    [Senate Hearing 111-340]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 111-340

               RAIL MODERNIZATION: GETTING TRANSIT BACK ON TRACK

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                                SUBCOMMITTEE ON
               HOUSING, TRANSPORTATION, AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

                                     of the

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                       BANKING,HOUSING,AND URBAN AFFAIRS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                       ON

     EXAMINING THE INVESTMENT THAT IS NEEDED TO KEEP OUR EXISTING TRANSIT
                                SYSTEMS THRIVING

                                   __________

                                 AUGUST 4, 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
    55-646                    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) 512-2104  Mail: Stop IDCC, 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

                        Edward Silverman, Staff Director

                  William D. Duhnke, Republican Staff Director

                           Dawn Ratliff, Chief Clerk

                          Devin Hartley, Hearing Clerk

                          Shelvin Simmons, IT Director

                              Jim Crowell, Editor

                                     ______

       Subcommittee on Housing, Transportation, and Community Development

                     ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey, Chairman

               DAVID VITTER, Louisiana, Ranking Republican Member

    TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota            KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
    JACK REED, Rhode Island              ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
    CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York         MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska
    DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii              MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
    SHERROD BROWN, Ohio                  MEL MARTINEZ, Florida
    JOHN TESTER, Montana                 JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
    HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
    MARK R. WARNER, Virginia
    JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon

                    Michael Passante, Transit Staff Director

                   Harold J. Connolly, Housing Staff Director

                  Travis M. Johnson, Republican Staff Director

                        Amit Bose, Legislative Assistant

                      Mitch Warren, Senior Policy Advisor

                       Shannon Hines, Republican Counsel

                                      (ii)

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                            TUESDAY, AUGUST 4, 2009

                                                                       Page

    Opening statement of Chairman Menendez...........................     1

    Opening statements, comments, or prepared statements of:
        Senator Akaka................................................     3

                                   WITNESSES

    Peter M. Rogoff, Administrator, Federal Transit Administration,
      Department of Transportation...................................     3
        Prepared statement...........................................    25
        Responses to written questions of:
            Chairman Menendez........................................    44
    Carole L. Brown, Chairman, Chicago Transit Authority.............    11
        Prepared statement...........................................    29
        Responses to written questions of:
            Chairman Menendez........................................    45
    John B. Catoe, Jr., General Manager, Washington Metropolitan Area
      Transit Authority..............................................    12
        Prepared statement...........................................    33
        Responses to written questions of:
            Chairman Menendez........................................    47
    Richard R. Sarles, Executive Director, New Jersey Transit........    14
        Prepared statement...........................................    36
        Responses to written questions of:
            Chairman Menendez........................................    48
    Beverly A. Scott, Ph.D., General Manager and Chief Executive
      Officer, Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority..........    16
        Prepared statement...........................................    39
        Responses to written questions of:
            Chairman Menendez........................................    49

                  Additional Material Supplied for the Record

    Letter from Thomas M. Blalock, President, San Francisco Bay Area
      Rapid Transit..................................................    52

                                     (iii)

               RAIL MODERNIZATION: GETTING TRANSIT BACK ON TRACK

                                  ----------

                            TUESDAY, AUGUST 4, 2009

                                           U.S. Senate,
        Subcommittee on Housing, Transportation, and Community
                                                   Development,
              Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee convened at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-538,
    Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Robert Menendez
    (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN ROBERT MENENDEZ

        Chairman Menendez. Good afternoon. This hearing will now be
    in order.
        Let me say that we take very seriously our responsibility
    on this Subcommittee over the jurisdiction that we have over
    transit issues because certainly in my home State of New
    Jersey, I believe that we are a transit leader. New Jersey
    invests 40 percent of our transportation capital in transit,
    and as a result, we are the only State where 10 percent of
    workers who commute by transit.
        I have worked hard this Congress to show how increased
    Federal investment in transit could result in the continued
    expansion of public transportation options and in turn
    facilitate economic growth, create jobs, improve energy
    security, lower greenhouse gas emissions, anchor more
    sustainable communities, and alleviate traffic.
        But today, I want us to look at the investment that is
    needed to keep our existing transit systems thriving.
        In April, the Federal Transit Administration released a
    pretty astonishing report. It estimated that at just the seven
    largest transit agencies, there is a $50 billion backlog in
    projects needed to maintain a state of good repair. To address
    this backlog over 12 years, the same report estimated that
    spending on these needs would have to almost double, from $5.4
    billion that was spent in 2006 to over $10 billion per year. In
    short, the report says that if we do not increase our
    investment in upgrading and maintaining transit systems soon,
    we will inevitably face a crisis.
        The April 2009 FTA report gave us the facts and the
    figures, but I think we can all agree that the real wake-up
    call about the condition of our Nation's transit equipment was
    the tragic events of June 22 of this year. On that day, just
    after 5 p.m., a Washington Metro train plowed into another
    train that had stopped on the same track. Nine people,
    including a train operator, were killed and 80 were injured.
        Our thoughts and prayers are with all of those affected by
    this terrible accident, and one of the most important things
    we, the Federal Government, can do to honor the memories of
    those who died in this tragedy is to provide agencies the
    resources needed to keep this from happening again. The
    investigation of the cause of the crash is ongoing, but one of
    the factors the National Transportation Safety Board is looking
    at closely is the computerized signal and operation system and
    other aging equipment.
        Going forward, we need to make sure this tragedy is not
    repeated. I want to be clear that I believe that the Washington
    Metro system is safe and that WMATA, working with the National
    Transportation Safety Board, will learn from this tragedy and
    make sure it is not repeated.
        But as a Federal Government, we need to ensure that we are
    adequately monitoring and providing resources to keep these
    systems running efficiently and safely. We will hear testimony
    from the FTA and from transit agencies around the Nation about
    how we can do better, but there are a few areas I hope I can
    get each of you to touch upon.
        It is clear that we need more funding for the Rail
    Modernization Program. I believe the Committee needs to
    consider whether we need a temporary funding regime to get
    through the, quote, ``state-of-good-repair'' backlog and
    perhaps even explore emergency spending authority as situations
    arise that are particularly urgent or acute. I would like to
    hear your ideas about funding needs and about how best to
    structure those investments.
        In addition to the additional funding that may be needed, I
    think the FTA should work with agencies to more effectively use
    the resources they already have. To that end, I believe the FTA
    should develop a program to provide technical assistance to
    help these agencies manage and maintain their assets.
        I also know there is a lot of interest in and quite
    differing views on whether and how to modify the existing Fixed
    Guideway Modernization Fund formula. I don't want this hearing
    to become a squabble between transit systems, but nevertheless
    I would like to have input on the topic.
        There were several agencies that wished to participate
    today but could not. I welcome them to provide their input to
    the Committee in writing on this or any other topic.
        Last, I think we need a better understanding of what the
    definition of, quote, ``state of good repair'' is so that the
    FTA and all our agencies are on the same page. We also need to
    develop a system to report the condition of transit assets. I
    do not want transit systems to be bogged down in red tape,
    having to report the condition of every nut and bolt, but it
    does appear that we need more information and transparency.
        So I look forward to hearing from all of you on our two
    panels, starting off with our distinguished Administrator of
    the Federal Transit Administration, and to think together how
    we can ensure that our Nation's fixed guideway systems continue
    to serve our communities as safely and as smoothly as possible.
        Before I turn to the Administrator, I ask my distinguished
    colleague from Hawaii, Senator Akaka, if there is any statement
    you want to make at this time.

                  STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. AKAKA

        Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to
    thank you for convening this Subcommittee hearing on Housing,
    Transportation, and Community Development and to welcome our
    witnesses.
        Mr. Chairman, an essential component of the next Surface
    Transportation Reauthorization will be increasing the
    availability of resources to repair, upgrade, and expand rail
    transit systems. Although it is important to repair and
    modernize our Nation's existing rail infrastructure, we must
    also continue to develop rail in areas without existing systems
    to improve the mobility of residents and promote smarter
    growth.
        The City and County of Honolulu continues to develop its
    rail system. The local contribution toward the project will
    likely be 70 percent of the project costs, but it will still
    need significant Federal support.
        I thank our witnesses for appearing today and look forward
    to working with the Members of the Committee and the
    Administration to increase the resources available for transit.
        Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for conducting this hearing.
        Chairman Menendez. Thank you, Senator Akaka.
        We will start with our first panel. We are going to have
    two panels. Our first is our distinguished Administrator of the
    Federal Transit Administration, Peter Rogoff. This is his first
    appearance before the Subcommittee, and I have to say it has
    been a pleasure to work with an Administrator who understands
    the Senate as well as the national transportation issues so
    well, so we look forward to a long-term relationship and
    particularly your thoughts today on the critical issue of what
    is at the heart of transit's ability to operate in the 21st
    century.
        So with that, Mr. Administrator, the floor is yours.

