[Senate Hearing 110-]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008
----------
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
[Clerk's note.--The following testimonies were received by
the Subcommittee on Transportation and Housing and Urban
Development, and Related Agencies for inclusion in the record.
The submitted materials relate to the fiscal year 2008 budget
request.
The subcommittee requested that public witnesses provide
written testimony because, given the Senate schedule and the
number of subcommittee hearings with Department witnesses,
there was not enough time to schedule hearings for
nondepartmental witnesses.]
Prepared Statement of the National Association of Mortgage Brokers
Chairwoman Murray, Senator Bond and members of the subcommittee,
thank you for permitting the National Association of Mortgage Brokers
(``NAMB'') to submit this written testimony on Solvency and Reform
Proposals for the Federal Housing Administration (``FHA''). In
particular, we appreciate the opportunity to address: (1) the need to
reform the FHA program to eliminate arbitrary and unnecessary barriers
that restrict mortgage broker participation; (2) the positive effects
on FHA's market share and profitability that will result from increased
mortgage broker participation; (3) the need to develop risk-based
pricing for mortgage insurance on FHA loans; and (4) the importance of
adjusting the current FHA loan amounts for high-cost areas.
NAMB is the only national trade association exclusively devoted to
representing the mortgage brokerage industry, and as the voice of the
mortgage brokers, NAMB speaks on behalf of more than 25,000 members in
all 50 States and the District of Columbia.
fha market share & mortgage broker participation
NAMB supports many of the proposed reforms to the FHA program, but
believes we should first make certain that the FHA program is a real
choice for prospective borrowers. Regardless of how beneficial a loan
product may be, it requires an effective distribution channel to
deliver it to the marketplace. The need to make the FHA loan product a
viable option is even more acute today given recent developments in the
subprime market, which is likely to lead to less liquidity and
increased costs. Unfortunately, today many prospective borrowers are
being denied access to the benefits of the FHA program because mortgage
brokers--the most widely used distribution channel in the mortgage
industry--are limited in their ability to offer FHA loan products to
their customers.
As a prerequisite to originating FHA loans, mortgage brokers
currently are required to satisfy cost prohibitive and time consuming
annual audit and net worth requirements. These requirements place
serious impediments in the origination process, and functionally bar
mortgage brokers from delivering FHA loans into the marketplace.
As small businesses men and women, most mortgage brokers find the
costs involved with producing audited financial statements an
unbearable burden. FHA audits must meet government accounting standards
and only a small percentage of certified public accountants (``CPAs'')
are qualified to conduct these audits. Moreover, because many auditors
do not find it feasible to audit such small entities to government
standards, many qualified CPA firms are reluctant to audit mortgage
brokers. Cost however, is not the only factor. A mortgage broker can
also lose valuable time--up to several weeks--preparing for and
assisting in the audit process.
The net worth requirement for mortgage brokers is also limited to
liquid assets because equipment and fixtures depreciate rapidly and
loans to corporate officers and goodwill are not permitted to be
included as assets. To compound this, a broker who greatly exceeds the
net worth requirement is forced to keep cash or equivalents of 20
percent of their net worth up to $100,000. Because the net worth for
brokers usually needs to be in cash, it tends to destabilize a small
business by robbing it of needed operating funds. This makes the net
worth requirement of little value for indemnification because a company
in trouble can easily dissipate its net worth. Additionally, there is
no evidence to demonstrate that loans originated by high net worth
originators perform better than those with a lower net worth.
Because of the burdens imposed by the current financial audit and
net worth requirements, many mortgage brokers do not engage in the FHA
program. In this regard, the impediments stated herein have actually
served to limit the utility and effectiveness of the FHA program and
seriously restrict the range of choice available for prospective
borrowers who can afford only a small down payment. At a minimum, NAMB
believes annual bonding requirements offer a better way to ensure the
safety and soundness of the FHA program than requiring originators to
submit audited financial statements.
Moreover, annual audit and net worth requirements are unnecessary.
Today, mortgage brokers participate in the FHA program typically
through a large lender. Replacing net worth and audit requirements with
a surety bond will not change the framework set to ensure
responsibility and accountability, it will simply encourage brokers to
participate thereby increasing the amount of FHA loans offered. The
larger FHA-approved lenders will continue to submit to the standards
deemed necessary by FHA (i.e. audits, net worth etc.) before being
approved to offer FHA loans through retail or wholesale channels. This
affords the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development's (``HUD'')
adequate protection against loss to the FHA program. Brokers who choose
to offer FHA loan products will also continue to be governed by
contract agreements with these respective FHA-approved lenders.
Additionally, brokers who participate in the FHA-program will remain
state-licensed entities subject to any state bond requirements,
criminal background checks and education requirements in addition to
any FHA-required surety bond. This, in effect, creates a dual-layer of
protection for both the FHA program and the consumer. Last, the process
of obtaining a surety bond itself involves stringent standards and
review. Surety companies pre-qualify their customers to determine
whether they are financially sound and have the baseline to conduct
their business, i.e. ability to pay out upon a loss, before issuing a
surety bond.
A stated objective of the FHA is to increase origination of FHA
loan products and expand homeownership opportunities for first-time,
minority and low to moderate-income families. NAMB supports increased
access to FHA loans so that prospective borrowers who have blemished
credit histories, or who can afford only minimal down payments, have
increased choice of affordable loan products. These prospective
borrowers should not be forced by default into the subprime market. A
recent Inside Mortgage Finance publication estimated the current FHA
market share at 2.7 percent.\1\ NAMB believes the solution to
increasing FHA loan origination and market share is increasing the
number of origination sources responsible for delivering FHA loan
products directly to consumers. Today, the most effective and efficient
origination source is through mortgage brokers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Inside Mortgage Finance, Mortgage Originations by Product,
p.7 (March 2, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mortgage brokers originate over 50 percent of all home loans, yet
brokers are responsible for just 10 percent of FHA's origination
volume, or .27 percent of all home loans. This is due, in large part,
to the fact that mortgage brokers are discouraged from participating in
the FHA program by the unnecessarily burdensome financial audit and net
worth requirements. These requirements erect a formidable barrier and
prevent a significant majority of mortgage brokers from participating
in the program.
NAMB estimates that less than 18 percent of all mortgage brokers
are approved to originate FHA loans under the current requirements;
however, recent NAMB surveys indicate that roughly 80 percent of ``non-
participating'' mortgage brokers would offer FHA loans to their
customers if there were no financial audit or net worth requirement.
NAMB predicts that such a change would increase mortgage broker
participation in the FHA program from 18 percent to roughly 85 percent.
This, in turn, would increase FHA's loan origination volume and market
share by nearly 40 percent.
For example, in 2006, FHA's origination volume was roughly $80
billion.\1\ All things being equal, the 67 percent increase in broker
participation would increase FHA's origination volume to nearly $112
billion, and FHA's total market share from 2.7 percent to 3.78 percent.
This increase of $32 billion and 1.08 percent total market share will
be directly tied to an increase in mortgage broker participation in the
FHA program.
fha risk-based premiums
The ability to match borrower characteristics with an appropriate
mortgage insurance premium has been recognized as essential by every
private mortgage insurer (``PMI''). PMI companies have established
levels of credit quality, loan-to-value, and protection coverage to aid
in this matching process. These companies also offer various programs
that allow for upfront mortgage insurance premiums, monthly premiums,
or combinations of both. This flexibility has enabled lenders to make
conventional loans that are either not allowable under FHA or present a
risk level that is currently unacceptable to FHA.
FHA is essentially a government mortgage insurance provider. Where
FHA mortgage insurance is not available, PMI companies are free to
increase premiums without fear of losing market share to a more
competitively priced FHA loan product. FHA should be permitted to
balance risk with premiums charged in order to increase competition and
ultimately drive down costs for consumers. Since FHA is not required to
make a suitable profit or demonstrate market growth to shareholders, it
is likely that FHA can afford to assume greater risk levels than PMI
companies can currently absorb. This increased capacity to assume and
manage risk will allow FHA to not only serve borrowers who presently do
not have PMI available as a choice, but also those borrowers whose
premiums will be reduced because of the increased competition in the
market.
fha mortgage amounts in high-cost areas
In an environment of rising interest rates, many first-time,
minority, and low to moderate-income homebuyers need the safer and
less-expensive financing options that the FHA program can provide. For
this reason, NAMB uniformly and unequivocally supports increasing FHA
loan limits in high-cost areas. The benefits of the FHA program should
be available equally to all taxpayers; especially those residing in
high-cost areas, where borrowers are most often in need of affordable
mortgage financing options.
Congress must act to ensure that FHA loan programs continue to
serve as a permanent backstop for all first-time homebuyer programs. We
believe that Congress should allow for FHA loan limits to be adjusted
up to 100 percent of the median home price, thereby establishing a
logical loan limit that will benefit both the housing industry and
consumers. Tying the FHA loan limit to the median home price for an
individual county, and letting it float with the housing market, allows
the FHA loan limits to respond to changes in home prices instead of an
esoteric number derived from a complicated formula. In this fashion,
the FHA loan limit will reflect a true home market economy.
future of fha
Changes must be made to the FHA program to sustain its viability
and to fulfill its stated objective of increasing origination of FHA
loan products and expanding homeownership opportunities for first-time,
minority, and low and moderate-income families. Without substantial
reform of the FHA program, PMI will continue to dominate the low down
payment market with little competition, while the sub-prime mortgage
market will meet the needs of those who are unable to obtain PMI
insurance. Minority families and first-time homebuyers will find
themselves underserved or even shut out of the housing market entirely.
For this reason, NAMB also supports the ability of the FHA to control
minimum borrower contribution to correspond to the levels deemed
acceptable by the government-sponsored enterprises. Furthermore, it is
possible that FHA's pool of loans will grow too small to effectively
manage risk, and FHA could ultimately be unable to fulfill its function
of being a helping hand for those who need it the most. The ripple
effects could easily extend to the homebuilding industry and even to
the economy at large.
Congress has the opportunity to revitalize the FHA program by
increasing its profitability and ensuring that borrowers across the
country have an equal opportunity to obtain a better loan at a lower
interest rate.
NAMB appreciates this opportunity to offer our perspective on
``Solvency and Reform Proposals for the Federal Housing
Administration.''
______
Prepared Statement of the American Association of Service Coordinators
(AASC)
The American Association of Service Coordinators (AASC) urges the
subcommittee to support the staffing of service coordinators in
federally assisted and public housing, as part of the Transportation,
HUD, and Related Agencies fiscal year 2008 Appropriations bill. AASC, a
national nonprofit organization based in Columbus, Ohio, represents
over 1,900 service coordinators and other housing professionals who
serve low-income frail elderly, persons with disabilities, and families
seeking self-sufficiency residing in public and federally assisted
housing.
We understand that the committee and Congress face difficult
choices with tight funding constraints. We are grateful for the
leadership of this committee in the establishment and funding of
service coordinators; and would urge your support for the full funding
of service coordinators as a cost-effective investment. Service
Coordinators not only give consumer choices, but also saves public
funds by promoting economic self-sufficiency for low-income families
and options for the delay or avoidance of elderly individuals moving
into more costly settings, such as nursing homes.
Service coordinators have helped thousands of low-income elderly
and persons with disabilities with their health and supportive service
needs, allowing them to remain in their home while avoiding premature
institutionalization. The concern for many persons is that the
fragmentation, lack of awareness, and complexities of essential
services available in the community, have hindered timely access.
Without the benefit of well-trained service coordinators, many
vulnerable persons have been forced to move to more costly settings.
Service coordinators are increasingly recognized as a vital lynchpin in
linking older persons with essential community services. They provide
assistance allowing many families in public housing or using Housing
Choice Vouchers to become more economically independent through
employment and homeownership.
Service coordinators in federally assisted housing are funded
primarily through national competitive grants through the section 202
program; through use of residual receipts; or incorporated into the
project's operating budget. For public housing, service coordinators
have been funded through competitive grants of the Resident
Opportunities and Self-Sufficiency program (ROSS), the Housing Choice
Vouchers Family Self-Sufficiency (HCV-FSS) program; or through PHA
Operating Funds.
Yet, despite the critical need and cost-effectiveness of service
coordinators in assisting frail elderly and others who seek to remain
in their home or low-income families seeking to become more self-
sufficient, funding for service coordinators remains very limited.
While the administration's fiscal year 2008 budget provides a slight
increase for service coordinators in section 202 and other federally
assisted senior housing, but it significantly cuts funds for service
coordinators assisting elderly and families residing in public housing.
AASC would urge the committee's support for the following:
--$100 million in fiscal year 2008 for service coordinators in
federally assisted housing, particularly to ensure adequate
funds for expiring contracts of existing service coordinators;
--Full funding for Section 8, Project Rental Assistance Contracts
(PRAC), other rent subsidies and project operating funds to
permit the staffing of a service coordinator as a routine part
of the project's operating budget;
--A separate add-on of $75 million in Public Housing Operating Funds
for service coordinators; and
--$55 million for the Resident Opportunities for Self-Sufficiency
(ROSS) program; and $85 million for the Housing Choice Voucher
Family Self-Sufficiency program.
federally assisted housing--$100 million
The administration's fiscal year 2008 budget requests $71 million
for service coordinators, a moderate increase over the $59.4 million
requested in fiscal year 2007 and the $51.6 million provided in the
fiscal year 2007 Continuing Resolution (H.J. Res. 20). Of this amount,
only $10 million was provided in the HUD fiscal year 2007 SuperNOFA to
expand the number of service coordinators to projects that currently do
not have them. Most of the funds are necessary to extend the expiring
contracts of existing service coordinators. While the initial
competitive grants for service coordinators is for 3 years, extensions
cover only 1 year. There is a potential of losing existing service
coordinator positions if the administration's proposed budget is not
increased. For the first time since Congress established the service
coordinator program in 1990, there would be no additional funds
available to hire new service coordinators. Currently, many federally
assisted and public housing facilities do not have sufficient resources
in their operating budgets to hire service coordinators; or due to
limited funding, need to share service coordinators between several
facilities, thus stretching their effectiveness. Additionally, some
projects that need service coordinators, such as section 515 rural
housing or Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, are currently ineligible to
compete for service coordinator funds.
AASC would recommend funding the service coordinator program for
federally assisted housing at $100 million in order to ensure renewal
of existing contracts, as well as to fund service coordinators in
federally assisted housing for elderly or persons with disabilities
that currently do not have them. There is a need for a dual strategy
for funding service coordinators that includes maintaining the service
coordinator grant program, as well as routinely staffing service
coordinators within the facility's operating budget. While statutory
authority exists to allow HUD to fund coordinators, many senior housing
facilities have not been able to secure the necessary rent adjustments
to accommodate them. AASC would recommend that sufficient Section 8,
PRAC, or other operating funds be increased to allow routine staffing
of service coordinators, as well as to direct HUD and their field
offices to provide necessary budget adjustments and regulatory relief
to remove any barriers restricting the staffing of service coordinators
though the project's operating budget.
public housing: operating funds, ross and hcv/fss
Residents of public housing and those using Housing Choice Vouchers
have been denied full access to the valuable assistance that service
coordinators can provide. Over one-third of residents in public housing
are elderly residing in various settings such as senior housing, family
housing, mixed-population housing with younger persons with physical
and mental disabilities. Funding for service coordinators in public
housing is very limited, complex, and has experienced a steady
reduction in funds over the past few years.
A number of local housing authorities have funded service
coordinators though competitive short-term grant programs, such as
those under the Resident Opportunities and Self-Sufficiency (ROSS)
program. Unfortunately, over the past few years, there have been
funding cuts and a lack of program consistency. For example, the
Elderly and Persons with Disabilities Service Coordinator program
(EDSC) funded at over $15 million, was initially a part of the ROSS
program. In fiscal year 2004, it was shifted to the Public Housing
Operating Fund with no additional funding provided. HUD specified that
only those public housing authorities that had received EDSC funds in
1995 were eligible for extension and that no new service coordinators
would be funded. The existing EDSC coordinators need to compete with
other critical operating budget priorities; and are subjected to the
same proportional cuts with Public Housing Operating Funds. Because of
funding cuts in their operating budgets and other competing needs, a
number of public housing authorities have been forced to lay off or
reduce their service coordinator program. This action, while necessary
by local housing authorities given their funding limitations, is
counter-productive for broader Federal long-term care policies that
seek to allow frail elderly and persons with disabilities more
independence while avoiding premature admission to more costly care.
AASC commends this committee for acknowledging in the fiscal year
2007 appropriations for public housing that operating funds covered
only 76 percent of operating budget needs; and with the committee's
action this year to provide additional funds in the final fiscal year
2007 Continuing Resolution for Public Housing Operating Funds. However,
the projected shortfall for public housing operating funds this year is
$1 billion. For fiscal year 2008, public housing service coordinators
must be included in the PHA plan. Therefore, it is necessary to ensure
that there are adequate funds available in the fiscal year 2008 Public
Housing Operating funds to accommodate service coordinators. AASC would
urge that $85 million be provided as a separate add-on to Public
Housing Operating Funds to ensure they can include service coordinators
within their operating budget as part of routine staffing.
resident opportunities and self sufficiency (ross)--$55 million
The Resident Opportunities and Self Sufficiency (ROSS) program
provides grants to public housing agencies, tribal housing entities,
resident associations, and nonprofit organizations for the delivery and
coordination of supportive services and other activities designed to
help public and Indian housing residents attain economic and housing
self-sufficiency. There are several separate programs within the ROSS
program that were appropriated at $38 million in fiscal year 2007,
assuming some fiscal year 2006 carry-over funds. These include: (1)
Family and Homeownership ($30 million in fiscal year 2007 NOFA) that
links residents with services such as job training, and educational
opportunities to facilitate economic and housing self-sufficiency; (2)
Elderly and Persons with Disabilities ($20 million in fiscal year 2007
NOFA) that funds service coordinators and supportive services to assist
elderly and persons with disabilities residing in public housing; and
(3) Public Housing Family Self-Sufficiency ($12 million in fiscal year
2007 NOFA) promotes participating public housing families to increase
their earned income, reduce or eliminate the need for welfare
assistance, and to make progress toward achieving economic independence
and housing self-sufficiency.
Prior to fiscal year 2004, PH/FSS was funded out of the public
housing operating fund. However, with the switch to ROSS and technical
problems encountered by a number of housing authorities with the NOFA,
a number of service coordinators and PH/FSS programs were cut. Despite
the demonstrated need and effective results, the administration's
fiscal year 2008 budget seeks no funding for these three ROSS programs,
and no additional funds for Neighborhood Networks (listed within ROSS
that had received approximately $15 million over the past few years).
AASC would urge that ROSS be funded at $55 million, as it had been
prior to fiscal year 2005.
housing choice voucher/family self-sufficiency (hcv/fss)--$85 million
The HCV/FSS program enables participants in the Section 8 Housing
Choice Voucher program to increase their earned income, reduce or
eliminate their need for welfare assistance, and promote their economic
independence. Funds are used to provide for FSS program coordinators to
link participants with supportive services they need to achieve self-
sufficiency; and to develop 5-year self-sufficiency plans. In fiscal
year 2004, HUD made major changes in the procedure to distribute HCV/
FSS funds that led to a reduction of nearly one-third (256 of the 771
HAs) and shifted funds to HAs that had not previously been funded in
the HCV/FSS program. The fiscal year 2007 appropriation for HVC/FSS was
for $47 million compared to $72 million in the administration's fiscal
year 2004 budget request. AASC urges for fiscal year 2008 an increase
in HCV/FSS funding to $85 million in order to restore those HAs cut in
fiscal year 2004 and to expand the number of FSS participants. In
addition, we support administrative changes for up-front funding of
escrow accounts, and to streamline the staffing of service coordinators
to enable 1 coordinator per 25 FSS participants.
collaboration between hud, hhs and other agencies
Given the strong relationship between suitable and affordable
housing with timely access to supportive services and health care
needed by older residents, low income families and others, it is vital
that there be effective collaboration between HUD, HHS, and other
Federal agencies serving these populations. Policies, programs and
funding requirements in one agency can contribute (or be counter
productive) to consumer preferences and public savings in another
Federal agency, including linking services with housing and mixed-
financing developments (tax credits administered by IRS and States with
various HUD programs). Last year, the Senate passed S. 705 to establish
an Interagency Council on Housing and Service for the Elderly that was
modified by the House and enacted (Public Law 109-365, section 203 of
the Older Americans Act) as an Interagency Coordinating Committee on
Aging within HHS. AASC would urge that the committee give directives to
HHS for the prompt establishment of this interagency committee; and
direct HUD, HHS and other Federal agencies to develop means to promote
collaboration with their respective programs and policies involving
affordable housing and services to assist the elderly, low income
families and persons with disabilities residing in public and federally
assisted housing. Thank you for your consideration.
FEDERALLY ASSISTED AND PUBLIC HOUSING
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2004 Fiscal Year 2005 Fiscal Year 2006 Fiscal Year 2007 Cont
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fiscal Year
Budget Appro Budget Appro Awards Budget Appro \10\ NOFA Awards Budget Res \11\ NOFA \13\ 2008 Budget
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federally Assisted SC/CHSP......... $40 mil $30 mil $53 mil $50 mil $15.5 mil $53 mil $51.6 mil $51.6 mil \1\ $12.1 $59.4 mil $51.6 mil $51.6 mil $71 mil
mil
PHA CAPITAL FUND................... 2.6 bil 2.7 bil 2.76 bil 2.6 bil n/a 2.3 bil 2.43 bil n/a n/a 2.17 bil 2.43 bil ......... $2.024 bil
============================================================================================================================================================
ROSS total \2\..................... 40 mil 55 mil 55 mil 53 mil \3\ 49.5 24 mil 38 mil 38 mil ........... 23.8 mil 38 mil ......... ...........
mil (+$34 mil)
Family and Homeownership....... ......... ......... ......... ......... 27.8 mil ......... .......... 18 mil 29.46 mil ......... ........... 30 mil ...........
