highway crashes in particular are a significant burden to our
society, not to mention the impact on families and communities. In the
21st century, we at DOT would like the news of someone being killed in
a car crash to become a thing of the past. We have much work to do to
make this happen.
Our goal for fiscal year 1999 is to reduce the number of
transportation-related deaths to fewer than those that occurred in
1995, which was at a level of 44,407, despite a projected increase in
miles traveled. It will not be easy to achieve these goals, but it is
essential that we commit ourselves to do so.
The fiscal year 1999 budget includes a 22 percent increase in
funding for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
to $406 million, to advance highway safety. These resources will help
encourage states to pass strong anti-drunk driving legislation and to
strengthen occupant protection laws. They will also help states fight
their highway problems directly through increased enforcement and
education programs designed to meet local conditions. Funding will
support the President's Initiative to Increase Seat-Belt Use
Nationwide; increased research to improve our safety techniques; and
expansion of the Safe Communities program, a community-based approach
to improving highway safety. Such community-based programs have already
shown results. For example, in Massachusetts, a community- based
program has reduced fatal crashes by 18 percent, and alcohol-related
crashes by 42 percent.
The Motor Carrier Safety Program is proposed to increase by 18
percent to $100 million, including funding for initiatives to improve
safety by targeting unsafe carriers while reducing regulatory burdens
on the safe ones. These programs work, and in fact we have seen a
reduction in fatalities from large truck crashes from 1986 to 1996.
Aviation safety funding is proposed to increase by 18 percent to
$975 million to fund additional safety personnel and continue ongoing
emphasis on assuring the safety of new entrant airlines. We plan to add
45 new safety inspectors and certification personnel.
Railroad safety funding is proposed to increase by over eight
percent to $62 million to fund 32 new safety personnel and to
strengthen the Federal Railroad Administration's new results-oriented
approach to safety. In fiscal year 1999, we aim to reduce (from 1995
baselines): the fatality rate from 1.71 to 1.57 or less per million
train-miles, the number of rail-related crashes from 3.91 to 3.44 or
less per million train-miles, the rate of crashes at highway-rail
crossings from 2.85 to 2.40 or less per million train-miles, and the
rate of rail-related trespasser fatalities from 2.81 to 2.58 or less
per million train-miles.
The Coast Guard's maritime safety funding is proposed to increase
by nine percent to $808 million, to fund critical search and rescue,
boating safety and marine safety programs. With these programs, we aim
to reduce the number of recreational boating fatalities by ten percent
from 1993 levels, and reduce the worker fatality rate on board
commercial vessels from 52 per 100,000 workers in 1993 to 42 or fewer
per 100,000 in 1999. This is only the beginning and we will continue to
strive for even better results in the future.
Overall, much of the increase proposed in the fiscal year 1999
budget over the fiscal year 1998 appropriated levels is for safety
programs. We propose this because it is our top priority and it is
necessary to enhance the safety record even further in the coming
years. Last year, this Subcommittee supported the increases in safety
funding that we proposed for NHTSA and other programs. I appreciate
that support and hope that we can work together to provide the
additional safety funding increases proposed in this budget.
I would now like to discuss the Department's cooperative working
relationship with the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB).
Under this Administration, the Department's record of responsiveness to
NTSB recommendations has substantially improved. We are proud of having
achieved an 82 percent acceptance rate of recommendations since 1993,
compared to a 70 percent rate from 1967 to 1992. Since 1993, we have
closed nearly 800 recommendations issued prior to that time, in
addition to the 495 we have closed that were issued since 1993.
The Department takes seriously the safety issues presented on the
NTSB's ``Most Wanted'' list. Over 75 percent of the 45 recommendations
on the list issued to the Department are in the ``open acceptable''
category, meaning that the NTSB concurs with actions the Department is
taking to address the recommendations. We believe our record and
performance will continue to be high and we look forward to working
closely with the NTSB to address current and future recommendations.
mobility
Mobility means helping Americans get to where they need to go
through an integrated transportation system.
Infrastructure Investment
President Clinton's commitment to ``rebuild America,'' signaled his
understanding that improvements needed to be made to the nation's
transportation system. Working with both House and Senate
Appropriations Subcommittees, we have increased transportation
infrastructure investment to record levels--for the first five years of
this Administration, 25 percent above the 1990-1993 average levels. Our
fiscal year 1999 proposed level is a record 42 percent above the 1990-
1993 average levels.
We are now beginning to see the results of these actions.
Conditions of the National Highway System have improved by reducing the
percentage of miles classified in ``fair'' condition or worse. Transit
capacity has increased by 3.5 percent in just two years. Improvements
have been made in nationally important roads and bridges and work has
been undertaken on a number of airport capacity expansion projects.
Our goals for fiscal year 1999 are to continue these improvements.
We plan to: increase the percentage of miles on the NHS that meet
pavement performance standards for acceptable ride quality; increase
capacity and reduce delays in the national airspace system; and
increase the number of intercity and commuter trains scheduled along
the most congested segments of the Washington/Boston Corridor by 2005.
The Federal Government cannot fund every project that is
envisioned. However, we can continue to leverage the transportation
dollar so it goes the furthest it can and meets the needs of all of the
American people.
The record $30 billion in Federal infrastructure investment that we
propose for fiscal year 1999 does just that. The Federal-aid highway
obligation limitation is proposed at $21.5 billion, equal to last
year's record level. Included in this amount is a new $90 million
program to improve the flow of goods and people across the borders. In
addition, $100 million is proposed for a new infrastructure credit
program and $150 million for State Infrastructure Banks. These two
programs will help leverage other investments and bring projects to
completion sooner.
A total of $4.6 billion is proposed for transit capital funding.
This includes $3.6 billion for Formula Programs, $100 million for
Access to Jobs and Training and $876 million for Major Capital
Investments. In that regard, transit capital investment is estimated to
have averted $15 billion a year in congestion costs. Turning to
people's needs, our Access to Jobs proposal supports the kind of
programs which enabled Elaine Kinslow, whom President Clinton
introduced during his State of the Union Address, to move from welfare
to work. Again, by funding these programs we need to recognize that
transportation is to serve the people. And what better way than to
provide the opportunity for meaningful work and the means to get to and
from that workplace.
As part of NEXTEA, President Clinton proposed a record $175 billion
over six years for surface transportation. Since then, the President's
1993 deficit reduction plan and the strong economy have combined to cut
the deficit faster than expected. Because of this progress, the
President is willing to consider additional transportation funding
within the context of the Balanced Budget Agreement.
Surface transportation is but one part of our intermodal
transportation system. The budget will provide the means for our
aviation system to handle the growing number of flights. We propose to
fund the airport grants program at last year's appropriated level of
$1.7 billion. Some examples of the type of projects that may be
financed are: new runways that increase capacity and allow airports to
handle more traffic; new taxiways and operating areas to reduce ground
delays; and various safety and security improvements.
Passenger rail is another critical component of our nation's
inclusive transportation system. The fiscal year 1999 budget includes
historic funding levels for Amtrak--$621 million in capital in addition
to the $2.2 billion available in fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999
from the Taxpayer Relief Act. This funding will give Amtrak the ability
to upgrade its system, and to replace aging rail cars in preparation
for the demands of the 21st century.
Critical Operations
Improvement in transportation operations for which the Department
is responsible, most notably Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and
Coast Guard, will also contribute to our mobility goals.
Funding for FAA operations is proposed to increase by 5.5 percent
to $5.6 billion. This will fund 185 additional air traffic controllers
and 150 additional maintenance technicians. Additional funding is also
proposed to make operational the air traffic control and aeronautical
navigation equipment now being delivered as part of the air traffic
control system modernization. This new equipment will further reduce
the number of outages, reduce delays, and allow optimum use of capacity
to accommodate growth in operations. To keep that modernization on
track, $2.1 billion, 14 percent above last year, is proposed for FAA's
facilities and equipment budget.
We also are making every effort possible to ensure that critical
air traffic control and other systems are compliant with proper fixes
to the year 2000 date problem. FAA has completed assessment of all
mission critical systems and 125 out of 209 such systems are already
certified as year 2000 compliant. FAA plans to have all renovation of
software and hardware that is needed for these remaining systems in
place by September of 1998, and all testing and validation completed by
January of 1999.
Coast Guard's operating expenses budget is proposed to be funded at
$2.8 billion, about two percent above last year's level. Its capital
budget is proposed at $443 million, 11 percent above last year's level.
It includes $28 million for a deepwater replacement capability
analysis, so that we will be in a position to field the lowest cost,
best systems to meet our deepwater fleet needs. To offset some of Coast
Guard's capital investment, we are proposing fees to recover a portion
of the Coast Guard's costs for its navigational services to commercial
users.
economic growth and trade
America's economy is in the best shape in a generation, with steady
growth, high employment, low inflation, and low interest rates. Part of
this success is due to investments which make transportation efficient
and flexible, keeping costs low. Economic growth and trade represents
an ultimate outcome for virtually all of our transportation programs.
In addition to infrastructure investment and innovative financing,
we also are looking to new technologies to help keep America
competitive. We're proposing a total of $1.1 billion for research and
development.
--This includes $250 million for intelligent transportation systems,
which can cut by a third the cost of the new highway capacity
we need.
--Also included is $90 million for Flight 2000, a demonstration of
technologies and operational procedures which will exploit new
capabilities such as GPS and aeronautical data link and will
lead to earlier introduction of free flight in the national
airspace system.
--The Nationwide Differential Global Positioning System, proposed to
be funded at $8.5 million in fiscal year 1999, will provide
positioning, navigation, and timing accuracy for the nation's
surface transportation network. This system will help provide
for the safe and efficient movement of trains and other modes
of transportation throughout the nation.
To further support economic growth, we at the Department must
ensure that we are good stewards of tax dollars and that the management
of our programs is the best that it can possibly be. To that end, the
Department, and specifically the Federal Highway Administration, have
taken very seriously an effort to consolidate field offices. We have
made some progress, but much more is proposed for this year and beyond.
--We are implementing field office co-location via sensible space
sharing to improve customer service, reduce costs and increase
efficiency. To date, NHTSA and FHWA have co-located in
Baltimore and work is underway to co-locate all DOT offices in
Kansas City. In addition, workgroups in Fort Worth and Denver
are developing plans on how to best serve the public through
co-location.
--In order to provide one-stop shopping closer to major customers,
FHWA and FTA are setting up jointly-staffed metropolitan
offices in Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Chicago and New York
City.
--FHWA, based on a task force review during 1997, plans to reduce the
number of its regional level offices. By the spring of 1998,
FHWA will complete a detailed implementation plan for this
reduction, including estimated costs and budget allocations. A
report to you on the review and the plans was delivered
recently.
Our ultimate goal of economic growth can be hindered, however, when
programs are held up and projects are delayed due to lack of
authorization. Our Federal aviation and surface transportation programs
need to be reauthorized this year.
We are currently developing our proposal for aviation
reauthorization, keeping in mind the recommendations made by the
National Civil Aviation Review Commission. Our proposed surface
transportation reauthorization, the National Economic Crossroads
Transportation Efficiency Act, is pending before Congress and the
Senate has just passed the ISTEA II bill. I applaud the Senate for
helping advance this important legislation.
As we work with Congress toward consensus on these two major bills,
the President's proposal to establish a Transportation Fund for America
will help us overcome some of the obstacles that have cropped up in
past efforts. This fund highlights the importance of transportation and
will assure users that, should Congress reduce mandatory spending or
provide newly enacted revenues, these funds can be targeted for
transportation spending.
human and natural environment
The fiscal year 1999 budget includes several programs and
initiatives aimed at reducing air and water pollution, preserving
wetlands and open space, and making transportation facilities more
compatible with the environment. No matter how much is done to improve
the capacity and efficiency of our transportation system, we can not
call our approach ``intelligent'' unless we tend to its effects on our
environment, and ultimately our health.
The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ)
program, our largest environmental program, is pending reauthorization
with ISTEA. It helps communities meet national standards for healthy
air by funding innovative projects that promote transit ridership,
clean fuel use, and emissions-reducing inspection and maintenance
programs. A record level of $1.26 billion is proposed for CMAQ in
fiscal year 1999.
Both Coast Guard and FAA play vital roles in protecting the quality
of the environment. For fiscal year 1999, the Department requests $309
million for the Coast Guard to prevent pollution, conduct pollution
investigations, and supervise federally-funded cleanups. We also
request a total of $39 million to ensure that all DOT facilities are
environmentally safe.
Prolonged exposure to high-levels of noise is a critical
environmental concern. To continue addressing this problem, the fiscal
year 1999 budget includes funds in FAA's Airport Grant program to help
families and businesses relocate away from airports where noise exceeds
healthy levels, and to pay for sound insulation in existing property.
To help improve transportation's energy efficiency, $10 million is
proposed to promote the development and demonstration of Advanced
Vehicles, Components and Infrastructure in cooperation with the
Department of Energy. This research effort will be geared to
demonstrate technologies for reducing emissions, enhancing energy
efficiency and reducing dependence on foreign oil.
The Department's environmental goals for fiscal year 1999 include
reducing transportation-related emissions by one percent annually over
ten years, and reducing the number of residents exposed to significant
aircraft noise (65 decibels or greater) by 60 percent from 1995 levels.
national security
DOT plays a critical role in ensuring that the transportation
system is secure, that borders are safe from illegal intrusion, and
that the transportation system can meet national defense needs in time
of emergency.
--To remain vigilant in our efforts to prevent terrorism, the fiscal
year 1999 budget includes $100 million for the FAA to continue
to purchase explosives detection equipment to be deployed at
our nation's airports.
--Even though not in this Subcommittee's jurisdiction, I would like
to mention the $98 million included in DOT's budget for the
Maritime Security Program. The 47 vessels supported by this
program are committed to carry military cargo during war or
national emergencies.
--Last year, the Coast Guard intercepted and confiscated a record
103,617 pounds of cocaine and 102,538 pounds of marijuana. The
fiscal year 1999 budget includes $437 million for the Coast
Guard's drug interdiction program.
Our goals in the national security area for fiscal year 1999 are to
increase the detection rate for simulated explosive devices and to
reduce the flow of illegal drugs and migrants via maritime channels.
conclusion
We in the Department of Transportation must set high goals and with
our partners we must be architects of change. 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, and environmentally sound transportation system
for our children.
The budget that we have proposed for fiscal year 1999 takes a major
step in that direction. I look forward to working with this
Subcommittee and the entire Senate and House to pass a forward-looking
transportation appropriations bill and to ensure that critical programs
are provided long-term reauthorization.
Expiration of STEA Authorization
Senator Shelby. Last year a short-term funding bill, with
which we are very familiar, the Surface Transportation
Extension Act [STEA] of 1997, was enacted to fill the gap left
by ISTEA's expiration on September 30. To get the money flowing
to highway projects again, the extension legislation provided
$5.5 billion in new funding authority for the major Federal-aid
programs and gave States the flexibility to transfer, among
other programs, unobligated balances left over from the first 6
years of ISTEA, which was about $10 billion nationally.
Secretary Slater. Yes, sir.
Senator Shelby. However, an obligation ceiling of
approximately $9.8 billion was also in force. Most
significantly, the States are not allowed to obligate any
Federal-aid highway funds after May 1 of this year unless a new
multiyear authorization bill was passed, which has been
referred to.
If reauthorization is not completed by May 1, will the
States be able to continue their highway programs?
Secretary Slater. Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, they will
not. This bill is important.
Senator Shelby. It's imperative, isn't it?
Secretary Slater. It is imperative in terms of the long-
term security of our transportation system, and also in giving
those transportation officials at the State and local levels
the assurance of knowing that there will be a smooth flow of
needed infrastructure investment.
I do commend the Congress for providing the extension. But,
clearly, the Congress recognized the importance of
reauthorization legislation by providing some limits to our
ability to allocate and make resources available after a given
date--May 1.
Again, I commend the Senate for stepping up to the plate
and moving their legislation expeditiously. Also, the House has
expressed its commitment to do so as well.
So I believe that the Congress is ready to act. Clearly,
the administration is ready to work in partnership with you to
act.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
Secretary Slater. Thank you, sir.
Enforcement of NHTSA Subpoenas
Senator Shelby. Mr. Secretary, more people are killed on
our Nation's highways each year than are killed in other modes
of transportation combined. We have talked about this.
Secretary Slater. That's correct. Senator Byrd mentioned
it.
Senator Shelby. The National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration is charged with promoting highway safety in our
country. One of the primary responsibilities is to investigate
product defects within the auto industry to help ensure that
the cars we all drive are safe. My question is this, Mr.
Secretary.
When this agency conducts an investigation of a particular
automobile and issues a subpoena to an automaker to provide
information on that particular vehicle, and the automaker does
not fully comply with the subpoena--either by providing false
information or by simply withholding pertinent information--can
the agency impose a fine or penalty of any sort on the company
for failure to comply with the subpoena, or should it?
Secretary Slater. Mr. Chairman, the agency can levy a fine
for failure to comply with a subpoena. We can also carry the
matter to court, and we have actually done both.
Senator Shelby. OK.
Emergency Relief Highway Program
Over the past 7 years, the Emergency Relief Highway Program
has been funded at an average of $582 million per year, $100
million of that coming from the annual ISTEA contract authority
and the rest usually coming from a supplemental appropriation.
Secretary Slater. That's correct.
Senator Shelby. In your budget, you have only requested
$100 million for fiscal year 1999. It is almost guaranteed that
this will not be enough money and that the Department will be
sending another supplemental request for emergency highway
repairs to the Congress later this year.
Would it make more sense for you to request a realistic
number for the Emergency Relief Program instead of relying on
supplemental appropriations for the program each year?
Secretary Slater. Well, let me just say, Mr. Chairman, it
is true that we have a record upon which to reflect. And if you
were to look at what has happened, say, annually----
Senator Shelby. They are not the only one who does that,
now, to be fair.
Secretary Slater. That's right. I understand. But if you
look at what has happened annually over the last 5 years, you
can see that the needs almost always have outstripped the $100
million that we have requested.
But I will say that in all of those instances, we have been
able to come to the Congress when we have clear indication of
what is needed in the form of a supplemental appropriation and
to get those resources. In that regard, I would want to commend
this committee and also the Congress for the effort that is
currently underway to respond to the President's request for a
$259 million supplemental to deal with this very issue.
There are many categories where we probably would like to
make a request for additional resources. But what we have tried
to do is to offer a budget that is balanced, that reflects some
appreciation for the history that we have--where we have
provided funding for these purposes--with the knowledge that we
can and have come to the Congress for supplementals once the
need has become clearer.
That is the way we chose to approach this matter on this
occasion as well.
User Fees
Senator Shelby. Mr. Secretary, the administration's budget
request, as I mentioned in my opening statement, envisions over
$200 million from user fee proposals that have either not been
enacted by Congress or have had troubled implementation
periods.
I just want to set the record straight and say that this
Senator is not interested in enacting any new user fees--
taxes--on the transportation community. I expect that no action
will be taken this year on any of the user fee/tax proposals in
the administration's budget. Accordingly, there will be
substantial holes in the FAA budget, the Coast Guard budget,
the Federal Railroad Administration budget, and the Surface
Transportation Board's budget. And, to complicate matters, the
Senate just passed an ISTEA reauthorization bill that envisions
a substantially higher highway obligation limitation than the
record level we appropriated for 1998, which will constrain our
ability to find the resources to fill the user fee/tax budget
holes.
So we foresee the very real possibility of transportation
budget shortfalls given the dual constraints of higher ISTEA
driven expectations for highway spending and user fee/tax holes
that are built into your budget request.
Mr. Secretary, for the record, do you anticipate submitting
any budget amendments that might address these shortfalls, and
what potential cuts in the modal administrations can we take to
offset the user fee holes? Have you thought that out?
Secretary Slater. Clearly we have thought about it. It is
our hope that, while some Members of the Congress have
expressed their lack of support for user fees, as you have, Mr.
Chairman, we will still have a good shot at making our case.
The Congress has responded to some requests. The one example
is, clearly, the FAA overflight fee issue.
Now I say that, also willing to acknowledge that the U.S.
District Court here in the District did recently find that to
some degree we went a little far in implementing those fees.
But they did not determine that overflight fees--user fees--are
unconstitutional.
So there may be some way for us to address that issue over
time.
But the big areas where we have requested user fees are
clearly FAA and rail safety, and we just ask that we have the
opportunity to work with you and members of the committee and
Members of Congress as we work to address the question.
We, too, were dealing with constraints, the desire to have
a strong transportation bill but also to do it within the
context of being able to submit the first balanced budget in
over 30 years.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, so far so good, I think. I want to ask a
couple of questions, some that may have a different slant than
those of my friend and colleague, the chairman of the
subcommittee, which is exactly where we would like to place
you, right in the middle. You don't have to pick sides, but you
have to come up with the right answer to satisfy both of us. It
is not easy.
Secretary Slater. It's not easy, sir, but we'll try.
Senator Shelby. If you do that, you are going to be a great
Secretary. [Laughter.]
Senator Lautenberg. Last August, the Federal Highway
Administration released its 1997 Federal Highway Cost
Allocation Study. It showed that the heaviest vehicles pay
considerably less in taxes than the costs they impose on our
Nation's highway system.
Now, clearly, the user fees these heavier trucks pay are
not set high enough to compensate for the increased wear and
tear that they cause to our roads and bridges.
Are you reevaluating the current user fee system--and
again, this is the first time you have to jump in the hole--to
remedy this deficiency in the amount of user fees paid by the
heavier trucks?
Secretary Slater. Let me just say, Senator, that we are
looking at user fees across a broad spectrum of the
transportation industry. The ones that we have made a decision
on are reflected in our budget.
We continue to look at the question as it relates to other
components of the industry, but no decision has been made at
this time in those additional areas. The places where we have
made a decision are reflected in our budget.
Senator Lautenberg. Yes; because the cost allocation study,
for instance, suggests eliminating the $550 cap on heavy
vehicle use tax that applies to all vehicles registered that
are above 75,000 pounds. Is that a change that you could
support?
Secretary Slater. Well, it is clearly a change that is
worthy of consideration. But, again, I think the best approach
is to keep an open mind on these kinds of issues and to look at
all ways for addressing these kinds of concerns. That is the
approach that we are taking as a Department.
Increased Speed Limits
Senator Lautenberg. The Department of Transportation report
on the impact of increased speed limits on the Interstate
System discloses that fatalities and injuries increased
nationally on interstate roads in 1996 while decreasing on all
other roads, even though the interstate roads are considered
the safest.
This report also shows that the States that increased speed
limits in 1996 experienced about 350 more interstate fatalities
than otherwise would have been expected with the previous
speeds.
How many lives more do we have to lose before action is
warranted?
Secretary Slater. Well, Senator, as you know, the
administration worked with you and others to retain a national
speed limit. We were unsuccessful in that effort in 1995 and,
as a part of the National Highway System [NHS] bill, the
national speed limit was removed.
We have been involved in a study and we have completed 1
year of that effort. As you have noted, these changes have been
discovered.
I will say, though, that this is but 1 year, and what we
want to do is to continue to assess this situation as we go
forward. But that said, I want to make the clear point that
this administration joins all of you who understand that safety
has to be our top priority in pressing forward and aggressively
on a number of fronts.
I mentioned the President's national initiative to increase
seatbelt use from 68 percent to 85 percent by the year 2000,
and to 90 percent by the year 2005.
We have already seen an increase in the seatbelt use rate
to now approximately 70 percent, a historic level.
We have also worked with you and others to deal with the
issue of drunk driving, and we do have the success in the
Senate of the 0.08 initiative and will work hard in the House.
We have requested a 22-percent increase in NHTSA's budget,
an 18-percent increase in the aviation budget, and an increase
in the safety component of every modal budget of the Department
of Transportation.
I say that to just make the point that, while we have seen
the issue of speeding increase the incidence of crashes and
fatalities, we are working on a broad front to be aggressive
when it comes to the issue of safety and its promotion, and
working with our partners to ensure stronger laws and greater
implementation.
Highways and Transit Balance
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Secretary, with the passage of the
ISTEA reauthorization bill recently in the Senate, it kind of
follows in the tradition of the first ISTEA bill. They
recognize the importance of mass transit as a critical link in
our surface transportation network and establish a balanced
approach to funding highways and transit, an approach that on
many occasions you, Mr. Secretary, on behalf of the President,
have applauded and highly recommended. You have heard people
here talk on behalf of expanded transit funding.
But on March 3, 1998, in a letter to Congress you talk
about the emphasis on investment in transit and highways in
order to rebuild America. You say transit should receive an
equitable share of all the increases within the aggregate
budgetary framework.
Secretary Slater. Yes, sir.
Senator Lautenberg. Do you agree that any increases in
funding for highways and transit should maintain the historic
80/20 balanced approach and provide funding for transit as well
as highways in both budget authority and outlays?
Secretary Slater. I do, without reservation.
Senator Lautenberg. What can we do in the future to ensure
such an intermodal and balanced approach to surface
transportation? And that answer has to be short, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Slater. I think you can continue to do as the
Senate has done. A couple of weeks ago, it dealt with the
highway issue and made a lot of people happy by raising that
amount by $26 billion. But then, in response to concerns raised
by you and by the administration and others, it responded by
raising the transit investment by $5 billion. I think that that
sort of balanced approach----
Senator Lautenberg. Would that get us to 80/20?
Secretary Slater. It's about 80/20 when you look at those
numbers added to what was currently being provided because we
have actually seen a significant increase in transit funding
over the last 5 years.
Senator Lautenberg. I may have some questions about that
ratio, Mr. Secretary.
May I have just another minute of time, with the chairman's
permission?
Senator Shelby. Go ahead.
Public Information on Highway Safety
Senator Lautenberg. I would ask that whatever you find in
that study on highway speeds and fatalities, please get that
information out fully across the country. People have to
realize that it is nice to be able to get there sooner and
quicker and it is boring to sit at 55 miles an hour on an open
highway. But the carnage that results is something that we have
to understand. There is a price to pay for it.
I want the American public to make their decision based on
the price that their neighbor, their own families, or that
others in their community may pay.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Slater. Senator Lautenberg, we will disseminate
that information.
Senator Shelby. Senator Faircloth.
Senator Faircloth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Slater. Thank you, Senator.
Landing Slots at Gatwick Airport
Senator Faircloth. This is a longer question and I am going
to try to cut it down because you are familiar with it. It
involves the Charlotte to Gatwick airports route.
Secretary Slater. Yes, sir; that is a very important issue.
Senator Faircloth. Your Department granted authority for
U.S. Air to fly the route from Charlotte to Gatwick and they
have simply refused to grant a landing slot to U.S. Air. I
mean, they could fly over there very nicely, but they can't
land.
Secretary Slater. Which is a problem and we have to address
it.
Senator Faircloth. Yes.
Now the British Airways are trying to get, and have an
application for, Denver service.
Secretary Slater. That's correct.
Senator Faircloth. Are you going to block the Denver
service until they grant landing rights for us at Gatwick?
Secretary Slater. Let me just say, Senator, that we have
made it clear to our counterpart in the United Kingdom and with
the slot coordinator at Gatwick that we intend to see the
agreement that we have reached pertaining to U.S. Airways
honored and that we clearly are reflective on those kinds of
issues as we are asked to make decisions related to the use of
our airports.
Senator Faircloth. That is an absolutely elegant statement.
But are you going to tell them ``no Denver till Gatwick''?
Secretary Slater. We are going to tell them that we intend
to have Gatwick and that we are going to make a strong case for
the benefit of our airline.
Senator Faircloth. That is good enough. Thank you.
Secretary Slater. Yes, sir.
Inspection Stickers for Trucks
Senator Faircloth. Chairman Shelby and I talked to you,
rather wrote you a letter, about a very dangerous and fatal
truck crash in western North Carolina. The truck was way, way
beyond any inspection and had problems with brakes as well as
many, many other problems.
I think every State in the Nation requires an inspection
sticker on an automobile, and for most States it is clearly on
the windshield, where you can see it--the date the vehicle was
inspected, all of that.
Why don't we have that with the trucking industry? And I
say that I am part of the trucking industry. We are still
running 30 or 40 trucks and we have them inspected. But why not
have it clearly visible so that any time an officer stops a
truck, he can just glance at it and tell whether there is an
inspection sticker on it every time the truck crosses a way
station?
Secretary Slater. Senator, let me just say that I have
gotten the letter and, clearly, you have raised a very
important issue here.
We should look into the issue of whether there should be a
decal or something that is visible that indicates that a truck
has been inspected, and we will do that.
The other thing that we have done that I think speaks to
the issue is that we have requested an additional $15 million,
which brings our total to $100 million, the amount of money
that we will provide in grants to State governments for motor
carrier enforcement and the hiring of personnel for their
inspection programs.
Also, as a result of our streamlining effort, we have
designed a program that will allow us to focus on troubled
carriers or carriers that have a history of violating our
regulations. We plan to implement that program as a result of
this new initiative as well.
I do believe that those decisions and approaches speak to
the concern that both you and Chairman Shelby have raised.
Senator Faircloth. It just seems to me to be such a simple
solution to a major problem. Again, I make clear that the
trucking industry is a great one and their motto, ``If you got
it, a truck brought it,'' is the truth.
Secretary Slater. Yes, sir.
Senator Faircloth. I have been a part of that industry and
strongly supportive of it in every way. But the very idea of
allowing trucks to whip back and forth, some scab operator with
no inspection, no brakes, and you would have to have a search
warrant and a week to find out whether it had been inspected or
not is--I mean, if he stopped at a way station, how long would
it take them to find out if it had ever been inspected? They
couldn't do it.
I think this is a very simple answer to a problem that
needs addressing.
Secretary Slater. It is. Let me just say that the Senate
has responded to our request for stronger laws in that regard,
for a stronger program, and the ability to levy stronger
penalties. We appreciate that. It is a part of our ISTEA
reauthorization proposal.
Senator Faircloth. All right.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Senator Shelby. Senator Bennett.
Year 2000 Problems
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As my colleagues are discovering about me, I am becoming
absolutely obsessed with a particular topic. It is not going to
go away. It is going to get worse--that is, my obsession, at
least.
The topic is the year 2000 problems. As chairman of the
Subcommittee on Technology and Financial Services in the
Banking Committee, I have pushed this to the limit that I can
in terms of our problems facing banking. I will have some
rather pointed questions for Administrator Garvey with respect
to the FAA. But I would like to raise with you, Mr. Secretary,
your responsibility for the entire Department.
Secretary Slater. Yes, sir.
Senator Bennett. The FAA obviously has the highest
visibility here. There are airlines which have already
announced they will not have airplanes in the air on New Year's
Eve 1999. I tell people the three places you do not want to be
on New Year's Eve are on an airplane, in an elevator, or in a
hospital as those are the areas where the processors are most
likely to cause you serious problems.
But I have visited with the President's czar on Y2K
problems, Mr. Koskinen--newly appointed as assistant to the
President--and assured him of my absolute support in everything
he is doing, and I was heartened by having him tell me that
they are not going to try to solve all the problems. Instead,
they are putting the responsibility for solving the problems on
the heads of each Cabinet officer and each administrative
agency head.
The possibility of the Coast Guard not functioning properly
because of computer breakdowns connected with Y2K, the
possibility of your communications system worldwide not
functioning, aside from the FAA, the possibility of the
computers you have built into highways not functioning, the
chaos that can come if our transportation system shuts down can
be extremely severe and must be, I think, your highest
priority.
So this is just a reminder of what you are going to hear
and are hearing, I am sure, from the President. I understand
from Mr. Koskinen that the President himself raised this issue
at a Cabinet meeting.
Secretary Slater. Yes, he did.
Senator Bennett. I have talked to the leader about it here
in the Senate, about the necessity of our beefing up our
oversight activity on behalf of the Senate. Something may be
moving forward on that fairly shortly.
I cannot think of anything more devastating than to have us
get to a year from now or a year and a half from now, in late
1999, be faced with these kinds of breakdowns that are clearly
coming, and say, ``Gee, why didn't we think about this
before?''
So at the risk of being the boy who cries wolf, in this
case, there are real wolves and they are all computer driven.
We have to be as serious as we possibly can.
So as I have said, I will reserve my questions on Y2K
problems with the FAA for Administrator Garvey and I know that
she is in the forefront of the most visible challenge you face
in this area.
But I could not let the opportunity go by and not stress to
you the obvious concern that the Senate must have of your
duties over and above the FAA to see to it that the entire
Department of Transportation gets on a triage approach as
quickly as possible.
Now triage I had explained to me by Maj. Charles Emerson
Winchester on a late night rerun of ``MASH.'' I didn't
understand what the medical term meant until one of those
reruns. But it is this: You do what is necessary to see that
the patient survives and then put him or her into a
convalescent situation later and turn your attention to the
next patient that is in danger of dying, instead of staying
with this one patient all the way through. You do triage to do
what is necessary for survival.
The best estimates I have seen show that at least 15
percent of the computers in America will not be Y2K-compliant
by the year 2000 and at least 25 percent of the computers
worldwide will not be.
As Alan Greenspan told the Banking Committee, it is not an
issue of having a big problem. It is an issue of having a small
problem that is interconnected to everything else and,
therefore, turns into a big problem very quickly.
Fifteen percent of our computers not working is a really
scary number to me. I would hope you would be prepared to
respond to questions on this later on, in writing, as we do our
best to work together.
This is not a partisan issue. This is not a legislative
branch/executive branch issue. This, frankly, is a national/
international issue which, if we don't get a handle on it in
terms of setting priorities, will trigger a worldwide recession
and in some parts of the world a serious depression.
It is too late to solve the problem. We have to move into
the triage mode and say what are the mission-critical systems
and what do we do to keep those mission-critical systems up,
and we'll worry about solving the whole problem after we have
survived the turn of the millennium and do the convalescence
later on.
So I appreciate your being here and just wanted to
underscore that and give you an opportunity to respond.
Thank you.
Senator Shelby. Go ahead, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Slater. Senator, clearly, as you have noted, you
will have the opportunity to visit with Administrator Garvey
about the FAA, in particular, when she comes before you. But
let me say that she is in the forefront of helping us to deal
with this issue in the FAA.
I would also note that the Coast Guard has done a
significant job in this area as well and is working, along with
others in the Department, to actually reach out to our
stakeholders, those with whom we work in the private sector.
This is occurring across the board.
So I use the two of them--Admiral Kramek, the Commandant,
and also Administrator Garvey--because they are here and will
follow me.
Let me also say that just this week we had a DOT-wide
discussion on this very issue. We used our Monday morning staff
meeting to talk about it in great detail.
I can assure you that everyone within the Department who
understands the issue understands that we have to redouble our
effort and that we have to be vigilant in dealing with this
concern. It is a top priority.
The final point that I want to make is that it is
interesting how we talk about transportation, and we go into
the discussion that it is more than concrete, asphalt, and
steel. It is more than cars, planes, and trains.
In the past, it was only that, but now it is also the
communication system--technology being added to this--that we
have recognized as transportation beyond the traditional sense.
And that gives us an understanding of how it is evolving as a
system for the future.
Your point is well taken. This Y2K issue really forces us
to concentrate on how dependent our transportation system has
become as it relates to technology and communications.
I can assure you that this Department will shoulder its
responsibility in ensuring that we deal with the Y2K challenge
and that we deal with it effectively. And we look forward to
working with you and the Congress in doing that.
Senator Bennett. Thank you.
Submitted Questions
Senator Shelby. Mr. Secretary, we all have some written
questions--Senator Domenici and I do, Senator Lautenberg, and
others. Does anybody else have any written questions for the
record?
If not, I would like to move on to the second panel. We
thank you for your appearance, we thank you for the work that
you have done with us, and we look forward to working with you
in the future.
Secretary Slater. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Office of the Secretary
Questions Submitted by Senator Shelby
general questions
Question. The Government Performance and Results Act required
executive agencies, including the Department of Transportation, to
submit strategic plans outlining the goals they expect to accomplish
and methods to measure to what extent they achieved those goals. I
commend the Department for garnering the highest rating among all
agencies for its first strategic plan submitted this past September.
However, despite the high rating, the Department's plan also contained
some weaknesses. For example, the General Accounting Office's critique
of the strategic plan noted that it did not fully describe the
operational processes, skills, technology, and resources required to
meet the Department's long-term goals. This month the Department
provided the Congress its first performance plan specifying how the
Department will measure its performance in attaining its strategic
goals. How has the Department rectified the problems identified in the
strategic plan in preparing the performance plan?
Answer. The DOT Performance Plan fully addresses all of the issues
identified in the GAO report on the Strategic Plan. The Performance
Plan provides extensive detail on the operational processes, skills,
technologies and resources--the means and strategies--for accomplishing
each performance goal in the plan. These goals, in turn, are linked
explicitly to the outcome goals in the Strategic Plan. And where the
Strategic Plan described Corporate Management Strategies only briefly,
the Performance Plan provides a full chapter on this, detailing DOT's
initiatives and milestones in each area.
The Performance Plan provides a full 16-page appendix addressing
management challenges that have been raised previously by GAO and the
Inspector General. Strategies and milestones are provided for each of
32 areas, including specific examples cited as missing in the Strategic
Plan:
--time frames for completing air traffic control modernization;
--oversight of highway and transit projects;
--meeting the long term funding needs of Amtrak; and
--adequacy of financial and other management information.
The GAO report also mentioned improvements to Amtrak's Northeast
Corridor as an example of information that is missing in the Strategic
Plan. The Performance Plan includes specific performance goals to:
--Complete reconfiguration of selected interlockings with New Jersey
Transit, to achieve a 10 percent increase in the number of
intercity and commuter trains scheduled along the most
congested segments of the Washington/Boston Corridor by 2005
(to 365 trains/day).
--Reduce the Amtrak trip time between New York City and Boston from 4
hours 45 minutes in 1997 to 3-hour service in 1999 (early
fiscal year 2000).
--Increase the percentage of Amtrak trains arriving on time, from 76
percent in 1995 to 87 percent in 1999.
While the Strategic Plan takes an ``umbrella'' approach to long
term goals, the Performance Plan includes for each goal the
contributions from specific modes, and modal-level performance goals
that support the Department's strategic goals.
national highway traffic safety administration
safety defects investigation
Question. It is my understanding that when NHTSA investigates
complaints from consumers, it sends a request for information to the
automaker. Then, NHTSA will determine from the automaker's response
whether a defect is what led to the complaints and, if so, whether that
defect is related to motor vehicle safety. How dependent is this whole
undertaking on reliability of the information that is provided by the
automaker?
Answer. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration conducts
defects investigations in two phases: the Preliminary Evaluation (PE)
and the Engineering Analysis (EA). During the PE phase, the Office of
Defects Investigation (ODI) sends an information request (IR) to the
manufacturer, asking for certain limited information, including data on
complaints, crashes, and injuries, as well as other general
information. This information, along with the information obtained from
consumers, is analyzed to determine if further investigation is
warranted. If ODI determines that additional investigation is
necessary, it upgrades the investigation to an EA. During the EA phase,
ODI conducts a more detailed and complete analysis of the character and
scope of the alleged defect. The EA builds on the information collected
during the PE and supplements it with appropriate inspections, tests,
and surveys conducted by ODI, as well as additional information
obtained from the manufacturer and suppliers. It is critical that the
information received from the manufacturer at all stages of an
investigation be accurate and complete.
Question. How does NHTSA determine whether a defect is safety-
related?
Answer. Some defects are inherently related to motor vehicle
safety, such as steering wheel separations, brake failures, and vehicle
fires. With respect to other defects, NHTSA weighs the safety risk in
terms of the frequency and severity of the consequences of the defect.
It compares the defect under investigation with past investigations,
recalls, and court decisions. NHTSA also examines any intervening
factors which may have contributed to the consequences, such as
unexpected driver behavior or owner misconduct.
Question. When NHTSA determines the existence of a safety-related
defect, what action can it take against the manufacturer that is under
investigation?
Answer. When the NHTSA Administrator makes a Final Decision that a
safety-related defect exists, an order is issued directing the
manufacturer to notify all owners, purchasers and dealers of the defect
and to provide a cost-free remedy. If the manufacturer does not comply
with the recall order, the government (through the Justice Department)
will go to court to compel the recall.
Question. Could a recall order cost a manufacturer millions of
dollars?
Answer. A recall could cost a manufacturer millions of dollars if
the remedy is expensive or a large number of vehicles are involved.
Manufacturers do not routinely provide information to NHTSA on the
costs of their recalls, so NHTSA cannot speculate on how much is spent
on recalls.
Question. Does this cost give the automakers a financial incentive
to avoid a recall notice?
Answer. Whenever the cost of a recall becomes substantial, there is
an incentive to avoid a recall. However, NHTSA actively monitors the
industry to assure that manufacturers do not allow this incentive to
interfere with their statutory duty to conduct recalls when a safety
defect or noncompliance exists.
Question. Is NHTSA's authority to order a recall limited to eight
years from the first purchase?
Answer. A recall encompasses both notification and remedy. There is
no time limit on a manufacturer's obligation to notify NHTSA, owners,
purchasers, and dealers of a safety-related defect or a noncompliance
with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. However, by statute (49
U.S.C. Sec. 30120(g)), the requirement that a remedy be provided
without charge does not apply if the vehicle (or equipment) was bought
by the first purchaser more than eight years before the defect or
noncompliance is determined to exist (three years for tires). If a
vehicle is less than eight years old at the time a recall is commenced,
the manufacturer must provide a cost-free remedy even if the vehicle is
not brought to the dealer within the eight-year period.
Question. After that period of time, is NHTSA's only option to
order automakers to notify their customers about the safety defect?
Answer. NHTSA can order a manufacturer to provide a remedy for
vehicles older than eight years at the time of a recall order; however,
it cannot require that the remedy be cost-free.
automakers response to requests for information
Question. How heavily must NHTSA rely on the candor of the
automaker under investigation to respond fully to NHTSA's requests for
information?
Answer. NHTSA does rely on manufacturers to provide accurate and
complete information in response to information requests, particularly
at the early stage of an investigation. In addition, NHTSA has the
authority to seek civil penalties if it discovers that a manufacturer
has failed to provide all requested information.
Question. If NHTSA discovered that a manufacturer withheld
requested documents, what would NHTSA's recourse be against the
manufacturer?
Answer. NHTSA could issue an administrative order to the
manufacturer to provide the documents. Additionally, NHTSA could notify
the manufacturer that it is liable for civil penalties and attempt to
reach an administrative resolution of penalties under 49 U.S.C.
Sec. 30165 for the prior withholding of information which had been
required by an information request issued under 49 U.S.C. Sec. 30166.
If a manufacturer did not comply with an order or settle the potential
penalties administratively, NHTSA could refer the matter to the
Department of Justice for injunctive relief or penalties, respectively.
Moreover, depending on the circumstances, NHTSA could refer the matter
to the Department of Justice for consideration of a possible criminal
action.
Question. What if NHTSA didn't discover that the documents had been
withheld until several years after its investigation had closed?
Answer. NHTSA could order the manufacturer to provide the
documents. If NHTSA felt that there was still a safety concern, NHTSA
could reopen the defect investigation or other proceeding in support of
which the documents had been requested.
Question. How often has NHTSA used its subpoena power to assist the
Agency in getting the information it needs?
Answer. NHTSA records indicate that it has issued administrative
subpoenas in five enforcement investigations, out of a total of more
than 2,000 investigations. NHTSA has generally found that informal
information requests and special orders have been adequate to obtain
the information it needs.
Question. What is the largest fine NHTSA has ever issued for
withholding information, and how large was the company fined, in terms
of annual profits?
Answer. NHTSA does not issue fines. The only significant case that
appears to relate to your inquiry involved Toyota Motor Corporation of
Japan, where the penalty sought for withholding information was part of
a larger civil penalty claim. The case was settled without
apportionment of the settlement payment among the various civil penalty
claims. The Toyota Motor Corporation is a multi-billion dollar
corporation.
Specifically, NHTSA collected a civil penalty of $250,000 from
Toyota Motor Corporation on April 25, 1994, to settle a lawsuit filed
in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. In
the complaint that it filed in the lawsuit, NHTSA alleged that Toyota
had failed to conduct a timely recall to remedy a fuel leakage problem
in 1981-1989 Land Cruiser vehicles. The complaint also alleged that
Toyota had failed to provide NHTSA with accurate and complete responses
to investigative requests. The complaint sought maximum civil penalties
of $808,000. Of this figure, $800,000 was for the company's failure to
conduct a timely recall. The remaining $8,000 was for eight instances
in which the company failed to provide NHTSA with accurate and complete
information in response to investigative requests. That represented the
statutory maximum of $1,000 per violation, which has since been
adjusted for inflation to $1,100.
Question. Are these fines intended to have a deterrent effect on
the automaker?
Answer. These civil penalties should have a deterrent effect.
Question. Does NHTSA need more authority in this area than Congress
has given it?
Answer. Under current law, a manufacturer's failure to provide
accurate and complete information in response to NHTSA's information
requests results in a potential penalty of $1,100 for each instance.
However, even a few failures of this nature have the potential to
seriously compromise an investigation. Raising the penalty level for
such failures could enhance the agency's enforcement capacity.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Domenici
commercial zone for luna and dona ana counties
Question. I want to thank you for your support of my recent
amendment to ISTEA to create a commercial zone in southern New Mexico.
I also appreciated your staff's work to provide technical assistance
and help in drafting the amendment in a way which was acceptable to the
manager of the bill.
As I am sure you are aware, because these two border counties have
been designated as a commercial zone, trucks carrying products from
Mexico now will be able to travel directly to their destinations in New
Mexico without having to engage in the costly and inefficient task of
offloading their cargo onto American trucks just inside the border.
I believe that we need to have an open border with Mexico to
facilitate trade and promote investment in the southern part of New
Mexico and throughout all of the southwest. I also believe that this
commercial zone puts New Mexico on the same level playing field with
other southwestern states which have border commercial zones.
Can I count on your support for the New Mexico commercial zone as
the ISTEA bill moves through the House and in conference?
Answer. Given the unique situation in Luna and Dona Ana Counties,
the administration does not object to your amendment as currently
written.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Lautenberg
highway issues
speed limits
Question. The Department of Transportation report on the impact of
increased speed limits on the Interstate system discloses that
fatalities and injuries increased nationally on Interstate roads in
1996 while decreasing on all other roads even though Interstate roads
are considered safest. This report also shows that States that
increased speed limits in 1996 experienced about 350 more Interstate
fatalities than would have been expected before the speed limit change.
The report also states that ``close monitoring of crash trends on roads
with increased speed limits should continue and, if warranted,
countermanding actions taken.''
Besides restoring the national speed limit to 55 MPH, what kinds of
countermanding actions can you in good conscience support as being
truly effective?
Answer. In the absence of restoring the National Maximum Speed
Limit (NMSL) to 55 MPH, the Department believes it will be important to
continue to focus, at the national and state levels, on key program
areas of traffic safety, e.g., increasing restraint use, strict
enforcement of existing traffic laws, informing and educating the
public regarding specific traffic safety issues, implementing roadway
and traffic safety improvements, and ameliorating the effects of
alcohol-involved driving to compensate for possible increases in
fatalities and injured persons that may be related to higher speed
limits.
light truck safety
Question. Over the past decade, the popularity of light trucks has
increased enormously. Light truck sales accounted for almost half of
the passenger vehicles sold last year, and they now represent about \1/
3\ of all registered passenger vehicles. More Americans die each year
in light truck-to-car crashes than in crashes between two cars. This is
true even though car-to-car crashes remain more common and there are
twice as many cars in use as light trucks.
I know that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) is studying the dangers posed by light trucks to other
vehicles. After completing this study, what concrete actions will the
Department take to improve the compatibility of light trucks with other
passenger vehicles?
Answer. Compatibility between light trucks and cars is one aspect
of a larger study at NHTSA on improving crash compatibility between all
categories of light passenger vehicles. Improvements in crash
compatibility, in general, and between light trucks and cars,
specifically, will likely require design modifications both to the
struck vehicle--to improve its crashworthiness--as well as to the
striking vehicle to reduce its aggressivity. In the case of LTV's,
NHTSA is currently conducting a series of crash tests to better
understand the nature of the incompatibility between LTV's and cars.
These crash test results will be coupled with the results of detailed
finite element simulations to suggest design enhancements necessary to
improve compatibility. The results of this study will serve as the
foundation for the directions for any potential rulemaking in this area
the Department might pursue.
Question. Occupants of sport utilities are as likely to die in
crashes as car occupants, because sport utilities are four times as
likely as cars to roll over in an accident. NHTSA has done some
research recently on the tendency of even the larger sport utilities to
roll over. Do you plan to conduct further research on the safety risks
sport utilities pose to their own passengers?
Answer. Yes. NHTSA is currently performing research to identify
driving maneuvers that could trigger rollovers in vehicles that are
prone to on-road-untripped rollover crashes. This research has proven
to be very complex, since any single requirement that may prevent
rollovers might cause manufacturers to incorporate designs that may
degrade other aspects of vehicle performance. NHTSA plans to continue
this rollover prevention research in fiscal year 1999. Additionally,
NHTSA will use the Variable Dynamics Test Vehicle to study the
effectiveness of yaw stability augmentation systems that are currently
available in some vehicles in preventing rollovers. Besides the
rollover prevention research, NHTSA also has an active rollover crash
mitigation research program which will continue in fiscal year 1999.
Question. Does the research done to date indicate that new design
standards for sport utilities aimed at increasing their stability
should be developed?
Answer. NHTSA's current rollover prevention research is attempting
to develop the basis for either a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
to reduce the number of on-road, untripped rollovers or a consumer
information program to identify vehicles that show unusual rollover
tendencies toward untripped rollovers. An announcement as to how NHTSA
will proceed is planned for early 1999.
truck safety at u.s./mexico border
Question. Two successive GAO reports have shown no improvement in
the safety of trucks and drivers from Mexico coming across our southern
border, and no improvement in the quality and frequency of inspections
conducted on both sides of the border. (a) What is the Department's
plan to systematically upgrade the number of inspections and to use
Level 1, the best kind, to ensure that commercial drivers from Mexico
use only safety equipment on our roads? How can you ensure that these
drivers have proper licensing and issuance? (b) How are you going to
ensure that long-haul truck drivers from Mexico are not entering the
U.S. already fatigued and sleep-deprived when they operate on our
roads, given the fact that Mexico has no truck driver hours of service
limits? (c) How can you ensure that Mexican government really does its
job of ensuring that trucks and drivers from Mexico are safe before
they cross our southern border?
Answer. To ensure that safety is not compromised as the NAFTA
cross-border provisions are implemented, the DOT, in partnership with
the States and local governments, has established a permanent
enforcement presence and begun an intensive driver and vehicle
inspection program along the Southwest border. In fiscal year 1997,
over 19,000 Mexican drivers and 18,000 Mexican vehicles were inspected.
To continue to enhance enforcement activities, the DOT has been
providing border States with special funding over and above the basic
allocated Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) grant levels.
This funding is intended to assist with short-term resource needs and
DOT has supported reauthorization legislation that would provide States
with the funding they need to build inspection facilities, hire
additional law enforcement personnel, and purchase equipment needed to
establish a permanent border management program.
While States are encouraged to conduct Level 1 inspections,
national performance-based MCSAP criteria may also require that States
identify the primary reasons for the out-of-service rates and then
conduct special inspections which focus on these violations.
To operate a commercial vehicle in the U.S., Mexican drivers must
possess a valid ``Licencia Federal'' (Mexican commercial driver's
license) and proof that the carrier has insurance coverage consistent
with the U.S. standards. To ensure that drivers are operating with
valid licenses, DOT has developed an electronic capability with
Mexico's Secretaria de Comunicaciones y Transportes to exchange
information on driver status. Like all other drivers operating in the
United States, Mexican drivers may be required to show evidence of
compliance with these requirements upon entry into the U.S. or during
roadside inspections.
Working with the Secretaria de Comunicaciones y Transportes, the
FHWA and the four border States have provided a significant amount of
training and technical assistance to Mexican carriers to ensure they
know and understand the requirements of operating in the United States.
We believe Mexican carriers seeking to do business in the U.S. are
generally well aware of the rules and regulations with which they must
comply.
Mexican drivers must comply with the same safety requirements,
including hours of service and log book requirements, as U.S. drivers
when operating commercial vehicles in the U.S. The U.S. enforces these
regulations through State and Federal roadside inspections. For those
drivers who are exempt by regulations from carrying a log book because
they are operating within a 100-air-mile radius of their normal work
reporting location, the driver's duty status (hours of service) is
verified by interviewing the driver and by reviewing date, time, and
location information included on related transportation documents such
as shipping papers, vehicle registrations, the driver's license, and
Immigration and Naturalization Service crossing permits.
Drivers who operate from the interior of Mexico beyond the 100 air-
mile radius of their normal reporting location are placed out-of-
service if they do not comply with the log book requirements. The
United States, Mexico, and Canada have developed a strategy to assure
that motor carriers are in compliance with their safety obligations
prior to beginning cross-border operations.
The three countries have agreed on these critical safety areas that
will be reviewed before a carrier can begin cross-border operations:
(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.
We are now discussing with Mexico implementation of specific
elements of a compliance and enforcement program in Mexico that will be
directed at motor carriers that will be operating across the border
into the United States including those that transit the United States
on their way to Canada. These elements are:
(1) Deployment of roadside commercial vehicle inspectors trained in
accordance with established North American procedures in Mexico's
northern states and documentation of these inspections as part of an
overall safety oversight process. Roadside enforcement is key to an
effective and visible enforcement program.
(2) Development of a method for gathering safety information from
individual motor carriers and providing that information to the United
States. Adequate and accurate information on motor carrier applicants
is essential to the process of assessing a carrier's safety performance
during the application process.
(3) Implementation of a motor carrier safety management oversight
system for those carriers with U.S. operating authority. Such a program
is important to establishment of a permanent monitoring and enforcement
program in Mexico; further, it is paramount to the development of an
effective North American motor carrier safety program.
We believe that, taken as a whole, these initiatives will help
ensure that trucks and drivers from Mexico are safe before they cross
our southern border.
commercial driver hours of service
Question. Why is the agency prepared to revise commercial driver
hours of service limits when there has been no systematic demonstration
of how appropriate monitoring and enforcement of current hours of
service limits could improve driver alertness and avoid the safety
hazards of fatigue and sleep deprivation?
Answer. The FHWA is not prepared to revise the commercial driver
hours of service limits at this time. The FHWA, however, has learned a
great deal about human performance and circadian effects in relation to
sleep deprivation. These types of effects were unknown, or not well
known, when the ICC developed the original rules more than 60 years
ago. The FHWA now has the opportunity to analyze whether such effects
may contribute to safer operations.
The FHWA continues to analyze the research and comments to the
November 5, 1996 ANPRM. The FHWA will not be prepared to do anything
until it completes thorough analyses of all the research, statutory and
executive order requirements for regulatory analyses (including
benefit-cost analyses), and consultation with appropriate DOT staff.
national motor carrier advisory committee
Question. The Department supports the National Motor Carrier
Advisory Committee which deals with commercial motor vehicle safety
issues. In fiscal year 1996, the Committee held no meetings but cost
taxpayers $22,900, according to the General Services Administration's
(GSA's) 25th Annual Report on Advisory Committees. The Committee also
held no meetings in fiscal year 1997, even though GSA estimated a cost
of $85,300 for the Committee. (a) Can you explain why this Committee
has not met in over two years? (b) Is this advisory committee fairly
balanced and is a cross-section of highway safety organizations
represented on the Committee? (c) Has the Department decided whether it
will renew the charter of this Committee?
Answer. The National Motor Carrier Advisory Committee (NMCAC) has
not met in over two years because the FHWA no longer needs to use this
Committee for the purposes originally envisioned. The GSA estimate
assumed continuation of the NMCAC. The membership of the NMCAC was
balanced and reflected a cross-section of highway safety interests,
including former Congressman William Lehman, Judith Stone of the
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, and the Honorable Anthony
Montelione, Presiding Judge in Cook County, among others.
The Department is not renewing the charter of the NMCAC.
roof crush standard/rollover
Question. The current roof crush standard requires a test which
does not really show how well a passenger car vehicle would resist
deformation or intrusion in a full rollover crash. Over the last
several years NHTSA has periodically reported on its research to revise
the existing roof crush standard and establish a dynamic standard to
protect occupants in rollovers. When do you expect to begin rulemaking
to set this badly needed safety standard?
Answer. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 216, Roof
Crush Resistance, specifies the minimal requirements for roof structure
integrity for vehicles under 2,722 kg (6,000 pounds) GVWR. It requires
that these vehicles resist 1\1/2\ the vehicle's unloaded weight without
sustaining more than 125 mm (5 inches) of roof crush when a rectangular
load plate is applied to the vehicle's roof structure over the front
occupant compartment.
NHTSA has been and is continuing research to examine the relevance
of this standard to actual real world rollover crashes. From this
research, NHTSA has shown some relationship between the risk of head
injuries for belted occupants (in rollover crashes) and the reduction
of headroom due to roof intrusion. These findings were documented in a
Society of Automotive Engineering publication titled, ``Determination
of the Significance of Roof Crush on Head and Neck Injury to Passenger
Vehicle Occupants in Rollover Crashes.''
Recently, NHTSA completed testing using the FMVSS 216 test
procedures and dynamic drop test procedures. The results of these tests
are now being analyzed to determine which test approach may provide the
better correlation to real world injury producing rollover events. It
is anticipated that NHTSA will make a regulatory decision on future
efforts to improve rollover occupant protection by the end of 1998.
This summer NHTSA will make available to the public the results and
reports on all testing on its rollover related research.
Question. You indicated more than a year ago that you would be
willing to revisit a rollover standard for some kinds of rollover
crashes. When will rulemaking start on such a proposal?
Answer. NHTSA has initiated a short-term research effort to explore
what might be done to address single vehicle on-the-road rollovers.
Last summer, NHTSA began Phase I of its testing by selecting some
maneuvers that are currently used by vehicle manufacturers, consumer
publications, or voluntary standards organizations to assess the
rollover resistance of vehicles. Three sport utility vehicles were run
through each of these maneuvers. This testing will continue in the
spring of 1998. The most promising maneuvers from Phase I will then be
used in Phase II testing. In the summer of 1998, Phase II will run 12
vehicles (3 cars, 3 pickups, 3 vans, and 3 sport utility vehicles)
through the maneuvers chosen from Phase I. The results will then be
analyzed and NHTSA expects to make a decision by the end of 1998 on
future research and/or rulemaking actions for addressing rollover
safety.
Question. Given the intense and continually growing interest and
knowledge of the public about car safety design and performance, such
as air bags, for example, how soon are you going to decide on a really
informative standard to warn potential buyers about passenger vehicles
that have poor resistance to rollover? Would you consider doing the
same thing for a new roof crush standard, to provide ratings for
consumers on vehicle resistance to roof crush in rollover crashes?
Answer. The Phase I and II rollover propensity testing is scheduled
to be completed this fall. Results from this research will be used to
make a decision on a rollover propensity standard and/or consumer
information. The Department plans to make this decision by the end of
1998. More immediately, NHTSA has proposed a change to the rollover
warning label for sport utility vehicles (SUV's) to make it more
effective by using graphics and brighter colors to replace the current
15 year old text-only design. Focus group research has shown that
consumers are much more likely to notice and heed labels with this type
of design. Determination of approaches for informing consumers about
roof crush resistance will follow decisions on future actions regarding
the current roof crush standard.
amtrak
differing funding levels in original request to omb and final budget
request
Question. In its original submission to OMB, the Department
requested $705 million for Amtrak. This number reflected the annual
amount absolutely necessary to achieve the balance of Amtrak's capital
needs and cover operating expenses, as approved by Amtrak's Board of
Directors last September. However, in its final budget request, the
Administration included only $621 million of capital funding, and
directed Amtrak to use funds provided in the TRA for its annual
operating expenses. This request is $84 million less than the amount
Amtrak must have in order to continue operations over the next year
without taking out commercial loans. If $705 million is the absolute
minimum needed in order for Amtrak to balance its books for fiscal year
1999, how do you justify requesting only $621 million?
Answer. Both the Department and OMB agreed that the optimum long-
term strategy for Amtrak was to fund the Corporation's September 1997
strategic plan which envisioned a total Federal funding commitment of
approximately $5 billion between fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 2002.
The Administration's request, when taken with the funding available
under the TRA, would provide that level of funding. The President's
fiscal year 1999 budget includes $621 million in capital appropriations
to be spent according to the same capital project investment criteria
used by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). With this expanded
definition of Amtrak capital, the Amtrak Board of Directors has
supported the workability of the President's budget.
use of taxpayer relief act funds
Question. Funds provided in the Taxpayer Relief Act (TRA) were
intended to be used solely on capital improvements, not operating
expenses. In its resolution, the Amtrak Board opposed, in the strongest
possible terms, using the TRA funds for operating expenses. The Board
emphasized that those funds should be reserved for high rate-of-return
projects that will decrease Amtrak's reliance on Federal operating
support. If Amtrak were to borrow funds provided in the TRA for capital
expenses, would it not then be dependent on future Federal
appropriations in order to repay that amount?
Answer. Amtrak's September 1997 strategic plan estimated that
Amtrak would require approximately $5 billion in total Federal
financial assistance between fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 2002.
Whether or not Amtrak were to borrow funds provided in the TRA, the
recapitalization of Amtrak would be dependent on future Federal
appropriations. Under the President's fiscal year 1999 budget, Amtrak
funding will equal the amount under the TRA--$1.1 billion plus the
proposed appropriation of $621 million. Significant capital
appropriations are also proposed for the outyears ($571 million in 2000
and $521 million annually through 2002). For appropriated funds, the
President's budget assumes an expanded definition of capital that would
give Amtrak the flexibility to spend capital according to the same
definition of capital used by the transit industry. This proposal will
ensure that TRA funds are spent on high-yield capital investments that
will reduce Amtrak's operating costs.
transit
balanced approach to highway/transit funding
Question. What will you do in the future to ensure such a truly
intermodal and balanced approach to surface transportation?
Answer. We will continue to work with the Congress to ensure that
funding levels are balanced and equitable and will continue to make our
position clear in communicating views to Congress on the
reauthorization legislation as it moves forward.
access to jobs and training
Question. The Federal Transit Administration's budget request
includes $100 million for the Access to Jobs and Training initiative. I
support that initiative. However, I am concerned that, by including it
as part of your flat-funded transit budget, you are suggesting that
instead of supplementing existing transit programs, funding for this
program should be subtracted from funding available for transit formula
grants. Would you support funding this program as a supplement outside
the transit program, so that transit formula funds would not be
diverted?
Answer. Yes, within the overall transit funding levels proposed by
the Administration. While we are proposing that Access to Jobs be
within the Formula Programs account, we are not proposing to reduce
formula funding now available to transit agencies. By moving to Formula
Programs the funding that currently goes into discretionary bus grants,
we are increasing the amount of Federal transit funding distributed
across the nation.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Kohl
compensation for damage to assistive devices
Question. Over the past few months, my office has been in contact
with the Department regarding the case of Mr. Jeff LaDow, a resident of
West Allis, Wisconsin, who suffers from a disability and whose $16,000
wheelchair was irreparably damaged during the course of a flight on one
of the major airlines.
As you know, DOT regulations limit the maximum liability for claims
with respect to assistive devices at $2,500. Clearly, the $13,500
difference between the cost of Mr. LaDow's equipment and the maximum
compensation available to him proves that in some instances this cap
may need to be updated.
What can be done to address this discrepancy and to ensure that
this compensation cap is not impeding both legitimate claims as well as
compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act? Is legislative
action necessary to address the problem?
Answer. Currently, DOT regulations prohibit air carriers from
setting liability limitations for claims for assistive devices at an
amount less than twice the liability limit for lost or damaged baggage,
which is currently $1,250 for domestic travel. (There is a pending
proposed rule to increase the minimum baggage liability limit to as
much as $2,000.) U.S. carriers have chosen to limit their liability,
both for baggage and for assistive devices, to the minimum limitation
set by the Department, thus all carriers of which we are aware
currently limit their liability for assistive devices to $2,500. The
Department expects to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that
would require airlines to reimburse passengers for the full value of
assistive devices which are lost or damaged by the air carrier. No
legislative action is necessary to address this issue.
loran-c radionavigation
Question. Earlier this year, I contacted the Department with regard
to the Loran-C radionavigation system. Marine, aviation, land--even
telecommunications users--in Wisconsin have all told me of the value of
this technology from a transportation safety and cost-benefit
perspective.
As you know, in the past two fiscal years Congress has agreed with
them and provided about $8 million for the revitalization of the Loran
infrastructure. Under the 1996 Coast Guard Reauthorization legislation,
the DOT was required to formulate a plan for future funding and upgrade
of the Loran infrastructure. I understand you have consulted with the
firm of Booz-Allen & Hamilton for data collection and cost-benefit
analysis. Are the preliminary results of the Booz-Allen study
available? Does the data support Loran retention, and what is the
status of the Department's funding plan?
Answer. The Booz-Allen report on Loran-C will be delivered to DOT
in May 1998. Once we receive and review the plan, we will be able to
respond to the requirements of the Coast Guard reauthorization.
communications system pilot project
Question. Safety has been one of the U.S. Department of
Transportation's top priorities. With the cooperation of the Commerce
and Defense Departments, the Wisconsin Department of Transportation
recently began an innovative safety initiative--a share communications
system pilot project. This system will provide important voice dispatch
and centralized communciations for all emergency responders and
government agencies in SouthCentral Wisconsin, aiding the day-to-day
communications of state troopers, municipal police officers,
firefighters and guard members, to name a few, and helping them respond
to problems faster and more effectively. The concept has also been
endorsed by Vice President Gore's ``reinventing government''
initiative. Hopefully the system will eventually be expanded to cover
the entire state.
Is the Department aware of this project? If this turns out to be an
effective safety-enhancing program that could be of benefit to other
parts of the country, what role could the Department or the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration play in terms of promotion,
outreach or funding?
Answer. The Department is aware of this emergency communications
program in Wisconsin. The National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) has promoted development of innovative solutions
to communications problems as part of its ``EMS Agenda for the
Future.'' The EMS Agenda acknowledges the challenge of limited band
width availability for emergency communications and recommends
development of shared systems that can serve the joint needs of EMS,
fire, law enforcement and other emergency providers. The Wisconsin
system will pilot test an innovative partnership of several public
safety and military agencies to deploy a joint system which promises to
provide greater efficiency and service for all. If this initiative is
successful, the concept could be promoted for consideration by other
states. NHTSA would promote it as part of our ongoing promotion of
successful examples of local or state programs realizing the visions of
the EMS Agenda for the Future. As a follow up to the EMS Agenda, NHTSA
is recognizing and promoting
successful examples of local system upgrades that are consistent with
the recommendations in the Agenda. An EMS Agenda Implementation Guide
will be released this spring and a national conference will be
conducted during EMS Week in May to recognize innovative local
programs.
Federal Aviation Administration
STATEMENT OF HON. JANE F. GARVEY, ADMINISTRATOR
U.S. Coast Guard
STATEMENT OF ADM. ROBERT E. KRAMEK, COMMANDANT
introduction of witnesses
Senator Shelby. Our second panel will be Ms. Jane Garvey,
FAA Administrator, and Admiral Kramek, Commandant of the Coast
Guard.
If you would both come to the witness table, we would
appreciate it.
Your written testimony, that of both of you, Ms. Garvey and
Admiral Kramek, will be made part of the record in its
entirety. We appreciate your appearance and we appreciate your
patience.
Ms. Garvey, you may proceed as you wish.
statement of jane f. garvey
Ms. Garvey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me say
that I will keep my remarks very brief and submit my longer
statement for the record.
It is a pleasure to appear before you and before this
committee to discuss the FAA's budget request for 1999. What I
would like to do is to speak of the budget in the context of
three areas--safety, security, and system efficiency. These are
the areas where I have directed the agency to focus their
attention. These are the areas that I believe the American
people will judge us by.
safety
First of all, as the Secretary said, safety is really the
Department's top priority. It is the heart and soul of what we
do. When I came to the agency in August, I asked colleagues at
the FAA how many safety recommendations do we have in front of
us. I was told that we have about 1,000 and, even when you
eliminate the duplication, we have about 450. That is a very
large number for any agency to focus on effectively.
Over the last several months, I have worked closely with
our stakeholders. I have worked closely with our partners, and
with industry to focus that agenda. To focus it in a way that
is actually doable; focus it in a way that it is based on
operation-quantifiable safety data.
It is very clear that, in order to lower the accident rate,
it is imperative that we identify and implement the accident
prevention measures that have the greatest potential benefits.
That really is what we are doing. I believe that the
President's budget will allow us to implement that agenda in a
way that is effective.
security
A second priority for us is improving aviation security.
The White House Commission gave us a comprehensive plan for
enhancing security. Many improvements have already been made.
They include the installation of significantly improved
security equipment in a number of our airports around this
country. We have, I believe, a very aggressive implementation
schedule and we are moving forward in partnership both with the
airports and with the industry. By September 1, 1998, the FAA
will have more than 500 pieces of explosive detection equipment
at U.S. airports. The President's budget includes $100 million
to continue to deploy the critical equipment at our Nation's
airports.
system efficiency
Another priority is system efficiency. A significant amount
of work has already been done to modernize the air traffic
control system. In 1997, thanks to strong financial support
from this committee, the FAA installed more than 1,500 pieces
of new equipment, ranging from the very simple, basic
equipment, such as radios, to much more complex and new
equipment like Voice Switching and long-range en route radar.
We are in the midst of major acquisitions to replace our
computer systems at all the en route and airport terminal
facilities. In addition to operating the systems, which are so
critical and so important, these computers will really provide
the platform for future enhancements, where we will achieve the
greater productivity gains and greater user benefits.
national airspace modernization
As Senator Faircloth mentioned a little bit earlier, the
whole issue of modernization is really one of our greatest
challenges. I know that a significant amount of work has
already been done in the area of modernization. We call the
creation of the National Airspace System, the work that we are
looking at, the architecture, if you will. It is really a
significant piece of work, the result of work done by people
within the FAA, as well as industry.
Last fall, what I did was to convene a modernization task
force. I asked for representatives from the industry. I asked
for members of the union as well as FAA executives to be at the
table. I want to stress that it was important to us to have the
unions there. They operate the system. They really need to
understand it and raise the questions, just as we have. I asked
the task force to focus on two areas. One is to take a look at
the architecture, the ``what'' the system will look like;
second is to reexamine the ``when'' and the ``how'' of
implementing the system improvements. I am very pleased to say
that we are really seeing a growing consensus. One of the
points the task force has made, which I think is
extraordinarily helpful, is that we need to put in place some
building blocks now. We need to look at modernization, look at
those results and those impacts that we can make now in the
system. That, really, is what we are moving out to do. Again, I
would say that the President's budget really allows us to move
forward with modernization and to move forward in an
incremental fashion, a fashion that I really think makes some
sense.
year 2000 [y2k]
Let me also touch on the Y2K problem. I know that members
of the committee and Senator Bennett will have many more
questions, and I am happy to answer them. But, very briefly,
the critical question for us, as it is for you, is will the FAA
meet the challenges as the countdown to January 1, 2000,
continues. My answer is, yes.
I have to say that this is something that is
extraordinarily important to me, personally, and to the agency
as well.
Last month, I appointed a new FAA manager. He reports
directly to me. His name is Ray Long. We have opened a command
center at Tyson's Corner. We have people from around the
country who are detailed here and are working solely on this
issue.
We have a wonderful business partner in Coopers & Lybrand.
They are working side by side with us--a good, public/private
cooperative effort. We have developed timelines, we have
developed benchmarks to ensure that our computer systems are
Y2K compliant before the turn of the century. We are working
very closely with the inspector general. We have moved our
dates forward and, at the Secretary's request, are constantly
looking to see if we can move those dates, if we can pull them
ahead even more forward. I know that it is going to take
vigilance. I know it is going to take real effort on all of our
parts. I do believe we are on the right track and I believe we
have brought the right resources to bear on what is a really
critical issue for all of us.
president's budget
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I believe this President's budget
request allows us to move ahead on each one of these
priorities. It gives us an increase in operations which
recognizes the need to hire more controllers, maintenance
technicians, safety inspectors, as well as certification
personnel.
It includes a request, as Senator Faircloth mentioned, for
airports at $1.7 billion, a very important program for us. It
includes an increase in the facilities and equipment
appropriation, allowing us to move ahead on modernization.
We think it is a good, strong, solid budget, and I think it
is going to serve us well. To end on a personal note, I want to
reiterate what the Secretary said earlier, and that is to thank
all of you for the support that you have given to us, as an
agency, and to me personally. Each one of you has been
extraordinarily generous in both your personal time and your
commitment of support. I appreciate that and look forward to
working with you and with members of this committee.
Thank you very much.
prepared statement
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Ms. Garvey. We will insert your
prepared statement in the hearing record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jane F. Garvey
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am pleased to
appear before you today, and I want to thank all the members of this
Subcommittee for your support of the FAA programs. I would like to
discuss the FAA's fiscal year 1999 budget request in the context of
three areas where I have directed the agency to focus its attention:
safety, security, and system efficiency.
safety
Safety is the agency's top priority. I am pleased to report that we
have a three-pronged program to enhance aviation safety. One, we are in
the final process of developing our focused safety agenda, which we
will announce shortly. In order to lower the accident rate, it is
absolutely imperative that we identify and implement the accident
prevention measures that have the greatest potential benefits.
Two, we are making significant strides in developing a new safety
model where government can be both a partner and an enforcer. No one
entity, whether public or private sector, can lower the accident rate
alone. This is not to say that we will give up our regulatory
responsibility. Not at all. It's just that there is a great deal to
gain from collaboration.
Three, while working together we must recognize and adhere to our
own responsibilities. On the public sector side, the FAA needs to
acknowledge that paperwork does not equal safety. This is why I am so
pleased with what we are doing to improve and streamline our oversight
and rulemaking processes.
In terms of air transportation oversight, we know the current
system cannot produce the changes necessary to significantly lower the
accident rate. We have focused too much on symptoms and not enough on
cures. By the end of this year, we will implement a new oversight model
based on a system safety approach.
As for rulemaking, we shortened the time to develop rules by re-
engineering the rulemaking process. Rules will be developed more
quickly than before. More important than shortening the process, is
building on quality early in the process--before, rather than after,
the fact.
security
My second priority is improving aviation security. We have a
comprehensive plan for enhancing security. In fact, several
improvements already have been made. These include the installation of
significantly improved security equipment, as well as enhanced
procedures and methods for implementing this equipment throughout the
system. As many of you know, we are operating on an aggressive
implementation timetable, and we are moving forward in partnership with
industry and airports. By September 1, 1998, the FAA will have more
than 500 pieces of explosives detection equipment at U.S. airports.
system efficiency
My third priority is system efficiency. A significant amount of
work already has been done to modernize the air traffic control system.
In fiscal year 1997, for example, the FAA installed more than 1,500
pieces of new equipment--ranging from basic equipment such as radios
and distance-measuring equipment to systems as new and complex as the
Voice Switching and Control System and the long-range en route radar.
We are in the midst of major acquisitions to replace computer systems
at all en route and airport terminal facilities. In addition to
upgrading existing systems, these computers will provide platforms for
future enhancements where we will achieve the greatest productivity
gains and user benefits.
You and I know that the issue of modernization is one of our
greatest challenges. A significant amount of work has already been
done, including the development of the FAA's modernization plan, which
we refer to as the national airspace system ``architecture.''
To build on this work, last fall I convened a modernization task
force with representatives from all sectors of aviation. I asked the
experts to focus on two areas--one, take a good look at the
architecture, and, two, reexamine the ``when'' and the ``how'' of
implementing system improvements.
With the architecture, we know we have the ``what'' for the
aviation system for the next century. As for the ``when'' and the
``how'' I am very pleased with the growing consensus among the entire
aviation community.
What is key to this consensus is the acknowledgment that the new
system is more than acquiring new technology. It must be human-centered
and we are working closely with our labor partners and involving them
early in the process as we develop and install the tools they will be
using. We know the modern ATC system must include new procedures and
training, focus on human factors issues, and fully consider private
sector avionics and certification.
year 2000
With respect to the Y2K issue, the question on everyone's mind is:
Will the FAA meet the challenges as the countdown to the January 1,
2000, continues? My answer is an unequivocal ``Yes.'' Last month, I
appointed a new FAA Y2K manager. With the help of our business partner,
Coopers and Lybrand, we are developing stringent and disciplined
agency-wide plan to ensure that all our computer systems are Y2K
compliant before the turn of the century. And, I can assure the
subcommittee that air traffic safety will not be compromised in the
slightest.
There is one last point I would like to make before addressing our
budget request. Since joining the FAA last August, I have been
addressing various personnel issues at the agency. We are making
progress and we are taking the difficult and necessary steps to achieve
a culture change at the agency.
operations
For fiscal year 1999, the President's Budget requests $5,631
million for FAA Operations, $295 million more than appropriated for
fiscal year 1998. This increase recognizes the urgent need to hire more
controllers, maintenance technicians, safety inspectors, and
certification personnel.
I also want to bring to the subcommittee's attention that the
recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals vacating our overflight
user fees has, in effect, reduced the fiscal year 1998 program level in
Operations by $84 million. Currently, we are assessing the impact of
this reduction and our options with the Department of Transportation
and the Office of Management and Budget.
grants-in-aid for airports
The fiscal year 1999 request for the Grants-in-Aid for Airports
program is $1.7 billion. As part of the Administration's
reauthorization package, we are examining the current AIP formula and
distributions. FAA must have the necessary flexibility to direct
investments to high priority projects such as safety, security, and
capacity projects. Mitigating the impacts of aircraft noise also will
continue to be a major focus.
facilities and equipment
For fiscal year 1999, $2,130 million, a 14 percent increase ($255
million) from the enacted level in fiscal year 1998, is requested in
the Facilities and Equipment appropriation.
research, engineering and development
For fiscal year 1999, $290 million is requested to support the
Research, Engineering and Development program. This request represents
a 46 percent increase from the fiscal year 1998 enacted level of $199.2
million. The $90 million for the Flight 2000 program accounts for most
of this increase. Flight 2000 is a planned operational evaluation of
the technologies, procedures, and human factors involved in free
flight, using Alaska and Hawaii airspace. I see Flight 2000 as a
critical component of NAS architecture and key to deploying major
communications, navigation, and surveillance systems on a broader
scale.
conclusion
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and the Members
of this Subcommittee 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 statement. I would be pleased to respond to
any questions you have at this time.
Statement of Admiral Kramek
Senator Shelby. Admiral Kramek.
Admiral Kramek. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. It is a
pleasure to appear before you and this distinguished committee
this morning.
Senator Shelby. Will this be your last appearance?
Admiral Kramek. Yes, sir; this will be my last appearance
before this committee.
As you know and as I know Senator Lautenberg of New Jersey
and Senator Faircloth from North Carolina know, the Coast Guard
is one of the great assets of the American people and has been
for the over 207 years of our history. We are a unique agency
in that we are both an armed force, a law enforcement agency,
and also a very important link in transportation in our
maritime mode, which we have not really addressed too much this
morning.
We also return $4 in benefit for every $1 in budget given
to the Coast Guard.
From a trade standpoint, Mr. Chairman, America is still an
island nation. Ninety-five percent of our exports and imports
come by sea. That amount of trade is expected to triple in the
next 15 years, and if we are worried about triple trailers now,
things are going to get worse.
I have just visited the great ports of Long Beach and New
York, amongst others. Containers are stacked up as far as the
eye can see and so are the other modes of transportation trying
to get in there to remove them.
We are worried about the mega ships of the future that will
come to our ports and the people who, in conjunction with that,
want to use our seashores and keep them free from pollution.
These ships are just about beyond belief. We are familiar
with some. We know about the 6,000-container container ship,
where the containers, stacked end to end, would reach 20 miles.
Those are in common practice now coming into our ports. The new
ones on the drawing board are for 8,000 containers.
As for passenger vessels, I think we are all amazed when we
see cruise ships or other passenger vessels that have 2,000 or
3,000 passengers. I can tell you new ones being designed now
and getting ready to be constructed will have 8,000 passengers.
In fact, there is one on the drawing board here this
morning that they hope to build at the turn of the century that
might be 4,000 feet long, have 20,000 apartments on it, an
airport, a hospital, and would carry 40,000 passengers.
Our Coast Guard has to be ready to deal with all of these
things in the 21st century. At the same time, we streamlined
and we feel we are a model of Government downsizing. We have
reduced over 4,000 people in the last few years and have saved
over $400 million a year in our budget.
We are now the smallest we have been since 1965. In fact,
your Coast Guard is smaller than the New York City police
department, to put it in perspective.
Yet we have more work than ever to serve the American
people. But we have had some great advances in technology and
quality management in order to maintain our services. We have
not reduced our operations at all.
This budget allows me to maintain those current services.
It also allows me to order the minimum quantities I need on
current contracts for ships, rescue boats, and buoy tenders.
It also positions us for the future because in this budget
is a very, very important investment project for our deepwater
acquisition. This budget asks for sufficient funds to conduct
an analysis of our capabilities in the deepwater environment
that will lead to a replacement of the system of cutters,
aircraft, and command and control systems that we need to
manage our maritime area both at our coasts and worldwide at
the turn of the 21st century.
Most importantly, this budget provides sufficient money for
me to bring on the people I need to do the job, to pay their
salaries, and to provide for parity with the other members of
the Armed Forces.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for inviting me here
today. My written statement may be made part of the record and
I am ready to answer any questions you may have.
Prepared Statement
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Admiral. We will insert your
written statement in the hearing record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Adm. Robert E. Kramek
Good morning, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to appear before this
distinguished subcommittee today to discuss the Coast Guard's fiscal
year 1999 budget request and its impact on the service, the nation, and
those we serve.
During the past four years, the dedicated men and women of the
Coast Guard have continued to do what they have done for the past 208
years. Through their outstanding efforts we have:
--Saved more than 19,500 lives and nearly $9.3 billion in property.
--Prevented more than 370,000 pounds of cocaine, marijuana, and other
illegal drugs from reaching America's streets and school yards.
--Responded to more than 64,000 reports of water pollution or
hazardous material releases.
--Boarded more than 59,000 fishing vessels to check for compliance
with safety and preservation laws.
--Interdicted or assisted more than 75,000 migrant aliens attempting
to illegally enter the United States.
The Coast Guard has also accepted the challenge to operate and
manage more effectively. The result is a lean Coast Guard which stands
proudly as a model of better government at less cost.
operating the coast guard
To provide our unique services to the public, in fiscal year 1999
the Coast Guard requests $2,772 million in Operating Expenses (OE) and
$67 million in Reserve Training Funds. Included in this request are the
necessary funds to restore the Coast Guard work force, currently under
strength, and funds to provide adequate quality of life for Coast Guard
personnel and their families. To continue delivering current services
at the requested level, I have had to identify nearly $58 million in
internal savings. The Reserve Training Request funds a Selected Reserve
strength of 7,600 personnel that are part of Team Coast Guard and are
integral to all of our operations. I request your full support for both
the Operating Expenses and Reserve Training requests, as any reductions
will directly impact the Coast Guard's ability to complete the many
missions that the American people have come to depend on. Our fiscal
year 1999 Operating Expense request reflects the Coast Guard's
priorities across four strategic goals--safety, protection of vital
marine resources, maritime security, national defense and maritime
mobility.
Safety
We are known as lifesavers and guardians of the sea. Search and
Rescue is, and always will be, our first priority. The Coast Guard's
goal is to reduce deaths, injuries, and property damage associated with
maritime transportation, fishing, and recreational boating. Through our
marine safety program, we also prevent maritime accidents while
remaining ready to react whenever disaster strikes. Each year, we
respond to approximately 50,000 search and rescue calls--from
recreational boaters in distress to freighters sinking in gale-force
winds. The Coast Guard saves approximately 5,000 lives and
approximately $2.5 billion dollars in property during search and rescue
missions every year. In terms of the value of lives and property saved
alone, we provide the American public with a benefit of approximately
four times the cost of all Coast Guard services combined.
Protection of Marine Resources
We strive to eliminate environmental damage and natural resource
degradation on the high seas, within the 200-mile Exclusive Economic
Zone (EEZ), and in our territorial seas. We protect the nation's
immensely valuable fisheries resources from the dangers of overfishing
and foreign poaching. Every day, the Coast Guard patrols the fishing
grounds off New England, Alaska, the Gulf Coast, and throughout our
EEZ. Preservation of these resources is and will remain a Coast Guard
priority. Our fiscal year 1999 budget includes $488 million for
protection of living marine resources. This is my largest law
enforcement mission.
We are also pioneers in the fight against pollution of our nation's
waters. Since 1990, the average amount of oil spilled in the United
States has dropped from 6.25 million gallons to 1.5 million gallons
annually. However, we are not resting on our laurels. We are working
with industry and maritime safety organizations in the U.S. and around
the world to prevent environmental damage of all types. Our Prevention
Through People program recognizes we can not simply focus on
corporations and their leaders, we must also focus on the individual
mariner--the human element. With this as our operating premise, we have
been very aggressive in fostering increased prevention and response
capabilities; conducting more enforcement; completing spill response
contingency plans; and recovering costs from responsible parties. Our
fiscal year 1999 budget request supports our goal of reducing
environmental damage to U.S. waterways through these aggressive
prevention, enforcement, and response programs.
Maritime Security
The Coast Guard shields our nation by halting the flow of illegal
drugs and aliens through maritime routes, as well as enforcing all
Federal laws and regulations at sea. Our boarding teams interdict
overcrowded boats carrying illegal immigrants into the United States,
foil sophisticated attempts to smuggle drugs into our waters, enforce
complex international fisheries agreements and domestic fisheries
regulations, as well as enforce safety regulations on commercial and
recreational vessels. In 1997, the Coast Guard seized a record 103,000
pounds of cocaine and more than 102,000 pounds of marijuana and other
illegal drugs being smuggled into the United States. Arrests of cocaine
traffickers were up 1,000 percent, while cocaine seizures were triple
the previous year. To strengthen our Caribbean neighbors' abilities to
stop these problems before reaching our shores, the fiscal year 1999
budget request includes $2.7 million to operate a Coast Guard cutter as
a training and support ship for the President's Caribbean Initiative.
This cutter will heighten our partnering efforts with our Caribbean
neighbors and train their coast guards in interdicting drugs and
protecting their economic zones. We have finalized bilateral maritime
agreements with 18 nations in the Caribbean to enhance our ability to
counter the drug threat and support U.S. security goals in this region.
National Defense
As one of the five Armed Forces, the Coast Guard enhances regional
stability in support of the National Security Strategy, using our
unique maritime capabilities. We perform a range of defense duties for
the Department of Defense, such as port security, search and rescue,
salvage, surveillance and interdiction, and embargo enforcement. A
Coast Guard cutter is currently patrolling the Persian Gulf, conducting
maritime interception operations in support of the embargo against
Iraq, and one of our Port Security Units stands ready for possible
deployment in support of Operation Desert Thunder. The Coast Guard also
works with foreign naval and maritime forces through training and joint
operations, which improve international cooperation and support U.S.
national security goals.
Mobility
Nearly 95 percent of all U.S. trade involves maritime
transportation. Developing a safe and efficient maritime transportation
infrastructure is essential to the nation's economy and is key to our
ability to compete successfully in the expanding global economy. The
Coast Guard facilitates maritime commerce and eliminates impediments to
the movement of goods and people. Like crowded highways, crowded
waterways demand careful policing to ensure safe, equal access for all
mariners. Coast Guard waterways management services promote the safe
and efficient movement of commercial vessels in congested harbors. Our
fleet of buoy tenders maintain some 50,000 Federal aids to navigation.
We are also completing full implementation of the Differential Global
Positioning System to provide mariners with the most accurate
navigation information available. Our icebreakers keep shipping lanes
open for commercial traffic in winter as well as conduct national
interest missions in the Arctic and Antarctic. Our vessel traffic
services help ensure safe and expeditious movement of vessels within
the transportation network.
Our strategic goals, and this budget request, support the
Department of Transportation's strategic goals of safety, protection of
the human and natural environment, mobility, economic growth and trade,
and national security, as well as the President's national security
goals.
investing in the future
The Coast Guard today is not only concerned about maintaining our
current level of services, but meeting America's future needs. Our
fiscal year 1999 Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements (AC&I)
request is structured to provide for the future. The ``Deepwater''
project is the cornerstone of the Coast Guard's future recapitalization
efforts. This project represents the systematic replacement of aging
Coast Guard cutters and aircraft and related command and control
systems. This new system is essential to the Coast Guard and our
nation.
It is also important that we continue and complete current
recapitalization projects such as the Seagoing and Coastal Buoy
Tenders, the Coastal Patrol Boats, Motor Lifeboats, and Buoy Boats;
continue safety and efficiency improvements on our aircraft; and invest
in information and decision support systems that will result in future
efficiencies. Full funding of our fiscal year 1999 request will allow
us to do just that.
To offset some of the Coast Guard's capital investment, user fees
are proposed to recover a portion of the Coast Guard's costs for
navigational services. We are working hard to develop this proposal. To
maintain current services and provide for recapitalization of aging
assets, I need the full program level of our fiscal year 1999 AC&I
request.
today's coast guard . . . streamlined, efficient
Our efforts to streamline the Coast Guard during the past four
years have been tough but successful. We have reduced our work force by
nearly 4,000, we have reduced overhead, administrative, and support
costs, and have placed resources in the right place at the right time.
Today, the Coast Guard is more active and affects more American lives
on a daily basis than at any time in its 208-year history.
I can say with confidence that our Service is on course and more
responsive than ever to both enduring and emerging national priorities.
It is only because of our most valuable resource--our people--that we
have been able to undertake such significant change while continuing to
deliver the highest level of quality and excellence in services to the
public. I need your support for our fiscal year 1999 request to restore
the funding to our personnel account in order to recruit, retain, and
pay the skilled work force necessary to perform the Coast Guard's
missions.
conclusion
Mr. Chairman, the President's fiscal year 1999 budget request for
the Coast Guard allows the Coast Guard to carry out its missions. I
believe this request is responsive to the challenges we face, yet
recognizes the fiscal challenges we face as a nation. Your strong
support of this request is critical to ensuring the Coast Guard remains
Semper Paratus--Always Ready.
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill
Senator Shelby. Administrator Garvey, the emergency
supplemental appropriation bill that was marked up earlier this
week includes a significant appropriation for the year 2000
related work. I know that both you and the Secretary have
indicated that you are confident that the year 2000
deficiencies will be corrected by July 1, 1999, or earlier.
Given the FAA's inability in the past to manage software
programs on schedule, I am not willing to take a chance on it
when the stakes may be as high as a complete shutdown of the
ATC system on September 9, 1999, or on January 1, 2000.
Will the supplemental appropriation included in the
emergency supplemental appropriations bill provide you the
necessary resources to solve the host computer and year 2000
deficiencies?
Ms. Garvey. Mr. Chairman, the supplemental would be
extraordinarily helpful in allowing us to keep on schedule. It
would also allow us to aggressively replace the host equipment.
Senator Shelby. Will it be sufficient? Will it be enough?
Ms. Garvey. It will be, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for asking
that question.
Coast Guard Facilities at Dauphin Island
Senator Shelby. Admiral, this is parochial, I guess, but
not totally so.
There is a small Coast Guard station in Mobile, AL. I
understand that there was an anticipated relocation and
construction of new facilities for that station on some Coast
Guard owned property situated on Dauphin Island for a search
and rescue detachment.
Resources for that relocation and construction were not put
in the President's budget request. I further understand that
one of the benefits of combining facilities at Dauphin Island
is a reduction in operating and maintenance costs. In other
words, it would be cost effective.
Is my understanding of this issue accurate? Was that money
in your request to the Office of the Secretary and in the
Department's request to the Office of Management and Budget?
Admiral Kramek. Yes, sir, it was.
Senator Shelby. Is that approximately $3.25 million?
Admiral Kramek. It was about that amount, a little bit over
$3 million.
Senator Shelby. So if we get you the money, that would be
OK, wouldn't it?
Admiral Kramek. We could start construction.
I had to defer that project because of our budget caps, but
we are ready to move on that, which moves the rescue forces 2
hours closer to where the work is.
Senator Shelby. It makes sense, does it not?
Admiral Kramek. Yes.
Senator Shelby. So if we get you the money, you will
proceed immediately, won't you?
Admiral Kramek. We will.
Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System [STARS]
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
Administrator Garvey, although the STARS Program has been
the subject of a number of reprogramming concerns over key and
slight slippages in the software development schedule, the
reports I am getting and the committee is getting on the STARS
Program are that this very aggressive hardware and software
program is progressing well.
Do you share that assessment?
Ms. Garvey. We do, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Is the budget request for the 1999 year
sufficient to meet your obligations for this program and to
manage the program in the manner you would expect from the FAA?
Ms. Garvey. It is at this point. I will say that the next 3
weeks are going to be very critical for us with the Standard
Terminal Automation Replacement System [STARS]. We are working
closely with the controllers and with members of the
Professional Airway System Specialists [PASS] Union, our
maintenance union, to take a look at some of the human factor
issues. In the next 2 or 3 weeks, we are going to understand
even more clearly what those human factor impacts will be.
We are all working very hard on the issue and the
controllers are working side by side with us as well as the
members of PASS.
Wide Area Augmentation System [WAAS]
Senator Shelby. Let me get your impression on the status of
the WAAS procurement.
In your testimony before the House Transportation
Appropriations Subcommittee, you suggested that for large
procurements, it might be useful to identify a cost range with
risk factors that would either increase or decrease the final
cost of the procurement.
Given the cost escalation that we have seen in the
estimated costs of the WAAS system just in the last year and
the critical question of whether this is a sole or a primary
system and my growing concerns that this procurement is not
even close to being cost effective, is this a candidate for the
type of range and risk analysis that you suggested at the House
hearing?
Ms. Garvey. It is, Mr. Chairman. In fact, the General
Accounting Office [GAO] made the suggestion to us. We are
working closely with them on ways that we might approach it. We
are approaching the Wide Area Augmentation System [WAAS] in
that way right now.
Senator Shelby. I understand how a range and risk analysis
might be useful at program inception. But I worry about the
slippery slope of a rolling range and risk estimate that could
lead Congress to throw good money after bad. I am sure you
share that. We don't have to look very far to see the dangers
of throwing good money after bad.
The inspector general report on AAS that we mandated last
year is likely to show that we wasted over $1.5 billion. I
would rather cut WAAS now and get the program's architecture
and management straightened out before we move forward than
have an AAS situation occur on our watch.
Do you share that view?
Ms. Garvey. We do, Mr. Chairman. We are going to be working
on that very closely in the next several months. The issue of
WAAS providing primary means of navigation versus sole means
capability and the other questions that are associated with
WAAS are at the top of our agenda.
Senator Shelby. It is a lot of money, isn't it?
Ms. Garvey. It is a lot of money, Mr. Chairman.
Deepwater Project
Senator Shelby. Admiral, there is $28 million in the AC&I
budget for the deepwater project. Last year, we appropriated
more than was requested for the AC&I budget in an effort to
reduce the demands on that account as the deepwater project
elements became bigger factors in the AC&I account.
What will be done with that $28 million in fiscal year
1999?
Admiral Kramek. Mr. Chairman, this week we issued a request
for proposals to various contractors. We have a tremendous
amount of interests from all the major shipyard contractors in
the United States--major and minor--and from the aviation
industry and the electronics industry for this system.
In the next 3 or 4 months, these different consortiums that
have formed--there are five or six of them, or so--will answer
our proposals. This summer we will select at least three of
these consortiums which then will be paid from this $28 million
to go into an 18-month design competition.
At the end of that, they will propose to us what the
deepwater system should be like--the types of ships, aircraft,
and the C\4\I systems.
The phase II part of that project, which is also covered by
this $28 million, is perhaps all three of them or perhaps just
one winner, as we down select, will then go into a detailed
design and cost analysis. Then we will select a winner from
that to proceed to construct the deepwater project.
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Admiral.
Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, we,
unfortunately, have two very important witnesses here and, as a
consequence, I have questions that I would like to try to get
in. I hope our colleagues will perhaps indulge me if I run over
a minute or two. We will try to wrap it up quickly.
Admiral Kramek, you have noted that your proposal for a 33-
percent funding cut for a container inspection program in
fiscal 1999 will not result in a reduced level of effectiveness
and will not compromise the safety of our ports and waterways.
As you know, I initiated this program in 1994, in response
to the Santa Clara I casualty in which several containers
filled with toxic materials were lost overboard off the New
Jersey coast.
Despite assurances, I am concerned that this reduction has
the potential to substantially limit both the number and
quality of container inspections the Coast Guard can perform.
It is of particular concern because of, as you noted, the
substantial increase in the number and size of the ships that
are going to be plying our waters.
If you come to New Jersey, you will see it. You know that
container movement is growing in popularity all the time. The
size of these things is amazing. Did you mention a vessel with
8,000 containers aboard? Is that correct?
Admiral Kramek. That's correct. They have 6,000 already.
Senator Lautenberg. It is almost beyond comprehension.
What assurances can we have here at the subcommittee that
these cuts, the cuts that you are proposing, will not impair
the program and result in an increased exposure to problems in
our ports and waterways?
Admiral Kramek. The assurances are that the goal that I set
was to maintain our service to the public, taking into account
the increase in trade. As you know, when we established this
program, you were very generous and very concerned when we set
this program up several years ago. We did it without any real
experience in having started it.
Now that we have 3 years of experience in this program, I
am able to reduce the headquarters staff. I don't find that
that is necessary anymore for oversight of the program. I am
going to maintain all my inspectors in the ports where they
should be. I have increased the number of containers that I
have inspected each year and forecast to do that in the future.
And I have learned, in a quality way, how to do this job
better.
If, for a moment, we fall behind, I will ask to have some
of these resources restored. But I have taken all of the
savings--33 percent--from what I consider expenses in excess of
overhead costs. I think we can do the same job and the process
we have to do with less money.
Senator Lautenberg. Don't be afraid, Admiral Kramek or
Admiral Loy, to send out an SOS when needed because we
continually give your service more and more tasks, and life
becomes ever more complicated. The ships that are being built
show an amazing growth in interest, whether it is passenger,
container, or otherwise. I have seen a proposal where they are
looking for investments in condominiums aboard ship so that you
can own it and use it or rent it out on a kind of casual basis.
There is one ship that is being proposed to have two
towers--perhaps you have seen that--where some gaming might
take place off the coast, with thousands of passengers
boarding, and perhaps going broke in the process. But the fact
of the matter is the Coast Guard's responsibility is
considerably enlarged.
I noted in your statement the successes we have had in
capturing those attempting to run drugs into our country. Also,
there is the number of buoys that have to be tended to.
I am an amateur sailor by everybody's standard and I need
every one of those buoys out there. That is how I spend all of
my time, looking for the next mark. And I have GPS, radar, and
you name it, and my vision is pretty good. [Laughter.]
That is how we built this incredible marine recreation
industry and commercial industry in our society. It is because
the Coast Guard was there to make sure the waterways were clear
and understood and to make the preparations for tomorrow.
When I get reports for deeper drafts--not your direct
responsibility--for vessels that are expected in the future, I
don't know how we are going to get them in and out of these
fairly narrow waterways that we use so effectively. But we are
going to do it.
The Senator from Utah can take some comfort in that he does
not have to worry about that. His problems are on the high and
ours are on the sea. He has the mountains and we have the sea
to worry about.
But you do a terrific job.
If I can, Mr. Chairman, I would like to get on with a
couple of questions.
Senator Shelby. Go ahead.
Oceanic Systems
Senator Lautenberg. Ambassador Garvey--I mean
Administrator. Boy, I am changing titles all day.
Ms. Garvey. Thank you.
Senator Shelby. You know, that might come down the road.
Senator Lautenberg. I called Senator Byrd ``Admiral.'' I'm
having a bad day. It's these late nights in the Budget
Committee.
Administrator Garvey, you recently submitted a
reprogramming request for $75 million to replace 3 IBM 1970's
vintage air traffic control computer systems. They are used for
primary and oceanic systems, offshore flight data processing
systems. You describe it as an imperative.
We, in my region, the New York/New Jersey region, know all
too well the problems FAA's aging infrastructure imposes on the
air traffic controllers, the carriers, the airline passengers.
It is tough out there.
Now it is apparent that you have been facing this problem
for some time now. Why has it suddenly become a critical issue
and how many more aging computer systems are there out there
awaiting attention?
Ms. Garvey. Senator, replacing the Host System is
something, as you have indicated, that we have known about.
Originally, the FAA was looking at the year 2002 or 2003 to
replace the Host. But with the Y2K issue, we took another look
at that last fall and said should we perhaps undertake a much
more aggressive schedule. That is really the result of the
reprogramming.
Ken Mead likes to describe it as a ``belt-and-suspenders
approach'' that we are taking, which is trying aggressively to
replace the Host at the same time that we are renovating the
existing system. In case we just cannot get the Host into every
one of the terminals, we want to have a backup as well.
So, while we have always planned to replace the Host, we
have moved it forward in a more aggressive timetable. That is
the result of the reprogramming.
Senator Lautenberg. I am sure that the Senator from Utah,
with his, as he describes it, obsession about Y2K matters, is
going to ask some questions there. I just want to register the
fact that I am concerned about the passage of the supplemental
to get you the funds that we need.
I say the same to you. Do not be ashamed or reluctant to
describe your needs in the most effective terms necessary
because this is a critical issue. Again, I will defer to the
Senator, who has spent so much time on this and has so much
knowledge about it.
I would put in a plug for my old company and say ADP has
solved the year 2000 problem. But I would not do that in this
austere position that I now hold. [Laughter.]
Controller Pay
The question of controller pay and the regional differences
are enormous. I am concerned that you have not requested any
funding for controller pay increases in your 1999 budget.
Should we expect a request for a supplemental appropriation
at the conclusion of the current negotiations with the Air
Traffic Controllers Association?
Ms. Garvey. Senator, as you have indicated, we are in
negotiations right now with the union, which, by the way, I
think are going very well. People are working very hard at it.
In talking with them last week, they had gone through about
50 articles, which was very good progress.
We have not requested additional funds for pay. We are
looking at it as budget neutral and looking at offsets within
the bargaining unit. But we really have all ideas on the table,
and the controllers have brought forward some interesting ideas
on productivity and savings that could be gained in other
areas.
So we are really looking hard at that.
I hope very much that we can conclude the negotiations
fairly quickly. I know that some of the more contentious issues
are still on the table. But we are making good progress.
Airport Delays
Senator Lautenberg. The delays in our area with the number
of busy airports, including even general aviation, with
Teterboro and Morristown airports nearby, or Westchester--these
are peripheral airports in the scheme of things--are notable.
La Guardia, Newark, and Kennedy airports are suffering, as are
their passengers, from the number of air traffic delays,
especially under severe weather conditions.
I can tell you, as a frequent flyer to that area from here,
even when the weather is crystal clear, when the weather is
perfect, the delays are there. At times we spend more time
circling to get a landing slot than we do in actual transit
from Washington to there.
What can we do? What are you planning to do to reduce these
delays and improve the safety?
We have had a few of what I might describe as close calls.
I do want to amend that for one system to say the system is
safe. What we want to do is make it even safer than it has
been. The statistics do not please us when there are persons
involved if there is an accident.
What can we do to reduce delays and improve safety.
Mr. Chairman, that will be my last question.
Ms. Garvey. Senator, let me answer that in three ways. I
will do this very briefly.
There are really three efforts underway. One is the
modernization effort. The work the task force, the work that
RTCA has done in laying out some of the automation tools that
we can put in place fairly quickly, before 2005, is noteworthy.
The White House Commission talks about the year 2005. But
incremental building blocks can be put in place now. We can
deal both with safety issues and efficiency issues, as you have
suggested. That is one effort, modernization.
Second, there is the whole issue of reconfiguring the
national airspace. A point that you have made to me, and that
your staff has made as well, is that when you take on something
like reconfiguring the national airspace, that is a big
proposition, an enormous proposition. We, in the last few
weeks, have been looking at taking the Northeast corridor,
where some of the problems, as you have suggested, are the most
significant; rather than taking on the whole thing, let's at
least look at that piece of it first so that we can take on
those challenges and not wait for the whole national airspace
to be reconfigured.
We are doing that and are working very closely with the
airports in the corridor, including Newark.
The third is more immediate. In talking during a visit I
had a couple of months ago in Newark with both the airport and
Continental people, they made some wonderful suggestions about
operational improvements that we could make now that will have
a direct effect on efficiency and delays.
We are doing that. We have a task force made up of
representatives of the airport, FAA, as well as the airlines.
We are putting it in place and looking at the operational
improvements now.
So those three efforts--operational improvements, which are
quite immediate, modernization, and the reconfiguration of the
air traffic control, which is a couple of years away but still
in the short term will give us some good answers to deal with
the issues that you have raised.
We are looking forward to a visit in April, I understand,
to do that.
Senator Lautenberg. Yes, indeed.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think Administrator Garvey
points out something and that is that we have to have balance
in our transportation system. I have heard echoes of support
here for rail service.
Senator Shelby. Absolutely.
Senator Lautenberg. If we did not have it between New York,
Boston, and Washington, if we did not have Amtrak serving those
areas, we would need 10,000 new flights a year. There is no
room.
People looking up at the sky do not see it, but they see it
when they get to the airport and they have to wait an hour for
their flight, or they arrive too late for their connection.
I hope that we will continue to invest in rail service so
that we can reduce the need to continually expand air service
when, in fact, air service can be improved by redirecting some
of the routes, instead of some of these short legs that we
have.
Thanks very much, and I thank my colleagues for indulging
me.
Airport Improvement Program
Senator Shelby. Senator Faircloth.
Senator Faircloth. Thank you.
Have you given any thought to closing Newark? [Laughter.]
Ms. Garvey. None at all, Senator.
Senator Lautenberg. And we have not thought about taking
our old operations out of North Carolina, either, my old
company. [Laughter.]
Senator Shelby. I'll tell you what. I know that Senator
Lautenberg has been a big sponsor, advocate of rail
transportation, mainly in the Northeast, where he is from and
where a lot of it works. But some of us in the South are
concerned about rail transportation. There is not enough there.
There is not enough coming through my hometown or through
Senator Lott's State. That is something we are going to have to
address and Senator Lautenberg knows that well.
Senator Lautenberg. We will look at the Shelby express, I
promise you.
Senator Shelby. Absolutely--the Lautenberg-Shelby express.
[Laughter.]
Senator Faircloth.
Air Traffic Control Equipment
Senator Faircloth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Garvey, I just want to run through a few things. I am
not even asking questions on these first four. I just want to
mention and thank you for these. If you or some of your staff
would take note to make sure they are on line, and, if you
don't mind, if you would, let someone get back to me on the
projects I am going to mention.
Ms. Garvey. Certainly, Senator.
Senator Faircloth. First is the Global Transpark and the
Sanford-Lee County Airport and the funding for this so that we
can get the schedule on line. Second is the Lexington Airport
and the Moore County Airport.
If you would, have someone contact me and let me talk to
them on these projects and where they stand. Also, this one is
very important because, if I am not mistaken, maybe you are
planning to be there. The Charlotte air traffic control tower
will receive the rapid deployment voice switching system in
July of this year. I would very, very much want to make sure
that that is on schedule and moving as it should be.
To be very brief, I understand exactly what Senator Byrd
was saying earlier. Certainly 110 people a day killed on
highways is a condition we cannot allow to continue. But I
still go back to the helplessness we feel when any of us in
this room gets into an airline. We have no control.
I have been through automobile wrecks and I have been
through airplane crashes. I can tell you that the airplane
crash is much more frightening.
I still look back--and I am not trying to identify some
individual whom we can label a scapegoat--but the fiasco that
the FAA allowed to go on and on and on in the purchasing of new
control tower control equipment for the entire aviation network
in this Nation is just a travesty that I hope we are correcting
rapidly and that is not allowed to continue. The waste of money
was bad enough. But the waste of time, as time moved on and we
became more obsolete and more obsolete, was terrible because
lives are at stake.
Would you tell me, are we catching up? Are we doing just
fill-in, make-believe catchup? Are we expending the system for
more air traffic? Or are we just kind of running down to Radio
Shack and getting something to replace a 1974 computer with?
Ms. Garvey. Senator, thank you.
I think we have made some real improvements. I thought your
comments in the opening statement zeroed in on some of the
problems we have had in the past. That is sometimes the
interest in getting an enormous project that may be just too
big. Sometimes Government does that. We focus on long-term
implementation of a project that sometimes may be very
difficult to achieve.
I think that is why the work that RTCA and the task force
has done has been so important, because they have really said
let's look at some building blocks, let's look at something we
can put in place now. And that is going to give us and will
give us the kind of automation tools that we really need to
deal with the issues that you and other members have raised.
I think some of the reform that Congress gave the FAA, the
acquisition reform, for example, has been extraordinarily
helpful.
One thing that is very different in the way that we monitor
contracts now and that is really significant is this. There are
ways that the contracts are set up so that we can catch any
problems early-on in the process, rather than hearing about
them from contractors. We have been able to monitor projects in
a way and have caught some things, for example, in the WAAS
contract, also in the STARS contract, that we might not have
caught 5 or 6 years ago. So I think Congress has been
extraordinarily helpful in giving us some of the reforms.
But I think the issue is an important one, and one we have
to constantly look at. Are we putting the right pieces of
equipment in place? Are we thinking both what can we get in the
short-term for benefits and what also will lead to something
that will serve the next century as well? I think we are making
some good progress.
Air Traffic Modernization
Senator Faircloth. Just very briefly--am I running out of
time?
Senator Shelby. You go on ahead, Senator Faircloth.
Senator Faircloth. Just in a word, are we trying to cover
the mistakes of the past or are we expanding for the future?
Are we getting ready for more air traffic?
Ms. Garvey. Senator, I believe we are preparing for the
future. We are ready for the future--we will be.
Federal Express Mid-Atlantic Hub
Senator Faircloth. Ms. Garvey, we, in North Carolina, are
excited about the possibility that Federal Express is looking
at the possibility of locating their Mid-Atlantic hub there.
Senator Shelby. Senator Faircloth, could you get them to
share that with Alabama, too? [Laughter.]
Senator Faircloth. There is no room in Alabama. [Laughter.]
If this happens, we will need some support and financing
from FAA of a considerable amount, depending on which airport
it goes to. I just want to say that we will be back.
Ms. Garvey. We will look forward to that, Senator, and we
will be happy to work with you.
Drug Interdiction Funding
Senator Faircloth. Thank you.
Admiral Kramek, does the budget request permit the Coast
Guard to accomplish the drug interdiction objectives that you
have? I want you to know that I think it is one of the most
dangerous things facing the country and if your current budget
request does not do it, I can assure you that you will have my
support and probably that of a lot of other Senators for more.
Does it give you an adequate amount of money?
Admiral Kramek. This budget request allows us to maintain
the same level of drug law enforcement that we maintained last
year--at the same level as last year.
Senator Faircloth. Should it be expanded?
Admiral Kramek. Well, I think if one were to follow the
National Drug Control Strategy that has been laid out to reduce
supplies in this country by 50 percent over the next 10 years,
that would beg for a program with some growth. So we are
studying that. We are going to have to, in the future, ask for
more resources in order to meet the requirements of that
strategy.
But this year we had a bit of a dilemma, and the dilemma
was the Congress and the administration agreeing on balancing
the budget. We had budget caps to live within. And so, this
budget allows me just to maintain the current services we had
at last year's level.
Senator Faircloth. Thank you, Admiral.
Just out of total curiosity, why would anybody want to be
on a ship with 40,000 other people?
Admiral Kramek. I have no idea. [Laughter.]
When Senator Lautenberg mentioned the ship with the
condominiums, every condo is already sold on that vessel. Those
people live on it. They say they travel around the world and
follow the sun. That is where they live, and it is totally sold
out.
Senator Faircloth. I will stick to North Carolina.
Thank you.
Senator Shelby. Senator Bennett.
Management Responsibility for Y2K
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Garvey, I appreciate your comments about the year 2000
problem. I will not beat a dead horse.
Now that is the wrong analogy. This horse is not dead. This
is a horse that is going to kick down the barn if we don't get
something under control.
But I would simply share with you my own experience. The
agencies over which I have a degree of responsibility and
control all gave me the same answers when I raised the year
2000 problem. The immediate was yes, we have a plan in place
and yes, we will be ready.
As I have pursued it, I have found that in almost every
case, the answer is no. They cannot be ready and the plan they
have is more wishful thinking than anything else.
I am delighted to hear your description of the meeting that
just took place. It should have taken place based on where we
are--you were not there, so you do not bear any of the
responsibility--well over a year ago, and probably for an
agency as big as yours 2 or 3 years ago.
I am scared to death to find out that this meeting took
place a month or so ago to start pulling this together. I will
be working with you in whatever capacity the leader gives me on
this issue to give you as much support as we possibly can get
out of Congress.
Do not believe the techies who tell you immediately oh,
yes, we have this problem under control. This is a management
problem. The responsibility is yours. The responsibility is
Secretary Slater's. It is not something you turn over to your
Chief Information Officer and then turn your attention to other
issues. It is something you, yourself, must be on top of
virtually on a daily basis.
If I can put it in this analogy, your Chief Information
Officer is General Marshall. You are President Roosevelt, and
the free world is at stake here on how well you do your job.
If that is enough to scare you, I have accomplished what I
want to accomplish.
Ms. Garvey. You have succeeded, Senator. [Laughter.]
Second Airport Surveillance Radar for Salt Lake City
Senator Bennett. Good.
Let me be parochial now. Everybody else has been and it is
time for me to be parochial, too.
With respect to an ASR-9 system in Utah Valley, which is
just south of Salt Lake Valley, we have a letter from you
saying that it does not meet the cost benefit analysis.
My question, which you can answer for the record, is
whether or not your analysis focused primarily on the Provo
Municipal Airport because the real problem, frankly, is not
Provo. The problem is Salt Lake International Airport.
Of all of the major hubs in the United States, Salt Lake
International Airport is the most physically constrained;
10,000- to 12,000-foot peaks virtually surround the airport.
It is the Salt Lake radar problem that we are worried
about, not the Provo radar problem.
Now the mayor of Provo was in to see me yesterday and he
has big plans for the Provo Airport. But there is a
circumstance now where coming from the south, airplanes
literally go off radar.
A week or so ago, when the President came to Salt Lake to
accompany his daughter when she went skiing, Air Force One went
off radar for 26 seconds. There was considerable panic over
that. Regular airliners can go off radar for minutes.
We are concerned about that and hope you will take a second
look at it.
Your letter tells us that there is going to be additional
radar coverage during the Olympic games, so that during the
Olympic games, temporary facilities will be put there to take
care of this and nobody will go off radar coming from the south
during the Olympics.
Obviously, the question gets raised: If it is good enough
for the Olympics, why is it not good enough for regular
traffic? While we will have additional traffic during the
Olympics, Salt Lake is a major hub. Delta operates a tremendous
number of flights out of there, as they do with their other
hubs in Cincinnati and Atlanta. This is one we hope you take a
careful look at.
We are a little bit afraid that the analysis that was done
was just on Provo, saying well, the additional radar is not
necessary for Provo which is 45 miles, roughly, south of Salt
Lake. Given the maneuvers that airliners have to go through to
get around the mountains, get into the landing pattern, and get
into Salt Lake, this is a Salt Lake problem, not a Provo
problem.
I would appreciate it if you would look into that and get
back to me on it.
Ms. Garvey. We will do that, Senator.
I remember very well last year, even before I was sworn in,
you urged me to visit the airport and see the uniqueness of the
layout. I did. So I do have some appreciation for the issues
that you have raised.
Let me go back and take another look at that.
[The information follows:]
Currently, there is not a validated operational need to
install a second airport surveillance radar (ASR) for Salt Lake
City International Airport. This airport experiences a delay
rate below national average. Most of the delays that do occur
would not have been prevented with improved terminal radar
coverage. High altitude aircraft inbound from the south are
controlled by the Salt Lake City Air Route Traffic Control
Center (ARTCC) and remain within the ARTCC's radar coverage
until established in the radar coverage and airspace of the
Salt Lake City Radar Approach Control (TRACON). Positive radar
contact and control is always maintained throughout the
aircraft descent by either the ARTCC or TRACON. The FAA will
continue to ensure the safe and efficient flow of traffic at
Salt Lake City International Airport.
The proposed need for a second ASR in the Salt Lake City
area is a separate issue from the short term temporary radar
surveillance need for the 2002 Winter Olympics. Provo Airport
has been identified as a potential relieve airport during the
Winter Olympics. The temporary ASR-9 is intended to provide
radar coverage into and around Provo Airport during the
increased traffic period the Olympics Games will generate.
The radar coverage issue involving Air Force One, occurred
on Tuesday, March 10, 1998 at 8:34 a.m. EST. Air Force One was
enroute from Andrews Air Force Base, MD to Windsor Locks, CT.
Although the beacon radar data provided by the Gibbsboro air
route surveillance radar was interrupted partially, basic radar
data was provided continuously.
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much. I appreciate your
consideration.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your courtesy.
Coast Guard Recruiting
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
I have just one final question for Admiral Kramek.
I know that the current low unemployment rate, while good
for the Nation, creates some difficulty for the Coast Guard in
your recruiting efforts. Does the current budget provide the
resources to maintain your end strength numbers considering the
difficulty of recruiting in a low unemployment economy?
Admiral Kramek. Yes; this 1999 request from the President
asks for sufficient funds to do just that.
We have to contact approximately 120 qualified high school
graduates to get one of them to join the Armed Forces nowadays.
It is about the same for all the services, though a little
better for the Coast Guard. But sufficient funds are requested
in this budget to do that, Mr. Chairman.
Submitted Questions
Senator Shelby. We appreciate both of you appearing here,
your patience, and your hard work. We will submit additional
questions in writing to be answered for the record.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the agencies for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Federal Aviation Administration
Questions Submitted by Senator Shelby
controller pay
Question. The budget request does not request any funding for any
cost increase due to a new contract with the air traffic controllers.
Your agency is currently in discussions with the air traffic
controllers with regard to the terms and conditions of such a new
contract. Do you anticipate a new contract this year, and will the
Administration submit a budget amendment to pay for any increased costs
due to such a contract?
Answer. While the negotiation process is progressing well, whether
it will be concluded this year is unknown. If any cost increases result
from the contract, we will pursue funding them through cost savings
offsets. It is the agency's intention that the new contract will be
budget neutral.
lighter than air vehicles
Question. Last year's Transportation Appropriations conference
report contained language directing the FAA to examine the feasibility
of exempting hot air balloons from the minimum safe altitude
requirements of 14 CFR 91.119. The FAA currently exempts helicopters
from this requirement and often exempts hot air balloons from the
requirements during balloon rallies. What steps has the FAA taken to
examine the feasibility of a permanent exemption for Lighter Than Air
vehicles from the requirements of this FAA rule? Can you assure the
Committee that the FAA will undertake a thorough study to determine
whether such an exemption would be feasible, and report back to
Congress as soon as possible?
Answer. In recognition of the increasing popularity of hot air
ballooning as a sport aviation function, the Federal Aviation
Administration has, from time to time, provided guidance to field
elements regarding the operation of these lighter-than-air (LTV)
vehicles with regard to minimum operational altitudes in accordance
with the provisions of 14 CFR part 91.119, Minimum Safe Altitudes.
The regulation provides for the establishment of a minimum safe
altitude for all aircraft. By regulation, aircraft must operate at an
altitude that permits an emergency landing, in the event of a power
unit failure, without undue hazard to persons or property on the
surface.
Minimum safe operating altitudes and distances are addressed for
operations conducted over ``congested areas,'' ``other than congested
areas,'' and ``sparsely populated areas''. The rule establishes an
exception for helicopters, in recognition of their distinct operational
characteristics which permit them to operate vertically and
horizontally (including side and rearward operations) with equanimity.
No other type of aircraft can safely duplicate these operational
characteristics.
As maneuverability and controllability of an aircraft type
decreases, safety considerations become more significant. Where the FAA
may permit a small single-engine, power line patrol airplane to operate
under the conditions of a waiver to the minimum altitude rule over
other than congested areas (e.g. no less than 200 feet from persons or
property), it would not authorize the same operation by a large multi-
engine transport airplane.
Minimum safe operating altitude and distance waivers are generally
granted upon request for those operators participating in airshows or
competitive events. Such waivers are issued under strict terms and
conditions involving pre-determined pilot actions and crowd control to
preclude injury to persons or damage to property on the surface. During
these events, FAA personnel are on hand to monitor the safety aspects
of the event, and to terminate events or activities if conditions
warrant it.
Balloons appear to be graceful and slow-moving, however, the amount
of control an operator has over a lighter-than-air aircraft is minimal,
and the aircraft is immediately subject to any variation in the
atmosphere, such as gusty winds or thermal activity. An immediate
correction to an in-flight abnormality of a hot air balloon only
results in a response over a relatively long period of time.
At this time, the Federal Aviation Administration has no plans to
initiate rulemaking to provide an exception to the minimum safe
operating rules (14 CFR part 91.119) for lighter-than-air aircraft. The
absence of total effective control of such aircraft would not provide
for an equivalent level of safety that the general public has come to
expect.
Should an operator or an organization request an exemption to the
current rule, the Agency will examine the merits of the request on a
case by case basis to determine the feasibility of granting such an
exemption.
faa reprogramming request for replacement of computer systems
Question. The FAA recently submitted a reprogramming request for
$75.3 million to replace three IBM 1970's vintage air traffic control
computer systems--the primary and oceanic air traffic control systems,
and the off-shore flight data processing system. The FAA has also
disclosed that these critical systems need to be replaced immediately
because they are no longer supported by IBM.
Why was this problem not identified earlier and how many more of
these air traffic control computer systems are on the verge of
obsolescence?
Answer. The Host Computer System (HCS) was originally identified
for replacement by the Advanced Automation System (AAS), which was
canceled in 1994. Only the Peripheral Adapter Module Replacement Item
(PAMRI) segment of AAS was successfully deployed and commissioned. We
have continued work on the HCS and critical system replacement
programs.
The Host and Oceanic reprogramming request was sent to the
Appropriations Subcommittees on March 6, 1998. This reprogramming would
allow FAA to accelerate the replacement of Host and oceanic systems.
This request came about after Lockheed Martin (LM) informed the FAA
level in a report dated July 23, 1997, that it could not provide the
current maintenance. LM is the prime contractor for the HCS with IBM
being the hardware maintenance supplier. In this report, IBM stated
that it could only provide the current maintenance level for one year
ending 09/98 and ``best effort'' thereafter. End-of-Service issues for
various components were also identified in this report.
Upon receipt of this information, the FAA analyzed the risks and
alternatives for the HCS replacement. During this time, the FAA also
vigorously pursued the HCS mainframe Year 2000 compliance issue with
IBM but IBM declined to certify the system as Y2K compliant. Thirteen
alternatives for the HCS replacement were studied in an Investment
Analysis in February 1998. The reprogramming request was submitted.
Other systems that are either obsolete or on the verge of
obsolescence include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current system Replaced by or decommission
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Automated Radar Terminal System (ARTS) Standard Terminal Automation
IIIA, IIIE; ARTS IIA, IIE. Replacement System (STARS).
En Route Automated Radar Tracking System Micro-EARTS.
(EARTS).
Common Digitizer (CD)-1................... CD-2.
Air Route Surveillance Radar (ARSR)-1, 2.. Being decommissioned and
replaced selectively with
ARSR-3, 4.
Direct Access Radar Channel (DARC)........ Supportable till 2001;
Investment Analysis is
examining alternatives for
a replacement system.
Peripheral Adapter Module (PAM)........... Supportable till 2001.
Replacement Item (PAMRI).................. Investment Analysis is to
be determined.
Flight Service Automation System (FSAS)... Logistically not supportable
by year 2000 and is being
replaced under the OASIS
program.
Tandem portion Voice Switching and Control Replacement planned.
System (VSCS).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
nas modernization approach
Question. The FAA Administrator has begun an outreach effort with
the aviation community to build consensus on and seek commitment to the
future direction of the agency's NAS modernization program. A review of
this program by the NAS Modernization Task Force (which includes FAA
and DOD officials and representatives of external stakeholder groups)
concluded last month that the architecture under development builds on
the concept of operations for the NAS and identifies the programs
needed to meet the needs of the user community. However, the task force
found that the architecture is not realistic because of (1) an
insufficient budget; (2) the preponderance of risks associated
primarily with certifying and deploying new equipment and with users'
cost to acquire equipment; and (3) unresolved institutional issues and
a lack of user commitment.
The task force recommended a revised approach that would be less
costly and would be focused more on providing near-term user benefits.
Under this revised approach, FAA would (1) implement a set of core
technologies to provide immediate user benefits; (2) modify the Flight
2000 initiative to address critical risk areas associated with key
communication, navigation, and surveillance programs, and (3) proceed
with implementing critical time-driven activities related to the Host
computer and the year 2000 computer date problems and with implementing
such systems as STARS, surveillance radars, and en route displays to
replace aging infrastructure. What are the costs for implementing the
revised approach, including the Flight 2000 Initiative? What are the
benefits?
Answer. The Administrator's Modernization Task Force provided
guidance to the FAA for establishing priorities for and reducing risks
in modernization. The Free Flight Phase 1 (FFP1) initiative represents
aviation community consensus on the first phase of modernization. It
will cost approximately $600 million for the core program out of a
total modernization program of $11.9 billion in Facilities and
Equipment (F&E) for fiscal years 1998-2002. Flight 2000 will cost
approximately $400 million in Research, Engineering and Development
(R,E&D) for fiscal years 1999-2003. The re-worked National Airspace
System (NAS) Architecture is consistent with budget planning targets
and incorporates the recommendations of the Task Force. The key
differences from the Version 3.0 draft architecture is the changed
priorities and ensuring that the pace of modernization is supported by
proposed funding levels. This approach affects when certain
capabilities will be operational. This will influence both the initial
operational capability date, and the deployment rate for some systems
consistent with the needs to balance both sustainment and modernization
of the NAS.
Benefits will be achieved through the risk mitigation strategies of
the Flight 2000 program on major communication, navigation, and
surveillance acquisitions, as well as evolutionary development for key
air traffic management decision support systems in the FFP1 initiative.
All six elements of FFP1 will be providing quantifiable benefits to the
FAA and the aviation community by the end of year 2002. Flight 2000 is
essential to dealing with transition, system performance, procedural
development, and defining benefits that could occur with voluntary user
equipage. The most immediate benefit is demonstrating the safety
improvements that can be realized by improved pilot and controller
situational awareness.
Question. What activities has the agency decided to scale back,
delay, or eliminate from its modernization efforts? What are the
implications for the cost, direction, and pace of NAS modernization?
Answer. Although the preliminary scheduling changes show that
modernization is feasible within existing budget, the full analysis
will not be completed until approximately July of this year and will
become the technical, schedule and cost component of the Architecture.
Most decision support systems (automation/controller tools) will reach
initial operational capability as planned, but the NAS-wide full
operational capability of these tools will occur later. The
communication, navigation, and surveillance related improvements could
be deferred from one to three years, and the infrastructure replacement
programs (especially facility modernization) could be deferred to allow
acceleration of automation tools that will provide more benefits to NAS
users.
Question. What steps does the FAA plan to take to mitigate the
risks associated with certifying and deploying new technologies
associated with NAS modernization?
Answer. Flight 2000 will demonstrate NAS modernization on a
manageable scale before deployment to the remaining NAS. One of the
chief benefits of such a demonstration is the ability to identify and
mitigate technical, operational, and institutional risks associated
with modernization. Achieving low cost avionics is an example of Flight
2000 risk mitigation. The FAA will work jointly with the aviation
community to define, select, acquire, certify, and install new
communication, navigation, and surveillance (CNS) capable avionics.
Performance requirements for multiple aircraft avionics suites and
integration with corresponding ground systems present a number of
operational and technical risks that will be addressed by the
government and industry partnership. FAA and industry will use
government and other test facilities to insure interoperability of the
avionics and ground infrastructure.
Similarly, FFP1 technologies will be deployed with necessary
procedures and training to reduce the operational risks associated with
each technology. The responsible deploying organization will work
closely within the FAA, including unions, and the airspace users to
ensure that the decision support tools are operationally suitable and
enable early benefits. Risk reduction achieved by early deployment at
FFP1 sites will help identify and validate the appropriate transition
path to full scale national deployment.
Question. What steps does the agency plan to take to make
technologies more affordable to the user community? To demonstrate that
new technologies will provide early and immediate benefits to users?
Answer. The Flight 2000 initiative includes steps to minimize
avionics development, procurement, implementation, and after market
costs. The FAA will engage industry early in the program to ensure
standards are developed to streamline and complement the manufacturing
and certification process. To promote competition and speed the
procurement process, the FAA will identify multiple avionics suites
that minimize development, implementation and certification costs for a
wide variety of aircraft. This shared government/industry development
approach will insure maximum use of scarce resources to take advantage
of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) technology. The software and
hardware certification process will be streamlined to make
certification less time consuming and therefore less costly.
The Flight 2000 initiative will not only demonstrate and refine the
Free Flight technologies but will also provide early benefits to a
significant number of users particularly in Alaska where immediate
safety benefits will be realized. A CONUS site, yet to be selected,
will allow the benefits of communication, navigation, and surveillance
air traffic management (ATM) operational improvements to be
demonstrated in high-density traffic areas.
Flight 2000 will help accelerate the development and certification
cycle for avionics thereby reducing the cost to the user. Free Flight
Phase 1 will also provide early airspace user benefits in a number of
key ATM areas including increased efficiencies in traffic flow
management, system capacity and the granting of user clearance requests
(with associated fuel and time savings).
flight 2000 risk mitigation
Question. How does the FAA plan to modify the Flight 2000
initiative to address critical risks associated with communication,
navigation, and surveillance programs?
Answer. Flight 2000 was conceived to achieve advanced CNS
capability, by streamlining certification of new avionics, validating
new controller and pilot operational procedures, and driving down the
cost of aircraft avionics equipage. Flight 2000 planning builds upon
unaddressed but required operational improvements, set forth by the
aviation community in the Radio Technical Communications for
Aeronautics (RTCA) Free-Flight Implementation Plan of October 26, 1995.
Although previously not a stated objective, optimizing the risks
associated with Free-Flight has been an integral part of Flight 2000
from the outset.
Many of the technical risks associated with new CNS systems are
addressed by industry or other FAA programs as part of technical
development. All too often in the past, operational and institutional
risks have been overlooked, preventing realization of operational
capability and actual benefits to users. Through RTCA, the FAA and the
aviation community have begun a joint planning process that more
accurately identifies risks associated with CNS modernization. The
Flight 2000 initiative will be refined from this work to address risk
areas not covered in other programs or by industry, especially
operational and institutional risks.
flight 2000 funding
Question. Are the funds requested in fiscal year 1999 for Flight
2000 based on the new risk mitigation approach?
Answer. Risk mitigation was a primary consideration in developing
the Flight 2000 program. The new initiatives addressed by the NAS
Modernization Task Force have not been fully incorporated into the
program plan, but any additional funding requirements resulting from
the new risk mitigation approach are not expected to significantly
impact the requested fiscal year 1999 level. As the joint FAA and
industry risk mitigation planing proceeds and subsequent funding
requirements are known, they will be included in Flight 2000 out-year
budget requests.
nas modernization approach
Question. What actions has the agency taken to address shortcomings
identified by GAO that impact FAA's ability to effectively modernize
the NAS? These included problems in the areas of systems architecture,
cost estimating and accounting, software acquisition, and
organizational culture? What additional actions are planned?
Answer. FAA action is ongoing to address the GAO's recommendations
regarding systems architecture, cost estimating and cost accounting,
software acquisition, and organizational culture:
Systems Architecture.--FAA has ongoing efforts to develop both a
logical and technical architecture to guide NAS modernization. We are
focusing on new programs through investment analysis and system
engineering teams to define the architecture we are developing. The
``logical'' NAS Architecture, currently Version 3.0, is derived from
operational concepts and requirements. The ``technical'' architecture,
which is a detailed subset of Version 3.0, will include applicable
standards that apply across programs, software, communications, data
management, information security, physical security, performance, and
other operational and performance related factors. Both the logical and
technical architectures are under configuration management. The logical
architecture changes are also coordinated with users. When the
architecture is approved, the FAA will have a technical baseline that
the users and the Congress can measure performance against.
Cost Estimating and Accounting:
Cost Estimating.--This effort includes four key elements that will
be partially implemented starting in October 1998:
--Standard Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) to provide consistent,
comparable, and complete cost estimates and to track actual
experience for NAS modernization programs;
--Corporate history for estimated and actual costs and schedules to
provide data for cost estimating and to serve as an audit trail
for NAS modernization efforts;
--Cost estimating tools that will provide estimates consistent with
the standard WBS and will be continuously updated with actual
experience from the corporate history; and
--A definitive agency-level life cycle cost estimating process, which
defines the roles and responsibilities of contributing
organizations and integrates life cycle cost estimating with
other FAA business processes.
Cost Accounting.--In response to GAO as well as National Civil
Aviation Review Commission, Government Performance and Results Act, and
other legislation, FAA is installing a cost accounting system. A
significant effort is underway to implement the system by fiscal year
1999. The Associate Administrator for Research and Acquisitions (ARA)
organization is serving as a pilot and is developing and evaluating
initial capabilities during fiscal year 1998. This system will allow
the agency to monitor the costs associated with various projects within
the FAA.
Software Acquisition.--FAA is undertaking a multiyear program to
improve software engineering practices for both the FAA and its major
suppliers. The FAA with support from the Software Engineering Institute
Carnegie Mellon University has established an Integrated Capability
Maturity Model (FAA-iCMM) to guide process improvement activities. The
ARA organization has established a specific process improvement goal
that is reflected in the fiscal year 1998 ARA Business Plan. This goal
is to have at least 75 percent of 14 major ARA programs reach FAA-iCMM
Level 2 by December 1999 and Level 3 by December 2001. In addition to
improving software engineering and acquisition processes, the FAA's
Chief Scientist for Software Engineering is leading specific
improvement efforts in the areas of metrics, architecture, streamlining
software certification processes for both airborne and non-airborne
systems, and improving FAA's software and systems engineering
competencies.
Organizational Culture.--The FAA's organizational culture change
initiatives have included an internal focus on improving ways to
achieve common goals across lines of business, as well as strengthening
public and private collaboration in our NAS modernization activities.
An example of the internal focus would be the establishment of an
Integrated Product Leadership Team of senior FAA executives tasked with
making recommendations and implementing changes which strengthen the
effectiveness of our integrated product teams as the preferred
organizational structure of our acquisition work force. This
organizational structure includes seeking to develop common or
complementary performance standards across lines of business that place
an emphasis on teamwork and collaboration versus the traditional
stovepipe approach. It also is designed to streamline the decision-
making process in fielding new systems.
To improve our collaboration with the external aviation community,
the FAA continues to identify ways to include the users in our
decision-making process. For example, we established a NAS
Modernization Task Force, consisting of FAA, DOD, unions, and aviation
user organizations. This task force successfully fostered a public-
private collaboration in developing a NAS modernization plan that has
the acceptance and commitment of both the FAA and of the users we
serve. In addition, we work hard to reach consensus for major NAS
modernization decisions, using RTCA to bring the community together to
provide advice and recommendations to the agency in such areas as
operational concepts, NAS architecture, and free flight.
Beyond our initial response to GAO, we are preparing to establish a
pilot program, which would have many of the research and acquisitions
work force participate in a prototype of a new compensation system.
Under this system, salary increases will be primarily based on two
factors: (1) Meeting quantified goals defined for the entire ARA
organization; and (2) for significant individual achievements. This
system will abolish pay increased based on length of service.
Question. FAA canceled the tower segment of its automation program
in 1997. What are FAA's plans for replacing the workstations and
bringing new functionality to tower facilities?
Answer. Mission needs analysis is underway to determine the global
automation needs of the tower domain.
free flight
Question. One of the key technologies identified by FAA for free
flight-the agency's new concept of air traffic management-is the
Initial Conflict Probe (ICP). ICP is based upon the User Request
Evaluation Tool (URET) developed by Mitre. It is a decision support
tool that allows en route controllers to identify potential conflicts
between aircraft trajectories and aid controllers in resolving them.
FAA indicated that it plans to spend about $245 million for full scale
development of this capability and to award the ICP contract in March
1998. A recent GAO review of URET found that quantitative performance
evaluations were limited in that these evaluations were based on actual
traffic data in only two centers, and they were not independently
validated.
FAA's en route product team, responsible for developing and
implementing ICP, acknowledges that the limited amount of information
on URET constitutes a technical risk and they have outlined plans to
mitigate this risk. GAO's work cautioned that awarding the ICP contract
before independently validating URET performance and developing firm
requirements for ICP is unwise. GAO has previously reported that
emphasizing concern for schedule at the expense of disciplined system
development and careful, thorough testing has proven to be imprudent.
How does the Task Force recommendation to begin limited deployment of
ICP impact current plans for full scale development? Please provide
(for the record) a list of high level milestones for ICP development
and deployment.
Answer. The ICP program will be redirected to accomplish FFP1
objectives. An ICP full scale national deployment decision will be
deferred until 2002 or beyond (when measured user benefits from FFP1
are available).
Question. We understand FAA is planning to deploy URET to four
additional locations. Is this accurate? How will this affect the ICP
deployment.
Answer. Consistent with the RTCA Select Committee recommendation,
the deployment of the URET will be expanded to an additional five
sites: Atlanta, Chicago, Washington, Cleveland, and Kansas City, for a
total of seven. The scope of ICP, including a decision regarding
deployment of probe capability at the remaining ARTCC's, will be
determined after the confirmation of benefits realized during the
limited deployment.
Question. Does FAA plan to continue with efforts to independently
verify URET's performance capabilities? If yes, what are the time
frames for the independent verification?
Answer. The FAA has recently completed a simulation study of the
URET system performance. This study was performed by the William J.
Hughes Technical Center and completed April 1998. The results are
documented in ``User Request Evaluation Tool (URET) Conflict Prediction
Accuracy Report,'' Document number DOT/FAA/CT-TN98/8. Continued
quantitative and qualitative analysis of URET performance will be part
of the evolutionary deployment effort.
Question. What additional testing is needed to demonstrate that the
ICP will work effectively across center boundaries when deployed
nationally?
Answer. Testing of URET interfacility capability is on-going and
will enter daily use at Indianapolis and Memphis. Deployment at the
seven RTCA recommended sites will demonstrate the concept for a multi-
center application.
wide area augmentation system (waas)
Question. The FAA is planning a transition to satellite-based
navigation, using signals generated by the Department of Defense's
Global Positioning System (GPS). However, GPS does not satisfy all
civil aviation requirements and FAA is developing a Wide Area
Augmentation System (WAAS) to enhance GPS, which will require
additional communication satellites. FAA is planning to lease these
additional communication satellites and plans to begin paying on this
lease beginning in fiscal year 2002, using its Operations
appropriation. FAA's plan was to complete WAAS development by the end
of 2001. However, the Task Force on ATC modernization is recommending a
slower pace for WAAS development after the completion of phase 1 in
1999.
The WAAS project is seeking an advanced appropriation to pay for
satellite leases, which would provide FAA multi-year authority to
obligate funds in future years beyond fiscal year 1999. However, FAA
plans to enter into some form of lease agreement with a vendor before
fiscal year 1999. What guarantees and incentives is FAA proposing to
prospective vendors that would not obligate the government but still
encourage them to invest their capital?
Answer. The FAA is currently working with the Department of
Defense's GPS Joint Program Office to define the requirements for a
request for proposal for satellite services. While specific details
have not yet been determined, there are some basic considerations that
will be communicated to interested industry participants:
--There is a strong potential for a world-wide market of related
services due to increased international interest in satellite-
based navigation. This market place affords the possibility for
industry to pursue potential cost sharing arrangements with a
large return on their investment.
--The potential for satellite services extends well beyond the FAA's
near term requirements for WAAS. The FAA has other navigation,
communication, surveillance, and air traffic initiatives that
lend themselves to increased business opportunities and
ultimately increased profit.
Question. Why doesn't FAA request authority to obligate funds to
purchase or lease satellites beginning with the fiscal year 1999
appropriations?
Answer. The FAA has requested statutory authority that would allow
it to obligate funds as early as fiscal year 1999 to lease satellite
services over any number of years. The FAA's request to form a
Performance Based Organization asks for multi-year contracting
authority to acquire leases for Air Traffic facilities and equipment,
research and test sites and facilities, and other real estate and
personal property or any interest therein. The FAA currently has multi-
year authority in 49 U.S.C. 40111 and 40112 but this authority is
limited to a base period of five years with three option years. This
period of time is not long enough to take advantage of lower costs
associated with amortization over a longer lease term. Satellite
providers typically provide the lowest lease costs for satellites when
costs are spread over the life of the satellite which is customarily
designated as ten years.
In addition to multi-year authority issues, the FAA is currently
refining its satellite acquisition strategy. There are short-term
alternatives currently being considered such as broadening FAA and NASA
interagency agreements to add a civil aviation navigation package to
NASA's Tracking and Data Relay Satellite contract. The Geostationary
Operational Environmental Satellite contract directed by NOAA is also
being considered.
Alternatively, the FAA, like other agencies, could procure its
telecommunications services through GSA which is the statutorily
authorized executive agent for satellite services which can be leased
on a ten year, multi-year basis.
Question. Has FAA done an affordability analysis to determine that
the Operations Appropriation can pay the expected lease costs?
Answer. As part of the investment analysis activities conducted by
the FAA for the WAAS acquisition program baseline in January 1998, an
affordability analysis was prepared. This analysis concluded that the
satellite lease costs were affordable so long as the FAA stayed on
track to begin decommissioning the existing ground-based navigation
infrastructure in favor of satellite navigation. In addition, the
analysis concluded that lease costs could go down in the event these
costs could be shared by other FAA or non-FAA users.
Additional affordability analyses will be required in the event the
FAA decides to retain some of the ground-based equipment as part of an
independent back-up system. This analysis will occur over the next few
months with the results reported to the Administrator in late 1998.
Question. Why is the Administrator's Task Force recommending a
slower pace for WAAS development?
Answer. The Administrator's NAS Modernization Task Force does not
intend to slow up implementation of WAAS, and it does not believe that
its' plan to mitigate the risks of GPS/WAAS early on will cause a delay
in the program. The RTCA Free Flight Steering Committee, composed of
industry and government representatives, endorsed the approach,
recognizing that full-scale development of new operational capabilities
requiring both ground and cockpit enhancements pose a number of
substantial barriers to successful implementation. Not the least of
these is the lack of consensus and commitment on the part of the
aviation community. In the past, failure to gain consensus and
commitment from the aviation community has been one of the major
factors in schedule delays and cost overruns. The NAS Modernization
Task Force, and the RTCA Free Flight Steering Committee, believe that
mitigating this and other risks at the front end of the process would
help eliminate delays and additional costs later on. To that end, the
steering committee recommends that FAA move forward on schedule with
the development and deployment of an initial WAAS capability that will
provide precision approach capability at limited sites with limited
availability. Simultaneously, the FAA will continue to address the
risks involved in the remaining phases of the WAAS program. One of
these risk-mitigation measures is to conduct an independent assessment
of the risks to the GPS/WAAS signal from intentional (jamming) and
unintentional interference (mostly atmospheric). This assessment will
help determine whether we can achieve a GPS/WAAS sole means operational
capability in end-state WAAS.
Question. How will this slower-paced development impact on the
current 2001 completion date for WAAS?
Answer. The evolutionary, building-block approach recommended by
the NAS Modernization Task Force, which was endorsed and refined by the
RTCA Free Flight Steering Committee, is not intended to delay the 2001
completion date for wide area augmentation system (WAAS). With global
positioning system (GPS)/WAAS, as with other more complex NAS
modernization programs, the whole idea is to implement operational
capabilities that are ready to be brought on line now while eliminating
the risks that might cause schedule delays later on.
Question. How has FAA addressed the continuity problems inherent in
the WAAS system?
Answer. The FAA is addressing the continuity issue by incorporating
various technical solutions into the system's design to avoid
unnecessary burdens on any one element and thereby minimizing the risks
for failure. For example, as stated in the February 1998 Report to
Congress (Wide Area Augmentation System Report on Program Status,
Management, and Satellite Communications), ``The FAA and Raytheon
conducted intensive studies as to the existing terrestrial
communications network redundancy. As a result, the network was doubled
as to communication linkages to preclude a single system mode
failure.'' In addition, the FAA is pursuing additional satellite
services to increase the system's availability. These improvements are
being addressed using pre-planned product improvements (P\3\I) as the
system matures from an initial (Phase I) to a final (Phase 3)
operational capability.
waas and laas delays and cost overruns
Question. Due to the delays and cost over-runs being experienced
with WAAS and LAAS we believe, as we have told the FAA in the past,
that there needs to be an interim plan to support en-route navigation
and terminal precision approach requirements. Is the FAA developing
such a plan? If so, please provide details. If not, please explain how
the FAA plans to handle interim needs, such as new precision approaches
and technology refresh of outdated equipment.
Answer. With initial operational capability, that is, en route and
CAT I precision approaches expected for WAAS in July 1999, and existing
ground based systems providing this capability well past that date,
there is no reason to develop an interim plan to support en-route
navigation and terminal precision approach requirements. There will be
an adequate overlap between the existing ground based systems and the
upcoming WAAS system. The current WAAS implementation plan does not
consider decommissioning existing ground based systems until 2005 at
the earliest. Current instrument landing system (ILS) and distance
measuring (DME) equipment will remain in service until at least 2010
with ongoing sustainment programs. Under the ILS service life extension
program, approximately 120 of the oldest systems have already been
replaced or upgraded. For the DME program, fiscal year 1999 is the
initial year to begin replacing the oldest DME equipment. Because of
the expected July 1999 WAAS initial operational capability date, any
new CAT I precision approaches will be handled as GPS/WAAS approaches.
next generation landing systems
Question. When was the last time the FAA did a survey of airports
with ILS/DME requirements? Please provide a copy of the most recent FAA
list of unmet ILS/DME requirements including the benefit/cost ratio for
each site. What are FAA's plans to update this listing?
Answer. The last year a survey was conducted on ILS requirements
was 1992. Although the results of that survey, appearing only on
working papers, contained approximately 180 CAT I, II, and III sites,
we do not have a current list of specific sites. The decision to invest
in satellite based technology significantly reduced the FAA's ILS
establishment program, with fiscal year 1995 being the last year for
new category I requirements. Since that time only limited CAT II and
III ILS projects were supported based on planned implementation of
Local Area Augmentation System. The information follows:
[Clerk's note.--The information referred to does not appear in the
hearing record but is available for review in the subcommittee's
files.]
Question. We understand that a significant number of navigation and
landing aids in the NAS are nearing the end of their useful lives and
won't be able to last through a 12 year (or longer) transition to GPS
based systems. Please provide a system by system assessment of the
condition of each type of navigational and landing aid in the FAA
inventory.
Answer. Overall, our sustainment and technology replacement program
efforts have made possible relatively stable trends for navigational
and landing systems. Greater efforts are in place to improve and
sustain navigation/landing systems such as VHF Omnidirectional Range
(VOR)/Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) and Localizer/Glide Slope
(LOC/GS). The number of facilities in each group has remained
relatively stable over the past ten years due to a generally one-for-
one upgrade program.
The Mean Time Between Outages for the past ten years remains stable
or shows improvement. The Unscheduled Mean Time to Restore shows some
variance primarily due to national, regional, and local restoration
policy.
The number of unscheduled outages has remained relatively stable--
the LOC and GS numbers have increased somewhat, but programs are in
progress to sustain the facilities.
A service life extension program for Mark-1B and Mark-1C Category I
Localizer and Glide Slope systems has been in operation for the past
five years to provide supportable and maintainable equipment.
The Mark-20 program, an on-going program to replace existing older
ILS, is now nearly complete and is expected to improve the performance
of the ILS.
The installation of the third-generation VOR is expected to improve
its performance. The third-generation system uses state-of-the-art
technology, and is more readily reset via Remote Maintenance Monitoring
(RMM). The facility can be installed either as an upgrade of the
second-generation facility, or as a completely new facility.
We expect to experience better performance in these areas as a
result of the Service Life Extension Programs, the Mark-20 program, and
the Third Generation VOR programs.
We are composing a workgroup of specialists from NAS operations,
operational support, logistics, requirements, research and
acquisitions, and other organizations necessary to answer the system-
by-system assessment.
korean airlines accident in guam
Question. Could the accident in Guam be contributed to an ILS glide
slope which was out of service? Is it possible that this type of
incident could re-occur in the continental U.S. if the current
infrastructure is not kept up?
Answer. Although it is the National Transportation Safety Board's
responsibility to determine the cause or causes of the accident, and
the NTSB has not made a final determination in this case, the FAA
believes that the ILS glide slope was not a factor.
A Notice to Airman (NOTAM) stating that the glide slope was
unusable had been issued on July 7, 1997 (the accident occurred on
August 5) and the crew was told by the approach controller that the
glide slope was unusable.
This accident was not related to a failure in the infrastructure.
The ``unusable'' status of the glide slope was due to a planned
replacement of the building housing the glide slope equipment following
storm damage to the old building. The published instrument approach
procedure contained provisions for safely conducting the approach
without the glide slope, and a re-occurrence of this type of accident
in the continental United States (U.S.) is highly unlikely.
waas and laas avionics
Question. How are you planning to handle the opposition of the
major airlines to installing WASS and LAAS avionics in their aircraft?
Answer. The Air Transport Association (ATA) confirmed that the
airlines fully support the installation of WAAS and LAAS, provided they
can ultimately enable sole means navigational operations. No resistance
is anticipated by ATA member airlines since the use of augmented GPS
will be beneficial to all member airlines.
Question. How long will it take for 90 percent of U.S. aircraft to
become equipped with LAAS and WAAS avionics? What about international
air carriers?
Answer. The FAA Investment Analysis Report on Satellite Navigation,
dated January 1998, assumed air carrier equipage with WAAS to reach 90
percent in 2006 and air carrier equipage with LAAS to reach 90 percent
by the end of 2007. These estimates were based on WAAS full operational
capability in late 2001 and LAAS full operational capability in 2006.
In the economic analysis, it was assumed that only Category I equipped
air carriers (20 percent of the air carrier population) would equip
early with WAAS avionics and the rest (80 percent of the air carrier
population) would wait for avionics with both WAAS and LAAS
capabilities. International air carriers were assumed to equip at the
same rate as domestic air carriers.
Regarding general aviation, we estimated that currently only 72
percent of aircraft are equipped for instrument flight, and that 90
percent of these would equip with WAAS by 2006. Since we do not expect
the rate of equipage for instrument flights to significantly increase,
we do not expect general aviation aircraft as a whole to ever reach 90
percent equipage for WAAS. We assumed further that by 2009 only 34
percent of general aviation flights would be on LAAS equipped aircraft,
and this would represent an even smaller percentage of total general
aviation aircraft. Thus, we do not expect that general aviation
equipage of LAAS to ever reach 90 percent.
Estimates of equipage rates were made after consultation with
representative air carrier, general aviation, and avionics
manufacturers, as well as personnel within the FAA. The estimates are
considered to be conservative; there is a low risk that equipage will
be slower than expected.
global positioning system outage
Question. What will happen if there is a GPS outage in the U.S. due
to problems such as signal jamming, interference from other terrestrial
sources or a solar storm? What type of back-up plan does the FAA
envision for a WAAS/LAAS-based system in terms of en route navigation?
More importantly, what type of back up plan will be used for Category
I, II and III approaches?
Answer. The current FAA policy in event of the above is to provide
a NOTAM highlighting the unavailability of service, similar to what is
done today in the event of severe snow storms or hurricanes. Aircraft
in the air under Instrument Flight Rules will then have to rely on such
things as radar vectors from air traffic control (ATC) and/or high
quality inertial navigation systems, if available, to provide them en
route navigation. General aviation aircraft under Visual Flight Rules
will revert to pilotage or dead reckoning to provide them en route
navigation.
For Category I/II/III approaches, a similar strategy applies if GPS
is unavailable. ATC then would be expected to direct aircraft to
airports that can facilitate a safe landing.
Based on the concerns raised by the President's Commission on
Critical Infrastructure Protection and the Congress, the FAA is
reviewing the above policy for the possible inclusion of a backup to
Global Positioning System/Wide Area Augmentation System/Local Area
Augmentation System. An analysis is currently underway to assess the
threat, establish backup requirements, and evaluate the various
alternatives for backup.
next generation landing systems
Question. Is it true that there are FAA-certified Commercial-off-
the-Shelf (COTS) ILS available which are half the price of the FAA's
Mark 20 Military Spec version? What ILS cost basis did the FAA use when
doing the cost benefit analysis for WAAS and LAAS?
Answer. It is true that COTS ILS's are available that meet category
1 requirements at approximately half the price of the MK-20 ILS.
However, for category 2 and 3 requirements only the MK-20 is currently
available. If additional ILS procurement is required the acquisition
strategy would consider quantity, urgency, supportability, and the LS
category. COTS would be considered as a viable option. The MK-20 system
pricing was utilized when doing the cost benefit analysis for Wide Area
Augmentation System.
Question. As a result of delays in the GPS/WAAS program our
Committee has continually supported steps to assure that the FAA will
make necessary investment in acquiring Instrument Landing System
equipment because this technology provides a very cost-effective
airport safety enhancement. In fact, in recent years, the FAA has
purchased nearly 200 new systems through its existing ILS contract. We
understand that the contractor has performed well on this contract and
this is one of the procurement success stories for the FAA in recent
years. Would you agree? How many options remain on the existing
contract and when does it expire?
Answer. The contract for the MK-20 ILS is with Wilcox Electric,
Inc., now known as Airsys ATM. Under this contract, the required 186
systems have been delivered with 41 more available through December
1998 through options. This was a very successful development and
production effort with the category 3 capable MK-20 delivered on
schedule and at contract cost. The contractor's performance was
superior.
Question. We have seen an ILS equipment requirements list based on
information provided by airports and some FAA input that indicates
there is a backlog of more than 200 airport locations that have
identified needs for Instrument Landing Systems. What steps are being
taken by the FAA to exercise remaining contract options for this
equipment to meet existing needs?
Answer. In 1992 an analysis identified approximately 180 runways
that could qualify for ILS equipment based on FAA criteria. With the
decision to invest in satellite based technology, and the planned
implementation of WAAS starting in fiscal year 1998, fiscal year 1995
was the last funding year for category I sponsored ILS projects. Since
that time only limited category II/III ILS projects were supported
based on the planned implementation of LAAS. The current contract does
have options available to acquire additional ILS equipment, however no
plans exist nor are funds available for the procurement and
installation of additional ILS equipment or the required runway visual
range and approach lighting systems that constitutes a complete ILS
project.
standard terminal automation replacement system (stars)
Question. FAA's STARS project is expected to replace 15- to 25-
year-old computers and related equipment used at FAA facilities that
track aircraft in the airspace surrounding airports. Because the
project experiencing software development problems, first site
operational readiness, scheduled for December 1998 at Boston, may slip
by four to five months. STARS human factor issues will cause further
delay. FAA is seeking an additional $29 million in fiscal year 1998
funds for the STARS project. This money is needed for software
development changes, additional resources to maintain the program
schedule, changes to address human factors issues, and the early
deployment of STARS equipment at Reagan Washington National Airport and
possibly the TRACON's at New York and Dallas/Fort Worth.
In its March 1997 report on the status of the project, GAO pointed
out that the project's life-cycle cost estimate could possibly increase
due to expected higher costs for operating and maintaining STARS
equipment. FAA officials disagreed, but agency officials could not
provide GAO with any data to support their claim. How much has the size
of STARS software grown since its original estimate?
Answer. The current estimate for the STARS Full System Capability
(FSC) software (the software that will provide full operational
capability) is 188,100 newly-developed and/or modified source lines of
code (SLOC). This represents an increase of 48,100 SLOC over the 1997
estimate of 140,000 SLOC.
This estimate does not include the code that will be developed to
address human factors issues resolution. Initial System Capability
(ISC) human factors continue to be addressed by the controllers and
technicians unions. Once an approved implementation strategy for these
ISC human factors issues resolution is agreed upon, the estimate for
software code will be revised.
Question. How confident are you that the existing software
development problems will only lead to a four to five month slip at
Boston? How many months will the STARS schedule slip due to human
factors issues?
Answer. The FAA has identified a four to five month schedule risk
to the December 1998 Boston operational date. The exact magnitude of
this delay will be determined after the ISC human factors evaluation
activity is completed.
Activities associated with identifying and prototyping solutions
for ISC human factors issues is on-going. However, activities
associated with software development to resolve the ISC human factors
issues (some of which are already known) are not funded, and are
contingent on the approval of the formal fiscal year 1998 reprogramming
request.
Question. Will the Facilities and Equipment baseline for STARS be
revised upward as a result of the fiscal year 1998 reprogramming
request?
Answer. The Facilities and Equipment baseline for STARS will remain
at $940.2 million and not be increased as a result of the fiscal year
1998 reprogramming.
Question. Can FAA, at this time, provide an updated operation and
maintenance cost estimate for the STARS project?
Answer. In July 1997, our estimate for operation and maintenance
costs remained under our acquisition program baseline objective of $1.5
billion. We are currently performing human factor assessments to
improve the STARS system supportability. Once these activities are
completed, we plan to reassess our support costs.
year 2000
Question. FAA has renamed its Interim Host Replacement project the
``Host and Oceanic Computer Systems Replacement project.'' The project
is urgent because FAA cannot provide assurance that the current Host
system at its 20 en route centers will be able to operate safely and
avoid groundings or delays on January 1, 2000. FAA plans to request
about $160 million in Facilities and Equipment funds during fiscal
years 1998 and 1999 through reprogramming and new budget authority-to
acquire, test and install the new equipment. However, this amount does
not include the Facilities and Equipment cost of technical refreshment,
nor does it include the cost of operating and maintaining the equipment
over its service life. Is the Host and Oceanic Computer Systems
Replacement project focused solely on replacing the Host hardware? Will
FAA need to replace the rest of its Host system in the near future?
Answer. The Host and Oceanic Computer System Replacement (HOCSR)
program is a four-phased program. Phase 1 of the HOCSR program consists
mainly of hardware replacement activities focused on processor
replacement and connection to existing peripherals and failure/recovery
switching equipment at both domestic and oceanic Air Route Traffic
Control Centers. Phase 2 is focused on software changes only for the
upgrade of the National Airspace System monitor to the IBM 390
instruction set. Phase 3 will involve the replacement of ``user''
interface devices (Keyboard Video Display Terminals, printers,
communication controllers,) and their connections to the Host and
Oceanic replacement processors. In Phase 4, the current disk and tape
drives will be replaced as determined by operational and technical
studies. This four-phased approach provides replacement of hardware and
equipment in accordance with end-of-service dates.
Question. What is the life cycle cost estimate broken down by year
and appropriations account for the Host Replacement?
Answer. The total life cycle cost for HOCSR is $607.2 million.\1\
The table below provides a breakdown of cost by year and appropriation
account. This estimate includes technical refresh and programmed
upgrades.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Cost estimate includes program travel and backfill overtime.
HOCSR LIFE CYCLE COST SUMMARY
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year F&E O&M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998.......................................... 79.5 0.6
1999.......................................... 87.5 5.0
2000.......................................... 90.1 6.6
2001.......................................... 62.8 13.1
2002.......................................... 23.1 13.2
2003.......................................... 40.0 21.6
2004.......................................... 20.7 22.0
2005.......................................... 9.9 19.9
2006.......................................... 8.3 20.7
2007.......................................... 3.9 21.1
2008.......................................... 16.8 20.8
-------------------------
Total................................... 442.6 164.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. What are the life cycle costs associated with FAA's plans
to address Y2K compliance issues? Do these estimates include costs
associated with making the Host computer year 2000 date compliant?
Answer. Repair cost estimates for the FAA Year 2000 (Y2K) currently
are $161.5 million. This figure includes the cost estimate for
renovation and certification of the Host as Y2K compliant.
Question. What is FAA's schedule for installing this new equipment?
How will the deployment of new Host hardware to 20 en route centers
affect FAA's plans for deploying DSR to the centers?
Answer. The initial HOCSR hardware deliveries to the William J.
Hughes Technical Center occurred in April 1998. The HOCSR deliveries to
the operational sites will commence in August 1998, with the first
Initial Operational Capability (IOC) to occur December 1998 and the
first Operational Readiness Date (ORD) planned for February 1999. The
IOC for the last site will occur September 1999 with a planned ORD in
October 1999. While we are working to minimize impacts to the DSR
schedule, there will be some adjustments. The HOCSR waterfall schedule
was developed with the sites and regions to mitigate program risks and
to minimize the number of schedule overlaps with the DSR program.
aviation weather
Question. Please provide a table that presents the detailed
composition of the aviation weather R&D budgets for fiscal year 1997,
fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 on a comparable basis. The detail
should show Socrates, Juneau, national laboratory funding, program
emphasis areas, program support, cost-benefit analysis support, in-
house civil service costs, and similar levels of detail.
Answer. The information follows:
FISCAL YEAR 1999
[Dollars in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-----------------------------------------------
1999
1997 enacted 1998 enacted President's
budget request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
F&E Appropriation............................................... .............. $3.500 ..............
R,E&D Appropriation............................................. $13.000 5.300 $12.248
-----------------------------------------------
Total Available........................................... 13.000 8.800 12.248
===============================================
In-House Personnel.............................................. 0.360 0.800 0.848
Project SOCRATES................................................ 1.589 3.000 ..............
Juneau Wind Shear............................................... .400 3.500 ..............
Center for Wind, Ice and Fog.................................... .............. .500 ..............
Aeronautical Hazards............................................ .157 .............. ..............
National Laboratory............................................. .947 8.367 9.118
Research Operations............................................. 1.275 1.466 1.600
Technical Center Support........................................ .470 .400 .475
Cost Benefit Analysis........................................... .400 .200 .200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. What was the program office's original request for
aviation weather R&D at the outset of the fiscal year 1999 budget
formulation process? Which program areas have suffered as a result of
reductions during the budget process?
Answer. The program office's original request for aviation weather
research and development at the outset of the fiscal year 1999 budget
formulation process was $22.4 million. As a result of the reductions in
program funding for fiscal year 1999, the following lower-priority work
will be deferred:
--Transition of growth and decay algorithm to the NEXRAD Operational
Support Facility for national implementation.
--Onboard based turbulence detection product evaluation.
--Incorporation of boundary layer conditions into the growth and
decay algorithm to produce a highly reliable one hour forecast
of convective weather.
--Implementation of enhanced cloud analysis into the Rapid Update
Cycle and Eta models.
--Demonstration of an initial automated ceiling forecast capability
at San Francisco.
--Project SOCRATES demonstration of the full system concept and the
design and build of a full multibeam system will be postponed.
--Flight Information System (FIS) will not provide an impact
assessment of incorporating en route FIS products in the
cockpit, which is necessary for the definition of standards and
guidance for implementation.
In addition to the above work reductions, the following lower-
priority programs will be deferred in their entirety in fiscal year
1999 at the proposed budget level:
--National Ceiling & Visibility--develop the capability to forecast
this phenomena to enhance aircraft safety, especially for
General Aviation.
--Space Weather Coordination--develop the capability to determine the
effects of space weather on satellite systems used for
navigation and communication, such as the Global Positioning
System.
--Oceanic Convective Nowcasting--develop the capability to provide
better definition of the location, timing, and severity of
convective weather hazards for oceanic routes.
--Wake Vortex Detection and Dissipation--develop the capability to
generate high resolution data to detect wake vortex and predict
its dissipation to increase traffic flow.
--Terminal Operations Analysis--develop the capability to determine
the benefits of improvements to terminal operations.
--Gravity Wave Detection--develop the capability to characterize and
automate its detection and prediction in real-time to enhance
safety.
--National Mesonet Data Consolidation--develop the capability to
access existing weather sensors to enhance collaborative
decision making.
--Terrain-Induced Atmospheric Turbulence--develop the capability to
detect and eventually forecast hazardous turbulence at or
around airports including Reno, El Paso, Colorado Springs, and
others to enhance safety.
--Volcanic Ash Forecasting--develop the capability to address the
unique aspects of ash movement and dissipation relative to
aircraft safety and traffic flow.
--High Glance Value Displays--develop the capability for enhanced
user access to weather hazard information, increasing
collaborative decision making.
--Emerging Weather Product Technologies--develop the capability to
apply results of basic research to aviation requirements.
Question. Provide a list of weather R&D program accomplishments in
fiscal year 1997 and the accomplishments planned for fiscal year 1998
and fiscal year 1999.
Answer. The following are weather research and development program
accomplishments for fiscal year 1997 and accomplishments planned for
fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999.
Fiscal year 1997:
--Achieved Aviation Gridded Forecast System (AGFS) initial operating
capability via aviation digital data service at the Aviation
Weather Center (AWC) to improve aviation advisories & forecast
capability.
--Implemented NEXRAD algorithm upgrades for storm cell identification
and tracking and hail detection nationwide.
--Began flight tests of water vapor sensor system on commercial air
carrier aircraft.
--Weather Support to Deicing Decision Making (WSDDM) collaboration
with users at LaGuardia and O'Hare airports.
--Implementation of in-flight turbulence algorithm on United Airlines
aircraft condition monitoring system.
--Evaluation of convective weather Growth and Decay algorithm at
Memphis testbed.
--Provided forecasts of freezing precipitation aloft via the AWC,
while providing improved algorithms.
--Began formal field test of 40 km Rapid Update Cycle (RUC) model by
National Weather Service.
--Performed SOCRATES infrasound detection technique studies, and
started development of an infrasound atmospheric model.
Fiscal year 1998:
--Complete installation of original purchase lot of airborne water
vapor sensors on commercial aircraft.
--Complete WSDDM technology transfer to Cooperative Research and
Development Agreement partners.
--Commence in-flight turbulence algorithm evaluation at the Aviation
Weather Center.
--Conduct demonstration of 30-minute Growth and Decay algorithm with
air traffic control and airline users at Dallas.
--Implement RUC-2 at the National Weather Service.
--Conduct San Francisco Operations Demonstration.
--Build and test a two-beam concept demonstration system under
Project SOCRATES; operate system at the JFK vortex test site
and collect vortex signature data; collect wind sheer/
microburst data from other sites; correlate measurements with
modeling efforts; conduct peer review.
--In the Aeronautical Data Link program: define FIS Policy base
products; start work on standards and guidance material; and
establish FIS server at the W.J. Hughes Technical Center for
future evaluation of FIS products.
Fiscal year 1999:
--Incorporate satellite data into an automated icing guidance
product.
--Enhance the capabilities of the web-based Aviation Digital Data
Service and develop tools for interactive data assimilation and
distribution.
--Facilitate broader industry usage of snowfall rate detections
capabilities.
--Evaluate turbulence in-situ data in models to improve turbulence
forecasting.
--Integrate satellite data into storm growth and decay algorithm.
--Improve model physics and cloud initialization in both the RUC and
the Eta model.
--Complete enhancement of the detection accuracy of the mesocyclone
NEXRAD algorithm.
--Begin installation of supplemental purchase lot water vapor sensing
systems on commercial air carriers.
Question. What additional accomplishments could be achieved in
fiscal year 1999 if the program were funded at the program office's
original request.
Answer. The following additional accomplishments could be achieved
if the program were funded at the program office's original request:
--Complete transition of growth and decay algorithm to the NEXRAD
Operational Support Facility for national implementation.
--Complete in-situ based turbulence detection product evaluation.
--Incorporate boundary layer conditions into the growth and decay
algorithm to produce a highly reliable one-hour forecast of
convective weather.
--Implement enhanced cloud analysis into the Rapid Update Cycle and
Eta models.
--Demonstrate an initial automated ceiling forecast capability at San
Francisco.
--Initiate previously unfunded aviation weather research projects,
including:
--Space Weather Coordination;
--Oceanic Convective Nowcasting;
--Wake Vortex Detection and Dissipation;
--Terminal Operations Analysis;
--Gravity Wave Detection;
--National Mesonet Data Collection;
--Terrain Induced Atmospheric Turbulence;
--Volcanic Ash Forecasting;
--National Ceiling and Visibility;
--High Glance Value User Displays; and
--Emerging Weather Product Technologies
turbulence accident and injury data
Question. The Air Transport Association (ATA) apparently maintains
a report on accidents and injuries that is more comprehensive than the
data maintained by the FAA. Please discuss the differences between the
FAA's practices and ATA's with respect to passenger and cabin attendant
injuries, especially those resulting from turbulence.
Answer. ATA recently developed a survey instrument with which to
obtain confidential data on turbulence events and injuries from its
member air carriers. The result was a one-time effort to produce a
three year ``snapshot'' of past experience of responding members for
the period 1994 through 1996. Not all ATA members responded and the
data collection effort will not be an on-going activity.
As an advocacy group with voluntary members, ATA has a very
different relationship with the air carriers than does the FAA.
Consequently, ATA can obtain confidential data that is not provided to
the FAA, and ATA has the option of protecting that information or
presenting only summary information with which no member is explicitly
associated.
In contrast, the FAA relies on two principal sources for data on
passenger and cabin attendant injuries from turbulence or other types
of event. If an event qualifies as an accident, the FAA relies on data
from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) to define the
number of serious and minor injuries involved. In addition, the FAA
relies on its own Accident and Incident Data System to record all minor
injuries associated with turbulence incidents that are reported to the
FAA, either by the air carriers or by FAA safety inspectors. The FAA
and NTSB data bases may not be as comprehensive as the singular
snapshot that ATA has developed, but the NTSB and FAA data bases are
ongoing and available to the public.
atomspheric turbulence
Question. With specific respect to the turbulence incident that a
United Airlines 747 encountered between Japan and Hawaii in late 1997,
what actions is FAA taking in its RE&D program and operational programs
so that in the future the NAS will be better able to detect and
forecast such turbulence and to convey that information to the affected
air traffic controllers, airline dispatchers, and pilots?
Answer. The FAA has conducted a long-standing aviation weather
research program that includes atmospheric and orographic turbulence
research. This research, sponsored and funded by the FAA, has been done
primarily by the National Center for Atmospheric Research in
conjunction with the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) labs which are co-located in Boulder, Colorado.
Research projects include in-flight turbulence algorithm evaluation,
implementation of an on aircraft turbulence algorithm on approximately
200 aircraft for operational evaluation, testing of ground-based
sensors to detect and warn of orographic turbulence, as well as an
extensive effort to coordinate international turbulence research.
FAA is also supporting investigation and development of an airborne
detection system that would provide warnings of a variety of
atmospheric anomalies, including clear air turbulence, wind shear,
thunderstorms and possibly aircraft generated wake turbulence. This
program (SOCRATES) is being conducted under the direction of the Volpe
Transportation Center in Cambridge, Massachusetts. In regards to the
detection and forecasting for the airspace system of the future, both
FAA and NOAA are working to achieve technology transfers into the
operational environment. The National Center for Environmental
Prediction (NCEP) and its associated centers, Aviation Weather Center
and the Environmental Modeling Center, are involved in the development
and distribution of refined turbulence products that will be used by
Integrated Terminal Weather System (ITWS), Weather and Radar Processor
(WARP), National Weather Service (NWS), Automated Weather Information
Processing System (AWIPS), and the future weather switches and
communication links to support system safety and efficiency. These
products will also be available to commercial weather companies.
In the operational area, in 1995 and 1996 the FAA produced and
distributed a Wake Vortex Training Aid (textual and graphic) with a
supporting video tape and a stand-alone CD-ROM encompassing the
training aid. In October 1997, a refined and updated Advisory Circular
on Atmospheric Turbulence Avoidance, which included a recommended model
for a turbulence tracking and avoidance system for air operators, was
issued. As a part of the ``Turbulence Happens'' program, the FAA has
issued informational pamphlets and handouts to raise the flying
public's awareness of the need to ``keep your seat belt fastened when
you are seated.'' Seat belt usage was the subject of a Flight Standards
Air Transport Bulletin distributed to all air carriers through their
respective operations inspectors to encourage Captains to reiterate
during passenger briefings and announcements to the passengers the
importance of staying ``belted' when seated.
Question. What progress has been made in the last year to better
detect and disseminate turbulence information?
Answer. In the past year, efforts of a Turbulence Product
Development Team (PDT), under the direction of the FAA's Aviation
Weather Research program, have resulted in the integration of an on-
board (in-situ) turbulence detection algorithm into the software of the
aircraft condition monitoring system (ACMS) on board several United
Airlines aircraft. This algorithm has been installed on five United
Airlines 737 and 757 aircraft and is currently undergoing evaluation.
The in-situ algorithm provides the only source of near real-time
quantifiable turbulence detection data, which will be utilized to
validate turbulence forecast models and be made available to
operational forecasters at the Aviation Weather Center (AWC) in Kansas
City. Additionally, PDT efforts have also been directed towards the
development of an integrated turbulence forecasting algorithm which is
currently undergoing evaluation by forecasters at the AWC and the
development of improved NEXRAD/TDWR enroute and terminal turbulence
detection algorithms to leverage off these existing sensor networks.
In addition, the FAA's Aircraft, Avionics, and Navigation IPT is
investigating a new technology under the SOCRATES program for the
detection, location, and tracking of air turbulence. In this effort,
two sets of field tests have been conducted. The first tests in the
Fall of 1997 examined the acoustic characteristics of wake vortices,
and the second tests in the Spring of 1998 at the John F. Kennedy
International Airport provided quantitative measurements for lidar-
acoustic characteristics of wake vortices. The results to date are
promising.
aviation weather
Question. What have been the recommendations of the Air Traffic
Management Subcommittee of the Research, Engineering, and Development
(RE&D) Advisory Committee regarding aviation weather R&D? What is the
current status of that subcommittee's report? Please provide a copy of
that report to the subcommittee along with the FAA's planned actions to
deal with the reports recommendations.
Answer. The subcommittee's report was approved by the R,E&D
Advisory Committee at its meeting on January 29-30, 1998. The
subcommittee report follows.
In recommendation number 3, paragraph 5.2.2.1, the subcommittee
made the following recommendation: ``The Associate Administrator for
Research and Acquisitions, ARA-1, should establish a separate weather
IPT within the AND organization, to focus the leadership and
responsibility for all research, engineering, development, and
implementation of weather projects.'' FAA has formed, within its Office
of Air Traffic Systems Development, an IPT for Weather/Flight Service
Systems. This office is the single point of responsibility for planning
and executing FAA's weather research program described in chapter 4 of
the R,E&D budget. Additionally, this office has responsibility for
development and deployment of FAA systems for distributing current
weather reports and weather forecasts. These systems include the
integrated terminal weather system (ITWS), weather and radar processor
(WARP), and operational and supportability implementation system
(OASIS) as described in the F&E budget.
Final Report of the Aviation Weather Subcommittee, Federal Aviation
Administration, Research, Engineering and Development Subcommittee,
October 31, 1995
1. introduction
At the August 31, 1994 meeting of the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) Research, Engineering and Development (R,E&D)
Advisory Committee, Mr. Najeeb E. Halaby agreed to chair a subcommittee
effort to study the FAA's aviation weather programs. Mr. Carl P.
McCullough was appointed Designated Federal Official.
The Aviation Weather Subcommittee was asked to identify and
prioritize aviation weather research and development efforts and
operational procedures and programs that should be pursued by the FAA,
based on their potential payoff for the spectrum of users. (See
Appendix A for the complete Task Statement). The focus of the
subcommittee was to attempt to answer questions related to the need,
adequacy, depth, and the pace of the weather research and operational
problems and opportunities. To do so, the subcommittee needed to
understand user needs and the roles and responsibilities of various
entities, public and private, in the development and provisioning of
aviation weather products and services to respond to user needs. For
the purposes of this report, ``user'' refers to pilots, controllers,
dispatchers, traffic managers, supervisors and others who require
aviation weather products in the performance of their jobs.
To accomplish the above task FAA officials and Mr. Halaby proposed
members for the subcommittee, who in turn helped in the selection of
other working group members. The aviation committee volunteers
representing different organizations participated in this study. A
complete listing is given in Appendix B.
The initial meeting of the Aviation Weather Subcommittee took place
on January 25, 1995. During that meeting the charter/task statement was
reviewed and redefined and subcommittee/working groups membership was
expanded and approved. Many meetings, reviews and site visits were
conducted by the Subcommittee over the next several months. This report
presents the resulting findings, issues and recommendations.
It should also be noted that there have been many recent studies of
this general subject, and the Subcommittee recognizes that a
comprehensive study by the National Research Council was published in
March 1994 as ``Weather For Those Who Fly,'' and another study will be
completed prior to publication of this report (October 1995). Sponsored
by the FAA, National Weather Service, and Department of Defense, the
latter study attempts to define organizational roles and
responsibilities, and to offer recommended changes where appropriate.
To the extent possible, the Subcommittee will draw upon the findings of
these and other previous studies in sharpening its recommendations.
2. general findings
Fulfilling the FAA's mission of the ``safe and efficient
utilization of the airspace'' urgently requires a much improved
delivery of aviation weather services to pilots, controllers, traffic
managers, supervisors and dispatchers. Recent weather related accidents
in both air carrier and general aviation operations as well as
insistent demands of users of the Air Traffic Control system for
reduced delays which are primarily due to weather, pose the greatest
challenge to the Administrator. The policy and priority for weather
services and products must now be restated so as to meet this
challenge.
Aviation weather is and will continue to be most important to the
air transportation system. It is a principal cause of aviation
accidents and the major cause of flight delays. Improved, delivered
forecasts offer an important opportunity for increasing system
capacity. Better short-term forecasts and current information on
hazardous weather conditions are critical to ensuring safe flight.
Timely and accurate weather information is critical to planning fuel
and time-efficient flight plans. Weather information directly affects
pilot/air traffic user decision making and is essential as an enabling
technology for other key aviation Research and Development (R&D)
thrusts, such as air traffic automation and flight management. A
significant part of weather-related delays and accidents can be avoided
in the future by providing all users of the system a common
understanding of the weather phenomena. This common understanding must
have two characteristics: the products viewed should be operationally
useful (i.e., understood by non-meteorologists) and must provide timely
information for effective real-time decision making.
The FAA has understood the needs for improving the quality,
integrity and cost of providing aviation weather to all classes of
users. In the past decade, the FAA has launched several major R&D and
Facilities and Equipment (F&E) programs to study, develop and produce a
better weather detection and prediction capability. These programs are
addressing a wide range of atmospheric conditions from thunderstorms
and turbulence, to icing, visibility and wind shear. This effort is
about to produce a vast amount of data. Transferring this data into
operationally useful information and the timely dissemination of this
information to all users who need it, when and where they need it,
remains one of the greatest of challenges. In other words, the
development of data communications mechanisms, namely cockpit data
links, have not kept up with the other aspects of aviation weather
system (e.g., sensor systems). Air traffic controllers are required to
provide only significant weather data which is available, and to
disseminate, time permitting, other weather advisories. On the other
hand, pilots cannot see the same information presently available from
ground sensors.
Upon review, several general and major findings became apparent,
which allowed the subcommittee to establish the critical issues. These
findings include:
1. There appears to be an abundance of weather data available today
which is not being fully utilized because in part:
--It is not provided to the users in an actionable form;
--Timely and efficient delivery mechanisms to users do not now exist;
--There are managerial and organizational problems and impediments to
cost/effectiveness; and
--There is a lack of focused priority and emphasis on the delivery of
data from sensors all the way to users.
2. Weather programs have, over the years, suffered from a lack of
consistent policy determination by various Administrators, as to the
agency's role and priorities. The much higher priority programs are
those which help the controller separate and dispatch aircraft. This
has often resulted in weather-related programs that are inconsistently
funded, causing less than acceptable performance.
3. It is not clear what the FAA weather requirements are and how
they are established and prioritized. Lack of organization focus and
process in this area is a major contributor to this problem. For
example, the FAA agreed in 1977 that its means of compliance with the
Federal Aviation Act of 1958 would be a comprehensive list of weather
requirements, submitted annually by the Secretary of Transportation to
the Secretary of Commerce. While informal and less visible
communications have occurred, no such list has ever been provided.
4. The R&D focus and activity have been on the weather data
gathering (sensing, processing, integrating, etc.) rather than on data
distribution and presentation. The controllers and pilots need a
simple, but representative, presentation of weather hazards, locations,
trends and forecasts. This is particularly important because of more
reliance among commercial and military pilots on sophisticated onboard
computers and navigational systems, and a gradual migration to concepts
of ``free flight.'' A companion shift in aviation weather presentation
is needed: more reliance on graphical products rather than current
textual products to complement the above--particularly in general and
local service aviation.
5. A clear need exists for prudently selected research and
development in the following areas to provide operationally useful
products, determined by the users to be of high priority:
--Thunderstorm movement, growth and decay;
--Accuracy of winds aloft;
--Ceiling and visibility prediction;
--Icing prediction and reporting;
--Lightning detection, tracking and reporting;
--Clear air turbulence detection and forecasting; and
--Wake vortices detection and tracking.
6. While cost/benefit analyses are being performed at the macro
(NAS) and micro (individual acquisition program) levels, none that we
have seen is being done as an input to focus and prioritize the FAA's
aviation weather research activities.
7. The FAA's current mission is to provide aircraft separation
assurance and traffic management directives (i.e., ``separate metal
from metal''). This mission does not extend into the separation of
aircraft from hazardous weather. As a result, the role of controllers
in aviation weather has been of a limited advisory nature, partly
because weather observations and forecasts have not been adequate. Some
pilots have information from onboard radar or direct visual observation
that is temporally and/or spatially more accurate than information
available to the controller. Furthermore, with the exception of wind
shear at sites with Terminal Doppler Weather Radar (TDWR) and advanced
Low Level Wind Shear Alert System (LLWAS), the superbly equipped pilot
will retain the advantage in accuracy for the foreseeable future. Even
at those sites with TDWR and advanced LLWAS, the FAA believes it is
better to provide the pilot with the wind shear information and train
him/her to interpret the data than for the controller to initiate
vectors to enhance safety or reduce delay. The first critical step
toward changing this pattern is to significantly enhance the
Information available to both controllers and pilots, so the
cooperative system can be quickly improved.
3. recommendations
System Development
The FAA should develop a weather system architecture to provide the
proper aviation weather information to all users in a timely manner. It
should include an end-to-end (sensor to user) subsystem that provides a
mechanism to get the same aviation weather information to all users..
This system approach is absolutely essential in meeting the user needs
and in maximizing the impact of the R&D efforts. The implementation of
such a system must have high priority within the aviation weather
program to reap the benefits of past investments in weather sensors and
research products.
Organizational
The subcommittee recognizes that, since its inception, steps have
been taken by the FAA to improve many of the organizational and
managerial measures that have plagued the aviation weather services for
years. The creation of the Surveillance and Weather Integrated Product
Team (IPT) and most recently the Aviation Weather Division within the
Air Traffic Requirements organization has consolidated many of the
disparate organizational entities and stakeholders into more cohesive
units with somewhat clearer lines of responsibility. While this is a
positive step, additional actions must be undertaken to focus decision-
making responsibility and authority for fulfilling approved aviation
weather requirements. These include continued development of the IPT to
involve all stakeholders, from requirements setters to the flying
public.
R&D
The FAA must also continue with a rational, consistent level of
long-term R&D funding to avoid losing the impetus of the research
continuum through major Finding fluctuations. The FAA should direct the
focus of R&D activities toward operationally useful products so that
the fruits of R&D can be provided to the users on a continual basis.
This requires prioritizing R&D activities within the limited FAA
budgets with an emphasis on generating products that provide benefits
to both internal and external users. Furthermore, all research projects
should be carefully chosen and, as a pan of the research activity,
develop a comprehensive, defensible cost-benefit story and a planned-
implementation path that ensures timely operational delivery of its
products to users.
In view of an overall deficiency in R&D funding, the FAA should
effectively coordinate weather-related R&D efforts of NASA, DOD and DOC
with the FAA program. In any event, the FAA should comply with the
agreement with DOC to provide an annual statement of weather
requirements.
Aviation Weather Entrepreneurship
The combination of danger, delay and demand by pilots, controllers
and FAA leadership has fortunately developed a market for aviation
weather products that is being exploited by non-government
organizations and private industry. This enterprise must be encouraged
through expedited acquisition, certification and in all available ways
in order to expedite the introduction of services to the various
classes of users, commercial air transport, commuters, general aviation
and the military. This will require education and training,
particularly of pilots, controllers and dispatchers. It must also
involve agencies other than the FAA, particularly the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, and Department of Defense. This creative pressure from
industry and the non-profit institutions who have contributed so much
to the advancement of improved services can accelerate crucial
decisions such as the adoption of digital data link so essential to
success of translating technology into reality.
Policy
The FAA Administrator should provide a clear and cohesive policy
statement regarding the agency's important role in the provision of
aviation weather services. The policy statement should reflect the need
for further definition of the capability and responsibility of
controllers and pilots in the issue of separating aircraft from
hazardous weather Better understanding of organizational and individual
responsibilities is critical to determining future priorities. This
involves clearly delineating the authority and accountability as
between the FAA's operations and acquisition organizations (ATS and
ARA), so that the Administration, the Congress and the public can
identify the official in charge of weather services in the new FAA
structure. This will require unified and disciplined organization and
management when such a policy is clearly established.
Culturally, a higher level of decisiveness and discipline must be
enforced through a stabilized line of command empowered to make and
execute decisions. Without this, the IPT cannot realize its promise,
and the convict and irresolution of the past will reappear in another
shape. Hopefully, new legislation to grant the Administrator greater
freedom in personnel and procurement matters will enable better
management of available resources. In the interim, however, FAA
management must improve risk calculation and its assumption and get on
the proactive decision-making track.
In the end, we recognize the indispensable judgment of pilots and
controllers regarding the weather data presented to them. The
Administrator should set policies for their training and certification
that will lead to enhanced understanding and decision-making regarding
weather, taking into account the many significant forthcoming changes
in the National Airspace System.
Finally, the FAA Administrator can and should provide leadership in
the implementation of the above recommendations with emphasis on
getting short-term and long-term products in the field to best meet
user needs. This becomes even more crucial, as the availability of
total federal dollars become limited and the FAA is forced to make some
difficult choices with the cooperation of private industry resources.
The members of the Aviation Weather Subcommittee are available to
support the FAA in its critical mission of aviation weather service
dealing with the safety and efficiency of all flights in the air
transportation system.
[appendix a]
Task Statement, Aviation Weather Subcommittee
The Aviation Weather Subcommittee, under the Federal Aviation
Administration Research, Engineering and Development Advisory
Committee, is tasked to identify prioritize aviation weather research
and development (R&D) efforts and operational procedures and programs
that should be pursued by the FAA, based on their potential payoff for
the spectrum of users. The subcommittee should also recommend the
direction to be taken by the FAA to expedite the conversion of R&D
programs into usable capabilities.
In establishing the recommendations and priorities, the
subcommittee should consider such factors as operating requirements and
capabilities for the safe and efficient utilization of the airspace in
light of available resources, as well as:
a. Expressed needs and priorities of the users, both internal and
external to the FAA, principally controllers, pilots, and dispatchers.
b. The anticipated cost and complexity of a given project or
product.
c. The relative difficulty in time and cost required to make a
product or system operational.
d. The expected benefits and costs of a proposed product or system.
e. The risks associated with the program.
f. A vision of the probable system of 2005 and the research and
development to be conducted in the next ten years.
The subcommittee may engage working group experts to explore the
elements of this tasking. Findings and recommendations are to be
included in a report submitted to the full Research, Engineering and
Development Advisory Committee no later than September, 1995. The full
committee's endorsement is required prior to the final report being
forwarded to the Administrator.
The 1995 report will complete the subcommittee's work unless
extended by the committee chair.
[appendix b]
Subcommittee Membership
Hon. Najeeb E. Halaby, Chairman
Mr. Albert P. Albrecht
Mr. Steven J. Brown
Captain Robert Buley
Mr. Frank J. Colson
Vice Admiral Donald D. Engen, USN (ret)
Dr. Dolores Etter
Dr. James E. Evans
Dr. Brant Foote
Brigadier General John J. Kelly, Jr., USAF (ret)
Dr. Alexander E. MacDonald
Mr. Joseph L. McCormick
Hon. John L. McLucas
Captain Dennis Newton
Dr. Ralph Petersen
Dr. Agam Sinha
Mr. Paul Smith
Captain Robert Smith
Mr. David Taylor
Mr. James Washington
Mr. John F. Zugschwert
[appendix c]
Methodology
A final report with specific program recommendations was requested
by September 1995 and in order to complete deliberations in the short
time available and recognizing the unavailability of cost/benefit
analyses, the depth of the reviews was limited.
Two initial meetings were held in January and February to refine
and articulate the exact problem and need, and to agree on a plan of
attack. Three Working Groups were established to consider separate and
distinct areas of the weather arena, corresponding to the three areas
outlined above. To expedite the deliberation of the working groups, it
was decided to have all subcommittee members meet together at each of
the subsequent briefings.
The first set of reviews and briefings was held in Boulder,
Colorado. Subcommittee members were made aware of the weather
activities at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, Forecast
Systems Laboratory, and United Airlines Center at Chicago O'Hare
Airport The next series of reviews were held at the FAA headquarters,
where members of the Integrated Product Team for Surveillance and
Weather (AND-400) briefed members of the subcommittee on several major
weather programs. These included: Integrated Terminal Weather System,
ASR-9 weather system processor, TDWR, Next Generation Weather Radar
(NEXRAD), and Weather and Radar Processor (WARP). The last set of
formal briefings was held in the Boston area. WSI, Inc., Phillips Labs/
Hanscom AFB and MIT/Lincoln Labs were visited on July 13 and 14, 1995.
research, engineering and development budget table
Question. Please provide a table that shows how much the FAA
requested for the various components of the fiscal year 1999 RE&D
budget in its submissions to the Office of the Secretary and to the
Office of Management and Budget. Include the fiscal year 1998 RE&D
request in the President's budget on the same table for comparison.
Answer. The information follows:
RESEARCH, ENGINEERING AND DEVELOPMENT OST, OMB AND PRESIDENT'S BUDGET
SUBMISSIONS BUDGET AUTHORITY
[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
--------------------------------------
Mode/program area/program 1998
President 1999 OST 1999 OMB
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. System Development and $75,550 $78,171 $72,227
Infrastructure..................
--------------------------------------
a. System Planning and 1,164 1,630 1,369
Resource Management.........
b. Technical Laboratory 3,341 3,341 3,268
Facility....................
c. Center for Advanced 5,444 5,000 4,890
Aviation System Development.
d. Personnel and Related 65,601 68,200 62,700
Expenses....................
======================================
2. Capacity and Air Traffic Mgmt 9,108 185,515 132,163
Technology......................
--------------------------------------
a. Traffic Flow Management... 2,986 5,184 2,332
c. Runway Incursion Reduction 2,990 5,679 1,369
d. System Capacity, Planning 1,367 2,335 1,272
and Improvements............
e. Cockpit Technology........ 1,765 357 349
f. General Aviation & ........... 2,468 1,462
Vertical Flight Tech Program
g. Flight 2000............... ........... 151,289 120,000
h. Future Airways Facilities ........... 897 ...........
Technology..................
i. Operations Concept ........... 8,109 3,912
Validation..................
j. ATM System Analysis....... ........... 2,800 ...........
k. Software Engineering R&D.. ........... 6,397 1,467
Oceanic Automation ........... ........... ...........
Program.................
Modeling, Analysis and ........... ........... ...........
Simulation..............
======================================
3. Communication, Navigation and 15,132 23,061 11,398
Surveillance....................
--------------------------------------
a. Communication............. 4,706 6,709 1,174
b. Navigation................ 10,426 12,768 6,718
c. Surveillance.............. ........... 3,584 3,506
======================================
4. Weather: a. Weather Program... 3,982 13,692 11,436
======================================
5. Airport Technology: a. Airport 5,458 6,081 5,086
Technology......................
======================================
6. Aircraft Safety Technology.... 26,625 27,936 24,991
--------------------------------------
a. Fire Research and Safety.. 2,049 2,098 2,098
b. Advanced Materials/ 1,700 1,351 809
Structural Safety...........
c. Propulsion and Fuel System 1,691 1,761 1,761
d. Flight Safety/Atmospheric 1,660 2,100 1,494
Hazards Research............
e. Aging Aircraft............ 12,966 13,742 11,945
f. Aircraft Catastrophic 1,270 1,329 1,329
Failure Prevention Research.
g. Aviation Safety Risk 5,289 5,555 5,555
Analysis....................
======================================
7. System Security Technology.... 49,895 50,178 47,927
--------------------------------------
a. Explosives and Weapons 36,200 37,206 35,541
Detection...................
b. Airport Security 4,000 4,723 4,520
Technology Integration......
c. Airport Security Human 4,695 3,968 4,078
Factors.....................
d. Aircraft Hardening........ 5,000 4,281 3,788
======================================
8. Human Factors & Aviation 10,737 12,678 11,685
Medicine........................
--------------------------------------
a. Flight Deck/Maintenance/ 7,272 8,296 7,400
System Integration HF.......
b. A T Control/A F Human 3,078 4,098 4,008
Factors.....................
c. Aeromedical Research...... 387 284 277
======================================
9. Environment & Energy: a. 2,891 4,832 2,739
Environment & Energy............
======================================
10. Innovative/Cooperative 622 356 348
Research........................
======================================
Total...................... 200,000 402,500 320,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Within the $12.2 million requested for weather R&D in
fiscal year 1999, how much of this amount is to continue the funding to
be coordinated through the National Center for Atmospheric Research?
Answer. The FAA's Aviation Weather Research (AWR) Program, as part
of its overall strategy, has formulated Meteorological Product
Development Teams (PDT's), to address each current research area. These
PDT's are comprised of researchers from the National Center for
Atmospheric Research, the NOAA's Forecast System Laboratory and the
National Severe Storms Laboratory, the National Weather Service's
Aviation Weather Center and National Centers for Environmental
Prediction, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lincoln
Laboratory and several universities. The PDT approach is fostering
strong collaboration and leveraging between the ``laboratories.'' Of
the $12.2 million requested for weather R&D in fiscal year 1999, $9.1
million is to continue the research being conducted by the PDT's, while
$1.0 million is for research operations, $.85 million is funding FAA
in-house activities, and $1.25 million will be utilized for William J.
Hughes Technical Center support, cost benefits analysis, and support to
the AWR program office.
Question. What specific benefits will this produce for aviation
safety?
Answer. Major specific benefits include:
1. Improved accuracy of current and forecasted areas of inflight
icing, including severity and type.
2. Improved accuracy of current and forecast snowfall type and rate
to provide aircraft deicing decision making information to airline
station control centers and runway plowing authorities to increase
safety on takeoffs.
3. Short term prediction of storm growth, initiation, and decay to
enhance safety.
4. In-situ and remote detection and forecast of en route turbulence
especially clear-air turbulence to enhance flight safety.
5. Location, timing, and severity of convective weather hazards to
improve flight safety.
6. High resolution and timely gridded aviation data, including
winds, temperature, icing, and turbulence, coupled with interactive
data assimilation, editing, and forecast tools to improve aviation
advisories and forecast capability.
7. Short term predictions of ceiling and visibility in the terminal
area to enhance safety especially for general aviation.
Question. What is the total amount that has been provided by the
Congress for this National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) R&D
from fiscal year 1993 through fiscal year 1998? Please detail on a year
by year schedule, and report what specific products have resulted.
Answer. The total amount that has been provided to the Aviation
Weather Research Product Development Teams for NCAR R&D is as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year F&E RE&D Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1993............................................................ $13,000,000 $2,600,000 $15,600,000
1994............................................................ 8,800,000 100,000 8,900,000
1995............................................................ 11,600,000 .............. 11,600,000
1996............................................................ 5,200,000 4,000,000 9,200,000
1997 \1\........................................................ 400,000 8,400,000 8,800,000
1998 \2\........................................................ 3,200,000 8,900,000 12,100,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes Juneau project.
\2\ Includes Juneau project and Center for Wind, Ice and Fog.
Specific research products that have resulted include:
1. Developed and implemented at the National Weather Service a
Rapid Update Cycle (RUC) (60 kilometer resolution) followed by a RUC II
analysis and forecast (40 kilometer resolution) capability providing
more accurate and higher resolution upper winds, temperature, and
precipitation data (leveraged with the National Weather Service (NWS).
Use of this information has resulted in reduced flight times and/or
flight delays due to more accurate data on hazardous weather and jet
streams.
2. Issuance of first-ever forecast of freezing precipitation aloft
at the Aviation Weather Center in Kansas City (in response to
regulatory activities, re: turboprop commuter aircraft). These
forecasts have increased airspace efficiency, aircraft utilization, and
safety especially for commuter aircraft.
3. Commenced flight test of humidity sensor on UPS aircraft
(leveraged with NOAA). The availability of detailed atmospheric
moisture data in real time will be utilized to make more accurate
inflight icing and ceiling and visibility forecasts.
4. Completed upgrades to NEXRAD Algorithms: Storm Cell
Identification and Tracking, Hail Detection, Mesocyclone Detection, and
Tornado Detection (leveraged with NWS). These upgrades have enabled
better definition of the location, timing, and severity of convective
weather hazards resulting in enhanced flight safety and capacity.
5. Developed a Weather Support to Deicing Decision Making System
providing important deicing and snow removal decision making
information to airlines, port authorities and cities. Testbeds have
been operated at Denver, Chicago O'Hare, and New York LaGuardia
resulting in increased safety (takeoffs), savings in use of deicing
fluids, associated equipment and personnel costs, efficiencies in
runway and off airport plowing and efficiencies in departures and
arrivals. These efforts resulted in the successful technology transfer
to industry and it is anticipated that implementation by industry will
occur in the future.
6. Achieved Aviation Gridded Forecast System AGFS initial operating
capability via the ``turn-on'' of the Aviation Digital Data Service
(ADDS) at the Aviation Weather Center in Kansas City to provide user
access to gridded data including winds, temperature, and icing as well
as AIRMET's and SIGMET's.
7. Implemented inflight turbulence algorithm on five United 757's
and 727's to provide objective turbulence measurements which will be
downlinked for use by forecasters at the Aviation Weather Center in
Kansas City and as inputs to turbulence forecast models.
aviation weather
Question. Please provide a listing of all recipients, including
academic institutions, of the total funding fiscal year 1993 through
fiscal year 1998 and please detail amounts by each recipient and what
each recipient has accomplished.
Answer. Funding for fiscal year 1993 through fiscal year 1998 by
recipient and their accomplishments are as follows (dollars in
millions):
National Science Foundation: $0.3 F&E; $0.3 RE&D;
--Research, interagency, and academia coordination.
National Center for Atmospheric Research: $19.9 F&E; $10.1 RE&D;
--Development of inflight icing algorithms resulting in first-ever
forecast of freezing precipitation aloft at the Aviation
Weather Center in Kansas City,
--Development of a Weather Support to Deicing Decision Making System,
--Development of an inflight turbulence detection algorithm,
--Development of algorithms to predict storm growth, initiation, and
decay.
NOAA Forecast Systems Laboratory: $17.5 F&E; $7.0 RE&D;
--Development of RUC and RUC II analysis and forecast capability
providing more accurate and higher resolution upper winds,
temperature, and precipitation data,
--Development of Aviation Gridded Forecast System and its initial
operating capability known as the Aviation Digital Data Service
(ADDS) to provide user access to gridded data including winds,
temperature, and icing.
NOAA National Severe Storms Laboratory: $1.2 F&E; $1.6 RE&D;
--Development of upgrades to NEXRAD Algorithms: Storm Cell
Identification and Tracking, Hail Detection, Mesocyclone
Detection and Tornado Detection to enable the better definition
of the location timing and severity of convective weather
hazards.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lincoln Laboratory: $2.6 RE&D;
--Development of algorithms to predict storm growth, initiation, and
decay;
--Development of preliminary algorithms to predict the burnoff of
stratus at the San Francisco International Airport.
National Weather Service National Centers for Environmental Prediction:
$1.7 F&E; $1.3 RE&D;
--Implementation and operation of the Rapid Update Cycle (RUC) and
RUC II.
National Weather Service Aviation Weather Center: $1.2 F&E; $0.7 RE&D;
--Implementation and evaluation of inflight icing, turbulence and
convective weather algorithms.
Pennsylvania State University: $0.8 F&E; $0.4 RE&D;
--Ceiling and visibility basic research contributing to development
of algorithms.
Oklahoma State University: $0.8 F&E; $0.3 RE&D;
--Convective weather research contributing to the development of
storm growth and decay algorithms.
Colorado State University: $0.5 F&E; $0.3 RE&D;
--Development of models to analyze and forecast winds, temperature,
and precipitation data.
Purdue University: $0.03 RE&D;
--Inflight icing basic research.
Desert Research Institute: $0.04 RE&D;
--Development of preliminary algorithms to predict the burnoff of
stratus at the San Francisco International Airport.
ARINC: $0.6 F&E; $0.5 RE&D;
--Operation of the Meteorological Data Collection and Reporting
System to downlink winds and temperature data from aboard
aircraft.
Center for Wind, Ice, and Fog: $0.3 RE&D;
--Icing and freezing rain research coordination.
University of New Hampshire: $0.1 RE&D;
--Development of icing algorithms.
University of Maine: $0.1 RE&D;
--Development of icing algorithms.
Question. If this research is deemed to be focused and important,
why is it not supported by the National Weather Service, National
Science Foundation, and others who support basic research at
institutions of higher learning?
Answer. AWR program activities are closely coordinated and
leveraged with academia and other government agencies including the
NOAA, directly through university grants, interagency agreements, and
memoranda of agreements as well as through the National Science
Foundation. Several of the AWR program research activities collaborate
with and achieve significant leveraging with the National Weather
Service, through the collaborative use of hardware, personnel, and
computing resources, and the National Science Foundation (NSF) through
the use of their research aircraft for data collection. NSF and NOAA
employees and contractors are participants in the FAA's Aviation
Weather Research PDT's and Leadership Team. The AWR program has focused
its research dollars on applied research and has formulated a sound
approach to performing weather research activities targeted to solving
prioritized operational problems.
aviation security
Question. In September 1996, the Congress appropriated $144.2
million for the purchase and deployment of advanced security equipment
at airports. With a major portion of these funds, FAA planned to
purchase and install 54 advanced explosives detection devices certified
to screen checked luggage and 489 devices to screen carry-on bags
(trace equipment) by December 31, 1997. However, as of January 1998
only 11 certified devices and 125 devices for carry-on bags had been
installed. FAA now plans to complete installation by December of 1998.
The President's fiscal year 1999 budget requests $100 million to
further enhance airport security needs. In view of FAA's delay in
meeting its 1997 plans to install security equipment, why do you need
this additional money and how would it be used?
Answer. Initial delays in the deployment of explosive detection
technology were due to transforming an R&D product into a full
production product with all support products such as: a valid training
program; test procedures for factory, site, and operational acceptance;
and integration procedures for various airport configurations. Initial
delays were also due to air carriers determining how and where the
technology would be implemented in the lobby or integrated into the
baggage handling systems. The air carriers wanted to see what the
expected selectee rate would be with the implementation of the Computer
Assisted Passenger Screening (CAPS) system to determine how many bags
would need to be screened by the EDS technology.
With the implementation of CAPS well underway and all of the
support products developed for the implementation of EDS, the
deployment activity has accelerated. Currently, 23 units are installed
in nine airports and all 54 units will be installed by September 30,
1998. Fiscal year 1998 reprogramming funds of $25.1 million will
provide for the purchase of 16 CTX systems and four second generation
EDS to be installed by December 31, 1998. To install EDS at 79 of the
major airports requires well over 400 units. The funding through fiscal
year 1998 will provide for 74 of these units.
The $100 million request in the fiscal year 1999 budget will fund
the purchase of the security technologies to continue the deployment of
EDS for screening checked baggage and to deploy technology to enhance
screening of passengers and carry-on at checkpoints. The following
technologies will be procured in fiscal year 1999:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quantity
Security equipment est. Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Second generation EDS to screen checked 88 $79,200,000
bags......................................
2. Trace detection devices collocated with 75 7,200,000
EDS.......................................
3. Trace passenger screening portals at 10 1,500,000
checkpoints...............................
4. Trace document scanners................. 40 3,400,000
5. Automated operator assisted carry-on X- 85 7,200,000
rays......................................
6. Hardened baggage/cargo containers....... 100 1,500,000
----------------------------
Total................................ ........... 100,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
aviation safety
Question. Shortly after you assumed office, you announced that FAA
would soon issue a rule on Flight Operations Quality Assurance (FOQA)
programs that would offer protection from punitive enforcement to
participants in FOQA programs. This policy was first articulated by
former Administrator Hinson three years ago. Could you tell us the
current status of the rulemaking, and why it has taken so long to issue
the rule?
Answer. In developing the proposal for a Flight Operational Quality
Assurance (FOQA) rule, some unanticipated issues have come to light.
These issues are being discussed within the Administration as a whole,
and the FAA expects to move ahead once they have been resolved.
Question. We understand that the FAA is in the process of
reorganizing its certification and inspection activities to assign
individual inspectors to the surveillance of only one or a very small
number of air carriers. Would you explain what considerations
contributed to this change? How will you ensure that inspectors will
not become ``captured'' by the airline they inspect, and that lessons
learned from inspecting one air carrier will be shared throughout the
system?
Answer. The FAA recognizes the need to improve our surveillance
program of air carriers, and the utilization of our limited inspector
resources. The FAA with Sandia National Laboratories developed an air
carrier oversight process which represents a new approach to FAA
certification and surveillance of air carriers. The Air Transportation
Oversight System (ATOS) provides for surveillance oversight using
systems safety principles and systematic processes to assure that air
carriers have safety built into their operating systems.
ATOS provides for a Certificate Management Team (CMT) that brings
principal inspectors together with geographic inspectors to work in a
coordinated effort to manage air carrier certificates. These geographic
inspectors will be dedicated to specific air carriers, trained in that
air carrier's procedures and policies, but still report to and work out
of the local district office.
The 90-day safety review recommended an increased specialization
and more efficient use of geographic inspectors. Current plans provide
for geographic inspectors to participate in the development of each
comprehensive surveillance plan. That plan is forwarded to the
geographic inspector's supervisor for review and approval. This action
will create a check and balance in the oversight system. This work
assignment may change during the year if analysis of the data indicates
that surveillance needs to be retargeted for a specific element.
establishing a safety agenda
Question. You have pointed out that FAA has received hundreds of
recommendations from a number of studies over the past few years, and
that responding to all of them is not conducive to having a focused
agenda. Would you explain how you winnow these recommendations down and
decide which ones to act upon?
Answer. On April 14, 1998, we announced Safer Skies--A Focused
Safety Agenda. FAA, working with other government agencies, airlines,
manufacturers, and unions will identify the major types of accidents,
and analyze the root causes of these accidents. We will take action on
the intervention strategies that address these root causes.
aviation safety
Question. FAA has been criticized in the past for overreacting to
the ``accident du jour'', instead of concentrating on identifying and
addressing more probable sources of future accidents. Do you think this
criticism is valid? If so, how will you avoid such overreaction in the
future?
Answer. In any safety regulatory agency, processes for after-
accident analysis and corrective measures to prevent repetition are
mandatory and constitute good safety management. Characterizing these
important safety functions as overreactions to the ``accident du jour''
trivializes them and is not a valid criticism.
Notwithstanding this fact, FAA has several initiatives underway to
identify potential safety problems and correct them before accidents
occur. On April 14, 1998, we announced Safer Skies--A Focused Agenda,
through which we will identify root causes of major accident types.
Working in partnership with industry, unions, and other government
agencies, we will identify actions to address the root causes.
We recently announced a new process for certification and oversight
of air carriers which goes beyond FAA's traditional process for
certificating air carriers by closely examining the carrier's
operations within the context of eight categories of system safety;
safety culture, organizational structure, self-audit programs, training
programs, potential safety problem areas, procedures, and management
responsibilities.
The Air Transportation Oversight System will permit FAA to
determine that an air carrier's systems of operation are well designed
and are being implemented with integrity. FAA should better be able to
identify accident precursors and to intervene before accidents happen.
aviation security
Question. The White House Commission on Aviation Safety and
Security concluded that many of its proposals for improving aviation
security will require additional funding, but it did not specifically
recommend funding levels or how to fund them. What are your views or
ideas about appropriate funding sources and levels to implement the
Commissions recommendations?
Answer. The FAA concurs with the conclusion of the White House
Commission that ``. . . terrorist attacks on civil aviation are
directed at the United States, and that there should be an ongoing
Federal commitment to reducing the threats that they pose.'' In the
spirit of partnership for enhancing security endorsed by the White
House Commission, the federal government is funding air carrier
security improvements by subsidizing the capital expenses of the air
carriers, including some training and installation costs, through the
purchase of advanced security equipment. The air carriers' role in this
partnership is to use the equipment purchased effectively and pay for
its operation and maintenance after one year. The President's fiscal
year 1999 budget contains $100 million for continued Federal funding
and deployment of all types of advanced security technologies.
The ten-year cost of the new security baseline, which includes many
of the White House Commission recommendations, is estimated at $9.9
billion, excluding the costs associated with interim security measures.
The FAA estimates that the ten-year cost to the Federal Government,
airport authorities, and airlines for security programs at Category X
airports alone would be close to $3 billion, including 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. [Category X airports are
defined by the Office of Civil Aviation Security as those airports that
have 25 million, or more, passengers screened per year or that have
other politically sensitive reasons to be categorized as such (for
example, Washington, DC area and Puerto Rico)].
Funding for aviation security activities is likely to continue to
be derived from a combination of public and private sources. Regarding
public funds include congressional appropriation, Passenger Facility
Charges and Airport Improvement Program grants.
display system replacement training
Question. Can you explain why the FAA has entered into a Memorandum
of Understanding with the air traffic controllers union that requires
the use of Full Performance Level--or FPL--controllers to train other
controllers on the use of new Display System Replacement (DSR)--known
as DSR--equipment?
Answer. DSR has a substantial impact on the controller work force.
The human factors associated with operating the equipment is markedly
different from that of the current radar displays because different
inputs to and outputs from the peripheral equipment are required. It is
important to successful DSR implementation that controllers achieve a
level of comfort with this new configuration. The national training
plan must be tailored to the needs of each individual facility.
Consequently, FAA entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the
National Air Traffic Controllers Association so the controller work
force would be involved in tailoring those facility plans and providing
instruction on use of the equipment. The agreement does not prohibit
FAA from utilizing other sources, such as, staff, supervisors, and/or
contract support. It was the determination of both parties that this
method would best prepare the work force for this significant change in
the operating environment.
Question. Do you expect the FAA will pay overtime wages to FPL
controllers providing DSR training, or to controllers filling in on
operational positions to cover for controllers going through DSR
training? If your answer is yes, could you please share with the
subcommittee your best estimate on how much this overtime pay will
cost?
Answer. Overtime wages will not be paid specifically to full-
performance controllers as reimbursement for providing training.
However, in order to accomplish DSR training, backfill overtime funds
will be required for controllers filling in on operational positions to
cover for controllers receiving training and those controllers
conducting the training. The FAA currently estimates that over $4
million in backfill overtime will be required to support DSR training
in fiscal year 1998. Supervisors and other qualified staff will be used
to backfill for controllers receiving and providing DSR training in an
effort to limit DSR backfill overtime costs to approximately $8.3
million in fiscal year 1999.
Question. Does the FAA have a more cost-effective method to train
controllers on the use of DSR equipment? Specifically, the FAA
currently has a training contract termed Air Traffic Instructional
Services (ATIS). This ATIS contract has been in place at each of the
affected 20 en-route FAA centers for the past 10 years. It is further
my understanding that ATIS services cost less than half as much as the
FAA proposal to use Full Performance Level controllers to train other
controllers on how to use DSR equipment. If this is correct, how can
the FAA justify not using the ATIS contract at its full capacity to
meet the DSR training demand?
Answer. The ATIS contract provides training support services at
each of the DSR locations as the schedule for deployment progresses.
The average hourly cost of contractor-provided services is less than
the cost of controller overtime.
The FAA uses the ATIS contract to its full capacity, within
available resources, to meet all training needs, including
developmental training, refresher training, new equipment training, and
other local training. The ATIS contract is managed nationally and each
DSR facility, in coordination with its region, decides how it will
balance its needs with competing resources. The FAA uses a mix of
contractor instructional staff and FAA personnel to accomplish its
training goals.
Question. As you know I believe that safety should be the top
priority of your agency. As more and more people travel through the
skies each and every year, it is crucial that more well-trained and
capable air traffic controllers are on-duty to handle the air traffic.
Given my beliefs and the beliefs of other members of this subcommittee,
I am troubled to learn that the training of developmental controllers
is being halted at a time when the FAA is hiring up to 800 new
controllers for this fiscal year and has hired over 1,000 others in the
past two years. Can you explain your agency's justification for this
policy?
Answer. Safety is the top priority of the FAA. We believe that we
have the safest system staffed by the best trained air traffic control
work force in the world. We are not halting developmental training; in
fact, training is continuing in most facilities at a rather vigorous
rate. To make the best use of our training resources, we are making
tactical adjustments in some facilities to allow for training on new
equipment, as well as, developmental training, refresher training, and
other local training. Safety will not be compromised during this
transition, nor at any time in the future.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Faircloth
reports of continuing safety violations by airtran/valujet
Question. An FAA inspection team which concluded its work in
November 1997, found 106 safety violations at AirTran/ValuJet.
According to a second inspection team, 60 of the original violations
could not be substantiated. Next, an unprecedented third team of
inspectors was brought in to arbitrate between the first and second
inspection teams, which disagreed over the number of ``valid''
violations. Why did the FAA implement unprecedented procedures for
inspection of this particular airline? Please list the names of every
other airline and the dates of all inspections in which the FAA has
used this same procedure involving three inspection teams.
Answer. There is no other case in which these same procedures were
used as part of a National Aviation Safety Inspection Program (NASIP)
inspection. Because of disagreements between the inspection team and
the Certificate Holding District Office (CHDO) a second team of
experienced inspectors was assigned to review the most serious
allegations, and to assist the District Office in objectively reviewing
the findings of the NASIP team. With this assistance, the District
Office was able to substantiate over 40 of the original findings. All
106 findings were investigated fully. These unprecedented procedures
were implemented because of the unprecedented public interest in the
operation of ValuJet and to ensure that any allegations were fully
investigated and validated. However, many of the procedures used to
follow up the AirTran/ValuJet inspection will be used on future
inspections as a standard practice, and have been included in our NASIP
Briefing Guide.
Question. The original 106 violations detailed in the first
AirTran/ValuJet inspection included falsified documents, improper
maintenance, faulty repairs, and repeated failures to supervise
contractors. Is it customary FAA procedure to conduct an airline
inspection resulting in a large number of safety violations and then
allow the airline ample time to correct the majority of those
violations before undergoing a second inspection? Please list all other
airlines with which the FAA has used this procedure of a ``practice''
inspection and given the airline comparable time to make corrections
before sending a second and then a third team of inspectors.
Answer. There was no ``practice'' inspection of AirTran/ValuJet.
The second group of inspectors who went to AirTran/ValuJet were
assigned to review the most serious allegations and to assist the
District Office in objectively reviewing the findings of the NASIP
team. Corrections to all safety related findings were begun immediately
after the information was brought to the attention of the Certificate
Holding District Office (CHDO) in Atlanta, Georgia.
Question. How many of the original 106 violations involved serious,
life-threatening safety concerns and how many related to paperwork
errors? Was any instruction given that the serious, life-threatening
violations were to be corrected immediately in the interest of public
safety?
Answer. There were 106 findings (not violations) recorded by the
National Aviation Safety Inspection Program (NASIP) inspection team. A
finding is an indicator requiring in-depth study by investigators from
the office which oversees the airline. Due to the intense national
interest in this airline's progress, a separate, hand-picked, highly
experienced, independent Validation Team was assigned to attempt to
verify the most significant of the findings. All 106 findings were
investigated by the inspectors of the Certificate Holding District
Office (CHDO). During the course of this in-depth investigation, 60 of
the 106 findings could not be substantiated to support regulatory
violations.
The discrepancies indicated by the remaining 46 findings have been
expeditiously corrected by the airline. The FAA has initiated 19
separate enforcement actions covering 25 of those 46 findings.
Any finding which indicated a significant safety-related concern
was immediately addressed to assure the continued maximized safety of
the traveling public. For example, an aircraft undergoing repainting at
a vendor was determined not to have undergone the proper rudder
balancing required after painting. The CHDO, upon learning of the
discrepancy, notified the carrier, which immediately corrected the
problem.
Question. Exactly how many days elapsed between the completion of
the original (NASIP) inspection and the re-inspection by the second
team?
Answer. The National Aviation Safety Inspection Program team was on
site at the operator from October 20, 1997, to November 7, 1997. The
final draft of the team report was completed and sent to the region on
November 26, 1997.
The team of inspectors (Team 2) assigned to assist the Certificate
Holding District Office (CHDO) was on site November 24-November 25,
1997; December 1-December 4, 1997; and December 8-December 12, 1997.
Although the usual practice would have been to allow the CHDO 120
days to investigate all findings and develop plans with the operator to
address all discrepancies, this investigation and report were completed
in 110 days on February 27, 1998.
Question. Was there a time-related obligation to file a detailed
compliance report?
Answer. Although standard practice calls for each finding in the
National Aviation Safety Inspection Program report to be closed by the
Certificate Holding District Office within 120 days of the completion
of the report, in this case the process was completed in 110 days. The
company is obligated to begin making corrections to any findings
immediately after the information is made available to them.
Question. Did AirTran/ValuJet have the right to object and ask for
a review of the inspectors' findings and decisions?
Answer. Any operator is allowed to present evidence in its behalf
to show why it believes it is operating in compliance with the Federal
Aviation Regulations.
Question. Did a request for review suspend the obligation to
correct the violations?
Answer. No. Any operations contrary to the Federal Aviation
Regulations must be corrected immediately.
Question. Why was the initial inspection report detailing the 106
violations at AirTran/ValuJet considered proprietary information and
not available for public scrutiny?
Answer. Although in the past NASIP reports have sometimes been
released before all the findings were fully investigated, in this case,
due to the level of public interest, it was determined that all the
facts and information should be released together to ensure the
Government acted fairly. In the future, NASIP reports will be released
after findings have been investigated fully.
Question. With regard to the initial inspection revealing 106
inspections, what was the experience level of each member of that first
FAA inspection team? Please list each inspector involved in each of the
three inspection teams and detail the experience and qualifications of
each.
Answer. There was one inspection conducted in accordance with the
National Aviation Safety Inspection Program (NASIP). The inspectors
involved on the NASIP Inspection Team were:
Kenneth G. Johnson, ANE-BOS
Wayne Seer, ANE-BOS
William Daniels, AWP-LAS
John Francissen, AGL-ORD
Mark Wilson, AAL-ANC
James Fulwood, AGL-MSP
John T. Pryde, ANM-SEA
Allan Lee, AAL-ANC
Jerome Polak, ANE-BOS
Michael McPeak, ACE-DSM
Paul LeBlanc, ASW-HOU
David Villers, AEA-DCA
Allen Shelby, ANM-PDX
William Satterfield, ASW-7
Sonny Maxwell, ASW-HOU
Roger Herd, AVR-20
Les Monteiro, AVR-20
Biographic sketches and/or Aviation Safety Inspector (ASI)
Information Sheets follow which detail the inspectors' experience/
background. After the NASIP was completed, a team was sent to the
Certificate Holding District Office (CHDO) to assist in the
investigation of the most serious allegations. The inspectors involved
in this group were:
Frank Maly, Acting AGL-201
Dan Allison, CSET--AGL-IND
Bill Dickinson, CSET--AWP-SAN
Jim Repucci, AEA-PIT
Biographic sketches and/or ASI Information Sheets follow which
detail the inspectors' experience/background. The inspectors that
assisted the CHDO in finalizing its investigation and provided peer
review of the final report were:
Dick Birnbach, AFS-900
Bill Crow, ASW-AMR CMO
Dan Allison, CSET--AGL IND
Don Klos, ASW-HOU
[Clerk's note.--The information referred to does not appear in the
hearing record but is available for review in the subcommittee's
files.]
Question. Please explain the differences among the three
inspections of AirTran/ValuJet and detail the purpose for each of the
three inspections.
Answer. There was one inspection conducted of Air Tran/ValuJet in
accordance with the NASIP. Following completion of the NASIP inspection
a number of findings were challenged by the CHDO. A consultation team
commissioned by the Flight Standards Service traveled to the CHDO to
assist in the follow up of the initial findings. During this follow up
several findings were determined to be without merit.
The Flight Standards Certification Program Office Manager then
participated in a final resolution of the findings and assisted the
CHDO in addressing all initial findings in the final report.
Question. After the first inspection, did any AirTran/ValuJet
personnel contact any FAA or DOT personnel other than the inspectors
involved in the inspection? If so, please provide the names of all FAA/
DOT personnel and AirTran/ValuJet personnel involved in any such
communications, as well as, the dates of the contacts.
Answer. After the first inspection, the certificate holding
district office was not contacted by AirTran/ValuJet personnel other
than routine contacts required to investigate and validate the
findings.
The President of AirTran contacted the Associate Administrator for
Regulation and Certification to request a copy of the NASIP report. We
have no record of the date of the contact.
Question. Did any attorney, activist, or lobbyist acting on behalf
of AirTran/ValuJet contact the FAA or DOT concerning the inspections?
Is so, please list all dates of contacts, names of parties involved,
and explicit details of the contacts.
Answer. We are unaware of any such contact with the FAA by any
attorney, activist, or lobbyist acting on behalf of AirTran/ValuJet. No
known contacts were made with Flight Standards personnel outside the
communication between the inspection teams and the certification
holding district office and the carrier.
february 14, 1996 afs-300 report suppressed
Question. At the November, 1996 NTSB hearings in Miami, Florida,
Mr. John Tutora, Manager, Air Carrier Branch, Federal Aviation
Administration, Washington, D.C., testified that his superior, Mr.
Frederick Leonelli, directed him to prepare a document, an AFS-300
report, to provide a ``snapshot'' of the current health and condition
of ValuJet.
In that report, Mr. Tutora stated, ``Consideration should be given
to an Immediate FAR-121 recertification of this airline,'' which
everyone understood to mean ``grounding.'' Despite the reports
explosive findings, Mr. Tutora testified, he was told to keep the AFS-
300 report ``rather confidential.'' The FAA took no action to recertify
or ``ground'' the airline, and ValuJet was allowed to remain in air
commerce until the airline voluntarily grounded itself on June 17,
1996, following the deadly ValuJet crash in the Florida Everglades that
killed 110 people.
In contrast to Mr. Tutora's testimony that he was told to keep the
AFS-300 ``confidential,'' lead NTSB investigator Gred Feith stated at
the August 19, 1997 NTSB meeting in Washington, D.C., that the AFS-300
report was lost in the inbox of Mr. Bill White, a high-ranking FAA
official. No explanation was ever given for how the report went from
Mr. Tutora to his supervisor, Mr. Frederick Leonelli, and no
explanation was provided for how the report moved from Mr. Leonelli to
Mr. Bill White.
Please state conclusively, for the record, HOW and WHY the AFS-300
report of February 14, 1996 was suppressed by FAA officials and
resulted in no grounding of ValuJet operations, thus setting the stage
for the deadly Everglades crash that needlessly claimed the lives of
110 innocent passengers and crew.
Answer. According to testimony before the NTSB, the report was
prepared by reviewing information available in various FAA data bases
and did not include any on- site inspection of the operator. The two
individuals with first-hand knowledge of the purpose of the AFS-300
report and the handling of the AFS-300 report, are no longer employed
by the FAA. The report was produced by AFS-330, Air Carrier Maintenance
Branch staff personnel and provided to the Manager of the Aircraft
Maintenance Division, AFS-300. Those individuals personally involved
would be the only ones able to explain why the report was prepared, and
why it was not brought to senior management attention.
Question. At the time the AFS-300 report was prepared, the NTSB had
two ongoing investigations involving ValuJet: (1) an uncontained engine
failure and fire in Atlanta, GA; and (2) a hard landing in Nashville,
TN. Nevertheless, the FAA did not notify the NTSB of their findings or
release the completed report to them. Is it standard procedure for the
FAA to expend time and effort (Mr. Tutora estimated that he spent five
days preparing the report) on a report with significant findings of
safety concerns and then fail to provide that information to the FAA
chain of command or to the NTSB? Please state why the NTSB was not
informed of the findings in the AFS-300 report.
Answer. Reports compiled by staff specialists within the various
branches under the Flight Standards Maintenance Division, AFS-300, are
commonplace. The AFS-300 internal report was a staff review compiled
from automated data sources available to all FAA personnel. This
information was available to personnel at the CHDO, and particularly
the Principal Inspectors assigned certificate management oversight
responsibilities for ValuJet. In addition to this data, CHDO personnel
had access to all manuals, equipment, personnel, and other items
maintained by the air carrier. If testimony given is accurate, this
particular report was provided to the chain of command. The AFS-330 Air
Carrier Maintenance Branch performed the review and produced the
analysis in the form of a report. According to testimony, that report
was given to the Manager of the Flight Standards Aircraft Maintenance
Division, AFS-300.
We have been unable to establish what the Manager, AFS-300 did with
the report until June 1996 when he presented a copy to the Associate
Administrator for Regulation and Certification. At that time the report
was made publicly available immediately and was given to the NTSB.
Question. Prior to Mr. Frederick Leonelli's departure from the FAA,
did the FAA investigate why he directed Mr. Tutora to specifically keep
the AFS-300 report ``somewhat confidential?'' If so, please provide
explicit details of that investigation. If FAA officials decided
against conducting such an investigation, how does the FAA justify that
decision?
Answer. Although a formal investigation was not initiated, Mr.
Leonelli, Mr. Tutora and others were questioned about the handling of
the report. It was determined that at the same time the AFS-300 report
was completed, CHDO had initiated a special emphasis program at ValuJet
to evaluate its compliance posture. It was determined that although the
CHDO did not have the AFS-300 report, its actions addressed the
concerns raised in the report.
Question. Was the AFS-300 report actually prepared for the sole
benefit of Mr. Leonelli, to be kept ``confidential'' by him so that he
could be prepared for any questions Mr. Anthony Broderick might ask him
about ValuJet?
Answer. Mr. Leonelli's purpose in requesting the report is not
clear.
Question. Does the FAA make a practice of preparing confidential
reports concerning air carriers with perceived problems? For what
purpose are such reports generated? Who receives such reports? Who
retains such reports?
Answer. Reports compiled by staff specialists within the Flight
Standards Service are produced for various reasons. Formal FAA
reporting is governed by various FAA Orders which detail the content,
form and distribution of those reports. A National Aviation Safety
Inspection Program (NASIP) report is an example of a formal document
which is produced as a result of a formal ``Safety Inspection,'' and as
such is provided to numerous parties. A NASIP report would include a
complete review of aspects of an air carrier's operation. Examples of
FAA Orders which detail procedures governing FAA Flight Standards
reporting are FAA Order 2150.3, Compliance and Enforcement Program; FAA
Order 8020.11, Aircraft Accident and Incident Notification,
Investigation, and Reporting; and FAA Order 8300.10, Airworthiness
Inspector's Handbook, just to name a few.
Question. Who made the decision to undertake a special emphasis
review rather than recertify ValuJet?
Answer. CHDO initiated a 120-day Special Emphasis Program on
February 22, 1996, due to ValuJet's accelerated growth and increasing
concern over the airline's operations. For this review, a significant
contingent of geographic inspectors from other offices and regions was
added to the Atlanta Flight Standards District Office inspector team.
This inspector group performed an unprecedented number of inspections
of aircraft, line stations, and operational procedures. As issues were
revealed, the airline initiated prompt corrective action.
Question. Following the ValuJet crash, has the FAA implemented
standardized procedures for monitoring start-up airlines, including
restraining the airline's growth if the carrier's expansion cannot be
sufficiently monitored by the FAA? If so, please provide documentation
of all FAA procedures put in place following the ValuJet crash to
assure adequate monitoring of start-up airlines.
Answer. The FAA conducted an internal evaluation of current
policies and procedures to address the complex issues surrounding
start-up airlines. As a result of that evaluation, a national
certification team, the Certification Standardization Evaluation Team
(CSET), was created to assist local offices in processing new air
carrier certifications. For start-up airlines, this team is also tasked
with the responsibility to ensure that adequate surveillance is
conducted during the new air carrier's first five years of operation.
CSET is in the process of developing this surveillance plan, and we
anticipate implementation October 1, 1998.
Flight Standards understands the importance of providing guidance
to field inspectors when operators make major changes to their
operations. Such changes such as fleet size, new airports, and support
systems usually have a significant effect on an air carrier's
operations. Flight Standards is currently developing a joint Handbook
Bulletin to provide information and guidance to safety inspectors on
evaluating carrier growth factors, resource capacities, and plans for
growth.
Question. Following the ValuJet crash, has the FAA in any way
altered its standard procedure for acting upon critical internal safety
information reflecting negatively on either the FAA or a particular
carrier?
Answer. The FAA has developed a computer based Safety Performance
Analysis System (SPAS) to evaluate both current and historical safety-
related aviation data. SPAS collects data over time to show trends and
to assist safety inspectors in detecting evolving problems. SPAS tracks
the performance of certificate holders and summarizes that information
for safety inspectors. A performance measure is used to compare the
performance of a certificate holder to the performance of similar
certificate holders and to preset limits. SPAS will assist safety
inspectors in determining which certificate holders might need
additional observation and what areas might need further attention.
Flight Standards has also established a Safety Analysis Information
Center (FSAIC) that provides analytical support and review of safety
information directly to district offices and other users inside and
apart from the Flight Standards Service. FSAIC has the capability of
examining safety data for trends, and then providing this information
directly to principal inspectors who can target surveillance resources
and take necessary corrective actions.
These efforts directly support recommendations of the White House
Commission on Aviation Safety and Security. Those recommendations
specifically require the development of standards for continuous safety
improvements and then targeting regulatory resources based on
performance against those standards.
Question. The AFS-300 report made mention of some 68 enforcement
actions by the FAA against ValuJet. Nevertheless, the FAA never
formally proceeded with recertification of ValuJet. How many
enforcement actions against a single airline are required in order for
the FAA to proceed with an emergency suspension of airline operations
in the interest of public safety?
Answer. An enforcement action represents a violation of one or more
Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR). The severity of the violation,
number of times it was done, and the type of violation are part of how
a carrier's compliance attitude is viewed. Of the 68 enforcements in
the AFS-300 report, some were minor issues or issues that the carrier
and FAA were working on to correct. ValuJet voluntarily entered into a
consent order that included not flying until the FAA was assured that
the problems that had been found had been corrected.
The objective of FAA's safety oversight systems is to monitor and
ensure compliance. There is no set number of enforcement actions that
will automatically result in an emergency suspension. Generally when it
is determined that the certificate holder lacks qualifications,
emergency action to revoke the certificate should be taken in the
interest of safety. These determinations are based on an evaluation of
all safety indicators and data, not on a general count of enforcements.
The FAA does not hesitate to take strong actions where public safety is
the issue.
Question. NTSB Board Member John Goglia stated that in 1994,
ValuJet had 15 emergency landings. It operated only 14 planes at the
time. This is equivalent to 1.07 emergency landings per plane. If a
major commercial carrier had ValuJet's 1994 rate of emergency landings,
Mr. Goglia said, there would be approximately 768 emergency landings
each year, which would be more than two per day. Following the Valujet
crash, has the FAA established a standard threshold of emergency
landings which would warrant emergency suspension of an airline's
operations in the interest of public safety?
Answer. FAA has not established standard thresholds of emergency
landings which would warrant emergency suspension of an airline's
operation.
Generally when it is determined that the certificate holder lacks
qualifications, emergency action to revoke the certificate should be
taken in the interest of safety.
Similarly, when there is a reasonable basis to question the
certificate holder's qualifications emergency action to suspend the
certificate generally should be taken in the interest of safety.
These determinations are based on an evaluation of all safety
indicators and data, not on a specific count of a single type of
incident.
Question. Mr. John Tutora testified in November 1996 there was a
``sort of urgency'' about his immediate preparation of the AFS-300
report. Why was there not that same sense of urgency in addressing the
problems the AFS-300 revealed within FAA hierarchy, the Atlanta Flight
Standards Director of Operations (FSDO) and the NTSB?
Answer. At the same time the AFS-300 report was being prepared
there was an urgency on the part of the Certificate Holding District
Office (CHDO) to enhance its oversight of ValuJet. In February 1996 the
CHDO initiated a special emphasis review of carrier. This review was
fully coordinated with the FAA hierarchy and was know to National
Transportation Safety Board staff.
Question. Mr. John Tutora testified in November 1996 that the AFS-
300 report was to be ``rather confidential.'' Please list every other
instance in the last 10 years when an FAA-generated report regarding a
particular airline was ordered to be kept confidential. If there are no
other such instances, why was ValuJet singled out in this manner?
Answer. There is no evidence that the AFS-300 report was ordered to
be kept confidential, and we have found no other instances when an FAA
generated report was ordered to be kept confidential.
Question. Did any attorney or lobbyist, acting on behalf of
ValuJet, contact the FAA, or to your knowledge, the DOT, between June
8, 1995, the date of the ValuJet fire in Atlanta, and June 17, 1996,
the date of the ValuJet grounding, concerning FAA oversight of ValuJet?
Please provide explicit details of any such contact.
Answer. Company attorneys communicated with FAA officials
concerning on going enforcement actions during that time, the special
emphasis review, the inspections that occurred following the crash of
Flight 592 and the negotiations that resulted in the consent agreement
signed by the FAA and the company on June 19, 1996.
Question. Were FAA officials aware of any correspondence from an
OMB official concerning unsatisfactory conditions he personally
experienced on a ValuJet flight? Were FAA officials aware of any
lobbying activities related to that letter from OMB?
Answer. A search of FAA records indicated no OMB correspondence was
received regarding ValuJet.
Question. What discussions did DOT Chief of Staff Ann Bormolini, or
any other representative of the Secretary's office, have with the FAA
from June 8, 1995, through June 17, 1996, concerning ValuJet?
Answer. Department of Transportation (DOT) officials were provided
notification of any incidents or accidents involving ValuJet during
that time period in accordance with standard operating procedures for
such notifications. Following the crash of Flight 592, DOT officials
were regularly briefed on the results of the special inspection that
was underway. DOT officials were informed of the decision to cease
operations and the signing of the consent agreement.
Question. In 1993, the DOT issued a press release underscoring its
commitment to low-cost carriers. Did any representative of the
Executive Office of the President or OMB discuss this policy with FAA
officials with regard to ValuJet prior to the crash of Flight 592?
Answer. We are unable to find any Department of Transportation
press release issued in 1993 that underscored a commitment to low cost
carriers.
investigation of inspector's job qualifications
Question. A Department of Transportation Inspector General's report
dated April 3, 1997, revealed the Principal Maintenance Inspector (PMI)
for ValuJet at the time of the Flight 592 crash, was not qualified for
his job, got preferential treatment when he was hired by FAA officials
with whom he had served in the military reserves, and was allowed to
transfer to the FAA from the Air Force on a noncompetitive basis and at
a higher pay grade than other FAA inspectors in similar circumstances.
The report also concluded that the ValuJet PMI falsified his civil
experience as an aircraft mechanic on his FAA application. Is the
individual who was the ValuJet PMI at the time of the ValuJet crash
still employed by the FAA?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Since the ValuJet crash, and the calling into question of
the qualifications of the ValuJet PMI, has the FAA standardized its
requirements for inspector qualifications?
Answer. The minimum qualification requirements for the Aviation
Safety Inspector have not changed since OPM approval in 1988. Those
minimum qualification standards require:
Operations Inspector Require.--An airline transport pilot
certificate or commercial pilot certificate with instrument rating.
Pilot-in-command experience in large aircraft (over 12,500) pounds
gross takeoff weight within the last three years.
Maintenance Inspector Require.--An FAA mechanic certificate with
airframe and powerplant ratings. Three years of supervisory experience
in aviation maintenance.
Avionics Inspector Require.--Aircraft avionics experience in a
repair station, air carrier repair facility, or military repair
station. Three years of aircraft avionics supervisory experience.
All applicants for consideration from the competitive inventory
apply through an automated rating and ranking system and are screened
against the standardized qualification requirement.
Inspector Training.--Length of initial training course: nine and
one-half weeks for Air Carrier Ops; 14 weeks for GA Ops; 13 weeks for
Airworthiness.
Question. When the Office of the Inspector General's investigation
of the ValuJet PMI was presented to the U.S. Attorney's Office, was it
presented with a declination letter? When was the case presented to the
U.S. Attorney's Office and when was the declination issue by the U.S.
Attorney's Office?
Answer. In mid-March 1997, the Office of Inspector General (OIG)
presented the results of this investigation to the U.S. Attorney's
Office (USAO) in Atlanta, Georgia, at which time the case was declined
for prosecution. At the time of the declination, OIG asked the USAO to
render a written declination. At the request of the USAO, OIG then
drafted a proposed declination letter. The USAO subsequently issued a
declination letter dated March 25, 1997, citing the following reasons
for declination: (1) minimal Federal interest, based upon the nature of
the allegations; (2) administrative or other disciplinary alternatives
were available; and (3) the statute of limitations had expired.
faa cost/benefit analysis cost/benefit analysis of ntsb recommendations
Question. How many National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)
safety recommendations has the FAA rejected because of the cost/benefit
analysis in the last twenty-five years? Please explain every cost/
benefit analysis that FAA has produced or relied upon to reject a NTSB
safety recommendation since 1973. Please describe the documentation
used to arrive at each cost/benefit analysis and the documents that set
out the analysis. Also, please identify who conducted each analysis and
reveal any efforts the FAA made to verify the estimated compliance
data.
Answer. The FAA has never rejected any NTSB safety recommendation
solely on the basis of a cost/benefit analysis. Economic concerns are
one factor among all the policy, operational, legal, etc., that are
considered in evaluating NTSB recommendations. Nevertheless, factors
like cost/benefit analyses can and do influence agency decisions.
Oftentimes, rulemaking is considered as the most appropriate response
to NTSB recommendations, and since about 1980 the FAA has been required
to formally estimate the costs and benefits of proposed rulemaking
actions. Preliminary cost/benefit assessments are often made during
formulation of rules, but formal reports of regulatory evaluations are
prepared and kept on file only for rules that are actually proposed. As
a consequence, the FAA generally has permanent records of economic
assessments to accompany agency rules proposed since the early 1980's,
but not before that and not for proposals that were considered but
ultimately not proposed.
In attempting to respond to the spirit of this question, records
were reviewed to identify instances where economics played a strong
role in an FAA decision not to comply, or not fully comply, through
rulemaking with NTSB recommendations. Five such instances were
identified as described below:
--NTSB Recommendation #A8-123 (Issued 10/24/88). A recommendation
that the FAA require a fire extinguishment system for all Class
D cargo compartments in air carrier aircraft. After carefully
considering the recommendation, the FAA concluded in the early
1990's not to act upon it because of the fact that no major
accidents had occurred in U.S. air carrier service that would
have been prevented by fire extinguishment systems in Class D
cargo compartments. Existing fire suppression systems seemed to
be working satisfactorily. The FAA reevaluated the issue after
the 1996 ValuJet tragedy and has now complied with the
recommendation.
--NTSB Recommendation #A-88-141 (Issued 11/3/88). The recommendation
was that the FAA require commercial operators to conduct
substantive background checks of pilot applicants which would
include verification of personal flight records and examination
of training, performance, and disciplinary records of previous
employers and Federal Aviation Administration safety and
enforcement records. While the FAA agreed with the intent of
the recommendation, the agency initially determined that
potential benefits would not justify the costs of the
recommendation. The issue is now being reevaluated by the FAA's
Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC).
--NTSB Recommendation #A90-029, #A90-031, #A90-032, #A90-033 (Issued
3/21/90). A recommendation to require the use of worn brakes
capability (within allowable limits) rather than that of new
brakes in calculating stopping distances for turbojet category
airplanes currently in services. The FAA has not acted to
impose this recommendation on in-service airplanes, primarily
due to benefits falling short of costs, but has acted to impose
the recommendation on future transport category airplane
designs.
--NTSB Recommendation #A91-116 (Issued 12/3/91). A recommendation
that the Federal Aviation Administration prohibit the use,
after a specified date, of cabin materials in all transport
category airplanes that do not comply with improved fire safety
standards. The FAA did not fully comply with this
recommendation largely because of costs, but did issue rules
requiring use of interior materials meeting improved fire
safety standards for newly manufactured aircraft and when in
service aircraft are refurbished.
--NTSB Recommendation #A-95-051 (Issued 5/16/95). A recommendation
that all infants on air carrier flights be required to be
appropriately restrained during take-off, landing, and during
turbulent conditions. The FAA encourages and actively promotes
the use of effective child restraint systems for infants in air
transportation. The agency is currently seeking public comment
through an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) about
the technical practicality and cost feasibility of requiring
infants to be restrained in aircraft. This current regulatory
action stems from discussions about the child safety seat issue
before the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and
Security and the Commission's specific recommendation 1.5. The
recommendation stated that ``costs alone should not become
dispositive in deciding aviation safety and security rulemaking
issues''. To date, the FAA has not required infant restraints
because effective restraint systems are currently not
available, and the cost of purchasing on aircraft seat for the
child may divert many families to less safe modes of
transportation resulting in a net increase in fatalities. This
issue was analyzed in a report sent to Congress in 1995. The
cost/benefit analysis for all of the actions described above
were performed by FAA employees except that significant parts
of the report sent to Congress on child restraint systems were
prepared by a private consultant. Data for all the analyses
were obtained through FAA, industry, and trade association
sources as well as from published information. The FAA also
attempts to obtain accurate data through other means, such as
independently developed data bases and studies of specific cost
factors. Another primary means of validating data is through
the public comment process.
cost/benefit of smoke detectors and fire suppressants
Question. It has been reported that, according to the FAA's cost/
benefit analysis, installation of smoke detectors and fire suppressants
would cost the airline industry approximately $350 million. Even using
the FAA's new 1997 figure of $2.7 million per human life, the loss from
the ValuJet tragedy was approximately $300 million. Please produce any
cost/benefit analyses the FAA conducted or relied upon before rejecting
smoke detectors and fire suppressants since the NTSB first recommended
the safety devices in 1980. Please also produce any cost/benefit
analyses the FAA conducted or relied upon following the ValuJet crash
before requiring smoke detectors and fire suppressants in Class D cargo
holds. Why were the smoke detectors and fire suppressants too expensive
before the ValuJet crash and not too expensive following the crash?
Answer. With respect to any cost/benefit analyses the FAA conducted
or relied upon following the ValuJet crash, attached is a copy of the
full regulatory evaluation associated with the agency's final rule
requiring fire detection and suppression equipment on the air carrier
fleet. A copy of the summary published in the Federal Register is also
attached. With respect to cost/benefit analyses the FAA conducted or
relied upon before rejecting NTSB recommendations regarding smoke
detectors and fire suppressant equipment, no formal report was prepared
because rulemaking was not undertaken. However, included is a copy of
the FAA's letter to the National Transportation Safety Board explaining
why its safety recommendation concerning this issue was not acted upon.
Also, attached are other memos, notes, and charts from our files
related to this issue.
When the FAA performed a cost/benefit analysis of this issue in
1990, undiscounted costs were estimated to be $368 million and
undiscounted benefits were estimated to be less than one third of
costs. Benefits were estimated on the basis that U.S. air carriers had
experienced no major accidents from Class D compartment fires. On that
basis, the FAA's benefits estimate assumed that a maximum of one major
accident could be expected to be prevented over the next decade if the
rule were implemented. A value of $1.5 million per fatality averted was
used to convert benefits into dollars for comparison with costs.
When the cost/benefit analysis of the final rule was performed in
1997, several important factors had changed that had significant
impacts on the results. Due mainly to Air Transport Association members
volunteering to install fire detection system in Class D compartments,
the FAA's estimate of the incremental cost of the regulation was
reduced to $294 million undiscounted. On the benefits side, additional
incidents that occurred worldwide, including the ValuJet tragedy,
justified estimating a higher accident rate in the absence of a
regulation. Benefits were also increased over the 1990 estimate because
the value used to represent the avoidance of a fatality had increased
to $2.7 million. Taken together, these factors resulted in estimated
benefits exceeding estimated costs.
[Clerk's note.--The information referred to does not appear in the
hearing record but is available for review in the subcommittee's
files.]
cost/benefit analyses of airline rules
Question. Please list all cost/benefit analyses for the last
twenty-five years in which the airlines' cost of implementation of
safety improvements was a factor. Please advise who prepared or
provided that implementation cost figure in each of those cost/benefit
analyses-was it an FAA employee, a contractor, a university, an
airline, or an airline trade association for example? Please reveal any
efforts the FAA made to verify the accuracy of the data.
Answer. The FAA, through the Office of Policy and Plans, has
conducted cost/benefit analyses or proposed and final rules since the
early 1980's. A rapid review of our files revealed that cost/benefit
analyses for the following rules identified to costs to airlines
operating under either parts 121 or 135 of the Federal Aviation
Regulations (FAR):
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final rules Issue date FAR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Rules Issue Date FAR Advanced 9/26/90 121
Qualification Program..................
Air Carrier and Commercial Operator 12/8/95 121,135
Training Programs......................
Air Tour Operators in the State of 9/22/94 135
Hawaii.................................
Air Traffic Control Radar Beacon System 1/29/87 121,135
and Mode S Transponder Requirements in
the National Airspace System...........
Airborne Low-Altitude Windshear 4/30/90 121
Amendments.............................
Airborne Low-Altitude Windshear 9/22/88 121,135
Equipment and Training Requirements....
Aircraft Simulator Use in Pilot 5/26/96 121,135
Training, Testing, and Checking and at
Training Centers.......................
Aircraft Ground Deicing and Anti-Icing 9/24/92 121
Program................................
Airplane Cabin Fire Protection.......... 3/26/85 121
Airspace Reclassification............... 11/14/91 121
Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program for 1/30/94 121,135
Personnel Engaged in Specified Aviation
Activities.............................
Anti-Drug Program for Personnel Engaged 11/14/88 121,135
in Specified Aviation Activi- ties....
Anti-Drug Program for Personnel Engaged 8/12/94 121,135
in Specified Aviation Activi- ties....
Carry-On Baggage Program................ 5/29/87 121
Cockpit Voice Recorder and Flight 6/30/88 121,135
Recorder Equipment Requirements on U.S.
Aircraft...............................
Commercial Passenger-Carrying Operations 5/4/98 135
in Single- Engine Aircraft under
Instrument Flight Rules................
Commuter Operations and General 12/12/95 121,135
Certification and Operations
Requirements...........................
Design Standards for Fuel Tank Access 9/25/89 121
Covers.................................
Emergency Evacuation Demonstration 8/19/93 121
Procedures, Exit Handle Illumination
Requirements, and Public Address
Systems................................
Emergency Evacuation Procedures......... 11/10/81 121
Emergency Locator Transmitters (ELT).... 6/10/94 121,135
Emergency Medical Equipment............. 12/31/85 121
Exit Row Seating........................ 2/28/90 121,135
Fire Protection Requirements for Cargo 2/10/89 121,135
or Baggage Compartments................
Flammability Requirements for Aircraft 10/23/84 121,135
Seat Cushions..........................
Flight Attendants' Duty Period 8/15/94 121,135
Limitation and Rest Requirements.......
Flight Recorders and Cockpit Voice 3/26/87 121,135
Recorders..............................
Flight Time Limitations and Rest 6/3/85 121,135
Requirements...........................
Floor Proximity Emergency Escape Path 10/22/84 121
Marking................................
Ground Proximity Warning Systems........ 3/17/92 135
Improved Access to Type III Exits....... 4/28/92 121,135
Improved Flammability Standards for 7/21/86 and 8/ 121,135
Materials Used in the Interiors of 19/88
Transport Cargo Airplane Cabins........
Improved Standards for Determining 2/10/98 121,135
Rejected Takeoff and Landing
Performance............................
Independent Power Source for Public 10/20/89 121,135
Address System in Transport Category
Airplanes..............................
Location of Passenger Emergency Exits in 6/16/89 121
Transport Category Airplanes...........
Mandatory Reporting for Emergency 3/10/88 121
Evacuation Systems and Compo- nents...
Miscellaneous Operational Amendments.... 9/8/92 121,135
Pilot Operating and Experience 4/21/95 121
Requirements...........................
Protective Breathing Equipment.......... 5/26/87 121
Protective Breathing Equipment Training. 8/26/93 121
Revised Standards for Cargo or Baggage 2/10/98 121
Compartments in Transport Category
Airplanes..............................
Revisions to Digital Flight Data 7/9/97 121,135
Recorder Rules.........................
Rotorcraft Regulatory Review Program: 10/31/86 135
Final Rule No. 5.......................
SFAR 36: Development of Major Repair 12/24/96 121,135
Data Special Flight Rules in the
Vicinity of the Grand Canyon...........
Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance 1/5/89 121,135
Systems................................
Training and Checking in Ground Icing 12/27/93 135
Conditions.............................
Transition to an All State 3 Fleet 9/19/91 121,135
Operating in the 48 Contiguous United
States and the District of Columbia....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the final rules listed above, the FAA has proposed
the following rules that would impose costs on airlines operating under
parts 121 or 135:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed rules Issue date FAR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aging Airplane Safety................... 9/24/93 121,135
Flight Crewmember Duty Period 12/11/95 121,135
Limitations, Flight Limitations, and
Rest Requirements......................
Miscellaneous Cabin Safety Changes...... 7/16/96 121
Operational and Structural Difficulty 8/4/95 121,135
Reports................................
Repair Assessment for Pressurized 12/22/97 121
Fuselages..............................
Revised Access to Type III Exits........ 1/20/95 121
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The cost/benefit analyses of all the above amended rules and
proposed rules were prepared by FAA employees. Cost information was
obtained through FAA, industry, and trade association sources as well
as from published information. The FAA attempts to obtain accurate data
through other means also, such as independently developing data bases
and conducting studies of major cost factors, such as aircraft's
downtime for modification. Another primary means of validating data is
through the public comment process.
Question. Please list all cost/benefit analyses for the last 25
years in which the FAA calculated the costs and benefits for the flying
consumer as well as the costs and benefits for the airline industry.
Please provide any findings documenting the projected financial and
safety benefits the airline consumer would realize from FAA adoption of
specific NTSB safety recommendations. Please advise who prepared or
provided the figures documenting costs and benefits to be realized by
the flying consumer as a result of safety improvements, and reveal any
efforts the FAA made to verify the accuracy of the data.
Answer. Cost/benefit analyses were prepared for all the rules
listed above. That list is an accurate representation of the analyses
in which the FAA calculated the costs and benefits for the flying
consumer as well as the costs and benefits for the airline industry.
The benefits of safety improvements are always benefits to the flying
consumer, and are always estimated by the FAA in cost/benefit analyses.
The costs of safety improvements cannot be categorized as costs to the
airlines or costs to the flying consumer. Usually such costs accrue to
the airlines first, but are eventually passed on to the flying
consumer.
estimating air crash costs
Question. To what extent does the FAA take into account the total
cost of an air crash to the affected airline, the taxpayers who fund
accident recovery efforts and crash investigations; and the air travel
industry?
Answer. In general, the following costs or values are considered in
evaluating the potential benefits of preventing airline accidents:
--Prevention of fatalities and injuries (passengers and crew);
--Aircraft destroyed or damaged (airline costs);
--Injury or damage to persons or property on the ground; and
--Accident investigation costs when significant.
On occasion, estimates have also been made of decreases in travel
(loss of industry revenue) following airline crashes because of public
concerns about safety.
cost/benefit analysis procedure
Question. Does the FAA have any specific plans to re-examine its
cost/benefit analysis procedures?
Answer. The FAA periodically reviews its cost/benefit analysis
procedures. The most recent guidance is contained in the FAA
publication, ``Economic Analysis of Investment and Regulatory
Decisions-Revised Guide,'' dated January 1998. Also, the FAA has
implemented revised regulatory analysis procedures responding to a
recommendation of the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and
Security that cost alone should not be dispositive in deciding aviation
safety and security rulemaking issues.
This guidance emphasizes that the FAA's regulatory decisionmaking
is based on analysis and professional judgment. The agency will
consider risk assessment, risk mitigation, social value, and economic
consequences. Economic evaluation of regulations is only one piece of
information considered in decisionmaking. Where practicable and
relevant, FAA regulatory analyses will present information on:
--Risk assessment and valuation;--Potential mitigation measures;
--Sensitivity analysis;
--A complete description of assumptions;
--The magnitude, timing, and likelihood of impacts, including
economic impacts and their uniqueness and reversibility; and
--The distribution and equity of the potential impacts, particularly
as they apply to small entities.
Question. Airlines themselves suffer negligible monetary losses
following an aviation disaster. The carrier's insurer replaces the
accident aircraft. The airline may pay limited travel and lodging
expenses for family members to attend mass memorial services or
funerals. They may erect a monument at or near the crash site. However,
the airline pays NO monetary damages to crash victims' families for
lawsuit settlements or jury verdicts arising from wrongful death
claims. All of these expenses are borne by the airline's insurance
carrier.
Any additional monetary loss an airline suffers following a crash
is limited to lost ticket sales from negative publicity and any
increase in liability insurance premiums resulting from the accident.
The only time an airline would be forced to pay lawsuit damages out of
its own pocket would be in an unprecedented court award of punitive
damages to the victims' families. As of this date, no punitive damage
awards in a civil aviation disaster lawsuit have withstood judicial
appeal, and no airline has ever been required to pay punitive damages.
Thus, the airlines have virtually no monetary losses arising from
an aviation disaster and little economic incentive to avoid crashes.
Further, due to this lack of monetary loss from aviation disasters,
there is little incentive for individual accountability by airlines,
their top management, and personnel. Would it not seem prudent for the
FAA to develop a practice of holding airlines, their management, and
personnel accountable for aviation disasters through fines and
enforcement actions? Would it not also be wise for the FAA to implement
a procedure for barring airline management and personnel from future
participation in the airline industry because of ``unfitness'' in
action similar to that taken by the Department of Transportation in
denying the application of Frank Lorenzo for ATX?
Answer. Fines, that is, civil penalties, and other enforcement
actions are currently available in the case of aviation disasters
provided that the accidents involve regulatory violations or call into
question an air carrier's qualifications. Punitive suspensions for a
specified period of time are also available; however, such suspensions
are rare because the disruption to carrier service is usually deemed to
be contrary to the public interest.
If an accident raises serious questions about a carrier's
qualifications, the FAA can order the suspension of the carrier's
certificate until it is able to demonstrate its qualifications. When an
accident can be traced to such egregious conduct or incompetence that
the FAA can prove that a carrier no longer meets the qualifications
required to hold a certificate, the FAA can revoke the carrier's
certificate. The FAA may deny an application for a certificate to an
applicant whose certificate has been revoked previously. Similarly, the
FAA may deny an application for a certificate if an applicant is
controlled by, or intends to fill or fills certain management positions
with an individual who exercised control over or had a management
position in a carrier whose certificate was revoked when that
individual materially contributed to the circumstances causing the
revocation of that certificate.
The FAA may impose civil penalties on individuals who committed a
regulatory violation that may have contributed to an aviation disaster.
Personnel who hold certificates issued by the FAA are also subject to
suspension or revocation action.
Question. Please advise what changes in the law and regulations
would be needed to accomplish this new level of accountability for
airline managers and personnel?
Answer. All laws and regulations are in place to ensure
accountability of airline managers and personnel.
Question. Were any FAA employees disciplined or held accountable
for the failures in ValuJet supervision? What and against whom were the
discipline and accountability measures taken?
Answer. No. The NTSB found no fault with inspectors at the field
office level. However, the FAA did conduct a 90 Day Safety Review
which, among other things, indicated that a restructuring and
reorganization of the oversight of new air carriers was necessary.
Question. Were any FAA employees disciplined or held accountable
for the suppression of the AFS-300 report? What and against whom were
the discipline and accountability measures taken?
Answer. No employees were disciplined for the handling of the
report.
Question. Were FAA officials aware of the Department of Defense
review of ValuJet in 1995 in which the DOD declared ValuJet unfit to
transport military personnel? Did the FAA take any action because of
the DOD findings?
Answer. Yes. The DOD Air Carrier Survey was conducted August 21-25,
1995. The report from this survey indicated that ValuJet did not yet
meet the DOD commercial air carrier quality and safety requirements. As
a result, ValuJet was denied entry into the DOD air transportation
program. However, several discrepancies noted in this survey report
addressed administrative issues specific to the Department of Defense
and not regulatory requirements in the Federal Aviation Regulations.
Nevertheless, all DOD concerns were investigated by the FAA.
Subsequently, ValuJet took appropriate action to address and correct
the DOD concerns. A following DOD Air Carrier Survey was conducted in
January of 1996. As a result of this later survey, ValuJet received
written notification from the Department of Defense that they were
accepted into the Commercial Airlift Program on March 4, 1996.
Question. Why is the Department of Defense (DOD) standard for
ferrying defense personnel higher than the FAA standard for
transporting military?
Answer. The Department of Defense (DOD) standards are predicated on
DOD's requirements as a customer/consumer. Their standards include
items beyond what may be addressed in FAA regulatory requirements, such
as cleanliness, availability, and other consumer issues.
Question. Why does the FAA not advise the public when the DOD
rejects a carrier?
Answer. The department of Defense (DOD) may reject carriers for a
number of reasons other than safety. It would be DOD's responsibility
to report on decisions made internal to DOD.
twa 800 tragedy
Question. There have been 26 fuel-tank-related explosions since
1963. Please produce all cost/benefit analyses and industry data upon
which the FAA has relied in its decision not to pursue immediate
installation of inerting systems to avoid additional tank explosions
and needless deaths.
Answer. The cost/benefit analysis part of a 1976 report submitted
to the FAA by Boeing concerning nitrogen inerting follows. The report
is a revised version of their 1974 report that was submitted to the FAA
The Air Transport Association also submitted a report to the agency in
1974, but that report was based on updated 1970 data. The FAA itself
has not performed any cost/benefit analyses of nitrogen inerting
It is precisely because those data are so outdated that the FAA has
tasked the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) to update the
economic data associated with fuel tank inerting. This ARAC working
group will evaluate methods to eliminate or significantly reduce the
hazards associated with explosive vapors in transport category airplane
fuel tanks. The ARAC working group, with FAA participation, will
produce proposed regulatory provisions, if appropriate, and current
cost/benefit analyses for inerting fuel tanks and for other possible
methods under evaluation to eliminate or reduce the explosive vapors in
transport category fuel tanks.
[Clerk's note.--The information referred to does not appear in the
hearing record but is available for review in the subcommittee's
files.]
Question. In the aftermath of the TWA crash, has the FAA mandated
either of the following three safety improvements which would help
prevent a similar disaster: (a) mandatory partial or complete filling
of the center wing tank; (b) storage/loading of cool fuel into the
center wing tank; or (c) installation of fiber optic tank temperature
monitoring systems, which would alert flight crews to any dangerous
increases in interior tank temperatures.
If the FAA has done none of these, what action has the FAA taken
since the TWA tragedy to prevent a similar disaster?
Answer. The FAA has not mandated any of the three items listed. The
FAA has reviewed these proposals among the many other ideas submitted
to the FAA during the investigation. The FAA's initial evaluation of
these three proposals showed that none of these proposals would produce
a significant improvement in the safety of the center fuel tanks on
Boeing Model 747 airplanes.
Since the tragic TWA 800 accident, the FAA has reviewed the safety
of fuel tanks on the Boeing Model 747 and has taken steps to review the
safety of fuel tanks on all large transport category airplanes. The FAA
has issued a number of fuel tank safety airworthiness directives and
notices proposing additional airworthiness directives for fuel tank
safety. Most recently are the telegraphic airworthiness directives
issued to inspect the fuel pump power wires inside conduits in the fuel
tanks of Boeing Model 737 airplanes.
Additional fuel tank safety actions taken by the FAA are:
--The formation of the ARAC working group to evaluate methods to
eliminate or significantly reduce the explosive vapor in fuel
tanks;
--FAA is preparing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that will
propose a Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) applicable
to the large transport airplane fleet, which will:
1. Require each type certificate holder to develop a fuel tank
maintenance and inspection program;
2. Require each operator to have an FAA-approved fuel system
maintenance program;
3. Require review of the original certification compliance findings
to 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 25.903 and
25.981, to revalidate that failures within the fuel system
will not result in ignition sources; and
--The FAA is preparing a proposal to change Title 14 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, part 25, to more clearly define the design
requirements to eliminate ignition sources from fuel tanks on
transport category airplanes. A corresponding advisory circular
is being prepared by this team to provide guidance to
manufacturers when performing fuel system design review
required by the SFAR.
Question. When does the FAA expect a final report from the JP-5
fuel commission? What does the FAA expect the applicability will be to
commercial flight?
Answer. The concept of using increased flash point fuels is one of
many options being considered to achieve this goal. ARAC was given six
months (due July 23, 1998) to provide the report to the FAA.
The applicability of mandating use of higher flash point fuels,
such as JP-5, has not been determined at this time. The ARAC group has
extensive representation from the petroleum industry. Surveys have been
conducted of U.S. and European refineries to determine the impact of
phasing in use of higher flash point fuels. Initial results indicate
that increasing the flash point of jet fuel will impact cost of
production and may limit availability of fuel. The degree of impact
will be better defined as the survey results are finalized.
Question. Does the FAA have a definition of the ``useful life'' of
an aircraft? How and when does the FAA determine--from a structural and
secondary systems standpoint--that a plane has reached the end of its
useful life and should be retired?
Answer. The FAA does not have a definition of ``useful life''. The
FAA contends that if properly maintained, aircraft can be operated
indefinitely. The FAA's continued airworthiness program monitors
airplane's structural and secondary systems as they age and mandates
corrective action as necessary. As the airplane ages it is subject to a
greater degree of mandatory maintenance requirements, and therefore the
``useful life'' becomes an economic decision made by the operator.
safety inspector reports
Question. A GAO report of March 30, 1998, reveals that 96 percent
of FAA inspections are not officially reported or recorded. Also,
according to the report, 95 percent of problems officially recorded are
self-reported by the airlines. We are also told that the FAA is
contemplating issuing a NPRM on Flight Operations Quality Assurance
(FOQA), which would protect the airlines from punitive enforcement
action by the FAA for certain voluntarily-submitted safety information.
In a companion notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) presently being
considered, the FAA would extend protection of certain voluntarily-
submitted safety information from public disclosure.
Since, according to this GAO report, most FAA inspections do not
result in any official report and carriers are allowed to self-inspect
and self-report, if even this information is kept from the public by
law, how will the public have any meaningful measure of airline safety?
Answer. The GAO found that inspectors record all inspections
activities conducted. The GAO stated however, that in 96 percent of
inspections, inspectors did not report regulatory violations. A GAO
survey of inspectors found that many inspections involve on the spot
corrections to minor discrepancies noted while the safety inspector is
conducting a surveillance activity. Usually, these items are not
violations of applicable federal regulations, but may raise questions
of safe operating procedures. On-the-spot corrections are made in order
to avoid or deter more serious incidents or accidents. However, as
reported in the GAO survey, when safety inspectors note any substantial
disregard for the regulations or safety, a formal enforcement
investigative report is completed and processed.
In Public Law 104-264, Congress determined that it is in the public
interest to protect safety information provided voluntarily by an
operator to the FAA. The rulemakings for FOQA and voluntarily submitted
safety information are consistent with the statutory mandate.
Question. A March 1998, OIG report advised the FAA traded
violations for free FAA training. Who in the FAA approved this
practice?
Answer. No one in the FAA approved a practice of trading violations
for free FAA training. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU's)
describing a voluntary arrangement between air carrier certificate
holders and the FAA once contained language viewed by some parties as
unclear. In January 1997, the FAA issued a bulletin to its inspectors'
Handbook including a revised sample MOU. That revised sample MOU
removed the questionable language and contained explicit direction to
inspectors that normal enforcement procedures ``should not be altered
or diminished in any way by the MOU.'' Further, existing MOU's were to
be reissued using the revised format; new MOU's were to conform to the
revised format.
When OIG issued its final report on December 9, 1997, the MOU's
were already corrected in accordance with the OIG's one recommendation.
Question. It has been reported in the media that in 1989 and in
1990 the FAA adopted a practice of allowing carriers to self-report
violations with assurances of no punitive action. It is reported that
this practice came about after FAA inspectors in Alaska tightened
enforcement on carriers, and the carriers complained to a U.S. Senator,
a practice which according to the GAO report released on March 30,
1998, is widespread and has resulted in as many as 66 percent of
inspectors giving up on even attempting enforcement action. Does the
FAA maintain a record of congressional contacts on behalf of any
airlines, from 1992-1998? (We are aware of the FAA-required reports of
congressional contacts with FAA personnel, so at a minimum, please
produce those reports.)
Answer. The GAO report reflects that 61 percent of inspectors say
complaints to Congress are not a reason why they would pursue
enforcement action. The FAA does not routinely maintain records that
would indicate congressional contact on behalf of an air carrier.
aviation safety
Question. Instead of the FAA taking an adversarial posture versus
the NTSB safety recommendations, would it not be in the general
interest to establish an inter-agency review and resolution group with
executive and enforcement power, which would timely address life-
threatening aviation safety problems?
Answer. The FAA has an exceptionally responsive record of
addressing the issues raised by NTSB safety recommendations. Since
1967, the ``closed acceptable'' rate for recommendations issued to the
FAA exceeds 84 percent, and the ``closed acceptable'' rate for urgent
recommendations is 89 percent. Additionally, we meet regularly with
Chairman Hall and other NTSB staff to discuss NTSB safety
recommendations and other issues.
The inter-agency review and resolution group is similar in nature
to Congressman Wolf's proposal for a safety task force. As the FAA
responded to Congressman Wolf, we believe an ongoing group composed of
NTSB, GAO, and others could be of assistance by developing an index of
safety items. It is a good tool to monitor the progress of the FAA in
accomplishing safety goals, performance measures, and problem
resolution. However, we do not agree that this group should have
executive or enforcement power for aviation issues or the other
transportation issues that are addressed by NTSB safety
recommendations. This authority properly resides with the various
Department of Transportation modal administrations.
Question. At present, in what specific ways do all government
agencies involved in aviation safety, whether civilian or military,
work together and exchange safety information?
Answer. At present there is no formal coordination between aviation
safety professionals employed by the U.S. Government. Each year there
are a number of government and industry meetings and conferences that
are attended by representatives from various government offices during
which aviation safety is discussed, but there are no specific meetings
on aviation safety held where all or most government agencies are
represented. Occasionally there is a specific aviation safety issue,
for example wake turbulence, which is addressed by multiple government
organizations.
There is more being done to share safety information. All
Government agencies involved with civil aviation safety have databases,
which can be accessed over the Internet by other government agencies.
All military agencies can also access this safety information, although
civil aviation offices generally cannot access the military databases
dealing with aviation safety. There also are a number of government
quarterly or yearly publications that address aviation safety
statistics and the causes and prevention of accidents and incidents.
In May 1996, the FAA announced a new and innovative approach to
reach the FAA Administrator's goal of ``zero accidents,'' known as the
Global Analysis and Information Network (GAIN). GAIN would be a
privately owned and operated international information infrastructure
for the collection, analysis, and dissemination of aviation safety
information. It would involve the use of a broad variety of worldwide
aviation data sources, coupled with comprehensive analytical
techniques, to facilitate the identification of existing and emerging
aviation safety problems. To date, two World GAIN Conferences have been
held (Cambridge, Massachusetts, in October 1996 and London, England in
May 1997) and a third conference will be held in Los Angeles,
California, in 1998. Many U.S. government aviation safety offices have
been represented at these conferences. Through the development and
implementation of GAIN, it is expected that more formal collaboration
between government agencies in the area of aviation safety will result.
Question. Is there a suspense system within the FAA that requires
follow-up and timely responses and actions concerning safety
violations?
Answer. FAA Order 2150.3A provides clear guidance on the
enforcement process. When safety issues are discovered, the inspector
notifies the certificate holder so that corrective action can be
initiated. The inspector then determines if a violation of Federal
Aviation Regulations has occurred. If a violation is determined, an
enforcement action is initiated which may result in certificate action
or civil penalty.
The enforcement process is tracked in the Enforcement Investigation
System, an automated tracking system. The enforcement remains open
until two actions occur: (1) the unsafe condition is corrected to FAA's
satisfactory; and (2) the enforcement action is closed through the
legal process.
contractor support
Question. In testimony at the NTSB Miami hearings in November 1996,
it was reported that SabreTech employed three teams to renovate three
MD-80's for ValuJet. The SabreTech teams worked seven days a week, 24
hours a day, but the ValuJet supervisory team worked only five days a
week, eight hours a day. The SabreTech workers were unsupervised two-
thirds of the time. This appears to have been in direct violation of
FAA regulations. What changes have been implemented since the ValuJet
crash to insure that an outside contractor performing maintenance and
security functions for an airline is properly supervised by both the
airline and the FAA? Please provide extensive documentation of any such
changes.
Answer. Beginning July 26, 1996, inspectors are required to provide
surveillance of air carrier major maintenance contracts as well as
contract training programs.
Additionally a change was made to air carrier Operations
Specifications, which requires operators to list those contractors that
provide substantial maintenance to an air carrier.
Principal Inspectors are encouraged to maintain strict audits of
air carrier contractors and vendors and to adhere to strict oversight
procedures to ensure the regulatory compliance of the air carrier to
its contract maintenance and training support.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Lautenberg
faa reprogramming request for replacement of computer systems
Question. The White House Commission on Aviation Safety and
Security report, presented last year, offers almost 30 recommendations
that together represent an ambitious plan for ensuring safety,
security, and modernization. How can we move forward on these
recommendations when we must divert scarce funds to replace or fix
equipment that is hopelessly antiquated?
Answer. Because the Host and oceanic computer systems are primary
en route air traffic control components, the Federal Aviation
Administration believes that supportability and potential Year 2000
computer problems make it imperative that we begin replacement in
fiscal year 1998. The identification of offsets for the $75.3 million
Host reprogramming was a difficult process but we protected key
components of the modernization program throughout the process.
Overall, we believe our proposed list of offsets represents the least
disruptive impact to the National Airspace System.
Our fiscal year 1999 budget request allows us to make significant
progress towards meeting the White House Commission recommendations.
For example, the Facilities and Equipment budget request allows for an
achievable ramp-up of increased investment in critical modernization
programs: Host replacement, Display System Replacement (DSR), STARS,
datalink, and additional Air Traffic Control (ATC) functionality tools
such as conflict probe and traffic metering. In addition, we have
requested $100 million to continue the acquisition and deployment of
advanced security equipment to the Nation's airports. The request for
Research Engineering and Development includes a significant increase to
support Flight 2000, a major demonstration of free flight technology.
year 2000 (y2k) problem
Question. The FAA has requested a reprogramming that includes $37.7
million for the rest of fiscal year 1998 for addressing the troublesome
Year 2000 problem (Y2K). The supplemental appropriations bill marked up
earlier this week by the Appropriations Committee includes $156 million
for the Year 2000 problem. This amount reflects the FAA's two year
needs for Y2K. However, I am concerned that the Congress will delay
passage of this supplemental bill and the FAA will run out of money for
Y2K. When will the FAA have exhausted all the existing authority for
Y2K?
Answer. As of today, the FAA will have committed all of the
appropriated fiscal year 1998 Y2K funding.
Question. The FAA has requested a reprogramming that includes $37.7
million for the rest of fiscal year 1998 for addressing the troublesome
Year 2000 problem (Y2K). The supplemental appropriations bill marked up
earlier this week by the Appropriations Committee includes $156 million
for the Year 2000 problem. This amount reflects the FAA's two year
needs for Y2K. However, I am concerned that the Congress will delay
passage of this supplemental bill and the FAA will run out of money for
Y2K. What will happen if you do not receive the extra funds by then for
Y2K?
Answer. Without the reprogrammed funds, our ability to complete Y2K
work on time will be seriously jeopardized. The FAA will continue to
address Y2K activities, but we will be absorbing costs within programs
where possible, and may well have to defer or eliminate additional
activities to obtain sufficient funds to continue Y2K work.
Question. The FAA has requested a reprogramming that includes $37.7
million for the rest of fiscal year 1998 for addressing the troublesome
Year 2000 problem (Y2K). The supplemental appropriations bill marked up
earlier this week by the Appropriations Committee includes $156 million
for the Year 2000 problem. This amount reflects the FAA's two year
needs for Y2K. However, I am concerned that the Congress will delay
passage of this supplemental bill and the FAA will run out of money for
Y2K. In order to ensure that the Y2K project is not delayed, would you
recommend that we approve the reprogramming request as soon as
possible, but direct the FAA to reconcile the funds if and when the
supplemental appropriations bill including additional Y2K funding
passes?
Answer. We strongly recommend that the reprogramming request be
approved as soon as possible. Should the supplemental appropriations
bill be passed, we will work with Congress to reconcile any
differences.
faa controller pay
Question. The FAA is currently negotiating with the National Air
Traffic Controllers Association regarding controller pay and
compensation, among other issues. However, the FAA has not requested
any funding for controller pay increases in the 1999 budget request.
Should we expect a request for a supplemental appropriation at the
conclusion of negotiations, or will you absorb any increases in your
enacted budget?
Answer. The 1999 Budget assumes an across-the-board 3.1 percent pay
increase effective January 1, 1999. If any cost increases beyond this
budgeted amount result from the contract activities with the National
Air Traffic Controllers Association contract, we will pursue funding
them through cost savings offsets. It is the agency's intention that
the new contract will be budget neutral.
new york terminal airspace redesign
Question. The last major airspace redesign in the New York Terminal
Area took effect in 1987 and 1988. Since then, traffic has grown and
traffic flows have changed. As a result, the airspace desperately needs
to be revamped. We must address the problems that have arisen at New
York Terminal area airports--Newark, JFK, and LaGuardia--which continue
to be among the worst airports in the country for delays.
What do you plan to do in fiscal year 1999 to improve the capacity
of the airspace in the New York Terminal Area?
Answer. The Federal Aviation Administration has met with a number
of groups, including the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, to
scope the effort necessary to improve the New York Terminal Area. We
see the need for an Eastern Triangle Airspace Redesign effort, which
necessarily requires close coordination with the New York Terminal
Airspace study being planned by the Port Authority. We have planned an
initial kickoff meeting for a redesign effort, to include customers and
stakeholders in the New York area, for May. The effort will involve FAA
and industry members in joint identification of problems and solutions.
Question. What new equipment are you committed to installing at
Newark to increase the airport arrival rate in both good and bad
weather conditions and when is this equipment expected to be installed?
Answer. The most immediate improvement is the new Airport
Surveillance Radar Model 9 (ASR-9) radar which was commissioned on
April 16. This new radar provides improved radar surveillance data to
New York Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) for input into the
Converging Runway Display Aid/Controller Automated Spacing Aid (CRDA/
CASA) software which will enable the Newark controllers to
simultaneously utilize the Runways 22 and Runway 11 for arrivals. CRDA/
CASA and the accompanying runway 11 final vector position at New York
TRACON are scheduled to be implemented on June 26.
The Airport Surface Detection Equipment III is expected to be
installed in November 1998. This will provide improved capability to
move aircraft safely and efficiently on the airport surface.
Although at a different airport, the new instrument landing system
(ILS) for Runway 19 at Teterboro is scheduled for commissioning in mid-
September of this year. This system removes a major conflict point for
traffic arriving on the Runways 22 at Newark.
We are working in partnership with the Port Authority of New York
and New Jersey to implement the Integrated Terminal Weather System
(ITWS) at Newark and all of the New York metropolitan air traffic
control (ATC) facilities. This system will enable us to do much more
accurate strategic planning of arrival and departure traffic based on
weather trends and conditions.
As a sub-task to the National Airspace Redesign, the Eastern Region
Air Traffic Division is planning to facilitate a workgroup of Newark
users and ATC staff to look at short-term and long-term solutions for
optimizing arrival rates at Newark. The Eastern Region Air Traffic
Division is finalizing plans to install an instrument landing system on
Runway 22R for those times when a redundant system is needed or when
parallel approaches to Runways 22R and 22L can be utilized. The long-
range plan is to utilize offset localizers for Runways 4L and 22R for
simultaneous approaches in visual conditions. We are currently
reviewing a proposal from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
on this subject.
Question. What is the status of the new air traffic control tower
construction at Newark?
Answer. Our current schedule for the Newark Tower is listed below.
Design engineering is on schedule and should be completed this fall.
Design Engineering--11/97 to 10/98.
Construction Contract Procurement--10/98 to 3/99.
Plant Construction--3/99 to 4/01.
FAA Installation--4/01 to 3/02.
Commissioning--3/02.
Question. Are there any side projects which should be undertaken in
conjunction with the new tower construction? Are they fully funded?
Answer. The Federal Aviation Administration will commission a new
Airport Surveillance Radar Model 9 (ASR-9) radar at Newark, New Jersey,
in April 1998. After commissioning, the radar coverage of western New
Jersey will be evaluated.
If there is insufficient radar coverage in western New Jersey, an
additional radar sensor will be requested. This additional radar sensor
has not been funded.
air traffic control delays and risks during severe weather in the new
jersey/new york area
Question. Airports in the New York/New Jersey area suffer from an
incredible number of air traffic delays, especially when operating
under severe weather conditions during the summer. Under those
conditions, delays have increased by as much as 50 percent. We need
more updated equipment in New Jersey and New York. In fact, just last
month at Newark, a near-miss occurred on the runway that could have
been prevented had the FAA been on schedule for installing upgraded
Airport Surface Detection Equipment III. This upgraded equipment was
supposed to be in place by November 1996. In addition, installation of
individual Terminal Doppler Weather Radar units for JFK and LaGuardia
is long overdue. Finally, the problem of outdated equipment is
aggravated by the fact that the New York Center chronically suffers
from staff shortages.
What are you doing to address these problems, reduce delays, and
improve safety during severe weather in the New Jersey/New York area?
Answer. The Airport Surface Detection Equipment III is scheduled to
be operational at Newark in November 1998. The Terminal Doppler Weather
Radar (TDWR) which will serve LaGuardia and Kennedy airports has been
delayed due to community and congressional concerns and, as a result,
has no scheduled installation date. The TDWR for Newark is operational
and working well.
The identification and installation of appropriate weather
reporting equipment has been the number one priority towards the
reduction of delays and improving safety during severe weather events.
The Integrated Terminal Weather System will be installed by Lincoln
Labs/Massachusetts Institute of Technology and operational by August
1998. This system will be installed in all New York area facilities.
We anticipate that the implementation of the Departure Spacing
Program (DSP) in the New York area facilities will enhance
communications between facilities during severe weather conditions and,
as a result, will contribute to improved efficiency and delay
reduction. May 14 is the target date for implementing this important
communication tool in the New York area facilities.
Additionally the Weather Services Inc. Weather Display system is
operational in the New York Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON),
as well as the weather and radar processor weather system in New York
Center.
Staffing at all of the New York area facilities is currently
stabilized at a level much higher than last year. This increased
staffing level includes controllers, operational supervisors, and
traffic management coordinators. The traffic management coordinators
have the responsibility for strategic planning of arrival and departure
traffic flows, and are especially valuable during severe weather
conditions.
Staffing at the New York Center has been substantially increased
and our preliminary figures indicate that we have 350 air traffic
control specialist onboard as of March 31. This is 11 above the fiscal
year 1998 year end goal of 339 as provided in the National Air Traffic
Controller Association/FAA memorandum of understanding.
Question. In light of air traffic controller summer work and
training requirements, are staffing levels and overtime funds adequate
to ensure air traffic control system efficiency during the peak summer
travel months?
Answer. We met or exceeded our fiscal year 1997 staffing
requirements for the New York Center, New York Terminal Radar Approach
Control (TRACON), Kennedy Tower, LaGuardia Tower, and Newark Tower. Our
staffing plan for fiscal year 1998 projects that staffing goals will
again be met or exceeded. Through assertive management of resources in
the first quarter of fiscal year 1998, the Eastern Region Air Traffic
Division was able to show a 14 percent reduction in overtime usage over
the first quarter fiscal year 1997. This resulted in a savings of
$173,619. This first quarter reduction translates to more funding for
the busy summer travel season. Therefore, we do not anticipate any
problems during the peak summer travel months.
itws installation
Question. When will the FAA's Integrated Terminal Weather System be
installed in the New Jersey/New York area?
Answer. The FAA and New York and New Jersey Port Authority
Memorandum of Agreement was finalized in March 1998. The Integrated
Terminal Weather System (ITWS) prototype installation will be performed
in two phases. Phase 1 will be completed by the end of April 1998 and
will involve the installation and testing of radar interfaces, the
computer networks, and the cabling necessary to create the
infrastructure for the ITWS functional prototype. Phase 2 will involve
the installation of the ITWS prototype situation displays and will be
operational in August 1998.
The production ITWS is scheduled for delivery to the New Jersey/New
York area by January 2001, and will become operational six months after
installation.
Question. When will the New York Center ``Departure Pit'' be fully
automated, including a two-way interface with the center host computer,
which will enable the FAA to rapidly update multiple aircraft future
plans?
Answer. The Departure Spacing Program (DSP) is scheduled to be
operational on May 14. The contractor has advised that six months after
installation of the initial DSP system, the capability for two-way
interface with the center host computer will be available. The
requirements for the ``Pit'' automation will continue to evolve toward
our end goal of full automation.
doppler weather radar
Question. When will the Terminal Doppler Weather Radar be installed
for JFK and LaGuardia?
Answer. The FAA is currently conducting the environmental impact
statement (EIS) process for installation of the Terminal Doppler
Weather Radar to serve John F. Kennedy International and LaGuardia
airports. The EIS process will be completed by issuing a final EIS and
a record of decision in fall 1998. The FAA anticipates commencing
construction in winter 1998 and the commissioning in summer 1999.
It is important to note that if any site other than the current
preferred site is selected, additional public hearings would be
required.
new york/new jersey terminal doppler weather radar
Question. Will there be only one system allocated for both JFK and
LaGuardia?
Answer. Following congressional direction, there is only one
Terminal Doppler Weather Radar system allocated to serve both John F.
Kennedy International and LaGuardia Airports.
modernizing the nation's airports
The FAA has developed a plan for modernizing the Nation's airports
by deploying new technologies designed to increase airspace and airport
capacity and to reduce air traffic control delays. This plan should
target deployment of these technologies in airports and areas with the
greatest number of delays.
Question. How does the schedule for deploying some of these new
technologies in the New Jersey/New York area compare to the schedule
for other areas of the country which suffer from fewer delays?
Answer. A draft plan is being developed by the FAA which considers
the early implementation of Passive Final Approach Spacing Tool for
airports in the New Jersey/New York area. This plan includes John F.
Kennedy International, Newark, LaGuardia, and Philadelphia.
Additionally, Surface Movement Advisor is being planned for a number of
airports in the area which includes Newark, Philadelphia, and
Teterboro. The Air Traffic Control Centers for Phase 1 of the Free
Flight program were chosen based on the requests of aviation industry
representatives who targeted areas that were best for early deployment
to reduce risk and speed the process for national deployment. The area
delay frequency factor was left to the industry site selectors. This
limited deployment is heavily dependent upon the cooperation of the
airlines and is necessary to capture and improve on the benefits of
Free Flight. Other factors were also considered which included airspace
location and design, current prototype deployment and facilability.
doppler weather
Question. What impediments are there to bringing these technologies
to New Jersey and New York and what steps are being taken to overcome
them?
Answer. There are no impediments to bringing these technologies,
passive final approach spacing tool (pFAST) to New Jersey and New York.
They will be implemented after the Free Flight Phase 1 core capability
limited deployment is complete and benefits are demonstrated.
new technologies for the new york/new jersey area
Question. What new technologies designed to increase capacity and
reduce air traffic control delays associated with Free Flight Phase 1
and the proposed NAS Architecture are programmed to be deployed in the
New York/New Jersey area and when?
Answer. Before the new technology can be deployed, a basic
infrastructure must be in place. This infrastructure include the
Display System Replacement and the HOST replacement in the New York/New
Jersey en route areas by the year 2000. This infrastructure is
necessary to implement the new technologies, which include the limited
Free Flight Phase 1 core capabilities, necessary to increase capacity
for the expected traffic growth without incurring safety degradation or
increased delays.
A draft plan for implementing these Free Flight Phase 1 core
capabilities are being considered for the New York/New Jersey area
starting with a limited version of the Surface Movement Advisor in
Philadelphia in 1998 and an improved version at Newark and Teterboro in
2001.
new york tracon traffic management advisor software
Question. How long will it take to modify the Traffic Management
Advisor software to operate in a multi-center environment like the
automation environment at the New York TRACON?
Answer. Traffic Management Advisor (TMA) software development for
the New York area would require: (1) an effort to identify the
specific, detailed automation requirements for the region, and (2) a
subsequent effort to develop and validate algorithms which meet these
requirements. TMA multi-center development is presently a joint FAA/
NASA activity, with the necessary research being accomplished under the
NASA Advanced Air Traffic Technology (AATT) program. The present NASA
AATT program approach calls for a level of effort applied to New York
area requirements definition from 1998 through 2000, with development
of prototype software planned to begin in 2001. Prototype software
development would require an additional 18 months. This would result in
a prototype capability in the New York area during late 2002 or early
2003.
deployment of new technologies in the new jersey/new york area
Question. What would it cost and how long would it take to transfer
adjacent en route airspace responsibility to New York Center so that
all Free Flight Phase I core technologies could be deployed in the New
York area?
Answer. Free Flight Phase I (FFPI) Core technologies are primarily
single airport/terminal area specific. The current state of the
technology development places constraints on site selection for
implementation. A major Eastern Triangle Airspace Redesign goal, in
support of FFPI, is to define a more efficient airspace architecture
between multiple terminals and en route center airspace as a prelude to
future Free Flight technology requirements. Analysis may justify moving
airspace boundaries but modeling and analysis for best efficiency will
drive recommended boundary changes. Cost, schedule, and risk will have
to be an integral part of airspace redesign program management and each
will be determined by the principles of redesign analysis.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mikulski
tower replacement at martin state airport
Question. Last year, the Appropriations Committee directed the FAA
to begin replacement of the control tower at Martin State Airport
located in Baltimore County, Maryland. However, no action has been
taken to begin replacement of a new tower. What is the status of the
control tower replacement at Martin State Airport and when will
Construction begin?
Answer. Senate report 105-55 directed the FAA to use fiscal year
1998 funds to replace Martin State tower and added $3.0 million.
However, congressional conferees subsequently eliminated the $3.0
million earmark for Martin State Airport. No action has been initiated
to begin replacement of the Martin State tower, as Martin State does
not meet the benefit/cost criteria for replacement.
tall tower exemption
Question. As you know, the Federal Communications Commission is
proposing a rule that would pre-empt state laws and local zoning and
land use restrictions on the siting and construction of broadcast
station transmission facilities, or so-called ``tall towers.''
The Wisconsin Department of Transportation, airport managers and
local government groups have raised red flags, claiming that pre-
empting local zoning protections could jeopardize the safe and
efficient operation of airports.
I understand the FAA has expressed concerns about pre-empting
existing placement restrictions. What are those concerns, and what
solutions might you suggest to balance our pursuit of an improved
communications network with public safety and the need to maintain an
appropriate level of local input?
Answer. The FAA is concerned that the Federal Communications
Commission's (FCC's) proposed rule might result in the construction of
structures that would adversely affect both the safety and the
efficiency of our air transportation system.
Congress has charged the FAA with the duty to provide a safe and
efficient air transportation system. This mandate requires the Federal
Aviation Administrator to develop plans and policy for the use of
navigable airspace and assign by regulation or order the use of the
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and efficient use
of airspace.
Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations addresses the
construction of objects that may affect the navigable airspace and sets
forth the standards for determining obstructions to navigable airspace.
These standards form the basis for the FAA to issue advisory
determinations as to whether a proposed structure would result in a
hazard to navigable airspace. Part 77 also contains notice requirements
for certain proposed construction or alterations of structures. Failure
to submit notice to the FAA can result in a civil penalty. However,
since the FAA's determination is advisory in nature, a disregard of the
determination by a proponent is not a basis for action by the FAA. The
hazardous structure can therefore be legally built. Historically, state
and local governments often enact laws and ordinances that prohibit the
construction of structures that have been determined by the FAA to
constitute a hazard to air navigation.
Without the involvement of these governments, hazardous structures
might have been built with a resulting serious degradation of air
safety and efficiency. State and local governments have proved to be
valuable partners in the quest for a safe aviation environment. Under
the FCC's proposed rule, state and local governments may be deprived of
sufficient time to address a proponent's request for construction
authority. The terms of the proposed rule would allow the FCC to pre-
empt the state or local government that could potentially result in the
construction of structures that adversely affects both the safety and
efficiency of our air transportation system.
The FAA has commented on the FCC's proposal and requested an
amendment to the proposed rule. The proposed amendment would require
that the FCC grant state and local laws, ordinances or regulations a
presumption of validity as having been passed in deference to FAA
concerns. Additionally, the FAA requested that the FCC not adopt any
time limitations for the decisions by state and local governments in
areas that are subject to the FAA's safety jurisdiction. Most
importantly, the FAA requested that the FCC continue its practice of
giving continued deference to the FAA's Part 77 regulations and
determinations.
The FAA believes that the adoption of these requests will allow the
FCC to carry out its congressional mandate of providing for the rapid
implementation of digital television while concurrently fostering
continued aviation safety.
______
U.S. Coast Guard
Questions Submitted by Senator Shelby
deepwater capability replacement analysis fiscal year 1999 funding
Question. There is $28 million in the Acquisition, Construction,
and Improvements (AC&I) budget for the Deepwater project. Last year, we
appropriated more than was requested for the AC&I budget in an effort
to reduce the demands on that account as the Deepwater project elements
became bigger factors in the AC&I account. What will be done with that
$28 million in fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The Deepwater fiscal year 1999 funding is to continue
industry studies begun in fiscal year 1998 to develop Integrated
Deepwater System Concepts. Funding for the Project is as follows:
Industry Contract Options (3 @ $6,000,000).............. $18,000,000
Independent Analysis Government Contract (1 @
$4,000,000)......................................... 4,000,000
Trade-off Analyses, Technology Assessments, Modeling and
Simulation, RFP Preparation, Contract Quality
Assurance, Independent Validation and Verification
(IV&V), Additional Studies.......................... 4,500,000
Project Administration.................................. 1,500,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 28,000,000
deepwater capability replacement analysis funding
Question. How much more could you spend on Deepwater in 1999 if the
Committee were able to identify additional resources?
Answer. The $28 million requested is adequate to begin the
Deepwater Capability Replacement Analysis. The Coast Guard is not
seeking additional funding in fiscal year 1999.
station mobile replacement
Question. There is a small Coast Guard station in Mobile, Alabama.
I understand that there was an anticipated relocation and construction
of new facilities for that station on some Coast Guard-owned property
at Dauphin Island for a search and rescue detachment. Resources for
that relocation and construction are not in the President's budget
request. I further understand that one of the benefits of combining
facilities at Dauphin Island is a reduction in operating and
maintenance costs. Is my understanding of this issue accurate? Was that
money in your request to the Office of the Secretary (OST) and in the
Department's request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)?
Answer. Operating and maintenance costs will be reduced because the
Coast Guard will operate a single Station on Dauphin Island, instead of
operating a Station in Mobile and a separate detachment on Dauphin
Island during the summer boating season.
Funding for this project was not included in the Coast Guard's
fiscal year 1999 requests to OST and OMB.
deepwater program
Question. The Coast Guard received $5 million for the Deepwater
program in fiscal year 1998, and this year's budget request includes
$28 million for this program. While I support Coast Guard efforts to
modernize its fleet, I am concerned that the program is not well
defined. We do not know the total expected cost. We do not know what
the ultimate mix of cutters and aircraft will be. We do not know the
period of time over which the modernization will occur. What will $28
million dollars requested ``buy'' for the Coast Guard in fiscal year
1999?
Answer. The Deepwater fiscal year 1999 funding is to continue
industry studies begun in fiscal year 1998 to develop Integrated
Deepwater System Concepts. Funding for the project is as follows:
Industry Contract Options (3 @ $6,000,000).............. $18,000,000
Independent Analysis Government Contract (1 @
$4,000,000)......................................... 4,000,000
Trade-off Analyses, Technology Assessments, Modeling and
Simulation, RFP Preparation, Contract Quality
Assurance, Independent Validation and Verification
(IV&V), Additional Studies.......................... 4,500,000
Project Administration.................................. 1,500,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 28,000,000
deepwater capability replacement analysis future funding
Question. What funding needs do you anticipate for this program in
future years?
Answer. The estimated project future funding needs will be
determined at the completion of the analysis phase. The Coast Guard has
provided industry a notional cost and time period as an initial upper
bound to develop and deliver an Integrated Deepwater System. This cost/
schedule will be used for initial budget planning and to assist in
evaluating industry proposals.
container inspection program
Question. What assurances can you provide that your proposed cuts
will not result in increased risk to our ports and waterways from
improperly, or illegally, transported hazardous materials.
Answer. The proposed Container Inspection Program (CIP) reductions
streamline Headquarters and training overhead and realign some
dedicated field inspectors to focus on the areas of highest risk. While
some field inspector billets were scaled back, the refocused program
will still allow the Coast Guard to provide for public safety and
environmental protection.
The CIP, which began in 1994, has matured sufficiently to shift
from central headquarters management to field-level compliance
activity, with operational tempo based on risk assessments. Dedicated
field resources will be realigned to focus on the ports with the
highest container throughput and on those hazardous material containers
posing the greatest transportation risk. The Coast Guard will still
maintain a Container Inspection Training and Assist Team to train field
inspectors.
The Coast Guard recently published guidance for ensuring compliance
with Cargo Securing Manual standards. A new guide for blocking and
bracing packaged hazardous materials is being jointly developed with
the Institute of Packaging Professionals. The Coast Guard plans to
publish new field guidance for developing a risk-based maritime
hazardous material container selection strategy.
user fee justification
Question. The Coast Guard budget includes the expected collection
of aids-to-navigation and icebreaking user fees on commercial cargo
carriers in fiscal year 1999. The collection amount is projected to
increase to $165 million each year when fully implemented.
$165 million annually in new user fees is a significant amount of
money to extract from any one industry. First, at a time when our books
are balanced and we are running a budget surplus, what is the
justification behind these fees? Second, has the Coast Guard or the
Administration examined or performed an assessment of the impact of
these user fees on American exporters, especially bulk exporters, where
just fractions of a cost increase can have a negative impact? If yes,
what were the conclusions of that examination?
Answer. Commercial vessel operators benefit greatly from Coast
Guard navigational services, which include buoy tending, vessel traffic
management, and radionavigation, but pay almost nothing for them.
Likewise, Coast Guard domestic icebreaking saves industry tens of
millions of dollars annually in stockpiling costs by allowing them to
ship commodities virtually year round.
The user pays principle is applied throughout the transportation
world: to finance highways, air traffic control and airport
improvements, and even Army Corps of Engineers dredging and lock
operations. User fees may be a critical means in the future for
ensuring that the Coast Guard has adequate resources to meet its
operating and capital needs without significantly reducing other
transportation programs.
Many other countries, including Canada, charge user fees for Coast
Guard services.
The Coast Guard has not performed an economic impact assessment;
however, such an analysis would be performed as part of the regulatory
evaluation process.
great lakes icebreaker study
Question. In fiscal year 1998, Congress appropriated $2 million for
the Coast Guard Cutter Mackinaw replacement study. What is the status
of this study and the Coast Guard's current time frame for a new
icebreaker for the Great Lakes?
Answer. The required interim status report on concept exploration
was transmitted on June 25, 1988. The Administration has not requested
continued funding for this project.
mackinaw replacement
Question. I have noted that there are no funds in the President's
fiscal year 1999 request for the Mackinaw replacement effort. What are
the consequences of not continuing the funding stream for this
important Great Lakes priority in the approaching fiscal year? Would
the replacement effort move more expeditiously if Congress chose to
appropriate funds for the project? Would the project be advanced by one
year, two years, if funding was provided, and if yes, what level of
funding would be appropriate?
Answer. The Administration is currently reviewing alternatives. No
decision to build has been made at this time.
importance of deepwater program
Question. Just how important is the Deepwater Program to the
country and the Coast Guard? Do you see any alternative to replacing
the Coast Guard's deepwater assets in the early part of the next
century? Lastly, I understand the Coast Guard already has substantially
more work in the deepwater missions than it can handle with its current
assets--is this accurate and how do you propose to deal with this level
of demand? What would a delay in the Deepwater Project mean to the
ability of the Coast Guard to perform its mission?
Answer. The Deepwater Program is extremely important to the country
and the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard's maritime law enforcement,
maritime safety, and marine environmental protection missions are all
executed in the deepwater environment. The illegal drugs seized or
deterred from entering our country, the lives and property saved at
sea, and the preservation of U.S. fisheries stocks from illegal
harvesting directly contribute to the Coast Guard's performance goals
of providing the country a safe and secure maritime border.
Additionally, in executing the Coast Guard's responsibilities under the
President's National Security Strategy, partnerships are built with
other nations' forces that will increase world stability.
The Coast Guard is exploring all alternatives. Under consideration
are extension of operations of current assets, modernization of current
assets, and investments in U.S. Navy retired ships, in addition to
replacement of assets.
To execute the Coast Guard's responsibilities under the President's
10-year drug control strategy, more cutters and aircraft are needed.
Additionally, as the world's fish stocks become more scarce, the Coast
Guard will have to pay more attention to protecting the U.S. fish
stocks in the central Pacific from foreign poaching. The Coast Guard's
Office of National Drug Control Policy certified budget contains
requests for more cutters and aircraft plus the support necessary to
properly operate them. A major premise of the Deepwater Program is that
a new, fully integrated systems approach would lead to ships, aircraft,
sensors, and command and control links with different characteristics
than today's cutters and aircraft that could accomplish the Coast
Guard's missions more effectively and economically.
A delay in the Deepwater Project would result in continued
increased costs for the Coast Guard in maintenance and personnel, with
continued limited mission capabilities.
anticipated savings through fiscal year 2002
Question. Please indicate the anticipated annual savings through
fiscal year 2002 that the Coast Guard has underway.
Answer. During the period 1994-1998, the Coast Guard saved the
American taxpayer more than $400 million in gross programmatic
reductions. Of this amount, nearly $78 million in net annual savings
were attributable to the Coast Guard generated National Streamlining
Plan, which included closing Governor's Island.
The President's fiscal year 1999 budget states ``As part of a
continuing effort to streamline the Coast Guard, the 1999 Budget
assumes facility closures and other streamlining that will yield over
$20 million in annual savings by 2001.'' The following fiscal year 1999
budget initiatives will contribute to this effort. Actual savings may
vary due to several factors (i.e., lower than anticipated Acquisition,
Construction, and Improvements Appropriation funding levels may delay
project completion), but should exceed $20 million by 2001:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net recurring
Fiscal year 1999 initiative operating Savings
expenses savings year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Termination of one time costs/annualization -$8,000,000 1999
of prior-year efficiencies................
Optimize Coast Guard Training -9,000,000 2002
Infrastructure............................
Operational Adjustments.................... -7,000,000 1999
Reduce Seagoing and Coastal Buoy Tender -14,000,000 ( \1\ )
Fleet Size from 37 to 30..................
Finance Center Computer Savings............ -900,000 1999
LORAN-C Consolidated Control............... -1,500,000 1999
Fleet Logistics Savings.................... -1,500,000 1999
270-Foot Command and Control Savings....... -500,000 1999
Restructure Aviation Workforce............. -300,000 1999
HC-130 Engine Conversion Savings........... -300,000 1999
Air Station Atlantic City Consolidation.... -500,000 1999
Close Air Facility Long Island............. -1,500,000 1999
Relocate Air Facility Glenview, IL......... -300,000 1999
GSA Rent Reduction......................... -3,300,000 1999
Military Personnel Management Efficiencies. -6,000,000 2000
Federal Workforce Act Completion........... -500,000 1999
Military to Civilian Conversion............ -750,000 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pends AC&I funding levels.
additional cost cutting opportunities
Question. What additional cost-cutting opportunities (e.g.,
civilian/military mix, rotation policy, etc.) are available to the
Coast Guard?
Answer. It is premature to discuss further Coast Guard cost-cutting
options that may be included in the President's outyear budgets as they
are pre-decisional and have not been fully evaluated, nor approved, by
the Administration. The Coast Guard continuously strives to identify
efficiencies that will keep it a model of good government and an
outstanding investment for the American taxpayer. During the period
1994-1998, through various streamlining initiatives and management
efficiencies, the Coast Guard saved the American taxpayer more than
$400 million in gross reductions. The Coast Guard's fiscal year 1999
budget identifies initiatives that will yield more than $20 million in
reductions by fiscal year 2001. Strategic investment in modern capital
equipment and technology, such as the Deepwater Replacement Project,
are critical to the Coast Guard's ability to continue to identify
efficiencies, while delivering the services expected by the American
people.
base closure and realignment commission for coast guard
Question. Do you believe that it would be useful to establish a
Base Closure and Realignment Commission to review potential closure of
Coast Guard facilities?
Answer. The Coast Guard does not believe that it would be useful to
establish a Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) Commission to review
potential closure of Coast Guard facilities at this time.
The Coast Guard is completing its largest streamlining effort in
history. The impact of a BRAC process so soon after our own
streamlining process may cause a negative effect on the men and women
of our small service, including low morale and the administrative
burden (increased workload) accompanying a BRAC process. The Coast
Guard needs time to adjust to the larger changes of the past three
years. The Coast Guard remains committed to a continual evaluation of
divestitures and will continue to work at finding ways to reduce
unnecessary shore facility inventory.
proceeds from sale of surplus property
Question. The Coast Guard's fiscal year 1998 budget request for its
Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements (AC&I) account included an
expected $9 million from the sale of surplus Coast Guard properties. In
developing its budget, the Coast Guard presented the Office of
Management and Budget with a list of 29 properties that the Coast Guard
expected to be surplus in fiscal years 1997, 1998, and 1999.
What properties were actually sold and how much did the Coast Guard
raise?
Answer. To date in 1998, the Coast Guard received proceeds of
$1,981,415 from the sale of four properties in Greenville, MS; Redmond,
WA; Owensboro, KY; and Coinjock, NC. None of these properties were on
the original list of 29 properties.
potential to use surplus property sales to fund ac&i
Question. What is the potential for selling more surplus property
to help pay for the Coast Guard's AC&I needs?
Answer. The potential to use the sale of surplus property to help
pay for the Coast Guard's Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements
(AC&I) needs is limited. Whenever property is reported as excess to the
General Services Administration, it must first be determined to be
excess to the Coast Guard's needs. This does not necessarily mean that
the property is available for sale or that the estimated value will be
realized if and when a sale occurs. There are a number of factors that
make it difficult to accurately predict the actual proceeds from future
sale of assets. These include the speculative nature of the market
value of government property, delays in the timing of the sale, the
possibility of legislative transfer, historic or environmental
restrictions on reuse, and no-cost transfer to another Federal agency
or homeless interest (which is Federally mandated). Most of these items
relate to circumstances outside of the Coast Guard's control.
report to congress on coast guard's high value properties
Question. Please provide the list requested in the fiscal year 1998
Appropriations Act of Coast Guard high value properties.
Answer. The Coast Guard's report, as requested in Senate Report
105-55, is being reviewed within the Coast Guard. It will be forwarded
for final Administration clearance and submitted to Congress by March
1998.
military/civilian mix
Question. The Coast Guard's current policy is to maintain a work
force mix which will maximize its ability to accomplish its missions in
the most cost effective manner. The Coast Guard's staffing policy
provides a framework for determining whether positions should be filled
by military or civilian personnel. This framework presupposes all
positions to be civilian unless established criteria indicate military
classification is more appropriate. In fiscal year 1997, the Coast
Guard had about 37,000 military personnel and about 6,000 civilian
personnel. Some past studies have suggested that more Coast Guard
personnel should be civilian. One advantage is cost. Overall, the Coast
Guard has estimated that it costs 16.25 percent more to compensate a
military member than a civilian member. A recent General Accounting
Office (GAO) report estimated that the Department of Defense could save
about $15,000 for every military position it reprogrammed to civilian.
The Coast Guard maintains that military personnel provide a more
front-line, rapid response capability in the operational environment
than do civilian personnel. They also point out that government-wide
mandates currently require them to reduce, not increase, the civilian
workforce. However, in 1994, the Coast Guard initiated a comprehensive
review to determine what military positions agency-wide should be
reprogrammed to civilian positions. The review was to be completed in
1997.
Has the study been completed?
Answer. Yes, the study has been completed. The initial study,
``Report to Congress on Civilians in Personnel Management Structure,''
was submitted by the Coast Guard to the Congress on June 26, 1997. The
review of military billets was completed in December 1997.
study results
Question. If completed, what were the results of the study?
Answer. The study reviewed 35,000 military billets. Approximately
535 military billets were found to meet the definition of ``non-
military essential.''
Due to civilian position classification and conversion concerns, a
random sample of 53 non-military essential billets were classified
using Office of Personnel Management guidelines and actual position
descriptions. A majority of the billets would convert to civilian
grades that classify higher than indicated by a 1994 General Accounting
Office (GAO) report; and the resulting savings would be considerably
less. On average, the savings were found to be about $3,000 per
conversion.
Lastly, not every ``non-military essential'' conversion saves
money, particularly at the junior enlisted and the junior officer
paygrades. In some cases, conversion to a civilian position would
actually cost the Coast Guard over $8,000 per year per position.
Clearly, not every conversion is cost effective.
implementation of recommendations
Question. What actions has the Coast Guard taken or planned as a
result of the study?
Answer. To date, the Coast Guard has converted over 140 non-
military essential billets into civilian positions, with a goal of 213
conversions during fiscal year 1999, as proposed in the fiscal year
1999 justifications. The Coast Guard remains committed to using
personnel resources in the most efficient manner. The Coast Guard will
continue to implement conversions that enhance mission support and make
good business sense.
conversion of military billets
Question. What are the anticipated dollar savings as the result of
any actions taken or planned?
Answer. The Coast Guard will save $750,000 from converting military
billets to civilian positions as shown in the fiscal year 1999 budget
request at page OE-REQ-33.
rotation policies
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 five years, enlisted
rotations vary from two to four years. Annual costs to rotate staff
average about $60 million; other costs are 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 the current rotation policies
are adequate and that they have developed optimum tour lengths that
should not be revised. They said that changing current practices would
have several undesirable effects, including adverse effects on
multimission 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 was the actual annual cost in fiscal year 1997 to rotate Coast
Guard military personnel, including moving expenses, idle time,
paperwork, and training?
Answer. Relocation costs were $59,454,000, as shown on page OE-PPA-
14 of the Coast Guard's fiscal year 1999 justifications. This includes
moving persons, dependents, household goods, as well as dislocation
allowances. There are no data systems to specifically gather the costs
to rotate personnel associated with ``idle time, paperwork, or
training.''
Nearly 10,000 annual relocation orders, or 50 percent, are non-
discretionary, since they are issued to members who are retiring,
separating from the service, or graduating from recruit or service
training. The remaining 50 percent are actual duty station
reassignments. However, approximately half of these remaining transfers
are also considered non-discretionary, as they are to reassign members
currently serving arduous duty (such as isolated duty and sea duty)
assignments, in command positions, or that have recently been promoted.
The remaining transfers provide the personnel necessary to replace
those currently serving on arduous duty assignments, recently promoted,
or separated from the service.
When a military member is rotating, the time is categorized in one
of three ways: (1) travel time; (2) proceed time; or (3) leave time.
The first two are authorized in the Joint Federal Travel Regulations.
The amount of travel time is based on the distance between the two duty
stations and the mode of travel. Travel time is typically between one
day and seven days. Proceed time is four days by law. Leave is an
entitlement under 10 U.S. Code 40, and may be taken either at a
member's duty station or en route to a new duty station.
rotation policy study
Question. Does the Coast Guard still believe that an in-depth study
of the merits of lengthening rotations is not needed given their high
costs? If so, why?
Answer. The Coast Guard formally examined its military rotation
policies and associated transfer costs in 1993, 1995, and 1997. Current
rotation policies have been developed in consideration of cost, mission
requirements, the personal sacrifices made by Coast Guard members and
their families, and the operational tempo of the various mission areas.
The existing rotation and assignment framework provides flexibility to
increase or decrease a member's tour length to balance cost, service
need, and members' personal/professional needs and desires.
The Coast Guard has more than 1,390 units located among all 50
states in 228 congressional districts, in every territory, and in
several foreign countries. The Coast Guard is founded on small,
responsive units in operationally and geographically critical
locations--which in turn drive transfer policies. A highly centralized
organization such as seen at Navy homeports, Army depots, and Air Force
bases, would require fewer geographic transfers, but also would not
provide the expected service to the public.
Like the other military services, the Coast Guard is a pyramid
organization with a broad base of junior members. The operational
experience and military specialty skills required of senior personnel
must be gained from experience obtained in earlier tours of duty--the
military ``grows from within.'' This is an essential characteristic of
a military organization. Through training, and the wide experience base
of Coast Guard personnel, the Coast Guard maintains a multimission
capability to quickly and efficiently shift from one mission to the
next without degradation in overall mission effectiveness.
In addition to the 50 percent non-discretionary transfers described
in response to the previous question, another 25 percent of the
discretionary transfers are required, due to the remote location of the
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 homeport more than 185 days per
year. Rotational assignments provide these and other members an
opportunity for greater family stability.
military personnel tracking and payroll facility
Question. Is it true the Coast Guard is now developing new software
for its military payroll function and plans to eventually transfer this
function from Topeka, Kansas, to its facility in Martinsburg, West
Virginia?
Answer. The Coast Guard is replacing the Military Personnel
Tracking and Payroll System with a Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS)
product as the core part of the system. Significant software
development is necessary to allow the COTS product to issue proper
payments under military pay rules. The Coast Guard does not have plans
to move the Human Resources Service and Information Center or transfer
the military payroll function to Martinsburg, WV. However, should any
alternative prove less expensive and deliver an acceptable level of
service, the Coast Guard will investigate any possible cost savings.
The Coast Guard does plan to use the computer facilities in Martinsburg
to host and operate the replacement Military Personnel Tracking and
Payroll System on the computer system purchased under this replacement
project.
military personnel tracking and payroll savings
Question. If so, what savings are anticipated and when will the
change be made?
Answer. As part of this initiative, the Coast Guard plans to remove
115 military billets from Personnel Reporting Units. These reductions
will begin in the last quarter of fiscal year 1999.
noaa use of military personnel tracking and payroll system
Question. We understand that the Coast Guard processes payroll
checks for the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) Officer Corps. Is this true? If true, what does the Coast Guard
charge NOAA?
Answer. Yes. The Coast Guard has a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) with NOAA to allow NOAA to use the Coast Guard Military Personnel
Tracking and Payroll System. NOAA uses personnel tracking, military
payroll, and retired payroll functions in the Coast Guard system. The
MOU requires NOAA to reimburse the Coast Guard the cost of a GS-12
position at approximately $60,000 annually for use of the system.
military payroll costs
Question. If different than the $2.81 figure provided to this
Subcommittee last year, please explain why? Aren't such charges subject
to the provisions of the Economy Act?
Answer. The fiscal year 1997 cost for a semimonthly payroll (two
payments per month) was $3.57/month. The cost increase is primarily due
to two factors. The first is a decreasing size of the active duty
military workforce. The second reason is the evolution of an improved
methodology with which we can more rigorously allocate overhead and
other indirect costs.
Since the Coast Guard has not outsourced its military payroll
functions, the provisions of the Economy Act do not apply.
validated performance goal levels
Question. The Government Performance and Results Act (GRPA)
requires agencies to set strategic goals, measure performance, and
report on the degree to which goals were met. Under GPRA, each agency
was required to develop a strategic plan, by September 30, 1997,
describing its mission, long-term goals and objectives, and strategies
for achieving those goals and objectives. Each agency must also develop
an annual performance plan, beginning with fiscal year 1999. The annual
performance plan should contain annual performance goals to gauge the
agency's progress toward accomplishing its longer term strategic goals
and identify the performance measures the agency will use to assess its
progress. The Coast Guard is one of the pilot agencies to test the
implementation of GPRA. The Coast Guard developed performance plans for
fiscal years 1997 and 1998. They describe the major outcomes (goals) of
Coast Guard operations instead of describing them by individual
programs. The major outcome areas are: safety, protection of natural
resources, mobility, maritime security, and national defense. Each
outcome has several performance goals and a measure or indicator
associated with it. When fully implemented, the Coast Guard will link
desired outcomes to its budget needs.
How has the Coast Guard validated the performance goals as being
set at the appropriate levels?
Answer. Fiscal year 1999 performance goals were validated through
the analysis of outcome and activity data collected over the past
several years. Program managers used this data, along with their
assessments of the impacts of future effectiveness and efficiency
initiatives, to validate that performance goals were set at the
appropriate levels. The Coast Guard will continue to improve its
ability to validate goal levels as more data is collected and the
relationship between activity levels and outcome levels is better
understood.
reliable performance information
Question. Over the years, the quality of Coast Guard management
data has been questioned by GAO. How can the Coast Guard be certain
that it will have reliable data to measure progress against the
performance goals?
Answer. The Coast Guard is addressing the specific shortcomings in
data management noted by the General Accounting Office (GAO), and to
improve overall data reliability. To this end, the Coast Guard is
working to obtain the most accurate and useful data to measure its
performance. Field personnel are routinely trained in the correct entry
of safety data into information systems, and safety data regularly
undergoes computer analysis for anomalies that may indicate data
errors. Additionally, the Coast Guard is partnering with the Maritime
Administration and Army Corps of Engineers to improve the collection
and standardization of all waterborne trade data. The Coast Guard is
developing new performance information systems to better manage data.
The Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement (MISLE) System
will replace obsolete and difficult to maintain software and hardware,
and improve the timeliness and reliability of safety and law
enforcement data.
challenges in performance management
Question. What difficulties has the Coast Guard identified in
developing its major outcomes, performance goals, and measures/
indicators?
Answer. In developing its five strategic outcome goals, and 23
performance measures, the Coast Guard has identified several challenges
in implementing performance management. Most importantly, the Coast
Guard must further develop performance measures, operational databases,
financial systems, and analytical methodologies that demonstrate and
quantify how resources and activities are linked to outcomes. The Coast
Guard must also continue developing common, interagency goals for
crosscutting outcome areas such as drug supply reduction and fisheries
stock improvement. Finally, the heart of the Government Performance and
Results Act (GPRA) is the use of performance results for active
resource management. To accomplish this, the Coast Guard must continue
developing a performance evaluation system that identifies which
strategies and activities are most effective, which need improvement,
and which require reallocating resources.
performance goals
Question. Are the Coast Guard's performance goals based on its
fiscal year 1999 budget request, or are they based on a higher resource
level?
Answer. Coast Guard performance goal levels are based on the fiscal
year 1999 budget request.
resource levels
Question. If they are based on a higher level, please explain.
Answer. Coast Guard performance goal levels are based on the
outcomes that can be achieved given the resource levels contained in
the fiscal year 1999 budget request.
acquisition, construction, and improvements staffing
Question. Since fiscal year 1992, the Coast Guard's appropriations
acts have identified a specific portion of its Acquisition,
Construction, and Improvements (AC&I) funds to be used for related
staffing costs. Generally, the AC&I fund is used to pay for the
agency's major acquisitions, such as purchasing new vessels, aircraft,
and facilities. Previously, GAO reported the Coast Guard was improperly
using staff funded through its operating expenses (OE) for AC&I related
activities. As a result, operating expenses funds for personnel were
reduced by $4 million in 1994, while some funds were added to the AC&I
personnel function. The Coast Guard said in an anti-deficiency act
violation letter that it was developing procedures to make certain that
AC&I funds are used properly. Has the Coast Guard taken actions and
developed procedures to ensure that the AC&I account is properly
charged for the costs of staff working on AC&I-related activities? If
not, why is it taking so long?
Answer. Yes. Interim policy and procedures entitled Criteria for
Use in Determining Billet/Position Funding Source established the
criteria now used to determine the funding source for personnel
billets/positions to execute both Operating Expenses (OE) and AC&I
funds. This policy was distributed to major Coast Guard commands
responsible for carrying out AC&I-related work, and will be formally
incorporated in the next change of the Financial Resources Management
Manual (Commandant Instruction M7100.3A).
The Coast Guard has also standardized its policy and procedures for
calculating the direct salary and standard personnel support costs
generated by its workforce. This ensures that the proper personnel
support costs are charged to the cognizant appropriation and that no
cross subsidizing of one appropriation by another can occur.
Both of these actions will prevent similar recurrences of the
improper funding of AC&I-related personnel costs by the OE
appropriation documented in the fiscal year 1993 General Accounting
Office report Acquisition Program Staff Were Funded Improperly. Since
fiscal year 1994, standardized procedures to determine AC&I full time
equivalent (FTE) levels and personnel costs have been followed and the
AC&I appropriation has funded all AC&I specific personnel costs.
The final solution will come when the Personnel Management
Information System/Joint Uniform Military Pay System II (PMIS/JUMPS II)
is implemented. PMIS/JUMPS II will allow direct charging of personnel
salaries and benefits to the appropriate appropriation eliminating the
need for refunds.
timetable for award
Question. What is the timetable for award of the follow-on Seagoing
Buoy Tender Replacement? How many vessels will the initial contract
award be for? What is the total amount spent to date on this contract?
How many vessels have been procured under the existing contract?
Answer. The follow-on contract is scheduled for award during the
fourth quarter of fiscal year 1998. The initial contract award will be
for two ships with options for nine additional ships totaling eleven
ships. The follow-on contract has not been awarded, therefore, no funds
have been spent on this contract. On the existing contract, $162.9
million has been spent to date. Five vessels have been awarded under
the existing contract. Three ships have been delivered, and two are
still under construction.
national distress system modernization project
Question. What is the budget request for fiscal year 1999 for the
National Distress System Modernization Project (NDSMP)? What does the
most recent Coast Guard Capital Investment Plan include for the NDSMP?
Answer. The fiscal year 1999 budget requests $3 million for NDSMP.
The fiscal year 1998 Capital Investment Plan (CIP), signed December
12, 1996, shows the ``Total Acquisition Costs'' for the project at $65
million to $100 million.
relationship between the coast guard cip and the budget
Question. What is the relationship between the Capital Investment
Plan (CIP) and the Coast Guard budget request for any given fiscal
year? Is there a formal process associated with the CIP and the Coast
Guard budget request? If so, describe the process.
Answer. The Coast Guard has been actively developing an approach to
strengthen our capital investment planning and decision-making
processes. A Coast Guard representative participated in the joint
Office of Management and Budget (OMB)/Government Accounting Office
(GAO) sponsored capital guide group that recently published the OMB
Capital Programming Guide. Using the logic model specified in the
guide, and the specific format it describes for an Agency Capital Plan
(ACP), the Coast Guard has developed, and will soon publish, the fiscal
year 1999 Coast Guard ACP.
The Coast Guard ACP is divided into two major sections. The first
section is narrative text that describes the Service's capital planning
and investment process, the mission analysis and inventory management
processes, and the funding strategies we employ. It is followed by four
appendices that list, by operating system (Deepwater, Coastal, Inland,
C\4\ISR, and Shore), our current inventory of capital assets, approved
and funded acquisitions and projects, acquisitions and projects for
which we are seeking funding, and notional long range capital needs
based on service life and Operating Expenses (OE) cost calculations.
The ACP serves as the foundation for the development of the annual
Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements (AC&I) budget request. It
lays out the logic behind annual funding requests; prioritizes funding
needs based on asset condition, performance, and cost; explores
tradeoffs between various potential investment strategies and asset
options, and; compares the capability of the current inventory with
present and future needs of the service. This data is then translated
into a prioritized slate of AC&I projects or acquisitions across the
entire inventory of assets which is manifested in project budget sheets
for the current fiscal year.
Input to the ACP parallels the budget development process and the
Coast Guard's business and capital planning cycle.
fiscal year 2000 budget submission
Question. When will the fiscal year 2000 Coast Guard budget be
transmitted to OST and to OMB? When will the fiscal year 2000 budget be
available to Congress?
Answer. The Coast Guard's fiscal year 2000 budget was submitted to
the Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST) in two phases, in
June 1998 and July 1998, respectively. The Coast Guard budget is
scheduled to be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
in September 1998. The President's budget, containing the Coast Guard's
request, is scheduled to be submitted to Congress in February 1999.
contract award for national distress system modernization project
Question. There are indications that the Coast Guard intends to
award the NDSMP in fiscal year 1999. How is it possible for this to
occur if the fiscal year 1999 budget request is sufficient only to
support the Coast Guard acquisition team?
Answer. At this time it is premature to estimate a contract award
date for the National Distress System Modernization Project.
c-130 flight hour shortfalls
Question. It is the committee's understanding that the Coast Guard
has a significant shortfall in HC-130 flight hours due primarily to the
growing requirement for drug interdiction operations in the Caribbean
and Eastern Pacific? What is needed to satisfy this shortfall?
Answer. The United States Interdiction Coordinator (USIC) recently
completed work on a Five Year Transit Zone Asset Requirements document
that outlines interagency assets required to meet the National Drug
Control Strategy (NDCS) year 2002 goals.
In this document, seven critical mission areas are identified, one
of which is ``locate maritime targets.'' Long-range maritime patrol
aircraft (MPA), equipped with sophisticated surface search radar,
infrared sensors and electro-optical cameras are required to provide
this function. USIC has validated the shortfall in maritime patrol
aircraft resource hours to be 560 per month. This USIC study is still
being reviewed within the Administration.
c-130j use in caribbean and eastern pacific operations
Question. All services within the Department of Defense that
currently operate the C-130 have committed to modernizing their
existing fleets with the new C-130J because of its improved reliability
and maintainability, reduced operating costs and manpower requirements,
and its enhanced performance. Would these improved capabilities make
this aircraft a more effective platform in your Caribbean and Eastern
Pacific operations?
Answer. To be truly effective, any long range search aircraft must
be fully integrated with other deepwater assets to optimize operational
effectiveness. Also, any surveillance platform must include automated
sensor technology in order to fully leverage the increased capability.
With respect to the HC-130J, the possibility of reduced staffing
and operating costs is unknown. The Coast Guard currently operates 26
operational ``H'' model HC-130 aircraft. HC-130J aircraft would require
a different logistical support infrastructure than the HC-130H
(additional inventory, technical support staff, supply managers, both
pilot and mechanic training, and possibly air facility changes). The
cost of this additional support infrastructure is unknown. The
advertised HC-130J improvements in reliability and maintainability, and
any potential reductions in operating costs, have not been service
tested.
c-130j use in other operational areas
Question. Is there anywhere else that the Coast Guard is currently
operating C-130's that the C-130J could significantly enhance your
aviation operations?
Answer. Coast Guard C-130 operations could be enhanced anywhere
with the C-130J aircraft due to its advertised range, endurance, fuel
consumption, and power availability. However, the increased operational
capability would bring new maintenance and logistical support
requirements, including a different logistical support infrastructure
than the C-130H (additional inventory, technical support staff, supply
managers, both pilot and mechanic training, and possibly changes to
receiving air facilities). The cost of this additional support
infrastructure is unknown.
deployments in support of dod
Question. What was the cost of Coast Guard deployments for the past
year in support of Department of Defense (DOD) missions outside of U.S.
waters? Please provide the cost breakout by exercise and time period.
Answer. Coast Guard cutters conducted a limited number of out-of-
U.S. deployments in support of DOD operations in fiscal year 1997 as
follows:
Additional
Deployment/Dates cost estimate \1\
``BALTOPs'' European deployment: June-Oct. 1997............... $300,000
``UNITAS'' South America deployment: 60 days in phases from
July-Nov. 1997............................................ 50,000
``CARAT'' Western Pacific deployment: May-Aug. 1997........... 200,000
``TRADEWINDS'' Caribbean deployment: Oct. 1997................ 20,000
\1\ Additional costs refer to expenses in excess of normal costs of
cutter deployments in or adjacent to U.S. waters. Most of the added
costs are accrued from international port call expenses and long
distance logistics support.
Law Enforcement Detachments (LEDETS) deployed year round to the
Arabian Gulf in support of CENTCOM's Iraq sanctions enforcement mission
(added cost was approximately $374,000). A Port Security Unit deployed
to Korea for ``FOAL EAGLE 97'' (October 1996, added cost was
approximately $50,000). The UNITAS/WATC (West Africa Training Cruise)
detachment deploys annually aboard U.S. Navy ships conducting
professional exchanges with South American and West African navies/
coast guards at a budgeted cost of $103,000 per year. Other exercises
conducted in support of DOD occurred in U.S. waters, or waters
immediately adjacent.
use of loran/eurofix for dgps corrections
Question. There have been numerous press reports about
international utilization of Loran to transmit differential GPS
corrections by implementing ``Eurofix.'' There are reports that
modifications to the Loran transmitters permitting Eurofix will cost
only about $3 million. Are those cost estimates accurate? Provide us
details about this concept.
Answer. Eurofix is a European developmental system for transmitting
Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS) corrections on the LORAN
signal. European researchers are currently testing a prototype system
to determine the potential of this concept. Broadcast standards or
signal specifications for this system have not been developed. Eurofix
currently does not meet the performance requirements for maritime and
aviation navigation, and its future potential to do so is unknown. The
Coast Guard has no plans to evaluate this system as a replacement to
the existing maritime DGPS service and cannot validate the cost
estimate suggested above. The Coast Guard radiobeacon-based system is
nearing full operational capability in six months, meets all
international requirements for maritime and navigation safety, and
costs approximately $5 million per year to operate. The user community
has purchased receivers and equipment compatible with the radiobeacon-
based DGPS, and would have to convert to new equipment for any future
system that was based on non-radiobeacon technology.
eurofix demonstration
Question. We understand that the Coast Guard is now planning a
Eurofix demonstration and test at Wildwood, NJ. Since there is
considerable interest in this concept, are any other agencies being
invited to participate in any way in that demonstration and testing? In
conjunction with the demonstration and test, will the Coast Guard plan
to demonstrate a receiver for the Eurofix system here in Washington?
Answer. The Coast Guard conducted limited tests of Eurofix at the
LORAN Support Unit in Wildwood, NJ the week of March 30, 1998. No other
agencies participated in the test, and there was no Coast Guard
receiver demonstration conducted in Washington. Test results are
currently being evaluated.
The primary purpose of the test was to investigate this
technology's utility as a backup to conventional phone lines for the
Coast Guard's remote control of some of the LORAN operating functions.
As a related item, some testing was done to determine if a differential
signal would interfere with the LORAN signal. Some data was also
collected on navigational accuracy.
expansion of dgps to ndgps
Question. A recent story in GPS World magazine indicates that the
Office of Management and Budget is opposed to expansion of the Coast
Guard Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS) network to a
nationwide DGPS. Is it true that part of the objection is because the
service would compete with existing commercially available services and
what other objections were raised by the Office of Management and
Budget?
Answer. The official Administration position on this issue is
reflected in the fiscal year 1999 President's Budget submission. In
that document, the Administration requested adequate funding for the
Nationwide DGPS (NDGPS) system for fiscal year 1999. It is the
Administration's position that future capital funding, if any, for
NDGPS, will be provided through contributions from federal agencies
whose programs will benefit from the new technology.
gwen as a supplement to dgps
Question. This same story indicated that there is interest in using
the decommissioned Ground Wave Emergency Network (GWEN) to supplement
the Coast Guard radio beacon coastal Differential Global Positioning
System (DGPS) network and that the capital and operating costs for the
expanded portion of the DGPS would total nearly $100 million. The plan
would be to use some of the GWEN installations where they are and move
others. Isn't it true that the GWEN solution really does nothing to
provide a back up navigation solution in the event of GPS failures or
interruptions? Since some of the GWEN installations will require 300-
foot antennas, isn't it likely there will be some significant local
community objections to this solution?
Answer. The capital cost to implement the Nationwide DGPS (NDGPS),
using U.S. Air Force GWEN equipment and sites, is less than $30
million. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at
approximately $5 million. The NDGPS system is an augmentation to GPS
and relies on the basic GPS signal to provide the improved accuracy. Of
the 66 planned NDGPS sites, 33 sites will use existing GWEN
installations and the remaining 33 sites will utilize GWEN equipment
moved to other locations. The moved GWEN equipment suite includes a
300-foot antenna tower. Appropriate National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) environmental impact assessments and documentation will be
completed prior to each NDGPS installation.
loran versus gwen
Question. Would you agree that it might make more sense to use the
existing Loran system for the same purposes that GWEN will serve since
Loran is a functioning, reliable, cost-effective national asset and
infrastructure in place? And, importantly, will you agree that Loran is
better suited than GWEN to provide a compatible backup system for the
full range of users in the event of disruption to GPS?
Answer. The Ground Wave Emergency Network (GWEN) sites being
decommissioned by the U.S. Air Force will be utilized to supplement the
Coast Guard's coastal radio beacon maritime Differential Global
Positioning System (DGPS) service to implement the Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Nationwide DGPS. The capital cost to implement
DOT's Nationwide DGPS is less than $30 million with annual operating
and maintenance costs estimated at approximately $5 million. By
contrast, much of the LORAN-C infrastructure is old, and it will cost
over $200 million to recapitalize the system to keep it running for the
same 15-year life cycle. In addition, the annual operating and
maintenance costs for LORAN-C is $27 million.
Nationwide DGPS, utilizing the existing GWEN sites, is an
augmentation to GPS and relies on the basic GPS signal to provide the
improved accuracy. An improved LORAN-C system would operate
independently of GPS and therefore has the potential to provide a
backup to GPS and its augmentations.
unmet vessel requirements and estimated cost
Question. Please provide a listing of the unmet requirements for
vessels in the Coast Guard inventory. Also, please provide a cost
estimate for each vessel class to complete the vessel requirement for
that class above the amount requested in the current fiscal year 1999
budget request.
Answer. The Coast Guard expects to recapitalize additional vessel
classes, however, the number of hulls and specific funding requirements
have not been determined. Ongoing studies will finalize these
requirements.
The following table includes only existing major acquisition
projects. Estimate of funding requirements beyond fiscal year 1999 data
is taken from the Second Quarter fiscal year 1998 U.S. Coast Guard
Quarterly Acquisition Report to Congress.
[Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unmet Estimate of
requirements funding
Vessel Class beyond Fiscal required
year 1999 beyond fiscal
(vessels) year 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seagoing Buoy Tender (WLB).............. 7 $342-472
Coastal Buoy Tender (WLM)............... ( \1\ ) 21-31
Stern Loading Buoy Boat (BUSL).......... 8 14-16
Motor Lifeboat (MLB).................... 30 14-32
Coastal Patrol Boat (CPB)............... 20 13-110
Polar Icebreaker (WAGB 20).............. 1 2-3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All vessels are under contract. Funding request includes Economic
Price Adjustments, Target to Ceiling payments, and Change Orders on
select prior year contracted hulls.
airfac relocation to muskegon
Question. The U.S. Coast Guard plays a major role in saving lives
and property endangered as a result of accidents and other distress
situations on the Great Lakes. The agency maintains numerous year round
and seasonal small boat stations and air stations and facilities on the
Great Lakes from which assets are dispatched. In southern Lake
Michigan, the Coast Guard's helicopters and small boats respond mainly
to incidents involving recreational boats, although larger barges and
cargo vessels may occasionally request assistance. Its small boats,
helicopters, and rescue personnel share search and rescue
responsibility with many state and local agencies that also have
response capability.
In fiscal year 1997, the Coast Guard relocated its air facility on
southern Lake Michigan from Glenview, Illinois, to the county airport
near Muskegon, Michigan about 113 miles across the lake. This move came
after community leaders in the village of Glenview asked the Coast
Guard to relocate because the Naval Air Station the Coast Guard was
using was closed and the village wanted to use the land for other
purposes. After studying numerous locations for relocating the
facility, the Coast Guard chose Muskegon. What effect has the move of
the air facility had on the number of helicopter responses and on lives
saved or lost?
Answer. The General Accounting Office's report GAO/RCED-98-108R:
``Relocation of Coast Guard Air Facility'' dated April 22, 1998,
states: ``To determine the potential impact of this longer flying time
from Muskegon on the number of lives lost or saved, we identified all
moderate or severe cases (33) involving lives saved or lost from 1995
through 1997. We evaluated 30 cases in all . . . we determined that for
almost all cases, either the Coast Guard's small boats or other nearby
assets made the rescue, or death occurred very quickly, making the
helicopter response time unimportant. However, in two cases the
helicopter response time could have made a difference. In one case, a
1997 incident, the shorter response time could have been a factor in
saving four lives because Muskegon was closer to the incident. In a
1996 case, the longer response time could have been a factor in the
loss of life if the air facility had been located in Muskegon.''
relocation to muskegon
Question. Is the Coast Guard satisfied with its decision to move to
Muskegon and has it decided to permanently remain there?
Answer. Yes, the Coast Guard is satisfied with this decision. The
Coast Guard made the best business decision to comply with the
congressional mandate to maintain an air facility.
cost comparison of muskegon with other sites
Question. How much difference in costs is there between Muskegon
and the next least costly site studied?
Answer. The Coast Guard's internal study determined that operating
from Benton Harbor, the next least costly site, would cost over
$4,400,000 more in total net life cycle costs (discounted at seven
percent over 25 years), than would operating from Muskegon.
resources in southern lake michigan
Question. How do the Coast Guard's and other entities search and
rescue resources in southern Lake Michigan compare to other areas of
the country?
Answer. Coast Guard, state, and local search and rescue resources
in southern Lake Michigan (defined as the area south of a line from
above Muskegon, Michigan, on the eastern shore to below Sheboygan,
Wisconsin, on the western shore) are as numerous and well organized as
any search and rescue region in the nation. The Coast Guard has nine
boat stations, two air stations, and an air facility (open during the
height of the recreational boating season) providing coverage of
southern Lake Michigan.
In addition, many local rescue resources are available near the
lakeshore, with 59 boats and nine helicopters operated by the Coast
Guard Auxiliary, various state and local agencies and private groups in
southern Lake Michigan. Southern Michigan, therefore, enjoys a level of
search and rescue response not typically available in other areas of
the United States.
airfac need in southern lake michigan
Question. Does the Coast Guard believe an air facility is needed in
southern Lake Michigan?
