[Senate Hearing 111-68]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-68
SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS:
INVESTING IN TRANSIT TO MEET 21ST
CENTURY CHALLENGES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
BANKING,HOUSING,AND URBAN AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
COORDINATING HOUSING AND TRANSPORTATION POLICY TO ENCOURAGE SMART LAND
USE, GENERATE ECONOMIC GROWTH, AND DEVELOP SOLUTIONS TO EFFECTIVELY
ADDRESS 21ST CENTURY TRANSIT CHALLENGES
__________
MARCH 12, 2009
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs
Available at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/senate05sh.html
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
51-476 PDF WASHINGTON : 2009
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS
CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut, Chairman
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
JACK REED, Rhode Island ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
EVAN BAYH, Indiana MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey MEL MARTINEZ, Florida
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii BOB CORKER, Tennessee
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
JON TESTER, Montana DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska
MARK R. WARNER, Virginia KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado
Colin McGinnis, Acting Staff Director
William D. Duhnke, Republican Staff Director and Counsel
Mitch Warren, Professional Staff Member
Aaron Klein, Chief Economist
Bonnie Graves, FTA Fellow
Lisa Frumin, Legislative Assistant
Shannon Hines, Republican Professional Staff Member
Dawn Ratliff, Chief Clerk
Devin Hartley, Hearing Clerk
Shelvin Simmons, IT Director
Jim Crowell, Editor
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 12, 2009
Page
Opening statement of Senator Dodd................................ 1
Opening statements, comments, or prepared statements of:
Senator Shelby............................................... 3
Senator Reed................................................. 5
Prepared statement....................................... 42
Senator Bennett.............................................. 5
Senator Merkley.............................................. 6
Senator Bennet............................................... 7
Prepared statement....................................... 42
WITNESSES
Raymond H. LaHood, Secretary, Department of Transportation....... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 43
Response to written questions of:
Chairman Dodd............................................ 68
Senator Shelby........................................... 68
Senator Corker........................................... 70
Senator Bunning.......................................... 72
John Hickenlooper, Mayor, Denver, Colorado, Representing The
U.S. Conference of Mayors...................................... 24
Prepared statement........................................... 47
Response to written questions of Senator Shelby.............. 73
Joseph F. Marie, Commissioner, Connecticut Department of
Transportation, on Behalf of The American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials........................... 27
Prepared statement........................................... 59
Response to written questions of Senator Shelby.............. 74
Beverly Scott, Ph.D, General Manager and CEO, Metropolitan
Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, and Chair, American Public
Transportation Association..................................... 29
Prepared statement........................................... 62
Response to written questions of Senator Shelby.............. 76
(iii)
SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS: INVESTING IN TRANSIT TO MEET 21ST
CENTURY CHALLENGES
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 12, 2009
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met at 10:07 a.m., in room SD-538, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Senator Christopher J. Dodd (Chairman
of the Committee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN CHRISTOPHER J. DODD
Chairman Dodd. The Committee will come to order. Welcome,
everyone. Welcome, Mr. Secretary. We are delighted to have you
with us this morning. Let me welcome our guests in the hearing
room, as well, and my colleagues.
I am going to make some brief opening comments, turn to
Senator Shelby, and then I would like to invite my colleagues
for any brief opening comments they would like to make, as
well, Mr. Secretary, and then we will get to you. We have got a
second panel, as well, with some very good witnesses here to
talk about ``Sustainable Transportation Solutions: Investing in
Transit in the 21st Century,'' is the headline of our hearing
here this morning.
Let me first of all welcome, as I said, everyone here to
the first in a series of hearings this Committee will hold in
the coming months as we prepare to write new surface
transportation legislation. It comes not a moment too soon, in
my view. The challenges our nation faces now are very clear--
the deep recession, obviously, a dangerous dependence on
foreign oil that we are all painfully aware of, energy price
volatility, worsening metropolitan traffic congestion, the
effects of climate change, and a growing aging population. In
my view, each compel us to take a fresh look at our nation's
transportation policy, much of which has grown out of the 1956
Federal Aid Highway Act that created the Highway Trust Fund and
the Interstate Highway System back in the mid-1950s.
The highway system set the stage for decades of economic
growth and prosperity, much as the construction of the Erie
Canal, the Transcontinental Railroad, the Rural Electrification
did before it, and just as our efforts to build the Internet
did in more recent years. With a very different world today, we
need a transportation policy that addresses a very different
set of challenges that the 21st century poses.
Secretary LaHood, as you well know, Federal leadership in
transportation is one of the keys to getting our economy
growing again and to a more secure energy future, and to
addressing climate change. All of that will require a bold new
commitment to public transportation.
And ridership is expected at record levels. Last year,
Americans took over 10.7 billion trips on our nation's buses
and rail lines, ironically, the largest number of public
transportation trips taken since 1956, the year that President
Eisenhower created the Interstate Highway System.
In fact, just in my State alone, I was looking at some of
the numbers, and I am sure my colleagues can cite similar ones,
because this is true across the country. I know you are aware
of this, Mr. Secretary. But the New Haven, Connecticut line
added 1.4 million more customers, almost a 4-percent increase
over 2007. The New Haven Branch Line rail service also
experienced an increase. The Waterbury Line, with a growth of
34 percent over 2007. The Shore Line East, which runs along
from New London toward New Haven, Connecticut, for those
familiar with the State, saw a 12 percent increase, with almost
540,000 new customers traveling those lines. And there are
several more in my State that just cite this across-the-board
increase.
So in many ways, the public and the country are ahead of us
on this issue. It is not a question of promoting growth of
transit systems. The growth is there. The question is whether
or not we are going to accommodate it and be able to service it
well, as well as the increasing demand I think will come in the
coming years.
As I mentioned, my State is working toward a tri-city
corridor commuter line linking major cities and towns in one of
the densest corridors in the State, and the country, for that
matter. This will reduce congestion along I-91, New Haven to
Springfield, going to Massachusetts, on to Vermont. So again,
it is not just a localized but a regional corridor that could
really deal with both energy, environment, housing, and
transportation issues simultaneously.
Anyway, despite these obvious benefits, too often over the
past half-century, transit has taken a back seat to funding of
our roads and highways. And while the Federal Government is
prepared to pick up 80 percent of the cost for new highway
capacity projects, it generally pays less than half of that
number for new transit projects. Of course, roads and highways
will continue to be essential to our nation's economic growth,
and none of us are arguing that point at all, and
competitiveness, as well, as will our States' role in building
them.
But America will never, ever meet the challenges in this
century we are in with 50 States carrying out 50 different
plans without a national vision of where we need to go in
transit issues. The time has come, in my view, to put transit
in the driver's seat again, to lay the groundwork for an
integration transportation system that coordinates land use and
economic development plans to meet today's challenges. By
coordinating housing and transportation policy to encourage
smart land use, we can generate economic growth and create
vibrant communities where people can live and work with a
smaller carbon footprint.
Transit is a fundamental building block of economic growth.
I recently was in North Carolina, where the city of Charlotte
is demonstrating the difference transit-oriented development
can make, spurring $2 billion in private development along its
new light rail lines in that city.
The Brownfield site in Connecticut is another such project
that is along those same lines as Charlotte. When completed,
the Fairfield Metro Center is expected to include 860,000
square feet of office space, retail space, as well as a hotel
and condominiums, creating 3,000 construction jobs, and more
importantly, almost 3,000 permanent jobs. Powered by fuel
cells, solar power, and other energy-efficient technologies,
and it is all contingent on an access to mass transit. These
types of projects didn't happen by accident. They happened
because community leaders recognized the need to integrate land
use and transportation decisions and involve every aspect of
its city government, from planning to public works, in the
effort.
Secretary LaHood, it is time, as I know you are aware, that
the Federal Government mirrored the example set by these
communities. They are doing it on their own. They are really
moving aggressively. We need to catch up with them, in a sense
here, if we are going to succeed.
That is why I have written President Obama, urging him to
establish a White House Office of Sustainable Development, to
ensure that we are coordinating all of these issues in the most
comprehensive, integrated, holistic way possible.
As Chairman of this Committee, I intend to make public
transportation a priority because it is critical to making our
entire transportation system work, getting our economy moving
again and addressing the challenges that we will face in the
decades to come. And with this Committee's work this year and
with your leadership, Mr. Secretary, I am confident we can make
that happen. And so I can't tell you how pleased I am that you
are here with us this morning. We will have our second panel,
as well. And we talk about here the authorization of a surface
transportation bill, not the reauthorization, the
authorization, because we truly need to think afresh on this
problem.
And as I said a moment ago, the public is way ahead of us
on this. Our communities are moving way ahead of us on this and
we need to catch up with them to make this work in an
integrated fashion.
With that, Senator Shelby.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR SHELBY
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Senator Dodd. Thank you, Mr.
Secretary, for appearing before us today to discuss the
importance of public transportation. I also appreciate our
other witnesses that will testify on the second panel.
Today, Mr. Secretary, as you well know, our nation is
facing the worst financial crisis in nearly a century and
millions of people are out of work and struggling. Public
transportation can be an important tool, particularly in times
such as these, that provides reliable access to jobs, child
care, health care, and other vital services. Promoting and
supporting policies that ensure these important services are
maintained is essential to us.
The future of our nation's transportation infrastructure is
at a crossroads. We must decide if our next steps will be
incremental or transformative. Ultimately, any proposal we
adopt must balance flexibility with stringent spending
requirements and long-term sustainability.
Last year, public transportation experienced record high
ridership. Initially, much of the increase was due to the spike
in gas prices. Over time, however, these increases have lasted
and have proved to be both a blessing and a curse for transit
systems. While a spike in fuel prices caused an increase in
transit ridership, it also resulted in a significant decline in
gas tax receipts into the Highway Trust Fund. This
unpredictable fluctuation is precisely why we must consider,
Mr. Secretary, alternative forms of financing for our nation's
public transportation infrastructure.
Some have proposed significantly increasing gas taxes. I do
not believe that raising taxes during the economic crisis makes
sense. We must consider innovative alternatives and encourage
creativity in the marketplace.
By most estimates, it will require nearly $200 billion to
simply maintain our current surface transportation
infrastructure. This need far outstrips our current funding
capacity. More importantly, the $200 billion estimate does not
account for new projects that add capacity or replace existing
systems. Clearly, Mr. Secretary, financing these projects is
going to be a significant challenge for all of us.
In addition to financing, we must also look at the question
of accountability for maintaining a state of good repair. We
have heard a great deal about our nation's crumbling
infrastructure and the trillions of dollars necessary to
rehabilitate or to replace it. Nevertheless, the Federal
Government continues to provide hundreds of millions of dollars
for infrastructure projects without any requirement to maintain
them. The Federal Transit Administration imposes an extremely
vigorous approval process for major capital projects, and yet
there is very little follow-up or accountability regarding
long-term maintenance, as it should be.
Even more disturbing is the lack of requirements to bring
an existing system up to a state of good repair before new
funding for an expansion is allowed. This gap ultimately
exacerbates the overall problem. In light of the continued
requests for additional infrastructure funding, I believe this
is an area that requires thorough review and significant
reform.
These are just a few examples of the many areas that I
believe we must address during what I hope are a number of
hearings on this reauthorization.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Dodd. Thank you, Senator, very much.
Senator Reed?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR REED
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
Secretary LaHood, Ray, welcome. I also want to welcome Beverly
Scott, who will be on the next panel. Beverly was the Director
of the Public Transportation Authority and now she is--she took
our heart and our money down to Atlanta, so we will talk about
that later.
[Laughter.]
Senator Reed. But we are in an interesting situation where
we are seeing increased demand for transit services across the
country, but because of operating funding difficulties, we are
seeing service cutbacks. It seems to be absolutely
counterintuitive.
So I think it requires us to think seriously about
operating assistance, but also a new, more stable funding
mechanism for transit across the country, not 50 different
models but one unified model.
I know the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has
provided assistance to transit systems, which is necessary, but
that is more of a stop-gap than a permanent, long-term, stable
approach, which I think we need.
And as the Chairman and the Ranking Member suggested, these
issues are intertwined not only with transit policy, but with
environmental policy, with good land use policy, with economic
development, and a host of others. This really could be one of
the keys to the new economy that we are all trying to foster.
So I am particularly delighted, Secretary, that you are
there. You bring great judgment and great integrity and decency
to the job and I look forward to working with you.
I have a longer statement which I would make part of the
record, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Dodd. Thank you very much.
Senator Bennett?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR BENNETT
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your
calling the hearing.
Secretary LaHood, welcome. We are delighted to have you
here and appreciate your expertise.
As I listened to you, Mr. Chairman, talk about the impact
of mass transit on a city, my mind goes back to the experience
of the Washington Metro. I was involved in transportation
issues when the Metro in Washington was first conceived and
then built, and I remember and will not rehearse here the
attitude of citizens in Georgetown who said they did not want a
Metro stop in Georgetown, that for whatever reason it was all
right for other people to have one, but they didn't want one in
Georgetown. And now we look back on it, there is a Metro stop
across the river from Georgetown in Rosslyn, Virginia, which is
where my wife and I have our temporary home, the permanent one
being in Salt Lake. I have to make sure the local papers get
that.
[Laughter.]
Senator Bennett. And you see the difference that has
occurred around the Metro stops that are available in Northern
Virginia and what the situation is in Georgetown. Now, maybe
the people in Georgetown like it, although I understand they
are now lobbying for a Metro stop in Georgetown.
But when you look at the economic development that has
occurred as a result of the Metro stops that are available, the
buildings that have been built, and start to think about the
property taxes that are being paid and the economic activity
that is producing income taxes, you say transit produces
significant economic advantages to those who take advantage of
it. We often don't think of that. You made reference to it in
your opening statement and I want to underline it.
I have seen it happen here in Washington and I have seen it
happen in Salt Lake, where we have produced a light rail
system. Businesses that are along the light rail system are now
beginning to flourish and an entire housing area on land that
would otherwise not be used is springing up because they are
going to have a line of the light rail go to that area, and
that means residents of that area can commute from downtown if
they want without having to be adding to the congestion. It is
creating a whole new housing market simply because there will
be a transit stop.
Those are the kinds of visions that we need to keep in mind
as we deal with our testimony here today, and I applaud you in
your determination to see to it that mass transit becomes an
important part of the agenda in this Committee this year.
Chairman Dodd. Senator Bennett, I appreciate your comments.
I guess a lot of us grew up with the notion of living along the
tracks, that you would have a devaluation in property, or that
was considered not the most ideal place to live. Of course,
what Charlotte has proved and others are proving is that, in
fact, being along the tracks does just the opposite, in effect,
today. It is a very different mentality altogether. And as you
say, you can then start deciding on smart land use issues.
Climate change issues, energy use--I mean, the energy
connection and the transit are just stunning, the numbers, if
you start looking at how much actually gets saved as a result
of moving in this transit area. So I appreciate your comments.
Senator Merkley?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR MERKLEY
Senator Merkley. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome, Mr.
Secretary.
I simply associate myself with the colleagues of my
colleagues and add that transit in Oregon has been incredibly
important, certainly from the viewpoint of economic
development, from the viewpoint of reducing our carbon
footprint, and certainly in contributing to the form of our
cities. It has been a key to the success of our urban growth
boundary strategy to preserve open spaces and create livable
neighborhoods.
I certainly appreciate your leadership and look forward to
working with you.
Chairman Dodd. Thank you.
Senator Bennet?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR BENNET
Senator Bennet. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I first want to
say a word of introduction later about Mayor Hickenlooper, but
I want to thank you and the Ranking Member for having John
Hickenlooper here from Denver. I can't think of anybody better
situated to talk about these issues than John.
Mr. Secretary, welcome to the Committee. We are happy to
have you here.
There are a lot of exciting things going on in Denver when
it comes to transit. The Fast Tracks Project, which our Mayor
will talk about, marks the largest rail expansion in the
country and it is a model of cooperation of local and Federal
Government. By the time the project is completed in 2017, the
Denver area will have six new commuter rail and light rail
corridors, three extensions of existing corridors, 18 miles of
bus rapid transit, and 21,000 new parking spaces, not to
mention a redeveloped Denver Union Station, and at least when I
was helping the Mayor get this passed, when I worked for him,
we used to claim, Mr. Chairman, that this would cover an area
the size of the State of Connecticut and it is coming along
very well.
But as you said, our local communities are really ahead of
the Federal Government when it comes to investment and much of
their investments are based on sales tax. I think I would like
to see us produce a bill in this Committee that shows our
commitment to helping local transportation at least more
adequately meet these goals, because they are so critical.
Finally, I just want to say that this bill has a lot of
significance to transit in rural areas, as well. While urban
areas receive the bulk of Federal transit dollars, I want to
make sure we don't forget our rural communities during this
reauthorization process. An increasing number of seniors and
people with disabilities rely on public transportation in rural
parts of Colorado and it is very important that we keep them in
mind as we think about this.
Mr. Chairman, I have got a longer statement I would like
included in the record. Thank you.
Chairman Dodd. It will be so included and we thank you for
your comments. We will be giving you an opportunity to give a
formal welcome to the Mayor when we get to the second panel.
Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for being with us and I
hope these opening comments were of some help to give you an
idea how--there are a lot of issues which we spend a lot of
time working together on. I think this is going to be one of
them, as well, where you are looking at a Committee here that
is not divided between red and blue States or ``R''s and
``D''s, but people who have a deep interest in the subject
matter. It is a unique area of jurisdiction of this Committee,
in many ways going back many years, but a very, very important
one and one that I want to highlight. And obviously, your
participation will mean a great deal in that.
The floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF RAYMOND H. LaHOOD, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
Secretary LaHood. Chairman Dodd, Ranking Member Shelby, and
members of the Committee, I am pleased to appear before you
today to discuss issues related to the reauthorization of
Federal public transportation programs.
This hearing is especially timely for two reasons. First,
as you know, the current authorization legislation, SAFETEA-LU,
expires at the end of fiscal year 2009. I hope Congress can act
swiftly to pass new legislation to ensure that these important
programs continue uninterrupted. Investing in surface
transportation is one of President Obama's key economic
initiatives. The administration's surface transportation
authorization proposal continues that important work. Improving
the efficiency and reliability of our surface transportation
system is vital to enhancing the nation's productivity and
competitiveness.
Second, with the passage of the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act, hundreds of ready-to-go capital transit
projects are poised to begin. These projects will create
thousands of jobs quickly and they will enable transit
operators around the country to improve and expand service to
millions of customers. We need an innovative and forward-
looking reauthorization package to keep the economic recovery
going in the public transportation sector and we need to ensure
that local communities can establish and preserve sustainable,
safe, environmentally friendly transit systems that improve
mobility and reduce traffic congestion.
We should also find new ways to deliver Federal surface
transportation programs in light of the industry's fiscal
challenges. Over the last year, transit ridership has attained
its highest level in more than 50 years. To handle the growth
in demand, the industry needs roughly $22 billion annually to
improve conditions and performance of existing transit systems.
The nation's oldest rail cities, such as New York and
Chicago, are in serious condition, as well. We are in the
process of releasing a report to Senator Durbin and others
describing the conditions of the nation's seven largest rail
transit operators. In a nutshell, there is a significant
backlog of unmet recapitalization needs of about $50 billion.
The administration believes the next authorization should
address five critical areas. First, as I noted, investments
have not kept pace with needs. Therefore, I ask the Committee
and Congress to look closely at new ways to structure funding
for transit and highway programs.
Second, we should do more to improve safety. The level of
transportation-related fatalities in this country across all
service modes is unacceptable. We need data-driven,
performance-based safety programs to identify what works,
followed by swift implementation of these solutions.
Third, we should promote more livable communities. The era
of one-size-fits-all transportation projects should be replaced
by an emphasis on preserving and enhancing the things that make
each community special. That means expanding travel choices,
including transit, wherever possible. This helps to reduce
greenhouse gasses emissions and slows the pace of climate
change.
Fourth, President Obama has stressed the need for
accountability, transparency, and performance throughout the
Federal Government. The next authorization package should
require every program and initiative to reflect these core
principles. To accomplish this, we may need to find new ways of
doing business and implement stringent new performance
measures. This is the right thing to do for taxpayers.
And finally, throughout our nation's history,
transportation has been marked by innovation. We must carry
that tradition forward by investing in technology and smarter
ways of delivering transportation systems and services. These
investments will pay off in greater safety, less congestion,
and a state-of-the-art transportation infrastructure system for
America.
Mr. Chairman, many public transportation challenges await
our action and leadership. In addition to a strong
reauthorization bill, we will need to address the future of the
Highway Trust Fund, commitment authority for the New Starts
Program, and the potential creation of a National
Infrastructure Bank, and I look forward to working with you on
these issues.
And let me just say parenthetically--this is not a part of
my statement--I don't think there is another administration
that has ever come to this town that knows more about transit
and public transportation than this. President Obama is from
Chicago, and I can tell you that he has ridden lots of buses
and lots of transit transportation. And when you look, his
Chief of Staff is from Chicago. Again, these folks have
utilized public transportation and transit in many different
forms in the city from which they come. So they understand this
issue very well because they have used these systems.
And I also want to make note of the Mayor of Denver, who
came to my office about a week ago with a very good suggestion
which he and I are going to implement. He offered the
opportunity to bring about 8 or 10 mayors to Washington to meet
with me to talk about the future and to talk about innovative
approaches that they have taken around the country. We have a
meeting scheduled, I think a week from Monday in my office with
8 or 10 mayors to talk about the way forward. We know that the
cities are really the incubators of a lot of good ideas, some
that have been implemented and some that people are thinking
about. So I am delighted that the Mayor of Denver is a part of
this second panel today.
I look forward to your questions and thank you for the
opportunity to be here today.
Chairman Dodd. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Secretary,
and thank you for your statement, as well. I commend you on the
idea of listening to our mayors of our cities and smaller
communities, as well, that can bring some great ideas.
And let me just parenthetically say I appreciate your
particular comments on the Infrastructure Bank idea. As you
know, I authored that legislation along with Chuck Hagel, a
former member of this Committee, with people like Warren
Rudman, Bob Kerry were involved in it. Felix Rohatyn of the
Center for Strategic and International Studies did a lot of
work over the last several years in helping us develop the
idea. And I was pleased to see that President Obama included
that in the budget request, as well. And we are going to sit
down and work, because we need creative ideas in funding, in
leveraging private capital.
The Mayor of Vancouver, Canada--I was talking with Governor
Schwarzenegger the other day on a number of these matters and
he highlighted the significant work the mayor of that city in
Canada has done by utilizing an Infrastructure Bank in terms of
supporting the needs of the infrastructure demands of that
city. So we are going to proceed with that idea, as well. As
you point out, just talking about additional monies without
having creative ideas on how we can attract different sources
of capital to come into it is not going to make much of a
difference.
Let me just mention, because you and I have talked about
this and obviously this is not really a question for you, but
just the whole notion of what I am trying to do in that tri-
city development of New Haven, Connecticut through Springfield
into Vermont is, I think, a wonderful example of something that
may not be shovel-ready tomorrow, but certainly is shovel-ready
very quickly and is a demonstrable evidence of what could be
done in terms of linking up communities, reducing traffic
congestion, helping smart growth in a fairly congested area.
And so I have raised the issue with you and your office and we
would ask you to pay some attention to that, if you could, as
an example of what could happen here in this development of
transit policy.
Second, and you have made this point, as well, and I think
all of us have here, the numbers, the growth numbers are really
rather remarkable and I think every evidence is they are going
to stay with us given the economic conditions we have. And I
think once people, even though they may have gotten into the
use of transit for reasons that they didn't particularly like,
because of the cost of gasoline and others, I think it is one
of those things that once you experience it, you start
utilizing it, you realize how easy it is, how comfortable it
is, how time-saving it is in terms of using it. So while we are
in this and people may be using it for reasons they didn't
anticipate, once that starts, I think it gets very difficult to
turn it around, and I think you will hear that from some of our
witnesses, as well, today.
Let me, if I can, just raise a couple of questions, if I
can. One has to do with the Office of Sustainable Development,
which I have mentioned in a letter to the President, to bring
together your office, the Office of the Department of Energy,
and Housing, as well as the environmental issues together to
link these up in a way that we have never really done before.
We have sort of this stovepipe mentality, sort of separate
issues that we deal with separately and not a lot of that
interconnectability between these questions of housing,
transportation, energy, and environment.