(+$25 mil)
Homeownership Sup. Services.... ......... ......... ......... ......... 3.1 mil ......... .......... .............. ( \4\ ) ......... ........... ......... ...........
Elderly/Persons with ......... ......... ......... ......... 9.5 mil ......... .......... 10 mil \5\ 8.79 ......... ........... 20 mil ...........
Disabilities.................. (+$6 mil) mil
PH/FSS Coordinators............ ......... ......... ......... ......... 9.1 mil ......... .......... 10 mil \6\ 9.67 ......... ........... 12 mil ...........
(+$3 mil) mil
============================================================================================================================================================
PH Neighborhood Networks........... 15 mil 15 mil ......... 15 mil 13.8 mil ......... 7.5 mil 7.5 mil (+$9.5 \7\ $13.73 ......... ........... ......... ...........
mil) mil
PHA OPERATING FUND: Elderly/ 3.6 bil 3.59 bil 3.6 bil 2.4 bil n/a 3.4 bil 3.56 bil n/a n/a 3.56 bil \12\ 3.86 ......... 4.0 bil
Disabled SC \8\................... bil
HCV/FSS Coordinators............... 72 mil 48 mil 48 mil 46 mil 45.5 mil 55 mil 48 mil 47 mil \9\ 47.49 48 mil 47.5 mil 47 mil 48 mil
mil
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funded through the section 202 program; most fiscal year 2006 NOFA funds used to extend existing contracts.
\2\ ROSS (Resident Opportunity and Self Sufficiency) moved from CDBG to PHA Capital fund in 2004, includes 4-5 separate programs.
\3\ Additional funds awarded in fiscal year 2005 based on appeals.
\4\ Fiscal year 2006 ROSS NOFA merges Family and Homeownership Support Services programs and $25 mil carryover funds; HUD awards announced Feb. 23,2007.
\5\ Formerly Resident Services Delivery Model changed in fiscal year 2006 NOFA to Elderly/Persons with Disabilities and includes $6 mil carryover funds; HUD awards announced Jan. 18, 2007 to
32 PHAs.
\6\1A Public Housing Family Self Sufficiency (PH/FSS) moved from PH Operating Fund to ROSS in fiscal year 2004; fiscal year 2006 NOFA includes $3 mil carryover funds; HUD announced Dec. 20,
2006 to 173 PHAs.
\7\1AFunded as separate line item fiscal year 2004-fiscal year 2006 in PHA Capital Fund; moved to ROSS as a separate program not included in total funding; fiscal year 2006 NOFA includes $9.5
mil carryover funds; HUD announced 12/22/06 to 53 PHAs.
\8\ Elderly/Disabled SC shifted in fiscal year 2004 from ROSS to PH Operating Fund; previously funded level $15.6 mil.
\9\ Housing Certificate Voucher FSS Coordinators (self-sufficiency/homeownership); HUD announced Oct. 2006 to 623 public housing authorities.
\10\ Defense fiscal year 2006 Appropriations bill cut most domestic programs 1 percent across the board, Dec 21, 2005.
\11\ 3rd Continuing Resolution to Feb 15, 2007; H.J. Res 20 passed House Jan. 31, 2007.
\12\ H.J. Res 20 increases fiscal year 2007 funding to $3.86 billion from House passed $3.56 billion; House Appropriations Committee acknowledges that fiscal year 2007 funding is $672 million
short of the need and that HUD is funding PHAs at 76 percent of their operating level.
\13\ HUD published in March 13, 2007 Federal Register the fiscal year 2007 SuperNOFA.
Prepared Statement of the National Affordable Housing Management
Association (NAHMA)
Thank you, Chairman Murray and Ranking Member Bond for providing me
this opportunity to share NAHMA's perspectives on the fiscal year 2008
budget request for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development.
NAHMA represents individuals involved with the management of
privately-owned affordable multifamily housing regulated by the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the U.S. Rural
Housing Service (RHS), the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and
State housing finance agencies. Our members provide quality affordable
housing to more than 2 million Americans with very low and moderate
incomes. Executives of property management companies, owners of
affordable rental housing, public agencies and vendors that serve the
affordable housing industry constitute NAHMA's membership.
Key HUD multifamily programs of interest to our members include:
Project-based section 8; section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers; section 202
housing for the elderly; section 811 housing for the disabled; the
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and the HOME program. The
majority of my statement will focus on funding and administration of
the project-based section 8 program.
It is imperative to fully fund all rental subsidy contract renewals
in the project-based section 8 program. NAHMA is extremely concerned
that the fiscal year 2008 budget request for project-based section 8 is
seriously under-funded. The administration requested only $5.5 billion
for project-based section 8 contract renewals in fiscal year 2008--a
figure well below the $5.8 billion Congress appropriated for this
purpose in fiscal year 2007. Such a serious shortfall in this account
would further exacerbate the well-documented problem of late Housing
Assistance Payments (HAPs) to owners of these properties.
As the subcommittee is well aware, the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) released a report in November 2005, entitled ``Project-
Based Rental Assistance: HUD Should Streamline Its Processes to Ensure
Timely Housing Assistance Payments.'' GAO recommended three key actions
HUD should take to improve the timeliness of HAP payments to owners:
--Streamline and automate the contract renewal process to prevent
errors and delays;
--Improve HUD's monitoring of contract funding levels; and
--Notify owners about late payments.
Although HUD agreed with GAO's recommendations, the Department
pinned much of its plans for implementation on its planned Business
Process Reengineering--which has since been cancelled due to its costs.
Much of this report confirmed what we believed about the problem of
late HAP payments, including the close association between late HAPs
and contract renewals. In the experience of our members, HUD will not
execute a renewed contract until the funding is in place. Nevertheless,
there are some aspects of the report which we hope the subcommittee
will explore further. Near the end of the Federal fiscal years, and in
periods funded by continuing resolutions, NAHMA receives many pleas for
assistance from members who have not received their HAP payments, or
were told by the HUD field office or PBCA that there was no funding
available for their contract. Often, when a member does not receive
their HAP payment on time, they will notice the code given in HUD's
TRACS system for the contract is ``R-26'' (i.e. insufficient funding).
While these requests for help are not limited to the end of the fiscal
year or periods of continuing resolutions, they are generally expected
around these times. Based on interviews with HUD budget officials, GAO
dismissed continuing resolutions as a cause of late HAP payments. HUD
told GAO a process was in place to deal with such situations. NAHMA
strongly believes this claim requires further examination. When GAO
released this report in late 2005, HUD would execute short-term,
partial-year contracts in such situations. Recently, NAHMA was informed
that HUD now frowns on partial-year contracts. The effect of HUD's
policy reversal is that owners will remain unpaid for indefinite
periods of time rather than receive a partial payment. Although GAO did
not address whether lag-time between HUD's request for its funding
allotment and release of funds from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) caused late HAPs, we believe this matter should be explored.
Last year, in H. Rept. 109-495 to accompany the fiscal year 2007
Transportation, Treasury, HUD bill (H.R. 5576) the House Appropriations
Committee directed HUD to report on its progress in implementing GAO's
recommendations for improving timeliness of HAP rental subsidy payments
to affordable housing owners. Language found under the Project-Based
section 8 section noted the Committee's concern ``. . . that the
Department take adequate measures to avoid late or delayed payments to
providers of Project Based section 8 rental housing.'' The committee
repeated GAO's three specific recommendations and directed the
Department, ``. . . to provide the committee with a report on progress
achieved in reducing the incidence of late payments to project-based
providers and other measures to implement GAO's recommendations to
accompany the Department's fiscal year 2007 Operating Plan submission.
The report is to include a preliminary allocation plan for fiscal year
2007 funding requirements for both project-based contract renewal and
amendment funding needs in fiscal year 2007. In addition, the report
accompanying the Operating Plan is to address how the proposed fiscal
year 2007 program for project based-based renewals and amendments, as
reflected in the preliminary allocation plan, is to be funded using a
combination of new budget authority and recaptures in fiscal year
2007.''
Nearly 18 months after GAO released its report in 2005, late HAP
payments to owners remain a serious problem. The House Financial
Services Committee included the late HAP issue on its Oversight Plan
for the 110th Congress. NAHMA believes continued oversight by the
authorizers and appropriators will be necessary to resolve this
problem.
In a new report released by GAO in April, 2007, ``Project-Based
Rental Assistance: HUD Should Update Its Policies and Procedures to
Keep Pace with the Changing Housing Market,'' (GAO-07-290), GAO
documented serious consequences of late HAP payments:
``Owners told us that when they did not receive payments on time, they
often had to use reserve funds to cover critical operating expenses,
leading to cash flow problems. During these periods, some owners
delayed needed maintenance to make up for the budget shortfall. For
example, we found in our work for this current report that in
Baltimore, a nonprofit owner of a project-based section 8 property for
elderly residents delayed critical repairs to the boiler system when
the payments were delayed. The owner used reserve funds that should
have been used for repairs to cover operating costs. This situation
contributed to a lower physical REAC score for the owner because the
boiler was in need of repair.''
NAHMA has also come to the unfortunate conclusion that legislation
will probably be necessary to solve the problem once and for all. Not
surprisingly, we are unequivocal in our position that HAPs must be paid
to owners on time and in full. Ideally, we believe HUD should pay a
penalty to owners when HAPs are late, just as owners must pay late fees
on missed mortgage and /or utility payments which result from the late
HAP. We will seek legislation which requires HUD to implement GAO's
late HAP recommendation to notify owners when payments will be late,
requires HUD to automatically approve releases from reserves when the
HAP is 10 days late, and penalizes HUD for late HAP payments to owners.
Where HAP payments are not made in a timely manner, our members feel
strongly that HUD should pay interest on the late HAP payments--just as
the owners must pay a penalty for late mortgage payments. Moreover,
when owners must use reserve for replacement funds to sustain the
property until the HAP payment is received, interest earned on the
reserves is lost.
We believe a precedent for penalizing late HAP payments exists in
Treasury's Prompt Payment Rule, which ensures that Federal agencies pay
vendors in a timely manner. Prompt Payment assesses late interest
penalties against agencies that pay vendors after a payment due date.
This rate was established under the Contract Disputes Act and is
referred to as the ``Renegotiation Board Interest Rate,'' the
``Contract Disputes Act Interest Rate,'' and the ``Prompt Payment Act
Interest Rate.'' For more information, please see http://
www.fms.treas...gov/prompt/index.html. While we understand that HAP
payments are subject to annual appropriations, we do not believe the
legislative intent of such policy was to delay payments from days to
sometimes months at a time. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss
our proposed solution with the subcommittee at length.
Finally, it is in the context of HUD's questionable funding request
for project-based section 8 and chronic late payments of HAP contracts
that I respectfully ask the subcommittee to consider NAHMA's request
for assistance in implementing HUD's Limited English Proficiency (LEP)
guidance. HUD published its final LEP guidance, ``Notice of Guidance to
Federal Assistance Recipients Regarding Title VI Prohibition Against
National Origin Discrimination Affecting Limited English Proficient
Persons,'' in the Federal Register on January 22, 2007. It became
effective on March 7, 2007. The term ``limited English proficiency''
refers to inability to read, write, or speak English well. Among other
things, the LEP guidance obligates affordable housing owners to provide
translated ``vital documents'' and interpretation services to persons
with limited English proficiency. It also places responsibility on the
owners to ensure competency of translators/interpreters and accuracy of
the translations. The guidance was issued pursuant to Executive Order
13166, which directed Federal agencies to issue guidance clarifying how
recipients of Federal funds are supposed to satisfy their obligation
under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to ensure meaningful
access to their programs by persons with limited English proficiency
(LEP).
NAHMA supports HUD's goal of ensuring that persons with LEP have
access to Federal programs. In fact, many individuals with limited
English proficiency already live in properties owned or managed by
NAHMA members. It is the methods HUD has proposed to advance the goal
we find highly problematic. For example, no additional funding has been
proposed to offset the cost of complying with this guidance. Feedback
from NAHMA members suggest translating documents could cost $10,000 per
language per property. Many properties are already stretching funds
just to meet the ever-increasing regulatory requirements and to
maintain the physical condition of properties. Furthermore, HUD has
resisted suggestions to issue a specific, definitive list of ``vital
documents.'' The owner is left to guess which property-specific
documents could be considered vital in legal proceedings and then
translate them at the project's expense. Likewise, the guidance says
the owner is responsible for ensuring the accuracy of translations and
competency of the translators or interpreters. Generally speaking, the
management of affordable housing bears no relationship to linguistic
abilities, translation services or the ability to differentiate between
high quality interpretation and inadequate interpretation. To impose
this requirement on housing providers is no less burdensome than asking
them to become practitioners of some other profession requiring years
of extensive training and specialized personal abilities. We strongly
believe HUD should provide any necessary translations and/or oral
interpretation services directly to LEP persons.
We urge the subcommittee to include language in the fiscal year
2008 HUD appropriations legislation which will provide funding (either
through new appropriations or reprogramming from existing accounts) for
standardized translations and a toll-free interpretation hotline
service to assist persons with limited English proficiency. We believe
the standardized translations should include both official HUD
documents, as well as any unofficial documents used by a recipient of
the agency's funding to support the HUD program. NAHMA strongly
believes responsibility for producing the translations and providing
interpreters should be shifted from housing providers to HUD. The
suggested duplication of effort by small, medium and large housing
providers will result in multiple translations of the same document
with inconsistent quality. A reasonable compromise would make HUD
responsible for identifying vital documents and producing standard
translated versions of those documents. A single translation produced
by HUD will better serve individuals with limited English proficiency.
There would be more consistency and better control over the accuracy,
which will provide LEP persons with quality translations. Standard
translations produced by HUD represent a more cost-effective approach
to satisfying the goal of ensuring persons with Limited English
Proficiency have meaningful access to Federal housing programs.
Furthermore, professional interpreters available through a HUD-provided
hotline service and trained in HUD's programs would offer a win-win
alternative to the current proposal.
In conclusion, NAHMA appreciates that the subcommittee has a very
difficult task ahead in balancing many competing priorities in a
climate of tightened budgets. As you make these difficult
determinations, please continue to reject outright cuts to Federal
multifamily housing programs. NAHMA respectfully requests that the
subcommittee provide full funding for all authorized section 8
vouchers. Please also fully fund contract renewals for project-based
section 8, and continue legislative oversight to end the problem of
late HAP payments. Likewise, we urge the subcommittee to at the very
least increase appropriations for the section 202, section 811, HOME
and CDBG programs at the rate of inflation. Please resist any proposed
cuts to these important programs.
Thank you for your consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Council of State Housing Agencies
Chairman Murray, Ranking Member Bond, and members of the
subcommittee, the National Council of State Housing (NCSHA) is pleased
to provide you testimony on our fiscal year 2008 HUD funding
priorities. NCSHA represents the Housing Finance Agencies (HFAs) of the
50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin
Islands. We appreciate your continued commitment to affordable housing
and consideration of our views.
State HFAs are full partners with HUD in the delivery of affordable
housing programs. HFAs administer the HOME Investment Partnerships
program (HOME) in 41 States. They administer the section 8 Housing
Choice Voucher Program in 21 States and project-based section 8
contracts in 43 States. Many HFAs administer homeless assistance.
Forty-three participate in FHA mortgage insurance programs.
In addition to administering HUD programs, HFAs allocate the Low
Income Housing Tax Credit (Housing Credit) and issue tax-exempt private
activity single-family Mortgage Revenue Bonds (MRBs) and multifamily
housing bonds. HFAs often use HOME and other HUD programs in
combination with the Housing Credit and Bonds to extend their reach to
even lower income families.
NCSHA urges Congress to increase total HUD funding this year. In
recent years, HUD has borne more than its share of budget cuts. Since
2001, HUD funding as a percentage of total discretionary spending has
declined 20 percent.
Today's HUD budget is a fraction of what it would have been had it
just kept pace with inflation since 1976. In the last 31 years, HUD's
budget authority has barely grown from $29.2 billion in 1976 to $36.6
billion in 2007, despite the steady rise in the number of families
needing affordable housing in this country. If HUD's budget authority
had grown at the rate of inflation since 1976, today it would be $88.2
billion.
Increased funding is sorely needed. According to Harvard's Joint
Center for Housing Studies, 15.8 million--nearly one in seven--American
families spend more than half of their incomes on housing. Eighty
percent of these families have incomes in the bottom fifth of the
income distribution scale.
The country is losing more affordable rental housing than it is
producing each year to deterioration, rent increases, and conversion to
market-rate housing or commercial use. The threat of further losses
looms as Federal subsidy contracts on hundreds of thousands of
apartments expire each year, and mortgages on thousands more become
eligible for prepayment.
Recognizing that budget constraints will prevent Congress from
providing funding adequate to address all our housing needs, NCSHA
urges Congress to prioritize increasing HOME formula grant and voucher
funding.
increase home formula grant funding
NCSHA appreciates the subcommittee's continued support of the HOME
program. HOME enjoys strong bipartisan support throughout Congress.
Since Congress created the HOME program more than 15 years ago, it
has financed more than 1 million affordable homes, helping nearly a
half million homeowners and just as many renters. Every year, HOME
funds are used to provide housing assistance to more than 100,000
additional families.
HOME continues to be a wise investment and one of the most
successful HUD programs available to States and localities. According
to HUD, HOME production last year exceeded 140,000 units nationwide.
Still, HOME participating jurisdictions (PJ) need much more HOME
funding than they receive to meet the demand for it.
The administration proposes to increase HOME funding to $1.97
billion in fiscal year 2008, a 12 percent increase over the fiscal year
2007 HOME appropriation. It recommends a 10 percent increase in the
State and local HOME formula grant to $1.85 billion.
The administration's proposal does not make up for funding cuts
HOME has suffered since 2004. In fiscal year 2006, Congress cut HOME
funding overall by 7.5 percent and the HOME formula grant by 6 percent,
even though the House and Senate provided higher funding levels. The
fiscal year 2006 funding cut came on top of a 5.3 percent reduction in
fiscal year 2005. fiscal year 2007 HOME funding remains frozen at the
fiscal year 2006 levels, the lowest since fiscal year 2000.
NCSHA urges Congress to restore HOME funding to at least its fiscal
year 2004 level of $2 billion, adjusted for inflation. Adjusted for
inflation since fiscal year 2004, the fiscal year 2008 funding level
for HOME would be $2.24 billion.
During tight budgetary times as these, HOME is a particularly sound
investment. State HFAs are able to direct scarce HOME funds where they
will have the greatest impact meeting the States' most pressing low-
income housing needs. PJs may use HOME funds for rental production,
tenant-based rental assistance, homeowner rehabilitation, and down
payment assistance. HOME funds can also be targeted to the elderly,
persons with disabilities, extremely low-income, and working families.
We also strongly urge Congress to put every available HOME dollar
into the formula grant and not set-asides like the American Dream
Downpayment Initiative (ADDI) or Housing Counseling. Such set-asides
take away State flexibility and impose Washington dictates that may not
address States' highest priority needs. Also, PJs already can and do
use HOME formula grant funds for down payment assistance.
increase housing choice voucher funding
NCSHA also calls on Congress to increase voucher funding to fully
fund all authorized vouchers and provide for new incremental vouchers.
The administration proposes to provide $16 billion for vouchers in
fiscal year 2008, less than 1 percent more than the fiscal year 2007
appropriation of $15.9 billion.
This amount would not be enough to renew all vouchers already in
use. At a minimum, Congress must fully fund all vouchers in use. We
urge Congress also to fully fund all authorized vouchers.
Vouchers assist some of our neediest families. With the help of
vouchers, other important housing programs such as HOME, the Housing
Credit, and Bonds are able to reach more low-income families than they
can independently. In fact, the financial viability of some HOME,
Credit, and Bond developments depends on vouchers. Adequately funding
all authorized vouchers will help ensure the stability and longevity of
these developments.
In addition, we urge Congress to provide for new incremental
vouchers so we can help some of the millions of families who qualify
for voucher assistance, but do not receive it. According to the Joint
Center for Housing Studies, more than 7 million low-income renters pay
more than 50 percent of their income for housing. Three-quarters of all
families eligible for housing assistance do not receive any. Yet,
Congress has not funded any new incremental vouchers since 2002.
To make matters worse, HUD has distributed the voucher funding
Congress has provided to PHAs under a formula based on limited and
outdated utilization data from May, June, and July 2004. Under this so
called ``three-month snapshot'' formula, some public housing
authorities (PHAs) have received too little funding to renew all
vouchers in use, and others have received more than they are authorized
to use.
According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the
funding shortages and misallocations have caused the number of families
served since February 2004 to drop significantly. Over this period, HUD
has provided vouchers to 150,000 fewer families than it would have if
all authorized vouchers had been fully funded.
NCSHA thanks the subcommittee for recognizing the problems created
by the outdated funding formula. The formula changes Congress made in
the fiscal year 2007 joint funding resolution, with your support, were
a step in the right direction. Under the resolution, HUD will calculate
voucher funding allocations on the most recent 12-month utilization and
cost data available, adjusted for cost increases, rather than the old
3-month snapshot.