              STATEMENT OF PETER M. ROGOFF, ADMINISTRATOR,
      FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

        Mr. Rogoff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Akaka. Let
    me say, it is quite warm to return to the Senate and be among
    old friends again and we are very pleased to have the
    opportunity to discuss the state of good repair of our Nation's
    public transportation systems today.
        In the interest of both the safety and the reliability of
    our public transportation systems, it is imperative that we
    aggressively address and stay on top of their aging condition.
    Deferred maintenance items, if deferred long enough or left
    undetected, can and do become critical safety risks. As such,
    the issue of the condition of our transit infrastructure and
    the safety of our transit systems are inextricably linked.
        The FTA's role in the safety oversight of these systems is
    extremely limited as a matter of Federal law. We are
    statutorily prohibited from establishing national safety
    standards for a large segment of the Nation's rail transit
    systems or any of the Nation's bus transit systems. The new
    Administration finds this status quo to be unacceptable and we
    expect to propose reforms.
        Secretary LaHood has established a multimodal committee to
    identify alternative approaches to address what we consider a
    gap in transit safety oversight. We look forward to proposing
    reforms to Congress soon. But even with our limited safety
    authority, please know that the FTA continues to regularly
    assess the condition of transit infrastructure and disseminate
    and encourage best practices by the industry.
        As we address this issue of the state of good repair and
    the related issue of safety, it is essential that we regularly
    remind ourselves that rail transit remains an extraordinarily
    safe way to travel, far safer than traveling on our highways.
    Two of the transit agencies you will hear from on the next
    panel, CTA and WMATA, have endured 14 and 13 onboard
    fatalities, respectively, in the last 33 years. While each of
    those fatalities represents a tragedy, the fact is that highway
    accidents in the metropolitan areas of Washington and Chicago
    claim at least that many lives every month.
        Despite the overall safe record of the industry, the NTSB
    has been called in to investigate several transit-related
    accidents in the recent past. The NTSB investigated a Chicago
    Transit Authority derailment on the Blue Line back in July of
    2006. That accident resulted from the failure of a track
    structure and resulted in 152 fatalities--excuse me, 152
    injuries. This lag screw served as one of thousands holding CTA
    rails to ties in the area of the Blue Line derailment. As you
    can see, it is corroded and deformed. At the time of the
    accident, you could pull screws like this right out of the rail
    with your bare hand. This equipment dated back to the original
    installation of the Blue Line in 1951 and was never replaced
    until after the accident.
        Importantly, the NTSB report on this accident stated that
    the derailment should serve, quote, ``as a wake-up call to all
    transit agencies with equipment and infrastructure that ages
    with each passing day.'' The NTSB finding speaks to the very
    core of our challenge. The infrastructure is aging with each
    passing day. But in fostering safety and maintaining a state of
    good repair, we can't limit our focus just to the age of
    transit systems or to the age of any single piece of equipment.
        As heavy rail agencies go, the Washington Metro System is a
    very young agency. Many of our new rail systems are using newer
    technologies for which we do not yet have a lot of experience
    in the field. This is especially true in some of the newer
    light-rail deployments. Indeed, Washington Metro some years ago
    was required to pull out and replace track signaling equipment
    well before the end of its expected service life.
        So for some systems, the biggest risk factor may be a 56-
    year old lag screw like this one. But for other systems, the
    biggest safety risk could be in the programming of a circuit
    board that may only be 1 or 2 years old.
        For these reasons, to ensure safety and a state of good
    repair, we must take a comprehensive safety management approach
    that identifies, analyzes, and controls all potential risks. We
    must have systems which demand continuous improvement, where
    all employees from the CEO to the wayside worker are held
    accountable for safety.
        There is also a vital human factor to safety that cannot be
    ignored. If important maintenance and renewal are deferred, it
    sends a very negative message to employees who must work in
    those deteriorating conditions. Employees that report critical
    maintenance needs and see little or no response by management
    may start to wonder whether they should continue to report
    those problems.
        Importantly, our transit systems are busier than they ever
    have been before. We registered a record 10.3 billion transit
    trips in the United States last year. Our transit agencies are
    working their equipment long and hard to keep up with demand,
    and that pace of activity takes a toll both on people and
    equipment.
        All of these factors point to the need for each and every
    transit agency to have a systemic safety and asset management
    program in place. They also point up the need for adequate and
    reliable funding from all levels of government.
        Marginal or poor transit infrastructure conditions persist
    despite FTA's increasing financial support through the Fixed
    Guideway or ``Rail Mod'' Program, as it is known, as well as
    increasing support through the Urbanized Area Formula Grant
    Program.
        At the local level, we find that the systems that are
    adequately financed are those with a dedicated local funding
    source that provides a predictable revenue stream, a revenue
    stream that allows for long-term capital investment
    commitments. So, for example, New Jersey Transit has benefited
    from substantial investment from New Jersey's own
    Transportation Trust Fund. Other agencies are authorized to
    draw a designated amount from a sales tax or a property tax or
    other taxes. Other agencies, like WMATA, have no dedicated
    funding source.
        The solution to better and sustained transit infrastructure
    investment is not going to be found solely at the Federal,
    State, or local level. The key will be to make it a priority at
    all levels and to insist that industry make their investments
    in a way that addresses their most critical safety
    vulnerabilities first.
        To foster this concept, FTA has made state of good repair
    an agency priority. As you pointed out, Mr. Chairman, in April
    2009, we published a State of Good Repair Study. That study was
    reported by Senator Durbin and other Members of this Committee,
    including yourself and the then junior Senator of Illinois,
    Senator Obama. That study assessed the level of capital
    investment required to attain and maintain a state of good
    repair for the Nation's seven largest rail systems, and as you
    pointed out, those rail systems carry 80 percent of the
    Nation's rail transit ridership and revealed an unmet
    recapitalization need of some $50 billion.
        In order to assist agencies in correcting this backlog, FTA
    is developing a Transit Asset Management Training Course and
    conducting a review of U.S. and international agency asset
    management practices. At Secretary LaHood's direction, we are
    also expanding on this study. We are going to take in a broader
    universe of transit agencies. We are going to look not just at
    the same definition of state of good repair, but we are also
    going to try to solve what is one of the more vexing problems,
    and that is to identify that portion of deferred maintenance
    that is truly safety critical. We will be working with industry
    on trying to better define what safety critical infrastructure
    composes.
        With that, I want to thank you for the opportunity to
    testify and I am happy to take any questions you may have.
        Chairman Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Administrator.
        Let me ask you, you spoke in your testimony about how
    commuter rail systems are regulated by the Federal Railroad
    Administration while other systems, like light rail systems,
    are overseen by State safety oversight agencies. Should the
    safety of all rail be under the Federal Railroad
    Administration? Should we enhance FTA powers? Should we keep
    the structure the same? What are your views on it?
        Mr. Rogoff. Mr. Chairman, Secretary LaHood has formed this
    committee to get to the heart of just that, and what I tell you
    at this point, the Secretary not having signed off on any
    recommendations--we just gave him an update of our work the
    other day--what is more important than whether the FTA does it
    or whether the FRA does it is that someone does it who has the
    teeth and the authority and the funding and the personnel to
    really compel the attention of the transit agencies, and that
    really is the concern that we have with the current system with
    SSOs.
        We have got, I think, a total of 28 of them. The average
    FTE strength, the average personnel strength of these agencies
    is 1.1 FTE per agency, per year. These are largely----
        Chairman Menendez. FTE meaning full-time employee?
        Mr. Rogoff. Yes. Basically, slightly more than one person.
    Now, if you take California out of the mix, which has a 12-
    person agency, you actually have less than one person, on
    average, for the remaining agencies, and what that tells us is
    this is really being treated as a collateral duty within State
    Departments of Transportation, where many of the State
    departments have stood up the bare minimum in order to comply
    with the Federal regulation that an SSO exist.
        When I testified on this issue in the House, I testified
    next to a representative of the SSOs and they, too, were
    testifying on behalf of additional authority so they could
    have--I think the only other way to describe it is some teeth
    in order to compel the attention of the agencies they oversee.
        We also have a concern about the independence of some of
    these organizations. Some of them rely for their funding on the
    very transit systems that they regulate. This is not a
    situation that we allow really in any other area of
    transportation safety enforcement at the Federal level.
        Chairman Menendez. When do you expect the Secretary to
    issue a report?
        Mr. Rogoff. We are going to be working through August on
    this. We hope to get it out as early in the fall as possible.
    We have had several meetings already and we will be having an
    updated meeting with stakeholders and others shortly.
        Chairman Menendez. We will look forward to hearing from you
    as soon as possible.
        I have got a poster here that one Washington Post
    cartoonist thinks it might be a good idea to create a, instead
    of a ``cash for clunkers,'' a ``cash for rail cars.'' I don't
    know if that is a good idea or not, but I do wonder, even in
    the Recovery Act where we put $750 million, which was a nice
    movement forward in rail modernization, but it really, when you
    are looking at $50 billion, doesn't make much of a dent.
        How do you--what is your view as to how we meet some of
    these very significant needs? I mean, we are talking about we
    want to move people increasingly to transit. We learned with
    the spike in gas prices the consequences of not doing so, and
    Americans increasingly move at some of the greatest ridership
    levels that we have seen in quite some time, and they have
    stayed there because most of these systems are efficient, they
    are effective, and increasingly, we want to make them safer,
    and safety is an incredible part of what we need to promote at
    the end of the day.
        But as we drive people to these systems that we want them
    to participate in, to get off the roads, to have a high-speed,
    nonpolluting system that ultimately gets them to their
    opportunities for work or entertainment or even go to a
    doctor's visit, whatever, at the end of the day, we can't
    guarantee that we will have the type of systems that we want to
    attract that ridership and to do all of the positive things
    that flow from that if we are looking at $50 billion in costs
    that your agency has documented.
        So what is your sense of this? Should we have a large
    temporary program to deal with the backlog? Should we increase
    funding for existing programs? And finally, as part of that
    answer, if you can talk to me about--I have heard two basic
    arguments about how to reform rail modernization funding. Some
    argue that the only sensible way to divide the funding is by
    need. Others argue that that gives a perverse incentive for
    local agencies and instead agencies should be rewarded for
    performing well on maintenance. Are either of those strategies
    workable or should we be funding based on objective criteria
    like the age and size of the system?
        So how do we meet the challenge that we have of $50 billion
    of your agency's own determination of work to be done, how do
    we go about that, and then what is the policy decisions to be
    made about, as we meet the financial challenge, how does that
    get disbursed?
        Mr. Rogoff. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think you spoke to one of
    the solutions in your opening statement. Are more resources
    needed from all levels of government? I think so. We also need
    to get agencies to do a much better job of targeting those
    investments on their most vulnerable assets, and there are two
    elements to that.
        I talked in my opening statement about safety critical
    assets, but I think it is important to point out that certain
    assets that we don't view as safety critical actually have a
    very real impact on transit ridership and the reliability of
    transit service.
        So, for example, crowded platforms, disabled air
    conditioners, escalators that are inoperable, those might not
    be viewed as safety critical, but they can move people out of
    the transit service and back onto the highways. And actually,
    when you move people from transit back to highways, you have
    degraded safety because you are about, based on the recent
    numbers, about 45 times more likely to die from an accident on
    a per passenger mile basis on the highways than in transit. So
    I think it becomes a safety critical issue.
        Now, on the overall issue of what kind of program should be
    stood up, I would make the following observations. First, I
    think you want to do a link with additional funding to better
    asset management. That is not to say that the best definition
    is going to come from within the beltway of Washington, DC.
    This is something that we have been working with our grantees
    on for some time and plan to continue to work on them, both
    through roundtables and a dialogue.
        There is a very diverse universe of practices out there
    among the transit agencies on how best to attack their
    deferred--not only to identify what their most critical
    deferred maintenance is, but also to address it.
        I think as it relates to the formula, I would just make
    this observation. It is always delicate when an Administration
    official tries to opine on a formula, but I would say that the
    current formula is clearly a bit of a hodgepodge. It is hard to
    divine precisely what the strategic goal of it is because you
    have seven different tiers of funding, seven different
    distributions when different agencies come into eligibility at
    different levels of funding.
        I think you do sort of want to define what the goal is and
    then build a formula around it, and I think importantly, as
    part of that goal, you talked about perverse incentives. You do
    want to do something about a mandated level of effort on the
    part of the State and local government because we clearly have
    examples of certain agencies who fell into more dramatic
    disrepair due to the absence of attention on the part of State
    and local government. If you merely take a snapshot of who is
    in the worst shape now, you do run the risk of not
    appropriately rewarding State and local governments who did the
    right thing.
        Chairman Menendez. Thank you very much.
        Senator Akaka.
        Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Again, welcome, Administrator Rogoff. I know you are quite
    familiar with the Honolulu Rapid Transit Project----
        Mr. Rogoff. Yes, sir.
        Senator Akaka. ----and let me say that the project, as you
    know, completed its FTA compliant alternative analysis study
    more than 2\1/2\ years ago. It has been awaiting approval from
    FTA to enter preliminary engineering since then. And in the
    meantime, the City and County of Honolulu has been collecting
    dedicated local tax revenues amounting to more than $300
    million to fund its overmatch share of the project.
        Before your arrival there, Honolulu's somewhat protracted
    process of getting to PE seems to be similar to challenges that
    other cities have faced. Recognizing that the Administration
    will have recommendations for statutory changes as a part of
    reauthorization, and this is my question, are there other
    actions, other actions that you can take in the short term that
    do not require legislation that could help expedite the FTA
    project approval process?
        Mr. Rogoff. Yes, sir, there are, and we have just begun to
    take some and we look forward to taking more. There really are
    three universes of--three discrete universes of changes. One is
    just a change to agency guidance. We just published in the
    Federal Reserve last week a series of changes that are oriented
    toward eliminating paperwork burdens that, frankly, haven't
    been necessarily impactful to the process and we hope to do
    more.
        Regulatory changes are something that we are working up
    currently, but will take more time. But some of these involve
    eliminating steps in the process that are either duplicative or
    not necessary and don't necessarily influence the final
    outcome--the final decision by the agency on whether to
    participate or not.
        So, for example, and I am not saying that we have endorsed
    or not any of these proposals, but among the things being
    talked about is there is, you pointed out, the alternatives
    analysis that Honolulu went through. There is an alternative
    analysis process for the Federal Transit Administration and
    there is a whole separate alternatives analysis process for
    compliance with NEPA and we are thinking long and hard about
    why we really need to have both and whether we could eliminate
    a step right there.
        We are also looking at areas where, especially for more
    experienced transit agencies that might not need as much
    technical assistance from the agency in the early stages,
    perhaps they come in for a funding determination by presenting
    a whole package later in the process rather than having to go
    through the AA, PE, final design, grant approval process.
        So these are all things that we are looking at. This is
    another area where we hope to come forward with something in
    the near term. There are many other elements of the
    Administration that are going to have to opine on our ideas as
    we bring them forward and obviously the overall level of
    resources for the program will matter to how many projects we
    can bring into the system.
        Senator Akaka. Thank you for that.
        With respect to the Administration's proposed 18-month
    extension of existing highway and transit programs, can you
    explain how that 18-month extension might impact projects
    seeking the execution of the full funding grant agreement
    during the 18-month extension period? Also, will the FTA have
    sufficient funding authority during that 18-month period to
    enter into full funding grant agreements with those projects
    that will be ready to begin construction during that period?
        Mr. Rogoff. Well, the issue of what we commonly refer to as
    contingent commitment authority will depend on the duration of
    the reauthorization. At present, the amount of contingent
    commitment authority we get is dictated by a 3-year snapshot of
    resources from the program. I understand that there is
    legislation being considered in the Senate that might expand
    that to 5 years. But importantly, the wider the snapshot, the
    more resources we have.
        One of the reasons why we did put forward an 18-month
    reauthorization package was to try to provide some stability to
    the program, not just for transit new starts, but for transit
    formula funding so that transit agencies know what they should
    be expected to receive, and for that matter, on the highway
    side, what our highway agencies should know what they should
    receive. So we will obviously use the authority we have.
        The short answer to your question is, no, there would be
    some that would be potentially ready to go to construction that
    if we received no additional contingent commitment authority
    could be slowed down.
        Senator Akaka. Thank you. Thank you very much. My time has
    expired, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Menendez. Thank you, Senator Akaka.
        Let me ask you one last question, and then we will let you
    go. Is there a well-accepted definition of what is a ``good
    state of repair''? Are the FTA and the transit agencies on the
    same page on this point?
        Mr. Rogoff. I do think it is a matter of the FTA being on a
    different page than the transit agencies. I think there are
    probably somewhere between 8 to 12 different pages out there.
    But even the major transit agencies do not necessarily seek to
    capture the same definition. Some focus just on the age of
    assets. Some focus on the age and recapitalization of those
    assets. Some have a more robust effort to try and capture what
    their backlog is. Some seek to try and get to a state where
    they show no backlog. Some recognize that they will always have
    a backlog and it should be at a certain time period, a certain
    number of years that they can ensure it.
        So we have been working with our transit agency partners to
    try and coalesce around a single definition. Sometimes those
    definitions are driven a little bit about the resource envelope
    that the agency has to work with. So I think there is room for
    improvement and plenty of opportunity for more dialogue to try
    to coalesce around a single definition, especially when you
    start thinking about basing either Federal formulas or Federal
    mandates around it.
        Chairman Menendez. Well, maybe we can find a way to
    incentivize that.
        Mr. Rogoff. Yes, well, like I said, we have had continual
    meetings. We just had a state-of-good-repair roundtable with a
    bunch of agencies that was hosted by Mr. Catoe at WMATA and the
    FTA just a few weeks ago, and that was not a single event. We
    are going to continue to have that dialogue going forward.
        Chairman Menendez. Well, thank you very much. Seeing no
    other Members before the Committee, Mr. Administrator, I look
    forward to hearing from you again.
        Mr. Rogoff. Thank you.
        Chairman Menendez. Thank you very much for your service.
        With that, let me call up the second panel. It is a very
    outstanding group of some of the Nation's leading local transit
    agencies, and as I call you up, if you would start coming up,
    please, I would appreciate it:
        Carole Brown, who is the Chairwoman of the Chicago Transit
    Authority. Ms. Brown represents one of the oldest and most
    active agencies in the country. Her private sector experience
    has proved helpful as the Chicago Transit Authority meets its
    escalating challenges, and we look forward to learning about
    CTA's unique needs and how it is utilizing existing funding.
        John Catoe, who is the General Manager of the Washington
    Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, a system that uniquely
    serves the Federal Government and has recently suffered some
    tragedy. The Subcommittee appreciates you taking time to appear
    before us during these challenging times at WMATA, and we are
    looking forward to your testimony, as well as please accept the
    Subcommittee's condolences for the tragedy that happened in
    June and our willingness to work constructively with you to
    help moving forward.
        Richard Sarles, the Executive Director of New Jersey
    Transit, has a compelling story to tell about its success and
    the state-of-good-repair efforts, and I think my home State
    system has lessons to share, and we look forward to hearing
    those.
        And Dr. Beverly Scott, who is the General Manager and Chief
    Executive Officer of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit
    Authority, MARTA, and Chair of the American Public
    Transportation Association. You have two hats here, Dr. Scott.
    So she will bring in the perspective of an agency that was not
    in the April 2009 FTA Rail Modernization Study but has
    substantial needs, and we readily recognize that the national
    rail modernization needs exceed those that are stated in the
    study. And she will also be able to give us some thoughts as
    the Chair of the American Public Transportation Association.
        I wanted to get you all up. We are going to shortly be
    having votes, so we will move along as far as we can and recess
    when we are compelled to go the floor and have three votes,
    which will mean that when we recess, we are going to be about a
    half-hour in recess as we do those three votes. But I would ask
    you to try to limit your testimony to 5 minutes so we can get
    to questions. Your full statements will be included in the
    record, and with that, Ms. Brown, why don't we start with you?
    If you would just put that microphone on.

        STATEMENT OF CAROLE L. BROWN, CHAIRMAN, CHICAGO TRANSIT
                               AUTHORITY

        Ms. Brown. Thank you, Chairman Menendez and thank you for
    the opportunity to testify today and talk about the needs of
    Chicago's transit system.
        As you stated, my name is Carole Brown, and I am the
    Chairman of the Board of the Chicago Transit Authority. We are
    the second largest transit agency in the country. We carry
    nearly 1.7 million rides a day on 242 miles of track and 154
    bus routes throughout Chicago and Cook County, and we are the
    primary transit agency in northeastern Illinois. We carry 80
    percent of the transit riders in the region, and we operate the
    ``L,'' which is the elevated train system that has become an
    iconic symbol of Chicago.
        Sadly, that iconic symbol is aging and in poor health, as
    is our bus fleet and our subway system. Our oldest elevated
    rail, the North Mainline, was built between 1899 and 1900; our
    oldest subway, the State Street Red Line, was built during
    World War II; and our oldest rail car still in operation dates
    to 1969. It has 1.7 million miles on it; and our oldest bus
    garage was built in 1907.
        We have a $6.8 billion, 5-year unfunded state-of-good-
    repair need. This is in addition to our current fully funded 5-
    year, $3 billion capital plan, and it does not include
    expansion projects that total over $4 billion. The $6.8 billion
    is the shortfall needed in order to bring our system to a state
    of good repair.
        Our largest maintenance need is about $4 billion, and it is
    in the category of ``Rail Mod,'' which has been discussed
    today. That includes rail stations, basic rail structures,
    track work, power substations, contact rails, and cables.
        We need $1.2 billion to repair and replace our rail fleet
    that travels 225,000 miles per day. We use 1,200 rail cars to
    operate our system; 28 percent of our fleet is over 32 years
    old. The FTA standard for useful life is 25 years. Our rail
    fleet's average age is 24 years. So we need to replace that
    system, and with $1.2 billion, we could replace two-thirds of
    our aging fleet.
        So we are very thankful for Federal rail modernization and
    other formula funds that we receive. We have borrowed against
    those funds in the past 2 years to reduce our 15-minute-per-
    mile slow zones on our Blue Line to just 7 percent. We
    completed this repair work in 2008, just as ridership on our
    system had increased by 5 percent, due in part to a sudden
    spike in gas prices. At the same time, as was seen through the
    rest of the country, vehicle miles traveled on the region's
    roads have declined. The good news is that even after gas
    prices were cut in half this fall, those people who had
    switched from driving to transit on our system continued to
    ride the trains and buses rather than return to driving. Had we
    not fixed the slow zones when we did, those people new to
    transit would have become frustrated with slow, inefficient,
    and unreliable service and quickly returned to commuting in
    their cars.
        The whole point of my being here is to stress the
    importance of maintaining our Nation's transit systems. Like my
    counterparts, I believe that a healthy transit system helps to
    alleviate congestion on the Nation's roads, and a sustained
    investment in transit is critical to our Nation's well-being.
        That is why I am so pleased that 12 members of the Senate,
    including you, Chairman Menendez, and Senators Bayh, Dodd, and
    Schumer, asked for the FTA report on the Nation's rail
    modernization needs.
        The CTA share of the state-of-good-repair need highlighted
    in this report is over $4 billion, which in real terms means
    that the CTA rail track and rail cars have grown past their
    useful life, thereby leading to an increase in rail slow zones
    to ensure safety on the rail system.
        So we are in dire need of modernization. Your leadership in
    addressing this issue for Chicago and many of the other older-
    rail cities would go a long way to fix this problem. The FTA
    report provides a blueprint for modernizing the Nation's fixed
    guideway systems by simplifying the Fixed Guideway
    Modernization Program so that funds are allocated based on age,
    type of rail system, and maintenance needs of a transit system.
        Realignment of the program will likely lead to an increase
    in funds for true fixed guideway agencies such as CTA, like New
    Jersey Transit, like WMATA, and like MTA. So I thank you for
    your leadership on this issue, and I ask the Members of your
    Committee to consider the FTA recommendations as you deliberate
    the transportation authorization bill in the coming months.
        With that, I thank you again for the opportunity to
    testify, and I would like to answer any questions that you
    might have.
        Chairman Menendez. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Catoe.

     STATEMENT OF JOHN B. CATOE, JR., GENERAL MANAGER, WASHINGTON
                  METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY

        Mr. Catoe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the
    opportunity to testify before you today. Also, I would like to
    thank you for your leadership on transit issues, especially in
    regards to legislation dealing with the leaseback arrangements
    and climate change.
        Sometimes we are called ``America's transit system'' or
    ``America's subway.'' Metro is the largest public transit
    provider in the National Capital Region, and nationally we are
    the second largest subway system and the sixth largest bus
    system in the United States. We serve 1.3 million customers per
    day, and we provide trips to hundreds of millions of riders
    each year, those who reside within the Washington Metropolitan
    Area as well as visitors from all over the United States and
    from across the world.
        But Metro is now beginning to feel its age. To use a
    comparison that any house owner would understand or relate to,
    our crowded house is now 33 years old, and our needs go far
    beyond a spring cleaning and a fresh coat of paint. We have a
    wet basement, rusty pipes, cracked tiles, old electrical
    wiring, and the equivalent of a 1976 model car in a 100-year-
    old garage. In fact, our capital needs over the next 10 years
    total more than $11.4 billion.
        These needs include replacing our oldest rail cars,
    including those that were involved in the tragic accident on
    June 22nd. We need monies to replace the leaking tunnels and
    crumbling platforms, upgrading our tracks and associated
    infrastructure, to fix escalators and elevators, and to replace
    about 100 buses each year. Replacing very old bus facilities is
    also a need, especially one that is over 100 years old. And we
    need to update critical software. We also need power and
    control system upgrades and additional rail cars to run longer
    trains and to reduce overcrowding.
        As you stated in your comments, Mr. Chairman, Metro
    experienced a tragic accident on June 22nd, when two Red Line
    cars collided outside of our Fort Totten metrorail station. I
    and all Metro employees are terribly saddened by the loss of
    life and the injuries that occurred on that day. While the
    National Transportation Safety Board has not yet determined the
    root cause of this accident, it has refocused attention on the
    state of rail infrastructure around the country.
        There is clearly ample demand from many transit systems for
    additional Federal support to sustain the safety and
    reliability of their systems. The work that we have done to
    keep transit systems in a state of good repair might not be
    exciting at times to hear about, but without it, service and
    safety will suffer. There will be more delays due to failing
    infrastructure, and that means lost time for our customers and
    lost productivity for our region and the Nation. The funding
    provided by the Federal Government is critical to our ability
    to keep our systems running safely and reliably. If we do not
    receive sufficient funding now, service as well as safety will
    decline.
        I want to raise one additional issue before I conclude. As
    more people are riding public transit, Metro is already
    reaching capacity on many parts of our system. As I have stated
    on several occasions, what this region and what this Nation
    witnessed on Inauguration Day, January 20th, where 1.5 million
    people crowded into our system, will become a daily event in
    the very near future. We need to make investments to expand the
    capacity of the system to accommodate the ridership growth,
    such as purchasing additional rail cars and making the upgrades
    in power and maintenance facilities to accommodate them.
        As the Subcommittee considers ways to meet the
    infrastructure needs of transit systems, I encourage you to
    develop a source of funding at the Federal level for projects
    to expand capacity on existing systems so that we may meet
    future ridership demands.
        In conclusion, I appreciate the Subcommittee's interest in
    the state of America's heavy rail infrastructure. We at Metro
    are committed to doing whatever it takes to ensure that our
    system is as safe as it can be and to provide the best possible
    service now and into the future.
        Thank you.
        Chairman Menendez. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Sarles.

