    [Senate Hearing 112-153]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 112-153

      PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION: PRIORITIES AND CHALLENGES FOR REAUTHORIZATION

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

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

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

                          ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                       ON

      EXAMINING THE REAUTHORIZATION, PRIORITIES, AND CHALLENGES OF PUBLIC
                                 TRANSPORTATION

                                   __________

                                  MAY 19, 2011

                                   __________

      Printed for the use of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
                                    Affairs

                     Available at: http: //www.fdsys.gov /

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    71-312                    WASHINGTON : 2012
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS

                      TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota, Chairman

    JACK REED, Rhode Island              RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
    CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York         MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
    ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey          BOB CORKER, Tennessee
    DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii              JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
    SHERROD BROWN, Ohio                  DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
    JON TESTER, Montana                  MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska
    HERB KOHL, Wisconsin                 PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania
    MARK R. WARNER, Virginia             MARK KIRK, Illinois
    JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon                 JERRY MORAN, Kansas
    MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado          ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
    KAY HAGAN, North Carolina

                         Dwight Fettig, Staff Director

                  William D. Duhnke, Republican Staff Director

                           Charles Yi, Chief Counsel

                   Homer Carlisle, Professional Staff Member

                       Lisa Frumin, Legislative Assistant

                     Andrew Olmem, Republican Chief Counsel

              Shannon Hines, Republican Professional Staff Member

                           Dawn Ratliff, Chief Clerk

                         Levon Bagramian, Hearing Clerk

                          Shelvin Simmons, IT Director

                              Jim Crowell, Editor

                                      (ii)
    ?

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                             THURSDAY, MAY 19, 2011

                                                                       Page

    Opening statement of Chairman Johnson............................     1
        Prepared statement...........................................    31

    Opening statements, comments, or prepared statements of:
        Senator Shelby...............................................     2
        Senator Tester...............................................     3
        Senator Akaka................................................     4
        Senator Reed.................................................     4
        Senator Menendez
            Prepared statement.......................................    31

                                   WITNESSES

    Peter M. Rogoff, Administrator, Federal Transit Administration...     5
        Prepared statement...........................................    32
        Responses to written questions of:
            Senator Shelby...........................................    80
            Senator Menendez.........................................    82
    William W. Millar, President, American Public Transportation
      Association....................................................    21
        Prepared statement...........................................    37
        Responses to written questions of:
            Senator Shelby...........................................    88
            Senator Menendez.........................................    90
    Dale J. Marsico, Executive Director, Community Transportation
      Association of America.........................................    22
        Prepared statement...........................................    41
        Responses to written questions of:
            Senator Menendez.........................................    93
    Larry Hanley, International President, Amalgamated Transit Union.    24
        Prepared statement...........................................    55
        Responses to written questions of:
            Senator Menendez.........................................    93
    JayEtta Z. Hecker, Director of Transportation Advocacy, National
      Transportation Policy Project, Bipartisan Policy Center........    26
        Prepared statement...........................................    73
        Responses to written questions of:
            Senator Shelby...........................................    95
            Senator Menendez.........................................    96

                  Additional Material Supplied for the Record

    Statement submitted by Transit Riders for Public Transportation..    97
    Statement submitted by The National Congress of American Indians.    99
    Statement submitted by Wade Henderson, President and CEO, The
      Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights................   100
    Statement submitted by multiple groups...........................   104

                                     (iii)

      PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION: PRIORITIES AND CHALLENGES FOR REAUTHORIZATION

                                  ----------

                             THURSDAY, MAY 19, 2011

                                           U.S. Senate,
              Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met at 10:05 a.m., in room SD-538, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Tim Johnson, Chairman of the
    Committee, presiding.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN TIM JOHNSON

        Chairman Johnson. Good morning. I call this hearing to
    order.
        Today the Committee holds its first hearing this Congress
    on public transportation as we begin work on a new surface
    transportation bill. This effort will build on a substantial
    hearing record on public transportation and transit safety that
    our previous Chair, Senator Dodd, and Ranking Member Senator
    Shelby worked to establish last Congress. I look forward to
    continuing this effort on a bipartisan basis with Senator
    Shelby, our Subcommittee Chairman Senator Menendez, and all of
    the Members of this Committee.
        This is a very important time to talk about public
    transportation. High gas prices are stretching families'
    budgets across the Nation, and where there is good transit
    service, taking a bus or train to work can make a big
    difference. Unfortunately, few Americans have that option.
        A few days ago, I got a note from Bob Ecoffey on the Pine
    Ridge Reservation in South Dakota. Bob works for the Bureau of
    Indian Affairs. He and his wife, Darlene, also own a Subway
    sandwich shop in Pine Ridge Village. I want to read part of
    this note for the Committee.
        ``Tim, I hope this message finds you well. I heard that you
    will be working on a transportation bill soon. Five of the
    employees at our sandwich shop take a bus operated by Oglala
    Sioux Transit to get to work. You know how vast the reservation
    is, so having a reliable and affordable means to get to the
    store really helps them.''
        I want to thank Bob for sharing his thoughts. It is
    sometimes forgotten, but reliable and accessible public transit
    is vital in rural areas like South Dakota, just as it is vital
    in large urban cities. Our public transit systems connect
    workers with employers, keep cars off congested roads, reduce
    our dependence on foreign oil, and get people where they are
    going safely and affordably.
        We are joined today by Peter Rogoff of the Federal Transit
    Administration and four distinguished leaders from the
    transportation industry. Mr. Rogoff, I share the
    Administration's interest in repairing outdated infrastructure,
    improving safety oversight, and simplifying and consolidating
    existing programs. I applaud President Obama's call to improve
    our transportation system and look forward to working with the
    Administration on a bill.
        The current extension of transit and highway programs runs
    through September 30th. Congress has produced seven short-term
    extensions since 2009, so it is time to get to work on this
    legislation. Getting a long-term bill done will not be easy,
    but I hope that improving transportation is a topic where both
    parties can find common ground.
        With that, I will turn to Senator Shelby for his opening
    remarks. Senator Shelby.

                 STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY

        Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Today the Committee, as the Chairman has noted, will
    discuss reauthorization of the surface transportation bill, or
    something we call SAFETEA. We are nearly 2 years beyond the
    September 2009 expiration date of SAFETEA and no closer to
    legislation that would allow infrastructure investments to move
    forward.
        While the Administration has provided some technical
    assistance on reauthorization, I believe they have yet to
    transmit a comprehensive proposal. While not surprising, it is
    disappointing and does not provide the leadership required to
    move this process forward.
        I believe we need to work together on a reform effort that
    will promote greater efficiency and effectiveness in public
    transportation systems across America. I hope this can happen.
        As we move forward, I believe that there is much that can
    be done at the Federal Transit Administration to eliminate and
    to reduce many of the duplicative and bureaucratic processes
    that are still in place. State of good repair is also an issue
    that should become a more integral part of the transit program.
        I believe we must institute a system that ensures greater
    accountability and encourages real investment in maintaining
    our aging public transportation infrastructure. By contrast,
    the current system invests in new construction without any real
    consideration for how well existing infrastructure is
    maintained. I believe this needs to be changed.
        Setting aside for a moment the specific issues related to
    the transit title of the authorization bill, I want to speak
    briefly about what I believe is the most significant issue
    surrounding the reauthorization of SAFETEA: the solvency of the
    Highway Trust Fund.
        According to the Congressional Budget Office, the
    expenditures from the Highway Trust Fund will begin to exceed
    revenues as early as August of next year, and by law, the
    Highway Trust Fund may not deficit spend. This restriction
    simply means that before Congress can write a fiscally
    responsible reauthorization bill, it must ensure the long-term
    solvency of the trust fund. While some have advocated for a
    full 6-year reauthorization at current levels, others have
    promoted a 2-year authorization with incremental increases.
        The length of the reauthorization is not as important,
    however, as the need to pay for all of this spending. I believe
    that the best and the most responsible course is a full 6-year
    reauthorization that also ensures the long-term solvency of the
    trust fund.
        I am also deeply concerned about the possibility of a 2-
    year authorization that uses gimmicks to mask the financial
    difficulties of the trust fund. We should not go down that
    road. In fact, Mr. Chairman, I believe that most Americans
    would agree that a reauthorization bill that leaves the program
    insolvent or near insolvency upon its expiration I believe
    would be totally irresponsible for the Congress.
        Unfortunately, there are no easy answers here.
    Infrastructure spending is essential to our long-term economic
    stability and growth. Nevertheless, this country cannot
    continue to deficit spend its way out of its problems--we all
    know this--for infrastructure or anything else. Therefore, I
    believe we must begin this discussion here with the realization
    that difficult decisions are going to have to be made. Only
    then can we provide the certainty needed by all interested
    parties.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Johnson. Are there any Members who wish to make
    opening statements? Senator Tester.

                    STATEMENT OF SENATOR JON TESTER

        Senator Tester. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
    the opportunity. And I would like to thank the Ranking Member
    for his statement. I think we do need a long-term
    transportation bill, and it is going to take some tough
    decisions. It is going to take Democrats and Republicans
    working together.
        I want to welcome Mr. Rogoff here today. You know, I come
    from rural America, and it is not the first place you would
    think about public transportation needs or mass transit, but it
    is important. It is important to get folks to work, to school,
    to the health care that they need, and because of recent
    authorizations, we have been able to do some good things in
    Montana. But the fact is that it is an important link, and it
    is more important every day, especially considering the growing
    number of veterans and the aging population in my State.
        So as we consider transit issues, we need a commitment from
    you to make sure we do not forget about rural America, to make
    sure that when the transit reauthorization is considered that
    you make a commitment to make sure that rural America gets the
    services they need.
        Now, what I am talking about is buses and van systems.
    Light rails do not really work. We do not have it. But the fact
    is buses and van systems do. I can tell you there are many
    communities that do not have any transportation systems. Some
    have just essential air. And those buses and van systems are
    critically important. So hopefully during your testimony you
    can address that.
        The other thing is this: We have the second highest per
    capita in veterans in the State of Montana of any State in the
    Union. We have got seven Indian reservations that need
    transportation. Those vets need transportation. I think there
    are opportunities there for your department to really save some
    money and get better services to both of those communities.
        So with that, I want to thank you very much for being here,
    and I look forward to your testimony.
        Senator Akaka. Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Johnson. Senator Akaka.

                  STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. AKAKA

        Senator Akaka. Mr. Chairman, I have a brief statement.
        Chairman Johnson, I want to thank you for holding this
    hearing, and it is good to be here with the Ranking Member,
    Richard Shelby, and Members.
        Public transportation is critically important to Hawaii,
    which currently has the highest gas prices in the Nation and
    the second worst peak rush traffic congestion delays behind
    only the city of Los Angeles. Public transit, the bus and the
    coming Honolulu Rail Project, takes cars off the road and helps
    residents save on fuel while helping the environment. So there
    is a real need for expanded transit in Hawaii.
        Federal support for public transportation programs, both in
    my State and across the Nation, will continue to be necessary
    in order to reduce wasted time, gas, and money.
        Thank you, Chairman Johnson, for calling this hearing so
    that we can examine how to improve and expand mobility for all
    Americans through transit. Thank you and I want to thank also
    the witnesses who are here.
        Thank you.
        Chairman Johnson. Senator Reed.

                     STATEMENT OF SENATOR JACK REED

        Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I simply
    want to thank and commend Mr. Rogoff for his extraordinary
    leadership. Thank you, Peter.
        I had the privilege of working with you, Mr. Chairman, and
    Senator Shelby on the previous authorization on a very
    productive and bipartisan basis, and I look forward to that
    again.
        Also, just to echo what my colleagues have said, this is no
    longer a rail, northeast, urban issue. This is a national issue
    that touches every aspect of America, and if we are going to be
    productive, we have to have good transit.
        Thank you.
        Chairman Johnson. Senator Bennet, do you wish to have an
    opening statement?
        Senator Bennet. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will submit it
    for the record and just thank the witnesses for being here
    today.
        Chairman Johnson. On the first panel, we will be hearing
    from the Honorable Peter Rogoff, the Administrator of the
    Federal Transit Administration at the Department of
    Transportation. Before joining the Administration, Peter worked
    for the Senate Appropriations Committee. We welcome him back
    today.
        Please proceed with your testimony.