It is essential that Congress ensure HUD allocate whatever voucher
funds are available according to a fair formula. We recommend the
subcommittee make permanent the 1-year funding formula changes that
Congress called for in the fiscal year 2007 appropriations bill and
make other important allocation improvements, including directing HUD
to reallocate unused funds from low utilization PHAs to high
utilization PHAs and giving PHAs access to up to 2 percent of their
next year's allocation to absorb temporary overleasing costs.
support increased affordable housing production
To meet the country's ever-growing housing needs, we must devote
more Federal resources to producing new affordable housing and
preserving the current housing stock. Existing resources are simply not
sufficient.
States administer a number of successful programs that produce
affordable rental housing, including the Housing Credit, HOME, and
multifamily tax-exempt bonds. While these programs are extremely
effective, they were not designed to meet the needs of households at
the bottom of the income spectrum without additional rental subsidies.
At their current funding levels, they cannot adequately address our
country's huge unmet affordable housing needs.
We urge you to work with your authorizing committee colleagues to
authorize and fund a new resource for increasing affordable rental
housing production. Such a resource could be combined cost-effectively
with other existing production resources to extend their reach to even
lower income families.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Low Income Housing Coalition
The National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC) is pleased to
submit testimony on the fiscal year 2008 Department of Housing and
Urban Development. We would also like to thank the subcommittee for its
series of hearings on the fiscal year 2008 HUD budget.
NLIHC is dedicated solely to ending the affordable housing crisis
in the United States. Our members include non-profit housing providers,
homeless service providers, fair housing organizations, state and local
housing coalitions, public housing agencies, private developers and
property owners, housing researchers, local and State government
agencies, faith-based organizations, residents of public and assisted
housing and their organizations, and concerned citizens. NLIHC does not
represent any sector of the housing industry. Rather, NLIHC works only
on behalf of and with low income people who need safe, decent, and
affordable housing, especially those with the most serious housing
problems. NLIHC is entirely funded with private donations.
The need for more affordable housing is indisputable. The
nationwide shortage of rental homes for extremely low income
households, which are composed of elderly and disabled people on fixed
incomes or people in the low wage workforce, is acute and getting
worse. In the United States, there are 9,022,000 extremely low income
renter households and only 6,746,000 homes renting at prices these
households can afford, paying the standard of 30 percent of their
income for housing. In Washington, there are only 31 affordable and
available units to every 100 extremely low income renter households who
could afford them. In Missouri, there are only 46 affordable and
available units for every 100 extremely low income renter
households.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pelletiere, D. (2007). American Community Survey estimate shows
larger national, State affordable rental housing shortages. Research
Note No. 07-01. Washington, DC: NLIHC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This lack of affordable housing forces 74 percent of extremely low
income renters to pay more than half of their incomes toward their
homes, compared to 26 percent of renters in any income group.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ NLIHC tabulations of 2005 American Community Survey PUMS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NLIHC firmly believes in the potential for federal housing programs
to address these types of housing affordability problems through a
variety of housing programs targeted to the lowest income households.
NLIHC urges the subcommittee to provide full funding for the
voucher program, including language that tenant protection vouchers
must replace all units leaving the affordable housing inventory, not
just for those units under lease. The Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities estimates that the President has requested between $300 and
$600 million less than what will actually be needed to renew existing
vouchers in fiscal year 2008.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Sard, B. and Rice, D. (2007) Memorandum to Interested Parties
on administration's proposed housing budget for fiscal year 2008.
Washington, DC: CBPP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We appreciate the many improvements made to the section 8 housing
choice voucher program in the fiscal year 2007 funding resolution.
NLIHC is encouraged by legislation in the House, H.R. 1851, which would
also fix the voucher funding formula while providing other welcome
reforms to the program. It is our hope that this legislation will be
enacted before fiscal year 2008 begins. If not, we hope that funding
formula fixes will be included in the HUD fiscal year 2008 bill.
NLIHC rejects the President's policy proposal to lift voucher
agencies' authorized voucher caps. NLIHC firmly believes such action
would be tantamount to creating a block grant and that no one,
including Congress, HUD and advocates, would know the number of
vouchers in use locally or nationally. It is also apparent that many
housing authorities have not expended funds up to their authorized cap
so we are very doubtful that lifting the cap would result in any
significant increase, if we could even hope to measure it, of vouchers
in use.
In addition to assuring the current voucher program is on solid
ground to restore all vouchers lost since 2004, NLIHC urges the
subcommittee to include funding for 100,000 new, incremental vouchers
in fiscal year 2008. Such action would be a meaningful, much-needed
step toward meeting the Nation's housing needs and would signal the
subcommittee's belief that the reliability and credibility of the
voucher program have been re-established.
NLIHC is concerned about the President's request for section 8
project-based contract renewals and urges the subcommittee to seek
additional data from HUD to ensure that all section 8 project-based
contracts are renewed in fiscal year 2008. Preliminary analysis shows
1,004,529 units with section 8 project-based contracts expiring in
fiscal year 2008 at a cost of at least $5.92 billion. But, the
President has only requested $5.52 billion for renewals, a shortfall of
at least $400 million. This is potentially exasperated by a recent HUD
general counsel decision that, counter to HUD's previous practices, HUD
cannot renew project-based contracts for terms fewer than 12 months.
The Nation's 1.2 million units of public housing are in need of
immediate attention and increased funding in fiscal year 2008. NLIHC
urges the Subcommittee to increase both public housing operating and
capital funding to levels that will restore financial and physical
stability to these homes. Adequate funding is the only way these homes
can be preserved for their target population. NLIHC supports at least
$4.7 billion for operating funds and at least $3.5 billion for capital
funds in fiscal year 2008.
NLIHC supports Resident Opportunity and Self Sufficiency funding of
at least $55 million in fiscal year 2008 to help ensure that residents
are prepared to participate in the public participation opportunities
available to them.
NLIHC continues to have serious concerns about the HOPE VI program.
NLIHC is hopeful that forthcoming legislation in the House will require
that each public housing unit revitalized with HOPE VI funds will be
replaced with a public housing unit and that residents will have a
universal right of return to the revitalized housing. Without these and
other improvements to the HOPE VI program, NLIHC believes that, if the
HOPE VI program continues to be authorized in fiscal year 2008, any
public housing revitalization funds would be better appropriated
through the public housing capital fund.
NLIHC also urges the subcommittee to adequately fund HUD's research
functions, with particular attention to fully funding its core housing
market and program data collection, research, and policy evaluation
functions that are necessary to inform the public debate on the most
effective solutions to housing affordability and quality problems.
NLIHC urges adequate funding for HUD's other core programs,
including homeless assistance grants, Community Development Block
Grants, HOME, section 202 supportive housing for the elderly, section
811 housing for persons with disabilities, Housing Opportunities for
Persons with AIDS, fair housing and lead-based paint hazard reduction.
NLIHC urges the subcommittee to fund all provisions of H.R. 1227,
the Gulf Coast Hurricane Housing Recovery Act. H.R. 1227, which passed
the House on March 21 with a large bipartisan majority, would do much
towards assuring the replacement of housing for low income people in
the gulf coast and providing a long-term housing solution to the over
150,000 families that remain displaced. It is a concrete, long-term
plan to address the critical housing needs of those displaced
households that remain in trailer camps and other temporary housing
arrangements, and must be funded through the fiscal year 2008
appropriations bill. It is our hope that similar legislation will be
considered in the Senate and that enactment will occur very soon.
Thank you for considering our views.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Alliance to End Homelessness
The National Alliance to End Homelessness (the Alliance) is a
nonpartisan, nonprofit organization with several thousand partner
agencies and organizations across the country. The Alliance supports
the over 160 State and local entities who have completed 10 year plans
to end homelessness. The Alliance represents a united effort to address
the root causes of homelessness and challenge society's acceptance of
homelessness as an inevitable by-product of American life.
overview
The story of homelessness over the past decade has been one of
communities innovating and improving their homeless assistance systems
under the increasing strain of a worsening housing crisis. Reducing
homelessness will require Congress to do two things:
--Increase funding for Homeless Assistance Grants to $1.8 billion and
support performance driven, cost-effective solutions to
homelessness like permanent supportive housing and rapid re-
housing programs.
--Increase the supply of affordable housing for extremely low income
households.
homelessness
Widespread homelessness did not always exist. Between WWII and the
1980s, the sight of people living in shelters, cars, churches, on the
streets, or in the woods was exceptionally rare. However, throughout
the 60s, 70s, and 80s, deinstitutionalization, powerful new illegal
drugs, a shifting economy, and, most importantly, a declining supply of
affordable housing, caused the homelessness we see today.
Over the course of a year, as many as 3.5 million people will
experience homelessness. The most recent nationwide estimate of the
size of the homeless population found that at one point in January
2005, 744,000 people were homeless. Of those, 171,000 were chronically
homeless. An additional 304,000 were in families with children. Despite
the fact that the count was conducted during the coldest month of the
year, 331,000 homeless people, 44 percent of the total, were
unsheltered. Homelessness was prevalent in every region of the country,
in urban, suburban, and rural areas.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Homelessness Counts. National Alliance to End Homelessness.
January 2007. Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Though the problem is very large, and seems intractable, we know
that homelessness can be ended. Indeed, a nationwide movement to end
homelessness has begun. Nearly 300 communities have completed or are
working on 10 year plans to end homelessness. Many places are already
showing success. Here are just a few examples:
--Portland, Oregon--the number of people sleeping on the streets
declined by over 40 percent from January 2005 to January 2007.
--San Francisco, California--Between 2002 and 2005, the city reduced
the number of people sleeping on the streets by 40 percent, and
the total number of homeless people by 28 percent.
--Columbus, Ohio--Between 1997 and 2005, the number of homeless
families declined by 44 percent.
These remarkable results were accomplished because of two major
shifts in the way communities serve homeless families and individuals--
permanent supportive housing for chronically homeless individuals and
rapid re-housing for homeless families.
permanent supportive housing
About 23 percent of homeless people experience chronic
homelessness. They are homeless for years or even decades, or they
cycle between homelessness, psychiatric hospitals, jails, prisons,
detox programs and emergency rooms. For that group, most of whom have
one or more severe disabilities, homelessness is extremely harmful and
very costly to the public. Numerous studies have shown that providing
permanent supportive housing to chronically homeless people ends their
homelessness, improves their mental and physical health, and saves
thousands of dollars per person by reducing the need for shelter,
detoxification, hospitalization, emergency rooms, and incarceration.\2\
In Denver, Colorado, permanent supportive housing saved $2,300 per
person per year, and in Portland, Oregon, permanent supportive housing
saved $15,000 per person per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The two studies compared the cost of health care,
incarceration, emergency shelter, and other publicly funded care for
chronically homeless individuals before and after entering permanent
supportive housing. Denver source: Denver Housing First Collaborative:
Cost Benefit Analysis and Program Outcomes Report, Jennifer Perlman,
PsyD, and John Parvensky, Colorado Coalition for the Homeless. December
2006. Portland source: Estimated Cost Savings Following Enrollment In
The Community Engagement Program: Findings From A Pilot Study Of
Homeless Dually Diagnosed Adults. Thomas L. Moore, Ph.D. Central City
Concern. June 2006. Portland, OR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress, the administration, the bipartisan Millennial Housing
Commission and numerous researchers and advocacy organizations have
identified a need for 150,000 units of permanent supportive housing
over 10 years targeted to chronically homeless individuals. Combined
with better prevention policies, these units would end chronic
homelessness in the United States.
rapid re-housing
While chronic homelessness has received more attention in recent
years, communities have also been making great strides in serving
homeless families. Most homeless families have very similar
characteristics to other poor families with similar levels of education
and similar rates of mental illness or depression. Most of these
families struggled to pay for housing in an increasingly unaffordable
rental market and then experienced some crisis, like domestic violence,
a job loss, or a medical problem, that eventually led to their
homelessness.
Recently, the Alliance studied some communities that had reduced
family homelessness to identify the key ingredients to their
success.\3\ The success stories included the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Promising Strategies to End Family Homelessness. National
Alliance to End Homelessness and Freddie Mac. June 2006. Washington,
DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Hennepin County, Minnesota--From 2000 to 2004, the number of
families experiencing homelessness declined by 43 percent.
--Westchester County, New York--The number of families needing
shelter declined by 57 percent over a 2 year period.
--Massachusetts--From 2002 through 2006, the number of families
experiencing homelessness declined from 1,600 each night to
1,338.
The common ingredient in these and other successful communities is
that they help families move back into permanent housing as rapidly as
possible, and then provide services to help them stabilize and focus on
their longer term needs. These rapid re-housing strategies reduce
spells of homelessness from several months to several weeks, and when
families at high risk of homelessness are identified early enough, they
can prevent homelessness altogether.
funding needs for homeless assistance
To help communities make sufficient progress in their efforts to
end homelessness, the Alliance recommends a funding level of $1.8
billion for Homeless Assistance Grants.
While some cities have already made remarkable progress reducing
homelessness, all of them are at a critical juncture. They have
developed 10 year plans to end homelessness, brought in new partners,
identified cost-effective strategies, and located some potential
sources of funding. Many have made significant commitments of State,
local and private dollars. They are, however, counting on the Federal
Government to be an active partner in their efforts.
The administration's fiscal year 2008 budget request calls for
$1.586 billion for HUD homeless assistance funding, an increase of $144
million from 2007. The Alliance estimates that the request would be
sufficient to continue existing homeless activities, yet it would fund
fewer than 8,000 new units of permanent supportive housing. While this
is slightly more than has been funded in the last 2 fiscal years, it is
still well below the pace of new units funded between 2001 and 2004,
and only a little over half the number needed to fund the 15,000 units
needed each year to be on track to end chronic homelessness in 10
years. The administration's request would do nothing to help
communities implement rapid re-housing programs for families, even as a
growing body of research is showing that those programs are the best
way to end homelessness for most families.
An appropriation of $1.8 billion would help communities make
progress on their 10 year plans to end homelessness by accomplishing
the following:
--Fund all expiring permanent housing renewals, which by themselves
will increase by $65 million between 2007 and 2008.
--Provide $25 million to communities to set up cost-effective
programs to help homeless families move into permanent housing.
--Fund 15,000 new units of permanent supportive housing, helping put
communities on track to create the 150,000 units needed to end
chronic homelessness.
policy needs for homeless assistance programs
For the past several years, Congress has implemented two policies
that have helped make Homeless Assistance Grants a much more effective
tool for ending homelessness:
--A 30 percent set-aside for permanent supportive housing for
individuals and families with disabilities.
--Added funding for Shelter Plus Care renewals. Without the funding
guarantee, people in permanent housing were in jeopardy of
losing their housing.
The policies allowed communities to develop 50,000 units of
permanent supportive housing over the past 6 years, and they should
continue.
A similar initiative is needed to help end homelessness for the
roughly 600,000 families who are homeless each year. The Alliance
recommends that Congress provide an incentive within HUD's homeless
assistance grants for rapid re-housing programs that focus on helping
homeless families move into permanent housing as quickly as possible;
provide flexible short-term housing assistance as needed; and provide
follow up support to ensure stability and prevent future homelessness.
By increasing HUD's homeless assistance grants to $1.8 billion,
continuing policies that create permanent supportive housing, and
initiating policies to encourage rapid re-housing for homeless
families, Congress will help communities take critical steps in their
efforts to end homelessness.
increasing affordable housing
This Nation will continue to have homelessness until we address our
affordable housing shortage. The link between affordable housing and
homelessness can be summed up very simply. In 1970, there were 300,000
more affordable housing units available nationally than there were low-
income households that needed to rent them.\4\ As result, there was not
widespread homelessness. Many people had mental illness, addictions,
poor educations and low incomes, but they could still afford a place to
live. Today, the situation is reversed. In 2003, there were 5.4 million
more low-income households than there were affordable housing units
available to them.\5\ Although the problem exists for all low-income
households, it is especially acute for those with extremely low
incomes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ In Search of Shelter: The Growing Shortage of Affordable Rental
Housing. Daskal, Jennifer. June 1998. Paper. Center on Budget and
Policy Priorities, Washington, DC.
\5\ The State of the Nation's Housing: 2006. Joint Center for
Housing Studies for Harvard University. June 2005. Cambridge, MA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The new Congress faces an extremely difficult budget climate. Even
so, investing in more affordable housing is economically sensible. Many
of the challenges our Nation faces--homelessness, concentrated poverty,
inefficiencies in health care and mental health, high rates of
recidivism in the criminal justice system, failing schools, and
others--are exacerbated by the lack of affordable housing. The Alliance
joins many of our partners in the affordable housing community in
recommending further strengthening and expanding the Housing Choice
Voucher program, ensuring that public housing is fully funded and
continues to be a valuable housing resource, and creating more
affordable housing through a National Housing Trust Fund and other
mechanisms, particularly for extremely low income households.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Association of Homes and Services
for the Aging (AAHSA)
AAHSA members serve 2 million people every day through mission-
driven, not-for-profit organizations dedicated to providing the
services people need, when they need them, in the place they call home.
Our members offer the continuum of aging services: assisted living
residences, continuing care retirement communities, nursing homes,
senior housing facilities, and home and community based services.
AAHSA's mission is to create the future of aging services through
quality the public can trust. Over half of our members develop, own or
operate federally subsidized senior apartment buildings and AAHSA
represents the majority of HUD section 202 senior housing providers.
growing need for affordable supportive senior housing
The senior population in the United States is expected to double by
2030 to approximately 70 million seniors. The Commission on Housing and
Health Facility Needs for Seniors in the 21st Century, in its report to
Congress, estimated that an additional 730,000 assisted units would be
needed by 2020 to meet the needs of low income seniors. Today more than
5.8 million of non-institutionalized people age 65 and older require
assistance with everyday activities and about 1.2 million are severely
impaired and require assistance with three or more activities of daily
living (ADLs).
The HUD section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly program
funds capital development grants, rental assistance contracts and other
programs, directed to non-profit housing sponsors to develop and
maintain safe, decent, affordable, supportive housing for seniors
living on very-low incomes. Today more than 300,000 seniors rely on
section 202 housing for an affordable, supportive living environment.
The average section 202 resident is 79 years old and has less than
$10,000 per year in income and needs some form of supportive
assistance.
In a recent survey of section 202 property managers, AARP reported
there are at least 10 seniors waiting for every unit of section 202
affordable elderly housing that becomes available. Furthermore, elderly
residents comprise a growing segment of many of HUD's programs. Seniors
make up one third of the public housing population and one half of
section 8 voucher holders. With the average cost of assisted living
more than $3,000 per month, low income seniors have few options beyond
nursing home care for supportive housing outside of the HUD programs.
Level funding, across the board cuts and increased construction and
rental assistance costs means that fewer section 202 units are being
built each year. The section 202 program appropriations funded 5,819
units in fiscal year 2002, 5,689 in fiscal year 2003, 5,353 units in
fiscal year 2004; 4,681 in 2005; 4,313 in 2006 and 3,667 in fiscal year
2007. Under the administration's proposed budget just 3,000 units will
be built in fiscal year 2008.
To make matters worse, we are losing ground. Existing affordable
housing units are being lost to market rate conversion and contract
opt-outs. The Joint Center for Housing found that for every unit of
affordable housing we build, two are lost. The National Housing Trust
estimates that almost 15,000 federally-assisted elderly units have been
lost to conversion and another 82,900 remain ``at risk.''
supportive housing as part of the continuum of care
Affordable senior housing, such as section 202, can serve as an
integral part of the continuum of care and avoid premature,
inappropriate, unnecessary and costly institutionalization for seniors
that do not want to leave their communities. In addition, section 202
housing sites provide a proven and cost-effective infrastructure system
for service delivery for residents, as well as the community at large.
Sites often serve as a base for the delivery of home and community
based services from meals to health screenings to Older Americans Act
programs.
Failure to invest in the section 202 program will add to the
ongoing crisis in our long-term care system, forcing low-income seniors
into institutions if they want to have a roof over their heads and
access to meals and services. The section 202 program is a model of a
public-private partnership that maximizes efficiency and quality in
Federal housing programs. The administration has called on faith and
community based groups, such as AAHSA's members, to be more involved in
providing essential services for low-income citizens. They cannot
respond to this call with continuous funding cuts.
--On behalf of our members, their residents and families, AAHSA
strongly urges Congress to fund 10,000 new section 202 units by
providing $1.33 billion for fiscal year 2008. This amount would
include funding for existing project rental assistance contract
renewals and:
--$1.18 billion for the development of 10,000 new section 202
units. This will not come close to meeting the existing,
much less future housing needs, but it represents a first
step to the unmet housing needs of thousands of seniors.
--$20 million for section 202 Predevelopment Grants. If implemented
properly, this program increases efficiency and streamlines
the development process for not-for-profit organizations.
These grants are needed to cover the costs of architectural
and engineering work, site control and other planning
relating to the development of section 202 housing.
--$75 million for service coordinators grants so that there is
staff to assist frail elderly residents with identifying
and obtaining the services they need to aging in place and
avoiding premature institutionalization.
--$50 million for the Assisted Living Conversion Program (ALCP) to
fund modernization and conversion of existing facilities to
an ``assisted living'' level of care, facilitating
residents' ability to age-in-place. AAHSA urges you to
allocate $20 million of the amount to increase the number
of affordable housing units with supportive services and
$30 million for substantial and emergency capital repairs.