    STATEMENT OF RICHARD R. SARLES, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NEW JERSEY
                                TRANSIT

        Mr. Sarles. Chairman Menendez, New Jersey Transit is the
    Nation's largest statewide public transportation system
    providing nearly 900,000 weekday trips on 2,000 buses, three
    light rail lines, and 12 commuter rail lines. New Jersey
    Transit also operates hundreds of trains daily over the Amtrak-
    owned Northeast Corridor.
        Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for providing me the
    opportunity to testify today on the criticality of providing
    the necessary capital funding for mature public transportation
    agencies.
        As you know, the Rail Modernization program was created by
    Congress to provide funding for established transit agencies
    for the purposes of improving existing systems, including
    purchase and rehabilitation of rolling stock, track,
    structures, signals and communications, passenger stations and
    terminals, maintenance facilities, and core capacity expansion.
        In short, the Rail Modernization program was created to
    assist in bringing my agency's infrastructure and the
    infrastructure of all of the mature transit agencies across the
    country to a state of good repair.
        When it comes to state of good repair, NJ Transit is a
    success story. We inherited infrastructure and equipment from
    predecessor bus companies and railroads, such as the
    Pennsylvania and Erie Lackawanna, dating back in many cases to
    the earlier part of the 20th century.
        Unfortunately, public transportation under private
    ownership throughout much of the mid-20th century suffered from
    significant disinvestment and lack of maintenance.
        From its inception in 1979, NJ Transit focused its efforts
    on restoring equipment, facilities, and infrastructure to a
    state of good repair. It has taken three decades to bring New
    Jersey Transit to a state of good repair, and we will need to
    continue to concentrate our efforts in this regard to maintain
    our infrastructure and equipment. In fiscal year 2009 alone, we
    spent two-thirds of our capital program on state of good repair
    and capital maintenance.
        During the 1990s, New Jersey Transit also expended
    significant resources on the connectivity of the system which
    necessitated capacity expansion projects, including the Midtown
    Direct service from Montclair and the construction of the Frank
    R. Lautenberg transfer station in Secaucus. New Jersey Transit
    also embarked on the construction of two light rail systems in
    the 1990s: the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail and the Riverline.
        As those projects were being completed, we again
    reemphasized that our top investment priorities were safety,
    state of good repair, and core system capacity. That effort has
    produced very tangible results.
        New Jersey Transit is in the midst of the largest rolling
    stock upgrade program in our history, involving the purchase or
    rehabilitation of over 4,100 pieces of equipment.
        We have invested over $100 million in four critical movable
    bridges. We have replaced viaducts, opened new rail yards,
    replaced wooden ties with concrete ties, and completed a $90
    million automatic train control system upgrade.
        All of these efforts led the FTA to declare in May of this
    year that New Jersey Transit's capital program supports a state
    of good repair for the system. However, continuing this success
    will require renewal and enhancement of Federal funding. It
    also requires adequate funding to support routine maintenance
    to prevent premature degradation of equipment and
    infrastructure.
        How did we get to this point?
        It started with the bipartisan support for the formation of
    New Jersey Transit 30 years ago. Most recently, our focus on
    state of good repair was reinvigorated by Governor Corzine
    directing through the last reauthorization of our State
    Transportation Trust Fund that New Jersey Transit produce an
    annual submission of our capital investment strategy to the New
    Jersey State Legislature. That strategy promotes safety and
    state of good repair as our top priority, followed by core
    capacity improvements and, last, expansion of the reach of our
    system.
        New Jersey has consistently provided significant funding
    from its Transportation Trust Fund to New Jersey Transit for
    capital expenditures. In fact, as you noted earlier, Governor
    Corzine has allocated more than 40 percent of New Jersey's
    transportation capital funds to New Jersey Transit, and these
    funds are matched one for one by Rail Modernization funds and
    Urbanized Area funds from the Federal Government. Since 2002,
    New Jersey Transit's capital program has exceeded $1 billion.
        So where do we stand and what can Congress do to continue
    and bolster our efforts to maintain state of good repair?
        First and foremost, I urge this Committee and Congress to
    increase funding for public transportation--through both the
    Rail Modernization formula and the Urbanized Area formula.
    Costs continue to increase as aging systems expand to meet
    demand.
        I will caution that there are some things Congress should
    carefully consider.
        First, any kind of formula program that distributes money
    in such a way as to proportionately decrease funding to transit
    agencies that are in a state of good repair is problematic. I
    suggest any funding program specifically targeted to state of
    good repair should be incentive based.
        Another situation Congress should carefully consider is
    implementing any asset management system that prescribes which
    projects should advance ahead of others. It would not be
    prudent for a Federal agency to determine which bridge should
    be fixed first or which station should be replaced. Those
    decisions should be made by those closest to the infrastructure
    and equipment.
        We have made significant advances in state of good repair
    in New Jersey by making it our top priority and pushing the
    decisions on how to spend the state-of-good-repair money down
    to the engineers and maintenance staff who evaluate the
    infrastructure and equipment. I have concerns related to
    proposals that suggest all of the information about the
    infrastructure conditions of transit agencies should be
    collected on the Federal level, put into a data base, where an
    algorithm would produce a list of what should be fixed.
        I want to reiterate that state of good repair has been New
    Jersey Transit's top priority from its inception, and I
    appreciate this Committee allocating valuable time and
    resources to considering strategies for maintaining the state
    of good repair of the Nation's transit agencies.
        Thank you again.
        Chairman Menendez. Thank you.
        Dr. Scott.

    STATEMENT OF BEVERLY A. SCOTT, Ph.D., GENERAL MANAGER AND CHIEF
    EXECUTIVE OFFICER, METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY

        Ms. Scott. Chairman Menendez, thank you for the opportunity
    to present testimony regarding state of good repair and rail
    transit modernization needs, and as we begin, I want to also
    thank you for your extraordinary leadership on the SILO/LILO
    issue which continues to haunt a number of transit systems,
    such as my own at MARTA.
        Just a few facts and perspectives about MARTA, our
    industry, transit rail modernization needs, and, candidly, the
    big ugly in the room--state of good repair.
        MARTA is the 9th largest transit system in the United
    States and one of a few Tier 1 transit systems designated by
    the Department of Homeland Security. We were created in the
    early 1970s, are funded locally by a 1-percent sales tax levied
    in Fulton, DeKalb Counties, and the city of Atlanta. Today,
    that 1-percent sales tax generates over $300 million, down
    significantly over the last 18-month period of time, and
    annually we invest over 50 percent of that local sales tax that
    is generated into capital.
        Every day we carry more than a half million passenger trips
    on MARTA or, as I like to say, we in effect carry more people
    in our region on 1 day than reside in the city of Atlanta.
        The public investment in MARTA has been over $6.4 billion,
    including much welcomed significant Federal participation. This
    year, we are celebrating 30 years of transit rail service in
    the Atlanta region. Our rail system includes 48 miles of double
    track, 38 stations, 338 rail cars, 104 miles of main line
    track, three rail yards, 20 miles of yard track, 146
    escalators, 109 elevators, thousands of cameras, call boxes,
    vital relay switches, just to give you a general sense of the
    magnitude of our operation.
        Today the best available but, admittedly, incomplete
    information that we have projects a state-of-good-repair
    capital budget requirement of approximately $5.2 billion over
    the next 20 years to preserve our existing system, and to date
    MARTA's share of Federal rail modernization funding is, on an
    annual basis, $37 million.
        In a nutshell, MARTA is representative of an important and
    growing segment of transit systems in our country. All like
    MARTA--WMATA, BART, Portland, Sacramento, Miami, San Diego,
    Santa Clara, just to name a few--are aging, first and just
    beginning second generation New Starts transit systems. In a
    manner of speaking, we are like the baby boomers of the transit
    industry: 20 to 35 years old, no more new kid on the block, but
    all too often just like that kid. It seems like we all just
    looked up one day and all of a sudden we were middle-aged,
    largely operating in very high-growth areas of the country like
    the Atlanta region, with continuing demands for rapid service
    expansion.
        While we do not expect the same explosive growth that we
    experienced in the 1980s and 1990s, another 3 million people
    are projected to come into the Atlanta region by 2050.
        You find staggering concentrations of both physical
    infrastructure rehabilitation and replacement needs, coupled
    with the devastating turnover of experienced personnel at all
    levels, resulting from retirements that are also understandably
    but very unfortunately clustered. And, finally, a monumental
    and oftentimes not fully appreciated organizational shift from
    being a building organization to an operating organization. And
    having been in this industry for 30 years, I can tell you that
    this requires a very different skills set, competencies, and
    organizational focus.
        In closing, I want to stress the point that the challenges
    confronting us in addressing the issue of state of good repair
    are industry-wide. Virtually every community and transit
    operator is grappling with this issue, regardless of size or
    geography.
        I applaud FTA's recent very serious focus in this area and
    strongly support the expansion of their April 2009 state-of-
    good-repair report to conduct an industry-wide assessment of
    state of good repair beyond the seven largest systems included
    in this report.
        It is my firm belief that significantly expanded Federal
    transportation investment, coupled with real programmatic
    restructuring, a level playing field, outcomes-based, with
    meaningful performance metrics, strong Federal oversight, in-
    depth technical assistance as we kick this off; and serious
    incentives for local self-help and investment are key elements
    of the prescription needed to help us move forward.
        I also believe that ultimately there must be consequences
    for those systems and communities that are not prudent stewards
    of our Federal investment.
        Unfortunately, but honestly, our industry is so behind in
    the area of state of good repair, and best in class asset
    management--in large measure attributable to decades of
    significant underinvestment--that many transit system managers
    candidly do not really know what they do not know or, more
    importantly, should know about the state of good repair of
    their systems.
        While it certainly is not right, human nature being what it
    is, all too often a malaise sets in over time when you
    continuously defer projects and do not have the funding needed
    to address obvious repair, rehabilitation, and replacement
    needs. Before you know it, first, it simply and insidiously
    becomes OK to be OK. Then after another 7, 10, 20 years of
    deferral, it becomes OK to simply get it out the door without
    an obvious safety defect or problem.
        For an industry that is clearly dependent on big things
    that move, all moving safely and efficiently in precision, it
    is a sure glidepath to mediocrity when our core service and
    system expectations and standards slip. In my humble opinion,
    this is the real challenge that faces our industry and the
    communities we serve in our Nation if we continue to neglect
    the very real and systemic issue of state of good repair.
        At the end of the day, what is the overall transit vision
    and expectation--a national rail transit system of first choice
    or one of last resort?
        Chairman and Subcommittee Members, once again thank you for
    the opportunity to share my thoughts and perspectives.
        Chairman Menendez. Well, thank you all very much, and thank
    you for those very honest reflections there at the end.
        We will start a round of questioning. The distinguished
    Ranking Member of the full Committee has joined us, Senator
    Shelby. We appreciate him being with us.
        And I appreciate, Mr. Catoe and Dr. Scott, your talk--your
    mentioning our testimony about the SILO/LILO legislation. I
    know how important it is. I just hope our colleagues from
    Virginia, Maryland, and Georgia would join us in the process of
    cosponsoring the legislation. It will help us move it along. I
    do know how consequential, if we don't get some relief there,
    we are going to have for transit agencies across the country.
        Mr. Catoe, I want to ask you--I know the investigation is
    still going on, so I don't expect you to comment about what
    those results will be. We don't know. We will wait for the
    results. But have you as an agency from that experience learned
    anything in the context of what we are talking about here that
    is of value to the Committee and would be of value to other
    agencies?
        Mr. Catoe. First, let me tell you some of the steps that we
    have put in place. The Metro System, as I mentioned before, is
    over 30 years old--and prior to the accident, we were running
    various tests on our systems once a month. Since the accident,
    we have run tests twice a day, and based upon the
    recommendations from the National Transportation Safety Board,
    we are in the process of developing a real-time detection
    system, and that will take time to develop but that is
    underway.
        The other aspects of looking at the system and what we have
    learned, something that we knew and we have planned for is the
    need to replace cars once they exceed a certain life
    expectancy. The issue that the NTSB did discuss with us, which
    did not cause the accident but has an impact on the amount of
    damage that can be done, is the crash-worthiness of old transit
    vehicles. And so that is an issue that we all have talked about
    here today.
        In addition to those actions, based upon the direction of
    the investigation, another action is to clearly look at your
    signaling system and the computer back-ups for that to make
    sure that the systems that you are using are up to date and you
    are using the best possible technology. That requires an
    enormous amount of investment in capital dollars.
        Chairman Menendez. Thank you.
        Chairwoman Brown, let me ask you, your testimony highlights
    that even a successful agency, that without adequate funding,
    performance can suffer.
        Ms. Brown. Yes.
        Chairman Menendez. And I think that the Chicago Transit
    Authority has effectively used some of the Recovery Act funding
    to deal with some of their challenges, if I am not mistaken.
    But if you don't get a significant increase in rail
    modernization funding over the next 6 years, what does your
    system look like then?
        Ms. Brown. CTA has a $6.8 billion unfunded capital need.
    Without a significant investment in our capital to keep it
    safe, I think you would see a smaller CTA. With recent
    increases in ridership, I think that would be unfortunate. So
    where we cannot guarantee our riders' safety, we would not
    operate that part of the system, whether that is on bus or on
    rail. Consequently, our system looks smaller and does not carry
    the number of riders that it currently does today.
        Chairman Menendez. So you would probably have to reduce
    service.
        Ms. Brown. We would reduce service. The same investment
    needs and safety standards apply to both bus and heavy rail.
    Therefore, we would reduce the number of routes we carry in the
    city and the 40 suburbs that we serve by reducing the number
    and the frequency of buses. If our rail fleet continues to age
    and we can't replace the rail cars, we would have to increase
    the headways because we would be operating with fewer rail
    cars.
        Chairman Menendez. Mr. Sarles, in a lot of good testimony
    you have a caveat, and I wanted to dwell on the caveat for a
    moment. You allude to the fact that you are worried about too
    much Federal oversight of how agencies keep themselves in a
    state of good repair. So my question to you is, do you oppose
    any requirement to report state of repair information, or where
    is the balance? I know you all want money from the Federal
    Government, and appropriately so, but it seems to me that we
    also have responsibilities here for safety. And so what is the
    right balance?
        Mr. Sarles. We are very happy to provide all the
    information we have on the condition of our system. What
    concerns me is when I hear discussions of decision algorithms,
    which means that you take all that information and an algorithm
    developed by somebody else sort of spits out what are the most
    important priorities. That type of decision making needs to be
    made by the Transit Authority, in our case, at least, by the
    engineers and the maintenance and operating people who know the
    system best and can decide where we go first in terms of our
    spending our money. But in terms of providing information, we
    are very happy to provide it.
        Chairman Menendez. Well, I am not a big algorithms guy. We
    do that in homeland security, too, as we deal with the Nation's
    cargo that comes into our ports and we depend on algorithms to
    hopefully get it right. I am not sure that that is the best way
    to do it. But there is a balance. In my personal view, there is
    a need for the FTA to have a sense of what it is that a state
    of good repair is and what that information is to make informed
    policy decisions and allocations, as well. So to some extent
    that we can get together and work with the Administrator to get
    to what our definition is, I think it is very important.
        Mr. Sarles. And we will work with them on that.
        Chairman Menendez. Yes. Senator Shelby.
        Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I
    was not here when Administrator Peter Rogoff was here, but I
    have a number of questions that I would like to submit to him
    for the record.
        Chairman Menendez. Without objection.
        Senator Shelby. Thank you.
        To all of you panelists, have we added to the overall
    problem perhaps by allowing systems to continue to expand and
    grow without regard to their ability to maintain what they
    have? In other words, I know it is a mixed bag here. If you
    don't grow, you can't finish a system. I know that. But at the
    same time, maintenance and safety is so important a cog in the
    wheel, is it not? Ms. Brown.
        Ms. Brown. Well, I would like to note that even the aging
    systems continue to grow because of the demand for service and
    the increased ridership.
        Senator Shelby. Sure.
        Ms. Brown. I think that the more people we can move to
    public transportation, the better. And so I think that the
    growth is good. I think that we need continued investment in
    the system, as well.
        I always state that there is not a public transportation
    system in the world that is not subsidized by its government. I
    think the investment needs to be increased so that we can
    encourage people out of their cars for a cleaner, safer
    environment and onto public transportation. I think this
    applies to old rail systems but also to systems like MARTA that
    are middle-aged. CTA is a senior citizen on its last breath and
    in need of help, but it is also important for middle-aged
    systems.
        Senator Shelby. But whatever systems we operate--and Mr.
    Catoe understands that well, we all do--they have got to be
    operated safely, have they not, because they are moving people
    at as much speed as we can put together.
        Mr. Catoe. Yes.
        Senator Shelby. Go ahead, Mr. Catoe.
        Mr. Catoe. Absolutely, Senator, and if I could respond a
    little bit on your first question, in my testimony, I did talk
    about the balance, that sometimes it is not as pretty to come
    to a repair of a rail line, but it is absolutely critical that
    that occurs. So there needs to be a balance of the state of
    good repair and maintenance of an existing system, but we have
    observed around the country, and specifically here in
    Washington, DC, our system assumed that it would carry 300,000
    to 400,000 people. It now carries in excess of 800,000 people
    on a daily basis, and on some occasions, like the Inauguration,
    1.5 million.
        So there has to be this balance of safety of the system and
    the state of good repair and also the monies, when necessary,
    to expand capacity, and that is what I support and that is part
    of the position that this group is taking in this testimony.
    All of that, too, relates to safety. The state of good repair
    means that you have a safe system.
        Senator Shelby. Any of the other panelists, do you want to
    comment?
        Ms. Scott. I would just echo the comments. I think it is
    really an issue of balance. There is no question about the
    importance of state of good repair--and the needs for balance
    and additional funding. We have got another--I am just
    preaching to the choir--another 150 million people that are
    going to be in the U.S. over the next 40 years and so we have
    got to wind up doing expansion. But at the same time, we cannot
    let that go at the risk of not running safe systems.
        So I think that the challenge that really faces us is that
    we have got to significantly increase the funding on both ends
    of the spectrum, both for state of good repair as well as for
    expansion, and then ultimately, I call it more with a velvet
    hammer, OK, because we have gotten ourselves into this
    quagmire, I think we have got to have an immediate infusion
    that really is very focused on the state of good repair and
    understand we have got what we have got and then ultimately
    wind up tying Federal funding decisions, in terms of expansion
    to at least being able to show a modicum in terms of what you
    have done in terms of satisfactory use of that investment, and
    I would be very supportive of that.
        But we are in the mess that we are now, and quite candidly,
    just putting a hammer down and saying, well, there is not going
    to be any growth until we wind up taking care of state of good
    repair, I think would be short-sighted on all of our parts.
        Senator Shelby. Do you have any comments?
        Mr. Sarles. Just to go back to a little bit of what I said
    earlier, our first priority has always been safety and state of
    good repair. That is how we took a system that was totally
    disinvested in in the last part of the last century and created
    one that is in a state of good repair. And we always look to
    spend our money first on state of good repair.
        But when we looked at capacity expansion, such as the ARC
    tunnel project, one of the things that we were required to do
    was demonstrate to the FTA that in our capital program, not
    only could we take care of capacity expansion, but we had the
    money to maintain a state of good repair for the existing
    system.
        Senator Shelby. Is the primary problem lack of funds, lack
    of planning, or all of it? Yes sir, Mr. Catoe.
        Mr. Catoe. Thank you, Senator Shelby. The first problem is
    lack of funds, lack of sufficient funds.
        Senator Shelby. Sufficient funds.
        Mr. Catoe. There is funding, but the needs are greater than
    the amount of funding. And if you look from a historical
    perspective, and we talk about balance, we could probably look
    back and say, maybe we didn't have the proper balance of
    expansion and maintenance of our system. But over time, the
    amount of dollars necessary for the maintenance grows at a much
    higher rate than what has been budgeted and allocated under the
    Federal program.
        And from a planning perspective, again, that needs to be
    part of the mix going forward whenever there are appropriations
    for new starts, that we need to build in the formula, what will
    it cost to maintain that system over the next decades or
    century.
        Senator Shelby. Ma'am, do you want to say something?
        Ms. Brown. Well, I was just going to add that in the case
    of CTA, our funding problems are also operational. And so as we
    try and straddle the operation funding shortfalls, we tend to
    use some capital dollars for preventive maintenance which
    exacerbates our capital needs problem. So it is a funding
    problem on both sides.
        Senator Shelby. Mr. Catoe, I am not picking on anybody, we
    are just looking for answers to things. Your ridership is about
    800,000 day in, day out now?
        Mr. Catoe. The ridership on the rail system averages just
    slightly under 769,000----
        Senator Shelby. OK.
        Mr. Catoe. ----but we have had the 25 highest ridership
    days in the past----
        Senator Shelby. How much money does that bring in in a
    year, just roughly?
        Mr. Catoe. Roughly, and I have to do the math in my head,
    about $400 million. We recover approximately 80 percent of the
    operating costs on the rail system through the fares----
        Senator Shelby. You knew what my question was going to be.
        Mr. Catoe. Yes.
        Senator Shelby. So you recover about 80 percent through
    your cash-flow, whatever it is.
        Mr. Catoe. Through the fares themselves.
        Senator Shelby. OK.
        Mr. Catoe. On the operating costs, not capital costs.
        Senator Shelby. OK. All right. Is that basically what the
    others do, more or less?
        Mr. Catoe. I think it is the second-highest in the country.
    I think New York----
        Ms. Scott. It is second-highest in the country. I am
    overall at a 28 percent farebox recovery, and on rail, we are
    at roughly 35 percent.
        Senator Shelby. OK. What about New Jersey?
        Mr. Sarles. New Jersey, overall, we are between 45 and 50
    percent. Rail runs higher, bus a little bit lower.
        Ms. Brown. CTA is roughly 50 percent. It is a little higher
    this year because our subsidy was cut, about 63 percent this
    year.
        Senator Shelby. OK. It is my understanding that the Federal
    Transit Administration does not currently define ``state of
    good repair.'' Do you believe that there should be a uniform
    definition for state of good repair, and more importantly,
    should there be specific measures and requirements tied to such
    a definition? In other words, first of all, is that right? FTA
    does not currently define state of good repair?
        Mr. Catoe. Senator Shelby, if I might, I don't feel like I
    am being picked on, so I don't mind responding. I think there
    are various definitions in the industry----
        Senator Shelby. I wasn't here. I am sorry.
        Mr. Catoe. OK. There are various definitions in the
    industry of the state of good repair, and what we need to do,
    working with the Federal Transit Administration, is to ensure
    that we have the same definition and that we have the same
    measurements in place to ensure the systems are consistent. And
    so the answer to your question is, I support a common
    definition and a common standard of measurement throughout the
    industry to determine state of good repair.
        Senator Shelby. Do you--go ahead. I am sorry.
        Ms. Scott. I would join that. In fact, when you asked the
    previous question, I think that part of the problem has
    definitely been under-investment, but the other issue is that
    we really are all over the map in terms of structure on state
    of good repair, what it means, having the tools, having the
    appropriate information. And so there is real rigor that is
    required in that area.
        Now, I join with Rick over here. I don't want to wind up
    seeing something that just becomes a cookie cutter that spits
    out some numbers and then all of a sudden, there is some rigid
    pass or fail, but some real greater discipline in that area is
    definitely required.
        Senator Shelby. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, thank you for
    holding the hearing.
        Chairman Menendez. Thank you, Senator Shelby.
        I just want to just follow up with one or two last
    questions before we are going to start a series of votes. We
    have been fortunate that we got all this testimony in before
    the votes start.
        You know, I think Senator Shelby raised a good question
    when he said, correct me if I am wrong, but basically, should
    we not be considering when we are extending service versus our
    capacity to maintain in good condition the existing service we
    have. I guess that is a challenge to agencies, right, because
    if there is a demand for greater service and you don't meet
    that demand, then there is a flip side of a consequence to
    that. Obviously, that ridership goes somewhere else, and
    therefore your farebox goes down and that has a consequential
    effect. Is that a fair assessment of it?
        Mr. Catoe. Well, if you don't provide quality service and
    have sufficient capacity, your ridership will drop. We have not
    experienced that, though. Our experience has been that we have
    very heavy loads and heavy capacity. But again, as I commented,
    I support the concept of if you are going to build a system,
    that you plan for the maintenance of that system year one, two,
    three, out through year 50, and that there are provisions set
    aside to do that. One of the issues for the reauthorization or
    the authorization bill, is how is the mix broken up----
        Chairman Menendez. Let me ask you this question. I don't
    mean to interrupt you, but if you get 80 percent back, in your
    case, of your operating costs, which means you still have a 20
    percent shortfall----
        Mr. Catoe. Yes.
        Chairman Menendez. ----what do you get on your capital
    costs?
        Mr. Catoe. From the farebox recovery standpoint, there is
    zero on capital. The local jurisdictions as well as the Federal
    Government pay for that.
        Chairman Menendez. Right. So the bottom line is that even
    one of the most highly efficient operating systems has a 20
    percent shortfall in its operating budget and it gets nothing
    in terms of its ridership ultimately as it relates to capital
    needs. So this is a fundamental reality of a mass transit
    system and I think that our colleagues in the Congress have to
    understand that as one of the fundamental issues in whether or
    not you want an effective mass transit system.
        My other point is that I think that, in my view as someone
    who previously, before coming to the Senate, represented a
    Congressional district, Senator Shelby, that was right across
    from Midtown Manhattan, and on that fateful day on September 11
    came to a very hard way of understanding that in a post-
    September 11 world, having multiple modes of transportation are
    critical for national security. On that particular day, when
    the PATH trains stopped, when the bridges were closed, when the
    tunnels were closed, having another form of transportation,
    which in that case was ferries, poured people out of downtown
    Manhattan to get triaged in hospitals in New Jersey.
        And while that is different than the type of transit that
    we are talking about right now, it highlighted the importance
    of a post-September 11 world in which multiple modes of
    transportation, in addition to getting to a place for job and
    economic opportunity, in addition to improve the quality of
    life that we have, sitting less time in traffic and being more
    productive at work and having more quality time with our
    families, in addition to improving the air that we breathe in
    many parts of this country where cancer, respiratory ailments
    are still too high and unacceptable, in addition to
    environmental issues, in addition to planning in a way that you
    can create ratable basis around transportation systems through
    transit villages, that there is also a security component to
    this, because when something happens, God forbid, and I hope it
    never, ever happens again--that is what we work every day to
    make sure--but if it were to happen, we need multiple modes of
    transportation to get people out of that area of incidence into
    a place of safety, and I think that is another component that
    we lose sight of along the way.
        Well, with that, thank you all for your testimony. The
    record is going to remain open for 1 week to allow Senators the
    chance to ask follow-up questions in writing. For those of you
    who receive questions, we ask you to respond to them as
    promptly as possible.
        I want to thank all the witnesses for participating,
    helping the Committee prepare for the upcoming reauthorization
    legislation.
        With that, the hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 3:47 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
        [Prepared statements, responses to written questions, and
    additional material supplied for the record follow:]