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

        Mr. Rogoff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Shelby, and
    Members of the Committee. I want to thank you for this
    opportunity to be here today to discuss the Obama
    administration's policy priorities for the next authorization
    of our Federal transit programs.
        Just as we experienced 2 years ago, transit agencies around
    the country are experiencing a surge in ridership that is
    attributable in part to gasoline prices hovering around $4 a
    gallon, or in the case of Senator Akaka's State, even higher.
    The Obama administration is determined to implement policies
    and investments that will help the American people keep more of
    their wages in their wallets rather than just hand them over at
    the gas pump. The President's 2012 budget request for the FTA
    and the policy priorities we are presenting to this Committee
    are central to our efforts.
        The reauthorization of our surface transportation programs
    is a critical opportunity to lower our dependence on oil by
    making public transit a safer, more reliable, and more
    desirable choice for more Americans. We must use this
    opportunity to make these necessary investments to ensure that
    we do not lose current transit passengers who have grown weary
    of commutes with deteriorating infrastructure and reliability.
    And we must use this opportunity to put millions of Americans
    to work on sustainable projects that improve our quality of
    life, expand our opportunities for economic growth, and
    maximize the number of domestic jobs created with our own
    taxpayer money.
        The Administration's policy proposals for reauthorization
    are a major step in this direction. While you have a great many
    policy proposals before you, I would like to use this brief
    opening statement to highlight just five priorities that will
    strengthen public transportation and ensure that we invest
    taxpayer dollars wisely.
        First and foremost is safety. Back in December of 2009, the
    Obama administration formally submitted a desperately needed
    rail transit safety bill to Congress. I am very, very grateful
    to this Committee for unanimously passing its own landmark rail
    transit safety bill last June.
        The time to renew action on this important legislation is
    now. The fact is the FTA is still living with an antiquated
    1960s era law that prohibits the Federal Government from
    issuing even the most basic safety regulations that the
    traveling public needs.
        At present, commuter and intercity rail systems serving
    nearly half a billion annual rail passengers are subject to
    voluminous Federal safety regulations administered by hundreds
    of FRA inspectors across the country. By contrast, eight times
    as many rail transit passengers are traveling on systems that
    are subject to no Federal safety standards whatsoever. There is
    almost no oversight since the 27 State agencies that are
    charged with doing it have almost no staff and very little
    experience and expertise.
        The bottom line is we need credible, enforceable minimum
    safety standards for our rail transit systems. While our
    transit systems are safe, a safe way to travel, we continue to
    see too many preventable accidents. Recently we had a derailed
    San Francisco BART train that forced the evacuation of 60
    passengers. We saw a track fire on the MBTA system in Boston
    that left 20 passengers injured, some from serious smoke
    inhalation.
        Mr. Chairman, the status quo when it comes to rail transit
    safety oversight is simply indefensible. This Committee
    recognized that on a bipartisan basis this past June. I implore
    you to once again tackle this issue, and soon.
        Second, we must face head-on the state of good repair of
    our transit systems, as Senator Shelby said. The Administration
    supports a ground-breaking commitment to bring our current
    transit systems into a state of good repair, especially our
    oldest and largest systems that carry millions of passengers in
    and around our major cities every day.
        Just in our seven largest rail transit systems we are
    facing a deferred maintenance backlog of some $50 billion.
    These seven systems serve 80 percent of the rail transit
    passengers in America. If we do not address the need to replace
    their aging assets, we run the very real risk of experiencing
    serious service and reliability problems that make it very
    difficult for working parents to get home in time to see their
    kids at night. This is not acceptable to the Obama
    administration. As such, we have proposed a significant new
    program to invest in the state of good repair of these systems
    and all other transit systems across the U.S., large and small,
    urban and rural.
        Third, we must be cognizant of the challenges faced by many
    distressed transit agencies in meeting operating costs during
    these tough economic times. The fact is some of our public
    transit agencies need help addressing their operating
    shortfalls in the short run. As Secretary LaHood has mentioned
    several times, there is no point in using Federal dollars to
    buy brand spanking new buses for transit systems if they cannot
    afford to pay the drivers to put those buses into service. We
    are proposing assistance that would be targeted and temporary,
    aimed at economically distressed urbanized areas with 200,000
    or more in population, and phased out over 3 years.
        Even in a year when the Recovery Act boosted Federal
    funding for transit by 80 percent, we still saw service
    reductions to the public because of downturns in State and
    local revenues. The Administration is determined to address
    this issue with our eyes wide open so that transit systems and
    service to the public are not reduced.
        The Administration also supports streamlining and
    consolidating some of our core transit assistance programs. It
    goes to the heart of, I think, what Senator Shelby was talking
    about in terms of getting more efficiency and getting rid of
    duplication in our programs. Reauthorization is an opportunity
    to do just that, and our policy proposal would transform the
    New Starts program into a more streamlined process for funding
    the construction of new projects. The goal is to create more
    jobs quickly, complete projects faster, and provide transit
    users with real transportation options sooner rather than
    later.
        Similarly, we propose consolidating programs that would
    particularly ease the administrative burden now placed on many
    of our smaller and rural transit operators that are short on
    staff resources and have a hard time putting their relatively
    small formula apportionments to use in a manner that maximizes
    benefits to the public.
        Finally, we are proposing changes to the contracting laws
    governing FTA programs to maximize the employment benefits that
    occur as a result of taxpayer investments in public transit. At
    present, the Buy America rules for FTA investments dictate that
    60 percent of transit vehicles and vehicle prototypes purchased
    with FTA dollars must occur in the United States.
        The Obama administration is proposing to phase in a
    standard that will require 100 percent of such vehicles and
    components be produced in the United States. This standard
    would increase 10 percent per year until we reach 100 percent
    domestic content in 2016. This will allow vehicle manufacturers
    the opportunity to partner with U.S. vendors and the time to
    relocate manufacturing activities within the United States. It
    will also ensure that the highest-value design and engineering
    jobs associated with these taxpayer investments are located
    right here in the United States.
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I look forward
    to answering your questions through Q&A. Thank you.
        Chairman Johnson. Thank you for your testimony.
        As we begin questioning the witness, I will ask the clerk
    to put 5 minutes on the clock for each Member's questions.
        Mr. Rogoff, given the Administration's interest in helping
    transit systems bring their vehicles and infrastructure up to a
    state of good repair, can transit agencies make progress toward
    that goal and other important goals like improving safety if
    the Federal role in transportation and the level of Federal
    investment and transit is diminished in any way?
        Mr. Rogoff. I would say no, Mr. Chairman. We have proposed
    an ambitious growth path for funding specifically for state of
    good repair because, you know, our studies indicate not only a
    $50 billion deferred maintenance backlog in those seven rail
    systems I spoke of, but a $78 billion backlog across the entire
    industry.
        This cannot just be a Federal burden. All of municipal
    government, State government, Federal Government I think needs
    to step up to address this problem, and if we do not, we run
    the very real risk of losing the handle and losing ridership at
    a time when we should be seeking more ridership given where gas
    prices are heading.
        Chairman Johnson. The concept that multiyear funding is
    critical to building and maintaining public transportation
    systems is well documented. It does not matter if you are a
    small agency or a large one. To plan investments effectively,
    you need to know what funds will be available. In the 1990s,
    Congress established protections in the budget process to
    ensure that funds authorized were delivered. Those guarantees
    have broken down, and in this period of multiple extensions,
    agencies have been even less certain about future funding.
        Mr. Rogoff, is uncertainty delaying critical investments at
    agencies? Are we falling further behind in upgrading aging
    facilities and vehicles?
        Mr. Rogoff. Well, I would not say that we are necessarily
    falling behind at the current moment because we still have a
    lot of Recovery Act money that is in the hands of agencies. A
    lot of that surge in Recovery Act spending did some very
    positive things, not only in creating jobs and maintaining
    jobs, but also allowing transit agencies to bite off some of
    those projects that were just very hard to cobble together
    enough money for--major bus maintenance facilities. And I
    should say last year we also competed a chunk of discretionary
    bus monies specifically for state of good repair.
        That said, over the long term, your point is well taken,
    and that is, uncertainty not only as it relates to the stream
    of Federal funds but uncertainty as it relates to State and
    local funds is putting a damper on investment, and without some
    kind of certainty, it is very difficult for transit agencies to
    decide to bite off and launch forward and make those major
    investments, whether it is an expansion of their system or just
    necessary maintenance of their current system.
        Chairman Johnson. The Committee has followed the
    Administration's efforts to speed project development in the
    New Starts program. We will be looking closely at ideas to
    eliminate steps in the process that duplicate environmental
    review and planning requirements, and we will look for
    opportunities to reduce the number of formal approvals that can
    leave a project in limbo.
        Under our reformed New Starts process, will the level of
    project analysis be any less rigorous?
        Mr. Rogoff. I would not say it would be less rigorous, but
    it is certainly our goal to expedite it. We have found that the
    amount of time that it takes to get a project from beginning to
    end in some ways endangers that project, because when you have
    a critical mass of local support and local funding to match the
    Federal funding, that local commitment also has a shelf life.
    And if the project approval process takes too long, we run the
    risk of losing the local support.
        We have a number of proposals before you that would
    eliminate two separate alternatives analysis proposals. I think
    it goes to the heart of what Senator Shelby was talking about
    as it relates to duplication. Right now we have one
    alternatives analysis proposal that is required under NEPA. We
    have a slightly different alternatives analysis proposal that
    is required for the FTA, and that duplication is just eating
    time. It is spending money on consultants that we do not need,
    and it is something that we can do in concert with one another.
        Similarly, our proposals anticipate that we would eliminate
    one of the major approval processes. Rather than separately
    admit projects into preliminary engineering and then in final
    design, we would do that approval process just once and in so
    doing I think get rid of a good chunk of the bureaucratic time
    that gets eaten up in program reviews and get these projects
    deployed more quickly.
        Chairman Johnson. Senator Shelby.
        Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Administration's budget, as I understand it, proposes a
    128-percent increase in funding for public transportation. This
    translates into $119 billion over a 6-year authorization bill.
    How does the Administration intend to fund this proposal given
    the constraints on the trust fund?
        Mr. Rogoff. Well, as was the case not only for the public
    transit piece but also for the highway piece, the
    Administration has signaled its very strong willingness to sit
    with the Congress and work out those funding proposals soon.
    There is no question that we need to come together on a
    bipartisan basis, both----
        Senator Shelby. It is still a lot of money, is it not?
        Mr. Rogoff. It is, and we think it is merited, especially
    given the trends that we are seeing in issues like the state of
    good repair challenge and some of the issues that Senator
    Tester----
        Senator Shelby. Where is it going to come from?
        Mr. Rogoff. Well, there are a lot of options that have been
    talked about, but I think the most important thing where we are
    going to make progress is to have that dialog between the
    Administration and the Congress and figure out what mix of
    resources is going to get us to these funding levels.
        Senator Shelby. I am also concerned that we continue to
    make investments--and I mentioned this in my opening
    statement--in infrastructure without any state of good repair
    requirement. For example, there is a significant maintenance
    backlog for rail transit systems, yet these same systems have
    received billions of Federal funding for new projects.
        Does the Administration believe that the Federal Government
    should continue to make investments in new or expanded fixed
    guideway systems without a state of good repair requirement?
    What in your view can be done to ensure that infrastructure
    assets are adequately maintained here?
        Mr. Rogoff. Well, we are doing a number of things----
        Senator Shelby. And is it as big a problem as I think it
    is?
        Mr. Rogoff. I think for certain cities it most definitely
    is.
        Senator Shelby. OK.
        Mr. Rogoff. While I would just as soon not identify them by
    name, I would say this: In our State of Good Repair Initiative
    that we have put forward, we do have a process by which we
    intend to monitor the asset management efforts of all these
    agencies.
        Senator Shelby. And what does that mean by monitoring? I
    know that is like oversight, but----
        Mr. Rogoff. Well, what we will be doing is right now----
        Senator Shelby. ----are you deeply involved in what they
    are doing?
        Mr. Rogoff. Well, they will be reporting to us through the
    national transit database to which they submit annual reports
    currently under law what the condition of their assets are. And
    if we are not seeing them--if we are giving them money as part
    of this State of Good Repair program and we are not seeing any
    progress in buying down their state of good repair backlog, we
    are going to know there is a problem, and we are going to talk
    to them about it.
        Now, you asked another question, and that is as it relates
    to the New Starts program and whether we should be expanding
    the footprint of these agencies when we know they are not
    adequately investing in their current footprint.
        Senator Shelby. That is right.
        Mr. Rogoff. I have spoken publicly about that before, and
    it is a source of great concern for me.
        I will say we are putting some threshold tests in approving
    projects through the New Starts process where they do need to
    demonstrate to us that they have the adequate funding stream to
    maintain their current system. I will mention one by name
    because this is all on the record. The Third Street Project in
    San Francisco is a very important expansion in rail for the
    Muni system, but we also know that the Muni system is
    struggling to be adequately capitalized. And as part of our
    discussions about advancing that project, we are simultaneously
    monitoring their budgets for their state of good repair.
        Senator Shelby. Good. I know Senator Bennet from Colorado
    is here. He might get into this, too, but I will proceed.
    SAFETEA included a public-private partnership pilot program for
    public transportation. The program's goal of encouraging
    innovative financing and speeding project delivery through the
    program has not been achieved, I believe. In fact, the one
    surviving project, the Denver Eagle P3 Project, is still
    awaiting its full funding grant agreement despite having
    attracted a significant amount of private financing.
        Some of us are concerned that FTA is inflexible here with
    regard to the New Starts process and that inflexibility has
    caused the program to be ineffective and may have scared off
    potential private investors, which we do not need to do.
        Could you comment on the lessons you have learned from the
    Denver project? And how could the process be changed to achieve
    true streamlining for the partnership between private and
    public money? Because we are going to need it in the future,
    are we not?
        Mr. Rogoff. Yes, sir. I mean, public-private partnerships
    do hold promise in transit projects, and you are correct that
    the Denver Eagle projects has been not only our most successful
    example, but frankly, the only example in that----
        Senator Shelby. It is the only one you have, is it not?
        Mr. Rogoff. That is right. There were three projects as
    part of that so-called Penta-P private-public partnership
    program----
        Senator Shelby. What happened to the others----
        Mr. Rogoff. Well, I would tell you, sir, that I do not
    believe your characterization is necessarily accurate, that
    those other projects fell apart because of the FTA process.
        Senator Shelby. Mm-hmm.
        Mr. Rogoff. I think those other projects fell apart because
    of what happened in the markets----
        Senator Shelby. OK.
        Mr. Rogoff. ----and this Committee knows that dynamic
    better than anyone.
        Senator Shelby. The economy took a toll----
        Mr. Rogoff. Yes, sir, and what we saw was that the private
    participants and the other two that were supposed to be
    participants in the financing of the other two projects, both
    in Houston and in Oakland, left the building. While I agree
    that FTA needs to do a better job of deploying its projects
    more quickly, I think those challenges are addressed in the
    policy proposals before you that we have to streamline the New
    Starts process.
        You were asking an interesting question, and that is do we
    need a different process for public-private partnerships, and
    that is a good one that I think we should look at, because----
        Senator Shelby. Are you looking at a possible different
    configuration?
        Mr. Rogoff. Well, we are looking at a different
    configuration for all of our New Start projects. I would say,
    you know, I do not think Denver has necessarily suffered. We
    have signed probably one of the largest letters of no prejudice
    so part of the Denver project could get under construction
    already, and we look forward to signing a full funding grant
    agreement to nail down our contribution within the next 45
    days, I believe. So they are making good progress in Denver,
    but you are right that we should be looking at our processes to
    make sure that we are not scaring away the private sector.
        Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Johnson. Senator Reed.
        Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and again,
    thank you, Mr. Rogoff, for your great leadership.
        We are in an economic downturn and the question that a lot
    of Rhode Island transit officials ask me about is not capital,
    but operating relief----
        Mr. Rogoff. Sure.
        Senator Reed. ----and I wonder if there is any thought to
    provide on a temporary basis access to some Federal resources
    for operating relief to avoid cancellation of routes and fare
    increases.
        Mr. Rogoff. There is, and as I said in my opening
    statement, we do have a proposal before you to extend operating
    assistance on a temporary and targeted basis. The way this
    program would work would be that of the formula funds that your
    transit operators can receive--this really, I should first
    point out, only applies to transit operators in communities of
    200,000 or more. Communities smaller than that can use any
    amount of their Federal funds for operations that they care to.
        But for those at 200,000 or more, we have said that they
    could use in the first year 25 percent of their--up to 25
    percent of their funding for direct operating costs, declining
    to 15 percent in the second year, 10 percent the third, and
    then zero. The idea is to really--our sole focus here is
    preserving service, especially given what is happening with gas
    prices. We are not comforted by service reductions, especially
    when ridership is increasing.
        I think in the economic--at the beginning of the recession,
    we saw service reductions, and I think some general managers
    will tell you they took off maybe some of the lesser-used
    service. Now, we are running the risk of losing some service
    that is really essential to significant cohorts of the
    population, and, therefore, we have put forward a proposal on a
    temporary and targeted basis, targeted on communities that have
    had significant unemployment, like Rhode Island, that could
    address this issue at least on a temporary basis.
        Senator Reed. Thank you very much. In a similar vein in
    terms of flexibility of funds, there is actually authority for
    the State DOT to flex some of their funds to assist our RIPTA,
    which is a Statewide bus system, and they have used it
    essentially to buy hybrid electric buses. What impact has this
    flexing authority had on transit investment nationwide? Has it
    helped or is it kind of spotty?
        Mr. Rogoff. No, I would say it has helped it quite a bit. I
    mean, if you look over the life of the SAFETEA-LU law, States
    at their own discretion have flexed over $6 billion over to
    transit, an average of more than $1 billion a year. That
    effectively means that the Federal Transit Administration
    investments have been augmented a full 10 percent or more each
    year by States choosing to flex some of their highway funds,
    either from the STP Program or CMAT Program, over to transit,
    and some of our real game-changing investments have occurred
    because they have been able to put together the FTA
    contribution with some flexed highway dollars. Even in the
    Recovery Act, we saw more than $460 million of highway funds
    flexed to transit.
        So it is clearly a choice that local stakeholders and
    Governors like to have. It is spotty in this respect, in that
    not all States have done it, but the fact is that a great many
    States have and it is an important proposal. And in our policy
    proposals, again, this has been sent to the Public Works
    Committee, but in the proposals that we have sent over there,
    there is a change to the flexing provision that would come out
    of the so-called Highway Livability Program. But it will remain
    an important tool that transit agencies are going to need.
        Senator Reed. Just a final quick question. Senator Tester
    has pointed out how his State of Montana relies on buses.
        Mr. Rogoff. Right.
        Senator Reed. Another big State in the country, Rhode
    Island, relies on buses. And a lot of the transit orientation
    was on rail or subway, et cetera. And so the question is, will
    your proposals continue to support the Statewide buses, or
    regional buses in the case of Montana, and also particularly
    with respect to the State of Good Repair, the kind of deferred
    maintenance, which is another huge challenge? I just have a few
    seconds.
        Mr. Rogoff. Yes. I want to make clear that our State of
    Good Repair Initiative definitely incorporates systems like
    RIPTA so they can stay on top of their maintenance facilities,
    so they can make sure that they have a modern fleet. And the
    reality is, while we talk a good bit about rail systems, the
    majority of transit trips in America today are still taken by
    bus and we have not lost our focus there.
        Senator Reed. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Johnson. Senator Akaka.
        Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Administrator Rogoff, I want to thank you publicly, you and
    Secretary LaHood, for taking the time to come to Hawaii in
    March to meet with me and other members of the delegation on a
    wide variety of transportation projects throughout our State. I
    appreciate all of the work that you have done and the clarity
    you promoted over the years on the Honolulu High Capacity Rail
    Project.
        Can you discuss the Federal funding commitment to the
    Honolulu Rail Project and what benefits expanded transit
    funding could have for projects across the Nation?
        Mr. Rogoff. Well, sure. As you pointed out in your opening
    statement, Senator, I think, and in information that is a
    surprise to a great many Americans, Honolulu and Oahu, in
    particular, has some of the most punishing congestion in the
    United States, and the Honolulu Rail Project, obviously, is
    something that we support quite strongly. This project has
    taken a long time to get off the ground, as you know. It has
    sort of been derailed twice before, and the only thing that has
    happened is the congestion on H-1 has gotten even worse. As was
    also pointed out, there is a good bus network in and on Oahu,
    but the reality is, when you have got a congested road network,
    there is only so much you could accomplish with buses.
        So we, in our budget for 2012, have proposed $250 million
    specifically for the Honolulu Rail Project and we are hopeful
    of admitting that project into final design. We are currently
    reviewing their financial plan. We did recently conclude a risk
    assessment, where we found that the risk was actually under
    control and the local authority's proposal to lower the cost
    estimate was reasonable based on how much of the project they
    have gotten under contract.
        So this is the kind of project that will really be about
    traditional congestion relief. It will be about getting working
    people from the West side of Oahu over to the east side and
    home in time to see their kids when they are awake, and it
    mirrors a lot of what can be accomplished elsewhere in the
    country.
        Senator Akaka. Thank you. Administrator Rogoff, can you
    please describe how the FTA, working with State and local
    governments to ensure that costs for projects like the Honolulu
    Rail Project are managed effectively?
        Mr. Rogoff. Well, our involvement with a project does not
    end when we sign a full-funding grant agreement. What we then
    do as the project is in construction is have what is called a
    PMOC, Project Management Oversight Consultant, onsite,
    observing construction patterns, keeping a monitor on costs,
    working to make sure that the project comes in on time and on
    budget, and when we see them going off that curve, we have some
    conversations about how we can get an improvement plan or a
    project management plan in place to keep the project on time
    and on budget. Our methods are not always perfect, but we have
    had steady improvements in terms of the number of projects that
    are coming in and on budget over the years.
        Senator Akaka. Thank you. Administrator, bus operations on
    Maui, Kawaii, and Hawaii Island are some of the fastest growing
    bus transportation systems in America. However, they are
    relatively small in terms of the number of buses operated. In
    the past, the Congress assisted in funding the capital costs of
    many of these fast growing bus transportation systems through
    the bus and bus facilities programs. What other programs could
    our rural bus operators use for capital assistance for their
    rapidly expanding operations?
        Mr. Rogoff. Well, there are a few. As I mentioned to
    Senator Reed, our State of Good Repair Program will help them
    make sure that they have the funding to replace their fleet,
    and those projects--I have had the opportunity to visit the bus
    provider on Maui and you are correct that they are one of the
    fastest growing players in the country. And when you are trying
    to provide mobility around an island that just has a perimeter
    road and you have gas prices the highest in the Nation, as you
    pointed out, those bus services are very critical.
        Now, in addition to the State of Good Repair Program for
    fleet replacement, we are proposing substantial growth as part
    of our policy proposals for the bus facility program, and our
    support under that program would grow as quickly for rural
    communities as it would for urban communities, and therefore,
    the outer islands would get the benefits of that growth, as
    well.
        Senator Akaka. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Chairman Johnson. Senator Tester.
        Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and once again,
    thank you for being here, Chairman Rogoff.
        In my opening statement, I talked about the Department's
    commitment to rural America and what can be done there. There
    are many towns, as I said earlier, that have no public
    transportation. They have no access to getting folks to
    doctors, as an example. What is the Administration plan for
    that? Is it to just leave it the way it is, or is there going
    to be some opportunity to work with local governments to deal
    with buses, vans, those kind of things?
        Mr. Rogoff. Well, let me say, as I mentioned while you were
    out of the room, sir, we are looking to substantially boost
    funding for rural transit. As you know, funding for rural
    transit more than doubled under the SAFETEA-LU Program and we
    want to continue that progress.
        I think there are huge opportunities specifically in one
    area that you cited, and that is dealing with what we refer to
    as medical transportation and getting people to the doctor,
    getting--you discussed the need of veterans in Montana. I will
    tell you, we have had a number of fruitful conversations
    recently with HHS and the VA and DOD on how we can better
    address that, and you will be hearing more about that in the
    future.
        I think, importantly, in the area of medical
    transportation, this is not just a mobility investment. We save
    the taxpayer a lot of money, a lot of money in the Medicare and
    Medicaid programs, when we can keep people living in their
    homes and providing the necessary transportation to get to even
    those distant medical visits. And also, high gas prices impact
    everybody.
        Senator Tester. Yes.
        Mr. Rogoff. So we are trying to do a lot to put mobility
    managers, to get sort of out into the field to get the maximum
    utility out of the vans that are out there.
        Senator Tester. Flexibility in discretionary ability is
    very, very important. Let me just give you an example. Two
    weeks ago, I was in the center of the State of Montana. They
    have Essential Air Service, but oftentimes that gets--even
    Essential Air Service is too pricey for what we want to have
    happen. They want to set up or at least get connected in with a
    bus system or a van system. They think they have the ridership
    to support it. How do they do it?
        Mr. Rogoff. Well, right now, as part of our policy
    proposals, we would require agencies to continue to spend 15
    percent of their funding on intercity bus----
        Senator Tester. This is connecting between towns.
        Mr. Rogoff. Right. That is right. And that is why I say
    intercity.
        Senator Tester. OK. I have got you.
        Mr. Rogoff. And a lot of the challenge there is in enticing
    an operator to the table. But we can help subsidize those
    operations, and I would agree with you that in a number of
    communities, the Essential Air Service Program does not
    necessarily meet all of the mobility needs at all income levels
    for those communities.
        So when I was first confirmed by this Committee, sir, we
    talked about my coming out to Montana, and if I could host a
    meeting out there and sort of try to bring the players
    together, I would love to do it.
        Senator Tester. OK. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Johnson. Senator Bennet.
        Senator Bennet. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you, Mr. Rogoff, for your testimony, and I also want
    to thank the Ranking Member for highlighting the project in
    Denver and I appreciate the conversations we have had about
    that project as well as the Roaring Fork Valley and other
    things across the State.
        I heard in the answer to the Ranking Member that you hoped
    that you would be signing the full funding grant agreement with
    the folks in Denver in the next 45 days. Is that--that is on
    track?
        Mr. Rogoff. Well, it is on track. We sent out--we are at
    the last hurdle, and namely, that is the required 60-day review
    period for--we have transmitted the full funding grant
    agreement to this Committee and the Appropriations Committees
    for 60 days' review. That is required under law. I would point
    out, we are asking the Committee's defence, and among our
    policy proposals is that that period be shrunk to 30 days,
    again, in the interest of moving projects more quickly. But
    once that is complete, which I believe should be early June--
    excuse me, early July, right at the end of June, early July, we
    should be in a position to sign the full funding grant
    agreement.
        Senator Bennet. Great. I appreciate that very much.
        You know, one of the things over the last couple of years
    we have talked about in town halls in Colorado--and when I am
    saying ``we,'' I do not mean me, I mean the people that come to
    my town halls--there is a lot of focus on our debt and our
    deficit, as there should be. We have to fix this. We have got
    to straighten this out. But when you think about it, the
    situation is actually much more grave than just the $1.5
    trillion deficit we have, the $15 trillion debt, and that is
    that as a generation, we have not bothered even to maintain the
    assets that our parents and grandparents built for us, much
    less build the infrastructure we are going to need in the 21st
    century.
        So I am encouraged by the fact that the Administration has
    included the idea of an Infrastructure Bank in its budget. I
    wonder if you would talk a little bit about what that financing
    structure would look like, how we can maximize it. Some days, I
    drive around our State and the roads have been smashed into
    smithereens. The transit lines are not doing what they need to
    do. We need to do better than that, and maybe this is one
    mechanism for helping.
        Mr. Rogoff. Yes, sir. We are strong supporters of an
    Infrastructure Bank, not obviously just to get to the transit
    challenge, but also to look at major highway bridges and other
    entities like that. I talked earlier with Senator Shelby about
    the impact on private financing. When the markets collapsed,
    that was a big game changer for some of our credit assistance
    programs at DOT. When I worked for the Appropriations
    Committee, and even in a period when Senator Shelby chaired
    that subcommittee, we would rescind some of the money that was
    available in the so-called TIFIA Program because it was
    undersubscribed. That is a credit assistance program for a
    number of different investments, highway or transit. Now, the
    TIFIA program is way oversubscribed, in part because of the
    importance of having some kind of Federal loan guarantee or
    Federal loan to augment private financing.
        The President is a very strong supporter of an
    Infrastructure Bank. In fact, he was a cosponsor of a proposal
    when he was here in the Senate. And we think that given the
    increased volume that we have with the RRIF Loan Program in the
    FRA, the TIFIA Program, which is really run out of the
    Secretary's office, and the increasing number of applications
    we are getting that can bring private investment to bear in
    partnership with public investments, we think there is huge
    potential there, and we have a multibillion Infrastructure Bank
    proposal as part of our policy proposals here in the Congress.
        Senator Bennet. I would look forward to working with you on
    that, and I would say, in the context of your answer to Senator
    Tester, who I align myself completely with his observations
    about the importance of transit in rural Colorado as well as
    Montana, that the bank may be a place, also, where we can
    encourage further regional collaboration and approaches,
    transit-oriented development, transit itself, and I hope that
    we are thinking about that as we design the financing
    mechanism.
        The last thing I just wanted to go back to is something in
    your testimony. You mentioned the importance of passing the
    transit safety bill, and we did pass that bill in this
    Committee last year. It did not pass the Senate. As you know,
    and we talked about this earlier, with your help, we are
    expanding our light rail system in Denver and new commuter rail
    service out to Denver International Airport. In the absence of
    passing this safety bill, if we do not do it, who is it that is
    going to--where is the oversight going to come from for
    projects like this?
        Mr. Rogoff. Well, I have got to tell you, sir, Denver
    really points up the absurdity of the status quo when it comes
    to Federal rail safety oversight, because as you pointed out,
    you are simultaneously expanding a light rail system and you
    are building commuter rail out to the airport. They are all
    going to converge at Denver Union Station. Without any change
    in the law, at Denver Union Station, you are going to have the
    Federal Railroad Administration, who has hundreds of inspectors
    and a very lengthy regulation, which I should say we do not
    want to duplicate but we do want to have some regulatory
    authority--at Denver Union Station, you are going to have
    Amtrak coming in and your commuter rail coming in and they will
    be inspected by the FRA. And on one track over, you are going
    to have light rail, the oversight of which is left to a State
    agency with one, maybe two employees, very underfunded, very
    undercapitalized, with very little expertise.
        It is identical to the situation we had at the site of the
    Fort Totten crash at Washington Metro. You had an Amtrak line.
    You had the MARC commuter rail line. And you had the Washington
    Metro line. And there was voluminous Federal oversight on two
    of those tracks, and on the third track, there was close to
    nothing, and that is the status quo we have and it really is
    not defensible.
        Senator Bennet. Well, I appreciate your testimony.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Johnson. Senator Menendez.
        Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, I have a statement that I would like to
    include for the record.
        Mr. Administrator, I appreciate what you said earlier with
    reference to creating some flexibility on the emergency
    operating assistance. You know, we see that at a time of
    economic crisis and $4 a gallon gas that ridership on public
    transportation systems have increased, and at the same time,
    many agencies, including New Jersey Transit, have either raised
    fees or cut service. So I appreciate, hopefully, that element
    of helping out in this time period be actually pursued
    vigorously, because otherwise, we are going to undermine the
    very essence of the systems we already have.
        I am wondering, older, well-established systems have been
    running for years, often have high ridership and are operating
    at or beyond capacity. How do you think we can best address
    these capital-intensive projects to expand capacity, because we
    already have a proven system that is working and has ridership?
    They do not seem to fit in the New Starts Program systems and
    they do not have enough formula funds to address this, either.
        Mr. Rogoff. Well, I would say that that is certainly true.
    Perhaps in the current funding trajectory, a rail-heavy system
    like New Jersey Transit that obviously runs both buses and
    rail, I think our proposed 300-percent increase into 2012 for
    State of Good Repair investment would really help them tackle
    some of their major maintenance efforts that they need to
    undertake and thus, hopefully, free up dollars for expansion.
        We are committed to both, because, obviously, the
    President's goals of lowering our dependence on oil, lowering
    greenhouse gas emissions, we want to see transit ridership
    grow, but we want it on projects that are safe and well
    capitalized.
        So I think when you look at a proposal to substantially
    increase our investment, the numbers that Senator Shelby
    pointed out earlier, in public transit, if we have an adequate
    partner in New Jersey Transit, we can make progress on
    expansion.
        Senator Menendez. Now, an adequate partner. What does that
    mean?
        Mr. Rogoff. A partner that is putting more skin in the
    game, just as the Federal Government would.
        Senator Menendez. Let me ask you, there seems to be some
    consensus that reauthorization should establish goals for the
    national program and that State, regional, and local
    performance measures should be tied to those goals. But when we
    start discussing just what those goals or measures should be,
    things get a lot more controversial. Do you have any specific
    proposals for national transit goals or local performance
    measures?
        Mr. Rogoff. Well, we are supportive of performance
    measures. Let me point out one that I discussed a little bit
    earlier with Senator Shelby, and that was in our State of Good
    Repair Program, we want to do a much more aggressive oversight
    and reporting system to actually monitor that the funding that
    we are putting out for State of Good Repair is actually going
    to buying down that backlog. That would be, if you will, the
    reporting of that data and monitoring of that data would be a
    condition of receiving the assistance, because we really--it
    sort of goes a little bit to what Senator Shelby was speaking
    to, and that is if we just sort of put the money out there
    without a lot of oversight, you could get into a situation
    where you have put out a great deal more money in the name of
    State of Good Repair, and 5, 10, 15 years down the road, you
    have not really made any progress.
        And an important key to that is something we are very big
    supporters of, and that is an asset management program. We have
    some transit agencies that know where all their assets are and
    do a very good job of monitoring their condition and some that
    really have not a clue where all their assets are and do a very
    poor job. If they are going to spend the Federal money wisely
    or their own money wisely, they need to know what their
    greatest vulnerability is, what the most critical investment
    is, and take them on in order, and we want to help them monitor
    that situation.
        Senator Menendez. Well, in terms of making sure--my last
    question--your assets are well positioned and that you are
    maximizing the systems that you have, as we face higher gas
    prices, transit agencies see higher demand, but they also see
    higher fuel prices, as well.
        Mr. Rogoff. That is right.
        Senator Menendez. What is FTA doing to help agencies invest
    in vehicles that do not run on diesel or gasoline?
        Mr. Rogoff. Quite a lot. You know, you pointed out, we talk
    about the gasoline price spiking up to potentially getting to
    its 2008 high. The reality is that the diesel price has already
    exceeded its 2008 high and transit agencies must pay that
    diesel price. As I pointed out earlier, the majority of transit
    trips in America are still taken by bus.
        We, through our discretionary bus allocations, our Clean
    Fuels Bus Program, even the dollars that were used through the
    State of Good Repair Bus Program, bought a lot of clean fuel
    vehicles. The price differential between a diesel bus and a
    hybrid electric is coming down. I think more transit agencies
    are cognizant about how many years they will get a payback on
    those cleaner fuel vehicles. We are not only putting out
    capital money and more capital money to help modernize the
    fleet in that way, we are also doing research through our
    research and innovation group to take the next generation bus
    to the next level of even cleaner and zero-emission buses
    eventually.
        Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Johnson. Senator Merkley.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you,
    Administrator Rogoff. I came here directly from testifying on
    an electric vehicle bill, which has a lot to do with reducing
    oil consumption and improving air quality, and certainly this
    is an appropriate sequel to that, and thank you for your work.
        I wanted to specifically note that the New Starts program
    would be a key source of funding for a major bottleneck in
    Oregon and Washington, which is the drawbridge on the I-5
    corridor, a major freight corridor, a major passenger
    transportation corridor, and also an obstruction to extending
    transit to the full metropolitan area, which extends across the
    Columbia River. This is terms the Columbia River Crossing, and
    I think you have probably heard about it, but I wanted to make
    sure.
        Mr. Rogoff. Well, yes, not only have we heard about it,
    obviously I have participated in conference calls with the
    Secretary and Governor Kitzhaber and Governor Gregoire about
    moving this project forward. It is identified in our 2012
    budget as a project in preliminary engineering that could
    participate in an envelope of about $400 million with three or
    four other projects that are in preliminary engineering.
        We are very big supporters of this project because it
    really does a lot of the things that meet Administration goals.
    It really addresses a critical bottleneck on the interstate
    system, and clearly, when it comes to highways, our principal
    obligation needs to be to the interstate system.
        It will provide rail transit access from Vancouver,
    Washington, to Portland, something that has been talked about
    for decades but has not been accomplished. There will be a bike
    and pedestrian option, which is an increasingly popular method
    of transport in that region. So, yes, we think on so many
    fronts that the Columbia River Crossing needs to move forward.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you. It is music to my ears, and I
    look forward to working with you on this critical
    infrastructure piece.
        One thing that has come out in the context of that
    conversation are some of the hurdles in the New Starts
    application process, and you have been talking about
    streamlining that process, and I want to applaud you for that
    effort.
        One of the things that the folks have shared are things
    such as additional planning pieces such as fleet management
    plans that have gone along with that that are an important part
    of the transportation puzzle but not necessarily bearing
    directly on the project itself. Is that the sort of thing that
    you are thinking about in terms of the streamlining?
        Mr. Rogoff. Our principal goals in streamlining are
    eliminating duplication and also recognizing where you have--
    part of the problem with our whole New Starts process is it is
    currently one size fits all, and for a brand-new city that is
    trying to deploy a rail project for the first time, they need a
    much different Federal interface than probably a Portland Tri-
    Met that is building its sixth through seventh extension or a
    system like Salt Lake, the UTA in Salt Lake, that has brought
    in a number of projects on time and under budget routinely. And
    what we are trying to do is fashion our program to recognize
    the difference between grantees. A lot of people complain about
    how long it takes some of these projects to move from one
    process to the other. We certainly recognize that we can make
    progress at the FTA, and we have policies before you to do
    that. But, importantly, we also need to recognize that transit
    agencies, some of them are on a real growth curve in getting
    their own expertise on how to launch some of these projects,
    and if we want that project to come in on time and on budget,
    they are going to need some oversight. And they sometimes are
    going to need to be sent back to the drawing board.
        So when we talk about streamlining the New Starts process,
    I say it is in part about streamlining the New Starts decision
    process, not the New Starts approval process, because sometimes
    that decision is going to have to be no, especially for new
    grantees that really need to build their own internal technical
    capacity before they build a rail project.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you, and I am glad you are working
    on that, and I will continue to provide feedback from folks
    back home as they have suggestions.
        In my closing seconds here, I wanted to note that I
    appreciate your support of performance-based planning. I have a
    bit broader version of that called the Strategic Planning Act
    of 2011 that creates a baseline of transportation performance
    metrics, including congestion, goods movement, safety, public
    health, cost to the taxpayer, and so forth, and implements
    scenario-based planning and a study of the scenario-based
    planning and the impacts it has had on reducing the costs of
    projects, which are enormous, projects across the country from
    Texas and Utah, New Mexico, California, Tennessee, and so
    forth. So I just wanted to mention that I look forward to being
    in dialog about perhaps even a bit more ambitious version of
    performance-based planning.
        Mr. Rogoff. Well, you have hit on something that I think
    needs to be amplified about, you know, we have our livability
    agenda and a livability program in our reauthorization
    recommendations. But you hit on something that is not often
    talked about, and that is, how the livability agenda saves
    taxpayers money. We do not talk enough about the fact that when
    you coordinate these investments, especially in things like
    transit and affordable housing, in which you have your
    background, that just tearing up the street once to put in the
    affordable housing and making sure that there is affordable
    housing adjacent to a new transit improvement saves the
    taxpayer money. It is a far cry better than when we build the
    transit improvement we have the gentrification effect where the
    affordable housing goes away, and then the taxpayers have to
    pay yet again to create affordable housing somewhere else, and
    then those people need transit.
        So there really is some considerable cost savings to be
    achieved through just coordinated planning, and while I have
    not looked at your bill, I would be happy to do so. And we have
    some experts at the FTA on scenario planning that I would be
    happy to bring up and have a dialog with you on that.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you. That would be superb.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Peter, and you may be excused.
        Due to a previously scheduled meeting, I will be passing
    the gavel to Senator Menendez. I appreciate both panels'
    attendance at this hearing and look forward to continuing this
    important conversation.
        The second panel, please take your seats, and, Senator
    Menendez, thank you for taking the gavel.
        Senator Menendez [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let
    me, as they come, introduce the second panel.
        We will hear from William Millar, who is the able leader of
    the American Public Transportation Association. Bill has been a
    great advocate for transit, and we are going to be sad to see
    him leave the APTA later this year.
        Next we will hear from Dale Marsico, who is the executive
    director of the Community Transportation Association of
    America, and he has worked to broaden support for community and
    public transportation.
        Then we will hear from Larry Hanley, the international
    president of the Amalgamated Transit Union. Larry has spent
    much of his life working in different positions within
    transportation in New York and being an advocate.
        And, finally, the Committee will hear from JayEtta Hecker,
    the director of transportation advocacy at the Bipartisan
    Policy Center, and she has spent much of her career in Federal
    public service in the legislative and executive branches.
        So let me welcome you all. In the order that I introduced
    you, let me invite you to deliver 5-minute--summarize your
    testimony in 5 minutes. Your full statements will be included
    in the record, and with that, Mr. Millar, you are up.