Many of the properties are ``aging in place'' and
recapitalization may not be feasible. This funding is
essential to affordable housing preservation efforts.
In addition to funding the section 202 program, we urge Congress to
fully fund all HUD programs and USDA housing programs that serve rural
seniors. These housing facilities provide safe, decent, affordable
options to our seniors and enable them to avoid homelessness or
premature and more expensive placement in a nursing home.
--Provide funding for additional section 8 Vouchers.--Increased
project basing of section 8 assistance will allow providers to
house the lowest income seniors and preserve at risk properties
with partial or no rental assistance. This cannot be done
within the existing section 8 funding levels.
--Fully fund the Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG).--
This program provides crucial gap and infrastructure financing
for section 202 developments, as well as paying for supportive
services in section 202 properties.
--Continue to fund the USDA section 515 Multifamily program and the
HUD Rural Housing and Economic Development Program.--These
programs ensure that low income seniors and the disabled in
rural communities have access to safe, decent housing and an
infrastructure where supportive services can be delivered and
thereby reduce premature nursing home admission.
--Support increased project-basing of section 8 vouchers.--Public
housing authorities can provide up to 25 percent of their
section 8 housing vouchers as project-based assistance to
privately owned, new or rehabilitated housing that are
otherwise without rental assistance. Public Housing Authorities
should be encouraged to do so.
conclusion
In light of the importance of affordable housing to low income
seniors, we urge Congress to address the funding needs of section 202
and the entire HUD budget to guarantee all seniors have access to safe,
decent, affordable housing. Last year the Senate Appropriations
Committee took a monumental step to increase the funding for both the
section 202 and 811 programs for the first time in years. Your
leadership is crucial. The elderly and disabled populations need
additional funding for supportive housing options outside of
institutional settings. AAHSA and its members appreciate your continued
support and look forward to working with you in the future throughout
this process.
______
Prepared Statement of the Institute of Makers of Explosives
Dear Madam Chairwoman: On behalf of the Institute of Makers of
Explosives (IME), I am submitting a statement for inclusion in the
subcommittee's hearing record regarding the proposed fiscal year 2008
budget for the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
interest of the ime
The IME is the safety and security association of the commercial
explosives industry. Our mission is to promote safety, security and the
protection of employees, users, the public and the environment; and to
encourage the adoption of uniform rules and regulations in the
manufacture, transportation, storage, handling, use and disposal of
explosive materials used in blasting and other essential operations.
Commercial explosives are transported and used in every State.
Additionally, our products are distributed worldwide, while some
explosives, like TNT, must be imported because they are not
manufactured in the United States. The ability to transport and
distribute these products safely and securely is critical to this
industry.
background
The production and distribution of hazardous materials is a
trillion-dollar industry that employs millions of Americans. These
products are indispensable to the American economy. In the explosives
industry alone, the value of our shipments far exceeds the $1 billion
in gross revenues credited to the industry. The transportation of
hazardous materials involves producers and distributors of chemical and
petroleum products and waste, transporters in all modes, and
manufacturers of containers. DOT estimates that upward of 800,000
shipments and as many as 1.2 million regulated movements of hazardous
materials occur each day in the United States. This represents over 10
percent of all freight tonnage transported. As a major export, the
transportation of hazardous materials contributes positively to our
trade balance. These products are pervasive in the transportation
stream and in our society as a whole.
While these materials contribute to America's quality of life,
unless handled properly, personal injury or death, property damage, and
environmental consequences can result. The threat of intentional misuse
of these materials also factors into public concern. To protect against
these outcomes, the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) is charged
to ``provide adequate protection against the risks to life and property
inherent in the transportation of hazardous materials in commerce by
improving'' regulation and enforcement.\1\ These regulations are to
provide for the ``safe transportation, including security,'' of
hazardous materials in commerce.\2\ The Secretary's authority to
accomplish this mission is embodied in the Hazardous Materials
Transportation Act (HMTA).\3\ Beginning in the 1990s and most recently
in 2005, the HMTA has been significantly amended. As a consequence of
these amendments, Congress directed DOT to accomplish a number of
tasks. How DOT has handled these responsibilities and how it proposes
to handle them in the future is the focus of this statement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 49 U.S.C. 5101.
\2\ 49 U.S.C. 5103(b)(1).
\3\ 49 U.S.C. Chapter 51.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The HMTA directs the Secretary to implement the law. In reality,
the Secretary has dispersed authorities in the act to the various modal
administrations, with primary regulatory authority resting in the
Pipeline & Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's (PHMSA) Office
of Hazardous Materials Safety (OHMS). OHMS issues the hazardous
materials regulations (HMR). As noted above, the commerce of hazardous
materials demands that OHMS have intermodal, as well as international,
expertise. It regulates a diverse community of interests and must
constantly manage the tension between safety, security and efficiency
in the transport of these materials in order to fulfill its mission to
protect the public and the environment. The fiscal year 2008 budget
presents challenges and opportunities to OHMS in accomplishing its
mission.
Staff and Program Resources
We want to begin our comments with praise for the leadership team
assigned PHMSA. We have seen palpable evidence of improved outreach,
responsiveness, not present in prior years. We attribute the focus to
the recent reorganization under the Norman Y. Mineta Research and
Special Programs Improvement Act of 2004 and the management style of
the current administration.\4\ Administrator Thomas Barrett, VADM Ret.,
is committed to a ensuring a risk-based program that is developed in a
manner that is inclusive and transparent to stakeholders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Public Law 108-426.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result of the fiscal year 2007 continuing resolution, OHMS was
denied a four FTE staff increase. The administration is again
requesting these positions expand the number of field inspectors from
30 to 34.\5\ We fully support Congress' approval of these new staff
positions. This staff request is still below the number PHMSA estimates
it would need to raise its inspection rate to the minimum it believes
is necessary to maintain a credible enforcement presence. PHMSA's job
is particularly challenging, compared to other modes, given the
diversity of entities within the regulated community over which PHMSA
has primary inspection responsibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Fiscal year 2008 PHMSA Budget Submission, page 42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are concerned about a continuing high number of vacancies, over
15 percent of current FTP. Some of the vacancies can be attributed to
end-of-year retirements and to inside promotions. The issue of staff
vacancies is even more problematic given that ``over one-third of
hazmat employees will be eligible to retire within five years.'' \6\
Every effort should be made to fill these necessary positions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Fiscal year 2008 PHMSA Budget Submission, page 44.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Performance Measures
We are delighted to see that the OHMS budget, including the
Emergency Preparedness Grants Program, is credited with supporting the
Secretary's ``global connectivity'' and ``security'', as well as the
traditional ``safety'' strategic goal.\7\ OHMS' international
harmonization activities do contribute to ``global connectivity,'' and
we strongly advocated for recognition of OHMS' security mission since
the enactment of the 2002 amendments to the HMTA. However, we are
puzzled that the portion of the OHMS budget that is attributed to
enhancing security is attributed to the emergency preparedness grants
program (EPGP), rather than OHMS' rulemaking or enforcement
accounts.\8\ The EPGP program has nothing to do with security of hazmat
shipments. The EPGP planning grants support a U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency program concerning emergency releases of hazmat into
the environment and the training grants are aimed at emergency
responders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Fiscal year 2008 PHMSA Budget Submission, pages 127-128.
\8\ OHMS currently supports security rules concerning plans and
training (see 49 CFR 172 subparts H and I) and has pending two security
rulemakings concerning security-sensitive hazmats (HM-232F) and rail
security (HM-232E).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To measure OHMS' progress to enhance safety, the agency sets as its
primary measure to ``reduce deaths, injuries, property damage and
economic disruptions from hazardous materials transportation
incidents.'' \9\ In the past, we have been critical of PHMSA's budget
submission because the only performance measure has been the reduction
of serious incidents which we believe is influenced by the state of the
economy as much as it is the quality, or lack thereof, of OHMS
activities. We are pleased that OHMS has set some secondary measures of
performance.\10\ These include increasing response time to stakeholder
requests for assistance, the number of exemptions to be issued in a
timely manner, and the compliance rate for security plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Fiscal year 2008 PHMSA Budget Submission, page 133.
\10\ Fiscal year 2008 PHMSA Budget Submission, pages 40 & 42. ``We
will enhance the response time by 10 percent. . . . We will reduce the
time for processing special permits and approvals by 10 percent. . . .
It is our goal to have a non-compliance rate of less than 15 percent
when [reinspecting] companies [for] security plan compliance. This will
permit an estimated 7 percent increase in the regional [enforcement]
level-of-effort.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the past, there has been a dearth of information about the OHMS
program output. We are pleased to see OHMS share statistics about
compliance with security plans and reports of undeclared hazmat
shipments, in addition to data about the number of serious hazardous
materials incidents.\11\ We hope that Congress will encourage OHMS to
baseline these data so that progress to meeting regulatory needs can be
objectively measured over time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Fiscal year 2008 PHMSA Budget Submission, pages 42-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PHMSA presents several output efforts under the aegis of the
Emergency Preparedness Grants Program (EPGP).\12\ Our concerns about
the EPGP and these measures are discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Fiscal year 2008 PHMSA Budget Submission, pages 121-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Backlog Reduction
OHMS should be commended for its efforts to reduce regulatory
backlogs. Last year, OHMS had eight open dockets designated as
``significant.'' This year only four from that list remain.\13\ At the
same time, OHMS has engaged in new rulemaking of significance to
industry to better focus security plan requirements on security-
sensitive hazardous materials that would be of interest to terrorists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 71 FR 73663-9 (December 11, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These rulemakings do not take into account rulemaking petitions,
which OHMS has accepted but has not yet assigned to a specific
rulemaking action. OHMS has pending 159 such rulemaking petitions, 53
more than last year at this time.\14\ In addition, OHMS is in the ninth
of a 10-year cycle to review the impact of the HMR on small entities
and to determine, as a result of those impacts, which rules should be
continued without change, amended, or rescinded, consistent with the
objectives of applicable statutes. OHMS also takes this opportunity to
receive comments to make the regulations easier to read and understand.
These regulatory reviews were mandated by Congress pursuant to the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA).\15\ OHMS has finalized two of its
regulatory reform proposals based on RFA reviews, while one rulemaking
is pending. We are still waiting to see how OHMS will use the
information collected during other prior year reviews to improve the
HMR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ http://dms.dot.gov/reports/PHMSA_report.cfin, March 19, 2007.
\15\ Public Law 96-354, section 610 as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While OHMS has historically processed over 200 hundred special
permit requests annually--a commendable effort--the administration's
budget request does not disclose information to assess the special
permit workload. OHMS is under a statutory mandate to process special
permits within 180 days. OHMS does periodically report in the Federal
Register special permit requests it has received and those that it has
failed to process within the statutory 180-day deadline. As an
indicator of the effort OHMS has put forward in the last year to reduce
backlogs, OHMS reported a monthly average of 56 special permit requests
in process longer than 180 days during the first 3 months of 2006 and
attributed over 87 percent of that delay to lack of staff resources
given other priorities or volume of applications. In the first 3 months
of this year, the monthly average of requests in process longer than
180 days fell to 13 and the percent attributed to lack of staff
resources fell to 84 percent. While part of the backlog decline should
be attributed to increased productivity, Congress extended the timeline
for most special permit renewals from 2 to 4 years. CY 2006 was the
first full year where the effect of this statutory change could be
observed. A helpful workload indicator to the subcommittee may be the
actual number of special permit requests received, the actual number
processed, and of that number, the actual number processed within the
statutory 180-day deadline set by Congress. As noted above, OHMS has
set for itself a performance measure to ``reduce the time for
processing special permits and approvals by 10 percent.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Fiscal year 2008 PHMSA Budget Submission, page 40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One aspect of the hazmat regulatory workload that continues to
present concern is the processing of petitions for preemption. This
activity is managed by the PHMSA Office of Chief Counsel. Two petitions
for preemption determinations are currently pending. Neither these, nor
any prior petition for preemption, have been processed within the
congressionally mandated 180-day turnaround.\17\ PHMSA' ability to
swiftly deal with petitions for preemption is essential to the purpose
Congress hoped to achieve in granting administrative preemption to DOT,
namely that the preemption determination process would be an
alternative to litigation.\18\ A priority of the HMTA is to achieve
greater regulatory uniformity. Essential to that objective is the
ability to respond through the preemption determination process to
inconsistent non-Federal requirements that ``creat[e] the potential for
unreasonable hazards in other jurisdictions and confound[] shippers and
carriers which attempt to comply with multiple and conflicting
registration, permitting, routing, notification, and other regulatory
requirements.'' \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 49 U.S.C. 5125(d).
\18\ In authorizing the preemption determination process, Congress
found that ``the current inconsistency ruling process has failed to
provide a satisfactory resolution of preemption issues, thus
encouraging delay, litigation, and confusion.'' H. Rept. 101-444, Part
1, page 21.
\19\ Public Law 101-615, sec. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hazmat Registration and Fees
We have appreciated the years of support and oversight the House
and Senate Appropriations Committees have provided to ensure that fee
collections have not been spent on activities above authorized amounts.
The 2005 amendments to the HMTA have propelled us to a new era in the
use and allocation of these fees. Over the objections of the regulated
industry, the 2005 amendments to the HMTA nearly doubled the fees to be
collected in support of the Emergency Preparedness Grant Program (EPGP)
for States and Indian tribes, ``train-the-trainer'' grants for first
responders, publication of the Emergency Response Guide (ERG), and, for
the first time, grants to train hazmat employees. These fee increases
will be effected in fiscal year 2008 for the 2008-09 registration year.
Current law requires that the fees be deposited into the Hazardous
Materials Emergency Preparedness Fund (HMEPF) and allows OHMS to
transfer these funds ``without further appropriation.'' \20\ The hazmat
fee program was never intended nor could it be expected to generate the
amount of funds necessary to meet the needs of communities or first
responders for planning or training for transportation-related
chemical, biological or radiological incidents. DOT's hazmat
registration fees are not the only source of financial assistance
available to States to support emergency preparedness and response and
the safe and secure transportation of hazardous materials shipments.
Congress has already provided more comprehensive, direct sources of
funding for emergency response planning and training. Since 2001, the
administration has provided nearly $37.5 billion to State, local, and
tribal governments to enhance first responder preparedness of which $22
billion was allocated through DHS grant programs. This includes a total
of $25.5 billion in support related to terrorism and catastrophic
preparedness events, with $16.3 billion allocated through DHS. The
fiscal year 2008 budget request proposes to add to these funds $2
billion in grants for first responder preparedness. These funds are in
addition to the over $5 billion in funds that State, local, and tribal
governments are raising and spending on their own. While these funds
are not dedicated to hazardous materials planning and training, these
activities are an allowable use of the assistance, and in fact, the
majority of these funds are used to assist communities to address
chemical, biological, and radioactive incidents. Planning and training
to respond and recover from these hazardous materials releases, whether
accidental or intentional, is the same. We do not believe that the
hazmat registration program would ever generate the levels of revenue
provided by other sources even if all subject to the OHMS fees were
assessed the maximum amount authorized by law because smaller carriers
would simply chose not to transport hazardous materials. For these
reasons, it is important that the subcommittee continue to scrutinize
the amount of hazmat fees that can be transferred from the HMEPF and to
cap transfers at levels the subcommittee believes will be appropriately
spent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ 49 U.S.C. 5116(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thirty percent--$4 million--of the $13.5 million fee increase
provided by the 2005 amendments is earmarked to train trainers of
private sector hazmat employees or hazmat employees themselves. Prior
to the 2005 amendments, this private sector training program was
authorized only to train ``trainers'' and was funded from general
revenues at $3 million per year. Hazmat employers have never advocated
for a Federal appropriation for this training option. The HMTA is clear
that hazmat employers are responsible for the training of hazmat
employees. Yet, this program is of no benefit because the training
provided is limited to that offered by non-profit hazmat employee
organizations, organizations that are unlikely to be relied upon to
provide the specific and specialized training each company is liable to
provide to address its own unique hazmat environment. Any potential
hazmat employee who availed themselves of such training from a third-
party non-profit training organization would still have to be trained
in his employer's hazmat operations. Furthermore, these funds are not
needed to spur companies or organizations to get into the training
business. There are a number of companies that offer hazmat training
already. The real issue with private sector training is assessing the
quality of the training that is available. Industry is already facing
millions of dollars of additional fees for other aspects of the EPGP.
This program amounts to a double taxation for hazmat employee training.
Using industry fees for this purpose cannot be justified. If these
funds will be made available for these purposes, we are pleased that
OHMS has determined to make ``the new grant program will be
competitive.'' \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Fiscal year 2008 PHMSA Budget Submission, page 123.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emergency Planning and Training Grants
The purpose of the Emergency Preparedness Grants Program (EPGP) is
to cover the ``unfunded'' Federal mandate that States develop emergency
response plans and to contribute toward the training of emergency
responders. Industry has contributed, through hazmat registration fees,
nearly $183 million during the life of the grants program.\22\ Since
the events of September 11, 2001, we question whether or not the EPGP
is the most efficient way to deliver hazmat training to the response
community, especially in light of other viable alternatives to address
these needs. Even OHMS admits that this program, at most, provides
``funds that might not otherwise be available'' to localities for
training and planning for hazardous materials incidents.\23\ Still,
OHMS' characterization of the EPGP would have one believe that the
funds are limited to planning and training to respond to
transportation-related hazmat incidents only. There is no such
limitation.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Fiscal year 1992-2006, HMRP, DOT, October 6, 2006.
\23\ Fiscal year 2008 PHMSA Budget Submission, page 121.
\24\ 49 U.S.C. 5116(a) & (b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have, for a number of years, called for more accountability in
the EPGP and more evidence of coordination among other similar Federal
initiatives to ensure that all resources are used as efficiently and
effectively as possible. We are not alone in our concern. In 2005, the
Volpe Center issued a report making recommendations to better align
grantee activities with program goals.\25\ The 2005 amendments also
directed OHMS to submit annual reports to Congress on the allocation
and uses of the grants, identify the ultimate recipients and providing
a detailed accounting of all grant expenditures as well as an
evaluation of the efficacy of the programs carried out. OHMS was also
directed to make this information available to the public.\26\ However,
no reports or information have been forthcoming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness Grants Program;
Assessment of the alignment between local activities and program goals,
John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, for PHMSA,
October 2005.
\26\ 49 U.S.C. 5116(k).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPGP also restates the claim of the last several years that it
will provide support to update and develop at least 3,000 emergency
plans during fiscal year 2008.\27\ The incredulity of this claim still
warrants oversight. Using a productivity analysis alone, OHMS has not
adjusted its workload output one iota since its request for funding
this activity increased 63 percent.\28\ Congress intended that the
planning grants portion of the EPGP be used to ``develop, improve, and
carry out emergency plans under the Emergency Planning and Community
Right-To-Know Act'' (EPCRA).\29\ EPCRA requires State coordinating
commissions (SERC) to designate Local Emergency Planning Committees
(LEPC) which were charged to develop localized plans for chemical
emergencies, of which one type may be transportation-related hazmat
incidents. So, it should come as no surprise that PHMSA sets as a
measure of the impact of the EPGP a number of these emergency plans to
be developed and updated. What is surprising is the target number of
plans to be completed or updated. First, EPA estimates that the current
number of LEPCs is about 3,500.\30\ Each LEPC prepares one plan, so at
most 3,500 plans would need support. Second, LEPCs were in existence
before the inception of the EPGP. EPCRA was enacted in 1986 and has
required LEPCs to have ``complete'' plans in place since the late
1980s. Once an LEPC's plan is ``complete,'' based on acceptance by the
LEPC's SERC, LEPCs are not required to ``re-complete'' these plans each
year, although they are required to annually ``review'' their plans.
Third, EPA last surveyed LEPC compliance in between October 1999 and
February 2000.\31\ At that time, the agency found that approximately 45
percent of responding LEPCs had completed plans and another 10 percent
mostly complete. Furthermore, 24 percent of LEPCs had incorporated
counterterrorism measures into their emergency response plans. Using
these percentages, it would appear that 1,600 would be a more accurate
projection of the number of emergency plans to be completed, not
3,000.\32\ Furthermore, it is unlikely, given EPA's assessment of
``completed'' and approved plans, that any significant portion of these
plans are being reopened and revised.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Fiscal year 2008 PHMSA Budget Submission, page 122.
\28\ Prior to fiscal year 2007 when funding for the EPGP grants
program was due to increase and, except for the fiscal year 2007
continuing resolution, would have, the project number of plans to be
assisted was 3,000. With the funding increase, the number is still
3,000. [Inconsistencies in the budget submission, further underscore
the need for oversight and accountability of this program. Compare page
122 (3,000 plans), with page 159 (5,000 plans) and page 160 (3,700
plans). Similar inconsistencies can be noted with regard to training
first responders by comparing pages 159 and 160.]
\29\ 49 U.S.C. 5116(a)(1)(A).
\30\ http://yosemite.epa.gov/oswer/ceppoweb.nsf/content/
epcraOverview.htm
\31\ 1999 Nationwide LEPC Survey, George Washington University for
EPA, May 17, 2000. http://yosemite.epa.gov/oswer/ceppoweb.nsf/
vwResourcesByFilename/lepcsurv.pdf/$File/ lepcsurv.pdf. EPA is
preparing to update this survey with results available in the fall of
2007. 70 FR 54044 (September 13, 2005).
