[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