[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
IMPLEMENTATION OF SAFETEA:LU
=======================================================================
(109-76)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
HIGHWAYS, TRANSIT AND PIPELINES
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 7, 2006
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
30-646 PDF WASHINGTON : 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250. Mail: Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Vice- JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
Chair NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia
SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland Columbia
JOHN L. MICA, Florida JERROLD NADLER, New York
PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan CORRINE BROWN, Florida
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan BOB FILNER, California
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi
SUE W. KELLY, New York JUANITA MILLENDER-McDONALD,
RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana California
ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
JERRY MORAN, Kansas ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California
GARY G. MILLER, California BILL PASCRELL, Jr., New Jersey
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa
ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South Carolina BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania JIM MATHESON, Utah
SAM GRAVES, Missouri MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota RICK LARSEN, Washington
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania JULIA CARSON, Indiana
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York
JON C. PORTER, Nevada MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee
KENNY MARCHANT, Texas BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky
MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
TED POE, Texas ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania
DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado
CONNIE MACK, Florida JOHN BARROW, Georgia
JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New York
LUIS G. FORTUNO, Puerto Rico
LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia
CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr., Louisiana
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
(ii)
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS, TRANSIT AND PIPELINES
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Chairman
SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee JERROLD NADLER, New York
JOHN L. MICA, Florida GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi
PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan JUANITA MILLENDER-McDONALD,
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama California
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
SUE W. KELLY, New York EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California
ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
JERRY MORAN, Kansas BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
GARY G. MILLER, California, Vice- SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada
Chair JIM MATHESON, Utah
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut RICK LARSEN, Washington
HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South Carolina MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania JULIA CARSON, Indiana
SAM GRAVES, Missouri TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York
MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
JON C. PORTER, Nevada RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania
KENNY MARCHANT, Texas JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana (Ex Officio)
DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
DON YOUNG, Alaska
(Ex Officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
TESTIMONY
Page
Bushue, Sandra, Acting Administrator, Federal Transit
Association, U.S. Department of Transportation................. 5
Capka, J. Richard, Acting Administrator, Federal Highway
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.............. 5
Glassman, Jacqueline, Acting Administrator, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation................................................. 5
Hill, John H., Acting Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation....... 5
Kaveeshwar, Dr. Ashok G., Administrator, Research and Innovative
Technology Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation... 5
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Carnahan, Hon. Russ, of Missouri................................. 95
Cummings, Hon. Elijah E., of Maryland............................ 96
Johnson, Hon. Eddie Bernice, of Texas............................ 102
Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota............................ 104
Porter, Hon. Jon, of Nevada...................................... 109
Tauscher, Hon. Ellen, of California.............................. 110
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
Bushue, Sandra.................................................. 32
Capka, J. Richard............................................... 32
Glassman, Jacqueline............................................ 32
Hill, John H.................................................... 32
Kaveeshwar, Dr. Ashok G......................................... 32
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
U.S. Department of Transportation:
Responses to questions from Rep. Petri......................... 55
Responses to questions from Rep. DeFazio....................... 77
IMPLEMENTATION OF SAFETEA:LU
----------
Wednesday, June 7, 2006
House of Representatives, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee
on Highways, Transit and Pipelines, Washington,
D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., in
room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Thomas E. Petri
[Chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Mr. Petri. The Subcommittee hearing will come to order. I
would like to welcome you to today's oversight hearing on the
Implementation of SAFETEA:LU. The hearing will provide members
with information on the progress of the Administration's effort
to implement recently enacted surface transportation
reauthorization. Members will be able to ask Department of
Transportation officials questions about the implementation
progress of new programs and regulatory action.
SAFETEA:LU strengthens the national commitment to increased
safety and reduced highway fatalities by increasing a new core
highway safety improvement program funded at over $5 billion,
almost doubling Federal funding for infrastructure safety. The
new High-Risk Rural Safety Improvement Program targets funding
for safety improvements on rural two-lane roads where over 60
percent of all highway related fatalities occur. And the new
Safe Routes to School Program funds sidewalk, trail and other
infrastructure improvements that will encourage children to
safely walk or bike to school.
Funding for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration totaled
$6.3 billion, more than twice the amount authorized for these
safety agencies under TEA-21. SAFETEA:LU funds several programs
that are specifically designed to improvement the movement of
freight, including the new Coordinated Border Infrastructure
Program, the National Corridor Infrastructure Improvement
Program, and projects of national and regional significance.
Several new Federal Transit Administration programs were
created in SAFETEA:LU, including Small Starts, a program
specifically geared to funding lower cost, fixed guideway
projects and the new Freedom Program, which provides formula
funds to support transportation services for the disabled that
go beyond the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities
Act, to reach some of the 70 percent of people with
disabilities who do not work simply because they don't have a
dependable way to get to work.
The modal agencies of the Department of Transportation have
been very busy implementing these new programs and putting into
place the changes in transportation policy made in SAFETEA:LU.
Altogether, the are over 100 rulemakings, either legislatively
mandated or required because of the creation of new programs or
changes to existing programs.
We have invited five modal administrators from the
Department of Transportation agencies affected by the
reauthorization bill to testify before the Subcommittee today.
We welcome Mr. Richard Capka, from the Federal Highway
Administration; Ms. Sandy Bushue, from the Federal Transit
Administration; John Hill, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration; Jacqueline Glassman, from the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration; and Dr. Ashok Kaveeshwar, from
the Research and Innovative Technology Administration.
The record of the hearing will be held open for 30 days. I
now yield to Mr. DeFazio for any opening statement that he
would care to make.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
engaging in a little-known function of the United States
Congress which I think is very important, which is oversight.
We do write laws, create programs, and it is also, I believe,
our duty to see that the laws are being properly implemented,
the programs work well, and if they're not being properly
implemented or the programs do not work well, it's also our
duty to revisit those issues.
There are a couple of concerns that I have regarding,
particularly, SAFETEA:LU. I think there is some, again, sort of
in the area of oversight or the difference between law and
language and hortatory language and mandatory language, there
was a provision in SAFETEA:LU which was a sense of Congress
regarding Buy America. Now, Buy America is a pretty deeply
embedded principle when it comes to transportation
infrastructure and equipment. We are running huge, massive and
growing trade deficits. And yes, sometimes we can get things
that are subsidized in production overseas or unfairly
produced, and they are a little cheaper.
But the ripple effects through our economy through
acquiring American-made products, employing Americans, far
exceeds any of those minimalistic benefits. And so I do have
some particular concerns about how the Federal Highway
Administration is working off of a sense of Congress on Buy
America as opposed to a statutory change.
And I would defy anybody to tell me that they believe you
can come to the floor of the United States House of
Representatives and say, we should source major components of
major projects funded fully with taxpayer dollars overseas. The
few people who would vote for it wouldn't be back. And I think
an Administration that overestimates the importance of
hortatory language, as opposed to statutory changes, is walking
a very dangerous path.
With that particular caution, there are other concerns that
are not yet fully developed or implemented in terms of this
legislation, where I look forward to hearing from the
Administration and making certain that we are on the right
path, New Starts, there are some concerns about implementation
of safety issues and concerns about recent disturbing trends in
deaths and incidents on our highways and many other things.
So I look forward to the testimony today and look at this
as the opening of a long and productive dialogue over the full
implementation of SAFETEA:LU. I congratulate the Chairman for
holding this hearing. The room should be packed, but it's not.
Mr. Petri. Well, it's fairly full.
Any other opening statements? Mr. Blumenauer?
Mr. Blumenauer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do appreciate
our moving back to take a look at what has happened with the
reauthorization. Part of the concern with the 12 abstentions is
that we have lots of complexity, lots of interest. There was
time taken, and I know in things that I was involved with, to
try and be clear about legislative intent and being able to
extend the partnership with the Department of Transportation to
make sure that we are doing so even as sadly we are starting to
get reoriented to go back for another reauthorization, which is
less than four years away.
One of my primary projects in the reauthorization was the
Small Starts program, the idea to give flexibility to
communities and the Department of Transportation, with
something that could be more effective in terms of being able
to give a choice to communities that would be less than heavy
rail or light rail. The program was in the main modeled after a
community street car bill that I had introduced with the aim of
giving communities a means of supporting fixed guideway transit
systems in their communities, to give them options and allow
them to develop an expedited process. You know, less
bureaucratic function.
And most important, most important to be able for
communities to be able to consider land use and economic
development benefits while planning transit projects. That is
the idea, to be able to reduce the concern for large scale
suburban to urban movements on roads and light rail, to be able
to have development around these extraordinarily successful
projects.
Unfortunately, as I am looking from a distance and as I am
talking to people who are representing the 84 communities
around the Country that are interested in street cars, some of
which are already building it, the material we are seeing to
date seems to fall far short of the mark in terms of being able
to look comprehensively at the economic and land use benefits.
It looks like the only fixed guideway that is going to be
favored under this approach would be bus rapid transit. I have
got nothing against bus rapid transit. We have got a project
that is going forward in my colleague, Mr. DeFazio's, district
in Eugene that I think has great benefit.
But the notion of the Small Starts was to have the forces
of economic development and land use to enable people to move
forward with street car. And I am deeply troubled that what is
coming forward in the Department at this point did not comply
with our intent to provide the guidelines that will ensure that
street car projects can move forward. And I look forward to
hearing more from the Department, talking about it and being
able to explore that in greater detail.