And I wonder what role you might see the Department of
Transportation obviously playing in cooperating with other
Federal agencies to help meet these challenges and what steps
you might be prepared to take to help coordinate this effort.
Secretary LaHood. Well, I haven't talked to the President
about your letter, Mr. Chairman, but sustainability is a very,
very important aspect of what we are doing at the Department of
Transportation. If the President decides to accept your idea,
we want to be a big player in sustainability.
What we are doing now with the economic program, the
recovery program, is trying to get people to work very quickly,
but we know that sustainability on a number of these things
that we are doing very quickly here can be very important. And
I also think the idea of sustainability in terms of livable
communities and what you are talking about in terms of your own
State and the idea of connecting these communities and having
people have opportunities to get away from their cars and get
away from congestion and live in communities that offer lots of
different amenities and lots of different options. I think the
idea of livable communities, sustainability, and really tying
it into the economic recovery, but also the authorization of
transit, all of these things tie together.
And so I look forward to working with you if we get a
signal from the President to be a part of this team. We want to
be a big player in this.
Chairman Dodd. Well, you can be, obviously, and I would
urge you maybe to even be an advocate. As they are sitting down
and asking about these things, it would be helpful. And our
intention here with the Committee is to invite you, along with
others from the respective four Secretariats I have mentioned,
to come together under the auspices of this Committee, if
necessary to begin to talk about how we do coordinate that. It
is important.
Let me mention two other issues to you quickly, if I can.
One has to do with just the inequities in many ways of the
competing systems when you start talking about transportation,
between highway and transit programs. When a State or a city or
a region wants to build a new highway or a new lane of traffic,
there are very few questions asked by the Federal Government in
that process.
On the other hand, when a State or region or city enters
the New Starts process, which involves answering a multitude of
questions and undergoing a rigorous analysis that can take
years, in some cases a decade or more, what I believe--
certainly I believe there are benefits to a rigorous review. I
am not arguing. To the contrary. But it seems to me that the
burdensome, literally an incredibly burdensome path that you
must follow when you seek transit support as opposed to highway
support, I think everyone knows this, but it clearly--if you
have got to go through it to get the easier money, not to
mention the percentages, then obviously the option is quite
clear, what people are going to opt for.
Many communities, rural and urban, would like to be in a
neutral position where they can make decisions that they think
serve their needs best. But when there is a bias, both in terms
of the bureaucracy as well as cost, then you get a predictable
outcome, it seems to me, and so I wonder if you could comment
on that.
Secretary LaHood. Well, I think this. I think now that we
have built a state-of-the-art interstate system in this country
and we know now that people's choices are for transit, I think
you are going to see us in the Department develop hopefully a
system whereby it becomes easier and we become more open-minded
about the idea that transit will become the transportation of
choice for many, many communities and many, many people around
the country and we can develop a system that makes it easier
and less bureaucratic for communities to really have access to
these kinds of programs and these dollars.
I think the legislation that you all draft can send a
pretty strong message in that regard, also. Transit and the
forms of transportation we are talking about here really now
have come into their own, and it is an opportunity, I think, to
send a message not only to our Department but around the
country that it is going to be the choice of transportation for
many, many Americans and we ought to make the opportunities
available to people without a lot of bureaucratic red tape. It
has to be done correctly and done right, but we should make it
accessible in terms of a lot less bureaucracy.
Chairman Dodd. And I want to--I am sure I am expressing the
views of all of us here. This is not a question of being anti-
highway. We understand that. But just so there is sort of that
level playing field. And I welcome your comments and would very
much like to have our staffs work with yours, because it is
obviously important to have the support of the Department of
Transportation as we move forward, not just a Committee bill--
--
Secretary LaHood. Of course.
Chairman Dodd.----but I appreciate your point.
The last point I want to make to you is one that is also of
concern. It has been well documented by this Committee and
others that multi-year dedicated funding is critical to
building and maintaining transportation systems. Congress
realized this when as part of the T-21 in the 1990s we
established budgetary firewalls to ensure that the authorized
funding levels in the transportation bill were real, guaranteed
funding. This has been a great success in the past decade. It
is unique, in a sense, that authorizing committees have that
firewall built in. So your authorizing numbers become your
appropriated numbers.
The administration--this has been very successful over the
past decade and I was disappointed that the administration's
budget included a provision that would weaken these guarantees.
I, along with Senator Shelby and our counterparts in the
authorizing Committee, sent a letter to the administration
expressing our opposition to the proposed change here. I wonder
if you would comment on that.
Secretary LaHood. Well, I saw your letter, Mr. Chairman,
Mr. Shelby and others, and I know of your concern. What we will
try and do is, as good members of this administration, work
with you and your Committee to reach some kind of a
consideration for the issues that you raise in your letter. I
understand completely as a former member of the House, a former
member of the T&I authorization Committee, and a former
appropriator. I know of what you speak. And so we will work
with you, and obviously we need to bring OMB into the mix on
this, and take into consideration the concerns that you have
expressed in that letter.
Chairman Dodd. Well, I appreciate that very much, because
again, the obvious point here is if we all of a sudden
fundamentally alter this funding scheme, then the idea of doing
one of the things we are talking about is dealt a significant
blow----
Secretary LaHood. Sure.
Chairman Dodd.----to those efforts, and a fundamental
alteration of a decades-long policy. So I welcome your comments
and we will work very closely with you to try and alter that.
Secretary LaHood. Sure.
Chairman Dodd. Senator Shelby?
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary LaHood, I am extremely concerned about continuing
to make investments in infrastructure without any requirement
for maintaining a state of good repair long-term. In your
testimony, you referenced the rail modernization study and that
there is a backlog of $50 billion in unmet recapitalization
needs in the nation's seven largest rail transit operators. It
is my understanding these properties have received billions in
Federal funding for new projects, too.
What can we do to make certain that we adequately monitor
and ensure the long-term maintenance of these assets, and what
does the administration intend to propose on this front?
Secretary LaHood. Well, we do have a study that we are
going to be looking at very carefully, as I indicated, that has
looked at all of the assets and what we need to do going
forward. Obviously, that will be made available to all of you
and I think we have to be committed not only to continuing
progress and the way forward, but we also have to take care of
the assets that we have. I think you will see in the report
there will be opportunities to do that.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Secretary, in the last authorization
bill, we attempted here to streamline the New Starts process
and add additional categories for consideration during project
evaluation. Nevertheless, the process continues to take what
seems like an inordinate amount of time and many of the factors
Congress added, including economic development, still have not
been implemented.
I know you are new in your job, Mr. Secretary, but I am
interested in your thoughts on the overall process and what
changes can be made to ensure that it can move forward more
expeditiously while still conducting a thorough evaluation.
Secretary LaHood. Well, we have found in the process of
implementing the Recovery Act, where we were provided by
Congress in the bill about $8 billion for transit, that we have
been able to work pretty efficiently and effectively and pretty
quickly with the transit districts in identifying some
projects, and we will be making those known very soon.
So we know that it is possible in working with the
different transit authorities and officials around the country
that these things can be streamlined and the money can get out
quick and we have established a little model here during this
recovery opportunity to make that happen and we hope that that
can continue in the future.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Secretary, you bring a unique
background here to your job as a Cabinet member and Secretary
of Transportation and we are very aware of this. I am
interested in learning more about the administration's plans
for the future of the Highway Trust Fund. Specifically, do you
anticipate continuing financing of surface transportation from
the Highway Trust Fund, including public transportation, or do
you expect more funding to come from the general fund?
Secretary LaHood. Well, I think this. I think that the
Highway Trust Fund was adequate for building a state-of-the-art
interstate system. We are the model for the world. When people
look at America and see our interstate system, they use it as a
model. And the Highway Trust Fund provided the adequate funding
to make that happen.
But it is an antiquated system now. I think what we should
do is continue the Highway Trust Fund, but we have to build on
that. There are simply not enough resources in the Highway
Trust Fund to fund all the things that you and we at the
Department would like to do. And there are a lot of creative
ideas out there--public-private partnerships, tolling of lanes.
I was in Miami, Florida, a week ago. I was on Interstate 95
where they built a lane with tolls and it was, you know, it was
right next to--it was right on the same road. A creative way to
do it, because there wasn't enough money in the Highway Trust
Fund to do it.
So, look, there are about five or six very creative ideas
that we can build on the Highway Trust Fund in order to get to
where we want to be with all of the infrastructure needs that I
know that are needed and we have identified and you all have
identified. But the Highway Trust Fund is insufficient to
continue what we want to do in America with highways and
bridges and our infrastructure.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Secretary, as you well know, certainty
is very important in the planning and financing of transit
projects and so forth. The Highway Trust Fund and the
guarantees provided in the authorization bill have provided
certainty for long-term planning and enactment of
transportation projects. Are you concerned that increased
reliance on the general fund could displace this certainty and
result in difficulties conducting long-range planning and
raising capital, or do you think that will complement what we
are doing?
Secretary LaHood. Well, I am going to let you all decide
whether you want to use general revenue and put it in the
Highway Trust Fund. I would rather talk from the point of view
of a National Infrastructure Bank, public-private partnerships,
tolling of roads, and other ways, creative ways of thinking
about building on the Highway Trust Fund.
You know, I am not prepared to say here today--I will leave
that to all of you that are going to have to make those hard
decisions, as were made last year when $8 billion was put into
the Highway Trust Fund. I would rather talk from the point of
view of let us be creative and try and find other creative ways
to supplement the Highway Trust Fund.
Senator Shelby. But do you believe certainty in the
planning is important, too?
Secretary LaHood. There is no question about it. People
have to know where the money is coming from and that it will be
there----
Senator Shelby. Absolutely.
Secretary LaHood.----when these important road, bridge, and
other infrastructure projects. We have to have certainty about
where the money is coming from, no question about it.
Senator Shelby. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Dodd. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Jack Reed?
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and again,
welcome, Secretary.
In your comments to APTA on Monday, you talked about at
least thinking about providing some operating assistance to
transit agencies. If you could elaborate on that, and also the
challenge of ensuring this is a maintenance of effort by local
and State communities, because they are under pressure, too.
There is a strong temptation, I think, for if we will do it,
they won't. So could you comment on that, Mr. Secretary?
Secretary LaHood. Sure. Senator, when I was in Congress, I
represented a couple of fairly good-sized communities, Peoria
and Springfield, who had good transit systems. I tried to be
helpful in making sure that they had the equipment. But if you
have the equipment without people to operate the equipment, it
does you no good. You can't provide the service.
I know that transit districts and transit systems have an
inability to use some of their money for operational purposes,
and I am speaking for myself now, OK. What I told the folks at
the transit meeting, I am going to be open-minded about this.
Look at it, we have to be realistic about these things and we
have to use a little bit of common sense here. If you have all
the great equipment but it is sitting and not really delivering
people where they want to go because you don't have people to
drive the buses or drive the trains or whatever, then we should
do something about that. And I want to be open-minded about the
idea that some of these funds could be operating.
Now, that is Ray LaHood's point of view and I want to work
with the administration, I want to work with all of you, I want
to work with these folks that are in a real pickle right now
about trying to find out how they are going to pay their bus
drivers and train drivers and all these other folks, engineers.
But I think we need to be open-minded about these things and I
am willing to do that.
Senator Reed. Well, thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Last year, at the end of the previous Congress, your
predecessor used her authority, which was clear and legal, to
allocate a portion of so-called lapsed funds, projects that had
been authorized, appropriated, but because of local problems
with matching funds and local problems with environmental
clearances, et cetera, weren't used. One of those projects was
in Rhode Island, but there are several other projects across
the country.
In the Omnibus Appropriation Act the President signed
yesterday, we are urging you to use the remaining unobligated
funds to go back and to fund these projects that have, as I
said, been duly authorized. I would hope that you could commit
to your best efforts to using these unobligated funds that
exist to go back and fulfill the requirements and the
authorization directions of the Congress.
Secretary LaHood. Well, Senator, this is what I will pledge
to you and the other members of the Committee and to any Member
of Congress. As a former member, I know that when these
particular projects are placed in a bill that they are
important to people and they are important to the people around
the country who would be served by these. And my pledge is to
look at the unobligated funds in the context of the way that
they were included in a particular bill for a particular area
and do all that we can to be very open-minded about doing what
we can to make sure the intent of Congress is carried out.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, and we will help
you to keep that mind open and focused.
[Laughter.]
Senator Reed. I think just a final comment. I think all the
questions so far have suggested that we are on the verge of a
significant change in the way we fund transit projects and
transportation projects. One factor is the declining
productivity of the gas tax, which we have to recognize. Others
is the need to recognize environmental costs, externalities to
traffic and travel and congestion, all these other things. I
know you have thought about these things and I just want to
simply say I look forward to working with you as we deal with
some very difficult and challenging issues, but fundamental to
our economic progress.
Secretary LaHood. Thank you, sir.
Senator Reed. I am glad you are there doing it.
Secretary LaHood. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Dodd. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Bennett?
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I have two issues I want to raise with you
based on our experience in Utah, and let me preface the remark
by saying that our experience in Utah with the Department of
Transportation and particularly FTA has been very, very good.
We have built what we think is a model system and the degree of
cooperation we have had with the Feds has been terrific.
Having said that, there are two areas where we may have a
little bit of heartburn. The first one is the New Starts
process. It has become lengthy and time consuming, and when it
becomes time consuming it becomes expensive. It is a little bit
overcomplicated and we would like to know if you have plans to
help streamline the process so that it might move a little more
rapidly, and that helps speed delivery and helps cut cost.
The second one is the ongoing debate about the role of
program of projects. We have bundled our activities into a
program of projects and we have had the experience of having to
re-explain this on occasion, where it got approved and then,
well, maybe we are going to fund this and not that because the
local match isn't there, and we go back to the original
conversations and say, but the local match is there once you
take this whole thing as a program of projects.
Now, this maybe is down in the weeds, but these are the
issues that we deal with most directly and I would appreciate
your comment about both of these.
Secretary LaHood. Well, as I said earlier, we have found in
our ability to get the money out the door in the Economic
Recovery Plan, whether it is the $28 billion for roads and
bridges, whether it is the $8 billion for transit, whether we
are putting together some criteria for our discretionary pot of
money, these things can be done in a more expedited way.
I want to make it clear. Things are going to be done by the
book, by the law, but there are ways to streamline, Senator,
and I want you to know that we have found those ways in our
ability to comply with the law that was passed by Congress,
which said, get the money out the door in 120 days and have it
spent in 18 months. We are going to comply with that.
So my answer is, there are ways to make sure that we don't
cut corners and we don't go against what the Congress has
passed, but our ability to cut through some of the bureaucracy
at DOT, and we did it by really putting together what we called
a Tiger Team, a group of people from all the different modes
that meet every day and talk about, OK, what is the next box we
have to check? What is the next rule or regulation that we have
to meet? All done by the book, but just by people sitting
together, talking to one another from the different modes so
people really have an understanding.
We have shown that we can do it under the recovery bill and
get the money out the door and I think we can do it in this
instance, also, and I pledge to you that we will work very hard
to do that.
Senator Bennett. Thank you. I appreciate that, and, of
course, no one is asking you to cut corners.
Secretary LaHood. No, sir. I know that.
Senator Bennett. We understand that. But as you pointed
out, there are ways to do it perhaps more efficiently.
Can you comment on the program of projects situation or do
you want to get back to me?
Secretary LaHood. I would rather get back to you on that,
Senator.
Senator Bennett. All right.
Secretary LaHood. I just--I don't feel I can really give
you a very good answer, but I will be happy to get back to you.
Senator Bennett. I would appreciate if you would focus on
that, because that becomes--that has become a key issue on how
we deal with the question of the local match and what we put
into the mix to provide the local match. If it then gets broken
up and each project is viewed as an individual project, then
local match that was pledged to the overall situation suddenly
disappears and we are told, no, we can't fund beyond a certain
level because the local match isn't there. That is the
difficulty with respect to this and I am grateful that you
would take a look at it.
Secretary LaHood. Yes, sir.
Senator Bennett. Thank you.
Chairman Dodd. Senator Merkley?
Senator Merkley. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Secretary, I want to start by following up on the
questions Senator Bennet raised in regard to Small Starts.
Specifically, let me begin first just by inviting you to come
out to Oregon. We would love to show you our streetcar system,
which has become very, very popular and contributed enormously
to reducing our carbon imprint and stimulating economic
development and certainly making the city far more livable. So
I look forward to checking in with your team to see if you
might be able to join us out in Oregon.
In regard to that particular streetcar project, our
delegation sent you a letter in January noting the successes
but also noting how additional streetcar projects seemed very
difficult to get initiated under the Small Starts Program. You
were very kind in replying to us that you shared our concerns
and that you would be looking into this. We pointed out that
there has been essentially an institutional bias previously in
not using that program to support streetcars and so I really
want to thank you for your reply and want to follow up on that
and ask if indeed you can continue to look into that, because
we really need to reverse kind of a bureaucratic formula that
was put out by the previous administration that essentially
created a roadblock to streetcar systems being considered under
that program.
Secretary LaHood. Senator, let me just say this. I feel
privileged to be part of a transformational administration, and
I feel privileged because I do think this President wants to
transform transportation. We are going to look--we are looking
very carefully at your program. I am very aware of it. I have
had at least three conversations in his office with Earl
Blumenauer, and I was just in Peter DeFazio's office a week
ago. I would be happy to come to your office. I am sure I will
hear the same thing.
But the point is, sir, that we are very interested in what
you are doing in Portland and we are very open-minded about it.
And I think you will be very pleased here with what we are
going to be able to do in working with you to make some of the
things that you all have been planning and working on and
implementing further reality for really making Portland and
other places in Oregon really livable communities.
You all are way ahead of the curve on this and I have sort
of adopted Earl's livable communities as something that we want
to work with the Congress on and really make a part of the
authorization of a transportation bill. I think we have to do
it for the people, for what the Chairman said about what is
going on in his State and the connection of communities and
people being able to get out of their cars and riding buses or
riding bikes or however you want to express it.
But I think you will be pleased that we will be working
with you and there is a lot more open minds as a result of the
leadership that we have received from the White House and our
ability really to look at this in a very productive way, I
think.
Senator Merkley. Mr. Secretary, I am absolutely thrilled to
hear your comments, and as you can tell by the enthusiasm of
our Congressmen that you have spoken with from both Northern
Oregon and Southern Oregon, we are very united in the success
of this. But we do look forward to, instead of just inviting
you to our offices, to actually get you out on one of those
streetcars in Oregon and we----
Secretary LaHood. I will be there.
Senator Merkley. Thank you so much.
The second piece I wanted to address is really to echo
Senator Dodd's comments about the efforts to tackle some of
the--to streamline some of the bureaucratic processes, and I
deeply appreciate your reference to the Tiger Team that you
have put together. We have found it much more difficult with
transit issues than with surface transportation or highway
issues, and part of it is the need to complete each and every
phase before you can move on to the next phase. So, for
example, we are working on an extension of our light rail
system to Milwaukee and we are trapped in early preliminary
engineering, because until we get that box checked, we can't
proceed to the next stage.
We would love to work with your folks to figure out how we
can emulate more expeditious procedures in making transit
happen, because it is just a series of obstacles that make
projects take far longer than they would ever need to.
And so I think you have really already addressed this as a
question. I certainly invite any additional comments, but I
wanted to thank you for your Tiger Team and say how important
this is to the success of building transit.
Secretary LaHood. Well, look, I think the fact that the
Chairman, the Ranking Member, Senator Bennett, and now you,
sir, have raised this issue, we really need to deal with this
at the Department. I think we have the ability to do it. We
should not let the bureaucracy get in the way of creative,
innovative ideas being carried out in as expeditious a way as
possible. I get the point here.
I mean, the value of this hearing today is that all of you
have expressed the idea that it takes too long, and you know my
point is we have got to do things by the book. But we have
proven that we can do them by the book very quickly and get an
enormous amount of money out the door by the kind of
coordination that the Tiger Team has allowed us to do. And so I
take all of your points on this, very well made. I will be
committed to trying to figure out ways in our Department to do
things right, but to get them done quicker.
Senator Merkley. Your approach is refreshing and energizing
and thank you very much.
Secretary LaHood. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Dodd. Thank you very much.
Senator Bennet?
Senator Bennet. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, first of all, happy to have you stop in
Denver on your way out to Portland or on the way back.
[Laughter.]
Senator Bennet. So let me know when it is going to be.
I want to just continue in this vein and say thank you to
you and to the President for keeping up your end of the bargain
with respect to the Recovery Act. We in Colorado have received
$100 million in transit money as part of that and your team
made that happen in an expeditious way. We really appreciate it
and our constituents noticed this. I mean, it is so frustrating
to people that things in Washington seem to take forever and
decisions never get made and they never--it takes so long to
see the benefits come back to them. I think the administration
really has done a real service here by holding up its end of
the bargain and my hope is that it will continue to do that
over the next 18 months or so.
Transparency is incredibly important. Accountability is
incredibly important. Making sure that the money is getting
spent where we said it would be spent is the most important
thing. But I would say the second most important thing is that
we act expeditiously. So I just want to join my colleagues in
urging you to, as you said you will, to do that.
And in that vein, since you have been on this side of the
table, I would love to hear your thoughts about how we move
this authorization process along. As you know, SAFETEA-LU was
enacted 22 months after T-21 had expired. How do we avoid doing
that again? How do we move this forward as fast as we can?
Secretary LaHood. Well, I am not an independent operator
anymore, so I didn't get elected to anything last November. Let
me just say on the transparency issue first, we have a--there
is a Web site that we put information into every day. It is
called Recovery.gov. It is at OMB, but it is also something
that the White House has taken a great deal of pride in. Any
taxpayer right now can access information about where the money
is being spent from the recovery, how many dollars have gone
out the door, what States have gotten it, and ultimately what
projects are funded, and ultimately--not yet, but ultimately,
how many people are put to work.
We are all very proud of that, and that came from the very
top. That is the President. Every time the President has given
a speech, or when I have been with the Vice President,
Recovery.gov is one of the things that is emphasized. We want
taxpayers to know, this is an enormous amount of money and we
believe it is going to put an enormous number of people to work
in good-paying jobs this spring, summer, and fall. I believe
that. But we want total transparency. We want hard-working
taxpayers to know their money is being spent correctly.
With respect to your question about how you get a bill
passed, I think for starters you are going to have an
administration, including myself, which I said I am privileged
to be a part of this team, that is going to work very closely
with Congress on getting a bill as quickly as you all can get
one. We are going to be full partners with you in all of this.
That will be a pretty good start.
I know Chairman Oberstar in the House has a very ambitious
schedule to get a bill passed, hopefully, I mean he claims
before the end of the fiscal year. I don't want to speak for
him, but I have had about four or five meetings with him and I
know this is his No. 1 goal. It will be up to all of you over
here to work as expeditiously as you can. But you are going to
have a real partnership with this administration and this
Department to get this done, because we have to have a good
follow-on to the Recovery Plan. If we are really going to have
sustainability and have the ability to keep these people
working beyond the 18 months, we need to have an authorization
bill that takes us beyond the 18 months into the next 5 years
and we are going to work with you on that.
Senator Bennett. I appreciate that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Dodd. Thank you very much.
We have been joined by Senator Kohl coming in. Senator,
welcome this morning. We have had the Secretary with us a bit
here. I don't know if you have any comments.
Senator Kohl. Yes, I have. Thank you very much, Mr. LaHood.
Last year, the Federal Transit Administration proposed changing
the rules regarding public transportation to and from the
schools. Particularly, the new rule prevents transit systems
from matching travel times and the patterns of the students,
with consequences for both the students and the transit systems
serving these communities.
Yesterday, I heard in Wisconsin from systems about the
heavy toll that this proposed change would take on their
agencies and the families they serve. Transit agencies, school
boards, and principals have commented on how this change is a
break with over 30 years of policy.
My question is, will the FTA reverse this proposed rule?
And without changing the rule, is it your understanding that
transit agencies could well be subject to lawsuits to terminate
the services they currently offer on behalf of students? Are
you familiar with the topic?
Secretary LaHood. Yes, sir, Senator Kohl. I was briefed on
this and I really wasn't aware of it until I prepared for this
hearing. Your staff was good enough to work with us and I know
about this, and what I would say to you, sir, is that we are
evaluating all--the docket is closed on this and we are
evaluating all the comments. We know that this is a very
serious problem, and I just want you to know that we are going
to look at the comments and we are in the process of really how
best to decide to move forward.