\32\ Not all LEPCs responded to the latest EPA survey. Even
assuming that every one of the non-respondents had no plan, together
with those known to have no plan or an incomplete plan, the number of
plans needing completion would be 2,500, still under the 3,000 estimate
provided for fiscal year 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, OHMS claims that is will ``plan and hold 15 annual,
national monitoring and technical assistance sessions where grantees,
responders and [LEPCs] members present program accomplishments and
receive technical assistance from a team of Federal and non-Federal
experts.'' \33\ This ambitious schedule would require more than one
``national'' session per month, planned and supported for $13,333 per
session. Irrespective of frequency or number of technical assistance
meetings held, however, little is known about where the meetings are
held, how many Federal and non-Federal personnel attend, for how long,
exactly what is allowed to be reimbursed or spent with the $200,000
allotted for this purpose. As a fiduciary matter, the subcommittee may
wish to explore this matter further.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Fiscal year 2008 PHMSA Budget Submission, page 121.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OHMS' assertion that the training grants are ``to ensure [that the
LEPC] plans can be effectively implemented'' is misleading.\34\ There
is no statutory limitation that these training funds can only be used
to train on the implementation of the LEPC plans. No proof has ever
been offered to this effect. Since the planning and training grantees
are different entities, it would be highly unlikely that LEPC plan
implementation would be the focus of the training first responders
receive. In fact, local emergency preparedness training is based on an
``all-hazards'' approach. This approach requires communities to assure
that emergency personnel have the training necessary to respond to a
wide range of emergencies: intentional or naturally occurring
infectious disease outbreaks; chemical, explosive or radiological
accident or attack; weather-related disaster; or other emergency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Fiscal year 2008 PHMSA Budget Submission, page 121.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In contrast to the evidence that suggests the level of financial
support needed for LEPC plans is waning, the needs of first responders
for training significantly eclipse the amount available from the EPGP,
which if funded at the level of the administration's request offers a
grant package of only $13.7 million and, of that, only 75 percent is
passed through to localities.\35\ Given the plethora to other viable
alternatives to address the needs of the response community, the EPGP
is at best inconsequential, but more realistically, a program that has
outlived its relevance and usefulness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Fiscal year 2008 PHMSA Budget Submission, page 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the law provides that OHMS can expend industry's hazmat
registration fees for the EPGP ``without further appropriation,'' \36\
we would encourage the subcommittee to exercise its oversight to
address these programmatic issues and concerns before handing over a
blank check. The subcommittee has established congressional precedent
in this area, setting caps on the amount of the fees that may be
expended for the EPGP. As an indication of congressional concern that
the LEPC set-aside may not be the best use of the new $9 million fee
increase in the EPGP, the 2005 HMTA amendments provide discretion to
DOT to limit or deny new funding. While allowing a 35/65 percent split
of the new funds between the planning and training accounts, the law
also provides that up to all of the increase may be allocated to the
training portion of the EPGP.\37\ Yet, the allocation proposed in the
OHMS fiscal year 2008 budget submission does not reference the
statutory latitude that the Secretary has to move funds from the
planning to the training account nor does it describe any sort of
analysis that would justify making no adjustment to the 35/65 split.
OHMS should be asked to prioritize the needs and value of the planning
and training portions of the EPGP to the safety and security of
hazardous materials transportation.\38\ The subcommittee should use
this information to redirect the new $9 million allocation up to the
maximum extent allowed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ 49 U.S.C. 5116(i).
\37\ 49 U.S.C. 5128(b)(2).
\38\ For example, how many first responders accessed their
community's LEPC plan prior to responding to a recent hazmat
transportation emergency?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our efforts to address EPGP shortcomings with PHMSA have not been
satisfactory. We believe that the subcommittee is best suited to demand
a level of oversight that will continue annually and that will include
a complete accounting of funds distributed and their use as know
required by law, not the type of anecdotal ``successes'' that comprised
so much of PHMSA's 1998 report to Congress on this program.
Hazmat Intermodal Portal
PHMSA is proposing to increase funding to implement the Intermodal
HAZMAT Portal. The Intermodal Portal is a DOT-wide data system that
allows all modes to integrate ``stovepiped date, to collaborate, and to
monitor business processes.'' \39\ This initiative was identified by
DOT in 2000 and the OMB PART review.\40\ We support this initiative.
The transportation of hazardous materials is an intermodal enterprise.
The Department cannot fully understand the issues facing this commerce
without taking a systemwide view. Too often, modal responses to issues
only shifts risk to other modes than may be less prepared to deal with
them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Fiscal year 2008 PHMSA Budget Submission, page 46.
\40\ ``Departmentwide Program Evaluation of the Hazardous Materials
Transportation Programs,'' Executive Summary, March 2000, pages xvi &
xvii; and OMB PART recommendations No. 1 & 2, March 2005, fiscal year
2008 PHMSA Budget Submission, page 50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Funding Decreases
While we support the Hazmat Intermodal portal initiative, we are
concerned about decreases in other OHMS operations. The budget request
proposes to decrease funds for the research and analysis capacity
necessary to support the development of new or the revision of existing
regulations, to defer maintenance of and to defer the introduction of
new features and enhancements to the Hazardous Materials Information
System; and to scale back the package testing program.\41\ We urge the
subcommittee to restore these funding decreases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Fiscal year 2008 PHMSA Budget Submission, page 47.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation is vital to the transport of hazardous materials. The
HMR is structured so that hazardous materials do not move unless a
department rule says it can move. Additionally, the industry is so
large and diverse that the only way to ensure a level playing field is
to hold industry to the same regulatory performance standards. These
realities require that OHMS not only be heavily engaged in rulemaking,
but the rulemaking process must be efficient. OHMS' research and
analysis capability identifies safety and security gaps in the hazmat
transportation system. In the risk analysis area, OHMS is heavily
dependant on this capability to determine equivalent levels of safety
in order to process what has been annually over 200 new special permit
petitions.\42\ If anything, OHMS rulemaking resources should be
increased to ensure against regulatory backlogs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ OMB Part Recommendation No. 4, March 2005, directs that PHMSA
``develop a new efficiency measure that characterizes the time to issue
special permits from the date of application,'' fiscal year 2008 PHMSA
Budget Submission, page 50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We want to underscore the importance and necessity of the HMIS.
This system supports PHMSA's key measurement of its goal to reduce
deaths, injuries, property damage and economic disruptions from
hazardous materials transportation incidents. The data collected and
maintained in the database is not available from other sources. Not
only does the HMIS allow OHMS to identify and analyze safety risks for
regulatory purposes, it also (1) assists non-Federal governments to
identify problematic routes; (2) can be used to focus enforcement
efforts; (3) is used by industry in its risk management initiatives,
and (4) can be used to defuse public concern about hazardous materials
transportation by validating the extraordinary safety record of this
industry, considering the potential of these materials to cause serious
harm. If OHMS/PHMSA is to be a ``data-driven'' operation, this is not
the account to cut.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Fiscal year 2008 PHMSA Budget Submission, page 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted, the transportation of hazardous materials is extensively
regulated. A key component to the effectiveness of these regulatory
schemes is credible enforcement. In order to determine what those needs
may be, it is critical that the agency know who it is regulating. About
200,000 hazmat shippers, packaging manufacturers and testers are the
focus of PHMSA's compliance efforts. This is a daunting universe to
inspect with a cadre of 30, and hopefully soon 34, inspectors. However,
key to credible enforcement is OHMS ability to test packagings. The
packaging standards are the basis for the HMR. Packaging differs by the
type and amount of material to be shipped. The packaging standards are
DOT's assurance to the public that hazmat can move safely in
transportation. In 1990, the PHMSA adopted internationally-recognized
performance-based standards for the transportation of hazardous
materials, in lieu of specification standards. The only way to ensure
regulatory compliance is to test packagings. It is disingenuous for
PHMSA to declare that one of the anticipated accomplishments for the
2008 fiscal year will be to ``dedicate resources to testing new
packagings against PHMSA's performance standard to ensure that hazmat
containers are adequate to meet safety requirements during transport,''
when the budget request cuts the agency's package testing program.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ Fiscal year 2008 PHMSA Budget Submission, pages 39, 40 and
138.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
conclusion
The transport of hazardous materials is a multi-billion dollar
industry that employs millions of Americans. This commerce has been
accomplished with a remarkable degree of safety, in large part, because
of the uniform regulatory framework authorized and demanded by the
HMTA. Within the Federal Government, OHMS is the competent authority
for matters concerning the transportation of these materials. Despite
productivity that averages 40 administrative actions a day, this small
agency still has a backlog of correspondence, rulemaking petitions, and
technical applications for exemptions and approvals. We, therefore,
strongly recommend full funding for OHMS.
Thank you for your attention to these issues.
______
Prepared Statement of the Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of the
Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority in Austin, Texas, I am
pleased to submit this statement for the record in support of our
fiscal year 2008 funding requests from the Federal Transit Authority
for Capital Metro--the transportation provider for Central Texas. I
hope you will agree that the appropriating of funds for these Central
Texas projects warrants serious consideration as Austin and the
surrounding Texas communities plan for our region's growing
transportation needs.
First, let me thank you for your past financial support for
transportation projects in Central Texas. Your support has proven
valuable to Capital Metro and to our Central Texas community as we face
new challenges.
As you know, Interstate 35 runs from Canada to Mexico, and along
the way it also runs through the city of Austin and Capital Metro's 600
square mile service area. While traffic in this important corridor has
always been a challenge, the North American Free Trade Agreement has
resulted in increased traffic and congestion for our region. In fact, a
2002 study by the Texas Transportation Institute determined Austin,
Texas to be the 16th most-congested city nationwide.
Also, Central Texas' air quality has reached near non-attainment
levels. Together, our community has developed a Clean AirForce, of
which Capital Metro is a partner, to implement cooperative strategies
and programs for improving our air quality. Capital Metro has also
unilaterally implemented several initiatives such as converting its
fleet to clean-burning Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD), becoming the
first transportation authority in Texas to introduce environmentally-
friendly hybrid-electric buses, and creating a GREENRide program to
carpool Central Texas workers in low emission hybrid gas/electric
automobiles.
To address these transportation and air quality challenges as well
as our region's growing population, in 2004 Capital Metro conducted an
extensive community outreach program to develop the All Systems Go
Long-Range Transit Plan. This 25-year transportation plan for Central
Texas was created by Capital Metro, transportation planners, and local
citizens. More than 8,000 citizens participated in the design of the
program that will bring commuter rail and rapid bus technologies to
Central Texas. The plan will also double Capital Metro's bus services
over the next 25 years.
By a vote of over 62 percent, this long-range transportation plan
was adopted by the Central Texas community in a public referendum on
November 2, 2004. The plan received bipartisan support, along with
endorsements from the business community, environmental organizations,
neighborhood associations, and our community leaders.
An important component of the All Systems Go Long Range Transit
Plan is the creation of an urban commuter rail line along a 32-mile
long freight rail line currently owned and operated by Capital Metro.
The proposed starter route would provide urban commuter rail service
extending from downtown Austin (near the Convention Center) through
East and Northwest Austin and on to Leander.
To implement the community's All Systems Go Transit Plan, Capital
Metro is seeking $10 million for fiscal year 2008 for four projects of
importance to our Central Texas community:
enhancement and improvement of buses and bus facilities--$5 million
Capital Metro has embarked on a long term plan to improve and
expand bus service. In addition to improving bus routes, the agency is
investing in critical park and ride facilities, transit centers and
enhanced bus stop locations and amenities. As Capital Metro's service
area and the population we serve continue to grow, we will continue to
enhance our system and facilities while addressing traffic congestion
and air quality concerns. In the next 3 years, Capital Metro has
planned to invest $82.5 million in capital projects to better serve our
growing population. Capital Metro seeks $5 million from the
appropriations process for these improvements and expansions of our bus
service and facilities.
oak hill park and ride facility--$2 million
The Oak Hill Park and Ride facility will anchor Capital Metro's
future rapid bus services to rapidly growing areas of Southwest Austin
and Travis County. This facility and its routes will connect local
service to several nearby neighborhoods to serve the growing number of
suburban commuters in this portion of Capital Metro's service area.
Capital Metro is seeking $2 million for this project.
urban commuter rail circulator vehicles--$2 million
Capital Metro's 32-mile Urban Commuter Rail line will begin
operations in 2008, serving 9 stations throughout Central Texas. Urban
Commuter Rail circulator vehicles will serve each of the stations to
transport passengers to and from their final destinations, connecting
with the MetroRail. Capital Metro is seeking $2 million for this
project.
paratransit service vehicles--$1 million
Pursuant to, and in accordance with, the Americans with
Disabilities Act, Capital Metro provides door-to-door van and sedan
paratransit service throughout Central Texas for persons with
disabilities and senior citizens. This $11.7 million (fiscal year 2007)
program provides more than 500,000 rides each year. Capital Metro will
be replacing many of the vans and sedans that serve this program, as
they are retired during fiscal year 2008. This crucial funding will
assist Capital Metro in ensuring the accessibility of transportation
services for all Central Texans.
I look forward to working with the committee in order to
demonstrate the necessity of these projects. Your consideration and
attention are greatly appreciated.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of San Marcos, Texas
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of the city
of San Marcos, Texas, I am pleased to submit this statement in support
of our requests for project funding for fiscal year 2008.
The city of San Marcos requests Federal funding for the San Marcos
Municipal Airport to accomplish improvements that are in the public
interest. The improvements are described in the three specific projects
listed below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northside Infrastructure Development....................... $3,500,000
New Terminal Building...................................... 4,500,000
Fixed Base Operator (FBO) Facility......................... 1,500,000
------------
Total Request.......................................... 9,500,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The San Marcos Municipal Airport is a public general aviation
airport classified as a reliever airport within the National Plan of
Integrated Airport Systems. The airport is owned and operated by the
city of San Marcos, Texas. It is located just east of Interstate
Highway 35 on Texas Highway 21 approximately 30 miles south of Austin
and 45 miles north of San Antonio in one the fastest growing corridors
in Texas.
The airport is part of a closed military base; the remainder of the
former Air Force Base is occupied by the U.S. Department of Labor's
Gary Job Corps Center. When the base was closed and divided in 1966,
the Job Corps retained the portion of the property with the buildings
and other amenities while the city of San Marcos was given the
aeronautical facilities consisting of runways, taxiways, and the
parking apron.
This arrangement has resulted in a ``bare bones'' airfield that
lacks the support structure to sustain an economically viable modern
airport. We have adequate aeronautical facilities and real estate but
little other facilities. In addition, current legislation provides for
airport capital improvement funding assistance through the Federal
Aviation Administration for aviation infrastructure, but not for the
type of improvements that this airport needs.
The city of San Marcos requests assistance to transform the airport
into a modern, self-sustaining enterprise benefiting not only the local
community but the region. After analysis and master planning, we have
determined that the three projects herein described will get us the
``biggest bang for the buck''. These projects will meet our highest
priorities and most immediate needs, and they will be a highly visible
indicator that the San Marcos Municipal Airport is on the move. We are
firmly convinced that these improvements will kick-start further
development and attract private investment that will far surpass the
amount that we are seeking in Federal support.
The following program descriptions outline our three requests:
Northside Infrastructure Development--$3,500,000
The layout of the former Gary Air Force Base is such that all the
buildings and developed area of the base were to the south of the
airfield. When the base was divided between the Gary Job Corps Center
and the San Marcos Municipal Airport, the airport was given only a thin
sliver of land on the south side to provide access and support the
airfield. There is not enough room for all the support facilities such
as hangars, maintenance shops, and terminal buildings that an active
airport requires.
However, on the north side of the airfield is real estate that has
never been developed. One prime piece of the north side area consists
of approximately 40 acres of very desirable airport land that fronts on
Texas Highway 21 and borders an existing taxiway that will become the
main taxiway for the entire north side development. Except for the
absence of infrastructure, it is the ``McDonald's'' location on the
airport. The area requires access roads including a main airport
entrance, drainage improvements, aircraft ramps and aprons, existing
taxiway pavement reconstruction, and utilities. It also needs a seed
project to stimulate private investors to move into the area.
Our plan proposes to construct the infrastructure and to then build
approximately 50 nested T-hangars in 2 or 3 city-owned buildings. Our
planning estimate for the cost to implement this project is $3,500,000.
We are also convinced that once this north side development ball starts
to roll, the future of the new San Marcos Municipal Airport will shift
from the current limited and constrained south side to the several
hundred acres of prime undeveloped land available on the north side.
New Terminal Building--$4,500,000
The commercial, economic, and public service hub of a modern
airport is the public terminal building. The terminal building provides
public amenities such as a waiting room or lounge, airport
administration offices and public meeting rooms, restrooms, flight
planning facilities and communications links to obtain flight planning
information, commercial lease space for such businesses as restaurants,
retail shops, rental car facilities, and other aviation-related
commercial activities.
An airport's facilities will be the first thing a business traveler
will see, and it's those facilities which represent the city of San
Marcos. These facilities are sorely lacking in our present airport
configuration and the existing terminal building is undersized to meet
existing demand, much less provide room for growth. It is opportune
that the Federal Aviation Administration is programming a new air
traffic control tower for our airport in fiscal year 2007. A new
terminal building located adjacent to the control tower could be
architecturally coordinated with the control tower for aesthetic
advantage. The two facilities could achieve a significant efficiency in
the coordinated construction of road access, utility services, parking
facilities, drainage improvements, and landscaping. This same concept
is being touted at several other airports similar to ours. (Dallas
Executive Airport is a prime example.) The planned terminal building
planning concept is for a modern, state-of-the-art building of
approximately 10,000 square feet first floor and total cost estimated
at $4,500,000.
Fixed Base Operator (FBO) Facility--$1,500,000
For general aviation operations, airport activity centers on the
FBO. This is where the transient and based pilots and aircraft
operators go to buy fuel and obtain direct support for their flights.
It is also a place where transient and based pilots can arrange to have
their aircraft serviced, repaired, and hangared overnight or longer
when required.
It is again opportune that the San Marcos Municipal Airport has an
established FBO that is capable of accomplishing these vital services
if a facility were available for them to lease. We propose that a
modern, state-of-the-art FBO be constructed to meet the airport's
present and future commercial requirements. The approximately 30,000
square foot structure would be mainly hangar space with an attached
business, shop, and office area. Cost is estimated at $1,500,000. Lease
payments and other airport fees would offset this investment; and the
investment is calculated to be a profitable enterprise for the airport
in the long term.
The 1,356 acre San Marcos Municipal Airport is a potential economic
dynamo for this region of Central Texas. The three airport improvement
projects that we are proposing will result in an increase in activity
and private investment. This is a good investment of public revenue
that will result in more high-paying aviation jobs, an increased tax
base, and more direct revenues in the form of airport fees and rents.
Our airport will also better serve the aviation needs of the region and
spur further growth, development, and prosperity for our citizens.
These projects are grounded in sound public policy principles. They
will result in excellent value for the American taxpayer and for the
traveling public that will utilize the facilities.
The city of San Marcos sincerely appreciates your consideration of
these requests for funding in the fiscal year 2008 cycle, and
respectfully requests your support.
______
Prepared Statement of the University Corporation for Atmospheric
Research (UCAR)
On behalf of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
(UCAR) and the university community involved in weather and climate
research and related education, training and support activities, I
submit this written testimony for the record of the Senate Committee on
Appropriations, Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban
Development, and Related Agencies.
UCAR is a consortium of 70 universities that manages and operates
the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and additional
research, education, training, and research applications programs in
the atmospheric and related sciences. The UCAR mission is to serve and
provide leadership to the atmospheric sciences and related communities
through research, computing and observational facilities, and education
programs that contribute to betterment of life on Earth. In addition to
its member universities, UCAR has formal relationships with
approximately 100 additional undergraduate and graduate schools
including several historically black and minority-serving institutions,
and 40 international universities and laboratories. UCAR is supported
by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and other Federal agencies
including the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA). I would like to comment on the fiscal
year 2008 budgets for these agencies.
the federal highway administration
The fiscal year 2008 budget request for the FHWA should support the
administration's and the country's commitment to a safe, efficient, and
modern surface transportation system. Weather research and intelligent
transportation system (ITS) technology significantly contributes to
this commitment. According to the National Academy of Sciences, adverse
weather conditions obviously reduce roadway safety, capacity and
efficiency, and are often the catalyst for triggering congestion. In
the United States each year, approximately 7,000 highway deaths and
450,000 injuries are associated with poor weather-related driving
conditions. This means that weather plays a role in approximately 28
percent of all crashes and accounts for 19 percent of all highway
fatalities. The economic toll of these deaths and injuries is estimated
at $42 billion per year. The societal and economic impacts of adverse
weather on the highway system are obviously enormous.
Road Weather Research and Development Program
The Road Weather Research and Development Program funds the
collaborative work of surface transportation weather researchers and
stakeholders. This work is potentially life saving for the users of the
national surface transportation system. Much has been accomplished
already in understanding and developing decision support systems to
address the impact of poor weather on the surface transportation system
including congestion. However, it should be noted that according to the
2004 National Research Council's report titled, Where the Weather Meets
the Road: A Research Agenda for Improving Road Weather Services, the
investment required to satisfy the unmet needs for road weather
information is $25 million per year for 15 years. An investment at this
level would be focused on developing decision support systems for
traveler information systems, winter road maintenance, traffic
management, incident and emergency management, in-vehicle information
systems through the vehicle infrastructure integration program, and
ITS. Enhanced research on pavement condition prediction, snow and ice
control, fog, road friction, flooding, thunderstorm forecasting, icing,
sensor development, and other areas will result in significant savings
in lives and dollars.