      STATEMENT OF WILLIAM W. MILLAR, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN PUBLIC
                       TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION

        Mr. Millar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate those
    nice personal comments as well.
        On behalf of the American Public Transportation Association
    and its 1,500 members, it is my pleasure to appear again before
    this Committee. We thank you for your strong leadership and
    investments in transportation and transit in particular in the
    past, and we look forward to working with you as you seek to
    enact, we hope, a well-funded, 6-year, multimodal surface
    transportation bill. This would be one of the most important
    things the Congress could do to create jobs, to provide access
    to jobs, and to provide infrastructure that will serve a
    healthy and growing economy as well as our future population
    growth.
        Now, we recognize there are many challenges in achieving
    this, but we cannot overstate the need for a well-funded, 6-
    year bill now. Multiple short-term extensions of the law do not
    serve the Nation well. Transit system and State DOTs with
    multiyear capital budgets and agencies who implement multiyear
    projects must have reliable, predictable funding if they are to
    deliver these projects on time and in an efficient fashion.
        The private sector businesses who work in the
    transportation industry cannot and will not build new plants,
    they will not hire new workers, if the uncertainty about the
    availability of funding continues. Further, these businesses
    may be forced to lay off existing employees, and we have seen
    some businesses shift their investment overseas where other
    countries are making much more significant contributions to
    transit investment.
        Recent reports have shown that the United States is falling
    well behind economic competitors such as Brazil, China, India,
    and our traditional friends and competitors in Europe in terms
    of expanding and keeping infrastructure up to date. So despite
    the well-documented fiscal challenges the Federal Government
    faces, the Federal Government must be a strong partner in
    meeting the infrastructure needs.
        Now, proposals to reduce the Federal investment in
    transportation infrastructure and particularly public transit
    at this time are extremely shortsighted. These are investments
    that will pay off not only now but for many decades to come.
    And the U.S. Department of Transportation has cited some $78
    billion that needed to be invested just to bring transit up to
    a state of good repair. Other studies have shown that about $60
    billion a year annually should be made available from all
    sources, not just the Federal source, to maintain existing
    systems, to expand those systems, because we are going to need
    it. Our future is to be a growing country with a growing
    economy. We must meet those needs.
        Earlier the Committee spoke about high gas prices, and
    certainly we have all seen now gas prices beyond $4 a gallon,
    some places in the country $5 a gallon. We expect this year
    about 2 million more Americans per day--per day--to use public
    transit because it is one of the quickest ways that they can
    avoid the high cost of gasoline. If the pump price continues to
    rise, we expect millions more Americans who never thought they
    would need public transit to need public transit--again,
    showing the need for the investment.
        Now, we know that transit not only is good for all the
    reasons I have mentioned, but it also provides jobs. For every
    $1 billion invested through the Federal transit program, some
    36,000 jobs are created and maintained. APTA has recommended
    that Congress authorize the investment of $123 billion over the
    next 6 years. The President's budget has suggested $119
    billion. That would be fine with us as well.
        We need to make sure that there is a good, solid source of
    revenue behind this, and to provide this, we believe it is time
    to update the Federal fuel tax. It was last raised in 1993. To
    have that purchasing power replaced, we think it needs to be
    indexed for the future, but we think there are other ideas out
    there that are necessary as well.
        My written testimony talks about the need for public-
    private partnerships. However, I must caution our experience in
    transit has been not only these are hard to do, but they are
    often financing mechanisms. They do not really bring new money
    to the table. And so we have many suggestions for the Congress
    on how we can improve that situation.
        I realize I am coming to the end of my time so I will just
    refer the Committee to my written testimony. I would be happy
    to answer any questions. Suffice it to say that we need to have
    significant more investment in all forms of public
    transportation to meet the multiplicity of needs of our Nation,
    as the Senators have discussed with the first panel today.
        Thank you
        Senator Menendez. Thank you.
        Mr. Marsico.

      STATEMENT OF DALE J. MARSICO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY
                 TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA

        Mr. Marsico. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your
    invitation to be here as well. The Community Transportation
    Association of America represents 4,000 members that provide
    public and community transportation around the United States.
    Although our members provide public transportation in what we
    might call traditional transit communities, many of our
    members, thanks to our Nation's rural public transit program,
    can be found providing transportation in what some people might
    assume to be unexpected locations.
        Today, rural public transit can be found providing
    innovative mobility in communities that stretch from the Arctic
    Circle to the Rio Grande, from the smallest communities on the
    Atlantic coast across Middle America and the west coast, to
    Hawaii, all the way to the islands of Guam.
        Thanks to the commitments made by this Committee, public
    transit is completing its mission in communities across the
    Nation regardless of the size or location so that no matter
    where you are in America, you have an opportunity to be part of
    a public transit system.
        Just as importantly, SAFETEA-LU provided new emphasis on
    public transportation that serves tribal communities where the
    need is as important in public transit as it is anywhere in our
    country. And across the country, our association has been
    privileged to work with our partners at the Federal Transit
    Administration and with tribal communities to build public
    transit that is accessible to helping people with some of the
    greatest economic and personal needs in the Nation.
        We are privileged to have worked in establishing new and
    better tribal transportation services not only in places like
    the Dakotas and Montana, but also in communities in Alaska,
    North Carolina, Mississippi, New Mexico, Arizona, and in
    Wisconsin. In all these communities, like their urban and rural
    and other tribal networks, public transit not only continues to
    take Americans to work, but it is the essential link to provide
    millions of Americans with access to health care and other
    life-sustaining services to all of the American people, but
    especially to our Nation's seniors.
        Public transportation links people not just to the
    communities in which they live, but also to the communities in
    which they work, and many Americans are faced with traveling
    greater distances to seek employment and greater distances to
    seek health care as more and more of our Nation continues to
    regionalize. That is another reason why the advances that we
    have made in SAFETEA-LU, especially in funding, have been so
    important for the connectivity and the needs of the American
    people.
        Yet our progress is in serious danger today. Because of the
    success of the past, we have built our programs on partnerships
    that exist between the Federal Government, State government,
    local government, and, of course, the people who use our
    transit systems--the riders.
        The Great Recession, as we know it, has severely impacted
    these services and situations and relationships. Today in rural
    America, for instance, because of the recession 3.5 million
    Americans have lost their access to inner-city bus systems. The
    same is true for growing needs on employment transportation.
    Every reduction in transportation is a reduction in
    opportunity.
        Just as importantly, we are concerned about the growing
    need of transportation by our veterans. Estimates from the
    Department of Veterans Affairs remind us that 40 percent of the
    veterans in the Afghan and Iraqi wars come from rural
    communities. We must assure rural transportation's capacity to
    address these needs now and in the years ahead, especially as
    they relate to jobs and health care.
        The current economic and energy situations have created a
    disconnect between rising demand and declining investment that
    requires action and leadership that has historically come from
    this Committee and is the only place, we feel, that that
    leadership can come from today.
        Finally, some of the other issues we address in our written
    testimony call for greater flexibility to meet local needs. We
    support allowing operating assistance to small communities,
    medium communities, and large communities. We are particularly
    concerned about 90 urban communities that will soon face being
    placed into different rulemaking because of demographic
    changes. But we also call for new and innovative research to
    look at the way jobs link to transportation and the future. All
    these things need to be done in this reauthorization, and they
    need to be done now.
        Like it or not, highways and transit and all forms of
    mobility remain the infrastructure that is essential to all
    Americans regardless of where they live. We must find ways to
    add to that infrastructure and add to that success so that the
    American people have the connectivity they need to make their
    lives not just lives that are circling around locations, but
    also give them the capacity to connect to the bits and pieces
    that transit pulls together to help Americans in their personal
    journey toward the American dream.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you in particular for
    your leadership in supporting public transit.
        Senator Menendez. Thank you.
        President Hanley.

    STATEMENT OF LARRY HANLEY, INTERNATIONAL PRESIDENT, AMALGAMATED
                             TRANSIT UNION

        Mr. Hanley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the
    opportunity to address through the legislation and through my
    remarks the issues that are affecting America most deeply
    today, and by that I mean issues like the environment and
    climate change, national defense, cutting the use of foreign
    oil and economic development, getting Americans back to work.
        The Amalgamated Transit Union represents 190,000 people in
    46 States and in Canada, and we are deeply concerned about a
    transit crisis that has occurred throughout the United States
    and is now spreading to Canada over the course of the last 2
    years.
        We have in the course of the last 2 years seen the steepest
    fare increases and deepest service cuts in our history. Fifty-
    six percent of agencies have cut rush hour service in this
    period of time; 62 percent have slashed off-peak service; 40
    percent report reductions in geographic coverage; and there
    have been about 5,000 layoffs that we can track within the
    transit industry.
        In the past 2 years, in cities like Atlanta, where we have
    seen entire suburban counties eliminate all their bus service;
    Chicago, where 14 percent of all the transit service has been
    eliminated; Cincinnati, Cleveland, Detroit, where already 25
    percent of the bus service has been eliminated, and they are
    planning further cuts; and in Pittsburgh most recently 15
    percent of the service was cut on a Monday morning 6 weeks ago,
    and we have people standing at bus stops unable to board buses
    and watching three and four buses pass them during the rush
    hour as they wait to get to their jobs.
        In Oakland, California, entire areas of service in
    Richmond, which is part of the Oakland system, is currently
    planned to be eliminated in the course of the next 2 months.
        In my own hometown in New York, we have seen service cut
    that has been running for 100 years. We have watched while,
    although the Federal Government has stepped up along with the
    State and city and invested in growth in the subway system, the
    MTA is currently eliminating bus service in the outer boroughs
    of New York City that has run, as I said, for 100 years, and
    people are losing their ability to get around their own city.
        There is no slowdown in the cuts. We have upcoming cuts in
    Salt Lake City, in the Twin Cities; Tacoma, Washington;
    Birmingham, Alabama; and, of course, in Long Island, where the
    entire system has been put on the table for elimination.
        This is a mobility crisis for transit-dependent Americans.
    We have in recent visits to Chicago had discussions with the
    Service Employees Union who have informed us that their own
    members, as a result of the service cuts in that city, have to
    sleep on the floors in buildings waiting for bus service to
    resume after they clean the buildings they work in.
        Urban Americans and transit-dependent people are being
    hurt, but now, with $4 gas already here and $5 gas right around
    the corner, the pain is expanding. More areas are going to be
    affected by the changes as a result of the census in urbanized
    areas where populations of more than 200,000 are going to
    impinge on the ability of these systems to get operating aid.
    Brand-new buses are sitting idle. Buses that were paid for by
    stimulus dollars recently were just put in service after
    sitting for 6 months in Albany, New York, where the system was
    unable to run the buses that were bought with the Federal
    funding.
        We need increased funding. We support the President's
    proposals. But we also need to get beyond this question of
    whether or not we can afford to give operating assistance to
    transit systems at this time of crisis. So we support generally
    the President's proposal, but we believe that it needs to be
    tweaked and changed because there are limitations imposed in
    the proposal that we think will prevent solving the immediate
    crisis.
        Further delay is not an option. We believe that we need to
    act immediately to restore the service that has already been
    cut.
        There are additional issues of public safety on transit
    that have been raised today. As was said, transit is one of the
    safest ways to travel, but recent accidents have been
    troubling. We are about to approach the second anniversary of
    the WMATA crash next month, an accident that should never have
    happened. Lives were tragically lost due to faulty equipment,
    and more investment is needed not only in the equipment itself
    but also, as was stated by Peter Rogoff, to have some
    supervision of our transit systems in terms of how they safely
    manage their rail operations.
        Also, we are interested in this bill and trying to get some
    transit workforce development money because although the
    technology is changing rapidly, virtually nothing is being
    spent in America on training transit workers. We need a career
    ladder program and structures to be put in place to deal with
    workforce issues, and the ATU supports the Transportation Job
    Corps Act of 2011. APTA also supports the bill--in this case I
    am speaking for Bill Millar--but labor and management
    partnerships, as we see it, are critical to the success of this
    industry.
        So, in summary, we cannot get our economy back on track, we
    cannot improve the economy and get our people back to work
    unless the Federal Government steps up and recognizes that
    there needs to be flexibility in the money you are already
    spending on transit, and we thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your
    support of operating aid, and we look forward to working with
    you to make it happen.
        Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. President.
        Ms. Hecker.