But I know it is a real serious issue, not only in your
State, but in other States, too. And we recognize that now and
we appreciate the fact that you have brought this to our
attention. I want you to know that we are going to look at it
very carefully and review it very carefully. I don't want to
say something here today that I can't really stand by, but I
want you to know that we are taking this very seriously and we
know it is a real serious concern in Wisconsin and in other
States and we will look at it very carefully.
Senator Kohl. The rule, as I understand it, what, has not
yet been implemented, the new rule?
Secretary LaHood. That is right.
Senator Kohl. So it does give you the chance to review it
to be sure it does--that our buses really serve the purpose in
picking up----
Secretary LaHood. That is correct.
Senator Kohl. Otherwise, what is the point?
Secretary LaHood. That is correct.
Senator Kohl. And right now, as I understand it, the buses
will maybe go here and there and to the other place to be sure
that they can accommodate students in terms of picking them up
and dropping them off in the afternoon. And if we say, well,
that is not something we do anymore, I don't understand what
the purpose would be in implementing that kind of a rule. At
least on the surface as we look at it and think about it in our
discussion today, it seems to be--not to be the intent of what
we are trying to do, isn't that true?
Secretary LaHood. It is, and again, as I said earlier to a
couple of other Senators, I think the value of my service in
this position is I have been a Member of Congress for 14 years
and I would like to think I bring a little level of common
sense here.
Senator Kohl. Right.
Secretary LaHood. I take your point, Senator.
Senator Kohl. I do appreciate that, Mr. Secretary.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Dodd. Thank you very much, Senator.
Mr. Secretary, we thank you. I don't know if my colleagues
have any additional questions they want to raise, and maybe we
will leave the record open for a day or two here to submit some
to you in writing. But I think all of us appreciate very much
your knowledge of these issues, and the fact that you have
served on this side of the dais gives us some confidence that
you understand the perspective, obviously, of those of us
representing our respective States and the needs and demands
out there.
I am particularly heartened that you responded favorably to
the issue of the bias that occurs bureaucratically between
modes of transportation, which really should not be the case at
all, that we ought to be in a position where we allow
communities to decide what they think is in their best
interest, particularly when you talk about regional and
national issues, as well, that we have a chance to work that
out so we don't tilt this conversation in such a way that it
makes it difficult to even talk optimistically about a transit
process that could be far more vital and vibrant than it
presently is.
And I appreciate, as well, your support, at least
generally, for the notion of examining more creative ideas on
how we end up financing and funding a lot of these needs,
because clearly in the absence of that, this is nothing more
than a lot of talk. If you don't have the resources to do it,
then you can't do much at all, and these are obviously hard
times, but these hard times are forcing us to think more
creatively and differently and that is not a bad thing.
Obviously, we would trade the hard times for the alternative,
but we are in the hard times, whether we like it or not at this
point, and none of us like it, so we need to be talking about
ways in which we could be imaginative in moving forward.
So we are very excited about your presence, and the
sustainable development issue one that clearly I am going to
pursue and would like your thoughts on that, as well, as how we
bring together respected agencies to think holistically about
this. The more we do that, I think the better off we are really
going to be, where we get various agencies and constituencies
thinking in a common direction on these issues.
And transit is the one issue in many ways that links all of
these other issues together--the housing issue, the energy
issue, the environmental issue, as well as obviously moving
people. And it seems to me it is the linchpin that brings us to
a point here where we can get that level of cooperation we have
been talking about for many, many years. But now we are in a
wonderful position, I think, to move forward with it, and you
can play such a pivotal role in that debate and discussion as
we go forward. So I thank you very much for being here.
Secretary LaHood. Mr. Chairman, can I just say that I am
going to take your suggestion. I am going to talk to the
administration about your letter. I think your letter is well
stated and signed by other Senators, and so I am going to speak
to them about that and we will see what happens.
Chairman Dodd. Thanks very much, Mr. Secretary. Glad to
have you with us.
Now we will get to our second panel as the Secretary moves
along and I am going to ask our colleague from Colorado if he
would like to introduce the Mayor.
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
introduce the Mayor, John Hickenlooper. We are very fortunate
to have him here today. I think that he is one of the most
visionary leaders in the country right now. Time Magazine named
him one of the top five mayors in the United States.
He got his education at Wesleyan University in your home
State, where he began his entrepreneurial approach to life by
creating, among other things, a community health center that is
still in existence, still serving the people of Middletown,
Connecticut. He was a small business owner in Colorado that got
fed up with what he described then as the fundamental nonsense
of government, ran for Mayor, and brought an entirely new
approach to governing in Colorado that has now gone beyond just
the city limits of Denver but has reached from one end of the
State to the other.
The leadership on transit that he has shown with his
colleague mayors and commissioners around the city has really
become a model for regional cooperation, as you were just
saying, over lots of other things, like water, natural
resources, I hope someday education. And all that is a
consequence of the discussions around transit and what it means
for our quality of life. He has also led a fight against
homelessness in Denver that is a model for the rest of the
country and has been adopted in many other cities.
So I believe that, as you were saying, and I want to
applaud your letter on sustainability, that the issues that
attach themselves to transit are so important that they could
actually change the political conversation in this country and
give us the chance to solve some of the problems that we
haven't addressed for a very long time. Mayor Hickenlooper's
brand of politics and brand of leadership is a model for all of
us as we begin those conversations, so thank you.
Chairman Dodd. Well, thank you very much, Senator, and
Mayor, we welcome you. As I have gotten to know the Mayor, as
well, over the years, we brag about your Connecticut
connections. And I have visited on more occasions than I can
even begin to count the community health center in Middletown,
Connecticut, that you helped start. In fact, I was at the--we
now have several of them. I was at the one in Norwalk the other
day and I am going to be in Torrington and Willimantic, but
that community health center in Middletown is just a model of
service to the community that is remarkable. And so even though
you have gone back home to Colorado, you left a lasting
impression and mark in the small State of Connecticut, so we
thank you for that, Mayor.
Let me introduce the person sitting to your left, Mr.
Joseph Marie, who is the Commissioner of Connecticut's
Department of Transportation and recently named Chair of the
Standing Committee for Public Transportation for the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. He
has 22 years of transit industry experience. Mr. Marie has
served in many executive positions, such as the Director of
Operations and Maintenance for Metro in Phoenix, Arizona. We
welcome you before the Committee. You are doing a great job in
our State and we are honored to have you with us today and
thank you for the work that you have been doing.
And finally, and Senator Reed has already, and maybe wants
to add some additional thoughts, but I had a wonderful
conversation yesterday with Bev Scott and have gotten to
understand how much a role and how important she is and how
knowledgeable she is about all of these issues.
Jack, do you want to add any additional thoughts?
Senator Reed. Beverly was an extraordinary leader of our
public transit authority, and so good that she was lured away
by Atlanta. But we are hoping that she returns home some day.
She is a great professional and I look forward to her comments,
Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Dodd. I should point out, she is the General
Manager and Chief Executive Officer of the Metropolitan Atlanta
Rapid Transit Authority, referred to as MARTA, and she is the
Chairperson of the American Public Transportation Association,
APTA, which I had the pleasure of addressing the other day as
their national organization met in the city. As Jack pointed
out, she has worked in Rhode Island, also New Jersey, New York,
a wonderful broad experience in these areas, so we thank you,
Bev, very much for being with us today.
We will begin in the order we have introduced you, I guess.
John, welcome, and we are anxious to hear your thoughts.
STATEMENT OF JOHN HICKENLOOPER, MAYOR, DENVER, COLORADO,
REPRESENTING THE U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS
Mr. Hickenlooper. Thank you very much, Chairman Dodd,
Ranking Member Shelby----
[off microphone]
I am a little new at this big city stuff.
Chairman Dodd. Don't start that.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Hickenlooper. Thank you very much, Chairman Dodd and
Ranking Member Shelby, members of the Committee. Senator
Bennet, I especially appreciate the kind introduction. You will
all see as I did that his unfailing good judgment and always
good humor makes him a pleasure to have in any working group.
I appreciate your inviting me to talk today about
``Sustainable Transportation Solutions: Investing in Transit to
Meet 21st Century Needs.'' We appreciate all of your hard work,
especially the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, which
has gone a long way to helping build our foundations.
I also want to recognize and thank Secretary LaHood. As
long as I have been working on transportation, it is just
refreshing to have his positive energy and his collaborative
spirit and we are very optimistic.
This nation cannot deal with the energy and climate
challenges without addressing the transportation sector head
on. Oil independence starts with giving people good
alternatives. This means going forward, all federally assisted
transportation investments must address energy and climate
concerns in addition to mobility and do this through needed
shifts and reforms in Federal policies and programs.
The foremost recommendation among the long list of
transportation authorization policy positions that the U.S.
Conference of Mayors adopted in June was a call for a
metropolitan mobility program that really focused on not just
congestion relief, but economic development, sustainability,
and environmental matters. These must emphasize--all these
efforts must emphasize sustainable transportation investments
led by increased investment in public transit and intercity
passenger rail.
To accelerate the achievements of more sustainable
transportation solutions, Federal policy must increasingly
empower local elected officials, especially in metropolitan
areas, to make the decisions on how Federal transportation
resources can be best invested and to provide incentives for a
collaborative process in our metropolitan regions.
As Mayor of Denver, as Chair of the Transportation
Committee of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, my own perspective
on the transportation authorization bill is driven by our
experience and collaboration across the metropolitan region to
build our FasTracks transit project. Twenty-five years ago, a
young lawyer challenged the people of Denver to imagine a great
city. Federico Pena went on to become Secretary of
Transportation for 4 years under Clinton and his challenge was
taken to heart.
Metro Denver has been nationally recognized for our
capacity to plan and work collaboratively across potentially
balkanized local jurisdictions. When we passed FasTracks in
2004, all 32 mayors, Republicans and Democrats, large cities
and small towns, unanimously supported a four-tenths of a cent
sales tax increase on our regional area, which as Senator
Bennet noted was roughly the size of Connecticut.
From our FasTracks transit project to our regional economic
development initiatives to our cultural facilities tax
districts, all of which involve and benefit the localities
within the eight metro Denver counties, this collaborative
ability continues to grow. Beyond the collaboration, FasTracks
represents a possibility for successful transit, not just in
the more dense and older cities, but across the American West.
Especially at this moment in history when we have factories and
other Brownfield sites sitting empty, we have the opportunity
to transform how we grow, how we think about economic
development, and we can change zoning so that we get 25- and
30-block areas around transit stops with denser zoning where we
have six- and eight-story buildings permitted that encourage
retail and housing and various forms of mixed use all in the
same place.
As has been the case in other cities that have embarked on
ambitious transit projects, FasTracks has tremendous potential
for positive change in all these areas, from congestion
reduction to energy savings to economic development. Most
importantly, in these difficult economic times, it holds the
possibility for sustainable economic development through job
creation.
Transit has been an economic development tool for Denver
and for the entire region. We see close to TODs, to the Transit
Oriented Developments, home values are higher. Closer to TODs,
foreclosures appear to be lower. Choices are very important.
When gas prices rise, people especially need alternatives. When
the gas rose above $4 a gallon, lower- and middle-class
Americans were forced to not pay mortgages and credit cards. I
am not saying that this caused the economic collapse, but
certainly if you follow the spike in gasoline prices and the
level of foreclosures of those people on the margin, there is
an alarmingly close correlation.
Denver Union Station--or I should go back. Having a well
planned, accessible, efficient transit system demonstrates a
city's focus on its economic future. It is crucial to a city's
ability to attract visitors and conventions. In fact, our
transit planning, I think, was a key to Denver successfully
hosting the DNC last summer, and as Senator Bennett would say,
I think Salt Lake City experienced a similar success in hosting
the Olympics with their transit.
Denver Union Station, which has become an icon of Denver's
transportation history, is being redeveloped as a modern,
multi-modal transit hub, making it easier for people to access
goods and services and creating hundreds of jobs, both short-
term in construction and long-term in new retail developments
that will be included.
TODs are one of the key priorities because they create
economic vitality and improved quality of life and public
safety. Because of their density and mixed uses, TODs are
sustainable communities. Transit can also drive appropriate
growth and spur sustainable economic development and land use.
We deeply appreciate what Congress did in SAFETEA, which
changed New Starts criteria by raising assessment of economic
development and land use impact analysis to top priorities
alongside the cost-benefit analysis. Transit can be a very
powerful tool in orienting development. When the New York City
subway system was first constructed, if you go back and look at
the history, they built lines out into the cow pastures in
Brooklyn and the growth followed. We envision the same 20- to
25-year return on investment by expanding our lines from Denver
to Boulder and Longmont.
However, the problem has been in the previous
administration an implementation by DOT, not Congress, which
failed to take in some of these factors, such as economic
development and other forms of assessment, and instead focused
on simply dividing the number of current riders by the cost per
mile. The analysis doesn't even adequately take into account
future population changes and out-year ridership. As I
understand it, if you plan to build a transit station in a
place where you know growth is coming, the evaluation still
forecasts zero ridership. I understand that economic benefit
and land use are difficult to measure, but there clearly are
ways to do it and it is critical that we do so. It is equally
critical that this forward-thinking investment, as well as
environmental impact, be considered by DOT now and be
reasserted in any reauthorization.
Thank you.
Chairman Dodd. Thank you very much.
Mr. Marie?
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH F. MARIE, COMMISSIONER, CONNECTICUT
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN
ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS
Mr. Marie. Good morning, Senator Dodd, Ranking Member
Shelby, members of the Committee. I am pleased to be here today
to represent the State of Connecticut as well as AASHTO's
Standing Committee on Public Transportation.
I spent my entire career in the field of public
transportation, although I must admit to you today that my
journey in the business started many years before my career
earning money. One day at a young age, about 10 or 11, I
boarded a Route 430 bus to the Malden Center subway station in
Boston. I remember the freedom and the exhilaration that this
gave me. It had nothing to do with the technology or the ride.
I felt mobile and the world around me was not so small and
constrained anymore. I felt alive and rich with ideas.
This is not the first time I had taken the train. In fact,
I had taken it many times as a boy to Fenway Park. At one
point, I thought Fenway was indeed the last stop on earth.
Within 2 years, I knew every stop of the MBTA system. Taking
the buses, trains, and subways was my connection to the outside
world. It made me mobile, connected me to a larger place, and
opened my eyes.
About a decade later, and after a brief tenure working here
in Congress, I started my career as a management intern with
the very same MBTA. Over the last 24 years, my journey in the
field of public transportation has taken me to virtually every
corner of the earth. I have worked on, studied, and written
about transportation systems all over the world. And while the
Nation as a whole has made tremendous progress in recent years,
particularly in the development of light rail and commuter rail
systems, we lag significantly behind our counterparts in
investment levels in Europe and Asia.
In a few minutes, I want to share with you some facts and
figures that should give you a sense of the current state of
the business, but I first wanted to share with you some
assurances of some of the successes around the nation. I think
these stories will demonstrate that the commitment of taxpayer
money has been put to good use.
In 2004, I had the pleasure to oversee the startup and
testing of the Hiawatha Light Rail Transit System in
Minneapolis, Minnesota, as Assistant General Manager of
Operations. The success of this line is undisputed. Originally
expected to carry 19,000 passengers per day, the line carries
more than double that today. Plans are underway to build a
commuter rail line to the north and a light rail line to St.
Paul, which will provide much-needed relief to the congested I-
94 corridor.
These are impressive statistics and developments, but more
impressive to me was the reaction of people who attended
Minnesota Vikings and Twins games along the corridor. I
remember working the first games after the rail line opened and
watching thousands and thousands of passengers streaming from
packed trains with smiles on their faces. Even the Green Bay
Packers seemed to enjoy it.
These customers had choices. They could have easily driven
their automobiles to the game, but they chose the train
instead. Having a train system to serve downtown Minneapolis
has improved the quality of life, sustainability and livability
of the urban core. Private developments, including retail and
housing, have sprung up around the stations. There was a time
when many of our cities and their respective downtowns were
places to avoid. Today and recently, there is a movement back
to our urban cores.
In the last century, our train centers were places where
people converged. Buses and trolley lines provided seamless
connections to inner-city trains. Today, our topic is investing
in transit to meet 21st century challenges. Well, we can look
at history and find a lot of solutions to what comes in front
of us in the future.
Until very recently, I served as Director of Operations and
Maintenance for Metro in Phoenix, Arizona. I oversaw the
startup of a rail system which has linked the cities of Mesa,
Tempe, and Phoenix. Although the system opened only a few
months ago, ridership is exceeding expectations. Incredibly,
ridership on Saturdays is actually higher than weekday
averages, which should tell you something about choices. People
will come to public transit if it works.
About a year ago, I participated in the inaugural test
trains from Phoenix to Tempe, where we made a brief stop at Sun
Devil Stadium and had a chance to meet with a number of members
of the senior community who were really looking forward to
getting back on trolleys, as they called them, from their youth
back in Pittsburgh. This was an incredible investment for the
city--it was a $1.2 billion investment-- and also for the
Federal Government. The good news is that investment attracted
more than four times that in private investment and the line
works very well today.
Successful examples of integrating modern rail solutions
into urban centers can be found all over the United States.
Since 1980, 18 new light rail systems have opened in the United
States, with the following being only a partial list: Houston,
Dallas, Charlotte, Sacramento, Salt Lake City, St. Louis, San
Diego, Portland, Denver. Seattle, Washington, will join the
club later this year, and in a few years, Norfolk, Virginia,
will see a light rail system open. In addition, new commuter
and regional lines have opened in places like San Jose,
Albuquerque, Nashville, and Fort Worth.
The impacts of the overall livability the systems have had
on their communities has been impressive. The economic
development, transit-oriented development, and smart growth
initiatives that have been spurred by these new starts has been
dramatic.
At home in Connecticut, I oversee a rather unique DOT. We
are a fully multi-modal transportation organization responsible
for the State's commuter rail system, bus operations, ferry
services, ports, highways, bridges, as well as all public
airports, including Bradley International Airport. In
Connecticut, our Governor, Jodi Rell, has spearheaded one of
the largest public transportation investments in the State's
history. Why? As Senator Dodd pointed out, ridership on our
rail lines is exploding in double-digit fashion.
Together with our friends in Massachusetts, we are hoping
to bring first-class rail service to the Connecticut River
Valley between Springfield, Massachusetts, and New Haven,
Connecticut. We have an ongoing dialog with Amtrak and are
optimistic that we can form a partnership to obtain the
necessary investment to bring this key intercity rail service
to reality. This project is about economic development, jobs,
and regional solutions.
Around the nation, demand for public service is growing
steadily. In 2008, ridership grew in every mode of public
transportation, and they are now, as you indicated earlier, up
to levels we haven't seen in 50 years. While some may say
ridership has resulted from increased gas prices, it does not
explain the fact that ridership continued to grow even after
gas prices dropped late last year.
Before closing my comments, I would be remiss if I failed
to mention our appreciation for the recently enacted American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act. You have thrown us an important
lifeline during a turbulent time. A month ago, commissioners
from DOTs around the country met with Secretary LaHood and we
promised to put the money to good use and quickly. We will and
we thank you.
I wanted to let you know that I took Amtrak's Acela down to
see you today. Like the four other trips I have taken on the
Acela over recent months, I had the chance to look out the
windows at our cities. While we have made some great strides in
creating densities in these urban corridors, we can and must do
better.
In the months ahead, you will be confronted with important
decisions related to reauthorization of the new surface
transportation bill. You will hear from many about how much is
needed and why. I will leave you with something which I believe
you already know. Preserving, renewing, and reinvesting in our
nation's infrastructure is absolutely inextricably linked to
the economic well-being of our nation. Thank you.
Chairman Dodd. Thank you very much, Mr. Marie.
Ms. Scott, thank you very much for being with us today,
Doctor, and we appreciate your tremendous efforts and work over
the years.
STATEMENT OF BEVERLY SCOTT, Ph.D, GENERAL MANAGER AND CEO,
METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY, AND CHAIR,
AMERICAN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION
Ms. Scott. Thank you. Chairman Dodd, Ranking Member Shelby,
always my Senator Jack Reed, and all members of the Committee,
it is an honor for me to have the opportunity to appear before
you in my capacity as Chair of the American Public
Transportation Association and General Manager of MARTA in
Atlanta.
Let me start by thanking you and all the members of the
Committee for your national leadership and focus in this
absolutely crucial area. I have personally been privileged to
work in the industry for over 30 years, serving diverse
communities across the United States, and I can honestly say
that regardless of the size of community, how effectively we
move people, goods, and services is key to economic
competitiveness and overall quality of life. It is just that
basic and a fundamental that our country and public has
understood and invested in from our earliest days.
My written testimony on behalf of the American Public
Transportation Association has been submitted and I want to
focus my personal comments on a few key things.
First and foremost, we desperately need a significantly
greater investment in all aspects of our nation's public
transportation infrastructure. At the same time, these are very
changing and different times that will require bold leadership
and transformational thinking to help us make the kind of
break-throughs necessary to help us get unstuck. We definitely
agree with you that this next transportation bill will not be
business as usual.
Almost heretically, I will say that while there has been
some movement, for the most part, we are still largely suited
up in 20th century armor for a 21st century world from how we
fund public transportation to how we organize public
transportation to how we manage public transportation and
deliver all of the various programs, still much too siloed,
fragmented, and protective of turf, all of us typically much
more comfortable with a focus at the tactical level of needs
and funding formulas than the more visionary and strategic
level of national goals, mode-neutral resource allocation,
outcomes, performance metrics, and standards.
This past year, APTA developed a strong, bold vision for
the future, Transit Vision 2050. In 2050, America's energy
efficient, multi-modal, environmentally sustainable
transportation system powers the greatest nation on earth.
Getting from here to there will definitely require a
significant shift in thinking, planning, funding, organizing,
managing, and a broader range of tools, both alternative
business models, public-private partnerships, funding
strategies, including tolls, usage fees, a National
Infrastructure Bank, and innovative project delivery methods
like design-build-operate-maintain approaches where it makes
sense.
Senators, the work that this Committee does to ask and
address the big hard questions and break through the comfort
zone of business as usual will be invaluable in helping to move
America forward during these admittedly challenging times.
The second theme I would like to emphasize is somewhat
related to the first, and that is the importance of connecting
the dots. Chairman Dodd, your idea about a Sustainability
Office and the need to insist upon serious communication,
policy, and program coordination between transportation,
housing, energy, and environmental officials, as well as their
Health and Human Services and Labor Department counterparts,
would be a master stroke. All of these areas are interconnected
and have profound impacts on the daily lives of people and the
viability of communities across America, regardless of size or
geography.
Today, there is very little that consciously connects
policy development resource allocation and/or program
development and delivery between these key departments at the
national level. At a minimum, some type of coordinating
councils at a national and regional level would be extremely
beneficial, anchored by a clear national vision once again
focused on outcomes and actionable achievement strategies,
smart public investments that produce real results.
My final observations are a request that you help ensure
that we also give priority attention to the people aspects of
our industry as we rebuild, retool, and expand our physical
infrastructure to move America forward. Please let us not
forget the hundreds of thousands, millions of employees and
workers across the full breadth of our national transportation
industry. In order to be the best, our folks must have the
tools, education, and training they need to excel. Simply, our
human capital also requires an investment, and it is one that
will pay off in tremendous dividends.
Over the last several years at the National, State, and
local levels, public transit management and labor have
increasingly partnered together to develop and pilot a number
of very key workforce development and training initiatives
focused on skills development in critical areas like bus
maintenance, complex rail signal and train control systems,
escalator and elevator maintenance. Similar to the air traffic
controller and maintenance challenges in aviation, we face the
same kinds of impacts in surface transportation.
Finally, we require national attention and action on the
critical need for some assistance with operations and
maintenance funding, particularly during this unprecedented
economic downturn. I don't have to tell you that during the
very time that people across the country are flocking to public
transit at an all-time high, transit systems across the country
are struggling with the negative impacts of our sagging
economy, and alarming numbers are having to cut service and
sharply increase fares and fees. The contradiction simply
doesn't make sense.
Recently, I heard it said that it is not logical to operate
vehicles forever without any purchases of new equipment, and I
agree. And it is equally illogical to spend money on vehicles
and not use them. Somewhere between these two poles, we must
find the balance that makes good common sense, particularly
during these unquestionably atypical times.