Only recently has the FHWA begun investing in road weather research
and this investment level has been extremely low ($2.8 million per
year), considering its impact on the transportation system. An
adequately funded road weather research program will improve the
safety, capacity, efficiency and mobility (by reducing congestion), of
the national roadway system. It will benefit the general public,
commercial trucking industry, State DOT traffic, incident and emergency
managers, operators and maintenance personnel.
The 2006 Transportation Reauthorization bill, SAFETEA-LU (section
5308) contains language that establishes the Road Weather Research and
Development Program within the FHWA ITS Research and Development
Program, with annual funding at $4 million (significantly less than the
NRC recommendation of $25 million). The fiscal year 2008 request is
only $3 million and may be found within the FHWA Intelligent
Transportation Systems account. This program is well supported by
numerous organizations including the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the Intelligent
Transportation Society of America (ITSA), the Transportation Research
Board (TRB), the National Research Council (NRC), State Departments of
Transportation (DOTs), and the American Meteorological Society (AMS). I
urge the committee to fund the Road Weather Research and Development
Program at $4 million, at a minimum, in fiscal year 2008.
federal aviation administration (faa)
Our Nation's air transportation system has become a victim of its
own success. We created the most effective, efficient and safest system
in the world. But we now face a serious and impending problem . . .
demand for air services is rising, and could as much as triple over the
next 2 decades.
FAA Administrator,
Marion Blakey, July
2006
Research and Engineering Development Account (RE&D)
The following three programs can be found within the RE&D section
of the fiscal year 2008 FAA budget request.
Weather Program
The FAA anticipates a three-fold increase in demand on the National
Airspace System (NAS) by 2025; any air travel interruption, including
weather problems, will result in overwhelming flight delays. The FAA
and airlines have done a remarkable job of minimizing delays given the
limited airport and system capacity. But major weather related delay
events, such as the 2006 Denver blizzard over the holidays, have left
thousands of travelers stranded and cost the industry many millions of
dollars. This recent incident indicates existing vulnerabilities that
must be addressed.
Research and development conducted today forms the basis for
tomorrow's operational products. Enhanced weather forecasts as well as
improved use of forecasts will contribute to a reduction in weather
impacts. The FAA's Weather Program focuses on projects that address the
current challenges of operating the safest, most efficient air
transportation system in the world while building a foundation for the
Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen). For fiscal year
2008 and beyond, FAA is focusing on capabilities to help stakeholders
at all levels make better decisions and better react to avoidable
weather situations, thus minimizing their impact.
To mitigate the effects of weather, the FAA's Weather Program
conducts applied research in partnership with a broad spectrum of the
weather research and user communities with a goal of transitioning
advanced weather detection and forecasting technologies into
operational use. Leveraging the work of the research community, the FAA
has made tremendous strides in understanding and mitigating the impacts
of severe weather on aviation. Enhanced research on turbulence,
thunderstorm forecasting, oceanic weather, icing, and other areas can
result in even more savings, in both lives and dollars. The fiscal year
2008 request for the Weather Program is $16.8 million, down from the
fiscal year 2007 request of $19.5 million. This program continues to be
severely under funded. To truly be responsive to the new weather
research capabilities and national needs, the Weather Program needs to
be doubled and funded at about $35 million. I urge the committee to
fund the Weather Program at the fiscal year 2007 requested level of
$19.5 million, at a minimum.
Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO)
In preparation for a burgeoning National Airspace System, 4 years
ago the President and Congress created the multi-agency Joint Planning
and Development Office (JPDO) to oversee planning related to NextGen.
The JPDO, in its brief existence, has already accomplished much, and
has defined eight critical strategies to meet the goals and objectives
for NextGen--one of which is focused on mitigating the impacts of
weather on the air transportation system.
The President's fiscal year 2008 request of $14.3 million for JPDO
is not an adequate level of funding, given the challenges of bringing
the aviation system up to 21st Century needs. The request is down 21
percent from the fiscal year 2007 request of $18.1 million. To
accomplish an initiative of this magnitude and complexity, JPDO should
be doubled to $28 million. I urge the committee to fund the Joint
Planning and Development Office at the fiscal year 2007 requested level
of $18.1 million, at a minimum.
Wake Turbulence
Better detection and forecasting of wake turbulence, dangerous
swirling air masses trailing from aircraft wingtips, is a key element
in the FAA's safety program. Research results and technologies derived
from the Wake Turbulence program will allow airports and airlines to
operate more efficiently, increasing capacity and safety, by providing
a better understanding of this phenomenon. I urge the committee to
support the fiscal year 2008 request of $10.7 million for the wake
turbulence program.
Facilities and Equipment Account
The following program can be found within the Facilities and
Equipment Account on the FAA's fiscal year 2008 budget request.
Wind Profiling and Weather Research--Juneau
High wind and terrain-induced turbulence information can help
airlines adjust their routes and schedules to optimize usage of the
airport. Within the FAA's Facilities and Equipment Budget the program,
Wind Profiling and Weather Research--Juneau, supports the Juneau
Airport Wind System (JAWS), a developing operational system designed to
detect and warn of wind and airport turbulence hazards. I urge the
committee to support the administration's fiscal year 2008 request of
$4.0 million for Wind Profiling and Weather Research--Juneau.
On behalf of UCAR, as well as all U.S. citizens who use the surface
and air transportation systems, I want to thank the committee for the
important work you do that supports the country's scientific research,
training, and technology transfer. We understand and appreciate that
the Nation is undergoing significant budget pressures at this time, but
a strong Nation in the future depends on the investments we make in
research and development today. We appreciate your attention to the
recommendations of our community concerning the fiscal year 2008 FHWA
and FAA budgets and we appreciate your concern for safety within the
Nation's transportation systems.
______
Prepared Statement of Foothill Transit
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Doran
Barnes, and I serve as the Executive Director of Foothill Transit in
West Covina, California. Thank you very much for the opportunity to
submit testimony to this subcommittee.
Mr. Chairman, I recognize the difficult tasks before this
subcommittee and commend your leadership in determining the allocation
of available transportation resources during this congressional budget
period. We are very appreciative of the strong support provided to
Foothill Transit by this committee over the past 12 years. The support
of your committee has enabled Foothill Transit to construct two
operating and maintenance facilities and initiate replacement of our
aging bus fleet with new compressed natural gas coaches, as well as
embark upon providing commuter parking to encourage transit ridership.
These initiatives will greatly enhance the service we provide to our
customers.
why this bus capital request?
Thanks to the unwavering support of our congressional delegation,
Foothill Transit has been extremely successful in achieving its capital
goals. Our fiscal year 2008 funding request is for $10 million in
Discretionary Bus Capital funding to assist Foothill Transit in
partnering with member cities by providing funding for commuter parking
in transit-oriented neighborhood projects. This funding will be used
for our innovative ``Transit Oriented Neighborhood Program'', which
offers a win-win solution for commuters and communities in the San
Gabriel and Pomona Valleys. Through this program, we will assist our
member cities and the County of Los Angeles with the construction of
facilities with 500 to 1,000 commuter parking spaces in neighborhood
projects each year.
The program, begun in fiscal year 2004, provides an incentive for
Foothill Transit's 21 member cities and unincorporated areas of Los
Angeles County to include commuter parking in their plans for mixed-
use, transit-oriented projects. Foothill Transit is working with our
local cities by partnering to develop projects that meet our common
goals. Projects are intended to serve the dual purpose of facilitating
transit use during daytime commuter hours, and providing general public
parking for dining, shopping, and other uses during evening hours and
weekends
Over the past several years, commuter parking in Foothill Transit's
service area has dwindled, culminating in the closure of a major park-
and-ride lot in early 2003. At one time, the Eastland Park and Ride
provided over 1,000 parking spaces for transit customers. With the
revitalization of the Eastland Shopping Center, this park and ride
facility has been eliminated. A second park and ride facility in the
southern portion of our service area ceased operating in February 2004.
This facility was provided by a regional shopping mall. As the shopping
mall intensified its retail activities, it was no longer willing to
provide its parking lot for park and ride activities. Under both of
these scenarios, customers have found it more difficult to access
Foothill Transit's commuter express services. Accordingly we have seen
decreases in ridership on these express lines and we believe that a
portion of these transit riders have returned to driving into downtown
Los Angeles. This increases both traffic congestion and vehicle
emissions.
The Transit Oriented Neighborhood Program enables Foothill Transit
to continue its longstanding tradition of responding to customer needs
by providing more convenient access to its high caliber bus service. By
encouraging more transit use with the availability of park-and-ride
facilities, Foothill Transit also helps mitigate the traffic congestion
and poor air quality that plague the Los Angeles area.
We are pleased to report that our first project under this program
has been completed. A ribbon cutting and dedication ceremony for the
Claremont Transportation Center was held on August 31, 2006. The
transit component of the project includes 477 parking spaces, with 200
spaces available for transit. In addition to supporting transit, this
project is a key part of the expansion of the Claremont Transit
Village.
The next phase of this program includes plans for parking
structures in West Covina and Puente Hills. As noted above, for many
years in these two areas, commuter parking was provided in regional
shopping malls. However, as business improved at these malls, the
parking spaces were reclaimed for shoppers. The return of commuter park
and ride lots to West Covina and Puente Hills will greatly assist in
maintaining and increasing transit ridership
about foothill transit
Foothill Transit was created in 1987 as an experiment to determine
the effectiveness of competitively bidding for transit service
operations. A public/private partnership, Foothill Transit is governed
by an elected board comprised of mayors and council members
representing the 21 cities and 3 appointees from the County of Los
Angeles who are members of a Joint Exercise of Powers Authority. It
provides public transit services over a 327 square-mile service area.
Foothill Transit is one of the best investments of taxpayer dollars in
these times of limited funds.
Foothill Transit has established a reputation of providing
outstanding customer service. In five separate customer surveys,
Foothill Transit drivers have consistently received ratings above
average or greater by more than 80 percent of our customers. Customers
also rate Foothill Transit buses very highly on their cleanliness,
comfort and graffiti-free appearance.
Foothill Transit was initially established as a 3-year experiment
to operate 14 bus lines at least 25 percent more efficiently and
effectively than the former Southern California Rapid Transit District
(now Metro), with those savings to be passed on to the community
through increased service and/or lower fares. A 3-year evaluation
completed by Ernst & Young in 1995 showed that Foothill Transit's
public/private arrangement resulted in cost savings of 43 percent per
revenue hour over the previous provider.
Recognized by Congress in 1996 as a ``national model,'' the
combination of public accountability and private sector efficiencies
has allowed Foothill Transit to hold costs constant since its inception
in 1987, while increasing ridership by 77 percent and more than
doubling the amount of service on the street.
Foothill Transit has no employees. All management and operation of
Foothill Transit service is provided through competitive procurement
practices. The Foothill Executive Board has retained my employer,
Veolia Transportation, to provide the day-to-day management and
administration of the agency. The management contractor oversees the
maintenance and operation contractors to ensure adherence to Foothill
Transit's strict quality standards. We have two operating contracts for
coach operators and vehicle maintenance. First Transit is currently the
contractor under both of these operating contracts.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony
and your consideration of our request. Please feel free to contact me
with any questions you may have or if I can be of any assistance.
______
Prepared Statement of the Coalition of Northeastern Governors
The Coalition of Northeastern Governors (CONEG) is pleased to share
with the subcommittee testimony on transportation and community
development programs in the fiscal year 2008 Transportation, Housing
and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. The
CONEG Governors appreciate the subcommittee's longstanding support of
funding for the Nation's highway, transit, and rail systems, and we
understand the difficult fiscal challenges and complex, interlocking
issues that the subcommittee faces in crafting this appropriations
measure. We urge the subcommittee to continue the strong Federal
partnership so vital for the national, integrated transportation system
that underpins the productivity of the Nation's economy and the
security and well-being of its communities.
transportation
Surface Transportation
The Governors urge the subcommittee to fund the combined highway,
public transit and safety programs at levels consistent with the fiscal
year 2008 authorized levels, including the Revenue Aligned Budget
Authority (RABA). This level of Federal investment in these
infrastructure improvements is necessary if the Nation's surface
transportation system--in both urban and rural areas--is to safely and
efficiently move people and support the substantial growth in freight
movement projected in the coming decade. Specifically, we urge the
subcommittee to:
--support a Federal aid highway obligation limit at the authorized
level of $39.585 billion, plus the Revenue Aligned Budget
Authority (RABA);
--fund public transit at the authorized funding level of $9.423
billion, including full funding for the Small Starts Program;
and
--provide sufficient funding for the Coordinated Border
Infrastructure Program to enable investment in projects
addressing both security and transportation needs at our
Nation's borders.
Rail
The CONEG Governors also request that the fiscal year 2008
appropriations include $1.78 billion in Federal funding for intercity
passenger rail as provided in the Senate fiscal year 2008 Budget
Resolution, with specific funding levels provided for operations,
capital and debt service. We particularly encourage the subcommittee to
ensure that Amtrak can continue the critically needed bridge repair
projects and life-safety work in the New York and Baltimore tunnels,
and also initiate efforts to promptly upgrade the Northeast Corridor
electric traction system capacity between Washington and New York to
avoid major service disruptions. We also support the proposal for $100
million to fund a State capital investment program for intercity
passenger rail.
This funding level for intercity passenger rail can ensure the
stability of the national system, continue vital and on-going work to
bring the Northeast Corridor to a state of good repair, and provide
essential investment funds critical to the continued development of
rail corridors across the country--even as reforms are undertaken
through concerted and hopefully coordinated activities of the U.S.
Congress, Amtrak, the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), and
the States. Since intercity passenger rail is a complex and
interconnected system with significant capital requirements, it is
essential that any operations reform be incremental and that the
Federal Government continues to be a consistent partner in funding the
capital needs of the Nation's intercity passenger rail system. We also
believe that any reform of intercity passenger rail must be a data-
driven, orderly and transparent process that includes meaningful
collaboration with Amtrak's State funding partners.
A number of other national rail programs are important components
of the evolving Federal-State-private sector partnerships to enhance
passenger and freight rail across the country. We encourage the
subcommittee to provide funding for both the Rail Relocation Program
and the Swift High Speed Rail Development Program, both of which
benefit passenger rail and freight rail systems.
The CONEG Governors also support a modest increase in funding for
the Surface Transportation Board (STB) to $26.495 million. This funding
level will allow the STB to provide the critical oversight services as
the Nation's rail system assumes increasing importance for the timely,
efficient, and environmentally sound movement of people and goods
across the Nation.
community development
The CONEG Governors urge the subcommittee to provide $4.1 billion
for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. The CDBG
enables States to provide funding for infrastructure improvement,
housing programs, and projects that attract businesses to urban and
rural areas, creating new jobs and spurring economic development,
growth and recovery in the Nation's low income and rural communities.
The CONEG Governors thank the entire subcommittee for the
opportunity to share these priorities and appreciate your consideration
of these requests.
______
Prepared Statement of the New York State Department of Transportation
The New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT)
appreciates the opportunity to present testimony on the fiscal year
2008 transportation appropriations. New York has a truly multimodal
transportation system and strives to allocate its financial resources
accordingly. NYSDOT has responsibility for a $1.9 billion highway
construction program in 2007-2008 and a $2.8 billion annual transit
operating and capital assistance program. New York voters approved a
$2.9 billion Transportation Bond Issue in 2005, which will help support
New York's multi-year highway and mass transportation capital programs
valued at nearly $36 billion, with each mode receiving nearly $18
billion in Federal and State funds. New York will invest $235 million
in State funds for freight and passenger rail projects and will, over
the next 5 years, provide over $116 million in State funds to advance
general aviation security, business-use airport development, and
capital improvement projects for public-use airports. In addition to
highways and transit, New York State has invested $320 million in the
State's passenger rail system in recent years. Clearly, New York State
is committed to multimodal transportation systems.
In developing the fiscal year 2008 Transportation Appropriations
legislation, we ask that you consider and endorse the following:
Support Funding for All Transportation Programs at the Levels Set in
Authorizing Legislation
New York urges funding for transportation programs, at their
maximum authorized funding levels. We are concerned with the
President's fiscal year 2008 budget because it would reduce Federal
funding for several programs to levels below authorized amounts, and we
would particularly urge you to follow the path of SAFETEA-LU rather
than that of the President's proposed budget in the following areas.
--The President's budget submission proposed the elimination of the
distribution of an additional $631 million from Revenue Aligned
Budget Authority (RABA) required by the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for
Users (SAFETEA-LU). New York strongly urges Congress to restore
this mandated funding as promised by Congress just 2 years ago.
--A $300 million reduction is proposed in Transit New Starts funding
below the level authorized by SAFETEA-LU. The demand for
Transit New Starts funding far exceeds the level of funding
available, even though SAFETEA-LU increased the authorized
funding level for this program. In New York, the Long Island
Rail Road East Side Access and the Second Avenue Subway
projects are priority New Starts projects to relieve congestion
on the busiest transit system in the Nation. At a time when
gasoline prices are at a premium, Federal investment in mass
transit is key to reducing the Nation's reliance on foreign
oil.
--Zero funding is proposed for both Next Generation High Speed Rail
program and the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement
Financing (RRIF) program. There are few Federal financing tools
available to States and railroads for investment in rail
passenger or freight. Freight traffic nationwide is projected
by USDOT to double in the next 20 years. Some experts say
freight traffic will quadruple in the immediate vicinity of key
international freight hubs such as the Port of New York and JFK
Airport in New York City. SAFETEA-LU authorizes $100 million
per year for the Next Generation High Speed Rail program and
$35 billion per year for the RRIF program, a credit enhancement
program for rail freight and passenger investments. Congress
should provide the full funding at the levels authorized in
SAFETEA-LU for both of these important Federal rail investment
programs.
--New York State continues to believe that there is an urgent need
for short-term funding stability while a long term solution for
intercity rail passenger service is developed and implemented.
Short-term funding should be sufficient to operate existing
intercity passenger rail service, as well as enable critical
maintenance and ``state of good repair'' capital investments to
continue. To achieve this, intercity passenger rail should be
funded at $1.78 billion, the level called for in Senate bill S.
294. The administration's budget request of $800 million is
significantly below what Amtrak needs to meet its commitments
for operations, service, and debt payments. We particularly
encourage the subcommittee to ensure that Amtrak can continue
the critically needed bridge repair projects and life-safety
work in the New York and Baltimore tunnels.
--The administration also proposes a new $100 million State capital
investment program, where States would apply to the Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA) for grants for up to 50 percent
of the cost of capital investments necessary to support
improved intercity passenger rail service that either requires
no operating subsidy or for which the State or States agree to
provide any needed operating subsidy. This proposed Federal-
State partnership should be modeled on the highway and transit
programs, with 80/20 Federal-State funding, dedicated, stable
Federal funding, and a strong role for States in decision-
making. Further, while this proposal is a good start, it needs
to be part of a larger national intercity passenger rail
strategy which establishes a strong, ongoing Federal-State
partnership, brings Amtrak assets up to a state of good repair,
provides corporate transparency and accountability at Amtrak,
and expands competition in the delivery of intercity passenger
rail service.
--As the debate over the reauthorization of the aviation program
proceeds through Congress, New York supports funding the
aviation programs at the fiscal year 2007 level or higher. The
President's budget proposal includes a significant
restructuring of the aviation program in the absence of
authorizing legislation. Aviation funding for fiscal year 2008
should be based on the existing program structure until
reauthorizing legislation is complete.
Impending Insolvency of the Highway Trust Fund
Both the Government Accountability Office and the Congressional
Budget Office project that the Highway Account of the Highway Trust
Fund will not have adequate revenue to support fiscal year 2009
authorizations for highways and bridges. The Mass Transit Account is
projected to remain solvent until 2011 or 2012.
At a recent hearing of the Highways and Transit Subcommittee of the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, a proposal to use the Mass
Transit Account to address the fiscal year 2009 shortfall in the
Highway Account was discussed with hearing witnesses. New York is
concerned that Congress may be tempted to use this quick-fix approach
in fiscal year 2009 Transportation Appropriations and may consequently
postpone the fundamental surface transportation funding issue until
SAFETEA-LU is reauthorized (SAFETEA-LU expires on September 30, 2009).
New York emphatically urges Congress to leave the Mass Transit
Account intact when searching for a solution to the fiscal year 2009
highway funding shortfall. With transit funding already reduced in the
President's fiscal year 2008 budget, any further reductions of funding
for this vital component of a multimodal transportation system would be
disastrous.
Fixing the Highway Trust Fund shortfall will require significant
effort by authorizing committees to examine, analyze, and select
alternative funding mechanisms to meet the financial needs of the
Nation's transportation systems into the foreseeable future. New York
believes that a comprehensive, sustainable, diversified portfolio of
Federal revenue is needed to address the diverse investment needs of
the Nation's surface transportation system, i.e. its highways, transit
systems, railroads, and ports. We urge the Transportation
Appropriations Subcommittee to appeal to the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee to begin this work immediately.
NYSDOT thanks you for this opportunity to present testimony. We
appreciate your dedication to and support of the Nation's
transportation systems.
______
Prepared Statement of Easter Seals
Chairman Murray, Ranking Member Bond and members of the
subcommittee, Easter Seals appreciates this opportunity to share the
successes and needs of Easter Seals Project ACTION and the National
Center on Senior Transportation.
project action overview
Project ACTION was initiated during the appropriations process in
1988 by funding provided to the Federal Transit Administration to
undertake this effort with Easter Seals. We are indeed grateful for
that initiative and the ongoing strong support of this subcommittee in
subsequent years.