                     PREPARED STATEMENT OF PETER M. ROGOFF
                 Administrator, Federal Transit Administration,
                          Department of Transportation
                                 August 4, 2009
        Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member Vitter, and Members of the
    Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today
    to discuss the state of good repair of the Nation's public
    transportation systems. In the interest of both the safety and the
    reliability of our public transportation systems, it is imperative that
    we aggressively address and stay on top of their aging condition.
    Deferred maintenance items, if deferred long enough or left undetected,
    can become critical safety risks. The issues of the conditions of our
    transit infrastructure and the safety of our transit systems are
    inextricably linked. The Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) role in
    the safety oversight of these systems is extremely limited as a matter
    of Federal law. We are statutorily prohibited from establishing
    national safety standards for a large segment of the Nation's rail
    transit system. Still, FTA continues to regularly assess the condition
    of transit infrastructure and disseminate and encourage best practices
    by the industry.
    Safety
        Safety is the Department's highest priority. And, as we address
    safety issues as part of this hearing, it must be remembered that
    traveling by rail transit in the United States remains an
    extraordinarily safe way to travel--far safer than traveling on our
    highways. That makes it particularly important that our transit systems
    maintain their infrastructure to a standard where they can provide
    riders with service that is both reliable and comfortable. Conditions
    that prompt commuters to abandon transit and get back into their cars
    adversely impact highway safety performance. And, defective equipment,
    late trains, broken escalators, and malfunctioning air conditioners do
    just that.
        While transit remains the safest mode of surface transportation in
    the United States, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has
    been called in to investigate several transit-related accidents in the
    recent past. The NTSB investigated the July 2006 Chicago Transit
    Authority (CTA) Blue Line derailment that resulted in 152 injuries.
    They concluded that ``[t]he tie plates and fastener systems failed to
    maintain the track gauge because of the effects of corrosion, wear and
    tear, and degraded ties.'' Their report stated, ``[the accident is a]
    wake up call . . . to all transit agencies . . . with equipment and
    infrastructure that ages with each passing day.'' This lag screw served
    as one of thousands holding CTA rail to ties in the area of the Blue
    Line derailment. As you can see, it is corroded and deformed from its
    original design. It was so ineffective that it could be removed by
    hand. The NTSB report noted that most of these ties and fasteners date
    back to the installation of the original Blue Line that opened for
    revenue service on February 25, 1951. It should not be a surprise to
    anyone that a 58-year-old track structure is prone to failure.
        The NTSB statements appear prophetic today. While its investigation
    of the June 22, 2009, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
    (WMATA) subway train collision is not complete, NTSB preliminarily
    reports that the condition of equipment and age of the rolling stock
    may have resulted in the tragic loss life and injuries. Such tragedies
    are unacceptable. A little over a year earlier, on June 9, 2008, there
    was a derailment on WMATA's Orange Line outside the Court House
    station. The accident investigation and WMATA's subsequent public
    announcements indicated that an undetected track defect had contributed
    to the derailment. WMATA responded by initiating the purchase of a
    track geometry car which should be on the property by this September to
    better assess and evaluate track defects to find and correct problems
    before a derailment occurs.
        We all must focus our attention and resources on this important
    issue of maintaining the significant public investment in transit
    systems, if we are to maintain public confidence. Moreover, while
    transit remains a safe mode of travel, data indicates that a number of
    accident categories have trended up in recent years.
        Equipment failures at transit stations can also cause safety
    problems and erode customer confidence. A little over 2 months ago, New
    York's Metropolitan Transportation Authority, (MTA) released a list of
    23 of its worst-functioning elevators and escalators. MTA operates 158
    passenger elevators and 169 escalators in five boroughs. According to
    the report, three escalators have not operated in over a year, another
    two escalators worked less than 37 percent of the time, and yet another
    escalator operates only 67 percent of the time. The report also showed
    that about 31 MTA elevators and escalators dropped from working more
    than 90 percent of the time in 2008 to working only 80 percent of the
    time or less. And, in July 2008, a ``subway report card'' issued by the
    Straphangers Campaign said that the New York City Transit subway system
    experienced mechanical failures every 156,624 miles in 2006 and every
    149,646 miles in 2007.
        On July 19, 2006, the Boston Herald reported that Massachusetts Bay
    Transportation Authority (MBTA) received 99 complaints within 2 days
    about air-conditioning breakdowns. MBTA acknowledge that ``roughly 14
    percent of the fleet--47 cars--had air-conditioning problems'' the day
    before.
        Safety is not just about the condition and aging of equipment. The
    human factor is a critical element. On July 28, 2008, two MBTA trains
    collided, killing one of the operators and injuring three crew members.
    Of the 185 to 200 passengers on the two trains, four sustained minor
    injuries and one was seriously injured. In its July 23, 2009, report,
    the NTSB stated that the total damage was estimated at $8.6 million and
    found that the probable cause was the failure of the operator of the
    striking train to comply with the controlling signal indication. In
    this instance, the NTSB also found that a contributing factor was the
    lack of a positive train control system that would have intervened to
    stop the train and prevent the collision. In yet another incident
    involving MBTA transit system on May 9 of this year, approximately 46
    people were taken to area hospitals after an operator slammed his
    trolley into another trolley. It has been reported that the operator
    admitted to texting at the time of the accident.
        Similarly, on July 22, 2009, a collision between San Francisco
    Municipal Railway (Muni) light-rail vehicles at the West Portal station
    injured 47 people. While the NTSB is far from concluding its
    investigation into this accident, investigators reported that the
    operator involved in the crash appears to have switched his train to
    manual about 24 seconds before the light-rail vehicle plowed into
    another train stopped in the station. In so doing, he may have disabled
    the very system designed to avoid such accidents. These incidents point
    up the nexus between the state of good repair and the organizational
    safety culture at transit agencies. Employee attitudes and performance
    are shaped by the environment they work in. If important maintenance
    and renewal are deferred, it sends a message. If leadership at all
    levels of government allow transit infrastructure to degrade, FTA is
    concerned that public transit employees may become disheartened and be
    less confident in the functional capacity of their automated safety
    equipment systems.
        Rail transit provides more than three billion passenger trips each
    year, and moves millions of people each day. At the same time, national
    passenger fatality rates for heavy rail transit systems are about 0.03
    per million passenger miles. This accident rate is lower than most
    other modes of transportation and far safer than traveling by
    automobile. However, as evidenced by the recent accidents and incidents
    highlighted in my statement, in order to maintain this level of safe
    performance, government at all levels must address each transit
    system's state of repair and safety regimes more aggressively. We
    cannot rest on the laurels of a good safety record--we must take action
    to ensure that we stay on top of aging infrastructure so that we can
    not only maintain, but also improve that record. Otherwise safety will
    degrade.
        It is important that we ensure that transit systems know how to
    develop asset management systems, and that they use them to make tough,
    but critical investment decisions. Asset management systems focus the
    attention of transit operators on undertaking the most critical repairs
    first, and optimizing the sequence of maintenance and repair work over
    the life of the asset so that the asset is maintained at a state of
    good repair and at the highest level of safety. This statement is not
    directed at only the older systems. Newer systems built with advanced
    technology are aging, and we are uncertain of the useful life of these
    technologies. So this must be a focus for the entire industry as well.
    Federal Regulation
        Our Nation's rail transit systems operate under two very different
    Federal safety regimes. Some commuter rail systems are funded by FTA
    but regulated by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) safety
    regulations, while light, heavy, and other urban rail systems are
    overseen by the State safety oversight (SSO) agencies. For example,
    commuter rail operations on the general system of railroads--like the
    Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority's (SEPTA)
    Philadelphia/Doylestown regional rail line (R-5) and New Jersey
    Transit's Northeastern Corridor Line--fall under FRA's safety
    regulatory system, which includes national mandatory safety standards
    and on-site spot inspections and audits by Federal technical
    specialists and inspectors, who have backgrounds in train control,
    track operations and other disciplines. FRA is also empowered to
    dictate operating practices and assess fines on those transit operators
    that don't comply. On the other hand, for rail systems not subject to
    FRA oversight--such as the SEPTA's trolley system and Market-Frankford
    heavy rail line, NJ Transit's Hudson-Bergen light rail system, and
    PATCO (which is a subsidiary of the Delaware River Port Authority of
    Pennsylvania and New Jersey)--the State is expected to take the lead
    for oversight and require those agencies to establish a safety program.
    The State, through a designated SSO agency, is then expected to monitor
    the transit system's implementation of its safety program. FTA's role
    is to identify elements of requisite system safety program plans and
    requirements regarding the timing and establishment of an SSO agency
    (when there is an FTA funded rail system in the State), provide
    training and technical assistance to the SSO agency, establish some
    requirements for State oversight responsibility, and monitor the
    State's oversight activities. FTA is prohibited by law from
    establishing national safety standards, requiring Federal inspections,
    or requiring specific operating practices.
        Given this gap between the level of regulatory oversight for rail
    transit operations and commuter rail operations, a team of safety
    officials and experts under the leadership of Deputy Secretary John D.
    Porcari is focused on developing options for transit safety reforms,
    which may extend to bus operations as well. To that end, the Deputy
    Secretary's workgroup is collaborating with other modal administrations
    within the Department of Transportation (DOT) with jurisdiction in
    safety regulation. These include the Federal Railroad Administration,
    the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, and the Federal
    Aviation Administration. We are also assisted in our analysis by the
    Research and Innovative Technology Administration. This team will
    review the many alternative models within DOT to address safety as well
    as review the statutory authority on safety for transit with an eye
    toward developing reforms.
    Conditions and Performance
        As suggested earlier, the state of good repair is not just about
    safety--it is also about the condition of the infrastructure and
    reliability of transit systems nationwide. The expected useful life for
    rail vehicles is 25 years, 10 to 12 for heavy-duty transit buses, and
    40 to 50 years for facilities. However, transit assets are often called
    upon to work beyond their original useful life, which requires renewing
    capital improvement investment. According to DOT's 2006 Conditions and
    Performance Report (C&P report), the average age of urban light rail
    cars is 16.5 years and for commuter rail passenger coaches it is 17.8
    years. The average age of bus vehicles in urban areas is 6.1 years.
    Meanwhile, nearly half of the Nation's urban bus maintenance facilities
    are more than 21 years old. More to the point, on average nearly one-
    third of urban bus maintenance facilities are in marginal or poor
    condition, as are 51 percent of urban rail passenger stations and 8
    percent of rail transit track. Yet, as transit infrastructure is aging,
    the demand for service continues to rise. Americans took 10.3 billion
    trips on public transportation in 2008, the highest level ever,
    surpassing increases in any other mode of transportation.
        Marginal or poor transit infrastructure conditions exist despite
    FTA's financial support of rehabilitation and replacement activities,
    primarily through section 5309 Fixed Guideway Modernization funds and
    Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula Grant funds. In addition,
    preventive maintenance is an eligible capital project expense for
    transit agencies in both large and small urbanized areas. It includes a
    variety of expenditures--activities, supplies, materials, labor related
    to maintenance, services, and associated costs--required to preserve or
    extend the functionality and serviceability of a transit vehicle,
    facility, or other asset in a cost-effective manner.
        For the most part, systems that are adequately financed are those
    that have a dedicated funding source. For example, WMATA does not have
    a dedicated source of funding, which we believe has contributed to the
    system's deteriorating state of repair. Secretary LaHood and I support
    any Congressional effort to make public transportation agencies more
    financially viable with dedicated local revenue funding sources, which
    we believe should be directed to addressing the most safety critical
    issues in the systems as identified by appropriate vulnerability
    assessments.
    State of Good Repair
        Clearly, funding is not enough. Public transportation agencies must
    make it a top priority to achieve and maintain a state of good repair
    to provide safe and reliable service to millions of daily riders. To
    foster this commitment, FTA has made transit infrastructure's state of
    good repair its priority and has embarked on a multipronged initiative,
    in partnership with the transit industry, to make progress on this key
    priority. FTA's state of good repair initiative includes sharing ideas
    on recapitalization and maintenance issues, asset management practices,
    and innovative financing strategies. FTA kicked off its state-of-good-
    repair initiative in 2008, with an initial meeting of 14 transit
    properties to help the agency identify key issues in bringing the
    industry into a state of good repair. Since then, FTA has published
    reports on issues associated with state of good repair; set up a state-
    of-good-repair Web site; formed an FTA-Industry working group to
    discuss and share issues and ideas; and, just last month, convened a
    ``State of Good Repair Roundtable'' hosted by WMATA in Washington, DC.
    The purpose of this roundtable meeting was to draw attention to the
    issue, share experiences, and identify needs to address the repair of
    our Nation's transit infrastructure. It was attended by over 50 transit
    experts representing nearly 30 large and small rail and bus transit
    systems.
        Continuing the momentum, in April 2009 FTA presented its State of
    Good Repair Study, prepared in response to the conference report
    accompanying the fiscal year 2008 Transportation-HUD Appropriations Act
    and to a December 7, 2007, letter from Senator Richard Durbin and 11
    other senators to FTA.
        The State of Good Repair Study assessed the level of capital
    investment required to attain and maintain a state of good repair for
    the Nation's seven largest rail transit operators (Chicago's CTA,
    Boston's MBTA, New York's MTA, New Jersey Transit, San Francisco's Bay
    Area Rapid Transit System (BART), Philadelphia's SEPTA, and
    Washington's WMATA), which carry 80 percent of the Nation's rail
    transit ridership. Unlike the most recent C&P report, which looks at
    the average condition of large and small transit agencies' bus and rail
    fleets and facilities, the study assessed assets based on their useful
    life. The study also estimated the total value of the existing backlog
    of over-age assets at these seven agencies.
        The State of Good Repair Study finds that more than one-third of
    the seven agencies' assets are in marginal or poor condition, compared
    with less than 20 percent for transit agencies in the Nation as a
    whole. This finding indicates that these assets are near or have
    already exceeded their expected useful life. In addition, the study
    finds that there is a backlog of unmet recapitalization needs of about
    $50 billion at the Nation's seven largest rail transit operators.
    Imagine the impact to the Nation's economy if these seven systems could
    no longer provide, due to the deteriorating conditions of
    infrastructure, the basic mobility that so many Americans depend on
    daily. Estimating future transit infrastructure needs is difficult, but
    additional investment will be needed over the next few decades to deal
    with physical deterioration, congestion, and travel demand.
        Transit agencies recognize the need to progress on their state of
    good repair. For example, SEPTA, one of the seven study agencies, will
    receive $190 million in funds from the American Recovery and
    Reinvestment Act of 2009, which the agency is dedicating to long-
    deferred rehabilitation of rail stations and other facilities and the
    purchase of 40 replacement hybrid buses. While all seven study agencies
    maintain asset inventories for capital planning purposes, and while the
    industry recognizes the need to improve conditions, the State of Good
    Repair Study found that other asset management practices are lacking.
    These include the use of decision-support tools that provide for the
    ranking and prioritization of reinvestment needs and the conduct of
    comprehensive asset condition assessments on an ongoing basis. In order
    to assist agencies in correcting these deficiencies, FTA is developing
    a transit asset management training course, working with the Federal
    Highway Administration Office of Asset Management, to glean ``lessons
    learned'' from their bridge and pavement management systems to see how
    they might be applied in transit, and conducting a review of U.S. and
    international agency asset management practices.
    Next Steps
        The importance of bringing the transit industry into a state of
    good repair and addressing the industry's safety and reliability
    problems makes clear that further action is needed. To this end, FTA
    will initiate an expanded study, looking beyond the seven largest
    transit agencies, to better understand industry-wide state-of-good-
    repair needs. As part of this follow-on study we will seek to identify
    what we define as safety critical infrastructure. We will also consider
    the relationships between a transit agency's current infrastructure
    conditions, its ability to maintain and improve those conditions, and
    its plans to implement new projects under FTA's discretionary New
    Starts program.
        My staff and I are eager to work with this Committee to identify
    authorization proposals that will assist agencies in achieving and
    maintaining a state of good repair that is so necessary to the safety
    and reliability of public transportation service in our Nation. I will
    be happy to answer any questions you may have.