In summary, we thank you very much for actively soliciting
our input as you move forward on this next transportation
authorization. We urge this Congress to authorize the Federal
Transit Program with a 6-year investment level of at least $123
billion. The next program will absolutely require a wide range
of financing options, but for the immediate future, we feel
strongly that the base program must restore and increase the
purchasing power of the Federal Motor Fuels User Tax while we
concurrently move with a true sense of urgency to develop and
implement a national transportation future funding model that
is both economically and environmentally sustainable. We also
need to have funding predictability, both for our agencies and
our private sector partners. We also believe that we need to do
everything that we can to simplify, coordinate existing
programs within and across the departments and speed project
delivery.
Finally, I can only say again that there are many public
transit systems across our country that are unfortunately on
life support and I just have to say in the strongest of terms a
plea that your immediate assistance in that regard would be
most humbly appreciated.
So thank you very much for the opportunity.
Chairman Dodd. Thank you very, very much, and again, we
thank all three of your for your participation and your
testimony here this morning.
Let me begin just briefly, Commissioner Marie. In your
testimony, you cited your organization's goal of doubling
transit ridership over the next 20 years. Obviously, that may
be happening whether you wanted to do it or not. It is
essential if we are going to address traffic congestion,
energy, climate change, as well.
Based on your previous experience in the public transit
industry and your current experience in our home State of
Connecticut, please share some suggestions as to how we in
Washington can help State and local transportation leaders like
yourself achieve this goal. Obviously, Mayor Hickenlooper and
Dr. Scott, we would like to hear your thoughts, as well.
Mr. Marie. Yes, Senator Dodd. That is a good question and I
can tell you that our I-95 corridor is completely congested. We
do not have the opportunity to expand the highway network,
particularly in the southwestern part of the State, in
Fairfield County, which is important to the overall economic
health of not only Connecticut, but certainly the region and
the country, as well.
In order for us really to do something about that, we have
to invest in the infrastructure along that corridor, the train
line along that corridor. We have an older, antiquated
signaling system. We are constantly investing in modernizing
our overhead wire Catenary system, which provides the energy
for the trains. In order to improve the overall throughput and
capacity, we are going to continue to modernize that so that we
can attract the ridership and sustain the ridership on the
line.
At the end of the day, it is going to come down to
investment in new types of transit services. We view the
potential service between Springfield and New Haven as a way
for us to help out with some of the I-91, I-95 bottleneck in
New Haven. And we are doing our part at the State level as much
as we can. We are investing about $700 million in new trains
right now, which are going to start being delivered later on
this year. We are also investing $1 billion in a new rail yard.
So we are making a fairly sizable State investment, but it is
really putting a considerable damper on our financial state
within Connecticut.
We are doing the best we can, but we are going to need some
help with not only sort of modernizing that corridor, which
also serves Amtrak, by the way. We own 47 miles that the Amtrak
high-speed service runs on. So we share those tracks and work
together to coordinate that.
But we are going to have to grow our bus system, expand our
bus fleet. We are going to have to start service between
Springfield and New Haven in order to achieve our goals of
doubling ridership.
Chairman Dodd. Very good.
Mayor, do you have any thoughts on this question?
Mr. Hickenlooper. Absolutely. I mean, there are several
different approaches to attacking it. As our mutual old friend
Mark Maselli once told me, the more money you save, the more
people you can help, and so part of this is making sure that we
allocate our resources correctly and we are as frugal and have
enough resources so we can buy additional trains and rolling
stock when we need it.
Certainly in our situation, FasTracks becomes that solution
by which, again, as cost-effectively as possible rolling out a
transit system and making sure that the benefit in terms of
congestion is where the congestion is the worst, and that is
the crucial element in terms of getting the regional
collaboration, is to be able to show people in all parts of the
metro area who are traveling cross currents to every corner of
the metro area that they all benefit by getting people off the
roads. And I think that part of it.
We can also provide more incentives, making sure that
people have additional opportunities to have an easier trip. We
are going to roll out this summer a bike sharing program that
we tried during the convention. We will have 500 bikes this
June, and then another 500 bikes for a total of 1,000. They
will be located close to or at each bus stop or transit stop,
light rail stop, and then have other stations where they can
lock this bike up, they can swipe a credit card and get it, and
then swipe the credit card to lock it at the employment centers
or places of work, so that taking transit becomes suddenly much
easier and more available.
Chairman Dodd. Dr. Scott?
Ms. Scott. I think that the two things that you can really
do at the national level to help us at the State and local
level are, one, to really level the playing field in terms of
the transportation decisionmaking in terms of funding. That
will help to do more to rationalize what we wind up doing at
the State and local level than I think just about anything that
you could do.
The other is to really once again help us focus in terms of
outcomes and performance metrics. And so if we really wind up
having a situation where one is making decisions and you have a
level playing field in terms of funding, that will in and of
itself help to make there be much more rational decisions that
wind up taking place at the State and local level.
Chairman Dodd. Yes. There have been issues raised, what we
call metropolitan mobility, I guess is what some have called
it, and that is developing a mode-neutral metropolitan-focused
program that could directly fund metropolitan regions to
advance sustainable transportation initiatives and address
regional congestion issues.
One of the concerns that we hear from those who are
critical of that approach is the ability of regional
governments to administer significant new funding. I wonder,
Mayor Hickenlooper, I will begin with you--I will welcome
response from the entire panel, but give me your thoughts on
this issue as well as how we might want to structure a program
focused on metropolitan mobility.
Mr. Hickenlooper. Well, I think the efficiency in regional
approaches to the implementation of these plans is clear.
Certainly, depending on the regional area you are talking
about, there might have to be some ramping up. There might need
to be an evolution of how their decisionmaking takes place so
that they can accommodate those larger sums of dollars.
But I think that the key here is that the efficiencies are
so significant that we have got to have that as the ultimate
goal, that we have got to be looking at metropolitan areas. It
is where the vast majority, over 85 percent of our jobs, are,
almost 90 percent of our gross domestic product takes place,
and to have them balkanized and having the decisions either
being made in many places at small amounts or being made
sometimes, with all due respect, on a State level so that the
decisions are made by a group that isn't the citizens that are
directly affected, it hurts that efficiency.
In Denver, certainly, we have been able to demonstrate that
on a regional basis, we can implement large-scale projects at
significant costs. FasTracks is a $6.9 billion project that is
moving forward on time. If you take out the incredible increase
in commodity costs, it is on budget.
Chairman Dodd. Dr. Scott?
Ms. Scott. I was just going to say that I think that, and
it is not to debate that--surely, there may wind up needing to
be something that is added at the regional level in terms of
some additional administrative support, but I think that the
more that decisionmaking and resources are pushed down to
regional and local levels that are closest to the people or
closest to the issues and the needs that they have, the better.
The other thing that I think that we are finding
increasingly is that there is a tremendous amount of innovation
that is taking place across the country in different locales,
in regions of all different sizes.
So when I just kind of come back and look at all the
research that is out there in terms of mega-regions and regions
and how much they are responsible for really moving us, that I
think it would be, once again, a master stroke to move it down.
Mr. Marie. I would just like to echo the Mayor's comment.
Denver has, Salt Lake City has, Portland have done a great job,
I think, administering and managing rather complex major public
infrastructure investments. Connecticut is kind of unique in
that the State DOT manages most of the efforts, but we work
very cooperatively in partnership with all of our regional MPOs
and planning organizations and districts to make their programs
come to fruition.
Chairman Dodd. Well, that is great.
Senator Shelby?
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mayor Hickenlooper, in your testimony, you advocate
eliminating the current funding structure in which
transportation is designated for either highways or transit.
Some argue that a general pot of money without any required
spending for transit would result in a significant decrease in
funding for transit projects. Could you explain your reasoning
behind this proposal and why the concern regarding transit
funding might be misplaced?
Mr. Hickenlooper. I am not sure, I will have to go back and
look at my own testimony. I certainly didn't intend that. What
we are trying to look at is by reducing the firewalls that
separate these types of funding, what we are trying to look at
is how can we be more mode-neutral in making our decisions on
where to put financing. Now, I didn't mean to imply that we
should get rid of those firewalls because obviously then from
one administration to the next, or depending on where the
emphasis is, things could change dramatically. I think as a
country, we need to begin to define the outcomes we want and
the expectations that we believe in and what are our guiding
principles and then orient ourselves in that direction.
I guess what I am talking about, perhaps a way to describe
it is a greater permeability in terms of being able to move
funding from one mode to another based on their outcomes.
Senator Shelby. Of course, there is a great body of members
of the House and the Senate here that are mainly interested in
highway funding----
Mr. Hickenlooper. I am aware of that.
Senator Shelby.----as opposed to transit funding and so
forth.
Mr. Hickenlooper. They let me know that on a frequent
level.
Senator Shelby. Absolutely. New Starts--I touched on the
issue of New Starts with the Secretary earlier, but I want your
input regarding additional changes that need to be made to the
overall process to ensure--to ensure that projects continue to
receive a thorough evaluation and move at a more expeditious
pace. Mr. Marie, do you want to comment on that?
Mr. Marie. That is a very good question. I think that if
you look at some of the New Starts that have taken place in the
United States in the last 20 years or so, some of them have
taken a long time to build, political consensus to build in the
first place. That sometimes takes a considerable period of
time. But if you look at the case of the light rail line that
was built in Minneapolis, that project actually was conceived
in 1972 when then-Attorney General Walter Mondale obtained a
right-of-way in which the light rail line was ultimately built
32 years later.
I think that the Secretary is certainly, it appears to be,
open to looking at ways to streamline the review process for
New Starts. We are currently in a review process now for a
busway that we are hoping to build between New Britain,
Connecticut, and Hartford, Connecticut. It has been a long,
tenuous process----
Senator Shelby. How would the busway work, sir? How would
it work?
Mr. Marie. It is essentially a line that is a dedicated
right-of-way for buses only. There have been successful
examples of that in places like Pittsburgh and most recently in
Los Angeles, where you essentially build a dedicated right-of-
way, or there might be an existing right-of-way. In this case,
there is some existing abandoned railroad right-of-way that we
are going to build a bus network on that will be basically
serving only buses.
Senator Shelby. You can move a lot of people that way
quickly.
Mr. Marie. You can move a lot of people quickly, so it is a
good solution. I think at the end of the day, as we talk about
these mode-neutral decisions, the truth is when we are going
through the process of evaluating what works in any given
corridor, the technology or the mode--or the sleekness of the
technology should not guide the modal choice. The modal choice
really should be driven by how many people you expect to move
on your peak hour of service, and that generally results in a
decisionmaking process that yields the technology of choice,
whether it be busways or light rail or commuter rail. It just
depends really on the corridor and the individual needs of that
corridor.
Senator Shelby. You just referenced that, but what about
dedicated bus lanes in existing roads? We have heard a lot
about that and that seems to be an economical way to move
people.
Mr. Marie. Yes, it certainly is a solution where you have
potential untapped capacity on an existing roadway network.
Regrettably, in Connecticut, we don't have that luxury these
days. Our roadways are so congested that really we are at the
point where our only choices are investing in--reinvesting in
what we have and investing in new transit alternatives.
Senator Shelby. Dr. Scott, we heard from Secretary LaHood a
few minutes ago on the issue of insuring a state of good repair
long-term. But I am also interested in your perspective and
that of your organization you represent. What makes such
seemingly basic efforts at maintenance a difficult, if not
impossible, task, and what can be done to address the backlog
and ensure that it does not happen again?
Ms. Scott. I would say, number one, there is no question at
all but that we are absolutely focused in terms of fix it first
and state of good repair.
Senator Shelby. Yes.
Ms. Scott. And so what I will tell you is that we have
built up a significant amount of infrastructure in this country
and so we have to get about the business at all levels of
significantly increasing the amount of investment that we have,
that is both at the national level as well as at regional and
local levels.
I know I am going through this right now at MARTA. When we
started out 30 years ago, we were brand new and so it was all
build, build. Now we sit up on top of $6.4 billion in
infrastructure, and so it is a reeducation for our community of
really understanding that it takes--when you get to be middle-
aged, it takes more money to wind up--that is the key, is when
you get to be middle-aged, it takes more money to wind up
having to make those kind of investments than when you have the
luxury of being new. And so I think that is a continuous,
almost an education process for all of us that the state of
good repair and fix-it-first is key.
Mr. Marie. Senator Shelby, if I could add to that, just
real quickly----
Senator Shelby. Go ahead.
Mr. Marie. I think Bev hit it right on the mark. I think,
fundamentally, the regional transit authorities in large
districts as well as States that run and maintain roadways and
rail systems and bus systems do a very effective job on the
day-to-day lifecycle maintenance of our assets and our transit
infrastructure. Where we are all struggling right now is when
we reach those midlife crises, when we reach that point where a
train is 15- or 18-years old and the useful life is 35-years
old, to get it to that useful life it requires some tender
loving care. It is the same with our roadway system. So that is
where we struggle, is with those peaks and valleys of
investment in those sort of, you know, heavy maintenance
midlife crises periods for all of our assets.
Senator Shelby. Mayor, I will ask you this question first.
Do you support requiring systems to achieve and maintain a
state of good repair in order to receive additional Federal
funding for new or expanded systems? In other words, should you
or shouldn't you keep in good repair what you have before you
expand more and exacerbate your problems? What should you do?
Mr. Hickenlooper. Well, certainly--and let me tie back,
Senator, back to your previous question, just to make sure
that--because I did look up my testimony, and what I was
talking about was trying to get past the bias in terms of
actually the different firewalls between highway and transit
funding. I am not and the U.S. Conference of Mayors is not
saying that we should take down that firewall, but just that
there should be less bias and really a mode-neutral approach.
Senator Shelby. How do you describe that, because we would
be very interested in what you mean by that? Do you mean bias
toward highways as opposed to transit, or vice versa?
Mr. Hickenlooper. Yes. Right now, there are a number of
processes that are followed and there are various incentives
that create--many people believe when you actually look at all
the costs involved, more money should be going to transit, and
especially when you look at places where the land value to add
an extra lane on a highway becomes incredibly expensive.
Senator Shelby. Sure.
Mr. Hickenlooper. That is what we are talking about, is
just reducing that bias.
In terms of maintaining the quality of your operating
system, obviously, I think that that is one of the roles of the
Federal Government, is to make sure that we are not keeping up
with the operating maintenance and the quality and the capacity
of the infrastructure that we have built. Certainly, as you
look around the country and you occasionally from time to time
see a rec center or a library the community built and then
doesn't have the money to operate, that is everyone's worst
nightmare. I think that it rarely happens, and I think----
Senator Shelby. How do we deal with it, then?
Mr. Hickenlooper. Well, what is happening right now is with
the sudden economy, the drop in sales tax and most of the
funding mechanism suddenly puts the operating systems of almost
every transit system in the country at peril. Certainly what
you are all doing in terms of trying to solve the various
issues around the financial crisis and being optimistic, we
appreciate your, I think, the tone that you all set here is
going to go a long way toward turning this economic crisis
around, and that is going to be the best thing we can do to
help operating systems and maintain that equipment.
Generally, I don't think it was a significant problem in
very many places. It has never been a problem in Denver in
previous years.
Senator Shelby. So basically, do you support requiring
systems, including your own, to achieve and maintain a state of
good repair in order to receive additional funding for
additional----
Mr. Hickenlooper. Yes. Obviously, the devil is in the
details and how one defines good repair and what that exactly
is defined as----
Senator Shelby. Well, basic maintenance----
Mr. Hickenlooper. Basic maintenance, I completely agree
with that. I don't think we should be all building things if we
don't have a plan of exactly how we are going to finance that
going forward.
Senator Shelby. Well, the best thing would be to do both.
Mr. Hickenlooper. Right.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Marie?
Mr. Marie. Yes, Senator Shelby. One of the things that we
all had to sign, our Governors had to sign in receipt of
stimulus funding is to certify that we are indeed maintaining a
level of effort on our existing infrastructure and within our
existing program for maintenance of our existing
infrastructure----
Senator Shelby. Do you certify it yourself or do the
transportation people check it?
Mr. Marie. Well, we have a number of different checks and
balances to certify that.
Senator Shelby. OK.
Mr. Marie. But I think that, fundamentally, you would find
that the industry would welcome the notion of ensuring that we
maintain the current level of our investment and our
maintenance efforts to ensure the safety and reliability of our
systems, and tying that to receipt of money, I think is a good
idea.
Senator Shelby. Dr. Scott, what is your view personally,
and then that of your Association?
Ms. Scott. My personal view is that a state of good repair
is critical. I tell people all the time, the best marketing
that I do is the quality of the service that I put out the day
before. But at the same time, sir, I think we have kind of
gotten ourselves into a conundrum, and Joe kind of talked to it
earlier. There are three levels of pots in terms of how to keep
it running: Day-to-day operation and maintenance, you have got
what is a system preservation and a state of good repair, and
you have got expansion.
And so what has happened is because we have so much that
went into the growth mode when we were--everything was new,
that we have kind of got that part of it. Now we have this big
bulge for us as a country and a region of this now, all of this
infrastructure that is now into these 30s, 50s, 70s, 75-, 90-
years old and there really has not been the funding there at
all of the levels to wind up really accommodating that. So what
is going to have to happen is that all of us together are going
to have to be realistic about that and then figure out how we
put our arms around it and come at it.
And so I can't--I am always going to say state of good
repair because I am never any better than what I am
maintaining. But at the same time, we have had such tremendous
growth, we can't just say state of good repair completely and
then say we are not going to do anything for expansion because
that is not going to be practical. That is not going to be
practical, either.
Senator Shelby. On your own transit system in the Atlanta
area, you said that you have invested about $6 billion, more or
less. How far outside of the city of Atlanta does MARTA go now?
Is it extended into the other counties now?
Ms. Scott. We are in Fulton and DeKalb County, and we
actually had the first time unanimous adoption of a 14-county
Concept 3 plan that occurred in December, and so I think you
are going to begin to see some additional expansion that is
going to take place in the Atlanta region.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Dodd. Thank you, Senator Shelby.
Senator Reed?
Senator Reed. Just very quickly to Dr. Scott and Mr. Marie.
The Secretary talked about open-mindedness toward operating
assistance to local transit authorities. If you could both
elaborate. And also the issue of ensuring a maintenance effort
by locality, because the strong temptation in these times is
to, someone else is paying, and then not to pay.
And thank you, by the way, Mr. Mayor, for your
extraordinary service in Denver. I enjoyed very much last
August. Thank you. For many reasons.
Dr. Scott?
Ms. Scott. As I have said, Senator, this whole area in
terms of operations and maintenance support, certainly during
this period of economic downturn, is critical, but I would
actually urge the Committee on a personal level to relook at
the whole issue of operations and maintenance support, period,
as you move into authorization.
You know, about 10 or 12 years ago, there was a sea change
that took place in terms of large- and medium-sized systems.
Any system over 200,000 no longer is able to be eligible for
operating assistance, and I would just urge you to take another
look at that during authorization.
But the most critical problem that we have right now is
that particularly with what has occurred in terms of the
plummeting of local sales tax and revenues, that there are
systems that are just absolutely, I am just saying, at life
support, period. We were not successful in stimulus in terms of
getting that point--as effectively getting that point across
and we need your help. I just can't say it any other way or any
more strongly than all of the support that would be needed in
that regard.
Senator Reed. Just a quick follow-up before Mr. Marie
responds is that one other way, I think, that would link
operating assistance would be to those systems that are
environmentally advanced, electric or hybrid vehicles, so that
essentially we are not investing in the old technology, but we
are supporting operationally the new technology. It might be
both substantively and symbolically a better way to approach
this than simply saying we ought to give you some money to keep
going.
Ms. Scott. Yes.
Senator Reed. Mr. Marie, please.
Mr. Marie. You hit on a very important point. We are
getting hit with a double-whammy in some respects in our
industry. We are in an industry where our operating costs are
growing, and a lot of that is related to health care. All of us
are struggling with maintaining--we certainly want our
employees to have good health care, but that is increasing our
direct operating cost. And at the same time, we have
infrastructure that is requiring more tender loving care. So we
have these big capital needs colliding with big operating needs
and we are all struggling around the country.
And I think the Secretary was talking about the big seven,
the Bostons, the New Yorks, the Philadelphias, the Chicagos of
the country that are incredibly important cities to the
vitality of this nation. What they are going through right now
is something that the London Underground went through in the
early part of the 1990s and up until the turn of the century.
The London Underground was once a marvel for public
transportation subway operations and they got hit with that
whammy of rising health care costs and infrastructure costs
that they just could not keep up with. They are still trying to
dig themselves out of that mess.
So we have to take strides in this nation to make sure that
our big cities--can avoid that to the greatest extent possible
and operating assistance would be helpful to them. I think the
more critical need for the big cities is that modernization of
the existing infrastructure. Preservation of aging
infrastructure is going to be the big challenge.
Senator Reed. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Dodd. Let me just point out, as staff has said, we
put $100 million, Jack, I think, in the stimulus package to
deal with the energy efficiencies and so forth. We hope that
will be of some help, Mr. Marie, as I see Dr. Scott nodding her
head affirmatively, as well. And obviously beyond that, because
that is money initially, but you have to have a sustainable
program, as well. This gets you over a hump but doesn't deal
with the long-term problems.
Thank you, Senator, very much.
Senator Bennet.
Senator Bennet. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mayor, I just wanted to go back to the conversation you
were having with the Ranking Member because I wanted to make
sure I understood what you were saying, and I think I do, and
that is that when you look at the difference between highways
and transit, it seems like the red tape and the regulatory
aspects that get in the way of communities like ours getting
these projects off the ground are what the U.S. Conference of
Mayors is trying to deal with, is that right?
Mr. Hickenlooper. Exactly.
Senator Bennet. OK. And then I wonder if you would talk
just briefly about--I was interested in your comment about how
the existing formulas don't take into account things like
economic development and the benefits of that, and I think that
my impression from your work in the metro area of Denver is
that that was a critical part of being able to bring all of
these competing interests together to say, you know what? We
can do this together. And I wonder if you could share with the
Chairman of the Committee what the economic development effects
have already been in Denver as a consequence of FasTracks, and
not just Denver, but the region.
Mr. Hickenlooper. Right. We can already see, and again,
around the proposed transit-oriented developments around the
stations, we can see an increase in property values. We can see
a demonstrated--an added success in terms of office space
utilization and the price per square foot that office space
rents at. We also see a much greater expansion of investment
around these stations and connected with the investment of
light rail, to the point where I think as it builds out, and by
2017 we will see many billions of dollars, a significant level
multiplier from that original investment in terms of direct
economic benefits.
That part of the--that part that you don't see is the
collaborative nature of building FasTracks helps our community
work collaboratively in all these other areas. So now we are
beginning to merge together fire districts and seeing dramatic
savings in the delivery of other services by, instead of doing
it on an balkanized basis, by doing it in a collaborated and
consolidated basis. The savings in Denver alone, we will be
able to take street repair, fire, police, six core services,
would be somewhere in the vicinity of $250 million per year,
were we to pull that all together. That is a back-of-the-
envelope kind of rough justice approach. But those are all
things that I think you have to kind of factor into this kind
of a network.
Senator Bennet. And I think it is particularly important
when we talk about things like the deferred maintenance that we
were talking about a minute ago to remember that this really is
an investment in our communities, an investment in our economy,
and we need to think about it that way. I mean, in order to
really have the cost-benefit analysis pencil, we need to
understand it that way.
I wonder if either of the other two witnesses have----
Mr. Marie. Senator Bennet, the system in Denver is a
remarkable success story. When you get right down to it, you
are talking about a system that when started, it was a 5.5-mile
system consisting of 14 trains. Within 60 days of opening that
system--I was working at Siemans Transportation Systems at the
time. We built the trains for the Denver system and also for
the Salt Lake system. Within 2 months of opening the system,
they were calling us to order more trains because they couldn't
handle all the capacity on the line, and now I think the Denver
RTD system is up to more than 100 trains. And that is only in
12 or 13 years of operating. So it is a tremendous success
story. It has spurred great development.
I think we all have seen what has happened with our
stations. They have become places where people want to go now
and to do business and to have lunch and to meet. I could tell
you that our stations on our Metro North Line: Stanford, New
Haven, and Fairfield, we have robust transit-oriented
development programs developing around those stations and it is
really up to us to work closely with those towns and
municipalities to make those things come to fruition.