Answer. No, the Coast Guard does not believe there is an
operational need for an air facility in the southern Lake Michigan
area. However, because of the congressional mandate to maintain a
presence, the Coast Guard conducted an extensive study to determine the
best operational and cost effective location for such a facility. This
study validated that both Air Station's Detroit and Traverse City can
meet the Coast Guard's two hour search and rescue (SAR) response
standard in the southern Lake Michigan area without the additional
resources provided by an air facility.
The success of the SAR response in any region relies on the
capability of the entire SAR system, rather than the response of a
single unit. The southern Lake Michigan SAR system is now serviced by
nine Coast Guard boat stations, two Coast Guard air stations, a Coast
Guard air facility, and a host of Coast Guard Auxiliary assets. These
Coast Guard resources are supplemented by many other civilian rescue
facilities, including numerous police and fire department response
units.
helicopter versus small boat responses
Question. How many responses annually do helicopters make as
compared to small boats?
Answer. On average, from 1994-97, small boats responded to about 97
percent of the total number of incidents, and helicopters the remainder
(3 percent).
potential future consolidations
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.
In light of the Coast Guard's tight budget, does the Coast Guard
now plan to implement any of the remaining options? If so, which ones?
If not, why not?
Answer. Yes. One option, consolidating training, is still under
active consideration for implementation. In the fiscal year 1999
Justifications, the Coast Guard proposes to optimize Coast Guard
training infrastructure, with a goal to match infrastructure to near-
and long-term requirements. One option under consideration is to
consolidate existing training centers.
The Coast Guard has no plans to consider any of the other major
organizational or infrastructure options considered during the
development of the national streamlining plan.
anticipated timeframe and savings for potential future training
consolidations
Question. What is the anticipated time frame and savings for any
additional planned changes?
Answer. An analysis of the Coast Guard's training infrastructure is
ongoing; anticipated savings pend final decision, which is expected in
fiscal year 1999.
current status of activity prototypes
Question. What is the current status of the prototype activities?
Answer. Three of the four Activity commands are currently
operational. The fourth, Activity South Texas, was disestablished
because the geographic distance separating the Marine Safety Office and
Group/Air Station commands minimized the potential for realizing the
synergistic benefits Activity commands were designed to achieve. The
lessons learned from the prototype Activity South Texas are being used
in the ongoing Integrated Operations Command evaluation.
establishment of other activity commands
Question. Has the Coast Guard decided to establish other Activity
commands?
Answer. The Coast Guard will decide the future of Activity commands
after completing the ongoing Integrated Operations Commands evaluation,
which includes not only the prototype Activities, but also combined
Group/Marine Safety Offices. Because each port is different in terms of
size, type of maritime activities, weather, geography, customer base,
and so on, it is difficult to link the performance of Activity
commands, especially after a relatively short period of time, to
command structure. The Integrated Operations Command evaluation will
provide information to determine whether to maintain, expand, or
discontinue the Activity concept. The Coast Guard expects to complete
the evaluation in 1998.
activity command anticipated savings
Question. What savings are anticipated from the implementation of
these Activities?
Answer. Savings were not the primary reason behind the decision to
create Activity commands. Activities were intended to enhance
coordination and effectiveness between different operational commands
within a specific area of operations; provide for greater local scope
of control to reduce the burden on streamlined District offices; and
provide ``one-stop shopping'' for Coast Guard customers in the port.
ports and waterways safety systems (pawss) program status
Question. The Coast Guard currently owns and operates Vessel
Traffic Service (VTS) systems in eight ports throughout the United
States. The purpose of these systems is to facilitate the safe and
efficient movement of marine vessels in and around ports and to protect
the environment by monitoring vessel traffic, assessing the information
and passing it along to mariners. In fiscal year 1998, the Coast Guard
initiated an effort to implement the Ports and Waterways Safety System
(PAWSS), which is a follow-on effort to the Coast Guard's VTS 2000
program that the Congress terminated in 1996. Explain the current
status of the Coast Guard's PAWSS program. When will the VTS system in
New Orleans be installed and in operation?
Answer. Three contracts, instrumental in the installation of the
Automatic Identification System (AIS)-based Vessel Traffic Service
(VTS) system in New Orleans, have been awarded. The lease of up to 50
Digital Selective Calling/Automatic Identification System (DSC/AIS)
transponders was awarded in March 1998. The contract to provide Very
High Frequency (VHF) voice and VHF/AIS data communications services in
the Lower Mississippi River Vessel Traffic Service Area (VTSA) was
awarded in April 1998. The System Integration Contract (SIC), to
install the VTS system, was awarded in April 1998.
The VTS system will be implemented and tested by the Coast Guard in
two phases before becoming operational in the first quarter of fiscal
year 2000. In Phase 1, a VTS baseline system will be installed at the
Gretna Light Facility for limited Developmental Test and Evaluation
(DT&E) testing. In Phase 2, the system will be transitioned to a Vessel
Traffic Center (VTC) in downtown New Orleans for complete VTS system
DT&E, followed by Coast Guard Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E).
Although VTS New Orleans will be operational by the first quarter
of fiscal year 2000, VTS New Orleans will not attain final design
capability until all designated waterway users are outfitted with
automatic identification system (AIS) transponders. It is difficult to
predict when AIS will be installed and operating on all designated
vessels in the area, because the final international and domestic
carriage determinations pend U.S. and International Maritime
Organization regulatory actions. However, we expect AIS carriage
requirements will be in place in 2002.
contact with local community stakeholders
Question. What actions has the Coast Guard taken to contact local
community stakeholders to discuss VTS options in their ports? What
conclusions have been reached from any efforts taken so far?
Answer. The Coast Guard meets regularly with maritime community
stakeholders in New Orleans and Tampa Bay to discuss and develop
options for Vessel Traffic Services (VTS). The local Coast Guard
Captains of the Port have held preliminary discussions on VTS with
their constituencies in Philadelphia, Baltimore, Charleston, San Diego,
San Francisco, Seattle, and Valdez. As the Ports and Waterways Safety
System project progresses, the Coast Guard will formalize the waterway
evaluation process and continue discussion of VTS options in depth with
local community stakeholders in more port areas. The Coast Guard is
also continuing to host federal advisory committee meetings in Houston-
Galveston. VTS is always part of the agenda at these public meetings.
Thus far, maritime community stakeholders and the Coast Guard have
jointly concluded that a VTS based on Automatic Identification System
(AIS) transponders would significantly enhance maritime safety and
efficiency. The Coast Guard is vigorously pursuing adoption of
technical and carriage standards for AIS. Another conclusion that has
been reached through these outreach efforts is that in certain ports it
maybe mutually beneficial to operate future Vessel Traffic Services in
partnership with local stakeholders. The Coast Guard is establishing
internal policy to foster the establishment of jointly operated VTS
where appropriate.
ports and waterways safety system plans
Question. In addition to New Orleans, how many other ports is the
Coast Guard considering for the PAWSS program?
Answer. The Coast Guard plans to enter into Ports and Waterways
Safety System (PAWSS) discussions later this year with the user
communities in approximately 20 ports. We have already begun in a few
ports. However, until the process described below is complete, we
cannot conclude how many ports should receive a Vessel Traffic Service
acquired through the PAWSS program.
The Coast Guard's PAWSS project consists of three steps: port
evaluations, requirements identification, and implementation of
necessary measures to correct the deficiencies the process has
identified. The first two steps, port evaluations and requirements
identification, involve close contact with the local user community.
Through these first two steps, safety deficiencies will be identified
and solutions jointly conceived. Where a Vessel Traffic Service is
necessary to ensure an adequate level of port safety, the Coast Guard
will seek appropriate funding.
agency capital plan
Question. Have you released an update of the Agency Capital Plan?
If so, what is your most current estimate of your capital needs in
2002?
Answer. The Coast Guard fiscal year 1999 Agency Capital Plan (ACP)
is making its way through the final internal clearance process and
should be released by September 15, 1998.
strategy for addressing funding gap
Question. What is the Coast Guard's strategy for addressing any
funding gap between its probable funding level and the needs identified
in the Agency Capital Plan?
Answer. Our current acquisition strategy calls for completing as
many of our ongoing acquisitions as possible prior to the major
recapitalization efforts that are reflected in the Agency Capital Plan
(ACP). Currently, a significant portion of the outyear funding
requirements in the ACP are based on an estimated costs for replacement
of specific asset classes that operate in the deepwater environment--in
terms of vessels, aircraft, C\4\I, and sensors. These replacement costs
assume a one-for-one replacement of current asset capabilities. More
definitive costs in terms of magnitude and timing will be developed
during the analysis phase of the Deepwater Capability Replacement
Analysis.
The analysis phase will consider both capability and capacity
required and the cost/benefit of options to replace assets or refurbish
them. The specific balance between this major recapitalization effort
and other agency projects can best be determined when this analysis
phase is complete. Once the alternatives to meeting mission capability
and capacity needs are defined, a firm acquisition strategy can be
developed. The Coast Guard expects to work with the Administration and
Congress to maintain critical mission capabilities within the dictates
of public policy and funding constraints.
continuing operations without an ac&i increase
Question. What actions would you have to take to continue
operations if the Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements (AC&I)
appropriation is not increased through 2002?
Answer. The Coast Guard will make every effort to carry out its
congressionally mandated missions in the future within the funding
appropriated by the Congress. Once the Deepwater analysis is complete,
the Coast Guard will be better able to assess the mission impact for
different AC&I funding levels. A delay in proceeding with the Deepwater
Capability Replacement Analysis would result in increased maintenance
costs and decreased availability for critical assets. In addition, the
Coast Guard would continue to operate more personnel-intensive assets
and experience more asset interoperability problems.
navigational services user fee
Question. The President's fiscal year 1999 budget proposes a user
fee on navigational services provided by the Coast Guard. According to
the President's proposal, the Coast Guard will collect about $35
million in fiscal year 1999 and $165 million in fiscal year 2000 for
navigational services that it provides. The fees will be used to fund
the Coast Guard's Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements (AC&I)
account. What navigational services will be subject to a user fee?
Answer. The Coast Guard is developing regulations to implement user
fees for domestic ice breaking and navigational services, which include
buoy tending, vessel traffic services and radionavigation.
navigational services user fee assessment
Question. Who will be charged?
Answer. The Administration proposes to charge commercial cargo
vessels for navigation assistance services provided to them.
navigational services user fee collection
Question. How will the fee be collected?
Answer. The Coast Guard is developing a plan for collection.
Various methods are being reviewed prior to initiating rulemaking.
navigational services user fee and ac&i
Question. Will it be earmarked for the Acquisition, Construction,
and Improvements (AC&I) account?
Answer. As part of the President's fiscal year 1999 budget request,
the Administration has proposed user fees as offsetting collections to
the Coast Guard's AC&I account.
implementation of user fees
Question. If the new fee is not implemented, what alternative
solutions does the Coast Guard have for the funding shortfall that will
be created?
Answer. The Coast Guard requests that Congress implement these fees
and does not have any alternate solutions.
deepwater project status
Question. What is the status of the Deepwater Project?
Answer. The Deepwater Capability Replacement Analysis is currently
in the analysis phase. A Request for Proposals (RFP) was issued in
March 1998 with the intent to award contracts to three industry teams
in July 1998. These contracts will be for a 16-month initial study to
develop and propose concepts for an Integrated Deepwater System of
surface, air, and command, control, communications, computers,
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C\4\ISR) assets to
effectively conduct Coast Guard missions in the Deepwater area.
Industry proposals for this first phase are expected to be submitted by
November 1999.
deepwater fiscal year 1999 funding
Question. The Coast Guard is requesting $28 million for the Project
in fiscal year 1999? What will the funds be used for?
Answer. The Deepwater fiscal year 1999 funding is to continue
industry studies begun in fiscal year 1998 to develop Integrated
Deepwater System Concepts. Funding for the Project is as follows:
Industry Contract Options (3 @ $6,000,000).............. $18,000,000
Independent Analysis Government Contract (1 @
$4,000,000)......................................... 4,000,000
Trade-off Analyses, Technology Assessments, Modeling and
Simulation, RFP Preparation, Contract Quality
Assurance, Independent Validation and Verification
(IV&V), Additional Studies.......................... 4,500,000
Project Administration.................................. 1,500,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 28,000,000
deepwater needs assessment
Question. How does the Coast Guard know whether its Deepwater
assets need to be replaced?
Answer. As the service approaches the 21st Century, the Coast
Guard's existing Deepwater assets are nearing the end of their service
lives. Loss of capability and increased operational costs greatly
concern the Coast Guard, as the threats it will encounter are becoming
more sophisticated and increasingly capable. The Reliance (210-foot)
and Hamilton (378-foot) cutter classes, built in the 1960's, are almost
obsolete. They do not incorporate modern technology, and are personnel
intensive, which drives operating costs even higher. The Coast Guard is
operating C-130 Hercules aircraft, some built as early as 1972, that
now require extensive electrical and structural upgrades, as well as
modern sensors, to ensure continued effectiveness. The Coast Guard's
HU-25 aircraft are over 20 years old and have major engine
supportability problems. In short, the Coast Guard's ability to remain
Semper Paratus--Always Ready--to carry out its Deepwater missions and
tasks is a major concern. Without replacing its aging Deepwater assets,
the Coast Guard will not be ready to meet tomorrow's challenges.
Thus, because of our aging Deepwater cutters, aircraft, and
electronics, the Coast Guard's ability to continue to serve as a unique
instrument of national security--at home or abroad--is increasingly
compromised.
While the Coast Guard is not presupposing that the preferred
alternative will be acquisition of new assets, our main objective is to
choose an integrated system that can best meet minimum needs at the
lowest total (acquisition plus life cycle) cost. During the analysis
phase of the Deepwater project, industry teams will consider various
alternative systems to meet the Coast Guard's system performance
specification. Along with acquisition of new assets, the teams will
consider service life extension of existing assets, as well as adapting
Department of Defense assets to meet Coast Guard needs. It is important
to note that our current assets are personnel intensive, and personnel
costs account for two-thirds of Coast Guard operating costs. The long
lead time required to acquire new assets, if that is the preferred
alternative, makes it imperative to complete the analysis phase as
scheduled.
cutter and aircraft replacement schedule
Question. What is the Coast Guard's schedule for replacing aircraft
and cutters?
Answer. Deepwater assets (aircraft and cutters) are coming to the
end of their estimated service life at various times over the next 20
years. The Coast Guard is relying on the upcoming capability analysis
contract to evaluate various alternatives to meeting the system
performance specification. Once the various alternatives have been
evaluated and the results of the Coast Guard Roles and Missions Study
are available, decisions on asset types and numbers can be made and a
definite schedule for the sequencing of asset acquisitions (vessels,
air, and sensors) developed. Based on the current asset timeline, the
Coast Guard plans to request funding for the initial asset acquisitions
in fiscal year 2001.
presidential advisory council review
Question. Please provide additional details on the Presidential
Advisory Council review of the Coast Guard's missions.
Answer. The council will provide advice and recommendations
regarding the appropriate roles and missions for the Coast Guard.
Although the council will focus on all Coast Guard missions, special
attention will be given to deepwater missions. The Coast Guard has
drafted a charter that is in the clearance process within the
Administration. The council's review is scheduled for completion in
fiscal year 1999, consistent with the Deepwater acquisition timeline.
deepwater contractor selection criteria
Question. Current plans for the procurement indicate that three
projects will be selected this summer. The Committee is aware of six
teams currently formed that have expressed an interest in this summer's
selection. What criteria will the Coast Guard use to insure that
maximum procurement flexibility is maintained and incentives are
maintained for the selectees to compete on cost as well as proposed
asset mix.
Answer. Contracts will be awarded to three industry teams for
Integrated Deepwater System concepts. After receipt of these concepts,
the Coast Guard will evaluate and issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) to
a maximum of three of the original participating teams. This follow-on
RFP will result in a best value selection of one team to further
develop and deliver the Integrated Deepwater System. Primary selection
criteria will be maximum effectiveness to conduct Coast Guard Deepwater
missions while providing at least the minimum capabilities required at
lowest total ownership cost.
deepwater--number of contract teams
Question. What is the rationale behind three project teams? Why not
two, four, or five?
Answer. A review of past shipbuilding and aircraft acquisitions
indicates that three teams would be the best number to ensure
innovative concepts and competition for the analysis phase of the
project. The level of funding for the project analysis and the number
of government personnel planned for and available on the project were
also considerations for using three teams.
ondcp certification of coast guard drug budget
Question. Last year, the Congress withheld $34,300,000 from the
Coast Guard's budget for increased drug interdiction activities until
the Director, Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP): (1)
reviewed the specific activities and associated costs and benefits
proposed by the Coast Guard; (2) compared those activities to other
drug interdiction efforts government-wide; and (3) certified, in
writing, to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations that such
expenditures represent the best investment relative to other options.
In November 1997, the Director, ONDCP, certified that the $34.3 million
for the Coast Guard's activities were the best investment relative to
other options. According to the President's fiscal year 1999 budget
request, the Coast Guard is requesting an increase of $36 million, or
an increase of nine percent over the 1998 level, for the Coast Guard's
drug interdiction activities. In addition, your fiscal year 1999 budget
request is asking for $67 million for drug interdiction capital
expenses. Did the Director, ONDCP, conduct any special studies to
determine that the Coast Guard's use of the $34.3 million was the best
use of the funds?
Answer. Each year, prior to submission of budget estimates to the
Office of Management and Budget, agencies submit their Drug Control
Budget to ONDCP, describe their program as it relates to the national
strategy, and fully justify new funding requests. ONDCP originally
certified the Coast Guard's drug-related budget, including the $34.3
million additional funding, for fiscal year 1998 on November 18, 1996.
After the fiscal year 1998 Department of Transportation
Appropriations Act was enacted, discussions between the Coast Guard and
ONDCP confirmed that use of additional fiscal year 1998 funds would be
the most cost-effective expenditure of funds government-wide. ONDCP was
very familiar with the Coast Guard's request for $34.3 million as a
result of ONDCP's review culminating in the fiscal year 1998 drug
budget certification. The Director of ONDCP agreed, ``. . . that the
Coast Guard's proposed use of these funds represents the best
investment of drug interdiction funding for fiscal year 1998,'' and
certified it as such on November 18, 1997.
drug interdiction
Question. For fiscal year 1999, what will the additional funds be
used for and what will be the anticipated results?
Answer. The Coast Guard's fiscal year 1999 budget request is an
increase of $40 million over the fiscal year 1998 level. The following
table reflects the comparison of fiscal year 1998 enacted levels and
fiscal year 1999 requested funding for Coast Guard drug law enforcement
[Dollars in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-----------------------------------------------
Increase 1998
1998 enacted 1999 request to 1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating Expenses (OE)......................................... $366.128 $372.291 $6.163
Acquisition, Construction and Improvements (AC&I)............... 34.523 69.303 34.780
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E).............. 0.938 0.736 -0.202
-----------------------------------------------
Totals.................................................... 401.589 442.330 40.471
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fiscal year 1999 request provides a $6.2 million increase in
Operating Expenses (OE) funding; 50 percent of which is represented by
the Caribbean Support Tender, the only new initiative in the fiscal
year 1999 request. Increased productivity and mission effectiveness
from applied technology and better use of intelligence are projected to
result in a sustained level of effectiveness in drug interdiction
between fiscal years 1998 and 1999.
The fiscal year 1999 Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements
(AC&I) request includes an increase of $34.8 million allocated to drug
law enforcement; a large percentage of this increase is for the
Deepwater Capability Replacement Project which will contribute no
actual improvement in law enforcement capability for at least several
years. The AC&I request also includes $11 million for the HC-130
Aircraft Sensor Upgrade Project designed to enhance counterdrug mission
performance. The remaining portion of the AC&I request represents the
drug law enforcement proportional cost share of on-going projects that
provide multimission capability. For the most part, these projects
maintain current capability.
The Coast Guard's fiscal year 1999 funding request will provide a
drug law enforcement effort very similar to that being provided in
fiscal year 1998 and this should result in similar performance results.
drug interdiction
Question. How many additional staff will the additional funds pay
for and how many additional hours will assets be deployed with the
additional funds?
Answer. The only new initiative proposed by the President is the
fiscal year 1999 budget is the Caribbean Support Tender, which has 41
new staff years associated with it.
The fiscal year 1999 budget proposes reducing counterdrug aircraft
hours by one percent. The Coast Guard expects to offset this reduction
with increased effectiveness from applied technology and improved
intelligence. For example, the installation of sensor enhancements on
HC-130 aircraft will improve the ability to classify targets at night,
thereby improving mission efficiency and effectiveness.
long term strategy to achieve performance goals
Question. What is the Coast Guard's long-term strategy for
achieving its drug interdiction performance goals?
Answer. The Coast Guard has developed a 10-year Counterdrug
Strategic Plan that is aligned with the National Drug Control Strategy.
This plan, Campaign STEEL WEB, is the long term strategy for Coast
Guard drug interdiction. The strategic concept is to conduct a sequence
of pulse operations in high threat areas for a limited period of time
to reduce drug traffic, then redeploy interdiction assets to other high
threat areas, leaving sufficient forces behind to maintain route
denial. Effective execution of Campaign STEEL WEB will allow the Coast
Guard to:
--Effect maritime route denial between source/transit countries and
the U.S.
--Protect the arrival zone.
--Provide support to regional engagement operations with partner
nations.
The Coast Guard's multi-year drug budget includes resources
required to carry out STEEL WEB and achieve the National Drug Control
Strategy goals.
long term costs to achieve drug goal
Question. What are the long term costs for achieving the goal that
you have set for the Coast Guard's anti-drug program?
Answer. Campaign STEEL WEB has been designed to support the
National Drug Control Strategy (NDCS). To fully implement this plan and
meet the NDCS goals, the Coast Guard projects that additional resources
will be required. Actual outyear funding requirements for Campaign
STEEL WEB will depend upon the many variables that affect maritime
interdiction operations. These variables include: the evolving threats
(smuggling routes, smuggling modes, smuggling technologies); the level
of Department of Defense and interagency participation in counterdrug
activities; the effects of increased international cooperation; the
value of on-going engagement efforts with transit and source nations;
and finally, the long term success of the strategy as currently
developed.
resources to meet coast guard's antidrug performance goal
Question. Does the Coast Guard's performance goal for its antidrug
program assume a higher level of resources or is it based on the
resources in your budget request?
Answer. The resources requested in the fiscal year 1999 budget are
sufficient to achieve 1999 drug interdiction goals. The Coast Guard's
costs to achieve the longer term National Drug Control Strategy goals
are uncertain. They depend on the effectiveness of the President's
comprehensive drug control program.
antidrug performance goal resources
Question. If it is based on greater resources, please explain.
Answer. As previously stated, the Coast Guard's long term strategy
for achieving drug interdiction performance goals includes a series of
pulse operations in high threat areas. Once drug trafficking in that
area is reduced, pulse forces will be redeployed to other high threat
areas while a sufficient force level will remain to maintain route
denial. Execution of this strategy will require increased surface and
aviation capability, improved Command, Control, Communication,
Computers, and Intelligence (C\4\I) capability and increased
intelligence collection support.
container inspection program inefficiencies
Question. You propose to reduce the size and funding of the
Container Inspection Program by one-third in fiscal year 1999, claiming
that you have identified program inefficiencies. Please provide a
detailed discussion of these inefficiencies.
Answer. From a total maritime risk perspective, the Container
Inspection Program streamlining eliminates lower priority billets at
U.S. commercial seaports whose hazardous material container incident
exposure, based upon containerized cargo throughput analysis, is
relatively low.
Billets will now be distributed based upon a coastal risk and
national coverage analysis. This more efficient risk-based billet
distribution will cover 76 percent of the Atlantic, 88 percent of the
Gulf of Mexico, and 86 percent of the Pacific coastal exposure.
container inspection program vision
Question. In your original 1994 budget submission to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), you envisioned a program twice the size of
the one you are now proposing to cut. Why has your vision changed, what
evidence can you provide that such a reduction is warranted, and how
can you ensure that this program will still be effective?
Answer. Beginning in 1994, the Coast Guard's internal marine safety
business strategies changed from detailed mission performance standards
to broader discretion by local unit commanders in selecting activity
levels based upon their determination of local risk. Similar to other
mature Coast Guard hazardous material cargo monitoring and compliance
programs, the Container Inspection Program was transformed in 1996,
from its original design as a centrally managed new program with
established national inspection quotas, to a decentralized
discretionary activity whose operational tempo was not prescribed by
law or regulation.
In addition, we found that container inspector resource hours at
lower risk areas were already being used by operational commanders for
a variety of other marine safety activities which were either mandated
by law or other discretionary activities which managed higher local
risks. We also have better data than we did in 1994. From a total
maritime risk perspective, the risk to mariners, vessels, U.S.
commercial seaports, and the environment from maritime hazardous
materials container incidents has declined since 1994.
Beginning on December 31, 1997, the 1994 Amendments to the
International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 (SOLAS)
required all vessels engaged in international commerce to have on board
a Cargo Securing Manual approved by the flag state administration. This
new international requirement was proposed by the United States
following the motor vessel SANTA CLARA I incident of January 1992.
Proper use of these manuals by vessel operators will reduce the risk of
containerized cargoes from being lost overboard, further reducing the
overall hazardous materials container risk. Consequently, fewer
container inspection resources are needed to manage current levels of
risk. Also, as before, the Coast Guard will continue to monitor
compliance through unit reports and multi-agency inspection operations.
industry compliance with hazardous material standards
Question. What causes you to believe that industry compliance will
stay the same or improve once this cut is imposed?
Answer. Hazardous material industry compliance has been steadily
improving. The Coast Guard expects this compliance improvement trend
will only continue, as other maritime governments continue to focus
attention on their Hazardous Material inspection programs, and industry
itself seeks to improve their own compliance.
The Coast Guard will continue to monitor national levels of
compliance through after action reports submitted by local Coast Guard
units and through periodic multi-agency inspection pulse operations. In
addition, the Coast Guard's Container Inspection Training and
Assistance Team will continue to perform valuable outreach to maritime
shippers and carriers as part of their ongoing visits to local Coast
Guard marine safety units.
container inspection program billet distribution
Question. Provide the current distribution, by location, rank and
rate (or grade), and the actual duties of the 75 full-time equivalents
(FTE) provided by the fiscal year 1994 Department of Transportation
Appropriations Act for the Container Inspection Program.
Answer. See Attachment 1 for rate, billet, and unit assignments for
65 FTE. The remaining 10 FTE were added to the Coast Guard's general
detail.
Nine of the original 10 billets assigned at the Container
Inspection Training and Assistance Team (CITAT) remain; the other, a
Third Class Gunner's Mate (E-3), was taken as a streamlining savings in
1996. CITAT is a mobile element, fully employing its personnel to
provide hazardous material compliance training, inspection
standardization, and other assistance to local marine safety units.
Of the two billets assigned to Headquarters to provide program
oversight, a Lieutenant Commander (O-4) billet continues to be fully
dedicated to program management. In 1997, a Lieutenant (O-3) billet was
reassigned to other more critical program management functions,
including the Port State Control and Offshore Compliance programs. The
legal support Lieutenant billet remains in Headquarters as a
multimission marine safety attorney.
The instructor Lieutenant billet remains assigned at the Marine
Safety School, Reserve Training Center, Yorktown, Virginia providing
hazardous materials compliance training for a variety of resident
marine safety courses.
The remaining 51 inspector billets assigned at marine safety units
became flexible multimission resources in 1996, conducting a variety of
mandated and discretionary activities.
container inspection program proposed fte and distribution
Question. What is your new proposed FTE level, and how will these
new FTE's be distributed by location, rate (or grade), and duties?
Answer. The Coast Guard is proposing a new full time equivalent
(FTE) level of 46 billets.
Container Inspection Training and Assistance Team. 6 billets:
(1) 1 03, 1 WO, 2 E6, and 2 E4 billets.
Atlantic Coast. 18 billets, distributed as follows:
(1) Activities New York, NY: 1 E8 MST, 1 E6 MST, 2 E5 MST's, and 2
E4 MST's.
(2) COTP San Juan, PR: 1 E6 MST, 1 E5 MST, and 1 E4 MST.
(3) COTP Hampton Roads, VA: 1 E5 MST and 2 E4 MST's.
(4) COTP Charleston, SC: 1 E4 MST and 2 E4 MST's.
(5) COTP Miami, FL: 3 E4 MST's.
Gulf of Mexico. 3 billets, distributed as follows:
(1) COTP Houston, TX: 1 E6 MST and 1 E5 MST.
(2) COTP New Orleans, LA: 1 E6 MST.
Pacific Coast. 13 billets, distributed as follows:
(1) COTP LA/LB, CA: 1 E8 MST, 1 E6 MST, 2 E5 MST's, and 2 E4 MST's.
(2) COTP San Francisco, CA: 1 E5 MST and 3 E4 MST's.
(3) COTP Puget Sound, WA: 3 E4 MST's.
Headquarters. One LCDR (O-4) billet at Commandant (G-MOC-3) to
manage the Container Inspection Program.
General Detail: Six billets.
justification for proposed container inspection program scale-back
Question. Explain your justifications for the original full time
equivalent (FTE) distribution and compare to your justifications for
the new proposed FTE level. In particular, discuss the projected
impacts of your proposal on both the operations and administration of
the Container Inspection Program.
Answer. The original distribution of billets was based upon the
anticipated workload necessary to fully and rapidly implement a new
compliance program. The initial startup of the highly visible program
required centralized Headquarters control. As the program matured and
program assessments were made, it became evident that maritime
hazardous material container transportation did not represent a major
risk and that resource allocations could be reduced with little impact
on overall safety.
Container Inspection Program billets would be reduced from the
original 75 billets to 47 billets (including General Detail). Coast
Guard container inspections would be reduced from approximately 6800/
year to about 3500/year, placing Coast Guard compliance efforts in line
with the existing tempo of Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) operations. Associated training
requirements would be reduced. Program administration would not be
affected, since one FTE will remain in Coast Guard Headquarters for
national program management.
container inspection program activities
Question. Provide specific data on the number and locations of
container inspections conducted, and the number and type of enforcement
actions, including all penalties assessed by the Coast Guard since the
program's May 11, 1994 inception, sorted both by year and by location.
Answer. The 1996 U.S. Coast Guard Container Inspections Program
Initial Impact Assessment Report section on civil penalty assessments
for calendar years 1994-1997 was delivered to the Subcommittee on
September 23, 1998. The report contains a complete breakdown of
container inspection activities by marine safety units and final agency
civil penalty data by 49 CFR cite.
CONTAINER INSPECTION PROGRAM SUMMARY (CY94-97)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calendar year--
Activity ---------------------------------------------------------------
1994 1995 1996 1997
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspections..................................... 1,942 6,793 9,575 8,290
Completed Civil Penalty Actions................. 499 576 593 317
Civil Penalty Collections....................... $877,110 $1,000,027 $1,932,225 $1,618,925
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
container inspection program evaluation plan
Question. During the fiscal year 1995 Appropriations Hearing on the
Coast Guard budget, you stated that you were developing an Evaluation
Plan to measure the effectiveness of the Container Inspection Program.
Provide a copy of the plan and any updates. Did the plan develop a
program baseline and collect the data necessary to measure
effectiveness as you stated it would?
Answer. The Container Inspection Program (CIP) Evaluation Plan,
dated February 10, 1995, was completed in February 1995, and delivered
to the Subcommittee on September 23, 1998. The plan included a baseline
analysis (Chapter 2) and measures of effectiveness (Chapter 5). The
program measures of effectiveness it discussed have continued to evolve
and are being incorporated into a completely revised Container
Inspection Program policy chapter for publication in the Coast Guard
Marine Safety Manual later this year.
The measures of effectiveness detailed in the evaluation plan have
been used to measure program impacts. However, isolating and assessing
the impacts of the Coast Guard's CIP is difficult, if not impossible,
due to the synergistic efforts of similar compliance and assistance
programs being conducted by other Department of Transportation modal
administrations, state/local government programs, and by the private
sector.
maritime industry compliance data
Question. Provide all available data on the current state of
maritime industry compliance with the regulations governing
containerized cargo.
Answer. Final agency actions and collection statistics for calendar
year 1995 through March 1998 were delivered to the Subcommittee on
September 23, 1998.
maritime industry compliance results
Question. What do you conclude from this data regarding the level
of industry compliance since the establishment of the Container
Inspection Program (CIP)? In particular, describe any changes, how
these changes were measured, and how much change, if any, can be
attributed to the efforts of the Container Inspection Program?
Answer. There has been a noticeable reduction in the percentage of
total discrepancies discovered, using standardized nationwide
inspections conducted by the Container Inspection Training and
Assistance Team (CITAT). Results show a 46 percent decline in maritime
hazardous materials transportation civil penalty cases between calendar
year 1996 (593 cases) and calendar year 1998 (317 cases). This
reduction, coupled with the declining number of detentions resulting
from CITAT inspections, demonstrates an improving maritime industry
compliance trend. While the CIP has undoubtedly contributed to this
trend, there is no way to specifically quantify the contribution.
Cooperative efforts conducted by other maritime nations, Department of
Transportation modal administrations, state/local governments, and by
the private sector have also contributed significantly toward making a
positive impact on the program.
Fiscal year 1996 CITAT statistics were delivered to the
Subcommittee on September 23, 1998.
container inspection program multi-agency strike force operations
Question. When and where were the most recent targeted, multi-
agency operations to determine compliance with the containerized cargo
regulations? What were the results of these operations. Have you
measured any change in compliance levels following such operations? If
so, how have compliance levels changed?
Answer. As shown in the following table, recent Multi-Agency Strike
Force Operations (MASFO) conducted in Long Beach/Los Angeles,
California and Honolulu, Hawaii in 1997 indicate a decline in and
severity of the deficiencies discovered. Related correspondence was
delivered to the Subcommittee on September 23, 1998.
MASFO INSPECTION/DEFICIENCY SUMMARY (ALL MODES)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total inspections Total deficiencies Deficiency/
-------------------------------------------- inspection ratio
(percent)
Unit Previous 1997 Previous 1997 ---------------------
MASFO MASFO MASFO MASFO Previous 1997
MASFO MASFO
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MSO LA/LB, CA................................. 562 654 209 224 37 34
MSO Honolulu, HI.............................. 149 110 177 40 119 36
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
marine casualties involving containerized cargo
Question. In 1992, the Santa Clara I lost several containers of
highly toxic arsenic trioxide off the New Jersey coast. This casualty
highlighted the serious safety and environmental problems associated
with improper transport of containerized hazardous materials on or near
U.S. waters, and led directly to the creation of the Container
Inspection Program. Provide data to date on the number and type of
marine casualties involving containerized cargo since the Santa Clara I
incident.
Answer. Excluding the Santa Clara I, there were 1,431 reportable
marine casualties involving container ships that were investigated for
cause by the Coast Guard between January 1, 1992 and April 1, 1998. Of
the 1,431 casualty cases involving container ships, only nine of them
involved containers and /or hazardous material. Of these nine cases,
seven involved leaking containers, one resulted in the loss of 34
containers (none containing hazardous material) overboard, and one was
caused by a fire in the vessel's container hold.
assistance by other agencies
Question. In your fiscal year 1999 budget justifications you state
that the ``Capability to carry out HAZMAT inspections has now been
generated in other agencies, allowing the Coast Guard to make some
reductions to its container inspection program''. Please quantify these
other agencies capabilities and answer the following questions:
--To which other agencies are you referring?
--What, specifically, are each of these other agencies doing with
respect to container inspection?
--Are these other agencies enforcing the exact same regulations for
which the Coast Guard is responsible? If not, how do these
regulations differ?
--How many inspectors do each of these agencies have, where are these
inspectors located, which geographic areas/port facilities do
they oversee, and what are the frequency and types of their
inspections?
--How long have each of these agencies been inspecting containers and
how many inspections have they conducted? Provide data on the
number and type of enforcement actions, including any penalties
assessed, that each agency has taken.
--What types of interactions have you had with these other agencies
to ensure that their inspectors are properly trained and that
the container regulations are being adequately and consistently
enforced?
--Please describe all joint training, inspections or enforcement
actions with other agencies.
Answer. General responsibilities, field level personnel resources,
and activity levels within maritime and surface hazardous material
transportation compliance programs are:
--Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) inspects
hazardous materials manufacturing and repair facilities,
commercial shippers, and shipments. RSPA employs 20 full-time
shipper focused inspectors. During calendar year 1995, RSPA
conducted five percent (562 of 11,460) of shipper inspections
conducted by DOT;
--Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), with 59 full-time inspectors
(45 full time federal railroad and 14 hazardous material state
inspectors), examines rail yards, hazardous material shippers,
and tank and non-bulk railcar manufacturing/repair facilities.
In calendar year 1995, FRA conducted 39 percent (4245 of
11,460) of shipper inspections conducted by DOT; and
--Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) examines motor carrier
operations, equipment, driver qualification, commercial drivers
license regulations, financial responsibility, hazardous
materials, etc. to determine if the motor carrier meets the
safety fitness standards. FHWA employs 28 full-time and 258
part-time motor carrier inspectors. In calendar year 1995, FHWA
conducted one percent (137 of 11,460) of shipper inspections
conducted by DOT.
--All the agencies are enforcing the same Hazardous Materials
regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Parts
171-173. However, in addition to 49 CFR 171-173, each agency
has extra regulations to enforce for their specific mode of
transportation. The agencies and specific regulations are as
follows: the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) also
enforces 49 CFR 174; the Coast Guard also enforces 49 CFR 176;
and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) also enforces 49
CFR 177.
--The Coast Guard Container Inspection Training and Assistance Team
(CITAT) offers joint training sessions with the other the
agencies. In fiscal year 1997, three sessions in three
different cities were held with FRA and one session was held
with FHWA.
--The Coast Guard and the other agencies are involved in joint
inspections and enforcement actions. The Multi-Agency Strike
Force Operation (MASFO) is a type of joint inspection/
enforcement action that the Coast Guard is involved in. The
MASFO's gather data to be used for enforcement purposes promote
teamwork among the local, state and federal enforcement
agencies and help determine trends and patterns for targeting
high-risk shippers with a history of non-compliance.
--The specific information concerning where the other agency
inspectors are located; which geographic areas/port facilities
other agencies oversee; the frequency and type of inspections
other agencies perform; how long other agencies have been
inspecting containers; or the number and type of enforcement
actions should be provided by those agencies.
communications to other agencies
Question. Provide copies of all senior level correspondence through
which the Coast Guard has alerted other agencies regarding your
proposed reduction in the container inspection effort.
Answer. The Coast Guard has not alerted other agencies regarding
our proposed reduction in the container inspection program. The Coast
Guard is awaiting congressional approval of the reduction prior to
formally notifying other agencies. However, the Coast Guard's marine
safety strategic business plans are public knowledge and are available
on the World Wide Web. These plans, beginning in 1996 identified the
service's core inspection competencies as either legislative mandates
or, as in the case of container inspections, discretionary activities
based upon local risk.
anticipated savings through fiscal year 2002
Question. As part of the continuing effort to streamline the Coast
Guard, the President's fiscal year 1999 budget proposes additional
streamlining actions that will yield over $20 million in annual savings
by 2001. Prior efforts to streamline the Coast Guard involved a plan to
save about $77 million a year by fiscal year 1999. This prior cost-
cutting effort included the closure of Governor's Island. Please
describe the Coast Guard's plans for achieving savings that will yield
over $20 million in annual savings.
Answer. During the period 1994-1998, the Coast Guard saved the
American taxpayer more than $400 million in gross programmatic
reductions. Of this amount, nearly $78 million in net annual savings
were attributable to the Coast Guard generated National Streamlining
Plan, which included closing Governor's Island.
The President's fiscal year 1999 budget states ``As part of a
continuing effort to streamline the Coast Guard, the 1999 Budget
assumes facility closures and other streamlining that will yield over
$20 million in annual savings by 2001.'' The following fiscal year 1999
budget initiatives will contribute to this effort. Actual savings may
vary due to several factors (i.e., lower than anticipated Acquisition
Construction, and Improvements Appropriation funding levels may delay
project completion), but should exceed $20 million by 2001:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net recurring
operating Savings
Fiscal year 1999 initiative expenses year
savings
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Termination of one time costs/annualization -$8,000,000 1999
of prior-year efficiencies................
Optimize Coast Guard Training TBD 2002
Infrastructure............................
Operational Adjustments.................... -7,000,000 1999
Reduce Seagoing and Coastal Buoy Tender -14,000,000 ( \1\ )
Fleet Size from 37 to 30..................
Finance Center Computer Savings............ -900,000 1999
LORAN-C Consolidated Control............... -1,500,000 1999
Fleet Logistics Savings.................... -1,500,000 1999
270-Foot Command and Control Savings....... -500,000 1999
Restructure Aviation Workforce............. -300,000 1999
HC-130 Engine Conversion Savings........... -300,000 1999
Air Station Atlantic City Consolidation.... -500,000 1999
Close Air Facility Long Island............. -1,500,000 1999
Relocate Air Facility Glenview, IL......... -300,000 1999
GSA Rent Reduction......................... -3,300,000 1999
Military Personnel Management Efficiencies. -6,000,000 2000
Federal Workforce Act Completion........... -500,000 1999
Military to Civilian Conversion............ -750,000 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pends AC&I funding levels.
status of governor's island disposal
Question. What is the current status of removing Governors Island
from the Coast Guard's real property inventory?
Answer. Governors Island was reported as excess to the General
Services Administration on July 25, 1997. In accordance with Federal
Real Property Management Regulations (41 CFR 101-47.402-1), Governors
Island will remain in the Coast Guard's real property inventory until
the property is disposed of by the General Services Administration. The
Administrator, General Services Administration is prohibited from
disposing of Governors Island prior to fiscal year 2002 under Section
9101 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (105 Public Law 33; 111 Stat.
251).
navy's regional synchronous optical network (sonet) rings
Question. What annual savings could be achieved by joining the
Navy's regional Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) rings? The
committee is informed that the significant increase in backbone
bandwidth over conventional point-to-point telecommunications
connections make these SONET rings increasingly more cost effective to
operate when more client agencies make use of them. Has the Coast Guard
done any assessment of potential savings from joining the Navy's SONET
rings?
Answer. Telecommunications services offered by the Defense
Information Systems Network (DISN), including SONET, were considered
but found to be significantly more expensive than the point-to-point
architecture subsequently chosen. The Coast Guard WAN, known as Coast
Guard Data Network (CGDN) PLUS, will eventually provide data networking
telecommunications services to over 865 units throughout the United
States and abroad. The overwhelming majority of these Coast Guard units
are small and not located in the same geographic area as Navy commands.
The Coast Guard continues to evaluate efficiencies that may be offered
by Navy, other agencies and commercial service providers.
Subcommittee Recess
Senator Shelby. The Subcommittee on Transportation will
next convene on Tuesday, March 24, at 10 a.m., in Dirksen 192
to discuss passenger rail in America and Amtrak's future.
We thank you for your attendance.
The hearing is now recessed.
[Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., Thursday, March 19, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 9:04 a.m., Tuesday,
March 24.]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 1999
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 24, 1998
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 9:04 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard C. Shelby (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Shelby, Specter, Gorton, Bennett,
Lautenberg, and Reid.
AMTRAK'S FUTURE AND PASSENGER RAIL ALTERNATIVES
CONGRESSIONAL WITNESSES
STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM V. ROTH, U.S. SENATOR FROM
DELAWARE
Opening Remarks
Senator Shelby. I thank you all for making this earlier
starting time. We have a lot of witnesses to hear from today.
We are going to hear from both of my colleagues from Delaware,
Senators Roth and Biden, and later we are going to hear from
Senator Baucus. I am certainly happy to accommodate all of
them, as well as my colleague from New Jersey, Senator
Lautenberg.
Amtrak: Not Efficient
Through the fiscal year 1998, the Federal Government has
provided a total subsidy to Amtrak of $21 billion, an annual
average of $750 million a year. This is an extraordinarily high
subsidy level for what is essentially a Government-sanctioned
monopoly that is in the opinion of many experts not managing
its assets in a manner that maximizes the taxpayers'
investment.
But Congress is implicitly responsible for this situation.
We have agreed to provide these funds year after year for a
national passenger railroad that is not truly national, a rail
system that moves fewer people in a year than the Atlanta
Airport enplanes and deplanes in 3 months and, for many of the
passengers that Amtrak does reach, serves them at infrequent
and inconvenient times.
We have become locked into supporting, I believe, the
status quo. Instead, we should be looking for ways to foster
competition, eliminate monopolies, and work for better, more
economic rail passenger service.
Last Thursday I told Secretary Slater that the first dollar
in the fiscal year 1999 appropriations bill would be a highway
dollar and the last dollar in the bill would be a highway
dollar, and that in between we would focus on safety programs
and all the other transportation programs that are funded by
this subcommittee. I pointed out then that the Senate-passed
ISTEA bill envisions a substantially higher highway obligation
limitation than the record level we appropriated in 1998 and
that our ability to fund nonhighway spending in the 1999 bill
will be constrained by the ISTEA-driven expectations of a much
larger national highway program.
Within this context, the administration's request for
Amtrak of $621 million is a very difficult target to hit,
particularly when you take into account that these appropriated
funds would be in addition to the $1.1 billion that the
railroad will receive in TRA funds again in 1999. That is a
total of $1.7 billion. It would be quite a windfall for Amtrak.
Providing appropriated funds in addition to the TRA funds may
not be warranted and under the current budget constraints may
be impractical.
But today I do not want the focus of this hearing to be the
debate about whether or not Amtrak should be subsidized by the
Federal Government or what the right level of support is. These
are important and interesting questions, but today the focus of
this hearing is how we can improve the intercity passenger rail
in the United States. I want the Appropriations Committee here
to be instrumental in helping to ensure that every mode of
transportation is competitive, efficient, economical, and
responds to the needs of the market.
Prepared Statement
Without objection, I will insert my complete written
statement in the hearing record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Shelby
The subcommittee will now come to order. I thank you all
for arranging to make this earlier starting time--we have a lot
of witnesses to hear from today. My two colleagues from
Delaware, Senators Roth and Biden, asked that they be allowed
to make some brief remarks at this hearing, as has Senator
Baucus of Montana, and I am certainly happy to accommodate
them. The subcommittee members will make their opening
statements, and then we will listen as you deliver your
remarks.
Through fiscal year 1998, the federal government has
provided a total subsidy to Amtrak of $21 billion--an annual
average of about $750 million a year. This is an
extraordinarily high subsidy level for what is essentially a
government-sanctioned monopoly that is, in the opinion of many
experts, not managing its assets in a manner that maximizes the
taxpayers' investment. But Congress is implicitly responsible
for this situation. We have agreed to provide these funds year
after year for a national passenger railroad that is not truly
national; a rail system that moves fewer people in a year than
Atlanta Airport enplanes and deplanes in three months; and, for
many of the passengers Amtrak does reach, serves them at
infrequent and inconvenient times. We have become locked in to
supporting the status quo. Instead, we should be looking for
ways to foster competition, eliminate monopolies, and work for
better, more economic rail passenger service.
Last Thursday, I told Secretary Slater that the first
dollar in the fiscal year 1999 appropriations bill would be a
highway dollar, and that the last dollar in the bill would be a
highway dollar--and that in between, we will focus on safety
programs, and all the other transportation programs that are
funded by this subcommittee. I pointed out that the Senate-
passed ISTEA bill envisions a substantially higher highway
obligation limitation than the record level we appropriated for
fiscal year 1998, and, that our ability to fund non-highway
spending in the 1999 bill will be constrained by the ISTEA-
driven expectations of a much larger national highway program.
Within this context, the administration's request for
Amtrak of $621 million is a very difficult target to hit,
particularly when you take into account that these appropriated
funds would be in addition to the $1.1 billion that the
railroad will receive in TRA funds again in 1999. That's a
total of more than $1.7 billion--it would be quite a windfall
for Amtrak. Providing appropriated funds in addition to the TRA
funds may not be warranted, and under the current budgetary
constraints, may be impractical.
But today, I do not want the focus of this hearing to be
the debate about whether or not Amtrak should be subsidized by
the federal government, or what the ``right'' level of support
is. These are important and interesting questions, but today,
the focus of this hearing is on how we can improve intercity
passenger rail in the U.S. I want this Appropriations Committee
to be instrumental in helping ensure that every mode of
transportation is competitive, efficient, economical, and
responds to the needs of the market.
I welcome the opportunity to hear from my colleagues; from
the panel on the current status of Amtrak, which will include
testimony from GAO and the DOT Inspector General; and,
especially from the panel where we will explore some
alternatives for improving passenger rail in America. This
panel is made up of non-governmental witnesses from outside the
beltway--New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Philadelphia--all
of whom have expertise in passenger rail issues, and ideas
about ways to improve passenger rail in the U.S. Our last panel
will be concerning the administration's budget request for
Amtrak in fiscal year 1999, and I think it is worth mentioning
here that, for the first time, Amtrak has agreed to the
administration's budget request and has included that same
funding level in the railroad's own federal grant request. I
want to thank OMB Deputy Director Jack Lew for presenting the
administration's request for us today.
I think we should all settle in for what will probably be a
fairly long hearing, and which may be interrupted by votes on
the Supplemental appropriations bill. I'll now invite my
subcommittee colleagues to make their opening statements,
before we hear from the panel of guest Senators.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR LAUTENBERG
Senator Shelby. Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I particularly
want to thank you for being so accommodating in terms of what
time we start, and also to thank our colleague the
distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee for being here
this early. He has to travel to get here and so he had an early
start.
Mr. Chairman, every year this subcommittee holds a hearing
to discuss Amtrak's budget, and this year the focus of the
hearing is somewhat different. The title if this hearing--
Amtrak's Future--may imply that Amtrak's future is in question.
I would like to tell you what it would mean if Amtrak were no
more. If Amtrak disappeared tomorrow, it is not hard to predict
what would happen in my State and throughout the Northeast.
Out of all the States in the Nation, New Jersey currently
has the highest density of vehicles on its roads. We do not
have the space or the money or public backing to expand our
existing 6- and 12-lane highways or to build all new ones. But
if there were no Amtrak, at least 18,000 more cars a day would
be driving on New Jersey's roads.
How can we explain to those regularly driving these roads--
trucking companies, commuters, business travelers, tourists--
why an additional 18,000 cars will be crowding onto these
already congested roads? In a region where people waste more
than 2 million hours in traffic every day, this would be
unbearable.
In the New York-New Jersey metropolitan region, cutting
back Amtrak service would cause nothing less than a major
crisis. According to the Journal of Commerce, without Amtrak
there would be an immediate need for 10 tunnels under the
Hudson River between North Jersey and Manhattan--you may as
well pave it over--at a cost of--would you listen--of $3.5
billion each; and 20 new highway lanes in New York City. Talk
about congestion. As for the broader impact, there would be an
additional 27,000 cars daily on the highway between Boston and
New York.
So far I have just been talking about highway congestion.
Amtrak also carries one-half of the combined air-rail market
between Boston and New York, and when intermediate cities are
included Amtrak's share of the air-rail market rises to 70
percent. Without Amtrak, we will need to squeeze an additional
7,500 fully-booked 757's in our already congested skies every
year, 7,500 new flights.
Right now there is an urgent reprogramming request that we
heard, Mr. Chairman, from FAA to replace aging computers and
radar equipment which often falter. Our aviation system simply
cannot handle thousands of additional planes in our skies, and
these thousands of additional planes would cause delays all
across our country. There would be no area of significant
traffic that would be spared from delays as a result of this
congestion that we would be creating in the Northeast.
Commuter's Dependence on Amtrak
We have seen extraordinary growth and success in other
corridors throughout the country. The west coast region
accounted for nearly 70 percent of Amtrak's systemwide
ridership increases for fiscal year 1997. The California
commuter system, which serves over 8 million riders a year, has
demonstrated more than 25 percent growth in passenger service.
The Texas Eagle, which goes from Chicago through Texas and on
to Los Angeles, surpassed its prior year's performance in just
one quarter. The ridership on the Empire Builder from Chicago
to Seattle has shown a 65-percent increase in just 1 year.
No area of the country would be exempt from the enormous
inconvenience and cost of delays. If Amtrak disappears
tomorrow, we better be ready to shell out the billions of
dollars that will be needed to lay the roadbed, build more
airports, and fund air traffic equipment. One thing I think is
going to be awfully hard to find and that is more space in the
skies.
Amtrak is a national passenger rail service. It provides
important service in areas of the country that are not as
congested as other corridors. In many cases, Amtrak provides
residents of small rural towns with their only form of
intercity transportation. In fact, this subcommittee heard
testimony just weeks ago from the GAO pointing out that recent
trends in airline competition have meant the significant loss
or elimination of quality air service at affordable prices to
many small and medium-sized cities in many different regions of
the country.
Each year some 22 million passengers depend on Amtrak for
transportation between urban centers and rural locations.
Amtrak provides service in 44 of the 50 States. Life without
Amtrak is simply not an option, not for me and not for millions
of others across the country. And as the past year has shown,
it is not an option favored by the majority of Congress or the
administration either.
TRA and Reform Act Necessary
Just last August, Congress passed and the President signed
into law the Taxpayer Reform Act [TRA], which provides $2.3
billion in tax credits for Amtrak to invest in high-yield
capital projects. This investment is essential to Amtrak's
success. It will enable Amtrak to generate additional revenues
from innovations such as high-speed rail.
A few short months later, in November, we enacted the
Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act. In that act, Congress
strongly recommitted itself to a national intercity rail
passenger system and provided reforms to operate more like a
business and the funding to success.
These two acts, the TRA and the Reform Act, did not
diminish in any way the responsibilities that lie on this
subcommittee to continue to fund Amtrak's needs. To the
contrary, this legislation, that is championed by broad
bipartisan majorities, calls on this subcommittee to
appropriate $1.058 billion out of this subcommittee for fiscal
year 1999.
Now, all we need to do now is to fulfill the commitments
that Congress made when it approved Amtrak's reauthorization
bill. As provided in that legislation, we must give Amtrak time
to have a fighting chance. Amtrak has revised its business plan
to account for developments over the past few months. It will
conduct a market analysis of its route structure and its
national system, making strategic decisions based on passenger
needs. It will move ahead with a new board of directors charged
with clear goals specified in the reauthorization bill.
As we consider Amtrak's needs, we must remember that every
other mode of transportation needs and receives substantial
Federal subsidies. Amtrak is no different. Spending Federal
dollars on Amtrak is a critical investment in this age of
traffic-clogged highways, airport congestion, and pollution
controls. Train travel is one of the safest modes and rail is
one of the most energy-efficient, helping to limit the
country's dependence on foreign oil.
But while hundreds of billions of dollars are spent every
decade on highway and airport improvements, a mere fraction is
spent on the country's rail system. In fact, we spend less per
year on Amtrak than even Bolivia invests in its national rail
system. Germany has decided to invest nearly $70 billion on
what is already an excellent rail system in a country a
fraction the size of the United States.
What have we done? Over the past 15 years we have increased
spending on highways by 73 percent, aviation by 170 percent,
while we have cut Amtrak's funding by 62 percent.
We need Amtrak to reduce congestion on our highways and in
our skies. The Congress and the President have demonstrated
clear support for Amtrak as a national system and support
continued Federal appropriations.
In the past we have underfunded this important system and
instead we have favored the other modes. Amtrak is operating
under substantial challenges to meet strict business goals, and
I believe Amtrak is up to them. The least we can do is to
provide them the funds that we promised and give them a
fighting chance to succeed.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much for allowing me to make
this opening remark. We now have our witnesses here.
Senator Shelby. Senator Roth, we welcome you and Senator
Biden, and also Senator Baucus, who is now coming in, to the
hearing. Your written statement will be made a part of the
record in its entirety. You may proceed as you wish.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROTH
Senator Roth. Thank you very much, Senator Shelby and
Senator Lautenberg.
Let me begin by saying that I would like to underscore what
Senator Lautenberg has just said, both from the standpoint of
the importance of securing the funds that have been promised in
the past and, second, the critical importance of the rail
system, particularly to the Northeastern area as well as the
western coast, but to the entire Nation. I cannot emphasize too
much how important it is that we have a viable rail system. For
us to lose that in my region of the country would be, as
Senator Lautenberg has said, a total disaster.
We depend upon it. It is critically important. It is not
only a safe manner of traveling, but, as Senator Lautenberg has
pointed out, it helps better utilization of energy, it creates
a better environment. All of these are of critical importance.
But Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out that, as
you well know, one of my top priorities has been to create a
dedicated source of capital funding for Amtrak. Congress has
voted time and again that capital funding is critical to
Amtrak's survival, and for that reason a tax provision was
included in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 to provide Amtrak
with a tax refund of $2.3 billion for capital expenses.
The bottom line is that Amtrak desperately needs capital.
According to GAO, Amtrak must have the capital funding that was
provided in the TRA as well as what is provided through the
normal appropriations process. Without both, Amtrak faces
bankruptcy.
Last year, because of the tax refund for Amtrak, the Senate
Appropriations Committee eliminated Amtrak's general capital
appropriation for fiscal year 1998. I am here today to urge you
not to repeat last year's action, but to provide the necessary
capital funding for Amtrak. As you know, the $2.3 billion
capital fund for Amtrak was intended to supplement, not
supplant, annual capital appropriations.
Amtrak recently received its first installment of this
refund, about $1.1 billion, and this is the first time, I would
point out to the panel, in Amtrak's 27-year history that it has
had a secure and reliable source of capital to allow it to do
long-term planning, make high-yield investments, leverage
external and private funds, and otherwise act like a business.
Amtrak will finally be allowed to focus on the future,
instead of constantly worrying about bankruptcy. As GAO has
testified, adequate capital funding is the most important way
capital can help Amtrak achieve operating self-sufficiency.
As Mr. Ladd states in his written testimony, the more you
capitalize the less you subsidize. He points out that the great
majority of Metra's capital program is prioritized based on the
ability of the investment to reduce operating costs. With the
release of the $1.1 billion, Amtrak will for the first time be
able to do that.
Amtrak has testified that the company will need $4 billion
in capital funds to attain operating self-sufficiency by 2002,
and my original proposal would have provided that. But last
year's balanced budget agreement provided $2.3 billion, one-
half of the necessary level of funding to allow Amtrak to
achieve self-sufficiency by 2002.
Again, I emphasize that the $2.3 billion supplements but
does not replace the needed annual capital appropriation. This
capital fund was established to allow Amtrak to invest in new
equipment and bring high-speed rail to the Northeast corridor.
If Amtrak does not have adequate capital funding, the company
will have to use the Amtrak capital fund to pay for ordinary
maintenance expenses, and this is not what was intended with
the $2.3 billion. It must be used to pay for high-speed rail
and other capital-intensive projects to help the company
improve its financial situation.
I am afraid if the additional fund is not provided we will
soon be exactly where we were last year, wondering if Amtrak
will survive. But again I want to emphasize the importance of
providing Amtrak with the necessary funds, as this is a source
or a means of transportation for which there is no adequate
substitute.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Senator Roth, we thank you for appearing.
Senator Specter has joined us.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR SPECTER
Senator Specter. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Just a
word or two.
I stopped in early to pay my respects to this very
distinguished panel. I see two-thirds of the panel on the
Metroliner with regularity. They have the shorter ride, from
Wilmington. I am glad to see Senator Baucus join my two
distinguished colleagues from Delaware, Senator Roth and
Senator Biden.
The issue of funding Amtrak is a very important one, which
I fully support, having seen its impact not only on the Boston
to Washington run, but in Pennsylvania generally. I will have
more to say.
I will be back, Mr. Chairman. I must chair a hearing on
Alzheimer's on the Subcommittee on Labor, Health, Human
Services, and Education. But we will have Mayor Rendell in a
little later today, and I appreciate the opportunity to say
these few words at this time.
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Specter. Thank you.
Senator Shelby. Senator Biden.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH R. BIDEN, U.S. SENATOR FROM
DELAWARE
Senator Biden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, this is the Tenn-Tom for us. This is a big
deal, and I hope that, as Barry Goldwater used to say, in your
heart I hope you know we are right. And I hope, just as some of
us--I was just riding on the Tenn-Tom----
Senator Shelby. I want to know if Amtrak was on time today.
Senator Biden. Amtrak was on time, on time performance. 9
o'clock it arrived. It took me 11 minutes to get here from the
train. It was on time. I rode down.
I visited your beautiful State this weekend to visit where
all that Delaware money went in the Tennessee River Valley
project on the Tenn-Tom.
Senator Shelby. Not enough, though.
Senator Biden. Not enough. And I voted--I just want to
remind you, I voted for your efforts, and I hope you will see
in your heart the wisdom of, just as you need--and I mean this
sincerely. The needs of your State are very different than the
needs of mine, and one of the great benefits, it seems to me,
of this great country is we have literally, not figuratively,
always supplanted the needs of one community that the other did
not possess, and when we could help we did.
Just that is a little aside. But by the way, what a
magnificent part of the world. What a magnificent part of the
world.
Senator Shelby. You should have stayed longer. I hope you
spent some money down there.
Senator Biden. Well, I did spend some money there. And I
want you to know, if it was any closer I would try to spend
some money to buy a lot down there. It is absolutely
magnificent. It is amazing what the Federal Government can do
when it wants to help, is it not?
Senator Shelby. Absolutely.
Senator Biden. And I mean this sincerely.
Senator Shelby. When it has good leadership.
Senator Biden. It does have good leadership, and I am
counting on your leadership in helping us on this one, too.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be here with my colleague
Bill Roth and my friend from Montana, who has always been
helpful as well, and always happy to be with--up to a moment
ago you were kind of surrounded by Amtrak riders here--Senator
Lautenberg, who has been our leader in this effort.
Amtrak's Importance
Mr. Chairman, I should say at the outset I was a little
surprised, and hope it will change before it is over, that you
are not going to get a chance to hear from Amtrak management
here. I know the GAO and the inspector general of the
Transportation Department will probably give us a fairly
accurate financial description of Amtrak's condition and a
pretty accurate--not a pretty inaccurate, but I suspect dry,
recitation of its business plan. But I hope at some point that
you are able to hear from the actual management about how it is
working.
You know, this morning Amtrak is a little bit like
Huckleberry Finn, who finds himself looking in on his own
funeral. They were not invited and they know they are not dead,
but lots of folks are acting like it is time to bury them, and
bury them, Mr. Chairman, because we seem to be here to hear
extreme--excuse me--to examine alternatives to Amtrak.
I am not sure why we are examining alternatives to Amtrak.
But it was less than 5 months ago the U.S. Senate passed the
Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 by a unanimous
vote, authorizing over $5 billion in appropriations for Amtrak
over the next 5 years. The reauthorization legislation was
authorized by Senator Hutchison of Texas and signed by the
President of the United States in December, and it was heralded
by both parties and both sides of the Hill, by folks ranging
from Senator McCain, who does not like Amtrak very much, to
Transportation Secretary Slater, for providing comprehensive
changes and empowering Amtrak to meet its own financial goals.
They noted both the long-overdue reforms, was the quote I
heard all the time, and the long-overdue capital investment
that enactment of the bill would trigger.
That authorization bill provides over $1 billion for Amtrak
this year and it was passed by unanimous consent. Given the
support of that reform bill, one might expect that Amtrak would
not have too much trouble getting close to that level of
appropriations. I thought life was going to be a little bit
easier this time, but for 25 years in a row it looks like it is
not.
Passage of the authorization meant the release of the $2.3
billion of new capital funds from the Taxpayer Relief Act which
the Senate passed last year, and some of us, Mr. Chairman,
thought we might have a year or two where there would not be
another struggle for funding. But here we are, the same Senate
that passed the bill without a single Senator objecting, just
months later considering alternatives to Amtrak before the
reform bill has even had a chance to work.
Mr. Chairman, everyone knows Amtrak just finished one of
the most difficult years in its history. But it is, as a
consequence of that, in a more stable position commercially,
operationally, and financially than it has been for a long
time. It has improved its bottom line by more than $300 million
over the past 3 years through aggressive revenue development
and cost-cutting actions. Passenger revenues have increased by
more than $100 million annually over the last 2 years and
ridership is also up.
All this has been accomplished over a 3-year period when
Federal operating support has declined by nearly 50 percent.
Imagine what Amtrak could do if it received adequate funding.
We provided Amtrak with a new lease on life with the new
capital funds, but, as Senators Hutchison and Lott have
forcefully reminded us, those funds were intended to
supplement, not replace, capital provided in the annual
appropriations process. Amtrak has consistently said it needs
$4 billion over 5 years and the new capital fund in the tax
bill last year provides more than one-half of that.
Mr. Chairman, I honestly believe it would be extremely
short-sighted to fail to provide the balance of that funding.
If Amtrak cannot preserve the new capital fund for capital
investments with high rates of return and instead is forced to
use it for its daily survival, 2 or 3 years down the road from
now it will be used up.
The Amtrak reform bill aims at improving Amtrak's business
practices, but we are demanding that Amtrak consume its own
seed corn, Mr. Chairman, instead of following sound business
practices that it would prefer to follow. And we're going to
hear on the floor, we're going to hear, I guarantee you, if the
committee is unable to fund it, appropriate the appropriate
amounts of money, that: Look at this irresponsible board; they
went out and used up all this capital; they used up their
capital and they did this to supplement their operating budget,
and look at the trouble they are in; and they do not know how
to run a railroad.
So after they consume their seed corn, what then? The
financial performance of the company will not be improved and
it will be, there we go again. We will be exactly where we were
last year, wondering if Amtrak is going to survive.
I do not want to be there again, Mr. Chairman. This
railroad is too valuable a part of America's transportation
network. And the President's budget proposal request of $621
million for capital in fiscal year 1999 is a bare minimum. It
is too low in my opinion. By itself, given Amtrak's needs and
its history of underfunding, this request is the absolute bare
minimum.
I would add, to state the obvious, Mr. Chairman, it is
clearly important to my region of the country. It is clearly
important along that so-called megalopolis all the way from
Boston to Richmond, and I would argue all the way down the
coast, and on the west coast, and more important there than it
is in other parts of the country. I understand that, I
understand that. But it is also vitally important to the
country.
I notice every time that we go to shut it down and anybody
is going to go on strike, there is a provision in the law that
says that it is a national emergency. So what happens is we
invoke a national emergency, because everybody recognizes it
would be an absolute blithering disaster for the American
economy if Amtrak went on strike.
What happens if Amtrak shuts down? If passengers fully fund
the President's--excuse me. If Congress fully funds the
President's request, it will cost this committee significantly
less this year to fund Amtrak than it spent last year, since
capital has more than a 50-percent lower outlay rate than it
did last year.
Amtrak Is Not Funded Enough
Mr. Chairman, I cannot imagine why we would not fully fund
it. We passed two bills last year, the authorization and the
Tax Reform Act with Amtrak's new capital fund. Together they
give Amtrak a few years of adequate funding, after which Amtrak
faces some very serious consequences if they do not make
measurable progress toward operating self-sufficiency.
But those few years of adequate funding assumed that we
would provide adequate annual appropriations in addition to the
new capital fund. It seems pretty clear to me, Mr. Chairman, if
you really want Amtrak to reach operational self-sufficiency--
not just you; I use that in an editorial sense, you; I mean
everyone--and no longer be a drain on the taxpayers'
pocketbooks as we constantly hear, then we have to give them
the chance that Congress approved last year: 5 years of
adequate funding, subject to strenuous oversight and review.
That means, at a minimum, providing the $621 million
requested in the President's budget. I want to point out, that
amount is a little more than one-half of the $1.058 billion
that was authorized, so we are nowhere near living up to our
commitment. But Amtrak has said they can make it on that
amount.
Mr. Chairman, again I do not know why Amtrak is not here at
the hearing testifying on its future, but on their behalf I
would like to urge the committee in the strongest possible
terms to provide the requested level of capital funding. It
seems to me a deal is a deal is a deal.
Russell Long used to say--I will never forget going up to
him on the floor when he was chairman of the Finance Committee
when I first got here and I said, Mr. Chairman, and I was
trying to make a case. He put his arm around me and pulled me
in to him and he said: Joe, let me tell you something; as my
Uncle Earl used to say, I ain't for no deal I ain't in on.
Well, everybody is in on this deal. We are all in on the
deal. We all signed on. We all made a promise. And Mr.
Chairman, I do not know why we cannot follow up on it.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, last year the Presidential
Emergency Board told us that men and women working at Amtrak
deserve a raise, and it is easy to see why. An Amtrak
electrician is paid $16.10 compared to $23.10 paid for the same
job on the Long Island Railroad. The Amtrak lineman earns
$16.93 an hour compared to $21.91 on Metro North.
If the deal that the administration, Amtrak, and the
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees struck last year
becomes the pattern for all Amtrak workers, it will achieve
substantial savings, Mr. Chairman, savings from productivity
gains, from increased efficiency, that will add up to $56
million a year over the next 5 years. Nevertheless, to bring
Amtrak's pay rates up to where they can attract and keep
skilled workers in the competition with other rail employees,
Amtrak needs an additional $38 million a year over the next 5
years. That small amount is not only a fair deal for the men
and women of Amtrak, who have gone too long without a raise, or
a contract, I might add, it is also a good deal for Amtrak and
the American people, that will get both the increased
productivity and secure a better, more stable work force.
That is my case here, Mr. President--Mr. Chairman. Let us
provide the funding Amtrak needs and live up to the new
standards set by last year's reform bill. Let us not
shortchange Amtrak's capital needs just at the moment when they
finally get a fund for long-term high-return capital investment
every railroad runs on. And let us make sure, Mr. Chairman,
that Amtrak has the funds needed to meet its obligations to the
men and women who maintain and run those trains.
Like Huck Finn, Mr. Chairman, Amtrak's been at the brink of
trouble for years, but it is not dead yet. Reasonable steps can
make it a better, healthier, more efficient part of our
transportation system.
Mr. Chairman, I truly appreciate your listening to me. I
understand we have a slightly different view on this, but I
really and truly hope you will consider the consequences of
failure to fund Amtrak for a part of the world that in the past
has been there, I would argue, for your part of the world.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Senator Biden, for the record I just wanted
to share with you that I did vote for the Amtrak reform bill.
Senator Biden. I understand you did. That is why I am
counting on you now, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. And some of my concerns, not all--but if
you can just envision, since you have been to the South and
been to my home State--if you can envision--the Amtrak going
just from Atlanta to New Orleans. It goes to Birmingham,
Atlanta, Birmingham, Tuscaloosa, my hometown, Meridian,
Mississippi, Senator Lott's area, Hattiesburg, MS, and New
Orleans every other day. Not very efficient.
Now, we have one of the fastest growing areas in the
Nation, the South, as you well know. We do not have much
intercity rail passengers there. Senator Lott and I have talked
about it. I am sure you also have talked to him about it.
Senator Biden. I have, Mr. Chairman.
Amtrak's Importance
Senator Shelby. We have those concerns because our people
do not believe for the most part that they are getting a fair
shake as far as Amtrak is concerned. I know Amtrak is important
from here all the way up to Boston and it works. It works
there. And I am sure it works in some other areas of the
country. Perhaps it could work better, perhaps not, in areas
like ours.
But for us to support it politically, it is going to have
to turn around some. It cannot just be a regional thing,
because I think you understand where I am coming from.
Senator Biden. I do, Mr. Chairman. And I know Senator
Baucus is here and he is the ranking member of an important
committee.
Senator Shelby. Absolutely.
Senator Biden. And I do not want to keep him. But with his
indulgence and yours, if I could take 2 minutes to make a very
brief response. Mr. Chairman, I think we have built in our own
demise by insisting that Amtrak have to be self-sufficient
nationwide. No passenger rail service in the world is nor is it
likely to be.
What we have done, we have undercut the support for Amtrak
by not adequately funding. For example, there used to be a
train that went through Montana.
Senator Baucus. Still is.
Senator Biden. It still does, but not as frequently as it
did. And one of the things that happens is the Governor of
Montana told me that it was worth $6 million a year toward the
ski and the recreational industry and it cost, what, several
hundred thousand dollars to run it through there. But when
Amtrak is faced with a dilemma--it is just like when I was on
the county council. The one thing I learned early on as a local
councilman, that when you try to deal with a rapid transit
system or a mass transit system and you to make savings, if you
cut one of the 20 lines you lose 10 percent, not 5 percent, of
the ridership. In this case we lose, not 10 percent, but we
lose 25 percent of the support in this body.
I think the future should be rail service nationwide, Mr.
Chairman. I think we are making serious mistakes. But I
appreciate your dilemma. But like I said, Mr. Chairman, if you
think it is hard to explain Amtrak, which at least goes through
your State, not nearly enough----
Senator Shelby. Through my hometown.
Senator Biden. Imagine, imagine explaining the Tennessee
River project in Selbyville, DE. I mean, it ain't easy. Imagine
doing that.
But we do it because we are one Nation. And I think you--
well, never tell another man what his constituency thinks, but
I hope they think it is worthwhile.
Prepared Statement
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Senator. We will insert your
prepared statement in the hearing record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Biden
Mr. Chairman: Thank you for the opportunity to appear today to
discuss an issue you all know is near and dear to me: the future of
Amtrak.
I'm here to say that Amtrak has a future, Mr. Chairman, but only if
it receives the support it needs--like every other rail system in the
world--to fund its long-term capital needs, and to provide the fair pay
that can attract and keep the best workers.
And it's always a pleasure to appear with my good friend and fellow
Amtrak rider, the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, Bill
Roth.
I am also pleased to see my good friend, the ranking member on the
Environment and Public Works Committee, Max Baucus.
When I got here this morning, I looked around for some familiar
faces from Amtrak's management. I couldn't find any, Mr. Chairman.
I have to admit, I am somewhat surprised to be sitting at a hearing
on ``Amtrak's future'' only to find that Amtrak wasn't invited to
testify on their own future.
Mr. Chairman, it is certainly your decision to make, but it seems
to me that we would want to hear from Amtrak representatives about
where they are and where they're going.
The GAO and the inspector general at the Transportation Department
can probably give us a fairly accurate description of Amtrak's
financial condition, or a dry recitation of its business plan, but they
can't tell us where the railroad is heading, what its future plans are,
and what Amtrak's management is thinking.
So I have to say, I'm more than a little surprised, and frankly,
disappointed that representatives of the men and women who work at and
manage Amtrak have not been invited to testify on their own future.
This morning, Amtrak is a little like Huckleberry Finn, who finds
himself looking in on his own funeral. They weren't invited, and they
know they aren't dead, but a lot of folks are acting as if it's time to
bury them.
Bury them, Mr. Chairman, because we seem to be here to examine
``alternatives'' to Amtrak.
But it was less than five months ago that the United States Senate
passed the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 by unanimous
consent, authorizing over $5 billion in appropriations for Amtrak over
the next five years.
The reauthorization legislation was authored by Senator Hutchison
of Texas and signed by President Clinton in December. It was heralded
by both parties, on both sides of the Hill, by folks ranging from
Senator McCain to Transportation Secretary Slater, for providing
comprehensive changes and empowering Amtrak to meet its financial
goals.
They noted both the ``long overdue reforms'' and the ``long overdue
capital investment'' that enactment of the bill would trigger.
That authorization bill provides over $1 billion for Amtrak this
year--and it was passed by unanimous consent. Given the support for
that reform bill, one might expect that Amtrak wouldn't have too much
trouble getting close to that level of appropriations.
I thought life was going to be easy for a while.
Passage of the authorization meant release of the $2.3 billion in
the new capital funds, from the Taxpayer Relief Act, that Bill Roth
worked so hard to secure last year.
Some of us, Mr. Chairman, thought we might have a year or two where
there wouldn't be another struggle for Amtrak funding.
But here we are--the same Senate that passed that bill--without one
single Senator objecting--just months later, considering
``alternatives'' to Amtrak before the reform bill has even had a chance
to work.
Mr. Chairman, everyone knows Amtrak just finished one of the most
difficult years in its history, but it is in a more stable position--
commercially, operationally, and financially--than it has been in a
very long time.
It has improved its bottom line by more than $300 million over the
past three years, through aggressive revenue development and cost
cutting actions. Passenger revenues have increased by more than $100
million annually over the past two years, and ridership is also up.
All this has been accomplished over a three year period when
Federal operating support has declined by nearly fifty percent. Imagine
what Amtrak could do if they received adequate funding.
We have provided Amtrak a new lease on life with the new capital
funds--but as Senators Hutchison and Lott have forcefully reminded us,
those funds are intended to supplement, not replace, capital provided
in the annual appropriations process.
Amtrak has consistently said it needs $4 billion over 5 years. The
new capital fund in Senator Roth's tax bill last year provides more
than half of that.
Mr. Chairman, it would be extremely short-sighted to fail to
provide the balance of that funding.
If Amtrak cannot preserve the new capital fund for capital
investments with high rates of return, and instead is forced to use it
for daily survival, two or three years down the road that fund will be
used up.
The Amtrak reform bill aims at improving Amtrak's business
practices, but we are demanding that Amtrak consume its seed corn, Mr.
Chairman, instead of following the sound business practices that it
would prefer.
And then what? The financial performance of the company will not be
improved, and there we go again--we will be exactly where we were last
year, wondering if Amtrak is going to survive.
I don't want to be there again. This railroad is too valuable a
part of America's transportation network.
The President's budget proposal requests $621 million in capital
for fiscal year 1999.
By itself, given the Amtrak's needs and its history of under
funding, this request is the bare minimum to keep Amtrak's head above
water.
If the Congress fully funds the President's request it will cost
this committee significantly less this year to fund Amtrak than it
spent last year, since capital has a more than 50 percent lower outlay
rate.
Mr. Chairman, I can't imagine why we wouldn't fully fund it.
We passed two bills last year--the authorization and the Tax Reform
Act with Amtrak's new capital fund.
Together, they give Amtrak a few years of adequate funding, after
which Amtrak faces some very serious consequences if they don't make
measurable progress toward operating self-sufficiency.
But those few years of adequate funding assumed that we would
provide adequate annual appropriations in addition to the new capital
fund.
It seems pretty clear to me, Mr. Chairman: If you really want
Amtrak to reach operating self-sufficiency and no longer be ``a drain''
on the taxpayer's pocketbooks, then we have to give them the chance
that Congress approved last year--five years of adequate funding,
subject to strenuous oversight and review.
That means at a minimum providing the $621 million requested in the
President's budget. I want to point out that amount is a little more
than one-half of the $1.058 billion that was authorized--so we are
nowhere near to living up to our commitment. But Amtrak has said they
can make it on that amount.
Mr. Chairman, again, I don't know why Amtrak isn't here at a
hearing testifying on their future, but on their behalf, I'd like to
urge the committee in the strongest possible terms to provide the
requested level of capital funding.
And I want to conclude here today, Mr. Chairman, with my first
priority when it comes to Amtrak--our obligation to the men and women
who work there. Failure to fully fund Amtrak will pit that obligation
against all of the other pressing needs Amtrak faces.
Last year, a Presidential Emergency Board told us that the men and
women working on Amtrak deserve a raise, and it's easy to see why.
An Amtrak electrician is paid $16.10 an hour, compared to the
$23.10 paid for the same job on the Long Island Railroad. An Amtrak
catenary lineman earns $16.93 an hour, compared to $21.91 on Metro
North. If the deal that the administration, Amtrak, and the Brotherhood
of Maintenance of Way Employees struck last year becomes the pattern
for all Amtrak workers, it will achieve substantial savings, Mr.
Chairman--savings from productivity gains from increased efficiency
that will add up to $56 million over the next five years.
Nevertheless, to bring Amtrak pay rates up to where they can
attract and keep skilled workers in competition with other rail
employers, Amtrak will need an additional $38 million a year over the
next five years.
That small amount is not only a fair deal for the men and women of
Amtrak who have gone too long without a raise--or a contract, I might
add.
It is also a good deal for Amtrak, that will get both the increased
productivity and secure a better, more stable work force.
That's my case here this morning Mr. President. Let's provide the
funding Amtrak needs to live up to the new standards set in last year's
reform bill.
Let's not shortchange Amtrak's capital needs just at the moment
when they finally get a fund for the long-term, high-return, capital
investments every railroad runs on.
And let's make sure Amtrak has the funds needed to meet its
obligations to the men and women who maintain and run those trains.
Like Huck Finn, Mr. Chairman, Amtrak has been at the brink of
trouble for years, but it is not dead yet. Reasonable steps can make it
a better, healthier, more efficient part of our transportation system.
Again, thanks for the opportunity to appear here this morning, Mr.
Chairman.
STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS, U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA
Senator Shelby. Senator Baucus.
Senator Baucus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am here to not only encourage the committee to fully fund
Amtrak, but to explain that another part of the country in
addition to the Northeast corridor passionately believes in
Amtrak just as much as the northeasterners do. Let me explain
why.
If you look at a map of Montana, first, the distance across
Montana is the same as from Washington to Chicago. Our
population density is about six people per square mile. I know
the density of the State of New Jersey, my good friend Senator
Lautenberg, is about 1,000 people per square mile.
We have an interstate that goes across southern Montana
east-west. Northern Montana does not have an interstate, and it
is quite a distance between southern Montana and northern
Montana, several hundred miles. In between, basically the
freemen, the militia you have read about. But across northern
Montana is a highway we call the Highline. It just, it is an
ordinary two-lane highway, and it is also Amtrak.
So the people who are close to--and by Montana standards
that is a couple or 300 miles--that are close to the Highline
or Amtrak vitally depend upon Amtrak going across northern
Montana from Chicago to Seattle and back. There are 12 stops in
Montana. I could tell you, Mr. Chairman, that a few years ago
when Amtrak cut back from daily service to four times a week,
there was an outrage. Not as many people showed up in Montana
on my doorstep as might, say, on yours in Delaware or Las
Vegas, but the intensity and the passion and also the size of
the number of people was amazing to me. I just did not really
fully appreciate just how much people depended upon Amtrak.
It is not only themselves to go across the country for one
reason or another, but also it is supplies. If you are a farmer
or a rancher and your combine breaks down or your tractor
breaks down, you need to get parts right away. We do not have a
lot of inventory in some of those Montana communities. So you
have got to get it quick, and obviously during harvest you just
cannot wait. You have got to get that part right away.
Add to that tourism. We have got a lot of tourism, winter
and summer: winter, ski at Big Sky, Whitefish, MT; they come
from both ends of the country, from Midwest, and also from the
west coast; and in summer it is Glacier Park. Amtrak is a
gorgeous trip through Glacier Park. It is along the Marias
River and up over Marias Pass and on down toward Flathead
Valley. It is just wonderful.
All I am saying is that we desperately hope that the
committee does keep funding Amtrak, not only for the
northeasterners and Alabamans and maybe also into the Las Vegas
area, to say nothing of New Jersey, but in our part of the
country as well.
I might say, seeing Senator Lautenberg here reminded me of
this little story. I invited him to Montana not too many years
ago to help him get a little sense of what our needs and
problems are. We took off in a charter plane late one night
from Great Falls, MT, over the mountains to Callesville. We had
been up in the air maybe about 10 minutes or so and the
distinguished Senator from New Jersey suddenly turned to me,
astonished, just aghast. He said: Max, where are the lights?
Where are the people?
He got a sense just that we do not have a lot of lights, we
do not have a lot of people, and transportation is critical.
We are dependent upon the highways, I think, as much as any
State. We have more miles per capita in Montana than any State
in the Nation, more Federal highways per capita than any State
in the Nation. Now, there are some parts, again in the
northern, the northern tier across northern Montana, that do
not have an interstate, do not have any four-lanes, and these
people just desperately need Amtrak.
So I am just here to urge you to do what you can. Thank
you.
Senator Shelby. Senator Reid, do you have an opening
statement?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR REID
Senator Reid. Yes; very briefly, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
very much.
We hear a lot about planes and automobiles, but we should
include in that trains: planes, trains, and automobiles. We do
a lot of subsidies for highways, we do a lot of subsidies for
airports and the air traffic system in this country, but we
seem to have just neglected trains. And for those who--well,
the fact is for distances up to 300 miles we have got to get
back to some type of rail traffic.
I would say to my two distinguished friends here at the
podium today that I am glad to see that in the ISTEA bill we
have about $1 billion for developing magnetic levitation. But
until that comes, we have to rely on Amtrak.
I am disappointed, and I am sure that this oversight will
be corrected in the future, but I would hope that in the next
hearings we have someone from Amtrak here to talk about
Amtrak's future. The GAO and the inspector general can give us
a fairly accurate description of the financial condition, but
they cannot tell us where the railroad is heading and what its
future plans are and what Amtrak's management is thinking.
These oversight agencies and proponents of privatization do
not have a responsibility to keep the trains running, with some
23,000 employees, 23 million intercity riders, and another 220
million Northeast corridor passengers. Amtrak is doing that and
has done that while being chronically undercapitalized for
almost three decades.
Everyone knows Amtrak has just finished one of the most
difficult years in its history, but it is in a more stable
position commercially, operationally, and financially than it
has been in a very long time. Amtrak has seen its operating
support cut in half over the past 3 years. It has managed to
take $300 million out of the bottom line over that same period,
and passenger revenues have increased by more than $100
million.
Last week Amtrak received its first installment of the
Taxpayer Relief Act, about $1.1 billion. This will be the first
time in almost 30 years that it will have a secure and reliable
source of capital.
Mr. Chairman, I am particularly interested in Amtrak's plan
to bring a convenient and reliable daily service between
southern California and southern Nevada. Over a third of Las
Vegas tourism is derived from southern California. Hotel rooms
in Las Vegas are expanding at a monumental rate. On one corner
we have on the Strip, at the corner of Flamingo and the Strip,
we have more hotel rooms on just those four corners than is in
the whole city of San Francisco.
The airlines have limited capacity. They do not have enough
airplanes, literally--they are being manufactured--to bring
more into Las Vegas. The I-15 route is totally congested.
Therefore, we badly need this new Amtrak venture.
We have in this venture, we have the resort industry, local
businesses, the train manufacturer, and Amtrak all interested
in participating in this trial. I am not going to go into more
detail, Mr. Chairman, other than to say this is something I
think we need to be concerned about, namely train passenger
travel in the United States.
Prepared Statement
I would ask unanimous consent that the entire content of my
statement be placed in the record as if given in its entirety.
Senator Shelby. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Reid
Good Morning, Mr. Chairman. As you know, several of us are required
to attend other hearings this morning and will be unable to stay for
much of this morning's meetings. With your permission, I would like to
make a brief statement and then submit a series of questions for the
record.
where's amtrak?
I'm wondering, how we can have a hearing on ``Amtrak's Future'' and
Amtrak isn't even in the room?
The GAO and IG can probably give us a fairly accurate description
of Amtrak's financial condition, or a dry recitation of its business
plan, but they can't tell us where the railroad is heading, what its
future plans are, and what Amtrak's management is thinking.
Nothing against these two federal oversight agencies, and the
individuals who have found Amtrak wanting and are proposing
``alternatives'', but they certainly haven't had the experience of
trying to keep a national rail system running.
These oversight agencies and proponents of privatization don't have
a responsibility to keep the trains running for 23,000 Amtrak
employees, 23 million intercity riders and another 220 million
Northeast Corridor passengers. Amtrak is doing that and has done that,
while being chronically undercapitalized, for 27 years.
So I have to say at the outset, I'm more than a little disappointed
that Amtrak has not been invited to testify at a hearing on its own
future.
financial situation
Everyone knows Amtrak just finished one of the most difficult years
in its history, but it is in a more stable position--commercially,
operationally, and financially--than it has been in a very long time.
Amtrak has seen its operating support cut in half over the past
three years, yet has managed to take $300 million out of the bottom
line over that same time period. Passenger revenues have increased by
more than $100 million annually over the past two years, and ridership
is also up.
Last week Amtrak received its first installment of the Taxpayer
Relief Act (TRA) funds--about $1.1 billion. This will be the first time
in its twenty-seven year history that it will have a secure and
reliable source of capital to allow it to do long-term planning, make
high yield investments, leverage external and private funds, and
otherwise act like a business. It will finally be allowed to focus on a
future instead of constantly worrying about insolvency.
budget request
Amtrak has consistently said that it requires $4 billion to attain
operating self-sufficiency by 2002. The original proposal under
consideration in Congress over the last two years was to provide Amtrak
with one \1/2\ cent of the gasoline fuel tax.
The TRA is providing $2.2 billion, or about one-half of the
necessary level of funding. The balance needs to be provided by
Congress over the next 5 years through the annual appropriations
process. The TRA is intended to supplement, not supplant, capital
provided in the appropriations process.
Not providing the balance of capital would be extremely short-
sighted. If Amtrak cannot preserve the TRA for high rate of return
capital investment, and it instead is forced to use it for daily
survival, two or three years down the road the TRA is used up, the
financial performance of the company has not improved, and deja vu: We
will be exactly where we were last year, wondering if Amtrak is going
to survive.
Amtrak and the Administration's budget proposal requests $621
million in capital for fiscal year 1999, as well as the broader
definition of eligible capital expenditures than transit and many other
modes enjoy. If I understand it correctly, this is a win-win for
everybody. If we fully fund the President's request it will cost the
Committee significantly less this year to fund Amtrak than it spent
last year, since capital has a more than 50 percent lower outlay rate.
The proposal also allows Amtrak to meet its immediate cash needs
while preserving the integrity of the TRA high for the rate of return
investments which will enable it attain operating self-sufficiency by
2002--the goal Congress has officially mandated.
Why wouldn't we fully fund it?
Last year we reaffirmed our support for Amtrak with enactment of
the TRA. That commitment should be continued. With high speed rail
starting in 1999, spinning off an estimated $150 million a year in
profit, many of us believe Amtrak is going to make it. And we're
looking for expansions in service.
los angeles-las vegas
I'm particularly interested in Amtrak's plan to bring convenient
and reliable daily service to the 340 miles Los Angeles to Las Vegas
Corridor. Over \1/3\ of Las Vegas' tourism is derived from the Southern
California basin. Hotel rooms in Las Vegas are expanding at a
monumental rate: 14,000 new rooms are planned to be completed by 1998.
The airlines have a limited capacity that just can't expand quickly
enough to fill the growing hotel space. I-15 is totally congested and
traffic an be reduced to a crawl, with several hour delays. There are
more attractions, more places to stay, and an overall increase in
tourists, yet people are arriving later and leaving earlier to avoid
the rush.
So a great deal of demand has grown for this service, particularly
from the gaming community. Over the past 18 months I have been working
with Amtrak and the gaming community on this unique and innovative
project, that is projected to carry about 350,000 people annually.
Gaming properties are purchasing blocks of seats for their
clientele, at about $100 a seat, in blocks of 10,000. It will have to
be at about 80 percent capacity to cover its operating costs, although
additional revenue will be generated by things like on-board
advertisement. TALGO, builders of the high speed ``tilt'' train, have
committed to help support the service by dedicating one TALGO train to
this 1-3 year trial.
However, although most of the gaming properties are interested in
supporting this trial venture, they have little interest in making
long-term capital investments that will benefit other businesses.
However, if Amtrak makes the $9 million capital investment in fiscal
year 1998, it will leverage more than $30 million in operate support
from the private gaming properties over the life of the (3 year)
demonstration.
So we have the gaming industry and local businesses and the train
manufacturer and Amtrak all interested and participating in this trial.
This is the type of innovative business venture Amtrak is turning to,
and frankly, it's an excellent opportunity for them: 3:1 leveraging.
And its an excellent opportunity for Nevada--increasing the number
of tourists while decreasing congestion on the roads. And I don't think
we'd have that many Las Vegas businesses interested and participating
if there wasn't quite a bit of revenue potential for this service. This
is the sort of thing Amtrak should be doing, and should be able to use
the TRA funds to do.
Last year the full Committee, in conference, zeroed out Amtrak's
general capital request, on the basis that if it received the TRA
funds--$2.2 billion--that was all that was needed. We can't allow that
to happen again this year.
It is clear that Amtrak's current and future economic health is
based on adequate capital investment. I strongly support Amtrak's
request for $621 million in fiscal year 1999 and I will work to ensure
that it is funded.
panels:
privatization (2nd panel) kiley and poole
We have a couple of other witnesses here to speak about
privatization. Last year the Blue Ribbon Panel recommended that Amtrak
be ``privatized'' and reborn in a fashion analogous to the British Rail
model, that was ``privatized'' a few years ago.
But we, luckily, have the luxury of having witnessed the British
experiment.
We know now that the experiment has resulted in fewer trains, poor
reliability, and customer satisfaction at an all time low, while public
subsidies have doubled.
A study published in Britain last year estimated that the entire
cost of privatizing British Rail will be 5.6 billion British pounds
($9.4 billion dollars). I don't think we need to re-make their
mistakes.
chicago metra (jeff ladd) 2nd panel
I thought it interesting to contrast the privatization proposals
with what Mr. Ladd said in his testimony. Mr. Ladd knows firsthand what
its like to run a railroad. Chicago's METRA is clearly recognized as
one of the best-run commuter operations in the nation.
He said he admired Amtrak's management and he agreed with Amtrak's
business approach, and went on, ``I congratulate Amtrak's managers on
their dedication to better business practices that have produced both
gains in ridership and passenger revenues and put Amtrak on the
threshold of its first $1 billion year.''
I think it should be kept in mind that these comments are coming
from the only one of our witnesses who has any experience running a
railroad.
Mr. Ladd mentioned in his testimony that Metra faces far fewer
restriction than Amtrak--yet he also points out that Amtrak covers a
much higher percentage of its operating costs. Simply, he tells us that
Amtrak is doing more with less.
Again, the only gentleman here who has operated a railroad is not
criticizing Amtrak--he's praising it.
Finally, Mr. Ladd's testimony echoes a refrain we have heard from
Amtrak for years: The more you capitalize the less you subsidize. He
points out that the great majority of METRA's capital program is
prioritized based on the ability of the investment to reduce operating
costs. With the release of the TRA funds, Amtrak will now, for the
first time, also be able to do that.
Problems Without Amtrak
Senator Shelby. Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg. I just wanted to mention while the
Senator from Montana, our friend, is here that the Empire
Builder, which is Chicago to Seattle, has experienced a 65-
percent increase in passenger ridership in just 1 year.
Senator Baucus. I forgot to mention that. Thank you. It is
true.
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Chairman, you have heard from
friends of Amtrak this morning, but the one thing that I think
has to be clearly understood: Amtrak is a national resource.
Discounting the fact that most of its ridership comes from the
Northeast, the fact of the matter is that there is an enormous
volume of business that passes through the Northeast that
affects every State in the country. And if Amtrak is out of
business, I can tell you, Senator Reid, that whether it is Las
Vegas or Butte, MT, they are going to feel the delays that are
caused in air travel.
Our air travel system, I just want to point out, something
that came out of the National Civil Aviation Review Commission.
They said that unless there are major investments in the
aviation infrastructure in this world of ours, that by the year
2010 we can expect a major air crash every 7 to 10 days. That
calls out screaming for relief someplace, and one way to give
it relief, I think, is to give Amtrak the funds that it needs
to get a train that can go at 180 miles an hour, get you up to
New York in an hour and a half, get you down to Alabama, stop
in Tuscaloosa. What other cities did you want?
Senator Shelby. Well, that would be the main one.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lautenberg. Tuscaloosa.
Senator Baucus. Mr. Chairman, if I might just very briefly.
The highway bill we passed helps catapult the United States
into the next century, the next millennium. It seems that we
have an obligation to do the same with rail transportation,
rail passenger transportation as well as freight.
I know we do not have all the funding here and the
wherewithal to get all that done, but it is incumbent upon us
as the elected representatives of our people, it is our
responsibility, to find some way to begin to make that happen.
We have no choice, and I just urge us to be thinking in those
terms as well as the individual national and parochial terms.
I thank the chairman very much for his indulgence.
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Senator Baucus.
Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Yes, sir.
Senator Reid. If I could just say before the ranking member
of the full Committee of Environment and Public Works leaves, I
appreciate your taking a leadership position on this issue. We
tend in our committee, Environment and Public Works, to think
of it only as highways. I think your leadership here today
speaks volumes for what our committee really does.
GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
STATEMENT OF PHYLLIS F. SCHEINBERG, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR,
TRANSPORTATION ISSUES, RESOURCES, COMMUNITY
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of Inspector General
STATEMENT OF KENNETH MEAD, INSPECTOR GENERAL
Introduction of witnesses
Senator Shelby. Our first panel will be Phyllis Scheinberg,
Associate Director of the General Accounting Office and Ken
Mead, Department of Transportation Inspector General. We
welcome both of you to the committee. Your written statement
will be made part of the record in its entirety and, Ms.
Scheinberg, you can begin as you wish.
Statement of Phyllis Scheinberg
Ms. Scheinberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on
Amtrak's financial condition.
Less than a year ago I appeared before this subcommittee
and stated that Amtrak was in a very precarious financial
position. Amtrak itself raised the specter of bankruptcy at
that time. I am here today to report that Amtrak continues to
be in a very precarious position and will remain so for the
immediate future. We base this assessment on three things:
First, Amtrak's financial performance over the past year;
second, the challenges that Amtrak faces in improving its
financial health; and third, the potential impact of recently
enacted legislation on Amtrak's financial condition.
First, Amtrak's financial condition has continued to
deteriorate despite its efforts over the past 4 years to reduce
losses. While Amtrak reduced its net losses from fiscal year
1994 to 1997, it has not been able to close the gap between
total revenues and expenses. For example, while intercity
passenger service revenues grew by about 4 percent last year,
related expenses grew by about 7 percent, and Amtrak predicts
that its net loss for the current fiscal year will be
substantially larger than in the last 2 years.
Amtrak's poor financial condition has also affected its
cash flow and the need to borrow money to make ends meet. In
fiscal year 1997, Amtrak had to borrow $75 million to meet its
operating expenses. The prospects in this fiscal year are
worse. Amtrak originally planned a cash flow deficit of $100
million in fiscal year 1998. However, in January Amtrak
increased this estimate to $200 million and Amtrak began
borrowing last month to pay its bills.
The second reason that Amtrak continues to be in a
precarious financial position is due to the challenges it
faces. For example, the railroad will incur between $3 and $5
million in increased costs this fiscal year as a result of its
recent agreement with one of its labor unions. According to
Amtrak, extending this type of settlement to all of its labor
unions could cost between $60 and $70 million more per year
than planned.
Amtrak plans to reduce its losses by growing its way to
financial health, that is increasing revenues rather than
cutting back on service. However, this may prove difficult, as
Amtrak has had to substantially scale back its revenue
projections for express business and will not see positive net
income from the high-speed rail program for another 2 years.
Amtrak does not currently plan any route reductions even
though its data show that only 1 of its 40 routes, the
Metroliner from Washington, DC, to New York City, covers all of
its operating costs. For the remaining 39 routes, Amtrak loses
an average of $53 per passenger. On 14 of these routes, Amtrak
loses over $100 per passenger.
Senator Shelby. Do you have a list of those routes?
Ms. Scheinberg. Yes, sir.
Senator Shelby. Would you furnish that for the record?
Ms. Scheinberg. Definitely.
[The information follows:]
TABLE 1.--FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF AMTRAK'S ROUTES, FISCAL YEAR 1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Profit or
Name/route Operating (loss) per
ratio \1\ passenger
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metroliners: New York, NY-Washington, DC...... 0.94 $5
San Joaquins: Oakland, CA-Bakersfield, CA..... 1.23 (10)
Carolinian: New York, NY-Charlotte, NC........ 1.45 (27)
Piedmont: Raleigh, NC-Charlotte, NC........... 1.48 (42)
Capitols: Roseville, CA-San Jose, CA.......... 1.52 (15)
Auto Train: Lorton, VA-Sanford, FL............ 1.58 (118)
Northeast Direct: Washington, D.C.-Boston, MA 1.65 (29)
or Springfield, MA...........................
Pacific Northwest Corridor: Eugene, OR- 1.76 (27)
Seattle, WA or Vancouver, Canada.............
Illini: Chicago, IL-Carbondale, IL............ 1.82 (46)
San Diegans: San Diego, CA-Los Angeles, CA or 1.86 (23)
Santa Barbara, CA............................
Kansas City-St. Louis: Kansas City, Mo-St. 1.91 (45)
Louis, MO....................................
Southwest Chief: Chicago, IL-Los Angeles, CA.. 1.92 (180)
Vermonter: Washington, D.C.-St. Albans, VT.... 2.00 (58)
Lake Shore Limited: Chicago, IL-Boston, MA or 2.01 (90)
New York, NY.................................
Empire: New York, NY-Albany or Buffalo, NY.... 2.03 (38)
Adirondack: New York, NY-Montreal, Canada..... 2.10 (57)
Three Rivers: New York, NY-Chicago............ 2.18 (139)
Silver Meteor: New York, NY-Miami, FL......... 2.18 (120)
Empire Builder: Chicago, IL-Seattle, WA or 2.20 (135)
Portland, OR.................................
Illinois Zephyr: Chicago, IL-Quincy, IL....... 2.21 (61)
International: Chicago, IL-Toronto, Canada.... 2.23 (47)
New York-Harrisburg: New York, NY-Harrisburg, 2.23 (28)
PA...........................................
California Zephyr: Chicago, IL-San Francisco, 2.24 (149)
CA...........................................
Capitol Limited: Chicago, IL-Washington, D.C.. 2.27 (133)
Pere Marquette: Chicago, IL-Grand Rapids, MI.. 2.43 (51)
Coast Starlight: Los Angeles, CA-Seattle, WA.. 2.43 (93)
Philadelphia-Harrisburg: Philadelphia, PA- 2.46 (30)
Harrisburg, PA...............................
Silver Star: New York, NY-Miami, FL........... 2.47 (143)
Silver Palm: \2\ New York, NY-Miami, FL....... 2.48 (163)
Crescent: New York, NY-New Orleans, LA........ 2.56 (163)
Chicago-St. Louis: Chicago, IL-St. Louis, MO.. 2.58 (59)
Clockers: New York, NY-Philadelphia, PA....... 2.59 (12)
Pennsylvanian: New York, NY-Pittsburgh, PA.... 2.70 (53)
Empire-Ethan Allen Express: \3\ New York, NY- 2.75 (79)
Rutland, VT..................................
City of New Orleans: Chicago, IL-New Orleans, 2.78 (130)
LA...........................................
Hiawathas: Chicago, IL-Milwaukee, WI.......... 2.92 (50)
Texas Eagle: Chicago, IL-San Antonio, TX...... 3.11 (189)
Sunset Limited: Los Angeles, CA-Orlando, FL... 3.16 (285)
Cardinal: Chicago, IL-Washington, D.C......... 3.29 (135)
Chicago-Pontiac: Chicago, IL-Pontiac, MI...... 3.66 (66)
-------------------------
Total route system...................... 1.86 (47)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Excludes three routes that Amtrak closed during fiscal year 1997.
\1\ A route's operating ratio is its expenses divided by its revenues.
An operating ratio less than 1.0 means that the route was profitable,
while an operating ratio greater than 1.0 means that the route lost
money. A ratio greater than 2.0 means that the route lost at least two
times more money than it earned during the fiscal year.
\2\ Service was introduced in November 1996.
\3\ Service was introduced in December 1996.
Ms. Scheinberg. In spite of these losses, Amtrak has
encountered opposition whenever it has proposed to discontinue
routes. Also, simply pruning the worst performing routes could
affect ridership on connecting routes that are perhaps
performing better. Amtrak has recently decided to undertake a
market analysis of its route network to gain a better
understanding of the issues involved in operating a national
system.
Finally, Federal funding and legislative reforms will not
solve Amtrak's short-term financial problems. Funding from the
Taxpayer Relief Act, fiscal year 1998 capital appropriations,
the President's proposed 1999 budget, and other sources would
provide Amtrak with about $5 billion in capital support over
the next 5 years. However, this support will fall short of
Amtrak's identified capital needs by about $500 million.
In addition, in order to avoid a cash flow crisis Amtrak
plans to use about two-thirds of its requested Federal grant
funds over the next 5 years to pay for maintenance expenses.
This use of capital funds for preventive maintenance would
substantially reduce the remaining level of funds available to
acquire new equipment or make the capital improvements
necessary to reduce Amtrak's costs and increase revenues.
Also, while the Amtrak Reform Act has the potential to have
a significant impact in the long term to help Amtrak better
control and manage its costs, these reforms may have little, if
any, immediate effect on Amtrak's financial performance.
Mr. Chairman, in 1995 we concluded that the Congress needed
to decide on the Nation's expectations for intercity passenger
rail service, including defining a national route network and
determining the extent to which the Federal Government would
contribute funds. Additionally, in 1997 we concluded that as
presently constituted Amtrak will need substantial Federal
operating and capital support well into the future. Based on
our recent analysis, we believe these conclusions are still
true.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be happy
to respond to any questions.
Prepared Statement
Senator Shelby. Thank you very much. We have your complete
statement and it will be made part of the hearing record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Phyllis F. Scheinberg
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: We appreciate the
opportunity to testify today on Amtrak's financial condition. Less than
a year ago, we appeared before this Subcommittee to discuss Amtrak's
financial problems.\1\ At that time, we said that Amtrak was in a very
precarious financial position. Amtrak itself raised the specter of a
corporate bankruptcy in 1997.\2\ We are here today to report that
Amtrak continues to be in a very precarious position and will remain so
for the immediate future. We base this assessment on Amtrak's financial
performance last year and during the first quarter of this fiscal year;
challenges that Amtrak will face in improving its financial health; and
the potential impact that recently enacted legislation may have on
Amtrak's financial condition. In summary:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Transportation Financing: Challenges in Meeting Long-Term
Funding Needs for FAA, Amtrak, and the Nation's Highways (GAO/T-RCED-
97-151, May 7, 1997). See also, DOT's Budget: Management and
Performance Issues Facing the Department in fiscal year 1999 (GAO/T-
RCED/AIMD-98-76, Feb. 12, 1998); and Intercity Passenger Rail: Amtrak's
Financial Crisis Threatens Continued Viability (GAO/T-RCED-97-147, Apr.
23, 1997).
\2\ See our report entitled Intercity Passenger Rail: Issues
Associated With a Possible Amtrak Liquidation (GAO/RCED-98-60, Mar. 2,
1998) for a discussion of the expected financial and other effects if
Amtrak were to undergo liquidation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Amtrak's financial condition continues to deteriorate. Although
Amtrak has been able to reduce its net losses (total expenses
less total revenues) from about $892 million in fiscal year
1994 (in 1997 dollars) to about $762 million in fiscal year
1997, the 1997 loss would have been $63 million higher were it
not for one-time increases in revenue from the sales of real
estate and access rights for telecommunications. Prospects for
fiscal year 1998 are not bright. In March 1998, Amtrak
projected that its net loss for fiscal year 1998 could be about
$845 million--about $56 million more than planned.
--Amtrak will continue to face challenges in improving its financial
health. Amtrak hopes to improve its financial health by
increasing revenues through such actions as expanding mail and
express service (delivery of higher-value, time-sensitive
goods) and instituting high-speed rail service between New York
City and Boston. However, Amtrak has had to substantially scale
back its net revenue projections for express business, and
positive net income from the high-speed rail program will not
occur for another 2 years. Amtrak does not currently plan to
reduce routes, even though only one of its routes--the
Metroliner service between Washington, D.C., and New York
City--makes money. Instead it plans to fine-tune its route
network and conduct a comprehensive market analysis.
--Federal funding and recently enacted reforms will not solve
Amtrak's financial problems. Although the Taxpayer Relief Act
of 1997, fiscal year 1998 capital appropriations, and the
President's proposed fiscal year 1999 budget, if enacted, will
provide Amtrak with historic levels of capital support, this
support will fall short of Amtrak's identified capital needs by
about $500 million. In addition, Amtrak plans to use $1.8
billion of the $2.8 billion in requested federal capital grant
funds to pay maintenance expenses between fiscal years 1999 and
2003. The use of funds for this purpose would substantially
reduce the remaining level of funds available to acquire new
equipment or make the capital improvements necessary to reduce
Amtrak's costs and/or increase revenues. Therefore, such use
will have a negative impact over the long term. Furthermore,
the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 significantly
changed Amtrak's operations; but these reforms will provide
few, if any, immediate financial benefits.
background
Amtrak was created by the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 to
operate and revitalize intercity passenger rail service. Prior to
Amtrak's creation, such service was provided by private railroads,
which had lost money, especially after World War II. The act, as
amended, gave Amtrak a number of goals, including providing modern,
efficient intercity passenger rail service; giving Americans an
alternative to automobiles and airplanes to meet their transportation
needs; and minimizing federal operating subsidies. Through fiscal year
1998, the federal government has provided Amtrak with over $20 billion
in operating and capital subsidies, excluding $2.2 billion from the
Taxpayer Relief Act.
In December 1994, at the request of the administration, Amtrak
established a goal of eliminating federal operating subsidies for
Amtrak by 2002. To meet this goal and respond to continually growing
losses and a widening gap between operating deficits and federal
operating subsidies, Amtrak developed strategic business plans. These
plans have attempted to increase revenues and control costs through
such actions as expanding mail and express service and adjusting routes
and service frequency. Amtrak also has restructured its organization
into strategic business units.
The Congress provided additional financial assistance to Amtrak in
the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, enacted in August 1997. This act makes
a total of about $2.2 billion available to Amtrak in 1998 and 1999 to
acquire capital improvements, pay certain equipment maintenance
expenses, and pay principal and interest on certain debt, among other
things. In addition, the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997,
enacted in December 1997, makes certain reforms to Amtrak's operations.
These reforms include, among other things, (1) eliminating current
labor protection arrangements on May 31, 1998; (2) repealing the ban on
contracting out nonfood and beverage work; and (3) placing a $200
million cap on the amount of liability claims that can be paid as the
result of an Amtrak accident.
amtrak's financial condition continues to deteriorate
Amtrak's financial condition has continued to deteriorate despite
its efforts over the past 4 years to reduce losses. While Amtrak has
reduced its net losses from about $892 million in fiscal year 1994 (in
1997 dollars) \3\ to $762 million in fiscal year 1997, it has not been
able to close the gap between total revenues and expenses. (See fig.
1.) For example, while intercity passenger-related revenues grew by
about 4 percent last year, intercity passenger-related expenses grew by
about 7 percent. Notably, the net loss for fiscal year 1997 would have
been much greater if Amtrak had not earned about $63 million, primarily
from the one-time sales of real estate and telecommunications rights-
of-way in the Northeast Corridor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Unless otherwise noted, information on financial condition and
performance was provided by Amtrak and was not independently verified.
The net loss for fiscal year 1994 excludes a one-time charge of $261
million (in 1997 dollars) for accounting changes, restructuring costs,
and other items.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MA24.003
Amtrak's net loss for fiscal year 1998 will likely be substantially
worse than in 1996 and 1997. In March 1998, Amtrak projected that the
net loss for this year will be about $845 million, or $56 million more
than budgeted. Amtrak's financial deterioration can be seen in other
measures as well. For example, Amtrak's working capital--the difference
between current assets and current liabilities--generally declined
between fiscal years 1995 and 1997, from a deficit of $149 million to a
deficit of $300 million. As figure 2 shows, at the end of fiscal year
1997, Amtrak's working capital was the lowest it had been over the last
9 years. Declining working capital jeopardizes a company's ability to
pay its bills as they come due. The decline in working capital reflects
an increase in accounts payable, short-term debt, and capital lease
obligations, among other items.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MA24.004
Amtrak's poor financial condition has also affected its cash flow
and its need to borrow money to make ends meet. In fiscal year 1997,
Amtrak had to borrow $75 million to meet its operating expenses. The
prospects in fiscal year 1998 are worse. Amtrak originally planned a
cash-flow deficit of $100 million in fiscal year 1998; however, in
January 1998, Amtrak increased this estimate to $200 million.\4\ This
projected increase is primarily due to (1) reductions in expected
revenues from Amtrak's pilot express program ($47 million); (2) a
liability for the wage increases provided by Amtrak's recent agreement
with the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees ($35 million);\5\
and, (3) an increase in accounts payable that resulted from deferring
fiscal year 1997 payables to fiscal year 1998 ($16 million). Amtrak
began borrowing in February 1998 to make ends meet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ As of mid-March 1998, Amtrak had $150 million of its $170
million in short-term lines of credit available to help meet cash-flow
deficits.
\5\ This $35 million reflects Amtrak's estimate of the cost in
fiscal year 1998 of extending the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way
Employees labor settlement to Amtrak's 12 other labor unions. Amtrak is
in the process of negotiating with the other unions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
improving amtrak's financial health presents challenges
Amtrak will continue to face challenges to its financial health.
Despite efforts to improve revenues and cut costs, the railroad
continues to lose more money than it planned. This situation may get
worse. Amtrak's recent agreement with the Brotherhood of Maintenance of
Way Employees is expected to increase Amtrak's fiscal year 1998 labor
costs by between $3 million to $5 million. According to Amtrak,
extending this type of settlement to all of its labor unions could cost
between $60 million and $70 million more each year than is currently
planned, from fiscal years 1999 through 2002.\6\ Amtrak's plans to
reduce its financial losses by ``growing'' its way to financial
health--that is, increasing revenues, rather than cutting train
routes--may also encounter difficulty. These plans depend, at least in
part, on expanding mail and express services. However, Amtrak's efforts
to increase its express business have been frustrated and it has had to
reduce anticipated revenues in its express pilot program by $47
million.\7\ As a result, in January 1998 Amtrak increased its projected
overall loss \8\ for fiscal year 1998 from $52 million to $99 million.
Another Amtrak initiative--establishing high-speed rail service between
New York City and Boston--also will not provide immediate financial
benefits. In establishing high-speed rail transportation between these
two cities, Amtrak expects to decrease travel time from 4\1/2\ hours to
3 hours and significantly increase revenue and ridership. Amtrak's
goals are for the high-speed rail program to begin providing positive
net income in fiscal year 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ This is net of any one-time payments or productivity increases
or efficiency gains negotiated with the unions.
\7\ In addition, the Surface Transportation Board has been asked to
rule on whether a freight railroad must make its tracks and facilities
available to Amtrak for express service. An adverse ruling could
further reduce revenue opportunities. Amtrak has reduced its
anticipated net revenues from express service from about $75 million
annually to about $27 million annually after fiscal year 1998.
\8\ Overall loss is the same as net loss, except the federal
operating support received and noncash items (such as depreciation) are
excluded. Amtrak refers to overall loss as its ``budget result.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amtrak will also continue to find it difficult to take actions to
reduce costs, such as making route and service adjustments. During
fiscal year 1995, Amtrak was successful in reducing and eliminating
some routes and saving an estimated $54 million. In fiscal year 1997,
Amtrak was less successful in taking such actions. Amtrak does not
currently plan to reduce any more routes. Instead, it plans to fine-
tune its route network. For example, in February 1998, Amtrak added a
fourth train per week between Chicago and San Antonio on the Texas
Eagle route, in part to accommodate expanded mail and express business.
Amtrak is also planning to begin daily passenger rail service between
Los Angeles and Las Vegas by January 1999.
In explaining the rationale for attempting to increase revenues
through fine-tuning Amtrak's routes rather than through cutting back on
service, Amtrak and Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) officials
pointed to Amtrak's mission of maintaining a national route system.
They noted that such a system will consist of routes with a range of
profitability, including poorer-performing routes that provide needed
linkages to better-performing routes. Furthermore, poorer-performing
routes may provide public benefits, such as serving small cities and
rural areas. These officials stressed that cutting the routes with the
worst performance could damage the national network and cause the loss
of revenue on connecting routes. Amtrak has just begun a market
analysis that could result in several alternatives for a national
intercity passenger rail network.
The decision to make route adjustments is a difficult one, even
though Amtrak's data show that only one of the railroad's 40 routes
(Metroliners between Washington, D.C., and New York City) covers all
its operating costs.\9\ For the remaining 39 routes, Amtrak loses an
average of $53 for each passenger. Amtrak data show that it loses over
$100 per passenger on 14 of these routes, and only 5 routes covered
their train costs in fiscal year 1997. However, Amtrak encounters
opposition when it proposes to discontinue routes because of the desire
by a range of interests to see passenger train service continued in
potentially affected communities. In addition, Amtrak maintains that
every route that covers its variable costs (costs of running trains)
makes a contribution toward its substantial fixed costs. Finally,
simply pruning Amtrak's worst-performing routes could exacerbate
Amtrak's financial condition because eliminating one route is likely to
affect ridership on connecting routes that are perhaps performing
better.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The costs include the costs of running trains (e.g., fuel and
train crew); route costs (e.g., costs to maintain stations); and
allocated system costs (overhead).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
federal funding and reform legislation may not meet amtrak's financial
needs
As a result of the Taxpayer Relief Act and funds requested through
the appropriations process, record amounts of federal funds could be
available to fund Amtrak's capital improvement needs. However, Amtrak
projects that it will still be short of the funds it believes are
necessary to meet these needs. In addition, Amtrak plans to use a
substantial portion of these funds to meet maintenance needs--needs
that have traditionally been considered operating expenses. Finally,
recently enacted reform legislation will likely have little financial
impact in the short term.
Available Funds May Fall Short of Amtrak's Capital Investment Needs and
May Be Used to Pay Maintenance Expenses
Capital investments will continue to play a critical role in
supporting Amtrak's business plans and ultimately in maintaining
Amtrak's viability. Such investment will not only help Amtrak retain
revenues by improving the quality of service but will also be important
in facilitating the revenue growth predicted in the business plans.
Although Amtrak stands to receive historic levels of federal capital
funds in the next few years, it is not likely that sufficient funds
will be available to meet Amtrak's identified capital investment needs.
Amtrak's September 1997 strategic business plan identified about $5.5
billion in capital investment needs from fiscal years 1998 through
2003.\10\ This amount includes such items as completing the high-speed
rail program between New York and Boston (about $1.7 billion), making
infrastructure-related investments (about $900 million), and
overhauling existing equipment (about $500 million). However, federal
funding from the Taxpayer Relief Act, the fiscal year 1998 capital
appropriations,\11\ and the President's proposed fiscal year 1999
budget--along with about $800 million that Amtrak anticipates receiving
from state, local, and private financing--would provide about $5.0
billion, or about $500 million short of the $5.5 billion that it states
that it needs for capital funding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ As of mid-March 1998, the capital portion of this business
plan had not been approved by Amtrak's board of directors.
\11\ The fiscal year 1998 capital appropriation excludes $199
million, which was not to be made available for obligation if Amtrak's
reform legislation was enacted before such capital appropriation was
distributed. The Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act was enacted in
December 1997. The $199 million would have been distributed in July
1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amtrak plans to use a substantial amount of these federal funds for
maintenance expenses, such as preventative maintenance, rather than for
high-yield capital investments. The use of these available federal
funds for maintenance expenses could have long-term financial impacts
on Amtrak. In particular, such use would reduce the amount of money
available to Amtrak to acquire new equipment and/or acquire those
capital improvements necessary to reduce costs and/or increase
revenues.
In this regard, the President's proposed fiscal year 1999 budget
would allow Amtrak to use capital grant funds for maintenance purposes,
such as overhauling rail rolling stock and providing preventative
maintenance. The administration believes such flexibility would allow
Amtrak to manage its capital grant appropriation more efficiently and
make clearer trade-offs between maintenance and capital investment
costs. Amtrak's March 1998 revised strategic business plan indicates
that it plans to use $511 million (82 percent) of the $621 million in
capital grant funds proposed in the President's fiscal year 1999 budget
for maintenance expenses. In total, Amtrak plans to use $1.8 billion
(65 percent) of $2.8 billion in capital grants under the President's
budget proposal to pay maintenance expenses from fiscal years 1999
through 2003.
In addition, Amtrak plans to temporarily use some of the Taxpayer
Relief Act funds for the allowed maintenance of the existing equipment
used in intercity passenger rail service. To help stay within its
credit limits,\12\ Amtrak plans to temporarily use $100 million in
Taxpayer Relief Act funds for a portion of allowed maintenance expenses
in fiscal year 1998, according to Amtrak's March 1998 revised strategic
business plan. Amtrak's use of a portion of its federal capital grant
for maintenance expenses, as is currently allowed for transit, is
expected to enable it to repay this $100 million. Amtrak also plans to
temporarily use $317 million and $200 million in Taxpayer Relief Act
funds in 1999 and 2000, respectively, for a portion of allowed
maintenance expenses. In this way, Amtrak expects to reduce its cash
flow deficits to $100 million in each of those years. Amtrak officials
told us that the Taxpayer Relief Act funds, including these repayments,
will ultimately be used for investments that have a high rate-of-return
and that are highly leveraged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ As discussed earlier, Amtrak is currently projecting a cash-
flow deficit of about $200 million by the end of fiscal year 1998, or
about $100 million more than planned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Amtrak, temporarily using a portion of Taxpayer Relief
Act funds for allowed equipment maintenance will help the corporation
avoid additional borrowing from its credit lines over the original
planned amount. Amtrak believes using Taxpayer Relief Act funds for
this purpose will help keep it below its maximum short-term credit
limit. Amtrak officials told us that using a portion of the federally
appropriated capital grant funds for maintenance will provide stability
for Amtrak over the next several years, thus averting a possible
bankruptcy. This stability will provide Amtrak with some breathing room
to (1) determine how to address the capital shortfall and (2) complete
a market analysis that would result in several alternatives for a
national intercity passenger rail network.
Short-term Financial Effects of Amtrak Reform Legislation May Be
Limited
The Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act was also designed to
address Amtrak's poor financial condition by making certain reforms to
Amtrak's operations to help Amtrak better control and manage its costs.
For example, the act:
--eliminates, as of May 31, 1998, existing labor protection
arrangements for employees who lose their jobs as the result of
a discontinuation of service (currently eligible employees may
be entitled to up to 6 years of compensation) and requires
Amtrak and its unions to negotiate new arrangements;
--repeals the statutory ban on contracting out work (except food and
beverage service, which can already be contracted out) and
makes contracting out subject to negotiations by November 1999;
and
--places a $200 million cap on the amount of liability claims
(including punitive damages) that can be paid as the result of
an Amtrak accident.
The reforms contained in this act may have little, if any,
immediate effect on Amtrak's financial performance for several reasons.
First, Amtrak officials pointed out that no route closures are
currently planned. Therefore, no new labor protection costs are
expected to be incurred. Amtrak officials also noted that the existing
labor protection arrangements for employees affected by route closures
have primarily resulted in payments of wage differentials because many
eligible employees were transferred to lower-paying jobs. According to
Amtrak, in the past 5 years, only 5 employees have received severance
pay and 11 employees are currently in arbitration over this issue.
Second, the ban on contracting out work need not be negotiated until
November 1, 1999.\13\ Amtrak officials believe that while the repeal of
the ban may provide long-term flexibility, including flexibility in
union negotiations and in controlling costs, the repeal is not likely
to have much effect before November 1999. Finally, Amtrak believes the
$200 million limit on liability claims may have limited financial
effect because this cap is significantly higher than amounts Amtrak has
historically paid on liability claims. Amtrak and FRA officials believe
the benefits of these reforms are unclear at this time. These reforms
may not result in measurable financial savings as much as in additional
flexibility in negotiating with labor unions and in addressing the
freight railroads' concerns over such issues as liability payments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Amtrak and one or more of its trade unions may mutually agree
to collectively bargain this issue sooner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The act also made other changes that have the potential for a
significant impact on Amtrak's future. First, the act replaced the
current board of directors with a ``Reform Board.''\14\ Second, it
established an independent commission--the Amtrak Reform Council--to
evaluate Amtrak's financial performance and make recommendations for
cost containment, productivity improvements, and financial reforms. If
at any time after December 1999 the Council finds that Amtrak is not
meeting its financial goals or that Amtrak will require operating funds
after December 2002, then the Council is to submit to the Congress,
within 90 days, an action plan for a restructured national intercity
passenger rail system. In addition, under such circumstances, Amtrak is
required to develop and submit an action plan for the complete
liquidation of the railroad.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The Reform Board is to assume its responsibilities by March
31, 1998, or as soon as four members have been appointed and qualified.
As of mid-March 1998, the Reform Board had not been established.
Unrelated to the act, Amtrak's president and chief executive officer
resigned in December 1997. A successor had not been named as of mid-
March 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Chairman, in 1995, we concluded that the Congress needed to
decide on the nation's expectations for intercity passenger rail
service and the scope of Amtrak's mission in providing that service.
These decisions require defining a national route network, determining
the extent to which the federal government would contribute funds, and
deciding on the way any remaining deficits would be covered. In 1997,
we concluded that, as currently constituted, Amtrak will need
substantial federal operating and capital support well into the future.
Whether Amtrak will be able to improve its financial position in the
near term is doubtful. If not, the Congress will be asked to continue
to provide substantial sums of money each year to support Amtrak. If
the Congress is not willing to provide such levels of funds, then
Amtrak's future could be radically different, or Amtrak may not exist
at all. We believe that this is the right time for Amtrak's new Reform
Board to work with the Congress to consider and act on the issues that
will chart Amtrak's future.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony.\15\ I would be happy to
respond to any questions that you or Members of the Subcommittee may
have.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ The information contained in this testimony is based on our
review of Amtrak's financial reports and plans; recently-enacted
legislation; and discussions with Amtrak and FRA officials. We met with
Amtrak officials, including Amtrak's Vice President for Government and
Public Affairs, to obtain comments on a draft of our statement. Amtrak
said that our presentation of the issues was fair; and they asked that
we provide additional information on Amtrak's planned use of capital
grant funds and Taxpayer Relief Act funds. We have included this
information in our statement. We performed our work in March 1998 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
STATEMENT OF KENNETH MEAD
Senator Shelby. Mr. Ken Mead, Department of Transportation
Inspector General. Mr. Mead.
Mr. Mead. Mr. Chairman, Senator Lautenberg: Our testimony
will focus first on the independent assessment of Amtrak as
required by law and its oversight by the inspector general;
second, on what Amtrak self-sufficiency means; and third, on
the status of high-speed rail-related improvement in the
Northeast corridor.
First, assessing Amtrak's financial status. In the Amtrak
reform legislation, Congress required an independent assessment
of Amtrak's financial requirements through 2002. The inspector
general is directed to oversee that assessment, which is
scheduled to begin in April and be completed before the end of
this fiscal year.
Amtrak's business plan, which you may know was most
recently updated on March 10, contains core assumptions that
comprise what Amtrak terms its glidepath to self-sufficiency.
An essential part of the independent assessment as required by
law will involve close scrutiny of those assumptions. Some
highlights:
First, Amtrak is projecting that revenues will increase
from $1.7 billion in 1997 to $2.3 billion by the end of 2002.
Most of that will come from the introduction of high-speed rail
service. Total passenger revenue is projected to be up by over
18 percent in 2000 compared to 7 percent this year. Validating
that forecast and the assumptions behind it are key elements of
the independent assessment.
Second, Amtrak plans to limit cost growth. Amtrak projects
an average annual increase in operating costs of 3.75 percent
through 2002, slightly more than the annual average increase of
3.6 percent over the last 5 years. Limiting growth will be
difficult because Amtrak is about to incur significant costs as
it introduces high-speed rail service.
Third, the administration is requesting $2.2 billion for
capital assistance between 1999 and 2002, plus another $2.2
billion in capital as a result of the Taxpayer Relief Act, for
a total of about $4.4 billion. That will not be sufficient to
meet Amtrak's capital requirements. Establishing the railroad's
capital requirements independently and the timing of those
capital requirements is a key element of the assessment.
Finally, the current plan is predicated on Amtrak's ability
to use capital funding for the maintenance of equipment,
infrastructure, and facilities. That was alluded to by Ms.
Scheinberg. Those types of expenditures, Mr. Chairman,
historically have been considered operating expenses by Amtrak
and have not been paid for with capital assistance.
Senator Shelby. Say that again. Say that again.
Mr. Mead. Historically, Amtrak's maintenance costs, such as
repairing tracks and switches and reconditioning railcar
components, have generally been considered to be operating
expenses and have not been paid for with capital assistance.
Things such as building track, purchasing locomotives, and
constructing facilities are considered capital expenses and
traditionally those have been funded with capital grants.
We are discussing with the Surface Transportation Board the
definition of capital and operating expenses as they apply to
freight railroads, and we will report the results of that
discussion to this committee as soon as we have them.
Amtrak is assuming, though, that it will be able to apply a
flexible definition of capital and use capital grants for
maintenance. That proposed change clouds the issue of Amtrak's
self-sufficiency from Federal operating support.
I would like to mention a few points about this self-
sufficiency concept and the importance of coming to grips with
exactly what it means. The legislation, as you know,
contemplates that Amtrak will achieve operating self-
sufficiency by 2002. Clarity is needed on what this means. From
Amtrak's perspective, self-sufficiency has meant no operating
subsidy, but it has never meant operating without Federal
capital subsidies. If Amtrak is correct, the definition of what
is operating and what is capital becomes crucial. That is
because this year the administration did not request an
operating subsidy. Instead, the request is for $621 million in
a capital subsidy, part of which will be used for maintenance
expenses, costs that were formerly considered operating
expenses.
Frankly, we doubt that this change in nomenclature will
mean that Amtrak has achieved operating self-sufficiency in
1999. However, for planning purposes and to avoid controversy,
we think it is important that all parties have a common
understanding of what the self-sufficiency goal means.
And now just a couple words on the Northeast corridor. In
2001 Amtrak projects a net contribution to revenue of at least
$150 million from the Northeast Corridor, and that will be
after the introduction of high-speed rail service. That
compares with a net cash loss of $94 million for the Northeast
corridor core operations in 1997.
High-speed rail is scheduled to start in October 1999. That
schedule is tight. Electrification schedules north of New
Haven, CT, have slipped several times, but Amtrak believes that
the project can be met by the October date. That means final
testing and startup will be occurring in the same month. That
month is really crucial, Mr. Chairman, because November and
December are the high yield months for Amtrak in that corridor.
I also want to point out that, in addition to
electrification, there are still some other needs that need to
be addressed. Last fall a Metro North train pulled down a long
section of overhead catenary wire. The wire is 90 years old and
the accident stranded about 40,000 travelers for 4 hours. In
1997 catenary-related delays occurred in the corridor over 39
times and there is no short-term plan to replace that catenary.
That concludes my statement, sir.
Prepared Statement
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Mead. We have your complete
statement and it will be made part of the hearing record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kenneth M. Mead
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: We appreciate the
opportunity to testify on Amtrak's financial future. Our testimony
today will focus on (1) the independent assessment of Amtrak and its
oversight by the Office of Inspector General, (2) the meaning of
financial self-sufficiency as it relates to Amtrak, and (3) our work on
the Northeast Corridor.
assessing amtrak's financial status
In the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997, Congress
directed the Secretary of Transportation to contract for an independent
assessment of Amtrak's financial requirements through fiscal year 2002.
The assessment will examine Amtrak's operations, accounting and bidding
practices, and Strategic Business Plan. It will also determine whether
Amtrak's plans and projections for reaching self-sufficiency are
reasonable, realistic, and based on sound business practices. The
Office of Inspector General is directed to, and will, oversee this
assessment, which will begin in April and be completed before the end
of this fiscal year.
Amtrak's revised Strategic Business Plan, which was adopted by its
Board of Directors on March 10, 1998, contains a number of core
assumptions that Amtrak believes must materialize in order to achieve
self-sufficiency. These assumptions, which specify revenue targets,
expense goals, and funding levels, comprise what Amtrak terms its
``glidepath'' to self-sufficiency. An essential part of the independent
assessment involves a close scrutiny of these assumptions.
First, Amtrak projects annual revenues will increase from $1.7
billion in fiscal year 1997 to $2.3 billion by the end of fiscal year
2002.--Most of this revenue increase is expected in fiscal years 2000
and 2001 and will primarily reflect revenues realized from the
introduction of high-speed rail service. Total passenger revenue is
projected to grow by 18 percent in fiscal year 2000 and 10 percent in
fiscal year 2001; this compares to about 7 percent and 5 percent growth
projected for fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999, respectively, and
actual growth in fiscal year 1997 of 7 percent. Initiating, marketing,
and operating high-speed rail service entails considerable uncertainty
over its operating costs and the net revenue it will generate. Amtrak
believes that its revenue projections for this new service are
conservative and realistic. Validating Amtrak's forecasting methodology
and the assumptions behind it are key elements of the independent
assessment.
Second, Amtrak plans to limit operating cost growth.--Amtrak
projects an average annual increase in operating costs of 3.75 percent
through fiscal year 2002, which is only slightly more than the annual
average cost growth of 3.6 percent for the last 5 years. Limiting cost
growth through fiscal year 2002 will be particularly challenging as
Amtrak incurs significant costs related to starting and operating high-
speed rail service. Amtrak's cost growth projections, however, depend
on instituting an array of productivity enhancements and cost saving
measures. The independent assessment will validate the assumptions and
methods used to project costs for Amtrak's various markets and services
to determine whether these projections are reasonable.
Third, the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 authorized
$5.2 billion for Amtrak, of which the Administration proposes to spend
$2.2 billion for capital assistance between fiscal year 1999 and fiscal
year 2002. Amtrak also received an additional $2.2 billion in capital
assistance under the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997.\1\--In light of
Amtrak's capital requirements, and its plans to use the assistance
provided by these two Acts, this level of capital assistance will not
be sufficient to address all of Amtrak's capital requirements. Many of
Amtrak's plans for operating cost savings hinge on the successful
completion of capital projects. For example, Amtrak recently completed
construction of a new Consolidated National Operations Center in
Wilmington, Delaware. This project will centralize work formerly
conducted at four sites and save Amtrak a projected $6.1 million
between fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 2003. If funds are not
available for capital projects such as this, the associated cost
savings reflected in Amtrak's Strategic Business Plan will not be
realized. One of the major tasks of the independent assessment is to
conduct an analysis of Amtrak's existing and projected capital
requirements and investments throughout its system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 provides $2.32 billion in
capital funds, of which $139 million must be set aside for the six non-
Amtrak States. These are: Alaska, Hawaii, Maine, Oklahoma, South
Dakota, and Wyoming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the current plan is predicated on Amtrak's ability to use
Federal capital funding for the maintenance of equipment,
infrastructure, and facilities.--Amtrak's maintenance costs, such as
repairing track and switches, and reconditioning rail car components,
have generally been considered operating expenses, and generally have
not been paid with Federal capital assistance. Complete rebuilding of
track, purchase of new locomotives and rail cars, and construction of
new facilities are generally considered capital expenses, and have been
paid with capital assistance. We are discussing with the Surface
Transportation Board the definitions of capital and operating expenses
as they are applied to the freight railroads; we will be sharing our
findings with you shortly. Amtrak's revised Strategic Business Plan
assumes that it will be able to apply a more flexible definition of
capital, one that will allow it to use its capital grants to pay for
some of its maintenance expenses. This proposed change has clouded the
issue of Amtrak's self-sufficiency from Federal operating support.
concept of self-sufficiency
Legislation contemplates that Amtrak will achieve operating self-
sufficiency by fiscal year 2002. Clarity is needed on what this means.
From Amtrak's perspective, self-sufficiency has meant no operating
subsidy, but has never meant operating without Federal capital
assistance.
If Amtrak is correct, the definition of what constitutes an
``operating'' expense and what constitutes a ``capital'' expense
becomes quite significant. This is because the Administration's fiscal
year 1999 budget does not request operating assistance for Amtrak.
Instead, the request is for a $621 million capital grant. This is over
and above the $2.2 billion in capital funds provided by the Taxpayer
Relief Act. If the change in the definition of capital is approved,
Amtrak has indicated that as much as $542 million of the requested $621
million grant may be used to pay for maintenance of equipment,
infrastructure, and facilities--expenditures formerly considered to be
in the operating expense category. In fiscal year 1997, Amtrak spent
$500 million for these maintenance categories.
We doubt that this change in nomenclature means that Amtrak has
already achieved ``operating'' self-sufficiency. However, for planning
purposes, and to avoid controversy as Amtrak proceeds on its glidepath
to fiscal year 2002, it is important for all parties to have an
understanding of whether this expanded definition of capital can be
relied upon in determining: (1) when Amtrak has achieved self-
sufficiency, and (2) what type of expenses Amtrak's passenger and other
revenues are expected to cover.
northeast corridor
Finally, one of Amtrak's long-standing goals has been to
significantly increase revenues by the introduction of high-speed rail
service in the Northeast Corridor. In fiscal year 2001, Amtrak projects
a net contribution of $150 million from the Northeast Corridor after
introduction of this service. This contrasts markedly with Amtrak's net
cash loss of $94 million for the Northeast Corridor in fiscal year
1997.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ These figures are for core operations and consist principally
of passenger revenue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
High-speed rail service is scheduled to start in October 1999. The
electrification project north of New Haven, Connecticut, has fallen
behind schedule several times, but Amtrak believes that with the
current aggressive recovery schedule now in place, the project will
finish on time for an October start-up. However, performance testing on
the system that was originally scheduled to be completed in July 1999,
is now not scheduled to be finished until October 10, 1999. While
Amtrak plans to test and finish construction of the system
concurrently, this is still a tight schedule, and Amtrak will have
little time to correct problems found during testing. If the October
1999 start-up date slips, Amtrak could miss out on the significant
revenues generated by high-volume, year-end holiday traffic.
Even though Amtrak has invested significantly in the infrastructure
between New York City and Boston, Massachusetts, in preparation for
high-speed rail service, there are still needs that must be addressed.
Last fall, a Metro North commuter train pulled down a mile-long section
of overhead wire from the 90-year old catenary system, stranding 40,000
travelers for over four hours. In 1997, catenary-related delays
occurred no fewer than 39 times. Neither Amtrak nor Metro North
Railroad, which operate along this section of track; nor the
Connecticut Department of Transportation, which owns the track, have
any short-term plans to replace this catenary--a project estimated to
cost $200 million.
In addition, on the south end, between Washington, D.C. and New
York City, Amtrak has preliminary estimates that, over the next 20
years, it will cost between $7 and $9 billion to repair and upgrade the
infrastructure. Unless Amtrak addresses the infrastructure problems
along the entire Corridor and improves reliability, ridership and
revenue are likely to fall short of projections, even with the
introduction of high-speed rail service, as passengers turn to other
modes of transportation. A key requirement in the independent
assessment will be to determine whether Amtrak's funding, plans, and
schedules are adequate to address capital needs in the Northeast
Corridor and systemwide.
background
independent assessment of amtrak mandated by congress
The Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997, signed by the
President on December 2, 1997, requires that the Secretary of
Transportation contract for an independent assessment of the financial
requirements of Amtrak through fiscal year 2002. The Inspector General
of the Department of Transportation (DOT) is directed to oversee this
assessment, which must be completed within 180 days of the contract
award.
Independent Assessment Will Begin in April
We are pleased to tell the Subcommittee that a competitive bidding
process is almost concluded, and a contract will be awarded in April.
The contractor selected will assemble a team of experts in the fields
of rail operations and finance, travel and revenue forecasting, and
financial modeling. The independent assessment will include a review of
Amtrak's revised Strategic Business Plan and other documents to assess
Amtrak's current and future financial requirements. This assessment
will establish a solid set of numbers that will provide a benchmark for
assessing Amtrak's financial needs. We will provide the results of this
assessment to Congress before the end of this fiscal year.
We assure you that throughout this assessment, the Office of
Inspector General will be on-site and present with the contractor for
all phases of the assessment. This will help us fulfill our
Congressional mandate to oversee this work and to conduct our own
assessments in the years ahead. We believe the results of this
assessment will be invaluable to Congress, Amtrak's new Board of
Directors, and the Amtrak Reform Council in making critical funding and
strategic business decisions.
Independent Assessment of Amtrak's Financial Condition
One of the first tasks of the independent assessment will be an
evaluation of Amtrak's current financial status. This involves
reviewing Amtrak's accounting systems; its method of allocating costs
and revenues; and recent trends in costs, revenues, and ridership.
The independent assessment will provide an understanding of the
actual costs and revenues associated with specific routes, regional
areas, and Strategic Business Units. Another task is to assess Amtrak's
capital funding needs to determine whether Amtrak has planned for
sufficient funds to achieve its goals. In addition, the assessment will
review Amtrak's bidding procedures used in securing contracts for
services other than the provision of intercity passenger rail or mail
and express service. Such contracts include providing passenger rail
service or maintenance for local commuter railroads, such as Amtrak's
recent bid on the overhaul of rail cars for New Jersey Transit. The
assessment will review Amtrak's methods for estimating its costs of
providing such service to determine whether Amtrak reflects direct and
indirect costs in its bids.
To the extent possible, the assessment will determine whether
fluctuations in revenue or ridership result directly from Amtrak's
actions, inactions, or services provided, or whether they are caused by
forces outside of Amtrak's control. For instance, in fiscal year 1997,
unanticipated weather-related events, such as Hurricane Fran, severe
weather conditions on the West Coast, and flooding in the Midwest,
resulted in $14 million in unforeseen costs. In addition, service
shutdowns precluded opportunities to earn revenue that might otherwise
have been realized during these events. Learning where Amtrak stands
financially, and why, will assist you and Amtrak's new leadership, in
making decisions about Amtrak's future.
Assessment Will Review Amtrak's Revised Strategic Business Plan
On March 10, 1998, the Amtrak Board of Directors adopted a revised
Strategic Business Plan. This plan details Amtrak's efforts to reach
operating self-sufficiency by the end of fiscal year 2002. The plan was
revised in response to key internal and external events that have
occurred in the past year. These events include:
--Enactment of the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997,
which established an Amtrak Reform Council and mandated this
independent assessment;
--A proposed fiscal year 1999 DOT budget that changes the fundamental
structure of Amtrak's traditional Federal support by providing
only a capital grant;
--A change in Amtrak's leadership; and
--Internal and external events that affected forecasted revenues and
expenses.
Amtrak's revised Strategic Business Plan identifies a series of
steps to eliminate the need for Federal operating assistance by the end
of fiscal year 2002. The steps are based on continued Federal capital
assistance and a series of revenue-enhancing initiatives.
The Strategic Business Plan has a number of core assumptions: (1)
significantly increasing revenue; (2) limiting operating cost growth;
(3) receiving the fully authorized amount of Federal capital
assistance; and (4) obtaining the ability to use Federal capital
assistance for maintenance of equipment, infrastructure, and
facilities.
Revenue Projections
One of the most critical assumptions of the revised Strategic
Business Plan is Amtrak's ability to increase passenger-related and
other revenues. The plan forecasts a significant growth in passenger-
related revenues through fiscal year 2002. Most of the $576 million
revenue increase is expected in fiscal years 2000 and 2001 and will
primarily reflect revenues realized from the introduction of high-speed
rail service in the Northeast Corridor. Other significant revenue
increases are related to Amtrak's Express Cargo service (from $3
million in fiscal year 1997 to $71 million in fiscal year 2002) and
Mail service (from $66 million in fiscal year 1997 to $86 million in
fiscal year 2002).
Limiting Cost Growth
Amtrak projects an average annual increase in operating costs of
3.75 percent through fiscal year 2002. To accomplish this, Amtrak has a
series of Business Plan Actions aimed at limiting cost growth. For
example, productivity enhancements are projected to yield $122 million
in cost savings in fiscal year 2002. We note that in 1996, Amtrak
anticipated it could realize immediate savings of between $22 million
and $30 million by purchasing power wholesale for its own use. Amtrak's
proposed wholesale power supplier, Enron Power Marketing, has filed a
petition with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
requesting access to a transmission network that would allow it to
supply electricity to Amtrak. This matter is currently pending at FERC.
Amtrak's Plan is Dependent on Receiving Fully Authorized Federal
Capital Assistance
A significant part of Amtrak's revenue-enhancing and operating cost
reduction initiatives depends on whether Amtrak receives fully
authorized amounts of Federal capital assistance. Although Federal
capital grants increased in the early 1990's, Amtrak's capital needs
are still significant. In 1995, Amtrak developed an initial plan to
reach its goal of zero-operating grants. The plan was predicated on
receiving an assumed level of Federal capital and operating assistance,
coupled with revenue-enhancing initiatives, such as high-speed rail
service in the Northeast Corridor. However, in fiscal years 1995
through 1997, Amtrak's funding fell short of what was assumed in its
planning by $139 million.
Ability to Use Federal Capital Assistance for Maintenance of Equipment,
Infrastructure, and Facilities
In its fiscal year 1999 budget, Amtrak has requested permission
from Congress to use a more flexible definition of the term
``capital.'' Examples of Amtrak's traditional capital expenditures
include the purchase of locomotives and passenger rail cars, complete
rebuilding of track, and construction of new facilities. Maintenance
costs, such as the cost of repairing track and switches, and
reconditioning rail car components, are generally considered operating
expenses and therefore not generally paid with capital funds. If
Congress approves Amtrak's request, Amtrak intends to use capital
assistance to cover routine maintenance of equipment, infrastructure,
and facilities. Using this expanded definition of capital spending,
Amtrak's ability to function without Federal operating assistance will
not mean what it did when Amtrak established this goal in 1995.
amtrak's steps toward achieving self-sufficiency
Amtrak's Strategic Business Plan contemplates achieving self-
sufficiency by fiscal year 2002. Amtrak defines self-sufficiency as
eliminating the need for Federal operating assistance but a
continuation of Federal capital assistance. The Administration's fiscal
year 1999 budget requests no operating assistance, but does request
$621 million of capital assistance. Amtrak intends to use up to $542
million of this capital assistance for maintenance of equipment,
infrastructure, and facilities--costs generally considered operating
expenses. The $621 million is over and above the $2.2 billion in
capital funds provided to Amtrak in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997.
Independent Assessment to Review Amtrak's Self-Sufficiency Goal
The independent assessment will determine whether Amtrak's
financial plans provide the framework for it to operate without Federal
operating assistance after fiscal year 2002, and to reach other
financial goals as stated in its revised Strategic Business Plan. In
addition, the assessment will determine the likelihood that Amtrak will
be able to maintain its financial status beyond fiscal year 2002. For
instance, if Amtrak were to borrow heavily in order to reach its goal
of self-sufficiency, the assessment would determine whether Amtrak's
revenues and Federal assistance would be sufficient to service the debt
beyond fiscal year 2002. The assessment will also determine the likely
effect of deferred maintenance and aging rolling stock on Amtrak's
continued viability.
high-speed rail service planned for amtrak's northeast corridor
The Northeast Corridor from Boston, Massachusetts, to Washington,
D.C., is 441 miles in length and serves a population of 36 million
people. Amtrak owns 362 miles of the Corridor and the rest is owned by
the Metropolitan Transportation Authority of New York, the Connecticut
Department of Transportation, and the Massachusetts Bay Transportation
Authority. More than 1,000 trains a day use the Corridor, including
those of Amtrak, eight commuter railroads,\3\ and four freight
railroads.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Maryland Rail Commuter Service; Southeastern Pennsylvania
Transportation Authority; New Jersey Transit; Port Authority Trans-
Hudson Corporation; Long Island Railroad; Metro-North Commuter
Railroad; Shore Line East; and Massachusetts Bay Transportation
Authority.
\4\ Springfield Terminal Railroad; Providence and Worcester
Railroad; Connecticut Southern Railroad; and Conrail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1991, Congress and Amtrak focused on the improvements needed to
implement high-speed, 3-hour service between Boston and New York City,
referred to as the north end. These improvements include the purchase
of new, high-speed trainsets, installation of an overhead electrical
system between New Haven, Connecticut, and Boston, and other
infrastructure improvements between New York City and Boston. When
these components are complete, trip time on the north end is expected
to decrease from 4 hours, 45 minutes, to 3 hours, 10 minutes.\5\ The
high-speed rail project also includes infrastructure improvements
between Washington, D.C., and New York City, referred to as the south
end. When the high-speed trainsets begin operating, trip time on the
south end is expected to be reduced from 3 hours to 2 hours, 45
minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The Congressional mandate calls for 3-hour service, which
Amtrak expects to offer in later years after significant infrastructure
improvements are complete.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
High-Speed Service Begins in 1999
When all construction between New York and Boston is complete,
Amtrak will offer high-speed service of 3 hours, 40 minutes, using
current equipment. This service is scheduled to start in October 1999,
the same month operational testing is scheduled to be completed. Amtrak
plans to phase in 18 new, high-speed trainsets capable of achieving
speeds of 150 miles per hour, further reducing the trip time to 3
hours, 10 minutes. This is a tight schedule, and if a delay occurs, the
increased revenue Amtrak expects to realize from high-speed service
will likely be affected, threatening Amtrak's ability to obtain self-
sufficiency.
Infrastructure Upgrades Are Needed
Aging infrastructure in all parts of the Northeast Corridor
continues to affect the reliability of Amtrak's service. Preliminary
estimates from Amtrak indicate that over the next 20 years, between $7
and $9 billion will be required to repair and upgrade the south end
infrastructure. Capital improvements are needed to address the
significant increases in congestion related to commuter and freight
traffic, including major rebuilding of track, construction of new
facilities, installation of additional safety equipment, and other
infrastructure improvements.
Commuter rail traffic along the Northeast Corridor has increased
significantly since 1992. As a result, congestion has slowed service
for all Corridor users--freight, commuter, and Amtrak. Ridership
projections for the major commuter operators forecast significant
growth by the year 2010. For example, in 1992, the Long Island Railroad
projected ridership growth of 20 percent by fiscal year 2010. Their
recently revised projection for the same period of time is now a 40
percent increase. To meet the Congressional mandate of 2 hours, 30
minute service between New York and Washington, D.C., Amtrak will have
to make significant, capacity-related investments along the south end.
The independent assessment of Amtrak will: (1) examine these
infrastructure needs to support increased use of the Corridor; (2)
compare infrastructure investments in the Northeast Corridor with
investments in the rest of Amtrak's system; and (3) determine the
specific relevance of these infrastructure investments, taking into
consideration traffic, safety needs, infrastructure condition, and
other factors that potentially could impact investment decisions.
conclusion
Mr. Chairman, we believe the findings of the independent assessment
will play a major role in evaluating Amtrak's long-term financial
situation. It will then be up to Congress, Amtrak's Board of Directors,
and the Amtrak Reform Council to consider whether Amtrak's plans are
adequate and sufficient to increase revenue and ridership, reduce
costs, and invest in the capital projects needed to reach operational
self-sufficiency by fiscal year 2002. We thank you again for inviting
us to discuss the Office of Inspector General's work in carrying out
the Congressional directive for an independent assessment of Amtrak's
future.
Reason for Financial Deterioration
Senator Shelby. Ms. Scheinberg, your testimony opens by
stating, as I recall, that in spite of all the funding and
reforms that have recently been enacted, Amtrak's financial
condition continues to deteriorate. If so, why is this so?
Ms. Scheinberg. Amtrak's deteriorating financial condition
this year is due to reduced revenues and increased costs, which
has been the problem in past years as well. The recent problems
include a reduction of about $47 million in their expected
revenues from their express program. Increased labor costs are
projected this year to be about $35 million, and there is an
increase of $16 million in accounts payable that were deferred
from last fiscal year.
As a result, Amtrak is going to lose more than $83 million
more this fiscal year than they lost last fiscal year. The
funding that Congress provided is primarily for capital
funding, which will not show benefits for several years. So, of
concern is that Amtrak is planning to use some of that capital
money for maintenance expenses to cover these losses.
Senator Shelby. Can you envision, Ms. Scheinberg, any
scenario for Amtrak that would get the Federal Government out
of the business of providing a subsidy?
Ms. Scheinberg. No, Mr. Chairman; Amtrak will always need
Federal capital subsidies.
Senator Shelby. In other words, it is not going to ever be
self-sufficient as you see it; is that right?
Ms. Scheinberg. In the sense of capital support, it would
always need, at a minimum, capital support. Currently, the way
Amtrak is currently constituted, we see that it will need both
capital and operating support for the indefinite future. As we
all know, railroads are very capital-intensive operations and
require substantial amounts of money to operate. No national
intercity passenger rail system in the world operates without
subsidies.
The other issue is that Amtrak's revised business plan
assumes that it will continue to need Federal capital and
operating support throughout the life of its business plan,
which goes through 2003.
Senator Shelby. Would you go back to what you mentioned in
your testimony earlier regarding per passenger subsidy, some of
the routes?
Ms. Scheinberg. Right. This is coming from our ongoing
route analysis work that we are doing at the request of this
committee and the House Appropriations Committee. Using
Amtrak's data, we are finding that Amtrak loses about $2 for
every $1 it earns in revenues in train service; 39 of its 40
trains operate at a loss, as I mentioned; and of the 39
trains----
Senator Shelby. State that again? How many?
Ms. Scheinberg. Thirty-nine out of the forty Amtrak trains
operate at a loss.
Senator Shelby. Thirty-nine out of forty?
Ms. Scheinberg. Yes; and of that 39, the average loss is
$53 per passenger.
Senator Shelby. $53 per passenger subsidy average?
Ms. Scheinberg. That is not a subsidy, that is a loss.
Senator Shelby. Loss.
Ms. Scheinberg. Every time a passenger rides that train,
the railroad loses $53 on average. But some trains lose a lot
more than that.
Senator Shelby. Where do they make that up? A subsidy,
because----
Ms. Scheinberg. That is where the Federal support comes in,
to make that up. And also Amtrak has to borrow on the private
market.
Senator Shelby. In your analysis in this area, what
characteristics have you found that would actually make a rail
corridor be competitive with air service?
Ms. Scheinberg. As I mentioned, the only route that does
cover its operating costs is the Metroliner. And using that as
a model, which is competitive with air service----
Senator Shelby. By the Metroliner you are speaking of the
Metroliner, the Amtrak train from Washington, say, to New York
to Boston?
Ms. Scheinberg. Just from Washington to New York City.
Senator Shelby. OK, New York City.
Ms. Scheinberg. And those are only the Metroliner trains,
not the Northeast direct service that goes from Washington to
New York. But if we use that as a model and look at the
characteristics to duplicate it or to replicate it, you would
need a travel time of about 3 hours--that is very important
to--match air service; a population density that could support
the route--you need people all along the corridor--and then you
need a market--a travel market that people would want and need
to travel along that route.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Mead, last year Amtrak's Reform and
Accountability Act directed the Secretary to contract for an
independent assessment of Amtrak's financial requirements
through the year 2002. The Inspector General's Office has been
working closely with the candidates who are bidding to perform
the independent assessment. Also it has developed a statement
of work that outlines the task to be performed in the
assessment.
In your opinion, why is an independent assessment necessary
and how is this different from the reams of GAO analysis and
the annual audits of Amtrak's books?
Need for Assessment
Mr. Mead. There are three reasons an independent assessment
is needed, the most important of which is that the committee
and the Amtrak Reform Council need hard, verifiable numbers for
the first time. And generally, prior studies have used Amtrak
figures to make various projections. There have been some wild
swings in those projections.
Second, is the matter of the capital requirements of
Amtrak. We hear repeatedly that we are going to need capital
subsidies almost in perpetuity. The key is, if you accept that
proposition, how much in capital subsidies will be needed?
Third, there are the revenue and ridership projections.
These are going to be recalculated if they are judged to be
incorrect. So we do not plan to just critique them.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Mead, in your work preparing for the
independent assessment, how accurate have you found Amtrak's
forecasts of their ridership and their revenues?
Mr. Mead. Not very accurate, sir.
Senator Shelby. Not very?
Mr. Mead. I think in general, we have seen swings from 4
percent of an understatement all the way to 25 percent of an
overstatement. It averages out to about 12 percent. Then there
are certain other finite categories, such as express mail or
express cargo, where the swings have been $50 or $60 million in
a given year.
Also, sometimes Amtrak projects revenues from non-
passenger-related activities--for example, in electric power
transmission. Amtrak officials thought they were going to be
able to buy wholesale power and sell that power to other
companies along the Northeast corridor. That did not
materialize although they were counting on a lot of money from
that. Instead, they ended up selling fiber optic lines.
There are things of that nature that cause wild swings in
forecasts, sir. And I think GAO's work would bear that out.
Senator Shelby. Ms. Scheinberg, does GAO have other
examples of Amtrak's inability to make accurate revenue and
ridership forecasts in addition?
Ms. Scheinberg. In addition to what Mr. Mead has just said,
also Amtrak has been overly optimistic in its ridership
projections. One example was in 1995 when Amtrak reduced
service on several routes and did not predict the reduction
that that action would cause in its ridership. As a result, the
ridership in 1996 was far below Amtrak's projections. And, in
1997, the increase in ridership has brought Amtrak back up to
where it was in about the late 1980's.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Mead, why are you not planning to award
the contract for the independent financial assessment until
April?
Mr. Mead. We are waiting for the Department to give us the
money.
Senator Shelby. The money?
Mr. Mead. Yes, sir; we have been ready for a couple weeks
now. In fairness, I would note that the contract was supposed
to be let 15 days after the reform legislation was signed. We
wanted to be certain about the legality and so we made sure the
contract was competitively let. But we are ready to go and we
want this assessment begun so we can provide the results to the
Hill in a timely way.
Amtrak Not Self-Sufficient
Senator Shelby. Mr. Mead, you have been carefully reviewing
Amtrak's March 1998 Strategic Business Plan as a baseline
document for the independent assessment. In your view will
Amtrak's Strategic Business Plan, if followed, get the railroad
to a point that they are independent from Federal subsidy by
2002?
Mr. Mead. The direct answer to that question is no. I would
like to make a related point.
Senator Shelby. Go right ahead.
Mr. Mead. There is a shifting sands concept at play here on
what we mean by self-sufficiency. In a way, since Amtrak
officials have said their goal is to operate without an
operating subsidy, once we reclassify the type of subsidy we
are giving them to a capital subsidy, it will appear as though
they have already met their goal. Well, I think everybody in
the room knows that they will not have met their goal. So it is
important to clearly define self-sufficiency.
The answer, though, is no, Amtrak will not be independent
of Federal subsidy by 2002. By Amtrak's own records, sir, if
depreciation is excluded there will be a $77 million cash loss
in fiscal year 2002.
Senator Shelby. Senator Lautenberg.
Subsidizing Properly
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
I listened with interest and with respect to each of you
and I could not help but reminisce for a moment somewhat
nostalgically for my days when I ran a pretty good-sized
company. When I left we had 16,000 employees. It was a company
that I helped build with two other partners. Today that company
has 30,000 employees, a very successful company. And I learned
something from my years there, that if I wanted to find out
what was wrong I could bring in a consultant or have my own
people review the operation and tell me what was wrong. If I
wanted the facts, just the facts, I would turn to my accounting
department and my external auditors as well and ask them for a
review of the financial statement or prepare a financial
statement.
But I never, in all due respect, I never asked either our
internal operations department or our auditors what we ought to
do to grow the company or to make more money. That is a
decision that related to other factors. Yes; it was important
to know how much was being spent here and how much was being
spent there and what was wrong here and what was wrong there,
and you have your respective assignments.
I hear doubts cast on projections, but I do not hear
anybody talking about the fact that it takes $10 billion in
1998 to support our aviation system. I do not hear anybody
saying that included in our aviation system is an airport that
you have laying out there. It is like the doctor's operating
room; he gets it practically for nothing, pays some operating
expenses, but the infrastructure is all there.
I think, Mr. Chairman, in all due respect, that Amtrak has
to be here at some point to answer some of these questions. We
are asking questions, frankly, I think in the blind, asking
questions about what goes wrong with the projections. Well,
something goes wrong with the projections. The weather hits or
something else hits.
Go take a ride on the TGV or the Bullet Train and see what
can happen. We have skinnied this thing down to the point that
we will never have enough of a satisfactory operation there
unless we capitalize it properly. We are talking about trains
that we are hoping can hit 180 miles or 180 kilometers, 150
miles I guess, somewhere around there, miles an hour, when we
are looking at we do not have the track straight enough to
develop that maximum speed.
We are hoping that we are going to get a 3-hour ride when
all is done with our northern leg from New Haven, New York, on
up to Boston, get it down to 3 hours. It is still a lot of time
for a ride that is about 250 miles long.
I came down on Amtrak yesterday. They were precisely on
time. The car rattled, rolled, and shook. I think the equipment
was probably 50 years old. To me that is young, but that has
nothing to do with railroad terms. And you just cannot develop
the kind of ridership that you want to have.
Ms. Scheinberg, I would say that, in response to your
answer about whether or not there would be subsidy, you said,
yes, inevitably there would have to be subsidy, and you in turn
put out a proposal that said, well, in order to have it fully
self-sufficient you would have to have population increases all
along. But the problem is people go to work between 7 and 9
o'clock in the morning typically and they come home from 5 to 7
o'clock at night typically, and the French do the same thing we
do. Maybe they take a little bit longer for lunch, but the fact
is that there are hours when they travel in volume just like we
do.
Thusly, you can never have the balanced load that you would
like to have. So as a consequence, we have to make some
allowances for things.
We talked about definitions, nomenclature, Mr. Mead, and
you at least appeared to me to be somewhat shocked at the
notion that maintenance fees, maintenance costs, might be
construed as capital costs. I would ask you, do you know what
commuter railroads do, you or Ms. Scheinberg, do you know what
they do? How do they categorize maintenance costs in commuter
rail lines?
Mr. Mead. No; but we will find out. And I would say,
Senator Lautenberg, that I am not opposed to funding Amtrak's
maintenance expenses with capital assistance. But the issue is,
if we are going to call them capital and not have an operating
subsidy for Amtrak, what goal are we headed toward in terms of
self-sufficiency or partial self-sufficiency? And that is
really a policy judgment for the Congress of the United States
to make.
Senator Lautenberg. It is self-delusionary.
Mr. Kiley, do you remember what happened on Metro North?
How do you classify maintenance expense?
Mr. Kiley. As a rule, any investment that has the potential
of extending useful life by more than 5 years is considered a
capital expenditure.
Senator Lautenberg. Are you aware of whether that is kind
of common throughout?
Mr. Kiley. It is pretty common. There are exceptions to it,
but it is pretty common.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you.
There are a number of questions I would like to submit, Mr.
Chairman. I will submit them in writing.
Senator Shelby. Without objection.
Senator Lautenberg. And I hope that we will be able to have
a chance to hear Amtrak's rebuttal, or at least responses, to
some of the statements made here. Thank you very much.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
Senator Bennett.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR BENNETT
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thank the witnesses. I think I am agreeing with Senator
Lautenberg that in a way we have the wrong witnesses and we are
talking about the wrong things. At least that is kind of what I
heard. And this is by no means a derogation of your
contribution here.
Senator Lautenberg. I would say, if I may, Senator Bennett,
not the wrong witnesses, but the forum does not permit in my
view a balanced response.
Senator Shelby. Let me respond to that if I can. We do try
to bring forth a balance. What we are looking for is the truth
and the committee is going to find the truth. We appreciate
both of your candor here, and that is what we are getting at.
We are not interested in a stacked deck for Amtrak, we are not
interested in a stacked deck against Amtrak. But we are going
to find the truth, and we appreciate your candor. That is the
kind of committee we are going to run.
Senator Bennett. When I say the wrong witnesses, I think
the issues plaguing Amtrak are above your pay grade. I think if
you started out with a clean sheet of paper approach to the
issue of transportation challenges to the United States, you
would clearly say there is a role for a rail passenger system
in the United States, particularly, maybe exclusively, in those
heavily congested areas. The Northeast corridor is the cliche,
but there may be some other areas that cry out for it just as
much.
But I think 30 years of experience has taught us that
running a rail passenger system along freight passenger lines
does not make very much sense. The way the thing is going to
work is the one place where it is working now, where you have
dedicated trackage, you can run 150-mile, 180-mile, 200-mile-
an-hour trains.
You do not want to run freight trains over tracks that are
dedicated to go 200 miles an hour. This means a comprehensive
analysis of where those corridors are, how much it is going to
cost you to acquire that money, acquire that real estate, what
the cost-benefit analysis is, and the tradeoffs in getting
people out of their cars and keeping them off of airplanes.
The principal competitor to Amtrak is not the airplane, it
is the automobile. The reason passenger service works better in
Japan--I have taken the Bullet Train from Tokyo to Nagano for
the Olympics just recently, a marvelous experience, wonderful
train, smooth as glass, 150 miles an hour, terrific. One of the
reasons so many people are on that train is that there is no
way in the world they are going to get there in their
automobile. The Japanese do not have an interstate highway
system that makes it attractive for you to get in your own car
and drive to the ski resort.
So if you are going to go from Tokyo to Nagano, you love
the Bullet Train. But in America you ride Amtrak and it is old
equipment and it is a rattly experience, and the food is not
wonderful, and you have to rent a car when you get there, and
you say, you know, next time I am going to get on the
interstate highway and cruise at 75 miles an hour and I am
going to have my own car when I get there, and I can eat where
I want to eat, and I can pull off and stop.
That is the main competitor, and we need to decide as a
matter of national policy where are we going to put rail
transport and subsidize it in a capital investment that makes
sense.
We have had this conversation about Amtrak every year for
30 years, and it is time for a serious policy decision about
rail passenger traffic in congested areas of this country that
is above your pay grade and may be above ours. But I think we
are calling for some secretarial leadership and probably some
Presidential leadership, working with the leadership of
Congress, to say where are we going to put passenger rail
transportation as a matter of transportation policy priority,
how much is it going to cost, what are the tradeoffs, and then
say, having made that decision, we will put the money behind
that decision, and other portions of the historic rail
passenger network that have been with us for all these years
will disappear because they do not fit the master plan.
We are doing this a band-aid approach, not a master plan
approach, and I think we are going to continue to struggle
along with band-aids and arguments until we step back and say,
what do we as a Nation want to do in this area?
I am very supportive of rail passengers, but I am getting a
little tired of the band-aid arguments back and forth, and I
would hope we would begin to see that kind of overall
leadership, hopefully out of this administration, if not this
one then the next. But this business of saying, well, we can
get through this year with this much money and we can patch it
up next year with that much money, and we never take the hard
decision of saying we are going to have to cut off this and we
are going to have to fund that, is frustrating to me.
Senator Shelby. Senator Gorton.
Amtrak's Ridership
Senator Gorton. You, Ms. Scheinberg, say in your written
statement that there is just one route that operates, that has
an operating profit, New York to Washington, DC, and that maybe
Boston to New York will when the conversion is completed. In
your view is there any other Amtrak route in addition to those
two that can realistically be expected to run at an operating
profit as we have traditionally defined that term?
Ms. Scheinberg. No other route presently comes close to
being able to operate at a profit. The reason the Metroliner
from Washington to New York can operate at a profit is because
of the price, and the reason the passengers are willing to pay
the price is because of the service they get. They get to New
York in 3 hours. It is high speed. It is what they want. If you
can duplicate that in other corridors to match the air time, in
the sense that a 3-hour train ride pretty much competes with a
1-hour plane ride when the train goes from the middle of one
city to the middle of another city and the airplanes have to go
to the outlying airports. In other corridors where you have
sufficient passengers who are going to make that trip and the
timing is really important to them, you can, I think, replicate
Metroliner results outside of the New York to Washington route.
Senator Gorton. Well, is there any such corridor that has
that potential?
Ms. Scheinberg. We have not studied this issue, but I think
that there are potential corridors. A study would need to be
done looking for the markets and the population along the
corridors.
Amtrak itself has just announced that it is about to
undertake a study that would look at its own route system, what
markets exist, and what the passenger ridership wants. I think
as a result of Amtrak's study we could come up with some
answers for your question.
Senator Gorton. It is hard for me to think of any other
such corridor with a population, with a sufficient population
and a sufficiently small distance between major metropolitan
areas where you would be competitive with air. Certainly Los
Angeles-San Francisco would not fall into that category, would
it?
Ms. Scheinberg. The California routes have done a lot
better recently, but I am not sure if they could get to the
point of self-sufficiency. They are being supported by the
State as well. The Amtrak routes do get support from
California.
Senator Gorton. Let me put a question to both of you. If we
were to abandon Amtrak and simply pass a law that required the
owners of present rail trackage in the United States to offer
its use, the railroad owners, the use of their facilities to
any organization that wanted to run passenger service on the
same terms and conditions that they now offer it to Amtrak, how
much rail passenger service would there be in the United
States?
Ms. Scheinberg. Senator Gorton, we undertook a study
recently--it just came out a couple weeks ago--that looks at
the possible implications of an Amtrak liquidation. We talked
to States and commuter railroads that work with Amtrak now and
asked them what would happen if Amtrak no longer existed. We
got mixed responses. This is similar to your question. That is
why I am bringing this out.
In the Northeast corridor the States would be very
interested in continuing the service. Their concerns would be
on the costs to maintain the infrastructure. It goes back to
the capital issues that Senator Lautenberg was alluding to.
Outside of the Northeast corridor, there was some interest
in maintaining local service, but very little interest in
maintaining long-distance service.
Mr. Mead. This is the first time in Amtrak's history that
Congress and the administration have departed from a kind of
hand-in-glove approach to capital. Until you get a good capital
infrastructure, there would be very few takers, I would think,
in the private or State sector. But we are now positioned to
pump a lot of capital into our train system, and I would think
that at the end of the next 4 years we would be able to give a
much more responsive answer to the question you just posed.
Senator Gorton. Well, it sounds to me like the answer is,
even after the next 4 years, you would have Washington to New
York to Boston and that would be it, even after all that
capital investment has been made.
Mr. Mead. It may be. I do not know of anyplace else in the
world where train travel totally makes ends meet. If there is
one, I am not aware of it, sir.
Senator Gorton. But outside the Northeast corridor, there
is no other place in the United States with the population
density that exists in Western Europe and Japan, is there?
Mr. Mead. There are some markets in California.
Senator Gorton. Well, I think, Mr. Chairman, as I have felt
for years, there is no financial justification for this at all.
I speak as one who represents--as I told my friends on the
Commerce Committee, two summers ago I took the train from
Chicago to Seattle at one time when it was absolutely full.
There was not a seat available in it.
Of course, it took 44 hours as against 4, 3 or 4. It cost
more. It was less comfortable.
Senator Shelby. Have you taken it since?
Senator Gorton. And I cannot imagine, I cannot imagine that
they could have done anything but lose $50 a passenger or maybe
more than that per passenger on it.
If we want to keep it going for sentimental reasons, that
is one thing. But to think that we are ever going to make it
have an operating profit in my view is a total pipedream.
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Chairman, may I?
Senator Shelby. Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg. Just one comment for my friend from
Washington. That is that nearly 70 percent of the increased
ridership in 1997 on Amtrak came in the west coast area.
Another figure that may be of interest to you is that the
Empire Builder, the Chicago to Seattle train, had a 65-percent
increase in just 1 year.
I think what happens is, unless the system can be inviting
enough--and that means at higher speeds, especially in the
heavily used areas--we are not going to attract a lot of
traffic. The fare now from Newark or New York to Washington on
an airplane is $200. Now, you know where you can fly for $200.
If you can book it enough in advance, et cetera, you can
probably cross the ocean or at least cross the United States
for the same thing.
But if we had serious high-speed rail that meant we would
be in New York in an hour and a half to an hour and three
quarters, I would tell you that it would help clear the skies
as well as the highways.
Senator Gorton. Well, in my view there is no way that the
Empire Builder can ever be remotely competitive with air travel
because it is too long. I think that my own analogy is that we
no longer go by ship across the ocean as a method of
transportation. We do it as a part of a tour group, and maybe
someone can put together such luxurious railcars and such nice
destinations where they stop for a while as to have land
cruises in the way we have sea cruises today.
But to talk about cross-continental travel by rail as being
a practical transportation alternative, it just simply is not
going to happen.
Senator Shelby. Thank you. We thank you.
Senator Bennett.
Failure of Routes
Senator Bennett. I cannot resist getting into this for just
a minute and making this comment, because I have had some
personal experience with it. I see from your testimony and
submissions that they are talking about Los Angeles to Las
Vegas. Los Angeles to Las Vegas has been tried over and over
again. I will venture the prediction that Los Angeles to Las
Vegas will fail over and over again, because once again the
competition--if you are willing to spend the time, you can get
there in your car just as rapidly as you can on the train. And
when you get to Las Vegas, you are going to want your car,
because you may want to take a break from the gaming tables
long enough to go out and look at Boulder Dam or whatever.
You take your family with you or your significant other or
whatever, it is a whole lot cheaper. The time is the same and
the convenience at the other end is so much greater if you have
your own car.
The contrast with the Northeast corridor is stark. I used
to have an office in Washington and an office in New York, and
you are absolutely right, the Metroliner was the preferred way
to go, because I could get to my office in downtown Manhattan
in the same period of time by the Metroliner that I could on
the airplane. I did not have to deal with a taxi driver. I
could sit on the Metroliner and read, do work, eat. When the
Metroliner first started, you could get a steak on the
Metroliner that was as good as you could get in many New York
restaurants.
And I do not want a car in Manhattan. The last thing in the
world you want in Manhattan is to be stuck with a car.
So the highway competition is not there, and the airway
competition can be met. Somebody ought to be making these kinds
of strategic decisions in the way the Senator from New Jersey
was talking about. When he talks about growing his business, he
calls in the marketing people, who ask the fundamental
question, what does the customer want. And so far I am not
finding anybody in Amtrak asking the question, what does the
customer want.
I think if we asked that question, what does the citizen
want or what does the customer want, we will say: Forget the
experiment between Los Angeles and Las Vegas and buy the right
of way to build us a high-speed dedicated roadway in the
Northeast corridor and watch it make money over time, money in
terms of the European-Japanese model that says, yes, these are
subsidized, but the societal cost is more than recovered in
terms of pollution and congestion and all of those kinds of
things, and quit fooling around with the nostalgia that says we
are a railroading nation and we must continue to be for the
next 200 or 300 years.
Mr. Mead. You know, one of the interesting things about the
Las Vegas-Los Angeles run is that was under consideration some
years ago as a magnetic levitation route because it was one of
the few city pairs in the United States where you could go in a
straight line with few or no stops, which you need pretty much
for maglev.
In fairness to Amtrak, they have in the last several years
been doing a customer satisfaction and desires type survey, and
they report on some aspects of that in their annual report.
Senator Bennett. I stand by my prediction.
Senator Shelby. Do you have another statement, Ms.
Scheinberg? Do you have anything else?
Ms. Scheinberg. I was just going to tell Senator Bennett
that Amtrak has just decided to conduct a market analysis to
look at its customer base on its routes. It is just about to do
that, and it will take quite a bit of time. But hopefully it
will get at the issues that you are talking about, because I
agree with you that those are the issues that are going to make
the difference.
Submitted Questions
Senator Shelby. We thank you both for appearing. We
appreciate your candor and your statements. Thank you so much.
We will submit additional questions to be answered for the
record.
Ms. Scheinberg. Thank you.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the agencies for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
General Accounting Office
Questions Submitted by Senator Shelby
Question. At the request of the conferees on last year's bill, the
GAO is currently working on a complete analysis of Amtrak's route
structure. The report is due May 15th. Please provide a list of
Amtrak's routes, ranked by financial performance in fiscal year 1997,
including the name of the train, the route endpoints, the operating
ratio, and profit or loss on a per passenger basis.
Answer. The requested information follows:
TABLE 1.--FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF AMTRAK'S ROUTES, FISCAL YEAR 1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Profit or
Name/route Operating (loss) per
ratio \1\ passenger
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metroliners: New York, NY-Washington, DC...... 0.94 $5
San Joaquins: Oakland, CA-Bakersfield, CA..... 1.23 (11)
Carolinian: New York, NY-Charlotte, NC........ 1.45 (27)
Piedmont: Raleigh, NC-Charlotte, NC........... 1.48 (42)
Capitols: Roseville, CA-San Jose, CA.......... 1.52 (15)
Auto Train: Lorton, VA-Sanford, FL............ 1.56 (118)
Northeast Direct: Boston, MA or Springfield, 1.65 (29)
MA-Washington, DC or Richmond, VA............
Pacific Northwest Corridor: Eugene, OR- 1.76 (26)
Seattle, WA or Vancouver, Canada.............
Illini: Chicago, IL-Carbondale, IL............ 1.82 (47)
Kansas City-St. Louis: Kansas City, MO-St. 1.91 (45)
Louis, MO....................................
Southwest Chief: Chicago, IL-Los Angeles, CA.. 1.92 (180)
San Diegans: San Diego, CA-Los Angeles, CA or 1.96 (23)
Santa Barbara, CA............................
Vermonter: Washington, DC-St. Albans, VT...... 2.00 (58)
Lake Shore Limited: Chicago, IL-Boston, MA or 2.01 (90)
New York, NY.................................
Empire: New York, NY-Albany or Buffalo, NY.... 2.03 (38)
Adirondack: New York, NY-Montreal, Canada..... 2.10 (57)
Three Rivers: New York, NY-Chicago............ 2.18 (138)
Silver Meteor: New York, NY-Miami, FL......... 2.18 (120)
Empire Builder: Chicago, IL-Seattle, WA or 2.20 (136)
Portland, OR.................................
Illinois Zephyr: Chicago, IL-Quincy, IL....... 2.21 (61)
International: Chicago, IL-Toronto, Canada.... 2.23 (47)
New York-Harrisburg: New York, NY-Harrisburg, 2.30 (37)
PA...........................................
California Zephyr: Chicago, IL-Emeryville (San 2.24 (149)
Francisco), CA...............................
Capitol Limited: Chicago, IL-Washington, D.C.. 2.27 (133)
Pere Marquette: Chicago, IL-Grand Rapids, MI.. 2.43 (51)
Coast Starlight: Los Angeles, CA-Seattle, WA.. 2.43 (92)
Philadelphia-Harrisburg: Philadelphia, PA- 2.15 (22)
Harrisburg, PA...............................
Silver Star: New York, NY-Miami, FL........... 2.47 (143)
Silver Palm: \2\ New York, NY-Miami, FL....... 2.48 (163)
Crescent: New York, NY-New Orleans, LA........ 2.56 (163)
Chicago-St. Louis: Chicago, IL-St. Louis, MO.. 2.58 (59)
Clockers: New York, NY-Philadelphia, PA....... 2.59 (11)
Pennsylvanian: New York, NY-Pittsburgh, PA.... 2.70 (53)
Empire-Ethan Allen Express: \3\ New York, NY- 2.75 (79)
Rutland, VT..................................
City of New Orleans: Chicago, IL-New Orleans, 2.78 (130)
LA...........................................
Hiawathas: Chicago, IL-Milwaukee, WI.......... 2.92 (50)
Texas Eagle: Chicago, IL-San Antonio, TX...... 3.11 (189)
Sunset Limited: Los Angeles, CA-Orlando, FL... 3.16 (284)
Cardinal: Chicago, IL-Washington, DC.......... 3.29 (136)
Chicago-Pontiac: Chicago, IL-Pontiac, MI...... 3.66 (66)
-------------------------
Total route system...................... \4\ 1.86 (47)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--The profit or loss per passenger in this table reflects Amtrak's
fully allocated costs, which include all general ledger costs related
to running intercity passenger trains. It does not show the cash
impact on Amtrak's bottom line of operating each particular route due
to costs that are shared between routes and the impact travel on one
route that affects travel and revenues of other routes. Three routes
that Amtrak closed during fiscal year 1997 are excluded.
\1\ A route's operating ratio is its expenses divided by its revenues.
An operating ratio less than 1.0 means that the route was profitable,
while an operating ratio greater than 1.0 means that the route lost
money. A ratio greater than 2.0 means that the route's expenses were
at least two times greater than its revenues during the fiscal year.
\2\ Service was introduced in November 1996.
\3\ Service was introduced in December 1996.
\4\ Operating ratio for Amtrak's core intercity passenger services.
Source: GAO analysis of Amtrak's data.
Question. In your route analysis work, what characteristics have
you found would actually make a rail corridor be competitive with air
service?
Answer. There may be a number of characteristics that could make
intercity passenger rail service competitive with air service. We have
identified six conditions. First, a rail corridor would need sufficient
population to support travel on the route. Second, there should be
reasons for prospective train riders to want to travel the route, such
as business travel. Third, the duration of the trip should be
relatively short, say no longer than 3-4 hours. Fourth, the frequency
of service should be such to make rail travel a desirable alternative
for the prospective traveler. Fifth, departure and arrival times should
be convenient and fit the travelers' needs. Finally, rail service must
be competitively priced.
Question. How would the liquidation of Amtrak affect commuter and
freight railroads? How about splitting the operating and infrastructure
activities into two separate entities--how would this affect commuter
and freight railroads?
Answer. In our March 2, 1998, report entitled ``Intercity Passenger
Rail: Issues Associated With a Possible Amtrak Liquidation'' (GAO/RCED-
98-60), we found that a liquidation of Amtrak could disrupt intercity
and other passenger rail service as well as freight railroad
activities. In particular, for both intercity and commuter rail, issues
associated with accessing track and stations--and the cost of such
access--would largely determine the extent of service, if any,
including service on the Northeast Corridor. For example, although
officials from 3 states we contacted that were not on the Northeast
Corridor and did not provide financial support for intercity passenger
rail service indicated an interest in maintaining service in the
absence of Amtrak, they doubted it would occur because of the
potentially high cost of continuing service and possible difficulties
in negotiating access to tracks with freight railroads. They also cited
a lack of an incentive in keeping such service going if Amtrak's
national route network were ended. States that currently provide
financial support for intercity passenger rail service may have
somewhat more interest in maintaining such service. However, even these
states raised questions about cost and access to tracks. Finally,
commuter railroads also mentioned potential difficulties in gaining
access to tracks and stations and the cost of such access. How these
problems might be dealt with is unclear. Three states we talked to on
the Northeast Corridor said they would have difficulty in coming up
with additional money to pay for passenger rail service if Amtrak went
out of business and one of the states--New York--said it would look to
the federal government to pay any costs it might incur in the aftermath
of an Amtrak liquidation.
Commuter rail authorities that contract their service to Amtrak and
freight railroads that operate on the Northeast Corridor could also
face difficulties from an Amtrak liquidation. The commuter rail
authorities would have to find new operators--a task some said could be
time consuming and ultimately more expensive than their current
arrangement and freight railroads using the Northeast Corridor would
have to find a way to continue using the Corridor to provide service or
potentially face severe economic hardship from the loss of business.
These railroads currently have an easement to use the Northeast
Corridor to provide service. Two freight railroads we talked to said
they would take whatever action was necessary to ensure they could
continue to exercise their easement to provide freight service.
We have not evaluated how splitting Amtrak into separate operating
and infrastructure companies might affect future intercity, commuter,
or freight railroad operations and costs.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Lautenberg
Question. GAO has been scrutinizing Amtrak's finances and
accounting systems for at least two years. In this time, have you found
Amtrak's process and methods to be sound and honest?
Answer. As we have indicated in our reports on Amtrak, data which
we have obtained and analyzed has largely been provided by Amtrak. We
have not independently verified this data nor made an independent
assessment of its soundness. However, Amtrak employs an independent
accounting firm--Price Waterhouse LLP--to annually audit its financial
statements and issue an opinion about whether Amtrak's consolidated
balance sheet and related financial reports are presented fairly. Such
an audit includes, among other things, examining, on a test basis,
evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial
statements. For 1997, Amtrak received an unqualified opinion on its
financial statements.
Question. Is Amtrak's updated plan, adopted this spring,
incorporating more information on the level of federal support and
assumptions regarding the labor agreement, considerably more
conservative than the original Board-passed plan?
Answer. Amtrak believes that its revised plan is conservative and
realistic. For example, Amtrak states that the revised plan ``. . .
reflects a much more conservative Express forecast based on a more
realistic set of assumptions regarding operational, market, and legal
constraints. It also includes an estimate of the cash impact of all
labor unions assuming settlement in July of 1998.'' The plan is also
predicated on full funding of the Administration's budget request
(through 2003) and flexibility that would allow appropriated funds to
be used for maintenance expenses.
Question. If this Committee, at a minimum, fully funds the
Administration's fiscal year 1999 funding request of $621 million in
capital with flexibility, can Amtrak remain solvent and preserve the
Taxpayer Relief Act funds for high rate of return projects?
Answer. Amtrak's March 1998 revised Strategic Business Plan
indicates that full funding of the Administration's fiscal year 1999
funding request would allow it to remain solvent through 2003 and stay
within its existing lines of short-term credit. This is assuming that
business plan actions are accomplished and that revenue and cost
projections contained in the plan are achieved. According to the
revised business plan, fully funding the Administration's budget
request and providing flexibility that would allow appropriated funds
to be used for maintenance expenses would also allow Amtrak to preserve
Taxpayer Relief Act funds for high rate-of-return projects. However,
Amtrak plans to temporarily use Taxpayer Relief Act funds--about $100
million in fiscal year 1998, $317 million in fiscal year 1999, and $200
million in fiscal year 2000--for allowed maintenance of existing
equipment to help address cash flow problems in each of these years.
According to Amtrak, the temporary use of Taxpayer Relief Act funds for
allowed equipment maintenance will help the corporation avoid
additional borrowing from its credit lines over the original planned
amount (about $100 million each year).
Question. What, in your view, will happen to Amtrak's financial
situation if this Committee provides substantially less than the levels
requested by the President over the next five years?
Answer. Providing Amtrak with less funding than that requested in
the President's budget would likely require Amtrak to substantially
increase its revenues; reduce its costs to stay within planned net loss
and cash flow targets specified in its March 1998 revised Strategic
Business Plan; and/or make increased use of Taxpayer Relief Act funds
for allowed maintenance expenses.
Implementing these options could be difficult and/or have
significant financial impacts on Amtrak. Increasing revenue or reducing
costs could be particularly difficult in the short-term. As we
testified, Amtrak has sharply reduced its expected revenue from the
pilot express program (about $47 million in fiscal year 1998) and
revenues from the new high-speed rail program will not be received for
another 2 years. Amtrak is also facing wage increases from its recent
agreement with the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees--about
$3 million to $5 million in fiscal year 1998. According to Amtrak, if
this agreement were extended to Amtrak's 12 other labor unions,
Amtrak's costs could increase between $60 and $70 million per year (net
of one-time payments and any productivity gains negotiated with the
unions). Using Taxpayer Relief Act funds for allowed maintenance
expenses will likely reduce the amount of money available for high
rate-of-return investments.
Question. What is the single most important thing we can do here in
Congress to ensure Amtrak's long-term financial survival?
Answer. As we concluded in 1995, the Congress needs to decide on
the nation's expectations for intercity passenger rail service and the
scope of Amtrak's mission in providing this service. These decisions
require defining a national route network, determining the extent to
which the federal government would contribute funds, and deciding on
the way any remaining deficits would be covered. We believe these
conclusions continue to ring true. Given the tools provided in the
Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997, now is the time for the
Congress and the new Amtrak Reform Board to work together to consider
and act on the issues that will chart Amtrak's future.
Question. I understand you have surveyed some states regarding
whether they want to take over services currently served by Amtrak.
What were the states' expectations in terms of paying for the costs
associated with managing the system and maintaining the infrastructure?
What happens to the costs of operating a system? Did the states expect
any problems with forming agreements with other potential partners
along a corridor?
Answer. In our report on the possible liquidation of Amtrak
(``Intercity Passenger Rail: Issues Associated With a Possible
Liquidation of Amtrak'' (GAO/RCED-98-60, Mar. 2, 1998)) we found that
states and commuter authorities that provide passenger rail service
following an Amtrak liquidation could bear the costs to operate,
maintain, and rehabilitate infrastructure, such as tracks and stations,
that Amtrak currently pays. How much of the cost might be assumed by
these other parties is uncertain because, in part, it would depend on
such factors as the extent to which these other parties needed the
infrastructure, the price the new owner might charge for use of the
facilities, and the level at which the infrastructure would be
maintained. Some of the states we talked to indicated they would have a
difficult time coming up with the additional money for passenger rail
service that could be shifted to them if Amtrak were to go out of
business. At least one state, New York, said it would look to the
federal government to help pay these costs.
We also reported that an Amtrak liquidation could disrupt intercity
and other passenger rail service as well as freight railroad
activities. In particular, for both intercity and commuter rail, issues
associated with accessing track and stations--and the cost of such
access--would largely determine the extent of service, if any,
including on the Northeast Corridor. Officials from 3 states we
contacted that were not on the Northeast Corridor and did not provide
financial support for intercity passenger rail service indicated an
interest in maintaining service in the absence of Amtrak but doubted it
would occur because of the potentially high cost of continuing service
and difficulties in negotiating access to tracks with freight
railroads. They also cited a lack of an incentive in keeping such
service going if Amtrak's national route network were ended. States
that provide financial support for intercity passenger rail service may
have more of an interest in continuing such service but also raised
concerns about cost and access to tracks. Finally, commuter railroads
also mentioned potential difficulties in gaining access to tracks and
stations and the cost of such access. Commuter rail authorities that
contract their service to Amtrak and freight railroads that operate on
the Northeast Corridor could also face difficulties. For example,
commuter rail agencies that contract their service to Amtrak would have
to find a new operator--a task some said could be time consuming and
ultimately be more expensive than their current arrangement. Freight
railroads using the Northeast Corridor could also have to find a way to
continue using the Corridor without losing business.
Use of interstate compacts between two or more states (as
authorized by the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997) may be
a way of preserving service. However, implementation could be
difficult. Some of the states we talked to expressed concerns about
using such compacts to maintain intercity passenger rail service citing
such problems as reaching agreements on the allocation of costs,
establishing train schedules, and determining station stops. Two states
we talked to--Illinois and Florida--had direct experience in trying to
work with other states in establishing a long-distance intercity
passenger rail route. In both instances the route was not established
because there were too many disputes among the participating states
over cost and operational matters. An official from one state--
Illinois--said interstate compacts might be feasible but only on routes
that are relatively short--say 3 to 4 hour trip times.
Question. The Reason Foundation and the Intercity Passenger Rail
Working Group, the bipartisan advisory group convened by the House
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure last Spring, point to
the privatization of British Rail, as an example of a successful
passenger rail privatization effort. However, according to a January
25th article in the London Sunday Times, service has actually
deteriorated and costs to British taxpayers are higher than before
privatization. In fact, this article states that passenger surveys find
``public confidence in Britain's rail service is at an all-time low,''
and that the new train operating companies receive more than twice as
much in subsidies as British Rail received when it was government-
owned.
a. Given the problems with British Rail, would you predict that a
privatized Amtrak would result in poorer service at higher taxpayer
cost?
Answer. We have not studied the experience of British Rail or other
countries' privatization efforts. As a result, we cannot offer an
opinion on how costs and service might change, if at all, if Amtrak
were privatized. In our February 6, 1995, report entitled ``Intercity
Passenger Rail: Financial and Operating Conditions Threaten Amtrak's
Long-Term Viability'' (GAO/RCED-95-71), we concluded that privatizing
Amtrak might be complicated by a number of factors. First, it is not
clear what would be privatized since Amtrak owns very little track
outside the Northeast Corridor. Second, because passenger train
services might be inherently unprofitable, private, for-profit firms
are unlikely to be interested in such business without some government
assistance. Third, different degrees of privatization are possible, so
that it is necessary to define what is meant by privatization. Finally,
privatizing Amtrak is not likely to result in successfully preserving a
nationwide intercity passenger rail system.
b. According to a study by the Union Bank of Switzerland, Britain
has the highest rail tickets in the world. What would be the effect of
privatization on rail ticket prices in the U.S.?
Answer. We have not studied this issue and, therefore, cannot
venture an opinion.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Reid
Question. You did provide a fairly gloomy picture of Amtrak's
finances. If we do fully fund the Administration's request: $621
million in capital with the flexibility in fiscal year 1999, $571 in
2000, $521 in 2001, etc., can Amtrak remain solvent and preserve the
TRA for high rate of return projects?
Answer. Amtrak's March 1998 revised Strategic Business Plan
indicates that funding the corporation at the amounts requested in the
Administration's fiscal year 1999 budget would allow it to remain
solvent through 2003 and stay within its existing lines of short-term
credit. This is assuming business plan actions are accomplished and
revenue and cost projections are achieved. According to the revised
business plan, fully funding the Administration's budget request and
providing flexibility in how appropriated funds can be spent would also
allow Amtrak to preserve Taxpayer Relief Act funds for high rate-of-
return projects. Amtrak plans to temporarily use Taxpayer Relief Act
funds--about $100 million in fiscal year 1998, $317 million in fiscal
year 1999, and $200 million in fiscal year 2000--for allowed
maintenance of existing equipment to help meet its short- term
financial needs. According to Amtrak, the temporary use of Taxpayer
Relief Act funds for allowed equipment maintenance will help the
corporation avoid additional borrowing from its credit lines over
original planned amounts (about $100 million each year) and help the
corporation avert bankruptcy.
Question. Are there alternatives to the DOT/Amtrak/OMB proposal
that you know of that would work better?
Answer. Our work has focused on analyzing the likely effects of
current proposals. In our February 6, 1995, report entitled ``Intercity
Passenger Rail: Financial and Operating Conditions Threaten Amtrak's
Long-Term Viability'' (GAO/RCED-95-71), we concluded that the Congress
needed to decide on the nation's expectations for intercity passenger
rail service and the scope of Amtrak's mission in providing that
service. We believe that this is the right time for Amtrak's new Reform
Board to work with the Congress to consider and act on the issues that
will chart Amtrak's future.
Question. It was said by Mr. Mead and yourself that Amtrak's
business forecast for this year was too ``rosy,'' and that due to
planned labor settlements and a reduction in the revenue forecast for
mail and express, they will come in under their targets.
However, didn't all that come from a plan that was adopted prior to
the passage of the reauthorization bill last year, prior to enactment
of the appropriations last year when they still didn't know what
funding they would receive for fiscal year 1998, and prior to the
approval of the TRA funds? Is Amtrak's current forecast--adopted this
Spring--more conservative than the original Board-passed plan?
Answer. Amtrak's September 1997 Strategic Business Plan was adopted
by Amtrak's Board about one week before the start of the new fiscal
year. As such, Amtrak would have been in a position to include
congressional budget marks. In addition, Amtrak's September 1997 plan
incorporated planned actions that included the effects of both
receiving or not receiving Taxpayer Relief Act funds (recognizing that
the receipt of Taxpayer Relief Act funds was preconditioned on the
enactment of reform legislation that was ultimately enacted).
Amtrak believes that its revised March 10, 1998 Strategic Business
Plan is conservative and realistic. For example, Amtrak states that the
revised plan ``. . . reflects a much more conservative Express forecast
based on a more realistic set of assumptions regarding operational,
market, and legal constraints. It also includes an estimate of the cash
impact of all labor unions assuming settlement in July of 1998.'' The
plan is also predicated on full funding the Administration's budget
request (through 2003) and flexibility that would allow appropriated
funds to be used for maintenance expenses.
______
Office of Inspector General
Questions Submitted by Senator Lautenberg
new definition of capital assistance
Question. Your testimony states that in fiscal year 1999, under the
new definition of capital assistance, Amtrak can use $542 million for
operating expenses. Does $542 million represent the amount that is
available for spending or the amount that will be used?
Answer. According to Amtrak's Strategic Business Plan, Amtrak
intends to use up to $542 million of the $621 million proposed in the
President's fiscal year 1999 budget for operating expenses,
specifically for maintenance of equipment and infrastructure.
Question. If we assume the level of capital federal funding
proposed by the Administration is appropriated and the Federal Transit
Administration's definition of capital is used over the five years of
Amtrak's revised business plan, will Amtrak decrease its reliance on
federal support for operating costs over that time period?
Answer. There are no funds requested in the President's fiscal year
1999 budget for Amtrak operating assistance. However, according to
Amtrak's revised Strategic Business Plan, which assumes the use of the
``transit'' definition of capital, Amtrak will sustain a net operating
loss and need operating assistance every year through fiscal year 2002,
as shown in the table below.
OPERATING LOSSES--FISCAL YEARS 1998-2002
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------------------------------
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Operating Loss....................................... 544,948 758,257 641,156 589,924 592,673
Total Operating Assistance Needed........................ 98,536 281,819 139,909 74,401 77,266
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amtrak plans to obtain the needed operating assistance through
short-term borrowing. Amtrak has not calculated the financial impact
that would result if it is not permitted to use the ``transit''
definition of capital.
Question. Will the application of the FTA's definition of capital
inherently promote better business practices?
Answer. Yes. Under the current approach, Amtrak may be inclined to
defer maintenance on some equipment to save scarce operating funds,
knowing that although this may shorten the equipment's service life,
the replacement of the equipment could be financed by capital grants.
The decision on whether to repair or replace capital goods should be
based on a sound economic analysis of which option is the least costly
overall and not on the type of funds available.
Question. Do you support this change in definition?
Answer. We support the change in the definition of capital to
include maintenance of equipment and infrastructure. It must be
recognized, however, that this change will allow Amtrak to use
``capital funding'' to pay what were previously operating costs.
Congress must clearly stipulate whether or not the requirement for
self-sufficiency by 2002 allows for continued funding of maintenance of
equipment and infrastructure from capital funds.
Question. Amtrak's revised business plan shows that it will need a
little over $60 million in operating support in fiscal year 2002. Do
you think Amtrak's planned business actions, including actions that may
be taken based on a market analysis, will enable Amtrak to make
improvements in the bottom line and eliminate the approximately $60
million deficit in fiscal year 2002?
Answer. No. Amtrak's Strategic Business Plan shows net operating
losses each year from 1998 to 2002, even with the implementation of
planned business actions.
Question. Would it cost the federal government less to provide a
capital only grant to Amtrak?
Answer. Yes. If Amtrak receives a capital only grant and is
permitted to use the ``transit'' definition of capital, federal funds
could be used to pay for maintenance of equipment and infrastructure.
However, operating costs, such as payroll, which historically were
funded through an operating subsidy grant and averaged over 50 percent
of total expenses, could no longer be paid with federal funds.
Question. Would the amounts proposed in the President's budget
enable the corporation to become financially viable?
Answer. According to its revised Strategic Business Plan, Amtrak
will incur an operating cash loss of approximately $77 million at the
end of fiscal year 2002. The independent assessment of Amtrak, as
required by the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997, will
provide Congress and Amtrak with detailed information on requirements
for Amtrak to become financially viable.
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
STATEMENT OF ROBERT KILEY, PRESIDENT, NEW YORK CITY
PARTNERSHIP
Introduction of Witnesses
Senator Shelby. Our second panel will be: Mr. Robert Kiley,
president of New York City Partnership; Robert Poole, president
of the Reason Foundation. And they are going to speak on
alternatives for passenger rail in America. Gentlemen--and Mr.
Jeff Ladd, excuse me, chairman of the Metra Commuter Rail. Is
Mr. Ladd here? Yes; he is here.
Mr. Ladd. Sorry, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. That is OK.
Gentlemen, your written statements will be made part of the
record in their entirety. You can proceed as you wish. Mr.
Kiley, if you want to begin.
Mr. Kiley. Mr. Chairman, to repeat, my name is Robert
Kiley. I am the president of the New York City Partnership,
which is New York City's preeminent and business association.
Senator Shelby. Do you want to bring the mike a little
closer to you, sir. Thank you.
Mr. Kiley. To repeat, my name is Bob Kiley. I am the
president of the New York City Partnership, which is New York
City's preeminent business and civic association. Our
membership consists of the major New York City corporations and
the heads of our major civic and cultural institutions.
Maybe more to the point, my career has included a stint as
chairman of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority in the
Greater New York region. That included responsibility for the
subway system, the Long Island commuter railroad, and the Metro
North commuter railroad. Prior to that I served in a similar
position in the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority,
which also included a contract relationship with Amtrak to
operate its commuter service to both the north and the south of
Boston. Finally, I served as a member of the Amtrak board from
1993 to early 1996. So I am a veteran of the Northeast corridor
and I feel as if I have grown long in the tooth along with
Amtrak.
But even more to the point, I served as a member of the
House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructures Working Group which was created last year to
help along the legislative process which finally resulted in
the Amtrak Reform Act of last fall, and I am here in that
capacity, that is explaining what the recommendations were of
that working group.
But I might start out by saying that I am a little bit jet-
lagged since I got off an airplane last night from Italy, where
I spent 10 wonderful days visiting our son, who is a student in
Rome this semester. And I have to tell you, I have to report
that I was a frequent user of the Fast Train in Italy. They
operate six different kinds of services. You would be crazy to
put yourself in the way of those wicked Italian automobile
drivers and not take advantage of that wonderful train service.
I am sure we all recall that it was said of Mussolini that
he made the trains run on time in the 1930's. That was a
statement born of frustration and irony here in the United
States----
Senator Shelby. It is what we remember him for, among other
things.
Mr. Kiley. Yes, true.
But one of the reasons why that statement resonated in the
United States was that we were already having trouble running
our own passenger trains, and this problem that seems to
bedevil us and the one that is preoccupying us today is not
just 25 or 30 years old; it is 65 or 70 years old. The problem
of how to manage and direct our national passenger rail set of
assets is one that seems to have escaped and eluded us and
bedeviled us for at least two generations.
Method for Capital Investment
It is, I think, well to remember that Amtrak itself was
created during a period when our entire railroad industry was
in deep trouble in the United States, and Amtrak was one of two
organizations, the other being Conrail, that was created to
deal with the impending and then finally the bankruptcy of at
least the eastern segment of that railroad industry.
I do not think it was a deep dark secret that Amtrak, to
put a somewhat cynical spin on it, was at the outset almost a
dumping ground for the unprofitable segment of the rail
industry, namely passenger operations. The story of Conrail you
are all familiar with. After billions of dollars of taxpayers'
investment in Conrail, it was finally taken private again in
the mid-1980's and is now a considerable success story, whereas
Amtrak unfortunately still remains a subject of great debate.
I think it is fair to say that the Working Group that met
last spring was really something of a takeoff on questions that
all of you are asking today, but particularly Senators
Lautenberg and Bennett. What seems to have been missing since
the advent of Amtrak, and this is, I think, one of the major
findings of the Working Group, is that when you get right down
to it there seems to be an absence of real focused public
policy in this area, real strategy.
The fact that you can look at Amtrak, as the Government
Accounting Organization has, and find that essentially over 30
years or almost 30 years that its organizational profile, its
revenue-to-cost ratios, labor costs, and overhead rates, its
route structures, its market position, have essentially
remained unchanged during this entire period of time--when
Amtrak started there were 400 routes; back in the 1930's there
were 6,000 routes; today there are 40 routes. But the essential
nature of these routes have essentially not changed.
So it is not an accident that out of these 40 routes, only
one of them is in a position today to cover its own costs. This
was really at the heart of the finding of the Working Group.
Essentially, the Working Group reached the conclusion that
until the Congress which has really become in effect the owner
of Amtrak over the past 10 to 15 years, since most would argue
that the executive branch has tended to take a walk on Amtrak,
until the Congress takes a hard step backward, maybe even a
harder step than it took last year, to look at what its
ownership has wrought, we are likely to be back here at this
table every year or two having this same discussion.
The Working Group essentially concluded that a new
organization which would focus on these issues--we called it
Amrail--should be created, which would be the funnel, the
energizing force, for Federal capital investment in our
national rail system, should be created. It should focus on
those densely populated corridors that both Senators Lautenberg
and Bennett have discussed here today.
It ought to begin the process, which has been much delayed,
of seeing which corridors ought to take priority and starting
that investment process. It was the feeling of the Working
Group that this task should be separated from what Amtrak ought
to be doing, which is running train operations, so that we can
finally have a national rail strategy that would guide the
expenditure of capital dollars.
Amtrak over a period of time, over a period of several
years, 2003 as a result of the Reform Act of last year, would
in fact become a rail operator, but it would be one of
potentially a number of rail operators. Amtrak would in effect
become privatized over a period of time. There would have to be
a transition here that would last as long as the operating
subsidy anticipated in the Reform Act would last, that is until
the year 2002 or 2003.
In the meantime, Amrail would be overseeing the investment
of these capital resources in lines that Amtrak now runs
perhaps, particularly in the Northeast corridor, which is the
exception that proves the rule that we ought to be investing in
densely populated corridors, and Amtrak would be out of the
capital investment picture and would be doing operations.
Amrail would also be franchised to set standards for
passenger operations across the country, most especially in
these newly developed, densely populated corridors. And new
operators would be welcome to operate trains in those
corridors.
Passenger Rail Alternatives
To answer Senator Gorton's question, there are actually
companies out there right now who are anxious to run passenger
rail operations, who would like to compete, and under the
Reform Act they are going to get their first opportunity to
compete. But they need opportunities. They need access to
markets. And the current Amtrak route structure unfortunately
does not penetrate into those markets where there are
passengers to be found.
I notice that the red light is on, Senator. There is much--
there is more that I could say about the Working Group's
findings, but in essence we are arguing that there needs to be
a new passenger rail, federally sponsored, public policy, it
ought to be focused on densely populated corridors and it ought
to happen during the life of the Reform Act. The Reform Act is
a good start, but it is only a start.
Mr. Chairman, the Working Group has prepared a report
entitled ``A New Vision for America's Passenger Rail'' which we
submit for the committee's consideration.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
A New Vision for America's Passenger Rail
(Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Working Group on
Intercity 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 imposed 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 percent on a system-wide
basis, and ranged from 37.4 percent to 47.3 percent among its strategic
business units. By comparison, a load factor around 60 percent 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
percent 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; and
--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 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, Ala., 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, Mass.). 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 ridership.
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.
[Clerk's note.--The appendixes to this report do not appear
in the hearing record, but are available for review in the
subcommittee's files.]
STATEMENT OF ROBERT W. POOLE, JR., PRESIDENT, THE
REASON FOUNDATION
Senator Shelby. Mr. Poole.
Mr. Poole. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I am Bob Poole, president of Reason Foundation, which is a
public policy think tank based in Los Angeles. We have been
researching privatization for 20 years now and my own expertise
is in privatizing transportation and infrastructure functions.
My testimony is based in part on the study that we did last
fall called ``Replacing Amtrak.''
Troubled railroads are not unique to the United States.
Senator Shelby. If we could, I would like to make that
study part of the record.
Mr. Poole. We will be happy to provide a copy for that,
yes, sir.
[The Information follows:]
Replacing Amtrak: A Blueprint for Sustainable Passenger Rail Service
(By Joseph Vranich)
[part 1]
introduction
Amtrak was created by the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 as a
``for-profit corporation'' to revitalize intercity passenger rail
service. It assumed responsibility for such service on May 1, 1971,
relieving the private railroad industry of much of the financial losses
incurred in operating such trains. Compared with promises made then,
Amtrak's costs and public subsidies are far higher and ridership far
lower than projections. Amtrak generally operates routes that meet
political needs but not market demand.
A view is emerging, including among Amtrak's founders, that Amtrak
needs to be eliminated while maintaining passenger train service on
America's few busy lines. Which lines to keep? Kenneth M. Mead of the
General Accounting Office (GAO) has indicated to Congress that ``Five
of Amtrak's forty-four routes, the ones in the Northeast and Southern
California, account for over 50 percent of all riders, 56 percent of
revenues, and 40 percent of costs.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Amtrak's Current Situation, Hearings before the U.S. House of
Representatives, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Subcommittee on Railroads, February 7, 10, and 13, 1995, p. 43.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Haswell, considered the ``father of Amtrak,'' said several
years ago: ``Twenty-five years after I set out to save the American
passenger train, I feel personally embarrassed over what I helped to
create.'' \2\ Haswell, decrying Amtrak's commitment to long-distance
trains, declares ``there is no longer a need or place in the United
States for a year-round interconnected national network of passenger
trains.'' \3\ He urges creation of new entities to run regionalized
services.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Anthony Haswell letter to Carl Swanson, Passenger Train
Journal, October 12, 1992.
\3\ Anthony Haswell, telephone interview, April 20, 1996.
\4\ Anthony Haswell, remarks prepared for the Railway & Locomotive
Historical Society, Chicago, IL, January 11, 1991, and in subsequent
comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amtrak supporters argue that Amtrak is an essential service that
helps reduce airport congestion. Yet, even on many short-distance
routes where it's faster to take Amtrak, people continue to fly because
``many travelers no more think of trains than of horses.'' \5\ Amtrak
carries an infinitesimal amount of traffic. If all Amtrak trains except
those in the Northeast and Southern California stopped, not a single
flight would be added to the nation's air system. Further, no amount of
marketing will change the uneconomical nature of long-distance
passenger trains serving an outdated common-carrier role.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Susan Carey, ``Even When It's Quicker to Travel by Train, Many
Fly,'' Wall Street Journal, August 29, 1997, p. B1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Useful passenger trains can survive an Amtrak liquidation. Betsy
Reveal, while serving as Amtrak's chief financial officer, said: ``I
think there's two questions: `What's the future of passenger rail in
America?' There is a completely separate question, which is, `What's
the future of Amtrak?' You can imagine a brilliant future with
passenger rail with Amtrak gone.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Jackie Spinner, ``Amtrak's CFO Is Well Acquainted With Fiscal
Chaos,'' Washington Post, July 31, 1995, B9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[part 2]
overview of amtrak
a. amtrak headed for bankruptcy
The GAO has warned repeatedly that Amtrak is in a ``financial
crisis,'' \7\ and Amtrak itself admits a real possibility of a
bankruptcy and shutdown sometime in 1998.\8\ Amtrak fails to earn
enough revenues to pay operating expenses and is losing
disproportionate amounts on long-distance trains. For fiscal year 1996,
Amtrak's losses by business units amounted to $763.6 million, of which
$151 million was attributable to its Northeast Corridor Business Unit
and $342.6 million to its Chicago-based and Oakland, California-based
Business Units. Another $270 million was assigned to the Corporate
unit. The losses were reduced somewhat by state subsidies, but the
situation is that faster trains in the Northeast enjoy better revenue-
to-cost ratios than long-distance trains and slow short-distance trains
on virtually every other line in the nation.\9\ Amtrak also comes
nowhere near contributing to capital requirements in a capital-
intensive industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Phyllis F. Scheinberg, U.S. General Accounting Office,
Testimony before House Subcommittee on Railroads, March 12, 1997;
Testimony before Senate Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and
Merchant Marine, March 13, 1997; and Testimony before the Senate
Committee on Finance, April 23, 1997.
\8\ Matt Mossman, ``Amtrak close to bankruptcy, executives say,''
Boston Globe, May 27, 1997, p. A3.
\9\ Amtrak Annual Report for 1996, Table 1: fiscal years 1995 and
1996 Operating Results by Major Business Unit, p. 34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amtrak attempted to improve performance in 1995 by reducing service
frequencies--a market-destroying act as several trains began operating
only three and four days per week.\10\ Yet, the cost-saving process
failed to reverse Amtrak's poor financial situation. By September 1995,
Amtrak admitted that less than daily service doesn't work. It
discontinued service entirely over several routes and increased
frequency to daily on others in an attempt to ``shift resources to
routes with the best opportunity for revenue growth.'' \11\ Revenues
indeed increased, but at a rate insufficient to reverse Amtrak's
financial standing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ ``Amtrak Board Approves $430 Million Budget Reduction,''
Amtrak News Release, December 14, 1994.
\11\``Amtrak Board Approves Fiscal 97 Business Plan,'' PR Newswire,
September 24, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Such cost-saving and revenue-building efforts have failed because
the essence of what they are trying to achieve--save the long-distance
train--is a lost cause. As Chicago Tribune columnist Stephen Chapman
wrote, ``Like the horse-drawn carriages that traverse North Michigan
Avenue every evening, Amtrak serves mainly to acquaint moderns with a
form of transportation that belongs almost entirely to the past. * * *
Americans have abandoned trains for vehicles that are faster
(airplanes), cheaper (buses) or more convenient (cars), and nothing is
going to reverse the trend.''\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Stephen Chapman, ``Amtrak: A Costly Monument to Nostalgia,''
Chicago Tribune, May 11, 1997, p. 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amtrak service leaves much to be desired. Thomas Downs, when
becoming Amtrak's president in 1994, said, ``We're selling
disappointment at the same time we're selling transportation.'' \13\
Little has improved since. A review of congressional hearing records
over Amtrak's life shows inquiry into Amtrak's ballooning deficits,
late and dirty trains, unsanitary food service, safety issues,
unreasonable labor costs, and declining market share.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Don Phillips, ``Amtrak Is Way Off Track Fiscally, Its
President and the GAO Say,'' Washington Post, March 18, 1994, p. A9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A recent GAO report reached grim conclusions: \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Phyllis F. Scheinberg, U.S. General Accounting Office,
Intercity Passenger Rail--Amtrak's Financial Crisis Threatens Continued
Viability, Testimony, Senate Committee on Finance, April 23, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Amtrak's financial condition is precarious and heavily dependent on
federal operating and capital funds. Amtrak's condition has
deteriorated steadily since 1990 and Amtrak is unlikely to
overcome its financial problems without significant increases
in passenger revenues or subsidies from federal, state, and
local governments.
--In the past two years, passenger revenues, adjusted for inflation,
have generally declined, and in fiscal year 1996, the gap
between operating deficits and federal operating subsidies
began to grow again to levels exceeding those of fiscal year
1994, when the continuation of Amtrak's nationwide service was
threatened.
--Amtrak's debt levels have increased significantly. Between fiscal
years 1993 and 1996, Amtrak's debt and capital lease
obligations increased from $527 million to about $987 million
(in 1996 dollars).
--It is likely Amtrak will continue to require federal financial
support--both operating and capital--``well into the future.''
b. recent congressional inquiry
The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee in April 1997
created the Working Group on Inter-City Rail, also known as the ``blue
ribbon panel'' on Amtrak. Rep. Bud Shuster, committee chairman, said in
announcing the panel that ``Congress has been faced with claims of an
Amtrak `crisis' many times in the past. This is the final crisis: the
alternative is a Penn Central-style bankruptcy, with all of the chaos
and unpredictability that comes with a bankruptcy and a complete
shutdown.'' \15\ The panel came to dramatic findings, summarized as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ News Release, House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, April 2, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Amtrak is awash in red ink, buffeted by conflicting missions and
ballooning debt, and virtually starved for capital in both
political and financial terms. These conditions create an
untenable outlook for passenger rail in the United States.
--Amtrak has missed its financial targets. In the next six to twelve
months, Amtrak faces a major liquidity crisis and probable
bankruptcy.
--Amtrak does not properly compensate freight railroads for the costs
of Amtrak-caused freight train delays, and contracts with
railroads should be negotiated based not on federal directive
but on commuter railroad experience.
--Capital and operating funding should be directed toward routes with
market potential, which are primarily the higher density inter-
city corridors.
--Amtrak's monopoly should end and passenger rail service should be
opened to competition.
--Long-distance trains make more sense as ``rolling National Parks.''
--Amtrak is requiring large subsidies from taxpayers and those
subsidies are not directed to activities of maximum benefit.
Funding Amtrak as it is today offers little hope of success and
would be irrational--a true waste of taxpayers' money.
--Reforms launched by Amtrak have not paid off.
--Transition funding is needed to bring about restructuring.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ A New Vision for America's Passenger Rail, Working Group on
Inter-City Passenger Rail, Washington, D.C.: House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, June 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. amtrak credibility crisis
While the Working Group's report was quite critical, Amtrak would
have the public hold more optimistic views. Amtrak claims regarding
ridership, subsidies, cost recovery, projected revenues, future
innovations, and prospects for express traffic deserve examination.
1. Ridership and Market Share
Amtrak has had a history of issuing incorrect projections. In 1977,
for example, Amtrak estimated to Congress that 25 million passengers
would ride its trains by 1982.\17\ Amtrak has never achieved that
figure. Today, not only are Amtrak projections still questionable but
so are its claims of actual ridership.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Amtrak News Release, ``Improvements to Equipment, Track,
Stations in Amtrak Five-Year Plan,'' October 10, 1977, p. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miscounting Commuters.--Amtrak is trying to boost its importance by
inflating ridership figures. Amtrak now counts as its passengers those
who also are reported as passengers by local commuter agencies. For
example, a passenger aboard a Metrolink commuter train between Glendale
and Los Angeles is counted by Amtrak as passenger, but is also reported
as such by the local Metrolink agency. The unprecedented practice of
double counting has permitted Amtrak for several years to claim it
carries ``55 million people each year.'' \18\ That figure is more than
double the 19.7 million passengers who rode Amtrak's own trains last
year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Thomas Downs, ``Don't Stop Those Trains,'' Washington Post,
August 17, 1997, page C7, and Letter from the President, Amtrak 1995
Annual Report, p. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amtrak justifies this practice because it serves as a contractor
for the Los Angeles commuter trains, as well as local trains in Boston,
San Francisco, San Diego, and Baltimore-Washington-Northern Virginia.
Yet, if Amtrak were abolished the commuter trains would still run.
Local agencies own their commuter equipment and obtain subsidies apart
from Amtrak subsidies. In fact, Amtrak is by federal law prohibited
from using federal intercity subsidies to cross-subsidize commuter
trains.
Double-counting isn't found among airlines even when relationships
are similar to Amtrak-commuter arrangements. Many major airlines
provide passenger check-in services, baggage loading, refueling and
other services for regional airlines. The major airlines--under the
Amtrak standard--could count the regional airline's passengers as their
own. But airlines don't because that's misrepresentation and the
Securities and Exchange Commission would stop the practice.
Overall Ridership Decline.--Amtrak is ballyhooing ridership
increases in fiscal year 1997 as evidence of revived fortunes. In fact,
Amtrak is comparing traffic with its wretched 1996 performance when it
carried only 19.7 million passengers--the lowest in 12 years (see
Figure 1).\19\ Further, Amtrak's 1996 traffic was barely higher than in
1977--two decades ago.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Sources for Figure 1 are Background on Amtrak, September 1978,
p. 30; Mike Schafer, ``Amtrak's atlas,'' Trains, June 1991, p. 49; and
Amtrak 1996 Annual report, pp. IV and V.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MA24.005
Amtrak's dismal performance is occurring during a healthy economy,
when airlines and highways are registering all-time record traffic
levels. Amtrak remains odd man out, as reflected in an early 1997 story
on resurgent bus travel: ``Nationwide travel aboard Greyhound, the No.
I bus carrier, is up more than 12 percent compared with six years ago,
and travel on Trailways, which has undergone a major expansion, is up
77 percent during the same period. That compares with a 10 percent
decline in Amtrak train ridership nationwide and a more than 28 percent
increase in airplane passengers on U.S. carriers during the same
period.'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Allan Lengel, ``Spinning Their Wheels At the Depot. Rising
Number of Bus Travelers Keeps D.C. Greyhound Terminal Busy,''
Washington Post, April 21, 1997, p. B1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Declining Market Share.--Amtrak has lost market share throughout
the nation. During 1972, Amtrak's first full year of operation, it was
estimated that Amtrak carried about 0.8 percent of all passengers
making intercity trips. Today, Amtrak's share has fallen to a
microscopic 0.4 percent.\21\ Amtrak's passenger miles have dropped at
an alarming rate, from 6.273 million in fiscal year 1991 to 5.050
million in fiscal year 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Jean Love, Wendell Cox, and Stephen Moore, Amtrak at Twenty-
Five: End of the Line for Taxpayer Subsides, Policy Analysis No. 266,
Washington, D.C.: Cato Institute, December 19, 1996, p. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. population in 1970, the year Congress created Amtrak, was
203.3 million.\22\ The Census Bureau estimates the September 1, 1997,
population at 268 million.\23\ In 1972, Amtrak's first full year of
operation, it carried 16.6 million passengers.\24\ In comparing 1997
with 1972, Amtrak carried only 3.1 million more passengers despite a
national population growth of about 60 million. This reflects the worst
U.S. market penetration of any mode of passenger transport.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ World Almanac and Book of Facts 1994 (Manwah, N.J.: World
Almanac), p. 361.
\23\ U.S. Census Bureau Internet site, Projection page, September
1, 1997.
\24\ Background on Amtrak, Washington, D.C.: Amtrak, September,
1978, p. 30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Travel on Amtrak-style overnight trains is declining worldwide
(China is an exception). In Europe, passenger rail's market share
dropped by nearly 20 percent in the 1980's, while the airline market
share increased by 60 percent.\25\ The decline would have been more
startling except that high-speed and commuter train systems registered
gains that masked long-distance declines. Railway (gazette
International editorialized that most European overnight routes ``face
an uncertain future.'' \26\ The London & Continental Railways recently
abandoned plans to operate sleeping car trains from Scotland and
England to Paris via the Channel Tunnel, with chief executive Adam
Mills stating, ``a night service from the regions is simply not
viable.'' \27\ The sleeping cars ordered in 1992 are being sent into
long-term storage, a good example for the United States to follow.
Amtrak-style conventional trains are being discontinued in countries as
dissimilar as Argentina and the Czech Republic, whose 1998 timetable
will show 5,889 trains, down from 6,258.\28\ The Czech Railway is
curtailing passenger train service despite strident objections by labor
unions.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Jean Love et al., p. 9.
\26\ ``Last chance to catch the night train,'' Railway Gazette
International, September 1997, p. 555.
\27\ ``Sleepers abandoned,'' Railway Gazette International, August
1997, p. 497.
\28\ ``Czech Republic,'' International Railway Journal, July 1997.
\29\ ``Czech-Strike,'' Associated Press, February 4, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rider Demographics.--Amtrak claims to provide mobility to all
social classes. It is useful to consider a Cato Institute policy
analysis, which relied on data from the U.S. Department of
Transportation's Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey and Amtrak
itself. It concluded:
The poor are not especially heavy users of Amtrak. Three-
fourths of Amtrak passengers have incomes above the national
average. Travel on Amtrak by persons with incomes above $40,000
is the highest of any mode--3.5 times higher than on buses and
nearly 1.5 times higher than on airlines. Nearly one-third of
Amtrak passengers have household incomes of $75,000 or more,
and 20 percent have incomes of $100,000 or more. Amtrak's
clientele is much more skewed toward higher incomes than the
general population.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Jean Love et al., p. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Level of Subsidies
Amtrak's thicket of subsidies is difficult to unravel. Amtrak
boosters, for example, often cite $13 billion in federal operating
subsidies as the total Amtrak has received since its inception. In
fact, if federal capital expenditures for Amtrak are included along
with Amtrak's funding requests for fiscal year 1998, then federal
subsidies to Amtrak will total $20.4 billion.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ For a year-by-year breakdown of Amtrak subsidies, see Joseph
Vranich, Derailed: What Went Wrong and What to Do About America is
Passenger Trains, ``Amtrak's Structural Problems,'' Chapter Two (New
York: St. Martin's Press, October 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
But even this figure is understated since Amtrak has obfuscated its
capital subsidies. In a 1997 submission to the GAO,\32\ Amtrak failed
to list capital funds received through a federally guaranteed loan
process, a costly arrangement to the public treasury. Amtrak has never
repaid $880 million in loans received between 1971 and 1975, and that
obligation plus $239.6 million in interest were paid by the Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA) on Amtrak's behalf. Although current
reports ignore this obligation, an earlier Amtrak annual report states:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Amtrak Appropriations History, Amtrak finance and Planning
Department, submitted to the u.S. General Accounting Office, March 5,
1997.
September 30, 1983, Amtrak had borrowed under notes payable
to the Federal Financing Bank up to its maximum Federal
guaranteed loan authority of $880,000,000. On October 5, 1983,
this obligation, plus $239,635,000 in accrued interest, was
paid on Amtrak's behalf by the Federal Railroad Administration,
and a new note in the amount of $1,119,635,000 was executed as
of that date between Amtrak and the U.S. Government. The note
matures on November 1, 2082, and will be renewed for successive
99-year terms. Interest is payable only in the event of
prepayment or acceleration of the principal.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Amtrak Annual Report for 1983, Notes to Financial Statements,
Note 4, p. 25.
Thus, if this $1.1 billion is added to the previously cited $20.4
billion figure, the federal government's expenditures and current
obligations for Amtrak total at least $21.5 billion. Add operating and
capital subsidies from states and it's possible to add at least another
$1 billion in taxpayer funding for a $22.5 billion total.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ The states are Alabama, California, Delaware, Illinois,
Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New York,
North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Vermont, Washington and
Wisconsin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's more. These calculations exclude funding for Amtrak from
five federal programs that are outside Amtrak's budget--grants for
grade crossings, high-speed rail studies, intermodal stations,
enhancements to historic buildings, and technology development. Also,
some states rely on a sixth program, grants from the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA), to aid Amtrak. Vermont's use of $3.5 million in
FTA funds to finance a train to Rutland,\35\ and Pennsylvania's use of
$18.7 million from FTA to underwrite coaches for Amtrak's Philadelphia-
Harrisburg line are recent examples.\36\ Also uncalculated are state
and local funds for stations; the most recent example is $30 million
from New York state towards the $315 million conversion of Manhattan's
former central post office into an Amtrak station.\37\ None of these
examples are part of the $22.5 billion amount cited above, and,
unfortunately, the GAO has not included in reports to Congress the
extent of Amtrak's dependence on non-Amtrak public funding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ ``Vermont Gets Another Train,'' Passenger Train Journal,
November 1996, p. 8.
\36\ ``Federal Funds Approved To Help PennDOT Buy New Trains,'' PR
Newswire, September 16, 1997.
\37\ ``State OK's Funding,'' Rail News, October 1997, pp. 64-65.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Misleading Cost Recovery Claims
In recent congressional statements, Amtrak claims it ``covers more
of its operating costs--an estimated 84 percent--than any other
passenger railroad in the world.'' \38\ Admittedly, accounting systems
on railroads are complex. Yet, it appears Amtrak's claim of superiority
can be made (1) only if $1.1 billion in principal and interest are
ignored for Amtrak's federally guaranteed loans but counted for similar
loans to foreign railroads; (2) only by classifying state subsidies to
Amtrak as ``revenue'' (which Amtrak does in its annual report \39\)
while provincial funds for overseas railroads are ``subsidies.'' The
GAO has pointed out additional discrepancies:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Thomas Downs, Testimony, Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee, Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure, March
13,1997, p. 3.
\39\ Amtrak Annual Report for 1996, Statistical Appendix, p. II, at
``Revenues,'' which includes ``403B services,'' a term for state
subsidies.
Amtrak's revenue-to-expense ratio for fiscal year 1993
indicated that revenues were covering about 80 percent of
operating expenses. However, the calculation of this ratio
excluded certain expenses, including (1) depreciation; (2) the
FRA mandatory retirement payment; (3) various taxes paid to
federal or state governments; (4) user fees assessed by the
FRA; (5) other miscellaneous expenses relating to accident
claims; and (5) losses incurred in providing [state-subsidized]
service and disbursements for labor protection, which according
to an Amtrak official, are excluded at the direction of the
Congress. We believe all relevant costs, both capital and
operating, should be included in any performance measurement.
Because it excludes certain relevant expenses, Amtrak's ratio
does not reflect the ability of the corporation's revenues to
cover all costs of operating Amtrak.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Kenneth M. Mead, Amtrak: Deteriorated Financial Condition and
Costly Future Challenges, Testimony, House Committee on Energy and
Commerce, Subcommittee on Transportation and Hazardous Materials, March
23, 1994, p. 5.
Thus, Amtrak reduces its ratio by removing from the calculation
hundreds of millions of dollars in costs. If such additional expenses
for fiscal year 1993, which totaled about $370 million, had been
included in the calculation, the GAO believes the ratio would have been
only 66 percent, or 14 percentage points lower than reported by Amtrak.
4. Amtrak High-Speed Rail Predictions
Perhaps as early as 1999, Amtrak's New York-Washington Metroliners
will be replaced by American Flyer trains, capable of 150 mph, which
also will operate from New York to Boston. Amtrak projects profits for
the service, yet the level of profitability is questionable. The
American Flyer will travel at slower average speeds than Spain operated
in the early 1990's, France in the 1980's, and Japan in the 1970's.\41\
Thus, Amtrak's air-competitiveness in the future, particularly between
Boston and New York, will pale in comparison to that of high-speed
lines overseas in the past. A relationship exists between travel time
and market penetration, and it's doubtful that Amtrak's American Flyer
will come near meeting the ridership or profitability levels of the
successful overseas systems. Furthermore, conventional Amtrak trains in
the Northeast that run on slower schedules will continue to lose money.
These factors will limit Amtrak's ability to use Northeast Corridor
profits to cross-subsidize long-distance trains.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ For a review of Amtrak's record regarding Boston-Washington
service since 1971, see Vranich, Derailed, ``Sidetracking High Speed
Trains,'' Chapter Four.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amtrak has a record of issuing inaccurate projections. Reported
GAO: ``From 1991 to 1994, revenues were lower than projected, while
expenses were higher than planned,'' with Amtrak overestimating
passenger revenues by $600 million in that period.\42\ For fiscal years
1995 and 1996, Amtrak miscalculated net losses by $127 million. For
fiscal year 1997, Amtrak revised its net loss projection upward three
times--first it was $726 million, then $762 million, and by April 1997
was $786 million.\43\ How can projections of American Flyer profits
years from now be credible when Amtrak's current-year projections
contain such wide discrepancies?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Mead, Deteriorated Financial and Operating Conditions,
Testimony, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation,
January 26, 1995, pp. 3-4.
\43\ Scheinberg, April 23, 1997, p. 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amtrak ``high-speed'' efforts elsewhere are neither high-speed nor
likely to cover costs. For example, Amtrak claims its ``high-speed''
Talgo trains will ``revolutionize transportation in the Northwest.''
\44\ However, Amtrak's current Seattle-Vancouver, B.C., Talgo schedule
of 3 hours and 55 minutes is identical to the running time of trains on
that route run by the Great Northern Railway in 1952--45 years ago. On
the Seattle-Portland route, Amtrak's fastest Talgo runs in 3 hours and
50 minutes, or 9 minutes faster than a 1952 train.\45\ Amtrak plans to
cut Seattle-Portland Talgo schedules to perhaps 3 hours and 15
minutes,\46\ or 15 minutes faster than what Amtrak offered on its first
day of business in 1971.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\``Talgo Inc. Announces Washington State Train,'' Business Wire,
March 19. 1997.
\45\ Amtrak National Timetable, Effective May 11, 1997, p. 48, and
The Official Guide of the Railways (New York: National Railway
Publication Co., June 1952), p. 1071.
\46\ J. David Ingles, ``Talgo tests to yield more utilization in
Northwest,'' Trains Online, September 11, 1997, p. 5.
\47\ Amtrak Nationwide Schedules, May 1, 1971, p. 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slow schedules on Amtrak's ``emerging corridors'' will limit
Amtrak's ability to build the premium-fare traffic that helps to
establish profits. It's reasonable to conclude that future revenues
from such routes will be insufficient to subsidize the rest of Amtrak's
system.
5. Amtrak's New Freight Business
Amtrak's latest miscalculation is to try to enter the freight
business--an activity that is extraneous to Amtrak's passenger mission
and violates Amtrak's enabling legislation. It also could prove costly
should Amtrak even partially shut down.
When Congress amended the Rail Passenger Service Act to permit
Amtrak to carry ``express,'' such was understood to mean a small-
package, retail-oriented service. It was expected that express would
incrementally increase Amtrak revenues with few added costs, since
agents already were on duty and no extra rail cars were required. Using
this authority, Amtrak claims to have started an ``express'' business
to carry specialty commodities like ``computer chips'' and items that
need ``relatively fast handling.'' \48\ In reality, however, Amtrak has
an ambitious plan to lease 600 rail cars and has begun to carry beer,
coiled steel, soft drinks, truck parts, canned pineapple, cranberry
juice, and other commodities.\49\ This is not ``express'' in the
traditional sense--this is freight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ ``Amtrak Seeks New Freight Business,'' Railway Age, April
1997, p. 28.
\49\ Daniel Machalaba, ``Amtrak Quietly Hauls Cargo on Its Trains,
To the Horror of Rivals,'' Wall Street Journal, July 30, 1997, p. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This effort violates the basic tenet of why Amtrak was
established--to create an organization dedicated to serving passengers,
not commodities. Union Pacific's director of public affairs, John E.
Bromley, said in Trains magazine: ``Amtrak's original franchise
authorized it to carry mail and express incidental to operation of its
passenger trains, not to carry passengers incidental to operation of
freight trains.'' \50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ John E. Bromley, ``UP Responds to Amtrak Issue,'' Trains,
September 1997, p. 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reported the Wall Street Journal: `` `It's flatly
unconstitutional,' says James Dolan, vice president, law, of [the]
Union Pacific Railroad. `They are using their special passenger-train
franchise to steal business from the freight railroads.' '' \51\ His
concern is legitimate. The Rail Passenger Service Act obligates freight
railroads to carry Amtrak trains over their tracks and give Amtrak
priority over freight trains. The problem is Amtrak trains could delay
freight trains to the detriment of the freight railroads.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ Machalaba.
\52\ Don Phillips, ``Ailing Amtrak Adds Freight-Hauling to Its
Line,'' Washington Post, March 12, 1997, p. C10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carrying freight on Amtrak passenger trains imposes new demands on
railroad infrastructure, raising compensation concerns. An economic
analysis by Union Pacific calculated that Amtrak underpaid $56.2
million in one year alone to operate 40-plus trains on their railroad.
Progressive Railroading quoted Union Pacific's Ed Trandahl: ``In 1995,
Amtrak paid Union Pacific $9.9 million to operate on 10,000 miles of UP
track; a freight railroad would've paid more than $66 million.'' \53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ Pat Foran, ``For Amtrak, freight can't wait, Progressive
Railroading, April 1997, p. 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By carrying freight, Amtrak hopes to preserve trains politically
useful to Amtrak (such as the Texas Eagle, which now hauls beer)
despite being marketplace losers. The ploy is questionable because
Amtrak's long-distance trains will continue to lose money. Amtrak said
the Chicago-Los Angeles Southwest Chief earns about 42 percent of its
revenue carrying mail. Despite that, the train lost $35.3 million in
1996 on a fully allocated cost basis.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ Amtrak, fiscal year 1996 Fourth Quarter and Year End Business
and Financial Performance Report, October 1996, Appendix II. p. 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amtrak passengers have begun to receive second-class treatment
while freight receives priority. In Chicago, riders have begun to
suffer extra delays while poky locomotives uncouple boxcars from Amtrak
trains.\55\ On August 21, 1997, when the FRA issued a safety order
regarding Amtrak freight cars, the Southwest Chief was delayed in New
Mexico for several hours while such cars were shunted around.\56\
Amtrak plans to institutionalize freight-related delays by lengthening
schedules a half-hour in Chicago for some trains and 20 minutes in
Dallas and Fort Worth for the already slow Texas Eagle.\57\ If a
passenger backlash occurs because interminable train trips become even
longer, and passenger revenue declines, what will have been achieved?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ Machalaba.
\56\ J. David Ingles, ``To the Front, March,'' Trains Online,
August 27, 1997, p. 5.
\57\ J. David Ingles, ``Express First, People Second,'' Trains
Online, September 4, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With Amtrak liquidation possible, it's unwise for Amtrak to assign
more employees to freight. Under the Railway Labor Act, Amtrak must
provide employees with a costly labor protection plan. A worker whose
job is lost because of a route discontinuance is eligible for a
ridiculously generous severance of up to six years of salary. Any time
Amtrak shifts workers from a short-distance service (the type that
might survive a shutdown) to a long-distance service (the kind that
should be discontinued), Amtrak is making more employees eligible for
severance. It's also unwise to be purchasing or leasing hundreds of new
freight cars. The costs to divest these cars, disband Amtrak's new
freight department, and provide labor protection will put taxpayers in
the outrageous position of subsidizing Amtrak's entry into the freight
business today and subsidizing its exit tomorrow. America will pay
twice for a service Amtrak should not have launched in the first place.
6. Amtrak's ``Privatized'' Status
Amtrak has exhibited shades of privatization in its procurement of
American Flyer trains. The builders, Bombardier and GEC Alsthom, will
finance much of the transaction by borrowing from banks, although at
preferential rates because the loans are guaranteed by the Export-
Import Bank.\58\ Amtrak also required the bidders to sign long-term
maintenance and management contracts, a form of outsourcing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ Matthew L. Wald, ``Builder Is Chosen for Speedy Trains on
Northeast Run,'' New York Times, March 16, 1996, p. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Generally, however, Amtrak has sought to undermine the concept of
privatizing Amtrak. Amtrak President Thomas Downs has said, ``We are
probably the most privatized passenger railroad in the world.'' \59\
His assertion fails many tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ Amtrak's Current Situation, p. 57.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amtrak is a quasi-public corporation and its stock ownership is
unique. Amtrak's preferred shares are owned by the U.S. government and
its common stock is considered worthless by railroad owners; in
privatized rail companies, shares usually are traded on stock
exchanges. Amtrak has never paid a dividend; privatized companies
generally do. The Amtrak Board of Directors is appointed by the
President and includes elected officials; these practices are unheard
of in private companies. Also, the Supreme Court in a free-speech case
has ruled that Amtrak is a government entity, not a private
corporation, and could be sued on that basis.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ ``Can Amtrak Be a Censor?'' Editorial, Washington Post,
February 23, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amtrak, which can perish simply by federal edict, is a nationalized
service.
[part 3]
the choices facing america today
a. the call for alternatives to amtrak
Support for Amtrak is weakening. In September 1997, the Arizona
Rail Passenger Association called for Amtrak's breakup--a striking
departure from its 19-year record of support for Amtrak. It urged a
return of long-distance passenger trains to railroads, a shift in
responsibility for short-distance trains to states, and transfer of the
Boston-Washington line to a new regional agency.
Michael R. Carey, the organization's president, said there is no
reasonable prospect that Amtrak will bring about truly modern passenger
service. He wrote: ``Outside of the Northeast Corridor and a few other
places, Amtrak trains operate on slower schedules than trains over the
same routes of 50 to 60 years ago. On top of that, their on-time
performance on these slower schedules is terrible. . . . Public
subsidization of that kind of rail service makes no more sense today
than would subsidization of stage coach lines in competition with the
railroads between 1870 and 1900 have been justifiable at that time.''
\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ Michael R. Garey, President, Arizona Rail Passenger
Association, Letter to U.S. Senator John McCain, September 4, 1997, p.
1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are three key elements in replacing Amtrak: privatization,
regionalization, and liquidation. All three have been used in rail
reorganization worldwide.
b. privatization
The United States has already privatized a railroad, Conrail, the
large freight line in the East and Midwest. With about $7 billion in
federal aid, Conrail revitalized the lines of six bankrupt railroads
including Penn Central's. The federal government owned 85 percent of
Conrail, prior to privatizing it under the 1981 Northeast Rail Services
Act. When Conrail was sold for $1.6 billion on March 26, 1987, it
became the largest initial public stock offering in the nation's
history.\62\ Conrail's value increased over the years and by 1997 CSX
and Norfolk Southern made competing $10.3 billion merger offers to
Conrail shareholders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ A Brief History of Conrail, Philadelphia: Conrail, 1996, p. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today, privatization of railroads, including freight and passenger
operations, is underway in 40 nations (see Table 1). Public-sector
railroads overseas have suffered from excessive control by the
government, slow reaction to marketplace changes, archaic labor
practices, insensitivity to local needs, and excessive need for
subsidies. Those also are Amtrak's problems.
TABLE 1.--SUMMARY OF RAIL PRIVATIZATION WORLDWIDE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Private Privatization
Franchise Public to Private funds Devolve planning
Country to private private funds in raised in service to underway,
rail fixed asset new rail stock States or plans
operators transfer facilities offering regions incomplete
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Argentina \1\................... X ........... ........... ........... X .............
Australia \1\................... X X X ........... ........... .............
Austria......................... ........... ........... ........... ........... X .............
Bolivia......................... X ........... ........... ........... ........... .............
Brazil \1\...................... X ........... ........... ........... ........... .............
Cameroon........................ ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... X
Canada.......................... X X ........... X ........... .............
Chile \1\....................... X ........... ........... ........... ........... .............
China........................... ........... ........... ........... X ........... .............
Colombia \1\.................... X ........... ........... ........... ........... .............
Congo........................... X ........... ........... ........... ........... .............
Costa Rica \1\.................. X ........... ........... ........... ........... .............
Czech Rep....................... ........... X ........... ........... X .............
Ecuador......................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... X
Estonia......................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... X
France.......................... ........... ........... X X ........... .............
Gabon........................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... X
Germany......................... ........... ........... X ........... X .............
Great Britain \1\............... X ........... X X ........... .............
Guatemala \1\................... X ........... ........... ........... ........... .............
India........................... X ........... X ........... ........... .............
Israel.......................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... X
Ivory Coast..................... X ........... ........... ........... ........... .............
Jordan.......................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... X
Japan........................... ........... X X X X .............
Latvia.......................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... X
Lithuania....................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... X
Malawi.......................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... X
Malaysia........................ X ........... ........... ........... ........... .............
Mexico \1\...................... X ........... ........... ........... ........... .............
Mozambique \1\.................. X ........... ........... ........... ........... .............
Netherlands..................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... X
New Zealand \1\................. X ........... ........... X ........... .............
Pakistan........................ ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... X
Panama \1\...................... X ........... ........... ........... ........... .............
Paraguay........................ ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... X
Peru \1\........................ ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... X
Portugal........................ ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... X
Russia.......................... ........... X X X X .............
Slovakia........................ ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... X
South Africa.................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... X
Taiwan.......................... X ........... X ........... ........... .............
Togo............................ ........... ........... ........... ........... X X
Uruguay......................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... X
Venezuela....................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... X
Vietnam......................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... X
Zambia.......................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... X
Zimbabwe........................ ........... ........... X ........... ........... .............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Privatization activity involving U.S. railroads or rail consulting firms.
``The least costly option [for Amtrak] may be the one the
government so far has avoided: privatization,'' said Bruce Chapman,
president of the Discovery Institute. ``Alternative approaches include
opening the service to bidders, with a built-in subsidy for a period of
transition.'' States could help maintain routes in their territories,
as many already do.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ Bruce Chapman, ``Amtrak heading toward a train wreck,''
Seattle Post-lntelligencer, May 1, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The range of franchising (sometimes called concessioning)
arrangements varies widely between, say, the United Kingdom and
Argentina, as discussed in the Appendix. Yet, concessionaires
consistently increase railroad revenues through innovative marketing
practices and lower costs through improved efficiency. For unprofitable
rail service that must remain for social reasons, planners are lowering
subsidy requirements through franchising or spinoffs to regional or
local governments.
Most nations require private-sector financing in new high-speed
passenger facilities; the participants include banks, construction
companies, and the public (through share offerings). Amtrak's operating
losses, combined with its poor reputation, serve as a restraint to
private financing of its infrastructure.
Dismantling Amtrak would improve the environment for private-sector
investment in passenger rail facilities which make market sense.
The freight railroads in the United States have demonstrated they
are interested in privatization opportunities. These firms have gotten
involved in passenger issues as they meet franchise terms in other
countries, sometimes running the passenger trains.
c. regionalization
The United States has already regionalized rail service.
The Alaska Railroad was defederalized through the Alaska Railroad
Transfer Act of 1982, in which Congress agreed that ``continued federal
control and financial support of the line are no longer necessary to
accomplish the objectives of serving Alaska and its people.'' \64\ The
railroad's performance is outstanding; it carried more than a half a
million passengers in 1996, an all-time record.\65\ The Alaska Railroad
carries more passengers on one rural, highly seasonal route than Amtrak
does on many of its more populated short-distance routes, such as
Chicago-St. Louis and Chicago-Cincinnati, or long-distance routes, with
the Chicago-Boston Lake Shore Limited and Los Angeles-New Orleans-
Orlando Sunset Limited being just two examples of many.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ The Alaska Railroad Historical Summary, Anchorage: Alaska
Railroad, undated.
\65\ The number of passengers was 518,867 according to Scott Banks,
Alaska Railroad Communications Office, telephone interview, August 29,
1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
State and regional authorities could retain certain Amtrak train
services. California has begun a localization process that could lead
to non-Amtrak operation of state-supported Amtrak trains. Florida
rejected a high-speed rail franchise application from a consortium that
included Amtrak. Dallas selected Burlington Northern Santa Fe and
Herzog Transit Services, Inc., over Amtrak to provide contract services
for commuter rail. Also, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
stated it may terminate Amtrak as a contractor for Boston commuter
service because of poor performance.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ Thomas C. Palmer Jr., ``MBTA chairman calls for end to Amtrak
contract,'' Boston Globe, March 7, 1997, p. B5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regionalizing Amtrak services can reduce costs as well as increase
revenues. Cost savings could come about in three ways: (1) substituting
a daytime coach-only train for an overnight train that carries sleeping
cars, the most expensive type of car to operate; (2) avoiding payments
for Amtrak overhead costs, which are considerable; and (3) using the
competitive bid process in awarding franchises. According to E. S.
``Steve'' Savas, director of the Privatization Research Organization at
New York City's Baruch College, ``The most important single attribute
of contracting is that when properly done, it creates and
institutionalizes competition, which is the underlying factor that
encourages better performance.'' It also ``permits better management,
free of most of the distracting influences that are characteristic of
overtly political organizations [and] fosters good management because
the cost of a service is highly visible in the price of the contract,
whereas the cost of government service is usually obscured.'' \67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ Savas, Emanuel S. Privatization: The Key to Better Government,
Chatham, N.J.: Chatham House Publishers, 1987, pages 109, 110 and 262.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. liquidation
Numerous issues are involved in liquidating Amtrak, such as the
sale of assets at fair cost. Locomotives and passenger cars could be
sold to regional operators that will replace Amtrak, to commuter rail
systems, or to private operators of seasonal land-cruise trains.
Locomotives surplus to those markets could be sold to freight
railroads.
A regional agency could own the Northeast Corridor line. This idea
originated with Senator Claiborne Pell of Rhode Island in 1962, when he
advocated creating a multi-state public body funded by bonds to acquire
the Boston-Washington line.\68\ The idea is being revived by passenger-
rail advocate Anthony Haswell, who suggests establishing an authority
through an interstate compact to own the line. The authority would
charge usage fees to a variety of operators. Some would object to
Northwestern states having to self-finance their passenger rail line,
yet California has paid for nearly all capital improvements and much of
the operating subsidies for Amtrak's Los Angeles-San Diego service.
Also, the federal government has declined to assist Florida in
financing a new Miami-Tampa rail line, an asset that would remain under
state ownership once built. No justification exists for one federal
standard to apply in the Northeast while another applies in the west
and south.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ ``8 States in East Urged to Create a Rail Authority'' and
``Pell's Statement on Northeast Rail Agency.'' New York Times, May 21,
1962, p. 1 and p. 36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is sometimes suggested that railroad companies own or lease the
Northeast Corridor because private-sector management could operate it
at a profit. Whether the line is operated by a regional public agency
or private interests will depend upon how the federal government
structures a transfer, lease or sale of the asset.
[part 4]
policy recommendations
Other nations are privatizing state-owned enterprises extensively
with the approval of public officials across the political spectrum.
Today, with more than 100 countries engaged in privatization, the
process has become non-ideological.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ For a summary, see Robert W. Poole, Jr., A Federal
Privatization Agenda, Testimony, Senate Budget Committee, June 29,
1995; also, Privatization 1996: A Comprehensive Report on Privatization
of Government Assets, Enterprises, and Public Services, both from the
Reason Foundation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. current legislation
Privatization and Route Closure Bills.--Several current measures
recognize Amtrak's failings.
The Amtrak Route Closure and Realignment Act, modeled after base-
closing legislation, would create a commission to identify Amtrak
routes that are candidates for termination. It would not require Amtrak
to remain a national, interconnected system.
Another bill, the Amtrak Privatization Act, reduces appropriations,
limits judicial review of train discontinuances, reduces job protection
provisions, and amends the unique and obsolete Federal Employers'
Liability Act (which applies only to railroads) to exempt those who
provide rail passenger transportation.
Also, the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act establishes a Reform
Council to evaluate Amtrak. If the council finds Amtrak failing to meet
certain financial goals, a ``Sunset Trigger'' requires submission of
two plans to Congress--one to slim down Amtrak and another to
completely liquidate Amtrak.
Other Bills Are Excessively Generous.--Several measures would give
Amtrak billions of dollars in Highway Trust Fund gas taxes, which
Amtrak may use for operating expenses--unheard of in highway and
aviation systems. This permissive use of fuel taxes would launch new
precedents and would prove costly. Gas-tax money is still a tax, and
using that fund instead of the general fund to subsidize Amtrak won't
save taxpayers any money nor create an efficient rail system.
By mid-1997, with gas-tax measures failing, the Senate inserted
into the Taxpayer Relief Act a tax break for Amtrak calculated on a
tax-loss carry-back plan. As explained by the Washington Post, ``Amtrak
will be able to deduct its financial losses from the portion of taxes
paid by the private railroads that operated passenger trains prior to
1971--before Amtrak existed--up to $2.3 billion over the next two
years. Amtrak, itself, has never paid taxes because it has never made
money, and therefore has never had anything from which to deduct its
losses.'' \70\ The measure, if utilized, will cost taxpayer dearly.
Congress Daily reported that to fund it, Amtrak's Capitol Hill
supporters raised $2 billion more in the tax bill than required by the
budget agreement.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ Don Philips and Paul Blustein, ``Perils Loom for Amtrak in
Unsettled Tax Issues,'' Washington Post, July 31, 1997, p. A13.
\71\ ``Roth Unlinks Gas Tax Shift, New Funding For Amtrak,''
Congress Daily, July 22, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. amtrak denationalization act
With ample evidence that federal funding of Amtrak can no longer be
justified on fiscal or mobility grounds, there is every justification
to initiate an orderly phase-out of Amtrak. A Rail Service
Denationalization Act would be similar to action taken in legislatures
overseas. Such a measure would contain the following provisions:
--Substitute for the Rail Passenger Service Act, the law that created
Amtrak and gave Amtrak its statutory monopoly.
--Repeal the Swift Rail Development Act and the Next Generation High-
Speed Rail section of the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act. The laws were designed to nurture high-speed
rail but instead have become vehicles to finance slow-speed
Amtrak projects.
--Create an Amtrak Transition Board (ATB) to manage privatization and
regionalization of service and divest Amtrak assets.
Protections similar to those granted to the military-base
closing commission would insulate the ATB against political
interference.
--Name the ATB as Amtrak's successor agency, assigning to it the
legal liabilities that will remain after Amtrak is dissolved.
--Establish an Amtrak ``sunset'' date. To allow time for asset
disposition and other steps to be completed, the sunset date of
the ATB would follow by several years.
--Continue Northeast Corridor capital funding, but not expand or
extend the program. This is Amtrak's busiest line, and
completing the upgrading project will make it easier to sell
the line to private interests or transfer it to the states.
This represents a lesson learned in privatization--it is easier
to divest an asset when it is efficient. Also, because parts of
the line are deteriorating, such expenditures can help insure
safety.
--Impose a moratorium on all other Amtrak capital funding and seek to
cancel Amtrak orders for locomotives, freight cars, and other
equipment.
--Set caps on operating subsidies. States should be given limited
access to such funds, perhaps based on train-miles operated, to
assist in the transition to regional service. Federal subsidies
should scale downward to eventual termination.
--Pre-authorize creation of an interstate compact composed of the
eight northeastern states and the District of Columbia to
facilitate Northeast Corridor rail service in a post-Amtrak
era. It should also authorize ``any and all'' future compacts
that states may wish to form, without the need for further
federal action.
--Establish a ``post-Amtrak passenger-rail employee'' category of
worker who is exempt from unique, costly and unwieldy laws like
the Railway Labor Act, Federal Employers' Liability Act,
Railroad Retirement Act, and Railroad Unemployment Insurance
Act. Putting railroad passenger employees under mainstream laws
such as Social Security will induce investment, create rail
jobs, and foster rail service to places that otherwise would be
without such service.
[part 5]
rail service in a post-amtrak world
Train service based on market demand and local decision-making will
demonstrate that the mass movement of people by train can succeed under
certain circumstances.
a. commuter service
Not one commuter train need be discontinued because of Amtrak's
demise. Where Amtrak operates such local trains, mechanisms exist to
permit commuter authorities to operate the trains themselves or seek
new contractors. If countries as diverse as Great Britain, Japan, New
Zealand, and Argentina could accomplish such a transition, so can the
United States. Further, some of America's busiest commuter systems,
such as the Long Island Rail Road and Chicago's Metra, already operate
independently of Amtrak.
b. regional service
Over the years states like California and New York assumed
significant responsibilities for funding Amtrak, and ridership
increases in such states are due to state initiatives. Regional trains
can remain in service as states accept more responsibility for them.
Japan, Germany, and Russia have regionalized passenger trains; so can
the United States.
c. land cruises
Transportation is not sentimental, and Americans rarely treat it as
such when traveling by air, bus or automobile. Yet, there is a market
for sentimental rail journeys. Anthony Haswell says long-distance
trains should be confined to seasonal operations aimed at vacationers
and tourists who are willing to pay the price for a unique travel
experience.
Such a market is tapped today by private-sector rail passenger
operators like the American Orient Express, Montana Daylight, Napa
Valley Wine Train, First American Railways, and Grand Canyon Railway.
Also, tour companies cater to the leisure market by running seasonal
cars as part of the Alaska Railroad train. Companies like these--and
virtually all of them are enjoying growing ridership--could transform
some Amtrak long-distance services into seasonal land-cruise trains.
Private operators, even when receiving Amtrak services, can outlive
Amtrak. The Orlando Sentinel reported that Florida Fun Train, owned by
First American Railways, would survive: ``If Amtrak folds, said Ray
Monteleone, president and chief operating officer, First American would
look elsewhere to lease or try to lease the locomotives from whomever
took over Amtrak's assets. The company also would have to find new
maintenance crews. `It would be an aggravation,' he said, `but it
wouldn't mean our existence.' '' \72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ Jim Stratton, ``Amtrak's Troubles Won't Take Any Steam Out of
Central Florida Tourism,'' Orlando Sentinel, June 2, 1997, p. 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. high speed consortia
The disappearance of Amtrak will end the pretext that federal
funding will bring about world-class high-speed train service in this
nation. In time, privatized entities can develop short-distance routes
that make market sense. Amtrak is unable to accomplish this task
because of its national mandate and the political consequences that
stem from that mandate.
e. teaming arrangements
Rail.--It's possible for rail-air and rail-tour partnerships to
provide rail passenger service. The railroads would provide operating
crews (engineers, conductors) while airlines or tour operators provide
service staff (ticket agents, food service personnel). America's
freight railroads already operate commuter trains--Union Pacific in
Chicago and Los Angeles, Burlington Northern Santa Fe in Chicago--and
cooperate with land-cruise operators like the American Orient Express.
Aviation.--Britain's Virgin Trains, a unit of Virgin Atlantic
Airlines, is monitoring prospects for replacing Amtrak.\73\ Airlines
participate in operating passenger trains in Britain and Germany
(Virgin Trains and Lufthansa), and a land-cruise train in India (East-
West Airlines \74\). Airlines cooperate in establishing rail-air
transfers (Swissair, KLM, Lufthansa, Air France, Alitalia), and in
train technology efforts (Japan Air Lines, Lufthansa, Swissair, Qantas,
Delta Air Lines, USAirways).\75\ Aviation is combining efforts with the
bus industry, with United Airlines and American Airlines now operating
feeder buses to Chicago's O'Hare Airport.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ ``Amtrak could go bankrupt next year,'' Railway Gazette
International, August 1997, p. 497.
\74\ R.C. Acharya, ``Cashing in on cultural heritage,'' Rail
Business Report 1997, pp. 32-33.
\75\ A more thorough treatment of future railroad-airline roles can
be found in Vranich, Derailed, ``Who Will Run Tomorrow's Trains?''
Chapter Six.
\76\ ``It's a Plane!'' Dow Jones, July 18, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tour Companies.--Holland America Westours and Princess Tours run
special coaches on the Alaska Railroad and contribute to the railroad's
record-setting performance. Elsewhere, the Florida Fun Train is
promoting itself as a tour and entertainment experience. A European
operator, the Venice-Simplon Orient Express Ltd., seeks privatization
opportunities worldwide. It operates a rail franchise in Britain, and
in 1998 will help convert an Australian passenger train into a
specialized service.\77\ Such developments reflect growth in the tour-
train market throughout the world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ ``Queensland Rail,'' Railway Gazette International, August
1997, p. 514.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Restoring Distinctive Services.--For better or worse, customers in
the pre-Amtrak era evaluated passenger trains in terms of particular
attributes of service, schedules, menus, and the overall travel
experience. The Pennsylvania Railroad's Broadway Limited was unlike
Santa Fe's Super Chief, but those nuances were erased by Amtrak's
homogeneous service. Airlines, tour companies, and bus operators, which
are practiced at adapting to changes in the travel market, can add a
new vitality to rail passenger service. Such private-sector operators
can bring about an important intangible, and that is restoring
distinctive characteristics to individual trains. That is particularly
important when creating land-cruise train experiences.
conclusion
Amtrak is an experiment that failed. Replacing Amtrak with other
operators is a viable proposition--especially considering Amtrak's
inordinate level of subsidies. Many nations are revolutionizing their
rail services, and numerous models for the process are evident in
diverse countries (see Appendix). With such experiences serving as a
guide, the United States could phase out Amtrak yet retain services
that meet legitimate travel needs. Done well, the process can eliminate
a burden on federal taxpayers, create new opportunities for companies
in the travel business, and diversify and improve the passenger trains
that remain.
Worldwide Examples of Railroad Privatization
Mr. Poole. Troubled railroads are not unique to the United
States. They are all over the world. But other countries have
taken much more dramatic steps to fix their ailing rail
systems, including passenger rail, than we have. During the
past decade, as our study points out, nearly 50 countries have
embarked on privatizing their national railroads, often with
the help of the World Bank. These countries include Australia,
Britain, Japan, New Zealand, and Sweden. There is a whole lot
we can learn from these countries' experience, much of which is
applicable to fixing or replacing Amtrak.
British Rail is one case in point. This system now, which
was losing a lot of money, has been completely privatized,
broken up into 60 different companies. The track and stations
became a company called RailTrack, which was sold off last year
for $2.9 billion, something that might be able to be done with
the Northeast corridor. Passenger service was divided into 25
operating franchises, which were auctioned off competitively to
those bidders who could provide the service with the least
amount of subsidy, very much like what the Working Group
recommended.
So far the results are mostly positive. They have had one
or two failures, but most of these are positive experiences.
Forms of Privatization
Around the world, rail privatization has taken three main
forms. Some countries have sold off their entire national
railroads, sometimes splitting them into several different
companies, which is what Australia and Japan have done. Most
European countries today are separating the track from the
train operations and privatizing only the train operations,
again usually through a competitive auction process. Most
developing countries, on the other hand, are auctioning off
long-term franchises under which the winning firm has to take
over an entire line or set of lines and rebuild them, putting
in major capital, sometimes up to billions of dollars, and also
operate the train services.
Now, in fixing Amtrak we could adopt parts of all three
methods. First of all, any serious Amtrak restructuring ought
to first seek proposals from investors to buy most or all of
the entire system. Now, I frankly have doubts that any viable
proposal would come forward to preserve the whole network
because of the unviability of long-distance trains, but we
should not prejudge the creativity of the private sector. If
somebody would actually make a real proposal to take that on,
we should certainly be open to it.
If no buyer is willing to take over the whole thing, the
most promising model would be to decentralize Amtrak's
functions, focusing on commuter and regional service, where
private bidders might be able to provide needed service for
only modest subsidies, as is happening today in Britain. Routes
much longer than 300 miles are simply not going to be viable
for conventional rail service, given the low cost and
convenience of our highly competitive and low-cost airline
industry, which is not really the case in Europe.
Another lesson from overseas is that the billions the
taxpayers have already poured into Amtrak are a sunk cost. They
are never going to be recovered and will have to be written
off. This includes the $3.8 billion non-interest-bearing Amtrak
note to the Federal Government that comes due in the year 2975,
nearly 1,000 years from now. That is just going to be written
off, we might as well face it.
Successor to Amtrak
Now, our study set forth a 10-point plan for replacing
Amtrak with sustainable passenger rail service drawing from
this global experience. I do not have time to go through the
whole thing, but let me just give you the highlights of that
plan.
First, we propose creating an Amtrak transition board to
sell off Amtrak's assets and manage the transition to a
decentralized regional passenger service.
Senator Shelby. How would that work?
Mr. Poole. That would be the legal successor to the Amtrak
corporation. It would be a liquidation, but not with the idea
of ending all service. It would be to transition to a new model
in which the States and MPO's, the urban areas, take on the
main responsibility.
You would establish an Amtrak sunset date, which would
later on be followed by a sunset date for the transition board
itself. We would also include, complete the current
modernization of the Northeast corridor to make it more
saleable or more viable on its own, but cancel all other
currently planned Amtrak capital spending.
We would also preauthorize the creation of interstate
compacts between any groups of States that may wish to operate
or contract for regional rail service, including, of course,
the States of the Northeast corridor. You would set declining
annual caps for Federal operating subsidies for the regional
services, which would decline to zero over a period of time,
much like the Reform Act already does.
Finally, you would create a post-Amtrak passenger rail
employee category under Federal law, so that these successor
operations at the regional and State level would be exempt from
the Railway Labor Act, Railroad Retirement, Railroad
Unemployment, and Federal Employer's Liability Act. Those
changes, the deregulation of labor relations, would allow the
States and private companies to enjoy the benefits of lower
cost rail services in those markets under 300 miles where rail
can be viable, commuter and short haul.
Now, there is, as Senator Bennett mentioned, a small niche
market for long distance, or I think maybe it was Senator
Gorton, for long-distance trains, basically rail cruise
operators, that is already beginning in the United States,
exists in Canada and in Europe as well, even exists in
Southeast Asia between Malaysia and Thailand, by the way. And
there may be markets for some high-technology, high-speed rail
in selected markets competing with airline service.
We should encourage the private sector to come forward with
proposals for maglev and other things under long-term franchise
arrangements. But just as airline service in the United States
is not subsidized, this potential competitor to airlines should
not. It would be wrong to use taxpayers' money to subsidize a
competing industry for a viable private airline industry that
is not subsidized.
Our view is that it is time to recognize that Amtrak as a
national rail system has failed. But Amtrak can be replaced, we
believe, with sustainable passenger rail service drawing on
what has been done in 50 other countries.
That concludes my remarks. I would be happy to answer
questions at the appropriate time.
Prepared Statement
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Poole. We have your complete
statement and it will be made part of the hearing record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert W. Poole, Jr.
My name is Robert W. Poole, Jr. I am president of the Reason
Foundation, a public policy think tank based in Los Angeles. For over
20 years my colleagues and I have been doing work on privatization of
government functions. I authored the very first book on the subject in
1980. The Reason Foundation's Privatization Center is this country's
leading source of information on privatization. We publish a monthly
newsletter on privatization as well as the definitive yearbook on the
subject.
Most of my own policy research over the past decade has been in the
field of transportation. Worldwide, I have studied the major decade-
long trend of governments privatizing airlines, railroads, highways,
truck freight, airports, seaports, and air traffic control. Here at
home, I have studied the impact of deregulation of airlines, railroads,
and trucking, as well as the privatization of Conrail. I have proposed
models for privatizing airports and air traffic control, as well as
bringing public-private partnerships to bear in the highway and urban
transit sectors.
Last year we decided to turn our attention to Amtrak. We were
impressed by the dramatic restructuring and privatization of railroads
going on all over the world--and at how little that body of experience
was affecting the debate over Amtrak's future. It so happened that a
long-time rail passenger advocate named Joseph Vranich was thinking
along parallel lines, and was completing a book on Amtrak. We liked his
approach and commissioned Vranich to develop a policy paper for us. It
was published last October under the title, ``Replacing Amtrak: A
Blueprint for Sustainable Passenger Rail Service.'' \1\ My testimony
today is based largely on that policy paper.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Joseph Vranich, ``Replacing Amtrak: A Blueprint for Sustainable
Passenger Rail Service,'' Policy Study No. 235, Los Angeles: Reason
Public Policy Institute, October 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
global rail privatization experiences
One of the more recent global privatization trends is the movement
to privatize troubled state-owned railroads. Virtually unthinkable a
decade ago, this trend has now spread to nearly 50 countries, as
summarized in Table 1. The World Bank is aggressively promoting rail
privatization, as critical to improving the transportation
infrastructure of developing countries. But it is drawing on detailed
case-study examples not merely from such developing countries as
Argentina but also from such Western countries as Japan, New Zealand,
Sweden, and the United Kingdom.\2\ For the fact is, as daunting as
Amtrak's problems appear to be at close range, they appear more modest
when contrasted with the hundreds of billions of losses accumulated by
Japan National Railways or the severe deterioration of rail service
experienced in much of Latin America and Africa prior to privatization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Ron Kopicki and Louis S. Thompson, Best Methods of Railway
Restructuring and Privatization, Washington, DC: The World Bank
Cofinancing and Financial Advisory Services (Privatization Group),
August 1995.
TABLE 1.--SUMMARY OF RAIL PRIVATIZATION WORLDWIDE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Private Privatization
Franchise Public to Private funds Devolve planning
Country to private private funds in raised in service to underway,
rail fixed asset new rail stock States or plans
operators transfer facilities offering regions incomplete
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Argentina \1\................... X ........... ........... ........... X .............
Australia \1\................... X X X ........... ........... .............
Austria......................... ........... ........... ........... ........... X .............
Bolivia......................... X ........... ........... ........... ........... .............
Brazil \1\...................... X ........... ........... ........... ........... .............
Cameroon........................ ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... X
Canada.......................... X X ........... X ........... .............
Chile \1\....................... X ........... ........... ........... ........... .............
China........................... ........... ........... ........... X ........... .............
Colombia \1\.................... X ........... ........... ........... ........... .............
Congo........................... X ........... ........... ........... ........... .............
Costa Rica \1\.................. X ........... ........... ........... ........... .............
Czech Rep....................... ........... X ........... ........... X .............
Ecuador......................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... X
Estonia......................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... X
France.......................... ........... ........... X X ........... .............
Gabon........................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... X
Germany......................... ........... ........... X ........... X .............
Great Britain \1\............... X ........... X X ........... .............
Guatemala \1\................... X ........... ........... ........... ........... .............
India........................... X ........... X ........... ........... .............
Israel.......................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... X
Ivory Coast..................... X ........... ........... ........... ........... .............
Jordan.......................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... X
Japan........................... ........... X X X X .............
Latvia.......................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... X
Lithuania....................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... X
Malawi.......................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... X
Malaysia........................ X ........... ........... ........... ........... .............
Mexico \1\...................... X ........... ........... ........... ........... .............
Mozambique \1\.................. X ........... ........... ........... ........... .............
Netherlands..................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... X
New Zealand \1\................. X ........... ........... X ........... .............
Pakistan........................ ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... X
Panama \1\...................... X ........... ........... ........... ........... .............
Paraguay........................ ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... X
Peru \1\........................ ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... X
Portugal........................ ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... X
Russia.......................... ........... X X X X .............
Slovakia........................ ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... X
South Africa.................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... X
Taiwan.......................... X ........... X ........... ........... .............
Togo............................ ........... ........... ........... ........... X X
Uruguay......................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... X
Venezuela....................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... X
Vietnam......................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... X
Zambia.......................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... X
Zimbabwe........................ ........... ........... X ........... ........... .............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Privatization activity involving U.S. railroads or rail consulting firms.
Let me just sketch out what a few other countries have done to
stanch the bleeding of their rail systems, using a variety of
privatization techniques. There is a great deal we can learn, and much
that we can apply to restructuring--or better, replacing--Amtrak.
One of the most dramatic cases is the privatization of British
Rail, the final stage of which was completed last spring. This money-
losing state monopoly system was broken up into 60 different companies.
The track and stations became the infrastructure company, Railtrack,
which was sold via stock offering for $2.9 billion. Passenger rail
service was carved up into 25 different operating franchises, which
were auctioned off to those bidders who could provide the specified
level of service for the least amount of subsidy. So far, the results
are largely positive: much planned new investment, better on-time
performance, and innovative new kinds of service from providers such as
Virgin Trains and National Express.
While British Rail had been losing money, at least it had been
providing tolerable service. That was not the case in Argentina, where
large fractions of the huge railroad work force showed up only to
collect their paychecks, and where some rail lines were so decrepit
that trains derailed at 5 mph. With assistance from the World Bank,
Argentina divided the system into six long-term (30-year) franchises or
concessions for freight operations, which were put out to bid. Winning
bidders had to commit to a specified investment program and to the
payment of concession fees. A similar process was used to franchise
Buenos Aires commuter and subway service, but in this case on the basis
of the least subsidy required. Except for one high-density, 325-mile
route, long-distance inter-city passenger service was discontinued,
because of its huge losses. The World Bank reports major improvements
in both freight and passenger services thanks to privatization.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Louis S. Thompson and Karim-Jacques Budin, ``Global Trend to
Railway Concessions Delivering Positive Results,'' Private Sector
(World Bank), December 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A third example is New Zealand. Its greatly over-staffed and money-
losing railroad was first corporatized--converted into a commercial
corporation required to operate without subsidy, make a profit, and pay
taxes. Over a 10-year period of drastic restructuring, NZ Rail became a
productive and profitable business, which was then auctioned to a
consortium of private firms. Under private ownership, it has become
even more efficient, carrying both freight and passengers in open
competition with auto, truck, and air service.
rail privatization modes
The three examples cited above represent the three main modes of
railroad privatization that have emerged to date. Some countries are
choosing to divest an entire national railroad enterprise to the
private sector, as a single integrated business. Others are separating
the infrastructure (track and stations) from train operations and
applying privatization either to one or both components. And still
others are using long-term franchises or concessions to attract serious
private-sector investment in rebuilding and modernization. Each may
have applicability to our situation with Amtrak.
Divestiture
Outright sale of the entire state railway system is relatively
uncommon thus far, despite some very successful cases. Besides New
Zealand, other practitioners include Australia, Japan, and Canada.
--Australia last year sold off the Australian National Railroad in
three pieces: Tasrail (Tasmanian freight), South Australian
Rail (all other freight), and Passengers (which includes
various long-distance ``name'' trains). None will be
subsidized, except for modest per-ticket subsidies for senior
citizens.
--Japan split up Japan National Railway into six integrated companies
and has thus far sold off JR East, JR Central, and JR West.
Those three are now profitable, while the three rural lines are
still in government hands, and still receiving (lower amounts
of) subsidy. However, the price of privatization was for the
government to take over responsibility for JNR's accumulated
debt of $350 billion, which it hoped to pay off via
privatization proceeds and sale of railroad real estate. Thus
far, however, much of that debt remains outstanding.
--Canada sold off Canadian National Railway in 1995 for $2.1 billion,
leading to major gains in productivity for this freight
railroad. Its experience appears to parallel that of Conrail,
the successfully privatized U.S. freight railroad.
Separation of Track and Trains
Increasingly, European railway systems are splitting infrastructure
from train operations. In the U.K., of course, the infrastructure
itself has been privatized via a stock offering, but in most other
countries, the government plans to retain the infrastructure but
privatize train operations. This is the announced plan in Denmark,
Germany, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Sweden--as well as in Chile and
Israel. But there are many variations. Sweden permits new private
passenger rail firms to operate on its tracks in competition with the
commercialized state train-operating company. And Chile last year
decided that instead of retaining the infrastructure in government
ownership, it would follow Britain's lead and privatize the track as
well.
Regardless of who owns the infrastructure, the major gains in this
model come from competitively bidding out the train-operations
contracts or franchises. In general, the more capital investment
expected of the private operators (e.g., in totally new trains, or
possibly even in sharing the cost of upgrading the track), the longer
the term of the contract or franchise must be, to permit recovery of
the company's investment.
Long-Term Franchises
The third model is being used primarily in developing countries, as
typified by Argentina. A long-term franchise is typically offered on a
competitive basis, for a major line or group of lines. Where the
service is likely to be profitable to operate, the winning bidder is
typically selected on the basis of how much it is willing to offer for
the franchise (consistent with agreeing to government-specified
modernization investments). For services likely to remain unprofitable
(such as long-distance passenger service), governments either make a
policy decision to discontinue such service or accept competitive bids
based on which company requires the least amount of subsidy to provide
the specified level of service.
Mexico typifies the former. Last year it auctioned off 50-year
franchises for its Northeast line ($1.4 billion) and its Northwest
Pacific line ($396 million), both of which are freight operations. A
good example of the latter is Britain, where the largely passenger-
oriented rail service has been divided into 25 different operating
franchises, whose lengths vary depending on how much capital investment
the winning bidder must make. In most cases, the annual subsidies are
scheduled to decline each year, and for some of the more highly
traveled lines the subsidies are to be replaced with payments from the
operating company to the government in the latter years of its
franchise.
applying global experience to amtrak restructuring
Which of these privatization models provides useful lessons for
Amtrak? I suggest that we can learn something from each of them.
Divestiture of the entire Amtrak system to a private bidder as a
single company is unlikely to be feasible, though Congress should not
reject this possibility out of hand. A first step in any major
restructuring or replacement of Amtrak as a loss-making government
entity ought to be the solicitation of serious proposals from the
private sector to take over much or all of the entire intercity system.
But given the much longer distances between U.S. cities compared with
Europe (and the enormous subsidies given to European rail systems), I
have serious doubts that the present Amtrak system could be preserved
on a for-profit basis.
The long-term franchise model is equally problematic for long-
distance inter-city routes. Traffic is simply too ``thin'' and the
cities too far apart to support a reasonable level of passenger service
that is far more economically served by air, bus, and automobile. The
one possible niche for long-term private franchises might be high-speed
rail in selected high-density corridors of up to 300 miles--routes
where 200 mph trains might prove competitive with air and road
alternatives. But those would and should be individual projects serving
localized niche markets; there is no reason to try to fit them into an
integrated national network.
The most promising privatization model for U.S. passenger service
is competitive contracting for commuter and regional (conventional)
rail service. There are perhaps a dozen city-pairs in this country
where the level of subsidy for such service might be relatively modest,
especially under the strong cost-reducing incentives of competitive
bidding--and if such service were freed from Amtrak's restrictive labor
conditions and traditional railroad liability and retirement programs.
But since such service would be a matter of local and/or regional
interest, it is an issue for decision-making and funding at those
levels of government rather than at the federal level.
One other lesson emerges from rail privatization and restructuring
worldwide. Much of what governments previously ``invested'' in railways
turns out to have been a bad investment. It is a sunk cost that will
never be recovered. U.S. examples include Amtrak's $1.1 billion non-
interest-bearing note that matures in 2082 and another $3.8 billion in
non-interest-bearing debt that Amtrak theoretically owes the government
in the year 2975--nearly 10 centuries from now. These debts will simply
have to be written off as uncollectible, as have many such railroad
debts in other countries.
amtrak replacement plan
In his Reason Foundation study, Vranich set forth the outline of a
plan to replace Amtrak with sustainable passenger rail service, drawing
from the experience of nearly 50 other countries. The basic concept is
an orderly liquidation of the current Amtrak corporate entity, to be
replaced mostly by competitively contracted regional and commuter rail
services overseen and subsidized by cities, states, or entities created
by interstate compacts. These services would be operated in a
deregulated labor environment, so as to minimize the amount of subsidy
required.
More specifically, Vranich's proposed Amtrak Denationalization Act
would include the following elements:
1. The Act would be the legal substitute for the Rail Passenger
Service Act which created Amtrak.
2. It would repeal the Swift Rail Development Act and the Next
Generation High-Speed Rail section of ISTEA, leaving high-speed rail to
independent private or public-private ventures.
3. It would create an Amtrak Transition Board to divest Amtrak
assets and manage the transition to regionalized service; the ATB would
be insulated from political interference in a manner similar to that
used for military base-closing commissions.
4. It would designate the ATB as Amtrak's successor agency,
assuming Amtrak's legal liabilities.
5. It would establish an Amtrak sunset date, to be followed by an
ATB sunset date several years later.
6. It would continue the capital funding to finish modernization of
the Northeast Corridor, to make it more viable on a stand-alone basis.
7. It would impose a moratorium on all other Amtrak capital funding
and seek to cancel existing orders for locomotives, rolling stock, and
other equipment.
8. It would set declining caps on operating subsidies for the
successor, regional services, declining to zero after a period of
years.
9. It would pre-authorize the creation of any and all interstate
compacts which states may wish to form to operate regional passenger
rail service, including one composed of the eight northeastern states
and the District of Columbia for Northeast Corridor service.
10. It would establish a ``post-Amtrak passenger-rail employee''
category of worker who is exempt from the Railway Labor Act, Federal
Employers' Liability Act, Railroad Retirement Act, and Railroad
Unemployment Insurance Act. Such employees would be covered instead by
Social Security and ordinary unemployment and workers compensation
acts.
This kind of program would permit states to enjoy the benefits of
competitively contracted local and regional passenger rail services in
those markets where such services are in high demand--commuter service
and selected short-haul intercity service. Besides permitting the
continuation of these conventional services on a lower-cost basis, this
program would also permit the emergence of two additional forms of
passenger service: land cruises and high-tech, high-speed rail.
There is a market for long-distance trains. The target audience is
tourists and vacationers willing to pay the price for ``sentimental
rail journeys'' operated by niche market ``land cruise'' operators.
Among the operators in business today to serve this market are the
American Orient Express and Montana Daylight, as well as Great Canadian
Railtours' ``Rocky Mountaineer.'' In a post-Amtrak United States, these
and similar land-cruise companies would have to negotiate operating
agreements with the freight railroads directly, rather than making use
of Amtrak's authority to operate over those railroads' track. But since
land cruises do not have to meet the kind of precise schedule
constraints of traditional long-distance passenger trains, and operate
far less frequently than regularly scheduled passenger trains, the
freight railroads are more likely to be able to negotiate mutually
acceptable operating agreements with them.
High-tech, high-speed passenger rail--ranging from the Japanese
bullet trains and French TGV up to the prototype German and Japanese
maglev trains--are an entirely different proposition. Their high speed
operations require separate infrastructure not shared with freight
railroads. To the extent that viable market opportunities for such
services exist, they are best pursued as individual private or public-
private ventures, each tailored to the market it seeks to serve and
competing mostly with air service in that market. Their future depends
primarily on technology and economics and is not at all jeopardized by
the proposed liquidation of Amtrak. Since airlines are by-and-large not
subsidized by American taxpayers, neither should high-tech rail systems
be subsidized by our taxpayers.
This concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any
questions you many have.
STATEMENT OF JEFFREY R. LADD, CHAIRMAN, METRA COMMUTER
RAIL
Senator Shelby. Mr. Ladd.
Mr. Ladd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
subcommittee.
I am Jeff Ladd and I have had the privilege of serving as
Metra chairman since 1984. Now, that was the first full year
that Metra became responsible for all of the commuter train
traffic in the six-county northeastern portion of Illinois. In
my tenure, I have seen a steady and unfocused commuter rail
structure became a sure-footed single-minded system. The
managers of Amtrak are engaged in a similar effort on a much
broader scale, and I can certainly empathize with them and I
admire their persistence against the difficulties that make
what we have faced seem minor by comparison.
It is in this context of respect, in fact, that I offer my
views on passenger railroading as we practice it back in
northeastern Illinois. We agree with Amtrak's business
approach, or at least nominal approach. We agree that public
transportation can and should be operated on private sector
principles. These include cost control on the one hand and
revenue enhancement on the other. Above all, we agree that the
key to both is adequate capital funding.
Comparisons With Metra
I congratulate Amtrak's managers on their dedication to
better business practices that have produced gains in both
ridership and passenger revenues and put Amtrak at the
threshold of its first $1 billion year. Anything I say here
today to win support for Amtrak's cause I say gladly, because
support for Amtrak's approach is support for Metra as well.
Anything I say about Metra that may be useful to Amtrak I
do not say boastfully. While we both believe that in certain
corridors the railway is the right way, Metra has faced far
fewer restrictions in pursuing that belief. While we share
certain commonalities, we are different in many respects, as
will be clear from my review of Metra's business practices.
This is by no means an apples-to-apples comparison.
A thumbnail sketch of Metra may help to understand that.
Metra is the commuter rail service arm of the Regional
Transportation Authority. The Illinois State Legislature
brought us into being in late 1983 with an amendment to the
legislation that had created the RTA in 1974. Other RTA service
arms are the Chicago Transit Authority and PACE, which is a
suburban bus agency.
Metra, however, is not just a suburban commuter carrier.
Thirty percent of our 228 stations lie within the Chicago city
limits. We are truly a regional passenger railroad. We connect
a dynamic city core with fast-growing suburban and reviving
urban communities. Our service territory is rapidly becoming a
six-county megalopolis.
Our trains run on 12 main and 4 branch lines, totaling more
than 500 total route miles, and we operate more than 700 trains
each weekday and hundreds more on weekends. Last year we
provided 75.2 million passenger trips, the most in Metra's
history and the most for northeast Illinois commuter trains in
any year since 1980. That translates into well over 1.6 billion
passenger-miles, which is the mark of a true regional carrier.
Contributing to those results was the first full year of
operation for our North Central Service, Chicago's first new
commuter rail line in 70 years, and ridership greatly exceeded
expectations. Other factors included a strong economy and
resurgent employment in downtown Chicago, our main market,
along with growth in nontraditional city to suburb and suburb
to suburb travel. In addition, there was a spurt in offpeak,
non-work-related travel, especially on weekends. We pursued all
opportunities with aggressive niche marketing that recognizes
especially the growth in nontraditional elements of our
ridership.
Above all, we attribute our gains to our safe, clean, and
reliable service. Last year we operated more than 200,000
trains without injury to a single passenger and with average
ontime performance of just over 97 percent.
Metra's Success
Just as Congress told Amtrak that it wanted a national
system run like a business, the Illinois legislature told us it
wanted a regional system run like a business, and that is
exactly what they got.
But we could not have done that and we cannot keep doing it
without your help. Metra's success is predicated on four
essential elements and, much like a four-legged stool, if we
lose one leg we lose our balance. The four elements are Federal
support, organized labor, freight railroads, and our customers.
While Federal operating subsidies account for very little
in our annual budgets, Federal capital grants account for a
lot. Like Amtrak, we fervently believe that the better you
capitalize the less you subsidize, and we hope the results of
our strategic capital investments will continue to demonstrate
our worthiness for Federal funding. That investment has totaled
over $2 billion since 1984 and has resulted in a rebuilding of
Chicago's regional rail lines into a system that has achieved a
greatly improved level of physical well-being and the best
service quality in the country.
We continue, however, to reclaim and modernize our aging
infrastructure. A major example is our ongoing bridge renewal
program. This alone accounts for 21 percent of this year's
capital budget. We have over 796 bridges in our system and this
program addresses some 91 bridges identified in a 1989
assessment as critical or badly needing repair after 90 years
of service.
At the same time, we continue the ongoing rehabilitation of
our car and locomotive fleets. A number of our coaches date
back to the early fifties. Through this effort of regular
maintenance and rehabilitation, we are able to keep our rolling
stock in service for 50 years or more. About 71 percent of our
5-year projection covers further improvements of existing
rolling stock and infrastructure.
The rest embraces a proposed expansion project, including
double track capacity for the North Central service, extension
of our current Union Pacific West Line service, and extension
of our current Southwest service. Along all three segments of
this project we see strong demand and solid support from
communities.
The price tag on this year's capital program is $147.5
million and we anticipate that 60 percent of that will come
from the Federal Transit Administration.
Briefly to sum up, let me talk about labor. Unless labor
agrees with us about the efficiencies we bring to our system,
we will not accomplish our objectives. To do that, we have to
understand what they want out of the system, what we need out
of the system, and work closely with them. We formed the first
labor-management relations committee in commuter rail history.
It is still ongoing, and we have created a wonderful working
relationship. Our contracts are now 5 years in duration and we
are hopeful that the next time around they will be 7 years in
duration. That does not happen without labor peace.
Freight railroads. We run almost all of our service over
freight railroads, two of them the busiest in the country,
Union Pacific West Line and the Burlington Northern-Santa Fe,
and we have some of the best ontime performance. How do we get
their attention? Because our investments are meant to create
coexistence. They benefit Metra and they benefit freight
railroad, and when you do that you get their attention and you
run an ontime reliable service.
Finally, our customers. We survey our customers every 2
years to know what they want, when they want it, what are the
attributes they want to assign to our service. And we
continually fine-tune our operations to make sure we are
providing them what they want.
Mr. Chairman, in summary, that is what we wanted to say
today. If I can answer any questions for you or members of the
committee, I would be delighted.
Prepared Statement
Senator Shelby. Mr. Ladd, thank you. We have your complete
statement and it will be made part of the hearing record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jeffrey R. Ladd
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this
opportunity to talk about the business of moving people by rail.
I'm Jeff Ladd and I've had the privilege of serving as chairman of
Metra since 1984. That was the first full year that Metra became
responsible for all commuter train service in our six-county region.
In my tenure, I've seen an unsteady and unfocused commuter rail
structure become a sure-footed, single-minded system.
The managers of Amtrak are engaged in a similar effort on a much
broader scale. I can certainly empathize with them. I admire their
persistence against difficulties that make what we have faced seem
minor by comparison.
It is in this context of respect, in fact, that I offer my views on
passenger railroading as we practice it back in northeast Illinois. We
agree with Amtrak's business approach. We agree that public
transportation can and should be operated on private-sector principles.
These include cost control on the one hand and revenue enhancement on
the other. Above all, we agree that the key to both is adequate capital
funding.
I congratulate Amtrak's managers on their dedication to better
business practices that have produced gains in both ridership and
passenger revenues and put Amtrak at the threshold of its first $1
billion year.
Anything I say here today to win support for Amtrak's cause, I say
gladly--because support for Amtrak's approach is support for Metra as
well.
Anything I say about Metra that may be useful to Amtrak, I do not
say boastfully. While we both believe that in certain corridors the
railway is the right way, Metra has faced far fewer restrictions in
pursing that belief. While we share certain commonalities, we're
different in many respects, as will be clear from my review of Metra's
business practices. This is by no means an apples-to-apples comparison.
A thumbnail sketch of Metra may help to understand that.
Metra is the commuter rail service arm of the Regional
Transportation Authority. The Illinois State Legislature brought us
into being in late 1983 with an amendment to the legislation that had
created the RTA in 1974. Other RTA service arms include the Chicago
Transit Authority and Pace, the suburban bus agency.
Metra, however, is not just a suburban commuter carrier. Thirty
percent of our 228 stations lie within the Chicago city limits. We are
truly a regional passenger railroad. We connect a dynamic city core
with fast-growing suburban and reviving urban communities. Our service
territory is fast becoming a six-county megalopolis.
Our trains run on 12 main and four branch lines totaling more than
500 total route miles. We operate more than 700 trains each weekday and
hundreds more on weekends. Last year, we provided 75.2 million
passenger trips--the most in Metra's history and the most for Northeast
Illinois commuter trains in any year since 1980. That translates into
well over 1.6 billion passenger miles, which is the mark of a true
regional carrier.
Contributing to those results was the first full year of operation
for our North Central Service, Chicago's first new commuter rail line
in 70 years. Ridership greatly exceeded expectations.
Other factors included a strong economy and resurgent employment in
downtown Chicago--our main market--along with growth in non-
traditional, city-to-suburb and suburb-to-suburb travel. In addition,
there was a spurt in off-peak, non-work-related travel, especially on
weekends. We pursued all opportunities with aggressive ``niche''
marketing that recognizes especially the growth in the non-traditional
elements of our ridership.
Above all, we attribute our gains to our safe, clean and reliable
service. Last year, we operated more than 200,000 trains without injury
to a single passenger and with average on-time performance of just over
97 percent.
Just as Congress told Amtrak that it wanted a national system run
like a business, the Illinois legislature told us that it wanted a
regional system run like a business. That's exactly what they got. But
we couldn't have done that and we can't keep doing it without
Congress's help.
Metra's success is predicated on four essential elements and, much
like a four-legged stool, if we lose one leg, we lose our balance. The
four elements are federal support, organized labor, freight railroads,
and our customers.
While federal operating subsidies account for very little in our
annual budgets, federal capital grants account for a lot. Like Amtrak,
we fervently believe that the better you capitalize, the less you
subsidize. We hope the results of our strategic capital investments
will continue to demonstrate our worthiness for federal funding.
That investment has totaled over $2 billion since 1984 and has
resulted in a rebuilding of Chicago's regional rail lines into a system
that has achieved a greatly improved level of physical well-being and
the best service quality in the country.
We continue, however, to reclaim and modernize our aging
infrastructure. A major example is our ongoing bridge renewal program.
This alone accounts for 21 percent of this year's capital budget. We
have over 796 bridges in our system and this program addresses some 91
bridges identified in a 1989 assessment as critically or badly needing
repair after 90 years of service.
At the same time, we will continue the ongoing rehabilitation of
our car and locomotive fleets. A number of our coaches date back to the
early 1960's. Through this effort of regular maintenance and
rehabilitation, we are able to keep our rolling stock in service for 50
years or more.
About 71 percent of our five-year projection covers further
improvements of existing rolling stock and infrastructure. A
preventative maintenance mentality dominates a portion of our capital
planning. Many of our capital planners are railroaders who remember how
deferred maintenance led segments of Chicago commuter service to the
brink of collapse.
The rest embraces a proposed expansion project including double
track capacity for the North Central Service, extension of our current
Union Pacific-West line service, and extension of our current SouthWest
service.
Along all three segments of this project, we see strong demand and
solid support from communities. Some local governments already are
acquiring land for stations and parking. And we have the full support
of the entire Congressional delegation from northeastern Illinois. In
addition, we are planning yet another ambitious work season for general
track and signal improvements, and we will upgrade the last of our key
maintenance facilities.
The price tag on this year's capital program is $147.5 million. We
anticipate that 60 percent of that will come from the Federal Transit
Administration. Other sources include the Illinois Department of
Transportation, 9 percent, and the Regional Transportation Authority, 6
percent.
The balance will come from two sources within Metra. One is a five
percent fare increase that took effect in 1989, with all proceeds
pledged to capital improvements. Moreover, as we provide more and
longer passenger trips, we generate additional revenue for
improvements.
The other form of Metra-generated capital funds represents the
surplus in our annual RTA operating subsidy that comes from transit-
designated proceeds of a six-county sales tax. We are allowed to use
anything we can save from our budgeted subsidy each year for capital
projects. These ``plowback'' funds have made a sizable contribution to
our improvement programs. Obviously, this is an extra incentive to
control operating costs.
It is noteworthy that we are required by Illinois law to cover 55
percent of any operating costs from revenues. Here, of course, you see
a major difference. Amtrak is expected to reach a much higher ratio.
While we always achieve a higher recovery ratio than required, we don't
match Amtrak's performance.
The great majority of our capital program is prioritized based on
the ability of the investment to reduce operating costs. However, we
can be properly but still not adequately capitalized, and therein lies
our concern.
Our future needs are enormous as we face calls for more and more
service while we struggle to maintain and improve what we already
operate. Our current budget document shows capital needs for the period
1998 through 2002 of more than $1 billion. Despite the prospects for
ISTEA reauthorization, we know we'll always face fierce competition in
the annual appropriations race.
A year ago, when we first asked for federal help for our expansion
project, we said it deserved support because it demonstrated the wise
use of existing resources in partnership with local governments. Our
proposed expansion would occur along rail lines already in place in
strong markets. That was the secret to the success of our North Central
Service.
This growth strategy further demonstrates Metra's business-like
approach to passenger railroading. It shows how we strive to produce
the greatest possible return on limited capital resources.
Nevertheless, no matter how well you apply capital funds, you can't
produce a great return unless you use improved assets in the most
efficient manner. Here's where the labor unions and the freight
railroads come in.
First, the unions. Clearly, labor must support efficiency as much
as management does. That can happen only when both sides respect each
other and communicate freely and effectively about problems. We think
we have that at Metra, where we operate under 19 separate labor
agreements, most of which are five years in duration.
We have a labor-management committee that dates back to our early
days. It was the first of its kind in the commuter rail industry. It
was so successful that we kept it going after the federal seed money
ran out. It remains the pride and joy of our internal initiatives.
This committee does not get involved in collective bargaining, but
it has set the stage for peaceful negotiations by creating the context
for working together on a vast array of non-contractual issues. These
include the safety, morale and education of our employees and the
safety, reliability and efficiency of our operations.
First and foremost among the committee's many accomplishments is
our employee assistance program, the longest running management-labor
offshoot. Employee assistance has grown far beyond its original focus
on drug and alcohol addiction. Its latest refinement, a three-pronged
employee service network, offers a range of counseling for many aspects
of daily life beyond the workplace itself.
Another offshoot is our safety task group that keeps devising new
approaches to the single most daunting challenge of railroad
operations, injury prevention. The latest development is a safety-
captain program that speeds up the reporting and handling of workplace
hazards. It is this kind of cooperative effort that has allowed Metra
to win six Harriman awards for safety--the first commuter railroad to
ever win even one.
A counterpart to the safety task force is our inter-active
management group, which focuses on other workplace issues. It's a
modern-day version of the traditional employee suggestion system.
Then there's our work force education group, which has spawned an
exciting new apprentice program for skilled crafts persons. We think
this program will be a trend-setter for the commuter rail industry.
Beyond these specific initiatives, the committee's main achievement
is the prevailing atmosphere of open, frank discussion. We're counting
on it in negotiations that are under way for new contracts that will
take effect next year.
We are greatly impressed by Amtrak's recent success in gaining work
rule changes to increase productivity with the Brotherhood of
Maintenance of Way Employees. We hope that agreement will indeed set
the pattern for Amtrak's negotiations with other unions.
Equally daunting can be the negotiations with the freight carriers.
We have found that such relations are definitely smoother if a railroad
has a tradition of passenger service. But the bottom line is there must
be something in it for the freight carrier, too. The trick is to make
commuter capital investments pay dividends for freight operations as
well.
That principle underlies our relationships with seven freight
railroads, as Chicago continues to demonstrate its stature as the rail
hub of North America. Only one of our main lines enjoys complete
freedom from freight operations. Freight trains share and cross all of
our other routes.
Our two routes with the most freight traffic belong to the largest
freight carriers in the United States. They are the Burlington Northern
Santa Fe and the Union Pacific, which provide Metra commuter service
under contract. Their crews move our trains over their tracks
controlled by their dispatchers. The single BNSF route handles the most
weekday commuter trains of any line, along with up to 50 freight
trains. On one of three UP lines used by Metra, we see up to 70
freights a day.
These two railroads account for 39 percent of our weekday trains
and nearly 50 percent of our ridership. Their dependability is
outstanding and far exceeds that of some other railroads that carry far
fewer of our trains. They are excellent partners, but both carriers
have long histories of dedication to commuter operations. That includes
innovations in operations and equipment design that contributed to the
survival of Chicago's commuter service long before the Regional
Transportation Authority was created.
Metra's own crews operate our trains on other routes that we own,
lease or use through trackage rights. In addition, we partially
subsidize service provided by the State of Indiana. In all cases, we
are partners in planning and funding track, signal, bridge and
communications improvements designed to improve our co-existence. This
is true even where our relationship is limited to a route intersection.
More and more, it seems, freight trains crossing our routes affect
our service more than those that share them. That's true especially on
the south side of Chicago, which boasts the greatest collection of
freight yards of any urban center. There, we are engaged in a massive
analysis of ten commuter/freight intersections--all under the control
of the freight carriers.
With the full cooperation of the freight railroads, this study will
tell us how operating practices and the signal systems, track capacity
and layout affect our commuter service. We'll look for solutions that
may combine track, signal and operating improvements that will benefit
commuter and freight operations.
The customer is the fourth leg of our stool. While a railroader's
mentality permeates our capital planning, our labor-management
dialogue, and our discussions with freight carriers, we don't run
trains just for the sake of running trains. We are in the business of
moving people, not trains. We know that if we don't provide
satisfactory service to our customers, we won't have reason to run
these trains.
Safe, clean, convenient and, above all, reliable transportation is
our objective. All capital decisions support that objective, as do our
discussions with labor unions and freight railroads.
So do the massive on-board customer surveys that we carry out every
two years. In general, they let us know how we're doing and alert us to
trends. Specifically, they're designed to help us rank in great detail
the satisfaction levels for many Metra service attributes.
These surveys are tools for evaluating service and weighing
adjustments route by route, and, of course, for identifying problems. A
more immediate means of identifying problems is the telephone. Our
executive director, our deputy executive director, and the heads of
departments including operations, transportation, mechanical, marketing
and media relations and myself often take calls directly from riders,
in addition to calls handled by our passenger service staff. Every
letter from our customers receives a written response. Moreover, a
majority of the Metra Board uses our service.
We also communicate with customers and potential customers through
research, promotions, market development, and direct marketing
campaigns. Our main marketing objective in 1998 is to continue to build
awareness of Metra as an alternative to the automobile and to increase
ridership among a very broad base of prospects.
We want to continue to reinforce with our current users the notion
that to ride Metra is a smart buying decision. In addition, we want to
build on a cost-efficient direct marketing and database program by
maintaining an on-going dialogue with prospective riders. Another
objective is to take greater advantage of opportunities for reverse,
suburb-to-suburb, and recreational commuting, to utilize better our
capacity. In other words, we're constantly looking for ways to maximize
our potential in the marketplace. In this, we agree with Amtrak.
As George Warrington said two weeks ago in House Appropriations
Committee testimony, we have to better understand all the forces that
affect our market. As he put it, ``It is not enough to know who our
customers are, rather we need to know where they want to go, what we
need to do to get them there, and how we can get them to buy our
service again. We need to sense change and to react in a way that
satisfies customer travel needs while strengthening the bottom line.''
There you have it. The focus on the customer must dominate all of
our daily discussions with freight carriers and labor unions and our
decisions on capital spending.
Again, the formula for success consists of four essential elements:
satisfied customers; commuter/freight cooperative efforts to achieve
reliable, convenient and safe service; sufficient capital investment to
achieve that service; and labor/management relations that will allow
both parties to prosper.
And there you have my summary of how Metra goes about the business
of regional passenger railroading.
Let me close by repeating that I offer these observations knowing
full well that Metra is but a microcosm of Amtrak. I don't presume to
fully understand Amtrak's problems and to have all of the answers to
them.
In one respect, however, the problem is the same. That is the
competition from the private automobile, fueled by governmental largess
toward road building and gas guzzling vehicles.
How well we meet the competition as a convenient transportation
alternative and serve as a remedy for pollution and congestion will
depend greatly on government policy toward our capital needs. We still
have a long way to go.
If my remarks have promoted the understanding of this key issue
here today, I will have helped Metra as well as Amtrak.
Thank you again for this opportunity. I'll be happy to answer any
questions you may have about Metra's way of doing business.
Use of Operating and Capital Subsidies
Senator Shelby. Mr. Kiley, I know you made an extraordinary
effort to get here today and not only are you jet-lagged, you
are going to be for a while because you have got to get back to
New York, we understand. We thank you for your effort and your
contribution.
Having said that, Mr. Kiley, you were a member of the
Working Group in Intercity Passenger Rail in 1997 and submitted
a blue ribbon panel report as your written statement. In short,
the blue ribbon panel recommended separating Amtrak's
infrastructure management from its operations. The
infrastructure company would continue to receive Federal
support for capital needs, while the operating company could be
contracted to the private sector with no Federal subsidy
whatsoever.
Mr. Kiley, do you think we can read the administration's
request of asking only for capital dollars in the 1999 budget
as a move in the same direction of the blue ribbon panel's
recommendations, or how do you view that?
Mr. Kiley. Well, the proof may be in the tasting of the
pudding.
Senator Shelby. Right. It always is, is it not.
Mr. Kiley. If, in fact, capital dollars end up being
diverted to maintenance expenditures that really do not extend
the useful life of the properties being invested in, then
fundamentally that will be a capital expense designed to
provide an operating subsidy. So I would throw up an amber
light on that and to be sure--I mean, maybe that is the
direction in which we want to go, but it ought to be done
consciously and overtly.
I see a parallel here between what is essentially happening
in the transit area with commuter railroads and with urban
transit systems, where the operating subsidy essentially is
provided by the user and by State and local governments. In all
of my experience in the transit arena, I have never been an
advocate of the continuation of operating subsidy. There may be
exceptions in rural systems and in areas where ridership will
just never be substantial that would argue to the contrary, but
I just do not see it.
I think the same is true of passenger rail, that if subsidy
is needed it ought to be done as close to the operation as
possible and the subsidy ought to be split among the users,
local and State governments. We may be entering an era where
interstate compacts make a lot of sense. It certainly makes
sense in the Northeast corridor. It seems to me to make sense
on the west coast, California, Oregon, Washington, perhaps even
Nevada. It certainly makes sense in the upper Midwest and it
may make sense increasingly in the Appalachian region.
So I think we have just got to get away from the late 19th
century way of looking at passenger rail.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
Mr. Poole, we also appreciate, we appreciate all of you
being here. We know you came from the west coast.
Your national research and educational organization, The
Reason Foundation, has published a report entitled ``Replacing
Amtrak: A Blueprint for Sustainable Passenger Rail Service,''
which states: ``It is time to liquidate Amtrak, privatize and
regionalize parts of it, permit alternative operators, and stop
service on helpless routes.''
Just how feasible is it to privatize Amtrak, Mr. Poole?
Feasibility of Privatization
Mr. Poole. Well, I think if we had not had 48 countries now
do all of the kinds of things we were talking about, I would
say, well, this is very, very theoretical and it would be hard
to justify taking a big leap into the dark. But we have a lot
of experience now with all of the pieces that we have laid out
there.
We have seen the de facto liquidation of British Rail by
breaking it up and selling off the pieces in those forms that
are viable. We have seen the virtual end of subsidies in
Australia and New Zealand, where they have sold off their rail
systems to private operators. Even passenger rail is not being
subsidized today in Australia and New Zealand, thanks to
privatization and the willingness to do the kind of surgery on
routes that just could never--that are hopeless, that could
never be done--and the competitive contracting of routes of
short to medium distances, up to 300 miles, that brings out the
best in creativity from operators like Virgin Trains, the
related company from Virgin Airlines, that is now investing
hundreds of millions of dollars in new passenger rail service
in Britain.
There is a lot of creativity out there in the private
sector. I think we are seeing it in other countries. We are
seeing the transformation of the Argentine railways due to
long-term private franchises investing in new trains and track.
So I think there is a lot of evidence that says we can put
those pieces together and replace Amtrak with a decentralized,
privatized system. I do not think it is theoretical at all.
Structure of Privatized Amtrak
Senator Shelby. Do you think it would work here? Do you
think there would be private companies interested in bidding to
run Amtrak's operations as they are currently structured, or do
you envision a different structure?
Mr. Poole. I have actually talked to one company off the
record that told me they intend to come to the Congress this
spring with a proposal to buy the entire national system. Now,
I am very skeptical that that could be viable, but if they are
there you certainly should listen to them. But I understand
that Secretary Slater has received a letter 2 months ago from
Guilford Transportation offering to buy the Northeast corridor,
to engage in serious negotiation to buy the Northeast corridor.
There is interest out there. There is also a company in
Pennsylvania that has proposed to take over the operation of
the Keystone Line between Harrisburg and Philadelphia. So we
are seeing interest in the private sector out there in at least
portions of the Amtrak system.
Senator Shelby. And what do you say to those people who
say, my gosh, we have got to have the status quo. What have we
been doing? What do you say to those people?
Mr. Poole. Well, I think it was Senator Gorton that said it
and was correct. The analogy to oceangoing passenger travel, I
think, is right on, that this is a 19th-century form. The long-
distance passenger trains are a nostalgic kind of thing from
the past. There is a market there for cruises for people who
are willing to pay for a leisurely, scenic journey, but they
should not be asking the taxpayers of this country to subsidize
them as a form of transportation.
Mr. Kiley. Although the Titanic is making a lot of money.
Mr. Poole. That is true, that is true. [Laughter.]
Senator Shelby. Mr. Ladd, to just sum up here, your system
carries almost four times as many passengers annually as
Amtrak's national system. What does Metra do better than Amtrak
in terms of your relationship with rail labor and with freight
railroads in terms of developing new service?
Mr. Ladd. Well, we have to run over freight railroads,
Senator, to take those in reverse order. To do that we have to
get their attention. There has to be something in it for them.
And the way we do that is by using our capital program so we
are at the same time improving their movement of freight that
we are improving the movement of our commuters. By that in
effect we get cooperation that leads to this coexistence.
The labor thing is extremely important for us and, as I
said, we had some Federal seed money when we first started and
we created a labor-management committee. We did not use that to
negotiate our contracts, but we did use it to discuss a whole
lot of things of mutual interest where we were able to create a
relationship and build trust over a period of time. We have
kept that going. We have gotten into literacy programs for our
employees, we have gotten into employee assistance and things
way beyond that, where we have created a real relationship with
our employees and the unions.
At the same time, what is in it for the unions is, if we
are successful, we are growing our employment needs, which
means their union grows. As a result, our last form of
contracts--and we have over 19 labor unions--were 5 years in
duration, and we are hoping next time they are going to be 7.
Senator Shelby. Senator Bennett.
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Alternatives to Amtrak
I have unburdened myself of my general position on this and
have no more pearls of wisdom to share. This has been a very
interesting panel. I think the vision of the possible move in
the direction of privatization is one that we clearly should
pursue, and I thank the members of the panel for their
thoughtfulness and their willingness to contribute to the
debate.
Senator Shelby. Senator Gorton.
Senator Gorton. Mr. Ladd, I grew up in Evanston a long time
ago and I would like to sort of envisage what you have and
impose it on what I saw as a youth. What is the longest single
line from downtown Chicago that you would have? How far would
it go, in what direction?
Mr. Ladd. I think it is roughly 65 miles, Senator. That
goes from downtown Chicago to Harvard, IL. That is the
northwest line and it is probably about 10 miles south of Lake
Geneva, WI.
Senator Gorton. I understand that. And yours is six
counties all in Illinois, I take it?
Mr. Ladd. That is correct, sir.
Senator Gorton. So you do not run anything into northwest
Indiana or into Wisconsin?
Mr. Ladd. We subsidize the Northwestern Indiana Commuter
Transit District's line, the South Shore Line, which comes into
Chicago, and they also then run a portion over our tracks.
Senator Gorton. I see. So you can commute at least into
Indiana?
Mr. Ladd. Yes.
Senator Gorton. And beyond the end of your line.
Could a system like yours work, say, between Chicago and
Milwaukee?
Mr. Ladd. I think it could. At one point when the State of
Illinois was looking at much increased rates from Amtrak for
providing service in Illinois and to St. Louis, the Illinois
Department of Transportation asked us whether or not we would
consider providing that service if they were unable to reach an
agreement with Amtrak. Any smart man understands the answer to
that question is yes, and that was our response.
We are not looking to expand that way, but if that is what
would happen, yes, we could do that. We have got the rail
people that can do that. We would need equipment and we would
have to start building a relationship with a whole new set of
railroads to upgrade the capital properties that you need to
provide safe and reliable service. But we could do that,
Senator, yes.
Senator Gorton. Now, what is that--you said something. I
take it independently of Metra is the old El, the CTA? Is that
a separate organization from yours?
Mr. Ladd. That is run by the Chicago Transit Authority,
Senator.
Senator Gorton. So that----
Mr. Ladd. That is part of El Rapid Transit lines. That is
all part of the CTA.
Senator Gorton. So there are then two rail systems in
greater Chicago?
Mr. Ladd. We run a heavy rail system. It is akin to the old
Chicago North Western, which was operating, I am sure, when you
were in Evanston, now Union Pacific.
Railroad Competition Today
Senator Gorton. All right. So if I were going out to
Evanston I would still have the same two choices that my family
had many years ago, the old El system run by CTA and one along
the North Western tracks which is run by your Metra?
Mr. Ladd. That is correct, sir.
Senator Gorton. Thank you.
Mr. Poole, has anyone actually drafted and introduced the
bill that you outline in your testimony?
Mr. Poole. Not to my knowledge, no. But we have certainly
given the outline for what I think all the essential pieces
would be. We do not really do legislative drafting. We would be
happy--our author, Joseph Vranich, would certainly be happy to
work with any staff that were interested in drafting such a
bill.
Senator Gorton. I take it it is in somewhat more detail
than it is outlined in your written testimony?
Mr. Poole. Yes, it is.
Senator Gorton. Now, what you advocate really I take it is
not competitive or an alternative to what Mr. Ladd is talking
about, because you are not speaking of commuter rail even at
the rather broad extent that he or Mr. Kiley talked about, I
take it; is that right?
Mr. Poole. Essentially, what I am saying is that Metra is
the kind of organization we think that makes sense for
passenger rail service of a commuter nature, and even
potentially, as he just mentioned, it could also take on
relatively short distance intercity routes such as Chicago to
Milwaukee if there were no longer a Federal Amtrak Corporation.
That is exactly the kind of model. We think the markets
where rail makes sense are basically commuter and regional,
short haul regional services, which are ideally suited to be
done not as a Federal operation, but either with one State or
by State or metropolitan area entities, either operating the
services themselves or contracting with the private sector.
Senator Gorton. Well, could you give me the kind of
guesstimate I was asking the previous panel about, about other
major city or urban pairs where you think the private sector
might find intercity rail service to be reasonably attractive?
Mr. Poole. On a totally unsubsidized basis, I doubt if
there are any. But I think if there were a competitive
contracting situation much like the Working Group proposed,
under which you put the service out to bid for whoever could
come up with the least--whoever would need the least subsidy to
provide a given level of service, I think you would see real
interest in corridors such as Seattle to Portland, Los Angeles-
San Diego, possibly Houston-Dallas, Chicago to Milwaukee, and a
number of others around the country.
Probably less than a dozen would be my guess, because it is
a question of how much subsidy would be needed to provide a
viable level of service.
Senator Gorton. Where would that subsidy come from, from us
here in Washington, DC, or from the communities and States that
would be involved?
Mr. Poole. From the communities and States that would be
involved. We propose a phaseout down to zero of the Federal
operating subsidies during the transition period, but with the
idea that this is really not a national function. If there is
only a handful of markets, up to a dozen possibly, where this
kind of service makes any kind of sense, it is not really a
Federal function. It is properly a State and regional function.
Senator Gorton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Gorton.
We thank you for coming. We thank you for your candor and
participation.
Mayor Rendell, he was going to be on our fourth panel, but
he has a train to catch, which is fitting and proper for the
mayor. Mayor, if you will come on up, we will take you first,
and then we will go to Jack Lew, the Deputy Director of OMB.
Mayor, your written statement will be made part of the
record in its entirety. I know you are here to support Amtrak,
and you may proceed with any comments you want to make.
STATEMENT OF HON. ED RENDELL, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF
PHILADELPHIA, PA
Mayor Rendell. Thank you, Senator.
Since the written statement is part of the record, I am
just going to highlight it briefly.
Senator Shelby. Absolutely.
Benefits of Capitalization
Mayor Rendell. Listening to the other panel, there are some
points that I want to make. Senator, I know you are keenly
aware that less than 4 months ago this Senate by unanimous
consent on a bill sponsored by Senator Hutchison of Texas
passed the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act, which was
contemplated to give Amtrak, No. 1, the tools to make some of
the changes that you are talking about here today over the next
5 years; and No. 2, to give it the type of long-term funding
for high-rate capital investment, high rate of return capital
investment, that it could be on a sound financial footing by
the year 2002.
The man from Metra gave us that catchy saying. I think I
wrote it down here, something about: If you want to--the better
you capitalize, the less you will subsidize. That was the whole
point of what you did 4 months ago. With the TRA you gave
Amtrak the money to make the high rate of return capital
investments so that they could stand on its own by 2002.
What I am essentially saying is give Amtrak the 5-year test
that you all decided 4 months ago. Let them capitalize at a
rate that, frankly, has never been allowed for them to do
before. They are turning the corner. We are about to get high-
speed trains on the Northeast corridor and other places which
are estimated to return $150 million annually in profit. Let
them do what they said they wanted to do over the next 5 years.
Let them capitalize so at the end of 5 years they do not have
to subsidize.
You have given them the ability to make changes, to
renegotiate labor contracts. Let us see where that goes. I have
heard all this talk about privatization. I am going to mention
that in a second, but that is what you all did 4 months ago. I
think you should let that plan operate and then come back to
the table. If Amtrak by the year 2002 has had the ability to
capitalize, gets the yearly appropriations that the act
contemplated--the act did not contemplate that the $2.2 billion
of TRA funds would supplant any yearly appropriation; it would
just supplement it. And they do need the yearly appropriation
and the change in the broad definition of capital expenditures
to basically do what one of your witnesses said is operating
dollars. That is correct, but you do not give them operating
dollars, basically, any more.
They need that ability to take care of their short-term
needs so that they can isolate the $2.2 billion to do the type
of high rate of investment that can make them sound by the year
2002 and not need to come to you for the subsidy, or certainly
the subsidy at this level.
So I think the plan that you all signed off on and so many
of you spoke so highly of, I think that plan deserves the next
5 years to see if it works. If it does not, then I think we
should seriously consider privatizing.
I am a mayor, Senator, who has privatized 42 functions in
the city of Philadelphia, considered one of the most difficult
labor towns in America.
Senator Shelby. How have they worked?
Mayor Rendell. And they have worked very well. We save
about $36 million a year annually and in all but one of those
functions I can say without contradiction we provide a better
level of service to our people.
Problems With Privatization
But understand, and I think you do, Senator: Private
companies are interested in one thing--profit. They are not
interested in the maximum reach of service. You subject Amtrak
to privatization, the Amtrak system, and you know what will
happen? Rural passengers who in many cases depend on it
desperately--Amtrak serves 62 million rural Americans. They
will get the shaft. Not one private company will serve those
small towns in Mississippi that Senator Lott spoke about, or
the towns in Montana that Senator Baucus spoke about. That will
not happen.
The Northeast corridor, you have already heard, this is an
offer on the table to buy the Northeast corridor right now.
That could be, is for Amtrak and could be more of a profit
center. But if you want to take rail service away from rural
America, away from the Mississippi's, the Montana's, the North
Dakota's, and the Louisiana's, then subject it to
privatization, because private companies, they can do a defined
task very well, but they are not going to provide service, the
broadest service to the taxpayers and citizens of this country.
So beware. Privatization is great when it is focused on a
narrow goal. But put the whole system up to privatization,
Senator, and I would suggest that many, many of the Senate's
constituents will be left without any rail service at all.
Remember, in some of those towns the only nonautomobile link
between towns in rural areas is Amtrak. So I think we have got
to go very, very, very, very carefully down that road.
Positive Effects of Funding
Amtrak deserves some credit, Senator, as some of the
witnesses said, for better performance: $300 million added to
the bottom line in 2 years; ridership up in the last quarter of
the past year; ridership had its biggest increase in 14 years,
a 7-percent increase; $100 million in additional revenues over
the last 2 years.
As I said, I think they are making strong decisions to
spend their money in the high rate of return type of lines and
type of business. They should be given this 5-year chance.
You know, it was interesting. Everyone was all over the
gentleman from Metra with praise, and could Metra take care of
Milwaukee to Chicago or Portland to Seattle. Everyone was
praising him. But remember what he said: There are four legs to
the stool, and one of the essential legs was Federal support.
Take Federal support away from Metra and let us see how
successful they are, Senator.
This is a shell game. You hear the man from the Reason
Foundation--and by the way, I am one of the darlings of the
Reason Foundation. When they point to municipal government, I
am one of the guys they talk about. But they talk about all of
these great private companies that are running rail systems in
different countries. Well, high-speed rail in Japan and in
Europe--subsidized.
My wife and I went for our 25th anniversary to London and
Paris, the first time I have been in either of those countries,
far too busy to go under normal circumstances. So we went for
our 25th anniversary. I am so interested in trains that we did
not fly from London to Paris. We took what they call the
Chunnel. And the Chunnel is beautiful. It is wonderful. It
provides high-speed rail traffic between London and Paris. It
is a great alternative. Highly subsidized, highly subsidized.
They are selling you snake oil. The most successful rail
lines in the world are highly subsidized.
Amtrak deserves the chance. Give them the $621 million that
is in the President's budget, let them take care of their
short-term needs, and then let them use the $2.2 billion in the
TRA that you all approved 4 months ago to do this high rate of
return of investment. Just like the man from Metra says: The
better they capitalize, the less they are going to have to
subsidize. And see where they are in 2002.
Go warily down the road of changing Amtrak. There are
Mississippians and I would even suggest Alabamians who will be
hurt, hurt badly, if we do this, if we just say, OK, guys,
highest bidder, let the private sector take it, we are not
going to provide a subsidy, we are going to save all this
Federal money.
I love to hear these fellows up here who say: Let the local
governments pay. You know, I think you asked the question or
Senator Gorton asked the question: Who would pay for Portland
to Seattle? Well, the State of Washington, the State of Oregon,
and the city of Portland and the city of Seattle. In all due
respect, we feel beaten and battered in local government,
Senator, because everybody is devolving things down to us, and
as they devolve them down to us the money that used to be
coming to us is less and less. The Federal share is less
because we are going to get flexibility. When the State
devolves it down to us, the State share is less because we are
going to get flexibility.
And I look around and there is nobody for me to devolve
them to. There is nobody left for me to devolve them to and I
have to bear the burden. And of all of the governments, local
government has the least resources, the least revenues that we
can call on, the least taxes we can impose.
So I think what you are hearing here sounds great when you
first hear it. You know, it is magic: Oh, Senator, they would
buy that in a minute. But be wary of how you go down the road.
We want to keep rail service for America. If we want to keep
rail service for America, do not think that we can accomplish
what the Japanese could not and what the Europeans could not.
Do not think that we can accomplish it with nonsubsidy.
Senator Shelby. That might be the central question: Do we
want to keep it? I am speaking about whether the American
people want to keep it, and if they want to keep it they are
going to have to give that support and voice to the Congress.
And second, they are going to have to ride the trains.
Paying for Amtrak
Mayor Rendell. Well, there is no question. And Senator----
Senator Shelby. Let me ask you this, Mayor Rendell. Do you
believe that the people who ride the trains ought to pay for
the trains?
Mayor Rendell. Ought to pay the appropriate price?
Senator Shelby. Yes; sure. Or should it be people who do
not ride them pay for the ones that do ride them? And that is
what we are doing.
Mayor Rendell. Well, Senator, I think in the palace of
truth and justice the people who ride the trains should pay for
them.
Senator Shelby. Absolutely.
Mayor Rendell. But let me suggest to you that, if you want
to apply that standard to everything that we do in Washington,
then I am fine with it. But I do not use a lot of the things
that you subsidize here in Washington and why should I pay for
them?
And you know, you hear from the rural States that they do
not want to subsidize the mass transit in Philadelphia and New
York, and I understand all that. But if we are going to do it,
let us do it across the board. And then the question is, as a
government what is our--and this is a really fundamental
question, and you have asked the right question. As a
government, what is our responsibility to the taxpayers? Do we
link those two rural towns with rail service so that that poor
person who does not have a car and has no other means of
getting between those two towns, because there is no bus
service, has a chance to get between those two towns? Is that
something that we as a U.S. Government want to do?
I do every day in Philadelphia, I do things every day--and
we are again the poster boy for fiscal stability. We took a
$1.4 billion deficit and turned it into the three largest
surpluses in the last 3 years in the city's history.
Senator Shelby. How can Amtrak do that?
Mayor Rendell. But I do every day, Senator, I make
decisions every day which are not totally wise on the bottom
line. I have district health centers and I could close my
district health centers and say: Let them go to the emergency
rooms of the hospitals. But some of those district health
centers are located in areas for people who are old and infirm
and cannot get to the nearest hospital, which may be 10, 12
miles away in a big city like Philadelphia.
So what I am saying is we do not always decide things by
the bottom line. Can Amtrak do it? I do not know. And even as
much of a fan as I am of Amtrak, I have some doubts.
But I believe for the first time what all 100 of you did 4
months ago gives them the right and proper tools and ability to
do it, if you will fund the President's budget request. Let us
give them the 5-year test. If they are back here in 5 years and
they are still in shaky financial condition, then we should
look at some of these alternatives.
Amtrak's 5-Year Plan
By the way, in the 5 years in between we can really do some
study. I mean, let us go to Japan and see how they do it, see
how important a part government subsidy is. Let us talk about
these maglev trains. Let us see about the Chunnel. Let us
examine all of these things carefully. I think we have the time
to do that.
Give Amtrak a fair chance. Do what you did 4 months ago,
give them the $621 million. You know, we have increased funding
for almost every other form of transportation, and properly so,
thanks to the action that you took in the Senate. We have
increased funding for all of those other modes by 38 percent
from ISTEA 1991 to what you have just done to reauthorize
ISTEA. You have increased it by 38 percent. Amtrak, what we are
doing for Amtrak is negligible compared to that in percentage
terms. I am not even talking about real dollars.
Give them a chance over the next 5 years and see where we
are. Do I think that they can make it? I am not sure. Do I
think that 5 years from now you are still not going to be faced
with the choice of some of those rural lines saying there are
not enough people riding them, I am sorry, Mrs. Smith, the 87-
year-old grandmother who has no other way to get to those
towns, we cannot provide transportation for you?
Maybe we have to make that choice. Give them a chance. This
is one area where the Northeast corridor can wind up
subsidizing rural transportation. And you know what, Senator?
That does not bother me. If that is the only way that rural
Americans can get from town to town, it does not bother me.
Thank you for your consideration.
Senator Shelby. We appreciate your statement and we
appreciate everything you have said, and I know where you are
coming from.
I do have an observation, though. You mentioned the 5
years. Where are we going to be in 5 years? That would concern
me. I think we will be right back at the table here and Amtrak
will be wanting more and more money. I hope that will not be
the case, but if it is I think Amtrak will have to go.
Mayor Rendell. Absolutely.
Senator Shelby. Because the American people should not
continue to let a system hemorrhage and hemorrhage and
hemorrhage. What we are trying to do is look at Amtrak
realistically and also prospectively, where is it today, where
is it going, and what is going to change it?
Mayor Rendell. I agree, Senator. But give them some credit,
as all the speakers here said, for all the improvements they
have made in the bottom line. The high-speed trains will
increase their profitability. Let us see where they are.
Senator, again, if you form a task force to look at this
while you let the TRA and what you did 4 months ago work, I
would be happy to volunteer my time to look at it, because it
is an issue that I care very, very deeply about.
Senator Shelby. Thank you, and I hope you get to the train
on time.
Mayor Rendell. I will. It is an Amtrak train.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
STATEMENT OF HON. JACK LEW, DEPUTY DIRECTOR
Introduction of witness
Senator Shelby. Our last panel will be Mr. Jack Lew, Deputy
Director of OMB. Mr. Lew, thank you for your patience in
deferring to the mayor on that. Your written testimony will be
made part of the record in its entirety and you may proceed as
you wish.
Mr. Lew. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to
listen to Mayor Rendell and I would like to associate myself
with many of his remarks.
Since my prepared statement is in the record, I will just
briefly summarize my remarks, and then I would be happy to
answer any questions that you have.
If I can take off on the question that you were asking
Mayor Rendell, I think there is a very fundamental question
that we are going to be dealing with over not just this year,
but the next 5-plus years. Do we want to have a national
railroad system; do we want to have there be any subsidies?
Senator Shelby. The central question.
Mr. Lew. The central question.
Flexibility of Capital Funds
I think we have to take a step back, though, and realize
where we were when I had the pleasure of testifying before this
committee last year. We were looking at an Amtrak that was
going literally from day to day unable to see how it was going
to pay obligatory tax payments, without a clear vision of what
we were going to do over the next several years to make things
better.
An awful lot has happened in the last year, and I think it
is important, as Mayor Rendell said, to give some of the things
that have happened over the last year a chance to mature. Over
the last year two important pieces of law were enacted.
Obviously, I do not need to tell this committee about either
the Taxpayer Relief Act or the Amtrak Reform Act.
Those two pieces of legislation provided not just money.
They provided a framework for Amtrak to get its house in order.
They provided a framework where decisions can be made so that
the tradeoffs between operating expenses, urgent immediate
expenses, and capital are somewhat less severe.
In light of the decision made, I think very wisely, by this
committee last year on the transportation appropriation bill
regarding transit to provide additional flexibility for the use
of capital to encourage the repair and maintenance of rolling
stock, rather than just to go out and purchase because that is
what capital support could be used for. If you apply that
principle to the appropriation request that we have made, what
you have is an Amtrak that will be able, over the next year, to
invest wisely in maintaining its equipment, to invest wisely in
intermediate term investment strategies, and to use the
Taxpayer Relief Act assistance to do the kind of long-range
capital planning, high-yield investment that it was designed to
provide.
That is a very different picture from the Amtrak we were
looking at a year ago that needed money just to pay its bills
and then had to pay the next bill. It could not go through the
kind of planning that we are talking about here.
Second, there was a very important labor agreement.
Reaching an agreement with a major union gives Amtrak a
framework for managing its fiscal affairs very, very different
than we saw a year ago. It opens the door to discussions with
other crafts.
Can I sit here before the committee and say that never
again will an OMB Director or Deputy Director be asking for an
Amtrak subsidy? No, I cannot, and frankly I do not think I
should say that. I do not think that would be the right policy.
Senator Shelby. Why? Why would it not be the right policy?
I mean, this is taxpayer money.
Mr. Lew. If I may, Mr. Chairman, I was going to address
that question.
I think that what we have to do is get Amtrak's house in
order. We have to separate the question of should there be a
subsidy for railroads in this country from the question of is
Amtrak managing its affairs sensibly. I think the comparisons
that you have heard earlier today to highway investments, to
investments in aircraft, in the airline industry, are very
relevant.
We are watching Congress pass a very generous highway bill,
a bill which meets many urgent needs around the country. But we
are not questioning whether every mile built is economically as
valuable as every other mile built. We are saying the whole
country needs roads. We are saying that places need to be
connected. People have to travel for business, people have to
travel for their personal affairs, commerce has to flow.
The question of aircraft, airlines: the research and
development that goes into the airline industry is very heavily
supported by the Government. A large share of the NASA budget
goes into research that is very relevant to the future of the
next century of aircraft development.
Senator Shelby. Let me stop you just a second.
Mr. Lew. Sure.
Other Transportation Modes
Senator Shelby. You realize probably as well as anybody,
but we ought to clear it up for the record, that the highway
funds are supported by gas taxes on all Americans, everywhere
you buy it; and also the airlines are supported by the airline
ticket tax, are they not?
Mr. Lew. Well, clearly there are ticket taxes, there are
gas taxes.
Senator Shelby. But we do not have a tax that I recall on
Amtrak passengers.
Mr. Lew. There are many uses of the highway trust fund that
are cross-subsidies. I do not think that there would be anyone
who would argue that every dollar goes back to where it was
collected. It is a large enough system that permits cross-
subsidies internally. I think if we were to look at the airline
industry over the years and look at Federal dollars that have
gone into airport construction, air traffic control design, air
traffic control system, air traffic control operation, research
into aviation, they are very substantial subsidies.
The fact that there are now user fees is very real, and we
have proposed them. We advocate them. I think that it is the
right way to go. We think that Amtrak revenues should provide
most of their operating subsidies.
The question that I was trying to get to, and I will wrap
up my remarks, if I can, with this, is that if everything is
going well in Amtrak there still will be a question, do we want
to have a very, very much reduced rail system where only the
systems that can run privately economically are left? I do not
think that is where we want to go as a country. It is not our
view of where we want to go.
The important thing about the framework we are operating
under under the Taxpayer Relief Act and the Amtrak Reform Act
is that it builds in place a 2-year look-back. In 2 years we
are supposed to see whether Amtrak has gotten its fiscal house
in order. Over 5 years we are supposed to see how much progress
they have made and then look back and see, should we proceed
with privatization.
Funding Amtrak
What would be unfair would be not to fund the agreement,
and the agreement called for $5 billion of support over the 5
years. Part of the funds came through the Taxpayer Relief Act,
part of the funds come through our request in the budget. If
the $620 million that is requested in the budget is not
provided, we are not going to be giving the 5-year experiment a
chance.
I would be happy to answer any questions, Senator.
Prepared Statement
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Lew. We have your complete
statement and it will be made part of the hearing record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jacob J. Lew
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee. I am
Jack Lew, Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Thank
you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the President's
fiscal year 1999 budget proposal for Amtrak. After my brief statement I
will be happy to answer your questions.
The goal of the President's 1999 budget proposal for Amtrak is
straightforward--we seek to continue on the bipartisan path to reform
that was laid out last year in the Taxpayer Relief Act (TRA) and the
Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act (ARAA). The budget is the first
step along this difficult path.
Since my testimony on Amtrak before this Subcommittee last July, a
number of significant changes have occurred. Last year, Amtrak had
operated for three years without a reauthorization bill. The failure to
reauthorize Amtrak was symptomatic of the deep divisions in Congress on
the future of intercity passenger rail. There were also serious and
pressing questions concerning Amtrak's economic viability. As you may
recall, my July testimony about railroad retirement payments made clear
that Amtrak faced pressing cash-flow issues for both the short-term and
long-term. Finally, at this time last year Amtrak and its 14 unions
were at loggerheads over terms of collective bargaining agreements
which had long since gone past the end of their original terms.
Over the past year, there have been a number of encouraging
developments. A bipartisan consensus emerged to support the Amtrak
Reform and Accountability Act. The Act was passed by the Congress and
signed into law by the President on December 2, 1997. Enactment of this
Act allows Amtrak access to roughly $2.2 billion in financial resources
made available to the Corporation under the Taxpayer Relief Act of
1997. The TRA resources hold the promise of allowing Amtrak to
recapitalize its rolling stock and make the high-yield investments
necessary to sustain intercity passenger rail into the next century.
Finally, there has been progress in negotiations with the unions
representing Amtrak employees. An agreement was signed with one of
Amtrak's largest crafts, the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way
Employees last November. In addition, constructive negotiations appear
to be underway between Amtrak and its other unions.
The President's 1999 budget proposal for Amtrak follows through on
the bipartisan efforts of this Congress in the Reform Act. Like the
Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act, the President's Budget seeks to
provide adequate funding, promote efficiency, and enhance
accountability. First, our budget provides the minimum funding
necessary for a revitalized and viable Amtrak. Second, our budget seeks
to broaden the definition of ``capital expenses,'' and thereby allow
Amtrak to enhance its capital stock in the most cost-effective manner
possible. Finally, our budget insists on the accountability needed to
ensure that Federal funds are spent appropriately.
the need for discretionary appropriations in fiscal year 1999
The President's 1999 budget seeks $621 million in capital grant
funding and no operating grant funding. The President's budget assumes
Amtrak outyear funding for capital grants of $571 million in 2000, and
$521 million annually in 2001, 2002, and 2003. The 1999 request for
$621 million is comprised of:
--up to $409 million for general capital;
--no less than $200,000,000 for the Northeast Corridor Improvement
Program (NECIP);
--$12 million for the Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment Project to
complete the Administration's $100 million commitment of
Federal funds to the Project; and
--$500,000 for administrative support of the Amtrak's Reform Council
and an annual financial assessment of Amtrak.
The Reform Act authorizes over $5 billion for Amtrak over the next
five years. The President's budget implements the Reform Act
authorizations by providing $5 billion in financial resources for
Amtrak through 2002, inclusive of the $2.2 billion provided through the
TRA. This $5 billion level of funding meets the requirements of
Amtrak's most recent business plan of March 10, 1998. Counting the
resources provided by the TRA, the President's budget provides roughly
$1.7 billion in financial resources in 1999--$700 million more than any
of the annual appropriations received by Amtrak in the past 17 years.
We believe these resources are necessary. Without them, Amtrak will
not be able to recapitalize its rolling stock and enjoy the fruits of
the bipartisan consensus embodied in the Amtrak Reform and
Accountability Act. New capital appropriations will allow Amtrak to
move beyond its ``hand to mouth'' existence of recent years, and permit
investments in the capital assets that will return benefit to the
Corporation and, over the long run, reduce Amtrak's reliance on Federal
financial assistance.
promoting amtrak's economic efficiency
The Administration supports Amtrak's proposal to use its Federal
capital grants in the same fashion as transit uses Federal capital
grants. We also support Amtrak's request to have the capital funds made
available on October 1, 1998.
Last year Congress adopted a new definition of capital that allowed
Federal capital grants for transit to be used either to buy new assets
or to maintain existing assets. By supporting equally both the repair
of existing assets and the purchase of new capital, Federal transit
grants now encourage grant recipients to manage their capital stock in
the most cost-effective manner. In contrast, capital grants for Amtrak
in the past have been used only for the purchase of new assets.
Allowing Amtrak to use its capital grants under the same rules that now
apply to transit will ensure that Amtrak capital grants do not distort
market signals about the tradeoff between the repair of existing assets
and the purchase of new capital. And by allowing Amtrak to face true
price signals, the broader definition of capital will ensure that
Amtrak can use capital grants in a cost-effective manner that
recognizes the tradeoffs between maintenance and the purchase of new
assets.
With an expanded definition of capital, Amtrak will not only be
able to make high-yield investments in infrastructure and equipment,
but also to fund activities that improve operational reliability. For
example, Amtrak will be able to maintain shop facilities and machinery
used to repair car and locomotive mechanical and electrical systems
(e.g. air conditioning, engines), perform progressive overhauls, and
rework train components (rewiring or updating of equipment).
promoting accountability
Finally, the President's Budget request would impose new fiscal
discipline on Amtrak by requiring the Corporation to submit a
comprehensive plan for spending its funds in a prudent fashion. Both
the fiscal year 1999 capital appropriation and the 1999 portion of TRA
funds would be released to Amtrak only after approval of the plan by
the Secretary of the Department of Transportation and the Director of
the Office of Management and Budget. This plan will provide added
assurances to Congress and the Administration that Amtrak will invest
wisely in its future.
conclusion
The President's Budget offers a practical way to encourage the
long-term success of Amtrak. By providing $621 million in direct
appropriations, the President's Budget would allow the funds made
available by the TRA to be invested in high rate-of-return projects,
such as the critical infrastructure needed to begin high speed rail
service in the Northeast Corridor in 1999. We believe that these high-
return projects will revitalize the undercapitalized core of Amtrak's
assets and provide fresh revenue to Amtrak, thereby reducing the need
for future federal financial assistance.
As Amtrak has testified before the House Appropriations Committee,
the President's Budget request--with the added flexibilities that I
have discussed above--will allow Amtrak to implement its five-year
business strategy. The Administration looks forward to working with
this Committee to provide Amtrak with the funding that it needs to
succeed as a vital part of our nation's transportation system.
This concludes my written statement. At this time I would be
pleased to answer any questions that you may have.
Flexibility of Funding
Senator Shelby. The TRA specifically allows for funds to be
used, it is my understanding, for maintenance of existing
equipment, which is traditionally an operating expense; is that
correct?
Mr. Lew. That is correct, Senator.
Senator Shelby. But do you think we need flexibility in the
appropriated fund? In other words, your appropriations request
is for $621 million in capital funding. I do not see any bill
language directing that some of the funds can be used for
operating activities.
Mr. Lew. Well, with respect to the appropriation request,
we really are taking the view that the approach the committee
took for transit last year is the appropriate approach. Now,
that does provide some flexibility, but it does not go all the
way to operating. It is a somewhat broader definition of
capital and we think an appropriately broadened definition of
capital.
There are legal questions whether you have to enact a new
provision, whether the current provision would extend to
Amtrak. We think that it is a wise approach, it is the approach
that should be taken, and if it requires legislative language
we would like to work with the committee to develop it.
That would permit the most economical decisions to be made.
Amtrak has enough operating revenues of its own to meet its
basic operating expenses. If there is a choice between
repairing rolling stock, and going out and purchasing rolling
stock, and repairing is cheaper and will keep the system
functioning longer at a lower price, we think it would be wise
for the capital funds to be available for that purpose.