                     PREPARED STATEMENT OF CAROLE L. BROWN
                      Chairman, Chicago Transit Authority
                                 August 4, 2009
        Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member Vitter, and Senators of the
    Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today and address
    the needs of Chicago's transit system and the importance of the
    transportation authorization bill.
        My name is Carole Brown and I am the Chairman of the Board of the
    Chicago Transit Authority. The CTA is the second largest transit agency
    in the country. We carry nearly 1.7 million rides per weekday on 242
    miles of track and 154 bus routes throughout Chicago and Cook County.
    CTA is the primary transit agency in northeastern Illinois. We carry 80
    percent of the transit riders in the Chicago region. We are the agency
    that operates the ``L,'' the elevated train system that has become an
    iconic symbol of Chicago.
        Sadly, that iconic symbol is aging and in poor health, as is our
    bus fleet and our subway system. Our oldest elevated rail, the North
    Mainline, was built between 1899 and 1900; our oldest subway, the State
    Street Red Line, was built during World War II; our oldest rail car
    still in operation dates to 1969 and it has 1.7 million miles on it;
    and our oldest bus garage, the 77th Street Garage, was built in 1907.
        As you can see from the pie chart (Attachment 1), CTA has a $6.8
    billion, 5-year unfunded state-of-good-repair need. This is in addition
    to our current fully funded 5 year, $3 billion capital plan, and does
    not include expansion projects that total over $4 billion. $6.8 billion
    is the shortfall needed in order to bring our system to a state of good
    repair.

                                  Attachment 1

    Our largest maintenance need--$4 billion--is in the category of funding
    that Congress often calls ``Rail Mod.'' The $4 billion includes:

        $900 million for rail stations and park-n-rides

        $915 million for basic rail structures like foundations,
            viaducts, and subway exhaust systems

        $525 million for track work, railroad ties and ballasts

        $410 million for power substations and contact rail and
            cables

    The pictures of rail ties and rail structure (Attachments 2 and 3) are
    unfortunately common throughout our system.

                                  Attachment 2

                                  Attachment 3

        We also need $1.2 billion to repair and replace our rail fleet that
    travels 225,000 miles per day. We use 1200 rail cars to operate our
    system; 28 percent of this fleet is over 32 years old. The FTA standard
    for useful life is 25 years. Our rail fleet's average age is 24 years.
    We could replace two-thirds of our aging fleet of rail cars with $1.2
    billion.
        We are thankful for all of the Federal rail modernization and other
    formula funds we receive. In the past 2 years CTA has borrowed against
    future Federal funds in order to reduce our 15 minute per mile slow
    zones from 30 percent of the rail system to just 7 percent. As we
    completed this repair work in 2008, CTA ridership increased 5 percent
    due in part to a sudden spike in gas prices. At the same time, as was
    seen throughout the rest of the country, vehicle miles traveled on the
    region's roads declined. The good news is that even after gas prices
    were cut in half this past fall, those people who had switched from
    driving to transit continued to ride the trains and buses rather than
    return to driving. Had we not fixed the slow zones when we did, those
    people new to transit would have become frustrated with slow,
    inefficient, and unreliable train service and quickly returned to
    commuting in their cars.
        The whole point to my being here is to stress the importance of
    maintaining the Nation's transit systems. A healthy transit system
    helps to alleviate congestion on the Nation's roads. Indeed, a
    substantial and sustained investment in transit is critical to our
    Nation's economic well-being.
        That is why I was so pleased that 12 members of the Senate
    including Chairman Menendez and Senators Bayh, Dodd, and Schumer asked
    for a Federal Transit Administration report on the Nation's rail
    modernization needs. The resulting FTA Rail Modernization Study Report
    to Congress found that fixed guideway funding is no longer being
    allocated solely to its intended recipients--rail transit systems--and
    that due to nonfixed guideway based entities such as high occupancy
    lanes, and bus lanes taking a share of the money, the intended
    recipients have seen their funding decline sharply. As a result, the
    seven largest rail transit systems, including CTA, New Jersey Transit,
    WMATA and the New York City MTA, carry 80 percent of the Nation's rail
    riders but have witnessed their maintenance backlog grow to a
    collective $50 billion. The CTA share of this figure is over $4
    billion, which in real terms means that CTA rail track and rail cars
    have grown past their useful life, thereby leading to an increase in
    rail slow zones to ensure safety on the rail system.
        CTA is in dire need of modernization. Your leadership in addressing
    this issue for Chicago and many of the other older rail cities would go
    a long way to rectify this problem. The FTA report provides a blueprint
    for modernizing the Nation's fixed guideway systems by simplifying the
    Fixed Guideway Modernization Program so that funds are allocated based
    on age, type of rail system, and maintenance needs of a transit system.
    Realignment of the program will likely lead to an increase in funds for
    true fixed guideway agencies such as CTA, New Jersey Transit, WMATA,
    and New York City MTA which means a faster, more efficient, and safer
    ride for our rail riders. I thank you Chairman Menendez for your
    leadership on this issue and ask the Members of the Committee to
    consider the FTA recommendations as you deliberate the transportation
    authorization bill in the coming months.
        While CTA's rail system is in the greatest need of repair, I would
    be remiss if I didn't address our bus needs. A significant portion of
    our fleet of 2,200 buses, which carry a million rides per weekday, is
    well past its intended life. 15 percent of our bus fleet is more than
    12 years old, which happens to be the FTA standard for useful life. And
    these national standards don't reflect the unique conditions of
    individual transit systems: CTA vehicles travel many more miles, carry
    far more people and operate in harsher climate conditions than the
    typical transit system. As you can see from the picture that is
    Attachment 4, our three hundred-plus 1995 series buses average over
    450,000 miles. These buses have traveled the distance from the earth to
    the moon--AND back.

                                  Attachment 4

        When I testified before the House Committee on Transportation and
    Infrastructure in January, Congressman Defazio of Oregon asked me how
    quickly CTA could spend any money it received from the proposed
    stimulus funding. Just one month after President Obama signed the
    American Reinvestment and Recovery Act the Chicago Transit Board
    proceeded with the purchase of 58 buses from New Flyer and approved a
    $56.6 million contract for renewal of approximately 36,000 feet of
    track in the Blue Line Dearborn subway. This work will remove existing
    slow zones, prevent new slow zones from developing, and is expected to
    be completed by the end of this year. Indeed, on April 20, Senator
    Durbin joined us as we broke ground on the project--the first major
    transit project to be paid for with ARRA funds. CTA will also use the
    ARRA funds for:

        Preventive Maintenance--projects are fully spent and 100
            percent complete--$75.2 M

        Replacement Buses--11 buses delivered out of 58; project is
            19 percent complete. Target final delivery by October 2009--$50
            M

        Kedzie Garage HVAC Replacement--project is 2-3 weeks from
            being fully encumbered. Target completion is November 1--$5.5 M

        North Park Garage Oil/Water Separator--Staff will recommend
            award of construction bid at August CTA Board--$2.4 M

        Subway Escalators--Project is underway, construction
            continues--$4.8 M

        Reconstruct Rail Stations--$14.4 M

        Cermak Station Rehabilitation--Zoning work in process,
            design work in process, permitting in process--$12.5 M

        Belmont/Fullerton Canopy Extensions--CTA Board approval
            July 15, target completion date is December 2009--$1.9 M

        I want to thank every member of the Senate for their leadership in
    passing this much needed stimulus bill that will create over 1500 jobs
    just through projects for CTA alone.
        Finally, while I've focused on capital, it is worth noting that
    transit also has operating needs. National transit ridership has
    reached 50-year highs with over 10 billion trips taken in 2008. CTA
    alone provided half a billion of these trips. Yet ironically, transit
    providers throughout the country are raising fares and cutting back on
    well-utilized service because of shortfalls in operating funding.
    Earlier this year CTA increased its monthly passes from $75 to $86.
    We've experienced a $190 million, or 20 percent, decrease in the
    operating subsidy that we receive from the State of Illinois this year
    and expect it to remain flat in 2010. Cutbacks of this magnitude will
    force a reduction in service and possibly another increase in fares.
    People will be forced back into their cars; the unemployed, seniors,
    and disabled could be stranded. I appreciate the efforts to allow the
    use of stimulus funds for operations. But as I pointed out, CTA's
    capital needs are so great that diverting scarce capital resources to
    operating expenses further erodes our ability to maintain a viable
    transit system for the citizens of Chicago.
        I hope my testimony here today has given you a glimpse of the
    challenges the Chicago Transit Authority faces, but also the great
    opportunities robust transit systems offers for the Nation's economic
    well-being. I know Chicago's issues are a good example of the issues
    facing all large cities with older transit systems, so we are not alone
    in our plight and in our opportunities.
        I would be happy to take any questions, and I thank the Committee
    for your hard work in crafting a transportation package that will keep
    people and the economy moving.
                                     ______