Ms. Scott. We have had the same experience in the Atlanta
region. Actually, where our headquarters is is one of the kind
of legendary transit-oriented developments with Lindberg. We
just had Georgia State University about a year ago completed a
report for us. We have, just because of the developments and
our transit system, we have generated over $2.5 billion
additional investment for the area and over 40,000 jobs, and
that is just to date. And when you look at what is projected
over 2030, those numbers are like ten times.
Senator Bennett [presiding]. Well, we are all that is left,
so----
[Laughter.]
Senator Bennett. I want to on behalf of the Committee thank
the three of you for your testimony. It is fascinating. I think
we are in fascinating times in this country and this is going
to be a big part of moving us forward.
And with that, we are adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12:13 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[Prepared statements and responses to written questions
follow:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR JACK REED
Chairman Dodd, thank you for holding this important hearing as we
begin the process of reauthorizing our nation's surface transportation
policy.
Secretary LaHood, thank you for your continued service to the
country and for coming before the Committee today. I would also like to
welcome and acknowledge Dr. Beverly Scott, General Manager of the
Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA), who will be on
the second panel representing the American Public Transportation
Association (APTA). Previously, Dr. Scott ably led the Rhode Island
Public Transit Authority (RIPTA), and I am pleased that she is bringing
her perspective to the Committee.
Mr. Chairman, last September, this Committee held hearing titled
``Strengthening the Ability of Public Transportation to Reduce Our
Dependence on Foreign Oil.'' At that time gasoline was still $3.73 a
gallon, down slightly from its July peak of $4.16. Those high fuel
costs had brought increased ridership to transit systems. Indeed,
according to a report released by APTA on Monday, 2008 ridership was
the highest it has been in 52 years. However, faced with the same price
increases as other consumers, including average diesel prices as high
as $4.76, systems struggled to accommodate the growth in demand last
year. Ironically, agencies dependent on gas tax revenue saw their
operating budgets revenue slump as more people gave up driving to take
the bus.
The Rhode Island Public Transit Authority (RIPTA) was no exception,
and at the time of our last hearing, an agency with an annual budget of
slight more than $100 million anticipated an operating shortfall of
between $10.8 and $12.2 million. Consequently, it had initiated a
process to cut service by 20 percent. With the sharp drop in oil,
diesel, and gas prices in the intervening months, RIPTA's shortfall has
since declined to $1.3 million and steps are being taken fill that hole
with little or no significant cuts to service this year. Despite the
reprieve, RIPTA faces a chronic funding challenge on the operating
side, and it is just another price spike away from being forced to make
unthinkable cuts in service. Other agencies are still suffering.
Indeed, Washington DC's Metro board meets today to discuss proposals to
fill a $29 million funding gap.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act will be an enormous
benefit for transit agencies as they upgrade their facilities,
infrastructure, and fleets. Indeed, RIPTA is using this opportunity to
make improvement to its fleet through the purchase of hybrid buses and
to make key enhancements to its facilities. However, one of the law's
largest short-comings was its failure to provide transit agencies with
emergency operating assistance. Such assistance would have been
extremely helpful to RIPTA, Metro, and transit systems throughout the
country. Given vulnerability of these systems to the volatility of
energy prices, I believe that we should consider providing transit
agencies greater flexibility to use their urbanized formula grants to
help support service, particularly at times when there are unexpected
increases in expenses or declines in revenue.
The challenge facing all levels of government, but particularly
Federal Government, as we begin to take steps to reduce the Federal
deficit, is to find a revenue stream that can meet our transportation
needs. It is clear that under the current gas tax regime we will not
have the resources to sustain the Highway or Mass Transit Accounts.
Moreover, as we promote greater efficiency and alternative energy,
gasoline taxes will become less viable.
Finally, we must carefully assess how we integrate transportation
and housing development to creating liveable and sustainable
communities. I appreciate and commend the work of Chairman Dodd and
Secretary LaHood in making that a priority for this reauthorization.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to hearing from our
witnesses.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR MICHAEL F. BENNET
Thank you, Chairman Dodd and Ranking Member Shelby for holding this
hearing and for inviting Mayor Hickenlooper to be with us today. As I
said in my introduction, I can think of no one better to help guide
this Committee through our discussion on the reauthorization of Federal
transit programs than John.
As John said in his testimony, there are exciting things going on
in Denver when it comes to transit. The FasTracks project, which marks
the largest rail expansion in the country, is a model for cooperation
at the local and Federal level can make reliable, safe public
transportation a reality. By the time the project is completed in 2017,
the Denver area will have six new commuter rail and light rail
corridors, three extensions of existing corridors, 18 miles of Bus
Rapid Transit, 21,000 new parking spaces, and a redeveloped Denver
Union Station.
As the Secretary mentioned in his testimony, we find ourselves at a
crossroads at this time of economic downturn--a crossroads at which we
must choose a path that creates jobs and moves us to a cleaner, greener
future. My State just received over $100 million in stimulus funding
for transit projects, and I thank the Secretary for holding up his end
of the bargain by putting this money into the community so quickly. I
know that Colorado will put it to good use.
Having said that, I know my State and many others continue to face
funding challenges when it comes to transit funding. Many transit
systems, like Denver's Regional Transportation District (RTD), are
funded through sales taxes. In this time of economic distress, as
families cut back and tighten their purse strings, this source of
revenue has not provided our transit systems with the funding they need
to meet the challenges associated with the increased ridership that has
been a direct result of that very economic downturn.
Local leaders are making tough choices in order to help meet those
needs. In doing so, they are showing their commitment to public
transit. I hope that we can produce a bill in this Committee that shows
that our commitment to helping local transportation entities more
adequately meet those needs is just as strong.
At the same time, I am interested to know how we can increase the
private sector's role in creating our transit future. The Denver metro
transit system is participating in an FTA pilot program called the
Private Partnership Pilot Program (Penta-P) that has the potential to
transform the way we develop, finance, and maintain transit systems. I
am closely following the project in Colorado and will be keeping this
model in mind as the Committee works on the reauthorization bill.
Finally, I want to touch on the significance this bill has on
transit in rural areas. While urban areas understandably receive the
bulk of Federal transit dollars, I want to make sure that we do not
forget our rural communities during this reauthorization process. An
increasing number of seniors and people with disabilities rely on
public transportation in the rural parts of Colorado, and while their
transit options look quite a bit different from those in the more urban
areas, it is no less important for them to reap the benefits of a new
and improved transit future.
My time has expired, and I thank the Chairman, Ranking Member, and
our witnesses.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF RAYMOND H. LaHOOD
Secretary, Department of Transportation
March 12, 2009
Chairman Dodd, Ranking Member Shelby, and members of the Committee,
it is indeed a pleasure to appear before you today to discuss issues
related to reauthorization of the Federal public transportation
programs.
As you know, our Federal public transportation programs were
reauthorized by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) which was
enacted on August 10, 2005. SAFETEA-LU provides program authorizations
through fiscal year 2009. So this hearing is particularly timely if
Congress is to act expeditiously to ensure that important surface
transportation investments continue uninterrupted.
AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT
Before I discuss authorizing legislation, I believe it is important
to spend a few moments on our efforts on recovery and reinvestment. As
you know, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) was
signed into law by President Obama on Tuesday, February 17, 2009. At
the outset, I wish to thank Congress for your support in adopting this
important legislation, and in particular for the transportation funding
that it provides.
The ARRA includes appropriations and tax law changes totaling
approximately $787 billion to support efforts designed to
simultaneously stimulate the economy and invest in the economy of
tomorrow. Provisions in the legislation are designed to save or create
millions of jobs, enable spending by businesses and consumers alike,
and lay a foundation for long term economic growth and stability. The
scope of the legislation is unprecedented, and provides financial
support for investments including upgrading schools, building
infrastructure to support a clean energy grid for America, repairing
transportation infrastructure, building new opportunities for the
unemployed, and helping to maintain jobs for those currently employed.
Of the $787 billion of spending and tax law changes in ARRA, over
$48 billion will be invested in transportation infrastructure. Of this
amount, the Federal Transit Administration has received $8.4 billion
for three categories of funding: Transit Capital Assistance, Fixed
Guideway Modernization grants, and Transit New Starts. I am pleased to
report that this money is already being made available to local public
transit agencies around the country. On March 5, the Federal Transit
Administration published its apportionment of the formula funds
included in the ARRA and will shortly publish a Notice announcing the
allocation of the New Starts funds.
ARRA specifies that funds are to be used only for capital
expenditures. FTA is encouraging grantees to identify projects or
expenditures that meet the broader goals of the legislation, including
preserving or creating jobs; contributing to cleaning our environment
through green purchases, retrofitting existing facilities, and
construction; making additional public transportation opportunities
available to more people; and helping to ease fiscal problems at the
State and local level. A final, important aspect of this legislative
initiative is to get the money into the economy and working as quickly
as possible. To foster this imperative, there are certain time
limitations to obligate these funds. If funds are not put to work on a
timely basis, funds apportioned to an urbanized area or State will be
reallocated to areas that have demonstrated the ability to finalize
projects and are ready to execute.
This funding will improve our Nation's transit systems and, at the
same time, preserve or create thousands of good-paying jobs across
America. These funds also represent an important investment in our
Nation's ability to ensure mobility and access for our citizens.
IMPORTANCE OF THE FEDERAL PROGRAM
Recent Growth in Transit Ridership
Recently, transit ridership has grown significantly. In fact,
during 2008, ridership was at a 5-year high, amounting to over 10
billion trips. While this increase was attributable in part to the
rapid spike in fuel prices, ridership growth was sustained as overall
economic activity began to slacken and fuel prices fell.
Rail Modernization Study
In response to the fiscal year 2008 Transportation-HUD
Appropriations Act conference report and again requested in a letter
dated December 7, 2007, from Sen. Richard Durbin and 11 other senators
to former FTA Administrator James Simpson, we have now completed a Rail
Modernization Study. We believe our report is fully responsive to the
requested content. The report assesses the level of capital investment
required to attain and maintain a state of good repair (SGR) for the
Nation's seven largest rail transit operators. The study also considers
reinvestment needs within the context of past levels of Federal funding
support as well as potential reforms to the current Federal program.
The Rail Modernization Study finds that more than one-third of
agencies' assets are either in marginal or poor condition, indicating
that these assets are near or have already exceeded their expected
useful life. In addition, it finds that there is a backlog of unmet
recapitalization needs of about $50 billion at the Nation's seven
largest rail transit operators.
The study found that, between 1991 and 2009, although the actual
dollar amount of capital funding from Federal sources to the seven
agencies increased, their share of Fixed Guideway Modernization funds--
to the ``old rail cities'' in particular--actually declined as new
fixed guideway systems, such as bus ways and high occupancy vehicle
(HOV) lanes, entered the program. Therefore, the report presents
several options for Congress to consider in reforming the allocation
approach for fixed guideway modernization funding. Finally, the report
describes a structured capital asset management process and suggests a
number of steps FTA might take to facilitate improvements to the
technical capacity of local transit agencies to manage their capital
assets.
Impacts of Federal Investments
Federal capital investments in rail, bus, and other public
transportation systems over the last 25 years have been vitally
important to the Nation's fastest-growing metropolitan areas, to small-
and mid-sized cities, and to rural communities that previously lacked
any transit options. These systems create links between home, school,
work, recreation areas, and other important destinations. Since 1984,
the number of cities with publicly funded passenger rail service has
more than doubled. The size of the Nation's transit bus fleet has grown
by more than 25 percent. Nearly every bus in the United States is
accessible to people with disabilities and senior citizens. As a
result, since the mid-1990s, the Nation's overall public transportation
ridership has grown by more than a third. In many of the Nation's
largest cities, public transportation carries roughly one-third of all
work trips destined for central business districts and is an essential
link between these districts and other destinations. A decade ago, two
of every five residents in rural small urban communities and tribal
areas did not have access to public transportation. Since then, FTA has
been instrumental in bringing new public transportation options to
dozens of these communities.
Changes in demographics, shifts in land use patterns, and the
emergence of new job markets require different approaches to managing
mobility, particularly for people who may not be able to use existing
transportation services due to age, disability, location, or other
factors. Federal funding for public transportation has provided a
framework around which eight Federal departments can develop and
deliver community-based transportation services. These services, which
may be operated by private nonprofit groups and community
organizations, offer a lifeline to persons with disabilities, older
Americans, and individuals and families who do not possess automobiles.
Federal investments in public transportation contribute to job
growth directly, since the transportation-related workforce grows as
systems are built or expanded. Indirectly, FTA-funded projects can act
as catalysts for new businesses near transit facilities. Transit-
oriented, mixed-use development provides an efficient and convenient
option for employers, developers, young professionals and families in
many large and small cities around the U.S. Many transit-oriented
projects are supported by Federal resources through direct funding and
technical guidance during the planning stages. This has contributed
significantly to the revitalization of downtown districts, fosters
walkable neighborhoods, and offers a remedy for urban and suburban
sprawl.
Federal public transportation programs also provide for strategic
leadership and investments that foster innovative research activities
leading to measurable improvements in the connectivity, safety, and
efficiency of America's public transportation systems. Federal funding
has spurred countless productive applications of new technologies and
techniques for modernizing rail and bus systems, improving energy
efficiency, reducing emissions, and promulgating voluntary industry-
wide standards. These outcomes reflect collaborations with other
Federal research entities, university research centers, manufacturers,
and transportation advocates. Further, Federal public transportation
funding has supported training for thousands of transportation
professionals who are the innovators of tomorrow. This has created a
successful cooperative research program that solicits proposals for
Federal funding from industry and academia--triggering investments in
scores of valuable cutting-edge investigations.
Federal investment in public transportation can also contribute to
combating climate change. National averages demonstrate that public
transportation can produce significantly less greenhouse gas emissions
per passenger-mile than private vehicles, especially those with single
occupants. Leading the way is heavy rail transit, such as subways and
metros, which produce about 75 percent less in greenhouse gas emissions
per passenger mile than an average single-occupancy vehicle (SOV).
Light rail systems produce 57 percent less and bus transit 32 percent
less. The benefit would not be as great if compared to the somewhat
higher current average occupancy rates of passenger vehicles. Transit's
GHG emissions savings would be even greater with higher ridership
levels. Recent increases in ridership are not captured in these
estimates, as the figures rely on 2007 public transportation data, the
most recent national dataset available.
Federal investment in public transportation also can reduce
greenhouse gas emissions by facilitating higher density development,
which conserves land and decreases the distances people need to travel
to reach destinations. In many cases, higher density development would
be more difficult without the existence of public transportation
because more land would need to be devoted to parking and travel lanes.
By facilitating higher density development, public transportation can
shrink the footprint of an urban area and reduce overall trip lengths.
In addition, public transportation supports increased foot traffic,
street-level retail, and mixed land uses that enable a shift from
driving to walking and biking. Public transportation can also
facilitate trip chaining, such as combining dry-cleaning pick-up,
shopping, and other errands on the way home from a station. Finally,
households living close to public transportation tend to own fewer cars
on average, as they may not need a car for commuting and other trips. A
reduced number of cars per household can to lead to reduced car use,
and driving may cease to be the habitual choice for every trip.
OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES
Livability and Sustainability
In my confirmation hearing, I outlined four key themes for my
tenure as Secretary. In addition to Economic Recovery, which is my
primary immediate concern, and Safety, which is always an important
part of the mission of the Department, I suggested that Sustainability
and Livability would be hallmarks of my policies.
To me, it is clear that our transportation system and the
development it enables must be sustainable. Climate change must be
acknowledged as a reality. Funding for public transportation must
increase to help out here. Sustainability must permeate all we do, from
highways and transit to aviation and ports.
I am also committed to a strong focus on people and communities
where they live and work. This implies a commitment to the principles
that some refer to as livability--that is, investing in ways that
respect the unique character of each community. The era of one-size-
fits-all transportation projects must give way to one where preserving
and enhancing unique community characteristics, be they rural or urban,
is a primary goal, rather than an afterthought. I intend to make
livable communities a big part of reauthorization.
Housing/Transportation Relationship
Clearly the linkage between public transportation and urban
development is crucial, particularly when it comes to low-income
housing. For some time, FTA has been collaborating with the Department
of Housing and Urban Development to coordinate housing and
transportation planning and investment decisionmaking. For example, in
September 2008, FTA and HUD released a report to Congress on Better
Coordination of Transportation and Housing Programs. This report
outlines strategies to continue and expand the coordination of
affordable housing and transit policies. Earlier, FTA and HUD conducted
a jointly funded research study on Realizing the Potential: Expanding
Housing Opportunities Near Transit. The report, published in April 2007
by the Center for Transit Oriented Development, included five case
studies examining the role of public transportation in the location of
affordable housing in corridors in Boston, Charlotte, Denver,
Minneapolis-St. Paul, and Portland, Oregon. In addition, FTA and HUD
are participating in an interagency working group to continue
development of coordinated/integrated strategies, methods and policies
to promote the role of public transportation in affordable housing.
Finally, FTA and HUD are developing a Best Practices Manual--a multi-
scenario ``how-to'' manual for developing mixed-income housing transit
oriented development to be published by December 2009. Continuing and
expanding on these efforts can be an important feature of the next
surface transportation authorization.
Highway Trust Fund
A challenge in addressing the needs I have outlined will be the
availability of funding at the Federal level. More details of the
Department's fiscal year 2010 budget will be presented in April. An
overarching concern for all surface transportation funding is the
status of the Highway Trust Fund. Currently, 2.86 cents of the Federal
gasoline and diesel taxes is dedicated to the Mass Transit Account of
the Highway Trust Fund, which generates about $5 billion annually in
revenues. However, as you know, the Mass Transit Account, like the
Highway Account is projected to become insolvent in the coming years
assuming current-law spending and revenues. Clearly, the way in which
public transportation is funded on a long-term, sustainable basis will
have to be addressed as we move forward.
REAUTHORIZATION
In light of these challenges, restructuring our surface
transportation programs will require some bold new approaches. Let me
outline for you a few of the themes which we are now considering for
our proposal.
Economic Recovery and Reinvestment
Surface transportation investment is an important element of
President Obama's Economic Recovery and Reinvestment efforts to put
people back to work and reinvigorate the economy. Congestion exacts a
tremendous cost on the Nation's economy, by some estimates over $100
billion a year. Improving the efficiency and reliability of our surface
transportation system will be vital to enhancing the Nation's
productivity and competitiveness in an increasingly global economy.
Good transportation allows people to get to jobs and businesses to
access wider pools of labor, suppliers, and customers. The ability to
efficiently move freight will be critical to our economic recovery.
Without renewal and restoration of our transportation infrastructure,
it will not be able to support the needs of a growing economy.
Safety
Safety will continue to be the Department's highest priority. The
total number of transportation-related fatalities in the country is
unacceptable. Concerted efforts to improve safety are needed in all
surface transportation modes including auto, truck, transit, rail, bus,
motorcycle, and pedestrian safety. Innovation and technology will be
critical to improving vehicle and infrastructure safety. We must also
explore innovative ways to reduce deaths and serious injuries caused by
impaired driving, failure to wear seatbelts and motorcycle helmets, and
other high risk behaviors. Safety problems vary from State to State,
and it is important that data-driven, performance-oriented programs be
established to identify the most cost-effective strategies to improve
safety in each jurisdiction.
Livable and Sustainable Communities
One of my highest priorities is to help promote more livable
communities through sustainable surface transportation programs.
Actions on many fronts will be required to enhance transportation's
contribution to strong and connected communities. First, the range of
transportation choices available to American families must be expanded.
All segments of the population must have access to transportation
services to get to work, housing, medical, educational, shopping, and
other essential activities. Just as important is to ensure that our
transportation investment decisions are consistent with broader
policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and slow the pace of
climate change.
Accountability, Transparency, and Performance
Key tenets of the Obama Administration are Accountability,
Transparency, and Performance in Federal programs. Congress demands it,
the public demands it, and it is the right thing to do. New processes
will have to be put in place to implement performance-based programs.
In some cases this may require changes to long-standing ways of doing
business. Performance-based programs cannot be implemented overnight,
but when fully implemented they will provide the means to improve
investment decisions, improve the performance of our transportation
systems, and improve our stewardship of taxpayer dollars. As we
recently pointed out in the President's Budget for Fiscal Year 2010,
greater use of economic analysis will be needed in transportation
planning.
Innovative Programs and Projects
Innovation traditionally has been a hallmark of progress in
transportation. Challenges today may be different from the past, but
the role of technology and innovation is just as important. Technology
will be central to our efforts to improve safety, reduce congestion,
and manage our infrastructure more effectively. Innovation is not
limited to new technologies, however. Innovations in the way we deliver
programs will be just as important in our efforts to improve all
aspects of transportation system performance.
CONCLUSION
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. I know that
there is much work ahead of us. I believe that working together we can
craft an improved Federal surface transportation program that helps
improve the lives of the American people across the country.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN HICKENLOOPER
Chair, The U.S. Conference of Mayors Transportation & Communications
Committee, Mayor, Denver, Colorado
March 12, 2009
Chairman Dodd, Ranking Member Shelby, and Members of the Committee,
thank you for inviting me to testify today about ``Sustainable
Transportation Solutions: Investing in Transit to Meet 21st Century
Challenges.''
This nation cannot deal with our energy and climate challenges,
without confronting the transportation sector.
The United States transportation sector--its systems and
practices--has played a significant part in growing the nation's energy
dependency on foreign energy supplies, principally petroleum, and in
contributing to higher oil prices and other energy price increases. In
2007, 69 percent of the nation's total petroleum products were consumed
in the transportation sector, with petroleum products powering more
than 98 percent of the nation's transportation mobility. Currently, the
United States is the world's largest energy consumer and largest
greenhouse gas emitter.
America's mayors understand all too well that our nation cannot
remain economically competitive with the world if we continue down this
path. This means going forward, all federally assisted transportation
investments must address energy and climate concerns, through needed
shifts and reforms in Federal policies and programs that emphasize
sustainable transportation investments, led by increased investment in
public transit and intercity passenger rail.
Mayors also believe that we must rebuild and modernize our nation's
transportation infrastructure in ways that are more energy efficient,
less reliant on foreign oil, and more environmentally sensitive. To
accelerate the achievements of more sustainable transportation
solutions, Federal policy must increasingly empower local elected
officials, especially in metropolitan areas, to make the decisions on
how Federal transportation resources are invested. Decisions that this
Committee makes about sustainable transportation solutions will be a
critical factor in whether the next surface transportation
authorization bill is sufficiently transformational to ensure that
Federal resources are deployed more strategically so that we confront
our nation's energy and climate challenges.
As a broader policy matter, the next bill should empower and
incentivize leaders, especially those at the local level, to better
connect investment decisions about land use, economic development,
energy, and environmental factors. Mr. Chairman, many of these
decisions are typically under the authority of local governments, which
explains why we believe it is so important to empower local officials
starting with those in metropolitan regions with the decisionmaking
responsibility coupled with greater accountability and performance
measures.
As Mayor of Denver, my own perspective on the next bill is driven
by our experience in collaboration across the metropolitan region to
build our FasTracks transit project. The City encompasses 44.7 square
miles and roughly 600,000 residents, but our metropolitan region has a
population of nearly 2.8 million people, and a growth rate that has
consistently outpaced the national rate every decade since the 1930's.
Within the next 25 years, Metro Denver's population is anticipated to
reach almost 3.8 million. Metro Denver has been nationally recognized
for our capacity to plan and work collaboratively across potentially
balkanized local political jurisdictions--from our FasTracks transit
project to our regional economic development initiatives to our
cultural facilities tax district, all of which involve and benefit the
localities within the eight Metro Denver counties, and encompass an
area roughly the size of Connecticut.
I also appear today as the Chair of The United States Conference of
Mayors Transportation and Communications Standing Committee.\1\
Therefore, what I thought I would do first is provide a few remarks on
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act followed by remarks on
investing in sustainable transportation solutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are 1,139 such cities in the country today, each
represented in the Conference by its chief elected official, the Mayor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I want to thank the leaders of this Committee for your efforts to
increase public transportation investments in the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA). Mayors are pleased with many of the investment
priorities set forth in this historic bill. At a time when the Nation
is facing its deepest economic crisis since the Great Depression, ARRA
will begin the process of rebuilding our transportation infrastructure,
create and save transportation sector jobs, and even expand out
transportation capacities.