The same is true over many, many aspects of the system.
Senator Shelby. Do you plan to send up a budget amendment
to change the request?
Mr. Lew. I am not certain it requires a change. We would
like to work with the committee and the staff. If the view of
the committee is it requires----
Senator Shelby. Why would it not be required?
Mr. Lew. The definition of transit and the interpretation
of it under the Federal Railroad Administration has been broad.
It could extend to Amtrak. We are frankly not certain it
requires legislation. If it does we would be delighted to send
up language. We do not mean to make a challenge of it. We are
not sure.
Future Self-Sufficiency a Myth
Senator Shelby. Well, we appreciate your participation and
we appreciate your patience and your efforts earlier.
It seems to me at this point in time that there is never
really enough, enough money for Amtrak, and the whole concept
of glidepath to self-sufficiency seems to be a myth. You know,
we have had testimony here to that effect, basically. Amtrak I
believe intends to remain on the Federal dole for a long time
as we provide it, and the administration's request seems to
support that position. That is what concerns me as well as a
lot of Senators: When will Amtrak be self-sufficient, if ever?
I think it is time to actively look for a better way,
perhaps an alternative. There are places in America that need
and can sustain competitive passenger rail service. We have had
testimony to that effect. But we should no longer, I believe,
support the status quo, putting more and more Federal funds
into a system that can be characterized basically as a failed
national experiment up to now.
Submitted Questions
We will submit additional questions to be answered in
writing for the record.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the agencies for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Office of Management and Budget
Questions Submitted by Senator Lautenberg
administration's modified budget request
Question. Recently, the Administration made an important
modification to its Amtrak budget request which was to support applying
the transit capital maintenance definition to Amtrak. Can you please
explain the reason behind this modification and how you believe it
allows the Administration's budget request to work for Amtrak?
Answer. The application of the transit capital maintenance
definition to Amtrak is an important step in providing Amtrak the
flexibility it needs to operate more like a business. This broader
definition, one which the Congress has already embraced for use by the
Federal Transit Administration, will allow Amtrak to manage their
capital assets in the most efficient manner. We do not view the
application of the transit definition as a change to our budget
request, but, as stated during the hearing, the Administration stands
ready to work with the Committee to submit any additional language or
legislative proposal the Committee deems necessary to support this
request.
Previously, federal capital grants for Amtrak have been used only
for the purchase of new assets. The expanded definition of capital
grants will allow Amtrak to make a balanced trade off between
purchasing new assets or repairing existing assets. For example, Amtrak
will now be able to use its capital grant to invest in facilities and
machinery which improve operational reliability. Further, this proposal
will allow Amtrak to use the funds provided under the Taxpayer Relief
Act for high rate of return capital investments.
failure to fully fund president's request
Question. What do you believe the impact on Amtrak's financial
situation would be if this Committee provided less then the $621
million requested by the President.
Answer. The $621 million request is the level of funding needed to
ensure Amtrak a fair chance at proceeding with its efforts to
recapitalize the Corporation and to institute the reforms envisioned in
the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act. If the Committee were to
provide less than the $621 million request, Amtrak would continue its
operations, but be forced to substitute the TRA funds for ``missing''
grant funds. Depending on the amount of underfunding, the substitution
could quickly eat away at the TRA funds. The use of the TRA funds to
cover the discretionary funding shortfall would mean that Amtrak would
soon again be in the same position it found itself prior to passage of
the TRA--staggering from appropriation to appropriation barely able to
survive. In sum, the underfunding of the President's request will delay
critical long-term investments, and undermine recent bipartisan reform
efforts.
release of funds on october 1, 1998
Question. What would the impact be on Amtrak's financial health and
its operations if we do not release the funds on October 1, but instead
delay release until July 1 as we've done for the past few years? Does
the Administration support releasing the funds on October 1 rather than
July 1?
Answer. The Administration supports release of the funds on October
1, 1998, rather than July 1, 1998. The delay in release of the funds
would force Amtrak to take steps to meet serious cash flow problems.
During fiscal year 1998, and in previous years, Amtrak was able to draw
50 percent of its Federal operating grants at the beginning of the
fiscal year. With no operating grant proposed this year, Amtrak must
rely on the capital grant and TRA borrowing to meet any cash flow
shortages. According to Amtrak, delaying the release of funds to July
1, 1999, could cause (but is not certain to cause) Amtrak's cumulative
cash shortfall up until July 1 to exceed the amount Amtrak is able to
borrow from the TRA and commercial banks.
using amtrak funds for building highways
Question. There are some in Congress who would like to shut down
Amtrak and use this money to build more highways. In your opinion,
would such a move be good transportation policy? Would the
Administration support that approach?
Answer. We need to have a balanced transportation policy. Shutting
down Amtrak would not be good transportation policy, and would not be
supported by the Administration. Our NEXTEA proposal to the Congress,
our budget, and my testimony before this Committee have made it clear
that funding Amtrak is a vital part of our nation's balanced
transportation policy.
preventive maintenance
Question. How can preventive maintenance be considered a capital
expense?
Answer. In passage of the 1998 Transportation Appropriations Act,
this Committee recognized that preventive maintenance conducted by the
Federal Transit Administration could be considered a capital expense.
When Amtrak, for example, inspects, tests, adjusts and repairs rail
cars, locomotives, tracks, communication systems, signal systems, and
power transmission systems, these expenses sustain the related
equipment infrastructure and facility capital assets of Amtrak and help
ensure their continued dependable service.
______
National Railroad Passenger Corporation [Amtrak]
Questions Submitted by Senator Shelby
Question. If Amtrak adheres to its March 1998 Strategic Business
Plan, will the railroad be independent from federal operating subsidy
by 2002?
Answer. The revised Strategic Business Plan assumes no federal
operating subsidy, but does assume a single federal capital
appropriation with flexibility identical to that enjoyed by the
transit, aviation, maritime and highway industries. However, between
fiscal year 1999-03, Amtrak plans to reduce the amount of federal
capital appropriations used for ``capital maintenance'' to levels below
fiscal year 1998's operating subsidy.
All of the following needs to happen for Amtrak to achieve
financial viability over the next several years:
--General capital appropriations of $621 million in fiscal year 1999,
$571 million in fiscal year 2000 and $521 million in fiscal
year 2001, fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003 as proposed by
the Administration;
--Flexibility for Amtrak to use these general capital grants in a
manner consistent with the Federal Transit Administration's
definition of capital grants;
--Amtrak is allowed to draw 40 percent of these capital grants on
October 1 of each fiscal year and the remaining 60 percent on
October 1 of the following fiscal year.
Question. Does the administration's request for $621,000,000 in
capital funds for Amtrak reflect the Blue Ribbon Panel recommendations
to separate Amtrak's infrastructure management from its operations?
Answer. No, it does not. The request for $621 million in capital
does, however, reflect the Blue Ribbon Panel's recommendation that a
higher level of reliable federal capital funding is absolutely
essential to preserve a healthy national passenger rail system.
Question. Please explain the administration's position that no
specific legislative provision is required to give Amtrak the
flexibility to use the same capital project investment criteria as was
specified for the Federal Transit Administration in Sec. 316 of Public
Law 105-66.
Answer. Amtrak understands that the Administration's opinion is
based on the fact that the first requirement in determining the ability
to spend capital funding is to look to the language of the
appropriation itself, and then to authorizing and program legislation.
Historically, there has been no specific statutory definition of what
constitutes a capital expense for Amtrak in either appropriations acts
or authorizing legislation. Congress could have subjected Amtrak to the
accounting rules mandated by the Interstate Commerce Commission (now
the Surface Transportation Board), but chose not to do so. Where the
statute and the legislative history do not provide a clear legislative
intent for particular language, a court turns first to the ``plain
meaning'' of the words, which is a dictionary or ordinary, everyday
meaning, rather than some obscure usage. Application of this standard
still takes into consideration related factors, such as its interaction
with other statutes, to avoid an unreasonable result. The ordinary,
everyday meaning of ``capital expense'' in American business matters is
that defined under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).
Since Amtrak funding flows through Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) appropriations, the next element of analysis is the weight to be
given FRA's interpretation of how the funding may be spent. Although
the disbursement of Amtrak funding is not subject to specific
regulations issued by FRA, since Congress has charged FRA with the
responsibility of administering that disbursement, FRA's interpretation
is entitled to considerable weight.
Thus, it is our understanding the Administration believes that
Amtrak could begin using the Transit Act definition of ``capital
expense'' if it were to first inform the appropriations committee in
its budget request of this intention and Congress then directs that the
funds be spent in accordance with the budget request.
Question. For what specific activities does the Taxpayer Relief Act
allow Amtrak to use the 1998 and 1999 tax refund allocations? How does
this differ from activities allowed under the expanded capital
definition the administration is requesting for Amtrak in the fiscal
year 1999 appropriations request?
Answer. The Taxpayer Relief Act allows Amtrak to use the 1998 and
1999 tax refund amounts for the acquisition of capital assets
(equipment and other capital improvements): upgrading maintenance
facilities and the maintenance of equipment; and payment of interest
and principal on obligations incurred for qualified expenses.
Maintenance of equipment expenses include the following costs related
to equipment used in intercity passenger rail service; mechanical and
electrical inspections; programmed and unscheduled repairs; and
maintenance shop facility and equipment costs.
The expanded capital definition the Administration is requesting
for Amtrak in the fiscal year 1999 appropriations request includes all
of the same items allowed under the Taxpayer Relief Act except
interest. In addition, it allows for the use of capital funds for
maintenance of infrastructure and facilities. These costs include
inspection, testing, repair and adjustments related to tracks, bridges,
trestles, culverts, roadway machinery, facilities and communication,
signal and power transmission systems.
Question. If the FTA's expanded capital definition were applied to
Amtrak capital, what is the maximum amount of the $621,000,000 in the
fiscal year 1999 request that could be used for maintenance of
equipment, infrastructure, and facilities?
Answer. An estimated maximum amount of $542,000,000 could be used
for maintenance of equipment infrastructure and facilities in fiscal
year 1999.
Question. What control mechanisms are in place for ensuring that
both TRA and appropriated funds are utilized in a manner consistent
with the law?
Answer. The TRA funds along with the interest earned on these
funds, are held in accounts separate from the Company's operating
funds. Withdrawals from these accounts can only be made for legally
qualified expenses, which have also been approved by Amtrak's board of
directors. Internal control procedures on withdrawals include (1) funds
can only be withdrawn by wire transfer; (2) only two individuals in the
Treasurer's Department can request a wire transfer; (3) all transfers
must be authorized by one of three Corporate Officers, the Chief
Financial Officer, the Treasurer or the Controller. These withdrawals
must be clearly identified and properly supported. Reports have been
designed and are being used to track all activity in the fund,
including earnings and withdrawals. These reports are prepared monthly
by a certified public accountant assigned to this responsibility.
In regard to other appropriations, spending is also subject to
approval by Amtrak's board of director's, and must be clearly
identified and properly supported. Reports on these expenditures are
also prepared monthly.
As far as external controls, every year Price Waterhouse L.L.P.,
audits our financial statements. This past year they provided an
unqualified opinion, meaning they have no issues or concerns with our
statements. In addition, we are subject to continual review by the
General Accounting Office (GAO), our own Inspector General, and more
recently, the DOT Inspector General, and the Amtrak Reform Council
(ARC). We have several Congressional oversight committees which include
House Transportation and Infrastructure; House Committee on
Appropriations; Senate Committee on Science, Commerce and
Transportation, and Senate Committee on Appropriations.
Question. Please compare the amount of income anticipated from the
express pilot program in fiscal year 1997 and thus far in fiscal year
1998 with the amount of funds actually generated by this program. How
will this shortfall against anticipated income affect Amtrak's net loss
in fiscal year 1998, and what will the Corporation do to mitigate these
losses? What level of income from the express pilot program is
anticipated for fiscal year 1999?
Answer.
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Revenue Expense Net
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997............................. 0.3 0.4 -0.1
1998 (as of March 31, 1998)...... 1.2 4.4 -3.1
1998 Business Plan............... 36.1 25.0 +11.1
1999 Business Plan............... 61.2 40.3 +20.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Due to deterioration of the express business, incremental wage
costs and other expenses, Amtrak now expects to have to cover
approximately $200 million at year end, worst case. This $200 million
maximum cash shortfall will be covered by $100 million short-term bank
borrowing and temporary borrowing from the TRA fund for qualified
expenses of up to $100 million.
Question. Amtrak has traditionally received its capital
appropriation in July of each year. Given that the money contained in
the Administration's budget would not be available until July 1999,
will this create any short-term funding shortfalls and if so, how will
this be addressed?
Answer. In working with the Administration, Amtrak stated that it
could work with their proposed capital appropriation with two
modifications. First, 40 percent of the general capital grant would be
available October 1, 1998 and the remaining 60 percent would be
available October 1, 1999. Second, Amtrak would have the flexibility to
use this general capital grant for capital maintenance consistent with
the Federal Transit Administrator's fiscal year 1998 appropriations
language governing general capital. In the Federal Railroad
Administration's grant justification they have included both those
modifications.
Under the proposed plan, the funds available to Amtrak on October
1st (40 percent of the annual appropriation) is significantly less than
the amount Amtrak has traditionally received when 100 percent of the
operating grant was received by April 1. If the receipt of the 40
percent of the fiscal year 1999 appropriation is delayed to July 1st,
the cumulative cash shortfall until that time will exceed the amount
Amtrak is able to borrow.
The administration supports the release of funds on October 1
rather than on July 1, as stated in Deputy Director Jacob Lew's written
and oral testimony of March 24th.
Question. The reforms contained in the Amtrak Reform and
Accountability Act of 1997 provide Amtrak with additional flexibility
to address its financial problems. Specifically, how will these reforms
contribute to Amtrak's short-term and long-term financial viability?
Answer. With the passing of the Amtrak Reform and Accountability
Act, many of the barriers imposed in the past have been removed.
These reforms include the repeal of the requirement that Amtrak
operate a federally-mandated basic route system for passenger services,
the elimination of the statutorily prescribed protections for employees
affected by a route discontinuance, authorization for Amtrak to
negotiate changes in how it contracts out certain labor functions, and
significant liability reforms.
In the short-term, the contracting out of certain labor functions
will not have an immediate effect on Amtrak's financial performance.
This is because under the terms of the Authorization Bill, the
contracting out language in the Rail Passenger Service Act was
eliminated in law and placed in each labor agreement. Negotiations over
contracting out must begin no later than Nov. 1, 1999, under the terms
of the Railway Labor Act.
The liability reforms will also have little or no effect on
Amtrak's financial performance in the short-term. The $200 million
liability limit will likely only come into play following an incident
resulting in a large number of severe injuries to passengers and
passenger deaths. Such an event has not yet occurred, and we hope it
never will.
It is unclear what the long-term effect of contracting out certain
labor functions will be since this will depend on the types of work
that Amtrak may try to contract out, as well as the outcome of the
negotiations on this issue.
It is also unclear of how the liability reforms will effect
Amtrak's financial viability in the long-term. Amtrak has had only one
accident where the total losses exceeded $100 million: Chase, MD.
Unless the future brings several larger catastrophes, this $200 million
liability limit for compensatory and punitive damages for passenger
injuries or death will function mainly as ``unused insurance''.
Question. Please provide a funding history, by fiscal year, of
Amrak's federal appropriations and other federal funds from the
Corporation's creation to present.
Answer. The requested information follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12MA24.007
Question. Please provide a table displaying Amtrak's net end-of-
year operating loss, by fiscal year, from the Corporation's creation to
present.
Answer. We define net operating loss as total revenues minus total
expenses. The requested information follows:
Year Amount
1971.................................................... $91,600,000
1972.................................................... 150,800,000
1973.................................................... 158,600,000
1974.................................................... 272,700,000
1975.................................................... 352,500,000
1976.................................................... 342,600,000
1977.................................................... 536,700,000
1978.................................................... 581,700,000
1979.................................................... 619,800,000
1980.................................................... 27,200,000
1981.................................................... 179,100,000
1980-81 cum. adj.\1\.................................... 40,900,000
1982.................................................... 795,100,000
1983.................................................... 804,900,000
1984.................................................... 763,300,000
1985.................................................... 774,300,000
1986.................................................... 702,200,000
1987.................................................... 698,500,000
1988.................................................... 650,400,000
1989.................................................... 665,500,000
1990.................................................... 703,400,000
1991.................................................... 721,600,000
1992.................................................... 711,800,000
1993.................................................... 731,000,000
1994.................................................... 1,076,800,000
1995.................................................... 808,200,000
1996.................................................... 763,600,000
1997.................................................... 761,900,000
\1\ In 1983, Amtrak changed its method of depreciation for track
structures. 1983 and 1982 net loss figures reflect the effects of this
change, while the effect for 1980-1981 as disclosed in the 1993 Annual
Report totaled $40.9 million.
Question. Please provide a table displaying Amtrak's net end-of-
year debt load, by fiscal year, from the Corporation's creation to
present.
Answer.
Fiscal year end
Fiscal year outstanding debt
1971.................................................... $25,700,000
1972.................................................... 7,100,000
1973.................................................... 109,500,000
1974.................................................... 297,500,000
1975.................................................... 484,900,000
1976.................................................... 753,200,000
1977.................................................... 762,400,000
1978.................................................... 885,900,000
1979.................................................... 972,600,000
1980.................................................... 1,236,000,000
1981.................................................... 1,784,400,000
1982.................................................... 2,342,900,000
1983.................................................... 2,743,500,000
1984.................................................... 3,004,600,000
1985.................................................... 3,185,500,000
1986.................................................... 23,800,000
1987.................................................... 22,700,000
1988.................................................... 35,900,000
1989.................................................... 126,500,000
1990.................................................... 183,800,000
1991.................................................... 287,900,000
1992.................................................... 418,800,000
1993.................................................... 492,300,000
1994.................................................... 770,300,000
1995.................................................... 836,900,000
1996.................................................... 986,900,000
1997.................................................... 1,336,400,000
In fiscal year 1988 two promissory notes issued by the Federal
Government to fund the acquisition of and improvements to property and
equipment were reclassified as Federal Paid-In Capital. Fiscal year
1986 and fiscal year 1987 are restated to reflect this
reclassification. The reclassification does not affect operating
results.
Question. What plans does Amtrak have to adjust its route structure
in calendar 1998, in order to decrease the railroad's operating losses?
What route structure adjustments were made in calendar 1997?
Answer. The following route structure adjustments were made in
calendar 1997 to decrease Amtrak's operating losses:
1. March 1997.--Discontinuance of the Gulf Coast Limited between
New Orleans, LA and Mobile, AL. This service had originally been
started in June 1996 as a three month demonstration service, funded in
part by a regional funding authority. Although the regional funding was
used up within 90 days, continuation of service was mandated by
Congress through March, 1997. Service between New Orleans and Mobile
continues three days a week on the Sunset Limited.
2. May 1997.--An extensive service restructuring in Amtrak's
Intercity SBU to use equipment more efficiently. This included
rationalizing maintenance facilities and re-positioning equipment onto
routes with more market potential. The original restructuring was
recommended to take effect in November 1996, but Congress statutorily
delayed implementation of most elements of the plan until May, 1997.
The following routes were discontinued:
Pioneer--Route operated between Chicago and Seattle via Denver and
Portland, Oregon. Discontinuance only affected the segment between
Denver and Portland, since daily service remains on the Chicago-Denver
and Portland-Seattle portions of the route.
Desert Wind--Route operated between Chicago and Los Angeles via
Salt Lake City. Discontinuance only eliminated service between Salt
Lake City and Los Angeles, since daily service continues between
Chicago and Salt Lake City on the California Zephyr. Daily service is
expected to resume between Los Angeles and Las Vegas in early calendar
1999.
In addition, through car service from the Texas Eagle that had been
combined with the Sunset Limited between San Antonio and Los Angeles
was discontinued in order to make the extra equipment required for this
service available for other routes.
The following routes were restored to daily service:
City of New Orleans--Route operates between New Orleans, LA and
Chicago, IL. This route also began sharing equipment with the Empire
Builder in order to use equipment more efficiently.
Empire Builder--Route operates between Chicago and Seattle or
Portland. Daily service was restored between Minneapolis and the West
Coast. This service shares equipment with the City of New Orleans.
California Zephyr--Route operates between Chicago and Emeryville,
CA (near Oakland).
3. July 1997.--The Twilight Shoreliner replaced the Night Owl in
Northeast Direct service in the Northeast Corridor. The Night Owl
operated overnight between Washington, DC and Boston, MA. With the
startup of the Twilight Shoreliner service was extended to Newport
News, VA, in order to make better use of equipment and attract
additional revenue. The schedule was also adjusted to serve New York
City at a more attractive time, and new Viewliner sleepers were added
to the train's consist.
4. August 1997.--The Sunset Limited was extended to Orlando, FL,
after determining that the additional revenue attracted would more than
offset the additional cost incurred by extending the route.
5. October 1997.--Two additional state-supported San Diegan
frequencies were established between Los Angeles, CA and San Diego, CA,
with one existing frequency extended beyond Los Angeles to Chatsworth,
CA.
In addition, one of three existing Chicago to Pontiac, MI services
was cut back to Detroit, MI, in order to make better use of equipment.
Calendar year 1998 adjustments were, or will be, as follows. Where
service additions are noted, they are either due to cost savings (Ethan
Allen Express) or due to anticipated revenues exceeding the incremental
cost of adding the service.
1. January 1998.--Extension of an existing, state-supported
Capitols frequency from Roseville, CA to Colfax, CA.
2. February 1998.--Addition of one Texas Eagle frequency to bring
the total to four round trips per week. This new frequency operates
between Chicago and Los Angeles via San Antonio. It was added primarily
due to the current and future growth of the full car-load express
business.
Also, a northbound only frequency was added to the Ethan Allen
Express between Albany, NY and Rutland, VT. This change allows
substantial savings in crew layover and contracted turnaround servicing
costs.
3. April 1998.--An eleventh weekday frequency was added between
Albany, NY and New York City due to significant ridership growth over
the preceding year.
4. May 1998.--Amtrak is planning to add a fourth daily frequency in
the Pacific Northwest Corridor between Seattle, WA and Portland, OR.
This is made possible by FRA and freight railroad approval of Amtrak's
Talgo train equipment, allowing the tilting feature of the equipment to
be used for faster speeds around curves. The faster schedules will
allow the equipment to be used more efficiently--three Talgo
frequencies will be operated with the same amount of equipment as was
needed for two before.
Amtrak is also planning to add a fifth weekly frequency to the
Texas Eagle. As with the fourth frequency, it will operate the entire
distance between Chicago and Los Angeles.
5. October 1998.--Pending freight railroad approval, Amtrak is
planning fifth and sixth daily, state-supported frequencies for the
Capitols between San Jose, CA and Sacramento, CA.
Also pending freight railroad approval, Amtrak is planning to add a
fifth daily, state-supported frequency to the San Joaquins. It would
operate between Bakersfield, CA and Sacramento, CA.
Question. Please list the loans made to Amtrak in fiscal year 1997
and thus far in fiscal year 1998 (through March 31). Please include
information on the lending institution, amount of loan, repayment
period, and interest rate.
Answer. Several leveraged leases were closed with NationsBank, N.A.
as owner participant, and Kreditanstalt fur Wiederaufbau (KfW) as loan
participant: (1) $33.8 million, 20 years, 5.5805 percent, closed 12/23/
96; (2) $18.2 million, 19 years, 5.5946 percent, closed 3/27/97; and
(3) $49.4 million, 20 years, 5.521 percent, closed 6/26/97.
A $52 million leveraged lease was closed 12/23/97, with a term of
20 years; an interest rate of 5.5766 percent; Norlease, Inc. as owner
participant; and KfW as loan participant.
A $65 million leveraged lease was closed 3/27/97, with a term of 19
years; an interest rate of 5.6961 percent; U.S. Bancorp Leasing &
Financial as owner participant; and KfW and ING Lease (Ireland) B.V. as
loan participants.
Two leveraged leases were closed with BA Leasing & Capital
Corporation as owner participant and KfW, Columbine Life Insurance
Company, and Security Life of Denver Insurance Company as loan
participants: (1) $13 million, 17 years, 6.3412 percent, closed 6/27/
97; and (2) $44.2 million, 17 years, 5.91795 percent, closed 10/17/97.
A $5.6 million term loan was closed 6/3/97, with a term of two
years and one month, and the State of Texas as lender. Interest is
floating monthly, based on rate of interest earned by the State of
Texas on funds invested during that month.
A $16,671,400 leveraged lease was closed 12/30/97, with a term of
18 years; an interest rate of 6.4341 percent; and GE Capital
Corporation as owner participant.
A $3,802,700 leveraged lease was closed 12/30/97, with a term of 15
years; an interest rate of 5.5986 percent; and GE Capital Corporation
as owner participant.
A $96,534,529 leveraged lease was closed 12/31/97, with a term of
20 years; an interest rate of 5.598 percent; GE Capital Corporation as
owner participant; and Swiss Reinsurance America Corp., American Re-
Insurance Co., NAC Reinsurance Co., Universal Underwriters Insurance
Co., Chartwell Reinsurance Corp., Everest Reinsurance Co., and Fidelity
& Deposit Co. of Maryland as loan participants.
A $32 million leveraged lease was closed 3/27/98, with a term of 17
years; and interest rate of 4.6906 percent; NationsBank, N.A. as owner
participant; and KfW and Columbine Life Insurance Company as loan
participants.
A $700 million loan was closed 12/2/97, with a term of 20 years
after final delivery date of high speed trainsets and locomotives; a
floating interest rate based on six-month LIBOR plus 75 basis points;
and Export Development Corporation and MBK Rail Finance Corporation as
lenders.
A $120 million loan was closed 12/2/97, with a term of 20 years
after Commitment Termination Date but no later than 4/31/2022; a
floating interest rate based on six-month LIBOR plus 90 basis points;
and Export Development Corporation and MBK Rail Finance Corporation as
lenders.
A $170 million short-term revolver was closed 12/18/97, with a term
of 364 days and a floating interest rate based on either LIBOR plus 40
basis points or the Alternate Base Rate (usually Prime). The bank group
providing this loan consists of Bank of America, Bank of Tokyo-
Mitsubishi, Chase Manhattan, First National Bank of Maryland,
Industrial Bank of Japan, NationsBank, and CIBC, Inc.
Question. Please inform the Committee of any pending bids by
private companies to purchase Amtrak lines or run Amtrak operations.
Answer. Amtrak is not aware of any pending bids by private
companies to purchase or to run Amtrak operations, at this time.
Question. Please update the Committee on the status of the Amtrak
Reform Council, and summarize the council's scope of responsibility
under the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act.
Answer. As of today, eight of the eleven Amtrak Reform Council
(ARC) members have been appointed. Majority Leader Trent Lott appointed
Gil Carmichael, Joseph Vranich and Paul M. Weyrich. Senate Minority
Leader Tom Daschle appointed Donald R. Sweitzer. Speaker of the House
Newt Gingrich appointed Christine Todd Whitman, Bruce Chapman and Chris
Gleason. House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt appointed S. Lee Kling.
Secretary of Transportation, Rodney Slater is automatically an ARC
member, as designated by law, leaving the Administration two
appointments to make--one to represent rail labor, and one to represent
rail management.
The Amtrak Reform Council was created to evaluate Amtrak's
performance, make recommendations to Amtrak for achieving further cost
containment and productivity improvements, and financial reforms. The
Council will present an annual report to Congress on Amtrak's progress
and make legislative recommendations.
Question. Please update the Committee on the status of the
appointment of the new Amtrak Reform Board. What time sensitive trigger
mechanisms are included in the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act
provisions regarding appointment and confirmation of board members?
Answer. Nominations for the Amtrak Reform Board have not yet been
sent to Congress by the Administration.
As stated in Public Law 105-134, the Amtrak Reform Board ``shall
assume the responsibilities of the Board of Directors of Amtrak by
March 31, 1998, or as soon thereafter as at least four members have
been appointed and qualified. The Board appointed under prior law shall
be abolished when the Reform Board assumes such responsibilities''. If
the Reform Board has not assumed the responsibilities of the Board of
Directors before July 1, 1998, all provisions for the authorization of
appropriations under the amendments for fiscal year 1999 and thereafter
shall cease to be effective.
Question. How many people are employed by Amtrak? Please provide a
table or chart divided by SBU's, showing all employment centers and
number of employees at each center.
Answer.
Fiscal year 1998
SBU personnel
Corp/SVC...................................................... 2,814.0
Intercity..................................................... 5,975.0
Northeast corridor............................................ 12,355.0
West.......................................................... 2,729.0
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total....................................................... 23,873.0
Actuals as of February 28, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Faircloth
Question. The Taxpayer Relief Act authorized $2.3 billion in
capital expenditures. What has been Amtrak's approach to working with
the States to identify projects of mutual interest and to leverage non-
Amtrak matching funds?
Answer. A key criterion in evaluating capital projects continues to
be leveraging non-Amtrak funds. Each of the Strategic Business Units
seeks projects which are of mutual benefit to Amtrak and to the state
partnering on the project. The policy framework that has been developed
to guide the investment of TRA funds places highly leveraged (greater
than 3:1) projects as the highest priority. A number of projects have
been approved which leverage such funds, including: the Oakland, CA
maintenance facility ($30 million from the state of California, $7
million Amtrak), the King Street Station Intermodal Facility in
Seattle, WA ($16.25 million state and local partners, $5 million
Amtrak), and the Salem, OR Multimodal Facility ($3.7 million state and
local funds, $1 million Amtrak funds).
Question. USDOT submitted a report to Congress in September of 1997
entitled ``High Speed Ground Transportation for America'' and therein
identified commercially feasible high-speed rail corridors, and, in
fact, the report praises the Southeast Corridor from Washington to
Charlotte:
``The average trip would be longer and generate more revenue
than on any other illustrative route, including California
North/South . . . Every Southeast Corridor traveler bound for
New York City must traverse some 200 Northeast Corridor route-
miles as well, with potentially lucrative revenue consequences
for the HSGT operator . . . In light of these preliminary
results, the Southeast Corridor states and Amtrak might
consider jointly exploring the incremental economics of a wide
range of Southeast Corridor scenarios (including various
routing and segmentation alternatives) as extensions of
prospective Northeast Corridor services.''
In light of this economic opportunity, what actions has Amtrak taken or
expect to take to extend the NEC to Charlotte?
Answer. The logical extension of the Northeast Corridor (NEC)
should be south to Richmond, Raleigh, Charlotte and eventually other
southern markets. Connecting the NEC and the Southeast Corridor, and
having through service between Charlotte and New York City, would take
intercity high-speed rail to a new level. Achieving this goal requires
a significant, multi-year financial commitment, but it would clearly
have significant benefits for the traveling public, Amtrak, and the
states of Virginia and North Carolina. Amtrak and the North Carolina
Department of Transportation have recently started to develop a joint
work plan in order to more expeditiously progress the Southeast
Corridor High-Speed Rail Program.
The work plan is in phases, to achieve high-speed rail in
increments. In the first phase, the key element of this plan would be
the joint acquisition of higher speed rail passenger equipment. The use
of this type of equipment would reduce travel time without the need for
significant improvements to the track and signal systems.
Another element of the work plan is to establish a three-way
partnership with North Carolina, Amtrak and the State of Virginia.
Clearly, any southward extension of the NEC would be more successful
with the support of Virginia.
The establishment of a partnership with the freight railroads
(specifically, Norfolk Southern and CSX) is also key to the work plan.
Neither Amtrak nor the State of North Carolina owns the track and other
infrastructure between Washington, D.C., and Raleigh, and thus it would
be difficult to upgrade that trackage without freight railroad support.
Finally, funding agreements for long-term equipment purchases and
long-term infrastructure improvements must be reached by all involved
parties. The ultimate goal of a two-hour trip time between Raleigh and
Charlotte and a high-speed through service between New York and North
Carolina cannot be achieved without major infrastructure improvements
and new technology.
In addition, Amtrak will be reviewing the southeastern markets to
develop a long-term vision for maximizing its potential in the
marketplace. This market analysis will determine how Amtrak can be
relevant in the marketplace, how it will reinforce the goals of our
state partnership, and what is the expected return-on-investment.
Question. I am told that the North Carolina Secretary of
Transportation, Norris Tolson, wrote to Amtrak to ask that their state-
sponsored services--the Carolinian and Piedmont be included in the NEC
strategic business unit. What action do you envision taking on this
request and when do you intend to act?
Answer. On September 4, 1997, David King, the Deputy Secretary of
the North Carolina Department of Transportation wrote to former Amtrak
Chairman and President Thomas Downs and asked that Amtrak consider
moving the North Carolina service from the Amtrak Intercity strategic
business unit (SBU) to the NEC. Mr. Downs responded to that request in
October 1997 and informed the State that for the foreseeable future,
the state-supported Carolinian and Piedmont trains would continue to be
operated by Amtrak Intercity. We believe that from an operational
standpoint the current North Carolina service fits largely into an
Intercity profile. At present, all Amtrak trains which operate in or
through North Carolina are operated by the Intercity SBU. These include
the two state-supported trains as well as four long-distance trains
operating between New York and Florida or New York and New Orleans.
However, Mr. Downs also agreed that as Amtrak considers long-term
investment and service prospects for the corporation, a much closer
association between the Southeast Corridor and the Northeast Corridor
would be mutually beneficial. To that end he directed the NEC SBU to
take the lead in long-term planning for the development of the
extension. It is clear to us that the logical extension of the NEC
should be south to Richmond and Charlotte, enhancing Amtrak's
connection with the Charlotte-to-Raleigh federally designated high-
speed rail corridor. Consequently, representatives from both the NEC
and the Intercity business units recently met with the State of North
Carolina to develop a joint work plan to progress the Southeast
Corridor High-Speed Rail Program. The NEC and Amtrak Intercity will
work together jointly on all planning for future expansion of services
in and to North Carolina. In this manner, Amtrak plans to tap the
resources of both businesses units to ensure the best possible
provision of service to North Carolina.
Question. What is your timetable for making higher speed
improvements between Richmond and Charlotte?
Answer. Amtrak has recently developed a joint work plan with the
State of North Carolina to progress the Southeast Corridor High-Speed
Rail Program. High-speed improvements between Richmond and Charlotte
are part of the long-term plan for that program and are phased in,
first through possible equipment acquisition or leasing combined with
state proposed infrastructure improvements, and ultimately through
extensive infrastructure improvements and new equipment technology.
Amtrak owns the track between New York and Washington, D.C. North
Carolina has recently purchased the North Carolina Railroad Company, a
railroad which owns the tracks between Raleigh and Charlotte. However,
neither Amtrak nor the States of Virginia or North Carolina owns any of
the right-of-way between Washington, D.C. and Raleigh. It will require
us to work with the freight railroads to make right-of-way improvements
or acquisitions. Thus, the development of partnerships between Amtrak,
the states and the freight railroads will be a crucial element and a
key factor for success in the plans to implement higher speed rail to
the Southeast.
In considering the way to allocate costs, Amtrak believes that
right-of-way improvements are best funded by the states, since they
represent an asset that remains within the state. Amtrak believes it
can bring the greatest value to the partnership through funding
equipment acquisitions.
Question. The Coalition of Northeastern Governors, at the request
of North Carolina Governor Jim Hunt, resolved to support the efforts to
extend the Northeast Corridor Improvement Project through Richmond to
Charlotte and further suggested that the corridor be renamed the
``Atlantic Coast Corridor''. How has this resolution figured into your
request for continued NECIP funding?
Answer. Amtrak did not request separate NECIP funding for fiscal
year 1998 or fiscal year 1999. Amtrak requested a $621 million capital
grant to be used throughout the system, in a manner most beneficial to
the corporation's long term goals and without federally designated
geographical constraints. In addition, Amtrak does not own the
infrastructure south of Washington, D.C., making it unlike most of the
Northeast Corridor.
However, that does not mean that Amtrak intends to ignore the high-
speed rail effort through Richmond to Charlotte. Quite to the contrary.
Amtrak has already met with the State of North Carolina and the
Commonwealth of Virginia to begin to plan the improvements and
equipment necessary to extend the NEC's high-speed rail corridor
southward. Both Amtrak and North Carolina intend to spend significant
amounts on the project, modeled on similar arrangements with other
states on the Northeast Corridor. For example, Amtrak has implemented
an ambitious $250 million joint funding project with the State of New
Jersey, with each entity investing $25 million a year for five years,
for capital improvements, and similar joint benefit/jointly funded
efforts are underway in Delaware and Maryland.
In addition, Amtrak's NECIP project has direct benefits for the
Richmond to Charlotte extension. The expertise developed through the
NECIP project is already being drawn upon for the North Carolina and
Virginia high-speed rail effort, providing invaluable experience and
knowledge, as well as technology and safety standards development.
Conclusion of hearings
Senator Shelby. This hearing of the subcommittee will now
be recessed and we will next meet on Thursday, April 2, at 10
a.m. in Dirksen 138 for another installation of the
subcommittee's hearings on aviation competition. At that
hearing we will explore airline ticketing prices.
That concludes the subcommittee's regular budget hearings
for this fiscal year. Thank you so much.
[Whereupon, at 11:44 a.m., Tuesday, March 24, the hearings
were concluded and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
subject to the call of the Chair.]
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:]
Prepared Statement of Ross B. Capon, Executive Director, National
Association of Railroad Passengers
Thank you for the opportunity to file this statement. Our non-
partisan Association--whose members are individuals--has worked since
1967 towards development of a modern rail passenger network in the U.S.
summary
--We join the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of
Transportation in strongly supporting the Amtrak budget
request. This is the first time I can remember those three
organizations supporting an identical budget request.
--Usage of Amtrak trains is growing for the second straight year; the
turn-around is well over a year old and reflects growing
confidence in train travel and, in many cases, growing problems
with other modes of transportation. Intercity passenger
revenues are growing for the third straight year.
--The public at large favors retention and improvement of the
nation's intercity rail passenger network, as reflected in new
nationwide and State of New York polls.
--Notwithstanding extensive talk about ``alternatives to Amtrak,'' we
believe an Amtrak shutdown would result in loss of most or all
intercity passenger rail in the U.S.
1. the ``omb/dot/amtrak''-supported budget request
The Administration and Amtrak are supporting an approach to
Amtrak's appropriations which eliminates operating grants as a separate
category. However, they propose to use appropriated capital funds for
any type of ``maintenance''--including some categories heretofore
considered operating expenses. Amtrak believes that with the annual
appropriations proposed by the Administration (including $621 million
in fiscal year 1999), the right to spend 40 percent the first year and
60 percent the second, and the broader definition of ``capital,'' it
can survive and ultimately prosper.
The broader definition of ``capital'' currently applies to federal
transit funds, where the justification apparently is to remove any
incentive to do wasteful, unnecessary equipment rebuilds (or otherwise
spend more money than necessary) because capital grants are more
readily available than operating grants. A similar rationale presumably
applies here to Amtrak, although our support for this concept equally
stems from the remarkable consensus that now exists among OMB, DOT and
Amtrak.
The Administration also proposes to fund Amtrak out of the Highway
Trust Fund. While we have no problem with that in principle, we fear
that--as in years past--this aspect of the Administration's budget
proposal is not viable. We certainly do not want to see Amtrak fall
apart because of disagreement over this.
High speed rail.--We strongly support full funding of the grade
crossing program for high speed corridors. The Senate-passed ISTEA bill
has $5 million a year in contract authority but $15 million a year in
authorizations for appropriations. The House-passed version has these
annual funding levels for high speed corridors: $10.25 million for
grade-crossing work; $25 million for Swift Act technology development;
and $10 million for Swift Act corridor planning. The House bill also
has earmarked funds to upgrade corridors in Georgia, Oregon, Virginia
and elsewhere. Most if not all of this work will enhance the economics
of Amtrak's operations.
At the same time, we are concerned that the vast expansion in
highway infrastructure funding now being contemplated not come at the
expense of intercity passenger rail. As discussed below, ticket
purchases and polls both show the American people would not favor such
a trade-off. Senate approval of the Lautenberg-Lott ``sense-of-the-
Senate'' amendment during consideration of the Senate budget resolution
is another indication of the strength of support Amtrak enjoys.
2. amtrak in the marketplace
Fiscal year 1997 passenger-miles (5.2 billion) were up 2.3 percent
over the fiscal year 1996 level. For the first five months of fiscal
year 1998 (October-February) passenger-miles are 5.0 percent above the
level for the year-earlier months.
Fiscal year 1997 passenger-related revenues--a record $1.034
billion--were 7.2 percent above the fiscal year 1996 level, which in
turn was 6.0 percent above the fiscal year 1995 level. The 1997 level
was 6.7 percent above the previous record ($969 million in fiscal year
1993), even though Amtrak operated about 8.6 percent fewer train-miles
in the more recent year (32 million vs. 35 million in fiscal year
1993).
Figures in the above paragraph include state payments. This seems
reasonable because the significant increase in state payments is one
reflection of the value Americans put on Amtrak services. State
payments rose in fiscal year 1997 for the eighth consecutive year; the
$70 million level was up 9.3 percent from the fiscal year 1996 level
and up 775 percent from $8 million in fiscal year 1989.
However, it may be informative to restate the passenger-related-
revenue paragraph excluding state payments. The fiscal year 1997
level--$964 million--was 7.0 percent above the fiscal year 1996 level,
which in turn was 3.1 percent above the fiscal year 1995 level.
Here are the percentage changes (in each case, from the same period
a year earlier) in total Amtrak revenues and expenses:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent--
Fiscal year -------------------------
Revenues Expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998 (five months)............................ +5.3 -4.9
1997.......................................... +7.7 +5.1
1996.......................................... +3.9 +0.6
1995.......................................... +5.9 -7.4
(Note 1).................................. ........... +2.6
1994.......................................... +0.7 +16.7
(Note 1).................................. ........... +5.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Note 1 ``alternate'' figures exclude a $244 million ``one-time charge''
from fiscal year 1994 expenses.)
These figures show a favorable relationship between revenue and
expense trends in each year since fiscal year 1994, that is, revenues
grew more than expenses and in some cases expenses actually declined.
We expect the Congress ultimately to agree that whether Amtrak
literally reaches self-sufficiency in 2003 or not is less important
than reasonable assurances that Amtrak is efficiently managed and is
meeting a real need.
We remind the committee about the heavy use of long-distance trains
by lower-income individuals and the prospects for further improving the
economic performance of these trains through Amtrak's express
initiative. In addition, of course, the Taxpayer Relief Act capital
investment funds should enhance the economic performance of all
services, as well as help leverage more non-federal capital investment
in passenger rail by allowing Amtrak to match contributions from states
and other parties.
We believe Amtrak cannot and should not try to abandon more routes.
We look forward to Amtrak's planned return to Las Vegas, Nevada, next
year. We expect to see other service additions, particularly in
connection with Amtrak's express initiative.
3. amtrak in the polls
An October 27, 1997, nationwide Gallup Poll sponsored by CNN and
USA Today asked whether ``the federal government should continue to
provide funding for the cost of running Amtrak, in order to ensure that
the US has a national train service, or the federal government should
stop funding Amtrak, even if that means the train service could go out
of business if it doesn't operate profitably on their own.'' Favoring
continued funding were 69 percent of respondents, with 26 percent
against (and 6 percent other responses).
A poll conducted between September 29 and October 5, 1997, by the
Marist College Institute for Public Opinion (Poughkeepsie), found
strong support throughout New York State for passenger rail. The poll
was commissioned by the Empire State Passengers Association and the
Empire Corridor Rail Task Force. The poll found that 97 percent of the
644 registered voters interviewed felt intercity train service (``such
as Amtrak which is mostly used for trips of 75 miles or more'') should
be ``improved and modernized'' rather than eliminated. Also, 82 percent
felt ``improved and modernized intercity passenger train service
throughout New York State'' was just as important as (70 percent) or
more important than (12 percent) ``having good highways and airports.''
The poll found that 89 percent of those who made a train trip over 75
miles in the previous 12 months (or a member of their household) would
consider the train for their next trip
4. an amtrak shutdown
It is unlikely that Congress would extend to any other party the
rights Amtrak acquired when it took intercity passenger service over
from the private railroads and relieved them of their intercity
passenger losses. These rights include the right of access to tracks
and the right to pay for that access on the basis of incremental rather
than fully allocated costs. (Amtrak actually makes substantial payments
above incremental costs, keyed to on-time performance incentives, and
has offered the freight railroads the opportunity to earn even more as
part of Amtrak's express initiative.)
When considering private, specialized operations such as the
Florida Fun Train and the American Orient Express, it is important to
note that these technically are Amtrak charter trains. In other words,
Amtrak--not the private operators--negotiates with the freight
railroads. Absent the Rail Passenger Service Act, the private operators
likely would either be denied access outright or would face prohibitive
charges from railroads not anxious for this type of traffic.
Thank you for considering our views.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 1999
----------
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 1999 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
limitation on general operating expenses
Question. Please explain in extensive detail your plans to allocate
GOE funds for each R, D, and T activity based on the authorization
provided in Public Law 105-130.
Answer. The FHWA will manage the General Operating Expenses (LGOE)
funding provided by the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 1997
(STEA) to cover the first three quarters of fiscal year 1998. This
strategy makes almost $46 million available for research and technology
activities. This level allows priority research and technology
commitments to continue, defers new starts, and allows essential
research and technology to continue for three quarters.
[In thousands of dollars]
Research and Technology Amount
Safety............................................................ 4,566
Pavements......................................................... 2,920
Structures........................................................ 2,835
Environment....................................................... 1,974
Real Estate Services....................................................
Policy............................................................ 2,452
Planning.......................................................... 3,839
Motor Carrier..................................................... 3,654
Tech. Assessment and Deployment................................... 8,435
R&T Technical Support............................................. 2,084
ADP Support Services for TFHRC.................................... 610
National Advanced Driver Simulator................................ 6,100
Long Term Pavement Performance (LTPP)............................. 6,420
Lake Tahoe Weather Information System............................. 75
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
LGOE R&T programs...........................................45,964
In addition, the STEA made other funds available for research and
technology activities. These funds included:
[In thousands of dollars]
Amount
Intelligent Transportation Systems................................47,000
Operation Lifesaver............................................... 150
Eisenhower Transportation Fellowship Programs..................... 1,000
National Highway Institute........................................ 2,500
Education and Training Program.................................... 3,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
Other R&T programs..........................................53,650
Question. Did FHWA's allocation for those interim funds specify a
significant decrease in M&C costs? If so, what significant or adverse
impact did this have on the vitality of the R, D, and T program?
Answer. The R&T Technical Support (formerly referred to as M&C) was
allocated $2,084,000 from the STEA. This amount has been used only for
such critical needs as the extension of some support contracts to carry
our R, D, and T program through July 1998. We have also delayed some of
our other commitments, such as our work with the Small Business
Innovation Research Program (SBIR). However, after July, we will run
out of funds for our support contracts and we will either have to
terminate the ongoing contracts or not renew those that are ending.
Also, we will be unable to fund our commitment to the SBIR Program.
Question. Why couldn't FHWA adjust permanently to a reduced M&C
expense?
Answer. As indicated in the previous answer, the funds we have
received so far in fiscal year 1998 for R&T Technical Support have been
used to fund only those critical needs to keep us operating until July.
We are estimating that we will need the full requested amount for R&T
Technical Support in fiscal year 1998. The SBIR Program assessment is a
fixed amount that must be paid each year. Our funding commitment to the
Transportation Research Board remains strong and must be maintained.
With our increase emphasis on dissemination of our research and
technology information in electronic format, and the need for increased
service to our customers, it is difficult to see how we could
significantly reduce our R&T Technical Support funding.
Question. By office, including the JPO, please specify the expected
allocation of personnel reductions in fiscal year 1998 and in fiscal
year 1999.
Answer. The following table reflects the current distribution of
FTE within the FHWA to meet the NPR targets for fiscal year 1998 and
fiscal year 1999. The distribution for fiscal year 1999 will be
adjusted after implementation plans for our Field restructuring efforts
and Headquarters review are completed later this summer.
FTE ALLOCATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Fiscal
Organization year 1998 Reduction year 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrator's Office................. 18 1 17
ITS Joint Project Office............... 17 1 16
Program Quality Coordination........... 6 ......... 6
Public Affairs......................... 7 1 6
Chief Counsel.......................... 36 1 35
Civil Rights........................... 18 1 17
Policy................................. 86 3 83
Research and Development............... 106 4 102
Program Development.................... 202 6 196
Safety and Systems Applications........ 108 3 105
Administration......................... 254 8 246
Federal Lands.......................... 583 18 565
Motor Carriers......................... 678 18 660
Region One............................. 209 6 203
Region Three........................... 161 4 157
Region Four............................ 232 7 225
Region Five............................ 206 6 200
Region Six............................. 148 4 144
Region Seven........................... 104 3 101
Region Eight........................... 133 3 130
Region Nine............................ 134 4 130
Region Ten............................. 105 3 102
Career Development and Other Positions. 105 1 104
--------------------------------
Total............................ 3,656 106 3,550
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please discuss how FHWA will comply with each of the
directives in bill and conference reports relevant to the fiscal year
1998 appropriations act.
Answer. The FHWA will comply with each of the directives in bill
and conference reports. In the case of required reports to the
committees, the FHWA has already submitted a number of reports and will
complete all outstanding reports as requested. In the case of earmarked
funds, the FHWA intends to comply with the funding directives provided
the Congress authorizes the necessary level of funds in reauthorization
legislation before the close of this fiscal year. Should an inadequate
level of funds be provided by the Congress, the FHWA intends to seek
further guidance from the committees.
Question. Please provide separate tables breaking down
administrative expenses into PC and B, permanent change of station,
travel, communication, ADP, non-mandatory awards, and other
administrative categories for each of the last four years and the
fiscal year 1999 request. Please present a table showing net
administrative expenses for each of the last four years and the fiscal
year 1999 request.
Answer. See the following table showing net administrative expenses
for each of the last four years and the fiscal year 1999 request.
GENERAL OPERATING EXPENSES--FEDERAL-AID AND MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY
[In thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------------------------------
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salaries and Benefits.................................... $194,793 $200,659 $206,621 $215,537 $218,031
Performance Awards....................................... 1,272 1,298 1,084 1,199 1,233
PCS Moves................................................ 9,477 6,934 6,533 6,200 8,900
Travel................................................... 15,787 12,398 13,811 12,380 12,729
Transportation........................................... 521 557 549 568 590
Rental Payments to GSA................................... 16,619 17,601 17,408 17,480 17,922
Other Rent and Comm. and Util............................ 8,679 10,387 8,917 9,764 9,984
Printing and Graphics.................................... 4,447 3,110 3,138 504 647
ADP Services............................................. 20,682 16,862 16,698 20,245 24,844
Other Services........................................... 16,731 14,059 13,838 18,183 21,100
Supplies................................................. 3,725 3,430 3,666 2,354 2,354
Equipment................................................ 8,375 4,393 4,719 7,140 8,110
------------------------------------------------------
Total.............................................. 301,107 291,688 296,982 311,554 326,444
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GENERAL OPERATING EXPENSES--FEDERAL-AID
[In thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------------------------------
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salaries and Benefits.................................... $157,979 $162,766 $167,977 $175,365 $177,530
Performance Awards....................................... 1,058 1,093 891 996 1,023
PCS Moves................................................ 8143 6,500 5,967 5,800 8,200
Travel................................................... 11,167 9,476 9,660 9,273 9,273
Transportation........................................... 511 555 548 556 556
Rental Payments to GSA................................... 16,619 17,601 17,408 17,480 17,922
Other Rent and Comm. and Util............................ 8,317 10,117 8,512 9,369 9,589
Printing and Graphics.................................... 4,404 3,039 3,072 \1\ 89 89
ADP Services............................................. 17,175 14,514 15,356 16,615 21,214
Other Services........................................... 15,235 13,055 11,649 16,629 17,283
Supplies................................................. 3,321 3,078 3,181 2,079 2,079
Equipment................................................ 7,088 3,894 3,811 6,303 6,303
Total.............................................. 251,016 245,688 248,032 260,554 271,061
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funding for Printing and Graphics are also captured in TASC within ``Other Services.''
GENERAL OPERATING EXPENSES--MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY
[In thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------------------------------
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salaries and Benefits.................................... $36,814 $37,893 $38,644 $40,172 $40,501
Performance Awards....................................... 214 205 193 203 210
PCS Moves................................................ 1,334 434 566 400 700
Travel................................................... 4,620 2,922 4,151 3,107 3,456
Transportation........................................... 10 2 1 12 34
Rental Payments to GSA................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Other Rent and Comm. and Util............................ 362 270 405 395 395
Printing and Graphics.................................... 43 71 66 415 558
ADP Services............................................. 3,507 2,348 1,342 3,630 3,630
Other Services........................................... 1,496 1,004 2,189 1,554 3,817
Supplies................................................. 404 352 485 275 275
Equipment................................................ 1,287 499 908 837 1,807
Total.............................................. 50,091 46,000 48,950 51,000 55,383
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please provide a table describing how you have reduced
administrative expenses, addressing each of the categories mentioned in
the previous question for fiscal year 1998 in light of the interim
funding limitation.
Answer. The following chart from FHWA has made an interim
distribution of funds to its Leadership Team for administrative
expenses as a result of the limited funds for general operating
expenses under the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 1997. This
distribution of funds was based on two major assumptions. The first was
that the Congress would enact authorizing legislation before the end of
this fiscal year and second, that the levels enacted would allow a full
distribution of general operating expense funds up to the limitation
set in the Department of Transportation Appropriations Act of 1998.
Based on these two assumptions, the FHWA has deferred making funds
available for payments of bills to other government agencies, such as
rent payments to GSA, printing bills to GPO, and workman's compensation
payments to the Department of Labor. We have deferred a half-of-a-
year's worth of payments to the Transportation Administrative Services
Center for what will be a full-year's worth of services. We have also
deferred the necessary acquisition of IRM equipment and office
furnishings to the fourth quarter. The interim funding allocations in
the table below do not reflect a reduction in administrative expenses
for the year, but primarily a deferral of payments or a postponement of
activities.
GENERAL OPERATING EXPENSES
[In thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 1998 Interim
Allocation
-----------------------------------
Federal-
aid and Motor
motor Federal- carrier
carrier aid safety
safety
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salaries and Benefits............... $174,307 $141,360 $32,947
Performance Awards.................. 1,199 996 203
PCS Moves........................... 3,250 3,000 250
Travel.............................. 8,418 6,918 1,500
Transportation...................... 424 415 9
Rental Payments to GSA.............. 4,400 4,400 ..........
Other Rent and Comm. and Util....... 7,009 6,989 20
Printing and Graphics............... 86 66 20
ADP Services........................ 11,489 9,674 1,815
Other Services...................... 13,501 12,405 1,096
Supplies............................ 1,757 1,551 206
Equipment........................... 611 200 411
-----------------------------------
Total......................... 226,451 187,974 38,477
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please break down the $7.528 million requested for
``other services'' on page 34.
Answer. Listed below is a break down of the $7.528 million
requested in the fiscal year 1999 Budget:
Federal-aid:
TASC: (+4,692)
This requested increase will cover Transportation Administrative
Service Center (TASC) charges as estimated by the Department for common
services.
Other: (+561)
The requested increase is required to:
Training: (+$200).--As FHWA began strategically planning for a
post-ISTEA era, one of our goals was to create a fundamental cultural
change both within FHWA and the transportation community as a whole
that would provide a foundation for the next century. One of the
cornerstones for the future was a strong shift of resources and energy
to innovation--innovation that would provide for a greater return on
our investment. For FHWA, 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.
The requested increase of $200,000 in fiscal year 1999 will provide
an expansion of training and development to support these changes
within the FHWA. Additional funding is necessary to equip FHWA
employees with the technical and non-technical knowledge and skills to
effectively support the agency's roles as partners to the states and
resources for technical expertise and technology transfer. Mechanisms
for obtaining the needed training and development will include formal
training, academic and institute-based training, and enhanced on-the-
job learning and development. Much of the data for projections of
increased needs stems from a nationwide needs assessment conducted in
1997 which highlights areas which the FHWA must focus on. They include:
--Strengthening technical expertise in core engineering and
transportation technologies;
--Strengthening technical expertise to support expanding roles in
safety, environment and planning;
--Developing skills in emerging technologies and in integrated
systems support for intelligent transportation systems;
--Developing expertise in innovative approaches to fiscal management
and financing of transportation programs and projects;
--Developing strong partnership skills throughout the agency to
strengthen relationships with the States and local
transportation organizations (communications, interpersonal and
management skills, data analysis and measurement); and
--Strengthening skills in information technology throughout the
agency.
Electronic Grants System: (+$200).--This increase will allow FHWA
to assist the Department in demonstrating the feasibility of using the
Internet to process grant applications and test security systems.
Acquisition Training: (+$36).--This increase will allow FHWA to
assist the Department in meeting the guidelines in The Clinger-Cohen
Act of Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106), formerly known as the
Federal Acquisition Reform Act. This law requires Federal agencies to
include funding within their budgets for acquisition training.
Vulnerability Studies: (+$125).--This increase will allow FHWA to
do a pilot test on one region of the bridge inventory system. This will
be conducted using a PC with friendly interface and querying ability.
This database will be tested with one of the states in the region to do
automatic uploading and downloading of information. This database will
also be updated with bridges and tunnels in that region, and linked
with both tunnel and GIS information with other modes and navigable
waterways.
Motor Carrier Safety: (+$2,275)
The fiscal year 1999 budget includes five categories of initiatives
which have needs for funding in the Other Services category. The
following provides a breakdown of those funds by initiative:
Safety Programs Enhancement.--$925,000 is requested to provide
contractual support for industry forums; a pilot study on ways to
reduce the possibility of ``high risk'' hazardous materials carriers
being involved in crashes; and support for a performance based grant
workshop.
Office Support and Efficiency.--$135,000 is requested to provide
contractual support for conversion of division office files to
electronic record keeping and to provide for office design support for
offices that will be renovated or relocated.
Communications and Technical Assistance.--$440,000 is requested to
develop and staff a driver listening post, convene a panel of experts
to evaluate the impact of advances in technology and medical knowledge
on current guidelines and advance development of the No-Zone message.
Training Initiatives.--$325,000 is requested to provide a contract
professional course developer at the National Training Center; develop
a training course to educate State and Federal staff how to analyze and
code the new National Governors' Association crash data elements;
develop a training course to train the law enforcement community on the
recommendations of a study on how to identify unsafe driving practices
by automobile operators in the vicinity of heavy commercial vehicles.
Systems Development.--$450,000 provides for contract staff to
complete the ADP portion of the Unified Carrier Register; conduct a
study to develop alternatives to downsize the Motor Carrier Management
Information System and to develop a new Safety Fitness Rating
Methodology based on recent program enhancements and information.
Question. What is the empirical basis of the $860,000 request for
additional travel funds on page 36?
Answer.
Federal-aid: +500
The requested increase is to cover the additional cost of
relocating our employees as part of Permanent Change of Station moves.
The FHWA is continuing to streamline and improve efficiency in response
to the National Performance Review's objectives. As a result of those
objectives, the FHWA will continue to restructure our organization to
better serve customer needs, and implement the Congressional desire for
the FHWA to restructure our field organization.
Motor Carrier Safety: +360
The travel increase is to provide the funds necessary to implement
new initiatives requested in the budget. Although the overall staff is
reducing in numbers, there are increasing responsibilities which must
be addressed therefore requiring additional travel for less numbers of
staff.
The additional travel will allow federal staff to: (1) In concert
with State staff and contractors, evaluate the effect of adding an
additional Safety Evaluation Area to SafeStat on Hazardous Materials,
(2) Evaluate the progress of the performance based grants program,
which will require travel to selected States (3) Evaluate how the
Federal staff and state partners are implementing SafeStat, (4) Provide
seminars to Federal, state and industry representatives on the new
Automated Safety Assessment Program which is designed to electronically
collect safety performance data from carriers who have little or no
data and (5) Provide travel funds to enable Federal staff to conduct
industry forums such as the second FHWA safety summit to be held in
early fiscal year 1999.
Question. Why does the amount of funds for printing need to
increase by $143,000?
Answer. The Office of Motor Carriers has a many faceted approach to
improving safety. One approach which we have found very valuable is
education of drivers, carriers and the motoring public on how to
improve safety before an incident occurs. To achieve this we have
developed programs such as the No-Zone campaign along with various
industry forums. To make this means of education effective we publish
information brochures, conference materials, posters etc. to reach the
intended audience. Since we have realized the successes of education
campaigns over the past couple of years, the Office of Motor Carriers
requests additional funds to support these printing initiatives.
Question. During fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998, how much
money was subtracted from any R, D, and T activity to pay for any
expenses related to new initiatives that were not presented in the
budget justification?
Answer. None
Question. Please provide a table showing carryover funds for each
of the last two years for each GOE funding area.
Answer. See the following chart.
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996 contract programs
-------------------------------- 1997 contract
Fiscal year Fiscal year programs
1996 carryover 1997 carryover carryover \2\
\1\ \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highway Research, Development and Technology.................... 2,117,613 66,702 3,774,479
Intelligent Transportation Systems.............................. 2,530,984 1 350,967
Long-Term Pavement Performance.................................. 217,810 .............. ..............
Tech. Assessment and Deployment................................. 590 26,002 299,926
Local Tech. Assistance Program.................................. .............. .............. 771
National Highway Institute...................................... .............. 604,457 668,714
Minority Business Enterprise.................................... .............. 56,140 13,900
International Transportation.................................... .............. 40,898 168,116
Russia Technical Assistance..................................... .............. 6,724 2,269
Rehab. of TFHRC................................................. .............. .............. 65
Federal Lands Contamination Site Clean-up....................... .............. .............. 1,774,458
Transportation Investment....................................... .............. .............. 4
Cost Allocation Study........................................... .............. .............. ..............
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 4,866,997 800,924 7,053,669
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Carryover balance expire at the close of fiscal year 1998.
\2\ Carryover balances expire at the close of fiscal year 1999.
NO YEAR PROGRAMS
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year
1996 carryover 1997 carryover
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highway Research, Development and 1,664,369 538,438
Technology.............................
Intelligent Transportation Systems...... 2,161,251 510,657
Long-Term Pavement Performance.......... 38,372 ..............
Tech. Assessment and Deployment......... 67,774 98,618
Local Tech. Assistance Program.......... 71,347 72,757
National Highway Institute.............. 70,269 89,391
Minority Business Enterprise............ 560,624 243,095
International Transportation............ 13,333 7,074
OJT Skill Training...................... 89,787 62,108
-------------------------------
Total............................. 4,737,126 1,622,138
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Funds available until expended.
Question. In House Report No. 104-177, reprogramming guidelines
state that Congressional approval is required for funding shifts of 10
percent or more among programs, projects and activities.
Answer. There were no funding shifts in fiscal year 1997 or thus
far in fiscal year 1998 which fall within the reprogramming guidelines
in House Report 104-177.
Question. Please show the amounts, nature, and source of any
funding shifts that were implemented in fiscal year 1997 and thus far
in fiscal year 1998.
Answer. There were no funding shifts in fiscal year 1997 or thus
far in fiscal year 1998 which fall within the reprogramming guidelines
in House Report 104-177.
Question. In any area have you exceeded this 10 percent threshold
without notification since that requirement went into effect?
Answer. There were no funding shifts in fiscal year 1997 or thus
far in fiscal year 1998 which fall within the reprogramming guidelines
in House Report 104-177.
Question. Please provide a table listing the number, purpose, and
reimbursement for each of the foreign trips taken by each of the
associate administrators.
Answer. See the following chart.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Position Country Purpose Funding
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Associate Administrator for Mexico.......... To participate in the Eighth Meeting of the FHWA.
Program Development. Joint Working Committee (NAFTIA-related working
committee on border issues).
Mexico.......... To participate in the North American FHWA.
Superhighway Summit of Mayors.
Associate Administrator for Motor Canada.......... To attend Canadian Council on Motor Trucking FHWA.
Carriers. Meeting.
Associate Administrator for Portugal........ To give keynote presentation and participate in FHWA.
Research and Development. the Traffic Safety on Two Continents Conference.
Canada.......... To make a presentation and attend the Concluding FHWA.
Conference of the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development's (OECD) Dynamic
Interaction Vehicle Infrastructure Experiment
Program (DIVINE).
Associate Administrator for Germany......... To participate in the ITS World Congress FHWA.
Safety and Systems Applications. Meetings.
Associate Administrator for Pol- Russia.......... To participate in PIARC Executive Committee FHWA.
icy. Meeting and Russian Federal Highway Service
meetings.
Canada.......... International Road Federation World Meeting..... FHWA.
Director, Intelligent Spain........... To serve as chairperson of the PIARC Committee FHWA.
Transportation Systems Joint on Intelligent Transportation.
Program Office.
Germany......... To participate in the ITS World Congress FHWA.
Meetings.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Since there is a substantial reduction of FTE's proposed,
why isn't there an associated reduction in travel, training, and
transportation?
Answer. The FHWA's total reduction in FTE in fiscal year 1999 is
less than 3 percent over the fiscal year 1998 levels. Even with its
shrinking workforce, FHWA's programs are growing and the focus of our
efforts is changing. This change is moving us from a traditional
oversight role to one of proactive leadership, with a focus on
deployment of new technologies and technical service to State DOT's and
our many other program partners. One of the cornerstones for future
activities for the FHWA was a strong shift of resources and energy to
innovation--innovation in technology, and innovation in program
financing. This requires an expansion of our training and support
efforts. Administrative funds are being used to equip FHWA employees
with the technical knowledge and skills to effectively support the
agency's roles as partners to the States along with resources for
technical expertise and technology transfer. This includes
strengthening technical expertise to support expanding roles in safety,
environment and planning, and for developing skills in emerging
technologies and integrated systems support for intelligent
transportation systems.
Furthermore, the buying power of our administrative funds are being
eroded by the increases in travel and transportation rates. These
include the increases which GSA is passing on to individual agencies
for the mandatory use of alternate fuel vehicles, and the increasing
costs related to the processing fees charges by the travel industry for
air travel.
Question. Please break down the $4.692 million increase requested
for TASC on page 42.
Answer. The following table provides a summary of the charges
estimated, and incremental increases, for the Transportation
Administrative Service Center.
TRANSPORTATION ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE CENTER--SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR
1998 AND FISCAL YEAR 1999 ESTIMATES
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
Service Area ---------------------- Difference
1998 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Worklife Wellness..................... 159 165 +6
Building Management................... 1,339 1,196 -56
Information Services.................. 3,844 4,366 +525
Learning and Development.............. 636 582 -54
Space Management...................... 1,432 107 -1,325
Security Operations................... 614 576 -38
IT Systems Development................ 337 454 +117
Telecommunications Operation.......... 1,457 1,658 +201
TASC Computer Center.................. 8,746 13,473 +4,850
Procurement Services.................. ......... 3 +3
Human Resource Services............... 198 38 -160
DAFIS Operations and Other Support.... 1,874 2,410 +623
---------------------------------
Total........................... 20,636 25,028 +4,692
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. For each item listed on pages 41-43, please show the
amount appropriated in the fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1997 base.
Answer. See the following chart.
FEDERAL-AID GENERAL OPERATING EXPENSES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General operating General operating Motor carrier safety
expenses and motor expenses ---------------------
carrier safety ---------------------- Fiscal year--
---------------------- Fiscal year-- ---------------------
Fiscal year-- ----------------------
---------------------- 1997 1998
1997 1998 1997 1998 enacted enacted
enacted enacted enacted enacted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salaries and Benefits......................... 216,109 220,765 176,127 180,065 39,982 40,700
Travel........................................ 12,263 12,593 9,813 9,473 2,450 3,120
Transportation................................ 683 711 673 656 10 55
Comm. Rent and Util........................... 8,684 9,764 8,444 9,369 240 395
Printing...................................... 257 504 92 89 165 415
Other Services:
TASC...................................... 17,659 20,336 17,659 20,336 ......... .........
Other..................................... 17,421 18,911 12,313 13,708 5,108 5,203
Supplies.................................. 2,479 2,354 2,204 2,079 275 275
Equipment................................. 4,282 7,140 3,512 6,303 770 837
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................... 279,837 293,078 230,837 242,078 49,000 51,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
office of motor carriers (omc)
Question. We understand that privatization of inspection programs
is being pilot tested in Canada, and that in this country, the bus
industry supports such a program. What, if anything, is being done to
assess the feasibility and reliability of such programs in this
country?
Answer. The Office of Motor Carriers is not currently studying the
feasibility of private inspection programs. However, the Commercial
Vehicle Safety Alliance is actively working with several States to
develop such programs on a pilot basis. Once these inspections become
active and an assessment of their data and reliability is made by CVSA,
the Office of Motor Carriers can better assess policy development of
this initiative.
Question. OMC is seeking funds for contracting a new professional
curriculum developer/trainer for the NTC. What is the long-term plan
for the NTC? Is it anticipated that all NTC functions would be entirely
contracted out?
Answer. The long-term plan for NTC is to continue developing and
instructing technical motor carrier program courses for Federal and
State safety investigators. The instruction is performed by associate
staff comprised of Federal and State employees under the coordination
of NTC. The administration of the courses is performed by NTC Federal
and contract employees from the NTC location. Every year there are
courses which are updated and new ones developed. That process is
coordinated by NTC staff with contract assistance as well as technical
input by Federal and State employee expertise.
The mix of Federal, State and contract employees serves NTC well.
The addition of a professional developer to the staff would not only
greatly assist course development but provide a consistent entity to
work with other personnel on a daily basis. This would be preferable to
the current situation of using new contractual arrangements each time a
new course is developed, thus avoiding the program and organization
learning curve of each new contractor.
Question. OMC has been stating for several years that it is working
towards performance-based regulations. Which performance-based
regulations have you issued during the last few years?
Answer. During the last few years the OMC has issued no
performance-based regulations. The issuance of a final regulation is
the final step in the rulemaking process. We have a number of
performance-based regulations in the NPRM stage. They are (1)
conspicuity, (2) rear-underride protection, (3) supporting documents,
(4) cargo securement, (5) hours-of-service, (6) anti-lock brake
systems, and (7) zero-base regulatory review.
Question. When will the rewrite of the safety regulations be
issued?
Answer. An NPRM proposing the rewrite of the safety regulations,
commonly referred to as the zero-base regulatory review, is scheduled
for publication this fall. The final rule should be issued by December,
1999.
Question. Please break out separately the expected costs of each of
the new initiatives specified under safety program enhancements.
Answer. See the chart below:
Industry Forums............................................... $445,000
HazMat Safety Evaluation Area Development..................... 150,000
HazMat Registration and Permitting............................ 500,000
SAFESTAT Evaluation........................................... 75,000
Performance Grants Workshop................................... 80,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 1,250,000
Question. Please break out separately the expected costs of each of
the new initiatives specified under office support and efficiency.
Answer. The fiscal year 1999 budget request for office support and
efficiency includes $400,000 for electronic record keeping and $360,000
for office renovations and relocations.
Question. Please break out separately the expected costs of each of
the new initiatives specified under communications and technical
assistance.
Answer. The proposed budget for communication and technical
assistance is as follows: driver medical updates $203,000; commercial
driver hotline $150,000; and Share the Road Campaign $190,000.
Question. Please break out separately the expected costs of each of
the new initiatives specified under Training initiatives?
Answer. The fiscal year 1999 budget for training includes $100,000
proposed for each of the following new initiatives: automated safety
assessment program, crash data collection training, unsafe driving
practices, and professional trainer/course development.
Question. You have previously conducted meetings such as the Safety
Summit and various cargo tank forums within the base program without
asking for additional funds. Why is it necessary in the fiscal year
1999 budget to ask for additional funds for similar purposes?
Answer. One of the results of the 1995 Truck and Bus Safety Summit
was the opportunity for the Office of Motor Carriers to learn valuable
information and techniques on developing and conducting forums.
Building upon lessons learned and the value of partnering with
representatives of the entire universe of parties who are affected by
motor carrier operations to collectively improve safety, new forums or
expansion of those previously held will take place in fiscal year 1999.
These forums, such as the cargo tank forum and the second Safety
Summit, will require funding, in excess of the cost of the 1995 summit
alone. The concept of the 1995 Truck and Bus Safety Summit was
developed after the 1995 budget submission and, therefore, Summit
funding was redirected from other activities which had to be postponed.
In order to avoid adversely affecting other activities again, the
agency is requesting funds to support various partnership forums in
fiscal year 1999.
Question. Why aren't the monies requested to conduct meetings
related to a performance-based MCSAP and to hire a contractor to
evaluate that initiative funded under the national priority portion of,
or the administrative takedown for, the MCSAP?
Answer. The agency believes that national priority funding is
necessary to fund and support national, uniform program initiatives
such as drug interdiction, the Commercial Vehicle Safety Partnership
Program (formerly Judicial Outreach Program), data timeliness and
quality initiatives and other similar program activities. FHWA has
expended MCSAP administrative funds in the past, and will continue to
do so, to support performance-based program delivery activity and
training because we believe it provides support to the development and
implementation of the States' programs. However, given the limits on
MCSAP administrative funding, we believe these funds should be used to
support program delivery activity whenever possible.
Question. How many meetings during the last year has FHWA already
sponsored that deal with training to conduct performance-based MCSAP
planning?
Answer. Between August and December 1997, the FHWA conducted three
meetings of the Performance-Based Workgroup, which is the group that
designed and developed the training curriculum and content. We also
completed nine two-day training sessions from January to March of 1998
in each region for State and OMC personnel. An abbreviated version of
the course (necessitated by time constraints) will be presented to all
interested State personnel at the CVSA Spring Conference in Irvine,
California in May, and another full two-day course is scheduled for OMC
headquarters personnel in June 1998.
Question. Why can't you use your existing staff to audit SafeStat
implementation?
Answer. FHWA does plan to use its existing staff to audit SafeStat
implementation. The scope of this audit would include: analyzing our
success in reviewing all SafeStat A & B carriers during the six-month
period; assessing the resulting level of enforcement to project our
follow-up needs and our capacity; measuring the safety improvement
resulting from SafeStat implementation for improvement effectiveness
and for consideration of other features of the PRISM pilot; and
reviewing the staffing and resource distributions to determine the most
effective field allocations.
Question. During the last five years, have you used internal team
reviews to audit various aspects of program delivery without asking for
additional funds?
Answer. Yes, during the past five years the FHWA has initiated more
than a dozen quality review teams, peer review teams, management review
teams, and operational program review teams to evaluate various aspects
of its program delivery without requesting additional funds. These
teams have reviewed the enforcement process and procedures, the
compliance review activity, the MCSAP program consistency and
administration, outreach initiatives, and the management of regional
programs. Reviews of this type, where specialized program expertise and
experience are critical elements for measuring success and improving
processes, have been very beneficial to streamlining and improving the
effectiveness of the program.
Question. Why do you want to hire a contractor for a task, such as
SafeStat evaluations, that could be conducted by your federal program
managers?
Answer. SafeStat is a very sophisticated, complex and highly
effective analytical tool for identifying high-risk carriers. The
SafeStat prioritization system was designed to be a dynamic program
that would continue to be improved as new sources of data and more
accurate methods of measuring safety performance were developed and
tested. SafeStat has gone through 6 versions. Each new version of
SafeStat represents a marked improvement over the last. SafeStat was
designed and tested with the utmost rigor and scientific method over
the course of 6 years and has resulted in a performance assessment
system that is accurate, defendable, analytically sound and cost
effective. A major portion of SafeStat's success is directly
attributable to the extensive testing and evaluation done by an
independent provider prior to implementation of any new version of
SafeStat. To remove this most critical element would jeopardize the
continued success of the program.
SafeStat affects all OMC functional areas. Consequently, there is
not one who has not been, or is currently, involved in some aspect of
SafeStat. In order to ensure that we receive the most critical and
objective assessment of SafeStat, we believe evaluations should be
performed by an independent and impartial reviewer.
Question. How much money did OMC spend during each of the last
three years on office renovations and relocations? On electronic record
keeping systems? What was the account used to pay for these expenses?
Answer. The Office of Motor Carriers spent approximately $132,231
for office relocations and renovations in fiscal year 1995, $11,336 in
fiscal year 1996 and $11,175 in fiscal year 1997. The source of funding
for relocations and renovations was the general operating expense
account. The Office of Motor Carriers has not spent any funds on
electronic record keeping. This is a new initiative which has been
researched and piloted by the Federal Highway Administration as an
opportunity to consolidate records, reduce space needs, and have ready
access to documents.
Question. Why can't those improvements be funded out of the base
program?
Answer. Available funds from the ``base program'' have been reduced
in recent years for the many new program initiatives the Office of
Motor Carriers has undertaken such as NAFTA and SafeStat. The base-
program funding pool is insufficient to meet the needs of office
renovations and relocations as well as the new electronic recordkeeping
initiative.
Question. Shouldn't such renovations be postponed until FHWA's
field reorganization is completed and you know where all of such
offices will be located?
Answer. Funding requested for renovations is mostly for division
offices which will be unaffected by the field restructuring. However,
some portion of the request is funding of renovations for regional
offices as well which will be needed regardless of the location. The
``resource center'' concept will result in restructuring the types and
numbers of personnel needed in each office, thus requiring office
reconfiguration.
Question. Why can't the ASAP training be conducted in conjunction
with other planned OMC meetings, such as your Federal Program Manager
meetings?
Answer. Most of the ASAP training that is planned for Federal
personnel can be conducted in conjunction with regularly scheduled
meetings, such as OMC Federal Program Managers' meetings or Regional/
State Director meetings to reduce travel costs. However, as we provide
ASAP training to State personnel, the motor carrier industry, and to
other safety organizations, additional travel costs will be incurred.
Costs for the publication of various educational materials such as
brochures, pamphlets and video tapes, will also be incurred.
Question. Does your budget include funds for ASAP in both OMC
operations and in the CVO program? If so, what are those amounts and
why are both of those amounts necessary? What are the differences in
the purpose of those requests?
Answer. For fiscal year 1999, the ASAP program has requested
funding of $350,000 from the CVO program. This is the only request for
funds for the ASAP program in fiscal year 1999. The purpose of the
funding will be to administer the functional and maintenance
requirements of the ASAP program once it becomes fully operational. The
proposed fiscal year 1999 funding will also support the testing of the
ASAP software for use as a certifying tool in particular applications
like that of the international border crossings.
Question. In Audit Report No. AS-FH-7-006, the Inspector General
(I.G.) concluded that FHWA had not established goals for conducting
compliance reviews and that approximately 64 percent of the interstate
motor carrier population remained unrated at the end of fiscal year
1995. Please discuss whether you have since established such goals.
What percent of interstate motor carriers remain unrated and what are
you doing to reduce this percentage?
Answer. FHWA's goal setting is ``performance based'' rather than
``activity based.'' Our objective is to reduce the number and frequency
of commercial motor vehicle (CMV) crashes and the resulting fatalities,
injuries, and property damage. This is accomplished through a
comprehensive list of analytically focused activities intended to
address all of the causes of CMV crashes and related consequences, not
merely the motor carrier's compliance status.
It is not an FHWA objective to assign safety ratings to all motor
carriers. FHWA focuses its compliance reviews (CR's) on carriers
identified as ``high risk.'' These are carriers with high crash rates,
and safety performance problems related to drivers, vehicles, and
management operating practices. These carriers are identified using the
SafeStat risk assessment criteria and are included in categories A and
B. In fiscal year 1998, the FHWA has identified the reviewing of all
category A and B carriers as an objective.
At this time, approximately 71 percent of the motor carrier
population is unrated. In an effort to address this situation, the FHWA
is developing a revised performance-based safety fitness assessment
process that would not require a CR. This performance based-proposal is
being developed as an ANPRM, which will be published soon. In addition,
the FHWA is developing an expanded ASAP pilot to include the 1,000
highest risk, unrated, hazardous materials carriers. This process
involves analyzing carrier responses to specific safety and operational
questions and generally does not require an on-site review to assess
the carrier's fitness.
In response to industry demand for safety fitness ratings, FHWA is
working in partnership with a private sector initiative to develop an
independent industry standard of excellence which would not require any
direct involvement by FHWA. This, in conjunction with third party
review initiatives, will significantly increase the level of coverage
issues raised by the IG with minimal impact on FHWA program resources.
Question. The I.G. stated that the number of compliance reviews
performed by Federal investigators have decreased by 41 percent since
fiscal year 1991, even though FHWA requested and received 150 more
safety investigators during the early 1990's. Please explain the
decrease in compliance reviews.
Answer. The number of reviews has gone down because we are using
more comprehensive strategies and countermeasure activities to reduce
CMV crashes and to address our increasing responsibilities. The focus
is on safety results rather than compliance activities.
Since 1991, our management activities relating to the MCSAP have
significantly grown due to the increased size of the program and the
expanded range of funded compliance and enforcement. At the same time,
the FHWA safety program responsibilities have been expanded to include
the Commercial Driver License Program, controlled substance testing,
ITS/CVO, increased hazardous materials responsibilities, and various
additional authorities on larger numbers of carriers.
Since passage of the Government Performance and Results Act of
1993, FHWA has continued to increase its focus on performance
measurement and safety results, rather than compliance and enforcement
activities. Its goals and objectives have related to the reduction of
CMV crashes and the resulting consequences, in addition to reducing the
risk of motor carrier operations. In analyzing the crash data, the
majority of CMV fatal crashes involve another motor vehicle in addition
to the CMV. It is also true that a large segment of the CMV crashes do
not involve interstate carriers. These and other facts have led to a
broadened FHWA perspective in developing countermeasure activities to
reduce all types of motor carrier crashes. These include educational
and outreach programs to better inform the public of the inherent risks
related to driving near CMV's, partnering with industry and other
safety agencies to promote increased seatbelt usage and better driver
behavior, engaging in multi-modal strategies to improve the safeness of
intermodal transportation, focusing on crash-causation factors as a
means to improvement, and better identifying through performance data
those high-risk carriers in greatest need for compliance and
enforcement attention.
Question. Why does the number of reviews continue to decrease? What
was the effect and purpose of adding 150 investigators to the
enforcement staff?
Answer. The number of reviews has gone down because we are using
more comprehensive strategies and countermeasure activities to reduce
commercial motor vehicle (CMV) crashes and to address our increasing
responsibilities.
The FHWA recognizes that the original purpose of adding 150
investigators to the enforcement staff was to help with the increasing
workload related to the task of rating all motor carriers. In the early
1990's, the FHWA realized generating huge numbers of safety ratings by
the Federal and State enforcement staff would quickly overwhelm FHWA's
capacity to address the ``less than satisfactory'' population in a
timely manner. In addition, we were not utilizing all available data
sources that could better identify the highest-risk carriers. As FHWA
became more performance oriented, we recognized that the traditional
FHWA compliance and enforcement activities were not broad enough to
address the complex environment that leads to crashes. In order to
better address the safety problem, broader countermeasure activities
have been developed to improve safety in a more comprehensive manner.
These activities include: ``Share the Road'' and outreach initiatives
directed at all highway motorists; commercial driver's license program
implementation; enhanced MCSAP management and monitoring; and the
promotion of ITS-CVO technologies and partnering with other Federal,
State, and local safety agencies to identify through data analysis
critical safety problems and countermeasures to reduce CMV crashes. The
field staff has been involved with these new activities, in addition to
conducting more effective and better focused compliance reviews which
will result in a safer, crash-free environment.
Question. The I.G. observed that a large number of safety
investigators performed only a small number of compliance reviews. What
were they doing instead? How do you measure the effectiveness of their
efforts?
Answer. In its analysis, the OIG included all FHWA personnel who
had conducted at least one compliance review (CR) during the period
reviewed. This included supervisors, managers, and program specialists.
We advised them that this approach did not reflect the actual situation
since they included staff whose primary responsibilities do not include
field compliance and enforcement activities. This resulted in a number
of individuals being identified with very few CR's. Safety
investigators also perform various outreach and educational activities,
and are increasingly developing more complex enforcement cases. These
functions are critical elements of the overall comprehensive safety
program.
We measure the effectiveness of our field by what is achieved in
terms of motor carrier safety improvement. Focusing on the reduction of
crashes, compliance improvement and commercial motor vehicle risk
reduction, we have implemented specific performance measures for our
field managers which center on the safety outcomes of our various
activities.
Question. Industry wants problem carriers to receive increased
attention by the OMC. If you are conducting compliance reviews on fewer
and fewer carriers each year, how can you assure us that you are
adequately addressing all problem carriers in a timely manner?
Answer. Given the size of the industry, FHWA is focusing its
compliance and enforcement resources on the worst of the problem
carriers. Using current, performance-based data we are regenerating the
list, are conducting compliance reviews of this group every 6 months,
and are producing higher rates of enforcement with greater penalties
for chronic problem carriers.
This compliance and enforcement effort is a significant part of
FHWA's comprehensive strategy to reduce commercial motor vehicle
crashes, and the resulting fatalities, injuries and property damage.
This objective is also being addressed through education, outreach,
partnering, general deterrence, and technology assessment initiatives
which also require field staffing resources to implement. We believe
that these additional strategies will influence the behavior of larger
populations of carriers, and drivers of all types, to reduce the number
of serious crashes involving large trucks.
Question. Please provide data for each of the last three years on
the following expenditures for OMC: personnel change of station,
education and training, international travel, and non-mandatory bonuses
or incentives (awards).
Answer. See chart below.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995 1996 1997
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personnel Change of Station..................................... $1,334,364 $434,099 $566,000
Education and Training.......................................... 694,580 234,423 561,282
International Travel............................................ 81,176 29,256 63,043
Non-Mandatory Bonuses or Incentives (awards).................... \1\ 110,252 327,722 316,678
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This amount does not include performance awards. Under the old performance rating system, performance awards
were mandatory based on employee rating.
Question. How many compliance reviews, enforcement cases closed
with action (e.g., civil penalty), compliance orders, operations out-
of-service orders, and consent orders were conducted or issued by each
of the OMC Regional Offices during each of the last three years?
Answer. See chart below.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance reviews Enforcement cases closed
--------------------------- \1\
--------------------------
Region Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal
year year year year year year
1995 1996 1997 1995 1996 1997
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
01........................................................ 960 846 671 295 243 139
03........................................................ 908 740 220 325 327 113
04........................................................ 1,151 1,057 758 321 248 168
05........................................................ 1,464 1,400 1,107 441 414 369
06........................................................ 466 488 455 239 245 293
07........................................................ 287 243 245 156 123 72
08........................................................ 274 301 259 69 133 122
09........................................................ 383 305 241 76 84 56
10........................................................ 307 368 213 103 155 52
-----------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 6,200 5,748 4,169 2,025 1,972 1,384
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance orders \1\ Consent orders \1\ Out of service orders \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Region Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal
year year year year year year year year year
1995 1996 1997 1995 1996 1997 1995 1996 1997
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
01............................. 13 2 ....... 33 20 18 17 8 .......
03............................. 51 26 9 56 13 1 6 5 .......
04............................. ....... 1 1 1 ....... ....... 8 11 1
05............................. 65 31 15 55 37 16 1 ....... .......
06............................. 34 18 ....... 6 5 ....... 1 9 4
07............................. 7 6 2 15 22 7 2 ....... 2
08............................. 2 7 5 ....... 4 8 3 1 2
09............................. 20 16 ....... 1 ....... ....... 7 ....... .......
10............................. 24 14 4 ....... 9 13 1 2 4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................... 216 121 36 167 110 63 46 36 13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997 data only reflect completed enforcement cases. Other enforcement
actions initiated during this period are pending.
Source: Motor Carrier Management Information System.
Question. Please break out in extensive detail the fiscal year
1996, fiscal year 1997, and planned fiscal year 1998 expenses for each
of the following items: training, total quality management, strategic
planning, non-mandatory incentive awards, and retreats of senior
management away from headquarters. Please assume in your answer
authorization for the entire amount appropriated in the fiscal year
1998 Appropriations Act.
Answer. See chart below.
OFFICE OF MOTOR CARRIERS COSTS FOR SELECTED ACTIVITIES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998
Activity 1996 1997 (Projected)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Training......................... $234,423 $561,282 $725,000
TQM and Strategic Planning \1\... 21,100 14,400 2,000
Non-Mandatory Incentive Awards... 113,430 121,242 135,156
Senior Man. Retreats............. 1,892 2,844 2,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This includes publishing of strategic planning pamphlet, training,
Quality Program Managers meetings, Strategic Planning Coordinator's
training and travel.
Question. Please break out in detail the amount and purpose of all
fiscal year 1998 activities, projects, contracts, and programs that
relate to information systems and analytical studies. Please specify
the source of those funds, delineating contract and GOE monies for
fiscal year 1997, fiscal year 1998 (assuming full authorization up to
the appropriated amount) and proposed for fiscal year 1999.
Answer. See chart below.
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project GOE ITS/CVO R&T L&I Other Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FISCAL YEAR 1997
Information Systems:
MCMIS................................................. 1,945 1,300 540 647 150 4,582
SAFETYNET............................................. 672 1,290 250 275 32 2,519
Field and Office Systems.............................. 758 ....... ....... 79 ....... 837
SAFER/200 Sites....................................... ....... 2,410 450 ....... ....... 2,860
Licensing............................................. ....... ....... ....... 224 ....... 224
-----------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................................ 3,375 5,000 1,240 1,225 182 11,022
=====================================================
Data Analysis:
Crash Systems......................................... ....... ....... 310 ....... ....... 310
Effectiveness......................................... ....... ....... 250 ....... ....... 250
Analysis in Policy.................................... ....... ....... 512 ....... ....... 512
In-Use Population..................................... ....... ....... 210 ....... ....... 210
Causation............................................. ....... ....... 225 ....... ....... 225
-----------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................................ ....... ....... 1,507 ....... ....... 1,507
=====================================================
TOTAL............................................... 3,375 5,000 2,747 2,450 182 12,529
=====================================================
FISCAL YEAR 1998
Information Systems:
MCMIS................................................. 1,563 1,350 540 1,100 850 5,403
SAFETYNET............................................. 587 485 450 50 250 1,822
Field and Office Systems.............................. 650 ....... ....... 50 ....... 700
SAFER/200 Sites....................................... 800 1,765 ....... ....... 500 3,065
Licensing............................................. ....... ....... ....... 500 ....... 500
-----------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................................ 3,600 3,600 990 1,700 1,600 11,490
=====================================================
Data Analysis:
Crash Systems......................................... ....... ....... 275 ....... ....... 275
Effectiveness......................................... ....... ....... 300 ....... ....... 300
Analysis in Policy.................................... ....... ....... 565 ....... ....... 565
In-Use Population..................................... ....... ....... 60 ....... 195 255
Causation............................................. ....... ....... 25 ....... 205 230
-----------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................................ ....... ....... 1,225 ....... 400 1,625
=====================================================
TOTAL............................................... 3,600 3,600 2,215 1,700 2,000 13,115
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GOE = General Operating Expenses; ITS/CVO = Intelligent Transportation Systems/Commercial Vehicle Operations;
R&T = Research and Technology contracts; L&I = Licensing and Insurance (ex-ICC); Other = Other sources, e.g.,
MCSAP, etc.
Fiscal year 1999
(The amounts planned for fiscal year 1999 assuming full authorization,
are as below. We do not have this broken out by individual projects at
this time.)
Purpose Requested
Information systems:
Operations, Mods & Support.......................... \1\ $10,500,000
Development & Deployment............................ 5,000,000
Data Analysis........................................... 3,000,000
PRISM................................................... 6,000,000
Driver Program Enhancements............................. 3,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. \2\ 27,500,000
\1\ Includes $4,300,000 from ITS/CVO.
\2\ The $27,500,000 total would be comprised of $17,000,000 of new
authorization plus $10,500,000 from existing sources. Of the $10,500,000
from existing sources, $4,300,000 has been requested from ITS/CVO.
Question. How much was spent on the Office of Motor Carrier's ADP
requirements during fiscal year 1997?
Answer. In fiscal year 1997 $11,022,000 was spent.
Question. How much is planned for fiscal year 1998, assuming full
authorization of the appropriated amount? In your answer please break
out for each year the amounts from the motor carrier account and the
ITS-CVO account and indicate each of the projects funded and the source
of funds.
Answer. See chart below.
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project GOE ITS/CVO R&T L&I Other Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FISCAL YEAR 1998
Information Systems:
MCMIS................................................. 1,563 1,350 540 1,100 850 .......
SAFETYNET............................................. 587 485 450 50 250 .......
Field and Office Systems.............................. 650 ....... ....... 50 ....... .......
SAFER/200 Sites....................................... 800 1,765 ....... ....... 500 .......
Licensing............................................. ....... ....... ....... 500 ....... .......
-----------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................................ 3,600 3,600 990 1,700 1,600 11,490
=====================================================
Data Analysis:
Crash Systems......................................... ....... ....... 275 ....... ....... .......
Effectiveness......................................... ....... ....... 300 ....... ....... .......
Analysis in Policy.................................... ....... ....... 565 ....... ....... .......
In-Use Population..................................... ....... ....... 60 ....... 195 .......
Causation............................................. ....... ....... 25 ....... 205 .......
-----------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................................ ....... ....... 1,225 ....... 400 1,625
=====================================================
TOTAL............................................... 3,600 3,600 2,215 1,700 2,000 13,115
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GOE = General Operating Expenses; ITS/CVO = Intelligent Transportation Systems/Commercial Vehicle Operations;
R&T = Research and Technology contracts; L&I = Licensing and Insurance (ex-ICC); Other = Other sources, e.g.,
MCSAP, etc.
Question. Please compare the amount spent with the amount
appropriated for ADP for each of the last five years.
Answer. The total amounts appropriated and spent for ADP,
considering all sources, are as shown below.
[In millions of dollars]
Fiscal year:
1994.......................................................... 6.15
1995.......................................................... 8.40
1996.......................................................... 9.45
1997 \1\...................................................... 11.02
1998 \1\...................................................\2\ 11.49
\1\ Fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998 include expenditures related
to the information systems of the Licensing and Insurance Division
(formerly in the ICC), as well as user-fees received, which are not
appropriated.
\2\ Planned.
Question. What amount of PC and B was reallocated or used for any
other purpose in fiscal year 1996? In fiscal year 1997? For which
purposes were such funds used?
Answer. Due to fluctuations in FTE's, promotion costs, number of
personnel relocations etc., and the fact that the budget for the PC and
B account is prepared over a year prior to enactment there are some
minor variances among object classes. In fiscal year 1996 and fiscal
year 1997 less than $200,000 (one-half of 1 percent) of that was
reallocated directly to program activities such as the No-Zone program.
For fiscal year 1998 we anticipate the PC and B budget estimate to be
spent as appropriated.
Question. Please list the amount and purposes of each of your
fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998 contracts related to strategic
planning or quality management, being certain to include contracts and
outside consultants and organizations in those efforts. Which funding
source or budget allocation was used to pay for those expenses?
Answer. There were no contractual funds expended in fiscal year
1997 or planned for fiscal year 1998 to support strategic planning and
quality management. The Office of Motor Carriers has established
programs in these areas and operates these programs with internal
staff.
Question. How much money does OMC typically reserve to pay for
initiatives other than R&D conducted by OMC headquarters? Please
specify separately the amount and nature of each of the activities
funded with those monies for fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998.
What is the amount requested for those activities for fiscal year 1999?
Answer. OMC typically has a $900,000 headquarters support budget.
Typical areas funded on an annual basis are Departmental Administrative
Law Judges ($150,000), contractual support for the Freedom of
Information Act office ($130,000), rent for the National Training
Center ($140,000), local training funds ($45,000), supplies ($30,000),
printing ($30,000), conference support ($25,000), non-recurring special
studies ($200,000) and equipment maintenance contracts/miscellaneous
office support $150,000.
The fiscal year 1999 budget contains several funding initiatives
which require contractual support to implement. A $1.8 million increase
is requested for fiscal year 1999 headquarters support which will fund
such initiatives as the driver listening post, various industry forums,
program evaluations.
Question. As directed by the Committee, how have you ensured that
none of the Motor Carrier FTE reductions were taken from the field
staff, especially motor carrier safety specialist positions?
Answer. The Federal Highway Administration is restructuring the
field and headquarters offices to provide better service to our
customers and to operate more efficiently. As part of that study, the
Office of Motor Carriers is conducting a review of both field and
headquarters FTE use and allocations.
Question. Please list all of the regulatory requirements and
reports dealing with OMC programs, CVO or commercial vehicle safety
which are past due as specified in various congressional acts and bill
reports. What is the expected date of submittal for each of those?
Answer. The information follows:
PAST DUE RULEMAKINGS, REPORT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Law Rulemaking Deadline Status
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HM Transportation Uniform Safety Motor Carrier Safety Permits, Inspect Final Rule by 11/16/91............. NPRM published 6/17/93 (58 FR 33418). After reviewing the Alliance for Uniform
Act of 1990, Sections 8 and 15. Radioactive Materials. HazMat Transportation Procedures' (the Alliance) 1993 preliminary report and
recommendations concerning implementation of 49 U.S.C. 5119, the FHWA decided
not to proceed with further rulemaking action to implement 49 U.S.C. 5109
(Section 8) and 5105 (Section 15) until the Alliance's pilot project was
completed.
Notice announcing availability of the Alliance's final report and requesting
public comment published 7/9/96.
Supplemental NPRM published 3/31/98 to request additional comments from the
States and industry. Anticipate publishing final rule in 2001.
Motor Carrier Act of 1991 Minimum Training Requirements for NPRM by 12/18/93................... NPRM currently being revised to respond to issues raised during Departmental
(Intermodal Surface Operators and Training Instructors of review.
Transportation Efficiency Act), Multi-Trailer Combination Vehicles. Anticipate publishing NPRM by end of 1998, final rule in 1999.
Section 4007(b)(2).
Motor Carrier Act of 1991 Entry-Level Driver Training............ NPRM by 12/18/92................... ANPRM published 6/21/93, 104 comments received and analyzed. Final study
(Intermodal Surface Final by 12/18/93.................. report sent to Congress 2/5/96. Notice of availability and request for
Transportation Efficiency Act), Report to Congress by 1/18/94...... comments on the report published in the Federal Register 4/25/96 with 6-month
Section 4007(b)(2). comment period. Public hearings were held 11/13/96, comment period extended
to 11/29/96.
NPRM drafted, currently under internal review, anticipate publishing by end of
1998. Anticipate final rule in 1999.
Hazardous Materials (HM) Railroad Grade Crossing Safety......... Final Rule by 2/26/95.............. FHWA has prepared a draft NPRM, which is under review.
Transportation Authorization Act
of 1994, Public Law 103-311,
Section 112.
Hazardous Materials (HM) Supporting Documents for Records of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking by 8/ NPRM published in Federal Register 4/20/98. Anticipate final rule in 1st
Transportation Authorization Act Duty Status. 25/95 Final Rule by 2/26/96. quarter of 1999.
of 1994, Public Law 103-311,
Section 113.
HM Authorization Act of 1994, Safety Performance History of New Final Rule by 2/26/96.............. NPRM published 3/14/96. SNPRM drafted and under review by DOT. DOT to confer
Section 114. Drivers. with Small Business Administration concerning impacts on small businesses.
Interstate Commerce Commission Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ANPRM by 3/01/96................... ANPRM published 11/05/96. Comment period extended to 6/30/97. Over 1,600
Termination Act of 1995, Section (ANPRM) on HOS and Related Issues. NPRM by 3/01/97.................... docket comments received. Comments analyzed, technical and regulatory review
408. assessments of alternatives underway, NPRM in preparation. Anticipate
Fiscal Year 1996 DOT publishing NPRM by late 1998, Final Rule by late 1999-early 2000.
Appropriations Act, C-47 and S95.
Registration and Other Forms Rulemaking to develop new integrated Statutory Deadline: Final 1/1/98... ANPRM published 8/26/96 at Vol. 61 page 43816. Comments due by 10/25/96. A
(Motor Carrier Replacement information system and transmit a cementer's request for a 90-day extension to file comments was rejected.
Information/Registration System), mandated report.. ANPRM comments analyzed.
Includes Table Item 3-35. Letter report sent notifying Congress that the 1/1/98 deadline not met due to
Interstate Commerce Commission complexity of issues.
Termination Act of 1995, Section Awaiting action of State-Motor Carrier industry group meeting under the
13908. auspices of the House Transportation Committee on Single-State Registration
Program issues.
Fiscal year 1997 Appropriations, REPORT: Long-Term Funding of the CVISN Statutory deadline: Late 1997...... The FHWA has completed a draft report on long term-funding of CVISN. The final
Senate Report 104-325. System: foundation for a smooth report is expected to be submitted to both the House and Senate
transition by 2001 from a federally Appropriations Committees by October, 1998.
financed to a user-financed system
that will ensure its long-term
operation and improvement..
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Why hasn't the OMC complied with Section 114 of Public
Law 103-311 that requires the issuance of regulations that should
improve the transfer of information regarding an employee's safety
performance? When will a final regulation be issued in that area?
Answer. The Federal Highway Administration published a notice of
proposed rulemaking on March 14, 1996 (61 FR 10548), with respect to
Section 114. The Small Business Administration submitted comments to
the docket requesting more detailed analyses under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act and Paperwork Reduction Act. The FHWA initially planned
to publish these analyses in the final rule and proceeded to draft that
document. After consulting with SBA, it was determined that FHWA should
allow the public an opportunity to comment on the amended analyses by
publishing a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.
Question. What has the OMC done to implement the provisions of that
law which requires improvement in the use of supporting documents, and
requires previous motor carrier employers to provide driver information
to current motor carrier employers?
Answer. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) published a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on April 20, 1998 (63 FR 19457),
with respect to Section 113. The comment period closes on June 19,
1998.
The FHWA published an NPRM on March 14, 1996 (61 FR 10548), with
respect to Section 114. The Small Business Administration submitted
comments to the docket requesting further additional analyses under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act and Paperwork Reduction Act. The FHWA is
drafting a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking to allow the
public an additional opportunity to comment.
Question. The Committee's fiscal year 1998 allowance included
$500,000 for the OMC to expand and improve its no-zone campaign and
related activities. Assuming full authorization of the appropriated
amount, how will these monies be used?
Answer. Assuming full authorization, this funding would be used to
support four principal activities:
Improvement of the No-Zone public safety education campaign.--FHWA,
with the assistance of states, is working on the development of new,
top-notch public service announcements, graphics, brochures, and other
safety promotional materials to convey the No-Zone message. A No-Zone
home-page has been established to communicate the share-the-road
message via the Internet. FHWA has established a support contract to
handle coordination and clearing-house activities for nationwide No-
Zone events and requests. The support contract will also help with
establishment of a nationwide, public/private Share-the-Road coalition.
FHWA also plans to conduct a national survey on public knowledge of the
limitations of large commercial vehicles and safe driving practices in
their vicinity. The survey would measure the current level of awareness
of the No-Zone message and serve as a baseline for measuring the
effectiveness of the No-Zone education campaign.
International Highway Transportation Safety Week.--FHWA and the
Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance are jointly sponsoring this special
week dedicated to truck and bus safety in the United States, Canada,
and Mexico. Events held across the country will educate motorists about
safely sharing the road with large commercial vehicles. State,
industry, and federal teams also will provide drivers with information
on safety belts, driver alertness and related health issues, work zone
safety, the dangers of running red lights, highway grade crossing
safety, and other highway safety issues.
Public education component of the National Agenda for Motor Carrier
Safety.--Among its key recommendations, the National Agenda for Motor
Carrier Safety suggests that more attention be given to share the road
issues in commercial driver training, new driver education, and driver
rehabilitation courses. Based on research now underway in identifying
unsafe driving practices in the vicinity of large vehicles, FHWA hopes
to develop training modules tailored to specific audiences.
Promotion of truck safety at national safety conferences.--
Historically, the passenger vehicle and commercial vehicle safety
communities have developed along separate tracks. Communication about
the importance of safely sharing the road has led both these safety
communities to see the advantages of collaboration and coordination in
key conferences and events. With this coordination in mind, FHWA has
developed a master exhibit for use by headquarters and field staff at
safety events around the country. Also, FHWA OMC is participating in
major conferences sponsored by the National Safety Council and other
safety organizations.
Question. Please provide an update on activities intended to open
up the southern border to comply with the intent of NAFTA.
Answer. The Administration remains committed to NAFTA and its
promise of economic prosperity for North America. We intend to honor
our NAFTA obligations, including allowing safe Mexican motor carriers
and drivers to operate in the United States.
Over the past two years, we have been negotiating with Mexico to
resolve safety and commercial concerns. First, since the key to
minimizing safety risk is to ensure that Mexican inspectors check
northbound trucks before they cross the border, we are helping Mexico
establish a system to continuously assess the safety of these carriers.
With DOT assistance, Mexico is establishing U.S.-compatible databases
to facilitate the exchange of information on motor carrier and vehicle
identification, driver licensing, and motor carrier safety performance,
including inspections and accidents. The United States, Canada, and
Mexico have agreed to develop a safety certification assessment process
that will address these safety areas: (a) safety management systems,
(b) driver qualifications, (c) hours of service compliance, (d) drug
and alcohol testing, (e) condition of vehicles, (f) accident monitoring
programs, and (g) compliance with regulations governing the
transportation of hazardous materials. We believe Mexico is committed
to motor carrier safety and is moving in the right direction in
establishing a motor carrier safety oversight regime. Mexico is
developing minimum safety standards regulations. We are awaiting the
publication of these regulations and the establishment of an inspection
program. We are confident that once the regulations are published and
an inspection program in place, we will be able to begin planning for
the gradual implementation of the NAFTA's access liberalization
provisions. The DOT is revising its Mexican carrier applications to
enhance the safety review at the application stage and is also
developing a safety monitoring and compliance program designed to
ensure that Mexican carriers comply with the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations when they operate in the United States.
On the commercial side, Mexico has satisfactorily addressed two out
of three U.S. ``doing business'' concerns. Specifically, issues related
to (1) U.S. investment in Mexican trucking companies and (2) increased
access for 53-foot trailers have been resolved. The third issue,
Mexico's regulation of express delivery services, is still outstanding.
The NAFTA obligates Mexico to extend national treatment to U.S.
companies that operate express delivery services in Mexico. In
violation of the NAFTA, Mexico does not allow U.S. companies to use the
same size trucks that Mexican express delivery companies are permitted
to use. Consultations on this issue continue as we await Mexico's long-
promised revised regulations.
Background.--Consultations regarding the implementation of the
NAFTA's land transportation access provisions are ongoing. On December
18, 1995, the date on which the United States and Mexico were to have
allowed access to each other's border states for the delivery and
backhaul of cargo, the United States announced a delay in the NAFTA
implementation schedule for safety reasons. Since then, officials from
the Department of Transportation and Mexico's Secretariat of
Communications and Transportation (SCT) have met numerous times to
devise a strategy for addressing our safety concerns. These
negotiations are taking place in the Land Transportation Standards
Subcommittee (LTSS), which was established by the NAFTA to seek
compatibility of safety standards for truck, bus, and rail operations
and for the transportation of hazardous materials. In addition to
safety, the United States and Mexico are discussing issues involving
increased access for 53-foot trailers on Mexican roads and the
regulation of express delivery services. In view of Mexico's plans to
further liberalize access for 53-foot trailers as highways are
upgraded, the United States has decided to remove this issue from the
list of ``doing business'' issues that must be resolved before reaching
agreement on a date certain to begin processing applications for cross-
border trucking operations. A problem with Schneider National's
investment in Mexico was successfully resolved last year, and is no
longer a potential obstacle to eventual implementation of the NAFTA
provisions.
motor carrier regulatory relief and safety demonstration project
Question. Under Section 344 of the National Highway System
Designation Act of 1995, FHWA was required to implement a ``Motor
Carrier Regulatory Relief and Safety Demonstration Project'' to
determine whether certain eligible motor carriers could operate safely
with fewer regulations. Congress specifically required that this
program be up and running by August 24, 1996. Final guidelines were not
published until June 10, 1997. In December 1997, the Office of Motor
Carriers (OMC) announced a six-month extension of the time period for
carrier applications. Why is it taking so long for OMC to implement
this program?
Answer. Several factors had to be considered as this project was
designed. Foremost in these factors was the available data regarding
this population's safety performance and the need to balance safety
while developing a careful way to demonstrate how changes in our
regulatory system might be possible. The pilot is designed to permit
``safe'' carriers operating light to medium weight vehicles a wider
latitude in selecting how they manage their safety performance while
balancing all of the above concerns. However, there was limited
interest in participation in the pilot based on the final guidelines.
The FHWA was advised of Congressional concern regarding limited
industry participation in the Project and the industry coalition that
lobbied for the exemptions has suggested that additional exemptions and
modifications to Project criteria were necessary to increase industry
interest. The Office of Motor Carriers (OMC) discovered there was
industry confusion regarding some of the project criteria and how the
pilot would be run. The OMC has initiated an effort to provide
additional Project exemptions, clarify existing exemptions, and modify
certain Project criteria. This effort should improve industry
understanding of the Project and provide substantive industry
incentives, without reducing highway safety.
Question. OMC may be considering changes in the pilot program to
revise the application requirements, provide additional relief and
minimize paperwork burdens. When will OMC announce these changes?
Answer. The Office of Motor Carriers has developed a draft Notice;
request for comments that will modify the final guidelines published on
June 10, 1997. The notice provides additional Project exemptions,
clarifies existing exemptions, and modifies certain Project criteria.
The notice is currently in concurrence channels and should be published
in late spring or early summer.
Question. The Final Guidelines require participants in the program
to have no more than 1.6 police-reported accidents per million miles
regardless of fault. The program is targeted toward smaller commercial
vehicles between 10,000 and 26,000 lbs. These vehicles are typically
operated in urban environments where ``fender-benders'' are common. Why
should potential participants be excluded for minor accidents which are
not their fault?
Answer. The Office of Motor Carriers (OMC) has determined that the
prescribed accident rate for participation in the program, based on
``police-reported'' accidents, may be a concern for interested
companies. The rate itself has not been identified as a problem as much
as the definition of an accident. The OMC is currently developing a
Supplemental Notice of Final Determination that will establish a new
participation accident-rate threshold. The accident rate for
eligibility would be based on ``DOT-recordable'' accidents in lieu of
police-reported accidents. These accidents have a higher threshold
(i.e., tow-away, injury or fatality) than police-reported accidents.
Therefore, just ``DOT-recordable'' accidents would be considered when
determining a motor carrier's accident rate, which is consistent with
all motor carrier safety programs.
Question. There is no common definition or understanding of the
term ``police-reported accidents'' among jurisdictions or motor
carriers. OMC has not previously employed this standard, using instead
the standard of ``DOT-recordable'' accidents. This is a standard which
carriers already use. Given this, what is the rationale for using
police-reported accidents as the criterion?
Answer. The rationale for using ``police-reported accidents'' as
the criterion was to obtain as much accident data as possible to
analyze the overall accident experience of these motor carriers. The
Office of Motor Carriers (OMC) agrees that the term ``police-reported
accident'' is ambiguous and has determined that a modification to the
eligibility criterion is in order. The OMC is currently developing a
Supplemental Notice of Final Determination that would establish a new
participation accident rate based on ``DOT-recordable'' accidents in
lieu of police-reported accidents.
Question. The actual regulatory relief provided in the Final
Guidelines is minimal. In addition, the paperwork requirements
associated with project participation would appear to outweigh any
benefits. Given that the purpose of the project is to test the
proposition that fleets can operate safely under fewer regulations, why
is more substantive relief not provided?
Answer. The Office of Motor Carriers (OMC) is currently developing
a Supplemental Notice of Final Determination that proposes additional
exemptions for the Project. The OMC believes these additional
exemptions are substantive incentives that will increase industry
interest in the Project. The OMC is aware that this Project imposes
special record-keeping and reporting requirements on participating
motor carriers (e.g. reporting accidents and changes regarding drivers
participating in the project). The OMC believes that the paperwork
requirements of the Project are absolutely necessary to conduct this
Project and ensure the safety of the public on the highways. For
instance, in the absence of a roster of the drivers participating in
the Project, the Agency would be unable to assist enforcement personnel
at roadside inspection locations in identifying Project drivers.
Another problem cited by potential applicants is the extra burden
placed on applicants by the requirement to develop a safety-control
plan. Any motor carrier which participates must provide a safety plan
to the FHWA explaining what it intends to do to ensure that its crash
rate, roadside inspection results, and driver performance remain equal
to or better than its current safety record. This safety-control plan
is required by the National Highway Safety Act of 1995.
Question. OMC has stated that the program is designed to apply only
to interstate carriers. Many, if not most, businesses with trucks in
the project weight range do not cross state lines as a part of their
trucking operations. How does OMC define ``interstate'' for the
purposes of the project?
Answer. The Office of Motor Carriers (OMC) has jurisdiction, with
regard to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR's), over
motor carriers operating commercial motor vehicles in interstate
commerce. Any project conducted by the OMC which would provide
exemptions from the FMCSR's can only be offered to interstate motor
carriers. However, for the purposes of this project,intrastate
movements of an interstate motor carrier, if the participating drivers
are interstate, would be covered by the Project.
Question. How many carriers have applied to participate in the
pilot program? How many have been accepted?
Answer. The Office of Motor Carriers have received six (6)
applications for participation in the project. In the interest of the
continuity and uniformity of the project pending the proposed
revisions, no carrier has been accepted yet. There is no information or
data that would preclude their participation; however, we want to
ensure the applicants are aware of the proposed changes prior to their
acceptance.
Question. Section 344 also requires the Secretary, within three
years of enactment, to conduct a ``zero-based'' review of the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Regulations to determine ``whether and to what
extent such regulations should apply to eligible vehicles.'' We are now
into the third year following enactment. What is the status of this
congressionally-mandated review?
Answer. The Office of Motor Carriers (OMC) initiated the Zero-Base
Regulatory Review Project in 1992. This effort is a comprehensive zero-
base review of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR's)
in their entirety. We are in Phase III of this four-phase effort, with
a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking expected to be published in the Federal
Register in the summer of 1998. The OMC implemented the Motor Carrier
Regulatory Relief and Safety Demonstration Project in response to
Section 344 of the NHS Act of 1995 on June 10, 1997, with an
anticipated completion date of June 10, 2000. The OMC intends to
consider the results of the final evaluation of this Project when
making decisions regarding the comprehensive zero-base review of the
FMCSR's.
highway research, development and technology transfer general
Question. Please explain why the allocation for highway safety
research and development is much less than the amount typically
allocated to motor carrier research and development, especially when
those amounts are normalized on a per fatality basis.
Answer. Safety research and development funding is allocated based
on research and development needs and priorities, not a cost per
fatality ratio. Also, while the ratio of funding to fatalities may
appear to be higher for motor carrier research and development than for
highway safety research and development, it should be considered that
any improvement in motor carrier safety has significant carry over
improvements for passenger car safety.
Question. The Conferees directed FHWA to increase substantially its
cost sharing arrangements for the R&D program with non-federal sources
in fiscal year 1998. Please discuss how FHWA complied with that
directive. What additional measures to obtain cost sharing did you
pursue?
Answer. So far in fiscal year 1998, the FHWA has had available for
research and technology only a fraction of its full years budget
because of the provisions of the STEA legislation which extended parts
of the ISTEA program to May of 1998. This has meant that our research
expenditures so far in fiscal year 1998 have been used to fund our
laboratory support contracts and to provide funds for those multi-year
commitments that had been made prior to fiscal year 1998. No new starts
have been initiated in fiscal year 1998 and this has seriously limited
the opportunities for joint funded projects with the private sector.
Nevertheless, we have initiated several cooperative research and
development agreements (CRADA's) with the private sector so far in
fiscal year 1998. Among these are agreements: with a private company in
Massachusetts to produce an asphalt modifier invented at FHWA's Turner-
Fairbank Highway Research Center (TFHRC) for construction of the first
demonstration pavement this summer in Georgia; with the Corps of
Engineers and a company in San Diego to construct a laser based rolling
weight deflectometer for pavement analysis; with a newly formed company
in Northern Virginia to commercially develop the Roadway Surface
Analyzer (ROSAN), also invented at TFHRC, to measure pavement surface
conditions at highway speeds; and we have an agreement with the
American Concrete Pavement Association where they are providing the
construction equipment and materials necessary to construct several
test pavements at our Accelerated Loading Facility (ALF) at TFHRC. The
FHWA will provide the engineering support and run the ALF for this
experiment. In all four cases the technologies are being developed and
evaluated with private sector funds enabling these technologies to
advance.
Question. Please compare your actual GOE expenditures for each R&D
and technology transfer activity against the amount actually
appropriated for fiscal year 1997 and expected for fiscal year 1998.
Answer. See chart below.
[In thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year
Highway research and development 1997 enacted 1997 actual Fiscal year
\1\ expenditures 1998 expected
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety.......................................................... 8,650 7,533 9,500
Pavements....................................................... 19,731 19,633 10,500
Structures...................................................... 14,362 14,254 15,256
Environment..................................................... 5,443 5,348 5,666
Real Estate Services............................................ 322 322 365
Policy.......................................................... 5,328 5,298 5,400
Planning........................................................ 5,889 5,889 7,000
Motor Carriers.................................................. 7,399 5,072 7,400
ITS R&D......................................................... 26,393 26,393 31,500
Automated Highway Systems....................................... 22,000 22,000 ..............
ITS Operational Test............................................ 56,447 55,942 83,900
Technical Assessment and Deployment............................. 13,811 13,511 13,311
Local Technical Assistance Program.............................. 2,827 2,827 ..............
National Highway Institute...................................... 4,269 3,600 ..............
Fairbank Building Renovation.................................... 500 500 2,000
Minority Business Enterprise.................................... 9,378 9,364 10,000
International Transportation.................................... 475 307 ..............
Russia Technical Assistance..................................... 200 198 ..............
Transportation Investment Analysis.............................. 250 250 ..............
Cost Allocation Study........................................... 300 300 ..............
Federal Lands Contamination Clean-up............................ 2,500 726 ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Adjusted enacted amount to reflect $3 Million Procurement savings.
Question. Please indicate on a year-by-year basis the amount of
carryover funds for each year by category.
Answer. See chart below.
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
Fiscal year fiscal year
Highway research and development 1997 1998
carryover carryover
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety........................................ 1,117 ...........
Pavements..................................... 98 ...........
Structures.................................... 108 ...........
Environment................................... 95 ...........
Real Estate Services.......................... ........... ...........
Policy........................................ 30 ...........
Planning...................................... ........... ...........
Motor Carriers................................ 2,327 ...........
ITS R&D....................................... ........... ...........
Automated Highway Systems..................... ........... ...........
ITS Operational Test.......................... 505 ...........
Other R&T activities:
Technical Assessment and Deployment....... 300 ...........
Local Technical Assistance Program........ ........... ...........
National Highway Institute................ 669 ...........
Fairbank Building Renovation.............. ........... ...........
Minority Business Enterprise.............. 14 ...........
International Transportation.............. 168 ...........
Russia Technical Assistance............... 2 ...........
Transportation Investment Analysis........ ........... ...........
Cost Allocation Study..................... ........... ...........
Federal Lands Contamination Clean-up...... 1,774 ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Did the RTEB carefully review the fiscal year 1999
request for sustainable communities submitted by the Office of Planning
and Environment? When did this occur?
Answer. The RTEB reviewed the program objectives for the initiative
on sustainability and transportation submitted by the Office of
Planning and Environment on March 5, 1998. This request was included as
one of the focus areas for the Research and Technology Council Group
for Environment, Planning, and Real Estate Services.
safety
Question. Please break out in extensive detail the amount of funds
allocated or planned to be allocated separately by R&D, OHS, and OTA on
pedestrian and work zone safety for each of the following years: fiscal
year 1997, fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999. How many research or
technology transfer/outreach projects pertaining to work zone safety
are likely to be phased out during fiscal year 1998?
Answer. The following table depicts the amount of funds allocated
or planned by OTA and R&D. No program funding is specifically earmarked
for OHS. The OHS utilizes funding from OTA and R&D to carry out
pedestrian and work zone research or technology transfer/outreach
projects.
[In thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Work Zone Safety Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Fiscal
Fiscal Fiscal year 1999 Fiscal Fiscal year 1999
year 1997 year 1998 \1\ year 1997 year 1998 \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OTA........................................... $820 $100 $360 $200 $200 $400
R&D........................................... 400 400 400 25 ......... 1,350
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Subject to availability.
The technology transfer/outreach project pertaining to work zone
safety that is likely to be phased out during fiscal year 1998 is the
Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) marketing of work zone
products. The last year of funding for encouraging implementation of
the SHRP work zone products was fiscal year 1997 with funding in the
amount of $92,000. The program has been completed.
Question. How many research or technology transfer/outreach
projects pertaining to work zone safety are likely to be initiated
during fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The only research or technology transfer/outreach project
pertaining to work zone safety to be initiated during 1999 (subject to
availability of funds) is developing a work standard crash definition
for collection of work zone accident information and then promoting it
to law enforcement officers. Ongoing initiatives are: Provide
information on the technology as well as market and promote the
National Work Zone Safety Information Clearinghouse located at the
Texas Transportation Institute; and Promote the recently released work
zone safety campaign (i.e., public service announcements) to develop a
unified nationwide message.
Question. What is the status of your research on UV head lighting
in combination with fluorescent delineation and signing? How much money
was invested in that work during fiscal year 1997? During fiscal year
1998? How much is planned for fiscal year 1999?
Answer. During the past fiscal year we conducted exploratory tests
at the FBI Training Facility in Quantico, Virginia. This field data is
currently being analyzed and evaluated, including a detailed cost-
benefit analysis. This study will be completed in November 1998. A new
study was initiated in early March 1998 to further assess the potential
of the technology in improving nighttime visibility, especially during
adverse weather. This study will identify and investigate problems that
may occur in implementing the technology from the perspective of
headlight and motor vehicle manufacturers, departments of
transportation, cost effectiveness, driver acceptability, etc. Funding
used or planned for this research in fiscal year 1997, fiscal year 1998
and fiscal year 1999 is, respectively, $99,000, $700,000, and $800,000.
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
document how this directive was accomplished, being certain to provide
specific funding details.
Answer. The four million in ISTEA funds were used to provide
support for safety research in the following areas: development,
maintenance and operation of the Highway Safety Information System;
development of finite element simulation models for use in designing
and evaluating roadside safety hardware; development of a prototype
driver model for use in highway design; technical support for the
FHWA's human factors laboratories; and development and evaluation of
active roadside warning systems.
The Highway Safety Information System is a multi-State safety data
base that contains accident, roadway inventory, and traffic volume
data. This data is used to study current highway safety issues (for
example the evaluation of the Safety Effects of Cross-Section Design on
Rural Multilane Highways was one successful study completed), direct
research efforts, and evaluate the effectiveness of crash
countermeasures. The finite element simulation models being developed
will reduce the time and cost involved with testing roadside safety
hardware and the prototype driver model will result in highway design,
better accommodating driver behavior in response to traffic control
devices, highway geometrics and safety countermeasures. The HF labs are
used extensively to better understand driver behavior and drives
performance. The results of this research are used to develop products
such as design guidelines that practitioners use to design safer and
more efficient roadways. The application of technology to improve
safety within the transportation system is still an area in need of
further development. One area that has shown promise is the
implementation of active roadside warning systems that alert drivers to
impending problems at the time the problem exists.
Question. How are you going to implement the directive that the
total fiscal year 1998 funds related to safety research and development
exceed the total amount allocated during fiscal year 1997? Assume full
authorization of the fiscal year 1998 appropriation and quantify your
answer.
Answer. In fiscal year 1997, $11,495,399 was awarded for safety
research and development. At this time it would be premature to
indicate how we will comply with the directive as fiscal year 1998
funding has not been fully appropriated.
structures
Question. Last year the Committee directed FHWA to pursue research
into high performance materials and bridge systems which could be
applied to improve safety, function, durability, and renewability with
minimal cost and environmental impact. Please provide an update on the
progress of this research effort.
Answer. The high performance materials research program advances
technology related to structural concrete, steel, and composites. For
high performance concrete, two fiscal year 1998 studies are planned,
but not initiated due to the lack of an authorization bill. Those
studies related to concrete include efforts to compile, review, and
evaluate the data resulting from the testing and monitoring of FHWA-
State bridge and research projects for high performance concrete (HPC).
To date, there have been 15 bridge construction projects in 12 States.
The study will analyze the data and develop guidelines and new design
equations for material and structural behavior such as: mix design,
prestress losses, camber, Young's Modulus, maximum internal
temperature, shear testing, bond, tensile strength and quality
assurance and quality control. The results will be presented in a
format suitable for inclusion in the AASHTO Standard Specifications for
Bridge Design, the AASHTO Load and Resistance Factor Bridge Design
Specifications and the AASHTO Materials Specifications. A second study
will determine the adequacy of the equations in the current AASHTO
Bridge specifications for bond between lightweight HPC and
pretensioning strands. A study initiated in fiscal year 1997 is
beginning to show results for the development of an HPC permeability
test for in place concrete structures (those existing structures which
in addition to steel reinforcement have admixtures which make the
concrete HPC).
Again, due to the lack of an authorization bill no new studies for
the advancement of high performance steel (HPS) have been initiated.
However studies will advance the development of a higher strength steel
(grade 100W) and innovative designs to take advantage of the properties
of HPS for cost reduction and durability. Two HPS bridges (of lower
strength) have been constructed in Nebraska and Tennessee. Research
initiated for the development of a lower grade, 70W HPS is drawing to a
conclusion with its off the shelf availability from the steel industry.
The optimized use of HPS has demonstrated technical advantages
including improved fatigue behavior and project cost reduction for use
in the field.
The program in advanced composites will move ahead once the
authorization bill is complete to advance technology for bonding the
material to existing concrete and steel bridges which are in need of
strengthening or repair. Advanced composites afford the opportunity to
extend the useful service life of existing bridges which seem to have
reached premature life expectancy. Use of these space age materials for
rehabilitation will afford additional years of bridge service to owners
who would otherwise have to perform more costly, lengthy repair
projects.
Question. The Committee directed FHWA to work with an academic and
industry-led national consortium and fund with available balances an
advanced composite bridge project to demonstrate the applications of an
all-composite bridge for civil infrastructure purposes. What is the
status of this effort to date?
Answer. FHWA has not as yet initiated the study as requested due to
the lack of an authorization bill. However, a report written by an
academic institution under contract to FHWA who was also a major
contributor in the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency consortia
for advanced composites research has been reviewed and indicates that
an ``all composite'' bridge is not feasible from a technical and
economic point of view. The report points out that composites are
extremely advantageous for use in certain critical elements of bridge
construction. The conclusion indicates that bridging technology can be
significantly improved when advanced composite materials are used or
optimized in conjunction with other more traditional materials to take
advantage of the best structural and material properties of each. FHWA
is pursuing how best to involve academic and industry-led consortia in
the development of this emerging technology.
environment
Question. Please further explain the highway transportation aspects
of your request for funds regarding environmental justice. Exactly how
will those monies be used?
Answer. Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-income
Populations, requires 16 federal agencies, to the greatest extent
practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of
their mission by identifying and addressing disproportionate high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations
and low-income populations. Consistent with the Executive Order, the
Department of Transportation has also issued an Order. Both Orders
reaffirm the principles and interrelationships of Title VI of the 1964
Civil Rights Act and related statutes, the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA), and other Federal environmental laws.
A priority of the FHWA's Environmental Research Program and FHWA's
request for funding regarding environmental justice is to help FHWA,
State DOT's, MPO's and other partners understand how to effectively
assess, prevent, and address potential discriminatory effects and
disproportionately high and adverse environmental and health effects of
transportation decisions on low-income and minority populations. Early
identification of potential effects requires transportation officials
to understand the principles and interrelationships of Title VI, NEPA,
and Environmental Justice and have the skills, tools, and information
to assess project effects. FHWA will use the environmental research
funds to (1) develop tools to identify and assess the impacts of
transportation on low-income and minority populations; (2) develop case
studies of ``success'' stories, best practices, and model community
initiatives which embody the principles of environmental justice; (3)
develop methodologies to assess community impacts and health and risk
burdens on low income and minorities; and (4) conduct national
conference and regional workshops to highlight exemplary projects that
implemented principles of environmental justice, disseminate tools for
identifying and addressing environmental justice, and provide
information on the latest training material.
Question. What are the major challenges that the environmental
research program needs to address during fiscal year 1999, and how is
this emphasis different from the fiscal year 1998 approach?
Answer. Most of the challenges will remain the same as reported in
last year's summary, with the notable addition of those posed by the
Kyoto agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Major Challenges
New Air Quality standards.--Changes to the national ambient air
quality standards for ozone and fine particles were promulgated by the
Environmental Protection Agency in July, 1997. Since highway travel
contributes to both of these air pollutants, significant research will
be needed to reestablish our understanding of the transportation
sector's contributions to achieving the new standards along with
methods of control. Previous attempts to define the linkages between
transportation and air pollution have yielded incomplete answers and
frequently have posed as many new questions as answers. The tighter
standards announced last July are likely to result in more areas
failing to meet these limits and falling under some level of
transportation-emissions control.
FHWA is beginning a mid- to long-term effort to fine-tune many of
the less understood linkages between transportation and pollution. The
agency is pursuing a number of efforts geared toward greater
understanding of the formation of fine particulate matter, mitigation
of this newly controlled pollutant, and strategies for reducing ground-
level ozone. We also anticipate research over the next few years on the
emission characteristics of heavy duty diesel engines for which EPA has
also published control standards. These efforts in addition to many
other research endeavors will seek an improved knowledge base of the
impacts that transportation activities may exert on air quality
planing.
Global Climate Change.--Although still to be ratified by the
Senate, the climate change protocol reached during the Kyoto meetings
may have substantial ramifications for the transportation community.
The significant levels of greenhouse gas reductions anticipated by the
Kyoto agreement may prompt consideration of a wide array of emissions
sources and mitigation strategies. As mentioned above, much research
will be required to uncover greater knowledge of the linkages between
transportation and air pollution. In addition, technological research
into advanced vehicles and fuels will be a necessity as we assess the
role of electric vehicles, fuel cells, various hybrid engine designs,
and other 21st century solutions that apply across the modal spectrum
of transportation.
Water Quality.--Changes to the Clean Water Act in 1987 established
a two-phased approach to addressing stormwater discharges under the
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Phase I is
currently regulating stormwater 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 has issued draft
regulations for Phase II stormwater sources which will be finalized by
March 1999.
The NPDES Phase II program will include, at a minimum, requirements
for Water quality Best Management Practices (BMP's) at construction
sites, BMP's for existing stormwater 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 stormwater runoff. Our understanding of the chemical
constituents in runoff is well documented. However, relatively little
is understood 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.
Watersheds.--The recently released Clean Water Action Plan and
changing requirements in various States indicate a coming 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.
Communities, Neighborhoods, and People.--The 1970 Federal Highway
Act, passed the same time as the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), places a responsibility on FHWA to fully consider adverse
effects of transportation on community cohesion; public facilities;
employment; tax and property values; displacement of people,
businesses, and farms; and community and regional growth. The U.S. DOT
and FHWA Strategic Plans and the FHWA Environmental Policy Statement
highlight the importance of putting people first and fully considering
communities, neighborhoods, and people in transportation decision
making. The President's Report on Sustainable Development underscores
the importance of sustainable transportation projects that contribute
to sustainable communities, and the DOT Livable Communities Program
emphasizes that transportation is about more than concrete, asphalt,
steel, and vehicles. It is also about people's day-to-day lives which
are affected by the location and appearance of transportation
facilities, the design of streets and sidewalks, and the placement of
on-street parking. FHWA initiatives in ``Flexibility in Highway
Design'' further emphasize providing safe and community friendly
transportation projects nationwide.
A priority within the environmental research program is to help
FHWA, State DOT's, Federal agencies, Native American tribes, grassroot
groups and the public understand how to ensure full consideration of
communities, neighborhoods, and people in transportation decision
making. To meet this goal, FHWA will be developing and disseminating
the skills, tools, and information needed to achieve effective
transportation decision making that protect and enhance the human
environment and quality of life through full consideration of
communities, neighborhoods, and people.
Integrated Decisionmaking.--The U.S. Department of Transportation
(DOT) and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) have been working
together to make the transportation decisionmaking and NEPA process
more efficient and more effective. Through joint efforts with the CEQ,
the U.S. DOT has brought together Federal, State, and local officials
and non-governmental representatives across the country to share
innovative ideas and to recommend ways to effectively integrate the
NEPA process in transportation decision making.
As a result of these efforts, National Performance Review
recommendations, and Congressional interest, FHWA is seeking ways to
redesign Federal environmental and transportation decision making to
ensure an integrated process at the Federal, State, tribal, and local
levels that achieves the best overall public interest decisions.
In order to achieve the intentions of the ISTEA, and other
legislation and initiatives, FHWA and its partners must achieve and
practice an environmental ethic that accomplishes transportation goals
in accordance with environmental standards through shared decision
making with other stakeholders in the process. This requires
environmentally conscious leadership within transportation agencies.
Furthermore, as FHWA, States, and other partners seek to meet
transportation needs that involves the potential for impacts to
communities and natural resources, we must use, through shared
decisionmaking, a balanced decisionmaking process that considers
impacts to resources, along with their societal values, and the
transportation needs.
A priority within the environmental research program is to help
FHWA, State DOT's, local entities, Federal agencies, Native American
tribes and the public understand how to effectively integrate
environmental and transportation decision making to achieve decisions
in the best overall public interest. To meet this goal, FHWA will
develop and disseminate the skills, tools, and information to redesign
Federal environmental and transportation decision making, and to ensure
an integrated process at the Federal, State, tribal, and local levels
that achieves the best overall public interest decisions.
Environmental Justice and Non-discrimination.--The President's
Executive Order No. 12898, DOT Order, and FHWA Order on environmental
justice direct that programs, policies, and activities not have a
disproportionately high and adverse health and environmental effect on
minority and low-income communities. These orders are a reaffirmation
of the principles of Title VI and related statutes, the NEPA process,
and other Federal environmental laws.
It has been FHWA's longstanding policy to actively ensure
nondiscrimination in Federally funded activities under Title VI of the
1964 Civil Rights Act. Under Title VI and related statutes, each
Federal agency is required to ensure that no person is excluded from
participation in, denied the benefit of, or subjected to discrimination
under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance on
the basis of race, color, national origin, age, sex, disability, or
religion.
FHWA's commitment to prevent potential discriminatory effects and
disproportionately high and adverse health and environmental effects of
transportation decisions on low-income and minority populations has
placed renewed emphasis on nondiscrimination and environmental justice.
FHWA will ensure environmental justice by administering a
transportation system that does not unfairly affect any one segment of
our society and that equitably distributes benefits as well. To meet
these goals, the FHWA will ensure an unprecedented level of
collaboration and consensus-building with all its partners.
A priority within the environmental research program is to help
FHWA, state DOT's, grassroot groups, Native American tribes, the
public, and other partners understand how to effectively assess,
prevent, and address potential discriminatory effects and
disproportionately high and adverse environmental and health effects of
transportation decisions on low-income and minority populations.
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, FHWA, and FTA was conducted
November 14-16, 1996, in Washington, D.C. The participants generated
approximately 95 detailed problem statements for critical environmental
research needs totaling over $28 million.
Development of FHWA Environmental Research Strategic Plan.--The
Federal Highway Administration, Office of Environment and Planning is
nearing completion of the development of the Strategic Plan for
Environmental Research, 1998-2003. The plan establishes a research
agenda for the Environmental Research Program in eight program areas,
which cover environmental, social, and economic issues.
Development of the strategic plan was initiated nearly two years
ago, and relied on input from several previously held conferences and
recent reports, which identified research needs related to
transportation and the environment. Two particular reports reflected in
the plan's development and content are the Transportation Research
Board (TRB) Circular 469, Environmental Research Needs in
Transportation, and the Research and Technology Coordinating Committee
(RTCC) report, Clean Air and Highway Transportation. Circular 469 is a
compilation of research problem statements generated during the 1996
Environmental Research Needs Conference held at the TRB offices in
Washington, D.C.
A major level of input into the plan was provided through a focus
group meeting with stakeholders and customers, who reviewed plan drafts
and assembled during a one-day meeting, conducted at the TRB Offices.
The Focus Group Meeting, held on November 19, 1997, was attended by
representatives of national public and private organizations, Federal
agencies, local governments, State departments of transportation,
interest groups, and academic institutions. Many of the ideas,
concerns, and feedback received were incorporated into the final
strategic research plan.
Research and Technology Coordinating Committee (RTCC) Report.--The
RTCC of the TRB recommended short and long term air quality research
needs and organizational reform to improve coordination between FHWA
and EPA.
policy
Question. Please further explain the request for $500,000 for
contractor support services.
Answer. The cost represents charges for contract personnel who
provide on-going on-site support to the policy research program. These
individuals are typically deployed to provide specialized technical and
administrative skills necessary for a specific project or program area.
Typical services provided include the analysis of various statistical
submittal by the States and software development, modification, and
application in response to programmatic requirements.
Question. Please specify total expenditures for fiscal year 1997,
fiscal year 1998, and planned for fiscal year 1999 for all activities
related to policy research.
Answer. The following table identifies these expenditures.
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funds by source
--------------------------------------
Cost
Fiscal year All funds allocation
Research 6005 line item
2B
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997........................................................ 7,428 5,328 1,800 300
1998 \1\.................................................... 2,452 2,452 ( \2\ ) ( \3\ )
1999........................................................ 6,362 6,362 ( \4\ ) ( \3\ )
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Because there was no reauthorization, resources were prioritized for salaries over R&D.
\2\ None.
\3\ Not Applicable.
\4\ Unknown.
planning
Question. The conference agreement did not provide any funding for
the sustainable transportation initiative under the planning
subaccount. During fiscal year 1998, have any FHWA contract or LGOE
monies been used for this purpose? If so, please specify the exact
amount and the specific funding source including which specific area
(pavements, structure, etc.)?
Answer. The FHWA has not funded projects specifically targeted
toward the sustainable transportation initiative from contract or LGOE
funds in fiscal year 1998.
Question. Please justify in extensive detail why the funds for
sustainable communities research needs to increase from $0 to $5
million. What is the analytical basis for the request? Exactly why is
$5 million required? How was this determined?
Answer. The FHWA requested $5,000,000 in fiscal year 1999 for its
Sustainable Transportation Initiative. This level of funding will
provide resources for FHWA to begin a balanced range of initiatives in
the development of this new program area. The proposed funding level
will enable FHWA to begin research to address sustain ability issues:
support State and local agencies to test and evaluate innovations that
can begin to be used now; work closely with State and local agencies
and other partners and stakeholders to define the performance measures
and additional research that is needed; and begin to share this
information and best practices as it becomes available. Providing a
balanced framework for the development of this new initiative that
includes research, outreach, grants for case studies, performance
measures, and technical assistance will effectively assist the
transportation community to begin addressing its role in global climate
change and sustain ability.
At least half of these funds would be used for grants by State and
local governments for analytical case studies and pilot projects to
test and evaluate sustain ability initiatives. A portion of the funds
would be used to initiate research on land use, travel behavior, and
the development of analytical tools. The Transportation Research
Board's report, Toward a Sustainable Future and the National Science
and Technology Council's Committee on Transportation Research and
Development have identified transportation research that is needed in
sustain ability. The remaining funds would be used to work with State
and local agencies and other partners and stakeholders to develop
performance measures for sustain ability, identify additional research
needs, share best practices and provide technical assistance.
The basic concept of sustain ability is to use resources today in a
manner that does not preclude options for future generations. Sustain
ability is an emerging issue in a broad range of public policy areas
including sustainable development, communities, agriculture, energy
sources, as well as transportation. Applying the concept of sustain
ability to transportation will require transportation planning and
operational decisions be made to ensure mobility and accessibility meet
today's needs for goods and services in a manner that balances short
and long term economic growth, environmental quality, and social
equity.
Global climate change is an immediate priority in sustain ability
because changes in ocean levels, rainfall patterns, and temperatures
would adversely impact future generations. Industrial production,
buildings, and transportation each account for about one third of
greenhouse gases from human activities in the U.S. Therefore, the
transportation sector will play a significant role in developing
programs and policies to begin to address this. Global climate change
is a primary focus for sustain ability and transportation. However,
other sustain ability issues in transportation are very important and
must be addressed. These include, for example, land development
patterns, travel behavior and demand, habitat and ecosystems, and
community values and needs. Some of the strategies to begin to address
these include advanced technologies for vehicles and fuels, making the
most efficient use of current transportation infrastructure and
systems, and coordinating land use decisions and transportation needs.
Question. Please provide more information on the request for
TRANSIMS totaling $5,000,000 in your budget justification.
Answer. Activities planned for accomplishment in fiscal year 1999
include an activity generation methodology, feedback methods between
various TRANSIMS modules, implementation of procedures to select
activity location, completion of the interface between the traffic
micro-simulation module and the emissions module, completion of
research on the medium and heavy duty vehicle (freight) emissions
module and the inclusion transit, freight, walk and bicycle modes
within the traffic simulator.
These activities will require 23 full time professional staff, 7
graduate students, two post-doctoral students, subcontracts to the
National Institute of Statistical Sciences for activity based research,
subcontracts to groups specializing in graphics capabilities, and
subcontracts for technical support on the development of the emissions
module. The Los Alamos National Laboratory provides for very high speed
computer capabilities, enabling the basic research to proceed at a much
faster pace than would be supported by conventional computers. Travel
costs to Portland, Oregon to continue the case study are included along
with travel to the Transportation Research Board and other forums to
present TRANSIMS results to potential users.
In addition to the above, in fiscal year 1999, we will begin the
early stages of the deployment of TRANSIMS. Current plans call for
soliciting interest from contractors in packaging TRANSIMS in a user
friendly format, requesting interest from MPO's to be early users of
TRANSIMS, and preparation of documentation and training materials for
potential users.
Question. How much money was allocated to TRANSIMS during fiscal
year 1995, fiscal year 1996, fiscal year 1997, and fiscal year 1998 and
how much is planned for fiscal year 1999? Please break out all FHWA
monies, including LGOE and contract monies, spent on this activity.
Answer. The table below shows how funding allocations for TRANSIMS.
FUNDING FOR TRANSIMS, FISCAL YEAR 1995-98
[In thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-------------------------------------------------
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GOE-FHWA:
Planning.................................................. $1,350 $1,500 $2,000 $2,000 $1,800
ITS....................................................... 500 ........ ........ ........ 2,000
6005--FHWA \1\................................................ 1,400 2,000 2,500 2,900 1,100
FTA........................................................... 500 500 ........ ........ 200
EPA........................................................... 250 525 275 100 100
OST........................................................... ........ ........ ........ ........ 300
-------------------------------------------------
TOTAL................................................... 4,000 4,525 4,775 \2\ 5,00 \2\ 5,50
0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Sec. 6005 funds in ISTEA through fiscal year 1997; anticipate continued funding as part of reauthorization.
\2\ FHWA needs $5 million in fiscal year 1998 and $5.5 million in fiscal year 1999 for TRANSIMS from all
sources. Because of the delay in reauthorization, FHWA has diverted available Planning R&D GOE funds (above
$2,000 million shown) to support TRANSIMS. Should reauthorization legislation provide funds directly for
TRANSIMS, FHWA will deobligate the additional GOE funds for TRANSIMS so they may be used for other Planning
R&D priorities as originally planned.
Question. House Report 104-631 addressed the Committee's concern
over the amount of current and planned expenditures for the TRANSIMS
program. What has been done to contain costs and to reduce laboratory
overhead charges?
Answer. As stated in our letter of May 12, 1997, FHWA has continued
its efforts to contain costs on the TRANSIMS project. FHWA has pursued
two types of cost containment measures, direct actions which limit
staff costs and reduce overhead, and actions to limit expenditures by
drawing on existing research and software.
With respect to direct cost containment, the LANL recently lowered
the overhead rates on all projects and TRANSIMS benefitted from this.
The TRANSIMS effort also makes extensive use of post-doctoral research
fellows and graduate students, paid in accordance with University of
California guidelines at a lower rate than regular staff employees. The
LANL overhead covers the use of high speed computing capability to aid
in TRANSIMS research, a capability which would not be available in
other research institutions.
The TRANSIMS effort makes extensive use of outside expertise and
integrates research done by others. Specific uses of outside sources
include cooperating with the National Cooperative Highway Research
Program to obtain data and models on vehicle modal emissions, obtaining
data from the University of West Virginia on medium and heavy duty
vehicle emissions, developing TRANSIMS activity based forecasting
procedures from work begun by the National Institute of Statistical
Sciences and the Metropolitan Portland Council of Governments, and the
use of contractors to advise on specific portions of TRANSIMS. The LANL
have drawn extensively on simulation technologies developed for the
Department of Defense for the TRANSIMS traffic simulator. Without the
availability of these technologies the costs of TRANSIMS would be
prohibitively expensive. TRANSIMS also uses commercial software when
available, thereby reducing the cost of software development.
Without the above measures, costs of TRANSIMS would have been
significantly higher or the quality of the final product would have
been compromised.
Question. Please prepare a table showing the expected sums required
for each of the next five years to bring TRANSIMS to completion,
breaking out both FWHA and other expected cost-shared funds. When will
the FHWA support for TRANSIMS be substantially diminished?
Answer. The table below summarizes the estimate of funds necessary
to complete the development of TRANSIMS by the Los Alamos Laboratories
(with ITS), the packaging of TRANSIMS for deployment, and providing
support to State and local agencies in the deployment of TRANSIMS.
ESTIMATE OF FUNDS REQUIRED TO COMPLETE TRANSIMS, FISCAL YEAR 1998-2002
[In thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-------------------------------------------------
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funds required:
TRANSIMS.................................................. $4,500 $3,000 $500 $500 $500
ITS....................................................... ........ 2,000 2,000 2,000 ........
Deployment................................................ 500 500 3,000 1,500 1,500
Local Agency Support...................................... ........ ........ 3,000 3,000 2,000
Fund Sources:
FHWA...................................................... 4,900 4,800 7,800 5,800 3,300
FTA....................................................... ........ 200 200 200 200
EPA....................................................... 100 500 500 500 500
-------------------------------------------------
Total................................................... 5,000 5,500 8,500 6,500 4,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At this time we estimate that EPA funding of approximately $500,000
per year and FTA funding of approximately $200,000 per year beginning
in fiscal year 1999. The cost of TRANSIMS development will
significantly decline after fiscal year 1999. We do anticipate that
ongoing improvements to TRANSIMS will continue, but at a lower level of
funding than TRANSIMS development. The cost of packaging, deployment
and early financial support will peak in fiscal year 2000 and fiscal
year 2001, then decline. FHWA will provide ongoing technical support
for TRANSIMS, just as the agency provides support for current travel
forecasting procedures.
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. The table below shows all contributions of non-DOT funds
for fiscal years 1995-1998.
FUNDING FOR TRANSIMS FROM NON-DOT FUNDS, FISCAL YEAR 1995-98
[In thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------------
1995 1996 1997 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA............................. $500 $500 $275 $100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA has a major interest in the development of TRANSIMS. FHWA
has continually sought funds from the EPA and have received commitments
to support TRANSIMS development. A multi-agency group manages TRANSIMS
and EPA participates in this group. EPA funding in fiscal year 1998 is
lower than in previous years due to one-time EPA administrative
expenses. EPA has indicated willingness to provide funding in future
years. EPA not only provides financial support to TRANSIMS but also
actively cooperates with DOT in establishing methods to implement
TRANSIMS within the guidelines of the Clean Air Act Amendments.
Question. If funds are going to be provided for TRANSIMS under the
reauthorization bill, why are LGOE monies also needed?
Answer. FHWA is in a transition from relying primarily LGOE funds
for TRANSIMS to relying primarily on funds available through
authorizing legislation. There will continue to be uncertainty about
available funding until reauthorization is complete. Additional LGOE
funds are critical to ensure the completion and deployment of TRANSIMS
including technical assistance to local areas for the implementation of
TRANSIMS.
Question. Have you received any requests from States that would
like to participate in sustainable transportation research or
demonstration projects? What are the proposed state projects?
Answer. The FHWA has not yet requested proposals or made funds
available specifically for sustainability projects. However, interest
in sustainability is growing and State and local agencies are
interested in information and analytical tools. Several national
transportation conferences in the last year have specifically focused
on the issues of sustainability in transportation. In addition, the
Transportation Research Board's recent report, Toward a Sustainable
Future, was a topic of panel and committee discussions at its annual
conference.
States, metropolitan, and local areas are working on various
aspects of land use and transportation planning that can become a part
of the broader sustain ability agenda. For example, a number of States
are working to learn to manage growth to make most efficient use of
existing infrastructure and services. In addition, metropolitan areas
are looking for ways to develop growth plans that make the most
efficient use of land development and transportation infrastructure. In
some large regional areas, multiple jurisdiction are working together
to investigate ways to balance growing demands for development while
maintaining the quality of life, mobility and accessibility, and
protecting the environmentally sensitive areas from development
pressure. Local towns are working to balance plans for continuing
economic development with quality of life and the environment. Each of
these efforts opens additional broader questions from the sustain
ability perspective. Applying the criteria of sustain ability will
expand the decisions, analysis and tools to include meeting both short
and long term needs plus actively working to balance and maximize
economic growth, environmental quality, and social equity. FHWA's
sustain ability initiative will support the State and local agencies in
beginning to address these issues through case study evaluations,
conducting research on land use and travel behavior, developing
analytical tools and processes that can be used by all, and sharing
best practices.
motor carrier
Question. Last year, the conferees included sufficient funds to
conduct a study on the prevalence of sleep apnea in truck drivers. What
did you do to respond to that initiative? What specific contracts have
you or will you sign to implement that directive? Please specify the
fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998 funding amounts allocated in that
area.
Answer. Sleep apnea may be an important cause of driving impairment
and potentially, truck accidents among CMV drivers. While it is
estimated that between 5-10 percent of CMV drivers, in particular those
aged 40 or over and/or overweight, may suffer from sleep apnea, the
prevalence of sleep apnea in commercial drivers is not known and,
moreover, the level of sleep apnea at which a driver's ability to
operate safely is impaired is also unknown. The objectives of FHWA-
sponsored research in this area are to get a handle on prevalence and
how apnea affects driving.
Currently, the FHWA has completed overnight studies of 250 drivers
at high risk for sleep apnea. A draft final report on prevalence and
performance of this sample of drivers is in progress and the final
report should be completed by Spring, 1998.
Fiscal year 1997--No additional funding allocated.
Fiscal year 1998--No additional funding allocated.
Future Research.--Based on Congressional direction to study sleep
apnea and peer review (11/97) recommendations to conduct follow-on
research of truck drivers at low-risk for sleep apnea, the FHWA will
request a technical proposal from ATA/TRI. A study of low risk drivers
would generate an overall prevalence estimate in this population of
truck drivers. It would identify and evaluate remedial measures
including screening and detection technologies. The request for a
technical proposal will be initiated upon acceptance of the final
report on truck drivers at high risk for sleep apnea.
Fiscal year 1997--No additional funding allocated.
Fiscal year 1998--$500,000 allocated; $200,000 has been obligated;
remaining $300,000 to be obligated upon availability of all fiscal year
1998 appropriation for OMC Research and Technology.
Question. The conferees included sufficient funds for an
operational test and validation of technological aids to improve
fatigue management. What did you do to respond to that initiative? What
specific contracts have you or will you sign to implement that
directive? Please specify the fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998
funding amounts of each.
Answer. A number of projects undertaken during recent years have
helped to set the stage for an operational tests of technological aids
(such as the actigraph) to improve fatigue management. Below are listed
several relevant projects (and fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998
funding, if applicable):
--Driver Work/Rest Cycles/U.S. Army Actigraph Study (in final year of
cooperative project involving FAA, FRA, and the U.S. Army);
--Cost-Benefit Study of Electronic On-Board Recorders (completed);
--Conference on Driver Vigilance Monitoring ($40,000 in fiscal year
1997 Activity 13 R&T funds); and
--Ocular (Eye) Dynamics as Early Indicators of Driver Fatigue
($133,000 in fiscal year 1997 and $133,000 in fiscal year 1998
Activity 13 R&T funds).
Projects under consideration for initiation during fiscal year 1998
include phase 1 (assessment and planning) of the main operational test
of technological aids to fatigue management and an adjunct study of in-
vehicle technology and commercial motor vehicle driver performance
management which would emphasize fatigue management. The fiscal year
1998 starts are contingent on fund availability; to date, the OMC has
received authority to obligate less than half of its authorized $7.4
million in fiscal year 1998 R&T funds. We have had to apply available
funds to sustaining ongoing research, limiting our ability to proceed
with new starts in this technology-related area.
In addition to the above, the ITS program, through the OMC ITS/CVO
division and the NHTSA Office of Crash Avoidance Research, has been
conducting a major on-road validation of technologies for continuous
in-vehicle driver alertness monitoring. ITS funding of $195,000 in
fiscal year 1997 and $582,000 in fiscal year 1998 has been provided to
this on-road study. An adjunct laboratory study to validate eye and
other psychophysiological monitors and to develop a safety-effective
driver-vehicle interface received approximately $356,000 in fiscal year
1997 ITS funds and has pending $201,000 in fiscal year 1998 ITS funds.
Question. Exactly what would be done with the $500,000 requested
under regulatory reform? Won't the private sector conduct similar
activities?
Answer. This money would be used to continue the Zero Base
Regulatory Review Project. This Project is currently in the third of
four phases and will result in a clearer, better organized version of
the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. The regulations are
Federal rules regulating the safety and other aspects of the motor
carrier industry. They can only be amended by the Executive Branch
acting through the designated agency, the Federal Highway
Administration.
Question. What new rules would be issued? Will those really be
``new'' or will they be reorganized rules with unnecessary and obsolete
portions removed?
Answer. The new rules to be issued will be the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Regulations in their entirety. They will be totally new
in organization and format, with a few changes in the substantive
rules, particularly where performance-based alternatives have been
created. At the same time, the FHWA is conducting two other efforts:
(1) the removal of obsolete and redundant regulations, and (2) several
major rulemakings which draw upon the agency's latest research. All
three efforts are expected to take place concurrently, and thus the
final product will encompass the FHWA's most up-to-date effort in a
performance-based approach to regulation.
Question. The media have reported that TRI and FHWA will provide
500 commercial drivers with free, one-year membership to fitness
centers. How much is FHWA contributing to this study? Why is the
project of critical importance?
Answer. The FHWA-TRI Truck Stop Fitness Facility Utilization Study
(TSFFUS) is one of about 20 projects in the Congressionally-directed
Cooperative Agreement between the American Trucking Associations
Foundation's Trucking Research Institute and the OMC. Consistent with
the language in Conference report 104-286 to accompany H.R. 2002, the
Department of Transportation's Appropriation Bill (Public Law 104-50),
the purpose of the Cooperative Agreement is to address a number of
motor carrier safety issues, such as: driver fatigue and alertness; the
implementation and dissemination of emerging safety-related
technologies; productively and regulatory compliance; and commercial
driver training, licensing and education.
The TRI and OMC have agreed to allocate $257,000 of the $5 million
Cooperative Agreement (which includes $1 million for the National
Private Truck Council) for the TSFFUS. The planned 500 participants in
the study will receive a one-year free membership to the truck stop
fitness facilities involved in the study. An organization called The
Rolling Strong Company is providing the truck stop gyms. The
memberships were obtained at a cost of $100 each (as opposed to the
nearly $400 regular annual membership fee). As a condition of receiving
this membership, drivers will be required to respond to a series of
questionnaires to assess a number of areas, including: how frequently
participants use the truck stop gyms; when do the drivers work out; do
they feel better; are they making any other positive lifestyle changes;
and are they getting other drivers to start an exercise program. Note
that Rolling Strong Company is a private company. The TRI and the OMC
did not fund the design or construction of the gyms; we are only
evaluating the concept of truck-stop fitness.
The Truck Stop Fitness Utilization Study is a innovative, holistic
approach for improving highway safety. Truck driving, particularly long
haul truck driving, is largely sedentary in nature with few
opportunities to exercise. About 50 percent of all adult Americans are
overweight and data suggest that an even larger percentage of truck
drivers are overweight. Regular aerobic exercise not only helps get and
keep one in shape, but according to the American Heart Association, it
also combats fatigue, reduces stress, improves alertness and enhances
sleep quality. As a result, truck drivers will be better rested and
more alert for another day of driving. A healthier and fit driver will,
over the long run, tend to be a better and safer driver.
Question. Given the numerous other priorities for research funds,
how did you determine that a wellness study was a high priority
research activity?
Answer. Altogether, the FHWA has underway more than 20 research,
regulatory and outreach projects relating to truck-driver fatigue and
alertness. Our main thrusts are regulatory hours-of-service changes,
research on specific operational issues (e.g., sleeper berth), and
research and development relating to in-vehicle alertness and
performance. The Truck Stop Fitness Utilization Study is one of several
adjunct driver wellness/lifestyle initiatives, not a central
countermeasure or ``solution'' to driver fatigue. The project is not
``high priority'' in relation to other FHWA projects more directly
related to specific fatigue countermeasures or hours-of-service issues.
However, the issue of CMV driver physical-fitness level does have
safety relevance and warrants this one-time government program to
stimulate the provision of better opportunities for exercise for CMV
drivers. A relatively small investment by government/industry to
evaluate this concept could result in long-term payoffs by improving
CMV driver health and, therefore, alertness and safety.
Question. Do you envision that the States would do the crash
causation research requested under information analysis? How much is
planned for this activity?
Answer. OMC is currently developing a commercial vehicle crash
causation coding scheme with the University of Michigan Transportation
Research Institute. OMC has plans to encourage States to adopt this
coding scheme when they investigate truck and bus crashes. Ultimately,
OMC plans to build a national database of truck and bus crash causes
with data supplied by volunteer States. While OMC intends to use State-
collected data for this research, there are no plans at this time to
ask States to conduct research. Costs for building a crash causation
database are dependent on the success of working with our State
partners. If these efforts are successful and timely, the costs may be
under $500,000 for building this National database. However, if OMC's
data needs are not met through these cooperative efforts, a separate
intensive crash causation research project will be considered, and, if
funds are available, implemented.
Question. As part of your jurisdiction for $1.9 million under the
technology category of motor carrier research, FHWA uses the rationale
used to justify the proposed National Technology Deployment program.
Motor carrier activities would be eligible expense under this proposed
contract program. Why then, are additional GOE funds for similar
purposes also requested under motor carrier research?
Answer. The Office of Motor Carriers (OMC) has conducted its
technology research activities under the assumption that innovative
safety technologies, however originated, may require OMC research
program support under LGOE. This would occur in the event that
implementation funding is not forthcoming from the originating
organization (e.g., ITS/CVO or NHTSA), and the OMC concludes that the
technology warrants OMC research and technology support through an
investment in information dissemination, education and training, or
demonstration piloting.
In fiscal year 1998, the OMC supports the implementation of the
proposed NTDI program, because it may permit us to broaden our
technology training and dissemination efforts. However, we cannot
assume that the program will be implemented by the Congress this year.
Also, the final criteria for receipt of funding under the NTDI have not
been provided to us, so we cannot be assured that all needed
technological research would be so fundable. For this reason, we must
continue to plan for an allocation of LGOE resources to support
priority technology projects.
Question. Please break out the specific funding request for each
project under the category ``technology.''
Answer. For fiscal year 1999, the OMC now estimates that the
following technology projects will require R&T funds as indicated:
Deployment of Fatigue-Related Technologies.................... $150,000
Evaluation of Hazardous Materials Transportation.............. 250,000
Innovative Hazardous Materials Enforcement Strategies......... 150,000
Marketing of SAFER/Carrier Register........................... 200,000
Automated Safety Assistance Program (ASAP).................... 200,000
New Brake Inspection Technologies............................. 200,000
Cargo Tank Safety............................................. 250,000
Iowa Simulator Support........................................ 500,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
TOTAL................................................... 1,900,000
Question. Please prepare a table estimating the amount of funds
spent on fatigue-related research for each of the last five years.
Answer. The following chart describes estimated spending between
fiscal year 1993 and fiscal year 1997 on research relating to
commercial driver fatigue and alertness:
Fatigue related research
Fiscal year:
1993......................................................$2,283,992
1994...................................................... 728,072
1995...................................................... 1,684,419
1996...................................................... 2,551,910
1997...................................................... 1,677,982
Question. OMC recently conducted a study to determine the general
random condition of trucks and drivers. What were the results of this
study and how much did it cost? How much are you requesting in fiscal
year 1999 to update this effort? Why can't that project be conducted
every two years?
Answer. In the summer of 1996, OMC conducted the National Fleet
Safety Survey (NFSS) to determine the true out-of-service rate for
large trucks and their drivers. Based on over 10,000 random Level 1
inspections, the national vehicle and driver out-of-service rates were
found to be 29 percent and 5 percent, respectively. These rates were
slightly lower than similar rates obtained from fiscal year 1996 MCSAP
``nonrandom'' inspections and the differences were found to be
statistically significant.
Since the inspections for the NFSS were conducted by State MCSAP
inspectors, the data collection costs were minimal, approximately
$6,000. Data processing costs were approximately $5,000. The sample
design and statistical analysis costs were approximately $70,000.
OMC plans to conduct the NFSS every two years. The next NFSS is
scheduled for the summer of 1998.
Question. During the few years, FHWA completed several studies on
the medical requirements for drivers. Which studies have been
completed? Were these studies ever published?
Answer. The information provided in the following chart includes
study reports on medical requirements for drivers, initiated/completed
by FHWA in the past 3 years:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Published/
Title Completed Released NTIS PB No. Status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Role of driver hearing in August 1997.... Yes......... 98-114606.... Completed August 1997.
commercial motor vehicle
operations: An evaluation of
the FHWA hearing requirement.
Research on Sleep Apnea and ............... ............ ............. Task A report on high-risk drivers
commercial Drivers--TASK A. to be completed spring 1998.
Medical Panels--Visual ............... ............ ............. Final report, Medically-Based
disorders and commercial Recommendations for Amending the
drivers. Vision Requirements, to be
completed July 1998.
Insulin-treated diabetes and ............... ............ ............. Research ongoing; final report due
job performance. December 1998.
Review of State medical June 1997...... Yes......... 97-19393..... Final report submitted to FHWA in
infrastructures--update of June 1997; this is a resource
medical review practices and document for FHWA rulemaking and
procedures in U.S. and research activities.
Canadian CDL programs.
Commercial Truck and Bus ............... ............ ............. Final report to be completed May
Driver wellness program. 1999.
Qualifications of Drivers-- January 1998... ............ ............. Final descriptive report to be
Vision, Diabetes, Hearing and published (NTIS) Spring 1998.
Epilepsy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
highway operations
Question. What is the empirical basis used to determine the $2
million requested for highway operations? Won't the NTDI, if
authorized, provide sufficient funds for work on highway operations?
Answer. The $2 million requested for fiscal year 1999 will be
focused on closing a gap in the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
by initiating a highway operations research program that will
complement the National Technology and Deployment Initiative (NTDI).
Basically, where the NTDI will be used to test, evaluate and deploy,
the FHWA is seeking funding to establish a research program to provide
a complete highway operations program within the research and
technology structure.
Highway operations is an important and developing program segment
within the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). This program
addresses actions that do not appropriately fit into other areas such
as pavements, structures, safety and intelligent transportation
systems--all of whom have both a research and a technology deployment
program. Highway operations responds to the actual movement of people
and goods on our Nation's streets and highways whereas other areas tend
to be more infrastructure related.
The Highway Operations program is in direct response to customers'
(highway users) concerns voiced in the recent National Quality
Initiative Survey. Responding to the survey, the FHWA's primary focus
in Highway Operations, in concert with its Strategic Plan, will be to
improve mobility, safety and productivity by reducing motorist delay in
(1) construction and maintenance work zones and (2) on existing roadway
facilities. The FHWA will be implementing a program which includes
major areas of high performance construction and maintenance methods,
high performance materials and innovative management and specification
strategies. This program will result in:
--Reduced exposure and risk to the traveling public and the highway
worker due to construction and maintenance and operations thus
improving overall safety and congestion.
--Improved work methods, practices and procedures for highway
construction and maintenance operations.
--Accelerated implementation of promising technology and best
practices to improve the overall performance of the highway
product through increased mobility.
The fiscal year 1999 funding provides for accelerated field
implementation of emerging technologies coming from FHWA's traditional
Research, Development, and Technology program areas and include:
innovative contracting, technician certification, adoption of
performance-related specifications, performance and serviceability
measurement tools, and improved maintenance practices.
The concept for the Highway Operations proposed initiatives have
been closely coordinated with other FHWA R&T deliverables including
products and activities planned by other research and technology groups
to avoid duplication and ensure they are complementary. The Highway
Operations fiscal year 1999 GOE request supports a planned program
which will bridge the traditional gap between technology development
and roadway performance.
There is a planned goal in the proposed NTDI that is highway
operations related, Reduced Delay and Improved Safety in Construction
and Maintenance Work Areas. The distinction between the requested GOE
funds for highway operations (and the related program) and the planned
NTDI goal is in the focus of the respective programs. The $2 million
requested for highway operations will be focused on research activities
as described above. The NTDI is focused on deploying technologies.
Through NTDI we project that new technologies, construction methods,
and contracting practices can be applied to reduce the time required to
complete construction and maintenance projects. Products such as model
contract specifications to provide incentives for expedited delivery;
improved safety hardware and practices to protect workers and prevent
accidents; innovative detour systems; and enhanced communication with
the traveling public to improve their driving and behavior through
construction zones all can be deployed more aggressively to minimize
the disruption of commercial and personal travel. In addition to
improving work zone management, the use of new pavement materials with
long service life will decrease the needed frequency of the work, thus
greatly reducing overall impact on travelers and adjacent businesses.
intelligent transportation systems (its)
Question. The conferees stated that if the funds for specified ITS
projects are reduced due to the levels specified in the reauthorization
or the temporary extension of the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act (ISTEA), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is
directed to fund the 41 ITS projects at the levels specified from
deployment or R&D funds made available in the temporary extension and
the reauthorization of the ISTEA. How do you intend to comply with this
directive?
Answer. Due to the uncertainty of when a multi-year reauthorization
would be enacted, no GOE funding was made available to the ITS program
during the extension period. The only source of ITS funds during this
period was the $47 million of contract authority included in the
Extension. This represents less than one-quarter of annual ITS funding
in recent years. The ITS JPO made the decision to delay the initiation
of all new starts, using the available resources to fund critical
ongoing efforts. This prevented the shutdown of existing contracts,
avoiding layoffs, dispersal of staff and the additional expenses that
would be incurred in stopping and restarting efforts. The Department
intends to fully fund the 41 specified ITS projects when full GOE
funding is made available. If GOE funding is not available to fund
these projects, we would use ITS deployment funds made available as
part of the reauthorization.
Question. How can you assure the Committee that each of the ITS
projects specified in the conference report will either be fully funded
or that funds will be set aside by the end of fiscal year 1998?
Answer. Once we have full GOE funding or reauthorization we will
fund all of the ITS earmarks. We will not fund the earmarks in a
piecemeal manner, nor will we choose one of the earmarks over another.
If we receive less than full GOE funding without reauthorization, we
intend to prorate the funds across all earmarks. If the GOE funding is
at such a reduced level that prorating the funds would be unworkable,
we will return to Congress for additional guidance.
Question. Please delineate how much you plan to spend on ITS
awareness under the interim funding act. Please break down each of the
contracts funded in that area. Be certain to explain why each
publication cost was incurred and why those documents simply could not
be made available on the Internet to download as necessary.
Answer. Under the interim funding act, the U.S. DOT plans to spend
$1.1 million on awareness activities. The following is the breakdown of
expenditures under that category:
Architecture Consistency--$300,000
Consistency with the national ITS architecture is essential for
promoting interoperability among ITS networks regionally and
nationally. It is among the highest priority activities of the national
ITS Program. The DOT has been conducting outreach on its proposed
policy for architecture consistency and will be developing documents
that further inform the transportation community about the importance
of architecture consistency. This item provides funding for these
activities.
Distribute NTCIP Standards to Field--$40,000
ITS standards, along with the national ITS architecture is
essential for promoting interoperability among ITS networks regionally
and nationally. This item provides funding for distribution of
technical materials related to the National Transportation
Communication for Intelligent Transportation Systems Protocol, the
first set of ITS standards, to transportation professionals.
Scanning Reviews--$300,000
Scanning reviews enable transportation practitioners to see and
understand first hand how technologies that are being developed and
implemented in other areas can be applied to their own regions to
improve transportation services.
NGA Initiative--$100,000
The Department is working with the National Governors' Association,
to educate and inform American governors of the benefits and
availability of Intelligent Transportation Systems technologies. This
item covers workshops as well as production and dissemination of
printed materials and other projects.
Shipping and Handling Exhibits--$36,000
The Joint Program Office provides shipping and handling funds for
all U.S. DOT Intelligent Transportation Systems-related exhibits
throughout the country and internationally.
ITS America Annual Meeting Exhibit--$44,000
Each year the Department of Transportation exhibits at the ITS
America Annual Meeting Exhibit, the largest national trade show of ITS
products. The DOT exhibit represents the current ITS program
information, policy and technical guidance. Because of the dynamic
nature of the program requires continuous updating and renewal.
ITS Cooperative Development Network Website--$275,000
The ITS Cooperative Deployment Network is an Internet resource,
under development, that will tie together the Websites from the JPO,
ITS America, ITE and other leading national trade associations into a
single network that can provide access to and dissemination of all
current ITS research and information.
To date, the ITS Joint Program Office has not provided the majority
of its publications via the Internet because its electronic document
library is currently under development. A partial collection,
consisting of the most recent ITS publications, is expected to be
available through the electronic library in the summer of 1998. The
full collection of ITS documents will be available as of March, 1999.
Cost savings in dissemination of ITS publications are expected when
the electronic library is fully operational. Nevertheless, there will
continue to be the need for hard-copy production to promote new
products and to provide information to government and other private
entities lacking Internet access.
Question. Is FHWA still allocating funds for scanning tours and
scholarships to ensure that State and local government leaders as well
as traffic engineers and operators have a chance to visit exemplary ITS
sites as well as to attend major ITS meetings and seminars? How much
was allocated for those types of activities during fiscal year 1996,
fiscal year 1997, and planned for fiscal year 1998?
Answer. FHWA is allocating funds to the FHWA and FTA field offices
to sponsor Scanning Reviews for State and local highway, transit, and
planning elected and management officials to visit operational
transportation management and traveler information centers and
activities around the country. Furthermore, FHWA is contracting with
the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) to sponsor Scanning
Reviews for State and local highway, transit, and planning technical
staff to visit operational transportation management and traveler
information centers and activities around the country.
ALLOCATION DURING FISCAL YEAR 1996, 1997 AND PLANNED FOR FISCAL YEAR
1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ITE
FHWA Contract
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996......................................... $360,000 $116,000
1997.......................................... 360,000 99,000
1998.......................................... \1\ 400,000 \1\ 80,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Planned.
Question. Please justify those expenses, explain their importance,
and specify proposed funding levels for comparable activities in fiscal
year 1999.
Answer. Nearly $500 million has been spent on operational tests as
part of the ITS Program. The scanning tours and scholarships maximizes
this investment by allowing State and local government leaders, traffic
engineers, and operators the opportunity to visit and learn from these
ITS deployments. It represents an investment in the education and
experience of transportation practitioners in ITS that enables them to
see first hand how technologies are being developed and implemented in
other parts of the United States. State and local highway, transit, and
planning elected and management officials visit operational
transportation management and traveler information centers and
activities around the country and interact with their peers. It also
afford them the opportunity for networking and learning about state of
the art and state of the practice in ITS technology. The scanning tours
have resulted the incorporation of ITS into transportation projects
nationwide.
Based on reports we have received from Scanning Review
participants, the FHWA and FTA sponsored Scanning Review Program is
very successful. Here are some testimonials on their success:
Anne Watkins, Transit Department, City of Albuquerque, NM, ``I now
have a much better understanding of the opportunities which ITS
implementation offers to both transportation systems providers and
travelers in New Mexico. I also gained a much broader understanding of
the scope of planning that needs to be done for a system to be fully
effective.''
Captain George K. Coffman, Special Services, Arkansas Highway
Police, ``the networking among the attending representatives is
extremely valuable * * * I was very interested in commercial vehicle
operation and safety. I now better understand the reasoning why the
proponents of the intelligent transportation system concept feel there
is a great need for implementation of ITS.''
Daniel W. Howard, Civil Engineer with the New York State Department
of Transportation stated, ``I networked with other ITS professionals
and brought back to my agency ideas, information, and experiences that
will aid the Department as we start up our new center.''
Joseph Kott, the Transportation Planning Manager for a regional
planning agency in Portland, Maine found the Scanning Review was
helpful to him in his work as project manager of his region's ITS Early
Deployment Planning project. He said, ``I learned about the
opportunities and obstacles in ITS transit, traveler information, and
traffic management deployments. This was a wonderful opportunity for
both ``look and see'' as well as dialog with my peers.''
Thomas Merritt, the Director of the Department of Public Service
for Columbus, Ohio found the systems that are in place in San Antonio
and Houston provided him with first-hand knowledge of these intelligent
transportation infrastructure applications and permitted him to discuss
implementation issues with local agencies. He also stated, ``I believe
a great benefit was derived from the informal communications that
occurred in the Scanning Review.''
PROPOSED FUNDING LEVELS FOR COMPARABLE ACTIVITIES IN FISCAL YEAR 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ITE
FHWA Contract
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999.......................................... \1\ $300,00 \1\ $80,000
0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Planned.
Question. Why is it critical at this time to increase funding for
evaluations? What is the empirical basis for the requested increase?
Answer. As the ITS Program transitions to deployment, robust
evaluation funding is essential to ensure thorough evaluation of the
costs and benefits of providing ITS user services and to measure
overall program impacts in the context of stated goals and objectives.
For the first time, all centrally managed field evaluations of
operational tests and model deployments are funded by the same line
item. The increases in evaluation funding reflect implementation of the
policy to conduct independent evaluations of all operational tests and
model deployments in addition to increasing program assessment
requirements. The principal emerging assessment requirements include
the following: Tracking project activity funded by deployment
incentives to assess outcome measures; Synthesis and analysis of data
collected in deployment incentive projects and operational tests into
meaningful GPRA assessment measures; Development of policy analyses and
Congressional reporting; and Anticipated policy assessment endeavors
resulting from linking federal funding for projects to architecture
consistency and adherence to standards.
Evaluation/Assessment Program emphasis will be on completing the
metropolitan and CVISN model deployment evaluations, cross-cutting
analyses of results from on-going operational tests and new evaluations
of rural, highway-rail and intelligent vehicles. Specific evaluation
funding requests include: Metropolitan Model Deployment--$800,000;
CVISN Model Deployment--$490,000; Field Operational Tests Cross-Cutting
Analyses--$900,000; Rural Field Operational Tests--$2,290,000;
Intelligent Vehicle Operational Tests--$2,250,000; Intermodal Freight
Evaluation--$150,000; APTS Field Operational Tests--$300,000; and
Highway-Rail Field Operational Tests--$375,000.
In the Program/Policy Assessment area, areas of emphasis include:
ITS Deployment Tracking--$895,000; Project Tracking--$250,000; and
Policy Assessment--$3,700,000.
Question. As part of the ITS program, FHWA annually spends millions
of dollars on outreach, public information, mainstreaming, and
training. Please present documentation which substantiates that those
expenses are still critical in light of the benefits already
established for the ITS program.
Answer. The focus of FHWA efforts in this area are to ensure that
ITS technologies and services are being implemented in an integrated
and interoperable manner, by providing: (1) technical assistance on the
planning, procurement, and implementation of integrated ITS
technologies; (2) guidance on the use of the National ITS architecture,
the implementation of ITS standards, and the identification of ``best
practices;'' and (3) the training necessary to building a skill base at
the Federal, State and local levels. The importance of these efforts
has been documented in several recent reports. A February 1997 GAO
report, ``Challenges to Widespread Deployment of Intelligent
Transportation Systems '' cited the ``lack of technical expertise and
knowledge about ITS among those who will actually deploy the systems''
as a significant obstacle to the widespread deployment of integrated
ITS. Similarly, a December 1997, Volpe Center report ``ITS Training and
Education Needs Assessment Baseline'' provided a documented summary of
13 studies of ITS training and education needs and field interviews in
10 States. This report pointed to the need for increased ITS training
and education efforts to support effective ITS deployment.
Question. Please provide a table indicating the funding spent on
each of those activities for each of the last three years. How much is
planned for fiscal year 1999 for each of these areas?
Answer. The following table depicts funding for ITS mainstreaming
activities for fiscal years 1996 through 1999.
INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS MAINSTREAMING ACTIVITIES--FISCAL YEAR
1996-1999
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year \1\--
-------------------------------------------
Activity/project 1996 1997 1998 1999
actual actual estimate estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mainstreaming:
Commercial vehicle 2,885 1,199 ( \2\ ) ( \2\ )
operations(CVO)........
Advanced public transp. ......... 450 ( \2\ ) ( \2\ )
systems (APTS).........
Training (Professional 2,736 5,074 10,000 9,000
Capacity Building) \3\.
Planning/process 3,919 1,000 4,000 4,000
guidance...............
Deployment technical 5,733 4,587 5,000 6,500
assistance.............
Awareness and advocacy.. ......... ......... 3,000 2,000
-------------------------------------------
Grand total........... 15,273 12,310 22,000 21,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 amounts are those included in
the Congressional Budgets for those years; they assume full funding,
i.e., that we will eventually receive all funds requested for those
fiscal years; final spending plans for fiscal years 1998 and 1999 will
not be completely formulated until after final Congressional action is
taken on appropriation acts and substantive legislation for those
years.
\2\ No separate funding; merged into program categories below.
\3\ Fiscal year 1997 amount includes $2,002,000 of training funding
charged to Operational Tests per Congressional direction.
Question. What ITS monies are being used to further the
productivity of the intermodal freight industry?
Answer. No ITS monies are being used to further the productivity of
the intermodal freight industry alone. U.S. DOT plans to identify
critical intermodal freight movement problems and bottlenecks and apply
ITS technology solutions to those problem areas in partnership with the
freight industry. The critical federal role is developing congestion
mitigation strategies that can be applied throughout the nation on
major transportation corridors, and developing strategies that will
facilitate the safe movement of the traveling public along those
corridors.
The intermodal freight industry has indicated an interest in
coordinating development efforts with DOT on electronic data
interchange and on technology standardization, and on resolving access
issues to the ports. Major evidence for this interest in DOT's
assistance is the workshop that was held in Baltimore in November 1995.
Also, the establishment of a national freight partnership to assist in
the development of DOT initiatives and to stimulate feedback from the
rest of the freight industry has been a critical step in the process.
This partnership has provided valuable input to the Trade Corridor and
Border Gateway Pilot Planning initiative in the proposed
reauthorization of ISTEA. Further evidence is the interest given in the
development of a workshop planned for June, 1998 to address some of the
issues related to intermodal freight identification, and to help
identify the role that DOT and DOD may need to play in coordinating an
intermodal freight transportation architecture.
Question. Why is that investment considered a critical funding need
that could not be delayed given the limitation of the interim
authorization?
Answer. Rapid growth of congestion in urban areas, including major
ports of entry, is a nationwide problem that reduces transportation
efficiency and market competitiveness. Loss of transportation system
reliability due to congestion hampers the ability of American business
and industry to take advantage of manufacturing and distribution
logistics that rely on just-in-time performance. The private sector
freight transportation industry has been applying information
management and communication technologies to integrate freight
transportation and provide shippers and receivers with a seamless
freight transportation system. Working with the private sector, the
public sector can enhance economic performance and ensure national
security by reducing delay at ports of entry, intermodal terminals, and
on the national highway system.
Minimal ITS funds, $150,000, have been allocated from the fiscal
year 1998 funds available from the ISTEA Extension, to ensure that
proper strategic and program planning was conducted prior to initiation
of the intermodal test deployments proposed for fiscal year 1999. A
team has been established in USDOT, consisting of representatives of
all modes to address issues that will help seek intermodal solutions.
The urgency of the activity was related to preparing an effective
agenda for fiscal year 1999 requested funds. The intention of the
fiscal year 1999 efforts are to take advantage of ITS lessons learned
and leverage appropriate existing ITS projects to examine solutions to
congestion related to intermodal movements in corridors of significance
to international trade and national defense.
For example, the State of Washington and the Province of British
Columbia are cooperating on a project to streamline the movement of
freight across the Blaine border crossing. In addition, they also plan
to test the viability of using dedicated short range communication
devices to facilitate the movement of freight from the Port of Seattle
through the border crossing. The DOT is working with the two
jurisdictions on the test, and is currently sponsoring the development
of standards for DSRC. As such, it is critical for DOT to work with the
freight industry, the DSRC manufacturing industry and other users to
work toward harmonizing standards and eliminating interference.
Question. How much are you now spending on this objective? How much
is proposed in fiscal year 1998? (Assume full authorization of fiscal
year 1998 appropriated funds.) In fiscal year 1999?
Answer. In fiscal year 1996 the DOT allocated $250,000 to a study
conducted by the Volpe Center titled, ``Intelligent Transportation
Systems and Intermodal Freight Transportation.'' This study provided a
foundation for additional work to conduct proper and strategic program
planning prior to initiation of the intermodal test planned for fiscal
year 1999. The program planning work is estimated to cost approximately
$300,000. Under the ISTEA Extension, $150,000 has been allocated to the
fiscal year 1998 effort. The fiscal year 1999 funding of $1 million is
requested to be applied to the deployment of two ITS intermodal test
projects. The projects will be in corridors of significance to
international trade and the national defense. DOT also plans for the
tests to cross at least two state lines, involve at least one
international port of entry, and involve one or more MPO's.
Question. Please present for the record a breakdown of how you have
allocated the ITS interim funds.
Answer. The following table shows how the $47 million of interim
ITS funds for fiscal year 1998 have been allocated.
INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS--FISCAL YEAR 1998 SPENDING PLAN
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1998 budget
Programs --------------------------------------
GOE Cont. auth. Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT:
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT & CONTROL. ........... 2,650 2,650
INTELLIGENT VEHICLE RESEARCH. ........... 7,750 7,750
ENABLING..................... ........... 848 848
RURAL RESEARCH............... ........... 630 630
HIGH RISK RESEARCH........... ........... ........... ...........
OTHER RESEARCH............... ........... 500 500
ADVANCED TRANSIT MGMT. ........... ........... ...........
RESEARCH....................
COMMERCIAL VEHICLE OPERATIONS ........... 6,150 6,150
HWY.-RAIL INTERSECT INNOV ........... ........... ...........
DEV. RESEARCH...............
INTERMODAL FREIGHT RESEARCH.. ........... 150 150
--------------------------------------
TOTAL...................... ........... 18,678 18,678
======================================
OPERATIONAL TESTS:
APTS......................... ........... ........... ...........
CVO (Safety Test @ Two Border ........... 500 500
Crossings)..................
INTELLIGENT VEHICLE.......... ........... 2,500 2,500
RURAL........................ ........... 1,100 1,100
ALERT Vehicle Deployment \1\. ........... 150 150
--------------------------------------
TOTAL...................... ........... 4,250 4,250
======================================
EVALUATION/PROGRAM ASSESSMENT:
ITS Field Evaluations........ ........... 1,900 1,900
ITS Program Assessment....... ........... 975 975
--------------------------------------
TOTAL...................... ........... 2,875 2,875
======================================
ARCHITECTURE AND STANDARDS:
ARCHITECTURE................. ........... 2,467 2,467
STANDARDS.................... ........... 5,373 5,373
--------------------------------------
TOTAL...................... ........... 7,840 7,840
======================================
MAINSTREAMING:
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE......... ........... 2,150 2,150
PLANNING/POLICY.............. ........... 20 20
TRAINING..................... ........... 2,580 2,580
AWARENESS AND ADVOCACY....... ........... 1,095 1,095
--------------------------------------
TOTAL...................... ........... 5,845 5,845
======================================
CORRIDORS........................ ........... ........... ...........
PROGRAM SUPPORT.................. ........... 4,971 4,971
ITS DEPLOYMENT INCENTIVES PROGRAM ........... 1,000 1,000
CONTINGENCIES.................... ........... 1,541 1,541
======================================
GRAND TOTAL................ ........... 47,000 47,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please submit for the record a detailed breakout of how
the fiscal year 1997 funds for model deployment were allocated. Specify
the amount and nature of any supporting contracts. Provide similar
breakouts for fiscal year 1998 monies, assuming full authorization of
contract and appropriated funds.
Answer. The following information.
Metropolitan:
Fiscal year 1997 funds were allocated to the four metropolitan
Model Deployment sites as follows: Seattle--$9,088,000; Phoenix--
$2,920,000; San Antonio--$2,544,000; and New York/New Jersey/
Connecticut metropolitan area--$6,010,000, which included $250,000 from
the I-95 Corridor Coalition.
It is important to note that the metropolitan Model Deployment
projects are true public/private partnerships, with the project
partners providing at least 50 percent of the total project costs.
Therefore, the Federal ITS funding above represents only a portion of
the overall value of the total program.
A total of $1,481,814 was used in fiscal year 1997 to support the
four selected metropolitan Model Deployment sites and to encourage the
non-selected sites to continue their ITS deployment plans. This
included regular workshops to facilitate information exchange among the
Model Deployment sites and to provide a forum for addressing
crosscutting issues. The funding also provided 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 was allocated as follows: Model Deployment
Quarterly Workshops--$105,000; National Architecture Early
Implementation Support--$600,000; Technical/Systems Engineering
Support--$426,814; Showcasing/Lessons Learned--$250,000; and Program
Management Software, Internet Site Support--$100,000.
Evaluation of the Model Deployment effort is essential to obtain
valuable information to support the national ITS program and allow the
public and private sectors to make informed deployment decisions. To
avoid conflict of interest created by having a participant evaluate its
own project, 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.
The only fiscal year 1998 funding for the model deployment effort
will be $750,000 allocated to fully fund the evaluation effort.
Commercial Vehicle Operations:
Fiscal year 1997 funds were allocated to the eight CVISN Model
Deployment sites as follows: California--$500,000; Colorado--$500,000;
Connecticut--$500,000; Kentucky--$500,000; Michigan--$0 \1\;
Minnesota--$500,000; Oregon--$500,000; and Washington--shared with
Oregon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Michigan did not complete the requirements for additional
funding, but expects to continue participation as funds become
available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA planned to use model deployment incentive funds for fiscal
year 1998 to complete the funding for the CVISN model deployment
states. The cost estimate for states to complete CVISN level one model
deployment is $6-$8 million. One million dollars of federal funds has
already been allocated to the model deployment states. With a 50-50
share between states and the federal government, the current investment
is $2 million. The remaining federal allocation is $2-$3 million per
State to complete CVISN level in the model deployment states.
Question. Please submit a copy of the ITS spending plan for fiscal
year 1998 assuming full authorization of contract and appropriated
funds and proposed for fiscal year 1999. Also please submit a
comparable final ITS spending allocation for fiscal year 1997. Please
be certain that the fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1997 spending
plans are in a form identical to that provided on pages 215-221 of your
fiscal year 1999 budget submittal.
Answer. The following tables displays the ITS spending plans for
fiscal years 1997, 1998, and 1999.
INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS FISCAL YEAR 1997 SPENDING PLAN (ACTUAL)
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1998 budget
ACTIVITY/PROJECT CVO FHWA NHTSA FTA FRA TOTAL --------------------------------
GOE ISTEA Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT............................. 6,891 22,458 8,100 475 ......... 31,033 26,393 4,640 31,033
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT & SOFTWARE TOOLS.............. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
COMMERCIAL VEHICLE OPERATIONS.................... 6,891 6,891 ......... ......... ......... 6,891 6,891 ......... 6,891
CRASH AVOIDANCE RESEARCH......................... ......... ......... 7,500 ......... ......... 7,500 7,500 ......... 7,500
ENABLING RESEARCH................................ ......... 4,044 600 175 ......... 4,819 4,779 40 4,819
HIGH RISK RESEARCH............................... ......... 4,300 ......... ......... ......... 4,300 ......... 4,300 4,300
ADVANCED FLEET MGMT. RESEARCH.................... ......... ......... ......... 300 ......... 300 300 ......... 300
OTHER R&D........................................ ......... 5,813 ......... ......... ......... 5,813 5,813 ......... 5,813
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT............................... ......... 1,410 ......... ......... ......... 1,410 1,110 300 1,410
AUTOMATED HIGHWAY SYSTEM............................. ......... 22,000 ......... ......... ......... 22,000 22,000 ......... 22,000
ARCHITECTURE AND STANDARDS........................... ......... 12,803 ......... ......... ......... 12,803 5,000 7,803 12,803
ARCHITECTURE..................................... ......... 2,629 ......... ......... ......... 2,629 ......... 2,629 2,629
STANDARDS........................................ ......... 10,174 ......... ......... ......... 10,174 5,000 5,174 10,174
OPERATIONAL TESTS.................................... 14,483 53,797 3,050 1,950 ......... 58,797 56,447 2,350 58,797
ATMS/ATIS........................................ ......... 11,637 ......... 600 ......... 12,237 12,237 ......... 12,237
COMMERCIAL VEHICLE OPERATIONS (CVO).............. 13,483 13,483 ......... ......... ......... 13,483 12,483 1,000 13,483
AVCSS............................................ ......... ......... 3,050 ......... ......... 3,050 3,050 ......... 3,050
APTS............................................. ......... ......... ......... 1,350 ......... 1,350 ......... 1,350 1,350
MODEL DEPLOYMENT (INCL. IN ATMS/ATIS IN BUDGET).. ......... 26,675 ......... ......... ......... 26,675 26,675 ......... 26,675
TRAINING ACTIVITIES.............................. 1,000 2,002 ......... ......... ......... 2,002 2,002 ......... 2,002
EVALUATION........................................... ......... 2,039 ......... 100 ......... 2,139 1,999 140 2,139
MAINSTREAMING........................................ 1,199 9,558 ......... 750 ......... 10,308 193 10,115 10,308
COMMERCIAL VEHICLE OPERATIONS (CVO).............. 1,199 1,199 ......... ......... ......... 1,199 193 1,006 1,199
ADVANCED PUBLIC TRANSP. SYSTEMS (APTS)........... ......... ......... ......... 450 ......... 450 ......... 450 450
TRAINING (Professional Capacity Building)........ ......... 2,772 ......... 300 ......... 3,072 ......... 3,072 3,072
PLANNING/PROCESS GUIDANCE........................ ......... 1,000 ......... ......... ......... 1,000 ......... 1,000 1,000
DEPLOYMENT TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.................. ......... 4,587 ......... ......... ......... 4,587 ......... 4,587 4,587
CORRIDORS PROGRAM.................................... 11,500 71,700 ......... ......... ......... 71,700 ......... 71,700 71,700
PROGRAM SUPPORT...................................... ......... 9,461 ......... 200 ......... 9,661 8,326 1,335 9,661
NAT'L. ADV. DRIVER SIMULATOR (NADS).................. ......... ......... 14,000 ......... ......... 14,000 ......... 14,000 14,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GRAND TOTAL.................................... 34,073 203,816 25,150 3,475 ......... 232,441 120,358 112,083 232,441
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT............................. 6,891 22,458 8,100 475 ......... 31,033 26,393 4,640 31,033
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT & SOFTWARE TOOLS.............. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Real-Time Traffic Mgmt. & Control............ ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
RT-TRACS 2.0............................. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Ramp Metering............................ ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Surface Street Incident Detection........ ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Support Systems.............................. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Research & Anal. for ATMS (Oak Ridge).... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Traffic Mgmt. Lab (TML).................. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
CVO.............................................. 6,891 6,891 ......... ......... ......... 6,891 6,891 ......... 6,891
Safer MCSAP Sites............................ 5,100 5,100 ......... ......... ......... 5,100 5,100 ......... 5,100
System Develop. & Enhancement............ 1,890 1,890 ......... ......... ......... 1,890 1,890 ......... 1,890
Field Deployment......................... 1,610 1,610 ......... ......... ......... 1,610 1,610 ......... 1,610
System Operation and Support............. 1,600 1,600 ......... ......... ......... 1,600 1,600 ......... 1,600
Driver Monitoring (with NHTSA)............... 90 90 ......... ......... ......... 90 90 ......... 90
Industry Research (NPTC, ATA, etc.).......... 120 120 ......... ......... ......... 120 120 ......... 120
On-Board Safety Diagnostics.................. 686 686 ......... ......... ......... 686 686 ......... 686
Auto Roadside Inspec. (Imaging).......... 135 135 ......... ......... ......... 135 135 ......... 135
Electronic Brake (with NHTSA)............ 150 150 ......... ......... ......... 150 150 ......... 150
Brake Performance Specifications......... 401 401 ......... ......... ......... 401 401 ......... 401
Black Box (Data Recorder)................ ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Automated Compliance Review Program (Volpe).. 500 500 ......... ......... ......... 500 500 ......... 500
State Research (Baxter Replacement).......... 245 245 ......... ......... ......... 245 245 ......... 245
Dedicated Short Range Comm. (DSRC) (Booz- 150 150 ......... ......... ......... 150 150 ......... 150
Allen)......................................
CRASH AVOIDANCE RESEARCH......................... ......... ......... 7,500 ......... ......... 7,500 7,500 ......... 7,500
Research Tools and Knowledge Base............ ......... ......... 1,000 ......... ......... 1,000 1,000 ......... 1,000
Application of Vehicle Motion Env. (VME). ......... ......... 100 ......... ......... 100 100 ......... 100
Application of DASCAR.................... ......... ......... 250 ......... ......... 250 250 ......... 250
Human Factors Research................... ......... ......... 150 ......... ......... 150 150 ......... 150
SAVME and FOCAS Extensions............... ......... ......... 500 ......... ......... 500 500 ......... 500
Performance Specifications................... ......... ......... 3,450 ......... ......... 3,450 3,450 ......... 3,450
Rear-end Collision Avoidance Systems..... ......... ......... 1,500 ......... ......... 1,500 1,500 ......... 1,500
Intersection Collision Avoidance Systems. ......... ......... 500 ......... ......... 500 500 ......... 500
Lane Change and Merge Systems............ ......... ......... 450 ......... ......... 450 450 ......... 450
Roadway Departure Systems................ ......... ......... 500 ......... ......... 500 500 ......... 500
Drowsy Driver Detection Sys. & Prototype ......... ......... 400 ......... ......... 400 400 ......... 400
Eval....................................
Vision Enhancement....................... ......... ......... 100 ......... ......... 100 100 ......... 100
Facilitate Commercial Development............ ......... ......... 680 ......... ......... 680 680 ......... 680
Intelligent Cruise Control (ICC)......... ......... ......... 300 ......... ......... 300 300 ......... 300
Auto. Collision Notification Evaluation ......... ......... 380 ......... ......... 380 380 ......... 380
(ACN)...................................
Miscellaneous Support........................ ......... ......... 2,370 ......... ......... 2,370 2,370 ......... 2,370
NHTSA Administrative Support............. ......... ......... 600 ......... ......... 600 600 ......... 600
Cooperative Agreements................... ......... ......... 1,770 ......... ......... 1,770 1,770 ......... 1,770
CAMP (Ford/GM Metrics Performance ......... ......... 1,250 ......... ......... 1,250 1,250 ......... 1,250
Study...............................
IR Vision Enh. (Texas Inst./US Army/ ......... ......... 270 ......... ......... 270 270 ......... 270
Scientex)...........................
Heavy Vehicle Intelligent Dynamic ......... ......... 150 ......... ......... 150 150 ......... 150
Stability...........................
Commercial Veh. Commun. & Power Enhan ......... ......... 100 ......... ......... 100 100 ......... 100
ENABLING RESEARCH................................ ......... 4,044 600 175 ......... 4,819 4,779 40 4,819
Augmentation of Global Positioning Sys. (GPS) ......... 566 ......... ......... ......... 566 566 ......... 566
Telecommunications........................... ......... 200 ......... ......... ......... 200 200 ......... 200
Human Factors Support........................ ......... 3,238 600 175 ......... 4,013 4,013 ......... 4,013
In-vehicle Display Icons................. ......... 275 ......... ......... ......... 275 275 ......... 275
IVIS Behavioral Model & Design Support ......... 400 ......... ......... ......... 400 400 ......... 400
Sys.....................................
Technical & Administrative Services ......... 925 ......... ......... ......... 925 925 ......... 925
(SAIC)..................................
ATIS/CVO Design Evolution................ ......... 200 ......... ......... ......... 200 200 ......... 200
Tech. Support for IVIS Development (ORNL) ......... 500 ......... ......... ......... 500 500 ......... 500
TMC Computer-aided Design Support System. ......... 400 ......... ......... ......... 400 400 ......... 400
FTA Traveller Information Effectiveness.. ......... ......... ......... 175 ......... 175 175 ......... 175
ATMS Human Factors Study (Georgia Tech).. ......... 244 ......... ......... ......... 244 244 ......... 244
Safety Workload Assessment............... ......... ......... 300 ......... ......... 300 300 ......... 300
ITS In-Vehicle Device Integration for CAS ......... ......... 100 ......... ......... 100 100 ......... 100
Long Term Effects of ITS on Driver ......... ......... 200 ......... ......... 200 200 ......... 200
Behavior................................
Prel. Human Factors Review of IVI........ ......... 294 ......... ......... ......... 294 294 ......... 294
Track FCC Petition for 5.8 GHZ Spectrum ......... 40 ......... ......... ......... 40 ......... 40 40
Alloc. (ITSA)...............................
Coord. Supp. of DOT Navig. & Positioning ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Prog. (OST).................................
HIGH RISK RESEARCH............................... ......... 4,300 ......... ......... ......... 4,300 ......... 4,300 4,300
IDEA......................................... ......... 1,000 ......... ......... ......... 1,000 ......... 1,000 1,000
Research Centers of Excellence............... ......... 1,700 ......... ......... ......... 1,700 ......... 1,700 1,700
Texas Transportation Institute (1997 Earmark) ......... 600 ......... ......... ......... 600 ......... 600 600
Adv. Trans. Weather Sys.-Univ. N Dakota (1997 ......... 1,000 ......... ......... ......... 1,000 ......... 1,000 1,000
Earmark)....................................
University of North Dakota (1996 Cong. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Earmark)....................................
ADVANCED FLEET MGMT. RESEARCH (APTS)............. ......... ......... ......... 300 ......... 300 300 ......... 300
OTHER R&D........................................ ......... 5,813 ......... ......... ......... 5,813 5,813 ......... 5,813
Research Centers of Excellence............... ......... 1,000 ......... ......... ......... 1,000 1,000 ......... 1,000
TFHRC Support/Overhead....................... ......... 3,403 ......... ......... ......... 3,403 3,403 ......... 3,403
TRB Correlation Service.................. ......... 1,077 ......... ......... ......... 1,077 1,077 ......... 1,077
Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) ......... 1,821 ......... ......... ......... 1,821 1,821 ......... 1,821
RD&T Report Center Support Services...... ......... 131 ......... ......... ......... 131 131 ......... 131
Editorial Support Services............... ......... 374 ......... ......... ......... 374 374 ......... 374
Pan American Hwy. Study.................. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Audit Costs.............................. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Electronics Laboratory....................... ......... 191 ......... ......... ......... 191 191 ......... 191
ADP Support Services (In Support/Overhead in ......... 500 ......... ......... ......... 500 500 ......... 500
1996........................................
Develop ITS Planning Models (ORNL) (See ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
IV.A.1.b.(7))...............................
Rural Res.-Toolbox Devel./Mgmt.(Move $200K to ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
I.D.3.h)....................................
Other (Internet Access, report distribution, ......... 719 ......... ......... ......... 719 719 ......... 719
logistics, etc.)............................
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT............................... ......... 1,410 ......... ......... ......... 1,410 1,110 300 1,410
Evaluation Support for Oper. Tests (Booz- ......... 687 ......... ......... ......... 687 687 ......... 687
Allen)......................................
Evaluation Support for Operational Tests ......... 413 ......... ......... ......... 413 413 ......... 413
(Booz-Allen)................................
Unobligated Carryover........................ ......... 10 ......... ......... ......... 10 10 ......... 10
Program Assessment of AHS.................... ......... 300 ......... ......... ......... 300 ......... 300 300
ITS Program Assessment (Volpe) ($400K)....... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
AUTOMATED HIGHWAY SYSTEM............................. ......... 22,000 ......... ......... ......... 22,000 22,000 ......... 22,000
ARCHITECTURE AND STANDARDS........................... ......... 12,803 ......... ......... ......... 12,803 5,000 7,803 12,803
ARCHITECTURE..................................... ......... 2,629 ......... ......... ......... 2,629 ......... 2,629 2,629
Deployment/Implementation Support............ ......... 129 ......... ......... ......... 129 ......... 129 129
Architecture Maintenance..................... ......... 2,500 ......... ......... ......... 2,500 ......... 2,500 2,500
STANDARDS........................................ ......... 10,174 ......... ......... ......... 10,174 5,000 5,174 10,174
Spatial Data Transfer Standard............... ......... 1,000 ......... ......... ......... 1,000 1,000 ......... 1,000
National Transp. Communications ITS Protocol ......... 1,000 ......... ......... ......... 1,000 1,000 ......... 1,000
(NTCIP).....................................
CVO Standards................................ ......... 500 ......... ......... ......... 500 500 ......... 500
Traffic Mgmt. System Support Standards....... ......... 800 ......... ......... ......... 800 800 ......... 800
Transit Mgmt. Standards Support (APTS)....... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Standards Development Organizations.......... ......... 3,799 ......... ......... ......... 3,799 1,700 2,099 3,799
Standards Support (JPL)...................... ......... 2,300 ......... ......... ......... 2,300 ......... 2,300 2,300
Dedicated Short Range Communications......... ......... 510 ......... ......... ......... 510 ......... 510 510
Architectural Support of Standards........... ......... 265 ......... ......... ......... 265 ......... 265 265
OPERATIONAL TESTS.................................... 14,483 53,797 3,050 1,950 ......... 58,797 56,447 2,350 58,797
ATMS/ATIS........................................ ......... 11,637 ......... 600 ......... 12,237 12,237 ......... 12,237
Real-time Traffic Adaptive Control (1997 ......... 10,000 ......... ......... ......... 10,000 10,000 ......... 10,000
Earmark)....................................
Operational Tests........................ ......... 6,000 ......... ......... ......... 6,000 6,000 ......... 6,000
RT-TRACS Testing I (Reston Pkwy.) ......... 2,050 ......... ......... ......... 2,050 2,050 ......... 2,050
(Kaman).............................
RT-TRACS Testing II (Site B)......... ......... 675 ......... ......... ......... 675 675 ......... 675
RT-TRACS Testing III (Site C)........ ......... 1,750 ......... ......... ......... 1,750 1,750 ......... 1,750
RT-TRACS Testing IV (Site D)......... ......... 1,525 ......... ......... ......... 1,525 1,525 ......... 1,525
Other (R&D).............................. ......... 4,000 ......... ......... ......... 4,000 4,000 ......... 4,000
Deployment Issues of Surveillance Sys ......... 250 ......... ......... ......... 250 250 ......... 250
Ramp Metering........................ ......... 750 ......... ......... ......... 750 750 ......... 750
Development of RT TRACS.............. ......... 500 ......... ......... ......... 500 500 ......... 500
ATMS Research Tools Database System.. ......... 500 ......... ......... ......... 500 500 ......... 500
Traffic Mgmt. Lab. Support........... ......... 750 ......... ......... ......... 750 750 ......... 750
Support Services..................... ......... 1,000 ......... ......... ......... 1,000 1,000 ......... 1,000
Devel. of ITS Planning Models (See ......... 250 ......... ......... ......... 250 250 ......... 250
I.G.5.).............................
Rural Program Activities..................... ......... 1,637 ......... 600 ......... 2,237 2,237 ......... 2,237
Strategic Plan Coordination Workshops.... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Toolbox Devel. & Mgmt. (See Other R&D)... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Regional Applications of APTS Technology. ......... ......... ......... 600 ......... 600 600 ......... 600
Sweetwater, Wyoming.................. ......... ......... ......... 200 ......... 200 200 ......... 200
Florida Panhandle.................... ......... ......... ......... 200 ......... 200 200 ......... 200
Cape Cod, Massachusetts.............. ......... ......... ......... 200 ......... 200 200 ......... 200
Tourism and Advanced Traveler Info. ......... 850 ......... ......... ......... 850 850 ......... 850
Systems FOT.............................
Road Weather Information System.......... ......... 700 ......... ......... ......... 700 700 ......... 700
Misc. Rural Projects..................... ......... 87 ......... ......... ......... 87 87 ......... 87
ITSA ARTS Conference................. ......... 30 ......... ......... ......... 30 30 ......... 30
Weather Video........................ ......... 7 ......... ......... ......... 7 7 ......... 7
ARTS Program Coordination Workshops.. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Virginia AVL for Snow Plows.......... ......... 50 ......... ......... ......... 50 50 ......... 50
CVO.............................................. 13,483 13,483 ......... ......... ......... 13,483 12,483 1,000 13,483
CVISN & Prototype Testing (1997 Earmark)..... 9,218 9,218 ......... ......... ......... 9,218 9,218 ......... 9,218
Prototypes and Pilots.................... 4,000 4,000 ......... ......... ......... 4,000 4,000 ......... 4,000
Technical Support........................ 5,218 5,218 ......... ......... ......... 5,218 5,218 ......... 5,218
Border Crossings............................. 3,150 3,150 ......... ......... ......... 3,150 3,150 ......... 3,150
Texas Border Deployment.................. 2,500 2,500 ......... ......... ......... 2,500 2,500 ......... 2,500
Texas Border Technical Assistance 650 650 ......... ......... ......... 650 650 ......... 650
($350=BAH)..............................
CVO Corridors (Advantage I-75)............... 1,000 1,000 ......... ......... ......... 1,000 ......... 1,000 1,000
One Stop Shopping............................ 115 115 ......... ......... ......... 115 115 ......... 115
Safer Mailbox (Delaware)..................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
AVCSS (Adv. Veh. Control Sys.) (1997 Earmark = $3 ......... ......... 3,050 ......... ......... 3,050 3,050 ......... 3,050
M)..............................................
ICC Operational Field Test................... ......... ......... 822 ......... ......... 822 822 ......... 822
Auto. Collision Notification (ACN) Oper. ......... ......... 23 ......... ......... 23 23 ......... 23
Field Test..................................
Rear-end Crash Avoidance Systems............. ......... ......... 1,155 ......... ......... 1,155 1,155 ......... 1,155
ICC Heavy Vehicles........................... ......... ......... 1,000 ......... ......... 1,000 1,000 ......... 1,000
Crash Avoidance Op. Test Exhibit @ AHS Demo.. ......... ......... 50 ......... ......... 50 50 ......... 50
APTS............................................. ......... ......... ......... 1,350 ......... 1,350 ......... 1,350 1,350
Next Generation Kiosk & Visitor Transit ......... ......... ......... 700 ......... 700 ......... 700 700
Information.................................
Advanced Fare Media.......................... ......... ......... ......... 200 ......... 200 ......... 200 200
Advanced Fleet Mgmt. System.................. ......... ......... ......... 450 ......... 450 ......... 450 450
MODEL DEPLOY. (Integration of ITI Tech.) 1997 ......... 26,675 ......... ......... ......... 26,675 26,675 ......... 26,675
Earmark.........................................
Metropolitan Areas........................... ......... 22,488 ......... ......... ......... 22,488 22,488 ......... 22,488
Model Deployments........................ ......... 20,645 ......... ......... ......... 20,645 20,645 ......... 20,645
Phoenix.............................. ......... 2,920 ......... ......... ......... 2,920 2,920 ......... 2,920
San Antonio.......................... ......... 2,544 ......... ......... ......... 2,544 2,544 ......... 2,544
Seattle.............................. ......... 9,088 ......... ......... ......... 9,088 9,088 ......... 9,088
New York/New Jersey/Connecticut...... ......... 5,760 ......... ......... ......... 5,760 5,760 ......... 5,760
Other................................ ......... 333 ......... ......... ......... 333 333 ......... 333
Model Deployment Program Management...... ......... 1,843 ......... ......... ......... 1,843 1,843 ......... 1,843
MDI Quarterly Workshops.............. ......... 106 ......... ......... ......... 106 106 ......... 106
Nat'l. Architecture Early ......... 600 ......... ......... ......... 600 600 ......... 600
Implementation Effort...............
Debriefing Packages (Deployment Asst. ......... 126 ......... ......... ......... 126 126 ......... 126
Work- shops........................
Technical/Systems Engineering Support ......... 416 ......... ......... ......... 416 416 ......... 416
WWW Site Support..................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Program Mgmt. Software............... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Public Sector Nat'l. Arch. Seminar ......... 595 ......... ......... ......... 595 595 ......... 595
(Devel. & Deliver)..................
Evaluations.................................. ......... 4,187 ......... ......... ......... 4,187 4,187 ......... 4,187
ITI Model Deployment Evaluations (4 ......... 2,564 ......... ......... ......... 2,564 2,564 ......... 2,564
sites)..................................
CVISN Evaluation (7 sites)............... ......... 1,000 ......... ......... ......... 1,000 1,000 ......... 1,000
Evaluation Support for Oper. Tests (Booz- ......... 623 ......... ......... ......... 623 623 ......... 623
Allen)..................................
Other.................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
CVISN (See CVO Op. Tests above).............. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
ITI & CVO Training (See Training Activities ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
below)......................................
Lessons Learned--Atlanta (Booz-Allen)........ ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
TRAINING ACTIVITIES.............................. 1,000 2,002 ......... ......... ......... 2,002 2,002 ......... 2,002
ITI Training................................. ......... 1,002 ......... ......... ......... 1,002 1,002 ......... 1,002
Traf. Opr. Curr & Certification Devel. ......... 200 ......... ......... ......... 200 200 ......... 200
Support.................................
Printing--Seminar & Course Support ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Materials...............................
Refinements/Enhanc. to Seminars/New ......... 802 ......... ......... ......... 802 802 ......... 802
Courses.................................
CVO Training................................. 1,000 1,000 ......... ......... ......... 1,000 1,000 ......... 1,000
EVALUATION........................................... ......... 2,039 ......... 100 ......... 2,139 1,999 140 2,139
NCTI Showcase Evaluation (IPAS).................. ......... 150 ......... ......... ......... 150 150 ......... 150
ITI Deployment Tracking (ORNL)................... ......... 350 ......... ......... ......... 350 350 ......... 350
PCB Tracking (Volpe)............................. ......... 50 ......... ......... ......... 50 50 ......... 50
CVISN Tracking (Volpe)........................... ......... 10 ......... ......... ......... 10 10 ......... 10
Standards Tracking (Volpe)....................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Benefits Analysis (IPAS)......................... ......... 425 ......... ......... ......... 425 385 40 425
Cost Analysis (IPAS)............................. ......... 480 ......... ......... ......... 480 480 ......... 480
Policy Analysis (IPAS)........................... ......... 574 ......... ......... ......... 574 574 ......... 574
FTA Admin. Support/Evaluation (Volpe)............ ......... ......... ......... 100 ......... 100 ......... 100 100
Operational Test Evaluations ($450K)............. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
MAINSTREAMING........................................ 1,199 9,558 ......... 750 ......... 10,308 193 10,115 10,308
CVO.............................................. 1,199 1,199 ......... ......... ......... 1,199 193 1,006 1,199
CVO Outreach................................. 106 106 ......... ......... ......... 106 ......... 106 106
CVO Training (See Training under Operational ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Tests)......................................
CVO Deployment Technical Asst. (Regional 1,093 1,093 ......... ......... ......... 1,093 193 900 1,093
Champs).....................................
State, Reg. and Nat'l. Forums/Activities..... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
APTS............................................. ......... ......... ......... 450 ......... 450 ......... 450 450
TRAINING (Professional Capacity Building (PCB)).. ......... 2,772 ......... 300 ......... 3,072 ......... 3,072 3,072
Nat'l. ITS Training Initiative............... ......... 2,712 ......... ......... ......... 2,712 ......... 2,712 2,712
PCB Awareness Seminars--Delivery to Field ......... 1,557 ......... ......... ......... 1,557 ......... 1,557 1,557
Scanning Reviews......................... ......... 375 ......... ......... ......... 375 ......... 375 375
PCB External Steering Committee Support.. ......... 125 ......... ......... ......... 125 ......... 125 125
On-site (PCB) Tech. & Clerical Support... ......... 255 ......... ......... ......... 255 ......... 255 255
Tours & Scholarships (ITE)............... ......... 150 ......... ......... ......... 150 ......... 150 150
Support for ITI Seminars at Nat'l. Assoc. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Conf....................................
PCB Program Update....................... ......... 250 ......... ......... ......... 250 ......... 250 250
Present New ITS Short Courses............ ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
FTA Training Initiative...................... ......... ......... ......... 300 ......... 300 ......... 300 300
Develop Transit Mgmt. Overview Course.... ......... ......... ......... 100 ......... 100 ......... 100 100
PCB Program Support...................... ......... ......... ......... 200 ......... 200 ......... 200 200
Telecommunications Workshops (Apogee)........ ......... 60 ......... ......... ......... 60 ......... 60 60
PLANNING/PROCESS GUIDANCE........................ ......... 1,000 ......... ......... ......... 1,000 ......... 1,000 1,000
Planning for Managing Non-Recurring ......... 150 ......... ......... ......... 150 ......... 150 150
Congestion..................................
ITS-Based Performance Monitoring for Decision- ......... 385 ......... ......... ......... 385 ......... 385 385
Support.....................................
Congestion Mgmt./Freight Movement/Intermodal ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Connec- tions..............................
Regional Coord. of Systems Operations........ ......... 200 ......... ......... ......... 200 ......... 200 200
Tech. Transfer & Outreach on Strategies for ......... 265 ......... ......... ......... 265 ......... 265 265
Cong. Mgmt..................................
Pennsylvania EDPS (Harrisburg/Allentown)..... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
California EDPS (Fresno)..................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Charleston, SC EDPS.......................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
DEPLOYMENT TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.................. ......... 4,587 ......... ......... ......... 4,587 ......... 4,587 4,587
ITI Technical Assistance..................... ......... 1,000 ......... ......... ......... 1,000 ......... 1,000 1,000
Peer-to-Peer Tech. Asst. Program......... ......... 300 ......... ......... ......... 300 ......... 300 300
ITE Tech. Info. Clearinghouse............ ......... 32 ......... ......... ......... 32 ......... 32 32
ITE Report ``Toolbox for Allev. Traf. ......... 68 ......... ......... ......... 68 ......... 68 68
Cong.''.................................
Service Plans (formerly Tech. Repts ......... 100 ......... ......... ......... 100 ......... 100 100
Database)...............................
Local Gov't. Technical Assistance (PTI).. ......... 175 ......... ......... ......... 175 ......... 175 175
Quick Response Supp. for Prog. ......... 200 ......... ......... ......... 200 ......... 200 200
Development.............................
Garrett A. Morgan Room Support........... ......... 125 ......... ......... ......... 125 ......... 125 125
ITI Outreach................................. ......... 1,114 ......... ......... ......... 1,114 ......... 1,114 1,114
Shipping & Handling (thru OTA Contract).. ......... 200 ......... ......... ......... 200 ......... 200 200
Exhibits................................. ......... 208 ......... ......... ......... 208 ......... 208 208
World Wide Web........................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Reprinting Materials..................... ......... 556 ......... ......... ......... 556 ......... 556 556
Duplicating Multi-media Presentations.... ......... 150 ......... ......... ......... 150 ......... 150 150
Annual Report, etc. (Volpe).............. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
CVO Outreach (Under A above)................. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
ITS Consortium............................... ......... 346 ......... ......... ......... 346 ......... 346 346
ITI Technical Guidance....................... ......... 1,373 ......... ......... ......... 1,373 ......... 1,373 1,373
ITI Implementation Guidance Documentation ......... 1,348 ......... ......... ......... 1,348 ......... 1,348 1,348
Transit Management Guidance Document. ......... 200 ......... ......... ......... 200 ......... 200 200
Freeway Management Guidance Document. ......... 244 ......... ......... ......... 244 ......... 244 244
Incident Management Guidance Document ......... 244 ......... ......... ......... 244 ......... 244 244
Traffic Signal Control Guidance ......... 242 ......... ......... ......... 242 ......... 242 242
Document............................
Traveler Information Guidance ......... 242 ......... ......... ......... 242 ......... 242 242
Document............................
Software Procurement................. ......... 176 ......... ......... ......... 176 ......... 176 176
TMC Guidance Document................ ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
R&D Field Guidance Documentation......... ......... 25 ......... ......... ......... 25 ......... 25 25
Procurement Guidance Documentation....... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Electronic Clearinghouse System.............. ......... 754 ......... ......... ......... 754 ......... 754 754
Develop Regional Plans for ATIS (ITSA/WASH. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
STATE)......................................
ITS Deployment Partnership Network (IDPN) ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
(ITE).......................................
CORRIDORS PROGRAM.................................... 11,500 71,700 ......... ......... ......... 71,700 ......... 71,700 71,700
Priority Corridors............................... 1,000 44,600 ......... ......... ......... 44,600 ......... 44,600 44,600
I-95 Northeast Corridor...................... 1,000 23,920 ......... ......... ......... 23,920 ......... 23,920 23,920
Nat'l. Transp. Center, Oakdale, NY (1997 ......... 2,500 ......... ......... ......... 2,500 ......... 2,500 2,500
Earmark)................................
Operation Respond Maryland (1997 Earmark) 1,000 1,000 ......... ......... ......... 1,000 ......... 1,000 1,000
Pennsylvania Turnpike (1997 Earmark)..... ......... 3,000 ......... ......... ......... 3,000 ......... 3,000 3,000
Nat'l. Capital Region Cong. Mitigation ......... 3,500 ......... ......... ......... 3,500 ......... 3,500 3,500
(1997 Ear- mark).......................
TRANSCOM, New York/New Jersey (1997 ......... 2,250 ......... ......... ......... 2,250 ......... 2,250 2,250
Earmark)................................
Urban Transp. Saf. Sys. Ctr.--Phila. ......... 500 ......... ......... ......... 500 ......... 500 500
(1997 Earmark)..........................
New York Thruway (1997 Earmark).......... ......... 3,000 ......... ......... ......... 3,000 ......... 3,000 3,000
Advanced Rail/Hwy. Crossings--NY (1997 ......... 2,000 ......... ......... ......... 2,000 ......... 2,000 2,000
Earmark)................................
Other.................................... ......... 5,845 ......... ......... ......... 5,845 ......... 5,845 5,845
I-95 Corridor Evaluations................ ......... 325 ......... ......... ......... 325 ......... 325 325
Gary-Chicago-Milwaukee Corridor.............. ......... 7,680 ......... ......... ......... 7,680 ......... 7,680 7,680
Houston Corridor............................. ......... 3,440 ......... ......... ......... 3,440 ......... 3,440 3,440
1997 Earmark............................. ......... 2,000 ......... ......... ......... 2,000 ......... 2,000 2,000
Other.................................... ......... 1,440 ......... ......... ......... 1,440 ......... 1,440 1,440
Southern California Corridor................. ......... 9,560 ......... ......... ......... 9,560 ......... 9,560 9,560
Inglewood, California (1997 Earmark)..... ......... 1,000 ......... ......... ......... 1,000 ......... 1,000 1,000
Other.................................... ......... 8,560 ......... ......... ......... 8,560 ......... 8,560 8,560
Other Corridors.................................. 10,500 27,100 ......... ......... ......... 27,100 ......... 27,100 27,100
Utah Advanced Traffic Mgmt. System (1997 ......... 5,000 ......... ......... ......... 5,000 ......... 5,000 5,000
Earmark)....................................
Haz. Mat. Intermodal Monitoring Sys. (NIER) 2,000 2,000 ......... ......... ......... 2,000 ......... 2,000 2,000
(1997 Ear- mark)...........................
Minnesota Guidestar (1997 Earmark)........... ......... 3,600 ......... ......... ......... 3,600 ......... 3,600 3,600
I-10 Mobile, Alabama Causeway (1997 Earmark). ......... 2,000 ......... ......... ......... 2,000 ......... 2,000 2,000
Mobile Adv. Traf. Mgmt. Sys., Montgomery, ......... 1,000 ......... ......... ......... 1,000 ......... 1,000 1,000
Ala. (1997 Earmark).........................
Nashville, Tenn. Traffic Guidance Sys. (1997 ......... 1,000 ......... ......... ......... 1,000 ......... 1,000 1,000
Earmark)....................................
Green Light CVO Project, Oregon (1997 7,000 7,000 ......... ......... ......... 7,000 ......... 7,000 7,000
Earmark)....................................
Kansas City, Mo. (Region) (1997 Earmark)..... ......... 2,500 ......... ......... ......... 2,500 ......... 2,500 2,500
US/Canada CVO (1997 Earmark)................. 1,500 1,500 ......... ......... ......... 1,500 ......... 1,500 1,500
Rochester, NY Congestion Mgmt. (1997 Earmark) ......... 1,500 ......... ......... ......... 1,500 ......... 1,500 1,500
Johnson City, Tennessee (1995 Earmark)....... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Johnson City, Tennessee (1996 Earmark)....... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Southern State Parkway (Rome Lab)............ ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
PROGRAM SUPPORT...................................... ......... 9,461 ......... 200 ......... 9,661 8,326 1,335 9,661
ITS America...................................... ......... 2,605 ......... ......... ......... 2,605 2,605 ......... 2,605
Regular Contract............................. ......... 2,605 ......... ......... ......... 2,605 2,605 ......... 2,605
Kassoff White Papers, etc.................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Mitre Corporation................................ ......... 5,587 ......... ......... ......... 5,587 4,455 1,132 5,587
Volpe............................................ ......... 700 ......... ......... ......... 700 700 ......... 700
ENO Foundation (Battelle)........................ ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Other Support Services........................... ......... 467 ......... ......... ......... 467 464 3 467
APTS Program Support............................. ......... ......... ......... 200 ......... 200 ......... 200 200
ITS International Prog. Supp. (Farradyne)............ ......... 100 ......... ......... ......... 100 100 ......... 100
Miscellaneous (Interest, etc.)....................... ......... 2 ......... ......... ......... 2 2 ......... 2
NAT'L. ADV. DRIVER SIMULATOR (NADS) 1997 Earmark..... ......... ......... 14,000 ......... ......... 14,000 ......... 14,000 14,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GRAND TOTAL.................................... 34,073 203,816 25,150 3,475 ......... 232,441 120,358 112,083 232,441
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: Fiscal year 1997 GOE amount excludes $1.642 million associated with ITS share of $3 million ``accountwide adjustments'' shown on page 43 of
Conference Report 104-785. Fiscal year 1997 ISTEA amount reflects an additional $917 thousand reduction associated with Sec. 1003 of Public Law 102-
240 (ISTEA) due to Treasury Dept. error in HTF receipts.
INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS ESTIMATED FISCAL YEAR 1998 SPENDING PLAN
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1998 budget
ACTIVITY/PROJECT CVO FHWA NHTSA FTA FRA TOTAL --------------------------------
GOE ISTEA Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT............................. 7,500 25,900 13,650 2,450 3,500 45,500 33,000 12,500 45,500
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT & CONTROL..................... ......... 6,750 ......... 750 ......... 7,500 7,500 ......... 7,500
CRASH AVOIDANCE RESEARCH......................... ......... ......... 12,500 ......... ......... 12,500 ......... 12,500 12,500
ENABLING......................................... ......... 5,650 1,150 700 ......... 7,500 7,500 ......... 7,500
RURAL RESEARCH................................... ......... 2,000 ......... ......... ......... 2,000 2,000 ......... 2,000
HIGH RISK RESEARCH............................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
OTHER RESEARCH................................... ......... 4,000 ......... ......... ......... 4,000 4,000 ......... 4,000
ADVANCED TRANSIT MANAGEMENT RESEARCH............. ......... ......... ......... 1,000 ......... 1,000 1,000 ......... 1,000
COMMERCIAL VEHICLE OPERATIONS.................... 7,500 7,500 ......... ......... ......... 7,500 7,500 ......... 7,500
HWY.-RAIL INTERSECTION INNOVATIVE DEV. RESEARCH.. ......... ......... ......... ......... 3,500 3,500 3,500 ......... 3,500
ADVANCED VEHICLE CONTROL & INFORMATION SYSTEMS....... ......... 25,000 ......... 1,000 ......... 26,000 ......... 26,000 26,000
OPERATIONAL TESTS.................................... 2,000 7,000 12,500 5,000 ......... 24,500 ......... 24,500 24,500
APTS............................................. ......... ......... ......... 5,000 ......... 5,000 ......... 5,000 5,000
CVO.............................................. 2,000 2,000 ......... ......... ......... 2,000 ......... 2,000 2,000
CRASH AVOIDANCE.................................. ......... ......... 12,500 ......... ......... 12,500 ......... 12,500 12,500
RURAL............................................ ......... 5,000 ......... ......... ......... 5,000 ......... 5,000 5,000
EVALUATION/PROGRAM ASSESSMENT........................ 350 6,800 1,200 1,000 ......... 9,000 9,000 ......... 9,000
ITS Field Evaluations............................ 350 5,050 1,200 1,000 ......... 7,250 7,250 ......... 7,250
ITS Program Assessment........................... ......... 1,750 ......... ......... ......... 1,750 1,750 ......... 1,750
ARCHITECTURE AND STANDARDS........................... 500 12,000 ......... 1,000 ......... 13,000 ......... 13,000 13,000
ARCHITECTURE..................................... ......... 2,800 ......... ......... ......... 2,800 ......... 2,800 2,800
STANDARDS........................................ 500 9,200 ......... 1,000 ......... 10,200 ......... 10,200 10,200
MAINSTREAMING........................................ 2,750 17,700 ......... 4,300 ......... 22,000 3,000 19,000 22,000
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE............................. 1,500 3,500 ......... 1,500 ......... 5,000 ......... 5,000 5,000
PLANNING/POLICY.................................. ......... 4,000 ......... ......... ......... 4,000 ......... 4,000 4,000
TRAINING......................................... 1,250 7,500 ......... 2,500 ......... 10,000 ......... 10,000 10,000
AWARENESS AND ADVOCACY........................... ......... 2,700 ......... 300 ......... 3,000 3,000 ......... 3,000
PROGRAM SUPPORT...................................... ......... 9,200 ......... 800 ......... 10,000 9,000 1,000 10,000
CORRIDORS PROGRAM.................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
ITS DEPLOYMENT INCENTIVES PROGRAM.................... 25,000 100,000 ......... ......... ......... 100,000 100,000 ......... 100,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GRAND TOTAL.................................... 38,100 203,600 27,350 15,550 3,500 250,000 54,000 196,000 250,000
==================================================================================================
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT............................. 7,500 25,900 13,650 2,450 3,500 45,500 33,000 12,500 45,500
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT & CONTROL..................... ......... 6,750 ......... 750 ......... 7,500 7,500 ......... 7,500
Advanced Traffic Mgmt. Research (Incl. TML).. ......... 2,950 ......... ......... ......... 2,950 2,950 ......... 2,950
Advanced Traffic Management.............. ......... 2,200 ......... ......... ......... 2,200 2,200 ......... 2,200
Traffic Mgmt. Center (TMC) Integration ......... 500 ......... ......... ......... 500 500 ......... 500
Issues..................................
Deployment Issues of Surveillance Systems ......... 250 ......... ......... ......... 250 250 ......... 250
Support Systems.............................. ......... 1,350 ......... ......... ......... 1,350 1,350 ......... 1,350
Research & Analysis for ATMS............. ......... 750 ......... ......... ......... 750 750 ......... 750
Internet Operation....................... ......... 100 ......... ......... ......... 100 100 ......... 100
Supplemental Data Collection............. ......... 500 ......... ......... ......... 500 500 ......... 500
Models....................................... ......... 2,450 ......... 750 ......... 3,200 3,200 ......... 3,200
Enhancement and Maintenance of ITS Models ......... 1,500 ......... 400 ......... 1,900 1,900 ......... 1,900
ITS Deployment Analysis System........... ......... 450 ......... 350 ......... 800 800 ......... 800
ATMS Research Tools Database System...... ......... 500 ......... ......... ......... 500 500 ......... 500
CRASH AVOIDANCE RESEARCH......................... ......... ......... 12,500 ......... ......... 12,500 ......... 12,500 12,500
System for Assessing the Vehicle Motion Env. ......... ......... 1,000 ......... ......... 1,000 ......... 1,000 1,000
(SAVEME)....................................
Data Acquisition Sys. for Crash Avoid. ......... ......... 2,000 ......... ......... 2,000 ......... 2,000 2,000
Research (DASCAR)...........................
Development of Objective Test Procedures..... ......... ......... 1,800 ......... ......... 1,800 ......... 1,800 1,800
Variable Dynamics Test Vehicle (VDTV)........ ......... ......... 500 ......... ......... 500 ......... 500 500
Integrated Demonstration and Testbed Vehicle. ......... ......... 3,000 ......... ......... 3,000 ......... 3,000 3,000
Lane Change/Merge Performance Specification.. ......... ......... 1,600 ......... ......... 1,600 ......... 1,600 1,600
Cooperative Agreements with Industrial ......... ......... 1,000 ......... ......... 1,000 ......... 1,000 1,000
Partners....................................
Test Track Procedures/ITS System Performance. ......... ......... 500 ......... ......... 500 ......... 500 500
Support of AHS/Variable Dynamics Test Vehicle ......... ......... 100 ......... ......... 100 ......... 100 100
(VDTV)......................................
Continuation of Indefinite Quantity Contracts ......... ......... 750 ......... ......... 750 ......... 750 750
(IQC).......................................
System Contractor Support.................... ......... ......... 250 ......... ......... 250 ......... 250 250
ENABLING......................................... ......... 5,650 1,150 700 ......... 7,500 7,500 ......... 7,500
Human Factors................................ ......... 4,150 1,150 700 ......... 6,000 6,000 ......... 6,000
ATMS/ATIS/APTS Human Factors Support..... ......... 1,975 ......... 700 ......... 2,675 2,675 ......... 2,675
Travel Information Effectiveness ......... ......... ......... 700 ......... 700 700 ......... 700
(Traffic/Transit)...................
ATMS Human Factors Support........... ......... 400 ......... ......... ......... 400 400 ......... 400
TMC Human Factors Research........... ......... 500 ......... ......... ......... 500 500 ......... 500
TMC Human Factors Computer-Aided ......... 1,075 ......... ......... ......... 1,075 1,075 ......... 1,075
Design System.......................
Human Factors Research--Driver Vehicle ......... 2,175 1,150 ......... ......... 3,325 3,325 ......... 3,325
Interface...............................
Risk Compensation/Driver Acceptance.. ......... ......... 400 ......... ......... 400 400 ......... 400
Workload Evaluation of ......... ......... 300 ......... ......... 300 300 ......... 300
Countermeasures.....................
Driving Simulator Studies............ ......... ......... 450 ......... ......... 450 450 ......... 450
Integration of IVIS Subsystems....... ......... 725 ......... ......... ......... 725 725 ......... 725
Technical Support.................... ......... 1,200 ......... ......... ......... 1,200 1,200 ......... 1,200
FHWA Simulator Upgrade............... ......... 250 ......... ......... ......... 250 250 ......... 250
Communications............................... ......... 1,500 ......... ......... ......... 1,500 1,500 ......... 1,500
DSRC Spectrum Issues..................... ......... 450 ......... ......... ......... 450 450 ......... 450
Communications Alternatives.............. ......... 550 ......... ......... ......... 550 550 ......... 550
Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) ......... 500 ......... ......... ......... 500 500 ......... 500
Testing.................................
RURAL RESEARCH................................... ......... 2,000 ......... ......... ......... 2,000 2,000 ......... 2,000
Development of Rural ITS Services............ ......... 1,900 ......... ......... ......... 1,900 1,900 ......... 1,900
Analysis of Site Characteristics............. ......... 100 ......... ......... ......... 100 100 ......... 100
HIGH RISK RESEARCH............................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
OTHER RESEARCH................................... ......... 4,000 ......... ......... ......... 4,000 4,000 ......... 4,000
University Programs.......................... ......... 3,250 ......... ......... ......... 3,250 3,250 ......... 3,250
University Research/RCE's................ ......... 2,250 ......... ......... ......... 2,250 2,250 ......... 2,250
IDEA..................................... ......... 1,000 ......... ......... ......... 1,000 1,000 ......... 1,000
Policy & Market Research for ITS............. ......... 400 ......... ......... ......... 400 400 ......... 400
Electronic Support Services.................. ......... 200 ......... ......... ......... 200 200 ......... 200
Other........................................ ......... 150 ......... ......... ......... 150 150 ......... 150
ADVANCED TRANSIT MANAGEMENT RESEARCH............. ......... ......... ......... 1,000 ......... 1,000 1,000 ......... 1,000
COMMERCIAL VEHICLE OPERATIONS.................... 7,500 7,500 ......... ......... ......... 7,500 7,500 ......... 7,500
SAFER/MCSAP SITES--System Develop. & 3,500 3,500 ......... ......... ......... 3,500 3,500 ......... 3,500
Enhancement.................................
CVISN Support................................ 3,600 3,600 ......... ......... ......... 3,600 3,600 ......... 3,600
Automated Compliance Review.................. 400 400 ......... ......... ......... 400 400 ......... 400
HWY.-RAIL INTERSECTION INNOVATIVE DEV. RESEARCH.. ......... ......... ......... ......... 3,500 3,500 3,500 ......... 3,500
ADVANCED VEHICLE CONTROL & INFORMATION SYSTEMS....... ......... 25,000 ......... 1,000 ......... 26,000 ......... 26,000 26,000
OPERATIONAL TESTS.................................... 2,000 7,000 12,500 5,000 ......... 24,500 ......... 24,500 24,500
APTS............................................. ......... ......... ......... 5,000 ......... 5,000 ......... 5,000 5,000
Regional Fleet Management.................... ......... ......... ......... 4,000 ......... 4,000 ......... 4,000 4,000
Hybrid Bank-Proximity Card................... ......... ......... ......... 1,000 ......... 1,000 ......... 1,000 1,000
CVO.............................................. 2,000 2,000 ......... ......... ......... 2,000 ......... 2,000 2,000
CRASH AVOIDANCE.................................. ......... ......... 12,500 ......... ......... 12,500 ......... 12,500 12,500
Rear End Collision Avoidance Systems......... ......... ......... 7,000 ......... ......... 7,000 ......... 7,000 7,000
Heavy Vehicle Intelligent Cruise Control..... ......... ......... 1,000 ......... ......... 1,000 ......... 1,000 1,000
Road Departure............................... ......... ......... 3,000 ......... ......... 3,000 ......... 3,000 3,000
Hvy. Vehicle Stability Enhan. by Selective ......... ......... 1,000 ......... ......... 1,000 ......... 1,000 1,000
Electronic Brak- ing.......................
On-Road Eval. of Hvy. Vehicle Drowsy Driver ......... ......... 500 ......... ......... 500 ......... 500 500
Detection Sys...............................
RURAL............................................ ......... 5,000 ......... ......... ......... 5,000 ......... 5,000 5,000
EVALUATION/PROGRAM ASSESSMENT........................ 350 6,800 1,200 1,000 ......... 9,000 9,000 ......... 9,000
ITS Field Evaluations............................ 350 5,050 1,200 1,000 ......... 7,250 7,250 ......... 7,250
ITS Program Assessment........................... ......... 1,750 ......... ......... ......... 1,750 1,750 ......... 1,750
ARCHITECTURE AND STANDARDS........................... 500 12,000 ......... 1,000 ......... 13,000 ......... 13,000 13,000
ARCHITECTURE..................................... ......... 2,800 ......... ......... ......... 2,800 ......... 2,800 2,800
Architecture Maintenance..................... ......... 2,500 ......... ......... ......... 2,500 ......... 2,500 2,500
Engineering Support.......................... ......... 300 ......... ......... ......... 300 ......... 300 300
STANDARDS........................................ 500 9,200 ......... 1,000 ......... 10,200 ......... 10,200 10,200
Standards Development Activities............. ......... 6,000 ......... ......... ......... 6,000 ......... 6,000 6,000
Technical Support............................ 500 2,200 ......... 800 ......... 3,000 ......... 3,000 3,000
Program Management....................... ......... 1,700 ......... ......... ......... 1,700 ......... 1,700 1,700
DSRC/EDI Support for CVO................. 500 500 ......... ......... ......... 500 ......... 500 500
Transit Standards Support................ ......... ......... ......... 800 ......... 800 ......... 800 800
Research and Development..................... ......... 400 ......... ......... ......... 400 ......... 400 400
In-vehicle ICON Standards................ ......... 400 ......... ......... ......... 400 ......... 400 400
Transit International Support................ ......... ......... ......... 200 ......... 200 ......... 200 200
Conformity Assessment........................ ......... 600 ......... ......... ......... 600 ......... 600 600
MAINSTREAMING........................................ 2,750 17,700 ......... 4,300 ......... 22,000 3,000 19,000 22,000
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE............................. 1,500 3,500 ......... 1,500 ......... 5,000 ......... 5,000 5,000
Information and Technology Transfer.......... ......... 1,500 ......... ......... ......... 1,500 ......... 1,500 1,500
Transit Technical Assistance................. ......... ......... ......... 1,500 ......... 1,500 ......... 1,500 1,500
Technical Assistance to Transit ......... ......... ......... 500 ......... 500 ......... 500 500
Authorities.............................
APTS Mobile Showcase..................... ......... ......... ......... 800 ......... 800 ......... 800 800
Electronic Payment Guidelines............ ......... ......... ......... 200 ......... 200 ......... 200 200
Commercial Vehicle Operations................ 1,500 1,500 ......... ......... ......... 1,500 ......... 1,500 1,500
State, Regional, Natl. Forums/Technical 1,000 1,000 ......... ......... ......... 1,000 ......... 1,000 1,000
Guidance................................
Border Technical Guidance................ 250 250 ......... ......... ......... 250 ......... 250 250
Deployment Technical Assistance.......... 250 250 ......... ......... ......... 250 ......... 250 250
Technical Assistance for Rural ITS Planning.. ......... 500 ......... ......... ......... 500 ......... 500 500
PLANNING/POLICY.................................. ......... 4,000 ......... ......... ......... 4,000 ......... 4,000 4,000
TRAINING......................................... 1,250 7,500 ......... 2,500 ......... 10,000 ......... 10,000 10,000
National ITS Training Initiative............. ......... 6,250 ......... 2,500 ......... 8,750 ......... 8,750 8,750
CVO Training................................. 1,250 1,250 ......... ......... ......... 1,250 ......... 1,250 1,250
AWARENESS AND ADVOCACY........................... ......... 2,700 ......... 300 ......... 3,000 3,000 ......... 3,000
ITI Awareness Campaign....................... ......... 1,000 ......... ......... ......... 1,000 1,000 ......... 1,000
Publications, Exhibits, etc.................. ......... 1,700 ......... 300 ......... 2,000 2,000 ......... 2,000
PROGRAM SUPPORT...................................... ......... 9,200 ......... 800 ......... 10,000 9,000 1,000 10,000
CORRIDORS PROGRAM.................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
ITS DEPLOYMENT INCENTIVES PROGRAM.................... 25,000 100,000 ......... ......... ......... 100,000 ......... 100,000 100,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GRAND TOTAL.................................... 38,100 203,600 27,350 15,550 3,500 250,000 54,000 196,000 250,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS ESTIMATED FISCAL YEAR 1999 SPENDING PLAN
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1999 budget
ACTIVITY/PROJECT CVO FHWA NHTSA FTA FRA TOTAL --------------------------------
GOE ISTEA Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT............................. 8,000 41,300 12,500 2,300 2,500 58,600 29,100 29,500 58,600
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT & CONTROL..................... ......... 5,500 ......... 500 ......... 6,000 6,000 ......... 6,000
INTELLIGENT VEHICLE RESEARCH (FORMERLY AVCIS/AHS) ......... 16,700 12,500 300 ......... 29,500 ......... 29,500 29,500
ENABLING......................................... ......... 3,500 ......... ......... ......... 3,500 3,500 ......... 3,500
RURAL RESEARCH................................... ......... 3,400 ......... ......... ......... 3,400 3,400 ......... 3,400
OTHER RESEARCH................................... ......... 3,200 ......... ......... ......... 3,200 3,200 ......... 3,200
ADVANCED TRANSIT MANAGEMENT RESEARCH............. ......... ......... ......... 1,500 ......... 1,500 1,500 ......... 1,500
COMMERCIAL VEHICLE OPERATIONS.................... 8,000 8,000 ......... ......... ......... 8,000 8,000 ......... 8,000
HWY.-RAIL INTERSECTION INNOVATIVE DEV. RESEARCH.. ......... ......... ......... ......... 2,500 2,500 2,500 ......... 2,500
INTERMODAL FREIGHT SUMMARY....................... ......... 1,000 ......... ......... ......... 1,000 1,000 ......... 1,000
OPERATIONAL TESTS.................................... 4,000 11,100 10,000 7,000 ......... 28,100 ......... 28,100 28,100
APTS............................................. ......... ......... ......... 2,000 ......... 2,000 ......... 2,000 2,000
INTELLIGENT VEHICLE (CRASH AVOIDANCE IN PY)...... 4,000 4,000 10,000 2,500 ......... 16,500 ......... 16,500 16,500
RURAL............................................ ......... 7,100 ......... 2,500 ......... 9,600 ......... 9,600 9,600
EVALUATION/PROGRAM/POLICY ASSESSMENT................. ......... 12,400 ......... ......... ......... 12,400 12,400 ......... 12,400
EVALUATIONS...................................... ......... 7,555 ......... ......... ......... 7,555 7,555 ......... 7,555
ITS PROGRAM/POLICY ASSESSMENT.................... ......... 4,845 ......... ......... ......... 4,845 4,845 ......... 4,845
ARCHITECTURE AND STANDARDS........................... 500 18,700 ......... 700 ......... 19,400 ......... 19,400 19,400
ARCHITECTURE..................................... ......... 5,400 ......... ......... ......... 5,400 ......... 5,400 5,400
STANDARDS........................................ 500 13,300 ......... 700 ......... 14,000 ......... 14,000 14,000
MAINSTREAMING........................................ 2,875 16,900 140 4,460 ......... 21,500 2,500 19,000 21,500
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE............................. 1,700 5,100 ......... 1,400 ......... 6,500 ......... 6,500 6,500
PLANNING/POLICY.................................. ......... 4,000 ......... ......... ......... 4,000 500 3,500 4,000
TRAINING......................................... 1,000 6,500 ......... 2,500 ......... 9,000 ......... 9,000 9,000
AWARENESS AND ADVOCACY........................... 175 1,300 140 560 ......... 2,000 2,000 ......... 2,000
PROGRAM SUPPORT...................................... ......... 9,200 ......... 800 ......... 10,000 10,000 ......... 10,000
ITS DEPLOYMENT INCENTIVES PROGRAM.................... 25,000 100,000 ......... ......... ......... 100,000 ......... 100,000 100,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GRAND TOTAL.................................... 40,375 209,600 22,640 15,260 2,500 250,000 54,000 196,000 250,000
==================================================================================================
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT............................. 8,000 41,300 12,500 2,300 2,500 58,600 29,100 29,500 58,600
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT & CONTROL..................... ......... 5,500 ......... 500 ......... 6,000 6,000 ......... 6,000
Advanced Traffic Mgmt. Research (Incl. TML).. ......... 2,500 ......... ......... ......... 2,500 2,500 ......... 2,500
Support Systems.............................. ......... 800 ......... ......... ......... 800 800 ......... 800
Research & Analysis for ATMS............. ......... 500 ......... ......... ......... 500 500 ......... 500
Internet Operation....................... ......... 100 ......... ......... ......... 100 100 ......... 100
Supplemental Data Collection............. ......... 200 ......... ......... ......... 200 200 ......... 200
Models....................................... ......... 2,200 ......... 500 ......... 2,700 2,700 ......... 2,700
Enhancement and Maintenance of ITS Models ......... 1,250 ......... 500 ......... 1,750 1,750 ......... 1,750
ATMS Research Tools Database System...... ......... 450 ......... ......... ......... 450 450 ......... 450
Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTA) System.. ......... 500 ......... ......... ......... 500 500 ......... 500
INTELLIGENT VEHICLE RESEARCH (FORMERLY AVCIS/AHS) ......... 16,700 12,500 300 ......... 29,500 ......... 29,500 29,500
Tool Development............................. ......... 900 1,000 ......... ......... 1,900 ......... 1,900 1,900
Simulation Tools......................... ......... 475 ......... ......... ......... 475 ......... 475 475
Upgrade FHWA Driving Testbed............. ......... 425 ......... ......... ......... 425 ......... 425 425
Development of Objective Test Procedures/ ......... ......... 1,000 ......... ......... 1,000 ......... 1,000 1,000
CAMP....................................
Performance Specification & Benefits Estimate ......... ......... 5,500 ......... ......... 5,500 ......... 5,500 5,500
Validation..................................
Application of NADS...................... ......... ......... 750 ......... ......... 750 ......... 750 750
Benefits Associated with Enhanced Vision ......... ......... 500 ......... ......... 500 ......... 500 500
Systems.................................
Utilization of Test Vehicles............. ......... ......... 1,250 ......... ......... 1,250 ......... 1,250 1,250
Benefits Analyses........................ ......... ......... 1,000 ......... ......... 1,000 ......... 1,000 1,000
Application of SAVME..................... ......... ......... 1,000 ......... ......... 1,000 ......... 1,000 1,000
Application of VDTV...................... ......... ......... 1,000 ......... ......... 1,000 ......... 1,000 1,000
Intelligent Vehicle Development.............. ......... 7,500 1,500 ......... ......... 9,000 ......... 9,000 9,000
Level 1 Design/Build IVI................. ......... 4,000 ......... ......... ......... 4,000 ......... 4,000 4,000
Integrate Crash Avoidance Technologies... ......... ......... 1,500 ......... ......... 1,500 ......... 1,500 1,500
Infrastructure Preparation for Level 1... ......... 1,500 ......... ......... ......... 1,500 ......... 1,500 1,500
Develop Integrated DVI for Multiple ......... 2,000 ......... ......... ......... 2,000 ......... 2,000 2,000
Systems.................................
Critical Technology.......................... ......... 8,300 4,500 300 ......... 13,100 ......... 13,100 13,100
Driver Control Assistance................ ......... 3,000 ......... ......... ......... 3,000 ......... 3,000 3,000
Extend Performance Specifications........ ......... ......... 2,000 ......... ......... 2,000 ......... 2,000 2,000
Develop User Services and Stakeholder ......... 1,200 ......... ......... ......... 1,200 ......... 1,200 1,200
Involvement.............................
Transit Study............................ ......... ......... ......... 300 ......... 300 ......... 300 300
Human Factors............................ ......... 4,100 2,500 ......... ......... 6,600 ......... 6,600 6,600
Driver Workload Compensatory Action.. ......... ......... 500 ......... ......... 500 ......... 500 500
Warning Reliability and Driver ......... 600 ......... ......... ......... 600 ......... 600 600
Reactions...........................
Human Factors Aspects of Enhanced ......... 750 ......... ......... ......... 750 ......... 750 750
Display.............................
Special IVIS Needs for Emergency ......... 750 ......... ......... ......... 750 ......... 750 750
Vehicle Operations..................
HF Issues for Driver Interaction ......... 500 ......... ......... ......... 500 ......... 500 500
Modes...............................
Driver Behavioral Adaptation......... ......... 500 ......... ......... ......... 500 ......... 500 500
Suitability of DVI with Special Needs ......... ......... 500 ......... ......... 500 ......... 500 500
Adverse Safety Effects of In-Vehicle ......... ......... 500 ......... ......... 500 ......... 500 500
Devices.............................
In-House Human Factors Studies....... ......... 1,000 ......... ......... ......... 1,000 ......... 1,000 1,000
Driver Behavior Data Collection Using ......... ......... 1,000 ......... ......... 1,000 ......... 1,000 1,000
DASCAR..............................
ENABLING......................................... ......... 3,500 ......... ......... ......... 3,500 3,500 ......... 3,500
Human Factors Research--ATMS................. ......... 2,400 ......... ......... ......... 2,400 2,400 ......... 2,400
Computer Aided Design for Traffic Mgmt. ......... 850 ......... ......... ......... 850 850 ......... 850
Centers.................................
Traffic Mgmt. Center Research............ ......... 800 ......... ......... ......... 800 800 ......... 800
Support Services......................... ......... 750 ......... ......... ......... 750 750 ......... 750
Communications and Radionavigation........... ......... 1,100 ......... ......... ......... 1,100 1,100 ......... 1,100
DSRC Spectrum Issues..................... ......... 800 ......... ......... ......... 800 800 ......... 800
Wide Area Communications for Traffic ......... 300 ......... ......... ......... 300 300 ......... 300
Mgmt. Systems...........................
RURAL RESEARCH................................... ......... 3,400 ......... ......... ......... 3,400 3,400 ......... 3,400
Development of Rural ITS Services............ ......... 3,400 ......... ......... ......... 3,400 3,400 ......... 3,400
OTHER RESEARCH................................... ......... 3,200 ......... ......... ......... 3,200 3,200 ......... 3,200
University Programs.......................... ......... 2,300 ......... ......... ......... 2,300 2,300 ......... 2,300
University Research/RCE's................ ......... 1,800 ......... ......... ......... 1,800 1,800 ......... 1,800
IDEA..................................... ......... 500 ......... ......... ......... 500 500 ......... 500
Electronic Support Services.................. ......... 230 ......... ......... ......... 230 230 ......... 230
ADP Support Services......................... ......... 550 ......... ......... ......... 550 550 ......... 550
Other........................................ ......... 120 ......... ......... ......... 120 120 ......... 120
ADVANCED TRANSIT MANAGEMENT RESEARCH............. ......... ......... ......... 1,500 ......... 1,500 1,500 ......... 1,500
Advanced Fleet Management Research........... ......... ......... ......... 500 ......... 500 500 ......... 500
Transit Radio Spectrum Allocation Impact ......... ......... ......... 100 ......... 100 100 ......... 100
Assessment..................................
Traveler Information ADA Compatibility....... ......... ......... ......... 900 ......... 900 900 ......... 900
COMMERCIAL VEHICLE OPERATIONS.................... 8,000 8,000 ......... ......... ......... 8,000 8,000 ......... 8,000
Safety Systems Deployment Support............ 7,200 7,200 ......... ......... ......... 7,200 7,200 ......... 7,200
Safety Development and Enhancement....... 2,050 2,050 ......... ......... ......... 2,050 2,050 ......... 2,050
Systems Operations and Support........... 2,250 2,250 ......... ......... ......... 2,250 2,250 ......... 2,250
Architectural Standards Support and 2,900 2,900 ......... ......... ......... 2,900 2,900 ......... 2,900
Integration.............................
Advances in Roadside Inspection Technology... 450 450 ......... ......... ......... 450 450 ......... 450
Automated Compliance Review.................. 350 350 ......... ......... ......... 350 350 ......... 350
HWY.-RAIL INTERSECTION INNOVATIVE DEV. RESEARCH.. ......... ......... ......... ......... 2,500 2,500 2,500 ......... 2,500
INTERMODAL FREIGHT SUMMARY....................... ......... 1,000 ......... ......... ......... 1,000 1,000 ......... 1,000
OPERATIONAL TESTS.................................... 4,000 11,100 10,000 7,000 ......... 28,100 ......... 28,100 28,100
APTS............................................. ......... ......... ......... 2,000 ......... 2,000 ......... 2,000 2,000
Asynchronous Demand Responsive Transit ......... ......... ......... 300 ......... 300 ......... 300 300
(ADART).....................................
Hybrid Bank-Proximity Card Phase III......... ......... ......... ......... 1,700 ......... 1,700 ......... 1,700 1,700
INTELLIGENT VEHICLE (CRASH AVOIDANCE IN PY)...... 4,000 4,000 10,000 2,500 ......... 16,500 ......... 16,500 16,500
Integrated Transit Vehicle................... ......... ......... ......... 2,500 ......... 2,500 ......... 2,500 2,500
Rear End Collision Avoidance Systems......... ......... ......... 7,000 ......... ......... 7,000 ......... 7,000 7,000
Road Departure Crash Avoidance Systems....... ......... ......... 3,000 ......... ......... 3,000 ......... 3,000 3,000
Intelligent Vehicle Heavy Truck.............. 4,000 4,000 ......... ......... ......... 4,000 ......... 4,000 4,000
RURAL............................................ ......... 7,100 ......... 2,500 ......... 9,600 ......... 9,600 9,600
Traveler Safety and Security................. ......... 1,500 ......... ......... ......... 1,500 ......... 1,500 1,500
Rural Emergency Services..................... ......... 1,600 ......... ......... ......... 1,600 ......... 1,600 1,600
Rural Infrastructure Operations and ......... 2,000 ......... ......... ......... 2,000 ......... 2,000 2,000
Maintenance.................................
Rural Fleet Operations and Maintenance....... ......... ......... ......... 2,500 ......... 2,500 ......... 2,500 2,500
Preliminary Integrated Systems............... ......... 2,000 ......... ......... ......... 2,000 ......... 2,000 2,000
EVALUATION/PROGRAM/POLICY ASSESSMENT................. ......... 12,400 ......... ......... ......... 12,400 12,400 ......... 12,400
EVALUATIONS...................................... ......... 7,555 ......... ......... ......... 7,555 7,555 ......... 7,555
Metropolitan Model Deployment................ ......... 800 ......... ......... ......... 800 800 ......... 800
CVISN Model Deployment....................... ......... 490 ......... ......... ......... 490 490 ......... 490
Field Operation Tests Cross-Cutting Analyses. ......... 900 ......... ......... ......... 900 900 ......... 900
Rural Field Operational Tests................ ......... 2,290 ......... ......... ......... 2,290 2,290 ......... 2,290
Intelligent Vehicle Operational Tests........ ......... 2,250 ......... ......... ......... 2,250 2,250 ......... 2,250
Intermodal Freight Evaluation................ ......... 150 ......... ......... ......... 150 150 ......... 150
APTS Field Operational Tests................. ......... 300 ......... ......... ......... 300 300 ......... 300
Highway-Rail Field Operational Tests......... ......... 375 ......... ......... ......... 375 375 ......... 375
ITS PROGRAM/POLICY ASSESSMENT.................... ......... 4,845 ......... ......... ......... 4,845 4,845 ......... 4,845
ITS Deployment Tracking...................... ......... 895 ......... ......... ......... 895 895 ......... 895
Program Tracking............................. ......... 250 ......... ......... ......... 250 250 ......... 250
Policy Assessment............................ ......... 3,700 ......... ......... ......... 3,700 3,700 ......... 3,700
ARCHITECTURE AND STANDARDS........................... 500 18,700 ......... 700 ......... 19,400 ......... 19,400 19,400
ARCHITECTURE..................................... ......... 5,400 ......... ......... ......... 5,400 ......... 5,400 5,400
DOT Architecture Activities.................. ......... 3,400 ......... ......... ......... 3,400 ......... 3,400 3,400
In-Vehicle ITS Systems Architecture.......... ......... 2,000 ......... ......... ......... 2,000 ......... 2,000 2,000
STANDARDS........................................ 500 13,300 ......... 700 ......... 14,000 ......... 14,000 14,000
Research and Development..................... ......... 1,100 ......... ......... ......... 1,100 ......... 1,100 1,100
In-vehicle ICON Standards................ ......... 600 ......... ......... ......... 600 ......... 600 600
Standardization of ATIS Information ......... 500 ......... ......... ......... 500 ......... 500 500
Across Media............................
Standards Development Activities............. 500 8,600 ......... 700 ......... 9,300 ......... 9,300 9,300
Infrastructure and Safety................ ......... 7,100 ......... ......... ......... 7,100 ......... 7,100 7,100
DSRC/EDI Support for CVO................. 500 500 ......... ......... ......... 500 ......... 500 500
Transit.................................. ......... ......... ......... 700 ......... 700 ......... 700 700
Federal Rulemaking Support............... ......... 1,000 ......... ......... ......... 1,000 ......... 1,000 1,000
User Implementation Guides................... ......... 600 ......... ......... ......... 600 ......... 600 600
International Activity....................... ......... 300 ......... ......... ......... 300 ......... 300 300
Testing and Integration...................... ......... 2,200 ......... ......... ......... 2,200 ......... 2,200 2,200
Data Registration............................ ......... 500 ......... ......... ......... 500 ......... 500 500
MAINSTREAMING........................................ 2,875 16,900 140 4,460 ......... 21,500 2,500 19,000 21,500
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE............................. 1,700 5,100 ......... 1,400 ......... 6,500 ......... 6,500 6,500
Information and Technology Transfer.......... ......... 3,000 ......... ......... ......... 3,000 ......... 3,000 3,000
Specifications and Contract Mgmt......... ......... 815 ......... ......... ......... 815 ......... 815 815
Grass Roots Involvement.................. ......... 535 ......... ......... ......... 535 ......... 535 535
Tailored Technical Assistance............ ......... 650 ......... ......... ......... 650 ......... 650 650
Guidance Documents....................... ......... 1,000 ......... ......... ......... 1,000 ......... 1,000 1,000
Transit Technical Assistance................. ......... ......... ......... 1,400 ......... 1,400 ......... 1,400 1,400
Technical Assistance to Transit ......... ......... ......... 550 ......... 550 ......... 550 550
Authorities.............................
Industry Cooperation..................... ......... ......... ......... 350 ......... 350 ......... 350 350
APTS Mobile Showcase..................... ......... ......... ......... 500 ......... 500 ......... 500 500
Commercial Vehicle Operations................ 1,700 1,700 ......... ......... ......... 1,700 ......... 1,700 1,700
State, Regional, Natl. Forums/Technical 1,060 1,060 ......... ......... ......... 1,060 ......... 1,060 1,060
Guidance................................
Border Technical Guidance................ 500 500 ......... ......... ......... 500 ......... 500 500
Deployment Technical Assistance.......... 140 140 ......... ......... ......... 140 ......... 140 140
Technical Assistance for Rural ITS Planning.. ......... 400 ......... ......... ......... 400 ......... 400 400
PLANNING/POLICY.................................. ......... 4,000 ......... ......... ......... 4,000 500 3,500 4,000
IDAS Case Studies/Lessons Learned............ ......... 500 ......... ......... ......... 500 ......... 500 500
Development of ITS Module Within TRANSIMS.... ......... 2,000 ......... ......... ......... 2,000 ......... 2,000 2,000
Support for Developing Regional/Statewide ......... 250 ......... ......... ......... 250 250 ......... 250
Framework...................................
Management & Operations in Transportation ......... 1,000 ......... ......... ......... 1,000 ......... 1,000 1,000
Planning....................................
Role of ITS in Supporting FHWA/FTA Mobility ......... 250 ......... ......... ......... 250 250 ......... 250
Goal........................................
TRAINING......................................... 1,000 6,500 ......... 2,500 ......... 9,000 ......... 9,000 9,000
National ITS Training Initiative............. ......... 4,000 ......... ......... ......... 4,000 ......... 4,000 4,000
CVO Training................................. 1,000 1,000 ......... ......... ......... 1,000 ......... 1,000 1,000
Standards Training/Technology Transfer....... ......... 1,500 ......... ......... ......... 1,500 ......... 1,500 1,500
FTA Professional Capacity Building........... ......... ......... ......... 2,500 ......... 2,500 ......... 2,500 2,500
AWARENESS AND ADVOCACY........................... 175 1,300 140 560 ......... 2,000 2,000 ......... 2,000
ITI Awareness Activities..................... 75 300 ......... 360 ......... 660 660 ......... 660
Publications, Exhibits, etc.................. 100 1,000 140 200 ......... 1,340 1,340 ......... 1,340
PROGRAM SUPPORT...................................... ......... 9,200 ......... 800 ......... 10,000 10,000 ......... 10,000
ITS DEPLOYMENT INCENTIVES PROGRAM.................... 25,000 100,000 ......... ......... ......... 100,000 100,000 ......... 100,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GRAND TOTAL.................................... 40,375 209,600 22,640 15,260 2,500 250,000 54,000 196,000 250,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. What is the status of each of the projects in the ITS
program related to highway/rail grade crossings? For each project,
please list accomplishments to date, purposes and objectives, amount
obligated, amount planned to be spent, amount unobligated, scope and
nature of the project, and expected date of completion. What has been
achieved with past ITS investments in this area?
Answer. There are two ITS investments involving highway/rail
intersections. Both have been earmarked projects. The first project
involves the Vehicle Proximity Alert System (VPAS), managed by Federal
Railroad Administration, and tested in Pueblo Colorado.
Section 1072 of the 1991 ISTEA required the testing of VPAS and
comparable systems to determine their feasibility for use by priority
vehicles as an effective highway-rail grade crossing safety device.
VPAS is an in-vehicle device, mounted to the dashboard, that provides
both an audible and visual warning to the driver of a priority vehicle
(ambulance, school bus, police car, etc) that a train is approaching,
or in, a grade crossing.
Total funding available to conduct this testing was $1 million,
with $600,000 transferred from FHWA to FRA in fiscal year 1994 and
$400,000 in fiscal year 1995.
Reliability testing of the prototype systems was conducted at the
Transportation Technology Center (TTC) in Pueblo, Colorado. The
prototypes were tested for their maximum range, reliability, ease of
installation, etc. The reliability testing has been completed and the
Final Test Report has been submitted. The Evaluation Report final draft
should be finished by the end of May, 1998.
Based on (1) the conclusions of the evaluation report, (2) a
comparison of the tested systems with the recently developed ITS User
Service #30 element of the National ITS Architecture, (3) the final
accounting of costs for the testing and evaluation work now being
completed, and (4) the results of ongoing independent demonstrations of
still other concepts in Minnesota and Illinois, a decision will be made
whether or not to conduct further reliability or revenue-service
testing of the prototype systems addressed in this project.
Three systems were tested:
3-point system--by SmartStops, Inc.--The original concept had a
transceiver on the locomotive, one at the grade crossing and a receiver
in the priority vehicle. The locomotive-mounted transceiver would
broadcast continuously, and as it approached a grade crossing the
transceiver at the crossing would be activated, broadcasting a signal
to any equipped priority vehicles in the area and also returning a
message to the locomotive that the crossing system had been activated.
This system worked reasonably well, although it would require some
modifications to reduce its activation range, temperature response, and
so on, before any further testing or development were to occur.
However, after discussions with several railroads, no railroad would
allow the mounting of a transmitter for this purpose on their
locomotives. As a result, the concept had to be modified to use a
wayside detector. The manufacturer is in the process of modifying their
system now, and will have to return to TTC to do basic reliability
testing, should FRA determine that such further testing is advisable.
1-point system by EARS.--This system is a receiver mounted in the
priority vehicle which is activated by the sound of the train horn. It
is an outgrowth of a system used to help hearing-impaired drivers hear
emergency sirens. However, this system did not perform well. It
suffered from a lack of range and several other problems that lead to a
large number of false alarms.
1-point system by Dynamic Vehicle Safety Systems.--This system is a
receiver mounted in the priority vehicle that is activated by the
train's Front/Rear End Device (FRED). The FRED is used to monitor air
brake pressure and continuously updates via radio an indicator in the
locomotive cab. This device is used on more than 85 percent of the
freight trains in the country and has an FRA-approved usage and
maintenance protocol. This system worked very well, although it had an
excessive range problem, but the range should be reducible to minimize
false alarms. However, the concept is not compatible with the ITS User
Service #30. This system would need to be modified for purposes of any
further testing.
A fourth system selected for testing, a 2-point system which used a
transmitter on the locomotive and a receiver in the priority vehicle,
was dropped from consideration because of the failure of the
manufacturer, RF Solutions, to supply a prototype for testing.
The second project includes the development of a prototype
integrated warning system for use at railroad/highway grade crossings.
This effort will demonstrate the benefits of an integrated approach for
managing highway/rail crossings by sharing data between driver and
train warning and control systems. This 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. This work 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.
To date no fiscal year 1998 funds have been allocated to any
Highway/Rail grade crossing projects. When funding is available,
efforts will be primarily focused on the evaluation of GPS, full
barrier systems and ``a 2nd train coming'' systems. A team within USDOT
is now reviewing the earmarked projects of VPAS and Long Island
Railroad to develop an ITS evaluation plan, to review lessons learned
and to determine the next steps. Use of the VPAS technology is expected
to be applied to other sites, but those sites have not been determined
to date.
In fiscal year 1999, the plans are to establish projects for
integrating railroad technology with automatic traffic management
systems, and for traffic signal preemption at crossings as well as
health monitoring. The three projects included in the budget request
are expected to cost $2.5 million.
Question. Please compare your GOE expenditures for each of the last
three years with 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
from amounts specified in various congressional reports.
Answer. The following table compares actual and/or planned GOE
obligations for each of the last three fiscal years (1996, 1997 and
1998) 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.
The amounts reflected in fiscal year 1998 assumes that we receive the
full $130.16 million included in the General Operating Expenses account
under Public Law 105-66.
Any deviations between the funds actually used and/or projected to
be used by program category is minor. Funds actually used for each ITS
program within the General Operating Expenses account will always fall
within the 10 percent plus or minus variance historically allowed by
the Committee.
INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS ANALYSIS OF FUNDING--GENERAL OPERATING EXPENSES
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
1996 Actual Unoblig. 9/ 1997 Actual Unoblig. 9/ 1998 Proposed Est.
Program category dollars in oblig.\1\ 30/96 dollars in oblig.\2\ 30/97 dollars in oblig.\3\ unoblig. 9/
report report report 30/98
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research and development........... 37,479 36,166 2,237 29,000 26,393 ........... 31,500 31,500 ...........
Operational tests.................. 32,500 31,052 587 56,000 56,447 ........... 83,900 83,900 ...........
Commercial vehicle oper............ 14,500 13,750 435 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Automated hwy. system.............. 14,000 14,000 23 22,000 22,000 ........... ........... ........... ...........
Adv. technology applic............. ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Corridors program.................. ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Deployment support................. ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Program and system support......... 11,300 10,034 1,096 8,000 8,326 355 7,760 7,760 ...........
System architecture................ ........... ........... ........... 5,000 5,000 32 ........... ........... ...........
Congested corridors................ ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Model deployment................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Evaluation......................... ........... ........... ........... 2,000 1,999 ........... 7,000 7,000 ...........
Mainstreaming...................... ........... ........... ........... ........... 193 ........... ........... ........... ...........
Nat'l adv. driver sim. (NADS)...... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................ 109,779 105,002 4,378 122,000 120,358 387 130,160 130,160 ...........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fiscal year 1996 amounts exclude $4.777 in reductions associated with sec. 335 of Public Law 104-50.
\2\ Fiscal year 1997 amounts exclude $1.642 million in ``accountwide savings'' (pg. 43 conf. rept. 104-785).
\3\ Fiscal year 1998 amounts assume $130.16 million included in the appn. act will be made available to the ITS program.
Question. Please prepare a list of all of the operational tests
that have not yet been completed. Please indicate their starting date,
expected date of completion, expected submittal date of final
evaluation, remaining unobligated balances, and remaining obligated
balances.
Answer. With the exception of the remaining obligated balances, our
response is provided in the tables below. In order to provide answers
regarding unspent balances, we will have to work with our financial
administrators both in Headquarters and in the various regional and
division offices to search data bases and cross-reference accounting
codes.
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.
There is currently no unobligated balance of ITS funds associated
with any of these projects.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expected Completion/
Project Start Date Final Report Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADVANCED TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT
SYSTEMS (ATMS)
FAST-TRAC....................... 4/92......... 6/2000.
Integrated Ramp Metering/ 9/93......... 3/99.
Adaptive Signal Control.
Mobile Communications System.... 5/94......... 6/98 (Current best
estimate).
Montgomery County ATMS.......... 7/94......... 9/99.
North Seattle ATMS.............. 3/94......... 6/98.
San Antonio Transguide.......... 8/93......... 11/98.
Satellite Communications 10/92........ 6/98.
Feasibility.
SCOOT Adaptive Control System... 9/93......... 6/98.
Spread Spectrum Radio Traffic 7/94......... 6/98.
Interconnect.
ADVANCED TRAVELER INFORMATION
SYSTEMS (ATIS)
DIRECT.......................... 5/91......... 4/98.
Denver, CO Hogback Multi-Modal 5/93......... 9/98.
Transfer Center.
Railroad Crossing Vehicle 10/97........ 11/98.
Proximity Alert System, Phase
II.
Railroad Highway Crossing-Long 7/95......... 9/98.
Island.
Seattle Wide-Area Information 8/94......... 7/98.
for Travelers.
Travinfo........................ 4/93......... 12/98.
Trilogy......................... 7/94......... 6/98.
ADVANCED PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEM (APTS)
LYNX Passenger Travel Planning 1/96......... 9/98.
System.
Miami Real-Time Passenger 7/95......... 6/99.
Information System.
Northern Virginia Regional Fare 9/96......... 5/99.
System.
Blacksburg Rural Traveler 7/96......... 1/99.
Information System.
Suburban Mobility Authority for 12/93........ 6/98.
Regional Trans (SMART).
Winston-Salem Mobility 6/96......... 8/99.
Management, Phase II.
Houston Smart Commuter.......... 2/93......... 10/99.
Ann Arbor Smart Intermodal...... 7/91......... 6/98.
CTA (Chicago) Smart Intermodal.. 7/91......... 5/98.
Delaware County Ridetracking.... 9/92......... 4/98.
Smart Flexroute Integrated Real- 1/94......... 5/98.
Time Enhancement System.
Dallas Area Rapid Transit 9/94......... 8/98.
Personalized Public Transit.
Denver RTD Passenger Information 9/93......... 5/98.
Display System.
Wilmington, Delaware Smart DART. 7/94......... 5/99.
NY City MTA Travel Information 9/94......... 9/98.
System.
ADVANCED RURAL TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEMS (ARTS)
Travel-Aid...................... 11/92........ 7/98.
Idaho Storm Warning System...... 6/93......... 8/98.
Advanced Rural Transportation 7/94......... 8/98.
Information and Coordination.
Advanced Transportation Weather 5/95......... 8/98.
Information System.
Herald En-Route Driver Advisory 1/95......... 9/98.
via AM Subcarrier.
Arizona I-40 Traveler and 10/97........ 5/99.
Tourist Information System.
Branson, Missouri Trip (Travel 10/97........ 5/99.
and Recreational Information
Project).
Cape Cod Rural Advanced 10/97........ 6/99.
Intermodal Transportation
System.
Foretell--Integrating ITS With 10/97........ 3/2000.
Advanced Weather Prediction.
Greater Yellowstone Rural ITS 6/97......... 6/99.
project.
North Florida Rural Transit 9/97......... 4/2000.
Intelligent Transportation
Systems.
COMMERCIAL VEHICLE OPERATIONS
(CVO)
Dynamic Truck Speed Warning for 6/93......... 10/98.
Long Downgrades.
Electronic Clearance for 9/94......... 8/98.
International Borders.
MONY (Detroit, MI, Buffalo, NY). 11/96........ 3/98.
IBEX (Otay Mesa, CA)............ 9/94......... 4/98.
EPIC (Nogales, AZ).............. 9/94......... 8/98.
ITS/CVO Greenlight Project...... 10/94........ 4/2000.
National Institute for 10/95........ 12/98.
Environmental Renewal (NIER).
Tranzit Xpress II............... 6/96......... 3/98.
Operation Respond............... 4/95......... 4/98.
ADVANCED VEHICLE CONTROL AND
SAFETY SYSTEMS (AVCSS)
Colorado Mayday System.......... 10/94........ 8/98.
Automated Collision Notification 9/95......... 10/98.
System.
Intelligent Cruise Control...... 9/95......... 6/98.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please prepare a list of all of the model deployment
tests that have not yet been completed. Please indicate their starting
date, expected date of completion, expected date of submittal of final
evaluation, remaining unobligated balances, and remaining obligated
balances.
Answer. The selection of Seattle, Phoenix, San Antonio and New
York/New Jersey/Connecticut area as metropolitan model deployments was
announced in October, 1996. Seattle, Phoenix and San Antonio will be
fully operational within the next few months, achieving the ambitious
goal of deploying integrated, multimodal transportation management and
traveler information systems within approximately 18 months of award of
funds. A series of kick off events are planned to celebrate each site's
success: Seattle on May 15, Phoenix the first week of June, and San
Antonio in mid July. The New York/New Jersey/Connecticut model
deployment is also progressing, with a kick off event to highlight
their accomplishments tentatively scheduled for September. Data
collection for the evaluation of the metropolitan model deployment
projects will last approximately one year, and the final evaluation
report is due in December, 1999. There are no unobligated balances. The
Department does not monitor unspent balances. Determining the answer to
this question will require a coordinated effort with our financial
administrators to search databases and cross reference accounting
codes.
For commercial vehicle operations; the CVISN model deployment
states of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Kentucky, Michigan,
Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington were announced in October, 1996 to be
funded on an incremental basis. The incremental funding was planned to
be awarded as states progressed with implementation of CVISN. The
initial funding in fiscal year 1996 was $0.5 million per state, with a
50 percent match. In fiscal year 1997 an additional $0.5 million was
provided to 7 of the 8 states, based upon specified achievements.
Michigan was delayed in their planning. They hope to continue
participation in fiscal year 1998. The actual cost of implementation of
CVISN level one in the eight model deployment States was estimated at
$6-8 million per State. Therefore, additional Federal funding of $2 to
$3 million will be required to implement CVISN Level I in the model
deployment States. If funding is available by September, 1998 the
expected date of completion of CVISN model deployment level one is
fiscal year 2000.
Question. Please specify on a contract-by-contract basis how the
fiscal year 1996, fiscal year 1997 and the fiscal year 1998 program
support monies were used or will be used. Please indicate the scope,
nature, and amount of each contract.
Answer. There are two principal contractors that support the JPO
staff; ITS America, and the Mitretek Corp. ITS America is the official
advisory committee to the U.S. DOT on the ITS program, and organizes
and staffs the national committees that address each major facet of the
program. These committees are one of the formal forums to bring
together technical expertise in specific areas to review the program,
suggest research issues to be addressed, and provide a venue for policy
discussions with the ITS community. In addition, there are specific
tasks the U.S. DOT requests ITS America to perform that require access
to their membership, or that they are uniquely qualified to provide.
The U.S. DOT funding covers only these activities, and represents 35
percent million of the $10 million annual budget of ITS America.
The Mitretek Corp. provides the principal technical support
function for the JPO. Mitretek's support can be categorized into in 7
general areas: Program planning and assessment; the rural program;
system architecture and deployment; communications and frequency
spectrum; safety technology research for NHTSA; AHS program; and
incorporating ITS into the transportation planning process.
Mitretek is the technical arm of the JPO. As such, they review and/
or generate all of the technical guidance, analyses, and research
activities in which the JPO is engaged. Due to the small size of the
JPO, the staff are each managing several areas of the program, and also
provide the policy development options and rationale for senior
management. The Mitretek staff is the support that allows the existence
of a small JPO staff to accomplish these tasks. In 1997, the JPO
developed and produced separate technical documents that encompassed
technical guidance, results of research and deployment, outreach, and
informational documents for use by cities and states across the
country. Mitretek drafted many of these documents and provides the only
entity that maintains in depth technical expertise in all facets of the
ITS Program.
There are several small activities that provide support to the JPO
in the areas of the development and testing of the ITS Management
Information System, the computer network, the internet Web page,
special support for conferences and workshops, and consultants for
special issues that arise during the conduct of the program.
The obligations for program support fall into three major
categories; ITS America, Mitretek, and miscellaneous support
activities. Following is a table which displays funding (both contract
authority and GOE funding) actually utilized for program support in
fiscal years 1996 and 1997 and projected for fiscal year 1998.
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
Activity --------------------------------
1996 1997 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ITS America............................ 2.8 2.6 2.7
Mitretek............................... 5.5 5.6 5.3
Misc. Support.......................... 2.9 1.5 2.0
--------------------------------
TOTAL............................ 11.2 9.7 10.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. For each of the contracts that have been signed to help
develop standards, please provide extensive detail justifying these
expenditures.
Answer. Each of the standards development organizations (SDO's)
were contracted with to support the development of interface standards
as defined by the ITS National Architecture. Multiple SDO's were
contracted with because of the various expertises required in this
task. The following provides a brief description of the primary
interest area of each SDO and the standards products they are working
on.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO).--Development of standards relating to roadside
infrastructure.
--Actuated Signal Controller Objects (NTCIP)
--Automatic Vehicle Identification (NTCIP)
--Class E Profile for Center to Center Communications (NTCIP)
--Dynamic Message Signs (NTCIP)
--Environmental Sensor Stations (NTCIP)
--Highway Advisory Radio--HAR (NTCIP)
--NTCIP Class B Profile
--NTCIP Global Object Definitions NTCIP Overview
--NTCIP Simple Transportation Management Framework Ramp Meters
(NTCIP)
--NTCIP Transportation Sensor Systems
--Vehicle Classification Devices (NTCIP)
--Video Camera Control (NTCIP)
--Weigh-in-Motion (NTCIP)
American Society of Testing & Materials (ASTM).--Development of
standards and test procedures for roadside dedicated short-range
communications (DSRC) and equipment.
--DSRC Data Link Layer
--DSRC Physical Layer: 902-928 MHZ.
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).--
Development of standards relating to electronics and communications
message sets and protocols.
--ITS Data Dictionaries Guidelines
--Message Sets for DSRC for ETTM and CVO
--Message Sets for Incident Management (EMS to TMC, E911)
--Standard for Data Dictionaries for ITS
--Standard for Message Set Template for ITS
--Survey of Communications Technologies.
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE).--Development of
standards relating to traffic management and transportation planning
systems.
--External TMC Communications Scoping and Requirements Study
--Advanced Traffic Management System Data Dictionary (TMDD)--Section
1 Links/Nodes)
--Advanced Traffic Management System Data Dictionary (TMDD)--Section
2 (Incidents)
--Advanced Traffic Management System Data Dictionary (TMDD)--Section
3 (Traffic Control)
--Advanced Traffic Management System Data Dictionary (TMDD)--Section
4 (DMS/Video/etc.)
--Advanced Transportation Controller (ATC) Application Program
--Advanced Transportation Controller (ATC) Cabinet Specification
--Advanced Transportation Controller (ATC) Functionality and
Interface
--Message Set for External TMC Communication (MS/ETMCC)--Bundle A
--Message Set for External TMC Communication (MS/ETMCC)--Bundle B
--TCIP--Control Center Objects
--TCIP--Common Public Transportation Objects
--TCIP--Fare Collection Objects TCIP--Framework
--TCIP--Incident Management Objects
--TCIP--Onboard Objects
--TCIP--Passenger Information Objects
--TCIP--Scheduling/Runcutting Objects
--TCIP--Spatial Representation Objects
--TCIP--Traffic Management Objects.
Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE).--Development of standards
for in-vehicle and traveler information systems.
--Adaptive Cruise Control MMI and Operating Characteristics
--Advanced Traveler Information System (ATIS) Core Message List
--Advanced Traveler Information System (ATIS) Data Dictionary
--ATIS Message Structure for High Speed FM Subcarrier
--Forward Collision Warning: Operating Characteristics and User
Interface
--In-Vehicle Message Priority
--In-Vehicle Navigation System Communication Device Message Set
--ISP-Vehicle Location Referencing Standard
--ITS Data Bus Architecture Information
--ITS Data Bus Conformance Testing Standard
--ITS Data Bus Gateway Recommended Practice
--ITS Data Bus Physical Layer Standard SAE J2366/1
--ITS Data Bus Protocol--Application Layer
--ITS Data Bus Protocol Standard--Link Layer
--Location Referencing Standard--Field Test Analysis Information
--Location Referencing Standard--Stakeholder's Workshop Information
Report
--Mayday Industry Survey Information
--National Location Referencing Information Report
--Navigation & Route Guidance Function Accessibility while Driving
--Navigation & Route Guidance Man-Machine Interface Transactions
--On-Board Land Vehicle Mayday Reporting Interface
--Visual Demand Management.
The following organizations are not part of the original 5 SDO's
contracted with but are still receiving resource support from U.S. DOT
and are, therefore, included in this listing.
American National Standards Institute (ANSI).--U.S. member of ISO
with wide expertise in information technology standards.
--Commercial Vehicle Operations--Credential Application
--Commercial Vehicle Safety and Credentials Information Exchange
--Commercial Vehicle Safety Reports.
National Radio Systems Committee (NRSC).--Development of protocols
and specifications for wide area communications.
--High Speed FM Subcarrier Layer 1.
To date, 15 standards have been produced with an additional 25
expected to be at the balloting stage by the end of the year. Each of
the SDO's are working on multiple activities and in many cases, the
SDO's are working in partnership to provide the varied expertise
necessary to support particular standards and to provide consistency
among the various standards.
Question. Have you designed a budget that only funds the most
critical and cost beneficial investments? Please document your answer
by providing evidence of the prioritization of investments.
Answer. In the fiscal year 1999 budget request, the Department has
focused its efforts on several key strategies intended to facilitate
the integration of ITS components in metropolitan and commercial
vehicle operating settings, as well as expand our understanding of ITS
as applied to rural transportation. This supports the Department's
vision for an ITS infrastructure that can provide a truly integrated,
seamless, intermodal, surface transportation system for the traveling
public whether they use private, public, or commercial vehicles.
In addition, the Department has devoted a major portion of the ITS
research budget to launching the Intelligent Vehicle Initiative. The
IVI is aimed at accelerating the development, availability, and use of
driving assistance and control intervention systems to reduce motor
vehicle crashes. By integrating driving assistance and motorist
information functions, IVI systems will help drivers process
information, make decisions and operate vehicles more safety and
effectively. The deployment of basic IVI elements into the private
auto, transit, and commercial vehicle fleets is estimated to decrease
the number of annual crashes by 17 percent, saving both lives and the
societal costs associated with the loss of these lives.
To support these goals the Department has requested $100 million
for the new Deployment Incentives Program and $150 million for research
and technology transfer. The following briefly describe the
Department's specific strategies and priorities and how they are
reflected in the fiscal year 1999 budget request:
Deployment Incentives Program ($100 million) will provide funding
incentives to state and local officials to integrate ITS infrastructure
(and not pay for individual components) in metropolitan areas, to
expand the CVISN infrastructure into additional States and implement
several rural ITS deployments.
Research ($58.6 million) includes the launching of the Intelligent
Vehicle Initiative and provides research into ongoing metropolitan and
rural ITS applications such as weather information systems, fleet
operations and maintenance schemes, and emergency services.
Operational Tests ($28.1 million) is still a major thrust of the
program and involves the field testing of key ITS technology
components. This includes rural tests such as a Weather Field Test,
Tourism and Traveler Information systems, Rural Infrastructure and
Fleet Operations and Maintenance; Advanced Public Transportation
Systems tests such as Hybrid Bank Proximity Cards and Asynchronous
Dial-A-Ride transit services; and IVI tests including various Collision
Avoidance systems, Integrated Transit Vehicles and the Intelligent
Vehicle Heavy Truck.
Mainstreaming ($21.5 million) emphasizes technical assistance to
state and local partners in ITS applications. It includes training,
particularly on ITS Architecture and Standards, technical guidance
development, and the Peer-to-Peer program.
Architecture and Standards ($19.4 million) reflects an urgency to
advance ITS standards through the testing and regulatory processes, and
the need to revise and deepen the National ITS Architecture in key
areas such as Rural ITS.
Evaluation and Program Assessment (12.4 million) includes providing
independent evaluations for all operational tests, concludes the Model
Deployment evaluations and collects outcome data for GPRA.
Program Support ($10 million) includes support for ITS America,
continuing program management and technical analysis from contractors
and technical support to FTA for the Advanced Public Transportation
Systems Program.
Question. Please list the advanced traffic management systems now
being developed in the R&D program, their expected completion date,
amount of money invested in each to date, expected total project costs,
and amount of cost sharing received and planned for the completion of
each project.
Answer. Advanced traffic management systems (ATMS) are a complex
mixture of many traffic control technologies such as surveillance and
detection, ramp metering, signal control, incident detection and
management and driver information. The Federal Highway Administration
has budgeted funds yearly for technology development, improvement of
analysis tools, and ATMS research support facilities. The primary area
of technology development is Adaptive Control Systems (formerly known
as Real-Time, Traffic-Adaptive Control Systems, RT-TRACS). This is a
signal control technology that adapts signal timings to respond to
changing traffic patterns such as sharp, unexpected increases in
traffic volumes and incident conditions.
In fiscal year 1996, approximately $1,500,000 was spent on the
development and testing of the Adaptive Control Systems' logic. In
fiscal year 1997, $6,000,000 was obligated for field testing at four
sites. Field testing of four Adaptive Control Systems is scheduled to
be completed in June 1999. The costs and dates for each are shown in
the following table. Subsequent to the completion of the field tests we
will begin enhancements to expand the applications to include
integration with legacy equipment and transit priority. Approximately
$750,000 is budgeted for these enhancements in fiscal year 1999.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
Field Test Site Location Expected Completion Date Invested to Expected Total Amount of Cost
Date Project Cost Share \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reston, VA........................... 06/98.................... $2,049,000 $2,149,000 $100,000
Seattle, WA.......................... 06/99.................... 1,525,000 1,525,000 ..............
Chicago, IL.......................... 06/99.................... 1,750,000 1,750,000 ..............
Tucson, AZ........................... 06/99.................... 675,000 2,018,000 1,343,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not include state and city staff time.
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. What amount is
planned for fiscal year 1999? From which source of monies?
Answer. The following table includes the requested data on
``outreach'' and ``mainstreaming''.
INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS MAINSTREAMING ACTIVITIES--FISCAL YEAR
1997-1999
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
----------------------------------------
Activity/project 1998 1999
1997 actual estimate \1\ estimate \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAINSTREAMING:
COMMERCIAL VEHICLE 1,199 ( \2\ ) ( \2\ )
OPERATIONS (CVO)..........
ADVANCED PUBLIC TRANSP. 450 ( \2\ ) ( \2\ )
SYSTEMS (APTS)............
TRAINING (Professional 3,072 10,000 9,000
Capacity Building)........
PLANNING/PROCESS GUIDANCE.. 1,000 4,000 4,000
DEPLOYMENT TECHNICAL 4,587 5,000 6,500
ASSISTANCE................
AWARENESS AND ADVOCACY..... ........... 3,000 2,000
----------------------------------------
GRAND TOTAL.............. 10,308 22,000 21,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: $193,000, $3 million, and $2.5 million in fiscal years 1997, 1998,
and 1999 respectively, are from GOE funds; the remaining funding is
from funds derived from contract authority.
\1\ Fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 amounts are those included in
the Congressional Budgets for those years; they assume full funding,
i.e., that we will eventually receive all funds requested for those
fiscal years; final spending plans for fiscal years 1998 and 1999 will
not be completely formulated until after final Congressional action is
taken on appropriation acts and substantive legislation for those
years.
\2\ No separate funding; merged into program categories below.
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 1999? Do you plan on spending any fiscal
year 1999 funds on this technological path?
Answer. We are already working in partnership with the Department
of Maryland State Police (DMSP) to evaluate their ``Aggressive Driver
Imaging (ADI) and Enforcement Project.'' Participants in the project
include the Federal Highway Administration, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, Maryland State Highway Administration, and U.S.
Army Aberdeen Test Center. In addition, the Federal Highway
Administration has provided funds for an independent evaluation of this
deployment. An evaluation plan has already been developed and data are
being collected. An evaluation report is expected within the next year.
We do envision a great deal of future capabilities which will be
made possible through advances in detection and flow monitoring
technologies, including potential use in detecting impaired driving.
For example, machine vision (essentially using software techniques to
analyze vehicle movements, which are usually provided by roadside video
cameras) could detect certain aberrant behavior such as weaving,
speeding, following too closely, and other erratic vehicle maneuvers.
We are actively working to improve detection capabilities,
including use of machine vision techniques mentioned as an example in
the previous question. As we improve our capabilities to extract
information from deployed sensors, additional functions, such as
impaired-driver detection, become feasible. We do not expect that this
type of functionality will be available for some time, but we will
raise this type of issue as part of our program planning discussions in
coordination with appropriate U.S. DOT agencies such as FHWA and NHTSA.
In addition to the technical feasibility, this application is hampered
by substantial privacy issues. The privacy issues raised by this single
application may hinder the overall deployment of ITS services. Our
evaluation of the Maryland project includes an assessment of privacy
issues.
Question. Which Federally-funded ITS projects are behind schedule
and why? Which are over their original costs?
Answer. In the first quarter of 1995, the JPO commissioned a review
of all ITS projects relative to their scope, schedule and budget. We
found that with the exception of operational tests, ITS projects were
being managed well within those parameters with changes well justified.
However, virtually all operational tests had experienced schedule
changes. Some were quite significant. Our analysis found that schedule
changes were in large measure due to unrealistic expectations of all
parties concerned in creating the original schedule. FHWA tended to
assume that contracts could be signed within the same time frame as
regular federal aid projects, when in fact we were often dealing with
new partners (many of whom were private sector) and new procedures were
often involved. Negotiations among the local partners took much longer
than expected. Sometimes partners dropped out and had to be replaced.
Once contracts and local agreements were signed, we encountered delays
in negotiating evaluation plans, since some partners (especially those
funded by earmarks) did not understand that the projects were designed
to uncover new procedures and techniques; in short, lessons learned.
These issues accounted for the vast majority of changes to the original
schedule expectations.
Subsequent to the early CY 1995 review, we have rebaselined the
projects and the majority are progressing within the revised management
parameters. Projects encountering turbulence identified in the review
were reported in the CY 1997 response to this question. As new projects
are undertaken, or as older ones enter into later phases, they continue
to encounter schedule changes resulting from a variety of causes which
should be expected in endeavors exploring new technology applications
and, more significantly, changing practices in contracting and
partnering. These challenges include technology problems, software
development and installation deficiencies, environmental impacts on
data collection and recurring encounters in the area of institutional
issues.
As new projects are undertaken, we have ensured that relevant
lessons learned are incorporated in project selection criteria,
schedule development and guidance provided to contract negotiators and
partners.
The following section identifies projects which have encountered
schedule changes and the associated causes.
The following projects have encountered delays associated with
negotiation of agreements or memoranda of understanding among
partnership members:
--HERALD EN-ROUTE DRIVER ADVISORY SYSTEM VIA AM SUBCARRIER (CO & IA)
--HOUSTON SMART COMMUTER (Houston, TX)
--INTEGRATED RAMP METERING/ADAPTIVE SIGNAL CONTROL (Orange Co., CA)
--Inability of public and private partners to reach consensus on
written agreement.
--System-wide ramp metering failed to meet CALTRANS acceptance.
--NEW YORK CITY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY TRAVEL
INFORMATION SYSTEM (New York, NY)
--SEATTLE WIDE-AREA INFORMATION FOR TRAVELERS (Seattle, WA)
--(See below under evaluation)
--SMART CALL BOX (San Diego, CA)
Some projects have incurred schedule adjustments to accommodate
demands of data collection and evaluation. The following fall in this
category:
--COLORADO MAYDAY SYSTEM (CO)
--This project has experienced further turbulence due to the
jurisdiction in which a full test was to occur demanding
indemnification.
--DELAWARE COUNTY RIDETRACKING (Delaware Co., PA)
--IDAHO STORM WARNING SYSTEM (ID)
--TRANSCAL (San Francisco, CA)
--TRAVEL-AID (Seattle, WA)
--SEATTLE WIDE-AREA INFORMATION FOR TRAVELERS (Seattle, WA)
The following projects incurred schedule adjustments resulting from
partnership members designated to provide key products deciding to
withdraw from the project or modify their participation. These
decisions necessitated searches for replacement partners, or rescoping
project objectives with regard to evaluated technologies.
--DIRECT (DETROIT, MI)--In-vehicle equipment provider withdrew.
--GENESIS (Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN)--Withdrawal of Personal
Communications Device provider required redefinition of phases
and objectives.
Some projects have encountered schedule delays attributable to
multiple causes. Included in this category are the following:
--NEW JERSEY TURNPIKE PROJECT (NJ)
--Increase in scope to include weather surveillance.
--Late start due to contract-related procedural difficulty.
--SMART CORRIDOR (CA)
--Data collection delayed.
--State-imposed moratorium delayed bringing evaluation contractor
into the project by one year.
--DETROIT, MI AREAWIDE DEPLOYMENT OF ATMS/ATIS (Detroit, MI)
--Delay in securing FCC license approval for microwave frequency
transmissions.
--Problems encountered in locating central towers.
--MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM (CA)
--Contract and evaluation problems.
--Weather delays (heavy moisture in CA during early 1998.)
--ADVANCED RURAL TRANSPORTATION INFORMATION AND COORDINATION (MN)--
Delays caused by long lead times in obtaining authorization to
start because of MOU negotiations. Technically unqualified
respondents to requests for proposals required repeating the
solicitation. Procurement-related delays associated with
processing data collection proposals. The combined effect of
these causes has required a revised procurement approach.
--DENVER, CO HOGBACK MULTI-MODAL TRANSFER CENTER (Denver, CO)--
Problems with partnership negotiation and community resistance
to use of proposed site.
--DYNAMIC TRUCK SPEED WARNING FOR LONG DOWNGRADES (CO)--Data
collection delayed by road repairs/construction at detection
equipment locations.
--IDAHO OUT OF SERVICE VERIFICATION OPERATIONAL TEST (ID)--
Partnership problems causing delays in securing contractual
arrangements satisfactory to all partners and technological
challenges resulting from the need to tailor existing
technology to meet the needs of the project.
--NEW JERSEY SIGNAL COMPUTERIZATION (NJ)
--Increased funding.
--Increase in scope of project.
--Changes in requirements for bridge sign designs and signal
mounting.
--NEW JERSEY POLICE COMMUNICATIONS CENTER (NJ)--Changes in state
procurement process for equipment purchase.
--SCOOT ADAPTIVE TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM (Anaheim, CA)
--Delays in installation of City of Anaheim surveillance equipment.
--Contract negotiation delays with the SCOOT contractor.
--SPREAD SPECTRUM RADIO TRAFFIC INTERCONNECT (Los Angeles, CA)
--Difficulty in acquiring necessary hardware resulting from
manufacturing problems has delayed equipment installation
and system evaluation.
--Delays in contract award.
--TRAVINFO (San Francisco, CA)
--Contract/agreement delays.
--Delays in operation start up due to system check out and testing
problems.
--Expanded evaluation requirements.
--TRANSCAL (CA) (also mentioned under evaluation)
--Contract complications.
--Project management problems.
Some projects have experienced schedule delays from unique
institutional or technological causes.
--I-287 SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM (NY)
--NY State Turnpike Authority Board of Directors delayed fund
matching.
--CHICAGO SMART INTERMODAL SYSTEM (Chicago, IL)
--Software problems.
--SYRACUSE CONGESTION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (Syracuse, NY)
--Construction delay due to utility relocation.
--PENNSYLVANIA TURNPIKE TRAVELER INFORMATION SYSTEM (PA)
--Delay in securing tri-party toll agreement in accordance USC
Title 23.
--DALLAS AREA RAPID TRANSIT PERSONALIZED PUBLIC TRANSIT (Dallas,
TX)--Expanded review time by Dallas Area Rapid Transit
Authority.
--ELECTRONIC ONE-STOP SHOPPING OPERATION TESTS (CA, AZ, NM, IA, MN,
NE, WI, KS, MO, IL, SD, CO, AR, TX)
--Deficiencies in credentials software.
--FAST-TRAC (MI) has been extended as a result of additional
earmarked funding generating increases in scope and duration.
--MAGIC (NJ)--Changes in conduit trench design and redesign of
variable message sign structures.
--MONTGOMERY COUNTY ADVANCED TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
(Montgomery Co., MD)
--Software development/installation problems.
--Processing of invoices.
--NORTH SEATTLE ADVANCED TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (Seattle, WA)
--Delays due to software development problems.
--Further delay to accommodate integration with Seattle Model
Deployment Initiative.
--SMART FLEXROUTE INTEGRATED REAL-TIME ENHANCEMENT SYSTEM (Northern
VA)--Delays due to problems with software installation.
--WILMINGTON SMART DART (Wilmington, DE)--This project has
encountered significant challenges from the state of flux in
the ``smart card'' industry. Previously delayed by
institutional issues in banking laws affecting the MasterCard
``smart cash'' card, SMART DART has been further impeded by
MasterCard's sale of ``SmartCash'' and acquisition of MONDEX.
MONDEX is an ``electronic purse'' system currently facing a
variety of start up delays. This project is currently being
reviewed for restructuring.
ITS Projects over their original costs are addressed below:
Some projects have requested funds to cover the costs incurred by
having to expand the depth of the operational test evaluations
necessitated in meeting requirements specified by FHWA in the Mitre
Evaluation Guidelines. In most cases, the guidelines had not been
published prior to submission of the proposals. The following projects
were affected:
--SCOOT ADVANCED TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM (Anaheim, CA)
--IDAHO STORM WARNING SYSTEM (ID)
--TRANSCAL (CA)
--TRAVINFO (CA)
--SAN ANTONIO TRANSGUIDE --``Before and After'' study for Phase 2
added to project scope.
--NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RENEWAL (PA)--Phase II of
project was expanded to include the OPERATION RESPOND system
and inter-modal movements at the Port of Los Angeles.
--ELECTRONIC ONE-STOP SHOPPING OPERATIONAL TESTS--Software
development, testing and debugging.
Other projects incurring cost adjustments include:
--FAST-TRAC (MI)--Additional funding resulting from earmarked funds.
--BALTIMORE SMART VEHICLE (MD)--Local transit operator decision using
Section 9 formula funds.
--ATLANTA DRIVER ADVISORY SYSTEM (GA)--Evaluation-related.
--TRAVTEK (FL)--FHWA requested more extensive evaluation
documentation.
--EVALUATION SUPPORT FOR ITS OPERATIONAL TESTS (Various)--Additional
effort added to scope of work to evaluate and perform case
study of Atlanta ITS Olympic experience.
--NATIONAL AVIATION TRANSPORTATION CENTER (NY)--Additional earmarked
funds.
--SYRACUSE CONGESTION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM--Earmarked funding
--INTELLIGENT CRUISE CONTROL FIELD OPERATIONAL TEST
--Increase in scope to assess platooning.
--Added sensors for increased maintainability and demonstration
tasks.
--NEW YORK THRUWAY ELECTRONIC TOLL COLLECTION AND TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT
--Earmark to expand scope of project.
--NATIONAL AVIATION AND TRANSPORTATION CENTER
--Added earmarked funding.
--FUEL CONSUMPTION AND EMISSION VALUES FOR TRAFFIC MODELS
--Increase in scope.
--REAL-TIME TRAFFIC ADAPTIVE SIGNAL CONTROL FOR ITS
--Change in test site location.
--Hardware and software problems.
--DETROIT, MI AREAWIDE DEPLOYMENT OF ATMS/ATIS
--Transfer from FAST-TRAC to fund Traffic Operations Center-to-
Traffic Management Center communication.
--VARIABLE DYNAMIC TEST VEHICLE DEVELOPMENT
--Increase in scope.
Question. During fiscal year 1997 or fiscal year 1998, which ITS
projects required additional Federal funding to be added to the amounts
specified in their original cooperative agreements? Why were these
funds added?
Answer. Following is the requested; since only ``interim'' funding
has been received for fiscal year 1998 all of the following data apply
to fiscal year 1997.
Intelligent Cruise Control Field Operation Test
$294,000 to cover cost of additional sensors for increased
maintainability and added demonstration tasks.
Funding increase of $79,940 to fund added tasks to study
platooning.
New York Thruway Electronic Toll Collection and Traffic Management
$3,010,000 added as a fiscal year 1997 earmark incorporated to
expand electronic toll collection to commercial vehicles and create a
joint customer system.
National Aviation and Transportation Center
$1,539,250 additional earmarked funding.
Fuel Consumption and Emission Values for Traffic Models
$400,000 increase. Additional funding from Office of Environment
Planning to collect emission and fuel consumption data on
malfunctioning vehicles.
Real-Time Traffic Adaptive Signal Control for ITS
$850,000 increase.
Funding increase was needed to cover costs associated with two
developments: Contract extension due to change in field test site from
Atlanta, GA to Reston, Va. Delays in obtaining workable and proven 2070
traffic control hardware and software.
Detroit, MI Areawide Deployment of ATMS/ATIS
Increase of $3,000,000 from FAST-TRAC funding to establish
communications link between MIDOT's Intelligent Transportation Systems
Center and the Road Commission for Oakland County's Traffic Operations
Center to allow real-time information exchange between centers.
Evaluation of Automated Collision Notification Operational Test
$97,213 added to cover an independent evaluation. Original project
was completed within budget.
Variable Dynamic Test Vehicle Development
$300,000 increase to fund development of a bread board for anti
lock brakes, yaw control and anti roll bar systems.
TRAVINFO
$2,572,000 added to cover extended evaluation period. $272,000 is
accounted for by FHWA evaluation requirements not budgeted in initial
phase.
Evaluation Support for ITS Operational Tests
$670,000 added to accommodate increased scope of work to evaluate
and perform case study of Atlanta ITS Olympic experience.
Question. Please provide a detailed table showing any unobligated
funds and funds that are obligated but not yet committee by year for
any ITS projects specified in previous conference reports. What is the
status of each of these projects?
Answer. The following table lists projects earmarked by the
Congress to be funded from ITS funds together with obligations and
unobligated balances for each. With the exception of the $4.02 million
of unobligated ISTEA contract authority shown for #44, Johnson City,
Tennessee ($2.52 million of fiscal year 1995 funds and $1.5 million of
fiscal year 1996 funds), all other unobligated balances are fiscal year
1998 funds included in the General Operating Expenses account.
INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS CONGRESSIONALLY EARMARKED PROJECTS
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FISCAL YEAR-- FISCAL YEAR--
NO PROJECT STATE -------------------------------------------- RESCISSION --------------------------------- TOTAL OBLIGATIONS UNOBLIG.
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 BAL
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 ADVANTAGE I-75 ........................... 1,000 1,400 ......... ......... .......... ......... ......... ......... 2,400 2,400 .........
2 Smart Corridor Ca......................... 1,000 ......... ......... ......... .......... ......... ......... ......... 1,000 1,000 .........
3 ADVANCE (Chicago) Il......................... 7,500 4,550 6,000 ......... .......... ......... ......... ......... 18,050 18,050 .........
4 HELP/Crescent Various.................... 2,000 525 ......... ......... .......... ......... ......... ......... 2,525 2,525 .........
5 DIRECT (Detroit) Mi......................... 500 ......... ......... ......... .......... ......... ......... ......... 500 500 .........
6 Smart Commuter (Houston) Tx......................... 2,000 ......... ......... ......... .......... ......... ......... 1,500 3,500 2,000 1,500
7 Philadelphia Pa......................... 2,000 ......... ......... ......... .......... ......... ......... ......... 2,000 2,000 .........
8 Miami Fl......................... 5,000 ......... ......... ......... .......... ......... ......... ......... 5,000 5,000 .........
9 Guidestar Mn......................... 10,000 8,750 6,000 6,825 .......... 2,000 3,600 6,000 43,175 37,175 6,000
10 Electric Vehicle Ca......................... 1,500 ......... ......... ......... .......... ......... ......... ......... 1,500 1,500 .........
11 FAST-TRAC (Oakland County) Mi......................... 10,000 10,500 20,000 15,000 .......... ......... ......... ......... 55,500 55,500 .........
12 TRANSCOM NJ/NY...................... 3,000 2,400 2,200 2,625 .......... 1,500 2,250 ......... 13,975 13,975 .........
13 MAGIC NJ/NY...................... 4,000 6,280 ......... ......... .......... ......... ......... ......... 10,280 10,280 .........
14 Toll Road ETTM NJ......................... 25,000 7,000 3,000 ......... .......... ......... ......... ......... 35,000 35,000 .........
15 Integrated Corridor Mgmt NJ/Pa...................... 6,000 ......... ......... ......... .......... ......... ......... ......... 6,000 6,000 .........
16 Signal Computerization NJ......................... 6,000 7,000 ......... ......... .......... ......... ......... ......... 13,000 13,000 .........
17 Southern State Parkway NY......................... 20,000 14,000 ......... ......... -13,600 ......... ......... ......... 20,400 20,400 .........
18 Spellman Parkway Md......................... 300 ......... ......... ......... .......... ......... ......... ......... 300 300 .........
19 Maryland Arterials Md......................... 2,200 ......... ......... ......... .......... ......... ......... ......... 2,200 2,200 .........
20 Northeast Corridor Various.................... ......... 10,500 1,000 7,500 .......... 3,500 ......... 1,000 23,500 22,500 1,000
21 Gary Corridor Various.................... ......... 1,400 2,500 ......... .......... ......... ......... ......... 3,900 3,900 .........
22 Houston Corridor Tx......................... ......... 3,105 2,000 2,250 .......... 2,200 2,000 ......... 11,555 11,555 .........
23 Anaheim Corridor Ca......................... ......... 4,200 ......... ......... .......... ......... ......... ......... 4,200 4,200 .........
24 Smart Corridor (Los Angeles) Ca......................... ......... 4,900 ......... ......... .......... ......... ......... ......... 4,900 4,900 .........
25 Chicago Corridor IL......................... ......... 500 ......... ......... .......... ......... ......... ......... 500 500 .........
26 Milwaukee Corridor Wi......................... ......... 500 ......... ......... .......... ......... ......... 5,500 6,000 500 5,500
27 San Diego Ca......................... ......... 2,100 5,000 ......... .......... ......... ......... ......... 7,100 7,100 .........
28 Miami/Ft. Lauderdale Fl......................... ......... 2,240 ......... ......... .......... ......... ......... ......... 2,240 2,240 .........
29 Seattle Wa......................... ......... 3,500 1,500 ......... .......... ......... ......... ......... 5,000 5,000 .........
30 Detroit Mi......................... ......... 700 ......... ......... .......... ......... ......... ......... 700 700 .........
31 TravTek (Orlando) Fl......................... ......... 500 ......... ......... .......... ......... ......... ......... 500 500 .........
32 I-80 (CVO) Various.................... ......... 700 ......... ......... .......... ......... ......... ......... 700 700 .........
33 Sutter County Ca......................... ......... 1,750 ......... ......... .......... ......... ......... ......... 1,750 1,750 .........
34 Fairfax County Va......................... ......... 5,250 ......... ......... .......... ......... ......... ......... 5,250 5,250 .........
35 Police Communications Center NJ......................... ......... 3,500 ......... ......... .......... ......... ......... ......... 3,500 3,500 .........
36 New York State Thruway NY......................... ......... 5,250 6,400 ......... .......... 1,500 3,000 ......... 16,150 16,150 .........
37 George Mason University (GOE Va......................... ......... 1,600 ......... ......... .......... ......... ......... ......... 1,600 1,600 .........
Funding)
38 Humphrey Institute (GOE Funding) Mn......................... ......... 760 ......... ......... .......... ......... ......... ......... 760 760 .........
39 Sandia Labs NM......................... ......... ......... 2,000 ......... .......... ......... ......... ......... 2,000 2,000 .........
40 Bronx/Northern Manhattan ATMS NY......................... ......... ......... 2,400 2,250 .......... ......... ......... ......... 4,650 4,650 .........
41 Buffalo/Niagara Falls ATMS NY......................... ......... ......... 2,000 ......... .......... ......... ......... ......... 2,000 2,000 .........
42 CARAT (Charlotte) NC......................... ......... ......... 6,000 4,500 .......... ......... ......... ......... 10,500 10,500 .........
43 George Mason University Va......................... ......... ......... 2,000 ......... .......... ......... ......... ......... 2,000 2,000 .........
44 Johnson City Tn......................... ......... ......... 2,500 3,750 .......... 1,500 ......... ......... 7,750 3,730 4,020
45 Montgomery County Md......................... ......... ......... 1,000 ......... .......... ......... ......... ......... 1,000 1,000 .........
46 Southeast Michigan (SMART) Mi......................... ......... ......... 4,500 7,500 .......... ......... ......... ......... 12,000 12,000 .........
47 Smart Bus--State Rt. 9 NJ......................... ......... ......... 1,500 ......... .......... ......... ......... ......... 1,500 1,500 .........
48 Iowa CVO (GOE Funding) Ia......................... ......... ......... 2,000 ......... .......... ......... ......... ......... 2,000 2,000 .........
49 Humphrey Institute (GOE Funding) Mn......................... ......... ......... 950 ......... .......... ......... ......... ......... 950 950 .........
50 Lower Hudson Valley NY......................... ......... ......... ......... 1,500 .......... ......... ......... ......... 1,500 1,500 .........
51 Adv. Transp. Weather Info. ND......................... ......... ......... ......... 750 .......... 1,000 1,000 775 3,525 2,750 775
Sys.(U of ND)
52 Hazardous Materials Transp. Pa?........................ ......... ......... ......... 1,500 .......... 2,500 2,000 1,000 7,000 6,000 1,000
Safety (NIER)
53 Santa Teresa Border Crossing NM......................... ......... ......... ......... 1,680 .......... 900 ......... 1,000 3,580 2,580 1,000
54 Syracuse Congestion Mgmt NY......................... ......... ......... ......... 1,500 .......... 1,500 ......... 1,000 4,000 3,000 1,000
55 Brooklyn/Bronx/Queens NY......................... ......... ......... ......... 3,750 .......... ......... ......... ......... 3,750 3,750 .........
Signalization
56 Nat'l. Transp. Ctr. NY......................... ......... ......... ......... 1,870 .......... 2,000 2,500 ......... 6,370 6,370 .........
(Oakdale)(Dowling Coll.)
57 Adv. Railroad/Hwy. Crossings NY......................... ......... ......... ......... 2,625 .......... 1,250 2,000 ......... 5,875 5,875 .........
58 New Jersey Turnpike NJ......................... ......... ......... ......... 2,625 .......... ......... ......... ......... 2,625 2,625 .........
59 Green Light CVO Project Or......................... ......... ......... ......... 6,000 .......... 7,000 7,000 ......... 20,000 20,000 .........
60 Paralympiad Ga......................... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... 1,000 ......... ......... 1,000 1,000 .........
61 I-10 (Mobile) (Fog Detection Al......................... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... 3,000 2,000 ......... 5,000 5,000 .........
System)
62 Capitol Beltway Md/Va...................... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... 4,000 ......... ......... 4,000 4,000 .........
63 Texas Transp. Inst. (Texas A&M) Tx......................... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... 600 600 1,000 2,200 1,200 1,000
64 Western Transp. Inst. (Montana Mt......................... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... 1,000 ......... 1,000 2,000 1,000 1,000
State Univ.)
65 I-675/SR844/Col. Glenn Oh......................... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... 1,000 ......... ......... 1,000 1,000 .........
(Fairborn)
66 Salt Lake City Ut......................... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... 2,000 5,000 3,500 10,500 7,000 3,500
67 Inglewood Ca......................... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... ......... 1,000 500 1,500 1,000 500
68 Mobile Adv. Traf. Mgmt. Sys. Al......................... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... ......... 1,000 ......... 1,000 1,000 .........
(Montgomery)
69 Traffic Guidance System Tn......................... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... ......... 1,000 750 1,750 1,000 750
(Nashville)
70 Operation Respond Md......................... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... ......... 1,000 ......... 1,000 1,000 .........
71 Pennsylvania Turnpike Pa......................... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... ......... 3,000 6,000 9,000 3,000 6,000
72 Nat'l. Capitol Region Congest. Various.................... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... ......... 3,500 6,000 9,500 3,500 6,000
Mitigation
73 National Advanced Driver Ia......................... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... ......... 14,000 ......... 14,000 14,000 .........
Simulator (NADS)
74 Kansas City Region Ks/Mo...................... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... ......... 2,500 1,000 3,500 2,500 1,000
75 US/Canada CVO Wa......................... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... ......... 1,500 ......... 1,500 1,500 .........
76 Rochester Congestion Management NY......................... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... ......... 1,500 ......... 1,500 1,500 .........
77 Urban Transp. Saf. Sys. Ctr. Pa......................... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... ......... 500 250 750 500 250
(Drexel Univ., Phila.)
78 Arizona Nat'l. Ctr. for Traffic Az......................... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... ......... ......... 1,000 1,000 ........... 1,000
& Logistics
79 CVO, I-5 California Ca......................... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... ......... ......... 1,500 1,500 ........... 1,500
80 Cumberland Gap Tunnel Ky......................... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... ......... ......... 1,550 1,550 ........... 1,550
81 Dade County Expressway, Fla. Fl......................... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... ......... ......... 1,000 1,000 ........... 1,000
Toll Collect. Sys
82 Franklin County Ma. Traveler Ma......................... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... ......... ......... 875 875 ........... 875
Info. Sys
83 I-90/I-94 Rural ITS Corridor Wi......................... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... ......... ......... 1,700 1,700 ........... 1,700
84 Louisiana I-55, I-10 & 610 ITS La......................... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... ......... ......... 5,500 5,500 ........... 5,500
Systems
85 Market St. & Pa. Convention Ctr. Pa......................... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... ......... ......... 325 325 ........... 325
Info. Ctr
86 I-90 Connector, Rennselaer NY......................... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... ......... ......... 1,250 1,250 ........... 1,250
County, NY
87 I-275, St. Petersburg, Fla Fl......................... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... ......... ......... 1,000 1,000 ........... 1,000
88 Rt. 236/I-495, Northern Va. ITS Va......................... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... ......... ......... 500 500 ........... 500
System
89 Southeast Michigan Now & Ice Mi......................... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... ......... ......... 1,150 1,150 ........... 1,150
Mgmt. (SEMSIS)
90 Reno ITS Nv......................... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... ......... ......... 1,875 1,875 ........... 1,875
91 Barboursville/Ona. Traffic Wv......................... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... ......... ......... 8,000 8,000 ........... 8,000
Management
92 North Dakota State Univ. Adv. ND......................... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... ......... ......... 600 600 ........... 600
Traffic Anal. Ctr
93 Sullivan Co., NY Emergency NY......................... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... ......... ......... 1,000 1,000 ........... 1,000
Weather System
94 New York City toll plaza NY......................... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... ......... ......... 1,100 1,100 ........... 1,100
scanners
95 Cleveland transit maintenance Oh......................... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... ......... ......... 1,000 1,000 ........... 1,000
environ. Proj
96 Op. Respond Haz. Mat. Response Tx......................... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... ......... ......... 1,000 1,000 ........... 1,000
Software
97 Wash. State Radio Comm. Wa......................... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... ......... ......... 750 750 ........... 750
Emergency Call Boxes
98 Wash. State Roadway Weather Wa......................... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... ......... ......... 1,250 1,250 ........... 1,250
Info. System
99 Colo. I-25 Truck Safety Co......................... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... ......... ......... 9,000 9,000 ........... 9,000
Improvements
100 Tuscaloosa Traffic Integration Al......................... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... ......... ......... 2,200 2,200 ........... 2,200
and Flow Control
101 Alaska Cold Weather ITS Sensing Ak......................... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... ......... ......... 1,000 1,000 ........... 1,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS ........................... 109,000 115,360 82,450 76,000 -13,600 40,950 63,450 83,900 557,510 469,590 87,920
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. As requested on page 331 of the budget submittal, why is
it necessary to spend money to investigate alternative approaches to
setting mobility-based performance goals?
Answer. Performance goal setting is stimulated by the Government
Performance and Results Act (GPRA), which promotes running government
more like private enterprise. GPRA acknowledges that such a transition
takes time and accommodates a phase-in over several years. Achieving
GPRA goals in transportation is impeded more than for other Federal
agencies because FHWA and FTA must motivate its public sector partners
at State, transit authority, and Metropolitan Planning Organization
levels to buy into the same GPRA goals. Values behind goal setting
include better accountability and the use of feedback to adjust
investment strategies. Alternative approaches to goal setting for
achieving mobility can be top-down from management or bottom-up based
on empirical data histories of improvements that might be expected.
There are also alternative approaches for collecting data necessary to
provide feedback to managers, e.g., implementing new data collection or
trying to use or modify existing data collection procedures. Because
the GPRA approach is still new to many, there are no clear cut
approaches that provide the most cost effective way at goal setting. It
is therefore necessary to spend money to investigate alternative
approaches that would lead to ways to save money in the future.
Question. Please break down on a contract by contract basis the
specific activities and associated amounts allocated in fiscal year
1996, fiscal year 1997, and thus far in fiscal year 1998 to conduct ITS
policy assessments.
Answer. The following information.
ITS Program Assessment Support Contract DTFH61-96-C-00098
Fiscal year 1996 funds in the amount of $40,670 were allocated to
support the Joint Program Office in defining critical procurement
issues associated with deploying, operating, and maintaining ITS
systems under regulations used for Federal Aid Projects. Methods to
overcome the critical issues were to be defined and then reviewed in
light of comments from appropriate FHWA procurement specialists. No
additional funds were obligated to this contract for work in either
fiscal year 1997 or fiscal year 1998.
ITS Program Assessment Support Contract DTFH61-96-C-00077
Fiscal year 1996 funds in the amount of $19,170 were assigned to
develop supporting materials and documents to assist U.S. DOT's Joint
Programs Office (JPO) in the Congressional hearings on the proposed
fiscal 1998 budget for ITS. The goal was to undertake the necessary
research to develop comparisons of the investments required for the ITS
Program and other programs that share similar characteristics, and
communicate the findings in an effective manner.
Fiscal year 1997 funds in the amount of $19,170 were assigned to
develop a document to assist the U.S. DOT Joint Program Office in
creating a program strategy to meet their Historically Black Colleges
and Universities (HBCU's) and other Minority Institutions of Higher
Education (MIHE's) participation goals, with particular information
regarding student internship programs.
No funds have been obligated thus far in fiscal year 1998 for ITS
policy assessment under this contract.
Contract with ITS America
No funds were expended in fiscal year 1996 for ITS policy
assessment with this contract. In fiscal year 1997, $400,000 were
obligated to this contract to support a macro-economic analysis of the
benefits and costs of the ITS program. In fiscal year 1997, $50,000
were allocated to this contract to support a workshop on the topic of
ITS as A Data Resource, to investigate policy implications for adding a
new user service to the ITS architecture. No fiscal year 1998 funds
have been allocated to this contract thus far for ITS policy assessment
purposes.
Contract with John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center
The U.S. Department of Transportation's John A. Volpe National
Transportation Systems Center in Cambridge, MA received $930,000 in
funding in fiscal year 1996, $2,157,000 in funding in fiscal year 1997,
and $100,000 in funding in fiscal year 1998 (to date) to support the
ITS Joint Program Office in a variety of ITS policy analysis areas. A
significant portion of this funding has been spent preparing reports
requested by the Congress. It is estimated that costs for the annual
ITS Program report to the Congress alone is between $800 thousand and
$1 million.
Funding has been used to prepare issue papers and organize a
conference on telecommunication's issues related to ITS deployment
decision-making, a white paper on the role of ITS in freight
intermodalism, and to continue the examination of the development of
the ITS market and the emergence of ITS businesses. The Volpe Center
provided background information and policy position papers supporting
the ITS program as needed on topics related to institutional issues
impeding the successful deployment of ITS. The Volpe Center also
continued work assessing issues impeding the deployment of ITS in
metropolitan areas and states.
In fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998, the Volpe Center also
began to support the evaluation of the Metropolitan Model Deployment
Initiative and CVISN sites. The Volpe Center has prepared reports on
the institutional issues and benefits associated with the deployments,
is providing the technical lead and staff support in the assessment of
customer satisfaction and the benefits and costs of the deployments,
and is examining the business models being followed by the private
sector participants.
Question. Please provide an empirical basis justifying the need for
the $3.7 million requested for ITS policy assessment studies.
Answer. The $3.7 million requested for fiscal year 1999 includes
the following efforts: congressional reporting and policy analyses by
the John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center at levels
consistent with current outlays; new policy assessments on the effect
of the requirement to link federal funding to architecture conformance
and standards conformance; policy development and assessment for
deployment of a rural ITS infrastructure to include definition of the
infrastructure and stakeholder feedback as to the best ways to
integrate the rural infrastructure with the ITS architecture.
Congressional report requirements consume a significant portion of
the policy assessment resources. It is estimated that the cost of the
annual report to Congress on the ITS program is between $800,000 and $1
million. It is anticipated that additional reporting requirements will
be included as part of the reauthorization.
A new ITS user service for archived data users will also be
forthcoming and will require a series of stakeholder meetings with
architecture experts. This new service will include the broadest set of
stakeholders in ITS architecture to date: highway transportation
planners from state DOT's and metropolitan planning organizations;
transit planners; traffic center operators; transportation system
operators and maintainers; commercial vehicle and intermodal freight
operators and planners; and, transportation safety officials. The
potential for ITS to become a cost effective method for automatically
obtaining certain data that could feed the Highway Performance
Monitoring System (HPMS) is becoming realized as a possibility. Policy
studies are needed to investigate how ITS can play a role in HPMS and
in economic modeling of alternative investment strategies for reports
to Congress.
Question. What is the status of each of the projects in the ITS
program related to highway/rail grade crossings? For each project,
please list accomplishments to date, purposes and objectives, amount
obligated, amount planned to be spent, amount unobligated, scope and
nature of the project, and expected date of completion. What has been
achieved with past ITS investments in this area?
Answer. There are two ITS investments involving highway/rail
intersections. Both have been earmarked projects. The first project
involves the Vehicle Proximity Alert System (VPAS), managed by Federal
Railroad Administration, and tested in Pueblo Colorado.
Section 1072 of the 1991 ISTEA required the testing of VPAS and
comparable systems to determine their feasibility for use by priority
vehicles as an effective highway-rail grade crossing safety device.
VPAS is an in-vehicle device, mounted to the dashboard, that provides
both an audible and visual warning to the driver of a priority vehicle
(ambulance, school bus, police car, etc) that a train is approaching,
or in, a grade crossing.
Total funding available to conduct this testing was $1 million,
with $600,000 transferred from FHWA to FRA in fiscal year 1994 and
$400,000 in fiscal year 1995.
Reliability testing of the prototype systems was conducted at the
Transportation Technology Center (TTC) in Pueblo, Colorado. The
prototypes were tested for their maximum range, reliability, ease of
installation, etc. The reliability testing has been completed and the
Final Test Report has been submitted. The Evaluation Report final draft
should be finished by the end of March, 1998.
Based on (1) the conclusions of the evaluation report, (2) a
comparison of the tested systems with the recently developed ITS User
Service #30 element of the National ITS Architecture, (3) the final
accounting of costs for the testing and evaluation work now being
completed, and (4) the results of ongoing independent demonstrations of
still other concepts in Minnesota and Illinois, a decision will be made
whether or not to conduct further reliability or revenue-service
testing of the prototype systems addressed in this project.
Three systems were tested:
3-point system--by SmartStops, Inc.--The original concept had a
transceiver on the locomotive, one at the grade crossing and a receiver
in the priority vehicle. The locomotive-mounted transceiver would
broadcast continuously, and as it approached a grade crossing the
transceiver at the crossing would be activated, broadcasting a signal
to any equipped priority vehicles in the area and also returning a
message to the locomotive that the crossing system had been activated.
This system worked reasonably well, although would require some
modifications to reduce its activation range, temperature response, and
so on, before any further testing or development were to occur.
However, the manufacturer determined, after discussions with several
railroads, that no railroad would allow the mounting of a transmitter
for this purpose on their locomotives. As a result, they would have to
modify their concept to use a wayside detector. They are in the process
of modifying their system now, and would have to return to TTC to do
basic reliability testing, should FRA determine that such further
testing is advisable.
1-point system by EARS.--This system is a receiver mounted in the
priority vehicle which is activated by the sound of the train horn. It
is an outgrowth of a system used to help hearing-impaired drivers hear
emergency sirens. However, this system did not perform well. It
suffered from a lack of range and several other problems that lead to a
large number of false alarms.
1-point system by Dynamic Vehicle Safety Systems.--This system is a
receiver mounted in the priority vehicle that is activated by the
train's Front/Rear End Device (FRED). The FRED is used to monitor air
brake pressure and continuously updates via radio an indicator in the
locomotive cab. This device is used on more than 85 percent of the
freight trains in the country and has an FRA-approved usage and
maintenance protocol. This system worked very well, although it had an
excessive range problem, but the range should be reducible to minimize
false alarms. However, the concept is not compatible with the ITS User
Service #30. This system would need to be modified for purposes of any
further testing.
A fourth system selected for testing, a 2-point system which used a
transmitter on the locomotive and a receiver in the priority vehicle,
was dropped from consideration because of the failure of the
manufacturer, RF Solutions, to supply a prototype for testing.
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 State DOT under an earmark of $8,625,000 with
a 20 percent match provided by General Railway Signal, the supplier of
the train control system. The design of the overall system and hardware
is nearing completion, software development is proceeding, and the
system is scheduled for an initial demonstration in September, 1998.
The system will then be field tested in ``shadow mode,'' where the
gates operate under the existing track circuits and a computer operates
the new hardware to compare how traffic delays would be reduced were
the new hardware controlling the gates. The ``shadow'' field testing
and final evaluation of the system is expected to be complete by the
first quarter in 2000.
The fiscal year 1998 funds requested in the Administrations budget,
have not been allocated to any Highway/Rail grade crossing projects.
The activities planned for fiscal year 1998 are primarily focused on
the evaluation of GPS, full barrier systems and A 2nd train coming. A
team within USDOT is now reviewing the earmarked projects of VPAS and
LIRR to develop an ITS evaluation plan, to review lessons learned and
to determine the next steps. Use of the VPAS technology is expected to
be applied to other sites, but those sites have not been determined to
date.
Since the contract authority funding requested in fiscal year 1998
was delayed, the time is being used to coordinate the project
evaluations. When funding is available the evaluations are expected to
continue as planned. In fiscal year 1999, the expectations are to
establish projects for integrating railroad technology with ATMS, and
for traffic signal preemption at crossings as well as health
monitoring. The three projects included in the budget request are
expected to cost $2.5 million.
Question. Please specify on a contract-by-contract basis how the
fiscal year 1996, fiscal year 1997 and the fiscal year 1998 program
support monies were used or will be used. Please indicate the scope,
nature, and amount of each contract.
Answer. There are two principal contractors that support the JPO
staff; ITS America, and the Mitretek Corp. ITS America is the official
advisory committee to the U.S. DOT on the ITS program, and organizes
and staffs the national committees that address each major facet of the
program. These committees are one of the formal forums to bring
together technical expertise in specific areas to review the program,
suggest research issues to be addressed, and provide a venue for policy
discussions with the ITS community. In addition, there are specific
tasks the U.S. DOT requests ITS America to perform that require access
to their membership, or that they are uniquely qualified to provide.
The U.S. DOT funding covers only these activities, and represents 35
percent of the $10 million annual budget of ITS America.
The Mitretek Corp. provides the principal technical support
function for the JPO. Mitretek's support can be categorized into in 7
general areas: Program planning and assessment; the rural program;
system architecture and deployment; communications and frequency
spectrum; safety technology research for NHTSA; AHS program; and
incorporating ITS into the transportation planning process.
Mitretek is the technical arm of the JPO. As such, they review and/
or generate all of the technical guidance, analyses, and research
activities in which the JPO is engaged. Most of the small JPO staff are
each managing several areas of the program, and also provide the policy
development options and rationale for senior management. The Mitretek
staff is the support that allows the existence of a small JPO staff to
accomplish these tasks. In 1997, the JPO developed and produced
separate technical documents that encompassed technical guidance,
results of research and deployment, outreach, and informational
documents for use by cities and states across the country. Mitretek
drafted many of these documents and provides the only entity that
maintains in depth technical expertise in all facets of the ITS
Program.
There are several small activities that provide support to the JPO
in the areas of the development and testing of the ITS Management
Information System, the computer network, the Internet Web page,
special support for conferences and workshops, and consultants for
special issues that arise during the conduct of the program.
The obligations for program support fall into three major
categories; ITS America, Mitretek, and miscellaneous support
activities. Following is a table which displays funding (both contract
authority and GOE funding) actually utilized for program support in
fiscal years 1996 and 1997 and projected for fiscal year 1998.
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
Activity --------------------------------
1996 1997 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ITS America............................ 2.8 2.6 2.7
Mitretek............................... 5.5 5.6 5.3
Misc. Support.......................... 2.9 1.5 2.0
--------------------------------
TOTAL............................ 11.2 9.7 10.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Why is it essential to use scarce ITS funds ``to
accelerate the institution of ITS across the surface transportation
modal administrations within the U.S. Department of Transportation?''
Answer. The surface transportation system in the U.S. is undergoing
large changes from building an interstate system to operating and
maintaining it. The sooner more agencies understand the benefits of ITS
for improving operations and maintenance and incorporate consideration
of ITS into everyday routines, the faster these benefits can be
realized by all traveling and non-traveling taxpayers.
commercial vehicle operations (cvo)
Question. Please provide a chart showing the amount spent on all
CVO activities for each of the following fiscal years: 1995, 1996,
1997, and 1998 (assuming full authorization of appropriated amount),
and 1999 (proposed). Please be certain that the table includes specific
amounts for training, CVISN research, CVISN deployment, border
projects, and amounts allocated to develop various information systems
used by OMC.
Answer. The following table shows ITS funding obligated for CVO
activities in fiscal years 1995, 1996, and 1997. This table also
includes estimated fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 ITS funding
projected to be allocated to CVO activities assuming full funding of
the ITS program as included in FHWA's fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year
1999 budget respectively.
INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS ACTUAL AND ESTIMATED ITS FUNDS FOR CVO
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FISCAL YEAR--
-----------------------------------------------------------
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ESTIMATE ESTIMATE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT............................ 10,806 14,260 6,891 7,500 9,000
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT & CONTROL.................... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
INTELLIGENT VEHICLE RESEARCH (FORMERLY AVCIS/ .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
AHS)...........................................
ENABLING........................................ .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
RURAL RESEARCH.................................. .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
OTHER RESEARCH.................................. .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
ADVANCED TRANSIT MANAGEMENT RESEARCH............ .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
COMMERCIAL VEHICLE OPERATIONS................... 10,806 14,260 6,891 7,500 8,000
Safety Systems Deployment Support........... .......... .......... .......... 7,100 7,200
Advances in Roadside Inspection Technol- .......... .......... .......... .......... 450
ogy........................................
Automated Compliance Review................. 500 .......... 500 400 350
Safer MCSAP Sites........................... .......... .......... 5,100 .......... ..........
Driver Monitoring and Industry Research and .......... .......... 455 .......... ..........
State Research.............................
On-Board Safety Diagnostics/Monitoring...... 999 900 686 .......... ..........
Dedicated Short Range Communications........ .......... .......... 150 .......... ..........
SAFER/200 MCSAP Sites....................... 3,979 4,660 .......... .......... ..........
Electronic Credentials, Identifiers & Cross .......... 800 .......... .......... ..........
Reference..................................
Intermodal Mobility......................... 150 150 .......... .......... ..........
Mexican Driver License...................... .......... 300 .......... .......... ..........
CVISN....................................... .......... 7,200 .......... .......... ..........
International Operations Concept/Design..... .......... 250 .......... .......... ..........
CVO System Design........................... 1,900 .......... .......... .......... ..........
Electronic Clearance........................ 850 .......... .......... .......... ..........
Automated Roadside Inspection............... 1,228 .......... .......... .......... ..........
Hazardous Materials......................... 350 .......... .......... .......... ..........
Commercial Vehicle Info. System............. 850 .......... .......... .......... ..........
HWY.-RAIL INTERSECTION INNOVATIVE DEV. RESEARCH. .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
INTERMODAL FREIGHT SUMMARY...................... .......... .......... .......... .......... 1,000
OPERATIONAL TESTS................................... 10,153 7,257 13,483 2,000 4,000
APTS............................................ .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
INTELLIGENT VEHICLE (CRASH AVOIDANCE IN PY).... .......... .......... .......... .......... 4,000
Integrated Transit Vehicle.................. .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
Rear End Collision Avoidance Systems........ .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
Road Departure Crash Avoidance Systems...... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
Intelligent Vehicle Heavy Truck............. .......... .......... .......... .......... 4,000
RURAL........................................... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
CVO............................................. 10,153 7,257 13,483 2,000 ..........
On-board Diagnostics........................ .......... .......... .......... 2,000 ..........
CVISN & Prototype Testing................... .......... .......... 9,218 .......... ..........
Border Crossings............................ .......... .......... 3,150 .......... ..........
CVO Corridors............................... .......... .......... 1,000 .......... ..........
One Stop Shopping........................... 157 .......... 115 .......... ..........
Advantage I-75.............................. .......... 1,024 .......... .......... ..........
Otay Mesa Border Crossing................... 916 1,238 .......... .......... ..........
Santa Teresa Border Crossing................ 1,680 900 .......... .......... ..........
Model Deployment............................ .......... 4,095 .......... .......... ..........
Northern Border Crossing.................... 3,200 .......... .......... .......... ..........
Operational Test Evaluation................. 400 .......... .......... .......... ..........
Nogales, Arizona Border Crossing............ 2,300 .......... .......... .......... ..........
Hazardous Material Transportation Safety.... 1,500 .......... .......... .......... ..........
EVALUATION/PROGRAM/POLICY ASSESSMENT................ .......... .......... .......... 350 ..........
EVALUATIONS..................................... .......... .......... .......... 350 ..........
Metropolitan Model Deployment............... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
CVISN Model Deployment...................... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
Field Operation Tests Cross-Cutting Analy- .......... .......... .......... 350 ..........
ses........................................
Rural Field Operational Tests............... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
Intelligent Vehicle Operational Tests....... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
Intermodal Freight Evaluation............... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
APTS Field Operational Tests................ .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
Highway-Rail Field Operational Tests........ .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
ITS PROGRAM/POLICY ASSESSMENT................... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
ARCHITECTURE AND STANDARDS.......................... .......... 500 500 500 500
ARCHITECTURE.................................... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
STANDARDS....................................... .......... 500 500 500 500
Research and Development.................... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
In-vehicle ICON Standards............... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
Standardization of ATIS Information .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
Across Media...........................
Standards Development Activities............ .......... 500 500 500 500
Infrastructure and Safety............... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
Standards Support for CVO............... .......... 500 500 500 500
Transit................................. .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
Federal Rulemaking Support.............. .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
User Implementation Guides.................. .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
International Activity...................... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
Testing and Integration..................... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
Data Registration........................... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
MAINSTREAMING....................................... 1,203 3,212 2,199 2,750 2,875
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE............................ 1,103 3,212 1,199 1,500 1,700
Information and Technology Transfer......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
Transit Technical Assistance................ .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
Commercial Vehicle Operations............... 1,103 3,212 1,199 1,500 1,700
State, Regional, Natl. Forums/Technical .......... 2,285 .......... 1,000 1,060
Guidance...............................