I am also concerned about the impacts for local planning
and the way that the local planning provisions are being
implemented. There is a specific directive under the
reauthorization that the DOT not require metropolitan areas to
disrupt established planning time tables and extended the
updated schedule by three to four years. But under FHA's
interpretation, according to the people that I represent back
home, from a fairly sophisticated NPO, that is usually held out
as a model for trying to do this right, they would be unable to
amend their metropolitan transportation improvement program on
its established time line, unless it first amends its regional
transportation plan a year earlier than it is required to do.
So I have folks back home, despite explicit language in the
reauthorization, that I thought we were in accord, who had been
given the choice to rush the regional transportation plan and
produce it a year ahead of schedule, push back the
transportation improvement program an additional year, an
option that appears to me to be a bad one.
But more to the point, Mr. Chairman, it doesn't seem to me
that that is what we intended with reauthorization. And I am
curious to begin exploring how the Department of Transportation
is addressing the conundrum that my community is facing, and
perhaps, I am sure we are not unique. But we take the planning
process very seriously. I think any objective observer would
suggest that Portland has actually been a model over the last
20 years, coaxing more out of the transportation planning
process and the investment that we have made with Federal
funds. And we have been able to do this with Republican and
Democratic administrations under the last three
reauthorizations. And this does trouble me, in terms of what I
am hearing back home, and hope that we can clarify it. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Petri. Thank you.
Are there other opening statements? Ms. Berkley.
Ms. Berkley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much
for holding this important hearing on the implementation of
SAFETEA:LU, and thank all of you for being here.
This historic legislation, which Congress passed last year
after several years of work by this Committee, is vitally
important for my district. Southern Nevada is one of the
fastest growing parts of this Country, and Federal resources
provided in SAFETEA:LU are essential to ensure that our
transportation infrastructure keeps pace with our explosive
growth.
Transportation officials in Las Vegas have several major
projects underway to increase highway capacity and efficiency
and to expand our public transit system. Providing additional
resources for these initiatives is not enough, however. We must
also ensure that the new law is implemented in such a way that
it complements the efforts of our State and local governments
rather than ties them up with new and confusing regulatory
burdens. I think that is the biggest concern that my regional
transportation people have, is how do we, as they move forward,
planning the projects that are underway, that the rug isn't
pulled out from under them in new and different regulations
that they have to go back to the drawing board.
So I am anxious to hear whether your testimony addresses
that, and if not, I will be asking the witnesses that very
question when I have an opportunity to question you. So thank
you very much for being here, and I look forward to your
testimony.
Mr. Petri. Now we will begin with the panel, led off by
someone who has been here before with the Committee, Mr.
Richard Capka, Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.
TESTIMONY OF MR. J. RICHARD CAPKA, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR,
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION; MS. SANDRA BUSHUE, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR,
FEDERAL TRANSIT ASSOCIATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
MS. JACQUELINE GLASSMAN, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY
TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION, MR. JOHN H. HILL, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL
MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION, DR. ASHOK G. KAVEESHWAR, ADMINISTRATOR,
RESEARCH AND INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY ADMINISTRATION, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Capka. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Committee.
It is a real pleasure for me and my fellow colleagues to
appear once again before your Committee. On behalf of Secretary
Mineta and the Department of Transportation, I want to express
our genuine appreciation for this Committee's hard work on
reauthorization.
SAFETEA:LU authorizes a record level of investment for
highway infrastructure, public transportation, highway and
motor carrier safety programs and transportation research. It
also provides valuable tools for increasing transportation
safety, managing congestion and streamlining infrastructure
construction. Secretary Mineta has made timely implementation
of this legislation a top priority, and our agencies have
worked aggressively and together to make the authorized funds
available, to issue the guidance and regulations necessary to
carry out SAFETEA:LU, and to make progress in our reports to
Congress.
For instance, this past week, the Department delivered the
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plans Study to Congress on
time on the 1st of June. Overall, implementation is going
smoothly, As you know from our frequent visits to Congressional
members and staff. There is a lot of good news in today's
status report.
Turning first to highway safety, the new core Highway
Safety Improvement Program, administered by Federal Highways,
significantly increases the national policy emphasis on safety
and almost doubles the resources available to reduce traffic
fatalities and injuries on all public roads. We also thank the
Committee for including Secretary Mineta's proposed incentive
grant program for State primary safety belt use laws, and are
pleased to report that this NHTSA-administered program is
working exceedingly well. Safety belt use cuts the risk of
death in a severe crash by about half, and research has proven
that the quickest and least expensive way to boost belt usage
is for a State to enact a primary belt law.
To achieve reductions in crashes involving commercial motor
vehicles, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's
medical program is designed to ensure that medically qualified
drivers operate trucks and buses. As directed by SAFETEA:LU,
the medical program addresses revision of the diabetic
exemption standard, establishment of a Medical Review Board,
and development of a National Registry of Medical Examiners.
SAFETEA:LU also enhanced Federal Motor Carrier's consumer
protection and enforcement authorities for shipment of
household goods. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration is pursing enforcement of Federal household
goods regulations through civil actions, is broadening
distribution of household goods consumer education materials
and has implemented a number of provisions through enforcement
policy memoranda to field staff and State partners.
Along with improving transportation safety, reducing
congestion is a major concern for the Department. Last month,
Secretary Mineta launched the National Strategy to Reduce
Congestion on America's Transportation Network. This initiative
will maximize resources and authorities you provided in
SAFETEA:LU to improve operation of our surface transportation
system. It will increase the use of public transportation,
encourage the development and deployment of new technologies
and construction methods, and expand opportunities for private
investment in transportation infrastructure.
SAFETEA:LU provides an historic level of investment in
public transportation, while establishing several new transit
programs, such as the New Freedom and Small Starts, and
modifying other transit programs, including New Starts. Well-
designed New Starts projects are critical pieces of the
congestion solution, offering alternatives to gridlock in
relieving pressures on our highways. The Federal Transit
Administration is making solid progress in advancing the
substantial number of rulemakings necessary for implementation.
It is also engaged in broad-based outreach efforts,
especially with respect to the Small Starts program. Later this
year, the Federal Transit Administration will publish an NPRM
covering both the New Starts and Small Starts programs, and is
issuing guidance to ensure that the program can be effectively
executed during the rulemaking process. This will allow
grantees to assess their projects and submit them for possible
Small Starts funding during fiscal year 2007.
Effective transportation research programs also have a
critical role in the future of surface transportation
infrastructure construction and operation. The Research and
Innovative Technology Administration, or RITA, is leading the
Department's efforts to prepare the five-year Research and
Development Strategic Plan required by SAFETEA:LU. RITA will
continue to work to establish RD&T, performance measures in
advanced cross-modal research coordination efforts.
Mr. Chairman, although SAFETEA:LU increases funding for
Surface Transportation Research, Development and Deployment,
certain structural problems within research funding challenge
the Department's ability to carry out the program Congress
envisioned in Title V of SAFETEA:LU. I would welcome an
opportunity to answer your questions about the structural
issues and program impacts.
To conclude, even as we implement SAFETEA:LU, we need to be
thinking about the next reauthorization. Demands on the surface
transportation system will continue to grow, and are expected
to exceed the resources provided by current funding mechanisms.
We want to work closely with Congress to find solutions to the
imbalance.
On May 24th, the Secretary convened the first meeting of
the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study
Commission, which, as Congress directed, will explore options
for the future direction of our surface transportation system
and how we invest in and manage that system. The Department
will continue to support the work of the Commission and looks
forward to its recommendations.
Mr. Chairman and members, thank you for this opportunity to
report on the Department's implementation of SAFETEA:LU. We are
looking forward to continuing to work with you and will be
pleased to answer any questions that you might have.
And so I would ask permission to enter for the record a
complete statement.
Mr. Petri. Thank you.
Your statement will be made a part of the record, and we
will continue with Ms. Sandra Bushue, who is the Acting
Administrator, Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department
of Transportation.
Mr. Capka. Mr. Chairman, we have chosen for me to speak for
the entire team.
Mr. Petri. OK, then we will go immediately to questions.
Let me begin with questions. There were two areas I wanted to
explore briefly. First of all, you mentioned just a little bit
the special panel that had its initial meeting about a week
ago. I was hoping to be at some of that. There was a lunch that
the Secretary scheduled and we couldn't be there. It wasn't his
fault, or anyone's fault, it is the nature of these overlapping
organizations.
But they are wrestling with a number of issues, and
particularly the sort of focus and funding of the Federal
Surface Transportation programs going forward. And there are a
lot of challenges in that regard. I wonder if you could expand
a little bit on the meeting, with a number of distinguished
people with considerable background and different perspectives
who have agreed to serve on, well, there are two commissions,
but they are working somewhat, I hope, dividing up their labors
somewhat. If you could expand on that and talk about it a bit,
we would appreciate hearing it.
Mr. Capka. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for your
question. This is one of the top priorities that we have within
the Department, and Secretary Mineta has made this a personal
priority. He very much appreciated the fact that you were
unable to join us for lunch. But we did have an outstanding
first meeting for the Commission.
You are absolutely correct, sir, it is the Section 1909
commission that met on the 24th. And this is going to be a
challenge for the members. There is a lot of ground to cover,
and we have a requirement to report out to Congress next July,
July of 2007.
But we have, as you pointed out, assembled a very
impressive group of commissioners, an excellent blend of
backgrounds and talents from the private sector, public sector,
academia, just a whole host of the right kinds of individuals
who are going to address the issues that we have left before
us.