Following its initial round of appropriations, Congress authorized
assistance to Project ACTION in 1990 with the passage of ISTEA and
reauthorized the project in 1997 as part of TEA-21 and in 2005 as part
of SAFETEA-LU. The strong interest and support of all members of
Congress has been greatly appreciated by Easter Seals as it has pursued
Project ACTION's goals and objectives.
Since the project's inception, Easter Seals has administered the
project through a cooperative agreement with the Federal Transit
Administration. Through steadfast appropriations support, Easter Seals
Project ACTION has become the Nation's leading resource on accessible
public transportation for people with disabilities. The current project
authorization level is $3 million, and Easter Seals is pleased to
request the appropriation of that sum for fiscal 2008.
The strength of Easter Seals Project ACTION is its continued
effectiveness in meeting the congressional mandate to work with both
the transit and disability communities to create solutions that improve
access to transportation for people with disabilities of all ages and
to assist transit providers in complying with transportation provisions
in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
national center on senior transportation overview
The National Center on Senior Transportation (NCST) was created in
SAFETEA-LU to increase the capacity and use of person-centered
transportation options that support community living for seniors in the
communities they choose throughout the United States. The center is
designed to meet the unique mobility needs of older adults and provide
technical assistance and support to older adults and transit providers.
The NCST is administered by Easter Seals in partnership with the
National Association of Area Agencies on Aging (N4A) and involves
several other partners including the National Association of State
Units on Aging, The Community Transportation Association of America,
The American Society on Aging, and The Beverly Foundation. The
Cooperative agreement forming the NCST was developed in August of 2007
and the Center was officially launched in January of this year.
The expected outcomes of the project are:
--Greater cooperation between the aging community and transportation
industry to increase the availability of more comprehensive,
accessible, safe and coordinated transportation services;
--Increased integration of provisions for transportation in community
living arrangements and long-term care for older adults;
--Enhanced capacity of public and private transportation providers to
meet the mobility needs of seniors through available,
accessible, safe and affordable transportation;
--Enhanced capacity of human service providers to help seniors and/or
caregivers individually plan, create and use appropriate
transportation alternatives;
--Increased knowledge about and independent use of community
transportation alternatives by seniors through outreach,
education and advocacy;
--Increased opportunities for older adults to obtain education and
support services to enable the individuals to participate in
local and State public and private transportation planning
processes.
The tools and resources being developed to achieve these goals
include:
--Technical assistance extended through cross-agency and public/
private collaboration to improve and increase mobility
management for older adults through new or existing local and
State coalitions;
--Technical assistance and other supportive services extended to
communities, seniors, transportation and professional agencies
and organizations, government, and individuals so they can
effectively address barriers and/or respond to opportunities
related to senior transportation; and
--Creation and dissemination of products and training programs (e.g.,
brochures, workbooks, best-practice guides and self-
assessments) to help transportation providers, human service
agencies and older adults and their caregivers understand their
roles and/or opportunities for increasing senior mobility
options;
--Use of an 800-telephone line, Web site, visual exhibit, newsletters
and other communication tools;
--Implementation of communication strategies to increase the profile
of senior transportation on topics such as emerging best
practices, advances in public policy, success stories and more;
--Facilitation and testing of new ideas to increase and improve
community mobility for seniors through the administration and
management of demonstration projects.
In SAFETEA-LU, the NCST is authorized at $2 million for the first
year of the project and $1 million for years after that. Easter Seals
respectfully requests and appropriations of $2 million for the NCST in
fiscal 2008. The additional $1 million included above the authorized
level in this request would allow the center to fund local community's
efforts to demonstrate creative, unduplicated and effective solutions
to increasing mobility for older adults. This funding will allow us to
support local communities' efforts to put the tools and resources
developed by the NCST into practice.
scope of project action and the national center on senior
transportation
Both Project ACTION and the NCST are working at the State, local
and national level to achieve the goal of greater mobility for all
Americans. This includes everything from working with local communities
to provide curriculum, resources, training and ongoing technical
supports as they work to coordinate their local transportation
resources, to working with States implementing the United We Ride
Initiative activities, to hosting national level listening sessions and
summits on issues of importance to the Nation's mobility.
fiscal 2008 request
In order to continue the outstanding work of Easter Seals Project
ACTION and the NCST, Easter Seals respectfully requests that $3 million
be allocated for Project ACTION and $2 million be allocated for the
National Center on Senior Transportation in fiscal 2008 to the
Department of Transportation for project activities.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present this
testimony to the subcommittee. Your efforts have improved the
accessibility of transportation for persons with disabilities and older
adults and the ability of the transportation community to provide good
service to all Americans. Easter Seals looks forward to continuing to
work with you toward the pursuit of these objectives.
______
Prepared Statement of All Aboard Washington
Thank you and many other members of this subcommittee for having
supported basic investments in Amtrak intercity rail in past years.
While understanding there are many competing needs for tax dollars, I
believe the justification for an increased Federal role in rail
investments is now higher than anytime during my 20+ years as
representing rail advocates from our State of Washington. (We were long
known as the Washington Association of Rail Passengers.)
Given the finite, increasingly high cost of petroleum motor fuels,
general acknowledgement of the negative impacts of upon local and
global environments of ever-increasing motor vehicle use, the multiple
costs of vehicular congestion and airport congestion, coupled with the
inherent safety and efficiency of the rail mode, it would seem
appropriate for the United States to join virtually all other advanced
industrial nations and such rapidly advancing nations as China, Taiwan
and South Korea to add intercity rail to road and air as significant
means of moving people.
Our State of Washington has done its part since the early 1990s,
having made the majority of investments in our popular and successful
Amtrak Cascades trains, which serve Amtrak's Northwest Corridor,
between Vancouver BC south through the densely populated and rapidly-
growing western Washington on to Eugene Oregon. Customer satisfaction
by Cascades' passengers is, year after year, judged to be at or near
the top within the Amtrak system.
Only two significant concerns have surfaced concerning the Amtrak
Cascades: that on-time performance is below optimum, brought about by
the generally good news that shipments by the freight railroads are
considerably higher than was predicted and planned for, resulting in
track congestion; and, the need for more Cascades' trips per day,
particularly between the major Seattle-Portland markets. In both cases,
additional investments, by the freight railroads, the States of
Washington and Oregon, the province of British Columbia, local
communities, other private sector entities, and the U.S. Government,
would strongly address these concerns.
A Rail Capacity and System Needs Study funded through the
Washington State Transportation Commission and completed in December of
2006 concludes that it is in our State's interest to continue State
investment in both passenger and freight rail, in cooperation with
other private and public interests. The Study also concludes with the
caveat that Washington State's success at increasing the role of rail
transportation, with its manifold benefits to the State, would be
greatly increased with a greater Federal investment role in the rail
mode, one which starts to approach the many decades of U.S. Government
generosity to highway, air, and inland waterway modes. While Amtrak
participated in the funding of our Amtrak Cascades trains, and our
congressional delegation has in general been supportive of Amtrak
funding (Chair Murray has been a leader in this regard!), the State
Transportation Budget passed overwhelmingly by the Washington
Legislature on 21 April 2007 includes proposed rail projects which
await a significant Federal investment component before they could be
fully realized.
Legislators, transportation commissioners, and WSDOT leadership
have said in blunt terms, ``We are doing our share; now it's the Feds'
turn!''
S. 294, with excellent bipartisan co-sponsorship, is a potential
funding vehicle that can move toward a source of rail investment that
would serve our State and other States well. As an authorization bill
it remains a ``good set of ideas''. The means by which these good ideas
can be financed fall under your committee's jurisdiction.
Details of S. 294, its characteristics, benefits, and costs would
be well-known to your committee's excellent staff; I need not repeat
them here. But as I am this week visiting this Washington, the Nation's
Capital, and may have the privilege of meeting with some of you or you
staffs, I would hope next week to be able to report back to my
Washington that ``the Feds'' are indeed progressing toward a greater
inclusion of passenger rail as a safe, fuel-efficient and
environmentally-sound means of travel for the American people and our
many foreign visitors.
It is said the President of South Korea was asked by an American
diplomat how his country could afford the multi-billion dollar
investment in high-speed passenger rail between his country's booming
industrial cities. The President politely answered, ``How can we afford
not to?''
The funding means found in S. 294 are a start for a greater Federal
rail investment in our country. Given the realities of fuel supply and
cost, environmental concerns, public safety, and economic and community
well-being, ``How can we afford not to ?''
______
Prepared Statement of the American Public Transportation Association
introduction
Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee, on behalf of the
American Public Transportation Association (APTA), we thank you for
this opportunity to submit written testimony on the need for and
benefits of investment in Federal Transit Administration (FTA) programs
for fiscal year 2008.
The fiscal year 2008 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development,
and Related Agencies Appropriations bill is an opportunity to advance
national goals and objectives through increased investment in our
surface transportation infrastructure, particularly public
transportation. For that reason, we strongly urge Congress to fund the
Federal transit program at no less than the $9.731 billion level
authorized in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act--A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU, Public Law 109-59).
In 2006, Americans took 10.1 billion trips on public
transportation. Let me put the 10.1 billion number in perspective. This
is more than the number of Americans who attended NFL games, MLB games,
NBA games, NHL games, NASCAR races, went to the movies, and ate a
hamburger from McDonald's, Burger King, and Wendy's combined. Transit
ridership growth of 30 percent since 1995 is outpacing both the growth
of our population--12 percent--and the growth in the use of the
Nation's highways--24 percent--since then. Each weekday, 34 million
trips are made on public transportation in our Nation. All across
America, public transportation provides choice, freedom and
opportunity.
Expanding access to public transportation is more important than
ever. Transit plays a number of important roles. It reduces congestion
and it provides mobility options. Its use decreases our dependence on
foreign oil and improves air quality. Increasing access to public
transportation is clearly needed to create a stable, healthy and strong
America. Forty years from now when America's population will exceed 400
million, we will be glad we had the foresight to discuss, plan and
invest in the future of public transportation today. As we look to the
future, we know there is no possible way that our roads can accommodate
all the anticipated growth on their own. Transit is, and has to be,
part of the solution.
fiscal year 2008 goals
APTA recognizes the need to invest limited Federal resources
wisely, and we believe that investment in public transportation is an
astute use of limited resources. To realize all of the benefits of
public transportation, we urge Congress to follow the investment
schedule in SAFETEA-LU. The law authorizes $9.731 billion for the
Federal transit program in fiscal year 2008, including $7.766 billion
in contract authority from the Mass Transit Account (MTA) of the
Highway Trust Fund and $1.965 billion in new budget authority general
fund spending.
We urge Congress to fund the Federal transit program at the
authorized level so that communities across the Nation, utilizing State
and local resources in tandem with Federal funds, can begin to address
the overwhelming need both to preserve the existing transit
infrastructure and to expand and improve that infrastructure in growing
communities and those without good transit service.
A new survey prepared by Cambridge Systematics as part of the
Transit Cooperative Research Program finds that annual transit capital
needs are greater than $45 billion a year. State and local governments
cannot meet the expanding capital need requirements of public
transportation while also providing for transit operating expenses. To
help meet these needs, APTA believes that the Federal Government should
invest no less in public transportation than the $9.731 billion level
that was authorized and guaranteed by SAFETEA-LU.
president's budget proposal
The administration's fiscal year 2008 budget proposal would cut
$309 million from the level authorized and guaranteed by the Congress
for fiscal year 2008 in SAFETEA-LU. The administration's budget cuts
some $300 million in investments in rail and other fixed guideway
transit projects in the New Starts and Small Starts program that were
authorized by Congress under SAFETEA-LU. This is a failure to fund
nearly 18 percent of the investment authorized to build projects which
are crucial to attracting new riders.
As this committee knows, there is overwhelming demand for New
Starts and Small Starts projects, and SAFETEA-LU authorized 387 such
projects. New fixed guideway projects are an important part of meeting
transit needs, but these major capital projects take years to develop
and require a predictable funding commitment. The effect of
underfunding the New Starts/Small Starts program will be felt
disproportionately in future years. Transit providers would fall
further behind in the development of new projects due to the cuts in
the administration proposal, depriving communities of the congestion
relief and environmental benefits associated with the projects.
If New Starts project schedules are delayed, project costs also
rise due to inflation. A recent study by the Associated General
Contractors of America (AGC) finds that the cost of building surface
transportation infrastructure has increased at a much faster rate than
the Consumer Price Index. Transportation-related construction costs
increased by more than 30 percent between 2003 and 2006, yet the
consumer price index for urban areas grew by only 11 percent during
that period. Looking ahead, the AGC's research predicts that
transportation construction prices will increase at an annual rate of
at least 6 percent, but increases could be much higher based on the
experience of recent years. Prices spiked 10 percent and 14.1 percent
in 2004 and 2005, respectively. If the New Starts/Small Starts program
is cut by $300 million in fiscal year 2008, it will require $330
million in fiscal year 2009 to build equivalent projects if costs rise
by only 10 percent. The administration's budget proposal is truly
pennywise and pound foolish. In recent years the time required to
develop and complete New Starts projects has also continued to grow.
This adds further to project costs, and APTA urges the committee to
work with FTA to expedite this process.
We want to make another point, Madam Chairman. SAFETEA-LU
restructured the general fund and Mass Transit Account (MTA) funding
sources so that MTA outlays are now scored when they are actually spent
rather than when they are appropriated. The good news is that MTA
balances now are significantly higher than they would have been under
the old scoring system. But this also means that the New Starts program
is now funded exclusively from the general fund. Madam Chairman, it is
important to emphasize that this was done to improve the overall
financing of the Federal transit program. The change was not meant to
create funding uncertainty or program cuts, as the administration has
proposed for the second year in a row.
While we understand the need to protect against spending the
public's money on imprudent projects, we also believe FTA has
effectively prevented the advance of viable projects by overemphasizing
a limited number of benefits in the evaluation of potential New Starts
projects, particularly travel time savings. Fixed guideway investment,
particularly rail transit, is an alternative that requires long-term
vision since the construction and expansion of systems takes time, but
it is one of the most effective ways to reduce and prevent congestion
in metropolitan areas and advance other national goals.
Finally, APTA urges this committee to consider providing New Starts
projects with the same Federal share of project costs provided for
other transit and highway investments. Both FTA and Congress have taken
a number of actions that have prevented the advancement of New Starts
projects that seek a Federal share of costs greater than 60 percent,
and for most current projects, the local cost share exceeds 50 percent
even though current law provides up to an 80 percent Federal share.
APTA believes that at a time of growing concern about congestion,
greenhouse gas emissions and weaning the country off foreign energy
sources, the Federal Government should be encouraging communities to
invest in new transit systems and the expansion of current systems. New
Starts projects should be treated like other transportation projects
and receive an 80/20 Federal match ratio.
transit fights congestion
The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) has recognized that
system congestion is one of the single largest threats to our Nation's
economic prosperity and way of life. In 2003, Americans lost 3.7
billion hours and 2.3 billion gallons of fuel sitting in traffic jams
as a result of congestion. APTA strongly applauds the Department's
efforts to focus national attention on our congested roads, rails and
airways, but USDOT's efforts to fight congestion under its National
Strategy to Reduce Congestion on America's Transportation Network
(commonly referred to as the ``Congestion Initiative'') are simply
incomplete. While our Nation's anti-congestion ``blueprint'' should
incorporate new strategies such as innovative pricing, private sector
investment, and urban partnership elements of the Department's
Congestion Initiative, it must also call for a dramatic increase in the
use of proven congestion fighting strategies like transit.
Thirty-four million trips are taken each weekday in the United
States on public transportation, and each trip fights congestion.
According to the 2005 Texas Transportation Institute Annual Urban
Mobility Report, transit is successfully reducing traffic delays and
costs in the 85 urban areas studied. Without transit delays in the 85
urban areas would have increased 27 percent, and residents in the urban
areas studied would have lost an additional $18.2 billion in time and
fuel as a result of increased congestion.
The impacts of congestion run deep. Good public transportation
service allows all types of trips to be completed quickly and
efficiently. Removing autos from congested urban freeways through
transit use speeds truck-borne freight as surely as building highway
capacity. In short, we must view the entire transportation network as a
single system, one that can be planned managed and financed with a
broad view to the overall good. Holes in the network through
underinvestment result in degradation of performance for the entire
system.
public transportation and energy independence
As our Nation revaluates our patterns of energy use, we must
recognize the important energy savings that are derived from transit
use. Earlier this year, a report by ICF International calculated that
public transportation today reduces petroleum consumption by a total of
1.4 billion gallons of gasoline each year. This means:
--108 million fewer cars filling up--almost 300,000 every day;
--34 fewer supertankers leaving the Middle East--one every 11 days;
--over 140,000 fewer tanker truck deliveries to service stations per
year;
--total savings as great as the entire amount of gasoline consumed in
States the size of Nevada, Utah or New Mexico; and
--5 times greater savings than converting the entire 478,000 Federal
light duty vehicle fleet to alternative fuels.
These savings result from the efficiency of carrying multiple
passengers in each transit vehicle; the reduction in traffic congestion
from fewer automobiles on the roads; and the varied sources of energy
for public transportation.
All savings would be magnified with increased use of transit
relative to the automobile. Savings would be magnified still further
when we account for the energy efficiencies that are characteristic of
cities highly reliant on transit which use much less energy per capita
than auto dependent cities. According to research by sustainability
experts Peter Newman and Jeff Kenworthy, U.S. cities use two and a half
times more oil than comparable cities in Europe, and five times more
oil than comparable cities in Asia.
conclusion
Public transportation plays a key role in meeting the national
goals of the administration and Congress in providing energy
independence, congestion relief and transportation mobility options for
Americans. APTA strongly believes that the Federal Government should
invest no less than the $9.731 billion level authorized and guaranteed
by Congress for fiscal year 2008 in SAFETEA-LU if we are to advance
these goals.
Madam Chairman, on behalf of APTA's more than 1500 member
organizations, I thank you for this opportunity to express our views.
______
Prepared Statement of the California Industry and Government Central
California Ozone Study Coalition
Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of the
California Industry and Government Central California Ozone Study
(CCOS) Coalition, we are pleased to submit this statement for the
record in support of our fiscal year 2008 funding request of $500,000
from the Department of Transportation for CCOS. These funds are
necessary for the State of California to address the very significant
challenges it faces to comply with new national ambient air quality
standards for ozone and fine particulate matter. The study design
incorporates technical recommendations from the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS) on how to most effectively comply with Federal Clean Air
Act requirements.
First, we want to thank you for your past assistance in obtaining
Federal funding for the Central California Ozone Study (CCOS) and
California Regional PM10/PM2.5 Air Quality Study
(CRPAQS). Your support of these studies has been instrumental in
improving the scientific understanding of the nature and cause of ozone
and particulate matter air pollution in Central California and the
Nation. Information gained from these 2 studies is forming the basis
for the 8-hour ozone, PM2.5, and regional haze State
Implementation Plans (SIPs) that are due in 2007 (ozone) and 2008
(particulate matter/haze). As with California's previous and current
SIPs, all future SIPs will continue to be updated and refined due to
the scientific complexity of our air pollution problem. Our request
this year would fund the completion of CCOS to address important
questions that won't be answered with results from previously funded
research projects.
To date, our understanding of air pollution and the technical basis
for SIPs has largely been founded on pollutant-specific studies, like
CCOS. These studies are conducted over a single season or single year
and have relied on modeling and analysis of selected days with high
concentrations. SIPs are now more complex than they were in the past.
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) now recommends a weight-of-
evidence approach that will involve utilizing more broad-based,
integrated methods, such as data analysis in combination with seasonal
and annual photochemical modeling, to assess compliance with Federal
Clean Air Act requirements. This will involve the analysis of a larger
number of days and possibly an entire season. In addition, because
ozone and particulate matter are formed from some of the same emissions
precursors, there is a need to address both pollutants in combination,
which CCOS will do.
Consistent with the NAS recommendations, the CCOS study includes
corroborative analyses with the extensive data provided by past
studies, advances the state-of-science in air quality modeling, and
addresses the integration of ozone and particulate pollution studies.
In addition, the study will incorporate further refinements to emission
inventories, address the development of observation-based analyses with
sound theoretical bases, and includes the following four general
components:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Years
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Performing SIP modeling analyses........................... 2005-2011
Conducting weight-of-evidence data analyses................ 2006-2008
Making emission inventory improvements..................... 2006-2010
Performing seasonal and annual modeling.................... 2008-2011
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CCOS is directed by policy and technical committees consisting of
representatives from Federal, State, and local governments, as well as
private industry. These committees, which managed the San Joaquin
Valley Ozone Study and are currently managing the California Regional
PM10/PM2.5 Air Quality Study, are landmark
examples of collaborative environmental management. The proven methods
and established teamwork provide a solid foundation for CCOS.
For fiscal year 2008, our Coalition is seeking funding of $500,000
from the DOT through Highway Research funds. DOT is a key stakeholder
in air quality issues because Federal law requires that transportation
plans be in conformity with SIPs. Billions of dollars in Federal
transportation funds are at risk if conformity is not demonstrated for
new transportation plans. As a result, transportation and air agencies
must be collaborative partners on SIPs and transportation plans, which
are linked because motor vehicle emissions are a dominant element of
SIPs in California and nationwide. Determining the emission and air
quality impacts of motor vehicles is a major part of the CCOS effort.