Border Technical Guidance............... .......... 600 .......... 250 500
Outreach................................ 349 .......... 1,199 250 140
Deployment Technical Assistance......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
Institutional Issues.................... 754 .......... .......... .......... ..........
Exhibits, Videos, Seminars, etc......... .......... 327 .......... .......... ..........
Technical Assistance for Rural ITS Plan- .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
ning.......................................
PLANNING/POLICY................................. .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
TRAINING........................................ 100 .......... 1,000 1,250 1,000
National ITS Training Initiative............ .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
CVO Training................................ 100 .......... 1,000 1,250 1,000
Standards Training/Technology Transfer...... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
FTA Professional Capacity Building.......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
AWARENESS AND ADVOCACY.......................... .......... .......... .......... .......... 175
ITI Awareness Activities.................... .......... .......... .......... .......... 75
Publications, Exhibits, etc................. .......... .......... .......... .......... 100
CORRIDORS........................................... 6,000 9,500 11,500 .......... ..........
Operation Respond (Maryland)................ .......... .......... 1,000 .......... ..........
Haz. Materials Intermodal Monitoring Sys. .......... 2,500 2,000 .......... ..........
(NIER).....................................
Green Light CVO Proj. (Oregon).............. 6,000 7,000 7,000 .......... ..........
US/Canada CVO............................... .......... .......... 1,500 .......... ..........
PROGRAM SUPPORT..................................... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
ITS DEPLOYMENT INCENTIVES PROGRAM................... .......... .......... .......... 25,000 25,000
-----------------------------------------------------------
GRAND TOTAL................................... 28,162 34,729 34,573 38,100 41,375
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Would it be worthwhile to establish a third ``mailbox''
project? Would the southeastern States be an acceptable location for
such an initiative?
Answer. It is not as worthwhile to expand into a third ``mailbox''
project as it is to expand regionally with the current states, and use
the same mailbox for that expansion. The SAFER data mailbox project
provides the opportunity for States to use state-of-the-art technology
to provide State safety and enforcement officials at the roadside
access to near real-time inspection information on commercial vehicles
and their drivers that have been previously cited for out-of-service
violations. Delaware, as well as the States of Maryland, New Jersey,
New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia, are among the
first group of States to pilot test the SAFER data mailbox project. In
addition, four western States (Nebraska, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming)
along a continuous corridor of I-80 have received funds to improve data
communications for their roadside inspectors and use the ASPEN software
to upload and retrieve inspection information from the mailbox.
All of these States are using the ASPEN software and are improving
``land'' communications (telephone) at fixed facilities or wireless
communications (radio or cellular) for mobile inspectors. These
communications will enable ASPEN to exchange data with SAFER and the
data mailbox such that inspectors will be able to retrieve both
carrier-level safety data and vehicle/driver-specific prior
inspections.
As the capability, technology, and the communications protocols are
established in these projects, additional States (including the
southeastern States) will be able to use the same mailbox system.
However, there would be a significant advantage to having States in the
same region of the country implement this system, as reciprocal
enforcement in each State will assist in creating safer road conditions
in the other States.
Question. Please specify in detail the amounts that the CVO program
has spent or plans to spend on outreach during fiscal year 1997, fiscal
year 1998, and fiscal year 1999, specifying contract and GOE
expenditures. What were the purposes of each activity? What was
achieved? Please break down in detail your use of those monies on a
project-by-project basis for fiscal year 1998.
Answer. Outreach is a necessary element of the ITS/CVO program and
has been successful in a number of areas. Conducting media events of
ITS/CVO technologies has heightened the awareness of the industry, as
well as State and local government officials. Informational Focus
Groups held around the nation for both industry and government
representatives have informed front line users of ITS/CVO technology
and provided feedback to the developers of the CVISN initiative. This
feedback indicated a greater need for stakeholder participation in the
development and deployment of CVISN and has been an impetus for the
creation of a CVO policy subcommittee within ITS America. Through these
outreach efforts, many thousands of stakeholders have been exposed to
the program thus facilitating the deployment of ITS/CVO.
The fiscal year 1997 Senate Report 104-325 limited fiscal year 1997
outreach funds to $100,000. These funds were used to cover costs of
completing products for the outreach tool kit to support the ITS/CVO
Program through the following projects:
1. Design and production of color overheads on the A Technology
Truck project for presentation to key decision-makers. Writing, editing
and producing a video tape on the A Technology Truck which was
reproduced and used to inform the appropriate audiences about the
availability of the truck for exhibits, briefings and informational
training sessions. Fiscal year 1997 amount: $35,000--Contract.
2. Participation in various outreach meetings conducted by partner
or stakeholder organizations. This provided the representative with an
opportunity to ensure that the ITS/CVO Program was adequately
represented as partners and stakeholders developed their own ITS/CVO
Program activities. Fiscal year 1997 Amount: $5,700--GOE.
3. Upgrade and add new material to a web-site and home page for the
ITS/CVO Program. Creatively support the design and development of a
standing exhibit on the ITS/CVO National Program. Fiscal year 1997
Amount: $39,000--Contract.
4. Completion of brochure and overhead slides to support the ITS/
CVO Program. These materials were reproduced in large quantity and
disseminated to the OMC region and division field staff, and also made
available for various meetings, exhibits, briefings, and conferences
throughout the year. Fiscal year 1997 Amount: $19,100--GOE.
5. Develop and maintain a database of current ITS/CVO stakeholder
contacts and media contacts. Fiscal year 1997 Amount: $1,200 --GOE.
In fiscal year 1998, no money has been spent to date on CVO
outreach. However, if money becomes available the following projects
are anticipated to be funded:
1. Partnership and Technical Assistance to Safety Agencies. Funds
would be used to support continued partnership program with state
enforcement agencies to provide a maximum of 2 individuals (on loan for
1 year) to work at safety associations and with the ITS/CVO field and
headquarters staff on Outreach-related activities and to provide
technical assistance to their peers. Fiscal year 1998 amount: $100,000
--GOE.
2. Ribbon cutting activities. Funds would be used to support
ribbon-cuttings activities/events involved in spotlighting successful
ITS/CVO projects, deployment efforts, and program activities. This
would include advance work as well as printing/graphic art
requirements, banners, signs, posters, video production, photographic
requirements, etc. for the event itself. Fiscal year 1998 amount:
$60,000--GOE.
3. Speakers bureau. Funds would be used to support participation by
requested/selected speakers who address a variety of groups regarding
the ITS/CVO program, projects, cost/benefits, deployment efforts and
partnership opportunities. Fiscal year 1998 amount: $10,000--GOE.
4. Newsletters/WWW page. Funds would be used to cover costs for
continued maintenance and periodic upgrades of the WWW Page/Newsletter
on the ITS/CVO program. Fiscal year 1998 amount: $20,000--GOE.
5. Marketing materials. Funds would be used to continue
disseminating, developing and periodically updating materials, in a
variety of multi media formats, to be used to inform and educate the
targeted audiences on the benefits of participating in the ITS/CVO
program. Fiscal year 1998 amount: $60,000--GOE.
In the proposed fiscal year 1999 ITS budget, $175,000 of GOE has
been requested by CVO for Awareness and Advocacy. This money will be
spent on general ITS/CVO awareness activities. In addition, funds will
be used to support the production of various publications and
presentation material to further promote the CVO activities.
The individual projects are as follows:
1. Partnership and Technical Assistance to Safety Agencies. Funds
would be used to support continued partnership program with state
enforcement agencies to provide a maximum of 2 individuals (on loan for
1 year) to work at safety associations and with the ITS/CVO field and
headquarters staff on Outreach-related activities and to provide
technical assistance to their peers. Fiscal year 1999 amount: $75,000--
GOE.
2. Ribbon cutting activities. Funds would be used to support
ribbon-cuttings activities/events involved in spotlighting successful
ITS/CVO projects, deployment efforts, and program activities. This
would include advance work as well as printing/graphic art
requirements, banners, signs, posters, video production, photographic
requirements, etc. for the event itself. Fiscal year 1998 amount:
$20,000--GOE.
3. Newsletters/WWW page. Funds would be used to cover costs for
continued maintenance and periodic upgrades of the WWW Page/Newsletter
on the ITS/CVO program. Fiscal year 1998 amount: $20,000--GOE.
4. Marketing materials. Funds would be used to continue
disseminating, developing and periodically updating materials, in a
variety of multi media formats, to be used to inform and educate the
targeted audiences on the benefits of participating in the ITS/CVO
program. Fiscal year 1999 amount: $60,000--GOE.
Question. Funds are requested on-board diagnostic systems. Exactly
how much of the fiscal year 1998 budget is likely to be allocated for
that purpose? Explain how those efforts will help MCSAP inspectors
conduct Level I inspections.
Answer. Funds requested in fiscal year 1998 for on-board diagnostic
systems have been subsumed under the IVI program. The IVI program is a
Department wide effort to coordinated existing and planned vehicle
based research and operational test projects. For commercial vehicle
operations, the IVI includes work not only in OMC, but also NHTSA and
FHWA R&D. Currently $1,100,000 of the first half of fiscal year 1998
IVI budget is allocated for on-board diagnostic systems in the CVO
platform. Major projects funded so far in fiscal year 1998 involve
Drowsy Driver Detection Development, Brake Performance Evaluation and
Testing, and Commercial Driver Behavior Analysis.
As part of the IVI effort, OMC is working on merging on and off-
board performance-based technologies and diagnostics. The first
activity is to develop software for inserting performance based test
results into ASPEN, in support of OMC's brake testing program. This
software will have the ability to translate performance-based brake
test results into a dynamic pictorial representation of the as-is
stopping capability of commercial vehicles being inspected by CVSA
Certified Inspectors. In addition, the software will be non-proprietary
to allow for communication path development to and from the vehicle. As
on-board diagnostic technologies are operationally tested through the
IVI program, this software will be flexible to allow for expansion and
enhancements. This flexibility is necessary for the eventual need to
download and upload vehicle performance data, in order to provide CVSA
Certified Inspectors with as much information as possible concerning
the performance condition of the vehicle.
Question. Please break down exactly how FHWA intends to use the $4
million requested.
Answer. Within the Department's Intelligent Vehicle Initiative,
$4,000,000 will be jointly managed by FHWA and NHTSA to build on
technologies developed by the two agencies, which began in fiscal year
1995. We are targeting electronic braking, driver monitoring, on-board
diagnostics (including black box/incident recorders) and human centered
integration. In the budget we have allocated $1 million for evaluation
of each of these issues. We are developing the details of how we will
carry out these investigations in consultation with our stakeholders
and the technical community. The implication is that we may be able to
evaluate these issues in a single operational test or for technical and
institutional reasons we may need to break it out to as many as four
separate studies.
Question. Please break out in extensive detail how all of the CVO
monies are being allocated in fiscal year 1998. Please provide three
different tables showing that allocation--one table including interim
funds only, one table showing the entire fiscal year 1998 allocation
assuming full authorization of the appropriated amount, and one table
showing the source of those monies including NHTSA/ITS or other NHTSA
funds that have been combined with CVO/ITS monies.
Answer. For the purposes of responding to this question, CVO funds
are those ITS dollar resources which are allocated to the Associate
Administrator for Motor Carriers to implement the CVO portion of the
ITS program. The following consolidates the requested information into
only one table, which shows our best estimate of fiscal year 1998
funding which will be made available to the CVO program under an
interim allocation of funds and assuming we receive funding as proposed
in our fiscal year 1998 budget.
All funds shown are monies assumed to be made available to the
Federal Highway Administration for the ITS program via both GOE and
contract authority.
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim
fiscal year Total
1998 fiscal year
allocation 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research and Development...................... 6,175 7,500
Operational Tests............................. 500 2,000
Evaluation and Program Assessment............. ........... 350
Architecture and Standards.................... 250 500
Mainstreaming................................. 1,180 2,750
ITS Deployment Incentives..................... ........... 25,000
-------------------------
GRAND TOTAL............................. 8,105 38,100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please provide comparable fiscal year 1999 tables for the
last two tables requested in the previous question.
Answer. The following table reflects estimated fiscal year 1999 CVO
funding assuming we receive dollar resources for the ITS program as
proposed in our fiscal year 1999 budget.
(Dollars in thousands)
Fiscal year
1999
Research and Development..........................................$8,000
Operational Tests................................................. 4,000
Evaluation and Program Assessment.......................................
Architecture and Standards.................................... 500
Mainstreaming................................................. 2,875
ITS Deployment Incentives.........................................25,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
GRAND TOTAL.................................................40,375
Question. Over the years, OMC has funded research on several
devices aimed at measuring fatigue or rest. For example, you funded
work on a similar (Arizona project), on a device worn on the wrist
(Army project), and on a new device based on the measurement of eye lid
closure. What is the exact status of each of those technologies?
Answer. The three technologies accomplish three different things;
all have potential application for improved CMV driver fatigue
management. Two are currently the subject of active FHWA and NHTSA
research.
The Arizona simulator project focused on fitness-for-duty testing
involving the administration of a psychomotor test to drivers suspected
of being fatigued. Fitness-for-duty testing was demonstrated to be
potentially valid (i.e., performance correlated highly with driving
performance) and feasible as a management aid involving periodic in-cab
(but non-driving) testing. However, it was never deployed by Arizona as
an enforcement tool. Related work to develop a device to identify those
who should stop to take the in-cab fitness-for-duty test, utilizing a
continuous lane-tracking device was not successful and is no longer
being funded. OMC regards its past fitness-for-duty research as
productive but we are not currently funding additional work on this
application.
The Army project involves using a device called an actigraph. An
actigraph is a miniature wrist-worn accelerometer and processor that
measures and records arm movements which are highly correlated with the
sleep-wakefulness cycle. The device scores sleep quantity and quality
and predicts performance based on a sleep/performance model which
factors in the amount and timing of sleep, time-of-day (as influenced
by circadian rhythms), and number of hours awake. The actigraph is the
most market-ready of fatigue management technologies. A planned OMC-
funded operational test of fatigue management technologies, directed by
the Congress as part of fiscal year 1998 R&T funding, will likely focus
on the use of the actigraph as an aid to CMV driver fatigue management.
The third device measures eyelid closure. The recent ITS/CVO-funded
and NHTSA-managed laboratory research at the University of Pennsylvania
has confirmed the validity of an eyelid closure measure called APERCLOS
as a gold standard measure of operator alertness. Current research at
Carnegie Mellon Research Institute is further validating PERCLOS on-
road in a real truck in relation to driving performance measures such
as lane tracking. Carnegie Mellon is also developing a video image
processing sensor for research, and potentially operational,
applications. Continuous in-vehicle driver monitoring measures driving
performance (e.g., steering wheel movements, lane tracking) and/or
driver psychophysiology (e.g., eyelid droop) as an alertometer. This
approach has the most far-reaching implications for CMV driver fatigue
management. It is envisioned that alertometer readings will function as
driver behavior/performance benchmarks used to directly ensure a
specific criterion level of driver safety performance. The approach
would be similar to speed monitoring or even brake monitoring; drivers
would be responsible for achieving a criterion level of alertness and,
therefore, alertness-related safety. We believe that this technology
will be attractive to drivers if it is introduced in a positive manner
which includes rewards such as increased schedule flexibility. There
are many technical, practical, and policy issues to be addressed before
the alertometer approach can be operationally fielded. However, FHWA/
NHTSA research has demonstrated scientific proof-of-concept and we are
now beginning to pursue the actual application of this concept to
enhancing CMV fatigue management and hence safety.
Question. How much has been spent on each device to date?
Answer. Most of the funding has been spent for basic research, not
devices, to establish valid measures of driver alertness and
performance. The only device that is commercially available is the Army
actigraph (device worn on the wrist). However, more research is needed
to validate their use in motor carrier fleets before they have
widespread commercial use. The amount of OMC research funds that have
been spent to date are $1,428,565 on the Arizona simulator, and
$1,206,574 on the Army actigraph. A total of $1,579,040 has been spent
to date by OMC and NHTSA on the eye lid closure device.
Question. Are any of those technologies in use and contributing to
motor carrier safety?
Answer. The Army's actigraph is available commercially but not yet
validated for extensive carrier use. None of the other technologies are
in commercial use. Two of these devices, the Army's actigraph and the
eye lid closure device are part of OMC and NHTSA's research to enhance
motor carrier safety. Their potential contributions to motor carrier
safety will be demonstrated through results from the research projects
described below.
The actigraphs are being worn by commercial motor vehicle (CMV)
drivers for up to 21 days. This research will provide information
concerning potential use of actigraphs to improve the management of CMV
driver fatigue. The actigraph is a near-term technology that should be
ready for widespread use in the CMV industry in 2-4 years.
The second technology, the eye lid closure device and associated
driver performance measures, is expected to be tested jointly by OMC
and NHTSA beginning in fiscal year 1999. It will likely become
commercially available in 3-5 years.
Question. Are those likely to achieve such an objective? If so,
when?
Answer. Yes, both the actigraph and eye lid closure devices are
expected to contribute significantly to motor carrier safety.
Actigraphs are commercially available now, but near-term research
and development is needed to validate effective procedures for their
use in motor carrier fleets. Widespread commercial use is still
probably 2-4 years away.
Continuous driver alertness monitoring (i.e., eye lid closure and
associated performance decrements) has been proven in the laboratory
and is currently being tested on the road. Further sensor development
for real time processing, validation, and pilot testing of this
application will begin in fiscal year 1999. Widespread
commercialization is expected in 3-5 years.
Question. How many years will it take to develop the latest (eye
closure) technology? What is the likelihood that its reliability could
be validated? How likely is it that it would be upheld by the courts as
an acceptable enforcement tool?
Answer. It will take two years to develop the latest (eye closure)
technology, but it will be 3-5 years before it is commercially
available. When we speak of eye closure technology, we mean a real-time
system, which consists of a means of sensing eye closure, a basis for
quantitatively predicting driver drowsiness based on eye closure, and a
means of advising drivers of their state of drowsiness. A performance
specification for such a drowsy driver detection and warning system
will be available in fiscal year 2000. At the same time, the advanced
engineering prototype used to develop this specification will be
available for use in some commercial settings.
The likelihood that its reliability could be validated is
excellent. Phase I laboratory studies in fiscal year 1997 showed that
the percentage of eyelid closure over the pupil over time was a highly
valid and reliable index of lapses in visual attention. This behavioral
index (PERCLOS) was then successfully applied to driving performance
data collected from Overnight Express truck drivers, providing a
reliable performance-based model of drowsiness detection. Both
behavioral and performance indices will be evaluated in the fielded
system during Phase II development in fiscal year 1998.
The likelihood of it being upheld by the courts as an acceptable
enforcement tool is uncertain. The use of this technology as an
enforcement tool, as upheld by the courts, could not be estimated until
the above research is completed, and until we fully understand the
operational reliability and improvement in safety afforded by the
system.
Question. Will it be ready for an operational test in fiscal year
1999? What is the basis of your answer?
Answer. Yes. An operational test is planned for mid fiscal year
1999. Second-phase engineering development in fiscal year 1998 is
underway to produce a real-time ocular sensor. An initial second-phase
prototype drowsy driver detection system will be available by May 1998
for use in a second laboratory-based experiment. By July 1998 we also
plan to implement and test a commercial vehicle-based sensor. The lab
study will provide initial information about how we would expect
drivers to utilize this newly available information about their level
of fatigue (operational reliability); i.e., will crashes be pushed
further down the road? The lab study will also improve our
understanding about the effectiveness of various alerting stimulation,
once drowsiness is detected.
intelligent vehicle initiative
Question. What are the costs and benefits of allocating scarce
funds on technology for highway maintenance vehicles to shadow other
highway maintenance vehicles?
Answer. We have not included funding for highway maintenance shadow
vehicle development in the fiscal year 1999 budget. Although some of
the service development work being done for other platform types could
in the future be applied to this application. Manned shadow vehicles
are currently used by some highway maintenance operations use to
protect employees working on highways, medians, and road shoulders in
close proximity to moving traffic. The shadow vehicles present a
physical barrier to separate workers from traffic and protect their
safety. The costs of the heavy shadow vehicles and drivers are
relatively high. The potential benefits of automating the shadow
vehicles are reduced cost from removing the driver and using a
relatively smaller shadow vehicle, and improved safety.
The feasibility of an automated shadow vehicle is still being
investigated. There already are efforts underway to develop prototype
automated shadow vehicles (the National Research Council's Strategic
Highway Research Program and the Advanced Highway Maintenance and
Construction Technologies Center). The costs of providing such
automated shadow vehicles cannot reliably be determined at this time,
though costs will clearly affect the acceptability of these vehicles to
highway maintenance agencies.
Question. Why are you dividing the IVI funds among so many
purposes? Are the synergistic benefits worth the splintering of this
program?
Answer. The IVI program and its funds are focused on a single
purpose: to accelerate the development, introduction, and
commercialization of driver assistance products to reduce motor vehicle
crashes. All activities that we undertake must feed this purpose. We
expect to achieve our goals faster by judiciously funding activities
over the four platform areas than if we focus solely on passenger cars.
The 26 services are only a starting point. We will down-select to a
list of specific services at the completion of fiscal year 1998. We
expect to invest in services that apply to transit, commercial vehicles
and specialty vehicles because the unique environments allow us to
investigate services that would not be immediately practical on
passenger cars due to the vehicle costs, driver training and operating
environments.
Early crash avoidance systems are expected to be vehicle based.
This line of research will be followed on passenger cars while more
advanced capabilities which involve infrastructure or vehicle
cooperation can be investigated on transit platforms. The advantages of
transit are that the fleet operator specifies the vehicles capability
whereas in the passenger car the manufacturer must wait for wide spread
consumer demand to develop. The transit vehicle operates over a fixed
course. This make cooperative infrastructure more attractive since it
limits the deployment area. Drowsy driver research which is vehicle
independent will be applied first in commercial vehicles. The unique
operating and regulatory environment make this platform the most likely
to be the first to widely deploy such a system. The intent of these
examples, is to show how each platform will incrementally advance
critical parts of the program while cross cutting activities such as
architecture development ensure overall system compatibility.
Question. What, if any, is the relationship between the PNGV and
the IVI?
Answer. There is no relationship between PNGV and IVI. PNGV is
focused on fuel economy while IVI is focused on safety. The two
programs will share different parts of participating organizations
(NHTSA, Ford, GM and Chrysler). The technologies that each program is
working on are different and do not overlap.
Question. How could those two activities be integrated?
Answer. We do not feel that there will be any benefit derived from
integrating these two activities. The goals, activities and schedules
of the two programs are mutually exclusive thereby cutting out any
opportunities for synergisms. The PNGV is one of many good models for
the public-private partnership that IVI will form. The Big 3 automotive
manufacturers in their response to the IVI RFI specifically site the
PNGV as an example of successful cooperation.
They recommend it be considered for a model but do not recommend
that IVI be integrated into this program.
nationwide differential global positioning system
Question. What is the total amount in the Department's budget for
DGPS? In which accounts?
Answer. The following table details DGPS funding in the
Department's budget by mode:
[Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-------------------------
1998 1999
enacted estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coast Guard................................... $4.2 ...........
FHWA.......................................... ........... $5.5
FRA........................................... ........... 3.0
-------------------------
Total, DOT.............................. 4.2 8.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. What is the total amount of federal monies likely to be
needed to complete the nationwide DGPS? How long will it take to
complete that objective?
Answer. The Department currently estimates that $30.3 million will
be needed to complete the installation of nationwide DGPS. Under the
current schedule, installation of the entire system would be completed
in 2002. To meet the funding required, the Department is pursuing
funding from other Federal agencies. Future capital funding, if any,
for NDGPS, will be provided through contributions from federal agencies
whose programs will benefit from the new technology. Future operational
funding for the NDGPS system will come through fees on users or
manufacturers of equipment.
Question. Which agency will be the lead administrative agency for
the DGPS program?
Answer. FRA is serving as the lead agency for the expansion of the
existing Coast Guard Maritime Differential GPS network (which is
currently limited to coastal and navigable waterways).
Question. How much was in the original FHWA request for DGPS? Was
an additional sum added? By whom? How much of this money can be
reasonably spent during the next year? Why is this an immediate need
that would require an outlay from the Federal Highway Trust Fund?
Answer. A multi-agency team, including FHWA and FRA, expects to
install approximately 8 NDGPS sites, upgrade existing monitoring
facilities to accommodate the additional sites in this network, and
cover operations and maintenance costs in fiscal year 1999. Current
estimates put this at approximately $8.5 million. The Administration
request for fiscal year 1999 is $3 million for FRA and $5.5 million for
FHWA.
While the FHWA has conducted the research studies behind this and
will continue to support the effort, we also recognize the substantial
benefits across many Federal agencies and to the general public in the
deployment of this service.
Question. How will you ensure that the investment in DGPS is
geographically correlated with ITS deployment?
Answer. Nationwide DGPS, in combination with the current U.S. Coast
Guard DGPS network, will within four years provide redundant coverage
everywhere in the continental United States and Alaska. The Nationwide
DGPS network, once completed, by definition, will support all ITS
deployments, and all other positioning/navigation applications.
Question. Will these expenditures be co-located with specific
positive Train control projects that are planned or underway? Which
projects?
Answer. There is, or will be DGPS coverage co-located with
currently planned positive train control projects. The Illinois PTC
project is already thoroughly covered by two U.S. Coast Guard stations
(Rock Island, IL and St. Louis, MO) providing redundant DGPS signal
coverage. CSX has contracted with Rockwell to develop a positive train
control project on the 120 mile rail line between Spartanburg, NC and
Augusta, GA. This area will be covered by NDGPS stations, utilizing
GWEN towers, in Savannah, GA and Lexington, NC. Both of these
installations are planned to be installed and on-the-air before the end
of fiscal year 1998. The Michigan PTC project currently uses a special
DGPS network developed specifically for the project. In the future,
when the NDGPS network is operational, the Michigan PTC project will
make use of it. The current NDGPS station at Appleton, WA will continue
to support the Positive Train Separation project on the UP and BNSF
railroads in the Pacific Northwest. When the Nationwide DGPS network is
completed in four years, it will support any and all positive train
control projects in the continental United States and Alaska.
international activities
Question. Please specify the number of planned and completed
international scanning trips taken during fiscal year 1996, fiscal year
1997, and fiscal year 1998. Please specify the total costs of these
trips for each year and specify which portion of the LGOE or contract
monies paid for these trips.
Answer. The FHWA completed four international Scanning reviews in
fiscal year 1996. The Scanning Study Program budget for fiscal year
1996 was approximately $400,000. It was funded through ISTEA Section
6005 funds. The studies were: Bridge Coating Issues; Traffic Management
and Traveler Information Systems; Technology and Practices in the
Republic of South Africa; and European Traffic Monitoring Programs and
Technologies.
The FHWA completed five international Scanning reviews in fiscal
year 1997. The Scanning Study Program budget for fiscal year 1997 was
approximately $450,000. It was funded through ISTEA Section 6005 funds.
The studies were: Repair/Rehabilitation of Bridges using Fiber-
Reinforced Composite Materials Safety Audits; Transportation Agency
Organization and Management Scanning Review; Bridge Structures Scanning
Review; and Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Protection Technology and
Closing Programs Review.
The FHWA has four international Scanning reviews planned for fiscal
year 1998 with an estimated fiscal year 1998 budget of $450,000
(pending reauthorization). Under the current law budget, these reviews
are presently being funded by a combination of carry-over fiscal year
1997 ISTEA Section 6005 funds and fiscal year 1998 GOE funds. The
reviews are: Innovative and Emerging Traffic Controls for Congestion
and Safety; Winter Road Maintenance Practices; International Scanning
Tour for Geotechnology--Canada and Europe; and Motor Carrier Safety
Technologies.
Question. Please compare the amount of funds allocated to the
Republic of South Africa with funds allocated to other countries.
Answer. The funding level for the South Africa program is
comparable with funding levels for the FHWA's other international
programs:
The FHWA's South Africa Program: Fiscal year 1996: $600,000 GOE and
$200,000 International Outreach Program funds (GOE). Fiscal year 1997:
$300,000 GOE. Fiscal year 1998: $300,000 GOE (planned estimate).
The FHWA's Russia Program: Fiscal year 1996: $400,000. Fiscal year
1997: $200,000. Fiscal year 1998: $200,000(planned).
The FHWA's Pan American Institute of Highways: Fiscal year 1996:
$400,000. Fiscal year 1997: $275,000. Fiscal year 1998: $200,000
(planned).
The FHWA's Cooperative Program with Finland to transfer technology
to the Baltic countries of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania: Fiscal year
1996: $36,800. Fiscal year 1997: $40,500. Fiscal year 1998: $30,000
(planned).
FHWA's Border Technology Exchange Program (allocated to U.S. border
States for activities with Mexico and Canada): Fiscal year 1996:
$400,000. Fiscal year 1997: $500,000. Fiscal year 1998: $500,000
(planned).
Question. What are the benefits to the United States of each of
these allocations to foreign entities?
Answer. The benefit of these expenditures is that these countries
receive information concerning U.S. transportation technology and
practices which will allow them to more effectively construct and
manage their transportation systems, thus supporting the U.S. foreign
policy of encouraging economic development and democratization of newly
independent and developing countries.
These expenditures have the added benefit of promoting U.S. highway
related firms since the countries involved in technical exchange and
assistance activities tend to develop a preference for U.S. standards
and equipment. As it is the private sector in this country that
designed and built this nation's highway projects, these programs
highlight such contributions and commend the U.S. highway industry to
our foreign counterparts. The benefits of these expenditures are
already evident in two of the countries the FHWA has initiated
activities with:
--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. asphaltic pavement construction
techniques for over 80 Russian highway officials and
contractors.
--The FHWA's support of the Russian Federal Highway Department's
(RFHD) 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 RFHD has set aside
a large design and construction project which would complete
the last section of the trans-Siberian highway exclusively for
U.S. firms.
--Due to the FHWA's technical program in the Baltic states, Estonia
recently purchased a U.S. manufactured asphalt plant for use in
their highway program.
Question. Please provide estimates for fiscal year 1997, fiscal
year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 of the amounts of funds used or planned
to be used to promote marketing by U.S. Companies of highway-related
technologies abroad.
Answer. Estimated funding to promote by U.S. highway technologies
abroad is difficult to separate out as a specific amount since these
activities are usually incorporated as a larger part of a technical
exchange or assistance program. The estimates are: Fiscal year 1997:
$125,000. Fiscal year 1998: $125,000 (planned). Fiscal year 1999:
$200,000 (planned).
Question. On a contract by contract basis, please show how the
fiscal year 1997 funds were used, being certain to specify associated
amounts with each contract. Please provide a table showing LGOE funds
for all international activities.
Answer. The charts below contain the break downs for the requested
funding. These charts include information for all of the Office of
International Program's primary contracts. It also contains categories
for other expenses which would have been too unwieldy to list here
(i.e.--the cost of translating technical documents is listed as a
category rather than by individual document). The FHWA's fiscal year
1997 funding for International Outreach Activities is $475,000, which
is 3 year funding. Fiscal year 1997 funding for the Russian Technical
Assistance is $200,000. These are also 3 year funds.
Description Cost
Fiscal year 1997 International Outreach Program Funds:
Contract for support of the FHWA's international Visitors
Program and two PIH contract employees..................$99,800.00
Contract for the FHWA's contract representative in Moscow,
Russia (trade promotion-related activities).............129,717.89
Cooperative Agreement with the Finnish Road Administration
for the FHWA's technical assistance program with the
Baltic.................................................. 40,500.00
Contract for an assessment study of the FHWA's Baltic
Technology Transfer Centers............................. 4,865.15
Equipment for the Technology Transfer Center the FHWA is
supporting in Tanzania.................................. 15,073.73
Technology Exchange Activities with the Japanese Ministry
of Construction......................................... 11,453.59
FHWA's participation with the International Road
Federation, including participation in the IRF World
Congress in Toronto..................................... 3,162.31
FHWA's participation with the World Road Administration
(PIARC), including U.S. Government membership dues and
the PIARC Executive Committee Meetings.................. 45,590.69
Support of the FHWA's participation in the Latin American
ITS Conference.......................................... 5,800.00
Translations of technical documents and foreign
correspondence.......................................... 5,150.00
International Outreach Program publications, including
brochures and other items............................... 7,674.00
Finalization and printing of the FHWA's Trade Promotion
Study................................................... 3,158.20
Support of FHWA Conference on Accessing Foreign Technical
Information............................................. 766.00
FHWA hosting activities for international officials....... 2,696.23
General office support which includes printing supplies
and film for international presentations, conversion of
PAL format video tapes, an optical scanning unit, etc... 8,688.63
Support of the European Commission conference on
Intermodal Freight Transport............................ 19,000.00
Technical exchange with the IRF as a part of the FHWA's
Russian Technical Assistance Program.................... 9,000.00
Publications.............................................. 3,288.69
Registrations for international conferences on freight
logistics, etc.......................................... 1,932.06
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total...................................................417,317.17
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
Fiscal year 1997 Russian Technical Assistance Program
Description:
Cost Contract with the FHWA's representative in Moscow,
Russia..................................................195,000.00
Cooperative activities with the IRF as a part of the
Russian Technical Assistance Program.................... 5,000.00
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total spent...........................................200,000.00
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
Fiscal year 1997 LGOE Funds spent on International Activities
Description:
Cost Foreign Travel.......................................345,000.00
Cooperative Agreement with the South African DOT in
support of the FHWA's African Program...................300,000.00
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total spent...........................................645,000.00
national rural development program
Question. What have been the benefits of the President's rural
initiative to the Department? Why is that request specified under GOE?
Why isn't funding for that requested under the OST account?
Answer. The National Rural Development Partnership (NRDP),
originally called the President's Rural Initiative, has benefited and
continues to benefit the Department in a number of ways. It provided a
unique and useful source of issues, ideas, and recommendations for
rural-focused programs during the development of our surface
transportation reauthorization proposal. This was particularly
important because rural communities are not a constituency with which
the Department has well-developed lines of communication. In addition,
the NRDP will be a continuing source of information on rural issues in
such DOT efforts as the development of a strategy for improving the
non-metropolitan transportation planning process. Some of the State
Rural Development Councils, which are supported through the NRDP, have
taken up transportation issues--both specific, such as the appropriate
design of rural transportation facilities, and the more general, such
as rural concerns regarding reauthorization. An important factor in our
involvement in the NRDP is that it provides a broad-based rural
constituency that provides the Department with an organization focused
clearly on the needs of the Nation's rural population.
The Partnership is proposed for funding under LGOE within the FHWA
because the ongoing nature of the Department's support, and relatively
small amount requested, fit most appropriately with activities funded
out of LGOE. In addition, within the Department, FHWA is the mode
involved most frequently on meeting rural transportation needs.
motor carrier safety assistance program and prism
Question. Please break out in extensive detail how you would spend
the $17 million requested under Information Systems and Analysis.
Answer. Information systems ($5 million).--These funds will be used
to support expansion of the Federal/State motor carrier safety
information systems. Motor carrier information systems provide the
means to maintain an accurate carrier census and target unsafe
carriers, prioritize carriers for audits, establish a motor carrier
safety fitness rating and profile, manage program resources
effectively, analyze programs and regulations, and track industry
statistics and trends. Funds will benefit the States by providing
national, compatible software and hardware as well as access to a
national information system. Future development and deployment will
emphasize unified information systems, including a complete motor
carrier register involving the integration of ICC and DOT systems, on-
line, roadside access of motor carrier information to guide the
selection of vehicles and drivers for inspection based on prior safety
history, and the expansion of national records to include intrastate
carriers.
Motor Carrier Analysis ($3 million).--These funds will be used to
continue and expand analysis of motor carrier census, crash and
exposure data. The analysis function within OMC is an integral
component in policy and program development and requires sound,
statistically-based approaches. It provides the basis for evaluating
program effectiveness and determining changes to program activities.
Improved analysis will enable the FHWA and States to establish program
benchmarks and evaluate program performance while meeting the
requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act. Other
projects include: studying truck crash causation, evaluating exposure
data, and collecting information on the regulated population of motor
carriers.
Nationwide implementation of PRISM/SafeStat ($6 million).--These
funds will support the national implementation of a 5-State pilot
program mandated by ISTEA. The PRISM pilot tested the feasibility of an
information system linking safety fitness and State motor vehicle
registration. The PRISM pilot project (Iowa, Colorado, Indiana,
Minnesota and Oregon) tested the integration of Federal data systems
with State motor vehicle registration systems and coupled the
suspension denial of vehicle registration with a Federal determination
of unsafe operations. The motor carrier industry was an active
participant in the project. The system links State motor vehicle
registration with carrier data, assigning the safety responsibility for
each vehicle being registered to the appropriate motor carrier,
identifies high-risk carriers, provides mechanisms for carriers to
improve their performance, actively monitors safety progress, and
improves enforcement by providing sanctions. The pilot project was
highly successful and other States are now seeking to participate.
Driver programs including driver education, evaluation of driver
performance, and licensing enhancements ($3 million).--Funds will be
used to help States build their capacity to exchange driver information
with courts within their State and with licensing agencies in other
States. This will allow courts to make more informed adjudicatory
decisions on commercial driver citations and ensure out-of-state
convictions are transmitted to the State of licensure in a timely and
accurate manner for placement on the driver record. These funds will
also be used to support education for judges, prosecutors and law
enforcement on enforcement and adjudication of commercial motor vehicle
offenses, enhance the electronic administration of commercial driver's
licensing tests by state licensing agencies, improve State driver
examiner training, and provide licensing agencies with the support
necessary to revise their data systems to capture data on commercial
driver license suspension and revocation actions. These activities are
particularly crucial given the high level of driver contribution to
crashes and the lack of Federal investment in driver programs since the
implement of the Commercial Driver's License (CDL) in 1992.
Question. How many new States are participating in PRISM? What
convincing evidence can you present that the PRISM effort needs a
funding increase?
Answer. The PRISM pilot program officially ended September 30,
1997. In the seven months since the end of the pilot, Pennsylvania has
joined the other five States in the PRISM program. In addition, OMC has
received applications for participation from South Dakota and Maine.
Further, 11 states have expressed an interest in participating. They
are: Connecticut, Vermont, Virginia, Florida, Louisiana, Arkansas,
Missouri, Arizona, California, Nevada and Washington. At an estimated
start-up cost of $450,000 per State and with present appropriation
levels limited to $3 million per year, PRISM participation can only
increase by at most four to five States per year.
Question. Please provide a detailed breakdown on a project by
project basis of the use of MCSAP administrative takedown funds for
fiscal year 1997 and thus for fiscal year 1998. Please be certain to
specify the amount spent on each activity.
Answer. See chart below.
Amount
Fiscal year 1997 activity:
National Training Center (State training and Associate
travel)................................................. $590,000
Performance-Based Workshop, St. Louis, MO................. 13,636
Performance-Based Workbook printing....................... 230
Performance-Based Workshop Speaker........................ 1,950
Performance-Based Workshop Contractor (ASTI).............. 72,000
Safetynet 2000 State Technical Workgroup (Kentucky)....... 20,000
Guardian Newsletter (CVSA)................................ 18,000
TCC (Safetynet Contract).................................. 32,000
Challenge '97 Supplies and electrical service............. 1,554
IACP Contract (Task #3, Techniques for Safe Commercial
Vehicle Stops and Approaches)........................... 29,492
RSIS Contract (feasibility of using risk assessment for
roadside inspection selection).......................... 38,500
Arrowhead, Inc. (Part-time staff program support)......... 6,688
HOS Peer Review State Participant Recognition (plaques)... 950
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 825,000
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
Fiscal year 1998 activity (thru 4/15/98):
National Training Center (State training and Associate
travel)................................................. 310,000
Performance-Based training and Instructor travel.......... 20,000
New York travel funds for Judicial Outreach program
conferences speakers.................................... 8,000
CVSA (State Strategic Plan)............................... 7,000
MCSAP Office Program Supplies............................. 710
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 412,500
advanced vehicle, components, and infrastructure
Question. Why shouldn't this activity be funded solely by DOE?
Answer. One of the key principles for the reauthorization of the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act is to encourage the
development and deployment of new technologies. The Department strongly
believes that advanced technology is critical to enhancing the safety,
efficiency, capacity and longevity of our Nation's transportation
systems as well as reducing travel times across all modes. We are also
cognizant of the impacts of transportation on our local and global
environments including air and water quality, wetlands, noise and other
factors. Advanced technologies provide opportunities to significantly
reduce some of these impacts while maintaining the Nation's demand for
ever-increasing mobility. Given the broad implications of advanced
technologies across all of the modes, DOT should play a leading role.
This program marries the Department's responsibility for vehicular
impact (safety, environmental, and vehicle movement enabled by
infrastructure) with emerging technologies to improve the whole
transportation system. Through a joint effort with the Department of
Energy (DOE), the Department will be able to leverage advanced
technology development efforts from the Department of Defense (DOD) and
DOE to ensure that vehicle applications extend beyond just automobiles
and trucks and look for opportunities to apply technologies to transit,
rail, maritime and aviation.
Question. How much is DOE spending during fiscal year 1998 on
battery development, flywheels, alternative fuels and engines, and
other activities relevant to the objectives of this program?
Answer. According to the fiscal year 1998 DOE budget, activities in
the Transportation Sector included $198.3 million for programs related
to the objectives of the proposed program (see breakdown in chart
below). It is important to note that although the technology areas
specified in this question are related to those of the proposed
program, most activities currently conducted by DOE--Advanced
Automotive Technologies--support the development of passenger
automobiles or light-duty vehicles under the Partnership for a New
Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) program. Only $25.6 million is directed
towards heavy vehicle technologies. The proposed joint program (also
referred to as ``the Advanced Vehicle Program'') will focus on medium
and heavy-duty vehicles and serve a different sector of the
transportation system. The program will involve partnering with the
Department of Energy and seven regional consortia representing a broad
mix of U.S. companies, public entities and research institutions.
In millions
ADVANCED AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGIES (automotive alternative fuels,
advanced battery, high power energy storage, fuel cells)......$113.3
ADVANCED HEAVY VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES (heavy vehicle alternative
fuels, high efficiency diesel engine)......................... 25.6
TRANSPORTATION MATERIALS TECHNOLOGIES (lightweight materials,
propulsion materials)......................................... 35.0
TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT (Clean Cities, vehicle field test/evalua-
tion)......................................................... 11.8
IMPLEMENTATION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT............................. 7.6
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
TOTAL FISCAL YEAR 1998...................................... 193.3
Question. How much does DOE propose to spend during fiscal year
1999 on those technologies?
Answer. According to the fiscal year 1999 DOE budget request,
activities in the Transportation Sector include $246 million for
programs in related vehicle technologies (see breakdown in chart
below). The $10 million requested by DOE specifically for the proposed
Advanced Vehicle Program (AVP) is included in the category of Advanced
Heavy Vehicle Technologies. As stated in the answer to the previous
question, it is important to note that although the variety of
technology areas included below are related to those of the proposed
AVP, many activities proposed by DOE for fiscal year 1999 funding
support the development of passenger automobiles or light-duty vehicles
under the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) program.
The proposed joint program, AVP, would serve a different sector of the
transportation system. The proposal to develop vehicles, components,
and infrastructure in partnership with the Department of Energy and
with a consortia of private companies and public entities would serve
vehicles categorized primarily as medium and heavy-duty. This program
would involve partnering with a broad mix of U.S. companies, public
entities and research institutions. In addition, some of DOE's programs
pertaining to heavy vehicles will require a greater commitment of funds
than would be available under the proposed program and/or a focus on
technologies not necessarily within the scope of the proposed program
(e.g., clean diesel technologies).
For fiscal year 1999 the DOE budget request in the Transportation
Sector is:
In millions
ADVANCED AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGIES (automotive alternative fuels,
advanced battery, high power energy storage, fuel cells)......$144.6
ADVANCED HEAVY VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES (heavy vehicle alternative
fuels, high efficiency diesel engine, AVP).................... 44.2
TRANSPORTATION MATERIALS TECHNOLOGIES (lightweight materials,
propulsion materials)......................................... 31.8
TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT (Clean Cities, vehicle field test/evalua-
tion)......................................................... 16.2
IMPLEMENTATION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT............................. 9.2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
TOTAL FISCAL YEAR 1999...................................... 246.0
Question. What is the empirical basis for the $10 million request?
How will those funds be allocated?
Answer. The request for the proposed Advanced Vehicle Program is
based on the funding history of the program as it currently exists, as
the Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Program under the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency (DARPA). This program has been funded at the
$15 million level for the past several years, down from a high of $46
million during its second year. In anticipation of the transition of
this program to DOT and DOE, each Department has requested $10 million
in fiscal year 1999 to provide a slight increase for the continuation
of this highly successful program. To maximize the value of the
program, contracting partners are required to provide a minimum 50
percent cost share. This brings the total public and private investment
to a value of approximately $40 million for fiscal year 1999.
The funds will be allocated using the current competitive process
developed under the DARPA program. The government (DOE and DOT) will
provide broad performance guidance on the program objectives, focus
areas and selection criteria. Concept papers based on this guidance
will be solicited from the eligible regional consortia. From a review
of these concept papers by DOE and DOT, full proposals will be
requested for those ranked high. Awards for funding will be made based
on the full proposals submitted. Funding will be awarded through
cooperative agreements and other transactions authority.
Question. Will those funds be used to help develop improved train
engines? Improved marine engines? If so, why should those activities be
funded out of the Federal Highway Trust Fund?
Answer. Funding under the proposed Advanced Vehicle Program will be
used to develop, demonstrate and deploy advanced technologies for
vehicles, components and infrastructure to improve fuel efficiency,
reduce criteria pollutants and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The
program is not limited to specific technologies, but the emphasis will
be on medium and heavy duty vehicles. This includes, but is not limited
to, medium and heavy duty trucks and buses. Accordingly, the program
could include projects addressing improved train and marine engine or
propulsion technologies.
A number of the technologies funded under the AVP will have
potential crossmodal applications and benefits. To the extent that
these technologies are applicable to other modes and other vehicle
platforms, DOT will ensure that the technologies are coordinated and
widely disseminated among the DOT modal administrations and the
transportation research community.
Even though its funding is being requested as part of the Federal
Highway Trust Fund, the AVP has application across all modes. The
transportation sector accounts for over 67 percent of the national
petroleum consumption. The U.S. transportation sector itself is 97
percent dependent on petroleum. This translates into the transportation
sector accounting for one-third of the CO2 emissions with
motor vehicles accounting for about 25 percent alone. Pollutants from
motor vehicles are major contributors to problems with urban air
quality. Technologies developed through this program could
significantly increase the energy efficiency of vehicles and reduce
emissions. In these ways, gains made in the efficiency or environmental
benefits of one platform benefit the whole transportation system.
Question. How much is requested by FTA in fiscal year 1999 on
similar R&D activities?
Answer. FTA has requested $5.5 million in fiscal year 1999 on
similar R&D activities, particularly advanced bus propulsion. The work
will have specific applications to transit buses and transit services.
The proposed AVP program would not seek to duplicate these efforts, nor
could the size of the AVP request accommodate this program and still
meet the objectives for the variety of other projects needed in the
greater transportation picture.
FTA's fiscal year 1999 budget request for similar R&D activities is
a decrease from the fiscal year 1998 funding level of $8.5 million.
This is a result of FTA's shift in its R&D focus to address other
issues, such as transit security and communications-based signaling.
Question. How will this program be managed at DOT?
Answer. The Advanced Vehicle Program will be jointly managed by DOT
and DOE. As currently envisioned, an Advanced Vehicle Program Executive
Committee (AVPEC), consisting of a senior official from RSPA and a
senior official from DOE's Office of Transportation Technologies, will
be the central decision-making body and provide overall program
direction. The AVPEC will: Define and approve program objectives and
overall technology focus areas; Direct a joint DOE/DOT program office
to administer the projects; Review and approve project proposals; and
Identify appropriate funding source in DOT and DOE. The program will be
managed by the joint DOE/DOT program office (Advanced Vehicle Program
Office (AVPO)), which will be appointed by the AVPEC. The AVPO will
consist of staff within DOE and DOT. The AVPO will solicit and conduct
technical reviews of proposals from eligible consortia on the
development, demonstration and deployment of technology areas
identified by the AVPEC. Contracts will be awarded based on a
competitive, peer-reviewed selection process. DOT will utilize grants,
interagency agreements, cooperative agreements and other transactions,
as authorized by the legislation.
Question. Who will have ultimate authority--RSPA, FTA, or some
other entity?
Answer. The Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of Energy
will exercise ultimate authority over the Advanced Vehicle Program. The
Research and Special Programs Administration will be responsible for
administration of the program within DOT.
Question. How much is FTA allocating towards similar activities
during fiscal year 1998? Please break out specific projects and
associated funding amounts.
Answer. Approximately $8.5 million is being obligated by FTA in
fiscal year 1998 on related activities: $4 million--Fuel Cell Transit
Bus Program; $2 million--Zinc-Air Battery Bus Demonstration; $1.5
million--Electric Vehicle Program-CALSTART; and $1 million--DUETS.
Question. What, if any, is the relationship among this initiative,
the PNGV, and the National ITS Program?
Answer. Although the Advanced Vehicle Program (AVP) is similar to
the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) in its efforts
to develop advanced vehicle propulsion systems and related
technologies, the AVP scope, focus, program management, structure,
funding mechanisms, partners, and size are all different from that of
PNGV. The AVP is unique in that it focuses on developing, demonstrating
and deploying technologies for advanced vehicles, components and
infrastructure for medium and heavy-duty vehicles. PNGV is focused on
five-passenger sedan vehicles. The AVP will not seek to duplicate the
PNGV effort. Similarly, the AVP will not duplicate the ITS focus on
intelligent vehicle technologies and intelligent transportation
infrastructure.
Nevertheless, we will coordinate with the PNGV and ITS programs on
technologies developed under the AVP that demonstrate potential
benefits to PNGV and ITS.
nationwide personal transportation survey
Question. When was the last survey completed? How much did it cost?
Answer. The last survey was completed in July 1996. The cost of
collecting the national sample of 21,120 households was $4,087,283.
Question. Why is this request not under the policy area?
Answer. The special effort and resources needed to develop a
continuous Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey and to conduct a
year 2000 survey in parallel with the Decennial Census will require
resources beyond the normal budget. It also will be coordinated with
the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, the Federal Transit Administration and other
Federal Highway Administration offices as a multi modal survey to serve
the whole department. It was felt that as a unique initiative, the
research needed special identity and focus.
Question. Wasn't this initiative previously funded under policy
research?
Answer. Forty-nine percent of the cost of collecting the national
sample was from policy research. Twenty-two percent of the cost was
funded by Federal Highway Administration resources other than through
policy research, eighteen percent by the Bureau of Transportation
Statistics, six percent by the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, and five percent by the Federal Transit Administration.
other issues
Question. What criteria does the Secretary of Transportation/Office
of the Administrator for FHWA use to decide which projects will receive
discretionary funds? (a) Is this criteria different than the criteria
FHWA staff use for project analysis? (b) How much weight does staff
input carry in making the final selection?
Answer. The FHWA staff evaluate individual projects within the
context of specific discretionary programs, and staff evaluations are
an important input in the selection process. The Secretary/Office of
the Administrator make decisions in the broadest context that considers
not only staff evaluations but also includes consideration of
geographic balance among all of the discretionary programs, as well as
congressional direction, guidance and interest.
Question. Why doesn't the Office of the Administrator document its
criteria and methodology for selecting projects? (a) How can the Office
of the Administrator be accountable for its selections if it does not
document the basis and justification for project selections?
Answer. The judgement involved in selecting this many projects
across multiple funding categories does not lend itself to a
documentable, scientific methodology. The Office of the Administrator
uses the eligibility criteria and related factors as a starting point
in the review of candidate projects. Many worthwhile projects compete
for limited discretionary funds. In 1997, for example, 200 projects
were selected for funding under eight major discretionary highway
programs.
While a recent GAO review showed that the Office of the
Administrator acted appropriately within the authority granted by
Congress regarding the discretionary highway programs, a few members of
Congress said they were troubled by some of the GAO's other findings
about project selection. Because of the concerns expressed, the
selection process is being reviewed to ensure that it is working well.
Of course, reauthorization of ISTEA will determine the structure of the
discretionary programs beyond fiscal year 1998.
Question. Why did the Office of the Administrator require staff to
change the process that they used to evaluate and rank the candidate
projects?
Answer. The earlier process only provided the Office of the
Administrator with staff views on a relatively small subset of projects
which staff recommended for available funding. It was the desire of the
Office of the Administrator to have staff views on all submitted
candidates, unconstrained by the amount of available funds. This then
allowed the Office of the Administrator to select projects from a broad
perspective with staff views on each project.
Question. In its November 1997 report entitled Transportation
Infrastructure: Review of Project Selection Process for Five FHWA
Discretionary Programs (GAO/RCED-98-14), GAO reported that under the
current selection process, as compared with the prior selection
process, the Office of the Administrator selected a declining
proportion of projects from the highest priority categories. (a) What
are the reasons for selecting a smaller proportion of staff priority
projects? (b) In particular, what are the reasons that half of the
public lands projects selected for fiscal year 1997 funding came from
the ``qualified'' category when there were so many other projects in
the higher priority categories of ``most promising'' and ``promising?''
Answer. During recent years, the Office of the Administrator relied
more on its discretion in selecting projects. As discussed, the Office
of the Administrator takes into account additional criteria beyond
those considered by the staff. For the public lands highways
discretionary program, a broad range of activities are eligible for
funding, and a large number of candidate projects are received. While
the statutory guidance calls for giving preference to projects which
are significantly impacted by Federal land and resource management
activities in States which contain at least three percent of the
nation's total public lands, there is no legislative guidance besides
that. This results in more subjective evaluation by the staff, thus
allowing the Office of the Administrator more discretion when selecting
projects under this program.
Question. Did the selection of lower priority projects by the
Office of the Administrator result in poor transportation investments?
Answer. None of the selected projects are poor transportation
investments. All of the projects selected are qualified to receive the
specific discretionary funds provided, and they all address important
transportation needs.
fhwa regional office restructuring
Question. What are the major differences between FHWA's current
regional office responsibilities and the proposed resource centers?
Answer. Over the years in response to the evolving nature of the
Federal-State relationship and changed operating conditions, such as
completion of the Interstate System, the FHWA's regional offices have
been shifting their emphasis from program oversight and involvement to
a predominant role of providing advanced program and technical
assistance to the division offices as well as to State Departments of
Transportation and other customers. Nevertheless, the regional offices
retained certain program and administrative approval actions that are
shared with other DOT elements or involve legal or potentially
controversial issues. These include certification of metropolitan
transportation planning processes, approval of final environmental
impact statements, initiation of motor carrier-related enforcement
proceedings, approval of State motor carrier safety plans and grants,
and approval of invitational travel.
With the pending establishment of Resource Centers, the program and
administrative authorities currently retained in regional offices will
be delegated to Division Administrators and Motor Carrier State
Directors to the fullest extent possible. The delegations of authority
are being issued in April 1998, as the first step in implementing our
new field structure. With this action, the FHWA's state-level division
offices will be empowered to carry out their primary role of program
delivery without the involvement of an intermediate level office in
decisionmaking.
The resource centers will continue some of the existing functions
of the regional offices, such as technical assistance, intermodal and
interagency coordination, and training. However, there will be a much
stronger emphasis on providing advanced levels of program and technical
assistance. Under the resource center concept, the FHWA will be able to
cluster its technical experts in a smaller number of offices, thus
allowing for greater sharing of knowledge and experience among our
Agency's technical experts. Specific roles and responsibilities
envisioned for the resource centers are identified below:
--Provide technical and program assistance to division offices,
metropolitan offices, other DOT modes, and State and local
agencies.
--Promote technology deployment and adoption of best practices by
State and local agencies.
--Provide training to division offices, metropolitan offices, State
and local agencies, other Federal agencies, and industry
partners.
--Provide leadership in strategic planning and implementation of
quality improvements.
--Provide intermodal and interagency coordination with other Federal
agencies.
In summary, resource centers will differ from regional offices in
that (1) they will have virtually no programmatic decisionmaking
authority and (2) they will focus on providing advanced levels of
technical and program assistance in support of division offices.
Question. What are the estimated savings in terms of funding and
staff reductions in establishing FHWA new resource centers?
Answer. In closing existing regional facilities, FHWA will achieve
recurring savings in 2 primary categories: (1) office space, and (2)
data communications. Of course, the Agency also plans significant
productivity increases under the restructured concept. In addition,
FHWA will experience one time costs for things such as the relocation
of employees, severance pay and lump sum annual leave for employees who
choose to leave FHWA rather than relocate, and logistical activities
(e.g., movement of equipment/property, site preparation,
telecommunications) related to the movement of employees, and recurring
costs for things such as the acquisition of additional space at certain
locations. At this juncture, however, final decisions on an
implementation plan and schedule have not yet been made; therefore, it
is not possible to determine, definitively, when and how much FHWA will
ultimately save as a result of establishing resource centers.
Question. Has FHWA requested increased funding as a result of
creating the new centers?
Answer. The FHWA will not be requesting additional funding for the
operational costs of the new resource centers. FHWA will absorb these
costs within current funding levels. However, in preparation for any
transition activity that may be required during fiscal year 1999, our
fiscal year 1999 budget included $2.4 million in personal change of
station (PCS) funding. These funds are intended to cover costs of
activities that may be necessary to begin the process of transitioning
to a new organization.
Question. What are the differences between the newly established
FHWA metropolitan centers and the resource centers?
Answer. The Department of Transportation's three existing
metropolitan offices located in Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and Chicago,
and a fourth office that is being established in New York City are
actually small intermodal offices staffed by personnel from the Federal
Transit Administration and the Federal Highway Administration. The FHWA
staff of these office report to the respective division offices while
the FTA staff report to their respective regional offices.
The purpose of the metropolitan offices is to provide intermodal
service and one-stop shopping for the Department's customers in these
metropolitan areas. The staff of the offices provide on-the-spot
technical assistance to local officials in areas of planning, transit
program delivery, transportation management, and intelligent
transportation systems, thus enhancing customer service for the
Department's significant customer base in these metropolitan areas.
Each of the proposed resource centers will support division offices
and through them, the metropolitan offices, in their direct customer
support and program delivery roles by making available expertise in key
technical areas and by arranging for and providing training. They will
also provide coordination with the regional offices of other DOT modes
and Federal agencies.
Question. What is the value of creating resource centers if
regional office responsibilities are delegated to FHWA division
offices?
Answer. As indicated in the answer to the question above concerning
the major differences between FHWA's current regional office
responsibilities and the proposed resource centers, by clustering
experts in related technical areas, the resource center concept will
allow the FHWA to greatly strengthen its role of providing technical
advice and assistance through the division offices to State and local
governments and others. This role is greatly valued by our customers
and partners.
impact of delayed istea reauthorization
Question. How much of the approximately $9.8 billion available for
obligation through the extension legislation has been obligated to
date?
Answer. See the following table, it lists the obligations to date
of funds made available through the extension legislation.
Obligations of the $9.8 billion provided by the Surface Transportation
Extension Act of 1997 (STEA) as of March 31, 1998
State Obligations
Alabama................................................. $118,397,949.31
Alaska.................................................. 45,001,749.94
Arizona................................................. 76,272,850.47
Arkansas................................................ 89,445,838.00
California.............................................. 561,582,604.51
Colorado................................................ 109,249,729.28
Connecticut............................................. 150,153,747.62
Delaware................................................ 15,003,816.06
District of Columbia.................................... 6,583,767.60
Florida................................................. 315,232,807.00
Georgia................................................. 166,936,254.71
Hawaii.................................................. 6,765,889.60
Idaho................................................... 17,010,260.46
Illinois................................................ 210,412,051.72
Indiana................................................. 150,034,264.16
Iowa.................................................... 73,181,939.72
Kansas.................................................. 85,451,682.74
Kentucky................................................ 95,303,055.63
Louisiana............................................... 136,591,628.87
Maine................................................... 43,463,795.82
Maryland................................................ 97,792,024.83
Massachusetts........................................... 505,136,295.91
Michigan................................................ 197,116,061.52
Minnesota............................................... 73,600,250.89
Mississippi............................................. 98,991,439.91
Missouri................................................ 147,222,803.39
Montana................................................. 52,146,784.95
Nebraska................................................ 61,526,054.50
Nevada.................................................. 42,646,686.94
New Hampshire........................................... 55,530,426.57
New Jersey.............................................. 235,249,174.05
New Mexico.............................................. 67,355,083.85
New York................................................ 307,091,977.00
North Carolina.......................................... 178,139,893.00
North Dakota............................................ 48,290,036.79
Ohio.................................................... 230,300,250.07
Oklahoma................................................ 88,219,186.19
Oregon.................................................. 84,498,975.27
Pennsylvania............................................ 440,498,332.64
Rhode Island............................................ 30,306,665.39
South Carolina.......................................... 107,398,224.84
South Dakota............................................ 49,278,592.69
Tennessee............................................... 144,630,252.27
Texas................................................... 540,081,490.58
Utah.................................................... 51,602,424.83
Vermont................................................. 44,949,426.86
Virginia................................................ 167,531,517.96
Washington.............................................. 175,958,985.14
West Virginia........................................... 106,288,550.27
Wisconsin............................................... 115,135,128.56
Wyoming................................................. 47,012,770.00
Puerto Rico............................................. 42,732,172.30
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total.............................................7,106,333,623.18
Question. How do states obligation rates compare under the
extension legislation, and what factors account for differences in
states' use of available funds?
Answer. The following table summarizes State obligation rates under
the Surface Transportation Extension Act (STEA) through March 31, 1998.
It is fairly typical for States to have differing rates of obligation,
not only in unusual years like fiscal year 1998 but also during
``normal'' years, because of their different strategies in the timing
and use of Federal funds. Although there are currently wide differences
in the percentage of available funds each State has used, we expect
that by May 1 every State will have obligated the maximum amount
allowable under the STEA.
STATUS OF FISCAL YEAR 1998 OBLIGATION LIMITATION AS OF MARCH 31, 1998
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OBLIGATIONS--OCTOBER 1, 1997
TOTAL FISCAL YEAR TO DATE UNOBLIGATED
STATE 1998 LIMITATION ------------------------------- LIMITATION UNOBLIGATED FUNDS
AMOUNT PERCENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALABAMA...................................................... $174,668,049.00 $118,397,949.31 68 $56,270,099.69 $134,257,429.85
ALASKA....................................................... 100,305,891.00 45,001,749.94 45 55,304,141.06 112,346,312.81
ARIZONA...................................................... 144,930,696.00 76,272,850.47 53 68,657,845.53 148,783,495.25
ARKANSAS..................................................... 105,066,081.00 89,445,838.00 85 15,620,243.00 64,039,919.35
CALIFORNIA................................................... 816,974,800.00 561,582,604.51 69 255,392,195.49 753,439,847.06
COLORADO..................................................... 117,865,089.00 109,249,729.28 93 8,615,359.72 71,747,822.86
CONNECTICUT.................................................. 175,810,749.00 150,153,747.62 85 25,657,001.38 127,551,191.21
DELAWARE..................................................... 54,181,340.00 15,003,816.06 28 39,177,523.94 64,027,085.21
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA......................................... 58,160,323.00 6,583,767.60 11 51,576,555.40 98,723,053.45
FLORIDA...................................................... 383,260,924.00 315,232,807.00 82 68,028,117.00 155,235,465.00
GEORGIA...................................................... 293,587,590.00 166,936,254.71 57 126,651,335.29 303,968,649.42
HAWAII....................................................... 88,529,048.00 6,765,889.60 8 81,763,158.40 169,778,455.91
IDAHO........................................................ 53,075,128.00 17,010,260.46 32 36,064,867.54 67,117,039.46
ILLINOIS..................................................... 325,954,690.00 210,412,051.72 65 115,542,638.28 253,189,484.15
INDIANA...................................................... 201,936,469.00 150,034,264.16 74 51,902,204.84 160,007,324.61
IOWA......................................................... 116,135,036.00 73,181,939.72 63 42,953,096.28 105,164,436.66
KANSAS....................................................... 128,516,552.00 85,451,682.74 66 43,064,869.26 107,423,382.17
KENTUCKY..................................................... 154,458,516.00 95,303,055.63 62 59,155,460.37 136,481,511.68
LOUISIANA.................................................... 207,074,849.00 136,591,628.87 66 70,483,220.13 221,620,032.48
MAINE........................................................ 49,088,131.00 43,463,795.82 89 5,624,335.18 29,956,896.96
MARYLAND..................................................... 159,064,806.00 97,792,024.83 61 61,272,781.17 147,593,754.59
MASSACHUSETTS................................................ 528,928,828.00 505,136,295.91 96 23,792,532.09 511,753,891.89
MICHIGAN..................................................... 260,973,140.00 197,116,061.52 76 63,857,078.48 186,281,095.32
MINNESOTA.................................................... 178,933,350.00 73,600,250.89 41 105,333,099.11 184,237,336.85
MISSISSIPPI.................................................. 103,789,240.00 98,991,439.91 95 4,797,800.09 69,180,671.02
MISSOURI..................................................... 200,357,218.00 147,222,803.39 73 53,134,414.61 148,374,815.34
MONTANA...................................................... 88,267,665.00 52,146,784.95 59 36,120,880.05 83,882,949.46
NEBRASKA..................................................... 77,949,526.00 61,526,054.50 79 16,423,471.50 60,254,729.68
NEVADA....................................................... 65,229,965.00 42,646,686.94 65 22,583,278.06 55,586,261.31
NEW HAMPSHIRE................................................ 59,526,681.00 55,530,426.57 93 3,996,254.43 25,265,558.12
NEW JERSEY................................................... 274,282,161.00 235,249,174.05 86 39,032,986.95 191,826,131.11
NEW MEXICO................................................... 82,729,105.00 67,355,083.85 81 15,374,021.15 54,406,550.84
NEW YORK..................................................... 517,517,530.00 307,091,977.00 59 210,425,553.00 501,380,719.81
NORTH CAROLINA............................................... 229,754,073.00 178,139,893.00 78 51,614,180.00 182,059,042.34
NORTH DAKOTA................................................. 51,671,563.00 48,290,036.79 93 3,381,526.21 34,348,798.39
OHIO......................................................... 357,221,543.00 230,300,250.07 64 126,921,292.93 324,014,675.27
OKLAHOMA..................................................... 159,481,633.00 88,219,186.19 55 71,262,446.81 155,679,963.38
OREGON....................................................... 103,306,110.00 84,498,975.27 82 18,807,134.73 73,056,699.42
PENNSYLVANIA................................................. 457,120,982.00 440,498,332.64 96 16,622,649.36 239,018,852.02
RHODE ISLAND................................................. 63,023,614.00 30,306,665.39 48 32,716,948.61 61,846,556.76
SOUTH CAROLINA............................................... 179,323,388.00 107,398,224.84 60 71,925,163.16 147,654,807.03
SOUTH DAKOTA................................................. 69,864,831.00 49,278,592.69 71 20,586,238.31 55,639,126.61
TENNESSEE.................................................... 196,832,206.00 144,630,252.27 73 52,201,953.73 174,267,162.59
TEXAS........................................................ 620,263,467.00 540,081,490.58 87 80,181,976.42 475,214,802.39
UTAH......................................................... 91,646,315.00 51,602,424.83 56 40,043,890.17 80,617,176.00
VERMONT...................................................... 60,039,426.00 44,949,426.86 75 15,089,999.14 52,198,250.84
VIRGINIA..................................................... 212,433,686.00 167,531,517.96 79 44,902,168.04 173,062,151.70
WASHINGTON................................................... 205,417,484.00 175,958,985.14 86 29,458,498.86 132,335,798.50
WEST VIRGINIA................................................ 120,248,732.00 106,288,550.27 88 13,960,181.73 84,634,595.87
WISCONSIN.................................................... 172,787,606.00 115,135,128.56 67 57,652,477.44 157,776,661.24
WYOMING...................................................... 55,438,844.00 47,012,770.00 85 8,426,074.00 41,776,806.68
PUERTO RICO.................................................. 58,238,000.00 42,732,172.30 73 15,505,827.70 49,280,067.17
AMERICAN SAMOA............................................... 1,907,570.00 198,933.18 10 1,708,636.82 1,708,636.82
GUAM......................................................... 7,630,280.00 161,511.60 2 7,791,791.60 7,791,791.60
NORTHERN MARIANAS............................................ 1,907,570.00 1,103,096.51 58 804,473.49 804,473.49
VIRGIN ISLANDS............................................... 7,630,279.00 214,176.79 3 7,416,102.21 7,416,102.21
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TERRITORIES TOTAL...................................... 19,075,699.00 1,354,694.88 7 17,721,004.12 17,721,004.12
==========================================================================================
STATE TOTAL............................................ 9,830,318,368.00 7,107,688,318.06 72 2,722,630,049.94 8,217,086,299.21
==========================================================================================
HEADQUARTERS \1\............................................. 1,044,252.18 75,923.69 7 1,120,175.87 10,384,871.04
FEDERAL LANDS \1\............................................ 236,708,133.42 35,711,587.78 15 200,996,545.64 472,462,003.04
ADMINISTRATION............................................... 299,480,213.00 149,740,104.00 50 149,740,109.00 ..................
UNALLOCATED.................................................. 11,132,449,033.40 .................. ......... 11,132,449,033.40 ..................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL LIMITATION....................................... 21,500,000,000.00 7,293,064,086.15 34 14,206,935,913.85 8,702,954,468.29
EXEMPT PROGRAMS.............................................. .................. 511,388,110.87 ......... .................. ..................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL OBLIGATIONS...................................... .................. 7,804,452,197.02 ......... .................. ..................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ SEE ATTACHED BREAKDOWN.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OBLIGATIONS--OCTOBER 1, 1997
TOTAL FISCAL YEAR TO DATE UNOBLIGATED
STATE 1998 LIMITATION ------------------------------ LIMITATION UNOBLIGATED FUNDS
AMOUNT PERCENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL LANDS:
DIVISION 15.................................................. $29,002,839.58 $3,660,243.82 13 $25,342,595.76 $57,743,421.74
DIVISION 16.................................................. 20,915,275.46 5,782,329.14 28 15,132,946.32 52,082,341.41
DIVISION 17.................................................. 33,272,853.38 5,033,496.01 15 28,239,357.37 47,943,978.13
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL................................................... 83,190,968.42 14,476,068.97 17 68,714,899.45 157,769,741.28
======================================================================================
FOREST SERVICE............................................... 3,392,165.00 867,424.81 26 2,524,740.19 8,307,141.77
PARK SERVICE................................................. 13,000,000.00 2,388,295.00 18 10,611,705.00 79,344,384.62
BIA.......................................................... 136,775,000.00 18,020,736.00 13 118,754,264.00 224,019,440.37
BLM.......................................................... 350,000.00 40,937.00 12 390,937.00 3,021,295.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL................................................... 153,517,165.00 21,235,518.81 14 132,281,646.19 314,692,261.76
======================================================================================
FEDERAL LANDS TOTAL........................................ 236,708,133.42 35,711,587.78 15 200,996,545.64 472,462,003.04
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. To what extent are states transferring their unobligated
balances between programs? What programs are temporarily gaining and
losing funds through transfers of unobligated balances?
Answer. See the following chart.
TRANSFERS OF SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EXTENSION ACT OF 1997 (STEA)--FISCAL YEAR 1998 TO DATE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal
Date year of State From: Appn. To: Appn. Amount subject
funds code code to restoration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
04/06/98...................... 1998..... ALABAMA................ Q21......... Q24......... $1,729,515.00
04/06/98...................... 1998..... ALABAMA................ Q22......... Q24......... 3,392,685.00
04/06/98...................... 1998..... ALABAMA................ Q23-035..... Q24......... 2,612,865.00
04/06/98...................... 1998..... ALABAMA................ Q23-067..... Q24......... 1,263,905.00
04/06/98...................... 1998..... ALABAMA................ Q23-109..... Q24......... 135,618.00
04/06/98...................... 1998..... ALABAMA................ Q23-115..... Q24......... 882,082.00
04/06/98...................... 1998..... ALABAMA................ Q28......... Q24......... 800,434.00
04/06/98...................... 1998..... ALABAMA................ Q40......... Q24......... 1,282,206.00
-----------------
Total................... ......... ....................... ............ ............ 12,099,310.00
=================
01/08/98...................... 1997..... ALASKA................. 33D......... 81.......... 1,908,823.00
=================
02/12/98...................... 1995..... ARIZONA................ 33B......... 33D......... 4,946,623.00
02/12/98...................... 1996..... ARIZONA................ 33B......... 33D......... 5,609,155.00
02/12/98...................... 1997..... ARIZONA................ 33B......... 33D......... 1,444,222.00
04/20/98...................... 1998..... ARIZONA................ Q01......... 33D......... 2,000,000.00
04/20/98...................... 1998..... ARIZONA................ Q01......... 315......... 8,000,000.00
-----------------
Total................... ......... ....................... ............ ............ 22,000,000.00
=================
04/22/98...................... 1997..... ARKANSAS............... 33B......... 118......... 7,308,708.00
04/22/98...................... 1998..... ARKANSAS............... Q22......... 118......... 1,691,292.00
-----------------
Total................... ......... ....................... ............ ............ 9,000,000.00
=================
03/25/98...................... 1998..... DIST. OF COLUMBIA...... Q10......... Q24......... 4,249,822.00
03/25/98...................... 1998..... DIST. OF COLUMBIA...... Q40......... Q24......... 1,287,972.00
03/25/98...................... 1998..... DIST. OF COLUMBIA...... Q05......... Q24......... 4,638,553.00
03/25/98...................... 1998..... DIST. OF COLUMBIA...... Q21......... Q22......... 397,542.00
03/25/98...................... 1998..... DIST. OF COLUMBIA...... Q26......... Q22......... 28,345.00
03/25/98...................... 1998..... DIST. OF COLUMBIA...... Q27......... Q22......... 28,345.00
03/25/98...................... 1998..... DIST. OF COLUMBIA...... Q28......... Q22......... 222,836.00
-----------------
Total................... ......... ....................... ............ ............ 10,853,415.00
=================
02/19/98...................... 1996..... IDAHO.................. 320......... 315......... 4,141,702.00
02/19/98...................... 1997..... IDAHO.................. 320......... 315......... 1,881,442.00
-----------------
Total................... ......... ....................... ............ ............ 6,023,144.00
=================
04/07/98...................... 1998..... ILLINOIS............... Q24......... 04M......... 21,000,000.00
=================
03/26/98...................... 1995..... INDIANA................ 320......... 33D......... 9,532,621.00
03/26/98...................... 1996..... INDIANA................ 320......... 33D......... 9,370,054.00
-----------------
Total................... ......... ....................... ............ ............ 18,902,675.00
=================
04/13/98...................... 1997..... IOWA................... 118......... 33D......... 15,747,594.00
04/13/98...................... 1996..... IOWA................... 118......... 33D......... 4,252,406.00
-----------------
Total................... ......... ....................... ............ ............ 20,000,000.00
=================
04/14/98...................... 1997..... KANSAS................. 33E......... 315......... 12,616,924.00
04/14/98...................... 1996..... KANSAS................. 33E......... 315......... 2,383,076.00
-----------------
Total................... ......... ....................... ............ ............ 15,000,000.00
=================
02/12/98...................... 1996..... MAINE.................. 33B......... 04M......... 757,733.00
02/12/98...................... 1997..... MAINE.................. 33B......... 04M......... 3,242,267.00
02/12/98...................... 1996..... MAINE.................. 320......... 315......... 2,220,467.00
02/12/98...................... 1997..... MAINE.................. 320......... 315......... 4,779,533.00
-----------------
Total................... ......... ....................... ............ ............ 11,000,000.00
=================
01/26/98...................... 1998..... MARYLAND............... Q01......... Q05......... 12,848,367.00
01/26/98...................... 1998..... MARYLAND............... Q10......... Q05......... 7,200,000.00
01/26/98...................... 1998..... MARYLAND............... Q40......... Q24......... 8,546,272.00
01/26/98...................... 1998..... MARYLAND............... Q21......... Q24......... 1,434,707.00
01/26/98...................... 1998..... MARYLAND............... Q25......... Q24......... 1,326,144.00
01/26/98...................... 1998..... MARYLAND............... Q26......... Q24......... 205,450.00
01/26/98...................... 1998..... MARYLAND............... Q27......... Q24......... 205,450.00
01/26/98...................... 1998..... MARYLAND............... Q28......... Q24......... 723,982.00
01/26/98...................... 1998..... MARYLAND............... Q20......... Q24......... 1,518,336.00
01/26/98...................... 1998..... MARYLAND............... Q23-008..... Q24......... 2,774,454.00
01/26/98...................... 1998..... MARYLAND............... Q23-012..... Q24......... 3,689,916.00
01/26/98...................... 1998..... MARYLAND............... Q23-063..... Q24......... 26,811.00
04/13/98...................... 1997..... MARYLAND............... 320......... 315......... 15,000,000.00
04/13/98...................... 1997..... MARYLAND............... 320......... 33D......... 14,000,000.00
-----------------
Total................... ......... ....................... ............ ............ 69,499,889.00
=================
02/12/98...................... 1997..... MISSISSIPPI............ 33B......... 33D......... 7,000,000.00
02/12/98...................... 1996..... MISSISSIPPI............ 33B......... 33D......... 5,000,000.00
-----------------
Total................... ......... ....................... ............ ............ 12,000,000.00
=================
03/31/98...................... 1997..... MISSOURI............... 320......... 04M......... 5,000,000.00
03/31/98...................... 1997..... MISSOURI............... 33B......... 33D......... 12,150,726.00
03/31/98...................... 1996..... MISSOURI............... 33B......... 33D......... 7,849,274.00
-----------------
Total................... ......... ....................... ............ ............ 25,000,000.00
=================
03/31/98...................... 1996..... MONTANA................ 33B......... 315......... 1,366,832.00
03/31/98...................... 1997..... MONTANA................ 33B......... 315......... 5,133,168.00
03/31/98...................... 1996..... MONTANA................ 320......... 315......... 1,720,467.00
03/31/98...................... 1997..... MONTANA................ 320......... 315......... 4,779,533.00
03/31/98...................... 1998..... MONTANA................ Q21......... Q05......... 699,784.00
03/31/98...................... 1998..... MONTANA................ Q22......... Q05......... 1,518,150.00
03/31/98...................... 1998..... MONTANA................ Q27......... Q10......... 238,579.00
03/31/98...................... 1998..... MONTANA................ Q40......... Q10......... 1,416,464.00
-----------------
Total................... ......... ....................... ............ ............ 16,872,977.00
=================
01/14/98...................... 1997..... NEW HAMPSHIRE.......... 320......... 04M......... 3,263,481.66
02/23/98...................... 1996..... NEW HAMPSHIRE.......... 320......... 315......... 3,483,949.00
02/23/98...................... 1997..... NEW HAMPSHIRE.......... 320......... 315......... 1,516,051.00
-----------------
Total................... ......... ....................... ............ ............ 8,263,481.66.00
=================
02/19/98...................... 1998..... NEW JERSEY............. Q24......... 320......... 3,600,000.00
=================
02/12/98...................... 1998..... NEW MEXICO............. Q21......... Q20......... 1,093,157.00
02/12/98...................... 1998..... NEW MEXICO............. Q22......... Q20......... 1,804,067.00
02/12/98...................... 1998..... NEW MEXICO............. Q01......... Q20......... 2,500,854.00
02/12/98...................... 1998..... NEW MEXICO............. Q01......... Q25......... 8,336,947.00
-----------------
Total................... ......... ....................... ............ ............ 13,735,025.00
=================
01/14/98...................... 1997..... NO. DAKOTA............. 33B......... 04M......... 2,100,000.00
01/14/98...................... 1996..... NO. DAKOTA............. 33B......... 04M......... 2,700,000.00
01/14/98...................... 1998..... NO. DAKOTA............. Q22......... Q01......... 1,169,634.00
-----------------
Total................... ......... ....................... ............ ............ 5,969,634.00
=================
01/14/98...................... 1998..... OKLAHOMA............... Q01......... Q05......... 10,001,790.00
01/14/98...................... 1997..... OKLAHOMA............... 04M......... 33D......... 15,500,000.00
01/14/98...................... 1997..... OKLAHOMA............... 33B......... 33D......... 8,000,000.00
-----------------
Total................... ......... ....................... ............ ............ 33,501,790.00
=================
02/05/98...................... 1996..... PENNSYLVANIA........... 42.......... 04M......... 40,000,000.00
02/05/98...................... 1996..... PENNSYLVANIA........... 42.......... 315......... 60,000,000.00
02/05/98...................... 1996..... PENNSYLVANIA........... 42.......... 33D......... 79,000,000.00
03/16/98...................... 1996..... PENNSYLVANIA........... 42.......... 33D......... 60,000,000.00
-----------------
Total................... ......... ....................... ............ ............ 239,000,000.00
=================
04/09/98...................... 1997..... RHODE ISLAND........... 117......... 315......... 1,886,590.00
04/09/98...................... 1996..... RHODE ISLAND........... 117......... 33D......... 1,600,440.00
04/09/98...................... 1995..... RHODE ISLAND........... 117......... 33D......... 2,418,936.00
04/09/98...................... 1994..... RHODE ISLAND........... 117......... 315......... 2,113,410.00
04/09/98...................... 1997..... RHODE ISLAND........... 320......... 315......... 3,000,000.00
04/09/98...................... 1996..... RHODE ISLAND........... 33E......... 33D......... 2,780,894.00
04/09/98...................... 1997..... RHODE ISLAND........... 33E......... 33D......... 3,199,729.00
-----------------
Total................... ......... ....................... ............ ............ 16,999,999.00
=================
01/07/98...................... 1998..... TENNEESSEE............. Q10......... Q01......... 13,442,672.00
=================
02/05/98...................... 1997..... TEXAS.................. 320......... 33D......... 91,000,000.00
02/05/98...................... 1997..... TEXAS.................. 33B......... 33D......... 41,000,000.00
02/05/98...................... 1996..... TEXAS.................. 320......... 315......... 82,500,000.00
02/05/98...................... 1996..... TEXAS.................. 33B......... 04M......... 29,000,000.00
02/05/98...................... 1998..... TEXAS.................. Q40......... Q05......... 26,119,982.00
-----------------
Total................... ......... ....................... ............ ............ 269,619,982.00
=================
01/08/98...................... 1997..... VIRGINIA............... 33B......... 33D......... 11,482,718.00
01/08/98...................... 1996..... VIRGINIA............... 33B......... 33D......... 1,017,282.00
02/19/98...................... 1997..... VIRGINIA............... 3AA......... 33D......... 4,428,959.00
02/19/98...................... 1997..... VIRGINIA............... 33P......... 33D......... 2,445,042.00
02/19/98...................... 1997..... VIRGINIA............... 33A......... 33D......... 3,733,825.00
02/19/98...................... 1997..... VIRGINIA............... 33M......... 33D......... 895,184.00
02/19/98...................... 1997..... VIRGINIA............... 33N......... 33D......... 645,497.00
02/19/98...................... 1996..... VIRGINIA............... 33P......... 33D......... 497,286.00
02/19/98...................... 1996..... VIRGINIA............... 33A......... 33D......... 578,922.00
02/19/98...................... 1996..... VIRGINIA............... 33M......... 33D......... 298,161.00
02/19/98...................... 1996..... VIRGINIA............... 33N......... 33D......... 1,365,602.00
02/19/98...................... 1995..... VIRGINIA............... 33N......... 33D......... 51,934.00
02/20/98...................... 1997..... VIRGINIA............... 320......... 315......... 12,100,000.00
-----------------
Total................... ......... ....................... ............ ............ 39,540,412.00
=================
02/20/98...................... 1997..... WEST VIRGINIA.......... 117......... 33D......... 7,368,000.00
02/20/98...................... 1996..... WEST VIRGINIA.......... 117......... 118......... 6,163,418.00
02/20/98...................... 1995..... WEST VIRGINIA.......... 117......... 33D......... 7,819,000.00
02/20/98...................... 1994..... WEST VIRGINIA.......... 117......... 33D......... 7,990,000.00
02/20/98...................... 1993..... WEST VIRGINIA.......... 117......... 118......... 8,604,794.00
-----------------
Total................... ......... ....................... ............ ............ 37,945,212.00
=================
02/12/98...................... 1995..... WISCONSIN.............. 320......... 114......... 5,386,757.00
02/12/98...................... 1996..... WISCONSIN.............. 320......... 114......... 10,433,638.00
02/12/98...................... 1997..... WISCONSIN.............. 320......... 114......... 5,179,605.00
02/12/98...................... 1993..... WISCONSIN.............. 33B......... 33D......... 1,593,000.00
02/12/98...................... 1994..... WISCONSIN.............. 33B......... 33D......... 10,891,000.00
02/12/98...................... 1995..... WISCONSIN.............. 33B......... 33D......... 10,797,000.00
02/12/98...................... 1996..... WISCONSIN.............. 33B......... 33D......... 10,624,000.00
02/12/98...................... 1997..... WISCONSIN.............. 33B......... 33D......... 11,748,000.00
02/12/98...................... 1997..... WISCONSIN.............. 33B......... 04M......... 1,000,000.00
02/12/98...................... 1997..... WISCONSIN.............. 33B......... 33C-014..... 1,000,000.00
02/12/98...................... 1997..... WISCONSIN.............. 33B......... 33E......... 1,000,000.00
02/12/98...................... 1997..... WISCONSIN.............. 33B......... 118......... 1,000,000.00
-----------------
Total................... ......... ....................... ............ ............ 70,653,000.00
=================
GRAND TOTAL............. ......... ....................... ............ ............ 1,023,431,440.66
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Will states be able to obligate federal highway dollars
after the extension legislation expires on May 1, 1998?
Answer. States will only be able to re-obligate previously
obligated funds after May 1, 1998.
Section 2(e)(3)(A) of Public Law 105-130, the Surface
Transportation Extension Act of 1997, prohibits states from obligating
any funds for any Federal-aid highway program project after May 1,
1998. Subsection (B) provides the exception whereby a State may
obligate previously obligated funds after May 1, 1998.
Question. What will be the impact on ongoing and planned highway
construction after May 1, 1998, if no new federal highway authorization
legislation is passed?
Answer. States are already limiting their programs for the year
because of the lack of assured Federal funds. If obligations of
Federal-aid highway funds are cut off after May 1, as required by the
Surface Transportation Extension Act, there will be profound impacts on
the approaching construction season. The negative impacts would be
especially severe in the Northeastern and upper Midwestern states
because of their short construction seasons--some Northern States could
lose an entire construction season.
According to AASHTO's ``Survey on the Impacts of Delay in Renewing
ISTEA,'' February 1998, any delay in reauthorization could have serious
repercussions.
--In the third quarter, 1,402 projects valued at $2.539 billion will
be affected. If no bill is enacted by July 1, an additional
1,451 projects valued at $2.686 billion will be affected.
--Although many States are using advance construction and State-only
funding in the hopes of converting when funds become available,
further delays may create serious cash-flow problems and impact
more than transportation.
--Long term planning has been completely disrupted.
--Substantial reprogramming was necessary to advance ready-to-go
projects to meet the May 1 deadline--construction projects
shifted in order to complete as much work as possible. Some
lower priority projects were advanced because they were ready
to move, which may delay higher priority projects for another
year.
The longer reauthorization is delayed, the more the situation will
intensify, until there will not be time to use the entire $21.5 billion
obligation limitation contained in the 1998 DOT Appropriations Act
before it lapses on October 1.
By the end of July, administrative funds, which the FHWA has been
stretching as far as possible, will run out. With the furlough of 3,600
FHWA employees across the country, FHWA will stop paying bills, and
reimbursing States for Federal-aid projects. Construction contractors
and their suppliers will suffer economic losses--smaller ones may be
forced to declare bankruptcy.
Without FHWA staff, the program will be slowed beyond the immediate
impact of no obligations, no project approvals, and no payments.
Without FHWA staff, projects cannot continue to advance through the
pipeline. Thus, even when funds are eventually made available, spending
those funds will be relatively slow as FHWA catches up with the backlog
of work related to project development.
funding flexibility
Question. Why has there been a relatively low rate of funds
transferred among the NHS, Interstate Maintenance, and bridge
programs?--Under ISTEA, three major programs--the National Highway
System (NHS), the interstate maintenance program, and the highway
bridge replacement and rehabilitation program--received about $48
billion, or 40 percent of the overall reauthorization. The states have
the flexibility to transfer funds between these three programs,
allowing them to respond better to their differing needs or priorities.
From October 1, 1991, through June 30, 1997, GAO reported that states
transferred a total of $3.4 billion, or only 8 percent of the funds
they could have transferred, with the approval of the Secretary, from
the three major highway programs.
Answer. We believe transferability has been relatively low for the
following reasons. First, the needs for NHS, IM and Bridge project
funding have been much greater than the resources available through
these programs. States are reluctant to transfer from one category to
another when there are demonstrated needs in all categories, unless
they are placing more emphasis on a particular area to meet their
current priorities. In those cases they make selected use of the
transferability under Title 23. Second, current law permits a great
deal of flexibility in the use of funds within program categories often
making it unnecessary to shift funds from one category to another.
Question. Although the overall transfer rate is relatively low, how
many states have elected to transfer funds among the NHS, Interstate
Maintenance and bridge programs?
Answer. See the following chart.
TRANSFER AMONG THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEMS, INTERSTATE MAINTENANCE AND BRIDGE PROGRAMS--FISCAL YEAR 1992 TO
FISCAL YEAR 1998 AS OF APRIL 22, 1998
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSFER FROM: TRANSFER TO:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
STATE INTERSTATE BRIDGE REPL AND NATIONAL HIGHWAY INTERSTATE
MAINTENANCE REHAB SYS MAINTENANCE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALABAMA................................. $10,239,336.00 ................ $10,239,336.00 ................
ARIZONA................................. 21,534,507.00 ................ 21,534,507.00 ................
CALIFORNIA.............................. 138,221,845.00 ................ 138,221,845.00 ................
DELAWARE................................ ................ $3,819,150.00 3,819,150.00 ................
HAWAII.................................. 5,469,619.00 ................ 5,469,619.00 ................
MAINE................................... 2,728,212.00 ................ 2,728,212.00 ................
MARYLAND................................ 29,598,367.00 28,675,000.00 58,273,367.00 ................
MASSACHUSETTS........................... ................ 69,533,624.00 69,533,624.00 ................
MINNESOTA............................... 10,515,814.00 ................ 10,515,814.00 ................
MISSOURI................................ ................ 33,364,786.00 33,364,786.00 ................
MONTANA................................. 26,535,280.00 4,000,000.00 30,535,280.00 ................
NEW HAMPSHIRE........................... 1,000,000.00 ................ 1,000,000.00 ................
OKLAHOMA................................ 10,001,790.00 ................ 10,001,790.00 ................
OREGON.................................. 8,236,425.00 ................ 8,236,425.00 ................
PENNSYLVANIA............................ ................ 403,058,307.00 403,058,307.00 ................
RHODE ISLAND............................ 6,293,693.00 9,855,777.00 16,149,470.00 ................
TENNESSEE............................... ................ 13,442,672.00 ................ $13,442,672.00
TEXAS................................... 283,818,190.49 ................ 283,818,190.49 ................
VIRGINIA................................ 12,756,758.00 ................ 12,756,758.00 ................
WASHINGTON.............................. 11,706,000.00 ................ 11,706,000.00 ................
PUERTO RICO............................. 7,371,687.00 ................ 7,371,687.00 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL............................. 575,788,187.49 565,749,316.00 1,128,094,831.49 13,442,672.00
=======================================================================
TOTAL TRANSFER.................... 1,141,537,503.49
1,141,537,503.49
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
state infrastructure banks
Question. How many states are SIB designees? Why did some states
elect not to create a SIB?
Answer. There are thirty-nine States participating in the SIB pilot
program. As a result of the November 1995 NHS Designation Act, the
Secretary designated the first ten pilot States: Arizona, Florida,
Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, California and
Missouri. As a result of the Fiscal Year 1997 DOT Appropriations Act,
the Secretary was able to designate additional States. In June 1997,
the additional twenty-nine States were announced: Alaska, Arkansas,
Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Mexico, North
Carolina, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Puerto
Rico, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington,
Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Since the pilot program was expanded, FHWA has
been contacted by Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Maryland, Montana, and Nevada
expressing their desire to join the pilot. Kansas is pursuing State
enabling legislation. The SIB concept is a departure from traditional
grant reimbursement and some States wanted to see the results of other
States' SIB implementation before establishing a SIB themselves.
Question. How many states have operational SIB's that are currently
financing transportation projects?
Answer. Six States have initiated loan activity: Arizona, Florida,
Missouri, Ohio, and Texas. Thirty States have entered into cooperative
agreements with FHWA and/or FTA and are establishing their banks'
administrative structures.
Question. How many projects have received SIB financial assistance
to date?
Answer. As of February 15, 1998, twenty-four projects had received
loans or had executed loan agreements totaling $298 million supporting
$1.8 billion in total project construction.
Question. What types of projects are being funded through SIB's,
and how, if at all, do these project differ from typical grant financed
highway projects?
Answer. That is one of the questions we are examining as the States
implement this pilot. For a SIB to remain a viable financial entity, it
must receive repayments for the loans it provides. Of the twenty-four
projects that are currently being assisted by SIB's, two projects are
repaying their loans with tolls. The remaining twenty-two projects are
repaying their loans with dedicated sales taxes, State and local gas
taxes, and future Federal funds.
Question. What percentage of states highway projects are amenable
to SIB financing?
Answer. That is one of the questions we are examining as the States
implement this pilot. For a SIB to remain a viable financial entity it
must receive repayments for the loans it provides. Of the twenty-one
projects that are currently being assisted by SIB's, two projects are
repaying their loans with tolls. The remaining nineteen projects are
repaying their loans with dedicated sales taxes, State and local gas
taxes, and future Federal funds.
Question. Why have states been slow to obligate their program funds
to capitalize a SIB, but relatively quick to obligate the $150 million
provided through the fiscal year 1997 appropriation for SIB's?
Answer. States obligated their SIB capitalization funds allocated
as a result of the Fiscal Year 1997 DOT Appropriations Act relatively
quickly because those general funds were outside of the obligation
ceiling. The vast majority of SIB pilot States have indicated plans to
obligate their regularly apportioned fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year
1997 Federal-aid highway funds for SIB capitalization, but have been
slow to obligate those funds in fiscal year 1998 due to uncertainty
regarding their overall Federal-aid highway funding. As of February 15,
1998, the amount of regular Federal-aid highway funds that have been
obligated was $182 million and the amount of Fiscal Year 1997 DOT
Appropriation Act general funds that have been obligated was $144
million (including amounts obligated for SIB highway accounts at $127
million and SIB transit accounts at $17 million).
alameda corridor project
Question. Will MTA be able to provide the project the funding it
has promised? (a) If the project is not able to get MTA funding, what
impact will it have on the (1) cost of the project, (2) schedule of the
project and (3) the federal loan?
Answer. We have reviewed the funding agreement executed by LACMTA
and the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority (ACTA) and authorized
by the boards of both organizations. This legally binding agreement
requires LACMTA to make a capital contribution of $347.3 million for
the Alameda Corridor project. The LACMTA is providing funds from the
following sources: (1) $8.6 million committed via an MOU in January
1994 from local (Prop. C25) funds; (2) $80 million committed via an MOU
in February 1996 from Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP)
and State Transportation System Management (STSM) funds; (3) $40
million committed via an MCR Master Agreement in October 1996, from
State Flexible Congestion Relief (FCR) funds; and (4) $218.7 million
committed via an MTA Funding Agreement in September 1997 from local
(Prop. C25) and State Long Range Plan funds.
A shortfall in LACMTA funding, in the unlikely event one were to
occur, would probably not have a significant effect on the project
cost, the project schedule, or the federal loan.
The local (Prop. C25) funds for preliminary design, as well as most
of the RSTP, STSM, and FCR funds, have already been received by ACTA.
The LACMTA plans to issue bonds backed by local (Prop. C25) sales tax
revenues to fund the remaining $218.7 million commitment. If necessary,
those funds could be supplemented with state and other contingent
sources to cover any shortfall. In such a case, the federal loan would
not be adversely affected.
Question. What is the outlook for obtaining the $866 million of
revenue bonds through the financial markets?
Answer. ACTA's upcoming issuance of revenue bonds is scheduled for
late 1998. While the exact amount and structure of the issuance have
yet to be finalized, it is likely the bonds will have strong demand
when offered. The project has been followed closely by the rating
agencies, bond insurers, investment bankers, and institutional buyers.
There have been a number of media articles and trade reports related to
ACTA and the importance of the project. A recent unsolicited Credit
Week report by Standard & Poor's, one of the three major rating
agencies, highlights the strength and viability of the project. Another
report, prepared by A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., a large regional
brokerage firm, characterizes the national scope and benefit of the
project and highlights the sound financial plan. When offered by ACTA's
financing team, lead by PaineWebber with Goldman Sachs, the revenue
bonds are expected to generate a great deal of interest and sell
promptly.
Question. How is FHWA overseeing the Alameda Corridor project and
the federal loan? (a) How is FHWA using this information to improve/
change its program?
Answer. Delegations by the Secretary of Transportation and
provisions of a Memorandum of Understanding between the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
have resulted in the following assignment of key responsibilities
related to the administration of the Alameda Corridor loan:
FHWA, which negotiated and signed the loan agreement on behalf of
the Department, is responsible for: (a) carrying out any loan
modifications or other DOT approvals; (b) monitoring project status and
ensuring compliance with the loan agreement; and (c) performing credit
assessments and subsidy re-estimates as required under the Federal
Credit Reform Act (FCRA) of 1990.
FRA, which received the subsidy appropriation that funded the loan,
is responsible for: (a) carrying out cash flow transactions, including
loan disbursements, loan repayments, and Treasury borrowings; and (b)
performing budgeting and accounting as required under FCRA and relevant
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidelines.
The FHWA California Division Office has primary responsibility for
producing a semi-annual project status and credit assessment report.
The purpose of this report is threefold: (1) to provide DOT with an
oversight tool for ensuring compliance with the provisions of the loan
agreement; (2) to monitor the overall status of the project; and (3) to
allow DOT and OMB to periodically assess the sufficiency of the budget
authority that was appropriated to cover the estimated capital charges
(subsidy costs) of default risks and interest subsidies associated with
the loan.
Since major projects of the scope of the Alameda Corridor typically
involve various construction and financing challenges, and since the
provision of credit assistance necessarily entails some measure of
risk, we believe the delegations of modal responsibility and the
periodic assessments of project status and credit risk are prudent
oversight steps. Although these actions by themselves cannot guarantee
ultimate project success or loan repayment, they will help ensure the
security of the federal government's investment and the realization of
anticipated public benefits.
The information will prove very useful in monitoring other high-
profile, high-cost projects. FHWA is gaining valuable experience in
administering non-traditional capital projects and financial
assistance. The information contained in the semi-annual project status
and credit assessment report is being used to help establish a process
for reviewing financial plans of so-called mega projects costing over
$1 billion.
Question. Have other projects requested federal loans from FHWA
similar to the Alameda Corridor's $400 million loan, or similar to the
lines of credit made available to other California toll projects? (a)
If so, please describe these projects and their anticipated costs. If
not, please indicate where FHWA expects such projects to develop.
Answer. Although a number of project sponsors have expressed
interest in credit instruments, none has formally requested such
assistance.
A recent report prepared for FHWA called Federal Credit for Surface
Transportation: Exploring Concepts and Issues provides an illustrative
list of surface transportation projects whose scale, financial
structure, and economic importance are indicative of the types of
projects that a federal credit program would be designed to serve.
Project names, descriptions, locations, and total cost estimates were
obtained from state agencies, industry sources, and transportation
publications. All 50 states were contacted and given an opportunity to
suggest projects for inclusion in the report. The report identifies a
total of 31 projects collectively representing nearly $50 billion in
capital investment. One potential example is the Woodrow Wilson Bridge
project in Virginia and Maryland. Others include the Foothill-South
Transportation Corridor toll road project in Southern California, the
Florida Overland Express high-speed rail project, the Farley /Penn
Station rail passenger terminal project in New York City, and t he
Tacoma Narrows Bridge project in Washington State.
Question. What issues did the Alameda Corridor project loan and
DOT's initial proposed Infrastructure Credit Enhancement Act raise from
other parts of the federal government? How have these concerns impacted
the possibility for giving similar loans in the future?
Answer. Concerns raised within the Administration over direct
lending techniques are identified and discussed below:
Concern #1.--By making a direct loan, the federal government could
have an implied guarantee on the project's capital markets debt
(publicly-issued revenue bonds).
Discussion: Neither the ratings on the capital markets debt
(generally BBB for start-up projects) nor the investors' credit
analyses reflect any implicit federal guarantee. Under a direct loan
program, both DOT and the capital markets investors would be creditors
of the project.
Concern #2.--A federal credit program could result in additional
tax-exempt debt issuance, which has a tax expenditure (revenue loss)
associated with it.
Discussion: Most of the large projects that would qualify for
assistance under a credit program probably would be financed in any
event at some point (albeit perhaps more slowly and at greater cost)
with 100 percent tax-exempt debt, so the marginal issuance would be
minor. Also, having the federal government fund a direct loan for up to
a third of project costs would actually reduce the amount of tax-exempt
debt issued by a corresponding amount. Finally, in comparison to the
existing Federal-aid highway grant program (in which states and
localities commonly issue tax-exempt debt to provide matching funds),
there is little evidence that a credit-based program would encourage or
credit-enhance tax-exempt debt to any greater extent than similar
grant-based programs.
Concern #3.--The federal government should not be subordinate to
other lenders.
Discussion: Allowing payment deferrals (that accrue with interest)
for at least the first 10 years or ``ramp-up'' of operation is
essential if credit assistance such as the Alameda Corridor loan is to
add value to the project's financial plan. A junior-lien loan provides
the project with much-needed flexibility to deal with unexpected
shortfalls in net revenues. And over the long-term, the risk of non-
payment should not be appreciably higher. Fitch-IBCA, one of the major
bond rating agencies, has concluded that for start-up toll road project
finances, flexible junior-lien debt has the same likelihood of ultimate
repayment over the long-term as senior debt. The federal government is
uniquely positioned to be a patient, flexible investor in capital
projects that will generate major public benefits.
Concern #4.--The credit risk is too difficult to assess on large-
scale surface transportation projects.
Discussion: There is general agreement that each project's credit
profile is unique and that credit evaluation can be complex. Under a
direct federal lending program, the credit assessment should be out-
source to recognized independent experts like the major bond rating
agencies. The rating agencies would determine an indicative rating
category (e.g., BBB) for each project, and then assess a loan loss
reserve factor similar to the capital charges imposed on municipal bond
insurers.
These concerns were addressed in DOT's NEXTEA reauthorization
proposal. The proposed Transportation Infrastructure Credit Enhancement
program mitigates these concerns by providing grants, not direct loans,
to fund debt service reserve accounts to help enable projects to secure
external debt financing.
transportation infrastructure credit enhancement program
Question. Why did you decide to request funding for a grant program
rather than a loan program?
Answer. Although the Administration recognizes that large projects
of national significance require additional funding assistance, it
acknowledges that direct federal credit assistance--such as proposed in
the fiscal year 1998 budget--involves a number of technical issues. Of
particular concern are: (1) how to accurately assess or score the
budgetary or subsidy cost of credit assistance provided to large, one-
of-a-kind, start-up transportation projects; and (2) whether a federal
standby line of credit available to cover potential revenue shortfalls
in the early years of project operation can be interpreted as an
indirect federal guarantee of tax-exempt debt, which is prohibited
under section 149(b) of the Internal Revenue Code.
Until some of those various budgetary and tax issues have been
satisfactorily resolved, the Administration believes that a grant-based
credit enhancement program would be a prudent first step in developing
an effective funding mechanism for such national investments involving
public-private partnerships.
DOT will continue to work with both public and private partners--
including other federal agencies, state and local officials, and the
private sector--to evaluate the effectiveness of existing funding tools
and assess the potential of new funding tools, including direct federal
credit assistance.
Question. How many large, nationally significant projects can a
grant program realistically fund?
Answer. It depends on the leveraging factor, which is a function of
project size, capital structure, and credit-worthiness. As envisioned
in the Department's NEXTEA proposal and fiscal year 1999 budget
request, the credit enhancement program would authorize the Secretary
to make grants to project sponsors in order to capitalize ``Revenue
Stabilization Funds'' in amounts up to 20 percent of project costs. The
funds would represent debt service reserve accounts for debt-financed
projects, and could be drawn upon if net project revenues were
insufficient to meet annual debt service. If the Revenue Stabilization
Funds were used to secure junior-lien bonds financing 33 percent of
project costs, and if the reserves equaled roughly 20 percent of the
issue size, the program could feasibly achieve a 15:1 leveraging ratio
in terms of capital investment induced to budgetary resources consumed.
Thus, under these optimal assumptions, the proposed $100 million per
year of grant funding could support up to $1.5 billion per year in
capital investment. Assuming an average project size of $500 million
would result in three major projects per year that could be supported
by the grant program.
Question. Do you expect more applications for funds than available
funds? (a) If so, who will make the final selection of the projects
that will receive federal support under this program after a pool of
projects have met the NEXTEA criteria?
Answer. Based on preliminary inquiries to DOT from the states and
other potential participants, we do.
In order to receive assistance under the proposed credit
enhancement program, projects must meet certain threshold criteria
relating to project size ($100 million or 50 percent of a state's most
recent annual federal-aid apportionment); 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 (i.e., it cannot otherwise obtain
financing on reasonable terms).
Qualified projects meeting the initial threshold eligibility
criteria would then 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.
Question. How will this program differ from FHWA's existing
discretionary programs?
Answer. The Transportation Infrastructure Credit Enhancement
program would target only very large projects of national significance
(costing at least $100 million or 50 percent of a state's most recent
annual federal-aid apportionments) that otherwise might be delayed or
not constructed because of cost or uncertainty over timing of revenues.
Unlike other discretionary grants, grants made under this program
(limited to 20 percent of project costs to fund debt service reserve
accounts) would be used to secure external debt financing to support
projects that have the potential to be self-supporting from user fees
or other dedicated revenue streams and that involve public-private
partnerships.
Question. One of the criteria listed in the NEXTEA proposal talks
about the credit-worthiness of the Project. Could you explain that
criteria?
Answer. Given the limited amount of grant money available, we want
to try to ensure that the funding is leveraged to the greatest degree
possible. This would tend to encourage projects that, based on their
underlying credit-worthiness or ability to repay debt and generate
returns, can arrange external financing with the minimum Revenue
Stabilization Fund.
Question. This program had been explained as an innovative
financing mechanism. Is this still an accurate characterization of the
program now that its funding structure has changed to a grant program?
If so, why?
Answer. DOT's innovative finance initiative was begun to respond to
the shortfall in conventional public funding sources for transportation
infrastructure by expanding the resource base and leveraging new
sources of capital, thereby increasing strategic investment in the
nation's transportation systems. The proposed Transportation
Infrastructure Credit Enhancement program, like DOT's other grant-based
initiatives, complements traditional financing techniques by continuing
the effort to streamline administrative procedures and allow federal
grant funding to participate in project financing in new, more
flexible, and more cost-effective ways. The program 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, pay-as-you-go grant reimbursements.
central artery/tunnel project
Question. Since what you predicted in 1995 regarding an overly
optimistic cost estimate has come to pass, why do you oppose revising
the cost goals now?
Answer. During the end of 1995 and the beginning of 1996, the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the State of Massachusetts
(State) agreed to appropriate cost indicators/goals to be used in the
Central Artery/Tunnel (CA/T) Finance Plan. FHWA has been committed to
work with the State to do everything in our power to achieve these
aggressive cost containment goals. FHWA and the State have gone on
record stressing the importance of maintaining these aggressive cost-
containment goals as continuing motivation to work hard in controlling
costs. Part of the significant savings that have been realized to date
can be attributed to the setting of these goals. In addition, certain
trends such as that for cost growth during construction continue to
show a downward slope. To relax or modify these goals, which have been
and are continuing to prove effective in controlling costs, could
result in a self-fulfilling situation where additional savings are not
realized. Obviously if these goals are not reached, then costs will
rise. However, FHWA is confident that, if there are increases in cost,
these will not be large since the project design phase is virtually
complete, tending to preclude changes in scope and scale. Since much of
the work is already under contract, the potential for increases due to
items such as inflation is further minimized.
Since the setting of these goals, the maintenance of budget has
been generally successful. Given a number of external circumstances,
there has been some increase in project cost, about 4 percent over the
last two years, raising the total cost from $10.4 billion to $10.8
billion.
FHWA and the State over the last several years have identified over
$0.5 billion of savings due to cost containment/value engineering
programs. In addition, the State and FHWA are actively exploring other
strategies for additional savings. Examples include: (1) alternative
and less expensive traffic management plans, (2) additional savings
achieved through investment strategies and safety programs in the Owner
Controlled Insurance Program, (3) continued evaluation of scope and
organizational staffing cuts, (4) alternative approaches for cost
sharing in utility force accounts, and (5) maximization of savings due
to a ``zero-based'' approach toward fulfilling regulatory requirements.
Question. Is the level of spending for Interstate Maintenance in
the 6-year STIP adequate? If no, why did you approve the STIP?
Answer. For the Statewide program, FHWA's initial concern is that
the State maintains its commitment to a $400 million (Federal + State
funds) program; and that the projects selected by the State and locals
are consistent with the processes required by ISTEA. These commitments
are presently being met.
Regarding the amount of Federal funds programmed for the
Interstate, FHWA's responsibility is to assure it is adequately
maintained. However, this is done primarily on a ``results basis'', as
opposed to a ``level of effort'' basis. That is, we look at the State's
Interstate maintenance certification and condition data. The overall
condition of Interstate pavements in Massachusetts has not deteriorated
in the past years, and there was actually a slight improvement in
recent years. The overall condition of Interstate bridges in
Massachusetts has improved slightly over the past several years.
Nevertheless, last year, FHWA did tell the State that we thought they
may need to allocate more funds to the Interstate in the future, and
they should reassess what is needed to maintain the condition of the
Interstate. We do have to recognize that State funds, including those
for basic maintenance, do not have to be in the STIP, and some are
allocated on a more short term needs basis. Again the indicator is the
actual condition achieved.
Question. What effect will the need to repay GAN's over an extended
period of time do to other transportation needs in Massachusetts? Can
Massachusetts maintain a balanced statewide transportation program in
the face of this commitment?
Answer. Massachusetts' highway transportation program, Central
Artery/Tunnel (CA/T) plus the ``Statewide Program'', for each Federal
fiscal year (FFY) is represented in the State's current Statewide
Improvement Program (STIP), which covers fiscal year 1998 through 2003.
For Federal-aid funds through fiscal year 2002, the split is 71/29
percent between the CA/T and the Statewide Program respectively. After
fiscal year 2002, the split is 50/50 percent between the CA/T and the
Statewide Program respectively. The State's CA/T Finance Plan, October
1997 (as amended January 1998) and accepted by FHWA on February 5,
1998, indicates this 50/50 percent split is expected to be continued
until the GAN's are paid off, which is estimated as 2009. While a STIP
has not been formulated for the years after fiscal year 2003, FHWA has
made it very clear, including making it a condition of all CA/T Finance
Plan acceptances, that the State must maintain a balanced Statewide
program. Annual GAN's repayment is expected to be dependent upon the
level of Federal-aid highway funds available to Massachusetts. Also,
please see the answer provided for the next question on the Central
Artery/Tunnel Project on options for additional funding.
Question. If Massachusetts needs more money for the project, where
will it come from?
Answer. FHWA supports appropriate contingency planning, which is
one of the reasons FHWA requested the State to prepare a Finance Plan
for the Central Artery/Tunnel (CA/T) Project, the first finance plan
ever for a Federal-aid highway project.
To date, the State has satisfactorily addressed all changes in
costs and funding. The State's passage of the Metropolitan Highway
System (MHS) legislation set up a structure for funding the State's
share of the project. This includes a cost center for constructing the
CA/T Project and operating the major freeways, tunnels and bridges in
the Boston area. This relies on contributions from several benefiting
State agencies, backed by increased tolls, general revenues, and a
portion of anticipated future Federal-aid highway funds.
The State and FHWA do not believe it is necessary to identify how
each and every possible contingency will be addressed. However, the
recently accepted CA/T Updated Finance Plan states that as changes
occur, the State is prepared to demonstrate the methods that they will
use to adjust for such changes. Having too specific contingency plans
for increases in cost and/or reductions in funding could become self
fulfilling, and therefore counterproductive to aggressively containing
costs. That is, if those who are working hard to contain costs think
extra funds would be available, they may not have the same incentive to
find ways to continue to contain costs.
salt lake city interstate 15 reconstruction project
Question. Has FHWA examined Utah's request for special funding for
Olympics-related highway projects?
Answer. Yes, the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) has
provided FHWA a copy of its report, Utah Transportation Infrastructure
Needs, 2002 Winter Olympics Volumes I and II, which identifies $5.7
billion of Olympic related transportation projects and requests $4.3
billion of Federal support, of which $2.1 billion is for highways,
Intelligent Transportation Systems, intermodal centers and planning.
The amounts requested are in addition to Utah's current Federal-aid
apportionment levels. Utah officials expect to receive Federal support
for highways in two ways: (1) higher apportioned funds for Utah under
ISTEA reauthorization and (2) language in ISTEA reauthorization
providing priority consideration for use of discretionary funds for
sites hosting Olympic games. Utah's apportionment would increase under
reauthorization proposals (compared to ISTEA); the House and Senate
bills also include the provision emphasizing priority for use of
discretionary funds for sites hosting Olympic games.
Question. In FHWA's view, is the proposed level of funding
justified?
Answer. FHWA believes the UDOT's cost estimates are accurate and
reliable based on what is known about the proposed projects, as several
projects are in the planning phase. The estimates will become more
refined as all of the projects are better defined and more is learned
through project development, final design, and construction. UDOT views
the funding requests for special funding as supporting the long term
transportation needs for the State of Utah, in addition to the short
term needs of the Olympic Games.
Utah's average annual apportionment under ISTEA was $128.3 million,
compared to $174.9 million under NEXTEA or over $200 million under
BESTEA and ISTEA II. Utah should view apportioned Federal-aid highway
funds as the primary source of Federal funding for any Olympic related
highway improvements. In general, FHWA does not support special funding
for any particular State including Utah, although all States will have
opportunities to apply for any discretionary program funds authorized
by Congress. As already noted, the House and Senate reauthorization
proposals would provide Utah, as an Olympic site, priority
consideration for discretionary program funds.
On March 20, 1998, FHWA allocated Utah $1.77 million in
discretionary bridge program (available from a fiscal year 1997 carry-
over balance) for the replacement of one of its discretionary
candidates, the Riverdale Road Bridges. These funds should help povide
relief from the cash flow problems UDOT is currently experiencing in
advancing Olympic related projects.
The Department is committed to working with the State and local
officiasl to ensure they are ready for the Olympics.
Question. Can Utah complete the I-15 project without federal funds?
If so, what would the effect be on other transportation projects in
Utah?
Answer. Yes, UDOT can complete the I-15 project without Federal
funds; UDOT has committed to completing it whether or not Federal funds
materialize. A year ago, the Utah legislature formalized their
commitment to fund a ten-year transportation program, including the I-
15 project, for a total amount of $2.6 billion. The UDOT has certified
that sufficient funds will be available to construct the I-15 project
without any Federal funding. However, if no (or insufficient)
additional Federal funds are made available, other projects planned for
funding may have to be postponed or canceled, or additional revenue
generated by the State.
large-dollar highway projects
Question. If enacted, how will FHWA implement the proposed
requirement that states submit finance plans for projects over $1
billion? (a) What information would states be required to provide?
Would FHWA approve these plans? (b) What would such an approval convey?
Answer. The FHWA would require a State to provide information on
project activity planned each year and the estimated amount of funds
(and sources) needed for the project, highlighting those years with
significant funding needs through the completion of construction or the
finance period. Depending on the certainty of funding or the complexity
of the finance mechanisms, FHWA would require a funding or financing
schedule with detailed information on funding sources, cash flow
projections, and repayment of debt.
FHWA would review and accept finance plans. Acceptance of a finance
plan by FHWA would convey only that there is confidence in the
investment of Federal-aid, given that adequate financial resources are
committed to the project within a reasonable time period.
Question. If we're going to have finance plans, and if the federal
government is to invest billions of dollars in large-dollar projects,
does FHWA favor requiring states to prepare initial total project cost
estimates to fully understand the extent of the proposed federal
investment and the related financing requirements?
Answer. State and local officials develop cost estimates
(regardless of a dollar threshold) at various points in the
environmental, planning and project development process. For example,
ISTEA requires that the Transportation Improvement Plan be financially
constrained as a means of assuring that no project will begin without
adequate funding to complete that project. State and local officials
estimate the cost of project construction before advertising for bids.
Each estimate is reliable and accurate based on what is known about
the proposed alternatives or project at the time. Estimates become more
refined as the project is better defined and more is learned through
project development, final design, and construction. Costs typically
increase as project planners and engineers encounter and resolve the
unknowns--mitigation of adverse impacts, hazardous wastes or
archeological artifacts below the surface, or unstable soil conditions.
In this context, finance plans for projects estimated to cost
$1,000,000,000 or more are based on the best information on the total
project cost available at the time. The commitment of the project
sponsors and acceptance of the financing plan by FHWA should help avoid
finance-related surprises once construction is underway. With respect
to the Federal interest, it clarifies to all from the outset that there
is no implied burden on the Federal government to fund any shortfalls.
Question. Should FHWA require states to track cost growth on large-
dollar federal-aid projects similar to what OMB requires federal
agencies to do for its own large-dollar acquisitions?
Answer. For projects estimated to cost $1 billion or more, we
believe it is important to establish (1) aggressive cost containment
goals, (2) a schedule of project milestones, and (3) a systematic
approach for tracking and monitoring the budget, costs, and cash flow
in relation to achieving the cost containment goals and project
milestone. With these basic precepts in mind, FHWA does not want to
develop a one-size-fits-all approach. There needs to be latitude for
FHWA and a State to agree how best to manage and monitor each
particular large-dollar project including, establishing goals and
milestones, developing appropriate cost containment strategies and
tracking techniques, and deciding the frequency of reporting and
progress meetings.
Question. Does it make sense to have DOT approve a large-dollar
highway project in its totality at the outset of that project?
Answer. Review and acceptance of the finance plan probably is more
critical than approval of the project in its totality. Through the
finance plan, the project sponsors convey their commitment of current
and future funding for the project. The commitment of the project
sponsors and acceptance of the financing plan by FHWA should help avoid
finance-related surprises once construction is underway. With respect
to the Federal interest, it will clarify to all from the outset that
there is no implied burden on the Federal government to fund any
shortfalls. Depending on the scale of the project and the certainty of
funding, the project sponsors may decide to stage construct the project
in useable segments. High cost segments or elements primarily needed to
serve future traffic could be constructed in later stage; such planning
may be prudent particularly if there is less certainty about available
funding in the out years.
national technology deployment initiative
Question. How will this program differ from FHWA's other technical
assistance and deployment programs, such as the Local Technical
Assistance Program and the ITS Deployment Incentives Program?
Answer. We believe the NTDI program will be in a unique position to
directly support expanded implementation so that users will see the
benefits of new technology ``on the road.'' There is a strong,
continuing need to support effective technology transfer programs such
as the Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP), direct technical
assistance/demonstration, and training. At the same time, we are
looking to grasp the opportunity to greatly extend the benefits of
innovation through greater deployment, and we view the NTDI as very
complementary to these programs. In this respect, the NTDI program can
be viewed as falling between research and development and the proposed
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) deployment incentives program.
The NTDI will address specific goals through expanded implementation of
advanced technology, such as accelerating construction and maintenance
operations, using advanced materials to improve the life cycle cost and
extend the service life of the Nation's roadways and bridges, and
improving the safety of driving during periods of inclement weather
and/or reduced visibility. Conceptually, the NTDI is not a ``research
program'' but a varied, technology-based ``infrastructure program''
geared toward ``putting projects on the ground.'' We also see NTDI as a
vehicle to accelerate the advancement of innovative technologies to
practice. The proposed ITS deployment incentives program is aimed
purely at integrating ITS infrastructure components already on the
ground.
Question. Will ITS projects be eligible for funding under this
program?
Answer. The focus of NTDI is not ITS technologies. However, to the
extent that ITS technologies would be utilized to meet the defined goal
areas of the NTDI, we believe that this would be appropriate. For
instance, the Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) furthered the
development of roadway-weather information systems (RWIS), which use
sensors to detect icing and snow conditions on bridges and roadways to
aid winter maintenance operations. These systems are described by many
as ``ITS projects'' because of the use of sensors and communications;
but they also would be expected to directly support NTDI goals areas
such as, improving driving safety during inclement weather. While
funding criteria for NTDI-supported projects has not yet been developed
(and, is expected to vary depending upon the relative maturity of the
technology in question); we do not expect to support full construction
costs of projects with NTDI funds. We believe that NTDI funds directed
toward a comprehensive set of implementation-support areas such as
extensive technical assistance, costs of testing and evaluation,
potential risk sharing, and targeted, fast-track development efforts
will produce the most cost-effective program design. We believe NTDI is
different from, and complementary to, the proposed ITS deployment
incentives program in that the proposed ITS deployment incentives
program is geared purely to integration, not implementation.
Question. Since the Initiative's goals are somewhat vague, please
provide specific examples of the tangible benefits that would result
from this Initiative.
Answer. It is clear that Congressional action on this proposed
program may significantly affect final characteristics of the Program,
including number of goal areas and degree of impact which can be
expected. Therefore, we cannot be certain of the extent of anticipated
benefits at this time. We remain very optimistic about the potential of
this Program, however, and the Administration's NEXTEA proposal
included seven possible goal areas which the NTDI might address, if
funding is sufficient. Following are examples of benefits which might
be expected in each of these areas:
Goal area 1: Reduced Delay and Improved Safety in Construction and
Maintenance Work Areas.--New technologies, construction methods, and/or
contracting practices can be applied to reduce the time required to
complete construction and maintenance projects. Products such as model
contract specifications to provide incentives for expedited delivery;
improved safety hardware and practices to protect workers and prevent
accidents; innovative detour systems; and enhanced communication with
the traveling public to improve their driving and behavior through
construction zones all can be deployed more aggressively to minimize
the disruption of commercial and personal travel. In addition to
improving work zone management, the use of new pavement materials with
long service life will decrease the needed frequency of the work, thus
greatly reducing overall impact on travelers and adjacent businesses.
Goal area 2: Extended Life of the Current Infrastructure.--
Extending the life of pavements and structures has many benefits for
taxpayers and travelers. More durable materials reduce the total life-
cycle cost of pavements and bridges, because there is a reduced need
for repair and rehabilitation. The reduced need for maintenance and
rehabilitation means fewer construction delays for travelers. Longer-
lasting pavements have fewer potholes, cracks, and ruts, which means a
smoother ride for all road users and improved operating efficiency for
shippers and haulers.
Goal area 3: Increased System Durability and Life, Including
Applications of High Performance Materials.--High performance materials
can be deployed effectively for repair, rehabilitation, and
strengthening of existing structures, as well as in the design and
construction of new structures that are durable, capable of longer
service, and has a lower life-cycle cost. The repair, rehabilitation,
and strengthening applications will be immediately effective in
extending the useful life of the existing infrastructure. The typical
applications that are used include: Bridge deck replacement with
composites or aluminum; steel/concrete beam strengthening with bonded
fiber-reinforced polymer composite laminates; concrete deck
strengthening with bonded fiber-reinforced polymer composite laminates;
repair of deteriorated concrete elements with fiber-reinforced polymer
composite wrapping; seismic retrofit and column wrapping (a few States
are using this already); and external pre-stressing tendons for bridge
strengthening.
Measurable benefits will result from: Extended service life before
functional replacement because of load limits; lower initial
construction cost, in many cases; more corrosion-resistant, durable
structures; reduced future maintenance needs and less traffic
disruption; ease of fabrication, construction, transportation, and
handling reduced project delivery time; and lightweight materials to
improve resistance to earthquake damages.
Goal area 4: Improved Safety of Driving at Night and Other Periods
of Reduced Visibility.--The key benefits of technological advances in
this area include reduced night-and-weather-related accident rates,
improved highway safety, reduced social costs (vehicle and property
damage, injury and death, lost time, etc.), and more efficient use of
tax dollars through improved management systems. For instance,
significant technology advances have occurred relatively recently in
areas related to traffic signs and pavement markings:
--As a result of the interest of many of the States' in improved
traffic signs and pavement markings, industry and manufacturers
have developed better signing and marking materials and
products.
--New technologies for measuring retroreflectivity have been
introduced and are ready for deployment.
--Information processing technology has advanced to the point where
more efficient management systems and data collection systems
for traffic signs and pavement markings can be implemented.
Several such systems are currently in development and will
require technology transfer and deployment during the next 6
years.
--New opportunities are occurring to develop reliable control systems
for detecting fog, smoke, and other adverse environmental
conditions; however, considerable research and development must
be completed before they can be implemented.
Goal area 5: Support and Enhancement of the Environment with Use of
Innovative Technologies.--The use of innovative construction and
maintenance techniques and materials can result in reduced potential
impacts on human health, on air and water quality, on wildlife species
and their habitats, and on wetlands and other elements of the natural
and cultural environment. Certain advances also may produce appreciable
cost savings through increased efficiency. Reductions in the amount of
raw materials required for construction and maintenance activities will
conserve natural resources and result in fewer materials entering the
waste stream. Building upon current successes and developing further
improvements in construction, operational, and maintenance techniques
will produce immediate environmental benefits.
Goal area 6: Support of Community-Oriented Transportation and
Sustainable Development.--This area is quite diverse and difficult to
capture in a few topical areas. Some examples of technology
applications and associated benefits include:
--Innovative bicycle and pedestrian facilities, such as paths built
with recycled tires; and low-cost, high-security, easy-to-use
bicycle racks. These would remove impediments to non-motorized
travel.
--Real-time transit system information systems would allow transit
patrons to better plan transit trips and to minimize the amount
of wait time, especially during inclement weather. This
improvement would be closely tied to the ITS program.
--Active speed management and traffic enforcement technology, such as
radar-equipped speed trailers and red-light-running detection
cameras would reinforce responsible driving behavior and
improve travel conditions and safety within communities.
--High-technology, low-cost graffiti removal systems. Graffiti on
transportation facilities (noise walls, bridges, retaining
walls) could be quickly and economically removed, and
transportation agencies might be able to ``give back''
something to the community by lending out such equipment.
--Technology-enhanced public involvement. Improved communication and
information-dissemination technology (for example, video
conferencing, cable television, and the Internet) offers
effective alternatives to traditional public meetings and
hearings.
Goal area 7: Minimized Transportation System Closures, Constraints
and Delay Caused by Snow and Ice.--Anticipated benefits include
reductions in highway closures due to winter storms, earlier re-
openings after extreme events, improved operation during storms, more
effective use of resources (manpower, chemicals, equipment), and better
communication with the public and highway users. Today more than ever,
the continuous, effective operation of the Nation's highways is
important to the productiveness of the American economy. By the year
2000, it is estimated more than 60 percent of industrial productivity
will depend on ``just-in-time delivery'' of parts and components.
Without a continuously reliable highway system during winter storm
conditions, plants, shops, offices, and schools will shut down and
production will wait for the opening of the highways. During the
``Blizzard of 1996,'' the Northeast learned first-hand how much the
Nation depends on reliable, continuous access to the transportation
system. Estimates place the loss of economic productivity at $3 to $5
billion for each day major roadways were closed in the Northeast. This
places the total loss at $15 to $25 billion for this single event.
Keeping the transportation system open and operating efficiently are
vitally important to personal and industrial life in this Nation.
automated highway system program
Question. How much has the Department spent to date on the AHS
program? (a) What tangible benefits has the Department gained from
those investments?
Answer. A total of $58.7 million was obligated through fiscal year
1998.
The primary goal of the AHS work plan was to develop the preferred
AHS concept, prototyping that concept and development of the AHS system
specification. Although this work plan was not completed, the
department and the community made great improvements to our knowledge-
base in vehicle-highway automation. These lessons learned will be
applied to the Intelligent Vehicle Program.
The first stage of the AHS work plan was the concept identification
phase. The system objectives and characteristics were defined. This
allowed for the identification of the critical and enabling
technologies. From this phase it was learned that AHS is feasible in
the long term and with a high level of sustained investment. It was
also learned that vehicle-highway automation could extend beyond full
automated systems to a more evolutionary approach moving from
autonomous systems in mixed traffic, to partial automation, to full
control.
The second stage was concept evaluation. The principal findings of
this period were that vehicle-infrastructure technologies can provide
an effective solution in a wide variety of environments and for light,
heavy and transit vehicles; applications may be tailored to meet local
needs and still maintain national compatibility; the costs for
dedicated lanes are likely to be similar to the cost of present day
high occupancy vehicle lanes (HOV).
A key aspect of the AHS concepts evaluation process, site-specific
case studies, engaged state and local transportation agencies in joint
efforts to examine the potential of AHS for their particular needs.
These case studies addressed issues for specific regions, corridors, or
users, including the long range planning processes to assess the
viability of AHS (to include automated bus/van transit operations)
relative to other transportation alternatives; applicability of
intermediate system approaches; possible institutional arrangements;
potential impact on land use and urban form for the area; safety;
individual benefits; and overall benefits and costs in transportation
productivity. Preliminary case studies of transit automation (for
Houston) and for rural automation applications (for the Yellowstone
Corridor) were completed and documented. The case study for Houston
provided encouraging results in that the capacity in people and
vehicles, could be significantly increased through automation.
The third stage was Concept Refinement which focused on further
defining the AHS and how it may evolve from today's vehicle-highway
system and on resolving the major AHS issues. The concept work was
restructured from parallel analysis of 3 concepts into the analysis of
a single broad architecture. Five critical issues were identified
obstacle management, mixed traffic performance, driver role and
acceptance, vehicle separation policy, and dedicated lanes. During this
stage the government withdrew from the consortium and work stopped.
A workshop has been arranged to enable key AHS project staff to
convey the final ``lessons learned'' to the government. This will
include the NAHSC's research findings, perceptions of knowledge or
technology gaps, and future research needs. The focus of the workshop
will be a comparison of autonomous and cooperative (vehicle-vehicle and
vehicle-infrastructure) automation concepts applicable to the IVI
services.
The IVI will take advantage of the lessons learned through the AHS
effort by improving the safety and efficiency of motor vehicle
operations through an evolutionary approach. The IVI will bring
technologies (and their benefits) to market in much nearer term that
was envisioned in the AHS program. The IVI will build upon the research
results of the AHS Program, as well as the NHTSA crash avoidance
program.
Question. Given that JPO decided to refocus the AHS program long
before the scheduled August 1997 demonstration in San Diego, why did
the Department decide to continue with the demonstration? (a) How much
had the JPO committed to the demonstration prior to its decision to
refocus the program? (b) How much in total did the demonstration cost
the federal government?
Answer. The AHS Demonstration was Congressionally-required as part
of the ISTEA legislation. During the late fall of 1997, the confluence
of five factors influenced the Department to reevaluate the AHS
program. Those factors were: (1) the demonstration provided a timely
opportunity to evaluate the program direction; (2) the NHTSA crash
avoidance program had reached a level of maturity where it was in
transition from research to operational testing; (3) the findings of
both programs indicated that there was an opportunity to deliver near
term benefits through driver-assistance application over the more long
term vehicle-highway automation applications; (4) the National AHS
Consortium had shifted from a revolutionary to an evolutionary
deployment strategy; and (5) funding provided under the ISTEA extension
was insufficient to fund the AHS program at the planned levels. This
revaluation of the AHS program was started in March 1997 and completed
with the delivery of the final report from the TRB review panel in
March 1998. The decision to refocus AHS on the Intelligent vehicle
program did not occur until after the demonstration.
The total Federal expenditures for the Demonstration was $18.4
million. The Federal share of 1997 AHS Demonstration prior to the
decision to refocus the program was also $18.4 million since USDOT did
not decide to refocus the program until after the demonstration.
Question. How does the Intelligent Vehicle Program differ from
similar programs in NHTSA?
Answer. The Intelligent Vehicle Program combines the NHTSA Crash
Avoidance program with other ITS vehicle-based research that was
underway in the FHWA and FTA. The NHTSA program is the primary
foundation for the IVI. All projects, contracts and program areas that
were in place before the IVI have continued, with constraints on
funding availability, without interruption. Plans for continuation of
these projects and initiation of new ones and new operational tests of
systems to provide specific safety benefits are underway as part of the
IVI. The expectation is that this work will help us gain a full
understanding of how these systems need to perform to be able to
effectively provide specific safety benefits. This work will be the
backbone of IVI for the next 2-3 years.
Question. What will be the roles of FHWA and NHTSA under this new
Intelligent Vehicle Program?
Answer. Within the U.S. DOT, the Intelligent Vehicle Program will
be a joint program of the FHWA, FTA, and NHTSA. The program has joint
program managers from FHWA and NHTSA. The co-program managers report to
a steering committee of the Directors from FHWA Office of Safety and
Traffic Operations Research and Development, FHWA Office of Motor
Carrier Safety and Technology, NHTSA Office of Crash Avoidance
Research, and FTA Office of Mobility Innovation. The ITS Joint Program
Office is responsible for coordination and budget oversight.
Working jointly with industry and other stakeholders, the U.S. DOT
will develop performance guidelines, specifications, architectures and
standards, test, and evaluate the most promising configurations to
facilitate their deployment. A major focus of the IVI is to research
and evaluate the benefits resulting from these systems, including the
integration of driver information systems. These activities will be
accomplished through the combined efforts of the U.S. DOT's modal
administrations, the motor vehicle, trucking, and bus industries, state
and local governments, and other stakeholders, working together under
cooperative programs and partnerships to plan for and facilitate the
incremental deployment of both vehicle-based and cooperative vehicle-
infrastructure-based driver assistance systems.
Question. Please prepare a side-by-side comparison that details all
provisions in the House-passed and Senate-passed surface transportation
reauthorization bills relating to flexible use of highway funds for
passenger rail purposes. Please cite the bill language and prepare
short section-by-section analyses for each of the relevant provisions.
Make sure to include information regarding whether these funds can be
used for capital and/or operating purposes.
Answer. There are no provisions in the House bill (H. 2400)
providing for the use of highway funds for passenger rail purposes. The
Senate bill (S. 1173) makes no provision for passenger rail operating
costs, but expands eligibilities for capital improvements as follows:
National Highway System (NHS)
Capital improvements to publicly owned intercity passenger rail
lines (including Amtrak) added as an eligible use for NHS funds.
Projects must meet the same criteria that currently apply to transit
and non-NHS highway projects (must be in an NHS corridor, improve level
of service and traffic flow, and be more cost effective than an
improvement to the highway). [Sec. 1234, proposed Sec. 103(b)(5)(C)]
Also adds eligibility for publicly owned intercity or intracity
passenger rail terminals (including those owned by Amtrak) located on
or adjacent to the NHS. [Sec. 1234, proposed Sec. 103(b)(5)(N)]
Adds eligibility for publicly owned components of MAGLEV
transportation systems. [Sec. 1234, proposed Sec. 103(b)(5)(Q)]
Surface Transportation Program (STP)
Amends eligibility for STP funds to include capital costs of public
or private vehicles and facilities that are used to provide intercity
rail passenger service (eligibility parallels the eligibility of such
vehicles and facilities under chapter 53 of Title 49, as revised by S.
1173). [Sec. 1235(1), proposed Sec. 133(b)(2)]
Amends safety improvement eligibility to include publicly owned
passenger rail safety infrastructure improvements. [Sec. 1235(3),
proposed Sec. 133(b)(4)]
Also adds publicly owned intercity passenger rail infrastructure
and vehicles (including Amtrak) to STP eligibility. [Sec. 1235(6),
proposed Sec. 133(b)(13&14)]
Adds eligibility for publicly owned components of MAGLEV
transportation systems. [Sec. 1235(6), proposed Sec. 133(b)(16)].
Question. Please break out the amounts allocated to the following
programs in fiscal years 1997, 1998, and requested for 1999; Truman
Hobbs Bridge; National Scenic Byways; Recreational Trails; Highway Use
Tax Evasion Projects; Value Pricing Pilot program; Bureau of
Transportation Statistics; and Research and Special Program
Administration's Strategic Planning and Intermodal Research Initiative.
Answer. Based on 1997 actuals as included under ISTEA and the
funding levels included in the Administration's reauthorization
proposal for 1998 and 1999, the amounts allocated to the programs
identified is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997 1998 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truman Hobbs Bridge.......................... ....... 16 17
National Scenic Byways....................... 14 15 15
Recreational Trails.......................... 15 7 7
Highway Use Tax Evasion...................... 5 5 5
Value Pricing Pilot Program.................. ....... 14 14
Bureau of Transportation Statistics.......... 25 31 31
RSPA's Strat. Plng. & Inter. Research........ ....... 10 15
--------------------------
Total.................................. 59 98 104
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Does the takedown amount for these ``other programs''
remain constant regardless of the highway obligation ceiling level? Can
obligation ceilings be set on these programs individually
Answer. Yes. Under current law as well as under the
Administration's proposal, these programs have obligation limitation
``set-aside'' for them at an amount equal to the level authorized
before any of the limitation is distributed to the States. Obligation
ceilings could be set on these programs individually but there is not
authority to do so under current law.
Federal Railroad Administration
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
fra's gpra goals
Question. How has GPRA encouraged greater efficiency,
effectiveness, and accountability at FRA's Offices of Safety and
Railroad Development? What are your specific performance goals and
plans for each of these Offices?
Answer.
Safety
Under GPRA, FRA's Office of Safety has established specific goals
through the year 2002. In doing so, FRA has focused more clearly on the
trend lines that have shaped these goals, and has developed methods and
programs that emphasize efficiency and effectiveness, among several
characteristics. By clearly listing performance goals in both the FRA
and DOT Strategic Plans, FRA has demonstrated their willingness to be
held accountable. The specific performance goals of the Office of
Safety are the following:
--Reduce the rate of rail-related fatalities.
--Reduce the rate of passenger fatalities and injuries.
--Reduce the rate of employee fatalities, injuries, and illnesses.
--Reduce the rate of grade crossing collisions.
--Reduce the rate of trespasser fatalities.
--Reduce the rate of train accidents.
--Reduce the rate of hazardous materials released by rail mode.
FRA will continue to promote the Safety Assurance and Compliance
Program (SACP), which requires a balanced approach between site-
specific inspections and partnerships with rail labor and management to
identify and correct safety concerns in the rail industry. Likewise,
FRA will continue with the Rail Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC), which
provides FRA with a continuing forum for advice and recommendations on
the development of the railroad safety regulatory program. This
collaborative rulemaking approach fully involves FRA's customers,
including representatives of railroad labor and management, and makes
the best use of resources to accommodate the rapidly evolving changes
in the rail transportation industry.
Railroad Development
GPRA also has encouraged greater efficiency, effectiveness, and
accountability by focusing the Amtrak's performance on those criteria
that are broadly indicative of the relative success of Amtrak's efforts
to improve the quality of its service.
Four performance goals have been identified for Amtrak; two under
the Enhance Mobility area of the Department's strategic plan, and two
under the Economic Growth and Trade area. Within Enhance Mobility, one
goal will track the findings of regularly scheduled Amtrak customer
surveys, the findings of which are expressed as a ``Customer
Satisfaction Index'' (CSI). From an index baseline of 84 in 1997 it is
expected that the CSI will improve to 87 by 1999. A second performance
goal will track the efforts to increase, by 10 percent (365 trains per
day), the number of trains (intercity and commuter) through the most
congested segments of the Northeast Corridor in northern New Jersey by
2005. The cost to increase capacity will be shared by Amtrak and New
Jersey Transit. Within Economic Growth and Trade, special attention
will be focused on the system-wide on-time-performance of Amtrak
trains. The goal for 1999 is 87 percent on-time from a baseline of 76
percent in 1995. The second goal in this area will track perhaps the
single most important goal for the Corporation, trip time improvements
between Boston and New York City, to measure the relative operational
success of Amtrak's high-speed rail efforts. The average trip-time
along this route in 1997 was 4 hours and 45 minutes and the target for
2000 is ``under three hours''.
Under the NDGPS program, FRA expects to reduce the frequency of
train collisions and overspeed accidents by a factor of 100 on lines
where PTC is installed. Specific outputs and outcomes are under
development in conjunction with FHWA and the US Coast Guard. The Coast
Guard will serve as the lead agency for installing, operating, and
maintaining the NDGPS network.
The Next Generation High-Speed Rail program goals include
developing, demonstrating, and validating cost-effective high-speed
(125-150 mph) passenger rail technology to operate on existing
infrastructure in the US; reducing upgrade costs for high-speed to $2-3
million per mile; and making proven technology and methods available to
States for HSR implementation. The program has been working towards
these goals in three major areas. In the non-electric locomotive area,
FRA will demonstrate a self-contained locomotive unit with acceleration
capabilities comparable to electric locomotives and without
substantially increasing track forces, noise or emissions levels over
conventional fossil fuel units. In addressing grade crossing hazards,
FRA will demonstrate high-speed passenger operations on existing
corridors on which grade crossings remain in place, but at safety
levels equal to or better than at present for conventional speeds. In
Track and Structures, FRA will demonstrate construction at 75 percent
or less of present construction costs and for the track structures to
withstand both heavy freight and high-speed passenger usage with costs
no higher than present conventional practice permits.
The Office of Research & Development goals address railroad safety.
They support the FRA's Office of Safety in its safety rulemaking and
safety enforcement activities, and also support other customers,
including the railroad industry, the railroad supply industry, railroad
unions, and railroad passengers and shippers, through the development
of new technologies to improve railroad safety. The Office has
encouraged greater efficiency and accountability by undertaking both
peer and customer reviews to insure that the program is addressing
priority topics, tracking the degree to which research projects support
scheduled rulemaking actions and assessing the timely dissemination of
research results.
gpra outcomes
Question. What are the outcomes or outputs that FRA is measuring
and why were these selected?
Answer. FRA's Office of Safety is measuring the following outcomes:
--Rail-related fatalities.
--Rail passenger fatalities and injuries.
--Rail employee fatalities, injuries, and illnesses.
--Grade-crossing collisions.
--Trespasser fatalities.
--Train accidents.
--Hazardous materials released by rail mode.
These safety outcomes were selected because they represent the
broad spectrum of the rail environment. Two of the outcomes--namely
grade-crossing collisions and trespassing on rail property--are the
leading causes of rail-related fatalities (approximately 90 percent).
Additionally, FRA has an accident/incident database that has been
providing timely and reliable data on these outcomes.
The Amtrak program is measuring customer satisfaction, on time
performance, and capacity improvement on one of the most congested
segments of Amtrak's Northeast Corridor. These outcomes reflect
Amtrak's progress towards improving service quality. Amtrak's long-term
financial viability is tied to its ability to attract and retain
customers and the outcomes being measured will help judge the success
of Amtrak's efforts to make its service more attractive.
Under the NDGPS program, specific outputs and outcomes have been
developed in conjunction with FHWA and the US Coast Guard and directly
support the goals of the program. While the long term outcome of the
project is to reduce the frequency of train collisions and overspeed
accidents by a factor of 100 on lines where PTC is installed, interim
project output include the acquisition of DGPS receivers and the
installation of PTC on 5,000 miles of track by 2003.
The Research and Development program is tied directly to the safety
outputs.
The outcome of the Next Generation High-Speed Rail program will be
to develop and demonstrate cost-effective high-speed (125-150 mph)
passenger rail technology operating on existing infrastructure in the
US. The objective is to provide service compatible to that which is
currently only possible with electrification networks, without the very
high infrastructure investment required to operate electrically.
gpra and collaborative management
Question. How are you focusing on collaborative management with the
staff under GPRA?
Answer. At FRA, internal management accountability tools have been
modified to include the performance goals and measures that were
developed in order to comply with GPRA. For example, the Administrator
meets regularly with the Deputy Secretary to review progress on a
number of projects that are included in her Performance Agreement with
the Secretary. Embedded in this agreement are the critical elements of
what is being tracked by GPRA. Managers must update the entries in the
Performance Agreement for which they have specific responsibility,
giving the current status of all projects and discuss any issues that
stand in the way of achieving goals. This collaborative approach to the
management of the Performance Agreement ensures that no item covered by
GPRA escapes the close scrutiny of Associate Administrators and the
Administrator herself.
In addition, FRA developed collaborative teams in updating its
Strategic Plan (its first under GPRA requirements) over the past year.
In doing so, a broad range of ideas and viewpoints were solicited from
all segments of the agency--both headquarters and field offices,
supervisory and non-supervisory. The teams were responsible for
producing a plan that committed the agency to achieving specific
performance goals in a variety of areas in the rail environment. This
plan is the basis for FRA's input into the Department of
Transportation's broader Strategic Plan. FRA will continue this
collaborative team concept on an on-going basis.
timing of railroad safety user fees
Question. Are the railroad safety user fees described in Sec. 331
of the bill language in the fiscal year 1999 Budget Appendix to be
imposed and collected beginning in fiscal year 1999? Why is this
proposed in appropriations legislation, when the rail safety program is
up for reauthorization in 1998?
Answer. Yes, our railroad user fee proposal envisions collection of
railroad user fees in fiscal year 1999. Congress originally established
the railroad user fee program for a five-year term in the 1990 Budget
Reconciliation Act. The Administration believes the Congress should
reauthorize the program this year and could do so either through the
rail safety program reauthorization or, due to its close relationship
to the Department's overall funding, through the fiscal year 1999 DOT
Appropriations Act. Accordingly, FRA has included enabling language for
the program as part of the proposed 1999 DOT appropriations bill
language.
base for railroad safety user fees
Question. The budget justification states that the base upon which
the proposed user fees are calculated is broadened to include all costs
attributable to the Safety Office and to the safety-related functions
of the Research and Development program (total estimated for fiscal
year 1999 is $82.1 million). How has the base been broadened? Who will
be assessed these fees, and for what purposes? Has FRA developed a fee
schedule? If so, please provide it for the record.
Answer. The railroad user fee program in effect from 1990-1995
(established by the Congress in the 1990 Budget Reconciliation Act)
required the railroad industry to reimburse the Federal Government for
costs incurred by the FRA in administering the Federal Railroad Safety
Act of 1970 but did not cover FRA's costs incurred in administering the
Hours of Service Act or the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, or
safety-related functions of the Research and Development program. The
fiscal year 1999 proposal provides for industry reimbursement for these
costs. The proposed fees would be assessed upon the entire railroad
industry. FRA has not developed a fee schedule for the proposed fees.
The original fee schedule was established through the rulemaking
process and any revisions to that schedule would also have to be
adopted through agency rulemaking.
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 the ability to compete with
other transportation modes.
operation respond
Question. FRA's fiscal year 1999 budget request has transferred
$103,000 in costs associated with Operation Respond, formerly funded
from the Office of the Administrator, to the Office of Railroad Safety.
What are the costs, benefits, and current status of FRA's involvement
in the Operation Respond project? Please specify fiscal year 1996,
fiscal year 1997, and fiscal year 1998 funding, and the fiscal year
1999 request. How much longer is it anticipated that FRA will help
finance this project? What is the total amount of the fiscal year 1999
Department of Transportation request for Operation Respond, including
requests from other agencies?
Answer. Saving lives in hazardous material or passenger rail
accidents is the primary safety benefit of Operation Respond. Operation
Respond assists states, local responders and railroads to respond to
these accidents in a rapid and coordinated manner. Funding for
Operation Respond is as follows:
[Dollars in thousands]
Fiscal year
1996:
FRA........................................................... $53
FHWA.......................................................... 190
RSPA.......................................................... 120
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
Total....................................................... 363
=================================================================
________________________________________________
1997:
FRA........................................................... 53
FHWA.......................................................\1\ 1,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
Total....................................................... 1,053
=================================================================
________________________________________________
1998:
FRA........................................................... 103
FHWA.......................................................\1\ 1,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
Total....................................................... 1,103
=================================================================
________________________________________________
1999: FRA......................................................... 103
\1\ Earmarked by Congress.
FRA plans to continue its funding of Operation Respond until fiscal
year 2002, at which time the demonstration project will be a fully
developed and self sufficient national system.
The fiscal year 1999 funds will be used to enhance the Operation
Respond Emergency Information System (OREIS) to include short line and
regional railroads in the system. While many short line and regional
carriers handle a wide variety of hazardous materials, they often do
not possess the centralized computer capabilities or linkages to
shipper car location message systems of those of larger railroads.
Operation Respond and FRA will work with these carriers to introduce
and install OREIS on their system.
safety fiscal year 1997-1999 funding
Question. Please prepare a comparative funding table for the Office
of Safety for fiscal years 1997-1999, broken out in the following
manner:
Federal Enforcement Program
Program Costs
PC&B
Number of Staff (headquarters and regional/field
offices)
Automated Track Inspection Program
Program Costs
PC&B
Number of Staff (headquarters and regional/field
offices)
Safety Regulation and Program Administration
Program Costs
PC&B
Number of Staff (headquarters and regional/field
offices)
Answer. The information follows.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
--------------------------------------
1998 1999
1997 actual estimate estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Enforcement Program:
Program Costs................ 8,798 8,476 10,738
PC&B......................... 30,077 32,503 35,871
Number of staff: (FTE's) 439 456 472
(Field).....................
Automated Track Inspection
Program:
Program Costs................ 1,196 4,220 2,500
PC&B......................... ........... ........... ...........
Number of staff.............. ........... ........... ...........
Safety Regulation and Program
Administration:
Program Costs................ 4,269 4,434 4,893
PC&B and Support Costs....... 6,983 7,417 7,957
Number of staff: (FTE's) 81 90 90
(Headquarters)..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
status of ntsb recommendations
Question. What are the remaining open NTSB recommendations, and
what is FRA doing to respond to each one? Please 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 April 9, 1998, there are 66 open NTSB Safety
Recommendations that have been addressed to FRA. Of these, 61 have been
classified by NTSB as being in ``Open-Acceptable Action'' status. The
remaining 5 open recommendations have been classified by NTSB as being
in ``Open-Unacceptable Action'' status. A brief summary of each of
these open recommendations follows, with an explanation of FRA's action
toward achieving acceptable action by the Board.
During the past three years, twenty-two NTSB Safety Recommendations
have been addressed and closed. Eighteen of these recommendations were
closed with satisfactory action from NTSB's perspective. One
recommendation was closed for reason be being reconsidered by the
Board. The remaining 3 were found to be unacceptable by the Board. A
listing of each of these recommendations also follows.
open ntsb safety recommendations addressed to fra
R-87-16. Train Control System--``Promulgate Federal standards to
require the installation and operation of a train control system on
mainline tracks which will provide for positive separation of all
trains.''
On August 24, 1994, FRA provided update to NTSB indicating the
``Rail Safety Enforcement and Review Act'' of 1992 required FRA to
report to Congress on the prospects of installation of a positive train
control (PTC) system to prevent train collisions. FRA forwarded copy to
Congress on July 8, 1994, and also provided one to NTSB. FRA indicated
in its update to NTSB that the report addresses all the NTSB
recommendations on a train control system, and provides for a time line
for deployment on the system on high priority locations. FRA requested
this recommendation be closed.
NTSB responded under date of September 18, 1995, in part
reiterating the need for PCS following the June 8, 1994 collision at
Thedford, NE., on BN, which claimed the lives of two crewmembers.
On January 23, 1998, FRA Administrator Jolene Molitoris and DOT
Secretary Rodney Slater met with the Board of Directors of the AAR. In
that meeting, AAR agreed to join with FRA and the Illinois DOT in a
partnership to develop and demonstrate positive train control (PTC) on
a portion of the Chicago--St. Louis rail corridor. AAR voted to invest
$20 million for the project which will be matched by $15 million from
FRA and IDOT. PTC is a lifesaving train control system that can prevent
collisions, overspeed derailments and casualties among roadway workers
by linking new train control systems with computer aided dispatching
systems, automatic equipment identification systems and other
information technologies.
Current Status.--The current project indicated above is ongoing.
NTSB's present classification for this recommendation is ``Open--
Acceptable Response.''
R-87-23. Locomotive Cabs--``Promptly require locomotive operating
compartments to be designed to provide crash protection for occupants
of locomotive cabs.''
In September 1989, the AAR adopted Locomotive Crashworthiness
Requirements, Standard S-580, for new road type locomotives built after
August 1, 1990. The requirements include anti-climbers, collision posts
and stronger hoods on short hood locomotives.
NTSB responded by letter on January 4, 1995 noting this
accomplishment, and that research is underway in response to the Rail
Safety Enforcement and Review Act (Public Law 102-365), which requires
full-scale locomotive crash testing that should yield significant data
for analysis of current and proposed crashworthiness features. NTSB
indicated they expect prompt regulatory action once this analysis is
complete. NTSB also noted that another factor that needs resolution is
the features that should be incorporated when locomotives are rebuilt.
NTSB classified this Safety Recommendation as ``Open--Acceptable
Response.''
RSAC accepted as TASK 97-1 on 6/24/97. Working Group met 9/8 and 9/
9, 1997.
FRA provided response to NTSB' Chairman Hall in letter dated
October 10, 1997. In essence, FRA indicated it had referred the
important issue of locomotive crashworthiness to the Railroad Safety
Advisory Committee (RSAC) for consideration. A Locomotive Crew Safety
Planning Group has been established (with NTSB representation) to
review the report to Congress--specifically, each of the individual
issues noted above, and recommend to the full RSAC which tasks should
be routed to rulemaking, which should be referred for further research
and development, and which are more appropriately addressed through
voluntary action (or no action). The first meeting of this planning
group was held on January 23, 1997. FRA requested Safety Recommendation
R-87-23 remain ``Open-Acceptable Response'' and that NTSB concurrently
close Safety Recommendation R-92-10 regarding the improved design of
locomotive fuel tanks, as this will be addressed in conjunction with
the other crashworthiness features through the systems approach
outlined above.
Current Status.--This project continues to be progressed by the
Locomotive Crashworthiness Working Group of RSAC, with last meeting
conducted in February 1998. NTSB's current classification for this
recommendation is ``Open--Acceptable Response.''
R-87-66. Train Dispatchers-Selection/Training--``Conduct a thorough
study of the selection process, training, duties, and responsibilities
of train dispatchers to determine if the workload is beyond the normal
job stress level and determine what selection and training standards
are used for train dispatchers. In addition, establish selection and
training standards and workload limits for dispatchers.''
Subsequent to the issuance of this recommendation, Congress passed
in 1992, the Rail Safety Enforcement and Review Act. Section 17 of the
Act required the Secretary of Transportation to review the train
dispatcher work environment and report the results to Congress. FRA
performed this review and rendered report to Congress in January 1995,
providing a copy to NTSB with reply on December 15, 1995.
NTSB advised December 20, 1995, of their disappointment that FRA
had not specifically addressed several of NTSB's concerns in the
recommendations. NTSB indicated they would be reassured if the FRA's
recommendations dealt more precisely with the shortcomings and concerns
cited in the study. NTSB further cautioned FRA against emphasizing the
value of technological advances or increased training, and asked FRA to
keep them informed of activities in response to this recommendation.
Current Status.--FRA continues to work toward the implementation of
the contents of the Board's recommendation. NTSB's current
classification of this Safety Recommendation as ``Open--Acceptable
Response.''
R-88-20. Locomotive Sill Heights--``Modify 49 CFR Part 229 to
require compatible main frame sill height standards.''
FRA provided initial response to NTSB in letter dated March 10,
1989, indicating essentially that FRA could not justify a uniform sill
height regulation. Another update provided by FRA on May 21, 1990
requested this recommendation be classified as ``Open--Acceptable
Action.''
NTSB advised in letter dated March 4, 1991 that their Safety
Recommendation R-88-20 addresses Federal regulations to require
compatible mainframe sill height standards. This safety recommendation,
as well as related outstanding safety recommendations, will be
discussed in a separate letter concerning locomotive crashworthiness.
FRA provided response to NTSB' Chairman Hall in letter dated
October 10, 1997. FRA indicated the issue of locomotive crashworthiness
had been referred to the RSAC for consideration. A Locomotive Crew
Safety Planning Group has been established (with NTSB representation),
and met on January 23, 1997, to formulate recommendations to be
forwarded to the full RSAC regarding appropriate future actions with
respect to improvements in locomotive crashworthiness, to specifically
include methods to eliminate override in the event of collision. Given
that current research and relevant accident history clearly indicate
that compatible sill heights alone have not demonstrated the ability to
provide additional crashworthiness protection in the event of a
collision, and acknowledging the proactive approach being pursued by
FRA in conjunction with the railroad industry through the RSAC process,
FRA requested that NTSB classify Safety Recommendation R-88-20 as
``Closed--Acceptable Action.''
Current Status.--NTSB has not as yet responded to FRA's October 10,
1997 reply. NTSB's current classification of this recommendation is
``Open--Unacceptable Action.''
R-89-48. Closure fittings on tank cars--``Amending Title 49 CFR
Part 179 to require that closure fittings on hazardous materials rail
tanks be designed to maintain their integrity in accidents that are
typically survivable by the rail tank.
FRA advised NTSB on March 25, 1997, that the Agency is continuing
to work with the AAR Tank Car Committee to incorporate new standards to
improve the design and integrity of hinged manways and other fittings
and closures on tank cars. AAR adopted new standards in January 1996 to
enhance the design and integrity of manway covers on nonpressure tank
cars.
Current Status.--FRA provided written update in letter dated March
25, 1997. NTSB advised on August 15, 1997, that standards that address
the integrity and design of safety relief valves and all other closure
fittings on the tank car are also needed. While recognizing FRA is
continuing to work with AAR's Tank Car Committee, NTSB is concerned
that nearly 8 years after issuing the recommendation, only standards
for manways have been adopted. NTSB encourages FRA to work
expeditiously with AAR to complete and implement similar standards for
safety relief valves and other fittings. Pending FRA's response, NTSB
has classified this Safety Recommendation as ``Open--Acceptable
Response.''
R-89-51. Shelf Couplers on Locomotives--``Promulgate regulations
requiring that locomotives be equipped with shelf couplers compatible
in strength with the main frame sill of the locomotive.''
FRA responded March 30, 1990, indicating FRA does not contemplate
promulgating regulations requiring that locomotives be equipped with
shelf couplers. Supporting data is not available to justify a
rulemaking. In addition, all locomotives built after August 1, 1990,
must be equipped with anticlimb devices, on short hood ends, which
eliminates the need for shelf couplers. FRA requested NTSB consider
this recommendation as ``Closed--Acceptable Alternative Action.''
FRA provided response to NTSB' Chairman Hall in letter dated
October 10, 1997. In essence, indicated FRA has referred the issue of
locomotive crashworthiness to the RSAC for consideration. A Locomotive
Crew Safety Planning Group has been established (with NTSB
representation), and met on January 23, 1997, to formulate
recommendations to be forwarded to the full RSAC regarding appropriate
future actions with respect to improvements in locomotive
crashworthiness, to specifically include methods to eliminate override
in the event of collision. FRA requested that Safety Recommendation R-
89-51 be classified as ``Open--Acceptable Response'' as the specific
issue of shelf couplers on locomotives will be addressed in this
working group.
Current Status.--This project is continuing to be progressed by the
Locomotive Crashworthiness Working Group of RSAC, with the last meeting
conducted in February 1998. NTSB has not as yet responded to FRA's
October 10, 1997 reply. NTSB's current classification of this
recommendation is ``Open--Initial Response.''
R-89-81. Brake Tests (Cold Weather)--``Amend the Road Train and
Intermediate Terminal Train Air Brake Tests, 49 CFR 232.13, to require
additional testing of a train airbrake system when operating in extreme
cold weather, especially when the feed valve setting is changed and the
train will be operated in mountain grade territory.''
FRA responded to NTSB May 10, 1991, indicating that during the
current calendar year, an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM)
would be issued for general revision of the Power Brake regulations.
NTSB responded under date of June 24, 1991, indicating the Board was
pleased with FRA's intention to issue an ANPRM for the general revision
of the Power Brake Regulation. NTSB then classified this Safety
Recommendation as ``Open--Acceptable Response.''
Because of considerable opposition from rail management and rail
labor to provisions within the ANPRM, this issue of revision of the
Power Brake regulations was tasked to the Railway Safety Advisory
Committee. After much discussion, consensus could not be reached in
that forum. FRA has withdrawn this task from the RSAC, and will
formulate a Notice of Proposed Rules on Power Brake regulation
revision.
Current Status.--NTSB currently has this recommendation classified
as ``Open--Acceptable Response.''
R-90-23. Dynamic Brakes--Indicator--``Study, in conjunction with
the AAR, the feasibility of developing a positive method to indicate to
the operating engineer in the cab of the controlling locomotive unit
the condition of the dynamic brakes on all units in the train.''
FRA provided initial response to NTSB in letter dated November 30,
1990, indicating FRA has not formulated a plan to study the feasibility
of developing a positive method to indicate to the operating engineer
the condition of the dynamic brake on all locomotives in a consist of
locomotives hauling a train. The reason is that such a study will be
contingent upon FRA's decision related to Safety Recommendation R-90-
24. NTSB replied under date of February 21, 1991, that it views its
Safety Recommendations as separate issues and FRA should not tie them
together. NTSB classified as ``Open--Unacceptable Response.''
FRA responded to NTSB in letter dated May 10, 1991, indicating the
ANPRM on the Power Brake Regulation would also address Safety
Recommendations R-90-23 and R-90-24.
Later, because of considerable opposition from rail management and
rail labor to provisions within the ANPRM, this issue of revision of
the Power Brake regulations was tasked to the Railway Safety Advisory
Committee. After much discussion, consensus could not be reached in
that forum. FRA has withdrawn this task from the RSAC, and will
formulate a Notice of Proposed Rules on Power Brake regulation
revision.
Current Status.--NTSB currently has this recommendation classified
as ``Open--Unacceptable Response.''
R-90-24. Dynamic Brakes--Functional--``Revise regulations to
require that if a locomotive unit is equipped with dynamic brakes that
the dynamic brakes function.''
FRA provided initial response to NTSB in letter dated November 30,
1990, indicating FRA is reviewing the issue of regulations pertaining
to dynamic brakes on locomotives. Upon completion of our action, we
will provide a definitive response to their recommendation. NTSB
replied under date of February 21, 1991, indicating essentially that
FRA did not provide any indication of what action, if any, is
contemplated. NTSB classified this Safety Recommendation as ``Open--
Await Response.''
FRA responded to NTSB in letter dated May 10, 1991, indicating the
ANPRM on the Power Brake Regulation would also address Safety
Recommendations R-90-23 and R-90-24.
Later, because of considerable opposition from rail management and
rail labor to provisions within the ANPRM, this issue of revision of
the Power Brake regulations was tasked to the Railway Safety Advisory
Committee. After much discussion, consensus could not be reached in
that forum. FRA has withdrawn this task from the RSAC, and will
formulate a Notice of Proposed Rules on Power Brake regulation
revision.
Current Status.--NTSB currently has this recommendation classified
as ``Open-Await Response.''
R-91-51. Special Use Equipment-Inspection--``Require that carriers
inspect special-use rail equipment, such as heavy-capacity flatcars,
before those cars are offered for service and thereafter at a frequency
to be determined by FRA.''
FRA provided initial response in letter dated June 22, 1993. FRA
indicated that thorough inspection requirements for all freight cars
are contained in 49 CFR Part 215. This regulation requires that at each
location where a freight car is placed in a train, the freight car
shall be inspected before the train departs. However, a full inspection
is not required under circumstances where only train crews are on duty
for this purpose. We agree that there is merit to the proposal that
qualified mechanical personnel inspect special-use cars, particularly
when they are offered under load. We will include this concept in our
next review of the Freight Car Safety Standards. However, given our
extremely heavy regulatory workload, we are not able to project when
that review can commence.
NTSB provided response in letter dated August 23, 1993. NTSB
indicated that the Board notes that FRA agrees that the recommendation
has merit and plans to include the issue in its next review of the
Freight Car Safety Standards.
Current Status.--Pending the results of this review, NTSB
classified this Safety Recommendation as ``Open--Acceptable Response.''
R-91-52. Special Use Equipment-Derailment Notice--``Require that
carriers immediately notify the shipper and car owner about a
derailment involving a special-use, heavy-capacity flatcar.''
FRA provided initial response in letter dated June 22, 1993. FRA
indicated we agree that car owners should have a good record of
derailments, damage and repairs to these cars. This is an operating
procedures matter that can best be addressed by the AAR which received
a similar recommendation. We anticipate the AAR's response will resolve
this recommendation. Should that not be the case, we will include this
issue in the regulatory review referred to above.
NTSB provided response in letter dated August 23, 1993. NTSB
indicated they were pleased that FRA agrees that owners of special-use,
heavy-capacity flatcars should be informed of derailments and that the
AAR may be able to address the intent of this recommendation.
Current Status.--NTSB has classified this recommendation as
``Open--Acceptable Response.''
R-91-53. Special Use Equipment--Reporting--``Require that carriers
report derailments involving special-use, heavy-capacity flatcars to
the AAR, which will maintain a record of the derailment history of all
such cars.''
FRA provided initial response in letter dated June 22, 1993. FRA
indicated this recommendation is similar to the previous one, in that
it deals with AAR reporting procedures. FRA indicated it agrees with
the recommendation and looks to the AAR for resolution and the
provision of appropriate information to the Board. Again, should the
AAR fail to act, we would include this issue in the regulatory review
process.
NTSB provided response in letter dated August 23, 1993. NTSB
indicated the Board understands that FRA agrees with the intent of this
recommendation and expects the AAR to act on this matter.
Current Status.--Pending further action by the AAR or FRA, the
Board has classified this Safety Recommendation as ``Open--Acceptable
Response.''
R-91-54. Special Use Equipment--Hazardous Materials--``Determine,
using owner' records of derailments for special-use, heavy-capacity
flatcars under load, whether handling of such equipment should be
restricted in trains that include tank cars or hopper cars transporting
hazardous materials and cars carrying shipments of Class A and B
explosives.''
FRA provided initial response in letter dated June 22, 1993. FRA
indicated that the issue of placement of hazardous materials cars is
being addressed in an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to be
issued under Docket HM-201A by the Research and Special Programs
Administration. The special-use, heavy-capacity flatcar issue will be
considered in this proceeding.
NTSB provided a response in letter dated August 23, 1993. NTSB
indicated the Board notes this issue will be considered in proposed
rulemaking by RSPA. NTSB asked that FRA keep them informed of actions
in determining whether these cars should be restricted.
Current Status.--NTSB classified this Safety Recommendation as
``Open--Acceptable Response.''
R-91-65. Review Track Standards--``Conduct a review of track safety
standards to include as a minimum an evaluation of procedures
associated with maintaining and installing continuous welded rail and
its attendant structure.''
FRA provided initial response to NTSB in letter dated May 18, 1992.
FRA advised it plans to initiate a regulatory proceeding that will
specifically address the problem of track stability when continuous
welded rail is incorporated as part of the track structure.
NTSB provided response in letter dated July 8, 1992, indicating
that pending satisfactory completion of the evaluation, NTSB has
classified this Safety Recommendation as ``Open--Acceptable Response,''
and asked to be kept informed of FRA's progress.
NPRM on revised 49 CFR Part 213, Track Safety Standards, published
in Federal Register July 3, 1997. The comment period is closed on
revisions to Track
Safety Standards, and FRA is preparing the final rule. Likely
issuance expected in mid-1998. Section 213.343 addresses ``Continuous
welded rail (CWR)'', essentially that each track owner with track
constructed of CWR shall have in effect written procedures which
address the installation, adjustment, maintenance and inspection of
CWR, and a training program for the application of those procedures,
which shall be submitted to FRA within six months following the
effective date of the final rule.''
Current Status.--NTSB has classified this Safety Recommendation as
``Open--Acceptable Response.''
R-91-66. CWR Standards--``Continue funding for on-going research
development and prototype testing for a reliable device that can be
used to determine actual longitudinal rail stress and predict when
excessive longitudinal rail stress will occur, and upon adoption and
implementation of such a device, assist railroads to implement and/or
modify continuous welded rail standards to more effectively prevent
track buckling.''
FRA provided initial response to NTSB in letter dated May 18, 1992.
FRA advise we would continue to provide funding for on-going research
development and prototype testing for a reliable device that can be
used to determine actual longitudinal rail stress and predict when it
will occur, and upon adoption and implementation of such a device,
assist railroads to implement and/or modify continuous welded rail
standards to more effectively prevent track buckling.
NTSB provided response in letter dated July 8, 1992, indicating the
Board was pleased at FRA's action to pledge funds to continued research
as recommended, and asked to be kept informed of FRA's progress and
resulting developments.
FRA's Research & Development received an unsolicited proposal from
the National Institute of Standards and Technology, concerning Electro-
Magnetic Acoustic Testing (EMAT), and is presently evaluating this
proposal.
Current Status.--Based on FRA's response, NTSB has classified this
Safety Recommendation as ``Open--Acceptable Response.''
R-92-10. Research Locomotive Fuel Tanks--``Conduct, in conjunction
with the AAR, General Electric, and the Electro-Motive Division of
General Motors, research to determine if the locomotive fuel tank car
be improved to withstand forces encountered in the more severe
locomotive derailment accidents or if fuel containment can be improved
to reduce the rate of fuel leakage and fuel ignition. Consideration
should be given to crash or simulated testing and evaluation of recent
and proposed design modifications to the locomotive fuel tank,
including increasing the structural strength of end and side wall
plates, raising the tank higher above the rail, and using internal tank
bladders and foam inserts.''
FRA provided its initial response in letter dated February 10,
1993. FRA indicated its concurrence with NTSB's observation that the
proximity of locomotive fuel tank's position to the rail places them in
a vulnerable position during an accident. FRA indicated further it had
scheduled a meeting for February 2, 1993, with the AAR, GE and GM to
discuss their willingness to co-operate in a joint locomotive fuel tank
research program. Due to funding constraints within these
organizations, co-operative research or analysis may be limited in
scope.
NTSB responded in letter dated March 23, 1993. NTSB requested more
details concerning the meeting held on February 2, 1993. NTSB again
wrote to FRA in letter dated October 17, 1995, indicating the Board is
aware that AAR recently adopted a recommended practice to provide basic
performance requirements for locomotive fuel tanks on four- and six-
axle diesel electric locomotives, built after July 1, 1995. The Board
has concerns about locomotives built before that date that will remain
in service for several years. The Board concluded this was a positive
step. NTSB requested FRA provide an update on its efforts in this area.
Although FRA's report on locomotive crashworthiness released in June
1995 addresses equipment to deter post collision entry of flammable
liquids into the operation compartment, it does not address
specifically fuel tank integrity. Pending a further response on this
issue, NTSB classified this Safety Recommendation as ``Open--Acceptable
Response.''
FRA provided update in letter dated December 18, 1995. FRA
indicated it is continuing to collect and evaluate accident
investigation data on fuel tank damage, fuel spills, etc., and will
maintain close contact with railroads conducting tests of alternate
fueled locomotives and fuel tenders. FRA indicated since we have
completed our work, requested this item be closed.
FRA provided response to NTSB' Chairman Hall in letter dated
October 10, 1997. In essence, indicated FRA has referred the important
issue to the RSAC for consideration. A Locomotive Crew Safety Planning
Group has been established (with NTSB representation), and met on
January 23, 1997 to formulate recommendations to be forwarded to the
full RSAC regarding appropriate future actions with respect to
improvement in fuel tank design. Given the proactive approach being
pursued by FRA in conjunction with the railroad industry, along with
the continuing efforts of the industry detailed earlier, FRA requested
that NTSB classify Safety Recommendation R-92-10 as ``Closed--
Acceptable Action.''
Current Status.--This project is continuing to be progressed by the
Locomotive Crashworthiness Working Group of RSAC, with the last meeting
conducted in February 1998. NTSB has not as yet responded to FRA's
October 10, 1997 letter. NTSB's current classification is ``Open--
Acceptable Action.''
R-92-22. Develop Tank Car Testing Requirements--``Develop and
promulgate, with the Research and Special Programs Administration,
requirements for the periodic testing and inspection of rail tank cars
that help to ensure the detection of cracks before they propagate to
critical length by establishing inspection intervals that are based on
the defect size detectable by the inspection method muse, the stress
level, and the crack propagation characteristics of the structural
component (requirements based on a damage-tolerance approach).''
FRA provided NTSB written update of progress in letter dated March
25, 1997. NTSB advised in letter dated August 13, 1997, that they
recognize that regulations published under docket HM-201 on September
21, 1995, permit as an option inspection intervals and procedures based
on a damage-tolerance fatigue evaluation. However, NTSB indicated the
required inspection intervals established under these regulations are
based on average mileage rates, rather than on a damage-tolerance
approach.
Current Status.--The Board noted that since FRA is continuing to
work with AAR, tank car manufacturers, and other industry groups to
develop an inspection and testing program based on damage-tolerance
principles, and because progress continues to be made, this Safety
Recommendation remains classified as ``Open--Acceptable Action.''
R-93-12. Dates for ATCS--``In conjunction with the AAR and the
Railway Progress Institute, establish a firm timetable that includes,
at a minimum, dates for final development of required Advanced Train
Control System hardware, dates for implementation of a fully developed
Advanced Train Control System, and a commitment to a date for having
the Advanced Train Control System ready for installation on the general
railroad system.''
On August 24, 1994, FRA provided update to NTSB indicating the
``Rail Safety Enforcement and Review Act'' of 1992 required FRA to
report to Congress on the prospects of installation of a positive train
control (PTC) system to prevent train collisions. FRA forwarded copy to
Congress on July 8, 1994, and also provided one to NTSB. FRA indicated
in its update to NTSB that the report addresses all the NTSB
recommendations on a train control system, and provides for a time line
for deployment on the system on high priority locations. FRA requested
this recommendation be closed.
NTSB responded under date of September 18, 1995, in part
reiterating the need for PCS following the August 30, 1991 collision at
Ledger, MT., and the June 8, 1994 collision at Thedford, NE., both on
BN.
FRA has since advised that this recommendation is a part of the
task that has been assigned to the Positive Train Control Working Group
within the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC).
Current Status.--NTSB's current classification of this Safety
Recommendation is ``Open--Acceptable Response.''
R-93-16. Passenger Train Brake Inspections--``Amend the power brake
regulations, 49 CFR 232.12, to provide appropriate guidelines for
inspecting brake equipment on modern passenger cars.''
FRA provided initial response in letter dated September 16, 1993.
FRA indicated that in response to the ``Rail Safety Enforcement and
Review Act,'', Public Law 102-365 (September 3, 1992) FRA is currently
reviewing and rewriting the Power Brake regulations, and that Safety
Recommendation R-93-16 will be considered during this procedure.
NTSB responded in letter dated November 12, 1993, indicating the
Board is pleased that FRA will consider the recommendation during the
rewriting of the power brake regulation.
Subsequently, the issue of passenger train brake inspections was
considered in the rulemaking for Passenger Equipment Safety Standards.
This recommendation was submitted to the Railroad Safety Advisory
Committee (RSAC), and was tasked to the Passenger Equipment Safety
Standards Working Group. As a result of these efforts, FRA published in
the Federal Register on September 23, 1997, an NPRM for Passenger
Equipment Safety Standards which addresses this recommendation.
Current Status.--The comment period on the NPRM ended November 24,
1997, and FRA intends to conduct hearings before issuing the final
rule. Until the new regulations are published, NTSB classified this
Safety Recommendation as ``Open--Acceptable Response.''
R-93-24. Passenger Car Corner Posts--``In cooperation with the
Federal Transit Administration and the American Public Transit
Association, study the feasibility of providing car body corner post
structures on all self-propelled passenger cars and control cab
locomotives to afford occupant protection during corner collisions. If
feasible, amend the locomotive safety standards accordingly.''
FRA provided initial response in letter dated March 3, 1994. FRA
indicated it shares NTSB's concern about the adequacy of the corner
post structure on self-propelled passenger cars. FRA's concern extends
beyond the corner post structure to the overall crashworthiness of this
equipment. FRA indicated Section 10 of the Rail Safety Enforcement and
Review Act of 1992 requires FRA to conduct extensive research and
analysis on the crashworthiness of locomotive cabs. The approach FRA is
taking is to consider self-propelled and control cab passenger
equipment to be locomotives. FRA held a public meeting on June 21,
1993, to solicit information and comments from the industry, to include
FTA and APTA. Another meeting was held on February 3, 1994, and FRA
will keep NTSB informed.
NTSB provided written response on April 22, 1994. NTSB indicated it
was pleased to learn that FRA shares the Board's concern about the
adequacy of corner post structure, and notes FRA's willingness to
cooperate with FTA and APTA.
Subsequently, this recommendation was submitted to the Railroad
Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC), and was tasked to the Passenger
Equipment Safety Standards Working Group. As a result of these efforts,
FRA published in the Federal Register on September 23, 1997, an NPRM
for Passenger Equipment Safety Standards which addresses this
recommendation.
Current Status.--The comment period on the NPRM ended November 24,
1997, and FRA intends to conduct hearings before issuing the final
rule. NTSB presently has this recommendation classified as ``Open--
Acceptable Response.''
R-94-13. Train Control--Identify Benefits--``Identify and evaluate
all potential safety and business benefits of the positive train
control system currently proposed for the northwest region of the
United States, and, consider the value of these benefits in your
overall assessment of the system.''
FRA's Press Release issued August 21, 1995, announced a grant of
$750,000 to the Washington State Department of Transportation to help
develop high-speed train control technology. As a part of this project,
General Electric-Harris-Railway Electronics will develop a computer
model to simulate the dense northwest U.S. rail corridor. The model
will be used as an assessment tool to determine potential costs and
benefits of using positive train separation and the effect of adding
high-speed passenger traffic on existing corridor freight traffic flow.
NTSB responded November 13, 1995, indicating it was pleased to
learn of this computer model to be used as a tool to determine
potential costs and benefits of using PTS. NTSB indicated the computer
model satisfies the Board that their recommended action is underway,
and asked FRA to keep the Board informed of the progress on the
computer model.
Current Status.--NTSB's current classification of this Safety
Recommendation is ``Open--Acceptable Response.''
R-94-14. Train Control--Cost Benefit Analysis--``Identify and
evaluate all of the potential benefits of positive train control
separation and include them in any cost benefit analysis conducted on
positive train separation control systems.''
FRA advised NTSB on March 24, 1995, that it would be FRA's opinion
that we should not become the arbiter of Positive Train Control
business benefits across the national system. As was explained in the
Report to Congress (pages 61-63) the business benefits may vary from
railroad to railroad. The analysis of value of any investment must be
undertaken within the context of the prevailing business strategy.
NTSB responded November 13, 1995, that once the computer model
referenced in 94-13 has been developed, the Board expects FRA and AAR
to evaluate the potential benefits, and asked that NTSB be kept
informed on development progress of the model.
Current Status.--NTSB has classified this Safety Recommendation as
``Open--Acceptable Response.''
R-95-01. Passenger Car Wheels--``Prohibit the replacement of any
tread-braked passenger railroad car with rim-stamped, straight-plate
wheels.''
FRA provided its initial reply in letter dated June 1, 1995. FRA
indicated its agreement with NTSB that rim-stamping of straight-plate
wheels can lead to catastrophic failure of the wheel when subjected to
head from tread braking. Rim-stamping was banned by AAR in 1978, and
none are being used by Amtrak or commuter railroads. Those remaining
are a limited number of tourist railroads. FRA indicated it did not
view this as a national safety threat, and it will be completely
eliminated in the years ahead. In addition, Public Law 103-440 directs
the Secretary of Transportation to prescribe minimum standards for
railroad passenger cars. FRA is preparing an ANPRM on Rail Passenger
Equipment Regulations. This recommendation will be considered during
these proceedings. FRA requested this Safety Recommendation be closed.
NTSB provided response in letter dated August 10, 1995. NTSB
indicated pending completion of rulemaking pertaining to the subject
wheels, NTSB has classified this Safety Recommendation as ``Open-
Acceptable Response.''
Current Status.--Provisions in NPRM, ``Passenger Equipment Safety
Standards'', Title 49 CFR Part 216, published in Federal Register,
Tuesday, September 23, 1997, indicate: (a) On or after 1-1-98, no
railroad shall place in service any vehicle equipped with a rim-stamped
straight-plate wheel, except for a private car, and, (b) A rim-stamped
straight-plate wheel shall not be used as a replacement wheel on a
private car operated in a passenger train. Comment period ended
November 24, 1997. FRA intends to hold public hearings prior to
issuance of final rule. NTSB's current classification is ``Open
Acceptable Response.''
R-95-09. Tank Car Interiors--``Evaluate, with the assistance of the
Railway Progress Institute and the AAR, the failure rate and the
mode of failure of bowl-shaped sumps and education pipe bracing systems
in tank cars transporting hazardous materials, and based on the results
of this evaluation, require repairs or modifications to prevent
mechanical damage to coatings or linings and subsequently to the tanks
from misaligned components of the reduction pipe systems in tank
cars.''
Current Status.--Based upon FRA's March 25, 1997 written update to
NTSB, the Board responded under date of August 13, 1997. NTSB indicated
they note FRA is working with RPI and AAR and that a task group
evaluating the performance of the bowl-shaped sumps is scheduled to
present its formal proposal to the committee by July 1997. Because of
this progress, Safety Recommendation R-95-9 remains classified as
``Open--Acceptable Response.''
R-95-21. Trailer on Flat Car (TOFC)/Container on Flat Car (COFC)--
There were seven parts to this recommendations: ``(1) Establish a
uniform minimum set of training requirements; (2) Establishment of
written standard operating procedures; (3) Conduct of post-loading,
pre-departure inspections of all loaded TOFC/COFC equipment; (4)
Initiate effective TOFC/COFC securement system preventative maintenance
intervals; (5) Discontinue the practice with flat cars with defective
hitches of dropping the defective hitch and loading the car with
container; (6) Review of design standards for trailers and containers
to be loaded on TOFC/COFC equipment; and, (7) Determine and promote
``Best Practices'' for TOFC/COFC loading safety.''
FRA provided initial reply to NTSB in letter dated May 4, 1995,
indicating its intention to assess voluntary actions taken by the
railroad industry during the last quarter of 1995.
NTSB provided response in letter dated August 1, 1995, indicating
the Board is placed to note FRA intends to assess voluntary actions
taken by the railroad industry during the last quarter of 1995.
FRA has since advised the Board that this follow-up effort
continues at various locations within the Nation.
Current Status.--The Board indicated that pending results of that
follow-up survey, NTSB has classified this Safety Recommendation as
``Open--Acceptable Response.''
R-96-07. Commuter-Rail Emergency Exits--``Inspect all commuter rail
equipment to determine whether it has: (1) easily accessible interior
emergency quick-release mechanisms adjacent to exterior passageway
doors; (2) removable windows or kick panels in interior and exterior
passageway doors; and, (3) prominently displayed retro reflective
signage marking all interior and exterior emergency exists. If any
commuter equipment lacks one or more of these features, take
appropriate emergency measures to ensure corrective action until these
measures are incorporated into minimum passenger car safety
standards.''
FRA provided initial response to NTSB in letter dated June 6, 1996.
FRA indicated it had performed such inspections and provided detailed
results. Further, FRA indicated it had convened a joint meeting of the
RSAC Working Groups (Passenger Equipment Safety Standards and the
Passenger Emergency Preparedness groups) on March 26, 1996. The
remainder of FRA's response addressed contemplated action on each of
the above three items.
NTSB responded in letter dated March 12, 1997. NTSB indicated the
Board had classified the first part of this recommendation, i.e., (1)
easily accessible interior emergency quick-release mechanisms adjacent
to exterior passageway doors, as ``Open--Acceptable Response'', and
asked FRA to provide more specific information. The Board classified
the second part of the recommendation, i.e., (2) removable windows or
kick panels in interior and exterior passageway doors, as ``Open--
Acceptable Response'', and asked that FRA keep the Board informed of
progress in this area. The Board indicated its agreement with FRA that
it might be better to mark emergency exits inside cars with
luminescent, rather than retro reflective material. Consequently, the
Board has classified the third part of this recommendation, i.e., (3)
prominently displayed retro reflective signage marking all interior and
exterior emergency exists, as ``Open--Acceptable Alternate Response.''
NTSB further advised FRA should develop and issue interim standard to
the commuter rail industry as quickly as possible.
Current Status.--FRA published in the Federal Register on September
23, 1997, an NPRM for Passenger Equipment Safety Standards which
addresses this recommendation. The comment period on the NPRM ended
November 24, 1997, and FRA intends to conduct hearings before issuing
the final rule. NTSB presently has this recommendation classified as
``Open--Acceptable Action.''
R-96-13. Research--Flat Rail Heads--``Conduct appropriate research
and develop a data base that can be used to assess the risk posed by
flattened rail heads.''
FRA advised NTSB on October 17, 1996, that FRA has requested the
AAR, ASLRA and APTA to poll their members to determine frequency at
which train derailments related to flattened head rails have occurred
over the past several years. When these data are available, it will
then be possible to judge the severity of the problem. Additionally, a
Working Group was created within the RSAC for the purpose of
recommending specific revisions of the track safety standards, set up a
team to derive model regulatory language to support rulemaking should
that become necessary. FRA indicated we would advise NTSB further as
our work progresses.
Current Status.--NPRM on revised 49 CFR Part 213, Track Safety
Standards, published in Federal Register July 3, 1997. The comment
period is closed on revisions to Track Safety Standards, and FRA is
preparing the final rule. Likely issuance expected in early 1998. Based
upon FRA's response, NTSB has classified this Safety Recommendation as
``Open--Acceptable Response.''
R-96-14. Regulation--Flat Rail Heads--``Develop guidelines, using
the data compiled about the risk of flattened rail heads, for track
inspectors to use in identifying flattened rail heads that may be
hazardous to train operations and also regulations to ensure that
corrective action is taken when such flattened rail head conditions
have been identified.''
FRA advised NTSB on October 17, 1996, that FRA has created a
Working Group within the RSAC for the purpose of recommending specific
revisions of the track safety standards, set up a team to derive model
regulatory language to support rulemaking should that become necessary.
FRA indicated we would advise NTSB further as our work progresses.
FRA issued NPRM on revised 49 CFR Part 213, Track Safety Standards,
published in Federal Register July 3, 1997. The comment period is
closed on revisions to Track Safety Standards, and FRA is preparing the
final rule. Likely issuance expected in early 1998. Section 213.337,
``Defective rails'', contains new references to and definition of
``flattened rails'', and the specifications to indicate when to be
considered as defective rail.
Current Status.--Based upon FRA's action and response, NTSB has
classified this Safety Recommendation as ``Open--Acceptable Response.''
R-96-50. Grade Crossing Inventory--``Review and modify the existing
parameters of the National Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory to ensure
that it meets the needs of both railroad and highway users. Include, as
a minimum, information on highway-rail grade crossings having
preemptive or interconnected signals. Once modified, review and update
the information annually.''
FRA responded that this effort would be completed by June 1997, and
requested this recommendation be closed.
Current Status.--NTSB responded August 6, 1997, indicating it was
pleased to learn that FRA is modifying the inventory as requested by
this recommendation and plans to finish by the middle of the year.
Pending completion of this modification, NTSB classified this Safety
Recommendation as ``Open--Acceptable Response.''
R-96-53. Steam Locomotives--Water Glass Column--``Update Title 49
CFR Part 230 to require that each operating steam locomotive have
either a water column or a water glass in addition to the water glass
and three gage cocks that are already required.''
This issue was accepted by the RSAC as TASK No. 96-5. Task force of
the Tourist & Historic Working Group held final meeting week of 5/19/97
and completed agreement on rule text. The full working group has
reviewed the rule text, and efforts are being made to resolve remaining
details so that NPRM can be presented to RSAC on 9/30/97.
FRA provided initial response to NTSB under date of July 8, 1997.
In that response, it was indicated that FRA has tasked the Tourist and
Historic Working Group (THWG) of the RSAC with the formal revision of
the regulations contained in 49 CFR Part 230. The Steam Standards Task
Force of the THWG will submit its recommendations for changes to 49 CFR
Part 230 to THWG, which will either approve them and send them to RSAC,
or return them to the Steam Standards Task Force for additional
considerations. With respect to this specific NTSB recommendation, the
Steam Standards Task Force expressed support for this recommendation.
Current Status.--NTSB responded under date of March 24, 1998,
indicating the Board noted FRA's response proposes to revise 49 CFR
Part 230 and require a steam locomotive to have a minimum of two sight
glasses or a sight glass and a water column, and that if it has gage
cocks, the gage cocks must be maintained. The Board has classified this
Safety Recommendation as ``Open--Acceptable Response.''
R-96-54. Steam Locomotives--Water Treatment--``Require steam-
locomotive operators to have a documented water-treatment program.''
This issue was accepted by the full RSAC as TASK No. 96-5. Task
force of the Tourist & Historic Working Group held final meeting week
of 5/19/97 and completed agreement on rule text. The full working group
reviewed the rule text, and efforts were made to resolve remaining
details so that NPRM could be presented to RSAC on 9/30/97.
FRA provided initial response to NTSB under date of July 8, 1997,
indicating that FRA has tasked the Tourist and Historic Working Group
(THWG) of the RSAC with the formal revision of the regulations
contained in 49 CFR Part 230. The Steam Standards Task Force of the
THWG will submit its recommendations for changes to 49 CFR Part 230 to
THWG, which will either approve them and send them to RSAC, or return
them to the Steam Standards Task Force for additional considerations.
With respect to this specific NTSB recommendation, the Steam Standards
Task Force did not expressed support for this recommendation.
Current Status.--NTSB responded under date of March 24, 1998,
indicating the Board is disappointed that the FRA has rejected this
recommendation. While mentioning some agreement with FRA's points, the
Board asserts that a documented water treatment program does not
necessarily have to be expensive, rigid, or burdensome. The intent of
the recommendation is simply to ensure that steam locomotive operators
document their water-treatment activities. The Board also believes that
an FRA regulation is the most effective way to ensure that water-
treatment is documented. Pending further discussion, NTSB has
classified this Safety Recommendation as ``Open--Unacceptable
Response.''
R-96-55. Steam Locomotives--Basic Responsibilities--``Describe
basic responsibilities and procedures for functions required by
regulation, such as blowing down the water glass and washing the
boiler.''
This issue was accepted by the full RSAC on as TASK No. 96-5. Task
force of the Tourist & Historic Working Group held final meeting week
of 5/19/97 and completed agreement on rule text. The full working group
has reviewed the rule text, and efforts are being made to resolve
remaining details so that NPRM can be presented to RSAC on 9/30/97.
FRA provided initial response to NTSB under date of July 8, 1997.
In that response, it was indicated that FRA has tasked the Tourist and
Historic Working Group (THWG) of the RSAC with the formal revision of
the regulations contained in 49 CFR Part 230. The Steam Standards Task
Force of the THWG will submit its recommendations for changes to 49 CFR
Part 230 to THWG, which will either approve them and send them to RSAC,
or return them to the Steam Standards Task Force for additional
considerations. With respect to this specific NTSB recommendation, the
Steam Standards Task Force did express support for this recommendation.
Current Status.--NTSB responded under date of March 24, 1998,
indicating the Board was pleased to learn that the FRA intends to
clearly delineate basic responsibilities and procedures in the revised
CFR. The Board also noted that the Volpe Center has been tasked to
produce a training video that will be given to each steam locomotive
operator. Pending revision of the applicable regulation, the Board has
classified this Safety Recommendation as ``Open--Acceptable Response.''
R-96-56. Hours of Service--Tourist Railroads--``In cooperation with
Tourist Railway Association, Inc., promote awareness of and compliance
with the Hours of Service Act.''
FRA provided initial response to NTSB under date of July 8, 1997.
In that response, it was indicated that FRA has tasked the Tourist and
Historic Working Group (THWG) of the RSAC with the formal revision of
the regulations contained in 49 CFR Part 230. The Steam Standards Task
Force of the THWG will submit its recommendations for changes to 49 CFR
Part 230 to THWG, which will either approve them and send them to RSAC,
or return them to the Steam Standards Task Force for additional
considerations. With respect to this specific NTSB recommendation. The
Steam Standards Task Force did expressed support for this
recommendation, and support for FRA's working in tandem with the
Tourist Railway Association to promote awareness of the Hours of
Service Act.
Current Status.--NTSB responded under date of March 24, 1998,
indicating the Board was pleased to learn that industry members support
FRA's involvement in this effort. Pending an opportunity for the Board
to evaluate FRA's response to this recommendation, NTSB has classified
this recommendation as ``Open--Acceptable Response.''
R-96-57. Steam Locomotives--Crown Stay Feature--``Explore the
feasibility of requiring a progressive crown-stay feature in steam
locomotives.''
This issue was accepted by the full RSAC as TASK No. 96-5. Task
force of the Tourist & Historic Working Group held final meeting week
of 5/19/97 and completed agreement on rule text. The full working group
has reviewed the rule text, and efforts are being made to resolve
remaining details so that NPRM can be presented to RSAC on 9/30/97.
FRA provided initial response to NTSB under date of July 8, 1997.
In that response, it was indicated that FRA has tasked the Tourist and
Historic Working Group (THWG) of the RSAC with the formal revision of
the regulations contained in 49 CFR Part 230. The Steam Standards Task
Force of the THWG will submit its recommendations for changes to 49 CFR
Part 230 to THWG, which will either approve them and send them to RSAC,
or return them to the Steam Standards Task Force for additional
considerations.
Current Status.--NTSB responded under date of March 24, 1998,
indicating the Board was disappointed that the FRA will not address
this issue in the CFR revision. Pending future work on this
recommendation, NTSB has classified this recommendation as ``Open--
Unacceptable Response.''
R-96-58. Steam Locomotives--Certification of Operators--``Develop
certification criteria and require that steam-locomotive operators and
maintenance personnel be periodically certified to operate and/or
maintain a steam locomotive.''
This issue was accepted by the full RSAC as TASK No. 96-5. Task
force of the Tourist & Historic Working Group held final meeting week
of 5/19/97 and completed agreement on rule text. The full working group
has reviewed the rule text, and efforts are being made to resolve
remaining details so that NPRM can be presented to RSAC on 9/30/97.
FRA provided initial response to NTSB under date of July 8, 1997.
In that response, it was indicated that FRA has tasked the Tourist and
Historic Working Group (THWG) of the RSAC with the formal revision of
the regulations contained in 49 CFR Part 230. The Steam Standards Task
Force of the THWG will submit its recommendations for changes to 49 CFR
Part 230 to THWG, which will either approve them and send them to RSAC,
or return them to the Steam Standards Task Force for additional
considerations. With respect to this specific NTSB recommendation, the
Steam Standards Task Force expressed support for this recommendation
and are investigating the feasibility of developing certification
criteria for several classes of employees or volunteers involved in
assessing job and task requirements.
Current Status.--NTSB responded under date of March 24, 1998,
indicating the Board is very concerned that FRA prefers a voluntary
certification program. The Board indicated they believe the FRA should
develop certification criteria that apply to the steam-locomotive
industry and simply require that steam locomotive operators and
maintenance personnel be certified at a level that ensures competence
and safety. Therefore, the Safety Board believes that certification
should cover all steam locomotive engineers, irrespective of location
or connections. Pending a review of the proposed certification program,
the NTSB classified this recommendation as ``Open--Unacceptable
Response.''
R-96-59. Steam Locomotives--Modern Techniques. ``FRA, in
cooperation with the National Board of Boiler and Pressure Vessel
Inspectors (NBBPVI) and TRAIN should: Update 49 CFR Part 230 to take
advantage of accepted practical modern boiler-inspection techniques and
technologies, to minimize interpretation based on empirical experience,
and to maximize the use of objective measurable standards.''
This issue was accepted by the full RSAC as TASK No. 96-5. Task
force of the Tourist & Historic Working Group held final meeting week
of 5/19/97 and completed agreement on rule text. The full working group
has reviewed the rule text, and efforts are being made to resolve
remaining details so that NPRM can be presented to RSAC on 9/30/97.
FRA provided initial response to NTSB under date of July 8, 1997.
In that response, it was indicated that FRA has tasked the Tourist and
Historic Working Group (THWG) of the RSAC with the formal revision of
the regulations contained in 49 CFR Part 230. The Steam Standards Task
Force of the THWG will submit its recommendations for changes to 49 CFR
Part 230 to THWG, which will either approve them and send them to RSAC,
or return them to the Steam Standards Task Force for additional
considerations. With respect to this specific NTSB recommendation, the
Steam Standards Task Force expressed support for this recommendation,
and are accomplishing this through its partnership with FRA on the
RSAC/THWG task force.
Current Status.--NTSB responded under date of March 24, 1998,
indicating the Board was pleased to learn that the industry supports
this recommendation. NTSB has classified this recommendation as
``Open--Acceptable Response.''
R-96-70. Event Recorder Testing--``Revise 49 CFR 229.25(e)(2) to
require that event recorders, including microprocessor-based event
recorders that are equipped with a self-test function, be tested during
the quarterly inspections of the locomotive in such a manner that the
entire event recording system, including sensors, transducers, and
wiring, is evaluated. Such testing should include, at a minimum, a
review of the data recorded during actual operation of the locomotive
to verify parameter functionality as well as cycling all required
recording parameters and determining the full range of each parameter
by reading out recorded data.''
FRA responded to NTSB under date of August 15, 1997, indicating
this recommendation has been referred to the RSAC committee for
handling.
Current Status.--NTSB responded September 30, 1997, indicating the
Board agrees that the RSAC may develop acceptable event recorder
crashworthiness standards, other technical standards and long-term
policy. Therefore, NTSB classified this recommendation as ``Open--
Acceptable Response.''
R-96-71. Event Recorder Inspections--``Develop and implement a
program that specifically addresses carrier compliance with 49 CFR
229.25(e)(5).''
FRA responded to NTSB under date of August 15, 1997, indicating
this recommendation has been referred to the RSAC committee for
handling.
Current Status.--NTSB responded on September 30, 1997, indicating
that as a minimum, the FRA should require that all event recorders
(including microprocessor-based, self-testing recorders) be read out
during the quarterly inspection to verify their functionality, until
the RSAC can develop detailed inspection procedures for evaluating the
entire recording system. The need to properly inspect, test and
maintain the entire event recording system is an ongoing requirement.
Therefore, NTSB classified this recommendation as ``Open--Unacceptable
Response.''
R-96-72. Event Recorder Inspection Form--``Revise your form F6180-
49A to include event recorders in the other items to be inspected
section on the form.''
FRA responded to NTSB under date of August 15, 1997, indicating
this recommendation has been referred to the RSAC committee for
handling.
Current Status.--NTSB responded on September 30, 1997, indicating
the Board was disappointed with FRA's decision to refer the safety
recommendation to a working group of RSAC. NTSB stated that because
recorder inspections are now required, it seems logical to list the
recorder on the form as an item to be inspected. The form was last
revised in 1985, and the requirement that event recording be inspection
during a locomotive's quarterly inspection went into effect in 1995.
Until the FRA has taken the recommended action, NTSB classified this
recommendation as ``Open--Unacceptable Response.''
R-96-73. Event Recorder Lead Locomotive--``Inform the industry that
the placement of event recorders other than in the lead locomotive will
not record the required data as though the event recorders were in the
lead locomotive, and ensure compliance with 49 CFR 229.135(a).''
FRA responded to NTSB under date of August 15, 1997, indicating
this recommendation has been referred to the RSAC committee for
handling.
Current Status.--NTSB responded on September 30, 1997, indicating
NTSB's position that this recommendation does not require that the RSAC
participate in the process. NTSB indicated that informing the industry
is the responsibility of the FRA, not the RSAC. Until the FRA has taken
the recommended action, the Board classified this recommendation as
``Open--Unacceptable Response.''
R-97-01. Color Vision Testing--Engineers--``Revise the current
color vision testing requirements for locomotive engineers to specify,
based on expert guidance, the test to be used, testing procedures,
scoring criteria, and qualification standards.''
This issue was accepted by the full RSAC on 10/31/96 as TASK No.
96-6. First working group meeting held 1/7 thru 1/9, 1997. Meeting to
review NPRM language scheduled 10/7/97. Expected consensus approval and
submission to full RSAC by 10/15/97.
FRA advised NTSB that a working group within RSAC is developing a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to revise the locomotive engineer
certification regulation to address this recommendation.
Current Status.--NTSB advised October 9, 1997, pending a successful
rulemaking in response to this recommendation, this Safety
Recommendation has been classified as ``Open--Acceptable Response.''
R-97-02. Engineer Certification Requirements--``Require as a
condition of certification that no person may act as an engineer with a
known medical deficiency, or increase of a known medical deficiency,
that would make that person unable to meet medical certification
requirements.''
This issue was accepted by the full RSAC on 10/31/96 as TASK No.
96-6. First working group meeting held 1/7 thru 1/9, 1997. Meeting to
review NPRM language scheduled 10/7/97. Expect consensus approval and
submission to full RSAC by 10/15/97.
FRA advised NTSB that a working group within RSAC is developing a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to revise the locomotive engineer
certification regulation to address this recommendation.
Current Status.--NTSB on October 9, 1997, advised pending a
successful rulemaking in response to this recommendation, this Safety
Recommendation has been classified as ``Open--Acceptable Response.''
R-97-09. Recording of Crew Voice Communications--``Amend 49 CFR
Part 229 to require the recording of train crewmembers' voice
communications for exclusive use in accident investigations and with
appropriate limitations on the public release of such recordings.''
FRA responded to the Board on February 28, 1998, indicating FRA is
continuing to review this recommendation and expects to be able to
report a substantive response within the next 60 days. FRA's
preliminary assessment is as follows.
This is a new recommendation in the rail mode and appears to stem
from a single accident. Although the discussion in the Silver Spring
Accident Report points to the unavailability of information concerning
the conversations in the control compartment prior to the accident, it
is not clear from the Report what specifically what--apart from
confirming the clear implications of the Report narrative--would have
been gained from documenting those conversations. In what ways would
the public response likely have varied?
Unlike event recorders, which have value in determining rules
compliance prior to an accident, use of voice recorder information
would, as suggested by the recommendation, be limited exclusively to
use in an accident investigation. Other uses would be viewed as
inappropriate electronic monitoring of employees' conversations in the
workplace, whether or not work related.
Capturing voice recordings in a locomotive cab presents practical
issues not encountered in aviation. Headsets with intercom capability
are the exception, rather than the rule, in locomotive cabs.
Significant inter-relationships exist between efforts to limit
occupational noise exposure in cabs and the effective recording of
conversations. Issues of comfort have also been raised by employees and
their representatives when use of headsets has been proposed, given 8-
12 hour shifts and varying environmental conditions in locomotive cabs.
Release of voice recordings subsequent to an accident present
additional issues. As the NTSB is well aware, a special statutory
exception has been required in the aviation context to prevent
inappropriate use of voice recordings following events drawing
significant notoriety. Enacting fully effective regulations in the
absence of special-purpose legislation thus does not appear to be
feasible. The Board has not yet utilized the power conferred under its
charter statute to recommend such legislation.
Despite these reservations, FRA continues to evaluate this
recommendation with a view toward offering a more fully considered
response. FRA's review would be aided by clarification of the Board's
intent. Is it desired that all locomotives, including freight
locomotives, be equipped with voice recorders? It is intended that
passenger locomotives typically operated by a single employee be
included, even if the locomotive cab is inaccessible to other crew
members required to be stationed in the occupied passenger coaches (as
if often the case in intercity service)? From the point of view of the
Board's objectives for accident investigation, would a recording of 2
hours' duration be sufficient, as apparently suggested by the Report
narrative at page 51-52?
Current Status.--NTSB has not as yet responded to FRA's initial
response. NTSB's current classification is ``Open--Initial Response.''
R-97-10. Failure Modes and Effects Analyses--``Require
comprehensive failure modes and effects analyses, including a human
factors analysis, for all signal system modifications.''
FRA responded to the Board on February 28, 1998, and agrees with
the need to conduct sound analysis in the design of any method of
operation. (In rail parlance, a ``method of operation'' includes both
the physical infrastructure and the pertinent rules that govern train
movements.) We believe that such analysis should be conducted at the
system level, considering the attributes of the signal or train control
system, the associated operating rules, and the known data concerning
human performance under similar conditions. This should be contrasted
with potentially ad hoc analysis conducted in an attempt to analyze the
variable effects of minor changes in a method of operation at a
particular location. FRA doubts that such methods could succeed due to
the absence of meaningful input data bearing on the degree of risk
posed by potential failure modes.
The Safety Board's discussion of this issue in the Silver Spring
Report suggests that, had the recommended analyses been conducted when
the subject traffic control system was installed on the line in
question, the accident may have been prevented by one of several means.
The Board references adoption of a delayed-in-block rule change as one
of the alternative steps that might have been taken (Report at 53),
along with placement of an exit signal at the station, implementation
of a cab signal system, or implementation of a new positive train
separation system. Among these options, only the placement of the exit
signal would have constituted a site-specific response, and even in
that case there would have been implications for other locations (see
discussion below). For instance, installation of a cab signal system
would hardly be a proportional response to the possibility of an
engineer forgetting an approach signal because of an unscheduled stop
at a passenger station. Taken as a problem occurring in a single
location, no action at all would likely have been supported by any form
of analysis, unless it is assumed that the analysts were imbued with
extraordinary powers to discern how the following factors would in fact
correspond in time at that location within the useful life of the
signal system:
--Light passenger load permitting the train crew to linger in the
control compartment.
--Unusual environmental conditions.
--The requirement to stop for passengers who had boarded the wrong
train.
--The recent dovetailing of seniority rosters, leading to possible
preoccupation by at least one crewmember with matters other
safety operations.
--Distraction associated with broken communications as two trains
passed at the location where defect detectors were positioned.
It is clear that issues broader than modification of the signal
system in the vicinity of the Kensington Station on the Brunswick line
are implicated in the Board's concerns. Broad, rather than narrow
actions are in fact indicated by those concerns. In fact, FRA has taken
emergency action to address the weakness in the method of operation
which led to the Silver Spring accident. That improvement is in effect
across the rail system--not just at a few locations where signals are
relocated or other modifications are made during any calendar period.
FRA conducted a sampling of commuter, intercity, and Amtrak
passenger lines, not equipped with cab signals, to establish a cross
section for the nation of passenger stations which have exit signals.
The FRA determined that only a small number of passenger stations are
equipped with exit signals. Many of the signals that are visible upon
the exit of a station are located there solely due to the braking
distance and spacing requirements of 49 CFR Sec. 236.24. This
regulation requires each roadway signal to be located with respect to
the next signal or signals which govern train movements in the same
direction to provide proper distances for reducing speeds or stopping
by means of a brake application, other than an emergency application,
before reaching the point where reduced speed or stopping is required.
A reduced speed aspect requires spacing adequate to slow to prescribed
speed before reaching the next signal. An aspect requiring a stop at
the next signal requires spacing adequate to stop without an emergency
brake application before reaching the next signal.
The following examples are representative of the data that was
gathered by FRA field personnel:
--The Norfolk Southern Piedmont Division is a two-track main line
signaled for traffic in both directions (TCS). Amtrak runs on
this line from Lynchburg, Virginia, milepost 172.5 to milepost
15.0 near Springfield, Virginia. Virginia Railway Express also
runs on this line from milepost 35.9 to milepost 15.0. There
are 17 passenger stations used by Amtrak and VRE on this line.
All signals are spaced for braking distance with only the
Lynchburg and the BRU-VRE-Yard stations located where the
signals are used for station exit.
--Trains operating on the ``SamTrans'' Peninsula Line in are governed
by signal indications displayed by wayside signals that are
spaced braking distance apart. There are 46 passenger stations
on this line between San Francisco and San Jose, California.
None of the stations have passenger station sidings or use exit
signals.
These and other findings confirm that there is no established
practice in the industry to place distant signals for interlockings and
control points at locations exiting stations. Obviously, many locations
exist where distant signals are placed between stations and the next
home signal or control point; however, this placement is governed by
required stopping distances, not the objective of reminding the
engineer of the signal indication following the station stop. Issuance
of E.O. 20 has addressed a common hazard at each of these locations
where a delayed in block rule was not already applicable.
FRA and FTA have previously noted their commitment to examination
of safety issues related to transit grant proposals affecting commuter
rail service. This focus will be useful over the coming years to
promote a migration to more secure train control systems. Again, the
objective should be initiatives of significant scope that have the
potential to address safety risks that are common to a variety of
physical locations.
FRA agrees that FMEA and other analytical techniques are useful
means of structuring the debate over appropriate signal and train
control technology for various types of operations. This type of
analysis is particularly appropriate for use in development of a new
type of train control system. However, FRA believes that application of
FMEA on a case-by-case basis to every situation where signals may be
altered or relocated would, in practice, become a highly subjective
exercise dependent on the judgment of the individual analyst. The
behavior of human operators is powerfully influenced by the operating
environment (vehicles, control systems, grades and curvatures, sight
distances, weather), human interactions (crew resource management,
public interface), and characteristics of the individual operator (age,
experience, training, health, alertness, etc.) Serial, microscopic
focus on one element of this complex at a single location is unlikely
to produce a balanced allocation of resources for safety optimization.
Decisions concerning signal arrangements and railroad operating rules
should be based on the best data available and should provide guidance
that is useful across one or more classes of common situations,
recognizing opportunities for broader improvements than would be
possible with a highly situational orientation.
As noted above, the delayed in block provision of E.O. 20 addresses
the particular issue placed in sharp focus by the Silver Spring
accident. The broader issue of engineers failing to heed approach
signals in a wide variety of circumstances is addressed daily through
operational tests, certificate actions under the Locomotive Engineer
Certification rules, and a variety of other ways, including a recent
safety directive that addresses these issues across a broad front (62
FR 35330; June 30, 1997). However, ultimately positive train control
(PTC) systems capable of maintaining train separation and enforcing
other movement restrictions should be our objective.
Through the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC), FRA has
initiated a review of Positive Train Control technology that will
include development of performance standards for such systems. Safety
Board staff are assigned as advisors to the RSAC working group. This
effort will include a strong emphasis on integration of railroad
operating rules and the train control apparatus into a secure method of
operation. In response to the Board's recommendations, FRA will urge
inclusion of FMEA techniques as part of the safety acceptance procedure
for new methods of operation.
Current Status.--NTSB has not as yet responded to FRA's initial
response. NTSB's current classification is ``Open--Initial Response.''
R-97-11. Separate Records for Passenger Operations--``Develop and
maintain separate identifiable data records for commuter and intercity
rail passenger operations.''
FRA accomplished these improvements in automated data format for
all reports filed on or after January 1, 1997. FRA appreciates the
support of the Safety Board in accomplishing these improvements in our
data system.
The issued referred to in the Board's recommendations concerns the
ability to accomplish machine sorts of accident/incident data specific
to individual passenger rail operations. The FRA has been collecting
accident, incident and operational data from most major commuter
railroads directly, and analysis of that data has not been a problem.
However, data for railroads using Amtrak to provide service as a
contract operator have been included in Amtrak reports, along with
intercity results. Difficulties have also existed where freight
railroads serve as contract operator. In July 1995, the Federal
Railroad Administration sent a letter to the commuter railroads using
Amtrak to provide service. The letter requested that beginning January
1996 these railroads were to report injuries, accidents and operation
data (train miles, passenger miles, etc.) under their own reporting
initials. The commuters could request Amtrak to report for them, but
Amtrak could not aggregate the commuters' data into the Amtrak reports.
Due to logistical problems and Amtrak software problems this request
could not be fulfilled in 1996.
In the interim the FRA issued revisions to the Railroad Accident
Reporting Rule that mandated a number of changes in reporting. A second
letter was sent in February 1997 to commuter railroads instructing them
to comply with the Federal Regulations on accident reporting. Data for
these railroads are now being reported to FRA in a format that permits
clear identification of the entity on whose behalf the service is
provided. For 1997 and subsequent years, the FRA will be able to report
frequency and rates of accidents and casualties by intercity service,
commuter service and rail freight. Again, FRA appreciates the Safety
Board's initiative and support in accomplishing this improvement in our
data systems.
Current Status.--NTSB has not as yet responded to FRA's initial
response. NTSB's current classification is ``Open--Initial Response.''
R-97-12. Redundant Systems-Passenger Trains--``Require, in the
interim of a positive train separation control system being available,
the installation of cab signals, automatic train stop, automatic train
control, or other similar redundant systems for all trains where
commuter and intercity passenger railroads operate.''
FRA responded to the Board on February 28, 1998, indicating the
presence of passenger service, particularly relatively dense passenger
service, has been a leading criterion in the installation of automatic
cab signals (ACS), automatic train stop (ATS) or automatic train
control (ATC) throughout the modern history of American railroading.
Current regulations create incentives for installation of these systems
by authorizing higher train speeds. However, signal-based technology is
expensive, and passenger operators cannot achieve significant increases
in safety on the lines that they utilize absent parallel investments by
freight operators (which are often the owners and/or dominant users of
the lines on which passenger trains operate). The answer to this
problem is more affordable technology and commitments for joint action
by freight and passenger service providers. It is important that we
avoid any burden on passenger service providers that would result in
service cutbacks and diversion of passengers to less safe forms of
transportation.
Fortunately, innovative train control approaches are emerging that
can meet the safety needs identified by the Board in its
recommendations. Importantly, freight and passenger operators need to
implement positive train control systems that are interoperable, so
that maximum benefits are achieved. In the electrified environment of
northeastern railroading, Amtrak's Advanced Civil Speed Enforcement
System provides a strategy that can both support the safety of high-
speed operations and provide a platform for innovative automatic train
stop strategies (under implementation on New Jersey Transit).Outside
the northeast, communication-based approaches using differential
correction of Global Positioning System location data bear great
promise.
In short, FRA concurs that implementation of more capable train
control systems can contribute significantly to the safety of passenger
rail service. In fact, in general where collision risk would otherwise
be very high, appropriate systems are already in place. This accounts
for the excellent safety record of passenger railroads.
FRA is pressing for implementation of PTC and similar systems in
ways that are reasonable taking into consideration the mix of traffic,
division of benefits flowing from the systems, opportunities for
interoperability of onboard equipment, and the readiness of available
technology. To bring about PTC, FRA has set out to--Assess risk on rail
corridors that could be reduced by PTC systems; Update and refine cost-
benefit analyses; Demonstrate and evaluate PTC technologies; Invest in
enhanced train control on the Northeast Corridor; Promote
interoperability of PTC systems; Facilitate introduction of new
technology through regulatory action; and Support Federal policies
necessary for successful PTC systems.
The first step in determining priority safety needs and
opportunities is to better define risk. The corridor risk study that
was discussed with the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee on June 24
provides an important tool that we have asked RSAC to refine and apply
in analyzing this issue. Passenger service is a prominent factor in
this analysis.
FRA is also taking concrete steps to demonstrate and deploy
positive train control systems. On the Northeast Corridor, the Nation's
most heavily utilized passenger line, FRA is supporting installation of
an Advanced Civil Speed Enforcement System (ACSES), complementing the
existing ACS/ATC system. See Notice of Proposed Order at 62 FR 62097
(11/20/97). FRA and the Federal Transit Administration have also been
encouraging passenger railroads to consider investments in PTC systems.
New Jersey Transit Rail Operations has significant plans to use its
version of the ACSES system to achieve intermittent train stop
capabilities on their lines off the NEC.
Through a grant to the State of Michigan, FRA is funding
development of an Incremental Train Control System with capabilities
superior to ACS or ATS, and that system should be cut in for revenue
service in 1998. A grant to the State of Illinois for development of
high-speed PTC will also support passenger rail safety as a primary
objective, and we are working to promote appropriate participation by
the host freight railroad.
FRA has been working actively with the BNSF /Union Pacific Positive
Train Separation test program and has been in active conversation with
these railroads regarding their future plans for even more capable
systems. At the same time, we have sought to create opportunities
through the States of Washington and Oregon for consideration of
passenger safety needs.
On September 30, 1997, FRA asked the RSAC to take on three related
tasks that explore the future of positive train control. These tasks
address costs and benefits of PTC (including business benefits), the
readiness of available technology, and possible timetables for making
interoperable PTC a reality on major rail lines. The RSAC has formed a
working group that includes advisors from the Board's staff. This group
will met for the first time in mid-November, and FRA has asked the
group to provide a status report with milestones at the next meeting of
the full Committee on January 27, 1998.
An early product of the RSAC effort will be a proposed revision to
current signal and train control regulations, recognizing and creating
a predictable environment for new forms of train control that can
accomplish positive train separation and other safety functions at
reduced cost, permitting more wide-scale application.
Current Status.--NTSB has not as yet responded to FRA's initial
response. NTSB's current classification is ``Open--Initial Response.''
R-97-13. Positive Train Separation-Passenger Trains--``Require the
implementation of positive train separation control systems for all
trains where commuter and intercity passenger railroads operate.''
FRA responded to the Board on February 28, 1998, indicating the
same response as given for R-97-12 above.
Current Status.--NTSB has not as yet responded to FRA's initial
response. NTSB's current classification is ``Open--Initial Response.''
R-97-14. Passenger Car Interior Quick-Release Mechanisms--``Require
all passenger cars to have easily accessible interior emergency quick-
release mechanisms adjacent to exterior passageway doors and take
appropriate emergency measures to ensure corrective action until these
measures are incorporated into minimum passenger car safety
standards.''
FRA responded to the Board on February 28, 1998, indicating that
the Board is aware, a majority of passenger cars are equipped as
suggested in the recommendation. FRA has taken action under Emergency
Order No. 20 to improve emergency egress from rail passenger cars. In
addition, as an interim action the Safety Board and FRA have worked
with two passenger railroads to eliminate the requirement for use of
special tools to access the emergency quick release mechanism, and
those actions are completed (on MARC and SEPTA). In response to the
Board's earlier recommendations, FRA has issued proposed rules to
require the relocation of manual release mechanisms to a position
adjacent to the exterior door (62 FR 49728, 49807; Sept. 23, 1997).
This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on Passenger Equipment Safety
Standards proposes to require a retrofit of remaining cars, within 2
years of the effective date of the final rule (vice 10-15 years as
proposed by the commuter authorities). FRA will endeavor to resolve
this issue expeditiously following conclusion of the public comment
period.
Current Status.--NTSB has not as yet responded to FRA's initial
response. NTSB's current classification is ``Open--Initial Response.''
R-97-15. Passenger Car--Emergency Exiting--``Require all passenger
cars to have either removable windows, kick panels, or other suitable
means for emergency exiting through the interior and exterior
passageway doors where the door could impede passengers exiting in an
emergency and take appropriate emergency measures to ensure corrective
action until these measures are incorporated into minimum passenger car
safety standards.''
FRA responded to the Board on February 28, 1998, indicating action
has already been take to improve emergency egress and is exploring
other options to ensure adequate egress capacity under all emergency
scenarios, including those suggested by the Board. However, neither
kick panels nor removable windows in doors has been satisfactorily
demonstrated as to feasibility, and either is capable of increasing
safety risk if misapplied to exterior doors.
Emergency windows are provided under current regulations to provide
reliable egress in the exceptional case where doors are inoperative,
are blocked by accident debris, or lead to areas that are unacceptable
as evacuation routes for other reasons. FRA has taken emergency action
to ensure that emergency windows are operative and properly marked, and
the Passenger Train Emergency Preparedness NPRM includes a requirement
for periodic inspection into the future. The Passenger Equipment Safety
Standards Working Group has evaluated kick panels in exterior doors as
unacceptable for passenger safety reasons.
The Working Group agreed that new passenger cars be required to
have manual releases capable of opening car body side doors from both
inside and outside the cars. The Working Group further agreed that
persons be able to easily access and utilize the manual releases
without the use of special tools or implements. Additionally, the
Working Group agreed to strengthen existing emergency window exit
requirements by specifically directing that each bi-level car have four
window exits on each level and that each sleeper car have an emergency
window exit in each sleeping compartment. These proposals are contained
in the NPRM referenced above.
Removable windows in doors may be feasible, but the available
dimensions for these installations in current door designs are not
encouraging. Existing door windows claimed to be usable for egress are
generally vertical in their longest dimension and are located well
above the center of gravity of the average person, severely limiting
their utility for high capacity and rapid egress. The degree of
responsiveness of the glazing to blows designed to remove the window is
also open to serious question. Accordingly, the American Public Transit
Association task force on Passenger Rail Equipment Safety Standards is
examining the full range of options for kick panels and removable
windows. In addition the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center
is evaluating egress capacity on a systems level. These complementary
efforts will be brought together as the second NPRM for Passenger
Safety Standards is developed in 1998.
The first practical application of the NTSB suggestion will be made
under the Tier II standards in the Passenger Equipment Safety
Standards, which requires a kick-out panel or window. Under design
drawings, Amtrak is incorporating an elongated window in its passageway
doors. This problem is relatively simple for a high-speed trainset in
which the end door on the car always leads to another passenger car, so
the degree of risk (collateral safety risk and cost) associated with
the innovation is small. FRA appreciates the leadership of the Board in
calling attention to this opportunity.
Current Status.--NTSB has not as yet responded to FRA's initial
response. NTSB's current classification is ``Open--Initial Response.''
R-97-16. Passenger Car--Emergency Exit Marking--``Issue interim
standards for the use of luminescent or retro reflective material or
both to mark all interior and exterior emergency exits in all passenger
cars as soon as possible and incorporate the interim standards into
minimum passenger car safety standards.''
FRA responded to the Board on February 28, 1998, indicating FRA
ordered interim improvements in emergency signage in February of 1996
under Emergency Order No. 20. FRA is preparing a final rule for
Passenger Train Emergency Preparedness based upon a February 1997
proposal that includes use of luminescent and retro reflective
materials as recommended.
Temporary marking and instruction requirements were contained in
Emergency Order No. 20 (Notice No. 1, 61 FR 6876; February 22, 1996)
(Notice No. 2, 61 FR 8703; March 5, 1996 ). Railroads have complied
with those requirements. In a joint meeting of working groups
supporting the development of NPRM's for Passenger Equipment Safety
Standards and Passenger Train Emergency Preparedness held on March 26,
1996, it was agreed that future marking should be luminescent on the
inside (where no light source may be available under worst case
conditions) and retro reflective on the outside (to respond to portable
lighting used by emergency responders).
FRA published the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Passenger Train
Emergency Preparedness on February 24, 1997 (62 FR 8330), and the
comment period closed on April 25. Comments from the National
Transportation Safety Board dated June 2, 1997, generally support the
NPRM. The NPRM provides, at section 239.107, for luminescent marking of
door exits and retro reflective marking of doors designated for
emergency rescue access. Similar provisions are made for window egress
and access in a proposed amendment to section 223.9. FRA has reviewed
the docket and has discussed the remaining issues in the proceeding
with the Working Group, which includes an advisor from the staff of the
NTSB. FRA is preparing a final rule for issuance at the earliest
possible date.
Current Status.--NTSB has not as yet responded to FRA's initial
response. NTSB's current classification is ``Open--Initial Response.''
R-97-17. Passenger Car--Independent Power Sources--``Require all
passenger cars to contain reliable emergency lighting fixtures that are
each fitted with a self-contained independent power source and
incorporate the requirements into minimum passenger car safety
standards.''
FRA responded to the Board on February 28, 1998, indicating the
proposed passenger equipment safety standards address emergency
lighting, but would permit continued use of battery power common to all
emergency lighting circuits in the particular car. The concept of a
power source at each fixture, as a regulatory requirement, is novel and
was introduced by the Board well after the NPRM entered clearance.
Accordingly, FRA had only limited opportunity to evaluate this
suggestion in cooperation with the Passenger Equipment Safety Standards
Working Group.
FRA findings in recent accidents support the Safety Board's implied
concern that placement of electrical conduits and battery packs below
the floor of passenger coaches can result in damage that leads to the
unavailability of emergency lights precisely at the time they are most
needed. However, from initial investigation it is not certain whether
current ``ballast'' technology provides illumination of sufficient
quality with reliable maintainability. FRA will work with the PRESS
task force to determine appropriate action. FRA would appreciate any
technical advice that the Board staff may be able to offer regarding
successful strategies employed by in other transportation modes.
FRA has already presented this issue to the Passenger Equipment
Safety Standards Working Group and will aggressively pursue this option
for more reliable emergency illumination.
Current Status.--NTSB has not as yet responded to FRA's initial
response. NTSB's current classification is ``Open--Initial Response.''
R-97-18. Passenger Car--Inspection & Maintenance--``Provide
promptly a prescribed inspection and maintenance test cycle to ensure
the proper operation of all emergency exit windows as well as provide
that the 180-day inspection and maintenance test cycle is prescribed in
the final rule.''
FRA responded to the Board on February 28, 1998, indicating
Passenger railroads completed emergency window inspections under E.O.
20 by April 20, 1996. Most railroads have continued to include these
inspections in periodic inspections of the equipment. FRA is preparing
final rules based on proposals for regular inspection at a 180-day
cycle. FRA may take interim action pending the effective date of the
final rule, if necessary by amending the emergency order.
As further information, we are advised that commuter railroads are
voluntarily including checks of emergency windows in their periodic
maintenance programs.
Current Status.--NTSB has not as yet responded to FRA's initial
response. NTSB's current classification is ``Open--Initial Response.''
R-97-19. Passenger Car--Functionality Exterior Door--``Require that
all exterior emergency door release mechanisms on passenger cars be
functional before a passenger car is placed in revenue service, that
the emergency door release mechanism be placed in a readily accessible
position and marked for easy identification in emergencies and
derailments, and that these requirements be incorporated into minimum
passenger car safety standards.''
FRA responded to the Board on February 28, 1998, indicating the
RSAC Passenger Equipment Safety Standards Working Group agreed that
easily accessible exterior emergency door release mechanisms be
required on new passenger cars. See NPRM on Passenger Equipment Safety
Standards (62 FR 49728, 49807; Sept. 23, 1997). The NPRM on Passenger
Train Emergency Preparedness would apply marking/instruction
requirements to all cars so equipped, including the present fleet (62
FR 8330, 8358; February 24, 1997).
Unlike discussions concerning interior emergency door release
mechanisms intended for quick use by passengers to exit a train in a
life-threatening situation, however, there was no strong advocacy
within the Working Group to retrofit existing passenger cars with
emergency door release mechanisms on car exteriors. Such exterior
mechanisms would principally be used by emergency-response personnel to
gain access to passenger cars and rescue individuals unable to exit the
train on their own either through a door or an emergency window exit.
In response to the recommendation, FRA and the Working Group will
further evaluate implementing this requirement on existing cars in the
second phase of the rulemaking. FRA will advise the Working Group of
this issue as the initial final rule is crafted, and railroads impacted
by the relocation of the interior release can evaluate whether to
include the exterior release in their program.
FRA agrees that existing exterior releases should be maintained in
functional condition and will seek agreement to ensure that periodic
inspection requirements included in the initial final rule include
specific attention to this issue (although arguably the matter is
covered by the language already proposed).
Despite our regulatory proposal and lack of active opposition, FRA
continues to have concerns with respect to marking the exterior
releases and providing instructions for their use on the outside of the
vehicle. This is a difficult issue, since prominent markings and
instructions to operate a simple pull ring or lever constitute an open
invitation for vandalism (which can result, among other things, in
undetected loss of emergency equipment). Incidents of vandalism might
necessitate separate locking of out-of-service equipment, and we would
certainly want assurance that the locking was disengaged at each door
location before the equipment was placed in service. Should this not be
done, passengers might be unable to exit trains and rescuers would not
be able to enter, at least at the subject door locations. An alternate
approach is appropriate training for emergency responders with respect
to entry into passenger equipment. Training of emergency responders was
a key point of discussion for finalization of the rule on Passenger
Train Emergency Preparedness. There was broad agreement that access to
equipment should be a key element of training that passenger railroads
should make available.
Current Status.--NTSB has not as yet responded to FRA's initial
response. NTSB's current classification is ``Open--Initial Response.''
R-97-20. Passenger Car--Flammability--``Require that a
comprehensive inspection of all commuter passenger cars be performed to
independently verify that the interior materials in these cars meet the
expected performance requirements for flammability and smoke emissions
characteristics.''
FRA responded to the Board on February 28, 1998, indicating FRA
altered the Passenger Equipment Safety Standards NPRM after it had
entered clearance to address fire safety for existing equipment.
Section 238.105 of the proposed rule (62 FR 49728, 49800) would require
railroads to conduct tiered fire safety analyses to identify
vulnerabilities in the various series of the existing passenger car
fleet and to take responsive action as indicated.
FRA believes that this approach addresses the intent of the
concerns raised in the Board's report on the Silver Spring accident. As
noted in the Board's report, ``Had the materials [in the cab car] met
current [FRA] performance criteria . . . the outcome would not have
been any different because of the presence of diesel fuel as an
ignition source. The fire would have spread quickly whether the
interior materials of the MARC passenger cars had met current
performance criteria regarding flammability and smoke emissions
characteristics. . . .''
NTSB-RAR-97/02 at 63-64. Further, the Board took strong exception
to the adequacy of the current criteria, stating that they are ``not
useful in predicting the safety of the interior environment of a
passenger car in a fire.'' Id. We assume therefore, that the Board
intended a review of fire safety in existing cars that both considers
the discrete hazards of materials that might vary widely from criteria
in existing rail and transit guidelines and the likelihood that those
hazards might combine to create unacceptable fire safety risks. The
analysis called for the NPRM would require that, to extent practicable
given available knowledge, these issues be fully considered.
In addition, FRA has consulted with the Office of the Secretary of
Transportation and other Department of Transportation modal
administrations with respect to the status of fire safety standards and
research. The Office of the Secretary is responding to the Board
regarding our intermodal coordination. Please note that FRA is
continuing its contract research through the National Institute for
Standards and Technology to improve the quality and replicability of
materials testing criteria and methods and is also maintaining liaison
with efforts of the transit industry and the National Fire Protection
Association to work toward a better-integrated systems approach to fire
safety.
Current Status.--NTSB has not as yet responded to FRA's initial
response. NTSB's current classification is ``Open--Initial Response.''
R-97-21. Train Dispatcher Record of Train Movements--``Update 49
CFR Part 228.17, Train Dispatcher's Record of Train Movements, to
include the same parameters for electronic recordkeeping of the
dispatcher's record of train movements.''
FRA responded to the Board on February 28, 1998, indicating that
Section 228.17 states information collection requirements that are
equally applicable, whether the record of train movements is maintained
in hard copy or electronic format. At the CSXT operations center in
Jacksonville, some of this data loads automatically to the sheet from
other computer systems, while other data must be manually entered by
the dispatcher. During routine inspections, FRA has worked to ensure
that the computer-based train sheet is capable of receiving all
pertinent fields of information (as it has been for several years) and
that dispatchers routinely enter that information (which sometimes is
not done in the wake of an accident due to distraction by other tasks).
In addition, FRA has encouraged the railroad to provide for automatic
data transfer of weather information.
FRA will continue to work with the railroad at Jacksonville, and
with other carriers, to promote sound record keeping in compliance with
49 CFR Part 228. However, for the present this is a compliance issue
that must be handled with all of the dispatcher desks at Jacksonville
with respect to each of the 1,400 train sheets generated daily. We are
not aware of any regulatory change that could simplify this quality
control task, but would certainly be willing to discuss any specific
suggestions.
Without question, use of electronic record keeping should enhance
the information available for safety purposes, and we believe that is
very much the case presently when all pertinent systems are utilized.
Retrievable data in a contemporary dispatching center is normally far
more extensive and historically reliable than data derived from a
traditional hand-written train sheet. Centralized traffic control
system records (signal event logs) provide detailed information that
can be analyzed to determine train movements. Dispatcher voice tapes
and computer-aided dispatching systems document authorities and
information conveyed to train crews. Weather information is separately
maintained in electronic or hard copy format following electronic
delivery from a commercial service that provides very detailed data and
forecasts. This wealth of information is available for accident
investigation and other purposes. Future revisions to Part 228 could
include inputs to the ``train sheet'' from sources not presently
tapped. However, it would be important to clearly identify our core
objectives and the safety results that we would expect to achieve
before proceeding. Whether or not technically associated with the
``train sheet,'' this data is useful today for a variety of purposes.
Current Status.--NTSB has not as yet responded to FRA's initial
response. NTSB's current classification is ``Open--Initial Response.''
R-97-55. Traction Motor Current--``Inform the railroad industry
that traction motor current is not a valid indicator of throttle
position, and the requirement to record throttle position contained in
49 CFR Part 229.5(g) cannot be met by recording traction motor current.
Ensure that all operators currently using traction motor current as a
substitute for throttle position modify their event recording systems
to monitor and record throttle position directly.''
Current Status.--This Safety Recommendation received January 6,
1998. FRA is reviewing this recommendation and expects to be able to
prepare a substantive response by April 30, 1998. NTSB's current
classification is ``Open--Await Response.''
R-97-56--Tests and Inspections Event Recorders--``Pending the
results of your Railroad Safety Advisory Committee Event Recorder
Working Group and your implementation of suitable requirements
concerning event recorder system maintenance, require that
microprocessor-based event records equipped to perform self-tests be
subject to the testing and inspection procedures currently applicable
to all other types of event recorders.''
Current Status.--This Safety Recommendation just received January
6, 1998. FRA is reviewing this recommendation and expects to be able to
prepare a substantive response by April 30, 1998. NTSB's current
classification is ``Open--Await Response.''
R-97-57. Movable Miter Rails--``Expand the scope of your track
safety standards to include special trackwork such as movable miter
rails and ensure that the condition and operation of special trackwork
are included, when appropriate, in all Federal Railroad Administration
track inspections.''
Current Status.--This Safety Recommendation received January 6,
1998. FRA is reviewing this recommendation and expects to be able to
prepare a substantive response by April 30, 1998. NTSB's current
classification is ``Open--Await Response.''
R-97-58. Survey of Movable Bridges--``Provide, in full or summary
form, the results of the Federal Railroad Administration Movable
Bridges Survey to all railroads and rail rapid transit agencies.''
Current Status.--This Safety Recommendation was received January 6,
1998. FRA is reviewing this recommendation and expects to be able to
prepare a substantive response by April 30, 1998. NTSB's current
classification is ``Open--Await Response.''
R-98-01. Controls and Switches in Locomotives--``Alert Locomotive
Manufacturers and Railroad Operators about the dangers posed by
improperly located safety significant controls and switches in
locomotives.''
Current Status.--This Safety Recommendation was received February
25, 1998. FRA is reviewing this recommendation and expects to be able
to prepare a substantive response by May 15, 1998. NTSB's current
classification is ``Open--Await Response.''
R-98-02. Loaded Weight Information--``Require railroads to ensure
that the actual loaded weights of cars in a train are provided to the
train crewmembers or, if the loaded weights are unknown, to implement a
method to ensure that the maximum loaded weight is assigned.''
Current Status.--This Safety Recommendation was received February
25, 1998. FRA is reviewing this recommendation and expects to be able
to prepare a substantive response by May 15, 1998. NTSB's current
classification is ``Open--Await Response.''
R-98-03. Review Train Handling Practices--``Require Railroads to
review steep-grade train-handling practices and, if necessary, make
changes that will preserve a margin of stopping ability should a
dynamic braking system fail.''
Current Status.--This Safety Recommendation was received February
25, 1998. FRA is reviewing this recommendation and expects to be able
to prepare a substantive response by May 15, 1998. NTSB's current
classification is ``Open--Await Response.'' NTSB's current
classification is ``Open--Await Response.''
R-98-04. Research Maximum Speed based on weights--``Carry out
research, investigation and analysis to determine maximum authorized
train speed for safe operation of trains of all weights, using speed-
based margins of safety that can be easily measured by train
crewmembers.''
Current Status.--This Safety Recommendation was received February
25, 1998. FRA is reviewing this recommendation and expects to be able
to prepare a substantive response by May 15, 1998. NTSB's current
classification is ``Open--Await Response.''
R-98-05. Dynamic Brake Requirements--``Separate the Dynamic Brake
Requirements from the Power Brake Law Rulemaking and immediately
conclude rulemaking to require that railroads verify that the dynamic
braking systems on all locomotive equipped with dynamic brakes are
functioning properly before trains are dispatched.''
Current Status.--This Safety Recommendation was received February
25, 1998. FRA is reviewing this recommendation and expects to be able
to prepare a substantive response by May 15, 1998. NTSB's current
classification is ``Open--Await Response.''
R-98-06. Dynamic Brake Indicator in Controlling Locomotive--
``Require railroads to ensure that all locomotives with dynamic braking
be equipped with a device in the cab of the controlling locomotive unit
to indicate to the operating engineer that the real-time condition of
the dynamic brakes on each trailing unit.''
Current Status.--This Safety Recommendation was received February
25, 1998. FRA is reviewing this recommendation and expects to be able
to prepare a substantive response by May 15, 1998. NTSB's current
classification is ``Open--Await Response.''
R-98-07. Formal Training for Retainer Settings--``Require railroads
to implement formal training on correct retainer setting and use
procedures for train crewmembers who may set or use air brake retainer
valves.
Current Status.--This Safety Recommendation was received February
25, 1998. FRA is reviewing this recommendation and expects to be able
to prepare a substantive response by May 15, 1998. NTSB's current
classification is ``Open--Await Response.''
Listing of All NTSB Safety Recommendations to FRA for the Last Three
Years That Have Been Addressed and Closed, Indicating Whether or Not
NTSB Was Satisfied
(from may 1, 1995 to present)
R-88-58. Heat-Resistant Gaskets--``Establish performance standards
for determining the acceptability of heat-resistant gaskets required to
be used on tank cars.''
FRA, in cooperation with the Research and Special Programs
Administration (RSPA), issued final rules on June 5, 1996, under Docket
HM-216. These new regulations require that each tank car used for the
transportation of anhydrous ammonia, flammable gases, and gases that
are poisonous by inhalation, must have gaskets designed to create a
positive seal so that a release of the material to the environment will
not occur under normal transportation conditions. The regulations also
require that specific factors, such as the temperature of the lading,
compatibility of the gasket with the lading, pressure, and size of the
manway, must be considered in the design of the gasket. The new
regulations published also prohibit the use of sealants to install
these gaskets.
Current Status.--NTSB advised on February 10, 1997, that because
the new regulations meet the intent of the Board's recommended action,
Safety Recommendation R-88-58 is classified as ``Closed--Acceptable
Action.''
R-88-59. Tank Car Manway Openings. ``Prohibit from Hazardous
Materials service the use of tank cars that have a manway opening
located below the level of the liquid being transported.''
The Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), in
cooperation with FRA, issued two final rules under Dockets HM-175A and
HM-201 on September 21, 1995. Among other issues addressed, these final
rules require full tank head protection for new and existing tank cars
constructed of aluminum and nickel.
Current Status.--NTSB advised on January 23, 1996, that the Board
recognizes that the new regulations issued on September 21, 1995,
prohibit the transportation of hazardous materials in tank cars that
have manway openings below the liquid level of the lading in the tank
cars, as was recommended. Accordingly, NTSB classified this
recommendation as ``Closed--Acceptable Action.''
R-88-60. Heat Resistance of Sealants--``Evaluate the effect on
gasket compatibility and heat resistance performance of sealants used
for installing gaskets on tank cars, and if the use of sealants is
allowed. Establish performance criteria to determine which sealants are
acceptable and the conditions for their use.''
FRA, in cooperation with the Research and Special Programs
Administration (RSPA), issued final rules on June 5, 1996, under Docket
HM-216. These new regulations require that each tank car used for the
transportation of anhydrous ammonia, flammable gases, and gases that
are poisonous by inhalation, must have gaskets designed to create a
positive seal so that a release of the material to the environment will
not occur under normal transportation conditions. The regulations also
require that specific factors, such as the temperature of the lading,
compatibility of the gasket with the lading, pressure, and size of the
manway, must be considered in the design of the gasket. The new
regulations published also prohibit the use of sealants to install
these gaskets.
Current Status.--NTSB advised on February 10, 1997, that because
the new regulations meet the intent of the Board's recommended action,
Safety Recommendation R-88-60 is classified as ``Closed--Acceptable
Action.''
R-88-61. Affix information on tank cars--``Where special procedures
or material specifications or dimensions are required for maintaining
the integrity of tank cars, require such information to be permanently
and conspicuously affixed to the tank car.''
The Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), in
cooperation with FRA, issued two final rules under Dockets HM-175A and
HM-201 on September 21, 1995. Among other issues addressed, these final
rules each facility where tank cars are constructed, repaired, or
modified must have an Association of American Railroads (AAR)-approved
quality assurance program, including written procedures to ensure that
work performed on a tank car conforms to approved designs. The new
regulations also require that designated design plans, repair and
inspection records, and construction certificates be retained by the
tank car owner and transferred when ownership of the tank car changes.
Current Status.--NTSB responded on January 23, 1996, stating the
Safety Board previously indicated that this approach would be an
acceptable alternative response to the recommendation. However, the
Safety Board also expressed concern about the need for periodic audits
to ensure that the quality assurance programs were effective. Although
audits of quality assurance programs are not specifically addressed in
the newly issued regulations, the AAR-approved quality assurance
programs required under these rules are subject to an accreditation
process and annual audits by the AAR. By requiring tank car facilities
to have AAR-approved quality assurance programs that are subject to
periodic audits, the newly issued regulations satisfactorily address
the Board's previous concern. Therefore, NTSB classified this
recommendation as ``Closed--Acceptable Alternative Action.''
R-88-63. Quality Control for Tank Car Shops--``Establish quality
control requirements for tank car manufacturers and tank car repair
shops sufficient to ensure that actions taken comply with Federal
regulations and with any conditions established in the Association of
American Railroad's approvals for manufacture, repair, or modification
of rail tank cars.''
The Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), in
cooperation with FRA, issued two final rules under Dockets HM-175A and
HM-201 on September 21, 1995. Among other issues addressed, these final
rules each facility where tank cars are constructed, repaired, or
modified must have an Association of American Railroads (AAR)-approved
quality assurance program, including written procedures to ensure that
work performed on a tank car conforms to approved designs. The new
regulations also require that designated design plans, repair and
inspection records, and construction certificates be retained by the
tank car owner and transferred when ownership of the tank car changes.
Current Status.--NTSB responded on January 23, 1996, stating the
Safety Board noted that the regulations issued on September 21, 1995,
require each facility involved in the manufacture, repair, or
modification of rail tank cars to have a written quality assurance
program approved by the AAR. The AAR's requirements and accreditation
process for its quality assurance programs satisfactorily address both
Safety Recommendations R-88-63 and R-88-64. Therefore, NTSB classified
this recommendation as ``Closed--Acceptable Action.''
R-88-64. Training and Written Procedures--``Require that tank car
repair shops develop and maintain current written procedures to guide
their employees in performing work on tank cars and that their
employees be trained on those procedures.''
The Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), in
cooperation with FRA, issued two final rules under Dockets HM-175A and
HM-201 on September 21, 1995. Among other issues addressed, these final
rules each facility where tank cars are constructed, repaired, or
modified must have an Association of American Railroads (AAR)-approved
quality assurance program, including written procedures to ensure that
work performed on a tank car conforms to approved designs. The new
regulations also require that designated design plans, repair and
inspection records, and construction certificates be retained by the
tank car owner and transferred when ownership of the tank car changes.
Current Status.--NTSB responded on January 23, 1996, stating the
Safety Board noted that the regulations issued on September 21, 1995,
require each facility involved in the manufacture, repair, or
modification of rail tank cars to have a written quality assurance
program approved by the AAR. The AAR's requirements and accreditation
process for its quality assurance programs satisfactorily address both
Safety Recommendations R-88-63 and R-88-64. Therefore, NTSB classified
this recommendation as ``Closed--Acceptable Action.''
R-89-49. Specifications for Securing Closure Fittings--``Assist and
cooperate with the Research and Special Programs Administration in
amending 49 CFR Part 179 to require that specifications for securing
closure fittings, such as minimum torque values for sealing bolted
closures and gasket specifications, be determined and provided by tank
car designers and manufacturers.''
FRA working in cooperation with the AAR, jointly developed new
sections to the AAR tank car manual. These new sections incorporate
procedures and standards for inspecting, cleaning, replacing, and
testing manway covers; for selecting gaskets based on the gasket
material and dimensions; and for maintaining and tightening eyebolts
and nuts on the manway assembly. In addition RSPA, with assistance from
the FRA, published new regulations on September 21, 1995, (under
Dockets HM-175A and HM-201) that establish performance standards
requiring that all closure fittings on tank cars be properly tightened
in place.
Current Status.--NTSB advised on August 13, 1997, that the Board
found that the new regulations supplement the AAR standards and,
together, satisfy the intent and objective of this recommendation.
Therefore, NTSB classified this recommendation as ``Closed--Acceptable
Action.''
R-90-38. Hazardous Material Train Lists--``Revise 49 CFR 174.26(b)
to require the train crew to maintain, at all times, a document
reflecting the current position of hazardous materials cars in the
train.''
FRA advised that working with the Research and Special Programs
Administration, published new regulations under Docket HM-206 on
January 8, 1997. These regulations include a revision to 49 CFR 174.26,
which now requires a train crew to document the current position of
each rail car containing a hazardous material. Further, the crew must
also update the document to indicate changes in the placement of the
rail car within the train.
Current Status.--NTSB advised on August 13, 1997, that the Board
found that the revised regulation satisfied this Safety Recommendation.
Therefore, NTSB classified this recommendation as ``Closed--Acceptable
Action.''
R-91-26. Alerters--``In conjunction with the study of fatigue of
train crewmembers, explore the parameters of an optimum alerter system
for locomotives.''
FRA's initial written response, dated June 28, 1993, indicated that
FRA had awarded two contracts to develop proposals to modify the
existing alerter systems so they cannot be reset by reflex action.
Reports were due in July that will provide information on development
of a model. We anticipate significant progress on this recommendation
before the end of 1993. FRA requested an ``Open-Acceptable Response''
status. NTSB provide written response in letter dated September 16,
1993, indicating the Board classified this Safety Recommendation as
``Open--Acceptable Action.''
FRA provided written update to NTSB under date of August 12, 1997.
Therein, FRA indicated that after approval of funding for prototype
construction of an alerter meeting the objectives, the contractor
advised FRA there was not a sufficient market for the device to justify
its further development. Therefore, the contractor withdrew their
proposal. Because the accident in question involved fatigue and train
control issues, FRA indicated action in both of those areas would
address the core issues in the 1990 accident. FRA indicated it had
decided not to allocate further scarce resources to this project, and
requested NTSB to close it based on our alternative action.
Current Status.--NTSB responded on November 4, 1997, indicating the
Board's disappointment to learn that the FRA plans to take no further
action on this recommendation. The Board mentioned their approval of
FRA's rail labor and management project concerning fatigue , the Board
continues to believe that a successful countermeasure to fatigue is an
optimum alerter system that cannot be reset by reflex action. Since the
FRA has declined to act on this recommendation and requested closure,
the Safety Board has classified this recommendation as ``Closed--
Unacceptable Action.''
R-91-39. Work-Record Data--``Develop a Uniform Simplified Format
for Work-Record Data Collected by the Rail Carriers.''
FRA advised NTSB on August 9, 1995, that recent evolutions in data
capture have allowed the possibility for a uniform national simplified
format for electronic data entry of hours of service purposes. Because
our present hours of service recordkeeping regulations require
``signatures'', FRA is encouraging all railroads to apply for waivers
to facilitate their development of this electronic format for capturing
this data in a simplified and uniform manner. FRA has published an
electronic recordkeeping guide containing a recommended format for
hours of duty reports produced by an automated system. CSX
Transportation, Inc. was the first railroad to achieve waiver approval
for its electronic system. At present, three other railroads have
requested waiver approval with several others expressing interest.
Current Status.--NTSB advised on November 21, 1995, that the Board
hopes that the suggested format will be adopted. However, should this
not be the case, the Board will revisit this issue at some point in the
future. NTSB therefore classified this recommendation as ``Closed--
Acceptable Action.''
R92-01. Training and Evaluation-Locomotive Engineers--``Seek and
include other input, such as comments about the quality of railroad
training programs, from both instructing locomotive engineers and
apprentice engineers in the programs for which approval is being sought
and include such input in the evaluation process.''
FRA advised NTSB on August 21, 1992, that FRA plans to implement a
two-phase, in-depth review process of railroad training programs for
locomotive engineers. FRA field inspectors have been instructed to
establish ``listening posts'' during the course of their daily
inspections.
FRA further advised NTSB on August 3, 1995, that in addition to the
listening posts that have been conducted since 1995, FRA has developed
an audit plan for use during the review of each railroad's training
program which will capture student and instructor comments for use in
the evaluation of the program. FRA also advised that all Class I and
Class II railroads had been reviewed, and of the ongoing process for
evaluating all railroad training programs. Additionally, the American
Short Line Railroad Association (ASLRA) in conjunction with FRA, has
developed a generic training program for the approximate 570 ASLRA
members.
Current Status.--NTSB advised on November 15, 1995, that based on
FRA's action, this recommendation is classified as ``Closed--Acceptable
Action.''
R-92-11. Minimum Standards-Locomotive Fuel Tanks--``Establish, if
warranted, minimum performance standards for locomotive fuel tanks
based on the research called for in NTSB's Safety Recommendation R-92-
10.''
FRA advised NTSB on February 10, 1993, that FRA conducted a meeting
on February 2, 1993, with the American Association of Railroads (AAR),
General Motors Electro-motive Division and General Electric to discuss
their willingness to cooperate in a joint locomotive fuel tank research
program. Due to funding constraints within these organizations,
cooperative research or analysis may be limited in scope.
Subsequently, AAR working in cooperation with FRA, adopted a
recommended practice to provide basic performance requirements for
locomotive fuel tanks on four- and six-axle diesel-locomotives. This
practice, which incorporates the results of individual railroad efforts
to develop and test candidate fuel containment modifications under
service conditions, is effective for all freight locomotives built
after July 1, 1995.
Current Status.--NTSB advised on October 17, 1995, the Board has
some concerns about locomotives built before July 1, 1995, because they
will remain in service for several years. However, the Board will
address that issue in future pertinent accident investigations.
Nevertheless, the Board believes that the adoption of the recommended
practice is a positive step and, as a result, no longer sees the need
at this time to pursue Federal regulations to establish minimum
performance standards for locomotive fuel tanks. NTSB therefore
classified this recommendation as ``Closed--No Longer Applicable.''
R-92-12. Accident Data Collection-Locomotive Fuel Tanks--``Instruct
Field Personnel to Obtain from Accident Investigations Locomotive Fuel
Tank Size and, to the extent practicable, the duration and severity of
locomotive fuel tank fires in conjunction with the agency's ongoing
efforts to improve the recording of data pertaining to post-crash fires
involving locomotives.''
FRA advised NTSB on February 10, 1993, that as a part of a larger
effort to comply with Public Law 102-365, FRA field personnel will
collect data on fuel tank capacity and the severity of locomotive fuel
fires during accident investigations. A copy of the instructions issued
and the data collection forms to be used was enclosed.
Subsequently, FRA revised its ``FRA Guide for Preparing Accident/
Incident Reports'' to provide instructions to all railroads to indicate
this information of the narrative for each reportable rail equipment
accident/incident.
Current Status.--NTSB advised on October 17, 1995, that as a result
of these revisions, fuel tank data are now routinely collected,
including data on locomotive units involved, amount of fuel released,
capacity of fuel tanks, and consequences of fire. Therefore, NTSB
classified this recommendation as ``Closed--Acceptable Action.''
R-92-13. Alternative Fuels--``Develop, in conjunction with the
Association of American Railroads, a formal methodology for reviewing
the use of alternative fuels and fuel tenders in the railroad
industry.''
FRA advised NTSB on February 10, 1993, that the railroads and
equipment manufacturers that are pursuing alternative fuel development
programs recognize the need to fully involve the FRA in the early
stages of these programs. FRA has met with representatives of the
railroads and manufacturers to offer advice on design considerations
and test parameters to ensure safe use in rail transportation. FRA
believes the current informal cooperative process is adequate at the
present time. A more formal process can be determined after the
development programs are analysed and the industry has specific plans
and proposals for normal revenue service use of alternative fuels
technology.
Current Status.--NTSB advised FRA on October 17, 1995, given that
the use of liquid natural gas fuel tenders continues to be limited to a
very few railroads, that the FRA continues to monitor and assess
industry's limited use of alternative fuels and fuel tenders, and that
there has been no Safety Board accident experience with alternative
fuels or fuel tenders, the Board reclassified this safety
recommendation as ``Closed--Reconsidered.''
R-92-21. Nondestructive Testing of Tank Cars--``Evaluate, with the
cooperation and assistance of the Association of American Railroads,
the Railway Progress Institute, and the Chlorine Institute,
nondestructive testing techniques and determine how such techniques can
best be applied for period testing and inspection of all tank cars that
transport hazardous materials.''
FRA advised NTSB that several research projects to evaluate various
nondestructive techniques were in progress, and that this research will
continue over several years and evolve as new nondestructive
technologies emerge, and tank car design and construction changes. In
addition, the new rules issued on September 21, 1995, require the use
of specific nondestructive techniques to inspect designated welds on
the bottom of tank cars.
Current Status.--NTSB responded on January 23, 1996, that the Board
considers the research under way, and the new regulations requiring the
use of nondestructive testing for the inspection of tank cars meet the
intent of the recommendation. Therefore, NTSB classified this
recommendation as ``Closed--Acceptable Action.''
R-94-01. Inspection Methods-Rail Shelling--``Research and develop,
with the assistance of the Association of American Railroads,
inspection methods that will identify internal defects in rail that has
significant shelling and other surface conditions.''
FRA advised the Board that research to detect transverse head
defects regardless of rail head surface conditions is being pursued by
the contract defect detection community. A prototype system is expected
to be deployed for debugging in 1996. Given this accomplishment, FRA
does not see a need to invest in government sponsored research that
could lead to a product eventually competing with the private sector.
FRA is promoting an investigation of electro-magnetic transduction
technology as a potential improvement over current systems.
Current Status.--NTSB responded on April 9, 1996, indicating the
Board is aware of research by the manufacturers of rail defect
detection equipment, and while these efforts offer the possibility of
advancements, the Board continues to believe the presence of severe
surface conditions prevent an effective inspection of the rail head.
Because FRA has expressed no willingness to sponsor or encourage
research and development of new inspection methods capable of
identifying internal defects in rail with significant head surface
conditions, NTSB classified this recommendation as ``Closed--
Unacceptable Action.'' Note: FRA has since addressed this
recommendation in the NPRM revising its Track Safety Standards.
R-94-02. Research and Standards Rail Surface Conditions--``Perform
the necessary research and develop standards that: (1) provide defined
limits of allowable rail surface conditions (such as shelling) that can
hinder the identification of internal defects, and (2) require remedial
action for rail with surface conditions that exceed defined limits.''
FRA advised NTSB that given the myriad combination of sizes, shapes
and locations in which rail surface conditions can exist and the rarity
with which an actual obscured defect progresses to failure, we regard
the chances of producing a useful outcome from such research effort is
highly doubtful considering the resources to which we have access.
Since a technique for rail flaw inspection that is not inhibited by any
combination of rail surface conditions is being developed currently in
the private sector, we see no need to apply scarce resources to
research a goal that we view as impractical and which has a good
probability of being unnecessary. In developing track safety standards,
we are considering requiring a substantial speed restriction for rails
where signal loss indicates a ``nontest.''
NTSB responded on April 9, 1996, indicating FRA's reply has the
potential of being an alternate means of satisfying this
recommendation. However, the Board noted that nearly 2 years have
passed since this Safety Recommendation was issued, and FRA provided no
indication of possible future time frame when the Track Safety
Standards might be revised. Because of the long time between issuance
of this recommendation, and the uncertainty that any action taken would
satisfy this recommendation, NTSB classified this recommendation as
``Closed--Unacceptable Action.'' Note: FRA has since addressed this
recommendation in the NPRM revising its Track Safety Standards.
R-94-15. Conduct Study-Positive Train Separation--``Identify
possible uses for Positive Train Separation Control Systems data and
information and conduct a study to identify ways in which this
information can be used to enhance grade crossing safety.
FRA advised NTSB on March 24, 1995, that FRA supports the
exploration of all options for integration of PTC systems with
technologies that may enhance safety at highway-rail grade crossings,
and cited various potential applications. In some cases, existing
signal-based technologies may offer more secure and cost-effective
solutions than alternatives with little or no service history. In other
cases, advanced electronics coupled with radio frequency communication
paths may offer excellent solutions that would not otherwise be
affordable. FRA and the Federal Highway Administration are working to
identify possible linkages that might improve safety at highway-rail
grade crossings, and are presently evaluating a ``Vehicle Priority
Alerting System'' at the Department of Transportation's Test Center
near Pueblo, Colorado. Additionally, FRA is exploring with the Union
Pacific and Burlington Northern Railroads the possible demonstration of
one or more grade crossing technologies in connection with the Positive
Train Separation project.
Current Status.--NTSB advised FRA on November 8, 1995, that the
Board was pleased to note FRA's intention to identify candidate
technology for field trails, and requested FRA to provide periodic
updates as to progress. NTSB therefore classified this recommendation
as ``Closed--Acceptable Action.''
R-95-010. Hazardous Materials--Corrosive Products--``Require, in
cooperation with RSPA, that the shipper or party using a tank car to
transport materials corrosive to the tank 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.''
FRA advised NTSB that this agency's agreement with this
recommendation, which supported the efforts of the FRA and the Research
and Special Projects Administration's proposed standards under Docket
HM-201. These proposals would require the owner of a lined or coated
tank car transporting a material corrosive to the tank to determine the
periodic inspection and test interval and testing technique for the
material used.
On September 20, 1996, FRA advised NTSB that the Research and
Special Program Administration, in cooperation with FRA, recently
published three final rules that will greatly enhance the safe
transportation of hazardous materials in tank cars by railroads. These
final rules were based on several recommendations issued by the NTSB,
petitions for rulemaking, and RSPA's and FRA's own initiative. RSPA, on
September 21, 1995, published a final rule that requires the owner of
the lining or coating to determine the inspection interval and test
techniques for the lining or coating. On June 26, 1996, RSPA published
a correction document under Dockets HM-175A and HM-201, that required
the owner of a lining or coating to provide the periodic inspection
interval, test technique and acceptance criteria for the lining or
coating to the person responsible for qualifying the lining or coating.
Current Status.--NTSB advised February 10, 1997, that the Board
notes that RSPA, with the cooperation of FRA, published on June 26,
1996, a correction document under Dockets HM-175A and HM-201, that
requires the owner of lining or coating to provide the periodic
inspection interval, test technique, acceptance criteria for the lining
or coating to the person responsible for qualifying the lining or
coating. NTSB indicated this satisfies the concerns earlier expressed
by the Board. Therefore, the Board classified this safety
recommendation as ``Closed--Acceptable Action.''
R-95-044. Two-Way End-of-Train Device--``Separate the Two-Way End-
of-Train Requirement from the Power Brake Law Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, and Immediately Conclude the End-of-Train Device Rulemaking
so as to require the use of two-way end-of-train telemetry devices on
all cabooseless trains.''
FRA published on January 2, 1997, the final rule setting minimum
performance and operational standards for two-way end-of-train devices
and required their use on a variety of freight trains. This regulation
was effective on July 1, 1997.
Current Status.--NTSB advised June 30, 1997, that the Board
understands that the FRA has completed the rulemaking requested by this
recommendation and therefore has classified this safety recommendation
as ``Closed--Acceptable Action.''
R-95-045. Determine Highway-Rail Crossings with Preemption--
``Cooperate with the State Directors of Transportation and the Federal
Highway Administration to determine, at those Highway-Rail Grade
Crossings where control of a highway traffic signal is preempted by
train movements to determine if the preemption allow sufficient time
for vehicles to safely clear the crossing. Until corrective action has
been taken, take appropriate steps for those crossings determined to
have insufficient time for vehicles to safely clear.''
FRA advised that the Secretary of Transportation directed the
formation of a grade crossing safety task force. As one of the task
force's initiatives, all states would be apprised of the availability
of both the FRA and FHWA to provide cooperative assistance. Prior to
receipt of NTSB's recommendation, FRA had already requested railroads
to start necessary processes to determine how many and which of their
crossings should be reviewed. The FRA also became prepared to accept
from the states lists, by crossing number, on diskette, of crossings
with preemption circuitry and to enter this information into the U.S.
DOT/AAR National Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory. This action allow for
the ability to provide all concerned a permanent record of the
identified crossings. FRA will develop procedures for states and
railroads to routinely update this information in the future. Finally,
states have been advised of FRA's ability to provide them lists of
crossings at which railroads have reported accidents that have occurred
at crossings having warning devices interconnected with highway
signals.
Current Status.--NTSB advised on February 19, 1997, that the Board
commends the FRA for cooperating with the State Directors of
Transportation and the FHWA in identifying and inspecting more than
3,000 highway-rail grade crossings nationwide where control of the
highway traffic signal is preempted by train movements. Based on these
efforts, the Board classified this safety recommendation as ``Closed--
Acceptable Action.''
R-96-012. Technical Bulletin--Flattened Rail Head Conditions--
``Develop not later than 12/31/96, an interim Technical Bulletin
authorizing track inspectors to take corrective action to prevent the
potential hazard of flattened rail head conditions to train
operations.''
FRA referred this recommendation to the Track Working Group of the
RSAC. From this participative effort, FRA issued Technical Bulletin T-
97-01, dated February 6, 1997, to all Federal and State Track
Inspectors. This document contained a discussion of the August 3, 1994
derailment of Amtrak Train No. 49 at Batavia, New York, conclusions,
and guidelines for inspectors to follow in event similar rail
conditions are found.
Current Status.--NTSB advised on April 11, 1997, that the Board was
pleased to receive a copy of the requested Technical Bulletin dated
February 6, 1997. Therefore, NTSB classified this recommendation as
``Closed--Acceptable Action.''
safety improvements fiscal years 1993-96
Question. In your fiscal year 1999 justification (page 9), under
the general statement--priorities, a number of safety improvement
statistics are cited. Please restate them completely, including time
frame measured, and absolute numbers that drive the percentage
decreases.
Answer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
Performance measures 1993 1994 1995 1996 change 1993-
96
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rail-Related Fatalities................................ 1,279 1,226 1,146 1,039 -18.8
Employee-On-Duty Casualties............................ 15,410 13,111 10,811 9,232 -40.1
Train Accident Rate.................................... 4.54 4.07 3.91 3.85 -15.2
Grade Crossing Collision Rate.......................... 3.47 3.22 2.85 2.56 -26.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
need for additional safety positions
Question. FRA is requesting an increase of 32 positions for the
railroad safety program. Given the fact that safety has improved in the
railroad industry during the last five years, why is it critical to
increase the number of positions at this time?
Answer. FRA believes the requested number of field positions is the
minimum number required to respond to the needs of its safety program
given the dramatic changes and increasing safety challenges affecting
the railroad industry. To meet the growing safety challenges, the 32
positions will be used in the field to bolster FRA's Safety Assurance
and Compliance Program (SACP), the site inspection program, and the
grade crossing safety and trespasser prevention program.
Recent railroad mergers have created mega-carriers, the largest of
which employ more than 56,000 employees and traverse two-thirds of the
country. At the same time, shortline spinoffs have resulted in the
emergence of nearly 700 separate railroads; there are now more
railroads in the United States than there are people in FRA's Office of
Safety. Also, sharply diverging trends in rail traffic and employment
continue unabated. As rail traffic continues to rise to record high
levels, straining the capacity of the nation's rail network, employment
has declined to the lowest level in this century, eliminating safety
redundancy and greatly diminishing the margin for error. Furthermore,
increasing rail traffic density and the encroachment of urban and
suburban communities along railroad rights-of-way has caused increasing
rail related deaths and injuries among pedestrians.
To meet these growing safety challenges FRA seeks 32 additional
field positions. The agency intends to further leverage the
effectiveness of these positions by utilizing their efforts in support
of the SACP. By building safety partnerships with rail labor and
management and conducting coordinated multi-regional team based safety
audits that focus on the identification and mitigation of the root
causes of systemic safety concerns, FRA maximizes the safety in the
growing rail industry in the most efficient manner possible.
These positions will also be used to meet the growing needs of the
site inspection program, many of which result from important
Congressional safety mandates, including the Grade Crossing Signal
Safety Standards, Two Way End-of-Train Device Regulations, Roadway
Worker Protection Rule and the pending revisions to the Track Safety
Standards and Power Brake Regulations.
Specifically, FRA intends to establish eight Principal Inspectors
(PI's) positions, one per FRA region, who will plan, coordinate and
participate in SACP safety audits and shortline railroad inspections.
Sixteen Safety Inspectors will be distributed throughout selected
regional offices to perform site-specific inspections, participate in
SACP audits, and act in advisory capacities in the Railroad Safety
Advisory Committee and Technical Resolution Committees.
The final eight positions will be assigned (one per Region) to
assist Regional Crossing Managers and Regional Administrators primarily
to enhance FRA's Trespasser Prevention Program It is in this area that
the greatest number of rail-related fatalities occur. In 1997,
preliminary data show that trespasser fatalities for the first time
clearly eclipsed highway-rail crossing fatalities as the largest single
component of fatalities in railroad operations, rising from 471
reported in 1996 to 530 in 1997, based on current projections. FRA
believes that improvements in this area will occur through requested
staffing augmentation in the grade crossing and trespass prevention
area. These positions will also support the Highway-Rail Grade Crossing
Safety Program and will assist Regional intermodal, intra departmental,
State, Metropolitan Planning Organizations, city and local government
liaison activities.
safety increases
Question. Please prioritize each of the requested increases in the
Office of Safety budget. Which two aspects of the requested increase
are most important and why?
Answer. FRA's fiscal year 1999 request for the Office of Safety
reflects an increase of $4,909,000 over fiscal year 1998 and includes
the following increases in the priority order: $3.068M to maintain
current services; $1.691M to support 32 additional positions; $.100M
for RSAC; and $.050M for Planning & Evaluation Project.
FRA cannot absorb non-discretionary increases, especially in the
Office of Safety. Funding is essential and any decreases below current
services will result in a reduction in personnel or a reduction in
work--which will only exacerbate the number of issues Safety will not
be able to address.
Staffing
The request of $1.691 million supports 32 additional safety
employees. All 32 safety employees will be assigned to field offices.
Given the large growth in rail traffic which has strained rail network
capacity, the steady decline in rail employment which has greatly
reduced the margin for error, the emergence of huge mega-carriers and
the proliferation of shortline railroads; FRA believes the requested
number of field positions is the minimum number needed to respond to
the needs of its safety program.
Particularly for 24 positions, (eight Principal Inspectors and 16
Safety Inspectors), FRA intends to leverage their effectiveness by
utilizing their efforts in support of the SACP. These positions are
needed to build labor/management safety partnerships and to conduct and
participate in coordinated team based safety audits to maximize the
safety of the growing rail industry in the most efficient manner
possible. Furthermore, these positions are essential to meet the
growing needs of the site inspection programs, many of which result
from important Congressional and statutory safety mandates, such as
Passenger Train Emergency Preparedness, Passenger Equipment Safety
Standards, revised Track Safety Standards, Power Brake Regulations and
Radio Communication Standards.
The eight remaining positions are needed to assist Regional
Crossing Managers and Regional Administrators, primarily to bolster
FRA's Trespasser Prevention Program. It is in this area that the
greatest number of rail-related fatalities occur. They are also needed
to help coordinate agency support and coordinate intermodal, intra
departmental, State, Metropolitan Planning Organizations, city and
local government liaison activities.
RSAC
The Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) provides FRA with
advice and recommendations on the development of safety standards and
other important issues facing the federal railroad safety regulatory
program. This process shifts the focus of FRA's regulatory program to
one of greater collaboration with the regulated community in arriving
at mutually satisfactory solutions. RSAC produces consensus on
underlying factual issues, the range of options, and the recommended
solutions. By harnessing the combined wisdom, resources and experience
of railroad industry experts who have the greatest knowledge and
interest in promoting rail safety, FRA is able to leverage its
resources to simultaneously conduct a number of major rulemakings,
often much more quickly than can be accomplished under the traditional
approach. RSAC is undertaking some of FRA's toughest, most
controversial regulatory challenges.
The RSAC structure consists of voting representatives from 27
organizations representing large and small railroads, rail labor
organizations, state associations, rail passenger representatives,
suppliers, other interested parties, and two associate representatives
from agencies with rail responsibilities in Canada and Mexico. Initial
funding levels did not anticipate the overwhelming industry embracement
of this process. Railroad labor and management are dedicating
significant resources to the success of this collaborative rulemaking
process. Since RSAC was chartered on March 25, 1996, an estimated 500
full Committee, Working Group and Task Force members and alternates
have participated in more than 75 meetings to address 13 issues such as
track safety standards and positive train control. The magnitude of the
resources dedicated is reflective of the participants' commitment to
the success of this process.
The additional $100,000 requested would support the fiscal year
1999 RSAC activities at an 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.
Planning and Evaluation Project
Funding for the planning and evaluation project will provide FRA
with the means to provide the best allocation of inspectors to railroad
sites of greatest risk. This project provides a geographical
information mapping system, with linkages to human resources, railroad
accident rates, traffic volumes, emergency response needs, passenger
volumes, and hazardous material concentrations. Without this tool, FRA
will not be as effective as it could be in directing its limited
inspector resources to locations where inspectors can have the greatest
impact on achieving FRA's GPRA safety goals.
safety staff by region
Question. Please list, by region, the current safety inspection
field offices and number of personnel at each field office. Please
indicate how the additional personnel associated with the fiscal year
1999 increase will be allocated within this regional/field office
framework.
Answer. The information follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
Region/Field Office ---------------------- Difference
1998 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northeastern Region:
Cambridge......................... 22 26 4
Buffalo........................... 5 5 ..........
Clifton Park...................... 7 7 ..........
Newark............................ 14 14 ..........
Bangor \1\........................ 1 1 ..........
Eastern Region:
Lester............................ 25 29 4
Pittsburgh........................ 11 11 ..........
Charleston \1\.................... 5 5 ..........
Cincinnati........................ 4 4 ..........
Cleveland......................... 4 4 ..........
Columbus \1\...................... 3 3 ..........
Hanover........................... 7 7 ..........
Harrisburg \1\.................... 2 2 ..........
Norfolk........................... 4 4 ..........
Roanoke \1\....................... 4 4 ..........
Toledo............................ 1 1 ..........
Southern Region:
Atlanta........................... 22 26 4
Birmingham........................ 6 6 ..........
Charlotte......................... 8 8 ..........
Jacksonville...................... 9 9 ..........
Knoxville \1\..................... 1 1 ..........
Louisville \1\.................... 7 7 ..........
Memphis \1\....................... 4 4 ..........
Nashville......................... 4 4 ..........
Mobile............................ 5 5 ..........
Central Region:
Chicago........................... 34 38 4
Detroit........................... 6 6 ..........
Indianapolis...................... 9 9 ..........
Ft. Snelling...................... 8 8 ..........
Peoria \1\........................ 2 2 ..........
Southwestern Region:
Hurst............................. 27 31 4
Houston........................... 12 12 ..........
El Paso........................... 4 4 ..........
Little Rock....................... 5 5 ..........
New Orleans....................... 8 8 ..........
Oklahoma City..................... 4 4 ..........
San Antonio \1\................... 4 4 ..........
Shreveport........................ 3 3 ..........
Midwestern Region:
Kansas City....................... 24 28 4
Des Moines........................ 3 3 ..........
Lakewood.......................... 11 11 ..........
Omaha............................. 8 8 ..........
St. Louis......................... 8 8 ..........
Wichita \1\....................... 2 2 ..........
Western Region:
Sacramento........................ 23 27 4
Riverside......................... 10 10 ..........
Salt Lake City.................... 6 6 ..........
Northwestern Region:
Vancouver......................... 23 27 4
Billings.......................... 8 8 ..........
Bismarck.......................... 5 5 ..........
Pocatello......................... 5 5 ..........
Seattle \1\....................... 5 5 ..........
Spokane \1\....................... 4 4 ..........
---------------------------------
Total........................... 456 488 32
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Office closed; all employees telecommute.
field office closings
Question. What, if anything, has FRA done to reduce the number of
small field offices during the last year? Are any cost savings
reflected in the budget? How many field offices have been closed during
the last three years (please name locations)? Have any new offices been
established during this period.
Answer. FRA is currently implementing the final phase of its
telecommuting project, which began in fiscal year 1996. This project
has been extended to allow eligible employees in all regions the
opportunity to work at home or telecommute. Under this project, FRA
plans to close a total of 15 offices, including 13 that have already
been closed. In addition, by the end of the project, FRA will have
reduced overall facility space in 8 offices.
No new field offices have been established since fiscal year 1996.
The chart below lists offices that have been closed or had space
reductions as a result of the telecommuting project over the last three
years.
FRA projects that fiscal year 1998 closings will result in an
annual savings of approximately $57,000, which was incorporated into
FRA's fiscal year 1999 rent request. No closings are planned for fiscal
year 1999. It should be noted that while the rent line item decreased
due to these changes, other costs increased. Office closings and
telecommuting require additional funds in communications, information
technology, space management, and other support costs, especially in
the year of the transactions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Offices closed Offices with reductions in space
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996..................................... Bangor, ME Oklahoma City, OK.
Memphis, TN Salt Lake City, UT.
Knoxville, TN
Tampa, FL
Shreveport, LA
San Antonio, TX
Spokane, WA
1997..................................... Peoria, IL Birmingham, AL.
Wichita, KS Nashville, TN.
Roanoke, VA Mobile, AL.
Seattle, WA
Louisville, KY
1998..................................... Columbus, OH Houston, TX.\1\
Harrisburg, PA \1\ Jacksonville, FL.\1\
Charleston, WV \1\ Charlotte, NC.\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Planned closings/space reductions.
telecommuting
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 1997 and 1998)? When will this process be complete?
Answer. FRA is currently implementing the final phase of its
telecommuting project, which has been extended to allow eligible
employees in all regions the opportunity to work at home or
telecommute. There are currently 161 full-time telecommuters working
out of their homes. It is anticipated that could increase by
approximately 20 employees for a total of 181 telecommuters. On
September, 1997, there were 135 full-time telecommuters.
balance of pc&b funds in fiscal years 1996-97
Question. What was the remaining amount of PC&B in fiscal year 1996
and fiscal year 1997 that was not used for this purpose? To which areas
were these funds reallocated?
Answer. Funds were not appropriated at the PC&B level, therefore,
there were no ``remaining'' PC&B funds. An object class table for the
Safety appropriation was included in the budget request and reflected
an ESTIMATE on how funds would be spent based on funding decisions at
the time the budget was developed. Congressional actions, emergencies
such as the UP and CSX accidents, absorption of unfunded costs, and
other policy actions change these decisions and FRA acts accordingly.
FRA works very hard to develop sound estimates at the object class
level. However, FRA, within the parameters of the appropriation and
approved reprogramming guidelines, reallocates resources at the object
class level to fund high priority needs. This is good budgeting and
ensures that funds are not only spent in line with Congressional
intent, but are leveraged to maximize safety.
inspection data 1995-97
Question. How many miles of track, freight cars, locomotives, and
track miles with signal and train control systems were inspected last
year? 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995 1996 1997 \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Track:
Number of inspections....................................... 12,668 11,539 11,193
Miles inspected............................................. 272,476 260,543 246,748
Records inspected........................................... 132,420 132,992 108,751
Defects recorded............................................ 69,817 65,788 62,697
Signal:
Number of inspections....................................... 5,391 5,383 5,045
Units inspected............................................. 55,414 51,801 45,184
Records inspected........................................... 66,823 84,057 72,134
Defects recorded............................................ 22,169 19,261 26,440
Motive Power and Equipment:
Number of inspections....................................... 15,579 14,838 13,534
Locomotives inspected....................................... 29,916 24,345 21,927
Cars inspected.............................................. 700,838 624,069 547,654
Defects recorded............................................ 123,078 108,076 99,782
Operating Practices:
Number of inspections....................................... 13,501 12,936 12,755
Complaints received......................................... 1,519 1,383 1,522
Defects recorded............................................ 35,880 16,975 33,228
Hazardous Materials:
Number of inspections....................................... 10,461 10,483 9,633
Tank cars inspected......................................... 77,992 76,718 70,547
Defects recorded............................................ 21,649 18,139 16,216
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Preliminary data.
FRA's inspection activities are data-driven. FRA's databases show a
railroad's historical accident profile, prior inspection activities,
the amount of tonnage hauled by the railroad and over what routes, the
number of highway-rail grade crossings, whether hazardous materials are
transported, and the amount of interaction between freight and
passenger traffic. Inspection activities are usually focused on
railroads and shippers that pose the highest risk in terms of these
factors.
effectiveness of civil penalty program
Question. What is the relationship, if any, between FRA's civil
penalty enforcement program and industry's compliance with the safety
regulations and crash reduction? How do you measure this relationship?
Answer. Each of FRA's substantive safety regulations is designed to
reduce the likelihood of accidents, injuries and other undesirable
consequences related to the subject of the rule. For example, FRA's
rule on control of alcohol and drug abuse is designed to reduce the
incidence of impairment on the part of safety-sensitive employees.
Since its issuance in 1985, the percentage of employees testing
positive for alcohol or drugs has declined enormously. Serious
accidents caused by impaired employees have declined accordingly. These
improvements are presumably largely the product of compliance with the
rules. The same analysis can be made of nearly all of FRA's substantive
rules. Their implementation leads to an improvement in the relevant
safety category.
An important part of that implementation is enforcement. It is not
currently possible to trace specific penalty actions (of which FRA
completed 1,500 to 2,000 per year) to specific reductions in accident
rates. However, FRA's experience teaches that, if compliance were
voluntary, compliance levels would be significantly lower. Were the
civil penalty process not available to help induce improved compliance,
the number of violations would no doubt increase and lead to accidents
or injuries in some percentage of the cases.
FRA's daily experience with the civil penalty process demonstrates
that it affects safety behavior very positively. FRA and state
inspectors generally recommend the assessment of civil penalties when
that step seems necessary to help encourage compliance. Inspectors
ordinarily use the civil penalty tool as a way of signaling displeasure
with the current level of compliance on the part of a particular
railroad, shipper, or individual. Sometimes, the civil penalty is
recommended even for a somewhat isolated violation because of its
severity. In cases involving defective track, signals, or equipment, a
railroad that has been reluctant to cooperate generally remedies the
defects shortly after receiving the initial notice from the inspector
of his or her intention to recommend a penalty. In fact, FRA's rules
require that a report of remedial action be submitted to FRA in such
cases. Where violations involve a completed action that cannot
specifically be remedied (such as an hours of service violation),
remedial action reports are not required. However, railroads and
shippers investigate all violations and, at the time the initial civil
penalty assessment is discussed in a settlement conference, they nearly
always indicate that violations have been corrected and/or remedial
actions have been taken to reduce the chance of a recurrence.
Accordingly, civil penalty assessments generally result in correction
of the immediate defects and/or measures to avoid repeated violations
of the same nature.
FRA is making a concerted effort to concentrate its limited
enforcement resources on the types of violations most likely to cause
accidents and injuries. This ``focused enforcement'' approach, as it
becomes fully implemented, promises to focus railroad corrective action
where it is most needed to avoid accidents and injuries.
holding of penalties during sacp
Question. How is the process of holding penalties in abeyance
affecting the effort to promote safety and regulatory compliance?
Answer. The reduction in train accidents, train accident rates,
rail-related fatalities, and employee-on-duty casualties over the last
five years is convincing evidence that FRA's Safety Assurance and
Compliance Program (SACP) is achieving desired safety results. Between
1993 and 1997, train accidents decreased 10 percent, train accident
rates decreased 18 percent, rail-related fatalities decreased 18
percent and employee-on-duty casualties decreased 46 percent.
SACP is an outgrowth of President Clinton's directive to Federal
regulatory agencies that their inspection and enforcement programs be
designed to focus on safety results and regulatory compliance, not just
collect fines. FRA suspends the assessment of most civil penalties
concerning matters covered by a SACP safety audit. Through the
collaborative efforts of rail management, rail labor, and FRA, the
railroad submits a Safety Action Plan to FRA. The Safety Action Plan
describes intended actions to correct systemic safety defects, or areas
of non-compliance with agency regulations. Except in egregious cases,
civil penalties are held in abeyance as long as the railroad is
carrying-out system-wide improvements/corrections, as specified in the
Safety Action Plan.
consideration of ability to pay a penalty
Question. In assessing penalties, how does FRA adequately consider
the ability of a railroad to pay a penalty and the impact on the
railroad's financial stability after paying a financial penalty?
Answer. The railroad safety statutes require that, in determining
the amount that the agency might accept in compromise in a civil
penalty case, FRA consider ``the ability to pay, and any effect on the
ability to continue in business.'' The penalties are currently subject
to a maximum of $22,000 per violation per day, but the assessment for a
single violation is ordinarily far less than the maximum, which is
reserved for the most serious violations that have caused an imminent
hazard of serious injury or death. Civil penalty negotiations with
major railroads usually involve many different violations, and the
total aggregate assessment can be in the hundreds of thousands, and
sometimes millions, of dollars. Negotiations with small railroads
usually entail only one or a few violations. The largest fines are
generally assessed against the largest railroads, and the smallest
railroads are not frequently fined, and are hardly ever fined large
amounts.
FRA invites all railroads to address all of the statutory
compromise considerations in negotiations. However, railroads hardly
ever argue that they lack the ability to pay a particular fine or that
it will affect their ability to continue in business. When they do, FRA
asks for supporting information on the railroad's financial condition,
and assesses whether that information establishes a real inability to
pay or possible effect on continued business. FRA construes the
statutory criteria quite literally, and looks for information
demonstrating an actual inability to pay and/or effect on the
continuation of the business. On the extremely rare occasions where
such information is submitted and supports the claims made by the
railroad, FRA makes sufficient allowances (e.g., reducing the penalty
further and/or permitting installment payments). It should be noted
that FRA's policy is to take into account the special circumstances of
small businesses in deciding whether to take enforcement action in the
first place, and FRA makes a special effort to ensure that such
enforcement actions are focused on the most important safety issues.
current level of civil penalties
Question. Does the current level of civil penalties send the
appropriate message to industry that FRA will ``get tough'' when
necessary?
Answer. So far in this decade (through fiscal year 1997), FRA has
collected $72 million in civil penalties. In fiscal year 1997, the
figure was $3.8 million. FRA thinks these numbers send the message that
FRA will use its civil penalty authority when necessary. However, more
important than aggregate penalty levels is the need to impress on those
who commit the most serious violations that such behavior will have a
cost. This is what FRA is attempting to do through ``focused
enforcement.''
processing enforcement cases
Question. How could FRA's enforcement case backlog be more
efficiently processed? How could industry be more effectively informed
of pending cases? What is the current backlog and how does it compare
with the backlog for each of the last three years?
Answer. FRA has an efficient system for processing enforcement
cases. In 1997, the Office of Chief Counsel initiated enforcement
cases, on average, within 60 days of having received the violation
report from the region. (Some years ago, when the safety legal staff
was smaller and FRA had not computerized its document preparation for
these cases, it was taking nearly two years to transmit them.) The
promptness of the current process ensures that the industry is
effectively informed of pending violations on a timely basis. (Of
course, a railroad also receives notice roughly contemporaneously with
an inspection that the inspector intends to recommend a civil penalty
because the inspector checks a box on the inspection report given to
the railroad to show that civil penalty will be recommended.) With
regard to major railroads, the process has also become very efficient
in bringing these cases to resolution. FRA holds a settlement
conference to close all pending cases on at least an annual basis with
the largest railroads.
The major area of difficulty now is finding sufficient time to
settle cases against small railroads and shippers. Each case requires
separate attention and the settlements, which are often handled through
mail and phone calls rather than meetings, lack the economies of scale
present in the large railroad settlements. FRA attorneys can pursue
these settlements only as the press of other priorities (e.g., large
railroad settlements, regulatory projects, engineer certification
cases) permits. At any given time, FRA always has a number of open
cases awaiting settlement. The figures below show the number of such
cases pending now and the total initial penalty demand on those cases,
with similar figures as of March during each of the last three years.
The number of cases and amount of the total penalty demand have
declined substantially since March 1995. FRA does not consider these
total amounts to be ``backlogs'' because only a portion of them
involves cases older than a year. Generally, those older cases are the
small railroad and shipper cases for which it is so difficult to find
sufficient time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Time period open cases Penalty amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
March:
1995................................... 2,710 $20,515,500
1996................................... 2,552 19,420,800
1997................................... 1,796 12,543,950
1998................................... 1,506 11,304,050
------------------------------------------------------------------------
sacp audits of class i and ii railroads
Question. Under the SACP, how many Class I and Class II railroads
have been analyzed by FRA so far? How often are you able to return to
these railroads? How many additional railroads need to be reviewed?
Answer. FRA has examined more than 55 railroads under SACP
including all ten Class I railroads, more than half of the approximate
27 Class II railroads, seven of the nine commuter rail authorities, and
many of the largest switching and terminal railroads (according to
Surface Transportation Board railroad revenue classifications, all
switching and terminal railroads are Class III, regardless of revenue
levels). SACP audits are considered an ongoing process--once a SACP
audit begins at a railroad, it will be continuously monitored by FRA
inspectors through employee listening post sessions and formal FRA/
Management/Labor meetings. FRA cannot extend SACP audits to the more
than 700 U.S. railroads. However, the agency intends to place under
SACP review the largest freight, all passenger, and all other freight
railroads having significant amounts of hazardous material shipments,
or interface with passenger service.
determination for sacp audits
Question. Please describe how FRA determines which railroads are
included in the SACP process.
Answer. SACP safety audits are the most efficient method of
examining the largest railroads, which operate in multiple States and
across several of FRA's regional field offices. All Class I freight and
passenger railroads are undergoing the open-ended SACP safety audits.
In addition, most commuter rail authorities and the largest Class II
freight and Class III Switching and Terminal Railroads are undergoing
SACP safety audits. To confirm the accuracy of the selection process
and to assess other candidates to under go SACP safety audits, FRA uses
an Annual Allocation Analysis Model (AAAM). The AAAM focuses on high
risk rail movements. The model data is arranged by inspection
discipline, region, and railroad. Railroads are divided into three
class size groupings: large railroads with annual employee hours
greater than 400,000, small railroads with total train miles times
annual employee hours greater than 100 million, and small railroads
with total train miles times annual employee hours less than 100
million.
For large railroads, AAAM uses seven risk factors: inspection
reports, accidents, fatalities and serious injuries, hazardous material
tons, total tons, passenger traffic, and inspection defects. AAAM also
uses seven risk factors for both categories of small railroads.
Hazardous material tons and total tons are obtained from the Surface
Transportation Board's Carload Waybill Sample. However, the Carload
Waybill Sample of railroad freight traffic does not accurately track
hazardous material traffic flows on small railroads. Consequently,
``train miles'' and ``annual employee hours'' are substituted for
``hazardous material tons,'' and ``total tons.'' AAAM is a model of
reasonable risk factors, which can suggest the need for site specific
examinations, or suggest an area for examination under Safety Assurance
and Compliance Program (SACP) safety audits.
assessment and funding needs of sacp
Question. Please provide an overall assessment of the SACP process,
indicating remaining challenges, improvements needed, and constraints.
How does your fiscal year 1999 budget address these remaining
challenges?
Answer. SACP identifies and addresses systemic problems that have
railroad-wide or railroad-industry-wide implications. Often, these
issues cut across inspection territories and disciplinary lines. For
example, the recent Burlington Northern/Santa Fe (BNSF) and Union
Pacific (UP)/Southern Pacific (SP) mergers and the proposed acquisition
of Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) by Norfolk Southern and CSX
Transportation (CSXT) all pose issues of how safety is affected by such
things as the blending of different corporate cultures and
reconciliation of different operating rules and practices.
FRA's safety programs require a balanced approach of inspections
coupled with partnerships, which enlist the cooperation of rail labor
and management to identify and correct safety concerns in the railroad
industry. Site-specific inspections remain as a vital component of
FRA's rail safety program; however, site inspections are not always
beneficial in identifying systemic problems nor ensuring railroad
cooperation and participation in correcting safety violations.
One of the most significant challenges facing the SACP is building
effective labor/management safety partnerships at the local level. Both
labor and management have sought out FRA to help establish safety
committees between rank-and-file railroad workers and first line
supervisors and managers. The eight Principle Inspectors and 16 Safety
Inspectors will play a significant role in addressing this critical
SACP need.
While FRA is leveraging its resources through SACP and site-
specific inspection duties, there is still a significant amount of work
that is not being addressed. Grade crossing, bridge inspection,
regulatory analysis, and state liaison are just some of the areas that
are vulnerable due to limited resources. The 32 positions requested by
FRA are intended to help address these safety issues as well.
success of sacp
Question. Is your cooperative strategy working? How do you document
this? Please provide several examples of how this cooperative approach
has been effective, and outline how the compliance levels have improved
with this approach versus FRA's more traditional enforcement approach.
Answer. The singular goal of the Safety Assurance and Compliance
Program (SACP) and FRA's existing site-based inspection and enforcement
program is to improve rail safety by reducing systemic hazards in rail
facilities, equipment, rolling stock and operations. The following
statistics document that since 1993, FRA's cooperative strategy
approach is working:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
Performance measures 1993 1994 1995 1996 Prelim change 1993-
1997 97
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rail-Related Fatalities.......................... 1,279 1,226 1,146 1,039 1,048 -18.1
Employee-On-Duty Casualties...................... 15,410 13,111 10,811 9,232 8,239 -46.5
Train Accident Rate.............................. 4.54 4.07 3.91 3.85 3.47 -23.6
Grade Crossing Collision Rate.................... 3.47 3.22 2.85 2.56 2.22 -36.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SACP initiatives complement FRA's existing enforcement program.
Team and individual inspector-based inspections still comprise about 70
percent of FRA's safety program. The traditional approach to safety
allows FRA to enter and examine rail facilities, equipment, rolling
stock, operations and pertinent records to ensure compliance with
railroad safety regulation. Civil penalties, which FRA can assess
against any entity (including individuals) that violates safety laws,
continue to serve as strong tools to ensure the railroad industry
adheres to rail safety regulations. However, FRA is making a greater
effort than ever on focusing enforcement actions on the most serious
violations and safety concerns. Examples of the effectiveness of SACP
safety audits follow:
The Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) has worked with FRA and its
labor organizations to pioneer SACP techniques. In January 1997, a
joint labor/management/FRA SACP Task Force was formed to: (1) identify
and recommend solutions to cultural issues which affect safety; (2)
identify and recommend solutions to systemic safety issues; and (3)
open lines of communication between labor organizations and senior
railroad management. SACP initiatives which began January 1, 1997 on
the BNSF have resulted in an improved Grade Crossing Safety Program, a
System-Wide Signal Software Upgrade, greater Employee Safety
Empowerment, an Improved Discipline Policy, increased Fatigue
Countermeasures, and Improved Accident/Incident Reporting throughout
the entire BNSF system. The following are select highlights of the
results to date:
Grade Crossing Safety Program.--BNSF, in conjunction with FRA,
developed a 10-year comprehensive ``Highway-Railroad Grade Crossing and
Trespasser Prevention Program.'' The program focuses on crossing
closure, public education and enhanced law enforcement.
System-Wide Signal Software Upgrade.--Concerns regarding faulty
signals in Montana (identified by labor and pursued by FRA) resulted in
the correction of software at the BNSF Operations Center. This
prevented a potentially serious signal failure in over 400 signals. A
follow-up analysis by BNSF revealed a manufacturing signal system
defect, which has been corrected by the manufacturer on a nation-wide
basis for all railroads. This is the magnitude of increased safety that
SACP can provide.
Employee Safety Empowerment.--A comprehensive ``Employee
Empowerment Safety Policy'' and a ``Fear and Intimidation'' complaint
resolution process, both authored by the SACP Task Force, were
implemented system-wide in 1997. Combined, these programs allow
employees to challenge and resolve work place safety issues while
maintaining ``whistle blower'' type protections. Since harassment and
intimidation are chronic employee complaints and difficult to eliminate
by regulation, this SACP achievement is extraordinarily important.
Improved Discipline Policy.--Working with the SACP Task Force, BNSF
established a new employee discipline policy. The railroad now focuses
on individual behavior modification using coaching, counselling, and
training, rather than punishment for safety-related and other types of
infractions. In addition, all cases of significant discipline, i.e.,
suspensions and dismissals, are reviewed by senior management. This
approach emphasizes to management and employees that rules compliance
is about preventing injuries and property damage, not just finding
fault afterwards.
Fatigue Countermeasures Program.--Working with the SACP Task Force,
BNSF has developed the most advanced ``Fatigue Countermeasures
Program'' in the industry. The carrier has instituted a ``strategic
napping policy,'' a ``10-hour rest period,'' and pilot programs for
``assigned days off'' and ``calling windows.'' As these approaches
succeed, employees will be empowered to take responsibility for their
own fitness and have better tools to meet their safety
responsibilities.
Improved Accident/Injury Reporting.--A comprehensive ``Accident/
Injury Reporting'' audit conducted by FRA during the SACP process
resulted in a defect reporting rate error on BNSF of less than 1
percent. This verified defect ratio reflects the sharp focus that the
railroad has placed on improvement of reporting practices and is a true
achievement. A quarterly review process has been established to monitor
continued compliance with reporting requirements.
Highlights of the enhanced SACP initiative, which began on the
Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) in late August 1997, have thus far
resulted in an improved Supervisor Program, increased staffing,
increased fatigue countermeasures, a revised and refined dispatching
program, and the development of an electronic system enabling the UP to
comply with Federal record keeping requirements involving about 20,000
train and engine employees. Following two years during which the Union
Pacific consummated large mergers, 1997 became the year in which
America's largest railroad discovered its own limitations.
From a safety standpoint, the UP had become less than the sum of
its parts. As some Union Pacific managers admit, with the benefit of
hindsight, they did not make the preparations necessary to integrate
the system and maintain adequate traffic flows. Changes that were
instituted were often too rapid or involved cuts that went too deep.
This resulted in a variety of ills, including heavy stresses on
employees and physical assets, distraction and dislocation of first-
line managers, and more changes in the way the business was run than
could be accommodated in that supercharged environment.
In response to FRA's SACP review, six ``working groups,''
consisting of representatives from FRA and from UP labor and
management, began working to identify the causes of, and solutions to,
systemic safety problems. The six working groups are: (1) Crew
Management System, (2) Train Dispatching, (3) Fatigue, (4) Training,
(5) Culture, and (6) Inspections and Testing. The following are select
highlights of the results to date:
Supervision.--A SACP Working Group found that supervisors'
workloads prevented them from effectively monitoring and evaluating
their employees' performance, particularly in train and engine service.
UP hired 134 supervisory personnel and identified additional
supervisory positions to be filled.
Staffing.--An analysis of staffing levels by a SACP Working Group
provided evidence that the number of employees is not adequate to
handle current and projected levels of traffic. As a result, the UP
began hiring 1,000 employees to correct this issue.
Fatigue.--A SACP Working Group is studying and recommending
solutions to fatigue-related issues. These include: napping, lodging,
uninterrupted rest periods, education, improved crew utilization and
scheduling. Staffing and contract preparations have been made, and
employee education and awareness efforts begin this coming month. UP is
also engaged in a hiring program to augment staffing in key crafts.
Dispatching Facilities.--A SACP Working Group has developed an
Action Plan to improve dispatching operations, and implementation and
refining of the plan is in progress. A revised dispatcher training
program is in place, and the first class has completed the training.
Workload and territory adjustments have been made on twelve dispatching
desks at Omaha, and further realignments are planned.
Hours of Duty Record Keeping.--A SACP Working Group is monitoring
the development of an electronic system to enable the UP to comply with
Federal record keeping requirements (49 CFR Part 228) involving about
20,000 train and engine employees. The new system is designed to
replace the manual system currently in use, which is of little help in
planning for compliance with the requirements of the hours of services
laws. Implementation of the program will be subject to FRA's approval
and resolution of any additional labor concerns.
CSX Transportation (CSXT) has achieved significant improvements in
train accidents and employee casualty rates over the past few years.
However, following a series of five high-profile accidents in 1997, FRA
conducted a comprehensive, multi-disciplinary SACP field inspection of
the CSXT system. As a result of the SACP process, CSXT established
joint labor/management/FRA ``Functional Oversight Teams'' to address
safety issues for each railroad discipline. The Functional Oversight
Teams report findings and recommendations to a joint labor/management/
FRA ``Executive Committee,'' which takes final corrective action.
The FRA is closely examining the BNSF, UP/SP, CSXT, and Conrail to
assure that safety is maintained and to look for opportunities to
improve it. Similarly, current trends indicate continuing consolidation
of steadily increasing amounts to railroad traffic, including
transportation of hazardous materials and passengers, on a network of
high-density lines. These kinds of developments call for new approaches
and continuing innovation. The following are select highlights of the
results to date:
Discipline policy.--Working with the SACP Task Force, CSXT is
reviewing its discipline policy with a view toward a more remedial and
less punitive approach.
Locomotive Engineer Mentor Program.--The Brotherhood of Locomotive
Engineers (BLE) and CSXT have joined forces to develop a mentor program
(SENSE Program). Experienced locomotive engineers become mentors for
new and inexperienced train service employees to inculcate safe work
habits. Lack of experience in handling heavy trains and unusual
situations is a prominent factor in many derailments and collisions.
Signal and Train Control Improvement Program.--Working with the
SACP Task Force, CSXT will hire an additional 250 signal employees
during 1998 and spend $66 million to improve signal system maintenance.
Included are plans to eliminate outdated pole lines, a major SACP
safety concern, and defects to numerous Grade Crossing Warning Devices
identified in the FRA safety audit report (e.g., lamp voltage,
visibility of flashing lights, upgrades in battery supply and cable
size).
1-800 Crossing Hazard Call-In-Program.--As part of an agreement
with FRA, CSXT is installing emergency information signs at all public
highway-rail grade crossings. The signs list a toll-free telephone and
highway-rail grade crossing identification numbers, where motorists may
report stalled vehicles and malfunctioning warning devices.
impact of sacp--fiscal years 1995-97
Question. Please prepare quantitative measures showing the impact
of SACP on railroad safety, using numerous measures of safety
performance for each of the last three years.
Answer.
CASUALTIES IN ACCIDENTS/INCIDENTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
Year Fatalities Injuries casualties
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995............................................................ 1,146 14,440 15,586
1996............................................................ 1,039 12,558 13,597
1997 \1\........................................................ 1,054 11,647 12,701
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACCIDENTS/INCIDENTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hwy-rail Total
Year Train Train Nontrain Xing accidents/
accidents incidents incidents impacts incidents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995........................................... 2,459 2,267 10,236 4,663 19,625
1996........................................... 2,443 2,156 8,836 4,257 17,692
1997 \1\....................................... 2,338 1,982 8,082 3,926 16,328
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACCIDENTS/PROPERTY DAMAGE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total train Accidents/
Year Train accident million train-
accidents damage miles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995............................................................ 2,459 $189,224,000 3.67
1996............................................................ 2,443 212,314,000 3.64
1997 \1\........................................................ 2,338 265,504,000 3.45
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HIGHWAY-RAIL CASUALTIES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
Year Deaths Injuries casualties
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995............................................................ 579 1,894 2,473
1996............................................................ 488 1,610 2,098
1997 \1\........................................................ 452 1,575 2,027
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HIGHWAY-RAIL ACCIDENTS/INCIDENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accidents/
Year Accidents/ million train-
incidents miles
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995.................................... 4,663 6.96
1996.................................... 4,257 6.34
1997 \1\................................ 3,926 5.80
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CASUALTY RATES FOR EMPLOYEES ON DUTY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Casualties/
Year Total 200,000 work-
casualties hours rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995.................................... 10,811 4.24
1996.................................... 9,232 3.66
1997 \1\................................ 8,330 3.27
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL TRESPASSER CASUALTIES (EXCLUDING HIGHWAY-RAIL CROSSINGS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
Year Deaths Injuries casualties
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995............................. 494 461 955
1996............................. 471 474 945
1997 \1\......................... 530 501 1,031
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Preliminary data.
up/sp accidents and the sacp process
Question. The National Transportation Safety Board cited 15
accidents on Union Pacific/Southern Pacific property between October
1996 and October 1997, with which a total of 37 injuries and 7 deaths
were associated. How, if at all, do these statistics reflect on FRA's
SACP process?
Answer. One of FRA's earliest SACP safety audits occurred on the
Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) in 1995. The UP of 1995 was a much
smaller system then; neither the Chicago and North Western
Transportation Company nor the Southern Pacific Transportation Company
were yet a part of that system.
FRA identified issues of regulatory compliance that were
essentially regional in character and its inspection program proved
successful at the time. For example, train accident rates were on the
decline and the UP followed the trend that characterized the rail
industry in general: traffic was rising, the size of the work force and
amount of infrastructure was declining, and safety was showing steady
improvement. Between 1995 and 1997, inclusive, the train accident rate
on the combined UP system dropped from 3.88 to 3.36 (10 months data)
while the total number of train accidents fell from 694 to 476 (10
months data). The trend held true for every major accident cause factor
over this period: human factor-caused accidents declined 39 percent;
track-caused accidents fell 24 percent.
Even in Texas, where four major train collisions occurred in 1997,
the overall number of train accidents on the combined UP system fell by
25 percent (10 months data) and the number of human factor accidents
fell by 13 percent in 1997. Safety progress was evident until an eight-
week period beginning June 22, 1997, when five major train collisions
caused the deaths of five employees and two trespassers. These tragic
collisions of mid-summer marked a sharp reversal of the positive safety
trends that the UP had experienced.
Commencing August 23, 1997, FRA sent the largest single force of
inspectors ever used on a single property to the UP. Twenty-five
percent of FRA's inspection force was used to find a solution to stop
the deadly series of collisions. More than 85 Federal and State safety
inspectors conduced a two-week, 24-hour-a-day team inspection across
the UP system. This ``sweep'' was followed-up by a five-day, system-
wide team inspection involving 87 inspectors starting on November 3,
1997. Based on the information developed through FRA's accident
investigations and intensified SACP activities, the agency issued a
series of Safety Advisories to immediately address several safety
critical topics. These include: 97-1, Recommended safety practices for
certain locomotives equipped with emergency MU fuel line cut off; 97-2,
Safety practices to reduce the risk of casualties from runaway
locomotives, cars, and trains caused by a failure to properly secure
unattended rolling equipment left on sidings; and 97-3, Safety
Practices to reduce the risk of accidents arising from the
authorization of train movements past stop indications of absolute
signals.
Furthermore, beginning in September, joint labor/management/FRA
safety committees were formed to address the issues being identified by
FRA through the SACP process. As FRA crystallized its findings and
recommendations, the agency remained in close contact with labor and
management representatives who were actively seeking solutions to the
identified problems. Four interrelated problems seemed to stand out and
permeate many areas of safety on the UP: (1) Under staffing; (2)
Fatigue; (3) Insufficient levels of supervision; and (4) Dispatching
deficiencies. FRA would not have been able to reach these findings if
it had limited its activities to site specific inspections.
On February 24, 1998, FRA conducted a Senior Management Meeting
with senior representatives from the UP, rail labor, and FRA. Discussed
were the root causes of the safety problems that led to the collisions
and derailments of the previous six months. The UP formally presented
its Safety Action Plan, developed with the input of rail labor and
FRA's guidance, detailing both long-term and interim measures to
prevent the recurrence of these problems. The results of UP's actions
are significant. Under the plan, staffing levels are being increased at
a rate three to four times greater than in previous years. The UP
projects hiring more than 4,300 railroad workers this year, at least
1,200 of which are train and engine service personnel. Even more
significant, the UP has formed a team to evaluate staffing needs and
assumptions through the year 2015, and it has invited labor
representatives to review its staffing plans as a sort of ``reality
check.'' To address the critical shortage of safety supervisors, the UP
has hired, or is in the process of hiring, approximately 134
supervisors.
In addition, the UP has hired a leading fatigue management expert,
Dr. Mark Rosekind, who was formerly a fatigue consultant to the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration. With this expert
guidance, the UP plans to develop and implement a comprehensive fatigue
management program addressing a broad spectrum of fatigue mitigation
measures, including work rest cycles that permit time off, ``call-in''
windows, a napping policy, improved work assignment predictability,
improved rest facilities, and reduced ``dead head'' time.
The SACP safety audit of the UP is a good example of why site-
specific inspections of large railroad systems are not sufficient and
why SACP system reviews are needed. The SACP examination of the UP has
provided FRA the opportunity to address issues unprecedented in this
industry. FRA is aware that Safety Action Plans, in and of themselves,
cannot make the UP safer. The Plans must be fully implemented in a
timely manner before FRA can expect to bring about the cultural change
that the railroad requires. FRA is fully committed to ensuring that a
sufficient follow-up is conducted of the UP Safety Action Plan to
monitor the Plan's implementation and effectiveness.
warning letters
Question. Since last year, how have you strengthened 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 individuals who received FRA
warning letters has the agency taken during each of the last three
years? What types of actions were taken?
Answer. FRA does not single out individuals who have received
warning letters for special attention in monitoring or reinspection
activities. The warning letter itself is a method of enforcement. It is
used only where FRA believes that the letter itself will have the
desired effect in bringing a situation into compliance with the
applicable safety regulations. Of course, if FRA finds a continuing
pattern of non-compliance by a warning letter recipient, other more
severe enforcement actions will be taken as necessary, but this has
seldom occurred.
During the past three years, FRA issued warning letters to
individuals as follows: 1995 (17), 1996 (23), and 1997 (17). In that
time, FRA has not found it necessary to take any additional enforcement
actions against the recipients of warning letters.
safety assurance and compliance program
Question. Please provide a list of railroads that have successfully
completed safety actions plans, and those railroads that have open or
unresolved actions plans.
Answer. Railroads that have successfully completed safety action
plans and those that are still open follow:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open or
Completed unresolved
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Chicago Northwestern...................... X ...........
2. Southern Pacific.......................... X ...........
3. Iowa Interstate........................... X ...........
4. Conrail................................... ........... X
5. Kansas City Southern...................... X ...........
6. Union Pacific............................. X ...........
7. Tri-County Commuter Rail.................. X ...........
8. Montana Rail Link......................... X ...........
9. CSXT...................................... X ...........
10. Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern............. X ...........
11. SEPTA (Southeastern Pennsylvania)......... ........... X
12. Long Island............................... ........... X
13. Springfield Terminal...................... ........... X
14. Beltway Railway of Chicago................ ........... X
15. Norfolk Southern.......................... X ...........
16. RailTex................................... X ...........
17. Elgin, Joliet & Eastern................... X ...........
18. Amtrak.................................... ........... X
19. Canadian Pacific (Soo Line)............... ........... X
20. New Orleans Public Belt................... ........... X
21. New York and Lake Erie.................... ........... X
21. Duluth, Missabe and Iron Range............ ........... X
22. Arizona & California...................... ........... X
23. Illinois Central.......................... ........... X
24. Wheeling & Lake Erie...................... ........... X
25. Reading Blue Mountain & Northern.......... ........... X
26. Gateway Western........................... X ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The resolution of some issues often requires a long-term commitment
of funding, staffing, and operational considerations. An ``open or
unresolved'' designation indicates that one or more action issues have
not been fully implemented. For example, Amtrak Action Item OP No. 2,
cites the need to improve record keeping and evaluation documentation
procedures in support of locomotive engineer certification and
operational testing programs. While Amtrak has funded a capital
appropriation request of $250,000 for the development of an Integrated
Regulatory Information System for fiscal year 1998 to satisfy the
documentation requirement, this Action Item is still ``open'' until
satisfactory results are achieved. ``Unresolved issues'' pertain to
FRA's acceptance of a carrier's Safety Action Plan in response to our
findings and recommendations. A carrier is granted a reasonable period
of time to prepare its response--approximately 45 days. Since the
inception of the Safety Assurance and Compliance Program (SACP), there
have been no instances where a carrier and FRA have not been able to
agree to a satisfactory solution to a systemic safety issue. However,
until an agreement is reached, this Action Item will be designated
``unresolved.''
SACP is evolving into a continuous ongoing process. FRA is now
maintaining a continued presence on a carrier's property after
``completing'' the initial SACP safety audit. FRA is presently in open-
ended partnerships with the UP, CSXT, Norfolk Southern, and others to
address and resolve safety concerns.
In addition to the carriers listed above, other railroads have
received SACP safety audits. However, a determination was made that
either systemic problems did not exist, or that resolutions could be
achieved without the requirement of a Safety Action Plan. In general,
these carriers have a narrow scope of operations (i.e., switching and
terminal), and employ a small work force.
failure to implement action plan
Question. Please share with the Committee all instances where FRA
has determined that a railroad with an agreed-upon action plan has not
made a good-faith effort to execute the action plan. In each of these
instances, did FRA process civil penalties that would have been held in
abeyance had the railroad been making a good-faith effort to implement
the plan?
Answer. Two examples of railroad failures to carry-out agreed-upon
actions, which occurred early in FRA's Safety Assurance and Compliance
Program, follow: Tonawanda Island Railroad. In response to concerns
raised by the New York State Department of Transportation, FRA
inspected and found an unsafe bridge on the Tonawanda Island Railroad
system. The railroad agreed not to operate over the bridge until it was
properly repaired and inspected by FRA. When the railroad resumed
operations over the bridge without making repairs, FRA issued Emergency
Order (EO) 19 on February 12, 1996. Until rescinded, EO 19 directs the
railroad to discontinue operations over the bridge.
Southern Pacific Transportation Company. During a listening session
with the Brotherhood of Railway Carmen at West Colton, California, FRA
attention was directed to a Southern Pacific Railroad (SP) practice of
allowing defective freight cars to be released from the yard at West
Colton. A team of FRA motive power and equipment personnel was
assembled and made inspections. Numerous defective cars were observed
being permitted to leave the yard. SP was requested to submit a Safety
Action Plan (SAP). FRA performed follow-up inspections after the action
plan had been implemented and found that the problem had not been
corrected. FRA is now pursuing vigorous enforcement actions, including
violations, against the SP and SP personnel who allowed these practices
to continue.
FRA has not encountered any current circumstances where railroads
have failed to make a good-faith effort to carry-out SAP's. There have
been circumstances where SAP's were not implemented in exact accordance
with agreed-upon terms, e.g., milestones and target dates. However,
these circumstances were related to operational considerations,
staffing limitations, financial restraints, severe weather conditions,
and other factors. When the SAP execution is altered, FRA closely
monitors the railroad's progress until satisfactory action has been
achieved. As partners in the Safety Assurance and Compliance Program,
rail labor participates in any significant revisions to a carrier's
SAP.
sacp of norfolk southern
Question. Has the Norfolk Southern Railroad indicated a willingness
to participate in the Safety Assurance and Compliance Program? If not,
what action does FRA plan to take in this regard?
Answer. FRA conducted a limited SACP assessment of the Norfolk
Southern in 1996 in order to identify specific safety concerns at that
time. Following the application of CSX Transportation (CSXT) and
Norfolk Southern Railroad (NS) to purchase Consolidated Rail
Corporation, both carriers submitted Safety Implementation Plans
(SIP's) to the Surface Transportation Board as part of the merger
application process. As a result of NS's SIP, the carrier expressed a
willingness to participate in a SACP safety audit. In April 1998, FRA
initiated a comprehensive assessment of NS covering the following
issues: (1) train dispatching operations, (2) accident/incident
reporting, (3) fatigue, (4) staffing levels, (5) long noise forward
operations, and (6) mechanical concerns, such as pre-departure and
track repairs. Currently, outreach efforts are underway to ensure the
participation of rail labor as partners in this assessment.
number of site-specific inspections by region 1994-97
Question. The SACP has shifted some of FRA's resources away from
site-specific inspections. Please prepare a table showing the number of
inspections conducted in 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997, by region and in
aggregate, and showing the percentage of decline for each year. What do
you believe will be the long-term effect of these declines in site-
specific inspections on railroad safety?
Answer. The number of inspection reports filed by region during
1994-1997 and the year-to-year percentage change follows:
SUMMARY OF INSPECTION REPORTS FILED
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995 vs. 1996 vs. 1997 vs.
Region 1994 1995 1994 1996 1995 1997 1996
(percent) (percent) (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................. 6,319 5,096 -19.4 5,059 -0.7 4,608 -8.9
2.................................. 12,929 11,065 -14.4 9,004 -18.6 8,479 -5.8
3.................................. 11,423 9,118 -20.2 8,812 -3.4 8,203 -6.9
4.................................. 9,696 7,959 -17.9 7,581 -4.7 7,155 -5.6
5.................................. 9,677 7,170 -25.9 6,667 -7.0 6,047 -9.3
6.................................. 5,939 3,849 -35.2 3,701 -3.8 3,679 -0.6
7.................................. 6,819 5,258 -22.9 5,758 +9.5 5,336 -7.3
8.................................. 5,382 4,020 -25.3 4,184 +4.1 4,003 -4.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals....................... 68,202 53,535 -21.5 50,766 -5.2 47,516 -6.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FRA believes that the key to achieving an effective rail safety
program is to strike the optimum balance between safety partnership
initiatives and site specific inspections. The 32 additional positions
being sought by FRA are intended to help maintain that balance. As long
as the SACP approach is yielding positive results, safety inspectors
may continue to conduct fewer site specific inspections as a percentage
of their total safety activities. However, safety partnership
activities like the Safety Assurance and Compliance program must be
augmented by site inspections; therefore inspection levels must not be
allowed to drop precipitously. FRA is concerned that the proper balance
be maintained between the two approaches.
Trends since 1993 clearly demonstrate the effectiveness of the new
way of doing business. Thus far, there has been no long-term
detrimental effect on railroad safety as a result of declines in site-
specific inspections, because they are being replaced by more effective
comprehensive safety audits at the largest railroads. The 32 new
positions being sought by FRA will help ensure that the proper balance
is maintained between FRA's new partnership programs and its
traditional inspection programs.
guidance on focused enforcement
Question. Please provide the Committee a copy of the April 1997
guidance to FRA regional offices that explains the concept of ``focused
enforcement.''
Answer. See attached report.
fra's goal for inspection
Question. Is it FRA's stated goal to inspect all railroads at least
once a year? Please provide a table showing the number of railroads
that underwent no FRA inspections for calendar years 1992-1997.
Answer. FRA's long-term goal is to visit each active railroad
annually, assuming adequate inspector resources are available. FRA's
stated objective also is to visit each new railroad at initial start-
up.
ACTIVE RAILROADS NOT INSPECTED
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Active
Year Active railroads not
railroads inspected
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1992.................................... 635 77
1993.................................... 668 88
1994.................................... 688 92
1995.................................... 679 115
1996.................................... 704 124
1997.................................... 679 144
------------------------------------------------------------------------
safety information systems
Question. How generally helpful have you found FRA headquarters
information systems?
Answer. FRA's information systems provide extensive data on each
railroad's safety record. The Office of Safety managers use this
information to allocate resources to locations of greatest risk.
Information systems are used by inspectors when planning inspection
activities. With limited resources, FRA has found its information
systems extremely valuable for traditional site specific inspections,
planning highway-rail grade crossing and trespass prevention programs,
formulating Safety Assurance and Compliance Program (SACP), and
determining Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) rulemaking
initiatives.
SACP, which brings together rail labor, railroad management and FRA
to determine the root causes of systemic railroad safety problems, has
repeatedly depended on FRA's information systems to establish action
plans.
Railroads operating in multiple States and across several of FRA's
regional field offices are best monitored using SACP safety audit
methods. SACP's have been successful because FRA and its partners have
had an extensive information system to use as a justification for
actions planned. Information systems have been used for an Annual
Allocation Analysis Model (AAAM). The AAAM aids in field inspection
focus on high risk rail movements. The model data is arranged by
inspection discipline, region, and railroad. Railroads are divided into
three class size groupings: large railroads with annual employee hours
greater than 400,000, small railroads with total train miles times
annual employee hours greater than 100 million, and small railroads
with total train miles times annual employee hours less than 100
million.
For large railroads, AAAM uses seven risk factors: inspection
reports, accidents, fatalities and serious injuries, hazardous material
tons, total tons, passenger traffic, and inspection defects. AAAM also
uses seven risk factors for both categories of small railroads.
Hazardous material tons and total tons are obtained from the Surface
Transportation Board's Carload Waybill Sample. However, the Carload
Waybill Sample of railroad freight traffic does not accurately track
hazardous material traffic flows on small railroads. Consequently,
``train miles'' and ``annual employee hours'' are substituted for
``hazardous material tons,'' and ``total tons.'' AAAM is a model
clearly show how valuable FRA's current information systems have been
for determining reasonable risk factors, which can suggest the need for
site specific examinations, or suggest an area for examination under
Safety Assurance and Compliance Program (SACP) safety audits.
A greater dependency on the use of FRA's Headquarters Information
Systems is an outgrowth of President Clinton's directive to Federal
regulatory agencies that their inspection and enforcement programs be
designed to focus on safety results, not just collect fines. FRA also
depends on Headquarters Information Systems to carry-out the mandate of
the Government Performance and Results Act to identify specific
indicators that measure the overall success of the program.
state inspectors and sacp
Question. How are State inspectors adequately represented in the
SACP process?
Answer. FRA has made a concerted effort to ensure that States are
adequately represented in the SACP Process. At the SACP development
level, State Program Directors have been invited to attend and have
participated in SACP oversight meetings. The Directors of the two
largest State programs, Texas and California attended the initial Union
Pacific (UP) SACP Meeting. These States are slated to participate in
all future oversight meetings. The Texas Director also has attended
Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) SACP oversight meetings.
Most State Program Directors do not have the ability to travel
outside of State boundaries. To ensure that these States are apprised
of SACP initiatives, FRA Regions and the FRA State liaison work
together to disseminate status reports and issue briefings from SACP
oversight meetings. Near the outset of the Union Pacific service/safety
crisis, FRA's Associate Administrator for Safety conducted a lengthy
conference call with Safety Program Directors of all affected States to
provide an update on the SACP process and solicit State questions or
concerns.
There is a two-way exchange of information on the SACP process with
States. State inspectors are encouraged to identify SACP safety issues.
These issues are evaluated within the context of the SACP process for
local or systemic implications. Whenever possible, inspection teams
created to address SACP safety concerns have State inspectors as
members or team leaders. Focus groups that interact with local
management and union officials include State inspectors.
States and FRA have also agreed to initiate an annual
Communications/Work plan to ensure coordination on all aspects of the
joint safety program. This structured communications protocol
specifically addresses SACP programs and will help define specific SACP
roles for State inspectors.
Another venue for ensuring that States are full participants in the
SACP process is the annual State Program Manager's meeting sponsored by
FRA. At last year's meeting, State Directors received a complete update
on the BNSF SACP from the BNSF Project Manager, a major union official,
and the BNSF President. This year's State Program Director's meeting
will include an assessment of the SACP processes currently underway.
follow up on safety action plans
Question. After a railroad submits its safety action plan, how do
FRA's procedures effectively ensure adequate follow-up and periodic
reinspection?
Answer. FRA's guidelines for Safety Action Plans require follow-up
and periodic reinspection by safety inspectors. Safety Action Plans
direct safety inspectors to the particular areas where the safety audit
compliance is concentrated. FRA's publication, The Safety Assurance and
Compliance Program: Guidance on Inspection and Enforcement--April 1997,
outlines the procedures for effectively ensuring adequate follow-up and
periodic reinspection. Also, the continuous analysis of safety factors
in FRA's databases, e.g., accidents, incidents, defect ratios, signal
and train control malfunctions, helps FRA's Safety Staff to identify
additional areas requiring immediate inspection activity.
FRA is constantly reviewing and refining SACP to promote and/or
facilitate safer operating procedures and practices in the railroad
industry. Currently, a comprehensive review of the SACP is underway.
FRA anticipates issuing revised SACP guidelines prior to fiscal year
1999. A major emphasis during this review is evaluating the
effectiveness and responsiveness of FRA's audit process while
monitoring a carrier's Safety Action Plan.
approval process of sacp plans
Question. Does FRA require that safety profiles, action plans, and
follow-up audit plans prepared by the field receive approval by FRA
headquarters? If not, at what level are these items approved?
Answer. The level of organizational approval that is necessary for
Safety Assurance and Compliance Program (SACP) safety profiles, action
plans and follow-up audit plans is based on a number of factors related
to carrier size, scope and complexity of operations, and overall safety
record history. Regardless of the organizational approval level, all
carriers' action plans are forwarded to FRA Headquarters for review. In
general, Headquarters approval is required for SACP activities
involving Class I carriers and for issues that have railroad system-
wide consequences. In most other instances, approval is delegated to
the SACP Program Manager and/or a Regional Administrator.
inspector participation in penalty negotiations
Question. How involved in the violation negotiations process are
the FRA safety inspectors who actually wrote up these violations?
Answer. FRA conducts settlement conferences on civil penalty cases
with the major railroads on at least an annual basis. FRA tries to
schedule as many of these conferences as possible outside of Washington
to facilitate attendance by FRA and state enforcement personnel. Of
course, it is not possible to involve every inspector who wrote a
violation report in every settlement conference in which it is
discussed. Inspectors write up violations against many railroads and
cannot invest the time needed to participate in several major
settlement conferences. Even if they could, limited travel budgets and
the space limitations of conference rooms require that attendance be
restricted. As a result, only a few inspectors and regional specialists
attend each conference. Their role is to participate in discussion of
particular sets of facts, compliance problems, or policies, and to
advise FRA counsel on strengths and weaknesses of the agency's cases
and the railroad's defenses. Inspectors and regional personnel
invariably say that this participation is enormously useful because it
gives them a new perspective on how to write stronger violation
reports, what kinds of factors can be offered as defenses and
mitigating factors, and how reasoned compromise of the penalties
encourages compliance. FRA attorneys benefit from the insights provided
by the enforcement personnel. With regard to small railroad and shipper
cases, such direct involvement in settlement discussion by field
personnel is rare. Those cases are usually handled by correspondence or
telephone. Occasionally, the volume of pending cases or seriousness of
the violations will warrant a conference with a small railroad or
shipper, and field personnel are generally invited.
In none of these situations, however, do the enforcement personnel
engage in negotiations to the extent of discussing the amount of a
dollar settlement directly with the railroad. FRA believes that it is
better from the program integrity perspective to insulate front line
enforcement personnel from such direct negotiations on the penalties
resulting from their recommendations. Their direct involvement in
penalty negotiations would raise questions of consistency of treatment
and could expose the inspectors to an unnecessary vulnerability to
fraud and abuse. Their current level of involvement seems to work well
for all concerned.
written guidelines for sacp
Question. What are the written guidelines regarding the procedures
for the SACP? How are these guidelines fair to both labor and
management?
Answer. The following guidelines and publications which outline
procedures for SACP have been issued: (1) Safety Assurance and
Compliance Process--Initial Senior Management Meetings; (2) Federal
Railroad Administration--Safety Assurance and Compliance Program--
Summary Report; (3) Enhancing Rail Safety Now and Into the 21st
Century: The Federal Railroad Administration's Safety Programs and
Initiatives (A Report to Congress); and (4) The Safety Assurance and
Compliance Program: Guidance on Inspection and Enforcement--April 1997.
SACP establishes partnerships between rail labor, railroad
management, and FRA to identify and address safety concerns. All
participants in the SACP, regardless of their affiliation, have equal
standing in recommending measures for alleviating safety concerns.
Due to the evolutionary changes in the SACP, a task force has been
established to review existing guidelines and make recommendations for
possible change or modifications.
standards for sacp
Question. Has FRA developed standards and criteria for carrying out
SACP to ensure that the program is applied uniformly? What SACP
training is provided to FRA management and inspection staff?
Answer. FRA has developed standards and criteria for ensuring
consistency in the interpretation of rules and regulations pertaining
to compliance and enforcement activities. These same standards and
criteria are applied in the course of developing findings and
recommendations during a SACP safety audit and are the ``measurements''
for determining a carrier's performance in adequately addressing safety
discipline-related concerns. FRA is in the process of revising SACP.
Under consideration are providing more definitive guidelines regarding
the identification and utilization of quantitative measures during the
assessment of a carrier.
Training for the inspector force on the SACP is provided annually
at FRA's Multi-Regional Conferences and, as appropriate, during
meetings of various Technical Resolution Committees.
sacp and smaller railroads
Question. What is FRA's experience with the SACP for smaller
railroads? Is SACP effective for smaller railroads, considering that
the intended purpose of SACP is to identify systemic safety problems?
Are the SACP procedures the same for smaller railroads as for large
railroads?
Answer. SACP uses a rail labor/management/FRA partnership approach
to identifying and solving safety concerns within the railroad
industry. The difference between a SACP safety audit of a Class I
carrier versus that of a smaller carrier is one of magnitude--the size
of each entity's operations determines the amount of effort to be used
in the process. Nevertheless, the procedures followed are identical--
safety profile/action plan/follow-up audit. A systemic safety problem
may exist on any carrier's property. However, the size of the carrier
does not affect the effectiveness of the procedures or process.
additional funding for rsac
Question. FRA has requested additional funding for the Railroad
Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC). Please break down all associated
spending, justifying the requested increase to support the RSAC,
including facilities, mailings, equipment, contract support, and the
``other'' support costs. Please further specify exactly how fiscal year
1997 and fiscal year 1998 monies were used for RSAC.
Answer. The Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) provides FRA
with advice and recommendations on the development of safety standards
and other important issues facing the federal railroad safety
regulatory program. This process shifts the focus of FRA's regulatory
program to one of greater collaboration with the regulated community in
arriving at mutually satisfactory solutions. RSAC produces consensus on
underlying factual issues, the range of options, and the recommended
solutions. By harnessing the combined wisdom, resources and experience
of railroad industry experts who have the greatest knowledge and
interest in promoting rail safety, FRA is able to leverage its
resources to simultaneously conduct a number of major rulemakings,
often much more quickly than can be accomplished under the traditional
approach. RSAC is undertaking some of FRA's toughest, most
controversial regulatory challenges.
The RSAC structure consists of voting representatives from 27
organizations representing large and small railroads, rail labor
organizations, state associations, rail passenger representatives,
suppliers, other interested parties, and two associate representatives
from agencies with rail responsibilities in Canada and Mexico. Initial
funding levels did not anticipate the overwhelming industry embracement
of this process. Railroad labor and management are dedicating
significant resources to the success of this collaborative rulemaking
process. Since RSAC was chartered on March 25, 1996, an estimated 500
full Committee, Working Group and Task Force members and alternates
have participated in more than 75 meetings to address 13 issues such as
track safety standards and positive train control. The magnitude of the
resources dedicated is reflective of the participants' commitment to
the success of this process.
Based the number of regulatory issues being undertaken by RSAC, the
intensive committee work necessary to achieve RSAC's collaborative
purposes, and the fact that the committee is in a necessary growth
phase in terms of the number of its tasks, we believe our request for
funding is reasonable.
The additional $100,000 requested would support the fiscal year
1999 RSAC activities at an 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. The
additional funding would be allocated as follows:
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.
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 safety 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.
These funds will supplement the $100,000 that is in FRA's base for
RSAC, which would be allocated as follows:
Funding for meeting space and accompanying audio/visual
requirements for the full Committee, Working Groups and Task Forces
($55,000) to accommodate meeting space requirements based on the number
of participants required to be seated at the table, attendance by
members of the general public and additional space necessary for
essential caucus and task force activities. Federal agency space
available to accommodate these requirements is extremely limited and in
great demand in the Washington D.C. area. Further constraints for RSAC
meetings are restrictions on entrances to many federal 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
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 Task Forces. Adequate funding to support processing
and dissemination of information and data crucial to the ongoing
regulatory tasks and the extensive coordination involved, will ensure
the effectiveness of this extremely significant undertaking is not
compromised.
Funding for interpreter services ($3,000) is requested to address
the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The $50,000 Congress authorized for RSAC in fiscal year 1997 was
utilized primarily in support of costs associated with supplies,
printing, mailing costs, meeting space, and accompanying audio/visual
requirements for three full Committee meetings and an estimated 36
working group and task force meetings.
The $100,000 funding level for fiscal year 1998 will continue to
support costs associated with supplies, printing, mailing costs, and
meeting space and associated requirements for meetings of the full
Committee, working groups, and task forces.
rsac rulemaking achievement
Question. Please assess the costs, benefits, challenges, and
successes or accomplishments of the RSAC.
Answer. RSAC provides FRA with a continuing forum for advice and
recommendations on the development of the railroad safety regulatory
program. This collaborative rulemaking approach fully involves FRA's
customers, including representatives of railroad labor and management,
and makes the best use of resources to accommodate the rapidly evolving
changes in the rail transportation industry. Because the final rule is
based on consent, acceptance and understanding are widespread and
compliance is at high levels from the start. Railroad management and
railroad labor are dedicating significant resources to the success of
this collaborative process.
Since RSAC was chartered on March 25, 1996, an estimated 800 full
Committee, Working Group and Task Force members and alternates have
participated in more than 80 meetings addressing such issues as track
safety standards, railroad communications, locomotive crew safety,
locomotive engineer certification, event recorders, tourist and
historic railroads, and positive train control.
The Committee has been working on some of FRA's toughest, most
controversial regulatory challenges. The 13 tasks which have been
referred to, and accepted by the RSAC to date, are highlighted in the
next question and answer. Through the collaborative efforts of RSAC,
the following regulatory achievements to date are:
Revision of Track Safety Standards.--The RSAC accepted the task of
preparing an NPRM on April 1, 1996. The NPRM was published on July 3,
1997. A public hearing was held on September 4, 1997, and the final
rule is in review and clearance and will be issued in the near future.
A significant issue in the Congressional mandate for revising the
Track Safety Standards was the protection of roadway workers. FRA
issued a final rule on roadway worker safety, which became effective on
January 15, 1997. This rule was the product of FRA's first negotiated
rulemaking and represents the collaborative efforts of all major
segments of the railroad industry.
Railroad Communications.--The RSAC accepted the task of preparing
an NPRM on April 1, 1996. The NPRM was issued on June 11, 1997. The
final rule is nearing completion and it is expected to be issued within
the coming months.
Recently, the Committee approved the first proposed revision to
steam locomotive rules in half a century. The NPRM will be published
within the next few weeks. This effort, which deals with historic
locomotives still used in scenic and excursion service, involved
collaboration among representatives of the small railroads that own
those locomotives and FRA. The Committee is presently voting on a
consensus revision of the regulations for Locomotive Engineer
Qualification and Certification.
rulemaking tasks to rsac
Question. How many rulemaking tasks has FRA referred to the RSAC?
How long had FRA been working on each of these rulemaking tasks prior
to referring them to the RSAC? For the tasks referred to the committee,
how many had FRA already missed the congressional mandate to issue
final rules? Has the Administrator withdrawn any of the tasks referred
to the committee? If so, what were the reasons for withdrawing tasks
referred to the RSAC?
Answer. Since RSAC was chartered on March 25, 1996, 15 tasks have
been referred to, and accepted by, the Committee.
See the attached list detailing how long FRA had been working on
each of these rulemakings prior to referring them to RSAC.
Although FRA is making good progress in reducing a regulatory
backlog that arose against a background of successive statutory
mandates, the issuance of final rules addressing all elements of the
revision of track safety standards and the power brake rules have not
met statutory deadlines.
The extended statutory deadline for revision of the track safety
standards was September 1, 1995. FRA published an ANPRM on November 6,
1992. The RSAC accepted the task of preparing an NPRM on April 2, 1996.
FRA published an NPRM on July 3, 1997, and a final rule is in review
and clearance.
The statutory deadline for revision of the power brake rules was
December 31, 1993. An NPRM was published on September 16, 1994. Based
on differences between passenger and freight operations, passenger
equipment power brake standards were separated from freight and
included in the Passenger Equipment Standards NPRM published September
23, 1997. FRA is preparing the final rule. Two-way end-of-train rules
were separated from the balance of freight issues and a final rule was
published January 2, 1997. Railroads agreed to an expedited schedule
and trains were equipped ahead of the statutory deadline.
The general revision of the freight power brake rules were tasked
to the RSAC on April 1, 1996. After a period of over a year of intense
efforts, a consensus between railroad labor and management could not be
reached on several contentious issues and FRA formally withdrew the
task on June 24, 1997. FRA is proceeding with the issuance of a second
NPRM reflective of what FRA has learned through the collaborative
process.
history of rulemakings referred to rsac
Revision of Freight Power Brake Regulations.--The 1992 Rail Safety
Enforcement and Review Act of 1992 required FRA to revise the power
brake regulations. FRA did complete the portion of the rule involving
two-way end-of train devices (EOT's) and it became effective on July 1,
1997. FRA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on September
16, 1994, and conducted six days of public hearings. Additional options
were requested from passenger interests and freight interests.
Passenger power brake provisions were included in the Passenger
Equipment Standards NPRM published September 23, 1997, and a final rule
is in preparation. Revision of the freight power brake regulations was
tasked to RSAC on April 1, 1996. After a period of over a year of
intense efforts, a consensus between railroad labor and management
could not be reached on several contentious issues. FRA formally
withdrew the freight power brake task at the June 24, 1997, RSAC
meeting, and FRA is proceeding with the issuance of an NPRM reflective
of what FRA has learned through the collaborative process.
Revision of Track Safety Standards.--The 1992 safety authorization
act required FRA to issue revised track rules. FRA published an
Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on November 6, 1992, and
conducted workshops during the period January-March 1993. The RSAC
accepted the task of preparing an NPRM on April 2, 1996. In November
1996, the RSAC voted to recommend issuance of the NPRM and FRA
published an NPRM on July 3, 1997. A public hearing was held on
September 4, 1997, with comments due by December 22, 1997. A final rule
is in review and clearance.
Railroad Communications.--FRA, in submitting a report to Congress
on Railroad Communications and Train Control on July 13, 1994, noted
the need to revise existing Federal standards for radio communications
in concert with railroads and employee representatives. The RSAC
accepted the task of preparing an NPRM, including consideration of
communication capabilities required in railroad operations, on April 1,
1996. The RSAC voted to recommend issuance of an NPRM. The NPRM was
issued on June 11, 1997. The comment period closed on August 25, 1997,
and FRA is nearing completion of the final rule.
Tourist, Excursion, Scenic and Historic Service.--The Swift
Railroad Development Act of 1994 required FRA to submit a report to
Congress regarding FRA's actions to recognize the unique factors
associated with these generally small passenger operations that often
utilize historic equipment. The report was submitted to the Congress on
June 10, 1996. The RSAC authorized formation of a working group on
Tourist and Historic Railroads on April 1, 1996, to promote the safe
operation of tourist and historic rail operations. The working group is
currently monitoring completion of the steam locomotive regulations
task.