While there are many details that the commissioners are
going to be working out regarding the pace and the mechanics of
moving forward, it is clear that they have identified the issue
of needs, of requirements, and then the resourcing of those
requirements as very explicit deliverables, as they took an
initial look at the task in front of them. The commission will
be meeting regularly. Between physical meetings of the
commission they will have conference calls to ensure that there
is an efficient exchange of information and that the
commissioners are kept up to speed on any of the developments
that may be occurring.
So Mr. Petri, we would certainly be interested in coming by
and giving you a personal brief on the progress of the
commission, and to any member who would be interested in
following up as the commission meetings move forward.
Mr. Petri. Thank you. We ought to probably, once they are
at an appropriate state, have that meeting or series of
meetings.
In your opening statement, you alluded to I think Section V
of the Act, and a number of structural and programmatic issues
that might be, maybe we need to do something about or maybe we
should know about. Would you care to expand on that part of
your testimony?
Mr. Capka. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I definitely would. As
anybody would find in a very complex and successful
accomplishment, there are always the unexpected glitches that
seem to catch us after the fact. There were some of those
glitches with respect to our research and technology program.
There are some challenges that really put the effectiveness of
our Federal research program at risk. And despite an aggregate
increase of about $43 million, more than what we had under TEA-
21, the added initiatives, such as the $51 million SHRP II, the
statutory over-designations of some of the projects, have
eliminated basically the flexibility to conduct programs that
have been important to the priorities of this Committee.
The bottom line, when we compare 2005 to what we have
today, is that we have about $30 million less in annual funding
for the critical research activities. This will significantly
impact the Department's Federal leadership position in the
surface transportation research community. This leadership is
vital for the development of the breakthrough technologies that
will lead to construction efficiencies and engineering
techniques that will improve safety and the long-term
reliability and quality infrastructure in programs that we will
be following to deliver the Nation's transportation needs.
The Department's leadership will be key to the integration
of technology into the efficient operation of our system to
reverse the existing trends toward a more congested and less
reliable surface transportation system. Just a couple of
examples of some of the impacts are drastically reduced funding
for important programs, such as the Transportation Research
Board core program and the Transportation Research Board's
research and technology coordinating committee that provides us
advice on how we move our program forward. There is the
inability to provide supporting data for the Conditions and
Performance Report and the inability to update the Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices. And, there would be a
requirement to discontinue the longstanding publications and
other media through which we work our technology transfer.
We really are struggling to assemble a program and fear
that if we are forced to spread ourselves as thinly as it
appears will be required, we will not be able to do the
necessary things well. The effectiveness of the only national
surface transportation research center in America, and a number
of world class laboratories are, in fact, at risk. Mr.
Chairman, I would very much look forward to working with you
and the members of this Committee to help us address the
challenges that we have identified.
Mr. Petri. That is very important. I must say, I haven't
read it cover to cover, but I certainly have read the executive
summary of at least the most recent Conditions and Performance
Report, or maybe the one before that, and had the opportunity
to travel to about 18 cities and wave it as part of our effort.
Because we used that report as the basis for the original
legislation that was introduced in this Committee, to try to
fund surface transportation projects that it indicated was
needed to maintain our current level of effort, or at least
come close to doing that by that conditions and performance
report. It is an important tool as an overview of where we are.
You don't know where you are going unless you know where you
are, so you can improve that.
Let's turn to Mr. DeFazio.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a few
questions. To the FTA, and I think my colleague, Mr.
Blumenauer, has specific questions about this, too. But I
wanted to wave the issues about the New Starts rules,
particularly what is expected, time line. I understand they
were going to be out in June and they may be delayed. Second,
what is the status of the actual, where we are, I am not
exactly sure where we are in the rulemaking, and what does the
current thinking reflect in terms of streamlining. The idea was
that this is a new category of projects, and if we are going to
make it the same as New Starts, then Small Starts is New Starts
and we don't need to go through all of this. But the Congress
obviously, in my opinion and I believe the opinion of others up
here, was expressing the need to create a different sort of
short form, smaller dollar amount, different projects. Could
you address that?
Ms. Bushue. Absolutely, Congressman DeFazio. The Small
Starts programs are the programs that are less than $250
million, and they can get up to $75 million in Federal help. We
are very happy to say that we sent out an advance notice of
proposed rulemaking back in January, and then we held a number
of listening sessions. And it was just amazing, the amount of
comments we received, not only on the New Starts program, but
most importantly, on the Small Starts program. There was all
kinds of excitement and enthusiasm out there in the community
for this new program. I would like to thank this Committee for
supporting it. It is a great concept and a great idea.
Having said that, we just put our interim guidance for the
New Starts program on May 22nd. And on Friday, the Federal
Register will post interim guidance for the Small Starts
program. Sticking with the Small Starts program, we hope to
have a noticed for proposed rulemaking out by the end of this
year and then the final rule out by hopefully August of 2007.
But there is again, I would just like to say, a lot of
enthusiasm.
And getting back to Congressman Blumenauer, your issue
regarding the land use, we did hear a lot of comments when we
had our listening sessions and stakeholder hearings out in the
Country, a lot of comments about the land use. The FTA has
listened to those comments. I think you will be pretty pleased
with the rating process when you see the interim guidance when
they are posted on Friday.
Mr. DeFazio. So under interim guidance, are we going to be
making grants?
Ms. Bushue. Absolutely. We hope with interim guidance,
again, they are posted on Friday, by the time the grantees put
together their proposals, submit it to the FTA for evaluation,
we hope that we are going to be able to be issuing or making
selections by July of next year.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. To the National Highway Transportation
Safety Administration, there is a provision in SAFETEA:LU, I am
not certain whether or not you are familiar with it, but there
was $1 million to conduct a study on the risks associated with
glare to oncoming drivers. In particular, this concern is
raised by my own personal experience and also by some research
done by the Consumers Union, and that is these new high-
intensity, bluish lights in the spectrum, and the intensity at
which they are transmitting and the potential for causing glare
disturbance to oncoming drivers, particularly on two-lane
highways, which are more common in my part of the Country than
around here.
And my understanding is that there are ways to mitigate
that, but that we are using a very kind of anachronistic--the
measure that is being used is very crude in terms of lumens
versus spectrum and disturbance. That is why we put the money
in the bill to do some research. Can you give me a status on
where we are on that?
Ms. Glassman. Yes, sir. In 2001, we actually put out a
notice for comment on glare, as we did start to see more of
these lights on the road. We received a huge number, about
10,000 comments altogether.
The issue, though, we have from a safety perspective, is
actually finding a safety problem associated with this from a
regulatory point of view. We have conducted a number of
studies, or surveys of people, who tell us that while they find
glare to be annoying, they do not experience it as distracting.
So we are watching the safety problem very closely, and
watching also our data very closely, to make sure we get ahead
of this problem if it becomes in fact a safety problem on the
roads.
We are conducting a study with Rensselaer Institute
currently. We have a report to Congress due in 2007, and we are
on track to supply that report. It will be a comprehensive
review of the risks associated with glare, as well as potential
countermeasures and any unintended consequences that could
arise if we go down, countermeasures that in fact then cause
another problem that we didn't anticipate.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. I think given the complaints, I think one
can intuit that although perhaps there are no survivors of
head-on crashes who attribute it to the glare, one can intuit
that if that many people saw fit to comment on a fairly obscure
Federal investigation that there is a real and growing concern
out there among the public. I think, particularly with an aging
population, the glare problems are very, very important, and we
need to get on them.
Then finally, to Mr. Capka, you heard my concerns and
comments earlier regarding Buy America, the difference between
an often reinforced statutory guidance and hortatory language
that was in the bill. I would like to know what your current
interpretation is and where we are on Buy America, particularly
when most major recent concern relates to a bridge project and
the idea that specifications call for very long beams that
people know can't be made in the United States.
But the bridge doesn't have to be built with very long
beams that can't be made in the United States. It is a way to
drive the procurement offshore, whereas you could have a design
which would incorporate beams that could be made in the United
States, which would fully comply with Buy America, and there's
a real interesting interplay here between some amount of State
funding and Federal funding and the Federal law which of course
preempts State law.
So could you give me your short version response to that?
Mr. Capka. Thank you, Congressman DeFazio. You are
absolutely correct. This particular issue has been addressed
within the Department and we have had discussions with members
of this Committee over the issue.
Let me first of all say that the Federal Highway
Administration takes very seriously the requirement to enforce
the law of Buy America. And of course, the basis for applying
that law to any project is a determination of whether or not
that project is a Federalized project, whether there have been
Federal monies expended on the project. And we have been very,
very consistent since 1982 or 1983, when the Buy America Act
came into effect, in consistently applying the rules.
The Buy America determination on a project and the
determination on Federalization of a project is basically done
at the contract level. California has the discretion as to
whether or not they want to build a project using Federal
resources. If they don't use Federal resources, we have no
Federal interest and have no ability to enforce the Buy America
program. In this particular case, California chose not to use
Federal resources and, therefore, the Buy America Act did not
apply on this particular project.
Mr. DeFazio. Can we demonstrate, and have you had auditors
go in and look? I mean, money becomes pretty fungible. The
State of California gets a pretty generous dose under the
formula of Federal money. They have a high gas tax. They raise
money there. How can we determine that there is no miscibility
between the State funds and Federal funds, no displacement? Or
can they show a dedicated revenue stream for the bridge? Is the
bridge being totally built with bonding which has a dedicated
revenue stream that comes from tolls, or are they using some
formula money or gas tax money or mixed monies as part of the
support for this project?