      STATEMENT OF JAYETTA Z. HECKER, DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION
     ADVOCACY, NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY PROJECT, BIPARTISAN
                             POLICY CENTER

        Ms. Hecker. Thank you, Senator Menendez, Senator Merkley.
    It is an honor to be here. As you stated, I represent the
    Bipartisan Policy Center, which came together with four of your
    former leaders--Senators Dole, Daschle, Baker, and Mitchell--to
    lay the foundation of the kind of bipartisanship that is so
    essential to solving our major national problems. The focus is
    developing bold but pragmatic solutions to the major issues of
    our day and bringing together very broad cross-sections of not
    only former elected officials but experienced folks in each
    area as well as new voices. So in transportation, our panel is
    not just transportation experts but a national grocer, a real
    estate developer, and different kinds of perspectives to bring
    to bear.
        The three topics that I will address today are the
    challenges and opportunities of the current environment and the
    political context that you know very well, the priorities that
    BPC has set for the new authorization to be addressed in a
    report that we will be releasing in a couple of weeks that will
    have a detailed authorization proposal, and then, finally, the
    key funding issues and challenges which are so essential.
        Before I address those three issues, I actually was going
    to skip over this, but because both of you talked about the
    importance of national goals and performance metrics, I'll
    address the foundation of the work that the Bipartisan Policy
    Center is doing. The heart of reform, the heart of performance,
    the heart of accountability is having clear goals and
    performance metrics to measure and hold recipients of Federal
    funds accountable. It is the heart of it. It was the heart of
    our first report that identified five key national interests
    and, therefore, goals of Federal involvement in transportation
    generally, economic growth, national connectivity, including
    all the concerns expressed here today about rural issues. It is
    part of our Nation, not just our metropolitan area but
    certainly our rural areas.
        Metropolitan accessibility is a national interest. That is
    where most of our growth occurs. It is where most of our people
    live. Even in the rural States, most of them live in
    metropolitan areas. We need more strategic focus on
    metropolitan performance of the networks and systems in
    metropolitan areas. Improving our energy security and
    environmental sustainability and reducing emissions, that is a
    fundamental national interest, and safety.
        Now, the first four of those traditionally are not
    transportation related. Those are higher national interests,
    broader national goals, and we think transportation to a large
    extent is a means to an end. The days when we grew up and Dad
    would take you for a ride in the country, are past. Today,
    transportation is the foundation of the vitality of our
    economy. It is how people get to work, it is how our commerce
    is conducted, and transportation helps us grow, helps us live
    better, and have a sustainable environment in a safe manner. So
    these goals are critical.
        We have also recommended that that is the single most
    important measure that the Congress needs to take in
    authorization, and not in the prefatory language. That kind of
    language is always in the prefatory language of the bills. It
    has to be the goals of the bills, tie the programs to those
    goals, and start laying the foundation for measuring,
    monitoring, and rewarding performance.
        Now, I'll turn to the three issues that I talked about.
    First is the challenges and opportunities. You know full well
    the severe condition of the trust fund, which has been hit by
    the economic downturn. The Nation is confronting the fiscal
    crisis for the first time. Frankly, having been with GAO for
    years, the last 15 years, I was giving speeches on the debt
    crisis and the fiscal condition requiring urgent attention 10
    years ago. It is finally coming to the fore. This is a national
    crisis that is changing the nature of the debate about these
    issues. And then we have got increasing hostility to taxes, at
    least certainly at the Federal level.
        Our concern is that, as all of the witnesses before have
    said, all of the evidence is that we need to be spending more
    on transportation. We are not maintaining what we have. We are
    not preparing for the future.
        On the other hand, we do not have the money. The only way
    the trust fund is operating now is from over a $30 billion
    bailout of borrowed funds over the last 3 years. In my view,
    the political environment is such that we are not going to have
    any more bailouts of that kind that are borrowed funds. There
    is no more free money. There are no more gimmicks, frankly,
    which is a lot of what was behind some of those bailouts.
        The panel that we have has basically said that while in our
    visionary report we support substantial increases, the future
    cannot depend on general fund transfers and increased
    borrowing. Until new revenues are identified, the program
    should be scaled back to existing revenue, and this is also an
    opportunity for the critical reforms.
        I see I am way over my time. The reforms build the
    foundation for performance, focus on improving planning and
    getting more oversight. The planning structure, which is so
    vital to better decision making, is not based on the kind of
    goals and outcomes that you have talked about. It is all
    process oriented. And DOT has done work on this. They know it.
    They are limited in their current authority. All of the focus
    on planning is just process oriented. We need oversight on
    solving problems.
        And, finally, on funding, in the longer run basically the
    work that we have done and the experts that we have brought
    together who have their own proposals, we concluded that we are
    not going to get consensus for the kinds of increases that are
    required in transportation until we rebuild the credibility of
    the program. Clearer set of performance objectives, clearer
    outcomes, clearer recognition that we are getting value for our
    money. So in the long term, we actually think these reforms
    really need to precede the kind of increases that are called
    for.
        In the short run, we have a very dramatic recommendation.
    If we live within our budget--which, frankly, is a decrease
    from current levels, we recognize that the current level of
    spending is only supported by these bailouts. We have to have a
    major new Federal program focusing on supporting States,
    rewarding States, providing incentives, and giving them all the
    tools to develop sustainable revenue sources to maintain the
    program.
        Thank you, and I apologize for going over.
        Senator Menendez. Thank you very much.
        Thank you all for your testimony. I, unfortunately, have a
    meeting with our Ambassador designee to Afghanistan, so Senator
    Merkley has agreed to chair the rest of the hearing. I have a
    series of questions I am going to submit to the record. I look
    forward to your answers.
        But I will make one statement as a subcommittee chair,
    which we look forward to pursuing many of these issues as we
    hold future hearings in conjunction with the Chairman. You
    know, in my mind, we cannot prosper if we cannot grow, and we
    cannot grow if we are stuck, and we are stuck and we need to be
    able to move in a direction that creates greater--particularly
    in mass transit, better public transit opportunities.
        There are few issues that embody so many of our national
    goals as public transit, whether that is the whole question of
    getting people to work and opening up economic opportunities,
    and very often what transit systems do to create economic
    opportunities, not only their construction, but in the long
    term, ripple effect along transit lines.
        It is about our environment and the air that we
    collectively breathe. It is about energy, moving increasingly
    to energy independence and breaking our addiction to foreign
    oil and great transfers of wealth from our country to other
    countries at the end of the day. And much more. It is quality
    of life, sitting less time in traffic, having more productive
    time at work or quality time with our families.
        So it seems to me this is one of those issues for which we,
    in fact, have so many crosscutting national issues and concerns
    that we should be able to do a lot more and hopefully get a
    bipartisan consensus, which this Committee has, fortunately,
    always been at the forefront of, so I hope we can continue with
    that history.
        With that, I appreciate Senator Merkley closing out the
    hearing and look forward to reading the answers to the
    questions that I have. Thank you very much.
        Senator Merkley [presiding]. Thank you very much for your
    testimony. I have a couple quick questions. I say quick,
    because I only have about four more minutes before I have to
    leave for another meeting.
        So I wanted to ask Mr. Marsico about your comments
    regarding vehicle miles traveled. I think I have the phrase
    here of the current American political environment does not
    seem at all ready to embrace the idea of the Government in any
    shape or form monitoring travel patterns of its citizens, even
    if only to gauge distances traveled. We have had in Oregon a
    pilot project on this, but I was wondering where you were
    taking your conclusions from, from more just surveys or other
    perhaps experimental projects from around the country.
        Mr. Marsico. We were taking my information from surveys we
    did, particularly in the Western States when we were talking
    about other ways to increase revenue. I think, basically, we
    put that in our testimony to reflect that there were many
    communities where that was looked at as very invasive and that
    it led to, I think what we say in our testimony is, during the
    current crisis, sometimes, like I believe the phrase is Occam's
    razor. The simplest solution is the best.
        And I find that in those areas where we talked, a gas tax
    increase was greeted, you know, much more positively and
    understandingly than getting into a more detailed approach to
    something longer term. And I think what we said in our
    testimony is, that is a great long-term solution. We have to
    educate people about what we are doing first. But in the
    meantime, we had such urgent needs, we were trying to focus on
    how great the support we felt existed for a simpler solution
    that we believe that a number, and a significant number of the
    American people would join us in a small gas tax increase as a
    step toward looking at a broader range of revenue.
        Senator Merkley. I would just note, you might find it
    interesting to look at the results of that pilot in Oregon.
    Oregon has a weight mile on freight, which has a very
    sophisticated formula that addresses the number of axles, the
    weight on each axle, et cetera, et cetera. It actually serves
    as a motivator for companies to add more axles and do less road
    damage because it lowers their costs.
        So within that framework, there is a lot of thinking about
    the fact that high-mileage vehicles and certainly hybrids and
    electric vehicles may not be carrying their fair share. On the
    other hand, we are working hard to subsidize that transition
    for a host of other very valuable reasons that have to do with
    reducing our consumption of oil for the national security
    purposes, the creation of jobs, and the improvement of air. So
    there is kind of a rich debate going on around that.
        I wanted to ask if anyone had anything they would like to
    say about bus rapid transit. We have had several communities
    that have been exploring this and some that have developed it
    at much less infrastructure cost than rail takes, but with
    fairly similar speeds, with coordinating traffic signals,
    landings for people to get on and off the vehicles, and so
    forth.
        Mr. Hanley. America lags far behind Latin America in
    developing bus rapid transit. It is a very productive way to
    avoid capital costs in construction of systems that, for some
    reason, some municipalities love to build light rail systems
    and I think they have ignored the recent developments over the
    course of the last two decades around the world in bus rapid
    transit.
        So we find it for our drivers, they love the fact that they
    do not have to sit in traffic. Often, when folks do not
    understand it, they reject it out of hand, but it is a very
    effective way, efficient way, of moving people more reliably,
    safer, and more quickly through our cities. So we support it
    completely.
        Mr. Millar. Mr. Merkley, yes. APTA believes that the full
    family of services ought to be available, including bus rapid
    transit, that that ought to be a part of the Federal program.
    As Mr. Hanley has said, many communities have started to look
    at that, and certainly we would support its inclusion in the
    bill.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you. And finally, Ms. Hecker, you
    probably heard my comments earlier on performance measures,
    strategic planning, and scenario-based comparisons, and the
    value they have actually brought to the bottom line to the
    taxpayer, because that sort of scenario-based planning has
    resulted in more being accomplished for less. But I wanted to
    ask if you are familiar with that as an extension of your
    performance measures conversation.
        Ms. Hecker. Yes, sir. We are, and I think while we do not
    use that term, we talk about getting incentives in place for
    more integrated outcome-based planning that focuses on the mix
    of Federal interests of growth and energy security and
    improving access to jobs. So the traditional planning that was
    more focused on a static projection of demand really was not
    nearly as dynamic as we need with all of these national
    interests in our transportation system and the interplay of
    these objectives.
        So we are very much focused on trying to set the stage for
    not only promoting more dynamic planning, for providing support
    to State and local governments for the data, which is very
    often the missing ingredient for that kind of analysis, and for
    the analytical tools to compare across modes and to do more
    dynamic planning, and the tracking tools to understand what
    impacts transportation investments are likely to have in the
    future and actually have had, looking backwards.
        Senator Merkley. I want to thank you all for bringing your
    expertise to provide insights to this Committee. So thank you
    for your time and efforts. The input is very valuable.
        The record will be open for an additional week for folks to
    submit questions, and we certainly appreciate your responses to
    those questions.
        With that, I adjourn this Committee. Thank you.
        [Whereupon, at 11:44 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
        [Prepared statements, responses to written questions, and
    additional material supplied for the record follow:]

                   PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN TIM JOHNSON

        Today, the Committee holds its first hearing this Congress on
    public transportation as we begin work on a new surface transportation
    bill. This effort will build on the substantial hearing record on
    public transportation and transit safety that our previous chair,
    Senator Dodd, and our Ranking Member, Senator Shelby, worked to
    establish last Congress. I look forward to continuing this effort on a
    bipartisan basis with Senator Shelby, our Subcommittee Chairman Senator
    Menendez, and all of the Members of this Committee.
        This is a very important time to talk about public transportation.
    High gas prices are stretching families' budgets across the Nation, and
    where there is good transit service, taking a bus or train to work can
    make a big difference. Unfortunately, few Americans have that option.
        A few days ago I got a note from Bob Ecoffey on the Pine Ridge
    reservation in South Dakota. Bob works for the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs. He and his wife Darlene also own a Subway sandwich shop in
    Pine Ridge Village. I want to read part of his note for the Committee:

            Tim--I hope this message finds you well. I heard that you will
            be working on a transportation bill soon. Five of the employees
            at our sandwich shop take a bus operated by Oglala Sioux
            Transit to get to work. You know how vast the reservation is,
            so having a reliable and affordable means to get to the store
            really helps them.

        I want to thank Bob for sharing his thoughts. It is sometimes
    forgotten, but reliable and accessible public transit is vital in rural
    areas like South Dakota, just as it is vital in large urban cities. Our
    public transit systems connect workers with employers, keep cars off
    congested roads, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and get people
    where they're going safely and affordably.
        We are joined today by Peter Rogoff of the Federal Transit
    Administration and four distinguished leaders from the transportation
    industry. Mr. Rogoff, I share the Administration's interest in
    repairing outdated infrastructure, improving safety oversight, and
    simplifying and consolidating existing programs. I applaud President
    Obama's call to improve our transportation system, and I look forward
    to working with the Administration on a bill.
        The current extension of transit and highway programs runs through
    September 30. Congress has produced seven short term extensions since
    2009, so it's time to get to work on this legislation. Getting a long-
    term bill done will not be easy, but I hope that improving
    transportation is a topic where both parties can find common ground.
                                     ______

                 PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT MENENDEZ

        Good morning. I would like to thank Chairman Johnson and Ranking
    Member Shelby for holding this hearing to address the longstanding
    challenge of how we craft and pass a surface transportation bill in
    2011 that will help jumpstart the economy and get the United States
    back on track.
        Today, we are in limbo. Nearly two years and seven extensions
    later, our country still lacks a permanent authorization to direct our
    Nation's surface transportation program. It will require an immense
    amount of leadership, political will, and collaboration to do what is
    in the best interest of the country. We literally cannot afford any
    more delay.
        Incremental extensions stymie our ability to strategically link
    public infrastructure investment and economic development--to ``prime
    the pump'' for job creation and recovery. This threatens U.S. global
    competitiveness and undermines our quality of life. This authorization
    is an opportunity to maintain the strong elements of our existing
    transportation program, while shifting course in other areas where
    there is consensus on the need for reform.
        Transit is a critical element of our transportation network and
    recognition of its importance continues to rise. Today, with gas prices
    over $4 a gallon, with our Nation addicted to oil, with the threat of
    climate change and the housing crisis, transit is part of the solution
    for a number of interconnected challenges.
        Public transportation brings mobility, access, and freedom to
    residents and visitors across the country. It creates good-paying,
    long-term jobs directly and helps create countless more by efficiently
    connecting workers with their place of employment.
        We know that the housing markets hardest hit by high gas prices are
    exactly those communities that are located the furthest from jobs and
    schools, houses of worship, hospitals, and grocery stores. The hardest
    hit communities are also the ones with the fewest connections to public
    transportation.
        In short, passing a reauthorization bill and making sure transit
    gets the resources it needs is simply essential if we are to grow our
    economy, reduce congestion and pollution, fix the housing market, and
    drive down transportation costs.
        I am very proud that this Committee has been able to act on a
    bipartisan basis on transit issues in years past and I hope we can
    serve as an example for the entire Senate on how to reach across the
    aisle to pass a surface transportation reauthorization bill.
        Thank you and thanks to our witnesses for sharing your insights and
    experience with the Committee today.
                                     ______

                     PREPARED STATEMENT OF PETER M. ROGOFF
                 Administrator, Federal Transit Administration
                                  May 19, 2011

        Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Shelby, and Members of the
    Committee:
        Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss
    the Obama administration's policy priorities for the next authorization
    of Federal transit programs. We appreciate the Committee's hard work to
    develop this important legislation. And we believe it is in the best
    interests of the American people to support a legislative framework
    that will enable us to strategically rebuild and expand our national
    transit infrastructure in ways that will create new jobs, enhance
    competitiveness, and spur economic growth in communities nationwide,
    while also reducing our Nation's dependence on oil.
        Almost all Americans--from families to business owners--have been
    affected by the spike in gas prices lately, as they were in 2008 and
    back in 1973. But we can't keep proposing policy changes when gas
    prices rise, only to forget about them once they go back down.
    President Obama has noted that while there is no silver bullet to
    address rising gas prices in the short term, there are steps we can
    take to ensure the American people do not fall victim to skyrocketing
    gas prices over the long term.
        Toward this end, the President has laid out a blueprint to put
    America on a path toward a cleaner, safer, and more secure energy
    future. The Administration has pledged that by 2025, we will reduce our
    net imports of oil by one-third and put forward a plan that produces
    more oil domestically, reducing our dependence on oil with cleaner
    fuels and greater efficiency. That is achievable, it is necessary, and
    for the sake of our future, we will get it done.
        To ensure that this strategy succeeds, we are making historic
    investments in high-speed rail and public transit, because part of
    making our transportation sector cleaner and more efficient involves
    offering Americans--urban, suburban, and rural--the choice to be mobile
    without having to get in a car and pay for gas.
        We at FTA have been hearing from transit agencies all over the
    country, who tell us they are experiencing a surge in ridership that
    they attribute, at least in part, to the pain people are feeling at the
    pump. For example, in New Orleans, Louisiana, ridership on the RTA
    transit system is up more than 20 percent over last year. In Kankakee
    County, Illinois, local buses have added more than 3,000 new riders
    this spring. In greater Philadelphia, there's been a 4 percent increase
    on SEPTA's trains and buses over a recent 8-month period. And in
    northern Virginia, 7 percent more riders chose to ride the VRE commuter
    rail in February than the same time last year.
        These increases represent millions of new trips taken every day.
    Many of these trips are taken by hard-working Americans who simply
    cannot afford to purchase and maintain privately owned vehicles.
    Suburban commuters who are also concerned about the high cost of gas--
    and would prefer not to waste gas sitting in traffic--are also turning
    to transit. According to the American Public Transportation
    Association, riding public transportation saves individuals, on
    average, $10,116 annually, or $843 a month, compared with driving.
        Implementation of our priorities for reauthorization--together with
    enactment of the President's budget request for fiscal 2012--will
    ensure that America's transit systems are reliable, desirable,
    efficient, and safer than ever for the millions who use them every day
    in our urban, suburban, and rural communities. Our priorities reflect
    the Administration's dual commitments to expanding transit in areas
    with little or no transit while also bringing our older, urban transit
    systems into a state of good repair. But transit service is only as
    strong as the agency that runs it. Therefore, it's equally important to
    support workforce training and development within the transit industry
    as well as temporary, targeted operating assistance for transit
    providers in distress. To improve FTA's capacity to oversee and manage
    the billions of dollars we award annually to State and local
    transportation providers, and ensure that taxpayers' transportation
    dollars are wisely spent, the Administration is also committed to
    streamlining and consolidating core programs to improve efficiency and
    become even more responsive to local transportation priorities.
    Specifically, we recognize it is vitally important to strike the right
    balance between good stewardship and the need to advance capital
    transportation projects in a reasonable timeframe. That is why we
    propose significant changes that will accelerate the development and
    financing of critically needed projects to expand transportation
    options in the United States. Additionally, we will reduce the
    administrative burden now experienced by FTA's grant recipients for
    programs that offer mobility for older adults, people with
    disabilities, and low-income individuals. To this end, we will merge
    and consolidate three separate programs.
        A description of FTA's policy priorities for the next authorization
    follows.

    State of Good Repair
        During his State of the Union Address, President Obama laid out an
    aggressive but achievable plan to out-build, out-innovate, and out-
    educate our global economic competitors. At the heart of the
    President's challenge is public transit. The Administration supports
    making a groundbreaking commitment to not only expand transit options
    for Americans, but just as importantly, maintain our transit systems in
    a state of good repair. A September 2010 FTA study found that the
    Nation's transit systems, including bus systems, have a $78 billion
    backlog of assets in marginal or poor condition and that our Nation's
    transit systems will require an estimated $14.4 billion annual
    investment to continue to maintain a state of good repair once that
    backlog is addressed.
        Through a new State of Good Repair program, one that would replace
    the existing fixed guideway modernization and discretionary bus
    programs, formula grants would be provided to transit agencies over the
    next 6 years to enable them to improve the condition of their existing
    capital assets. We will work closely with this Committee to develop a
    reformulated two-tiered formula for both bus and rail that closely
    reflects the capital needs of transit agencies. This formula should
    allocate funds based on the relative cost to restore public
    transportation assets to a state of good repair. We also recommend that
    the formula give priority to transit agencies with the most pressing
    capital investment requirements. The formula should not inequitably
    reward public transportation agencies that have failed to adequately
    maintain their capital assets. We should require transit agencies to
    use asset management techniques to target their state-of-good repair
    investments. Also, it should assure equitable treatment of the relative
    needs of rail and bus systems and provide an incentive to transit
    agencies for developing and implementing structured asset management
    techniques.

    Safety
        Secretary LaHood has regularly stated that ``safety is our highest
    priority and we are committed to keeping transit one of the safest
    modes of transportation in the Nation.'' Our commitment to safety is
    demonstrated by the Administration's repeated requests that Congress
    enact new authority for FTA to ensure the safety of rail-transit riders
    across America.
        In December 2009, Secretary LaHood transmitted to Congress
    legislation that would establish national rail transit safety
    standards. This was the first piece of legislation that any President,
    in any Administration, transmitted to Congress that was solely about
    public transportation, and appropriately, it was about safety.
        We're also very grateful that this Committee unanimously passed a
    safety bill in June 2010. While it differed in some respects from the
    Administration's proposal, it includes the core components that will
    put us all on a better path for improved safety.
        I want to thank all the Committee Members that have worked on that
    legislation. I can promise you, FTA will continue to work with the
    leadership in Congress until public transportation safety legislation
    is enacted as a stand-alone bill or as a part of the reauthorization of
    the Federal Public Transportation Assistance Programs. I am grateful to
    the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) for their
    recommendations on how to improve safety legislation as well as their
    support of this much needed legislation as it moves through the
    process.
        To achieve the goal of putting safety first, it is imperative that
    Congress rescinds an antiquated 1960s era law that forbids the Federal
    Government from issuing even the most basic safety regulations now.
    When Secretary LaHood and I testified before the Subcommittee on
    Housing, Transportation, and Community Development on December 10,
    2010, we expressed concern about warning signs regarding the frequency
    of derailments, collisions, and passenger casualties and reported on a
    number of accidents serving as the basis of our concern. While transit
    is a safe way to travel, we continue to see too many preventable
    accidents. For example, on March 13 of this year, a BART train derailed
    as it approached a station, causing the evacuation of 65 passengers.
    Four people were injured, and the accident resulted in $800,000 in
    damage. And, on April 20, 2010, twenty people were injured because of a
    fire in a tunnel just outside the MBTA's Downtown Crossing Station. The
    cause of the fire was due to trash near an electrical cable.
        Clearly, FTA needs the tools to ensure that public transportation
    remains safe as our systems age and experienced employees retire in
    increasing numbers. Enactment of this commonsense safety legislation is
    long overdue; we request that Congress move quickly to provide those
    necessary tools to us to help keep the public safe.