Revision of Steam-Powered Locomotive Inspection Standards.--A
committee of steam locomotive experts from tourist and historic
railroads have sought a partnership with FRA to revise the steam
locomotive regulations. Revision of the regulations was tasked to the
RSAC on July 24, 1996. The working group on Tourist and Historic
Railroads created a task force to address this task. The task force's
proposed recommendations were accepted by the working group and
forwarded to the RSAC. The RSAC voted to recommend issuance of an NPRM
and FRA is finalizing the regulatory analysis to accompany publication
of the NPRM.
Revision of Qualification and Certification of Locomotive Engineer
Regulations.--The final rule for locomotive engineer certification
became effective in 1991, but certain issues were left unresolved.
Experience under the rule has also raised additional issues. An interim
final rule amendment was published on October 12, 1995. The RSAC
accepted a task to revise the regulations on October 31, 1996. It is
expected that the working group will submit a proposed NPRM to the RSAC
at its next meeting on May 14, 1998.
Safety Standards for Track Motor Vehicles and Self Propelled
Roadway Equipment.--During deliberations of the working group on Track
Safety Standards, the issue of proposing standards relating to the
safety of persons riding or operating maintenance-of-way equipment was
raised. On October 31, 1996, the RSAC accepted a task of drafting
proposed rules for safety of this equipment. A task force was formed to
address the issue and the task force reached a consensus agreement in
principle on what should be included in the proposed rule. FRA is
preparing rule text and preamble language to be presented to the RSAC
at its next meeting on May 14, 1998.
Locomotive Crashworthiness and Working Conditions Planning Task.--
The Rail Safety Enforcement and Review Act of 1992 required FRA to
conduct a proceeding regarding locomotive crashworthiness and working
conditions and issue regulations or submit a report. FRA conducted
research, outreach, and a survey of locomotive conditions and finalized
a report to the Congress entitled Locomotive Crashworthiness & Working
Conditions, transmitted by letter of September 18, 1996. The report
conveyed data and information developed by FRA to date, closed out
those areas of investigation for which further action is not warranted,
and defined issues that should be pursued further in concert with
industry parties, either for voluntary or regulatory action. The RSAC
accepted a planning task on October 31, 1996, to evaluate the need for
action responsive to recommendations contained in the report. A
planning group reviewed the report and grouped issues into categories.
FRA presented a task statement addressing locomotive crashworthiness
and a task statement addressing cab working conditions to the RSAC on
June 24, 1997.
Locomotive Crashworthiness.--On October 31, 1996, the RSAC voted to
accept a task addressing locomotive crashworthiness issues. The working
group on Locomotive Crashworthiness established a task force on
engineering issues that is actively reviewing collision history and
design options.
Locomotive Cab Working Conditions.--On October 31, 1996, the RSAC
voted to accept a task addressing cab working conditions issues. The
working group on Cab Working Conditions established task forces on
noise and temperature, which are working actively.
Revision of Event Recorder Requirements.--In issuing final rules
for event recorders which became effective May 5, 1995, FRA noted the
need to provide more refined technical standards. The National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) noted the loss of data from event
recorders in several accidents due to fire, water and mechanical
damage. NTSB proposed performance standards and agreed to serve as co-
chair for an industry/government working group that would define
technical standards for next-generation railroad event recorders. FRA
conducted a meeting of an informal working group comprised of railroad
labor and management and co-chaired by NTSB on December 7, 1995, to
consider development of technical standards. At the July 24-25, 1996,
RSAC meeting, the Association of American Railroads (AAR) agreed to
continue the inquiry and on November 1, 1996, reported the status of
work on proposed industry standards to the RSAC. On March 5, 1997, the
NTSB issued recommendations regarding testing and maintenance of event
recorders as a result of finding in the investigation of an accident on
February 1, 1996, at Cajon Pass, California. On March 24, 1997, the
RSAC indicated its desire to receive a task to consider the NTSB
recommendations with respect to crash survivability, testing and
maintenance. A task was presented to, and accepted by, the RSAC on June
24, 1997. An Event Recorder working group was formed and a task force
established. The working group and task force are actively conducting
meetings.
Positive Train Control (PTC) Systems.--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 July
1994 report entitled Railroad Communications and Train Control. 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 and clearance.
On September 30, 1997, the RSAC accepted two tasks involving
defining PTC functionalities, describing available technologies,
evaluating costs and benefit of potential systems, and considering
implementation opportunities and challenges, including demonstration
and deployment. A third task accepted by the RSAC requires revising
various regulations to address the safety implications of processor-
based signal and train control technologies, including communications-
based operating systems. A working group was convened to address the
tasks and two task forces were established, a Standards task force and
an Data and Implementation task force. The working group and task
forces are active and FRA is preparing an ANPRM to provide public
notice of the ongoing tasks and solicit public comment.
Definition of Reportable ``Train Accident''.--FRA identified the
need to comprehensively revise the regulations governing accident/
incident reporting, which had not been revised since 1974. FRA issued
an NPRM on August 19, 1994, and a final rule on May 30, 1996. Technical
amendments were published on November 22, 1996, and the FRA
Administrator signed final rule amendments on December 16, 1996. The
final rule became effective on January 1, 1997. On June 24, 1997, the
RSAC reviewed a request by an RSAC member to clarify the means used by
railroads to estimate railroad property damage and improve the
consistency of reporting. The RSAC accepted the task on September 30,
1997, limited to determination of damages qualifying an event as a
reportable train accident. A working group is being formed to address
this task.
track safety standards
Question. By the time FRA referred the Track Safety Standards
rulemaking to the RSAC in April 1996, the agency had already been
working on revising the Track Safety Standards for more than three
years. The committee developed a recommendation on the standards within
7 months, and FRA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on July 3,
1997. When does FRA anticipate issuing a final rule?
Answer. The final rule on the revised Track Safety Standards has
been completed and is pending clearance within the Administration. FRA
expects to issue the final rule in the near future. In the interim, the
industry is operating under rules that have long been in place and
ensure a very high degree of track safety.
The following points should be noted:
--Congress specifically directed FRA to consider the protection of
roadway workers. FRA issued a final rule on the protection of
these workers which became effective on January 15, 1997, with
a high degree of commitment to compliance by workers and
railroads. This rule was the product of the first negotiated
rulemaking and represents the collaborative efforts of all
major segments of the railroad industry.
--The final rule currently under review is based almost entirely on
the consensus recommendations of the RSAC. While it took time
to develop that consensus and reduce it to regulatory form, FRA
believes the final rule will be worth the effort.
completed rulemakings in fiscal year 1997
Question. Please list all final regulations, ANPRM's, NPRM's and
any new regulatory projects issued or pursued since last year.
Answer. FRA completed the following rulemakings in fiscal year
1997:
--The final rule on Two-Way End-of-Train Devices was published on
January 2, 1997.
--The final rule on Roadway Worker Safety became effective on January
15, 1997.
--The final rule on Accident/Incident Reporting became effective on
January 1, 1997.
FRA currently has a substantial number of rulemakings at various
stages of development. The following regulatory-related actions also
were accomplished in the last year:
--A proposed rule on Passenger Equipment Safety Standards was
published on September 23, 1997.
--A proposed rule on Passenger Train Emergency Preparedness was
published on February 24, 1997.
--A proposed rule revising the Track Safety Standards, which was
based on consensus recommendations of the RSAC, was published
on July 3, 1997.
--A proposed rule revising the existing standards for radio
communications and based on consensus recommendations of the
RSAC, was issued on June 11, 1997.
--A proposed rule was issued on December 12, 1997, in response to 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.
--A Notice of Proposed Order for the new signal and train control
system authorizing speeds to 150 miles per hour on portions of
the Northeast Corridor was published on November 20, 1997.
status of regulatory backlog
Question. What is the current regulatory backlog? What are the
nature and status of each of these projects?
Answer. FRA is making good progress in reducing a regulatory
backlog that arose against a background of successive statutory
mandates and limited resources.
FRA has addressed the backlog with hard work and new collaborative
approaches designed to find solutions that are based on good data and
responsive to cost/benefit concerns.
In some cases, research has been necessary to lay the foundation
for regulatory action. Research costs money, and acquiring funding
takes time.
Major overdue rules--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statutory
Requirement (date enacted) deadline Status; comment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Power brake rules, revise (9/3/92). 12/31/93......... 2-way EOT rules were final and trains were equipped in
1997, ahead of 12/31/97 statutory deadline.
Passenger power brake provisions were included in
Passenger Equipment St'ds NPRM published 9/23/97--
preparing final rule.
General revision of freight power brake rules--second
NPRM this summer.
Track safety standards (9/3/92).... 9/1/95 (as NPRM based on RSAC recommendation published 7/3/97;
extended 11/2/ final rule in review and clearance.
94).
Whistle bans (11/2/94, amended 10/9/ 11/2/96.......... NPRM based on extensive public outreach is in review and
96). clearance.
Passenger safety standards 11/2/97.......... Passenger Train Emergency Preparedness final rule based
(initial) (11/2/94). on working group consensus is in review and clearance.
Passenger Equipment Safety Standards NPRM was issued 9/
23/97; consultations completed 1/6/98; final rule in
preparation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
statutorily mandated regulations
Question. Which are the regulatory projects that are statutorily
mandated, and when were these due for final issuance? What is the
status of each?
Answer. Although FRA is making good progress in reducing a
regulatory backlog that arose against a background of successive
statutory mandates, the issuance of final rules addressing all elements
of the revision of the power brake rules and revision of the track
safety standards have not met statutory deadlines.
Track Safety Standards.--The revision of existing regulations
includes, among other things, the review of excepted track and
standards for high-speed service. A proposed rule based on consensus
recommendations of the RSAC was published on July 3, 1997. A public
hearing was held on September 4, 1997, and additional comment was
invited regarding certain high-speed track geometry issues. FRA has
prepared a final rule which is pending clearance. FRA expects the final
rule to be issued in the very near future.
Passenger Equipment Safety Standards.--The Federal Railroad Safety
Authorization Act of 1994, which was enacted on November 2, 1994,
requires FRA to issue initial passenger safety standards within three
years and complete standards within five years. Congress authorized FRA
to consult with industry parties outside the Federal Advisory Committee
Act, making it possible to conduct an informal negotiated rulemaking.
FRA is conducting this regulatory mandate in two separate rulemakings,
one on passenger equipment standards, and the other on emergency
preparedness. A proposed rule on Passenger Equipment Safety Standards
was published on September 23, 1997, and a public hearing was conducted
on November 21, 1997. FRA is preparing the final rule for the first
phase of the rulemaking. Following issuance of the ``initial'' final
rule, work will begin on additional passenger safety regulations.
Passenger Train Emergency Preparedness.--The final rule was issued
on May 4, 1998 and has a effective date of July 6,1998. The rule
requires the preparation, adoption, and implementation of emergency
preparedness plans by railroads connected with the operation of
passenger trains, includinge all railroads hosting the operations of
rail passenger service. The plans must address such subjects as
communication, employee training, joint operations, tunnel safety,
liaison with emergency responders, on-board emergency equipment, and
passenger safety information. The plan will be subject to formal review
and approval by FRA.
Power Brakes.--In response to a 1992 statutory mandate, the various
recommendations and petitions for rulemaking, and due to its own
determination that the power brake regulations were in need of
revision, FRA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
regarding revisions to the power brake regulation on September 16,
1994. Due to the strong objections raised by a large number of
commenters at these public hearings, FRA announced in early 1995 that
it would defer action on the NPRM and permit the submission of
additional comments prior to making a determination as to how it would
proceed in this matter. Beginning in mid-1995, while continuing to
receive comments on the 1994 power brake NPRM, FRA internally committed
to the process of establishing the Rail Safety Advisory Committee
(RSAC). At the Committee's inaugural meeting on April 1-2, 1996, the
RSAC officially accepted the task of assisting FRA in development of
revisions to the regulations governing power brake systems for freight
equipment.
In the interim, FRA proceeded with the revision of other portions
of the power brake regulations through other processes. FRA decided to
separate passenger equipment power brake standards from freight
equipment power brake standards. In late-1995 it was determined that
the passenger equipment safety standards working group would assist FRA
in developing a second NPRM covering passenger equipment power brake
standards. On September 23, 1997, FRA published an NPRM on passenger
equipment safety standards which contained proposed power brake
standards for passenger trains and equipment. A final rule on passenger
operations is currently being prepared. Furthermore, in early-1996 FRA
determined that it would separate the issues related to two-way EOT's
from both the passenger and freight issues, address them in a public
regulatory conference, and issue a final rule on the subject as soon as
practicable. A final rule on two-way EOT's was issued on December 27,
1996. The final rule's effective date was July 1, 1997, six months
ahead of the statutory mandate requiring the use of such devices.
Beginning in May of 1996 and continuing through May of 1997, the
Freight Power Brake Working Group, assembled by the RSAC Committee,
held numerous meetings and small group discussions. Although the
Working Group discussed, debated, and attempted to reach consensus on
various issues related to freight power brakes, consensus could not be
reached. Consequently, FRA withdrew the freight power brake task from
the Working Group on June 24, 1997 and informed the members of RSAC
that FRA would proceed unilaterally in the drafting of a freight power
brake NPRM. Since that time, FRA has been exhaustively developing
another NPRM dealing exclusively with freight power brakes and is
currently in the process of finishing its internal review of the
document and will submit the document for administration review in the
very near future. In developing the NPRM, FRA has carefully considered
the information, data, and proposals developed by the Freight Power
Brake Working Group as well as all the oral and written comments
offered by various parties regarding the 1994 NPRM on power brakes.
Grade Crossing Whistle Bans.--This rulemaking would require the
sounding of locomotive whistles at all crossings unless alternate
safety measures compensate for their absence as a warning to motorists.
A Federal rule would preempt many state and local whistle bans. A
proposed rule addressing the first phase of this rulemaking has been
prepared and reviewed within the administration. As a result of this
review, it has been concluded that a full Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) is required. Necessary data collection and analysis has
begun. FRA now anticipates a simultaneous release of an NPRM and a
draft EIS in late 1998. FRA has done and continues to do extensive
outreach across the country to explain to local communities how the
delicate balance between the interests of safety and quiet communities
can be reached. FRA's proposed rule will strive to achieve the law's
important safety objectives in a way that will provide communities
maximum flexibility and ample opportunity to maintain quiet.
performance based regulations
Question. How is FRA moving towards more performance-based
regulations?
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. 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.
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. Arriving at this state of maturity will not
come quickly, and it cannot be forced through an administrative
timetable.
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.
FRA finds that component standards 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 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.
hazmat accidents
Question. Please chronicle all major hazmat-involved rail accidents
in calendar year 1997, 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: 01-22-97
Location: Appleby, Texas
Railroad: BNSF
Type of hazmat: Sodium Hydroxide Solution
Fatalities: 0
Injuries: 0
Evacuations or other complications: One family
Estimated cost of railroad damage: $1,700,000
Probable cause: Broken Rail
Date: 04-21-97
Location: Sandusky, Ohio
Railroad: Conrail
Type of hazmat: Residue/Sodium Hydroxide
Fatalities: 0
Injuries: 0
Evacuations or other complications: 150 residents
Estimated cost of railroad damage: $1,167,800
Probable cause: Excessive draft and buff slack action due to train
handling
Date: 05-30-97
Location: Schuyler, New York (Herkimer)
Railroad: Conrail
Type of hazmat: Hydrochloric Acid
Fatalities: 0
Injuries: 0
Evacuations or other complications: 60 residents
Estimated cost of railroad damage: $559,875
Probable cause: Excessive draft force causing draw bar to be pulled out
of the 36th car
Date: 06-04-97
Location: Marianna, Florida
Railroad: CSX
Type of hazmat: Hydrogen Peroxide and Hydroxide
Fatalities: 0
Injuries: 0
Evacuations or other complications: 20 residents
Estimated cost of railroad damage: $1,607,500
Probable cause: Broken rail
Date: 06-07-97
Location: St. Albans, West Virginia
Railroad: CSX
Type of hazmat: Sulfuric Acid
Fatalities: 0
Injuries: 0
Evacuations or other complications: 150 residents
Estimated cost of railroad damage: $851,952
Probable cause: Operation failure by locomotive engineer
Date: 07-12-97
Location: Lawrenceville, Illinois
Railroad: CSX
Type of hazmat: Acrylate, Inhabited
Fatalities: 0
Injuries: 0
Evacuations or other complications: 6 Residents
Estimated cost of railroad damage: $130,000
Probable cause: Shifted load which was not properly secured
improvements to hazmat program
Question. What improvements to FRA's hazmat program have been made
since last year.
Answer. During the past year, all FRA and State hazardous materials
(hazmat) inspectors received training to educate and update skills on
new hazmat rules published by the Research and Special Programs
Administration (RSPA). In addition, hazmat seminars were presented to
all Federal and State inspectors at FRA's annual multi-regional
conferences. The focus of the training has been to reinforce hazmat
inspector knowledge of computation skills for determining the allowable
filling densities of tank cars for the various hazardous materials
transported by rail and to update computer skills in this rapidly
changing environment.
In addition, FRA field forces are being alerted to recently
published hazmat notices and rules issued by RSPA through FRA's
Internet system. This makes important information, including effectives
dates of notices, available to hazmat inspectors in a timely manner.
This electronic system is being expanded to FRA's State partners.
Finally, FRA has been leveraging its limited hazmat inspector
resources through Safety Assurance and Compliance Program (SACP) safety
audits of all major freight and passenger carriers. Under SACP safety
audits, hazmat inspectors, look for systemic violations involving
hazmat exposures, which may have railroad-wide, or railroad-industry-
wide significance. Since 1993, the rate of hazmat releases per billion
hazmat ton-miles has declined 33 percent--from 17.19 in 1993 to 11.53
in 1996.
hazardous materials compliance program
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 uses an Annual Allocation Analysis Model (AAAM), which
aids in field inspection focus on high risk hazmat rail movements. The
model data is arranged by inspection discipline, region, and railroad.
Railroads are divided into three class size groupings: large railroads
with annual employee hours greater than 400,000, small railroads with
total train miles times annual employee hours greater than 100 million,
and small railroads with total train miles times annual employee hours
less than 100 million.
For large railroads, AAAM uses seven risk factors: inspection
reports, accidents, fatalities and serious injuries, hazardous material
tons, total tons, passenger traffic, and inspection defects. AAAM also
uses seven risk factors for both categories of small railroads.
Hazardous material tons and total tons are obtained from the Surface
Transportation Board's Carload Waybill Sample. However, the Carload
Waybill Sample of railroad freight traffic does not accurately track
hazardous material traffic flows on small railroads. Consequently,
``train miles'' and ``annual employee hours'' are substituted for
``hazardous material tons,'' and ``total tons.'' AAAM is a model of
reasonable risk factors, which can suggest the need for site specific
examinations, or suggest an area for examination under Safety Assurance
and Compliance Program (SACP) safety audits.
Nearing completion is another model, which contains risk factors
that will help identify and focus FRA's attention on high-risk hazmat
shippers.
inspector training 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 1999 request pertains to this
program? Please compare this amount with 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 varied 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
work force. The input from the trainees has 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 fallen within the range of 88 percent
in fiscal year 1997, to 97 percent in both fiscal year 1993 and fiscal
year 1996.
FRA's inspection work force includes 29 safety inspectors who were
initially hired through the FRA Trainee Program. Another employee who
came on board as a trainee works in FRA's Office of Safety
Headquarters. Currently, there are 7 employees in the trainee program.
The fiscal year 1999 request includes $1.206 million to continue
this program. The budgeted amount for fiscal year 1998 is $1.191
million, for fiscal year 1997 it was $1.826 million, and for fiscal
year 1996 it was $1.734 million.
training budget
Question. Please prepare a chart of your training budget for each
of the last four fiscal years (including the fiscal year 1999 request),
specifying separately the amounts spent on Federal and State
inspectors.
Answer.
FEDERAL TRAINING PROGRAM
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------------------------
1998 1999
1996 actual 1997 actual estimate estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Inspectors............................................ $210 $240 $247 $260
Federal Inspectors.......................................... 1,310 1,484 1,372 1,520
---------------------------------------------------
Total Budget.......................................... 1,520 1,724 1,619 1,780
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fiscal year 1999 atip funding
Question. Please provide a detailed break-out of the $2,500,000
ATIP request for fiscal year 1999. Is FRA's effort to replace the T-10
track geometry inspection vehicle now complete? If not, please provide
a cost schedule for the completion of this replacement project.
Answer. FRA's new track geometry car is scheduled to begin service
in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 1999. The $2.5 million ATIP
request for fiscal year 1999 consists of: $1.7 million for normal,
annual program operating expenses involving the existing T-10 track
geometry car; $0.4 million for the Miscellaneous Obligation Account,
which covers daily operating expenses on individual railroad
properties, T-10 fuel suppliers, and emergency repairs; $0.372 million
for the operation of the new track geometry car in the last quarter of
fiscal year 1999; and $0.028 million for inflation adjustments.
use of atip in safety program
Question. Please explain how FRA has incorporated data produced
through the ATIP program into its overall strategy of ensuring the
safety of the nation's railroad systems.
Answer. ATIP provides a cost-effective means of examining over
27,000 miles of track per year to ensure compliance with the Federal
Track Safety Standards (FTSS) with primary focus on lines that carry
passengers and hazardous materials. The FTSS are undergoing revision,
which will likely place greater emphasis on automated inspections
rather than manual, visual inspections. Also, within the next few
years, passenger trains will be operated at speeds well above current
speeds. FRA must be able to monitor compliance with high-speed track
standards. FRA's track geometry car measures track geometry at an
interval of once per foot under loaded conditions and at track speed.
An onboard FRA inspector and railroad representative use the results of
the inspection--data charts and reports--to assess track conditions.
ATIP was initiated at a time when the railroad industry was
experiencing a dramatic increase in track related accidents. The
introduction of FRA's track geometry car, along with the increase in
field inspectors armed with the data provided from this source, made a
clear improvement in the accident rate. ATIP provides not only a means
of detecting geometry defects and helps direct critical repair to
prevent track-related accidents, but it also provides a means for the
FRA inspectors to plan inspections based on historical trends. Routes
followed by FRA's track geometry car during its annual tour through the
country are jointly developed yearly by Headquarters and Regional
personnel and are set up to include tracks over which large volumes of
hazardous materials move, Amtrak passenger trains are scheduled,
Department of Energy nuclear wastes are transported and over tracks,
which have exhibited a higher than normal recent history of track
related derailments. Qualitative data, produced by the track geometry
car from these high risk sources for track, enable Federal and State
safety inspectors promptly recognize the most severe track defects and
to arrange for railroad maintenance of way and structures personnel to
make expeditious repairs.
atip and sacp
Question. How does the ATIP relate to SACP?
Answer. Safety Assurance and Compliance Program (SACP) safety
audits are data-driven. SACP safety audits identify systemic problems
that may have railroad-wide, or railroad-industry-wide implications.
Data generated by FRA's track geometry car, one of only two vehicles
that have the capability of evaluating railroad track for compliance
with Federal Track Safety Standards, figures prominently in SACP safety
audits dealing with track condition evaluations. Furthermore, if track
condition remedial actions, under SACP, require a railroad to submit a
Safety Action Plan, FRA's track geometry car can evaluate the
effectiveness of the railroad's corrective actions on subsequent
visits.
grade crossing data by state
Question. In the three full calendar years since the implementation
of this multi-modal, coordinated plan--1995, 1996, and 1997--what has
been the actual and percentage decrease of crossing accidents and
fatalities nationally? Please display these data in a state-by-state
breakout table. Is the action plan on target to meet the goal of
reducing accidents and fatalities by 50 percent in 10 years?
Answer. The Action Plan is on target, and the goal of reducing
collisions and fatalities by 50 percent in 10 years (compared to 1993)
is achievable. Data for 1995, 1996 and preliminary* data for 1997
follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Collisions Fatalities
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Pct. chg. Pct. chg.
1995 1996 1997 95 vs. 97 1995 1996 1997 95 vs. 97
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NATION.............................. 4,633 4,257 3,766 -18.7 579 488 445 -23.1
Alabama............................. 178 157 135 24.2 16 18 18 +12.5
Alaska.............................. 3 6 5 +66.7 ....... ....... 1 +100
Arizona............................. 38 30 26 -31.6 2 4 5 +150
Arkansas............................ 161 145 114 -29.2 22 20 10 -54.5
California.......................... 200 201 137 -31.5 28 24 2 -28.6
Colorado............................ 59 33 26 -55.9 11 5 2 -81.8
Connecticut......................... 6 12 6 ......... 1 ....... ....... -100
Delaware............................ 5 4 4 -20.0 ....... ....... 1 +100
District of Columbia................ ....... 2 ....... ......... ....... ....... ....... .........
Florida............................. 95 102 87 -8.4 23 16 11 -52.2
Georgia............................. 160 155 138 -13.8 17 19 12 -29.4
Idaho............................... 34 49 28 -17.6 7 6 6 -14.3
Illinois............................ 295 232 210 -28.8 48 39 27 -43.8
Indiana............................. 271 224 226 -16.6 29 28 25 -13.8
Iowa................................ 123 123 104 -15.4 9 8 12 +33.3
Kansas.............................. 101 113 101 ......... 15 13 15 .........
Kentucky............................ 103 77 66 -35.9 7 3 5 -28.6
Louisiana........................... 223 231 196 -12.1 28 31 29 +3.6
Maine............................... 11 8 11 ......... ....... ....... ....... .........
Maryland............................ 12 10 17 +41.7 ....... ....... ....... .........
Massachusetts....................... 14 22 15 +7.1 1 0 2 +100
Michigan............................ 133 142 150 +12.8 5 17 14 +180
Minnesota........................... 152 157 115 -24.3 19 14 7 -63.2
Mississippi......................... 159 132 147 -7.6 31 15 17 -45.2
Missouri............................ 128 127 107 -16.4 22 19 14 -36.4
Montana............................. 19 34 31 +63.2 4 3 1 -75.0
Nebraska............................ 86 63 67 -22.1 8 9 9 +12.5
Nevada.............................. 8 7 ....... -100 5 1 ....... -100
New Hampshire....................... 5 2 2 -60.0 ....... 1 ....... .........
New Jersey.......................... 24 31 34 +41.7 5 2 7 +40.0
New Mexico.......................... 18 26 20 +11.1 5 7 6 +20.0
New York............................ 52 36 36 -30.8 9 4 7 -22.2
North Carolina...................... 135 123 113 -16.3 11 9 6 -45.5
North Dakota........................ 38 33 21 -44.7 7 4 1 -85.7
Ohio................................ 239 186 176 -26.4 36 14 24 -33.3
Oklahoma............................ 113 80 114 +0.9 15 22 22 +46.7
Oregon.............................. 35 43 31 -11.4 12 1 4 -66.7
Pennsylvania........................ 80 74 65 -18.8 12 3 4 -66.7
Rhode Island........................ 1 ....... 1 ......... ....... ....... ....... .........
South Carolina...................... 111 87 74 -33.3 6 6 13 +116.7
South Dakota........................ 41 20 23 -43.9 4 2 ....... -100
Tennessee........................... 101 123 88 -12.9 13 9 12 -7.7
Texas............................... 474 434 406 -14.3 55 61 52 -5.5
Utah................................ 33 35 24 -27.3 7 11 3 -57.1
Vermont............................. 4 6 1 -75.0 ....... 1 ....... .........
Virginia............................ 76 70 52 -31.6 6 4 2 -66.7
Washington.......................... 83 69 65 -21.7 4 6 7 +75.0
West Virginia....................... 40 22 26 -35.0 1 2 5 +400
Wisconsin........................... 140 150 117 -16.4 13 5 6 -53.8
Wyoming............................. 13 9 7 -46.2 ....... 2 1 +100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
status of highway-rail action plan
Question. Please update the Committee on the implementation of each
of the 52 crossing safety proposals in the Highway-Rail Crossing Action
Plan. Which of these actions have been the most effective in reducing
accidents at highway-rail crossings?
Answer. Effectiveness in the last four years has been much more
attributable to the synergism of the 1994 Action Plan than to any one
of the 55 individual initiatives. The fact that the four surface modal
administrations worked together assembling this Action Plan, and that
the Department (and the Congress) have since been tracking progress of
each of the 55 initiatives has kept crossing programs high on the
agendas of program planners in Federal as well as State and industry
offices. Twenty of the original 55 initiatives are considered complete.
Another dozen are now considered to be on-going programs. Nineteen are
still being developed, and four have been terminated. (The following
table applies.) The tragic 1995 school bus--commuter train collision in
Fox River Grove, Illinois and the subsequent DOT Task Force and two
reports have kept the attention of both the public and of public
planners. The existence of the Action Plan, and the 55 initiatives, has
provided focus and outlets and has facilitated much of this interest
and activity. (Other factors contributing to the overall improvement in
safety at highway-rail crossings would include Operation Lifesaver,
continuation of the Section 130 Rail-Highway Grade Crossing Safety
Improvement Program, FRA's eight Regional Highway-Rail Crossing Safety
and Trespass Prevention Program Managers, additional alerting lights on
locomotives and widespread debate over train horns. All of these have
kept the crossing safety issue before the public and in the minds of
public officials.
SUMMARY STATUS OF ACTION PLAN INITIATIVES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initiative number/title Agency Description Status (a/o March 19,1998)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMPLETED INITIATIVES
I.D., Rules of Evidence.......... FRA TRB.............. Research state laws, draft model..... Complete. NCHRP Legal Research Digest, ``Photographic
Traffic Law Enforcement,'' published Dec. 96.
I.F., Compilation of State Laws FRA.................. Update 1983 edition................... Complete and distributed August 1995.
and Regulations on Matters
Affecting Highway-Rail Crossings.
II.A., Principal Railroad Lines.. FRA.................. Corridor reviews along defined heavy- Complete. PRL's defined; maps provided; reviews
use rail lines. encouraged.
II.F.1., Cash Payments........... Legislation.......... Allow payment of STP funds to Included in DOT's fiscal year 1997 Appropriations
communities closing crossings. Bill. Field guidance released Dec. 2, '96.
II.F.2., Eligibility for 100 Legislation.......... Include closure projects in those Included in DOT's fiscal year 1997 Appropriations
Percent Federal Funding. eligible for 100 percent funding. Bill. Field guidance released Dec. 2, '96.
II.H., Integrated Intermodal FRA FHWA............. Outreach meetings with MPO's and Complete. Nine symposiums held in TX, CO, PA, MO, MA,
Transportation Planning. railroads. WA, CA, GA & IL.
II.I., Check List................ FHWA FRA............. Detail procedure for corridor reviews. Complete and distributed to FHWA and FRA field offices
in May 95.
II.M., Distribution of Funds..... FHWA FRA............. Propose revised distribution formula Proposed in NEXTEA.
for 130 funds.
III.D.1., On-Guard Notice........ FHWA................. Publish a notice re crossing safety... Complete. Distributed Feb 94. Another re high-profile
crossings sent Feb. 96.
III.D.2., Advisory Bulletin...... FHWA................. Bulletin to trade press re crossing Complete. Sent Feb 94.
safety.
III.D.3., Public Service Print FHWA................. Develop and distribute print ads to Complete. Sent Jan. 94.
Advertisements. trade press.
V.A.1., Research Workshop........ FRA.................. Discuss current and projected research Complete. Held April 95. Report issued.
needs.
V.A.2., Defense Conversion Fair.. FRA.................. Exchange program to introduce Defense Complete. Part of DOT Technology Fair and in BAA
firms to industry needs. seeking proposals.
V.B., Demographics............... NHTSA................ Study fatal casualty statistics....... Complete. Report published Nov 94.
V.C., Accident Severity.......... NHTSA................ Study accident severity statistics.... Complete Feb 95, unpublished memo rpt.
V.D.4., Locomotive Conspicuity... FRA.................. Develop standards and rules for Complete. Regs require all locomotives be equipped by
alerting lights on locomotives. Dec 97. Waivers granted to UP & SEPTA for 3 & 6 mos
respectively.
VI.B., Trespasser Casualty FRA.................. Propose to collect additional data re Complete. New reporting requirement effective January
Reporting. trespass casualties. 1997.
VI.C., Workshop on Trespass FRA.................. Plan and host second national workshop Completed in Atlanta, Nov 95. Five regional workshops
Prevention. completed Apr 96.
VI.D., Regional Campaigns........ FRA.................. Develop low-cost PSA re trespass Complete. Final product delivered Summer 96.
casualties.
VI.E., Model Trespass Prevention FRA.................. Develop from current state laws a Complete. Compilation of state laws and model code
Code. model trespass prevention law. sent to Congress in April `97.
ON-GOING INITIATIVES
I.A., Section 402 Funds.......... NHTSA FHWA........... Promote state funding of related On-going. In fiscal year 1997, 15 states dedicated
projects. $346,661.
I.B., Police Officer Detail...... NHTSA FRA............ Officer in Washington to assist FRA On-going. 3rd officer selected and on-board.
outreach.
I.C., Outreach to Judiciary...... NHTSA FRA............ Publish articles in NTLC newsletter... On-going. Two columns published by NTLC, presentation
made to Traffic Court Judges' Seminar; reviewing
draft pamphlet.
II.B., The National Highway FHWA................. States to plan upgrade or elimination On-going. ``Continued safety improvements'' in OST
System (NHS). of NHS crossings. Strategic Assessment Plan. FHWA encouraging inclusion
in state planning processes.
II.C., Upgrade Signing and FHWA................. Improve conspicuity of signs and On-going. FHWA memo Dec. 94 encourages promotion of
Marking. markings at crossings. higher quality material.
II.E., STOP Signs................ FHWA FRA............. Promote STOP signs as traffic control On-going. July 93 memo to FHWA and FRA field offices
device alternative. and regional meetings are promoting.
III.A., Marketing Materials Plan. FRA NHTSA FHWA FTA... Develop materials and promote On-going. Always Expect A Traincampaign on-going. Most
increased public awareness. recent release: A Trespass Prevention VNR.
III.D.4., ``Trucker on the FHWA FRA............. w/ATA & OLI host trucking executives On-going. ``Kick-off'' was Nov 94. Safety roundtable w/
Train'' Program. on locomotives. rail & truck industry planned for Spring '98.
III.D.5., Operation Lifesaver.... FHWA OLI............. Encourage OL to meet with trucking On-going.
companies.
III.D.6., National Safety FHWA................. Discuss issue with industry and law On-going. Pamphlets published by NSC in Mar 95 and Sep
Organizations. enforcement officials. 97. Video by OLI in '96.
III.D.7., On-Site Compliance FHWA................. During reviews, inform carriers of On-going. Dec 94 memo encourages discussion and
Reviews. risks at crossings. distribution of materials.
V.G., Light Rail Accident FTA.................. Broaden SAMIS system to identify On-going. Data collection started in fiscal year 1995.
Statistics. crossing accidents. Published in `95 SAMIS Annual Rpt.
IN-PROGRESS INITIATIVES
I.E., Commercial Driver's License FHWA AAMVA........... Elevate crossing violation to Required by 1995 legislation; NPRM issued March 2,
``serious'' for CDL holders. 1998.
I.G., Safety Inquiry............. FRA.................. Informal meeting re standing rail Pending time and resources. (BNSF has proscribe such
equipment near crossings. practice.)
II.D., Responsibilities for FRA FHWA............. Clarify project responsibilities, Regulatory action terminated Aug. '97. Considering
Selection and Installation. railroad vs. highway authorities. warrants as an alternative.
II.G., Crossing Consolidation and FRA.................. Publish guidelines and strategies First report, a Guide, published July 94. Second
Closure Case Studies. based on case studies. report, Options, in draft.
II.J., Highway-Rail Crossing FHWA................. Update and republish 1986 version..... Contractor progressing. Preliminary draft material
Handbook. received. Target date Sep. '98.
II.K., Vegetation Clearance...... FRA FHWA............. Address in proposed track standards FHWA encourages states. A joint FHWA-FRA working group
and SMS. is being formed.
III.B., Driver Training Materials NHTSA AAMVA.......... Review current and develop new New model drivers' manual prepared with section on
materials. crossings. Will be piloted in several states.
Colorado has adopted.
IV.A., Define Categories......... FRA.................. Define categories and minimum Statistics and comments from previous safety inquiry
standards for private crossings. are being reviewed.
IV.B., Safety Inquiry............ FRA.................. Informal meeting re standards for Pending time and resources.
certain private crossings.
IV.C., Locked Gate at Private FRA FHWA............. Demonstrate gates w/controlled locks NY & OR studying. Demonstrations being planned in both
Crossings. at private crossings. states.
V.D.1., Signs and Signals........ FHWA FRA............. Research new traffic control and Contractor is progressing. Final report due April
warning devices. 1998.
V.D.2., Train Horns.............. FRA AAR.............. Determine impact of whistle bans Report published Apr 95. Revision being reviewed.
nationwide. Draft assessment of wayside horns under review.
V.D.3., Light Rail Crossing Gates FTA.................. Investigate alternatives for left turn LACMTA demonstration of 4-quadrant gates is
for Left Turn Lanes. lanes with parallel tracks. progressing. Final Report is due March 1998.
V.D.5., The Manual on Uniform FHWA FTA FRA......... Propose changes re high speed rail, Published in Federal Register June 95. FHWA decision
Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). temporary closure, multi-track signs, published Jan 97, ``More study necessary.'' Research
work zones, etc. being proposed
V.E.1., Automated Video Image FRA.................. Investigate potential for live video Tests in NY and CA. Proposals being sought through
Analysis. monitoring of crossings. IDEA program.
V.F., 1-800 Computer Answering FRA.................. Develop system for answering and Funding identified, concept under review as railroads
System. forwarding of trouble calls. have progressed unilaterally.
V.H., Resource Allocation FRA.................. Recalculate accident prediction Peer review of CHAID procedure mixed. Contract for
Procedure. formulas and rebuild model. update of current formula let.
V.I., The Inventory.............. FRA FHWA............. Promote updating; hold safety inquiry FHWA memo promotes updating; New Update Manual
re display of number. published Dec 96. Inquiry pending time and resources.
VI.A., Demographic Survey........ FRA.................. Review trespass fatal statistics to Zip code maps available. Review of '97 data initiated.
focus remedial efforts.
TERMINATED INITIATIVES
II.L., Corridor Review Legislation.......... Establish an STP incentive program for DOT bill offered but not considered.
Participation. corridor reviews.
III.C., National and Community FRA.................. Support OL State Coordinators with Americorps funding not sufficient to include this
Service. Service Trust Act of 93. program. No further action.
III.E., Operation Lifesaver Legislation.......... Propose increased funds to OLI with 1994 DOT bill not considered. FRA's fiscal year 1996
Matching Funds. non-public match required. grant to OLI increased to $300,000. Fiscal year 1997
DOT Appropriation Bill increases to $600,000. NEXTEA
proposes $300,000 annually.
V.E.2., Radar Actuation System FTA.................. Evaluate/demonstrate feasibility of Administrative/contract difficulties led to
for Light Rail Crossing Warning radar-based system to detect trains termination. Substitute project is assessing crossing
Devices. and approach speed. standards, using video tech, on MBTA's new Old Colony
Line.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fiscal year 1998 earmark for grade crossings
Question. In the fiscal year 1998 transportation appropriations
bill, the conferees provided $275,000 to support new and additional
highway/rail grade crossing safety initiatives. Please explain how the
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has utilized this funding to:
(a) evaluate interstate rail corridor and crossing safety,
(b) identify most dangerous crossings,
(c) mitigate crossing hazards,
(d) assess the effectiveness of the crossing signal technologies,
(e) develop safer commercial driving practices at highway/rail
crossings, and
(f) work with communities seeking reduction of train whistles.
Answer. FRA plans to apply these new funds as follows: Over half
the funds, $145,000, will be used to assess the impact of train
whistles on communities and the effectiveness of mitigating
technologies along the rail corridors which will be impacted by train
horns (items a, c, d and f above). Additional funds, $54,000, will be
used in public awareness and outreach programs in cooperation with
FHWA's Office of Motor Carriers. The work will include outreach to
commercial drivers (item e above), corridor and community reviews to
improve crossing safety and prevent trespassing (item a above), and
community work on mitigating safety measures vis-a-vis train horns
(item f above). Another portion of these funds, $25,000 will be used to
update collision prediction and hazard ranking software used by
Federal, State, community, and railroad analysts to identify most
dangerous crossings (item b above). Finally, $51,000 of these funds
will be used to augment FRA's outreach to law enforcement officials
promoting their active involvement in crossing safety and trespass
prevention efforts within their communities (items a, c and e above).
fiscal year 1997-1998 grade crossing projects
Question. Please show on a project by project basis how the fiscal
year 1997 and fiscal year 1998 monies on grade crossings were spent,
who the recipients of the funds were, and the expected results.
Answer. The information follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
Project -------------------------------- Recipient Expected results
1997 funding 1998 funding
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research and Development (RDV)......... $2,020,000 $1,997,000
--------------------------------
Locomotive Conspic................. 5,000 .............. Volpe Ctr................................ Locomotives and freight cars will be more visible to drivers, helping them
Freight Car Reflec................. 25,000 10,000 Volpe Ctr avoid striking the train.
Eval Wayside Horns................. 12,000 15,000 Volpe Ctr................................ Locomotive horns will be optimized for sound quality and effectiveness while
Optml Acoustic Warn................ 20,000 60,000 Volpe Ctr reducing noise pollution in surrounding communities.
Driver Behavior.................... 65,000 100,000 Volpe Ctr................................ To gain a better understanding of how drivers react to grade crossings and
Accident Causation................. 124,000 150,000 Volpe Ctr why accidents happen in order to educate drivers and develop new warning
Driver Education................... 134,000 70,000 Volpe Ctr devices.
Operation Lifesaver................ 600,000 600,000 Operation Lifesaver, Inc................. Public education about the laws regarding grade crossing, the dangers at
grade crossings and the importance to obey traffic laws.
Loss of Shunt...................... 300,000 250,000 Assoc. of American Railroads............. Examine causes for loss of contact between rail and wheels, resulting in
intermittent operation of grade crossing warning device (gate bobble).
Illumination Guidelines............ 25,000 35,000 Volpe Ctr................................ The use of street lights to illuminate trains at night so drivers can see
and avoid running into the train.
Assess Passive Sys................. 20,000 .............. Volpe Ctr................................ Assess the Ohio crossbuck and traffic signals at crossing to improve warning
Assess Highway Sig................. 10,000 .............. Volpe Ctr to drivers.
Photo Enforcement.................. 5,000 25,000 Volpe Ctr
Active Device Fail................. 25,000 .............. Volpe Ctr................................ Analyze the data from the failures of automatic warning devices and
recommend improvements to increase device reliability.
HSR Crossing Tech.................. 340,000 .............. Volpe Ctr/Battelle Labs.................. Examined signaling and train 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 .............. ASTI..................................... Examined the crossing problems in five designated high-speed corridors and
recommended solutions.
Assess 1010 & 1036 Demos........... 150,000 70,000 Volpe Ctr................................ Evaluate the technology demonstration projects funded under the Section 1010
& 1036 program in ISTEA (4-quad gate with obstruction detection in CT and
Vehicle Arrestor Barrier in IL).
Obstacle/Intrusion Detection....... 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.
Compendium of Volpe Research .............. 200,000 Volpe Ctr................................ A new project to assemble the research gs to date.
Findings.
Overview & synthesis of existing .............. 160,000 Volpe Ctr................................ A new examination of available grade crossing statistics to develop a better
grade crossing statics. understanding why grade crossing accidents occur.
Volpe Center Support............... .............. 177,000 Volpe Ctr................................ Support of assessing hazard elimination projects.
75,000 Volpe Ctr................................ Corridor Risk Analysis for Empire Corridor.
================================
Next Generation High Speed Rail........ 2,965,400 2,500,000
--------------------------------
NC Sealed Corridor................. 2,000,000 2,000,000 NCDOT.................................... The North Carolina Sealed Corridor Initiative will treat 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..................... 215,400 .............. 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 review, 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 & Support to ITS 100,000 .............. ITS JPO.................................. The ITS Architecture is gaining a new User Service--User Service #30--which
PO. describes how grade crossing 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............... 150,000 .............. Volpe Ctr................................ Support of assessing hazard elimination projects.
Corridor Risk Analysis for Empire Corridor.
================================
Office of Safety....................... 477,600 749,000
--------------------------------
Public Awareness and Outreach...... 39,300 94,000 Fiscal year 1997, various printing Promotional and audio-visual materials, conference registrations and display
contractors, packing and shipping firms, booth space and supplies, for use or distribution when making presentations
equipment rental firms, conference to schools, community groups, workshops, conventions, etc. In fiscal year
organizers, OL suppliers, etc. 1998, a targeted effort will focus on the trucking industry.
Police Officer Detail.............. 50,000 63,000 Washington State ($50K for fiscal year The police officer detail is an outreach program with the law enforcement
1997, $9K for fiscal year 1998) fiscal community to raise awareness of crossing safety and trespass prevention.
year 1998 selection has not yet been
made.
Outreach to Law Enforcement........ 19,300 70,000 IACP, NSA, NFOP, etc. fiscal year 1998 Outreach to judges and prosecutors to enhance their knowledge of crossing
will begin a new effort to detail safety and trespass prevention issues, and defray convention fees and
officers to FRA Regional Offices part- materials support for FRA's regional manager promotions of highway-rail
time. Selections have not yet been made. crossing safety and trespass prevention programs.
Analysis of High-Profile Crossings. 18,000 20,000 Univ. of West Virginia and local survey Research and analysis of problems associated with and alternatives for, high-
firms. profile crossings and low-clearance vehicles.
Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory & 55,000 83,000 AMB...................................... Simplify and refine the Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory and collision data
Data Bases. bases reporting and report production procedures.
Information Processing............. 266,000 274,000 AMB...................................... Supports Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory and crossing module of the Accident/
Incident Report Processing.
Regulatory Support................. 30,000 145,000 Fiscal year 1997, Argonne National Labs; Fiscal year 1997, assisted in economic analysis of train horn ban impact;
fiscal year 1998, DeLeuw Cather. fiscal year 1998, assistance in preparation of EIS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 thousand & fiscal year 1995 $400
thousand) awarded to the Transportation Technology Center in Pueblo,
Colorado ($500 thousand) and Volpe Center ($500 thousand). 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 reliability
testing of the prototypes has been completed and the Evaluation Report
is scheduled for completion by May, 1998.
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. A simulation at the site
will take place in the Fall, 1998 followed by the demonstration which
is scheduled to begin by November, 1998.
fiscal year 1998-1999 grade crossing funding
Question. Please list all highway/rail grade crossing safety
programs in the FRA budget (i.e., research and development, next
generation high-speed rail, safety), and compare funding for each
initiative for the fiscal year 1998 enacted amount to the fiscal year
1999 request. If the total funding is less than that in fiscal year
1998, please explain why.
Answer. The following table applies:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
Program -------------------------------
1998 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Railroad Research and Development:
Equipment, Operations and Hazardous $435,000 $435,000
Materials..........................
Track and Vehicle-Track Interaction. 562,000 \1\ 100,000
Safety of High-Speed Ground 400,000 400,000
Transportation.....................
Operation Lifesaver................. 600,000 ( \2\ )
-------------------------------
Subtotal, R&D..................... 1,997,000 935,000
===============================
Next Generation High-Speed Rail: Grade 2,500,000 2,900,000
Crossing Hazards and Innovative
Technologies...........................
===============================
Office of Safety:
Police Officer Detail............... 63,000 \3\ 60,000
Outreach to judges, prosecutors, law 70,000 115,000
enforcement and the public.........
Analysis of High-Profile (Hump) 20,000 25,000
Crossing Problem...................
Information Processing.............. 357,000 \4\ 362,000
Regulatory Support.................. 145,000 \5\ 100,000
Public Awareness and Outreach....... 94,000 95,000
Operation Lifesaver ( \6\ ) \7\ 300,000
-------------------------------
Subtotal, Safety.................. 749,000 1,057,000
===============================
Total FRA......................... 5,246,000 4,892,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Program management (and funding) were moved from the `Track' program
to the Next Generation High-Speed Rail program. As well, ``Track''
funded ``loss-of-shunt'' study was nearly completed in fiscal year
1998 with a much lower level of effort anticipated in fiscal year
1999.
\2\ See Safety below.
\3\ It may be necessary to fund five calendar quarters of the police
officer detail from fiscal year 1998. The fiscal year 1999 amount
reflects just four quarters and anticipated cost increases.
\4\ Major revisions to Inventory and prediction software are being
initiated in fiscal year 1998 which will continue into fiscal year
1999 at a lower level of effort. These funds supplement FRA's Safety
Information Processing budget.
\5\ Whistle Ban Environmental Impact Statement initiated in fiscal year
1998 will be near completion and will require fewer resources in
fiscal year 1999.
\6\ See R&D above.
\7\ FRA believes that $300,000 is adequate for the Operation Lifesaver
program. Fiscal year 1998 included Congressional earmarks.
top 10 states--highest number of grade crossing accidents
Question. Please list the ``top ten'' states that have the highest
number of highway/rail grade crossing accidents and fatalities, and
cite the number of accidents and fatalities in calendar years 1996,
1997 and thus far in 1998.
Answer. No data for 1998 has as yet been processed. The ten states
with the most reported collisions and fatalities in 1996 and 1997 are
as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State 1996 1997 \1\ Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Collisions:
Texas.............................. 434 406 840
Indiana............................ 224 226 450
Illinois........................... 232 210 442
Louisiana.......................... 231 196 427
Ohio............................... 186 176 362
California......................... 201 137 338
Georgia............................ 155 138 293
Alabama............................ 157 135 292
Michigan........................... 142 150 292
Mississippi........................ 132 147 279
Fatalities:
Texas.............................. 61 52 113
Illinois........................... 39 27 66
Louisiana.......................... 31 29 60
Indiana............................ 28 25 53
California......................... 24 20 44
Oklahoma........................... 22 22 44
Ohio............................... 14 24 38
Alabama............................ 18 18 36
Missouri........................... 19 14 33
Mississippi........................ 15 17 32
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Data is preliminary.
plan for reducing trespassers
Question. What is your strategic plan for reducing the number of
trespassers?
Answer. Trespass prevention is FRA's most challenging issue.
Trespass casualties increased in 1997. FRA is focusing on a multi-
faceted trespass prevention program which is summarized in three
categories: Currently On-Going, Near-Term, and Long-Term.
Currently On-Going
All FRA offices and other DOT agencies are being challenged to
participate in trespass prevention programs.
With FRA encouragement and support, Operation Lifesaver, Inc.
(OLI), has become more involved in trespass prevention initiatives. As
a result, last Summer and Fall, Community Trespass Prevention Guides
were issued to all State OL Coordinators, and Trespass Prevention
Presentation materials were distributed to all presenters and trainers
(more than 2,500). Most recently, OLI has released and distributed a
new 12-minute video, Byron's Last Day, for use with high school
students. After a successful effort at the Boy Scout Jamboree last
Summer, OLI has established considerable credibility with the Boy
Scouts of America. Additional initiatives are being considered and
contact has been made with the Girl Scouts.
Both DOT's Always Expect A Train (AEAT) campaign and the
Association of American Railroad's Highways or Dieways? campaign
include trespass prevention. AEAT's most recent effort produced and
widely distributed a Video News Release (VNR) focused on trespass
prevention. AEAT also has available anti-trespass posters which are
displayed and distributed at safety gatherings and conferences, at
schools when visited, etc.
FRA continues to work with the Office of the Secretary and with the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to insure that
railroad issues, particularly crossing safety and trespass prevention,
are part of the continuing Moving Kids Safely and Safe Communities
programs. These programs are bringing safety awareness and local
attention effectively to potential casualty producing locations and
activities in communities, such as railroad rights-of-way and/or
bridges.
Pursuant to a Congressional mandate, the FRA has developed and
circulated model State legislation providing penalties for vandalism of
railroad equipment or property and for trespassing on railroad rights-
of-way. A summary of existing railroad trespass and vandalism laws was
included. In addition to key members of Congress, the package was sent
directly to the National Governors' Association, the Council of State
Governments, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the U.S.
Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities, the National
Association of Counties and the National Association of Regional
Councils. FRA will continue to promote this model code at every
opportunity. For example, FRA representatives recently appeared before
the State of Washington's House of Representatives' Committee on
Criminal Justice and Corrections to explain and promote adoption of a
package patterned after the model code.
For nearly three years, FRA has had an active duty police officer
detailed to the Office of Safety Analysis to help with its outreach to
law enforcement and judicial officials. These individuals have worked
with, and advised FRA's Regional Managers on working with State and
local law enforcement officials. This liaison officer has also
established FRA working relationships with the International
Association of Chiefs of Police and the National Sheriffs' Association.
FRA also is working with the newly formed International Association of
Railroad Police, a spin-off from the Association of American Railroads.
All of this effort is targeted towards increasing police awareness of
the need to enforce traffic laws at crossings and anti-trespass laws
along rail rights-of-way.
Near-Term
In FRA's fiscal year 1999 budget request, eight of the 32
additional positions requested will double the number of Regional
Crossing Safety and Trespass Prevention Program Managers. FRA's eight
Regional Offices oversee rail infrastructure, operations and programs
in four to eight States each. The Crossing and Trespass Managers,
though effective, have been unable to meet all demands for their
presence and time, and legitimate opportunities to promote crossing
safety and trespass prevention opportunities have been missed. These
eight additional positions will augment FRA's efforts and provide
increased flexibility to work with States, local communities,
railroads, Operation Lifesaver, Inc. and other Federal agencies (e.g.,
NHTSA, FHWA, FTA, USBP, etc.) to promote trespass prevention efforts
and crossing safety.
FRA has initiated an effort to demonstrate the applicability of
intrusion detection technology to trespass prevention. Preliminary
discussions have been held with Monroe County, New York, and Conrail
officials. FRA currently is investigating available hardware.
FRA currently is exploring the idea of underwriting the cost of
detailing a local police officer part-time to each of FRA's Regional
Offices. This officer would support and assist the Regional Manager for
Crossing Safety and Trespass Prevention Programs and Operation
Lifesaver State Coordinators in outreach efforts to local law
enforcement agencies and to the public. Ideas to be explored include:
Developing safety training programs for law enforcement regarding
railroad rights-of-way, yards and other railroad property; develop
focused campaigns for use in high-incident areas; and develop a program
of awards and recognitions for law enforcement agencies and officers
for outstanding law enforcement efforts in trespass prevention.
Starting in January 1997, railroads have been reporting trespass
casualties to FRA in an expanded format. A full year's data soon will
be available. FRA will be analyzing this additional data and
anticipates producing more detailed information regarding the times,
places and activities involved, and identifying high-incident areas.
FRA's 1997 Trespasser Bulletin will reflect this additional material.
FRA is working with OLI and several railroad and state
representatives to reach a consensus regarding needed additional
information about the individuals involved in trespass incidents and
options for collecting such demographic data. FRA hopes to produce a
demographic study of 1997 trespass casualties.
Long-Term
FRA will be exploring with DOT's other surface Administrations, OLI
and the industry a follow-on to the Always Expect A Train campaign of
1994 and 1995 with even more emphasis on trespass prevention. Ideas to
be considered include: Media and PSA's to targeted venues such as
journals and magazines on hiking, health, trail use, schools and
education; and a trespass toolbox with suggested program outlines and
sample materials and lists of available resources and contacts for
distribution to concerned communities, industry and State officials and
other agencies.
During discussions with OLI and industry officials (referenced
above), FRA will consider options for supplementing current casualty
reporting procedures with specific demographic data related to trespass
casualties. At the same time, FRA will open a dialogue with NHTSA and
with the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) seeking their expertise and
assistance in developing demographic data.
Besides current casualty reporting procedures, consideration will
be given to tapping railroad and police files regarding trespass
incidents (that did not result in a casualty) and railroad near-hit
programs. A centralized, uniform data base will be considered.
FRA is working with DOT, NHTSA, FTA and FHWA outreach programs to
insure that anti-trespass information becomes a part of existing
established programs such as the Partnership for a Walkable America and
the Bicycle/Pedestrian State Coordinators program. FRA has taken the
lead, with support from the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials and the Institute of Transportation Engineers
(and NHTSA, FHWA and FTA), to foster development of Rails-with-Trails
casualty prevention guidelines for consideration and use by community/
trail planners.
status of 1996 grade crossing recommendations
Question. What is the status of the recommendations of the 1996
Grade Crossing Task Force report? Specifically, which recommendations
from this report have not yet been implemented, and what are DOT's
continuing efforts to implement these recommendations?
Answer. The initial report of the 1996 Grade Crossing Task Force
was published March 1, 1996, titled, ``Accidents That Shouldn't
Happen.'' This report contained 24 short and long term recommendations
divided into four specific problem areas: Interconnected Signals and
Storage; High-Profile Crossings; Light-Rail Crossing Issues; and,
Special Vehicle Operations and Information. On June 1, 1997, a follow-
up report was released, titled, ``Implementation Report of the USDOT
Grade Crossing Safety Task Force.'' This report provided the status and
a summary of actions taken and to be taken for each of the 24
recommendations. All 24 recommendations have been addressed, but to
varying degrees. A description of each, and the current status of each,
is included in the following table.
SUMMARY STATUS OF TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initiative number/title Agency Description Status (a/o March 17, 1998)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. INTERCONNECTED SIGNALS AND STORAGE
II.A.1, State Focal Points....... States............... Establish focal point for communities All states have designated a focal point. List
and railroads to coordinate crossing published. Intent of FHWA/FRA to outline suggested
issues. roles/responsibilities.
II.A.2, Engineering Studies...... States............... Determine adequacy of storage space States have completed investigations and established
and the need for signal data bases. FRA letter to Governors stressed
interconnections. importance.
II.A.3, Planning and Design...... States............... Consider storage space needs early in State newsletters and memoranda have stressed. Design
design or redesign phase when manuals revised. Follow-up with AASHTO and AREA.
planning projects.
II.A.4, Regional Conferences..... FHWA FRA............. Initiate regional conferences for All FHWA Regions (ex. Region 1, being planned) have
railroads and states to discuss held conferences. Several states have hosted state
crossing safety issues. meetings w/RR's.
II.B.1, Technical Working Group FHWA FRA............. Review existing standards and TWG convened in '96, issued report in June '97,
(TWG). guidelines and develop new as needed. included terminology, findings, bibliography,
letters, recommendations.
III. HIGH-PROFILE CROSSINGS
III.A.1, Standard Warning Sign... FHWA................. Develop and approve advance warning MUTCD amended on January 9, 1997.
sign for inclusion in MUTCD.
III.A.2, Define Information Sign. FRA FHWA............. Propose sample language to advise Alternative word message signs were proposed in
proper operator action if stalled on Implementation Report and will be included in new
crossing. Handbook.
III.A.3, Identify Problem Highway Agencies..... Identify crossings with history, FHWA/FRA encouraging road authorities to identify and
Crossings. install signs, alert potential users, sign crossings. Inventory changes in-progress.
update Inventory.
III.B.1, Technical Working Group FRA FHWA............. With States and industry, investigate TWG confirmed feasibility. Data collection and study
(TWG). feasibility of vehicle and crossing of problem crossings and vehicle interaction
classifications. continues.
III.B.2, Track and Highway FRA FHWA............. Post-maintenance guidelines for A government-industry task force polled constituents
Maintenance. vertical alignment do not exist and and is defining need. ASLRA, AREA and AASHTO are
should be developed. participating.
IV. LIGHT-RAIL CROSSING ISSUES
IV.A.1, MUTCD Chapter............ FHWA................. Adopt chapter, ``Traffic Controls for Chapter completed by National Committee and is
Light Rail-Highway Grade Crossings''. awaiting FHWA publication in Federal Register.
IV.A.2, Planning, Design and FTA and local FTA/FHWA to issue Planning Emphasis PEA due Sep '97. FTA designated staff in each Region
Operation. agencies. Area (PEA) directive to planning to monitor progress and results, to coordinate on
agencies. crossing matters.
IV.A.3, Full Funding Grant FTA.................. Include language in all future FFGA Consideration and evaluation of signal interconnection
Agreements (FFGA). addressing priority of light rail now required in all FFGA's during preliminary
vehicles at crossings. engineering.
IV.B.1, Data Collection and FTA TCRP............. Develop a process to collect, analyze FTA has published 1995 crossing data from Safety
Dissemination. and disseminate detailed light-rail Management System. Future TCRP project will consider
collision data. additional need
IV.B.2, MUTCD and Handbook....... FTA FHWA FRA......... Insure standards and guidelines are FTA is reviewing MUTCD for further suggestions. FHWA
consistent re light-rail crossing is revising Handbook with FRA oversight.
issues.
IV.B.3, Priority of Light-Rail FTA ITE.............. Develop guidelines for priority of A TCRP Report (#17) issued January '97 developed
Vehicles. light-rail vehicles operating on city guidelines for priority of light-rail vehicles
streets. operating on city streets.
IV.B.4, Model Legislation........ FTA NGA NCSL......... Enact and enforce penalties for FTA is exploring options to promote enactment of model
violations associated with light-rail legislation.
crossings.
V. SPECIAL VEHICLE OPERATIONS AND INFORMATION
V.A.1, School Buses.............. States............... School boards and contractors to OLI has distributed awareness and training video.
include crossing emergency info in NHTSA to include crossing issues in developing one-
dispatch books. day in-service seminar.
V.A.2, Operating Permits......... States............... Permits issued for special vehicles to NTSB has successfully encouraged several states to
include emergency numbers for include numbers. In some states, pamphlets with
railroads. permits include numbers.
V.A.3, ``Super-Load'' Vehicles... States............... Provide RR telephone numbers necessary NTSB is promoting through State special permit
to arrange flag protection for offices.
special vehicles.
V.A.4, Commercial Driver License FHWA................. Expand crossing safety related message FHWA's Office of Motor Carriers is pursuing; with FRA
(CDL) Manual and Test. of both manual and tests. is planning Safety Round Table with truck and rail
industry.
V.B.1, Escort Vehicles........... States............... Develop certification programs, NTSB is working with State special permit offices.
including crossing safety in training
exercises.
V.B.2, ``Real Time'' States............... Escort and special permit vehicles to NTSB is working with State special permit offices.
Communications. maintain contact with dispatchers.
V.B.3, Classification Process.... States............... Implement classification process when Pending conclusion of III.B.1 above.
developed per III.B.1 above.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
grade crossing issues
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
1999, and how is this reflected in the request?
Answer. In 1994, DOT, along with Members of Congress, unveiled the
Highway-Rail Crossing Safety Action Plan. The Action Plan is a
visionary policy architecture for achieving its goal of zero tolerance
of highway-rail crossing collisions, fatalities and injuries. It is an
ambitious national transportation goal, but one that clearly emphasizes
that safety is FRA's top priority.
The multi modal endeavor brings together the valuable resources of
the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA), the Federal Transit Administration
(FTA), and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to create and
implement innovative enforcement, engineering, education, research,
promotional and legislative initiatives to save lives at highway-rail
crossings and along railroad rights-of-way.
Since the Action Plan's inception in 1994, there has been a
significant five-year downward trend in fatalities. Between 1995 and
1996, America achieved the greatest increase in highway-rail crossing
safety with a dramatic 18 percent decline in fatalities and collisions.
Projections for preliminary statistics for 1997 indicate a continued
decrease in fatalities by nearly 10 percent. At the Department, these
are more than mere statistics--these are actual lives saved. This
overwhelming success highlights the tremendous progress made, since
1994, in raising national awareness about safety at highway-rail
crossings.
From the beginning, FRA expanded the safety partnership to include
everyone in the transportation safety industry--making safety
everyone's business. FRA also knows that the key to preventing car/
train collisions and trespassing is working with communities to promote
its life saving messages.
As part of FRA's commitment to saving lives, the team successfully
coordinated with the Association of American Railroads, Operation
Lifesaver, Inc. (OLI), FHWA, FTA and NHTSA to incorporate the ``A
Highways or Dieways'' and ``Always Expect A Train'' public education
campaigns as significant components of the Department's ``Moving Kids
Safely'' and ``Safe Communities'' programs. The campaign focuses on
raising awareness about the deadly consequences of trying to beat a
train to a crossing and trespassing on railroad property. The campaigns
have reached citizens in all 50 states via 270 television and cable
markets, 673 radio markets and 200 publications. The ``Always Expect A
Train'' campaign continues to air in Spanish and English every day
throughout the Nation.
Working with Operation Lifesaver, a non-profit national
organization devoted to preventing crossing collisions and trespasser
fatalities, FRA was an active participant in the Department's Safe
Communities traffic safety program, the Garret A. Morgan education
initiative, and the Moving Kids Safely child safety campaign, promoting
FRA's lifesaving message throughout the Nation, reaching diverse
audiences in all 50 states.
As a related initiative, FRA developed an interactive community
safety and education resource Internet WEB Page. The program provides
exciting and innovative multimedia information to community leaders,
teachers, students, and parents on rail safety, technology development,
history, and, career opportunities and development. The site contains
an interactive classroom site for use by teachers that provides lesson
plans, publications, games and teaching resources that convey FRA's
life saving message.
One of the most important partnerships is with law enforcement.
Partnering with the International Association of Chiefs of Police, FRA
created a ticket jacket for use by local officers when ticketing
trespass offenders. The ticket holder has valuable life saving
information that raises awareness about the dangers of trespassing.
More than 2,000 were distributed to local police throughout the nation
and during separate conventions sponsored by the Fraternal Order of
Police and the National Sheriffs' Association.
In the aftermath of the tragic collision between a school bus and a
commuter train at a crossing in Fox River Grove, Illinois in October
1995, the Department partnered with Operation Lifesaver to develop a
school bus driver training program, The Responsibility is Ours, to
raise awareness about crossing safety. The program was distributed
during 1997 to all State departments of education and transportation.
The Department established the intermodal task force immediately
following the tragic October 25, 1995, Fox River Grove, Illinois
commuter train/school bus collision that claimed the lives of seven
high school students. In 1996, the task force issued recommendations in
its first report to the secretary entitled, Accidents That Shouldn't
Happen.
In June 1997, the Department issued a status report on the
implementation of the original recommendations.
It cited the success the task force achieved in fostering greater
communication between federal, state and local governments, railroads
and transit agencies and in correction to ensure similar incidents
never occur.
One of the most successful on-going programs is the Highway-Rail
Crossing and Consolidation Program. FRA and FHWA continue to work with
state and community officials to raise awareness that the safest and
most efficient way to reduce crossing collisions is by eliminating and
consolidating highway-rail crossings. In 1991, FRA established a goal
to close 25 percent of the Nation's crossings. Last year 2,955
crossings were reported closed. The total number of public and private
crossings has been reduced 27,118 (9.3 percent) to a total of 265,721.
In a related initiative, FRA and FHWA partnered with the Western
Governors' Association to improve rail safety throughout Western
communities and work to eliminate redundant crossings. FRA assisted in
providing information for a reference guide on traffic safety and
transportation efficiency that will be used by local communities.
The Department also partnered with the Boy Scouts of America (BSA)
to revise their Railroad Merit Badge. The badge requirements were
outdated and lacked information on rail safety. Working with OLI and
BSA, FRA created a new criteria that included valuable resource
material on highway-rail crossing safety and trespass prevention. FRA
and OLI attended the 1997 National Jamboree in Virginia to promote
awareness about rail safety and the revised badge.
During 1997, the first Department-wide workshop was held regarding
Rails-with-Trails. Participants included Federal, State and local
government officials, railroads, and, interest and civic groups. FRA is
currently working to develop a national policy to assist communities
with their transportation and recreational development planning along
rail rights-of-way.
In an effort to increase trespass prevention, model state trespass
and vandalism prevention legislation was developed by the Department
and disseminated to all 50 State Governors and State Secretaries of
Transportation, the Congress, law enforcement agencies and
transportation-related associations.
FRA encouraged preparation of the National Cooperative Highway
Research Program Legal Research Digest report titled, ``Photographic
Traffic Law Enforcement.'' The report provides communities information
on the effectiveness of placing cameras at crossings to monitor driver
behavior, as an enforcement tool and as a deterrent to try to beat the
train to the crossing. The report was widely distributed among national
and key transportation officials.
FRA conducted a national outreach effort to raise awareness about
the Department's National Economic Crossroads Transportation Efficiency
Act (NEXTEA) proposal and how communities would benefit from the
proposed flexible grade crossing funding allocation model. The new
proposal is based on a prudent needs basis model that also allows
states the flexibility to use funding for public education and trespass
prevention programs.
These are just a sample of the many accomplishments achieved
through an active and broad-based partnership lead by the community-
based activities of FRA's Highway-Rail Crossing Safety and Trespass
Prevention Program Managers. Each manager performs daily outreach to
several states in each of their regions and serves as a point of
contact for communities on various rail and intermodal safety
initiatives.
Clearly, the Action Plan's intermodal approach to preventing
highway-rail crossing safety and trespasser casualties has been
successful. While FRA should pause and praise the good, staff continues
to be vigilant in efforts to improve railroad safety and save lives.
The fact remains every 100 minutes someone in America is hit by a
train. The key to all of FRA's success in rail safety, as in seat belts
and child seats, is an emphasis on intermodal partnerships. Through
FRA's railroad safety partnership FRA has made great strides but the
challenge remains. The challenge is zero tolerance.
FRA will continue to work with its partners to reach zero tolerance
by accelerating FRA's efforts and continuing to broaden the partnership
to achieve the goals outlined in the Action Plan.
A copy of the most recent status report on the Action Plan is
attached. The report provides a status of on-going initiatives and
itemizes initiatives for 1999 and beyond.
In addition to Action Plan-related initiatives, FRA will be working
with its transportation safety partners, OLI and Action Plan DOT modal
partners to increase awareness of crossing safety and the dangers of
trespassing through a coordinated safety campaign. The objective is to
unify the industry under one effective message and to leverage combined
resources to maximize the effectiveness of a national and community
level public awareness campaign that builds on ``Always Expect A
Train''.
Building upon the DOT Highway-Rail Crossing Safety Action Plan and
the Grade Crossing Safety Task Force, FRA is working with FHWA, NHTSA,
FTA and NTSB in developing a coordinated and effective intermodal
strategic plan for preventing collisions between trains, trucks and
school buses. This initiative is an excellent opportunity to enhance
DOT's partnership with NTSB.
The aim is to foster enhanced coordination and communication of on-
going intermodal initiatives and better leverage intermodal resources
to identify possible endeavors in engineering, regulatory action and
public awareness to prevent train/bus and truck collisions.
The plan will encompass short and long term goals with specific
action items for achieving success in the identified scope areas.
A roundtable on the issue will be convened in an effort to better
define the challenges and develop innovative and successful solutions.
The roundtable will consist of approximately 30-40 key partners focused
on developing best practices and developing a coordinated national
campaign.
Currently, trespass prevention is one of FRA's greatest safety
challenges. FRA's goal is to prevent trespassing, not to make rail
rights-of-way safe for trespassing. Disappointingly, the number of
trespass casualties increased in 1997, counter to both the trend of
recent years and to the trends in FRA's other casualty-oriented
prevention programs. As with crossing safety, FRA is working with its
intermodal partners to create common-sense solutions and use high
technology to prevent trespassing.
FRA has initiated an effort to demonstrate the applicability of
intrusion detection technology to trespass prevention. Preliminary
discussions have been held with Monroe County, New York, and Conrail
officials. FRA currently is investigating available hardware.
FRA currently is exploring the idea of underwriting the cost of
detailing a local police officer part-time to each of FRA's Regional
Offices. This officer would support and assist the Regional Manager for
Crossing Safety and Trespass Prevention Programs and Operation
Lifesaver State Coordinators in outreach efforts to local law
enforcement agencies and to the public. Ideas to be explored include:
Developing safety training programs for law enforcement regarding
railroad rights-of-way, yards and other railroad property; develop
focused campaigns for use in high-incident areas; and develop a program
of awards and recognitions for law enforcement agencies and officers
for outstanding law enforcement efforts in trespass prevention.
Starting in January 1997, railroads have been reporting trespass
casualties to FRA in an expanded format. A full year's data soon will
be available. FRA will be analyzing this additional data and
anticipates producing more detailed information regarding the times,
places and activities involved, and identifying high-incident areas.
The 1997 Trespasser Bulletin will reflect this additional material.
FRA is working with OLI, and several railroad and state
representatives to reach a consensus regarding needed additional
information about the individuals involved in trespass incidents and
options for collecting such demographic data. FRA hopes to produce a
demographic study of 1997 trespass casualties.
FRA will be exploring with DOT's other surface Administrations, OLI
and the industry a follow-on to the Always Expect A Train campaign of
1994 and 1995 with even more emphasis on trespass prevention. Ideas to
be considered include: Media and PSA's to targeted venues such as
journals and magazines on hiking, health, trail use, schools and
education. A trespass toolbox with suggested program outlines and
sample materials and lists of available resources and contacts for
distribution to concerned communities, industry and State officials and
other agencies.
During discussions with OLI and industry officials (referenced
above), FRA will consider options for supplementing current casualty
reporting procedures with specific demographic data related to trespass
casualties. At the same time, FRA will open a dialogue with NHTSA and
with the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) seeking their expertise and
assistance in developing demographic data.
Besides current casualty reporting procedures, consideration will
be given to tapping railroad and police files regarding trespass
incidents (that did not result in a casualty) and railroad near-hit
programs. A centralized, uniform data base will be considered.
FRA is working with DOT, NHTSA, FTA and FHWA outreach programs to
insure that anti-trespass information becomes a part of existing
established programs such as the Partnership for a Walkable America and
the Bicycle/Pedestrian State Coordinators program. FRA has taken the
lead, with support from the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials and the Institute of Transportation Engineers
(and NHTSA, FHWA and FTA), to foster development of Rails-with-Trails
casualty prevention guidelines for consideration and use by community/
trail planners.
shift of ol funds between accounts
Question. Please detail the rationale for moving Operation
Lifesaver funding from the Office of Research and Development's
equipment, operations, and hazardous materials budget activity to the
Office of Railroad Safety's safety regulation and program
administration budget activity.
Answer. FRA's Highway-Rail Crossing and Trespasser Team is
organizationally located within the Office of Safety's Standards and
Program Office, which is funded in the regulation and program
administration activity.
This Team's mission is to plan, develop, and direct programs which
address highway-rail safety and trespasser issues and to provide
coordination between concerned Federal, State and local governments,
the railroad industry, and academia. One of the functions of the
Crossing and Trespasser Team is to oversee involvement in highway-rail
crossing and trespasser programs intended to prevent incidents and
promote safety.
In meeting that function, the oversight and liaison activities
relevant to Operation Lifesaver historically have been handled by the
Crossing and Trespasser Team. Consequently, in an effort to streamline
FRA operations and increase efficiency and accountability, FRA moved
Operation Lifesaver funding from the Office of Research and Development
to the Office of Safety.
fiscal years 1996-99 funding for operation lifesaver
Question. Please prepare a table displaying FRA support for
Operation Lifesaver, requested and appropriated, for fiscal years 1996,
1997, 1998, and fiscal year 1999 request.
Answer. The following table applies.
FRA SUPPORT FOR OPERATION LIFESAVER
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Requested Appropriated
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996.................................... $150,000 $300,000
1997.................................... 300,000 600,000
1998.................................... 400,000 600,000
1999.................................... 300,000 ..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
fiscal year 1998 increase for operation lifesaver
Question. In the fiscal year 1998 Act, the conferees increased the
funding for the Operation Lifesaver by $200,000. Please state how the
FRA will use these additional monies.
Answer. After discussions with Operation Lifesaver, Inc., FRA is
increasing the grant to OLI for purposes outlined in the following
table.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998
Activity original New funds Total Anticipated use of new funds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
States Assistance Grants............ $200,000 $121,000 $321,000 Increase direct grants to individual
States from $179,000 to $300,000.\1\
Continuing Education Programs....... 119,000 10,000 129,000 Increase General Training/
Consulting.\2\
Communications Programs............. 81,000 69,000 150,000 Conduct Strategic Planning.\3\
------------------------------------
Total......................... 400,000 200,000 600,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Direct States Assistance Grants fund applications from 30-40 individual States. Other projects in this
program include State Coordinator Orientation, and the 1997 OL Annual Report/Best Practices Review by the
States receiving Grants.
\2\ General Training/Consulting project includes training new Level I and II trainers. Other projects in this
program include Symposium Coordination/Training, New Education Materials, and Leadership training.
\3\ Researching and developing an OL Strategic Plan is necessary so that OL can expand its program to include an
increased focus on trespass abatement and transit issues. In addition, OL needs to increase public recognition
in order to maximize the impact of its message through the implementation of a five-year public awareness and
education campaign.
inspector 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 at FRA? How did you respond to the guidance that the Committee
provided in this area last year? Will the FRA letter to the House and
Senate Committees detailing significantly increased inspector time
allocated to Operation Lifesaver activities be submitted by the May 1,
1998 deadline as required in the Senate report?
Answer. Though FRA managers actively encourage FRA field safety
inspectors and administrative staff to become certified Operation
Lifesaver (OL) presenters and to assist OL in raising awareness of rail
safety in their communities, a regional level of effort of four OL
related activities per year per inspector has not been reached. While
FRA Managers are committed to certifying as many FRA field staff as
possible (currently, 233 of FRA's field staff [60 percent] are
certified OL presenters), they also leverage resources by certifying
people outside of the agency to promote the OL lifesaving messages. In
so doing, FRA helps assure far greater numbers of people are capable of
doing highway-rail crossing safety and trespass prevention
presentations than would be available by using just FRA inspectors.
Among the individuals that FRA has trained are employees of NHTSA, FHWA
and railroads, county and municipal school bus drivers and trainers,
police officers and other state/county/municipal and local safety
officials. This is a vital element of the program as there is only one
Manager for each of FRA's eight regions (which range in size from four
to eight states). Given the limited resources that Managers have, the
ability to leverage resources with intermodal, FRA and industry
partners has greatly contributed to reducing the number of highway-rail
crossing incidents.
FRA's letter to the House and Senate Committees detailing Operation
Lifesaver activities will be submitted as required in the Senate
report.
fiscal years 1996-98 pc&b levels
Question. Please prepare a table, by year, showing personnel
compensation and benefits appropriated and amounts actually spent for
fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998 for field and headquarters staff.
What was done with any PC and B monies that were reallocated for other
purposes during each of these years?
Answer. Funds were not appropriated at the PC&B level, nor PC&B by
field and headquarters. An object class table for the Safety
appropriation was included in the budget request and reflected an
ESTIMATE on how funds would be spent based on funding decisions at the
time the budget was developed. Congressional actions, emergencies such
as the UP and CSX accidents, absorption of unfunded costs and other
policy actions change these decisions and FRA acts accordingly.
FRA works very hard to develop sound estimates at the object class
level. However, FRA, within the parameters of the appropriation and
approved reprogramming guidelines, reallocates resources at the object
class level to fund high priority needs. This is good budgeting and
ensures that funds are not only spent in line with Congressional
intent, but are leveraged to maximize safety.
safety staffing levels
Question. Please verify the number of FTE's working at the Office
of Safety and compare this to staffing levels of fiscal year 1996,
fiscal year 1997, and fiscal year 1998. How many vacancies now exist in
the Office of Safety?
Answer. The information follows: Actual on-board March 31, 1998,
531; Fiscal year 1996 FTE's, 529; fiscal year 1997 FTE's, 520; and
fiscal year 1998 estimate, 546.
There are currently 7 vacancies in the field and 8 in safety
headquarters. Recruit actions have been processed for all vacancies and
positions should be filled before and/or by July 1.
safety travel budget
Question. How much was spent on travel during fiscal year 1997,
fiscal year 1998, and proposed for fiscal year 1999? Please separate
the spending amounts for travel by field staff and headquarters staff,
as well as for State employees.
Answer. The information follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
--------------------------------------
1998 1999
1997 actual estimate estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Headquarters..................... $677 $210 $302
Field............................ 4,988 4,928 5,949
State Inspector Travel........... 227 235 250
--------------------------------------
Total...................... 5,892 5,373 6,501
------------------------------------------------------------------------
status of video conferencing and imaging system
Question. What is the status of your video conferencing and imaging
system? How do these technologies affect your request for travel? How
much does it cost FRA to use the video? Please provide additional
documentation showing that the eight regional crossing conferencing
capability per hour? How often was this system used last fiscal year?
Answer. Video Conferencing. The video conferencing system is up and
running. FRA uses the following schedule to estimate the cost of each
video conference session:
Usage cost
Cost per
No. of links minute
1................................................................ $1.50
2................................................................ 2.25
3................................................................ 3.00
4................................................................ 3.75
5................................................................ 4.50
6................................................................ 5.25
7................................................................ 6.00
8................................................................ 6.75
9................................................................ 7.50
10................................................................ 8.25
During fiscal year 1997, the FRA video conferencing system was used
20 times. (This was the first year the system was in use and during the
period when FRA was involved in an agency move.) The use of the system
enhanced communications between field and headquarters and was used for
multi-regional discussions, especially in regards to SACP issues and
sweep efforts. The use of video conferencing will not result in a net
reduction in travel, but could reduce the percentage growth in
headquarters travel as it relates to the field.
Imaging System
The Domus system for correspondence flow control will be expanded
to become a document imaging management system. This will improve work
flow of FRA's internal documents. FRA is assessing its current systems,
collecting user requirements, and will integrate resources from the
current systems into an expanded imaging system to provide a central
online filing system. This expansion will serve as the first phase
FRA's document management system.
The imaging system has no impact on travel.
safety funding by category
Question. Please break down the fiscal year 1999 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 1997 and fiscal year 1998.
Answer. Information follows:
[Dollars in Thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
--------------------------------------
1998 1999
1997 actual estimate request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PCS.............................. $1,405 $702 $1,628
Inspector Trainee Program........ 1,554 1,619 1,780
Data Collection.................. 1,267 1,291 1,325
Grade Crossing Safety \1\........ ........... ........... ...........
Alcohol and Drug Testing......... 314 522 434
Overtime......................... 220 88 110
Non-mandatory bonuses............ 30 16 96
Training......................... 148 289 427
Travel........................... 5,892 5,373 6,501
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funding for grade crossing is not tracked in the budget or
accounting reports.
role of eight new crossing assistants
Question. Exactly what will the requested eight new assistant
positions do to address intermodal, intra-departmental and MPO-related
tasks? Who at FRA is handling these responsibilities now?
Answer. The eight safety employees, one per FRA region, will assist
the current Regional Crossing Managers and Regional Administrators who
are engaged in addressing intermodal, intra departmental, State,
Metropolitan Planning Organizations, city and local government liaison
activities. A majority of the tasks that will be assigned to these new
positions are safety critical, and primarily involve supporting FRA's
Crossing and Trespass Prevention Managers. The new employees will work
with communities, law enforcement officials, the railroad industry,
other government agencies, MPO's and organizations such as Operation
Lifesaver to reduce the 530 rail related fatalities and 501 injuries
projected that occurred among trespassers in 1997. Last year, for the
first time, trespasser fatalities eclipsed grade crossing fatalities as
the largest single category of fatalities resulting from rail
operations.
These new positions also will assist the Grade Crossing Managers in
addressing the hazards at our nation's 166,035 public at-grade
crossings and 106,715 private at-grade crossings. The Highway-Rail
Grade Crossing Safety Program is clearly intermodal and intra-
departmental in nature. Crossing safety requires the coordination of
efforts among FRA, the Federal Highway Administration, the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, State Departments of
Transportation, local communities and law enforcement agencies, and the
railroad, automobile and trucking industries.
The Highway-Rail Crossing and Trespass Prevention Program tasks
cover many other subject areas as follows: Increasing enforcement of
traffic laws at crossings; rail corridor crossing safety improvement
reviews; increasing public awareness of crossing safety and operation
lifesaver; safety at private crossings; data and research; and trespass
prevention. Currently, FRA only has eight Regional Crossing and
Trespass Prevention Managers to cover each of these major subject areas
nationwide for a railroad system that has had substantial growth since
1980. The basic railroad network has ten Class I railroads and more
than 700 other railroads that operate over 220,000 track miles under
FRA's jurisdiction. The rail network passes through all of the Nation's
communities of any reasonable size. The growing number of contacts that
must be maintained by the Crossing and Trespass Prevention Managers,
clearly support the need for additional staff.
Furthermore, FRA is increasingly being asked by communities to
assist in evaluating the impacts of rail mergers on local communities
(e.g., noise exposure, highway-rail crossing safety). The current
breakup of Conrail poses major issues currently before FRA and the
Surface Transportation Board. FRA continues to work with communities
experiencing downstream effects of the BNSF and UP/SP mergers. These
new positions will help to handle this merger related work load.
need for additional principal inspectors
Question. Please provide compelling evidence that the eight deputy
regional administrators cannot meet their current responsibilities, and
thus must be supplemented with eight principal inspectors.
Answer. The eight Principal Inspectors (PI's) positions, one per
FRA region, are needed to help meet the growing safety challenges
associated with the railroad industry. The growth in rail traffic,
decline in employment, emergence of mega-carriers and proliferation of
shortline railroads continually strains FRA's safety oversight
capacity. The eight PI positions are needed to shoulder the burden
caused by the increasing work load.
Deputy Regional Administrators and the Regional Administrators are
primarily involved with the administration of the regions. Many have
actively participated in the administration and implementation of SACP
activities in their Region and some have served as SACP Project
Managers, for the major railroads. However, FRA has found the SACP
process to be equally effective in addressing safety concerns on
regional railroads, the 16 commuter rail systems and many of the more
than 600 shortline companies. The eight PI's are needed to help deal
with the 5.4 percent increase in the number of new railroads, since
1993. The sheer number of these intermediate sized carriers demands an
increase in the number of PI's to plan, coordinate and participate in
SACP safety audits and site inspections on these railroads.
The emergence of mega-railroads, through mergers, coupled with a 36
percent increase in Class I railroad freight traffic since the industry
was deregulated has increased demands on monitoring railroad industry
compliance with safety regulations covering track, equipment, signals,
hazardous material, and operating practices. To assist in this
endeavor, the eight additional PI's also will serve as Team Leaders on
SACP safety audits where they will lead field inspection teams in
conducting safety inspections on railroad property.
In addition, FRA's safety responsibilities continue to grow, in
large part due to fulfillment of statutory mandates to conduct
rulemakings and special studies, which themselves lead to program
initiatives. Completion of each new regulatory initiative yields a
further substantial workload. The new PI's will be tasked with training
FRA and state inspectors, structuring compliance reviews, establishing
and monitoring reporting systems, providing training and assistance to
small railroads, handling requests for waivers, and responding to
complaints. Examples of new and proposed regulations that add to this
workload include Passenger Train Emergency Preparedness, Passenger
Equipment Safety Standards, Railroad Communications Track Safety
Standards, Roadway Worker Protection rules, Power Brake regulations and
Whistle Ban regulations.
The Region Administrators and Deputy Regional Administrators are
focused primarily on managerial and administrative tasks within the
regions, including issues related to personnel, budget, policy
implementation, representing the agency before other governmental,
public and private entities and interfacing with headquarters.
The Regional and Deputy Regional Administrators are responsible for
overseeing program implementation at the Regional level. A number of
new programs and initiatives have added to their duties and
responsibilities, some of which are growing into discrete programs of
major scale. These include:
Intermodal service.--The growth of Intermodal traffic during the
1990's has greatly complicated relationships among railroads,
maintenance and inspection contractors, loading contractors, fleet
owners, and transportation brokers. Among the significant issues
currently being worked is securement of containers and trailers in
Intermodal transportation.
Bridge safety.--Continued restructuring of the railroad industry
has placed a premium on attention to the bridge structural safety
program (over 100,000 structures). In addition to monitoring bridge
programs of major railroads through the SACP (as recently recommended
by the Office of Inspector General), FRA must pay greater attention to
bridge inspection programs on regional and short line railroads that
lack on-staff engineering expertise. This aging infrastructure requires
increasing attention.
Enhanced passenger service.--Developments are making increasing
demands on FRA's regulatory assets, technical staffs, and contractual
resources. Examples include: Electrification of the balance of the
Northeast Corridor to achieve speeds to 150 mph (subject of recent
proposed order for an advanced civil speed enforcement); Florida's
project for ultra high-speed rail Miami-Orlando-Tampa (subject of an
extensive proposed rule of particular applicability just published);
State concerns regarding highway-rail crossing treatments on lines
identified for incremental improvements in passenger train speeds; and
Proposals for operation of passenger service at higher curving speeds
(waivers under consideration for New York and Washington State).
Clearly, given the growing demands on FRA's safety program, it is
imperative that the safety staff be further supplemented with positions
that can coordinate, direct and participate in safety activities in the
field an on railroad property. The eight additional Principle
Inspectors are badly needed to help FRA carry out its safety mission.
need for additional inspectors for sacp
Question. What documented and quantifiable evidence can you present
that the requested additional principal inspector and field inspector
staff are needed to improve the implementation of the SACP?
Answer. Since 1993, there has been a 5.4 percent increase in the
number of new railroads. Also, Class I railroad freight traffic has
increased about 36 percent since the industry was deregulated in 1980.
The explosion in new railroads and traffic has increased demands on
monitoring railroad industry compliance with safety regulations
covering track, equipment, signals, hazardous material, and operating
practices. Approximately 55 railroads have participated in ``open-
ended'' SACP safety audits, including all major freight and passenger
carriers. The SACP safety audits leverage FRA's limited inspector
resources to identify systemic problems that may have railroad-wide, or
railroad-industry-wide implications. To date, more than 100 systemic
safety concerns have been identified. While FRA recognizes that it is
not feasible for all railroads to received SACP safety examinations,
FRA needs additional inspector resources to continue adding certain
railroads to this process. Eventually, all freight carriers with
significant hazardous materials shipments, or those that interact with
passenger train movements, should be included in this process.
At the same time, FRA lacks the resources to visit every railroad
at least once a year. In 1997, FRA was unable to visit 144 railroads,
an increase of 64 percent over the 88 which FRA was unable to visit in
1993.
FRA's safety responsibilities continue to grow, in large part due
to fulfillment of statutory mandates to conduct rulemakings and special
studies, which themselves lead to program initiatives. Completion of
each new regulatory initiative yields a further substantial workload in
training FRA and state inspectors, structuring compliance reviews,
establishing and monitoring reporting systems, providing training and
assistance to small railroads, handling requests for waivers,
responding to complaints, issuing uniform and consistent guidance in
response to requests for interpretations, responding to myriad
questions from auditors and congressional committees, and reviewing
regulations for effectiveness and currency.
FRA's safety programs require a balanced approach of inspections
coupled with partnerships, which enlist the cooperation of rail labor
and management to identify and correct safety concerns in the railroad
industry. The most expeditious and responsive method of improving safe
operating practices and procedures is to tap the knowledge and
expertise of all affected stakeholders.
As a result of increased public, congressional, and Administration
expectations for the railroad safety program and the currents of change
within the railroad industry, FRA is currently in a position of extreme
vulnerability. Key staff are overworked, major program elements often
lie unattended for extended periods due to competing workload, many
projects are well behind schedule, and FRA is finding it increasingly
difficult to support critical partnership efforts such as RSAC working
groups and SACP initiatives. The requested increases in staffing are
intended merely to reduce backlogs and provide an increased capacity to
handle non-discretionary projects, while preventing burn-out of key
staff where possible. Failure to acquire these resources will result in
degraded customer service across a broad front. In addition, FRA is
increasingly called upon by communities to assist in evaluating impacts
of mergers on local communities (e.g., noise exposure, highway-rail
crossing safety). The current breakup of Conrail poses major issues
currently before FRA and the Surface Transportation Board, and FRA
continues to work with communities experiencing downstream effects of
the BNSF and UP/SP mergers.
Eight Principal Inspectors (PI's) positions, one per FRA region,
will assist the Deputy Regional Administrators and the Regional
Administrators with planning and participation in Safety Assurance and
Compliance Program (SACP) safety audits. Sixteen Field Inspectors will
be distributed throughout selected regional offices to perform site-
specific inspections and to participate, as directed in SACP audits,
and in advisory capacities in the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee
and Technical Resolution Committee reviews.
reprogrammings in safety
Question. Please show any reprogramming or reallocation of Office
of Safety funding from the appropriated amounts for fiscal year 1997
and fiscal year 1998.
Answer. Reprogrammings are only tracked at the Project, Program or
Activity (PPA) level, per the Department's reprogramming guidelines,
which were approved by the House and Senate Appropriations
Subcommittees. The Office of Safety did not have any reprogrammings at
the PPA level.
new fte's in r&d
Question. Please detail the associated costs with the two new
positions in the Office of Research and Development. When do you
estimate the hiring process will be completed? What will the
responsibilities of these two new people be? Please fully justify why
these responsibilities cannot be absorbed by existing staff.
Answer. FRA is requesting $147,000 for the two new positions;
$68,000 for a position to support track research, and $79,000 for a
position to manage and oversee communications-based Positive Train
Control projects. Funding is for salaries and benefits. FRA estimates
that these staff members could be hired shortly after the fiscal year
begins.
The new track engineer will assist in managing the portfolio of
safety R&D projects dealing with track and structures and track-train
interaction. It is a large portfolio consisting of more than 70
projects that are budgeted at approximately $7 million annually. The
number of projects in the portfolio has grown in the past year due to
requirements developed by the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee. There
are currently three employees managing the programs; other R&D staff
are fully utilized nor have the required expertise.
The new electrical engineer will fill a void that exists at FRA.
Currently, there are no staff telecommunications specialists in the
agency. Knowledge of this technology is needed due to the growing
emphasis on communications-based train control systems and on telemetry
to bring data from train-borne and wayside sensors to locations where
it can be analyzed and acted upon. This person will oversee projects
related to Intelligent Train-Track Systems.
trb review of r&d
Question. Last year, the Committee asserted that it would be
beneficial to expand the purposes of the current TRB review to include
a systematic analysis of the entire FRA R&D program, and included
$150,000 to initiate the review. Will this review be continued during
fiscal year 1999? If so, how much will it cost? Is this in the request?
Are additional funds necessary to continue the review?
Answer. The TRB review will be continued through May, 2001. The
total cost of the review will be $350,000. Because of the availability
of funds in our existing contract with TRB, no additional funds beyond
the $150,000 provided in fiscal year 1998 will be required.
impact of r&d plan on fiscal year 1999
Question. Please discuss the impact of your five-year research and
development plan on the fiscal year 1999 budget request. How was this
plan developed, and what outside input did you receive?
Answer. The most obvious impact of the draft five-year R&D plan on
the fiscal year 1999 budget request is in the structure of our R&D
program. In the draft plan, FRA established 10 program areas: human
factors, rolling stock, track and structures, track-train interaction,
train control, grade crossings, hazardous materials, safety of train
occupants, safety of high-speed ground transportation, and R&D
facilities and equipment. Our fiscal year 1999 budget request was
structured in the same manner, and most of the proposed projects were
laid out in the draft plan.
In the preparation of the draft five-year R&D plan, FRA's Office of
Research and Development had discussions with a wide variety of user
groups, both within and outside the agency. FRA's Office of Safety
provided major input, along with the Federal Transit Administration,
Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Amtrak, the Association
of American Railroads, the American Public Transit Association, the
Railway Progress Institute, labor unions, railroads, States, suppliers,
universities, and individuals. The results of those discussions formed
the basis of the plan.
r&d 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 1999? How is this reflected in the budget
proposal?
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. FRA is
also using the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee process and its
Working Groups to investigate additional projects for cooperative
research. 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 (Railway Progress Institute/Association of
American Railroads) 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 (APTA) and the Federal Transit
Administration. FRA has held discussions with APTA about co-funding
some projects and APTA has agreed to ask their members to set aside
some funds for this next year. Other projects include cooperation from
various labor organizations, especially in the human factors area, in
the form of technical experts and test subjects.
FRA will continue meeting with all interested parties to further
cooperative research in fiscal year 1999. The fiscal year 1999 budget
request is for FRA's safety research efforts and assumes that there
will be continued cooperation from the railroad industry in our
research projects.
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 1997 and 1998.
Answer.
EQUIPMENT, OPERATIONS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Non-Federal Percent non-
Fiscal year funds funds Total funds Federal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997........................................................ $5,545 $3,295 $8,840 37
1998........................................................ 5,659 2,296 7,855 29
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The majority of the cost-sharing under this program was the
industry's contribution of equipment for the advanced braking and the
bearing defect detection projects. Other cost-sharing includes in-kind
contributions of technical expertise and equipment and related shipping
costs for test projects under the locomotive and passenger car
programs. Some in-kind contributions of time and training materials
occurred in both the non-accident release and dispatcher training
projects. Not included in the above figures is the industry
contributions to the Operation Lifesaver program which is co-funded by
FRA, FHWA, Amtrak, Association of American Railroads, Railway Progress
Institute, and individual railroads.
TRACK, STRUCTURES, AND TRAIN CONTROL
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Non-Federal Percent non-
Fiscal year funds funds Total funds Federal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997........................................................ $7,346 $6,156 $13,502 46
1998........................................................ 7,746 5,750 13,496 43
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nearly half of the cost-sharing under this program is provided by
industry contribution to the Facility for Accelerated Service Test
(FAST). Other significant fractions are provided by industry support to
the Top-of-Rail Lubrication Safety Evaluation (jointly funded by DOE)
and Rail Defect Test programs (an FRA and Association of American
Railroads partnership) and by individual railroad contributions of
train crews for test operations of FRA's Gage Restraint Measurement
System (GRMS) as well as transportation of FRA's GRMS instrumentation
car between test sites on different railroads. The West Virginia
University is also cost-sharing on the glass fiber-reinforced composite
wood tie project.
SAFETY OF HIGH-SPEED GROUND TRANSPORTATION
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Non-Federal Percent non-
Fiscal year funds funds Total funds Federal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997........................................................ $4,600 $156 $4,756 3
1998........................................................ $4,650 $60 $4,710 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A majority of the work to date has been to conduct safety
assessments of foreign high-speed rail technologies in support of
rulemaking for the Office of Safety. This type of research, in the
past, generally does not get cost-sharing from industry. In fiscal year
1998, the limited cost-sharing has been for continued fire testing and
passenger car crashworthiness. FRA is leveraging its technical
expertise with DOE to support the Transportation EMF Environmental
characterization ($100,000 per year over 3 years); and with FAA, to
support to monitor non-ionizing radiation safety issues. These are not
direct cost-sharing programs.
R&D FACILITIES
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Non-Federal Percent non-
Fiscal year funds funds Total funds Federal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997........................................................ $420 $510 $930 55
1998........................................................ 770 1,040 1,810 57
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A major portion of FRA's research funding supports projects that
are conducted at the Transportation Technology Center (TTC). The TTC is
operated for the FRA by the Transportation Technology Center, Inc,
(TTCI), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Association of American
Railroads under a long-term Care, Custody, and Control contract. The
total business volume of the TTCI 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
TTCI and its customers via AAR's overhead rate and pricing structure
for non-FRA projects at TTC.
r&d volpe contracts
Question. Please list all FRA research and development program
contracts with the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center that
were signed in fiscal years 1997 and 1998, including a short summary of
each specific contracted project, and the associated amount.
Answer. The information follows for each Project Plan Agreement.
rr-19 track systems research
The Track Systems Research Program assesses the risk of derailment
induced by track defects and helps determine the level of inspection
and maintenance resources to minimize these risks. Specific tasks are
based on accident statistics, track maintenance costs, and engineering
expectations of potential problems. The results of this research have
been incorporated in the risk management strategies of railroads
throughout the United States and are used in revising current track
safety standards.
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 1997--$2,122,000; fiscal year 1998--
$1,417,000.
rr-28 rail equipment safety
The Rail Equipment Safety Program supports FRA's research on
railroad equipment and operating practices (including human factors)
and hazardous material safety. The research and engineering studies
provide the technology needed to reduce the likelihood of accidents
related to the design, operation, and maintenance practices of railroad
freight and passenger equipment.
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 Train Study
--Advanced Risk Analysis
--Trailer/Container Securement
--Steam Locomotive Study
Funding: Fiscal year 1997--$1,995,000; fiscal year 1998--
$2,250,000.
rr-93 high-speed ground transportation safety
This program provides FRA with technical information needed for
rulemaking initiatives related to the implementation of advanced high-
speed ground transportation systems. Program assesses the applicability
of existing regulations and requirements for systems based on foreign
technologies that have been proposed for implementation in the United
States. Worked is used to draft waivers to permit demonstration of new
equipment and in the preparation of related new rules.
Research activities under this HSGT program include:
--Advanced Train Control and Automation Safety
--Risk Assessments and System Safety Analyses
--Human Factors and Automation
--Right-of-Way Structures (Guideway Integrity; Platform Safety)
--Equipment Safety (Crashworthiness; Interior Safety; Glazing)
--Vehicle/Track Interaction (Track Safety Standards)
--Emergency Preparedness
--Fire Safety
--Noise Identification and Mitigation
--EMI/EMC and Electrical Safety
--Electromagnetic Fields and Maglev Environmental and Health Safety
Issues
Funding: Fiscal year 1997--$1,925,000; fiscal year 1998--
$2,400,000.
rr-97 highway-rail grade crossing safety
Work supports 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. Accident statistics analysis and research reviews are
also included. On-going demonstration projects are being evaluated.
Corridor risk assessments are included. Funding comes from both the R&D
program and the Next Generation High-Speed Rail program.
Research activities under this program being conducted at the Volpe
Center include:
--Grade Crossing Statistics Analysis
--Causal Analysis of Crossing Accidents
--Evaluation of High-Speed Rail Grade Crossing Demonstration Projects
--High-Speed Corridor Risk Assessment
--Illumination Guidelines
--Locomotive Conspicuity
--Freight Car Reflectorization
--Optimal Acoustic Warning Systems
--Wayside Horn Systems
--Driver Behavior
--Driver Education Programs
--Photo Enforcement
--Obstacle and Intrusion Detection
--Vehicle Proximity Alerting System
Funding: Fiscal year 1997--$1,178,000; fiscal year 1998--
$1,250,000.
rr-03 next generation high-speed rail support
This work is funded under the Next Generation High-Speed Rail
budget rather than the Research and Development budget. 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
--High Performance Non-Electric Locomotive Development
--Innovative Technologies for Track and Structural Improvements
--Railroad Test Track Upgrade
Funding: Fiscal year 1997--$1,100,000; fiscal year 1998--$0.
funds invested in specific grade crossing projects
Question. Please assess the status of the following projects,
amount invested to date, fiscal year 1998 funds levels, and amount
expected to be invested using fiscal year 1999 monies:
[1] A crosscutting review or assessment of different high-speed
rail demonstration projects and the technologies being advanced in
these projects;
[2] Reasons drivers violate grade crossing devices and signs; and
[3] A crosscutting review of grade crossing technology.
Answer. The following tables provide the requested information:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount Fiscal year--
Project invested to -------------------------------
date 1998 estimate 1999 estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Evaluation of grade crossing demonstrations................. $150,000 $10,000 ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status: Because most of the grade crossing demonstrations are still under construction, it was not possible to
evaluate them completed. However, a partial review was performed and a draft final report has been submitted
by the contractor and is now under review within FRA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount Fiscal year--
Project invested to -------------------------------
date 1998 estimate 1999 estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[2] Driver behavior............................................. $100,000 $100,000 $150,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status: This project was initiated in fiscal year 1997 supporting the driver behavior elements in freight car
reflectivity. A low-cost simulator has been established and used in the research at the Volpe Center. A study
design is in preparation. Results should identify driver behaviors associated with various current and
possibly future crossing warning device technologies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount Fiscal year--
Project invested to -------------------------------
date 1998 estimate 1999 estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[3] Review of grade crossing technology......................... $570,000 $20,000 ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status: Four reports have been prepared on highway-railroad grade crossing technologies, reviewing European
(Sweden, France, Italy, Spain, UK, Germany) and Far East (Japan and Australia) activities in the areas of
Train Control and Signaling, Obstruction Detection, Warning Devices and Barrier Systems, and Decision
Methodologies used to apply warning devices at grade crossings. These reports are nearing completion by the
Volpe Center and will soon be submitted to FRA for review. Meanwhile, as part of a separate initiative, the
key findings of these draft reports are being extracted for dissemination to States, railroads, and other
users.
Follow-on work has been identified in the Obstruction Detection area to include Railroad Right-of-Ways as well
as Grade Crossings.
status of corridor risk study
Question. Why hasn't the corridor risk study been completed? What
is the status and future plans for resolution of concerns held by AAR
regarding this study?
Answer. The Corridor Risk Analysis study was initiated to determine
if characteristics of rail corridors could be identified that might be
associated with higher than average risk of accidents of the kind
preventable through use of Positive Train Control (PTC) systems.
Results are intended to guide public and private sector decisions
regarding PTC implementation. The initial phase of the work is
complete, and the second, concluding phase is in progress based upon
guidance from the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) PTC Working
Group.
This project is extremely complex, requiring the construction of a
Geographic Information System (GIS) with a greater level of detail than
had previously been available, the identification of preventable
accidents, and segmentation of the rail network. The task is
complicated by the relatively small number of accidents involved when
measured against the expanse of the national rail system and large
exposure numbers. The first phase of this effort was completed in 1997.
In addition to briefing the full RSAC on the general status and results
of the effort, FRA arranged for the Volpe National Transportation
Systems Center (Volpe Center) to present the methodology and results in
detail at a peer review briefing on September 12 , 1997, at Cambridge,
Massachusetts. Railroad representatives at the peer review expressed
concern over corridor segmentation, normalizing data (modeled traffic
flows), and the statistical methods employed. At this meeting and
during subsequent discussions, some railroad representatives suggested
that this type of geographically-based risk analysis was simply not
possible; however, no documented reasons for this conclusion were
provided. FRA responded to specific criticisms by encouraging the
railroads to provide more useful alternative data and suggestions for
corridor definitions. FRA and the Volpe Center remain confident that a
corridor risk model can be useful in planning for wise investments in
PTC technology.
On September 30, 1997, the RSAC established the PTC Working Group,
which has been meeting regularly since last November. The Data and
Implementation Task Force of that working group is providing guidance
for redirection of the corridor risk work. Discussions have generated
approaches for refinement of the study methodology. Railroad members
have committed to providing improved density data by May 1, 1998,
together with alternative corridor definitions. At the task force
meeting of April 6-8, 1998, the Volpe Center led a discussion of an
issue paper describing the decisions required to complete the corridor
risk work. The task force appeared receptive to most of the
recommendations provided in response to issues raised within the task
force.
Assuming timely receipt of density data that is readily
``mappable'' to the GIS, FRA anticipates production of a draft report
incorporating the results of the second-phase modeling effort by
September 1998. The PTC Working Group will then have a final
opportunity to comment on the results, including their significance and
any limitations of the final study methodology. This information will
be included in the report of the RSAC to the Administrator on the
future of PTC.
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 1997 and fiscal year 1998 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 1999.
Answer. Following is a summary of FRA's human factors R&D work:
Train Operations
1. A pilot test of the study design for Engineer Napping Strategies
is expected to begin in June 1998 resulting in refinements to test and
analysis approaches by the end of the year. 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:
1997....................................................\1\ $900,000
1998...................................................... 400,000
1999...................................................... 200,000
\1\ Includes $530,000 from fiscal year 1996.
2. At least three Vigilance Monitoring devices will be used during
the napping study to gather data and test their usefulness in the
railroad operating environment. The purpose of these tests is to
determine sleep quantity/quality (before work), alertness during
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
operations, and fitness for duty before and after the work period.
Fiscal year:
1997................................................................
1998...................................................... $300,000
1999...................................................... 300,000
3. Pilot tests of data collection and analysis methodologies for
Dispatcher Workload, Stress and Fatigue are underway and are expected
to be completed during the summer of 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 effort, including testing.
Fiscal year:
1997...................................................... $225,000
1998...................................................... 224,000
1999...................................................... 378,000
4. A study to evaluate the effects of information-mediated fatigue
and automation on locomotive engineer vigilance in high-speed
operations (High-Speed Operator Stress and Fatigue) was completed in
June, 1997 at the Volpe Center. The study evaluated situational
awareness and the monitoring of equipment failures under three
operational conditions: manual control, cruise control, and full
automation. A report on this study is in preparation and is currently
expected to be completed in May. Out year funding will be needed to
evaluate related issues.
Fiscal year:
1997...................................................... $100,000
1998...................................................... 200,000
1999...................................................... 200,000
5. The report on Dispatcher Training Evaluation through the
development and industry review of model syllabi is under review.
Revisions are anticipated to result in a final report to be published
in the Fall of 1998. A workshop and distribution of the syllabi on the
internet is anticipated in 1999. Evaluation of the implications of
recent mergers on dispatcher training may also be required.
Fiscal year:
1997...................................................... $200,000
1998...................................................... 200,000
1999...................................................... 200,000
6. A new initiative, Evaluation of Digital Communications in High-
Speed Operations, is planned for fiscal year 1999. This multi-year
project will examine the human factors implications of using digital
communications between locomotive engineers and dispatchers. Currently,
such communications are by voice which has proven to be less efficient
and precise than digital communications. Transition from voice to
digital communications will change the task of the locomotive engineer,
therefore the human factors effects of this transition need to be
evaluated.
Fiscal year 1999.............................................. $100,000
Yard and Terminal
A report on Phase 1 of the multi-phase Yard and Terminal Safety
study entitled Railroad Worker Safety in Yards and Terminals: An
Evaluation of Existing Data Resources and Proposed Methods for Further
Study was published in the Spring of 1997. Analysis of accident
patterns is currently underway.
Fiscal year:
1997...................................................... $150,000
1998...................................................... 150,000
1999...................................................... 150,000
Grade Crossings
Several activities are in various stages under the overall heading
of Grade Crossing Safety: in the review or revision stage are--Freight
Car Reflectorization and Evaluation of Wayside Horns; ongoing or
recently initiated are--Optimal Acoustic Warning Systems, Driver
Behavior, Accident Causation Analysis, and a review of Driver Education
Programs.
Fiscal year:
1997...................................................... $385,000
1998...................................................... 435,000
1999...................................................... 435,000
fatigue mitigation strategies research
Question. What are the fatigue mitigation strategies that have been
investigated during the last year? What were the results of these
efforts?
Answer. Projects to study napping strategies and vigilance
monitoring devices are currently underway. Both projects make use of
the RALES simulator at IIT Research Institute and are being performed
simultaneously. The napping study will examine four conditions. The
control group will have no nap, while the three nap groups will be
allowed naps that vary in duration. In the vigilance monitoring study,
at least three vigilance monitoring devices will be used during the
napping study to gather data and test their usefulness in the railroad
operating environment. As these projects have just recently begun, it
is too early to meaningfully discuss results. The napping strategies
project is expected to require another two years to complete and the
vigilance monitoring project will take another year to complete.
innovative working schedule pilot programs
Question. What is FRA doing either to monitor or evaluate various
innovative working schedule pilot programs or other fatigue
countermeasures now being implemented by various railroads? Is any work
planned in this area for fiscal year 1999? Are any fiscal year 1999
funds requested for such evaluation? How much would it cost to do a
benefit/cost analysis on the impacts to rail labor, management, and
safety for one or two of these ongoing private sector pilot programs?
How is FRA's fatigue research coordinated with these private sector
activities?
Answer. FRA is a currently participating in the North American Rail
Alertness Partnership (NARAP). One of the stated purposes of NARAP is
to exchange information concerning fatigue countermeasures, innovative
working schedules, and other pilot programs. FRA has previously been
aware of the industry activities with regard to fatigue, in particular
the activities of the AAR Work Rest Task Force. However, to date, the
FRA has received little solid information concerning the outcomes of
these activities. In the absence of quantitative data, it is difficult
or impossible to evaluate the effectiveness of these programs. The
prime concern at FRA is safety. Unfortunately, none of the industry
programs has specifically examined the effects of fatigue
countermeasures and other programs on train handling performance to
determine that the implemented changes are having any effect on this
safety-crucial element. FRA's current fatigue research is focused on
napping strategies and vigilance monitoring in the locomotive cab, and
on measurements of workload, stress and fatigue in the dispatcher's
work environment. In every instance, FRA has anticipated the need for
projects in these areas by carefully monitoring industry trends and
scientific developments in the fatigue research community.
Work on napping strategies and vigilance monitoring will continue
in fiscal year 1999. Funding requested in fiscal year 1999 is $200,000
for napping strategies and $300,000 for vigilance monitoring.
FRA has not determined the cost to do a benefit/cost analysis on
the impacts to rail labor, management, and safety for one or two of
these ongoing private sector pilot programs, however it is expected to
be extremely expensive. No quantifiable data exists on which to base
the benefit/cost study because performance measures are not included in
the pilot projects. Research will be necessary to verify any
assumptions being made.
Increased cooperation and coordination on fatigue research projects
with the industry are a major goal of FRA's participation in NARAP.
dispatcher workload, stress and fatigue
Question. What is the status of your work on the development of
tests and methodology for the evaluation of dispatcher workload, stress
and fatigue? Please describe the results, and how the fiscal year 1998
research and development program will continue into fiscal year 1999.
Answer. Field tests for Phase II of the Dispatcher Workload, Stress
and Fatigue project were completed in February. The objective of Phase
II was to determine the feasibility of using candidate methods for the
measurement and evaluation of dispatcher workload, stress and fatigue
(which were previously identified in Phase I) in the dispatcher's
workplace. Candidate methods would be selected for use in Phase III if
they were acceptable to dispatchers, were easy and quick to administer,
and did not interfere with performance of dispatching tasks. Methods to
measure workload, stress and fatigue were identified for use in Phase
III that met these criteria. Workload methods include dispatcher
records and subjective ratings of workload. Stress measurements include
salivary coritsol and subjective ratings. Fatigue measurements include
actigraphy, sleep logs and subjective ratings. The final tasks in Phase
II are the development of a research plan for the full field study for
Phase III and the writing of a final report for Phase II. These two
tasks are expected to be completed by the end of fiscal year 1998.
Phase III, the full field study will begin in fiscal year 1999.
hours of service pilot projects
Question. What is the status of the project which allowed FRA to
waive, for experimental purposes, the hours of service regulations?
What information has been collected that could lead to a regulatory
revision of the hours-of-service requirements?
Answer. This project requires the cooperation of a railroad to
request a waiver so that an experiment can be designed and performed.
Although initial discussions with several railroads looked promising at
one time, to date no cooperative agreements have been reached and no
railroads have requested waivers.
high-speed operator stress and fatigue
Question. What is the status of the project to evaluate stress and
fatigue issues unique to high-speed train operators. What is the status
of this project?
Answer. 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.
The study to evaluate the effects of information-mediated fatigue
and automation on locomotive engineer vigilance in high-speed
operations was completed in June, 1997 at the Volpe Center. The study
evaluated situational awareness and the monitoring of equipment
failures under three operational conditions: manual control, cruise
control, and full automation. A report on this study is in preparation
and will be completed shortly.
passenger equipment standards
Question. Please discuss how the equipment and components
subprogram reflects the congressional mandate for FRA to develop
passenger equipment standards. How has FRA's research program been
incorporated into this rulemaking? How much money was spent for this
purpose in fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998, and how much is
planned for fiscal year 1999?
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. To support each element of the standards such
as the system safety plan, equipment crashworthiness and vehicle
dynamics, FRA's research program developed the necessary technical data
and provided advice to the FRA team writing the standards. 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.
In fiscal year 1998, a project was initiated to evaluate the safety of
diesel multiple units and light rail vehicles used in commuter rail
service.
Results from these research projects, along with work being
conducted under the Safety of High-Speed Ground Transportation program,
has been incorporated in the text of the proposed Interim Safety
Standards. Ongoing work on crashworthiness, especially for cab cars
will be incorporated in the next phase of the rulemaking.
Funding included $800,000 in fiscal year 1997, $800,000 in fiscal
year 1998. FRA is requesting $1 million in fiscal year 1999.
advanced braking system evaluation
Question. Please summarize the progress made to date regarding the
Advanced Braking Systems Evaluation. What is your five-year plan with
regard to testing and evaluating Advanced Braking Systems? How much has
been spent on this effort in each of the last three years and how much
is proposed for fiscal year 1999?
Answer. FRA has been working with industry co-operatively in the
development of industry performance and interchange requirements for an
advanced electronically-controlled pneumatic braking system (ECP). FRA
has supported the safety related work inherent in the development of
these specifications. Advanced Braking Systems are currently under test
use in a number of unit train applications. These trainsets use the
hardwired power source (as opposed to local battery/generator on each
freight car) and a hard wire for signal transmission. FRA has also
supported safety-oriented laboratory tests and in-train tests at the
Transportation Technology Center (TTC). Revenue service tests have also
been conducted with some FRA support. 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. FRA
expects to formalize a procedure for safety assessment of new braking
systems.
To extend the use of Advanced Braking Systems to non-unit train
cars, that is the general service car, FRA is sponsoring the
development of automatic couplers with built-in air and electric lines
and added mechanical safety features. This will facilitate coupling of
cars and enhance crew safety. This project is in its early stage. As
with all new technologies, new variants appear on the scene. Radio-
based signal transmission means have been proposed by new entrants. A
safety assessment of these may be required as with the hard-wired
systems. Informal interviews of locomotive crew members indicate great
enthusiasm for advanced braking systems, particularly the train
handling features. This work will continue in the next several fiscal
years.
Beyond fiscal year 1999 the safety record will be monitored and
additional control and surveillance functions will be proposed for
addition to the total ECP system. FRA will examine both hard-wired and
radio-based versions of ECP brakes. ECP braking systems have improved
the stop distance performance dramatically and the uniformity of
braking among cars. ECP braking represents a major safety improvement
in the rail industry.
Funding is as follows:
Fiscal year:
1996...................................................... $75,000
1997...................................................... 150,000
1998...................................................... 250,000
1999 (request)............................................ 250,000
wayside equipment inspection detection program
Question. Please summarize the progress made to date regarding the
Wayside Equipment Inspection Detection program. What is your program
plan for the next five years in this area? What is the program plan for
the Wayside Inspection Station? How much has been spent on these
efforts for each of the last three years and how much is proposed for
fiscal year 1999?
Answer. FRA has supported and developed a number of measurement
system methodologies to establish car/train stability, equipment
performance or lack thereof, and the means to record and transmit data
for appropriate use. These include wheelset angle-of attack, lateral/
vertical loads, bearing temperatures, and wheel temperatures. Recently,
FRA has funded a project to develop the means to measure wheel residual
stress, an all-important determinant of wheel structural integrity, and
an acoustic detector of identifying potentially unsafe bearings. These
are reaching a stage of development where commercial products may soon
be possible.
Development of a new generation of equipment defect detectors,
which have the ability to detect defects at their early stage of
failure and with a high degree of confidence, is needed. FRA's plan
over the next five years is to accelerate the development of such
devices to improve overall safety and to implement devices into an
automated inspection station.
Inspection strategies for freight cars based solely on visual
inspections have limitations. Periodic required inspection and
maintenance is expensive. Condition-based inspection and subsequent
maintenance and repair may improve the use of resources. Initially, FRA
is working to co-operatively establish, with one or more railroads, a
wayside equipment inspection detection station to cover a large
fraction of the active cars in the railroad's fleet. This station will
be used to demonstrate the newer measurement systems for monitoring
wheel, truck and bearing condition. The co-operating railroad will have
to make a significant investment. In time, it should be possible to
establish a network of stations geographically positioned for full
coverage thereby giving the railroad the ability to monitor its fleet
for condition.
Funding is as follows:
Fiscal year:
1996...................................................... $475,000
1997...................................................... 300,000
1998...................................................... 300,000
1999 (request)............................................ 300,000
on-board equipment health monitoring systems
Question. What progress has been made to date regarding On-Board
Equipment Health Monitoring Systems? How much has been spent on this
effort for each of the last three years and how much is proposed for
fiscal year 1999?
Answer. As an adjunct to the Advanced Braking program FRA is
supporting the development and testing of on-board safety monitoring
systems that will provide continuous monitoring of the brake system
status. Other braking system parameters also can be included such as
brake cylinder pressure and handbrake position sensing, with the
information provided to the engineer along with certain other selected
parameters. Some brake system parameters are already operational with
the electronically-controlled pneumatic (ECP) brake system.
On-board detection of freight car (and passenger car) truck
suspension hunting on an on-going basis also is envisaged. As part of
the Next Generation High-Speed Rail Program, two systems were developed
under Phase I Small Business Innovative Research contracts. One of
these is now being developed into a prototype under a Phase II effort.
This system will be evaluated for incorporation in this on-board
monitoring program. Some form of revenue service demonstration/testing
will be planned.
Other systems and components to be included in this monitoring
system include overheating of wheels and brake pads, bearing
temperature, ride quality, and instantaneous derailment detection. Due
to increased traffic, car and train weight increases are expected.
Thus, more reliable brake rigging will also be addressed through
research. The use of distributed power with ECP-equipped trains to
utilize the train line for communication and multiple-unit cable
linking the lead unit with locomotives throughout the train will be
investigated.
Funding is as follows:
Fiscal year:
1996................................................................
1997...................................................... $300,000
1998...................................................... 300,000
1999 (request)............................................ 330,000
track research
Question. How were the funds allocated in fiscal year 1998 spent
for track research? Please explain the purpose of each project and the
amount funded. What are the comparable planned expenses in this area
for fiscal year 1999, and how is this reflected in the request?
Answer. In fiscal year 1998, a total of $7.246 million was
appropriated for track research. The total funding request for track
research in fiscal year 1999 is $6.950 million. The following table
shows how these funds are allocated among the four major program
activities for fiscal year 1998 and the allocation planned for fiscal
year 1999 reflecting a restructuring of the overall R&D program.
[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-------------------------
1998 1999
estimate request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Track and Components.......................... $2,585 ...........
Inspection-Detection.......................... 2,250 ...........
Track Train Interaction....................... 1,364 ...........
Signal, Train Control, and Electrification.... 1,047 ...........
Track and Components Safety................... ........... $3,900
Track-Train Interaction Safety................ ........... 3,050
-------------------------
Total................................... 7,246 6,950
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The purpose of each of these program activities for fiscal year
1998 can be found on pages 71-73 of FRA's Congressional Budget
Justification, and are as follows:
Track and Components.--This program activity assesses 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.--This program activity aims 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.--This research area will 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
railroad signaling and electrification technology that are out pacing
the content of existing Federal standards.
For fiscal year 1999, track research activities were consolidated
and focused into two main sub activities, namely Track & Components
Safety and Track-Train Interaction Safety, as indicated by the above
summary table and in accordance with FRA's draft 5-year R&D strategic
plan. Research activities within the more applied Inspection-Detection
program were integrated with their traditionally more theoretical and
fundamental counterparts in the Track & Components or Track-Train
Interaction programs to accelerate the rate of technology
implementation into products and systems for improved track safety
inspection and hazard detection. The latter were renamed Track &
Components Safety and Track-Train Interaction Safety to reflect this
focus.
results of track research
Question. How did the results of the fiscal year 1997 research help
FRA and the rail industry?
Answer. Much has been gained from the track research and test
activities that were completed in fiscal year 1997. The most notable
accomplishments and their benefit to FRA and to the railroad industry
can be summarized as follows:
Track Safety Standards.--In 1997, work within a government-
industry-labor effort under the auspices of the Rail Safety Advisory
Committee was continued 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 effort culminated into the
issuance of a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) covering in detail
the proposed revised track safety rules and soliciting public comments.
This process was greatly influenced and guided by results from research
completed in fiscal year 1997. One example was the inclusion of
performance-based standards for track gage strength based on results
from the R&D gage widening research and test program using the Gage
Restraint Measurement System (GRMS). Other results from R&D activities
in fiscal year 1997 have led to significant contributions to the
development of new high-speed track geometry and vehicle-track
interaction safety standards. Research results also provided further
important refinements to earlier drafted revisions and identified other
areas in need of further revisions.
Top-of-Rail Lubrication.--Cooperative full-scale testing both at
the Transportation Technology Center (TTC) at Pueblo as well as on
revenue service tracks were conducted to examine the safety and energy
reduction benefits of a newly developed top-of-rail lubrication system.
The system applies a specially engineered water-based consumable
lubricant behind the last locomotive to reduce wheel/rail friction
under the remainder of the train. Both the railroad industry and the
Department of Energy participated with FRA in funding these tests.
Initial results indicate significant reductions in lateral forces and
in energy consumption with no impact on braking distances. Additional
testing is planned in fiscal year 1999 to examine other safety aspects
of this lubrication technology such as influence on vehicle hunting and
operations on steep grades.
Track Buckling.--Full-scale buckling testing on wood and concrete
tie tracks has provided needed data for validation of models developed
to predict track buckling behavior. Newly developed remote sensing
systems for the measurement of rail longitudinal force were designed
and installed on the high tonnage and the high-speed rail tracks at the
TTC for performance testing and for continued safety monitoring and
buckling prevention. Analytical tools were developed for predicting
track lateral shift due to vehicle and thermal loads. Parametric
studies were conducted to develop safety concepts and criteria for
mitigation of excessive lateral alignment defects. Significant
reductions in the number of accidents attributed to track buckling have
been seen since this research began. Additional work is still needed
for further development of analytical tools and for the development of
a risk-based buckling safety assessment methods.
Gage Restraint.--An ongoing effort in fiscal year 1997, is
application of the GRMS developed by the FRA to measure the ability of
track to maintain gage under service load conditions. In 1997, the GRMS
continued to gain acceptance as a mature technology resulting in the
development of performance-based track safety standards for cross tie
inspection and replacement in collaboration with both industry and
labor. Similar systems based on this FRA developed prototype have been
acquired by at least two major railroads and continue to be used for
locating areas of track with weak or unsafe gage restraint. FRA's
longer range GRMS testing continued on a range of railroad operations
including short lines and regional railroads to ensure that crosstie
replacements are being installed in areas of maximum risk for wide-gage
derailments from weak ties.
Heavy Axle Loads.--During fiscal year 1997, an additional 100
million gross tons of traffic have been accumulated under the third
phase of accelerated testing at the TTC. The objective of this phase is
to assess track safety and performance under 125-ton cars equipped with
improved suspension systems. Results from more than 200 million gross
tons of traffic accumulated under these loads continue to indicate a
potential enhancement to safety from the improved suspension due to
reductions in lateral loads and fatigue related rail defects. Ongoing
experiments on rail grinding practices and their impact on rail wear
and fatigue were continued. In addition, a bridge deck was installed on
the heavy tonnage loop to examine safety hazards at bridge approaches
and methods for their mitigation.
Rail Steel Integrity.--Work continued at the Volpe National
Transportation Systems Center on analytical and test methods to support
delayed remedial action for non-critical defects as an alternative
testing strategy. Results from this work provided valuable input to a
waiver application to the Office of Safety from a Class I railroad
requesting modifications to existing FRA rules on rail defect
inspection. Continued research also 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 of rail conditions. 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 and
grinding strategies and their influence on the growth of fatigue-
induced cracks in the rail head. Collaborated with the railroad
industry on the construction of a new rail defect test facility at the
TTC in which various rail samples with known internal defects were
installed for testing purposes. The facility has been used to evaluate
current inspection equipment and will be used in fiscal year 1999 to
comparatively test at least two new rail inspection technologies.
maglev research
Question. Were any funds spent in fiscal year 1998 on maglev safety
research? If so, how were those funds used? Are any maglev projects in
progress at his time?
Answer. No funding for maglev safety was appropriated in fiscal
year 1998 and nothing was spent on maglev safety research in fiscal
year 1998. FRA has no maglev projects in progress, other than
monitoring the maglev projects of other agencies, specifically the
maglev upgrade of the Holloman Air Force Base high speed test track.
fiscal year 1999 maglev funding
Question. Please describe in detail how the requested $150,000
program funds for maglev systems evaluations would be utilized?
Answer. FRA has the responsibility for the safety of high-speed
ground transportation systems, including maglev. FRA plans to use $150
thousand to fund the assessment of current maglev systems for safety
and to cooperate with the on-going maglev programs of the Air Force,
Navy, and NASA by exploring ways of deriving civilian sector benefits
from the activities during the course of the research.
source of high-speed rail safety data
Question. An increase of $150,000 is requested in the subarea
``high-speed rail safety,'' for dissemination of information on
reliability, safety records, and maintenance costs of high-speed rail
systems. From what high-speed rail operations will the data for this
information be derived? Is this a representative enough sampling for
dissemination?
Answer. The high-speed rail industry is diverse in its engineering
characteristics and global in extent. Thus, many exemplars of
Accelerail (with top speeds ranging from 90 to 150 mph) and New High-
Speed Rail (with top speeds over approximately 150 mph) exist in key
industrialized nations of the world. Sweden, Italy, France, Spain,
Germany, the United Kingdom, Japan, the United State, and others
operate one or more high-speed rail technologies. All these countries,
plus some others which are witnessing ongoing development of high-speed
rail, will provide the basis for this study. Indeed, the first task of
this effort will be a complete overview of the then-current status of
high-speed rail development and of the likely sources of objective
data. For example, the FRA will seek critical information from the
International Union of Railways (UIC), as well as the Ministries of
Transport and railway operators of the countries involved. Additional
objectivity will be provided because some technologies are genuinely
international: the French TGV provides the technology for the Spanish
``AVE,'' and the Spanish TALGO has operated in France, Switzerland, and
elsewhere, in addition to the United States. Although manufacturers'
data will be considered, to the extent that data can be had from
countries not directly involved in the marketing of particular types of
equipment, the credibility of the study will be enhanced. In addition,
there exists an active and independent railway press in many countries,
which can be surveyed to determine whether the various claims of the
parties involved reflect public perceptions of equipment reliability
and costs. By developing a systematic study design, making use of
multiple sources of information, and addressing all the most prominent
high-speed rail venues and equipment types (not excluding activities in
America) that would be of relevance to foreseeable State needs and
desires, FRA expects to extract data of extraordinary utility that will
merit wide dissemination among the States.
sale of aluminum at ttc
Question. Please detail the situation at the TTC in Pueblo,
Colorado that led to the inclusion of the requested bill language that
will allow FRA to sell old reaction rail aluminum for scrap. What is
the estimated worth of this rail? How would the sale proceeds be
credited?
Answer. FRA has determined that the aluminum reaction rail at the
TTC is an unused asset that could be sold to raise funds for needed
capital improvements at the TTC. Since the aluminum has not been
appraised, and costs related to the sale are unknown at this time, it
is difficult to provide a net worth. For presentation purposes, FRA has
included an estimate of $1 million in the fiscal year 1999 budget.
Funds would be credited to R&D as reimbursable authority.
facilities restoration at ttc
Question. What is the status of facilities restoration at TTC?
Answer. Various projects related to TTC facilities' restoration
and/or upgrade were initiated or completed in fiscal year 1997. A
number of other projects are planned for fiscal year 1998-1999. These
projects are summarized below by fiscal year.
Projects Completed or Initiated in fiscal year 1997
Center Services Building.--Construction of the Locomotive Fueling
and Servicing Facility was completed, and put in use. This included
servicing locomotives with diesel fuel, bulk oil dispensing, used oil
collection, and water dispensing.
Catenary Restoration Project.--Numerous items needed to restore the
system to a good operating condition were completed. This construction
work included replacing damaged components, installation of two phase
breaks to provide dual voltage capability around the test loop, and
hardware adjustments.
RTT Substation Restoration.--RTT Substation Restoration Project
work was completed. This work included inspections, testing, corrective
maintenance, and installation of a replacement power system monitoring,
and metering system.
DC Rectifier Substations.--Work was initiated to modify the DC
Rectifier Substations for the Transit Test Track. Design work has been
completed and construction started to correct safety problems, increase
current and voltage capabilities, and link the two substations for
controlled load sharing.
RTT Upgrade.--Railroad Test Track upgrade project was substantially
completed. All ties on the 13.5 mile test loop have been replaced with
new concrete or treated hardwood ties with elastic fasteners using a
Fairmont Tamper automated tie replacement system. Work included ballast
undercutting in the concrete tie zones and replacement with new granite
ballast. The track was surfaced/lined to exceed FRA class 6 track
standards. The successful completion of this project is an important
milestone in FRA's efforts to prepare for the testing Amtrak's American
Flyer trainsets at TTC in early 1999 before their entry into revenue
service later that year at 150 mph on the Northeast Corridor.
Environmental Audit and Pollution Prevention.--A comprehensive
environmental audit of the TTC was conducted and the results documented
in a formal report. Based on these results, a comprehensive Pollution
Prevention Program has been developed. The purpose of this project is
to develop and actively implement policies and procedure to meet the
Federal government goals to (1) publicly report toxic waste and
emissions, (2) to reduce toxic releases by at least 50 percent by 1999,
and otherwise meet the requirements of Executive Order 12856.
Fiscal Year 1998 Planned Projects
Restore Site Radio Communications System.--TTC has an 8 channel
radio communications system installed in the early 1970's. The system
was overhauled in 1978, with 2 of the channels converted to repeater
channels due to communication problems with outlying areas within the
facility. All of the 8 base station modular equipment is obsolete in
terms of obtaining replacement parts. Two of the 8 units are currently
non-functional, and the 2 repeater station units are starting to fail
from continuous duty heat. This work is to perform a partial
refurbishment of the existing system to restore an 8 channel operation.
It includes replacing 5 of the base units with repeater station
capability, replacement of the 2 time coder transmitters, upgrading the
standby battery power system, upgrading the base station
instrumentation cabinets and associated wiring, and upgrading the
software control package so that the system is in a full functional
condition.
CSB Wheel Truing Machine Restoration.--The existing Heigenscheidt
Manufactured, Wheel Truing Machine in the Center Services Building
(CSB) requires a limited overhaul to restore and improve current wheel
truing tolerance capabilities. The planned restoration work involves
system upgrades by rebuilding the longitudinal and cross slides,
cylinders, way liners and gibs. It also includes upgrading the feed
system by replacing the obsolete feed pump system and installing new
servo control valves , and rebuilding of the lifting cylinders to the
wheel lift, and trouble shoot/repair as needed to restore the machine
to good, serviceable operation.
FRA Heavy Equipment Upgrades.--This project is to replace existing
FRA equipment critical for test program support that are beyond their
useful economic lives. The planned replacement units are a 50 to 75 ton
rated mobile crane, 3 to 3.5 CY rated front end loader, and a 14'
moldboard/185 hp min rated, motor grader.
Roof Restoration on TTC Buildings.--This project is to continue
with the phased roof replacement program for TTC Buildings. The planned
work is to replace, or repair and reroof, as necessary the built-up
roof systems of Rectifier Substation No. 2, Urban Rail Building, and
Operations Building Kitchen/Cafeteria low bay roof.
Preliminary Design of CSB Lead Wye Track.--The Railroad Test Track
has become a high demand test loop for testing, and will become even
more so with the high-speed test programs associated with Amtrak and
RTRI in the near future. Access to the track for logistics moves are
becoming more disruptive to test activities, with maintenance and
service activities using the core area facilities. In addition, long
range planning has identified the proposed CSB Lead Wye Track as a
proposed access for a future project maintenance facility for high-
speed testing. The Wye track also would access an unlimited area to
develop a more permanent area for intermodal container and material
lading staging that is central to the core area for support and
logistics. This initial phase of the project is to perform preliminary
design work for a Wye Track off of the CSB Lead track that is
expandable for the above referenced facility. The work includes a
topographic survey of the proposed alignment and facility development
area, track alignment and profile drawings, and a budget estimate for a
phased construction program.
Fiscal Year 1999 Planned Projects
Roof Replacements on Support Buildings.--Funding will continue the
ongoing roof replacement for numerous major buildings at the TTC. Many
buildings have their original roofs, which are beyond their economic
lives. The roofs must be replaced in an orderly fashion to avoid leaks
and damages to building interiors and equipment.
funding of t-6 work
Question. Did FRA perform any upgrade work on the T-6 track
inspection car and on-board track inspection equipment in fiscal year
1998? If so, what funds went toward this effort? What was the source of
these funds?
Answer. No significant upgrade work was performed in fiscal year
1998 on the mechanical or structural parts of the T-6 car itself. The
FRA has elected not to reprogram any of the fiscal year 1998 funds for
this purpose due to the potential negative impact on other planned
research activities. However, funds were expended on various mechanical
repairs and maintenance activities in order to keep the inspection
system operational. Additional maintenance is planned by the end of
fiscal year 1998. A modest upgrade was performed on some of the
instrumentation and data collection systems housed inside the T-6 car
to support various track safety inspection technology projects
including track degradation, track vertical stiffness measurement, and
track data alignment system. The source of these funds was the
Inspection-Detection subprogram.
It should be noted that the over fifty-year old T-6 car, which
houses most of the instrumentation and all the data collection systems,
is rapidly deteriorating and thus requiring more frequent repairs and
maintenance. Due to the increasing repair costs and other
inefficiencies associated with test scheduling, as well as the FRA R&D
Five-year Strategic Plan requirements, a recent study has concluded
that current instrumentation and inspection equipment be migrated to a
new state-of-the-art track research platform replacing the T-6 car.
fiscal year 1999 funding for the t-6
Question. What funds are requested for the T-6 upgrade effort in
fiscal year 1999? Will this funding complete the T-6 upgrade?
Answer. FRA is requesting $500,000 in fiscal year 1999 for a T-6
replacement. This funding, however, will not complete the T-6 upgrade.
It will provide adequate funding to complete the design of a
replacement state-of-the-art track research platform, proceed with
competitive procurement and ordering of long lead items so that the new
research platform will be available for service in mid-2000.
A formal study has been conducted into the feasibility of upgrading
or replacing the T-6 research vehicle. Based on the findings of this
study, it is recommended that the T-6 be replaced with a new research
platform, for reasons of both economy and R&D program requirements as
delineated in the Office of R&D's Five-Year Strategic Plan, and to
improve substantially FRA's safety inspection capability by taking
advantage of new technologies.
The estimated cost of the replacement track research platform
according to this study is about $3.5 million, including $500,000
requested in fiscal year 1999.
upgrade or replace t-6
Question. Please provide a cost/benefit analysis of costs to repair
and upgrade the T-6 versus costs to replace the T-6 track inspection
car.
Answer. The Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (VNTSC)
has conducted a formal feasibility study on the upgrade or replacement
of the T-6 inspection research vehicle. The study investigated
available options for meeting the requirements of the track safety
research program delineated in the FRA's draft 5-year R&D Strategic
Plan. The two options considered were the upgrade of the T-6 car and
its replacement with a new state-of-the-art track research platform. In
addition, the replacement option involved two alternatives (towed or
self-propelled) to be considered during the design phase. The costs of
upgrade or replacement are comparable, estimated at about $3.5 million.
The annual savings as a direct result of upgrade or replacement is
estimated at about $550,000. Based on these feasibility study figures,
the investment in the T-6 upgrade or construction costs would be
recovered in less than five years. This conservative analysis does not
include the qualitative benefit from a much improved inspection
capability during the same period. The two tables below summarizing the
costs and savings are reproduced from the referenced VNTSC study.
SUMMARY OF COSTS FOR UPGRADE OR REPLACEMENT THE T-6 TRACK RESEARCH VEHICLE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement
Primary cost categories Upgrade -------------------------------
Towed Self-propelled
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction/Upgrade Costs...................................... $2,609,500 $2,834,500 $3,084,500
Usage Loss of the Research Vehicle.............................. 450,000 .............. ..............
Annual Operational Costs........................................ 95,000 91,000 84,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total Costs for Five-year Window.......................... 3,534,500 3,289,500 3,504,500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of Estimated Annual Savings
Estimated
Cost saving categories savings
Research Support.............................................. $150,000
Technical Support............................................. 50,000
Operational Efficiencies...................................... 275,000
Research Delays............................................... 75,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 550,000
status of 1-800 project
Question. Last year, FRA stated that a contract would be in place
to develop and establish a computerized 1-800 telephone number call-in
facility. Has this contract been finalized yet? If so, has the program
been implemented yet? If not, why?
Answer. The Swift Rail Development Act required a state-based
emergency notification system. Based on recent actions taken by the
railroads, FRA believes a railroad-based emergency notification system
would have more universal potential than would demonstrations in just
two states and should result in quicker and wider application, thus
achieving Congress and FRA's safety goals in a more favorable time
frame. Therefore, as noted in the budget request, FRA requests
sufficient flexibility to foster and demonstrate a system which will be
more railroad-oriented and would take full advantage of railroad
initiatives already underway.
The following highlights the history of this project:
The 1994 Action Plan established the need for a toll-free crossing
automated trouble reporting system. In September 1994, a contract was
awarded to develop a conceptual design and implementation plan. This
effort was completed and the ``Conceptual Design & Implementation
Plan'' was provided in a Final Report dated May 19, 1995.
However, the Swift Rail Development Act of 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. The requirement for an emergency
system is not compatible with the originally conceived automated
trouble reporting system for which the Design Plan was based. Because
the Swift Act requires emergency notification of situations at highway-
rail crossings, both the current ``Design Concept & Implementation
Plan'' and a previously developed work statement must be revised. This
revision and a reevaluation are necessary due to the non-compatible
requirements.
The Swift Act did not appropriate funds for this project. The
program effort was delayed for a year waiting for funding to be
identified. In 1996, the funds for development of system hardware and
the conduct of a two-State pilot program were appropriated by Congress.
The current funding ($625,000) does not provide for the installation of
signs at each crossing, nor the public education and awareness program,
nor the final Report to Congress.
Preliminary discussions were held with the States of Illinois and
Minnesota regarding the pilot project. FRA's goal was to involve two
States which would be representative of both urban and rural states,
i.e., one of each. In February 1997, the FRA Administrator sent a
letter to all States inviting them to participate in the mandatory two-
State pilot test program. FRA received responses from just four states
who indicated an interest in the program.
In the meantime, FRA's 1989 evaluation report on the State of
Texas' 1-800 program concluded that approximately half of all calls
received provided useful information to improve the operation of
automated warning devices. In 1996, several major railroads, at their
own expense, started to install signs at crossings with a 1-800 number
for reporting malfunctions and/or emergencies. Some railroads are
installing these at all of their public and private crossings, some are
installing these at only the public crossings and some are installing
them at only the active crossings (those with gates and/or flashing
lights). Preliminary discussions were held with the railroads to
evaluate methods for incorporating their 1-800 Number Systems into the
overall system planned for the two pilot states. Currently, it appears
that by Spring of 1998, 1-800 Number Emergency Notification Signs will
be installed by railroads at approximately 62,123 of the 162,426 public
at-grade crossings (38.2 percent) on the Burlington Northern Santa Fe,
Union Pacific, Norfolk Southern, CSX Transportation and Illinois
Central Railroads. This is also 67 percent of all the active crossings
in the nation (active includes gates, flashing lights, wigwags, highway
signals and/or bells). CSX Transportation is a good case in point.
Following an Amtrak passenger train collision with a truck immobilized
on a crossing, FRA and CSX Transportation collaborated in the
development of a Safety Action Agreement which committed CSX
Transportation to placing signs with a 1-800 number at all crossings
and to train dispatch center personnel in the proper handling of
incoming calls. Crossings on passenger and high-volume hazardous
materials routes will all be `signed' by May 1998, and all CSX
Transportation crossings will be included by May 1999.
FRA is committed to achieve the objective of the Action Plan and
Swift Rail Development Act by developing, implementing and evaluating a
1-800 toll-free malfunction and emergency notification telephone
system. However, the only way to achieve emergency notification is to
establish centralized manned centers to receive calls. While this still
requires a telephone system for taking such calls and a system for fast
and efficient identification of the crossing and its exact location, it
is not compatible with the automated approach originally conceived. A
manned center would probably need to be either a railroad's or in a
police command center (like the State of Texas has established). (FRA
does not recommend that the Federal government or its contractor take
on this responsibility.) State legislation may be required to implement
such a system in a state that requires the State Police Command Center
to perform this activity.
FRA proposes to work with the railroads to assume this
responsibility, i.e., installing signs with 1-800 numbers that directly
reach their train dispatch offices. What is currently missing is an
overall comprehensive program which addresses all crossings on all
railroads, large and small. (Even the Texas system does not include
signs at passive or private crossings.) FRA believes that it may be
possible to supplement railroad systems already in place or planned for
the major railroads by developing and implementing regional systems for
those crossings not already included in a railroad system. It appears
very possible that this can be done in more than only two pilot states
and thereby achieve greater coverage with the funds that have been
appropriated.
FRA's goal is to have a contract in place by mid-1998 to develop
the necessary software packages to accomplish these goals. The initial
development of this project was started with fiscal year 1995 funds,
and of the current $626,000 fiscal year 1996 funds appropriated,
$350,000 will be used by the end of fiscal year 1998 and the balance of
$275,000 will be used in fiscal year 1999.
state investment in 1-800 project
Question. How will FRA promote State investment in this approach to
improving grade crossing safety?
Answer. FRA is evaluating different approaches to the ``1-800
Emergency Notification System.'' Railroads, which are voluntarily
installing highway-rail grade crossing emergency notification systems,
are extending coverage to all crossings, not just public crossings.
Highway-rail grade crossings with automated warning systems are the
typical target of State-based systems. Soon, nearly half of all public
crossings will be equipped or covered by ``1-800 telephone and crossing
identification numbers'' to report emergency or routine problems.
To promote continued investment in these systems, FRA plans to: (1)
Encourage railroads with 24-hour operations to post their own 1-800
signs and to handle such calls through their 24-hour operations center;
(2) Provide seed funding for regional contract arrangements whereby
smaller railroads would use the services of the larger railroads for
responding to calls and/or encouraging American Short Line Railroad
Association participation in establishing regional contract services;
(3) Develop software for maintaining a railroad or State 1-800 System
with crossing inventory data geographically located, including a GIS
platform, and developing an automated mapping technique to identify the
location of a crossing with a reported problem; and (4) Encourage
updating of the National Crossing Inventory (a necessity for
identifying the exact location of a crossing with a posted crossing
number).
When the system software is developed, it will be made available to
States and railroads at no cost. Additionally, the Federal Highway
Administration has approved the use of Surface Transportation Program
Funds from the safety set-aside portion of the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Act (Section 130) for the required signage. Full
implementation will take approximately two years.
csx grade crossing efforts
Question. In the wake of an October 9, 1997 collision involving an
Amtrak train operating on CSX-owned track and a ``lowboy'' trailer that
got hung-up on a grade crossing near Savannah, Georgia, CSX has
committed to a substantial effort to install grade crossing signage
that precisely identifies the crossing and provides a toll-free
emergency notification number. Please outline FRA's involvement in this
effort. Is CSX working through FRA's ongoing emergency notification
program? Are any federal funds supporting CSX's implementation of grade
crossing signage on its property? Are all CSX owned crossings to be so
identified? What is the status of the CSX effort?
Answer. Following the Amtrak passenger train collision with an
immobilized tractor-trailer truck (lowboy) at a highway-rail grade
crossing on October 9, 1997, CSX Transportation (CSXT) executed a
Safety Action Agreement with FRA. CSXT agreed to place emergency
notification signs with a ``1-800 Telephone Number and Grade Crossing
Identifier'' at all highway-rail grade crossings. In addition, train
dispatch center personnel will be trained in the proper procedures to
follow when receiving these calls. This established a system-wide ``1-
800 Number System'' on CSXT. All public crossings on passenger and
high-volume hazardous materials routes will be `signed' by May 1998.
All remaining public and all private CSXT crossings will be `signed' by
May 1999. CSXT's efforts are separate from FRA's ongoing emergency
notification program. However, provisions are being made to integrate
CSXT's system into the National emergency notification program.
FRA is monitoring CSXT's compliance with the Safety Action
Agreement. FRA also provided technical assistance regarding CSXT's 1-
800 Number initiative. There are no Federal funds being used for this
effort; all funding is provided by the Railroad.
As of March 1998, 14,815 highway-rail grade crossings, 62 percent
of the effort, was complete. CSXT has notified trucking companies about
this initiative through Operation Lifesaver Presentations. Law
enforcement agencies, fire departments and schools also have been
notified about this initiative. The CSX train dispatch center has added
additional staff to handle the expanded database management effort for
computerized mapping of crossing locations. FRA is monitoring
compliance with the agreement during its continuous, open-ended, Safety
Assurance and Compliance Program safety audit of CSXT.
availability of high-speed rail in the u.s.
Question. As compared to five years ago, how much closer today is
the Nation to having a reliable, cost-effective, and safe high-speed
passenger rail transportation system?
Answer. High-Speed passenger rail service (125 mph) has been
available on the Northeast Corridor between NY City and Washington for
the past 5 years. Service with trains capable of 150 mph all the way
from Boston to Washington with much improved reliability and
attractiveness and a quantum decrease in trip time between Boston and
NY City should be available before 2000.
Elsewhere in the U.S., the picture is mixed. For the past 5 years,
Florida has been working on an effort to award a competitive franchise
for a high-speed rail system. The State has now selected a franchisee
for a 200 mph system and is much closer to implementation, subject to
development of a successful financial plan and environmental clearance.
California is starting a similar process.
In Michigan, Illinois, New York, the Pacific NW, North Carolina,
and Virginia, thanks in part to the States' own financial efforts and
in part to collaboration with FRA's Next Generation Technology Program,
affordable incremental high-speed rail improvements are near reality.
California has spent hundreds of millions of its own dollars in
improving service.
ost/omb requests for nghsr
Question. What amounts for each of the NGHSR Program components
were originally requested of OST and OMB?
Answer. The information is contained in the following table:
FISCAL YEAR 1999 NEXT GENERATION HSR PROGRAM BUDGET HISTORY
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request to--
-------------------------- President's
OST OMB budget
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Electric Locomotive.......... 8,000 6,000 6,800
Grade Crossing Hazards........... 7,500 4,500 4,000
Track and Structures............. 3,500 1,500 1,200
Technical Assistance............. 500 ........... ...........
Administration................... 593 594 594
--------------------------------------
Total...................... 20,093 12,594 12,594
------------------------------------------------------------------------
decrease in nghsr funding
Question. The fiscal year 1999 request for NGHSR is $7,801,000
below the fiscal year 1998 enacted level of $20,395,000, a decrease of
almost 40 percent. Does this sharply decreased request reflect a
sharply decreased level of commitment on the administration's part for
the development and demonstration of cost-effective high-speed
passenger rail in the U.S.?
Answer. The reduction in requested funding is a result of
circumstances in implementing major projects in the program and
reflects no decreased commitment on the part of the Administration. The
Administration's level of interest is reflected in the proposal for
ISTEA reauthorization which supports NGHSR technology development
activities at a level of $19.6 million annually.
The fiscal year 1999 NGHSR request reflects the completion of
several projects in fiscal year 1998 and no funding for positive train
control in fiscal year 1999 due to balances already available.
fiscal years 1995-99 nghsr
Question. Please provide a NGHSR account breakout table by budget
activity and project, showing appropriated levels in fiscal years 1995,
1996, 1997, 1998, and requested for 1999.
Answer. The information is contained in the following table.
NEXT GENERATION HIGH-SPEED RAIL PROGRAM FUNDING
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------------------------------
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Positive Train Control................................... 8,500 9,000 4,000 3,750 .........
Non-Electric Locomotives................................. 6,500 8,998 9,000 9,300 6,800
Lightweight Materials.................................... 500 ......... ......... ......... .........
Innovative Technology.................................... 1,500 ......... ......... ......... .........
Grade Crossing Hazards & Innovative Technologies......... ......... 4,500 4,959 5,600 4,000
Corridor Planning........................................ 5,000 ......... ......... ......... .........
National Transportation Plan............................. 2,500 ......... ......... ......... .........
Track/Structures Technology.............................. ......... ......... 6,500 1,200 1,200
Planning Technology...................................... ......... 1,250 1,250 ......... .........
Administration........................................... 368 379 426 545 594
------------------------------------------------------
Total.............................................. 24,868 24,127 26,135 20,395 12,594
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
trb recommendations of nghsr
Question. Please prepare an analysis of how FRA responded to each
of the major recommendations of the TRB to improve the NGHSR program.
Answer. The three major recommendations of TRB were: were (1)
reduce the number of corridors where demonstrations of positive train
control are underway; (2) treat the fly-wheel project as long-term
research, which may not produce any usable results, and as a result
terminate the program; and (3) focus the grade crossing efforts on
practical, low-cost and low-tech risk reduction technologies. FRA has
already responded to these and other comments and recommendations by
the TRB Committee in a letter dated January 14, 1998, (attached) which
made some of the following points:
(1) FRA is pursuing only two train control projects in the Next
Generation program, in Michigan, and in Illinois. (The Pacific
Northwest project is a multi-million dollar effort of BNSF and UP. FRA
is involved as a monitor, and our financial involvement is minimal,
peripheral, and limited to particular components and Congressional
earmarks.) Continued FRA involvement is justified in both of these
projects, which represent significantly different approaches to train
control. No funds are requested in fiscal year 1999, as previous
funding provided is sufficient to continue work in fiscal year 1999.
(2) FRA followed the TRB Committee's recommendation with regard to
the high-speed non-electric locomotive and have solicited proposals.
Rather than terminating the flywheel project, FRA carefully structured
its relationship to the locomotive project in a way that would not
endanger the success of locomotive development if the (admittedly more
risky) flywheel were to run into unexpected technical difficulty.
Congress has directed funding for the flywheel project. To date,
there have not been any major setbacks. It carries with it considerable
interest and prior investment in component technologies from the
defense community along with opportunity for further leverage. It has
potential applicability in a number of routes requiring enhanced
acceleration because of curved track or frequent stops without
requiring additional energy consumption. FRA's fiscal year 1999 budget
request includes funding for both projects.
(3) FRA agrees with the Committee's endorsement of the North
Carolina sealed corridor approach to grade crossing risk reduction
because it validates cost-effective, simple new approaches. However,
more sophisticated technologies such as the ``arrestor net'' will be
needed in some locations and must be tested. FRA is working towards a
generic, risk-based approach taking into account increased risks
associated with high-speed, and cost-effective solutions to deal with
the grade crossing issues on a corridor-wide basis. FRA has begun a
broad review of all of its grade crossing research and will reallocate
resources if appropriate.
[The letter follows:]
Letter From Jolene M. Molitoris, Administrator, Federal Railroad
Administration
Office the Administrator,
Washington, D.C., January 14, 1998.
Dr. Joseph M. Sussman,
JR East Professor and Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA
Dear Dr. Sussman: Thank you for your letter of December 23, 1997,
setting forth the findings and recommendation of the TRB Committee for
an Assessment of High-Speed Ground Transportation Research and
Development. I would like to respond to the Committee's comments. To
begin with, I wish to address the three principal issues you raised at
our recent meeting and to follow with a discussion of the remaining
points in your letter. Our responses, in italics, update the PTC and
locomotive projects reported to the Committee in October and provide
additional information to clarify points in your report.
Three principal issues:
1. Whether the results of FRA's program will be generally applicable.
The Committee has been concerned that because FRA's program is less
a research program than ``a collection of technology demonstration
projects, many of which are site-specific in their application'' and
because ``each demonstration project is designed to maximize the
benefit to [a particular] State'', then the program results would not
be generally applicable.
In our letter of May 28, 1997, in responding to similar criticism,
we explained that most of our funding comes from the Next Generation
program under the Swift Act, which calls for ``improvement adaptation
and integration of proven technologies for commercial application . .
.'' rather than ``research and development'' and that the State
participation not only brings additional funding to the table but also
increases the likelihood of implementation that goes beyond the
demonstration, at least in that State. The Committee now points out
that FRA's program is also authorized under Section 1036(a) of ISTEA,
which permits research as well as demonstrations. While this is true,
the first really significant funding came after the enactment of the
Swift Act, and we chose to structure the program primarily around
demonstrations.
The stated goal of the Next Generation High Speed Rail Technology
program is to accelerate the implementation of high speed rail by
testing and demonstrating technologies that reduce the implementation
cost on existing railroads without compromising safety. Let us consider
examples in the two important areas of positive train control and non-
electric locomotives:
The PTC technology projects are designed to provide the equivalent
safety of track circuit based cab signal and automatic train control at
a much lower cost using radio based systems than we were required to
invest in the Northeast Corridor. We now have underway projects
involving both an overlay system (in Michigan) and a generic central
control PTC system (in Illinois). A State with an existing signal
system will have a choice of implementing either concept in a wide
variety of situations.
The non-electric locomotive projects are designed to provide
propulsion equivalent to what has been available through electric
locomotives on the Northeast Corridor, but at much lower cost. Here
again, we have two approaches--one based on upgrade of an existing
design (the Turboliner upgrade) and another based on a new design (the
current cooperative agreement procurement just announced). While it is
true that the former (which was earmarked by Congress) may be a
realistic option for only a very limited number of vehicles, the
concepts to be demonstrated after the upgrade, such as 125 mph running,
improved acceleration, and concomitant treatment of grade crossings,
are applicable in other corridors. We strongly believe the new non-
electric locomotive program will result in a product which will be
applicable in any high-speed corridor.
As to the further question of general applicability, we believe
that States or other high speed project sponsors are more likely to act
on the basis of a successful technology demonstration than on the basis
of a research result. Furthermore, we also believe that our policy of
seeking the involvement of equipment suppliers as partners is also
likely to increase implementation. Whether the result of a research
project or a demonstration, it is always likely that a particular
solution for one project will not exactly fit in another. In the cases
noted above, we have tried to span a range of solutions that could
apply in a number of different projects.
2. Whether our management reorganization of last summer was
appropriate.
The Committee believes that our reorganizations which shifted the
Next Generation program from the Office of Research and Development to
the Office of Passenger and Freight Services, ``has actually dispersed
the management of FRA R&D activities rather than improving the linkage
between the NGHSR and R&D programs''.
In a letter of July 25, 1997, Jim McQueen informed you of this
reorganization and explained that we believed it was time to put
greater emphasis on implementation of high-speed rail systems sponsored
by States in cooperation with Amtrak--an activity closer to the mission
of the Office of Passenger and Freight Services which was already
involved in oversight of Amtrak, the Northeast Corridor Improvement
Project and planning and outreach with States in high-speed rail. This
will help provide more of a customer-based focus to the Next Generation
efforts, and this, in turn, will help in achieving our mutually shared
goal of broad applicability of the products of our efforts.
The same people, at the front line level, will be running the
program and we do not believe that in an office as small as that of
Railroad Development with all personnel on the same floor and
accustomed to communicating frequently among themselves and with
management we are likely to have a ``dispersal'' problem. With the
changes, the managers have been more successful at sharpening the focus
of their respective programs and delivering expected results.
3. Whether the flywheel project should be terminated.
The Committee recommended this earlier in your May 9 letter, along
with a recommendation that FRA should proceed promptly with development
and demonstration of a high-speed non-electric locomotive. You
reiterated the recommendation to terminate the flywheel project in your
most recent letter.
We followed the Committee's recommendation with regard to the high
speed non-electric locomotive and we recently solicited proposals.
Rather than terminating the flywheel project, we have carefully
structured its relationship to the locomotive project in a way that
would not endanger the success of locomotive development if the
(admittedly more risky) flywheel were to run into unexpected technical
difficulty.
Congress has directed funding for the flywheel project. To date, we
have not seen any major setbacks. It carries with it considerable
interest and prior investment in component technologies from the
defense community along with opportunity for further leverage. It has
potential applicability in a number of routes requiring enhanced
acceleration because of curved track or frequent stops without
requiring additional energy consumption. Indeed, this would seem to be
the kind of longer term R&D activity which the committee seems to favor
in other parts of your letter.
Other Points Raised in December 23 letter:
4. The Committee wants us to reduce the number of train control
projects and to focus on safety-critical software development.
The Committee strongly supports work in this area but recommends
that FRA reduce the number of corridors with which we are working.
We already are pursuing only two train control approaches, in
Michigan and Illinois. (The Pacific Northwest project is a multi-
million dollar effort of BNSF and UP. FRA is involved as a monitor and
our financial involvement is minimal, peripheral, and limited to
particular components and Congressional earmarks) Continued effort is
justified in both of these different approaches.
The Committee recommends that FRA's primary activity in the train
control area should be to sponsor a software development program.
We are concerned that the products of a Government-sponsored
software program would not be applied by the industry and that we would
have insufficient funds to complete a comprehensive program. Further,
we believe that the ultimate objective of train control implementation
will be achieved much sooner and better by the demonstration approach
we are pursuing because the major players will be directly involved
throughout the process. We have brought Union Pacific back to
participation in the Illinois train control project. The critical
software favored by the TRB Committee must be developed and validated
to accomplish this demonstration program, and will be already
implemented at UP's dispatch control center when the demonstration is
completed. This is the most effective mechanism to implement the
technology and provides the necessary justifications to obtain and
effectively utilize both Federal, state, railroad, and supplier
resources.
5. The Committee wants us to cease pursuing ``exotic'' technologies for
grade crossing safety and to focus on projects such as the
``sealed corridor"
We agree with the Committee's endorsement of the North Carolina
sealed corridor approach to grade crossing risk reduction because it is
validating cost-effective, simple new approaches. However, we disagree
with the Committee in that we believe that more sophisticated
technologies such as the ``arrestor net'' will be needed in some
locations and must be tested. (For your information, the arrestor net
project was funded under a grade crossing hazard elimination program
rather than under Next Generation.) We are working toward a generic,
risk-based approach which takes into account the increased risks
associated with high speed, and which will indicate the most cost-
effective solutions to deal with the grade crossing issue on a
corridor-wide basis. We have also recently begun a broad review of all
of FRA's grade crossing research, and we plan to reallocate resources
as a result of our findings.
6. The Committee wants us to exercise leadership in getting the
railroad industry to implement PTC.
You state FRA is in a unique position to convene a summit of the
industry's corporate leaders to forge a partnership for the potential
implementation of PTC technology. We have already made a start in this
process by convening the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC),
which would do that very thing in the context of our rulemaking
authority. But the train control field is enormously complex and
involves myriad technology choices. Strongly held opinions abound among
railroads, suppliers, and consultants as to the best approach for each
piece of the ultimate system. We have sponsored roundtable discussions
as well as the RSAC, and are seeking consensus wherever we can find it.
But discussion alone will not resolve the complex choices.
Concrete demonstrations will definitively move the process forward
by permitting all participants to evaluate actual performance.
7. The Committee's letter did not comment on what seemed to be good
reviews by the customers of our program, who were asked to
speak before the Committee.
I understand that a number of the customer representatives who
spoke at the Committee's meeting strongly endorsed FRA's approach as it
applied to their areas of interest but we did not see this reflected in
the Committee's report.
As usual we welcome the Committee's frank comments on the FRA
program in high speed rail technology and we hope that the Committee
members will continue to follow our program and provide further
comments even after the Committee formally ends its work later this
year.
Sincerely,
Jolene M. Molitoris,
Administrator.
linkage of r&d and nghsr programs
Question. What steps will FRA take to ensure that the research and
development program and the NGHSR demonstration programs are more
closely and explicitly linked together?
Answer. Both programs are managed by FRA's Office of Railroad
Development and from the same physical location, affording close
coordination. The R&D program focuses on research in support of
railroad safety, both passenger and freight, and the NGHSR program
focuses on facilitating HSR implementation by making key technologies
more cost effective and demonstrating them in operation. Some projects
have elements of both purposes and are closely coordinated. For
example, the Illinois (NGHSR) positive train control project serves
both HSR and rail safety in general and is being closely coordinated
with a PTC (R&D) interoperability project, both with heavy industry
involvement. FRA plans no further steps for explicit linkage except on
a project by project basis.
nghsr program management
Question. The TRB recommended that the FRA strengthen its program
management capabilities to speed up and better control the individual
projects. How will this be accomplished?
Answer. Last summer, FRA shifted the Next Generation program from
the Office of Research and Development to the Office of Passenger and
Freight Services (P&F). P&F is responsible for the oversight of Amtrak,
NECIP and planning and outreach with States in high-speed rail.
Therefore, by shifting the HSR work to this Office, FRA can ensure
State sponsored high-speed rail systems are in cooperation with Amtrak,
provide more customer-based focus on Next Generation efforts, and
achieve broad applicability of products. Given the overall staffing
constraints, FRA has not been able to increase the size of the program
management staff.
status of non-electric locomotive projects
Question. The fiscal year 1998 Act provided $4,800,000 for work on
prototype locomotives, including: (a) research on flywheel turbine
technology; (b) development of non-electric locomotive concepts; and
(c) evaluation of the potential of the recently developed locomotive
car bodies at speeds of 150 miles per hour. Please describe the
progress in each of these three areas of research.
Answer. To further research on flywheel turbine technology, FRA has
allocated $1,700,000 of the $4,800,000 to the University of Texas at
Austin to continue the development of the flywheel energy storage
battery system, including an advanced, compact, lightweight generator.
Two \1/3\ scale rotors have now been successfully tested and
construction of the full-scale flywheel rotor and containment is
underway. A critical design review for the advanced generator was
successfully completed in March, 1998, with the first generator
expected to be completed in Fall, 1998.
In January, 1998, FRA issued a Notice of Funds Availability in the
Federal Register seeking qualified locomotive manufacturers to produce
a turbine-powered high-speed locomotive, capable of 125 mph
demonstrations in the near term and ultimately capable of 150 mph
operation, as well as coordination with the Advanced Locomotive
Propulsion System project at the University of Texas. The solicitation
closed on March 27. One proposal was received from a qualified
manufacturer, including significant levels of cost sharing, and FRA
anticipates successful negotiation of a cooperative agreement in the
very near future.
current contracts for non-electric locomotive projects
Question. What specific contracts have you signed in each of these
three areas since last year? Please state the purpose of each relevant
contract along with 1998 funding amount for each contract. How will the
fiscal year 1999 program continue this initiative?
Answer. A new project to develop and demonstrate a high-speed
prototype non-electric locomotive will be awarded later this year
through a cooperative agreement with funding in the amount of
$3,000,000. The Notice of Funds Availability for this project closed on
March 27th and a proposal is currently being reevaluated by FRA with an
expected award by May. fiscal year 1999 funds requested for this effort
will support the completion of design work and the start of fabrication
of the demonstration locomotive.
The Advanced Locomotive Propulsion Systems project at the
University of Texas was funded with an additional $3,700,000 through an
interagency agreement with the Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency (DARPA). This project will develop and demonstrate an advanced
energy storage flywheel system and compact. lightweight generator for
rail applications. The fiscal year 1999 program will continue
development of these technologies including, funding the fabrication of
additional generator prototypes and testing of the flywheel system and
engineering efforts to integrate these devices into the high-speed
demonstration locomotive being developed separately under the Agreement
described above.
The New York State Rohr Turboliner (RTL-3) upgrade program will be
provided with an additional $2,500,000 in Federal funding during fiscal
year 1998 by amending the existing cooperative agreement. This project
will upgrade at least 2 of the existing 7 RTL trainsets to achieve
better performance with modern turbines and equipment for service on
the Empire corridor between New York and Albany. No fiscal year 1999
funding is requested for this project.
status of high-speed non-electric locomotive work
Question. Regarding the development of high-speed non-electric
locomotive technologies, please prepare a table indicating separately,
the status, problems, and challenges, along with the fiscal year 1997,
fiscal year 1998, and planned fiscal year 1999 FRA investments. Please
include information on each major FRA project in this program.
Answer. The information is contained in the following tables:
NON-ELECTRIC HIGH-SPEED LOCOMOTIVE FUNDING
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-----------------------------------------------
1997 1998 1999 (planned)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Locomotive Propulsion Systems.......................... $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000
HS Non-Electric Demonstration Locomotive........................ .............. 4,800,000 4,800,000
New York State RTL Upgrade...................................... 4,000,000 2,500,000 ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NON-ELECTRIC HIGH-SPEED LOCOMOTIVE STATUS AND ISSUES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status Problems and challenges
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Locomotive Propulsion Sys- Prototype flywheel to be completed in No significant issues at this time.
tems. 1998, proof of concept generator to
be completed in 1998.
HS Non-Electric Demonstration Proposal being evaluated, award Adequate future funding.
Locomotive. expected May 1998.
New York State RTL Upgrade......... Upgrades underway, first RTL-3 No significant issues at this time.
trainset expected early CY 1999.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
focus of high-speed non-electric locomotive program
Question. Where does FRA believe the focus of the non-electric HSR
locomotive program should be now? How many bids on the current
solicitation do you expect?
Answer. FRA has received one responsive bid to the solicitation
which closed on March 27. The program is moving forward to produce a
125 mph turbine-powered demonstrator locomotive in the near term, which
will ultimately be able to receive power from the flywheel energy-
storage system, as well as to operate at 150 mph.
common design for non-electric locomotive
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 continues to consult with the States through periodic
meetings and contacts. Once a selection is made for a locomotive
manufacturer, FRA will convene a panel of representatives from the
states pursuing high-speed service to assure that states' needs are
most effectively met in the design and manufacture of the prototype.
challenges in developing high-speed non-electric locomotives
Question. What are the remaining technical challenges in developing
non-electric HSR locomotives?
Answer. The technical challenges continue to be the ability to
achieve very high traction power levels in compact packages with
minimal weight, which are affordable to purchase and economical to
operate, and are reliable in daily revenue service.
ny turboliner project
Question. How much of the fiscal year 1999 monies will be allocated
to the NY turbo-liner trains program? What would be the next logical
technological step to advance this program?
Answer. Through fiscal year 1998, $12.5 million in federal funds
has been provided for this project. The $2.5 million available in
fiscal year 1998 has not been obligated. No funds are requested in
fiscal year 1999. The next logical technological step to achieve
advanced turbine propulsion is to increase the total available power
and transmit it to the rail using an alternating-current (AC) traction
electric transmission system, such as will be employed in the Advanced
Locomotive Propulsion System project.
additional cost to complete flywheel project
Question. How many additional years will be required to complete
work on the flywheel project? How much will this cost? Please provide
costs for both development and large-scale testing. What is the
likelihood that this technology will be commercialized?
Answer. Three to four additional years will be required to reach a
full scale demonstration on a railroad consist, depending on funding
levels for the program. The University of Texas estimates that a total
of about $7.75 million will be required, including about $7 million for
development activities and $750,000 for large scale testing.
There is good likelihood that the technology will be
commercialized, based on the numerous trip time simulations which have
already been performed as part of the ongoing project. Tests show the
ALPS flywheel technology delivering time savings averaging about 15
percent.
It is important to consider the relative expenditures needed to
reduce trip times, since trip time reduction is a primary requirement
of corridor upgrades where service is already being offered. A useful
measure for determining the merit of alternative investments is
``dollars per minute of trip time saved.'' This measure allows a direct
comparison between the merit of infrastructure investments versus
rolling stock investments. The incremental investment needed to equip a
typical corridor with ALPS-based locomotives is estimated at about $5
million per minute saved. Similar costs per minute saved are currently
being invested by States to eliminate track curves or other slow
orders.
To use electric locomotives, a typical corridor would need to
invest about $35 million per minute saved (about $150 million total) to
build the associated electric catenary power supply infrastructure.
Furthermore, to obtain significant benefits the investment in the
electrification infrastructure and electric locomotives must be made
``up-front'', typically for the entire length of the corridor. The ALPS
approach permits incremental migration to higher speeds as portions of
the route are upgraded, attaining immediate benefits from each route
upgrade.
Successful commercialization of the ALPS propulsion system
technologies will permit passenger rail corridor operators to attain
immediate benefits from high-acceleration 125 to 150 mph locomotives on
an incremental, as needed basis, avoiding the costs of corridor
electrification while capturing the revenue-generating benefits of
reduced trip times immediately. Consequently, FRA has received strong
support for development of this technology from existing corridor
operators in New York State, North Carolina, Virginia, Illinois, and
Michigan to name a few.
Two other key issues which indicate successful commercialization
potential are the willingness of commercial locomotive manufacturers to
pursue the development of ALPS technologies, and an industrial producer
to manufacture them. Both Bombardier Transit Inc. and General Motors
Electromotive Division have expressed strong interest in applying the
program results to their locomotives.
Finally, two divisions of AlliedSignal have been strong
participants in the program from its inception and continue to support
these technologies as indicated by their substantial commitment of
resources to this effort, both in terms of manpower and cost sharing.
AlliedSignal has expressed strong interest in manufacturing both the
flywheel battery and turbo-alternator systems.
status of the flywheel project
Question. What is the status of the flywheel project, and what are
the planned activities for fiscal year 1999? How much is requested for
fiscal year 1999, and how much was spent in prior years? What is the
cost sharing arrangement for this project?
Answer. Construction of the full-scale flywheel battery components
has begun, based on the success of extensive sub-scale testing which
validated salient features of the rotor design. Construction is
underway of the 2.5 Megawatt motor-generator which is needed for the
turbine-powered prime mover and to both energize and withdraw power
from the flywheel. Efforts in the flywheel area will be closely
coordinated with the demonstration locomotive activity. A rolling
demonstration of ALPS turbine/flywheel technology in a prototype
commercial high-speed locomotive is planned for CY 2000.
In fiscal year 1999, testing of the full scale flywheel and
generator assembly will begin. Heavy emphasis also will be placed on
validating the safety aspects of installing the flywheel in a
locomotive expected to serve public areas such as railroad passenger
terminals. FRA is requesting $2 million for the flywheel portion of the
non-electric locomotive effort in fiscal year 1999. Prior year
expenditures have totalled $8.228M. The cost sharing arrangement for
this project is 50 percent Federal, 50 percent non-Federal.
funding of fra projects from fhwa funds
Question. Are any of the flywheel project costs being carried
within the $10 million ``Joint Partnership Program'' in the Federal
Highway Administration's limitation on general operating expenses
(LGOE) request? Are any FRA-managed research projects budgeted within
the Joint Partnership Program account?
Answer. All costs for NGHSR efforts to develop a non-electric
locomotive, including the flywheel energy storage battery, are budgeted
in FRA accounts, since the NGHSR projects pre-date, by several years,
the formation of the proposed Joint Partnership Program, which is still
being defined. FRA is working with the joint program office to identify
and pursue opportunities to leverage common technology elements between
the existing FRA program and the new joint program. To date no specific
FRA-managed projects are identified in the joint partnership effort.
joint funding of flywheel projects
Question. What types of technology transfer activities and
interagency cooperation are underway to advance flywheel safety and
technology? Is there any cost sharing with other federal agencies or
with industry? If not, are there any ongoing efforts to establish cost
sharing?
Answer. Flywheel energy storage technology is attractive to the US
Air Force, the communications satellite industry, and NASA for
potential satellite applications and for the International Space
Station, as well as for terrestrial applications such as backup utility
power sources and for ground vehicles as proposed in the Joint
Partnership program. The safety of high-energy flywheels is a major
concern for all of these applications because launch support personnel,
astronauts, and/or the public may be near the flywheels while they are
in operation.
A joint committee with representation from USAF, DARPA, NASA, DOT,
DOE, universities, and major potential flywheel manufacturers has been
formed to examine the safety issues and to formulate an approach to
certify the safety of flywheels intended to operate in a ``production''
environment. Significant information exchange, as well as sharing of
the project costs, is already occurring. The joint committee will
identify test facilities needed to support the certification effort.
The common approach is expected to significantly reduce duplication of
effort and to optimize the construction and utilization of the needed
test facilities.
coordination of various positive train separation and control systems
Question. How are the various positive train control/separation
projects coordinated with each other and integrated into a uniform
program?
Answer. One of the key tasks of the newly formed joint project in
Illinois is to address the issue of ``interoperability'' of the various
proposed train control systems around the nation, including the
demonstration systems being sponsored by FRA. One of the earliest tasks
of the joint program office will be to catalogue the systems which have
strong likelihood of implementation and to document the technical
approaches which each such system uses in its operations. Commonalities
and differences will be identified so that suggestions for greater
commonality can be made. Potential conflicts between systems, if both
are installed on the same locomotive, also will be identified.
The industry also has agreed to develop a common ``backbone'' or
data bus to be installed on each locomotive, to minimize the number of
train control accessories, such as radios and location systems, which
must be carried by each locomotive. This approach facilitates
implementation of the various approaches at minimum total cost to the
industry. Agreement that this approach will be followed by all major
railroads is a significant part of the agreements underlying the AAR
participation in the new joint project.
status of train control projects
Question. Regarding high-speed train control systems, please
prepare a table indicating separately the status, problems, and
challenges, along with the fiscal year 1997, fiscal year 1998, and
planned fiscal year 1999 FRA investments for each major project in this
program.
Answer. The information is contained in the following tables:
POSITIVE TRAIN SEPARATION AND CONTROL SYSTEMS FUNDING
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-----------------------------------------------
1997 1998 1999 (planned)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan ITCS Demonstration..................................... $960,000 .............. ..............
Illinois/AAR/FRA HSPTC Demonstration............................ .............. $3,725,000 ..............
Oregon PTS Demonstration........................................ 3,000,000 .............. ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
POSITIVE TRAIN SEPARATION AND CONTROL SYSTEMS STATUS AND ISSUES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status Problems and challenges
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan ITCS Demonstration......... Revenue service expected 1999....... Overcome technical challenges
revealed in testing.
Illinois/AAR/FRA HSPTC Demonstration Joint project MOU being finalized... Managing complex project with many
participants.
Oregon PTS Demonstration............ Work plan being finalized........... No significant issues at this time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
status of ptc rulemaking
Question. FRA plans to complete a rulemaking to require the use of
PTC by Class I railroads. What is the status of this rulemaking? When
do you expect to issue such a rule?
Answer. FRA convened a working group of the Railroad Safety
Advisory Committee to address Positive Train Control in November of
1997. The group is meeting actively and working through two task
forces: (I) Data and Implementation and (ii) Standards.
The Standards Task Force is focusing on performance standards for
the introduction of PTC systems, including programs for inspection and
maintenance of the systems over their life cycles. Although FRA had
proffered a draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) as a basis for
discussion, the task force has elected to pursue a more flexible and
more clearly performance oriented approach to the subject matter.
Topics under active discussion include verification and validation of
systems (including quantitative proof of safety), independent
assessment of supplier safety programs, techniques for review of system
requirements specifications, and human factors analysis. The current
objective is to prepare an NPRM during the current calendar year, with
a final rule in 1999.
The Data and Implementation Task Force is guiding preparation of a
second-phase corridor risk analysis model that will benefit from
improved density data supplied by participating freight railroads and
that will utilize a refined accident data set that has been derived by
an accident review team of the task force. In addition, this task force
has prepared a survey of suppliers to determine characteristics of
prospective PTC and similar systems, including systems now being
developed and deployed. The task force will proceed to describe
possible architectures for PTC and to evaluate the likely costs of
systems and likely migration strategies.
virginia-pennsylvania pts project
Question. The conferees directed the FRA to proceed under
previously negotiated cost-sharing agreements with the second phase of
the Manassas, Virginia, to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania pilot project which
was intended to develop Positive Train Separation (PTS). Please discuss
how this project is interoperable and cost-effective. What is the
status of this project and what contracts have been signed?
Answer. In fiscal year 1997, FRA provided a grant of $500,000 to
Conrail (on behalf of themselves, CSX, and Norfolk Southern) for the
definition and design of an interoperable on-board locomotive positive
train control (PTC) platform. The railroads awarded a contract to
Rockwell for this work. The results were presented to the railroads and
the railroad supply community on December 3, 1997. FRA has processed
Norfolk Southern's grant application for $1,000,000 (on behalf of
themselves, CSX, and Conrail) for the second phase of the project which
is to develop two prototypes of an on-board locomotive PTC platform;
one platform for each of the two separate vendors' communication bus.
The prototypes will consist of a communication bus, core modules, and
emulations of non-core modules required to simulate the core modules.
The prototypes will be developed around the platform and message set
specifications that were a product of the fiscal year 1997 activities.
Testing of the prototypes on the Manassas-Harrisburg corridor is
scheduled to take place in fiscal year 2000. Should train control
system suppliers decide to adopt the standard communication bus
developed in this program, and should railroads procure against the
standard, interoperability will have been enhanced and PTC
implementation costs will be reduced.
status of michigan train control project
Question. What is the status of the Michigan incremental train
control (ITCS) high-speed passenger rail demonstration project? What
will be the future federal involvement in this project?
Answer. Revenue service for the system has been delayed by
technical challenges revealed in the initial system testing. These
challenges include the need to correct unanticipated radio interference
between wayside radio base stations and the need to establish an
independent differential global positioning (DGPS) reference system.
The U.S. Coast Guard DGPS network does not yet cover the demonstration
territory. In addition, planned functions, such as the advance starting
of grade crossing warning systems, required almost continuous exchange
of digital radio communication from the locomotive to the crossing
rather than a one-time exchange. These findings have required revisions
to the safety system software. However, the wayside hardware
installation is nearing completion on the entire 80-mile segment and
changes to resolve the technical challenges are well underway so that
revenue service trains can begin to use this system.
The Federal role in the existing project is to support the
development and demonstration of new technologies which make high-speed
passenger service significantly more practical and cost effective for
the states. The ITCS technology, which is now under test, follows
Michigan's original proposal--which dealt with an 80-mile segment of
single-track railroad with very limited operational complexity. To be
widely applicable, the ITCS technology would need to handle operations
on multiple-track territory with complex operating scenarios, such as
exist on the Kalamazoo to Detroit section of the Michigan corridor, as
well as adapt the existing ITCS approach to provide maximum
interoperability with other systems as the joint FRA/AAR/Illinois
project proceeds. Federal involvement in advancing the technology to
accomplish these objectives on a demonstration territory would be
appropriate.
bnsf/up pts demonstration project
Question. Please update the Committee on the Union Pacific/
Burlington Northern Santa Fe positive train separation joint pilot
project in Washington and Oregon. What has been the total cost of this
project? What were the funding sources? Is the project complete? Will
the PTS system developed in the pilot project be put into revenue
service by either Union Pacific or BNSF? What concepts have been tested
and proven in this project? Are these interoperable elements?
Answer. Proof-testing of the Positive Train Separation (PTS) system
is continuing in the Pacific Northwest. Capabilities, which are
essential for the successful implementation of both PTS and Positive
Train Control (PTC) are being tested. These include: the ability to
automatically locate the train; the ability to precisely predict train
braking performance in the event an automatic brake application becomes
necessary, and the ability to deliver the necessary quantity and
reliability of digital communications between the train and the control
centers. The next and final planned phase of PTS proof-testing is the
validation of trains passing back and forth, at track speed, between
the control centers and control networks of the two railroads. All of
these capabilities are necessary to ultimately operate high-speed
passenger service under PTS or PTC on lines of UP or BNSF.
In addition to the PTS testing, FRA, Association of American
Railroads (AAR), the two railroads, and Oregon DOT are formulating a
demonstration of advanced digital radio communications. These
communications networks are needed to respond to Federal Communications
Commission mandated improvements in the efficiency of radio spectrum
usage, and will be a cornerstone in future communications-based train
control systems. Completion of this demonstration, and other groundwork
related to the ongoing PTS tests, will provide the Pacific Northwest
Corridor a significant portion of the infrastructure necessary for
implementation of a train control system.
Both UP and BNSF, as members of the AAR, are actively participating
in the joint AAR-FRA-Illinois DOT train control project. This project
is intended to achieve revenue service demonstration of full PTC
including flexible block operation. The Illinois corridor between St.
Louis and Chicago is an excellent initial testbed for these
capabilities because it has a limited number of trains. Unlike the
Pacific Northwest main line track, testing can be conducted without
undue interference to large numbers of revenue freight trains.
A logical progression is to validate the advanced PTC concepts in
Illinois, then return to the testbed in the Pacific Northwest to
advance these systems to heavy traffic lines where benefits will accrue
to both freight and passenger operations.
train control and 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 and progress to date.
Answer. The High-Speed Rail-IDEA Program, funded by FRA and managed
by the Transportation Research Board (TRB), has identified seven
technologies to help identify the approach of trains, detect obstacles
at grade crossings and improve communications between the wayside and a
moving train. FRA is hopeful that these promising technologies will
continue to be developed and that additional ideas will be submitted to
TRB in 1999. The Michigan Incremental Train Control System (ITCS)
project incorporates a checking of grade-crossing status before
granting a train authority to move across it at high speed. Long Island
Railroad is testing GRS' ATLAS system which also incorporates knowledge
of grade crossing status into communications-based train control. The
Highway Rail Intersection User Service #30 has yet to be forwarded to
the Standards Development Organizations by the ITS Joint Program
Office. Once standards are developed by the Standards Development
Organization's, FRA would anticipate that it would give concept
developers more confidence to come forward with specific project
proposals.
installation of 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? What new projects are planned for fiscal year
1999?
Answer. The following is a list of current and proposed positive
train control activities:
Amtrak, Michigan.--Testing has continued on Harmon's Incremental
Train Control System (ITCS) project with revenue service to begin in
late 1998.
Amtrak, Northeast Corridor.--Advanced Civil Speed Enforcement
System (ACSES) installation to be installed starting in 1998, with
revenue service to begin in late 1999.
Union Pacific, Amtrak, AAR, Illinois.--Positive Train Control (PTC)
project agreed upon for Chicago-St. Louis corridor. Hardware
procurement will probably take place in 1999 for installation in 2000.
Union Pacific, Burlington Northern Santa Fe, Pacific northwest.--
Testing of GE-Harris Positive Train Separation (PTS) system continues.
Project should be completed in late 1998.
CSX.--Contracted with Rockwell for PTC installation on Spartanburg-
Augusta line. Project schedule not known.
New Jersey Transit.--Installing Automatic Train Control (ATC) on
their system in 1998 and 1999.
Long Island Railroad.--Testing GRS' ATLAS system including grade
crossing warnings.
Conrail/CSX/Norfolk Southern.--Developing locomotive on-board
wiring harness for PTC interoperability. Rockwell awarded contract for
developing specifications.
Alaska Railroad.--Awarded contract to GE-Harris for PTC
implementation. Communications and dispatcher hardware being installed
in 1998. Locomotive hardware scheduled for 1999.
illinois positive train control project
Question. Please describe in detail the purpose, scope,
methodology, and affected parties of the Illinois positive train
control project.
Answer. At the request of Union Pacific Railroad senior management,
the Association of American Railroads (AAR) Board of Directors agreed
to participate jointly with FRA and Illinois DOT (IDOT) in the Illinois
train control project.
The purpose of this project is to:
(1) Develop, install, and demonstrate an advanced, communications-
based train control system which will provide capability for both high
speed passenger operations and flexible block passenger and freight
operations on a corridor segment in Illinois;
(2) Provide a mechanism for the railroad industry to deal with
interoperability issues associated with having different train control
systems operating on locomotives moving throughout the North American
railroad network, and
(3) Provide these features using an ``open architecture'' approach
which fosters participation by multiple technology suppliers.
The proposed train control system will provide flexible block
revenue-service operation for both passenger and freight trains on a
123-mile segment north toward Chicago from Springfield, with control
from Union Pacific's Harriman Center at Omaha. This will allow
passenger train operation at up to 125 mph (if corridor improvements in
track and grade crossing protection are made.)
FRA, AAR, and IDOT are finalizing a memorandum of understanding to
establish a joint program office at the Transportation Technology
Center in Pueblo, CO. This office will be run by AAR's Transportation
Technology Center, Inc. Mr. Robert Gallamore, of Union Pacific has
accepted assignment as the full-time program manager.
Upgrades of signal and control equipment, and establishment of
digital radio communication networks will begin shortly on the
demonstration corridor. Over the next two to three months, the joint
program office will develop a detailed program plan outlining
milestones, completion dates, and cost estimates, with a goal of
developing flexible block system within four years. Safety verification
and validation of system software will be major funding and time--
consuming task.
In addition to installing the demonstration system in Illinois, the
joint program office will address major national train control
implementation issues such as interoperability of various systems and
the need for open architecture solutions for train control systems.
Open competition among potential suppliers is a stated goal of this
project.
FRA estimates that approximately $60 million over four years is
needed to complete this project. FRA and IDOT have identified $15
million of public funds presently available, and the AAR has committed
$20 million. Cost sharing from suppliers will be a major criterion in
competitive selections, which will help offset the balance of funds
needed.
illinois positive train control project
Question. Why is there no fiscal year 1999 funding request to
support the Illinois project?
Answer. FRA did not request funding in fiscal year 1999 as prior
year funding was adequate to continue work through fiscal year 1999.
FRA and the state of Illinois DOT (IDOT) presently have about $15
million of public funds available for this project, to be added to the
$20 million committed by the Association of American Railroads. One
major precept of the joint effort already agreed is that program
procurements will be competitive, based on the principles of open
architecture, and cost shared to the maximum possible extent by
supplier organizations.
fiscal year 1999 funding--illinois ptc project
Question. Will there be sufficient funds during fiscal year 1999 to
cost-share with industry in the new Illinois project? Please specify
unobligated federal funds that are available to support this project.
What are the sources of these unobligated balances?
Answer. FRA and the state of Illinois DOT (IDOT) presently have
about $15 million of public funds available for this project, to be
added to the $20 million committed by the Association of American
Railroads. This is sufficient funding for fiscal year 1999 work. One
major precept of the joint effort already agreed is that program
procurements will be competitive, based on the principles of open
architecture, and cost shared to the maximum possible extent by
supplier organizations. There are no unobligated balances available for
this project.
future funding for illinois ptc project
Question. Please provide an estimate of project costs for fiscal
year 1998, 1999, 2000, and the out years. Please delineate the costs
among the federal funds, industry share, and the State of Illinois.
Answer. The information follows:
ILLINOIS TRAIN POSITIVE TRAIN CONTROL PROJECTED COSTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
Cost ------------------------------------------------ Out years
1998 1999 2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal......................................... $2,225,000 .............. ( \1\ ) ( \1\ )
State of Illinois............................... .............. .............. ( \1\ ) ( \1\ )
Industry........................................ 5,000,000 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $5,000,000
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................................... .............. .............. .............. ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Will be determined based on a project business plan being prepared by the project joint program office and
is subject to review and change.
coordination of ptcs between eastern and western railroads
Question. How will FRA help facilitate PTCS connectivity between
eastern and western railroads?
Answer. A key objective of the overall joint Illinois effort is to
foster such connectivity by making all proposed systems interoperable
to the greatest possible extent. Also, as part of the initiation of the
joint project in Illinois, the western railroads have agreed to
implement a communications bus approach aboard each locomotive, as
originally advocated by the three eastern railroads and being developed
jointly with FRA support in the Harrisburg-Hagerstown-Manassas
corridor.
illinois project--benefit to non-signalized lines
Question. How will the Illinois project benefit non-signalized rail
lines?
Answer. The communications-based approach can interface with
existing signal systems but can be implemented whether or not wayside
signals presently exist on any given line. The core technologies of
automatic location, digital radio links, onboard computers, and onboard
route databases do not rely on the presence of a wayside signal system,
although some implementations of communications-based systems do rely
on the information available from the existing signals. Systems can
readily be designed to utilize the core elements as ``building blocks''
to address the needs of territory where signals are not installed.
dgps and illinois train control project
Question. What role will the installation of a nationwide
differential global positioning system play in the success of the
Illinois positive train control project? Does the State of Illinois
have DGPS coverage at this time?
Answer. The rail line on which the Illinois PTC project will be
demonstrated already has coverage from the Coast Guard's Maritime DGPS
system. The installation of nationwide DGPS will enhance the strength
and effectiveness of the DGPS signal available to the Illinois PTC
demonstration and thus makes a positive contribution to the success of
this project.
alaska positive train control project
Question. What is the status of the Alaska Railroad positive train
control demonstration project? Please provide a schedule of project
benchmarks and funding history, breaking out funding by federal, Alaska
Railroad, and other funding sources.
Answer. FRA provided $4 million to the Alaska Railroad in 1997 to
fund the first phase of their positive train control project. To our
knowledge, the Alaska Railroad has not received or spent funds from any
other source on the project. They will be receiving funds from the
Taxpayer Relief Act in 1998 which could be spent on the project.
In the first quarter, 1997, the Alaska Railroad completed site
surveys for their communications infrastructure and issued an RFP for
train control system hardware and software. In the second quarter,
1997, they evaluated proposals and signed a contract with Train Track
Computer Systems for a computer-aided dispatch system. They also
awarded a contract to GE-Harris to perform a communications radio
frequency and GPS survey.
In the third quarter, 1997, GE-Harris took over responsibility from
Train Track for the computer-aided dispatch system. Equipment for voice
radio upgrade was received. Digital microwave radios and antennas were
installed at six locations. In the fourth quarter, 1997, installation
of microwave equipment continued along with voice radio equipment. Work
on the computer-aided dispatch system continued, with a completion date
set at the end of 1998.
fiscal years 1998-99 funding for alaska positive train control project
Question. What funding for the Alaska Railroad positive train
control project did FRA ask of OST and OMB for fiscal year 1998? For
fiscal year 1999?
Answer. FRA requested no funds for the Alaska Railroad positive
train control project in fiscal year 1998 or fiscal year 1999. In 1997,
the enactment of the Taxpayers Relief Act and of Amtrak Reform
legislation provided approximated $23 million to the Alaska Railroad
for capital projects including their positive train control project.
The railroad will receive half of those funds in 1998 and half in 1999.
industry benefits of alaska positive train control project
Question. Please detail the potential benefits to the railroad
industry of the Alaska Railroad positive train control project. Are
there specific advantages to developing a system from the ground up,
rather than developing a system that overlays an existing signaling
network? What technical issues that have interoperability implications
might the Alaska Railroad positive train control project address?
Answer. The Alaska Railroad's PTC project will be the first
complete implementation of PTC on any railroad. It will enable other
railroads to see first-hand how it works. It is somewhat simpler and
less expensive to install PTC on a railroad, like the Alaska Railroad,
which has no signal system in place; fewer interfaces are required with
existing electrical and electronic equipment. However, the logic of PTC
on the Alaska Railroad would be no different from the logic of PTC on a
major railroad in the lower 48 states that carry much heavier traffic
on signaled track. Half of the railroad track in the US is without
signals, and consequently the Alaska Railroad project could be viewed
as a prototype for installations on such ``dark territory.''
Interoperability issues are nonexistent for the Alaska Railroad
since it interchanges traffic with other railroads only by rail-barge
operations across the Gulf of Alaska. However, if other railroads elect
to install PTC using the same specifications as that on the Alaska
Railroad, which they might do once they see it in operation in Alaska,
they will automatically achieve interoperability with one another.
PTC interoperability is primarily a management decision issue
rather than a technical issue. If railroads can agree on common
specifications for communications and positioning systems,
interoperability is automatically achieved. If they cannot reach
agreement on common specifications for communications and positioning
systems, then the simplest way of achieving interoperability is to
install the equipment of the different PTC systems on those locomotives
that will be running through. If the manufacturers of different PTC
systems were to openly publish their data representations and
protocols, it would be possible, in principle, for PTC suppliers to
configure their on-board computers to accommodate communications from
control systems other than their own. Without either common
specifications, or open publication of protocols, separate suites of
equipment would be needed on-board a train for it to operate on
multiple territories.
integration of ndgps with ptc efforts
Question. How will the NDGPS Program be integrated with positive
train control efforts already underway?
Answer. NDGPS will provide a standard nationwide location,
positioning, and navigation system, with redundant coverage to provide
99.999 percent availability to the continental United States and
Alaska. This system will integrate with all positive train control
(PTC) projects already underway, in that it will help solve one of two
requirements for PTC interoperability, namely the need for a common
positioning and navigation system for locomotives to operate on
railroads anywhere in the nation. The other requirement is for a common
message format and common radio frequencies.
user fees for ndgps
Question. On page 105, you state that future operational funding
for the NDGPS system will come through fees on users or manufacturers
of equipment. What is the legislative basis or authority for such fees?
Who would impose such fees?
Answer. There is currently no legislative basis or authority for
such user fees. The Department of Transportation intends to establish a
user fee policy for all users of GPS and DGPS. The precise mechanisms
for accomplishing this are yet to be determined.
dot funding allocation for ndgps
Question. What is the empirical basis for the allocation between
the FRA request and the FHWA request for DGPS? How will each agency
benefit from the installation of NDGPS transmitters, in fiscal year
1999, and in the future? Who will be the lead agency in administering
the program?
Answer. The allocation was based on the fact that benefits that
would accrue to rail and highway users. The railroad industry, and its
customers, will benefit from the installation of NDGPS because it is an
important enabling technology for positive train control, which, in
turn, has the ability to make railroads both safer and more efficient.
FRA itself will use NDGPS to improve the accuracy and efficiency of its
Automated Track Inspection Program and to develop a more accurate
railroad network model needed for analytic purposes. Because of the
need of the railroad industry for a nationally-consistent positioning
system and because of desires to have an interoperable PTC system
installed by the nation's railroads, FRA is serving as the lead agency
in proposing the expansion of the existing Coast Guard Maritime
Differential GPS network (which is currently limited to coastal and
navigable waterways) to become a truly nationwide system to support the
nation's intermodal transportation system. The Coast Guard will serve
as the lead agency for installing, operating, and maintaining the
Nationwide DGPS network. The fiscal year 1999 funding is for the second
year of a five-year program to complete the Nationwide Differential GPS
network. It is difficult to allocate benefits to FRA and FHWA on a
year-to-year basis during the implementation period.
fiscal year 1999 funding for ptc
Question. On page 10 of your justification, you state that $600,000
of the NDGPS funding will support PTC initiatives. Doesn't the entire
NDGPS request support positive train control? Please break out in
specific detail the use of these requested funds.
Answer. The designation of $600,000 to support PTC initiatives was
a technical error which was subsequently corrected. In fact, all
funding in the request is now directed to NDGPS, and that entire
request does support positive train control.
future costs of ndgps system
Question. What are the future costs of the NDGPS system? Please
provide a 5-year schedule of benchmarks, anticipated costs, and
anticipated funding sources.
Answer. Under our current estimate, total installation costs will
be $30.3 million, including $7.2 million for fiscal year 2000, $7.9
million for fiscal year 2001, and $7.4 million for fiscal year 2002, at
which point installation will be complete. In addition to installation
costs, FRA estimates operation and maintenance costs of $3.2 million in
fiscal year 2000, $4.3 million in fiscal year 2001, and $5.2 million in
fiscal year 2002 and each subsequent year. The fiscal year 1999
President's Budget proposes that future capital funding come from all
federal agencies whose programs will benefit from the new technology.
The President's Budget also proposes that future operational costs be
supported through fees on users or manufacturers of equipment.
separate account for ndgps
Question. What was the rationale behind the decision to create a
new account structure for this funding, and to split it between two DOT
agencies? Why not include this within FRA's existing Next Generation
High-Speed Rail account or Railroad Research and Development account?
Answer. FRA decided to create a new account structure for NDGPS
funding because the funding did not fit well within existing accounts.
The Next Generation High-Speed Rail program is aimed at demonstrations
to foster high-speed passenger service on corridors throughout the
country, and the Railroad Research and Development program is aimed at
research to improve railroad safety. The NDGPS program is aimed at
freight as well as passenger service, and is a deployment program
rather than a research or demonstration program. The decision to split
funding between two DOT agencies was made because the constituencies of
both agencies would receive benefits from the NDGPS program.
status of grade crossing hazard mitigation/innovation technologies
Question. Regarding the development of grade crossing hazard
mitigation technologies, please prepare a table indicating separately
the status, problems, and challenges, along with the fiscal year 1997,
fiscal year 1998 and planned fiscal year 1999 FRA investments for each
major project in this program.
Answer. The information is contained in the following tables.
GRADE CROSSING HAZARD MITIGATION TECHNOLOGIES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-----------------------------------------------
1997 1998 1999 (planned)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Corridor................................................. $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $400,000
Mitigating Hazards.............................................. 1,100,000 2,500,000 2,500,000
Low Cost HSR Crossing........................................... 1,899,882 1,100,000 1,100,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GRADE CROSSING HAZARD MITIGATION TECHNOLOGIES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status Problems and challenges
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Corridor..................... Construction is underway. Tests of The Master Agreement between the
long gate arms and articulated gate Norfolk Southern Railroad and NCDOT
arms are complete. governing crossing work was signed
April 6, 1998. Significant
construction is planned for this
summer and fall.
Locked Gate at Private Crossing..... Project awarded to NYSDOT under BAA Adequate funding. No significant
in 1997. issues at this time.
Broad Agency Announcement........... Additional projects are planned for ....................................
award in fiscal year 1998.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
status of arrestor net project
Question. What is the status of the arrestor net project? What has
this project accomplished?
Answer. The manufacture, crash testing, installation and pre-
demonstration field testing of the vehicle arrestor barrier nets (VAB)
is complete. Video cameras have been installed to monitor the motion of
the arrestor nests as well as record any impacts or attempted
violations. Three data transmissions lines are being installed to
transmit the video data. Public education through outreach meetings and
public service announcements is underway. Bid openings for the
maintenance contract is scheduled for April 7, 1998.
The demonstration is scheduled to begin May 1, 1998 following
opening ceremonies with the Governor of Illinois to publicize the
project. To date, approximately $3.4 million of the state's Section
1010 funds allocation has been devoted to the development and
demonstration of this project.
The three locations for the demonstration are:
1. Trunk Rte 35A, near Chenoa, (UP, mp 105.93) #290786R
2. US Route 136, McLean, (UP, mp 141.2) #290964A
3. Hawthorne St., Hartford, (Gateway Western Railway and UP, UP MP
264.85), #FAU 8975.
The University of Illinois has been retained to conduct the
technical and human factors evaluations of the barriers. Preliminary
surveys of driver perceptions at these crossings have been conducted,
and additional surveys will be conducted as the barriers are
demonstrated for the 18 months.
status of sealed corridor project
Question. What is the status of the sealed corridor project? How is
this project managed? What are the initial results? How much do you
expect to allocate to the sealed corridor project during fiscal year
1999? What is the next technological step to advance this project
during fiscal year 1999 and what would this cost?
Answer. The goal of the Sealed Corridor Initiative (SCI) is to
improve safety at the 131 crossings in the 92-mile Charlotte to
Greensboro segment of North Carolina's high-speed rail corridor between
Charlotte and Raleigh (total length 174 miles with 170 public and 60
private crossings). It builds upon the demonstrations of median
barriers, four quadrant gates, and finally four quadrant gates with
median barriers conducted at Sugar Creek Road in Charlotte from
November, 1994 through November, 1996. The SCI is funded by both the
Section 1010 Program of ISTEA and the Next Generation High-Speed Rail
Program (NGHSR).
Accomplishments to Date
Four-quadrant gates have been installed at 3 locations (Sugar Creek
Road and Craighead Road in Charlotte, and Hilltop Road in Greensboro).
One gate will be installed at Blue Ridge Road in Raleigh and
construction should be finished by October, 1998. (17 are planned)
Long gate arms have been tested at Orr Road in Charlotte (51 are
planned) with a resulting decrease in violations by 67 percent. An
articulated gate has also been tested with a 78 percent reduction in
traffic violations recorded.
The Video Ticketing project in Salisbury has begun.
Median barriers have been installed at 1 location and will be
installed at 18 crossings this spring and summer (22 are planned).
Intelligent Signal Monitoring system hardware (health monitoring of
grade crossing equipment which communicates with maintenance offices)
is being tested to settle on a final design (Harmon, Safetran and
Devtronics equipment is under test).
12 crossings have been closed (4 private) so far, with plans to
close an additional 7 crossings in the next 6 months. Seven Traffic
Separation studies are underway to identify additional crossings
eligible for closure (perhaps as many as 13).
Funding and Management
The grant is managed through the NGHSR Program. Project management
is provided by the North Carolina DOT, working with the Norfolk
Southern Railroad. Total cost of the Sealed Corridor Initiative for the
92-mile Charlotte to Greensboro segment is estimated to be $5.1
million. To date, $2.75 million has been provided from FRA's NGHSR
program. An additional $2.5 million has been provided under ISTEA
Section 1010, which has paid for the treatment of crossings in the
corridor and also funded the initial demonstration at Sugar Creek Road
and the corridor-wide (Charlotte-Raleigh) inventory of crossings.
An additional $280,000 in Section 1010 funds allocated in fiscal
year 1998 will equip two grade crossings in Greensboro with 4-quadrant
gates. Also, an award of $2 million in fiscal year 1998 funds will
enable the Sealed Corridor Initiative to expand eastward beyond
Greensboro, treating the crossings between Greensboro and Burlington in
a similar manner. The State is providing an approximate 20 percent
match to the Federal funds. Estimates for completion of the Sealed
Corridor between Burlington through Durham to Raleigh is roughly $5 to
6 million. FRA has included $400,000 in its fiscal year 1999 request
for this initiative.
Next Technical Step to Advance this Project
There has been a delay in implementing some of the crossing
improvement projects due to failure of the State and Norfolk Southern
Railroad to complete the master agreement on the Sealed Corridor. There
are several reasons for this: NS preparations for acquiring part of
Conrail has diverted company resources, NS negotiations with the North
Carolina Railroad, and the lawsuit by the private shareholders. The
private shareholders were bought out as of April 1, 1998, and the final
details of the master agreement have been settled. The Master Agreement
was signed April 6, 1998. There should now be no technical obstacles to
inhibit the NCDOT and NS from proceeding to complete the Sealed
Corridor projects.
hsr track and structures funding
Question. Regarding the development of high-speed rail track and
structure technologies, please prepare a table indicating separately
the status, problems, and challenges, along with the fiscal year 1997,
fiscal year 1998, and planned fiscal year 1999 FRA investments. Please
include information on each major FRA project in this program.
Answer. The information is contained in the following table.
TRACK AND STRUCTURES FUNDING
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-----------------------------------------------
1997 1998 1999 (planned)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Track and Structures (State of Oregon).......................... $5,650,000 .............. ..............
Track and Structures (other States)............................. 850,000 $1,200,000 $1,200,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 6,500,000 1,200,000 1,200,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRACK AND STRUCTURES STATUS AND ISSUES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status Problems and challenges
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eugene-Portland Corridor track Grant awarded, project underway..... No significant issues at this time.
upgrade.
Advanced HS Rail Vehicle and Track Prototype successfully tested, in- No significant issues at this time.
Monitoring System. service demonstration in near
future.
Evaluation and Demonstration of Project began early CY 1998........ No significant issues at this time.
Techniques to Assure Subgrade
Performance for High-Speed Track.
Demonstration of HS Track Project underway, initial results No significant issues at this time.
maintenance Using Objective Gage promising.
Strength Data.
Broad Agency Announcement to solicit To be issued Spring 1998............ No significant issues at this time.
additional proposals in this
technology area.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
time lines for hsr corridor projects
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. How has the FRA incorporated cost-sharing into each of
these program areas? Please quantify cost-sharing for each project.
Answer. The figures stated below on actual and planned expenditures
are based on best estimates provided by State officials. FRA planning
grants require a $1 non-federal contribution for each federal dollar
awarded (50 percent/50 percent). As can be seen in the following
corridor summaries, several states have provided more than the required
50 percent non-federal share.
Florida
The State of Florida has spent about $34 million on corridor
improvements for high-speed rail within the state. The State also
purchased a portion of its designated high-speed corridor between Miami
and West Palm Beach for $361 million including interest and established
commuter service on the line.
The State awarded a franchise to the Florida Overland Express (FOX)
group to design, build, operate and maintain a 200 mph electrified
system based on the French TGV on the 320 mile corridor between
Orlando, Tampa and Miami. The system would cost about $6 billion and
the State is developing its financing plan for this project. FRA is
providing $100,000 to assist the state in preparing the project
environmental impact statement (EIS). The state is contributing the
balance of $7,256,000 to complete the EIS.
Washington, DC to Richmond, VA. And on to Tidewater and Charlotte, NC
Virginia
The State of Virginia has spent $52 million and is planning to
spend $50 million in the next two years on the Washington to Richmond
corridor, its highest priority, for improvements to the line for the
Virginia Railway Express commuter service and high-speed rail.
The State of Virginia has begun an environmental assessment of the
Washington to Richmond corridor. Initially, the plan calls for a non-
electrified upgrade of the 110 mile corridor which extends the
Northeast corridor from Washington to Richmond. It assumes that speeds
will be increased to 110 mph. Reducing travel times about 25 percent
should provide that needed incentive to handle current traffic problems
and projected vehicular traffic on US 95 and other parallel highways.
Total travel time by rail would be reduced to 90 minutes and trains
would run hourly by the completion of the project in 2014. A High-Speed
Rail Commission was formed to evaluate the study and make
recommendations to the legislature. The plan consists of six stages:
Estimated capital costs by stage
Capitol
Stage cost
1....................................................... $150,000
2....................................................... 4,850,000
3....................................................... 8,734,000
4....................................................... 147,500,000
5....................................................... 52,440,000
6....................................................... 120,200,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 327,000,000
The state has a major investment study underway of the Richmond to
Tidewater area in which various rail options are being investigated.
The study is expected to be completed in June 1998. The state is also
expected to perform an analysis for rail passenger service from
Richmond to Bristol, Virginia which will begin in 1998. FRA has
provided the state a total of $285,000 in planning funds to conduct
signalization studies on the Richmond-Washington corridor. The funds
have been matched by the state.
North Carolina
The State of North Carolina has expended $31.2 million, including
equipment, and is planning to spend $85 million in the next two years
in the Raleigh to Charlotte corridor.
The State has developed a ``sealed corridor initiative'' for the
Greensboro to Charlotte portion of the high-speed corridor from Raleigh
to Charlotte. The purpose of the initiative is to increase safety and
to develop a data base for appropriate treatment of crossings for the
entire corridor. The Charlotte to Greensboro segment (92 miles) has 99
public and 32 private crossings. The entire Raleigh to Charlotte
corridor (174 miles) has 170 public and 60 private crossings The work
includes (1) installation of grade crossing monitoring and data
collection devices; (2) innovative grade crossing devices at public at-
grade crossings; (3) video enforcement of warning devices at crossings;
(4) studies and interviews to determine behavioral aspects and
demographics of violators; (5) traffic separation studies to determine
crossing consolidation opportunities; (6) and innovative warning
devices at private crossings. The Charlotte to Greensboro segment
effort is expected to cost about $5.1 million. This experiment will be
valuable to the FRA as it works with other developing corridors across
the country.
Virginia and North Carolina have completed a high-speed study for
the Washington, DC to Charlotte corridor. The cost to upgrade to 110
mph service for the Washington, DC to Richmond segment is estimated at
$327 million, from Richmond to Raleigh about $320 million, and from
Raleigh to Charlotte $415 million. FRA provided a $200,000 planning
grant to conduct an environmental assessment of the Charlotte to
Washington, DC corridor. The state over-matched this grant with
$300,000 of its own funds.
California
Nearly $670 million has been spent or committed to date for
equipment and to upgrade the San Diego-Los Angeles-Oakland and
Sacramento corridor. A major study by the California Intercity High-
Speed Rail Commission (Commission) evaluated the feasibility of
implementing an HSR system in the State and their final report was
submitted to the Governor and Legislature in December 1996. The cost of
the 676-mile system linking the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central
Valley, Los Angeles and San Diego route is expected to be between $21
billion for a Very High-Speed (200 mph) system and $29 billion for a
magnetic levitation (Maglev) system. The level of future investments
will depend on legislative action and voter response to new bond
referenda.
The State has created and staffed a High-Speed Rail Authority
(Authority) to build support for the plans and to take the proposal to
the voters by the year 2000. The Authority is now seeking bids for a
contractor to assist in this process. FRA provided $100,000 for
additional study of the Los Angeles-San Diego HSR corridor. The state
over-matched this amount with $200,000.
New York
The State of New York has expended $289.2 million and is planning
to spend an additional $169.9 million on incrementally improving the
160 mile New York to Schenectady line for 125 mph service on existing
right of way and, in the longer term, improving the line west of
Schenectady to Buffalo/Niagara Falls. A three year rail improvement
plan for New York to Schenectady calls for a total investment of $146
million and will employ non-electric diesel or turbine locomotives.
Some $30.5 million is available for New York to Schenectady upgrades.
The line from Schenectady to Niagara Falls will cost an additional $145
million of which $5.7 million is available. The state is particularly
interested in identifying those sections of the highly congested
freight corridor where relatively modest investments in new track may
make a significant improvement in train operating performance. A grade
crossing protection plan is also being instituted in the corridor.
Congress appropriated a total of $10 million of Federal funds for
reconstructing the RTL trainsets in fiscal year 1996-1998. NYSDOT will
provide $10 million of matching funds for a total of $20 million.
NYSDOT has developed a preliminary budget of $50 million for the non-
recurring engineering costs and reconstruction of all seven trainsets.
New York-Boston
Between New York City and Boston, the north end of the Northeast
corridor, Amtrak will provide 150 mph service and travel time will be
cut from the current average trip time of 4:45 hours to 3 hour service
after the New Haven, CT/Boston, MA segment is electrified and 18 new
trainsets begin to be deployed in late 1999. The cost of
electrification and track upgrades is about $1.5 billion. Between
fiscal years 1991 and 1998, Congress has appropriated $940 million for
improvements to the north end.
The trainsets are expected to cost $754 million and the Congress
has appropriated $185 million through fiscal year 1996. Additional
funds have been raised through borrowing. The first trainset is
scheduled to be delivered for testing at the Pueblo facility in January
1999.
Pacific Northwest Corridor: Eugene, Portland, Seattle, to Vancouver,
B.C.
Washington
The State of Washington has spent $60.1 million and planning to
spend $46 million in the next two years to make track improvements to
Washington's portion of the corridor. Additional funding may become
available through a November 1998 ballot initiative.
The State will take delivery of two custom built TALGO trains in
late 1998 and Amtrak will also add a similar TALGO train this year.
Amtrak has also optioned for a second TALGO to be built for use in the
Eugene, Portland, Seattle to Vancouver corridor.
In 1996, FRA made a grant of $750 thousand to Washington to
coordinate high-speed rail requirements with the Positive Train
Separation (PTS) prototype being developed jointly by Burlington
Northern/Sante Fe (BNSF) and Union Pacific (UP) railroads in Washington
and Oregon. PTS will use digital radios and computers on board each
locomotive to automatically enforce safe operation. Mostly at their own
expense, BNSF and UP plan to continue installing and testing the
prototype system for freight operations that was begun in the fall of
1996. The FRA grant provides resources to assure that early PTS design
can be upgraded in the future for high-speed passenger operations. FRA
provided $170,000 to conduct an environmental impact study (EIS) of the
HSR corridor between Vancouver, WA and Blaine, WA. The state
contributed the balance of the project cost of $636,000.
Oregon
The State of Oregon has spent $2.9 million on upgrading the Pacific
Northwest Corridor. Oregon together with FRA, the Burlington Northern/
Sante Fe and Union Pacific railroads are working to further develop the
BNSF/UP Positive Train Separation system to permit high-speed passenger
service on the Eugene-Portland-Seattle-Vancouver, B.C. corridor. A
portion of the $5 million funded project would purchase necessary
wayside sensors and radios for 12 miles of heavily congested double
track in downtown Portland that is presently signaled for one way
operation. This installation will permit assessment of the reliability
of the PTS communications links in the area where dense railroad and
commercial radio traffic is present. In cooperation with the Coast
Guard and Army Corps of Engineers, the state of Oregon and the FRA have
established differential global positioning system (DGPS) coverage in
the area of the Columbia River valley to confirm the adequacy of DGPS
for train control purposes in areas of very rugged terrain.
In 1997, the state received an additional $5.2 million for track
work in the Portland Terminal area, which joins an earlier grant for $1
million for track work at the Portland Terminal. FRA provided $120,000
in planning funds which the state matched in order to complete a
programmatic environmental impact statement of the Oregon portion of
the HSR corridor.
The States of Washington and Oregon, together with British
Columbia, have completed a planning report and are now performing an
environmental impact study on the Eugene-Portland-Seattle-Vancouver,
B.C. project corridor. The plan calls for a non-electrified upgrade of
the 466 mile rail corridor that assumes maximum operating speeds of 125
mph. The plan consists of four phases (5 years each) and is estimated
to cost $1.82 billion.
mid-west high-speed rail corridor activity
Nine State Midwest Regional System Study
The Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WISDOT) is developing a
blueprint/business plan for preserving, improving and expanding rail
passenger services (including high-speed rail) within the Midwest
region. This would, in effect, be an expansion of the Chicago Hub
corridor as designated under ISTEA Section 1010 and studied in FRA's
commercial feasibility study (CFS). The study sponsors and the amount
of their contribution include FRA , ($200,000), Amtrak, ($200,000), and
the states of Illinois ($20,000), Iowa ($20,000), Michigan ($50,000),
Missouri ($40,000), Wisconsin ($50,000), Minnesota ($30,000), Indiana
($20,000), Nebraska ($8,500), and Ohio ($50,000).
Preliminary study results indicate that a regional rail system
operating over existing trackage is feasible. The system would have a
benefit to cost ratio of 1.9, have an overall operating ratio of 1.36
or cover its operating costs and recover the State share of capital
costs. The system would operate at speeds up to 110 mph and would use
diesel multiple unit equipment. Capital costs are estimated at $3.5
billion over the six years required to rebuild current trackage. The
system would provide a competitive system with much improved travel
times, frequencies and fares. It would also be comparable to air in
comfort and convenience for medium distance trips. The states are now
seeking project endorsement and funding commitments to advance project
planning and implementation.
Michigan
The State of Michigan has expended to date a total of $53.6 million
in track signals, stations and equipment on the Chicago to Detroit
designated high speed corridor. The state is planning to spend an
additional $16.9 million through 1998.
The State of Michigan together with Amtrak has developed a three
phase, 32 segment plan of incremental improvements from Chicago to
Detroit. 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 project, Michigan plans for nine round trip frequencies, using
125 mph electric locomotives and a running time of three hours. Until
electrified, the line would require diesel or turbine equipment
operating at a maximum speed of 90 mph. Amtrak owns about one-third of
the line and Conrail (Norfolk Southern) owns the remaining two thirds.
A key component of the proposed plan is the acquisition of a series of
abandoned or little used railroad rights of way in Northern Indiana
that, when combined with the existing 97 miles of Amtrak owned line and
the proposed purchase from Conrail of the segment from Kalamazoo to
Ypsilanti, would create a continuous passenger train corridor of over
250 miles long that is suitable for upgrading to high speed service.
The estimated capital costs for the upgrades for non-electric service
including property acquisition are about $700 million. It is estimated
to cost an additional $500 million to electrify the line.
FRA awarded the state a $6.08 million grant in 1995 under the
Positive Train Control Development Program to install and demonstrate
an incremental train control system in the Amtrak-owned 96-mile segment
of its high-speed corridor between Kalamazoo, Michigan and Porter,
Indiana. An additional $3 million was awarded in 1996. The system has
been installed on the first 20-mile section of the 71-mile
demonstration test track. A high-speed public demonstration of the
system took place on October 11, 1996. Michigan and Amtrak have entered
into an agreement to add an additional $1.6 million to the track
rehabilitation work. High-speed 100 mph testing continues and the state
anticipates revenue passenger service at 100 mph on the 20 mile segment
by October 1998. FRA also provided a $118,695 grant that was
overmatched with $170,805 to update ridership and revenue forecasts on
the Detroit-Chicago HSR corridor.
Illinois
Through the end of fiscal year 1998 Illinois will have spent $64.5
million on the project. The Illinois Department of Transportation
(IDOT) together with Amtrak has developed a plan for non-electric, 125
mph service using tilt suspension technology in the Chicago to St.
Louis portion of the Midwest high-speed corridor. The proposed system
would offer eight round trips per day between Chicago and St. Louis
with downtown to downtown trip times of 3 to 3.5 hours for a two hour
time savings. Four alignment options are being considered in the
Chicago area in the environmental impact study. Two options go through
Peotone based on a planned new airport being built there: (1) Chicago-
Peotone-Wilmington, labeled the Green Grass alternative because it will
require 20 miles of new track construction, and (2) Chicago-Peotone-
Kankakee-Dwight, labeled the Conrail option because it uses Conrail
trackage westward from Kankakee. The other two options go through
Joliet using the (3) Illinois Central line, labeled the Illinois
Central/Union Pacific route and (4) an abandoned Rock Island line,
labeled the Rock Island District route. All options use the existing
Union Pacific route southwestward from Dwight. Capital costs are in the
$400 million range, not including station and grade crossing hazard
elimination costs. Current lines would be upgraded over a three year
period. Financing would come from a combination of revenue backed
financing and public contributions. The entrance into St. Louis is
being changed at Granite City, removing passenger trains from the
heavily traveled freight lines and moving them southward over renovated
tracks to the MacArthur Bridge. FRA provided a $300,000 matching grant
to prepare the final environmental impact statement for the Chicago-St.
Louis HSR corridor.
A joint innovative signaling project was established this year
between the Federal Railroad Administration, Illinois DOT, Union
Pacific Railroad and the American Association of Railroads and an
agreement is being finalized. The American Association of Railroads
will fund the project at $20 million over four years to match the $15
millions of public funding from FRA and Illinois DOT plus future
contributions. The project will fund a revenue service demonstration of
a satellite linked train control system using flexible blocks. The
system will address issues of industry-wide interoperability and open
architecture for train control systems.
Starting in the Spring, 1998, the state will demonstrate innovative
vehicle arrestor net barriers at three locations to evaluate their
effectiveness for improving the safety of crossings on the high-speed
corridor.
Wisconsin
The State of Wisconsin has completed a high-speed rail evaluation
study of the Chicago to Milwaukee corridor. Three existing rail
alignments were examined and the study identified the current Amtrak
route between Chicago and Milwaukee as the most favorable for high-
speed non-electric service (the most favored cost option). By auto, it
now takes from 90 to 120 minutes to travel from city center Milwaukee
to Chicago depending on traffic and 87 minutes by train. By increasing
train speed to 110 mph service would cut travel time to just under one
hour. By increasing train speed to 125 mph, travel time would be cut to
51 minutes. Both plans would substantially reduce highway congestion on
the heavily traveled route. Costs were estimated based on 12 round
trips under the 110 mph scenario, and 16 round trips using the 125 mph
speed. Under both scenarios, operating revenues would cover operating
costs and there would be a positive contribution to capital costs. It
would take approximately 3 years to complete the project which would
begin in 1999 and service would then begin in 2002. Capital costs were
estimated to be:
[1995 dollars in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000 2001 2002 Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Capital Costs--110 mph................................ $195.9 $177.4 $182.7 $556
Total Capital Costs--125 mph................................ 273.4 270.5 278.7 822.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Includes, rolling stock, right of way acquisition, stations and maintenance facilities.
Minnesota
FRA has granted $200 thousand to the Minnesota Department of
Transportation to complete phase II of the Tri-State High-Speed Rail
Study between Minneapolis-St. Paul, Milwaukee and Chicago. Minnesota
and Wisconsin matched the federal funding and the study is underway by
TEMS, the contractor chosen by the states. Major tasks of the study are
engineering and environmental analyses, including evaluations of
routes, crossings, infrastructure needs, intermodal connections and
potential station locations in the Twin-Cities-to-Chicago corridor. The
report is expected to be completed in late 1998.
Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama
The State of Louisiana, together with Mississippi and Alabama,
completed a preliminary high-speed rail study for a ``Deep South
Corridor.'' The Department made a grant for $81 thousand in fiscal year
1997 to continue the preliminary feasibility work. The contractors
performing the study are Frederick R. Harris and Morrison Knudsen and
results are expected this summer.
planning technology
Question. What is FRA doing to help communities plan for high-speed
rail development? How much was or will be spent for this purpose during
fiscal year 1997, fiscal year 1998, and fiscal year 1999? Please
respond separately for each year. Is it FRA's view that further federal
coordination in these targeted high-speed rail corridors is no longer
needed?
Answer. In fiscal year 1997, the last year in which funds were
available, twelve State Departments of Transportation received funding
from FRA's planning assistance. The table below provides a project
description and other data including the amount of the non-federal
share of grants awarded in fiscal year 1997. FRA has focused the grants
primarily on State DOT's but have also funded a consortium of states in
the southeast. Planning funds would be available under the reauthorized
surface transportation program. No planning funds were requested in the
budgets for fiscal years 1998 and 1999.
FISCAL YEAR 1997 NEXT GENERATION HIGH-SPEED RAIL CORRIDOR STUDIES
PLANNING GRANTS (50-50 PERCENT MATCHING) BY STATE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount of grand award
State/project description -------------------------------
Federal Non-Federal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
California: Conduct additional technical $100,000 $200,000
planning along the Los Angeles-San
Diego corridor.........................
Florida: Conduct ridership and market 100,000 7,256,000
studies for Miami-Orlando-Tampa HSGT
corridor...............................
Illinois: Complete environmental impact 100,000 100,000
statement (EIS) for Chicago-St. Louis
high-speed rail corridor...............
Michigan and Indiana: Update right-of- 118,695 118,695
way improvements, ridership and revenue
forecasts along the Detroit-Chicago
HSGT corridor..........................
Nevada: Evaluate Maglev feasibility in \1\ 170,000 170,000
Las Vegas-Southern California corridor.
North Carolina: Conduct Charlotte- 200,000 300,000
Washington DC corridor environmental
study..................................
Southern Rapid Rail Commission (LA, MS, 81,305 81,305
AL): Conduct phase II of the HSGT
feasibility study of the deep south
corridor...............................
Virginia: Complete Southeast corridor 100,000 100,000
rail signal system analysis............
Washington: Conduct EIS and Reliability 200,000 636,000
and Safety Improvement Study on Pacific
Northwest Corridor.....................
-------------------------------
Totals............................ \2\ 1,170,000 8,962,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Amount deobligated and reapportioned from earlier grant.
\2\ Total includes $100,000 from R&D funds for Virginia.
FRA continues to believe that federal coordination in these high-
speed rail corridors is necessary to ensure that high-speed rail policy
continues to reflect the needs and requirements of the states active in
high-speed rail. One of the ways in which FRA coordinates corridor
efforts is by holding a meeting with states at the conclusion of the
bi-annual meetings of the American Association of State Transportation
and Highway Officials' (AASHTO) Standing Committee on Rail
Transportation (SCORT).
status of emergency railroad rehabilitation and repair
Question. Public Law 105-18, the 1997 emergency supplemental for
natural disasters and rescissions, provided $18,900,000 to repair and
rebuild freight rail lines of regional and short-line railroads or
state-owned railroads damaged by floods in South Dakota, North Dakota,
Minnesota, and West Virginia. How much of these funds has been
obligated to date?
Answer. The total $18.9 million was obligated in fiscal year 1997.
grant recipients of emergency supplemental
Question. Please provide a list of the total damage claims by
railroad, designated grant recipient, description of damage, and
amount; and where applicable the amount awarded.
Answer. The designated grant recipients were the Department of
Transportation for the States of Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, South
Dakota, and West Virginia. The remaining information requested is
included in the following chart. The following chart outlines their
requests and funding:
DISTRIBUTION OF 1997 FLOOD REPAIR FUNDING
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State/railroad Damage type Damage claim Amount awarded
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iowa: I&M Rail......................... Link Retaining Wall Repair............. $983,920 $983,920
Preventative Measures.................. 683,022 ..............
Minnesota:
Nobles Rock Railroad............... Bridge Repair, Culvert Re- pair....... 78,740 78,740
Northern Plains Railroad........... Surfacing.............................. 173,713 173,713
Minnesota Central Railroad......... Bridge Repair, Culvert Re- pair....... 395,688 395,688
Minnesota Northern Railroad........ Crosstie & Ballast Replacement......... 106,858 106,858
Red River Valley & Western Rail- Surfacing.............................. 29,821 29,821
road.
Twin Cities & Western Railroad..... Signal Repair, Bridge Repair, Culvert 509,746 509,746
Repair, Erosion Repair.
Preventative Measures to Stabilize 614,660 ..............
Embankments.
Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Bridge Repair, Mud Slide Repair........ 249,614 249,614
Railroad.
Preventative Measures to Stabilize 1,532,001 ..............
Subgrade.
North Dakota:
Red River Valley & Western Rail- Surfacing, Culvert Repair, Installation 1,105,692 1,105,692
road. of Rip Rap.
Freight Car Repair..................... 43,000 ..............
Northern Plains Railroad........... Surfacing, Culvert Repair.............. 951,316 951,316
Installation of Rail, Ballast & Rip Rap 5,620,571 4,057,162
Dakota, Missouri Valley & Western Culvert Repair, Installation of Ballast 1,864,885 1,614,885
Railroad. & Rip Rap.
South Dakota:
State-owned Track.................. Installation of Rock Fill & Rip Rap.... 4,931,000 4,931,000
Bridge Repair, Mud Slide Repair........ 1,250,000 ..............
D&I Railroad....................... Bridge Repair, Installation of Ballast 271,208 271,208
& Rip Rap.
Billing Costs.......................... 13,560 ..............
Sisseton Milbank Railroad.......... Surfacing, Installation of Crossties & 550,942 457,742
Ballast.
Dakota Southern Railway............ Surfacing, Installation of Ballast, 453,571 387,571
Bank Stabilization.
Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern Bridge Repair, Culvert Repair, 2,186,124 1,695,324
Railroad. Installation of Ballast & Rip Rap, Mud
Slide Repair.
West Virginia: South Branch Valley Bridge Repair.......................... 900,000 900,000
Railroad.
-------------------------------
Total............................ ....................................... 25,499,652 18,900,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
need for small railroad capital assistance
Question. Currently, there are no active federal loan programs for
short line and regional railroad projects. The local rail freight
assistance program is also now defunct, though there have been recent
emergency supplemental appropriations for small railroads damaged in
floods. Does the Administration think there is an appropriate role for
Federal infrastructure financing, either through loan mechanisms or
grants, for regional and short line railroads?
Answer. As reflected in NEXTEA, the Administration supports
providing States the flexibility to finance infrastructure investments
in publicly-owned rail freight facilities. States are in a much better
position than the Federal Government to make transportation
infrastructure investment decisions that meet their public needs.
small railroad capital assistance in proposed nextea legislation
Question. Please update the Committee on any House or Senate
provisions in the pending NEXTEA legislation that would authorize
capital financing programs for regional and short line railroads?
Answer. Both BESTEA and ISTEA II authorize funding for Light
Density Rail Line Pilot Projects in States with Rail Plans. The funding
would be provided as a grant to the State. For projects on privately
owned rail lines, a private owner financial contribution, commensurate
with the benefit of the project, would be required. Both Bills require
the Secretary to study the public interest benefits resulting from the
projects funded and their contribution to a multi-modal transportation
system. ISTEA II includes $10 million per year for fiscal years 1998
through 2003. BESTEA provides $25 million per year for fiscal years
1998 through 2003.
BESTEA also includes a provision that repeals the existing loan and
loan guarantee programs under Title V of the Railroad Revitalization
and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976. It creates a new program authorizing
loan and loan guarantees to State and local governments, government
sponsored authorities and corporations, railroads, and joint ventures
that include at least one railroad. The Administration strongly opposes
this proposal. Financing would be available for acquisition,
improvement or rehabilitation of intermodal or rail equipment or
facilities, refinancing of outstanding debt, or development of new
intermodal or railroad facilities. Under this new program, the
estimated long-term cost of the loan or loan guarantee, which the
Credit Reform Act requires to be appropriated, may be provided by a
non-Federal Infrastructure Partner through the payment of a Credit Risk
Premium, in lieu of or in combination with an appropriation. A limit of
no more than $5 billion in obligations may be outstanding at any one
time.
repayment terms for the alameda corridor project
Question. In the fiscal year 1997 Omnibus Consolidated
Appropriations Act, a direct loan of $58,680,000 was provided under the
Section 505 redeemable preference share program. This funding secured a
$400,000,000 loan for the Alameda Corridor rail project. What are the
terms for repayment of the original federal loan? How will these
repayments be credited?
Answer. The fiscal year 1997 Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations
Act allowed DOT to make a direct loan of $400,000,000 to the Alameda
Corridor Transportation Authority (ACTA) to fund in a project intended
to improve the movements of cargo through ports of Los Angeles and Long
Beach, CA. The total cost of the project is $2.1 billion. Other funding
sources include revenue bond proceeds, contributions by the two ports,
local funds, and State funds.
The loan is being disbursed over three years in accordance with the
appropriations act and ACTA's construction schedule, as follows: Fiscal
year 1997, $140,000,000; fiscal year 1998, $140,000,000; and fiscal
year 1999, $120,000,000.
The interest rate for the loan will be set at the 10-year Treasury
rate during the period of construction. Thereafter, the interest rate
would be the 30-year Treasury rate through maturity.
The loan is secured by a rate covenant , and is structured to
include flexible repayment provisions that allow principal and interest
payments to be deferred (with interest) in the event of insufficient
project revenues. The Federal loan's claim on revenues is junior to
that of ACTA's senior bonds, which are expected to be issued in late
1998. The combination of the flexible payment structure and the
subordinate lien will enhance the coverage ratio on ACTA's senior
bonds. This will facilitate ACTA's ability to obtain an investment
grade rating on its bonds, thereby substantially reducing its interest
expense and transaction costs.
alameda corridor project--default risks
Question. What are the risks of default on the federal loan? What
factors may increase those risks? What factors could mitigate those
risks?
Answer. Major infrastructure projects like the Alameda Corridor
face different risks at various points over their life cycle. Most of
the pre-construction risks relating to factors such as litigation
challenges, environmental permitting, and political support have been
successfully surmounted at this date. As the Alameda Corridor
Transportation Authority (ACTA) enters into the construction phase, it
will need to address the risk of cost overruns or completion delays
arising from hidden conditions or unforeseen cost inflation affecting
the bid price for the construction contracts and engineering services.
ACTA is seeking to manage the risk on the largest portion of the
project--the Mid-Corridor segment--by entering into a Design-Build
contract which will stipulate a guaranteed maximum price/guaranteed
completion date.
Upon completion of construction and the opening of the project for
container shipments, the major risk becomes smaller-than-anticipated
net revenues (revenues minus expenses) available to pay debt service.
Operating cost inflation is not a material risk, as the participating
railroads have agreed to pay annually 100 percent of the project's
operating costs. Gross revenues might be reduced if there were a major
and sustained economic downturn in the U.S., or a large decline in
foreign trade shipped through the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach
as a result of overseas economic conditions or domestic competition
from other ports. A downturn in revenues could be cushioned somewhat by
the Ports' ability to increase their container fee schedule by up to 3
percent per annum. Utilization risk is further mitigated by the fact
that the two Ports themselves are responsible for paying 40 percent of
the debt service on ACTA's project revenue bonds and the federal loan.
Competition is unlikely to undermine the San Pedro Bay Ports' dominant
position in ship-borne commerce due to the large population base
residing in the immediate area.
profile of the alameda corridor project
Question. Please provide a summary of the Alameda Corridor project,
including major construction benchmarks, sources and levels of
financing (secured and anticipated), revenue projections, and repayment
schedule.
Answer. The information is attached.
[Clerk's note.--The Alameda Corridor: Semi-Annual Project Status
and Credit Assessment Report does not appear in the hearing record but
is available for review in the subcommittee's files.]
separate funding for the rhode island rail project
Question. Has consideration been given to incorporating this
capital freight project within the Northeast Corridor Improvement
Project? What rationale is there to request funds for this single
capital freight project, and no others?
Answer. The Northeast Corridor Improvement Project (NECIP) was
established by the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of
1976 as a program to undertake those investments in the infrastructure
of the Northeast Corridor necessary to permit safe and reliable
intercity rail passenger service that meets statutorily-established
trip time goals. The Rhode Island Freight Rail Improvement Project
(FRIP), on the other hand, is an initiative to facilitate the economic
development of the Davisville/Quonset Point area of Rhode Island. As a
consequence, the two projects have clearly different goals and the
Administration believes that it is appropriate to request the funds
separately. The rationale behind requesting 50 percent Federal funding
for this particular freight project (the State is obligated to provide
the remainder) goes to the overall regional importance of the
Davisville/Quonset Point development and to the overlap between this
project and the Northeast Corridor for a 22 mile stretch with the
resulting need to insure that the developing freight transportation
requirements do not interfere with Amtrak's efforts to establish high-
speed rail on the Northeast Corridor.
total funding for rhode island rail project
Question. Please provide a funding history of the project,
detailing funding sources, amounts, and project benchmarks, by fiscal
year, from the project's inception to completion.
Answer. A total of $23 million in Federal funds have been
appropriated for the Rhode Island Freight Improvement Project: $5
million in 1995; $1 million in 1996; $7 million in 1997; and, $10
million in 1998. All of these funds require a dollar-for-dollar match
from the State. FRA has included $10 million in its fiscal year 1999
budget request for this project.
Approximately $2.5 million has been expended, to date, for
construction activities and a limited amount of engineering. Most
project implementation activities have been held in abeyance while the
necessary environmental documentation was prepared and the State
received public support through a referendum for bonding authority to
match Federal funds. The latter project prerequisite was completed last
November and the former will be completed this month with the scheduled
publication of the Record of Decision. Significant additional
engineering, materials purchase and construction will be undertaken
during the 1998 work season. A detailed construction schedule is being
prepared with all work scheduled to be completed by late 2001.
alaska railroad capital proposed in nextea
Question. Please update the Committee on any House or Senate
provisions in the pending NEXTEA legislation that would authorize
capital grants to the Alaska Railroad.
Answer. The BESTEA authorizes $5,250,000 for each of fiscal years
1998-2003 in general fund appropriations and $4,800,000 for each of
fiscal years 1998-2003 in fixed guide way modernization funds from the
Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund for capital improvements to
Alaska Railroad passenger operations . The ISTEA II would authorize
States without Amtrak service to spend funds made available from the
Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund on capital improvements
and operating support for intercity rail passenger service.
federal subsidy for amtrak
Question. If Amtrak adheres to its March 1998 Strategic Business
Plan, will the railroad be independent from federal subsidy by 2002?
Answer. The Administration's goal since 1994 has been to eliminate
Amtrak's dependence on Federal operating subsidies by 2002, recognizing
that all forms of transportation receive some measure of Federal
capital investment and that such capital investments in Amtrak would
continue past 2002. If Amtrak's March 1998 Strategic Business plan is
fully funded, as has been proposed in the Administration's fiscal year
1999 budget request, the Corporation would no longer require federal
operating assistance by 2002.
blue ribbon panel recommendations on amtrak
Question. Does the administration's request for $621,000,000 in
capital funds for Amtrak reflect the Blue Ribbon Panel recommendations
to separate Amtrak's infrastructure management from its operations?
Answer. The Administration's request does not reflect the funding
required to implement these recommendations. Instead, the request
reflects the funding required to implement Amtrak's five year strategic
plan, which the Administration believes is the optimal course of action
at this time.
need for legislative action for amtrak flexibility
Question. Please explain the Administration's position that no
specific legislative provision is required to give Amtrak the
flexibility to use the same capital project investment criteria as was
specified for the Federal Transit Administration in Sec. 316 of Public
Law 105-66.
Answer. The capital project investment criteria included in section
316 of the fiscal year 1998 Department of Transportation and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act was required in order to adjust an existing
statutory definition of the term capital project for the purposes of
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funded projects. There is no
similar existing statutory definition of capital project with respect
to the expenditure of appropriated funds by Amtrak for capital
projects. The proposal to give Amtrak the flexibility to use the same
capital project investment criteria as FTA grantees is a reasonable
interpretation of the term ``capital'' as used in Amtrak's authorizing
and appropriating legislation. In addition, Amtrak's authorization
specifically provides that amounts appropriated under the authorization
shall be paid to Amtrak under the budget request of the Secretary as
approved or modified by Congress when the amounts are appropriated (49
U.S.C. 24104). As a result, the Department takes the position that the
language concerning the capital definition in the budget justification
accompanying the Administration's request would be adequate for Amtrak
to conclude that the new capital definition is consistent with both the
intent of Congress and the authorization unless Congress were to
specifically reject this interpretation through the appropriations act.
However, the Administration is willing to work with Congress and to
submit any document needed to secure Congress' blessings.
activities allowed under tra and flexibility definition
Question. For what specific activities does the Taxpayer Relief Act
allow Amtrak to use the 1998 and 1999 tax refund allocations? How does
this differ from activities allowed under the expanded capital
definition the administration is requesting for Amtrak in the fiscal
year 1999 appropriations request?
Answer. Section 977 of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 identifies
the following as qualified expenses for funding provided to Amtrak
under that section: the acquisition of equipment, rolling stock, and
other capital improvements; the upgrading of maintenance facilities;
the maintenance of existing equipment in intercity rail passenger
service; and the payment of interest and principal on obligations
incurred for such acquisition, upgrading and maintenance.
The capital definition applied to projects funded by the Federal
Transit Administration, which the administration proposes to apply to
Amtrak capital grants, would include these activities (with the
exception of payment of interest) as well as the maintenance of
existing infrastructure used for intercity rail passenger service.
new definition--maximum amount of maintenance cost
Question. If the FTA's expanded capital definition were applied to
Amtrak capital, what is the maximum amount of the $621,000,000 in the
fiscal year 1999 request that could be used for maintenance of
equipment, infrastructure and facilities?
Answer. Amtrak estimates that the maximum amount of expenses that
would be incurred for maintenance of equipment, infrastructure and
facilities in fiscal year 1999 and eligible for capital funding under
the FTA's expanded capital definition would total approximately $542
million.
funding control mechanisms for amtrak
Question. What control mechanisms are in place for ensuring that
both TRA and appropriated funds are utilized in a manner consistent
with law?
Answer. There are extensive control mechanisms to assure the
Congress, the Department and Amtrak's Board of Directors, that Amtrak
is using this funding in a manner consistent with law. First, Amtrak
will enter into an agreement with the Internal Revenue Service (for the
TRA funds) and a grant agreement with FRA (for the appropriated funds)
that will establish the allowable uses for these funds and appropriate
reporting requirements. In addition, the fiscal year 1999 budget
proposes that Amtrak be required to deposit the funds it will receive
in fiscal year 1999 under the TRA into the Capital Grant account and to
make release of the TRA funds, as well as the $621 million in fiscal
year 1999 capital appropriations, contingent upon creation of a
thorough and prudent capital investment plan. Next, Amtrak's Inspector
General regularly reviews Amtrak's performance under such agreements
and reports to the Board of Directors (including the Department) on his
findings. The Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act (ARAA) provides for
Department of Transportation's Inspector General to conduct an ongoing
review of Amtrak for each year that Amtrak receives a Federal subsidy.
The ARAA also establishes the independent Amtrak Reform Council which
is required to report to the Congress quarterly on Amtrak's use of TRA
funds. Finally, the GAO undertakes regular reviews of Amtrak's
finances.
income from express pilot program
Question. Please compare the amount of income anticipated from the
express pilot program in fiscal year 1997 and thus far in fiscal year
1998 with the amount of funds actually generated by this program. How
will this shortfall against anticipated income affect Amtrak's net loss
in fiscal year 1998, and what will the Corporation do to mitigate these
losses? What level of income from the express pilot program is
anticipated for fiscal year 1999?
Answer. Amtrak's projected net income from the express pilot
program as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projected net
Fiscal year income Actual
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997................................ ................ -$100,000
1998 (through March 31)............. $12,000,000 -3,100,000
1998................................ \1\ 61,000,000 \2\ 11,100,000
1999................................ \3\ 20,900,000 ................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ September 1997 Business Plan.
\2\ Current projection.
\3\ Fiscal Year 1999 Business Plan.
The fiscal year 1998 business plan shortfall from the express pilot
is factored into Amtrak's projected cash shortfall of $200 million.
Amtrak will mitigate this shortfall through borrowing from its short-
term line of credit and ``borrowing'' short-term from Amtrak's separate
TRA account.
impact of deferring capital grants
Question. Amtrak has traditionally received its capital
appropriation in July of each year. Given that the money contained in
the Administration's budget would not be available until July 1999,
will this create any short-term funding shortfalls and if so, how will
this be addressed?
Answer. If Amtrak did not receive its fiscal year 1999
appropriation until July 1, 1999, it would be required to ``borrow''
from funding made available under the Taxpayer Relief Act during the
first three quarters of fiscal year 1999 to meet expenses that would
otherwise be funded from appropriated funds. The Administration agrees
with Amtrak's position that the TRA funds should be limited to
investments with high returns. Moreover, the delay in not making
appropriated general capital funds available until July 1, has no
material impact on outlays during any given fiscal year. As a
consequence, the Administration does not object to Amtrak's proposal
that the fiscal year 1999 appropriation for general capital be made
available on the first day of fiscal year 1999 and is willing to submit
any document to that effect.
impact of amtrak reform act
Question. The reforms contained in the Amtrak Reform and
Accountability Act of 1997 provide Amtrak with additional flexibility
to address its financial problems. Specifically, how will these reforms
contribute to Amtrak's short-term and long-term financial viability?
Answer. The provision of the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act
of 1997 (ARAA) with the greatest implications for Amtrak's financial
viability is the stated Federal commitment to provide adequate funding
over the next five years, with authorizations totaling $5.163 billion
through fiscal year 2002. This Federal commitment will help Amtrak to
move away from its past ``hand-to-mouth'' existence and allow Amtrak to
make the investments necessary to make the company financial viable in
the long-term while also addressing Amtrak's short-term operating and
maintenance needs. The ARAA also provides Amtrak an increased ability
to act like a private business. The statutory changes contained in
ARAA: repeal the past statutory definitions of the system which Amtrak
must operate; clarify the procedures used to reduce routes and
services; eliminate the requirement that Amtrak provide unprofitable
services requested by States while recognizing that there is a role for
States in supporting services important to them; permit Amtrak to
negotiate with the commuter railroads over the appropriate level of
payments the commuter railroads must make for the use of Amtrak's
Northeast Corridor; and permit Amtrak and its employees to negotiate
over contract provisions addressing possible contracting out of work
performed by Amtrak employees and the appropriate levels of severance
benefits. These ``reforms'' will enhance Amtrak's ability to undertake
needed long-term investments by permitting the Corporation to structure
a system consistent with the transportation market as well as the
national transportation priorities. Amtrak also will be able to improve
the cost-effectiveness of the service it provides. Cumulatively, if all
of the provisions of the ARAA are fully implemented, the Amtrak of five
years from now will be much stronger financially and better positioned
to address the evolving challenges of the next century.
amtrak funding history
Question. Please provide a funding history, by fiscal year, of
Amtrak's federal appropriations and other federal funds from the
Corporation's creation to present.
Answer. The information follows:
[In millions of dollars]
Amtrak Federal
Fiscal year appropriations
1971.......................................................... 40.0
1972.......................................................... 170.0
1973.......................................................... 9.1
1974.......................................................... 140.0
1975.......................................................... 276.5
1976.......................................................... 659.1
1977.......................................................... 800.7
1978.......................................................... 1,116.0
1979.......................................................... 1,234.0
1980.......................................................... 1,223.4
1981.......................................................... 1,246.3
1982.......................................................... 905.0
1983.......................................................... 895.0
1984.......................................................... 816.4
1985.......................................................... 711.6
1986.......................................................... 602.7
1987.......................................................... 624.0
1988.......................................................... 607.5
1989.......................................................... 603.6
1990.......................................................... 629.1
1991.......................................................... 815.1
1992.......................................................... 856.0
1993.......................................................... 891.1
1994.......................................................... 908.7
1995.......................................................... 972.0
1996.......................................................... 750.0
1997.......................................................... 843.0
1998.......................................................... 594.0
1998--Taxpayer Relief Act..................................... 1,092.0
amtrak's end-of-year operating losses
Question. Please provide a table displaying Amtrak's net end-of-
year operating losses, by fiscal year, from the Corporation's creation
to present.
Answer. Amtrak's net end-of-year operating losses between fiscal
year 1971 and fiscal year 1997 (defined as total expenses less total
expenses) were as follows:
[In millions of dollars]
Operating
Fiscal year losses
1971.......................................................... 91.6
1972.......................................................... 150.8
1973.......................................................... 158.6
1974.......................................................... 272.7
1975.......................................................... 352.5
1976.......................................................... 342.6
1977.......................................................... 536.7
1978.......................................................... 581.7
1979.......................................................... 619.8
1980 \1\...................................................... 27.2
1981 \1\...................................................... 179.1
1982.......................................................... 795.1
1983.......................................................... 804.9
1984.......................................................... 763.3
1985.......................................................... 774.3
1986.......................................................... 702.2
1987.......................................................... 698.5
1988.......................................................... 650.4
1989.......................................................... 665.5
1990.......................................................... 703.4
1991.......................................................... 721.6
1992.......................................................... 711.8
1993.......................................................... 731.0
1994.......................................................... 1,076.8
1995.......................................................... 808.2
1996.......................................................... 763.6
1997.......................................................... 761.9
\1\ In fiscal year 1983, Amtrak changed the method of depreciation for
track structures. While the operating loss estimates above reflect the
change for fiscal year 1983 and fiscal year 1982, the effects of that
change on fiscal year 1981 and fiscal year 1980, estimated at $40.9
million, are not included.
Note: Data is in constant dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
amtrak's end-of-year debt load
Question. Please provide a table displaying Amtrak's net end-of-
year debt load, by fiscal year, from the Corporation's creation to
present.
Answer. Amtrak's net end-of-year debt load between fiscal year 1971
and fiscal year 1997 has been as follows:
[In millions of dollars]
Outstanding
Fiscal year debt
1971.......................................................... 25.7
1972.......................................................... 7.1
1973.......................................................... 109.5
1974.......................................................... 297.5
1975.......................................................... 484.9
1976.......................................................... 753.2
1977.......................................................... 762.4
1978.......................................................... 885.9
1979.......................................................... 972.6
1980.......................................................... 1,236.0
1981.......................................................... 1,784.4
1982.......................................................... 2,342.9
1983.......................................................... 2,743.5
1984.......................................................... 3,004.6
1985.......................................................... 3,185.5
1986.......................................................... 23.8
1987.......................................................... 22.7
1988.......................................................... 35.9
1989.......................................................... 126.5
1990.......................................................... 183.8
1991.......................................................... 287.9
1992.......................................................... 418.8
1993.......................................................... 492.3
1994.......................................................... 770.3
1995.......................................................... 836.9
1996.......................................................... 986.9
1997.......................................................... 1,336.4
In fiscal year 1988, two promissory notes, issued by the Federal
Government to fund the acquisition of and improvements to property and
equipment, were reclassified as Federal Paid-In Capital. fiscal year
1986 and fiscal year 1987 debt levels were restated to reflect this
reclassification.
route structure changes
Question. What plans does Amtrak have to adjust its route structure
in calendar 1998, in order to decrease the railroad's operating losses?
What route structure adjustments were made in calendar 1997?
Answer. In calendar 1997, Amtrak eliminated service on the route
from Denver, CO to Portland, OR (the Pioneer) and the route between
Salt Lake City, UT to Los Angeles, CA (the Desert Wind) due to
financial constraints. The only route change presently expected in
calendar 1998 is an extension of the State-supported San Jose, CA to
Roseville, CA Capitols from Roseville to Colfax, CA.
Within existing routes, Amtrak has and will be altering the
frequency of service. In 1997, Amtrak eliminated the demonstration
train, the Gulf Coast Limited, between New Orleans, LA and Mobile, AL
(this route continues to be served by the Sunset Limited), and returned
the following routes to daily service: Chicago, IL to New Orleans, LA
(City of New Orleans), Chicago, IL to Seattle, WA, and Portland, OR
(Empire Builder), and Chicago, IL to Emeryville, CA (California
Zephyr). In addition, the Boston, MA to Washington, D.C. Night Owl
(renamed the Twilight Shoreliner) was extended to Newport News, VA. The
Los Angeles, CA to Sanford, FL Sunset Limited was extended to Orlando,
FL and two additional frequencies of the State-supported San Diegans
were established between Los Angeles, CA and San Diego, CA. Service
adjustments within existing routes that have taken place or will take
place in calendar 1998 are: the addition of two daily frequencies on
the State-supported Capitols between San Jose, CA and Sacramento, CA,
the addition of two weekly frequencies from Chicago, IL to San Antonio,
TX with continuing service to Los Angeles, CA (Texas Eagle), an
additional daily frequency between New York City and Albany, NY,
between Portland, OR and Seattle, WA and from Bakersfield, CA to
Sacramento, CA (San Joaquins), and an additional northbound daily
frequency from Albany , NY and Rutland, VT (Ethan Allen Express).
Amtrak just recently initiated its first-ever major market-driven
review of its system and services. When this study is completed in late
1998, Amtrak's new Board of Directors and management will be in better
position to view route and service structure in the context of meeting
market demand and the long-term financial viability of the Corporation.
loans made to amtrak
Question. Please list the loans made to Amtrak in fiscal year 1997
and thus far in fiscal year 1998 (through March 31). Please include
information on the lending institution, amount of loan, repayment
period, and interest rate.
Answer. The following loans were made to Amtrak in fiscal year 1997
and through the first half of fiscal year 1998:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lenders Amount Loan date Rate (percent) Term
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NationsBank N.A., Kreditanstalt fur $33,800,000 12/23/96 5.5805................. 20 years.
Wideraufbau (KfW).
NationsBank N.A., KfW................ 18,200,000 3/31/97 5.5946................. 19 years.
NationsBank N.A., KfW................ 49,400,000 6/26/97 5.5210................. 20 years.
Norlease Inc., KfW................... 52,000,000 12/23/97 5.5766................. 20 years.
US Bancorp Leasing & Fin., KfW, ING 65,000,000 3/27/97 5.6961................. 19 years.
Lease B.V.
BA Leasing & Capital Corp., KfW, 13,000,000 6/27/97 6.3412................. 17 years.
Columbia Life Insurance Co.,
Security Life of Denver Insurance Co.
BA Leasing & Capital Corp., KfW, 44,200,000 10/17/97 5.91795................ 17 years.
Columbia Life Insurance Co.,
Security Life of Denver Insurance Co.
State of Texas....................... 5,600,000 6/03/97 Floating rate.......... 25 months.
GE Capital Corp...................... 16,700,000 12/30/97 6.4341................. 18 years.
GE Capital Corp...................... 3,800,000 12/30/97 5.5986................. 15 years.
GE Capital Corp., Swiss Reinsurance 96,500,000 12/31/97 5.5980................. 20 years.
America Corp., American Re-Insurance
Co., NAC Reinsurance Co., Universal
Underwriters Insurance Co.,
Chartwell Reinsurance Corp., Everest
Reinsurance Co., Fidelity & Deposit
Co. (MD).
NationsBank, N.A., KfW, Columbine 32,000,000 3/27/98 4.6906................. 17 years.
Life Insurance Co.
Export Development Corp., MBK Rail 700,000,000 12/02/97 Floating rate.......... 20 years.
Finance Corp.
Export Development Corp., MBK Rail 120,000,000 12/02/97 Floating rate.......... 20 years.
Finance Corp.
Bank of America, Bank of Tokyo- 170,000,000 12/18/97 Floating rate.......... 1 year.
Mitsubishi, Chase Manhattan, First
National Bank of MD, Industrial Bank
of Japan, NationsBank, CIBC, Inc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
private bids to purchase amtrak
Question. Please inform the Committee of any pending bids by
private companies to purchase Amtrak lines or run Amtrak operations.
Answer. The FRA is aware of no such bids that could be considered
``pending''. On May 26, 1997, Guilford Transportation Industries, Inc.,
wrote Secretary of Transportation Rodney E. Slater requesting a meeting
with representatives of the Department to begin negotiations for the
sale or lease of Amtrak's Northeast Corridor. The Federal Railroad
Administrator wrote to Guilford's president, David A. Fink, to invite
representatives of that railroad to meet with FRA staff to discuss the
specifics of this proposal. Since there has been no follow-up from
Guilford to set up such a meeting, FRA has concluded that this proposal
is not being actively pursued by the railroad.
scope of amtrak reform council
Question. Please update the Committee on the status of the Amtrak
Reform Council, and summarize the council's scope of responsibility
under the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act.
Answer. Nine of the 11 members of the Amtrak Reform Council (ARC)
have been named; however, no meeting has yet been scheduled. The scope
of the ARC's responsibilities, as defined by Sections 203, 204, and 209
of the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act are: (1) evaluate Amtrak's
performance and make recommendations to Amtrak for achieving further
cost containment and productivity improvements and financial reforms;
(2) monitor savings achieved from work rule changes contained in
Amtrak's new labor agreements and provide Congress with an annual
report on such savings; (3) report quarterly to the Congress on the use
of funding received by Amtrak under Section 977 of the Taxpayer Relief
Act of 1997; and, (4) if the ARC finds at any time after December 2,
1999 that Amtrak's business performance will prevent it from meeting
certain statutorily-established performance goals, inform the President
and Congress of such finding and, within 90 days, prepare and submit to
the Congress an action plan for a restructured and rationalized
national intercity rail passenger system.
status of appointments to the amtrak reform board
Question. Please update the Committee on the status of the
appointment of the new Amtrak Reform Board. What time sensitive trigger
mechanisms are included in the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act
provisions regarding appointment and confirmation of board members?
Answer. The President's nominations for the members of the new
Reform Board of Directors are expected in the near future. If the
committee of jurisdiction has not reported the nominations by June 1,
1998, then the committee will be discharged from further consideration
of the nominations and the nominations will be placed on the Executive
Calendar. It shall then be in order at any time to move to proceed to
the consideration of the nominations without any intervening action or
debate. After no more than 10 hours of debate, the Senate shall then
proceed without intervening action to vote on the nominations. If the
Reform Board has not assumed its responsibilities by July 1, 1998, all
provisions authorizing appropriations for fiscal year 1999 and for
subsequent years cease to be effective.
number of employees at amtrak
Question. How many people are employed by Amtrak? Please provide a
table or chart divided by SBU's, showing all employment centers and
number of employees at each center.
Answer. As of the end of fiscal year 1997, Amtrak had 23,548
employees. This employment was organized as follows:
Number of
Employment center employees
Intercity SBU..................................................... 5,887
Northeast Corridor SBU............................................12,073
Amtrak West SBU................................................... 2,733
Corporate/Service Centers......................................... 2,855
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
Total.......................................................23,548
oa pay-related increases
Question. In the fiscal year 1999 OA budget, $1,117,000 is
characterized as for ``non-discretionary increases''. The pay related
costs are $709,000--an average increase of $4,655 for each of the 152
employees in the Office of the Administrator. Please detail more fully
what these pay-related costs are, and explain why they are ``non-
discretionary''.
Answer. Increase reflects fiscal year 1999 pay raise ($271K),
annualization of the fiscal year 1998 pay raise ($87K), and other pay-
related costs ($351K). Other pay-related costs include within-grades,
adjustments to retirement contributions based on the number of FERS vs
CSRS employees and laws governing federal contributions for each
retirement system, merit bonuses, terminal leave payouts and overtime.
These costs are non-discretionary as they are governed by law and
as such, FRA must pay them. The Office of the Administrator account
does not have sufficient funds in the non-pay categories to absorb
these increases.
oa non-pay increases
Question. The other component of ``non-discretionary increases'' is
$408,000 for communications, computer, and information technology
systems. Please detail these expenditures. How much is for telephone
and communications costs? How much is for computer systems, i.e., to
replace and upgrade hardware and software and to enhance automation
systems? How much is for technology systems and information technology?
Please prepare a table of each of these expenditures for the last five
years. Why are these costs ``non-discretionary''.
Answer. The following table details OA's fiscal year 1999 non-
discretionary increase of $408 thousand:
Object class Net change
Travel........................................................ $52,000
Rent/Communications........................................... -175,000
Contractual Services \1\...................................... 421,000
Supplies...................................................... 26,000
Equipment..................................................... 101,000
Grants........................................................ -17,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 408,000
\1\ Includes contracts, consulting services, TASC, common services,
agreements, information technology, and other.
Of the $408 thousand, $203 thousand will support information
technology.
These costs are non-discretionary as they reflect known adjustments
to fiscal year 1998 and must be paid if services/products are to be
procured. Adjustments include inflation, vendor/contract increases, GSA
rate increases, increased utilities costs, and/or other support needed
to maintain on-going work in support of FRA's program offices. The OA
account does not have sufficient funds to absorb these increases, nor
can it operate at a reduced level without compromising current
productivity levels.
The following table details OA expenditures in these object classes
for the past five years:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
Object class ------------------------------------------------------
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Travel................................................... 271 210 274 192 217
Rent/Comm................................................ 36 42 45 43 311
Contract Services........................................ 3,249 2,690 2,577 2,879 2,575
Supplies................................................. 188 196 695 218 162
Equipment................................................ 312 579 1,493 238 683
Grants................................................... 4,763 529 2,977 485 27
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
oa unobligated balances
Question. Please identify any unobligated balances in the Office of
the Administrator.
Answer. FRA projects an unobligated balance of $2.105 million. This
includes $935 thousand earmarked for Alaska Railroad Liabilities,
specifically the environmental compliance project which is still active
and not settled, and approximately $1.170 million held in reserve for
the annual mortgage payment of the Washington Union Station.
Appropriation language states that FRA is responsible for payment on
the first deed of trust from OA unobligated balances if the Union
Station Redevelopment Corporation cannot make the payment.
personnel in the safety law division
Question. Please prepare a table for each of the last three years
indicating the number of personnel in the Safety Division of the Office
of the Chief Counsel.
Answer. The information follows: 1995, 27 employees; 1996, 27
employees; and 1997, 27 employees.
In addition to the members of the Safety Law Division, a senior
member of the General Law Division serves as Hearing Officer for
engineer qualifications appeals and both the Chief Counsel and the
Deputy Chief Counsel spend large amounts of their time on safety
matters.
additional appropriations for compliance 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 1999 proposed budget and
discuss the amounts actually used in fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year
1998 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 in last three years
Question. For each of the last three years, please prepare a table
describing the number of enforcement actions, the amount of civil
penalty assessments 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 information follows:
CIVIL PENALTY ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS, FISCAL YEARS 1995-97
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cases Dollars Cases Dollars
Fiscal year transmitted assessed closed \1\ collected
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995................................................... 1,447 $10,897,600 1,313 $5,230,044
1996................................................... 827 5,157,500 970 3,588,765
1997................................................... 1,014 7,514,750 846 3,792,380
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Many cases are closed in years after the year they were transmitted. Accordingly, the cases transmitted and
cases closed are largely groups of cases.
PERCENTAGE OF VIOLATION REPORTS SUBMITTED BY STATE/FEDERAL INSPECTORS,
FISCAL YEARS 1995-97
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
--------------------------
1995 1996 1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Inspectors........................... 91 91 88
State Inspectors............................. 9 9 12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VIOLATION REPORTS SUBMITTED BY TYPE, FISCAL YEARS 1995-97
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
Type --------------------------
1995 1996 1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AD........................................... 30 30 95
AR........................................... 84 41 128
BW........................................... 5 5 1
EO........................................... 11 ....... .......
EP........................................... ....... 2 5
EQ........................................... 48 18 29
FCS.......................................... 276 204 225
GC........................................... ....... 2 20
GS........................................... ....... 1 .......
HMT.......................................... 419 273 359
HS........................................... 1,440 148 222
HSR.......................................... 335 76 453
LI........................................... 280 194 376
NE........................................... 3 ....... .......
REM.......................................... 19 9 16
ROP.......................................... 53 32 25
ROR.......................................... 3 ....... 4
RSP.......................................... 13 9 13
RW........................................... ....... ....... 4
SA........................................... 411 242 584
SI........................................... 86 74 77
TS........................................... 82 55 69
--------------------------
Total.................................. 3,598 1,415 2,707
------------------------------------------------------------------------
policy and immediate office fte's
Question. For each of the last three years, please list separately
the number of FTE's in the Office of Policy and Program Development as
well as in the Immediate Office of the Administrator.
Answer. The information follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------------
Office 1998
1995 1996 1997 estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of Policy................... 30 28 23 22
Immediate Office................... 11 10 10 10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
oa--contract support
Question. For each of the last three years, please list the amount
actually spent on technical assistance and contractor support for the
Office of the Administrator and compare these amounts to the amount
appropriated for the activity.
Answer. The information follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
Contract support --------------------------------------
1995 1996 1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enacted.......................... $651,000 $578,000 $549,000
Actual obligations............... \1\ 744,000 355,000 417,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes carryover funds.
office of the administrator
Question. Is FRA the only DOT agency participating in the new
electronic grant pilot project? Is this a multi-year effort? If not,
have other agencies requested additional funding for this project?
Answer. FRA is not the only DOT agency participating in this
project. The electronic grant pilot project is a Department-wide
initiative, funded by all DOT agencies. This is a multi-year effort and
all DOT agencies have requested funding in fiscal year 1999.
oa--non-pay increases
Question. What is the empirical basis for the $853,000 requested on
page 18 for inflation/vendor increases? How was this amount determined?
Answer. Using the fiscal year 1998 Enacted as the base level, FRA
calculates inflation (2.3 percent) increases for those budget line
items that are inflation sensitive such as travel, rent, contracts,
training, and information technology. FRA then reviews all on-going
services or contracts to see if increases are automatically built in
for the coming year or if vendors are planning to raise their prices in
the coming year. Finally, FRA determines if any other factors may
increase on-going work. For example, in the OA Offices, FRA may be
funding the same number of training courses in fiscal year 1999 as in
fiscal year 1998, however, the courses may cost more (or less) in
fiscal year 1999. FRA may have the same number of computers but plan to
use them more or differently in fiscal year 1999, driving costs up.
Increases in paper, postage, air rates, GSA rates for travel and per
diem, OST agreements, or policy directives can affect the costs even if
current services are maintained and not expanded.
It should be noted that the increase of $853K is offset by non-
recurring costs of $445K for a net increase of $408K. FRA is as
diligent tracking cost reductions as it is with cost increases.
In addition, almost all of the non-pay object classes in the OA
show an fiscal year 1999 estimate that is either equal to or lower than
the fiscal year 1997 actual or the fiscal year 1998 estimate.
funding and projects of civil rights office
Question. For each of the last three years, please specify the
amount appropriated and the amount spent for civil rights activities.
How much is requested for fiscal year 1999? Please list the civil
rights activities which have been completed for each of the last three
years. What activities are planned for fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The following table provides expenditures and appropriated
funding for the last three years for civil rights activities:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-----------------------------------------------
1995 1996 1997
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriated.................................................... $244,000 $256,000 $260,000
Actual Expenditures............................................. 238,000 250,000 257,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FRA is requesting $301 thousand for fiscal year 1999.
Fiscal year 1995
An action plan for enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities
Act was developed.
In accordance with the Federal Railroad Administration's Federal
Assistance program, twenty-seven out of forty-three recipients'
affirmative action programs were reviewed by desk audit. These reviews
were performed in order to determine compliance with regulatory
requirements, 49 CFR part 265.
The FRA Office of Civil Rights, authorized by the Railroad
Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act, monitored the performance of,
and assisted recipient railroads doing business with minority and
Women-owned business enterprises. One of the recipients, the National
Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), surpassed its dollar goal
commitment of $65 million for fiscal year 1995 by awarding $77.5
million to minority and women-owned businesses. This reflected 119
percent for dollar goals achieved. Their overall contract dollars
awarded totaled $470.5 million, reflecting 16 percent for minority
participation. Since 1990, Amtrak has consistently exceeded its MBE/WBE
contract dollar goal for minority participation.
Fiscal year 1996
The MBE/WBE contract dollar goal for fiscal year 1996 was $160.5
million. Contract dollars awarded to MBE's/WBE's for fiscal year 1996
totaled $208.9 million, reflecting 131 percent of the total dollar
goals achieved. The overall contract dollars awarded totaled $1.8
billion, reflecting 11 percent for minority participation. Contract
dollars awarded to women-owned businesses (White) totaled $110.8
million and $98 million to other minority concerns.
The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) surpassed its
dollar goal commitment of $70 million for fiscal year 1996 by awarding
$102.5 million to minority and women-owned businesses. This reflected
147 percent for dollar goals achieved. Their overall contract dollars
awarded totaled $585.6 million, 18 percent for minority participation.
Amtrak awarded $37.2 million to women-owned businesses (White) and
$65.2 million to other minority concerns. Since 1990, Amtrak has
consistently exceeded its MBE/WBE contract dollar goal for minority
participation.
Fiscal year 1997
In accordance with the Civil Rights Offices' Customer Service Plan,
the Office shared with its internal and external customers pertinent
equal employment opportunity (EEO) documents and information which
impact minorities and women in the work force and the EEO program.
Subject information included reports on Sexual Harassment, ``Glass
Ceiling'' and FRA's Affirmative Employment Program.
Coordinated two guest speakers from FRA's Transportation Partners
to participate in a panel discussion at Secretary Slater's Garrett A.
Morgan Technology and Transportation Futures Program Roundtable on
October 30, 1997.
A staff member represented FRA on the Garrett Morgan Internet
Committee where the agency's Garrett A. Morgan website and the
Department's Garrett A Morgan homepage was undertaken and completed.
Staff member participated in two events, in support of the Garrett
A. Morgan Initiative. Approximately forty students, ages 11 to 17
represented the Association of Renewal in education, and the 1997
Pathways to Freedom Programs.
Civil Rights staff worked with Amtrak's Office of Consumer Affairs
to process Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) complaints. Newly
established procedures agreed upon by the Civil Rights Office and
Amtrak's Regulatory Affairs office are beginning to work, by decreasing
the time necessary to process ADA complaints involving Amtrak's vast
rail network.
The vetoed fiscal year 1997 Supplemental Appropriations bill
included funding for repair of flood-damaged shortline and regional
railroad track in the Northern Plain States. In anticipation of
enactment of the Bill, review of Affirmative Action Plans for the
States of Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota was completed.
Fiscal years 1998 and 1999
In partnership with the Departmental Office of Civil Rights, FRA's
Office of Civil Rights is currently reassessing its programs and
policies and the way its conducts business. Civil Rights is partnering
with the Office of Human Resources in the implementation and expansion
of the Diversity Management Program, Title IX of the Education
Amendments Act of 1972 and the Summer Internship Program. The FRA
sought feedback from the Departmental Office of Civil Rights, in
restructuring a position description for the Director of Civil Rights
to reflect current law, regulations and the Secretary's initiatives. A
broad spectrum recruitment effort will be used to fill the vacant Civil
Rights Office position.
Additionally, the Office of Civil Rights plans to continue its
support of the Garrett A. Morgan outreach efforts with Transportation
partners, Community Organizations and Schools. Currently, research is
underway searching for the best EEO training consultant firm in order
to provide EEO Awareness training for managers and supervisors.
Further, EEO Counseling training for FRA Counselors is scheduled during
the last quarter of fiscal year 1998. The office is in the process of
establishing better lines of communication with FRA's EEO counselors by
establishing quarterly conference calls to discuss potential problems,
current counseling activity and their monthly reporting requirements.
In fiscal year 1999, the office will engage managers in the overall
development of the agency Affirmative Employment Program.
garrett a. morgan program
Question. How has the FRA participated in the Garrett A. Morgan
program during fiscal year 1998? What is planned for fiscal year 1999?
Answer. FRA did not contribute any funds for this program in fiscal
year 1998 or fiscal year 1999. However, FRA will participate in the
following activities:
Fiscal year 1998
Completion of FRA's Garrett A. Morgan technology and Transportation
Futures Program web site.
Presentations relating to the initiative and outreach efforts to
over three thousand middle school, high school, and college students,
and Transportation partners.
Donations of surplus computers from FRA Headquarters and Regional
offices. In the regions, this has allowed inner city schools to
establish computer labs.
Participation in High School and College Career Fairs. Tours of
Amtrak's Maintenance Facility.
Mentoring and tutoring by regional personnel. These efforts will
continue into fiscal year 1999.
Fiscal year 1999
Partnering with Regional offices to enhance intermodal Garrett A.
Morgan activities.
Integration of Garrett A. Morgan, Trespasser Prevention, Buckle-Up
America, and Rail Safety and Transportation-related career
presentations.
Development of outreach campaigns for grades K-12 in the areas of:
Interactive Web Page, Administrator's Safety Ambassadors Pledge-
Certifications of Accomplishment, Local Partnerships with
Transportation, Health, Education, Media, and Business Partners (Field
trips, Guest Speakers, donated time and money).
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, thus far in fiscal year 1998, and what is planned for
fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The Office of Policy and Program Development has the lead
role for the Federal Railroad Administration, and the Department, in
several areas: rail structural and industry analysis (mergers);
economic regulation; 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 played a significant role in development of the Department's
proposal for reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act, and continues to develop tools to assist states in
evaluating the costs and benefits of rail projects, under the current
ISTEA.
Structural Analysis.--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. Staff analyzed and
developed the DOT's position on the merger of the Union Pacific and the
Southern Pacific railroads; during fiscal year 1997 and 1998, the
Office is continuing to assess the competitive issues associated with
the consolidation, as an active participant in the Surface
Transportation Board's oversight proceedings. During fiscal year 1997
and thus far in fiscal year 1998, they similarly led the DOT analysis
of the proposed acquisition of Conrail by the Norfolk Southern and CSXT
railroads. As a result of the service and safety problems that
developed after the Union Pacific/Southern Pacific merger, the Office
is initiating development of an ``early warning'' system designed to
alert FRA and DOT to potential problems with the Conrail transaction,
as well as with the rail system in general. This work will begin in
fiscal year 1998 and continue in fiscal year 1999.
In fiscal year 1997, the Office had the lead for the Department in
assessing the impact of a potential strike on Amtrak; strike impact
analyses produced by the Office are used by the National Mediation
Board and the White House to determine the need for a Presidential
Emergency Board, or for legislation to end a strike.
Much of the data (traffic, financial, and general economic) that
supports this and other policy analyses are acquired, compiled, and
funded as explained below.
Economic Regulation.--In addition to continuing work on the
competitive aspects of the UP/SP merger in fiscal year 1998 and 1999,
the Policy Office will have the lead in developing DOT's views on
Surface Transportation Board reauthorization, potential legislative
changes to the Staggers Rail Act, and any administrative changes
proposed by the STB. This will include assessing the issues of
competitive access, product and geographic competition and revenue
adequacy.
The Office is an active participant in the Department's ongoing
analysis of the impacts of potential truck size and weight changes. In
fiscal year 1997 and continuing in 1998, staff worked with FHWA to
recalibrate the Department's traffic diversion model; additionally,
Policy Office staff is assessing the effects of various truck size and
weight scenarios on rail revenues and traffic levels, as well as on
rates for shippers whose traffic would remain on the rail system. These
analyses will be incorporated into the Department's report, due to be
published in the Fall of 1998.
Rail Network Geographic Information System (GIS).--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 1998 and fiscal year 1999 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.
ISTEA.--In fiscal year 1997 and continuing in 1998, the Office of
Policy and Program Development continues to lead FRA's participation
with the rest of the Department on reauthorization of the Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). FRA was successful in
including flexibility for states and localities to fund some types of
rail passenger and rail freight projects in the Administration's
legislative proposal; the Senate legislation incorporates some aspects
of the Administration's proposal. In fiscal year 1999, FRA anticipates
working with other parts of the Department, and with states and MPO's,
to implement the rail and intermodal aspects of the reauthorized
legislation.
Analytic Tools Development.--The Office of Policy and Program
Development has funded the development of a computerized model
(RailDec) to assess the public and private costs and benefits of rail
and rail-related 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 the model was modified to better
include projects directly related to rail/highway crossings. Work in
fiscal year 1998 includes further refinements, as well as additional
workshops and other instructional sessions with states and MPO's. Once
ISTEA legislation is reauthorized, the Office will assess the rail and
intermodal aspects of the new program to determine what additional
tools and training should be developed in fiscal year 1999.
National Defense (STRACNET).--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.
Operation Respond.--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 1998 and fiscal
year 1999 will expand these efforts to other localities in the United
States and also broaden the railroad base to include short line
carriers. Starting in fiscal year 1999 Operation Respond oversight will
transfer from the Office of Policy and Program Development to the
Office of Safety.
Waybill Sample Creation.--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 (Office of Policy and Program
Development--item ``Contract Support,'' subitem ``Waybill Sample'') 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.
Economic and Financial Data.--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, as well as in the rail chapter of the Department of
Commerce's annual Industrial Outlook, written by Office of Policy and
Program Development staff.
oa other services
Question. Please delineate on a contract-by-contract basis how the
object classification line item 25.2 ``other services'' was allocated
in fiscal year 1997 ($1,576,000); and will be allocated in fiscal year
1998 ($5,181,000); and what services are included in the fiscal year
1999 request ($2,455,000)
Answer. The information follows:
[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
--------------------------------------
Category 1998 1999
1997 actual estimate estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contracts........................ $346 \1\ $3,886 $703
Common Services.................. 34 61 53
Agreements....................... 177 164 \2\ 385
Information Technology........... 346 959 1,075
Other............................ 673 111 239
--------------------------------------
Total...................... 1,576 \1\ 5,181 2,455
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes carryover funds.
\2\ Includes $200K for the Electronic Grants Pilot Project.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
safety performance
Question. Please prepare a table indicating the amount allocated
and the amount actually appropriated for the four programs in the
Safety Performance Standards Budget for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and
1998.
Answer. Below is a budget comparison table for fiscal years 1996,
1997, and 1998.
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996 1996 1997 1997 1998 1998
Programs Request Approp Request Approp Request Approp
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle Safety...................................... 850 642 589 929 929 929
New Car Assess...................................... 2,792 1,707 3,542 2,786 2,786 2,786
Fuel Economy........................................ 2,285 118 1,560 60 60 60
Theft & Consumer.................................... 110 106 50 50 50 50
Motor Vehicle Title Info............................ \1\ 890 ........ ........ ........ ........
-----------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL......................................... 6,037 3,463 5,741 3,825 3,825 3,825
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funds administered by Traffic Safety Programs (pilot demo).
Question. Please prepare a table for each of the five components of
the Safety Performance Standards Program, showing how all of the funds
requested for fiscal year 1999 are intended to be spent, and please
include in that table a comparison with the amount provided for
comparable activities for fiscal year 1998.
Answer. Below are the comparison tables for the Safety Performance
Standards Program for fiscal year 1998 and 1999.
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Fiscal
year year
1998 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAFETY STANDARDS SUPPORT:
Quick Reaction Testing.......................... 414 218
Cost and Lead time Analysis..................... 75 150
Consumer Information............................ 100 ........
Off-Set Frontal Testing......................... 340 340
-------------------
TOTAL......................................... 929 708
===================
CONSUMER INFORMATION:
NCAP and other consumer information materials... 114 347
``Buying A Safer Car'' and ``Buying A Safer Car 103 150
For Child Passengers'' brochures and marketing.
New materials for other program areas such as ........ 150
anti-lock brakes, rollover, theft prevention
and the development of a summary
crashworthiness measure for new vehicles.......
Research on consumer needs for vehicle safety 105 100
information....................................
Develop improvements in current consumer 25 67
information....................................
-------------------
TOTAL......................................... \1\ 347 814
===================
NEW CAR ASSESSMENT PROGRAM:
Frontal NCAP.................................... 1,777 2,551
Side NCAP....................................... 762 1,701
NCAP Promotional Program........................ 247 ........
NCAP 5th percent Female Dummy Testing........... ........ 604
Crash Avoidance Demonstration Program........... ........ 200
-------------------
TOTAL......................................... 2,786 5,056
===================
FUEL ECONOMY PROGRAM: Fuel Economy Analysis......... 60 60
===================
THEFT PROGRAM: Theft Analysis....................... 50 30
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The fiscal year 1998 request includes the $100,000 allocated under
Vehicle Safety Standards and Consumer Support for consumer information
and the $247,000 allocated under NCAP for NCAP promotional activities.
Question. Please list the purpose, amount and recipients of your
contracts over $50,000 issued during fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year
1997.
Answer. Below is a list of contracts over $50,000 issued during
fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1997.
Description Amount
Fiscal year 1997 contracts:
Study the feasibility of possible upgrade to FMVSS No.
218, Motorcycle Helmets--University of Southern
California, 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........................................... 71,778
9 frontal barrier crash tests for MY 97 NCAP--Karco
Engineering............................................. 198,893
8 frontal barrier crash tests for MY 98 NCAP--Calspan..... 144,840
11 side impact tests for MY 97 NCAP--MGA Research Corpora-
tion.................................................... 188,340
16 side impact tests for MY 97 NCAP--MGA Research Corpora-
tion.................................................... 262,288
6 side impact tests for MY 98 NCAP--MGA Research
Corporation............................................. 112,152
8 offset frontal tests--Karco............................. 160,456
Quality assurance for NCAP data--Conrad Technologies...... 97,000
Conduct a series of focus groups on air-bag labels--Global
Exchange, Inc........................................... 53,622
Cost, weight, and lead time analysis of advanced air bag
systems--Ludtke and Associates.......................... 65,585
Computer and other support for rulemaking activities--Dell
Computer, Information Management Consultants, Treadway
Corporation............................................. 226,971
Fiscal year 1998 contracts awarded to date:
14 side impact tests for MY 98 NCAP--MGA Research
Corporation............................................. 255,068
6 frontal barrier crash tests for MY 98 NCAP--MGA Research
Corporation............................................. 163,206
16 frontal barrier crash tests for MY 98 NCAP--Calspan.... 273,105
11 frontal barrier crash tests for MY 98 NCAP--Karco
Engineer-
ing..................................................... 214,896
6 frontal barrier crash tests for MY 98 NCAP--
Transportation Research Center.......................... 154,878
Computer support for rulemaking activities--Information
Management Consultants.................................. 53,410
Question. What is the number and nature of the key rulemaking
activities that are now before NHTSA?
Answer. Of the current 128 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. For the record, please prepare a list of all final
rulemakings that have been issued since you submitted a similar list
last year.
Answer. Below is a list of final rulemakings that have been issued
from June 1997 through April 1998.
1997
49 CFR--Description
571.101.--In response to the President's Regulatory Reinventing
Initiative, the agency removed two tables and certain regulatory text,
all of which applied to motor vehicles manufactured before 9/1/89.
571.105; 571.135.--Accommodated the unique characteristic of brake
systems on electric vehicles.
571.105; 571.135.--Extended requirements to trucks, buses, and
multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating
(GVWR) of 3,500 kilograms or less in an effort to achieve international
harmonization.
571.208.--Extended the time period during which vehicle
manufacturers are permitted to offer manual on-off 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.
571.208; 571.201.--Interim final rule allowing unbelted sled test
protocol as a temporary alternative to the full scale unbelted barrier
crash test.
571.213.--Interim final rule allowing the phrase ``unless air bag
is off'' to be added to the warning label for child seats which can be
used in a rear-facing position (``rear-facing child seats'').
572.--In response to a petition for rulemaking, the agency
published a technical amendment correcting the specifications of the
characteristics of a test dummy representing a six-year-old child.
583.--In response to petitions for reconsideration, the agency
extended for two years a limited temporary provision in its content
calculation procedures to provide vehicle manufacturers added
flexibility in making content determinations where outside suppliers
have not responded to requests for content information.
1998
49 CFR--Description
571.105.--In response to petitions for reconsideration, allows
hydraulically-braked vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR)
greater than 10,000 pounds, but less than 19,501 pounds, to be equipped
with a single wheel speed sensor in the drive line to control wheel
slip at the drive axle and allows rear tag axles to lock up. In
addition, this allows motor homes with a GVWR of 22,500 pounds or less
to use a single rear drive axle wheel speed sensor if they are
manufactured before March 1, 2001, after which new motor homes must
meet the same antilock braking system (ABS) requirements as other
hydraulically-braked trucks and buses.
571.108.--In response to a petition for rulemaking, allows white
reflex reflectors designed to be mounted horizontally in trailer and
truck tractor conspicuity treatments to be mounted vertically in upper
rear corner locations if they comply with appropriate photometric
requirements for off-axis light entrance angles.
571.121.--In response to petitions for reconsideration, allows an
alternate placement of the external antilock braking system (ABS)
malfunction indicator lamp on trailers that have limited or non-
existent structures to which the lamp and associated wiring can be
attached.
571.208.--In response to a petition for rulemaking, amended the
requirements for seat belts at forward-facing rear outboard seating
positions of police cars and other law enforcement vehicles to
facilitate the transporting of prisoners.
571.208.--Corrects the language of the regulatory text to clarify
the requirement of a key specifically matched to the on-off switch and
how the readiness indicator should function when one or both air bags
have been deactivated by means of the on-off switch and corrected a
clerical error.
571.223; 571.224.--In response to petitions for reconsideration,
clarified the 100 mm (4 inch) height requirement for the horizontal
member of an underride guard, explicitly exclude from having to meet
the energy absorption requirements all cargo tank motor vehicles
manufactured with rear end protection complying with the high strength
requirements of 49 CFR part 178 (to protect hazardous material) that
occupies the area specified for the underride guard, and increases the
acceptable range of force application rates during testing. This
excludes pulpwood trailers from the application of the vehicle
standard.
572.--In response to petitions for reconsideration, made minor
modifications in the dummy's femurs and ankles to improve biofidelity.
533.--Established the average fuel economy standard for light
trucks manufactured in model year (MY) 2000 at 20.7 mpg.
Question. How much do you plan to spend or did you spend on all
consumer-related information activities in fiscal year 1997 and in
fiscal year 1998 relevant to the Safety Performance Program?
Answer. In fiscal year 1997 we spent $347,000 for consumer-related
information activities. In fiscal year 1998 we plan to spend $347,000
for consumer-related information activities. These activities include
research, marketing, materials development and dissemination, and
outreach for the purpose of developing and delivering motor vehicle
safety information to consumers.
Question. Please break down how the $814,000 requested in fiscal
year 1999 will be allocated for consumer-related information programs.
What is the empirical basis for this request?
Answer. The requested $814,000 will be allocated as follows:
--$347,000 will be spent to consolidate the vehicle consumer
information program by including the amount of funds from the
NCAP and Vehicle Safety and Consumer Standards budgets that
were allocated to support consumer information activities in
fiscal year 1998. These funds will continue present NCAP and
other consumer information materials development and
dissemination.
--$150,000 will be used to increase the distribution, marketing, and
outreach for the ``Buying A Safer Car'' and ``Buying A Safer
Car For Child Passengers'' brochures and other current consumer
information materials that are produced. The program will
emphasize outreach to new partners and constituents such as
National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA), child safety
advocates, the public health community, and consumer groups. It
will take advantage of new technologies and communications
strategies such as the Internet to increase the public's
awareness and use of motor vehicle safety information.
--$150,000 will be spent for the agency to work with its partners to
pursue the development of a summary crashworthiness measure for
new vehicles. New materials for other program areas such as
anti-lock brakes, rollover, theft prevention and previously
owned vehicles will also be developed and disseminated to
consumers.
--$100,000 will be spent for research to determine what vehicle
safety information is most helpful to consumers, how it can be
presented, and the most effective means of disseminating it.
This research will provide the basis for the development of
summary ratings, and other new campaigns and materials for
issues such as rollover, antilock brakes, safety cards, and
previously owned vehicles.
--$67,000 will be spent to examine the information currently provided
by the agency to determine how its presentation and usefulness
can be improved. This includes initiatives to improve warning
labels, public service announcements and brochures.
The empirical basis for this request is previous experience with
the NCAP program and other highway safety information programs, and an
assessment of the level of effort required to address the
recommendations contained in the National Academy of Science's (NAS)
study ``Shopping for Safety.'' The NAS study recommends a level of
$300,000 for research, alone. At the current budget levels, we are only
able to print 200,000 to 250,000 ``Buying A Safer Car'' brochures, and
100,000 to 150,000 ``Buying A Safer Car For Child Passengers''
brochures. We do not have in the present budget the ability to plan,
produce and market other materials on proper usage and other required
issues, of critical interest to consumers.
Question. Why does it take money to develop strategies for engaging
the participation of key public and private sector organizations in the
development of consumer information related to safety performance
standards?
Answer. Establishing partnerships is key to NHTSA's efforts to
improve the development and delivery of motor vehicle safety consumer
information. Partners contribute technical expertise, distribution
channels, and funding or ``in-kind'' support. Unfortunately, because of
competing interests and/or a lack of familiarity with the issue,
prospective partners often do not readily agree to engage in
partnerships. Therefore, developing strategies for engaging the
participation of key public and private sector organizations in the
development and dissemination of motor vehicle safety consumer
information is necessarily a complicated and resource intensive
activity. By contracting with expert marketing and communications firms
who are knowledgeable and experienced in targeting and recruiting
partners (including the development of materials that market the
proposed partnership), NHTSA is much more likely to be successful in
its effort to establish multiple partnerships. These partnerships will
help improve the quality of the consumer information materials that are
developed and will significantly expand their distribution to the
public.
vehicle safety and consumer standards program
Question. What is the status of your efforts to develop a federal
motor vehicle safety standard for frontal offset crash testing?
Answer. Congress provided $340,000 in fiscal year 1997 and again in
fiscal year 1998 to conduct tests and studies. To date, the testing and
studies have been directed at determining the potential for harmonizing
any offset requirements with those of Europe and to evaluate the
potential use of the 5th percentile female dummy in crash test
standards. After the completion of the second phase of testing of 8
tests on 3 additional vehicles with depowered air bags, the agency
plans to initiate rulemaking.
NHTSA is following the plan in a June 1997 Offset Frontal report to
Congress. This report is in docket NHTSA-1998-3332 and is also
available on the NHTSA Website. NHTSA has completed the first eight
tests in the frontal offset testing program, as proposed in the report
to Congress. These tests include: 2 offset tests with 50th percentile
male dummies; 3 offset tests with 5th percentile female dummies; and
3--FMVSS 208-type barrier tests with 5th percentile unrestrained female
dummies. NHTSA will provide a status report to Congress on the results
of these tests later this spring. These test reports also are available
in docket NHTSA-1998-3332.
Question. What additional activities are planned during fiscal year
1998 to investigate the potential of establishing an offset frontal
standard? How much is planned to be allocated towards that objective?
Answer. NHTSA will continue to evaluate the potential for
harmonizing any offset requirements with those of Europe and to
evaluate the potential use of the 5th percentile female dummy in crash
test standards with additional vehicles from the overall fleet that
have the new depowered air bags. NHTSA plans to conduct 8 tests with 3
depowered air bag vehicles in summer of 1998, using $340,000 in fiscal
year 1998 funds. NHTSA plans to complete the analysis of the data from
the testing conducted with fiscal year 1997 funding. NHTSA plans to
prepare a report to Congress on the results of this initial testing by
June 1998.
Question. What additional activities are planned during fiscal year
1999 to investigate the potential of establishing an offset frontal
standard? How much is planned to be allocated towards that objective?
Answer. NHTSA plans to get the rulemaking process underway in
fiscal year 1999; NHTSA will be challenged by commenters and questioned
on technical questions. For example, the agency may be challenged that
not enough offset testing was completed to project the benefit of
extending offset testing to the fleet of vehicles sold in the U.S. The
offset testing in fiscal year 1999 will address the technical issues
that will arise.
new car assessment program
Question. Are you planning to change the way that crashworthiness
information is provided to consumers? If so, how? How will it improve
matters?
Answer. Yes, the agency intends to change and improve the way that
crashworthiness information is provided to consumers. Crashworthiness
information is presently disseminated through the NHTSA Hotline, the
NHTSA web page, and in the ``Buying A Safer Car'' brochure, which is
also distributed by AAA. As recommended by the NAS study ``Shopping For
Safety'', the Agency will implement a research based multi-channeled
approach to providing crashworthiness information to consumers.
Enhanced consumer information campaigns will be developed for the NCAP
program and for its companion piece, the ``Buying A Safer Car For Child
Passengers'' brochure. Marketing plans will be developed for NCAP and
other programs and products that include consumer research, marketing
strategies, materials development and dissemination, media outreach,
establishment of partnerships, and evaluation. Products will include a
video news release, radio public service announcements, media kits, and
other executions as appropriate. NHTSA will also develop and implement
a marketing plan to make previous years NCAP information available to
prospective purchasers of previously owned vehicles. The agency will
emphasize outreach to new partners and constituents such as NADA, child
safety advocates, the public health community, and consumer groups. The
agency will also take full advantage of new technologies such as the
Internet. The result will be improved distribution and promotion of
NCAP information and material and a wider and more thorough consumer
exposure and awareness of NCAP ratings and of the agency as a credible
source of motor vehicle safety information.
Question. The fiscal year 1998 budget earmarked $247,000 for
promoting and distributing safety information to consumers regarding
NCAP. Did you subtract $247,000 out of the fiscal year 1998 base
request for NCAP or is that amount double funded under the new consumer
information initiative?
Answer. The fiscal year 1999 budget request for NCAP of $5,056
thousand does not include an amount for promoting and distributing
safety information to consumers regarding NCAP. Those activities are
included only in the $814 thousand request for the new consumer
information initiative. The increased budget request for NCAP will
increase the number of tests which can be conducted and investigate the
feasibility of extending testing to adults of small stature. The
increased testing would benefit consumers by providing them with safety
information on a greater proportion of the fleet. Testing with a dummy
of a small stature will benefits consumers by providing them with
safety information on a greater proportion of the population.
Question. In extensive detail, please break down by each major
activity how you would spend the $5.06 million requested for NCAP.
Please compare that breakdown to last year's spending allocation.
Please delineate specific projects, activities, and associated amounts.
Answer. The following two tables provide a comparison of NCAP
fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 spending and break down for last
year's spending.
Table 1
PROJECT/DESCRIPTION BUDGET AMOUNT
Frontal & Side Impact NCAP Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Plans:
Vehicle Purchase (100)....................................$1,850,000
Vehicle Testing (100)..................................... 2,000,000
Dummy Calibration & Refurbishing.......................... 70,000
Quality Assurance of NCAP Data............................ 227,000
Video Production.......................................... 25,000
Administrative Costs......................................\1\ 80,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
TOTAL................................................... 4,252,000
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
Demonstration of 5th percent Female Dummy Full Frontal Impact
NCAP Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Plans:
Vehicle Purchase (14)..................................... 259,000
Vehicle Testing (14)...................................... 280,000
Dummy Calibration & Refurbishing.......................... 20,000
Quality Assurance of NCAP Data............................ 40,000
Administrative Costs...................................... 5,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 604,000
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
Crash Avoidance Demonstration Program: Braking and Headlight
evaluation................................................ 200,000
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
Total NCAP Contract Funds............................... 5,056,000
\1\ Administrative costs include computer support, hot copy, printing,
and distribution costs.
In fiscal year 1998, NCAP tested a total of 70 vehicles. Fifty
vehicles were tested and rated for the frontal protection and 20 for
side protection. In fiscal year 1999, NCAP plans to test 100 vehicles.
Sixty vehicles will be crashed in the frontal direction and forty in
the side direction. The results from the 60 frontal tests will provide
consumers with relative frontal crashworthiness information on
approximately 85 percent of the new vehicles. In 1999, side impact
testing will be expanded to include light trucks, vans, and sport
utility vehicles. The results from the 40 side tests will provide
information on approximately 80 percent of the new vehicles.
Fiscal year 1999 NCAP funds of $604,000 are requested to evaluate
the feasibility of testing with a smaller adult female dummy. Without a
funding increase, the NCAP will be testing only with an average size
adult male dummy for the future. This will not allow NHTSA to
adequately address our critical concerns about air bag safety and other
issues. For model year 1999, the results of the testing with a dummy,
of small stature, will not be reported to consumers as a safety rating.
The purpose of the feasibility testing will be to (1) work out precise
laboratory procedures, (2) confirm the durability of the small adult
female dummy at the NCAP speed, and (3) assess the data recorded in the
crash tests.
NHTSA is seeking $200,000 for NCAP exploratory activities. NHTSA
wants to explore whether the agency can provide the American public
with meaningful safety information about the crash avoidance
capabilities of a vehicle, along with the crash test results. This will
give the public a more complete measure of vehicle safety for
relatively little additional funding, since crash avoidance testing can
be conducted before the vehicles are crash tested. The agency will use
these funds to explore whether information on braking and head lighting
performance can be provided with the crash test results in NCAP.
Table 2
PROJECT/DESCRIPTION BUDGET AMOUNT
Impact Testing NCAP Fiscal Year 1998 Budget Plans:
Vehicle Purchase (70).....................................$1,093,000
Vehicle Testing (70)...................................... 1,161,000
Dummy Calibration & 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 & Print Spots &
Internet Dissemination)................................. 150,000
Reproduce & Disseminate Consumer Material................. 97,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 247,000
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
Total Fiscal Year 1998 NCAP Costs....................... 2,786,000
\1\ Administrative costs include computer support, hot copy, printing,
and distribution costs.
Question. Please provide a breakdown of how the funds appropriated
for fiscal year 1998 were used to expand NCAP. How many tests have been
conducted, and what were the results?
Answer. In fiscal year 1998, the agency tested 28 passenger cars,
10 sport utility vehicles, 4 vans, and 8 pickups (total of 50 vehicles)
in the frontal NCAP. These tests provide frontal safety information on
70 percent of the model year 1998 vehicles sold in the U.S. In fiscal
year 1998, the side impact NCAP has tested 20 passenger cars. These
test results, combined with carry-over results from fiscal year 1997,
will provide side impact information to consumers on 72 percent of the
passenger cars sold in the US. The funds for fiscal year 1998 NCAP were
spent as follows:
PROJECT/DESCRIPTION BUDGET AMOUNT
Impact Testing NCAP Fiscal Year 1998 Budget Plans:
Vehicle Purchase (70).....................................$1,093,000
Vehicle Testing (70)...................................... 1,161,000
Dummy Calibration & 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 Fiscal Year 1998 Program:
Promotional Material (Brochures, Radio & Print Spots &
Internet Dissemination)................................. 150,000
Reproduce & Disseminate Consumer Material................. 97,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 247,000
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
Total fiscal year 1998 NCAP Costs....................... 2,786,000
\1\ Administrative costs include computer support, hot copy, printing,
and distribution costs.
RESULTS: 1998 FRONTAL NCAP VEHICLES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STAR RATINGS
# OF MANUFACTURER MODEL --------------------
CARS DRIVER PASSENGER
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 CHRYSLER CARAVAN........................................... 3 3
2 DAKOTA............................................ 4 4
3 DURANGO........................................... 2 3
4 GRAND CARAVAN..................................... 3 3
5 GRAND CHEROKEE.................................... 3 3
6 NEON.............................................. 3 4
7 RAM............................................... 4 4
8 STRATUS........................................... 3 4
9 FORD CONTOUR........................................... 5 4
10 CROWN VICTORIA.................................... 5 5
11 ESCORT............................................ 3 3
12 EXPEDITION........................................ 4 4
13 EXPLORER.......................................... 4 4
14 F-150............................................. 5 4
15 MUSTANG........................................... 5 4
16 RANGER............................................ 4 4
17 TAURUS............................................ 4 4
18 WINDSTAR.......................................... 5 5
19 GM BLAZER............................................ 4 4
20 C/K............................................... 4 3
21 CAMARO............................................ 4 5
22 CAVALIER.......................................... 3 4
23 CAVALIER.......................................... 4 4
24 CENTURY........................................... 3 1
25 INTRIGUE.......................................... 4 3
26 LUMINA............................................ 4 5
27 MALIBU............................................ 4 4
28 S-10.............................................. 4 4
29 SL................................................ 5 4
30 SUBURBAN.......................................... 4 4
31 VENTURE........................................... 4 3
32 HONDA ACCORD............................................ 4 4
33 ACCORD............................................ 4 4
34 CIVIC............................................. 4 4
35 CR-V.............................................. 4 5
36 ISUZU RODEO............................................. 3 4
37 NISSAN ALTIMA............................................ 4 4
38 FRONTIER.......................................... 3 4
39 MAXIMA............................................ 4 4
40 SENTRA............................................ 3 4
41 SUBARU LEGACY............................................ 4 4
42 TOYOTA 4-RUNNER.......................................... 3 3
43 AVALON............................................ 4 5
44 CAMRY............................................. 4 5
45 COROLLA........................................... 4 4
46 ES300............................................. 4 4
47 RAV-4............................................. 4 4
48 SIENNA............................................ 5 5
49 TACOMA............................................ 4 3
50 VOLVO S70............................................... 5 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESULTS: 1998 SIDE IMPACT NCAP PASSENGER CARS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STAR RATINGS
# OF MANUFACTURER MODEL --------------------
CARS DRIVER PASSENGER
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 CHRYSLER NEON.............................................. 2 3
2 FORD ESCORT ZX2........................................ 1 4
3 MUSTANG........................................... 3 3
4 GM BONNEVILLE........................................ 3 2
5 CAVALIER.......................................... 1 3
6 CENTURY........................................... 3 3
7 INTRIGUE.......................................... 3 1
8 LeSABRE........................................... 3 3
9 HONDA ACCORD............................................ 4 4
10 CIVIC............................................. 2 3
11 HYUNDAI ELANTRA........................................... 3 1
12 MAZDA 626............................................... 3 3
13 MERCEDES C-230............................................. 3 4
14 MITSUBISHI ECLIPSE........................................... 1 ND
15 NISSAN ALTIMA............................................ 3 3
16 SENTRA............................................ 3 3
17 TOYOTA AVALON............................................ 5 4
18 COROLLA........................................... 3 3
19 VOLKSWAGEN JETTA............................................. 3 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Results are not yet available for the 20th vehicle (Lexus ES300).
Question. How will NHTSA utilize the fiscal year 1999 requested
funding to provide improved information regarding full frontal and side
crashes to consumers?
Answer. NHTSA's requested funding will enable the agency to regain
some of the fleet coverage that had been lost due to depowering and
increased costs. Approximately 100 vehicle crash tests will be
conducted in frontal and side NCAP ($4,252 thousand). This will allow
the consumer to have frontal safety information on 85 percent of cars
and light trucks sold in the U.S. This is roughly the percentage of
vehicles covered before the depowering of the frontal air bags in 1998.
Without the increase, the percentage will remain at 70 percent.
Expansion of the side NCAP to LTV's (of the 40 side impact tests,
20-25 would be LTV's) will allow much broader coverage of the total
fleet. This will provide the consumer with side impact safety
information on approximately 80 percent of the cars and light trucks
sold in the U.S. Without the increase, only 60 percent of the fleet
will be covered.
Question. Please outline the amounts allocated and activities NHTSA
conducted to promote NCAP during fiscal year 1997, fiscal year 1998,
and planned for fiscal year 1999. How successful have those activities
been?
Answer. For both fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998, $247,000
was allocated to promote NCAP. These activities included:
--Produced a 60-second PSA for movie theaters and distributed it to
56 theaters nationwide. (1997 only)
--Produced a series of camera-ready, pre-packaged print articles for
each release of crash test results for MY 1997 vehicles, and
distributed them electronically to more than 10,000 weekly and
daily newspapers and wire services.
--Produced a VNR on the NCAP program which was shown on all three
major network morning shows and distributed by satellite to all
TV markets. A total of 77 network affiliate stations and
programs played the VNR, and it aired in a total of 18 million
households.
--Performed consumer research by completing a Literature Review and
conducted focus groups on consumer knowledge, beliefs, and
behaviors concerning motor vehicle safety.
--Produced and distributed over 400,000 copies of the Buying a Safer
Car brochure, which was updated for MY 1997 vehicles to add
side crash test information.
--Used the NCAP exhibit to promote the program at several consumer
information events in the fall of 1997.
--Maintain updated NCAP information on the Internet. NCAP is
receiving about 4,500 inquiries and visitors per week on the
NHTSA web site. This has quadrupled over the past year.
While these activities were successful, much more needs to be done.
A recent NHTSA customer survey found that 40 percent of the respondents
had never seen or heard of the crash test ratings.
For fiscal year 1999, the following activities are planned.
--$347,000 will be spent to consolidate the vehicle consumer
information program by including the amount of funds from the
NCAP and Vehicle Safety and Consumer Standards budgets that
were allocated to support consumer information activities in
fiscal year 1998.
--$150,000 will be used to increase the distribution, marketing, and
outreach for the ``Buying A Safer Car'' and ``Buying A Safer
Car For Child Passengers'' brochures and other current consumer
information materials that are produced. The program will
emphasize outreach to new partners and constituents such as
NADA, child safety advocates, the public health community, and
consumer groups. It will take advantage of new technologies and
communications strategies to increase the public's awareness
and use of motor vehicle safety information.
--$150,000 will be spent for the agency to work with its partners to
pursue the development of a summary crashworthiness measure for
new vehicles. New materials for other program areas such as
anti-lock brakes, rollover, theft prevention, and previously
owned vehicles will also be developed and disseminated to
consumers.
--$100,000 will be spent for research to determine what vehicle
safety information is most helpful to consumers, how it can be
presented, and the most effective means of disseminating it.
This research will provide the basis for the development of
summary ratings and other new campaigns and materials for
issues such as rollover, antilock brakes, safety cards, and
previously owned vehicles.
--$67,000 will be spent to examine the information currently provided
by the agency to determine how its presentation and usefulness
can be improved. This includes initiatives to improve warning
labels, public service announcements, and brochures.
Question. Please compare the amount appropriated to the amount
spent on NCAP for each of the last three fiscal years.
Answer. The appropriated funds for NCAP in fiscal year 1996, fiscal
year 1997, and fiscal year 1998 were $1,707,000, $2,792,000, and
$2,786,000 respectively. The amounts spent on NCAP in fiscal year 1996,
fiscal year 1997, and fiscal year 1998 were the same as the amounts
appropriated for those years.
Question. Since last year what improvements have you made in
NHTSA's efforts to promote international harmonization? How much do you
plan on spending in that area during fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year
1999?
Answer. To improve efforts in the area of international
harmonization the agency has drawn as needed on personnel resources
from other activities of the agency such as counsel, performance
standards, safety assurance and research and development.
These resources were used in the successful negotiation of a draft
global agreement on the development of harmonized technical regulations
among the European Community, Japan and the United States. The
availability of adequate travel funding enabled the holding of five
intensive negotiation sessions with appropriate United States
representation at each session. The satisfactory funding of the travel
associated with international harmonization was also an important
factor in enabling the agency's continued substantive participation in
the activities of the Automotive Standards Council of the North
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Transportation Working
Group of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). Further, the
personnel resources made available as needed, has made it possible to
complete a process for assessment of the functional equivalence of
foreign regulations as compared to United States regulations and to
begin substantive participation in the various activities of the
International harmonized Research Agenda.
The globalization of the automobile industry and the challenges and
opportunities this presents for the agency in promoting motor vehicle
safety through the harmonization of regulations worldwide has begun to
be felt through the increasing requests for information and counsel
from other agencies of the government that have functions where
standards and regulatory initiatives play an important role.
As of this writing the agency plans for fiscal year 1998 and fiscal
year 1999 are to spend about the same resources for international
harmonization activities. To the extent that the agency's participation
in the meetings of the Working Party on the Construction of Vehicles
(WP29) of the Economic Commission for Europe is funded and accredited
by the Department of State, no increase in travel funding is
anticipated. The value of the latter funding is approximately half the
agency's travel budget for international harmonization activities.
Question. What efforts are underway or planned to improve the way
NCAP information is conveyed to customers?
Answer. NHTSA will improve the way NCAP information is conveyed
through implementing programs and approaches designed to respond to
consumer research findings. Consumers want more safety information than
they presently have; they want the quality and understandability of the
information to be better; they want information that is free from bias;
and they want the information to be easily accessible from a variety of
sources. NHTSA will develop marketing strategies to address these needs
and will explore additional methods of presenting and disseminating
information, including developing of a summary measure to provide more
comprehensive safety information. NHTSA will pursue the development of
a summary rating combining front and side impact crash scores, as well
as other possible elements, through the establishment of a working
group of industry and other partners. The group will examine the
feasibility and potential methodologies for developing a summary
measure. When completed, the summary rating will provide consumers with
another piece of useful information to be used when purchasing a
vehicle.
fuel economy program
Question. Please provide a detailed explanation of the efforts
underway to improve the plants and lines database.
Answer. Over the past year, the plants and lines database has been
enhanced to provide, not only current data on auto manufacturer product
plans and production facilities, but also the storage and retrieval of
historic data. As in the past, all data and information related to
future product plans and facility utilization are continually updated
with more recent information. Enhancements and upgrades to the database
format and mapping software have been completed to improve the ease of
use, retrieval, and presentation of data and information by the end
user. The database has been expanded to provide better coverage of
international product planning and facility utilization. The staff has
also begun to compile information on alternative fueled vehicles and
their producers.
Question. What data have been collected, and what are the results
of the data analysis?
Answer. The plants and lines project has collected data on the
current and future product plans of all auto manufacturers serving the
North American market. It also includes data on assembly plants and
plants where major powertrain products are assembled or manufactured,
including production rates and future product plans for these
facilities. Financial data on the three major domestic manufacturers is
included.
Plants and lines is most often used to respond to ad hoc inquiries
concerning developments in the auto industry, future product plans, and
geographical information concerning companies and their facilities. It
was used to support the preparation of the report to Congress on the
use and utility of light trucks and, more recently, a report by the
Volpe Center for the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles
(PNGV) study.
theft prevention
Question. Please describe the improvements made in your theft
prevention program. Were those improvements effective? Please provide
quantitative data to support your answer.
Answer. The agency is required by 49 U.S.C. 33104(b)(4) to
periodically obtain, from the most reliable source, accurate and timely
theft data and publish that data for review and comment. NHTSA obtains
its data from the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation. The NCIC is a governmental system that
receives vehicle theft information from nearly 23,000 criminal justice
agencies and law enforcement authorities throughout the United States.
This data permits NHTSA to issue rules requiring the designation of
likely high-theft vehicles and to calculate annual theft rates of
various motor vehicles to determine the risk of their theft.
To fulfill this statutory mandate, NHTSA has published theft data
annually since 1983/84. In past years, the agency's theft data was
processed by private contractors at a substantial cost to the
government. Beginning with receipt of model year (MY) 1995 information
from NCIC, theft data have been processed by an in-house team of
specialists. In-house processing of the theft data has resulted in a
substantial cost savings to the agency and has improved its ability to
more efficiently compile, analyze, and publish the theft data for
public review.
Prior to MY 1995 (Contractor costs)........................... $54,000
MY 1995 (In-house processing)................................. 24,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Agency Savings.......................................... 30,000
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
Prior to MY 1995 (Contractor costs)........................... 54,000
MY 1996 (In-house processing)................................. 4,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Agency Savings.......................................... 50,000
The team responsible for implementing of this in-house procedure
will continue to develop ways to improve the efficiency of processing
the data. The most recent calendar year for which data are available
was published on February 9, 1998 (See 63 FR 6603). This data reports
preliminary theft data for MY 1996 passenger motor vehicles stolen in
calendar year (CY) 1996.
Additionally, on June 26, 1997, the agency published a notice
announcing publication of its Preliminary Report to Congress on the
Auto Theft and Recovery Effects of the Anti Car Theft Act of 1992 and
the Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act of 1984 for review and
comment (See 62 FR 34494). This report evaluated the effectiveness of
the current federal parts-marking program, its statutory regulations,
and recommendations for program improvement.
NHTSA's preliminary report showed that parts marking and other
provisions of the 1984 and 1992 Acts have given the law enforcement
community tools they can use to deter thefts, trace stolen vehicles and
parts, and apprehend and convict thieves. Theft rates leveled off after
1989 through 1990 and then began to drop. The average consumer cost of
parts marking in 1995 models was approximately $5 per vehicle. At that
cost, just a 2 percent reduction in the theft rate would create
consumer benefits exceeding the cost of parts marking.
The results of NHTSA's Preliminary Report to Congress suggested
that parts-marking has had benefits. There is some indication that the
effect of parts marking might have been greater than the 2 percent
needed for cost-effectiveness, at least at certain times. The program
has, on the whole, had an impact as evidenced by the leveling off and
reduction of theft rates after 1990. A final decision on whether to
continue or expand the program will not be made until the Department of
Justice has completed its extensive review of other information that
the Attorney General may develop and include in the public record.
Additionally, funding will be provided for the development of
consumer information and materials to increase public awareness of
motor vehicle theft deterrence and prevention methods aimed at the
further reduction of motor vehicle theft.
safety assurance
Question. Please prepare a table indicating the amount allocated
and the amount actually appropriated for the four components in the
Safety Assurance Program for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998.
Answer. The information follows.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program 1996 1996 1997 1997 1998 1998
Request Approp. Request Approp. Request Approp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle Safety Compliance......... $5,353,000 $4,775,000 $6,033,000 $5,837,000 $5,712,000 $5,712,000
Auto Safety Hotline............... 1,667,000 657,000 1,787,000 1,483, 000 1,458,000 1,222,000
Defects Investigation............. 2,460,000 2,419,000 2,481,000 2,478,000 2,478,000 2,478,000
Odometer Fraud.................... 100,000 60,000 100,000 60,000 210,000 135,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... 9,580,000 7,911,000 10,401,000 9,858,000 9,858,000 9,574,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 1999 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 1998. On a separate page, please justify the
need for the requested increases.
Answer. The information follows.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FISCAL YEAR FISCAL YEAR
ACTIVITY 1998 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VEHICLE SAFETY COMPLIANCE:
Vehicle Compliance Testing.......... $3,500,000 $3,463,000
Equipment Compliance Testing........ 2,212,000 2,212,000
-------------------------------
Total............................. 5,712,000 5,675,000
===============================
DEFECTS INVESTIGATION:
Defect Identification and Evaluation 1,296,000 2,056,000
Testing and Surveys................. 832,000 1,015,000
Recall Monitoring and Performance... 350,000 350,000
-------------------------------
Total............................. 2,478,000 3,421,000
===============================
AUTO SAFETY HOTLINE:
Defect Reporting.................... 177,000 219,000
Contract Personnel.................. 640,000 666,000
Phone............................... 250,000 260,000
Call handling Support............... 80,000 125,000
Printing............................ 75,000 125,000
-------------------------------
Total............................. 1,222,000 1,395,000
===============================
ODOMETER FRAUD INVESTIGATION:
Cooperative Agreements for 3 States 135,000 ..............
to provide law enforcement agent...
Cooperative agreements with 2 States .............. 60,000
for State enforcement sup- port...
Cooperative agreements for 2 State .............. 90,000
enforcement officers for temporary
assignment to NHTSA................
-------------------------------
Total........................... 135,000 150,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Justification for Increases:
Auto Safety Hotline
In fiscal year 1999, the agency plans to expand its defect
reporting outreach program to increase public awareness of the Hotline
and NHTSA's Internet web site and to encourage motorists to report
potential safety-related defects. Additionally, small increases are
necessary to accommodate cost-of-living increases for contract
personnel, to fund anticipated increases in telephone costs, to replace
or upgrade broken or outdated equipment for call handling support, and
for additional printed materials requested by consumers.
Odometer Fraud Program
Additional funding in fiscal year 1999 program, would allow the
agency to award cooperative agreements to four states. Cooperative
agreements, at approximately $45 thousand each, will be awarded to two
states to provide two State law enforcement agents (one from each
State) to NHTSA for one year of in-depth training. The state agents
will supplement NHTSA's odometer enforcement program and in return,
will receive in-depth training in conducting odometer fraud
investigations for prosecution in federal courts, similar to the
cooperative program in fiscal year 1998.
The remaining cooperative agreements will be awarded to two states
at approximately $30 thousand each to enable those states to initiate
new odometer enforcement activities or to enhance existing programs.
These states will investigate odometer fraud for criminal or civil
prosecution; assist defrauded consumers in recovering damages; monitor
state motor vehicle titling systems to deter odometer fraud; and
conduct public awareness campaigns.
With these cooperative agreements, the agency plans to realize the
goal of promoting or enhancing active state enforcement, help deter
future violations of odometer laws, and save consumers millions in
maintenance and repair costs.
Defects Investigation
It is not unusual for the Office of Defects Investigation to
curtail or delay important testing or survey work because of lack of
manpower to conduct the tests/surveys. This puts the agency at a
distinct disadvantage when trying to demonstrate the existence of a
safety-related defect. It also makes it difficult to maintain the
performance measure of an 8-month average completion time for
investigations. Funding requested in fiscal year 1999 will provide
additional Vehicle Research and Testing Center (VRTC) contractor
engineering and technical personnel to support defect identification
and evaluation.
Investigations, such as those currently being conducted on alleged
problems with antilock brakes, are quite complex and, therefore, quite
expensive. The additional funds for testing would enable ODI to conduct
the tests necessary to fully understand complex problems and to
complete investigations in a more timely manner. The addition of
contractor engineering and technical support personnel for VRTC and
added test funds for VRTC will enable investigations such as these to
be conducted in a more complete and timely manner.
Additional funds to provide contractor engineers and investigators
in support of defect identification and evaluation, will allow the
agency to conduct investigations of small population vehicle groups
(i.e., transit buses, recreational vehicles, heavy trucks, fire &
rescue vehicles, and motorcycles), which are not actively investigated
at the present time. While the number of vehicles in these groups may
not be large, the results of defects could be catastrophic. For
instance, in 1996 there were 410 large truck occupants killed in single
vehicle crashes. In that same year, however, there were 211 large truck
occupants and 4,072 other vehicle occupants killed in multiple vehicle
crashes involving large trucks. Similarly, the injury rate per 100
million vehicle miles traveled for motorcyclists in 1994 was 549, while
the injury rate for passenger car occupants was 160. Problems involving
vehicles which carry large numbers of passengers, such as transit
vehicles, can also have catastrophic consequences because of the
numbers of people involved. Additionally, recreational vehicles
frequently involve second stage manufacturers who may not be familiar
with the underlying vehicles which they are converting, and fire and
rescue vehicles travel at high speeds in emergency situations, possibly
leading to devastating effects if crashes occur. All of these vehicle
groups require special screening methods in order to be effectively
monitored.
The availability of one full-time investigator to perform on-site
investigations of crashes and vehicle inspections would substantially
assist the defects office in conducting investigations more
expeditiously and thoroughly. This person would be on-call to visit
sites, perform crash reconstruction, and inspect vehicles and
equipment. These on-site inspections would assist defects
investigations by providing analyses and documentation critical to
determining whether a defect exists in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle
equipment.
Finally, the addition of one contractor to conduct computer aided
design (CAD) analyses would aid the office in conducting more thorough
and timely investigations. CAD analyses are useful tools in
investigations because they enable the agency to model relevant
components and apply forces to the model in varying amounts and
directions to determine whether the component is susceptible to
failure. Such modeling could save the agency the cost of conducting
multiple tests to determine failure.
nhtsa regulations
Question. How is NHTSA demonstrating its commitment to performance-
based criteria as a regulatory philosophy? Which performance-based
regulations were issued last year?
Answer. The Safety Performance Standards program supports the
achievement of the DOT and NHTSA safety goals to reduce fatalities,
injuries, crashes, and their economic costs. For the fiscal year 1999
budget, the program's safety goals are:
--Reduce the 41,000 fatalities, 3.3 million injuries, and 6.3 million
police-reported motor vehicle crashes that annually result from
motor vehicle crashes by issuing vehicle safety standards and
developing and distributing of motor vehicle safety consumer
information.
--Improve crash survival for the 1.6 million occupants of vehicles
involved in towaway frontal and side impact crashes each year.
Examples of program performance measures that provide the linkage
to achieving these goals are:
--Average time required to complete rulemaking actions.
--Percentage of petitions answered within 120 days.
--Timely completion of model year crash tests.
--Percent of the new vehicles sold in the U.S. annually for which
frontal impact safety information is available.
--Percent of the new vehicles sold in the U.S. annually for which
side impact safety information is available.
--Percentage of consumers who believe safety of the vehicle is a
``very important'' consideration in their purchase decision.
--Percentage of consumers who have heard of or seen the vehicle crash
test ratings.
Under the Department's environmental and economic goals the safety
performance program goals are to:
--Improve the average fuel economy of new passenger car and light
truck fleets.
--Reduce the incidence of the more than 1 million motor vehicle
thefts that occur annually in the United States.
NHTSA seeks to make the largest possible impact on the overall
number of crashes, fatalities, and injuries by focusing on discrete
vehicle safety issues. A number of factors are considered, including
problem size, feasibility and practicability of solution, potential
benefits, and costs to the public per life and injury saved. The agency
also gives emphasis to safety issues that are of critical concern to
society, such as the safety of children and the disabled.
All of NHTSA's rules are performance-based with respect to
improving and maintaining the level of safety in vehicles, or
supporting its non-safety mandates (e.g. theft program). Significant
final rules and NPRM's issued in CY 1997 are:
571.108--Final Rule.--Requires the rear of truck tractors be
equipped with retro reflective material similar to that required on the
rear of the trailers they tow to increase nighttime conspicuity.
571.135--Final Rule.--Extended requirements to trucks, buses, and
multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating
(GVWR) of 3,500 kilograms or less in an effort to achieve international
harmonization.
571.201--NPRM.--The agency proposed to permit, but not require, the
introduction of dynamic head protection systems currently being
developed by vehicle manufacturers to provide added lateral crash
protection.
571.208--NPRM.--In response to a petition for rulemaking, the
agency proposed amendment to provisions in the standard which specified
that, during crash tests, all portions of a test dummy must remain in
the vehicle throughout the test.
571.208; 571.213--Final Rule.--Required vehicles with air bags to
bear three new warning labels to reduce the adverse effects of air
bags, especially for children.
571.208--Final Rule.--Extended 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.
571.208.--Temporarily amended the standard to allow vehicle
manufacturers to quickly depower all air bags so that they inflate less
aggressively. [This final rule allows unbelted sled test protocol as a
temporary alternative to the full scale unbelted barrier crash test.]
571.208--Final Rule.--Allows motor vehicle dealers and repair
businesses to install retrofit manual on-off switches for air bags in
vehicles owned by or used by persons whose requests for switches have
been approved by the agency.
571.210--NPRM.--In response to a petition for rulemaking, the
agency proposed to require manufacturers to certify the anchorages of a
voluntarily installed Type 2 safety belt (lap/shoulder belt) to the
anchorage requirements for a mandatorily installed Type 2 safety belt.
571.213--NPRM.--The agency proposed to require that motor vehicles
and add-on child restraints be equipped with a means independent of
vehicle safety belts for securing the child restraints to vehicle seats
(Uniform Child Restraint Anchorages--UCRA).
571.213--Final Rule.--In response to petitions for reconsideration,
the agency corrected or clarified provisions to the final rule which
added a greater array of sizes and weights of test dummies for use in
compliance tests.
571.214; 572--NPRM.--The agency proposed specifications and
qualification requirements for a newly-developed anthropomorphic test
dummy for compliance testing.
571.216--NPRM.--In response to petitions for rulemaking, the agency
proposed to revise the test procedure to make them more suitable to
testing vehicles with highly sloped roofs or raised roofs.
vehicle safety compliance
Question. Please break down how you intend to use the $5,675
million requested for Vehicle Safety Compliance, and compare those
expenditures with amounts allocated during fiscal year 1997 and planned
for fiscal year 1998.
Answer. The information follows.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FISCAL YEAR FISCAL YEAR FISCAL YEAR
VEHICLE SAFETY COMPLIANCE 1997 1998 1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle Compliance Testing...................................... $3,625,000 $3,500,000 $3,463,000
Equipment Compliance Testing.................................... 2,212,000 2,212,000 2,212,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 5,837,000 5,712,000 5,675,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The budget for the Vehicle Safety Compliance Program has decreased
slightly from fiscal year 1997 to fiscal year 1999 ($162,000) with the
distribution of funding between the Vehicle Compliance Test Program and
the Equipment Compliance Test Program remaining relatively constant.
The key program components continue to be full-scale dynamic testing of
new motor vehicles under the Vehicle Compliance Test Program. These
tests assess impact and occupant crash protection performance for a
wide spectrum of vehicles, including all sizes of passenger cars, vans,
pickup trucks, and sport utility vehicles. The actual number of full-
scale vehicle tests for fiscal year 1997 and planned for fiscal year
1998 and fiscal year 1999 are as follows: frontal crash tests--10, 27,
and 26, respectively, for the three years; side impact tests--20 for
each year; and side and rear fuel system integrity tests--20 for each
year. Historically, the agency conducts 26-30 frontal crash tests each
year. In fiscal year 1997, fewer frontal crash tests were conducted due
to a major regulatory change, which allowed manufacturers the option of
using an acceleration sled rather than a barrier crash to accommodate
depowered air bags. In fiscal year 1999, the agency will also initiate
compliance testing of upper interior head protection in vehicles using
dynamic head form impacts, which is a standard that will begin to be
phased in in fiscal year 1999. Under the Equipment Compliance Test
Program, the agency will continue to test a majority of new child
restraint systems and motorcycle helmets to the requirements of the
safety standards. The actual number of tests for fiscal year 1997 and
planned for fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 remain constant at 60
child restraint system tests for each year and 40 motorcycle helmet
tests for each year.
Question. Is your testing program geared to the evaluation of the
most critical safety components of a vehicle?
Answer. Yes. In the Vehicle Safety Compliance Program, we conduct
full-scale dynamic tests of new motor vehicles to verify compliance of
the most critical safety components of a vehicle to the requirements of
the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. In fiscal year 1999, three
critical areas will be assessed for passenger cars and light trucks
selected for dynamic testing: the performance of driver and front
passenger air bags in frontal crashes, the performance of the vehicle
structure in side impacts or intersection-type collisions, and the
protection of occupants' heads from impacts to vehicle upper interior
components, where the performance requirements will be phased in over
five years. The fiscal year 1999 testing program will also include
tests of passenger cars, light trucks, and school buses to assess the
performance of critical fuel system components following a crash.
Question. Please describe the relationship between your testing
program and injury reduction.
Answer. We continue to place emphasis on those areas in our
compliance testing program which we believe offer the greatest
potential for reducing deaths and injuries on the highways. All new
passenger cars and light truck vehicles are being equipped with air
bags to provide protection in frontal crashes. Requirements for side
impact performance will become effective for all light trucks
manufactured on and after September 1, 1998. Also, beginning on that
date, 10 percent of each manufacturer's passenger cars and light trucks
must meet requirements for upper interior head protection. The
compliance testing program will include testing in each of these areas
to ensure that the motoring public is receiving all the benefits of
those lifesaving features as new vehicle models are introduced into the
marketplace. The program also focuses on compliance testing of new
child restraint systems and motorcycle helmets to ensure that the
highest level of safety benefits are being realized from these devices.
We strive to complete these programs as early in the fiscal year as
possible to reduce the number of vehicles and/or equipment to be
recalled in the event a noncompliance is found.
Question. Could some parts of your safety testing program be
eliminated because the safety impacts of non-compliance are minimal
compared to non-compliance of other regulations?
Answer. Compliance testing, inspection, and investigation of
vehicles and equipment provide oversight and surveillance to ensure
compliance with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS).
From 24 to 28 of the 44 testable standards are included in each fiscal
year's compliance testing program. Therefore, not all standards are
tested each year. The standards selected for testing are based on a
variety of factors. These include the potential to reduce casualties,
the failure rate in prior years of testing, new product offerings
certified to a standard, the introduction of new standards, and the
cost of compliance testing. Ensuring that compliance requirements are
met will result in the on-the-road fleet providing the benefits
associated with all standards. Additionally, a rigorous safety testing
program results in manufacturers designing vehicles and equipment with
an appropriate margin of compliance to ensure that, should the agency
perform a FMVSS test, the vehicle or equipment will meet the
performance requirements in each standard. This results in
comprehensive safety benefits from all FMVSS, since the higher the
margin of compliance, the greater the reduction in injury risk.
Question. How do you know that you are conducting the most cost
effective mix of tests? For example, have you evaluated whether or not
you should be conducting more side impact tests versus frontal occupant
protection crashes?
Answer. Compliance testing includes Federal motor vehicle safety
standards (FMVSS) that promote crash avoidance and provide occupant
protection during the crash event and following the crash event. Not
every standard is tested every year, but we continually assess the
frequency of each standard's testing when we revise the five-year plan
for compliance testing each year. Frequently, vehicles are used for
multi-standard testing to improve the overall cost effectiveness of our
testing program. The FMVSS with the greatest potential benefits are
tested yearly, including those to assess side impact and frontal crash
protection. Data for 1996 from the agency's General Estimate System
(GES) indicate that there were many more angular crashes (2,461,694)
than head on events (110,379). However, the number of fatalities for
both types of crashes (8,629 in angular crashes, 6,843 in head-on
crashes) are significant with respect to the 42,065 fatalities reported
in the GES. Given the higher percentage of head-on crashes that
resulted in a fatality, we believe that our plan for 26 tests to assess
frontal crash performance and 20 tests for side impact protection
reflects a cost-effective mix of tests.
auto safety hotline
Question. Please describe the improvements made in the Auto Safety
Hotline program since last year.
Answer. During calendar year 1997 the following improvements have
been made in the Hotline:
--All remaining personal computers were upgraded to Pentiums; the
desktop information was upgraded to be more user-friendly;
voice management system scripts have been changed to improve
call handling; staffing additions have been made to accommodate
peak time calls; and reporting features for the automatic call
distribution system have been upgraded to capture more data.
--An outreach program has been implemented which is focusing
primarily on mass mailings to organizations such as state motor
vehicle departments, state consumer organizations, state
tourism agencies, state attorneys general, leasing and rental
companies and libraries. These organizations have been
requested to put posters in prominent places, make flyers
available, place articles in newsletters, and hotlink their
organization with the Auto Safety Hotline web site.
--A few smaller projects have also been undertaken on a trial basis.
These include dioramas in several airports, Amtrak and Metro
stations, and tailgate displays or interior cards on buses in
selected jurisdictions. It should be noted that the space for
these latter projects has been donated by the respective
transit companies, with the agency paying only for printing
costs.
Question. Please provide statistics on the use of the Hotline
during each of the last three years.
Answer. Total calls received by the Auto Safety Hotline during each
of the last three calendar years are as follows: 1995--809,496 calls;
1996--778,819 calls; and 1997--724,516 calls.
Question. Please describe the outcomes or outputs that you measure
pertaining to the Hotline.
Answer. The Auto Safety Hotline performance is measured through:
--Call composition and metrics, which includes gathering and
archiving the following data: calls received, calls answered,
abandoned calls, representative availability, average time to
handle calls, average delay time to handle call, systems
availability, number of fax requests, and number of electronic
mail requests;
--Customer service surveys, such as bounce back cards, outreach
statistics gathered at the time of the call, annual surveys,
random call monitoring, and callbacks; and
--Impact on the Defects Investigation Program. Over 75 percent of the
preliminary defect investigations are initiated by reports
received through the Auto Safety Hotline.
The following Auto Safety Hotline outputs are measured:
Mailings.--Number of documents pertaining to specific highway
safety issues; number of recall information requests filled; and number
of defect reports.
Reports.--Daily, Weekly and Monthly Reports on call composition and
metrics, mailings and outreach efforts.
Data Capturing.--Caller information, vehicle information, recall
requests, literature requests, outreach activities, and customer
service survey results.
Question. Have you changed and increased the use of the Internet to
accomplish the objectives of the Hotline? How has it helped?
Answer. The following changes have been made to the web site of the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to increase consumer
use:
A search engine has been installed to assist those customers with
access to the World Wide Web in identifying recalls, defect reports,
defect investigations, and technical service bulletins pertaining to a
specific vehicle make and model.
The option to download files (recalls, defect reports, defect
investigations, technical service bulletins), free of charge, is
available to customers who request large amounts of data.
Customers can submit a defect report by completing the vehicle
owner's questionnaire (the form on which consumers report potential
safety-related defects to the Auto Safety Hotline) directly through the
Internet.
Question. When will the budget for the Hotline level off?
Answer. The Hotline budget is expected to experience small yearly
increases over the next several years. These increases are the result
of the need to periodically upgrade equipment to the latest technology,
expand Internet usage, replace or repair broken or malfunctioning
equipment, print additional literature requested by consumers, account
for cost of living increases for the contract personnel, and obtain
some more highly skilled contact representatives as automobile systems
become more complicated. Additionally, the budget could increase in
order to expand the outreach program to increase the public's awareness
of the Hotline, and the importance of contacting the agency to report
potential problems with motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment.
Question. Please prepare a detailed breakdown on a project-by-
project basis showing the expected uses of the $1.395 million requested
for the Auto Safety Hotline.
Answer. The following is a breakdown of the expected uses of the
$1.395 million requested for the Auto Safety Hotline.
Defect Reporting.............................................. $219,000
Contract Personnel............................................ 666,000
Telephone Bill................................................ 260,000
Call Handling Support......................................... 125,000
Printing...................................................... 125,000
Question. Please prepare a side-by-side comparison on the spending
allocation for fiscal year 1998 and planned spending allocation for
fiscal year 1999.
Answer. The following is comparison of the spending allocation for
fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Fiscal year 1999
1998 budget request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defect Reporting.............................. $177,000 $219,000
Contract Personnel............................ 640,000 666,000
Telephone Bill................................ 250,000 260,000
Call Handling Support......................... 80,000 125,000
Printing...................................... 75,000 125,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. How much did you spend or will spend in fiscal year 1997,
fiscal year 1998, and fiscal year 1999 on contractor studies to
evaluate or assess the use of future use of the Hotline.
Answer. No contract funds were spent in fiscal year 1997 or 1998 to
evaluate or assess the future use of the Hotline. During the past two
years, the Hotline administered customer service surveys and utilized
in-house teams to evaluate and recommend improvements. NHTSA does
employ a contractor whose duties are to promote public awareness of the
need to file owner reports of problems with motor vehicles and motor
vehicle equipment via the Auto Safety Hotline and the Internet.
Approximately, $75,000 of the amount allocated to defects reporting was
spent in fiscal year 1998 for the salary and benefits for that
contractor. As part of his duties, he performed an analysis of the
Hotline database to determine by zip code the demographics of the
callers to the Hotline. That data will be refined in fiscal year 1999
to enable to the Hotline outreach program to focus on population groups
that heretofore have not utilized the Hotline to report problems with
vehicles that may be safety-related. The remainder of the amount
allocated to defects reporting was utilized for contracts with auto
clubs for mailings to their members to encourage reporting of problems
with vehicles and for printing of some outreach material that we were
unable to print through GSA.
safety defects investigation
Question. Please prepare a detailed breakdown on a project-by-
project basis showing the expected uses of the $3.421 million requested
for Safety Defects Investigation.
Answer. The breakdown of the expected uses of the $3.421 million
requested for Safety Defects Investigation is as follows:
Defect Identification and Evaluation..........................$2,056,000
Testing/Surveys............................................... 1,015,000
Recall Monitoring and Performance............................. 350,000
Question. Please prepare a side-by-side comparison on the spending
allocation for fiscal year 1998 and planned spending allocation for
fiscal year 1999.
Answer. The comparison of spending allocation for fiscal year 1998
and fiscal year 1999 is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Fiscal year 1999
1998 budget request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defect Identification and Evaluation.......... $1,296,000 $2,056,000
Testing/Surveys............................... 832,000 1,015,000
Recall Monitoring and Performance............. 350,000 350,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Do you believe that spending more dollars on monitoring
and investigating vehicle population groups involving relatively small
numbers of vehicles is a cost effective investment?