Mr. Capka. Sir, I can't speak to the specifics of the type
and sources of money. But there is a mix. But we are very
careful to ensure that that mix of funds does not include
Federal funds. And as I had mentioned, we are very careful to
ensure that we are enforcing the law consistently and
appropriately.
Mr. DeFazio. I guess my time has expired, but just again,
in reflecting on that, let's say for simple purposes the State
raises $50 with their gas tax and they get $100 from the
Federal Government, and they have a project that costs $60, OK,
it is pretty clear some of the money came from the Feds. If
they have a project that costs $40, they might argue that they
only used State money. But what other State interest projects
did the Federal money flow to that would have been funded out
of, I mean, there is an interesting kind of mix and/or problem
here. I just want to be sure that we are being as rigorous as
possible. It is a grand mistake to offshore more things,
contribute more to our trade deficit, displace more American
workers and manufacturing, particularly when it comes to
Federal tax dollars. We are going to be very, very vigorous in
watching that. So thank you.
Mr. Capka. Yes, sir.
Mr. Petri. Mr. LoBiondo?
Mr. LoBiondo. No questions at this time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Petri. Mr. Brown?
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are glad to have the
whole team here today. I will just ask my question to you, Mr.
Capka, and anybody can respond that you feel led to.
I want to first congratulate you on your 50th anniversary
last week of the Interstate system. I did not bring my pen, Ms.
Mayberry gave me one in Columbia last Tuesday. But we were
there to celebrate at the final line for I-73, as it comes, at
least from I-95 into Myrtle Beach. So we were there to do both
of those celebrations.
And I was just, with that in mind, do you foresee that we
are going to be expanding the Interstate system? Is there a new
plan to sort of look at where we are in the Interstate system
and try to develop an extension of the interstate system to
include those areas of growth that were not included in the 50
year plan that was established by President Eisenhower?
Mr. Capka. Sir, that is a very good question. And we in the
Department are very concerned about a review of the existing
Interstate system. It is 50 years old, as you pointed out. And
50 years for a lot of infrastructure is the design life. So we
do have concerns, particularly in the area of capacity
congestion, if you will. And as I had mentioned in my opening
remarks, Secretary Mineta has launched a congestion initiative
that will look across all modes, across all sectors, to
determine the best way to address congestion systematically.
Quite honestly, it will require us to take a look at the
Interstate, take a look at corridors. And take a look at
technology on how we use the existing capacity that we have
today and then make decisions on what capacity needs to be
adjusted in the future, whether that capacity is on the highway
Interstate system, whether that capacity is on rail or other
modes of transportation.
The commission that we discussed earlier is also reviewing
that particular issue as they look forward to the future of
surface transportation.
Mr. Brown. Well, I know you know the demographics as well
as I do, and I know there has been a shift to the south and the
southeast. I just felt like, I hope the study will encompass
that new growth in the population, and the needs for additional
highways, so that we can start another initiative to address
the new areas of congestion. I hope that study will reveal
that.
My next question, Mr. Chairman, if I may, the trust fund
that was established, I guess, to fund TEA-LU, is the revenues
coming in at a pace to keep us solvent?
Mr. Capka. Sir, another excellent question. The issue of
solvency of the Highway Trust Fund has been raised before. We
are confident today as we look at where we are that the Trust
Fund will take us through the duration of SAFETEA:LU.
As you recall, when we were structuring the Trust Fund, we
knew that we were going to take it down to zero. That was the
intent. And if you take a look at the Treasury forecast, we are
a little below zero. If you take a look at the Congressional
Budget Office forecast, we are a little above zero. So I think
at this particular point in time, there are no signals that are
telling us that we are in jeopardy at this point.
However, we very much look forward to working with the
Committee as we get a little closer and the future becomes a
little clearer and the forecasts become a little clearer, if we
do have a challenge facing us. But today, as we are sitting
here today, we feel confident that it will get us through the
SAFETEA:LU period.
Mr. Brown. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Petri. Thank you.
Mr. Blumenauer?
Mr. Blumenauer. Thank you. I would like to follow up on a
comment I made in the opening here. I have been concerned that
the emphasis on the transportation system user benefit, TSUB,
process, that is just savings in time travel, is going to be
used as a measure of cost effectiveness. The whole thrust of
much of the Small Starts and the enthusiasm for dozens of
communities around the Country for the street car is the
economic development potential and preventing the trips in the
first place. Rather than forcing people to travel long
distances from the suburbs, we have examples where street cars
inspire redevelopment along the right-of-way, so that you are
moving people, but they don't have to have large time travel
savings, because they are not out scattered around the
countryside in the first place.
Now, help me understand what efforts with the criteria that
you are working on that will get us away from narrow-minded
application of TSUB, which completely misses the point of the
program, and why these people are enthusiastic?
Ms. Bushue. Certainly, Congressman. As I mentioned earlier,
the Small Starts interim guidance will be posted on Friday. I
think the industry will be really happy about how we are
looking at the land use and economic development. We certainly
heard a lot from the industry and from our grantees about the
TSUB issue. So I think we have addressed them in the guidance
that you will note on Friday. But most importantly, the
guidance is not the end. We realize how important the Small
Starts program is. We are holding a workshop next week with
ACTA at the commuter rail conference. We will also be holding
another listening session in Chicago at the end of the month.
There is still a lot of time for comment, we still have a lot
of room for improvement, if in fact the guidance that we put
out Friday is still problematic to some of the grantees and
industry.
I think they will be surprised. We have listened to that
and we certainly do understand the issue of the TSUB concept
and the need to have you get those modern benefits in a cost
effective way. Sometimes it is a little difficult. But we are
working very hard with the grantees and industry to remedy
that.
Mr. Blumenauer. Super. We will look forward Friday to the
unveiling.
Ms. Bushue. Remember, that is not the end-all. We are still
open for comments and ways to improve if they are not happy
with it.
Mr. Blumenauer. I appreciate it is not the end-all and be-
all. But time is of the essence.
Ms. Bushue. Absolutely.
Mr. Blumenauer. We had the delay in the program,
unfortunately, with the 12 extensions. And the whole thrust
behind this was to make it simple and common sense, because
they are smaller scale, not as expensive, we don't need as much
Federal intrusion.
Ms. Bushue. Absolutely.
Mr. Blumenauer. And the Committee language was very clear
about these multiple benefits. So I am hopeful that we are able
to quickly come to a resolution, so people in these 80
communities can get on with business.
I mentioned earlier the concern about the planning, the
inconsistency in terms of the planning time frame, that we are,
the conflict between the metropolitan transportation's ongoing
planning process, being able to go through the existing cycle,
or having to rush ahead and accelerate it and getting caught in
the middle. Can you help me understand, are they imagining
this? Did we miss something here?
Mr. Capka. Well, sir, I don't know the specifics, but let
me describe the intent as we move through implementation. We
understand that sometimes when we implement new laws and new
rulemakings and those sorts of things, we will change the
rules. But it is our intent to provide a smooth transition. We
don't want to turn a program up on its head or force an MPO to
have to go back to the beginning when the sole reason for the
confusion or the sole reason for the restart is the new law or
the new rule that is going into effect.
So I would very much like to learn about the specific
problems for the MPO that you have described, the conundrum
that you had mentioned earlier, and see what we can do to
ensure that implementation does not have that kind of adverse
effect.
Mr. Blumenauer. I will submit to you their concern, because
I think it was clear that we didn't want the metropolitan areas
to have to disrupt the established planning process. But an
inability to amend the metropolitan transportation improvement
program, unless it first amends the regional transportation
plan a year earlier, seems to me to be violating that concept.
But we will get the details to you, and would appreciate
guidance about how we unravel this.
Mr. Capka. Sir, I would be happy to take that from you.
Mr. Blumenauer. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Petri. Mr. Shuster.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank all of you
for being here today.
My first question deals with the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration, the results of the multi-year truck
crash causation study that was just transmitted to Congress. Of
course, the reason is finding out why trucks crash and can we
put new policies in place or improve the policies for truck
safety. I wondered what you have found for primary causes of
truck crashes. Have you started to study the existing policies
and programs and how best to utilize the findings of the study
to improve truck safety?
Mr. Hill. Thank you, Congressman Shuster, for that
question. That was a long study. It started back in 2000, and
we have been working on it for several years with a variety of
people, including the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration. This study was the largest of its kind. It went
out and physically sent investigators to the scene of a crash.
They spent considerable hours investigating all parties
involved with it, analyzed the data. The purpose of the study
was to give us large amounts of data, so that we could use it,
not only in the macro sense, but that we could provide it in a
public setting, so that other people who are skilled at
analyzing data could have this made available to them.
The overwhelming initial response that we heard from that
study is that the driver is the predominant focus of our future
efforts. Therefore, we are taking our regulatory agenda and our
enforcement program, we are filtering it through that lens of
driver focus, and we are going to be making changes in our
program activities in the next few years, through a variety of
initiatives. We believe that this data will help us in that
process.
Mr. Shuster. My understanding is that about 90 percent of
the accidents are caused by driver action or inaction or error?
Mr. Hill. If I may follow up there, it was not that high. I
would be glad to submit to you for the record some of the
specific percentages. I didn't bring those with me today. But
it was not that high. It was lower. But it was predominantly
with a passenger vehicle.