    Temporary and Targeted Operating Assistance
        The Administration's proposed flexibility to use Section 5307
    Urbanized Area Formula Grant funds for operating expenses is an
    important recognition that some of our public transportation agencies
    need help addressing their operating shortfalls in the short run. In
    smaller urban areas and in rural areas, FTA formula funds can already
    pay for operating assistance. But now we are proposing that FTA funding
    be available for temporary operating assistance specifically in
    economically distressed urbanized areas with a population of over
    200,000.
        This flexibility would phase out over 3 years. In the first year,
    grantees in these targeted areas would be permitted to use up to 25
    percent of their urbanized area apportionment for operating expenses
    and declining portions during the second and third years. To prevent
    the substituting of Federal funds for local dollars, each transit
    agency would have to certify to FTA that its local funding partners did
    not reduce the proportion of local funding dedicated to transit and
    that service levels are maintained and not cut below previous levels.

    Program Streamlining and Delivery

    I. Capital Investment Program
        The Administration supports transforming the New Starts program
    (Section 5309), into a Capital Investment Program that would feature a
    simpler and more streamlined process for funding the construction of
    new fixed guideway projects and extensions to existing fixed guideway
    projects, such as heavy rail, light rail, commuter rail, and bus rapid
    transit. Currently, FTA follows a rigorous, time-consuming process
    based on requirements set by the law when reviewing grant applications
    for program funding. This process focuses on awarding Federal dollars
    to the highest rated projects. However, sometimes project timelines are
    sacrificed along the way, resulting in higher project costs.
        We believe that such changes will expand transportation options in
    the United States by accelerating the development and financing of
    critically needed projects. Importantly, streamlining the Capital
    Investment Grants process will be a true catalyst to long-term economic
    development and job growth surrounding the new rail line.
        The goal of streamlining Capital Investment Program is to strike
    the right balance between stewardship and the need to advance New
    Starts projects in a reasonable timeframe. To that end, FTA supports
    eliminating the duplicative Alternative Analysis requirement since it
    is already required by the National Environmental Policy Act.
        We support merging Preliminary Engineering and Final Design into a
    single Project Development stage under our proposal. Entry into the
    Project Development phase would require FTA approval. The current six
    project performance criteria would be reduced to four--transportation
    effects, environmental effects, economic development, and comparison of
    project's effects to costs.
        Streamlining the project development process would permit us to
    discontinue the current ``Small Starts'' category--projects requesting
    less than $75 million in New Starts funds with a total capital cost of
    less than $250 million. Instead, the program would include two new
    project categories: the larger Capital Investment Grant projects and
    Exempt projects, which request less than 10 percent of their funds from
    this program, and in any case, no more than $100 million. Exempt
    projects would be subject only to basic Federal grant requirements and
    would not be evaluated and rated under the program criteria.
        One set of project evaluation criteria would be applied to all
    nonexempt projects. Projects' sponsors seeking more than $100 million
    in Capital Investment Grant Program funds would receive construction
    funds through a Full Funding Grant Agreement while projects seeking
    less than $100 million would receive construction funds through a
    simplified Project Construction Grant Agreement. We propose to maintain
    the five-tier project rating system of low, medium-low, medium, medium-
    high, and high for project ratings. We also provide comparable, but not
    necessarily equal, weight to each of the project performance criteria.

    II. Consolidated Specialized Transportation Grant Program
        Over time, FTA's grant recipients have had to devote increasing
    time and resources to administer the various requirements of FTA's
    programs that offer mobility for older adults, people with disabilities
    and low-income individuals. To address this burden, the Administration
    supports creating a Consolidated Specialized Transportation Grant
    Program to improve mobility and job access for low income persons, and
    provide transportation options for senior citizens and individuals with
    disabilities. This program would merge the existing Elderly Individuals
    and Individuals with Disabilities Program, the New Freedom program, and
    the Job Access and Reverse Commute program. The objective of this
    program reform would be to ensure transportation services are made
    available in urbanized and nonurbanized areas, and are designed to fill
    gaps in or enhance transportation services available to meet the
    particular needs of older adults, low-income individuals, and people
    with disabilities who are not well served by existing public
    transportation service.
        Funds would be distributed by formula and apportioned to urbanized
    areas and rural areas based on the number of each targeted population
    in those respective areas. Funds would be used for planning, capital
    investments, and operating costs of projects derived from a locally
    coordinated public transit--human service transportation plan.
    Performance-Based Planning
        Over the past few decades, Federal surface transportation law has
    increasingly recognized the importance of transportation planning as
    the basis of transportation spending decisions by State and local
    officials. However, States and localities need to better identify and
    address their planning problems and needs by making full use of
    performance data, improving coordination among jurisdictions, and
    integrating economic, housing, and other planning efforts into their
    transportation decisions. The Administration supports enhancing the
    effectiveness of States and MPOs in developing and implementing
    transportation plans and improvement programs while also ensuring
    transparency and accountability in public investments, and believes
    that three changes to the current planning provisions would accomplish
    this.
        First, both metropolitan plans and statewide plans are required to
    include performance based goals, outcomes, and targets. These address
    not only transportation based outcomes, but environmental and economic
    development considerations, among others. Furthermore, MPOs and States
    would be required to demonstrate how the outcomes and performance
    targets contained in their adopted transportation plans--Transportation
    Improvement Programs and Statewide Transportation Improve Programs
    (TIPs/STIPs)--directly link plans to investments.
        Second, Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) designations are
    split into a Tier 1, encompassing areas of 1 million or more
    population; and Tier 2, encompassing areas of 200,000 to 1 million in
    population. Tier 1 MPOs are held to more rigorous performance based
    planning requirements. This recognizes that areas with more people,
    more complex transportation challenges, and more resources to address
    those challenges should clear a higher bar than smaller areas.
        Third, States are expected to significantly strengthen the
    performance and financial rigor of their plans and programs, and
    increase their collaboration with small urban (less than 200,000) and
    nonmetropolitan areas whose transportation needs and priorities are
    incorporated as part of the statewide process.

    Livable Communities
        The Department of Transportation (DOT) has prioritized its Livable
    Communities Initiative and Partnership for Sustainable Communities with
    the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the
    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and is exploring areas where
    program funds may be used to promote these efforts. The initiatives aim
    to help families in all communities--rural, suburban, and urban--gain
    better access to affordable housing, more transportation options, and
    lower transportation costs, while protecting the environment in
    communities nationwide.
        While all of FTA's programs work to enhance the livability of
    communities by providing transportation options for people and
    communities across the country, in further support of the
    Administration's Livability Initiative, FTA is proposing a new
    Livability Demonstration Grant Program to support innovative projects
    that improve the link between public transportation and communities.
    Projects would be evaluated based on innovative or best practices, and
    local incentives for integrating transit with the community development
    in accordance with the DOT-HUD-EPA Partnership for Sustainable
    Community's livability principles. More specifically, projects would
    test different design and conceptual approaches to promoting livability
    in urban, rural, and tribal communities nationwide. This approach would
    allow FTA to evaluate and compare their relative effectiveness.

    Workforce Development and Local Hiring Preference
        FTA believes that the Nation's transit industry should be equipped
    with a workforce that has the skill-set necessary to fill future
    transit jobs by establishing, among other things, workforce development
    and registered apprenticeship programs.
        Such a Workforce Development Program would target training funds at
    under-represented populations in areas of high unemployment areas using
    up to 0.5 percent of the amounts made available to carry out FTA's
    urbanized area formula grant program and would be developed and
    administered in consultation with the Secretary of Labor.
        Currently, FTA is prohibited from allowing local hiring preferences
    on projects using Federal transit assistance. The Workforce Development
    Program we support would advance local hiring goals set forth in the
    Office of Management and Budget's guidance for recovery spending issued
    April 3, 2009. We believe that local hiring is an effective tool that
    could be used to maintain and promote the working population by giving
    local workers a leg up on projects they pay for as taxpayers--projects
    that are being built in their own backyard. For this reason, the
    Administration supports establishing standards under which a contract
    for construction may be advertised that contains local hiring
    requirements in limited circumstances. This provision would be applied
    only if construction were being conducted in a designated area of high
    unemployment (per Department of Labor data) and the contract's total
    capital cost were over $10 million. Workforce Development Program funds
    could be used to train individuals hired under contracts allowing local
    hiring preferences.

    Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program
        In many communities public transportation provides critical
    services to residents to carry on daily activities. A temporary
    interruption in transit service because of a natural or manmade
    disaster can be disruptive and even cause economic dislocation to those
    that rely on it for work, medical appointments, and other activities.
    Additionally, in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the
    Government Accountability Office found that existing Federal emergency
    and disaster relief programs were not sufficiently responsive to the
    public transportation needs of communities.
        The Administration believes that an Emergency Relief Program should
    be established to provide funds necessary to quickly restore transit
    operations in the wake of a disaster. This new program would fund the
    evacuation costs and temporary operating expenses of transit agencies
    during and after a disaster, as well as capital replacement and repair
    costs.

    Buy America
        The Obama administration is committed to ensuring that projects
    built using United States tax dollars generate the maximum number of
    jobs right here in the United States. As such, we request that Congress
    implement the necessary legal changes to increase the ``Buy America''
    standard for federally funded transit equipment and components over
    time to 100 percent U.S. content. The Administration proposes to
    achieve this goal by gradually increasing the percentage of rolling
    stock components and subcomponents that must be produced in the United
    States. This increase would take place over a 5-year period to enable
    vehicle manufacturers to enlist a greater number of U.S.-based vendors,
    and to give vendors time to relocate or commence manufacturing
    activities in this country. By 2016, 100 percent of the cost of
    components and subcomponents for rolling stock, including rolling stock
    prototypes, would have to be produced in the United States and final
    assembly would have to occur here as well.

    Conclusion
        As high gas prices take a bite out of family budgets, the Obama
    administration will continue to work with communities to make sure
    commuters have affordable, convenient ways to get to work, school, or
    the grocery store. The Administration's policy proposals outlined above
    are a major step in that direction. In addition, there are other policy
    proposals that benefit several modes of transportation, including
    public transit. Examples are the Transportation Leadership Awards
    Program that will reward States and MPOs that are at the forefront of
    implementing best practices, including developing innovative ways to
    connect people to opportunities and products to markets and
    establishing a National Infrastructure Bank within the DOT as an
    innovative infrastructure financing mechanism for infrastructure
    projects of regional and national significance that would otherwise be
    difficult to fund.
        The Administration is eager to work with this Committee to ensure
    that Congress authorizes the Federal Transit Assistance Programs to
    assist our Nation's transit passengers--both those that use transit
    every day and those that want to use transit in the future. I will be
    happy to answer any questions you may have.
                                     ______

                    PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM W. MILLAR
             President, American Public Transportation Association
                                  May 19, 2011

    Introduction
        Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Shelby, and distinguished Members
    of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to present testimony
    regarding the next surface transportation authorization bill. Enacting
    a well-funded, 6-year, multimodal surface transportation bill, is one
    of the most important actions Congress can take to repair our Nation's
    economy and prepare for the growth of the country. Investment in the
    Nation's transportation infrastructure will create jobs building
    facilities that our Nation will use for decades as we compete in a
    global economy. Conversely, further delay in passing an authorization
    bill will have the opposite effect, allowing our public transportation
    systems, roads, bridges, and rail to deteriorate, decreasing their
    effectiveness while forcing citizens and private sector businesses to
    be saddled with higher transportation costs. It will cause public
    transportation related companies to lay off employees, reduce
    investments in this country and some to invest overseas instead. Every
    $1 billion invested in public transportation creates or supports 36,000
    jobs, and public transportation investment is an essential strategy in
    a surface transportation bill as we seek to reduce our dependence on
    imported oil, reduce congestion on our roadways, and offer more
    transportation choices to Americans.

    About APTA
        The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) is a
    nonprofit international association of 1,500 public and private member
    organizations, including transit systems and high-speed, intercity, and
    commuter rail operators; planning, design, construction, and finance
    firms; product and service providers; academic institutions; transit
    associations and State departments of transportation. APTA members
    serve the public interest by providing safe, efficient, and economical
    public transportation services and products. More than 90 percent of
    the people using public transportation in the United States and Canada
    are served by APTA member systems.

    The Need for Federal Transit Investment
        As this Committee develops the transit title of the next surface
    transportation authorization bill, it is critical that the legislation
    increase Federal investments to levels that will allow the transit
    industry to address the Nation's significant public transportation
    needs. APTA has recommended $123 billion of Federal transit investment
    over 6 years, and $50 billion for high-speed and intercity passenger
    rail. President Obama has proposed $119 billion over the same period
    for transit investment and $53 billion for high-speed and intercity
    passenger rail. Under either scenario, new Federal investment would
    produce much-needed progress toward bringing our Nation's public
    transportation infrastructure up to a state of good repair and building
    the capacity for the tens of millions of new riders that will seek
    service in the coming years. The U.S. Department of Transportation
    estimates that a one-time investment of more than $78 billion is needed
    to bring the Nation's transit infrastructure up to a state of good
    repair. After that, research on transit needs shows that capital
    investment from all sources--Federal, State, and local--should be
    doubled if we are to prepare for future ridership demands.
        APTA recognizes that the Highway Trust Fund, including the Mass
    Transit Account, currently does not generate sufficient revenues to
    support the current level of investment, let alone levels that are
    needed from the Federal Government to meet the Nation's needs. To
    generate this revenue, at a minimum, Congress should restore the
    purchasing power of dedicated revenue for public transportation and
    other surface transportation investment to 1993 levels (when motor fuel
    taxes were last raised) and those revenues should be indexed to account
    for future inflation of construction costs. This view is shared by a
    wide range of organizations, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the
    American Trucking Association and AAA. Even if these actions are taken,
    more will have to be done as outlined by the congressionally chartered
    National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission.
        In addition, in an era of budget constraints, utilizing alternative
    financing mechanisms to more effectively leverage Federal investments
    makes a great deal of sense--but only to a certain extent. New
    financing tools cannot replace the need for expanded Federal
    investment. However, the Congress should examine the long-term
    viability of innovative financing techniques, including: public-private
    partnerships, Federal loan guarantees, tax exempt/tax credit bonds,
    tolling and congestion pricing, value capture increment financing, and
    other mechanisms that consider changes in energy use and reduce
    Nation's carbon footprint. Furthermore, there are modifications that
    can be made to existing programs, including the Transportation
    Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program, that could
    make them a more effective source of public transportation financing.
        Demand for public transportation and the need for Federal
    leadership will not diminish in the months and years ahead. As gasoline
    prices continue to increase, Americans are again turning to public
    transportation in record numbers. We recently completed an analysis
    that reveals that as regular gas prices reach $4 a gallon across the
    Nation, an additional 670 million passenger trips could be expected,
    resulting in more than 10.8 billion trips per year, roughly a 6-percent
    increase. If pump prices jump to $5 a gallon, the report predicts an
    additional 1.5 billion passenger trips can be expected, resulting in
    more than 11.6 billion trips per year. And if prices were to soar to $6
    a gallon, expectations go as high as an additional 2.7 billion
    passenger trips, resulting in more than 12.9 billion trips per year.
        The volatility of gas prices is a wake-up call for our Nation to
    address the increasing demand for public transportation services. We
    must make significant, long-term investments in public transportation
    systems or we will leave Americans with limited travel options, or in
    many cases, stranded without travel options. Again, enacting a well-
    funded, 6-year, multimodal surface transportation bill, is one of the
    most important actions Congress can take.

    Getting the Most From Federal Funding: Program Reform and Speeding the
            Delivery of Public Transportation Projects
        APTA's members have recommended numerous program changes that can
    be made to speed project delivery and reduce costs. Representatives
    from across our diverse membership: transit systems of all sizes,
    business members, State DOTs and others, worked for more than a year to
    develop consensus recommendations. Simplifying and streamlining Federal
    surface transportation programs will not solve many of the problems
    facing our Nation's transportation infrastructure, but Federal
    resources must be used as efficiently as possible. Surface
    transportation authorization legislation is the best opportunity to
    revise and modify Federal Transit Administration (FTA) programs so that
    Federal investment can be used more effectively. The following is a
    summary of several of the major recommendations that APTA has endorsed:

    New Starts Program
        The New Starts program is the primary source of Federal investment
    in the construction or expansion of heavy and light rail transit
    systems, commuter rail systems, and bus rapid transit projects. The
    construction or expansion of new fixed guideway systems is essential to
    enhancing the Nation's mobility, accessibility, and economic prosperity
    while promoting energy conservation and environmental quality.
        While the New Starts program is critical to the future of public
    transportation, the process for developing, approving, and delivering a
    project can stretch out for a decade or longer. According to FTA,
    project development can take 6 to 12 years, a time consuming and
    expensive process for project sponsors, and completing the first phase
    of the process, conducting an Alternatives Analysis, typically takes 2
    years. New Starts project applications are subjected to greater
    analysis than any other federally funded highway or transit project. If
    projects sponsors can demonstrate the worthiness of an investment and
    their ability to manage its construction, the Federal Government should
    limit further burdens on a project's development.
        APTA asks Congress to eliminate the requirement for an Alternatives
    Analysis stage in New Starts that is required by current law. The work
    completed during the Alternatives Analysis stage of project development
    often replicates work that is undertaken for the federally required
    Metropolitan Transportation Planning process and/or the National
    Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) alternatives analysis that is required
    of all Federal projects. Where local agencies and officials deem that a
    corridor-level planning study or more formal Alternatives Analysis
    would be of value for a Major Capital Investment Project, they should
    be permitted to perform such studies but it should not be required.
        APTA also calls for reducing the number of approvals that a project
    must receive from FTA throughout the entire New Starts process.
    Approval of a project to enter the New Starts program should convey
    FTA's intent to recommend a project for eventual funding, provided the
    project continues to meet certain criteria, and satisfies NEPA
    requirements and other project development conditions. In addition to
    eliminating FTA's time consuming, costly, and duplicative alternative
    analysis process this change would eliminate the current need for
    separate formal FTA approvals to enter the Preliminary Engineering and
    Final Design stages, and instead require a single FTA approval into the
    new starts program. Waiting for each of these approvals means that all
    project development work stalls between each successive step, often
    causing months and years of delay at each step in the process. APTA has
    also called for the use of Project Development Agreements (PDA), which
    have been used in the Small Starts process, to set schedules and roles
    for both FTA and the project sponsor. A PDA should also be the basis
    for an Early Systems Work Agreement once the NEPA process is completed
    with a Record of Decision (ROD) or a Finding of No Significant Impact
    (FONSI).
        FTA has been has been developing very similar recommendations that
    are based on the agency's extensive experience and efforts to improve
    program delivery. In recent years, FTA has already made changes that
    simplify project rating criteria and ensure that rating criteria better
    reflect the full range of benefits from New Starts and Small Starts
    projects, another APTA priority. In addition the President's FY2012
    budget, which contains early policy recommendations for authorization,
    specifically suggests eliminating the Alternative Analysis process and
    reducing the number of FTA approval steps in the New Starts process. We
    heartily endorse their ideas. We look forward to working with this
    Committee and the Administration to speed the delivery of high-quality
    projects under the New Starts program.

    Discretionary Bus and Bus Facilities Program
        Another APTA recommendation is intended to balance the various
    needs of the Nation's diverse bus systems. First, APTA believes it is
    very important to maintain a separate Federal program that dedicates
    funds to assist transit agencies to replace bus rolling stock and build
    new bus facilities. These periodical expenditures are unavoidable, yet
    many transit agencies lack the ability to finance large capital
    projects within their regular operating budget. On the other hand,
    under the current system many agencies have been shut out of the
    process, and unable to access funds from this account. To help resolve
    this inequity, but still maintain the ability for certain agencies to
    meet extraordinary capital needs, APTA recommends modifying the current
    Bus and Bus Facilities program to create two separate categories of
    funding. Under the new program, 50 percent of the available funds would
    be distributed under formula, and the remaining 50 percent would
    continue to be distributed under a discretionary program through a
    competitive grants process administered by FTA.
        APTA also recommends, with new resources, the creation of a new
    ``Clean Fuel Bus Program'' that would help agencies address the
    significant backlog of rolling stock, while proving incentives to
    transit agencies replace older vehicles with new alternative fuel
    vehicles. This initiative would make funds available to urban and rural
    transit agencies that have buses in operation that exceed 125 percent
    of the FTA standard for vehicle replacement. Transit systems that
    receive funds under this program would have to use them to purchase new
    clean fuel vehicles.

    Coordinated Mobility Initiative
        APTA recommends the creation of a new Coordinated Mobility Program,
    which would consolidate three existing formula programs into one. The
    new program would combine the Job Access and Reverse Commute, New
    Freedom, and Elderly and Disabled Formula programs. The goals of the
    program and the eligible uses of funding would remain consistent with
    the three existing programs, while planning and coordination of
    services would be improved. This consolidation would allow more
    flexibility at the local level for service providers to deploy limited
    resources in ways that best meet local needs. The proposal would allow
    communities to continue carry out existing programs, but effectively
    consolidate the administrative and grant making processes. At present,
    the size of grants that are available from the three individual
    programs is small compared to the administrative burden and cost of
    applying for the funds. The Administration has also included this
    consolidation in its FY2012 budget proposal.