Answer. NHTSA believes that it is important to have the resources
to investigate vehicle population groups involving smaller numbers of
vehicles (i.e., heavy trucks, fire & rescue equipment, transit buses,
recreational vehicles, and motorcycles) that are not currently
monitored. While the number of vehicles in these groups is not as large
as in passenger cars or light trucks, the results of defects could be
catastrophic. For instance, in 1996, there were 410 large truck
occupants killed in single vehicle crashes. In that same year, however,
there were 211 large truck occupants and 4,072 other vehicle occupants
killed in multiple vehicle crashes involving large trucks. Similarly,
the injury rate per 100 million vehicle miles traveled for
motorcyclists in 1994 was 549, while the injury rate for passenger car
occupants was 160. Problems involving vehicles which carry large
numbers of passengers, such as transit vehicles, can also have
catastrophic consequences because of the large numbers of people
involved. Additionally, recreational vehicles frequently involve second
stage manufacturers who may not be familiar with the underlying
vehicles which they are converting and fire and rescue vehicles travel
at high speeds in emergency situations, possibly leading to devastating
effects if crashes occur. All of these vehicle groups require special
screening methods in order to be effectively monitored. The driver/
owners of these vehicles often do not file complaints with NHTSA, so it
is important to develop working relationships between the agency and
the fleets.
Question. What are the advantages and disadvantages of focusing
more of your resources on investigations of vehicle population groups
with the largest number of vehicles?
Answer. The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) currently focuses
its resources on investigations of vehicle population groups with the
largest number of vehicles. With the current level of resources, NHTSA
believes that this is the most effective way to approach investigating
potential safety-related defects. The disadvantage of utilizing all of
ODI's investigative resources in this manner is that it makes it
possible to overlook defects in other vehicle population groups that,
while they may be smaller in numbers, could affect a large number of
individuals. For instance, because transit buses carry large numbers of
passengers, a defect could be catastrophic. Similarly, single vehicle
crashes involving heavy trucks may affect only one individual. However,
statistics demonstrate that in multiple vehicle crashes where one of
the vehicles is a heavy truck, occupants of passenger vehicles are far
more likely to be fatally injured. Motorcycles are associated with more
serious consequences when a crash occurs than other types of vehicles
in similar crashes. Given current resource limitations, it would not be
beneficial to divert resources to address these vehicle populations;
however, we believe that these are vehicle population groups to which
additional resources should be devoted.
odometer fraud program
Question. What were the three key improvements made since last
year?
Answer. During the past year, NHTSA organized and participated in a
northeastern states odometer fraud task force conference which was held
in New Hampshire. This was the first such conference held in that part
of the country since 1988 and was attended by law enforcement officials
from seven northeastern states. The conference resulted in the renewed
commitment by these states to exchange intelligence information and
join forces in combating interstate odometer fraud enterprises.
Additionally during the past year, the victim notification program,
which NHTSA initiated in 1993, produced a very significant outcome.
Because that program led to claims against members of the National Auto
Auction Association (NAAA), the NAAA passed a resolution urging all
members to report violations of odometer laws to law enforcement
agencies. NHTSA and the law enforcement community have been pressing
NAAA for this commitment for several years.
In addition, the funding for NHTSA's program to enter into
cooperative agreements with three states to provide law enforcement
officers to the Odometer Fraud Staff to receive training in return for
assisting the staff with investigations has begun to change the
management culture in the States. Recognizing the problem of odometer
fraud, these states have determined the long term gain to be achieved
by having better trained law enforcement officers outweighs the short
term loss of staff. Each officer will receive extensive training in
odometer fraud enforcement and will be assigned to conduct
investigations in areas of the country where odometer fraud is most
prevalent. This will increase the number of federal convictions
substantially, thereby creating a deterrent in those areas, while
providing the participating states with an officer capable of managing
a comprehensive and effective odometer enforcement program.
The agency continues to complete investigations and obtain criminal
convictions by DOJ, and obtain restitution to victims of odometer
fraud.
highway safety
Question. What is the relationship, if any, between the allocation
of resources in the highway safety budget and potential life saving or
injury reduction outcomes?
Answer. The traffic fatality toll for the next four years (1998-
2001) is expected to average 41,000 per year. This projection is
associated with a rising annual travel and a slightly decreasing
fatality rate per mile.
NHTSA has clear opportunities to decrease traffic fatalities by
changing driving practices--for example, by increasing seat belt and
child safety use and by decreasing impaired driving. If the nation can
achieve the belt use and impaired driving levels of the best states, we
can save over 10,000 lives annually.
Clearly, the agency is directing its resources to those areas where
the greatest gains in saving lives can be made. The increased funding
for the occupant protection program will provide more aggressive and
targeted public information and education, improved state legislation
and more intensive enforcement of those laws. The agency will place
added emphasis in this area with the addition of new partners
supporting the effort, strong promotion of primary enforcement in state
belt use laws, and the implementation of the President's Plan to
Increase Seat Belt Use Nationwide through the Buckle Up American
campaign.
The increased funding request for the alcohol program is also
consistent with a focus on potential high payoff areas. The fiscal year
1999 budget request will allow NHTSA to initiate demonstration projects
in targeted States with higher alcohol-related fatalities, to implement
innovative strategies from Partners in Progress and to ``move the
needle'' closer to the 2005 goal. Outreach to national organizations
will focus on the targeted states, as will enforcement demonstrations.
Combating impaired driving by youth will be a major component of the
fiscal year 1999 program. Additionally, the agency will respond to the
greater demand from states and communities for the dissemination of
``best practices'' and training. Finally, the agency will provide media
support for the national campaigns and outreach to various partners.
These resources will provide progress toward reducing alcohol-
related fatalities to 11,000 in 2005 (CY 1999 Target: 14,200; 1995
baseline: 17,274) and increase observed safety belt use rates to 85
percent by 2000 and reducing the number of child occupant fatalities
(ages 0-4) by 15 percent by 2000, from a total of 685 in 1995.
Question. Please document whether you are proposing to allocate
most of your resources on those areas most likely to result in the
biggest payoffs.
Answer. The agency is allocating its resources most heavily to
those areas which have the greatest potential for impact. Specifically,
the areas receiving the bulk of the resources are the alcohol and
occupant protection programs. Another important area is that of
Enforcement and Emergency Services. The table below shows the amounts
of funds requested for each of these areas.
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year
1998 1999
Approp. Request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALCOHOL, DRUG & STATE PROGRAMS:
Alcohol Program........................... 7,675 9,728
Drug Evaluation & Classification.......... 476 920
Pedestrian & Bicycles..................... 655 745
Motorcycle Programs....................... 337 509
NATIONAL OCCUPANT PROTECTION PROGRAMS:
Public Information & Education............ 2,263 2,911
Belt Law Compliance....................... 1,594 2,383
Target Population Ed...................... 1,540 3,050
Evaluation & Technology Sharing........... 498 771
ENFORCEMENT & EMERGENCY SERVICES:
Police Traffic Services................... 1,646 1,868
Emergency Medical Services................ 1,550 1,737
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please specify the scope, nature, and funding amounts for
fiscal year 1998 activities and for fiscal year 1999 planned efforts on
the issue of SUV's and on the issue of people driving while using their
phones.
Answer. The issue of SUV's is being investigated as part of the
agency's vehicle compatibility research. To date, the agency's research
that has been undertaken to evaluate passenger cars versus light trucks
and vans (LTV's) (which includes SUV's) has found that the LTV's as a
group substantially increase the risk of fatality to their collision
partners in vehicle-to-vehicle crashes. For fiscal year 1998, the
agency plans to spend $1.3 million on vehicle compatibility issues.
This funding will be used to continue the development of system
modeling for the evaluation of vehicle aggressivity and compatibility.
Also, crash tests are being conducted to develop concepts for
countermeasures that increase vehicle compatibility and reduce vehicle
aggressiveness. Full-system testing also will be used for model
validation as well as for evaluating system performance. This effort
will also include pedestrian protection research.
The agency plans to spend $1.677 million in fiscal year 1999 for
research on vehicle compatibility. This funding will be used to
continue the development of system modeling and test procedures for the
evaluation of vehicle aggressivity and compatibility. Also, activities
will be initiated for evaluation of countermeasures to increase vehicle
compatibility and reduce vehicle aggressiveness and for the development
of a test procedure for evaluating vehicle aggressivity/compatibility.
Full-system testing will be conducted for model validation as well as
for determination of system performance. This effort will also include
the continued assessment of pedestrian protection test procedures.
No fiscal year 1998 money was spent on cellular phone research. A
preliminary study that was funded earlier was published in fiscal year
1998. The fiscal year 1999 budget request includes $800 thousand for
driver behavior and performance, which will include research to
determine the safety effects of using in-vehicle devices such as
cellular phones, navigation systems, fax machines, and computers on
drivers' attention to the driving task.
safe communities injury control program
Question. Please prepare a table indicating the amount allocated
and the amount actually appropriated for the Safe Communities Injury
Control program for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998.
Answer. See table below.
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1996 Fiscal year 1997 Fiscal year 1998
Program -----------------------------------------------------
Request Approp Request Approp Request Approp
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safe Comm................................................. 5,600 675 1,800 900 900 900
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please prepare a table for the Safe Communities Injury
Control Program, showing how all of the funds requested for fiscal year
1999 area intended to be spent, and please include in that table a
comparison with the amount provided for similar activities for fiscal
year 1998.
Answer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year
Project 1998 1999 planned
expenditures expenditures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Demonstration/Evaluation Projects....... $525,000 $650,000
Peer-to-Peer Technical Assistance....... .............. 1,150,000
Safe Communities Award Program.......... .............. 50,000
Overall Program Evaluation.............. .............. 350,000
Technical Assistance (service center, 375,000 600,000
website, training, newsletters,
materials, printing etc.)..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Is this the last year that monies will be allocated for
program evaluation purposes? Why is there a need to continue the
evaluation components?
Answer. This is the only year that NHTSA anticipates monies will be
allocated for Safe Communities program evaluation purposes, separate
from the demonstration grants.
Two levels of evaluation of the program are being conducted. The
first level involves process and impact measures that are incorporated
into each of the Section 403 demonstration and evaluation projects.
Evaluation at this level will yield information on the impact of the
Safe Communities model on the traffic safety problem at each site as
well as information on various types of activities and countermeasures
that were implemented at that site.
The 10 communities that will be added this year and next year will
specifically use a ``continuous process improvement'' approach to
improving traffic safety. The greatest difference between previous
evaluations and this one is the time span. Whereas major program
evaluations may take three years, this process looks at changes over
periods as short as a week. The second largest difference is the
feedback loop. Program interventions are identified and tested on a
small scale. If, for instance, seat belt usage has risen as a result of
the program activity, the program will be implemented on an expanded
basis. If it remains the same or has fallen, the original changes will
be dropped or altered. NHTSA feels that this approach is well suited
for individual communities. This technique has shown some promise in
some non-NHTSA research, but it is an adaptation of an approach which
has shown its best success within companies that had top-down control
and direction. It needs to be refined and tested for Safe Communities,
where decision making is a group process.
The second level of evaluation will compare a sample of the
existing Safe Communities programs to a series of matched control sites
which are not Safe Communities. Each matched-pair of communities will
be in the same State. In addition to whether injuries and deaths
decreased, this level of evaluation will look at how well the Safe
Communities applied recommended best practices, and whether
improvements which occurred in the short term continued in the loner
term after less attention was given by the Safe Community committee.
This will test whether the new safe behaviors have become community
norms.
Question. How will the fiscal year 1999 evaluation component differ
from the fiscal year 1998 component?
Answer. All of the Section 403 Safe Communities demonstration and
evaluation projects for both fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 have
a component built into them that evaluates only the activities and the
results achieved within each community, compared to baseline data of
traffic injuries and fatalities in that community prior to the
implementation of the Safe Communities model. In fiscal year 1999,
there will be an independent, overall evaluation of the Safe
Communities model consisting of a matched-pair comparison of a random
sample of the existing Safe Communities with similar communities in the
same state which are not Safe Communities.
Question. Did NHTSA originally state that the evaluation phase of
the Safe Communities program would only last a few years? When was the
evaluation program originally intended to end?
Answer. When the program was conceived in 1995, it was designed as
a three-year demonstration and evaluation effort to test the
implementation of the newly-developed model in several locations. Since
that time, the program has gained momentum beyond expectation,
requiring additional monitoring and evaluation. The agency has also
learned of new techniques and strategies (i.e., continuous process
quality improvement procedures) that it believes can significantly
improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Safe Communities model.
Demonstrating and evaluating the effect of these new techniques would
be very beneficial to our efforts to establish effective community-
based efforts.
Question. Why are you seeking to expand the number of evaluation
sites during fiscal year 1999? What will be different or unique about
those evaluations? What new results are likely or are we simply testing
the injury control model in different locations?
Answer. NHTSA is seeking to expand the number of evaluation sites
during fiscal year 1999 to evaluate the effect of continuous
improvement procedures in a number of different settings. However, this
is not a matter of simply testing the model in different locations. It
also involves a variety of different countermeasures and ``best
practices'' implemented at various sites. Our objective is to gather a
sufficient amount of information to ensure that nearly every community
can apply effective Safe Communities procedures to its own special
circumstances.
Continuous improvement methodologies have been widely used and
proven effective in business and hospital settings. In 1996-97, the
Institute for Healthcare Improvement tested the use of these
methodologies in ten communities. The program resulted in a number of
program improvements. NHTSA is interested in testing the application of
these methods in a wide variety of non-hospital settings to determine
if they can: expedite the planning process and assist communities in
more rapid countermeasure implementation; assist communities in
obtaining early indications of potential effectiveness; and increase
local support and commitment by demonstrating more immediate successes
at lower costs.
Question. In view of the fact that more than 350 communities
already are participating in the Safe Communities program, why is it
necessary to continue the evaluation process?
Answer. Although more than 350 communities are already
participating in the Safe Communities program, the majority of these
communities have not yet fully adopted the four defining
characteristics of the model: use of multiple sources of data, citizen
involvement and participation, expanded partnerships, and use of a
comprehensive injury control system approach. This model offers
communities a new framework by which to address their motor vehicle
injury problems and encourages communities to be innovative in how they
develop their community programs.
NHTSA and the states continue to invest significant resources in
the implementation of Safe Communities. To date four research and
demonstration projects have been funded and five projects are pending.
Fiscal year 1999 funds request additional resources to support five
additional demonstration projects that will test the efficacy of using
a continuous improvement process model in a community setting. This is
a new approach that has not been tested in the highway safety setting.
These 14 demonstration projects will provide ``best practices
information'' on an array of strategies that an evaluation will
determine which are most useful to communities trying to replicate the
model. The best way to obtain this information is to conduct numerous
demonstrations in many locations.
Question. Why is it critical to increase spending for the Safe
Communities program by over 300 percent at this time?
Answer. The Safe Communities program has gained momentum beyond the
Agency's modest expectations. NHTSA's goal for fiscal year 1999 is to
have 600 Safe Communities and the ultimate goal is to have thousands of
Safe Communities throughout the country. Demand for technical
assistance, best practices information, training, and materials by
practitioners is extremely high. As a result, NHTSA will employ several
new initiatives to fulfill this demand.
NHTSA will establish a Network of Injury Prevention Medical
Professionals to market and support Safe Communities. This network will
be developed and maintained through the use of computer technology (e-
mail, bulletin board, Internet), video tele-conferences, distance
learning, videotapes, conference calls, newsletters and meetings. The
network participants will serve as an information resource, participate
in a speakers bureau, develop position papers, give presentations, talk
with a unified voice on traffic safety/Safe Communities, and market
Safe Communities to their colleagues.
A Regional Safe Communities Best Practices Workshop will be
developed to focus on community implementation strategies and model
programs such as the quality improvement approach. NHTSA will also
provide grants to communities to document Safe Communities ``best
practices'' in rural environments.
Regional Strategy Planning Sessions will develop Intermodal Safe
Communities strategic implementation plans with a variety of partners,
in the business, medical and other communities. A series of planning
meetings will be conducted to develop three to five year regional Safe
Communities strategic implementation plans.
A Safe Communities at Work Initiative will promote participation by
large and small employers to become an integral part of the program.
Finally, a series of forums will be conducted to help private sector
partners understand how to expand their role in local community
programs beyond providing small donations during fundraising events to
setting and implementing company policies and expanding their community
involvement.
Question. Since you already have several Safe Community evaluations
underway, wouldn't those results be sufficient to document the value of
that approach and the benefits of the continuous process improvement
strategy?
Answer. The results from the five Safe Communities evaluations
underway in fiscal year 1998 are not sufficient to document the value
of the approach and the benefits of the continuous process improvement
strategy for several reasons. First, although there are now hundreds of
Safe Communities programs in existence, most of them are asking for
more help to adapt and incorporate all aspects of the model most
effectively to their particular set of circumstances. The model is
challenging to communities because it encourages them to explore
different strategies to implement a community motor vehicle injury
program.
The continuous improvement strategy is intended to assist
communities in implementing the model more effectively. However, it
adds yet another dimension which would benefit from proper evaluation.
Significant demands have been placed on NHTSA to help communities
identify the ``best practices'' that fit their unique situations. All
of this requires much additional ``real world'' data.
Finally, it has been the Agency's experience that when strategies
are developed or evaluated in only a handful of communities, they are
not well received in other locations as they fail to address the unique
aspects of communities across the country. By increasing the number of
demonstration sites from five to ten, it is likely that strategies will
be perceived more favorably by a wider variety of communities.
Question. Instead of increasing Section 403 funds for the Safe
Communities program, would it not be advantageous to simply increase
Section 402 funds for that program?
Answer. It would not be advantageous to increase Section 402 funds
instead of increasing Section 403 funds. These two funding mechanisms
are complementary to each other. Section 403 funds are used to
demonstrate and evaluate promising concepts and to provide technical
assistance and best practices information based on the demonstration
and evaluation results. Section 402 funds are used to provide seed
money to local communities for planning and implementation efforts that
build upon the lessons learned in the Section 403 demonstration and
evaluation program.
States already have demonstrated a strong commitment to the Safe
Communities program. For example, although there was no earmarking in
fiscal year 1997, states expended $2.3 million of Section 402 funds in
support of Safe Communities. In fiscal year 1998, it is anticipated
that states will expend an estimated $2.4 million. Given this
investment by the states, the Agency believes that sufficient Section
403 funding should be provided to ensure that these state commitments
are supported with adequate technical assistance including the Safe
Communities Service Center, website, bi-monthly bulletin, newsletter,
awards program, best practices information, training and the four new
peer-to-peer technical assistance initiatives. This Section 403
activity is designed to help communities expand partnerships, adopt new
strategies and methods to improve program outcomes and, in general, to
provide a national support structure for the Safe Communities program.
alcohol, drug and state programs
Question. Please prepare a table indicating the amount allocated
and the amount actually appropriated for each of the subprograms in the
Alcohol, Drug and State program for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998.
Answer. See table below.
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1996 Fiscal year 1997 Fiscal year 1998
Program -----------------------------------------------------------
Request Approp Request Approp Request Approp
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alcohol............................................. 9,057 8,398 9,015 8,800 7,675 7,675
DEC................................................. 957 907 600 599 476 476
Ped/Bike............................................ 474 250 474 473 655 655
Motorcycle.......................................... 327 327 338 337 337 337
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please provide a table for each of the major components
of the Alcohol program showing how all the funds requested for fiscal
year 1999 are intended to be spent, and please include in that table a
comparison with the amount provided for similar activities for fiscal
year 1998. On a separate page, please justify the need for the
requested increases, specifying any new projects and associated funding
needs.
Answer.
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-------------------------
Area 1999
1998 budget request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alcohol Program............................... 7,675 9,728
Education and Prevention.................. 3,075 4,715
Enforcement & Sanction.................... 1,725 1,990
Prosecution/Adjudication.................. 1,150 1,200
Youth..................................... 1,181 1,823
Innovative Grants (Partners in Progress).. 544 ...........
Drug Evaluation and Classification Program.... 476 920
Pedestrian and Bicycles....................... 655 745
Pedestrian Program........................ 300 275
Bicycle Program........................... 205 290
Pupil Transportation Safety............... 150 180
Motorcycle Program............................ 337 509
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alcohol Program
In fiscal year 1999, NHTSA will undertake a major new initiative to
target five to ten states with the most significant opportunity to
reduce alcohol-related fatalities and assist them to conduct highly
focused problem identification and strategy development. Outreach to
national organizations and enforcement demonstrations will focus on
activities to support these targeted states. NHTSA will continue to
work with diverse and high risk populations and focus a new initiative
on college drinking and driving issues. In addition, NHTSA will
demonstrate alternative sanctions, procedures for enforcing court
orders, and emergency department intervention programs.
Drug Evaluation and Classification Program (DEC)
NHTSA will utilize fiscal year 1999 funding to: (1) enhance the
number of officers trained in Standardized Field Sobriety Testing
(SFST); (2) promote the effective use of drug detection training
modules; (3) expand drug information and training for prosecutors; (4)
involve prosecutors in community drug prevention programs; (5) promote
uniform sanctions for drug offenders; (6) continue research on drug
effects and methods for detecting drug use; (7) explore the use of CD-
ROM technology to improve impaired driving detection for law
enforcement; (8) promote the collection and analysis of state arrest
data on drug-impaired drivers; (9) expand the knowledge and use of the
DEC to community policing programs; and (10) develop tools for
improving officer observation and articulation skills when testifying
in alcohol and drug impaired driving cases.
Pedestrian and Bicycles Program
In fiscal year 1999, NHTSA will undertake several new initiatives
in the pedestrian and bicycle safety programs. In pedestrian safety,
the agency plans to initiate a technical assistance demonstration
program to focus pedestrian safety activities on those cities and
communities with the greatest pedestrian safety problem. With regard to
bicycle safety, the agency will initiate a review of available data and
literature on bicycle helmet usage, injuries, costs of injuries, and
experience with bicycle helmet laws. In addition, promising bicycle
safety initiatives will be promoted via a new mini-grant program. The
requested increase in pupil transportation safety will be used to
develop a child safety seat curriculum and video to assist states and
communities in transporting pre-kindergarten and Head Start children on
school buses.
Motorcycle Program
In fiscal year 1999, NHTSA plans to initiate (1) development of a
training curriculum for judges and prosecutors on a variety of
motorcycle safety issues; (2) a grant program to encourage states to
increase the availability of motorcycle licensing through extended
testing hours; and (3) a program to identify innovative approaches to
address impaired motorcycle riding. The agency will also use the
proposed increase in the motorcycle safety budget to support research
initiatives including identification of more effective methods of
motorcycle helmet labeling; effects of daytime running lights on
motorcycle conspicuity; and motorcycle crash causation and resulting
injuries.
Question. Please identify the purpose and amount of each of the 10
largest contracts funded under that area in fiscal year 1997.
Answer. In fiscal year 1997, NHTSA solicited innovative ideas to
address the strategies outlined in the Partners in Progress: An
Impaired Driving Guide for Action. Eight awards were made to innovative
programs, seven of which represent the largest contracts in this
program area. The ten largest contracts (some split-funded over a
couple of fiscal years) include:
American Prosecutors Research Institute, Alexandria, VA to support
a national clearinghouse of legal information and research related to
impaired driving and develop and implement prosecutor and judge
training ($475,585).
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority, Charlotte, NC on the
identification and referral of impaired drivers through emergency
department protocols ($470,752).
Department of Health and Human Services, San Diego, CA on targeted
reduction in alcohol related crashes ($400,000).
Harborview Injury Prevention and Research Center, Seattle, WA on
the impact health professionals can make on DWI ($397,114).
Mid America Research Institute, Winchester, MA on demonstrating the
effectiveness of a DUI Court ($342,955).
Traffic Injury Research Center, Ottawa, Canada and PA Liquor
Control, Harrisburg, PA on the demonstration of the smart card
technology ($282,925).
Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Irving, TX, to develop regional
impaired driving public policy workshops ($271,019).
National Public Services Research Institute, Landover, MD on a
safety economics resource center with an impaired driving component
($206,958).
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, to research and
evaluate a comprehensive program to reduce drinking and impaired
driving among college students ($175,000).
Scholastic, Inc, New York City, NY, to develop a national zero
tolerance education program ($170,000).
Question. How are the fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 funds
to be divided among such diverse purposes as outreach, evaluation
studies, PSA's, and other strategies? What is the rationale for that
allocation?
Answer. The goal of the alcohol program is to reduce alcohol-
related fatalities to 11,000 by the year 2005. Success in meeting this
goal will be achieved through a comprehensive approach to impaired
driving using the strategies identified in the Partners in Progress: An
Impaired Driving Guide to Action as the framework. A fundamental
principle of the alcohol program is that of partnerships. NHTSA's role
in this effort is to form new partnerships with organizations
developing new and innovative approaches to combat impaired driving;
and to develop, produce, and distribute materials to communities and
organizations to support their outreach efforts; and to provide
national public information and prevention initiatives to support local
efforts, as identified in the table that follows.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Fiscal year 1998 Amount 1999 Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outreach.--Expand the number $2,900,000 Expand the $3,500,000
of national organizations number of
addressing the prevention national
and health aspects of organizations
alcohol and impaired whose
driving. Develop materials constituents
targeting the medical and represent
public health communities to diverse and
assist in their educational high risk
efforts both to their peers populations to
and their constituents. support the
Exhibit at national agency's
conferences, supporting the alcohol
goals of the Partners in programs,
Progress initiative. targeting
organizations
whose mission
is to reach
youth. Special
emphasis will
be placed on
reaching
college
students.
Provide
opportunities
for
organizations
to participate
alcohol
programs at
the state and
local levels.
Continue to
exhibit at
national
conferences in
support of
Partners in
Progress goals.
Evaluation Studies.--A 540,000 Complete 620,000
variety of key legislation evaluation of
(.08 BAC, zero tolerance, the
ignition interlocks), effectiveness
enforcement (use of passive of vehicle
sensors), adjudication sanctions,
(sanctions) and public hospital
information and education reporting of
programs will be evaluated BAC's, why
to determine their there are
effectiveness and to measure fewer young-
progress in reducing alcohol- alcohol
related crashes. impaired
drivers,
innovative
enforcement
techniques
(saturation
patrols),
complete
evaluation of
innovative
sanctions for
repeat
offenders, and
measure
progress in
reducing
alcohol-
related
crashes.
Materials and Public Service 2,275,000 Continue fiscal 3,333,000
Announcements.--Develop, year 1998
produce, and distribute activities,
materials in support of the but with
alcohol programs, including additional
a new Partners in Progress emphasis on
campaign and ongoing youth and
activities such as TEAM, diverse
Campaign Safe & Sober, and populations.
the Ad Council Drunk Driving Develop new
Campaign. materials for
law
enforcement
related to
sobriety
checkpoints
and alcohol
detection
devices.
Other Strategies.--Innovative 1,960,000 Continue 1998 2,275,000
grants, targeted activities and
enforcement, technology to initiate
identify impaired drivers, demonstration
research. projects in 5-
10 targeted
states with
high alcohol
crash rates,
focusing on
enforcement
and public
education,
improved laws,
focus on .08
initiatives as
identified in
the
President's
Plan, convene
a national
summit for
judges,
research.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please submit for the record a copy of your 1998 spending
plan for that area as well as the occupant protection area.
Answer.
[In thousands of dollars]
Alcohol Program................................................... 7,675
Education and Prevention...................................... 3,075
Enforcement & Sanction........................................ 1,725
Prosecution/Adjudication...................................... 1,150
Youth......................................................... 1,181
Innovative Grants (Partners in Progress)...................... 544
Drug Evaluation and Classification Program........................ 476
Pedestrian and Bicycles........................................... 655
Pedestrian Program............................................ 300
Bicycle Program............................................... 205
Pupil Transportation Safety................................... 150
Motorcycle Program................................................ 337
Occupant Protection Program....................................... 6,610
Public Information & Education................................ 2,263
Belt Law Compliance........................................... 1,594
Target Population Education................................... 1,540
Evaluation & Technology Sharing............................... 498
Patterns for Life............................................. 715
Air Bag Safety Program............................................ 2,000
Question. Please discuss all of the current NHTSA-supported studies
underway regarding the benefits of 0.08 BAC laws. When are those
studies expected to be released? Please estimate the amount of funding
for each of those studies and describe the specific purpose of each
study.
Answer. NHTSA has supported two studies in the past on the effects
of 0.08 BAC. One study, published in 1991, found a 12 percent decrease
in alcohol-related fatalities in California in 1990, the year 0.08 BAC
went into effect along with an administrative license revocation law.
The second study was conducted by NHTSA staff and published in 1995.
That study found significant reductions in nine measures of alcohol-
related fatalities in four out of five states that had .08 laws
compared to the rest of the states at .10 BAC.
Presently, NHTSA has two studies of the effects of 0.08 BAC in
progress. One is a study of the effects of 0.08 BAC in North Carolina
on alcohol-related fatalities, crashes, arrests and other measures
($103,000). That study is expected to be completed by July 1998. The
second study is on the effects of 0.08 BAC in nine states that have had
some experience with the law ($49,000). Numerous effects are being
analyzed in this study including the effects on alcohol-related
fatalities and on per capita alcohol consumption. That study is
expected to be completed in August 1998.
Question. What studies on 0.08 BAC laws are planned with fiscal
year 1999 funds? Please estimate the amount of funding for each of
those studies.
Answer. NHTSA plans to continue to evaluate the effects of 0.08 BAC
laws on alcohol-related crashes and fatalities as more states consider
and adopt such laws. In fiscal year 1999, $150,000 is being allocated
to conduct a multi-state study of the effects of 0.08 BAC in states
that have recently adopted such laws.
Question. What studies are underway examining the impact of the
0.08 BAC law on the courts and enforcement officers? Will those studies
be conducted during fiscal year 1998 or during fiscal year 1999? Please
delineate associated funding amounts for each year.
Answer. NHTSA examined the impact of the 0.08 BAC law on the courts
and enforcement officers in a California study published in 1991. It
was found that while there was a slight increase in driving while
intoxicated (DWI) arrests in California in 1990, the year 0.08 BAC and
administrative license revocation laws went into effect, the increase
was not enough to overburden the police or the courts. In the following
year (1991), DWI arrests went back down below the 1989 level, possibly
due to the general deterrent effect that the two laws (and their strict
enforcement) had on drinking and driving in California.
NHTSA does plan to include examining the impact on the courts and
police in multi-state evaluation of the effects of 0.08 BAC laws in
fiscal year 1999. The total funds for that study will be $150,000 in
fiscal year 1999.
Question. Please provide additional details on the proposal to
target five to ten states with the most significant opportunity to
reduce alcohol-related fatalities.
Answer. The intent of this proposed demonstration program is to
target the top five or ten states having the most significant alcohol-
related motor vehicle crash problem with focused support. The
components of the projects will include the identification of impaired
driving problems; the development of performance measures; the
implementation of countermeasures; and the evaluation of results.
Technical assistance will be provided to the states to address each of
these components. Program initiatives will focus on high risk
populations including youth, repeat offenders, and 21-34 year olds.
Final results will be distributed nationally.
The state demonstration projects will build on the innovative
strategies from the Partners in Progress: An Impaired Driving Guide for
Action and will focus on prevention, education, enforcement,
intervention, and treatment. Outreach to national organizations with
state affiliates in the demonstration states will compliment state and
local coalition building efforts.
drug evaluation and classification
Question. Please prepare a detailed breakdown of how the $920,000
requested for the Drug Evaluation and Classification (DEC) program
would be used and compare that allocation to the fiscal year 1997 and
fiscal year 1998 expenditures.
Answer.
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
--------------------------------------
1997 budget 1998 budget 1999 budget
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drug Evaluation and 599 476 920
Classification Program..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year 1997, most states with high drug-impaired driving
populations had established DEC programs in some of their communities.
NHTSA concentrated its efforts to support the program by expanding
legal research, technical assistance, and training to state and local
prosecutors and judges through the American Prosecutor Research
Institute ($300 thousand) and the National Judicial College ($100
thousand) to counter new legal challenges as the program spread. The
agency continued to assist the International Association of Chiefs of
Police ($75 thousand) to maintain the national standards for
performance and certification of Drug Recognition Experts. Research
projects ($124 thousand) focused on testing new technology to detect
drugs with urine screening devices and a study to explore improvements
to the DEC procedures.
In fiscal year 1998, NHTSA's approach was to maintain the DEC
program at minimum support level by providing support for (a) IACP ($50
thousand) and the National Traffic Law Center ($250 thousand) to
provide technical assistance; (b) training to prosecutors in recent DEC
sites and maintain legal research on impaired driving; and (c)
assistance to states to assure program continuity and sharing of
training instructor resources. Research activities ($176 thousand)
concentrated on detecting the incidence of drugs and driving.
NHTSA's fiscal year 1999 requested funding will allow support of
the DEC program as an effective tool for reducing impaired driving. The
agency will serve in its leadership role by maintaining the quality and
integrity of the program. Funding provides for a summit level
conference ($250 thousand) that brings judicial educators, judges,
alcohol researchers and highway safety experts together to educate and
share technology advances. This meeting will expand knowledge and
acceptance of new impaired driving techniques and technology. Judicial
educators will be provided with a conference kit for duplication in
each state. Additionally, funding ($200 thousand) is directed to
research and advance new impaired driving detection technology.
A program to promote and renew a training emphasis on detecting
drug-impaired drivers for law enforcement ($250 thousand) will increase
impaired driving arrest. Funding will support new prevention,
education, and technical assistance activities for law enforcement,
prosecutors, judges, and the public as identified in the President's
Initiative on Drugs, Driving and Youth ($220 thousand).
Question. Please describe the performance measures associated with
that program, especially the outcomes and outputs.
Answer. The goals of the DEC program are to increase the number of
drugged drivers convicted in DEC sites and reduce drug-impaired driving
and drug use by youth. This goal is a significant challenge, as there
is growing evidence that the use of drugs, especially by youth, is on
the upswing. In addition, studies of drivers involved in crashes show
that many have used drugs often in combination with alcohol.
Specific outcome measures include the number of crashes in which
drugs are involved and the number of DEC related convictions. Since
these data are not always available, plans are underway to increase the
collection of such data.
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. How much will be spent on those during
fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999?
Answer. NHTSA has several studies underway that will serve as
resources to the criminal justice system.
A joint NHTSA/NIDA laboratory study designed to improve DEC
examination procedures is reaching completion. In this study subjects
were dosed with one of the following drugs: cannabis, alprezolam,
amphetamine, codeine, or placebo. Either a low or high dose was
administered. The measurable signs of these drugs on cognitive, ocular,
physiological and motor performance were examined. A multivariate
discriminant function analysis is being performed to determine the most
accurate detection procedure. (Fiscal year 1998 funding: $25,000)
A NHTSA study is near completion of the incidence of drugs in non-
fatal seriously injured drivers. Over 2,000 injured motorists taken to
the hospital for treatment have been screened for drug use while
driving. Confirmatory tests are currently being conducted on all
presumptive positive samples. Culpability analysis will help determine
if drug use is associated with driver crash responsibility. A report is
expected by the end of 1998. (Fiscal year 1998 funding: $80,000)
NHTSA is funding a comprehensive review of research on the
behavioral effects of antihistamines on driving related skilled
performance and crash rates. Laboratory, simulator, and on-the-road
studies on the effects of antihistamines, as well as the interaction of
antihistamine and alcohol use will be examined. This study will
determine the extent to which antihistamines, especially sedating over-
the-counter antihistamines, appear to represent a highway safety
hazard. (Fiscal year 1998 funding: $28,000)
A literature review of research on drug use and driving with a
particular focus on the role of drugs other than alcohol in traffic
crashes is being completed. This study looked at epidemiological
research on drugs and traffic crashes, including literature on the drug
use of various subgroups of drivers. A final report is due by the end
of 1998. (No fiscal year 1998 or fiscal year 1999 funding)
NHTSA, in conjunction with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration (SAMHSA), has conducted a survey of the
prevalence and patterns of substance use among drivers in the United
States. A report on this nationally representative sample of over 11
thousand drivers regarding their driving under the influence of drugs
other than alcohol will be released in the Fall of 1998. (No fiscal
year 1998 or fiscal year 1999 funds)
Question. Please provide an update on any studies that NHTSA has
underway or planned that will help the law enforcement community deal
with drug-impaired drivers. How much will be spent on those during
fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999?
Answer. NHTSA has several studies underway that will serve as
resources to the law enforcement community:
A joint NHTSA/NIDA laboratory study designed to improve DEC
examination procedures is reaching completion. In this study subjects
were dosed with one of the following drugs: cannabis, alprezolam,
amphetamine, codeine, or placebo. Either a low or high dose was
administered. The measurable signs of these drugs on cognitive, ocular,
physiological and motor performance were examined. A multivariate
discriminant function analysis is being performed to determine the most
accurate detection procedure. (Fiscal year 1998 funding: $25,000)
A NHTSA study is near completion of the incidence of drugs in non-
fatal seriously injured drivers. Over 2,000 injured motorists taken to
the hospital for treatment have been screened for drug use while
driving. Confirmatory tests are currently being conducted on all
presumptive positive samples. Culpability analysis will help determine
if drug use is associated with driver crash responsibility. A report is
expected by the end of 1998. (Fiscal year 1998 funding: $80,000)
NHTSA is funding a comprehensive review of research on the
behavioral effects of antihistamines on driving related skilled
performance and crash rates. Laboratory, simulator, and on-the-road
studies on the effects of antihistamines, as well as the interaction of
antihistamine and alcohol use will be examined. This study will
determine the extent to which antihistamines, especially sedating over-
the-counter antihistamines, appear to represent a highway safety
hazard. (Fiscal year 1998 funding: $28,000)
A literature review of research on drug use and driving with a
particular focus on the role of drugs other than alcohol in traffic
crashes is being completed. This study looked at epidemiological
research on drugs and traffic crashes, including literature on the drug
use of various subgroups of drivers. A final report is due by the end
of 1998. (No fiscal year 1998 or fiscal year 1999 funding)
NHTSA, in conjunction with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration (SAMHSA), has conducted a survey of the
prevalence and patterns of substance use among drivers in the United
States. A report on this nationally representative sample of over 11
thousand drivers regarding their driving under the influence of drugs
other than alcohol will be released in the Fall of 1998. (No fiscal
year 1998 or fiscal year 1999 funds)
Question. How much of the DEC training provided to enforcement
officers is being paid for by NHTSA?
Answer. Currently no Section 403 funds are being used for this
purpose. Fiscal year 1994 was the last year that the agency used 403
dollars to fund DEC instructor services to train law enforcement
officers.
Question. In view of the fact that the DEC program is a relatively
mature program, why is it critical to increase funding at this time?
Answer. Some states have institutionalized the DEC program in
selected communities while others are still struggling. The number of
DEC trained officers remains less than 1 percent of all patrol
officers.
The available information from studies of drivers who have been
involved in crashes indicates that many have used drugs. NHTSA
estimates that drugs continue to be used by approximately 10 percent to
22 percent of drivers involved in crashes, often in combination with
alcohol. Additional studies show that many drivers injured in crashes
or cited for traffic violations also have used drugs.
In the research to complete the Presidential Initiative on Drugs,
Driving and Youth, the Federal multi-agency task force identified the
DEC program as the only program in the country that was specifically
designed to remove drug-impaired drivers from our highways.
It is critical that NHTSA continue the national leadership role in
the DEC program to ensure that training and testing standards are
strictly followed and accepted by the courts as valid. Any modification
or improvement must be done on a national level in order to maintain
the program's validity and integrity. This will ensure that the
protocol is conducted in a systematic and standardized manner across
the country.
The additional funding will: (1) increase and promote training in
Standardized Field Sobriety Testing (SFST) training and training for
prosecutors; (2) involve prosecutors in community drug prevention
programs; (3) promote uniform sanctions for drug offenders; (4)
continue DEC related research; (5) promote the collection and analysis
of state arrest data on drug impaired drivers; (6) develop courtroom
skills for testifying in alcohol and drug impaired driving cases; and
(7) expand DEC to community policing programs.
Question. Please summarize 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 that research?
Answer. Several of the essential studies implemented over the past
two years are still in progress. When completed, the results and
recommendations will be presented to the DEC Technical Advisory Panel,
Highway Safety Committee, International Association of Chiefs of
Police. Some of the most important activities include (a) joint NHTSA/
NIDA laboratory research to validate and improve DEC procedures; (b)
clinical results which validate the DRE evaluation is procedure; (c) a
study 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; (d) a study to analyze blood
specimens from drivers injured in crashes and to conduct an analysis of
responsibility to assess the causal role of drugs in those crashes, and
(e) a field test of inexpensive drug screening kits to determine their
accuracy and usefulness in actual law enforcement settings for both DEC
and non-DEC officers.
Question. Has NHTSA or any one else ever conducted any studies on
the net outcome of the DEC?
Answer. NHTSA has conducted two formal studies that have examined
the impact of the DEC program on enforcement and adjudication and to
review the experiences of sites that have implemented the DEC program.
A 1992 study looked at arrests and convictions in eleven
communities in Arizona, California, Colorado, New York, and Texas which
had the DEC program for at least two years. Data from before and after
the initiation of the DEC program in each community was examined and
compared to state-matched communities which had not adopted DEC. The
study found that prior to the DEC program implementation, arrests for
drugged driving were very rare. After initiating the program, DEC sites
showed increased drugged driving arrests and convictions while there
were not similar increases in the comparison communities. Overall, 65
percent of the drivers suspected of being under the influence of drugs
were convicted on an impaired driving charge. Comparable conviction
rates for the alcohol impaired drivers in these sites ranged from 80 to
90 percent.
More recently, Arizona (1994), New Mexico (1997) and New York
(1997) found conviction rates of 90 percent and above for drugged
driving cases made by Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) officers.
Additionally, Arizona's 500 Case DRE Validation Study found that most
of the drivers in the study would not have been arrested and prosecuted
for drug-impaired driving prior to the implementation of the DEC
program.
Another NHTSA study looked at the growth and expansion of the DEC
program in an attempt to identify key elements of successful programs.
This study found that the withdrawal of NHTSA funding for DEC program
maintenance and expansion in 1995 had little impact on existing
programs (most showed long term viability) and that the DEC program
continues to expand although more slowly than in the early years.
Question. Are there studies which address the following questions:
What happens to people who are arrested because of DEC? Are they
typically convicted? Are those same people likely to be convicted again
for driving under the influence of drugs?
Answer. The comprehensive DEC evaluation conducted on people
arrested for driving under the influence of drugs showed that a high
proportion of such offenders enter a guilty plea. A number of state and
local agencies have conducted studies to determine the conviction rate
of DEC-related arrests. Studies conducted in Arizona, New Mexico,
Maryland, and New York all suggest a conviction of 90 percent or
greater. In Minnesota, studies found a conviction rate of about 80
percent.
There are currently no formal studies that we are aware of that
measure the recidivism rate for DEC cases. Several states are
attempting to collect such data. The Metro Dade, Florida Police
Department estimates that their recidivism rate is less that 10
percent. Preliminary data from New York State Police shows a recidivism
rate of only 2-3 percent.
Question. What new and innovative activities will be funded?
Answer. NHTSA will: enhance the number of officers trained in
Standardized Field Sobriety Testing (SFST); revise and promote the
effective use of drug detection training modules; expand drug
information and training for prosecutors; involve prosecutors in
community drug prevention programs; promote uniform sanctions for drug
offenders; continue research on drug effects and methods for detecting
drug use; explore the use of CD-ROM technology to improve detection of
impaired driving; promote the collection and analysis of state arrest
data on drug impaired drivers; develop tools for improving observation
and articulation skills when officers testify in alcohol and drug
impaired driving cases; and expand the use of the DEC procedures in
community policing programs.
Question. What is NHTSA doing to work with the States to improve
laws pertaining to drug-impaired driving? How much is in your fiscal
year 1998 spending plan and fiscal year 1999 budget request for that
activity? (In your answer, please assume there is no grant program in
that area.)
Answer. NHTSA provides legal research on existing drug-impaired
driving laws in the states. This is carried out through ongoing in-
house legal research and an annual publication of the Alcohol-Highway
Safety: A Digest of State Alcohol-Highway Safety Related Legislation.
The Digest serves as a state law reference guide and is used for
comparisons and improvements to existing state laws. In fiscal year
1998, no funds were specifically dedicated to this effort.
In fiscal year 1999, under the Drugs, Driving and Youth Initiative
($950 thousand), NHTSA will work with national and state leaders to
develop a legislative assessment of state drugged driving laws. Such
laws are inconsistent and frequently difficult to enforce, often
hampering law enforcement and the courts.
NHTSA will develop and provide model laws and effective laws used
by various states as examples for other states desiring to improve
their laws. A 3-5 state demonstration project, with a strong evaluation
component, will assess and provide methodology to improve state drugged
driving laws. Technical assistance will also be provided to states
interested in expanding and/or strengthening their drugged driving
legislation.
Question. What else could NHTSA do in this area?
Answer. There are other areas that NHTSA could focus on to address
the drugged driving problem such as technology, public education and
research.
pedestrians and bicycles
Question. Why is an increase necessary in this area?
Answer. Pedestrian and bicycle fatalities constituted about 15
percent of traffic fatalities (6,173) in 1996. Seventy-five percent of
all bicycle crashes involve head injuries; however, despite their
effectiveness, only 18 percent of riders wear them.
In the past, pedestrian and bicycle programs have received very
limited funding. Consequently, initiatives have been few and modest.
Over the past several years, NHTSA has attempted to expand its
initiatives in these areas, and most recently has emphasized pedestrian
and bicycle safety in the context of Safe Communities. In addition, two
public-private partnerships, requiring assistance and support, have
been formed to promote safe walking and bicycling--The Partnership for
a Walkable America and the National Bicycle Safety Network.
Three years ago, the agency had one initiative for bicycle safety:
the Ride Like a Pro Bicycle Safety Event. By fiscal year 1998, NHTSA
will have three funded initiatives in bicycle safety and plans to
expand these to five or six in fiscal year 1999. New initiatives in
bicycle safety include a review of available data and literature on
bicycle helmet usage, injuries, costs of injuries, and experience with
bicycle helmet laws; and a new mini-grant program to involve national
organizations in bicycle safety.
The pedestrian safety program has fared somewhat better over the
past few years but additional technical assistance and program
activities are needed to address this significant problem area. The
agency is completing development of Spanish-language materials which
address older adult and child pedestrian risks and will begin work with
national organizations to distribute and field test the materials.
During fiscal year 1999, new pedestrian safety initiatives will focus
on identifying and documenting ``best practices case studies'' in
pedestrian safety; developing a technical assistance workshop for
communities and local organizations; increasing outreach to health care
professionals, employers and intergovernmental organizations; and
marketing the pedestrian safety tool kit to safe communities sites. The
agency will also initiate a demonstration program to target pedestrian
safety initiatives to cities with the greatest number of fatalities.
Until recently, the agency had few pupil transportation safety
projects. An in-service school bus driver safety curriculum is being
pilot-tested and will be finalized in fiscal year 1998. In addition,
the agency will initiate new cooperative agreements with several
localities to develop innovative strategies for reducing the illegal
passing of stopped school buses. In fiscal year 1999, the agency will
develop a child safety seat curriculum and video to assist communities
in transporting pre-kindergarten and Head Start children.
Question. Please describe the measures of performance associated
with this program, and list the resulting outcomes and outputs.
Answer. The measures of performance for the Pedestrian and Bicycle
Safety Program are the number of pedestrian and bicycle-related
injuries and fatalities occurring on public roadways. The resulting
outcomes are to (1) reduce pedestrian fatalities to 4,925 and bicycle
fatalities to 722 by the Year 2000; (2) reduce pedestrian injuries to
81,000 and bicycle injuries to 54,000 by the Year 2000.
The outputs for the pedestrian and bicycle safety program include:
Pedestrian safety program materials (for children and older adults)
for Hispanic populations.
Pedestrian safety ``tool kit'' for use by local communities to
improve pedestrian safety.
Walkability Checklist and ``Walk a Child to School Day'' with the
Partnership for a Walkable America.
Technical Assistance Workshop to help communities address
pedestrian safety issues.
Technical assistance demonstration program focusing pedestrian
safety activities in cities and communities with the greatest
pedestrian safety problem.
White paper, with case studies, on successful community programs
reducing pedestrian and bicycle injuries.
Bicycle Safety Community Handbook.
``Cops on Bikes'' training enabling law enforcement to provide
bicycle safety education while on patrol.
Bicycle safety materials and approaches for use with at-risk youth
in urban areas.
Mini-grant program to involve national organizations in bicycle
safety.
School bus operator in-service training program.
Program to reduce illegal passing of stopped school buses.
Question. How much of this account is spent on safety measures
involving school buses?
Answer. Approximately $180,000 of the fiscal year 1999 Pedestrian-
Bicycle Program account is designated for school bus safety.
Question. Please prepare a table showing both FHWA and NHTSA
investments in those areas for each of the last three fiscal years and
requested for fiscal year 1999.
Answer. The information is presented below.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year by program area NHTSA FHWA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1996:
Pedestrian Safety............................. $152,000 $198,000
Bicycle Safety................................ 55,000 110,000
Pupil Transportation.......................... 11,000 .........
Fiscal year 1997:
Pedestrian Safety............................. 222,000 374,000
Bicycle Safety................................ 122,000 109,000
Pupil Transportation.......................... 130,000 .........
Fiscal year 1998:
Pedestrian Safety............................. 300,000 63,000
Bicycle Safety................................ 205,000 42,000
Pupil Transportation.......................... 150,000 .........
Fiscal year 1999:
Pedestrian Safety............................. 275,000 515,000
Bicycle Safety................................ 290,000 410,000
Pupil Transportation.......................... 180,000 .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
automatic external defibrillators (aed)
Question. To ensure that training standards for use of AED's are
not unnecessarily burdensome and are consistent with new easy to use
AED technology, the Committee encouraged the Department to work with
state departments of transportation and other appropriate state
agencies to review their defibrillator training requirements and to
modify those requirements where appropriate. How did you respond to
that request? What specific contracts have been signed to implement
that effort?
Answer. NHTSA responded to the Committee's request in the form of a
cooperative agreement with the National Association of State EMS
Directors (NASEMSD). This agreement is currently being negotiated
utilizing fiscal year 1998 funds. This agreement will enable the
NASEMSD to conduct and analyze a survey of appropriate state offices to
determine current training requirements and plans for future amendments
in these requirements. A final report on this survey is due five months
following award. The agency and the NASEMSD will utilize findings of
the survey to develop plans for encouraging and supporting appropriate
accommodation of new AED technology.
youth, drugs, and driving initiative and other youth oriented
activities
Question. The budget justification states that funding will support
a pre-driver licensure drug testing demonstration program. Please
describe the scope, nature, and purpose of that initiative. How would
it work? How much money is planned for that activity?
Answer. The pre-driver licensure drug testing demonstration program
is envisioned as one component of a systematic and comprehensive
program designed 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. A key part of the strategy laid out in that report was a
demonstration program to assist states in developing and testing core
elements of a pre-driver licensure drug testing program. The
demonstration program would involve 2-4 states over a two-year period
implementing pre-driver licensure drug testing programs.
One approach to operating a pre-driver licensure drug testing
program would be to simply require proof of testing (by an independent
certified laboratory) as part of the licensing process. This is
currently done in many states as a requirement for participation in
high school athletics. NHTSA estimates the cost of having drug tests
conducted using DOT/DHHS-approved procedures for collection, testing,
review, and reporting would be $35 to $45 per test. These procedures
require: (a) standardized collection steps that are used at over 10,000
sites across the U.S.; (b) testing at any of the 69 DHHS-certified
laboratories; and (c) review of positive results by qualified
physicians.
Fiscal year 1999 funds, not to exceed $250,000, would be used to
provide a small number of planning grants to states wishing to examine
the practical issues involved in implementing a testing program and to
develop detailed implementation plans for such a program (e.g., what
drugs to include, test procedures to use, who will conduct the tests,
who will receive the results, etc.). NHTSA has been in contact with
states that have expressed serious interest in receiving planning
grants.
Question. Were any funds expended in fiscal year 1998 to plan for a
pre-licensure drug test program. If so, how much?
Answer. No funds were expended in fiscal year 1998 to plan for a
pre-licensure drug test program. A small amount of staff time was
expended responding to congressional requests for information about
this proposed program and to respond to state inquiries about the
possibility and likelihood of funding being provided for a program of
this type.
Question. Please break out separately the expected costs for each
of the new and on-going initiatives specified under the Youth, Drugs,
and Driving Initiative.
Answer.
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------
1998 1999
budget request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Youth, Drugs, and Driving......................... 1,400 2,000
Law Enforcement Training...................... 400 .........
Prosecutor Training........................... 400 .........
Judge Training................................ 300 100
Drug Prevention Program....................... 300 100
Drug Testing Demos............................ ......... 250
Public Education and Outreach................. ......... 750
Summit on Drugs and Driving................... ......... 300
Research and Demo on state drugged driving ......... 500
legislation..................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. What is NHTSA doing to improve the enforcement of drunk
driving laws affecting youth?
Answer. NHTSA has undertaken activities in four major areas:
technical assistance materials, training, demonstration projects and
promotion of innovative concepts.
Manuals and video tapes have been developed to assist enforcement
and alcohol beverage control agencies with strategies and program
ideas. Youth DWI And Underage Enforcement was written by police
officers to describe effective strategies in detecting and apprehending
youthful offenders. Retail Oriented Best Practices for Underage
Drinking Prevention was assembled by a committee of alcohol beverage
control officials from throughout the country. Both publications have
recently been distributed to enhance law enforcement efforts. The
agency is planning a new round of training in youth enforcement
techniques and adjudication concepts. The Youth DWI Enforcement
Workshops, developed by IACP, is being revised to include additional
zero tolerance enforcement information. The Alcohol Highway Safety
Workshop For Juvenile Court Judges will be updated to include more
information on drugged driving and will be delivered in approximately
ten States by the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.
As a result of five demonstration sites conducted in partnership with
the Department of Justice, NHTSA will be publishing Strategies For
Success: Combating Juvenile DUI. This document will encourage police
executives and other criminal justice officials to develop a
coordinated criminal justice system to deal with youthful drinking and
impaired driving offenders. Innovative concepts such as Teen Courts are
being promoted by NHTSA to find alternate methods of processing
youthful offenders. Publications and training programs have resulted in
an increase of over 300 new teen court programs in the past several
years. Because of universal difficulties police have after arresting a
juvenile, NHTSA is currently examining effective ``holdover''
facilities that temporarily detain youthful alcohol offenders. Training
and technical assistance will be provided to assist police in this
post-arrest phase of activities. Zero Tolerance projects have had a
particular emphasis on enforcement, including a national satellite
teleconference, a student/police collaboration demonstration project,
and a national campaign emphasizing enforcement coupled with awareness.
The agency will also be initiating a project in fiscal year 1999 to
better measure compliance of youth alcohol and impaired driving laws.
Question. How do NHTSA's fiscal year 1998 budget and the fiscal
year 1999 budget request address that issue? Please break down specific
activities and associated amounts.
Answer. The following projects are underway or planned in fiscal
year 1998 or fiscal year 1999:
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Fiscal
Youth enforcement projects year 1998 year 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replicate Washington DC Model Underage Drinking 200 200
Program..........................................
American Probation and Parole Association ``Teen ......... 50
Courts''.........................................
National Zero Tolerance Campaign.................. 200 250
Rural Enforcement of zero tolerance and alcohol 150 .........
laws.............................................
Juvenile ``Holdover'' Project..................... 100 .........
Demo to Target High Fatal Crash States............ 200 200
Training for Juvenile Court Judges................ 300 100
Techniques for Measuring Compliance with Alcohol ......... 150
Laws.............................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please specify the nature and total amount of all youth-
oriented activities for fiscal year 1997, fiscal year 1998 and planned
for fiscal year 1999 separately.
Answer. The information follows:
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
Project --------------------------------------
1997 1998 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Graduated Licensing State Grants 100 175 225
and Evaluation..................
Replicate Washington DC Model ........... 200 200
Underage Drinking Prog..........
American Probation and Parole 100 ........... 50
Association ``Teen Courts''.....
American Trauma Society Juvenile 946 ........... ...........
Visitation Program..............
National Zero Tolerance Campaign/ 200 200 250
Scholastic......................
BACCHUS/SADD Zero Tolerance 96 ........... ...........
Campaign........................
Peer Helpers Zero Tolerance 93 ........... ...........
Teleconference..................
Rural Enforcement of zero 150 150 ...........
tolerance and alcohol laws......
Determine Effectiveness of Zero 150 ........... ...........
Tolerance Laws..................
MADD Training of Student 118 30 ...........
Activists.......................
Strides for Safety Campaign/ 81 80 ...........
National Safety Council.........
Juvenile ``Holdover'' Project.... 100 100 ...........
National Organization for Youth 45 200 150
Safety (NOYS) support...........
National Organization (NOYS) ........... 150 250
Project Support.................
NOYS Youth Summit................ 69 ........... 75
Cross Age Peer Mentoring Program. 25 ........... ...........
Nat'l Science Teachers Assoc. 50 75 ...........
Traffic Safety Science Curr.....
Youth Sanctions Guide for 75 ........... ...........
impaired driving offenses.......
Youth Urban Project.............. 50 50 ...........
Evaluation of youth projects..... 25 25 25
Guidelines for age-appropriate 150 ........... ...........
safety education materials......
Develop strategies to increase 40 50 ...........
safety belt use by youth........
Improve decision making skills of 257 ........... ...........
young novice drivers............
Community Compliance With ABC 150 ........... ...........
Laws............................
SADD National Conference Support 50 25 25
(Nat'l Youth Campaign)..........
``Traffic Safety Box'' National 50 50 50
Implementation..................
Reduce Impaired Driving Among 100 75 250
College Students................
Matching Safety Strategies to 28 ........... ...........
Youth Characteristics...........
Determine Reasons for Reduced 100 40 ...........
Youth DWI.......................
Bicycle Programs................. 80 100 120
Pedestrian Programs.............. ........... 125 75
Training for Juvenile Court ........... 300 100
Judges (Alcohol and Drugs)......
Youth Diversity Project.......... 50 ........... ...........
Zero Tolerance Education with ........... 100 100
NCAA............................
Techniques for Measuring ........... ........... 150
Compliance with Alcohol Laws....
--------------------------------------
TOTAL...................... 2,578 2,395 2,450
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. How many States are now receiving grant funds to test and
evaluate graduated licensing systems? What have been the results?
Answer. Five States received grants to assist them in establishing
and then evaluating graduated licensing systems--Alaska, Florida, North
Carolina, Tennessee, and Vermont. Only Florida and North Carolina have
been successful in passing legislation creating graduated systems. They
are currently conducting evaluations. In addition, contracts have been
initiated in Michigan (University of Michigan) and Kentucky (University
of Kentucky) to evaluate their graduated driver licensing systems.
Evaluation results are expected from Florida later this year; from
North Carolina and Michigan by June 2000, and from Kentucky by June
2001.
Question. What progress has been made in that area during the last
three years? How does the fiscal year 1999 budget request and the
fiscal year 1998 budget address that matter? Please indicate funding
amounts.
Answer. Nineteen States have passed legislation establishing or
upgrading components of a graduated driver licensing system in the last
three years (California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii,
Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio,
South Carolina, and Virginia). Many other States have introduced
legislation during the last three years to establish or upgrade
components of a graduated driver licensing system.
With regard to funding, $175,000 and $225,000 were allocated in
fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999, respectively, to evaluate the
Michigan and Kentucky programs. The evaluations in North Carolina and
Florida were initiated with fiscal year 1995 funds.
Question. Please describe the changes made and performance measures
associated with the youth program and the outcomes and outputs of any
accomplishments since last year.
Answer. NHTSA has developed a performance measure in partnership
with Students Against Destructive Decisions (SADD). The ``2000 X 2000
Campaign'' has set a goal of 2,000 alcohol-related fatalities for ages
15 through 20 by the year 2000. In 1996, these fatalities numbered
2,315, a 5 percent increase from 1995.
The NHTSA youth program continues to focus on three broad
approaches to achieve reduced teenage fatalities: legislation,
education and enforcement. Our legislative efforts are primarily
focused on strengthening and implementing the zero tolerance laws,
enacting graduated licensing laws and increasing compliance with the
age 21 drinking laws. Numerous education efforts are underway,
primarily in partnership with national organizations like MADD and SADD
and the members of National Organizations For Youth Safety (NOYS).
Enforcement efforts focus on the development of how-to materials and
demonstration programs with law enforcement organizations.
Currently, 49 States and the District of Columbia have zero
tolerance laws. NHTSA estimates that age 21 laws saved 846 lives in
1996 alone. In 1997, 6 States passed new laws revising their licensing
statutes that pertain to teen drivers. Currently, there are 15 States
that require multiple levels of licensing for young novice drivers.
Seventeen States have restricted nighttime driving hours for teen
drivers. Numerous products have resulted from NHTSA funded efforts, the
latest being a national satellite teleconference on Zero Tolerance,
which was fed to approximately 400 down-link sites and 20 public
service TV stations.
Question. The conferees provided $1,400,000 to bolster training and
education in law enforcement, prosecutors and judges dealing with
detection, arrests, and punishment of young alcohol and drug offenders,
and the sanctioning of alcohol and drug offenders. Please describe the
progress made in each of these areas.
Answer. The plan for addressing these concerns focuses on training
and education for law enforcement, prosecutors, judges, and school
officials. For law enforcement, the Youth Enforcement Workshop will be
revised to expand its focus to alcohol and other drugs and will to
include topics such as zero tolerance, impact of drug use by youth, and
drug research.
For prosecutors and patrol officers, a workshop entitled Protecting
Lives, Saving Futures is being developed to provide guidance on the
effective and efficient use of existing and newly enacted laws,
enforcement techniques and technology to reduce alcohol and other drug
use by youth.
For judges that hear cases involving youthful drug, alcohol, and
other impaired driving offenses, an educational program is being
developed which focuses on the impact that alcohol and other drugs have
on both crime and traffic safety, as well as judges' impact on the
enforcement process and dispositional alternatives for youthful
offenders. NHTSA anticipates an award to the National Council of
Juvenile and Family Court Judges by August 1998.
For school administrators, teachers, coaches, counselors, and
nurses an education and training program is being developed to help
recognize the signs and symptoms of students under the influence of
alcohol and other drugs. This program is designed to be presented by
law enforcement officers.
Question. What specific contracts have been signed to implement
that directive?
Answer. No contracts have been signed yet. We anticipate the
following awards to be made by the end of fiscal year 1998:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organization Date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Law Enforcement--Youth Enforcement International Association of Chiefs of July 1998.
Workshop. Police.
Prosecutors--Protecting Lives, National Traffic Law Center.............. September 1998.
Saving Futures Workshop.
Judges--Workshop and training for National Council of Juvenile Court Judges August 1998.
juvenile court judges.
Detecting and Treating Alcohol and International Association of Chiefs of July 1998.
Other Drugs Before It Becomes a Police.
Problem.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. How much will be spent on alcohol issues and how much on
drug-related concerns?
Answer. Funding levels cannot be easily differentiated. All four
projects to be undertaken in the youth, drugs and driving initiative
focus on alcohol and other drugs and on training for a variety of
audiences (law enforcement, prosecutors, etc.). The training will cover
both alcohol and other drug issues as they relate to prevention,
detection, prosecution, adjudication, and treatment.
Question. The conferees directed NHTSA to consider developing model
policies for youth enforcement treatment and sentencing and then
conduct a demonstration using this model. Please describe the progress
made in that area. What specific contracts have been issued to
implement the revised project?
Answer. NHTSA has a number of initiatives underway to address model
enforcement and sentencing policies and practices. This year the agency
published two documents addressing enforcement issues: Youth DWI and
Underage Enforcement and Best Practices For Retail Oriented Underage
Drinking Prevention.
A demonstration grant to test a model approach to enforcing
underage sale is underway with the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board. A
five-site demonstration program was conducted with the Department of
Justice to develop model policies and practices within the enforcement
community. In addition, a publication is now under development which
describes model approaches for dealing with youth issues within the
criminal. It is entitled Strategies For Success--Combating Juvenile
DWI.
Sentencing and treatment issues are being addressed through an
interagency agreement with the National Institute on Alcoholism and
Alcohol Abuse (NIAAA). This project will produce a sentencing guide for
judges and prosecutors who deal with youth alcohol issues.
Finally, the agency will award a fiscal year 1998 grant to the
National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges to conduct a
series of State workshops for judges on adjudicating and sentencing
youthful alcohol and drug offenders.
national occupant protection program
Question. Please prepare a table indicating the amount allocated
and the amount actually appropriated for each of the five subprograms
of the National Occupant Protection Program in fiscal years 1996, 1997,
and 1998.
Answer. See table below.
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1996 Fiscal year 1997 Fiscal year 1998
Program -----------------------------------------------------------------
Request Approp Request Approp Request Approp
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PI&E.......................................... 2,414 2,314 2,364 2,360 2,263 2,263
Belt Law...................................... 1,904 1,886 1,674 1,670 1,594 1,594
Target Pop.................................... 1,635 1,253 1,637 1,498 1,540 1,540
Eval & Tech................................... 447 439 538 537 498 498
Patterns...................................... 1,600 952 745 744 715 715
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please prepare a table for each of the five subprograms
in the National Occupant Protection Program, showing how all the funds
requested for fiscal year 1999 are to be spent, and please include in
that table a comparison with the amount provided for comparable
activities for fiscal year 1998. On a separate page, please further
justify the need for the requested increases over the fiscal year 1998
appropriation.
Answer. The tables follow:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998 Amount 1999 Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLIC INFORMATION AND EDUCATION SUBPROGRAM
Initiate social marketing approach to $90,000 Conduct social marketing research, develop $500,000
achieving goals and objectives in the messages, focus test, plan and implement
Buckle Up America program. media events, develop partnerships, and
support partners for the Buckle Up America
program.
National Safety Belt Media Campaign under a 550,000 National Safety Belt Media Campaign under a 600,000
cooperative agreement with The Advertising cooperative agreement with The Advertising
Council. Council.
Develop and produce child passenger safety 700,000 Develop and produce educational, media, and 911,000
and safety belt educational, promotional, promotional materials, with special
and media materials. emphasis on Hispanic, African American,
Asian American, and Native American
audiences.
Produce and distribute two Campaign Safe & 490,000 Develop, produce and distribute the Campaign 375,000
Sober Planners: (1) Occupant Protection and Safe & Sober Seasonal Planners for Occupant
(2) Youth and Generation X. Protection.
Maintain database for communicating with 50,000 Increase technical capability and maintain 100,000
partners in the Buckle Up America program. database for communicating with thousands
of partners in the Buckle Up America
program.
Buckle Up America public information and 383,000 Buckle Up America public information and 425,000
education activities of the NHTSA Regional education activities of the NHTSA Regional
Offices. Offices.
BELT LAW COMPLIANCE SUBPROGRAM
Complete final year funding of four-year 1,149,000 Support enforcement-related activities of 1,130,000
demonstration grant program. These funds states targeted for intensive outreach
have assisted 19 states in conducting efforts following June 1998 Buckle Up
statewide enforcement and education America Leadership Conference, and
programs to increase seat belt and child communicate this experience to all states
safety seat use. through law enforcement organizations.
Establish law enforcement liaison officers 255,000 Continue the law enforcement liaison officer 300,000
at the agency regional level to promote program and summits. Experience from the 19-
occupant protection training programs, state grant demonstrations, ``Operation
provide technical assistance and organize ABC'' and the June 1998 Buckle Up America
regional summits for law enforcement Leadership Conference will be promoted
agencies to support Buckle Up America. within these and other states.
Develop updated material on the experience ......... Provide information extensively to national, 300,000
of states which have upgraded their seat state and local organizations interested in
belt use laws from secondary to primary pursuing improved state occupant protection
enforcement (experience from California, legislation, and measure use rates and
Louisiana and Georgia law changes). public acceptance of new primary law
experience in Oklahoma, Indiana and other
new primary enforcement law states.
Develop and update training materials for 140,000 Train greater numbers of officer-instructors 400,000
law enforcement officer and fire and rescue in the states to educate patrol officers on
staff training in child passenger safety. child passenger safety and belt law
Encourage the law enforcement community to enforcement issues. The involvement of
enforce belt and child safety seat use professional law enforcement organizations
laws, providing this information through will increase program awareness and
professional law enforcement programs. participation among more communities.
Continue data base development and pilot 50,000 Provide CD-ROM as a resource to child 250,000
test CD-ROM product as a tool to assist passenger safety technicians to support
child passenger safety technicians in better advice to parents and other care
providing selection, use and compatibility givers. Develop and market a version for
information about child safety seats to marketplace use by parents, care givers and
parents and other care givers at the dealers to support compliance and correct
community program level. usage at the community program level.
TARGET POPULATIONS SUBPROGRAM
Conference Exhibits. Exhibit at national 100,000 Exhibit at 50 percent more national 150,000
conferences to solicit participation in the conferences to solicit greater
Buckle Up America program. participation in the Buckle Up America
program, especially among minority
populations.
Minority Outreach. Work with and support 250,000 Conduct a diversity summit to enroll 600,000
national minority organizations to develop additional groups representing diverse
culturally-relevant materials for organizations into the Buckle Up America
distribution through minority organizations campaign; develop ethnically and culturally-
relevant public education materials
targeting minority audiences on the
importance of seat belts and child safety
seats; and discuss the role of law
enforcement in raising seat belt and child
safety seat use.
Medical/Public Health Outreach. Develop 300,000 Increase the number of medical and public 500,000
targeted toolkit for medical and health health organizations implementing occupant
care partners to enhance their educational protection activities; effectively involve
efforts in promoting seat belt and child the medical/public health communities in
seat use. providing community leadership to support
Buckle Up America.
Elected Officials Outreach. Develop 300,000 Increase outreach to elected officials 400,000
materials suitable for elected officials, through national organizations; effectively
and encourage participation in occupant involve organizations (see examples in
protection activities. Work with an support fiscal year 1998 column) in occupant
national organizations such as U.S. Conf. protection activities, based on materials
of Mayors and Nat'l. Assn. Of Prosecutor developed in fiscal year 1998.
Coordinators.
Educational Organizations Outreach. Work 140,000 Extend outreach to educational 350,000
with and support national educational organizations, involving them in the
organizations to develop and distribute development and distribution of educational
educational materials promoting seat belt materials (K-12) focusing on the importance
use. of occupant protection.
Business and Federal Agency Outreach. Expand 250,000 Mobilize federal agencies in support of the 400,000
partnerships with business and federal President's Initiative to Increase Seat
agencies to encourage implementation of Belt Use. Increase partnerships with the
seat belt policies among employees. business community, focusing on activities
they can implement in support of the Buckle
Up America campaign.
Youth Organization Outreach. Develop and 100,000 Increase the number of youth organizations 300,000
distribute occupant protection materials served, and provide peer-to-peer mentoring
targeting young people, through a national to increase seat belt use through a
youth champion. national youth summit.
Develop a national Recognition and Awards 100,000 Implement a Recognition and Awards Program 350,000
Program for the Buckle Up America Campaign. for the Buckle Up America Campaign.
EVALUATION AND TECHNOLOGY SHARING SUBPROGRAM
Respond to requests for occupant protection 200,000 Respond to requests for occupant protection 400,000
materials from national, state, and local materials. The demand for traffic safety
organizations plus individuals who are educational materials has been increasing
conducting traffic safety programs. On every year at an accelerated rate. With the
average, the Traffic Safety Resource Center initiation of the air bag safety program
estimates that it is currently filling over and Buckle Up America, this program is
3,000 orders per month just for occupant placing even greater demands on the
protection materials. services that the Resource Center must
provide.
Provide technical assistance to the states. 198,000 Continue activities such as were conducted 221,000
Training, demonstration grants, in fiscal year 1998, plus increase
observational belt use surveys. technical assistance for child passenger
safety programs and training.
The Presidential Initiative to Increase Seat ......... The Presidential Initiative to Increase Seat 50,000
Belt Use Nationwide semi-annual progress Belt Use Nationwide semi-annual progress
report for fiscal year 1998 will not reports. Collecting and analyzing data from
involve data collection from partners. partners participating in Buckle Up America
Reports written by NHTSA staff. campaign, and writing reports.
Maintain the Grant Tracking System to assist 100,000 Continue activities such as were conducted 100,000
in the evaluation of the 402 State and in fiscal year 1998.
Community Grant Program. Publish quarterly
Traffic Safety Digests for sharing
successful 402 projects with the all of the
State Highway Safety Offices and Community
Traffic Safety Programs/Safe Communities.
``PATTERNS FOR LIFE''--CHILD SAFETY SEATS
SUBPROGRAM
Conduct and manage coalition events and 85,000 Continue activities such as were conducted 85,000
partnerships lists. Develop and coordinate in fiscal year 1998.
information and technical assistance
between members of the coalition and
facilitate member sponsored media and
promotion activities.
Materials Development--Coordinate the 285,000 Materials Development--Continue activities 285,000
development, updating, and revision of such as were conducted in fiscal year 1998.
training materials, public awareness and This year's efforts will add the
information, and promotional items on child development of materials targeted for
passenger, bicycle, pedestrian, and school special populations.
bus safety.
Training Development--Support workshops, 175,000 Training Development--Continue activities 175,000
training and other educational activities such as were conducted in fiscal year 1998,
to enhance technical training programs. but fiscal year 1999 efforts will also
Provide technical assistance to states include working with select organizations
interested in educating opinion leaders on to develop additional training on child
child passenger safety issues, effective transportation, pedestrian, and bicycle
communication, and coalition building. issues.
Training Delivery--Work with national 105,000 Training Delivery--Continue activities such 105,000
organizations to coordinate delivery of as were conducted in fiscal year 1998.
training workshops to state and local
affiliates. Facilitate training activities
coordination.
Grassroots Educational Support--Develop 35,000 (Completed)................................. .........
technical assistance for states interested
in upgrading child passenger safety
legislation and improving media advocacy
skills for state and local program
personnel.
Support Air Bag Safety Campaign--develop 30,000 (Completed)................................. .........
approaches to educate the public about the
risks of air bag injury to unrestrained and
improperly restrained children, the need
for effective child passenger safety law
enforcement, and the benefits of effective
child passenger safety laws.
......... Child Transportation Guidelines--Develop and 65,000
coordinate age-appropriate guidelines on
pedestrian, bicycle, and school bus safety
skills for children (ages 0-14), and
implement the effort.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Justifications For Increases:
The Presidential Initiative for Increasing Seat Belt Use Nationwide
set extremely ambitious goals of 85 percent seat belt use by Year 2000
and 90 percent by 2005. Achieving safety belt use rates of this
magnitude requires strong safety belt and child passenger safety laws
that are consistently enforced, enlightened and educated community
leaders and opinion makers who can influence and shape the public's
attitudes toward safety and health issues, and a public which strongly
agrees that ``unbuckled is unacceptable.'' Specific subprogram
justifications follow:
Public Information and Education Subprogram.--The increased funding
will allow the agency to (1) develop culturally-relevant child
passenger safety and safety belt educational and training materials
into Spanish and Asiatic languages; (2) hire a public relations/social
marketing firm to support the entire Buckle Up America effort; (3)
increase the capability and maintain a database management system for
communicating with the agency's Buckle Up America partners; and (4)
produce sufficient quantities of print and audio-visual educational and
training materials to meet the exponentially increasing demand for
materials created by the Buckle Up America initiative. The savings
realized from reducing the number of Campaign Safe & Sober planners
from four a year to three will be somewhat offset by the need to
contract out more of the developmental work that previously was
performed in-house.
Belt Law Compliance Subprogram.--The additional resources are
needed to implement the more intense program activity and new
initiatives designed to achieve the challenging belt use and child
passenger fatality reduction goals established at the request of the
President for the years 2000 and 2005. The 1998 budget request did not
reflect the level of resources needed to operationally implement this
initiative, which was in the planning process from January through
September 1997. The fiscal year 1999 budget request is the first we
have proposed which reflects the resources needed to fully support the
annual costs of the campaign. This campaign is a comprehensive effort
which targets (1) the development of new and more focused public-
private partnerships to promote the message for increased use to the
public, (2) the enactment of stronger state occupant protection use
laws, (3) high visibility enforcement of those laws, and (4) effective
public education. While the belt law compliance subprogram is not the
only funding component for the Campaign, the activities it supports are
crucial to its operation and success, and a large increase in funding
level is required over the fiscal year 1998 request.
Target Populations Subprogram.--The objective of this subprogram is
to work through national organizations to enlighten and educate
community leaders and opinion makers, make them ``champions'' of safety
belt and child safety seat use, and create a public attitude that
``unbuckled is unacceptable.'' This is a massive undertaking and
requires the assistance and cooperation of hundreds of national
organizations, and their state and local affiliates to have a
noticeable impact. The increase will allow the agency to: (1) promote
Buckle Up America at 35 additional national conferences of minority
organizations; (2) increase the number and types of national
organizations (especially minority, medical and health, and youth
organizations) that the agency can support with mini-grants, training,
materials, and technical assistance; (3) identify, recruit and support
individuals to serve as national spokespersons for Buckle Up America;
and (4) establish a Rewards and Recognition program to motivate
organizations and individuals to participate in Buckle Up America.
Evaluation and Technology Sharing Subprogram.--The demand for
traffic safety educational materials, from national, state, and local
organizations plus individuals who are conducting traffic safety
programs, has been increasing every year at an accelerated rate.
Occupant protection materials have always represented the largest share
of these orders. Now, with the initiation of the Air Bag Safety Program
and Buckle Up America, there are even more requests resulting from the
need to provide materials to the hundreds of national organization
partners who are being recruited to support Buckle Up America. The
logistical support for shipping displays and materials to national
conferences where NHTSA promotes its traffic safety programs has
likewise increased from about 24 in 1996, to over 50 in 1998, and 75 in
1999. BUA also requires a semi-annual progress report on meeting the
national goals by Year 2000. $50,000 of the requested increase is to
pay for data collection from the national partners who will be
conducting activities in support of Buckle Up America, analysis of that
data, and writing the reports to Congress. The balance is to provide
additional technical assistance to the states' child passenger safety
(CPS) programs and training courses. The demand for CPS training is
growing at an exponential rate and NHTSA is responding.
``Patterns for Life''--Child Safety Seats Subprogram.--There is no
increase requested for fiscal year 1999 from the level funded in fiscal
year 1998.
Question. Please provide a detailed breakdown of how the $9.83
million requested for the National Occupant Protection program will be
allocated.
Answer. A detailed breakdown follows:
PUBLIC INFORMATION AND EDUCATION SUBPROGRAM:
Conduct social marketing research, develop messages, focus
test, plan and implement media events, develop
partnerships, and support partners for Buckle Up America $500,000
National Safety Belt Media Campaign under a cooperative
agreement with The Advertising Council.................. 600,000
Develop and produce educational, media, and promotional
materials, with emphasis on Hispanic, African American,
Native American and Asian American audiences............ 911,000
Develop, produce and distribute the Campaign Safe & Sober
Seasonal Planners for Occupant Protection............... 375,000
Increase technical capability and maintain database for
communicating with thousands of partners in the Buckle
Up America pro-
gram.................................................... 100,000
Buckle Up America public information and education
activities of the NHTSA Regional Offices................ 425,000
BELT LAW COMPLIANCE SUBPROGRAM:
Support enforcement-related activities of states targeted
for intensive outreach efforts following June 1998
Buckle Up America Leadership Conference, and communicate
this experience to all states through law enforcement
organizations........................................... 1,130,000
Continue the law enforcement liaison officer program and
regional summits. Experience from the 19-state grant
demonstrations, Operation ABC and the June 1998 Buckle
Up America Leadership Conference will be promoted within
these and other states.................................. 300,000
Provide information extensively to national, state and
local organizations interested in pursuing improved
state occupant protection legislation, and measure use
rates and public acceptance of new primary law
experience in Oklahoma, Indiana and other new primary
enforcement law states.................................. 300,000
Train greater numbers of officer-instructors in the states
to educate patrol officers on child passenger safety and
belt law enforcement issues. The involvement of
professional law enforcement organizations will increase
program awareness and participation among more
communities............................................. 400,000
Provide CD-ROM as a resource to child passenger safety
technicians to support better advice to parents and
other care givers. Develop and market a version for
marketplace use by parents, care givers and dealers to
support compliance and correct usage at the community
program level........................................... 250,000
TARGET POPULATIONS SUBPROGRAM:
Conference Exhibits. Exhibit at 50 percent more national
conferences to solicit greater participation in Buckle
Up America, especially among minority populations....... 150,000
Minority Outreach. Conduct a diversity summit to enroll
additional groups representing diverse organizations
into the Buckle Up America campaign; partner with
diverse groups to address the issue of harassment in
respect to the enforcement of seat belt laws; and
develop ethnically and culturally-relevant materials
targeting minority audiences on the importance of seat
belts and child safety seats............................ 600,000
Medical/Public Health Outreach. Increase the number of
medical and public health organizations implementing
occupant protection activities, and effectively involve
them in community leadership to support Buckle Up
America................................................. 500,000
Elected Officials Outreach. Increase outreach to elected
officials through national organizations; effectively
involve organizations such as the U.S. Conference of
Mayor and the National Association of Prosecutor
Coordinators in occupant protection activities, based on
materials developed in fiscal year 1998................. 400,000
Educational Organizations Outreach. Extend outreach to
educational organizations, involving them in the
development and distribution of educational materials
(K-12) focusing on the importance of occupant protection 350,000
Business and Federal Agency Outreach. Mobilize federal
agencies in support of the President's Initiative to
Increase Seat Belt Use. Increase partnerships with the
business community, focusing on activities they can
implement in support of the Buckle Up America campaign.. 400,000
Youth Organization Outreach. Increase the number of youth
organizations served, and provide peer mentoring to
increase seat belt use through a national youth summit.. 300,000
Implement a Recognition and Awards Program for the Buckle
Up America Campaign..................................... 350,000
EVALUATION AND TECHNOLOGY SHARING SUBPROGRAM:
Responding to state, national organization and other
requests for occupant protection materials to support
their efforts in Buckle Up America...................... 400,000
Providing technical assistance to the states. Training,
demonstration grants, observational belt use surveys,
and technical assistance for CPS programs and training.. 221,000
Semi-annual progress reports on the Presidential
Initiative to Increase Seat Belt Use Nationwide--
collecting and analyzing data from participating
partners................................................ 50,000
Maintaining a grant tracking system to assist in the
evaluation of the 402 State and Community Grant Program,
and publication of the quarterly Traffic Safety Digests
for sharing successful 402 projects with all of the
State Highway Safety Offices and Community Traffic
Safety Programs/Safe Communities........................ 100,000
``PATTERNS FOR LIFE''--CHILD SAFETY SEATS SUBPROGRAM:
Continue efforts in managing coalition events and
partnerships lists. Maintain information and technical
assistance between members of the coalition and
facilitate media and promotional activities............. 85,000
Expand efforts with the production and revision of
training materials, public awareness and information,
and promotional items on child transportation, bike and
pedestrian safety. This year's efforts will add
materials targeted for special populations.............. 285,000
Conduct and promote workshops, training sessions and other
educational activities to enhance technical and advocacy
programs. Provide technical assistance to states
interested in educating opinion leaders on child
passenger safety issues, effective communication, and
coalition building. This year's efforts include working
with select organizations to develop additional training
on child transportation, pedestrian, and bicycle issues. 175,000
Continue instructor staff development and coordinate
delivery of training workshops to state and local
affiliates. Continue to coordinate training activities.. 105,000
Coordinate a team to create developmental age-appropriate
guidelines on pedestrian, bicycle, and school bus safety
skills for children (ages 0-14). Produce and implement
the new program
effort.................................................. 65,000
Question. What are the objectives and expected funding activities
for each of the activities listed on page HS-38 of the fiscal year 1999
Budget Estimate.
Answer. The activities listed in HS-38 were provided to highlight,
by example, some of the activities that the agency planned to undertake
as part of the overall Presidential Initiative to Increase Seat Belt
Use Nationwide. They were not meant to constitute a total list of the
entire Occupant Protection or Buckle Up America (BUA) programs. The
objectives of the activities and estimated dollars allocated can be
summarized as follows:
Objective: National Outreach and Building Partnerships ($290,000)
Redefine the National public campaign to meet the goals as set in
the Presidential Initiative to Increase Seat Belt Use Nationwide.
Develop a Network of ``Champions'' to increase support for the
Presidential Seat Belt Initiative.
Conduct a National Diversity Summit to enlist support for traffic
safety initiatives from ethnically and culturally diverse populations.
Reach out to national associations representing medical and health
professionals, youth, businesses, government officials, ethnically and
culturally diverse populations and others to promote safety belt
messages to their members, constituents, and the public.
Conduct outreach activities to support and enable state and local
infrastructures to provide information about child passenger protection
and training activities. Increase the number of local child passenger
protection experts providing technical assistance to national, state
and local health and medical, intergovernmental, and civic groups.
Objective: Technical Assistance to States and Communities ($610,000)
Promote intensive statewide publicity and enforcement programs in
as many states as possible, offering demonstration grants to 8-10
states to assist them in developing and coordinating such programs.
Provide technical assistance to States to improve their
observational belt use surveys.
Promote ``best practices'' in states and local communities through
NHTSA's regional offices.
Provide state and local training in technical skills, program
advocacy and project management.
Provide regional assistance for the development of materials and
program implementation.
Develop regional peer-to-peer technical assistance capabilities.
Develop regional technical transfer capabilities to improve
occupant protection countermeasures.
Continue to promote occupant protection initiatives through
regional public information and education campaigns and Safe
Communities programs.
belt law compliance
Question. Please provide an empirical basis justifying the need for
the $2.38 million requested for the Belt Law Compliance program in
fiscal year 1999. Please specify amounts to be associated with specific
activities.
Answer. Failure to buckle up contributes to more fatalities than
any other single traffic safety-related behavior. And, fatalities are
only the tip of the iceberg, with almost four million injuries
documented in police-reported crashes each year. A critical element to
achieving increased seat belt and child safety seat use and reducing
motor vehicle related deaths and injuries is the continued
implementation of high-visibility enforcement activities in as many
states and communities as possible.
Experience shows that high-visibility enforcement works to increase
occupant protection use because, with many part-time and non-belt
users, the fear of citation and fine adds additional persuasive weight
to their fear of being injured or killed in a crash. For others in
these groups who unrealistically refuse to accept that they are ever at
any risk of being injured or killed in a crash, the heightened
possibility of citation and fine provides a motivation that is
otherwise lacking. During the past few years when very few additional
belt use laws were enacted and no widespread enforcement efforts were
undertaken, the national seat belt use rate remained essentially
unchanged. In those states that already had enacted primary enforcement
seat belt legislation, and where there was a greater perceived
potential for receiving a citation for belt non-use, belt usage was
about 15 percentage points higher than in the states with secondary
enforcement provisions. In those states that have recently adopted
primary enforcement seat belt legislation, and in those communities
that have implemented sequential waves of high-visibility belt law
enforcement, seat belt use rates have increased dramatically, in the
range of 12 to 15 percentage points.
In order to reach the national seat belt and child passenger safety
goals, the agency proposes the following activities and funding levels
for its Belt Law Compliance Subprogram in fiscal year 1999:
--Support enforcement-related activities of states targeted for
intensive outreach efforts following the conduct of a June 1998
Buckle Up America Leadership Conference, and communicate the
results of this experience to all states through law
enforcement organizations. ($1,130,000)
--Continue the law enforcement liaison officer program. Experience
from the 19-state sTEP demonstration programs and the June 1998
Buckle Up America Leadership Conference will be promoted to all
states via these liaison officers. ($300,000)
--Provide information to national, state and local organizations to
support improved state occupant protection legislation; measure
use rates and public acceptance of new primary law experience
in Oklahoma, Indiana and other new primary enforcement law
states. ($300,000)
--Train large numbers of officer-instructors in the states to educate
patrol officers on child passenger safety and belt law
enforcement issues. The support and involvement of major
professional law enforcement organizations will increase the
potential for this effort to increase program awareness and
participation among police officers in thousands of
communities. ($400,000)
--Provide a CD-ROM resource to child passenger safety technicians to
provide accurate and up-to-date advice to parents and other
care givers. Develop and market a version of this CD-ROM for
use by parents, care givers and dealers to support compliance
and correct usage at the community program level. ($250,000)
target populations
Question. Please provide an empirical basis justifying the need for
the $3.05 million requested for the Target Populations program in
fiscal year 1999. Please specify amounts to be allocated for specific
activities.
Answer. An important element of increasing seat belt and child
safety seat use is the development and use of strategic partnerships to
educate the motoring public on their safety benefits. During the past
three years, the Agency has expanded its outreach targeting specific
national organizations.
These partnerships result in the development and distribution of
seat belt materials focusing on the specific needs of the membership,
technical and advocacy training of members, and the convening of
workgroups to enhance communications and coordination across
organizations. Working with our partners, for example, the Agency has
developed occupant protection tool kits designed for physicians for use
in speaking with their patients regarding the injury prevention
benefits of seat belts; model seat belt policies for use by business
and industry in implementing seat belt policies for their employees;
training programs for child care providers in the proper installation
of child safety seats.
Increasing our outreach to national organizations will enable the
agency to reach individuals in the community, through their physicians
and nurses, child care providers, employers, service organizations,
governing bodies, and others, all with the same message: ``Buckle Up
America, there's just too much to lose''. This, combined with highly
visible enforcement efforts and enhanced legislation, will be essential
to move us to our goal of 85 percent belt use by the year 2000.
The Agency proposed the following activities and funding levels for
its Target Population subprogram in fiscal year 1999:
--Increase the number of exhibits at national conferences featuring
the Buckle Up America campaign by 50 percent. ($150,000)
--Conduct a diversity summit to mobilize diverse organizations into
the Buckle Up America campaign; develop ethnically- and
culturally-specific materials; partner with diverse groups to
address the issue of potential police harassment generated by
primary seat belt laws. ($600,000)
--Mobilize the medical/public health organizations in support of the
Buckle Up America campaign, including their involvement in
providing community leadership. ($500,000)
--Increase outreach to elected officials in support of the Buckle Up
America campaign, including a ``mayor's challenge'' for
increased seat belt use. (400,000)
--Increase educational organization outreach in support of seat belt
use, to include the development of curricula designed for
middle school, using traffic safety examples and exercises to
augment science classes. ($350,000)
--Expand partnerships with business and industry and with other
federal agencies promoting seat belt policies for their
employees, and working as community leaders supporting visible
enforcement of seat belt laws. ($400,000)
--Mobilize youth organizations to focus on the benefits of seat belt
use; conduct a summit to teach young people leadership skills
and peer-to-peer mentoring skills to increase youth activities
at the local level in support of the Buckle Up America
campaign. ($300,000)
--Implement a recognition and reward program for national
organizations and other partners who have exhibited
extraordinary efforts in supporting the campaign, and whose
work has resulted in increases in seat belt and child seat use.
($350,000)
occupant protection research
Question. In extensive detail, please further justify the $1.08
million increase for the Occupant Protection Research.
Answer. The $1.08 million figure refers to the total requested
research budget in occupant protection. This is a $306,000 increase
over the fiscal year 1998 research budget of $774,000. Increased
funding in the occupant protection area is requested for fiscal year
1999 in order to fund research to support implementation of the Buckle
Up America campaign. Fiscal year 1999 funding will be directed towards
providing a solid research, evaluation and data foundation for the
campaign. This will include monitoring of public awareness and
attitudes of various intervention approaches and observational surveys
to track safety belt and child seat use at various stages of the
program. In addition, efforts will be initiated to develop and test
interventions, such as enforcement programs, positive incentives, and
public information and education programs.
public information and education
Question. Please describe all agency activities related to child
safety seat use and the subprogram from which those activities are
funded. Please specify fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 1998 amounts
associated with major activity categories.
Answer. A table of agency activities, by subprogram area and fiscal
year, follows.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998 Amount 1999 Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLIC INFORMATION AND EDUCATION SUBPROGRAM
Develop, produce, and distribute child $300,000 Develop, produce and distribute educational, $500,000
passenger safety educational, promotional, media, and promotional materials, with
and media materials. special emphasis on Hispanic, African
American, and Asian American audiences.
Develop, produce and distribute a Campaign 245,000 Develop, produce, and distribute a Campaign 250,000
Safe and Sober Quarterly Planner focusing Safe and Sober Seasonal Planner focusing on
on occupant protection, including child occupant protection and child safety seats.
safety seats.
BELT LAW COMPLIANCE SUBPROGRAM
Complete final year funding of four-year 383,000 Support enforcement-related activities of 375,000
education and enforcement demonstration child seat laws in states targeted for
grant programs. intensive outreach efforts.
Establish law enforcement liaison officers 75,000 Continue the law enforcement liaison officer 100,000
at the agency regional level to promote program and summits. Promote best practices
child seat training, provide technical from the fiscal year 1998 program, and
assistance to the states, and conduct results from the Buckle Up America
summits for law enforcement agencies to Leadership Conference in targeted states.
support the goals of Buckle Up America.
Develop and update training materials for 140,000 Train additional officer-instructors in the 300,000
law enforcement and fire and rescue staff states to educate patrol officers on child
in child passenger safety. Encourage the passenger safety enforcement issues.
law enforcement community to enforce belt
and child seat use laws.
Continue data base development and pilot 50,000 Provide CD-ROM as a resource to child 250,000
test CD-ROM product as a tool to assist passenger safety technicians to support
child passenger safety technicians in better advice to parents and other care
providing selection, use and compatibility givers. Develop and market a version for
information about child safety seats. marketplace use by parents and others to
support compliance and correct usage at the
community program level.
TARGET POPULATIONS SUBPROGRAM
Exhibit at national conferences promoting 25,000 Exhibit at national conferences to solicit 75,000
child seat initiatives through the Buckle greater participation in the child
Up America program. passenger safety aspects of the Buckle Up
America program, especially among minority
populations.
Minority Outreach. Partner with minority 100,000 Expand partnerships with organizations 200,000
organizations to develop culturally- representing minority populations; expand
relevant materials for distribution through production of culturally-relevant materials
minority organizations. for distribution through minority
organizations; enlist additional support
from minority organizations in support of
child seat use.
Medical/Public Health Outreach. Increase 150,000 Increase the number of medical and public 300,000
outreach to medical/public health partners. health organizations implementing child
Develop toolkit targeted for medical and seat activities; expand production of
health care partners to enhance their materials targeted at the health profession
educational efforts in promoting child seat for distribution to their patients
use. regarding the safety benefits and proper
use of child seats.
Elected Officials Outreach. Develop and 75,000 Increase outreach to elected officials 150,000
distribute materials focusing on the safety through national organizations; effectively
benefits of child seats and the highly involving them in the Buckle Up America
visible enforcement of child seat laws. program through highly visible enforcement
of child seat laws and providing
information regarding gaps in legislation
covering children.
National Recognition and Awards Program for 25,000 Implement national Awards Program, 100,000
Buckle Up America Program recognizing recognizing national organizations, states,
programs exhibiting increases in child seat and communities that increase child seat
use. use and decreases in childhood fatalities.
EVALUATION AND TECHNOLOGY SHARING SUBPROGRAM
Respond to requests for child seat materials 100,000 Respond to requests for child seat 200,000
from national, state, and local materials. The demand for traffic safety
organizations plus individuals who are educational materials is increasing every
conducting traffic safety programs. year at exponential rate.
Provide technical assistance to the states. 75,000 Increase technical assistance for child 150,000
Training, demonstration grants, passenger safety programs and training.
observational child safety seat use surveys.
``PATTERNS FOR LIFE''--CHILD SAFETY SEATS
SUBPROGRAM
Conduct and manage coalition events and 85,000 Continue activities such as were conducted 85,000
partnerships lists. Develop and manage in fiscal year 1998.
information exchange and technical
assistance between members of the
coalition; facilitate member sponsored
media and promotion activities.
Materials Development--Develop, update, and 175,000 Materials Development--Continue activities 175,000
revise training materials, public awareness conducted in fiscal year 1998. This year's
and information, and promotional items on efforts will add the development of
child passenger safety. materials targeted for special populations.
Training Development--Support workshops, 175,000 Training Development--Continue activities 175,000
training and other educational activities conducted in fiscal year 1998.
to enhance technical training programs.
Provide technical assistance to states
interested in educating opinion leaders on
child passenger safety issues, effective
communication, and coalition building.
Training Delivery--Work with national 105,000 Training Delivery--Continue activities such 105,000
organizations to coordinate delivery of as were conducted in fiscal year 1998.
training workshops to state and local
affiliates. Facilitate training activities
coordination.
Grassroots Educational Support--Develop 35,000 (Completed)................................. .........
technical assistance for states interested
in upgrading child passenger safety
legislation and improving media advocacy
skills for state and local program
personnel.
Support Air Bag Safety Campaign--develop 30,000 (Completed)................................. .........
approaches to educate the public about the
risks of air bag injury to unrestrained and
improperly restrained children, the need
for effective child passenger safety law
enforcement, and the benefits of effective
child passenger safety laws.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
patterns for life
Question. What specific products have resulted from this effort to
date? What materials have been distributed to the States?
Answer. The Patterns for Life program has produced a number of
important products:
--A comprehensive, technical curriculum Standardized Child Passenger
Safety Training Program has been developed and distributed
nationally for use by certified technician instructors. It
provides standardized, accurate, and up-to-date information
regarding child passenger safety. This development is a major
step towards developing improved child passenger safety
expertise in communities across the country. The curriculum is
supported by the following additional products:
--A certification process has been established for technicians and
technician instructors. This helps maintain high
qualifications and abilities of those providing child
passenger safety education to their communities.
--A database has been developed of all course participants and
instructors, as well as of classes held or planned. This
will assist states and organizations requesting technical
assistance to locate trained child passenger safety
technicians in their areas.
--The Operation Kids training program for law enforcement officers,
has been updated to be consistent with the content of the
above Standardized Child Passenger Safety Training Program.
The training provides law enforcement officers with
training on actions they can take in their communities to
improve child passenger safety.
--The Child Transportation Safety Materials Review and Evaluation
Booklet has been widely distributed. It provides a
checklist for child passenger safety advocates and
organizations to help them review educational materials and
to determine if the information they are providing to
parents and care givers is current.
--A special insert on bicycle safety was included in the Spring Issue
of Safe Rides News. The focus of this newsletter will be
expanded to cover bicycle, pedestrian and school bus safety.
Materials developed but not yet distributed include:
--A CD-ROM for use by child passenger safety technicians to assist
them in determining which child seats will fit in which
vehicles. This product provides answers to child safety seat
installation and compatibility problems on over 300 models of
automobiles and approximately 100 models of child safety seats.
--Child pedestrian safety materials for Spanish-speaking parents,
grandparents, and other care givers are being developed which
include a bilingual brochure, educator's guide, and broadcast
length video ``telenovela'' Amigos por Vida (Friends for Life).
--A highway safety activity book is being developed for children age
5 to 11. It includes a board game, maze, crossword puzzle, and
crossword puzzle, all focusing on bicycle and pedestrian
safety, occupant protection (safety belts, child safety seats,
and bicycle helmets) and pupil transportation safety.
--A Community Bicycle Safety Handbook is being developed to enable
sports franchises and communities to conduct their own
comprehensive bicycle safety events.
air bag safety program
Question. Please summarize the Agency's efforts to address the
adverse effects of airbag deployment, specifically as related to
serious injuries and fatalities. How is that reflected in the fiscal
year 1999 budget request?
Answer. The agency is focused on developing test procedures and the
accompanying vehicle performance requirements which will lead to the
elimination of fatalities and reduce the severity of the injuries
resulting from aggressive air bag deployment to children and adults,
and to infants in rear facing child safety seats. This is to be
accomplished simultaneously optimizing the benefits to normally seated
restrained occupants and also providing protection for unbelted adults
in high severity crashes. Research will include the analysis of
injuries/fatalities with air bags, analysis of fatalities to children
under 15 with air bags, and analysis of injuries/fatalities to drivers,
to specifically identify cases of air bag aggressiveness contributing
to the injuries/fatalities. This will include both field investigations
as well as laboratory testing to evaluate aggressiveness of new-
generation air bags. Research also will assess advanced air bag
technology that provides protection over a wide range of conditions,
and will develop appropriate test procedures for evaluating air bag
system performance over the range of conditions. The agency has
requested $6.984 million in the fiscal year 1999 budget request to
undertake this program.
Question. Please provide in detail the amount spent on this area
during fiscal year 1997, fiscal year 1998, and planned for fiscal year
1999, being certain to identify purposes and objectives of those
expenditures.
Answer. The fiscal year 1997 budget devoted to air bag research was
approximately $1.311 million. Work in fiscal year 1997 focused 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. Additional work was
initiated to assess the performance of advanced technology or ``smart''
air bags. Work included biomechanics research, vehicle and air bag
research, and real-world crash investigations.
In fiscal year 1998, $6.331 million in funding has been allocated
for air bag research. This research is directed toward allowing the
agency to collect additional real-world crashes involving air bag-
equipped vehicles and to expand the biomechanics and vehicle and air
bag research and testing program. The following provides a brief
description of each of the major research program areas:
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
that is focused 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 (especially to children). 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 regarding these systems.
Special Crash Investigations ($1.031 million).--The Special Crash
Investigations (SCI) program provides the flexibility to acquire
detailed engineering information on crashes of special interest which
fall outside the established scope or criteria of other agency data
systems. It is the agency's primary resource for examining the safety
impact of rapidly changing technology and exploring alleged or
potential vehicle defects. These include but are not limited to
investigation of crashes in which an air bag or safety belt system
appeared to operate in an unexpected manner, crashes involving heavy
trucks, crashes involving alternative fuel vehicles, crashes involving
children in restraints, and serious school bus crashes not investigated
by other Federal agencies. As new highway safety issues emerge, this
program has the capability to respond quickly for collection of field
information to support agency analysis and appropriate action.
Collect Data Through Hospital Emergency Rooms ($0.3 million).--In
order to better understand air bag-related injuries, funding is being
requested to maximize the use of an existing relationship with the
Consumer Product Safety Commission to conduct a clinical study of the
nature and severity of injuries associated with air bag deployments.
In fiscal year 1999, $6.984 million in funding has been requested
for air bag research. The following provides a brief description of the
fiscal year 1999 program for each of the major research areas:
Biomechanics Program ($3 million).--Research will continue to
address the near-term development of pediatric and small female injury
criteria associated with the intense and complex out-of-position air
bag deployment situation. These efforts have as their goal the
development of essential tools for the assessment of current and
emerging air bag deployment systems to allow maximizing crash
protection.
Safety Systems Program ($2.431 million).--Research will continue to
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
injuries resulting from aggressive air bag deployments (especially to
children). For the advanced air bag systems under development, the
better performing systems will be evaluated and performance
requirements established based on these systems. Also, research will
include out-of-position occupant tests (static and/or dynamic) to
evaluate the performance of side air bags and other related systems
(i.e., Inflatable Tubular Structure (ITS), deployable upper interior
paddings, etc.). Research will conduct reconstructions of crashes in
which the air bag deployment caused either fatalities or severe
injuries.
Special Crash Investigations ($1.553 million).--Research will
continue to investigate, through its SCI program, approximately 320
motor vehicle crashes that qualify for NHTSA's Air Bag Investigations
Program and non-air bag related vehicle safety problems (i.e., school
bus crashworthiness and pedestrian safety problems, potential safety
defects, and alternative fuel vehicles). During fiscal year 1999, over
200 new-generation and advanced air bag cases would be investigated.
Question. What are the longer term actions to be taken by the
Agency that may reduce or eliminate these problems? How is that
reflected in the fiscal year 1999 budget request?
Answer. On March 19, 1997, the agency published a final rule that
temporarily amends the agency's occupant crash protection standard to
ensure that vehicle manufacturers can quickly redesign air bags so that
they inflate less aggressively. More specifically, the agency adopted
an unbelted sled test protocol as a temporary alternative to the
standard's full scale unbelted barrier crash test requirement. The
agency took this action to provide an immediate, interim solution to
the problem of the fatalities and injuries that current air bag systems
are causing in relatively low speed crashes to a small, but growing
number of children and occasionally to adults. The longer term action
that is anticipated by the agency is the issuance of test procedures
that lead to the introduction of air bag systems that provide benign
deployment to out-of-position occupants and/or suppress deployment of
the air bag when deployment is determined to hazardous to the occupant.
These advanced systems are to provide protection to the variety of
occupant sizes over the range of crash events where serious injuries
and fatalities occur. The agency has requested $6.984 million for
fiscal year 1999 for this activity.
Question. What is the status of your work to advance smart air
bags?
Answer. The agency has initiated an extensive Special Crash
Investigations program to monitor the performance of current-generation
and new-generation air bag systems in the fleet experience, has
initiated efforts to introduce a variety of dummy sizes and associated
injury criteria (both child and fifth percentile female) into the
agency's compliance test procedures, has initiated the development of
new test procedures and associated performance requirements that lead
to the introduction of air bag systems that provide benign deployment
to out-of-position occupants and/or suppress deployment of the air bag
when deployment is determined to hazardous to the occupant. These
advanced systems are to provide protection to the variety of occupant
sizes over the range of crash events where serious injuries and
fatalities occur. A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking resulting from these
activities is anticipated for June, 1998.
Question. The Committee directed NHTSA to ensure that sufficient
emphasis is placed on quantifying the safety benefits and costs
associated with depowering airbags. What is the progress to date?
Answer. NHTSA conducted a complete analysis of the safety benefits
and costs of depowered air bags in conjunction with the final rule
permitting the temporary use of a sled test to comply with FMVSS 208
crash test criteria. The results of that analysis were based on the
data available at the time. Since then, further testing has been done
on both pre-depowered and depowered systems.
NCAP tests (35 mph rigid barrier tests with belted 50th percentile
male dummies) were conducted on 46 depowered 1998 model vehicles. These
tests showed only minor improvement over pre-depowered air bags in
providing protection against head and neck injury to average size males
in high speed crashes. They showed a minor decrease in protection
against chest injuries. Overall, there was no significant change in
safety measured in these belted, high-speed tests.
FMVSS 208 30 mph rigid barrier tests were conducted on six 1998
model vehicles with unbelted 50th percentile male dummies. These tests
showed a minor improvement in safety for unbelted drivers, but a minor
decrease in safety for unbelted passengers.
NHTSA has also conducted static out-of-position tests with 5th
percentile female dummies on four 1998 depowered vehicles. In three of
the four vehicles tested, there was a significant reduction in serious
neck injuries to out-of-position occupants, and modest reductions in
head and chest injuries. Similar tests were conducted using 6 year old
dummies. In these tests, four of the five vehicles experienced
improvements in protection against head, neck, and chest injury.
NHTSA also has an ongoing collaborative effort with Transport
Canada to collect depowered air bag test data on restrained drivers and
passengers, and especially on small occupants. Transport Canada has
conducted low speed (25 mph) offset deformable barrier tests on 10
vehicles and high speed (30 mph) rigid barrier tests on 9 vehicles.
These tests indicate that smaller occupants have a lower risk of
serious neck injury with depowered air bags than with pre-depowered air
bags. However, in general, the depowered air bags showed little
improvement in reducing air bag induced head and chest injury for
belted small occupants.
The above test results will be used to revise estimates of impacts
of depowered air bags in the analysis of advanced air bags that is
currently underway at NHTSA.
NHTSA is also conducting a series of special crash investigations
of crashes involving vehicles with depowered air bags. These
investigations were undertaken in order to determine patterns of injury
and to gain insight into the safety impacts of vehicles with this new
technology. To date, 61 cases have been examined in this ongoing
program. Cases examined thus far reveal a noticeable decline in the
incidence of lower arm fractures.
NHTSA will conduct an in-depth benefit assessment of depowering
when enough years of real world crash data become available.
Depowering of air bags can be accomplished by a simple substitution
of a lower powered inflator, which might actually reduce the variable
costs of air bag systems. There are also development costs to design,
test, and certify compliance for new air bag designs. Overall, costs to
depower air bags are not considered to be significant. NHTSA stated
this in the final rule on the depowering issue published in February
1997, and this assertion has not been challenged.
enforcement and emergency services program
Question. Please prepare a table indicating the amount allocated
and the amount actually appropriated for the two programs specified
under the Enforcement and Emergency Services Program for fiscal years
1996, 1997, and 1998.
Answer. See table below:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1996 Fiscal year 1997 Fiscal year 1998
Program -----------------------------------------------------------------
Request Approp Request Approp Request Approp
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTS........................................... 1,606 1,286 1,209 1,207 1,850 1,646
EMS........................................... 1,122 1,122 1,180 1,178 1,550 1,550
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please provide a table for both of the components in the
Enforcement and Emergency Services Program, showing how all of the
funds requested for fiscal year 1999 are intended to be spent. Include
in that table a comparison with the amount provided for similar
activities for fiscal year 1998. On a separate page, please further
justify the need for the requested increases over the fiscal year 1998
appropriation amount.
Answer.
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year--
-------------------------
1998 1999
Estimate Request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Police Traffic Services:
Enforcement Demonstrations................ 630 630
Technology Transfer....................... 360 340
Public Information and Education.......... 227 250
Training and Technical Assistance......... 173 218
National Organizations.................... 256 430
-------------------------
Total................................... 1,646 1,868
=========================
Emergency Medical Services:
National Standard Curricula............... 486 370
Injury Prevention & Control............... 389 585
Leadership................................ 250 370
EMS System Support........................ 357 480
EMS Information, Technologies & 68 145
Dissemination............................
-------------------------
Total................................... 1,550 1,950
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Police Traffic Services
The additional resources are needed to implement a speeding and
aggressive driving program. Speeding is a factor in 30 percent of all
fatal crashes. Aggressive driving has rapidly become the driver
behavior of major concern to the motoring public.
In response to the elimination of the national maximum speed limit,
NHTSA, FHWA and CDC contracted with the National Academy of Sciences to
conduct a study of setting and enforcing speed limits. The results of
this study will be pilot tested in several communities.
NHTSA will conduct aggressive driving outreach program to combat
aggressive driving. Additionally, the aggressive driving public
information and education program will be expanded to include print,
radio, and television media.
Additional resources are also needed to implement more intense and
visible traffic law enforcement activities required to support the
President's Plan to Increase Seat Belt Use Nationwide, the Presidential
.08 BAC initiative, and the Partners in Progress program.
Finally, NHTSA will provide technical assistance on the
implementation of Police Traffic Services in the 21st Century. This
program will aid law enforcement agencies in dealing with the
combination of dwindling resources, increased demands for service,
application of new technology, and the need for public awareness of the
importance of traffic law enforcement.
Emergency Medical Services
The emergency medical services program will be significantly
expanded in priority areas outlined in the EMS Agenda for the Future.
These areas include Injury Prevention & Control, Leadership, EMS System
Support, and EMS Information, Technologies & Dissemination. Added
program emphasis in these areas is critical to take full advantage of
current enthusiasm among the EMS community for achieving the objectives
outlined in the Agenda.
In the Injury Prevention and Control area, new projects will
establish collaborative relationships between EMS and public health
agencies. The new Bystander Care Campaign will be marketed with both a
public awareness component and a community-based bystander training
effort. The Leadership area will be strengthened with a program to
recognize best practices related to achieving goals stated in the EMS
Agenda and with a similar program to recognize state and local EMS
quality improvement efforts.
The EMS Systems Support activities will be expanded to provide
technical support for an end-to-end emergency communication system.
This system is the next step in the evolution of emergency access and
response. It will utilize advanced technologies to provide faster and
better emergency care and it will include the development of education
materials as well as support for implementation of specific components
of that system. The EMS Information, Technologies and Dissemination
area will include new efforts to develop a consensus-based national EMS
research agenda.
Question. Please list the three most significant challenges to this
program that must be addressed during fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year
1999.
Answer. The three most significant challenges to the Enforcement
and Emergency Services program during fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year
1999 are:
1998
Increasing safety belt and child safety seat usage and combating
impaired driving, speeding and aggressive driving behaviors will
require countermeasures and best practices that can be used by law
enforcement agencies throughout the country.
Providing technical assistance on the implementation of Police
Traffic Services in the 21st Century. This includes dealing with
dwindling resources and increase demands for service; application of
technology; and public awareness of the importance of traffic law
enforcement.
Increasing recognition and endorsement of the EMS Agenda for the
Future by continuing to promote the value of a common vision through
the EMS professional literature, national EMS professional
organizations and in key national meetings. The program will also
provide continued recognition of best practices for achieving these
visions.
1999
Increasing safety belt and child safety seat usage and combating
impaired driving, and aggressive driving outreach and coalition
building to get the support of the motoring public will require
expanding public information and education efforts.
Providing technical assistance to states and communities to combat
speeding, using the results of the National Academy of Sciences' study
Guidance on Setting and Enforcing Speed Limits. This study was
conducted in response to the eradication of the national maximum speed
limit in 1995.
Implementing the EMS Agenda will require more specific guidance,
sponsorship of consensus meetings to create implementation plans,
revision of the Blueprint for EMS Education and Practice, and
development of a national research agenda.
Question. Please discuss what NHTSA is doing to further the use of
cellular 911 numbers. How is this reflected in your fiscal year 1999
request?
Answer. NHTSA is promoting the concept of an end-to-end emergency
communication system utilizing advanced communication technology to
provide quicker and better response to crashes or other life-
threatening emergencies. Central to this system is the cellular 911
communication link which allows instant access from the emergency scene
and provides the mechanism for determining the precise location of the
emergency, and for transmitting crash and medical data to enable
dispatchers to provide the most appropriate first response resources.
The agency built support for the end-to-end concept among the
health and medical community by conducting a national ``Call to
Action'' meeting during EMS Week in May 1997, and by publishing
informational documents explaining the need for the improved emergency
communication system. NHTSA has since worked with several national EMS
professional organizations to encourage involvement of their members in
local efforts to implement cellular 911.
The Emergency Medical Services budget request for fiscal year 1999
includes support for conducting educational activities for emergency
communication personnel to facilitate their preparation for
implementing cellular 911.
Question. What could be done to expedite the use of a uniform
system anywhere in the nation?
Answer. NHTSA is promoting the concept of an end-to-end emergency
communication system. This system will enhance public safety by
utilizing advanced technology to provide a faster and better emergency
response to 911 calls. The end-to-end concept acknowledges the need for
consistency from one end of the nation to the other and the need for
complete coverage of the emergency event, from injury to arrival at the
hospital. Creating the end-to-end system will require the commitment
and action of public and private sector stakeholders at the national,
state and local levels.
The agency is working to bring these stakeholders together. NHTSA
sponsored a national ``Call to Action'' meeting during EMS Week in May
1997 to bring the health and medical community together with the
cellular telephone industry and emergency communication providers.
NHTSA has also published documents to increase awareness of the need
for a consistent national emergency communication system among
stakeholder groups, and is working through the Intelligent
Transportation System (ITS) program to facilitate incorporation of this
system in the national ITS architecture.
Stimulating the local action necessary to build a uniform system is
a major challenge. The agency will continue efforts to mobilize local
representatives of health and medical organizations in support of
implementation of the end-to-end emergency communication system and
will direct technical support where needed to augment local resources.
Question. What efforts were undertaken on that initiative during
fiscal year 1998?
Answer. In fiscal year 1998, NHTSA conducted several activities to
further nationwide implementation of cellular or wireless 911. The
agency continued to build support for local implementation by alerting
public safety professionals of the current limitations of cellular 911
and of the need for community action to upgrade this emergency access
system. NHTSA developed and distributed informational documents
explaining technical aspects of the problem and presented this
information in key national forums.
The NHTSA Administrator worked with the Cellular Telecommunications
Industry Association to develop local infrastructure to support
wireless 911. To provide national leadership, the agency supported
development of the EMS Agenda for the Future Implementation Guide which
includes two objectives related to cellular 911 among its ten priority
objectives for the future of EMS.
NHTSA continues to work closely with the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) and the national associations representing 911 call
centers to facilitate implementation of the 1996 FCC regulation
requiring cellular providers to provide 911 service.
police traffic services
Question. How much money is planned to be spent in fiscal year 1999
on efforts to demonstrate the link between traffic enforcement and the
detection of criminal activity? What is the status of that effort?
Answer. In fiscal year 1999, $40,000 will be allocated to update
case studies demonstrating the link between crime and traffic
enforcement. Prior case studies were compiled in 1995 and 1997 from
Grand Prairie, TX and Peoria, IL and were based on limited data. This
new effort will fund the services of a full time, commissioned law
enforcement officer, for one full year, to gather data from additional
agencies which have data to support this linkage and to market the
program to law enforcement. This expanded case study will identify
currently successful programs and will document ``best practices'' for
use by other law enforcement agencies.
Question. How much was spent on this in fiscal year 1998?
Answer. No funds were spent on this effort in fiscal year 1998.
Question. Please provide a detailed break out for fiscal year 1998
activities and fiscal year 1999 planned activities with associated
funding amounts.
Answer. The information follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1998 Amount Fiscal year 1999 Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Implement a field test of an automated speed $40,000 Sponsor a joint project between NHTSA and $50,000
enforcement program on the George FHWA on speed deterrent initiatives.
Washington Parkway. The field test will
ensure maximum coverage of the sections of
the parkway where speed related crashes
have most frequently occurred.
Conduct an aggressive driving enforcement 540,000 Implement two Aggressive Driver Pilot 500,000
demonstration project in a major urban area Projects in major metropolitan areas, to
to identify effective innovative validate the techniques used in the 1998
enforcement techniques, possible demonstration project.
applications for new enforcement
technology, legislative, prosecutorial or
judicial needs and what role alcohol or
drugs play in the problem.
Establish a system to respond to requests 56,000 Support the services of a technical expert 30,000
from the law enforcement community in speed measurement technology who can
regarding the availability and assess and report on new technology for use
applicability of new enforcement by the law enforcement community.
technology, thus reducing or eliminating
repetitive testing of instruments.
Obtain data from individual states that can 50,000 Sponsor (with FHWA) workshops for patrol 50,000
be analyzed and evaluated to determine the officers on Traffic Enforcement and
effects of raising speed limits on specific Commercial Vehicles, based on a jointly
roadways. developed training course.
Provide technical support to law enforcement 110,000 Provide technical support to law enforcement 110,000
on speed measuring instruments, including on speed measuring instruments, including
maintaining and modifying the minimum maintaining and modifying the minimum
performance specifications and testing performance specifications and testing
protocols for RADAR, LIDAR, and automated protocols for RADAR, LIDAR, and automated
speed measuring instruments. speed measuring instruments.
Upgrade one of the current International 100,000 Assess the application technology which 200,000
Association of Chiefs of Police sponsored expands the deterrent effect of automated
testing labs with the capability for enforcement devices (speed and red light)
testing automated speed measuring jointly with FHWA.
instruments.
Continue a project to develop magnetic strip 50,000 Assess labor saving enforcement devices such 50,000
and barcode reader that will automatically as ALERT vehicle and computer applications.
populate forms and automatically transmit
data to check for stolen vehicle, wanted
person, drivers license history and etc.
Provide the services of a trained law 20,000 Provide the services of a trained law 20,000
enforcement officer to promote and enhance enforcement officer to promote and enhance
the enforcement activities associated with the enforcement activities associated with
Campaign Safe & Sober sTEP programs, the Campaign Safe & Sober sTEP programs and the
Presidential Seat Belt Initiative, and Presidential Seat Belt Initiative.
expand aggressive driving enforcement
programs.
Convene a group of law enforcement 71,000 Develop radio public service announcements 150,000
administrators to develop a plan and on aggressive driving and excessive speed
facilitate the implementation of the 21st to target the high risk groups.
Century Recommendation Report.
Provide the services of a trained law 40,000 Provide technical assistance to law 25,000
enforcement officer to gather data on the enforcement based on the results of the
effect that various traffic safety police fleet crash study conducted in
activities have on reducing law fiscal year 1998.
enforcement's injury crashes.
Support principal national law enforcement 120,000 Support principal national law enforcement 110,000
association to provide guidance to law association to provide guidance to law
enforcement leaders to increase occupant enforcement leaders to increase occupant
protection use, and to reduce impaired protection use, and to reduce impaired
driving, speeding, and aggressive driving. driving, speeding, and aggressive driving.
Support principal national sheriff's 100,000 Support principal national sheriff's 100,000
association to provide guidance to law association to provide guidance access to
enforcement leaders to increase occupant law enforcement leaders to increase
protection use, and to reduce impaired occupant protection use, and to reduce
driving, speeding, and aggressive driving. impaired driving, speeding, and aggressive
driving.
Support efforts of national organization of 20,000 Support efforts of a national organization 20,000
state police and highway patrol agencies of state police and highway patrol agencies
nationwide, to conduct dedicated special nationwide, to conduct special traffic
traffic enforcement programs during key enforcement programs during key holidays.
holidays.
Provide public information and educational 280,000 Support the Campaign Safe & Sober public 100,000
materials on occupant protection, impaired information and education program.
driving, speeding, and aggressive driving
to law enforcement agencies.
Provide technical assistance to law 49,000 Update the legal section of the National Law 40,000
enforcement agencies to support traffic Enforcement Driver Training Reference Guide.
enforcement agencies' techniques.
Conduct and support a workshop for traffic 50,000
law enforcement in a high fatality region.
Revise and update the Model Minimum 100,000
Performance Specifications for Speed-
Measuring Instruments and support speed
measurement devices.
Support the services of a trained law 40,000
enforcement officer to promote and expand
the enforcement activities associated with
aggressive driving enforcement programs.
Provide technical assistance on the 23,000
implementation of the Police Traffic
Services in the 21st Century
recommendations.
Support the services of a trained law 40,000
enforcement officer to make national
distribution of the study of the effect
traffic enforcement has on crime and expand
the series of case studies of projects that
demonstrate the positive effect traffic
enforcement has on the reduction of crashes
and criminal activity.
Develop a guide for the enforcement of 60,000
occupant protection laws in a diverse
commun- ity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. What is the compelling reason for the requested increase
in PTS activity in fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The additional resources are needed to support efforts to
increase safety belt and child safety seat usage, reduce alcohol
impaired driving and to implement a speeding and aggressive driving
program. Speeding is a factor in 30 percent of all fatal crashes.
Aggressive driving has rapidly become the driver behavior of most
concern to the motoring public.
The additional resources are needed to implement more intense
traffic law enforcement program activities and new initiatives designed
to achieve the challenging belt use in the President's Plan to Increase
Seat Belt Use Nationwide, the Presidential .08 BAC initiative as well
as the Partner's in Progress Implementation Guide to reduce impaired
driving.
Also, in response to the elimination of the national maximum speed
limit, NHTSA, FHWA and CDC contracted with the National Academy of
Sciences to conduct a study of setting and enforcing speed limits. The
results of this study will be pilot tested in several communities.
NHTSA will conduct aggressive driving outreach and coalition
building to get the support of the motoring public in combating the
aggressive driver. Additionally, the aggressive driving public
information and education program will be expanded to include print and
television.
state motor vehicle services program
Question. NHTSA has been working on a new agenda for traffic
records for several years. What components will be included in your new
agenda? What is the expected issue date for that agenda?
Answer. The following components will be included in the new
agenda: traffic records assessments (and reassessments); traffic record
file integration; the technology clearinghouse; minimum crash data
criteria; the traffic records forum; traffic safety managers training
course; traffic safety quantitative analysis training course;
development of a population-based data file; driver history initiative;
intelligent transportation systems; adaptations of global positioning
and geographical information systems; use of expert systems to improve
crash data quality; support for an American Association of Motor
Vehicle Administrators Multi-Year (MY) Plan; and inclusion of traffic
records in the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and
Ordinances. Each of the components included in the agenda relate to
improving traffic records data collection, management, and analysis.
The draft new agenda is considerably expanded over previous versions
and will be made available for review and comments to NHTSA, FHWA and
appropriate safety organizations by June 1, 1998. The revised agenda
will be presented at the Traffic Records Forum, July 26-29, 1998 in
Minneapolis.
Question. Please provide a table indicating the amount allocated
and the amount actually appropriated for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and
1998 in this area.
Answer. See table below:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1996 Fiscal year 1997 Fiscal year 1998
Program -----------------------------------------------------------------
Request Approp Request Approp Request Approp
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R&L........................................... 1,284 1,284 1,330 1,329 1,579 1,579
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please submit a table showing how all of the funds
requested for fiscal year 1999 are intended to be spent, and please
include in that table a comparison with the amount provided for similar
activities for fiscal year 1998. On a separate page, please justify the
need for the requested increases.
Answer. See table below and response.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year
Activity 1998 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology Clearinghouse................ $80,000 $80,000
Traffic Safety Manager Quantitative 60,000 60,000
Analysis Training......................
Traffic Safety Manage Training in Use of 44,000 44,000
Analytical Software....................
Intermediate Data Analysis Training..... 50,000 50,000
Minimum Crash Data Set.................. 60,000 60,000
Traffic Records Forum................... 60,000 60,000
Population Data Base.................... 55,000 55,000
Traffic Records Technology Grants....... 302,000 266,000
AAMVA MYPLAN............................ 50,000 50,000
NCUTLO Marketing Plan................... 50,000 50,000
SCS Transfer--Technical Assistance to 768,000 815,000
States (data linkage/program
evaluation)............................
-------------------------------
TOTAL............................. 1,579,000 1,590,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Justification for Increase in SCS Transfer.--The agency plans to
expand its technical assistance to states in data linkage and program
evaluation procedures.
highway safety research program
Question. Please prepare a table indicating the amount allocated
and the amount actually appropriated for the subprograms in the Highway
Safety Research program for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998.
Answer. See table below.
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1996 Fiscal year 1997 Fiscal year 1998
Program -----------------------------------------------------------------
Request Approp Request Approp Request Approp
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alc & Drugs................................... 1,802 1,772 1,606 1,603 1,600 1,600
Occupant Prot................................. 645 635 575 574 774 774
Older Driver.................................. 390 490 444 543 550 550
Ped & Bicyl................................... 302 302 302 301 375 375
Speed & Unsafe................................ 615 615 556 655 699 699
Driver Ed..................................... 350 255 350 349 400 400
Drvr Fatigue.................................. ......... 1,000 ......... 980 ......... .........
Evaluation.................................... ......... ......... 1,000 100 500 500
EMS........................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 225 225
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please prepare a table for each of the subprograms in the
Highway Safety Research Program, showing how all the funds requested
for fiscal year 1999 are intended to be spent, and please include in
that table a comparison with the amount provided for similar activities
for fiscal year 1998. On a separate page, please justify the need for
the requested increases.
Answer. See the tables that follow, and the additional information
regarding the need for increased budget amounts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year
Subprogram 1998 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALCOHOL AND DRUG RESEARCH
Identify target groups and activities... $600,000 $370,000
Develop enforcement improvements........ 550,000 300,000
Evaluate injury control programs........ 100,000 ..............
Evaluate drinking driving legislation... 200,000 250,000
Test high-impact countermeasures........ .............. 200,000
Develop programs to reduce repeat .............. 200,000
offenders..............................
Develop traffic law system improvements. .............. 100,000
Identify drugged driving characteristics 150,000 150,000
and develop countermeasures............
-------------------------------
Total............................. 1,600,000 1,570,000
===============================
OCCUPANT PROTECTION RESEARCH
Develop, implement, and test strategies 300,000 250,000
to increase seat belt use..............
Develop strategies for youth............ 80,000 85,000
Determining strategies for passing 120,000 ..............
primary belt laws......................
Identify strategies to combat problems 124,000 220,000
in child passenger safety..............
Research supporting ``Buckle Up .............. 305,000
America''..............................
Monitor public attitudes, knowledge, 150,000 220,000
behavior...............................
-------------------------------
Total............................. 774,000 1,080,000
===============================
SPEED AND AGGRESSIVE DRIVING RESEARCH
Determine the magnitude of the speeding 149,000 ..............
problem, identify targets..............
Fleet study of crash risk............... 200,000 250,000
GW Parkway safety program............... 300,000 300,000
Implement and evaluate countermeasures.. .............. ..............
Develop objective definition, and 50,000 ..............
determine incidence of aggressive
driving................................
-------------------------------
Total............................. 699,000 914,000
===============================
PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLIST RESEARCH
Develop and test programs for target 30,000 ..............
groups.................................
Large city demonstration program........ 290,000 ..............
Literature review of conspicuity........ 30,000 ..............
Monitor attitudes and behaviors......... 25,000 ..............
Develop and field test bike .............. ..............
countermeasures........................
Evaluate impact of motorcycle law .............. ..............
repeals................................
===============================
Total............................. 375,000 375,000
===============================
OLDER DRIVER RESEARCH
Field test driver licensing system...... 300,000 ..............
Identify medical conditions and crash 150,000 ..............
risk...................................
Implement demonstration programs........ .............. ..............
Update older driver report.............. 50,000 ..............
Field test guidelines for older drivers .............. ..............
with health care and social service
agencies...............................
Examine mobility issues................. 50,000 100,000
-------------------------------
Total............................. 550,000 550,000
===============================
DRIVER EDUCATION RESEARCH
Training to improve decision making..... 100,000 ..............
Evaluate graduated licensing systems.... 175,000 200,000
Develop 2-phase driver education program 125,000 200,000
-------------------------------
Total............................. 400,000 400,000
===============================
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES RESEARCH
EMS outcomes evaluation................. 125,000 150,000
Rural preventable mortality follow-on... 100,000 ..............
Conduct study of patient outcomes in out- .............. ..............
of-hospital emergency set- tings......
Review pre-hospital data for crash .............. ..............
victims................................
-------------------------------
Total............................. 225,000 340,000
===============================
SAFETY PROGRAM EVALUATION
Evaluate belt laws...................... 100,000 ..............
Evaluate Partners in Progress........... .............. 150,000
Evaluate innovative programs............ 250,000 ..............
Evaluate Presidential initiative on seat 150,000 173,000
belt use...............................
Evaluate NEXTEA incentive grant program. .............. ..............
Investigate possible applications of ITS .............. 125,000
and other advanced technology..........
Evaluate air bag safety campaign........ .............. 150,000
-------------------------------
Total............................. 500,000 648,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Justification for increases:
Additional funding for Occupant Protection Research.--The
additional funds would fund research to support implementation of the
``Buckle Up America'' campaign. Buckle Up America is the Presidential
initiative to increase seat belt use to 85 percent by the year 2000 and
to 90 percent by the year 2005. It is a priority of the agency and the
Department. The funding will be directed towards providing a solid
research and monitoring foundation to the campaign to enhance its
effectiveness. This entails developing and testing interventions and
evaluating Buckle Up activities.
Additional funding for Speed and Aggressive Driving Research.--The
additional funding 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 Emergency Medical Services Research.--This
funding is for research to reduce rural preventable mortality and to
evaluate pre-hospital care to ensure that 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 research of only the
highest quality is produced.
Additional funding for Program Evaluation.--This funding will be
used to evaluate major activities resulting from the agency's efforts
to increase safety belt and child safety seat use through the
Presidential initiative on seat belt use, Air Bag Safety Campaign, and
the Partners in Progress program. Special emphasis will be placed on
evaluation the impact of the legislative and enforcement activities.
older driver research
Question. Please list the publications issued during the last year
in this area and associated NTIS numbers.
Answer. Many projects have come to fruition in the past year and
several reports have been written. Three of the publications written
have been journal articles; they include: ``Safe Mobility for People
with Alzheimer Disease: A Commentary'' in Alzheimer Disease and
Associated Disorders, Vol. 11, 1997; ``Safe Mobility for Senior
Citizens'' in the journal of the International Association of Traffic
Safety Sciences (IATSS), Vol. 20, 1996; and ``Crash Prediction Models
for Older Drivers'' in Accident Analysis and Prevention, 1998.
A DOT Technical Report was also published: ``Improving
Transportation for a Maturing Society'', DOT-P10-97-01.
Several technical reports from contractors that are under review by
the Agency include: Safety Wheel Program; Family and Friends Concerned
About an Older Driver; Development of Statistical Relationships Between
Vehicle Crash Rates, Moving Violations and Age-Related Physical and
Mental Limitations; Assessing the Older Driver--Pilot Studies; Mobility
Consequences of the Reduction or Cessation of Driving by Older Persons;
and Improving the Safe Mobility of Older Persons and Measures for
Increasing the Mobility of Aging Commonwealth Citizens.
Question. Please present a summary of the specific products that
have resulted from this program during the last year and how those
results have benefitted state licensing agencies, physicians, and
families.
Answer. The results of NHTSA's problem identification research in
cooperation with the National Institute on Aging has helped to identify
some of the older driver groups that need special attention. In
addition, our research on the role of families, law enforcement, social
service agencies and other caretakers is being used to develop
materials for the benefit of driver licensing agencies, health and
social service agencies and families. These products will be used to
identify older drivers who may be at increased risk of being in a
crash.
An example of a product recently developed is ``The Safety Wheel
Program Guide Book'' that provides social service agencies with
guidelines for dealing with older driver issues. The guide book gives
specific strategies on how to deal with problem drivers and yet still
keep them mobile. Another recent product includes very promising driver
license screening tests, developed under a cooperative agreement with
the California Department of Motor Vehicles, which are being used in
our overall model screening and assessment demonstration project
currently underway in Maryland's Department of Motor Vehicles and other
agencies dealing with aging.
Question. Please assess progress made on the five-year strategic
plan regarding older driver research that was requested by the
Committee several years ago.
Answer. The older driver research plan emphasized three areas:
identifying high risk older drivers via screening and assessment by
licensing agencies; helping older drivers to self regulate their
driving by family and friends; and better identification of problematic
older drivers by physicians and care takers. Several projects have been
completed in these areas and reports have been published or are
forthcoming. One enhancement to the plan is that the Agency has
determined that working with a state consortium in selecting and pilot
testing ``model'' programs is a very effective way to obtain state
cooperation. The agency will pilot test the model programs developed in
the above projects in the State of Maryland this year and next. The
Maryland Department of Motor Vehicles will pilot test the licensing
aspects, while various Maryland agencies on aging will test other
aspects dealing with family, friends and the medical and health
communities.
Obtain state cooperation.--The agency will pilot test the model
programs developed in the above projects in the State of Maryland this
year and next. The Maryland Department of Motor Vehicles will pilot
test the licensing aspects, while various Maryland agencies on aging
will test other aspects dealing with family, friends and the medical
and health communities.
Question. Is it time to develop another five-year plan?
Answer. Based on our research findings it has become increasingly
evident that older women may be more at risk of not having safe
mobility as they age. Less than 25 percent of women over 85 drive. They
outlive their husbands by 8 to 10 years, and have limited access to
alternative transportation. NHTSA will conduct a needs analysis in
fiscal year 1998. If it turns out that there is evidence of an emerging
problem with elderly women, the agency will develop another five year
plan with emphasis in that area.
Question. 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 this reflected
in the fiscal year 1999 budget request and in the fiscal year 1998
spending plan for TSP?
Answer. As part of our fiscal year 1998 funded activities, the
agency will be developing a model screening and assessment program that
will include activities to improve performance of older drivers at risk
of losing their license. That project is working closely with the
States of Maryland and Florida to pilot test assessment tools to
identify potential weaknesses. Once pilot tested, drivers who have
problems will be referred to vision specialists, occupational
therapists and other specialists to overcome the problems whenever
possible. In fiscal year 1999, field test of driver licensing system
and field test of guidelines for older drivers with health care and
social service agencies will begin.
Question. Please be certain to break out activities and specific
funding levels for each activity.
Answer. Fiscal year 1998: Field Testing Model Driver Licensing
Systems--$300,000 (to pilot test model screening and assessment
program).
Fiscal year 1999: Field Test Driver Licensing System $200,000;
Field Test Health and Social Service System: $200,000, Update
Transportation for an Aging Society--$50,000 and Examine Mobility
Issues: $100,000
Question. What is NHTSA doing to improve the safe mobility of older
drivers? What are the results achieved during the last year?
Answer. NHTSA is managing a program to develop and evaluate model
screening, assessment and rehabilitation programs. In addition, the
Agency is coordinating a number of other related activities (e.g.
guidelines for self-regulation) in several states. Staff has provided
specific guidance to states and other countries (e.g. Canada,
Australia, and New Zealand) on programs to enhance safe mobility for
older people. Programs to help screen out high risk older drivers and
to help with alternative transportation for those who cease driving are
under development or being implemented in Florida, Maryland, Michigan,
California, New York, and Pennsylvania with technical assistance from
NHTSA. The Agency is also working with the American Association for
Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) and various public affairs and
consumer education groups to get better information to the general
public on the key issues in this important safety area.
Question. What is NHTSA doing to demonstrate new approaches to the
licensing of older drivers during fiscal year 1998? During fiscal year
1999?
Answer. NHTSA is working with the state of Maryland to pilot test
an overall program designed to keep older people safely mobile. NHTSA
is working with Maryland to establish a consortium of the key groups
who can have significant roles in identifying, assessing,
rehabilitating, counseling and assisting older people either to
maintain their driving ability or transitioning to alternative means of
transportation. The activity is bringing together all of the prior
research that NHTSA and others have conducted including the
identification of older drivers who may be at risk of crashing or
losing their mobility. Older drivers at increased risk could be
identified by family members, social service agencies, law enforcement
groups, or the medical community. Driver screening and diagnostic
testing with the potential for rehabilitating functional disabilities
will also be pilot tested in the Maryland demonstration project. The
project will also determine ways to keep older people mobile who either
have to restrict or stop driving altogether.
Question. Have those demonstrations of improved screening and
evaluation been effective?
Answer. Some of the elements of the instruments that are being
pilot testing in Maryland have been shown to be predictive of crash
involvement or poor performance on certain road tests. NHTSA is
currently attempting to determine in the pilot tests in Maryland
whether or not these instruments can distinguish between those who are
crash involved, those who have traffic citations and those who have
been referred to their Department of Motor Vehicles for a medical
condition or functional limitation.
Question. Please discuss how you used the GM settlement monies to
supplement appropriated older driver research monies. How much did you
allocate for that purpose? (GM and appropriated monies)
Answer. While NHTSA's research has studied older drivers from the
perspective of identifying unsafe drivers and restricting their ability
to drive, the General Motors (GM) projects have focused on identifying
opportunities and methods for extending the driving time of safe and
qualified older persons. GM awarded nine grants to conduct research in
four areas that complement NHTSA-sponsored research: (a) three projects
are investigating various aspects of trends in older-driver crash
involvement and causality and projecting outcomes into the next
quarter-century; (b) two projects are extending NHTSA's work with self-
regulation of driving by older persons by investigating different
systems and procedures for providing information to drivers; (c) three
projects are examining a variety of factors that influence older
persons to stop driving prematurely and testing the effects of
different kinds of information on extending their mobility; and (d) one
project is looking at methods for extending older-drivers' mobility
through performing careful assessments and installing personalized
adaptive devices on the driver's automobile. These projects are
supported solely by GM funds: $5 million over a 5-year period. No
appropriated funds have been used in the conduct of these projects.
driver education
Question. Please describe progress or accomplishments in this area.
Answer. Following submission of the 1994 Report to Congress,
Research Agenda For An Improved Novice Driver Education Program,
various contract activities have been initiated. A study to review the
use of various simulation devices was completed in 1996, ``Feasibility
of New Simulation Technology to Train Novice Drivers.'' An effort to
develop parental participation materials for providing guided practice
to novice drivers is nearing completion. The materials will be
available by September 1998 and will be distributed by the American
Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators to the States. An effort to
develop a CD-ROM program to train novice drivers to make better risk
management decisions is underway. A Beta version is expected by
September 1998. Various safety associations are considering marketing
of the training program. Efforts have been initiated through
Cooperative Agreements with the American Driver and Traffic Safety
Education Association and the National Safety Council to conduct
activities to establish a national curriculum for a two-tiered driver
education program. These efforts also provide limited assistance (e.g.,
expert testimony) to States who are considering improving driver
education as a part of a graduated driver licensing system. Agency
staff also provides consultation to various safety groups that are also
attempting to improve training programs for novice drivers (e.g.,
American Automobile Association).
driver fatigue and inattention
Question. Senate Report 104-325 directed NHTSA to prepare a report
on driver fatigue and inattention, and encouraged collaborative efforts
and funding activities between NHTSA and the National Center on Sleep
Disorders Research. Please provide the status and findings of that
report, and whether it is on schedule.
Answer. The report to the Senate is being delayed in order to
include the joint NHTSA and NIH report prepared by the expert panel
convened by the National Center on Sleep Disorders Research (NCSDR).
Internal reviews at the two agencies required considerably more time
than expected, but that report is currently being printed.
The NCSDR panel report presents information in four major areas:
mechanisms of human sleep and sleepiness, characteristics of drowsy
driving crashes, population groups at highest risk, and effective
drowsy driving countermeasures. The report to the Senate will include
the panel report, a list of panel members, the panel's recommendations
to NHTSA, and details of the NCSDR fiscal year 1997 program. The
expected delivery date is July 31, 1998.
NCSDR and NHTSA have completed a new interagency agreement, funded
at $234,000 from NHTSA's fiscal year 1997 appropriation. These funds
support the NCSDR's effort to create and disseminate drowsy-driving
information to school-age drivers in cooperation with their private-
sector partners.
Question. Please present an updated chart similar to that provided
last year 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 that program?
Answer. All the components of the development program, including
the evaluation and implementation components, are currently in place
and are summarized in the table below. The remaining challenge will be
to keep the projects on track and on schedule in order to complete the
program development deadline of Summer 1998, to award implementation
grants by Fall 1998, and to ensure the cooperation of the implementing
entities with the evaluation process.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
Project Purpose (Date Participants
Signed)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analyze role of fatigue, sleep disorders, Describe characteristics of FSDI crashes; Identify $130,000 National Center on Sleep Disorders
& inattention (FSDI) in highway crashes. subgroups most at risk. (8/14/96) Research.
Investigate instances of fatigue-related Observe drivers during fatigue-related inattention 100,000 NHTSA Vehicle Research and Test Center.
events in motor-vehicle operation. incidents; Establish characteristics of inattention. (9/23/96)
Develop and test educational Specify target populations; Determine message themes 175,000 Harvard Univ. School of Public Health.
countermeasures for fatigue-related (content); Establish motivational approaches; (6/26/96)
highway crashes. Establish dissemination strategies.
Develop strategy and lay foundation for Determine campaign objectives & target audience; 325,000 Global Exchange, Inc.
education and information campaign. Determine content, strategy, & media mix; Prepare (9/20/96)
and test draft materials; Refine materials.
Evaluate information and education Determine appropriate outcome measures & evaluation 516,000 Systems Assessment and Research, Inc.
campaign to combat fatigue-related design; Choose evaluation sites; Collect pre- & post- (9/1/97) (through GSA FEDSIM).
highway crashes. campaign data; Evaluate campaign; Recommend
revisions.
Promulgate the educational program to Identify communities, organizations and associations 271,000 Global Exchange
implementation sites. that serve appropriate target group constituencies; \1\ (9/26/
Create interest in program implementation; Award 97)
competitive grants to support implementation \2\ 200,000
activities; Provide program materials to To be
implementors. Arranged
Conduct supplementary implementation Adapt campaign themes for use in ongoing educational 234,000 National Center on Sleep Disorders
activities. programs for target audiences; Produce and (9/15/97) Research.
disseminate supplementary materials through
appropriate channels to reach target audience.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Materials production & program administration costs.
\2\ Grants to implementors.
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. NHTSA's research has been limited to discovering what is
currently known about the causal role of sleep disorders or fatigue in
motor vehicle crashes. Consequently, no new information has been
generated. Members of the NCSDR panel agree 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.
NHTSA's current efforts are focused on the development of the
fatigue education program. We have conducted several rounds of focus
group interviews with young male drivers, shift workers, and shift-work
supervisors to establish the informational needs and motivational
approaches appropriate for these candidate target groups. These
qualitative studies revealed that, while young males accept the
consequences of sleep loss and drowsy driving as acceptable lifestyle
choices, shift workers yearn for more or better sleep. Shift workers
are personally familiar with the hazards of driving while drowsy and
express eagerness for remedies to reduce these hazards.
Question. What progress has been made in the development and
implementation of public education programs?
Answer. Contracts for all components of the development and
evaluation of the educational program have been awarded and work to
establish the foundations of the educational program has been
completed. The National Centers on Sleep Disorders Research (NCSDR)
expert panel has completed its report which provides information on
mechanisms of human sleep and sleepiness, characteristics of drowsy
driving crashes, guidance for population groups at highest risk, and
evidence of effective drowsy driving countermeasures. Contractors have
conducted focus group interviews with candidate target groups and
determined potential informational content, motivational approaches,
communications strategies, and evaluation protocols. Procedures for
awarding grants to employers and organizations to assist in
implementation and evaluation are being readied for announcement by
late Spring, 1998. Development of draft program materials is underway
and should be ready for pilot test by Summer, 1998, and for
distribution by Fall, 1998.
Question. What is planned for fiscal year 1999, and how is this
reflected in the budget request?
Answer. During fiscal year 1999, NHTSA plans to award mini-grants
to employers and organizations to assist in the implementation and
evaluation of the educational program. During this time, the evaluation
contractor will monitor implementation activities and assess outcomes
related to the program's objectives. The materials developer will
revise the materials, based on the evaluation results. The results and
recommendations of the evaluation are expected by late Summer of 1999.
The fiscal year 1996 and 1997 appropriations fully support the
development and implementation of the program and the evaluation of its
effectiveness. NHTSA's fiscal year 1999 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.
Question. What specific studies does NHTSA have ongoing regarding
the interaction of fatigue and alcohol?
Answer. NHTSA currently has no studies specific to the interaction
of fatigue and alcohol. This cogent issue has certainly come up in
discussions with other professionals and has been added to our Draft
Strategic Plan for Behavioral Research in Traffic Safety. A study of
this kind will be considered for inclusion in our execution plan to be
developed interactively with our customers and partners in the Fall,
1998.
Question. What specific work products or publications have been
issued or released as a result of the Committee's directions and
support in this area?
Answer. The expert panel convened by the National Centers on Sleep
Disorders Research (NCSDR) completed a review of the ``state of
knowledge'' regarding sleepiness and traffic safety. The panel's
report, ``Drowsy Driving and Automobile Crashes,'' will be jointly
published by NHTSA and NCSDR.
In addition to a print version, the report will be available on the
World Wide Web via both agencies' web sites. Both versions will be
available in late Spring or early Summer, 1998.
research and analysis
Question. The FHWA has recently conducted an in-depth review of its
entire research and technology program. FHWA has developed detailed
roadmaps of its programs and is beginning to discuss those plans with
the highway safety community. When was the last time that NHTSA
conducted a detailed review of its entire research and development
program? When was the last time that NHTSA discussed its research plans
with the broader community besides your advisory committee?
Answer. NHTSA's research agenda is set on the basis of the agency's
rulemaking priorities. The rulemaking agenda is published in the
Federal Register for dissemination of the information publicly. The
research plan developed by NHTSA is in support of the safety standards
the agency promulgates. The review of NHTSA's research plan is
routinely conducted during every budget cycle.
The agency's discusses its R&D plans and research agendas with the
public in several fora, including: quarterly public meetings where it
discusses research findings and planned research activities; annual SAE
meetings; and with the international research community through the
International Harmonized Research Activities (IHRA) program under the
collaboration of 16 countries participating in the Enhanced Safety of
Vehicles (ESV) program, a program sponsored by NHTSA. The agency also
participates in Department-wide planning and review coordination
efforts on an ongoing basis. NHTSA also has a Web page where highlights
of the research agenda can be found, and these are accessible to all
interested parties from whom we receive comments periodically on our
programs.
In addition, NHTSA conducted a review of its entire R&D program
during CY 1997.
Question. Please provide data on the amount of cost sharing
received for the entire R&D program for each of the last three years,
braking out separately the amount received for the NADS.
Answer. The agency's best estimate for the amount of R&D cost
sharing that has been achieved during the last three years exceeds $75
million per year; however, the precise amount is unknown as the agency
has been provided prototype hardware and test results which do not have
assigned dollar values from the private sector in a number of areas of
crashworthiness research.
Furthermore, in fiscal year 1996 NHTSA received cost sharing
commitments for the NADS program of $15.15 million. This consisted of
$11.53 million from the University of Iowa and $3.62 million from TRW.
In fiscal year 1998, Freightliner Corporation committed to providing
cost sharing which NHTSA values at approximately $300 thousand.
Question. What efforts has NHTSA pursued to increase the amount of
cost sharing?
Answer. NHTSA has provided comprehensive technical briefings on the
NADS capabilities to major commands within the U.S. Army in an attempt
to interest them in supporting the project. The agency has also carried
out a mailing solicitation to major corporations within the commercial
truck manufacturing industry.
Additionally, in the safety systems area, the greatest cost sharing
has been achieved is the development of advanced air bag technology.
Here, the agency has established cooperative research programs with a
major restraint system supplier and with other groups that support the
suppliers. Also, the agency has been the recipient of advanced
prototype technologies from the American Automobile Manufacturers
Association and has been supplied hardware by the Association of
International Automobile Manufacturers. Other cost sharing has been
achieved in the area of advanced glazing to prevent occupant ejection.
Here, the agency is working with a major glazing supplier in a
cooperative research effort.
Question. FHWA's RTCG for safety is seeking to design that agency's
safety R&D agenda to fund primarily those projects that would result in
substantial improvements in highway safety. Have you considered
redesigning the research agenda towards this same objective? What would
be the costs and benefits of pursuing such an approach?
Answer. NHTSA's research and development agenda is totally focused
on improving automobile safety, and it is developed after careful
evaluation of the highway safety problem as indicated by an analysis of
the highway crash data the agency collects. The main objective of
NHTSA's research is to define the safety problem, develop suitable
countermeasures, and show their feasibility and cost effectiveness in
solving the safety problem. Much of NHTSA's research findings forms the
basis for developing the behavioral issues and safety standards which
NHTSA promulgates.
NHTSA seeks advice on its research agenda from the Motor Vehicle
Safety Research Advisory Committee comprised of motor vehicle industry
experts, academics, medical doctors, and others appointed by the
Secretary of Transportation and through other outreach means such as
the Federal Register. Thus, NHTSA's R&D agenda is peer reviewed and is
in many respects developed in the same manner as FHWA's R&D agenda.
Question. What selection criteria have you developed to ensure that
your research agenda is focused on topics that address the most
significant safety problems?
Answer. The research priorities are mostly defined on the basis of
NHTSA's rulemaking agenda. The rulemaking agenda is based on the most
predominant safety problems that need to be addressed. For instance,
crosscutting research such as that related to crash injury mechanisms
and injury criteria development is additionally undertaken to support
the agency's rulemaking priorities. Most of NHTSA's research is geared
towards application of engineering principles and other scientific
principles in developing safety countermeasure programs that are
designed to solve specific safety problems. Therefore, the selection
criteria for NHTSA's research are guided by the definition of the
safety problems and the expected effectiveness of the solutions.
Question. When was the last time that NAS comprehensively reviewed
the scope and direction of your research program?
Answer. To the best of our knowledge, the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS) has never conducted a comprehensive review of the scope
and direction of the entire NHTSA R&D program. From time to time, NHTSA
has participated in several program reviews with NAS, where NAS
reviewed individual research topics. An example of one of these reviews
is Estimating Demand for the National Advanced Driving Simulator, 1995.
NHTSA also supports NAS which includes approximately $80,000 funding
per year.
Question. Which aspects did the Academy review?
Answer. Reviews performed by the National Academy of Sciences have
been limited to individual projects such as the vehicle size and weight
study and the implications of the National Speed Limit.
Question. What are your views on NAS conducting a comprehensive
review and analysis? What are the advantages and disadvantages?
Answer. NHTSA is of the view that the oversight brought on by the
Motor Vehicle Safety Research Advisory Committee, its subcommittees,
and working groups and the peer review it receives from the safety
community, the motor vehicle industry, and the international safety
community are comprehensive and thorough and any additional review
would be unnecessary. NHTSA has several internal needs for R&D efforts
to support its Federal motor vehicle safety standards and vehicle
defect investigations; hence, some of the research work is dictated by
internal requirements.
The research plans and budget are thoroughly reviewed by various
parts of the agency before they are finalized. Thus, these plans
undergo a level of scrutiny similar to any organization in the public
or private sector.
NHTSA does not see any advantages in adding an additional
oversight. Disadvantages include duplication of effort and diverting
the agency's meager resources to oversight with no concomitant
benefits.
Question. What are some of the policy resource allocation, or
management issues that a NAS panel might explore that would be of
benefit to NHTSA in shaping its R&D program for the next decade?
Answer. The involvement of the National Academy of Sciences panel
in reviews of major high visibility research programs involving large
budget allocations such as the Intelligent Transportation Systems
Intelligent Vehicle Initiative Programs would be of value.
crashworthiness research program
Question. Please prepare a table indicating the amount allocated
and the amount actually appropriated for the two programs in the
Crashworthiness Research Budget for fiscal year 1996, 1997 and 1998.
Answer. The requested information for the Safety Systems
Engineering and Analysis Division (SSEA) and the National
Transportation Biomechanics Research Center (NTBRC) in the
Crashworthiness Research Program follows:
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Request Appropriated
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety Systems:
1996..................................... 6,000 5,910
1997..................................... 6,500 6,488
1998..................................... 8,338 8,338
NTBRC:
1996..................................... 7,450 5,890
1997..................................... 7,450 7,437
1998..................................... 10,587 10,587
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please prepare a table for both of those programs,
showing how all of the funds requested for fiscal year 1999 are
intended to be spent, and please include in that table a comparison
with the amounts provided for similar activities during fiscal year
1998. On a separate page, please justify the need for the requested
increases. Please demonstrate the continuity or completion of specific
research projects in your answer.
Answer. The following table summarizes the budget allocations for
the major research areas of the Crashworthiness Research Program, the
Safety Systems Engineering and Analysis Division (SSEA) and the
National Transportation Biomechanics Research Center (NTBRC):
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
Activity ---------------------
1998 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety Systems:
Upgrade Frontal Crash Protection.............. 1,365 1,100
Upgrade Rollover Crash Protection............. 1,100 1,100
Vehicle Aggressiveness and Compatibility...... 1,300 1,677
Upgrade Side Crash Protection................. 1,338 1,300
Upgrade Seat and Restraint Systems............ 1,385 1,100
Advanced Air Bag Research..................... 1,850 2,431
International Harmonization Research.......... ......... 1,850
---------------------
Totals...................................... 8,338 10,558
=====================
NTBRC:
Crash Injury Research and Engineering Network 2,100 3,010
(CIREN)......................................
Impact Injury Research........................ 2,200 2,200
Human Injury Simulation and Analysis.......... 1,937 2,170
Crash Test Dummy Development.................. 2,100 2,300
Biomechanics of Air Bag Injuries.............. 2,250 3,000
---------------------
Totals...................................... 10,587 12,680
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The request includes $1.850 million which is essential to launch
the new initiative in International Harmonized Research Activities.
This critical initiative will enable the Office of Crashworthiness
Research to initiate the development of harmonized test procedures,
test requirements and a harmonized dummy for pedestrian protection.
Research will be conducted for the development of harmonized injury
criteria and an associated crash test dummy, harmonized test procedures
including an approach to the offset crash test condition and for side
impact crashes, and (if possible) harmonized test performance
requirements. Research will examine the development of a harmonized
test procedure for evaluating vehicle aggressivity/compatibility.
Finally research will evaluate the complexities of the existing safety
standards promulgated around the world, identify those standards for
which some degree of harmonization is possible, and develop harmonized
test procedures and/or agree to the functional equivalency of testing
procedures.
The following major initiatives will be expanded with the proposed
increases in NTBRC's budget:
CIREN: $3,010,000 (+$910,000).--Increase the number of
participating trauma centers from four to seven to continue the current
data collection efforts including the three trauma centers currently
funded through the General Motors Settlement Agreement. Continue
medical and engineering data collection, documentation, and analysis of
causes, conditions, and injury consequences in approximately 350
selected crashes per year. Complete development and implementation of
the CIREN Data Network.
Human Injury Simulation and Analysis: $1,937,000 (+$233,000).--
Continue the development and validation of detailed finite element
models of the human anatomy capable of predicting the extent and
severity of human injury under impact conditions for the skull and
brain, the neck, the thorax and abdomen, and the pelvis and lower
extremities. Develop and verify detailed models of existing and
developing dummy systems. Expand capabilities to simulate out-of-
position situations.
Crash Test Dummy Development: $2,100,000 (+$200,000).--Complete
prototype development of Advanced Frontal 50th Percentile Male Dummy
and evaluate its performance to allow its integration into frontal
crash protection research efforts. Complete development of Advanced
Lower Extremity devices and introduce into research and testing
efforts. Continue ``federalization'' and upgrading of existing dummies
to qualify them for agency regulatory actions. Enhance biofidelity and
injury sensing capabilities of the various child dummies. Complete
development of prototype Advance Frontal 5th Percentile Female Dummy
and begin evaluation phase. Continue the development of advanced injury
sensing instrumentation development activities while continuing the use
of existing instrumentation.
Biomechanics of Air Bag Injuries: $3,000,000 (+$750,000).--Continue
and expand efforts to ``federalize'' existing dummy systems for
regulatory efforts to improve air bag performance. Continue and expand
efforts to understand and quantify the mechanisms of injury prevalent
in air bag loading situations with emphasis on out-of-position
situations. Continue and expand efforts to model the human under air
bag crash circumstances. Expand research activities to supplement the
instrumentation and injury sensing capabilities of existing test
devices.
Question. What is the driving force behind the request for
additional funds for international harmonization activities? Exactly
how will those monies be used? What is the empirical basis for that
request?
Answer. Since the motor vehicle industry is increasingly becoming a
global industry, international safety standards make sense; because,
when standards are the same, addressing similar safety problems,
vehicle designs need not differ from country to country. However, it is
important that the safety standards that are developed provide the
optimum level of safety. Since various countries have different
regulatory procedures, achieving harmonized safety standards can only
occur if the scientific bases for those standards are the same.
Therefore, it is NHTSA's belief that world-wide harmonized research
would form the foundation for any future harmonized safety regulations.
At the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles Conference in May 1996, in
Australia, the Governmental focal points from North America, Europe,
and the Asian-Pacific countries met and established an International
Harmonized Research Activities (IHRA) Steering Committee. Several
working groups under this Steering Committee were established with one
country having the lead responsibility for planning and coordinating
the research work. The United States has the lead in biomechanics
research. Research tasks in several other major topics are to be
carried out in different participating countries. It is the goal of the
working groups to share the research findings and reach conclusions
based on the results. The requested funding will allow NHTSA to conduct
those research tasks which are agreed upon by the IHRA working groups
to be carried out in the United States. NHTSA will be heavily involved
in the IHRA research tasks in biomechanics, pedestrian safety, frontal
offset crash safety, vehicle compatibility, and side impact protection.
The funding request of $1.85 million will be the minimum that will be
required in fiscal year 1999 under IHRA to supplement NHTSA's own
research activities in the above topical areas. It is our belief that
the research conducted under IHRA will lead to test procedures and
injury criteria that will provide optimum vehicle safety in an
efficient and consensus based manner.
Question. Please break down the expected projects and associated
amounts to be funded with the $1.850 million requested. What was the
amount already spent or planned to be spent on comparable activities
during fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998?
Answer. Given below is a table showing the breakdown of the planned
allocation of funds in fiscal year 1999 for conducting research by
NHTSA under the Internationally Harmonized Research Activities (IHRA).
[In thousands of dollars]
Fiscal year 1999
Research Topics Planned Allocation
Frontal Crash Protection.......................................... 300
Vehicle Compatibility............................................. 500
Side Crash Protection............................................. 500
Pedestrian Protection............................................. 250
Crosscutting Research............................................. 300
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
Total....................................................... 1,850
This critical initiative will enable the agency to initiate the
development of harmonized test procedures, test requirements, and a
harmonized dummy for pedestrian protection. Research will be conducted
for the development of harmonized injury criteria and an associated
crash test dummy, harmonized test procedures including an approach to
the offset crash test condition and for side impact crashes, and (if
possible) harmonized test performance requirements. Research will
examine the development of a harmonized test procedure for evaluating
vehicle aggressivity/compatibility. Finally, research will evaluate the
complexities of the existing safety standards promulgated around the
world, identify those standards for which some degree of harmonization
is possible, and develop harmonized test procedures and/or agree to the
functional equivalency of testing procedures.
No funds were allocated to IHRA in fiscal years 1997 and 1998.
Question. What is the view of the U.S. automobile industry
regarding the international harmonization program?
Answer. The automotive industry is on record as supportive of the
international harmonization program and of a key agency criterion that
international harmonization not lead to least common denominator
standards. The manufacture of motor vehicles has evolved from a mostly
domestic industry into a global one that is competing in a global
market where safety and environmental regulations will continue to be
nationally based. The harmonization of these regulations on a global
scale has become a priority for the automobile industry. Thus the
industry is very supportive of the agency's efforts towards the
accomplishment of harmonized motor vehicle safety regulations. The
industry has made several recommendations through the Transatlantic
Business Dialogue concerning the regulatory process. The agency has
been responsive to these recommendations by successfully negotiating a
draft global agreement with the European Commission and the Japanese
Ministry of Transport, on a process for the development of harmonized
technical regulations to be subsequently adopted by the parties to the
agreement. In response to industry's recommendation that functional
equivalence be used as an interim measure while developing harmonized
regulations, the agency has developed a process for the assessment of
functional equivalence between a foreign regulation and the
corresponding United States regulation and is using that process in
responding to industry petitions. Finally, in response to the
recommendation that new regulations be based on harmonized research
data, the agency is actively and substantively involved in the
International Harmonized Research Agenda which was agreed to at the
Fourteenth International Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles
(ESV). Progress will be reported at the Fifteenth ESV in May, 1998.
safety systems
Question. What is the analytical or empirical basis for the $10.555
million requested in this area? How was that amount determined? How
will those funds be allocated compared to the fiscal year 1998
allocation?
Answer. The Crashworthiness Research Safety Systems' request of
$10.558 million continues test procedures and baseline vehicle
evaluations. The request includes funds for vehicle and component
countermeasure hardware development that will demonstrate the potential
to advance Crashworthiness policies and regulations for various impact
modes. Frontal, side, and rollover crashes account for most of the
deaths and injuries to passenger vehicle occupants. Ejections, crashes
involving pedestrians, and fires also cause death and injury.
Aggressive air bag deployment has been found to be a source of injuries
and fatalities to people seated in close proximity to the air bag and
to out-of-position children and occupants who are in contact with the
air bag at the start of deployment. Research will help determine which
air bag design characteristics can best reduce these injuries in the
near term. Improvements in vehicle structure and occupant compartment
design, in combination with near term improvements in seat and
restraint systems, require research in test procedures, biomechanics,
and countermeasure development and evaluation. The comparative
allocations during fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 are as
follows:
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
Activity ---------------------
1998 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety Systems:
Upgrade Frontal Crash Protection.............. 1,365 1,100
Upgrade Rollover Crash Protection............. 1,100 1,100
Vehicle Aggressiveness and Compatibility...... 1,300 1,677
Upgrade Side Crash Protection................. 1,338 1,300
Upgrade Seat and Restraint Systems............ 1,385 1,100
Advanced Air Bag Research..................... 1,850 2,431
International Harmonization Research.......... ......... 1,850
---------------------
Totals...................................... 8,338 10,558
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please describe recent advances in frontal crash
protection resulting from your program.
Answer. The frontal crash protection research program is focused on
mitigating the fatalities and injuries that will continue to occur each
year even after full implementation of air bags in cars and light
trucks and vans. The latest agency estimates are that frontal impacts
in an all air bag fleet may still account for over 8,000 fatalities and
over 120,000 moderate to severe injuries each year. The most recent
finding in the research for improved frontal crash protection has been
the continued support for the development of a test procedure that
simulates a moving car-to-moving car oblique, frontal offset crash.
This condition has been based on an analysis of the 1988 to 1996
National Automotive Sampling System data. Ongoing research is examining
a number of potential test procedures that could be used for simulating
this crash condition.
Question. What new research has been performed with the additional
funds allocated last year?
Answer. The additional funds ($1.850 million) that were allocated
last year were used to enhance the ongoing research program for the
development and evaluation 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). Advanced air
bag systems generically can be divided into increasing levels of
complexity. Generally, the advanced systems automatically suppress or
tailor the air bag deployment using occupant and/or crash variables to
reduce or prevent injuries caused by the air bag. The research has been
focused to identify the necessary performance characteristics of an
advanced air bag system that reduce or prevent air bag induced
injuries. Based on these characteristics, a comprehensive set of tests
is being defined to ensure the advanced air bag system will not cause
injury. Further, these tests are being developed to 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. As part of this effort, research includes
additional out-of-position occupant tests (static and dynamic) to
evaluate and monitor the performance of new generation and advanced air
bag systems. The research includes reconstructions of crashes in which
the air bag deployment caused either fatalities or severe injuries. The
results from these tests are being used to evaluate injury criteria for
child dummies in out-of-position and other automotive environments.
Question. Please calculate the amount of cost sharing obtained from
the private sector for both the fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998
program for each of the following research areas: tailorable inflators,
adjustable anchorages, side inflatable cushions, improved seat designs,
energy absorbing surfaces, pre-crash sensing, and vehicle aggressivity.
Answer. The agency's best estimate for the amount of cost sharing
that has been achieved during fiscal years 1997 and 1998 exceeds $1.5
million; however, the precise amount is unknown as the agency has been
provided prototype hardware and test results from the private sector in
a number of areas of crashworthiness research.
The area in which the greatest cost sharing has been achieved is
the development of advanced air bag technology. Here, the agency has
established cooperative research programs with a major restraint system
supplier and with other groups that support the suppliers. Also, the
agency has been the recipient of advanced prototype technologies from
the American Automobile Manufacturers Association, and has been
supplied hardware by the Association of International Automobile
Manufacturers. Other cost sharing has been achieved is in the area of
advanced glazing to prevent occupant ejection. Here, the agency is
working with a major glazing supplier in a cooperative research effort.
Question. What are the specific research avenues or questions you
are pursuing regarding the following topics: frontal crash protection,
advanced air bag technology, pedestrian protection, ejection reduction,
and advanced occupant protection?
Answer. The frontal crash protection research program is focused on
mitigating the fatalities and injuries that will continue to occur each
year even after full implementation of air bags in cars and light
trucks and vans. The latest agency estimates are that frontal impacts
in an all air bag fleet may still account for over 8,000 fatalities and
over 120,000 moderate to severe injuries each year. The research will
upgrade the injury criteria and test devices, develop test procedures
for evaluation of occupant injury, and develop countermeasures to
improve the occupant safety.
The advanced air bag technology research program is focused on
developing the technical bases for the specification of vehicle
performance requirements which will lead to the elimination of
fatalities and reduce the severity of the injuries resulting from
aggressive air bag deployment to children and adults and to infants in
rear facing child safety seats, and simultaneously optimize the
benefits to normally seated restrained occupants while also restoring
the full protection for unbelted adults in high severity crashes.
Research is focused on addressing the injuries and fatalities due to
aggressive air bag deployment and will include the analysis of
injuries/fatalities with air bags, analysis of fatalities to children
under 15 with air bags, and analysis of injuries/fatalities to drivers,
to specifically identify cases of air bag aggressiveness contributing
to the injuries/fatalities; will include laboratory testing to evaluate
aggressiveness of new-generation air bags, will assess advanced air bag
technology that provides protection over a wide range of conditions,
and will develop test procedures for evaluating air bag system
performance over the range of conditions.
Pedestrian crash injury reduction research is focused on three
areas. Analysis of pedestrian crash data is being conducted to
determine the influence of current vehicle design on contact locations
and injury severities in pedestrian crashes. This will lead to research
on countermeasure development. Test devices which comply with
International Standards Organization requirements for pedestrian head
and leg impact protection are currently under development. NHTSA is
working with the International Harmonization Research Activities
pedestrian safety working group in an effort to develop and implement a
harmonized and coordinated research program with Europe, Japan,
Australia, and North America.
There are several current research programs aimed at reducing
occupant ejections. One of these is examining the feasibility of using
advanced glazings in side windows to act as safety nets to reduce
ejection, while minimizing the potential for these glazings to produce
head, neck, and lacerative injuries. The other is exploring whether the
Head Protection System currently being installed in some BMW models,
which was designed to provide head protection in side impacts, can also
be effective in reducing ejections in rollovers. Also, an upgrade to
the safety standard regarding door latch strength is being considered,
which would reduce the incidence of door openings and thereby the
potential of occupant ejections.
The advanced occupant protection research program is focused on
providing the necessary scientific bases for the development of
improved occupant protection devices beyond the scope of those
currently used in automobiles. The approach is to design studies which
focus on the development of occupant protection concepts in isolation
(i.e., developed not as an integral part of a larger system
development). If successfully developed in laboratory tests, the
concept would then be integrated into other projects developing an
entire safety system. Generally, those areas of design improvement
known to be under current near term development by industry will be
watched closely and encouraged.
Question. Other than the issuance of the final rule allowing
depowering of specified air bag systems, please further demonstrate the
integration of NHTSA's research program and the regulatory program.
Answer. The agency anticipates issuing a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) on June 1, 1998, to provide protection above that
provided by the March 19, 1997, action allowing new-generation air bag
systems. As part of the research to support this pending NPRM, the
agency has continued and enhanced its extensive Special Crash
Investigations program to monitor the new generation air bag system
fleet performance, has initiated efforts to introduce a variety of
dummy sizes and associated injury criteria (both child and fifth
percentile female) into the agency's compliance test procedures, and
has initiated the development of new test procedures and associated
performance requirements that lead to the introduction of air bag
systems that provide benign deployment to out-of-position occupants
and/or suppress deployment of the air bag when deployment is determined
to hazardous to the occupant. Research staff have worked closely with
agency staff to ensure that the necessary support is provided.
Question. Please provide an updated discussion on the progress made
in implementing the strategic plan for heavy truck research.
Answer. NHTSA's Strategic Plan for Heavy Vehicle Safety Research
was prepared in 1995, at the request of Congress. It laid out proposed
research programs through fiscal year 2000, to address identified heavy
vehicle safety issues. Since 1995, the level of appropriated funding in
the heavy vehicle area has not matched the needs identified in the
plan. While significant progress in the heavy vehicle research area has
been made, much of the planned research still remains undone. That is
the major reason for the increased level of funding in the fiscal year
1999 budget request for heavy vehicle research.
Question. Please describe how you ensure that NHTSA's research does
not overlap with that conducted by the private sector.
Answer. While the agency cannot know the details of all research
being conducted by all private companies, our staff maintains constant
liaison with professional organizations such as the Society of
Automotive Engineers (SAE), ITS America, and the Truck Maintenance
Council (TMC) of the American Trucking Associations. Through these
contacts as well as a ongoing dialogues with heavy vehicle
manufacturers and research organizations, NHTSA is aware of nearly
everything that is being researched in the area of heavy vehicle
safety.
biomechanics
Question. Why is it of critical importance to increase the number
of CIREN centers?
Answer. The Crash Injury Research and Engineering Network (CIREN)
is a unique collaboration of medical practitioners, engineers, and
other related professions. Working with seven multidisciplinary,
geographically diverse trauma centers, the agency hopes to learn more
about the dynamics of highway crashes. What's more, these real world
laboratories are linked by a computer network that allows researchers
to review crash and injury data and share their particular expertise.
The request includes funding which is essential to incorporate three
additional CIREN centers, previously funded from the General Motors
(GM) settlement funds, into the CIREN system to allow the agency to
continue detailed biomechanical analyses of selected CIREN cases to
validate the injury criteria being developed by the agency against real
world crash situations. Funding for the three additional centers is
essential for two reasons: (1) Funding from the GM settlement funds
expires in March 1999. (2) The three CIREN centers funded through the
GM settlement are critical pieces that supplement the input to make the
CIREN network national in nature. They also provide the necessary
expertise in the areas of specialities of burn trauma (Michigan),
cervical spine trauma (Harborview), and emergency medical services
interaction in multiple disciplines (San Diego).
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 national center. What progress has been made?
Answer. The National Transportation Biomechanics Research Center
(NTBRC) has pursued a variety of cooperative/collaborative efforts with
various governmental groups. Within the Department of Transportation,
the NTBRC is developing a Memorandum of Understanding with the Federal
Aviation Administration to pursue joint research efforts that study
mechanisms of injury under crash conditions of interest to both
agencies such as lateral impact. Additionally, the joint efforts of the
NTBRC and the US Army and US Navy will be studying head injury
mechanisms.
Question. Is NHTSA the only DOT modal administration requesting
funds for the biomechanics program? How have other modal
administrations used research results obtained from your investment?
Answer. As far as NHTSA is aware, the National Transportation
Biomechanics Research Center's (NTBRC) program is the primary
biomechanics effort underway in the Department. NTBRC's research
results are used primarily by NHTSA in developing automotive safety
regulations. However, the Federal Highway Administration has used
injury criteria and dummies for enhancements in the safety of the
highway. While NTBRC has had preliminary discussions with the Federal
Aviation Administration on efforts of common interest and is currently
developing a Memorandum of Understanding between the two agencies to
pursue such efforts, NHTSA is unaware of any other agency directly
using the research results obtained from NHTSA's investment.
Question. The Biomechanics program has been growing rapidly during
the last few years. How has that growth been managed? What outside peer
review of the program have you received?
Answer. The NHTSA relies on two methods for managing the
biomechanics program of the National Transportation Biomechanics
Research Center (NTBRC). The primary management tool used is the
agency's internal management process that insures that the efforts the
Center proposes and pursues are addressing the agency's needs in an
appropriate and timely manner. Peer review of NTBRC research is
achieved through both NHTSA's Motor Vehicle Safety Research Advisory
Committee's Biomechanics Working Group and through NHTSA's quarterly
research meetings with the automotive industry, suppliers, and other
interested parties where the scope, direction, and research findings of
the NTBRC program are presented and comments and suggestions solicited.
Question. Please break down in extensive detail how the fiscal year
1999 funds will be used, being certain to indicate key projects and
specific funding levels, and compare this breakdown to planned fiscal
year 1998 expenditures and projects.
Answer. The following table summarizes the budget allocations for
the major National Transportation Biomechanics Research Center research
areas for both fiscal year 1998 and 1999:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-------------------------------
1998 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CIREN................................... $2,100,000 $3,010,000
Impact Injury Research.................. 2,200,000 2,200,000
Human Injury Simulation and Analysis.... 1,937,000 2,170,000
Crash Test Dummy Dev.................... 2,100,000 2,300,000
Biomechanics of Air Bag Injuries........ 2,250,000 3,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following major initiatives will be pursued in each of the
above research areas:
Crash Injury Research and Engineering Network (CIREN).--Increase in
the number of participating traumas center from four to seven to
continue the current data collection efforts by including the three
trauma centers currently funded by the General Motors Settlement
Agreement. Continue medical and engineering data collection,
documentation, and analysis of causes, conditions, and injury
consequences in selected crashes. Complete development and
implementation of the CIREN Data Network.
Impact Injury Research.--Continue studies of neck injury mechanisms
and validate neck models with emphasis on airbag loading conditions.
Continue initiatives to study and quantify skull and brain injury
mechanisms. Continue and expand studies to advance knowledge of
pediatric impact injuries to the head, neck, and chest. Continue
studies of thoracic injury mechanisms for out-of-position occupants.
Continue side impact injury and response studies. Continue initiative
to optimize performance of belt/bag restraints.
Human Injury Simulation and Analysis.--Continue the development and
validation of detailed finite element models of the human anatomy
capable of predicting the extent and severity of human injury under
impact conditions for the skull and brain, the neck, the thorax and
abdomen, and the pelvis and lower extremities. Develop and verify
detailed models of existing and developing dummy systems.
Crash Test Dummy Development.--Complete prototype development of
Advanced Frontal 50th percentile Male Dummy and evaluate its
performance and integrate the device into frontal crash protection
research. Complete development of Advanced Lower Extremity devices and
introduce them into research and testing efforts. Continue
``federalization'' and upgrading of existing dummies to qualify them
for agency regulatory actions. Enhance biofidelity and injury sensing
capabilities of the various child dummies. Complete development of
prototype Advance Frontal 5th Percentile Female Dummy and begin
evaluation phase. Continue the development of advanced injury sensing
instrumentation while continuing the use of existing techniques.
Biomechanics of Airbag Injuries.--Continue and expand efforts to
``federalize'' existing dummy systems for regulatory efforts for
improving airbag performance. Continue and expand efforts to understand
and quantify the mechanisms of injury prevalent in airbag loading
situations with emphasis on out-of-position situations. Continue and
expand efforts to model the human under airbag crash circumstances.
Expand research activities to supplement the instrumentation and injury
sensing capabilities of existing test dummies and devices.
Question. Please discuss the research results that have emanated
from the trauma centers during the last few years.
Answer. Though the Crash Injury Research and Engineering Network
(CIREN)--funded by NHTSA and General Motors--is still in its infancy,
much has already been learned. The agency and its CIREN partners have
gained in-depth knowledge on injuries that are caused by safety devices
themselves, including shoulder and lap restraints and air bags. An
understanding of how real world crashes compare to the outcomes
predicted in research through controlled crash tests is beginning to
emerge. The agency has significantly improved its understanding of
injuries affecting infants and children; however, the number of cases
that have been acquired is small, and many more are needed for in-depth
analysis.
Each member of the network is a regional Level 1 trauma center. All
are teaching institutions affiliated with a major university. Each
center is staffed by surgeons, research clinicians, crash
investigators, and data coordinators. Data collected by each of the
centers is fed into a computer network that was developed by the Volpe
National Transportation Systems Center in Cambridge, MA. The computer
network allows researchers to review data and share expertise. In
addition to in-depth crash and injury research, each center trains
hospital, law enforcement, and emergency response personnel. Among
other things, the training helps identify restraint-related injuries
that may not be readily apparent. The agency is also learning a great
deal more about survivors and the consequences and costs of the long-
term effects of injuries.
Question. Which trauma centers were funded in fiscal year 1997,
fiscal year 1998, and fiscal year 1999? For what amounts?
Answer.
CIREN BUDGET
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
--------------------------------
1997 1998 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
William Lehman Injury Research Center, 290,000 652,000 655,000
Miami, FL.............................
U. of Maryland, Baltimore, MD.......... 230,000 460,000 460,000
Children's National Medical Center, ......... 515,000 500,000
Washington, DC........................
U. of Medicine & Dentistry, Newark, NJ. 230,000 450,000 450,000
Harborview Medical Center, Seattle, WA. ......... ......... 250,000
San Diego County Trauma System, San ......... ......... 250,000
Diego, CA.............................
U. of Michigan Medical Center, Ann ......... ......... 250,000
Arbor, MI.............................
--------------------------------
Total............................ 750,000 2,077,000 2,815,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
crash avoidance research program
Question. Please provide a table indicating the amount appropriated
and the amount actually allocated for the various subprograms of the
Crash Avoidance Research Program for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998.
Answer. The following table shows the amounts requested and
appropriated to the various subprogram areas for fiscal year 1996
through fiscal year 1998, and the corresponding amounts requested for
fiscal year 1999:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1996 Fiscal year 1997 Fiscal year 1998 Fiscal
------------------------------------------------------------ year
Program 1999
Request Enacted Request Enacted Request Enacted request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Driver Behavior & Performance............. ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ 800
Brake Systems SPS Support................. ........ ........ 2,000 737 800 500 300
Handling & Stability SPS Support.......... ........ ........ 1,000 250 200 500 500
Visibility SPS Support.................... ........ ........ 500 13 ........ ........ 248
Tires..................................... ........ ........ 500 ........ ........ ........ ........
Outreach SPS Support...................... ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ 100
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................... ........ ........ 4,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,948
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please prepare a table for the various subprograms of the
Crash Avoidance Research Program, showing how all of the funds
requested for fiscal year 1999 are intended to be spent, and please
include in that table a comparison with the amount provided for similar
activities for fiscal year 1998. On a separate page, please justify the
need for the requested increases.
Answer. The following table shows the amounts allocated to the
various subprogram areas for fiscal year 1998, and the corresponding
amounts requested for fiscal year 1999.
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------
1998 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Driver Behavior and Performance................... ......... 800
Brake Systems SPS Support......................... 500 300
Handling & Stability SPS Support.................. 500 500
Visibility SPS Support............................ ......... 248
Outreach SPS Support.............................. ......... 100
---------------------
Total....................................... 1,000 1,948
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior to fiscal year 1996, this area of research within NHTSA had
an annual budget of about $7 million to $7.5 million per year. With the
shift in emphasis to ITS, that amount was decreased to zero in fiscal
year 1996, and it has been steady at $1 million per year for fiscal
year 1997 and fiscal year 1998. At that level of funding, the agency
was not able to do research that is needed to support its ongoing
safety research programs to support rulemaking initiatives in the area
of crash avoidance. For example, in fiscal years 1997 and 1998, all of
the available funding was consumed by research in only the two most
critical areas, gaining a better understanding of driver's actions and
vehicle responses during severe braking maneuvers with antilock brakes,
and during maneuvers that result in rollover, particularly for sport
utility vehicles. Research in the areas of lighting and visibility,
other areas of vehicle handling and stability, or to answer other
fundamental questions regarding driver behavior and performance
relative to the driver/vehicle interface could not be done. The
increased funding requested for fiscal year 1999 will also allow NHTSA
to address enhancements to several vehicle subsystems (i.e., mirrors
and rear signal lights) which may have potential for helping drivers
avoid lane change and rear end crashes, respectively. The agency will
also conduct human factors research to determine the best way to convey
information to drivers that will be clearly and quickly understood,
without confusion or ambiguity, and without creating too much workload
for the driver.
Question. What progress has NHTSA made in implementing the five-
year strategic plan for ITS crash avoidance research that was requested
by the Committee?
Answer. Good progress is being made in the implementation of the
plan. Operational tests of Intelligent Cruise Control (ICC) and
Automatic Collision Notification (ACN) systems are nearing completion.
Preliminary results indicate that both of these systems provide
positive benefits. Users of the ICC system have suggested some features
where improvement is possible, but in general both systems are well
received by the users. Negotiations for implementation of an
operational test of a rear-end crash avoidance system are underway. The
ICC work is a major part of the foundation for this next operational
test. Similarly, the results from the ACN test are a major contributor
to the NHTSA plan for improving end-to-end health care associated with
motor vehicle crashes. Work in other problem areas such as drowsy
drivers, lane change crash avoidance, and heavy vehicle stability is
continuing as outlined in the plan. The NHTSA leadership reflected in
this plan is also being capitalized upon in the broader IVI program.
Thus, other ITS program areas will benefit from the lessons learned
while implementing this plan.
Question. What percent or portion of the IVI program is likely to
be allocated towards crash avoidance technologies in passenger
vehicles?
Answer. Decisions on distribution of IVI funds between the four
platforms described in the Request for Information (light vehicles,
commercial vehicles, transit vehicles, and specialty vehicles) have not
been made. Input from commenters to the RFI are still being evaluated.
Question. What progress has NHTSA made in working with automobile
manufacturers to encourage them to incorporate crash avoidance
technologies into the U.S. car fleet?
Answer. NHTSA continues to work cooperatively with the motor
vehicle industry on the development of improved understanding of the
necessary performance of crash avoidance systems. A prime example of
this work is the project being done with the Crash Avoidance Metrics
Partnership (CAMP). The members of CAMP are General Motors and Ford
Motor Company. This project is developing test procedures and other
approaches to objectively evaluate the performance of rear-end crash
avoidance systems. The proposed Intelligent Vehicle Initiative (IVI) is
also a program that will heavily involve partnership between the
Government and automobile manufacturers and their suppliers. NHTSA
considers IVI as an essential step in facilitating deployment of crash
avoidance systems and other advanced technologies. Based on
interactions associated with the CAMP project and other contacts, we
believe that manufacturers are actively developing crash avoidance
products, but at this time have not announced any product plans.
Question. When do you expect various ITS crash avoidance
technologies to be incorporated into new cars?
Answer. We believe that the first crash avoidance products to be
introduced will be technologies to avoid rear-end crashes. It appears
from the trade-press that a precursor to this introduction will be the
introduction of Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC). ACC systems have been
introduced in Japan and Mercedes Benz has announced that they expect to
introduce an ACC system in Europe later this year. We believe other
crash avoidance products will be introduced as experience is gained
with the initial systems. The rate and schedule for these introductions
is not predictable, but we believe that it is realistic to expect
introduction of systems for addressing rear-end, lane change, and road
departure crashes, as well as systems that address driver drowsiness
and vision enhancement within the next 10 years.
Question. Please discuss the progress you have made in areas of ABS
and rollover crashes.
Answer. NHTSA began a three-year Light Vehicle ABS Research program
plan in early 1997 in coordination with the Motor Vehicle Safety
Research Advisory Council's ABS Working Group. The objectives of the
program are as follows: (1) to determine the reason for the increase in
single-vehicle crashes for four-wheel, ABS-equipped cars; and (2) to
determine whether this crash trend occurs for vehicles with newer
generations of ABS and/or light trucks as they transition from rear-
wheel to four-wheel Antilock Brake Systems.
Program tasks cover the following areas: ABS effectiveness based on
crash data analysis; drivers experiences with and expectations about
ABS; ABS hardware performance testing; and ABS human factors studies.
To date, three-fourths of the ABS hardware performance testing has
been completed. The purpose of the test track study is to evaluate
present-day ABS by measuring braking performance over a broad range of
driving conditions. Preliminary results indicate that ABS improved
vehicle stability in adverse braking conditions by allowing the driver
to maintain directional control on most test surfaces. However, ABS
hardware performance degradation has occurred, universally, on loose
gravel surfaces.
In the area of human factors, the ABS studies are to examine driver
braking and steering behavior in crash-imminent situations--addressing
the theory that driver behavior may be contributing to crashes of ABS-
equipped cars. To assess drivers' collision avoidance behavior using
conventional and antilock brakes, an intersection incursion scenario is
to be performed on a driver simulator and test-track for dry and wet
pavement conditions.
Overall, preliminary findings have not yet revealed any single-
cause for the increase in single-vehicle, run-off-road crashes. Results
indicate that various issues (such as, human factors, ABS system logic,
etc.) must be addressed and warrants further investigation. For
example, drivers' reaction to pedal feedback, drivers' ability to
perform avoidance maneuvers, etc. still need to be assessed.
NHTSA also has an ongoing Light Vehicle Rollover Research program.
This program's primary focus has been on-road untripped rollovers. To
date seven maneuvers have been investigated using three sport utility
vehicles. It has been decided that two of these maneuvers were
promising to determine a vehicle's rollover propensity and merited
further investigation. A repeatability study has begun and will
continue through fiscal year 1998. A vehicle steering controller is
being purchased to help reduce test variability due to driver
influence. Testing of an additional twelve vehicles will be initiated
during 1998 using refined test procedures based on the results of
earlier and current testing. The Light Vehicle Rollover Research
program will continue in fiscal year 1999. Additional testing will be
performed using the twelve vehicles mentioned above. Additionally, in
1999 NHTSA will have received the Variable Dynamics Test Vehicle (VDTV)
from the contractor. One of the first programs planned for the VDTV is
rollover research. The VDTV will be used to examine the effect of
possible vehicle modifications on its rollover propensity and in
developing suitable test procedures.
Question. Why is an increase in funding in the driver/vehicle
performance area necessary at this time?
Answer. Prior to fiscal year 1996, this area of research within
NHTSA had an annual budget of about $7 million to $7.5 million per
year. With the shift in emphasis to ITS, that amount was decreased to
zero in fiscal year 1996, and it has been steady at $1 million per year
for fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998. At that level of funding,
the agency was not able to do research that is needed to support its
ongoing safety research programs to support rulemaking initiatives in
the area of crash avoidance. For example, in fiscal years 1997 and
1998, all of the available funding was consumed by research in only the
two most critical areas, gaining a better understanding of driver's
actions and vehicle responses during severe braking maneuvers with
antilock brakes, and during maneuvers that result in rollover,
particularly for sport utility vehicles. Research in the areas of
lighting and visibility, other areas of vehicle handling and stability,
or to answer other fundamental questions regarding driver behavior and
performance relative to the driver/vehicle interface could not be done.
The increased funding requested for fiscal year 1999 will also allow
NHTSA to address enhancements to several vehicle subsystems (i.e.,
mirrors and rear signal lights) which may have potential for helping
drivers avoid lane change and rear end crashes, respectively. The
agency will also conduct human factors research to determine the best
way to convey information to drivers that will be clearly and quickly
understood, without confusion or ambiguity, and without creating too
much workload for the driver.
Question. Please describe the scope and nature of any possible cost
overruns regarding the NADS.
Answer. During the course of the last year, four Engineering Change
Proposals (ECP) have been submitted by the NADS prime contractor TRW,
which have increased the cost of the project. ECP No. 1 ($663,989) was
for increased cost of the Harmony Image Generator being supplied by
Evans & Sutherland. ECP No. 2 ($38,924) was to cover TRW's cost
associated with resolving issues related to the NADS System Development
Specification. ECP No. 3 ($273,516) was for cost associated with the
purchase of the NADS real-time host computers as opposed to the
originally proposed leasing arrangement. ECP No. 4 ($3,777,925) is to
cover the cost of developing Scenario Definition and Control Software
instead of using software offered by the University of Iowa (not part
of their cost-sharing commitment), which TRW concluded would not meet
NADS specifications. In addition, TRW is currently in the process of
completing a cost and schedule re-baseline to complete the program, and
it is anticipated that additional cost growth will occur in the areas
of motion system hardware manufacture, image system display projectors,
cab refit, software development, systems engineering, and program
management. The amount of cost growth has not yet been provided to
NHTSA by TRW.
Question. What strategic planning is being conducted for the
eventual use and scheduling of the NADS?
Answer. NHTSA is creating a new Office of Human Centered Research
within its Research and Development organization to consolidate
research on driver performance, behavior, medical, health, and
biomechanics issues. This Office will be the focus of future NADS
related research within NHTSA and will also facilitate intermodal
research from other administrations within the Department and other
government agencies. The NADS Project Office is closely coordinating
with the Intelligent Vehicle Initiative (IVI) project to determine the
extent of human factors research that will require use of the NADS. In
addition, NHTSA and the University of Iowa are jointly developing a
comprehensive Marketing Plan that will contain a strategy for
approaching private sector research organizations that could benefit
from the utilization of the NADS capabilities. The TRW marketing
department has developed a professional quality promotional video on
the NADS as well as a marketing brochure and has provided them to NHTSA
at no cost to the program. These materials will be used to promote the
unique research capabilities of the NADS to potential users at a
variety of industry trade shows and government meetings and conferences
during the preoperational phase of the NADS development.
Question. Does NHTSA have a firm commitment from the JPO that the
Agency will receive $22,640,000 of the IVI funds? Is this contract or
LGOE monies?
Answer. The original funding request of $22,640,000 includes
$12,500,000 for research and development, $10,000,000 for operational
tests, and $140,000 for publications and exhibits. Of these amounts,
$140,000 would be LGOE and the remainder ($22,500,000) would be
contract authority. The projects that would be funded under this
request are now part of the IVI. NHTSA expects to be significantly
involved in the IVI program. It is hoped that NHTSA will receive the
requested funds when the IVI program gets underway.
Question. NHTSA is requesting $2 million for a project entitled
``Application of NADS.'' Please provide extensive details on this
project and discuss the relationship of this project to your request
for NADS.
Answer. The request for NADS is for design and construction of
NADS; whereas the $2 million request for application on NADS will fund
the development of driving scenarios, visual data bases, and other
application-specific elements of NADS use for driver behavior research
and other research. The first ITS problem area that will be addressed
will be the driver interface and refinement of the warning criteria for
rear-end collisions.
Question. Please delineate in extensive detail how the $1.392
million requested for heavy vehicle research will be used, showing
specific projects and associated amounts. Compare this research plan
with fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998 research projects and
indicate funding amounts for each project.
Answer. The $1.392 million requested for heavy vehicle research
will be used to support the following programs:
Improved Stopping Capability --$850 thousand
Assess the performance improvements and costs that would accrue
from the use of air disc brakes combined with electronic control of
brake modulation.
Develop and test instrumented brake anchor pins to sense brake
torque at individual wheels.
Develop objective performance measures for electronically-
controlled air brakes in normal operation and in failure modes, to
support rulemaking.
Assess the braking performance of heavy trailers using
electrically-actuated brakes.
Develop objective test procedures that could be used to regulate
the performance of such systems.
Improved Stability--$142 thousand
Develop objective measures of performance of ABS on air-braked
trailers, to support rulemaking.
Improved Visibility--$100 thousand
Evaluate the safety benefits of rear cross-view mirrors for medium-
duty delivery trucks, to support rulemaking.
Study the possibility of improving side and rear visibility by
using on-vehicle video cameras.
Improved Crashworthiness--$100 thousand
Investigate feasibility of countermeasures to reduce the severity
of truck/car frontal collisions.
Continue development of improved truck occupant protection systems.
Other Programs--$200 thousand
Initiate studies to evaluate the potential of computer chips molded
into truck tires to monitor tire pressures.
Begin an assessment of the human factors aspects of uniform control
and display locations in truck cabs.
Study ways to better disseminate research findings to the heavy
vehicle community.
The following table shows the amounts allocated to the various
subprogram areas for fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998, and the
corresponding amounts requested for fiscal year 1999.
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
--------------------------------
1997 1998 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improved Stopping Capability........... 299 225 850
Improved Stability..................... 150 50 142
Improved Visibility.................... ......... 95 100
Improved Crashworthiness............... 46 131 100
Other Programs......................... 100 94 200
--------------------------------
Totals........................... 595 595 1,392
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. How is this program to be coordinated with OMC
activities?
Answer. NHTSA maintains an ongoing dialog with OMC and other DOT
agencies involved in heavy vehicle research, to ensure that the
research programs are complementary and not duplicative. NHTSA has made
a concerted effort in seeking and leveraging resources outside NHTSA to
supplement the limited funding received for heavy truck research in
previous years and has had some limited success.
Question. What cost sharing was obtained in this area during fiscal
year 1997 and fiscal year 1998?
Answer. The following is the total funding obtained through cost
sharing in fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998 for the heavy vehicle
research programs:
Other Govt-Agencies:
FHWA......................................................($136,400)
TACOM (U.S. Army)......................................... (100,000)
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal................................................ 236,400
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
Industry Organizations:
AAMA (American Automobile Manufacturers Associatio..................
RMA (Rubber Manufacturers Association)..............................
Teamsters...........................................................
National Research Council, Canada...................................
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal................................................ 165,600
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 402,000
national center for statistics and analysis
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 1996, 1997, and 1998.
Answer. The table that follows provides the dollar amounts by each
of the six NCSA program areas for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998.
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
NCSA Program Area --------------------------------
1996 1997 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fatality Analysis Reporting System
(FARS):
Requested.......................... 5,000 5,251 5,242
Appropriated....................... 4,585 5,242 5,242
National Automotive Sampling System
(NASS):
Requested.......................... 9,500 9,675 13,800
Appropriated....................... 9,200 9,658 9,658
Data Analysis:
Requested.......................... 2,000 2,100 1,935
Appropriated....................... 1,415 1,635 1,935
State Data Program:
Requested.......................... 2,000 3,850 3,041
Appropriated....................... 1,550 3,041 3,041
Special Crash Investigations (SCI):
Requested.......................... 315 331 556
Appropriated....................... 315 331 1,031
Occupant Protection Use Survey:
Requested.......................... ......... 300 300
Appropriated....................... ......... 300 300
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 1999 are intended to be spent; and please include in that table a
comparison with the amount provided for comparable activities for
fiscal year 1998. On a separate page, please justify the need for the
requested increases.
Answer. Separate tables presenting fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year
1999 funding by products and activities for each of the six NCSA
programs follow:
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------
Products and Activities 1998 1999
budget request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fatality analysis reporting system:
Cooperative Agreements........................ 4,090 4,090
Data Processing............................... 890 849
Training...................................... 237 249
Quality Control............................... 25 25
---------------------
Total....................................... 5,242 5,213
=====================
National Automotive Sampling System:
Data Acquisition; Data Entry and Field Quality 6,301 6,650
Control......................................
Update and Replacement Training............... 300 330
Database maintenance, Quality Control, 2,293 2,331
Revision; Hard copy Storage and Distribution.
New Initiatives: Electronic Data Collection, 764 676
Digital Imaging, Interactive Video Imaging,
Internet/Web-site Development....................
---------------------
Total....................................... 9,658 9,987
=====================
Data Analysis Products and Activities:
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 300 289
Bag Deployment...............................
---------------------
Total....................................... 1,935 1,924
=====================
State Data Program:
Data Acquisition and Processing............... 700 700
State Data Enhancement; Technical Assistance.. 175 300
Research into Using and Evaluation of Linked ......... 175
Medical Outcome and Crash Databases..........
Promote Linked Medical Outcome and Crash Data 125 200
among State and Local Agencies...............
Assist State and Local Agencies in Data 595 249
Linkage......................................
Data Linkage Grant Program for New States..... 1,446 1,400
---------------------
Total....................................... 3,041 3,024
=====================
Special Crash Investigations:
Air Bag Crash Investigation Program (Fatal and 591 662
Serious Injuries) Non-air Bag related Vehicle
Safety Problems (School Bus, Defects,
Alternative Fuels)...........................
New Generation and Advanced Air Bag Systems... 326 761
Database processing and Quality Control....... 58 90
Case Automation and Storage................... 56 40
---------------------
Total....................................... 1,031 1,553
=====================
National Occupant Protection Use Survey:
Survey and Sample Design Revisions and Other 90 .........
Survey Preparations..........................
Conduct a National Occupant Protection Use 140 230
Survey.......................................
Tabulate, Analyze, and Publish Survey Results. 70 70
---------------------
Total....................................... 300 300
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost increase justification
Special Crash Investigations
In fiscal year 1998, NHTSA is continuing, through its Special Crash
Investigations (SCI) program, investigation of real-world crashes that
qualify for NHTSA's Air Bag Investigations Program and non-air bag
related vehicle safety problems (i.e., school bus crashworthiness and
pedestrian safety problems, potential safety defects, and alternative
fuel vehicles). The Agency has allocated $705,000 ($591,000 for data
collection and $114,000 for maintaining and updating ADP operations)
for this effort, which includes investigation of crashes involving
fatal or seriously injured front seat occupants of vehicles equipped
with new generation air bag systems. NHTSA is also spending $326,000,
nearly one third of the funds allocated to the SCI program in fiscal
year 1998, to investigate crashes involving vehicles equipped with new
generation and advanced air bag systems that do not qualify under
NHTSA's Air Bag Investigations Program. This funding level will allow
the agency to investigate over 100 crashes involving vehicles equipped
with new generation air bags where the air bag deployed and the
occupant sustained minor, moderate or no injuries. These crashes will
be investigated as part of an early assessment of the performance of
new technologies introduced in motor vehicles.
If funded at the fiscal year 1999 Budget Request level of
$1,553,000, NHTSA will investigate, through its SCI program, over 325
motor vehicle crashes that are of special interest. Approximately
$792,000 ($662,000 for data collection and $130,000 for maintaining and
updating ADP operations) will be used to investigate more than 125
crashes that qualify for NHTSA's Air Bag Investigations Program and
non-air bag related vehicle safety problems (i.e., school bus
crashworthiness and pedestrian safety problems, potential safety
defects, and alternative fuel vehicles). NHTSA will also spend
approximately $761,000, nearly half of its requested fiscal year 1999
budget on new generation and advanced air bag systems. At this funding
level, it is anticipated that more than 200 new generation and advanced
air bag cases would be investigated. In fiscal year 1999, the SCI
contracts will be renegotiated and cost-of-living and other labor and
operational adjustments incorporated, resulting in an increased cost
for SCI case investigations.
National Automotive Sampling System
In fiscal year 1999, funding will be used to collect nationally
representative data on fatal and nonfatal motor vehicle traffic
crashes. The vehicle-trauma details from 5,000 crash investigations
from the NASS CDS and the national crash data from 56,000 police
reported traffic crashes from the NASS GES form the foundation for a
comprehensive understanding of the relationship between vehicle crash
severity and occupant injury and the scope of the highway safety
problem. The data will be collected and coded at 24 CDS sites, 60 GES
sites, and two NASS Zone Centers. All NASS field contracts will be
recompeted in fiscal year 1998. New contracts will be awarded during
the first quarter of fiscal year 1999. The 3.4 percent increase above
the fiscal year 1998 budget appropriation will be used to support
renegotiated increases in labor costs of $349 thousand. The remaining
funds to support renegotiated contracted increases are taken from costs
savings in other line items.
Question. How much does NCSA spend on distributing its products,
including reports and statistical studies?
Answer. The printing and distribution costs for NCSA reports are
approximately $375,000.
Question. Would it be more cost efficient to place these materials
only on the Internet?
Answer. NCSA maintains fifteen Fact Sheets on various motor vehicle
crash statistics for 1996 (the latest year for which complete data are
available), along with twenty of our latest technical reports and
twenty-nine of our most recent Research Notes. In addition to these
listings, NCSA's portion of the agency's website also provides an
overview and program description for each of the following NCSA
activities: the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), the National
Automotive Sampling System (NASS), the State Data Program, Special
Crash Investigations (SCI) and the Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System
(CODES). Internet users are becoming an increasing share of NCSA's
requests for statistical information and publications. Providing access
to these materials via the Internet has enabled NCSA to decrease the
numbers of printed publications that need to be made. Many requesters,
however, continue to choose to request publications via telephone, fax-
on demand, and by mail.
Question. What are you doing to move beyond the CODES project in
the areas of injury assessment, costs, and relationships to the use of
seat belts, air bags, and other engineering enhancements?
Answer. Through CODES, states are being encouraged to link motor
vehicle crash data to other relevant medical outcome data, including
emergency department (ED) data when available. Linking these databases
to motor vehicle registration, driver licensure, roadway data files and
other traffic records databases expands the usefulness of all
individual data files for highway safety purposes. States that have
linked to other state data besides EMS and hospital discharge have been
able to institutionalize their data linkage capabilities because of an
expanded user base. CODES data have been used to study the differences
in medical and treatment outcomes for helmeted vs. unhelmeted
motorcyclists involved in crashes, the effect of air bags in reducing
injuries to motor vehicle occupants in crashes, and to investigate the
occurrence, frequency and costs of brain injuries and lower extremity
injuries in all motor vehicle crashes. The have also provided a wealth
of information to states on the costs and injuries associated with
motor vehicle crashes of different types, for different driver
involvements, and for roadway characteristics. CODES States have not
yet been investigated to determine how they could support investigation
of injuries associated with specific vehicles or types of vehicles. The
primary reason is that few states collect the information necessary for
these studies--the vehicle identification number (VIN). Without the
VIN, it is not possible to identify which engineering enhancements are
present in a vehicle or to classify accurately that vehicle by make or
model. A NHTSA project, being conducted cooperatively with the FHWA and
the National Association of Governors' Highway Safety Representatives,
will identify a Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC) for
reporting motor vehicle crash data. The collection of the VIN is
included in that Model.
Question. In addition to the CODES work, what are you doing to
collect information on emergency department patients whose injuries
result from motor vehicle crashes? Is the CIREN work sufficient to
obtain a nationwide picture of new injury problems?
Answer. Unfortunately, there is no one system currently operational
that would provide NHTSA with a comprehensive, national picture of
every potential new injury problem associated with motor vehicle
crashes. Several sources are now being used to address NHTSA's need for
comprehensive information on the nature and characteristics of injuries
associated with specific motor vehicle crash and safety problems.
CODES consists of crash, medical, and driver data linkages for 14
states with expansion to an additional five or six expected in fiscal
year 1998. States are being encouraged to link motor vehicle crash data
to other relevant medical outcome data, including emergency department
(ED) data, when available, and to obtain outpatient information from
insurance files such as Medicaid, Medicare and Workers' Compensation
insurance files. The CODES projects, along with other injury control
efforts, have helped to encourage the development of emergency
department data systems that are computerized and able to be linked to
the crash data. When every state has developed data linkage
capabilities, it will be possible to obtain population based data about
victims of motor vehicle crashes, including information about the
injuries that occur. CODES provides the state doing the linkage with a
complete information on the occurrence of motor vehicle crash related
injuries in that state.
CIREN, once fully operational, will provide NHTSA with a small
sample of detailed data on the nature and character of motor vehicle
related injuries treated in the trauma centers comprising CIREN.
Because CIREN involves only injuries treated at selected trauma
centers, it does not comprise a random sampling of all potential motor
vehicle related injuries and cannot be used to develop forecasts of
national injury problems. CIREN may be used to study the mechanisms
involved in distinguishing severe injuries from those that are not as
severe when they are treated in a trauma center.
In addition to CODES and CIREN, NHTSA has used data from the
Consumer Product Safety Commission's (CPSC) National Electronic Injury
Surveillance System (NEISS) to determine the nature and magnitude of
specific types of injuries that may not be related to a crash but may
be motor vehicle related, e.g., radiator cap burns, battery explosions,
power window and roof failure. CPSC's NEISS collects data on a
nationally representative sample of consumer product-related injuries
treated in hospital emergency rooms. NEISS is a 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.
NEISS 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 data on injuries associated with specific
types of motor vehicle hazards are obtained on an as-needed basis
through an agreement between NHTSA and CPSC to collect data on injuries
associated with specific motor vehicle hazards that are non-crash
related.
Question. What are your views on the establishment of a national
emergency department crash injury surveillance system that would
collect data on injuries of victims of traffic crashes?
Answer. The agency has funded studies in the past through data
collection systems such as the National Electronic Injury Surveillance
System (NEISS) and has found the data useful. We are currently giving
careful consideration to conducting a pilot study of a broader system
to collect emergency department data that would serve as a crash injury
surveillance tool. The agency has met with several experts in this
field to better understand how such a system could complement our
existing crash injury data collection systems.
partnership for a new generation of vehicles
Question. How has the original intention or justification for
NHTSA's investment in the PNGV changed?
Answer. In fiscal year 1996, the goal was to ensure that the safety
of occupants of the PNGV vehicle was not degraded. The goal of the
fiscal years 1997 and 1998 efforts is to ensure that the overall safety
of the fleet is not diminished with the introduction of the PNGV
vehicle into the fleet. Thus, the justification for the funded program
has changed from fiscal year 1996. This change is the result of
automobile manufacturers participating in the PNGV program endorsing
NHTSA's involvement. This change has resulted from the realization that
while the lighter PNGV vehicles may pose a lesser threat to their
potential collision partners, it is essential that the fleet of PNGV
vehicles remains compatible with other vehicles in the fleet. Hence,
the overall safety of the fleet needs to be balanced by losses incurred
by the PNGV vehicles and the gains in benefits from their collision
partners.
A more recent and additional justification is that much of the
research being undertaken for the PNGV program directly supports the
required efforts under the vehicle compatibility research program. The
approach in both programs is to develop a system model from which
fleetwide vehicle performance is evaluated and from which global
optimization of safety performance may be possible.
Question. Why isn't NHTSA studying the safety of the specific
vehicles that are being developed under the PNGV program?
Answer. The agency will study the safety of the specific vehicles
being developed under the PNGV program as their design characteristics
become available. It is necessary to determine the safety of the PNGV
vehicle as well as the safety of its collision partners in the total
evaluation of the fleet.
Due to the proprietary nature of their specific designs, it will be
necessary for each automaker to insert their vehicle model into the
system model tool being developed by NHTSA for the evaluation. Agency
staff will work with the automakers to ensure that this is properly
achieved.
Question. Why is it essential at this time to increase funding for
NHTSA's role in the PNGV? Are the automobile manufacturers ready to
test their PNGV concepts?
Answer. The increased funding is needed to ensure that the
analytical tools being developed by the agency will be completed in
time for the automobile manufacturers to evaluate the safety aspect of
their PNGV concepts. It should be noted that the system model tool
being developed allows for the evaluation of a variety of concepts and
can be used to aid the automakers in their selection of technologies (a
preferred option). To the best of the agency's knowledge automobile
manufacturers are not yet ready to test their PNGV concepts.
Question. Exactly how far along is the PNGV program?
Answer. In that the agency does not monitor all aspects of the PNGV
program, this question would be best answered by the Department of
Commerce, which provides the Federal leadership for the Clinton
Administration.
Question. Are the industry participants in the PNGV ready to use
the analytical tools developed by NHTSA?
Answer. The agency has initiated a meeting with the pertinent USCAR
(United States Council for Automotive Research) members responsible for
the safety of the PNGV vehicles in order to coordinate and transition
the analytical models and to enact USCAR involvement in assembling the
system evaluation model. This meeting is to be held during May 1998.
Question. How does the PNGV work relate to the research that NHTSA
is pursuing regarding light trucks and SUV's?
Answer. The research that has been undertaken and is underway for
the PNGV program directly complements the efforts required for the
vehicle compatibility research program, the area of research in which
light trucks, SUV's, and vans have been identified as a growing safety
problem. The approach in both programs is to develop a system model
from which fleetwide vehicle performance is evaluated and from which
global optimization of safety performance of the fleet may be possible.
The activities that have been undertaken in the PNGV program for
developing vehicle models representing the fleet correspond to the
requirements for the compatibility study. Hence, the PNGV research
activity provides the opportunity for leveraged research.
Question. Since the finite element analysis tools will be of direct
benefit to the automobile manufacturers, should some of the associated
developmental costs be borne by the private sector?
Answer. Agency staff have pursued automaker involvement in the
development of the finite element models for the PNGV effort as well as
under other programs. The major stumbling blocks that have precluded
their participation in the finite element model development efforts are
their concerns about sharing their proprietary modeling capabilities
and the potential for product litigation resulting from the use of
models developed by them.
Question. If yes, have you sought cost sharing?
Answer. Over the years, the agency has pursued automaker
involvement in the development of finite element models. This has not
been limited to the PNGV program. The automakers' concerns about
sharing their proprietary modeling capabilities and the potential for
product litigation resulting from the use of models developed by them
has precluded their involvement.
Question. Is language in the bill report necessary to encourage
this outreach?
Answer. Due to the expressed concerns of the automakers regarding
their finite element models, language in the bill would result in
increased contentiousness between the agency and the automakers.
Question. Is the private sector developing their own finite
analysis tools to test their PNGV models? If so, why is it necessary to
increase federal funding in that area?
Answer. The increased funding serves to complete the finite element
model development effort that has been initiated during fiscal years
1997 and 1998, and to use these developments toward assembling the
system model that will be used for the safety evaluation.
Question. How have NHTSA's efforts been coordinated with those of
DOE and DOC?
Answer. In developing the fiscal year 1999 program for PNGV, agency
staff participated in a joint meeting with the Departments of Energy
and Commerce (DOE, DOC) as well as with the other participants in the
program. This meeting was held specifically to discuss and coordinate
the proposed activities among the various participants. Additionally,
agency staff met individually with DOE staff to coordinate activities
in vehicle modeling.
Question. During fiscal year 1997 and thus far in fiscal year 1998,
what is the amount and purpose of any NHTSA funds spent or planned to
be spent on non-safety aspects of PNGV? Specifically, how much has been
spent on economic analysis, market penetration studies, industry
impact, and regulatory impact evaluations?
Answer. The agency has not expended any funds and has no plans to
spend any of the requested funds toward the non-safety aspects of PNGV,
such as economic analysis, market penetration, industry impact, and
regulatory impact evaluations.
Question. Please break down in extensive detail how the fiscal year
1997, fiscal year 1998, and fiscal year 1999 monies were or will be
used.
Answer. The following table provides the requested breakdown:
FUNDING
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
Description -----------------------------------------------
1997 1998 1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finite Element Model Development and Validation................. $1,533,940 $555,000 $1,250,000
Vehicle Articulated Mass Model Development...................... 25,000 802,165 600,000
Vehicle Interior/Occupant Model Development..................... .............. 200,000 400,000
System Model Development, Integration, and Fleet Studies........ .............. 400,000 700,000
Vehicle/Component Testing....................................... 190,000 355,835 450,000
Vehicle Purchase................................................ 137,740 37,000 100,000
Computer Hardware, Software Purchase............................ 620,000 150,000 ..............
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 2,506,680 2,500,000 3,500,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. You are requesting two FTE's for the Partnership for a
New Generation of Vehicles to provide specialists in computer modeling.
Since the PNGV program will only last another few years, wouldn't it be
more cost effective to hire additional contractor support as necessary?
Answer. It is anticipated that the two FTE's will provide support
for the PNGV program over a 5-year period. During that time, these
persons also will begin to provide broad support for the analytical
efforts being undertaken in the crashworthiness research program.
Particularly, their involvement in the vehicle aggressivity and fleet
compatibility research will be essential.
Question. NHTSA states that funding will ensure that PNGV-developed
vehicles meet existing and anticipated federal vehicle safety
standards. Please explain this assertion. Will you have actual vehicles
to test? If not, how can you be certain that those vehicles will meet
existing safety standards?
Answer. The agency's major effort is focused on ensuring that the
overall safety of the fleet is ensured with the introduction of the
PNGV vehicles. Regarding the aspect of meeting the existing and
anticipated safety standards, with the help of the models, the safety
performance of the PNGV vehicles will be evaluated per each of the
major crash safety standards. The automakers themselves will be
required to demonstrate compliance through testing.
general administration
Question. Please prepare a table indicating the amount appropriated
and the amount actually allocated for the three subcomponents of the
General Administration budget for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998.
Answer.
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1996 Fiscal year 1997 Fiscal year 1998
Program -----------------------------------------------------------
Request Enacted Request Enacted Request Enacted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Evaluation.................................. 489 480 475 474 474 474
Strategic Planning.................................. 200 ........ 325 75 75 75
Economic Analysis................................... 75 75 175 75 75 75
-----------------------------------------------------------
Total......................................... 764 555 975 624 624 624
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please prepare a table for each of the three
subcomponents in the General Administration budget showing how all the
funds requested for fiscal year 1999 are intended to be spent, and
please include in that table a comparison with the amount provided for
each of similar activities for fiscal year 1998. On a separate page,
please justify the need for the requested increases.
Answer. The major cause of the increase of $39,000 for evaluation
in the fiscal year 1999 budget request over the fiscal year 1998 is the
need to track the consequences of the use of on/off switches for
airbags. Other differences between the two years for evaluation are the
normal completion and starting of projects. The extra funding in
strategic and program planning will allow for the development of
forecasting models of fatalities and injuries. Additional scope will be
added to the initial economic analysis project to improve the validity
of the data gathering procedures used in the study (it was discovered
that an impartial person rather than a parent was required to make a
valid determination of a child's recovery from injury).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year
1999 Fiscal Year
Planned 1998
Funding Funding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROGRAM EVALUATION
Program Evaluation Project:
Odometer Fraud--Estimate of Magnitude..... ........... $30,000
Heavy Truck Conspicuity (Standard 108) $20,000 120,000
Evaluation...............................
Domestic Content Labeling (49 CFR Part ........... 70,000
583).....................................
Survey of use of airbag on/off switches... 200,000 100,000
Child Safety Seat Registration Survey 100,000 14,000
(Standard 208)...........................
Improved Air Bag Technology cost study 50,000 ...........
(Standard 208)...........................
Cost Studies of other safety standards 93,000 90,000
(Standards 201, 202, 203, 204 in light
trucks)..................................
Support National Occupant Protection Use 50,000 50,000
Survey (Standard 208)....................
-------------------------
TOTAL................................... 513,000 474,000
=========================
STRATEGIC AND PROGRAM PLANNING
Strategic and Program Planning Projects:
Environmental Scan........................ ........... 20,000
Alcohol Program Strategic Plan............ ........... 35,000
Survey of Alcohol Program Customers 50,000 ...........
Opinions and Expectations................
Continuous Improvement materials, 15,000 ...........
projects, equipment and conference fees..
Forecasting Models of Fatalities and 23,000 20,000
Injuries.................................
Course and Background Research on Activity 10,000 ...........
Based Cost Accounting Systems............
-------------------------
TOTAL................................. 98,000 75,000
=========================
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
Economic Analysis Project: Development of the 98,000 75,000
pediatric derivative of the Functional
Capacity Index (FCI) continued during fiscal
year 1998. A national conference on measuring
injury outcome was held. In fiscal year 1999
the application of the FCI and other methods
of quantifying morbidity will be undertaken..
------------------------------------------------------------------------
strategic and program planning
Question. Please state the reasons for hiring an outside contractor
to improve the agency's strategic planning.
Answer. Many key highway safety performance measures (e.g.,
fatalities, fatality rates, belt use, alcohol involved fatalities),
have recently produced flat trends. In addition, population,
demographic, technology, fleet mix and other factors uncontrollable by
agency management are threatening to drive fatalities and injuries
higher and are forcing the agency to consider new programs and
approaches. As indicated in its strategic plan the agency is challenged
to assess its historic approaches in light of current trends, customer
needs and a changing environment and where necessary develop new
approaches that will result in a continued downward trend in fatalities
and injuries.
To accomplish this objective the strategic and program planning
group will develop strategic plans for selected agency programs. These
plans will involve a review of external factors (i.e., environmental
scans, customer needs, what others dealing with the problem are doing,
etc), and assess internal factors (i.e., cost/benefit of existing
programs, impact of existing programs on GPRA objectives, program
delivery and management issues such as continuous improvement, etc).
Projects of this nature are characterized by their breadth, depth,
short time frames, and demanding process and analytical components.
Since the resources (numbers, experiences and skills of staff) required
to complete these projects are not fully resident in planning staff the
agency will use outside consultants. An added benefit to using outside
consultants is to develop non-traditional approaches to safety
problems.
Question. In extensive detail, please explain how the additional
funds specified on page O&R-13 will be used for the fiscal year 1999
TASC need. If the requested funding is not provided, what are the
implications to NHTSA?
Answer. As a result of NPR reinvention efforts and other
initiatives to decrease administrative staff, TASC has proposed to
provide administrative services to Departmental operating
administrations in a centralized and cost efficient manner. Under this
concept, DOT operating administrations must procure services from TASC,
unless operating administrations determine that is more feasible or
cost effective to do so otherwise. Most of the services provided by
TASC, to name a few are mail/messenger services; telecommunications
(FTS 2000); DAFIS; building management; library; occupied space for
storage of publications in the warehouse; building security; house and
contracting printing and distribution, have overhead expenses included.
Due to customer demand, the Agency anticipates substantial increases in
publishing and disseminating mission and safety related materials,
particularly in the areas of air bag safety, child safety seat use,
occupant protection, and motor vehicle defects reporting. At present
the Agency has no flexibility to control these costs due to the fact
that usage plays a large part of the billing cycle. The Agency's
emphasis is being placed on providing increased customer service to
internal and external customers through distribution of safety and
mission related materials to the public. Therefore, these and other
services provided by TASC are essential to the support and services
needed by NHTSA. Without the full requested funding NHTSA's mission
will suffer tremendously. Internal and external customer service will
be nonexistent.
Question. For fiscal year 1997, fiscal year 1998, and planned for
fiscal year 1999, please provide a table similar to that provided
previously to the committee, showing the amount of funds spent or
allocated for non-mandatory awards and bonuses, PCS, and overtime pay,
travel, and training.
Answer. The following table shows funding for actual amounts spent
in fiscal year 1997 and amounts appropriated in fiscal year 1998 and
fiscal year 1999.
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
----------------------------------------
1998 1999
1997 Actual Appropriated Appropriated
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Awards and Bonuses............. 540 630 649
Permanent Change of Station.... 88 87 87
Overtime Pay................... 27 18 22
Travel......................... 1,090 1,082 1,125
Training....................... 208 190 198
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please submit an updated table similar to that provided
the committee previously, indication the amount of funds used for
computer support.
Answer. The following tables show the funding for computer support
for the last three fiscal years and proposed for fiscal year 1999.
COMPUTER SUPPORT
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-------------------------------------------------------
1999
1995 1996 1997 1998 (Proposed)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Support........................................ 2,552 2,713 2,711 2,426 3,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Also provide a separate chart for communication systems
for each of the last three fiscal years and proposed for fiscal year
1999.
Answer.
COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-------------------------------------------------------
1999
1995 1996 1997 1998 (Proposed)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Communications Systems.................................. 298 312 330 375 390
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please provide tables on operating expenses, personnel
compensation, and benefits combined with operating expenses for each
major NHTSA program. Please compare the fiscal year 1998 appropriation
with the fiscal year 1999 request.
Answer. The information follows:
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
1997 1998 Change
Appropriation Request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use of Funds:
Personnel Compensation:
Permanent positions... 38,567 38,979 412
Other than permanent 1,226 1,227 1
positions............
Other................. 676 695 19
-----------------------------------------
Total, Salaries..... 40,469 40,901 432
=========================================
Personnel Benefits........ 7,463 7,50 340
-----------------------------------------
Total, Salaries and 47,932 48,404 472
Benefits...............
=========================================
Travel.................... 1,082 1,082 ............
=========================================
Total, Salaries and 49,014 49,486 472
Expenses...............
=========================================
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 325 305 (20)
costs................
Administrative 2,790 2,791 1
services.............
Rent.................. ............. 4,593 4,593
WCF/TASC.............. 2,894 3,451 557
Computer support...... 2,711 2,426 (285)
-----------------------------------------
Subtotal, 8,720 13,566 4,846
headquarters.......
=========================================
Field operating expenses.. 482 482 ............
=========================================
Total, operating 9,202 14,048 4,846
expenses...............
=========================================
Allocation to Programs:
Safety Performance: 1,479 2,301 822
Headquarters expenses....
Safety Assurance: 1,573 2,447 874
Headquarters expenses....
=========================================
Highway Safety Programs:
Headquarters expenses. 2,085 3,184 1,099
Field expenses 375 375 ............
(Regions)............
-----------------------------------------
Subtotal............ 2,460 3,559 1,099
=========================================
Research and Analysis: 1,651 2,568 917
Headquarters expenses....
Office of the 638 993 355
Administrator/Staff
Offices: Headquarters
expenses.................
General Administration: 1,401 2,180 779
Headquarters expenses....
=========================================
NHTSA:
Headquarters expenses. 8,827 13,673 4,846
Field expenses........ 375 375 ............
-----------------------------------------
Total............... 9,202 14,048 4,846
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please provide an updated listing of Schedule C employees
currently on board, by title, salary, office and location.
Answer. There are four Schedule C employees on board as of June
1998:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title Salary Location
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Director of Intergovernmental Affairs... $80,391 Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, Washington, DC.
Special Assistant to the Deputy 82,985 Office of the Deputy Administrator, Washington, DC.
Administrator.
Chief, Consumer Affairs Division........ 85,579 Office of Public and Consumer Affairs, Washington, DC.
Special Assistant to the Administrator.. 55,969 Office of the Administrator, Washington, DC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please provide a detailed breakout, on a contract by
contract basis, how the $30.850 million on page GEN-23 under ``other
services'' was spent.
Answer. The line item ``Other Services'' includes a variety of
services ranging from reimbursements to the Working Capital Fund to
contract program costs. The attached table is a listing of the amounts
obligated under this category by contract program and administrative
line item.
Other services
HQ ADMINISTRATION:
Working Capital Fund......................................$2,680,564
Security Investigations................................... 257,507
Training.................................................. 281,604
Computer Support.......................................... 2,140,511
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total, HQ Administration................................ 5,360,186
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
SAFETY PERFORMANCE:
Vehicle Safety & Consumer Standards....................... 827,680
New Car Assessment Program................................ 1,355,657
Fuel Economy.............................................. 63,903
Theft..................................................... 121,011
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total, Safety Performance............................... 2,368,251
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
SAFETY ASSURANCE:
Vehicle Safety Compliance................................. 112,757
Defects Investigation..................................... 847,018
Hot Line.................................................. 202,027
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total, Safety Assurance................................. 1,161,802
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
TRAFFIC SAFETY PROGRAMS:
Alcohol Drug & State Programs............................. 9,293,291
National Occupant Protection Program...................... 4,633,896
Enforcement & Emergency Services.......................... 2,147,675
Safe Communities.......................................... 1,003,375
Child Safety Seat Program................................. 757,497
Records................................................... 610,144
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total, Traffic Safety Programs..........................18,445,878
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
REGIONAL OPERATIONS:
Enforcement & Emergency Services.......................... 105,213
Alcohol Drug & State Programs............................. 1,366,044
National Occupant Protection Program...................... 1,593,878
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total, Regional Operations.............................. 3,065,135
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
P&P CONTRACT PROGRAM:
Program Evaluation........................................ 519,548
Strategic Planning........................................ 101,859
Economic Analysis......................................... 57,341
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total, P&P Program...................................... 678,748
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
NHTSA TOTAL.............................................31,080,000
Question. Please prepare a table showing the amount of travel,
permanent change of station, training, non-mandatory bonuses or awards,
TASC, and commuter support monies allocated in fiscal year 1995, fiscal
year 1996, and fiscal year 1997, and fiscal year 1998, and requested
for fiscal year 1999. Please compare these amounts to appropriated
amounts.
Answer.
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1995 Fiscal year 1996 Fiscal year 1997 Fiscal year 1998 Fiscal
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ year 1999
Request Approp. Request Approp. Request Approp. Request Approp. Request
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Travel...................................... 1,022 1,018 1,022 972 1,022 1,082 1,082 1,082 1,125
PCS......................................... 118 60 88 88 88 88 88 87 87
Training.................................... 192 173 256 242 262 212 192 190 198
Bonuses & Awards............................ 593 486 611 611 630 589 650 630 649
TASC \1\.................................... 3,898 3,563 3,439 3,353 3,492 2,894 3,810 3,584 6,597
Computer Support............................ 2,931 2,552 3,131 2,713 3,211 2,711 2,426 2,395 2,555
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Prior to fiscal year 1999, costs for TASC services for program related printing and graphics, computer support, and specialized training were
included in the respective program office's budget. Beginning in fiscal year 1999, all of the costs that were previously spread across the program
areas are now consolidated into a single TASC budget.
Question Please provide an updated table similar to that previously
provided to the committee 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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 prepare a table indicating costs for permanent
changes of station and provide a table of the number of people moved
and associated expenses for each of the last three years and the amount
requested for fiscal year 1999.
Answer.
PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION DATA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average
Fiscal Year Moves Allocated Number of Cost Per
Amount Moves Move
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996............................ $88,000 4 $20,000
1997............................ 88,000 3 30,000
1998............................ 87,000 3.5 35,000
1999 est........................ 87,000 3 35,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: Inflation has caused an increase in the average cost of each
permanent change of station move.
Question. Please display the amount and nature of reprogramming
that occurred during fiscal year 1997, or fiscal year 1998 in any of
the NHTSA accounts. Also in a separate table, please show any
unobligated funds or carryover funds for those years.
Answer. In fiscal year 1997, the agency received Congressional
approval to shift $2.86 million within the Operations and Research
account, to be used for airbag safety research. Of this amount, $1.66
million was shifted from Research and Development carryover resulting
from fiscal year 1996 contract savings and deobligations. In addition,
$1.2 million was reallocated from a one-time savings in the area of
salaries and benefits resulting from a reduced FTE usage rate in fiscal
year 1996. This funding shift was necessary to perform critical work in
assessing the need and performance requirements for advanced airbag
systems. Because of the urgent nature of these airbag issues and the
complexities involved in evaluating advanced airbag technology, these
additional requirements could not have been planned for or handled
during the regular budget process.
In fiscal year 1998, the agency received Congressional approval to
shift $1.111 million within the Operations and Research account in
order to fund the contractor support to process the application forms,
database entry and tracking, which are essential steps in the NHTSA
authorization process for installation of air bag on-off switches.
Funding was derived using a portion of the carryover funds from the
areas of Safety Assurance ($564,000), Safety Performance ($166,000),
Traffic Safety Programs ($200,000) and Plans and Policy ($181,000) for
this purpose.
The following is a table showing unobligated balances brought
forward from fiscal year 1996 and 1997 into fiscal year 1997 and 1998:
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Fiscal
year 1997 year 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contract Program:
Safety Performance............................ 84 66
Safety Assurance.............................. 404 60
Highway Safety................................ 549 346
Research and Development...................... 8,378 7,656
General Administration........................ 261 1
On/Off Airbag Switches........................ ......... 1,111
Salaries and Benefits............................. 1,287 2,211
Miscellaneous operating expenses.................. 610 459
Recoveries and Other Deobligations................ 1,863 1,152
---------------------
Total....................................... 13,436 13,062
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please provide a list of all vacancies at NHTSA and the
corresponding amount of salaries and benefits dedicated for these
positions.
Answer.
Corresponding
Vacancies Salary Amount
Information Specialist, GS-301-12/13.......................... $56,000
Mathematical Statistician, GS-1529-11......................... 41,000
Mathematical Statistician, GS-1529-7/9........................ 36,000
Program Analyst, GS-343-12/13................................. 56,000
Medical Officer, GS-602-15...................................\1\ 102,000
Computer Specialist, GS-334-11/12............................. 48,000
Budget Officer, GS-560-15.....................................\2\ 90,000
Highway Safety Specialist, GS-2125-15.........................\2\ 86,000
Highway Safety Specialist, GS-2125-11/2....................... 48,000
Highway Safety Specialist, GS-2125-12......................... 48,000
Highway Safety Specialist, 2125-12/13......................... 56,000
Highway Safety Specialist, GS-13/14........................... 67,000
General Engineer, GS-801-15...................................\2\ 90,000
General Engineer, GS-801-14................................... 67,000
Safety Compliance Engineer, GS-801-11/12...................... 48,000
Safety Compliance Engineer, GS-801-13......................... 56,000
Safety Defects Engineer, GS-7/9/11............................ 42,000
Mechanical Engineer, GS-830-12/13............................. 56,000
Criminal Investigator, GS-1811-14............................. 85,000
Safety Defect Specialist, GS-301-13........................... 56,000
Economist, GS-110-14.......................................... 67,000
\1\ Salary reflects a possible recruitment incentive.
\2\ Fluctuation in salaries depends on salary history of selectee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
national driver register (ndr)
Question. Please provide an updated status report of NHTSA's review
of state driver licensing systems. How have the States progressed in
that area?
Answer. The joint NHTSA, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and
American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) review of
the three operational driver license information systems was completed
in the fall of 1997. It covered NHTSA's National Driver Register's
(NDR) Problem Driver Pointer System (PDPS); the FHWA's Commercial
Driver License Information System (CDLIS); and AAMVA's Driver License
Reciprocity (DLR) The report's recommendations include the following: a
pointer system for all drivers that includes PDPS and CDLIS functions
should be developed; the recommended all-driver system should be
federally mandated and funded; the Social Security Number should be the
driver identification number; and the system should maintain the
current 7 second message response time.
The states, through AAMVA, have expressed support for the all-
driver pointer system. Other than supporting legislation related to
such a system, the states have made no progress toward an all driver
system. However, the states continue to improve their licensing systems
by: implementing fraudulent application detection programs; verifying
applicants' Social Security Numbers; installing systems to digitally
store images of drivers; using more sophisticated security features to
prevent tampering with the license; and other licensing system related
activities.
Question. What improvements have been made since last year in the
NDR? What challenges remain?
Answer. There have been three significant improvements or changes
made to the NDR in the last year. The NDR's system programming was
assessed for year 2000 compliance. As a result of this assessment and
an internal assessment, the NDR's software has been modified and
testing has begun to become year 2000 compliant. The entire system was
moved to a larger mainframe and the interactive (on-line)
communications software was upgraded. This has resulted in more
efficient operation of the system. The system was also modified to
allow air carriers access to the NDR through the states to make
inquiries on pilot applicants.
Many challenges remain. As the volume of interactive inquiries
continues to increase it will be a challenge to maintain our response
time at current levels. The states support, and there is legislation
pending, to eventually implement some sort of an all driver system. The
development of that system will be a challenge over the next several
years. The conversion of the last jurisdiction (DC) to the problem
driver pointer system (PDPS) has been an on-going challenge. There are
50 different systems interacting with the NDR and a problem with one
state can affect 50 others. These problems have to be identified and
solved on a real-time basis. During the next year we will work with the
states to determine the feasibility of interactive updating of pointer
records. Currently updates are processed in batches. We will also be
working with the air carriers, FAA, and states to resolve an issue
related to state processing of pilot applicants not licensed by the
inquiring state. By far the most pressing and immediate challenge is
the testing and validation, through interaction with the states, of the
system modifications made to assure that the system will not be
affected by the year 2000.
Question. How have the data that are received by the NDR been
improved? How are further improvements reflected in the fiscal year
1999 budget request?
Answer. As all states, except the District of Columbia, have
converted to the Problem Driver Pointer System (PDPS) the license
status and conviction data are as accurate as possible because under
PDPS the inquiring state receives the substantive data directly from
the state that created the NDR pointer. In addition, states are
encouraged to submit ``clean files'' on a periodic basis to update and
delete their NDR pointers.
Fiscal year 1999 funds will be used to operate the PDPS Help Desk
that assists states in resolving problems, tests changes to state
systems, and defines issues that need to be addressed (e.g. age of
offenses, non-safety related suspensions on the NDR, etc.) by the
licensing community. In addition, system changes will be made to
increase the age range of drivers allowed on the system to 10 to 110
years of age (currently 13 to 100). The NDR will also consider
programming changes that will allow the state to immediately add,
delete, or make changes to pointers. Currently, changes are batched and
processed daily .
Question. Please provide an update on the PDPS. What has NHTSA done
to encourage all States to use that system? How many states are
actively using that system?
Answer. In 1997, the NDR processed 34.9 million inquiries, an
increase of 3 million more than in 1996, and 9 million more than in
1993, the last year all states participated in the old NDR system. In
1997, the NDR processed 29.5 million interactive (on-line/immediate)
inquiries, an increase of 2.8 million more than in 1996, and 18 million
more than were processed in 1993.
NHTSA provided grants to assist states in the conversion to the
Problem Driver Pointer System (PDPS). In addition, a Help Desk with a
staff of qualified personnel was funded to provide on-site and testing
assistance to the states. The agency has also jointly sponsored, with
the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, users
meetings to provide state personnel a forum to share experiences and
discuss issues related to the PDPS.
All states, except the District of Columbia, have converted to the
Problem Driver Pointer System (PDPS). All states, including the
District of Columbia, actively use the NDR. A conversion program is
used to facilitate the exchange driver status information between the
non-PDPS state (DC) and the states. We are working with the District of
Columbia to determine an accurate date for their conversion to PDPS.
They will not meet their current target conversion date of May 15,
1998.
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 1999
and fiscal year 1998 budgets?
Answer. The District of Columbia (DC) is the only state that has
not converted to PDPS. However, through a NDR conversion program DC and
the other states are able to exchange driver status information through
the NDR. The District still has NHTSA grant money to assist in their
conversion to PDPS. In addition, help desk staff are available to
assist in the programming changes necessary to make the conversion to
PDPS. Help desk staff will also assist the District of Columbia during
testing to correct problems the state encounters. Because we expect the
District to complete its conversion to PDPS prior to September 30,
1998, we do not expect to expend any fiscal year 1999 funds on this
effort.
highway safety data systems and traffic records grant program
Question. Why is there no fiscal year 1999 request for grants in
this area as proposed by both the House and Senate reauthorization
bills?
Answer. The Administration did not request funding for the new data
incentive grant program in its fiscal year 1999 budget request, even
though the program was included in the NEXTEA reauthorization proposal.
NHTSA has been working in cooperation with FHWA and state and local
partners to develop a core set of crash data elements which was
requested by local, state and Federal traffic safety organizations.
This model data set was not scheduled for completion until the middle
of fiscal year 1999. Since NHTSA believed this model was needed in
order to initiate the new incentive grant program, the agency planned
to complete the model data set, and then develop guidance for the new
grant program incorporating the data set during fiscal year 1999.
Similarly, the House reauthorization bill has required that the
Secretary determine the model data elements and that States must
incorporate them in their plans under the data incentive grant program.
Question. How will NHTSA help the States in this area?
Answer. NHTSA will continue to offer support to states and
communities for data improvement programs through a variety of
technical assistance activities, including provision of traffic records
assessments, peer-to-peer support for states interested in implementing
the CODES program, and training programs on use of traffic records for
traffic safety manager. Currently, data analysis and evaluation
technical assistance is offered to the states and communities through
each Regional offices. This effort will enable states to analyze their
data to define meaningful goals and performance measures; target their
programs to meet identified highway safety needs, including traffic
records needs; and measure program impact. In addition, Regional staff
will provide assistance to states in understanding and meeting the
criteria for the new data incentive grants as soon as they are
finalized.
section 402
Question. Why is it necessary to increase funds for Grant
Administration?
Answer. NHTSA has requested a 3 percent increase in Grant
Administration funds, from $5.268 thousand in fiscal year 1998 to
$5.434 thousand in fiscal year 1999, to cover cost-of-living increases
in salaries and other costs of administering this grant program. NHTSA
has only requested 3.3 percent of the total Section 402 request ($166.7
million) although permitted by law to request up to 5 percent of the
Section 402 funding level for grant administration purposes.
drugged driving grant program
Question. How many States do you expect to qualify for this grant
program?
Answer. The proposed Drugged Driving Incentive Grant program would
provide a state with a grant for drugged driving countermeasures
provided that the state meets at least five of the following nine
criteria: (1) has a zero tolerance driving law for illicit drugs; (2)
has a drug impaired driving law that applies to any drug or substance,
whether licit or illicit; (3) has a law mandating chemical testing for
drugs of drivers in fatal or serious injury crashes when an officer has
probable cause to believe the driver has committed a drug- or
substance-related traffic offense; (4) has a system for administrative
driver's license suspension or revocation for persons who drive under
the influence of a drug or substance; (5) has a law requiring at least
six months suspension or revocation of the driver's licenses of persons
convicted of drug offenses, not necessarily connected with driving; (6)
has a graduated licensing system for young drivers that includes drug
use and drugged driving provisions; (7) provides for active enforcement
and publicity of drugged driving laws; (8) has a system of drug
intervention, providing for assessment and referral to treatment of
persons who have been driving under the influence of a drug or
controlled substance; (9) has an effective educational program
providing drug information to license applicants and renewals, and
including drug-related questions on the driver's license examination.
The agency estimates that 20 states would qualify for grants during the
first year. The table below shows all states that the agency believes
currently meet at least 5 of the 9 criteria, and indicates which
criteria each state meets.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Criteria
State --------------------------------------------------------------
#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO (6)........................................... ..... X X X ..... ..... X X X
CT (5)........................................... X X ..... X ..... ..... X X .....
DE (5)........................................... ..... X ..... X X ..... ..... X X
DC (5)........................................... ..... X ..... X X ..... X X .....
FL (5)........................................... ..... X ..... ..... X X X X .....
IL (6)........................................... X X X X ..... ..... X X .....
IA (5)........................................... ..... X X ..... X ..... X X .....
LA (5)........................................... X X ..... ..... ..... X X X .....
MD (5)........................................... ..... X X ..... ..... X X X .....
MN (6)........................................... X X X ..... ..... ..... X X X
MO (6)........................................... ..... X X X ..... ..... X X X
MT (5)........................................... ..... X ..... X ..... ..... X X X
NV (5)........................................... X X X X ..... ..... X ..... .....
NC (5)........................................... X X ..... ..... ..... X X X .....
ND (6)........................................... ..... X X X ..... ..... X X X
OK (6) ..... X X X X ..... X X .....
PA (6)........................................... ..... X X ..... X ..... X X X
TN (6)........................................... X X X ..... ..... ..... X X X
TX (5)........................................... ..... X X ..... X ..... X ..... X
UT (7)........................................... X X ..... X ..... X X X X
VA (6)........................................... ..... X X ..... X ..... X X X
WV (6)........................................... ..... X ..... X ..... X X X X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research and Special Programs Administration
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
rspa bill language
Question. On page 13 of your fiscal year 1999 budget submission,
the suggested bill language says that $574,000 shall be derived from
the Pipeline Safety Fund for expenses necessary to discharge the
functions of RSPA. What functions are supported by the $574,000 derived
from the Pipeline Safety Fund?
Answer. The $574,000 requested in the Research and Special Programs
appropriations bill language represents funding to support
administrative functions provided by federal employees (7 FTE) within
Program Support offices, particularly the Office of Chief Counsel. All
offices within Program Support work with the Office of Pipeline Safety
to provide administrative functions which enhance the nation's safety.
Question. What fees are represented by the ``up to $1,200,000 in
fees collected under 49 U.S.C. 5108(g)''? Why is $1,200,000 the
appropriate amount to deposit in the General Treasury as offsetting
receipts?
Answer. When the Emergency Preparedness Grants program was
authorized, Congress determined that a grants program portion
(currently $250 of the total $300 fee required) and a registration
processing portion (currently $50 of the total $300 fee required)
should be collected as registration fees. The registration processing
fee is the $1,200,000 stated in the appropriation's language. The
amount has offset part of RSP's General Fund appropriation for funds
required to process the registration statements, including the
establishment and maintenance of a registration system of certain
shippers and carriers of hazardous materials.
The contract program level for establishing such a registration
system initially required an appropriation of $1,200,000. In fiscal
year 1999, contract funding alone in the amount of $750,000 is required
to maintain the existing registration database. That amount does not
include federal labor costs and administrative expenses. We plan to
make any adjustments necessary to the processing fee when we increase
collections for the grants program fee through rulemaking.
Question. What activities comprise the 3-year availability portion
of the Research and Special Programs request ($3,460,000)? What
activities comprised the 3-year availability amount in fiscal year 1998
($4,950,000)? Why is the fiscal year 1998 figure higher, when the
appropriation was lower than the funding level requested for fiscal
year 1999?
Answer. The 3-year funding level of the Research and Special
Programs (RSP) request ($3,460,000) represents all R&D contract funds
requested in the RSP appropriation, as confirmed by RSPA's fiscal year
1999 Budget Request on page 12.
The 3-year funding level in fiscal year 1998 ($4,950,000) provides
funding for the $3,100,000 enacted by Congress for all RSP R&D contract
programs, as confirmed by RSPA's fiscal year 1999 Budget Request on
page 12. The remaining $1,850,000 was not specified by Congress, and,
since the expected amount of 1-year funds was not made available, we
used 3-year funds to cover the enacted level of our operating expenses.
RSPA's use of 3-year funds for operating expenses is atypical and has
caused significant difficulties for financial management and has
increased our workload with a need to establish and track such
obligations.
RSPA's 3-year enacted funds were higher in fiscal year 1998, even
though the appropriation was lower than the requested funds for fiscal
year 1999, because in fiscal year 1998, the amount of 3-year funds
enacted was greater than, and the amount of 1-year funds enacted was
less than what RSP required by $1,850,000. The same situation occurred
in the fiscal year 1997 RSP appropriation.
office of hazardous materials safety
Question. The only change between the fiscal year 1999 budget
request for OHMS and the fiscal year 1998 enacted level is an increase
of $521,000 in personnel compensation and benefits. What is the
rationale for this allocation? Is the current services program so
effective that no change is needed?
Answer. We believe the fiscal year 1999 budget request is
sufficient to carry out an effective program to ensure the safe
transportation of hazardous materials.
Question. Please prepare a table indicating the amount appropriated
and the amount actually spent for the different categories and sub-
components 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 sub-components of the Hazardous
Materials Safety budget for each of the last three years.
FISCAL YEAR 1996
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriated Obligations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program funds:
Information Systems................. $950,000 $950,000
Research & Analysis................. 256,000 256,000
Rulemaking Support.................. 365,000 365,000
Inspection & Enforcement............ 180,000 180,000
Registration........................ 750,000 750,000
HAZMAT Training..................... 350,000 350,000
Information Dissemination........... 170,000 170,000
Emergency Preparedness.............. 370,000 370,000
International Standards............. 140,000 140,000
R&D:
Information Systems................. 300,000 300,000
Regulation Compliance............... 386,000 \1\ 425,000
Research & Analysis................. 699,000 \1\ 628,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Obligations may include carryover funding from prior years.
FISCAL YEAR 1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriated Obligations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program funds:
Information Systems................. $1,075,000 $1,075,000
Research & Analysis................. 565,000 565,000
Rulemaking Support.................. 382,000 383,000
Inspection & Enforcement............ 260,000 260,000
Registration........................ 750,000 750,000
HAZMAT Training..................... 475,000 475,000
Information Dissemination........... 485,000 485,000
Emergency Preparedness.............. 370,000 370,000
International Standards............. 80,000 80,000
R&D:
Information Systems................. 300,000 300,000
Regulation Compliance............... 236,000 \1\ 531,000
Research & Analysis................. 464,000 358,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Obligations may include carryover funding from prior years.
FISCAL YEAR 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriated Obligations \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program funds:
Information Systems................ $1,075,000 $1,075,000
Research & Analysis................ 531,000 531,000
Rulemaking Support................. 282,000 282,000
Inspection & Enforcement........... 155,000 155,000
Registration....................... 750,000 750,000
HAZMAT Training.................... 475,000 475,000
Information Dissemination.......... 520,000 520,000
Emergency Preparedness............. 370,000 370,000
International Standards............ 40,000 40,000
R&D:
Information Systems................ 300,000 300,000
Regulation Compliance.............. 236,000 150,000
Research & Analysis................ 464,000 430,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Projected to end of fiscal year.
Question. Please identify the amount and nature of any
reprogramming that occurred during the last two years.
Answer. We have not reprogrammed funding in fiscal year 1997, and
do not anticipate reprogramming funding in fiscal year 1998. Minor
transfers occurred in fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998 between
object classes within operating expenses only, to meet changing
priorities.
Question. What is the status of the reauthorization for RSPA's
hazardous materials safety program? Has the administration submitted
proposed reauthorizing legislation? What is the current status of the
legislation in the House and Senate authorizing committees? What issues
have generated the most discussion, controversy, or hearing questions
in the reauthorization process?
Answer. We are waiting for Congress to take final action on
reauthorization for RSPA's hazardous materials safety program. We
anticipate that reauthorization of the hazardous materials safety
program may be discussed during meetings of the conference committee on
the Senate and House transportation bills.
On April 17, 1997, the Department of Transportation (DOT)
transmitted to Congress, the ``Surface Transportation Act of 1997'' for
inclusion as part of the National Economic Crossroads Transportation
Safety Efficiency Act of 1997 (NEXTEA). Title X of DOT's proposal
included provisions to strengthen our hazardous materials safety
program as highlighted in the attached one-page fact sheet. In brief,
we asked Congress to clarify DOT's inspection authority to open
suspicious packages, take and analyze samples of materials and bar
their transport if they pose a threat. We also asked that our oversight
be extended to overseas shipments of U.S. air carriers. Finally, we
asked for tougher penalties for those who tamper with hazardous
materials labels and cause spills and other releases.
On March 12, 1998, the Senate completed action on S-1173, the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1997 (ISTEA II), which largely
contained the Department's hazardous materials reauthorization proposal
as provided. The House passed H.R. 2400, the Building Efficient Surface
Transportation and Equity Act (BESTEA), on April 1, 1998, reauthorizing
federal transportation programs but it did not include a provision to
reauthorize our hazardous materials safety program.
An issue that has been raised is an industry concern related to the
potential impact of one of our proposed inspection provisions--to
clarify DOT's enforcement authority to open packages in transportation,
to take and analyze samples of materials, and prevent transportation
when an imminent hazard may exist.
ntsb recommendations
Question. Please provide a detailed list of the hazmat
recommendations made by the NTSB during the last three fiscal 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 (1995, 1996, and 1997) NTSB made 5
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 Crashworthiness of the Front
Ends of Cargo Tanks; A-96-29 Chemical Oxygen Generators as Cargo on
Aircraft; A-96-30, Oxidizers and Oxidizing Materials in Air Cargo
Compartments; and A-97-78, Availability to Inspectors of Previously
Issued Approvals by the Bureau of Explosives Transferred to RSPA.
These Recommendations are summarized below:
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 the 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 techniques, and
acceptance criteria required to test the tank car integrity. This
recommendation was classified as ``Closed-Acceptable Action'' by NTSB
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 crashworthiness of
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, on July 15, 1996, RSPA contracted with
Pressure Sciences Incorporated, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania to conduct a
feasibility study on means to enhance protection for MC-331 cargo tanks
in frontal collisions. Methods of improving crashworthiness of front
heads on MC-331 cargo tanks were suggested and appropriate standards
for design and construction were identified. The study found that head
shields backed by energy absorbing materials offer the greatest impact
performance and cost effectiveness potential. In fiscal year 1998, RSPA
initiated a follow-on study to include a parametric analysis of head
shield and energy absorbing materials. This study will provide more
comprehensive research and is designed to identify the extent of
protection which maximizes safety while minimizing costs. RSPA expects
the follow-on study will be completed by mid 1999. After RSPA and FHWA
evaluate the results of the studies, we will initiate rulemaking or
other appropriate actions, if warranted, to improve the crashworthiness
of front heads of MC-331 cargo tanks which transport liquefied
flammable gases and potentially lethal nonflammable gases.
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
expiration 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
prohibition is broader than NTSB's recommendation. 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
permits air transportation of oxidizers only in accessible locations on
cargo aircraft. Further, under a Final Rule published on June 5, 1997
and effective July 7, if the oxygen generator is attached to any type
of initiation mechanism its transportation must be specifically
approved by RSPA's Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials
Safety and the generator must be transported in a package prepared by
the holder of the approval. A Supplemental Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking was issued on August 20, 1997 specifically to analyze the
prohibition of oxidizers in other than Class D cargo compartments with
the comment period ending October 20, 1997. On November 28, 1997 a
Notice of a Public Meeting and Reopening of the Comment Period was
published and the comment period was extended to February 13, 1998.
Comments are being evaluated and will be incorporated into a Final Rule
in fiscal year 1998.
A-97-78
In A-97-78, NTSB recommended that RSPA develop records for all
approvals previously issued by the Bureau of Explosives and transferred
to RSPA and ensure all records, including designs and testing, and
packaging requirements, are available to inspectors to help them
determine that products transported under those approvals are
transported safely and in accordance with the requirements of the
approvals. RSPA agreed with NTSB and on September 24, 1997 RSPA
published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, HM-166Y, which proposed to
terminate most remaining Bureau of Explosives (BOE) approvals. Any
person holding a BOE approval affected by the termination would be
required to file a request for a new approval. This action will ensure
that RSPA has all records on file for verification when a question is
raised as to whether a particular explosive is being offered in
conformance with the approval authorizing its transportation. NTSB
subsequently classified Safety Recommendation A-97-78 as ``Open-
Acceptable Response.''
In the last three years (1995, 1996 and 1997) NTSB has closed eight
safety recommendations addressed to RSPA, while twenty four remain
open.
RECOMMENDATIONS CLOSED ACCEPTABLE OR CLOSED ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATE ACTION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number Date closed Subject
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-91-034..................... November 8, 1996...... RSPA require all fittings and devices mounted on a
manhole cover of cargo tanks meet the same performance
standard to withstand static internal fluid pressure as
that required for the manhole cover. ``Closed-
Acceptable''
I-90-005..................... July 28, 1995......... RSPA require all manufacturers of DOT specification
containers that were not tested and inspected in
accordance with regulatory requirements, and all that
were properly tested but that failed to meet regulatory
requirements, to retest randomly selected containers
from each lot of these identified containers in
accordance with DOT regulatory procedures; and to notify
the owners of containers in lots that fail the tests to
remove DOT specification markings. ``Closed-Acceptable
Alternate Action''
I-90-006..................... July 28, 1995......... RSPA modify its compliance program to determine that
containers are removed from transportation when those
containers are identified as not meeting specification
requirements. ``Closed-Acceptable Alternate Action''
R-89-80...................... November 26, 1996..... RSPA evaluate present safety standards for tank cars
transporting hazardous materials by using safety
analysis methods to identify unacceptable levels of risk
and the degree of risk from the release of a hazardous
material, and then modify existing regulations to
achieve an acceptable level of safety for each product/
tank car combination. ``Closed-Acceptable''
R-95-011..................... February 10, 1997..... DOT and FRA determine periodic inspection interval and
testing techniques for rail tank car linings and
coatings, and provide them to parties responsible for
inspection and testing of tank cars. ``Closed-
Acceptable''
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RECOMMENDATIONS (CLOSED-UNACCEPTABLE)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number Date closed Subject
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-85-34...................... December 12, 1995..... RSPA amend Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulation 397.9
to eliminate ambiguities in routing requirements of
HazMat vehicles on the highway. ``Closed-Un-Acceptable''
I-85-07...................... March 28, 1996........ DOT and EPA develop and distribute to hazardous waste
shippers (generators) information regarding shipper
responsibilities under the Hazardous Materials
Transportation Act when shipping hazardous waste.
``Closed-UnAcceptable''
I-90-11...................... October 4, 1995....... RSPA develop and implement requirements for improving the
visibility and effectiveness of HM placards, considering
the orientation of vehicles after accidents. ``Closed-
UnAcceptable''
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendations Open:
The Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has 24 open NTSB
recommendations. RSPA, and the modal administrations, if warranted, is
pursuing appropriate action to address each of the recommendations. The
disposition and status of these recommendations are summarized in the
following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation OHMS action Status
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A-96-29...................... Prohibit oxygen generators as cargo on passenger aircraft....... Addressed in Docket HM-224 rulemaking........................... Open Acceptable Action.
A-96-30...................... Prohibit the air transportation of oxidizers and oxidizing Docket HM-224A rulemaking to address............................ Open Acceptable Action.
materials.
A-97-78...................... Develop records for all approvals issued by the Bureau of Letter sent to NTSB 09/26/97. Docket HM-166Y rulemaking to Open Acceptable Action.
Explosives transferred to RSPA and ensure all records, address.
including designs and testing, and packaging requirements, are
available to inspectors.
H-90-91...................... RSPA require controls for internal shut-off valves to be Docket HM-183C, published in November 1994, required that Open UnAcceptable Action.
installed at remote locations on all newly constructed and controls for internal shut-off valves for the discharge system
currently authorized DOT specification cargo tanks used for be installed at remote locations on all newly constructed
transport of HM. authorized DOT specification cargo tanks used to transport HM.
Retrofitting will be addressed in Docket HM-225A rulemaking.
H-92-1....................... RSPA provide cargo tank manufacturers specific written guidance FHWA Report ``Cargo Tank Guidance'' was developed and Open Acceptable Action.
about cargo tank rollover devices and acceptable means to disseminated to cargo tank manufacturers which addresses the
shield and protect top-mounted closure fittings on all bulk requirements in H-92-1. RSPA will request ``Closed-Acceptable
liquid cargo tanks. Action''.
H-92-2....................... RSPA assist FHWA in evaluating design of rollover protection FHWA, in cooperation with RSPA, has contracted with the Open Acceptable Action.
devices installed on all cargo tanks manufactured by Acro University of Michigan to conduct a rollover damage study.
Trailer Company and by New Progress, Inc., for compliance with Expected completion date July 1998. Research is on-going.
DOT standards.
H-92-3....................... RSPA assist FHWA in improving performance of rollover protection See H-92-2...................................................... Open Acceptable Action.
devices on bulk liquid cargo tanks by modeling and analyzing
the forces that can act upon rollover protection devices during
a rollover accident.
H-92-4....................... RSPA assist FHWA in promulgating performance standards based on See H-92-2...................................................... Open Acceptable Action.
engineering modeling and analysis conducted in response to
Safety Recommendation 92-003.
H-92-5....................... RSPA assist FHWA in phasing out from HM service the use of all See H-92-2...................................................... Open Acceptable Action.
cargo tanks that fail to meet new performance standards
promulgated in response to Safety Recommendation 92-004.
H-92-6....................... RSPA implement, in cooperation with FHWA, a program to collect ANPRM being developed and Recommendation H-92-6 will be included Open Acceptable Action.
information identifying patterns of cargo tank equipment to obtain feedback and information with regard to updating and
failures, including reporting of all accidents involving a DOT modifying the current Hazardous Materials Incident Report Form
specification cargo tank. 5800.1, and enhancing RSPA's ability to monitor the integrity
of packagings used to transport HM.
H-93-34...................... RSPA require remote control mechanisms for internal shutoff Docket HM-213 will address this recommendation.................. Open Acceptable Action.
valves be marked for emergency use on all cargo tanks
authorized for the transportation of HM.
H-95-14...................... RSPA revise inspection/testing requirements for all cargo tanks See H-93-34..................................................... Open Awaiting Response.
constructed of mild and high-strength, low-alloy steel that are
used to transport HM to require at least once each year, or
immediately when visual inspections indicate corrosion,
measurement of the thickness of appurtenances (including ring
stiffeners) that form air cavities adjacent to external cargo
tank sheet material when the cargo tank sheet material cannot
be visually inspected.
H-95-37...................... RSPA, in cooperation with FHWA, study methods and develop RSPA, in cooperation with FHWA, contracted a feasibility study Open Acceptable Action.
standards to improve the crash worthiness of front heads on with Pressure Sciences, Inc. to address methods of improving
cargo tanks used to transport liquefied flammable gases and crash worthiness of front heads on MC-331 cargo tanks. The
potentially lethal nonflammable compressed gases. study was sent to NTSB on 08/19/97. A further study including
parametric analysis of head shield and energy absorbing
materials is being conducted. Projected date for report fiscal
year 1999.
I-80-1....................... RSPA amend 49 CFR 174.25 to include a requirement that volume, RSPA & FRA reviewed guidance document developed by FRA & Open UnAcceptable Action.
in gallons, and the temperature at which the pressurized industry-Letter sent to NTSB 03/11/98 to request ``Closed-
liquefied gases were loaded in tank cars be entered on bills of Acceptable Alternate Action''.
lading, waybills, and shipping orders.
I-90-8....................... RSPA require HM cargo to be secured in transportation with Docket HM-220 to address hazardous materials cargo specific to Open UnAcceptable Action.
adequate restraint systems to prevent ejection of cargo from cylinders.
vehicles.
I-90-9....................... RSPA require independent inspections of new and reconditioned Docket HM-220 to address........................................ Open UnAcceptable Action.
low pressure cylinders that are consistent with the present
independent inspection requirements for high pressure cylinders.
I-92-01...................... RSPA require attachments to all U.S. DOT authorized HM OHMS reviewed the recommendation and determined improvements Open Acceptable Action.
packagings be designed to minimize the risk of puncturing other were needed in the general requirements of Part 177. Rulemaking
HM packagings during an accident situation. is pending.
I-92-2....................... RSPA revise requirements for pressure-relief venting on U.S. DOT OHMS is cooperating with the Organic Peroxide Producers Open Acceptable Action.
specification 57 portable tanks used to transport dicumyl Association who are developing a method to determine minimum
peroxide and other products with similar rapid decomposition vent size for organic peroxides. Testing of three organic
characteristics to ensure the pressure relief systems prevent peroxides were performed at the Energetic Materials Research &
over pressure rupture of tanks from a rapid product Training Center at the New Mexico Technical Institute in
decomposition reaction. February 1998. Also the UN has recently adopted an example of a
test method for vent sizing. OHMS will review and consider
these options. Research is on-going. Extensive testing is
scheduled for May 1998.
I-93-1....................... RSPA coordinate with the Compressed Gas Association, Inc.,(CGA) OHMS met with CGA representatives and we are awaiting a draft Open Acceptable Action.
in amending pamphlet C-6, Standard for Visual Inspection of revised pamphlet for review.
Compressed Gas Cylinders, to require the use of a thread gauge,
such as an L9 or equivalent, to measure the interior section
neck threads for acceptance or rejection during periodic
examination of cylinders used to transport gases with corrosive
properties.
I-93-2....................... RSPA prohibit the use of cylinders that do not meet the Possible rulemaking activity is dependent on the outcome of I-93- Open Acceptable Action.
acceptance criteria for cylinder neck threads established in 1.
CGA pamphlet C-6.
R-89-52...................... RSPA establish procedures requiring carriers reporting HM ANPRM being developed and Recommendation R-89-52 will be Open UnAcceptable Action.
incidents under 49 CFR Part 171.16 to notify shippers whose HM included to obtain feedback and information with regard to
shipments are involved. updating and modifying the current Hazardous Materials Incident
Report Form 5800.1, and enhancing RSPA's ability to monitor the
integrity of packagings used to transport HM.
R-89-53...................... RSPA assist and cooperate with FRA in amending 49 CFR Part 179 RSPA and FRA, in cooperation with AAR, continue to establish Open Acceptable Action.
to require closure fittings on HM rail tanks be designed to design performance requirements for all closures and fittings
maintain their integrity in accidents typically survivable by to ensure the integrity of closures and fittings in accidents.
rail tank.
R-89-83...................... RSPA develop procedures to update and correct, in a timely RSPA developed improved communication techniques to implement Open UnAcceptable Action.
manner, errors in the Emergency Response Guidebook. requirements in recommendation R-89-83. Letter sent to NTSB 01/
16/98 requesting ``Closed Acceptable Alternate Action''.
R-92-23...................... RSPA develop and promulgate, with FRA requirements for the RSPA, in cooperation with FRA published Docket HM-175A and HM- Open Acceptable Action.
periodic testing and inspection of rail tank cars that help to 201 requiring each tank car facility to develop procedures for
ensure the detection of cracks before they propagate to evaluating inspection and test techniques, sensitivity and
critical length by establishing inspection intervals based on reliability of the techniques and the minimum detectable crack
the defect size detectable by the inspection method used, the length. FRA and industry are exploring methods for performing a
stress level, and the crack propagation characteristics of the reliability assessment of the tank car structure. Research is
structural component (requirements based on a damage-tolerance on-going. Letter sent to NTSB on 02/02/98 requesting
approach). recommendation remain ``Open Acceptable Action''.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
personnel issues and operating expenses
Question. What steps have been taken to fully comply with the
staffing level that was approved the conferees in fiscal year 1998?
Answer. The Office of Hazardous Materials Safety (OHMS) and the
Research and Special Programs Administration's (RSPA) personnel office
worked closely together to recruit suitable candidates for all current
and anticipated vacancies, and for new vacancies as they opened up.
Since the beginning of fiscal year 1998, five employees have been
hired, and we have selected four employees under the Welfare-to-Work
program. Currently, OHMS is recruiting for five vacancies, two of which
reflect recent departures from the agency, in order to reach the OHMS
fiscal year 1998 FTE ceiling of 122.
Question. Please provide a table showing the authorized number of
inspectors for each of the three fiscal years, and the number of
inspectors on-board during those periods.
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996............................................. 22 22
1997............................................. 37 36
1998............................................. 37 \1\ 34
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ On board as of April 22, 1998.
Question. For each of the key offices under the Associate
Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety (OHMS), please prepare a
breakout of the number of personnel to each office for each for each of
the last three fiscal 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 OHMS for the last three years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1996-- Fiscal year 1997-- Fiscal year 1998--
as of 6/10/96 as of 6/4/97 as of 4/15/98
Office -----------------------------------------------------------------
No. of Grade No. of Grade No. of Grade
FTP/VAC levels FTP/VAC levels FTP/VAC levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Associate Admin. & Int'l Standards............ 8-0 2-SES 6-1 2-SES 6-1 2-SES
2-15 1-15 1-15
1-14 1-14 1-14
1-13 1-13 1-13
1-11 1-7 1-7
1-6
Standards..................................... 18-1 1-15 16-4 1-15 20-1 2-15
3-14 3-14 5-14
3-13 1-13 2-13
7-12 4-12 4-12
1-11 1-11 3-11
2-7 3-9 3-7
1-6 2-7 1-6
1-6
Technology.................................... 15-4 1-15 14-5 1-15 18-1 2-15
4-14 4-14 3-14
8-13 7-13 8-13
1-7 1-7 2-12
1-6 1-6 1-11
1-7
1-6
Exemptions & Approvals........................ 15-0 1-15 15-2 1-15 15-2 1-15
1-14 1-14 1-14
5-13 5-13 6-13
4-12 4-12 3-12
1-10 1-9 1-11
1-8 2-7 1-9
1-7 1-6 1-7
1-6 1-6
Enforcement................................... 23-1 1-15 29-10 1-15 35-3 1-15
3-14 6-14 7-14
4-13 6-13 5-13
9-12 8-12 10-12
4-11 6-11 10-11
2-7 1-9 1-9
1-7 1-7
Initiatives & Training........................ 10-0 1-15 8-3 1-15 9-2 1-15
2-14 1-14 2-14
1-13 1-13 1-13
4-12 4-12 4-12
1-9 1-7 1-7
1-7
Planning & Analysis........................... 14-2 2-15 14-2 2-15 14-2 2-15
1-14 1-14 1-14
5-13 5-13 5-13
3-12 3-12 4-12
1-11 1-11 1-7
1-7 1-7 1-6
1-6 1-6
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Totals.................................. 103-8 ......... 101-28 ......... 117-12 .........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
research and analysis
Question. What technical advances have resulted from research
sponsored during the last three fiscal years by the OHMS?
Answer. Most OHMS-sponsored research is focused on developing
national and international safety standards, assessing rulemakings and
exemptions, characterizing material hazards, analyzing risk, and
developing information on hazardous materials transport. 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:
--Risk and safety factors affecting choice of mode and route for the
transport of spent nuclear fuel.
--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
emergency response at hazardous materials incident sites, as
well as to help reduce costs and consequences of such
incidents.
Technical advances were made in several other areas, generally
resulting in improved regulations or other program measures that
enhance overall hazmat safety. These other advances were achieved in
areas that include:
--Research of health criteria, source characterization, and
dispersion modeling as they relate to inhalation poisons risks
and appropriate isolation and protective action distances.
These advances were reflected in 1996 revisions to the North
American Emergency Response Guidebook. Related research on
toxic gases caused by hazmat spills into rivers, ponds, etc.
resulted in improved requirements for dealing with water
reactive chemicals.
--Hazardous materials testing, including development of methods for
evaluating deflagration-to-detonation (DDT) potential of
energetic materials. Results are enabling RSPA to review
critically the adequacy of current safety standards used in the
authorization of the transport of energetic materials. They
will also enable RSPA to incorporate alternative small scale
tests and new criteria into future rulemakings. Evaluation of
Self-accelerating Decomposition Temperature (SADT) test methods
renewed confidence in current requirements and United Nation's
recommendations. Similarly, research to evaluate equivalency of
the UN's recently adopted solid oxidizer test with the existing
United States test provided a basis for adopting a refined
version of the UN protocol. Testing of dry cell batteries to
help determine safety hazards they might pose in transportation
will help OHMS evaluate requests by manufacturers and shippers
to revise hazardous material transportation classification of
dry cell batteries.
--OHMS research and development in the area of risk management, with
particular regard to poisons and inhalation hazards,
explosives, flammables, and materials in aircraft cargo
departments, are enabling better application of risk management
principles to hazardous materials transportation safety. A more
systematic and explicit focus on risk management in the
hazardous materials transportation program offers the
opportunity to refine and strengthen how the program operates
and how it can better accommodate international standards and
regulations.
--OHMS research and analysis on carbon-fiber reinforced aluminum
lined cylinders resulted in the conversion of defense and
aerospace technologies to commercial use. This type of
composite cylinder has a higher strength to weight ratio than
fiberglass composite cylinders, making the carbon type
attractive in markets such as breathing air for firefighting
and emergency responders. A DOT-Carbon Fiber Full Composite
document that resulted provides requirements for the design,
manufacturing, and performance of these cylinders. This
document, along with five related exemptions granted so far,
provides the regulatory authorization being actively sought by
a quickly emerging industry.
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
understanding risks associated with hazardous materials
transportation and to develop regulations that minimize both
public safety risks and compliance burdens on industry, while
allowing maximum operational flexibility and enhancing our
global 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.
A number of current and pending rulemakings will be influenced by
research and analysis in the following areas:
--Cylinder testing and research into new types of non-destructive
testing has been and will continue to be essential in
rulemaking for cylinder consolidation (HM-220). Such non-
destructive testing technology provides better evaluations of
cylinder safety and cost savings.
--Classification testing in support of international standardization
activities that will facilitate harmonization with US
requirements.
--Research related to the North American Emergency Response Guidebook
or for the National Advisory Committee for Developing Acute
Exposure Guideline Levels could result in material
classification, packaging, or operational changes.
--Research on impact and fire resistance performance standards for
cargo tanks may result in changes in vehicle requirements.
--Studies of radiation doses received by employees and the public in
the transportation of radioactive materials will provide the
basis for procedures and plans for improved safety through the
rulemaking process.
Question. How much money did OHMS allocate for Operation Respond in
fiscal year 1997? How much is planned for fiscal year 1998 and fiscal
year 1999?
Answer. No OHMS funding was allocated for Operation Respond in
fiscal year 1997, nor has any been allocated for Operation Respond
activities in fiscal year 1998 or fiscal year 1999. 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 (HMEP) 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 1999 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 independently operated
foundation, the Operating Administrations continue to evaluate the
extent of their prior support and the potential for further direct
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 1999 budget. Neither FHWA nor RSPA have included funds
for Operation Respond in their fiscal year 1999 budgets. 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. In fiscal year 1997, $1,339,600 in penalties were
assessed. Were these funds collected? What happens to monies collected
in penalties by the Office of Hazardous Materials?
Answer. The corrected total for 1997 assessments is $1,341,329. The
amount which was collected in 1997 was $1,341,329. The penalties which
RSPA collects are placed in the general fund at the U.S. Treasury.
Question. Please present detailed data for the last three years on
the number of hazmat inspectors on board.
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996............................................. 22 22
1997............................................. 37 36
1998............................................. 37 \1\ 34
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ On board as of April 22, 1998.
Question. Please describe how OHMS measures productivity. 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995 1996 \1\ 1997
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cases Initiated................................................. 246 239 192
Tickets Initiated............................................... .............. 84 171
Cases Closed.................................................... 189 189 200
Tickets Closed.................................................. .............. 62 145
Case Penalties Collected........................................ $1,047,842 $900,418 $1,164,154
Ticket Penalties Collected...................................... .............. $70,725 $177,175
-----------------------------------------------
Total Penalties Collected................................. $1,047,842 $971,143 $1,341,329
Warning Letters................................................. 168 166 249
Work Years of Effort............................................ 18.0 19.75 28.0
Cases Initiated/Work-Year....................................... 13.7 12.1 6.9
Cases Closed/Work-Year.......................................... 10.5 9.6 7.1
Penalties....................................................... $58,213 $45,693 $41,577
Warning Letters/Work-Year....................................... 9.3 8.4 8.9
Tickets Issued/Work-Year........................................ .............. .............. 6.1
Tickets Close/Work-Year......................................... .............. .............. 5.2
Ticket Penalties/Work-Year...................................... .............. .............. $6,328
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995 1996 \1\ 1997 \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Penalties Proposed.............................................. $1,540,391 $1,358,225 $1,608,095
Penalties Collected............................................. $1,047,842 $900,418 $1,164,154
Percentage Collected............................................ 68 66 72
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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. An approximate measure can be
derived, however, from the total number of inspections, cases and
workload processed. For example, from 1993 through 1997, RSPA conducted
5,922 inspections, and initiated 1,184 civil penalty cases and issued
850 warning letters based on those inspections. Using the previously
mentioned simplistic method, this would equate to a 34 percent rate of
noncompliance for that five-year period.
With the training of the last of the inspectors hired in fiscal
year 1997 by the end of fiscal year 1998, RSPA is increasing the number
of compliance inspections conducted, particularly inspections of
shippers. RSPA's regional hazardous materials offices also have an
important mission to provide technical assistance and training to State
and local enforcement and response personnel, and industry and the
public through presentations, seminars, and workshops. The additional
inspector resources will allow these offices to perform more of these
activities to improve compliance. In fiscal year 1998, we are working
with our State partners to better target both enforcement and
informational efforts to maximize compliance with HM-200. RSPA is
working with the Cooperative Hazardous Materials Enforcement
Development's (COHMED) Research, Feedback and Evaluation Committee to
identify and evaluate compliance with the Hazardous Materials
Regulations using State Enforcement Personnel. This initiative will
provide data necessary for developing future training and outreach
materials directly targeted at areas of noncompliance. RSPA hosted
outreach meetings in the States of Nebraska, Texas, Georgia, and
Washington to advise participants of the new intrastate regulations and
how those regulations will affect the hazardous materials
transportation industry. We are also working with FHWA to develop an
electronic intrastate database which will be used by FHWA to develop an
enforcement strategy and to determine the effectiveness of HM-200 in
contributing to a reduction in highway-related incidents involving the
intrastate transportation of hazardous materials.
Also, as part of our efforts to improve compliance, RSPA
implemented an interagency agreement with the Department of Defense for
package testing. Package testing is on-going. RSPA is continuing its
limited materials testing program to determine if shippers are properly
classifying the hazardous materials they are offering for
transportation.
Finally, RSPA has strengthened the Hazardous Materials Information
Center which assists shippers, carriers, packaging manufacturers,
enforcement personnel, and others in their understanding of
requirements in the Hazardous Materials Regulations 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.
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?
Answer. The majority of companies who will be subject to the
Hazardous Materials Regulations when HM-200 is implemented will be
small companies who lack detailed knowledge about the regulations. RSPA
does not expect the workload to increase under HM-200. RSPA's
inspection workload is based on inspectors performing a specified
number of weeks of inspection travel per year. RSPA plans to take steps
to increase awareness of the Hazardous Materials Regulations through
additional training and outreach activities. Over 500,000 copies of HM-
200 ``Intrastate Transportation'' brochures were distributed through
FHWA, the Chemical Education Foundation (CEF), the Cooperative
Hazardous Materials Enforcement Development (COHMED) and through direct
mailings to Federal, State and local governments, industry associations
and private sector organizations. These informational brochures on HM-
200 provide emphasis on agricultural operations, materials of trade
exceptions, and regulatory requirements. Over 300,000 copies of RSPA's
Safety Alert, which highlights five Federal Register publications,
including HM-200, were distributed to targeted audiences through
COHMED, CEF and direct mailings. RSPA will continue to work with Farm
Bureau News, published weekly by the American Farm Bureau Federation,
in reprinting and distributing HM-200 information to its membership of
over 4.5 million farm families through 2,700 Farm Bureaus in 50 states.
The National Association of State Departments of Agriculture has also
agreed to reprint and distribute the information in its newsletter.
RSPA will also initiate a partnership with the Commercial Vehicle
Safety Alliance's Public Affairs Outreach Strategy Team to prepare and
implement an information outreach plan that will target shippers and
carriers now subject to HM-200 and law enforcement transportation
officials at Federal, State, and local governments to promote
compliance and improve highway safety by ensuring the quality and
uniformity of roadside inspections and other enforcement activities.
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 regulatory evaluation prepared in support of
Docket HM-200, Hazardous Materials in Intrastate Commerce, estimated
increased annual costs in the amount of $612,050 associated with
required revisions to shipping papers, training, marking and placarding
of motor vehicles, preparation of hazardous materials incident reports,
and maintenance of emergency response telephone numbers. In addition,
operators of approximately 10,000 non-specification cargo tank motor
vehicles are expected to incur additional costs of approximately
$1,080,000 per year ($108 per cargo tank) for required inspections and
testing.
Question. How does the Office of Hazardous Materials prioritize and
select hazmat shippers and manufacturers for inspections?
Answer. RSPA targets shippers of high risk hazardous materials,
such as explosives and materials highly toxic by inhalation, and
reviews hazardous materials incident reports to identify shippers
frequently mentioned in incident reports filed by carriers. Since
fiscal year 1997, RSPA has been placing extra emphasis on inspecting
shippers who offer hazardous materials for air transportation. We give
priority to complaints and to re-inspections of companies previously
subject to penalty actions. We follow-up on leads developed during
inspections, particularly in regard to new shippers that have not been
previously inspected. We continue to prioritize our selection of hazmat
packaging manufacturers and re-conditioners for inspection. We attempt
to strike a balance between inspections of the manufacturers of
potentially high-consequence, low-incident frequency packagings, such
as compressed gas cylinders, and low-consequence, high-incident
frequency packagings, such as steel and plastic drums.
Question. How do you measure and evaluate the overall safety of the
U.S. hazmat Industry?
Answer. RSPA measures the overall safety of the U.S. hazmat
industry by the number of deaths and injuries directly related to
hazmat releases in commercial transportation and the amount of hazmat
released to the environment. The U.S. hazmat industry has an impressive
safety record. Not only in absolute terms, but given the high levels of
hazmat traffic and compared with the safety performance of other
freight transport sectors, the hazmat safety record is very strong.
Hazmat traffic pervades the U.S. economy, with the number of hazmat
shipments exceeding 800,000 per day (300 million shipments annually).
Compared with other freight sectors, hazmat trucking aptly demonstrates
the industry's safety performance. For example, hazmat truck traffic is
about 5 percent of total trucking industry truck traffic, yet hazmat
related trucking fatalities are well below 1 percent of the trucking
industry's total fatalities.
Hazmat traffic, along with freight traffic in general, is likely to
grow along with in the U.S. economy as a whole. Moreover, the
complexity of this additional traffic is likely to increase, as export/
import flows increase; driver turnover in the trucking sector persists;
and the use of intermodal shipping expands. RSPA'S safety monitoring
and evaluation efforts will necessarily heighten their focus in such as
areas as border traffic; other import/export gateways; and in the
transfer of cargos between modes within the U.S.
Question. What changes in enforcement philosophy or practice have
you made since last year?
Answer. RSPA has dedicated up to one work-year of effort in each of
its five regional offices to expanded outreach to the DOT modal
administrations, other Federal agencies, State and local enforcement
agencies, and the regulated industry. RSPA's regional hazardous
materials offices provide technical assistance and training to State
and local enforcement and response personnel, and industry and the
public through presentations, seminars, and workshops. Our additional
inspector resources will allow these offices to perform more of these
activities to improve compliance. We are also working more closely with
the DOT modal administrations through information sharing, planning and
joint inspections. In addition, we are actively soliciting information
from State enforcement agencies about noncompliance in areas under
RSPA's jurisdiction and conducting joint inspections with various State
enforcement agencies.
Question. What is DOT doing to ensure timely prosecution of all
parties responsible for the ValuJet crash? Please present a chronology
of enforcement actions.
Answer. The Federal Aviation Administration is responsible for
initiating enforcement actions based on the ValuJet accident, and is in
the final stages of their review.
rulemaking support
Question. Please describe the status of performance-based
rulemaking at OHMS.
Answer. Experience gained since 1990 when RSPA first issued a final
rule in Docket HM-181, Performance-Oriented Packaging Standards, shows
that the new performance standards are very effective in preventing the
release of hazardous materials under normal conditions of
transportation. Additionally, the rules are well understood by
packaging manufacturers, shippers, and carriers alike, thereby
resulting in an increased level of voluntary compliance by the affected
parties. Based upon its positive experience with respect to non-bulk
packaging standards, RSPA subsequently applied performance-based
standards to the use of intermediate bulk containers. Here, also, our
experience is very positive.
Currently, RSPA is in the process of developing a notice of
proposed rulemaking in Docket HM-220, Requirements for DOT
Specification Cylinders, that would apply where possible performance-
based standards in place of detailed specifications for design and
materials of construction that have been in place for most of this
century. We believe that the performance-based standards will result in
improved safety while allowing industry the opportunity to exercise
greater flexibility in adapting their products to new technological
developments.
Question. Could you prioritize your rulemakings in a manner similar
to the RAP process of OPS?
Answer. While OHMS does not employ a complex scoring system like
that used by OPS in its Risk Assessment Prioritization (RAP) process,
we have a dynamic process for allocating resources to particular
rulemaking activities which provides the flexibility we believe is
necessary to respond effectively to long-term safety initiatives, as
well as urgent safety issues like those revealed following the ValuJet
incident in 1996. Currently, OHMS reviews data contained in the
Hazardous Materials Incident Reporting System (HMIS), evaluates the
merits of petitions for rulemaking submitted by industry and other
interested persons, and periodically meets with the public in town
meetings and other outreach forums to hear concerns regarding our
management of the hazardous materials transportation safety program. We
assess all of that information in light of overall priorities
established by the Secretary and then rank each active rulemaking
initiative on a priority scale of 1 to 3. The results of our
prioritization of rulemakings is publicly communicated twice yearly
through the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and De-regulatory
Actions.
Question. How could OHMS make more effective use of negotiated
rulemakings?
Answer. Currently, OHMS is evaluating two rulemakings as candidates
for negotiated rulemaking: Cargo Tank Motor Vehicles in Liquefied
Compressed Gas Service (HM-225A) and Hazardous Materials Registration
and Fee Assessment (HM-208C). In both cases, there is no clear
consensus among RSPA, the regulated industry, and other affected
parties on how to achieve the desired outcomes in a manner that
achieves the greatest benefits. RSPA believes that the negotiated
rulemaking process may be a more appropriate forum for resolution of
the issues surrounding these two rules than the traditional approach to
rulemaking. OHMS is aware of the value of negotiated rulemakings and
will continue to assess future candidate rulemakings, as warranted.
Question. Please list all pending dockets and rulemakings before
the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety. Please specify the date of
origin of those regulatory dockets and their expected completion dates.
Answer. A listing of pending rulemaking actions for calendar year
1998 is provided as follows:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rulemaking project Summary Current status
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miscellaneous Amendments (HM- To make miscellaneous revisions to the HMR that are not Initiated: 5/93 NPRM published: 9/24/97 Final rule
166Y). significant or controversial. anticipated: 6/98.
Withdrawal of Radiation Removes requirement for establishment of an in-depth Direct-Final rule published: 9/2/97 Comment period closed: 9/
Protection Program (HM-169B). radiation protection program. 30/97 Adverse comments received. Final rule withdrawing
Direct-Final Rule published: 9/30/97 Final rule extending
compliance date published: 9/30/97 NPRM published: 9/30/97
Comment period closed: 2/13/98 Final rule anticipated: 9/98.
Hazardous Materials Yearly revision to the regulations to make non- Project identified: 10/97 Final rule anticipated: 9/98.
Regulations: Miscellaneous significant corrections of typos, spelling, etc.
Corrections (HM-189O).
Hazardous Materials To propose changes in the registration and fee assessment Project identified: 5/97 NPRM anticipated: 9/98--Considering
Registration and Fee requirements for persons engaged in the transportation negotiated rulemaking.
Assessment (HM-208C) of hazardous materials.
Safeguarding Food from Requests comments concerning options relative to SFTA: 11/90 ANPRM published: 2/20/91 NPRM published: 5/21/93
Contamination During regulations to ensure that food and other consumer Further action undetermined pending legislation to transfer
Transportation (FS-1). products are not made unsafe as a result of certain program.
transportation practices.
Tank Cars and Cargo Tank Motor To allow the use of signaling systems (sensors, alarms, Initiated: 2/92 NPRM published: 9/14/92 Final rule
Vehicles: Attendance electronic surveillance equipment) to satisfy the anticipated: 12/98.
Requirements (HM-212). attendance requirements unloading tanks cars and for
loading cargo tank motor vehicles.
Requirements for Cargo Tanks To make revisions and updates to the requirements for the Project Identified: 6/96 FHWA's OMC has lead. NPRM
(HM-213). manufacture, maintenance and use of specification cargo anticipated: 6/98.
tanks.
Harmonization with UN Revises the HMR by incorporating changes based on the Project identified: 10/97 NPRM anticipated: 6/98.
Recommendations, ICAO most recent changes to the UN Recommendations, ICAO, and
Technical Instructions, and IMO requirements.
IMO Code (HM-215C).
Specification 3AL Aluminum To revise Sec. 173.34 and Spec. 3AL to correct a Initiated: 7/87 Combined with HM-220.
Cylinders (HM-176A). specification deficiency related to an aluminum alloy.
Labeling Requirements for To propose to revise labeling requirements for Div. 6.1, Initiated: 6/93 ANPRM published: 11/8/93 NPRM anticipated: 7/
Poisonous Materials, PG III PG III materials consistent with international 98.
(HM-217). requirements.
Quantity Limitations on To review utility of quantity limitations and provisions ANPRM published: 4/6/84 Public hearing: 5/30/85 Future action
Aircraft (HM-192). for cargo compartments on aircraft. undetermined.
Shipping Paper Retention To implement self-executing requirement of HMTAA, Sec. HMTAA 1994 enacted: 8/29/94 Project initiated: 9/26/94
Requirements (HM-207B). 115, that shippers and carriers retain copies of Further action pending legislation revision.
shipping papers for 1 year after termination of
transportation.
Miscellaneous Amendments (HM- Addresses minor regulatory problems, petitions for Project identified: 10/97 NPRM anticipated: 6/98.
218). rulemaking, and elimination of certain exemptions.
Consolidation of To revise the requirements for reinspection, retesting, Initiated: 1/94 Outreach meeting: 2/18/95 NPRM anticipated: 9/
Specifications for High- and repairing cylinders and consolidate seamless 98.
Pressure Cylinders (HM-220). cylinder specifications.
Filling of Propane Cylinders Responds to petitions for rulemaking to allow propane Project initiated: 4/96 ANPRM published: 8/23/96 Termination
(HM-220C). cylinders to be filled by volume rather than by weight. of rulemaking action anticipated: 5/98.
Hazardous Materials Program To resolve regulatory jurisdictional issues regarding Project initiated: 1/96 ANPRM 7/29/96 Three public meetings
Issues--Jurisdiction (HM-223). applicability of the HMR. held. Further action to be determined.
Prohibition of Oxidizers on To prohibit the carriage of oxidizers on passenger Project identified: 6/96 NPRM published: 12/30/96 Final rule
Aircraft (HM-224A). carrying aircraft and in certain cargo holds on cargo on proper shipping name for oxygen generators published: 6/5/
aircraft. 97 Final rule correction published: 6/27/97 Effective Date:
8/7/97 SNPRM published: 8/20/97 Notice reopening of comment
period and public meeting published: 11/28/97 Comment period
closed: 2/13/98 Final Rule anticipated: undetermined.
Cargo tank motor vehicles in Final rule specifies conditions under which certain cargo Project identified: 11/96 I-FR published: 2/19/97 Three
Liquefied Compressed Gas tank motor vehicles may continue to be used on an public meetings or workshops held. Notice published: 6/6/97
Service (HM-225). interim basis, even if the emergency discharge control Authorization expires: 8/15/98 Final rule published: 8/18/97
system may not function as required by the regulations. effective date 8/16/97 Advisory notice published: 9/19/97
Final rule-response to petitions published: 12/10/97 Final
rule compliance date extended until: 7/1/99 Pending legal
actions.
Emergency Discharge Control Continuation of effort to resolve issues concerning cargo Project identified: 6/97 NPRM anticipated: 9/98--Considering
Systems, Hoses, and tank operations and safety equipment. negotiated rulemaking.
Attendance Requirements for
Cargo Tank Motor Vehicles (HM-
225A).
Infectious Substances: Proposes to revise the requirements for infectious Project identified: 1/97 NPRM anticipated: 6/98.
International Harmonization substances to harmonize the requirements with
and Bulk Packaging (HM-226). international standards and propose bulk packaging
requirements.
Revision and Consolidation of Joint petition by ATA and AAR to consolidate 49 CFR Parts Project identified: 6/96 Petition received: 1/98 NPRM
Requirements for Carriage By 174 and 177. anticipated: 10/98.
Railcar and Motor Vehicle (HM-
227).
Revision of the Requirements Addresses air related transportation issues including Project identified: 1/97 ANPRM anticipated: 10/98.
for Carriage by Aircraft (HM- quantity limits, obsolete regulations, and consolidation
228). of requirements.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Office of Hazardous Materials Safety continues to
identify situations where innovative procedures, cooperative
government-industry partnering, or the application of new technologies
would provide an appropriate venue for demonstrating new, effective
risk management techniques.
There are many differences between the Hazardous Materials and
Pipeline Safety programs and industries these two programs. The
hazardous materials industry consists of hundreds of thousands of
packaging manufacturers and carriers and shippers moving thousands of
different materials. The scope of the traffic is both national and
international, and often traverses densely populated areas via highway,
rail, water, air, and various intermodal combinations. Still, the
similarities between the programs and the industries suggest that
comparable risk management innovations may be applicable to both
programs.
The Hazardous Materials Safety Program is increasingly linking its
risk data collection and analysis functions with the risk management
practices best structured to yield cost-effective safety benefits.
Careful evaluation of HMIS incident data, for example, helps identify
where safety problems are concentrated and how regulations, training
materials, and enforcement can best be targeted to improve safety
performance.
This integration of risk analysis and risk management is being
further improved through the use of innovation, government-industry
cooperation, and updated technology. For example, we are presently
working closely with the Compressed Gas Association, Inc. to
consolidate and update the Hazardous Materials Regulations on cylinders
which have not been changed in 80 years. We are considering different
cylinder inspection and testing methods which have been recommended by
industry. Other appropriately designed demonstration projects could
facilitate the implementation of more cost-effective safety measures.
These ongoing risk management programs can be accommodated within our
existing budget request.
Question. What would be the benefits of participating in joint
government-industry task forces on reinventing OHMS? What would be the
benefits of additional outreach meetings?
Answer. We believe that OHMS is currently benefiting from its
participation in joint government-industry activities and numerous
outreach meetings. OHMS continues to build effective partnerships as an
integral part of its planning, design, delivery and feedback stages of
hazardous materials regulatory and outreach activities. This is
accomplished through activities such as the Cooperative Hazardous
Materials Enforcement Development (COHMED) conferences, multimodal
seminars, public meetings, publication of hazmat safety brochures,
safety alerts and newsletters, web site postings and educational
teleconferences.
OHMS works extensively with industry in developing performance-
based standards, and is exploring the possibility of entering into two
negotiated rulemakings. OHMS works extensively with the Hazardous
Materials Advisory Council and other interested organizations in
developing domestic regulations and in harmonizing international
standards with our domestic regulations.
Since March, 1997, OHMS has held nine public meetings with our
industry and public sector partners across the nation seeking industry
input into our regulatory and compliance programs. We plan to continue
these meetings in the future. In fact, OHMS expects that it will expand
its efforts to listen and respond to our stakeholders about how we can
ensure safe and environmentally sound transportation of hazardous
materials.
Question. What might a Hazardous Materials Advisory Committee
contribute to a reinvention process? How might it be used to help OHMS
reinvent itself? Improve its regulatory process? Strengthen its
outreach? Review its functions?
Answer. OHMS relies on the breadth of experience and expert advice
OHMS now receives from its extensive contact with individuals within
the hazardous materials transportation industry and with the varied
organizations that represent different segments of the industry, public
interest groups, the public sector, private citizens, and the
enforcement community. Through extensive contacts and public outreach
efforts, we benefit from and respond to the needs of our broad and
varied constituents. Because OHMS' clients range from large shippers
and carriers of industrial chemicals and petroleum products to
manufacturers of fireworks and cigarette lighters, and include
plumbers, hospitals, farmers, package manufacturers, cylinder
retesters, environmental interests, and the emergency response
community, we believe that use of an advisory committee would be most
useful if formed to focus on specific issues, such as compliance with
HM-200.
propane gas service emergency interim final rule
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. During investigation of a 1996 propane spill at Sanford,
North Carolina, it was learned that most cargo tanks used in liquefied
compressed gas service do not conform to safety regulations for
emergency discharge control systems that have been in place for over 50
years. The regulations require that the flow of lading must be stopped
automatically if hoses or piping are separated.
During the past year, RSPA and industry worked on the design,
development, testing, and evaluation of a number of new automatic shut-
off systems. Some of the new controls automatically stop the transfer
of product upon detection of a sudden drop of pressure in the hose or
other components of the discharge system. Other systems automatically
stop the transfer in the event of operator incapacitation, as
determined by the operator's failure to maintain radio communication
with discharge controls installed on the cargo tank.
RSPA is committed to working with the industry to develop a long-
term solution to this important safety issue. We share industry's
concern about the cost of compliance and need to find a one-time fix
that will not require multiple retrofits. However, there have been a
number of incidents where leaking propane trucks resulted in death,
injury, or substantial property damage. We believe these safety
concerns can be addressed in a cost-effective manner, and we look
forward to continuing our work with industry and other interested
parties.
Question. How many companies have actually had to hire an
additional driver to comply with RSPA's new safety regulation? Has RSPA
or the propane industry developed an estimate of the costs to the
industry to comply with this rulemaking?
Answer. This rule does not impose new requirements upon suppliers
of liquefied compressed gases (e.g., propane and anhydrous ammonia).
Rather, it gives temporary relief by providing alternatives to
compliance with longstanding requirements for emergency discharge
control systems on cargo tank motor vehicles. A key element of this
rule is the requirement for prompt closure of the main discharge valve
in event of an unintentional release of lading to the environment
during transfer. The rule provides three alternatives by which
operators may comply with that requirement: (1) use of excess flow
features incorporated into the discharge system, (2) positioning a
qualified person within arm's reach of the mechanical means of closure
throughout the unloading operation, and (3) use of a fully operational
remote-controlled system carried by a qualified person attending the
unloading operation. Other than a verbal account provided by one
propane dealer, RSPA has not been advised that other propane dealers
have actually hired an additional attendant in order to comply with
this performance standard.
Concerning the cost of this rule, RSPA determined that the vast
majority of propane deliveries may be accomplished by a single
attendant by equipping each cargo tank motor vehicle with a radio
controlled emergency shut-off system at an estimated cost of $250 to
$500. The first year aggregate cost to the regulated industry was
estimated by RSPA to range between $4.5 million and $9 million.
Question. What is your view on the creation of a joint government-
industry partnership to assess the adequacy of technologies available
to comply with new OHMS regulations in this area? What would be the
scope and nature of such a partnership? How much would it cost?
Answer. Since the 1996 propane spill in Sanford, North Carolina,
RSPA and FHWA have worked closely with both the National Propane Gas
Association and The Fertilizer Institute to develop a permanent
solution to this problem. We are also considering entering into a
negotiated rulemaking with interested parties on the issue. The
regulated industry has agreed that it is in 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 is considering entering
into a negotiated rulemaking or other government-industry collaborative
effort in revising the cargo tank requirements.
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. During the development of the final rules under Docket HM-
225 and the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking under Docket HM-
225A, RSPA, and commenters to the docket, identified several areas
where additional research and analysis may be needed. These include
attendance at the cargo tank and operation of the emergency discharge
control system upon the detection of small leaks that do not result in
the total separation of a hose or piping. The development of
performance criteria for automatic remote controlled shut-down systems
and independent approval/certification of such devices may also require
additional research and analysis.
hazmat training
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. 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 1997, OHMS headquarters and regional inspectors participated in
multi-day inspections with State personnel in California, Guam, Hawaii,
New Jersey, New York, and Texas. OHME inspectors also conducted
individual inspections with State inspectors in Arkansas, Florida,
Georgia, and Tennessee. OHMS inspectors provided training, information,
and/or assistance to the California Fire Marshall's Office, the Florida
Fire Marshall's Office, the Georgia Public Service Commission, the New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, the New Jersey State
Police, the New Jersey and New York Port Authorities, the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection, the Philadelphia Fire
Marshall's Office, and the Texas Environmental Enforcement Task Force.
OHMS inspectors also conducted a number of inspections based on
referrals or leads from State and municipal agencies, including the
California Fire Marshall's Office, the Florida Fire Marshall's Office,
and the Norfolk, VA, Fire Department.
Question. Please discuss the extent of interest that State and
local governments have expressed in the Hazardous Materials Specialist
Program. How many applications did you receive for the available
positions during fiscal year 1997 and thus far during fiscal year 1998?
What do you anticipate for fiscal year 1999?
Answer. OHMS received one application for the Hazardous Materials
Specialist Program in fiscal year 1998. We have made a concerted effort
to get enforcement and emergency response personnel interested in this
program by placing information about the program on the hazardous
materials website, by distributing brochures at seminars and
Cooperative Hazardous Materials Enforcement Development conferences,
and by targeted mailings to prospective candidate organizations. With
the application of the Hazardous Materials Regulations to all
intrastate commerce, effective in fiscal year 1999, we anticipate a
heightened interest in this program, which provides an outstanding
means to enhance Federal/State communication and cooperation.
Question. Will OHMS coordinate with the FRA Office of Rail Safety
in the development and dissemination of the planned compliance training
module for safe rail hazardous materials transportation?
Answer. Yes, OHMS is currently coordinating efforts to establish a
working group consisting of OHMS, FRA, industry, and State and local
enforcement agencies for the compliance training module for safe rail
hazardous materials transportation (MOD-6C).
information dissemination
Question. Please break out the subcategories of anticipated
spending by activity for the information dissemination contract
program.
Answer. The $520,000 requested for fiscal year 1999 to fund the
Information Dissemination program is broken down as follows:
--$315,000--Hazardous Materials Information Center. The Center
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 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.
--$100,000--COHMED program support costs. Funds Spring and Fall
conferences and the COHMED Reporter which provides for the
exchange of hazardous materials safety information among
States, local governments and industry on compliance and
enforcement issues. We will initiate a Pilot Project to
evaluate and determine shipper compliance with the Hazardous
Materials Regulations using State enforcement personnel. This
initiative will encourage States to enforce the Hazardous
Materials Regulations with respect to shippers. Most state and
local enforcement is directed at carriers.
--$35,000--Hazardous Materials Safety Publications. Funds customer
service outreach and safety information dissemination efforts
which include the revision and distribution of safety training
materials, fact sheets, newsletters and other safety-related
information; 400,000 distributed annually.
--$40,000--Hazardous Materials Specialist Internship Program (IPA)
support costs. Funds the six-week internship program for State
and local emergency response personnel.
--$30,000--Hazardous Materials Awareness Video--Rail Transportation.
Development and distribution of a safety training video to
assist States, local agencies and industry to comply with the
Hazardous Materials Regulations for Rail transportation.
shipper and carrier registration program
Question. Please provide a detailed breakout of the costs and
expenditures--on a contract basis--for the shipper and carrier
registration program for fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998.
Answer. The registration program is implemented through four
contractual arrangements. Forms and fees are submitted to a lockbox
bank, which deposits checks and credit card 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). RSPA is billed by FMS for services in excess of those customary
for recording financial information. In fiscal year 1997 those costs
amounted to $42,000. A similar expense is anticipated for fiscal year
1998.
VNTSC provides data management services, and operational support,
including a 24-hour 800-number service. 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 1998, $600,000 was budgeted for these services. The same amount
will be budgeted for these services in fiscal year 1999.
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 1998, $100,000 was budgeted for these services, and a
similar amount will be used to provide these services in fiscal year
1999.
The remaining $8,000 is budgeted for printing and distributing the
registration brochure and form, and other mailings.
Question. Please display the total in registration fees collected
for each of the last five fiscal years, broken out by use (emergency
response activities and administrative costs).
Answer. The information is provided as follows:
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUNDS RECEIPTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Processing fee Grants program
Registration year receipts receipts Total receipts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1993............................................................ $1,910,000 $9,550,000 $11,460,000
1994............................................................ 1,397,000 6,986,000 8,383,000
1995............................................................ 1,365,000 6,873,000 8,238,000
1996............................................................ 1,605,000 6,910,000 8,515,000
1997............................................................ 1,300,000 7,372,000 8,673,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. How much do you expect to collect during fiscal year
1998? During fiscal year 1999?
Answer. RSPA expects to collect $7.3 million in grants program fees
and $1.2 million in registration fees in fiscal year 1998 and, if a
rulemaking revising the registration requirements is implemented, $14.3
million in grants program fees and $1.2 million in registration fees in
fiscal year 1999.
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 339 cases
between June 1993 and September 1997 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 159 of these informal notices. Since the
beginning of fiscal year 1994, RSPA's Office of Hazardous Materials
Enforcement has initiated 53 enforcement actions which included
violations for failure to register.
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?
Answer. RSPA and FHWA's Office of Motor Carriers (OMC) continue to
work together to improve compliance with the registration program. For
example, OMC has incorporated the registration regulations into its
routine compliance review procedures and has issued at least 339
citations for 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 that are required to pay, 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 1995-96
registration cycle, estimated for the 1997-98 registration cycle, and
projected for the 1998-99 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 fiscal year 1997 the Office of Motor
Carriers opened 44 enforcement cases citing the registration
regulations as a result of 1,369 compliance review of hazardous
materials carriers, indicating a 97 percent compliance rate. During CY
1995 RSPA's Office of Hazardous Materials Enforcement conducted 586
inspections of hazardous materials shippers and initiated 18 cases that
involved the registration regulations. In CY 1996 610 inspections were
performed, resulting in 15 citations of the registration regulations.
In CY 1997 875 inspections were performed, resulting in 20 citations of
the registration regulations. These two sets of inspection results
indicate a compliance rate of 97 percent. We expect that the compliance
rate for 1998 will remain consistent with the previous years.
implementation of hazardous materials 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 and regulations.
How has the implementation provision shown to be beneficial, and how
well is the 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 has established its own toll-free number to handle the reporting
of possible violations in its respective enforcement area. RSPA's toll-
free number is a computer operated system that allows a caller to
transfer to any of the modal administrations without having to place
another call. 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 standard that calls requesting assistance
with the HMR will be returned within 24 hours.
RSPA receives more than 30,000 phone calls to the Hazardous
Materials Information Center (HMIC). Since callers can access the HMIC
either by a standard long distance telephone number or by dialing the
800 telephone number we can not 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 project that approximately
25,000 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. The Hazardous Materials Information
Center has been well received and is a very successful outreach and
customer service program.
Question. How much did it cost to establish that system? How is it
staffed?
Answer. The cost of establishing a system to report possible
violations of the hazardous materials transportation laws or
regulations was included in the overall costs of establishing the toll-
free telephone number for the Hazardous Materials Information Center.
Overall the cost of establishing the ``800'' telephone system was
minimal and is estimated to be less than $5,000.
As previously described, callers to the Hazardous Materials
Information Center can choose from a number of options, one of which is
to report violations. The Information Center now is staffed 8 hours a
day (9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. eastern time) by three trained and
knowledgeable specialists (2 contractors and 1 HM safety staffer) who
are responsible for responding to incoming calls requesting assistance
on and clarification of the Hazardous Materials Regulations.
Callers wishing to report violations can choose the appropriate
modal administration and are automatically transferred to that mode by
the automated system. No staffing for the transfer process is
necessary.
Question. How is the information that is gathered through that
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. 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 1998 and fiscal year 1999 costs
associated with this system?
Answer. RSPA has obligated the $315,000 enacted in fiscal year 1998
for the Hazardous Materials Information Center and is requesting the
same funding level for fiscal year 1999.
hazardous materials research
Question. Please distinguish between the Hazardous Materials
research and analysis function ($531,000 requested) and the Hazardous
Materials research and development function ($1,000,000 requested). Is
there any duplication of effort?
Answer. Our research and analysis request for operational funds
complements research and development funding. Research and analysis
funding has been used typically for shorter term projects in support of
daily operations, such as responding to immediate needs or developing
analysis requirements. Evaluating the causes of DOT 3Al cylinder
ruptures as failures occur, the analysis of testing methods related to
specific on-going proposals in the international standards arena, the
analysis of risks associated with transportation of hazardous materials
in aircraft cargo compartments, refinement of guidelines for acute
exposure to toxic chemicals, and investigation of automatic emergency
shutdown systems stemming from recent cargo tank incidents where they
failed to operate are examples of this category of projects.
Research and development funding is used typically for longer term,
planned research spanning a number of years. Examples include a
national assessment of transportation risk posed by designated
materials, development of a framework for use of risk management in
hazardous materials transportation, and research into the impact
resistance of cargo tank heads in accidents.
Research and analysis funds often support current rulemaking or
exemption requests, while research and development funds more often
support future rulemaking. Research and analysis projects may evolve
into longer term research and development efforts or transition from
feasibility studies to more elaborate research. Occasionally the
distinctions are not significant; however, efforts in either category
do not duplicate the other.
Question. Couldn't the research and analysis program be funded and
managed through the research and development program (particularly
within the research analysis subaccount)?
Answer. We believe the research and analysis program better matches
the short term, operational nature of the accounting class in which it
currently resides. Perhaps a more descriptive title, such as Program
Technical and Operational Analysis and Support, would help avoid
possible confusion between these efforts.
office of emergency transportation
Question. How much of your budget request supports maintenance of
the Crisis Management Center?
Answer. We try to annually provide approximately $40,000 for
routine maintenance in the Crisis Management Center (CMC). Funding for
routine maintenance provides for a labor contract to ensure that the
CMC equipment and related software packages receive scheduled
maintenance and repair to always be in working order. This, however,
does not provide for life cycle equipment replacement.
Question. How many times last year (calendar year 1997) was the
Center activated? For what reasons? How many times thus far this year
has the Center been activated? For what reasons?
Answer. The CMC is a multimodal response center fully activated
when a catastrophic disaster occurs. Less than catastrophic events
allow for partial activation of the CMC. The center is used daily in
some capacity by OET and DOT staff members for monitoring or responding
to crisis events. Luckily the U.S. did not experience catastrophic
hurricanes or earthquake disasters in 1997. However, the Crisis
Management Center (CMC) was partially activated three times in 1997 for
Typhoon Paka, the potential Amtrak strike and the potential American
Airlines Strike. Thus far in 1998, it was partially activated for
Operation Desert Thunder, a potential DOD miliary deployment due to
political tension in IRAQ. DOT supports DOD military deployments should
there be a military transportation shortfall. The center was also
activated for training sessions throughout the year, primarily for the
DOT Crisis Management Center Augmentation Cadre.
The OET staff and the DOT Emergency Coordinators must remain in a
state of readiness to respond to a crisis using the CMC.
Question. What support and coordination did the OET provide in the
wake of the February 1998 tornadoes in Florida? What other tornado
response activities has OET performed?
Answer. In response to the February 1998 tornadoes in Florida,
DOT's Regional Emergency Transportation Representative (RETREP) was
deployed to the Disaster Field Office to assist with completing damage
assessments from the DOT operating administrations, and responded to
requests for information from the Federal Coordinating Officer. OET
prepared situation reports for DOT senior staff members and FEMA
headquarters.
In a tornado or any serious natural disaster that affects the
transportation infrastructure, OET continually tracks and monitors
these disasters and ensures a timely response to all requests for
assistance. Situation reports are prepared and disseminated throughout
DOT and to the Federal response community. OET works with designated
points of contact in each Operating Administration to ensure the timely
collection and analysis of information, as well as overseeing the
normal day-to-day activities within the office which continue during
crisis events.
Question. Please provide a table indicating the amount appropriated
and the amount actually spent for the different major categories and
subcomponents of the Emergency Transportation budget for each of the
last three years. Please explain any deviation or reallocation of
funds.
Answer. The table below shows the three requested years.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation Obligation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1996:
Contract Programs: Crisis Response $250,000 $250,000
Management.........................
R&D: Operational Management Support. 50,000 81,000
Fiscal year 1997: \1\
Contract Programs: Crisis Response 200,000 221,211
Management.........................
R&D: Operational Management Support. 50,000 36,648
Fiscal year 1998:
Contract Programs: Crisis Response 200,000 200,000
Management.........................
R&D: Operational Management Support. 50,000 76,084
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Crisis Response Management program was increased by $21,211 to
provide for a new contract startup ($15,000) and to complete the
purchase of equipment for the OET staff office ($6,211). Funds were
transferred from available PC&B funding that resulted from a vacancy
in the office.
Question. Please specify what research and development activities
the Office of Emergency Transportation plans to accomplish with a
budget of $50,000.
Answer. Funds requested for research efforts in Emergency
Preparedness are for contract support for the development of new
training materials or concepts, for research on transportation
vulnerability studies for the Central U.S. Earthquake Consortium and
the Western States Seismic Policy Council, and for contract support for
the development of new systems to support our NATO/US Classified
Document system and the keyword reference system. In addition, research
is performed to identify new data sources for use in the CMC. Question.
For the Crisis Response Management program, please provide a breakdown
of how $200,000 was used in fiscal year 1998 and how $200,000 will be
used in fiscal year 1999.
Answer. Funding breakdown follows. Crisis Response Management:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-------------------------
1998 1999
estimate request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regional Team Trng............................ $69,500 $89,000
RETCO Support................................. 63,000 63,000
Transp. Policy Doc............................ 20,000 20,000
CMC Maintenance/repair (Labor contract)....... 47,500 28,000
-------------------------
Total................................... 200,000 200,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
office of research and technology
personnel and administrative expenses
Question. Please describe the responsibilities of each of the 13
FTP's in the R&T program.
Answer. The responsibilities of each of the 13 full-time employees
in the R&T program are as follows:
One Associate Administrator--manages the Office of Research,
Technology and Analysis
One Deputy Associate Administrator--manages the Office, with a
focus on university research and education programs
One Administrative Management and Program Assistant--conducts
Office administration functions
One Transportation Specialist--coordinates research and development
activities within the Department and with other Federal agencies and
the White House
One Transportation Specialist--coordinates and facilitates public-
private partnerships
One Director, Transportation Safety Institute, Oklahoma City, OK--
manages TSI
One Secretary, Transportation Safety Institute, Oklahoma City, OK--
staff assistant to Director
Two University Program Specialists--manage University
Transportation Centers and University Research Institutes Programs
One General Engineer--supports National Science and Technology
Council (NSTC)/Research and Technology Coordinating Council (RTCC)/R&D
planning/Small Business Innovation Research Program
One General Engineer--manages NSTC/DOT inter/multi-modal
transportation R&D programs
One General Engineer--DOT international transportation science and
technology coordination and assessments, DOT strategic planning and
performance measurement
One Program Analyst--NSTC/DOT/RSPA R&D web development and DOT
Technology Transfer/Sharing and Outreach Programs.
Question. The Federal Highway Administration budget includes
$10,000,000 for a new research initiative called the joint partnership
for advanced vehicles, components, and infrastructure. FHWA has
indicated that this program and the associated funding will be
administered by RSPA. Will this program be administered by the Office
of Research and Technology? Will the program be administered within the
current staffing level, or will some of the $10,000,000 request be
utilized for PC&B expenses? If so, how much?
Answer. The joint partnership for advanced vehicles, components and
infrastructure, also known as the ``advanced vehicle program,'' will be
co-managed by the Departments of Energy and Transportation. Within the
Department of Transportation, RSPA's Office of Research, Technology and
Analysis will administer the program within its current staffing level.
Some of the $10,000,000 will be used for program support and travel
expenses. Based on the current level of support for the program managed
by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, approximately
$225,000 will be spent by DOT in program support and travel. This
assumes that the Department of Energy will provide the same level of
funding for program support.
joint partnership for advanced vehicles, components, and infrastructure
Question. Since the program's establishment in fiscal year 1993,
seven regional consortia have partnered with the Department of Defense
Advanced Research Program Agency (DARPA) on the Electric and Hybrid
Vehicle Program, which is being transferred to the Departments of
Energy and Transportation as a new advanced vehicle program. Who are
the seven regional consortia? Please list the complete memberships of
each.
Answer. The seven regional consortia are:
Calstart--Burbank, CA
Hawaii Electric Vehicle Demonstration Project (HEVDP)--Honolulu, HI
Electricore--Indianapolis, IN
Mid Atlantic Regional Consortium for Advanced Vehicles (MARCAV)--
Johnstown, PA
Northeast Alternative Vehicle Consortium (NAVC)--Boston, MA
Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD)--Sacramento, CA
Southern Coalition for Advanced Transportation (SCAT)--Atlanta, GA
The consortia's membership fluctuates on a periodic basis. The
following information provides a list of member companies under each
consortium in 1997.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12SBMT.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12SBMT.009
Question. Please provide the office, contact name(s), and phone
numbers at the Department of Energy for the coordinating officials for
this project.
Answer. The coordinating officials for the advanced vehicle program
at the Department of Energy are provided as follows:
--Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Transportation Technologies, Thomas Gross, (202)
586-8027;
--Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Office of
Transportation Technologies, Office of Heavy Vehicle
Technologies, Director, James J. Eberhardt, (202) 586-9837; and
--Office Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Office of
Transportation Technologies, Office of Heavy Vehicle
Technologies, Heavy Engine Technologies, Program Manager,
William Siegel, (202) 586-2457.
Question. Fiscal year 1999 would be the first year of a multi-year
program in DOT and DOE. Both DOT and DOE are requesting $10,000,000,
for a total of $20,000,000 in federal funds, and industry is expected
to at least match this level. Please detail the agreements now in hand
for industry matching funds for this program.
Answer. Because the program has not yet been transferred from the
Department of Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency to DOT and DOE,
neither DOT or DOE have any agreements in hand with the consortia for
matching funds for the advanced vehicle program. DARPA, however, is
currently managing the consortia using cooperative agreements or other
transactions authority. DOE and DOT plan to use the same approach with
each consortium and will require authorization for other transactions
authority for this program.
Question. This would be the first year of a multi-year program.
What first-year obligations can reasonably be expected? Will funds be
allocated as discretionary grants, through research contracts with
Volpe or private contractors, or will they be spent in-house?
Answer. Both the Departments of Energy and Transportation
anticipate obligating all appropriated funds in the first year of the
program.
The funds will be allocated through a competitive, peer-reviewed
selection process currently employed by DARPA in its Electric and
Hybrid Vehicle Program with the seven regional consortia. Hence, the
funds will not be allocated as discretionary grants, through research
contracts with Volpe, or be spent in-house.
Concept papers based on broad performance guidelines will first be
solicited from the eligible regional consortia. From a technical review
of these papers, DOT and DOE will ask the consortia to submit full
proposals for those concept papers that are ranked the highest. Awards
for funding will be made based on the merit of the full proposals.
Funding will be awarded through cooperative agreements and other
transactions authority, which operates outside the Federal Acquisition
Regulations and involves payments based on cost-shared accomplishment
of agreed-upon milestone objectives. Using other transactions
authority, for example, will enable DOT, DOE and the consortia to
continue this highly efficient and effective process.
Question. Why is the emphasis of this program on the development,
demonstration and deployment of ``medium and heavy-duty trucks, buses,
and trains?''
Answer. The Advanced Vehicle Program (AVP) will focus on the
development, demonstration and deployment of technologies for advanced
vehicles, components and infrastructure for medium and heavy-duty
vehicles to avoid duplication with other Federal programs. Emphasis on
these areas is needed to convert and apply valuable gains in advanced
vehicle development for military use under the DARPA program to
vehicles for non-military and commercial use. As such, the AVP will
complement the activities of the Partnership for a New Generation of
Vehicles (PNGV), a program led by the Department of Commerce, with the
U.S. Council for Automotive Research, primarily focusing on 5-passenger
sedans (light-duty vehicles). In addition, the proposed AVP will serve
different sectors of the transportation system, and will involve
partnering with a broader mix of U.S. companies and research
institutions.
Question. Could costs associated with the development,
demonstration and deployment of magnetic levitation train technology be
funded through this program?
Answer. The proposed Advanced Vehicle Program does not proscribe or
mandate specific technologies. The Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency has funded rail projects under its Electric and Hybrid Vehicle
Technology Program, such as advanced turbines and flywheel batteries.
Under the Advanced Vehicle Program, the Departments of Transportation
and Energy will consider development, demonstration and deployment of
advanced vehicle technologies for medium and heavy-duty vehicles,
including but not limited to trucks, buses, trains, and ships.
Question. Absent Congressional earmarking, how will decisions be
made regarding allocation of funds? What level of input in the
decision-making process will the industry partners have?
Answer. To stimulate innovation and ensure broad involvement of
industry, state and local governments, and the research community, the
program will continue the current bottom-up approach to project
selection, in which all of the eligible consortia and their members
drive the research agenda by providing initial concept papers for
proposed areas of research and development, deployment and
demonstration established by DOT and DOE. DOT and DOE will conduct a
technical review and ranking of the concept papers, soliciting full
proposals for the highest-ranked submissions. The program will use a
peer-review and competitive selection process, much like that of the
DARPA Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Technology program. Awards for
funding will be based on the full proposals submitted.
Question. What is the expected life of this program? Please break
out the assumed funding levels (DOT, DOE, industry match, total) for
fiscal years 1999 through 2003.
Answer. The Advanced Vehicle Program, as currently envisioned, will
continue throughout the duration of the ISTEA reauthorization period.
Extension of the program beyond that time will be considered as
appropriate. The fiscal year 1999 level for this program is $10
million. Outyear funding decisions are made on an annual basis. The
current assumption on matching shares is that DOE intends to seek
similar levels to DOT. The consortia will be required to continue
matching the federal funding at a minimum ratio of 1:1.
1997 omnibus funding
Question. An amount of $2,500,000 was provided for RSPA to conduct
a transportation system vulnerability assessment. Was that assessment
completed? Please summarize the findings (or include the executive
summary verbatim if the report is complete).
Answer. RSPA and the Department's Office of Intelligence and
Security (S-60) are jointly conducting the vulnerability assessment of
the U.S. surface transportation system. A report that summarizes the
findings of the Assessment, identifies key threats and vulnerabilities,
and recommends effective countermeasures to protect the U.S. is
expected to be complete in July 1998. The scope of the study covers the
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 security issues at a more in-
depth level and to develop a common methodology for assessing the
vulnerability of the system.
In addition, this effort involves several directed studies to
evaluate the vulnerabilities to specific transportation systems and
modes. The assessment provides information necessary to develop
policies to protect surface modes of transportation from both physical
and information-based threats. These studies will also be completed in
July 1998.
Question. An amount of $500,000 was provided for a contract with
the National Academy of Sciences for an advisory committee on surface
transportation security. What are the accomplishments of this advisory
committee? Please detail the committee's actions, schedule, and any
recommendations made thus far.
Answer. The National Advisory Committee on Surface Transportation
Security will meet for the first time in May 1998. The Committee is
being created by the National Research Council's Commission on
Engineering and Technical Systems (CETS) (i.e., National Materials
Advisory Board) with participation from the Commission on Physical
Sciences, Mathematics and Application (e.g., Computer Science and
Telecommunications Board) and the Transportation Research Board (TRB).
DOT (i.e., RSPA Administrator and Office of the Secretary, Director,
Office of Intelligence and Security (S-60)) will be liaison members to
the Committee.
The Committee will produce a report in April 1999 that will assist
DOT in identifying defense, mitigation and forensic processes and
technologies that could improve surface transportation security and in
developing a research agenda and strategy to develop these
capabilities. Because of the immense scale and complexity of the
surface transportation system and the many potential areas of
vulnerability, a key component of the Committee's activities is to
determine promising policies, best practices and technologies that
could be affordable and acceptable to the public and private owners,
operators, and users of the system. The report will also assist DOT in
developing support for and in defining the elements of a longer-term
strategy.
research and technology
Question. What role does the RSPA Research and Technology Office
have in coordinating transportation research and development across the
federal government? 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. As Executive Secretary of the National Science and
Technology Council Committee on Technology and Executive Director of
its Subcommittee on Transportation Research and Development (R&D), RSPA
coordinates and facilitates applied research and technology activities
of Federal agencies participating on the Committee and its Subcommittee
on Transportation R&D. In addition, RSPA chairs the Department's
Research and Technology Coordinating Council (RTCC). Similar to its
role in the NSTC, as Chair of the RTCC, RSPA ensures cross modal
collaboration on the Department's research and technology programs and
activities.
The process of proposing, approving, planning and deploying
research programs and projects and disseminating the results are
elements of a government-wide strategic planning process for
transportation R&D. The following outlines the comprehensive strategic
planning process that RSPA promotes for the Department and the Federal
Government:
Strategic Direction
In fiscal year 1998, RSPA is leading the development of a National
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; and (3)
provides strategic direction for transportation R&D to address those
needs. The Strategy expands on the Federal Strategy developed in fiscal
year 1997 and includes broad participation of State and local
governments, industry, academia and other transportation users and
operators.
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 transportation
R&D planning, programming and budgeting activities for Federal agencies
and DOT operating administrations.
Planning, Programming and Budgeting
Interagency plans (Transportation Technology Plan and
Transportation Strategic Research Plan) will provide the mechanism for
transportation system-level R&D planning across the Federal Government
and with State and local governments, industry and academia to
implement the Strategy.
A DOT Transportation R&D Plan will expand on the ISTEA-mandated
Surface Transportation R&D Plans, to include all modes of civil and
commercial transportation. The DOT Transportation R&D Plan replaces the
Surface Transportation R&D Plan and will focus on major multi-agency,
multi-modal and modal initiatives that support the five strategic goals
of the DOT Strategic Plan.
These two planning efforts will be used by Federal 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 its programs. Procedurally, this step is unchanged.
Substantively, the Strategy and implementing Plans help all agencies
and operating administrations develop partnerships, where appropriate,
with other Federal organizations, state and local governments, academia
and industry to address national transportation goals of safety,
mobility, economic growth, environmental quality and national security.
This will help focus Federal R&D programs, minimize duplication, and
foster 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 being encouraged to perform self assessments of
their transportation R&D programs using recognized Federal (i.e.,
President's Quality Award criteria), industry (i.e., Malcolm Baldrige
criteria) or international standards (i.e., ISO 9000).
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, DOT has limited data on other Nations' R&D and its
potential application to U.S. transportation needs.
In fiscal year 1998, RSPA is completing a comprehensive
``Transportation System Vulnerability Assessment'' and a Surface
Transportation R&D Assessment. The Transportation System Vulnerability
Assessment provides information on key vulnerabilities in the Nation's
surface transportation system and necessary to recommend
countermeasures to make the Nation's transportation system more secure
from both physical and information-based threats. The Surface
Transportation R&D Assessment examines the research, technologies and
related programs aimed at improving surface transportation
infrastructure monitoring, maintenance and rapid renewal, and
recommends next steps for research and technology to help the Nation
address infrastructure issues.
In fiscal year 1998-1999, RSPA will conduct the first assessment of
international R&D needs, trends, capabilities, and opportunities. The
assessment will include an overview of international R&D, research
needed to maintain the competitiveness of U.S. transportation
industries as well as opportunities for international cooperation and
technology exchange. The assessment will be done with participation of
all appropriate Federal agencies and DOT operating administrations.
This data will be used extensively in strategy development and in
planning, program and budget development.
Peer and Independent Reviews
In the past, the Federal Government has 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. Examples of these types of
reviews include: (1) the Congressionally directed National Academy of
Sciences (NAS) ``Advisory Committee on Surface Transportation
Security'' (ACSTS), a Committee of experts who will provide independent
inputs to DOT on ways to improve the security of the U.S.
transportation system; and (2) the National Research Council (NRC) and
the Transportation Research Board (TRB) Committee on the Federal
Transportation R&D Strategic Planning Process. As in fiscal year 1997
and 1998, the NRC/TRB Committee will review the Strategy implementation
activities across the government for the NSTC and DOT.
Dissemination of Program/Project Results
The RSPA fiscal year 1998 funds have been used to initiate the
development of a DOT R&D Tracking System to provide accurate
information about DOT R&D project status and accomplishments.
Currently, there is no such system. This will enable the DOT to provide
more complete and accurate inputs into internal and external data
calls, including the Federal-wide R&D tracking system (Research and
Development in the United States (RaDiUS) database), and enable more
informed decision making within the Department and Federal Government
on transportation R&D issues.
In addition, RSPA allocates funding to maintain a National
Transportation S&T Homepage for the NSTC and the Department that
provides a one-stop resource for information on Federal, national and
international transportation planning, research, technology, and
education activities. In fiscal year 1999, the Homepage will be
expanded 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).
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 that you propose to fund during
fiscal year 1999.
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.
Because of RSPA's intermodal responsibilities, it has taken the lead in
proposing such a research program for the Department in the
Administration's NEXTEA proposal. The Intermodal Transportation
Research and Development Program under NEXTEA will fund cross-cutting,
intermodal and long-term research. Although specific projects have not
yet been identified, previous work by the NSTC and DOT RTCC has led to
a consensus on six general areas of cross-cutting and intermodal
transportation research and development. These areas include: (1)
environment and energy; (2) human performance and behavior; (3)
computing, information and communications; (4) advanced materials; (5)
sensing and measurement; and (6) tools for transportation modeling,
design and construction. These areas have been identified through a
transportation R&D strategic planning process, as described in a
previous response, that RSPA has been leading for the NSTC and the
Department.
Of these six enabling research areas, funding in fiscal year 1999
will support those multi-agency or multi-modal projects that are
expected to yield the highest benefit. Potential areas are described in
more detail below:
Environment and energy.--The transportation sector accounts for
about one-third of domestic contributions to greenhouse gas emissions
and is the fastest growing contributor both domestically and
internationally. Transportation sector impacts upon the health of soils
and aquatic resources, as well as habitat disruption, are often
irreversible, with unknown long-term ecological consequences. The land
use decisions made by governments and individuals are long lasting and
to a large extent determined by the availability of inexpensive
transportation choices.
Finding solutions that enhance the sustainability of transportation
systems requires applications of technology as well as an understanding
of the behavioral and social sciences. Research is needed to determine
the technology necessary to design transportation systems and
development patterns that provide access to economic, social, and
recreational opportunities such that permanent (i.e., unsustainable)
environmental degradation is minimized or avoided.
Human Performance and Behavior.--Human performance-related problems
play a significant role in the safety of U.S. transportation systems.
In particular, given that approximately 70 to 90 percent of
transportation crashes involve human error, there is no doubt that
reducing or mitigating human error will reduce the human and financial
costs associated with crashes. Human factors provide a way to address
issues, particularly in regard to safety, that affect the millions of
people in transportation. As such, research related to human
performance and behavior (e.g., fatigue) and to the application and
integration of advanced instructional technologies could dramatically
enhance transportation system safety, efficiency and effectiveness. The
primary goal of human performance and behavior research in
transportation is to ensure that transportation systems are tailored to
account for user needs, capabilities, and limitations. This will lead
to a transportation system that adapts to the human as opposed to the
human adapting to the system.
Computing, Information and Communications.--Worldwide, information
technologies are being integrated into virtually all elements of the
transportation system to enable greater efficiency, safety, and
improved performance. Effective and rapid exploitation of these
innovations will require a substantial and ongoing enabling research
and development effort associated with system concepts,
characterization of alternative configurational and technical choices,
and development and harmonization of a wide range of standards.
Working with the software industry and the transportation
community, DOT will conduct research to identify areas of particular
concern and develop guidelines and tools for maximizing system
robustness. In addition, coordinated Federal research will be
conducted, drawing extensively on expertise from non-transportation
applications, to characterize primary technical areas of vulnerability
and develop guidelines and tools to provide users with high levels of
security, reliability, and restorability.
Question. Please give specific examples of RSPA's successes in
intermodal research and in cross-cutting research. Please discuss how
those research results were used.
Answer. RSPA has worked extensively to promote intermodal and
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 Federal agencies and
DOT operating administrations. In addition, research cost savings have
resulted from more sophisticated program design, planning 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 for the Department. 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 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 (SBIR) Program
RSPA has taken a leadership role in managing the DOT SBIR Program
to promote the involvement of small businesses in developing innovative
multi-modal solutions to transportation challenges. As part of its
participation in the DOT SBIR Program, RSPA awarded one SBIR contract
in 1997 on the use of natural basalt to reinforce concrete, which has
great potential for markedly cutting transportation system installation
costs for highways, airports, and terminal construction. Proposals for
innovations in nanotechnology and transportation system security were
included in the fiscal year 1998 solicitation, and are now under
evaluation.
Partnership with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)
RSPA also served as the focal point for interactions with DARPA 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.
RSPA's Volpe National Transportation Systems Center performs cross-
cutting research for all modal administrations and other
Federal agencies, such as the Department of Defense
For example, the Volpe Center supports the Postal Service in its
management of one of the largest motor vehicle fleets in the world. As
part of this support, in fiscal year 1998 the Center distributed the
Environmental Management Information Systems (EMIS) Mobile System
Software to the Postal Service's 100 field environmental coordinators.
The EMIS Mobile System provides ``Office-on-the-Road'' automation for
these environmental program supervisors nationwide. The software was
developed for the USPS Office of Environmental Management Policy, which
develops policies and programs to assist with federal, state, and local
environmental compliance.
In addition, a core group of individuals at the Volpe Center
recently formed a team to identify future utilization of this
technology, as well as any impediments to its implementation. Examples
of projects at the Volpe Center involving GPS include development of
GPS coverage models and outage reporting systems for civilian and
military aviators, use of GPS for vessel tracking and navigation in
harbors and waterways, human factors studies of GPS applications,
development of GPS integrity monitoring algorithms for aviation,
investigation of GPS interference sources and development of detection
and monitoring methods, application of GPS to Intelligent
Transportation Systems (ITS), and use of GPS for positive train
control, hazardous materials tracking, and tracking of supplies in
support of military operations.
Question. The Committee directed the initiation of appropriate
mechanisms to ensure that the Department's Research and Development
management and strategic planning process is broadened to include more
input from the States, private sector, and general public. How was that
directive implemented?
Answer. RSPA's efforts to establish a government-wide strategic
planning process for transportation R&D has enabled broader
participation by public and private sectors in the Nation's science and
technology policy and priority-setting process. In particular, RSPA, in
its role in the NSTC Committee on Technology and its Subcommittee on
Transportation Research and Development (R&D), is partnering with the
National Governors' Association, the State Science and Technology
Institute, the Civil Engineering Research Foundation, the National
Research Council/Transportation Research Board, American Society of
State Highway Officials, Surface Transportation Policy Project,
National Cargo Security Council, professional societies, university
transportation centers, and other state and local government,
university and industry organizations to expand the Federal
Transportation Science and Technology Strategy into a national
Strategy. These activities include workshops and outreach events for
the NSTC and Department to expand the Strategy as well as to define
partnerships and enabling research to meet national transportation
goals.
In support of the NSTC Committee on Technology U.S. Innovation
Partnership, RSPA is leading efforts in the Department to enhance
Federal-State collaboration to meet science and technology policy
goals. Specifically, RSPA is targeting Departmental technology-based
transportation initiatives that could benefit through improved
coordination with and among the States. Potential initiatives include
the partnership for monitoring, maintenance and rapid renewal of
physical infrastructure and partnership for a national intelligent
transportation infrastructure. Efforts are underway between the
National Governors' Association and DOT to work closer with the States
in refining strategies to implement these and other regional and
national initiatives.
Other mechanisms that RSPA has employed to enhance the
participation of state and local governments, universities, and
industry organizations include creating a National Transportation
Science and Technology Homepage and forum capability. The Homepage is a
one-stop resource for information on national and international
transportation planning, research, technology, and education
activities. The forum capability enables the exchange of information
among the private and public sectors on transportation-related S&T
issues of interest to DOT and the Nation. Emphasis in fiscal year 1998
is to provide additional online access to the transportation-related
R&D activities of other Federal agencies, DOT, colleges and
universities, state and local governments, industry and other private
and public sector entities.
In fiscal year 1999, RSPA will expand the National Transportation
S&T Homepage to provide a Science and Technology Forecasting
Capability. This effort will expand the initial capabilities of an
electronic consultation tool to allow the transportation research and
development community repetitive, cyclical consultation with a range of
technology experts (Delphi forecasting). The responses will provide a
baseline for future forecasts and for transportation R&D planning.
Question. Have you decided to open to the public more of the
meetings of the various research coordinating committees and council
meetings? If so, how will this be accomplished?
Answer. Meetings of the National Science and Technology Council
(NSTC) Committee on Technology, its Subcommittee on Transportation R&D
and the DOT Research and Technology Coordinating Council (RTCC) are not
open to the public. The NSTC Committee on Technology and its
Subcommittee on Transportation R&D are interagency forums for
development and coordination of science and technology policies within
the Executive Branch. The DOT RTCC serves a similar function within the
Department. Meetings of the NSTC and RTCC are Government-only meetings,
involving review of the Administration's science and technology policy
goals and budgetary and predecisional information that cannot be
disclosed to the public.
While the Committee and Council meetings are not open to the
public, initiatives that stem from these meetings are carried out in
cooperation with the public and private sectors. For example, the NSTC
Committee on Technology and the National Governors' Association are co-
sponsoring a meeting in May 1998 to help the Federal Government assess
and expand the Transportation Science and Technology Strategy, released
by the NSTC last year, into a national strategy. The meeting will
include policymakers from state and local governments, Federal agency
officials, industry, and university researchers. Inputs from the
meeting will be used by the NSTC in developing the National
Transportation Science and Technology Strategy.
Question. The Committee encouraged RSPA to give favorable
consideration to requests for university transportation centers grants
from the National Center for Advanced Transportation Technology (NCATT)
at the University of Idaho. How did you respond?
Answer. RSPA has received no such requests from the National Center
for Advanced Transportation Technology (NCATT) at the University of
Idaho, but continues to list NCATT as a National University
Transportation Center in all literature describing the program.
new contract authority program for intermodal transportation research
Question. Please update the Committee on the status of the proposed
Intermodal Transportation Research and Development Program (ITRD). What
is the current status of the legislation in the House and Senate
authorizing committees?
Answer. The Administration's NEXTEA proposal would establish an
intermodal/multimodal transportation research and development program
at $10 million per year. The Senate bill (S. 1173), which was passed on
March 12, 1998, would establish a multimodal transportation R&D program
at $2.5 million per year. The House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee bill (H.R. 2400 (BESTEA)), which was passed on April 1, 1998,
does not contain such a provision.
The proposed Intermodal Transportation Research and Development
Program is currently in conference by the House and Senate authorizing
committees.
Question. Please break out the approximate funding levels of the
planned activities for the ITRD Program (pages 85 through 88 of the
budget justification), assuming a funding level of $15,000,000, as
proposed in the administration's NEXTEA legislation. Please provide the
analytical basis for the amount requested for each of those study
areas. Please also make the same allocation break out assuming a total
fiscal year 1999 funding level for this new program of $5,000,000, and
of $2,000,000.
Answer. The Intermodal Transportation Research and Development
(R&D) Program, as proposed in RSPA's fiscal year 1999 budget request
and in the Administration's NEXTEA legislation, will focus on six areas
of enabling research: (1) environment and energy; (2) human performance
and behavior; (3) computing, information and communications; (4)
advanced materials; (5) sensing and measurement; and (6) tools for
transportation modeling, design and construction. Specific activities
under these enabling research areas have not yet been identified. They
as well as funding levels will be determined through a competitive,
peer-reviewed selection process.
fiscal year 1999 appropriations request
Question. Please break out the amount requested for each of the R&T
activities for fiscal year 1999 that would be funded with the
$2,410,000 requested (pages 81 through the top of 85 of the budget
justification). Please provide the analytical basis for the amount
requested for each of those study areas.
Answer. Estimated funding levels for RSPA's R&D planning and
management activities in fiscal year 1999 are as follows:
Fiscal year
Activity 1999
Strategic planning and system assessment...................... $850,000
Coordination and facilitation................................. 1,210,000
Intermodal and multimodal research and education.............. 350,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 2,410,000
RSPA estimates slight increases from the fiscal year 1998 levels in
each of these areas based on the following:
Strategic planning and system assessment activities being conducted
in fiscal year 1998 will continue in fiscal year 1999 with the same
level of effort. Emphasis in fiscal year 1999 will be on expanding the
Federal transportation R&D strategic planning process to a national
level, and developing the second Transportation Technology and
Strategic Research Plans, based on extensive outreach conducted in
fiscal year 1998. In addition, RSPA will conduct the first assessment
of international R&D needs, trends, capabilities, and opportunities in
fiscal year 1999. While the assessment is scheduled to begin in fiscal
year 1998, the bulk of the work will be done in fiscal year 1999.