And I would just say to you that one of the provisions in
SAFETEA:LU that you folks provided us had to do with granting
us authority to spend grant dollars in our motor carrier safety
programs for passenger vehicles in and around a commercial
vehicle. That was groundbreaking. We are just now starting that
with the States. We believe it is going to yield results. We
think it will get more people involved in enforcing motor
carrier laws in our Country, and so we are excited about that
potential.
Mr. Shuster. That brings me to my next question on the CDL
program, which has been around for about 20 years. It is my
understanding that there were only a handful of States that
were in compliance, or substantial compliance, with the CDL
program. Is that accurate, and can you give me a number on how
many States were or were not in substantial compliance?
Mr. Hill. Thank you, Congressman Shuster, again, that is a
very interesting point. As you know, in the Motor Carrier
Safety Improvement Act in 1999, you gave us several things that
you wanted us to do to improve the commercial driver's license
process. About 15 provisions were given to the States in order
for them to adopt them. Our normal process is to give the
States three years to go through that process of adoption,
changing their laws to conform and so forth, including their IT
systems.
As of right now, the States are making great progress. We
have only had to declare one State in substantial non-
compliance up until this year, and then just recently, after we
went through a series of reviews, we had to do that with three
or four other States, who found in their implementation that
they didn't have the laws to implement it the way that they
were supposed to.
So to answer your question, we have two phases. There are
people who are making legislative changes, and then there are
those who are doing their information system changes. And
generally, the States are in compliance with the statutory
provisions.
Mr. Shuster. Well, if we passed it in 1999, when did the
clock start ticking on the three years?
Mr. Hill. When we started with the regulations, which were
promulgated in 2002, September, I believe, 2002. So it was
September of 2005 when they were supposed to be in compliance.
Mr. Shuster. OK, thank you for that answer.
Mr. Hill. You are welcome.
Mr. Shuster. Another question I have, I guess it would be
directed to Transit or Highway Administration, or both. The
Governor of Pennsylvania has decided that he is going to flex
about $400 million of Pennsylvania's annual allocation out of
the Highway Trust Fund. The first question is, it is my
understanding that you can only flex that money for capital
investment, you can't do it for operations. Is that accurate?
That is correct?
Ms. Bushue. That is correct.
Mr. Shuster. Second question is, has any State flexed that
sizeable amount of one year's allocation from highways to
transit systems? On a percentage basis.
Ms. Bushue. According to our advisors back here, they are
saying that New York and California have. I am not sure, do we
know that percentage? We can get back to you with that,
Congressman Shuster.
Mr. Shuster. Is that dollar amount or is that percentage? I
guess the only way we can do a fair comparison is by percentage
of what they get. If you could get me that, I would appreciate
it.
Ms. Bushue. We certainly will.
Mr. Shuster. And the third question is, from what I
understand and what I see, Pennsylvania is going to flex that
money. And it is not going to solve the problem for the transit
system in Philadelphia or Pittsburgh. It is basically a band-
aid. Do you have any oversight at the Federal Highway
Administration or Transit that can say, if you are going to
flex that kind of money, you really ought to be coming to a
fix, a long term fix for it, not just an infusion of cash that
is probably going to happen this year and then next year and
then down the road?
Mr. Capka. Congressman Shuster, I can say that our Division
Administrator and his office are working very carefully with
the Pennsylvania DOT to ensure that this particular situation
is being managed appropriately. And there is a planning process
that they are going through right now that requires our review.
Mr. Shuster. ``Managed appropriately'' is pretty vague.
According to whose managing and appropriate. If you saw that
this was just a band-aid and a limited term fix to a situation
instead of a long term situation, because it comes down to what
is fungible, and they are going to put it into capital, but
they are going to just shift their money around, and it is the
operation that is really significant, has significant problems.
So would you have that ability to say stop, we don't believe
what you are doing is in the long-term best interests of using
Federal dollars?
Mr. Capka. Not knowing the complete specifics of the
situation there, what we would look at is the sustainability of
the program, the initiative, from a fiscal perspective, and
ensure that the program is fiscally constrained. I think that
the context around that would help us decide what action we
would or would not want to take.
Mr. Shuster. Could you or whoever is dealing with that
situation contact our office and keep us posted? Because it is
a huge concern to me, coming from rural Pennsylvania, and I
think many, many Pennsylvanians. Because of that $400 million,
about $380 million is going to go to Philadelphia, which I
guess happens when the Governor of Pennsylvania is the former
mayor of Philadelphia. But anyway, that is our problem in
Pennsylvania.
Thank you very much, and again, if you could keep us posted
on that, we certainly are very concerned.
Mr. Capka. Sir, we will follow up with you on that.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you very much.
Mr. Petri. Thank you. Ms. Berkley?
Ms. Berkley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I have three questions that are all Las Vegas valley
specific, as you can well imagine. The first is, I had a
conversation with my local transportation officials, and they
have expressed concern that existing planning cycles may be
disrupted by regulations that the FHWA and FTA have issued or
will issue to implement SAFETEA:LU. Can you give me assurances
that you won't be changing the rules for our local government
officials in the middle of the game, in the middle of their
planning process? That is my first question.
Mr. Capka. Yes, ma'am. I think I would respond the same way
I did to Mr. Blumenauer, with his question.
Ms. Berkley. If we are having a specific problem with the
project that you know?
Mr. Capka. Absolutely. Again, I think the philosophical
approach is not to interrupt something abruptly with a change,
but to provide a good transition that allows everybody to catch
up, and not to create the conundrum that was described earlier.
But I will offer the same to you and your community to take a
look at what the issue is and to work with you on that.
Ms. Berkley. I appreciate that. My second question is, a
provision in SAFETEA:LU gives priority to diesel retrofit
projects in CMAQ. My local transportation officials have
planned to use these funds for eligible projects, including our
intelligent transportation system, in purchase of hybrid buses.
How is this provision being implemented to ensure that worthy
projects other than diesel retrofits will continue to be
funded?
Mr. Capka. We are working the final guidance with EPA on
this one. This is one that we are working jointly with the
Environmental Protection Agency. And again, if there are
specific issues that are coming up, I would be more than happy
to work with you on that.
Ms. Berkley. I think the two that we are most concerned
about is our intelligent transportation system and the hybrid
buses, because we are getting, the money is coming out of the
diesel retrofit projects. Right now, those are eligible
projects, but we wouldn't want them to be come ineligible all
of a sudden.
Mr. Capka. I will follow up with you on that and just make
sure that we are both looking at the same facts and provide
some help and guidance there.
Ms. Berkley. OK, and then of course the third is, and I
know a number of my colleagues have mentioned the Small Starts
program that was created in SAFETEA:LU for fixed guideway
projects costing under $250 million. It is my understanding
that this will be eliminated in the 2007 transportation
appropriations bill approved in committee yesterday. If that is
the case, and I would appreciate some clarification on that,
but if that is the case, what would the effect of that
elimination have on these projects? And the one that comes to
mind is the MAX bus project in southern Nevada. Right now it is
eligible for Small Starts funding. If it is eliminated in 2007,
what do we do?
Ms. Bushue. Well, I certainly hope it wasn't eliminated. I
think what they did, we have not seen that language, I think
you are talking about the full Committee House Appropriations
markup. We have yet to see the language. We understand they put
a freeze, we are not really sure what that means. Again, the
language has not been released, and FTA has not had the
opportunity to evaluate it.
But I do know that the Appropriations Committee has been
very supportive of the Small Starts program. So I guess we will
have to wait and see. But I don't think it was an elimination,
it was a freeze. And again, we don't know exactly what they
meant by that.
Ms. Berkley. Can you let me know?
Ms. Bushue. Absolutely.
Ms. Berkley. Because again, this MAX bus project is very
important to us. And if the money is no longer there, what
happens to the project?
Ms. Bushue. Absolutely, Congresswoman Berkley. We will
certainly get back to you.
Ms. Berkley. Thanks a lot.
Mr. Petri. Mr. Coble.
Mr. Coble. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I apologize for my belated arrival. We had a
Judiciary markup, and that is why I could not be here earlier.
Mr. Hill, let me put a question to you on an issue on which
I have done some considerable work and am very interested. I am
concerned that the advance notice of proposed rulemaking on
insulin-treated diabetes possibly creates broad restrictions on
the kind of driving that properly screened individuals with
insulin-treated diabetes can do, such as being restricted to
only certain types of driving, like local or short haul routes.
What sort of restriction does the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration have in mind and what is the basis for
restricting the type of driving an insulin-treated commercial
driver can do?
Mr. Hill. Thank you, Congressman Coble, for that question.
I do know that you and Representative DeFazio have been heavily
involved in this issue, and I am aware of the recent
correspondence that you have sent to our office concerning this
matter, and I would like to address your concerns. First of
all, let me just say in a general sense, our standards for
commercial vehicle drivers, we are trying to weigh the balance
of making sure that we implement the provisions in SAFETEA:LU,
which we have done, by the way, and I will explain that more
fully, and then making sure that we have been deliberative in
our consideration of the safety concerns for the general public
in allowing people with some kind of impairment, potentially,
to be drivers.
To answer your specific question, as you know, in
SAFETEA:LU, you passed legislation that said we are no longer
permitted to require three years driving experience in terms of
having that experience before we create an exemption to the
rule that is now in place, that says insulin-dependent drivers
cannot operate a commercial vehicle. We have implemented that,
in November of 2005 we published a notice that said we would
discontinue that practice. We are in the process now of
reviewing applications. Thirteen drivers are presently on the
road. When they get an exemption to operate in interstate
commerce, there are no restrictions placed on them. They are
permitted to drive just like another driver would drive.