    Other Program Recommendations
        Small Transit Intensive Cities (STIC) Program: APTA supports the
    continuation of the STIC program, which added a service factor to the
    distribution of funds in small urban areas. The STIC program was
    designed to address the higher capital costs of those systems with
    significantly higher service factors. APTA strongly supports the
    continuation of the program.
        Fixed Guideway Modernization Program: The Fixed Guideway
    Modernization program provides resources to passenger rail systems to
    assist with maintaining the systems in a state of good repair and
    modernizing the rail cars and supporting infrastructure. Currently,
    formula funds for this program are distributed under a complex, seven-
    tiered structure. Should new funds be made available to grow this
    program, APTA recommends replacing the seven-tiered program with a
    simpler, two tier formula distribution. The first tier would retain the
    characteristics of the current program, while the second tier would
    distribute funds using the Section 5307 rail tier formula for all fixed
    guideway systems that meet the 7 year requirement.
        5307 Operating Exception: Public transportation systems in
    urbanized areas of more than 200,000 population which operate less than
    100 buses in peak operation should be authorized to use section 5307
    formula funds for operating purposes.
        Workforce Development: Congress should continue current training
    programs and create new ones to support public transportation labor and
    management workforce development in the public and private sectors. In
    addition, APTA supports the creation of a National Joint Workforce
    Development Council, along with 10 Regional Joint Workforce Development
    Councils, comprised of equal members from labor and management, along
    with representatives from transit-related public and private sector
    industries. The goal is to create working partnerships between labor
    and management. These councils will identify and put forth solutions to
    issues such as identifying skills gaps and developing corresponding
    training programs, establishing career ladder programs to bring
    existing employees into management positions and maintaining an online
    database of workforce development training materials.
        Research Programs: The Federal transit program should continue to
    invest in research. It might seem easy to reduce funding for some of
    these programs today, but these investments are essential to
    identifying future cost savings and improvements. Let me give you one
    example. The Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) has been
    serving the industry since 1992. This congressionally established
    program is sponsored by FTA and carried out under a three-way agreement
    among the National Academies, acting through its Transportation
    Research Board (TRB); the Transit Development Corporation, an
    educational and research arm of APTA and the FTA. The program focuses
    on issues significant to the transit industry, with an emphasis on
    developing near-term research solutions to a variety of problems
    involving facilities, vehicles, equipment, operations, and other
    matters. The program has researched issues which have resulted in large
    dollar savings for public transit agencies while enabling them to
    improve customer service. For example, a number of transit systems used
    a TCRP report on low-floor light rail vehicle technologies and
    characteristics to develop specifications. Savings to just one agency
    were estimated at $20 million as a result of using the results of the
    TCRP research. TCRP research is not limited to just big city
    operations. Rural transit systems in States such as West Virginia and
    Utah have used TCRP research findings to improve coordination of
    transportation services with human service agencies. TCRP research also
    helps train transportation professionals by providing teaching tools
    which have been developed by the Institute of Transportation Engineers,
    the University of Maryland, the University of Nevada, and George Mason
    University have all used TCRP in developing textbooks and curriculum
    for undergraduate and graduate level courses.
        We look forward to discussing additional recommendations to speed
    project delivery and increase program efficiency. We have additional
    suggestions about using Categorical Exclusions more frequently for
    commonplace state of good repair projects to shorten the environmental
    review process and other ideas. To learn more about APTA's additional
    recommendations please see, ``APTA Recommendations on Federal Public
    Transportation Authorizing Law'', Adopted October 5, 2008, Revised
    November 1, 2009, available on the APTA Web site: http://www.apta.com/
    gap/legissues/authorization/Documents/
    apta_authorization_recommendations.pdf.

    High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail
        While APTA recognizes that the Banking Committee does not have
    jurisdiction over intercity passenger rail and other Federal Railroad
    Administration issues, we raise these issues here because it is an
    important element of APTA's recommendations for surface transportation
    authorizing law.
        To meet the rapidly expanding needs of an ever-growing and highly
    mobile population, the United States must develop a fully integrated
    multimodal high-speed and intercity passenger rail system (HSIPR). APTA
    strongly supports President Obama's proposal to provide $53 billion
    dollars over 6 years to improve and expand high-speed and intercity
    passenger rail and urges Congress to provide the first $8 billion which
    was included in the President's Fiscal Year 2012 (FY12) budget request.
    Further, APTA strongly opposes any attempts to rescind or eliminate
    HSIPR funding. These funds are needed to ensure that the 32 States and
    the District of Columbia which are forging ahead with planning and
    implementing high-speed and intercity passenger rail improvements can
    continue their efforts to modernize and expand our Nation's passenger
    rail services.

    Conclusion
        I thank the Members of this Committee for your many years of
    leadership on public transportation policy. We hope that our
    recommendations can speed up the implementation of transportation
    projects without impacting environmental protections for all Americans
    and that such streamlining can reduce project costs in the bargain. We
    have tried to provide specific examples of how improvements can
    expedite that process. We look forward to working with the Committee as
    more details become available and we appreciate the opportunity to
    testify today.
                                     ______

                     PREPARED STATEMENT OF DALE J. MARISCO
      Executive Director, Community Transportation Association of America
                                  May 19, 2011

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: I want to express my
    appreciation for your invitation to be here today to discuss some of
    the important issues concerning reauthorization of our Nation's surface
    transportation programs. Our organization, the Community Transportation
    Association of America, was originally founded by those providing and
    advocating for new mobility strategies--not just within rural and urban
    communities but also in connecting these communities to each other and
    other regional destinations. Today, we represent more than 4,000
    organizations and individuals dedicated to providing cost-effective and
    efficient mobility to all Americans.
        My testimony today will focus upon five key aspects vital to any
    legislation reauthorizing surface transportation programs: mobility in
    rural areas, mobility in urban regions, the connectivity that is
    essential to linking those areas with each other, crucial changes
    needed in policy towards nonemergency medical transportation, and the
    finance challenge--or how we support a diversified transportation
    network.

    I. A Platform for Rural Mobility

    The State of Rural America
        The challenges that impact rural transportation are inseparable
    from the larger conditions that define America's rural communities
    today. The economic downturn that has affected the entire Nation over
    the past several years is even more acutely felt in rural America.
    Average incomes are lower in these communities, while the cost of
    living is proportionally higher--as costs for everyday needs such as
    food, fuel and utilities gradually consume a larger percentage of
    paychecks. Gas price increases, for example, disproportionately impact
    rural residents who travel greater distances and tend to operate older,
    less fuel-efficient vehicles. This is especially true for the most at-
    risk populations, including seniors, people with disabilities, job
    seekers and veterans, who are often driven to the precipice of poverty
    while attempting to make ends meet.
        Meanwhile, the revenue streams available to State and local
    governments to support rural communities are increasingly constrained
    through declines in property values and the stalled climate for
    economic development.
        Rural areas face greater difficulty in capturing the value
    contained in their communities due to the growing distances its
    citizens need to travel in order to access employment, health care, and
    other essential services--compounding the inherent economic
    disadvantages of rural life. The census indicates a declining
    population for rural America. Indeed, a fundamental truth of today's
    rural America is emerging--a place where the needs are greater but the
    resources are less.

    The State of Rural Transit
        Rural transit service is as varied as the small towns and
    communities that it serves. No two systems are alike--from investment
    sources to service modes to passengers. Today, rural transit operators
    provide more trips than ever before and provide this service using an
    increasingly diverse array of service types. The traditional demand-
    response rural transit operation that once largely served senior
    citizens has been transformed in recent years to a full-service public
    transit agency with intermodal connections with intercity operators,
    employer-partnered van pools, essential nonemergency medical
    transportation trips (for example, dialysis and chemotherapy) and to
    our Nation's veterans and their families. These rural systems deploy
    state-of-the-art technology to ensure their operations are as cost-
    effective and efficient as possible.
        The modern concept of coordinated transportation was invented by
    rural transit operators as they evolved and responded to the specific
    mobility needs in their communities. No single source of investment was
    sufficient so each operator learned to build both public and private
    partnerships in order to meet local demand. Today, the two most vital
    sources of rural transit investment are the FTA Section 5311 formula
    funding program and the Medicaid nonemergency transportation program.

    Rural Connectivity Is Key
        The twin challenges of providing transportation in rural
    communities, and responding to the significant and growing limitations
    of rural America present an urgent opportunity to build a connected
    network of mobility options to link people with destinations. Simply
    put, doing things the same ways they've always been done fails to
    recognize these self-evident realities of how rural Americans live,
    work, and participate in their communities today. The most proven
    approach to address this reshaped rural environment is through enhanced
    connectivity.
        Spanning a range of human services, transportation systems, and
    physical locations, connectivity unites the mobility needs of rural
    Americans--and all Americans--by encouraging efficient and responsive
    linkages between the places people live and the destinations they need
    to reach. Sometimes connectivity is found in vibrant centers of
    community mobility--modern Union Stations--where transportation
    providers, community programs and economic development intersect. In
    other instances, connectivity becomes real when public organizations
    and private entities forge partnerships to meet the needs of a specific
    group of people through innovation and efficiency. In still others, the
    markers of connectivity are regional collaborations that transcend the
    jurisdictional boundaries that pose artificial and attitudinal barriers
    to neighbors helping neighbors. Many times, true connectivity
    encompasses all of these elements working in concert.
        Regardless of how it is achieved, the investment, resources, and
    programs which make connectivity possible are urgently needed to
    further expand mobility options and make real progress in responding to
    the state of rural America today.

    Rural Transit Builds Economic Development and Jobs
        Rural transit does more than move people, it also builds rural
    economies by connecting local residents with expanded regional job
    opportunities, by allowing residents to continue living in rural
    communities and by helping revitalize small town main streets.
        Our members are not only significant local employers themselves,
    they are working with both large and small local employers to develop
    employee transportation routes throughout rural regions, sometimes as
    part of existing fixed-route services and in others, developing
    specific employment routes in concert with the employer. Sometimes
    these routes cross county lines, in other cases, they cross State
    lines. In every case, they facilitate employment and allow employees
    and their paychecks access to their hometowns.
        In some communities--including tribal areas--rural public transit
    agencies are building a smaller-scale version of transportation-
    oriented development that can help revitalize main streets by focusing
    together people, human services, retail outlets, regional connections,
    and commercial opportunities. These smaller-scale intermodal stations
    often connect with private intercity bus lines and taxi companies to
    help connect local residents with nearby cities and airports. Rural
    public transit has a significant role to play in reviving rural America
    and helping its residents get back to work.

    Rural Transit Serves At-Risk Populations
        The people who depend upon rural public transit services are often
    those for whom there is no other way to go. Older Americans, people
    with disabilities, the working poor, disabled veterans, Native
    Americans, and more need effective mobility to avoid the stifling
    isolation that degrades their health, independence, employment,
    education, and overall quality of life.
        The growing population of older Americans in rural communities
    absolutely depends on their local transit systems to be able to age-in-
    place and live out their years in the communities they call home. From
    health care appointments to congregate meals to shopping and social
    outings, rural public transit is vital to the fastest growing segment
    of the rural population: seniors.
        The population of veterans returning after service in Iraq and
    Afghanistan is disproportionately rural and requires cost-effective
    connections to both local and regional VA health care facilities, as
    well as to the educational and employment opportunities they will need
    to reintegrate back into society.
        Our Nation's Tribal communities, too, are largely rural in nature
    and require transit operations for effective connections to health
    care, to employment, to social service providers, among others. Across
    the country, Tribal leaders are embracing transit as a viable means of
    local economic development and connectivity.

    Medical Transportation Emerges as a Top Priority
        Since its inception, rural public and tribal transit has been
    engaged in providing rural residents with important connections to
    medical care. These nonemergency transportation services has been
    important to residents of all ages, but especially to the elderly.
    Demand for these services have increased dramatically over the last
    decade since changes in the delivery of health care have introduced
    major consequences for rural Americans. Part of this increased demand
    is created by having more health care delivered in noninstitutional
    settings, such as outpatient care. This is especially difficult for
    rural transit providers because these increases have occurred at a time
    when many smaller hospitals and primary care providers have left
    smaller communities where service volume is lower. Consequently rural
    transit must take residents further and further from their homes to
    reach routine--as well as specialized--services. This is especially
    true of the growing need for transportation for dialysis services.
    Rural public transit is often the only option to connect people with
    these services.
        Changes in the health care marketplace as well as the implications
    of health reform will increase the utilization of noninstitutional
    care. Growing senior populations in rural communities will also enhance
    the need for such services. CTAA members report that in some
    communities the demand for service to health care means that little
    capacity is available for other mobility needs. The current rural
    transit program--financed through Section 5311--offers local
    communities and mobility providers flexible ways to provide services in
    this area.
        The clear and steady progress on providing this service has been
    severely challenged across rural America in the last 2 years. The
    severe budget crisis affecting most States have had a dramatic impact
    on rural services, as have the changes States are implementing in
    health care, such as new Medicaid administration models.
        There is a greater need for more supportive coordination efforts
    with local health care institutions, as well as developing coordinated
    efforts that create mobility partnerships with local ambulance and
    medical transfer providers, since rural residents will need a
    combination of this services to live at home in the years ahead.

    Streamlining
        As essential to the continued reinvestment in rural America and its
    mobility options is a rethinking of the sources of investment and the
    policy structures which help support rural transportation providers.
    Although continued investment in rural transportation--and transit
    systems in all communities--is always needed and appreciated, the
    bureaucratic procedures and programs installed around those resources
    frequently become burdensome to transportation providers and often
    serve as barriers to progress and innovation.
        Several transit investment programs administered by Federal
    agencies stipulate hundreds of conditions in order to qualify, often so
    many that some transportation providers avoid them altogether, for the
    return in resources does not match the effort needed to obtain them.
    So-called competitive programs often see reduced interest from rural
    communities simple because these areas lack the funds to access
    professional grant writing and therefore never apply. Likewise,
    transportation legislation often includes restrictions on how
    recipients can utilize that investment or requires a local match--
    conditions which impose strict limitations on budgetary decision making
    and fiscal creativity, especially during tough economic times, like
    today. And the process by which these policies are crafted is nearly
    always devoid of input from the very people they impact: the
    professionals and experts who lead our Nation's transportation systems
    and the riders for whom they benefit.
        A substantial reenvisioning is necessary of not only what our
    Nation's transportation policies require, but--perhaps more
    importantly--how they are created in the first place.

    The Local Share Challenge
        Among the most pressing issues facing rural transit operators is
    the challenge of finding and maintaining the local share necessary to
    match Section 5311 operating and capital investment. The poor state of
    local rural economies, combined with unprecedented large State budget
    deficits, is the crux of this dilemma.
        Many CTAA members report that increasing or even maintaining
    Section 5311 formula funds in the next transportation reauthorization
    bill is not enough--that they need States and localities to fully adopt
    all of the flexibility available in developing local match options. We
    hope that the Congress can initiate these important discussions with
    the States.
        During development of the last reauthorization--SAFETEA-LU--Section
    5311 local share flexibility was offered to States with large tracts of
    Federal land. We would like to explore a similar concept based on local
    unemployment figures and/or fuel prices as a trigger for lowering local
    match ratios for rural public transit agencies.

    Rural Transit's Need for Revenue of Our Own
        There is a unique context in transit revenue development in rural
    communities. Rural transit often approaches service development from
    the need in the community, as opposed to providing services based on
    what funding is available. That's why we think it's not unusual to find
    many rural agencies--regardless of their size or sophistication--still
    engaged in what we call the bake sale approach, looking for every
    possibility to fund the local share of their services, or to arrange
    investment to provide service when the State distributes its 5311
    allocations.
        The economic situation of the last several years has disrupted this
    traditional partnership, as the financial impact of the recession has
    hurt the local financial resources for rural service. Unlike larger
    transit authorities in urbanized areas, there are very few ways to
    create special taxing or revenue districts to offset these changes in
    State revenue. Additionally, local governments in rural America tend to
    lack additional resources, especially in periods of economy decline.
        Rural transit needs additional sources of capital to meet it's
    needs, but also clearly needs some form of financing it can depend on--
    not just in difficult economic times, but in good ones as well.
    Considering the lack of alternatives to creating rural financing
    mechanisms, we favor creating changes in current rural transit
    regulations that would allow the funds generated through the fare box
    in rural transit to be considered flexible local revenue, as they are
    in urban areas. These flexible funds could be used to establish
    operating reserves for local transit, as well as provide funds that
    could be leveraged to help local agencies pay for capital improvements.
    This would provide a direct link between the fare box and improved
    services for local residents, ensuring that they have an easily
    understood way to do their part to help their local transit system make
    improvements that benefit them. The ability to use these funds for
    leverage will also help local systems develop better long-term plans
    based upon ridership assumptions that can be linked to revenue. It
    would also create a better understanding in the local and State
    political processes that a community can make a commitment to transit
    by setting out a fair policy for fare box revenue when they cannot
    raise funds in other more traditional methods.
        Empowerment and local decision making is dependent on having some
    revenue that belongs to a transit system alone. Giving rural transit
    this flexibility funds provides that empowerment.

    II. A Platform for Urban Mobility

    The State of Urban America
        Although the early years of the 20th century marked the most
    massive expansion of cities in our Nation's history, the initial stages
    of the 21st century continues to witness the increasing urbanization of
    America. According to the 2010 Census, more than 80 percent of
    Americans reside in urban areas, advancing a trend that began in 1920--
    when, for the first time in history, the majority of Americans began
    living in urban areas. Moreover, the urbanization of America is
    projected to continue unabated, with the cumulative urban population
    drawing closer to 90 percent by the end of the current century.
        And yet, a greater share of the population has not translated to
    greater resources or heightened prosperity in cities both large and
    small. Poverty rates in urban areas have been exacerbated by greater
    numbers of people, indeed, the majority of Medicaid recipients live in
    urban communities. At the same time, growing numbers of urban residents
    are dependent on fiscal supports and social services while the cost of
    living in these areas continues to climb. Despite the concentration of
    people and services in urban regions, significant numbers of urban
    dwellers are nonetheless isolated from fully engaging in their
    communities. Increasingly congested thoroughfares, economic districts
    and neighborhoods dampen the vibrancy of many metropolitan regions.
    According to the Texas Transit Institute, in 2010, U.S. traffic
    congestion cost more than $87 billion in lost productivity, while
    wasting 2.8 billion gallons of gasoline.

    The State of Urban Transit
        When many people think of public transit in urban areas, they think
    of buses and trains taking people to and from work. And that is
    certainly a large and vital aspect of what constitutes public
    transportation in our Nation's metropolitan regions. But other
    important elements and purposes come together to form the true fabric
    of mobility in urban communities. Transit takes people to health care,
    shopping, community services--such as those for seniors and veterans--
    school, child care, and a myriad other destinations, and at
    increasingly greater numbers. The work of connecting people in both
    large cities and smaller urban areas is more than a collection of
    vehicles or routes on a map, but a broad and continuing effort to
    respond to the mobility needs with a range of services and options.
        Ridership on most urban public transportation systems has seen
    steady growth over the past decade--particularly in recent months as
    rising gas prices have encouraged many to seek alternative means of
    travel. At the same time, however, local economic factors have forced
    many urban transit systems to raise fares and cutback service. Since
    January 2009, more than 80 percent of transit systems have had to
    reduce service and increase fares, according to the American Public
    Transportation Association. Such a paradoxical response to their
    success in attracting riders suggests an urgent need to provide stable
    investment and resources to allow transit operators to do what they do
    best: connect riders with the destinations they need to reach in the
    most responsive and efficient manner.

    Urban Isolation
        A fundamental paradox of urban life is that while cities and
    metropolitan regions bring together substantial amounts of both people
    and activity--often in very dense accumulations, that very same
    consolidation of population and destinations can pose barriers to the
    same people most in need of help. Older people, people with
    disabilities, the working poor, and many others can be trapped by the
    challenges of urban communities, including outdated and difficult-to-
    navigate infrastructure, a lack of connections with family or friends,
    and higher costs for products and services--to name a few--all of which
    impact mobility options.
        Transportation networks are both the cause of--and the solution
    to--the isolation of urban residents. Many of those barriers are the
    consequence of poor planning and the outdated thinking of long ago:
    highways decimate established neighborhoods and important community
    assets such as sidewalks and public facilities cultivate an
    infrastructure of isolation. Meanwhile, due to a shortfalls in
    resources and investment from local, State, and Federal programs,
    transit operators in urban areas are increasingly forced to struggle
    with antiquated facilities--many of them inaccessible to people with
    disabilities and seniors--reduced service and increased fares, further
    impeding the necessities of daily life for many. Those same service
    cuts also disproportionally hurt those who utilize complimentary
    paratransit services, for when fixed-route service is reduced or
    eliminated, the paratransit service which responded to those within a
    \3/4\ mile on either side of the route is similarly reduced or
    eliminated.
        Conversely, a vibrant and responsive set of mobility options can be
    the salve to overcome the challenges of urban communities for people,
    connecting them with health care, community programs, and key
    destinations that leverage the totality of resources in metropolitan
    regions. And voters are responding. In the past 3 years, local transit
    referenda designed to increase local investment have been approved at a
    more than 70 percent rate. The charge for policy makers at all levels
    is aligning the investment and policy directions necessary to support
    this type of urban mobility.

    Transportation for Treatment
        One of the most urgent and evolving aspects of contemporary urban
    life is the need to access quality health care. And, fortunately,
    cities are the most common locations to station massive medical
    facilities, with most specializing in crucial elements of care--from
    cancer centers to cardiovascular treatment. More frequently, these
    urban heath campuses or districts are becoming substantial generators
    of community activity, with large swaths of regional economies tied
    into their output. Significant health care corridors such as those in
    Cleveland, Ohio, and Rochester, Minnesota, demonstrate this new way of
    orchestrating large-scale health care. At the same time, publicly
    supported heath care--such as Medicaid and the VA health care system--
    is focusing on consolidating services at these megahealth care
    locations to boost efficiency and leverage expertise within the same
    premises. This evolving approach, which combines centralized services
    with greater use of outpatient methodologies, reflects the new
    realities of how health care is organized and delivered across the
    Nation.
        Growing activity at regional medical centers necessarily impacts
    urban mobility. Aside from the generation of new congestion on roadways
    to and at these facilities, a sizeable cohort of doctors, medical
    professionals, patients, family caregivers, administrators, workers,
    and visitors all must access them regularly, and many of them are able
    to drive themselves to interact with needed care. Accordingly, the
    vehicles of public and community transportation providers will be
    increasingly relied upon to connect people with metropolitan health
    care centers, and transit professionals should carefully consider how
    to respond to this expanding segment of trips with appropriate routes
    and service hours, especially when much of health care provision occurs
    away from the traditional transit peak periods. Additionally, those
    planning the development of these medical campuses must work with
    transportation leaders to identify how all elements of mobility can
    come together to better serve their important destinations.