                    PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN B. CATOE, JR.
        General Manager, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
                                 August 4, 2009
        Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Vitter, and Members of the
    Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you
    today. I am John Catoe, General Manager of the Washington Metropolitan
    Area Transit Authority, known as WMATA, or Metro. My testimony today
    will provide an overview of Metro's capital needs over the next 10
    years and make several recommendations about ways that the Federal
    Government can help rail transit systems meet their future
    infrastructure needs.
        Before I address those topics, I want to take a moment to thank the
    Chairman for his leadership on an issue that has arisen as a result of
    the economic downturn with regard to transit agencies' leaseback
    arrangements with banks and other financial institutions (known as
    ``LILOs''). These arrangements were endorsed by the Federal Transit
    Administration as an innovative financing mechanism to help transit
    agencies meet their capital needs, and I encourage the Congress to
    swiftly enact Chairman Menendez's legislation, S. 1341, to protect
    transit agencies from having to make windfall payments to the banks.
        I also want to commend the Chairman and Members of this
    Subcommittee for their leadership on the issue of transportation and
    climate change. The hearing that Chairman Menendez convened last month
    on this topic clearly showed that unless we find a way to reduce the
    growing number of vehicle miles we travel every year, emissions will
    increase faster than they can be offset by simply using cleaner fuels
    and vehicles. I encourage Congress to include funding for transit
    projects in the climate change bill currently being developed and to
    create incentives for sensible transit-oriented development policies
    around those projects in order to reduce transportation sector
    emissions. In this way, we could further leverage the benefits that
    public transportation provides to all of us. Transit takes cars off the
    road, reducing congestion and fuel consumption and improving air
    quality. As we here in the National Capital Region know well, public
    transportation systems also stimulate economic growth that generates
    and sustains employment. Transit makes a significant contribution to
    Americans' quality of life, and it is essential that there be
    sufficient investment in our existing transit infrastructure to allow
    transit agencies to continue to provide the service that our Nation
    needs and deserves.
    Background on Metro
        The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority was created in
    1967 as an Interstate Compact agency through enactment of legislation
    by the U.S. Congress, and by the Commonwealth of Virginia, the State of
    Maryland, and the District of Columbia. Metro is the largest public
    transit provider in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area and the
    second largest subway and sixth largest bus system nationally.
    ``America's Transit System'' serves a population of over 3.5 million
    within a 1,500 square-mile area as well as visitors to our Nation's
    capital from across the country and around the world. During Metro's
    most recent fiscal year (July 1, 2008-June 30, 2009), we provided on
    average 748,000 rail trips, 446,000 bus trips, and 7,000 paratransit
    trips every weekday. The Metrorail system operates a fleet of 1,100
    rail cars on a 106-mile system, with 86 stations, and the Metrobus
    system operates a fleet of more than 1500 buses serving more than
    12,000 bus stops along 340 routes in the District of Columbia,
    Maryland, and Virginia. The Metro system is critical to the vitality of
    the region and one that is used every day by Federal workers, who make
    up about 40 percent of Metrorail's rush hour riders.
        During fiscal year 2009 the Metro system provided nearly 360
    million trips, about 223 million of which were on the rail system, 134
    million on Metrobuses and over 2 million with the MetroAccess
    paratransit service. Over the last 3 years (FY2007-2009) ridership on
    the rail system has grown by 15 million annual passenger trips (a 7
    percent increase) and ridership on Metrobuses has grown by 2 million
    annual passenger trips (a 2 percent increase). MetroAccess ridership
    has been growing as well, and is up by 43 percent since 2007.
    Metro's Capital Needs
        While ridership is at an all-time high, the Metro system is feeling
    its age. To use an analogy that any homeowner can relate to: our
    crowded house is 33 years old, and our needs go far beyond a spring
    cleaning and a fresh coat of paint. We have a wet basement, rusting
    pipes, cracked tiles, old wiring, and the equivalent of a 1976 model
    car in a 100-year-old garage. If we are to help meet the future
    transportation needs of this region, including the Federal Government,
    we must begin to address these issues today.
        Recognizing this fact, Metro staff recently conducted a detailed
    capital needs inventory for the period between FY2011 and FY2020, and
    determined that the agency's future capital needs in that period total
    more than $11 billion. The inventory addresses only the existing Metro
    system; it does not include the costs of any extensions of the current
    system. Almost two-thirds of the needs are focused on Metro's aging
    infrastructure and are necessary to maintain the system's safety and
    performance; the remaining third are focused on investments necessary
    to increase the carrying capacity of the existing system in order to
    meet future ridership growth and improve the customer's experience.
        According to the capital needs inventory, Metro will need more than
    $7 billion over the next 10 years to maintain and improve the current
    bus, rail and paratransit systems in a state of good repair and to
    deliver safe and reliable service. These needs include repairing
    leaking tunnels and crumbling platforms, upgrading our tracks and
    associated infrastructure, fixing escalators, replacing about 100 buses
    every year, replacing very old bus facilities (including one that is
    100 years old), and updating critical software. Metro also needs to
    replace more than a quarter of its rail car fleet, including cars that
    are more than 30 years old and near the end of their lifecycle.
        Almost $4 billion would be targeted to meeting the growing
    ridership demands and improving the customer's experience on Metro's
    bus, rail, and paratransit system during the next decade. Between
    FY2010 and FY2020, Metrorail ridership is expected to grow 22 percent
    to nearly 1 million trips per day, and Metrobus ridership is expected
    to grow 9 percent to over half-a-million trips per day. To serve even
    more riders with better quality service, Metro is proposing service
    enhancements in a number of priority corridors that would increase bus
    ridership by roughly 20 percent by 2020. Metro needs power and control
    system upgrades and additional rail cars to run longer trains on all
    lines during rush and nonrush hours, more than 300 new buses, and
    additional MetroAccess vehicles to move these new riders. Demand for
    this service to transport people with disabilities who are unable to
    take Metrorail or Metrobus is expected to double to roughly 4.5 million
    trips per year by 2020.
    Safety and Reliability
        As the Members of the Subcommittee are no doubt aware, Metro
    experienced a tragic accident on June 22, 2009, when two Red Line
    trains collided outside of our Fort Totten Metrorail station. I and all
    Metro employees are terribly saddened by the loss of life and the
    injuries that occurred on that day. While Metro is a transportation
    provider, safety is at the foundation of everything we do. We have
    always taken our responsibility for safety seriously, and we will not
    rest until we know the cause of the accident and have addressed it.
        While the investigation of the accident is still ongoing by the
    National Transportation Safety Board and no root cause has yet been
    identified, the accident has refocused attention on the state of rail
    infrastructure around the country. Given that heavy rail systems move
    millions of people each day, this is a topic of vital importance, and I
    appreciate this Subcommittee's attention to it.
        Metro recently cohosted a roundtable with the Federal Transit
    Administration which brought together representatives from transit
    agencies around the country to discuss the importance of, and the
    challenges related to, keeping rail systems in a state of good repair.
    Also, as you are aware, the Federal Transit Administration issued a
    report earlier this year identifying a significant backlog of state-of-
    good-repair needs at the seven largest heavy rail transit systems,
    including Metro. Both the roundtable and the study made clear that
    there is ample demand from many transit systems for additional Federal
    support to sustain the safety and reliability of their systems.
        People outside the rail business may not realize just how much work
    is involved in keeping a rail system running smoothly. It takes a lot
    of effort to maintain a system with over 200 miles of track, 86 rail
    stations, and 1,100 rail cars, not to mention 1,500 buses and all of
    the associated facilities and infrastructure. Let me give you an
    example. Metro's Board of Directors recently approved a contract to
    rehabilitate a segment of the Red Line, our oldest line. Typical work
    to be performed under the contract--which does not include maintenance
    or rehabilitation on the tracks or bridges themselves--includes:

        Traction power work

        Automatic train control and communications upgrades

        Track fastener replacement

        Tunnel lighting replacement

        Tunnel ventilation and fire stand pipe rehabilitation

        Platform slab and tile replacement

        Platform canopy roof replacements

        Station vault repairs

        Air conditioning and ventilation equipment rehabilitation
            and replacement

        Elevator and escalator rehabilitation and replacement

    These activities may not be exciting to hear about, nor will they
    generate ribbon-cuttings or groundbreakings. But without them, service
    and safety will suffer. There will be more delays due to failing
    infrastructure, and that means lost time for our customers, and lost
    productivity for our region. The work we do every day on rehabilitation
    and replacement of our rail assets and infrastructure is the foundation
    upon which this region's mobility rests.
    Federal Transit Programs
        With that background, I would like to take this opportunity to make
    some observations about the Federal transit program, how it works
    today, and how it could be improved to better meet the needs of heavy
    rail transit systems such as Metro.
        As a rail system that is over 30 years old, Metro's largest capital
    cost is maintaining that system in a state of good repair. As I said
    earlier, almost two-thirds of our capital needs over the next 10 years
    are focused on maintaining the safety of our system and the reliability
    and quality of our service. The primary factor that limits our ability
    to fully meet these needs is, not surprisingly, money.
        The Federal formula programs from which Metro receives an
    allocation (the Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula and the Section
    5309 Fixed Guideway Modernization Formula) have worked well and have
    helped to support Metro's efforts to maintain the safety and
    reliability of our system. However, as the system continues to age, we
    need additional support from the Federal Government to ensure that
    needed rehabilitation and replacements can take place. In order to
    continue maintaining and improving our infrastructure, we will need an
    increase in the overall size of the Federal transit program or in the
    share of the program directed toward replacement and rehabilitation of
    existing assets.
        The Federal Government is not being asked to stand alone with
    regard to investment in public transportation. These Federal dollars
    would be matched by local sources, including contributions from the
    State and local governments in the communities we serve. Speaking for
    Metro, our local funding partners have stepped up to the plate time and
    time again. Between now and next July, they will contribute $574
    million, or about 41 percent of total operating cost for the rail, bus,
    and paratransit systems.
        They will contribute another $188 million, or about 36 percent of
    capital program costs, so that we may complete ongoing projects within
    the next 12 months. But they cannot do it alone, particularly in these
    challenging economic times.
        The funding provided by the Federal Government is critical to our
    ability to keep our systems running safely and reliably. If we do not
    receive sufficient funds now, service, as well as safety, will decline,
    leaving millions of Americans with few or no transportation options.
    Increasing Ridership/Capacity Issues
        I also want to bring to the Subcommittee's attention an issue that
    many transit agencies are facing, ironically as a result of our own
    success. As more people are riding transit--to avoid traffic
    congestion, reduce fuel consumption, or for other reasons--
    extraordinary demands are being placed upon our transit systems. Metro
    is already reaching capacity on many parts of our rail system. Our
    growing ridership is stressing our downtown stations and crowding our
    rail cars. As ridership continues to grow, conditions will become even
    worse. To visualize the future, one need only reflect on the crowding
    that Metro experienced on Inauguration Day, January 20, 2009, when we
    provided approximately 1.2 million trips on the rail system. As
    extraordinary as that effort seemed at the time, the record number of
    riders we carried on Inauguration Day could be the ridership we must
    move during a typical workday by 2020.
        To meet that demand, we are looking at expanding the rail fleet by
    220 new cars so that we can run longer trains; adding more than 300 new
    buses; and connecting key rail stations with pedestrian tunnels that
    will significantly reduce congestion in the downtown core and save our
    customers travel time. Of course, in order to run more cars on the
    existing system, we will also need to replace power and control systems
    to handle longer trains and shorter headways, as well as expand our
    rail maintenance facilities to accommodate the additional cars.
        These are capital investments on an existing transit system to
    upgrade, expand or increase the capability of the system to accommodate
    a demonstrated growth in ridership. These investments are needs beyond
    what can be funded from existing formula programs. In fact, the current
    structure of the Federal transit program does not provide funding for
    major capacity investments such as these. The bread-and-butter formula
    programs provide a predictable annual stream that helps us keep up with
    our routine capital needs. The New Starts program funds new service.
    Other programs meet other targeted purposes such as access to jobs and
    access for the disabled. All of these are extremely important, and
    should be continued and enhanced in the next authorization bill.
    However, there is no program at the Federal level to provide funds for
    a significant capital investment such as would be required to expand
    capacity on an existing system, such as purchasing additional rail cars
    and making the upgrades in power and maintenance facilities to
    accommodate them. As the Subcommittee considers ways to meet the
    infrastructure needs of transit systems, I encourage you to develop a
    source of funding at the Federal level for large-scale capital
    investments to expand capacity on existing systems so that we may meet
    future ridership demand.
    Conclusion
        I appreciate the Subcommittee's interest in the state of America's
    heavy rail infrastructure. There is a strong Federal interest in
    increasing the level of funding directed toward transit infrastructure
    needs. In 2008, Americans took 10.7 billion trips on public
    transportation. Public transportation helps to meet national goals such
    as environmental quality, economic growth, and reduced dependence on
    foreign oil.
        We at Metro are committed to doing whatever is needed to ensure
    that our system is as safe as it can be and to providing the best
    possible service, now and in the future. We strongly urge the Congress
    to provide a higher level of investment in rail infrastructure to
    ensure that we can keep our system performing safely and reliably.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I look forward to
    answering any questions you may have.
                                     ______

                    PREPARED STATEMENT OF RICHARD R. SARLES
                     Executive Director, New Jersey Transit
                                 August 4, 2009
        Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member Vitter, and distinguished Members
    of the Committee--my name is Richard Sarles and I am the Executive
    Director of NJ TRANSIT. NJ TRANSIT is the Nation's largest statewide
    public transportation system providing nearly 900,000 weekday trips on
    2000 buses, three light rail lines, and 12 commuter rail lines. NJ
    TRANSIT also operates hundreds of trains daily over the Amtrak-owned
    Northeast Corridor.
        Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the other distinguished
    Members of this Committee for providing me the opportunity to testify
    today on the criticality of providing the necessary capital funding for
    mature public transportation agencies.
        As you know, the Rail Modernization program was created by Congress
    to provide funding for established transit agencies for the purposes of
    improving existing systems, including purchase and rehabilitation of
    rolling stock, track, structures, signals and communications, power
    equipment and substations, passenger stations and terminals,
    maintenance facilities, and core capacity expansion.
        In short, the Rail Modernization program was created to assist in
    bringing my agency's infrastructure and the infrastructure of all of
    the mature transit agencies across the country to a state of good
    repair.
        When it comes to state of good repair, NJ TRANSIT is a success
    story.
        We inherited infrastructure and equipment from predecessor bus
    companies and railroads, such as the Pennsylvania and Erie Lackawanna,
    dating back in many cases to the earlier part of the 20th century.
        Unfortunately, public transportation under private ownership
    throughout much of the mid 20th century suffered from significant
    disinvestment and lack of maintenance.
        From its inception in 1979, NJ TRANSIT focused its efforts on
    restoring equipment, facilities and infrastructure to a state of good
    repair. It has taken three decades to bring NJ TRANSIT to a state-of-
    good repair and we will need to continue to concentrate our efforts in
    this regard to maintain our infrastructure and equipment. In FY09
    alone, we spent two thirds (67 percent) of our capital program on state
    of good repair and capital maintenance.
        During the 1990s, NJ TRANSIT also expended significant resources on
    the connectivity of the system which necessitated capacity expansion
    projects including the Midtown Direct service from Montclair and the
    construction of the Frank R. Lautenberg transfer station in Secaucus.
    NJ TRANSIT also embarked on the construction of two light rail systems
    in the 1990s: Hudson-Bergen Light Rail and the Riverline.
        As those projects were being completed, we again reemphasized that
    our top investment priorities were safety, state of good repair and
    core system capacity.
        That effort has produced very tangible results.
        NJ TRANSIT is in the midst of the largest rolling stock upgrade
    program in our history, involving the purchase or rehabilitation of
    over 4,100 pieces of equipment.
        Over half of our rail passenger fleet has been replaced or
    overhauled in the past 6 years. We are also in the midst of replacing
    all of our transit and suburban style buses.
        We have invested over $100 million in four critical movable
    bridges. We have replaced viaducts, opened new rail yards, replaced
    wooden ties with concrete ties, and completed a $90 million automatic
    train control system upgrade.
        All of these efforts led the FTA to declare in May of this year
    that NJ TRANSIT's capital program supports a state of good repair for
    the system. However, continuing this success will require renewal and
    enhancement of Federal funding. It also requires adequate funding to
    support routine maintenance to prevent premature degradation of
    equipment and infrastructure.
        How did we get to this point?
        It started with the bipartisan support for the formation of NJ
    TRANSIT 30 years ago. Most recently, our focus on state-of-good repair
    was reinvigorated by Governor Corzine directing through the last
    reauthorization of our State Transportation Trust Fund that NJ TRANSIT
    produce an annual submission of our capital investment strategy to the
    NJ State Legislature. That strategy promotes safety and state of good
    repair as our top priority, followed by core capacity improvements and
    lastly expansion of the reach of our system.
        We also ``walk the walk.'' Our bridge inspection program directs
    our engineers to inspect all of our bridges biannually or annually,
    depending on the type of bridge. Inspection is not limited to bridges.
    Facilities too are inspected regularly.
        We have in-house forces whose principal focus is to replace track
    continually, throughout the system. These efforts have resulted in
    improved reliability for our customers. In fact, we have no slow orders
    on the rail system and our on-time performance in FY09 was 96.4
    percent.
        On-time performance slips to 94.1 percent when taking into account
    failures related to Amtrak infrastructure and equipment. The reason for
    this is simple. Amtrak, which owns the spine of our rail system, has
    been unable to provide the requisite funding to state of good repair in
    New Jersey because of historic, drastic underfunding.
        On the other hand, New Jersey has consistently provided significant
    funding from its Transportation Trust Fund to NJ TRANSIT for capital
    expenditures. In fact, Governor Corzine has allocated more than 40
    percent of New Jersey's transportation capital funds to NJ TRANSIT. And
    these funds are matched 1 for 1 by Rail Modernization funds and
    Urbanized Area funds from the Federal Government. Since 2002, NJ
    TRANSIT's capital program has exceeded $1 billion.
        I am hopeful the trend of underfunding Amtrak will be reversed with
    the welcomed increases in capital funding through the American Recovery
    and Reinvestment Act and the FY10 Appropriations bills making their way
    through Congress.
        With respect to our bus fleet, we have evaluated our bus needs and
    determined that with over 3,000 buses, we need to replace 200 to 250
    buses a year, every year, just to maintain our current level of state
    of good repair.
        We have teams of engineers, planners, operating personnel, and
    capital funding personnel who meet throughout the year to continually
    reprioritize capital projects as needed to address the most critical
    state-of-good-repair needs.
        This comprehensive capital funding planning process has moderated
    operating cost increases. A continued focus by NJ TRANSIT on state of
    good repair will assure the reliability of our system for generations
    to come.
        So where do we stand and what can Congress do to continue and
    bolster our efforts to maintain state of good repair?
        First and foremost, I urge this Committee and Congress to increase
    funding for public transportation--through both the Rail Modernization
    formula (5309) and the Urbanized Area formula (5307). Costs continue to
    increase as aging systems expand to meet demand.
        Thanks to Congress and President Obama, the American Recovery and
    Reinvestment Act has provided us the opportunity to accelerate
    additional state-of-good-repair projects. For instance, the Lower
    Hackensack bridge rehabilitation project--a $30 million project, which
    had been scheduled to be funded in our out-year capital program, was
    advertised in June thanks to ARRA funding.
        I will caution the Committee that there are some things Congress
    should carefully consider.
        First, any kind of formula program that distributes money in such a
    way as to proportionately decrease funding to transit agencies that are
    in a state of good repair is problematic. I suggest any funding program
    specifically targeted to state of good repair should be incentive
    based.
        For example, state-of-good-repair projects could be allowed to
    proceed with 100 percent Federal funds, instead of the normal 20
    percent local match. Or, properties that are in a state of good repair
    could be eligible for increased New Starts share for expansion
    projects.
        Another situation Congress should carefully consider is
    implementing any asset management system that prescribes which projects
    should advance ahead of others.
        It would not be prudent for a Federal agency to determine which
    bridge should be fixed first, or which station should be replaced.
    Those decisions should be made by those closest to the infrastructure
    and equipment.
        We made significant advances in state of good repair in New Jersey
    by making it our top priority and pushing the decisions on how to spend
    the state-of-good-repair money down to the engineers and maintenance
    staff who evaluate the infrastructure and equipment. I have concerns
    related to proposals that suggest all of the information about the
    infrastructure conditions of transit agencies should be collected on
    the Federal level, put into a database, where an algorithm would
    produce a list of what should be fixed.
        Formula programs that distribute funding based on the condition of
    the infrastructure necessitate just such a system. Those decisions
    should be made locally, by those who have the expertise to make them
    and I urge this Committee to pursue funding formulas without strings
    attached that could supersede these decisions.
        I want to reiterate that state of good repair has been NJ TRANSIT's
    top priority from its inception and I appreciate this Committee
    allocating valuable time and resources to considering strategies for
    maintaining the state of good repair of the Nation's transit agencies.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today.