We have 40 other drivers that were posted in the Federal
Register just today for public notice and comment. Another 30
are in process, and we have 400 applications that we are
currently reviewing that would allow for them to eventually be
granted an exemption under our current rule.
Mr. Coble. Thank you for that response. I am, Mr. Hill, in
no way attempting to compromise safety. But by the same token,
I want to be sure that insulin-treated commercial drivers are
not beneficiaries or victims of inordinate restrictions, if I
am coming through to you.
Mr. Hill. Congressman Coble, I appreciate your concern for
safety, because we share that, as our agency has to deal with
that on several levels. One of the further considerations that
I would just say to you is that we are going to be starting a
medical review board, and they are going to be convening in
August of this year. That medical review board will be looking,
as one of its first projects, at the whole issue of diabetic
drivers. This rule that we have had in place for banning
insulin-dependent drivers for driving in interstate commerce
has been with us for several years. One of the goals of the
medical review board is to make sure that our current medical
regulations are consistent with current science and data, so
that we can make accurate assessments. Because things have
changed in those years, and we want to be sure that we are
treating drivers and the public with due measure of safety and
also accommodation that needs to be made.
Mr. Coble. And if you can keep us current on that matter, I
would be appreciative to you.
Mr. Hill. You are welcome, sir, and we will.
Mr. Coble. It is good to have all of you with us. Mr.
Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Petri. Thank you, Mr. Coble.
Mr. Matheson.
Mr. Matheson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First question I wanted to ask was, if I have local
communities and they are looking at projects that have been
authorized in SAFETEA:LU, how can they receive assistance in
planning for if there is going to be a difference between
authorized and obligation amount? What would you suggest I can
do to help in their planning process as they look forward?
Mr. Capka. Sir, that is a very good question, and it is one
that is asked regularly. Our division offices are well equipped
to handle those questions locally. But even here in Washington,
we would be more than happy to help. It is a matter of the
difference between contract authority and obligation
limitation. And it is about an 85, 86, 87 percent of the
contract authority will actually appear as something the
communities can program and work.
In addition, we have had the 1 percent rescission. There
are a few others that kind of eat away at the amount of money
that appears in the bill itself. But I think explaining that
and laying it out is something we can do and should be able to
do, and sir, if you have some specifics, I would be more than
happy to handle that for you.
Mr. Matheson. And is it your sense that there is going to
be reasonable stability or certainty of how that is going to
play out after the next two, three, four years?
Mr. Capka. It varies a little bit from year to year. But I
think we can provide enough stability that would allow for the
planning to occur that needs to occur.
Mr. Matheson. Next question I want to ask about was, in
SAFETEA:LU there were a number of provisions included to try to
streamline process, to allow projects to move forward in a more
timely manner. I want to ask a general question about your
thoughts about how that has played out so far, and if there are
unanticipated impacts, either good or bad, that have come from
that effort.
Mr. Capka. I think the SAFETEA:LU provisions are working
pretty well. In fact, there are a number who have already taken
advantage of the 180 day statute of limitations within the NEPA
process on when suits can be filed and those sorts of things.
We have already had a number of folks take advantage of that.
We have also had a number of folks taking advantage of being
able to assume the categorical exclusion responsibilities.
We have another pilot program that you are very well aware
of. We have five States who will look at assuming the entire
environmental review program from us. Of course, they need to
have the right laws in place, which they are working on right
now. And we will work with those States. So I think SAFETEA:LU,
even at this very early stage, is showing some very positive
signs with respect to the efficiencies there.
Mr. Matheson. That is good to hear. One more issue I want
to raise is, when a project is listed or designated as a high
priority project, can you give me a description of what the
real impacts are of that and how that positions that project
for safety improvements?
Mr. Capka. Sir, there is a category of high priority
projects, of course----
Mr. Matheson. I meant high priority corridor.
Mr. Capka. High priority corridors. Yes, sir, there is
provision for the high priority corridors. A number of the
projects have been designated already. So there is a
requirement that we would need to walk ourselves through to get
those projects up and running. But the discretion, to a large
extent, isn't there for us to move from one location to
another, because they have been designated.
Mr. Matheson. Once it has been designated, is there some
action or set of actions that the State Department of
Transportation has to take with you in this regard, or is this
more at your end?
Mr. Capka. There are requirements for our division office
to be involved. I would very much encourage the discussions to
occur just as soon, as early as possible, so that we can lay
out the course in front of us.
Mr. Matheson. I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Petri. Thank you.
Mr. Moran?
Mr. Moran. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I think this is a
question for Mr. Hill. I was just wanting to know the status of
hours of service in regard to some exemptions that were created
as well as just the general status of the litigation and how we
are proceeding and what kind of results are, what survey or
test results we would have on truck safety.
Mr. Hill. Thank you, Congressman Moran, for that question.
Hours of service has been living a lot of our lives here in the
last few years. We acknowledge that the Congress did pass
several provisions in this last SAFETEA:LU that we wanted to
get right on in making sure that people understood those
exemptions. So we put out policy memoranda that gave guidance
to enforcement officers, so that they would know how to go
ahead and enforce those provisions, even though we don't have
the regulation fully implemented yet, because it takes some
time for us to implement a regulation once you pass the law. We
believe those were self-executing, so we believe the policy
memoranda are effective for enforcing those. But we do plan to
have an omnibus bill next year that will allow for that to be
included as a regulatory follow-up to those policy memoranda.
As far as the hours of service lawsuit, I can't really get
into details, but it is progressing. They are expecting to
exchange briefs this summer, and we anticipate some kind of a
hearing before the court later this summer or early fall.
Mr. Moran. What were the exemptions created in SAFETEA:LU
in regard to hours of service? Was it two or three or more?
Mr. Hill. There were more than that.
Mr. Moran. And my question is, you have issued policy
statements. Are they being treated the same as if the
regulation was in place, is that what you are telling me?
Mr. Hill. Yes, Congressman. We had our attorneys look at
this, and we were, because of our regulatory workload, we are
trying to expedite things and make sure that the will of the
Congress is being enforced now. Our attorneys believe that
those laws, as written by Congress, are enforceable. But we
wanted to give the appropriate guidance, and yes, to answer
your question, we believe that the roadside officers are
treating them as they would in terms of the law.
There are some nuances to some States having differing laws
that they may need to adopt. But we believe that the policy
guidance has the effect of enforcement.
Mr. Moran. And I am sorry, I was confused in part of your
response about a piece of legislation next year? Is that what
you were suggesting? Or something omnibus within the
Department?
Mr. Hill. That would be an omnibus without our own
department. It is an omnibus rule that would allow us to take
several of these provisions that we believe are self-executing
and put them into a single bill to move them on quickly, and it
will cover all of these.
Mr. Moran. I still am curious if it is a reasonably short
list, or if you have it in front of you, I am curious as to
what additional exemptions are created in SAFETEA:LU.
Mr. Hill. I am not prepared to go into a lot of detail, but
I will tell you that we have them in agricultural commodities,
groundwater well drilling, utility service workers, grapes, for
grape haulers west of Interstate 81 in New York, propane
deliveries and 100 air-mile radius for movie producers.
Mr. Moran. I am familiar with all of them except the grape
producers. Thank you very much, Mr. Hill, and I yield back the
balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Petri. Thank you.
Mr. Baird?
Mr. Baird. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank our panel.
My understanding is, my good friend from Oregon, Mr. DeFazio,
asked a question about Buy America. I have great concerns about
this issue. And I would ask, first of all, if members of the
panel believe it is important for the United States to maintain
fundamental domestic industries like steel fabrication and
steel manufacturing. I will just go down, beginning with Ms.
Glassman, do you think that is important?
Ms. Glassman. I will hand that to Mr. Capka.
Mr. Capka. Sir, the answer to your specific question, "Is
it important to maintain the industries?" is, "absolutely".
Mr. Baird. My question arises because it has been the
recent policy of your department to find ways to allow
communities to circumvent the Buy America Act. I refer to the
Bay Bridge project, but there are others.
I have a second, related question. We had a hearing in this
very panel a week or so ago about increasing public-private
partnerships, where private entities are being contracted to
manage highways. This seems to be a trend of the future, and I
understand that with limited capital, there may be some reason
to argue for that.
Have you given any thought to what implications that has,
vis-a-vis Buy America? In other words, let's suppose somebody
has contracted to manage a section of highway. Do they have to
comply with the Buy America Act as part of that agreement?
Mr. Capka. Sir, our implementation, our oversight of the
Buy America Act has been very consistent over the last 25
years, since the Buy America Act has been in effect. We take
very seriously our requirement to ensure the law is
appropriately applied and enforced.
The Buy America Act applies when there is a Federal
interest in a particular project and when there are Federal
dollars being spent, when there is a Federal loan, such as
TIFIA, that is being applied against a specific project, then
Buy America and the other appropriate laws that are attached to
the Federal interest also apply. And we ensure that they are
enforced.
Mr. Baird. I guess the devil is in the details in terms of
how you define a project. if you define a project in a narrow
enough way, you can say that particular portion of the project
doesn't have Federal funds associated with it, therefore it is
exempt.
Mr. Capka. That is correct, sir. And our application of the
definition of project has remained consistent over the last 25
years. So we haven't varied from that.