Heavy-duty trucks are known to have very different driving patterns
than light duty cars and, despite smaller numbers, are responsible for
a disproportionate amount of emissions (e.g. approximately 50 percent
of California's mobile source NOX emissions). The continued
growth of heavy-duty truck travel, including increases in inter-state
and international goods movement, makes this element of the SIP
transportation emission estimate critical. Thus, to support the
region's new SIPs and to address the new NAS recommendations,
improvement of the temporal and spatial distribution of heavy-duty
truck emissions is needed. We propose funding of this activity at a
level of $500,000. The funding will go to collect data that can be used
to more accurately characterize heavy-duty truck emissions, including
those resulting from NAFTA
If we receive the funds requested this year to complete this
research project, this will be our final request.
Thank you very much for your consideration of our request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Illinois Department of Transportation
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, we appreciate the
opportunity to submit testimony concerning the fiscal year 2008 U.S.
Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) appropriations on behalf of the
Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) to the Senate
Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban
Development, and Related Agencies. We thank Chairman Byrd and the
members of the subcommittee for their past support of a strong Federal
transportation program and for taking into consideration Illinois'
unique needs.
IDOT is responsible for the planning, construction, maintenance and
coordination of highways, public transit, aviation, intercity passenger
rail and freight rail systems in the State of Illinois. IDOT also
administers traffic safety programs. Our recommendation for overall
funding priorities and our requests for transportation funding for
projects of special interest to Illinois are discussed below.
highway
Highway Obligation Limitation/RABA.--IDOT urges the subcommittee to
set the obligation limitation for highway and highway safety programs
at the guaranteed SAFETEA-LU level in fiscal year 2008 at $40.2
billion--a $1.1 billion increase over the fiscal year 2007 level of
$39.1 billion. This recommendation consists of the obligation level of
$39.585 billion authorized in SAFETEA-LU plus the $631 million expected
from the upward Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA) adjustment.
IDOT is aware of the implications of supporting a RABA increase when
the long-term viability of the trust fund is in question. However, IDOT
is more concerned with the Federal funding needed to address immediate
highway and bridge deficiencies as noted in the recent U.S. DOT
publication, 2006 Status of the Nation's Highways, Bridges, and
Transit: Conditions & Performance Report. Overall, IDOT continues to
support the SAFETEA-LU guarantees and funding firewalls as do other
transportation advocates such as the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and the American Road and
Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA). The full utilization of
the additional RABA funds will allow further improvements to highway
and highway safety programs.
Rescission of Unobligated Highway Apportionments.--IDOT urges the
subcommittee to suspend its practice of rescinding unobligated highway
apportionments. Rescissions undermine the SAFETEA-LU principles of
guaranteed funding and budgetary firewalls by withdrawing ``promised''
Federal funding to offset increased non-transportation funding
elsewhere. Moreover, the accumulated impact of numerous rescissions
since fiscal year 2002 has exacted unanticipated programmatic
consequences. With large scale rescissions, such as the one implemented
in fiscal year 2007 for $3.471 billion, a State has less flexibility to
shift funding toward unique State needs and to meet individual highway
program priorities. For example, to more equitably soften the impact of
the most recent rescission on categories such as CMAQ and Enhancements,
IDOT found it necessary to withdraw from categories with current-year
apportionment. Additionally, State transportation departments are being
unduly pressured by various transportation interests to make
rescissions based on that group's particular preference. In total,
Illinois has rescinded $326 million in unobligated apportionments since
the first rescission in fiscal year 2002.
If the subcommittee finds the flexibility to earmark meritorious
projects in existing discretionary SAFETEA-LU categories or outside the
authorized categories, IDOT requests the following earmarks for
highway, transit and rail funding:
--I-55 Add Lanes Project.--IDOT requests a fiscal year 2008 earmark
of $16.4 million to provide additional lanes for 14.5 miles in
each direction on I-55 from I-80 to Weber Road in an effort to
reduce congestion and improve safety.
--Illinois Statewide Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)
projects.--IDOT requests a fiscal year 2008 earmark of $14.5
million in ITS equipment/technology funds to implement 3
priority projects that will address congestion, improve safety,
enhance security and improve the operating efficiencies of
highway and transit systems.
--Illinois Route 120 Corridor Initiative.--IDOT requests a fiscal
year 2008 earmark of $12.56 million for the planning and
construction of a traffic facility to provide access and
congestion relief for an east-west route in central Lake
County. The facility would address future land use and economic
development.
--ITS Vehicle Infrastructure Integration Test Bed for NE IL
(MOTODRIVETM).-- IDOT requests a fiscal year 2008
earmark of $2 million to utilize technology developed by
Motorola to pursue the goals of the Vehicle Infrastructure
Integration (VII) program and to assemble components and
technologies that quickly, securely and reliably send large
amounts of wireless data from transmitter devices, mounted on
light poles along roadsides, to cars equipped with on-board
devices.
--Illinois Scenic Byways.--IDOT requests a fiscal year 2008 earmark
of $1 million for informational materials needed to promote and
add signage to the two new byways in Illinois. These materials
will promote travel and tourism and foster economic
development.
Other IDOT Priorities--(to be earmarked under the: Subcommittee on
Commerce, Justice and Science, and Related Agencies) Height
Modernization.--IDOT requests a fiscal year 2008 earmark of $3.5
million to establish a Height Modernization (HM) program in Illinois. A
HM program will establish a network of survey benchmarks and a
statewide high-resolution digital elevation model of the earth's
surface based upon the updated network. Illinois currently ranks
alongside the bottom 10 states with regard to the quality of its
elevation information.
transit
Transit Obligation Limitation.--IDOT urges the subcommittee to set
the obligation limitation for transit programs at the guaranteed
SAFETEA-LU level in fiscal year 2008 at $9.731 billion--a $756 million
increase over the fiscal year 2007 level of $8.975 billion.
Bus and Bus Facilities.--IDOT, the Illinois Public Transportation
Association and the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) jointly
request a Federal earmark of $31 million in fiscal year 2008 section
5309 bus capital funds for Illinois. This joint request is a
demonstration of our mutual interest in securing funding for essential
bus capital needs throughout the State.
The request will provide $5.3 million for downstate Illinois
transit systems to purchase up to 36 buses and paratransit vehicles to
replace overage vehicles and to comply with Federal mandates under the
Americans with Disabilities Act. All of the vehicles scheduled for
replacement are at or well beyond their design life. The request will
also provide $12.6 million to undertake engineering, land acquisition
or construction for five maintenance facilities and two transfer
facilities that will enhance efficient operation of transit services.
In northeastern Illinois, $12.9 million will be used to purchase up
to 40 heavy-duty buses, 10 for Pace, RTA's suburban bus operator, and
30 for the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA).
Illinois transit systems need discretionary bus capital funds since
regular formula funding is inadequate to meet all bus capital needs.
IDOT believes that Illinois' needs to justify a much larger amount of
funds than the State has received in recent years. Under SAFETEA-LU
Illinois is expected to receive nearly 6 percent of the needs-based
formula funds but Illinois has only received between 1 and 3 percent of
appropriated bus capital funds in the past. RTA ranks third in the
Nation in bus passenger trips, yet Illinois' share of bus capital has
been far below shares received by other States with much less bus use.
New Systems and Extensions--Chicago Transit Authority (CTA).--IDOT
supports the CTA's request for an earmark totaling $40 million in New
Starts funding to assist in upgrading the Ravenswood Brown Line. The
match for these funds will be provided by IDOT.
The funding requested for upgrading the Ravenswood Brown Line would
continue construction to extend station platforms to handle longer
trains that are needed to serve the increasing demand along this line.
Lengthening all platforms to handle longer, 8-car trains, straightening
tight S-curves that slow operations and selected yard improvements will
increase capacity by 25 to 30 percent. The CTA is seeking $40 million
in New Starts funds for fiscal year 2008. A FFGA for $245.5 million was
executed in January 2004 for the project.
New Systems and Extensions--MetroLink.--IDOT supports the Bi-State
Development Agency's request for a Federal earmark of $50 million in
fiscal year 2008 New Starts funding for extending the MetroLink light
rail system in St. Clair County from Scott Air Force Base to MidAmerica
Airport. The MetroLink system serves the St. Louis region in both
Illinois and Missouri. MetroLink service has been a tremendous success
and ridership has far exceeded projections. In addition, this new
extension will provide employees the needed transportation to commute
to a new industrial development that is to be located between Scott Air
Force Base and MidAmerica Airport.
Formula Grants.--IDOT urges the subcommittee to set appropriations
for transit formula grant programs at levels that will allow full use
of the anticipated Highway Trust Fund Mass Transit Account revenues.
IDOT also supports utilizing general funds to supplement transit needs.
In Illinois, Urbanized Area formula funds (section 5307) are
distributed to the Regional Transportation Authority and its 3 service
boards which provide approximately 600 million passenger trips per
year. Downstate urbanized formula funds are distributed to 14 urbanized
areas which provide approximately 30 million passenger trips per year.
The Rural and Small Urban formula funds (section 5311) play a vital
role in meeting mobility needs in Illinois' small cities and rural
areas. IDOT urges the subcommittee to fully fund section 5311 at the
SAFETEA-LU authorized level. Many small urbanized areas have raised
expectations under SAFETEA-LU and therefore the full appropriation is
sought. In Illinois, such systems operate in 60 counties and 11 small
cities, carrying approximately 2.9 million passengers annually.
rail
Amtrak Appropriation.--IDOT supports Amtrak's request of $1.53
billion in funding from general funds for fiscal year 2008 to cover
capital, operating and debt service costs. Amtrak needs the full amount
of their request to maintain existing nationwide operations. IDOT urges
Congress to provide funds to continue current service until it develops
a new national rail passenger policy and a clear plan for any changes
to existing services as part of the congressional reauthorization of
Amtrak. Chicago is a hub for Amtrak intercity service, and Amtrak
operates 58 trains throughout Illinois as part of the Nation's
passenger rail system, serving approximately 3.3 million passengers
annually. Of the total, Illinois subsidizes 28 state-sponsored trains
which provide service in 4 corridors from Chicago to Milwaukee, Quincy,
St. Louis and Carbondale. Amtrak service in key travel corridors is an
important component of Illinois' multimodal transportation network and
continued Federal capital and operating support is needed.
CREATE--Chicagoland Region Environmental and Transportation
Efficiency Program.--IDOT requests a fiscal year 2008 earmark of $10
million to support continued funding of the CREATE program that will
improve the movement of freight through the Chicago region and will
improve the overall efficiency of freight movements throughout the
Nation.
--Passenger Rail-Freight Congestion Relief.--IDOT requests a fiscal
year 2008 earmark of $1 million for engineering for selected
capital infrastructure improvements necessary to relieve
passenger and freight train congestion on the three state-
supported downstate corridors.
aviation
Airport Improvement Program Obligation Limitation.--IDOT supports a
fiscal year 2008 Airport Improvement Program (AIP) obligation
limitation that, despite any programmatic restructuring as offered
under the President's proposed plan, will net at least the same level
of funding for airports as under VISION-100. In addition, IDOT supports
a reauthorization bill that provides consistent increases to the AIP
obligation funding levels in the out-years similar to the $100 million
per year increases authorized during the 4 years of VISION-100.
Adequate AIP funding remains especially important for Small, Non-
Hub, Non-primary, General Aviation and Reliever airports. While most
Large/Medium Hub airports have been able to raise substantial amounts
of funding with Passenger Facility Charges, the smaller airports are
very dependent on the Federal AIP program. Airports must continue to
make infrastructure improvements to safely and efficiently serve
existing air traffic and the rapidly growing passenger demand. The most
recent National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) report
identified $41.2 billion in airport development needs over a 5-year
period (2007-2011), an annual average of $8.2 billion. More
significantly, the Airports Council International-North America
recently estimated that U.S. airport development costs (capital
projects, terminal work, parking lots, etc.) will exceed $71.5 billion
through 2009 (an annual average of $14.3 billion from 2005 through
2009). Lower AIP obligation levels will mean less Federal funds for
airport projects, thereby exacerbating the existing capital project
funding shortfall.
Essential Air Service Program (EAS).--IDOT supports an EAS program
funded at a level that will enable the continuation of service at all
current Illinois EAS points. Several Illinois airports, Decatur,
Marion/Herrin and Quincy, currently receive annual EAS subsidies.
Small Community Air Service Program.--IDOT supports funding for the
Small Community Air Service Development Program at the full authorized
fiscal year 2008 level of $35 million. In fiscal year 2006, Abraham
Lincoln Capital Airport in Springfield, Illinois received $390,000
under this program. Other airports in Illinois have received funding
from this program in the past.
This concludes my testimony. I understand the difficulty you face
trying to provide needed increases in transportation funding. However,
an adequate and well-maintained transportation system is critical to
the Nation's economic prosperity and future growth. Your ongoing
recognition of that fact and your support for the nation's
transportation needs are much appreciated. Again, thank you for the
opportunity to discuss Illinois' federal transportation funding
concerns.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Association of Railroad Passengers
The National Association of Railroad Passengers strongly supports
the Senate Budget Resolution level of $1.78 billion for Amtrak. This
includes $100 million--likely to be administered by the Federal
Railroad Administration--for a Federal matching program to support
State corridor development work, and $50 million for station-related
Americans with Disabilities Act work.
--This is the third straight year that an Amtrak board composed
exclusively of President Bush's appointees has supported
significantly greater Federal investment in the Nation's
passenger train system than the administration has requested.
--The Bush Administration, like Amtrak and our Association, supports
a Federal/State matching program for intercity passenger train
service. But we oppose the administration's proposal to fund
this by taking it from Amtrak's appropriation.
--The administration's proposed budget of $800 million for Amtrak is
unrealistic. Not only would it make it impossible to implement
the program the administration proposed and funded for Federal/
State corridor development, but it likewise would make it
impossible to continue existing services.
there is a strong case for growing the nation's passenger train system
The public wants more rail service, and is increasingly impatient
with the extent to which Federal transportation spending remains
focused on highways and aviation, the least energy-efficient, most
environmentally damaging forms of transportation (see section II), and
the most costly. Here are three omens worth noting:
--California A.B. 32 enacted last year imposes an economy-wide cap on
greenhouse gas emissions, including from transportation,
beginning in 2009.
--The Institute for Public Policy Research, which Reuters
characterized as ``a leading British think tank,'' urged
requiring advertisements for flights or vacations that include
flying to carry a tobacco-style health warning to remind people
of the global warming crisis. ``The evidence that aviation
damages the atmosphere is just as clear as the evidence that
smoking kills,'' said IPPR Climate Change Chief Simon
Retallack.
--The long-term trend in the price of oil is up. ``This year, the
world is going to use about 86 million barrels of oil per day.
And if every oil well in the world were running, assuming 1.2
percent production growth, we are producing around 88 million
barrels a day. Reserves that we are putting on, in general,
don't produce as fast as the reserves we are replacing . . .
[The economies of India or China] may slow, but from a double-
digit level to something that is still very high . . . The
chance of demand going down for energy is remote to none.''--
John Segner, Portfolio Manager, AIM Energy Fund (interview in
Barron's, March 19, 2007).
Current U.S. reliance on air transport for mass travel may well not
be sustainable. We cannot assume the indefinite existence of
``bargain'' airlines or airfares, which depend heavily on cheap oil,
given what we already know about oil supply and demand worldwide.
energy efficiency
The Transportation Energy Data Book, published annually by Oak
Ridge National Laboratory under contract to the U.S. Department of
Energy, shows that Amtrak is 18 percent more energy efficient per
passenger-mile than scheduled airlines and 17 percent more efficient
than automobiles (2003 data, the most recent reported; a passenger-mile
is one passenger transported one mile). These are actual figures based
on total energy consumption by the systems, and load factors.
General aviation (including corporate aircraft) is even less energy
efficient. Oak Ridge reports that general aviation was 2.6 times (162
percent) more energy intensive than certificated air carriers in 2001,
the last year for which data are available; other modes are 2003 data:
BRITISH THERMAL UNITS PER PASSENGER-MILE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commuter Railroads......................................... 2,751
Amtrak..................................................... 2,935
Automobile................................................. 3,549
Certificated air carriers.................................. 3,587
Light trucks (2-axle, 4-tire).............................. 7,004
General aviation (2001).................................... 10,384
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lowest = most energy efficient.
Amtrak's showing would be even more favorable with the benefit of
adequate investment in rail infrastructure and rolling stock. The
results above compare highways and aviation which have benefited from
decades of investment by all levels of government while Amtrak depends
on a largely inadequate and outdated rail network that government has
consistently ignored. (We appreciate that the neglect would have been
even worse but for the efforts of Congress.)
route cutting is not in the public interest
Pressure to downsize Amtrak's already shrunken, minimal system even
more is contrary to the public's need for high quality mobility
choices. It is appropriate to increase the cost-effectiveness and on-
time performance of the system, but further downsizing will not do
this. Efforts to increase service and expand the route network would
drive economies of scale that would improve economic efficiency and
better serve the public need for safe, reliable and energy efficient
mobility.
None of the current routes is expendable. When considered in terms
of the service Amtrak provides, the public makes heavy use of all
existing routes; there are no ``empty trains.'' The current trend is
positive. Travel on overnight trains as a group rose 3 percent in the
first half of fiscal 2007 and yield (revenue per passenger-mile)
climbed 4 percent compared with year-earlier figures. Comparing the
entire fiscal 2006 with fiscal 2005, yield jumped 10 percent while
passenger-miles fell only 3 percent despite major service disruptions
caused by Hurricane Katrina. Amtrak is not ``giving away the store.''
Congress's oversight should focus on year-long averages and not get
distracted by individual fares offered selectively on the internet.
Attempts to improve economic efficiency by forcing removal of the
``weakest routes'' have not been effective in the past and likely will
continue to fail in the future because of ``network interdependencies''
that affect both cost and revenue:
--A significant proportion of passengers on overnight national
network routes connect with other Amtrak routes. The
elimination of one route takes revenue away from surviving
routes;
--The elimination of one route doesn't eliminate all of the costs
allocated to it; many of those costs are just transferred to
remaining routes.
--Further tinkering with Amtrak's current route structure risks great
damage to the system's usefulness to travelers both now and in
the future, while doing little to reduce Amtrak's operating
grant requirement (and possibly increasing it).
The purpose of identifying ``weak'' routes should be only to focus
management's attention on improving the attractiveness of the service
and raising fare box recovery.
It is important to measure performance with metrics that are both
accurate and appropriate. For example, Amtrak reports separate
financial results for the Sunset Limited and Texas Eagle. This creates
the illusion that the Sunset has a loss per passenger mile nearly
double that of the Eagle. In reality, the Sunset and Eagle run as a
single combined train San Antonio-Los Angeles; it is impossible to
segregate the revenue and cost into two separate trains. When treated
as a single train, the ``net cost'' of operating Eagle/Sunset is in
line with other overnight long distance routes. Elimination of the
Sunset would significantly increase the ``net cost'' of the Eagle,
producing either much higher Eagle costs or much lower revenue,
depending on whether or not Amtrak continued the San Antonio-Los
Angeles segment.
``Subsidy per passenger'' is not a standard measure for intercity
travel because it ignores wide variations in trip lengths of different
passengers. Consequently, it is not an economic measure but a statement
of prejudice against passengers taking long trips, and against rural
America. More reasonable measures include revenue-to-cost ratio,
operating ratio (opposite of revenue-to-cost; frequently used in the
railroad industry, loss per seat-mile and loss per passenger-mile.
No matter how many routes get cut, there always will be another set
of ``worst performing routes'' that become the next targets for
elimination. The most effective strategy to improve Amtrak's utility
and economic efficiency is for Amtrak to focus on increasing volume and
revenues, not reducing or eliminating service.
overnight trains: a national treasure
Here are some of the major reasons Congress should maintain and
expand nationwide passenger train service. An expanded national network
will provide:
--Mobility for the one of every three Americans who does not drive.
--Mobility for millions of Americans who cannot or do not want to
fly, in major markets with affordable air fares and markets
with little or no alternative public transportation.
--An essential link between underserved rural communities and
metropolitan areas.
--A foundation for future rail development that facilitates start-up
of shorter-distance intercity services and commuter rail
operations into congested urban areas--both of which use some
of the same tracks and/or facilities.
--The only intercity passenger train service for people in most
States. If all long-distance trains disappeared, the surviving
system would serve just 21 States, and the network would
consist of only four, isolated mini-networks.
--Needed transportation capacity with minimum impact on the
environment. Except in a few key corridors already at capacity,
rail can increase its capacity at comparatively low cost by
increasing train length or running more trains on existing
infrastructure.
--Greater public safety; rail is far safer than highways.
--Enhanced national security both by increasing the energy efficiency
of the Nation's transportation system and by giving travelers
needed choices in emergencies.
--On many routes, the best way to see the Nation's natural beauty and
the only practical way for those who can't take long automobile
trips.
shorter corridors
The need for these services is increasingly well understood, helped
most recently by strong ridership response to the frequencies Illinois
added last fall on the lines linking Chicago with St. Louis, Quincy and
Carbondale. For March, ridership on these lines was up 57 percent, 44
percent and 75 percent, respectively, over March, 2006.
States are eager to develop new passenger train services and will
respond quickly when provided a Federal matching fund program. In some
cases, like California, the need is for new equipment as ridership
growth begins to exceed the capacity of available rolling stock. In
other States, the issue is adding new lines. Thank you for considering
our views.