                 PREPARED STATEMENT OF BEVERLY A. SCOTT, Ph.D.
                  General Manager and Chief Executive Officer,
                  Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority
                                 August 4, 2009
        Chairman Menendez, thank you for this opportunity to present
    testimony to the Subcommittee on Housing, Transportation, and Community
    Development regarding rail modernization needs. You are holding this
    hearing at a critical time, as the transit industry looks forward to
    the next Surface Transportation Authorization at a time when annual
    ridership has reached record levels in the midst of a severe financial
    crisis. I understand that I have been invited to appear before you
    today primarily in my capacity as General Manager and Chief Executive
    Officer of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA),
    while I also have the honor of serving as Chair of the American Public
    Transportation Association (APTA). I truly appreciate your interest in
    improving public transportation service in the United States, and I
    look forward to working with you in my dual capacity as this next
    authorization legislation moves forward.
    About MARTA
        The Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA), the 9th
    largest transit system in the United States, provides comprehensive
    rail, bus, and paratransit service with over 143 million passenger
    trips per year. We are also one of a few Tier 1 transit systems
    designated by the Department of Homeland Security. The MARTA rail
    system provides revenue service over 48 miles of double-track to 38
    stations with 338 rail cars, with a total of 104 miles of mainline
    track and three rail yards with 20 miles of yard track. We operate 600
    clean fuel buses over 130 routes, and our MARTA Mobility (Paratransit)
    Program operates 175 lift-equipped paratransit vans serving persons
    with disabilities. We serve the core of one of the fastest growing
    regions in the Nation, expected to add three million more residents
    over the next 30 years. While Federal transportation investment has and
    remains critical to our transit system's preservation and expansion, we
    are primarily funded by a 1 percent sales tax levied in Fulton, DeKalb
    Counties, and the City of Atlanta.
        MARTA began heavy rail service in June 1979, with our most recent
    rail extension coming on line in December 2000. MARTA's current
    infrastructure represents a $6 billion-plus investment. Several
    suburban bus providers connect to the MARTA rail system which is the
    backbone of the regional transit network. While ridership has grown,
    the Region currently does not have the funding to expand service to
    accommodate rising demand.
        As importantly, and most germane to the subject of this hearing,
    our system is equally constrained in its ability to adequately fund and
    support the sharply escalating infrastructure renovation,
    rehabilitation, replacement, and modernization needs of a ``first
    generation, aging New Starts system.'' Candidly, not unlike the ``baby
    boomers'', MARTA is representative of a whole generation of rail
    transit systems in our country that have been established over the past
    25-35 years, largely in high growth areas with significant continuing
    pressures for growth and expansion. From a physical infrastructure,
    asset management and people perspective, the challenges facing these
    transit systems are oftentimes monumental as they grapple with the very
    real issues of system maturation, system preservation and system
    expansion.
        Not surprisingly, due to the recent economic downturn, there has
    been significant erosion in MARTA's capital program. Whereas, we had
    originally planned to invest $359 million in capital improvements this
    fiscal year, our adopted FY10 capital plan is now only $248 million. As
    previously noted, local sales tax revenue is our primary funding
    source, with approximately 15 percent of MARTA's current Capital Budget
    being federally funded. While our Region has adopted a progressive
    vision for transit expansion, known as Concept 3, which calls for major
    extensions to the MARTA rail system, we are still seeking to identify
    additional funding sources to be able to implement this Plan.
    The Vital Federal Partnership
        We are indeed grateful for the long-standing support of Congress
    and the Federal Transit Administration, which has made a substantial
    contribution to MARTA's success. The development of MARTA's rapid rail
    system was greatly aided by the Federal New Starts program, with
    initial construction beginning in 1975 and our first East Line rail
    segment opening for revenue service in 1979.
        Most recently, passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment
    Act (ARRA) has made a crucial difference in our agency's ability to
    survive the current economic recession. MARTA is receiving $88 million
    in Economic Recovery funding, which we are utilizing for our most
    critical needs--the Upgrade of our Fire Protection System, Replacement
    of Rolling Stock, and Preventive Maintenance.
        Despite this timely infusion of capital, MARTA and public
    transportation agencies across our Nation still face monumental
    financial challenges. We will need your continued support and
    significantly expanded Federal transportation investment to help us
    maintain our transit systems in a state of good repair.
        At this point, the results and costs of the decades of
    underinvestment in our surface transportation systems nationwide are
    well documented. As summarized most recently by the House Committee on
    Transportation and Infrastructure:

        the American Society of Civil Engineers grades our transit
            systems a ``D'';

        over 32,500 public transit buses and vans have exceeded
            their useful service life;

        within the next 6 years, almost every transit vehicle (over
            55,000) in rural America will need to be replaced; and

        the Nation's largest public transit agencies face an $80
            billion maintenance backlog to bring their rail systems to a
            state of good repair.

    And, this is just the tip of the iceberg.
    State of Good Repair
        First, I will start by stressing that the challenges confronting us
    in addressing the issue of ``state of good repair'' are industry-wide.
    Virtually every community and transit operator is grappling with this
    issue regardless of size or geography. And, it is my firm belief that
    significantly expanded Federal transportation investment coupled with
    real program restructuring, meaningful performance metrics, strong
    oversight, and incentives for self help are key elements of the
    prescription needed to help us move forward. Within this broader
    context, I would like to take just a few moments to talk a bit about
    the MARTA system which is characteristic of an important slice of
    transit systems in our industry, which I commonly refer to as the
    ``aging, one generation New Starts transit systems.''
        MARTA, which began rail operations 30 years ago, is no longer the
    ``new kid on the block'' and is now a mature transit system well into
    middle age. We, along with our sister agencies in Washington, DC, and
    the San Francisco Bay Area--which also began in the 1970s--and a number
    of other first and second generation transit systems in largely high
    growth areas of the country (like San Diego, Sacramento, Portland,
    Miami--to name a few) are sometimes referred to as the ``Aging New
    Starts Systems.''
        MARTA's experience--as we begin our 2nd generation--is that while
    not a great deal of capital replacement may be needed in the first
    seven to 10 years of rail system operation, around that point many of
    the system infrastructure elements, seemingly all at once, begin to
    require recapitalization. For example, heavy rail cars, which have a 25
    to 30 year minimum service life standard, should typically undergo a
    midlife overhaul around the 12 to 15-year mark. It goes without saying
    that deferring such reinvestment is extremely costly--in terms of both
    reliability and potentially, safety. While the focus on state of good
    repair is typically driven by a look at physical infrastructure, I
    would be remiss if I did not also stress the critical importance of the
    associated people and workforce development considerations that are
    also an important element of this topic.
        As Congress considers the next surface transportation
    authorization, it is important that the needs of these first and second
    generation systems are adequately factored into the equation, including
    more equitable ways to allocate Rail Modernization funds. As
    importantly, funding flexibility and new initiatives in the area of
    workforce development would be very beneficial.
        As our transit system continues to age, it has become increasing
    challenging to maintain a state of good repair. The average age of our
    rail car fleet is over 20 years old, with our original fleet of 120
    rail cars now reaching the 30-year mark. In addition to rolling stock,
    fixed facilities such as passenger stations, trackway and structures,
    and train control and signal systems are subject to deterioration over
    time and need to undergo capital rehabilitation and/or replacement at
    the requisite intervals. In 2000, MARTA conducted its first Asset
    Condition Assessment which projected a need for significant
    reinvestment to sustain the system in a state of good repair over the
    next 20 years. We completed a comprehensive life system safety
    assessment this past year; and are currently in the process of fully
    updating our Asset Condition Assessment. Moving forward, this
    information will form the basis for our capital program planning and
    development--with a first focus on safety/regulatory compliance and
    ``state of good repair''--fix it first. This past year, the MARTA Board
    of Directors codified this capital programming emphasis on safety/
    regulatory compliance and state of good repair.
        Over the next 20 years, based on existing data--MARTA has a
    projected need of approximately $5.2 billion in capital reinvestment in
    order to safely maintain our existing rail/bus system in a state of
    good repair. Under the existing Federal program structure, projected
    FTA funding, while very much appreciated, falls far short in addressing
    these needs. For example, while MARTA transports over 80 million
    passengers per year on our heavy rail system, the Authority is
    receiving less than $37 million annually in FTA Rail Modernization
    program funding.
        On the plus side, MARTA has recently completed an extensive
    multiyear rail car rehabilitation program, overhauling 218 of our
    oldest cars to extend each car's life by 15 years. The cost-effective
    program has already resulted in an increase in MARTA's rail service
    reliability by 22 percent and has also improved on-time performance
    substantially.
        For a cost of $246 million, MARTA contracted with New York based
    Alstom Transportation, Inc. USA, to take each vehicle down to its shell
    and rebuild it from the ground up using new components and designs. By
    refurbishing the rail cars instead of buying new ones at a price of $3
    million each, which was the average cost of a new rail car in 2005,
    MARTA saved an estimated $408 million. Due to careful management of the
    rehabilitation contract, MARTA is completing the program approximately
    $3 million under budget. To ensure the long-term sustainability of the
    rail car fleet into the future, MARTA has developed and implemented a
    comprehensive Life Cycle Asset Reliability Enhancement (L-CARE)
    preventive maintenance/system preservation program, which is designed
    to maintain the newly rehabilitated vehicles in a state of good repair.
        The success of MARTA's rail car rehabilitation project highlights
    the criticality of ``state of good repair'' and system preservation to
    all rail transit systems. The MARTA project would not have been
    possible without the substantial financial support received through the
    FTA Fixed Guideway Modernization program, totaling $167 million in
    Federal assistance over a multiyear period. The assurance of annual
    formula funding over the life of the project enabled MARTA to make a
    multiyear commitment to rehabilitate the rail cars. It is essential
    that the Fixed Guideway Modernization program be expanded in the
    future, with guaranteed minimum overall funding levels, to better
    address the full range of rail system rehabilitation needs.
        The issues with regard to rail infrastructure investment are a
    national issue that is not confined to one group of rail transit
    systems or area of the country. There are absolutely staggering needs
    for many of our oldest rail transit systems that are well documented;
    growing needs for the next generation of aging systems (``the
    boomers'')--like MARTA; and a whole host of newer systems that will
    also go through the same growth and maturation process. Simply, we need
    a level of surface transportation funding investment that helps us
    begin to gain ground on the tremendous backlog in state of good repair
    accompanied by programmatic, performance-driven reforms that support
    and recognize self-help, prudent decision-making and resource
    allocation.
        Due to the recent financial crisis, the sales tax revenues that
    fund the majority of MARTA's Capital Budget have precipitously
    declined. This has unfortunately led to major cuts in our Capital
    Improvement Program (CIP), resulting in a $1.4 billion reduction in our
    CIP over the upcoming 10-year period. Many worthy projects, such as
    rail station renovations, rail trackway structure/pier refurbishment,
    station roof replacement, and station escalator, plumbing and
    electrical systems replacement--are having to be either deferred or
    eliminated. The Authority is prioritizing the constrained resources
    available on Life Safety and State of Good Repair projects. MARTA will
    soon be issuing major third party contracts to replace and upgrade our
    Automated Train Control System and to replace the running rail on a
    significant portion of our trackway. Other worthy projects, however,
    such as replacement of leaky roofs at older rail stations, have to be
    deferred. While our rail rolling stock is now in very good condition,
    additional funding resources will be needed to maintain a state of good
    repair on our fixed infrastructure facilities.
        We appreciate the FTA's recent initiatives focusing on the State of
    Good Repair (SOGR) in the transit industry. The FTA's Rail
    Modernization Report issued to Congress in April 2009, which focused on
    the needs of seven of the larger rail systems, was definitely a much
    needed report and a good beginning. We welcome and support FTA's
    interest in expanding this SOGR study to include other systems, such as
    MARTA's, which are also faced with similar challenges.
        While it is not the immediate focus of this hearing, I would be
    remiss if I did not also mention that many of our Nation's bus systems
    also have significant state-of-good-repair needs. A recent APTA/AASHTO
    survey indicates that public transit systems nationwide have not been
    able to keep pace with investment needs for bus replacement in
    accordance with FTA guidelines. The survey found that, in total, 59
    percent of the vehicles in our Nation's 40-foot urban bus fleet are
    overage, or will reach the end of their FTA-recommended service life
    during the next 6 years. There are also equally compelling needs for
    rural transit systems throughout the country.
        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 help maintain
    infrastructure it has already spent considerable resources to build,
    and also to help expand that infrastructure to meet our Nation's
    critical transportation needs.
        Proper asset management and 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, including MARTA's,
    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.
        Fixed Guideway Modernization funding allocation decisions should
    take into account transit industry service life standards and life
    cycle rehabilitation/replacement cycles. I would recommend the
    development of a national inventory of transit assets, a prioritization
    of needs and required communication to FTA on when those needs have
    been improved to a state of repair of fair or better.
        There is a wave of rail transit systems that came on line in the
    1980s that are now reaching the generational mark--San Diego,
    Baltimore, Los Angeles, Miami, Portland, and Sacramento, just to name a
    few--that are either at or nearing the stage where substantial
    reinvestment is necessary. Most of these ``young adult'' to ``middle-
    aged'' systems are located in areas of our Nation that are forecasted
    to experience significant population growth in the future. If these
    fixed guideway systems are not supported in a sustainable state of good
    repair, then their potential to maximize the previous investment will
    be compromised. It would not be prudent national policy to concentrate
    Federal modernization program funding solely on the older systems and
    allow the middle-aged systems to fall into a state of disrepair.
        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 systems. APTA's estimate
    of the total annual resources necessary to maintain and improve our
    transit systems to address our growing population and economic needs is
    $59.2 billion.
    A Balanced Approach
        When asked, which is more critical--system expansion or system
    preservation--my answer is both are equally important. While on the one
    hand, it makes no sense to expand while the system is crumbling, at the
    same time we cannot afford to sit still. Transit provides such a
    substantial contribution to our Nation's economic health and quality of
    life, that both are essential. A strong Federal-State-local partnership
    that provides a healthy balance of resources to both maintain and
    expand transit services is of vital importance to our Nation's
    economic, social and environmental well-being.
        I urge the Subcommittee to strongly consider at least doubling the
    size of the Rail Modernization program over the next 6 years, based on
    the maxim that ``a rising tide lifts all ships.'' The program should
    strike a balance between being ``needs based,'' while also providing
    incentives for local and State investment as well. The formula should
    be fair and equitable, providing a reasonable opportunity for older,
    middle-aged, and newer systems to have adequate resources to sustain
    the previous investment in those systems.
        I support APTA's proposal dealing with changes to the Fixed
    Guideway Modernization program, which essentially seeks to balance the
    needs of the old, middle-aged, and new systems. One concern I have with
    the existing Program structure is that the initial tiers, which are
    first in line to be funded, are weighted in favor of the older areas.
    This became particularly acute to us in Atlanta, when the Recovery Act
    funds for Fixed Guideway Infrastructure were allocated. Rather than
    receiving a proportionate share of the funding, reliance on the
    preexisting seven-tiered formula negatively impacted the funding
    allocated to MARTA.
        It is thus important that the overall program funding level needs
    to be sufficiently high to fully encompass both Tier I (limited to
    existing systems) as well as Tier II, which would be open to all
    systems. We need to remember that the newer systems of today such as
    Phoenix will ultimately be facing similar challenges as systems such as
    Atlanta, Cleveland, Miami, and Washington, DC.
        MARTA supports APTA's recommendation to simplify the fixed guideway
    modernization program. The viability of APTA's two-tiered proposal is
    predicated on the hoped-for assumptions that the program funding will
    double, and that the program is needs based and its elements would be
    straightforward and uncomplicated. The current seven tiers should be
    folded into a much simpler two-tier formula program, and the funds
    provided equitably to all projects, without regard to minimum urbanized
    area population levels. The key to this structure being fair and
    equitable is that the overall funding level should be sufficient to
    fill-up both Tier I and Tier II. Otherwise, the newer systems, which
    have to solely rely on Tier II for their funding, will be
    disadvantaged. I respectfully request that Members of the Subcommittee
    keep the legitimate needs of all fixed guideway systems in mind as you
    prepare to deal with this critical legislation.
        Mr. Chairman, I would also like to take this opportunity to thank
    you for your leadership in sponsoring the ``The Close the SILO/LILO
    Loophole Act'' (S.1341). This vital piece of legislation would go a
    long way in protecting MARTA and other public entities from the risk of
    having to pay tens of millions of dollars to banks at a time when
    demand for transit services is at an all time high and transit agency
    budgets are strapped. The technicalities are complicated but the
    equities are clear. Congress cannot let banks gain windfalls via tax
    shelters at the expense of the Nation's transit agencies and other
    public agencies.
    Conclusion
        Funding for a state of good repair ensures that we maintain an
    efficient and sustainable means for Americans to get to work, reduce
    dependence on foreign oil, improve air quality and combat global
    climate change. 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. 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. However, to be truly successful, public transit
    must be in a state of good repair. 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 20-year
    period and address the aforementioned national goals and policies, a
    significant expansion of the entire Federal Transit program--including
    the Fixed Guideway Modernization Program--needs to occur.
        At a time that our systems are struggling to maintain a state of
    good repair in the face of declining state and local operating
    resources, we should not turn our back on the years of progress we have
    made in rebuilding a quality public transportation system. The Fixed
    Guideway Modernization program needs to substantially grow to address
    the state-of-good-repair needs of rail transit systems across our
    Nation. In considering the program structure, I would recommend a
    balanced needs-based approach, based on rational criteria, which is
    fair and equitable to all fixed guideway systems. The goal is to ensure
    all transit systems access to adequate capital funding while also
    simplifying the programs and speeding project delivery. In summary, I
    urge this Congress to provide the resources necessary to maintain a
    State of Good Repair among all of our Nation's rail systems--old,
    middle aged, and young. We need this Subcommittee's help to address
    this funding gap which threatens our ability to fulfill our mission.
        Chairman Menendez, I thank you and the Subcommittee for allowing me
    to provide testimony on this critical issue.
    RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF CHAIRMAN MENENDEZ FROM PETER
                               M. ROGOFF

    Q.1. The April 2009 FTA Rail Modernization Report stated that
    ``while total Federal support for transit infrastructure has
    increased, the Nation's oldest and largest systems' share of
    these funds has lost ground.'' In that same report the FTA
    documented a $50 billion backlog in projects needed to get the
    Nation's oldest and largest transit systems into a state of
    good repair. Does this mean that the FTA recommends changing
    the Rail Modernization formula to provide more funding for the
    largest and oldest systems? If not, what other ways do you
    suggest securing Federal funding to meet these needs?