Mr. Baird. I would actually dispute that. But what about
these public-private partnerships?
Mr. Capka. Well, the public-private partnerships, I would
have to know a little bit more of the details. Of course, it is
an evolving area that we are all learning from as we go
forward. And I am sure that we will continue to learn. But if
there is no Federal interest in what this public-private
partnership is doing, then there would be no attachment to
the----
Mr. Baird. Well, let's suppose, for example, that an entity
wants to build a bridge somewhere, and they contract with a
private capital firm to construct the bridge and to manage the
bridge. The bridge is integral to the Federal highway system.
It would be meaningless without the roads on the one side and
the roads on the other side, which are federally funded. But
the bridge, per se, is to be funded with private dollars and
managed by a private entity. Is that subject to Buy America?
Mr. Capka. Sir, I haven't had that personal experience to
review that kind of a situation. But I would tell you that I
would sit down with my legal staff and my----
Mr. Baird. I can tell you what they would tell you.
Mr. Capka.--to help me negotiate my way through those
issues. Because it is important to make the call correct.
Mr. Baird. They will find a way around it. And here is the
problem. We are rapidly losing steel fabrication capacity in
this Country. It is a fundamental infrastructure for safety,
for travel, transportation, et cetera. If we lose this and one
day on the west coast, where I reside, an even larger
earthquake happens, and our steel bridges, strong though they
are, fail, we will be dependent on foreign countries to rebuild
our own domestic infrastructure. That, I believe, is being
contributed to by this Administration and by your policies. I
think it is a huge mistake. And for the record, I want today to
put that on the record, so that when that happens and we need
to go to the steel fabricators, somebody says, you know, they
closed about 10 years ago, because we had some major projects
that went to China or went to Korea or went to Japan, because
in the short term, somebody wanted to save a little bit of
money. And in the long term, they put Americans out of work,
damaged American infrastructure, and we lost a critical
fabrication industry, which we can't rebuild. Once those
companies go down and the work force leaves, and the land turns
into condominiums, we will never rebuild it. And we will be
totally dependent to rebuild our infrastructure on a foreign
country. And that is a heck of a bad mistake. And I think this
Administration and your department are contributing to it.
I yield back.
Mr. Petri. Thank you.
Mr. Pascrell.
Mr. Pascrell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Bushue, I can ask you this question, I think we have
made some progress, and perhaps you can bring us up to date.
The proposed Trans-Hudson Tunnel, a lot has been written about
it, a lot has many times been discussed. That is an extremely
critical project, tunnel project for the New Jersey-New York
region, as we are currently at capacity, beyond, with a 100
year old tunnel which is providing 150,000 trips into and out
of Penn Station, which you know those tunnels are all falling
down. Serious problem.
We await approval, and I know there was a meeting with Mr.
Wyington of NJK. Could you bring me up to date, and the rest of
the committee up to date as to the progress we are making on
that tunnel, just for a few minutes, give us a capsule picture?
Ms. Bushue. Sure, absolutely. Well, first, I am going to be
meeting with him next week, as I am up in New York for the APTA
PRO conference. I am going to be touring the Hudson-Bergen
Transit line. I understand that we will be meeting with--I
think we refer to it as the ARK project.
Mr. Pascrell. That is correct.
Ms. Bushue. But as it is today, they are looking to go into
preliminary engineering. I think we are waiting, as I
understand it right now, for their financial proposal. I think
we have part of it. I think they have some pieces that are
missing. And we have asked for some additional information. But
we are looking at it, and it is certainly on our radar.
And you made a really good point about the tunnels. I had
the pleasure of spending some time up in New York, for two
days, the MTA gave me an extensive tour of what's going on up
there. And those projects are extremely complex. The tunneling
is just totally amazing. I didn't know New York City has really
a city underneath it, almost, with all the tunneling they have
involved. But it is a very interesting transit project.
But we are very much familiar with the ARK project, and we
are certainly giving it attention, sir.
Mr. Pascrell. This would be a large step forward for the
entire area, as you well know.
Ms. Bushue. Certainly.
Mr. Pascrell. Mr. Capka, first of all, I want to
congratulate you on your recent confirmation. During your
Senate confirmation hearing, you committed to allowing New
Jersey to continue to follow multi-year funding formulas for
capital construction projects. I just want you to reiterate
that for us, if you would, take a minute to do that.
Mr. Capka. Well, sir, thank you very much first of all for
your congratulations. I really appreciate that. Secondly, with
respect to the fiscal constraint process that we and the New
Jersey DOT are working, we are not so concerned about the
process that the Department uses to get to its end state. But
we just want to make sure that the process itself is fiscally
constrained. In other words, that they have the resources to
finish what they start.
I think we are in pretty good shape right now, that we
won't see any further problems with the way New Jersey is
handling this. That is our test. It is more the outcome than
the process of getting there.
Mr. Pascrell. Thank you.
Ms. Glassman, you are Acting Administrator?
Ms. Glassman. Deputy Administrator.
Mr. Pascrell. Deputy Administrator. Administrator Glassman,
in all, SAFETEA:LU provided approximately $1.5 billion in
incentive grant funding to increase vehicle occupant
protection. As you know, whiplash is the most common and
annoying type of injury in motor vehicle crashes. It is by far
the predominant injury in rear impact crashes and generates
billions of dollars in medical costs. There is innovative
research being done in North Jersey right now with the goal of
significantly decreasing these kinds of injuries.
This approach involves a contoured seat design concept, I
don't know if you have seen it, that will help control the
interaction between the torso and the seat back in order to
preserve the spinal curvatures during a rear impact collision.
The last upgrade, and correct me if I am wrong, to the
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 202 on head
restraints was made in late 2004. This is what my question is,
my point. What sort of research has NHTSA been involved with
since then, and are there plans to update whiplash prevention
regulations in the near future? This is a very critical issue
with regard to many injuries that are happening throughout the
United States.
Ms. Glassman. Yes, sir, it is, thank you for the question.
We issued a final rule upgrading standard 202 in about 2004. We
have received many petitions for reconsideration on various
aspects of the rule, so we continue to do research and to look
at those petitions. A lot has to do with the level of what we
call backset, which is how close your head is to the actual
head restraint. That is a core feature of reducing whiplash and
rear impact injuries, is making sure there is less movement of
the torso and the head.
There's also a considerable amount of research into new
technologies that will help reduce the incidence of crashes
occurring in the first place. We are seeing a big shift from
crash worthiness, or protecting people when the crash occurs,
into actual crash avoidance, making sure that crashes do not
occur. We see a lot of technology starting to come into
vehicles today and new technologies on the horizon which will
help reduce the incidence of those crashes actually occurring.
We believe that that will help reduce those injuries quite a
bit.
Mr. Pascrell. Mr. Chairman, when you see the number of
significant injuries that we are talking about, this could have
an appreciable effect on insurance rates all throughout this
Country. If we can do this, and if this provides for a large
hulk of those injuries, I think that is one way, in a huge
puzzle. But it is one way to begin to bring those huge
insurance rates down to some degree.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Petri. Mr. Cummings, do you have questions?
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Bushue, SAFETEA:LU modified the definition of a transit
capital project to include inner-city bus terminals that are a
part of intermodal projects. These terminals are now eligible
for FTA funding to the same extent as any other transit capital
project. This new eligibility is particularly important in
cities like mine, Baltimore, which are planning new inner-city
bus-intermodal projects.
When do you expect that FTA will issue final guidance
implementing the provisions, and can you describe the process
that the FTA has developed to help transit agencies implement
the bus and bus facilities projects identified in the
SAFETEA:LU bill?
Ms. Bushue. Yes, Congressman Cummings, I just had to think
about that for a second. It is a public-private partnership
that we are very excited about, that inner-city buses can use
these terminals along with city buses, they can join in
together. And we have sought comments which ended April 27th,
and we are collecting those comments, and we hope to have
guidance published, joint guidance published in the Federal
Register some time this summer.
Mr. Cummings. OK. I know that PHMSA is not here, but I
would like to mention to you all my concern about
implementation of Section 7131 of SAFETEA:LU, which requires
the Administrator of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration to enter into a contract with the
National Academy of Sciences to conduct nine specific research
studies on the transportation of hazardous materials. I
understand that the slow release of funds from the Federal
Highway Trust Fund has delayed initiation of these studies.
Section 7131 also required that the Secretary of the
Department of Transportation submit a report not later than six
months after the enactment of SAFETEA:LU, on the need to
establish a cooperative research program on hazardous materials
transportation. I understand that the Department of
Transportation is waiting to clear the report before its final
release.
I am just concerned that this takes place timely and soon.
I hope that you will take that back to the PHMSA people.
Mr. Capka. Mr. Cummings, I sure will. I appreciate your
comment.
Mr. Cummings. And it was my amendment, that is why I am so
concerned about it. I already told my constituents I did this
great thing, and I want to be able to say it's happening.
Mr. Capka. Sir, we will follow up with you and give you the
status of where that particular action sits today.
Mr. Cummings. Just going back, I see I still have a moment,
Ms. Bushue, thank you very much. Ms. Bushue, let me go back
into the second part of my question about this whole situation
with the projects, intermodal projects. Can you describe the
process that the FTA is going through?
Ms. Bushue. For this particular one?
Mr. Cummings. Yes.