For research and technology coordination and facilitation, emphasis
in fiscal year 1999 will be on enlisting nation-wide support for
technology partnerships and high-priority enabling research. To
accomplish this, RSPA will be conducting and engaging in workshops and
public outreach events across the country. RSPA also will enhance its
Internet capabilities to provide the transportation community with
complete and accurate information on the Department's and Federal
Government's transportation research and technology initiatives and
activities.
The funding levels for Intermodal/Multimodal Transportation
Research and Education will be increased primarily to provide
additional support of the Small Business Innovation Research Program.
Question. Please provide 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 fiscal year 1996, 1997 and 1998 budgets provided
needed funding to support an 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, 1997 and
1998:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Activity Appropriated Obligated
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1996:
Strategic planning.................. $416,000 $416,000
Research and technology coordination 979,000 979,000
and partnerships...................
Intermodal and multi-modal research 471,000 471,000
and education......................
-------------------------------
Total............................. 1,866,000 1,866,000
===============================
Fiscal year 1997:
Strategic planning.................. 825,000 825,000
Research and technology coordination 1,110,000 1,110,000
and partnerships...................
Intermodal and multi-modal research 295,000 295,000
and education......................
-------------------------------
Total............................. 2,230,000 2,230,000
===============================
Fiscal year 1998: \1\
Strategic planning.................. 725,000 725,000
Research and technology coordination 1,025,000 875,000
and partnerships...................
Intermodal and multi-modal research 300,000 200,000
and education......................
-------------------------------
Total............................. 2,050,000 1,800,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Obligations as of April 30, 1998.
Question. On page 77 of your fiscal year 1999 budget justification
submission, RSPA is asking for an increase of $360,000 for R&D planning
and management. What was the empirical basis for this increase?
Answer. In fiscal year 1999, RSPA is requesting $2.41 million for
its research and technology planning and development activities, an
increase of $360,000 over fiscal year 1998 levels. This increase in
funding will be used predominantly to strengthen and broaden the
federal strategic planning process to a national level, as recommended
by the National Research Council Committee on the Federal
Transportation R&D Strategic Planning Process. To do this, RSPA will
lead several initiatives, such as Government-wide and multi-agency
planning efforts, workshops and public outreach events aimed at
enlisting support for technology partnerships and developing detailed
plans for high-priority enabling research to accomplish national
transportation goals.
Question. How much is requested to prepare and distribute the
Annual Surface Transportation R&D plan?
Answer. RSPA is requesting $150,000 in fiscal year 1999 to prepare
and distribute the DOT Transportation Research and Development (R&D)
Plan. In fiscal year 1998, RSPA is leading the development of the first
DOT Transportation R&D Plan, which builds upon the surface
transportation R&D plan. To address the Department's strategic goals,
identified in the DOT Strategic Plan, from a long-term and system-level
perspective, the DOT Transportation R&D Plan must expand beyond surface
transportation. Surface transportation R&D is a major element of the
DOT Transportation R&D Plan, but other modes of transportation, such as
aviation and maritime, play an integral role in the Nation's surface
transportation system and need to be included in the Plan, especially
the interfaces among the modes.
university grants program
Question. What are the current challenges and opportunities facing
the University Grants Program? How do you ensure that only high
priority projects are funded at these institutions?
Answer. The greatest challenge facing the University Grants Program
is the reauthorization of the University Transportation Centers and
University Research Institutes programs. Changes in program structure,
funding levels, or other requirements could all have serious impacts on
the ability of individual institutions to participate in the program.
Reauthorization also provides the greatest opportunity for enhancing
the University Grants Program. The reissuance, and possible
recompetition, of the grants will enable RSPA to adopt changes that
will reduce paperwork while increasing accountability. By establishing
relevant, quantifiable performance measures for the university grants,
RSPA will be better able to assess their effectiveness, both
individually and collectively.
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,
priorities of matching fund sponsors, 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 review by academic peers or
other experts in the field to ensure that they advance the body of
knowledge or otherwise contribute to the advancement of 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. RSPA took over management of the University Transportation
Centers and University Research Institutes Programs in 1992. Since that
time, RSPA has required each Center and Institute to prepare an annual
plan setting forth the major activities by which the Center or
Institute intends to achieve progress toward the mission and goals of
the overall program. After review by DOT staff, the plan is discussed
with the Center or Institute, necessary changes are agreed upon, and
the plan becomes the basis for both award of the grant and evaluation
of the grantee's performance.
RSPA also requires each Center and Institute to submit an annual
report describing how well they implemented the previous year's annual
plan. This is also reviewed by DOT staff and discussed with the
particular Center or Institute to commend successes and identify areas
where some redirection is required.
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 was meeting its statutory goals to
promote transportation education, research and technology transfer. A
final report, issued in February 1997, concluded that the program was
successfully meeting its legislative mission and merited further
consideration at the time of reauthorization.
RSPA undertook a similar program-level review of the University
Research Institutes Program in 1997. Unlike the Centers Program, the
Institutes did not share a single legislative mission. Neither did they
share the same goals, so their synergistic potential was less than that
enjoyed by the Centers. Each Institute had a statutorily-defined
research mandate which, taken together, suggested a collective purpose:
contribution to the Nation's transportation research agenda. The final
report issued in the fall of 1997 concluded that the University
Research Institutes Program was meeting that mission and merited
further consideration, possibly in a revised framework, at the time of
reauthorization. This conclusion is reflected the Administration's
reauthorization proposal to merge the Institutes into an expanded
University Transportation Centers Program.
Question. How much is spent on conducting numerous annual on-site
evaluations? What is the sources of these monies? What are the benefits
of these assessments and how does RSPA ensure that the universities
respond to the 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 direct costs of the site inspections are administrative
expenses which are charged against RSPA's administrative account for
travel. The University Transportation Centers Program, but not the
University Research Institutes Program, authorizes the use of 1 percent
of grant funding for the costs associated with administering the
program. The program's two funding sponsors, the Federal Highway
Administration and the Federal Transit Administration, routinely retain
a portion of that amount to defray the costs they incur in connection
with the program. And RSPA uses the balance to comply with the mandate
to establish a centralized clearinghouse for the program.
The site inspections serve many purposes, providing the reviewers
an opportunity to assess 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.
Question. RSPA is requesting an increase of $605,000 from the
enacted level for program support (not including a slight increase for
PC&B and administrative expenses). Please display the components of
these programs in tabular form, showing fiscal year 1998 enacted,
fiscal year 1999 request, amount of increase, and giving a brief
description of each program.
Answer. The answer is provided as follows:
Garrett A. Morgan Technology and Transportation Futures Program
Fiscal year 1998 enacted................................................
Fiscal year 1999 request...................................... $200,000
Amount of increase............................................ 200,000
Through the Garrett A. Morgan Technology and Transportation Futures
Program, the Department and its partners will make 1 million students
aware of transportation careers and help ensure that they have the
skills and knowledge required to pursue these careers. We must attract
employees to the transportation field with a strong understanding of
technology and with the math and science skills which underpin such
knowledge.
Rather than create a separate program with a high demand for
resources, the Secretary charged all operating modes to build on
current DOT programs and to maximize our investment by working with our
partners outside the Department. To accomplish this, DOT works through
the DOT Education Taskforce and the Morgan Education Roundtable. The
requested funding will allow RSPA to establish and maintain a database
of Morgan Education Roundtable members and their projects that support
the program's goals, support working group meetings of the Morgan
Education Roundtable partners, maintain a web site, and pay for costs
associated with disseminating information about the program.
Building on Core Programs
RSPA's plans include operational partnering with the Departments of
Education and Labor; expanding communication links between Morgan
Education Roundtable partners so that they may better collaborate on
regional and local efforts; identifying two or three new community
college partnerships with non-federal stakeholders; under
reauthorization, ensuring that Departmental efforts targeted at college
and graduate students increase attraction of students to the
transportation field; and, expanding multi-disciplinary transportation
curricula at the undergraduate and graduate level.
Through the Morgan program we will help implement suggestions made
in conjunction with last year's White House Conference which pulled
together 200 transportation employers and representatives of all levels
in the transportation and education communities. We will continue to
connect transportation employers with students through programs at the
local level. Those efforts provide work experience for students to help
them learn about career opportunities and to give them hands-on work
experience. Projects include career days and speakers, internships,
summer jobs, a clearing house for education materials, net days,
computer donations, and teacher externships.
Information Resources Management
Fiscal year 1998 enacted...................................... $400,000
Fiscal year 1999 request...................................... 680,000
Amount of increase............................................ 280,000
For the past few years, RSPA's IRM program has cost approximately
$1 million a year. Our fiscal year 1998 funding level of $400,000
covers only 40 percent of RSPA's IRM program which includes user help
support, LAN administration, equipment acquisition and upgrades,
programming, training, policy development, security, and IRM strategic
planning. The increase requested in fiscal year 1999 is not for more
equipment or enhanced capacity. The additional funding is needed to
support our primary IRM program.
Previously, we have funded the program through available operating
expenses. In fiscal year 1999, due to reductions in our program support
account and full staffing we will have less flexibility to cover our
basic IRM program.
Electronic Grants Pilot Project
Fiscal year 1998 enacted................................................
Fiscal year 1999 request...................................... $100,000
Amount of increase............................................ 100,000
The Department's Electronic Grants Project is a pilot test
recommended by the Access America: Reengineering Through Information
Technology report issued by the National Performance Review (NPR) and
Government Information Technology Services Board to Vice President
Gore.
Through the leadership of the Office of the Secretary, RSPA plans
to partner with most of the Department (OST, FAA, Coast Guard, FHWA,
NHTSA, FTA, and FRA) on this pilot.
The project's purpose is to streamline and improve the grants
process for both agencies and grantees, and cut long-term costs for
Federal agencies and grant customers by taking advantage of the
Internet, intranets and other electronic tools.
Productivity improvements are anticipated through:
--reduced paperwork for processing grants,
--reduced duplication for grantees needing to coordinate with more
than one agency, and
--simplified/standardized forms and approaches for grantees working
with different agencies.
To date, RSPA has processed grant applications manually, though
some information about our grants programs is contained on the
Internet.
Acquisition Training Resources
Fiscal year 1998 enacted................................................
Fiscal year 1999 request...................................... $25,000
Amount of increase............................................ 25,000
In compliance with the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996, the Department is
required to provide training to its acquisition work force. The law
tasks the Senior Procurement Executive of each agency with the
responsibility for implementing the acquisition work force requirements
and certifying the capability of DOT's acquisition work force to meet
Government-wide education and training standards. RSPA must ensure that
its acquisition work force has adequate funding to permit mandatory
training for specific grade levels in the contracting series (GS-1102).
This funding will provide acquisition core training courses for
RSPA's acquisition work force as required by the Clinger-Cohen Act of
1996.
If funding is not provided, and training is not completed, RSPA
contracting personnel will not be able to meet Government-wide
certification standards and will therefore not be eligible for career
progression nor will they be adequately trained to perform the
essential contracting support functions required of them.
Question. Please explain the scope and nature of your commitment to
the Garrett A. Morgan Technology and Transportation Futures Program.
What other DOT agencies are contributing to this transportation
outreach program? At what funding levels?
Answer. Through the Garrett A. Morgan Technology and Transportation
Futures Program, the Department of Transportation and its partners in
the transportation work force will make 1 million students aware of
transportation careers and help ensure that they have the skills and
knowledge required to pursue these careers. We must attract employees
to the transportation field with a strong understanding of technology
and with the math and science skills which underpin such knowledge.
While all DOT agencies are involved in the Morgan program, they
have been asked to build on existing programs. With the exception of
the $15,000 sought by OST for printing costs, no additional funds are
being sought.
emergency preparedness grants
Question. What empirical evidence do you have of the need to almost
double the amount of funds provided for Emergency Preparedness
Grants(page 132 of the budget justification, grants increase from
6,572,000 to 12,800,000 requested for fiscal year 1999)?
Answer. The current level of funding is not sufficient to
adequately provide for the training and planning needs of the Nation's
nearly 3.2 million emergency responders. In fact, only a small portion
of this population is being served by our program. Only 130,000 to
200,000 emergency responders receive even partial training each year
and only some of the Nation's 3,000 local emergency planning committees
receive assistance in preparing emergency response plans.
While the situation has improved somewhat from 15 years ago, a 1984
FEMA survey of emergency response personnel found that emergency
responders frequently do not consider the possibility that hazardous
materials may be involved or do not know how to determine what
hazardous material is involved. In addition, command personnel and
those involved in decision making usually were found to not understand
the potential hazards of the material or the diverse problems to be
addressed in a major hazardous material release. This research also
found that the majority of emergency worker casualties occur within the
first few minutes of a hazardous material release. This demonstrates
the importance of reaching additional emergency response personnel, and
providing them with the information that they need as first responders.
Question. What would be the implications of increasing the
limitation on obligations for this program to $10,000,000, as opposed
to $14,100,000?
Answer. States and Indian tribes would not be able to train as many
emergency responders or provide as much funds to Local Emergency
Planning Committees. Also, limiting obligations for this program to
$10,000,000 would still fall below the level of funding originally
contemplated by Congress when the registration program was established.
Question. What are the pros and cons of gradually increasing the
total amount of funding for the Emergency Preparedness Grants?
Answer. We do not see any advantages in gradually increasing the
total amount of funding for the Emergency Preparedness Grants program.
RSPA believes that such an approach could further complicate and
possibly delay the planned rulemaking and States would have less money
for emergency response planning and training.
Question. Has the agency determined how the increased level of
hazardous materials shipper and registration fees will be assessed?
Will the universe of registered shippers be increased, the fee
structure changed, or enforcement of current fee assessments improved?
Answer. RSPA is currently considering the use of a negotiated
rulemaking process or other collaborative effort to effect changes in
the registration program requirements. We are open to a variety of
options for increasing the grant funds for emergency response planning
and training. Options include expanding the universe of persons
required to register, increasing the fee for all or some registrants,
or a combination of the two. RSPA will strive for simplicity in the fee
assessment structure to enhance State and local enforcement of the
regulations.
Question. Please describe the current fee assessment structure. Do
all registered hazardous materials operators pay the same registration
fee? Is this fee assessed on a per operator or per vehicle basis?
Please list the five statutory requirements determining who must file a
registration statement.
Answer. Under the current regulations each company that engages in
any of five specific activities involving the offering or transporting
of hazardous materials is required to register and pay a uniform fee of
$300, regardless of the type or quantity of hazardous materials that is
involved. These five activities are offering or transporting: (1) a
highway route controlled quantity of a radioactive material; (2) 55
pounds or more of a class 1.1, 1.2, or 1.3 explosive; (3) more than 1
liter per package of a material poisonous by inhalation that meets the
criteria for hazard zone A; (4) any quantity of hazardous material in a
bulk container with a capacity of 3,500 or more gallons for liquids or
gases, or 468 or more cubic feet for solids; or (5) a shipment in other
than a bulk packaging of 5,000 pounds gross weight or more of one class
of hazardous materials that requires placarding of the vehicle, rail
car, or freight container.
Question. Has DOT considered linking the hazardous materials
registration fee structure to risk, by taking into account type of
shipment, number of movements, compliance records, or other variables?
Would such a fee structure be more equitable? Has the hazardous
materials industry requested moving to a more risk-based fee structure?
Answer. In a 1995 rulemaking which was subsequently withdrawn, RSPA
proposed linking the hazardous materials registration fee structure to
risk. We believe that using a measurement of the risk imposed by a
company's business to establish the amount of the fee would definitely
increase the equity of the fee assessment. Because both shippers and
carriers are subject to the registration requirements, and because the
nature of the hazardous materials activities in which the registering
companies engage varies so widely, finding a universally applicable
indicator of risk that would not impose an overly burdensome record
keeping requirement and that would not adversely affect particular
segments of the industry, particularly the smaller companies, remains a
matter of concern for RSPA. The industry has been consistent in
supporting the concept of simplicity in amending the registration
requirements in order to minimize the filing and record keeping
requirements imposed by registration. Simplicity of administration and
enforcement are also concerns of RSPA. The negotiated rulemaking
process or another collaborative process currently under consideration
will provide the industry and governmental parties that have a direct
interest in the registration and the related grants programs an
opportunity to consider how the goals of equity and simplicity can best
be incorporated into the regulations.
Question. Please describe the allocation formula for emergency
preparedness grants.
Answer. RSPA allocated grant funds for fiscal year 1997 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, 542,867
hazmat emergency responders have been trained, in part, using grant
funds. Also in the latest year, 520 commodity flow studies, which
identify where hazardous materials are being transported to facilitate
emergency response planning, were accomplished; 796 exercises were
held, and 5,647 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 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.
RSPA continues to work closely with other Federal agencies through
criteria to evaluate the overall benefits and effectiveness of the
planning and training programs and to determine what types or methods
of Federal technical assistance would be most valuable in support of
local Hazardous Materials (HM) planning and training programs.
Question. Is the $700,000 requested for the Emergency Response
Guidebook the total cost of updating, printing, and distributing this
publication? If not, what other costs are associated with the
guidebook? When will the updated guidebook be published?
Answer. No, the $700,000 is requested to cover only the costs of
printing and distributing the guidebook in fiscal year 1999. In
addition, approximately $150,000 of Research and Development funds are
used to maintain state of the art guidance, update the toxicological
and health criteria, update technical data, verify improvements in
dispersion modeling methodology and improve the Table of Initial
Isolation and Protective Action Distances for Toxic Gas and Liquids.
The next guidebook is scheduled to be published during the fourth
quarter of fiscal year 1999.
office of pipeline safety (ops)
Question. Please prepare a table indicating the amount appropriated
and the amount actually spent for the major categories and sub-
components of the pipeline safety budget for each of the last three
years, as well as the fiscal year 1999 request levels.
Answer. The following information is provided:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1996
Program ------------------------
Appropriated Obligated
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information & Analysis......................... $1,200 $1,194
Risk Assess & Technical Studies................ 1,750 1,747
Compliance..................................... 300 300
Training & Information Dissemination........... 850 850
Emergency Notification......................... 100 100
Damage Prevention (Nat'l Public Education)..... 500 500
Environmental Indexing......................... 500 500
OPA: Derived from OSLTF........................ 2,520 2,517
R&D:
Information Systems........................ 400 400
Risk Assessment............................ 300 300
Mapping.................................... 1,200 432
Non-Destructive Testing.................... 100 100
Grants......................................... 12,000 \1\ 12,35
4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes carryover.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1997 \1\
Program ------------------------
Appropriated Obligated
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information & Analysis......................... $1,200 $1,200
Risk Assess & Technical Studies................ 1,800 1,765
Compliance..................................... 300 300
Training & Information Dissemination........... 860 860
Emergency Notification......................... 100 100
Damage Prevention (Nat'l Public Education)..... 200 193
OPA: Derived from OSLTF........................ 2,336 2,326
R&D:
Information Systems........................ 400 400
Risk Assessment............................ 300 242
Mapping.................................... 400 .........
Non-Destructive Testing.................... 400 400
Grants......................................... 13,200 13,090
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Obligations thru 4/21/98.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1998 \1\
Program ------------------------
Appropriated Obligated
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information & Analysis......................... $1,200 $834
Risk Assess & Technical Studies................ 1,200 997
Compliance..................................... 300 300
Training & Information Dissemination........... 820 820
Emergency Notification......................... 400 .........
Damage Prevention (Nat'l Public Education)..... ............ .........
OPA: Derived from OSLTF........................ 2,328 742
R&D:
Information Systems........................ 400 400
Risk Assessment............................ 300 .........
Mapping.................................... 400 .........
Non-Destructive Testing.................... 65 65
Grants......................................... 13,600 1,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Obligations thru 4/21/98.
Fiscal year
Program 1999 request
Information & Analysis........................................ $1,365
Risk Assess & Technical Studies............................... 1,200
Compliance.................................................... 450
Training & Information Dissemination.......................... 921
Emergency Notification........................................ 100
Damage Prevention (Nat'l Public Education).................... 200
OPA: Derived from OSLTF....................................... 2,443
R&D:
Information Systems....................................... 400
Risk Assessment........................................... 300
Mapping................................................... 800
Non-Destructive Testing................................... 419
Grants........................................................ 15,000
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 1998? Will any unobligated funds be returned to the
pipeline safety fund?
Answer. As of April 21, the total unobligated balance for the
Office of Pipeline Safety was $20.6 million. This includes $5.6 million
for operation expenses; $.9 million for contract program activities (1
year funds); $1.9 million for R&D program activities (3 year funds);
and $12.5 million for grants. We plan to obligate all contract program
funding by close of fiscal year 1998. We estimate that our 3-year
funding for R&D will have an unobligated balance of approximately
$600,000.00 at the end of fiscal year 1998. At this time, we are
estimating a lapse of approximately $100,000 (less than 1 percent) of 1
year operating expenses. 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.
Question. Given the recent improvements in pipeline safety, why is
it critical to increase the pipeline budget by $2.7 million at this
time.
Answer. The largest area of increase we request is in our state
grant program. States inspect over ninety-three percent of the
pipelines in the United States, mostly distribution systems.
Distribution systems have experienced a significant growth in mileage
in recent years, increasing from 1.2 million miles in 1984 to almost
1.7 million miles today, a half million mile increase. The number of
customers served by these lines has increased accordingly. Our top
priorities continue to be reducing to zero the number of accidents
caused by non-compliance with pipeline regulation and working with
operators to reduce threats to pipeline integrity. In addition to this
work, we now ask States to take on additional roles in helping us with
the risk management initiative on interstate pipelines and improving
the efficiency of one-call systems. Now more than ever, it is vital to
preserve basic state pipeline program funding as close as possible to
the 50 percent level authorized and provide sufficient and separate
funding for their efforts to support the national risk management and
one-call initiatives. Our request reflects the significance of this
support.
Additionally, we have requested small increases in program funding
in the areas of information systems, compliance and training. We need
to cover increasing contract costs in analyzing incident, inventory and
inspection data to be sure that appropriate safety measures are taken
to prevent and respond to incidents. With 20 planned pipeline projects
starting this year, we need additional support to witness new
construction, to assure that contractor engineering practices at least
comply with our standards. Training activities need to address new
skills required to evaluate the effectiveness of alternative safety
activities being proposed in the current operating environment.
In the research area, we have requested a small increase in the
mapping program to respond to the workload in digitizing paper maps to
complete our national coverage of data on pipeline locations.
Additional funding is needed for the non-destructive evaluation
project. We need to complete testing at the pipeline simulation
facility of technologies which detect mechanical damage in the
circumferential direction, in addition to the longitudinal direction of
the pipeline.
Question. What activities comprise the 3-year availability portion
of the Pipeline Safety request ($16,919,000)?
Answer. The 3-year funding level of the Pipeline Safety request
($16,919,000) represents all R&D contract funds plus all grant program
funds requested in the Pipeline Safety appropriation, as defined by
RSPA's fiscal year 1999 Budget Request on page 148.
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) RSPA response(s) Components of budget
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 3(b)..................... Changes requirement to define `regulated gathering line' Now preparing SNPRM in Docket No. PS-122, `Gas Gathering PC&B (fiscal year 1999).
from `the Secretary shall' to `the Secretary shall, if Line Definition' for Federal Register publication by
appropriate'. October 1998.
Section 4(a)..................... Emphasizes requirement to ensure that individuals The Secretary convened a Negotiated Rulemaking (RegNeg) PC&B (fiscal year 1999).
performing O&M on pipelines be qualified. Main change committee on qualification of pipeline personnel
here is in Sec. 60102 (a) (1)(C) and Sec. 60102 (a) (2); performing operations & maintenance and emergency
requirement to `test and certify' becomes `qualified'. response functions. The committee reached a consensus on
a proposed rule on operator qualification in January
1998. A proposed rule will be published in fiscal year
1998.
Section 4(b)..................... Adds new language to clarify requirements for RSPA's cost/benefit analyses already comply with this PC&B (fiscal years 1997 and 1998).
consideration of risk assessment, environment, cost/ requirement. A government/industry, cost/benefit OPA fiscal year 1997.
benefit analysis, and recommendations of advisory framework working group is refining procedures to address
committees. environmental and other costs and benefits.
Section 4(b)..................... Requires consideration of costs and benefits; exploration Most of the specific items required for consideration PC&B (All future fiscal years).
of regulatory and nonregulatory options; explanation of under `risk assessment' are already required by E.O.
selection; identification of information on which risk 12866 (October 4, 1993), Regulatory Planning and Review.
assessment is based. All new cost/benefit studies will be in compliance with
this requirement.
Section 4(b)..................... Requires submission of any risk assessment supporting cost/ All risk assessments supporting cost/benefit analyses are PC&B (All future fiscal years).
benefit analysis to the pipeline safety advisory being submitted to the pipeline safety advisory
committee(s). Risk assessment information must be committees and are being docketed for public comment. The
available to the public. next advisory committee meetings are in May 1998.
Section 4(b)..................... Requires advisory committees to function as `peer review RSPA is providing risk assessment and cost/benefit PC&B (All future fiscal years).
panels' for risk assessment information; must submit this analysis information on proposed rules to the pipeline Risk Assessment & Technical Studies.
information to advisory committees; advisory committee safety advisory committee(s) for review in their role as Fiscal year 1999 Operations/Travel.
reviewing risk assessment information has 90 days to `peer review panels.'.
submit a report on risk assessment evaluation and
recommendations on associated rulemaking.
Section 4(b)..................... Requires Secretary to respond to advisory committee(s) RSPA will respond to each peer review report on the risk PC&B (All future fiscal years).
regarding their peer review report and their advice on assessment and the features of the rulemaking before
the proposed rule. issuing any final rule.
Section 4(b)..................... Provides an exception to risk assessment requirement for RSPA will implement exceptions as appropriate............. PC&B (None).
rules 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 three-fourths 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 and rulemaking program by March RSPA will prepare report to Congress on risk assessment, PC&B (fiscal year 1998; fiscal year
31, 2000; include suggestions for making risk assessment regulatory, and nonregulatory approaches by March 31, 1999; fiscal year 2000).
a useful means of assessing benefits and costs of 2000.
regulatory and nonregulatory options.
Section 4(e)..................... Requires new and replacement natural gas transmission and The final rule in Docket No. PS-126 directed that all new PC&B (fiscal year 1999).
hazardous liquid pipelines to accommodate `smart pigs'; lines be built to accommodate `smart pigs'; RSPA is
allows extension of such standards to require preparing a final rule in response to the petitions for
accommodation in existing pipelines. reconsideration from AGA and INGAA.
Section 4(e)..................... Allows Secretary to determine if periodic inspections RSPA is cooperating with industry groups on advanced R&D (fiscal years 1995-99).
using `smart pigs' are necessary. `smart pig' research to determine if a requirement for
periodic inspections using `smart pigs' can be justified.
Any regulatory action would be no earlier than fiscal
year 1999.
Section 4(f)..................... Directs the Secretary, as necessary, to update industry An annual process to update industry standards that are PC&B Operations--Travel (fiscal years
standards that are incorporated by reference in the incorporated by reference in the pipeline safety 1996-99).
pipeline safety regulations. regulations was established in 1996; the 1997 update was
published in the Federal Register on February 17, 1998;
the 1998 update will be published in fiscal year 1999.
Section 4(g)..................... Requires owners of interstate gas pipelines to provide all RSPA is working with industry, professional associations, National Public Education Campaign
`municipality(ies)' (defined a any political subdivision and the public to evaluate existing public education (fiscal year 1997, fiscal year 1998
of a state per Sec. 60101(a)(15)) through which its programs to determine which are most effective in and fiscal year 1999).
pipeline passes with a map showing the location of the reaching excavators, operators, the public, and local
pipeline facility(ies); requires by June 1, 1998, the communities. A survey is now underway. RSPA's Damage
security to survey and assess the public education Prevention Quality Action Team (DAMQAT) will design
programs under section 60116 and the public safety nationwide campaign using appropriations and industry
programs under section 60102 and determine their resources. After the survey is completed, a rulemaking
effectiveness and applicability as components of a model may be instituted to promulgate new regulations to
program; not later than one year after the survey (6/1/ promote public awareness of excavation damage and one-
99) the security must initiate a rulemaking to determine call systems.
effective public education program components and, if
appropriate, must amend regulations; if regulations not
needed, send report to Congress with reasons.
Section 4(h)..................... By June 1, 1998, survey and assess remote control valves RSPA conducted a public workshop on the application of Operations--Travel (fiscal year
on an interstate gas pipeline; include determination on remote control valves (RCV) in interstate natural gas 1999).
whether remote valves are technically and economically pipelines on October 30, 1997. By fiscal year 1998, RSPA PC&B.
feasible to reduce risks after a rupture. will complete an assessment of the appropriateness of the
By June 1, 1999 (one year after survey and assessment), if expanded use of remote control valves in interstate
remote valves are determined to be useful, the Secretary natural gas pipelines. If this assessment indicates that
shall prescribe regulations for their use on interstate the use of remote control valves is both technically and
natural gas pipelines. economically feasible, RSPA will propose regulations
specifying the conditions under which interstate natural
gas pipelines must use RCV's.
Section 5(a)..................... Authority to establish risk management demonstration RSPA's Notice of Request for Letters of Intent (3/27/97) Risk Assessment & Technical Studies
projects. requested eligible operators to express their interest in (fiscal years 1998 & 1999).
Authority to exempt owner or operator of demonstration participating in the risk management demonstration OPA Fund fiscal years 1998 & 1999.
facilities from regulations that would otherwise apply. program. RSPA has issued a Risk Management Program
New regulations do not apply to the demonstration Framework, a Program Standard, a Communications Plan, and
facilities during period of demonstration. a Training Curricula to assist operators in preparing
their risk management demonstrations.
Section 5(b)..................... Risk management demonstrations must exhibit `equivalent or RSPA is complying with these requirements in preparing for Risk Assessment & Technical Studies
greater overall level of safety'; President's October 12, its risk management demonstration programs. (fiscal year 1999).
1996, memo requires only `superior levels of safety' and Information Systems fiscal year 1997,
only participants with a `clear and established' safety 1998, & 1999.
and environmental record.
Section 5(b)..................... Secretary may revoke or amend any exemption granted in a RSPA will comply with these requirements in the individual Risk Assessment & Technical Studies
RM plan for noncompliance with terms or failure to risk management demonstrations. (fiscal year 1999).
achieve greater safety. RSPA is complying with these requirements................. PC&B (fiscal year 1999).
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 revoked for substantial noncompliance This will be an explicit provision in the order Risk Assessment & Technical Studies
with an approved risk management plan. authorizing any risk management demonstration program. (fiscal year 1999).
Section 5(d)..................... Secretary may consult with states with certifications and RSPA is closely coordinating with the state pipeline Risk Management Grants (fiscal year
may make an agreement with a state to carry out a risk safety representatives in implementing risk management 1997, 1998 & 1999).
management program on intrastate pipelines. demonstration programs.
Section 5(e)..................... Report on risk management demonstration projects by March RSPA will prepare a report before March 31, 2000.......... Risk Assessment & Technical Studies
31, 2000. (fiscal years 1998, 1999).
PC&B (fiscal years 1998 & 1999).
Section 6........................ Eliminates requirement for two-year mandatory inspection RSPA's inspection program is in compliance with this PC&B (fiscal year 1999).
cycle; also eliminates `navigable waters (as defined by requirement.
the Secretary)' and replaces it with a `substantial
likelihood of commercial navigation' standard.
Section 7........................ Eliminates `shall include' language in favor of `shall Considering definition of areas unusually sensitive to Environmental Indexing OPA (fiscal
consider' under AREAS TO BE INCLUDED AS UNUSUALLY environmental damage through public process in Docket No. years 1996-99).
SENSITIVE; adds drinking water resources as a PS-140, Areas Unusually Sensitive to Environmental Damage.
consideration; deletes earthquakes and other ground
movement.
Section 8........................ Requires that excess flow valve (EFV) rules consider not A final rule on excess flow valve (EFV) performance PC&B (fiscal years 1997-99).
just installation, but also maintenance and replacement standards was adopted in Docket No. PS-118 (61 FR 31449;
costs; provides authority to adopt industry standards for June 20, 1996); revised industry standards will likely be
EFV performance. adopted as they are developed. In addition, RSPA received
comments in response to an NPRM in Docket No. PS-118A
(EFV Customer Notification) (61 FR 33476; June 27, 1996)
and published a final rule (63 FR 5464) requiring natural
gas distribution companies to notify customers of the
availability of EFV's for installation in gas service
lines, with the cost of installation to be borne by the
customer.
Section 9........................ Drops requirement to take action to promote the adoption RSPA has already taken action to require notification of PC&B (fiscal years 1996 & 1997).
of measures to improve the safety of customer-owned customers owning their own service lines.
service lines.
Section 10....................... Advisory committees are the peer review committees for RSPA will submit risk assessments and cost/benefit Risk Assessment & Technical Studies
risk assessment and cost/benefit analyses. analyses to the advisory committee(s) as required. (fiscal year 1999).
Operations.
Section 10....................... Requires the membership of each advisory committee to be Advisory committee appointments will be designed to Risk Assessment & Technical Studies
one-third industry, one-third public, and one-third maintain the broadest possible representation consistent (fiscal year 1999).
government; requires at least one of the public and one with the required composition. Operations/Travel (fiscal years 1998
of the industry members to have risk assessment and/or & 1999).
cost/benefit analysis background.
Section 10....................... Advisory committees can meet up to four times a year...... RSPA will maintain twice a year meetings and keep advisory Operations/Travel (fiscal years 1998
committees informed between meetings through newsletters, & 1999).
mailings, and informal working groups. Additional
meetings of the advisory committees will be held as
necessary.
Section 12....................... Establishes `cooperative agreement authority'............. RSPA requested and will use this authority to expand R&D (fiscal years 1998 & 1999).
cooperation with industry, the states, and others in the
advancement of pipeline safety.
Section 15....................... Requires that RSPA issue an annual report biennially, RSPA will publish the first biennial report (1995-1996) by PC&B, Administration Expenses (fiscal
beginning August 15, 1997. August 1998. year 1998).
Section 16....................... Requires OPS to make available Transportation Research TRB Special Report 219 is being made available to Administration Expenses (fiscal year
Board (TRB) Special Report 219 to appropriate official(s) appropriate officials in all states. A public workshop on 1999).
in each state; requires an evaluation of the population encroachment will be held. Feedback from the
recommendations in the report, especially to what extent states will assist in RSPA's evaluation of population
they are being implemented, ways to improve encroachment issues. A report on RSPA's evaluation of
implementation, and other initiatives to further population encroachment issues will be completed in late
awareness of local planning and zoning entities regarding 1998.
population encroachment on pipeline rights-of-way.
Section 17....................... Report to Congress by October 12, 1997, on user fee A draft report was presented to the pipeline safety Administration Expenses (fiscal year
assessment measures, bases, and appropriateness; consider advisory committees in May 1997. Advisory committee 1999).
wide range of assessment factors and comments from public. comments and comments by the general public were PC&B.
carefully considered in preparing a final report for
submission to Congress.
Section 19....................... Establishes specific authority to engage in promotional RSPA's Damage Prevention Quality Action Team (DAMQAT) has National Public Education Campaign
activities relating to the underground damage prevention. evaluated existing public education materials to (fiscal years 1997-99).
determine their effectiveness in reaching excavators,
operators, the public, and local communities. A national
survey of these groups was completed in 1997. DAMQAT will
conduct a pilot campaign in Virginia, Tennessee, and
Georgia in mid-1998 before launching a national campaign.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. How does your fiscal year 1999 budget reflect some of the
initiatives in the Senate one-call bill? What could be done in fiscal
year 1999 to expedite implementation of some of the objectives of this
bill?
Answer. The fiscal year 1999 budget provides grants to states for
enhanced public education, excavator training and enforcement. All of
these are damage prevention activities as indicated in the one-call
bill. The best way to expedite implementation of the objectives of this
bill is for Congress to enact this legislation which establishes a
program to motivate states to improve their one-call notification
systems and damage prevention activities.
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 1995 through 1998 and anticipated for fiscal year 1999.
Answer. A table follows which shows the per mile rate and the total
collections for fiscal years 1995 through 1998. We are in the process
of collecting for fiscal year 1998 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 $29,487,517.84. This includes the
President's Budget Request for the Pipeline Safety Program of
$32,765,000, less funds derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund
$3,300,000 and $1.1 million derived from existing user fees, 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 1998 assessment date.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per mile
Fiscal year rate Total collected
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gas Transmission:
1995................................. $95.57 $27,830,000
1996................................. 77.49 22,475,000
1997................................. 67.46 18,927,423
1998................................. 67.98 \1\ 19,835,635
1999 \1\............................. 78.12 \2\ 22,793,000
Liquid:
1995................................. 47.03 7,215,000
1996................................. 49.67 7,683,000
1997................................. 61.27 8,869,716
1998................................. 59.59 \1\ 9,269,383
1999................................. 67.78 \2\ 10,543,599
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fiscal year 1998 based on assessment.
\2\ Fiscal year 1999 anticipated assessment.
Question. Please describe the billing cycle for industry user fees.
What procedural changes are being considered? What is industry's
reaction to these proposals.
Answer. In fiscal year 1997 and 1998, we assessed user fees in mid-
December (the first quarter of our fiscal year). This time frame was
selected in response to discussions with our customers about their
fiscal management 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 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 and fiscal
year 1998? Does this accurately reflect the true allocation of your
efforts and resources? Please document your answer.
Answer. In fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998, gas operators
paid 55 percent of program costs and 87 percent of grants. Liquid
operators paid 45 percent of program costs and 13 percent grants. These
percentages closely reflect the allocation of our efforts and resources
as shown in the table that follows.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1997 Fiscal year 1998
Program activity -----------------------------------
Gas Liquid Gas Liquid
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PC&B \1\ for the Inspectors 50 50 50 50
(Regions)..........................
PC&B for HQ personnel............... 67 33 60 40
Administration...................... 50 50 50 50
Information and Analysis............ 50 50 50 50
Risk Assess & Technical Studies..... 50 50 50 50
Compliance.......................... 50 50 50 50
Training & Info. Dissemination...... 75 25 75 25
Emergency Response (NRC)............ 50 50 50 50
Public Education Campaign (One-call) 50 50 50 50
Research & Development.............. 50 50 50 50
Average............................. 54 47 54 47
Actual apportionment................ 55 45 55 45
Grants.............................. 87 13 87 13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Personnel, Compensation & Benefits
Question. It is the Committee's understanding that the pipeline
user fee charged liquid and natural gas pipelines for fiscal year 1998
was $29,487,000. This includes the appropriated amount of $28,000,000;
an additional charge of $574,000 for RSPA staff oversight of OPS, a
charge of 3 percent of the total budget collected in recognition that
not all fees will be collected; and an additional charge for fees not
collected in fiscal year 1997. Is this understanding correct? Can you
supply the records of charges to pipelines for the last five years
including the appropriated user fee, the RSPA charge and break down any
additional charges mentioned above?
Answer. Yes, the way RSPA determined the fiscal year 1998 fees is
consistent with your statement. For years in which we collected the
appropriation plus the 2-3 percent, the operators are credited the
following assessment year. Attached are the records from fiscal year
1994 to present which indicate how RSPA calculated user fees.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12SBMT.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12SBMT.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12SBMT.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12SBMT.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12SBMT.014
Question. Why does the agency assess user fee charges in addition
to the appropriated (and authorized) user fee level? Why does RSPA
charge for staff oversight of OPS, but not other programs funded by
user fees? Did the assessed user fees for fiscal year 1998 include a
charge for fees that were not collected last year? How can this charge
be justified if pipelines are already charged 3 percent for uncollected
money? Don't both these charges penalize those who pay? What happens to
those who don't pay?
Answer. The Pipeline Safety Program is required by law to assess
certain pipeline operators an amount equal to the amount appropriated
by Congress for the Pipeline Safety Program and the amount transferred
to the Research and Special Programs (RSPA) appropriation, as stated in
the RSPA appropriation language, for legal support and administrative
oversight of the Pipeline Safety program. OPS is also authorized by law
to collect up to five percent more than the appropriation in an attempt
to facilitate collection of the full appropriation during that same
collection year. Since OPS has experienced that not all operators
assessed are able to pay, we include an amount of only three percent
more than the appropriation to cover uncollected assessments during the
year.
Companies that are not able to pay their fees are indirectly
subsidized by those who pay. Some operators are unable to pay the
assessment because of circumstances other than bankruptcies (for
example: erroneous reporting of the number of miles of pipelines or
classification of the pipelines; duplicate reporting of mileage; sale/
purchase of pipelines; and/or abandonment of pipelines). OPS makes
every available effort to ensure collections from all companies
assessed, and we mail three delinquency notices to companies before
turning the accounts over the Department of Treasury for collection.
All available legal remedies are pursued to collect assessments.
The annual fee assessment also includes an amount for assessments
unable to be collected during last year's collection period. Any
collections above the amount of the appropriation, including
collections from prior years' assessments, go into the fund and are
credited to operators' assessment the following collection year. Within
an average of two to three years, operators provide for only the OPS
appropriation, OPS rent, and legal/administrative support from the RSPA
appropriation.
RSPA's only other special fund, which also collects fees from
industry, is the Emergency Preparedness Fund (EP Fund). The Emergency
Preparedness Grants program receives its funding through an
authorization that also appropriates funding from the EP Fund,
permanently. The Emergency Preparedness Grants program is implemented
exclusively by the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety (OHMS), which
receives most of its funding from the RSPA appropriation. OHMS also
receives funding from the EP Fund to provide administrative resources
for the implementation of the Emergency Preparedness Grants Program.
Therefore, the fees from the Emergency Preparedness Fund pay for
operating costs (labor and administrative expenses), through permanent
appropriations language in the authorization, which would be provided
otherwise by the RSPA appropriation. That transfer is invisible to all
who are unfamiliar with the authorization language and is not addressed
in the appropriations process. There is no other way to implement the
program, since the appropriation is not authorized to have its own FTE
or positions.
Similarly, Pipeline Safety would not be able to function without
the legal support and other administrative functions provided by RSPA.
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 1988
through 1998, with an estimated level for 1999. Please describe how
much of the unappropriated balance could safely be drawn down.
Answer. The following table shows funds entering and leaving the
Pipeline Safety Fund from October 1, 1997 through March 30, 1998.
Pipeline Safety Fund (PSF) Balance
[Dollars in millions]
Starting Balance--Oct. 1, 1997.................................... $17.4
Partial amount warranted out for program costs--Mar. 30, 1998..... -17.6
Collections through Mar. 30, 1998................................. 28.5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
Remaining Balance--Mar. 30, 1998............................ 28.3
An additional $13.2 million will be warranted (removed) from the
PSF within the third quarter to provide the full appropriated amount.
Also, additional collections and adjustments to collections
(overpayments/under payments) will impact the balance through September
30, 1998.
At the beginning of each fiscal year, OPS needs a balance in the
fund of at least $11 million to sustain operations until fees can be
collected to replenish the fund. Because appropriations were passed
early in fiscal year 1998, fee assessments were able to be sent out
much earlier in the fiscal year than usual--December 1997. Fortunately,
OPS was able to bill the fee assessments early in fiscal year 1998.
Since the fee assessments are based on the level of appropriations, it
would be too risky to assume that we would receive appropriations in
October each year, as we did in fiscal year 1998.
As of the end of fiscal year 1999, the amount held in the fund in
excess of the $11 million needed to sustain OPS operations is projected
to be about $5 million. This $5 million is far less than the general
fund appropriations that this program had to rely upon in 1986 and 1987
while the pipeline safety fees were disputed in court. Therefore, we
consider the fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 estimated reserve
fund level of $15.9 million to be justified by both operational needs
($11 million reserve needed to sustain operations) and as a partial
``reimbursement,'' in effect, to the General Fund.
The following table provides the annual unappropriated PSF balances
from the end of fiscal years 1988 through 1997, with an estimated level
provided for fiscal years 1998 and 1999.
Unappropriated
Fiscal year balance \1\
1988.................................................... $17,179,509
1989.................................................... 17,672,184
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.................................................... 17,353,940
1998 (estimate)......................................... 15,888,940
1999 (estimate)......................................... 15,888,940
\1\ End of fiscal year.
Question. Please recalculate your answer from last year regarding
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 the recalculated amount?
Answer. The minimum dollar amount needed is approximately $11
million. However, for the reasons cited previously, we conclude that
the estimated balance at the end of fiscal year 1999 of approximately
$15-16 million is a more appropriate level.
oil pollution act environmental program costs and other environmental
matters
Question. Please allocate and describe all OPS actual expenses that
legally could be associated with Oil pollution Act (OPA) requirements
in fiscal year 1998, and anticipated in fiscal year 1999. How does this
compare in each fiscal year with the amount derived from the Oil Spill
Liability Trust Fund?
Answer. The cost allocation and description of activities of
expenses we can estimate that could be associated with OPA are:
Positions & FTE.--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.......................... $500,000
Data Analysis.--Over half the incident reporting, data
collection, analysis & trending labor; and identifying
accident cause & consequence, evaluating & acting on
environmental impacts, particularly related to protecting
drinking water sources.................................... 500,000
Compliance & Spill Response Monitoring.--Technical field
engineering support for monitoring major spills &
remediation; and dedicated personnel for integrating
public & private sector OPA response activities,
communications coordination & decision support for
protective actions........................................ 150,000
National Pipeline Mapping Systems Operations & Maintenance.--
Collecting & digitizing more accurate liquid pipeline
location information as it becomes available; and to be
used in conjunction with data on population, drinking
water intakes, terrain. Needed to set priorities for
prevention & response actions............................. 400,000
Environmental Index.--Work with state agencies to identify &
categorize information on unusually sensitive
environmental areas. Establish central repository in each
state to be focal point for exchange of data.............. 250,000
State Grants for Hazardous Liquid Programs.--Fund 13 states
oversight of intrastate pipelines operations &
maintenance, construction, repairs........................ 1,500,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 3,300,000
Allocations for fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 are provided
on the following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
OPA -------------------------------
1998 enacted 1999 request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PC&B.................................... $214,000 $187,000
Administrative Expenses................. 45,000 45,000
Program................................. 713,000 625,000
Implementing OPA........................ 2,328,000 2,443,000
-------------------------------
Total............................. 3,300,000 3,300,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. What new challenges were faced in the implementation of
OPA? In each fiscal year since the enactment of the OPA, what was the
Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund level requested by RSPA prior to the OMB
passback?
Answer. There are numerous ongoing challenges in responding to the
requirements of OPA. Our goal has been and continues to be integrating
pipeline operator capabilities with the entire response community and
being consistent with national standards for evaluating preparedness.
We assumed new roles in interagency coordination with the National
Response Team and the other federal and state agencies with regulatory
responsibilities in response planning. We maintain those relationships
today and will in the future. The agencies worked together to provide
guidance to operators on what comprises environmentally sensitive areas
and to develop a more efficient ``one plan'' approach to all federal
response planning.
In taking on the OPA program, OPS determined what requirements
would be appropriate for onshore pipeline spill response planning,
develop a regulation and establish a plan review process. Since the
program inception, we have been reviewing and approving plans and
operating a program to test the plans though drill and exercises, in
conjunction with the other agencies. We still work to assure a uniform
approach, minimize burden on industry and ensure conformity with the
National Contingency Plan and Area Contingency Plans. Other pipeline-
specific challenges include understanding the large geographic areas
traversed, location of water intakes, operating conditions and pipeline
spill history. We have built a systematic approach to assure that our
plan review and exercise process appropriately considers risk of
pollution, operators' capabilities to respond, and needs for planning
improvements.
Looking to the future, we hope to use our improving analytical
capabilities to more fully consider risk-based factors. We are
considering taking a system wide look at environmental protection
throughout companies. We seek opportunities to better understand how
management systems can be used to improve monitoring of pipeline
conditions, systems and facilities to reduce risk to the environment.
The table below depicts RSPA's requests prior to the OMB passback.
Historically, the funding derived from the OSLTF included funds for
operational expenses--PC&B, travel, equipment, training, and printing
as well as funds which support table-top exercises and response plan
review, and the 1999 request to Congress continues to follow this
historical practice.
Request Level to OMB
Fiscal year:
1994......................................................$2,425,000
1995...................................................... 2,465,000
1996...................................................... 2,698,000
1997...................................................... 1,912,000
1998...................................................... 2,528,000
1999...................................................... 7,422,000
Question. Please describe progress made in the environmental
indexing effort. What was accomplished with funding provided in fiscal
year 1997? How much is being spent in 1998 for this activity, and for
what purpose? What will be done during fiscal year 1999 and how much
will this cost? When will this activity be completed?
Answer. The environmental indexing effort is well under way. RSPA
has been working with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as
mandated by statute, and the Departments of Interior (DOI), Agriculture
(USDA), and Commerce (DOC), environmental organizations, technical
experts, and the pipeline industry to identify and locate resources
that are most susceptible to a hazardous liquid release, or for which
consequences would be most adverse if affected by a release. This
includes drinking water, ecological, and cultural resources.
RSPA has used the funding provided in 1997 to create a draft
Drinking Water Data Catalog. The data catalog covers each of the fifty
states and includes data on groundwater wells, surface water intakes,
aquifers, sole source aquifers, wellhead protection areas, and geology.
For each of these categories, the catalog includes the name of the
government agency that has created the data, a description of the data,
noted problems with the data, and a ranking of the quality and
completeness of the data for creating an electronic data layer of
unusually sensitive drinking water resources. The catalog also includes
the methodology for generating data on unusually sensitive drinking
water resources, a flowchart for gathering the data and creating the
drinking water resources data layer, and maps showing the quality of
the different data layers for all of the states. Finally, the catalog
ranks each of the fifty states for drinking water data quality and
completeness. The EPA Groundwater and Drinking Water Protection
Division reviewed the catalog for completeness and accuracy,
recommended only minor corrections, and determined it was a useful data
tool that could assist EPA staff. EPA has requested and has been
granted permission to provide the catalog to the EPA headquarter and
regional staff in the Groundwater and Drinking Water Protection
Division and the Oil Spill Division.
RSPA also used the funding provided in 1997 to begin gathering
drinking water data ``layers'' for digital information display and has
created a map of unusually sensitive drinking water resources for a few
of the states. RSPA has also used the 1997 funding to research the
information and digital data that is available on sensitive ecological
and cultural resources. RSPA has located information and digital data
layers on threatened and endangered species, species that are at risk
of global extinction, and areas where a large percentage of the world's
migratory birds congregate. RSPA has also located information and
digital data layers on national historic sites, archaeological sites,
national monuments and landmarks, and other cultural resource.
RSPA expects to spend $500,000 on this initiative in fiscal year
1998. This money will be used to continue to gather digital data on
drinking water resources, threatened and endangered species, species at
risk of global extinction, areas where a large percentage of the
world's migratory birds congregate, and national cultural resources.
This data will be used to determine the locations of the unusually
sensitive drinking water, ecological, and cultural resources, and to
create maps of these unusually sensitive areas that can be provided to
the pipeline industry, other government agencies, and the public for
better protection of these resources. The funding will also be used to
work with the state agencies responsible for creating data on the
resources to verify that the final maps of the proposed unusually
sensitive areas truly depict the most unusually sensitive drinking
water, ecological, and cultural resources.
All of the drinking water resource data are created and maintained
by state government agencies. Because the data are 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 into a common format.
All of the location data on threatened and endangered species and
species at risk of global extinction are also created and maintained at
the state level by State Heritage Programs or State Nature
Conservancies. This data is private information and, therefore,
agreements must be established with each agency in order for RSPA to
access the data. RSPA is working with EPA and several other agencies
and environmental organizations and co-funding an initiative to
standardize this state data, convert the paper data on the sensitive
resources to digital data, gather the digital data into a common
national database, and make the data available to the public and other
government agencies at various mapping scales. RSPA is also working on
this initiative with the Departments of Interior, Commerce,
Agriculture, Defense, and Army; The Nature Conservancy; the State
Heritage Programs; and the Association for Biodiversity Information.
RSPA anticipates standardization and digitizing of the state data will
be completed in 1999, and a national data layer will be available at a
county scale in the year 2000. A more detailed and accurate data layer
is expected by the end of the year 2000. This database will provide the
information necessary to locate unusually sensitive ecological
resources upon completion of the definition.
RSPA expects to spend $500,000 on this initiative in fiscal year
1999, if the funding for this project is approved. RSPA will use the
requested funds to complete most of the work on drinking water
resources, the standardization and digitizing of state ecological data,
and the creation of unusually sensitive cultural resource maps. RSPA
expects the environmental index initiative will be completed in the
year 2000 when the more detailed and accurate data layer on threatened
and endangered species and species at risk of global extinction is
completed. All of the data that is created by RSPA will be available to
other Federal, state, and local government agencies, the pipeline
industry, private groups, and the public to better protect these
sensitive resources through increased prevention and response measures,
enhanced emergency response planning, and an increased awareness of the
location and character/status of these sensitive resources.
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 which required corrective measures. How do you ensure
that your suggestions are incorporated into the plans? What are your
performance measures or goals for this effort?
Answer.
NUMBER OF EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLANS AND REVISIONS \1\ REVIEWED
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10/01/96- 10/01/97-
09/30/97 03/31/98
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Plans Reviewed............................ 53 23
New Plans Requiring Revisions after Initial 49 20
Review.......................................
New Plans Approved............................ 20 3
Existing Plan Revisions Reviewed.............. 306 164
Existing Plan Revisions Accepted.............. 306 164
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For operators posing a risk of significant and substantial harm to
the environment.
RSPA works closely with operators as we work to revise plans to
improve response capability. Before approving a plan, or revisions to a
plan, RSPA reviews any changes to ensure that the operator has
adequately addressed our review comments. We also take a sample of
existing plans and verify that the emergency response data is accurate.
We conduct table top exercises and area emergency drills to test the
effectiveness of the planning. During emergency response exercises,
RSPA verifies that operators have incorporated our suggestions in their
response plan or have taken other appropriate precautions.
Our primary goal for the Oil Pollution Program in the future is to
make it more risk-based. Our emergency response plan review process
will focus on the operator's management systems: how they manage their
people, their equipment, their response contractors, and other
resources.
We are discussing with the American Petroleum Institute, new
initiatives to determine the impact of planning and prevention
initiatives, cooperative government/industry training, and system-wide
audits of environmental protection programs.
Question. Please discuss the amount of funds spent on spill
response exercises during each of the last three years. How much do you
expect to spend during fiscal year 1999?
Answer. We continue to review operator response plans by overseeing
field and table top exercises to strengthen operator readiness to
respond to spills from pipelines. We use our plan review, analysis of
incident data, projections of areas at high risk from natural
disasters, and findings from accident investigations to target
geographic areas where exercises are likely to benefit operators and
the response community. Separate contractor costs include: data
analysis; modeling; investigation and follow-up of incidents;
development of scenarios; planning, conducting and evaluating
exercises; and training programs on spill response to familiarize OPS
inspectors with the OPA program.
Additionally, operational costs are expended for OPS staff to
travel to exercises sites and to training. Inspectors need to be able
to fully participate in exercises to evaluate response plans
effectively, and to respond to actual incidents. Since fiscal year 1996
we have spent about $1.5-$2 million dollars annually on this broad
range of activities which contribute to exercises and other related
program efforts which also benefits from the same analysis. We estimate
that the same amount will be spent in fiscal year 1999.
Question. You state: ``Experience in actual incidents has
demonstrated the OPA Program is having very positive results.'' Please
document and further explain this assertion.
Answer. Our efforts under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 are
directed at improving pipeline operators' abilities to protect the
environment from spills. Our response plans program and the exercises
we conduct have helped operators to respond more effectively to
pipeline releases. Although there have not been any catastrophic spills
over the last year, there have been several incidents which have
required operators to implement their response plans. In each case, the
operators' response efforts demonstrated the value of having developed
spill plans and having effective planning programs.
In June of 1996, Colonial Pipeline had a major spill in
Simpsonville, South Carolina. The magnitude of the spill required the
operator to call in response contractors from all over the southeast
region of the U.S. Because the company already identified the resources
in their facility response plan, they were able to rapidly bring in the
equipment they needed.
When Williams Pipeline discovered in March of 1997 that it had a
leak at a tank farm near Des Moines, Iowa, the company implemented its
response plan and immediately began to secure the source of the release
and to recover the product that had been lost.
Colonial Pipeline had a spill in a landfill near Atlanta, Georgia,
in March of 1998. Even though the product was contained in the
immediate area around the leak site, the company implemented its
response plan and took precautionary action to ensure that the product
did not migrate into a nearby river. In all three cases, the pipeline
operators were able to take immediate action to protect the environment
because they had developed their facility response plans in advance.
operating expenses
Question. Please indicate the exact amounts appropriated for travel
and transportation in the last three years, and indicate the amount
requested for fiscal year 1999.
Answer.
Travel and transportation
Fiscal year:
1996 enacted.............................................. $499,000
1997 enacted.............................................. 839,000
1998 enacted.............................................. 1,003,000
1999 request.............................................. 978,000
Question. For fiscal year 1996, 1997, 1998 and budgeted for fiscal
year 1999, please prepare separate expense charts for resources
obligated on overtime, bonuses, travel, non-mandatory bonuses,
permanent change of station, and communications.
Answer. The following table is provided.
OBLIGATIONS BY CATEGORY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
---------------------------------------------------
1998 1999
1996 actual 1997 actual estimate estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overtime \1\................................................ $4,191 $8,895 $4,200 $4,200
Bonuses \1\................................................. 36,400 45,100 42,000 40,400
Travel \2\.................................................. 820,000 1,167,000 1,231,000 978,000
Permanent change of station................................. 25,210 21,615 57,050 50,000
Communications.............................................. 427,000 468,000 470,000 470,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ RSPA budget requests do not include funding for bonuses (special act and on the spot cash awards)and
overtime. If available, funding from unoccupied positions is used within a modest internal administrative
limit. All bonuses given were non-mandatory.
\2\ Fiscal year 1998 includes $300,000 for operating expenses carried over (3-year funding) from prior years.
Question. How many staff personnel does OPS have in the Anchorage
Joint Pipeline Office? How have their responsibilities or activities
changed since last year?
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. The responsibilities of
these inspectors have not changed since last year.
Question. Please update us on the implementation of the Alyeska
memorandum of agreement regarding valves and corrosion. Are there any
new issues in this area?
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. On February 12, 1998, Alyeska
Pipeline Service Company issued its final report titled, 1997 TAPS
mainline Cathodic Protection Coupon Monitoring Program, Final Report.
Results of the study confirm coupons represent the best available
technology for monitoring the cathodic protection (CP) system on TAPS.
Traditional cathodic protection evaluation methods, such as annual
voltage readings, are not effective because of the unusual
environmental conditions TAPS crosses. To address these issues, TAPS
developed an extensive corrosion coupon program, whereby coupons are
placed at 1 mile intervals on the pipeline. The coupons are metallic
representatives of the pipeline and are subject to the same
environmental and cathodic protection conditions as the pipeline. They
are periodically checked for adequate cathodic protection and analyzed
for corrosion. If corrosion is not found on the coupon, it is theorized
corrosion is not present on the pipeline.
However, environmental conditions (wet/dry conditions), zinc
proximity, and coating defect distribution and geometry precludes using
coupons as a stand alone method to monitor the effectiveness of CP on
TAPS. Where conditions warrant, CP coupons will be used in conjunction
with other sound engineering practices, such as internal inspection
tools, telluric current nulled close interval surveys, and local
knowledge of environmental conditions. Alyeska plans to install
additional coupons on TAPS in 1998. Alyeska has installed additional
impressed current cathodic protection covering approximately 125 miles
of the total 380 miles of underground pipe on TAPS and plans to install
another 125 miles of protection in 1999.
RSPA/OPS is overseeing all facets of the corrosion program and has
agreed to the utilization of coupons to monitor the cathodic protection
as long as this use is combined with a close interval survey and an
annual internal inspection.
In January of 1997, the Alyeska Pipeline Service Company and the
Joint Pipeline Office entered into a Memorandum of Agreement regarding
assessment of valves on the TAPS. During 1997, Alyeska conducted a risk
assessment on mainline valves in order to prioritize mainline valves
for testing, and to establish performance standards for internal leak
through.
Alyeska identified and tested valves with the highest testing
priority, i.e. those most critical to the overall system safety,
including leak-through tests on 44 mainline valves and secondary
sealing tests on a Remote Gate Valve. During 1998, Alyeska will conduct
leak-through tests on an additional 44 mainline valves and will perform
additional secondary sealing tests using ``Gel Block,'' a method
whereby the sealant is pumped into the valve cavity and forms a seal.
Alyeska has presented their mainline valve maintenance, testing and
repair program to RSPA/OPS. This program addresses precautionary
measures for valves of unknown condition, performance criteria for
evaluation of in-service valves and means of determining their overall
risk factors. RSPA/OPS continues to closely monitor the mainline valve
evaluation progress.
information systems
Question. Please prepare a table showing the amount of funding used
and the amount actually appropriated to improve your information
systems during each of the last three years.
Answer. Please see tables that follow:
Pipeline safety information systems expenditures
1996
Budget item Funding
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 Systems 340,000
VAX maintenance costs......................................... 150,000
Site licenses 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 Systems 500,000
VAX maintenance costs......................................... 140,000
Site licenses 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
1998
VAX maintenance costs......................................... $125,000
Contractor support for Hazardous Materials Information Systems 350,000
Site licenses costs for software.............................. 65,000
Data Baseline Project: Establish performance measures, support
risk-based planning, G.P.R.A., identify outside sources of
data...................................................... 300,000
Software, hardware, and training support to State pipeline
safety programs........................................... 50,000
Wide area network costs....................................... 50,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total 1998 Information Systems and Analysis............. 1,200,000
Question. What specific improvements have been made in your
information systems and analytical capabilities since last year?
Answer. Since last year, OPS has begun using a new vastly improved
information system for tracking operator inspections and related
information known as the Integrated Operator Compliance System (IOCS).
The system uses a wide area network (WAN) also brought online since
last year, to allow the Regions to access to a Windows NT Oracle based
central repository in Headquarters. The IOCS System was designed for
data entry and access on-site during inspections on notebook computers.
Analytical capabilities continue to be improved with a redesign of our
antiquated VAX-based data system from a text-based database system
language (System 1032) which also is being redesigned in Oracle.
Integration with all operator data bases, including the National
Pipeline Mapping System, incident, inspection and operator annual
report data is underway. Since the new system is Windows NT based, it
integrates easily with other PC-based applications such as Microsoft
Office products, providing much improved access and distribution of
data throughout OPS. Additionally, Microsoft Office was provided this
year for our state pipeline safety office computers so data is easily
shared between all offices. Our initiative to provide computers in
state offices has proven to be very successful, greatly improving
communications and data sharing between state offices, with our
regional and district offices, and with our Federal offices.
We are improving the scope, accuracy, and usefulness of our data by
working with joint Federal/state/industry data teams to review the
adequacy of currently available data, determine the best way to have
access to newly needed data, and document existing data in other
governmental agencies or elsewhere that may be useful. For example, the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has much data on pipeline
ownership and mileage that is of use. We found and obtained a source
for this data in electronic format. Additionally, DOE's Energy
Information Administration has useful data that we now understand more
fully which also is useful for analytical purposes. 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. We have made our data available
on our World Wide Web page, reducing the number of FOIA requests we
receive and making the data more available to the public. The Web page
provides a useful feedback mechanism allowing public comment on all our
activities, rulemakings, and easy access to pipeline statistics.
Additionally, we are working to create a standard for data which
operators would maintain on site. A comprehensive understanding of
operations and maintenance history, valve locations, inspection
findings, pipe manufacture and installation focuses 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.
Question. What is the empirical basis for the additional $300,000
for information system operations? Why can't the upgrade to the state
computer platform be funded within the base?
Answer. An increase in Information System Operations funding of
$300,000 is needed to upgrade the computer platform in State pipeline
safety offices. Existing systems originally purchased in 1995 have
insufficient speed and capacity to accommodate requirements of today's
software and hardware standards. Additionally, the equipment is out of
warranty and maintenance and support costs are increasing rapidly
because the equipment is old and unreliable. An upgrade of the computer
platform will assure that systems are capable of meeting date
requirements relating to the Year 2000 date conversion problem, and
that the systems will be adequate for meeting software requirements
beyond the year 2000. Faster computer communications between OPS and
state offices is needed to assure that states will have the ability to
access OPS' National Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS) and the Integrated
Operator Compliance System (IOCS). Access to these information systems
will enable states to more effectively find and fix pipeline safety
problems, more efficiently enforce compliance and target safety risks,
and enhance state participation in development of new safety
regulations and standards.
The upgrade to the state computer platform cannot be funded within
the base without drastically impacting our current schedule for
completing the transition of our System 1032 VAX computer data to
Oracle. This major redesign of our information system from the old
archaic system to a new Windows NT-based system in Oracle is about 50
percent complete, with the new inspection data collection phase already
on-line. Existing accident and incident databases, safety-related
conditions databases, and operator annual report databases and program
interfaces must be recorded in the new system in order to have all data
necessary to run our Pipeline Inspection Prioritization Program (PIPP)
on schedule. The PIPP process requires access to all operator databases
and is an essential tool in prioritizing and targeting inspection
activity.
compliance programs
Question. Please provide fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998
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. RSPA/OPS is providing greater public safety and protection
of the environment by concentrating our inspection resources on the
areas of greatest risk. We continually improve our risk-based
compliance and inspection policies to emphasize pipeline integrity
management and incorporate lessons we have learned from previous
inspection cycles. RSPA/OPS uses the Pipeline Inspection Priority
Program (PIPP) as a tool to prioritize routine inspections
supplementing our identification of non-routine safety inspection focus
areas.
For example, an unprecedented amount of new pipeline construction
is being proposed for fiscal year 1998. The majority of these projects
involve building pipelines to bring Canadian natural gas and crude oil
to the midwestern and eastern part of the United States. RSPA/OPS plans
intensive oversight of these construction projects to assure proper
construction practices.
We continue to assess the outcomes of the risk management and the
system integrity pilot programs to determine if and when expansion of
these programs is feasible. RSPA/OPS is considering moving from a fixed
interval inspection unit basis to a more variable inspection basis,
based on performance. Additionally, we are performing more inter-
regional inspections that provide OPS a comprehensive review of
operator procedures and allow more time for performing independent
field verifications and evaluating possible problem areas. RSPA/OPS is
exploring the possibility of allowing conditional self-assessment for
operators with strong quality assurance programs accompanied by
excellent safety records. This will allow us to focus on pipeline
systems needing improvement.
Those regions that were unable to meet the standard inspection
goals are as follows:
Eastern Region: The Eastern Region was unable to meet its 1997
standard inspection goals due to the loss of three trained inspectors.
The new employees hired to fill the vacant inspector slots required
training to perform the planned inspections.
Western Region: The training and mentoring of five new inspectors
in addition to the continuing long-term illness of another inspector
prevented the Western Region from meeting its 1997 standard inspection
goals.
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calendar year--
Measures -----------------------------------------------
1995 1996 1997
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cases Opened.................................................... 132 185 179
Cases Closed.................................................... 107 167 186
Civil Penalty Assessment \1\.................................... $264,835 $46,750 $228,171
REPORTABLE EVENTS
Incidents Reported.............................................. 350 374 362
Deaths.......................................................... 19 20 11
Injuries........................................................ 64 85 93
Property Damage................................................. $54,000,000 $64,000,000 $65,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The method of determining this number has been changed from previous years.
Question. What non-regulatory approaches to improve ``pipeline
integrity'' are you exploring? How has the fiscal year 1998 program
been improved compared with the fiscal year 1997 effort?
Answer. RSPA/OPS continues to focus on improvements to pipeline
integrity which will assure greater levels of safety, environmental
protection, and service reliability. In fiscal year 1998, we will
implement a three to five year, voluntary System Integrity Inspection
(SII) pilot program designed to test whether a more broad-based
examination of a company's safety and pipeline integrity programs will
result in improved performance and a more effective use of inspection
resources. Up to five candidates will be selected who offer the best
opportunity to test the SII pilot program under a broad range of
conditions. Inspectors will work cooperatively with each company to
address the most significant pipeline system integrity issues,
addressing areas that go beyond the regulations to assure improved
protection. The SII is intended to result in improved communication and
information sharing between operators and government, and focus
resources on the most important risks to pipeline safety.
Question. During fiscal year 1997, how many companies were
inspected 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. RSPA/OPS inspected 186 companies (746 pipeline units)
during fiscal year 1997. Of those, 116 companies (465 pipeline units)
did not receive enforcement actions. Many companies were inspected at
several different locations throughout their system. During every
inspection, pipeline companies are advised of methods to improve
compliance with the Federal pipeline safety requirements and industry
practices. The issues discussed usually involve minor items not
warranting enforcement action, such as a single missing pipeline marker
or performance less than industry best practice policies. No official
record is maintained of the items verbally relayed to the company
because they are not substantive violations.
For issues that are slightly more serious but not deserving of
civil penalty assessment, RSPA/OPS uses a Letter of Concern or a
Warning Letter to bring the matter to company management attention. In
1997, RSPA/OPS issued 110 Letters of Concern and Warning Letters.
Question. How many of those 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
those companies?
Answer. Twenty-four of the companies inspected in fiscal year 1996
were inspected at different locations in their system during fiscal
year 1997. Enforcement action was initiated on thirteen of the
companies which received Letters of Concern or Warning Letters in
fiscal year 1996. However, it should be noted that the concerns found
in fiscal year 1997 were not necessarily the same items found in fiscal
year 1996.
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.
RSPA/OPS is in the process of hiring additional inspectors in the
Southern and Central Regions.
NUMBER OF INSPECTORS ONBOARD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998 \1\ 1997 \1\ 1996 \1\
Region --------------------------------------------------------------------
Authorized Onboard Authorized Onboard Authorized Onboard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eastern.................................... 8 8 7 5 9 7
Southern................................... 8 7 8 8 8 8
Central.................................... 12 11 12 11 11 9
Southwest.................................. 11 11 11 11 11 9
Western.................................... 13 13 13 13 12 8
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................ 52 50 51 48 51 49
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These numbers do not include headquarters inspector positions that supply technical support.
The number of authorized positions is consistent with congressional
directives allowing for internal promotions and personnel turnover.
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.
ACCIDENT INVESTIGATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995 1996 1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Investigations..................... 21 64 51
Follow-up Investigations..................... 60 58 65
Accident Reports Generated................... 6 6 \1\ 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Additional reports are forthcoming.
Question. Please assess your influence on the safety and compliance
of those companies not participating in the risk demonstration project.
Answer. Improving pipeline integrity is critical to enhancing
safety, environmental protection, and service reliability. RSPA/OPS
uses a variety of activities to focus on integrity issues. These
include our inspection program, system integrity inspection pilot
program and involvement in industry standard-setting organizations.
Through changes in our compliance activities, we are able to
demonstrate a willingness to work with industry to create an superior
safety atmosphere. This willingness is based on mutual respect, a key
ingredient in promoting a greater exchange of information which leads
to a safer environment.
Our compliance program includes different types of inspections
(i.e. standard, special, follow-up, system-wide, system integrity,
etc.) and focuses on opportunities to positively impact safety. Each
inspection contributes to our understanding of pipeline integrity
issues and increases awareness and attention to regulatory
requirements. In times of company downsizing and personnel reduction,
our presence helps ensure maintenance and safety activities are not
neglected. In most cases, the companies are quick to comply with any
deficiencies noted. Some operators, now familiar with our requirements
for corrective and protective measures following certain types of
accidents, embark immediately on that type of corrective action prior
to RSPA/OPS requiring the action. However, we are quick to take
enforcement action if a company will not cooperate and safety is being
jeopardized.
RSPA/OPS seeks to provide appropriate levels of oversight based on
safety performance. Companies with excellent enforcement and safety
records are given opportunities for self-assessment and less frequent
inspections. Companies which struggle to comply are receiving increased
monitoring and attention. Applying risk management internally, RSPA/OPS
is devoting the greatest resources to the greatest risks.
research and development and mapping initiative
Question. Based on the results of the mapping pilot, what do you
anticipate the voluntary national pipeline mapping system will cost
federal and state governments and the industry? When do you anticipate
that the project will be completed?
Answer. Based on the results of the mapping pilot, OPS anticipates
that the remaining funds appropriated in 1996, 1997, and 1998, and the
funds requested in 1999 will allow OPS to complete 70 percent of the
National Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS). OPS will set up cooperative
agreements with various state agencies to jointly fund the creation of
the NPMS. OPS will fund up to 50 percent of the state's cost of
creating and maintaining the digital pipeline layer for the state in a
format that meets the national pipeline mapping standards.
Approximately 15 state agencies have received funding from their
state or another agency and are currently creating a digital pipeline
map of their state's pipelines, or they have requested and expect to
receive state funds to create a digital pipeline map of their state's
pipelines. The cooperative agreements will allow OPS and these state
agencies to maximize federal and state resources and minimize
duplication. Based on discussions with the various state agencies and
the results of the pilot test, OPS estimates the states will spend
approximately $800,000--$1,000,000 in state funds to convert the data
that they currently have in house to a format that meets the national
pipeline mapping standards, to request data from pipeline and liquefied
natural gas operators, to digitize the paper maps, to convert the
electronic data to a common format, and to purchase the hardware and
software needed to run the system.
The pilot indicated that an individual pipeline operator's cost to
submit data that meets the standards is dependent on the format of the
operator's data. Operators that have collected digital information and
have stored it in a geographic information system (GIS) indicated that
they would incur a minimal cost to submit data that meets the
standards. Operators that have collected digital location data on the
pipeline but have not incorporated it into a GIS also indicated that
they would incur minimal cost to submit data that meets the standards.
Operators that have old maps that do not accurately show the location
of the pipeline indicated that they would incur a medium to high cost
to submit data that meets the standards. With the cost of the
Geographical Positioning System coming down, RSPA expects more
operators to upgrade the accuracy of data in computers with field
monitoring activities.
OPS anticipates 70 percent of the NPMS will be completed by the
year 2000. OPS anticipates the remaining 30 percent of the system will
be for segments of the pipeline network where the operator is in the
process of migrating from a paper system to a digital database, or
where the operator cannot accurately locate the pipeline and has chosen
to update their records through field verification. After the year
2000, OPS will continue to work with pipeline operators and the
repositories to complete the NPMS, and to upgrade and update data in
the system as more accurate information becomes available.
Question. What are the Office of Pipeline Safety expected costs for
this project over the next ten years?
Answer. OPS anticipates that the appropriated funds received in
1996, 1997, and 1998, and the funds requested in 1999 will complete 70
percent of the system. OPS expects to complete, over the next ten
years, the remaining 30 percent of the system and to update and
maintain the system if the level of funding that we are currently
requesting is sustained.
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) systems. SCADA systems
are 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. Also, a study investigating the
establishment of leak-before-rupture criteria for gas and hazardous
liquid pipelines establishes pipeline design and operations conditions
to limit catastrophic failures. In addition, another report examines
analytical and experimental research into fatigue behavior of pipelines
that have mechanical damage, such as dents and gouges, which will help
pipeline operators decide when to repair pipelines by establishing
parameters that can be used in determining damage acceptance or
rejection criteria.
A future technical study that should result in technical advances
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 describe the progress made since last year of your
mapping initiative. When will the project be completed? How much was
appropriated and spent on this effort in fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998,
and planned for fiscal year 1999? What are the remaining challenges?
Answer. The Joint Government/Industry Pipeline Mapping Quality
Action Team (MQAT II) was formed in December 1996 and is sponsored by
RSPA's Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), the American Petroleum
Institute (API), and the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America
(INGAA). Representatives on the Team include the U.S. Geological
Survey, Department of Energy, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
DOT's Bureau of Transportation Statistics, the states of Texas,
Louisiana, California, and New York, and the natural gas and hazardous
liquid pipeline industry.
MQAT II was formed to implement MQAT I's ``Strategies for Creating
a National Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS).'' The strategies outline how
OPS can develop reasonably accurate pipeline location data without
creating an undue burden on the pipeline industry. The strategies
include developing, promoting, and aggressively communicating pipeline
mapping data standards; forming alliances with other government
agencies and industry to create and maintain the NPMS; and creating a
distributed mapping system that allows government agencies and the
pipeline industry to upgrade and exchange data from remote locations.
By March 1997, MQAT II had developed draft mapping standards to be
used in creating the NPMS. The Team conducted an initial pilot test of
the standards to test the collection and transfer of industry data to
pilot repositories, and the processing of the data by these
repositories. In May 1997, MQAT II held a public meeting to present the
draft standards to interested stakeholders. Feedback from this meeting
and the initial pilot was used to refine the standards and the
functions of a repository. OPS, API, and INGAA sent the revised
standards to the pipeline industry, states and mapping vendors for
review and comment.
OPS published two requests for bids in the Commerce Business Daily
to solicit state and vendor participation in a second pilot test of the
revised standards. Ten State agencies and six pipeline mapping vendors
were awarded contracts to act as pilot repositories and to test the
draft standards and NPMS model. The selected States were Louisiana,
Minnesota, Utah, California, Kentucky, Ohio, Texas, West Virginia, New
Jersey, and the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission. The API,
INGAA, and OPS solicited industry participation and twenty-two pipeline
companies took part in the second pilot. These companies were asked to
submit, to the pilot repositories, data on portions of their pipeline
system in a format that met the standards. The operators were also
asked to describe the ease or difficulty of meeting the standards, the
costs incurred and the problems encountered in meeting the standards,
and the operator's predicted time and effort to submit data in a format
that met the standards for their entire pipeline system.
MQAT II recently finished this second pilot. The results have
helped to determine the remaining problems with the mapping data
standards and NPMS model, and MQAT II is refining the standards and
model accordingly. The results also indicate that most pipeline
operators can cost beneficially meet the draft standards.
MQAT II will publish revised pipeline mapping data standards by May
1998. The Team will consider public comments before publicizing the
final standards. OPS will publish two requests for bids to determine
which state agencies and pipeline mapping contractors are interested
in, and qualified to become, the State repositories and the National
repository. OPS will finalize contracts with the repositories by
September 1998.
OPS will begin requesting data from pipeline operators early in
1999. OPS will begin by asking operators with digital pipeline data to
submit this data first. Data in a digital format is the most cost
beneficial for a repository to process. OPS will request that operators
submit paper data after all digital data has been received and
processed.
OPS anticipates that the funding requested in 1999 will allow 70
percent completion of the NPMS. This 70 percent completion will take
place during the years 1999 and 2000. OPS anticipates the remaining 30
percent that is not completed by the year 2000 will be for segments of
the pipeline network where the operator is in the process of migrating
from a paper system to a digital database, or where the operator cannot
accurately locate the pipeline and has chosen to update their records
through field verification. After the year 2000, OPS will work with
pipeline operators and the repositories to complete the NPMS, and to
upgrade and update data in the system as more accurate information
becomes available.
The challenges that remain for the OPS and the MQAT II are:
--Finalizing the NPMS standards;
--Setting up the state and national repositories;
--Working with pipeline operators and assisting them with migrating
from paper to digital; and
--Collecting other digital data layer so that OPS can depict
pipelines in relation to other vital national resources, such
as drinking water, threatened and endangered species, human
populations, cultural resources, environmentally sensitive
areas, and other transportation networks.
The following chart depicts the amount appropriated in fiscal year
1996, 1997, 1998 and planned for 1999.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount Amount spent
Fiscal year appropriated to date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996.................................... $1,200,000 $415,000
1997.................................... 400,000 ..............
1998.................................... 400,000 ..............
1999.................................... 800,000 ..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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? Are there any unobligated balances?
Answer. The first study under the MOU to be conducted in
collaboration with the Gas Research Institute addresses 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 which sensor technologies to
utilize, and then will 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 unobligated balance on this
study is $447,000, which we plan to obligate in fiscal year 1998.
Question. Why is it of critical importance to increase funds for
mapping by $400,000 in fiscal year 1999?
Answer. MQAT II has conducted several pilot tests over the past
year. Part of the purpose of these tests was to determine the costs
involved in converting the electronic data and digitizing the paper
maps that operators will submit, and bring all of this data into a
single digital pipeline layer. After reviewing the results of the pilot
tests on the costs associated with data conversion and creating a
common pipeline layer, MQAT II recommended that OPS request an increase
in funding for fiscal year 1999.
MQAT II believes the increased funding is necessary to complete the
majority of the NPMS. It is believed that the current level of funding
for fiscal year 1996 and 1997, and the increase of $400,000 in fiscal
year 1999, will allow 70 percent completion of the NPMS. The completion
of the remaining 30 percent of the NPMS will take place over several
years as pipeline operators and the repositories continue the initial,
costly process of converting the pipeline data to a digital format.
state grant program
Question. How are the States using funds for risk management and
assessment activities?
Answer. The States have used funds for risk management training and
travel necessary to participate in the OPS risk management
demonstration projects and stakeholder outreach efforts. State
participation in these demonstration projects is essential to bring the
most site-specific, geographic, and socio-economic information into the
risk evaluation process.
Question. Please discuss the five key challenges that your grant
program needs to address during the rest of fiscal year 1998 and in
fiscal year 1999.
Answer. From today through fiscal year 1999, OPS hopes to manage
these five key challenges for the grant program:
--reducing to zero pipeline incidents caused by noncompliance with
regulations strengthening damage prevention efforts at the
State-level;
--transitioning States to a risk-based pipeline safety program;
--integrity of an integrity focus in the state inspection programs;
--enhancing communication between Federal and State agencies through
improved information systems; and
--improving damage prevention programs.
Question. Please discuss the five major accomplishments of your
grant program during the last year.
Answer. OPS played a major role in realizing these five major
accomplishments in the grant program this past year:
--Texas enacts one-call legislation after years of efforts;
--Two additional States, Kentucky and South Carolina, participate in
the hazardous liquid pipeline safety program, and California
expands its jurisdictional authority over municipals;
--Relations are established with Maine and Hawaii to reenter the
program;
--Thirty-seven applications are processed for State one-call grant
funds in 1997; and
--States participate with OPS in risk management demonstration
projects.
Question. For fiscal year 1997 and 1998, 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 state, the amount of federal funds received, and the
percentage of federal contribution to total costs represented by that
grant. What efforts were taken to increase participation in the grant
program?
Answer. The following table is provided:
1997 NATURAL GAS PIPELINE SAFETY GRANTS ALLOCATION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
State Request State Allocation of
points funding
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama................................................... $339,009 100 $304,024 45
Arizona................................................... 362,000 100 324,643 45
Arkansas.................................................. 175,913 100 157,759 45
California................................................ 1,182,836 95 1,007,733 43
Colorado.................................................. 174,362 100 156,368 45
Connecticut............................................... 188,125 100 168,711 45
Delaware.................................................. 24,405 95 20,792 43
Florida................................................... 50,000 95 42,598 43
Georgia................................................... 269,147 100 241,372 45
Illinois.................................................. 269,723 100 241,889 45
Indiana................................................... 147,439 100 132,223 45
Iowa...................................................... 144,200 100 129,319 45
Kansas.................................................... 344,623 100 309,059 45
Kentucky.................................................. 230,880 100 207,054 45
Louisiana................................................. 332,000 100 297,739 45
Maryland.................................................. 156,860 100 140,673 45
Massachusetts............................................. 292,634 95 249,313 43
Michigan.................................................. 317,030 95 270,098 43
Minnesota................................................. 515,180 100 462,015 45
Mississippi............................................... 129,250 100 115,912 45
Missouri.................................................. 256,005 95 218,107 43
Montana................................................... 30,123 90 24,313 40
Nebraska.................................................. 75,660 95 64,460 43
Nevada.................................................... 120,269 100 107,857 45
New Hampshire............................................. 78,365 100 70,278 45
New Jersey................................................ 332,693 100 298,360 45
New Mexico................................................ 170,835 75 114,904 34
New York.................................................. 1,257,065 100 1,127,340 45
North Carolina............................................ 161,850 100 145,148 45
North Dakota.............................................. 43,061 100 38,617 45
Ohio...................................................... 476,268 100 427,118 45
Oklahoma.................................................. 285,766 100 256,276 45
Oregon.................................................... 128,193 100 114,963 45
Pennsylvania.............................................. 274,579 100 246,243 45
Puerto Rico............................................... 30,643 95 26,106 43
Rhode Island.............................................. 66,511 90 53,683 40
South Dakota.............................................. 34,980 90 28,233 40
Tennessee................................................. 235,106 100 210,844 45
Texas..................................................... 1,014,094 95 863,971 43
Utah...................................................... 154,000 100 138,108 45
Vermont................................................... 43,363 100 38,888 45
Virginia.................................................. 306,165 100 274,570 45
Washington, DC............................................ 71,761 95 61,137 43
Washington................................................ 202,334 100 181,453 45
West Virginia............................................. 216,041 95 184,059 43
Wisconsin................................................. 186,900 85 142,471 38
Wyoming................................................... 76,500 95 65,175 43
-----------------------------------------------------
Totals.............................................. 11,974,738 ......... 10,501,975 44
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 an aggregate, what percent of the states' pipeline
safety program funds were appropriated through the OPS state grant
program in fiscal years 1997 and 1998? Is the total national program
level increasing due to more active pipeline safety programs at the
state levels?
Answer. The ``core program'' grant funds appropriated for fiscal
years 1997 and 1998 were $12,000,000. The request from the states for
fiscal year 1997 was $27,327,000 and the funding level was 44 percent.
The request for fiscal year 1998 was $29,649,000 and the funding level
is 41 percent. The total national program level is increasing due
mostly to increased requirements by OPS on jurisdiction and damage
prevention enhancements and to inflation of program costs.
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 twelve new areas of Municipal, LPG or master meter
operator jurisdiction in their states.
Question. Please provide an assessment of your monitoring of the
state grant program. How has OPS improved various state programs?
Answer. Field evaluation scores and other performance measures are
used to determine the grant allocation for each State. Each year, OPS
evaluates the states' pipeline safety programs based on current
performance measures. OPS monitors state inspections to ensure that the
Pipeline Safety Regulations are being appropriately enforced. The
annually submitted State certifications contain data on such factors as
adequacy of one-call efforts, field inspection days, the number of
regulations adopted, and inspector qualification.
Over the last five 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 closely with the program manager to correct the circumstances
and provide technical support.
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, or 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
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 279, 218
and 279 for 1995, 1996 and 1997 respectively.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of audits Number of joint Training/seminars
--------------------------- inspections --------------------------
State ---------------------------
1995 1996 1997 1995 1996 1997 1995 1996 1997
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AL............................. 2 2 2 2 2 3 1 1 1
AZ............................. 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 1 2
AR............................. 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 .......
CA............................. 2 2 2 2 2 2 5 6 8
CO............................. 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 2
CT............................. 1 1 1 2 2 1 ....... ....... .......
DE............................. 1 1 1 1 1 1 ....... ....... .......
DC............................. 1 1 1 1 1 2 ....... ....... .......
FL............................. 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 .......
GA............................. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ....... 1
IL............................. 1 1 1 1 1 1 ....... 1 .......
IN............................. 1 1 1 1 1 2 ....... ....... 1
IA............................. 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 ....... .......
KS............................. 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1
KY............................. 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 .......
LA............................. 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 5 1
MD............................. 1 1 1 1 1 1 ....... 1 1
MA............................. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ....... 1
MI............................. 1 1 1 3 1 1 ....... ....... 1
MN............................. 2 2 2 5 2 7 2 ....... 2
MS............................. 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 ....... 2
MO............................. 1 1 1 1 1 1 ....... 1 1
MT............................. 1 1 1 1 1 1 ....... 1 1
NE............................. 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 ....... 1
NV............................. 1 1 1 1 1 4 ....... 1 .......
NH............................. 1 1 1 1 1 1 ....... 1 1
NJ............................. 1 1 1 1 1 1 ....... ....... .......
NM............................. 1 1 2 1 2 2 3 1 .......
NY............................. 2 2 2 7 3 2 ....... ....... 2
NC............................. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ....... .......
ND............................. 1 1 1 1 1 2 ....... 1 .......
OH............................. 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 2 .......
OK............................. 2 2 2 2 2 4 3 1 .......
OR............................. 1 1 1 1 1 2 ....... ....... 3
PA............................. 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 ....... .......
PR............................. 1 1 1 1 \1\ 49 1 ....... ....... 1
RI............................. 1 1 1 1 1 1 ....... ....... 1
SC............................. 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 ....... .......
SD............................. 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 ....... .......
TN............................. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ....... 2
TX............................. 2 2 2 2 3 4 1 5 1
UT............................. 1 1 1 1 1 2 ....... 2 2
VT............................. 1 1 1 1 1 1 ....... ....... 2
VA............................. 1 2 1 3 3 1 1 ....... .......
WA............................. 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 ....... 3
WV............................. 2 2 2 2 2 3 ....... 2 .......
WI............................. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ....... 1
WY............................. 1 1 1 1 1 1 ....... 1 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This increase was due to the major incident in San Juan in 1996.
Question. Does your general counsel believe it would be legal to
draw down some OPA funds to pay for an increase in the liquids portion
of the grant program.
Answer. Yes. State programs work jointly with OPS in fulfilling the
OPA mission of preventing oil spills from pipelines. OPA funds may be
used for prevention activities of OPA.
risk management program and risk assessment
Question. What is the status of the risk management demonstration
projects that were authorized in the Accountable Pipeline Safety and
Partnership Act?
Answer. RSPA issued an Order approving its first risk management
demonstration project on March 18, 1998 (Shell Pipe Line Corporation).
RSPA is working with seven other companies in the program at this time
and we are engaged in consultative evaluations. These projects are
multi-year with many components detailed in work plans. We will monitor
the work plans over a four year period.
Several other qualified companies have expressed an interest in
participating and we have had preliminary meetings with them. We may
start working with some of them in 1999 provided that we have completed
the approvals begun in 1998 with the seven already in the process.
Presently, RSPA may approve up to ten demonstration projects during the
four year period, consistent with a presidential directive.
RSPA bases its choice of participating companies on several program
objectives. While each company has its various strengths and
distinguishing features, all companies approved or under consideration
are proposing projects that have the potential to (1) provide superior
safety, environmental protection, and service reliability; and (2)
systematically test risk management as a regulatory alternative through
objective evaluation under a broad range of conditions. Other project
factors we evaluate include new technologies being tested, ability to
communicate with OPS, states and the public, geographic diversity,
corporate commitment to the quality of programs, and the company's
safety and environmental record. All projects are subject to public
comment and extensive review by RSPA and affected states.
Question. Who are the participants in those demonstration projects?
What progress has been made in each of those projects? Is funding for
those demos provided through the risk assessment/technical studies
contract program, or through the risk management grants program?
Answer. The eight companies RSPA is working with in 1998 are: Shell
Pipe Line Corporation (RSPA issued the Order approving the Shell
project on March 18, 1998); Chevron Pipe Line Company (RSPA has
completed consultations with Chevron and has asked Chevron to submit a
formal written application); Phillips Pipe Line Company (RSPA has
completed consultations with Phillips and has asked Phillips to submit
a formal written application); Mobil Pipe Line Company (RSPA has
completed consultations with Mobil and has asked Mobil to submit a
formal written application); Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation/
Columbia Gulf Transmission Company (RSPA is still engaged in
consultations with Columbia); Florida Gas Transmission Company (RSPA is
still engaged in consultations with Florida Gas); Natural Gas
Transmission Company (NGPL) (RSPA is still engaged in consultations
with NGPL); and Northwest Pipeline (RSPA plans to continue
consultations with Northwest in the fall).
The companies RSPA may work with in 1999 include CNG Transmission
Corporation, Duke Energy, and Tennessee Gas Pipeline/East Tennessee
Natural Gas.
Funding for support of these demonstration projects is provided
under both Risk Assessment & Technical Studies (RATS) and Risk
Management Grants. Funding from Risk Assessment & Technical Studies
(partially derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund) is used for
contractor support for evaluation and monitoring of demonstration
projects.
The Risk Management Grant funding enables affected States to take
part in a number of activities that support risk management. These
include risk management training, demonstration project evaluations,
and participation in teams improving pipeline data forming the basis
for risk assessments. State participation brings the most site-
specific, geographic, and socio-economic information into the risk
evaluation process.
Question. How much funding was associated with those demonstration
projects in fiscal year 1998, and how much is requested for fiscal year
1999?
Answer. The funding requested for the demonstration projects in
fiscal year 1999 remains unchanged from the funding enacted in fiscal
year 1998.
Of the $1.2 million RSPA requested under Risk Assessment &
Technical Studies in fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999, RSPA
expects to dedicate approximately $900,000 to the demonstration
projects. For both years, $200,000 of this amount will be derived from
the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF).
In fiscal year 1998, RSPA dedicated the $500,000 appropriation
under Risk Management Grants to activities supporting the risk
management initiative. RSPA has requested $500,000 in Risk Management
Grants for fiscal year 1999.
Question. Please provide a list of each of the contracts funded by
the fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998 appropriations for risk
assessment and technical studies, indicating purpose and amount of
each.
Answer. In fiscal year 1997, RSPA funded Cycla Corporation $1.1
million using Risk Assessment & Technical Studies appropriations.
So far in fiscal year 1998, RSPA funded Cycla Corporation $800,000
using these appropriations ($200,000 of these funds were derived from
the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund). RSPA expects to add another
$100,000 to this contract from Risk Assessment & Technical Studies
appropriations before the end of fiscal year 1998.
Cycla Corporation supports RSPA efforts to: guide all participating
companies in developing and implementing risk management programs
consistent with the Program Standard; provide mechanisms for meaningful
community involvement; and administer the Program consistent with the
Program Framework. Cycla supports the multiple meetings required
between companies, OPS headquarters and regional staff, and affected
state pipeline officials, enabling all participants to reach agreement
on demonstration project provisions or modifications. Cycla support
helps ensure that all issues raised are shared among all evaluators or
auditors, resolved with the company, summarized for interested
stakeholders, posted and updated in the various communication
mechanisms (including the Internet information system which receives an
average of 1600 hits per week, Federal Register notices, prospectus,
and electronic town meetings), and thoroughly documented for OPS files.
In fiscal year 1999, OPS expects to use Cycla support in evaluating a
few additional demonstration projects, in monitoring the seven projects
expected to be approved in fiscal year 1998, in refining demonstration
project performance monitoring measures and approaches, and in
investigating the feasibility of risk management for local distribution
companies (LDC).
Risk Assessment & Technical Studies appropriations are also used
for smaller contracts for communication activities using state-of-the-
art technologies combining satellite and the Internet (4300 viewers
participated in our last live broadcast), miscellaneous administrative
support, support for public meetings and conferences, publication of
Federal Register notices, and development and delivery of training.
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. 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
audit companies' safety. Companies must define and achieve safety
goals, rather than simply comply with regulations.
The base criteria for project-specific measures OPS will accept
are:
--Support the intent of achieving superior safety relevant to the
risk control activities.
--Track short- and long-term effectiveness.
--Document starting conditions to establish a performance baseline.
--Establish expected outcomes in the form of discrete values or
ranges.
--Enable auditing, monitoring and documentation.
During the evaluation of demonstration projects, OPS also sees 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 must
also lead to superior safety. OPS follows its review protocols in
determining if a demonstration project proposal can lead to superior
safety.
one-call
Question. What work does OPS have underway regarding the ``best
practices'' employed by one-call systems in operation in the states?
How are you encouraging states to adopt those ``best practices''? How
much is planned for this activity in fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The Underground Damage Prevention Act of 1997, which
prescribes best practices for one-call systems, was submitted to the
Senate and House as Title I of DOT's Transportation Safety Act of 1997.
This proposed bill promotes one-call systems with statewide coverage,
effective mechanisms for enforcement, 24-hour coverage, and provisions
for public and excavator education. The bill provides incentives to
States to adopt these best practices by prescribing widely-accepted and
flexible elements for a State one-call program, supporting grants to
fund such improvements, and defining a federal model program to assist
States.
OPS also assists the States to implement these best practices by
building greater awareness of damage prevention and one-call systems
with its plans for a national damage prevention campaign, and
participating in hearings to support State one-call legislation. For
fiscal year 1999, RSPA is requesting $200,000 for a national public
education campaign on damage prevention.
Question. What are you doing to motivate states to improve their
one-call notification systems and excavation damage prevention
activities? How much is planned for that activity in fiscal year 1999?
Answer. In the past few years, many States have improved their one-
call notification systems and damage prevention activities by
strengthening State one-call legislation, increasing enforcement
efforts, and continuing public education. This notable increase in one-
call efforts have occurred since OPS has made one-call grant funds
available to States. OPS is requesting $1 million in one-call grant
funds to States for fiscal year 1999.
In addition, States participating in the pipeline safety program
receive grants based on performance, which is partially assessed by the
State's advancement of one-call legislation and enforcement.
Question. What are you doing to examine the effectiveness and
accuracy of the mapping techniques currently used by one-call
notification systems? How much is planned for that activity in fiscal
year 1999?
Answer. The Joint Government/Industry Pipeline Mapping Quality
Action Teams (MQAT I and MQAT II) have contacted the one-call centers
and One-Call Systems International to determine how each one-call
center catalogs and stores the pipeline location data that operators
submit. The Teams determined that most one-call centers store the
pipeline location according to a location grid stored in tabular
databases with no reference to geographic coordinates. Grid or corridor
size varies significantly between one-call systems and, as a result, so
do pipeline location accuracy levels. Much of the detailed pipeline
location information originally submitted by pipeline operators is
generalized by the use of grids.
Only a few State one-call systems have computerized mapping systems
or pipeline information that identifies longitude and latitude on a
base map. For these systems, pipeline operators indicate a buffer zone
around the pipeline that can be as large or as small as the pipeline
operator desires. When the center receives an excavation call, the one-
call center identifies which members have polygons or corridors that
fall within the dig site polygon and notifications are issued. Since
this type of system is more accurate, it decreases the number of phone
calls the one-call center has to make or to which the pipeline operator
has to respond.
With the recent decreases in the cost of mapping systems, and the
benefits of the mapping systems, some of the one-call centers are
migrating to graphical-database mapping systems. OPS will monitor this
activity in fiscal year 1999 and beyond and will encourage one-call
centers to migrate to more locationally accurate geographic information
systems.
Question. What is the status of your national one-call campaign?
When will the pilot tests be conducted?
Answer. The Damage Prevention Quality Action Team (DAMQAT)completed
its assessment of existing damage prevention materials. DAMQAT
conducted a nationwide survey to assess the level of damage prevention
awareness and damage prevention practices among professional
excavators. This in-depth survey also identified which damage
prevention materials are most effective. This information was used to
design the print and broadcast materials for the pilot campaigns. The
pilot tests will be conducted from May through October 1998 in
Virginia, Tennessee and Georgia.
Question. What could be done to accelerate those efforts? Why has
it taken so long to get that campaign off the ground?
Answer. All DAMQAT Team members are employed full time in other
capacities. DAMQAT first met in October 1996. By the spring of 1997,
the Team had completed its review of existing materials and identified
the need to design more effective ones. Before committing a
considerable amount of public monies to this effort, we thought it
prudent to assess the level of damage prevention awareness and damage
prevention practices. The results were used to modify existing
materials and design new ones, as necessary. Assessment of existing
materials, conduct of the nationwide survey, and design of new
materials are all labor intensive efforts which have to be completed
prior to conducting the pilot campaign.
Question. During fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998, what were
the specific uses, on a contract-by-contract basis, of the funds
provided for one-call?
Answer. Cycla Inc. is the prime contractor for all damage
prevention activities through an IDIQ (indefinite duration indefinite
quantity) contract. Cycla has sub-contracts with other entities to
conduct activities outside the scope of Cycla's expertise. Contract
funds were used to assist in evaluating existing damage prevention
materials, conduct the national survey of damage prevention awareness
and practices, develop a marketing campaign for the pilot program,
produce print and broadcast media for the pilot and public relations
for the pilot campaign. Edge Research conducted the national survey.
Traken, Burden and Charles is the advertising/PR firm selected to
conduct the pilot campaign.
Question. Please discuss the five key challenges that your internal
(as opposed to the state grant) one-call program needs to address
during the rest of fiscal year 1998 and in fiscal year 1999.
Answer. The challenges are: (1) orchestrating a comprehensive
response to damage prevention which gains the support of all key
interests; (2) collecting comprehensive data on excavation damage to
underground facilities including the full costs of repair, lost
business and other downstream losses; (3) generating matching funds
from interested parties to underwrite costs of the pilot; (4) working
with individual states to strengthen their one-call laws; (5) passing
national damage prevention legislation.
Question. Please discuss the five major accomplishments of your
(internal) one-call program during the last year.
Answer. The agency has adopted the term `damage prevention' rather
than `one-call' because one-call is just the first of several steps in
the damage prevention process. First, OPS submitted comprehensive
Damage Prevention legislation to Congress; second, OPS provides
administrative support for DAMQAT activities and oversees DAMQAT
contracts for evaluating materials, the national survey, advertising
and public relations activities, etc.; third, in organizing DAMQAT, OPS
moved beyond the pipeline community to include all groups which are key
players in damage prevention: states, professional excavators, one-call
centers, insurance and telecommunications. Fourth, OPS conducted the
first in-depth nationwide survey of key groups: professional
excavators, state, county and municipal public works employees,
facility operators and the public. The survey provides baseline data on
damage prevention awareness and practices for design of materials for
the pilot campaign and enables OPS to gauge the success of the pilot.
Fifth, OPS will launch its pilot Damage Prevention campaign.
Question. What percentage of natural gas and liquid pipeline
releases and accidents can be attributed to 3rd party damage?
Answer. For 1997, 20 percent of all incidents involving hazardous
liquid lines was attributable to third party damage. For natural gas,
26 percent of transmission line incidents and 38 percent of
distribution line incidents were caused by third party damage. Third
party damage was the cause for 27 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. The $1 million requested by OPS is not from the reserves of
the Pipeline Safety Fund, but the user fee collection OPS has utilized
this requested amount in the last three years to assist with
establishing and improving one-call programs within the States.
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 request in your submission to OST as well as
OMB? How would you spend an additional $500,000 if it were provided?
Answer. Yes, our request to OST and OMB asked for $1 million to be
derived from the prior year balance of the pipeline safety fund for
One-Call Grants. We subsequently determined that the current level of
reserve funding was justified in light of OPS' need to draw down about
$11 million from the reserve each year to sustain OPS operations until
new user fees are collected, and the $16 million in general find
support that this program received in 1986 and 1987 while the pipeline
safety fees were disputed in court.
In 1998, with restricted grant application amounts (a maximum of
$50,000 per state), we were able to fund at an average of 80 percent of
the request. All applying states requested funding of $1,375,190. The
additional funding would further encourage states to work on one-call
legislation, additional compliance activities, facility identification
and location improvement projects, coordination of areas with multiple
one-call centers, membership in one-call centers, and public and
excavator education.
Question. Last year, the Committee stated that OPS and its damage
prevention quality team needed to accelerate its efforts to assist
States in advancing one-call systems, and expand the scope of its
efforts toward a more systematic approach to the one-call challenge.
How did you respond to that direction?
Answer. OPS, through the Department of Transportation, submitted
legislation to Congress requiring states to mandate participation by
all facility operators in local one-call systems in order to qualify
for certain one-call grants. This legislative proposal was designed to
eliminate differences in one-call participation among facility
operators from state to state. The DAMQAT national survey identified
problems in one-call usage and made recommendations to the states
through the National Association of Pipeline Safety Representatives to
expand facility participation in their states as well as use of one-
call systems by professional excavators.
Question. For each of the suggestions specified by the Committee in
the first paragraph of page 151 of Senate report 105-55, please
indicate how OPS has responded and how OPS will continue to respond?
Answer. The first suggestion is that OPS work with the States,
industry and various public agencies to increase participation by
facility operators as members of notifications systems. The DAMQAT team
includes representation from all the groups suggested in the report.
Team members support participation by their organizations in
notification systems. This has been especially true of the National
Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) and the
National Association of Pipeline Safety Representatives (NAPSR), both
state groups, who have strongly supported participation by all
operators of underground utilities. The second suggestion was that OPS
should redouble its efforts to work with excavators. The Association of
General Contractors is represented on DAMQAT. The AGC member provides
valuable recommendations on the appropriate techniques to educate
excavators on damage prevention. DAMQAT has responded to a finding in
our national survey that professional excavators want more training
materials. We are producing a training video which emphasizes the
importance of having lines marked prior to excavation, hand digging
when appropriate, as well as print ads in construction trade journals.
The report also suggested that DAMQAT should identify best practices
and help develop model programs. The survey identified best practices
among excavators; our training materials and print and broadcast media
all emphasize the critical steps in safe digging. The DOT's damage
prevention legislation contained a provision for developing a model
program. This provision was not included in the version of the bill
which was passed by the Senate and is now before the House. OPS also
provides other technical assistance and guidance to states on improving
their damage prevention programs through its state liaisons and by
working with states to strengthen their damage prevention laws.
Question. Please update past data provided to Congress 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 four years, fourteen States have passed or
improved one-call legislation: Alabama, Kentucky, Montana, North
Dakota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, South Dakota,
Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
Since the incident in San Juan, Puerto Rico in 1996, we have been
working closely with Puerto Rico (PR) to seek legislative authority to
create a one-call center.
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 past year, 33 State programs have
requested one-call grants to further their efforts with one-call
activities in the following States: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas,
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire,
New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,
Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming and the District of Columbia.
Question. How are you using new authorities provided in the
Accountable Pipeline Safety and Partnership Act to improve one-call
systems?
Answer. These authorities allow us to fund one-call systems
directly rather than giving funds to states for distribution to one-
call centers.
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. DAMQAT has completed its assessment of existing damage
prevention materials and sponsored a nationwide survey to assess levels
of damage prevention awareness and practices. Findings from the survey
were used to design materials for the pilot campaigns in Virginia,
Tennessee and Georgia. The team has recommended that key interests
contribute to funding to the pilot campaign, and that key figures
within their industries use their highly visible positions to encourage
participation in one-call systems and use of the key damage prevention
elements identified by the Team. The Team also recommends that, without
exception, all facility operators be required to participate in one-
call systems, and that all excavators be required to call before
digging. In particular, the Team has identified the need for state,
county and municipal public works departments to use one-call systems
and additional measures, such as hand digging and observing the
markings when they excavate.
Question. Please describe the results of the one-call survey and
how the data were used in developing a national campaign or in other
ways.
Answer. The results of the survey showed the level of awareness of
damage prevention practices among four groups: professional excavators,
state, county and municipal public works employees, facility operators,
and the general public. There is a very high level of one-call
awareness even among the general public. The survey also gauged the
practices of the three specialty groups: excavators, public works
employees, and facility operators. Professional excavators are most
likely to observe best practices in addition to one-call. These
include: waiting the required time as set in each jurisdiction before
digging; observing the marks made by the facility operators, i.e.
digging within a set tolerance of the lines; hand digging when
approaching the lines. Each of these steps is necessary to avoid damage
to underground facilities. In addition, professional excavators often
held meetings at the construction site with facility operators. These
findings made it clear that damage prevention efforts have to emphasize
steps in addition to use of one-call. The materials developed for the
pilot campaign focus on damage prevention as a multi-step process and
note the responsibility that each party has to communicate with others
involved at the particular excavation site to avoid damage.
Question. How did you use the additional funds provided last year
to improve the one-call system?
Answer. In addition to encouraging states to pass or reinforce one-
call legislation, OPS has invested in state one-call programs that have
increased public awareness and education programs through seminars,
literature, and electronic databases like the Internet. OPS has helped
map state pipelines and support other state projects such as:
--digitizing pipeline information for use with GIS systems;
--producing a statewide excavator's manual;
--enhancing one-call center membership;
--improving one-call violation case processing; and
--increasing field investigations to identify one-call violations.
Question. What specific commitments for cost sharing have you
gotten from the private sector to help pay the one-call/damage
prevention outreach effort.
Answer. The American Petroleum Institute has earmarked $5,000 for
the purchase of phone cards to be used as promotional material. We
expect that some long distance carriers will also underwrite this
effort. The One Call Systems International representative has been very
generous with her expertise in conducting damage prevention campaigns.
Virtually all members of the team provided sample damage prevention
materials for our evaluation; several provided research that had been
done for industry and trade groups. In terms of participation on
DAMQAT, 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 31 NTSB recommendations that are
classified by NTSB as `Open'. Open NTSB recommendations and OPS'
actions are outlined by category below. OPS continues to have
productive discussions with NTSB to resolve all open recommendations.
Inspection/Testing Requirements
P-87-4: Require periodic testing and inspections to identify
corrosion and other time-dependent damages.
P-87-5: Establish criteria to determine appropriate intervals for
inspections and tests.
We do not require hydrostatic retesting on a periodic basis.
Current technical and economic data do not support the establishment of
an arbitrary period to retest or conduct instrumented pig surveys. OPS
is approaching this testing and inspection on an as-needed basis to
identify corrosion-caused and other time-dependent damages. RSPA
published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to open up for
public comment an assortment of proposed solutions to potential
pipeline safety problems (52 FR 4361; February 11, 1987). The notion of
requiring operators to inspect or test pipelines periodically to
determine their operational integrity was one of those solutions. Based
on the public comments, opinions of our pipeline safety advisory
committees, and the results of a study we had sent to Congress under
Sec. 210 of the Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Act of 1979, we
concluded that inspection and testing of all pipelines at preset
intervals to assess integrity was not justified (55 FR 23515; June 8,
1990). This conclusion was confirmed by a subsequent study of periodic
smart pig inspection that we sent to Congress under Sec. 304 of the
Pipeline Safety Reauthorization Act of 1988. Contributing to this
decision was our belief that the uncertainties involved in predicting
the behavior of time-dependent defects make it impossible to develop
valid criteria for calculating the appropriate frequency of 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.
This determination will be based on specified and measurable risk
factors, established in the NPRM.
P-87-23: Establish criteria for determining safe service intervals
between hydrostatic retests.
OPS does not require hydrostatic retesting of existing pipelines,
unless such action is indicated by major repairs. OPS believes that
hydrostatic retests should be performed on a case-by-case basis, taking
into account leak history and other relevant operational factors. This
approach is consistent with the requirements of Sections 108 and 207 of
the Pipeline Safety Reauthorization 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 to determine if a
risk-based approach to hydrostatic retesting can be adopted.
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.
Recommendations from the Edison, New Jersey, 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 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. In addition, the
parts of Transportation Research Board (TRB) Special Report 219 that
address pipeline right-of-way safety issues is being made available to
appropriate officials in all states. Feedback from the states will
assist in RSPA's evaluation of population encroachment issues. A report
on RSPA's evaluation of population encroachment issues will be
completed in fiscal year 1999.
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. In addition, OPS will soon publish a final rule to
incorporate by reference a publication of the American Petroleum
Institute entitled, API 1130 ``Computational Pipeline Monitoring.''
This requires operators of hazardous liquid pipelines use API 1130 in
conjunction with other information in the design, evaluation,
operation, maintenance, and testing of their software-based leak
detection systems. This will result in a significant advancement toward
the acceptance of leak detection technology on hazardous liquid
pipelines, but will not require the installation of computational leak
detection systems where they are not already installed.
P-95-2: Develop toughness standards for new pipe installed in gas
and hazardous liquid pipelines.
OPS is working with the American Petroleum Institute (API)
Committee API 5L to update pipe toughness requirements. OPS expects to
adopt into the pipeline safety regulations the latest standard accepted
by the API committee.
P-95-1: Expedite requirements for installing automatic or remote-
operated mainline valves on high pressure pipelines.
Congress has mandated the use of remote control valves (RCV) on
interstate natural gas pipeline facilities if, after a survey and
assessment, it is determined that the use of RCV's is technically and
economically feasible and would reduce risks associated with a rupture
of a natural gas pipeline facility. Similarly, the Joint Inspection
Task Force recommendations, as outlined in OPS' New Jersey
Comprehensive Inspection Report, recommended that technical study be
initiated to establish criteria for the installation of automatic or
remote valves on gas transmission pipelines.
In response, the Research and Special Programs Administration
(RSPA) held a public meeting on October 30, 1997, in Houston, Texas,
with representatives of industry, state and local government, and the
public on the use of remotely controlled valves (RCV's) on natural gas
pipeline facilities to gather information on relevant technical and
economic issues. OPS has also been monitoring the valve 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.'' OPS has 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. A report on the technical and
economic feasibility of requiring RCV's on interstate gas transmission
lines will be completed in late fiscal year 1998.
Relationship w/MMS and Other Federal Agencies
P-90-29: Require inspection, burial, and protection of submerged
pipelines.
OPS contracted with Texas A&M University to conduct a study of
underwater inspection of offshore pipelines to determine if pipeline
depth and condition constitute a hazard to navigation. The final report
of the study reviewed current methods and recommended intervals for
risk-based, periodic inspections of offshore pipelines. The results of
the study are being evaluated as part of a rulemaking to require
operators of natural gas and hazardous liquid pipelines to conduct
periodic underwater inspections of offshore pipelines and those in
navigable waterways. This action would also define what constitutes an
exposed underwater pipeline and what constitutes a hazard to navigation
or public safety. This could include requirements for the reburial of
exposed pipelines.
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. Most notably, OPS has signed and implemented 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 are
cooperating in the Damage Prevention Quality Action Team (DAMQAT) 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. We have adapted available materials and are
developing new ones for use in the pilot education campaign that will
be launched in May 1998 in Virginia, Tennessee, and Georgia.
The Senate passed S. 1115, the Comprehensive One-Call Notification
Act of 1997, which would set minimum performance standards for one-call
notification programs to improve participation and performance of
existing state programs. Incentive grants would encourage states to
strengthen laws that protect excavators, the public, and underground
facilities from damage. The bill allows the Secretary to initiate a
study of best practices among one-call notifications systems and would
authorize one million dollars in fiscal year 1999 and five million in
fiscal year 2000 for grants to states that improve one-call programs.
The bill has been introduced in the House as HR 3318.
Office of Pipeline Safety state liaisons work with the states in
their regions to improve existing one-call legislation by testifying at
state legislative hearings and providing supporting material which
documents the effectiveness of one-call systems and comprehensive
damage prevention 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.
P-97-7: Complete a final rule on employee qualification, training,
and testing standards within one year.
The Secretary convened a Negotiated Rulemaking (RegNeg) committee
on qualification of pipeline personnel performing operations &
maintenance and emergency response functions. The committee reached a
consensus on a proposed rule on operator qualification in January 1998.
A proposed rule will be published in Spring 1998. The rule will require
that all persons performing certain safety-related operations and
maintenance tasks on a gas or hazardous liquid pipeline be qualified to
safely perform these tasks.
P-87-3: Require operators to examine exposed pipelines for external
corrosion.
Although pipeline companies already examine exposed pipelines for
external corrosion, OPS will consider requirements for both natural gas
and hazardous liquid pipelines as part of a larger examination of
protection against corrosion. This examination will examine all aspects
of corrosion protection for pipelines and possibly revise the corrosion
protection requirements of both the gas and hazardous liquid pipeline
regulations.
P-87-26: Obtain data on ERW pipe to determine hazards 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 has prepared a proposed rule on risk-based
alternatives to pressure testing that may result in a further decrease
of the risks posed by pre-1970 ERW pipe.
P-87-34: Require operators to maintain maps and records.
P-90-04: Identify the type, number location and owner of all
offshore pipelines in the Gulf of Mexico.
OPS co-sponsors a joint Government/Industry Pipeline Mapping
Quality Action Team (MQAT) 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.
In addition, MQAT II has created mapping standards that will be
used to create the NPMS. OPS will begin collecting pipeline and LNG
data, using these standards, in 1999.
OPS is also working with state and other federal agencies to create
the NPMS. OPS is working with several state agencies to gather data on
offshore pipelines, including data from the states of Texas and
Louisiana, who have completed data collection on most, if not all the
pipelines in the Gulf that fall within their jurisdiction.
Finally, OPS completed a full collection of CAD-generated blue
print block mapping of all pipelines in the Gulf of Mexico. These maps
depict the type, number, location, and owner of all offshore Gulf of
Mexico pipelines by lease block.
P-89-6: Establish requirement 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 control valves on liquid pipelines in all high
risk areas to provide for rapid isolation of failed pipeline segments.
In addition, OPS completed a report on a check valve study that
addresses the issues outlined in the two recommendations.
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 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.
Further, OPS revised and redistributed the Guidance Manual for
Operators of Small Natural Gas Systems. This manual provides a broad
overview of compliance responsibilities, and is designed for non-
technically trained people who operate master meter systems, small
natural gas systems, and small municipal or independent systems.
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 buried pipelines from
the outlet of the meter to the customer building, 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 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.
Based on safety practices recommended by the Interstate Oil and Gas
Compact Commission and the American Petroleum Institute on standards
for underground storage, OPS has recommended that the states and
storage operators take individual action, as necessary, 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 Final Rule (63 FR 5464; February 3, 1998), titled
``Excess Flow Valves (EFV)--Customer Notification.'' The final rule
requires operators of natural gas distribution systems to notify
certain 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 is
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.
RSPA 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. A
comprehensive data plan was submitted to NTSB in February, 1998. The
plan details how RSPA is analyzing current database capabilities and
working to improve its collection and use of gas and hazardous liquid
pipeline accident data. Cooperation with industry groups such as the
Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA), the Gas Research
Institute (GRI), the American Petroleum Institute (API), and the
Association of Oil Pipelines (AOPL) is the cornerstone of RSPA's effort
to identify and obtain needed data. RSPA is currently working with
these industry groups and other industry representatives on joint
Federal/industry teams to identify needed data. RSPA is supporting
development of an electronic reporting system to collect this data
directly from operators. The need for normalizing data previously
unavailable for liquid pipeline issues is being evaluated. Adequacy of
existing liquid pipeline accident is being considered. Work with the
data teams will continue through Summer 1998. When the data team
recommendations are complete, RSPA will pursue methods for obtaining
and evaluating proposed data.
RSPA continues to improve currently collected data by aggressively
seeking supplemental reports for incident and accident data,
identifying trends, and determining areas in which more data is needed.
Additionally, RSPA is normalizing all databases and auditing historical
data systems and reports. Performance metrics have been identified from
existing data sources that will be used for the Government Performance
and Results Act (GPRA) purposes. Existing data systems have been re-
engineered to make data more useful and accessible.
In February, 1998 RSPA submitted a comprehensive plan that details
efforts to collect, use, and normalize accident data to perform
accident trend analyses and evaluations of pipeline operator
performance.
Guidance on State Pipeline Safety Oversight
P-97-6: Modify monitoring of State pipeline safety programs to
ensure that the States are timely in monitoring the correction of
identified safety deficiencies and to ensure that they implement
enforcement action as necessary.
RSPA monitors state programs to ensure that timely correction of
safety deficiencies and appropriate enforcement action is taken. This
policy was followed in Puerto Rico. We annually review our written
guidance to the State programs and State evaluation criteria to confirm
that appropriate emphasis is being given to these issues.
P-97-8: Require that the San Juan Gas Company, Inc., take action
necessary to ensure that abandoned pipelines are properly disconnected,
purged of propane, and adequately secured to prevent the transmission
of flammable vapors and gases, and to ensure that abandoned pipelines
are properly identified on maps.
San Juan Gas has submitted and received approval from the Puerto
Rico Public Service Commission (PR PSC) to abandon approximately 90
percent of the existing distribution system and to up-grade the
remainder of the system. This program is underway and is being closely
monitored by the PR PSC to ensure proper abandonment procedures are
being followed.
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-941 \1\ \3\.................. Qualification of pipeline Negotiated rulemaking 05/98
Personnel. completed; NPRM will be
published.
PS-101A \3\..................... Mandatory Participation in Final Rule published........... 11/97
Qualified One-Call Systems by
Pipeline Operators.
PS-102.......................... Control of Drug Use and Alcohol Direct Final Rule published.... 12/97
Misuse in Natural Gas,
Liquefied Natural Gas, and
Hazardous Liquid Pipeline
Operations.
PS-117.......................... Hazardous Liquid Pipelines NPRM published 2/98; Final Rule 12/98
Operated at 20 percent or Less being prepared.
of Specified Minimum Yield
Strength.
PS-118 \1\ \3\.................. Excess Flow Valve (EFV) Customer Final Rule published........... 02/98
Notification.
PS-121.......................... Pressure Testing of Older Response to Petition for 02/98
Hazardous Liquid Pipelines. Reconsideration published.
PS-122.......................... Gas Gathering Line Definition... Supplemental NPRM being \3\ 10/98
prepared.
PS-124 \2\ \3\.................. Further Regulatory Review; Gas NPRM being prepared............ 06/98
Pipeline Safety Standards.
PS-126.......................... Passage of Instrumented Internal Response to Petitions for 07/98
Inspection Devices. Reconsideration being prepared.
PS-128.......................... Drug and Alcohol Testing: NPRM being prepared............ 03/98
Substance Abuse Professional
Evaluation for Drug Use.
PS-130.......................... Response Plans for Onshore Oil Interim Final Rule published 1/ 01/99
Pipelines. 93; change in filing period
published 3/98; Final rule
being prepared.
PS-133 \1\...................... Emergency Flow Restricting NPRM on leak detection being 12/98
Devices (EFRD's). prepared; further action will
follow.
PS-140 \1\...................... Areas Unusually Sensitive to Public meetings underway; NPRM \3\ 06/99
Environmental Damage (USA's). to follow.
PS-141 \1\...................... Increased Inspection Public input being sought; NPRM 12/98
Requirements. to follow.
PS-144.......................... Risk-based Alternative to NPRM published................. 02/98
Pressure Testing Rule.
PS-153.......................... Pipeline Safety: Metrication.... Final rule being prepared...... 08/98
RSPA-97-2094 \1\................ Underwater Abandoned Pipeline NPRM being prepared............ 06/98
Facilities.
RSPA-97-2095.................... Pipeline Safety: Adoption of NPRM being prepared............ 04/98
Industry Standards for Breakout
Tanks.
RSPA-97-2096.................... Pipeline Safety: Regulations Direct Final Rule published.... 11/97
Implementing Memorandum of
Understanding with the Dept. of
the Interior.
RSPA-97-2251 \2\................ Periodic Updates to Pipeline Direct Final Rule published.... 01/98
Safety Regulations (1997).
RSPA-97-3001 \1\................ Periodic Underwater Inspections. Study being conducted; public 10/98
meeting and NPRM may follow.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Requirement of Pipeline Safety Act of 1992.
\2\ Response to Regulatory Reinvention Initiative.
\3\ `Priority' Rulemakings.
Question. Please prepare a table listing all rulemakings that you
are considering to initiate and the 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 1999. In addition, a request for comments on proposed
revisions to the hazardous liquid pipeline (Part 195) regulations based
on suggestions from the National Association of Pipeline Safety
Representatives (NAPSR) will soon be published in the Federal Register.
After considering the comments from the public, a proposed rule may be
forthcoming. RSPA plans to hold additional public meetings on
corrosion, plastic pipe, and liquefied natural gas that could lead to
proposed rules.
Question. Please update last years response to the question
regarding the major recommendations or key findings resulting from the
pipeline safety summit.
Answer. RSPA's responses 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 maintains a number of initiatives in its
pipeline safety regulatory program to foster cooperation, collaboration
and partnerships with the pipeline industry and the public. Past
initiatives included partnerships with the New Jersey Institute of
Technology (NJIT), the Gas Research Institute and a research consortium
of Battelle Memorial Institute, Iowa State University, Southwest
Research Institute. We have conducted outreach efforts in Houston,
Dallas and Denver to obtain local public participation in regulatory
reform. We have held public workshops on placement of emergency valves,
leak detection systems, increased inspection by smart pigs, the
definition for unusually environmentally sensitive areas, standards for
corrosion control and use of plastic materials, standards for liquefied
natural gas and a risk-based alternative to hydrotesting hazardous
liquid pipelines. We used the regulatory negotiation process to develop
standards for operator qualification. In the past, RSPA led joint
government/industry quality teams to develop guidelines on formulating
risk management programs which would be used as alternatives to the
present prescriptive federal regulations. We are still using the
quality team approach to develop solutions to our national pipeline
mapping requirements. We also use the quality team approach for
designing and testing our national damage prevention campaign. Other
government/industry workgroups are now focusing on data improvement
plans and building a framework to guide cost/benefit analyses. Quality
teams are composed of representatives of 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 final rule (62 FR 61695)
requiring 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,
including Title XI (Underground Damage Prevention) in the proposed
NEXTEA legislation, and the recent legislation passed in the Senate.
Our damage prevention team progress is addressing national educational
requirements.
Finding 3.--Improved monitoring techniques to reduce potential pipe
failures.
Solutions/Directions: RSPA, in collaboration with Advanced Research
Projects Agency (ARPA), Department of Defense, is working 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 is in its third year of 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: RSPA and the natural gas and hazardous liquid
industry have been assessing 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. RSPA is working with the API to pilot
test the voluntary collection of data on all leaks, regardless of
reporting threshold on all lines, whether or not they are regulated.
New emphasis is being placed on being able to diagnose, address and
monitor safety issues at the early stages. 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.
volpe center
Question. For fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997, what percent
of funds were contracted out? For fiscal year 1998 what percent of
funds do you plan to contract out?
Answer. For fiscal years 1996 and 1997 about 74 percent and 76
percent percent, respectively, of the Center's obligations were
contracted to the private and university sectors. The percentage is
expected to remain stable for 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
1997 and none is planned for fiscal year 1998-99. The remaining 24
percent of personnel costs covers facility operations and all other
Center administrative and management services.
Question. Since the total Departmental R&T budget has increased
substantially, especially during the last three years, is it time to
raise the FTP and FTE ceiling at the Center?
Answer. Since the Volpe Center relies 100 percent on funding from
voluntary customers, it in effect manages to budget. The Center must
add Federal managerial and technical value to every project it accepts,
and it balances its use of Federal staff and contractor staff
accordingly. Under NPR, the Center has since fiscal year 1993 been
particularly successful in reducing Federal administrative positions,
so that FTE and FTP reductions have been achieved without proportional
reductions to its managerial and technical capabilities. FTP and FTE
ceilings are not anticipated to be a constraint on sound Center
management in fiscal year 1999.
Question. What have you done to stop ``pass throughs'' to the Volpe
Center? How is your new policy working?
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 1997 less than 3
percent of the Center's contract obligations were sole-sourced.
The work acceptance policy (Volpe Order 5000.4A) requires that
documentation be prepared showing that the new funds are accepted only
for work that meets four criteria which, when taken together, ensure
that there are no ``pass-throughs'' and that the work is appropriate
for the Center. The criteria are: (1) That the proposed work conforms
to the Center's working capital fund statute. (2) The work supports the
current transportation enterprise and its future development. (3) The
Volpe Center adds value. And (4) Programmatic and/or institutional
risks are manageable.
This policy is working well. It has been in place for over three
years and is being applied to all projects.
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. The following table shows obligations of DOT Modal
Administrations to the Volpe Center in millions of dollars.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
--------------------------------
1998
1996 1997 (est.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA.................................... 86.5 85.1 85.6
FHWA................................... 10.0 13.9 14.0
USCG................................... 5.3 7.4 7.5
FRA.................................... 9.5 9.6 11.6
FTA.................................... 4.8 4.8 7.8
NHTSA.................................. 7.9 8.5 8.7
RSPA................................... 4.2 6.4 6.7
Other DOT.............................. 2.8 2.5 2.2
OST.................................... 1.5 1.0 0.6
--------------------------------
Total............................ 132.7 139.2 144.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Each amount includes that customer's participation in DOT's SBIR
program, which the Volpe Center manages.
The trends generally reflect and changes in our customers program
emphasis or (as in the case of SBIR) changes to the DOT's
appropriations.
Question. When was the last time that Volpe conducted customer
surveys? What were the results?
Answer. All Volpe Center DOT customers, as well as a sample of non-
DOT 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 initiate 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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interviews (percent)--
-------------------------
Satisfaction rating Project- Senior-
level level
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. The following table shows Volpe Center Obligations for Non-
DOT Agencies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year (percent)--
-------------------------------------------
1998
1995 1996 1997 (est.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOD......................... 12 12 12 12
Other Non-DOT............... 15 16 20 18
-------------------------------------------
Total................. 27 28 32 30
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. What are the Volpe overhead charges and how have you
tried to reduce these charges? Please provide a detailed explanation
and dollar figures of all overhead costs for each of the last three
fiscal years.
Answer. Following is the distribution of the Center's indirect
expenses:
[In millions of dollars obligated]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
--------------------------------
Indirect activity 1998
1996 1997 (est.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Operations.................... 4.0 4.5 4.5
Business Services...................... 7.6 8.3 7.7
Line Management........................ 2.3 2.5 2.5
Center-wide Services................... 0.9 1.2 1.4
Computer & LAN Services................ 3.8 \1\ 2.3 3.8
Industry Outreach...................... .3 0.4 0.7
Capability Development................. .3 .3 .8
Plans & Pgm Development................ 1.1 .8 .7
Chief Counsel.......................... .4 .6 .5
Executive Management................... .8 .6 .6
--------------------------------
Total Indirect................... 21.5 21.5 23.1
Total Obligations \2\............ 186.1 204.3 205.0
Indirect to Total (percent)............ 11.6 10.5 11.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes deferred expenses of $1.3 million. In fiscal year 1997 the
Center began to depreciate capital investments in accordance with OIG
recommendations. If not deferred, the fiscal year 1997 Total Indirect
would have been $22.8 million and fiscal year 1998 would be estimated
at about the same as fiscal year 1997.
\2\ Net of recoveries of prior year obligations.
The estimated fiscal year 1998 indirect expenses reflect increases
for salaries, benefits, negotiated contract price adjustments and other
normal cost growth plus an amount for depreciation of prior year
capital investments. Increases have been partially offset by continuing
cost reduction efforts with major emphasis on process simplification,
improved automation and introducing current energy conservation
technology.
Question. Please provide a detailed listing of all fiscal year 1998
new start reimbursable agreements that the Volpe Center has with other
Federal agencies. Include all costs that are paid out to contractors
hired by the Volpe Center.
Answer. Through six months of fiscal year 1998 there has been one
new start with other Federal agencies totaling $100,000. It is
identified as follows:
Project: Restructure the configuration data received with the new
Coast Guard Polar Research Vessel (CGC Healy) from the Navy's Real-time
Outfitting Management System (ROMIS) format to the USCG's CMPlus data
format. CMPlus was developed, and is being implemented, by the Volpe
Center for the USCG; customer, Navy; funding, $100,000; and planned
contract, 80 percent.
Question. The Committee has been concerned that almost all of the
funds provided for RSPA's research and technology activities were being
allocated to the Volpe Center or to the Transportation Research Board.
Please provide quantitative evidence that you have expanded the
universe of companies and institutions participating in your contract
program.
Answer. RSPA allocated funding in fiscal years 1997 and 1998 to the
following organizations or contractors to assist RSPA in supporting the
strategic planning process for Federal transportation R&D, the
Department's Technology Transfer program, and to maintain the
Department's membership on various roundtables and conferences:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
Activity -------------------------------
1997 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Strategic planning:
Volpe Center........................ $825,000 $525,000
National Research Council/ 150,000 100,000
Transportation Research Board (TRB)
Civil Engineering Research .............. 50,000
Foundation.........................
TRB (Simultaneous Vehicle .............. 50,000
Infrastructure Design Workshop)....
Research and technology coordination and
partnerships:
Volpe Center........................ 795,000 650,000
TRB (Annual Fee).................... 50,000 50,000
National Academy of Sciences 125,000 125,000
Government-University-Industry
Research Roundtable................
To be determined (Tech Transfer/R&D 40,000 150,000
Tracking)..........................
Critical Technologies Institute..... .............. 75,000
Intermodal and multi-modal research and
education:
Volpe Center........................ 195,000 200,000
Small Business Innovation Research 57,775 100,000
Program............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
Prepared Statement of David G. Sanders, Acting Administrator
On March 4, 1996, as part of the Administration's reinventing
government agenda, Vice President Gore announced plans to restructure
eight federal agencies as Performance Based Organizations (PBO). The
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation is one of the eight
agencies chosen for the conversion to a PBO.
The central element of the PBO initiative is greater accountability
through enhanced performance. To encourage performance, the PBO plan
includes greater management flexibilities and financial incentives, but
also greater risks for non-performance, e.g., lower payments, or
termination of the Chief Operating Officer (COO). The SLSDC has been
required to develop a five-year plan that commits the agency to meet
certain personnel and fiscal goals. Part of that commitment is the
assurance that if the goals are met, the agency will be compensated
accordingly.
The most significant changes derived from the PBO structure include
an accountable senior management structure working under a performance
contract, clear incentives to improve efficiencies and service to
increase Seaway utilization, a more stable funding source, and
increased autonomy from day-to-day Departmental activities. The result
will be improved long range planning for critical capital needs of the
aging lock facilities, build-up of emergency reserves, streamlining and
reallocation of personnel resources, and reduced operating costs. The
focus on the performance areas of safety, reliability, trade
development, and management accountability will ensure a more efficient
operation through elimination of programs and cost areas that do not
fully support performance goals. SLSDC estimates a cost savings in
excess of half a million dollars over the initial five-year program
period.
SLSDC progress with the conversion process is as follows:
--The initial legislation to implement the PBO conversion was
transmitted to the Congress on July 15, 1996. The House/Senate
Conference Committee directed the GAO to submit a report
evaluating the PBO concept, with specific emphasis on the SLSDC
initiative.
--The NPR/OMB/OPM/GSA and other agencies developed a ``Template PBO
Bill'' during late 1996/early 1997. The SLSDC legislation was
revised accordingly and submitted to the Congress on May 5,
1997.
--The GAO report was submitted to the Congress on May 15, 1997, as
directed. The report conclusion raised issues of concern but
also stated that ``If Congress is interested in testing the PBO
concept, SLSDC could be a low-risk pilot because it has a small
budget, businesslike operations, and already has some
flexibilities that would be available to a PBO.''
--The Appropriations Conference Committee funded the Corporation,
under current law, at the requested PBO plan level for fiscal
year 1998.
--The President's fiscal year 1999 budget proposes the SLSDC/PBO as a
mandatory program.
fiscal year 1999 budget estimate
As a PBO, the SLSDC will be funded, beginning in fiscal year 1999,
by an annual automatic payment (fiscal year 1999 through fiscal year
2003) from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF). The payment will
be a dollar amount equal to the 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 will have flexibility to use the funds and other resources
to meet the performance targets in the Chief Operating Officer (COO)
contract.
Due to the PBO proposal, SLSDC is not making an appropriation
request. Financing is proposed to be derived from an automatic annual
payment from the HMTF. The attached fiscal year 1999 spending plan is a
budget estimate based on the PBO proposal which includes an automatic
annual payment for fiscal year 1999 of $12,646,000 from the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund, of which $11,737,000 will be used to fund
operations and maintenance. The PBO financial plan also establishes a
commitment to make annual contributions to the Corporation's reserve
account, assuming funds are available. The balance of $909,000 from the
HMTF, as well as offsetting collections estimated at $900,000, will be
contributed to the reserve in accordance with this commitment. Capital
improvements of $1,040,000 planned for fiscal year 1999 will be funded
by the reserve.
1997 navigation season overview
On April 2, the St. Lawrence Seaway was opened for the 1997
navigation season and its 39th year of operation as a deep draft
waterway. Opening ceremonies were held at Eisenhower Lock in Massena,
and at St. Lambert Lock in Montreal.
Total tonnage through the Montreal/Lake Ontario section of the
Seaway in CY 1997 was 36.9 million tons, 3 percent (1.2 million tons)
below the CY 1996 total. CY 1997 vessel transits increased over CY 1996
by 4 percent (102 transits) to a total 2,809 transits for the season.
Seaway total grain tonnage increased 10 percent over 1996 due to a
significant Canadian grain movement that reflected a recovery from the
past two seasons with drought problems and as new markets were
developed to replace the significant exports to Russia from previous
years. U.S. export grains through the Seaway were down 23 percent due
to a combination of factors: lower Mississippi River barge rates,
weaker overseas demand, a strong U.S. dollar, and, for the second year,
depleted elevator stocks in the Great Lakes at the beginning of the
season delayed movement until the Fall harvest period.
Despite less demand for import iron and steel due to a flat
automobile market, and domestic mills operating at capacity, iron and
steel tonnage reached 3.9 million tons, which was slightly below the
1996 level. Iron ore tonnage was down by 13 percent reflecting higher
inventories at season opening and some shifting of ore mine sources
from Canada to the upper lakes by U.S. steel mills.
1997 accomplishments by pbo performance areas
Safety
Ocean Vessel Incidents.--The 1997 navigation season was the fifth
consecutive shipping year with no vessel incidents in excess of $50,000
in damages. All other ocean vessel incidents were reduced by 62 percent
from 1996.
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 to develop a program of
coordinated vessel inspection and enforcement activities to expedite
the safe transit of shipping through the Seaway and the Great Lakes.
The basic goals that affect ocean vessels are: clear all vessels in
Montreal before they enter U.S. waters; conduct no inspection boardings
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; minimize the number of vessels that require more than one
port state control boarding during a navigation season; and ensure that
international shipping throughout the System continues to meet the
highest standards of safety and environmental protection. The 1997
pilot project for vessel inspections resulted in 100 percent of all
ocean vessels being inspected in Montreal on their first transit
inbound, prior to entering U.S. waters, compared with 38 percent in
1996.
Long and Short-Term Reliability
System Availability.--The Corporation achieved a 97 percent
availability factor for 1997 based on navigation days open, versus
downtime for all causes, including weather conditions.
The Montreal/Lake Ontario section of the St. Lawrence Seaway was
open for 269 days (April 2 through December 26).
Trade Development
Domestic Trade Mission.--The SLSDC completed a first-of-its-kind
domestic trade mission throughout the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence
Seaway beginning August 11 at the lakehead port of Duluth MN and ending
at the St. Lawrence River port of Ogdensburg NY on August 22. Events
were conducted at fifteen ports throughout the System. The program
objectives were to involve and inform lake port communities about
Seaway trade development programs and initiatives; and to showcase the
unique maritime assets at each of the port sites participating in the
program.
Cruise Shipping Returns to the System.--The ``C. COLUMBUS,'' a 472-
foot German-owned passenger vessel made its maiden voyage through the
Seaway, the first such transit of a foreign flag passenger ocean liner
since 1975. The ``C. COLUMBUS'' arrived in Montreal on September 17 and
departed with over 400 passengers and 169 crewmembers, for a 19-day
cruise through the System from Montreal to Chicago. The vessel was
built in 1997, at the Mathisa-Thesen-Werft Wismar shipyard in Wismar,
Germany for the Hapag Lloyd Cruise Ship Management Company of Hamburg,
Germany. This construction represents the growing interest in the
building of Seaway-sized vessels and a rebirth of foreign flag cruise
lines offering passenger excursions through the Seaway system.
Overseas System Trade Mission.--The SLSDC led a Seaway System
binational delegation that included industry, port, and carrier
partners participating at program stops in Hamburg, Germany, and
Johannesburg and Durban, South Africa. Traditionally, Germany ranks in
the top five Seaway trading partners with just under one million tons
of traffic in 1996, representing over eight percent of total overseas
traffic through the Seaway. Presentations were made to local government
and industry officials, followed by one-on-one meetings with business
partners and delegation members. Hamburg is also one of the major home
office locations for vessel owners and operators based in Northern
Europe. The mission visit to South Africa was an industry requested
follow-up to a 1994 Seaway mission, which was one of the first U.S.
government sponsored missions to post-apartheid South Africa. South
African trade through the Seaway was eleventh overall in 1996 with over
340,000 tons of cargo and ranking at three percent of total overseas
trade through the System. In addition to the traditional program
presentations and individual meetings, the SLSDC participated in the
annual South African International Trade Exposition. Similar exhibits
by Great Lakes Port and Seaway vessel operators accompanied the SLSDC
international static exhibit. At the Hamburg stop, Polish Ocean Lines
announced plans to construct five new Seaway maximum size vessels for
service between Europe and the Seaway/Great Lakes ports. At the South
African stop, Christensen Canadian African Lines announced the addition
of a fourth vessel to supplement existing operations between South
African ports and the Seaway and the opening of a Chicago office.
Management Accountability, Including Customer Service, Fiscal
Performance and Cost Effectiveness
Fiscal Year 1997 Financial Audit.--The SLSDC maintained its
historical record of achieving an unqualified acceptance (clean) annual
external audit rating for fiscal year 1997.
Year 2000 Data Systems Compliance.--The Corporation management
information staff have certified year 2000 compliance for one non-
critical, and ten critical mission systems effective March 30, 1998.
This completes Year 2000 certified compliance for all SLSDC data
systems.
Union Contract.--SLSDC successfully concluded negotiations with
AFGE Local 1968, Massena, NY. The three-year agreement includes the
first 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.
DOT 30th Anniversary Event in Massena, NY.--In an effort to better
connect the Massena community with the Corporation and the Department,
the SLSDC planned a final day of activities to wrap-up the DOT 30th
Anniversary events for the year. Secretary Slater was invited and
participated in the following events:
--Christening of a new SLSDC workboat, PERFORMANCE, which honors
DOT's emphasis on job performance, and relates to the SLSDC
Performance Based Organization initiative. The christening and
a press conference were held at the Corporation maintenance and
marine base facility.
--Dedication of a memorial anchor display honoring Native American,
William Mitchell, an SLSDC employee who drowned while on duty
in 1983. The dedication took place at Eisenhower Lock.
--The Secretary toured the Lock traffic control center and viewed a
land side demonstration of the SLSDC's Automated Identification
System (AIS) by Corporation and Volpe Center staff members. The
demonstration tracked the movements of the just christened
workboat and the Corporation tug, Robinson Bay.
--The last event was a significant multi-purpose Massena community
activity held at the Jefferson Elementary School. The program
included dedication of a new playground for the school that was
constructed by SLSDC employees; presentations by the students
to the Secretary and the SLSDC; and acknowledgment of surplus
computer equipment furnished to the school by the Corporation,
which has designated Jefferson Elementary as its ``adopted''
school.
Garrett A. Morgan Initiative.--In addition to the Adopt-a-School
program with Jefferson Elementary School in Massena, NY, SLSDC staff in
Massena have launched a new partnering effort with the Tech Prep/
School-to-Work-Initiative with Massena Central High School and Clarkson
University School of Business, to prepare high school juniors and
seniors for post school employment. SLSDC provides ``shadowing''
opportunities for students at Corporation facilities and SLSDC will
also be donating surplus computer equipment to the program. A new
partnership between the Tech Prep Program and the Garrett A. Morgan
Transportation and Technology Futures Program will focus on preparing
students for transportation careers.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
performance based organization (pbo) initiative
Question. On page 1 of the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development
Corporation's fiscal year 1999 budget estimate, under ``general
statement'', the following statement is included: ``The President's
budget for fiscal year 1999 funds the SLSDC at the fiscal year 1999 PBO
level as a mandatory program and identifies a budget offset.'' What is
the budget offset?
Answer. The President's Budget is PAYGO neutral at the aggregate
level. Specific offsets are not associated with specific mandatory
spending increases.
Question. What legislative action is necessary to provide this
identified offset?
Answer. None, other than implementation of the President's budget.
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 by either Committee to
date.
Question. Please update the table on page 1038 of Senate Hearing
105-429, comparing the enacted appropriated funding level for the SLSDC
to the amount the PBO formula would have provided to the Corporation
(in constant 1998 dollars), using actual tonnage figures for each year.
Answer. The information follows.
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PBO 1988
HMTF Base
Fiscal Year Enacted Enacted In PBO Formula forward in
HMTF Actual 1998 Actual 1998
Constant Constant
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1988........................................................ 10,806 10,806 12,788 12,788
1989........................................................ 11,097 11,303 12,755 13,376
1990........................................................ 11,375 11,993 13,327 14,192
1991........................................................ 10,250 12,364 13,447 14,632
1992........................................................ 10,550 12,723 13,513 15,056
1993........................................................ 10,734 13,066 10,502 15,463
1994........................................................ 10,765 13,419 10,439 15,881
1995........................................................ 10,193 13,755 10,263 16,278
1996........................................................ 9,549 14,209 10,568 16,815
1997........................................................ 10,322 14,450 11,560 17,101
1998........................................................ 11,193 14,631 11,524 17,314
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
navigation season
Question. Please update the table on page 1039 of Senate Hearing
105-429 concerning the dates of the navigation seasons from calendar
years 1993 through 1997, and the opening date for 1998.
Answer. The Information follows.
MONTREAL-LAKE ONTARIO SECTION OPENING AND CLOSING DATES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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....................... December 26................... 269
1998............................... March 26....................... .............................. ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. 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, 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,
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 St. 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 update the table on page 1041 of Senate Report
105-429 regarding harbor maintenance trust fund revenues, transfers,
and year-end balances for fiscal years 1994 through 1997.
Answer. The information that follows is the latest available from
Treasury and the U.S. Customs service.
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-------------------------------------------
1994 1995 1996 1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning Balance........... $303,277 $451,385 $621,194 $871,074
===========================================
HMTax....................... 622,253 670,532 698,267 735,534
SLS Tolls................... 11,112 173 ......... .........
Interest.................... 12,826 30,186 40,870 55,136
-------------------------------------------
Net Rev............... 646,191 700,891 739,137 790,670
===========================================
Total Available....... 949,468 1,152,276 1,360,331 1,661,744
===========================================
Corps of Engineers.......... 476,620 519,196 482,126 535,987
SLSDC....................... 10,765 10,193 9,539 10,322
Toll Rebates................ 9,546 1,512 ......... .........
U.S. DOT.................... 175 181 169 193
Adm.Costs................... ......... ......... 3,000 3,000
-------------------------------------------
Total Expenses........ 497,106 531,082 494,834 549,502
===========================================
Year End Balance...... 452,362 621,194 865,497 1,112,241
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All data is actual.
Question. On March 31, 1998, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the
Harbor Maintenance Tax is unconstitutional. Does this ruling affect
taxing all goods in transit--that is, imports, exports, domestic trade,
and cruise ships?
Answer. The ruling affects taxes levied on exports only.
Question. Please break out the total amount of harbor maintenance
trust fund revenues by category of tax receipt (imports, exports,
domestic trade, cruise ships) for fiscal years 1995-1997.
Answer. The latest information available is through fiscal year
1997, which follows.
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
Category --------------------------------
1995 1996 1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Imports................................ $418,858 $409,708 $438,395
Exports................................ 214,821 209,217 209,439
Foreign trade Zone..................... 14,548 27,982 48,444
Domestic............................... 20,241 26,788 32,828
Passengers............................. 2,792 3,179 3,865
--------------------------------
Net Collections.................. 671,260 676,874 732,971
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. At the end of fiscal year 1996, the harbor maintenance
trust fund had a net balance (after expenditures) of $865.5 million.
How will this Supreme Court ruling, which becomes final on April 27,
1998, affect harbor maintenance trust fund balances? Please prepare a
table showing end of fiscal year balances from 1995 through projected
end of 2001, factoring in the loss of tax receipts. (It is understood
that the revenue and expenditure costs for fiscal year 1998 through
2001 must be estimated.)
Answer. The information follows. Assumptions are based on actual
and projected year end balances, less export receipts, estimated at an
average 29 percent of total annual receipts.
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Year
Actual Year Projected Year End less
End Balance End Balance Export Rec.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year:
1995........................................................ 621,194 .............. ..............
1996........................................................ 865,497 .............. ..............
1997........................................................ 1,112,241 .............. ..............
1998........................................................ .............. 1,452,174 1,031,044
1999........................................................ .............. 1,884,084 1,337,700
2000........................................................ .............. 2,392,218 1,698,475
2001........................................................ .............. 2,983,059 2,117,972
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Both the Corps of Engineers and the Saint Lawrence Seaway
Development Corporation receive transfers of funds from the harbor
maintenance trust fund. Is the transfer amount for each agency driven
by the annual budget and appropriations cycle, or by an underlying
statutory mechanism?
Answer. The actual transfers for each agency are driven by the
annual budget and appropriations cycle as authorized by statute.
Question. Please summarize the Department of Transportation's legal
opinion on the potential effect of this Supreme Court ruling on the
availability of funds for the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development
Corporation.
Answer. The Department's opinion is that the SLSDC's legal status
remains unchanged. The Corporation will continue to receive
appropriations from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
revenue available
Question. Please update the table on page 1041 of last year's
hearing record regarding revenue available by source in fiscal years
1998 and 1999.
Answer. The information follows.
REVENUE AVAILABLE BY SOURCE FISCAL YEAR 1998 AND FISCAL YEAR 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Fiscal
year 1998 year 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interest on Retained Earnings..................... $500,000 $500,000
Concession Operation.............................. 300,000 300,000
Rental of Administration Building................. 44,000 44,000
Miscellaneous..................................... 56,000 56,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
financial position
Question. Please update the tables on pages 1041 through 1043 of
last year's hearing record regarding the statement of your financial
position, as well as the statement of operations and changes.
Answer. The information follows.
STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL POSITION AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1997, 1996 AND 1995
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASSETS 1997 1996 1995
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current assets: Cash:
Held by U.S. Treasury.............. 910 1,573 2,631
Held in banks and on hand.......... 21 20 13
Short-term time deposits in 9,289 10,908 10,403
minority banks....................
Tolls and other receivables........ 150 131 138
Other current assets............... ......... ......... 4
Inventories........................ 275 279 292
--------------------------------
TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS............. 10,645 12,911 13,481
================================
Non-current assets:
Long-term time deposits in minority 3,237 1,470 1,207
banks.............................
================================
Plant, property and equipment: Plant in 153,131 151,848 151,495
service...............................
Less accum depreciation................ -66,152 -63,912 -62,250
Net plant in service................... 86,979 87,936 89,245
Work in progress....................... 454 302 162
--------------------------------
TOTAL PLANT, PROPERTY AND 87,433 88,238 89,407
EQUIPMENT.......................
================================
Other assets:
Lock spare parts................... 701 777 659
Less accum depreciation............ -137 -109 -82
Net Lock spare parts............... 564 668 577
Investment in Seaway Int'l Bridge 7 7 7
Corporation, Ltd..................
--------------------------------
TOTAL OTHER ASSETS............... 571 675 584
================================
Deferred charges: Workman's 1,778 1,397 1,232
compensation benefits.................
================================
TOTAL ASSETS..................... 103,664 104,691 105,911
================================
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY OF THE U.S.
GOVERNMENT
Current liabilities: Payable to the
U.S. Treasury:
Accounts payable................... 807 691 743
Accrued leave...................... 706 691 691
Accrued payroll costs.............. 396 373 297
Deferred revenue................... ......... ......... .........
--------------------------------
Total current liabilities........ 1,909 1,755 1,651
================================
Actuarial liabilities: Workman's 1,778 1,397 1,232
compensation benefits.................
================================
TOTAL LIABILITIES................ 3,687 3,152 2,883
================================
Equity of the U.S. Government:
Invested capital................... 102,228 103,053 104,230
Cumulative results of operations... -2,251 -1,514 -1,202
--------------------------------
TOTAL EQUITY OF THE U.S. 99,977 101,539 103,028
GOVERNMENT......................
================================
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY OF 103,664 104,691 105,911
THE U.S. GOVERNMENT.............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND CHANGES IN CUMULATIVE RESULTS FOR THE YEARS
ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997, 1996 AND 1995
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASSETS 1997 1996 1995
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating revenues:
Appropriations expended............ 8,736 8950 9,337
Imputed financing.................. 678 ......... .........
Other.............................. 558 897 467
--------------------------------
TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES......... 9,972 9,847 9,804
================================
Operating expenses:
Locks and marine operations........ 2,119 2,163 1,999
Maintenance and engineering........ 3,152 3,006 3,166
General and development............ 2,574 2,486 2,486
Administrative expense............. 2,857 2,935 2,800
Depreciation....................... 2,412 1,776 2,667
Imputed expenses................... 678 ......... .........
--------------------------------
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES......... 13,792 12,605 13,118
================================
Operating loss......................... -3,820 -2,758 -3,314
Other financing sources:
Interest on deposits in minority 671 670 553
banks.............................
Transfer from invested capital for 2,412 1,776 2,667
depreciation......................
--------------------------------
TOTAL OTHER FINANCING SOURCES.... 3,083 2,446 3,220
================================
Excess of operating revenues and other -737 -312 -94
financing sources over operating
expenses..............................
Beginning cumulative results of -1,514 -1,202 -1,108
operations............................
--------------------------------
ENDING CUMULATIVE RESULTS OF -2,251 -1,514 -1,202
OPERATIONS......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
vessel casualties
Question. Please detail any vessel casualties or groundings in the
American waters of the Seaway for the 1997 navigation season, and for
the 1998 navigation season to date.
Answer. There was one grounding during 1997 in the American portion
of the Seaway, a vessel had a steering problem, was holed, but did not
spill or cause pollution. There have been no incidents in 1998 to date.
travel and transportation costs
Question. In a similar format to that on pages 995 through 996 of
the fiscal year 1997 Senate hearing record (Senate hearing 104-671,
part 2), 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 April 1998 (fiscal years 1997 and 1998
to date). 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. Seaway Domestic Trade Mission: August 11-22, 1997. The
program objectives were to involve and inform lake port communities
about Seaway trade development programs and initiatives; and to
showcase the unique maritime assets at each of the ports participating
in the program. Activities were conducted at the ports of Duluth, MN;
Thunder Bay, Ontario; Sturgeon Bay, WI; Green Bay, WI; Milwaukee, WI;
Chicago, IL; Burns Harbor, IN; Detroit, MI; Toledo, Cleveland, and
Ashtabula OH; Erie, PA; Oswego and Ogdensburg, NY. SLSDC
representatives and their travel costs included: Acting Administrator,
David G. Sanders--$2,143; Ginger Vuich, Director Congressional and
Public Affairs--$2,266; and Ron Rudolph, International Trade
Specialist--$1,539. The program highlighted the Great Lakes/St.
Lawrence Seaway's marine industry working in cooperation with the user
communities of the ports served by the Seaway. Individual events
emphasized U.S. trade development, maritime safety, environmental
protection, new shipbuildings, binational cooperation, System unity and
targeted commodity traffic needs and service enhancements.
The First Universal Congress of the Panama Canal: September 7-10,
1997. The trip purpose was to attend the Congress, and to conduct a
separate Seaway trade development program for invitees to the Congress
representing vessel owners and operators, freight forwarders and
brokers, cargo interests and port authorities from the global maritime
community. A third activity, sponsored by the Panama Canal Commission,
was to participate in the third International Canals and Waterways
Chief Executive Officer Meeting, a program initiated by the SLSDC in
1993. Activities were carried out in Panama City and at the Canal
facilities. SLSDC representatives and their travel costs included:
Acting Administrator, David G. Sanders--$1,400; Ginger Vuich, Director
Congressional and Public Affairs--$1,490; and Frank Flyntz, Director,
Great Lakes Pilotage--$1,207. Program activities focussed on
information exchange and presentations on Seaway trade, marine safety,
environmental protection concerns, vessel operations and incentives,
administrative issues, and general operating concerns pertinent to
carriers, ports and waterway operators everywhere.
Trade mission to Hamburg, Germany and Johannesburg and Durban,
South Africa: October 13-29, 1997. The Acting Administrator was mission
leader for a Seaway System binational delegation that included
industry, port and carrier partners, participating at program stops in
Hamburg, Germany, and Johannesburg and Durban, South Africa.
Traditionally, Germany ranks in the top five Seaway trading partners
with just under one million tons of traffic in 1996, representing over
eight percent of total overseas traffic through the Seaway.
Presentations were made to local government and industry officials,
followed by one-on-one meetings with business partners and delegation
members. Hamburg is also one of the major home office locations for
vessel owners and operators based in Northern Europe. The mission visit
to South Africa was an industry requested follow-up to a 1994 Seaway
mission, which was one of the first U.S. government sponsored missions
to post-apartheid South Africa. South African trade through the Seaway
was eleventh overall in 1996 with over 340,000 tons of cargo and
ranking at three percent of total overseas trade through the System. In
addition to the traditional program presentations and individual
meetings, the SLSDC participated in the annual South African
International Trade Exposition. Similar exhibits by lake port and
Seaway vessel operators accompanied the SLSDC international static
exhibit. SLSDC representatives and their travel costs included: Acting
Administrator, David G. Sanders--$6,531; Ginger Vuich, Director
Congressional and Public Affairs--$6,531; Craig Middlebrook, Chief of
Staff--$4,498 (Hamburg); Joe Craig, International Trade Specialist--
$2,511 (Hamburg); Ron Rudolph, International Trade Specialist--$6,197
(South Africa).
Seaway trade development delegation to Limassol, Cyprus and Athens,
Greece: Planned for May 28-June 5, 1998. The SLSDC will lead a
binational delegation of Seaway maritime participants representing
ports, vessel operators, agricultural and breakbulk cargo shippers.
Planning is for two staff members to accompany the Acting
Administrator. In both Cyprus and Greece the delegation will conduct
formal presentations on the Seaway System for overseas industry and
government representatives followed by one-on-one meetings and on site
trips to terminals, vessels, and specialized cargo handling facilities.
In Greece, Corporation staff and industry representatives will
participate in the Posidonia Maritime Exhibition utilizing the Seaway
static display. The Posidonia Exhibition, held every two years, is the
largest gathering of ship owners and operators in the world. As a
result of a 1996 trip to the Cyprus/Athens sites, Ferum lines committed
four additional vessels to Seaway service and Diana Shipbuilding
committed four additional vessels to be refitted in compliance with
Seaway transit regulations.
Question. For fiscal years 1996 and 1997 actual, and fiscal years
1998 and 1999 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 1999
Actual Actual Estimated Estimated
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trade Missions.............. $23,000 $44,000 $45,000 $46,000
Non-trade related travel.... 135,000 138,000 144,000 158,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 report last year covered events through April 2, 1997.
June 25, 1997: The SLSDC and the Canadian Seaway Authority (SLSA)
co-sponsored a meeting of the GPS/AIS binational steering committee in
Montreal to further progress on program implementation by 1999.
July 9, 1997: SLSDC/SLSA initiated a meeting with Transport Canada
(TC) and the United States Coast Guard (USCG) in Boston, MA, on the
Montreal vessel inspection program.
July 14, 1997: SLSDC/SLSA co-sponsored a meeting with the Canadian
``Users'' group on tolls and binational initiatives in Stamford, CT.
August 11-22, 1997: SLSDC sponsored the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence
Seaway Domestic trade Mission, discussed above.
August 14, 1997: SLSDC/SLSA co-sponsored a meeting of the GPS/AIS
binational steering committee in Massena, NY, to further progress on
program implementation by 1999.
September 10, 1997: SLSDC/SLSA co-sponsored a meeting of the GPS/
AIS binational steering committee in Ottawa, ON, to further progress on
program implementation by 1999.
September 18, 1997: SLSDC/SLSA co-sponsored a Seaway welcome
ceremony for the maiden voyage of a new German cruise ship built for
Seaway transit, in Montreal, and in Massena, NY.
October 15, 1997: SLSDC/SLSA participated in a joint meeting on
GPS/AIS binational steering committee strategy, in Montreal, to further
progress on program implementation by 1999.
November 20, 1997: SLSDC/SLSA co-sponsored a meeting of the GPS/AIS
binational steering committee in Montreal to further progress on
program implementation by 1999.
December 4-5, 1997: SLSDC/SLSA co-sponsored trade development
strategy meetings with carrier representatives in Montreal.
December 11, 1997: SLSDC/SLSA co-sponsored a meeting with Transport
Canada (TC) and the United States Coast Guard (USCG) in Washington, DC,
on the Montreal vessel inspection program.
January 15-16, 1998: SLSDC/SLSA co-sponsored trade development
strategy meetings with carrier representatives, the American Great
Lakes Ports Association, the International Great Lakes Ports
Association and the Canadian Maritime Chamber of Commerce in Toronto,
ON.
January 21, 1998: SLSDC/SLSA participated in a meeting with the
USCG in Cleveland, OH, on the Montreal vessel inspection program.
January 29-30, 1998: SLSDC/SLSA co-sponsored a workshop and program
presentation on the GPS/AIS program for the binational steering
committee in Montreal.
March 3-4, 1998: SLSDC participated in the Seatrade Cruise Ship
Convention, that included a Lakes/Seaway program presentation to cruise
vessel operators, in Miami, FL.
March 23, 1998: SLSDC sponsored a Seaway issues meeting with U.S.
lake port directors in Washington, DC.
March 25, 1998: SLSDC/SLSA co-sponsored the Annual Industry Day
meeting in Montreal prior to opening of the 1998 navigation season.
March 26, 1998: SLSDC/SLSA co-sponsored the Seaway 1998 opening day
ceremonies in Montreal and Massena, NY.
April 7-8, 1998: SLSDC sponsored a trade development meeting with
lakes/Seaway industry leaders in Chicago, IL.
st. lawrence seaway authority toll increases
Question. The Canadian St. Lawrence Seaway Authority has announced
that, effective June 1, 1998, a 2 percent increase in tolls will be
imposed on the Montreal/Lake Ontario and Welland Canal sections of the
St. Lawrence Seaway. Is the increase in tolls meant to offset loss of
lockage fee revenue resulting from the SLSA decision to end the
collection of lockage fees at the Welland Canal that began at the start
of the 1998 navigation season?
Answer. Although the Seaway Authority agreed in writing on June 24,
1997 to eliminate Welland Canal lockage fees Transport Canada precluded
implementation of the agreement. The Authority President was replaced
by an Acting President who deferred toll negotiations to Transport
Canada and never responded to a second toll proposal by SLSDC in
October of 1997. The recently announced 2 percent toll increase is a
unilateral decision by Transport Canada that abrogates the 1959
Memorandum of Agreement on the Seaway Tariff of Tolls between the two
nations.
Question. Has the SLSDC analyzed the Seaway traffic and cost
implications of the SLSA decision to increase tolls? Taking into
consideration both the SLSA's discontinuation of the lockage fee and
the 2 percent increase in tolls, will the net resulting total fees and
tolls for the average Seaway transit be the same as that of the average
Seaway transit in calendar year 1997, or will that total now be higher?
Answer. The proposed increase effective June 1, 1998 is an across-
the-board increase of 2 percent for all Tariff charges at both sections
of the System including the Welland lockage fees. Therefore the impact
per transit over 1997 is a 2 percent increase for all Seaway costs.
Question. Might these toll increases have a chilling effect on
Seaway traffic? Please provide the Committee with any available
historical data linking traffic levels to tolls.
Answer. In the short-range the impact of a 2 percent increase
following four years of tolls frozen at 1993 levels should be minimal.
However, the long-range concern is that Transport Canada is
implementing the first year of a proposed five-year series of toll
increases at a minimum of 2 percent, up to a maximum of 3.5 percent a
year. The proposed cargo toll alone on U.S. export grain could rise
from the current $1.06 per metric ton up to a range of $1.17 to $1.26,
per metric ton, that would generate diversions of tonnage from the
Seaway to competing rail and river movements, affecting U.S. port
economies. Grain and low value bulk commodities are highly susceptible
to transport route diversion from relatively minor per-ton shipping
cost increases.
court ruling regarding transfer of pilotage functions
Question. A November 1997 U.S. Court of Appeals decision found that
the Secretary of Transportation lacks the authority to delegate Great
Lakes pilotage powers and duties directly to the SLSDC, but may either
retain direct authority over Great Lakes pilotage powers and duties or
delegate these functions to the U.S. Coast Guard. Have the SLSDC
pilotage functions been transferred out? (if they have not yet been
transferred, when will they be?) Have they been transferred to the
Office of the Secretary, or to the U.S. Coast Guard? What cost savings
are associated with the reduction of two FTE's?
Answer. Great Lakes pilotage functions (4 FTE's) are in the process
of being transferred from the SLSDC to the Field Activities Directorate
(G-MO) of the U.S. Coast Guard's Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety
and Environmental Protection. The staff is already working for G-MO on
detail, and will be permanently transferred as soon as the necessary
paperwork is completed. There is no cost savings as SLSDC will fund the
pilotage staff through fiscal year 1998 even after the transfer is
final. fiscal year 1999 funding is based on the PBO financial plan with
or without the Coast Guard staff.
emergency reserve fund balances
Question. One of the management accountability goals of the SLSDC
this year is to increase the emergency reserve account to ensure
contingency funding for catastrophic emergencies and funding of
critical capital outlay needs. Please provide the Committee a
historical record of reserve account year-end balances from 1988 to
1997.
Answer. The information follows.
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal YR End Balance Draw-down Purpose
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1988................................ 10.1 ........... ................................................
1989................................ 11.5 ........... ................................................
1990................................ 11.2 0.3 Lock Wall Structural Evaluation.
1991................................ 11.6 ........... ................................................
1992................................ 12.6 ........... ................................................
1993................................ 11.9 0.9 Maintenance Dredging.
1994................................ 11.8 0.4 Concrete & Gate Repair.
1995................................ 11.9 0.3 Concrete Repair.
1996................................ 11.2 1.0 Concrete Repair & Replace Workboat.
1997................................ 10.3 1.4 Capital Outlay Projects.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. The fiscal year 1999 year-end balance performance goal
target is $10.68 million. Please support the goal. Why does the SLSDC
need this emergency reserve amount?
Answer. The PBO financial plan included a commitment by SLSDC to
build the emergency reserve to a level of $12 million plus an annual
construction cost inflator of 5 percent. This is the estimated cost
level to repair a double lock gate failure. The SLSDC needs the reserve
account to ensure immediate contingency funding for any catastrophic
event and/or critical capital outlay projects beyond annual budgeted
funds.
Question. What would be the potential ``worst case scenario''
effect of reducing the emergency reserve below this target level of
$10.68 million? Please present scenarios for an emergency reserve level
of: $10 million, $9 million, and $8 million.
Answer. SLSDC believes the worst case scenario is any reserve level
below the $12 million, which is the minimum amount needed to replaced
one set of the locks located at both ends of each lock (the so-called
``double gate failure''). Whether at $10.68 million, $10 million, $9
million or $8 million, the risk of a catastrophic event prevails. The
level of the reserve is a measure of our ability to recover from such
an event.
targeted vessel inspections
Question. Beginning in 1997, the SLSDC instituted a targeted vessel
inspection regime under which all vessels entering the Seaway for the
first trip inbound each year at Montreal would be inspected once, and
thereafter a special screening criteria would be used for any
additional trips into the System. Please describe the screening
criteria used to determine whether vessels would be subject to
subsequent boardings and inspections.
Answer. Certain vessels may have need of additional inspections
during subsequent transits based on requirements in the USCG
prioritization matrix or vessel history. Such vessels that complete a
self exam checklist may be allowed to proceed to their destination port
with a risk-based spotcheck in lieu of a complete inspection, or the
vessel may request inspection in Montreal. Future recognition of the
self-examination checklist and spotchecks will vary with the record
established by each vessel in compliance with the self-examination
program and amendments which may be made in the administration of the
USCG prioritization matrix. Other vessels may be required to have a
second inspection during the navigation season because of
unsatisfactory performance during their Seaway transit, reports of
significant deficiencies since their last transit, or removal from the
``cleared vessel list'' by the SLSDC.
Question. Does this new practice decrease the overall number of
boardings and inspections? Please cite the number of boardings/
inspections in U.S. waters in calendar years 1996 and 1997.
Answer. The SLSDC objective for the new inspection regime was to
eliminate in-transit inspections that were occurring between the U.S.
locks in Massena, to eliminate unnecessary duplication of inspections,
and to enhance consolidation of U.S. and Canadian Seaway and Coast
Guard inspections at Montreal, prior to entering U.S. waters. Therefore
the number of inspections will be about the same each season, subject
to routine traffic fluctuations, but focussed at Montreal. The program
has been a significant positive customer service activity without
compromising safety or environmental considerations. Vessel customers
save time, which translates into reduced operating costs (an average
ocean vessel time savings is 4 hours which equates to $1,600 or 16
percent of a total daily operating cost of $10,000) and are able to
resolve problems in the Montreal area before entering the lock system.
During the 1997 navigation season the SLSDC performed 227 port state
inspections (USCG 23) at Montreal. During 1996 SLSDC performed 100 port
state inspections at Montreal, and an additional 62 were performed in-
transit in the Massena area (water ballast and spotcheck inspections
are not included in the port state program count).
Question. If the number of boardings and inspections decreases
overall, what cost savings are anticipated? Are these SLSDC cost
savings or U.S. Coast Guard savings?
Answer. Routinely the number of inspections at Montreal will be
about the same as the previous Montreal-plus-Massena in-transit
inspections. Over the long-term, an increase in inspections overall is
anticipated with the growth of international traffic through the
System.
staffing levels
Question. How many full time equivalent employees does the SLSDC
currently employ? Does this include a 2 FTE decrease resulting from the
transfer out of Great Lakes pilotage functions?
Answer. SLSDC currently has 147 full time permanent, 2 part time
permanent, and 5 temporary employees on board. The 2 FTE decrease for
fiscal year 1998 represents the reduction in FTE level established by
the Corporation's streamlining plan commitment. The pilotage function
represents 4 FTE's.
Question. Please break out the current on-board staff by location
(Washington, D.C. or Massena), function, and civil service versus wage
grade personnel. Please prepare a comparative table showing on-board
staff exactly one year ago.
Answer. The Information follows.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Board 5/11/98 On Board 5/11/97
---------------------------------------
OFFICE General Wage General Wage
schedule grade schedule grade
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON, DC
Acting Administrator............ 6 ........ 5 ........
Congressional & Public Affairs.. 7 ........ 6 ........
Development & Logistics......... 3 ........ 3 ........
Great Lakes Pilotage............ 3 ........ 4 ........
---------------------------------------
TOTAL..................... 19 ........ 18 ........
=======================================
MASSENA, NY
Associate Administrator......... 3 ........ 4 ........
Administration.................. 11 ........ 12 ........
Finance......................... 14 1 15 1
Engineering & Strategic Plng.... 6 ........ 6 ........
Maintenance & Marine Services... 7 47 7 48
Lock Operations................. 13 33 13 31
---------------------------------------
TOTAL..................... 54 81 57 80
=======================================
GRAND TOTAL BY PAY SYSTEM. 73 81 75 80
=======================================
OVERALL TOTALS.................. 154
155
------------------------------------------------------------------------
proposed fiscal year 1999 budget increases
Question. The proposed fiscal year 1999 increase in personnel
compensation is $76,000 above last year's enacted level, despite the
fact that 2 Great Lakes pilot FTE positions will be transferred out
before October 1, 1998. Why will it cost more to pay fewer people?
Answer. The increase of $76,000 in personnel compensation for
fiscal year 1999 represents within-grades, promotions and cost of
living increases offset by the reduction of 2 FTE's in compliance with
the streamlining plan commitment, not the pilotage function, which is 4
FTE's.
Question. In referencing the budget justification's ``non-
discretionary program changes'' on page 23, an additional $289,000 in
pay act, wage board, and inflationary increases is assumed, which is
then offset by management savings of $225,000 associated with the 2 FTE
reduction. This nets to an increase of $64,000 in additional pay and
inflation costs. Why isn't this the same amount as the proposed
personnel compensation increase of $76,000 outlined on page 13 of the
budget justification?
Answer. The increase of $76,000 outlined on page 13 of the budget
justification includes anticipated within-grades and promotions, which
are not specifically outlined in the program changes. The $64,000
represents program changes including other non-pay object classes.
Question. How did you determine an estimate of $60,000 for non-pay
inflationary increases?
Answer. Inflationary increases of $60,000 in non-pay object classes
were based on a 2.3 percent inflation factor, allowing for changes in
cost and supply factors.
Question. In your budget request, travel increases 8 percent from
the fiscal year 1998 enacted level. Much of this increase is associated
with travel to and from Washington, D.C. and Massena, NY. Why is this
increase anticipated?
Answer. An increase in travel from Washington to Massena is
anticipated since the Acting Administrator is committed to involving
all employees in the PBO performance based process and related
legislative concerns. This requires outreach meetings with the
partnership council and frequent information sessions with AFGE Local
1968 and with the union executive board. All DC and Massena employees
at every level are included in development of annual performance
agreements with the Secretary and annual performance plans included in
the budget process. In addition, employees have raised concerns and
issues about PBO legislation and performance measures, the Binational
Seaway agency legislation developed by Congressman Oberstar, and
proposed restructuring of the SLSA by Transport Canada.
RELATED AGENCIES
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
detectable warnings
Question. Under the Board's January 28, 1998 notice of proposed
rulemaking, the temporary suspension of the detectable warnings
requirement is extended to July 26, 2000, in order to allow the Board
to address substantive requirements for detectable warnings in the
ADAAG revision rulemaking. The ADAAG review advisory committee that
considered these requirements has recommended the requirements for curb
ramps, hazardous vehicle areas, and reflecting pools be entirely
eliminated, and that the transit station platform edge requirements
allow for ``equivalent tactile surface and detectability.'' Will the
next two years' of Board review under the extended suspension focus on
determining what will constitute equivalent tactile surface and
detectability for transit station platforms? What other substantive
issues will be reviewed?
Answer. The Board intends to adopt the recommendations of the ADAAG
Review Advisory Committee regarding detectable warnings in the notice
of proposed rulemaking to revise ADAAG. The ADAAG Review Advisory
Committee recommended that detectable warnings be required only in
transit facilities where platform edges border a drop-off and are not
protected by platform screens or guard rails. In addition to the
existing technical specifications for using truncated domes as
detectable warnings, the ADAAG Review Advisory Committee recommended
that performance oriented specifications for equivalent tactile
surfaces and equivalent detectability be included in ADAAG. The Board
does not intend to further review any substantive issues regarding
detectable warnings before the notice of proposed rulemaking to revise
ADAAG is published. The Board will consider public comments submitted
in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking to revise ADAAG,
including the substantive requirements for detectable warnings, before
approving a final rule. The Board has proposed to extend the temporary
suspension of the detectable warning requirements to July 26, 2000, in
order to allow the substantive requirements to be addressed in the
rulemaking to revise ADAAG.
budget request adjustments
Question. Please explain more fully the request for a 67 percent
increase in staff training (from $15,000 in fiscal year 1998 to $25,000
in fiscal year 1999). Generally, what staff training is required? Is
there a staff training need that is currently being unmet, or does this
increased request reflect a specific one-time need that will occur in
fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The Board has always had a policy to invest heavily in
staff training. We operate in a changing technical environment and it
is extremely important for the staff to keep up to date when developing
state-of-the-art accessibility guidelines. The Board originally planned
to spend $25,000 on training in fiscal year 1999. The money the Board
sought to spend on staff training had to be used to cover the increased
cost of supporting the development of its guidelines. We have requested
the original fiscal year 1998 level of $25,000 again in fiscal year
1999.
We expect that the kinds of training sought in fiscal year 1999
will be similar to past training. In the recent past, we have provided
the following training to staff members:
--Web Page design and HTML language;
--Duties of a contracting officers technical representative;
--Records management and filling;
--Supervisory skills;
--Investigating complaints of discrimination;
--Human resource and management skills;
--Beginning and advanced regulation drafting;
--Federal budget formulation; and
--Registration fees at professional conferences.
Additionally, in fiscal year 1997, we provided training on giving
effective presentations to staff involved in our guideline training
program. We also have contributed $2,000 to the Small Agency Council
training fund which sponsors courses such as time management and
supervisory skills that would not be cost effective for small agencies
to sponsor alone.
board membership
Question. Please update the information provided in previous Senate
hearing records regarding status of terms of members on the Board,
including both Federal and public members. Please include each member's
attendance record at the Board meetings during the 12-month period
between May 1997 and April 1998. Please include a narrative explaining
the members' attendance records similar to that in last year's hearing
record.
Answer. The requested tables follow.
ACCESS BOARD MEMBER AND LIAISON ATTENDANCE BY MEETINGS, MAY 1997-APRIL 1998
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington, DC--
------------------------------------------------------
05/14/97 07/09/97 09/10/97 01/14/98 03/11/98
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLIC MEMBERS/TERM
Nancy J. Bloch, 12/03/99................................. x x x ......... x
Patrick D. Cannon, 12/03/98.............................. x x x x x
John H. Catlin, 12/03/01................................. x x x x x
Marilyn Golden, 12/03/00................................. x x x ......... x
Marc D. Guthrie, 12/03/00................................ x x x x x
Margaret C. Hager, 12/03/98.............................. x x x ......... x
Pamela Y. Holmes, 12/03/01............................... x x x x x
June I. Kailes, 12/03/98................................. x x x x x
Carl G. Lewis, 12/03/98.................................. x x x x x
Donna L. Sorkin, 12/03/01................................ x ......... x x x
Lori L. Vande Zande, 12/03/99............................ x x x x x
James J. Weisman, 12/03/99............................... x x x ......... x
Vacant................................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
FEDERAL MEMBERS/LIAISON STAFF
DOC:
Member............................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Liaison.............................................. x ......... x x x
DOD:
Member............................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Liaison.............................................. ......... x x ......... x
ED:
Member............................................... x x x x x
Liaison.............................................. x x x x x
GSA:
Member............................................... ......... x x ......... x
Liaison.............................................. x x x x x
HHS:
Member............................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... x
Liaison.............................................. x x ......... x x
HUD:
Member............................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Liaison.............................................. x x x x x
DOI:
Member............................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Liaison.............................................. ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
DOJ:
Member............................................... ......... ......... x ......... .........
Liaison.............................................. x x x x x
DOL:
Member............................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Liaison.............................................. x ......... x x x
DOT:
Member............................................... x ......... ......... ......... x
Liaison.............................................. x x x x x
USPS:
Member............................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Liaison.............................................. x ......... x ......... .........
VA:
Member............................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... x
Liaison.............................................. x x ......... x x
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The November 13, 1997 Board meeting was substituted with a town meeting in Louisville, Kentucky.
Department of Commerce.--The Honorable W. Scott Gould, Chief
Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary for Administration, was
designated a member in October 1997 and has not attended any meetings.
The Honorable Raymond G. Kammer, Jr., former Acting Chief Financial
Officer and Assistant Secretary for Administration, did not attended
any meetings. The staff liaison, Mr. William J. Porter, Jr., External
Program Manager, Office of Civil Rights, attended four meetings.
Department of Defense.--The Honorable Rudy de Leon, Under Secretary
of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), was designated a member in
February 1998 and has not attended any meetings. The Honorable F.Y.
Pang, Assistant Secretary of Defense (Force Management Policy), did not
attend any meetings. The staff liaison, Ms. Judith Gilliom, Deputy
Director for Equal Opportunity Policy (Disability Programs), attended
three meetings.
Department of Education.--The Honorable Judith E. Heumann,
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services,
attended five meetings. The staff liaison, Mr. William Peterson,
Program Manager, National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation
Research, became a liaison in November 1997 and attended two meetings.
MS. RoseAnn Ashby, Vocational Rehabilitation Program Specialist,
Rehabilitation Services Administration, attended three meetings.
General Services Administration.--The Honorable Thurman M. Davis,
Sr., Deputy Administrator, attended three meetings. The staff liaison,
Mr. Anthony Waller, National Program Manager for Accessibility,
attended five meetings.
Department of Health and Human Services.--The Honorable Harriet S.
Rabb, General Counsel, attended one meeting. The staff liaison, MS.
Charlene Tusan, Attorney, attended four meetings.
Department of Housing and Urban Development.--The Honorable Eva M.
Plaza, Assistant Secretary for Policy and Initiatives, Office of Fair
Housing and Equal Opportunity, was designated a member in December 1997
and has not attended any meetings. Mr. Andrew Cuomo, The Secretary,
interim Board Member since March 1997, has not attended any meetings.
The staff liaison, MS. Cheryl Kent, Director, Disability Rights
Division, Office of Fair Housing and Urban Development, attended five
meetings.
Department of the Interior.--The Honorable M. John Berry, Assistant
Secretary, Policy Management and Budget, was designated a member in
November 1997 and has not attended any meetings. The Honorable Bonnie
Cohen, former Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget,
has not attended any meetings. The staff liaison, Mr. Melvin C. Fowler,
Process Manager, Office for Equal Opportunity, has not attended any
meetings.
Department of Justice.--The Honorable Bill Lann Lee, Acting
Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, was designated as a member
in December 1997, and has not attended any meetings. The Honorable
Isabelle Katz Pinzler, former Acting Assistant Attorney General for
Civil Rights, attended one meeting. The staff liaison, MS. Janet L.
Blizard, Supervisory Attorney, Disability Rights Section, Civil Rights
Division, attended five meetings.
Department of Labor.--The Honorable Bernard E. Anderson, Assistant
Secretary for Employment Standards, has not attended any meetings. The
staff Liaison, Ms. Diane Smith, Manager, Field Liaison, attended four
meetings.
Department of Transportation.--A representative has not been
designated to serve as a Board Member. The Honorable John Lieber,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy, attended one
meeting. The Honorable Frank E. Kruesi, former Assistant Secretary for
Transportation Policy, attended one meeting. The staff liaison, Dr. Ira
Laster, Jr., Senior Program Coordinator, Office of Environment, Energy,
and Safety, attended five meetings.
United States Postal Service.--The Honorable Rudolph K. Umscheid,
Vice President, Facilities, has not attended any meetings. The staff
liaison, Mr. Michael Goodwin, Manager, Design and Construction, was
designated as a liaison in December 1997 and has not attended any
meetings. Mr. Charles Baker, Architectural Barriers Compliance
Coordinator, attended two meetings.
Department of Veterans Affairs.--The Honorable Eugene A.
Brickhouse, Assistant Secretary for Human Resources and Administration,
attended one meeting. The staff liaison, Mr. Dennis Hancher, Barrier
Free Design, Office of Construction Management, attended four meetings.
travel costs
Question. Please list by city all out-of-town staff travel during
fiscal years 1997 and 1998 to date. Include a brief description of the
purpose of the trip, and indicate which trips were training sessions.
Please also include columns listing the cost of each staff trip, and if
the trip was a training session, what portion of the associated costs
were reimbursed.
Answer. The requested tables follow.
FISCAL YEAR 1997 STAFF OUT-OF-TOWN TRAVEL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reimbursable
Traveler/city Dates Purpose Cost amount
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pecht, Jim, Chicago, IL...... 10/08-10/08/96 ADA Training--Nat'l Assoc. of Elevator Contractor's................ $194.70 $142.50
Beatty, Paul, Nantucket, MA.. 10/20-10/22/96 Site Visit--Access to Floating Docks............................... 772.92 ..............
Alperin, David, Parkersburg, 10/20-10/22/96 Staff Training--Bureau of Public Debt.............................. 691.58 ..............
WV.
Brooks, Meriel, Parkersburg, 10/20-10/22/96 Staff Training--Bureau of Public Debt.............................. 566.01 ..............
WV.
Johnston, Tanya, Parkersburg, 10/20-10/22/96 Staff Training--Bureau of Public Debt.............................. 560.50 ..............
WV.
Greenwell, Peggy, Kansas 10/22-10/29/96 Play Areas Reg Neg Mtg /ADA Training--Nat'l Recreation and Parks 1,370.30 ..............
City, MO. Assoc.
Alperin, David, Kansas City, 10/26-10/29/96 Play Areas Reg Neg Mtg............................................. 700.29 ..............
MO.
Ola, Kansas City, MO......... 10/26-10/29/96 Play Areas Reg Neg Mtg............................................. 719.93 ..............
Mazz, Marsha, Birmingham, AL. 10/28-10/29/96 Model Code Mtg..................................................... 444.94 ..............
Roffee, Lawrence, Seattle, WA 10/30-11/01/96 ADA Training--Northwest DBTAC...................................... 564.59 241.50
Thibault, Lois, Sacramento, 11/06-11/08/96 ADA Training--Metropolitan Transportation Commission............... 522.01 522.01
CA.
Roffee, Lawrence, Perth, 11/07-11/17/96 Accessibility Training--Gov't of Western Australia................. 4,647.50 3,673.78
Australia.
Capozzi, David:
Honolulu, HI............. 11/14-11/18/96 ADA Training--American Bar Assoc................................... 1,240.97 961.06
Boston, MA............... 11/21-11/21/96 ADA Training--Build Boston......................................... 476.72 ..............
Mazz, Marsha, Chicago, IL.... 11/25-11/26/96 ADA Training--Great Lakes DBTAC.................................... 262.00 262.00
Beatty, Paul, Denver, CO..... 12/06-12/08/96 Advisory Meeting--Ski Areas........................................ 453.32 ..............
Mazz, Marsha, Atlanta, GA.... 12/09-12/10/96 Platform Lift Safety Code Mtg...................................... 751.82 ..............
Ola, Berkeley, CA............ 01/03-01/13/97 Play Areas Reg Neg Mtg............................................. 936.20 ..............
Beatty, Paul, Berkeley, CA 01/05-01/10/97 Play Areas Reg Neg Mtg............................................. 783.20 ..............
Greenwell, Peggy, Berkeley, 01/05-01/10/97 Play Areas Reg Neg Mtg............................................. $1,209.52 ..............
CA.
Johnston, Tanya, Berkeley, CA 01/05-01/10/97 Play Areas Reg Neg Mtg............................................. 1,205.28 ..............
Greenwell, Peggy:
Orlando, FL.............. 01/17-01/18/97 Swimming Pool Standard Mtg......................................... 596.62 ..............
Chicago, IL.............. 01/27-01/28/97 Play Areas Reg Neg Mtg............................................. 332.50 ..............
Brooks, Meriel, Parkersburg, 01/28-01/29/97 Staff Training--Bureau of Public Debt.............................. 483.38 ..............
WV.
Johnston, Tanya, Parkersburg, 01/28-01/29/97 Staff Training--Bureau of Public Debt.............................. 570.10 ..............
WV.
Mazz, Marsha, Honolulu, HI... 02/24-02/28/97 ADA Training--Hawaii Commission on Persons with Disabilities....... 457.50 ..............
Greenwell, Peggy, Kalamazoo, 03/13-03/14/97 ADA Training--Assoc. of Landscape Architects....................... 828.83 828.83
MI /Dearborn, MI.
Beatty, Paul, Dallas, TX..... 03/20-03/21/97 ADA Training--Nat'l Child Care Assoc............................... 447.20 77.20
Thibault, Lois, Tampa, FL / 03/23-03/31/97 ADA Training--Great Plains DBTAC................................... 1,033.41 381.00
Columbia, MO.
Roffee, Lawrence, New York, 04/02-04/03/97 ADA Training--Greater NY Auto Dealers Assoc........................ 405.50 252.50
NY.
Thibault, Lois, San Diego, CA 04/05-04/08/97 ADA Training--American Planning Assoc.............................. 576.68 ..............
Mazz, Marsha, Chicago, IL.... 04/06-04/11/97 Model Codes Mtg.................................................... 863.22 ..............
Greenwell, Peggy, Ocean City, 04/09-04/10/97 ADA Training--Maryland Parks and Recreation Assoc.................. 223.20 100.20
MD.
Roffee, Lawrence, Charlotte, 04/10-04/11/97 Funeral of Board Member............................................ 649.08 ..............
NC.
Yanchulis, David, Charlotte, 04/19-04/20/97 ADA Training--Miller Freeman....................................... 626.30 626.30
NC.
Alperin, David, Louisville, 04/24-04/24/97 Site Inspection for Future Board Mtg............................... 418.08 ..............
KY.
Little, Susan, Atlanta, GA... 04/26-04/30/97 ADA Training--Assoc. of Museum Administrators...................... 870.36 ..............
Roffee, Lawrence:
Oakland, CA.............. 05/02-05/08/97 ADA Training--Pacific DBTAC........................................ 932.86 932.86
New Orleans, LA.......... 05/15-05/17/97 ADA Training--American Institute of Architects..................... 791.72 350.00
Yanchulis, David, Seattle, WA 05/27-05/29/97 ADA Training--Washington Department of General Administration...... 646.45 646.45
Mazz, Marsha, New York, NY... 06/10-06/10/97 Platform Lifts Safety Code Mtg..................................... 217.00 ..............
Yanchulis, David, State 06/11-06/13/97 ADA Training--Classroom Acoustics.................................. 114.33 ..............
College, PA.
Capozzi, David, Phoenix, AZ.. 06/14-06/15/97 Meeting--Self Help for Hard of Hearing People...................... 726.46 ..............
Greenwell, Peggy, San Diego, 06/19-06/22/97 Advisory Mtg with Pools Manufacturers.............................. 521.23 ..............
CA.
Roffee, Lawrence, Concord, NH 07/25-07/28/97 ADA Training--NH Governor's Committee on Persons with Disabilities. 720.93 ..............
Little, Susan, Austin, TX.... 08/19-08/21/97 ADA Training--Electrical Engineers Assoc........................... 581.77 ..............
Thibault, Lois, Boston, MA... 08/25-08/26/97 ADA Training--American Society of Civil Engineers.................. 469.45 ..............
Capozzi, David, Louisville, 09/04-09/04/97 Site Visit for November Board Mtg.................................. 429.37 ..............
KY.
Greenwell, Peggy, 09/07-09/08/97 ADA Training--Nat'l Center on Accessibility........................ 54.76 54.76
Indianapolis, IN.
Beatty, Paul, Seattle, WA.... 09/07-09/11/97 ADA Training--Washington Coalition of Citizens with Disabilities... 694.83 572.93
Windley, Scott, Denver, CO... 09/09-09/10/97 ADA Training--Nat'l League of Cities............................... 442.63 420.13
Yanchulis, David, 09/12-09/14/97 ADA Training--American Public Works Assoc.......................... 641.09 ..............
Minneapolis, MN.
Cannon, Dennis, Philadelphia, 09/16-09/16/97 ADA Training--Universal Atlantic................................... 142.70 142.00
PA.
Alperin, David, Santa Cruz, 09/23-09/27/97 Outdoor Developed Areas Reg Neg Mtg................................ 1,213.39 ..............
CA.
Bunales, Rose, Santa Cruz, CA 09/23-09/27/97 Outdoor Developed Areas Reg Neg Mtg................................ 1,068.76 ..............
Greenwell, Peggy, Santa Cruz, 09/23-09/27/97 Outdoor Developed Areas Reg Neg Mtg................................ 1,163.25 ..............
CA.
Beatty, Paul, Santa Cruz,CA.. 09/23-09/27/97 Outdoor Developed Areas Reg Neg Mtg................................ 1,108.60 ..............
Sesker, Earlene, Montgomery, 09/24-09/25/97 ADA Training--Alabama State Vocational Rehabilitation 580.98 580.98
AL. Administration.
-------------------------------
Totals................. .................... ................................................................... 41,718.82 11,768.99
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FISCAL YEAR 1998 STAFF OUT-OF-TOWN TRAVEL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reimbursable
Traveler/city Dates Purpose Cost amount
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roffee, Lawrence, Seattle, WA 10/16-10/18/97 ADA Training--Nat'l League of Cities............................... $1,446.01 $1,414.72
Thibault, Lois, Seattle, WA.. 10/16-10/19/97 ADA Training--Nat'l League of Cities............................... 583.13 583.13
Lillard, Traci, Philadephia, 10/20-10/23/97 EEOC Training...................................................... 584.70 ..............
PA.
Greenwell, Peggy, Salt Lake 10/26-10/31/97 ADA Training--Nat'l Recreation and Parks Assoc. and Utah Division 1,225.44 1,225.44
City, UT. of Risk Management.
Thibault, Lois:
Chicago, IL.............. 11/04-11/06/97 ADA Training--Great Lakes DBTAC and American Society of Civil 472.80 472.80
Engineers.
Atlanta, GA.............. 11/08-11/10/97 American Society of Landscape Architects Convention................ 640.04 ..............
Mazz, Marsha, Louisville, KY. 11/11-11/13/97 Board Mtg.......................................................... 823.30 ..............
Alperin, David, Louisville, 11/11-11/14/97 Board Mtg.......................................................... 1,069.73 ..............
KY.
Greenwell, Peggy, Louisville, 11/11-11/14/97 Board Mtg.......................................................... 646.37 ..............
KY.
Beatty, Paul, Louisville, KY. 11/11-11/14/97 Board Mtg.......................................................... 781.20 ..............
Capozzi, David, Louisville, 11/11-11/14/97 Board Mtg.......................................................... 813.56 ..............
KY.
Roffee, Lawrence, Louisville, 11/11-11/14/97 Board Mtg.......................................................... 921.55 ..............
KY.
Raggio, Jim, Louisville, KY.. 11/11-11/14/97 Board Mtg.......................................................... 639.00 ..............
Yanchulis, David, Louisville, 11/12-11/13/97 Board Mtg.......................................................... 509.10 ..............
KY.
Mazz, Marsha, Boston, MA..... 11/20-11/20/97 ADA Training--Build Boston......................................... 478.16 ..............
Thibault, Lois, Los Angeles, 12/05-12/08/97 Meeting on Acoustics............................................... 745.62 ..............
CA.
Yanchulis, David, Atlanta, GA 12/07-12/08/97 Meeting--Major League Baseball..................................... 759.80 ..............
Mazz, Marsha, Charleston, WV. 12/10-12/11/97 ADA Training--WV Office of Health Facility Licensing............... 572.90 ..............
Greenwell, Peggy, Seattle, WA 12/13-12/17/97 Outdoor Areas Reg Neg Mtg.......................................... 905.52 ..............
Bunales, Rose, Seattle, WA... 12/13-12/17/97 Outdoor Areas Reg Neg Mtg.......................................... 874.24 ..............
Beatty, Paul, Seattle, WA.... 12/13-12/17/97 Outdoor Areas Reg Neg Mtg.......................................... 837.20 ..............
Alperin, David, Seattle, WA.. 12/14-12/17/97 Outdoor Areas Reg Neg Mtg.......................................... 1,082.61 ..............
Yanchulis, David, New York, 01/07-01/07/98 Meeting on Assistive Listening Systems............................. 128.30 ..............
NY.
Windley, Scott, West Palm 01/11-01/12/98 ANSI A117 Committee Mtg............................................ 630.90 ..............
Beach, FL.
Beatty, Paul, Melbourne, FL.. 01/13-01/16/98 ADA Training--FL Dept. of Labor.................................... 514.95 514.95
Windley, Scott, Huntsville, 01/18-01/19/98 ADA Training--Contract Specifications Institute.................... 621.19 541.40
AL.
Alperin, David, San Diego, CA 01/29-02/03/98 Outdoor Areas Reg Neg Mtg.......................................... 1,149.36 ..............
Bunales, Rose, San Diego, CA. 01/30-02/03/98 Outdoor Areas Reg Neg Mtg.......................................... 978.16 ..............
Beatty, Paul, San Diego, CA.. 01/30-02/03/98 Outdoor Areas Reg Neg Mtg.......................................... 978.16 ..............
Greenwell, Peggy, San Diego, 01/30-02/07/98 Outdoor Areas Reg Neg Mtg & ADA Training--Int'l Trails Conference.. 1,572.50 404.87
CA/Los Angeles, CA.
Cannon, Dennis, San Juan, PR. 02/08-02/13/98 ADA Training--Federal Transit Administration & University of San 1,714.80 1,714.80
Juan.
Yanchulis, David, Dallas, TX. 02/09-02/10/98 ADA Training--Wal-Mart............................................. 450.50 450.50
Lillard, Traci, Houston, TX.. 02/16-02/20/98 Staff Training..................................................... 644.32 ..............
Little, Susan, Houston, TX... 02/16-02/20/98 Staff Training..................................................... 725.51 ..............
Capozzi, David, Seattle, WA.. 02/18-02/21/98 ADA Training--Microsoft............................................ 730.81 ..............
Mazz, Marsha, Kalamazoo, MI.. 02/24-02/25/98 ADA Training--Great Lakes DBTAC.................................... 558.22 558.22
Alperin, David, Denver, CO... 02/27-02/28/98 Site Inspection for future public hearing.......................... 736.21 ..............
Beatty, Paul, Lancaster, PA.. 03/02-03/02/98 ADA Training--Nat'l Recreation and Park Assoc...................... 92.90 92.90
Sesker, Earlene, Las Vegas, 03/06-03/07/98 ADA Training--Nat'l Childcare Assoc................................ 336.17 336.17
NV.
Greenwell, Peggy, Atlantic 03/16-03/17/98 ADA Training--NJ Nat'l Recreation and Park Assoc................... 523.26 523.26
City, NJ.
Cannon, Dennis, Los Angeles, 03/16-03/21/98 ADA Training--Technology Conference................................ 1,038.90 ..............
CA.
Yanchulis, David, Honolulu, 03/24-03/28/98 ADA Training--Hawaii Commission on Persons with Disabilities....... 484.50 250.00
HI.
Cannon, Dennis, Honolulu, HI 03/24-03/28/98 ADA Training--Hawaii Commission on Persons with Disabilities....... 423.24 423.24
Alperin, David, San 03/26-03/28/98 Site Inspection for future Board Meeting........................... 1,000.91 ..............
Francisco, CA.
Capozzi, David, Houston, TX.. 03/29-03/31/98 ADA Training--Accessology.......................................... 682.26 628.77
Mazz, Marsha, Houston, TX.... 03/29-04/01/98 ADA Training--Accessology.......................................... 1,033.61 962.31
Greenwell, Peggy, Okemos, MI. 04/15-04/16/98 ADA Training--Mid Cities Management Trust.......................... 905.11 905.11
-------------------------------
Totals................. .................... ................................................................... 36,066.73 12,002.59
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please provide a separate travel costs table displaying
Board member travel for fiscal years 1997 and 1998 to date. Include the
date and location of travel, a brief description of the trip's purpose,
and the Board's costs.
Answer. The requested tables follow.
FISCAL YEAR 1997 BOARD TRAVEL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Traveler/city Dates Purpose Cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Play Reg Neg Committee Members, 10/22-10/29/96 Play Areas Reg Neg Mtg..................................................... $969.39
Kansas City, MO.
Lewis, Carl, Kansas City, MO......... 10/25-10/29/96 Play Areas Reg Neg Mtg..................................................... 599.92
Telecom Access Advisory Committee 11/05-11/08/96 Telecom Advisory Committee Mtg............................................. 1,076.00
Member, Washington, DC.
Public Board Members, Washington, DC. 11/11-11/14/96 Board Mtg.................................................................. 8,767.31
Telecom Access Advisory Committee 12/15-12/18/96 Telecom Advisory Committee Mtg............................................. 2,001.00
Member, Washington, DC.
Kailes, June, Washington, DC......... 12/15-12/18/96 Telecom Advisory Committee Mtg............................................. 984.54
Catlin, John, Washington, DC......... 12/17-12/17/96 Federal Facilities Mtg..................................................... 230.50
Play Reg Neg Committee Members, 01/05-01/09/97 Play Areas Reg Neg Mtg..................................................... 2,143.72
Berkeley, CA.
Lewis, Carl, Berkeley, CA............ 01/05-01/09/97 Play Areas Reg Neg Mtg..................................................... 953.88
Telecom Access Advisory Committee 01/12-01/15/97 Telecom Advisory Committee Mtg............................................. 1,768.00
Members, Washington, DC.
Public Board Members, Washington, DC. 01/12-01/15/97 Board Mtg.................................................................. 8,720.64
Catlin, John, Washington, DC......... 02/08-02/08/97 Meeting--White House....................................................... 227.00
Long-Range Planning Committee 02/17-2/19/97 Ad Hoc Committee on Long-Range Planning Mtg................................ 2,956.04
Members, Washington, DC.
Public Board Members, Washington, DC. 03/09-03/13/97 Board Mtg.................................................................. 12,706.91
Play Reg Neg Committee Members, 04/01-04/04/97 Play Area Reg Neg Mtg...................................................... 500.00
Washington, DC.
Lewis, Carl, Washington, DC.......... 04/01-04/04/97 Play Area Reg Neg Mtg...................................................... 1,269.00
Public Board Members, Washington, DC. 05/11-05/14/97 Board Mtg.................................................................. 9,121.37
Catlin, John, Washington, DC......... 06/03-06/03/97 Agency Goals Mtg........................................................... 273.00
Weisman, James, Washington, DC 06/03-06/03/97 Agency Goals Mtg........................................................... 188.50
Kailes, June, Washington, DC......... 06/03-06/03/97 Agency Goals Mtg........................................................... 421.00
Cannon, Patrick:
San Francisco, CA................ 06/08-06/10/97 Meeting--Talking Signs..................................................... 1,103.00
Washington, DC................... 06/11-06/14/97 AIA Mtg.................................................................... 1,309.15
Catlin, John, Washington, DC......... 06/11-06/14/97 AIA Mtg.................................................................... 961.93
Outdoor Reg Neg Committee Members, 06/25-06/28/97 Outdoor Areas Reg Neg Mtg.................................................. 738.00
Washington, DC.
Public Board Members, Washington, DC. 07/06-07/10/97 Board Mtg.................................................................. 11,970.80
Play Reg Neg Committee Members, 07/06-07/10/97 Play Areas Reg Neg Mtg..................................................... 226.00
Washington, DC.
Public Board Members, Washington, DC. 09/07-09/11/97 Board Mtg.................................................................. 9,314.30
Catlin, John, Washington, DC......... 09/16-09/18/97 Meeting--GSA............................................................... 484.32
Outdoor Reg Neg Committee Members, 09/23-09/27/97 Outdoor Areas Reg Neg Mtg.................................................. 2,019.00
Santa Cruz, CA.
Golden, Marilyn, Santa Cruz, CA...... 09/23-09/27/97 Outdoor Areas Reg Neg Mtg.................................................. 329.98
---------------
Total.......................... .................... ........................................................................... 84,334.20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FISCAL YEAR 1998 BOARD TRAVEL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Traveler/city Dates Purpose Cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lewis, Carl, Salt Lake City, UT...... 10/29-10/30/97 ADA Training--Nat'l Recreation and Parks Assoc............................. $133.91
Public Board Members, Louisville, KY. 11/11-11/14/97 Board Mtg.................................................................. 11,156.61
Sorkin, Donna, Los Angeles, CA....... 12/04-12/07/97 Meeting on Acoustics....................................................... 928.07
Cannon, Patrick, Atlanta, GA......... 12/07-12/09/97 Meeting--Major League Baseball Association................................. 977.60
Outdoor Reg Neg Committee Members, 12/13-12/17/97 Outdoor Areas Reg Neg Mtg.................................................. 2,263.00
Seattle, WA.
Golden, Marilyn, Seattle, WA......... 12/13-12/17/97 Outdoor Areas Reg Neg Mtg.................................................. 728.30
Sorkin, Donna, New York, NY.......... 01/07-01/07/98 Meeting on Assistive Listening Systems..................................... 187.50
Public Board Members, Washington, DC. 01/11-01/15/98 Board Mtg.................................................................. 8,596.09
Golden, Marilyn, San Diego, CA....... 01/30-02/03/98 Outdoor Areas Reg Neg Mtg.................................................. 842.97
Outdoor Reg Neg Committee Members, 01/31-02/02/98 Outdoor Areas Reg Neg Mtg.................................................. 1,471.00
San Diego, CA.
Public Board Members, Washington, DC. 03/08-03/12/98 Board Mtg.................................................................. 7,676.32
---------------
Total.......................... .................... ........................................................................... 34,961.37
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Transportation Safety Board
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
Question. In fiscal year 1998, the Congress provided three-quarters
of funding for the salaries and benefits of 32 additional employees.
Please provide the job description and dates each of the new employees
was hired.
Answer. Of the 32 positions, 30 have been filled. Information
regarding those positions follows.
office of pipeline and hazardous materials safety (2 hires)
Senior Chemist (11/97)
Provides authoritative technical information, expertise, and
investigative services as needed for transportation accidents and
incidents involving hazardous materials across all modes, and provides
scientific and technical guidance necessary for evaluating the
transportation of hazardous materials. Evaluates scientific and
technical policies related to the transport of hazardous materials
across all modes; provides technical expertise on the characteristics
and behavior of materials, (including the physical, chemical and
toxicological properties of materials and compounds), factors, and
conditions that affect the behavior of materials in the transportation
environment, consequences of their release; and, develops technical and
scientific policy guidance for the office.
Pipeline Accident Investigator (3/98)
Serves as a Pipeline Accident Investigator with responsibility for
conducting investigations of pipeline transportation accidents and
reviewing special pipeline transportation safety studies or
investigations, evaluates pipeline transportation safety programs,
exchanges information with other organizations concerned with pipeline
transportation safety, and reports conclusions and findings for
acceptance, rejection, modification, or further study.
office of railroad safety (4 hires)
Railroad Accident Investigator (Forensics) (1/98)
Performs independent investigations of regional level railroad/rail
rapid transit accidents. Assists senior investigators in the
investigations of railroad and rail rapid transit accidents, and
applies the principles of forensic science to evaluate the medical and
injury aspects of the accident. Also investigates and evaluates the
effectiveness of emergency response procedures in railroad and rail
rapid transit accidents. Develops the facts, analyzes the information,
writes the accident report, and proposes safety recommendations.
Railroad Accident Investigator (regional office) (2/98)
Serves as a Railroad Accident Investigator with responsibility for
the investigation of selected regional railroad accidents. Incumbent
may act as a Group Chairman on major railroad accidents or perform as
the Regional Director in his/her absence. Duties include the
supervision of parties involved in the onsite investigation of the
accident, writing the narrative, factual, and analytical reports, and
recommending remedial action. Incumbent also trains or instructs other
investigators and performs other assignments to promote railroad
safety, improve investigative methods, eliminate railroad safety
hazards, and prevent railroad accidents.
Railroad Accident Investigator (2/98)
Serves as the Investigator-In-Charge of selected major railroad
accidents and special investigations. Also serves as Group Chairperson
on major accident investigations. Duties include the supervision of
parties involved in the investigation, writing narrative, factual, and
analytical reports, recommending remedial action, and performing other
assignments to promote railroad safety, improve investigative methods,
eliminate railroad safety hazards, and prevent railroad accidents.
Psychologist (formerly titled Railroad Accident Investigator) (1/98)
Expert in the psychological, physiological, and human engineering/
ergonomics disciplines used in the investigation and analysis of major
railroad accidents. Independently investigates highly complex major
human performance related accidents. Develops independent audits and
data gathering activities at other government agencies and in industry.
Participates in the preparation of formal accident reports and
independent development of safety recommendations.
office of highway safety (1 hire)
Highway Accident Investigator (Motor Carrier) (1/98)
Serves as a motor carrier specialist concerned with highway safety
matters that pertain to motor carrier and passenger carrier operations.
Supports and implements the operating plan and mission of the office,
and provides operational counsel and technical assistance in all
aspects of motor carrier and passenger carrier operations to office
personnel. Also reviews motor carrier information contained within
highway related products and provides substantive comments.
office of marine safety (1 hire)
Marine Engineer (4/98)
Serves as an Investigator-in-Charge with recognized expertise in
marine operations, marine safety, and marine accident investigations.
Incumbent is responsible for organizing, managing and coordinating the
investigation of major marine transportation accidents and developing
and presenting reports with safety recommendations for adoption by the
Board. May also serve as Group Chairperson. Serves as the Safety Board
representative in international investigations.
office of aviation safety (9 hires)
Air Traffic Control Specialist (10/97)
Provides specialized support in the investigation of aircraft
accidents through the deployment of centralized teams; plans and
conducts analytical studies and tests on operational phases of specific
accident investigations; develops status reports and accident
prevention reports; provides technical briefings for the Board, other
government agencies, and various interested groups; prepares proposed
Board positions on national and international regulations involving
safety in air operations; responds to inquiries from Congress, the
aviation community, and the general public regarding aviation safety
matters.
Aerospace Engineer (Systems) (11/97)
Provides engineering expertise on aircraft systems design,
manufacturing, certification, and maintenance in the investigation of
air carrier and general aviation accidents and incidents occurring in
the United States and abroad. Applies forensic engineering techniques
in directing the on-scene and subsequent testing phases of aircraft
systems aspects of aircraft accident investigations; also investigates
and documents records and practices relating to maintenance,
certification, and manufacturing of aircraft systems in coordination
with other investigative groups.
Meteorologist (12/97)
Investigates and analyzes weather-related aspects of aviation
incidents and accidents. Collects, analyzes, evaluates, and interprets
meteorological data used to predict weather. Identifies safety issues
associated with meteorology and its influence on the National
Transportation System. Also serves as the meteorology group chairman
for major surface transportation accidents.
Aerospace Engineer (3/98)
Participates and directs engineering aspects of general aviation
and air carrier accidents and incidents in aircraft structures and
materials and their interface with control systems. Serves as Group
Chairman, documents and analyzes airworthiness issues potentially
involved in accidents, and develops accident prevention strategies.
Deputy Chief (formerly Aerospace Engineer) (2/98)
Assists the division chief in directing, supervising, and carrying
out the responsibilities of the division, including the staffing of
aviation go-teams with qualified and competent aerospace engineers in
the airworthiness disciplines, develops appropriately detailed factual
and analytical reports, and participates in the development of major
investigation reports, safety recommendations, and other Board
correspondence.
Air Safety Investigator (region) (3/98)
Conducts investigations of less complicated aircraft accidents/
incidents and assists in the investigation of complex aircraft
accidents/incidents not investigated by centralized teams. Prepares
timely and comprehensive written factual reports of investigations that
must accurately reflect the findings of the investigation under the
supervision of a higher grade investigator. Assists in developing facts
during an investigation which may require the submission of appropriate
and timely recommendations to preclude possible recurrence of similar
accidents.
Air Safety Investigator (region) (3/98)
ASI trainee. Receives developmental assignments from the supervisor
and accident investigators.
Air Safety Investigator (region) (2/98)
Assists in the investigations of less complicated aircraft
accidents/incidents mainly involving general aviation aircraft and air
carrier accidents/incidents not investigated by centralized teams.
Provides factual input for written reports and makes recommendations on
investigation findings to higher grade investigators. Under
supervisor's instruction or higher grade investigator, assists in the
development of facts during an investigation which may require the
submission of appropriate and timely recommendations to preclude
possible recurrence of similar accidents.
Air Safety Investigator (region) (3/98)
Conducts investigations of less complicated aircraft accidents/
incidents and assists in the investigation of complex aircraft
accidents/incidents not investigated by centralized teams. Prepares
timely and comprehensive written factual reports of investigations that
must accurately reflect the findings of the investigation under the
supervision of a higher grade investigator. Assists in developing facts
during an investigation which may require the submission of appropriate
and timely recommendations to preclude possible recurrence of similar
accidents.
office of research and engineering (6)
Chemist (Fire Explosion Specialist) (8/97)
Provides consultative and investigative services as needed to major
and field investigations in the area of fire and explosion. Collects or
causes to be collected, factual information about the chemical aspects
of transportation accidents (forensic chemistry) with particular
emphasis on the causal factors in fires and explosions. Determines when
and what forensic chemical tests are required to support accident
investigations. Monitors these activities and evaluates findings to be
used in the subsequent analysis and determination of probable cause
and/or safety recommendations. Prepares factual and analytical reports
that reflect the pertinent findings in the forensic chemical areas to
be used in the subsequent analysis and probable cause determination.
Computer Specialist (Network Administrator) (1/98)
Maintains and troubleshoots Windows NT LAN servers, Windows NT WEB
servers, firewalls, server peripherals and the computer network for the
agency. Installs and maintains Windows NT servers. Installs software
upgrades. Administers users, groups, security and system use policies.
Administers hardware platforms, manages disk storage. Develops plans
for growth and recommends hardware purchases to accommodate growth and
new service development.
Mechanical Engineer (formerly Computer Simulation/Modeling Specialist)
(4/98)
Performs accident investigation functions requiring engineering
expertise. Travels to the scene on major accident investigations and
collects physical evidence as needed to determine vehicle motion and
the underlying causes for that motion. Responsible for readouts of rail
and highway vehicle recorders using available laboratory equipment and
computer programs. Writes, documents, tests and debugs computer
programs used to: process vehicle recorder data, analyze highway
vehicle paths, analyze train movements, and investigate other phenomena
related to accident vehicle dynamics. Responsible for the
reconstruction and simulation of accidents using computer simulation
software and graphics animation software. Prepares technical reports of
investigation findings, writes accident prevention recommendations to
correct safety deficiencies, and responds to inquiries from Congress,
industry, and the public on transportation safety issues.
Mechanical Engineer (DR--Aviation) (5/98)
Cooperative Education Program convertee. Position description being
written.
Mechanical Engineer (DR--Surface) (5/98)
Cooperative Education Program convertee. Position description to be
written.
Electronics Engineer (CVR) (International exchange agreement in
progress to utilize an international candidate.)
Will assist in the operation of the cockpit voice recorder/video
laboratory and implement investigative procedures regarding aircraft
incidents and accidents involving cockpit voice records and other
audio/video recordings. Will read out and analyze cockpit voice
recorders recovered from aircraft involved in incidents or accidents.
office of government, public and family affairs (7 hires)
Deputy Director of Family Affairs (6/97)
Serves as Deputy Director of Family Affairs. Duties include
managing the Office of Family Affairs; developing and formulating
policies, programs, and procedures to support families of victims of
major transportation disasters; coordinating family assistance
operations within the Safety Board; supporting Federal, state, and
local agencies, non-profit organizations, transportation organizations,
and other interested parties; formulating short-term and long-term
strategic program goals; communicating with victims and their families
at the incident site, as well as during and after the investigation;
and evaluating and proposing necessary changes to support family
assistance plans, procedures, and policies.
5 Family Support Specialists (5/97, 10/97, 11/97, 11/97, and 1/98)
Assist the Deputy Director of Family Affairs, and each other, in
coordinating Federal services to the families of victims of aviation
and other transportation disasters. Serve as a liaison between family
members and Federal, state, and local agencies, non-profit and
transportation organizations, and other interested parties. This
includes assisting in setting up assistance centers and temporary
morgue operations; communicating with victims and their family members
during and after the investigation; and planning and coordinating
sensitive family assistance meetings and events, such as memorial
services, commemorative events, and attendance at Safety Board
hearings. Evaluate and propose necessary changes to support family
assistance plans, procedures, and policies. As directed, compose
accident updates, letters, and other correspondence to family members,
government and private organizations, and the general public.
Secretary (12/97)
Serves as secretary to the Deputy Director of Family Affairs and
provides administrative assistance to the other members of the
Government and Public Affairs staff, including the Director of
Government, Family, and Public Affairs. Possess excellent
organizational abilities, writing skills, grammar, and editing and
proofreading skills, and produces high quality products. Uses
microcomputers, including data base, merge capabilities, and Spread
Sheet Word Processing software. Communicates clearly and project a
highly polished professional image.
Question. Will the Board use the full amount of three-quarters
funding for salaries for these 32 employees. If not, how much is left
over?
Answer. Yes, the Board will use the full amount of three-quarters
funding for these employees.
Question. Of the $9,459,000 provided in the fiscal year 1997
supplemental appropriations bill to reimburse local communities for the
TWA 800, ValuJet, and Comair crashes, how much has been obligated to
date, and how much has been denied.
Answer. During fiscal year 1997, the Board obligated the full
$9.459 million provided by the Congress to reimburse the State of New
York and local counties (TWA Flight 800), Dade County, Florida (ValuJet
Flight 592) and Monroe County, Michigan (Comair Flight 3272). However,
as a result of reviews of the claims performed for the Board by the
Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), the actual amount of
reimbursement to these localities will likely be significantly less
than the amount obligated.
The DCAA has completed its review of Dade County, Florida, with the
following results:
--Claim amount, $3.2m
--Allowed reimbursable items, $2.2m
Overtime
Supplies/Equipment
Contracts
Travel
Other miscellaneous cost directly related to the investigation
Overtime
--Disallowed items, $1.0m
Regular salaries
Fringe benefits related to regular salaries
Other miscellaneous and/or dual compensation items
The DCAA completed the review of Monroe, Michigan with the
following results:
--Claim amount, $303,000
--Allowed reimbursable items, $169,135
Medical Examiner and related expenses
Fire Department/Police Department and Emergency Management expenses
Supplies
Other miscellaneous cost directly related to the investigation
--Disallowed items, $133,791
Funeral director and non-licensed individuals hourly rates claimed
were considered excessive, resulting in a reduction of
$58,718
Cost related to cremations and burials. (NTSB is working with
Comair to reimburse the departments directly for these
expenses.)
Regular salaries
Equipment purchased but not related to the accident investigation
The DCAA is currently performing the review from the State of New
York and localities for TWA flight 800 related expenses. We expect that
review to be completed shortly. It should be noted that Congress also
provided the Department of Justice with special funding to reimburse
the State of New York and localities. That Department identified
approximately $5.3m in regular salaries that would not be considered
for reimbursement. Using the same procedures and following the intent
of Public Law 105-18, which provided the Safety Board with
reimbursement funding, we agree that regular salaries are not to be
reimbursed. Regular salaries and related fringe benefits would have
been incurred by the State of New York and the localities even if the
accident of TWA flight 800 did not happen. The Safety Board will
forward a copy of the review report when completed by the DCAA.
Question. The fiscal year 1997 Supplemental Appropriations bill
required the Chairman of the NTSB and the Secretary of Transportation
to report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations--no
later than August 1, 1997--on their recommendations on fairly
allocating victim and wreckage recovery costs to the aviation industry
and the carriers' underwriters. To date, the Committee has not received
such a report. Can you please provide a status of this report and a
date for when it will be completed?
Answer. The Safety Board and the Department of Transportation are
working on a preliminary draft of the report. The delay has, in large
measure, been the result of the difficulty both agencies are having in
collecting information. The insurance industry has steadfastly refused
to cooperate, even declining the Board's repeated invitation to have an
informal discussion regarding the issues at hand.
With the assistance of a Member of Congress, the Congressional
Research Service has provided basic information on the airline
insurance industry. Further, the Department of Transportation has
prepared a summary of available post-accident costs. We expect to
provide the Committee with a report no later than July 1, 1998.
Question. The fiscal year 1997 supplemental appropriations
legislation allowed $4,877,000 to remain available until expended.
Please breakdown what this money will be used for and indicate how much
of this amount will be spent on each activity.
Answer. The Safety Board carried over all of the $4,877,000 to
further its investigation of TWA Flight 800. Our plan for fiscal year
1998 includes the following:
--TWA Flight 800 Public Hearing--$350,000
--Quarter Scale Testing--$1,000,000
--Full Scale Testing/Wiring Examinations/Static Discharging and Fuel
Probe Testing/Flight Ground Tests/Laboratory Studies--
$2,625,000
--Second Set of Eyes--$377,000
--Investigation Documentation--$100,000
--NTSB Operations (travel, overtime, etc.)--$425,000
Question. Please list all of the changes OMB made to the Board's
fiscal year 1999 budget request and please include the impact each of
these changes will have on the board.
Answer. The following requested items were not approved by the OMB.
Annualization of fiscal year 1998 Positions ($273,000).--The amount
provided in the President's budget is not sufficient to cover the
annualized affect of the positions provided by the Congress in the
current fiscal year.
Training ($375,000).--As you may have read, the FAA was recently
cited by the Department of Transportation's inspector general for lack
of adequate training for its inspectors. The assistant inspector
general for auditing was quoted as stating, ``With rapid changes in
technology, inspectors' effectiveness is diminished without current
training in the aircraft they are assigned to inspect.'' The Safety
Board's investigators also must be responsive to changes in both
transportation technology and safety issues. Both aircraft and other
transportation vehicles are becoming more and more sophisticated, and
the Safety Board's technical expertise must be able to keep pace.
Without the funds requested for training, the Board will be unable to
provide the crucial training necessary to ensure that our new
complement of technical/investigative staff is equipped with the tools
it needs to maintain the high level of expertise and professionalism
that is vital to the Board's effectiveness.
Computer Equipment ($738,000).--The requested computer hardware and
software is instrumental to maintaining the Board's productivity,
accommodating increases in workload, and maintaining a high standard of
quality. Experience has demonstrated a maximum four-year useful life
for desktop and laptop computer hardware, requiring the annual
replacement/upgrade of 25 percent of these staff computers. Annual
software maintenance and licensing are also required for each of these
computers. In addition to providing for the methodical replacement of
this equipment and software, these funds also will allow the upgrade of
the Board's Local Area Network and Wide Area Network communications
hardware and software that are essential to linking the Board's
headquarters and regional offices.
Financial Management System ($450,000).--The funds requested for a
new off-the-shelf integrated financial management system is essential
to the Board's compliance with the standard general ledger and other
core financial management system requirements for Federal agencies. The
Office of Management and Budget initiative is for agencies to acquire
such modern integrated financial management systems. The Safety Board's
current system is more than 15 years old and does not comply fully with
the standards established by the Joint Financial Management Improvement
Program. The Safety Board, in partnership with the Department of
Treasury's Financial Management Service, is making a conscious effort
to comply with this important OMB initiative, but funding must be
provided to make it happen.
Employee Compensation Fund ($185,000).--In addition to these
important investments in the future of the Safety Board, funds were
requested, in accordance with Department of Labor direction, to cover
mandatory reimbursement of the Employee's Compensation Fund for the
direct dollar costs of compensation and medical benefits paid under the
Federal Employees' Compensation Act.
Benefits/Staffing ($491,000/3 FTE's).--Since the Board's budget
request was submitted to OMB, two additional uncontrollable
requirements have surfaced. The first is $120,000 to cover the net
increase in benefits costs due to recent changes in the agency
contributions for FERS and CSRS retirement systems. The second new
requirement is $371,000 and three labor management relations positions
necessary to support the Board's newly-elected employee union. These
positions were requested in our fiscal year 1998 budget submission;
however, after our OMB hearing it was recommended that we not pursue
this funding until the Safety Board was sure there would be a union.
The union is now a reality.
Surface Transportation Board
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
board members' terms and staffing
Question. How long has the third Board member position been vacant?
What is the practical effect of a longstanding Board vacancy on policy
matters and the day-to-day operations of the STB?
Answer. The third Board member position has been vacant since
January 1, 1997, upon the termination of former Vice Chairman Simmons'
appointment and one-year holdover period. While it is important to have
all Board seats filled as Congress intended, to date, the vacancy has
not precluded the Board from conducting its business. The Chairman and
Vice Chairman have worked in a bipartisan, collegial manner to ensure
that cases and other matters before the Board are resolved or otherwise
handled as appropriate. With two members, of course, there is always a
possibility of a disagreement between the members, thus resulting in a
split vote that might preclude a pending matter from being resolved.
However, that problem has not occurred as of yet at the Board.
Question. STB Board member Gus A. Owen's term expired on December
31, 1997. Was Mr. Owen reappointed for a second term? Does the
reappointment require Senate confirmation?
Answer. Vice Chairman Owen's renomination for a 5-year term was
submitted to Congress on January 29, 1998. His renomination for a term
expiring December 31, 2002, is awaiting Senate Commerce Committee
action. Membership on the Board requires full Senate confirmation.
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 the year staffing level for each fiscal year from fiscal
year 1995 to that requested for fiscal year 1999. 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
1995 through 1999.
BUDGET REQUESTS & ENACTED APPROPRIATIONS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ICC STB
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
1995 1996 \1\ 1996 \1\ 1997 1998 1999
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Board:
Appropriation....................................... $45,069,000 $32,892,000 .............. $12,344,000 $12,753,000 $14,190,000
Offsetting Collections.............................. $7,300,000 $8,300,000 .............. $3,000,000 $3,100,000 $2,000,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Request.................................... $52,369,000 $41,192,000 .............. $15,344,000 $15,853,000 \2\ $16,190,00
0
===============================================================================================
President:
Appropriation....................................... $44,429,000 $33,202,000 .............. .............. .............. ..............
Offsetting Collections.............................. $8,300,000 $8,300,000 .............. $15,344,000 $14,300,000 $16,000,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Request.................................... $52,729,000 $41,502,000 .............. $15,344,000 $14,300,000 $16,000,000
===============================================================================================
Enacted:
Appropriation \3\................................... $33,083,000 $13,379,000 $8,414,000 $12,244,000 $13,850,000
Offsetting Collections \4\.......................... $7,738,000 $3,200,000 $652,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 ..............
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Request.................................... $40,821,000 $16,579,000 $9,066,000 $15,244,000 $15,850,000 ..............
===============================================================================================
End of Year:
Staffing Level...................................... 402 \5\ 317 132 127 135 135
FTE Level........................................... 416 \5\ 86 106 131 135 135
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 1999 budget request essentially represents the Board's current funding level (for fiscal year 1998) plus inflationary and
personnel salary increases.
\3\ Enacted appropriations less enacted rescissions.
\4\ Actual offsetting collections. In fiscal year 1997, there was a carryover of $625,031 over the obligational limitation.
\5\ As of December 31, 1995.
board request vs. president's budget
Question. The Board's fiscal year 1999 appropriations request is
$16,190,000 while the administration's request for the Board is
$16,000,000. Please discuss what specific activities comprise this
rather minor delta of $190,000 ($70,000 in ``purchases of goods from
government accounts, and $120,000 in ``equipment'').
Answer. The total difference between the Board's and President's
budget request for fiscal year 1999 is $190,000. Specifically, the
President's budget provides for a reduction of $70,000 for employee
training and computer support services, and a deferral of $120,000 for
the replacement of outdated personal computers, printers, and other
peripherals.
Question. Please provide a table contrasting the Board's proposed
fiscal year 1999 budget request and the OMB passback, by office.
Answer. Earlier this year, the Board submitted a budget request for
fiscal year 1999 of $16.190 million and 135 full-time equivalents
(FTE's) to be funded from appropriations and $2 million in user fee
collections. This request essentially continues the level and manner of
funding provided to the Board for fiscal year 1998, and reflects the
relatively constant workload that is expected. With respect to user fee
funding, the Board is proposing, in the Department of Transportation
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1999, the
reauthorization of statutory authority included in the fiscal year 1998
appropriations law providing that user fees collected pursuant to 31
U.S.C. 9701 be made available to the Board to offset its appropriation
request, and that any fees collected in excess of $2 million shall
remain available until expended, but not available for obligation until
October 1, 1999.
The OMB passback provided $15.4 million and 132 FTE's to be funded
entirely from the collection of user fees. The President's budget
request provides that the entire operation of the agency be funded from
the collection of user fees during fiscal year 1999. It requests 135
FTE's and provides that $16 million of offsetting collections from fees
collected shall be retained and made available for necessary expenses
of the agency. Additionally, the budget request provides that any fees
received in excess of $16 million shall remain available until
expended, but shall not be available for obligation until October 1,
1999.
Due to the small size of the Board, the budget estimates and
requests are not developed or broken down by office but rather by
general category of expenditure.
rent and utilities costs
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?
Answer. The rental rate at the old Interstate Commerce Commission
(ICC) building was $32.59 per net usable square foot. During fiscal
year 1997, 58,958 net usable square feet was assigned for a total
annual rental cost of $1,921,608, excluding 5,700 square feet of
parking space, which was part of the space arrangement at the ICC
building but which is not part of the lease arrangement at the Board's
new location.
The rental rate at the Board's 1925 K Street, N.W. location is
$26.06 per square foot. During fiscal year 1997, 56,464 square feet of
space was assigned for an annual rental cost of $1,488,121. Therefore,
the difference in annual rental cost is $433,487.
Question. What were the actual amounts billed by GSA for the K
Street office space in fiscal years 1997 and 1998? What is the
anticipated rent cost for fiscal year 1999? Is any increase in square
footage anticipated?
Answer. The actual rental amount billed by GSA in fiscal year 1997
was $1,472,112, which included rental payments at the Interstate
Commerce Commission building for the period of October 1, 1996, through
March 14, 1997 and at the 1925 K Street, N.W. location for the period
of March 15, 1997, through September 30, 1997, as well as a GSA rent
adjustment for the delay in moving the Board to the 1925 K Street, N.W.
location.
The actual amount billed in fiscal year 1998, as reflected in the
first and second quarter billings, is $733,710. Billing statements have
not been received beyond the second quarter. The anticipated rent cost
for fiscal year 1999 is $1,517,000. This is based on a 3 percent OMB
inflation factor over fiscal year 1998 rental rate. There is no
increase in square footage anticipated.
user fees and offsetting collections
Question. Please display in tabular form the level of anticipated
user fee income in the Board's fiscal year 1997, 1998, and 1999 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 1997 and 1998.
Finally, please include columns displaying the actual amount of
offsetting user fees collected in fiscal years 1997 and 1998 (both up
to present, and projected through the end of this fiscal year).
Answer. The following table displays the offsetting collection of
user fees for fiscal year 1997 through 1999.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
STB 1997 1998 1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
User Fee Anticipated Income in Budget Request................... $3,000,000 $3,100,000 $2,000,000
President's Budget Assumptions.................................. 15,344,000 14,300,000 16,000,000
User Fee Offsets in Appropriations Language..................... 3,000,000 2,000,000 ..............
Offsetting Collections:
Actual...................................................... \1\ 3,625,031 \1\ \2\ 662,34 ..............
8
Projected end of fiscal year................................ .............. \1\ \3\ 2,265, ..............
000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These figures include $2,360,400 in fiscal year 1997, and $67,050 in fiscal year 1998, in user fees
associated with the Conrail acquisition.
\2\ User fees collected 10/1/97-3/31/98.
\3\ This figure includes $966,700 in user fees associated with the proposed Canadian National Railway/Illinois
Central merger.
Question. Please detail in tabular form the 1998 user fee update
schedule, including all fee items or sub-fee items, including both the
1997 and 1998 fee amounts, with a column showing the amount of
increase, if any.
Answer. The 1998 User Fee Update was effective on March 20, 1998.
The following table displays the fee amounts in the 1997 and 1998 user
fee schedule and the increased amount of each fee item.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TSBMT.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TSBMT.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TSBMT.017
Question. Isn't there a good chance that the fees associated with
the proposed Canadian National Railway/Illinois Central merger
(announced February 1998) will increase the level of offsetting
collections substantially in fiscal year 1998? What level of filing
fees associated with this merger do you estimate will be collected by
the end of fiscal year 1998?
Answer. The Board expects to collect $966,700 in user fees
associated with the proposed Canadian National Railway/Illinois Central
merger by the end of fiscal year 1998. The Board collects on average
between an estimated $100,000 and $110,000 in nominal filings per
month, excluding these one-time user fee collections for significant
large-fee filings like Class I rail mergers or construction
applications, which corresponds to approximately $1.2 million in
nominal filings per year. Therefore, adding the estimated $1.2 million
in nominal filings to the $966,700 anticipated from that proposed
merger filing, the Board projects $2.265 million in offsetting
collections for fiscal year 1998, resulting in a $.265 million
carryover above the fiscal year 1998 $2 million offsetting collection
limitation.
Question. What was the amount of carryover user fees from fiscal
year 1997 which was available for obligation after October 1, 1997?
Answer. There was $625,031 in carryover user fees from fiscal year
1997 available for obligation after October 1, 1997, should the Board's
offsetting collections fall below $2 million in fiscal year 1998 or
subsequent years.
Question. What is the current level of assessed user fees in fiscal
year 1998? What is anticipated to be assessed in the remainder of this
fiscal year? Please discuss the reasons for any delta above or below
the enacted level of $2,000,000 in reimbursables.
Answer. Under current statutory authority, the Board collects user
fees for services rendered. The Board has collected $662,348 in user
fees from October 1997 through March 1998. The Board anticipates
collecting approximately $1.6 million in user fees for the remainder of
this fiscal year. The bulk of this remainder will come from $966,700 in
fees related to the anticipated filing of the Canadian National
Railway/Illinois Central merger this June. The large one-time fees
related to this merger will result in a $265,000 increase above the
enacted level of $2 million in offsetting collections.
rulemakings
Question. Please list all unnecessary and obsolete rulemakings that
have been rescinded by the Surface Transportation Board in the last 12
months.
Answer. The Surface Transportation Board has rescinded the
following regulations or terminated the following procedures (which has
removed a number of pages from the Code of Federal Regulations) in the
last 12 months.
Obsolete Regulations Removed:
Removal of Obsolete Regs. Concerning Rail Passenger Fare Increases,
STB Ex Parte No. 624 (STB served June 18, 1997) (removing 49 CFR 1136).
Commuter Rail Service Continuation Subsidies and Discontinuance
Notices, STB Ex Parte No. 563 (STB served Aug. 27, 1997) (removing 49
CFR 1157).
Removal of Obsolete Motor Passenger Carrier Accounting Regulations,
STB Ex Parte No. 569 (STB served Sept. 5, 1997) (removing 49 CFR 1206).
Modifications to the General Provisions of the Board, STB Ex Parte
No. 568 (STB served Sept. 18, 1997) (removing an obsolete section of 49
CFR 1000 and obsolete sections of 49 CFR 1001).
Removal of Misc. Obsolete Regs., STB Ex Parte No. 572 (STB served
Sept. 29, 1997) (removing 49 CFR 1022, 1030, 1091, 1131, 1143, 1156, &
1170).
Technical Amendments Concerning Employee Boards, STB Ex Parte No.
570 (STB served Sept. 29, 1997) (removing parts of 49 CFR 1011).
Obsolete Proceedings Terminated:
Petition for Rulemaking--Invoiceless Billing Transactions, Ex Parte
No. 55 (Sub-No. 95) (STB served Apr. 15, 1997).
Jurisdiction Over Motor Finance Transactions, Ex Parte No. MC-216
(STB served July 8, 1997).
Superseded Proposals Withdrawn:
Rail Gen. Exemption Auth'y--Exemption of Nonferrous Recyclables and
Railroad Rates on Recyclable Commodities, Ex Parte No. 346 (Sub-No. 36)
(STB served May 5, 1997).
up/sp rail service problems
Question. Please update the Committee on the current status of the
Board's service order to address the severe rail service problems UP/SP
shippers have been experiencing over the last year.
Answer. The Board's service order (Service Order No. 1518) was
issued on October 31, 1997, extended and expanded upon twice, and
remains in effect through August 2, 1998. The service orders have
focused on providing service options in and around the Houston and Gulf
Coast area, the original source of the congestion; have directed the
filing with the Board of voluminous data to monitor the progress of
service improvements; have mandated specific activities with respect to
the movement of certain commodities (such as grain); have ordered
certain actions among carriers (such as dispatching coordination) to
enhance the operations in and around Houston; and most recently have
directed the filing of plans by UP/SP for improving the infrastructure
in the Gulf Coast area. The Board has indicated that it will remain
involved in this matter until we believe that it has been
satisfactorily resolved.
Question. Which shippers have been most severely affected by the
rail service problems in the West? Please answer in full detail.
Answer. It is generally agreed that the rail service problems in
the West had their genesis in the Houston and Gulf Coast area.
Therefore the Board's service orders have been focused on relieving
pressure in and around the Houston area. At the same time, the Board
has taken action with a view toward ensuring that, given the limited
rail capacity in the West, certain shippers were not inadvertently
harmed while others were being helped. Thus, the Board's actions were
intended to help impacted shippers throughout the West.
In terms of shipper groups particularly affected, the petrochemical
sector has been hard hit because much of their product is produced in
the Gulf area. Faced simultaneously with a surge in demand, gridlock,
and a product storage system that, peculiar to that industry, uses rail
cars for storage, the petrochemical industry found that the congestion
at Houston resulted in their inability to satisfy consumer demands or
have empty cars returned for reloading.
Other shipping sectors also have been affected at some point during
that period. For example, grain shippers were impacted during the fall
harvest period when they were unable to obtain empty cars and ship
loaded cars in time to meet their commitments; coal shippers and
electric utilities were frustrated in their inability to ship or build
up winter stocks of coal; the auto industry was affected by not being
able to move new automobiles into the market as quickly as it had
intended; and manifest (general commodity) shippers were affected by
congestion that dramatically increased the time required for seasonal
shipments to reach their destinations on time.
Question. Generally, is the UP/SP western rail service situation
improving? Please support your response with relevant data.
Answer. The Board's principal actions to help mitigate the rail
service crisis have been twofold: (1) to effect operating changes,
particularly in the Houston and Gulf Coast area, that have allowed
shippers service alternatives through access to other carriers; and (2)
to require broad-based weekly reporting by UP/SP that ensures our
ability to assess improvement and to identify areas where further
action may be necessary. In addition, we have held public hearings
seeking input directly from shippers and their representatives, as well
as from rail labor and other affected parties.
The most recent weekly reporting shows significant improvement in
many areas and results of concern in others. For example, the average
number of rail cars on the UP/SP system dropped from 348,000 in October
1997 to 327,185 the week of May 1st, as did the number of lines and
sidings blocked by stalled trains. We believe that this is a good sign,
as it connotes increased fluidity. Another good sign is that many of
UP/SP's yards are less congested, allowing them to handle incoming
trains more promptly. The amount of time trains are held for locomotive
power or for congestion is decreasing, also suggesting some
improvement. However, car velocities and cycle times (the time it takes
loaded cars to reach destination and/or return), particularly for coal
and grain, remain high, suggesting that there are still significant
problems to be overcome at certain points in the system. The data
described above comprise just one part of our overall monitoring
commitment, which will continue until we believe that the service
crisis is satisfactorily resolved.
environmental problems associated with up/sp merger
Question. What is the current status of Board actions regarding
mitigation of environmental problems associated with the UP/SP merger
in Wichita, Kansas?
Answer. In its decision approving the UP/SP merger, the Board
required the Section of Environmental Analysis (SEA) to conduct a
special 18-month mitigation study in Wichita, Kansas. This study was to
focus on further tailoring the environmental mitigation already imposed
in the decision approving the merger to address the environmental
impacts on that area from increased train traffic resulting from the
merger. During the period of the study, there has been a moratorium on
increased traffic in that area.
SEA began this mitigation study in Wichita in October 1996. On
September 15, 1997, SEA issued its Preliminary Mitigation Plan
addressing the environmental impacts and recommending mitigation
measures. Following the close of public review and comments, SEA
received, on November 25, 1997 a request from UP/SP and Wichita/
Sedgwick County to toll the 18-month mitigation study because the
parties had entered negotiations to seek a private solution to their
concerns. On December 12, 1997, the Board granted the request to toll
the mitigation study.
At this time, the parties are continuing to negotiate and the study
remains tolled. At such time as the parties reach agreement or
discontinue negotiations, the Board will take appropriate action.
Question. What is the current status of Board actions regarding
mitigation of environmental problems associated with the UP/SP merger
in Reno, Nevada?
Answer. In its decision approving the UP/SP merger, the Board
required the Section of Environmental Analysis (SEA) to conduct a
special 18-month mitigation study in Reno, Nevada. This study was to
focus on further tailoring the environmental mitigation already imposed
in the decision approving the merger to address the environmental
impacts on that area from increased train traffic resulting from the
merger. The UP tracks in Reno go through a very busy area in downtown
and are very close to the casinos and hotels in that area. Because of
the many casinos and hotels, there is a high volume of pedestrian
traffic in that area. During the period of the study, there has been a
moratorium on increased traffic in that area.
SEA began this mitigation study in Reno in October 1996. On
September 15, 1997, SEA issued its Preliminary Mitigation Plan
addressing the environmental impacts and recommending mitigation
measures. Following the close of public review and comments, SEA
reviewed all the comments, conducted additional analysis, and issued
its Final Mitigation Plan on February 11, 1998, for public review and
comment. On February 24, 1998, Reno requested, with which UP concurred
on February 25, 1998, that SEA toll the 18-month mitigation study for
eight months because the parties had entered negotiations to seek a
private solution to their concerns. On March 2, 1998, the Board granted
the request to toll the mitigation study.
At this time, the parties are continuing to negotiate and the study
remains tolled. At such time as the parties reach agreement or
discontinue negotiations, the Board will take appropriate action.
amtrak express traffic
Question. Please update the Committee on the Board's proceeding to
determine the nature and extent of the duty of UP/SP to allow Amtrak to
use its tracks for the carriage of express traffic. When is a final
decision anticipated?
Answer. The Board expects to issue a decision by the end of May.
Question. Please describe fully the current state of affairs. Is
Amtrak limited to nine express cars per train while the decision is
pending across its national system, or are such limitations imposed
only while operating on UP/SP owned track? Have any other railroads
objected to Amtrak's express traffic service?
Answer. In accordance with the law, Amtrak came to the Board for
relief because it could not agree with UP/SP as to the terms of its
operations over the UP/SP system, and specifically what it could carry
over the UP/SP system. Thus, the Board imposed interim terms pending
resolution by the Board of the dispute. More specifically, the Board's
September 30, 1997 order in Application of the National Railroad
Passenger Corporation Under 49 U.S.C. 24308(a)--Union Pacific Railroad
Company and Southern Pacific Railroad Company, STB Finance Docket No.
33469 (Amtrak/Express), stated that, except where operationally
infeasible, UP/SP may not limit Amtrak to less than 18 cars per train,
including 9 express cars per train, which was the status quo agreed to
by the parties.
Amtrak did not seek similar interim relief from the Board relating
to Amtrak's dealings with any other carriers, and the Board issued no
order governing those dealings. However, in the Amtrak Express case,
the Association of American Railroads, on behalf of its member
railroads, opposed various aspects of Amtrak's proposed definitions of
express. In addition, major Class I railroads filed individual comments
stating opposition to various aspects of Amtrak's proposed definition
of express.
csx-ns-conrail merger
Question. It is the Committee's understanding that the Board's
final decision on the CSX-NS-Conrail merger will be served on July 23,
1998. Please summarize the remaining outstanding issues requiring Board
decisions in connection with the transaction.
Answer. In accordance with the procedural schedule established in
this proceeding, the Board will serve its final decision on the merits
on July 23, 1998. The vast majority of issues will be addressed
substantively in the final decision. Regarding procedural and
interlocutory matters that require prompt attention, the Board has
addressed, and will continue, to address as necessary such issues in
decisions served prior to the final decision on the merits. Already,
the Board has issued close to 80 decisions in this proceeding
addressing many procedural and interlocutory matters. In addition, the
Board plans to issue a decision in early May setting forth the
participants' time allotments for the upcoming oral argument scheduled
in June in this proceeding.
canadian national railway-illinois central merger
Question. In February, the Canadian National Railway (CN) and the
Illinois Central (IC) announced a merger agreement wherein CN will
acquire IC, a transaction with an approximate equity value of $2.4
billion. What is the Board's schedule for consideration of this pending
merger?
Answer. A timetable has not yet been established for the STB
Finance Docket No. 33556 proceeding. In a joint notice of intent filed
on February 12, 1998, CN and IC indicate that they are intending to
file a control application in this proceeding on or about June 12,
1998. Typically, prior to the filing of a merger/control application,
the prospective applicants file a proposed procedural schedule with the
Board, which the Board then publishes in the Federal Register to
solicit public comments. These comments are considered in the Board's
adoption of a procedural schedule. If the application filing is
complete, a final procedural schedule will be published in the Federal
Register as part of the Board's notice of acceptance of the application
within 30 days of the filing of the application. However, as of yet,
the applicants have not filed a proposed procedural schedule, and thus
the Board has taken no action in this regard.
Question. Please summarize the Board's process benchmarks for a
Class I railroad merger.
Answer. Pursuant to statutory requirements under 49 U.S.C. 11323-
25, the Board's regulations at 49 CFR 1180 sets forth the information
to be filed and the procedures to be followed in major consolidation
transactions. The basic ``benchmarks'' include the following:
--Unless waived, applicants must file a prefiling notification
between 3-6 months prior to the proposed filing of an
application involving a major transaction. Federal Register
notice must be published within 30 days of receipt of the
applicants' notice.
--Then the application is filed. If an application is accepted as
complete, Federal Register notice of acceptance must be
published within 30 days of the filing of the application. The
publication shall indicate the applicable time limits for
processing the application. If an application is not complete,
a decision rejecting it must be served within 30 days of the
filing of the application.
--Once the process of evaluating the proposed merger begins, by
statute, the Board must conclude the evidentiary proceeding no
later than 1 year after the publication of the notice of
acceptance. The Board may schedule an oral argument and/or
voting conference at its discretion.
--By statute, the Board must issue a final decision on the merits no
later than the 90th day after the date on which the evidentiary
proceeding is concluded.
reauthorization of the surface transportation board
Question. Please update the Committee on the status of STB's
reauthorization. Has the administration proposed legislation? (If so,
please include a copy for the record.) Where are the House and Senate
authorizing committees in this process?
Answer. S. 1802, the Surface Transportation Board Reauthorization
Act of 1998, was introduced by Senator McCain on March 19, 1998, and is
cosponsored by Senators Hollings, Hutchison, Inouye, Lott, Ford,
Stevens, and Warner. S. 1802 would reauthorize the Board for 3 years at
the existing funding and resource levels. On March 31, 1998, the Board
testified at a hearing before the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation, Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and
Merchant Marine, concerning reauthorization.
On March 12, 1998, the Board testified at a hearing before the
House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Subcommittee on
Railroads, concerning reauthorization and specifically resource needs.
The Subcommittee on Railroads held a further hearing on the matter on
April 21, 1998, specifically focusing on the financial health of the
rail industry. On May 6, 1998, the Board testified before the
Subcommittee on reauthorization and specifically railroad inter-carrier
transactions, line constructions, and line abandonments. On May 13,
1998, the Board will testify on reauthorization, focusing specifically
on rail rates, access, and remedies.
The Administration has not as of yet submitted reauthorization
legislation, although it has informally, through the Secretary of
Transportation, expressed its support for the Board's reauthorization.
captive shippers
Question. Please describe the Board's April 17, 1998 decision to
consider eliminating product and geographic competition from the market
dominance analysis.
Answer. In its decision in Review of Rail Access and Competition
Issues, STB Ex Parte No. 575 (STB served Apr. 17, 1998), the Board
announced that it would reexamine certain aspects of the current
regulatory regime in the context of today's more consolidated railroad
industry, particularly those concerning the availability of regulatory
relief. At the Ex Parte 575 hearings, shippers complained that the
examination of product and geographic competition--which are now
considered in addition to intramodal and intermodal competition--has
transformed the threshold market dominance phase of a rail-rate
complaint into a complex antitrust-style case of its own, and, as a
result, has placed an undue obstacle on a shipper's ability to pursue
rate relief.
In its decision, the Board observed that the railroads' aggressive
use of the discovery process may be partly responsible, and it
referenced a decision issued that day in an individual rate case where
the Board acted to ensure that a carrier--which must identify any
product and geographic competition and prove its effectiveness--not
shift those burdens onto a complainant-shipper through overreaching
discovery requests. The Board also observed that its predecessor, the
Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), had initially declined to include
product and geographic competition as factors in the market dominance
because they would unduly complicate rate proceedings. The ICC later
reversed course, concluding that consideration of these issues would be
manageable, but placed upon the carrier the burden of identifying such
competition and proving its effectiveness.
Given the shippers' continuing litigation difficulties with these
matters more than a decade later, the Board determined that it should
consider removing product and geographic competition as factors in
market dominance determinations, and it has now commenced a proceeding
to do so. Market Dominance Determinations--Product and Geographic
Competition, STB Ex Parte No. 627 (STB served Apr. 29, 1998) (copy
attached). Comments on the proposal are due May 29, 1998; replies are
due June 29, 1998.
service date: april 29, 1998
department of transportation
[stb ex parte no. 627]
market dominance determinations--product and geographic competition
AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.
ACTION: Notice of Proposal to Eliminate Product and Geographic
Competition From Consideration in Market Dominance Determinations.
SUMMARY: Pursuant to its decision in Review of Rail Access and
Competition Issues, STB Ex Parte No. 575 (STB served Apr. 17, 1998),
the Board is instituting a proceeding to consider removing product and
geographic competition as factors in market dominance determinations in
railroad rate proceedings. The Board requests that persons intending to
participate in this proceeding notify the agency of that intent. A
separate service list will be issued based on the notices of intent to
participate that the Board receives.
DATES: Notices of intent to participate in this proceeding are due
May 12, 1998. Comments on this proposal are due May 29, 1998. Replies
are due June 29, 1998.
ADDRESSES: An original plus 12 copies of all comments and replies,
referring to STB Ex Parte No. 627, must be sent to the Office of the
Secretary, Case Control Unit, ATTN: STB Ex Parte No. 627, Surface
Transportation Board, 1925 K Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20423-0001.
Copies of the written comments will be available from the Board's
contractor, D.C. News and Data, Inc., located in Room 210 in the
Board's building. D.C. News can be reached at (202) 289-4357. The
comments will also be available for viewing and self copying in the
Board's Microfilm Unit, Room 755.
In addition to an original and 12 copies of all paper documents
filed with the Board, the parties shall submit their pleadings,
including any graphics, on a 3.5-inch diskette formatted for
WordPerfect 7.0 (or in a format readily convertible into WordPerfect
7.0). All textual material, including cover letters, certificates of
service, appendices and exhibits, shall be included in a single file on
the diskette. The diskettes shall be clearly labeled with the filer's
name, the docket number of this proceeding, STB Ex Parte No. 627, and
the name of the electronic format used on the diskette for files other
than those formatted in WordPerfect 7.0. All pleadings submitted on
diskettes will be posted on the Board's website (www.stb.dot.gov). The
electronic submission requirements set forth in this notice supersede,
for the purposes of this proceeding, the otherwise applicable
electronic submission requirements set forth in the Board's
regulations. See 49 CFR 1104.3(a), as amended in Expedited Procedures
for Processing Rail Rate Reasonableness, Exemption and Revocation
Proceedings, STB Ex Parte No. 527, 61 FR 52710, 711 (Oct. 8, 1996), 61
FR 58490, 58491 (Nov. 15, 1996).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A copy of each diskette submitted to the Board should be
provided to any other party upon request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph H. Dettmar, (202) 565-1600.
[TDD for the hearing impaired: (202) 565-1695.]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In STB Ex Parte No. 575, the Board
conducted two days of informational hearings, on April 2 and 3, 1998,
to examine issues of rail access and competition in today's railroad
industry, and the statutory remedies and agency regulations and
procedures that relate to those matters. As a result of those hearings,
we announced, inter alia, that we would commence a proceeding to
consider eliminating the product and geographic competition factors of
our market dominance guidelines in cases challenging the reasonableness
of rail rates.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The current market dominance guidelines are set forth in
Product and Geographic Competition, 2 I.C.C.2d 1, 20-22 (1985) (Market
Dominance III).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under 49 U.S.C. 10707, the Board can entertain a challenge to the
reasonableness of a rail rate only if we first find that the rail
carrier has market dominance over the traffic to which the rate
applies, that is, that there is no effective competition for that
traffic. In making that determination, we now consider four forms of
competition that may effectively constrain the carrier's pricing:
intramodal competition (whether the shipper could obtain the
transportation service that it needs from other railroads); intermodal
competition (whether the shipper could obtain service by another
transportation mode); product competition (whether the shipper can use
a suitable substitute product that can be acquired without relying on
the services of the same carrier); and geographic competition (whether
the shipper can obtain the product it needs from a different source
and/or by shipping its goods to a different destination using another
carrier). Shippers have the burden of showing that there is no
effective intramodal and intermodal competition; carriers have the
burden of identifying any product and geographic competition and
showing its effectiveness.
At the Ex Parte 575 hearings, shippers complained about the
difficulties associated with seeking rate relief from the Board today,
particularly the complexity and burden of litigating issues of product
and geographic competition, issues that they charge have transformed
the threshold market dominance phase of a rail rate complaint into a
full-blown antitrust-style case of its own. Shippers regard product and
geographic competition issues as major, undue litigation obstacles that
discourage captive shippers from even seeking regulatory relief from
unreasonably high rates in both large and small rates cases.
Accordingly, consistent with our determination in Ex Parte 575 to
reexamine certain aspects of our current regulatory regime in the
context of today's more consolidated rail industry--particularly those
that concern the availability of regulatory relief--we are instituting
this proceeding to consider eliminating product and geographic
competition from our market dominance analysis.
We note that our predecessor, the Interstate Commerce Commission
(ICC), initially concluded that consideration of product and geographic
competition issues would complicate rate proceedings unduly. Special
Procedures for Making Findings of Market Dominance, 353 I.C.C. 875,
905-06, modified, 355 I.C.C. 12 (1976) (Market Dominance I), aff'd in
relevant part sub nom. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. v. ICC, 580 F.2d 623
(D.C. Cir. 1978). The ICC subsequently reversed course and decided that
consideration of these issues would be manageable. Market Dominance
Determinations, 365 I.C.C. 118, 127-31 (1981) (Market Dominance II),
aff'd sub nom. Western Coal Traffic League v. United States, 719 F.2d
772 (5th Cir. 1983) (en banc), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 953 (1984).
Later, recognizing that it is inherently ``much more difficult'' for
shippers to prove the ineffectiveness of these factors than of
intramodal and intermodal competition, the ICC placed upon the
railroads the burden of both identifying any product and geographic
competition and demonstrating the effectiveness of such competition in
individual cases. Market Dominance III, 2 I.C.C.2d at 15.
The comments presented in the Ex Parte 575 hearings suggest,
however, that, even without bearing the burden of proof on these
issues, shippers find that the product and geographic competition
inquiry remains an imposing burden upon their ability to prosecute rail
rate complaints. Aggressive use of the discovery process may be partly
responsible for the heavy burdens associated with the inquiry into
product and geographic competition, and we have recently taken action
to prevent a rail carrier from effectively shifting those burdens onto
a complaining shipper through unsupported and/or overreaching discovery
demands. FMC Wyoming Corp. et al. v. Union Pac. R.R., STB Docket No.
42022 (STB served Apr. 17, 1998). However, curbing individual instances
of discovery abuses may not be sufficient to address the shippers'
concerns. Therefore, we are instituting this proceeding to obtain
public comment on whether we should eliminate product and geographic
competition from consideration altogether.
Any person that wishes to participate as a party of record in this
matter must notify us of this intent by May 12, 1998. In order to be
designated a party of record, a person must satisfy the filing
requirements outlined in the ADDRESSES section. We will then compile
and issue a service list. Copies of comments and replies must be served
on all persons designated on the list as a party of record. Comments on
the proposal are due May 29, 1998; replies are due June 29, 1998.
A copy of this decision is being served on all persons on the
service list in Ex Parte No. 575. This decision will serve as notice
that persons who were parties of record in the Ex Parte 575 proceeding
will not be placed on the service list in the Ex Parte 627 proceeding
unless they notify us of their intent to participate therein.
The Board preliminarily certifies that the proposal to eliminate
product and geographic competition from its market dominance analysis,
if adopted, would not have a significant effect on a substantial number
of small entities. While the proposal, if adopted, may ease the burdens
on those prosecuting rate complaints, we do not expect it to affect a
substantial number of small entities. The Board, however, seeks
comments on whether there would be effects on small entities that
should be considered.
This action will not significantly affect either the quality of the
human environment or the conservation of energy resources.
Decided: April 28, 1998.
By the Board, Chairman Morgan and Vice Chairman Owen.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
Question. Please list any instances in the last two years when the
Board has heard a rate challenge based on the determination of market
dominance. What was the outcome in each of these ``captive shipper''
rate challenges?
Answer. During the past two years, the Board devoted significant
resources to addressing matters related to the rates and services that
the Nation's railroads provide to captive shippers. The Board has
jurisdiction to examine the reasonableness of a railroad's common
carriage rates, but only after finding that a complaining shipper is
captive to that railroad (i.e., the carrier has market dominance over
the traffic involved).\1\ Market dominance refers to ``an absence of
effective competition from other rail carriers or modes of
transportation for the transportation to which a rate applies.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 49 U.S.C. 10701(d), 10707(b) and (c).
\2\ 49 U.S.C. 10707(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To assess whether rates are reasonable, the Board uses the
``constrained market pricing'' (CMP) guidelines whenever possible.\3\
Those guidelines establish various constraints on a railroad's ability
to price differentially. The most commonly used constraint is the
``stand-alone cost'' (SAC) test. Under the SAC test, a railroad may not
charge a shipper more than it would cost to build and operate a
hypothetical new railroad that would be specifically tailored to serve
a selected traffic group (including the complainant's traffic)
efficiently. This test was used to resolve several rate complaints
during the past two years and is being used to evaluate the
reasonableness of rates in several more ongoing cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Coal Rate Guidelines, Nationwide, 1 I.C.C. 520 (1985), aff'd,
Consolidated Rail Corp. v. United States, 812 F.2d 1444 (3d Cir. 1987).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Arizona Pub. Serv. Co. v. Atchison T.&S.F. Ry., No. 41185 (STB
served July 29, 1997), modified (STB served April 17, 1998), the Board,
using the SAC test, found that the rail rates charged by the Atchison,
Topeka and Santa Fe Railway for carrying coal from a mine near Gallup,
New Mexico to the Cholla electrical generating plant at Joseph City,
Arizona were unreasonably high. The Board ordered the railroad to
reduce the rate (by approximately 40 percent) and to pay damages (in
excess of $25 million) to the shippers involved.
In McCarty Farms, Inc. v. Burlington Northern, Inc., No. 37809 (STB
served Aug. 20, 1997), the SAC test was used to evaluate rail rates
charged for transporting export wheat and barley from Montana to ports
in the Pacific Northwest. The evidence in this case failed to show that
the hypothetical railroad postulated by the shippers could earn
sufficient revenues to fully cover all its costs. Thus, the Board
concluded that the challenged rates had not been shown to be
unreasonable.
In West Texas Utilities Co. v. Burlington Northern R.R., No. 41191
(STB served May 3, 1996), pet. to reopen denied (STB served June 25,
1996), after determining that the Burlington Northern Railroad (BN) had
market dominance over the transportation of coal between Gillette, WY
and Vernon, TX, the SAC test was again used to determine that the rates
being charged were unreasonably high. The Board ordered BN to pay $11
million in reparations and limited the future rates that BN could
charge to 180 percent of the carrier's variable cost of providing the
transportation.
While the CMP guidelines provide the most economically sound
procedures for evaluating the reasonableness of rail rates, a rate
challenge using CMP (particularly SAC) can be quite complex, detailed
and expensive. Thus, CMP can be impractical to use where the amount of
money at issue is not great enough to justify the expense of such an
evidentiary presentation. In response to the directive in the ICC
Termination Act of 1995 to develop a simplified, alternative procedure
to CMP,\4\ the Board adopted simplified guidelines that employ three
revenue-to-variable cost benchmarks as starting points for a case-by-
case reasonableness analysis.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 49 U.S.C. 10701(d)(3).
\5\ Rate Guidelines--Non-Coal Proceedings, Ex Parte No. 347 (Sub-
No. 2) (STB served Dec. 31, 1996), S.T.B. (1996), pet. for judicial
review pending sub nom., Association of Am. Railroads v. Surface
Transp. Bd., No. 97-1020 (D.C. Cir. filed Jan. 10, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Board tentatively applied the simplified guidelines, in South-
West R.R. Car Parts Co. v. Missouri Pac. R.R., No. 40073 (STB served
Dec. 31, 1996), to a rate complaint that had been held in abeyance
pending adoption of the simplified procedures. Upon reviewing the
available revenue-to-variable cost benchmarks, the Board preliminarily
concluded that, based on the specific facts of that case, the rates
charged were not out of line with the carrier's revenue requirements,
nor disproportionately high as compared to other traffic of its type,
and thus were not unreasonably high. That initial conclusion was never
made final, however, because of statements by the shipper related to
market dominance that raised serious doubts about the Board's
jurisdiction over the case.\6\ The case was ultimately dismissed at the
request of the parties, who settled their dispute.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Southwest Railroad Car Parts Co. v. Missouri Pac. R.R., No.
40073 (STB served Feb. 20, 1998).
\7\ Southwest Railroad Car Parts Co. v. Missouri Pac. R.R., No.
40073 (STB served Apr. 9, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please update the Committee on any proposed legislation
that addresses the issue of market dominance and shipper protection.
Answer. S. 1429, introduced by Senator Rockefeller, and cosponsored
by Senators Burns, Dorgan, Breaux, and Roberts, would change current
law by making it easier for a shipper to show that a railroad has
market dominance, and thus that the shipper needs regulatory
protection. S. 1429 would also change the way in which rates are
regulated by requiring railroads to quote rates for short segments of
through movements, and allowing those short rates to be challenged
separately.
competitive access
Question. Please cite specific instances encountered in the Board's
oversight of the UP/SP merger where there were quality of service
deficiencies that could not be addressed due to competitive access
regulations that set an overly-stringent burden of proof.
Answer. I am aware of no specific instances in which quality of
service issues associated with the rail emergency in the West could not
be addressed because the burden of proof under the competitive access
regulations was too great. In the Service Order No. 1518 proceeding,
the Board issued unprecedented emergency service orders that, among
other things, made substantial changes to the way in which service is
provided in and around the Houston area (the center of the service
problems). Essentially, the service orders, which extend until August
2, 1998, sought to relieve some of the pressure on rail service to
Houston in general, and on UP/SP in particular, by routing traffic
around Houston and by authorizing other carriers to handle UP/SP
traffic moving through the city. They also required extensive railroad
data reporting to help the Board and affected parties evaluate the
progress of the service recovery. Although various other remedies were
suggested, no access requests were filed under the competitive access
rules.
In taking action to address the rail service emergency, the Board's
objective has been to do good without creating harm. The Board
recognizes that government cannot run private businesses as well as
private businesses can run themselves, and that government is not, and
should not be, in the business of running railroads; thus, the Board's
actions were designed to be focused, balanced, and constructive without
undermining ongoing private sector efforts to fix the problems, and
without inadvertently degrading the service to some shippers to upgrade
the service to others. The Board is pleased that, along with the major
modifications that it directed to the service provided in the
Southwest, its involvement has spawned important private-sector
initiatives including the recent agreement by UP/SP and Burlington
Northern Santa Fe to better coordinate service and facilities and
responsibilities in the Houston area, and UP/SP's announced commitment
to expend significantly more to upgrade infrastructure in the Gulf
Coast area. Although the emergency in the West is not entirely
resolved, the Board has been a positive force, imposing appropriate
government mandates while promoting needed private-sector resolution.
This is not to suggest that the Board's competitive access
regulations should not be further reviewed, or that the Board should
not establish new regulations to address service inadequacies. As you
are probably aware, at the request of Senators McCain and Hutchison,
the Board received substantial written testimony and conducted two days
of informational hearings, on April 2 and 3, 1998, to examine issues of
rail access and competition in today's railroad industry. The Board
issued a decision in Review of Rail Access and Competition Issues, STB
Ex Parte No. 575 (STB served Apr. 17, 1998), reviewing the testimony;
directing discussions among railroads, shippers, and rail employees to
address several issues, including competitive access issues; and
identifying certain areas in which the Board itself will propose
remedial action. In this regard, in the very near future, I expect the
Board to issue a decision proposing rule changes that will permit the
agency to better address service inadequacies. For your information, a
copy of the decisions in Ex Parte No. 575 are attached.
service date--april 17, 1998
surface transportation board decision
stb ex parte no. 575
review of rail access and competition issues
decided: april 16, 1998
BY THE BOARD:
At the request of Senator John McCain, Chairman of the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and Senator Kay
Bailey Hutchison, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Surface
Transportation and Merchant Marine, the Board conducted two days of
informational hearings, on April 2 and 3, 1998, to examine issues of
rail access and competition in today's railroad industry. After
reviewing both the written statements and oral testimony presented by
over 60 witnesses, we have decided to pursue certain issues in the
manner described in this decision.
Overview
There is no dispute that the Staggers Rail Act of 1980 (Staggers
Act), as implemented and administered first by the Interstate Commerce
Commission (ICC) and now by the Board, has revitalized American
railroads. Whether the railroads have improved their financial
condition enough or too much, and at the expense of rail-dependent
shippers, are issues of ongoing debate that were not resolved by the
hearings. What the hearings did clearly show, however, is that there is
widespread discontent today among those who use rail service. At the
hearings, shippers complained of inadequate service and higher rates,
regulatory remedies that they regard as more theoretical than real, and
regulatory processes that they view as burdensome, costly, and
unresponsive.
While the Staggers Act was successful in spurring the railroads'
economic recovery, at the core of shippers' complaints is their concern
that the railroad industry is now dominated by a handful of large,
Class I railroads, and as a result, shippers that are dependent on rail
service increasingly lack competitive options. Shippers assert that,
while the Staggers Act was meant to revive a failing industry and
enable it to earn adequate revenues, Congress did not intend to thwart
the equally important statutory goal that, to the maximum extent
possible, competition should drive the railroads' economic recovery.
The shippers' view is that, whether intentionally or not,
implementation of the Staggers Act has met the former goal, but not the
latter. The various recommendations for change made by the shippers at
the Board hearings are intended to address this concern, and certain of
the regulatory changes being proposed are embodied in S. 1429,
legislation introduced by Senator Rockefeller and co-sponsored by
Senators Burns and Dorgan.
Carriers take the position that the problems shippers face today
are not structural but operational, highlighted by ongoing service
failures in the West, and the railroad industry has pledged to re-
examine with shippers the adequacy of current remedies designed to
address service failures. The railroads argue that some of the proposed
shipper solutions to the concerns expressed about competition would
simply transfer wealth from carriers to shippers, and that, while
access may produce lower rates for the short term, the various ``open
access'' remedies shippers seek would, if adopted, ultimately undo the
gains achieved by the Staggers Act. The railroads argue that reducing
their earnings would deprive carriers of funds needed to replace
existing rail facilities and to invest in new infrastructure required
to resolve service problems such as those recently experienced in the
West and to meet added service demands in a growing economy.\1\ The
railroads further maintain that existing remedies can address any
pricing and competitive abuses, and that shippers have not explained
how new remedies intended to inject more competition into the rail
industry would ensure the industry of the revenues necessary to make
the needed infrastructure and capacity investments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Railroad-Shipper Transportation Advisory Council (RSTAC),
in its recently released ``White Paper,'' recognized the importance of
capacity and infrastructure investment to ensuring a rail network
responsive to the needs of its customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The railroads' position is that, because they are part of a highly
capital intensive industry whose marginal costs decline as use of its
plant increases, railroads cannot be regulated under a ``perfect
competition'' model. Instead, because much, but not all, of the
railroads' traffic base faces competition from other modes, railroads
must be able to ``differentially price'' their services based upon
demand--that is, they must recover the substantial joint and common
costs of their networks disproportionately from their captive
traffic.\2\ In this regard, we note that many of the shippers at the
hearings did not dispute the continuing need for some sort of demand-
based differential pricing, and that no party at the hearings showed
how the more aggressive access remedies--designed to produce lower
rates and conform the industry more closely to a perfect competition
model--would permit railroads to recover sufficient revenues to cover
system costs and support reinvestment in the rail facilities that
shippers require.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Inherent in the rail industry cost structure are large amounts
of joint and common costs that cannot be attributed to particular
traffic. Because railroads, under the current system, serve a mix of
competitive and captive traffic, a carrier cannot recover an equal
portion of those unattributable costs from all traffic. Accordingly, it
has been generally accepted that a railroad must price its traffic
differentially so as to recover a greater percentage of its
unattributable costs from traffic with a greater demand for (dependency
on) rail transportation. Under demand-based differential pricing,
shippers with greater transportation alternatives are offered lower
markups to keep their traffic (and their contribution to the carrier's
unattributable costs) on the rail network. As a result of this form of
pricing, captive shippers may actually pay lower rates than would be
necessary if competitive traffic were driven from the rail system by a
purely cost-based pricing system. See Coal Rate Guidelines, 1 I.C.C.2d
520, 5260927 (1985), aff'd sub nom. Consolidated Rail Corp. v. United
States, 812 F.2d 1444 (3d Cir. 1987).
\3\ The shape and condition of the rail system that open access
would produce is a significant issue that was not resolved at the
hearings. The shippers assume that the replacement of differential
pricing by purely competitive pricing would reduce the rates paid by
shippers. The railroads, by contrast, would argue that, because their
traffic base would shrink, the rates paid by those shippers that would
continue to receive service would actually increase, even as overall
revenues received by railroads would decline, because the overall
traffic base from which costs would be recovered would be reduced. More
specifically, carriers could be expected to seek to maintain an
adequate rate of return by cutting their costs, which could include the
shedding of unprofitable lines. Thus, it is quite possible that open
access would produce a smaller rail system (although not necessarily a
degraded one) that would serve fewer and a different mix of customers
than are served today, with different types of, and possibly more
efficient but more selectively provided, service.
We leave open to public discussion the issue of whether that type
of a rail system, which might not serve shippers of less desirable
traffic, would better serve the interest of shippers, labor, and the
public generally. But we note that the industry's ability to earn
revenue sufficient to maintain the existing extent of rail service does
appear to depend to some degree on the use of differential pricing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the other hand, the railroads have not satisfactorily addressed
the shippers' basic complaints: that the rail industry has changed
dramatically since 1980 as a result of significant railroad
consolidations, system rationalizations, and greater carrier pricing
and routing discretion. Although these changes have contributed to the
efficiencies, cost savings, and improved earnings necessary to sustain
the industry, cumulatively the result has been a significantly more
consolidated industry in which competitive options for rail-dependent
shippers have not been expanded. This increasing consolidation within
the industry, combined with the difficulties that many shippers
perceive in obtaining relief through the regulatory system, leave too
many shippers feeling that they have no leverage and no avenue of
relief. In short, the shippers charge that, eighteen years after
passage of the Staggers Act, the regulatory system is not functioning
as intended; what has resulted, they claim, is a highly concentrated
rail industry that is generally pleased with the present regulatory
scheme, and a group of rail-dependent shippers, which our regulation is
meant to safeguard, that feels unprotected and broadly discontented.
Whether seeking better service, better prices, or both, dozens of
rail-dependent shippers and their trade associations appeared at the
hearings to voice those sentiments. The railroad industry asserts that
many shippers are largely satisfied with present-day rail service, and
certain intermodal shippers--which ship highly competitive traffic--
voiced their support for the regulatory status quo at the hearings.
However, no rail-dependent shippers or shipper groups participated to
express satisfaction with the present state of rail service. The Board
cannot ignore the pleas of those many shippers that are concerned with
the present state of affairs.
It is thus clear that we have reached a regulatory crossroads.
Neither continuation of the status quo nor the immediate adoption of
the more drastic measures suggested by some shippers (measures which,
if not carefully implemented, risk completely undoing the progress made
towards a healthy national railroad system capable of meeting
customers' service needs) seems appropriate at this juncture.
Therefore, we must take a careful, measured approach. We will start by
accepting the offers made at the hearings by both rail industry and
shipper representatives to reexamine certain aspects of our current
regulatory scheme.\4\ We will also institute appropriate rulemaking
proceedings to re-examine other issues that we believe we can address
now. Finally, we intend to report appropriately to Congress on the
outcome of the hearings and our proposed administrative initiatives,
and discuss in that report other possible actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Initial reliance on negotiations among the interest groups that
are directly affected by our regulatory policies is neither
inappropriate nor without precedent. In Ex Parte No. 456, The Staggers
Rail Act of 1980--Conference of Interested Parties, the ICC established
a forum outside of the agency's purview to encourage railroads and
shippers to discuss and negotiate solutions to disputes arising from
the implementation of the Staggers Act, and to submit proposals for the
agency's considerations. Our competitive access regulations, 49 CFR
1144 et seq., discussed infra, are a product of that process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We turn now to the specific issues that we believe immediately can
and should be addressed administratively.
Revenue Adequacy
Congress has directed the Board to allow rail carriers to earn
``adequate'' revenues and to maintain standards and procedures for
measuring such revenue levels. 49 U.S.C. 10101(3), 10704(a)(2). In
implementing those directives, the ICC defined adequate revenues as
those that provide a railroad a rate of return on net investment equal
to the current cost of capital,\5\ and the Board has continued to
employ that standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Standards for Railroad Revenue Adequacy, 364 I.C.C. 803 (1981),
aff'd sub nom. Bessemer & Lake Erie R. Co. v. United States, 691 F.2d
1104 (3d Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1110 (1983).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the hearings, several shipper interests asserted, as others have
in the past, that the cost-of-capital standard, under which only a few
Class I railroads have been found to have ``adequate'' revenues, fails
to reflect the railroads' true, robust financial posture.\6\ They argue
that other financial measures--such as credit-worthiness, return on
equity, or market-to-book value--show an industry that is doing quite
well financially. The railroads, on the other hand, defend the
continued use of the cost-of-capital standard, pointing to recent Wall
Street reports that have questioned the industry's long-term viability
in light of returns on investment less than that amount. At the
hearings, representatives of both railroads and shippers advocated
referring this issue to one or more disinterested expert economists
with no preconceived position on the issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ There seems to be a mistaken impression in some quarters that a
railroad that is ``revenue inadequate'' under our standards has
unfettered pricing freedom. To the contrary, a rate may be unreasonable
even if charged by a carrier that is far short of revenue adequacy.
Coal Rate Guidelines, 1 I.C.C.2d at 5360937. Under the stand-alone cost
(SAC) test, a railroad's rate is limited to what a hypothetical
efficient carrier would need to charge to provide the needed service to
the complaining shipper while fully covering all its costs--without
regard to the existing carrier's revenue levels. Likewise, under the
simplified guidelines (available for those cases in which the SAC test
is impracticable), even though we take into account a carrier's revenue
need, there is no requirement that a carrier be ``revenue adequate''
before its rates can be found unreasonable. Rate Guidelines--Non-Coal
Proceedings, Ex Parte No. 347 (Sub-No. 2) (STB served Dec. 31, 1996),
slip op. at 11, 13.
Once a carrier has become revenue adequate, however, shippers may
prefer to apply the revenue adequacy constraint. Under this test,
``captive shippers should not be required to continue to pay
differentially higher rates than other shippers when some or all of
that differential is no longer necessary to ensure a financially sound
carrier.'' Coal Rate Guidelines, Nationwide, 1 I.C.C.2d at 5350936.
Thus, when carriers are considered ``revenue adequate,'' or when it can
be demonstrated that inefficient operations are preventing the carrier
from being considered ``revenue adequate,'' an alternative to the SAC
test may be available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notwithstanding the administrative proceedings that have already
been held, the years of continuing debate, and the litigation that has
already addressed this issue, we agree that a fresh examination would
be useful. Accordingly, we request representatives of the shipping
community and rail industry to meet, under the supervision of an
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), and select a mutually acceptable panel
of three such disinterested experts to examine the current and
alternative measures of a railroad's financial health, and to make
recommendations to us as to the appropriate standard to apply.\7\ We
would then review the panel's recommendations and, if a new or revised
standard is recommended, seek public comment on it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ While we will provide the ALJ, we expect the parties to incur
the costs for the panel of experts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We request the parties to organize, meet, and select a three-person
panel by May 15, 1998. The panel, under the ALJ's supervision, may
determine its own procedures, and should submit its report to the Board
by July 15, 1998.
Competitive Access
Under the current statute, three kinds of competitive access
remedies are available to complaining shippers or carriers. The first,
and least physically intrusive form of access, is an alternative
through route under 49 U.S.C. 10705(a), whereby an incumbent railroad
can be required to interline traffic with another railroad and provide
a through route and through rate for that traffic. The second form of
access is reciprocal switching under 49 U.S.C. 11102(c), whereby the
incumbent railroad, for a fee, must transport the cars of a competing
carrier, enabling the latter carrier, even though it cannot physically
serve the shipper's facility, to offer a single-line rate to compete
with the incumbent's single-line service. The third, most intrusive
form of access is terminal trackage rights under 49 U.S.C. 11102(a),
whereby the incumbent railroad, for a fee, must permit physical access
over its lines to the trains and crews of a competing carrier.
Although access to more routing options could provide additional
competition in some circumstances, the statute does not provide these
access remedies on demand; a showing of need is required. In
implementing the directives of the Railroad Revitalization and
Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (4-R Act) and the Staggers Act, which
ended the former shipper-directed ``open routing'' system under which
railroads had been required to establish extensive and not always
efficient interchanges and through routes, the current regulations
require a demonstration that the incumbent rail carrier has engaged in
anticompetitive conduct. 49 CFR 1144.5(a). More specifically, they
require a showing that the carrier has either (1) used its market power
to extract unreasonable terms or (2) because of its monopoly position
shown a disregard for the shipper's needs by rendering inadequate
service.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Midtec Paper Corp. v. Chicago & N.W. Transp. Co., 3 I.C.C.2d
171 (1986), aff'd sub nom. Midtec Paper Corp. v. United States, 857
F.2d 1487 (D.C. Cir. 1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the hearings, as in the past, some shippers complained that the
``anticompetitive conduct'' standard of the competitive access
regulations is too onerous, effectively precluding use of the
competitive access remedy in an increasingly consolidated rail industry
in which shippers are facing service failures such as those now being
experienced in the West. The railroads concur that the competitive
access rules should be revisited as they pertain to service failures.
To ensure that our procedures are effective in addressing needed
service improvements, we will expeditiously begin a rulemaking
proceeding to consider revisions to the competitive access regulations
to address quality of service issues.
Given the changes that have taken place in the rail industry since
1980, we will also consider whether to revise the competitive access
rules with respect to competitive issues that are not related to
quality of service. First, however, we direct the railroads to arrange
meetings with a broad range of shipper interests, again under the
supervision of an ALJ that we will appoint, to explore the issue and
see if the parties can mutually identify appropriate modifications to
the non-service-related component of our standards that would
facilitate greater access where needed.\9\ We request the parties to
report back to us on this issue by August 3, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ We suggest that the parties explore, for example, the proposal
made by Illinois Central Railroad that each railroad designate certain
``open'' gateways on their systems that would be available for use by
all shippers to create alternative through routes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Market Dominance--Product and Geographic Competition
Another area of continuing concern for rail-dependent shippers
involves the difficulties associated with seeking rate relief from the
Board, especially those difficulties posed by the components of our
market dominance standards relating to product and geographic
competition. Under the statute, the Board has jurisdiction to consider
a rate challenge only if the carrier has market dominance over the
traffic involved, that is, if there is no effective competition for the
traffic at issue. 49 U.S.C. 10707. In evaluating whether a railroad can
exercise market dominance, the Board considers whether the shipper
could obtain the transportation service that it needs from other
railroads (intramodal competition) or other modes of transportation
(intermodal competition). In addition to these direct competitive
alternatives, the Board considers, when raised by a railroad, whether
there is product or geographic competition that would effectively
constrain a carrier's pricing. Product competition results from the
availability of suitable substitute products that can be acquired
without relying on the services of the same carrier. Geographic
competition exists where the shipper can conduct its business by
obtaining the product it needs from a different source and/or by
shipping its goods to a different destination using another carrier.
Shippers complain that the examination of possible product and
geographic competition unduly complicates the market dominance
determination and places an enormous litigation obstacle to a shipper's
ability to pursue a rate complaint.
Plainly, the zealous use of the discovery process may be partly to
blame for the heavy burdens associated with the inquiry into product
and geographic competition in individual rate cases. We have, in a
decision issued today, taken appropriate action to ensure that
carriers--which have the burden both of identifying the existence of
and proving the effectiveness of any product and geographic
competition--not shift those burdens onto the shipper through
unsupported and/or overreaching discovery demands. FMC Wyoming Corp.
and FMC Corp. v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., STB Docket No. 42022 (STB
served Apr. 17, 1998).
While our action to curb discovery abuses may alleviate some of the
shippers' concerns, we believe that it is also time to consider
removing product and geographic competition altogether from the market
dominance analysis. Initially, the ICC concluded that these issues
complicate rate proceedings unduly. See Special Procedures for Making
Findings of Market Dominance as Required by the Railroad Revitalization
and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976, 353 I.C.C. 875, 9050906, modified,
355 I.C.C. 12 (1976), aff'd in relevant part sub nom. Atchison, T. &
S.F. Ry. v. ICC, 580 F.2d 623 (D.C. Cir. 1978). The ICC subsequently
reversed course in Market Dominance Determinations, 365 I.C.C. 118
(1981), aff'd sub nom. Western Coal Traffic League v. United States,
719 F.2d 772 (5th Cir. 1983) (en banc), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 953
(1984), concluding that consideration of these issues would be
manageable.\10\ Based on more than a decade of experience, we should
now reconsider whether the ICC's initial conclusion was the better one.
Accordingly, we will institute a rulemaking proceeding expeditiously to
consider eliminating product and geographic competition from our market
dominance analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See also Product and Geographic Competition, 2 I.C.C.2d 1
(1985) (burden of proving product and geographic competition in market
dominance cases shifted to railroads).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smaller Railroads
An area of great concern for short-line railroads (and for the
shippers that they serve) are obstacles--including ``paper barriers''
(contractual obligations incurred when short-line carriers acquired
lines from larger, connecting carriers); inadequate car supply; and the
lack of alternative routings--that prevent them from obtaining or fully
using connections with competing carriers. At the hearings, shippers
suggested that, in a more competitive rail environment, there should be
a greater role for short-line railroads and other smaller carriers,
particularly in rural areas. We agree that smaller railroads represent
a potentially significant resource in addressing the issues that
concern the shippers, and that to date their potential remains largely
untapped.
At the hearing, we were advised that the smaller railroads and the
large railroads have initiated discussions to address these concerns.
Because we believe that private-sector solutions are generally
preferable, we urge the parties to address and resolve these issues
themselves, and to do so expeditiously. We direct the parties to report
back to us on their progress in this regard by May 11, 1998. The Board
is prepared to take administrative action as necessary and appropriate
in this area to address the concerns that have been raised.
Formalized Dialogue
Another issue on which all sides agreed at the hearing was the need
for greater communications, including more formalized discussions,
between railroads and their customers. In addition to the forums that
already exist to address issues of ongoing concern, such as the
National Grain Car Council and the RSTAC, the railroads proposed to
establish a regular, formalized process for discussions about service
planning and needs, with the Board as an overseer of the process.\11\
In this regard, we remind railroads that their customers include both
large and small shippers, and that they need to find a more systematic
way of addressing customer concerns--related to rate and service issues
and to means for obtaining relief--of small shippers as well as large
ones. Additionally, we again remind the railroads that all of these
initiatives will have effects on their employees, and we urge them to
include rail labor in their discussions. We direct the railroads to
report back to us on their progress in establishing formalized dialogue
with shippers and with their employees, by May 11, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Other matters that might be addressed at such discussion
sessions include service performance standards and remedies or
penalties that should apply when such standards are not met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Board/Shipper Discussions
At the hearings, Board members expressed their willingness to meet
with shippers to address general issues concerning railroad service.
One shipper representative expressed concern about potential
improprieties in the event that shippers were to meet informally with
Board members. So long as shippers limit their discussions at such
meetings to general service and other issues of broad concern, rather
than specific pending cases, we welcome the opportunity to engage in
dialogue with them.
This decision will not significantly affect either the quality of
the human environment or the conservation of energy resources.
It is ordered:
1. The parties to this proceeding will take the actions described
in this decision by the dates indicated above.
2. This decision is effective upon its service.
By the Board, Chairman Morgan and Vice Chairman Owen.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
service date--may 4, 1998
surface transportation board decision
stb ex parte no. 575
review of rail access and competition issues
decided: may 4, 1998
BY THE BOARD:
This proceeding was initiated to examine issues of rail access and
competition in today's railroad industry. During two days of
informational hearings, and in numerous written statements, we heard
the complaints of shippers dependent on rail service that, as a result
of consolidation in the industry, their competitive options have been
limited, and that available remedies are burdensome, costly, and
unresponsive.
On April 17, 1998, we issued a decision addressing the concerns
that had been raised. We found that, through administrative action, we
could examine making it less costly and burdensome for aggrieved
parties to obtain access to the regulatory system, and providing the
opportunity for shippers with concerns about poor service to obtain
service from an alternate carrier. Thus, we began one rulemaking
proceeding, and intend to begin another shortly.\1\ We decided that the
most appropriate way to achieve more effective utilization of smaller
railroads in addressing the concerns raised by the shippers would be
through discussions within the railroad industry. Thus, we directed
railroads to meet and discuss this issue among themselves, and to
report back to the Board by May 11, 1998. Finally, we concluded that
certain issues--in particular, issues relating to railroad ``revenue
adequacy,'' the competitive access rules in general, and formalized
railroad/shipper dialogue designed to help carriers find a more
systematic way of addressing customer concerns--would be better
addressed at this time in a private-sector rather than governmental
forum. Thus, as to revenue adequacy, we directed railroads to meet with
shippers with a view toward selecting a panel of three disinterested
experts to make recommendations as to an appropriate revenue adequacy
standard, and to report back to the Board by May 15, 1998. As to
competitive access, because we were convinced that railroads and
shippers could, if they tried, find some common ground, we directed
them to meet, negotiate, and report back to the Board by August 3,
1998. Finally, we directed railroads to report back to the Board by May
11, 1998, on their progress in establishing formalized dialogue with
their shippers and their employees. We designated Administrative Law
Judge Jacob Leventhal to supervise meetings as appropriate.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Our notice proposing removal of product and geographic
competition as factors in market dominance proceedings was issued in
Market Dominance Determinations--Product and Geographic Competition,
STB Ex Parte No. 627 (STB served Apr. 29, 1998). We will soon issue a
decision addressing service issues.
\2\ Judge Leventhal held a preliminary conference on April 28,
1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 27, 1998, we received a letter from several shippers and
shipper groups asking us to modify our April 17 order in two respects.
Rather than seeking to characterize the letter, we quote its operative
portions directly:
First, the Board should reverse the priorities of the revenue
adequacy and competitive access issues. Competitive access is,
by far, the most urgent matter to shippers. We also believe it
will be difficult to reach agreement with the railroads on this
issue, and therefore we first request that the order be
modified to require the parties to report by May 29, rather
than August 3, on whether significant progress is possible.
Second, revenue adequacy, while important, is less urgent.
Moreover, we question the need for the elaborate and expensive
processes set forth in the Board's order. However, we are
certainly willing to discuss revenue adequacy issues with the
railroads. Indeed, recent pronouncements by railroad executives
suggest that progress on the subject may be possible.
Accordingly, we also request that the procedures on revenue
adequacy ordered by the Board be suspended until shippers and
the railroads enter discussions on this issue, and report back
to the Board on the progress of these discussions. The deadline
for this report should be May 29, 1998.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In a letter dated April 29, 1998, the National Industrial
Transportation League supported the April 27 letter insofar as it
sought a change in the procedures for addressing revenue adequacy.
On April 30, 1998, the Association of American Railroads (AAR)
responded to the shippers' letter. Noting that the only conference
scheduled before Judge Leventhal between now and May 29 will be held on
May 21, AAR points out that the schedule proposed by the shippers will
allow little time for meaningful dialogue and consultation as to the
competitive access issue. Although it says that it will participate in
further negotiations on revenue adequacy, AAR also expresses its dismay
that the shippers have apparently rejected the panel approach, which,
as AAR describes it, ``would replace advocacy and contentiousness with
objective economic analysis.''
discussion and conclusions
1. Prioritization of Issues. At the outset, we will respond to the
request that we ``reverse the priorities'' of the initiatives we set in
motion. Our April 17 order raised several issues, but it did not intend
to, and indeed did not, prioritize among them. The fact that the date
for the revenue adequacy report was set earlier than the date for the
competitive access report did not reflect a higher priority for the
revenue adequacy exercise, any more than the still earlier reporting
date for the smaller railroad discussions could be said to reflect an
even higher priority. The due date for the report on revenue adequacy
exercise was set earlier than the due date for the competitive access
report merely because it was, and still is, our view that it would be
simpler for interested parties to meet and select three unbiased
experts than it would be to address and seek to resolve issues such as
competitive access. Although the shippers in their letter indicate that
competitive access relief is more urgent than amendments to revenue
adequacy, we did not establish a hierarchy of objectives, and we urge
all parties to take all of the initiatives in our April 17 order
seriously.
2. Revenue Adequacy. We also do not believe that our order set
forth ``elaborate and expensive processes'' regarding revenue adequacy.
At the hearings, shippers raised substantial concerns about the current
revenue adequacy standards, while the railroads defended the need for a
revenue adequacy standard that permits them to earn enough money to
attract capital and to invest in needed facilities. Railroad and
shipper representatives recommended referring the revenue adequacy
question to one or more disinterested expert economists with no
preconceived position on the issue,\4\ and so we directed railroads to
meet with shippers with a view toward selecting a panel of three such
experts to make recommendations as to an appropriate standard.
Selection of a panel, as we envision it, should be a relatively
straightforward exercise. The process from then on would not be an
elaborate one, and it would not be particularly expensive overall if
all of the parties agreed in advance to support the recommendations of
the expert panel rather than to continue to pursue the revenue adequacy
issue before the Board, the courts, and whatever other forums the
railroad and shipping communities typically address.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Dr. Alfred E. Kahn, for example, testifying on behalf of the
Alliance for Rail Competition (ARC), one of the signatories to the
April 27 letter, urged the Board to consult with disinterested
financial analysts that are not paid by either the railroads or the
shippers as to an appropriate revenue adequacy standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nevertheless, as both the shippers and AAR indicate that progress
through means other than the 3-expert panel is possible in addressing
the revenue adequacy issue, we will give the shippers more time so that
they can pursue the issue directly with the railroads. If they cannot
reach agreement, however, we urge the parties not to reject, as the
shippers apparently have done, the notion that the issue be resolved by
a neutral expert or panel of experts. Moreover, given that the next
conference is not scheduled until May 21, 1998, we do not believe that
a reporting date of May 29, 1998 will provide an adequate opportunity
for meaningful progress. Therefore, although we certainly will not
preclude any party that wishes to do so from filing an interim report
on May 29, 1998, or on any other date it deems appropriate, we request
a report on the revenue adequacy issue by August 3, 1998.
3. Competitive Access. The shippers ask to shorten the reporting
time for the competitive access issue, apparently because of their
concern that it will be difficult to reach agreement with the railroads
on this issue. We do not understand the shippers' logic.
At the hearings, shippers raised substantial concerns about the
impediments that the existing regulations imposed on their ability to
make a competitive access case, while the railroads expressed concern
that opening up the competitive access rules could place them on a
slippery slope toward total open access, which, in their view, would
adversely affect them and the public. Because we were convinced that
railroads and shippers could, if they tried, find some common ground on
the issue of competitive access, in our May 17 order we directed them
to meet, negotiate, and report back to the Board. We recognized that
negotiations concerning competitive access might require substantial
work, and that is why we did not request a report until August 3, 1998.
Shortening the reporting time to, in effect, permit one session
before Judge Leventhal with a report due a week later would send a
message that we see little prospect for accommodation on any aspect of
the competitive access issue. If that were our view, however, we would
not have directed the railroads to negotiate with the shippers in the
first place. Notwithstanding the tenor of the shippers' letter, we
continue to believe that some common ground can be reached if all
parties can put aside their preconceived notions and enter negotiations
with an open mind, committed to seeking some common ground rather than
immediately assuming that governmental fiat is the only answer or that
more litigious avenues must be pursued. Therefore, we continue to urge
the parties to negotiate seriously to reach agreement on as many issues
related to competitive access as possible. We request a report on
August 3, 1998, although, again, we will not preclude any party that
wishes to do so from filing an interim report on May 29, 1998, or on
any other date it deems appropriate.
It is ordered:
1. The shippers' requests are governed by this decision.
2. The report on revenue adequacy is due on August 3, 1998,
although any party that wishes to do so may file an interim report on
May 29, 1998.
3. The report on competitive access is due on August 3, 1998,
although any party that wishes to do so may file an interim report on
May 29, 1998.
4. This decision is effective upon its service.
By the Board, Chairman Morgan and Vice Chairman Owen.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
Question. Please set out a schedule for the Board's announced
rulemaking proceeding to consider revisions to the competitive access
regulations.
Answer. In its April 17th decision in Ex Parte No. 575, the Board
stated that it would begin a proceeding to consider revisions to its
competitive access regulations, 49 CFR Part 1144, to provide expedited
access relief where a shipper's incumbent rail carrier cannot or does
not provide adequate service. The Board anticipates that it will issue
a notice of proposed rulemaking on or about May 12, 1998, with comments
due in mid-June 1998, and replies in mid-July 1998.
The Board also announced that it would consider whether to revise
the regulations with respect to competitive issues that are not related
to quality of service. The Board directed, however, that these matters
first be explored at shipper-carrier meetings to see if the parties
could find at least some common ground on appropriate modifications to
the competitive access standards that would facilitate greater access
when needed. The Board asked the parties to report back to the Board by
August 3, 1998, and then the Board will take further steps as
appropriate in this area.
open access
Question. Does the Board's current authority to approve trackage
rights arrangements extend to approving an open access arrangement, or
would additional authority be necessary to establish and regulate an
open access system?
Answer. The Board does not have general authority under all
circumstances to compel an unwilling railroad to grant trackage rights
to another railroad. The Board may only approve consensual trackage
rights arrangements under 49 U.S.C. 11323(a)(6). The Board may force a
railroad to grant trackage rights over its lines in three limited
situations: (1) under 49 U.S.C. 11324(c) only as a condition to its
approval of the carrier's merger with another railroad; (2) under 49
U.S.C. 11102(a) only with respect to terminal facilities; and (3) under
49 U.S.C. 11123(a) only for a limited (maximum 9-month) time period and
only in response to a carrier's failure to provide adequate service.
Thus, under the current statute, the Board cannot establish and
regulate a nationwide rail system of physical ``open access;''
additional statutory authority would be required if such a system were
desired.
Questions. Would the current staffing levels at the Board be
adequate to establish and regulate an open access system? If not, what
additional resources do you estimate would be required.
Answer. ``Open access'' means different things to different people.
For purposes of this answer, we assume that open access refers to a
regulatory process in which each railroad's system is opened up to the
equipment of its competitors, or in which the ownership of all railroad
track is lodged in a single entity, and service over that track is
provided by rail operators that would pay compensation for the use of
the track. That sort of a process could require substantial regulatory
oversight, because unless a fixed fee and a uniform set of operating
conditions were established--which might be inappropriate for many
circumstances--the terms and conditions of the access would need to be
supervised. We have no basis on which to predict at this point how much
our staffing needs would increase under an open access scenario.
revenue adequacy
Question. What are the potential applications of a Board
determination of a railroad's ``revenue adequacy?''
Answer. Revenue adequacy, although not an insignificant concept,
generally is not, by itself, determinative of the actual rates that
railroads can charge their shippers. Thus, a railroad, whether or not
it is revenue adequate, does not have unfettered pricing flexibility.
To the contrary, a rate may be unreasonable even if charged by a
carrier that is far short of revenue adequacy.
Currently, large rail rate cases are processed under the CMP
guidelines discussed in an earlier question. To date, complainant
shippers have used the stand-alone cost constraint of CMP. Under this
approach, the rate analysis is not based on the revenue needs of the
existing carrier, but instead is based on what a hypothetical new
carrier would need to charge to provide service to a select traffic
group identified by the complainant. Thus, whether or not a defendant
carrier is considered to be revenue adequate is irrelevant under the
stand-alone cost test.
This is not to say that revenue adequacy has no effect on rates and
rate regulation. Under the CMP guidelines, there is another approach,
which heretofore has not been used. Specifically, under this approach,
the revenue adequacy constraint precludes a carrier from charging its
captive shippers more than is needed for that carrier to achieve
revenue adequacy. The managerial efficiency constraint further limits
the carrier's pricing; it reduces the revenue need of the carrier by
the cost of any inefficiencies identified by a complaining shipper.
Thus, once a carrier is earning adequate revenues, or if inefficiencies
are the only reason a carrier is not meeting the revenue adequacy
standard, captive shippers may obtain appropriate rate relief using
this analysis of the defendant carrier's existing (entire) route
structure, operational practices, and rate structure.
Finally, under the simplified guidelines for handling smaller rail
rate cases, also discussed in an earlier question, revenue adequacy is
one of several factors used on a case-by-case basis in determining
whether a rate is unreasonable. It is, however, not the determinative
factor.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 1999
----------
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 1999 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-two years standing dedicated to
advancement of 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 operating and
maintaining the air traffic control system, to individuals and
companies developing and providing the technology, equipment, and
services supporting the system, to the citizens, government agencies,
and airlines using the system.
Today's economic, social, and political environment is increasingly
global. Instantaneous worldwide telecommunications allow businesses
around the world to function seamlessly, and encourage people to
experience distant and various cultures; national economies are more
and more specialized in production, intensifying global
interdependencies and increasing the importance of international trade;
and international tourism is increasingly accessible and attractive to
all segments of societies. These trends prevail within the U.S. as
well: Businesses have offices, plants and facilities in various
locations; citizens travel frequently and conveniently for business and
recreation; local economies are more and more specialized in the
products and services they produce, with efficient, reasonably priced
transportation of commodities being essential to virtually every aspect
of daily life.
Safe and efficient air transportation is central to every aspect of
today's fast-paced, global environment. Not only must goods and people
move freely and efficiently for human needs to be satisfied, but
reliable and economic air transportation drives economic prosperity by
supporting the needs of business and manufacturing, and by encouraging
trade and tourism. Conversely, an inefficient, expensive air
transportation system can limit, and even dampen economic activity.
Modern air traffic control and aviation safety regulation are
pivotal to the health and capability of the air transportation system.
In its role as provider of air traffic control and aviation safety
services, a robust and effective Federal Aviation Administration is
vital to the Nation's prosperity, security, and technological
preeminence. In order to maintain excellence in aviation, however, FAA
must be equipped for challenges of the new millennium. The Air Traffic
Control Association therefore urges Congress to make significantly
increased funding for activities and projects of the FAA a priority in
fiscal year 1999.
fueling atc modernization
Like every other sector of the U.S. economy, aviation is
experiencing growing pains. Worldwide and domestically air traffic is
increasing at a rapid rate, and this trend is predicted to continue
into the foreseeable future. Meanwhile, investment in aviation
infrastructure including ATC systems is not keeping pace. Although FAA
controllers today provide safe ATC services to the world's largest
aviation marketplace, they do this using proven but nonetheless aging
equipment sustained by a patchwork of temporary fixes and upgrades
designed to enhance system reliability and capacity while modernized
replacement equipment is being developed and fielded. Although
dedicated, creative airway facilities personnel keep the system
operating remarkably well, equipment continues to age and deteriorate.
The Federal Aviation Administration today is modernizing and
upgrading the National Airspace System with up-to-date equipment and
technologies that will meet the safety and capacity needs of the
Twenty-First Century. The blueprint for modernization is embodied in
the National Airspace System Architecture, a plan developed by FAA with
aviation community input. Now in its draft third version, the NAS
Architecture identifies infrastructure improvements through the year
2015, specifically aeronautical communications, navigation,
surveillance, decision support systems for air traffic controllers, and
information-sharing among aviation system participants. The
Architecture is designed to be used by aircraft operators as a guide
for avionics equipage, as well as by FAA and other organizations for
costing, budgeting, and investment analysis. Among the new technologies
slated for incorporation in the modernized ATC system are satellite-
based systems for surveillance of aircraft in the air and on the
surface, air/ground and aircraft/aircraft communications, and aircraft
navigation; user-friendly tools for controllers such as updated
computer displays, sophisticated aircraft metering and spacing, and
conflict prediction and resolution aids; and advanced information
networks that allow airlines, private aircraft operators, airports and
FAA air traffic management organizations to share the same flight
operations data and, ultimately, agree on the best way to manage air
traffic.
The draft NAS Architecture Version 3.0 describes an air traffic
control system users want, and a road map for getting there. The
Architecture reflects a realistic adaptation of existing and developing
technologies to the realities of today's air traffic environment; it
takes into account the needs of aircraft having avionics equipage of
varying levels of sophistication; and by using an open systems
approach, it builds-in flexibility to accommodate future traffic growth
and advancing technology. The Air Traffic Control Association commends
the FAA on this achievement, and fully supports its implementation. It
is also submitted that NAS modernization--and the NAS Architecture--
must be viewed as an ongoing process that will continue into the
future. With increasing traffic, evolving user needs, and technological
progress there always will be opportunities to bring added safety and
efficiency to air transportation, and to revise objectives if
necessary.
With encouragement of aviation users, FAA also has adopted a
practice of sifting major ongoing modernization projects for
technologies, concepts and capabilities that can be extracted,
prototyped, and implemented immediately to provide early operating
benefits. These ``fall-out'' systems and capabilities can mean
significant time and cost savings for airlines and other aircraft
operators. Among such technologies are controller decision support
systems such as the Center/TRACON Automation System, traffic management
advisor, passive final approach spacing tool, and initial conflict
probe; and promising systems useful to airlines and airport operators
such as collaborative decision-making, controller/pilot data link
communications, and the surface movement advisor. Day-by-day other new
concepts and technologies emerge which will allow greater operating
efficiency and flexibility, and added safety. Obtaining immediate
benefits from these innovations through accelerated implementation
makes sense, and has the support of the entire aviation community. It
will, however, cost money and resources over and above those already
programmed for development and implementation of major new systems.
Adding to these challenges, FAA is encountering increased
difficulties and expense associated with sustaining, maintaining, and
in some cases replacing aging equipment which has exceeded its planned
service life, and is slated for modernization and upgrade. Older
equipment and wiring is getting more and more brittle; repair or
replacement parts are becoming increasingly difficult--sometimes
impossible--to find; repairs take longer, resulting in protracted down-
time. Therefore systems in use also must be sustained and improved to
perform essential services until long term improvements come on line. A
shortfall in funding for sustainment is occurring across-the-board in
connection with ATC computers and displays such as ARTS and EDARC,
radars (Mode S), navaids (ILS, VOR/DME), radios and other
communications systems. In addition, FAA faces the critical and costly
task of evaluating and modifying or replacing computer systems--
including the HOST computer--to be Year 2000 compliant. As with the
accelerated implementation process, the job of sustaining and
replenishing older infrastructure represents a significant and
increasing burden on FAA's facilities and equipment budget, and is
significantly underfunded.
This challenge exacerbated by delay in fielding modernized ATC
equipment, some of which is attributable to technological difficulties,
but much of which results from chronic underfunding. Within the backlog
of modernization projects which should be accelerated with additional
resources are items such as airport surface radars, ATC recorders,
aeronautical weather systems, various communications equipment and
equipment upgrades, ATC computers, and navaids. Of particular concern
is the need to accelerate work on technology--specifically the Next
Generation Communication System (NEXCOM)--which addresses the
increasingly troublesome problem of aeronautical frequency congestion
and shortage of available spectrum. And to the extent that underfunding
causes modernization project schedules to extend farther into the
future, the overall expense increases because longer transition periods
will be necessary during which aging equipment must be sustained and
upgraded while overlapping newer equipment is only partially fielded.
Nonetheless, the Administration is requesting only $2.130 billion
for FAA Facilities and Equipment expenditures in fiscal year 1999. This
is far below the amount necessary to sustain the existing ATC
infrastructure, address the backlog of underfunded modernization
projects, and simultaneously upgrade the system in keeping with
increasing air traffic, and users' needs for greater efficiency and
operating flexibility. In draft Version 3.0 of its National Airspace
System Architecture, FAA estimates the cost of Architecture activities
in fiscal year 1999 to be $2.67 billion. The Architecture projects this
annual cost to rise gradually to $3.2 billion in fiscal year 2002,
leveling out at approximately $3.0 billion per year thereafter. Add to
this the price of accelerating implementation of ``fall-out''
technologies, the cost of catching up on the backlog of previously
underfunded modernization projects, and the expense of refurbishing and
replenishing aging equipment pending replacement, and it is evident
that the true necessary level of funding for FAA Facilities and
Equipment in fiscal year 1999--and beyond for the foreseeable future--
is more in the order of $4.0 billion.
FAA Administrator Garvey has initiated a systematic review of the
current ATC modernization plans in the context of user needs,
technological options, and federal budget concerns. Periodic,
constructive re-assessment can be a healthy and useful enterprise,
allowing the agency to confirm that its activities are consistent with
its mission, user needs, and financial and technical reality. To this
end, the Air Traffic Control Association commends Administrator Garvey
on her efforts. The Association is disappointed however to learn that
the Administration's funding projections for future years (``OMB
passbacks'') threaten to prevent FAA from achieving NAS modernization
objectives within the schedule envisioned in draft NAS Architecture
Version 3.0. Although Administrator Garvey commends the NAS
Architecture as the ``what'' that the ATC needs, she has accepted the
OMB limitations in funding which in large measure dictate the ``when''
if not the ``how.'' Consequently, FAA is now engaged in the unhappy
task of revising the Architecture to conform with projected future
budgets. The aviation community is being assured that this revision
will be confined to stating a less aggressive schedule for
modernization, but will not negatively affect the substance, scope or
quality of improvements. For the following reasons however, the
Association believes the ``when'' conclusion dictated by OMB guidelines
is unacceptable, and moreover as a matter of policy ATCA disagrees with
the practice of conforming the NAS modernization plans to artificial
parameters contained in Federal budget guidelines.
First, the Administration's budget request does not reflect the
actual funding needs of the NAS. It is a fact of life that the
Administration's annual budget is an attempt to reconcile the various
needs of the American public for federal government services, when
those needs exceed available revenues. The Administration's budget
request for FAA is--as are budgets for other Federal agencies--an
attempt to allocate to aviation a reasoned share of scarce federal
resources. The Nation today, however, is experiencing unprecedented
prosperity; robust air transportation is a powerful engine driving the
booming economy. Now is the time to make the investments in air traffic
control infrastructure that will assure continued success into the next
millennium. Indeed, this is a continuing need if the economic engine of
air transportation and commerce is to continue to propel the U.S.
forward.
Second, a vigorous, well-funded ATC modernization effort is
essential not only to accommodating growth, but also to maintaining the
position of the United States as world leader in aviation technology.
In recent years the United States has been in the forefront of a global
endeavor to apply satellite technology to air traffic control. The use
of satellites in ATC bears dramatic promise for enhancing safety and
efficiency of flight, for example to enhance communications and provide
advanced ATC capabilities over oceans and large continental land
expanses where radar surveillance is impracticable or impossible.
Satellite technology also can bring a basic, cost-effective ATC
capability to nations and areas that do not need, or cannot afford
sophisticated ground-based systems. With U.S. leadership, international
consensus has developed in support of a global air traffic management
(ATM) system based on the application of satellite technology for
communications, navigation, and surveillance (CNS/ATM). If, as some
have suggested, the FAA redirects its modernization efforts primarily
toward delivering ``core'' Free Flight capabilities at the expense of
more advanced CNS/ATM systems, the risk arises that other nations will
bypass the United States in air traffic control technology. Aside from
the blow U.S. prestige internationally, continual changes in ATC
modernization plans and schedules foster global disharmony of ATC
systems, creating difficulties for aircraft operators who must fly
internationally with one set of avionics.
In conclusion, ATCA urges the Congress to reach beyond the
Administration's overly-conservative budget estimate, and enact the
level of funding for fiscal year 1999 which in fact is in keeping with
the Nation's need for aviation infrastructure maintenance and
modernization, and its position as world leader in aviation
technology--that is, $4.0 billion.
The Association moreover submits that, although Administrator
Garvey has made a noteworthy start, community consensus on NAS
infrastructure maintenance and improvement still is not mature. To date
the Administrator's review activities, however well motivated, have
tapped only a narrow cross section of aviation community viewpoints.
Consulting blue ribbon commissions, or polling user representatives on
the ``what'' of NAS infrastructure, will not assure timely execution of
ATC modernization. Rather, what is needed is an aviation community
``compact,'' by virtue of which all elements of air transportation--
airlines, general aviation, the military, controllers, maintainers,
FAA, and the Congress--not only agree on ``what'' the ideal NAS
infrastructure should be, but also they commit in a binding way to the
``when'' and ``how'' of modernization and sustainment. Not only must
all participants--including government elements--approve the NAS
architecture, but equally important all participants must confirm and
adhere to a solid and achievable schedule for fielding ATC systems,
equipping aircraft with new avionics, and decommissioning unneeded ATC
facilities. For their part of the compact, government elements--both
the Administration and Congress--must live up to the responsibility of
assuring a predictable, reliable and sufficient stream of funding for
NAS infrastructure activities. Consistency in planning, adherence to
schedule, and predictability in funding are absolutely essential
because NAS users--airlines, military, general aviation--will not equip
their aircraft with expensive new avionics unless they have confidence
that the modernized ATC infrastructure will in fact be in place
allowing them to derive reasonable operating and economic benefits from
their investment. In NAS modernization, keeping the faith is of the
essence.
research, engineering and development
The Administration has proposed funding of $290 million for FAA
Research, Engineering, and Development in fiscal year 1999. Although
this amount is a significant increase (46 percent) over the fiscal year
1998 enacted level, it would merely restore FAA RE&D to slightly more
than the fiscal year 1995 enacted level. (FAA RE&D funding suffered a
precipitous drop during fiscal year 1996-98 for Federal deficit
reduction reasons.) The funding the Administration proposes for fiscal
year 1999 simply is not enough.
Despite huge demands for research and development generated by the
ATC modernization effort, by law only 34 percent (less that $100
million in fiscal year 1999) of FAA RE&D funding can be applied to air
traffic services programs. Within this category all nature of ATC
research competes for RE&D resources, from Free Flight procedures and
technologies, to data link and other communications, capacity
enhancement initiatives, aviation weather, operations research and air
traffic management. Sixty-six percent (66 percent) of FAA RE&D funding
goes to other important areas of aviation research such as aircraft
safety, aviation security, human factors and medicine, airport
technology, environment and energy, and research partnerships. Within
each of these categories, FAA prioritizes, economizes, and in many
cases simply--and stoically--does without. These are not conditions
which should be visited upon the lead aviation research organization of
the United States, especially at a time when the FAA is called upon to
invent ways of meeting burgeoning air traffic demand and at the same
time maintain--in fact, enhance--public safety.
The Administration's fiscal year 1999 request of $290 million does
not cover the cost of RE&D associated implementation of the NAS
Architecture, estimated by FAA in draft Version 3.0 to be $348 million
in fiscal year 1999, increasing to $560 million in fiscal year 2000.
Even these figures significantly understate cost of aviation RE&D which
should be occurring because FAA activities traditionally have been
limited to applied research. As with all organizations having a highly
technical mission, additional funding should be appropriated for basic
research--the type of inquiry that can yield break-through concepts and
technologies that will produce really significant long-term benefits.
Without support for this type of activity, scientific advancement of
the scope and quality achieved by the Nation in aviation in this
century truly will become a thing of the past.
The Air Traffic Control Association therefore urges Congress to
appropriate $500 million for FAA Research, Engineering and Development
in fiscal year 1999--an amount sufficient to support NAS Architecture
activities, and to invigorate basic research activities in support of
the Twenty-First Century aviation system.
funding for faa operations
The Administration requests $5.631 billion for FAA Operations in
fiscal year 1999, a 5.5 percent increase over the fiscal year 1998
enacted level. This amount would fund an additional 185 air traffic
controllers, 58 flight standards inspectors, and 150 field maintenance
technicians. The Administration request also includes $61.7 million to
make operational new equipment being delivered.
It is not enough. The lion's share--over 70 percent--of the $315
million increase is earmarked for non-discretionary increases
associated with mandatory pay adjustments and inflationary growth, and
not available for programs directed toward devising and implementing
new concepts and capabilities, or enhancing capacity. Among critical
activities related to air traffic control specifically that need an
infusion of resources are backlogs of deferred maintenance, training in
all areas of activity, accelerated development of innovative operating
procedures, international standards setting and harmonization efforts,
and accelerated certification procedures. With air traffic rapidly
increasing and technology proceeding at a breathtaking pace, FAA cannot
be expected to continue improving and expanding its level of services
on what amounts to a current services budget.
FAA Operations must be funded significantly--10 percent to 20
percent--above the amount the Administration requests for fiscal year
1999 if the Agency is to meet aviation challenges of the Twenty-First
Century.
funding for airport improvements
The Administration proposes $1.7 billion for Airport Improvement
Grants in fiscal year 1999, the same amount enacted in fiscal year
1998. ATCA recommends that the amount appropriated for Airport Grants
in fiscal year 1999 and future years increase to $2 billion per year.
The Administration's fiscal year 1999 AIP funding proposal simply
is not enough. The complexity and volume of traffic traveling 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
pleasant, timely trip and a harried, unsatisfactory ordeal. Localities,
especially small communities are hard pressed to pay for airport
improvements that keep pace with the expanding aviation marketplace,
and inadequacies in airport infrastructure no less than failings in
other elements of the air transport system can be a limiting factor on
trade, tourism, and economic activity. Systematic and healthy Federal
investment in airport development is an essential component of a
balanced plan to meet aviation needs of the Twenty-First Century.
reliable funding stream for aviation is needed
Aviation policy makers are attempting to devise a mechanism,
supported by the entire aviation community, that will assure adequate
and reliable funding for aviation safety and air traffic control
activities of the Federal Government. ATCA supports this activity.
Regardless of the outcome however, 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 and shipping public enjoys, and has come to expect, and which
fuels today's robust economy.
conclusion
The potential for rapid advance of ATC-related technology and the
emergence 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 1999 which foster excellence into the
Twenty-First Century.
______
Prepared Statement of American Association of Airport Executives and
Airports Council International--North America
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: The American
Association of Airport Executives (AAAE) and the Airports Council
International--North America (ACI-NA) are pleased to present our
testimony regarding fiscal year 1999 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.
Before focusing on the fiscal year 1999 request for the Airport
Improvement Program (AIP), we must state our strong opposition to the
actions taken by the House regarding offsets for the fiscal year 1998
supplemental spending bill now making its way through the Congress. The
House Appropriations Committee, in seeking offsets for the new
spending, originally chose to cut $610 million from the Airport
Improvement Program, including a lowering of the fiscal year 1998
obligation limitation from $1.7 billion to $1.425 billion. Happily, the
final version of the House legislation restored $243.6 million of the
$275 million obligation limitation reduction. Despite the restoration
of most of the funding, the final House bill proposes to reduce the
fiscal year 1998 obligation limitation by $31 million. As this
subcommittee knows, AIP funds vital safety security, capacity and noise
projects in every state in the nation. AIP has been underfunded in
recent years as our testimony will demonstrate. A cut to the program
would negatively impact safety, security, capacity and noise projects
and would undermine the excellent work of this subcommittee in recent
years to restore adequate funding for the program. We urge you to
oppose this proposed reduction in no uncertain terms in your
deliberations with the House on the supplemental spending bill for
fiscal year 1998.
To begin our fiscal year 1999 testimony, we would like to thank you
Mr. Chairman, and members of this subcommittee, for your significant
effort on last year's bill. Last year's enacted level for the Airport
Improvement Program (AIP) of $1.7 billion represented a $240 million
increase over the previous year and a $700 million increase over the
Administration's request. Rather than a cut of 31.5 percent as the
Administration proposed, Congress enacted a 16 percent increase, for
which we are deeply appreciative.
After a number of years of recommending artificially low AIP
levels, the Administration has finally proposed a funding level closer
to that which is necessary. The request of the Administration is still
significantly below where airports believe the funding level should be,
namely, the fully authorized amount of $2.347 billion. If that funding
level is not possible, given the difficult funding choices you face, we
strongly believe that AIP should be funded at not less than $2 billion,
which is the level recommended not only by airports, but by the
National Civil Aviation Review Commission (NCARC) and the Air Transport
Association (ATA).
investment in airport infrastructure is vital
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 25,000 direct, on-airport jobs at
Washington National and Washington Dulles. This figure does not include
the thousands of indirect (induced) jobs that are generated as a result
of the activity at these airports. 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 grown exponentially. Last year, around
581 million passengers were enplaned in the United States. The FAA
projects that by 2002, that number will grow to 740 million and it will
approach the one billion mark sometime in 2009.
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, 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.
It generally takes 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 needed to meet the increased demand that will
be placed on the system in the years ahead. We must act now. If we
wait, the funding gap will be impossible to close.
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 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 for projects defined as eligible for AIP funding.
The General Accounting Office (GAO) has recently corroborated our
findings.
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 aviation industry's
economic health.
It has, apparently, become popular to question the needs of the
airport community rather than finding long-term funding solutions. It
is instructive to look at the numbers. In 1997, thanks in large measure
to the members of this subcommittee, the aviation trust fund
appropriation for airport construction projects (AIP) was $1.7 billion.
Local airport Passenger Facility Charges (PFC's) generated about $1.1
billion in 1997. Combine these two revenue streams and airports receive
less than $3 billion dollars of the $6 billion dollars needed each year
that is acknowledged as eligible for federal funding. 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), 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.
aip funding
Mr. Chairman, last year's funding level of $1.7 billion represents
a significant step toward restoring AIP to adequate funding levels,
however, it is still $200 million below the fiscal year 1992 funding
level, and since that time, the system has grown by more than 100
million enplanements. By any measure, airports have lost ground. If
Congress permits funding for AIP to remain stagnant, without giving
airports additional tools to raise needed funds, the national system of
airports we enjoy and rely on today will be jeopardized.
Simply put, current funding levels for AIP 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 a fully funded AIP
program, in excess of $2 billion a year to help support needed safety,
security, capacity and noise projects. As we noted above, at minimum,
Congress should enact a funding level of at least $2 billion,
consistent with the recommendations of the NCARC and ATA. We must act
now to close the gap between the needs of the system and what is
contributed to the federal Airport and Airway Trust Fund 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 FAA
Contract Tower program. It is imperative that Congress continue to
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 160 airports that are
currently participating in the program (180 airports by the end of
fiscal year 1998).
And finally, we are very appreciative of the language crafted by
the House subcommittee and agreed to by this subcommittee in the final
report last year dealing with the responsibility of funding for
navigational aids. The FAA last year had a proposal in the National
Airspace System Architecture plan to transfer responsibility for
current and future visual navigational aids, presently owned and
operated by the FAA, over to the airport community. The language
included in last year's House report and the language ultimately
adopted in the final report (which instructs the FAA not to move
forward on any proposal to shift funding responsibility for navigation
and landing aids from the FAA to other parties without Congressional
authorization) continues to be helpful to airports. We ask that you
once again include this language in your fiscal year 1999 report.
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 and we appreciate your
leadership.
Letter From Charles Barclay, American Association of Airport
Executives, et al.
March 16, 1998.
Hon. Richard C. Shelby,
Chairman, Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Shelby: As your subcommittee continues its work on
the fiscal year 1999 Department of Transportation appropriations bill,
we would like to ask you to consider the vital part airport
infrastructure plays in our country's global competitiveness and
encourage you to find the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) at no less
than $2 billion.
The Airport Improvement Program funds needed safety, security,
capacity and noise projects at airports in every state in the nation.
For fiscal year 1999, the administration has proposed an AIP funding
level of $1.7 billion, which is the current level of the program. The
$1.7 billion request is a solid point, but still does not meet the
critical needs of airports. The $2 billion funding level represents a
consensus of not only airports, and airlines, but of the national Civil
Aviation Review Commission and the undersigned organizations.
Commercial service and general aviation airports are ``economic
engines'' that generate and support local economic development by
providing complete transportation services, stimulating business
activity and investment, and creating jobs. The U.S. Department of
Transportation and others have conducted studies that show for every $1
billion invested in airport development, approximately 40,000-50,000
jobs are created and sustained. Investment in our nation's airports
returns enormous dividends to citizens, travelers and shippers, as well
as to the airlines and others whose businesses provide or depend upon
aviation services.
As we move toward global economic competition, airport capacity in
the United States is increasingly critical to our national economy. 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.
Since airport construction projects, on average, take 10 years to
complete, investment in our nation's aviation infrastructure is needed
now to meet the capacity demands of the future. If under-investment in
AIP is allowed to continue, it will exacerbate the significant capacity
and delay problems that users of our system already face today.
We recognize that you and your colleagues are faced with very
difficult choices regarding the allocation of scarce resources and
appreciate your leadership on this issue. We respectfully request that
your bill for fiscal year 1999 include at least $2 billion for the
Airport Improvement Program (AIP).
Sincerely,
Charles Barclay, American Association of Airport
Executives; David Z. Plavin, Airport
Council International-North America; Carol
Hallett, Air Transport Association; Stephen
Alterman, Cargo Airline Association; Phil
Boyer, Aircraft Owners and Pilots
Association; Henry Ogrodzinski, National
Association of State Aviation Officials;
Don Fuqua, Aerospace Industries
Association; Valentin J. Riva, American
Concrete Pavement Association; Stephen
Sandherr, Associated General Contractors;
Nancy West, Airport Minority Advisory
Council; Paula Bline, Airport Consultants
Council; Peggy Hudson, American Portland
Cement Alliance; Luther Graef, American
Society of Civil Engineers; Larry Naake,
National Association of Counties; Howard M.
Messner, American Consulting Engineers
Council; Mike Acott, National Asphalt
Pavement Association; Donald J. Borut,
National League of Cities; T. Peter Ruane,
American Road & Transportation Builders
Assoc.
______
Prepared Statement of Stephanie Foote, Chief of Staff, Office of Mayor
Wellington Webb, City and County of Denver, CO
introduction and summary
Mr. Chairman, on behalf of Mayor Wellington Webb of the City and
County of Denver, I want to thank you for the opportunity to submit
this testimony for the record and to be able to tell you that on
February 28, 1998, Denver International Airport successfully completed
its third full year of operations.
Mr. Chairman, if you or any of your colleagues on this Subcommittee
have not seen DIA, I would like to extend an invitation to you to visit
the airport and have Mayor Webb give you a personal tour of this state-
of-the-art airport. With several major airports being built elsewhere
around the world, they all come to Denver to see how to do it and we
are very proud to display America's high level of expertise in airport
technology. Last year, DIA was presented the Outstanding Civil
Engineering Achievement Award by the American Society of Civil
Engineers in recognition of its notable design and excellent
construction and DIA is among 100 major public works and infrastructure
projects worldwide that is vying for recognition as one of the Top 10
Construction Achievements of the 20th century.
DIA would not have been possible without funding appropriated by
this Subcommittee for the Airport Improvement Program, which enabled
the FAA to provide grants, and for equipment and facilities for this
nationally-important project. DIA was the first major airport built in
the United States in over 20 years. It is a critical component of our
national aviation system and our transportation infrastructure that
you, Mr. Chairman, and your fellow Members are working so hard to
improve. Without Congress, DOT, the FAA and the City of Denver, all
working together closely, DIA would not have happened.
Today, I would like to give you an update on our operations and
also to seek your continued support of our effort to complete DIA's
airfield by completing our sixth runway, which was part of the original
airport plan and is now an important, missing component of the airport.
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 and Great Plains regions, and the
millions of visitors who are so important to our economy. For them, DIA
is the gateway to the rest of the country and the world.
The second, closely tied to the first, was to provide a more cost-
effective and efficient hub by reducing the delays at the old Stapleton
Airport that were severely and negatively impacting the nation's air
transportation system and were keeping Denver from taking full
advantage of its central geographic location.
Third, Stapleton was the source of serious noise problems that
needed to be solved. Stapleton 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 dB DNL contour--
the noise level which the FAA has determined is eligible for noise
mitigation programs.
I can report to you today that DIA has attained or exceeded
expectations as to each of these goals. The Airport's revenues have
exceeded its expenses in each of its three years of existence; it is
highly efficient and one of the world's most user-friendly airports; it
had the second lowest percentage of delays among the nation's 20
busiest airports in 1997, which was good news not only for Denver but
for the national system; and we have dramatically reduced the number of
people within the 65 db DNL noise contour from about 14,000 to less
than 200.
In sum, DIA has made a major contribution to the efficiency of the
carriers operating at the Airport and to the national air
transportation system through reduced flight delays and fuel savings
and has dramatically improved the impact of noise on those who were
most heavily affected.
Let me now turn to more specifics about the results of DIA's first
three years of operation.
dia is financially sound
DIA's record of performance reflects the fact that the Airport is
well-managed by the City and financially sound. For 1997, we handled
about 34.9 million passengers, an 8 percent increase over 1996 and the
highest ever for Denver. This solid traffic level is evidence of
Denver's strong origin and destination market and its central
geographic location for east-west hubbing operations. For 1997, our net
revenues, i.e., revenues less operating expenses and debt payments,
were about $17.6 million. Under our agreement with the airlines, 80
percent of these net revenues are provided to the carriers, which
reduces their costs at DIA.
We have carefully managed our revenue sources, such as concessions
and parking, as well as our costs, particularly through successful
refinancing of our debt obligations, which has created important
savings that are shared with the air carriers. Our strong financial
performance has enabled us to reduce our costs per enplanement, which
were projected to be $18.02 when we opened in 1995, to about $16.22 by
the end of 1997, a 10 percent reduction. As we enter our fourth year of
operations, we expect that DIA will continue to have an excellent
record and will continue to be one of the world's most efficient
airports.
dia has substantially reduced delays
Our second major goal was to reduce delays. For 1997, we had 2.9
delays per thousand operations, the second best percentage among the
top 20 U.S. airports. In contrast, we suffered 14 delays per thousand
operations at Stapleton, 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, causing
tremendous backups throughout our national system. That was one of the
major reasons for then-Secretary of Transportation Skinner's strong
support without which DIA would never have been built.
Since DIA opened, its benefits to the national system are
dramatically reflected in the on-time statistics I just cited. Closer
to home, on the day we opened, Denver was hit by a snowstorm that would
have crippled Stapleton, leaving it with only one runway capable of
handling 32 operations per hour. Yet, DIA had three runways operating
simultaneously with a capacity to handle up to 120 flights per hour.
dia has substantially reduced aircraft noise impacts
Our third major goal was to reduce the impact of aircraft noise on
the people of our communities. Mr. Chairman, Members of the
Subcommittee, we have probably achieved more in reducing airport noise
significantly for our citizens than any large airport in the nation. We
did that by moving the airport from seven miles from downtown to 23
miles from downtown. That took us from a very high population density
area to one with very low population density. We also acquired 53
square miles (34,000 acres)--twice the size of Manhattan--to give us a
large buffer zone around the airport. As a result, the number of people
who now live within an area defined as the 65dB noise contour is down
from 14,000 at Stapleton to less than 200 at DIA.
Notwithstanding this outstanding progress, Denver continues to be
prohibited from applying for AIP funds to complete DIA's sixth runway.
As we have testified in prior years, DIA was designed to have six
runways, giving it a balanced airfield for arrivals and departures. We
completed the first five runways prior to opening. The FAA awarded
Denver a $10 million AIP grant for the site preparation work for the
sixth runway in 1993. This work was completed in 1996. Since then,
unfortunately, construction has been halted by the Appropriations
Committee's funding prohibition, which was first imposed in the fiscal
year 1995 Transportation Appropriations Bill, prior to DIA's opening.
The prohibition is there not because we are violating the law or doing
anything improper. Given DIA's record of success over the past three
years, the prohibition is clearly not warranted. However, we understand
that noise complaints have now become the justification for the
prohibition.
It is a fact that, notwithstanding the great reduction in our noise
impacted population, DIA, like every major airport in the nation, still
receives noise complaints. However, the complaints must be viewed in
perspective. The DIA noise complaint database for the period September
1996 through August 1997 showed that ten addresses made a total of
about 36,000 calls or about 50 percent of all calls. Some calls came
from individuals as far as 50 miles away where the noise impact is
significantly below 40 dB. 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. Nonetheless, we have taken these
community concerns very seriously and have worked to address them.
Several years ago, after DIA opened, Denver established a technical
task force consisting of experts from DIA, United Airlines, other
airlines at DIA, noise and airspace consultants and seven nearby
counties to address the noise impacts on all the surrounding
communities. In 1995, 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. While
these efforts have reduced the noise impacts, Denver has gone the extra
mile in taking even further steps.
In August, 1997, Denver and seven of the counties near DIA formally
organized the DIA Study Coordination Group, a non-profit corporation,
to perform a comprehensive and costly analysis of the noise caused by
aircraft using DIA and to develop recommendations to address the noise
concerns. The Group retained Wyle Laboratories, a national, highly-
regarded, independent consultant, to perform the study. The results
were announced on March 3, 1998 and can be summarized as follows:
The Sixth Runway Has No Significant Impact On Noise.
One of the Study's most important findings is that the Sixth Runway
``would not substantially change the number of persons impacted'' by
aircraft noise. This conclusion breaks the linkage of noise to the
sixth runway that opponents had been trying to forge and exposes such
efforts as without a factual foundation. In fact, although it was not
studied, the consultants suggested that the new runway may further
mitigate noise because of the additional options it would provide the
FAA in regulating traffic flow.
The Number of People Adversely Impacted under Existing Federal
Standards Is Small.
Of the 1.2 million people covered by the Study, only 198 (0.02
percent) are within the 65 dB or greater noise band, one of the best
records for any major airport in the world. This is the only group for
which Congress has established a program of Federal funding for noise
mitigation.
Changing DIA's Flight Paths Could Reduce Noise Impacts Even Further.
By changing flight paths, the number of people in the 55 to 65 dB
contour could, optimally, be reduced by 77 percent, from 91,262 to
21,609.
The Noise Impacts from Buckley Air National Guard Base and Centennial
Airport Are Greater Than the Noise Impacts from DIA.
The Study also revealed that those who are within the 55 to 65 dB
noise contours are largely living within contours generated by air
traffic at close-by Buckley, an Air National Guard Base, and Centennial
Airport, a general aviation airport. Notably, these are not contours
created by DIA's flight operations. Yet, DIA, not these other two
airports, is being punished by the prohibition on funding.
denver should no longer be barred from seeking aip funds for dia's
runway
Mr. Chairman, DIA has been operating successfully for three years.
We have done everything possible to reduce noise impacts in the
communities around the Airport. We have fewer people seriously impacted
by noise than any other major airport in the nation. Yet, we alone are
discriminated against by being the only airport in the U.S. that is
prohibited by law from even applying to the FAA for grant funds to
build a runway. There are over 3,000 airports nationwide that are
eligible to compete for AIP funds and we believe we merit an equal
right to compete by having the statutory prohibition lifted. If there
are continuing concerns with DIA, we will work with Congress, the FAA
or whoever else is involved to address them. However, punitive
legislation like this is unfair, establishes a bad precedent and is
simply not warranted.
Moreover, continuing the prohibition punishes not only the people
of Colorado but the entire nation. DIA is a national asset. About 60
percent of the 35 million passengers using DIA each year come from
states other than Colorado. Thus, the AIP funding prohibition hurts not
only DIA, but travelers throughout the country.
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 as they do to thousands of other airports nationwide, and ask that
you not re-enact, for a fifth straight year, the prohibition on AIP
funding for DIA's sixth runway.
Thank you.
______
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 deeply appreciates this opportunity to provide
your committee 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 depends on a well funded
Airport Improvement Program (AIP) which provides the Federal Aviation
Administration the financial resources needed to underwrite critical
capacity improvement projects. GOAA respectfully requests the Senate
Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee to fully fund AIP at no less
than $2 billion. Airfield improvements are intended to increase needed
capacity, provide increased flight operation safety, and enhance the
efficiency of the National Aviation System. The AIP is an essential
component of the financial strategy to ensure airports have the
resources necessary to design and construct basic airfield
improvements.
On January 16, 1998 GOAA submitted a formal request to the FAA for
a ``Letter of Intent'' to obtain funding for a North Crossfield Taxiway
System. The estimated cost of the taxiway is $76.4 million. The
requested ``Letter of Intent'' is for a four-year period and allocates
both entitlement and discretionary grants. The total amount of the
federal share is $42 million with GOAA providing a 33 percent match.
Timely construction of the North Crossfield Taxiway is important for
two reasons. It is absolutely essential that the taxiway be operational
before the airport's two Mid-Field Taxiways are temporarily closed for
bridge expansion. In addition, the efficient use of the new airside
building depends on the ability of aircraft to have improved access to
the apron area. As part of the ``Letter of Intent'' submission process,
GOAA has prepared the required Benefit-Cost Analysis indicating the
taxiway provides a positive benefit and offers significant aircraft
operational savings. The final design of the taxiway should be
completed by April 1, 1998. GOAA will be able to award a construction
contract for the project by October 1, 1998. GOAA would like the
support of the Senate Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee for
this project and request you to direct the FAA to give this funding
request priority consideration.
GOAA and its airline partners have recently approved a $1.2 billion
capital improvement program. Funding for this program includes revenue
bonds, state grants, Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) revenue, and other
airport funding sources. Federal participation has been strictly
limited to airfield capacity improvements and represents only 5 percent
of project costs. Consequently, GOAA has pledged $1.14 billion for the
design and construction of a new airside building, expanded public
parking facilities, existing and new terminal development, as well as a
new $27 million Air Traffic Control Tower completely funded without any
FAA participation.
Past aggressive planning efforts have enabled OIA to respond to a
phenomenal growth rate over the last sixteen years. Forecasts indicate
OIA will experience annual growth of 7-10 percent during the next five
years.
In 1997 OIA recorded an 8 percent growth rate representing an
additional 2 million passengers over the previous year. By the end of
1998, OIA will serve more than 29 million passengers and handle 360,000
flight operations. Since 1996 OIA has ranked among the world's fastest
growing airports and in 1997 was second in the United States for
passenger growth.
As the most popular tourist destination in the United States, OIA's
passenger traffic is unlike most other airports. Approximately 85
percent of the passengers using OIA are destined for our community.
This is a unique phenomena for a large-hub airport, which requires
extensive infrastructure to transfer passengers from airlines to
various modes of surface transportation making surface access a key
component of OIA's development. Air service to Orlando is extremely
competitive with the largest air carrier representing less than 30
percent of the overall market. Only a few other major airports share a
similar profile, as the majority of large-hub airports depend upon one
or two major airlines for air service.
Orlando International Airport shares a unique relationship with the
regional economy. A recently completed economic impact study determined
OIA generates a $14 billion annual impact and is responsible for 54,000
jobs.
The future growth of OIA is directly related to the expansion and
development of three major theme parks and support services. Walt
Disney World is only 25 percent developed and will open its newest
attraction later this year. Universal Studios is currently undertaking
a 7 year, $3 billion expansion program and plans to employ 14,000
workers. The Orange County Convention Center recently expanded, making
Orlando among the top five convention locations in the country. Sea
World continues to attract more guests each year and is currently
planning a major expansion program. As these attractions gain more
popularity, OIA will serve as the domestic and international gateway
for at least half of the guests arriving in Central Florida. Increased
employment opportunities, corporate relocations, and rapid population
growth will also contribute to the demand for further development of
OIA.
OIA encompasses 15,000 acres of land. It is the largest commercial
airport on the East Coast of the United States and possesses the
ability to provide nearly unlimited future airfield capacity.
As part of the National Aviation System, OIA has the potential to
positively influence air traffic and limit future operational delays.
The Greater Orlando Aviation Authority is extremely proud of
Orlando International Airport and believes it represents a model for
airport development. Our continued success requires federal
participation in new airfield improvements and is closely aligned with
the timely construction of the North Crossfield Taxiway. AIP is an
essential part of the airport's funding strategy. The full funding of
this most important program will enable OIA to receive the federal
assistance needed to complete the project on time, without any
unnecessary costs or delays.
In closing, we would like to express our gratitude for allowing
GOAA to submit this testimony. We hope that our comments have provided
you with a better understanding of the future expansion and financial
dynamics impacting Orlando International Airport.
Letter From F. Lee Tillotson
Greater Orlando Aviation Authority,
Orlando International Airport,
Orlando, FL, January 16, 1998.
Mr. Charles E. Blair,
Manager, Orlando Airport District Office, Federal Aviation
Administration, Orlando, FL.
Dear Mr. Blair: On January 23, 1997 the Greater Orlando Aviation
Authority submitted a request to the Federal Aviation Administration
for a ``Letter of Intent'' to partially fund the construction of three
essential airfield improvements at Orlando International Airport. After
the submission of this request, it was determined the funding for the
North Crossfield Taxiway project required priority consideration.