    A.1. The Nation's oldest and largest transit agencies carry 60
    percent of total (bus and rail) ridership but receive only 40
    percent of all Federal funding. As new systems are added, the
    Fixed Guideway Modernization Program is spread more thinly and
    the proportion of funds distributed to older rail systems has
    declined from over 90 percent in 1993 to less than 70 percent
    by 2006. However, maintaining these systems in a state of good
    repair does not necessarily require changing the fixed guideway
    modernization formula. Three things are required to maintain a
    state of good repair. The first is an adequate and reliable
    funding source. Several agencies have been successful in
    developing dedicated external funding sources, such as a sales
    tax or receipts from bridge tolls. The Denver Regional
    Transportation District is an example of an agency that manages
    this particularly well.
        The second is a capital improvement plan linked to a good
    asset management system. The former allows you to anticipate
    long-term needs and the latter provides the data to manage
    short-term needs in a long-term context. The Massachusetts Bay
    Transportation Authority in Boston has a very good asset
    management system which has allowed them to focus its limited
    resources on its most critical reinvestment needs.
        The third is a culture of strong management and focus on
    safety. When political expediency and growing demand tempt
    agencies to focus on system expansion at the expense of their
    existing infrastructure and equipment it is very hard to
    achieve a state of good repair. Transit agencies must make
    prudent choices which protects the public's investment in
    public transportation and ensures its safe maintenance and
    operation.

    Q.2. Within USDOT there is emergency funding available when
    natural disasters strike roads, highway and bridges. Is there a
    comparable source of funding when similar disasters strike
    transit systems? Should there be emergency spending power for
    the mass transit account?

    A.2. No, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) does not have
    a funding source expressly for the provision of transit
    assistance in the aftermath of natural or man-made disasters.
    In the General Accountability Office (GAO) report, Emergency
    Transit Assistance--Federal Funding for Recent Disasters, and
    Options for the Future, February 2008, GAO stated that ``After
    the 2005 Gulf Coast Hurricanes, FEMA (Federal Emergency
    Management Agency) and FTA faced challenges that impeded both
    the timeliness and effectiveness of their assistance to
    transit.'' The report sites that ``neither FEMA nor FTA had
    mechanisms to provide transit funding immediately after the
    disasters.''
        GAO suggested an option is for ``Congress to establish an
    emergency relief program for FTA, similar to the DOT program
    for highways, or expand the scope of the highway program to
    include transit.'' Such a program could include ``quick
    release'' mechanism used to approve a release emergency highway
    funds within 1 to 2 days.

    Q.3. Should transit agencies have to report to the FTA the
    state of repair of all its major equipment? My understanding
    right now is that just rail cars are reported.

    A.3. Yes, FTA believes that transit agencies should report the
    state of repair of all its major equipment and fixed capital
    assets to its National Transit Database (NTD). Currently, FTA
    collects detailed condition information on all transit revenue
    vehicles, for both bus and rail modes, through the NTD.
    Inventories are also collected of other capital assets,
    including transit stations, maintenance facilities, and fixed
    guideway infrastructure, but these data do not include
    information on their condition or state of repair. Collecting
    additional information on the state of repair of these fixed
    capital assets would improve FTA's long-term capability to make
    good estimates of capital investment needs for the Nation, and
    for regional and modal segments of the transit industry. If
    collected by FTA, these data would also become a public
    resource, available to individual transit systems and their
    stakeholders and would assist in creating a data-based
    foundation for improving capital asset management practices in
    the industry.
        An enhancement to add data collection for fixed capital
    assets to the NTD has been explored and could be implemented if
    additional resources were made available. NTD funding comes
    from a line item in Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
    Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users that allocates
    $3.5 million per year to the program. This amount has not
    increased since passage of that Act in August 2005 and
    inflation has limited what can be done with the current NTD
    budget.
                                    ------

        RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF CHAIRMAN MENENDEZ FROM
                            CAROLE L. BROWN

    Q.1. Do you believe the Rail Modernization formula should be
    changed? If so, how do you think it should be changed?

    A.1. I was so pleased when you and 11 members of the Senate,
    including Chairman Menendez and Senators Bayh and Schumer,
    asked for a Federal Transit Administration report on the
    Nation's rail modernization needs. The resulting FTA Rail
    Modernization Study Report to Congress found that fixed
    guideway funding is no longer being allocated solely to its
    intended recipients--rail transit systems--and that due to
    nonfixed guideway based entities such as high occupancy lanes,
    and bus lanes taking a share of the money, the intended
    recipients have seen their funding decline sharply. As a
    result, the seven largest rail transit systems, including CTA,
    New Jersey Transit, WMATA and the New York City MTA, carry 80
    percent of the Nation's rail riders but have witnessed their
    maintenance backlog grow to a collective $50 billion. The CTA
    share of this figure is over $4 billion, which in real terms
    means that CTA rail track and rail cars have grown past their
    useful life, thereby leading to an increase in rail slow zones
    to ensure safety on the rail system.
        CTA is in dire need of modernization. Your leadership in
    addressing this issue for Chicago and many of the other older
    rail cities would go a long way to rectify this problem. The
    FTA report provides a blueprint for modernizing the Nation's
    fixed guideway systems by simplifying the Fixed Guideway
    Modernization Program so that funds are allocated based on age,
    type of rail system, and maintenance needs of a transit system.
    Realignment of the program will likely lead to an increase in
    funds for true fixed guideway agencies such as CTA, New Jersey
    Transit, WMATA, and New York City MTA which means a faster,
    more efficient, and safer ride for our rail riders. I would ask
    that you and Members of the Committee consider the FTA
    recommendations as you deliberate the transportation
    authorization bill.

    Q.2. During these difficult economic times, you are facing high
    ridership and continued capital and maintenance needs. Has the
    infusion of ARRA funds empowered you to undertake some projects
    which you would have otherwise put off? Could you describe how
    the everyday life of one of your typical customers has improved
    because of these added resources?

    A.2. Thanks to leadership from you and your Congressional
    colleagues, CTA received a total of $241 million in stimulus
    funds. CTA's unfunded capital need is so great that we were
    ready to proceed with contracts just 1 month after President
    Obama signed the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act. We
    proceeded with the purchase of 58 buses from New Flyer (a bus
    manufacturing plant located in Minnesota) and approved a $56.6
    million contract for renewal of approximately 36,000 feet of
    track in the Blue Line Dearborn subway. The 58 buses will
    replace older, less reliable buses that are costly to maintain.
    We expect all buses to be delivered and in revenue service by
    early September. The Blue Line Dearborn work is removing slow
    zones and preventing new slow zones from developing. The
    project will be completed by the end of this year. Our Blue
    Line project was the first major transit project to be paid for
    with ARRA funds. CTA would not have funded any of these
    projects with the ARRA funds. CTA is also using ARRA funds for:

        Preventive Maintenance--projects are fully spent
            and 100 percent complete--$75.2M

        Kedzie Garage HVAC Replacement--target completion
            is November 1--$5.5M

        North Park Garage Oil/Water Separator--Staff will
            recommend award of construction bid at August CTA
            Board--$2.4M

        Subway Escalators--$4.8M

        Reconstruct Rail Stations--$14.4M

        Cermak Station Rehabilitation--$12.5M

        Belmont/Fullerton Canopy Extensions--target
            completion date is December 2009--$1.9M

        These projects enhance the ridership experience for our
    customers by making the trips faster and more reliable, and
    they improve customer and employee facilities. And importantly
    in this economy, we estimate the stimulus funds will create
    over 1,500 jobs just through CTA projects.
                                    ------

     RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF CHAIRMAN MENENDEZ FROM JOHN
                             B. CATOE, JR.

    Q.1. Do you believe the Rail Modernization formula should be
    changed? If so, how do you think it should be changed?

    A.1. Given the extensive capital needs of rail systems,
    particularly heavy rail systems, I believe that the first
    priority for the rail modernization program should be to
    increase the size of the program significantly to help rail
    systems meet those needs. Recognizing the desire among some in
    Congress and the industry to simplify the rail modernization
    formula, WMATA participated with other rail transit agencies in
    development of the simplified, two-tiered, needs-based rail
    modernization program proposed by the American Public
    Transportation Association last fall. I also want to bring to
    the Committee's attention a challenge associated with any
    needs-based formula, which is to ensure that needs are measured
    the same way across all transit agencies. Should Congress
    determine that changes to the rail modernization formula are
    desirable, I recommend that you also encourage the Federal
    Transit Administration to develop a methodology for capital
    reporting that will ensure consistency across agencies, as the
    FTA recommended in its recent Rail Modernization Study.

    Q.2. During these difficult economic times, you are facing high
    ridership and continued capital and maintenance needs. Has the
    infusion of ARRA funds empowered you to undertake some projects
    which you would have otherwise put off? Could you describe how
    the everyday life of one of your typical customers has improved
    because of these added resources?

    A.2. Yes, any capital investments we can make in our aging
    system help us to maintain our system in a state of good repair
    and conduct maintenance that might otherwise have been
    deferred. ARRA funding has allowed us to begin work on a long
    list of unfunded capital needs. We recently identified $11
    billion in such needs over the next 10 years, about two-thirds
    of which are focused on the safety and reliability of our
    system, and the remaining third on meeting growing ridership
    demand. We do not currently have funding in place to meet all
    of these needs.
        The $200 million of ARRA funding for WMATA is being
    primarily dedicated to:

        System infrastructure improvements

        Vehicle procurement

        Upgrades of maintenance facilities

        Procurement of heavy maintenance equipment

        Communications systems

        All of WMATA's customers will see benefits from our ARRA-
    funded investments. Our new buses and paratransit vehicles will
    provide them with a more comfortable ride. By reducing average
    fleet age, we will also be able to deliver more reliable
    service to them. Our rail customers will see notable
    improvement in the condition of station platforms and the
    overall condition of our oldest stations. Farecard transactions
    will be a faster and more efficient process for our customers
    due to expansion of the Metro Center Sales Office and upgrades
    to fare media vending machines throughout the rail system.
        It should be noted that while some of the ARRA-funded
    investments will not be ``visible'' to the average customer,
    our customers will nevertheless experience improved service.
    Such behind-the-scenes investments in system monitoring and
    maintenance help reduce breakdowns and out-of-service time and
    include investments in heavy-duty equipment to complete rail
    maintenance and repairs more quickly; an enhanced bus
    maintenance monitoring system that alerts us to the need for
    repairs; and upgraded communications equipment in our new
    Operations Control Center and new kiosk and train control
    computers at various Metrorail stations.
                                    ------

       RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF CHAIRMAN MENENDEZ FROM
                           RICHARD R. SARLES

    Q.1. Do you believe the Rail Modernization formula should be
    changed? If so, how do you think it should be changed?

    A.1. Per my testimony on August 4, 2009--the Rail Modernization
    program was created by Congress to provide funding for
    established transit agencies for the purposes of improving
    existing systems, including purchase and rehabilitation of
    rolling stock, track, structures, signals and communications,
    power equipment and substations, passenger stations and
    terminals, maintenance facilities, and core capacity expansion.
        In short, the Rail Modernization program was created to
    assist in bringing my agency's infrastructure and the
    infrastructure of all of the mature transit agencies across the
    country to a state of good repair.
        When it comes to state of good repair, NJ TRANSIT is a
    success story. Our efforts and the Rail Modernization program
    has led the FTA to declare in May of this year that NJ
    TRANSIT's capital program supports a state of good repair for
    the system. However, continuing this success will require
    renewal and enhancement of Federal funding. It also requires
    adequate funding to support routine maintenance to prevent
    premature degradation of equipment and infrastructure.
        Any kind of formula program that distributes money in such
    a way as to proportionately decrease funding to transit
    agencies that are in a state of good repair is problematic.
        We made significant advances in state of good repair in New
    Jersey by making it our top priority and pushing the decisions
    on how to spend the state-of-good-repair money down to the
    engineers and maintenance staff who evaluate the infrastructure
    and equipment. I have concerns related to proposals that
    suggest all of the information about the infrastructure
    conditions of transit agencies should be collected on the
    Federal level, put into a database, where an algorithm would
    produce a list of what should be fixed.
        Formula programs that distribute funding based on the
    condition of the infrastructure necessitate just such a system.
    Those decisions should be made locally, by those who have the
    expertise to make them and I urge this Committee to pursue
    funding formulas without strings attached that could supersede
    these decisions.

    Q.2. During these difficult economic times, you are facing high
    ridership and continued capital and maintenance needs. Has the
    infusion of ARM funds empowered you to undertake some projects
    which you would have otherwise put off? Could you describe how
    the everyday life of one of your typical customers has improved
    because of these added resources?

    A.2. Yes. ARRA funding has allowed us to advance to
    construction many projects that had been planned for many
    years. The $8.7 billion Access to the Region's Core project,
    which involves the construction of a new trans-Hudson rail
    tunnel to Manhattan from New Jersey, has been in the planning
    stages for over 10 years. The ARRA funding allowed us to fund
    final design and begin construction on this project. Similarly,
    in South Jersey, since the opening of our River Line light rail
    system earlier this decade, there has been discussion of
    building a transfer station between the River Line and our
    existing Atlantic City rail line. Thanks to ARRA funding, that
    project will be under contract next month (October 2009). The
    estimated ridership is over 1,000 riders a day at this single
    station. These are just two of the 15 projects that NJ TRANSIT
    advanced through ARRA funding. Thanks to ARC, riders will have
    more transfer free rides to Manhattan. Thanks to the Pennsauken
    Transit Center in South Jersey, commuters will have options to
    take transit that they never had before.
        We're also using ARRA funding to expand parking at stations
    so that commuters can more easily find a place to park without
    needing to park along city streets to get to the train station.
    We're making stations easier to access, so if you are a
    wheelchair-mobile commuter, you will be able to access more of
    the system for the first time thanks to ARRA. We're improving
    signaling on three lines to allow for more express trains and
    more capacity, which means faster trains and more of them for
    our customers. We're buying new paratransit buses and buses for
    rural areas to improve the reliability of transit services that
    so many depend on every day. And we're also accelerating our
    state-of-good-repair program, which means our system and our
    riders will be able to count on our transit system for years to
    come. ARRA transit projects in New Jersey will make a very real
    and lasting difference to improve the quality of life of the
    residents of New Jersey.
                                    ------

       RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF CHAIRMAN MENENDEZ FROM
                            BEVERLY A. SCOTT

    Q.1. Do you believe the Rail Modernization formula should be
    changed? If so, how do you think it should be changed?

    A.1. Yes, the existing Fixed Guideway Modernization funds
    distribution formula should be changed. At the same time, I
    believe that it will be difficult to accomplish the substantive
    changes required in the current rail modernization program
    without a concurrent focus on addressing the well-documented
    magnitude of deferred maintenance (state of good repair)
    backlog. This would entail specific urgent funding directed to
    address this critical maintenance backlog with a priority on
    life safety systems.
        With this preface, I personally feel that the existing rail
    modernization formula should be simplified and changed in a way
    that more equitably balances the needs and level of service of
    both older, middle-aged and newer rail transit systems and
    builds in future flexibility to address the maturation cycle of
    all transit systems. For starters, the current and overly
    complex seven tiers should be consolidated into two funding
    tiers. The first tier could essentially ``hold harmless'' the
    existing funding levels currently received by each system. I
    believe this ``grandfathering'' should not be in perpetuity (an
    ``entitlement for life'') and should be reviewed at specified
    intervals (i.e., 10 years). Assuming funding is provided to
    help address the critical maintenance backlog, any additional
    funding beyond the current FY2009 authorized level of $1.67
    billion could be distributed in a 2nd funding tier open to all
    systems in operation for at least 7 years. This Tier 2 funding
    should be distributed based on quantitative data that could be
    weighted to take into account the relative age of the fixed
    guideway segment(s) in operation. This could be based on
    similar data (a combination of vehicle revenue miles, fixed
    guideway directional route miles, and passenger miles), as now
    submitted to the FTA National Transit Database. I also believe
    that national funding should be tied to some criteria of local
    system funding support. Additionally, it is my belief that we
    need to strengthen the link between transit expansion funding
    approval and the effort demonstrated to maintain current
    assets. In the future, there should also be benchmarking and
    objective criteria to better enable the Congress and FTA to
    measure the program's effectiveness in meeting its intended
    purpose.

    Q.2. During these difficult economic times, you are facing high
    ridership and continued capital and maintenance needs. Has the
    infusion of ARRA funds empowered you to undertake some projects
    which you would have otherwise put off? Could you describe how
    the everyday life of one of your typical customers has improved
    because of these added resources?

    A.2. The infusion of ARRA funds has made a crucial difference
    in both MARTA's ability to continue to deliver basic levels of
    transit service to our customers, implement projects that
    represent critical investments in transportation
    infrastructure, and sustain jobs. MARTA has received a total of
    $87.8 million in ARRA funds to date, of which $45 million is
    being used to support ongoing preventive maintenance/operating
    costs. The most recent $25 million in ARRA funds received has
    staved off harmful service cuts that would have had a severe
    negative impact on many of our riders. Fifty-four percent (54
    percent) of our customers use MARTA service to go to work; and
    46 percent report that, without MARTA, they do not have other
    travel options. Without these funds, our agency would have been
    forced to make drastic service cuts that would have severely
    impacted our customers and increased our already staggering
    regional unemployment rate, which is currently over 10 percent.
        On the capital investment side, MARTA is using $42 million
    of our ARRA funds for specific projects focused on the
    modernization of critical life safety systems and state of good
    repair needs. These high priority capital projects include the
    upgrade and replacement of our systemwide fire protection
    system, and the procurement of new alternative fuel buses to
    replace aging vehicles that have exceeded their useful life.
    While these high priority projects, due to their critical
    nature, would still have gone forward even in the absence of
    Recovery Act funding, MARTA's use of ARRA funds for these
    projects has freed up other resources for other needed
    projects, which otherwise would have been deferred.
        Just this past week, we received notification of our
    receipt of a $10.8 million TIGGER grant for clean technologies
    which we will use to install solar canopies over the bus
    parking at one of our facilities. This will be the largest
    photovoltaic installation in Georgia, and will result in an
    annual savings of $160,000 in addition to significant clean air
    benefits.
        I greatly appreciate this opportunity to provide the
    Committee with this information. Please let me know should you
    have any further questions or if I can provide you with any
    additional information.
                  Additional Material Supplied for the Record