Ms. Bushue. Yes, absolutely. We published guidance January
31st. After those guidance were published, we received some
comments, a lot of comments. So we published an addendum to
those guidance, I believe they were published in March. And
they closed for comments on April 27th, 2006. But we do
definitely, we will have final guidance for the joint
development partnership by this summer, sir.
Mr. Cummings. It is another concern of ours. We were able
to get an earmark for a major project, smack dab in the middle
of my district. And we would just like to know that they are
going to be able to have the kind of guidance they need to be
able to do it.
Ms. Bushue. Absolutely. My trusty staff just gave me a note
and they said we are working very closely with your office to
develop some specific projects.
Mr. Cummings. I thought he was going to say we just
approved it.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Cummings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Petri. Thank you.
I have one or two more questions, but before asking them,
let me see if anyone else--Mr. DeFazio.
Mr. DeFazio. Briefly, Mr. Chairman. We have kept the panel
a long time. Just back to Small Starts, I guess I have two
concerns, further concerns. One is, I want to be certain that
we are building, and I have not seen the proposed rules, into
these rules, prohibitions on fragmentation, that is, people
have existing large projects, break them up and say, oh, well,
we have a new project here. So that is one, I would like you to
address that.
And the second one is, although you seem quite enthusiastic
about the construct you are coming up with to implement our
legal, our legislative mandate, I note that the Administration
only recommended $100 versus $200 million this year. And the
appropriators, my understanding, have eliminated the $100
million and put it over into other projects where it will
hardly be noticed. So I guess I would like a comment on both
those things.
Ms. Bushue. Sure. I share your concern with your first
point. We will be looking at the proposals very closely to
ensure, Congressman DeFazio, that that does not happen. I
always share with the FTA staff, I always get a kick, with all
due respect to Congressman Pascrell, with the MTA says
something like, I can't wait for that Small Starts project to
get up and running. Because one of its benefits was to kind of
level the playing field for all cities and towns to have a fair
shake, if you will, on getting transit funding as such.
As to your second point, the reason that the Administration
did propose that, or we proposed that $100 million for the
Small Starts program in fiscal year 2007 was due to the fact
that the final rules would not be completed until probably
August 2007. And we thought that $100 million was the
appropriate investment and down payment for the program.
Mr. DeFazio. But you did say earlier that you will be
taking applications in the interim. I mean, how is it you
recommend less than we sort of assessed. I think there is
tremendous pent-up demand for these things, and I think your
legitimate applications will far exceed the $100 million, let
alone the $200 million, if implemented in the way we envision
for other innovative street car, bus rapid transit, other sorts
of things, that could make a major difference in small and mid-
size cities.
I am concerned that you sort of pre-calculated or guessed
that, not having yet seen any applications and I am not sure
what you are going to do, or how we are going to deal with the
Appropriations Committee, since I guess they interpreted a lack
of enthusiasm there because of the cut as opposed to your idea
that perhaps it was just sort of a phasing and implementation
issue. So hopefully the Administration will express some
concerns about this move, since you are enthusiastic about it,
to the Appropriations Committee.
And then Mr. Chairman, the staff asked me for whatever
reason to ask unanimous consent that all members have X amount
of time to submit questions for the record which won't be
answered. So I ask that, Mr. Chairman.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Petri. We will make a good faith effort to answer,
anyway.
Other questions? Mr. Blumenauer?
Mr. Blumenauer. If I could, Mr. Chairman. Just following up
on Mr. DeFazio's point vis-a-vis the Subcommittee. I would hope
that our Committee would be pretty aggressive when the bill
comes to the floor, as we have done in the past, in terms of
protecting the integrity of the legislation we have worked on.
And the notion that they have substituted their judgment in
terms of--the material I have received is very hostile to both
the intent and the program. And I would hope that the
Committee, as we have done in the past, would be there pushing
back. Because we spent a lot of time putting this together. We
are responding to significant community support around the
Country. And I just, I am troubled that we would have them
intervene again, undercutting what we are doing.
But with Mr. Oberstar not being here, I know he is excited
that we have half the States already designating the Safe
Routes to School permanent coordinator, we have 15 that are
interim, 10 that I am sure are right on the verge. But my
recollection here is that as part of the Safe Routes to School
program, we were going to get a report of the School Task Force
Committee, Safe Routes to School Committee, March 31st. And my
understanding is, there has been no record that the Committee
has yet been appointed, let alone delivering the report. Am I
missing something here, or did you work out something with Mr.
Oberstar on the side?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Capka. Sir, as you well know, Mr. Oberstar has been
very involved in the Safe Routes to School program. And yes,
there was a report that was due at the end of March. It was
submitted toward the end of April. So there was a report. We
have also brought on----
Mr. Blumenauer. You actually formally put together the task
force?
Mr. Capka. We have formulated a task force. I will have to
be sure we have brought on the University of North Carolina to
act as the clearinghouse for that operation.
Mr. Blumenauer. But there was a task force that was going
to put together this report. And I don't think they have ever
been formally--if we could find out what is going on.
Mr. Capka. Yes, sir, there is a slight problem with the
task force, because it falls under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act. So we have a little bit of homework to do before
we can launch the task force. You are right, that hasn't been
done yet, but we are in the process of working that issue. We
have submitted a report but the task force----
Mr. Blumenauer. That the task force was going to do that
hasn't yet been appointed? OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Petri. Thank you, Mr. Blumenauer.
Ms. Johnson.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate this hearing. I am sorry I was late arriving, I had
a markup in another committee.
But I do want to ask a question of Ms. Bushue, the Acting
Administrator of the FTA. First, we appreciate the fact that
you are working with us on transportation issues already,
especially the Dallas Area Rapid Transit.
Secondly, I want to say that the FTA bus program for
intermodal terminals, including the inner-city bus portion of
these terminals, is very, very important in my district. We
have lots of poor people and lots of miles to travel in Texas.
If you haven't ever been to Texas, I will try to get you around
to see it.
The setaside is similar to the inner-city bus intermodal
program proposed in the Administration's SAFETEA proposal and
in legislation that I sponsored. So I believe that development
of intermodal terminals and inclusion of inner-city buses in
these terminals should be a high priority at the FTA, as they
would provide increased convenience, efficiency and
seamlessness for passengers dependent on public transit. I just
want to know when or how does the FTA intend to implement this
setaside program.
Ms. Bushue. Thank you, Congresswoman Johnson. I will be
coming to Dallas on July 3rd for the opening ceremony of the
extension of your light rail line. So I will look forward to
seeing you there.
Actually, your colleague, Congressman Cummings, had the
same question, and just to let you know that April 27th we
closed the Federal Register notice for comments from the
guidelines that we had outlined for joint use of the public and
private, or the intermodal terminals for public and private
use. We hope to have those guidelines ready this summer,
hopefully no later than August.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you. Now, be assured that not all the
poor people are in Dallas, so don't go there looking for them.
They are all over Texas, though. So if you come to Dallas and
see how beautiful it is and what a wonderful place, that is all
through. But we have that other, too, that might not be as
obvious, where you will be.
Ms. Bushue. Absolutely. You do have a wonderful light rail
system, and the Secretary, I think, will definitely be joining
us. We look forward to traveling there July 3rd. Thank you.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Petri. Well, let's see. I have two--did you have
another question?
Just two quick questions, one for Ms. Bushue. And that has
to do with the New Freedom program to help disabled people with
access. Do you know when the final guidance for the New Freedom
program will be published and what kinds of specific activities
will be eligible under the New Freedom program? We are getting
inquiries from various constituencies and so on. I think we had
some legislative language we were watching like hawks to see
how you actually implemented.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Bushue. Yes, you are, Mr. Chairman. You have a very,
very agressive staff that has been watching us very closely.
But they do a great job. We enjoy our partnership with them.
First, I would like to say that we did issue the guidance,
the draft guidance, in March. It was amazing, the number of
comments. And I have to tell you, I know--do I sound
enthusiastic about transit? I am. It is just, I just can't tell
you how exciting really the industry is and the communities are
across the Country. I like to say transit is hot. And it really
is. There is just so much enthusiasm out there about it, so
much going on. And as for the New Freedom program, we received
over 190 comments, which is unbelievable. So there is a lot of
interest.
And we are going through those comments, and we hope to
post a final circular, final guidance in July. But it is our
intent, and of course, it is not final as we continue to go
through the comments that we receive, but as for the New
Freedom, it is our intent that it would support services, new
services, and beyond the ADA. I think the issue was or, but
FTA's intent is to focus on new services, and services beyond
the Americans With Disabilities Act.
Mr. Petri. Thank you. There is one member of this panel who
has been not acting, but confirmed for some time, Mr.
Kaveeshwar. But we can't let you off without a question, sir,
because we are interested in how you are doing in administering
the competitive selection process for the UTC, or university
transportation center program.
Mr. Kaveeshwar. Thank you for asking that question, Mr.
Chairman. Let me just give you a very quick run-down on what we
are doing with respect to the competitive process. The regional
UTCs, there were 10 of them, and that competition is just
closed. They opened it on March 15th and the application was
received on June 1st. We intend to finish our final selections
by July 14th.
The next competition, that is the Tier 1 UTCs, and that
competition just opened on June 1st. The applications are due
on August 15th, and we intend to finish the selections by
September 29th. So we intend to award all of the Tier 1 as well
as the regional UTCs by the end of this fiscal year.
We also want to thank this Committee for strengthening this
program over the TEA-21. We are very excited about it, and we
are hoping to use the expanded program and connect its research
to the Department's priorities.
Mr. Petri. Thank you. And this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:52 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]