These funds will help replace and modernize congested, aging, and
outmoded systems. This is a down payment on a new path to transforming
our transportation systems recognizing that our Interstate system, now
more than 50 years old, must be supplemented with alternative modes of
travel including transit and high-speed rail--which are key Conference
priorities.
More broadly, this Committee's longstanding commitments to
increasing investments in public transportation have been productive,
especially during last year's run up in gasoline prices. Public
transportation is a safe, reliable and cost-effective alternative for
travel. Today, we see total ridership levels last achieved in the 50s.
This shift to transit, often motivated by the public's desire to reduce
household transportation costs, and declining driving rates has
resulted in significant reductions in measured congestion levels in
metropolitan areas throughout the U.S., although our reporting systems
don't capture these changes in real time. For the first time, we have
been adding transit riders during an economic downturn, contradicting
past trends and assumptions. Ridership kept growing despite record
declines in gas prices, especially during the last quarter of 2008. Mr.
Chairman, I encourage you to look at the dire financial situation of
many transit providers, especially erosion in their operating accounts,
to make sure that resource constraints don't result in a contraction of
services we provide at a time when more people are turning to public
transportation.
In addition, I want to thank Committee leaders and others for your
many efforts during the last session to assist cities in addressing the
many economic challenges now before our communities and regions.
Specifically I want to recognize your work on supporting local leaders
in addressing the foreclosure crisis, notably new resources to help us
deal with rising foreclosures through the Housing and Economic Recovery
Act of 2008.
Metropolitan Areas--Investing In The Engines of America's Growth
Through Mobility
Metropolitan areas are the drivers of the American economy. While
covering just 26 percent of the United States land area, metropolitan
regions account for more than 83 percent of the nation's population, 85
percent of national employment, 87 percent of labor income, 86 percent
of gross domestic product (GDP), and 92 percent of the increase in real
output in 2007.\2\ Of the 100 largest international economies in the
world, 42 are U.S. metro areas. Metro Denver, for example, has a gross
metropolitan product larger than Pakistan and nearly as large as
Israel.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Attachment Shares of U.S. Economy 2007: U.S. Metro
Economies Report 2008.
\3\ See Attachment World Rankings of Gross Domestic and
Metropolitan Product 2007: U.S. Metro Economies Report 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the Report of the National Surface Transportation Policy and
Revenue Study Commission states, ``Federal transportation policy must
more effectively support and encourage the use of public transportation
as part of a balanced approach to a metropolitan mobility program.
Traditional bus and rail transit and, where appropriate, intercity
passenger rail, must be an increasingly important component of
metropolitan mobility strategies due to their ability to move large
volumes of people into and out of areas that cannot handle more
automobiles.''
Consistent with this need, the foremost recommendation among the
list of transportation authorization policy positions that the
Conference of Mayors adopted in June is a call for creation of a
metropolitan mobility program. The recommendation also directly ties to
the U.S. Conference of Mayors' Climate Protection Agreement--an
agreement whereby mayors pledge to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 7
percent below 1990 levels by 2012--more investment in public
transportation will lead to a reduction in energy consumption and
greenhouse gas emissions.
Priority Areas for Sustainable Transportation Solutions Through
Statutory Reform
Reflecting consultation with the mayors, seven areas of fundamental
reform to underlying Federal transportation statutes set the context
for a sustainable transportation focuses next surface transportation
bill:
Federal transportation investments need to reflect energy
and climate priorities, so that we can reengineer and expand
our transportation infrastructure in ways that curb greenhouse
gas emissions and reduce our dependency on foreign oil.
Nationwide, about one-third of carbon emissions are generated
from mobile sources; in regions like the Bay Area, cars and
light trucks represent about half of all carbon emissions. U.S.
gasoline consumption is about equal to the amount of oil we
import. Our national transportation policy should recognize
that achieving climate protection and greenhouse gas reductions
emissions will require increased investment in public
transportation. As the Report of the National Surface
Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission states,
``Not only is transit an important element of congestion relief
strategies, it supports policies to reduce transportation
energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, and air pollution
if sufficient use is demonstrated.''
Federal funding mechanisms must move past programmatic
silos and eliminate the biases embedded in current law that
favor some transportation modes over others. The Federal
funding system currently follows processes and creates
incentives that do not direct resources to the geographic
regions or types of transportation solutions that yield the
greatest cost-benefit impacts and are central to national
economic prosperity and growth. With key transportation
statutes--surface and aviation--under consideration for renewal
this year, and a new Federal commitment to high-speed rail, an
opportunity exists to make delivery of resources and
transportation services to the public more seamless and
integrated.
Rail transportation for both freight movement and passenger
travel is a top priority going forward. We seek a better
approach to investment, and coordination of uses in existing
highway and railroad rights of way, that can accelerate the
deployment of infrastructure within and between our nation's
metropolitan areas. Moving more goods by rail can reduce energy
consumption and allow better use of existing highway capacity.
Transit systems are experiencing unprecedented growth in use,
with the public consuming existing capacities and demanding new
services as well. As we are witnessing in Denver, the presence
of transit also is driving community and economic vitality with
transit-oriented commercial and residential development.
However, while the Denver region has been highlighted as a
national prototype for rapid and broad-based expansion of
metropolitan rail services, it was very difficult to initiate,
and we now face the significant challenges of a weakening
economy producing slower local revenue growth, as well as
record energy and commodity prices that run up the costs of
operating existing services and new construction.
The disparity in planning requirements for transit versus
highway projects promotes road investments to the detriment of
the urban core that most benefits from public transportation.
Localities must show that they have adequate resources to fully
construct, maintain, and operate new transit facilities, at a
high non-Federal match; however, none of those conditions apply
equally to highway projects. In fact, nearly a decade ago, the
Federal Government removed the major investment study
requirement that also had mandated for highway proposals a
cost-effectiveness evaluation of alternative approaches to
achieving a given transportation objective, taking into account
a range of economic, environmental, and financial factors.
Mayors and our regional transportation partners are asking for
rigorous evaluation and matching rules to apply uniformly for
highway and transit projects, metropolitan and non-
metropolitan, so we can enable planners to make decisions
driven by the merits and not differently aligned incentives.
Transportation planning processes in our metropolitan areas
cannot be meaningful if there is little connection between
those plans and control of resources to implement them. While
the law preserves that MPO's will take the lead in regional
transportation planning, Federal statute did not establish a
funding structure to support that practice. In most
metropolitan areas, local officials are not afforded the
opportunity to control or substantially influence how the bulk
of Federal resources are expended in the region. Typical State
practice is to determine what share of Federal resources are
made available to the metropolitan area, and then largely
decide or influence what major investments are made. Often, the
MPO simply confirms these investments in their plans. Of the
Federal transportation resources provided to the States, only a
small portion is definitively committed directly for local
decisionmaking in metropolitan areas--$54 million of $438
million in spending authority under the core highway program
categories in Colorado last year, even though Metro Denver
represents half of the State population and 60 percent of
economic output. Furthermore, metropolitan areas contribute
significantly more in tax receipts than they receive in
distributions from their State highway fund or direct local
transfers.
Federal transportation policy does not support or provide
incentives for crosscutting functional relationships and
planning collaboration. With major population growth projected
in many metropolitan areas and congestion already prevalent,
managing decisions about meeting mobility needs and quality of
life will entail decisions about more than just building more
transportation capacity. Similarly, transportation investments
are major economic factors, opening up new development area
opportunities, creating jobs, impacting personal mobility
costs, and influencing productivity. Finally, transportation
impacts the environment and climate change, both through the
structure of neighborhoods and the reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions. In Denver, this means that our transportation
decisions are tied to promoting livable urban centers and
sustainable development broadly. The FasTracks project,
supported unanimously by all 32 metro mayors and approved by
voters in the eight Metro Denver Colorado counties in 2004, is
the unifying element in our regional community planning
efforts, $6.9 billion, 12-year plan linking the region with
comprehensive mass transit service through 119 miles of new
light rail and commuter rail, 18 miles of bus rapid transit
service, 21,000 new parking spaces at rail and bus stations,
and expanded bus service. Furthermore, in the City itself, we
recently completed a Strategic Transportation Plan that adopts
an alternative approach to transportation planning--instead of
just forecasting future auto travel, we have developed a
mathematical model that forecasts person-trips so that we can
evaluate the magnitude of impacts caused by all types of
travel. All of these transportation plans are tied to our
zoning decisions centered on transit-oriented development
(TOD), building neighborhoods around FasTracks and bus transit
stops so that housing, offices, and shopping are all within
walking distance. Helpful Federal actions to increase cross-
cutting functional relationships and planning collaboration
ranges from readjusting the cost-effectiveness rating for New
Starts projects so that related development and environmental
benefits are appropriately considered to promoting affordable
housing near transit. Many local political obstacles to jointly
planning for transportation, housing, and land use decisions
can be overcome through the motivation of new competitive
Federal funding to implement those decisions.
All of our key Federal transportation programs are short of
resources. The shortfall in the Highway Trust Fund posed the
most acute challenge, but other accounts to varying degrees are
also challenged by resource constraints. This situation argues
for consideration of creative, broader revenue and financing
options that allow us to increase our national commitments to
transportation infrastructure broadly, not just one mode at a
time or in piecemeal fashion.
Through a transit, energy, climate, metropolitan focused next
surface transportation authorization we will emerge as a new nation so
that we will indeed prove what others have dubbed, the Century of
Cities.
All across America mayors are gearing up in cities, large and
small, to provide jobs and opportunities to help move our nation toward
economic recovery. The implementation stage begins now with the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and will continue with the next
surface transportation bill. There's work to be done and the Mayors
will do it.
Thank you again for the opportunity to speak with you about
sustainable transportation solutions. I look forward to working with
you during the upcoming authorization to increase funding commitments
to public transit.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOSEPH F. MARIE
Commissioner, Connecticut Department of Transportation
on behalf of The American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials
March 12, 2009
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, my name is Joe Marie. I
am Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Transportation. I am
here today to testify on behalf of the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) which represents the
departments of transportation in the fifty States and the District of
Columbia and Puerto Rico. I am currently the Chairman of AASHTO's
Standing Committee on Public Transportation. We want to thank you for
convening this hearing to discuss the role of public transportation in
meeting our nation's 21st century transportation mobility, energy and
environmental challenges.
Today, I would like to cover three points--
The commitment of State transportation agencies to ensuring
they provide their customers an efficient, effective multimodal
integrated transportation system for mobility and access and to
support a competitive economy;
The long term capital needs of both urban and rural
transportation systems across the country; and
AASHTO's recommendations for a next generation, multi-year
surface transportation bill.
Commitment to public transportation. Public transportation provides
basic mobility options for millions of Americans on a daily basis and
is a critical link for the elderly, individuals with disabilities and
low-income individuals to jobs, doctor's offices, grocery stores and
other daily routine trips. In addition, transit plays a significant
role in State and national efforts to reduce traffic congestion,
conserve fuel, improve air quality, reduce green house gas emissions
and support emergency preparedness.
Travel on the U.S. highway system has increased fivefold over the
past 50 years from 600 billion vehicles miles traveled (VMT) in 1956 to
3 trillion VMT in 2006. The amount of highway mileage built during that
period was substantial, but the increase in travel has been so great
that most of the capacity and redundancy planned when the system was
built has been used up. Even if the current rate of VMT growth could be
cut by 50 percent over time, at a minimum, VMT by 2055 will have grown
to 4.5 trillion. To support the growth that has taken place and the
growth expected, additional highway, transit, commuter, and intercity
passenger and freight rail capacity will all be needed.
To meet the growing need for public transportation, two things need
to happen. Where transit service is already available, it will need to
be expanded. Where it is not yet available, it will need to be
provided. Forecasts show that the U.S. population will grow from 300
million to 435 million by 2055. Over 80 percent of that growth is
expected to take place in our metropolitan areas.
Over 10.3 billion passenger trips were provided by the nation's
public transportation systems in 2007 and in some of the nation's
largest cities, public transportation carries from 12.2 percent to over
53 percent of all work trips originating in central cities and is an
essential link between these Central Business Districts (CBD's) and the
rest of the region. With the United States projected to experience
significant population and employment growth in coming decades, with
the aging of the population and the efforts of the population to ``age
in place'' as well as continued issues of greenhouse gases and energy
supplies and prices, the demand for public transportation services is
projected to continue to increase.
Public transportation services are available in 450 of the
urbanized areas in the United States. In every State, public
transportation provides service to rural residents, elderly individuals
and physically challenged individuals with disabilities. Recently there
has been a dramatic increase in the demand for paratransit services in
rural areas. A substantial investment must be made in rural transit and
intermodal connectivity as well as in urban areas.
For example, in rural Grant County, New Mexico the system handled
19,000 passengers in 2001. Last year, it carried 38,000 and it is on
track for over 50,000 riders this year. Corre Caminos Transit, which
operates the system throughout sprawling Grant County, serves a large
elderly and disabled population which would have no means of travel to
doctor's appointments, the grocery store or other essential errands
without the buses served by the transit system.
Likewise, the State of Nebraska has a growing rural population and
has an increasingly large number of persons 65 years or older which is
outpacing national trends. The challenge for rural transit is to be
able to provide the transportation needed to allow elderly residents to
remain in their homes. Without these services, many older residents
would have to leave their homes and become residents of assisted living
facilities and nursing homes. To solve this issue, one of the programs
implemented by the Nebraska Department of Transportation is a ``twenty-
four-seven'' rural transit service so individuals can get early morning
dialysis and other necessary medical treatments.
In Randolph County, West Virginia, County Roads Transit transports
a senior three times a week to a part time job. This disabled
individual is supplied with wheelchair accessible vehicles through
County Roads Transit and is able to continue to work and remain in her
home because of the transit service. Also in West Virginia, a 72-year
old woman moved to rural Wayne County to be closer to her daughter.
This woman receives daily transportation from the Wayne X-Press service
which provides access to the grocery store, doctor's visits, nutrition
sites and social activities without adding stress to nearby relatives.
Both of these individuals lead fulfilling, independent lives in their
local hometowns which would not be possible without the aide of rural
public transit.
At home in Connecticut, I oversee one of the very unique State
departments of transportation in the nation. Connecticut Department Of
Transportation owns and operates not only a highway system, but also
owns and operates two commuter railroads, the New Haven Line and Shore
Line East services which carry over thirty-four million passengers a
year. The State-wide bus services, includes twenty-one bus operations,
which carry over thirty-five million passengers per year. The State
also owns and operates six public airports including Bradley
International Airport --New England's second largest airport, two ferry
services and one deep seaport. In addition, the State participates in
subsidizing several bus transit district operations, dial-a-ride
services, job access mobility services and other transportation demand
services. Connecticut DOT operates a truly intermodal transportation
agency.
In Connecticut, Governor M. Jodi Rell has spear-headed the largest
public transportation investment in the State's history. Why? Ridership
on our commuter rail lines is exploding, up more than 11 percent from
last year. We are talking about ridership on the lines that parallel
the congested I-95 corridor, so vital to the economic vitality of the
Northeast and, indeed, our nation. Double digit ridership increases
have been posted on our entire commuter rail network. The very
successful New Haven Line commuter rail service operates from New
Haven, Connecticut west along our shore through New York and into Grand
Central Terminal. Connecticut is proud of its partnership with Metro-
North Commuter Railroad which runs this service for our State. This
commuter rail service operates along 47 miles of the New Haven Line,
part of the Northeast Corridor which is owned and maintained by the
State of Connecticut. This is the largest non-Amtrak owned section of
the Northeast Corridor. We plan to extend and expand operations on our
Shore Line East routes and improve connectivity and seamlessness
between our rail lines and bus system where ridership has also been
growing steadily since 2004.
Together with our friends in Massachusetts, we are hoping to bring
first class rail service to the Connecticut River Valley between
Springfield, Massachusetts and New Haven, Connecticut. We have an
ongoing dialog with Amtrak and are optimistic that we can form a
partnership to obtain the necessary investment to bring this key
intercity rail project to reality. The cities and towns served by this
corridor are already planning the developments and initiatives that
this transformative project will bring to their downtowns and main
streets. This project will also provide mobility connection to Bradley
International Airport. Federal investment into intercity passenger rail
is essential to improving mobility around the Nation and reducing
vehicle miles traveled and carbon dioxide emissions. If we are to
reduce our dependence on foreign oil and reduce congestion in our
nation, we must make a greater commitment to public transportation.
Public transportation capital needs. Transit ridership saw a
significant increase in ridership in 2008 due largely to soaring
gasoline prices and a weakened economy. According to the latest figures
from the American Public Transportation Association during this period,
there was a 4.0 percent increase in the number of transit trips over
2007. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, during the
same period, highway vehicle miles traveled (VMT) declined from 3
trillion in 2006 to 2.9 trillion in late 2008. Even though it is
expected that highway travel growth will once again increase when the
economy improves, a shift to alternative modes, including transit,
commuter and intercity passenger rail should be encouraged. This will
require substantial investment in these modes to ensure sufficient
capacity and a state of good repair.
According to the AASHTO's 2009 Bottom Line Report, an average
annual capital investment of $60 billion (in 2006 dollars) for public
transportation is necessary to expand and modernize transit assets in
order to accommodate a 3.5 percent percent annual growth in ridership.
This is the ridership growth rate necessary in order to double transit
ridership over the next twenty years. Rural public transportation
systems are a small but essential component of the nation's transit
systems, and while their capital needs may be less by comparison to
urban capital needs, substantial investment increases in rural transit
to meet capital and operating needs are essential. Any Federal-State
capital financing program established for the infrastructure needs
along the Northeast Corridor can only be implemented after the Amtrak
owned portions of the Northeast Corridor have been brought up to a
state of good repair. Frequently mentioned is an 80-20 program, similar
to the Federal highway program where the Federal Government would
provide 80 percent of the financing of capital improvements and the
State would provide 20 percent. Should such a program be implemented,
the program must be eligible for all infrastructure improvements along
a corridor, regardless of ownership.
The opportunities for passenger rail expansion throughout this
country are at a critical crossroad. Federal operating subsidies to
Amtrak and cooperation between urban transit agencies using Federal
funding have long been the custom for funding intercity and commuter
rail passenger service. Transportation capital improvements are
frequently based upon the successful Federal-State partnership models
already in place for highways, transit and air modes. The difficulty in
this amongst other factors, however, lies in the fact that these other
successful models each have continuous revenue streams dedicated to
that mode, while rail passenger service does not.
Many States already provide significant financial support for
passenger rail service such as:
Regional coalitions of States banding together to provide
rail service connecting their major metropolitan areas,
States providing funds to Amtrak for increased intercity
rail service,
States participating in the funding of improvements to the
freight rail infrastructure over which intercity routes
operate, and
States providing operationally safe and upgraded State-
owned rail facilities for Amtrak to operate over.
Connecticut continually has upgraded and improved its New Haven Line,
over which Amtrak operates, to a tune of over $120 million annually.
Amtrak has partnered and participated in the incremental cost
associated with their needs for Amtrak high speed rail operations.
AASHTO surface transportation policies addressing public
transportation. The AASHTO Board of Directors has agreed to pursue
policies and program investments that will lead to a doubling of
transit ridership by 2030. To meet the growing need for public
transportation and to reach the goal of doubling ridership, two things
must occur: Where transit service is already available, it needs to be
expanded. Where it is not yet available, it will need to be provided.
AASHTO also has a commitment on behalf of the State DOTs to provide
transit as one of many options in a multi-modal system.
Specifically, AASHTO recommends the following:
Congress should increase funding for the transit program to
$93 billion over the 6-year authorization period. This increase
will restore the purchasing power to 85 percent of the pre-1993
levels. The increase in funding should more than double rural
transit funding.
Operating assistance eligibility should be extended to
transit systems in urbanized areas of more than 200,000 in
population which operate less than 100 buses during peak
operation.
Maintain a separate Mass Transit Account (MTA) within the
Highway Trust Fund with current program funding guarantees and
preserve, at a minimum, the current 20 percent general fund
contribution necessary to support a strong Federal transit
program.
Preserve the existing transferability between the Highway
and Mass Transit Accounts as well as the current 80 percent
Federal share for transit formula and capital investment
programs are also critical for inclusion in the surface
transportation authorization legislation.
Streamline the grant approval process to speed project
delivery and reduce the cost of routine projects. Replacement
of buses, rolling stock, facility components and other routine
transit related equipment should automatically be eligible for
funding and not required to go through the grant approval
process. An accounting of these expenses could be done through
the regular reporting requirements.
Streamline the number of programs and pools of funding in
order to decrease paperwork and the time necessary to complete
the grant approval process. For example, we propose including
all eligible activities for the Job Access and Reverse Commute
grants as part of the Urbanized and Non-Urbanized Area Formula
Programs. We also propose allowing all eligible activities for
the New Freedom program to be included in the Elderly and
Individuals with Disabilities program.
AASHTO believes that climate change and transportation
should be addressed in the upcoming authorization legislation.
One such way to address this issue is to double transit
ridership by 2030. Intercity passenger rail and transit provide
an alternative to automobile travel and can help reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. Although they serve a small share of
travel in the United States (approximately 1 percent of all
passenger trips), we believe increasing transit can contribute
to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
We also fully supported efforts that were included in the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to equalize the employer
provided pre-tax qualified transportation fringe benefits for
both public transportation and parking. We would encourage
renewing this provision as it is set to expire at the end of
2010.
Public Transportation usage is growing and with an aging population
will continue to be an important component of mobility options for
millions of Americans.
Before closing my comments this morning, I would be remiss if I
failed to mention our appreciation for the recently enacted American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act. You have thrown us an important lifeline
during a turbulent time. A month ago, Commissioners and Secretaries of
DOTs from around the country met with U.S. Department of Transportation
Secretary Ray LaHood and promised to put the money which you entrusted
to us to good use . . . and swiftly. We will and we thank you.
I want to inform you that I took Amtrak's Acela to Washington to be
with you here today. Like the four other trips that I have taken on the
Acela to Washington in recent months, I spent the time gazing out the
windows at the cities and towns that we serve. The economic growth
which has taken place around our core stations like New Haven and
Stamford, while impressive, is not fully realized. As I mentioned
earlier, we have made gains, but we can and must do more.
In the months ahead, you will be confronted with important
decisions related to the authorization of a new surface transportation
bill. You will hear from many about how much is needed and why. I will
leave you with something which I believe you already know: Preserving,
renewing and reinvesting in our nation's transportation infrastructure
is absolutely and inextricably linked to the economic well being of our
nation.
Investing in transportation has a good return on investment, will
create jobs and stimulate the economy. It also results in an unusual
dichotomy: improving connectivity exposes us to a larger world while at
the same time making it all the more intimate. With improved mobility,
we come to realize that we have much in common and that there is more
that binds us than keeps us apart.
I thank you for giving me this opportunity to highlight some of the
important aspects as they relate to State transportation agencies and
to present our proposals for the future of public transportation as you
begin the process of crafting surface transportation legislation to
meet today's transportation mobility, economic, energy and
environmental challenges. I will be happy to answer any questions you
may have.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF BEVERLY SCOTT, Ph.D.
General Manager and CEO, Metropolitan Atlanta
Rapid Transit Authority and Chair, American
Public Transportation Association
March, 12, 2009
Chairman Dodd, thank you for this opportunity to present testimony
to the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs regarding
the next surface transportation authorization bill. You are holding
this hearing at a most propitious time, as APTA announced this week
annual ridership has reached new record levels. I truly appreciate your
interest in improving public transportation service in the United
States and I look forward to working with you as this next
authorization legislation moves forward in the upcoming year.
ABOUT APTA
The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) is a
nonprofit international association of nearly 1,500 public and private
member organizations, including transit systems and commuter rail
operators; planning, design, construction, and finance firms; product
and service providers; academic institutions; transit associations and
State departments of transportation. APTA members serve the public
interest by providing safe, efficient, and economical transit services
and products. More than ninety percent of the people using public
transportation in the United States and Canada are served by APTA
member systems.
OVERVIEW
We are extremely pleased to report that, despite falling gas prices
and an economic recession, increasing numbers of Americans took 10.7
billion trips on public transportation in 2008, the highest level of
ridership in 52 years and a modern ridership record. This news comes at
a particularly encouraging time for me and my colleagues within APTA in
light of the recent commitment to public transportation investment
demonstrated by President Obama and the Congress through the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act. While we are concerned about a specific
proposal in the Administration's FY2010 budget outline affecting the
treatment of transportation trust fund spending, contract authority and
budget scorekeeping, we are encouraged by the outline's renewed
commitment to public transportation and passenger rail investment.