    Getting to Work
        Even as the need for transit to connect with burgeoning health care
    facilities becomes more pronounced, urban transportation systems still
    generate the foundation of their ridership by taking people from home
    to work and back. From the halcyon days of the 5:15 commuter train to
    more modern applications of transit stops contained directly within
    employment locations, many city commuters look to transit as their
    primary means of accessing their jobs. And transit providers everywhere
    do a fantastic job in fulfilling this mission, delivering riders
    efficiently, reliably, and affordability, day in and out.
        Increasing gas prices are today adding new transit commuter demand.
    And as the Nation's economy gradually recovers from its recent
    downturn, urban residents returning to work will once again look to
    transit to take them, but perhaps in new ways. New work shifts will
    expand the need for travel options during midday- and late-night
    periods, as will newly created jobs at locations previously unserved by
    rail lines or bus routes. Moreover, low-income workers need to realize
    every penny of their income to make ends meet, so they are
    disproportionally affected by fare increases and service cutbacks. When
    combined, these emerging employment trends will require transit
    professionals to reconsider how to best serve their core audience of
    commuters, and demand proactive partnerships between transportation
    providers and employers to transport workers most effectively. Policy
    makers can aid in the process by incentivizing these collaborations
    through new investment and streamlined regulations to encourage service
    innovation. Those policy discussions should also be mindful of the
    important relationship between housing costs and commuting options.
    CTAA has housed the JOBLINKS Initiative that develops important
    resources, best practices, toolkits, and demonstration programs to
    build successful employment transportation solutions. This program
    needs to be continued in the next surface transportation
    reauthorization.

    Coordinating Options
        Urban areas are often the greatest incubators of transportation
    services, with a host of systems, operators--both public and private--
    and locations offering ways to reach various destinations. In the
    largest metropolitan regions, there can be dozens of passenger rail
    services, bus operations, taxi companies, passenger stations, and other
    transportation elements from which riders can choose. The key to
    transforming urban areas into dynamic and healthy places for both
    economic activity and societal well being is ensuring that a blend of
    options and networks work together.
        A collection of aspects must be integrated with purpose to ensure
    passengers can access individual transit services as a cohesive
    network, with informational tools and fare processing media at the
    heart of these components. Whether its maps and brochures, customer
    service professionals or the increasingly important world of social
    networking, the manner by which riders understand how various mobility
    options interact is fundamental to achieving a regional approach to
    transportation. Organizations and agencies must collaborate to clarify
    their messages and simply instructions on how to navigate confusing
    elements such as transfers and timetables, and encourage their patrons
    to take advantage of connecting services. Likewise, unifying fare
    collection through a single system--such as an electronic fare card--
    can more easily facilitate links for passengers on multiple operations,
    while still delivering accountable farebox revenues to the individual
    providers.

    Connectivity
        A well-run urban transportation network is only as effective as the
    connections it offers to key destinations within and beyond the
    community. Often, this activity occurs at a central location--an
    intermodal facility where local transit routes meet intercity bus and
    rail services, along with a mix of retail, residential, and commercial
    development as well as vital community services. Transit always has--
    and will continue to have--an indivisible role in the rail and bus
    stations that have historically been key nexuses of urban life.
        It is also increasingly apparent that new regional destinations are
    emerging in and around metropolitan areas where services are colocated
    and travel demand is growing. A prime example is regional medical
    facilities, which are quickly becoming significant generators of not
    only transit trips, but also overall economic activity. Likewise, the
    development of town retail centers and revitalized historic districts
    colocate attractions, commerce, and housing, all of which are dependent
    on strong transit connections in order to succeed. By focusing urban
    transit service--as well as rural transportation and intercity routes--
    at these dynamic locations, riders benefit from easy linkages to vital
    services and destinations, while the community realizes more effective
    uses of investment and resources.

    Assisting Operations
        One of the most acute impacts of the economic downturn was felt in
    tandem by transit riders and employees as many urban transit operators
    were forced to raise fares and cut service in response to severe budget
    limitations caused by dwindling local revenues and falling ridership,
    as unemployed workers stayed home. These systems often had little
    choice in these decisions, as the full range of investment options were
    not available to them. For years, transportation providers in rural
    areas and smaller urban communities with populations under 200,000 have
    been allowed to utilize the investment provided by the Federal
    Government to support either capital or operating costs, while urban
    systems in areas over 200,000 were restricted to the former. And during
    times while economic conditions were strong, many State and local
    governments were able to allocate resources to support their transit
    systems' operating budgets.
        Currently, those same local and State coffers which provided
    resources for transit operating costs have been drained by plummeting
    local sales tax revenues and devalued property rates, which cut into
    State budgets. As a result, State and local governments were faced with
    fewer resources to respond to the same needs, for everything from
    education to law enforcement. Leaders were forced into an inescapable
    choice between a host of vital programs and services, and, frequently,
    transit was the victim.
        A change in Federal policy is urgently needed to allow urban
    transit systems to weather these fiscal storms that decimate State and
    local budgets. By allowing communities over 200,000 residents the
    flexibility to determine on their own how best to use their resources--
    if only for a temporary period--Federal leaders could save transit
    service for those who need it most while also safeguarding the jobs of
    transit workers who provide the best kind of public service. This
    flexibility is particularly necessary for the more than 90 small
    communities around the Nation--each of which is under 200,000
    population--that have, through no fault of their own, found themselves
    agglomerated by the 2010 Census into large urban areas and which will
    go from 100 percent match to zero percent flexibility. The legislation
    drafted last year by Congressman Russ Carnahan (H.R. 2746)--and later
    introduced in the Senate by Senator Sherrod Brown (S. 3189)--is a solid
    platform address the need for transit operating assistance and an
    updated version should be considered by the current Congress. Any
    legislation directed towards resolving the operating assistance
    challenge should include provisions to support full operating
    flexibility for transit systems--regardless of the populations of those
    service areas--operating less than 100 vehicles in peak service.

    Reinvesting in Urban Communities
        Few other arrows in the economic development quiver excite policy
    makers as much as community reinvestment tied to transit. As one of the
    most successful public-private partnership concepts available, these
    approaches are proven generators of economic activity. The presence of
    vibrant transit options makes new development projects attractive to
    occupants and customers, while opening up existing and revitalized
    areas to new audiences. The success of the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor in
    Arlington, VA, in focusing development around its Orange Line Metro
    stations is a model for the interaction between transit and
    development. Transit and development work as symbiotic partners to
    generate activity: bus and rail lines deliver patrons and visitors to
    appealing destinations, while those same locations produce riders for
    the transit network.
        Accordingly, a robust collection of modes in community and public
    transportation can thread the economic development needle most
    accurately through their combination of capacity, minimal construction
    impacts and cohesive integration of their operations within the fabric
    of a community. New and expanded transit services should be cultivated
    not only in their ability to meet mobility needs and generate
    ridership, but also by spurring development and revitalization in some
    segment or district along their route. Otherwise, some of their most
    important benefits are lost. Moreover, cost-effectiveness and project
    selection processes must be honed in order to give proper credit to
    projects where these important community benefits are included.

    Remembering the Lesson of the PCC
        The needs and nuances of providing transit options are as varied as
    there are metropolitan communities. The specifics of demographics,
    local governance and politics, and neighborhood identities are just
    some of the factors that shape urban environments. And yet, much is the
    same among urban transit providers, no matter their location: vehicles
    and equipment must be procured; standards and measurements are required
    for safety and performance; and common practices for concepts such as
    community reinvestment, intermodalism, and coordination remain constant
    in most urban areas.
        By working together as an industry, leaders in urban transit can
    establish best practices and common standards to purchase vehicles more
    efficiently, cultivate a strong safety culture as an industry, and
    ensure transit projects are synonymous with success. And to those who
    say it cannot be done because the differences are too great, recall
    how--more than a half-century ago--a group of rival streetcar systems
    worked together to create the Presidents' Conference Committee (PCC)
    vehicle that bolstered their fiscal health in a time of increasing
    competition from the automobile by leveraging their collective
    purchasing power. The same is true in the airline industry, where the
    safety performance of one airline impacts the others, and no
    advertisements boast one carrier to be safer than their rivals. A
    similar foundation of shared interest is needed among transit providers
    to face the challenges of today and tomorrow.

    Planes, Trains, and Transit
        Among the increasingly important regional destinations we discussed
    above as key anchors of connectivity are airports. Once considered as a
    competing mode of travel and divorced from the larger transportation
    network, airports are frequently becoming important intermodal centers
    in their own right, where travelers can interact with a number of
    mobility options. A host of airports already have direct links to
    metropolitan passenger rail systems, and nearly all are served by local
    and regional bus routes.
        A new vision of connected mobility must include recognition of this
    growing role of airports and facilitate even better linkages between
    modes. Intercity bus routes that serve both urban and rural communities
    should be welcomed at air travel facilities, especially major hub
    locations, and forthcoming high-speed and intercity rail lines must
    offer easy connections to airports along their routes--as is already
    common in Europe and Asia. At the same time, new technology allows for
    easier coordination between providers, so that a trip of a single
    individual could be routed via a local transit system to an intercity
    bus or rail line, which feeds to a busy airport for a intra- or
    intercontinental flight. By including elements such as schedules,
    luggage transfers, and security clearances as unified transportation
    network, new efficiency and responsiveness can be realized by allowing
    each mode to focus on the core passenger sectors they serve best.

    Supporting Urban Transit
        A mutlifaceted approach to supporting mobility areas should include
    a realistic assessment of how Americans live, work and interact in
    metropolitan communities, as well as a frank discussion of the
    challenges of providing transit service in urban areas when faced with
    constrained budgets from State and local sources. When 80 percent of
    our Nation's transit systems were forced to reduce service and/or
    increase fares, a new way of thinking is needed to help these vital
    elements of our society undertake the missions for which they were
    charged.

    III. A Platform for Connectivity

    Connectivity: Seamlessly Combining the Surface Mobility System
        The most significant issue in the future of the American surface
    transportation network will be the connectivity between its emerging
    modes. The ease with which we can seamlessly transfer from and between
    urban, rural, and intercity bus and rail operations--to say nothing of
    shared rides, taxis, and bike/pedestrian modes--will be the future
    litmus test of the cohesive, user-friendly mobility network our Nation
    so badly needs.
        Improving connectivity is a central policy aim of the Community
    Transportation Association of America, and has been so since we first
    published our New Surface Mobility Vision for America 2 years ago. Our
    members have told us that only through vastly improved connectivity can
    the full measure of our transportation investments and infrastructure
    be maximized for both mobility and economic factors. The continued
    isolated development of the Nation's varied surface transportation
    elements would not only isolate and fragment communities and people,
    but it would squander the vital opportunity that reauthorization
    presents.

    What Connectivity Looks Like
        Surface transportation connectivity, in practice, can be a great
    many things. From scheduling and ticketing to timed transfers and
    intermodal facilities, connectivity among transportation modes is both
    operational as well as infrastructure. Customer service and training
    plays a vital role, as does regional planning. Most important is the
    understanding of trip generators and destinations--for example
    employment centers, health care campuses, educational institutions, and
    social services.
        Connections between and among rural and urban areas has long been
    the focus of the Association's connectivity agenda. Initially, we
    graphically represented this objective with a map of the State of New
    Hampshire that highlighted not only the urban and rural transit
    systems, but the ideal connections between the two. In some cases, we
    foresee these connections being made via passenger rail--both of the
    higher speed and regular speed variety. However, the majority of the
    connections will be made by intercity bus operators, whose point-to-
    point and intercity services have grown significantly during the past
    decade.

    Disconnectivity: The Rural Story
        Across rural America, the connectivity story is a bleak one.
    Consider the following facts, culled from a February 2011 report from
    the U.S. Department of Transportation's Bureau of Transportation
    Statistics:

        Between 2005 and 2010, 3.5 million rural residents lost
            access to scheduled intercity transportation, increasing the
            percentage of rural residents without such access to 11
            percent.

        8.9 million rural residents now lack access to intercity
            transportation.

        Of the 71.9 million rural Americans who retain intercity
            transportation access today, 3.7 million lost access to more
            than one mode of transport since 2005.

        In Alabama alone, 700,000 people lost access to intercity
            transportation since 2005. In contrast, all rural residents in
            Delaware, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Rhode Island have such
            access.

        Intercity bus provides coverage to the largest number of
            rural residents in 2010, followed by scheduled air service,
            intercity rail, and intercity ferry operations.

        Clearly, the ongoing economic vitality of rural America is reliant
    upon improved passenger connectivity--particularly as it relates to
    access to jobs, to health care and to educational opportunities. The
    most recent census data indicates that fewer Americans than at almost
    any time in our history currently reside in rural areas. Yet as those
    populations decline, isolation increases as those who are leaving are,
    typically, the most mobile. Reconnecting rural America will surely
    boost these economies.

    Modern Union Stations
        The number of transportation modes in urban America far outweigh
    those that exist in the rural parts of the country, but the
    connectivity challenge persists. Indeed, in these areas the issue is
    bringing together these various modes to provide more seamless
    connections. It's often a question of place and of infrastructure. We
    like to call these connectivity hubs modern union stations.
        Union Stations first came into the national consciousness when the
    major railroads of the late 19th and early 20th centuries would partner
    on such enormous and influential structures as Grand Central Terminal
    or the Union Stations in such cities as Washington, DC, and Chicago.
    Simply put, a union station was one in which multiple railroads came
    together.
        Modern union stations bring together various transportation modes,
    rather than various railroads. Ideally, they employ unified travel
    information and ticketing options for passengers. And just like their
    predecessors from the previous century, they usher people into the
    community in the most seamless fashion and can become hubs of economic
    activity--from retail to commercial to even residential. These
    facilities can also house vital social services, libraries, child care,
    and more.
        The mobility components of a modern union station can include some
    combination of the following: local, scheduled bus services; circulator
    bus services; taxis; intercity bus operations; intercity rail; subways;
    streetcars; light rail; van pools; car share services; and ferries. In
    short, as many forms of surface transportation as possible. CTAA has
    developed a pilot program concept for transit centers in small towns
    that addresses this important issue.

    What About Airports?
        One key connectivity hub that bears mentioning is airports. From an
    economic standpoint, airports are crucial, as in many cases they
    constitute a community's access to the rest of the world. Yet both
    institutionally and legislatively, our Nation's airports do not serve
    the greater connectivity role that they might. Fully conceptualized
    modern union stations are rare at our Nation's airports. One clear
    reason: airport authorities rarely choose to spend any of their
    passenger facility charges--which raised $2.5 billion in 2009--on truly
    intermodal facilities. Intercity buses, for example, are effectively
    barred from most airport grounds.
        The Community Transportation Association of America proposes a
    renewed look at the role of airports--particularly as they relate to
    the surface transportation network. As Congress debates a
    reauthorization for the Federal Aviation Administration, one challenge
    has been the continuation of the Essential Air Service program that
    subsidizes passenger trips out of smaller town airports--the only means
    by which some smaller airports survive. A robust national intermodal
    connectivity plan that connects more communities with intercity bus and
    rail services would significantly impact the Essential Air Service
    issue.

    All of America--Rural and Urban Areas Alike--Needs Improved
            Connectivity
        Enhanced connectivity--deploying all modes and coming together at
    strategically located modern union stations--will have significant
    economic and social impacts on our Nation. It will ensure that we
    derive the most from current and future surface transportation
    investments and it bring new alternative mobility forms to millions of
    Americans. The Association strongly supports continuation of the
    National Resource Center for Human Service Transportation Coordination,
    a national effort to promote resources and assist with vital
    coordination efforts that enhance urban, rural, and regional
    connectivity.

    IV. The Negotiated Procurement Solution for Medicaid Nonemergency
            Transportation

    Background
        The two most significant Federal assets available to address
    mobility for individuals are found in two different areas of the
    Executive Branch: the public transportation programs operated by State
    and local entities through the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT),
    and the patient transportation programs operated by State and local
    entities and funded through the U.S. Department of Health and Human
    Services' (DHHS) Medicaid program. Both these services have been
    developed over the last three decades and have been the source of
    numerous collaboration and coordination discussions in an effort to
    achieve the most cost-effective financial outcome for the Government
    and efficient service to the end users.
        The key challenge to these coordination strategies is rooted in the
    legislative history of the two programs. In our public transportation
    programs, Congress's focus has been on service in various areas and
    localities. While in our health care transportation efforts, Congress
    has focused on services for individual patients. Since the Federal
    Government delivers these services through different State agencies and
    local providers, it is hard to reconcile these efforts in a way that
    produces the efficiency and financial benefit that would help these
    programs be more cost effective and allow for improved collaboration
    between the two.

    Negotiated Procurement
        Because these two systems follow different paths and priorities
    from their Federal sponsors to the end users, barriers to effective
    partnerships have emerged with the different procurement systems and
    methodologies each Federal agency employs. In the case of CMS and their
    State grantees, DOT-certified public agencies cannot coordinate efforts
    with their Medicaid-funded peers unless they enter into a competitive
    procurement policy that treats public transportation entities as
    private businesses. By using a system that searches for the lowest
    responsive cost, the Federal Government is indirectly and inefficiently
    pitting itself against itself--when a government-to-government
    negotiation would be a far more effective and cost-efficient
    alternative. Further, the two programs approach service from very
    different perspectives--one based on the individual, one based on
    point-to-point service. The interests of both Federal investments can
    be achieved fairly through negotiation.

    The Authorizing Opportunity
        We believe that Congress should take the lead in trying to develop
    a mutual standard for negotiation of mobility costs between the DOT-
    funded efforts and those of DHHS. This standard would include an
    acknowledgement that DOT and DHHS agencies at the State and local level
    can arrive at transportation arrangements through a negotiated process
    as opposed to the current competitive procurement. Since CMS and DOT
    follow separate legislative mandates, discussion at the authorizing
    level that leads to Congressional action is the primary way to achieve
    this outcome.

    Conflict of Interest
        CMS policies have placed public transportation providers in the
    same conflict of interest policies they employ with doctors. For
    instance, in the CMS broker rule a public transit agency that has a
    call center supported by DOT and other public funds cannot enter a
    procurement to provide nonemergency medical transportation services to
    those in the area because providing the call center service and the
    transportation is deemed a conflict of interest. In its regulations CMS
    cites as an example not allowing a doctor to send patients to lab
    services if they own the lab. Of course this example is based on a
    private physician profiting from such a relationship. In the case the
    transit call center, the public transit agency is a Government entity
    using Federal funds whose board members do not have a financial
    interest similar to a private doctor and a private clinic. We believe a
    negotiated procurement process could avoid these issues altogether.

    The Bus Pass
        There is no better and more cost-effective way to provide access
    services to ambulatory Medicaid recipients living in urban communities
    than by using or purchasing bus passes for individual patients who need
    medical transportation. A survey recently conducted in Houston found
    that 80 percent of the ambulatory Medicaid population lived within a
    quarter-of-a-mile of existing transit bus stops. Yet because Medicaid
    funds must be spent on medical trips--and with the program's emphasis
    on individual patients--there is a concern that Medicaid recipients can
    use these passes for other, nonmedical, trips since bus passes provide
    open-door service for all riders. So one of the simplest ways of
    reducing Medicaid program mobility costs is not allowed in many States.
    We need legislation that allows CMS to accept bus passes without taking
    individual trips since, typically, it only takes two trips to pay for
    an entire pass.

    Moving Forward
        We believe the best way to move forward is for the Senate Finance
    Committee to consider allowing CMS to accept DOT-certified public
    transit agencies to be equal in status for a negotiated procurement
    that would alleviate the systemic problems in the current environment.
    In this case, CMS would allow and encourage State Medicaid agencies to
    negotiate for mobility services with public transit agencies that wish
    to accommodate Medicaid patients within their service area--especially
    in areas with fixed route services and bus pass options. A negotiated
    or cost-sharing approach best serves the interest of the Federal
    Government--both as the payer of health care and public transportation
    services.

    V. The Finance Challenge: Supporting a Diversified Transportation
            Network
        The most difficult aspect of any transportation policy discussion--
    like this one in which DigitalCT is engaging its readers--is how to pay
    for the additional infrastructure and service that is clearly
    necessary. We are now approaching 2 years since the last
    reauthorization, SAFETEA-LU, expired and though both the Congress and
    Obama administration have put forward well-crafted plans, none have
    offered any specific additional transportation resource ideas.
        The traditional highway and transit trust fund--paid for by Federal
    gas tax receipts--can no longer keep pace with demand. The fact of the
    matter is that general revenue appropriations have long been used by
    legislators to keep the surface transportation whole. Just to keep up
    with the highway spending mandated in SAFETEA, the fund has been
    infused with more than $30 billion in general funds in the past 2
    years. Rising gas prices and the increasing popularity of hybrid
    automobiles is likely to once again cut into those receipts. The
    consequence of not finding any new transportation investment streams is
    clear.
        Though this article deals largely with various concepts to infuse
    the transportation trust fund with a more diverse collection of
    investments, it must be reiterated that the trust fund, alone, does not
    make up the entirety of transportation investment efforts--and never
    has. For years and going back a number of Federal authorization cycles,
    general revenue funds have been tapped to complete the entire funding
    picture. What's more, and as community transportation providers are
    well aware, a vast network of human service program investments--
    particularly Medicaid, which annually adds more than $2 billion for
    nonemergency transportation--has evolved in the past three decades that
    also must be considered when exploring the transportation finance
    challenge.
        A number of ideas have arisen in recent years about how to infuse
    the trust fund with the necessary revenue to meet demand. In this
    section of our Policy edition, we share a collection of those ideas--
    from Commissions to members of Congress, think tanks to best practices
    from other countries. The Community Transportation Association believes
    that now is the time to fully discuss the myriad methods of raising
    additional investment for our Nation's surface transportation network
    and to devise a national strategy to do just that.