Therefore, the Authority would like to withdraw its original request
and submit a separate ``Letter of Intent'' for the North Crossfield
Taxiway alone. The reconstruction of Runway 18R/36L project is
currently in the design phase and we anticipate submitting a grant
application for these costs to the FM within the next sixty days.
Further federal participation in the East Airfield Development project
(4th runway) will be requested at a later date.
The North Crossfield Taxiway is a critical airfield capacity
improvement needed to support a new airside building. In addition, it
is absolutely imperative the taxiway is fully operational prior to the
planned temporary closure and expansion of the two Mid-Crossfield
Taxiways and associated bridges. The successful planning, design, and
construction of a south terminal complex greatly depends on the timely
completion of these two capacity improvements.
The estimated total cost of the taxiway is $76.4 million, which
includes contingencies. The FM has already awarded a $3 million 1997
discretionary grant and programmed 1998 entitlement funds for the first
phase of this project. Phase two requires $42.6 million in matching
federal funds. The proposed ``Letter of Intent'' commits entitlement
funds of $17.6 million over a four-year period and requests an annual
$6.25 million discretionary grant for the same period. The final design
of the taxiway should be completed by April 1, 1998. Thus, actual
construction could commence as early as October 1, 1998. The approval
of the attached ``Letter of Intent'' will enable the Authority to
proceed with this much-needed project without incurring excessive
delays or costs. The attached spreadsheet displays the funding cycle
beginning with fiscal year 1999 and continuing through fiscal year
2002.
A review of project costs and funding sources indicates the
Authority is providing a 33 percent funding match. The attached
Benefit-Cost Analysis has been prepared in accordance with current FAA
guidelines. The net present value of the project is estimated at $40
million with a benefit-cost ratio of 1.7, which indicates that the
benefits of the taxiway exceed its costs. The federal share of project
costs represents less than 4.2 percent of the $1.2 billion airport
capital improvement program.
As Orlando International Airport continues to be among the world's
fastest growing airports, the future development of new and expanded
terminal and airfield facilities becomes critically important as
passenger traffic demands increase. The National Aviation System is
well served by Orlando International Airport and benefits from the
airport's vast land-resources capable of offering nearly unlimited
future growth. As the airport's capacity increases, the regional
economic impact of $14 billion related to aviation activities will
expand and add to the 60,000 jobs dependent on airport operations.
The Tower Chief at the Orlando Air Traffic Control Tower has
written the attached letter supporting the need for the North
Crossfield Taxiway. The Authority is confident with this type of
support the FAA will recognize the vital nature of this project and
approve the request for a four-year ``Letter of Intent'' and award
annual grants as previously defined. Thank you for your attention in
this matter. If you require any additional information, please do not
hesitate to contact my office.
Sincerely,
F. Lee Tillotson,
Senior Director for Planning and Special Projects.
Attachment 1
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12NONDP.000
Pre-Application for Federal Assistance, Request for Letter of Intent,
Pre-Application No. OIA-01-98P, Airport Improvement Project for Orlando
International Airport.
single north crossfield taxiway
Project Description
The proposed bi-directional single north Crossfield taxiway would
be approximately 7,000 feet long and 75 feet wide and would allow for
the connection of Runway 18L with Runway 17. The Taxiway will also
directly connect to apron areas associated with the existing northwest
airside and future northeast airside.
Passenger Facility Charges (PFC's) in the amount of $3,500,000 has
been allocated for design of Phases 1 A and B for this project in PFC
Application # 3. In addition, PFC's in the amount of $19,105,000 has
been approved for construction of this project in PFC Application # 5.
Phase 1A construction has commenced, with commencement of Phase 1B
construction by September 1998.
Justification
The North Crossfield Taxiway is a critical component of the major
overall capacity improvements that are planned for Orlando
International Airport (OIA). The FAA Air Traffic Control Manager at OIA
wrote to the Authority in March of 1993 and stated, ``The single north
Crossfield taxiway that is in the planning stages is a step in the
right direction. However, based on our recent conversations with you
about future growth patterns, it is evident that dual north Crossfield
taxiways are mandatory. Accordingly, we ask your immediate and full
consideration of this issue as we are convinced the `bottlenecking' of
taxiing aircraft could become the greatest constraint to an efficiently
operating airport.'' In addition, a second letter was forwarded from
the Air Traffic Control Tower Manager in December 1997.
Based upon this request, an Airport Capacity Enhancement Tactical
Initiative for the North Crossfield Taxiway System was prepared jointly
by the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation
Administration, and the Greater Orlando Aviation Authority. The
organization that initiated this effort was the FAA's Office of System
Capacity and Requirements (ASC) in Washington, DC. The findings of this
study indicated that FAA's position is that a single North Crossfield
Taxiway will provide significant cost savings at all demand levels and
was needed as early as 1993.
The Authority has an impose and use PFC for designing tunnels and
bridges for Mid Crossfield Taxiways which currently provide the only
access between the east and west runways and related operational areas.
This project is expected to proceed in the near future and will require
shutting down both of the Mid Crossfield Taxiways at separate times to
allow construction. If this occurs, OIA will be reduced to one-way
traffic between the inboard runways, which is separated by 8,400 feet.
Therefore, the single lane North Crossfield Taxiway must be operational
before the Mid Crossfield Taxiways can be closed for construction,
thereby enormously increasing the urgency of the North Crossfield
Taxiway.
In addition, the Authority is proceeding with the development of a
16 gate Airside 2 and intends to proceed with the continued development
of the Fourth Runway to be completed by the year 2000. The surface
operations generated by the opening of the Fourth Runway and the
completion of Airside 2 for airline operations will diminish the
ability of the Mid Crossfield Taxiways to effectively accommodate east
and west aircraft operations with the North Crossfield Taxiway in
place.
The only effective way to avoid substantial aircraft delays and FAA
Air Traffic Control Tower operational problems is to construct a North
Crossfield Taxiway in the earliest possible timeframe. The Authority
has begun construction of Phase 1A to accommodate Airside 2 operations.
Design has been completed for the entire project, and the Authority is
initiating the preparation of contract documents including plans and
specifications, and will be in a position to award a contract should
the Federal share of funds be approved.
See the attached picture of the proposed project.
ALLOCATION OF ENTITLEMENT AND DISCRETIONARY FUNDS BY FISCAL YEAR FOR SINGLE NORTH CROSSFIELD TAXIWAY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phase 1A Phase 1B (LOI Request)
-------------------------- Total ----------------------------------------------------------------
1997 \1\ 1998 \2\ 1999 2000 2001 2002 Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Entitlements.................................... ........... $4,006,026 $4,006,026 $4,216,788 $4,343,292 $4,473,591 $4,607,798 $17,641,489
Discretionary................................... $3,000,001 1,679,453 4,679,454 6,240,090 6,240,090 6,240,090 6,240,090 24,960,361
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total project eligible AIP funding........ 3,000,001 5,685,479 8,685,480 10,456,878 10,583,382 10,713,681 10,847,889 42,601,830
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Discretionary funding received September 30, 1997.
\2\ Entitlement funds received December 11, 1997 (excludes $87,943 for Rehab of Airside 1 and 3 Aprons). Discretionary funding anticipated in fiscal
year 1998 in the amount of $1,600,000.
Note: Project Costs are derived from Capital Improvement Plan.
Memorandum From Donna Gropper, Manager, Orlando international ATC Tower
Subject: Information: Airport Construction Funding Request
To: Charles E. Blair, Airports District Office
Over the last several years, Orlando International Airport has
experienced double-digit growth in passenger traffic, and significant
growth in airfield operations. The Greater Orlando Aviation Authority
(GOAA) projects continued grower rates that exceed the national average
in both of these areas. As airfield operations increase, it becomes
more critical for aircraft to be directed to where there is available
runway capacity to avoid any unnecessary delays. Currently, the airport
has more runway capacity on the west airfield.
GOAA has underway a $1.2 billion capital program to meet future
traffic demands. As a part of this capital program GOAA will construct
Airside 2, which will provide additional gate capacity. A critical
element in the construction of Airside 2 is the construction of the
Single North Crossfield Taxiway (SNCFT). We believe this project is
essential for the safe and efficient movement or aircraft to and from
the east and west airfield areas. As traffic at this airport continues
to build, we strongly feel a dual north field taxiway will be
necessary.
GOAA has currently under construction the first phase of the SNCFT
with funding assistance from the FAA, which is an important step
forward in providing the necessary access in and around the future
Airside 2. The second phase of this project will connect the east and
west airfields. The completion of this phase is imperative for the
proper management of air traffic at this airport. Without this
connection, aircraft using Airside 2 would be required to use the Mid-
Crossfield Taxiways to move between the east and west airfields at a
considerable cost in both time and fuel.
In addition, GOAA plans to close Taxiways E and F, each for one
year beginning in 2001 to expand the mid-field bridges. If the SNCFT is
not in operation prior to these closures, significant aircraft delays
will occur as a result of bi-directional use of a single Mid-Crossfield
Taxiway.
In conclusion, we support GOAA's request for federal funding for
this project. This capital improvement will provide increased and much-
needed airfield capacity and safety.
If I can provide you with any additional information, do not
hesitate to contact me.
Final Report--Benefit-Cost Analysis of North Crossfield Taxiway,
Orlando International Airport
executive summary--benefit-cost analysis of north crossfield taxiway
Leigh Fisher Associates was retained in August 1997 by the Greater
Orlando Aviation Authority (GOAA) to perform a benefit-cost analysis of
the proposed North Crossfield Taxiway at Orlando International Airport.
This analysis was conducted in accordance with the draft FAA Airport
Benefit-Cost Analysis Guidance, dated June 2, 1997.
conclusion
As shown on Table E-1, the North Crossfield Taxiway was estimated
to have a net present value of approximately $40 million \1\ and a
benefit-cost ratio of 1.7, indicating that the benefits of the taxiway
exceed its costs. Because the present value of project benefits exceeds
the present value of project costs, the taxiway meets FAA criteria to
be considered as a candidate for discretionary funding under the
Airport Improvement Program (AIP) through a Letter of Intent (LOI), as
stated in the FAA's Policy for Letter of Intent Approvals under the
Airport Improvement Program [59 FR 54482], dated October 31, 1994; and
reaffirmed in the FAA's interim Policy and Guidance Regarding Benefit
Cost Analysis for Airport Capacity Projects Requesting Discretionary
Airport Improvement Program Grant Awards and Letters of Intent [62 FR
121], dated June 24, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Except where otherwise noted, all dollar values shown in this
Executive Summary are expressed in 1997 dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table E-1.--Comparison of the estimated benefits and costs of the North
Crossfield Taxiway--1997 present value
[Millions of 1997 dollars \1\]
Millions
Project benefits..................................................$100.0
Project costs..................................................... 60.0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
Net present value........................................... 40.0
Benefit-cost ratio................................................ 1.7
\1\ Assuming a 7 percent real discount rate.
Source: Leigh Fisher Associates, January 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
evaluation of project benefits
Project benefits quantified in this analysis were limited to
reductions in aircraft taxiing time and ground delay resulting from the
availability of the proposed taxiway. These benefits were estimated
using the FAA Airport and Airspace Simulation Model (SIMMOD) and the
results of previous analyses of the North Crossfield Taxiway performed
by the FAA It was assumed at, (1) the North Crossfield Taxiway will
open in 2001 as currency scheduled; \1\ (2) 16 new aircraft gates will
be provided at the new Airside 2 by 2001; and (3) Taxiways E and F will
be closed sequentially in 2001 and 2002 to facilitate reconstruction of
taxiway bridges over Airport Boulevard South. Other benefits--such as
increased ground control flexibility, reduced ground controller
workload, and increased margins of safety--were not quantified because
of the difficulty in reliably estimating dollar values for these
benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The effects of changes in the opening date of the North
Crossfield Taxiway on the results of the analysis were evaluated in a
sensitivity test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reductions in aircraft taxiing time associated with the North
Crossfield Taxiway were estimated using the results of operational
analyses presented in the FAA's Airport Capacity Enhancement Tactical
Initiative, North Crossfield Taxiway System, Orlando International
Airport, dated November 1995. These results indicated that provision of
the North Crossfield Taxiway would reduce aircraft taxiing times by
about 0.3 minute per aircraft operation. In 2003--the year that
Taxiways E and F are expected to reopen after being closed for two
years for reconstruction--these taxiing time reductions equate to
annual savings in aircraft operating costs of about $4 million and
savings in passenger time value of about $5 million.
The results of the SIMMOD analysis were combined with the results
of operational analyses presented in the FAA's Airport Capacity
Enhancement Tactical Initiative to evaluate the benefits provided by
the North Crossfield Taxiway during the planned closures of Taxiways E
and F in 2001 and 2002. The results of the SIMMOD analysis indicate
that, during these taxiway closures, the North Crossfield Taxiway would
reduce aircraft ground delay by approximately 0.1 minute per aircraft
operation. Combined with the reductions in aircraft taxiing time
described in the previous paragraph, the average reductions in aircraft
taxiing time and ground delay during the closures of Taxiways E and F
would be about 0.4 minutes per aircraft operation. At activity levels
estimated for 2001, these reductions would equate to annual savings in
aircraft direct operating costs of about $5 million and annual savings
in passenger time value of about $6 million.
The results of the SIMMOD and FAA analyses indicate that the
present value of savings in aircraft direct operating costs and
passenger time associated with the North Crossfield Taxiway over the
assumed 20-year economic lifetime of the taxiway (i.e., 2001 through
2020) would be approximately $100 million.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Present values were calculated using the FAA prescribed real
discount rate of 7 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
evaluation of project costs
The construction costs of the North Crossfield Taxiway, as provided
by GOAA, are estimated to be about $72 million. This cost--expressed in
1997 dollars--differs from the $76.4 million cost of the taxiway
presented in the Orlando International Airport Capital Improvement
Plan, 1997-2001, because the cost estimates contained in the Capital
Improvement Plan are expressed in dollars escalated to the midpoint of
project construction rather than in 1997 dollars. It is estimated that
an additional $100,000 per year would be required to maintain the
taxiway after it is opened. Assuming that the taxiway is constructed
between 1997 and 2000 as currently planned, the present value of these
costs minus the salvage value of taxiway-related improvements remaining
at the end of the 20-year economic lifetime of the project would be
approximately $60 million.
comparison of project benefits and costs
The net present value of a project is calculated by subtracting the
present value of project costs from the present value of project
benefits. The benefit-cost ratio of a project is computed by dividing
the present value of project benefits by the present value of project
costs. The higher the net present values and benefit-cost ratios
associated with a project are, the greater the economic justification
for a project is. As mentioned previously, the net present value of the
North Crossfield Taxiway is estimated to be $40 million.
Four sensitivity tests were performed to evaluate the effects of
unexpected changes in Airport activity, project benefits, project
costs, and project schedules on the results of the analysis. The
results of these sensitivity tests indicate that the North Crossfield
Taxiway would continue to be economically justified (i.e., the present
values of project benefits would exceed the present value of project
costs) even if (1) aircraft and passenger activity increases according
to the 1996 FAA Terminal Area Forecast for the Airports, (2) the
benefits of the taxiway are 10 percent lower than estimated, (3) the
costs of the taxiway are 10 percent higher than estimated, and (4) the
taxiway were to take 6 years rather than 4 years to implement.
______
Coast Guard-Related Testimony
Prepared Statement of Master Chief Joe Barnes, USN (Retired), Director,
Legislative Programs, Fleet Reserve Association
certification of non-receipt of federal funds
Pursuant to the requirements of House Rule XI, the Fleet Reserve
Association has not received any federal grant or contract during the
current fiscal year or either of the two previous fiscal years.
introduction
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee: The
Fleet Reserve Association (FRA) wishes to express its sincere
appreciation for the opportunity to present its position on the fiscal
year 1999 Coast Guard Budget.
The FRA was founded in 1922 and now represents nearly 160,000
active duty, reserve, and retired members of the Coast Guard, Navy, and
Marine Corps. In recognition for its work on personnel issues so
important to the men and women serving in our Nation's uniformed
services, the association was granted a Federal Charter by Congress in
1996. In keeping with the Association's mission, personnel issues are
the focus of this statement.
the coast guard's service to our country
The United States Coast Guard provides invaluable service to our
country and offers a tremendous return each year on the taxpayer's
investment. Although largely unnoticed and often unpublicized, these
services include saving thousands of lives and assisting tens of
thousands in distress; saving and protecting billions of dollars worth
of property; preventing drugs from entering our country; intercepting
illegal immigrants; maintaining over 50,000 aids to navigation;
performing merchant ship inspections and licensing 36,000 merchant
mariners. In addition, the Coast Guard is active in responding to
thousands of water pollution reports and supervising hundreds of oil
and chemical spills.
Because of this tremendous service to our country, FRA strongly
supports full funding of the Coast Guard at the level requested by the
Administration in its fiscal year 1999 Budget plus an increased
appropriation beyond the budget request. It is noteworthy that the
fiscal year 1999 request does not fully support the $125 million
required for pay raises, cost of living increases and other statutorily
mandated increases above the fiscal year 1998 enacted appropriation.
Therefore, a shortfall of $68 million must be absorbed by the Coast
Guard an unrealistic proposal for an agency that has already
streamlined to its smallest force strength since 1965. Members of the
Subcommittee are respectfully reminded that parity with DOD is of
utmost importance in the areas of pay and benefits, and that requiring
the Coast Guard to pay for increased active duty pay hikes, retiree
cost of living adjustments and other increases from operations and
maintenance accounts is counterproductive and degrades the Coast
Guard's ability to provide services critical to the American public.
personnel issues
Increased operational commitments following the final phase of
personnel reductions implemented by the Commandant's ``stream lining''
initiative are resulting in high personnel tempo. Many personnel are
working in excess of 80 hours per week to meet mission demands. The
Coast Guard is also 1,000 personnel below authorized active-duty
manpower levels, and 800 short in the Reserve component. Therefore
restoration of $18.4 million to the military pay account is critical
since that reduction was imposed due to the slow hiring and last year's
below end-strength levels.
The Coast Guard faces increasing challenges in its efforts to
recruit qualified personnel due to aggressive, well-financed and
focused efforts by private industry and the Department of Defense's
$125 million recruit advertising budget. The strong economy and
diminishing interest by young people in joining the military also
contribute to the challenge of maintaining an effective, equitably
staffed work force in all job specialties.
The 1996 Report to Congress regarding youth attitudes toward the
military includes data from the Youth Attitude Tracking Survey (YATS)
indicating that interest in the military has declined significantly
since 1991 (20.7 percent for young males and only 10.6 percent for
females). Contributing to this is a disparity in education benefits
offered by the Coast Guard compared to those offered by DOD. For
example, tuition assistance varies significantly between the Coast
Guard and DOD ($1,000 vs. $2,500 per member annually). Negative advice
from parents about the possibility of joining the military, the
continuing DOD draw down amid increased operational commitments, and
proposals for even more DOD personnel cuts per the Quadrennial Defense
Review (QDR) are also contributing to the decline.
Recruiters must spend extraordinary time and effort to qualify each
Coast Guard recruit. This equates to contacting an average of 100 leads
for each recruit brought into the service.
compensation and allowances
Full Employment Cost Index (ECI) active duty pay adjustments remain
a top priority with not only the FRA but also The Military Coalition
(TMC), a consortium of 26 military and veterans organizations
representing the interests of over five million active duty, reserve,
and retired personnel from the seven uniformed services.
Competitive pay is vital to maintaining the all-volunteer force and
ensuring military readiness, yet pay adjustments were capped below the
ECI in 12 of the past 16 years resulting in a pay gap in excess of 13
percent. Adjustments are also implemented 15 months after statistics
are compiled, further exacerbating the gap between military and
civilian pay.
FRA is encouraged by inclusion of a 3.1 percent pay adjustment for
1999, however, if Congress increases the amount of the adjustment, the
Coast Guard may as in the past, be left to find funds to pay for the
increase in a tight budget that barely maintains current services.
Regarding the new basic allowance for housing (BAH), FRA thanks
Congress for revamping this allowance by linking rates to more credible
independent survey data compiled by zip code throughout the United
States. However, our members are concerned about the accuracy of
housing cost data in remote locations duty sites for thousands of Coast
Guard enlisted personnel.
The expansion of Reserve Special Pay authority for the Secretary of
Transportation would provide special pay to Selected Coast Guard
Reservists performing IDT with special units and provide an accession/
retention incentive with these units. FRA supports legislative language
modifications authorizing this change.
Last year, FRA strongly supported the budget request of $8 million
for quarters/housing allowances, sea pay for 65 foot cutter crews,
increased dislocation allowance, VHA locality floors, and increased
travel expenses during PCS moves. Again, the Association urges adequate
funding for these and other quality of life programs in order to
maintain parity with DOD.
FRA also draws attention to need for continued funding for the
Transition Assistance Program (TAP) which expires on 1 October 1999.
Transition services are important to all personnel separating and/or
retiring from the uniformed services.
Finally, FRA opposes establishment of a Uniformed Services Thrift
Savings Plan (USTSP) due primarily to lack of support from the enlisted
force. The plan is not targeted to junior enlisted personnel and the
USTSP may pose another significant threat to the military retirement
system.
health care
Access to quality health care is a major concern for Coast Guard
personnel and a major reason cited for considering a military career.
Dramatic changes are taking place in the health care arena as DOD
implements TRICARE, a new managed care system throughout the United
States which requires family members to select one of three care
options. Of special concern to Coast Guard personnel stationed in
remote locations, is the availability and cost of accessing health
care. The TRICARE program is flawed due in part to increasing
difficulty that ``Prime'' and ``Standard'' enrollees have with locating
and retaining quality health care providers. These problems must be
fixed.
In addition, retirees must pay annual enrollment fees for care and
Medicare-eligible retirees are forced out of the TRICARE system and
onto Medicare at age 65.
These changes to the government's commitment to lifetime care are
incomprehensible for most retirees and perceived as part of the
continuing erosion of benefits by young uniformed service members
contemplating career decisions. The result is a growing readiness
challenge.
Although not directly under the purview of your distinguished
panel, FRA strongly urges support for H.R 1766, a bill by Rep. Jim
Moran, (D-Va.) which would authorize a demonstration of allowing
Medicare eligible Coast Guard and other military retirees the option of
joining the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan (FEHBP).
housing
Unfortunately, DOD is proposing a significantly lower budget for
military construction and FRA has difficulty believing the
Administration's commitment to provide adequate funding for this and
other important quality of life programs. Family housing construction
has decreased over 40 percent annually since 1996. Specific to the
Coast Guard, the acquisition, construction and improvement (AC&I)
account has been consistently underfunded well below the $600 million
required annually to properly fund and support housing, barracks and
other vital infrastructure needs, as well as funding required for
necessary modernization of cutters, aircraft, and command, control and
information systems.
In addition, the Association stresses the importance of child care
and physical fitness centers, and other facilities important to the
quality of life for Coast Guard personnel and their families.
conclusion
Press reports cite speculation by elected officials about a pending
federal budget surplus. FRA strongly recommends that if a surplus is
realized, at least a portion of the money should be appropriated to
fund recommendations in this statement.
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 along with increased
funding for vital quality of life programs.
Biographical Sketch
master chief joe barnes
Retired Navy Master Chief Joseph L. (Joe) Barnes is director of
legislative programs for the Fleet Reserve Association (FRA). His
responsibilities include communicating with Congress on military
compensation, benefit and entitlement issues, writing and presenting
testimony, tracking legislation and speaking at FRA legislative
seminars. He also writes legislative update columns for FRA
publications.
In addition, he co-chairs the Military Coalition's (TMC's)
Committee on Military Personnel and Compensation and is a member of two
other Coalition committees.
Prior to his present position, he served as editor of On Watch,
FRA's bimonthly publication distributed to 160,000 senior enlisted
Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard members.
He speaks regularly to Navy senior enlisted personnel at the Navy
Senior Enlisted Academy, Newport, Rhode Island, and to senior Coast
Guard enlisted personnel at the USCG Chief Petty Officer Academy,
Petaluma, California, regarding quality of life legislative issues. He
is also keynote speaker for sea service retiree seminars throughout the
United States.
Barnes is an accomplished writer/editor, special events coordinator
and communications manager. He was public affairs director for the
United States Navy Band in Washington, D.C., and directed marketing and
promotion efforts for extensive national concert tours, network radio
and television appearances and major special events in the nation's
capital.
His awards include the Defense Meritorious Service Medal and Navy
Commendation Medal. He holds a bachelor's degree in education and a
master's degree in public relations management from The American
University, Washington, D.C. He's also an accredited member of the
International Association of Business Communicators (IABC), and a
member of the American Society of Association Executives (ASAE).
He is married to the former Patricia Flaherty of Wichita, KS. The
Barnes' have three daughters, Christina, Allison, and Emily and reside
in Fairfax, Virginia.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. 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
this opportunity to present our appropriations request for the Sidney
Lanier Bridge Replacement Project, located in Brunswick, Georgia. I
want to share with you our concerns 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 submitted testimony to this
committee and requested your attention on the Sidney Lanier Bridge
Replacement Project at the Port of Brunswick in Glynn County, Georgia.
The testimony provided additional support for the important safety and
economic benefits of this major transportation improvement.
In the 1990 Coast Guard Omnibus Bill, I was directed by Congress to
remove the existing obsolete and hazardous 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. We are diligently
complying with this order. Construction contracts amounting to $87
million have already been awarded for the approach work and main span
of the replacement bridge.
Under the provisions of the Transportation Appropriations Acts of
fiscal year 1992 through fiscal year 1998 Georgia has received $38.75
million in federal appropriations to begin removal and replacement of
the bridge. The State of Georgia has matched this appropriation with
$38.75 million, demonstrating our firm commitment to this project.
Under the direction of the Coast Guard, these funds have been used
to plan, design, and begin construction on a new fixed span bridge that
will substantially improve maritime safety and effectively remove a
serious threat to public safety. This new high-level bridge will also
provide the navigation clearance necessary for the Port of Brunswick to
remain competitive in a rapidly changing global economy.
The Port of Brunswick is an economic generator for the southeastern
region of the United States. Working in unison with the Port of
Savannah, Georgia's deepwater ports have far-reaching economic impacts.
Georgia's deepwater ports contribute to the existence of over 76,000
jobs, $1.7 billion in wages, $22 billion in revenues and $569 million
in taxes. In federal fiscal year 1997, the Port of Brunswick alone
collected over $31 million dollars in U.S. Customs charges. The Port
also annually generates over $500 million in revenues and directly
contributes to 8,400 jobs statewide.
With replacement of the bridge and other planned port improvements,
the Port of Brunswick will be capable of expanding its services and
strengthening its abilities to compete internationally. The port is
ideally located in a region of the United States that has great
potential to benefit from both NAFTA and GATT. Already, the Port of
Brunswick is exporting automobiles made by numerous domestic
manufacturers and lumber products produced by American workers for
varied uses around the world. In addition, Georgia is participating in
the AASHTO Latin American Transportation and Trade Study (LATTS) which
can effectively position Georgia ports for increased trade
opportunities with Latin America.
The port's impact will increase with the Georgia Ports Authority's
plans to make the Port of Brunswick a major South Atlantic break bulk
port. Additional expected economic benefits include $464 million
annually in State sales revenues, $15.8 million per year in tax
revenues, and 1,100 new jobs by 2010.
Georgia's congressional delegation has requested $11.5 million in
fiscal year 1999 to continue the replacement of the Sidney Lanier
Bridge. The State of Georgia has committed to funding this project and
the requested appropriation will maintain the 50 percent federal share
provided for in Section 302 of the Coast Guard Omnibus Act of 1990. Mr.
Chairman, we respectfully request that funding for this project
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 for our nation, and they benefit the entire nation in
the global economy in which we compete. We urgently request your help
in achieving the maximum benefits from them for our state and the
nation.
Thank You.
Transportation Project Evaluation Criteria
sidney lanier bridge, brunswick, ga
Criteria No. 1--Primary Congressional District 1
Congressman: The Honorable Jack Kingston, The U.S. House of
Representatives.
Criteria No. 2--Primary Implementation Responsibility
Georgia Department of Transportation, No. 2 Capitol Square,
Atlanta, GA 30334.
Criteria No. 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 No. 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:
--MLP-25(66)--US 17/SR 25--Preliminary Engineering and Design.
--RWMLP-25(66)--US 17/SR 25--Right-of-way Acquisition.
--MLP-25(66)--US 17/SR 25--Construction of Roadway and Approaches for
Sidney Lanier Bridge Replacement.
--CG-009-2(4)--US 17/SR 25--Sidney Lanier Bridge Approaches
Construction Engineering and Inspection.
--CG-009-2(1)--US 17/SR 25--Construction of Main Span of High Level
Sidney Lanier Replacement Bridge and removal of existing
bridge.
--CG-009-2(3)--US 17/SR 25--Sidney Lanier Bridge Main Span
Construction Engineering and Inspection.
--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 feet 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 feet and a vertical
clearance of 18 feet for the roadway. Horizontal clearance under the
bridge for shipping is 250 feet and vertical clearance for ships is
only 139 feet. The present bridge is 4,471 feet long with a sufficiency
rating of 41.0 out of a possible 100.
The proposed typical section for the approaches will include two,
12 feet lanes in each direction with a raised median that varies from
6.5 feet to 20 feet in width. Design speed will be 55 MPH. The cable-
stayed bridge will provide two, 12 feet lanes in each direction, with 8
feet outside shoulders and 2 feet 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 feet
vertical clearance and 1,038 feet of horizontal clearance for shipping,
which will allow the development of a major container port in
Brunswick. The 1,038 feet of horizontal clearance will also allow
widening the Turtle River to a proposed 400 feet channel width with a
45 foot channel depth. The new bridge will improve safety for shipping
and vehicular traffic.
Criteria No. 5--Total Project Cost and Source of Funding
Estimated design, engineering, rights-of-way and construction costs
are $103.1 million. Adding contingencies brings the total estimated
cost to $113.4 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...................... $4,976,035
Right-of-Way............................................ 490,700
Bridge Approaches....................................... 18,884,886
Construction Engineering................................ 5,748,394
Main Span and Pier Protection........................... 65,475,129
Final Construction--Including the Removal of the
Existing
Bridge.............................................. 7,517,885
Contingencies (10 percent).............................. 10,309,303
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 113,402,332
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Less Previous Federal Appropriations (see question No.
14)................................................. (38,750,000)
Less Previous State Appropriations...................... (38,750,000)
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Balance........................................... 35,902,332
Federal Authorization Requested......................... 11,481,525
Note.--This amount is less than the 50 percent federal share established
in the 1990 Coast Guard Act. Fifty percent would total $17,951,166.
TABLE 2.--FUNDING PHASES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phase Fiscal year Total Federal State
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preliminary engineering..................................... 1992-93 $100,000 $50,000 $50,000
Design...................................................... 1994-95 4,876,035 2,438,018 2,438,018
Right-of-way................................................ 1995 490,700 245,350 245,350
Bridge approaches........................................... 1995 18,884,886 9,442,443 9,442,443
Construction engineering.................................... 1996 5,748,394 2,874,197 2,874,197
Main span and pier protection............................... 1997 65,475,129 32,737,565 32,737,565
Final construction--Including removal of existing bridge.... 1998 7,517,885 3,758,942 3,758,942
Contingencies............................................... ........... 10,309,303 5,154,652 5,154,652
---------------------------------------------------
Total................................................. ........... 113,402,332 56,701,166 56,701,166
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Criteria No. 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 $11,481,525 is
expected to be obligated during this period. The remaining balance of
$6,469,641 is also expected to be obligated during this period.
Criteria No. 7--Proposed Schedule and Current Status
TABLE 3.--PROJECT STATUS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal
Phase 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 removal 1998 Underway.
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 No. 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.
Criteria No. 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 No. 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 No. 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 No. 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
12,500 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 raisings 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 No. 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, 1997, and 1998.
Criteria No. 14--First Federal authorization or increase to previous
Federal Authorization
Previous federal appropriations: Federal Share:
Fiscal year 1992--Truman-Hobbs Act (Coast Guard).... $900,000
Fiscal year 1993--Truman-Hobbs Act (Coast Guard).... 5,000,000
Fiscal year 1994--Truman-Hobbs Act (Coast Guard).... 6,000,000
Fiscal year 1995--FHWA Demo--transferred to Coast
Guard............................................. 1,850,000
Fiscal year 1996--HR-2002 Alterations of Bridges
(Coast Guard)..................................... 8,000,000
Fiscal year 1997--Public Law 104-205................ 7,000,000
Fiscal year 1998--Public Law 105-66................. 10,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 38,750,000
______
Prepared Statement of Ted Woolley, President, National Association of
State Boating Law Administrators
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am Ted Woolley,
Boating Law Administrator for the State of Utah, 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 and adopted by the majority of the States and
Territories. 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, ``user pays-user benefits'', thus
not costing the general tax payer one cent and does not add one penny
to the national debt.
The Wallop-Breaux Trust Fund has resulted in the States assuming a
major share of the boating safety and law enforcement responsibilities.
This move makes sense because the responsibility for boating safety is
and should continue to be 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. This federal/state
partnership has resulted in fewer boating fatalities even though the
number of boaters enjoying our nation's waterways continues to
increase.
Funds are made available from the Boating Safety Trust Funds to the
States on a dollar to dollar match and have made a major contribution
to boating safety. By obtaining these trust funds, the States have been
able to 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 provide a more rapid response to boaters in distress. It
is the desire of the States to continue to strengthen our boating
safety program and partnership to the benefit of the nation's boaters.
The Aquatic Resources Trust Fund (Wallop-Breaux) was due to be
reauthorized along with the Highway Trust Fund in 1997. However, this
did not happen and a compromise bill extended the Wallop Breaux Trust
Fund until Congress comes up with a long term bill (six years) in the
spring of 1998.
There is consideration, as you are aware, through authorization
bills in both the House and the Senate to reauthorize these trust
funds. While the total amount of the funds remain basically the same,
the bills provide for a more equitable division of these trust funds
between the boating safety and sport fisheries programs. These measures
provide for $70 million for state boating safety programs all of which
is paid by boaters.
Specifically, we are asking this Subcommittee for appropriation as
authorized for the State Boating Safety Program. The Administration
again this year has recommended $55 million as mandatory appropriation
to the State Boating Safety Program from the Aquatic Resources Trust
Fund (Wallop-Breaux).
Just as our Association is recognized for its stewardship over
``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.
Major topics which our Association will focus on through long range
plans into the 21st. Century are:
--Identify and evaluate future impacts on boating safety.--Apprise
our Association of the status of any legislation, policies or
procedures relevant to the issue at hand.
--Surface Use Conflicts.--Study what is being done and what can be
done to help alleviate these problems.
--Personal Watercraft.--Examine what is working through education,
enforcement and regulations and what is the long range outlook
for their sales and use.
--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?
--Drinking and Boating.--Examine what additional things can be done
as far as education or legislation.
--Personal Flotation Devices.--If wearing a PFD will save 80 percent
of the boating accident victims, what would we need to do to
encourage wearing it or require it to be worn through state
legislation?
--Funding issues.--Examine the outlook and future for state/federal
funding.
--The role of the U.S. Coast Guard and the States.--Where should we
be in the next ten (10) years in boating safety?
The national trend shows a continuing growth in boating and we
expect this growth to continue in the coming years. This is
understandable when you consider that as available land to recreate on
becomes scarce and with 70 percent of the earth's 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 to relax and absorb the tranquility of our waters and beaches.
With commercial traffic (passenger and cargo ships, oil tankers,
off shore drilling, fishing fleets etc.) add new responsibilities to
the states in managing this priceless natural resource, ``our
waterways'', to further the States needs, the Coast Guard is downsizing
and passing many of their responsibilities to the States. Boating
safety is and will continue to be a high priority for the States and
the Coast Guard.
We take pride in the fact that we make good 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.
One factor the states would like to change is, recreational boating
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 from this list.
We feel the State program to date, is a shining example of an ideal
state/federal partnership, ``user pays-user benefits''. We will
continue to strive for more innovative use of the funds to better
educate boaters and further reduce boating fatalities. However, we
cannot over emphasize that stability in the boating safety trust funds
is needed for us to be successful. The Federal Boat Safety Trust Funds
are critical to the success or failure of our States recreational
boating safety program.
We appreciate this Subcommittee's continued support and
respectfully request your consideration for full appropriation as
authorized from the Aquatic Resources Trust Fund (Wallop-Breaux ) for
the States Boating Safety Program for fiscal 1999.
Thank you,
______
Prepared Statement of Sgt. Maj. Michael F. Ouellette, USA (Ret.),
Director of Legislative Affairs, Non Commissioned Officers Association
of the United States of America
Mr. Chairman, the Non Commissioned Officers Association of the USA
(NCOA) appreciates the opportunity to present testimony before this
subcommittee on the fiscal year 1999 U.S. Coast Guard Budget. The
Association's comments and recommendations represent the views and
concerns of it's noncommissioned and petty officer membership and those
of the Apprentice Division (E1-E3) and will address a wide range of
compensation, personnel, medical care and quality-of-life issues of
significant importance. Hopefully, this subcommittee will consider
recommendations from an enlisted view point to be of value and
assistance during deliberations.
NCOA is a federally chartered organization representing 160,000
active-duty, guard and reserve, military retirees, veterans and family
members of noncommissioned and petty officers serving in every
component of the Armed Forces of the United States; Army, Marine Corps,
Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard.
This testimony has been endorsed by the National Military and
Veterans Alliance (NMVA). The Alliance is comprised of nationally
prominent military and veterans organization who collectively represent
over 3 million members of the seven uniformed services--officer,
enlisted, active-duty, National Guard and Reserve, retired and veterans
plus their families and survivors. The Alliance organization endorsing
this testimony are: American Military Retirees Association; American
Retirees Association; Air Force Sergeants Association; Korean War
Veterans Association; Military Order of the Purple Heart; National
Association for the Uniformed Services; Naval Enlisted Reserve
Association, and the Naval Reserve Association.
prelude
Mr. Chairman, NCOA wishes to extend its appreciation to the members
of this subcommittee for their efforts on behalf of U.S. Coast Guard
enlisted men and women. Just as the other services look to another
appropriation subcommittee for funding assistance, the Coast Guard
relies on the favorable actions of this subcommittee to provide funding
parity which allows this relatively small, but important, military
service to meet its quality-of-life obligations to those who serve.
There is no question that continued positive funding actions by this
subcommittee are paramount to the Coast Guard's ability to recruit and
retain quality enlisted people to meet its wide-ranging mission
responsibilities. At the very top of enlisted members' list of
priorities is the ability to meet their financial responsibilities to
financially support themselves and/or their families.
NCOA understands the difficult deficit reduction climate in which
the Congress and the Coast Guard must operate. The efforts of this
subcommittee have been and will continue to be vitally important to the
well-being of the enlisted force. Mr. Chairman, the Coast Guard is at a
critical personnel juncture. The average ship that goes to sea today
will be manned at 80 percent of its normal crew compliment. Recruiting
is down substantially. In an effort to meet recruiting goals, the
service has had to implement two and three year contracts, offer
bonuses up to $12,000 and G.I. Bill kickers of up to $30,000. Still the
average recruiter must interview more than 100 potential candidates to
find one acceptable recruit and the Coast Guard has had to expand the
recruiting force substantially to meet its recruiting needs.
The major point the Association wishes to make to this subcommittee
is that the decision to maintain a credible Coast Guard automatically
carries with it a responsibility to take care of the men and women who
comprise that force regardless. This subcommittee has done that in the
past. Yet much more must be done to avert a manpower crisis.
NCOA wishes to offer a number of pay, personnel, medical care and
quality-of-life improvement recommendations intended to address a
number of areas which can significantly improve the overall well-being
of Coast Guard members, retirees, their families and survivors. As a
matter of parity, the same recommendations will be made to those
committees and subcommittees maintaining responsibility for the other
services.
annual military pay raise
NCOA appreciates the support of this subcommittee to pass
legislation in 1997 that awarded Coast Guard members a 2.8 percent
cost-of-living pay raise effective January 1, 1998. However, it must be
noted the increase was one-half percent below inflation as measured by
the Employment Cost Index (ECI) which was set at 3.3 percent. NCOA and
most enlisted members of the armed forces are well aware that military
pay raises have been capped below private sector pay growth or full
inflation in 12 or the last 16 years. The result is that military pay,
even with the January 1998 increase, lags a cumulative 13.5 percent
behind that enjoyed by the average American worker performing similar
work. With the knowledge of these facts and after sustaining weeks and
months of family separation and the hardships associated with the
missions of the Coast Guard, complicated by increasingly longer
workdays due to force reductions and operation tempo, enlisted men and
women feel they are being ``short-changed'' by those in control of
their destinies.
In 1997, the House of Representatives recognized the seriousness of
this pay situation by including language in their version of the fiscal
year 1998 Defense Authorization Bill that directed future military pay
raises to be at the full ECI level. Unfortunately, this provision was
dropped in conference and the status quo prevailed. Although NCOA
supports full ECI pay raises and total elimination of the differential
with civilian sector pay, the Association does not expect the Congress
to approve a 13.5 percent pay raise in 1999 to correct the situation.
NCOA does recommend that Congress adopt a long-term military pay raise
plan that would resolve the problem over time. Future military pay
raises paid annually at full ECI levels plus an additional percentage
amount would put military members (including the Coast Guard) on equal
financial ground with their civilian counterparts in future years,
while at the same time, gradually eliminating the current estimated pay
differential. NCOA recommends a long term plan that would increase pay
by the ECI plus 2 percent in 1999, ECI plus 3 percent in 2000, ECI plus
4 percent in 2001 and ECI plus 5 percent in 2002.
compensation parity with dod
The Coast Guard's fiscal year 1999 Budget Request reflects funding
increases which correspond to the improvements enacted into law in
1998. Housing Allowance and Basic Allowance for Subsistence (BAS)
reform, Hazardous Duty Incentive Pay, Family Separation Allowance (FSA)
are all items Congress approved last year and is now being asked to
fund for fiscal year 1999. NCOA believes it to be extremely important
that this subcommittee react favorably to the Coast Guard's request.
Failure to do so could leave Coast Guard members and their families
without the same benefits enjoyed by members of the other military
services.
the uniformed services thrift savings plan (ustsp)
This year NCOA expects a recommendation to come before Congress
that would establish a saving plan for members of the uniformed
services. This proposal would give those eligible to participate an
opportunity to contribute up to 5 percent of their basic pay into a
program referred to as the Uniformed Services Thrift Savings Plan with
the deduction made from their pay by the servicing Defense Finance and
Accounting Services (DFAS). Under normal conditions, such a proposal
would appear to have considerable merit; however, NCOA is very
concerned that such a proposal sends the wrong message or paints an
inaccurate picture of the current financial capabilities of enlisted
members of the Coast Guard and other services. NCOA believes it to be
highly unusual that at a time when annual pay raises are being capped
below inflation; When a pay gap of 13.5 percent is estimated to exist
between military and civilian sector pay; When commissaries are
redeeming food stamps in the millions of dollars, the Defense
Department would offer a proposal that strongly suggests that military
people, particularly enlisted people, can afford to save money.
Since the original proposal made only those who entered military
service on or after August 1, 1986, eligible to participate, NCOA
believes the main intent was to provide a program to supplement the
retirement system for military members who began service on August 1,
1986. The financial impact of that system is itemized on Enclosures 1
and 2. There can be no doubt the 1986 retirement system will impose a
wide range of financial penalties on those serving under it. In the
interests of military services' ability to recruit and retain military
people until retirement, NCOA recommends the retirement system be
improved from its current version rather than initiate a new program
when similar civilian savings and tax deferred programs already exist
for those who can afford to take advantage of them.
coast guard housing and facilities
Last year in testimony to this subcommittee, NCOA supported a
Defense Department proposal to change the manner in which Basic
Allowance for Quarters (BAQ) and Variable Housing Allowance (VHA) were
paid. The one allowance system went into effect on January 1, 1998, and
hopefully will provide Coast Guard families with a sufficient amount of
money to cover the cost of adequate housing wherever assigned.
Despite improvements in the housing allowance, there continues to
be a need for this committee to provide the Coast Guard with the
funding necessary to construct or make necessary improvements to
government owned family housing and single member living facilities. In
addition, NCOA believes that work area construction and improvements
are as much quality-of-life improvements as are those related to
housing. NCOA strongly recommends this subcommittee consider the need
to provide funding that not only provides Coast Guard people with
suitable living quarters but also considers health, welfare and safety
in the workplace as an important part of its quality-of-life funding
responsibilities.
tuition assistance parity
Last year Congress instructed DOD to standardize the Tuition
Assistance Program for all services. The Coast Guard has responded to
guidance and has attempted to change its program to mirror the other
services. However, a shortage of funding resulted in the Coast Guard's
fielding of an annual tuition assistance benefit that was far short of
what is authorized by the other service. The DOD services provide a
maximum annual tuition assistance benefit of $3,500, while the Coast
Guard could only fund an annual benefit of $1,000 for all eligible
active-duty and civilian employees. This differential is difficult for
Coast Guard members to understand especially when education opportunity
while in service is used as a recruiting incentive. This is clearly an
inequity that must be corrected by this subcommittee. NCOA recommends
this subcommittee include approve the Coast Guard's request for $4
million to provide equity throughout the services and level the
education opportunity ``playing field'' for all eligible members of the
Coast Guard community.
coast guard retiree issues
NCOA has a number of retired force issues and concerns it wants to
bring to the attention of this subcommittee. Some of the issues are
directly related to Coast Guard funding requirements, however, others
will be discussed as parity issues that will surface in other
legislation but would be of benefit to the retired Coast Guard
community.
--Retired Pay Cost-Of-Living Adjustment (COLA).--NCOA appreciates the
efforts of this subcommittee to provide a 2.1 percent COLA to
Coast Guard retirees effective January 1, 1998. Nonetheless,
NCOA remains extremely concerned that last year's congressional
activity included suggestions by some that the Consumer Price
Index (CPI) overrates inflation. The Association believes this
debate will continue into 1998. NCOA urges this subcommittee to
continue to resist retirement or COLA proposals that would
reduce the value or purchasing power of Coast Guard retired
pay.
--Concurrent Receipt.--Despite the fact that cost is a major factor
in changing the current offset between VA disability
compensation and military retired pay, NCOA remains committed
to correcting this equity. Retired pay and VA compensation are
made for two distinctively different reasons. Yet, should a
military retiree be adjudicated to be disabled by the VA, there
continues to be a dollar for dollar offset in the payment of
benefits. NCOA urges this subcommittee to work toward reducing
or eliminating the current VA disability offset to military
retired pay at least for the 100 percent or most severely
disabled.
military medical care
Mr. Chairman, availability and access to military health care or
alternative options that are needed to protect the medical care needs
of military beneficiaries. Surveys of Coast Guard people and their
families consistently show that medical care along with adequate pay,
inflation protected retired pay and commissary availability are the top
concerns of the Coast Guard community. In fact, with base and hospital
closures and reductions in medical personnel, the increasing lack of
no-cost health care is a major concern to active and retired personnel
alike. Enlisted people, both active and retired, suffer the greatest
impact because of their lower pay levels which cause them to place a
greater value on the benefit.
Currently more than 58 hospitals have been closed as part of the
Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC) or other actions.
Services have been cut back at many of the hospitals remaining open and
many of them have been and continue to be downgraded to clinic size.
Hundreds of thousands of retirees (including Coast Guard) and their
family members who received care in MTF's are now finding no care
available. Retirees are being denied prescription drugs by MTF
pharmacies in increasing numbers. They are told the prescribed drugs
cost too much and are not stocked or are restricted for issue to active
duty beneficiaries only.
The TRICARE Program has been in development or implementation for
nearly a decade, yet the TRICARE-Prime still does not cover certain
parts of the United States. For example, in California where the
military managed care system has been in place the longest, there are
still areas without TRICARE-Prime networks. However, despite the lack
of established networks, the TRICARE-Standard/CHAMPUS option should be
available. Unfortunately, the CHAMPUS Maximum Allowable Care (CMAC) is
so low many physicians will not accept it. The current system is
broken, and must be fixed.
NCOA fully supports keeping a strong, effective direct care system
for the delivery of health care and in the best interests of medical
readiness. The Association also supports making full use of the
military treatment facilities and TRICARE networks as primary
providers. However those retirees (Medicare-eligible) who are either
``locked-out'' of TRICARE-Prime or not guaranteed access to these
primary sources of care should be offered a number of alternatives or
options. In this regard, NCOA supports:
--Medicare Subvention.--NCOA is pleased that Congress passed
legislation last year providing authority to provide a Medicare
Subvention demonstration project at six sites across the United
States. Although this action was a major step forward, the
Association is greatly concerned by loss of military medical
care access for the many Medicare eligible military retirees
residing outside the confines of the demonstration test sites.
Therefore, NCOA strongly supports the immediate implementation
of the Medicare Subvention concept across the United States in
order to provide immediate relief and to minimize the great
injustice being done to all Medicare eligible military retirees
who have lost earned health care benefits.
--FEHBP as an Option.--NCOA supports offering the Federal Employees
Health Benefit Program (FEHBP) as an option to Medicare
eligible military retirees, their families and survivors.
Additionally, the Association also supports offering this
option to TRICARE-Standard eligible beneficiaries residing
outside of TRICARE-Prime catchment areas. Although not an issue
that can be acted upon by this subcommittee, in the best
interests of Coast Guard retirees, NCOA urges the subcommittee
members to support any legislative effort to direct DOD to
restore TRICARE-Standard or CHAMPUS as originally intended by
Congress or authorize FEHBP as an option for all military
retirees and their families.
--Medicare Part B Enrollment Penalty Waiver.--NCOA urges the
subcommittee members to support the enactment of any
legislation to waive the 10 percent per year Part B Medicare
late enrollment penalty for military retirees whose access to
the military health care system has been curtailed because of
base closures or implementation of TRICARE-Prime.
--Mail-Order Pharmacy Program Expansion.--Another legislative item
that would be most beneficial to all military retirees would be
the expansion of this program beyond just those affected by
BRAC actions. NCOA urges the subcommittee members to support
legislation to expand the DOD mail-order pharmacy program to
include all military retiree, regardless of age, status or
location. The availability of this program would be a great
benefit to Medicare eligible military retirees even if Medicare
Subvention or FEHBP legislation were not passed.
survivor benefit plan
Because of the efforts of Congress last year, military retirees who
enroll in the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) can now withdraw from the
program during the first year following the two-year anniversary date
of their retirement. NCOA continues to recommend a legislative change
to SBP which would permit 30-year paid-up coverage.
conclusion
Mr. Chairman, perhaps the single most valuable effort this
subcommittee could make to the well-being of the Coast Guard enlisted
community and the armed forces in general is to send a signal that
Congress will provide some stability in pay and benefits. Last year,
the House of Representatives attempted to make full ECI pay raises
mandatory. Although that particular effort failed, there were numerous
improvements. For instance, Congress passed legislation that reduced
out-of-pocket medical costs for military families assigned to isolated
areas. They made improvements in Hazardous Duty Pay and Family
Separation Allowance (FSA) and even gave military members a new
Hardship Deployment Pay. A Retiree Dental Plan, although non-
subsidized, became a reality. Still there remains uncertainty in the
minds of military people. Even with the legislative gains achieved by
military people, they still seem only to remember the attempted threats
to their benefits.
The insecurity caused by this constant churning of threats to
benefits creates an environment of stress that takes a real toll on
national security. Coast Guard members simply must be given
opportunities to respect and participate in change instead of living in
constant dread and fear of loss.
NCOA appreciates the opportunity to present a number of enlisted
views in testimony before this subcommittee. The Association looks
forward to addressing further details regarding the issues discussed
and any other issues with you and the subcommittee staff.
Thank You.
disclosure of federal grants or contracts
The Non Commissioned Officers Association of the USA (NCOA) does
not currently receive, nor has the Association ever received, any
federal money for grants or contracts. All of the Association's
activities and services are accomplished completely free of any federal
funding.
Biographical Sketch
michael f. ouellette
Mr. Michael F. Ouellette currently serves as Director of
Legislative Affairs, Non Commissioned Officers Association of the
United States of America (NCOA). He is a registered Congressional
Lobbyist whose responsibilities include a wide range of military
personnel and survivor benefits to veterans' legislative issues. He
formerly served as Co-Chairman of The Military Coalition from January
1, 1993 until February 22, 1996. He currently serves as the NCOA
representative to the National Military and Veterans Alliance.
A retired Sergeant Major, Mr. Ouellette joined the NCOA National
Capital Office in 1991 following twenty-six years of military service
with the United States Army. His final assignment was as the Sergeant
Major to the Adjutant General of the Army, U.S. Total Army Personnel
Command (PERSCOM), Alexandria, Virginia, and covered the period 1988
through 1991.
Ouellette's period of service included numerous tours of duty
within the United States and overseas tours in the Republic of Vietnam,
Japan and Germany. His military decorations included the Legion of
Merit, the Meritorious Service Medal (with 3 Oak Leaf Clusters), the
Army Commendation Medal (with 3 Oak Leaf Clusters), and the Army
Achievement Medal (with 2 Oak Leaf Clusters). He is a graduate of the
U.S. Army Sergeants Major Academy (Class # 25) and holds an Associates
Degree in Applied Science and General Management from El Paso Community
College, El Paso, Texas.
He is a former President of the Potomac Chapter, AG Corps
Regimental Association and the PERSCOM Sergeants Major Association. He
currently maintains membership status in the NCOA Museum Association,
Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Knights of Columbus, the Exchange Club,
American Legion, the 4th Infantry Division Association, and AUSA.
Enclosure 1.--Three Retirement Systems
Prior to Sept. 8, 1990:
--Final base pay--full COLA for life
O/A Sept. 8, 1980:
--``High-3'' year average for base pay
--Full COLA for life
O/A Aug. 1, 1986:
--``High-3'' year average
--Minus 1 percent for years less than 30
--Minus 1 percent COLA until age 62
--Age 62 one-time catch-up
--CPI minus 1 percent COLA thereafter
______
ENCLOSURE 2.--VALUE DIFFERENCE IN MILITARY RETIRED PAY SYSTEMS \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Entered service prior Entered service on or Entered service on or
to Sept. 8, 1980 after Sept. 1, 1980, after Aug. 1, 1986
------------------------ but before Aug. 1, -----------------------
Age 1986
Monthly Annual ------------------------ Monthly Annual
Monthly Annual
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
42...................................... $600.00 $7,200.00 $564.60 $6,775.20 $508.00 $6,096.00
43...................................... 612.00 7,344.00 575.89 6,910.70 513.08 6,156.96
44...................................... 624.24 7,490.88 587.41 7,048.92 518.21 6,218.53
45...................................... 636.72 7,640.70 599.16 7,189.90 523.39 6,280.71
46...................................... 649.46 7,793.51 611.14 7,333.69 528.63 6,343.52
47...................................... 662.45 7,949.38 623.36 7,480.37 533.91 6,406.96
48...................................... 675.70 8,108.37 635.83 7,629.98 539.25 6,471.03
49...................................... 689.21 8,270.54 648.55 7,782.58 544.64 6,535.74
50...................................... 703.00 8,435.95 661.52 7,938.23 550.09 6,601.09
51...................................... 717.06 8,604.67 674.75 8,096.99 555.59 6,667.11
52...................................... 731.40 8,776.76 688.24 8,258.93 561.15 6,733.78
53...................................... 746.02 8,952.30 702.01 8,424.11 566.76 6,801.11
54...................................... 760.95 9,131.34 716.05 8,592.59 572.43 6,869.13
55...................................... 776.16 9,313.97 730.37 8,764.44 578.15 6,937.82
56...................................... 791.69 9,500.25 744.98 8,939.73 583.93 7,007.19
57...................................... 807.52 9,690.25 759.88 9,118.53 589.77 7,077.27
58...................................... 823.67 9,884.06 775.07 9,300.90 595.67 7,148.04
59...................................... 840.14 10,081.74 790.58 9,486.92 601.63 7,219.52
60...................................... 856.95 10,283.37 806.39 9,676.65 607.64 7,291.72
61...................................... 874.09 10,489.04 822.52 9,870.19 613.72 7,364.63
62...................................... 891.57 10,698.82 838.97 10,067.59 .......... ..........
One time catch up....................... .......... .......... .......... .......... 736.46 8,837.56
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total retired pay at age 62....... .......... 185,639.88 .......... 174,687.13 .......... 143,065.41
=======================================================================
System value (percent).................. .......... 100 .......... 94 .......... 77
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Value per 1,000 of regular pay after 24 years of service at age 42; chart assumes constant 2 percent annual
CPI adjustment.
______
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 1999 budget request
for the United States Coast Guard.
First and foremost, the Reserve Officers Association would like to
express its profound gratitude to the Congress, and this committee, for
their strong and vigorous support of the Coast Guard Reserve during the
fiscal year 1998 authorization and appropriation's process. ROA's
testimony during the first session of the 105th Congress addressed a
number of concerns regarding the Coast Guard Reserve, including
funding, recruiting, and the provision of much need port security
equipment. In recognition of the vital support provided to the nation
by today's Coast Guard Reserve, the Congress and this committee
responded. Specific examples included:
--Report language in the Senate version of the DOD Authorization
bill, expressing concern that the Coast Guard Reserve's end-
strength had fallen significantly below its authorized and
appropriated level for fiscal year 1997 and requiring a report
on Coast Guard Reserve recruiting;
--Authorizing, in the fiscal year 1998 DOD authorization bill, a new
affiliation bonus for enlisted members leaving active duty;
--Increasing the level of funding, in the fiscal year 1998
appropriations bill, for Reserve training, from the $65 million
requested by the administration, to $67 million;
--Limiting, in the fiscal year 1998 appropriations bill, the amount
of Reserve training funds that can be transferred to operating
expenses of the Coast Guard, to $20 million;
--Adding, in the fiscal year 1998 appropriations bill, $1 million for
Coast Guard Reserve recruiting; and,
--Including, in the fiscal year 1998 DOD Appropriations bill, $13.5
million for the refurbishment of the 3 existing port security
units and the establishment of 3 new port security units.
On behalf of Coast Guard Reservists serving around the globe we
thank you for this support!
This year the Reserve Officers Association again strongly advocates
adequate resource allocations for the United States Coast Guard and,
most especially, the Coast Guard Reserve. In this regard, we recognize
that providing the much needed resources to the Coast Guard, and the
Coast Guard Reserve, continues to be a distinct challenge. In addition
to ensuring adequate Reserve funding, congressional action has been
continually required to provide the unique combination of Department of
Transportation and Department of Defense funding required to support
the Coast Guard's much needed operations.
coast guard budget request
The Coast Guard continues to show 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.
Concomitantly, the responsibilities and work of the Coast Guard have
not been reduced, in fact responsibilities and work have increased.
Given the downsizing that has occurred and the continued increasing
demands on the force, the Coast Guard must not be continually stretched
by under-funding.
Today's Coast Guard is an extremely cost-effective, flexible, and
responsive organization that makes a daily difference in the quality of
life for all Americans by saving lives, enforcing the Nation's laws,
guarding our Nation's maritime borders, and protecting environment and
natural resources, as well as providing a readily available
augmentation force to the Department of Defense in times of national
emergency. Each and every day, the Coast Guard, and Coast Guard
Reserve, provide an impressive return on investment to the American
People. In fiscal year 1997 alone, the Coast Guard:
--Saved more than 5,000 lives, and assisted another 50,000 people in
distress;
--Saved more than $2 billion and protected more than $3 billion in
property;
--Executed the proof of concept counter-drug OPERATION FRONTIER
SHIELD around Puerto Rico and subsequently prevented a record
amount of more than 103,000 pounds of cocaine and 102,000
pounds of marijuana products from reaching our shores;
--Responded to more than 13,000 reports of water pollution and
supervised more than 600 federally funded oil and chemical
spill cleanups;
--Intercepted more than 2,100 illegal migrants before they reached
U.S. shores;
--Maintained more than 50,000 aids to navigation that helped ensure
the safe navigation of ships that carry 95 percent of the
nation's imports and exports;
--Performed more than 40,000 inspections on merchant ships and
licensed 36,000 merchant mariners;
--Inspected more than 3,000 fishing vessels at-sea to verify
compliance with applicable laws and regulations; and,
--Conducted more than 125,000 courtesy marine examinations of
recreational vessels.
Even more impressive, this was all accomplished while the Coast
Guard successfully completed the largest streamlining in its history.
That streamlining responded directly to the National Performance Review
and eliminated 4,000 positions, bringing the Coast Guard to its
smallest work force since 1965. The taxpayers will save nearly $400
million per year and the services provided to America will actually
improve. The fiscal year 1999 request builds on that success, by
proposing programmatic reductions of more than $70 million per year,
and eliminating more than 500 additional positions.
Simply stated, this can't go on forever, however attractive that
prospect may be to budget builders. Because the post-streamlined Coast
Guard is at its most efficient organizational state, funding less than
that required--to absorb increases from pay raises and other required
cost of living adjustments--will result in reduced services to the
public. To avoid any adverse impact on service to the public, any
future cost reductions must be achieved through efficiency from
investments in new, more efficient capital equipment and technology and
increased use of the Reserves.
The Coast Guard's fiscal year 1999 budget request would allow the
Coast Guard to barely maintain current services in 12 different mission
areas. First and foremost, it is important to note that the fiscal year
1999 operating fund request of $2,772 million is apparently underfunded
by $69 million. In this respect, pay raises, cost of living increases
and other statutorily mandated increases, as well as the additional $3
million necessitated by one new initiative (the Caribbean support
ship), require a $128 million increase above the level appropriated in
fiscal year 1998, $2,715 million. It is, therefore, apparent that the
Coast Guard is expected to make up the shortfall by further management
efficiencies and facility closures during fiscal year 1999 that are in
all likelihood simply unachievable.
Of further concern is the fact that the capital account would,
under the Administration's proposal, derive $35 million, or almost 8
percent of its funding, from proposed commercial navigation user fees
that will almost certainly not be enacted and must, therefore, be made
up through additional appropriations not included in the
administration's budget. Looking beyond fiscal year 1999, it must also
be noted that the Acquisitions, Construction and Improvements (AC&I)
account barely maintains current services. Simply stated, this account,
which provides for the vital 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, cannot continue to be
minimally funded. The Coast Guard will not be able to function
efficiently in the future without the modern equipment provided through
the adequate funding of this account. Future cost reductions in the
Coast Guard will have to depend on efficiencies derived from
investments in new, more efficient capital equipment and technology.
The Coast Guard currently operates ships with high personnel and
maintenance costs. Some ships have been in service for more than 50
years. Simply stated, the continued protection of the public, at a
lower cost, requires further investment in the AC&I account--to enable
the Coast Guard to design more capable and less labor-intensive ships
and aircraft. Without the necessary investment in the AC&I account,
pressure will continue to build on the operational account, as
anticipated lower personnel and maintenance costs, that would be
achieved through investment, become unachievable.
Finally, investment in the AC&I account provides the requisite
funding for the Coast Guard's ``Deepwater'' program, the Coast Guard's
plan to modernize its major cutters, aircraft, and command, control,
communications, computer, intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance (C\4\I) systems. The Deepwater program is an absolute
requirement--to sustain the Coast Guard's capability for providing
services critical to America's public safety, environmental protection,
and national security for the next 30 years--through the replacement of
assets that are at, or fast approaching, the end of their service
lives. It should also be recognized that the Coast Guard's medium and
high endurance cutters, acquired through the Deepwater program, will be
readily available to support critical Department of Defense operations
such as maritime surveillance and interception, convoy escort, search
and rescue, and enforcement of maritime sanctions, as was the case
during Operation Desert Storm. Such options allow Navy ``high end''
ships to be more effectively employed in higher threat/combat
operations. In addition, as the Navy surface combatant fleet grows
smaller, the future cutter provides an extremely cost-effective ``dual
capability,'' by providing not only the ability for the Coast Guard to
perform its peacetime mission, but the vital operational capabilities
vitally needed by the Navy and the Department of Defense in the 21st
Century, as recently recognized by Admiral Jay L. Johnson, USN, Chief
of Naval Operations.
selected reserve strength
The fiscal year 1999 authorization request is to maintain the Coast
Guard Selected Reserve end-strength at the 8,000 level. While
recognizing that the Coast Guard Reserve's end-strength remains below
7,600 for the second consecutive year, we have serious concerns
regarding the administration's proposal for an appropriated end-
strength of only 7,600. We also have concerns regarding an authorized
end-strength of 8,000, in view of the fact that the Commandant has
conducted an in-depth study that clearly indicates and justifies a
requirement for in excess of 12,000 Coast Guard Reservists.
In recent years, 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. The funding of 3 additional port security units, that
require approximately 100 additional Reservist each in fiscal year
1998, is but one example.
In view of the foregoing, we remain particularly concerned that the
administration and the Coast Guard have allowed the Coast Guard
Reserve's end-strength to fall below the authorized and appropriated
level for fiscal year 1997 and have not succeeded in recruiting
Reservists to end-strength in fiscal year 1998. While recognizing that
the Coast Guard has made some effort to correct the end-strength
shortfall, we are very concerned that these efforts have not resulted
in rectifying the recruiting shortfall. We are further very concerned
over the impact that the failure to recruit may have on future
authorized and appropriated end-strength in the Coast Guard Reserve. It
must be noted that all the other armed services are meeting their
recruiting goals for Reservists (the Army within the established range
of plus, or minus, 2 percent). The immediate problem, therefore,
appears unique to the Coast Guard Reserve.
As noted in last year's testimony, 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 have not been transferred
to active duty commanding officers, who would in many cases, because of
geographics, would be better able to recruit Reservists than Coast
Guard recruiters. In addition, Reservists have not been assigned to
assist in recruiting and recruiting responsibilities have not been
assigned to Reservists. Finally, Reserve recruiting quotas have not yet
been assigned to Coast Guard recruiters, although quotas do exist for
recruiting active duty personnel. This is despite the fact the
recruiting a Reservist is recognized within the Coast Guard itself as
being substantially more difficult than recruiting a new active duty
entrant--the primary reason being that Reservists must be recruited to
a targeted billet at a specific location that is, in many instances,
not located near the recruiting office. (The Coast Guard has eased, but
not lifted, this geographic requirement over the past year.) In sharp
contrast, those recruited for active duty assignments are simply
ordered to boot camp. Further action may, therefore, be required to
ensure that the Coast Guard is able to recruit the requisite number of
personnel.
All of this having been said, it must be noted that the Coast Guard
has made some headway in intensifying its Reserve recruiting over the
past year. Such efforts have included easing, but not lifting, the
geographical constraints (as previously noted), implementation of a new
tuition assistance program that includes Reservists, and the
establishment of a monthly Reserve recruiting newsletter. Despite these
efforts, while the Coast Guard exceeded one-hundred percent of the
goals for the active-duty force in fiscal year 1996 and almost 95
percent in fiscal year 1997, it recruited only 65 percent of those
needed for the Reserve force in fiscal year 1996, only 67 percent of
those needed for the Reserve force in fiscal year 1997, and through
January 31, 1998, only 35 percent of monthly Reserve requirements.
Finally, it should be noted that the Coast Guard has only recently
authorized (February 6, 1998) the new selected Reserve affiliation
bonus enacted as a part the fiscal year 1998 National Defense
Authorization Act, signed into law on November 28, 1997.
reserve funding
The administration has requested $67 million for the Reserve
Training (RT) appropriation for fiscal year 1998, with $25 million in
reimbursement to operating expenses. Given the present procedures for
reimbursement for operating expenses and direct payments by the Coast
Guard Reserve, this is the minimum needed to fund a full training
program for 7,600 personnel. Even at this minimal funding level, Coast
Guard Reservists would continue to receive only 12 days of annual
training (AT) each year (all the other armed services, except for the
Navy, are entitled to 14 days' AT by departmental regulation). In
addition, it should be noted that the $67 million funding level is
based on 90 percent funding of on-board strength, as opposed to
previously established procedures of budgeting for 90 percent of
authorized strength.
Additional funding required to support the full 8,000 level
authorized would appear to be $72M. It should, however, be noted that
the fiscal year 1998 appropriations bill, in appropriating $67 million
for the Coast Guard Reserve, limits the amount of Reserve training
funds that may be transferred to operating expenses to $20M. The House
Appropriations Committee report notes that this limitation is included,
``Given the relatively small amount of the reserve training
appropriations and the declining size of the Selected Reserve * * * to
ensure the Reserves are not assessed excessive charge-backs to the
Coast Guard operating budget.'' The House report goes on to state that:
``The Committee believes the proposed level of reimbursement ($22.6
million for fiscal year 1998) may be too high, especially given the
substantial amount of reserve augmentation workhours provided by the
reserves in direct support of Coast Guard missions--2.7 percent of all
the Coast Guard staff years.'' Accordingly, the report states, ``The
Coast Guard's planned assessment to reimburse their operating budget
for reserve training does not adequately consider this level of cross-
support * * *.''
ROA thanks the Congress for its recognition of the support provided
by the Coast Guard Reserve and would ask that this limitation be not
only continued, but meticulously monitored to ensure the observation of
congressional intent. In this regard, it may be that with limited
additional funding, limited reimbursement and careful monitoring of
reimbursement, and direct funding from the Reserve account--from a
current, as well as historical basis--that the Coast Guard Reserve
would have sufficient funds to attain the 8,000 level. This would also
have a positive, morale-building effect on Reservists by not
jeopardizing Reserve strength.
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 has been
directly noted by the House appropriations committee. 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 continue to 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. In this regard, a strength of
8,000 Coast Guard Reservists equates to only 506 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 emergencies in an extremely cost effective
manner, as well as to respond to national emergencies, to include vital
harbor security for the Department of Defense with the Coast Guard
Reserve Port Security Units.
This committee's support of the Coast Guard has been critical to
maintaining its military capability. Your continued support is vital.
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.
Biographical Sketch
fred r. becker, jr.
Fred Becker is a native of Louisville, Kentucky and a retired
Captain, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy. He graduated from
the U.S. Naval Academy in 1971. His first assignment after
commissioning was as Gunnery Officer on board USS Stickell (DD-888),
followed by a tour on USS Biddle (DLG-34) as Missile Officer. Under his
leadership Biddle's Missile Battery was awarded the Atlantic Fleet
``E'' for excellence in readiness and missile accuracy.
He was then assigned as Aide-de-Camp to Rear Admiral Jeremiah A.
Denton, Jr., at the Armed Forces Staff College, Norfolk, Virginia.
While at the Staff College, he was selected as one of an elite group of
officers to attend law school under the auspice of the Navy's Law
Education Program. He subsequently attended the Marshall-Wythe School
of Law, College of William and Mary, graduating with a J.D. Degree
(Order of the Coif) in 1979.
Fred Becker then attended the Naval Justice School where he was the
recipient of the American Bar Association Award of Professional Merit,
graduating first in his class. His first assignment as a Judge Advocate
was to the Naval Legal Service Office, Norfolk, Virginia where he
served as a prosecution attorney, and later as the senior prosecution
attorney. As the senior prosecution attorney, he was responsible for
the supervision of seven other attorneys, who prosecuted in excess of
1,000 cases annually at the Navy's largest Legal Service Office.
Subsequently, Fred Becker was assigned as the Executive Officer,
Naval Legal Service Officer, Guam. Following this tour of duty, he was
assigned to the Office of the Judge Advocate General where he was
responsible for recruiting and hiring new attorneys for the Navy Judge
Advocate General's Corps. He then commenced a tour at the Navy Office
of Legislative Affairs where he served as a liaison officer with the
Congress in the area of federal procurement policy and legislation. His
ensuing assignment was as the Military Advisor to Mr. L. Wayne Arny,
III, Associate Director, National Security and International Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President.
Following this assignment, he was assigned as the Deputy Fleet Judge
Advocate, Commander in Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet. He was then assigned
as the Fleet Judge Advocate, Commander, THIRD Fleet.
Fred Becker's next assignment was as the Legal Counsel to the Chief
of Naval Personnel. Following the tour of duty as Legal Counsel to the
Chief of Naval Personnel, Fred Becker was assigned as the Director,
Legislation, U.S. Navy Office of Legislative Affairs. In this position
he supervised a staff eleven civilian and military personnel conducting
Congressional legislative affairs on such diverse issues as military
personnel and compensation, health care, Naval Reserve programs,
government contracting, military construction, moral, welfare and
recreation programs and environmental compliance.
Fred Becker qualified as a Surface Warfare Office in 1974. He is a
member of the Virginia Bar. He has been awarded the Legion of Merit
(second award), the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, the Navy
Meritorious Service Medal (fourth award), the Joint Service
Commendation Medal and the Navy Commendation Medal (second award). He
is also entitled to wear the Presidential Service Badge. He retired
from the U.S. Navy on 1 November 1996, immediately assuming the
position of Naval Affairs Director for the Reserve Officers Association
of the United States.
Fred Becker is listed in ``Who's Who In American Law,'' and ``Who's
Who Among Emerging Young Leaders in America.'' He is married to the
former Barbara Lee Sheinhouse of Pittsfield, Massachusetts. Barbara is
a Lieutenant Colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve (Nurse Corps) (Retired).
They have four daughters: Kimberly, a junior at East Carolina
University; Lori, a freshman at The College of William and Mary;
Melissa, a high school freshman; and Ashley, who is in elementary
school.
______
Highway-Related Testimony
Prepared Statement of Michael P. Kenny, Executive Officer, California
Air Resources Board; Barbara Patrick, Member, Board Supervisors of Kern
County and Member, California Air Resources Board; Manuel Cunha, Jr.,
President, NISEI Farmers League; Less Clark, Vice President,
Independent Oil Producers' Association; and Catherine H. Reheis,
Managing Coordinator, Western States Petroleum Association
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 1999 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:
--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;
--Characterization of the sources and composition of PM-10/PM-2.5
emissions from roadway construction;
--Tunnel study; and
--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.
Our Coalition is working diligently 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 $19 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 $8 million over the next two years
to fund this important study.
To date, this study project has benefited from federal funding
through the United States Department of Agriculture's, the Department
of Transportation's, the Department of Defense's, the Department of the
Interior's and the Environmental Protection Agency's budgets--a total
of $10.6 million in federal funding, including the $100,000 the
Subcommittee provided in the fiscal year 1998 bill. State and industry
funding has matched this amount virtually dollar for dollar.
With the planning phase of the California Regional PM-10/PM-2.5 Air
Quality Study nearly complete, a number of significant accomplishments
have been achieved. These interim products have not only provided
guidance for completion of the remainder of the Study and crucial
information for near-term regulatory planning, they have also produced
preliminary findings which are significant to the Department of
Transportation's (DOT) interests.
The Study is significant to DOT interests for a number of reasons.
The San Joaquin Valley experiences some of the most severe PM episodes
in the nation. The information being collected by the PM study is
essential for development of sound and cost-effective control plans.
Both directly emitted particulate matter and gaseous precursor
emissions from transportation sources play a significant role in
contributing to PM exceedances. Direct PM emissions include
contributions from on- and off-road tailpipe exhaust, brake- and tire-
wear, and re-entrained dust from paved and unpaved roads. Gaseous
exhaust and evaporative emissions from mobile sources also contribute
to the formation of secondary ammonium nitrate, sulfate, and organic
carbon. Without a sound understanding of the role that transportation
sources play in PM exceedances, these sources could be subjected to
unnecessary or ineffective controls. Control plans for the San Joaquin
Valley, based upon the results of the PM study, will help address the
potential impacts of emissions from transportation sources and ensure
an equitable and effective distribution of controls.
To this end, the PM study is expending significant resources to
provide an improved understanding of emission sources within the San
Joaquin Valley and surrounding regions and to define the impacts of
these sources on ambient PM. A preliminary field monitoring program was
conducted during the fall and winter of 1995-1996. Extensive air
quality and meteorological measurements were collected. This database
is being analyzed to address a number of questions including: (1) the
sources contributing to elevated PM-10 and PM-2.5 concentrations, (2)
the zone of influence of specific sources, and (3) wind flow patterns
and transport routes between the Valley and surrounding areas.
Additional research has addressed emissions from unpaved roads and
evaluated the effectiveness of dust suppression methods. The results of
this study suggest that current emissions factors are too low, and that
emissions from unpaved roads are dependent upon road silt loading
rather than on soil silt content. The study also identified polymer
emulsion and non-hazardous crude oil products as the most effective for
long-term dust suppression.
The results of these studies are being used to design large scale
field monitoring programs to be conducted in 1999 and 2000. These field
programs will address both the annual and 24-hour PM-10 and PM-2.5
standards. Surface and aloft monitoring of air quality, meteorology,
fog, and visibility will be conducted at a cost of over $12 million.
Final plans for these field studies are being developed, which will be
carried out by numerous contractors over a broad area encompassing
Central California, the Sierra Nevada Mountains, and the Mojave Desert.
Substantial resources will also be devoted to developing improved
emissions estimates. A database of the field study results will be
completed in 2001, with air quality modeling and data analysis findings
available in 2002. This timeline is ideally positioned to provide
information for federal planning requirements as part of the new PM-10/
PM-2.5 national ambient air quality standards.
The Department of Transportation's prior funding and participation
have enabled these projects to occur. Continued support by DOT is
essential to implement a full scope of emissions assessment and control
method demonstration projects for transportation related sources, and
to ensure that DOT concerns are met.
For fiscal year 1999, 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 1999, 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 1999 appropriation of $100,000 for DOT to
support the California Regional PM-10/PM-2.5 Air Quality Study.
______
Prepared Statement of Jack Van Steenburg, President, Commercial Vehicle
Safety Alliance
cvsa comments on fiscal 1999 omc budget proposal
1. Duplication of programs/projects in the three budget categories:
Safety Operations; Information Systems and Strategic Safety Initiatives
of the National Motor Carrier Safety Program; and Motor Carrier
Research.
Discussion.--There appears to be a duplication of effort in one or
more of these areas. Examples are Sections A and B of the new
Information Systems and Strategic Safety Initiatives under the MCSAP
program which are also duplicated under the Motor Carrier Research
program. There are other examples as well.
Recommendation.--A major reorganization and streamlining of the
above programs should be undertaken in connection with the overall
reorganization and strategic planning process that is now taking place
in the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).
2. ITS-CVO Funds.
Discussion.--Major ITS-CVO program funding requests are submitted
separately from the above three OMC programs yet are integrally related
to all three programs, especially to the new performance-based approach
emphasized under the basic MCSAP program. Most important to note is
that these ITS-CVO funds are requested by the federal-aid highway
division of FHWA rather than from the OMC and are not directed to the
lead MCSAP agency in the states, with the result that the enforcement
community may not share in these funds. MCSAP resources are limited at
best and do not always allow the agency to fully participate in ITS-CVO
planning and deployment.
Recommendation.--Steps should be taken to ensure that appropriated
ITS-CVO funds that directly relate to commercial vehicle safety
enforcement reach the state MCSAP lead agency since it plays a key role
in ITS-CVO planning and deployment. A full time ITS-CVO Coordinator for
the MCSAP agency should be an eligible expense under such funding.
3. Hazardous Materials.
Discussion.--The 1990 HAZMAT ACT established a working group to
develop a uniform permitting plan and placed responsibility with the
OMC to carry out the program. OMC has not completed its work in this
regard. This is a base state program much like IRP and IFTA. Seed money
of at least $250,000 annually is needed for the next six years for
states to make an initial commitment to the program.
Recommendation.--The OMC should make funding available and
otherwise actively promote state participation in what is known as the
Uniform Program which would provide for uniformity in hazardous
materials registration and permitting procedures.
4. MCSAP Funding of Local Agencies.
Discussion.--In recent years, local jurisdictions within states
(largely municipalities) have indicted a desire to receive MCSAP money
to conduct truck and bus inspections. In some states, such as Oregon
and Missouri, this has worked well and uniformity and quality of
inspections have been maintained due to state control. In some other
states, however, the state enforcement agencies have not assumed
responsibility and control of local jurisdictions. Thus, the ``locals''
have used inspections primarily for revenue enhancement purposes and
quality and uniformity of inspections have suffered. Carriers have
undergone duplicate inspections. Many times incorrect information
resulting from these inspections has been entered into national data
systems such as MCMIS and Safetynet.
Recommendation.--To maintain uniformity and quality of truck and
bus inspections at the local level, all funds received by local
agencies should only be distributed through the lead MCSAP agency in
the state. Further, the local agency should sign a memorandum of
understanding with the lead MCSAP agency ensuring that the uniformity
and quality of the inspections will be maintained to the level of
overall state standards as well as ensure the quality of data entry
into MCMIS and Safetynet. The memorandum should provide for training
and continuing certification of inspection officers.
5. Funding level for performance based plans, safety incentive
grants, and the basic MCSAP program.
Discussion.--The fiscal 1998 appropriation for the basic MCSAP
program was approximately $73 million which when taken into
consideration with the elimination of special earmarks, amounted to a
substantial increase. Yet in the 1999 proposed budget, the OMC proposes
to reduce the basic program to $67 million. While an additional
$7,500,000 could be made available through Safety Performance Incentive
Grants and another $7,000,000 through the border and high priority
initiatives programs, not all states may be able to share funding under
these latter two categories, particularly the Safety Performance
Incentive Grants.
Only 14 states thus far have been participating in the performance
based pilot project. Approximately another 10 (8 pilot and 2 prototype)
states are participants in the ITS-CVO CVISN program. The OMC has yet
to issue a performance rulemaking establishing performance based
criteria for the states. Thus, it is quite possible that some states
may find themselves unable to compete for these additional funds. But
these same states may have very good basic programs which are in fact a
version of performance based programs, yet they may not have the
benefit of training to prepare a CVSP (formerly SEP) plan for fiscal
1999. The result may be that these states will receive less money than
last year as they try to maintain an effective inspection program and
increase inspector salaries.
Recommendation.--In fiscal 1999, as in fiscal 1998, ensure that all
states be allocated the Safety Performance Incentive grants by formula.
It is premature to do otherwise. After the OMC issues its rulemaking
laying out specific performance based guidelines and goals, and after
all states have had the benefit of performance based training, then the
following fiscal year should signal definite shift to performance based
funding.
6. Accident Causation and Investigation.
Discussion.--With respect to crash causation, in its 1999 budget
request, the OMC proposes to expend funds (amount not specified) to
``build upon current research to determine appropriate crash causation
factors after on scene investigations of a sample motor carrier traffic
crashes (fatal and non-fatal).''
Recommendation.--To accomplish this, the OMC should implement the
principles learned in the Minnesota pilot accident investigation
project by including other states in the pilot program and by
initiating the development of a national accident causation data base.
7. National Training Center.
Discussion.--The OMC indicates plans to seek funds for contracting
new professional curriculum developer/trainer for the NTC.
Recommendation.--The OMC should further indicate in detail what its
long term plans are for the NTC. With streamlining and downsizing a
paramount goal of the FHWA reorganization underway, it may be that the
function of training could be entirely privatized over time.
8. Privatization of Inspections.
Discussion.--Privatization of commercial vehicle inspection
programs are being piloted in Canada, and are also being supported by
the bus industry in the United States.
Recommendation.--The OMC should encourage and/or undertake pilot
programs in this regard to be able to accurately assess the feasibility
and reliability of such programs.
______
Prepared Statement of Harry Harris, Chairman, I-95 Corridor Coalition,
Executive Board, Deputy Commissioner, Connecticut Department of
Transportation
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this written testimony to
the record of the Subcommittee on Transportation, Committee on
Appropriations, U.S. Senate regarding the fiscal year 1999 U.S.
Department of Transportation Appropriations.
On behalf of the I-95 Corridor Coalition, I want to thank the
Subcommittee for its role in providing the Coalition with $1 million in
the fiscal year 1998 U.S. Department of Transportation Appropriations
(Public Law 105-66). We are currently unable to access those funds due
to the lack of long term reauthorization of federal surface
transportation programs; however, when that problem is resolved we will
make highly productive use of the funds provided to us.
This year, the Coalition celebrates its fifth anniversary. We are
proud of what we have accomplished in our first few years. We believe
these accomplishments have set a strong foundation for a promising
future. We believe that all the investors in the Coalition have
received a positive return.
In order to plan most effectively for that future, the Coalition
has prepared a new business plan designed to focus our efforts, expand
participation, and encourage public-private partnerships. Central to
the new business plan are eight ``tracks'' covering the following
program areas: agency support; inter-regional multimodal travel
information; coordinated incident management; commercial vehicle
operations; intermodal transfer of people and goods; electronic payment
services, coalition support services; and emerging issues. The
continued support of all of the partners is essential to the overall
success of the Coalition in these vital areas. An investment of $5
million in fiscal year 1999 by federal stakeholders, coupled with
contributions by all of the other members, will improve the safety and
efficiency of the entire Corridor. As a result, the Coalition's efforts
would contribute to the national goals of congestion reduction,
improved shipment of goods and services inter-regionally, and better
air quality.
background
With more than 50 million residents, the Northeast Corridor is the
most heavily burdened transportation network in the United States.
Increasingly, the region's 13 major airports, more than two dozen major
rail stations, 11 major seaports, and 30,000 miles of Interstate and
primary highways need thoughtful, coordinated management across
multijurisdictional lines.
Interstate 95 is the backbone of this transportation system. In
1993, the I-95 Northeast Corridor was named a Priority Corridor by the
U.S. Department of Transportation, and the I-95 Corridor Coalition was
established to enhance mobility, safety, and efficiency across all
modes and transportation facilities that serve the region. The
Coalition, a partnership of 27 transportation agencies, brings its
diverse members and other partners together to cooperatively address
the transportation problems that affect the entire region. We strive to
add value to the activities of member organizations by leveraging
resources, sharing information, and coordinating programs. While
participating at the national level, we have focused on corridor needs
and members' objectives, in order to develop practical standards that
can be readily implemented and which promote interoperability.
seamless transportation
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) make a contribution to
improving transportation safety and efficiency. However, the greatest
obstacles to widespread realization of ITS' benefits are institutional
barriers. ITS requires new types of regional collaboration, in order to
move toward ``seamless'' systems operation and service delivery.
``Seamless'' systems require new partners, both public and private. The
regionally ``seamless'' and user-responsive transportation service goal
at the core of ITS is based on implementing an operations-oriented,
information-intensive approach requiring close communication and
coordination between multiple systems and agencies. To help achieve the
goal of ``seamlessness,'' the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991 created the ITS Priority Corridor Program. The
Priority Corridor Program provides a crucial bridge between the
laboratory and large scale deployment. According to Dr. Christine M.
Johnson, the Director of the Federal Highway Administration's Joint
Intelligent Transportation System Program Office, the Corridor Program
``has been extremely effective in teaching us about the institutional
arrangements necessary to advance the intermodal and multimodal
transportation needs.''
traveler information and incident management: test results
Advanced technologies and increased interagency communications,
coordination and cooperation are the foundation of the I-95 Corridor
Coalition's efforts. Upon this foundation it has developed a shared
information network that supports a regional intermodal traveler
information and incident management system. The cooperative efforts of
members mean ITS technologies deployed locally can be used to benefit
agencies--and more important, travelers--from Maine to Virginia.
The Coalition's efforts were put to the test on October 9, 1997,
when a tank truck carrying 8,000 gallons of gasoline was rear-ended as
it made a legal U-turn in Yonkers, New York. The truck burst into
flames almost immediately and then exploded beneath the overpass of the
New York State Thruway. The fire buckled and literally melted portions
of the seven-lane, 60-foot steel and concrete bridge, igniting a
potential traffic nightmare for motorists up and down the Northeast
Corridor.
The accident sent local officials scrambling for ways to reroute
the 76,000 vehicles that use the New York State Thruway daily, and
triggered incident management activities around the region through the
I-95 Corridor Coalition's Information Exchange Network (IEN). The IEN
is a real-time information exchange network designed to interconnect
Coalition member agencies' facilities throughout the Corridor. Within
minutes, TRANSCOM, an independent group of agencies in the New York
City metropolitan area serving as the communications center for the
Coalition, flashed the news of the accident up and down the eastern
seaboard using the 52 work stations that make up the IEN. Coalition
members were notified of the incident's location, estimated duration,
and the impact on traffic.
Numerous Coalition agencies, assisted by the Coalition's
communications center, then used a combination of variable message
signs and highway advisory radio to provide news about the incident and
inform motorists, especially long-haul truckers. This real-time
information exchange contributed immensely to timely response
throughout the entire region. For the 11 days until a temporary bridge
could be installed, the IEN helped transportation officials reroute
traffic and prevent more severe delays. States cooperated by suspending
highway construction projects that might have created additional
delays. Transit systems added more buses, trains and subways. By
reaching travelers outside the New York Metropolitan region, the
Coalition encouraged diversion, not just within the affected region but
completely around it.
Then IEN and inter-agency cooperation, were similarly effective in
March, 1996, when a major fire closed a section of I-95 in the Port
Richmond area of Philadelphia.
We believe these examples clearly demonstrate the benefits of our
ability to blend technology and institutional cooperation to solve
real-world problems.
electronic toll and traffic management (ettm)
Another area which clearly reflects the Coalition's mission of
blending technology with cooperation among jurisdictions is Electronic
Toll and Traffic Management (ETTM). The Coalition's vision for ETTM
involves one tag per vehicle, one account per customer, one set of
credentials per commercial vehicle, and expanded use of ETTM
technology. This vision reflects the need for, and importance of, ETTM
compatibility and interoperability throughout the Corridor. ETTM
interoperability enables commercial vehicle operators, commuters, and
recreational travelers to move conveniently and safely throughout the
Northeast Corridor. As specific projects are developed, this vision
will serve as our guide.
commercial vehicle operations (cvo)
No region in the country is as dependent on truck traffic for
freight movement as the Northeast Corridor. Increased productivity of
the motor carrier industry plays a vital role in the economic life of
the region. The I-95 Corridor Coalition devotes considerable attention
to improving both the safety and the efficiency of the motor carrier
industry. The benefits are measurable. For example, a study from the
Massachusetts Metro Transportation Association finds the cost of
administrative compliance for motor carriers in the Commonwealth could
be reduced by $2.4 million annually through adoption of ITS.
The Coalition has developed a CVO Program for the Corridor that
will enhance productivity of the goods-movement industry and will be
consistent with the broad deployment of the commercial vehicle
information systems and networks (CVISN). Full implementation of all
aspects of the program will improve safety and enforcement through
automated credentialing processes, and information-sharing
partnerships. The Coalition has created a CVO Program Track Committee
that is a partnership of transportation, registration, toll, law
enforcement and motor carrier groups whose objective it is to work
together on all issues affecting their implementation of ITS. Projects
already initiated include:
--A system that will provide commercial vehicle dispatchers and
drivers with information on congestion, incidents, weather and
routing that is necessary to meet the demands of shippers and
receivers in the Corridor for fast, timely and reliable
delivery of goods and services.
--Projects using computerized roadside communications, automatic
vehicle ID, mobile inspection cameras, and a national Motor
Carrier Safety Program prototype that will help improve safety
and streamline inspections.
--Since each state has a unique regulatory system, credentialing
programs often impose redundant and complex requirements on
motor carriers. The goal of a credentials administration
initiative is to reduce costs incurred by states and carriers,
and bureaucratic red tape by streamlining the credential
administration processes for commercial vehicles.
--An electronic registration systems test will allow motor carriers
to register their vehicles electronically with state motor
vehicle agencies. Motor carriers will be able to use a basic
personal computer in their offices, or use the Internet to
register their vehicles and apply for permits. An interstate
clearinghouse will also be explored as a way to enable state
motor vehicle agencies to exchange information and reconcile
registration fee accounts among the states.
intermodal transportation
A key focus of the Coalition is to facilitate transportation
solutions that make the most efficient use of our transportation
infrastructure. Increasingly, transportation must be viewed as a total
system rather than a collection of modal entities. For this reason, the
Coalition has identified the intermodal transfer of people and goods as
a major area of emphasis for the next five years. We also recognize
that if a true intermodal system is to become a reality, government and
industry must become partners in its on-going development. For this
reason, the Coalition is planning an ``Intermodal Forum'' to take place
in mid or late 1998. The purpose of the Forum is to engage public and
private stakeholders--shippers, air, rail and truck operators, port
authorities, terminal operators, transit operators and others--in an
interactive dialogue on intermodal challenges and opportunities.
Results of the Forum will be used to focus Coalition activities that
will benefit the member agencies throughout the Corridor.
conclusion
Continued financial support of $5 million for federal fiscal year
1999 will allow the I-95 Corridor Coalition to continue all these
efforts, particularly in the areas of incident management, congestion
mitigation, and commercial vehicle operations. Further, the Coalition
will apply the funding to explore highly selected new areas such as the
application of ITS to intermodal transportation, and to continue work
on standards which will support interoperability of systems across
members' boundaries. We appreciate the endorsement of our request in
testimony submitted by the Coalition of Northeastern Governors and
others. In closing, let me thank the subcommittee again for its valued
support. We look forward to working with you in the future.
______
Passenger Rail-Related Testimony
Prepared Statement of W. Ron Allen, President, National Congress of
American Indians
introduction
Good morning Chairman Shelby, Vice-Chairman Lautenberg and
distinguished members of the Appropriations Subcommittee on
Transportation. Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony
regarding the President's budget request for fiscal year 1999 Indian
programs and services. My name is W. Ron Allen. I am President of the
National Congress of American Indians (``NCAI''), the oldest, largest
and most representative Indian advocacy organization in the nation, and
Chairman of the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe located in Washington State.
The National Congress of American Indians was organized in 1944 in
response to termination and assimilation policies and legislation
promulgated by the federal government which proved to be devastating to
Indian Nations and Indian people throughout the country. NCAI remains
dedicated to advocating aggressively on behalf of the interests of our
230 member tribes on a myriad of issues including the critical issue of
adequate funding for Indian programs.
Department of Transportation
Funding for the Indian Reservation Road (IRR) program, which funds
the construction and maintenance of public roads that provide access to
and within Indian reservations, Indian trust lands, restricted Indian
land and Alaska Native villages, is authorized under the Intermodal
Surface Transportation and Efficiency Act, or ISTEA (Public Law 102-
240). The IRR program is jointly administered by the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). On
September 30, 1997, authorization for ISTEA expired.
There is an enormous need for transportation infrastructure on
Indian reservations throughout this country. Fully 66 percent of the
roads serving Native American communities are unpaved. These roads are
dirt or clay or occasionally covered with gravel, ungraded and usually
in a washboard and deeply rutted condition. On many Reservations, the
roads regularly turn to mud or wash out in Spring and Fall rains.
People walk for miles to get to their homes, and emergency services,
health care, law enforcement, heating fuel, food, water and general
commerce are disrupted.
Any comparison of Indian roads to the rest of America's roads
reveals a chronic inequity in the allocation of ISTEA Funds to Indian
Reservation Roads (IRR). IRR roads make up 2.63 percent of all existing
roads on the federal-aid highway system. Yet IRR roads have
historically received less than 1 percent of the aid provided under
ISTEA. S. 1173 as amended would increase overall transportation
spending by 40 percent over the levels in 1991 law. But S. 1173 would
nearly flatline the IRR roads when accounting for inflation.
Indian reservations have a 31 percent poverty rate--the highest
poverty rate in America. Indian unemployment is six times the national
average; and Indian health, education and income statistics are the
worst in the country. With the implementation of welfare reform well
underway, tribal government leaders are taking up the challenge of
creating jobs and spurring tribal economies. This critical work cannot
be accomplished if transportation infrastructure is allowed to remain
in its current deplorable condition. The funding allocation to Indian
roads should be dramatically increased.
Maintenance of IRR roads is also a critical issue. The Bureau of
Indian Affairs has only $25 million available for the maintenance of
roads on 340 Indian reservations in the lower 48 states. As a result,
on average only $500 dollars per mile is spent on Indian roads
maintenance, and in some instances as little as $80. States on the
other hand, spend between $2,500 to $4,000 per mile for maintenance.
One solution to this critical problem is to allow Indian Reservation
Roads funds to be used directly by the tribes for road maintenance and
increase funds available under this program, while ensuring that the
BIA road maintenance program is retained.
Mr. Chairman, efficient roads are vital to support most aspects of
life on Indian lands including critical activities such as economic
development, attending school, obtaining health care, and transporting
people from welfare to work. The IRR program currently receives $191
million; however, Indian country's transportation needs far outweigh
this amount. During Senate reauthorization of ISTEA, Senator Domenici
was able to increase funding for IRR to $250 million annually, the
minimum level needed to ensure that tribal governments effectively
address the needs of their communities . NCAI strongly supports this
increase since it would help to significantly improve the living
conditions on many of our reservations. Therefore, we urge the Senate
Appropriations Committee to also support the $250 million funding
level.
conclusion
Mr. Chairman, we urge the Congress to fulfill its fiduciary duty to
American Indians and Alaska Native people and to uphold the trust
responsibility as well as preserve the Government-to-Government
relationship, which includes the fulfillment of health, education and
welfare needs of all Indian tribes in the United States. This
responsibility should never be compromised or diminished because of any
Congressional agenda or party platform promises. Tribes throughout the
nation relinquished their lands as well as their rights to liberty and
property in exchange for these on-going services as well as this trust
responsibility. The President's fiscal year 1999 budget is a positive
step towards acknowledging the fiduciary duty owed to tribes.
We ask that the Congress consider the funding levels in the
President's budget as the minimum funding levels required by Congress
to maintain these services and the federal trust responsibility. The
consensus of Indian country is that the federal government's budgetary
process has failed to provide for effective services and minimum to
raise the living standards of Indian communities consistent with non-
Indian communities. In order for federal government to reasonably
expect tribal governments to truly achieve the self-determination,
self-governance and self-sufficiency goals mutually identified by the
federal government and the tribal governments will not be achieved
unless meaningful increases are provided for Indian programs and
services.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. Thank you for allowing
me to present for the record, on behalf of our member tribes, the
National Congress of American Indians' initial comments regarding the
fiscal year 1999 budget.
______
Prepared Statement of the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission
intelligent transportation systems on the pennsylvania turnpike
The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission is committed to continued
investment and expansion into Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS).
The Turnpike has allocated considerable resources and staffing to three
sequential phases of ITS technological implementation. An ITS Early
Deployment Strategic Plan was completed in 1996 to identify goals and
objectives for system implementation. The key areas have been addressed
in three phases and will be expanded as further funds become available.
Safety and traveler's information are two of the most important
goals of the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission. Many ITS components
exist on the Turnpike and have been operational for some time. Call
boxes are located at every mile, cellular number *11 can be utilized
for instant communication with our fully staffed operations center,
emergency services and response time have been integrated and
coordinated for all sections of the Turnpike and are directed via a
Computer Aided Dispatch System (CADS), and radio communications can be
transmitted on the 506 miles of toll road by a microwave communication
system. First Responder emergency vehicles are stationed at strategic
locations along the system to provide initial containment and support
during an incident.
The Commission completed and began operating Phase I of an Advanced
Traveler's Information System (ATIS) in March 1998. This $2 million
project was funded entirely with Turnpike Commission financial
resources. This project was initiated in conjunction with a major
construction project in the Philadelphia metropolitan area. The system
includes three, fiber-optic, variable message signs and five highway
advisory radios controlled from the Commission's operations center in
Harrisburg. In conjunction with these methods to inform the motoring
public, incident management plans were established to address
anticipated problems between interchanges resulting from construction,
weather or accidents. In order to insure all information is accurate,
timely and useful, the Commission has added four full time Supervisory
Operation Center Duty Officers to provided 24 hour, 7 day operation of
the system in addition to the existing complement of approximately 15
that nominally staff the Operation Center.
Phase II of the Turnpike's ATIS will begin construction during Fall
1998 and is scheduled for operation during Fall 1999. This project was
funded in part with the $3 million Federal ITS appropriation provided
in fiscal year 1997. This system expansion includes four, fiber-optic,
variable message signs, eleven highway advisory radios and two closed
circuit television cameras. This hardware will be installed at high
traffic volume areas in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh to provide real
time driver information throughout the system. This project will also
provide an integrated central computer control system for devices
installed during both Phase I and Phase II. This central computer
control system will also allow further expansion to include elements in
future phases while integrating with other coordinating State, local
and private intermodal agencies through the use of the National
Transportation Communications for ITS Protocols (NTCIP) specifications.
Specially video, audio and data will be made available to existing
intermodal agencies as well as private organizations who specialize in
transportation monitoring and dissemination. Weather, road and traffic
conditions are on the Turnpike's Internet web site.
The Commission is finalizing a scope of work for Phase III of the
ATIS. This project will be partially funded with $6 million Federal ITS
appropriation provided in fiscal year 1998. The planned scope of work
for Phase III includes seven highway advisory radios, four variable
message signs, seven closed circuit television cameras, two truck
rollover systems, four roadway weather information systems, a number of
traffic flow monitoring sites between Valley Forge Interchange and the
Delaware River bridge, and between Mid-County Interchange and Lansdale
Interchange, an overheight detection system in advance of the Lehigh
Valley Tunnel, and an incident response vehicle to provide video and
data from an incident scene to the Harrisburg operations center.
Although financial resources are being maximized, there is still a
significant shortage of financial resources for deployment of ITS
technologies. It is anticipated that 4 to 7 years will be needed for
full deployment. A federal-aid grant of $14 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 with potential expansion to other agencies. It
will marry separate components of ITS systems into a universal system
that will be comprised of advanced telecommunications, information and
computer technologies within 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 ATIS in order to
provide more timely, accurate and useful information to the motoring
public to greet the 21st century. Further, real time traffic and
weather information provided to the operations center will allow for
more rapid detection, verification and response to roadway and weather
incidents to minimize roadway hazards and maximize safety.
To provide more accurate and timely information and warnings to
drivers, the Commission would like to expand the traffic sensor
coverage planned for in Phase III. In Phase III, traffic sensors are
planned for installation in the Philadelphia and Pittsburgh
metropolitan areas. Further installations of sensors between
interchanges, augmented with concentrated installations in high volume
locations will provide valuable information to the operations center.
This information can then be disseminated to in-route drivers via the
existing highway advisory radios and variable message signs. This
information may also be further disbursed through the Commission's
world wide web site and to Turnpike satellite facilities via local and
wide area networks. In addition, this information will be shared with
other public agencies including PaDOT, transit and port authorities.
The Commission will actively pursue private partners to disseminate
this information with value added information. This will help to
demonstrate and facilitate the deployment of ITS in both urban and
rural areas. In addition, this real time traffic information will be
available and useful for commercial vehicle operators in providing just
in time service.
Incident detection and verification will be improved via deployment
of additional closed circuit television cameras. These camera's will
also be linked to existing video detection equipment in the tunnels.
This information will also be made available to the Commission's public
private partners for further dissemination.
Incidents in the Commission's tunnels represent extremely dangerous
conditions for drivers in the tunnel as well as drivers approaching the
entrance. A tunnel incident detection and verification system would
greatly improve the detection and response to these situations. A
proposed system to be installed in the Tuscarora, Blue Mountain and
Kittatinny Tunnels would include video detection sensors, speed
sensors, lane control signs and signals and advance warning variable
message signing.
Due to the wide range of geographic regions served by the Turnpike,
weather conditions vary greatly across the system. The Pennsylvania
Turnpike has been known as the all weather highway and is vital
critical link to and from the East Coast, during winter storms. In
addition to the four weather stations to be installed in Phase III,
further system coverage would be enhanced by adding more roadway
weather sensor stations. Installations in locations which experience
recurring weather events such as fog, icing and extreme temperature
variations will be targeted. 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. This
system will also allow travelers to obtain more accurate and timely
weather information through the Commission's existing and expanded ATIS
including pre-trip information through the Commission's web site and
via our private partners.
Improvements to the operation center may include development of a
Geographic Information System or electronic map. This system will allow
operators to identify on the map locations of the incidents, the number
of lanes opened at an interchange, lane closures and will automatically
identify the locations of call box calls and the nature of the call,
locations of cellular phone emergency calls, status of traffic flow
detectors, camera locations, weather sensor information and messages on
the ATIS components while providing a central control system for all
technologies.
In order to improve service the Commission provides to commercial
vehicle operators that use the Turnpike, an on line computer permitting
system for oversize and hazardous material loads may be deployed. This
system would allow commercial vehicle operators to obtain necessary
permits via computer and will be linked to PennDOT's and surrounding
states computer permitting systems. Preliminary discussions and
research are being considered to provide commercial vehicles with a
chip in the E-Z pass electronic toll transponder so that it could be
located by the global position system satellites.
In 1940, the Pennsylvania Turnpike sparked a revolution in the way
motorists, truckers, engineers and consumers viewed highway
transportation. By the continued implementation of ITS, the Turnpike
will spark another revolution in this view, by providing the most
efficient network for the movement of goods and people across the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and will continue as a model for state of
the art highway facilities for the nation. Furthermore, by expanding
existing, proven technology in a phased approach, the Commission is
demonstrating how ITS can provide improved safety, efficiency, traffic
flow and customer 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.
______
National Highway Traffic Safety Commission-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, Department of Anatomy,
Cell Biology and Injury Sciences, New Jersey Medical School, University
of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey
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 of New Jersey (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 McMathias, Jr., National Study Center for Trauma
and Emergency 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, D.C. 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 full NHTSA Trauma
Network which supports the ``CIREN: Human Crash Injury Project'', three
additional centers designed 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
for an initial three-year period, under an agreement which excludes GM
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.
Collaborative studies in Baltimore and New Jersey have identified,
subtle but important, aspects of sex and body habitus 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 service 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, D.C. 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. It is
injury which is the most costly aspect of the motor vehicle crash,
raising healthcare 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 CIREN Human Crash Injury Group have already
identified important characteristics of injury which were not
previously recognized. These studies 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,
investigations carried out jointly at the New Jersey Medical School and
the Charles McMathias National Study Center, have shown that air-bag
deployment in frontal motor vehicle crashes significantly (p0.01)
reduced the incidence of severe brain injury (GCS-12) from 67 percent
to 29 percent even though the total incidence of brain injuries
remained unmodified. 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 discernable 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 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: UMDNJ, The Lehman Center at Jackson
Memorial Hospital in Miami, the McMathias 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 patients, 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 research centers participating in the Human Crash Injury Project
for a total of $2 million. 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 on an on-
going basis into the future. 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 5,000
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 Senate 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.
______
Prepared Statement of G. Linn Roth, Ph.D., Chairman, Committee for a
Balanced Radionavigation Policy, International Loran Association
As Chairman of the International Loran Association's (ILA)
Committee for a Balanced Radionavigation Policy, I am writing regarding
an issue of critical importance to the domestic and international
radionavigation community--the need for additional steps to assure
continuation of the Loran system within the United States. We
respectfully request that this statement be made a part of the hearing
record in conjunction with the fiscal year 1999 Department of
Transportation (DOT) and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill and in
particular the budget for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and
the Coast Guard.
introduction
As has been noted in previous legislative history and the Federal
Radionavigation Plan (FRP), the United States has always operated
radionavigation systems, which includes Loran, as a necessary element
to safe transportation and to meet civil requirements for cost-
effective services. Because of the evolving interest in satellite
navigation, consideration is being given to the phase out of various
existing radionavigation systems. It has been proposed by the
Administration that the Loran system be shut down by the year 2000
despite an overwhelming consensus among marine, aviation, surface,
telecommunications and other users--even the proponents of satellite
technology--that Loran is necessary to enhance safe transportation and
to provide a complement and backup for GPS to protect the critical
national infrastructure in the event of temporary loss or disruption of
satellite technology.
The DOT and Related Agencies Appropriations Bills for fiscal year
1997 and fiscal year 1998 included nearly $8,000,000 to begin
revitalization of the Loran infrastructure. Moreover, recent Coast
Guard authorization legislation included a provision requiring the
Department of Transportation (DOT), in cooperation with the Department
of Commerce, to provide a plan defining the future use of and funding
for upgrade of the Loran infrastructure.
Work was to be completed on that plan early in 1997 but was only
initiated late in the year. Booz-Allen and Hamilton (BAH) was tasked by
DOT to assist in compiling data and undertake a cost/benefit analysis
in conjunction with preparation of the plan mandated by Congress. BAH
completed its work early this year and its preliminary findings support
retention of Loran. In fact, BAH received more than 2,000 responses
during its public comment period and 94 percent of the responses
expressed support for continuation of Loran.
In recent years, Congress has repeatedly supported steps to prompt
action on initiatives to take advantage of the substantial investment
that the federal government and users have made in Loran and the
compatibility that the technology has with the Global Positioning
System (GPS). In view of the instability of 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.
loran u.s. status/international developments
There are millions of Loran users and beneficiaries in the U.S.
Loran, which is a well-proven, reliable and cost-effective technology,
is undergoing substantial international growth throughout Europe,
China, India and Russia. Most significant is the recently developed
`Eurofix' system, which allows the Loran system to be utilized both for
augmentation of GPS, providing differential corrections and integrity
messaging, and for a backup service, providing navigation services in
the event of GPS signal loss or interference. Further, the
international implementation of Loran includes the facility to
synchronize to GPS, greatly improving the robustness, availability and
accuracy of the total navigation service available in the participating
nations. This growth has benefited U.S. exports and employment, and can
potentially add several hundred million dollars to future exports.
Importantly, great strides in the international acceptance of GPS can
be expected should the U.S. choose to harmonize with the navigation
services in these nations.
loran multimodal user perspective
Marine, aviation, surface and other users are convinced that
current DOT policy to terminate various radionavigation services and
ultimately rely solely on the Global Positioning System (GPS) and its
augmentations, contradicts long-standing U.S. transportation policy and
is inconsistent with our nation's transportation safety objectives. In
view of recognized GPS vulnerabilities and transportation user safety
goals, U.S. policy that may eventually position the nation as fully
dependent on GPS as its sole-means navigation system is short-sighted
and will not meet ongoing user safety requirements.
In the meantime, there is a broad consensus among users that Loran
should be fully supported as a part of the future navigation mix. In
fact, in addition to the public responses recently received by BAH,
more than 22,000 individuals have signed petitions and several thousand
letters have been sent to various government officials supporting
Loran.
Groups and organizations representing millions of users and
beneficiaries that support continuation of Loran include: Aircraft
Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), BOAT/US, National Marine
Electronics Association (NMEA), National Fisherman, National
Association of State Aviation Officials (NASAO), National Air
Transportation Association (NATA), National Business Aircraft
Association (NBAA), Small Aircraft Manufacturers Association (SAMA),
International Navigation Association (INA), International Loran
Association (ILA), Northwest European Loran Systems (NELS), Far East
Radionavigation Service (FERNS), European Union (EU), International
Association of Lighthouse Authorities (IALA), and the Radionavigation
Intergovernmental Council.
I have attached with my statement, specific recent examples of user
comments in support of Loran.
The President's Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection
Recent findings of the Report of the President's Commission on
Critical Infrastructure Protection, titled ``Critical Foundations:
Protecting America's Infrastructures'' also contradict existing policy
of the DOT and some of its agencies to rely solely on satellite
technology in the future. In its report, plain and unequivocal concerns
are expressed about relying on sole means technology. The report
assesses the general lack of preparation by the Department of
Transportation (DOT) and agencies like the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) to deal with ``cyber threats''. It recommends,
among other actions, that the DOT: `` * * * Fully evaluate actual and
potential sources of interference to, and vulnerabilities of, GPS
before a final decision is reached to eliminate other radionavigation
and aircraft landing guidance systems. * * * ''
the federal radionavigation plan (frp)
The 1992 FRP and several previous editions of the FRP explicitly
stated Loran was expected to be part of the radionavigation mix until
2015 and a phase-out period of 10-15 years would be established before
termination of any system. The 1994 and 1996 versions of the FRP
completely ignored these established policies, and summarily abandoned
commitments made to more than 1.3 million Loran users, domestic Loran
manufacturers and foreign governments. Perhaps more importantly, the
current FRP ignores earlier FRP endorsements of the significant
benefits provided by a balanced radionavigation mix.
The policy expressed in the current FRP has unquestionably
undermined the significance and credibility of this important document
domestically and internationally. In addition, it damaged our country's
leadership role with respect to U.S. Loran technology which is
benefiting from substantial, growing international interest.
budget/economic ramifications
It is important to view GPS and Loran in light of current budget
considerations. As you may know, current life cycle cost estimates
indicate the Coast Guard and the FAA will spend $3-4 billion to augment
GPS to improve its performance. This is beyond the estimated $10
billion invested to develop GPS and on-going future operation and
maintenance (O&M) costs estimated to be in the range of $500 million
annually. In addition, the Coast Guard is currently providing
differential global positioning system (dGPS) service for the nation's
navigable waters while simultaneously plans are being advanced to
provide a National DGPS (NDGPS) service with a system that will be in
competition with existing commercial DGPS service providers.
Procurement steps for the FAA's system are underway, but because many
complex technical issues have not been resolved, it is uncertain
exactly what that system will be, what it will cost, and when it will
be fully operational and proven. These efforts overlook the most
insidious vulnerability of GPS, that of availability. If the GPS signal
is lost there is no navigation signal to which the differential
corrections can be applied. Consequently, the need for a complement to
GPS which provides navigation service when the GPS signal is lost. Only
Loran can provide that service.
At the same time, the Loran system has an established
infrastructure serving millions of users and beneficiaries and has
proven to be extremely reliable with an annual O&M cost of
approximately $20 million. The entire infrastructure can be
incrementally upgraded over a period of years, remote maintenance
capabilities can be utilized, and civilian caretakers could replace
Coast Guard personnel. Implementing these steps would reduce O&M costs
substantially. Using recent upgrade costs for European transmitter
improvements and known costs for operating the Canadian Loran
infrastructure of about $250,000 per transmitter site, the ILA
estimates these steps could reduce on-going O&M costs to about $7-9
million annually and permit personnel reductions of more than 150
government positions consistent with Coast Guard streamlining plans.
Clearly, the U.S. is committed to satellite technology. At the same
time, Loran offers a well-proven, compatible technology which promises
a most cost-effective and efficient complementary navigation safety
net.
In addition, for several years aviation officials have been
opposing the premature shut down of Loran. A paper done in late 1994
entitled ``The Economic Impact on General Aviation Pilots of the Early
Shutdown of the Loran Navigation System'' provided conservative
estimates indicating an early termination could have very adverse
economic ramifications. As stated in the paper:
` `* * * These conservative figures, taken by themselves, show a
devastatingly significant, adverse economic impact on general aviation
if the Loran system known today in the United States is shut down
prematurely. In view of the $200 million projected cost to general
aviation aircraft owners, it categorically supports the continued
operation of the Loran system to its projected life of 2015.''
``A cost figure has been given as $17 million annually to operate
the United States continental Loran system. At that rate, it would take
over 10 years (11.7) to reach the $200 million cost to general aviation
if it is discontinued prematurely. The impact on marine users would be
astronomically greater. Suggested at a very conservative factor of
10:1, it would place us well over 100 years to recoup/balance the
projected losses * * *.''
user safety considerations/scientific data
No navigational system is infallible. While every system has
limitations, ground-based and satellite systems typically do not suffer
from the same vulnerabilities and therefore, are very complementary.
U.S. industry has already recognized GPS frailties and implemented
complementary ground-based technologies to produce extremely robust
systems. For example, GPS is used in automotive vehicle location (AVL)
systems and in the telecommunications industry for precise time
synchronization. AVL systems typically incorporate dead-reckoning
systems to take over when GPS signals are unavailable in dense urban
areas. Cellular phone networks commonly use combined GPS/LORAN systems
to provide continuity when GPS signals are unavailable or disrupted by
TV or other broadcast interference, or by line-of-site blockage from
nearby buildings or trees.
Reports in scientific literature and the popular press have
thoroughly documented GPS availability is subject to fundamental
limitations due to a variety of conditions including geomagnetic
storms, line-of-site blockage and unintentional and intentional
jamming. Furthermore, augmenting GPS to improve its accuracy
performance--through Differential GPS (dGPS) radiobeacon broadcasts or
the Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS)--is a necessary enhancement
but will have no effect on resolving the loss of GPS navigation service
caused by these vulnerabilities.
A report done by the DOT's Volpe National Transportation Systems
Center presents an analysis that shows how the availability of GPS is
enhanced when GPS is combined with Loran. The report demonstrates that
basic GPS service availability can be increased from 99.8 percent to a
combined GPS and Loran service availability of more than 99.9 percent
national security
It is clear that GPS is an important technology, but rigorous
scientific data and reasoned analysis also demonstrate it is not
perfect. If the United States converts to GPS as a sole means
navigation system, the country will become increasingly dependent on
the system and exposed to its frailties. Availability limitations will
be stressed by natural phenomena as well as intentional and
unintentional man-made intervention. In view of current world
instability and increasing terrorist activities, it is clearly possible
that individuals or hostile governments might try to cause
transportation or telecommunications disruptions using small, easily
constructed, portable GPS jammers. Recent press reports have described
such scenarios and have provided evidence that such jammers are
available for sale. In fact, Coast Guard studies indicate such jamming
devices can be built from commercially available parts for as little as
$50. All of these concerns are outlined in the recent Report of the
President's Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection and any
future U.S. navigation policy relying totally on satellite navigation
would be a contradiction to the findings of that report.
new loran technologies and applications
While advances in Loran technologies have been largely overshadowed
by the enthusiasm for GPS, they have been proceeding using advanced
digital signal processing techniques and microprocessor technologies
not previously applied to Loran receivers. State-of-the-art Loran/GPS
technology can offer substantially improved performance over
conventional Loran receivers. Improvements will include: Automatic
acquisition and tracking of up to 40 Loran transmitters simultaneously;
increased geographic range, including transoceanic coverage; provision
for dGPS through Eurofix; new antenna technologies that virtually
eliminate precipitation (P-static) interference; and provision for
differential Loran.
These new developments mean, for example, that a single receiver
can simultaneously track virtually all Loran transmitters in the
continental U.S., concurrently increasing geographic coverage by tens
of thousands of square miles allowing transoceanic coverage and
significantly improving navigation accuracy and availability.
Additionally, tests of a new digital Loran receiver equipped with a
magnetic antenna demonstrated that Loran can track vehicles in a dense
urban area like Manhattan where GPS cannot operate. The tests were
commissioned by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)
and raised the interest of the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA). The DARPA
work recognized that GPS required Loran augmentation for an application
in which there was a need to locate foot soldiers in an urban warfare
scenario. The DEA would like to use this Loran technology to monitor
movements of drug dealers in urban environments, and this new Loran
application could obviously have an impact on contemporary social
problems.
Finally, integration technologies can be applied to Loran so that
highly advanced, accurate receivers can be miniaturized. In today's
world, the electronics for a combined GPS/Loran receiver could be
placed within a cigarette pack, and such a device would provide all the
security inherent in a combined, ground/satellite-based system.
summary
In view of demonstrated, realistic technical and funding risks,
coupled with anticipated schedule delays in implementing and making
available the benefits of satellite augmentation technology, there is a
continuing requirement for Loran. An incremental investment of
resources will permit improvements which support satellite
augmentation, reduce operating costs and allow upgrading of outdated
tube technology to ensure that Loran will be available well into the
next century. This upgrade also will permit reduction in future
operating costs from about $20 million annually to approximately $7-9
million. For example, many transmitter sites with on-site support staff
could be operated remotely or with fewer staff after upgrading to solid
state technology, reducing personnel related costs. Further savings
could be realized if DOT contracted out the operation and maintenance
of the Loran transmitter sites.
The Loran system is established, proven, reliable, inexpensive, and
an ideal complement to GPS. Loran has by far the largest existing
multimodal user base, and these users have made significant economic
expenditures based on repeated government commitments that the system
would be supported until at least 2015.
For a variety of reasons based on scientific data, it is not
prudent to concentrate our nation's immediate radionavigation future on
a single, very expensive, complex space-based system. GPS
unquestionably requires augmentation of its three fundamental
characteristics: accuracy, availability and integrity. No other
service, only Loran can augment all three, and the choice of a mix of
combined ground/satellite-based radionavigation systems is clearly in
the nation's best interests. A complementary mix of ground/satellite
systems can provide a level of user safety and national security that a
sole-means satellite system can never offer.
Considering its $20 million annual O&M costs and even future system
upgrades, the cost/benefit of Loran is enormously favorable from a
national safety and efficiency perspective. In the context of current
and future budgetary limitations, given new technological advances in
Loran and the substantial improvements it provides to user safety,
telecommunications integrity and national security, it is clear support
for Loran is consistent with our nation's transportation safety
objectives and it makes good sense from a taxpayer perspective.
recommendations
The ILA respectfully urges the following:
--Actions directing the Department of Transportation, in cooperation
with its agencies along with other appropriate departments and
agencies, to implement a plan to assure the Loran system will
be supported and funded on a jointly shared agency funding
arrangement for the foreseeable future.
--Steps directing the Department of Transportation and its agencies
to recognize the benefits of a combined ground/satellite-based
radionavigation mix and to endorse continuation of Loran as a
compatible technology to GPS as part of that mix. The
recognition and endorsement should take the form of an
unequivocal policy statement that domestic and international
users, manufacturers and governments can believe.
A fiscal year 1999 appropriation of $20 million to:
--Support an incremental program of revitalizing, upgrading and
automating the Loran infrastructure to reduce manning and
related requirements, logistics costs, energy consumption and
improve reliability;
--Replace remaining tube-type transmitters with high efficiency
solid-state equipment;
--Provide other mechanisms such as Loran synchronization with GPS and
differential corrections on the Loran signal to make full use
of the compatibility of satellite and Loran technology.
The ILA appreciates the opportunity to present these views and
concerns. We are prepared to cooperate in every way necessary to
convince you and other interested members of Congress to initiate
additional steps ensuring continued funding and support for Loran as a
uniquely complementary technology providing necessary GPS augmentation
well into the next century.
______
Prepared Statement of James P. RePass, President, Chief Executive
Officer, The National Corridors Initiative
On behalf of the National Corridors Initiative I respectfully ask
that this committee acts to ensure the survival of a national passenger
rail system, in voting sufficient funds to make certain that the work
begun with the passage of the Amtrak Reform Act last year can go
forward.
As a bipartisan business development and environmental forum, the
National Corridors Initiative has testified before various
Congressional committees. Our common theme has been this: that our
nation's transportation system needs to be a balanced one, and that
continued overreliance on two heavily-subsidized transportation modes,
auto and air, not only leads to gridlock and winglock, but actually
harms the nation's economy by artificially constraining growth. The
volume of real estate required to accommodate the automobile and the
airplane is simply enormous, and in the great cities and suburbs of
this country it is becoming untenable. And the need for a true national
intercity rail network that serves the working and middle classes, and
not just Coastal business elites, is increasing rather than
diminishing.
The national passenger railroad system, both before and after the
creation of Amtrak, has been systematically starved of capital. Critics
who complain that Amtrak has received $20 billion over its almost three
decades of life need to remember that we spend more than that on
highways in a single year--and that is counting only Federal dollars,
not state or local matches or expenditures.
What is remarkable is that Amtrak does as well as it does--and we
know that it needs much reform--given the meager resources at its
disposal. The $2.3 billion of capital in the Amtrak Reform Act should
be correctly seen as supplemental, to make up in a small way for
decades of disinvestment. Now that a new Board of Directors is being
put into place, with a clear mandate from Congress for change, and to
create a true national rail system that is cost-effective and
efficient, I ask that you give them the tools to finish the job.
Thank You.
______
Research and Special Programs Administration-Related Testimony
Prepared Statement of Michael Carney, Chairman, Association of Waste
Hazardous Materials Transporters
On behalf of the Association of Waste Hazardous Materials
Transporters (AWHMT), I am submitting a statement for inclusion in the
Subcommittee's hearing record regarding the proposed fiscal year 1999
budget for the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
interest of the awhmt
The AWHMT represents companies that transport, by truck and rail,
waste hazardous materials, including industrial, radioactive and
hazardous wastes, in North America. The Association is a not-for-profit
organization that promotes professionalism and performance standards
that minimize risks to the environment, public health and safety;
develops educational programs to expand public awareness about the
industry; and contributes to the development of effective laws and
regulations governing the industry.
As a community of taxpayers dependent on the effective
administration and enforcement of federal hazardous materials
transportation laws and regulations, we feel compelled to file these
views and concerns about how DOT's Office of Hazardous Materials Safety
(OHMS) and Office of Motor Carriers (OMC) have carried out their
respective so-called ``hazmat'' responsibilities.
background
The transportation of hazardous materials involves producers and
distributors of chemical and petroleum products and waste, transporters
in all modes, and manufacturers of containers. DOT estimates that
upwards of 800,000 shipments and as many as 1.2 million regulated
movements of hazardous materials occur each day. The production and
distribution of hazardous materials is a trillion dollar industry that
employs millions of Americans. As a major export, the transportation of
these materials contributes positively to our trade balance. These
products are pervasive in the transportation stream and in our society
as a whole.
While these materials contribute to America's quality of life,
unless handled safely personal injury or death, property damage, and
environmental consequences can result. To protect against these
outcomes, the Secretary of Transportation is charged to ``provide
adequate protection against the risks to life and property inherent in
the transportation of hazardous materials in commerce by
improv[ments]'' to regulation and enforcement.\1\ The Secretary's
authority to accomplish this mission is embodied in the Hazardous
Materials Transportation Act (HMTA).\2\ In 1990, the Hazardous
Materials Transportation Act (HMTA) was significantly amended for the
first time. Subsequently, amendments, albeit less significant, were
added in 1992 and 1994. As a consequence of these amendments, Congress
directed DOT to accomplish a number of tasks. How DOT has handled these
responsibilities is the focus of this statement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 49 U.S.C. 5101.
\2\ 49 U.S.C. Chapter 51.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
office of hazardous materials safety (ohms)
The commerce of hazardous materials demands that OHMS have
intermodal, as well as international, expertise. It regulates a diverse
community of interests and must constantly mange the tension between
safety and efficiency in the transport of these materials.
When compared to other modal administrations, the OHMS staff is
small. At the same time, it is important to recognize that OHMS has
outperformed larger administrations. During DOT's regulatory
reinvention initiative, for example, OHMS reached 100 percent of its
goal to eliminate or reform outdated rules. It has tackled significant
issues within deadlines set by Congress. With the exception of a couple
of studies,\3\ it has accomplished all the tasks delegated to it since
the enactment of the 1990 amendments. Other administrations cannot
claim that record. Despite this record of accomplishment, OHMS may not
have the resources to close the gap on a backlog of routine
administrative tasks essential to the safe, efficient transport of
these materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 49 U.S.C. 5105(d) and 5116(k).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOT's fiscal year 1999 budget request for hazardous materials
safety proposes only a cost-of-living increase for personnel
compensation and benefits. We are concerned that a flat programmatic
budget will not be adequate to enable the OHMS to accomplish its
mission. While the budget justification underscores many of the
accomplishments of the OHMS, it does not elaborate on the scope of work
yet to be done. Following is our analysis of OHMS's budget request:
Regulatory Backlog
OHMS is, foremost, a rulemaking authority. We are concerned that
the budget request does not identify and prioritize the backlog of
critical rulemakings, letters of interpretations, and preemption
determinations. By OHMS's own admission, 13 high priority rulemakings
are in progress--some have been open for years--along with a backlog of
500 exemption applications.\4\ RSPA has made a hallmark of this budget
request the fact that it is going to open and close a rulemaking in
less than 9 months that will double the amount of fees currently
collected for emergency planning and training grants to states and
Indian tribes.\5\ OHMS has told industry in no uncertain terms that it
has set aside resources to meet this aggressive schedule. While the
priority of this rulemaking is clearly understood, it leaves us to ask
about resources and priority of the remaining rulemakings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ RSPA Fiscal Year Budget Submission, page 38.
\5\ RSPA Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Submission, page 134.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Likewise, there is no statement about the priority of processing
petitions for preemption determinations. Federal law requires that
decisions on preemption determinations be reached within 180 days of
receiving the filing.\6\ The four oldest petitions have been deferred
until pending the finalization of one of OHMS's ``high priority''
rulemakings. Still, RSPA has not achieved the Congressionally-mandated
180-day turnaround for any of the other pending petitions. Not counted
in this analysis are the three additional petitions that have been
filed since the first of this year--nearly doubling the number of open
petitions. OHMS's ability to swiftly deal with petitions for preemption
is essential to the purpose Congress hoped to achieve in granting
administrative preemption, namely that the preemption determination
process would be an alternative to litigation.\7\ A priority of the
HMTA is to achieve greater regulatory uniformity. Essential to that
objective is the ability to respond through the preemption
determination process to inconsistent non-federal requirements that
``creat[e] the potential for unreasonable hazards in other
jurisdictions and confound[] shippers and carriers which attempt to
comply with multiple and conflicting registration, permitting, routing,
notification, and other regulatory requirements.''\8\ Clearly, OHMS's
ability to stay on top of its preemption obligations is being
undermined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\49 U.S.C. 5125(d).
\7\ In authorizing the preemption determination process, Congress
found that ``the current inconsistency ruling process has failed to
provide a satisfactory resolution of preemption issues, thus
encouraging delay, litigation, and confusion.'' H.Rept. 101-444, Part
1, page 21.
\8\ Public Law 101-615, Sec. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hasmat Registration and Fees
The HMTA authorizes OHMS to require the registration of hazardous
materials shippers, carriers, and container manufacturers.\9\ Instead,
OHMS has chosen to register only those categories of shippers and
carriers mandated by Congress.\10\As a consequence of narrowly
implementing its registration authority, OHMS has not achieved a goal
of Congress to have a census of the community OHMS regulates.
Additionally, OHMS has left untapped the entire universe of potential
payers to fund the Emergency Planning and Training Grants (EPTG) in
spite of the fact that the Grants have never been fully funded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 49 U.S.C. 5108(a)(2).
\10\ 49 U.S.C. 5108(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are also concerned about the administration of the registration
program. Currently, OHMS assesses $50 per registrant for administrative
costs. We believe this assessment--fully 20 percent of the total fee
paid--is excessive. We believe the administrative costs can be reduced
by making the registration numbers permanent and/or allowing multi-year
registrations. Whatever funds are saved though better administration
should be reprogrammed to the EPTG.
One of the issues that will have to be addressed in OHMS' announced
rulemaking to increase the collection of hazmat registration fees is
obviously the amount of the fee. Many in industry, including the AWHMT,
have made a commitment to assist OHMS meet its hazmat registration
revenue goal in recognition of agreements reached during the 1990
amendments to the HMTA. However, we also want reasonable assurance that
the new fee scheme will not over fund the program inasmuch as DOT is
not required to refund excess collections.\11\ We would prefer a fee
scheme that does not vary from year to year. Of particular concern is
the financing of the North American Emergency Response Guide (NAERG).
For good reason, however, OHMS publishes its NAERG every three years.
The last two publications of the NAERG have been paid for out of hazmat
registration fees. In fiscal year 1999, $700,000 is requested for this
purpose. No funds were requested in fiscal year 1997 or 1998. Rather
than spiking the revenue demand on the hazmat registration program
every three years, we recommend that the funds for this activity be
spaced out and carried over the three year period so as not to disrupt
either the hazmat registration fee schedule or the amount of grants
available to states and Indian tribes.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 49 U.S.C. 5108(g)(2)(B).
\12\ RSPA Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Submission, page 132.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emergency Planning and Training Grants
We support OHMS's recommendation to use the existing coordinating
mechanism of the National Response Team and, for radioactive materials,
the Federal Radiological Preparedness Coordinating Committee, to
coordinate and provide technical assistance to states and Indian
tribes, rather than diverting funds to a variety of federal agencies to
accomplish the same task. OHMS hopes to accomplish this objective by
amendment to the HMTA prior to the beginning of fiscal year 1999.\13\
Consequently, we question the budgetary request under this account and
believe that the $300,000 should be reprogrammed for the critical
purpose of emergency responder training.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ RSPA Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Submission, page 136.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, we cannot support the Administration's insistence on
allowing up to 25 percent of grant funds for the hazmat training of
small businesses when 3.2 million responders need training nationally
and on average the grants program reaches about 114,000 annually.\14\
As noted below, OHMS sponsors, and should continue to sponsor, a number
of initiatives to aid private sector compliance through conferences,
training materials, information hotlines, and the like. In addition, a
panoply of private sector training and consulting services is
available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ RSPA Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Submission, page 135.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enforcement
OHMS acknowledges that the number of entities subject to inspection
and enforcement will increase with the extension of the HMR to
intrastate transportation of hazardous materials, yet no budget
increase is requested in this area. Likewise, we believe it unrealistic
to expect that OHMS will ``[r]educ[e] the historically low average
annual number of fatalities and serious injuries related to the
transportation of hazardous materials'' if the incident experience of
intrastate transportation must be accounted for.\15\ At the same time,
OHMS is acknowledging that the universe of shipments for which a
credible inspection presence must be maintained has been underreported.
For years, the figure ``500,000 shipments a day'' was used. OHMS now
believes that number to be closer to 800,000 shipments and 1.2 million
movements a day. We agree that a ``strong enforcement program is
vital'' to OHMS's overall safety program and that a ``good enforcement
program focuses on obtaining the highest rates of compliance, not just
a high tally of enforcement actions.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ RSPA Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Submission, page 24.
\16\ RSPA Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Submission, page 39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance Assistance
Clearly, one of the greatest successes of the OHMS program must be
the technical and training resources given to the regulated community.
These resources include a hotline for responding to technical
compliance or more general matters of regulatory interpretation, the
NAERG, the COHMED (cooperative hazardous materials enforcement
development) program, the OHMS web site, and a CD-ROM modular training
series. These services and products are either provided free or at
comparatively nominal cost. Hazardous materials transportation is a
highly regulated, complex enterprise. OHMS' compliance assistance is of
untold value to the regulated community, especially small
businesses.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ RSPA Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Submission, pages 44-45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Activities
While the focus of our members' interest is mainly domestic,
hazardous materials transportation is a global enterprise. Domestic
movements are inevitably affected by international agreements. We
support RSPA's continued and vigorous participation in international
fora where hazmat transportation policy is set.
Information Collection
We want to underscore the importance and necessity of the hazardous
materials information system. The data collected and maintained in the
data base is not available from other sources. Not only does the HMIS
allow OHMS to identify and analyze safety risks for regulatory
purposes, it also,
--assists non-federal governments identify problematic routes;
--can be used to focus enforcement efforts;
--is used by industry in its risk management initiatives; and
--can be used to defuse public concern about hazardous materials
transportation by validating the extraordinary safety record of
this industry, considering the potential of these materials to
cause serious harm.
OHMS is considering refinements to the system that would allow
electronic filing of reports. This should be supported.
Staffing
To carry out its HMTA delegations, OHMS' ability to recruit and
retain personnel needs to be competitive within the Department and the
private sector. We hope that Congress will ensure that OHMS has the
staff sufficient for carrying out its many responsibilities.
In all, OHMS staff should be commended for the excellent job
accomplished in light of increasingly complex workload and stagnant
resources.
office of motor carriers (omc)
By way of contrast, FHWA's Office of Motor Carriers (OMC) has also
been charged with accomplishing aspects of federal hazmat law. Since
1990, OMC has been delegated authority to permit motor carriers of
hazardous materials; provide for the inspection of motor vehicles
transporting highway-route controlled quantities of radioactive
materials; implement a uniform, reciprocal state-based hazmat
registration and permitting program for motor carriers; provide for the
annual updating and publication of state-designated hazardous materials
highway routes; and report on the safety considerations of transporting
hazardous materials by motor carriers near federal prisons.\18\ None of
these relatively few delegations have been accomplished. In fact, to
our chagrin, OMC has requested authority from Congress in the context
of legislation reauthorizing the HMTA to study these issues for an
additional three years prior to acting.\19\ No matter the excuse, we
find it insupportable that OMC has failed to achieve these
Congressional goals. We recommend that Congress urge the Secretary to
redelegate and reallocate funding from OMC to OHMS to accomplish these
objectives. OHMS has proved competent and capable of responding to the
necessary demands of Congress to ensure that hazardous materials are
and continue to be transported with an extraordinary high degree of
safety and efficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ 49 U.S.C. 5109, 5105(3), and 5119, and Public Law 103-311
Sec. 121.
\19\ See S. 1173, Section 3215, adding new Sec. 5128 to the HMTA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
conclusion
The transport of hazardous materials is a trillion dollar industry
that employs millions of Americans. It has been accomplished with a
remarkable degree of safety in large part because of the uniform
regulatory framework authorized and demanded by the HMTA. Within the
Federal Government, OHMS is the competent authority for matters
concerning the transportation of these materials. Its role in this
regard should be strengthened. Despite productivity that averages 40
administrative actions a day, however, this small agency has a backlog
of correspondence, rulemaking petitions, and technical applications for
exemptions and approvals. It and the rest of the programs under the
RSPA umbrella are still waiting for the nomination of an administrator.
We have recommended that more, not less, responsibility be delegated to
OHMS. We have recommended this because the Office has proven over time
to be approachable, determined to give fair hearing to all, and capable
of making a decision, though we may not always agree. We know OHMS will
make the most of any resources given.
______
Prepared Statement of Shippers, Container Manufacturers and
Transporters
Industries involved in the shipping and transporting of hazardous
materials are joining together to support the functions performed by
the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety (OHMS) of the Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Research and Special Programs Administration
(RSPA). We believe that OHMS and RSPA are pivotal in maintaining the
safety and integrity of our national transportation system. The
reasonable standards and effective regulations developed with the
participation of the regulated industries and our local communities
permit very hazardous, yet essential, materials to use the same
transportation infrastructure as passenger cars and trains, and school
buses, with a high degree of safety. It is essential that OHMS be
adequately funded and staffed to assure that our transportation
infrastructure is maintained and enhanced to support continued growth
and expansion of our economy.
The hazardous materials transportation industry in the United
States is comprised of producers and distributors of chemical and
petroleum products and waste, transporters by rail, highway, air and
vessel, and manufacturers of containers. There are 800,000 shipments
daily--approximately 300 million shipments a year. It is a trillion
dollar industry that employs millions of Americans. Hazardous materials
include chemicals, petroleum products, explosives, industrial and
medical gases, hazardous wastes, radioactive wastes and consumer goods
such as fingernail polish, household cleansers, and swimming pool
additives. Hazardous materials are used every day by every American.
They are on every railroad and highway and at every shipping and
airport terminal in the United States and abroad. They are essential to
our quality of life, provide jobs for millions of Americans and, as a
major export, enhance our trade balance.
The commonality of these materials in transportation is that they
can be hazardous if not handled, packaged, marked and transported in a
safe manner. The safety record of this industry is extraordinary
considering the potential of these materials to cause serious harm. The
federal office responsible for administering the Hazardous Materials
Transportation Act is the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety in the
(OHMS) in the U.S. DOT's Research and Special Programs Administration
(RSPA). OHMS, to the extent its budget allows, works cooperatively with
the State and local governments, many federal and international
agencies and the many constituencies impacted by the program including
the regulated industry, the public, and safety and environmental
groups.
The hazardous materials industry and emergency responders support
the federal hazardous materials program for safety reasons but also
because it assures the efficiency of the movement of these materials
between modes, within and between states and between the U.S. and
points abroad. This is important to our nation's economy and, of
course, the hazardous materials transportation industry itself. The
significance of this business, both domestically and internationally,
to the economy and the potential impact on public safety and health and
the environment makes this a necessary and proper federal program.
We believe that the current program is working to accomplish the
objectives of safe and efficient transportation. The program must
remain a strong and effective federal program within the DOT. The
primary reason the intermodal hazardous materials program works as well
as it does is that OHMS has been delegated responsibility for setting
and implementing hazardous materials transportation policy and
coordinating the Department's hazardous materials transportation
programs. The Associate Administrator of OHMS reports directly to the
Administrator of RSPA. The transportation community, emergency
responders, and the public benefit from ``one-stop'' communication with
DOT on matters affecting hazardous materials transportation. This
organizational strength also facilitates communication and policy
oversight between the Department and the Congress. Dilution of this
responsibility could have a negative impact on the program.
There are improvements that can be made in this extraordinary
federal program that are related to the budget. We would be pleased to
work with the Appropriations Committees to assure that the hazardous
materials program remains strong, efficient and responsive to the needs
of the public and the transportation community.
Congress should consider the following issues and concerns.
DOT's budget request for the hazardous materials transportation
program should be adequate to further the goals of the Hazardous
Materials Transportation Act. The stated intent of Congress in enacting
the HMTA was the furtherance of: efficient, uniform and consistent laws
and regulations for hazardous materials transportation; enhanced safety
and accident prevention; and a network of trained emergency responders.
DOT's strategic plan and the fiscal year 1999 hazardous materials
transportation budget should reflect these goals.
The staffing level and pay grades should be structured to assure
that OHMS has the resources, including the expertise, to carry out an
effective program and to provide the necessary coordination and support
for the Department's intermodal hazardous materials transportation
enforcement program.
DOT's budget request proposes that DOT be authorized to use funds
from the Emergency Planning and Training Grants (for State and local
hazardous materials planning and training) to assist small businesses
in complying with the hazardous materials regulations. We oppose this
diversion of funds away from the State and local training programs.
This is contrary to the original congressional intent in establishing
this grant program. DOT should continue to sponsor initiatives,
including conferences, training materials and information hotline, to
aid small businesses in complying with the Act but these initiatives
should be funded from the operating budget of the Office of Hazardous
Materials Safety, as in previous budgets.
Support for the OHMS's international program should be increased.
As you know the uniformity of our domestic regulations with the
international standards for hazardous materials transportation are
critical to our industry's global competitiveness. If an international
standard for packaging differs from a U.S. standard, generally the
international standard will prevail, with potential safety and cost
impacts for the American public and the transportation industry. It is
vitally important that OHMS provide leadership in international
standard setting.
On the domestic front, uniformity between state and federal
requirements has been recognized by Congress as essential to ensure the
safe, environmentally protective and efficient movement of hazardous
materials. OHMS and RSPA's legal staff has served the Secretary as the
source of legal expertise in determining issues of uniformity. This
dedicated legal expertise should be maintained.
In conclusion, the following associations representing companies
involved in the shipping and transporting of hazardous materials
support a strong, efficient, responsive and adequately funded hazardous
materials safety program to assure the safety of the nations vital
transportation system.
Institute of Makers of Explosives; Compressed Gas Association,
Inc.; National Tank Truck Carriers; Chlorine Institute, Inc.; National
Paint and Coatings Association; National Propane Gas Association;
Association of Waste Hazardous Materials Transporters; National
Association of Chemical Distributors; Association of Container
Reconditioners; American Trucking Association; The Fertilizer
Institute; National Private Truck Council; Edison Electric Institute;
Railway Progress Institute; and National Industrial Traffic League.
______
Prepared Statement of the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: The Interstate
Natural Gas Association of American (INGAA) appreciates the opportunity
to submit testimony for the record regarding fiscal year 1999 funding
for the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), which is part of the Research
and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) at the Department of
Transportation (DOT).
The Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) is a
trade organization which represents virtually all of the interstate
natural gas transmission companies operating in the United States, as
well as natural gas transmission companies in Canada and Mexico.
INGAA's member companies transport over 90 percent of the natural gas
consumed in the United States through over 280,000 miles of interstate
pipeline.
As we have stated before, pipeline safety is a top priority for all
of INGAA's member companies. We work closely with the Office of
Pipeline Safety to seek ways to continue to improve on our safety
record. While pipeline transportation is the safest method of
transporting energy to our growing economy, we are pursuing new ways to
improve our efforts. In particular, we are focusing on new technology
and more sophisticated ways to manage risk to the public. Some of our
member companies have applied to participate in the risk demonstration
program approved as part of the ``Accountable Pipeline Safety and
Partnership Act''. (Public Law 104-304) will permit these companies to
tailor their safety programs to focus more accurately on addressing the
actual risks that challenge various segments of their pipelines.
The OPS and the pipeline industry agreed to the authorized levels
set forth in Public Law 104-304. In this legislation, Congress adopted
two authorization amounts, one that caps the entire OPS budget ($36.442
million for fiscal year 1999) and one that caps the portion that can be
raised through pipeline safety user fees ($29 million for fiscal year
1999). The budget submitted this year by the Administration again
breaks both of these caps.
INGAA is more supportive of the budget request that was submitted
to the Office of the Secretary by OPS which we obtained through a
Freedom of Information Act request. This budget sets the pipeline user
fee at $28 million and takes an additional $1 million from the existing
OPS reserve account. It also takes $7.4 million from the Oil Spill
Liability Trust Fund.
INGAA supports continuing to draw down the OPS reserve account to a
fiscally responsible level. Third party damage is a significant cause
of pipeline accidents and the primary cause of public injuries and
fatalities. INGAA supports the diversion of excess reserve funds to
provide grants to one-call centers and for state risk management
grants. Providing grants to one-call centers helps to improve
notification procedures and practices which are important accident
prevention measures. Allocating these grants directly to one-call
centers maximizes the effectiveness of these dollars.
State pipeline safety representatives have been encouraged to
participate in the interstate pipeline risk management demonstration
program. States want to be closely involved in evaluating risk
management as a safety strategy and to play an active role in reviewing
the projects as they develop. INGAA can support a draw-down of the OPS
reserve account of $.5 million to support these state grants for the
next two to three years until the report on the demonstration program
is submitted to Congress. At that time, it should be appropriate to
consider sunsetting this grant.
INGAA supports an increase in the amount of funds OPS obtains from
the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. OPS has indicated that it will be
spending a significant amount of resources over the next few years
regarding environmental policy, ground water protection, oil spill
response, and coordination with states regarding hazardous liquid
pipelines. The Oil Spill Liability Trust fund was established for the
purpose of funding these activities. OPS has a number of
responsibilities under OPA90 and it is appropriate that these
activities be funded directly from that trust fund.
In the R&D area, we support an increase in the funding for non-
destructive evaluation up to the amount in the OPS budget proposal to
the Office of the Secretary of $593,000.
INGAA also can support providing additional money from the Oil
Spill Liability Fund for mapping as this project will include
environmentally sensitive areas. It is our understanding that the
funding requested in 1999 will allow the completion of 70 percent of
the national pipeline mapping system. The remaining 30 percent is for
segments of the pipeline network where the operator is in the process
of migrating from a paper system to a digital database or where the
pipeline operator needs to update his/her records through field
verification. We understand that OPS will wait for the digital data as
it is the most cost beneficial format for the operator to submit and
for OPS to process.
INGAA thanks you and the Subcommittee for the opportunity to submit
this testimony on the OPS budget for fiscal year 1999.
______
Multimodal Testimony
Prepared Statement of the Coalition of Northeastern Governors
The Coalition of Northeastern Governors (CONEG) would like to thank
you for this opportunity to share the organization's views. The
Governors would like to thank the subcommittee for its support and
funding for the broad range of transportation programs that make up our
vital intermodal system. We encourage you to continue this support in
fiscal year 1999.
An integrated, safe and adequately financed national surface
transportation system, as provided for in the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, is essential to the economic,
social and environmental well-being of the Nation and the Northeastern
states. This system includes the highway and rail infrastructure over
which cars, trucks, buses, commuter, intercity and freight rail provide
essential mobility for people and goods in urban, suburban and rural
communities.
In addition, the Northeast's intermodal transportation system
contributes to the financial and economic success of our nation by
providing a critical link to national and international economies. This
extensive and aging system--highways, bridges, transit and their
connections to air and water-based ports--facilitate the seamless flow
of people and commerce among the Northeastern states. They tie this
important regional market to the Nation economically, thereby
contributing to the Nation's ability to compete in a global economy.
The Northeastern states are the Nation's largest consumer markets. In
addition, materials and finished products generated in the region are
distributed to markets throughout the Nation on its transportation
systems. Our border crossings and port facilities are gateways to the
global marketplace.
The CONEG Governors urge the subcommittee to support, to the
highest possible level, funding which maintains and enhances a
connected, seamless, intermodal, national transportation system. More
specifically, the CONEG Governors recognize and call for the
subcommittee's support of the following investments which have national
and regional significance:
Maximize the Federal investment within a strong Federal-State-local
partnership.--The CONEG Governors urge the subcommittee to invest, to
the maximum extent possible, in the Nation's transportation
infrastructure. Such federal investments reinforce the link between
transportation and social and economic well-being, and also act as
important economic multipliers that enhance the region and the Nation's
ability to compete. America's transportation needs, especially in the
Northeast states, far exceed current expenditures in all modes.
Invest in safety.--Safety remains the primary concern of the
Governors. Motor vehicle crashes exact a tremendous toll on American
society. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates
the total economic cost of motor vehicle crashes in 1994 to be $150.5
billion, costing taxpayers $13.8 billion or the equivalent of $144 per
household. Programs such as Operation Lifesaver, and other efforts to
improve highway and railroad grade crossing safety, are excellent
examples of successful programs.
Increase the highway obligation ceiling.--The overwhelming majority
of freight and passenger traffic in the Northeast moves by road. Nearly
two-thirds of all North American trucking tonnage passes through the
Northeast, reflecting its status as a major importer and exporter of
merchandise and the home of major ports serving the Nation. The
region's trucking industry is the most locally oriented in the Nation,
with nearly 65 percent of the trucks operating fewer than 50 miles from
their base. This high proportion of local traffic reflects the
concentration of population and vehicles along a narrow corridor in the
region.
We applaud the subcommittee's effort to provide additional funds by
increasing the Federal-Aid Highway Obligation Ceiling in fiscal year
1998 to $21.5 billion. Continuation of these efforts is critical, with
a recommended goal in fiscal year 1999 of the levels established for
the highway and transit programs in the ISTEA reauthorization.
Continue support for transit.--Public transportation continues to
play a vital role in the lives of millions of residents in the
Northeast, both urban and rural. For example, the Governors strongly
support reform of the Nation's welfare laws and regulations.
Particularly in the Northeast, the Governors view transit as one means
of bridging the distance gap between home and job. The challenge is
magnified by the dispersion of jobs throughout a multi-state region.
The ability to link trips becomes essential. Federal funding is
critical to stimulate transit's efforts to meet these challenges.
We encourage your support of transit operating assistance. We are
grateful that the subcommittee was able to preserve a modest amount of
federal operating assistance in fiscal year 1998, and hope that can
continue in fiscal year 1999. We also thank the subcommittee for the
flexibility to use these funds for preventative maintenance of the
transit system. Transit services and the federal operating assistance
that supports them play an equally vital role not only in large cities,
but even more importantly in small cities and in rural areas of the
Northeast. These funds must cover a large geographic service area.
While rural households--compared with urban households--are more likely
to have a car, those rural residents dependent on public transportation
have limited options for service, and are usually elderly or disabled.
Many of these rural trips are for essential services: access to
employment opportunities, health care, and nutritional and social
service programs.
The federal transit program provides essential capital funding for
investment in our nation's transit infrastructure. The Federal New
Starts program encourages investment in new transit infrastructure in
order to pursue the goals of reducing congestion and improving air
quality. New Jersey's Urban Core project, which includes our nation's
first Design-Build-Operate-Maintain transit project, the Hudson-Bergen
Light Rail Transit System, is an excellent example of a successful New
Start project. The Northeast also relies on the Fixed Guideway
Modernization program and the rest of the transit capital program to
enable investment on the many transit systems on which our economy
depends.
Continue Federal capital investment in intercity passenger rail and
the Northeast Corridor.--The Governors continue their strong support of
funding for national intercity passenger rail. Intercity passenger rail
makes a unique contribution to the complex fabric of the Northeast's
mobility. The Northeast Corridor and its feeder system is the financial
linchpin of the national passenger rail network. The Governors look
forward to the imminent completion of the Northeast Corridor
Improvement Project (NECIP) between Boston and New York City. By
reducing travel time and increasing rail ridership, additional capacity
is provided for both the highway and aviation systems. In addition,
NECIP provides air quality benefits which improve the quality of life
for the Northeast and contributes to attainment of Clean Air Act goals.
Improved intercity rail service will bring more passengers to
central business districts in all major Northeast cities. It will also
spur growth in suburban and smaller urban areas such as Route 128
outside Boston, Massachusetts and New Haven, Connecticut. We therefore
urge an appropriation of $200 million for the NECIP/Northeast High
Speed Rail Improvement Project (NHRIP) Grant.
The Governors applaud the subcommittee's success in achieving full
funding in fiscal year 1997 for NECIP and the Rhode Island Rail
Development Project as well as identifying funding for the Pennsylvania
Station Redevelopment Project in New York City. We note that the entire
Northeast Corridor (Boston to Washington) is in need of investment to
bring its various systems into a state of good repair, and we urge the
subcommittee's continued commitment to funding Amtrak at the levels
authorized in the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 (Public
Law 105-134). This carefully crafted agreement provides Amtrak with the
operating and capital framework necessary to become a cost-effective,
efficient national passenger rail system.
The Governors encourage Congress to direct the U.S. Department of
Transportation to reprogram funds to initiate the independent
assessment study of Amtrak as called for in Section 202 of the Amtrak
Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-134). Further, we
ask Congress to provide adequate funds to complete the study. This
time-sensitive review is essential for the work of the Amtrak Reform
Council and others interested in the future of a national intercity
passenger system.
Support investments in new technologies.--In many congested urban
areas, building new infrastructure or expanding existing infrastructure
are not viable options. We thank the subcommittee for its past support
of the I-95 Corridor Coalition to enhance the safety and capacity of
the existing highway and transit systems. For example, the electronic
toll system on the Tappan Zee Bridge handles 1,000 vehicles per hour,
compared to 350-400 vehicles per hour handled by manual tolls.
Therefore, we urge your support of the Intelligent Transportation
System Priority Corridor Program in general, and the I-95 Corridor
Coalition in particular and recommend that the subcommittee provide $5
million to continue the efforts of the Coalition.
Continue Federal participation in research and development and
public/private partnerships.--With an eye to the future, we encourage
continued federal participation in the public-private research and
development partnership in areas such as turbo-electric locomotive
development, transit fare collection systems, electronic toll
collection, deployment of diesel multiple unit train sets, and maglev
systems.
The development and implementation of these systems offers
transportation and economic benefits. For example, growing worldwide
demand for high speed train products will create lucrative job
opportunities for thousands of skilled American workers. The use of
biodiesel in locomotives could be a productive area for testing as a
way to reduce harmful emissions. Planning and development funds could
help implement and expand the ISTEA 1010 program which will eliminate
the hazards of railway-highway crossings in up to five railway
corridors. Further, the Federal Railroad Administration's Next
Generation High-Speed Rail Program continues to make a valuable
contribution to the development of the next generation non-electric
locomotive (both diesel and turbo). Federal funding of the program, in
conjunction with a state-private partnership, would be a wise
investment.
Fund border crossings and other improvements linked to
international agreements.--Freight mobility is a key to maintaining
regional and national competitiveness in a global economy. To improve
international trade and competitiveness, funds should be available for
international border crossings, ports, intermodal facilities, and other
improvements which are identified as a result of the North American
Free Trade Agreement and other international agreements. For example,
the Calais, Maine--St. Stephen, New Brunswick crossing is the seventh
busiest in the Unites States. However, it has a critically insufficient
infrastructure to handle the current traffic.
In summary, this year promises to be a time of profound challenges
to transportation systems, particularly in the Northeast. These include
the authorization of multi-year planning and funding of surface
transportation programs beyond the current extension of the Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991; implementation of the
Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act; the transformation of Conrail;
pending changes in air quality standards; the transportation needs of
former welfare recipients; and an increase in international trade.
Continued, thoughtful investments by this subcommittee will make a
dramatic difference in enabling the Nation and the region to provide
safe and efficient transportation for its citizens.
The Coalition of Northeastern Governors would like to thank
Chairman Shelby, Ranking Member Lautenberg, and the rest of the
subcommittee for the opportunity to present this testimony and for your
dedication and support for the Nation's transportation investments.
______
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 1999 U.S. 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 a fiscal year 1999 obligation
limitation consistent with the level in the final surface
transportation reauthorization bill. Since we expect the final bill to
significantly increase highway authorization levels, we would expect
the fiscal year 1999 obligation limitation to increase similarly.
Funding promised by ISTEA authorizations during the fiscal year
1992-1997 period was not provided because of the restrictive obligation
limitations. To be able to truly utilize the expected higher funding
from the surface transportation reauthorization legislation, annual
obligation limitations must match authorization levels. Federal funds
are a crucial element in state and local highway preservation and
improvement programs. These programs support an efficient highway
infrastructure which in turn is 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 1999, Illinois, along with Wisconsin
and Indiana, requests an earmark of $6.3 million for projects in the
Gary-Chicago-Milwaukee (GCM) corridor.
Over the last four years, the GCM Corridor, along with I-95,
southern California, and Houston area corridors, has overcome
significant institutional issues and created a framework for building
regional ITS interoperability. Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin continue
to develop joint, coordinated, multimodal efforts that are compliant
with the ITS National Architecture. These projects 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. The proposed earmark would
support these continuing efforts so that the three states can continue
building a true multimodal, coordinated ITS system.
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 $40
million in fiscal year 1999 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 two 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 70 buses older than the standard 12-year design
life and CTA has 380 buses beyond the design life. 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 $64 million in fiscal year 1999 New System funding for
the MetroLink light rail system which serves the St. Louis region. This
amount is for the eastward extension in St. Clair County, Illinois from
East St. Louis 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
$52 million in fiscal year 1999 to continue New System funding for
design and 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 urges the Subcommittee to set the appropriation for fiscal
year 1999 Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula Grants consistent with
the authorization set in the final surface transportation
reauthorization bill. Since we expect the final bill to significantly
increase transit authorization levels, we would expect the fiscal year
1999 appropriations for transit to increase similarly.
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 1999 funding for the Section 5311 Rural
and Small Urban program at the final authorization level set in the
final surface transportation reauthorization bill.
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 a fiscal year 1999 appropriation at least at the
fiscal year 1998 level of $543 million to fund capital and operating
expenses.
Amtrak operates a total of 50 individual trains throughout Illinois
as part of the nation's passenger rail system, serving approximately 3
million passengers annually. Of the total, Illinois subsidizes 18
state-sponsored trains which provide intrastate service in four
corridors (Chicago to Milwaukee, Quincy, St. Louis, and Carbondale)
transporting nearly 514,000 passengers in fiscal year 1998. 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 a fiscal year 1999 AIP obligation limitation as close
as possible to the authorization level to be set in the reauthorization
bill for aviation programs which will be developed by the Commerce,
Science, and Transportation Committee. IDOT supports a limitation at
least at the fiscal year 1998 level of $1.7 billion.
The AIP program provides federal funding support for airport
preservation and improvements needed at general aviation and 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 in past appropriation
bills 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 balanced budget agreement spending 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 the International Council of Aircraft Owner and
Pilot Associations
iaopa urges u.s. to continue operating loran-c
Frederick, MD.--The International Council of Aircraft Owner and
Pilot Associations is urging the U.S. government to continue operating
the land-based Loran-C navigation system as a back-up to the satellite-
based GPS system.
``Loran-C is an important navigation aid for worldwide general
aviation and aerial work operations,'' said IAOPA President Phil Boyer.
``While GPS will become the primary worldwide navigation system, Loran
is still needed as a secondary, back-up system.''
The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) plans to decommission
the U.S. Loran-C navigation system in the year 2000. But due to
pressure from Loran users, Congress ordered DOT to review that
decision. The technical consulting firm Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc. was
hired to study the technical merits and costs/benefits of extending the
life of Loran-C.
In comments for the Booz-Allen study, IAOPA said that Loran-C was
an important and useful means of navigation in the Americas, the Far
East and Europe. An estimated 130,000 Loran-C receivers are installed
in aircraft around the world. Recent advances in receivers and antennas
have solved many Loran operational shortcomings such as precipitation
static interference.
IAOPA said that Loran transmitters were already built and paid for.
Compared to the costs of an entirely new navigation system, upgrading
and maintaining the Loran-C system for non-precision instrument
approaches would be very economical. For example, the entire U.S. Loran
system could be upgraded for about the same cost as yearly maintenance
of the U.S. VOR navigation system.
IAOPA said the Loran-C could also serve as an alternative means for
transmitting differential GPS (DGPS) correction signals in Europe.
DGPS improves position accuracy to permit precision instrument
approaches into many airports. In North America, DGPS signals will be
broadcast from geostationary satellites as part of the U.S. Federal
Aviation Administration's Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS).
``But aviation users worldwide may be reluctant to rely solely on
satellite-based navigation systems,'' said Boyer. ``Without a
supplementary system like Loran-C, that reluctance may prevent us from
realizing the full potential of the Global Navigation Satellite
System.''
Noting that some nations are reluctant to depend on a navigation
system completely controlled by the U.S., IAOPA said that an enhanced
Loran-C system would allow governments to maintain sovereign control
over a second navigation system. Several European nations have already
committed to implementing their own Loran capability--Eurofix--to
distribute DGPS correction signal.
``Loran-C must be viewed as a global system that will benefit many
different users for some time to come,'' said Boyer. ``We recommend
that Loran-C be retained as a navigation system within the United
States and that it also be upgraded and improved to realize its full
potential as a component of the future world radionavigation system.''
IAOPA is the international organization representing pilots and
aircraft owners of 45 nations on international issues. IAOPA represents
the interests of general aviation before international aviation
organizations such as the European Union and the International Civil
Aviation Organization (ICAO).
______
Prepared Statement of Frank L. Jensen, Jr., President, Helicopter
Association International
In response to your request for comments regarding the proposed
decommissioning of Loran-C in the year 2000, the following is provided
for your consideration.
The Helicopter Association International (HAI) is the professional
trade association of more than 1,400 member organizations, which
operate, manufacture or otherwise support the civil helicopter
industry. HAI's members operate over 4,000 civil helicopters, safely
flying more than two million hours each year. Since 1948, HAI has been
dedicated to promoting the helicopter as a safe and effective method of
transportation, and to the advancement of the civil helicopter
industry.
HAI and its members consider Loran-C as a crucial element of the
total navigation system for aviation. It is generally assumed that the
Global Positioning System (GPS) will constitute the future primary
means of navigation. However, GPS is not yet proven, and there are
doubts as to the timeliness of implementation of GPS and its
reliability. There is as yet no augmentation system that will provide
the degree of precision that is essential for aviation users. Instances
of ships running aground while utilizing GPS serve as indicators that
GPS is not sufficiently accurate or reliable to provide precision
navigation information to aircraft.
Without augmentation, and with this country's system of VOR's and
ILS's to be dismantled, aircraft will be unable to fly to precision
minimums. Loran-C is the only currently available technology that can
readily and cost effectively be adapted to augment GPS to provide the
precision that is critical to aircraft operations.
Discontinuance of Loran-C cannot be justified on budgetary grounds.
Loran-C has an estimated 1.3 million users in the aviation, marine and
timing communities. The annual cost of operating Loran-C is
approximately $8 million. With Loran-C extended to Alaska, that cost
increases to approximately $14 million. This cost is minuscule if
stated as a cost per user.
Doctrines of navigation espoused by the U.S. Coast Guard and the
FAA emphasize the importance of secondary or backup navigation devices
or systems. Loran-C is the one proven navigation system that is widely
utilized in the maritime industry and to some extent in aviation.
Technology currently exists that would enhance Loran-C for wider use in
aircraft by providing more precise, real-time navigation information.
Loran-C is a reliable, established and proven navigation system that
not only would provide a land-based backup to GPS but could also be
used to enhance GPS. Loran-C will continue to be supported in Europe
and in Asia. The U.S. aviation and maritime transportation industries
are global. HAI strongly believes that termination of Loran-C would be
shortsighted, a false economy and would introduce a significant and
totally unnecessary dysfunction within our trading community.
Loran-C is widely supported by its users, in the aviation community
in general and within the helicopter community particularly. Its
expanded application to aviation use would be relatively low cost, well
received, and would provide the margin of safety that redundancy of
systems provide. In the same context of having two engines, dual
hydraulics or secondary electrical systems, this nation's
transportation infrastructure must have redundancy in its navigation
systems. To assure the safety and well-being of those traveling in the
air and on the sea, it is vital to support funding for and improvements
to Loran-C. HAI strongly supports this highly successful, proven and
cost effective system. Discussions of Loran-C should not be in the
context of extending it beyond 2000 or to 2015, but rather of extending
it indefinitely.
If you have any questions, please contact me or Glenn Rizner, HAI's
Vice President of Operations, at (703) 683-4646.
______
Prepared Statement of Henry M. Ogrodzinski, President and CEO, National
Association of State Aviation Officials
Founded 67 years ago, the National Association of State Aviation
Officials (NASAO) represents the men and women in state government
aviation agencies, who serve the public interest in all 50 states, Guam
and Puerto Rico. These highly skilled professionals are full partners
with the federal government in the development and maintenance of the
safest and most efficient aviation system in the world.
Following early work in Vermont, NASAO began working with the
Federal Aviation Administration in the early 1980's on the development
of instrument approach procedures using Loran. The first joint meeting
of the two governmental partners on this issue was held in Columbus,
Ohio in February 1985 and was hosted by the Ohio Bureau of Aviation.
Following that meeting, the ``Loran Planning Work Group'' held
semiannual workshops until the completion of the mid-continent gap
project in 1991. When that was in place, eight Loran non-precision
instrument approaches had been published. Shortly after the
commissioning, the FAA canceled these eight approaches because to date,
no manufacturers had produced a TSO approved unit capable of flying the
approaches.
Throughout this period, thousands of Loran receivers were purchased
by civil aviation users because of the remarkable en route capability
and constant reliability and accuracy that it provides. The TSO'd IFR
en route Loran units were readily available from a number of
manufactures along with VFR units. Recognizing the value of this new
air navigational aid, many aircraft owners purchased units for their
aircraft and have used them since for both VFR and IFR en route
operations. The significant rise in use was noted by states which began
documenting the number of installed units within aircraft based in
their respective states. In addition, the Wisconsin Bureau of Aviation
prepared the enclosed comprehensive analysis concerning the adverse
economic impact that would result for general aviation if Loran were
shut down.
With these issues in mind, the state aviation agencies, in support
of the public interest which they serve including the general aviation
community, are compelled to advocate the continued operation and future
development of Loran for aviation use. Even as far back as September
1994, the membership of our organization expressed its support for
Loran with the adoption of the enclosed NASAO Resolution in which the
language urges ``the U.S. Secretary of Transportation and the Congress
of the United States to ensure that the U.S. operated Loran-C
navigation system remains in place until the programmed termination in
2015.'' Loran is a proven and stable land-based navigation system that
provides full coverage for our country and the adjacent maritime area
and its continuance into the 21st Century is vital to the success of
our nation's aviation system.
Tied directly with the states' support for the continued operation
of Loran beyond 2000, is the concern for adopting GPS as a sole source
navigational aid. NASAO is a strong advocate for the development of GPS
technology. The development of stand-alone GPS approaches has been
perhaps the greatest single advancement to aerial navigation since the
development of the instrument landing system (ILS) over a half a
century ago. We're on the verge of WAAS and LAAS three-dimensional
approaches which will further revolutionize the aerial navigation
industry. We are getting closer to obtaining even greater benefits of
GPS technology as the new millennium approaches.
Even in light of the existing effective and reliable operation of
GPS, we can not accept the reliance on a single navigational aid for
IFR operations. The continued operation of Loran is logical as its a
time-based area navigation system which uses basically the same
principals as GPS from a pilots/users standpoint. Having used Loran for
IFR en route provided many general aviation pilots with excellent
training for the use of GPS. The strength of signal and national
coverage of Loran across the continental United States justifies its
continued operation alone. Loran provides far more coverage across the
continent then NDB's and VOR's/TACAN's either utilized separately or
combined. This universal coverage also comes at a fraction of the cost
of one GPS satellite, or the cost of running the current NDB and VOR/
TACAN system throughout the country.
In closing, on behalf of the state aviation agencies across the
country and their customers, NASAO wishes to go on record as strongly
urging the continued operation of Loran until at least 2015 as called
for in previous versions of the Federal Radionavigation Plan (FRP).
Furthermore, that FAA continue to evaluate the use of Loran as a
supplement for GPS as an aerial navigation aid well beyond the year
2000.
______
Prepared Statement of Andrew V. Cebula, Vice President, National
Transportation Association
The National Air Transportation Association (NATA) represents
aviation businesses nationwide that provide a variety of services at
our nation's airports that own, operate and service aircraft. The
nearly 2,000 NATA members serve millions in the traveling public,
airlines, general aviation and the military through fuel sales,
maintenance, flight training, aircraft rental and on-demand aircraft
charter services. NATA is committed to the enhancement of our nation's
navigation systems through integration of new technologies. However,
NATA believes that such advancements must occur only with proven
systems that provide cost effective, improved services and safety
enhancements.
Although the rapid progression of satellite navigation and the
Global Positioning System (GPS) will become a valuable part of
navigation in the future, NATA is convinced that Loran-C should have a
continuing role in navigation. Loran-C is a very cost-effective, proven
and reliable technology that is highly compatible with GPS. Loran
provides enormous and unique benefits because of its utility to
aviation, marine, surface, telecommunications and other users.
Substantial Loran-C user and infrastructure investment has been made
and should not be lost. NATA joins with other Loran users and
organizations representing the beneficiaries of Loran technology in
urging the continued funding of Loran-C until at least 2015 as
previously called for in the U.S. Federal Radionavigation Plan (FRP).
Aviation requires a highly reliable, precision system navigation
mix that provides redundancy in the case of unforeseen problems. This
principle has been a cornerstone of long-standing U.S. transportation
policy and system safety, capacity and efficiency goals. While the goal
of decommissioning ground-based navigation systems (VOR/NDB/DME) is
logical in light of rapidly advancing technology, satellite systems are
still developmental and very unproven. Loran-C provides a necessary
aviation safety alternative that works as an augmentation to GPS. It is
a well-proven technology that can and does support the needs of
aviation.
GPS is a valuable tool during en route flight operations; however,
complex questions remain about its limitations and vulnerabilities. In
fact, in the recent Report of the President's Commission on Critical
Infrastructure Protection, titled ``Critical Foundations: Protecting
America's Infrastructures,'' plain and unequivocal concerns are
expressed about relying on sole means technology. The report assesses
the general lack of preparation by the Department of Transportation
(DOT) and agencies like the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to
deal with ``cyber threats.'' It recommends, among other actions, that
the Secretary of Transportation: `` * * * Fully evaluate actual and
potential sources of interference to, and vulnerabilities of, GPS
before a final decision is reached to eliminate other radionavigation
and aircraft landing guidance systems * * *.''
There is no doubt that navigation is moving toward heavier reliance
on satellite technology, and NATA supports many of these enhancements
because they have the potential to reduce operations costs and promise
other benefits. However, it does not make sense prematurely phase out a
cost-effective, reliable system like Loran-C in which substantial user
and infrastructure investment has been made. Such a decision could also
leave the Nation's transportation and communications infrastructure
vulnerable to disruption in the future.
The infrastructure to support continuation of Loran is already in
place. The technology continues to be a cost-effective system that is
widely utilized in the United States and, in fact, is blossoming
internationally. Incremental Loran revitalization improvements could
reduce infrastructure operating costs to less than $10 million
annually.
The case for continuation of Loran is clear, whether viewed solely
from an aviation perspective, where the majority of general aviation
aircraft are already equipped, or viewed from the broader vantage point
of other users across the entire U.S. economy--marine, surface,
telecommunications, power and utility companies, the National Weather
Service, the military and others.
Loran-C is most compatible with, and can enhance, satellite
technology while remaining an independent system. The technology has
unanimous support of users because of its broad-based utility,
substantial safety benefits and low operating cost. NATA strongly
supports steps to enhance and revitalize the Loran infrastructure and
believes there is a continuing role for Loran as part of the future
navigation mix until at least 2015 as was previous U.S. policy.
______
Prepared Statement of Elaine Dickinson, Assistant Vice President,
Government Affairs, Boat Owners Association of the U.S.
As a national association that represents over 500,000 recreational
boat owners, we have a vital interest in the future of the Loran-C
radionavigation system. This letter will serve as our comments for the
DOT Loran-C Study being prepared for a report to the U.S. Congress.
Loran-C has served the boating community extremely well since the
1970's with reliable service and affordable receivers. The proposed
early phase-out of Loran service is of major concern to hundreds of
thousands of recreational users throughout the U.S. and abroad. With a
magnitude of civil users estimated to be 1.2 million, 80 percent of
them marine users, a rapidly expedited shut-down by the federal
government would severely impact this broad user community.
When the Global Positioning System was first coming on-line, the
civil user community was promised in successive Federal Radionavigation
Plans that Loran would not be phased out until 2015, allowing a safe
and economical transition period. For federal policy makers to do less
but could jeopardize the safety of thousands of vessels and aircraft.
The reasons why we believe it is important to vessel operators to
have Loran continue for at least another 10-15 years, if not
indefinitely, are as follows:
--Magnitude of the User Group.--No other navigation system has so
many vessel and aircraft owners depending upon it. Over one
million citizens use Loran and this number may be conservative.
While GPS receiver sales have clearly grown in recent years,
many of those GPS users are using both systems or using Loran
as a check on their GPS readings. A drastic change in stated
federal policy will create skepticism among this broad user
community with regard to any future DOT decisions as well.
--Reliability.--Even though GPS has gained acceptance as a global
navigation system, it has not attained the reliability of
Loran, nor is it at the point of serving all needs to be
designated as the sole U.S. system for all types of users. Boat
owners have complained for years about the government's own
policy of ``Selective Availability,'' degrading the civilian
GPS signal. Until this policy changes, boat owners have good
reason to question the signal they're receiving from GPS. Loran
continues to provide 10-meter repeatability which is extremely
beneficial to thousands of users to relocate prime fishing
areas, underwater wrecks and other important spots. Vessel
operators from charterboat captains to sport drivers have
hundreds of waypoints recorded on Loran that simply cannot be
converted to GPS.
--Economic impact.--Loran receivers, an American-made product, have
been priced low enough to make them affordable to large numbers
of the boating public and for a change in government policy to
render an estimated half-billion dollars worth of private
equipment obsolete is unfair to consumers. In recent years, as
many as 90,000 Loran receivers have been sold annually.
Contrary to assumptions about boat owners, they are not wealthy
and not willing to spend $500 for every new ``toy'' that comes
on the market. The investment in navigation equipment is a
cautious decision and one that has been based, in part, on
long-term policy of DOT not to phase out Loran before 2015.
To obtain the great accuracy of Differential GPS, to override
``Selective Availability'', requires an additional expenditures of at
least $500 to buy a Differential receiver, in addition to a $200 (low-
end) GPS receiver. The lack of consistency in government policy is
hurting the marine marketplace as consumers are more confused than ever
over what system to invest in. Many are reluctant to invest in GPS as
long as SA is on and Differential GPS requires additional cost. The
fact that DOT has not abided by its own Federal Radionavigation Plans
adds to the confusion in a significant electronics market.
--Back-Up.--Is one system wise, from the aspect of public safety as
well as national security? For civil and military users to
depend only upon one system that is satellite based is short-
sighted. GPS could be subject to failure, attack, solar
disruptions or any host of unforeseen threats. At the very
least, Loran provides a land-based back-up that is controlled
within our borders where it can be safeguarded and easily
repaired or upgraded. GPS should have at least a solid 10-year
track record before it becomes our only system.
--An integrated system.--The Loran infrastructure and performance is
proven and relatively efficient to maintain and operate. DOT
and DOD should fully explore the potential for an integrated
Loran/GPS system where each system's strengths and weaknesses
are balanced to the advantage of all users. Costs should be
shared within DOT, between the FAA and the Coast Guard, rather
than having the Coast Guard bear cost. We believe the Coast
Guard's decision to eliminate Loran has been driven mainly by
short-term budget and manpower considerations, not long-term
navigation goals.
On behalf of the 12 million recreational boaters in the U.S., we
appreciate this opportunity to comment and we'll be happy to assist
with the preparation of the DOT report in any way.
______
Transit-Related Testimony
Prepared Statement of William W. Millar, President, American Public
Transit Association
introduction
The American Public Transit Association (APTA) appreciates the
opportunity to testify on the fiscal year 1999 Transportation
Appropriations bill. On behalf of our 1,100 member organizations we are
grateful for the Transportation and Related Agencies Subcommittee's
outstanding work on the fiscal year 1998 Transportation Appropriations
Act. The $4.84 billion transit funding level, an increase of more than
10 percent above fiscal year 1997--while not as large as the increase
granted to highway assistance programs--is a welcome recognition of
transit's many contributions to a balanced transportation system in
which all modes work together.
Across the country transit operators are working diligently to
serve their customers, to invest in new facilities and services that
attract new riders, and to make transit part of the fabric of community
life in rural counties, small towns, and large metropolitan areas. We
are gratified that our customers have shown their support through
ridership increases, and that Congress has increased funding for these
worthwhile endeavors.
In this regard, we strongly support the transit title of S.1173,
the Senate Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA)
reauthorization bill. The bill was approved with strong bipartisan
support and calls for significant increases in transit and highway
spending. S.1173 would increase funding for the federal transit program
to $6.8 billion in fiscal year 1999, and the Senate Budget Resolution
adds about $60 million in fiscal year 1999 to baseline outlays to
accommodate the increase. In total, the budget resolution increases
outlays by $2.7 billion over the next five years in order to
accommodate additional transit spending authorized by the Senate bill.
We urge the Subcommittee to follow the Senate Budget Resolution's
guidelines and to fund the transit program as close as possible to the
$6.8 billion level in fiscal year 1999.
a year of success and new challenges for transit
Events of the past year have reaffirmed the importance of the
federal transit program as an essential part of a balanced,
comprehensive transportation program:
--Figures for fiscal year 1997 indicate an increase in ridership
nationwide over fiscal year 1996 for every mode of transit. A
noteworthy achievement was heavy rail's increase in the third
quarter of Calendar Year (CY) 1997, even compared to the third
quarter of CY 1996 when Atlanta's MARTA system carried its huge
Summer Olympics ridership;
--Total bus ridership in the U.S. is making a comeback, with
increases of 1.71 percent in the fourth quarter of CY 1996, and
1.35 percent, 2.51 percent and 3.32 percent in the first,
second, and third quarters of CY 1997, respectively. Bus
service, in communities large and small, continues to provide
essential mobility for millions of Americans;
--Many bus and rail transit systems created new services or opened
new facilities, many with great success in reaching new
markets--some close to home. Since its December opening, the
MCI Arena has proven to be an economic boon to downtown
Washington, D.C., and initial reports indicate that more than
half of MCI Arena event patrons use Metro;
--The July 1997 report titled ``Dollars & Sense: The Economic
Benefits of Public Transportation in America'' provided new
insights into the many ways that public transit benefits the
economy;
--A second report, ``Commuter Rail: Serving America's Emerging
Suburban/Urban Economy,'' detailed the economic impacts of
commuter rail investment; and
--All of us in the transit industry were deeply gratified that Mrs.
Rosa L. Parks accepted APTA's first Lifetime Achievement Award
in March 1997, in a ceremony at Washington, D.C.'s Union
Station. Throughout the past year, many people have mentioned
how glad they are that the transit industry has recognized this
heroic woman's role in the struggle for civil rights.
transit funding needs
With adequate resources, transit can provide essential mobility to
millions of Americans every day. We note that annual capital needs
still far exceed available federal, state, and local funding.
A recently released U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)
estimates that we need to invest $14 billion each year just to maintain
and upgrade existing transit conditions. An APTA study found that the
transit industry's capital funding requirements average $15 billion per
year over a ten-year period. No matter whose numbers you use, the need
is there. Over a ten-year period these needs 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 facilities, 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.
APTA firmly supports continuation of a strong federal role in
setting transportation policy and funding infrastructure investments.
ISTEA and the annual appropriations measures have supported balanced
national transportation policies, recognizing that one federal role is
to ensure that all modes are adequately maintained so they can
complement each other.
In addition, in light of these costs and other program initiatives
of the federal transit program, we ask that appropriate resources be
made available to fund the critical administrative needs of the Federal
Transit Administration (FTA).
Federal mandates
APTA supports the goals of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA), the Clean Air Act, federal drug and alcohol testing laws, and
the Clean Water Act. However, the costs of these worthy goals add at
least $1.5 billion each year to transit capital and operating costs.
Absent sufficient federal funds to cover these costs, many transit
systems are forced to sacrifice some existing services.
As noted in last year's testimony, 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
as much as $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 raised, or plans for expanded
service canceled, as a consequence of ADA-related expenses.
fiscal year 1999 transit funding
We urge the Subcommittee to build on your successful fiscal year
1998 efforts and approve the maximum possible funding for the federal
transit program. We want to commend you for providing a ratio of
formula to discretionary funding that is closer than previous
appropriations acts to the ISTEA ratio of $1.36 in formula funds for
each $1.00 in discretionary funds. APTA urges the Subcommittee, in
developing its fiscal year 1999 bill, to:
--Retain the fiscal year 1998 language on preventive maintenance and
expanded flexibility for transit systems in urbanized areas
(UZA's) with fewer than 200,000 people, which has been
enormously helpful to transit agencies dealing with cuts of
more than 80 percent in federal operating assistance;
--Preserve operating assistance at the current level, at least until
the authorizing committees have a chance to act on the issue,
since even with preventive maintenance the loss of operating
assistance has been difficult for some transit agencies;
--Maintain balance within the federal transit program by funding
formula and discretionary programs in a manner consistent with
their relative funding shares under ISTEA, and maintain the
40:40:20 ratio among the Discretionary program's New Start,
Fixed Guideway Modernization, and Bus/Bus Facility components;
--Help transit systems fully implement service associated with the
Americans with Disabilities Act without compromising existing
services by allocating sufficient funding to meet all needs;
and
--Designate funds for the Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP)
and assure that FTA has appropriate resources to fund its
administrative needs.
We believe that federal investments in transportation
infrastructure should be increased, and that your Subcommittee deserves
a significantly higher 602(b) allocation. All surface transportation
programs, including transit, should receive a fair share of any
increases in the allocation.
Preventive maintenance
We support the continuation into fiscal year 1999 of the fiscal
year 1998 Act's language that includes preventive maintenance as an
allowable capital expenditure under the transit program. Both the House
and Senate ISTEA reauthorization bills include similar provisions.
Preventive maintenance is important for preserving and maintaining
assets and investments. It offers transit agencies important
flexibility in adjusting to the decrease in federal operating
assistance. It also helps establish a consistency with the guidelines
that govern the federal highway and transit programs.
As APTA testified last year, we do not anticipate a major outlay
impact from the inclusion of preventive maintenance as a capital
expenditure. Indeed, several large metropolitan areas, and the transit
agencies that serve those regions, have chosen to use federal funds
primarily for capital needs rather than for preventive maintenance,
further reducing the possibility of a major outlay impact.
The preventive maintenance language has helped to create a more
level playing field between the highway and transit programs, since
highway funds could already be spent on maintenance purposes. Neither
the FHWA program's expansion of eligibility to include maintenance nor
the recent expansion in FTA's definition of eligible capital activities
resulted in a significant change in outlay rates. Based on this
evidence we believe that the preventive maintenance language does not
lead to a significant change in the transit program's outlay curve. In
any case, first-year transit outlays are only about 35 percent of the
comparable outlay rate for FHWA programs.
Access to jobs
Last year, APTA's testimony to this Subcommittee stressed that
transit is vital to the success of welfare reform. As Secretary Slater
has since noted, transit is the ``to'' in welfare to work. I recently
wrote to all 50 state governors to emphasize transit's role in welfare
to work and to urge them to make transit's role known to their social
services agencies.
Some 94 percent of welfare recipients who must move into the work
force do not own cars and must rely on public transit to get to work.
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.
Because most new jobs are in the suburbs, transit operators are
working to provide special ``reverse commute'' and suburb-to-suburb
bus, rail and van services to match center city residents with suburban
jobs. Job access in rural areas is another difficult challenge.
APTA has created two task forces to deal with aspects of this
issue. The APTA Jobs Task Force will encourage transit systems and
businesses to hire welfare recipients. The Access to Jobs Task Force
will highlight the positive role that transit can play in making
welfare to work a success, and provide a means to share information on
successful programs with APTA members and encourage coordination of
activities by transportation providers, health and human service
agencies, and private firms. The difficulty of the challenge should not
be underestimated.
A recent report entitled, ``Assessment of the Joblinks
Demonstration Projects: Connecting People to the Workplace and
Implications for Welfare Reform'' concludes that ``transportation is a
necessary component in the package of services needed to implement
welfare-to-work programs.'' It notes that the effectiveness of
transportation solutions depends on: Availability of jobs at shift
times that can be served by available drivers and vehicles;
Availability of workers who can fill these jobs; and Coordination
between transportation providers, human service agencies, and
employers.
We are encouraged that the Department of Labor (DOL) Welfare to
Work grant program includes transportation as an eligible activity, and
that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has programs and
block grants for transportation and other needs. To focus on these
programs and encourage coordination among the various human service and
transportation agencies at the federal, state, and local levels, APTA
testified earlier this year before the House Appropriations Committee's
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Subcommittee.
APTA is encouraging transit agencies to collaborate with other
agencies on applications for these grants. While we view this as an
opportunity to help meet a critical national need and to expand transit
ridership, we also want to dispel any impression that transit agencies
already have the resources to provide welfare-to-work services without
potentially adverse effects on existing services and customers.
Research programs
APTA continues to be very supportive of all of the research
components of the Federal Transit Act. A federal transit research
program can foster innovation and technology deployment needed to
improve transit service across the nation and keep American suppliers
of transit goods and services healthy and vibrant.
One of ISTEA's small but important milestones was the creation of
the Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP), established as a
counterpart to the Highway Cooperative Research Program. We appreciate
your Subcommittee's support for TCRP over the years, and we want to
emphasize that the transit industry strongly supports TCRP as
established by ISTEA. We are concerned, however, that the fiscal year
1998 Act changed the traditional policy of earmarking funds for TCRP.
For fiscal year 1998, we understand that FTA is not in a position to
fund the program at the fiscal year 1997 level of $8.2 million. To
prevent this from happening in fiscal year 1999 and to assure the
viability of a program modeled after the successful National
Cooperative Highway Research Program, we urge the Subcommittee to
designate funds for this program at least at the fiscal year 1997
level.
TCRP is the first national research program to give the transit
community a direct role in setting a research agenda. TCRP Reports have
addressed the problems of greatest concern to transit agencies,
including such critical issues as rural transit planning and service
delivery assessment, access to transit for people with disabilities,
and a wide range of operational, scheduling, maintenance, and other
issues. There is no other source for these studies; they cannot be
carried out at the local level. Moreover, they enhance transit service
providers' ability to help achieve a wide range of federal objectives.
This investment in research is paying off. Projects to date include
software for transit risk managers; a study on low-floor light rail
vehicles, which minimized the risks associated with new rail car
design; safe operating procedures for alternative fuel vehicles; a
facilities and equipment management system; standardized light rail
signing for improved safety; reduced visual impact of overhead wire;
and transit management information systems. TCRP also funds an
international transit studies program, which is invaluable in educating
transit managers about innovations and practices in transit systems
around the world. And, I might add, lets us tell our story around the
world, too. In short, TCRP is a small program with a very big payoff.
Safety
Given the current concern about transportation safety including the
phenomenon of ``road rage,'' support for transit is important because
all modes of transit are among the safest forms of transportation in
terms of accidents per millions of passenger miles. In fact, ``Dollars
& Sense'' concludes that there are over 190,000 fewer annual deaths,
injuries, and accidents than would be the case if people who use
transit made the same trips by personal vehicle. It is important to
provide individuals with access to safe transit service and to provide
transit agencies with the resources to maintain their strong safety
record. I am pleased to note that we are sponsoring jointly with the
FTA a workshop on fatigue and safety, and we trust that it will lead to
increased joint efforts on safety issues.
Metropolitan mobility and economic growth
As mentioned earlier, the release of the ``Dollars & Sense'' Report
by a coalition of transit-supportive organizations including APTA
provided additional confirmation of the ways that transit can be an
effective tool for economic development.
``Dollars & Sense'' finds that American taxpayers receive at least
four dollars back from each dollar of public investment in transit. The
Report also finds that everyone, not just the transit rider, shares in
this positive return. The Report discusses four kinds of economic
benefits of transit:
--Mobility benefits come from enabling people to participate more
effectively in society as producers, consumers, and citizens.
This category alone provided an estimated $33.7 billion in
benefits to transit riders according to a 1993 study--more than
double the $16.2 billion cost of public expenditures on transit
in that year.
--Efficiency benefits reduce the cost and economic impact of vehicle
use. As costly as congestion is in terms of lost time and
productivity, wasted fuel, and other expenses--more than $50
billion per year and rising--without transit, these costs would
be another $19+ billion a year higher. Families in transit-
friendly areas can save hundreds of dollars per year by riding
transit instead of driving for some trips, and up to $5,000 per
year if the availability of transit allows them to get by with
one less car than they would otherwise own.
--Economic development benefits result when transit encourages and
facilitates new development. ``Dollars & Sense'' includes many
specific examples from around the country.
--Economic productivity benefits result when transit improves
national economic productivity. Economist David Alan Aschauer
has estimated that increased public investments in
infrastructure would lead to increases in the Gross National
Product and in private investment.
Sufficient funding for transit promotes efficient use of all
transportation dollars by subjecting every proposed project to
available alternatives. From fiscal year 1992 through 1997, local
officials chose to use about $3.5 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.
Commuter rail
Our study on commuter rail released last year--``Commuter Rail--
Serving America's Emerging Suburban/Urban Economy''--quantifies the
economic benefits that commuter rail in the U.S. generates, not only in
the regions they serve, but also for the nation. Benefits flow to a
broad constituency of commuters, taxpayers, businesses, and
metropolitan areas. Public funding of commuter rail makes these
benefits possible, providing needed capital investment and drawing
riders away from more costly forms of transportation. Commuter rail
uses these funds in a cost-effective manner: per-passenger-mile
operating expenses have remained stable and farebox recovery rates are
near 50 percent.
Small town and rural transit
In the nation's small urbanized areas (UZA's)--those with fewer
than 200,000 people--and rural counties, transit 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. A soon
to be published report from the Transportation Research Board will show
that $3 is returned for every $1 of federal investment in rural
transit. APTA supports proposals to increase small UZA and rural
transit funding. We believe 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. We appreciate the Subcommittee's support for the
fiscal year 1998 Act's language on this point, which is similar to
provisions in the House and Senate reauthorization proposals.
The Congressional Appropriations Committees have done a commendable
job of allocating the funds for these programs, which help meet
important large-scale, long-term needs, including 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.
conclusion
In closing, we ask that the federal transit appropriations for
fiscal year 1999 build on the success of this year's bill by----
--Providing the highest levels of funding possible to meet transit's
critical needs as specified in the Senate Budget Resolution;
-- Retaining the current act's language on preventive maintenance and
flexibility for smaller areas;
--Designating funds for the continuation of the small but useful
Transit Cooperative Research Program; and
--Assuring that FTA has adequate funding to carry out the duties that
Congress has assigned it.
______
Prepared Statement of Scott Lansing, Executive Director, Chatham Area
Transit Authority
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the
Chatham Area Transit Authority (CAT), I appreciate the opportunity to
present my statement in the hearing record for Outside Witnesses.
First, I would like to thank the Subcommittee for the funds
provided for the past two years for our transit needs. While the House
of Representatives provided the full amount ($8,000,000) of CAT's
funding needs for the Downtown Transfer Center and Intermodal
Circulator, the result through the Conference Agreement was $4,000,000.
CAT officials respectfully request that the balance of the needed
funding, $4,000,000, be provided in the Fiscal year 1999 Transportation
Appropriations Bill.
CAT will begin obligation provided in prior year appropriations for
this project before September 30, 1998.
For fiscal year 1999, CAT is requesting $9.8 million for: (1)
Completion of funding for the Downtown Transfer Center ($4,000,000);
and (2) Desperately needed bus replacement funds ($5.8 million). Each
component is discussed below.
downtown transfer center
The Downtown Multimodal Center will be located on a 35,000 square
foot tract of land near the Civic Center. The facility will also stand
at one of the gateways to the historic district, and offer improved
service to the community through passenger waiting areas, office space,
parking and other features to enhance travel, work and living
conditions in the downtown area.
The donation of County owned land will be used as an in-kind cost-
share match. The total cost of $11 million lacks the essential $4
million in Federal funding.
CAT requests that the Senate provide the $4 million lost last year.
Fiscal year 1999 funding of $4 million is critical for the completion
of this project.
bus replacement
Currently half of CAT's bus fleet have accumulated over 500,000
miles per vehicle. This puts these 33 buses at the end of their useful
and designed life. The total funding needed to replace these buses is
$10 million. CAT is seeking $5.8 million of the total in fiscal year
1999.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to present CAT's needs
before your Subcommittee. CAT's Board and I thank you for your efforts
on CAT's behalf. We earnestly and sincerely request that you consider
carefully CAT's defensible and justifiable request for $9.8 million
from the Federal Transit Administration for fiscal year 1999.
______
Prepared Statement of Norma Stanton, Chairman, Dallas Area Rapid
Transit Board of Directors
introduction
My name is Norma Stanton, and I am Chairman of the Dallas Area
Rapid Transit (DART) Board of Directors. It is indeed a pleasure to
present this written testimony in support of DART's fiscal year 1999
appropriation request of $50 million for the North Central Light Rail
Transit (LRT) Extension and $10 million for the replacement of transit
buses.
appropriation request
I am pleased to submit for consideration, the DART fiscal year 1999
``New Start'' discretionary funding request of $50 million and $10
million from the ``Bus'' discretionary category. The New Start funds
will be dedicated to the North Central LRT Extension of the 20-mile
DART LRT Starter System (see attached map). The funds will be used for
light rail vehicles, real estate and construction. The North Central
LRT Extension construction is scheduled to begin in October, 1998.
The 12-mile North Central LRT Extension is a key element of DART's
Program of Rail Projects being requested for authorization in the new
ISTEA legislation. This $1.18 billion Program of Rail Projects (North
Central, Northeast, Northwest, and Southeast Corridors) will be funded
with $795 million of local funds and a $383 million federal
authorization request. The local funds represent 67 percent of the
total project cost. This continues DART's philosophy of providing a
substantial local overmatch, as was done on the LRT Starter System.
With respect to the bus request, DART has committed approximately
$144 million of Formula and Congestion Mitigation Air Quality funds and
$31 million of local match to replace 14-18 year old buses over the
next five years. In addition to these resources, DART requests $10
million in funding of current and future orders totaling 633 vehicles,
which includes 200 powered by natural gas. The $10 million would fund
approximately 35 vehicles.
The table below provides information on previous appropriations and
the current request.
FISCAL YEAR 1999 APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal
Prior year 1999
years request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Central Light Rail Transit Extension: Light 27.5 50
Rail Vehicles, Construction and Real Estate......
Replace 35 Transit Buses.......................... ......... 10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
major accomplishments
DART operates a 20-mile light rail transit system and a 10-mile
commuter line between Dallas and Irving. In addition to the rail
services, DART operates a variety of transportation alternatives
including high occupancy vehicle lanes (HOV), 130 fixed bus routes,
paratransit services for the mobility impaired, rideshare programs and
corporate trip-reduction programs.
With the introduction of rail and expanded HOV services, total
annual ridership on all DART services rose dramatically from 48.5
million in fiscal year 1996 to 69.9 million in fiscal year 1997. In
recognition of these new services and the agency's major
accomplishments, the American Public Transit Association has named DART
its Transit Agency of the Year.
exceeding expectations
DART's new rail services are generating ridership well beyond
initial projections, with more than 35,000 passengers per day. DART
rail is generating extensive economic development around stations and
along rail corridors as it increases mobility choices for workers.
Consequently, business and community leaders are calling for the agency
to accelerate its rail expansion commitments. The citizens of North
Texas are eager for DART to complete these major transportation
projects in a timely fashion.
With your support, DART will be able to further improve the
transportation options for North Texas and help the region to remain a
vibrant area to live and work. You may rest assured that we will
continue to work diligently to get these projects funded, built within
budget and in operation on schedule.
Beginning later this year and through 2003, the North Central and
Northeast LRT lines will be under construction. The table below depicts
the current status and implementation schedule.
PROGRAM OF RAIL PROJECTS--IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open for revenue
Line MIS PE/EIS or EA Final design Start construction service
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Central....................... Completed June 1994. Completed April 1997.. April 1997-Jan. 2000 Oct. 1998 (Staged)....... 2001/2002/2003
(Staged).
Northeast........................... Completed Nov. 1995. Completed Dec. 1996 Feb. 1997-June 1999 August 1998 (Staged)..... 2001/2002
(EA). (Staged).
Southeast........................... Feb. 1998-Late 1999. Late 1999-Mid 2001.... Mid 2001-2004 (Staged) 2003 (Staged)............ 2005/2008
Northwest........................... Feb. 1998-Late 1999. Early 2000-Late 2002.. Late 2002-2005 2004 (Staged)............ 2006/2007
(Staged).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
miles to go
DART's Transit System Plan calls for the development of 58 miles of
light rail, 37 miles of commuter rail, and 98 miles of high occupancy
vehicle lanes. The fiscal year 1997 Financial Plan projects the sources
and uses of funds for DART's projects through the next 20 years. The
Financial Plan projects $6.1 billion in locally funded operating
expenses and $5.6 billion in capital costs. Federal funding accounts
for only 19 percent of capital investments and 9 percent of overall
expenditures. This significant local commitment by DART is shown
graphically on the next page.
regional mobility
DART plays a significant role in meeting the challenging regional
mobility needs. The Program of Rail Projects is contained in the
approved North Central Texas Council of Governments' ``Mobility 2020:
The Metropolitan Transportation Plan'' and is also programmed in the
Regional Transportation Improvement Program for Discretionary funding.
DART's rail projects relate directly to one of the more important
Mobility 2020 Goals: ``Develop a balanced, efficient and dependable
multimodal transportation system which reduces demand for single
occupant vehicle travel.''
The entire DART rail system is contained in the Mobility 2020 Plan
utilizing local and discretionary funds. The Metropolitan
Transportation Plan has a $3.0 billion rail system component which
complements the $16 billion programmed for regional congestion
management and highway improvements.
DART's rail program is an integral part of the regional, multimodal
transportation system of light rail, commuter rail, HOV, and roadway
improvements. Elements of the LRT Starter System are also a
Transportation Control Measure for meeting air quality standards in
this ozone non-attainment area.
The North Central Texas Council of Governments estimates in its
2020 Mobility Plan that the North Central light rail transit extension
to Plano will carry an additional 35,000 trips per day. If those same
35,000 additional trips were made in single occupant vehicles, three
more lanes would be needed during peak periods to have the capacity to
handle the additional traffic.
The Dallas-Fort Worth area is growing at a tremendous rate, it is
estimated that the region's population will be nearly 5 million people
by the year 2000. In fact, in 1996 the region gained an additional
114,00 residents--a population equivalent of two DART member cities--
Carrollton and Farmers Branch. This growth has created a greater need
for transportation improvements, and DART is planning and operating the
needed mobility services.
DART has met the challenge of providing a multimodal system for its
customers. Its services include bus, light rail, commuter rail,
paratransit, and HOV lanes. The citizens have in turn responded by not
only riding the system but by supporting DART's efforts at the polls
and through continued support as demonstrated by more than 20
resolutions passed by member city Councils and chambers.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12NONDP.001
conclusion
The citizens of the DART Service Area have chosen to invest a
substantial amount of their sales tax to implement the Transit System
Plan. The funding requests made here are realistic and have been taken
from the Board-approved DART Financial Plan, which has also been
examined by many of the finance directors of DART's member cities.
Costs are based on a specific future schedule of project
implementation, as was done on the Light Rail Transit Starter System.
DART has shown that it can capably manage a large, multi-million dollar
project, keep it on schedule and within budget. Any delay in funding
will lengthen the project and eventually increase costs to the
taxpayers.
We urge your endorsement of DART's fiscal year 1999 funding request
totaling $60 million, in order to keep the momentum we have
collectively gained. DART is planning, building, and operating
transportation services now for the future mobility of the region.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12NONDP.002
______
Prepared Statement of Julie M. Austin, Executive Director, Foothill
Transit, West Covina, CA
Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, my name is Julie Austin,
and I am the Executive Director of Foothill Transit (Foothill) in West
Covina, California.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to submit testimony to this
subcommittee. Foothill's funding request for $2.5 million in Section 3
bus capital discretionary funding for the construction of our second
bus facility in the western end of California's San Gabriel Valley will
enable us to complete both of our required bus operations and
maintenance facilities in a cost-efficient manner. Mr. Chairman, I
recognize the difficult tasks before this Subcommittee and commend your
leadership in determining the allocation of available transportation
resources during this critical congressional budget period. We are very
appreciative of the support provided to Foothill by this committee over
the past three years. Should the committee give favorable consideration
to our request for fiscal year 1999, we want to assure you that we are
ready to obligate the funds immediately and quickly complete this
project.
With the $23.5 million in Section 3 discretionary funding approved
over the past three years, we were able to complete our first facility
in Pomona within a fast-track nine-month construction schedule, and it
was completed within budget. In fact, FTA's Administrator for Region
IX, Leslie Rogers, spoke at the facility's dedication ceremonies and
commented that Foothill was true to their word--the federal money was
used to construct our Pomona facility within the promised nine-month,
fast-track schedule, and it was completed within budget. The federal
investment in this project is expected to result in cost savings of $80
million over the life of these two facilities.
Foothill Transit started as an experiment and has evolved into a
national model for public/private partnerships, providing cost
effective, high quality transit service. This request for bus capital
discretionary funds is a unique and excellent example of how to put the
public/private concept into practice. We believe you will agree from
the audited information attached that Foothill is one of the best
investments of taxpayer dollars in these times of limited funds.
Foothill has established a reputation of providing outstanding
customer service. In five separate customer surveys, Foothill Transit
drivers have consistently received ratings above average or greater by
more than 80 percent of our customers. Customers also rate Foothill
Transit buses very highly on their cleanliness, comfort and graffiti-
free appearance.
history
The Foothill Transit Zone was created in 1987 as a public/private
partnership. It is governed by an elected board comprised of mayors and
councilmembers representing the 21 cities and appointees from the
County of Los Angeles who are members of a Joint Exercise of Powers
Authority. It provides public transit services over a 327 square-mile
service area. Foothill Transit was initially established as a three-
year experiment to operate 20 bus lines at least 25 percent cheaper
than the Southern California Rapid Transit District (now MTA), with
those savings to be passed on to the community through more service
and/or lower fares. A three-year evaluation conducted by Ernst & Young
showed that Foothill's public/private arrangement resulted in cost
savings of 43 percent per revenue hour over the previous provider.
Foothill has established itself as a success despite various court
challenges. Providing top quality, cost-effective service to its
customers, Foothill charged only 85 cents as a base fare until July 1,
1997--the same fare charged by the RTD in 1986. The fare schedule was
restructured in 1997 to raise the base fare by a nickel, reduce the
complicated zone structure, and actually reduce fares for Metrocard
users. Rather than discouraging customers, this restructuring resulted
in a 10 percent increase in ridership during the first six months of
implementation. Forty percent of Foothill's operating costs are covered
by farebox revenues (state law only requires a 20 percent ratio of fare
revenues to operating costs).
Foothill has no employees. All management and operation of Foothill
Transit service is provided through competitive procurement practices.
The Foothill Executive Board has retained my employer, Forsythe &
Associates, Inc., to provide the day-to-day management and
administration of the agency. The management contractor oversees the
maintenance and operation contractors to ensure adherence to Foothill
Transit's strict quality standards.
Using this new approach to delivering transit services, Foothill
Transit has been able to:
--Keep operating costs low while putting 68 percent more buses on the
street;
--Increase revenue generated from the farebox by 74 percent;
--Increase service hours by 89 percent; and
--Increase ridership by 61 percent.
Foothill Transit uses NO federal operating assistance. All
operating funds were provided through bus fares and local sales tax
until July 1, 1996, when Foothill Transit finally became eligible for
state operating subsidies allocated to other transit operators.
Proposition A and Proposition C are each a one half cent sales tax
levied in Los Angeles County to support public transit. When the
Foothill ``experiment'' began, no capital funds were made available to
purchase buses. Therefore, buses were financed using innovative long-
term financing over the 12-year life of the vehicles. Until recently,
Foothill has paid for all of its buses out of its operating funds.
Since fiscal year 1989, Foothill Transit has paid over $26.7 million in
bus lease payments out of local operating dollars. Foothill did not
receive any Section 9 capital funds to pay a portion of its annual bus
lease payments until fiscal year 1995.
why this bus capital request?
An independent Facility Feasibility Analysis completed in 1995
indicated that, if the requested funding is provided, Foothill Transit
can achieve over $80 million in savings over the life of the two
facilities. This savings will be used to implement Foothill Transit's
Strategic Master Plan, which calls for a 50 percent increase in
service, and the development of eight timed transfer centers to ease
transit connections for our customers. Foothill is also working on
redesigning its bus stops to make them more attractive for the
customer, the community, and to provide an economic stimulus in our
communities.
Although we have completed our first facility in Pomona, Foothill's
El Monte bus facility is a leased facility provided by our contractors.
This facility is not optimally sized for either the current and
projected fleet. Ownership of a new facility with sufficient capacity
will encourage competition and allow smaller contractors to provide
service under contract to Foothill Transit.
Approval of this federal Section 3 bus capital appropriation for
construction of Foothill's second bus facility will have the following
impacts:
--Properly located facilities reduce deadhead mileage, maximize
vehicle life, and provide significant operating savings;
--Facilities owned by Foothill Transit eliminate the recurring costs
with each renewal of the service contract for leasehold
improvements, depreciation, and the purchase of major equipment
that has a life cycle greater than the 3-year life of the
service contract;
--Facilities provided by Foothill also provides a more level playing
field for operating contractors, thereby stimulating greater
competition and achieving additional savings;
--Ownership provides the agency the opportunity to construct an
alternative fueling facility on the site, reducing emissions in
a region that ranks as one of the worst areas for air quality
in the country;
--Facility ownership enhances the ability of the agency to ensure
continued operation of its service should a contractor default;
and
--Proper placement of facilities is secured in the rapidly developing
San Gabriel Valley (the fastest growing region in Los Angeles
County).
conclusion
Mr. Chairman, Foothill Transit has a ready-to-go project and can
immediately obligate these funds. Foothill Transit has:
--Initiated an environmental study;
--Awarded contracts for architectural and construction management
services;
--Obtained a short-term loan from the Metropolitan Transportation
Authority to allow us to acquire a site; and
--Identified a proposed site for the second facility.
Appropriation of funds for this innovative project will allow
Foothill Transit to meet its commitment to our customers as outlined in
our Strategic Master Plan. Also, service will continue to be expanded
and enhanced to meet the demand for increased mobility throughout the
rapidly growing San Gabriel and Pomona Valleys.
These funds will provide a significant contribution to continue the
national model that has already been established to maximize the use of
public funds.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. Please note the attached
charts and tables that illustrate Foothill Transit's success. Thank you
for this opportunity and your consideration of our request. Please feel
free to contact me if we can be of any assistance.
FOOTHILL TRANSIT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actual change RTD and MTA performance indicators-- If RTD had kept the Foothill lines Foothill transit advantage--Foothill
--------------------------------------- RTD/MTA total system performance --------------------------------------- compared to MTA
--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------- RTD/MTA
RTD in 1986 Foothill in Percent System RTD in 1986 percent Best case Best case Foothill in Foothill
1997 change RTD system MTA system percent change MTA in 1997 MTA in 1996 1997 advantage
in 1986 \1\ in 1997 change
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMPARATIVE REPORT CARD
Vehicle service hours............... 285,859 539,044 88.6 6,864,141 5,916,159 (13.8) 285,859 (13.8) 246.410 246,410 539.044 118.8
Boardings........................... 9,453,027 15,249,854 61.3 445,222,973 342,702,821 (23.0) 9,453,027 (23.0) 7,278,831 7,278,831 15,249,854 109.5
Operating cost...................... $24,177,583 $29,976,494 24.0 $460,222,417 $598,343,775 30.0 $24,177,583 30.0 $31,430,858 $31,430,858 $29,976,494 (4.6)
Farebox revenue..................... $6,853,411 $11,895,660 73.6 $189,146,589 $207,610,383 9.8 $6,853,411 9.8 $7,525,045 $7,525,045 $11,895,660 58.1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsidy required.................... $17,324,172 $18,080,834 4.4 $271,075,828 $390,733,392 44.1 $17,324,172 38.0 $23,905,813 $23,905,813 $18,080,834 (24.4)
===========================================================================================================================================================
Peak buses.......................... 127 213 67.7 1,873 1,606 (14.3) 127 (14.3) 109 109 213 95.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actual change RTD and MTA performance indicators-- If RTD had kept the Foothill lines Foothill transit advantage--Foothill
--------------------------------------- RTD/MTA total system performance --------------------------------------- compared to MTA
--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------- RTD/MTA
RTD in 1986 Foothill in Percent System RTD in 1986 percent Best case Best case Foothill in Foothill
1997 change RTD system MTA system percent change MTA in 1997 MTA in 1997 1997 advantage
in 1986 \1\ in 1996 change
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOOTHILL ADVANTAGE
Cost/boarding....................... $2.56 $1.97 (23.1) $1.03 $1.75 68.9 $2.56 68.9 $4.32 $4.32 $1.97 (54.5)
Revenue/boarding.................... $.72 $.78 7.6 $.42 $.61 42.6 $.72 42.6 $1.03 $1.03 $.78 (24.5)
Subsidy/boarding.................... $1.83 $1.19 (35.3) $.61 $1.14 87.3 $1.83 87.3 $3.28 $3.28 $1.19 (63.9)
Farebox ratio (percent)............. 28.3 39.7 40.0 41.1 34.7 (15.6) 28.3 (15.6) 23.9 23.9 39.7 65.8
Boardings/hour...................... 33.1 28.3 (14.4) 64.9 57.9 (10.7) 33.1 (10.7) 29.5 29.5 28.3 (4.2)
Cost/hour........................... $84.58 $55.61 (34.3) $67.05 $101.14 50.8 $84.58 50.8 $127.55 $127.55 $55.61 (56.4)
Subsidy/hour........................ $60.60 $33.54 (44.7) $39.49 $66.95 67.2 $60.60 67.2 $97.02 $97.02 $33.54 (65.4)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes Foothill lines, for fair comparison.
Note: Applying the MTA system data to the lines Foothill Transit acquired provides the Best Case operation of these lines by the MTA. This assumes continued operation of the six lines which
RTD announced it would drop, and that these lines would have performed the same as all other RTD/MTA lines.
Source: MTA TPM form for fiscal year 1996 (excluding TSE/BDOF).
Prepared Statement of Perry J. Maull, Transit Director, City of
Gainesville, FL, Regional Transit System
I would like to thank Chairman Shelby and the Members of the
Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee for the opportunity to
appear before you to request an earmark of bus discretionary funds in
the amount of $8,750,000 to fund the acquisition of 25 new low-floor
buses and related equipment. These buses will enable the City of
Gainesville, in cooperation with our partners, Alachua County, the
Florida Department of Transportation, and the University of Florida, to
dramatically enhance bus service to the University of Florida campus.
I realize your time is very limited, but I would like to highlight
why Gainesville needs this extraordinary allocation of discretionary
capital funds for acquisition of 25 expansion buses.
In December, 1996, the University of Florida's Presidential Task
Force on Transportation and Parking made its recommendations for a
major change in how students, faculty, and staff commuted to campus. In
the past, the 42,000 students and another 16,000 faculty and staff have
relied on their personal automobiles to get to campus. Parking has been
relatively plentiful and cheap. However, as the University of Florida
grows to some 60,000 students and a significant increase in faculty and
staff to support those students. The Presidential Task Force
recommended that parking availability be constrained and that parking
price be increased in the future. To enable a policy of limited parking
and increasing its cost to work a major expansion of public transit
service to the University of Florida campus. The Presidential Task
Force recommended that transit routes serving the campus be enhanced
with 10 minute service, requiring the addition of some 25 buses on six
different routes.
In March, 1997, the students at the University of Florida
authorized by referendum that up to a $1.00 per credit hour fee be
imposed on themselves for support of public transit services. In return
for all 42,000 students paying this fee, each student would have
unlimited access to the City of Gainesville's Regional Transit System.
A student public transit fee will be implemented for the Fall Semester
of 1998. The Florida Department of Transportation has pledged to match
these student fees with service demonstration funds over the next two
years.
Working with our partners, we have already been able to implement
enhanced bus service, utilizing surplus buses acquired from other
Florida transit systems. More buses will be added this fall when the
student fee allows all students access to the bus system by merely
showing their student ID's. Ridership is up dramatically over last
year. In fact, on Wednesday, January 14, 1998, we had a record-breaking
daily passenger boarding of 17,549. Never before has RTS carried as
many passengers as on that day. Average daily ridership is up some
4,000 per day, and this is before the students have unlimited access to
the bus service.
Your allocation of bus discretionary capital funds to Gainesville
will be helping an experiment, already underway and showing much early
promise, to enhance to quality of life for our community and to show
the State of Florida, and the nation, that public transit can play an
integral part in the transportation system.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of Father William L. George, S.J., Father T. Byron
Collins, S.J., Special Assistants to the President, Georgetown
University and Rev. Leo J. O'Donovan, S.J.
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 submit this testimony to 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. Support provided by this subcommittee, coupled
with the money supplied by the Department of Defense, has kept the U.S.
in the forefront in bringing transportation Fuel Cells to the
marketplace. These efforts have produced this nation's only viable
electric vehicles powered by Fuel Cell power. 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 1999, we identify a requirement of $12.0 million to
facilitate the transition of technology from test vehicles to actual
transit operations which is so necessary to complete the
commercialization process. This level of funding accommodates the
development of two additional Fuel Cells from the competing domestic
vendors, fabrication of the electric drive trains, and purchase and
integration of the next two Fuel Cell buses. To truly effect a
transition to operations, it is imperative that these Fuel Cell buses
be placed in the hands of operators. Only in this manner can we obtain
widespread user and rider acceptance to spur the demand for this safe,
clean technology. The Administration's request of $4.0 million for this
program is not sufficient to do even a minimally successful program.
Although transit buses emit only a small fraction of the pollutants
in the world, success in this application will accelerate the
introduction of Fuel Cells for trucks, automobiles and military
vehicles. This is the big environmental payoff for Fuel Cell
technology. The Fuel Cell Bus Commercialization Program can be the
catalyst to accelerate the introduction of Fuel Cell powered cars. We
don't have to wait ten years to see Fuel Cell vehicles on the road, the
transit buses can go into commercial use in the heart of our largest
cities within the next three years.
Great progress has been made to date. The world's first operational
transit bus Fuel Cell power plant capable of running on a liquid fuel
has been built and tested. The bus and electric drive train are
complete; the parts are coming together now into a complete electric
vehicle fully responsive to the industry's needs. This bus will be on
display at the American Public Transit Association trade show in
Phoenix this May.
Georgetown has consistently stressed liquid fuel as the only energy
source that can provide the range and refueling convenience necessary
for Fuel Cell bus commercialization in the foreseeable future. Others
are now following our lead. This first, commercially-viable Fuel Cell
bus will be a true showcase of the practical application of this
exciting technology. Design of a second type of Fuel Cell has also been
complete and the first unit should be ready to go into a bus by the end
of this year.
These significant achievements resulted from the efforts of a
nationwide team of industry experts. Georgetown University administers
these activities drawing upon fourteen years experience with Fuel Cell
buses. However, the hardware is developed across the country. The Fuel
Cells are produced in Connecticut and California, the electric drive
train is made in New York, the bus is fabricated and integrated in New
Mexico, and system integration is led from McLean, Virginia. Other
components are made throughout the nation. The goal of the FTA Grant is
to make industry ready to commercialize the technology. Georgetown has
built the team to make that happen.
We could have accomplished more. Fiscal year 1998 funds were less
than half of what was requested. Priorities had to be established which
slowed progress. A second Fuel Cell bus will have to await future
funding and other efforts to reach commercial success have been
postponed. The world is not waiting. Fuel Cell technology was little
known outside of the space community when we first came to you to
initiate the program. Your foresight has stimulated 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. Fuel Cell powered automobiles are
projected to be available within six years. The first vehicles my be of
Japanese or German origin. This nation had a clear lead in the
technology just a few years ago; we can not allow it to wane. The FTA
program is the only U.S. funded effort that can produce operating
vehicles in the near term. These Fuel Cell buses will spur the
introduction of automotive Fuel Cells.
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 transition the
technology to operations. This is achieved be getting transit buses
into the hands of the operators to permit them to experience the
advantages of the technology and identify any necessary improvements.
Multiple vehicles are absolutely essential to prove technology
readiness. The program that we recommend will help assure U.S. Fuel
Cell technology leadership. We prayerfully ask for your continuing
assistance to put this vital technology into the hands of the American
people.
______
Prepared Statement of Commissioner Peter McLaughlin, Vice Chair,
Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority, Minneapolis, MN, and
Chair, Twin Cities Metropolitan LRT Joint Powers Board
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to present our views to the Subcommittee. I would ask that
this testimony be made a part of the official record regarding the
fiscal year 1999 federal appropriations request for the U.S. Department
of Transportation.
This request is for the next increment of funding for fiscal year
1999 for the Twin Cities Transitways proposal which centers around the
Hiawatha Avenue Transitway. This request stems from a year of hard
work, intense discussion, growing excitement and a long-awaited
commitment by the State Legislature and the Governor to provide the
local match required to advance this project. The Twin Cities
Transitways proposal includes the Hiawatha, Riverview and Northstar
Corridors. This program of projects ties the region together by
connecting the major economic centers through the development of an
integrated transportation system.
The funding we are requesting for fiscal year 1999 is as follows:
--1. Hiawatha Avenue Corridor from downtown Minneapolis to the
Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) and the Mall
of America;
--2. Riverview Transit Corridor from the eastside of St. Paul to MSP
and the Mall of America; and
--3. Northstar Transitway Commuter Rail/Corridor from downtown
Minneapolis through Anoka County and on to St. Cloud,
Minnesota.
Please see the attached map as a reference.
objectives
The Twin Cities metropolitan area population is now 2.6 million. It
is the 15th largest metropolitan area and one of a very few that
depends upon an all bus transit system. Until recently, the Twin Cities
have managed to escape the problems of the larger older urban areas.
Now, however, we are seeing the adverse effects of congestion,
dispersal of manufacturing jobs to suburban locations and declining
neighborhoods.
Congestion levels in the Twin Cities are increasing dramatically
and are affecting the mobility of its residents. The number of trips on
the regional transportation system is increasing by four percent per
year. Auto occupancy rates have fallen to 1.12 persons per vehicle, the
lowest level since record keeping began. Consequently, the number of
miles of congested freeways has tripled in the last decade and
congestion is expected to increase another 35 percent by the year 2000.
At the same time, transit use over the past ten years, as in most other
cities with all bus fleets, has fallen dramatically.
The Twin Cities cannot afford to build its way out of congestion.
Adding roadway capacity to accommodate additional single-occupant
vehicle trips results in an escalating spiral of vehicular demand,
feeding into the very problem it tries to solve. Increased traffic
results in additional pollution, including vehicle emissions, adding to
mitigation and clean-up costs. Increased travel time results in lowered
productivity in the delivery of goods and services. Land use issues are
magnified, as the demand for public systems, including transportation,
water and sewer and other utilities spread to areas farther out,
draining resources from more densely developed areas where they are
more cost effective to provide.
unity at state and local level
For the first time in history, there is broad State and local
support of the Twin Cities Transitway Project. This show of unity has
been translated into a State capital commitment approved by the 1998
State Legislature and signed by Governor Arne Carlson of:
--$40 million to match federal funds for preliminary engineering,
final design and construction of LRT in the Hiawatha Avenue
corridor,
--$3 million for a major investment study, engineering, preliminary
engineering and implementation in the Riverview corridor, and
--$1,500,000 for a major investment, study engineering and
implementation in the Northstar corridor.
This is a significant step forward in identifying the State/Local
match for the project. As we testified last year, we plan to move
forward with a significant State-local overmatch of nearly 50 percent
for the construction phase of this project, instead of the minimum
requirement of 20 percent.
It is important to note that this state financial commitment
results from a strong consensus that has grown steadily over the last
year. The consensus is that we must enhance our investment in transit
to allow our regional transportation system to continue to function
effectively.
hiawatha
The Hiawatha Avenue Transitway Corridor is the Twin Cities region's
highest priority corridor for a transit improvement. This corridor
serves three of the largest economic and job centers in the region.
Downtown Minneapolis currently provides 140,000 jobs; Airport, 18,000
jobs; and Airport South-Mall of America about 21,000 jobs. An improved
transit system will enable thousands of job seekers to gain access to
these very important job centers.
A Final Environmental Impact Statement approved by federal highway
and transit agencies selected Light Rail Transit (LRT) as the preferred
transit alternative for this corridor. Consequently, nearly all of the
right of way required for a transit improvement has been preserved by
Hennepin County and MN/DOT. This federal request and the 1998 State
funding for transitway implementation is based upon LRT technology as
the preferred option.
During fiscal year 1998, the Hiawatha Corridor was allocated $10.5
million in federal funds and those funds are being used to begin
construction of the Transitway from downtown Minneapolis to 46th
Street.
In fiscal year 1999, we would request a dedicated amount of $29
million for this Corridor from the Section 5309 New Rail Start Capital
funding category of the Federal Transit Act. These funds would be
matched by $10 million from the State and $7 million from Local
sources, resulting in a State/local overmatch of 37 percent. These
funds will be utilized to complete preliminary engineering, final
design and continue construction of the Transitway for the entire
corridor between downtown Minneapolis and Bloomington. This schedule,
of course, would necessitate the timely approval of each phase of the
project by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA).
riverview
The Riverview Corridor is a 9.5-mile corridor centered around T.H.
5 (Shepard Road)/West Seventh Street connecting the Hiawatha Avenue
Transitway Corridor (Airport--Mall of America) to downtown St. Paul.
The Riverview Corridor provides many of the same opportunities as the
Hiawatha Corridor. Downtown St. Paul is clearly one of the major
economic centers of the region with about 68,000 jobs. The Corridor
between downtown and the airport connection to Hiawatha is primed for
redevelopment. Improved transit in this corridor provides tremendous
opportunities to open up the job markets within the Corridor as well as
the opportunity to connect job seekers in St. Paul with the job markets
at the airport and Mall of America.
In fiscal Year 1998, a Major Investment Study (MIS) will be started
that will include alternative alignments and modes. There is also a
focus on economic development and transit-orientated development
throughout the Corridor. The Request for Proposals (RFP) for the MIS
has been issued with responses due in April, 1998.
For Fiscal year 1999, we would request a dedicated amount of $5
million for this Corridor from the Section 5309 New Rail Start Capital
funding category of the Federal Transit Act. With a total project cost
of $6.25 million, the State/local match would be $1.25 million or a 20
percent match. The funds will be used to complete the MIS, conduct
engineering as appropriate and begin implementation of selected transit
improvements within the Corridor.
northstar
The Northstar Corridor is a 60-mile transportation corridor linking
the City of Minneapolis, Anoka and Sherburne Counties, and the City of
St. Cloud, Minnesota. The Northstar Corridor includes the Burlington
Northern/Santa Fe Railroad mainline. The Northstar Corridor is the
fastest growing area in Minnesota and one of the fastest growing
corridors in the nation. The Northstar Corridor is the primary
transportation route for automobile, truck, and rail travel. As the
area grows, each of these modes will continue to suffer from increasing
congestion and declining safety. This Corridor connection with Hiawatha
in downtown Minneapolis will complete a north/south area link between
St. Cloud and the northern metropolitan area to downtown Minneapolis
and onto the airport and the Mall of America. This Corridor has also
been designated by the Metropolitan Council as a high priority
corridor. In the last year, the Northstar Corridor was ranked by the
Minnesota Department of Transportation as the highest potential
corridor for the development of commuter rail in the Twin Cities
metropolitan area.
In fiscal year 1998, the Corridor received an allocation of
$350,000. With those funds the Corridor started a Major Investment
Study (MIS), including alternative alignments and modes with a
principal focus on evaluation of commuter rail alternatives between
downtown Minneapolis through Anoka and Sherburne Counties to St. Cloud.
Responses to the RFP for the MIS have been received with contract work
to begin on May 1, 1998. Work for this phase is scheduled to be
completed in December 1998.
For fiscal year 1999, we request a dedicated amount of $6 million
for this Corridor from the Section 5309 New Rail Start Capital funding
category of the Federal Transit Act. With a total project cost this
year of $7.5 million, the State/local match would be $1.5 million or a
20 percent match. These funds would be used to continue the MIS,
conduct engineering and environmental work as appropriate. There will
also be an effort to begin implementation of selected transit
improvements within the Corridor.
summary of request for federal funds
Therefore, we are requesting the designation of $40 million of
federal Section 5309 New Rail Start Capital funds for fiscal year 1999
as follows:
[Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State/local
Corridor Federal ---------------------
funds Amount Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hiawatha............................... $29 $17.00 37
Riverview.............................. 5 1.25 20
Northstar.............................. 6 1.50 20
--------------------------------
Total.............................. 40 19.75 33
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Chairman, we have tried to present a conservative request based
upon funding levels that we believe can be obligated or expended in the
next fiscal year. It is important to maintain the revenue stream in
order to insure that the project proceeds without interruption. As we
all know, delays in construction could mean significant increases in
costs.
conclusion
Mr. Chairman, I am presenting this testimony to you today
representing the seven counties of the Twin Cities metropolitan area.
These projects have the full support of those counties, the
Metropolitan Council and the Minnesota Department of Transportation.
The mayors and councils of the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul also
support this program of projects.
The Twin Cities region is in full agreement and committed to a
transitway in the Hiawatha Corridor, planning and phased implementation
of the Riverview Corridor and continued support for the Northstar
Corridor to Anoka County and on to St. Cloud. The Metropolitan Council
has endorsed the project as the region's highest transit priority. The
Minnesota Department of Transportation will be the recipient of any
federal funds.
We are all in agreement and want to move ahead with this important
transit proposal. We thank you your assistance last year and we ask
that you help us continue our partnership in bringing Transitways to
the Twin Cities region.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Indianapolis Northeast Corridor Project
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, while we are not
requesting any funding for fiscal year 1999, we are pleased to report
that in our area of the Heartland the momentum continues to build for
mass transit solutions to the traffic congestion that plagues the
Indianapolis Northeast Corridor. We would like to thank this Committee
for providing the catalyst for this momentum in the form of a fiscal
year 1998 appropriation of $1.25 million toward the Major Investment
Study (MIS). We are pleased to report we have been able to achieve a 30
percent local funding match, greater than the required 80-20 match for
New Starts. With the local funding share agreements totaling $500,000
in place, the MIS is underway with the consultant selection process
completed and orientation meetings scheduled. In addition to this local
and state match, there are also some exciting developments in the
private sector, which will enhance the viability of this project and
which we detail below.
We are aware that local match is important to the Committee in
determining the allocation of federal resources, and we are pleased to
report that our 30 percent local share is being split as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State of Indiana.................................... $250,000 50.0
City of Indianapolis................................ 125,000 25.0
Hamilton County..................................... 31,250 6.25
City of Carmel...................................... 31,250 6.25
City of Noblesville................................. 31,250 6.25
Town of Fishers..................................... 31,250 6.25
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indianapolis Mayor Stephen Goldsmith and State Senator Luke Kenley
of Noblesville have been selected as Co-Chairmen of the Executive
Committee overseeing the MIS process. Cooperation among the State of
Indiana, the City of Indianapolis and the suburban areas of the
Northeast Corridor has been good. We have also added the Beech Grove
Amtrak Maintenance Center to the study area as a possible site for a
light rail yard and shops.
Additionally, three other developments are of significant interest
to this project.
(1) To date 17 communities or counties in the Indianapolis
metropolitan area have adopted resolutions supporting the creation of a
regional transit authority.
(2) The Lilly Endowment, a private philanthropic foundation, is
sponsoring a $500,000.00 Vision Planning process to develop community
consensus and public support for mass transit solutions to
transportation congestion problems in the nine county region. This
process will include over 50 public information meetings and provide
for large quantities of support materials (videotapes, brochures, etc.)
to distribute to the public during the process. This effort will
supplement the MIS process and help develop public consensus for the
local elected officials. Lilly Endowment's support is a great benefit
in the Indianapolis region.
(3) Last week, a group of downtown Indianapolis business and
governmental leaders revealed plans to move forward with the possible
construction of a light rail/trolley system that would link major
downtown destinations through a two-mile loop system. A feasibility
study is currently underway and the project would be funded by local
public and private funds. The estimated cost is $30-40 million dollars.
Such a system could eventually become Phase I of an overall light
rail system serving the Northeast Corridor if that is the
recommendation of the MIS executive committee. It would also help
reduce the amount of federal funds that might be requested on behalf of
the Northeast Corridor project.
In summary, significant steps are being taken in the region to
provide a solution to the Northeast Corridor congestion problem.
Preliminary recommendations from the MIS process should be available
early in 1999 and will be forwarded to Congress and the Federal Transit
Administration.
______
Prepared Statement of Supervisor Yvonne Brathwaite Burke, County of Los
Angeles, First Vice Chair, Board of Directors, Los Angeles County
Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA)
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, on behalf of the Los
Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), Board of
Directors, I thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony
supporting the region's transportation network which is key to the
future of Los Angeles County's livable communities and economic growth.
As the Vice Chair of the MTA Board of Directors and a member of the Los
Angeles County Board of Supervisors, I am pleased to request fiscal
year 1999 Appropriations funding for the MTA's regional transportation
projects and programs.
The County of Los Angeles is populated with over 9 million people,
which is equivalent to the ninth largest state in the nation. The
economic vitality of the region, state, and nation depends on an
efficient and reliable transportation system that supports our economy
and communities. The Federal Government's investment in the region's
transportation network helps drive our economy and infrastructure.
Southern California is home to one of the nation's busiest trade
areas. The County of Los Angeles contains two of the nation's most
successful ports, Long Beach and Los Angeles. Additionally, the Los
Angeles International Airport (LAX) is located within the County's
boundaries. We look forward to the completion of the Alameda Corridor
project which will dramatically increase the County's ability to move
goods and people efficiently and economically.
Our fiscal year 1999 Appropriations funding request, which is
before you today, will allow us to progress towards accelerating our
bus replacement schedule and allow us to continue to construct the MOS-
3 North Hollywood Extension of our Metro Rail Red Line Project. The
request of $25 million of Section 5309 Discretionary Bus Capital funds
and $100 million of Section 5309 Discretionary Fixed Guideway/New
Starts funding for our North Hollywood Extension will enable us to
further improve our Metro Bus services and extend our Metro Rail
system.
new management team
In 1997, the MTA Board brought in a new Chief Executive Officer
(CEO), Julian Burke, whose top priority was to put the MTA's financial
house in order. In December 1997, the MTA's new management team led by
Mr. Burke presented to our Board of Directors a re-forecasted fiscal
year 1997-98 Capital and Operating budget which achieved operating
efficiencies, management and service changes.
At a January 14, 1998 Special MTA Board of Directors Meeting, the
CEO recommended and the MTA Board reaffirmed the completion of the MOS-
3 North Hollywood Extension. With this action, the MOS-2 project to
Hollywood and the MOS-3 North Hollywood Extension are now the only rail
projects that the MTA will proceed with construction until the MTA can
determine the ability and timing of financing our other planned rail
projects. In addition, the MTA will support and engage in an ongoing
effort to preserve all funding, especially federal funding, authorized
and programmed for these other rail projects.
I am confident that the new management team headed by CEO Julian
Burke will continue to work towards rebuilding the agency's
credibility. I also am confident that they will be able to do this
while supporting and advancing the MTA's regional transportation
mission.
fiscal year 1999 appropriations request
The MTA's request for $25 million of Section 5309 Discretionary Bus
Capital funds will assist us with our efforts to accelerate our bus
replacement schedule and address the Federal Consent Decree
requirements for improved regional bus service. The $100 million in
Section 5309 Discretionary Fixed Guideway/New Starts funds for fiscal
year 1999 is consistent with the Administration's fiscal year 1999
request of $100 million. The fiscal year 1999 Appropriations request
will help us to continue constructing the Metro Rail Red Line Project
to North Hollywood by its current Revenue Operations Date (ROD) of
December 2000.
metro bus service
Los Angeles area commuters travel smart by using the MTA's Metro
Buses. The Metro Bus system is one of the largest bus systems in the
nation. The regional service covers 1,443 square miles of revenue
service daily. Metro Bus daily boardings total over 1 million annually
on 180 bus routes. Our system has more than 18,500 Metro Bus stops in
the service area.
The MTA has progressed in expanding peak-hour service by increasing
the Metro Bus active fleet. In 1997, the MTA increased service by
adding 106 peak vehicles. The MTA has expanded peak-hour service on
heavily used lines, has adjusted schedules, and continues to improve
equipment reliability and availability. Recent ridership surveys show
that overcrowding has been reduced to 15 standees or fewer during rush
hours on the most heavily used lines. We have added a new pilot program
using 66 additional peak vehicles on routes designed to improve access
to employment and educational opportunities as well as medical
facilities particularly for transit-dependent residents.
Also within the last year, the MTA Board approved the replacement
of the current fleet of 2,400 buses by the year 2010. Additionally, the
Board's plan ensures that by the year 2010, all of our vehicles will
use clean fuels.
clean-fuel vehicles
The MTA Board has made the use of clean-fuel vehicles one of its
priorities. The MTA leads the nation in developing alternatively fueled
clean transit vehicles and has the largest clean fuel fleet in the
nation. By the end of the year 2000, the MTA will have more than 980
compressed natural gas (CNG) powered buses.
We are now receiving delivery of an order of 250 new CNG buses.
Delivery of this purchase began last fall and will be completed in
August 1998. The MTA Board of Directors approved an option to buy 50
additional CNG buses which are scheduled to be delivered between August
1998 and April 1999. Delivery of an additional 223 new CNG buses is
scheduled between April through December 1999.
Thanks to Congress, last year the MTA received an additional $10
million in federal funds to continue its partnership with the FTA in
the development and testing of the clean-fuel, lightweight, defense
technology prototype vehicle known as the Advanced Technology Transit
Bus (ATTB). In addition to the CNG bus procurement, the MTA Board on my
motion recently approved ATTB elements as part of its bus acquisition
plans and authorized the staff to include the ATTB-type components in
future MTA procurements.
conclusion
California's and Los Angeles County's competitive position in the
global marketplace depends on a reliable transportation system. Mr.
Chairman, we thank you and the Appropriations Committee for your
continued support of Los Angeles County's intermodal transportation
system.
We continue to urge Congress and the Administration to allow the
maximum level of funding for transportation investment and
infrastructure. We respectfully request Congress to continue to fund
the Capital Formula Program at the highest level.
The MTA's fiscal year 1999 Appropriations request of $25 million in
Section 5309 Discretionary Bus Capital funding for our bus replacement
program will assist the MTA in meeting the needs of our transit-
dependent riders and the requirements of the Federal Consent Decree. In
addition, the MTA's request of $100 million for Section 5309
Discretionary Fixed Guideway/New Starts funding will allow us to
continue to construct the MOS-3 North Hollywood Extension of our Metro
Rail Red Line Project.
The region's expanding transportation network is a critical part of
the local, state, and national economic future. The transportation
industry provides direct employment and allows our citizens to travel
to and from work, school, housing and recreation. We look forward to
your continued investment in our transportation programs. The federal
share allows the region to remain competitive in the global economy,
ensures mobility for our public, relieves congestion, and improves the
air quality and the environment.
______
Prepared Statement of Patrick R. Judge, President, Louisiana Public
Transit Association
summary--louisiana fiscal year 1999 federal appropriations request
federal transit administration (fta)
New Start Rail, 49 U.S.C. Section 5309 (Formerly Section 3).
Appropriations
New Orleans Canal Street Corridor Project............... $113,000,000
New Orleans Desire Street Streetcar..................... 41,600,000
Bus and bus related facilities, 49 U.S.C. Section 5309 (Formerly
Section 3). (Appropriations request only.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal \1\ Local Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baton Rouge: Upgrade Downtown Transportation Center/Build 5 $750,000 $187,500 $937,500
Transfer Terminals.............................................
Jefferson Parish; East Bank Park and Ride....................... 2,500,000 625,000 3,125,000
Lafayette:
Multimodal Transportation Center............................ 1,000,000 250,000 1,250,000
Replace 4 buses............................................. 800,000 200,000 1,000,000
Louisiana Department of Transportation & Development, Public
Transportation:
Replace 123 vans (Rural & E&H).............................. 1,600,000 400,000 2,000,000
Rural Transit Expansion (vans).............................. 1,200,000 300,000 1,500,000
Monroe: Renovate maintenance facility........................... 2,000,000 500,000 2,500,000
New Orleans:
Central Maintenance Facility................................ 8,000,000 2,000,000 10,000,000
Lease Maintenance Program (3 years)......................... 32,000,000 8,000,000 40,000,000
Shreveport:
Maintenance facility........................................ 700,000 175,000 875,000
Replace 4 buses............................................. 920,000 230,000 1,150,000
State Infrastructure Bank--Transit Account...................... 1,600,000 400,000 2,000,000
St. Tammany Parish: Mandeville Park and Ride facility........... 300,000 75,000 375,000
-----------------------------------------------
Totals.................................................... 53,370,000 13,342,500 66,712,500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Amounts to be prorated should full funding not be realized.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit a statement to the Senate
Subcommittee on Transportation Appropriations on behalf of the transit
providers represented by the Louisiana Public Transit Association
(LPTA).
The Louisiana Public Transit Association (LPTA) represents over 120
transit providers in Louisiana including rural providers, specialized
transit services, and the state's urban and suburban systems.
LPTA is requesting funding for a number of vital transit projects
across Louisiana. The LPTA is coordinating this statewide effort to
assist Louisiana transit systems in meeting their need for basic
capital equipment, such as replacement buses and facilities. Due to the
difficulty in obtaining section 5309 funding (formerly section 3) for
bus and bus related facilities through the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) application process, the LPTA presents its
statement to this committee in an effort to meet the state's long-
standing transit needs.
Before explaining our project requests, the LPTA wishes to thank
the subcommittee for its role in appropriating $13,900,000 for the
$44.3 million fiscal year 1998 request made by Louisiana's transit
providers. That funding will go a long way in helping the Louisiana
transit providers.
The total Louisiana request for fiscal year 1999 under FTA section
5309 bus and bus related funding is $53,370,000. The request is for 11
projects of varying size and cost from eight transit agencies.
Briefly, those requests are for:
The City of Baton Rouge, Capitol Transportation Corporation (CTC),
is requesting a total of $750,000 for two projects important to the
capital region. The funding is requested to upgrade the current major
transfer facility located in downtown Baton Rouge. In addition, CTC is
also proposing to build five (5) minor transfer facilities at locations
on the periphery of their service area. These facilities will allow for
more efficient transfers between existing transit routes. Baton Rouge
has been designated a non-attainment area under Clean Air Act
standards. The projects are positive for the environment, are critical
to the need to control costs, and are necessary to reduce the need for
capacity intensive infrastructure projects in the Baton Rouge ozone
non-attainment area. Each project is expected to have a positive effect
on congestion, energy reduction and travel time.
Jefferson Parish, which funds and oversees two private transit
systems on each side of the Mississippi River, Louisiana transit on the
east and westside transit on the west, is seeking funding of $2,500,000
to construct a park and ride facility for its east bank service area.
The facility would connect via express and regular fixed-route bus
service to the New Orleans central business district. The park and ride
is proposed for the airline highway corridor which is heavily traveled
and is currently enjoying a rejuvenation due to the recent construction
of a minor league baseball stadium. Jefferson Parish currently operates
two other park and ride facilities, both of them within their westbank
service area.
The City of Lafayette, through the City of Lafayette Transit System
(COLTS) is seeking the remaining $1,000,000 of federal funds needed to
reconstruct and reconfigure a site currently operating as a postal
facility adjacent to an Amtrak station. The Lafayette Multimodal
Transportation Center will serve as the terminal for the COLTS system,
a Greyhound station, and as an enhanced Amtrak stop for the Sunset
Limited. The Postal Service will also continue to use a portion of the
site. Further, the transportation center will be connected to the
airport via a presently operating COLTS line. The $3,500,000 project
already has been designated with a positive environmental impact
statement and is in the design phase with architectural plans being
over 75 percent complete. Construction is scheduled to begin in March
of 1999. The fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1997 transportation
appropriations bills designated $750,000 and $752,000, respectively,
towards the terminal project.
COLTS is also seeking $800,000 to replace 4 transit buses that have
exceeded their useful life of twelve years and are not accessible under
ADA requirements.
The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development,
specifically the Office of Public Transportation, is in extreme need of
another $1,600,000 of federal funding to allow the replacement of 46
vans for both rural and specialized transit providers across Louisiana.
The application for this funding has been pending before the FTA for
nearly four years. All the vans to be replaced are inaccessible under
ADA, exceed the useful life standard of 5 years by 2-4 years, and are
far beyond the 100,000 miles cited as the mileage standard. Obviously,
safety and dependability problems with vehicles of this size is a
growing concern for the rural, elderly and disabled community across
Louisiana. Additional demands for vans are expected to meet the demands
of welfare reform.
In order to meet the increasing demand for transit service in
Louisiana's rural areas, the LPTA is requesting another $1,200,000 of
section 5309 funding for expansion of the state's rural transit systems
by 35 vehicles. Currently, many of the state's rural parishes do not
have rural transit providers due to the LA DATD's backlog of
replacement needs for existing operators. In addition, many current
rural operators need to expand to meet the demands of welfare-to-work
and other basic transportation needs as the population expands and ages
in those rural areas. The program would be administered through the
existing rural transit program of the Louisiana Department of
Transportation & Development.
The City of Monroe, through the Monroe Transit System (MTS), is
requesting funding to renovate, expand, and update their aging
maintenance facility in the amount of $2,000,000 for the $2,500,000
project. MTS will renovate the 15 year old facility by adding bays to
be dedicated to conduct cost saving preventative maintenance checks and
to equip the facility with modern and safer equipment. In addition, MTS
is planning to reconfigure the facility to allow for drive-through
capability and space for added inventory. The facility is MTS only
maintenance garage and the work proposed will make it much more
efficient and economical to operate.
The City of New Orleans, through the Regional Transit Authority
(RTA), is requesting $32,000,000, which represents three years of
payments under its innovative lease/maintenance program recently
approved in-concept by the Federal Transit Administration. This new
program will allow the RTA to enter into a lease and maintenance
agreement with a commercial leasing company for the lease and
maintenance of 75 new buses and 100 near new buses. The agreement will
also allow the RTA to benefit from the recent changes that allow for
the treatment of maintenance costs under a lease as an eligible capital
expense. Penske Truck Leasing, through the RTA's RFP selection process,
will be the lessor of the buses as well as provide for the maintenance
of the buses. The financing will be by ABN-AMRO.
With 451 vehicles, the RTA operates the largest system in Louisiana
by providing service to nearly 180,000 riders per day in a city that is
20 percent transit dependent. The buses leased will significantly
reduce the operating expenses of the RTA and enhance its ability to
provide dependable service.
The RTA is also requesting $8,000,000 to continue progress on its
heavy duty central maintenance facility (CMF). The $15,268,000 project
is now in the architectural design stage.
Finally, as you are probably aware, the RTA has pending two new
start rail requests, one for the Canal Street corridor project (about
to begin final design) for $113,000,000 and another $41,600,000 for the
reconstruction of the Fabled Desire streetcar line (MIS expected to
begin by May). Extensive detail of those projects will be provided by
the RTA in separate testimony.
The next request is on behalf of the City of Shreveport and its
Sportran transit system for funding of a long needed upgrade and
expansion of its 33 year old maintenance facility. The $700,000 federal
request will allow Sportran to proceed to consolidate and revamp a
facility in which the design and equipment is seriously outdated. For
example, the roof is too low to service buses with lifts. Also, a 15-
year-old bus washer needs to be replaced. Finally, the facility lacks
adequate space to store and service the system's vehicles. Sportran
recently had to cancel a private maintenance contract for its
paratransit system, thereby increasing its maintenance load by 30
percent. Currently, Sportran is renting storage space a half mile away
for parts. There are no meeting or training rooms and barely enough
office space for four desks. Sportran has purchased the adjacent lot
and has completed preliminary planning for the expansion.
Sportran is also requesting $920,000 to replace four transit buses
that have exceeded their useful life of twelve years and are not
accessible under ADA requirements.
On behalf of the Louisiana's transit operators, the LPTA is
requesting $1,600,000 to fund the transit account of Louisiana's
proposed State Infrastructure Bank (SIB). With the enabling legislation
and governing structure already in place, the State Infrastructure Bank
is awaiting the expected approval by Louisiana voters in the form of a
constitutional amendment this fall. The SIB will be administered
through the Louisiana State Treasurer's Office. As you probably are
aware of the concept, the SIB will allow for the borrowing of funds by
transit providers which will allow them to proceed and complete
projects timely without waiting for their yearly allocation of funds.
Use of SIB funds could conceivably reduce by years and thousands of
dollars the time and cost of many transit projects/programs. Repayment
could take the form of dedicating future allocations or other available
revenue sources.
The last request is on behalf of St. Tammany Parish which is
requesting $300,000 for a park and ride facility to be located in
Mandeville, a city located within western portion of the parish. St.
Tammany Parish is located directly north and northeast of the city of
New Orleans across Lake Pontchartrain. It is the fastest growing area
of the region. The park & ride facility is to be located near the Lake
Pontchartrain causeway and is expected to draw local residents which
should help limit the expansive growth of traffic on the causeway. This
project will be the second park & ride facility for the residents of
St. Tammany Parish.
The Louisiana Public Transit Association urges and requests that
Congress appropriates to the highest levels possible under the terms
authorized under the future ISTEA legislation. While not complete at
the time of this statement, both the Senate and House versions of the
renewed ISTEA are showing increased levels of funding for transit--
increases that are sorely needed by all of transit. The LPTA sincerely
hopes that Congress follows through on that promise by appropriating to
the levels authorized.
Thank you for your time and consideration with these requests on
behalf of Louisiana's transit systems.
transit in louisiana
Louisiana has 152 providers of public transit. Currently there are
10 transit systems operating in the major metropolitan areas of the
state, with an eleventh expected to begin operations within months.
Another 33 agencies serve as rural transit providers and 109 agencies
provide specialized public transit. The division of type is based on
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) guidelines.
Louisiana transit operators provide over 85,000,000 rides per
year--232,000 per day--utilizing well over 1,100 vehicles.
The profile of transit ridership tends to be between the ages of
18-65, female with white riders making up over 80 percent of the
passengers in rural areas while minority riders make up over 50 percent
the riderahip in areas of 200,000 population and above.
Many transit riders have no other way to get to work, to school, to
medical care or to shop. Transit dependency runs as high as 95 percent
of transit riders in some of Louisiana's rural areas. The New Orleans
region ranks 7th in passenger trips per capita. New Orleans, if ranked
alone, would rank second between New York and Boston.
Transit providers employ over 2,000, directly generating an annual
payroll exceeding $46,000,000. Spinoff employment for contractors,
suppliers, etc. would also approach the $50 million mark.
Transit means economic development to congested and rural areas as
well as to those persons simply needing a ride to work.
Louisiana Transit already plays a big role in reducing the state's
Welfare rolls. Many systems are already working with Project
Independence and other Public/Private employment programs and employers
by providing dependable, inexpensive transportation.
Transit's role continues to grow with the continuing ``greying of
Americans,'' the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the
adoption of the Clean Air Act, the need for economic development within
congested areas, attempting to keep liability insurance costs down, the
need for coordinated transportation services and deficit reduction, and
now, Welfare Reform.
Of the $420 million in gas taxes generated for transportation in
Louisiana, only $6 million or 1.4 percent is designated for public
transit needs.
LOUISIANA'S MAJOR TRANSIT SYSTEMS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passengers
System Vehicles \1\ (Yearly) Employees Routes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alexandria..................................................... 13 665,015 32 8
Baton Rouge.................................................... 53 4,201,127 106 22
Jefferson...................................................... 57 3,871,659 126 14
Kenner \2\..................................................... 2 243,000 4 2
Lafayette...................................................... 16 1,795,000 27 12
Lake Charles................................................... 12 372,433 ......... ......
Monroe......................................................... 20 835,890 45 16
New Orleans (RTA).............................................. \3\ 463 68,999,031 1,400 52
\4\ 44
St. Bernard.................................................... 6 137,193 8 3
Shreveport..................................................... 58 3,578,000 105 16
Slidell/St. Tammany............................................ N/A N/A N/A N/A
Houma.......................................................... N/A N/A N/A N/A
------------------------------------------------
Totals................................................... 744 84,698,348 1,853
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes Demand Response (Paratransit) vehicles.
\2\ Operated by the Regional Transit Authority.
\3\ Buses.
\4\ Streetcars.
Source: 1997 LPTA Survey/1994 National Transit Database (in part).
LOUISIANA'S MAJOR TRANSIT SYSTEMS
[Percentage of Operating Budget]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fare/
System percentage Local Federal States
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alexandria........................ $.35/13.0 52.0 27.0 8.0
Baton Rouge....................... $1.25/39.0 43.0 12.0 6.0
Jefferson......................... $1.00/76.0 4.0 35.6 13.6
Kenner............................ $.80/42.7 33.0 24.0 ( \1\
)
Lafayette......................... $.45/15.0 48.0 29.0 7.0
Lake Charles...................... $0.0/11.0 41.0 44.0 3.0
Monroe............................ $.60/22.0 43.0 26.0 9.0
New Orleans....................... $1.00/40.0 48.0 5.0 4.0
St. Bernard....................... $1.00/22.0 20.0 51.0 6.0
Shreveport........................ $.90/31.0 51.0 8.0 8.0
Slidell/St. Tammany............... N/A N/A N/A N/A
Houma............................. N/A N/A N/A N/A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Kenner utilizes its state funding for its Park-N-Ride service.
louisiana's suburban/urban system
contacts
Alexandria--ATRANS
Patrick Leaumont, General Manager, ATRANS, 2021 Industrial Park
Road, Alexandria, LA 71301, (318) 441-6087, FAX (318) 441-6047.
Baton Rouge--Capitol Transportation Corporation (CTC)
Michael McCleary, Executive Director, Capitol Transportation
Corporation, 1111 Seneca, Baton Rouge, LA 70805, (504) 343-8331, FAX
(504) 383-3235.
Houma (Future)
Kevin Ghirardi, Terrebonne Parish Consolidated Government, P. O.
Box 6097, Houma, LA 70361, (504) 873-6890, FAX (504) 873-6439.
Jefferson Parish--Louisiana Transit & Westside Transit
Pat Johnson, Transit Administrator, Jefferson Parish Transit
Administration, 21 Westbank Expressway, Gretna, LA 70053, (504) 364-
3450, FAX (504) 364-3453.
Lafayette--COLTS
Lee Roy Dugas, Transit Manager, Dean Tekell, Transp. Engineer, City
of Lafayette Transit System, P.O. Box 4017-C, Lafayette, LA 70502,
(318) 261-8545, FAX (318) 261-8041.
Lake Charles--LTS
S. S. Ike Hall, Transit Director, Lake Charles Transit System, P.O.
Box 900, Lake Charles, LA 70602-0900, (318) 491-1253, FAX (318) 491-
1587.
Monroe--MTS
Ken Monroe, General Manager, Monroe Transit System, P.O. Box 1431,
Monroe, LA 71201, (318) 329-2206, FAX (318) 329-2868.
New Orleans & Kenner--RTA
William Deville, Deputy General Manager, Patrick Judge, Dir/IGR,
Regional Transit Authority, 6700 Plaza Drive, New Orleans, LA 70127,
(504) 248-3842, FAX (504) 248-3637.
St. Bernard--SBURT
Lonnie Campbell, Transit Manager, SBURT, 8201 W. Judge Perez Drive,
Chalmette, LA 70043, (504) 277-1907, FAX (504) 278-1529.
Shreveport--SPORTRAN
Eugene Eddy, Resident Manager, SPORTRAN, 1115 Jack Wells Boulevard,
Shreveport, LA 71137, (318) 673-7400, FAX (318) 673-7424.
Rural public transportation providers
Acadia Parish, Lloyd Guidry............................. 318/788-1400
Ascension Parish, Grace Garon........................... 504/473-3789
Assumption Parish, Rosa Lou Molaison.................... 504/369-7961
Avovelles Parish, Joyce Laborde......................... 318/253-9771
Bienville Parish, Elton Lamkin.......................... 318/263-8936
Bossier Parish, Manuel Duque............................ 318/747-1045
Caldwell Parish, Dottie Etheridge....................... 318/649-2584
Cameron Parish, Dinah Landry............................ 318/775-5668
Claiborne Parish, Jean Reynolds......................... 318/927-3557
Concordia Parish, Dorothy McDonald...................... 318/336-7887
DeSoto Parish, Betty Walker............................. 318/872-3700
E. Feliciana Parish, Elsie Smith........................ 504/683-9862
Evangeline Parish, Janice Guillory...................... 318/363-5161
Iberville Parish, Nora Painia........................... 504/687-9682
Jefferson Davis Parish, Helen Langley................... 318/824-5504
Lafourche Parish, Gaylia Simons......................... 504/537-6784
Lincoln Parish, Rosalind Jones.......................... 318/251-5136
Livingston Parish, Mary Alice Core...................... 504/664-9343
Madison Parish, Harold Ogden............................ 318/574-2921
Natchitoches Parish, Norma Metoyer...................... 318/357-3250
Pointe Coupee Parish, Betty Dailey...................... 504/638-4402
Red River Parish, Mary Wailes........................... 318/932-5721
St. James Parish, Tom Watson............................ 504/562-2307
St. Landry Parish, Donald Robinson...................... 318/948-3651
St. Martin Parish, Earline Countee...................... 318/332-3063
St. Mary Parish, Jane Powers............................ 318/328-4100
Tangipahoa Parish, Debi Fleming......................... 504/748-7486
Vermilion Parish, Bernice Hebert........................ 318/893-2563
Vernon Parish, David Hudgens............................ 318/239-0311
Washington Parish, Jane Rester.......................... 504/839-4535
Webster Parish, Gordon Ervin............................ 318/377-7022
W. Feliciana Parish, Patricia Gilmore................... 504/635-6719
W. Ouachita Parish, Jeanette Ellington.................. 318/324-1280
______
Prepared Statement of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority
executive summary
Metro Atlanta is one of the fastest growing major metropolitan
areas in the nation, with a population now exceeding 3.6 million. In
order to provide improved transit service to this expanding region, the
Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) is requesting
Federal financial support for two major capital programs in fiscal year
1999. These programs consist of the continued development of the North
Line heavy rail extension to North Springs and the purchase of clean-
air buses.
MARTA respectfully requests the Appropriations Committees of the
105th United States Congress to earmark $62,623,646 in fiscal year 1999
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 the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and MARTA.
The requested 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 nine miles of
heavy rail transit and five stations upon completion in December 2000.
Currently, there are over seven 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 non-attainment Atlanta region, MARTA is committed to the use of
clean-engine vehicles. To further this commitment, we respectfully
request the Appropriations Committees of the 105th Congress to allocate
$19,500,000 in fiscal year 1999 FTA Section 3 Bus and Bus Related funds
for the purchase of 75 clean-air buses.
The background, rationale and justification supporting these
requests are set forth in the following pages.
overview of the atlanta region
Metro Atlanta is one of the fastest growing major metropolitan
areas in the United States. The metro area's growth rate from 1990-1997
was approximately 23 percent--the growth leader of all metro areas over
two million people. Metro Atlanta has added over 670,000 people since
the 1990 census and now has a population of over 3,635,000. By the year
2020, the population of the Atlanta MSA should approach five 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 11th 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 area has a significant air quality problem. In accordance with
the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990, the EPA has classified the
Atlanta region as a serious non-attainment area for ground level ozone.
This air quality problem translates to serious health concerns for our
residents. Ground level ozone is particularly harmful to those with
asthma, children, the elderly and those who exercise outdoors.
Much of the pollution that forms Atlanta's ozone is due to
transportation-related motor vehicle emissions. As the region grows,
traffic volumes--and resultant vehicular emissions--continue to
increase.
Traffic congestion has now reached crisis proportions, particularly
in the northern suburbs to be served by the MARTA North Line Extension.
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. Atlanta now has the highest level of vehicle miles traveled per
person in the U.S. 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.
The air quality problem facing the metro area has now reached a
critical stage. The region's failure to meet targeted emissions
reductions has resulted in a recent cutoff of federal funds for new
highway projects. Of increasing concern is the realization that the
region will not meet the targeted 1999 air quality standard, which may
result in additional sanctions. Clearly, viable alternatives to single
occupant vehicle travel must be implemented if the Atlanta region is to
continue to prosper.
Current projections indicate sustained growth north of the city,
and MARTA transit services will be crucial to meet the growing public
transportation requirements. As the region goes forward into the new
millennium, the mobility and air quality challenges are enormous. MARTA
is ready to be the vehicle carrying metro Atlanta's citizens into the
future.
overview 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 (RTCAA) 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.
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 1,520 route miles
using 159 routes. Our demand-responsive paratransit service operates
over 1,518,000 vehicle revenue miles annually.
MARTA, while proud of our past accomplishments, strives for
continuous quality improvement in customer service delivery and
business management. Some recent highlights are as follows:
--As the Official Provider of Public Transportation for the 1996
Summer Olympic Games, MARTA carried more than 25 million
passengers over a 17-day period.
--MARTA has experienced a steady increase in ridership since the
Olympics. Ridership increased 3.6 percent (after adjusting for
Olympic period patronage) during fiscal year 1997. Ridership
during the recent five-month period (September 1997 to January
1998) was up 9.1 percent over the same period one year ago.
--MARTA is a leader in providing accessible transit services for
disabled persons. Our complementary ADA paratransit service has
nearly doubled the number of daily trips operated and new
customers certified during the past year.
--Through an innovative public/private partnership, 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, in partnership with the Georgia Department of
Transportation, has become a leader in the deployment of
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) infrastructure. MARTA
is continuing to refine and expand our ITS capabilities, and
now has the most comprehensive, integrated and complex
application of ITS in the transit industry.
--Through the focused implementation of our Strategic Plan, MARTA has
initiated several expanded customer service initiatives. These
include a 10-point MARTA Pledge to Our Customers and a one-stop
Customer Service Center.
--MARTA operates one of the most secure transit systems in the
country. Our well-trained professional police force is one of
only two transit police departments in the U.S. to be
nationally accredited. Based on innovative crime prevention
programs, Part I offenses on the system have declined 30
percent this year.
--Based on customer feedback, a ``Not on My MARTA'' Campaign focusing
on zero tolerance of quality of life violations was initiated
last year. As a result, there has been a steady decrease in
smoking, eating and drinking on the system, with a favorable
customer response.
--The MARTA Partnership Program, which enables area employers to
subsidize the cost of fare media for their employees, continues
to expand and now includes 110 employers and over 16,700 rider
customers.
--MARTA is forging a partnership with private enterprise in the
creation of Transit Oriented Development adjacent to our rail
stations. Currently, we are evaluating proposals from the
private sector to develop a 47-acre site that has been
assembled around the Lindbergh Center Station.
--MARTA is the best solution for compliance with Clean Air Act
Amendment requirements for the metro area's congestion and air
quality problems.
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 the North Line segments through Dunwoody,
the Federal contribution to MARTA's rapid rail development program has
been 54 percent of the total $2.8 billion invested to date. MARTA has
been fortunate to obtain Federal funding to build one of the country's
premier transit systems. As MARTA continues its progress toward the
expanded RTCAA plan configuration, focus has now turned to the North
Line Extension currently under development.
north line extension
Project Background and Description
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. FTA
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 $62.6
million in fiscal year 1999 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. Ridership demand at Dunwoody has
substantially exceeded projections, and a second parking deck to
accommodate customer demand is now under construction adjacent to the
station.
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 the 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 serve the local area with
significant park/ride capacity (1,100 spaces) as well as provide a
convenient intermodal connection for local bus service. Sandy Springs
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
expressway, 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 2,460 space park/ride facility divided into two
areas: a six-level deck (2,180 spaces) for those traveling southbound
on GA 400 and a 280-space surface lot for local neighborhood residents.
North Springs Station will serve as a major intermodal node and will
alleviate the heavy traffic congestion on GA 400. One of the unique
characteristics of the station are the exclusive access ramps
connecting GA 400 directly with 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) and Holiday Inn Worldwide. 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. Construction of the line section
between Dunwoody and Sandy Springs and the Sandy Springs station shell
began in October 1996, and construction of the station interior work
will start in January 1999. Construction of the North Springs Station
is underway, and initial earthwork activities are now completed at the
station site. Construction of the line section between Sandy Springs
and North Springs is also underway. Detail design of systemwide
(automated train control, trackwork, communications, etc.) improvements
began in July 1996. The design of the roadway access ramps and overpass
bridge connecting North Springs station with the GA 400 expressway is
approximately 30 percent complete.
In late 1996, MARTA's reevaluation of expanded customer service
demands and estimated patronage growth in this rapidly developing area
resulted in a decision to increase the number of rail cars to be
acquired to support this extension. The planned rail car requirement
has been increased from 28 to 56 passenger vehicles, a net increase of
28 cars. The contract to procure these vehicles was awarded in February
1998, with initial delivery scheduled for fiscal year 2000.
The North Line Extension above Dunwoody, through Sandy Springs to
North Springs Station, is estimated to cost $467.4 million. This
estimate is based on completion of the project in the year 2000 and
includes $132.3 million for the design and purchase of 56 passenger
vehicles. This estimate is $20.3 million lower than the cost estimate
submitted to Congress last year. The decrease in the estimated cost of
the project is due to the per unit cost savings realized from the
recent (February 1998) award of the rail car procurement contract.
MARTA was able to achieve a significant economy of scale with our rail
car manufacturer by consolidating our vehicle requirements into a
single base contract, as opposed to obtaining the same quantity of
vehicles through a series of contract options as had been originally
planned.
Appropriations requested for fiscal year 1999 will primarily fund
the next year of construction activity at Sandy Springs (station and
line segment) and North Springs (station and line segment).
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 $467.4 million and is expected
to be financed with 80 percent Federal ($373.9 million) and 20 percent
local ($93.5 million) funds. Included in this cost estimate is the
acquisition of 56 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 $830
million, of which $363 million, or 44 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 159 bus routes that cover 1,520 route miles and, on a daily basis,
MARTA buses travel 99,902 vehicle miles. Our buses operate a total of
26.7 million annual vehicle revenue miles. During 1997, MARTA
experienced an average daily bus ridership of 242,000.
MARTA is committed to providing safe, reliable and accessible bus
service to our customers. MARTA's bus replacement plan is based on
replacement of existing vehicles after 12 years (or 500,000 miles) of
service life in accordance with FTA guidelines. The Plan's objective is
to maintain an average fleet age of approximately six (6) years. The
average age of MARTA's bus fleet is currently 7.5 years, with a total
of 193 buses that are now in service eligible for retirement by the end
of fiscal year 1999.
MARTA strives for safety in the operation of buses and successfully
competes with other comparable systems for safety recognition.
Recently, MARTA received the 1997 Allen S. Boyd Special Achievement
Award for bus safety from the American Public Transit Association.
MARTA has committed to provide 100 percent accessibility of our bus
fleet. Currently, the fleet is 80 percent wheelchair accessible, and
all future bus purchases will meet ADA guidelines for accessibility.
Currently, there are 144 non-wheelchair accessible (1986-model) buses
which remain in service. These buses should be replaced within two
years, based on federal funding availability. Our goal is to reach 100
percent accessibility by the Year 2000.
MARTA has embarked upon an innovative program to integrate
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) technology with our bus
operations. At present, 241 buses are equipped with automatic vehicle
locator (AVL) devices. AVL provides ``real time'' schedule adherence
and vehicle location information to MARTA customers and operations
management, and is the foundation for other ITS applications (such as
automated passenger counters, and in-vehicle announcement systems).
MARTA's demand-responsive paratransit service continues to serve
more customers through greater operating efficiencies resulting from
the application of automated scheduling and dispatch technology. At
present, our fleet of 75 lift-equipped vans provides approximately
1,060,000 passenger miles of ADA-related service on an annual basis.
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 compressed natural gas (CNG) operation by the end of the
decade. Through the combined assistance of the Congress, the FTA, the
State of Georgia and the Atlanta Gas Light Company, MARTA recently
acquired 118 CNG-fueled buses. This was our initial procurement of CNG
buses with the ultimate goal of acquiring 200 CNG buses before the year
2000. These extremely clean-burning CNG buses exceed the EPA emission
requirements under 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 (AGL). A
new $28 million CNG bus maintenance and refueling facility, paid for
with AGL and MARTA funds, recently began operation. Cleaner fueled
buses will help the Atlanta region meet its ambient air quality goals
for 1999 and beyond.
fiscal year 1999 federal funding request
MARTA respectfully requests the Appropriations Committees of the
105th United States Congress to provide fiscal year 1999 Federal
Transit Administration (FTA) Major Capital Investment funds to address
two specific transit needs, as follows: (i) $62,623,646 in New Fixed
Guideway Systems and Extension funds to continue the North Line
Extension Project; and (ii) $19,500,000 in Bus and Bus Related funds
for the purchase of approximately 75 replacement clean-air buses.
New Fixed Guideway and Extension Funds
MARTA is requesting $62,623,646 for the continued development of
the North Line Extension above Dunwoody, through Sandy Springs to North
Springs Station. This amount reflects the scheduled fiscal year 1999
funding level contained in our Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) with
FTA, plus the amount needed to make up for the difference between the
FFGA-programmed amounts for fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998 and
the actual allocations received by MARTA. (In fiscal year 1997, the
amount appropriated for this project was $2.9 million less than the
FFGA-specified amount, while in fiscal year 1998 our actual funding
level was $7.6 million less.)
The requested $62.6 million in fiscal year 1999 FTA New Starts and
Extension funds will support the following project activities:
continued construction of the Sandy Springs Station and parking deck;
completion of North Springs line segment construction; continued
construction of the North Springs Station, parking deck and tail track;
initial construction of the GA 400 highway--North Springs station
access ramps; and the initial pre-production (mobilization, engineering
and tooling) cost associated with the rail car procurement. 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.
MARTA is requesting a total (multi-year) Federal contribution of
$373,922,400 for the North Line Extension project. This funding level
represents 80 percent of the total estimated project cost of
$467,403,000. Of the total proposed Federal share, $198,146,866 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 $175,775,534 to
complete this project, including the $62,623,646 now requested for
fiscal year 1999.
The balance of the proposed Federal contribution remaining to be
funded in future years, assuming the appropriation of the full amount
requested, will be $113.2 million [$373.9 million--$198.1 million (past
years)--$62.6 million (fiscal year 1999) = $113.2 million]. These out-
year funds will be needed to complete construction activities and
procure the 56 additional rail cars required for this extension.
Section 3 Bus and Bus Related Funds
The amount of $19,500,000 is respectfully requested as the Federal
share to purchase approximately 75 new clean-emission buses to replace
aging, non-wheelchair accessible buses. This level of funding in fiscal
year 1999 will enable MARTA to achieve our goals of making the bus
system 100 percent wheelchair accessible as well as convert one-third
of our bus fleet to CNG operation by the end of the century.
The $19.5 million requested would be matched with $4.9 million in
local MARTA funds for a total project cost of $24.4 million. This
estimated total cost is based on a projected average unit cost of
$325,000 per bus. These funds will be used to acquire approximately 75
transit buses, which represents only a portion of MARTA's total bus
replacement requirements over the next 18 months. It is currently
planned that these new vehicles will include a mix of transit bus
models to meet specific service and operational requirements, as
follows: (a) 36 CNG 40-foot buses; (b) 22 clean diesel 30-foot buses;
and (c) 17 clean diesel 40-foot buses. All of the buses to be acquired
will be of low floor design. Low floor buses are wheelchair accessible,
allow for easy and convenient boarding by all passengers, and are
economical to operate. It is also anticipated that these buses will be
equipped with automated vehicle locator (AVL) devices.
MARTA's bus replacement plan calls for 144 buses that will have
exceeded the normal 12-year service life to be retired by the end of
fiscal year 1998, with 49 more buses eligible for retirement in fiscal
year 1999. To date, federal funding has been secured for only 47 of the
144 buses that should be replaced in 1998. Thus, there is a clear
justification for continued Federal funding during the upcoming period.
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.
MARTA is indeed grateful for the vital assistance previously
provided by the Congress in support of public transportation in the
Atlanta region. The continued support of the Congress is essential if
Atlanta is to realize the promise of ISTEA, comply with the Clean Air
Act Amendments and meet the transportation challenges facing our
growing region.
Enclosure 1.--Rail System
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12NONDP.003
Enclosure 2.--Major Developments in North Atlanta
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12NONDP.004
______
Prepared Statement of Vice Mayor Jose Smith, City of Miami Beach, FL
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Transportation Subcommittee: I am
Jose Smith, Vice Mayor of the City of Miami Beach, Florida, on behalf
of Miami Beach.
The City respectfully submits a transportation-related project for
a discretionary earmark through the Federal Transit Administration,
within the fiscal year 1999 Transportation Appropriations Bill. The
City-proposed earmark of $7 million will be used toward a Miami Beach
multimodal transit center project that will support the City's existing
electric shuttle park-and-ride service, known as the Electrowave.
This innovative and environmentally-friendly park-and-ride program
is presently serving South Beach--a congested, urban-residential, and
commercial historical district of Miami Beach. However, an outlying
transit center/parking facility to support the park-and-ride and other
transit services is still needed.
The multimodal center will provide a vital transportation hub for
the area, bring commuters and visitors together with parking, an
information center, the local and regional transit services, as well as
the Electrowave. Employees of South Beach businesses will also park-
and-ride from this facility, which will be strategically located to
serve the incoming traffic from an arterial causeway. The transit
center will also include a full-scale facility for the Electrowave
program and its electric battery-operated vehicles.
In addition, the multimodal center will serve as the terminus of an
east-west multimodal corridor--a regional transportation project which
proposes to interconnect the Florida Turnpike, the Palmetto Expressway,
the Dolphin Expressway and I-95, with the Miami International Airport/
Intermodel Center, downtown, the Seaport, and Miami Beach.
The Electrowave program is included in the five-year Transportation
Improvement Program of Miami-Dade County and has the financial support
of the City, the Florida Department of Transportation, the FTA/Miami-
Dade Transit Agency, the Florida Power and Light Company, and other
clean air and energy organizations.
A fiscal year 1999 discretionary FTA fund earmark toward a Miami
Beach multimodal center project is critical to the long-term
effectiveness of the Electrowave park-and-ride service and to our
City's interconnection with a 21st-Century east-west multimodal
transportation corridor.
______
Prepared Statement of Beverly Jones, Member of the Board of Directors,
National Easter Seal Society
Mr. Chairman, I am Beverly Jones, a member of the National Easter
Seal Society Board of Directors. I am pleased to submit this testimony
to the Senate Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee on behalf of
the National Easter Seal Society in support of fiscal year 1999 Project
ACTION funding. I am supporting this important Easter Seal program for
many reasons.
I am the mother of two teenagers, a full time court stenographer
and part-time model, an avid tennis player and a national spokesperson
for people with disabilities. In September 1984, I was involved in a
car accident that resulted in a spinal cord injury. In that instant, my
life changed as I realized that many of the common daily activities
that I had taken for granted now presented significant challenges. I
turned to Easter Seals in my home state of Tennessee and they steered
me in a direction that gained me greater independence.
I was fortunate to be selected as the 1997 Easter Seal Adult
Representative and to travel the country to talk about the
contributions that people with disabilities can make to society. As the
Adult Representative, I spoke about the work of Easter Seals and issues
of importance to children and adults with disabilities. I am committed
to breaking down negative stereotypes as well as attitudinal and
physical barriers that confront people with disabilities so that we can
live with equality, dignity and independence.
During my year as the National Easter Seal Society Adult
Representative, I had the opportunity to testify before the House
Transportation Appropriation subcommittee in support of funding for
Project ACTION and to submit testimony to the Senate for their
consideration. I was thrilled to play a small role in helping to raise
the awareness of Congress to the transit needs of people with
disabilities was very empowering. We were pleased when the Senate
Transportation Appropriations subcommittee approved the fully
authorized amount of $2.0 million in fiscal year 1998 money.
In part because of my successful experience working with Easter
Seals on legislative activities, I was nominated to the Board of
Directors of the National Easter Seal Society and serve on the
committee that helps Easter Seals establish its legislative priorities.
Seeking continued funding so that Project ACTION can continue to
promote transit accessibility remains one of our core objectives.
In the past, this subcommittee has heard from transit providers how
important Project ACTION is to local communities that are working to
comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). In my statement
I want to emphasize how important the work of Project ACTION is to
people with disabilities. On the local level, I serve as the county
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) coordinator. This brings me in
contact with numerous individuals with disabilities and I've come to
understand how important access to transportation is for Americans with
disabilities. In short, it allows them to work and remain independent.
By and large people with disabilities want equality and equal
opportunity. It angers me when I see people with disabilities portrayed
as people who want special treatment.
As society becomes more accessible and as attitudinal barriers
continue to fall, we must make sure that our transportation systems
maintain the pace toward full accessibility. The availability of
accessible transportation remains a key determinant to securing
employment for many disabled Americans. We live in an increasingly
mobile society: to be employed today means to commute. Imagine if you
or your staff had to conduct your daily activities without access to
any form of public transportation.
The efforts of this subcommittee make a tremendous difference in
the everyday lives of people with disabilities all across America
because people with disabilities as a group tend to be heavily
dependent on public forms of transportation. There are some 25 million
transit dependent people with disabilities in America today. Without
access to transportation, these citizens cannot benefit from the
promise of full participation in society that Congress envisioned when
you passed the ADA.
In recent years we have made tremendous progress and accessibility
is increasing nationwide: fixed-route bus fleet accessibility has grown
to nearly 75 percent; rail station access has increased; and, most
importantly, the disability and transit communities have learned to
work together to promote cooperative solutions instead of meeting only
in street protests and in costly courtroom battles. Project ACTION is
the singular, most positive force bringing the transit and disability
communities together. We continue to believe that this cooperative
approach is the best hope for continued progress toward a fully
accessible society.
Project ACTION is authorized under ISTEA at $2.0 million per year
and has received full funding during the appropriations process each
year since 1991. The National Easter Seal Society is working with the
House and Senate committee leadership to continue and expand Project
ACTION as a part of the ISTEA reauthorization process and is hopeful
that, upon final passage, the authorization level that supports Project
ACTION efforts will be substantially increased.
The National Easter Seal Society is seeking an appropriation of
$3.0 million for fiscal year 1999. There is a compelling reason to seek
this increase. The demand for Project ACTION expertise is increasing
exponentially. Transit providers are demanding direct and ongoing
technical assistance to meet ADA requirements in a cost-effective
manner. Many of the solutions to transportation accessibility issues
have already been developed through Project ACTION-sponsored research
and demonstration programs. Project ACTION now needs sufficient funds
to disseminate these resources and to help implement these cost-
effective solutions in communities across the nation.
The costs of running a national ADA technical assistance operation
are substantial and growing rapidly. Calls, faxes, e-mails and requests
for direct and immediate technical assistance have grown dramatically
in the last three years. Last quarter, Project ACTION received over
1,500 calls for direct technical assistance alone. As Project ACTION
has marketed its services to stakeholders and had successes solving
local ADA concerns, requests for the Project's assistance have grown.
Because of the phase-in of ADA transportation requirements, many
transit systems are just now facing difficult and sometimes costly ADA
requirements. Transit systems that are currently in compliance need
ongoing technical support to remain in compliance.
With the support of this subcommittee, Project ACTION has become
the nation's foremost resource on transportation accessibility. Since
this subcommittee established Project ACTION, it has sponsored
innovative research, funded demonstration projects, provided technical
assistance to thousands of transit providers, and developed an
impressive resource center with information on the most cost-effective
ways to achieve accessibility. The Director of Project ACTION, Nancy
Smith, has a concrete plan for using the vast experience and expertise
that the Project has developed to continue to find the best and the
least expensive ways for transit providers to meet their ADA
obligations.
On behalf of the millions of people with disabilities who rely on
public transit and the transit operators working to serve them, the
National Easter Seal Society wants to thank this subcommittee for its
past support of Project ACTION. The National Easter Seal Society
respectfully requests this subcommittee to provide $3.0 million dollars
to continue to fund Project ACTION in fiscal year 1999. This funding
level will ensure that Project ACTION can continue to develop and
disseminate workable solutions to the most critical issues facing
transit operators as they implement the ADA.
We understand the fiscal constraints under which this subcommittee
operates. However, Project ACTION is a credible, cost-effective, and
creative program that has strong support among people with disabilities
and their national representatives, transit providers, the American
Public Transit Administration and within the Federal Transit
Administration. This spirit of cooperation would not be possible
without the leadership of this subcommittee. Easter Seals is grateful
for your support and we look forward to continued collaboration.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of Robert H. Tucker, Jr., Chairman, Regional Transit
Authority
Thank you for the opportunity to submit a statement to the
subcommittee on behalf of the Regional Transit Authority (RTA) of New
Orleans and Jefferson Parish. The Regional Transit Authority is
requesting funding for four major transit projects.
Before explaining the requests, the Regional Transit Authority
extends its sincerest appreciation to the members of this subcommittee
for the support demonstrated towards its requests for the last fiscal
year. As you may recall, upon enactment, the Fiscal Year 1998
Transportation Appropriations Bill included $9,000,000 for RTA's buses
and facilities from Louisiana's $13,900,000 statewide bus
appropriation, $6 million for the Canal Streetcar Project and $2
million for the Desire Streetcar Project. We are very grateful to the
subcommittee for its role in providing that critical funding.
For fiscal year 1999, the Regional Transit Authority is requesting
federal funding for the following projects:
--$113,000,000 for the Canal Streetcar Project
--$32,000,000 for RTA's lease/maintenance program
--$41,600,000 for the return of the Desire Streetcar
--$8,000,000 for the RTA Central Maintenance Facility
canal streetcar project
The Canal Street corridor project will restore light rail transit
service to the city's most important transit corridor. For fiscal year
1999, the Regional Transit Authority is requesting $113,000,00 of FTA
section 5309 (formerly section 3) new start rail funding to construct
the project.
The project completed the major investment analysis phase in the
fall of 1995 and the environmental impact statement (EIS) was completed
in August of 1997. The FTA issued the favorable ``Record of Decision''
on August 28, 1997. Currently, the project is about to enter into final
design. Construction is expected to begin in the mid--late 1999.
The total value of the Canal Streetcar Project, including the
proposed city park spur, is approximately $181 million. To date,
Congress has appropriated $32.5 million towards the project.
The Canal Street corridor connects with 70 percent of the Regional
Transit Authority's 62 transit lines and seven suburban routes. In the
future, the route could connect with Amtrak and the local greyhound bus
terminal at the New Orleans Union Passenger Terminal.
The streetcar's track will be placed primarily within existing
medians which will allow the RTA to remove buses from the currently
congested traffic stream. The EIS analysis predicts 20 percent growth
of ridership over the 18,000 per day currently utilizing the bus
service within the corridor.
In a major effort to reduce the overall cost and scope of the
project, the RTA has implemented two strategies, both during
construction and operation:
First, the canal streetcar track will match the recently regauged
track of the Riverfront streetcar which now matches that of the
historic St. Charles streetcar line. The common gauge will allow the
RTA to use the existing Carrollton streetcar facility of the St.
Charles streetcar as a heavy duty maintenance facility for all three
lines as well as the proposed Desire line. Thus, the RTA will avoid the
cost of duplicating a similar facility. However, a separate storage and
inspection facility for daily maintenance and cleaning of the
streetcars will be built due to capacity constraints at Carrollton.
The second part of the strategy will be to assemble the streetcars
in New Orleans by the RTA technicians and craftsmen whom recently built
seven streetcars for the revamped Riverfront streetcar line. The RTA
will be able to save approximately $400,000-$600,000 per vehicle by
taking this approach. Estimates are that for an outside firm to bid on
the streetcars, which are a one-of-a-kind design, it would cost the
taxpayer anywhere from $1.6 to $1.8 per vehicle. RTA approximates its
costs at $1 million to $1.2 million. As well as building the seven
Riverfront cars, the Carrollton shop recently overhauled the entire 36
car St. Charles fleet. This facility and its workers are uniquely
suited to construct the canal streetcars competently and economically.
Furthermore, with RTA employees assembling the new streetcars, the
quality of the cars will be ensured by drawing from their expertise
maintaining the existing fleet.
The streetcars will be basically replicas of the venerable, and no
longer available, Perley Thomas type that now traverses the St. Charles
line. However, the canal cars will be ADA accessible and air
conditioned.
lease/maintenance program
As its highest priority request under the FTA bus and bus facility
program, the Regional Transit Authority (RTA), is seeking $32,000,000
representing three years of payments under its innovative lease/
maintenance program recently approved in-concept by the Federal Transit
Administration. This new program will allow the RTA to enter into a
lease and maintenance agreement with a commercial leasing company for
the lease and maintenance of 75 new buses and 100 near new buses. The
agreement will also allow the RTA to benefit from the recent changes
that allow for the treatment of maintenance costs under a lease as an
eligible capital expense. Penske Truck Leasing, through the RTA's RFP
selection process, will be the lessor of the buses as well as provide
for the maintenance of the buses. The financing will be by ABN-AMRO.
With 451 vehicles, the RTA operates the largest system in Louisiana
by providing service to nearly 180,000 riders per day in a city that is
20 percent transit dependent. The buses leased will significantly
reduce the operating expenses of the RTA and enhance its ability to
provide dependable service.
This request, as well as the central maintenance facility request
that follows, is once again a part of the fiscal year 1999 Louisiana
statewide request for FTA bus program funding. That effort is led by
RTA staff and is coordinated through the Louisiana Public Transit
Association. We hope our cooperative attempt will yield additional
support once more to benefit the state's other transit systems as well
as the RTA.
desire streetcar line
The RTA is requesting $41,600,000 of FTA section 5309 new start
funds to restore much of the 4 mile route of the fabled Streetcar Named
Desire through some of New Orleans oldest and historic neighborhoods.
The project is about to enter the major investment study phase by May
of 1998. Congress has appropriated $4 million of FTA new start funding
to the project.
The proposed Desire streetcar line will allow the RTA to
consolidate a number of bus routes away from the historically and
structurally sensitive French Quarter. The line is expected to improve
the overall efficiency of the RTA system by allowing for higher
operating speeds and shorter travel time for buses now forced to use
congested French Quarter streets. The Desire streetcar will provide
direct service to the French Quarter, Faubourg Marigny and Bywater
neighborhoods which are otherwise inaccessible to regular transit
service. In addition, the line will serve two major defense facilities;
the U.S. Coast Guard Support Center and the Navy's F. Edward Hebert
Defense Complex.
central maintenance facility
As its second highest priority under the FTA section 5309 (formerly
section 3) bus program, the RTA is requesting $8,000,000 to continue
progress on its heavy duty central maintenance facility (CMF). The
$15,268,000 project is now in the architectural design stage. This
request is also a component of the cooperative statewide request.
The current outdated facility was originally scheduled for
demolition in the fall of 1995, but was postponed due to site selection
delays and until construction of a new CMF was assured. This project
will relocate and rebuild the RTA's only heavy bus maintenance
facility. The present facility, which undertakes extensive repairs such
as, engine and transmission change out as well as major component and
body rebuilds, has been deemed inadequate and obsolete for the systems
maintenance needs. The existing site is not conducive to an efficient,
long-term approach to maintain an active and aging bus fleet. The new
facility will help RTA to further reduce its operating expenses.
transit program appropriations
The regional transit authority urges and requests that Congress
appropriates to the highest levels possible under the terms authorized
under the future ISTEA legislation. While not complete at the time of
this statement, both the Senate and House versions of the renewed ISTEA
are showing increased levels of funding for transit--increases that are
sorely need by all of transit. The RTA sincerely hopes that Congress
follows through on that promise by appropriating to the levels
authorized.
Thank you for your time and consideration with these requests on
behalf of the regional transit authority.
For your reference, attached you will find additional information
on the RTA and its requests.
Administration of Services
rta history
The Regional Transit Authority is a political subdivision created
by the Louisiana State Legislature in 1979. After taking over the
operation of bus and streetcar service in 1983, the RTA expanded
service to the city of Kenner in 1985. The service presently consists
of 62 bus lines, the St. Charles Streetcar line, and the Riverfront
Streetcar line.
purpose
The main purposes of the RTA are to develop a regional transit
plan, maintain a permanent funding source for transit in the
metropolitan New Orleans area and be responsible for the operation of
the regional transit system. The primary goal of the Regional RTA is to
provide comprehensive, efficient regional transit service, designed to
meet the needs of the communities it serves.
board of commissioners
The Regional Transit Authority is governed by a board of
commissioners appointed by the member parishes of Orleans and
Jefferson. Of the eight-member board, five are from Orleans Parish and
three are from Jefferson Parish. The board of commissioners establishes
the policies and procedures for the RTA. Meetings are held on the
second Tuesday of each month. Members of the RTA Board of Commissioners
are: Chairman Robert H. Tucker, Jr., Orleans Parish; Daniel Alfortish,
Jefferson Parish; Ronald Gardner, Orleans Parish; Dennis A. DiMarco,
Jefferson Parish; Nat LaCour, Orleans Parish; Charlotte Burnell,
Jefferson Parish; Earline Roth, Orleans Parish; LeRoy Bailey, General
Manager of TMSEL. There is currently one vacancy on the RTA Board of
Commissioners.
day-to-day operations
Transit Management of Southeast Louisiana, a private corporation,
is contracted to oversee the day-to-day operations of the transit
administration.
Bus and streetcar drivers are members of Amalgamated Transit Union,
Local 1560. Dispatchers, Scheduling Clerks, Transit Tellers, and
Transit Instructors are members of Amalgamated Transit Union, Local
1611. Maintenance workers are members of the International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers, Local 1700-4.
Summary Profile Data
Operational Statistics
Fleet Size:
Buses............................................... 371
Streetcars.......................................... 41
Paratransit Vehicles................................ 40
Average Fleet Age:
Years for buses..................................... 7.1
Years for streetcars................................ 74
Vehicle Usage:
Buses and streetcars on AM peak..................... 323
PM peak............................................. 343
Non-peak............................................ 152
Number of Routes........................................ 62
Vehicle Miles (millions)................................ 12
Annual Vehicle Hours (millions)......................... 1.1
Passengers Carried Daily................................ 190,000
Passengers Carried Weekly (million)..................... 1.3
Passengers Carried Annually (million)................... 70
1996 Diesel Fuel Use (gallons).......................... 3,730,381
1996 Gasoline Fuel Use (gallons)........................ 125,015
Employee Data
Total Number of Employees......................................... 1,232
Operators......................................................... 674
Maintenance....................................................... 337
Administration.................................................... 221
Financial Data (CY 1998 Budget)
Total Operating Expenses................................ $72,612,928
Fiscal Year 1999 Congressional Requests
Canal Streetcar Corridor:
Authorization....................................... $145,000,000
Appropriations...................................... 112,500,000
Desire Streetcar:
Authorization....................................... 45,600,000
Appropriations...................................... 41,600,000
Central Maintenance Facility: Appropriations............ 8,000,000
Lease/Maintenance Program (3 years): Appropriations..... 32,000,000
canal street corridor
Scope.--Reinstatement of Light Rail/Streetcar service to the Canal
Street Corridor of New Orleans. The 4.15 mile (8.3 round trip) line
will extend from the New Orleans riverfront at the Mississippi to the
Mid City neighborhood.
Funding.--$144,967,740 of Federal Transit Administration (FTA) New
Start authorization is requested for the project. To date, $32,573,000
of FTA New Start funds have been obtained through Congressional
appropriations.
ISTEA authorized $4.8 million for alternative analysis, preliminary
engineering and an environmental impact statement in 1992.
Matching funds of $24,800,000 are being sought through the State of
Louisiana Capital Outlay process for this vital transportation
infrastructure project.
Total.--$181,209,700 Project Total.
Statement.--The return of light rail service to downtown New
Orleans will promote economic development and significantly reduce
congestion and auto emissions. Streetcar service will enhance access to
major state investments, such as the Louisiana Superdome, the
Convention Center, the LSU/Tulane Medical District, and the proposed
arena. 30 diesel fueled vehicles will be removed from this corridor
once streetcar service is restored. Ridership on the streetcar is
anticipated to exceed the current bus count of 20,000 by an additional
18,000 passengers.
Status.--This project has completed Major Investment Analysis
(MIA). Corridor selection, the approval of the Locally Preferred
Alternative (LPA), was made on March 28, 1995. Preliminary engineering
and the Draft Environmental Impact Statement was completed in May of
1997. The final EIS was completed in August of 1997 with the Record of
Decision issued soon thereafter. Final Design will be underway this
Spring.
Construction is projected to begin in 1999 with the line opening in
the year 2001. Included will be innovative project cost savings
proposals, including the regauging of the Riverfront line and the
proposed Canal Street line to utilize an existing heavy maintenance
facility, and the assembly of the streetcars locally.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12NONDP.005
transaction summary
the regional transit authority lease/maintenance program
The Regional Transit Authority of New Orleans, Louisiana (the
``RTA'') desires to enter into a lease/maintenance agreement with a
commercial leasing company for the lease and maintenance of 75 new
buses and 100 near new buses. The RTA will structure the lease
utilizing Federal Transit Administration (the ``FTA'') regulations,
Capital Leases--49 CFR 639. The RTA has undertaken the Determination of
Cost-Effectiveness pursuant to CFR Sections 639.21, 639.23 and 639.25.
The RTA's objective is to benefit from the treatment of maintenance
costs under a lease as an eligible capital expense.
Scenario One--New Buses
PENSKE Truck Leasing Company (the ``Lessor'') has been selected
through an RFP selection process to provide the RTA with 175 new buses
under a lease/maintenance agreement. Under the terms of the agreement
the Lessor will lease the buses to the RTA as well as provide the
maintenance on the buses. For State law purposes, the term of the lease
will be for one year, to end on the last day of the RTA's fiscal year,
December 31. At the expiration of the initial term, the Lease shall
automatically be extended upon appropriation by the RTA's Board of
amounts sufficient to pay lease payments. It is the expectation of the
RTA and of the Lessor that the agreement will extend for 12 years. The
purchase of the 175 buses will be financed by ABN-AMRO at an estimated
interest rate of 6.35 percent.
Scenario Two--Near New Buses
In late 1996, the RTA purchased 100 new Orion Buses and 6 new
Chance Buses. To take advantage of FTA Innovative Financing Techniques,
the RTA proposes to sell the ``near new'' Orion buses to the Lessor.
Under the terms of a lease/maintenance agreement, the RTA will then
lease the near new buses from the Lessor. The term of the lease will be
as described above in Scenario One. This transaction differs from
Scenario One because we propose to use the proceeds from the sale of
the buses to make lease payments over the remaining life of the buses
or 11 years. To that end, we will deposit the proceeds in an escrow
account at an interest rate sufficient to make lease payments over the
life of the buses. This arrangement is expected to yield an additional
$1.0 million up front. The escrow would be set up so that no additional
FTA moneys would be required nor RTA local match. The purchase of the
106 buses will be financed by ABN-AMRO.
central maintenance facility--relocation/reconstruction
Scope.--Design and construct a replacement heavy repair facility
for the RTA bus fleet. The current facility was deemed inadequate and
obsolete and is to be demolished in order to complete the redevelopment
of the Canal Maintenance Facility.
Funding.--$12,214,400 of Federal Transit Administration Section 3
Bus/Bus Facility Program was requested for fiscal year 1996. $3,000,000
was appropriated in fiscal year 1996. Additional funding was put
towards the project from the total $9,000,000 appropriated to New
Orleans in fiscal year 1997, thus making this request for fiscal year
1999 $8,000,000.
The $3,053,600 of local match will be provided by the Regional
Transit Authority.
Total.--$15,268,000.
Statement.--Replacement of the Central Maintenance Facility has
become the highest priority for the Regional Transit Authority's
maintenance efforts. The facility will be key to such heavy duty
repairs as engine and transmission change-outs, major component
rebuilds, body repair, central parts storeroom and maintenance
training. Once the former facility is demolished as part of the Canal
Maintenance Facility redevelopment, major repairs will be required to
be made temporarily at another RTA facility where conditions will
obviously not be conducive to permanent location. Most importantly, the
construction of the Central Maintenance Facility will allow RTA to
consolidate and close at least one other major facility, thus allowing
the RTA to reduce overall operating expenses.
Status.--Site evaluation and appraisals are complete. Design has
commenced. The current Central Maintenance Facility at Canal Street is
scheduled for demolition upon assurances of the funding and
construction of a new CMF.
desire streetcar line--reconstruction
Scope.--Design and reconstruct the fabled Streetcar Named Desire
route as the major transit artery it once was. Utilizing the venerable
Royal and Bourbon/Dauphine Streets, the four mile (8 miles round-trip)
line would travel through the historic New Orleans neighborhoods of
Bywater, Faubourg Marigny and the Vieux Carre (the French Quarter). The
route was ``rediscovered'' when investigating the possible downriver
extension of the Riverfront Streetcar line which was scrapped due to
poor ridership projections.
Funding.--$45,600,000 in authorization and funding is requested
from the Federal Transit Administration Section 3 New Start program
through Congressional legislation.
The $13,400,000 of local match remains to be identified.
In fiscal year 1997, $2,000,000 was appropriated to conduct the
required Desire Corridor Major Investment Study. Another $2 million was
appropriated in fiscal year 1998.
Total.--$57,000,000.
Statement.--This proposed line should deliver a much higher and
effective level of transit service to the French Quarter, Faubourg
Marigny and Bywater neighborhoods than exists presently. It will allow
the removal of all transit vehicles from the historically and
structurally sensitive French Quarter while providing direct CBD
service to/from two major defense facilities located at the far end of
the line along the Industrial Canal. The line is expected to improve
the overall efficiency of the system by allowing higher operating
speeds and shorter travel time for buses forced to utilize congested
French Quarter streets.
Status.--RTA will begin the Major Investment Study in the Spring of
1998.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T12NONDP.006
______
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 1999. 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, a paratransit 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 requests in fiscal year 1999. The appropriation requests
are described in the following narrative.
project appropriations
Federal Transit Administration Bus Capital
Appropriate $6 million for HUBLINK, the NFTA Transit Restructuring
Program.
Federal Aviation Administration Airport Improvement Program
Appropriate $21 million under the FAA Airport Improvement Program
to permit the acquisition and demolition of the Buffalo Airport Center.
hublink
As reported last year, 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. Thus, Metro is faced with a changing market of potential
transit riders. Metro's current service radiates out from the Central
Business District (CBD) to suburban areas and primarily meets that
traditional travel demand. In order to be competitive, Metro needed to
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. Furthermore, these changing demographic patterns are not
unique to Western New York. Across the country, we see the movement of
jobs and population to the suburban areas. We think our project
provides a national model to meet the changing transportation needs
that result from this movement.
HUBLINK, the term coined for the transit restructuring program, is
a comprehensive coordinated public transportation system designed to
provide enhanced mobility throughout Western New York. Through enhanced
mobility, HUBLINK can achieve the objective of connecting people to
jobs and providing taxpayers with more value for their tax dollar.
HUBLINK marshals available resources in a new, comprehensive transit
solution for the twenty-first century.
The Goals of The HUBLINK Project focus on: Jobs, value for tax
dollars, and quality of life.
During the past year, technical work has been completed to develop
a new mobility plan for Metro. Plan implementation has begun. A
description of the plan follows.
the mobility plan
The HUBLINK transportation system is designed to meet the needs of
individuals throughout Western New York including job seekers seeking
access to employment outside of the urban core, suburban residents
traveling between communities, individuals with disabilities and senior
citizens. The HUBLINK system builds upon existing service and further
offers services in urban, suburban and rural areas tailored to each
areas specific needs. A key feature of HUBLINK is a series of
strategically placed transit centers or HUBS. The HUBS will offer
convenient transfer points between transportation modes to improve
access and mobility. HUBLINK is designed to provide taxpayers with the
maximum value for their tax dollars, through the efficient coordination
of multiple programs and by encouraging more ridership on the bus and
rail system.
The system consists of three interconnecting and complementary
service networks described below:
regional service network
The regional service network is designed to serve travel in the
urban core of the region and long distance travel across the region.
These travel needs can be served efficiently with current modes of
transit. The traditional transit components of this network are urban
bus service, rail service, regional fixed bus service and paratransit
service. Enhanced reverse commute services and employer based service
would be added or enhanced as needed. The construction of up to 24
HUBS, some with transit centers and park and ride facilities is
envisioned. Supporting elements such as bicycle and pedestrian access
would complete this network.
local services network
The HUBLINK plan calls for a variety of small bus or van services
to provide for local trips and feeder/distribution service to and from
hubs in lower density area of the region. NFTA will fund a portion of
the cost of these services. Local municipalities, human service
agencies and private companies will contribute the balance of the
funding to provide the service. This program will permit localities to
select service options tailored to their individual service needs. For
suburban service, the options include local circulator service and
employment center shuttles. For low population density rural areas,
options include demand responsive service and volunteer ridesharing.
coordination services network
The coordination network consists of a variety of transportation
services provided by public and private providers. These include human
service agencies and educational institutions. The HUBLINK plan
proposes a more efficient utilization of existing resources through
voluntary collaboration. To facilitate this collaboration, a Mobility
Coordinator is envisioned to manage the network to maximize service
availability, improve efficiency, minimize duplication, and close gaps
in the current service.
The HUBLINK system will integrate a variety of traditional and non-
traditional modes of transportation. A seamless means of fare
collection is necessary to facilitate the integration. Passengers must
be able to easily transfer from one carrier to another at the various
transit hubs that will make up the system. To this end, NFTA is
undertaking a fare collection study to determine system needs. The
study will determine the appropriate fare structure and optimal
technology. A system that employs swipe card technology is under
serious consideration. Swipe cards, similar to pre-paid cards used in
other businesses, may be interfaced with other transportation
facilities such as parking ramps and toll booths. Swipe cards have been
used successfully in transportation systems application nationally and
we believe the technology can succeed for our system, as well.
HUBLINK requires a new fare collection system to replace the
Metrobus fare collection system which is outmoded from both technical
and marketing perspectives. Metro is cannibalizing equipment to
maintain the existing system, only possible because our peak bus fleet
requirements have decreased. A new system will afford accurate revenue
and passenger counts, necessary for system performance measurement.
Also, new technology is easier to maintain and more customer friendly,
and passenger convenience can enhance ridership. The procurement of a
new fare collection system for Metro is needed to maintain existing
transit infrastructure, as well as to support the HUBLINK system. The
new fare collection system is scheduled for procurement in fiscal year
1999.
The implementation of the HUBLINK system is planned over six years,
beginning in 1998-99 and ending in 2003-04. The phases correspond to
geographic areas that will be integrated into the system. The phases
were established as a result of demand estimation and community
interest in supporting and using HUBLINK services.
The total capital cost of the implementation of the HUBLINK and
fare collection systems is estimated at $46 million between 1999 and
2004. Capital costs include $20 million for the construction and
upgrade of transit hubs, $19 million for the purchase of vehicles, $5
million for a replacement fare collection system, and $2 million for
customer information systems and start-up expenditures.
legislative action
At this time to further HUBLINK implementation, NFTA seeks a $6
million bus capital appropriation within the fiscal year 1999
transportation appropriations to support capital expenditures
including: upgrading two transit hubs, the procurement of 10 transit
vehicles, information systems network hardware, data input, and
customer information displays, and a replacement fare collection
system.
buffalo niagara international airport
The second initiative for which we seek funding consideration from
the transportation appropriations committee concerns improvements to
alleviate safety limitations at the Buffalo Niagara International
Airport.
Phase I of Master Plan improvements at the Greater Buffalo
International Airport consisted of the $157.7 million Airport
Improvement Program. Phase I improvements included the construction of
a new terminal, roadway system, airside improvements, and parking
structure. These facilities were opened on November 3, 1997. The new
airport was renamed the Buffalo Niagara International Airport (BNIA) to
reflect recognition of the entire Western New York region.
Certain elements of the airport improvement program, namely the
acquisition and demolition of the Buffalo Airport Center (BAC),
formerly the Westinghouse plant, and Runway 14/32 safety improvements,
were deferred to Phase II. These projects would remove safety
constraints on airside operations and facilitate long term airport
development needs.
Now that Phase I improvements are nearly complete, the NFTA is
focusing on the completion of Phase II of the Airport Improvement
Program. Property acquisition is justified as a safety improvement to
Runway 14/32. Acquisition and subsequent demolition of the BAC property
will remove a safety area obstruction and operational limitations on
Runway 14/32. Furthermore, safety area improvements to Runway 14/32,
included in the BNIA Master Plan for implementation after the
acquisition and demolition of the BAC, can be undertaken. These
improvements will afford the continuation of existing airport
operations during future rehabilitation of main Runway 5/23.
legislative action
NFTA seeks a fiscal year 1999 transportation appropriation in the
amount of $21 million under the FAA Airport Improvement Program to
permit the acquisition and demolition of the Buffalo Airport Center.
______
Prepared Statement of Paul P. Skoutelas, Executive Director, Port
Authority of Allegheny County, Pittsburgh, PA
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 carries 75 million public transportation riders
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.
As Executive Director of Port Authority of Allegheny County, it is
my privilege to present this testimony regarding Port Authority's
request for fiscal year 1999 transportation earmarks for the Stage II
light rail transit project, a major component of Port Authority's
``rail 21'' program, and for the purchase of buses. The ``rail 21''
program is comprised of several different rail projects including Port
Authority's Stage II light rail transit project and the Northshore/CBD
fixed guideway project.
Port Authority is requesting $100 million of section 5309 ``new
start'' funds for the Stage II project in fiscal year 1999. Port
Authority is also requesting a section 5309 ``bus/bus facility''
earmark of $30 million to be used to acquire approximately 125 buses in
fiscal year 1999. Procurement of new buses will enable Port Authority
to continue modernizing its fleet and ensure the continuation of
transit service to its customers.
rail ``21'' program
Light rail transit Stage II system
Port Authority's light rail transit system, also known as the
``T'', is a twenty-five mile light rail transit system serving the city
of Pittsburgh and the South Hills communities of Allegheny County.
The South Hills light rail system, part of an extensive trolley
network formerly operated by the Pittsburgh Railways Company and its
predecessors, was acquired by Port Authority in 1964. Between 1980 and
1987, Port Authority completely reconstructed 10.5 miles of the system,
a project referred to as Stage I.
Stage I entailed construction of the downtown Pittsburgh subway and
rehabilitation of Port Authority's Panhandle Bridge over the
Monongahela River, modernization of the old trolley line to South Hills
Village via Beechview and Mount Lebanon, construction of the Mount
Lebanon transit tunnel, reconstruction of the Allentown line,
construction of a new rail car maintenance facility and operations
control center and purchase of fifty-five articulated and air-
conditioned light rail cars. Also included was the completion of the
2.5 mile Allentown line in 1992.
The Stage II light rail transit system which was designated a ``new
start'' project in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Assistance Act
of 1991 (ISTEA) involves the reconstruction of twelve and one-half
miles of the Overbrook, Library, and Drake trolley lines to modern
light rail standards. The environmental assessment for the project was
completed in 1993 and preliminary engineering will be completed in
April 1998. Rebuilding the three lines on their existing alignments
includes double-tracking the Overbrook line, replacing bridges,
stabilizing slopes, adding retaining walls, constructing new stops and
stations, and installing signal, communications and electrical power
systems. The Drake line would also be built to light rail standards.
The Library line would be rebuilt on its existing right-of-way.
Additionally, the acquisition of approximately twenty-seven new light
rail vehicles is proposed, and approximately 2,400 new park and ride
spaces will be added. It is projected there will be seven construction
contracts, two procurement contracts and one contract for construction
management services awarded during calendar 1998. The current project
is estimated at a total of $492.8 million or $392.2 federal share.
bus purchase
Port Authority is also requesting $30 million of section 5309 bus/
bus facility funds in the fiscal year 1999 transportation
appropriations bill to be used toward the procurement of approximately
125 buses. 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 260,000 riders each day, or about 75
million annually.
It is our fervent desire that your subcommittee will continue
increasing the overall level of investment in transportation
infrastructure which is of national importance. Your 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 thank you for your leadership and also the
subcommittee for its past support and commitment to surface
transportation programs, particularly, for those that affect public
transportation.
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 Regional Transportation Commission, Clark County,
NV
introduction
The Regional Transportation Commission of Clark County, Nevada
(RTC) is pleased to have the opportunity to present this testimony to
the Subcommittee in support of our fiscal year 1999 funding requests.
The 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 is the Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO) for the Las Vegas Valley. As the public transit
provider, the RTC operates Citizens Area Transit (CAT), a mass transit
system that moves more than 3.5 million passengers a month and recovers
nearly 50 percent of its operating and maintenance costs from the
farebox.
The RTC, acting as the public transit authority, requests that the
Subcommittee give positive consideration to the four projects described
in this testimony. Specifically, the RTC requests funding from Section
5309 (formerly Section 3) in the amount of $6.5 million for PE and
final design for a 5.2 mile initial operating segment of a fixed
guideway system; $3.8 million for bus fleet expansion; $4.6 million for
a Passenger Terminal facility; and $2.3 million for a CNG refueling
facility. As shown in this testimony, these four projects are critical
to the continued development of an intermodal transportation system
capable of meeting the needs of the fastest growing transit system in
the United States.
planning context
Las Vegas Growth and Development.--The Las Vegas metropolitan area
continues to experience explosive growth. While acknowledged
internationally as a premier resort destination, the Las Vegas Valley
also represents a community of over 1.3 million permanent residents.
The economy of the Las Vegas Valley is characterized by a favorable
business environment, a strong job market, an absence of a business and
personal income tax, and a comparatively low property tax by national
standards. This environment has fostered an era of extraordinary growth
that, since 1990, has fueled the creation of over 150,000 new jobs and
has witnessed the influx of over 400,000 new residents to the valley.
Current projections indicate that population and employment will
continue to increase, exceeding 2.0 million residents and 750,000 jobs
by the year 2015.
In addition to the strong residential community living in the
Valley, Las Vegas continues to remain a world class resort destination
which welcomed over 29 million visitors in 1997. With over 100,000
hotel rooms available, the Las Vegas Resort Corridor offers a wide
variety of recreational and entertainment 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. Ensuring adequate mobility is essential to
maintaining a superior quality of life for residents and a pleasant
visitor experience.
The Resort Corridor of Las Vegas is, however, more than world
renowned resorts. It also contains a broad array of land uses that are
not typically associated with the public image of Las Vegas. For
example, the northern boundary of the Resort Corridor includes a
substantial section designated by the City of Las Vegas as a
redevelopment area to which public investments are targeted for urban
revitalization. In contrast, the southern area of the Resort Corridor
includes office uses, health care, shopping and educational facilities
(including UNLV and several elementary and middle schools).
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. Current job densities in the Resort Corridor approximate 56
jobs per acre. This is similar to the conditions that exist in the
central business districts of Portland (OR), Sacramento, San Diego, St.
Louis, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Buffalo, and Baltimore. All of these
communities have determined that a fixed guideway system is an
appropriate transportation investment and have committed substantial
resources to the development and operation of fixed guideway systems.
All of these activities contribute to the centrality of the Resort
Corridor. In 1996, of the 4.0 million daily person trips made in the
Las Vegas Valley, 63 percent were commuter trips focused on
destinations in the Resort Corridor. The mixing of land uses coupled
with the ever increasing scale of the community also contributes to the
high levels of transit ridership experienced by CAT. More importantly,
the continued rapid growth reinforces the attractiveness of a fixed
guideway system as part of the transportation infrastructure and
service fabric.
Major Investment Study.--The extensive and sustained growth in the
Las Vegas valley has created significant transportation challenges. In
October of 1997, the RTC adopted a Major Investment Study (MIS) that
identified four strategies designed to ensure that traffic congestion
will not worsen over the next 20 years from levels currently
experienced. The four strategies include: (1) construction of an 18
mile fixed guideway system serving the Resort Corridor; (2) expansion
of CAT fixed route service to 500 peak service buses; (3) initiation of
a TDM/TSM program designed to incentivize transit in all of its forms
and fund low cost traffic management projects, respectively; (4)
completion of the Resort Corridor street and highway system by
finishing nine roadway projects, including the construction of Resort
Boulevard--a new collector-distributor parallel to Las Vegas Boulevard.
Completion of all of these projects will ensure that Las Vegas
taxpayers will continue to have timely access to their jobs, avoid the
disruptive affects of continual road construction, reduce reliance on
the Single Occupant Vehicle and foster the on-going efforts of the Las
Vegas Valley to meet the mandates of the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990.
In light of the RTC's adopted MIS and the documented success of the
CAT system, the RTC has four initiatives it has prioritized for transit
discretionary funding in its Regional Transportation Plan and the
Transportation Improvement Program adopted in January of 1998. These
priorities include continued funding of Fixed Guideway preliminary
engineering/final design, acquisition of rolling stock for CAT,
construction of a Transfer Terminal Facility in the Resort Corridor and
construction of a Compressed Natural Gas refueling station. Each of
these projects as documented in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)
reflect the RTC's long term commitment to advance the usage of mass
transit technologies as a means to effectively address growing commuter
travel demands. In fact, with 63 percent of all valley wide trips
either beginning, ending or traveling through the Resort Corridor, the
RTC cannot continue to rely solely on roads or buses, but instead must
act now to begin implementing all elements of the MIS.
fixed guideway system--preliminary engineering and final design
The CAT system represents a significant commitment by the RTC to
address the travel needs of residents and visitors alike. However, as
documented in the Resort Corridor MIS, a higher level of mass transit
is clearly necessary in a city of 1.3 million. 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 expansion of the bus system can address some
of these needs in the short term, but there is a limit to the number of
buses that can be put on the streets and, in fact, in the number of
streets and highways that can be built. The MIS illustrated that
projected travel demands, if addressed only through road construction,
would require the construction of 18 north-south and 20 east-west and
arterial lanes through the Resort Corridor.
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. The proposed fixed
guideway system (depicted in Exhibit A) contains 18.4 miles of double
track, elevated, automated guideway; providing service to 28 stations
and three major terminal stations. The system includes a core system
and an extension to McCarran International Airport. The core system
consists of 15.6 miles of guideway, 25 stations and two major
terminals. The cost for the full system is approximately $1.14 billion.
To facilitate the design, construction, and operation of this project,
the RTC is currently considering a turnkey procurement. The RTC is
seeking an authorization of $225 million for Phase 1 of the project in
the ISTEA legislation being developed by Congress, representing a 45
percent Federal share over the proposed 5 year authorization period.
The RTC has commenced initial preliminary engineering activity for
a 5.2 mile initial operating segment referred to as Phase I (depicted
in Exhibit B). The RTC received a fiscal year 1998 Section 5309 earmark
for the fixed guideway project in the amount of $5 million. The RTC has
submitted a grant application and LONP request for those funds, and,
consistent with the agency's normal Federal grant cycle, anticipates
receiving and beginning expenditure of those funds this summer. The RTC
has also conducted a thorough analysis of vehicle technologies and is
in the process of analyzing the appropriate technology for the system
and developing vehicle specifications. The RTC next intends to proceed
with more specific project definition and the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS) on the entire 18 mile system. To this end, the
RTC requests the sum of $6.5 million in Section 3 new start funding for
the continuation of preliminary engineering and design for this
project.
citizens area transit--bus fleet expansion
Citizens Area Transit (CAT) began service on December 5, 1992. At
that time, CAT represented the largest single start-up of new bus
service in North America. CAT has proven extraordinarily successful.
Annual CAT ridership has grown from 14.9 million riders in 1993 to over
41.0 million riders in 1997; a growth rate of over 175 percent in only
5 short years. Las Vegas is the fastest growing city in the United
States, but the CAT system is growing at a rate faster than the growth
in the area's population, employment, hotel rooms, visitor volumes,
airport passengers, vehicle miles traveled, and auto registrations in
the same time period. While the CAT routes operating along Las Vegas
Boulevard provide service to over 900,000 passengers per month, this
accounts for only 25 percent of the total monthly ridership. Indeed,
although the CAT route on Las Vegas Boulevard carries in excess of 67
passengers per service hour, three of the CAT residential routes meet
this relative passenger performance level as well (compared to the
national average of 33.8 passengers per service hour). Clearly, many
Las Vegas residents rely heavily on the CAT system to get to work,
school, shopping, medical services and recreational facilities.
Providing mass transit services throughout the Las Vegas Valley, CAT
has become an essential element in the Las Vegas community.
To respond to the burgeoning demand for transit services, the RTC
has continually increased bus service. Since startup, total annual
hours of revenue service have increased by 56.4 percent; from 585,134
hours in 1993 to 915,451 in 1997. Similarly, annual vehicle miles have
doubled; from 6,384,660 miles in 1993 to 12,771,276 miles in 1997. In
October of 1997, the RTC instituted a 15 percent service increase upon
receipt of 20 additional coaches, pushing annual service hours to over
1 million hours of service. The CAT systems has successfully increased
ridership while remaining operationally efficient. Costs per passenger
have dropped consistently since startup, to approximately $1.15 per
passenger. Meanwhile, the farebox recovery rate of CAT averages over 50
percent, one of the highest farebox recovery rates in the nation. Some
routes on heavily traveled corridors have a farebox recovery ratio of
over 100 percent. In 1997, CAT was recognized by the American Public
Transit Association (APTA) as the winner of the Outstanding Achievement
Award--Bus System of the Year for the 151-600 bus category.
Despite the CAT systems remarkable growth, the RTC has been unable
to yet attain the service levels needed and desired by the riding
public. To provide convenient access throughout the community, and
establish transit as a viable option for motorists, the RTC adopted a
minimum service goal of 30 minute frequency or better for all CAT
routes. Since start-up, the RTC has continually worked toward achieving
this goal and currently provides 30 minute frequencies or better on 51
percent of the routes. However, the single largest constraint faced by
the RTC to providing more service has been the availability of
additional equipment. In 1997, CAT carried its considerable ridership
of over 41 million passengers on a total fleet of only 215 coaches.
When compared to other peer cities, CAT transports up to 3 times the
number of passengers per vehicle. This passenger load factor is not
sustainable over the long term in terms of the enormous demands placed
on existing rolling stock, and makes expansion of the fleet size an
absolute necessity.
The RTC is currently preparing a procurement for 33 additional
vehicles for expansion of the CAT fleet. However, even more vehicles
will be needed to meet the ever growing demands for expanded services.
To continue to expand CAT services, the RTC requests $3.8 million in
Section 3 bus discretionary funds to purchase 14 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.
bus passenger transfer facility
In December of 1997, the RTC opened its new Integrated Bus
Maintenance Facility (IBMF), a 36.6 acre, $35 million state-of-the-art
facility to house and maintain the CAT fixed route and paratransit
fleets. This facility will serve as a national model for transit
maintenance facilities. The RTC greatly appreciates the Federal
appropriations which made this facility a reality. With the completion
of the IBMF, the RTC is now in a position to concentrate on developing
and improving passenger facilities for the many patrons of the CAT
system.
To ensure comfort and convenience for the passengers of the CAT
system, the RTC plans to build a network of terminal/transfer
facilities throughout the Las Vegas Valley. Terminal/transfer
facilities will provide locations where passengers have the opportunity
to easily transfer between routes, passengers have shelter from the
elements, and coach operators have access to necessary amenities. In
addition, terminal/transfer facilities will provide opportunities for a
reasonable interface between fixed route and paratransit services. At
this time, the CAT system currently has only one terminal/transfer
facility in the downtown area, known as the Downtown Transportation
Center (DTC), which was built in 1987 prior to the initiation of the
CAT system. With the ever-increasing demands for additional services,
there is a critical need for additional terminal/transfer facilities.
The RTC has identified several areas throughout the Las Vegas
Valley where facilities are being pursued, the most notable being in
the South Resort Corridor area. In this area, the CAT system is
currently utilizing private property as a transfer facility. Six CAT
routes now converge on private property belonging to a hotel/casino at
the southern end of the Las Vegas Strip. While the generosity of the
property owners is appreciated, there are no conveniences or amenities
dedicated to the riding public of the CAT system. The RTC has
identified several sites that would support a South Resort Corridor
Transit Center, and is moving forward with procuring a consultant to
perform the necessary Environmental Assessment and design for a
facility. In order to expediently move to construction of the facility,
the sum of $4.6 million is requested in Section 3 bus discretionary
funds for construction of this important facility.
cng fueling facility
The dramatic growth in population and employment in Las Vegas has
resulted in a tremendous increase in traffic congestion and a
significant deterioration in regional air quality. Pursuant to the
Clear Air Act of 1991, the Environmental Protection Agency has
designated the Las Vegas airshed as a serious non-attainment area for
carbon monoxide (CO) and PM10 (inhalable particulate matter; 10 microns
or less). Transit is an essential element in the region's overall
strategy to reduce traffic congestion and improve regional air quality.
In its role as the MPO and transit operator, the RTC is constantly
promoting additional methods to help improve air quality.
When CAT paratransit services were initiated, the RTC mandated the
entire paratransit fleet use an alternative fuel. The paratransit fleet
consists of 120 vehicles which all use compressed natural gas (CNG) to
help the RTC promote air quality standards. With this paratransit
fleet, the RTC is currently the largest single sponsor of an
alternative fuel fleet in the Las Vegas Valley. Currently, the RTC owns
only 2 facilities throughout the Valley where these vehicles are
fueled. It is the RTC's intention to build an additional satellite
fueling facility for CNG fuel and for use in an electric power
demonstration program. To fund this program, the RTC requests $2.3
million in Section 3 bus discretionary funds for assistance in building
this facility.
In conclusion, the RTC is requesting the total sum of $10.7 million
in Section 5309 bus discretionary funds for the CAT fixed route system,
and $6.5 million in Section 5309 new start funds for continued
preliminary engineering of a fixed guideway system. The RTC genuinely
appreciates the Federal assistance it has received to date. Together,
we have built an award winning public transit system in just 5 short
years. We look forward to continuing to work together on these
important projects.
______
Prepared Statement of Diana Degette, U.S. Representative, First
Congressional District, State of Colorado
Chairman Wolf and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Diana
Degette, U.S. Representative from the First Congressional District from
the State of Colorado. I am here today on behalf of the Denver Regional
Transportation District--RTD. I appreciate this opportunity to inform
you of our progress in constructing the next light rail corridor in the
Denver region--the southwest corridor. I wish to thank the subcommittee
for their support of our 1998 request. At this time, I would like to
request your further assistance in obtaining a fiscal year 1999
appropriation of $60 million to keep our project on schedule.
RTD provides public transit service to over 2 million residents of
the six counties and 37 municipalities in our 2,400 square mile
district--one of the largest transit districts in the nation. Our fleet
of 868 buses and 17 light rail vehicles carried over 71 million
passengers in 1997, our eleventh consecutive year of increased
ridership.
In 1994, RTD completed its first light rail project, the central
corridor on time and within budget. The 5.3 mile central corridor light
rail has exceeded our original projections of 14,000 riders per day. We
are now carrying 15,000 riders per day. This light rail line which cost
$130 million was financed totally with RTD local funds.
Mr. Chairman, RTD is continuing its progress in developing rapid
transit by extending the construction of light rail from our present
central corridor light rail line to the southwest corridor. The 8.7
mile southwest light rail extension will serve three major activity
centers: the Denver central business district, a major regional retail
and commercial center in Englewood currently under major redevelopment
and the Littleton central business district. This project will also
provide service to the residents of Douglas County--the fastest growing
county in Colorado and one of the fastest growing counties in the
United States.
In its first year of operation, the southwest light rail transit
project is projected to provide its passengers with a 56 percent travel
time savings as compared to the same trip by automobile. By 2015, this
light rail project is expected to cut auto travel time in half, saving
its 22,000 passengers over 25 minutes per trip. The value of this
travel time savings is expected to reach over $9.5 million annually by
the year 2015. In addition, the southwest corridor light rail project
allows RTD to operate more efficiently. By the year 2015, RTD can
provide this light rail service at $2.60 per passenger trip compared to
a similar trip by bus that would cost $3.10--a 19 percent savings per
rider. Additionally, RTD estimates that the cost per new rider, as per
FTA guidelines, is $3.23; a very favorable figure.
In acknowledgment of the important benefits to be derived from this
project, the Federal Transit Administration and RTD, entered into a
full funding grant agreement in 1996 in the amount of $177 million. The
full funding grant agreement provides $120 million in new start federal
funds. The balance of project funding is provided by RTD local funds in
the amount of $38.5 million and with $18 million from flexible federal
funds contributed by the Colorado Department of Transportation and the
Denver Regional Council of Governments--our region's MPO. It is to be
noted that this is the first major project in the State of Colorado
where flexible federal funds, as allowed by ISTEA, were provided to
transit.
Construction started on the southwest corridor light rail project
in January of 1997. Included in the written testimony submitted are
pictures of actual construction activity as well as a map, fact sheet
and other pertinent information.
I am pleased to inform you today that the southwest corridor light
rail project is within budget and on schedule. RTD has obligated and
accrued $123.2 million or 70 percent of the total cost of this project.
Of this amount, RTD has received only $25.8 million in federal new
start funding. In order to keep this project on schedule, RTD has not
only committed all their match funds of $38.5 million but has advanced
this project another $52.9 million. This is truly a good faith effort
on the part of RTD in keeping this project moving forward and on
schedule for an opening date of July 2000.
RTD's request for $60 million takes into account the $40 million
programmed in the full funding grant agreement for fiscal year 1999
plus the previous years funding shortfall of approximately $8 million.
According to the full funding grant agreement, RTD was to receive a
total of $33 million by this time in the project's schedule. To date,
only $25 million was received. The $60 million also includes an
additional $12 million--funds that were scheduled for the year 2001 as
part of the full funding grant agreement. This money is needed now to
meet fiscal year 1999 contractual obligations and expenditures.
In summary, this request reflects the reality that the southwest
corridor is scheduled to be opened in July of the year 2000. Without a
significant fiscal year 1999 appropriation, it will be difficult for
RTD to keep the construction of this project on budget and within the
schedule. As we all know, delays in project construction translate to
increased project costs and lost revenues. Therefore, in order to keep
this project on track, RTD will need a fiscal year 1999 appropriation
of $60 million.
In addition to RTD's commitment to keep this project moving
forward, the southwest corridor project also enjoys support from
community groups, local businesses and the residents of the southwest
rapid transit corridor area. This project continues to receive broad-
based support from the metro area's elected officials. Letters of
support are included in our written testimony.
In conclusion, RTD is well underway with the construction of the
southwest corridor light rail project. RTD has demonstrated a strong
commitment to keep this project on schedule by advancing its own local
funds. RTD has a proven record of accomplishment through its efficient
handling of the construction of its central corridor line. The project,
itself, responds to the principles of fiscal responsibility, technical
merit, and has the active support of state and local governments as
well as the absolute support of the community it serves.
The southwest corridor light rail project is vital to our region's
ability to meet the challenges of rapid growth.
We are seeking your support for our fiscal year 1999 appropriation
request of $60 million for this important project.
Thank you for this opportunity to address the subcommittee and for
your consideration of our request.
LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS
----------
Page
Aderholt, Hon. Robert, U.S. Representative from Alabama.......... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Air Traffic Control Association, Inc., prepared statement........ 859
Allen, W. Ron, president, National Congress of American Indians,
prepared statement............................................. 904
American Association of Airport Executives and Airports Council
International--North America, prepared statement............... 864
Austin, Julie M., executive director, Foothill Transit, West
Covina, CA, prepared statement................................. 940
Bachus, Hon. Spencer, U.S. Representative from Alabama........... 1
Barclay, Charles, American Association of Airport Executives, et
al., letter from............................................... 866
Barnes, Master Chief Joe, USN (retired), director, legislative
programs, Fleet Reserve Association............................ 878
Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from Montana...................... 211
Becker, Capt. Fred R., Jr., JAGC, USN (ret.), director, naval
affairs, Reserve Officers Association of the United States,
prepared statement............................................. 892
Biden, Hon. Joseph R., U.S. Senator from Delaware................ 204
Prepared statement........................................... 209
Brown, Kirk, secretary, Illinois Department of Transportation,
prepared statement............................................. 924
Buechner, William, director, economics and research, American
Road and Transportation Builders Association................... 25
Prepared statement........................................... 29
Burke, Supervisor Yvonne Brathwaite, county of Los Angeles, first
vice chair, board of directors, Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority, prepared statement................... 949
Capon, Ross B., executive director, National Association of
Railroad Passengers, prepared statement........................ 321
Carney, Michael, chairman, Association of Waste Hazardous
Materials Transporters, prepared statement..................... 915
Cebula, Andrew V., vice president, National Transportation
Association, prepared statement................................ 929
Coalition of Northeastern Governors, prepared statement.......... 922
Colins, Father T. Byron, S.M., special assistant to the
president, Georgetown University, prepared statement........... 944
Copeland, Barry, vice chairman, governmental affairs, Birmingham
Area Chamber of Commerce....................................... 25
Letter from.................................................. 54
Prepared statement........................................... 47
Degette, Diana, U.S. Representative, First Congressional
District, State of Colorado, prepared statement................ 982
Dickinson, Elaine, assistant vice president, government affairs,
Boat Owners Association of the U.S., prepared statement........ 930
Filgo, J. Frank, president, Alabama Trucking Association......... 25
Foote, Stephanie, chief of staff, Office of Mayor Wellington
Webb, Denver, CO, prepared statement........................... 867
Garvey, Hon. Jane F., Administrator, Federal Aviation
Administration................................................. 99
Prepared statement........................................... 102
George, Father William L., S.J., special assistant to the
president, Georgetown University, prepared statement........... 944
Gibbs, Al, director, corporate affairs, AAA-Alabama.............. 25
Prepared statement........................................... 51
Greater Orlando Aviation Authority, prepared statement........... 870
Gropper, Donna, manager, Orlando International ATC Tower,
memorandum from................................................ 876
Harris, Harry, chairman, I-95 Corridor Coalition, Executive
Board, deputy commissioner, Connecticut Department of
Transportation, prepared statement............................. 901
Indianapolis Northeast Corridor Project, prepared statement...... 948
International Council of Aircraft Owner and Pilot Associations,
prepared statement............................................. 926
Interstate Gas Association of America, prepared statement........ 920
Jensen, Frank L., Jr., president, Helicopter Association
International, prepared statement.............................. 927
Jones, Beverly, member of the board of directors, National Easter
Seal Society, prepared statement............................... 965
Judge, Patrick R., president, Louisiana Public Transit
Association, prepared statement................................ 951
Kenny, Michael P., executive officer, California Air Resources
Board, et al., prepared statement.............................. 897
Kiley, Robert, president, New York City Partnership.............. 251
Kramek, Adm. Robert E., Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard............. 99
Prepared statement........................................... 105
Ladd, Jeffrey R., chairman, Metra Commuter Rail.................. 285
Prepared statement........................................... 288
Lansing, Scott, executive director, Chatham Area Transit
Authority, prepared statement.................................. 936
Lew, Hon. Jack, Deputy Director, Office of Management and Budget. 303
Prepared statement........................................... 305
Maull, Perry J., transit director, city of Gainesville, FL,
Regional Transit System, prepared statement.................... 944
McLaughlin, Commissioner Peter, vice chair, Hennepin County
Regional Railroad Authority, and chair, Twin Cities
Metropolitan LRT Joint Powers Board, prepared statement........ 945
Mead, Kenneth, M., Inspector General, Office of Inspector
General, Department of Transportation.......................... 217
Prepared statement........................................... 229
Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, prepared statement. 956
Millar, William W., president, American Public Transit
Association, prepared statement................................ 931
Molitoris, Jolene M., Administrator, Federal Railroad
Administration, letter from.................................... 566
Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority, prepared statement.... 975
Ogrodzinski, Henry M., president and CEO, National Association of
State Aviation Officials, prepared statement................... 928
Ouellette, Sgt. Maj. Michael F., USA (ret.), director of
legislative affairs, Non Commissioned Officers Association of
the United States of America, prepared statement............... 887
Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, prepared statement............. 905
Poole, Robert W., Jr., president, the Reason Foundation.......... 264
Prepared statement........................................... 281
Regional Transportation Commission, Clark County, NV, prepared
state-
ment........................................................... 978
Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator from Nevada, prepared statement... 213
Rendell, Ed., mayor, Philadelphia, PA............................ 297
RePass, James P., president and chief executive officer, National
Corridors Initiative, prepared statement....................... 914
Roth, G. Linn, chairman, Committee for a Balanced Radionavigation
Policy, International Loran Association, prepared statement.... 910
Roth, Hon. William V., U.S. Senator from Delaware................ 197
Sanders, David G., Acting Administrator, St. Lawrence Seaway
Development Corporation, prepared statement.................... 802
Scheinberg, Phyllis F., Associate Director, Transportation
Issues, Resources, Community and Economic Development Division,
General Accounting Office...................................... 217
Prepared statement........................................... 220
Shackelford, Hon. Wayne, commissioner, Georgia Department of
Transportation, prepared statement............................. 881
Shelby, Hon. Richard C., U.S. Senator from Alabama, prepared
statement...................................................... 198
Shippers, Container Manufacturers and Transporters, prepared
statement...................................................... 919
Siegel, John H., M.D., F.A.C.S., F.C.C.M., Wesley J. Howe
Professor of Trauma Surgery, chairman, Department of Anatomy,
Cell Biology and Injury Sciences, New Jersey Medical School,
University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, prepared
statement...................................................... 908
Skoutelas, Paul P., executive director, Port Authority of
Allegheny County, Pittsburgh, PA, prepared statement........... 977
Slater, Hon. Rodney E., Secretary of Transportation.............. 57
Prepared statement........................................... 74
Smith, Vice Mayor Jose, city of Miami Beach, FL, prepared
statement...................................................... 964
Stanton, Norma, Dallas Area Rapid Transit Board of Directors,
prepared statement............................................. 937
Steenburg, Jack Van, president, Commercial Vehicle Safety
Alliance, prepared statement................................... 900
Tillotson, F. Lee, senior director for planning and special
projects, Greater Orlando Aviation Authority, letter from...... 871
Tucker, Robert H., Jr., chairman, Regional Transit Authority of
New Orleans, prepared statement................................ 967
Vaughn, Don, assistant transportation director, Alabama
Department of Transportation................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 22
White, Jesse L., Jr., Federal cochairman, Appalachian Regional
Commission..................................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 16
Woolley, Ted, president, National Association of State Boating
Law Administrators, prepared statement......................... 885
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
AMTRAK'S FUTURE AND PASSENGER RAIL ALTERNATIVES
Page
America's passenger rail, a new vision for....................... 254
Amtrak:
Alternatives to.............................................. 295
Commuter's dependence on..................................... 200
5-year plan.................................................. 301
Funding...................................................... 305
Importance.................................................204, 208
Is not funded enough......................................... 206
Not efficient................................................ 197
Not self-sufficient.......................................... 237
Paying for................................................... 300
Problems without............................................. 216
Ridership.................................................... 240
Successor to................................................. 280
Assessment, need for............................................. 235
Capital funds, flexibility of.................................... 303
Capital investment, method for................................... 252
Capitalization, benefits of...................................... 297
Financial deterioration, reason for.............................. 234
Funding, flexibility of.......................................... 307
Future self-sufficiency a myth................................... 308
Material submitted subsequent to conclusion of hearing........... 321
Metra's success.................................................. 287
Metra, comparisons with.......................................... 286
Operating and capital subsidies, use of.......................... 292
Other transportation modes....................................... 304
Passenger rail alternatives...................................... 253
Positive effects of funding...................................... 299
Privatization:
Feasibility of............................................... 293
Forms of..................................................... 279
Problems with................................................ 298
Privatized Amtrak, structure of.................................. 293
Railroad competition today....................................... 296
Railroad privatization, worldwide examples of.................... 278
Replacing Amtrak: A Blueprint for Sustainable Passenger Rail
Service........................................................ 265
Routes, failure of............................................... 243
Submitted questions:
General Accounting Office.................................... 244
National Railroad Passenger Corporation [Amtrak]............. 310
Office of Inspector General.................................. 249
Office of Management and Budget.............................. 308
Subsidizing properly............................................. 237
TRA and reform act necessary..................................... 201
APPALACHIAN REGIONAL CORRIDORS
ARC, favorable outlook for....................................... 20
Economic development, infrastructure importance to............... 10
Economic importance of highways to State prosperity.............. 35
Highways, State economic dependence on........................... 33
In-State versus out-of-State highways, State dependence on....... 38
Material submitted subsequent to conclusion of hearing........... 53
National highway dependence, an index of......................... 41
Opening remarks.................................................. 1
Preserving the national highway system........................... 44
Threat to the Nation's highway system............................ 35
Transportation projects, importance of........................... 23
Truck transportation, State economic dependence on............... 36
Witnesses, introduction of....................................... 25
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION MAJOR FUNDING ISSUES
Air traffic control equipment.................................... 115
Air traffic modernization........................................ 116
Airport delays................................................... 113
Airport Improvement Program...................................... 114
Appalachian Highway System....................................... 62
Coast Guard recruiting........................................... 119
Controller pay................................................... 112
Dauphin Island, Coast Guard facilities at........................ 108
Deepwater project................................................ 109
DOT strategic plan............................................... 73
Drug interdiction funding........................................ 116
Drunk driving.................................................... 66
Emergency Relief Highway Program................................. 80
Emergency supplemental appropriations bill....................... 107
Federal Express Mid-Atlantic hub................................. 116
Funding:
Challenges................................................... 58
Priorities................................................... 57
Gatwick Airport, landing slots at................................ 84
Highway safety, public information on............................ 84
Highways and transit balance..................................... 83
I-15............................................................. 66
Increased speed limits........................................... 82
Infrastructure investment........................................59, 61
Investment balance............................................... 60
ISTEA reauthorization, support for............................... 70
Lake Tahoe....................................................... 66
Motor carrier safety............................................. 67
National airspace modernization.................................. 100
NHTSA subpoenas, enforcement of.................................. 80
Oceanic systems.................................................. 111
Olympics, infrastructure for..................................... 68
Passenger rail................................................... 67
President's budget............................................... 101
Safety........................................................... 99
Salt Lake City, second airport surveillance radar for............ 118
Security......................................................... 100
Standard terminal automation replacement system [STARS].......... 108
STEA authorization, expiration of................................ 79
Submitted questions:
Federal Aviation Administration.............................. 120
Office of the Secretary...................................... 89
U.S. Coast Guard............................................. 168
Surface transportation bill...................................... 62
Surface Transportation Board..................................... 67
System efficiency................................................ 100
Transportation investment........................................ 73
Trucks, inspection stickers for.................................. 85
User fees........................................................71, 81
Wide area augmentation system [WAAS]............................. 109
Year 2000 [Y2K].................................................. 101
Management responsibility for................................ 117
Problems..................................................... 86
-