This commitment is important for a variety of reasons. As the
members of this Committee know, America's population is growing at an
unprecedented rate. A 2006 cover story in USA Today that asks: ``Where
will everybody live?'' noted that while the U.S. population grew by 100
million people in the past 39 years, it will grow by another 100
million by 2040, producing a population of more than 400 million. As
APTA proceeded through a lengthy industry discussion of its
recommendations for the next authorization bill, we also conducted a
parallel ``visioning'' effort, known as TransitVision 2050, in which we
projected our industry view of the American transportation
infrastructure in the year 2050. Our conclusion: In 2050 America's
energy efficient, multi-modal, environmentally sustainable
transportation system powers the greatest nation on earth.
The challenge we face in fulfilling that vision rests on our
willingness as a nation to commit adequate resources to the task and to
provide a financing mechanism for these resources. It is not hard to
recognize the diverse and promising benefits of investment in public
transportation. Public transportation provides mobility that
contributes to national goals and policies to increase global economic
competitiveness, energy independence, environmental sustainability,
congestion mitigation and emergency preparedness. For an individual
user, public transportation saves money, reduces the carbon footprint
of households and provides people with choices, freedom, and
opportunities. To realize public transportation's many contributions at
the national and local levels, and to facilitate a doubling of public
transportation ridership over the next twenty-year period and address
the aforementioned national goals and policies, the American Public
Transportation Association (APTA) recommends a minimum Federal public
transportation program of $123 billion over the next 6-year
authorization period. In the near term, we also need the help of
Congress to address the precipitous decline in local and State
operating resources resulting from the current national economic
recession.
RECORD RIDERSHIP AND GROWING PUBLIC DEMAND
Nationally, public transportation ridership continues to set record
levels. One only needs to ride a train or bus during the morning
commute to recognize the growing demand, and to experience firsthand
the strains that demand is placing on systems. The demand and support
for public transportation is also obvious at the ballot box. Last year,
76 percent of ballot initiatives seeking taxpayer support for transit
investment were approved by voters. Clearly, citizens are willing to
pay for improved transit service.
People have experienced the pain of high gas prices, and they have
come to realize what an important and valuable role public
transportation service can play in their lives and their communities.
This week, APTA announced the most recent results of its annual
ridership report, and the news is both exciting and sobering.
In 2008, public transportation ridership reached 10.68 billion
trips and grew 4.0 percent compared to the same period in 2007. This
represents the highest level of public transportation ridership in 52
years, or since 1956. Transit ridership increased while vehicle miles
traveled on our highways systems actually declined by 3.6 percent.
Increases occurred in the vast majority of systems, with many
systems reporting double digit percentage increases. All 15 heavy rail
systems reported an increase in ridership. Seven of these systems
reported increases of more than 5 percent. Twenty-three of 28 light
rail providers reported ridership increases. Twelve of these systems
reported ridership increases of more than 10 percent. Twenty-one of 22
commuter rail systems reported ridership increases.
We will be challenged to maintain this pace of growth as fare
increases, service cuts, rising unemployment and a declining economy in
general begin to affect transit systems. As State and local revenue
sources have declined due to the current economy, many systems have had
to consider fare increases or service cuts that undermine transit's
ability to attract and serve increased ridership. Our hope is that
given the national priorities of energy independence, climate change,
and the economy, we as a nation, will be able to identify resources
that allow public transportation systems to continue to carry more
passengers. We should not turn our back on the years of progress we
have made in rebuilding a quality public transportation system.
These ridership gains force us to look for ways to meet the
increased demands on the existing system and to also expand service to
meet the growing needs for transit service in communities across the
nation.
TRANSIT INVESTMENT--STATE OF GOOD REPAIR
The maintenance of transit capital assets to ensure a ``state-of-
good-repair'' is critical. Deteriorating systems simply do not attract
new riders. Both the National Surface Transportation and Revenue Study
Commission and the recent report of the National Surface Transportation
Infrastructure Financing Commission have highlighted the growing gap
between our infrastructure needs and our present level of investment.
The Federal Government has a clear responsibility to maintain
infrastructure it has already spent considerable resources to build,
and also to expand that infrastructure to meet transportation needs.
Proper asset management is cost effective as well, as proper
maintenance today alleviates the need for much larger capital
investments in the future. The ARRA provided a first step in addressing
the backlog in system rehabilitation, but many systems across the
country still face significant needs to maintain their existing public
transportation assets. As we continue to maintain assets, we cannot
ignore the equally challenging demand for new and improved services
across the country where public transportation is not yet providing a
level and quality of service that provides a real alternative.
Ridership growth, economic growth, and unsustainable land-use
patterns all affect a transit system's total resources, and
specifically the decisions we have to make on system maintenance and
expansion. The fact is that the multi-level government financing needs
we face are undeniably tied to this delicate balance of growth and
asset management.
Mr. Chairman, when it comes down to it, the real issue before us
all is one of investment. Each of the Commission reports contains
strong recommendations to the Congress about the investment levels
needed in the nation's public transportation and highway systems.
APTA's estimate of the total annual resources necessary to maintain and
improve our systems to address our growing population and economic
needs is $59.2 billion.
All levels of government--Federal, State, regional, and local--must
increase their financial investment in transportation to overcome the
current shortfall, and the Federal Government must take a strong role
in the process. One of the proposals in our authorization
recommendations is the creation of incentives to increase State and
local investment in public transportation. Only through a cooperative
and coordinated effort among all levels of government to invest in
transit assets and services, can we fully address the needs of our
communities and your constituents.
ENERGY, SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE
Mr. Chairman, whether we try to address population growth, the need
for economic growth, or environmental and climate-based challenges,
clearly we must take steps to address both congestion and basic
structural issues that impact mobility, livability and sustainability.
I commend you, Mr. Chairman, on your recent letter to the President,
urging the creation of a White House Office of Sustainable Development.
We need new methods for tackling the problems of energy independence,
climate change, and sustainable development, and we see this office as
an important way to coordinate the myriad of Federal agencies and
policies that affect these issues.
APTA has urged Congress to use public transportation in the effort
to ensure clean air and the health of our residents. Reduced air
pollutants and better personal health and fitness are core American
goals--and public transportation is a good way to make these goals a
reality. APTA research prepared by Science Applications International
Corporation (SAIC) found, for example, that it takes just one commuter
switching from daily driving to using public transportation to reduce
the household carbon footprint by 10 percent. If that household driver
gives up the second car and switches to public transportation for all
solo travel, the household can reduce its carbon emissions up to 30
percent, which is a greater reduction than if the household gave up use
of all electricity. If quality transit service is available, public
transportation is the single most effective way an individual can
reduce their carbon footprint. However, we need to give more Americans
access to public transportation so they can make that choice. Increased
investment in our public transportation system will further advance
these goals.
As we have cited here in Congress on numerous occasions, transit
use results in a significant net reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions
and fuel consumption, and increased transit use must be a central
strategy in Federal climate and energy legislation. And existing public
transportation usage in the U.S. saves 37 million metric tons of carbon
dioxide annually--equivalent to the emissions from the electricity
generated for the use of 4.9 million households or every household in
Washington, DC; New York City; Atlanta; Denver; and Los Angeles
combined. Public transportation use saves the U.S. the equivalent of
4.2 billion gallons of gasoline annually--and more than 11 million
gallons of gasoline per day. That amount of savings is equivalent to
more than three times the amount of oil we import from Kuwait each
year. Mr. Chairman, it is for these reasons that APTA is legislative
efforts to ensure that future revenue from any climate change
legislation will be reinvested in transportation infrastructure and
operations that reduce greenhouse gases and fuel consumption.
Congestion in our large metropolitan areas continues to be a
problem, and will only get worse as most of the future population
growth is projected to occur in the largest of those areas. Public
transportation use is a critical component of reducing congestion.
According to the most recent Urban Mobility Report from the Texas
Transportation Institute (TTI), Americans living in areas served by
public transportation saved 541 million hours in travel time and 340
million of gallons of gasoline annually. Without public transportation,
congestion costs would have been $10.2 billion more that year.
Also, as this Committee well knows, public transportation and
housing are very closely interrelated. During your recent hearing with
the Secretary of HUD, Mr. Chairman, you highlighted this issue and
received the Secretary's commitment to work with this Committee.
Critical issues such as housing and transit-oriented development
demonstrate how public transportation promotes the practices and
principles of livable communities and sustainable development. As our
urban areas continue to grow it is important to realize that public
transportation acts as a catalyst for promoting compact, connected and
mixed-use development. These things make the provision of all
transportation, and public services and facilities more efficient and
effective while simultaneously helping achieve energy and environmental
goals. We truly thank you for your leadership here. This Committee may
also wish to consider advancing Federal policy that encourages or
incentivizes smart growth and transit oriented development decisions.
APTA PROPOSAL
As stated previously, APTA's proposal recommends an investment of
$123 billion over 6 years. This proposed increase in the program is
offered with a goal of meeting at least 50 percent of the estimated $60
billion in annual capital needs by the end of the authorization period
and to support a projected doubling of ridership over the next 20
years.
We are also urging that the transportation funding guarantees
should be strengthened to ensure that authorized funds are appropriated
each year to allow for the long-range planning, financing, and
leveraging needed to advance necessary investment in public
transportation capital projects and preserve and maintain the existing
public transportation infrastructure.
We recognize, however, that the guarantees can only be as strong as
the revenues backing them up, and APTA recommends that Congress should
take the necessary steps to restore, maintain and increase the
purchasing power of the Federal motor fuels user fee to support a
significant increase in the Federal investment for the public
transportation program. In order to meet the full range of needs, we
will have to employ multiple financing strategies. Our proposal also
recommends legislation that would promote the development of revenue
generated from innovative financing mechanisms, such as public private
partnerships, tolling and congestion pricing to supplement current
revenue streams.
We also have several proposals dealing with changes to the formula
programs. A long-held principle of the industry is that Congress should
preserve the ``needs based'' approach to the Federal public
transportation program. In this vein, our members have come to the
conclusion that the High Density and Growing States program is not
fulfilling its intended goals, as the associated formulas are impacted
by the decennial census and additional delays estimated at up to 3
years following census completion. It is APTA's hope that Congress
would consider modifying program to better address its intended
purpose.
Another program structure recommendation is offered in the interest
of balancing the various needs of our diverse systems. APTA recommends
modifying the current Bus and Bus Facilities program to create two
separate categories of funding, with 50 percent distributed under
formula, and the remaining fifty-percent available under a
discretionary program. Eligibility would remain the same within both
categories. We are also recommending the creation of a new Clean Fuels
Aging Bus Replacement Program that would direct funds to transit
agencies to replace aging buses in their fleets with new clean fuel
vehicles.
Also within the formula and bus programs, APTA supports legislation
to allow public transportation systems in urbanized areas of greater
than 200,000 population which operate less than 100 buses in peak
operation to utilize formula funds for operating purposes.
In SAFETEA-LU, APTA and the Congress created the Small Transit
Intensive Cities (STIC) program, which added a service factor to the
distribution of funds in small urban areas. Under the previous small
urban formula program, funds were only distributed on the basis of
population and population density. Under the old formula, communities
that provided significantly more transit service than other communities
with similar population factors received no additional funding to
support such service. The new STIC program was designed to address the
higher capital costs of those systems with significantly higher service
factors. APTA supports the continuation of the STIC program and it is
our hope that the failure to utilize the STIC formula under the ARRA
will not set a precedent for future formula program funding decisions.
In an effort to simplify current formula programs and increase
program effectiveness, APTA is recommending the creation of a new
Coordinated Mobility Program, which would consolidate three other
formula programs into one. The new program would combine the Job Access
and Reverse Commute, New Freedom, and Elderly and Disabled Formula
programs. The goals of the program and the eligible uses of funding
would remain consistent with the three prior programs, while planning
and coordination of services would be improved.
APTA is also recommending simplification of the fixed guideway
modernization program. Our proposal is based on assumptions that the
program funding will double, and that the program is needs based and
its elements would be straightforward and uncomplicated. APTA is
recommending that the current seven tiers be folded into a much simpler
two-tier formula program, and that the funds must be provided equitably
to all projects, without regard to population factors.
Additionally, within the capital investment programs, APTA is
recommending major changes to the New Starts and Small Starts programs.
Our recommendations are intended to simplify, streamline the rating,
review and approval processes to encourage faster completion of quality
projects.
When we discussed ridership earlier in our testimony, we noted the
challenge of meeting increased ridership demand in the face of
declining State and local revenues, which are the primary source of
transit operating support. During the debate on economic stimulus
legislation last summer, we also expressed concern about how higher
fuel costs were driving up transit operating costs. It is a simple
fact: since transit fares are set below market rates in order to
attract as many riders as possible, growing transit ridership will
increase total operating costs. APTA's authorizing principles urge
Congress to provide transit agencies with capital and operating
assistance to meet costs related to Federal requirements and costs
beyond their control. Therefore, we want to continue to work with this
Committee as it crafts authorizing legislation to ensure that the
Federal program provides the flexibility to pay for capital operating
costs associated with growing ridership, State and local resources that
are declining as a result of the ailing economy, potentially rising
fuel costs and other Federal requirements.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, we as an industry cannot operate and manage
the transit systems of the future without a fully trained and well-
prepared workforce. With this in mind, APTA has a Workforce Development
proposal for new and expanded training programs and initiatives, and
program funding that grows consistent with the growth of the overall
program.
We hope that the Committee and the Congress will review our full
list of authorization recommendations as you prepare to deal with this
critical legislation.
CONCLUSION
In summary, we urge this Congress to authorize a Federal transit
program with a 6-year investment level of $123 billion. We urge the
Congress to strengthen the funding guarantees important to long range
planning and capital budgeting needs. The next program will require a
wide variety of financing options, but the base program must restore
and increase the purchasing power of the Federal motor fuels user fee.
We strongly recommend adherence to the needs-based structure of the
program which has served public transportation so well for so long, and
we recommend a number of improvements to the program structure that
will ensure all transit systems access to adequate capital funding
while also simplifying the programs and speeding project delivery. And
again, our systems are struggling to maintain basic levels of service
in the face of declining State and local operating resources. We need
this Committee's help to address this financial crisis which threatens
our ability to fulfill our mission.
Chairman Dodd, we thank you and the Committee for allowing us to
provide testimony on these critical issues. We look forward to working
with you and the members of the Committee as you work to develop this
next critical authorization bill.
RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION OF CHAIRMAN DODD FROM RAY LaHOOD
Q.1. One of the significant improvements contained in
SAFETEA was the elevation of land use and economic development
factors in the competitive rating process for new transit
projects. This was done, in large part, because of the
demonstrated success of many New Start projects, including
those in Denver, Salt Lake City and Charlotte, which were
implemented with coordinated land use plans and investment to
spur economic development.
Despite the legal requirement that the Federal Transit
Administration consider these factors alongside questions of
ridership and environmental benefits, the FTA has not fully
implemented the statute, in my opinion, and instead focuses on
a more narrow cost-benefit analysis. Secretary LaHood, do you
agree that land use and economic development are important
factors in deciding which projects ought to receive Federal
funds? What steps is the Department taking in order to more
thoroughly rate projects on their land use and economic
development plans?
A.1. I believe very strongly in transit oriented
development and land use policies that promote livable
communities. The current Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
New Starts process includes an evaluation and rating of land
use which entails an examination of the existing population and
employment in the proposed project corridor, the transit
oriented plans and policies in place to direct future growth in
the corridor, and the demonstrated performance of these plans
and policies. Currently land use is weighted 50 percent of the
summary project justification rating, with the other 50 percent
being cost-effectiveness.
FTA currently considers economic development as an ``other
factor.'' FTA has been researching how economic development
benefits can be better measured and captured in the New Starts
evaluation process. FTA has convened several panels of experts
to discuss methods that might be employed and has funded two
research projects through the Transit Cooperative Research
Program which are ongoing. In addition, FTA recently published
in the Federal Register one proposed approach for evaluating
economic development benefits. The public comment period on
this proposal ended March 27th. FTA is currently reviewing the
comments received.
FTA is preparing to issue for comment a policy that will
incorporate the direction given by Congress in the SAFETEA-LU
Technical Corrections Act to give ``comparable but not
necessarily equal numerical weight'' to each of the project
justification criteria included in statute. FTA expects to
publish a draft proposal in the Federal Register and will seek
public comment before finalizing the approach.
------
RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR SHELBY FROM RAY LaHOOD
Q.1. Secretary LaHood, I am extremely concerned about
continuing to make investments in infrastructure without any
requirement for maintaining a state of good repair long-term.
In your testimony you reference the Rail Modernization Study
and the findings that there is a backlog of $50 billion in
unmet recapitalization needs at the Nation's seven largest rail
transit operators. However, these properties have received
billions in Federal funding for new projects. What can we do to
make certain that we adequately monitor and ensure the long-
term maintenance of these assets and what does the
Administration intend to propose on this front?
A.1. DOT is approaching this issue on two fronts:
First, we are looking at the capital maintenance and
replacement needs of transit agencies. Some of our largest
transit providers operate systems that are more than 100 years
old. It is a tribute to their stewardship that these systems
continue to attract significant ridership. However, funding for
these systems, although substantial, has not always kept pace
with their needs. In the Rail Modernization study we examined
the proportion of these needs that are provided through our
Fixed Guideway Modernization Program and found that the ``old
rail'' transit systems receive a substantially smaller
proportion of their needs than other systems, particularly
commuter rail. We are examining how the surface transportation
reauthorization formulas could change to more closely align
resources with state-of-good-repair requirements.
Second, we are implementing a ``State of Good Repair''
initiative at the Federal Transit Administration that will
focus on improving asset management practices throughout the
industry. FTA found that the agencies which participated in the
Rail Modernization Study have greatly improved their asset
management practices over the last decade, but that they still
have to catch up with industry practices in the highway and
public utilities areas. FTA is developing technical assistance
for transit agencies to help them in this regard, starting with
an Industry Roundtable on State of Good Repair in July 2009. It
will also include training and, as funding allows, improvements
to FTA's in-house asset management data base. FTA is examining
adding capital asset data reporting to the National Transit
Data base, to which all agencies that receive Federal funding
are required to report, so that we can better monitor the state
of good repair of our constituents.
Q.2. We have talked a lot today about the issues of smart
growth and sustainable development but I believe we must be
careful about adopting a one-size-fits-all approach. Promoting
``compact, connected and mixed-use development,'' does not
necessarily work in rural parts of the country the way it might
in more urban or suburban places. Mr. Secretary, how do we
encourage such land use and planning decisions while
maintaining local decisionmaking authority?
A.2. Ensuring that local decisionmaking authority is
respected in linking transportation plans and programs to
locally adopted growth patterns is exactly the purpose of the
transportation planning processes required under SAFETEA-LU,
and under surface transportation authorizations enacted since
1973. While SAFETEA-LU makes clear reference to the need for
close coordination between planning for transportation, land
use, and environmental quality, it does not prescribe the form
this should take. Instead, the law calls for local and State
officials, acting through transportation planning processes
conducted on a metropolitan area and statewide basis, to
consider the growth and development conditions of their
jurisdictions in reaching consensus with their colleagues on
future transportation spending priorities. This federally
required planning process provides the mechanism for local
officials to align transportation growth plans with planned
transportation investments. It also ensures that we maximize
the value of Federal transportation investments.
Q.3. Mr. Secretary, I am pleased to hear that you would
leave the decision regarding an increased reliance on the
general fund to Congress. However, this statement seems to run
counter to the Administration's budget proposal which indicates
a greater reliance on general fund revenues to finance
transportation projects. Could you elaborate on the budget
proposal and the proposed increased reliance on general fund
revenues in light of your comments to the contrary?
A.3. The Administration has not yet fully developed its
surface transportation reauthorization proposal. As a result,
the description of the fiscal year 2010 transportation budget
proposal in A New Era of Responsibility, Renewing America's
Promise is necessarily general. Thus, any discussion of the
reliance on general fund revenues for highway and/or public
transportation investment stems from the fact that the Highway
Trust Fund balance, particularly the Highway Account, is very
low, rather than from a determined policy position. I look
forward to working with you as we address the important issue
of surface transportation reauthorization.
------
RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR CORKER FROM RAY LaHOOD
Q.1. Under SAFETEA-LU and subsequent technical corrections,
funding was set aside for magnetic levitation projects. What is
the current status of applications for funding under that
program? As you are aware, there is a proposal to create a
route from Atlanta to Chattanooga and I was looking for a
status update.
A.1. FRA issued a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for
the grants to existing maglev projects east of the Mississippi
River on October 16, 2008 and accepted applications through
February 13, 2009. Applications were received from the Georgia
DOT for the Atlanta-Chattanooga project, from the Pennsylvania
DOT for the Pittsburgh project, and from the Baltimore
Development Corporation (BDC), a private corporation, for the
Baltimore-Washington project. The applications are being
reviewed and the Department of Transportation anticipates
awarding the $45 million during fiscal year 2009, as planned.
Q.2. How does the Department of Transportation and the
Federal Railroad Administration intend to allocate the funding
set aside in the stimulus package for high speed passenger rail
projects? Will projects like the Atlanta to Chattanooga route
be eligible for full consideration?
A.2. Our strategic plan for high-speed rail/intercity
passenger rail under American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
(ARRA) has been released. The Department is preparing and will
be issuing specific guidelines for States to use in applying
for ARRA high-speed rail funds. Applications will be evaluated
in a manner consistent with the strategic plan and guidelines,
and applicable provisions of the ARRA and the Passenger Rail
Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA) (Public Law 110-
432, Sections 301, 302, and 501, among others). As outlined in
that strategic plan, and as specified by President Obama's
March 20 memorandum on the use of Recovery Act funds, projects
will be selected based on transparent, merit based criteria,
including projects' ability to produce economic stimulus,
mitigate financial and implementation risks, and achieve the
goals for high-speed rail and intercity passenger rail
development specified in PRIIA.
Q.3. The FAA has been considering de-combining of the
Memphis air traffic control functions. Can you please provide a
status update on that situation, an explanation of the
evaluation process and the criteria for a justification for or
against de-combining this facility? Will you continue to work
constructively with all impacted parties while making a final
decision on this matter?
A.3. The FAA has decided to realign the Memphis air traffic
control functions effective June of 2009. This decision was
based primarily on the FAA's operational needs, but the
realignment also serves the best interests of the employees.
For nearly 20 years, the FAA has successfully realigned many
high traffic air traffic facilities including Chicago, Atlanta,
and Los Angeles. In each instance, the FAA does a thorough
review of all operational and safety consequences, which
includes controller training rates, and logistical factors
(such as the location of each facility). Additionally, during
the realignment planning process, the FAA requested feedback
from the National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA).
The agency invited NATCA to send participants to a Safety Risk
Management panel, but they elected not to participate. The FAA
will continue to work with employees and the union during the
realignment.
Currently, fully certified controllers at the Memphis
Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) must maintain
operational currency and position proficiency on 17 positions.
In comparison, controllers at the Atlanta TRACON--one of the
busiest facilities in the world--must stay current on only 12-
13 positions. Given the difference in traffic count and
workload at these two facilities, there are a
disproportionately high number of required positions at Memphis
which the FAA expects to reduce with the realignment.
Also, some controllers at the Memphis TRACON who are
capable of working tower traffic are not able to certify on the
approach positions in the TRACON, which leaves these employees
with fewer career options within FAA. The realignment offers
newer controllers better options, by allowing them to obtain
tower certification first, and then progress to the TRACON.
After the realignment, both MEM (Memphis Tower) and M03
(Memphis TRACON) will be at 91 percent certified professional
controller (CPC) staffing, and will have six controllers in
training. Overtime costs will be virtually eliminated in the
tower and significantly reduced in the TRACON. The time to
reach CPC status will also be reduced from 18 months to 30-35
weeks. By design, no employee will be negatively impacted and
in fact 17 (39 percent) of these employees will receive
immediate pay raises after the realignment ranging from $18,686
to $28,031.
------
RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION OF SENATOR BUNNING FROM RAY LaHOOD
Q.1. Secretary LaHood, as you may know, the Brent Spence
Bridge, which carries Interstates 71 and 75 over the Ohio
River, has been linked a potential toll fee. I believe the
Federal Government, not simply the people of Ohio and Kentucky,
should take responsibility for paying for the Federal
interstates that call the Brent Spence Bridge home. When the
final price tag is revealed for the Brent Spence Bridge, which
is expected to be a few billion dollars, will you work to make
the Brent Spence a top Federal priority--in terms of safety and
overall funding?
A.1. The Federal Government has and continues to take
responsibility for funding for Interstate System facilities in
partnership with State governments. Federal-aid funds are
allocated to all States according to a formula that takes into
account Interstate System lane mileage and vehicle miles of
travel. States have considerable flexibility on how these funds
may be allocated to their priority projects.
Due to the insufficiency of the Highway Trust Fund dollars
relative to State needs, beginning with the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) in 1991, Congress began
reducing Federal restrictions on tolling of Federal-aid
highways in order to provide flexibility to States to
supplement the apportionments they receive from the Federal
Government with direct user charges, including tolls and/or
congestion fees. For example, Section 129 of title 23, United
States Code, permits tolling on Interstate System bridges and
tunnels for the purpose of reconstruction, rehabilitation or
expansion of these facilities. The Value Pricing Pilot Program
permits tolling on Interstate highways, as well as bridges and
tunnels, for the purpose of managing demand. Tolls are also
permitted on existing Interstate System facilities under the
provisions of the Express Lanes Demonstration program, the
Interstate Reconstruction Toll Pilot program, and Section 166
of the U.S. Code pertaining to High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV)
facilities.
States have been responsive in taking advantage of the
flexibilities available in Federal legislation. In reports and
data bases prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff for the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA), available at: www.fhwa.dot.gov/
PPP/toll_survey.htm, the authors have focused on the role of
tolling in providing funding for U.S. highways, bridges and
tunnels. During the period from 1992 to 2008, i.e., after
enactment of the ISTEA legislation, of the average of 150
centerline miles of expressway-standard highway added per year,
between one-third to one-half were financed based on toll
revenues. The projects are on major highways, bridges and
tunnels for which States have generally found it difficult to
pull together the required funding. The reports identified new
toll road activity in 33 States and territories during 1992-
2008, involving 235 projects. Forty billion dollars in toll
projects have been completed, and an additional $120 billion in
toll projects are on the drawing boards or under construction.
The States of Ohio and Kentucky are not unique in seeking to
supplement their limited Federal Highway Trust Fund
apportionments with tolls to pay for the high costs for
reconstruction of the Brent Spence Bridge.
States have also been exploring other ways to raise funds
for major transportation investments. For example, the Kentucky
Legislature recently authorized $532 million in State revenue
bonds and $816 million in Federal Grant Anticipation Revenue
Vehicle (GARVEE) bonds for several important transportation
projects from State fiscal year 2009 through 2014. GARVEE bonds
were authorized by Congress so that States can leverage a
future stream of anticipated Federal grants to pay for up-front
costs for major capital improvements on the highway system such
as the Brent Spence Bridge.
The USDOT supports and encourages the type of out-of-the-
box thinking being demonstrated by the States of Ohio and
Kentucky. In addition to tolling authority, the USDOT provides
credit support to leverage toll revenues, including assistance
through the TIFIA and Private Activity Bond (PAB) programs.
FHWA's Office of Innovative Program Delivery is also available
to provide technical assistance through all stages of the
project development process, including procurement using
public-private partnerships in order to maximize the leverage
of future streams of revenues from tolling.
------
RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR SHELBY FROM JOHN
HICKENLOOPER
Q.1. Mayor Hickenlooper, as a mayor you appreciate the
importance of preserving local decision making related to land-
use and planning. How do you view this emphasis on smart growth
and sustainable development and how does the Conference of
Mayors believe such programs should be implemented nationwide?
How do you believe the rural versus urban difference can be
addressed without penalizing those that do not choose to
implement such policies?
A.1. Did not respond by publication deadline.
Q.2. I touched on the issue of New Starts with the
Secretary but I want your input regarding specific changes that
need to be made to the overall process to ensure that projects
continue to receive a thorough evaluation and move at a more
expeditious pace?
A.2. Did not respond by publication deadline.
Q.3. Are there specific policy impediments that prevent
transit systems from benefitting from economic development
opportunities in planning and designing new projects and if so,
could you identify them and offer specific policy changes?
A.3. Did not respond by publication deadline.
Q.4. I understand that private financing is not an option
in every situation, but I do believe that we can do a better
job of implementing innovative financing options rather than
always relying on federal dollars. Across the globe we see that
private investments are being made each year in public
transportation projects and I wonder why we aren't doing the
same here. Can you talk about some of the impediments that you
have experienced in pursuing such financing opportunities?
A.4. Did not respond by publication deadline.
------
RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR SHELBY FROM JOSEPH F.
MARIE
Q.1. Commissioner Marie, could you elaborate on the issue
of maintaining a state of good repair and what difficulties
systems encounter in doing so, specifically why the backlog is
so significant. How do we ensure that systems can maintain a
constant state of good repair? Finally, do you support
requiring systems to achieve and maintain a state of good
repair in order to receive additional Federal funding for new
or expanding systems? If not, why not?
A.1. Maintaining a transportation asset in good condition
is easier and less expensive than repairing one in poor
condition, but it has become increasing difficult to do so.
Over the past decade, both Federal and State gas taxes, the
main source of funding for transportation in Connecticut and
the nation, have remained flat, while inflation and the cost of
doing business have risen significantly higher. It is fair to
say that it is difficult to keep up with state-of-good-repair
projects, as costs have gone up and funding has remained
static. Simply put, we cannot do the same amount of projects
today, with the same funding amounts from a decade ago.
As buses and rail cars age, they need to repaired and
replaced. The infrastructure on which the rail system operates
requires routine inspection and repair. The maintenance
facilities that service all of the intermodal rolling stock
need to be maintained as well as updated to keep up with
technology changes. Everyday wear and tear on bridges and
highways requires continual maintenance, rehabilitation and
resurfacing. All this occurs as new demands are placed on our
systems each year. There needs to be a consistent increase in
Federal investment levels for these programs. The reality of
allowing many years to pass without changes to the Federal and
State user fees has substantially reduced purchasing power of
the surface transportation investment program.
While the Connecticut Department of Transportation believes
and adheres to a strategy of ``fix it first'', it is done along
with the ability for strategic capacity enhancement. (For
example, the Department is repairing the Pearl Harbor Memorial
Bridge in New Haven, Connecticut, but at the same time, adding
lanes to address capacity needs.)
It is important to recognize a significant distinction
between routine preservation and maintenance and major
overhauls and modernization of infrastructure systems, whether
they be highways or signal control systems for railroads, for
example. Many States and regional transit authorities are being
financially overwhelmed by costs associated with major
infrastructure replacement and modernization. The reality is
that our industry does a fundamentally effective job in
maintenance and preservation. While the cost associated with
these activities has risen, largely due to increased health
care costs for employees and inflation for things like asphalt
and concrete, the major drain on our resources is due to the
objective reality that much of our transportation
infrastructure has or is fast approaching the end of its useful
life cycle.
Connecticut and other States must have the resources to
preserve, maintain, modernize, modify, and increase system
productivity, and provide for strategic capacity improvements.
The implementation of performance measures and an asset
management program should help justify and direct funds for
state-of-good-repair projects, before significant dollars are
programmed for the expansion of the system.
Q.2. I touched on the issue of New Starts with the
Secretary but I want your input regarding specific changes that
need to be made to the overall process to ensure that projects
continue to receive a thorough evaluation and move at a more
expeditious pace?
A.2. I have had the opportunity to work on two highly
successful New Starts projects since 2002, in Minneapolis and
Phoenix. These projects moved rather expeditiously once the
grantees signed Full Funding Grant Agreements with the Federal
Transit Administration (FTA). In both cases, the projects were
completed within 3 years from the time construction activities
commenced. It is the extensive planning effort leading up to
that point that takes considerably more time and where FTA and
grantees must partner to facilitate the appropriate process
improvements.
One example I can give is the experience my current agency,
the Connecticut Department of Transportation (ConnDOT), has had
with the New Starts process as it has tried to design and
implement the New Britain-Hartford Bus Rapid Transit project.
First, the entire New Starts process has been built around
rail projects even though there are several bus rapid transit
projects in the New Starts pipeline. From the structure of the
cost estimate forms to the evaluation criteria used, there has
been little adaptation of the process to acknowledge that the
program funds bus rapid transit as well as rail rapid transit.
The New Starts requirement to compare the ``build'' project
with a lower cost alternative is also not handled consistently
by the process. A rail project often will look at enhanced bus
service including potentially bus rapid transit as the lower-
cost alternative for comparison and scoring purposes. But what
does a bus rapid transit project look at for as a meaningful
comparison with a lower-cost project? In many cases the
alternatives analysis has already defined bus rapid transit as
the lower cost alternative to other more capital-intensive
projects in the project area. Flexibility in the overall
process, in particular, project justification requirements and
the evaluation criteria are areas the Department would
recommend for review based upon our experience with the program
to date.
Further, ConnDOT, the sponsor of the busway project, is a
multi-modal agency with responsibilities in highway
construction, operation and maintenance, as well as being the
owner of the CTTransit bus system that provides 80 percent of
the bus service in the State, and the owner of the New Haven
Line, the nation's busiest single rail line, Shore Line East
commuter rail, Bradley International Airport, the second
busiest airport in New England, and two ferries across the
Connecticut River. ConnDOT expends about $1 billion a year on
construction projects in the various modes. And we have strong
systems built up over the years in quality control and project
management. However, the New Starts process forces us to
develop an entirely new system of project management plans and
processes as FTA looks for project processes to be
standardized. The duplication forced by that process, and the
delays built into the design and construction process will
result in much higher construction costs by the time the
project is ultimately built.
Finally, while we acknowledge and welcome the oversight
Congress requires of FTA in assuring wise management of public
funding, FTA should work with grantees to establish a more
balanced oversight approach. Rather than progressing the
project, Department staff is often diverted by new or
additional reporting required by FTA or their consultants,
rewriting a management plan, or preparing a new version of a
cost estimate for review. There needs to be balance in the
process that allows for successful management of the project by
States and other recipients and meaningful oversight by FTA.
Q.3. Are there specific policy impediments that prevent
transit systems from benefiting from economic development
opportunities in planning and designing new projects and if so,
could you identify them and offer specific policy changes?
A.3. The Department has not come across any major
impediments in the planning and design processes for new
projects. FTA is generally accommodating when it comes to
leveraging public and private investment in, for example, a
transit parking structure that may also have the ability to be
shared with a private, non-transit use. At the State level,
``home rule'' issues might allow a State agency to provide
incentives for a project, but it cannot mandate a certain
project for the benefit of commuters. So, the barriers may be
more at the local level than at the Federal level.
Q.4. I understand that private financing is not an option
in every situation, but I do believe that we can do a better
job of implementing innovative financing options rather than
always relying on Federal dollars. Across the globe we see that
private investments are being made each year in public
transportation projects and I wonder why we aren't doing the
same here. Can you talk about some of the impediments that you
have experienced in pursuing such financing opportunities?
A.4. Issues surrounding innovative financing options in
Connecticut generally surround the private sector's ability to
live up to their original agreements on a project. In several
instances, our partners have consistently returned to the State
for additional funding or project commitments, extension of
time and outright reneging on a proposal.
------
RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR SHELBY FROM BEVERLY
SCOTT, Ph.D
Q.1. Dr. Scott, could you elaborate on the issue of
maintaining a state of good repair and what difficulties
systems encounter in doing so, specifically why the backlog is
so significant. How do we ensure that systems can maintain a
constant state of good repair? Finally, do you support
requiring systems to achieve and maintain a state of good
repair in order to receive additional Federal funding for new
or expanding systems? If not, why not?
A.1. FTA has been actively evaluating the state of good
repair issue with an emphasis on some of the nation's largest
transit systems. This report will show that agencies do not
define the term consistently and that national definitions are
lacking within the transit industry. There is, no doubt, a
backlog of capital needs across the country and the current
Federal program must be expanded to fully meet these needs.
Though we agree that the current transit funding levels are
inadequate at current levels to fully meet the needs of transit
systems, we do not believe that receiving funds for new or
expanding service should be predicated upon meeting a state of
good repair. With regard to general policy, we cannot ignore
expanding needs and demands for transit service as regions grow
and prosper. Failing to provide adequate transit infrastructure
will limit a region's ability to invest in land use decisions
that will have long lasting benefits for economic development,
air quality and mobility. The absence of transit service will
deter high-density development needed to support transit
investment. Further, regions facing capacity constraints on
existing service will likely face limits on economic growth,
particularly if long term transit investments are in question.
As with the highway program, we must recognize both the
need to maintain our existing assets while providing new
capacity to meet growing demands. The answer is to provide
additional funding. The counter approach is to penalize systems
for a lack of Federal investment. Ridership growth, economic
growth, and unsustainable land-use patterns all affect a
transit system's total resources, and specifically the
decisions we have to make on system maintenance and expansion.
The fact is that the multi-level government financing needs we
face are undeniably tied to this delicate balance of growth and
asset management.
With regard to implementation, we already see the
weaknesses of the overly complex New Starts process which has
added countless delays and often cost to large projects across
the country. Conditional approval for new capacity based on the
achievement of a ``state of good repair'' will require a
complex assessment of how this might be defined, a likely
increase in data collection, and the implementation of a
Federal process to review an agency's success in meeting these
defined requirements. The addition of yet another difficult to
define and complex requirement will only further delay the
existing process required to add new transit capacity.
Q.2. I touched on the issue of New Starts with the
Secretary but I want your input regarding specific changes that
need to be made to the overall process to ensure that projects
continue to receive a thorough evaluation and move at a more
expeditious pace?
A.2. The New Starts process is an extremely cumbersome one
that requires streamlining. However, a simplified and
streamlined process need not jeopardize proper and appropriate
agency review. Even with improvements to the process that
simplify and expedite project delivery, the New Starts process
will still remain the most vigorous infrastructure development
process overseen by the Federal Government.
It is important to recognize that local project sponsors
develop projects through this long, difficult, and time
consuming federally mandated process. There should be clear
Federal decision points in the process that can be adhered to
and explained locally. Federal delays and requests for yet more
information increase project costs and can erode project
sponsors credibility and undermine support.
We are advocating for the creation of a simplified and
streamlined rating process that would expedite the delivery of
Small Starts, but have FTA oversight proportional to the
Federal contribution. In addition, the $75 million and $250
million thresholds established for Small Starts in SAFETEA-LU
should be escalated annually over the life of the bill.
Also we recommend the reestablishment of an exempt project
category as part of the New Starts/Small Starts program for
projects that require a modest amount of Section 5309 funding.
The $25 million threshold established in previous surface
transportation authorization bills should be increased to
reflect inflation since the threshold was established and it
should be escalated annually over the life of the bill to
reflect future inflation.
In order to streamline and simplify the New Starts review
and approval process to expedite project delivery, we are
recommending that Congress replace the current Section
5309(d)(5)(A) requirement that FTA approve the advancement of a
New Starts project into Preliminary Engineering with a
requirement that FTA approve a project into the New Starts
Program. Approval to enter the New Starts Program would convey
FTA's intent to recommend a project for funding, provided the
project continues to meet certain broad criteria and satisfies
NEPA and other project development conditions.
We are also recommending the elimination of the Section
5309(d)(5)(a) requirement that FTA approve advancement of a New
Starts project into Final Design. This additional step is
unnecessary and duplicative, as the initial entry into
preliminary engineering is already rigorous and should serve as
the primary decision point in the process.
We would like to see the concept of Project Development
Agreements (PDA) advanced as a management tool to minimize
uncertainties and reduce risks, with flexibility built in to
make changes to the agreement as the project evolves. The PDA
should include schedules and roles for both FTA and the grantee
and should define the criteria and conditions a project must
meet to streamline and expedite overall project delivery and
could be the basis for an Early System Work Agreement once the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process is completed
with a Record of Decision (ROD) or Finding of No Significant
Impact (FONSI).
Congress can also expedite New Starts project delivery by
expanding pre-award authority at the time of the NEPA finding
beyond just property acquisition to include preliminary
engineering, final design, and any early construction
activities that are advanced with local funds. Further,
Congress can expand the opportunities for advance property
acquisition by developing a class of acquisition for willing
sellers or friendly condemnation at fair market value. Provided
no alterations are made to the property prior to completion of
NEPA, this change in property ownership will not prejudice the
NEPA process.
We are also urging Congress to reinforce the full range of
factors that Congress has set forth in the statute for the New
Starts Rating Process. Clarify that in addition to considering
cost effectiveness, FTA must consider both transit supportive
land use and economic development in a way that simplifies and
does not make the New Starts rating process more complicated.
The FTA should recognize environmental benefits of a project,
including reductions in greenhouse gases and increased energy
efficiency. Also, the cost effectiveness index should be based
on the Federal Section 5309 share and the mandatory 20 percent
local match that go to the project costs, excluding funding
from other sources including private investment. Additionally,
local project sponsors should be provided with increased
flexibility to define the New Starts Baseline in a manner that
is more reflective of and responsive to local conditions and
priorities.
Finally, we are calling for the return of the Program of
Interrelated Projects (PIP) provision of ISTEA. It would be
very helpful to allow the individual projects in a program of
interrelated fixed guideway projects to move forward
simultaneously, in order to capture the inflation and overhead
savings that can result. Allow some projects within the program
of interrelated projects to be funded entirely with local
funds, and other projects in such a program to be funded with a
share of Federal New Starts funds. Allow a higher New Starts
share for individual projects using some Federal funds, without
prejudice to a project's financial rating, where the Federal
New Starts share for the entire program of interrelated
projects is 20 percent or less. This could serve as a greater
incentive to leverage State, local and private funds, for
certain projects that within the overall PIP. Federal
procedures should only be required for those projects/elements
utilizing Federal dollars.
Q.3. Are there specific policy impediments that prevent
transit systems from benefiting from economic development
opportunities in planning and designing new projects and if so,
could you identify them and offer specific policy changes?
A.3. Here again we are interested in the simplification of
the process as a whole. Our most pressing concern is the
prospect of adding burdensome analysis to the evaluation
process without concomitant value added to Federal oversight or
decisionmaking.
As expressed in our comments to the Docket in response to
the Notice of Availability of Discussion Paper on the
Evaluation of Economic Development [published January 26, 2009,
at 74 FR 4502], we believe economic development should be
measured through a mix of quantitative and qualitative measures
and metrics with the primary focus on the conditions and
benefits in the specific travel corridor and sub-area served by
the proposed project.
Transit supportive land use and economic development should
be viewed as distinctly separate measures in a way that
simplifies the New Starts rating process and doesn't require
FTA to use scarce resources hiring additional contractors to
conduct evaluations that yield little or no constructive data.
We believe that methodologies currently being considered could
cause significant additional burdens on grantees and
municipalities without a clear return in terms of promoting
better projects, or more effective Federal decisionmaking and
oversight.
Previous industry discussions relating to the
simplification of the New Starts process urge movement away
from attempts to quantify inherently unquantifiable factors,
and continue to work with the industry to find ways to look at
all New Starts projects in the context of corridor scale
evaluations. This approach would ``right size'' the level of
Federal oversight to the level of Federal risk. One way of
moving toward a more simplified process is to introduce a
warrant approach to project evaluation. In the warrant
approach, FTA would still establish criteria and measures that
projects need to meet but would identify certain conditions or
merits that, if met, would allow the project to advance without
the evaluation process currently used. This method is a strong
step toward simplifying the New Starts process and reducing the
cumbersome reporting and evaluation for both project sponsors
and FTA. In addition, we suggest under this warrants approach,
projects be tiered to address characteristics relating to a
corridor's density and other conditions important to the
community. For example, a warrants approach could establish
criteria for corridors to scope projects to maintain or expand
service depending on current and planned density size. Such an
approach would provide both for greater flexibility in the
program as we as expedite the delivery of projects large and
small.
Economic Development Evaluation
Under the current New Starts process, we have various
concerns regarding how Economic Development is defined and
evaluated. APTA addresses the primary concerns below.
Separation of Land Use and Economic Development as Project Measures
We believe that land use and economic development cannot be
combined as one measure. Although the two measures are related,
they should be treated separately and distinctly. The
distinction between general land use and economic development
could be incorporated into simple definitions, such as:
Land Use: the extent to which localities can
demonstrate policies and procedures are in place to
support development that promotes transit ridership
Economic Development: The extent to which developer
agreements or sponsor commitments contribute to
transit-supportive development as well as retaining
existing economic development patterns
While the measures are distinct and separate in their benefits and weight,
the related nature of land use and economic development provide an
opportunity for streamlining reporting and documentation. Documentation for
demonstrating economic development should not require an onerous amount of
detail to be added to documentation already required for land use. We have
encouraged the FTA to incorporate any new information on economic
development into the existing land use templates.
Warrants Approach versus Ratings Approach
A warrants approach as opposed to ratings could be
beneficially used for some of the measures. In the case of
warrants, thresholds could be established related to both
existing and potential future development. For the mature
highly transit oriented portions of a corridor, these
thresholds might be satisfied by existing land development,
while for less mature, less developed areas the potential for
further development would need to be assessed. For the former,
the focus should be on the extent to which there is already
significant economic activity and dense land use in the station
area. For the latter, the focus should be on the extent to
which there is potential for and commitment to higher density
and mixed use development. Among the factors to be considered
are existing station area conditions, supportive plans and
policies, and developer agreements.
Economic Development Benefit Measures
Economic development is difficult to measure through
strictly quantitative measures and we suggest that more focus
be given to developing qualitative factors that could be used
to indicate the potential economic development effect of
proposed projects. To the extent quantitative measures are
retained, they should be based on simple, easily gathered data,
similar to what is already required for land use criteria. FTA
could create a panel comprised of FTA and public transportation
system industry experts to develop a mix of appropriate
quantitative and qualitative judgments. Reviewers of land use
benefits may also be able to review economic development
benefits. Although economic development benefits are primarily
seen and supported on a corridor level, it is important to
acknowledge the system or region-wide benefits associated with
a region's investment in a corridor or a combination of strong
economic corridors, as well as areas adjacent to or near the
transit corridor. We encourage FTA to work with the industry to
develop a methodology to capture these benefits.
Some final comments and recommendations on the economic
development and how to move forward include:
FTA should identify a few demonstration projects in
order to work with project sponsors on simple
methodologies to measure economic development.
FTA should acknowledge that economic development
projects associated with concentrated land use in
station areas has the benefit of reducing the cost of
sprawl and projects should receive credit or, at a
minimum, not be rewarded for inducing sprawl.
Concerns regarding reporting on property value
assessment as an economic development indicator stem
from a lack of consistency of how properties are
assessed, even on a corridor level. There is
variability in property assessment that should be
acknowledged since assessments are often used for tax
purposes and updated rarely.
Q.4. I understand that private financing is not an option
in every situation, but I do believe that we can do a better
job of implementing innovative financing options rather than
always relying on Federal dollars. Across the globe we see that
private investments are being made each year in public
transportation projects and I wonder why we aren't doing the
same here. Can you talk about some of the impediments that you
have experienced in pursuing such financing opportunities?
A.4. One of the most significant challenges facing transit
agencies today is the onerous and unpredictable New Starts
process. Projects are required to provide detailed finance
plans to receive funding, yet private investors are unlikely to
consider investing in a project that may or may not receive
funding. Private investors seek predictability and
sustainability in their review of investment opportunities.
However, the New Starts process which requires finance plans at
the early stages precludes private investors from having the
certainty they seek. The private market will demand the ability
to ascertain risk, something made ever challenging by the
process used to obtain Federal funding for new projects. Add to
this, the recent rapid increase in construction costs, the
challenge facing long-term projects is further emphasized.
In order to encourage greater interest within the private
sector, Congress needs to reform the New Starts process to
speed project delivery and encourage earlier decisions and
commitments by the Federal Government.
Similarly, one of the most important catalysts in
generating private sector interest in projects is the
guaranteed funding of the underlying program. A full commitment
of long term financing and the certainty provided is what
drives private sector finance partners to a project, or away
from it. The FFGA process is part of this, but the underlying
program funding is of truly critical importance.
One of the best opportunities for private sector
involvement is in the joint development aspect of projects,
whereby the private sector can link private development
projects to transit facilities and stations in ways that both
provide financial incentives and opportunities for public and
private stakeholders. It is important to maintain maximum
flexibility for local project sponsors in the joint development
process.