    The Gas Tax
        The simplest solution put forward thus far is to raise the gas tax
    from its current 18.4 cents per gallon. This tax, or user fee, has not
    been raised since 1992 and has seen significant erosion in its buying
    power over the past 19 years. That said, most members of Congress and
    the Obama administration have steadfastly refused to entertain this
    option.
        Senator Tom Carper of Delaware is an exception. In November, he and
    since-retired Ohio Senator George Voinovich proposed a one-cent-per-
    month for a 25-month period. ``Within the proposed increase,'' wrote
    the Senators, ``10 cents should be temporarily used for deficit
    reduction, raising $83 billion over 5 years, and 15 cents should fund
    transportation improvements providing $117 billion in new investments
    over the same 5 years. Once the deficit is under control, the 10-cent
    increase for debt reduction should revert back to transportation
    funding.''
        Last December, the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and
    Reform--a bipartisan group charged with addressing the Nation's fiscal
    challenges--acknowledged that fully funding the transportation trust
    fund, rather than relying on deficit spending, would be vital. The
    Commission recommended dedicating a 15-cent increase in the Federal gas
    tax to transportation funding, and then limiting Federal transportation
    spending to only what exists in the trust fund.
        Similarly, SAFETEA-LU mandated the development of a commission to
    examine transportation investment in the post-SAFETEA period. The
    National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission, in
    its ``Paying OurWay'' report that was released in February, 2009, made
    some significant trust fund recommendations as it spotlighted the
    widening gap between surface transportation needs and demand. Key among
    them was to raise the Federal gas tax by 10 cents to maintain the
    current surface transportation program. The report found, in 2009, a
    10-cent increase would cost the average household $9 per month, or $5
    per month per vehicle.
        Such increases in the Federal gas tax, though significant, are
    nothing compared to the fluctuations of the average price over the past
    two decades (see a fantastic FloatingData informational graphic here).
    Weather events, foreign policy changes and regional instability in oil
    producing parts of the globe, to say nothing of oil company
    profiteering, all conspire to create wild fluctuations in gas prices at
    your local filling station. In recent months, prices have risen more
    than 90-cents per gallon.
        CTAA would also support a concept that captures additional gas tax
    revenues by ``keeping,'' for example, five cents in an additional gas
    tax for every 50 cents the national price goes down, in order to
    introduce an increase in the gas tax at a time when it might be more
    palatable to elected officials and the American public.
        All that said, the overall unpalatability of raising the Federal
    gas tax is clear. The Administration and key Congressional leaders are
    currently dead set against it. And as is often the case, this
    reluctance creates opportunities to discuss and advocate for a more
    diversified surface transportation investment strategy that is more
    representative of both the political- and transportation-demand
    realities and that offers what the Community Transportation Association
    of America likes to call, a way forward.

    Taxing Oil Companies
        One such strategy would be to abandon any consumer-based increase
    to fund expanded and necessary surface transportation infrastructure
    investments, and focus on the oil companies themselves. In January,
    earnings statements from the largest oil producers showed between 50
    percent and 75 percent profit increases for 2010. Recently, Money
    Magazine found three of the world's top four profit-earning companies
    to be oil companies. In October 2008--after the last steep oil price
    surge--Exxon/Mobile produced the highest single profit margin in United
    Sates history at nearly $15 billion.
        In response to these enormous profits, politicians at various
    levels of government--from President Obama to Governors--have examined
    windfall profit taxes and even per-barrel surcharges. Former
    Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell has been an outspoken advocate to
    utilize such methods to reinvest in his State's surface transportation
    program and in August proposed an 8-percent levy on the gross profits
    of oil companies which he alleges have been largely able to avoid his
    State's corporate net income taxes. ``The time to act is now,'' said
    Rendell.
        President Obama, in the run-up to his 2008 election, proposed
    targeting oil company profits by taxing each barrel of oil costing more
    than $80--a concept which would have raised somewhere between $10 and
    $15 billion. The President's concept, however, would not have raised
    this investment for surface transportation investment, but rather for
    middle- and low-income working families tax relief. We believe similar
    concepts--targeted specifically to surface transportation
    infrastructure investments and including language to mitigate these
    fees simply being passed on to consumers, would be a vital contribution
    to a diversified investment stream and should be explored as actively
    as a gas tax increase. Lastly, the Association supports ending major
    tax subsidies for highly for oil companies and using those recovered
    funds to invest in our Nation's surface transportation program.

    Bonding Major Capital Investments
        As in past reauthorization debates, the Community Transportation
    Association continues to support bonding concepts to fully fund the
    building of nationally significant surface transportation
    infrastructure. These important concepts promote cost-effective and
    efficient public-private partnerships and bring much needed private
    capital into our diversified investment scheme.
        A critical component in our advocating for such a bonding concept,
    is to free up traditional--often formula-based--public and community
    transportation investments from much larger scale urban mobility
    projects, both politically and in terms of competing for scarce
    resources.
        Senator Max Baucus of Montana, Chair of the Senate Finance
    Committee and a member of the previously cited Deficit Commission, has
    long been an ardent supporter of bonding. In an interview with the
    TransportationNation blog last year, he noted: ``I think we need a
    debate. There are a lot of options. One is, for example, more bonding.
    Congress passed a program a couple of years ago called `Build America
    Bonds' for municipalities to develop infrastructure, primarily. And
    that took off. That was only to raise about $4 billion in financing but
    actually $150 billion in bonds have been issued. That is a way to
    finance infrastructure financing.'' We agree.

    Vehicle Miles Traveled
        In Europe, a common method of raising investments for surface
    transportation infrastructure is to charge a simple per-mile user fee
    for driving. The National Surface Transportation Infrastructure
    Financing Commission, in its ``Paying OurWay'' report, cited the fact
    that any investment strategy relying solely upon a per-gallon tax on
    gas is both ``unsustainable'' and ``likely to erode more quickly than
    previously thought.'' That commission recommended looking at ways of
    educating Americans about both the necessity and veracity of a ``user-
    pay'' or vehicle miles traveled (VMT) system, which emerged as the
    consensus of the participants.
        Typically, these types of systems involve the deployment of
    technology in an automobile that measures distance traveled--and
    specifically not where a vehicle has traveled. Clearly, this type of
    system would disproportionately impact rural America as these residents
    typically need to driver further to access employment, health care,
    education, and more. So any such system must include caps or special
    attention to rural America. Yet there is a more fundamental challenge
    with VMT.
        The current American political environment does not seem at all
    ready to embrace the idea of the Government, in any shape or form,
    monitoring the travel patterns of its citizens--even if only to gauge
    distances traveled. In fact, the amount of rancor the VMT issue would
    engender may not, at least in the current environment, be conducive to
    sound surface transportation policy. The SAFETEA finance commission
    noted as much in its conclusions, ``transitioning from a fuel tax-based
    system to one based more directly on use of the system measured by
    miles will require a great deal of planning and public education. But
    that is no reason to delay the transition.''
        The Community Transportation Association of America supports this
    educational effort as part of an overall surface transportation finance
    overhaul, but acknowledges that VMT is most likely a second--or next--
    generation solution.

    Congestion Pricing Corridors
        Congestion pricing is far more than a simple tax strategy to manage
    traffic within a given corridor or boundary. It also constitutes a real
    way to raise significant surface transportation investment. Simply put,
    congestion pricing charges motorists a toll for using a particular
    stretch of highway or bridge or for entering a particular area. It is a
    market- or demand-based strategy that can encourage off-peak travel and
    transit network usage.
        In such cities as London, Singapore, and Stockholm, this model has
    proven itself successful along two key fronts: reducing economy-
    stifling congestion by more than 25 percent; and raising revenues that
    can be used to invest in surface transportation infrastructure.
        However, the first attempt at creating such a corridor or zone here
    in the U.S.--in New York City--failed. As proposed by Mayor Bloomberg
    in 2008, New York City's concept won support from the U.S. Department
    of Transportation in the form of a $350 million award from its Urban
    Partnership program. Yet in the end, the requirement for approval by
    the State legislature doomed the venture. San Francisco has now begun
    to fully explore the possibilities of congestion pricing. A trial
    period has been proposed in the city to be conducted sometime before
    2015.
        Some might argue that these congestion corridors are nothing more
    than tolls, but the major distinction comes from the purpose. Tolling
    raises revenues, but congestion pricing raises revenues and changes
    travel patterns and behavior. CTAA believes that congestion pricing
    concepts are largely the domain of the Nation's largest cities--which
    just happen to be the areas of the country that have some of the
    largest surface transportation infrastructure projects and needs.
    Anything that can be done to add revenues to be used for these large
    outlays only serves to relieve pressure on the rest of the
    transportation system, and thus should be encouraged.

    Changing the Discussion
        CTAA believes that if we cannot, as a Nation, transition our
    national discussion of surface transportation infrastructure investment
    away from one solely focused on who gets taxed and how, then we cannot
    begin to reap the economic and social benefits of a fully integrated,
    intermodal surface transportation network that is once again the envy
    of the world. In many ways, the future of our Nation depends on this
    transition.
        Surface transportation investments are economic engines that create
    jobs, fuel the private sector and increase our energy independence.
    These systems--highways, bridges, public and community transit,
    intercity bus and rail--are the off-the-shelf solutions to some of the
    most pertinent and vexing geopolitical and economic challenges we
    currently face. The dire consequences of inaction--which include
    continued military interventions, reliance upon wildly fluctuating
    energy markets, and escalating congestion--are no longer tenable.
    Clearly, the issue of surface transportation investment extends far
    beyond a mere tax debate.
        What's necessary is a more balanced surface transportation
    investment program that benefits all areas of the Nation equitably and
    which enjoys a diversified investment portfolio--balance in and balance
    out.
        In the past two decades, the Community Transportation Association
    of America has enjoyed success in fundamentally redefining the meaning
    of public transportation in the United States. We believe that it has
    become absolutely necessary for the Nation's surface transportation
    infrastructure investments to recognize this definitional change, and
    become just as diverse as the network it supports.

                       PREPARED STATEMENT OF LARRY HANLEY
               International President, Amalgamated Transit Union
                                  May 19, 2011

    Introduction
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the
    opportunity to testify today on behalf of the Amalgamated Transit
    Union. ATU is the largest labor organization representing public
    transportation, paratransit, over-the-road, and school bus workers in
    the United States and Canada, with about 190,000 members in more than
    270 locals throughout 46 States and 9 provinces.
        We are pleased to offer our views on priorities and challenges for
    the reauthorization of the Nation's public transportation programs. My
    name is Larry Hanley. I am the new International President of the ATU,
    elected in the fall. I have been involved in the public transportation
    industry for more than 30 years. Never during that entire time span
    have I ever witnessed anything close to the challenges that we are
    facing today.
        In 2009, ATU presented to Congress a comprehensive proposal for the
    reauthorization of The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient
    Transportation Equity Act--A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). It is a 10-
    point plan designed to ensure that public transportation agencies are
    equipped to provide Americans with the travel choices they need and to
    help us reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
        Much has changed in our industry since that proposal was released.
    Therefore, today, I would like to focus on just three issues that are
    key to the survival of the transit industry and the safety of the
    riding public.

    Transit Crisis
    No Ride = No Job
        Due to shortages in State and local revenues, U.S. public transit
    systems are carrying out some of the steepest fare increases and
    deepest service cuts in recent history. Since the beginning of 2009,
    approximately 85 percent of public transit systems have raised fares or
    cut service, and thousands of workers in the transit industry--a
    significant percentage of a ``green'' workforce--have been laid off.
    Fifty-six percent of transit systems have cut rush hour service, 62
    percent have slashed off-peak service, and 40 percent report reductions
    in geographic coverage.
        The Chicago Transit Authority has cut 18 percent of bus service and
    9 percent of rail service while laying off 1,100 people whose lives
    have been in a free fall ever since. Massive cuts in Atlanta,
    Cincinnati, Cleveland, Detroit, Pittsburgh, and throughout the State of
    California have been breathtaking. New York City, home to the largest
    transit network in North America, has cut routes that have been in
    existence since the days of the horse and buggy.
        In Utah, bus routes in Salt Lake, south Davis, and Tooele counties
    will be cut or realigned effective August 7th. The Minnesota State
    Legislature last week slashed $109 million from Twin Cities bus and
    rail funding, and the Met Council warns it might eliminate weekend
    service. Thirty-five percent cuts are pending in Tacoma, while
    Birmingham and Long Island are operating with patchwork budgets that
    allow them to function only on a month-to-month basis.
        The incredible mass of unemployed Americans includes a substantial
    number of transit-dependent individuals who can simply no longer get to
    work because their ride is gone. Generally, when routes get cut,
    transit systems tend to look toward those with low ridership--early
    morning, late night, and weekend service. People who work
    nontraditional hours, typically minorities who have no other means of
    transportation, are disproportionately affected.
        The single mom who now gets her kids up at 4:30 a.m. to catch two
    buses in time to get her children to daycare and then herself to work
    cannot be expected to wait an additional hour for that transfer bus to
    arrive, standing in the freezing cold with two kids. The person who
    cleans offices downtown in the wee hours of the morning should not have
    to sleep on the cold hard floor in the lobby of the building after
    finishing her work until the buses start running the next day. But that
    is exactly what is happening out there. ATU members nationwide have
    seen it firsthand.
        Some places have totally shut down their transit system, leaving
    elderly and disabled people scrambling for a way to buy food and get to
    the doctor. For example, the transit system in Clayton County, Georgia,
    shut down in 2010, stranding 8,500 people, 81 percent of whom earn less
    than $35,000 a year and 65 percent of whom have no car. This is a
    mobility crisis like we have never seen before.
        As Congress debates changes to our Nation's surface transportation
    laws and considers appropriate funding levels to meet the needs of our
    highway and transit network, it is critical that lawmakers understand
    the incredible mobility challenges that their constituents are facing
    every day. However, the voices of poor people--young or old, disabled
    or able bodied--are traditionally drowned out in this country. While an
    elderly lady who is out buying groceries in New Jersey may have never
    met a middle-aged cafeteria worker in Colorado who is desperately
    trying to get to work, it turns out that these people have at least one
    common trait: they both rely on the bus to survive. Throughout America,
    people are pleading with their elected officials to stop the transit
    cuts and fare increases. Attached to our testimony is a document
    entitled ``Stranded Voices,'' a compilation of poignant quotes from
    transit-dependent individuals all across the country who have lost
    their ability to get around town due to transit cuts.

    People First
        Under current law, the majority of transit systems in the U.S. may
    not use their Federal transit funds to keep service on the street. Only
    systems located in urbanized areas less than 200,000 in population may
    use their Federal transit funds for operating assistance. All other
    areas may use their funds only for capital projects. With State and
    local funds scarce or nonexistent, many systems are in the odd
    situation of having many brand-new buses purchased with Federal funds,
    but no resources to place those vehicles into service. Some communities
    are using their Federal transit funds to build rail systems that will
    not be completed for many years while slashing vital bus service at the
    same time.
        Where are our priorities? Certainly this cannot be part of our
    Nation's transportation agenda! Before we commit resources to whisk
    people from city to city on slick high speed rail trains, we need to
    first get them back to work downtown and in suburban and rural
    locations via bus, subway, or light rail.

    Operating Assistance Is Needed
        The Federal Government has a role to play in ensuring that all
    individuals--irrespective of income level--have access to safe,
    affordable, convenient, and accessible public transportation,
    regardless of the day of the week or what time they ride the bus.
    During the 111th Congress, Senator Sherrod Brown introduced legislation
    (S. 3189) that would provide for increased flexibility in the use of
    Federal transit funds by allowing transit systems of all sizes to use a
    percentage of their formula funds to maintain critical service. That
    bill also included a sensible provision which would allow transit
    systems in areas above 200,000 in population to use their Federal
    transit formula funds for operations if they are operating less than
    100 buses during peak service hours.

    President's Transit Proposal Would Put Americans Back to Work
        President Obama's Budget--which calls for nearly doubling the size
    of the Federal transit program in FY2012--as well as the
    Administration's proposal for the reauthorization of the Federal
    surface transportation bill call for ``targeted and temporary'' transit
    operating assistance. The President recognizes that we can bring our
    cities back to life by substantially increasing transit funding and
    giving transit systems the flexibility to use their scarce funds as
    they see fit. We commend President Obama for his leadership in getting
    critical service back on the street, recognizing the role that transit
    can play in reducing our dependence on foreign oil, and putting our
    Nation on a path to economic security.
        In addition to a slight variation on the Administration's temporary
    operating assistance proposal which is tied to the unemployment rate,
    ATU supports legislation that would ``trigger'' the ability to use
    Section 5307 funds for operating based on the cost of fuel. If the
    price at the pump spikes (as we are seeing today), transit systems
    which feel the pinch at least as much as the owners of private
    automobiles should have the flexibility to put more buses on the street
    rather than slashing service and turning away customers who are
    desperate to avoid spending their entire paychecks on fuel.
        Five dollars per gallon gas is coming, whether it is this summer or
    some time in the near future. Just weeks after the leader of the
    world's most feared terrorist network was finally brought to justice,
    it has never been more apparent that dealing with our Nation's so-
    called oil addiction is critical to our national defense. If we are
    serious about reducing our dependence on foreign oil from terrorist-
    sponsoring states, public transportation systems must play a central
    role. They cannot do so without more flexibility.

    Bipartisan Issue
        It is important to note that this is not an issue that pits rural
    areas against the urban centers. Last summer, the U.S. Census Bureau
    published its proposed criteria for defining urban areas based on the
    results of the 2010 Decennial Census. This document included a list of
    small urbanized areas that are forecast to become parts of adjoining or
    new large urbanized areas (see appendix). If the current rules are not
    changed, transit systems in these areas will soon lose their ability to
    use Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funds for operating assistance
    because their population will be considered to be greater than 200,000.
    Like the areas mentioned above, service cuts and fare increases will
    soon follow.
        ATU Supports:

        Passing a robust surface transportation bill that meets the
            needs of transit dependent individuals;

        Funding public transportation at $119 billion over the next
            6 years (a 128 percent increase above current levels), as
            called for in President Obama's surface transportation
            reauthorization proposal;

        Providing all transit systems--regardless of urban area
            population--with flexibility to use their Federal funds for
            operating costs to maintain critical service that keeps people
            connected to their communities.

    Public Transit Safety
        Millions of times each day, someone's spouse, child, grandparent,
    or friend gets on a bus or train and arrives at their destination
    safely due to the dedication and professionalism of the hundreds of
    thousands of transit workers in this country. While more than 30,000
    people are killed on America's highways each year, the number of annual
    customer fatalities on public transportation can usually be counted on
    one hand. Even under the most stressful circumstances, the majority of
    our members perform their jobs in a safe, efficient manner, compiling a
    safety record that we are quite proud of.
        Recently, however, we have started to see some cracks in the
    system, and the Federal Government has taken notice. In June of 2009, a
    Washington Metro crash killed nine people and injured 80 others when
    two trains collided. Metro officials later called train driver Jeanice
    McMillan (Local 689) a hero. McMillan was killed when the train she was
    driving struck one that was standing still. She saved lives by hitting
    the emergency brake and slowing the train before the fatal crash. In
    2007, two track workers in New York City tragically died in separate
    incidents. And hundreds of soot-covered Blue Line riders escaped
    through a smoke-filled subway tunnel in 2006 after a packed Chicago
    Transit Authority rush-hour train derailed, sparking a fire near a busy
    downtown stop.
        Following this string of serious accidents across the United
    States, the Obama administration wisely proposed to allow FTA to impose
    broad safety standards for transit systems. Secretary LaHood called on
    Congress to pass the Administration's Public Transportation Safety
    Program Act to ensure a high and standard level of safety across all
    rail transit systems. Since 1965, the Federal Government has been
    prohibited from imposing broad safety standards in rail. The States
    have been responsible for oversight of rail safety, and in almost every
    case, their programs are underfunded, understaffed, and ineffective. In
    fact, transit systems are not even required to implement
    recommendations made by State safety oversight panels.
        Former Chairman Dodd introduced legislation last year (S. 3638)
    which built off of the Administration's proposal. That bill directs the
    Secretary to create a national public transportation safety plan to
    improve the safety of all public transportation systems that receive
    Federal assistance. It also requires the Secretary to establish a
    public transportation safety certification training program for Federal
    and State employees, or other designated personnel, who conduct safety
    audits and examinations of public transportation systems, as well as
    employees of public transportation agencies responsible for safety
    oversight. In addition, the bill requires each State or local
    government, or other public transportation system operator that
    receives Federal assistance to certify that it has established an
    agency safety plan meeting certain minimum criteria.
        Public transportation safety plans would be approved by the
    agency's board of directors, and reviewed and updated annually. ATU
    supports this important provision as long as such safety plans are
    required to be developed in a partnership with organized labor. Transit
    workers can provide invaluable information on day to day operations.
    They know better than anyone the details of routes, schedules,
    technology, etc. For example, following the horrible crash in
    Washington, DC, Metro immediately adopted ATU Local 689's
    recommendation to move certain rail cars that were not ``crash-worthy''
    to the middle of the train. In fact, over the years, ATU has been the
    leader on transit safety issues, from requiring closed vestibules for
    streetcars in the 1890s to the campaign for exact fare in the sixties,
    to the present.

    Only One Piece of the Puzzle
        While regulation is important, without increased funding to
    modernize transit equipment, new laws will have little impact. Due to
    inadequate funding, the systems are rapidly aging. Tracks break down
    and computerized signals wear out, putting the safety of workers and
    riders in jeopardy.
        Moreover, in order to increase safety, there is a dire need to
    address issues related to worker training and retention. Evidence
    suggests that some recent accidents could have been prevented if
    transit systems had programs in place to enhance communications between
    experienced, senior level workers in safety-sensitive positions (who
    are getting ready to retire) and new hires. More than 40 percent of
    transit technicians are eligible to retire within the next 5-10 years
    (see below). In addition, split shifts and forced overtime can cause
    fatigue, a serious, growing problem throughout the U.S. transit
    industry, especially in light of the recent wave of layoffs.
        ATU Supports:

        Providing FTA the authority to establish and enforce
            minimum Federal safety standards for transit systems, as long
            as transit labor has a significant role in the creation and
            adoption of such standards at the local and national level.

    Transit Workforce Development
        The public transportation industry, like many service-based sectors
    in the United States, will be faced with major challenges in the near
    future. A large percentage of the transit workforce--both blue and
    white collar--will be retiring within the next few years. There is no
    pipeline of replacements on the horizon because the industry has a
    negative public image that hampers its ability to attract, recruit, and
    retain quality employees. And, for the existing workforce, new
    technology is rapidly changing the way transit agencies function,
    affecting every executive director, mid-level manager, bus driver and
    mechanic alike. Yet, relatively few programs exist to provide training
    to workers so that they can perform their jobs adequately, move up the
    career ladder, and help the Nation's transit agencies operate at
    maximum efficiency.

    Public Transportation Industry Challenges
        The transit agency workforce has several unique characteristics
    which impact workforce development:

        A rapidly aging workforce--the majority of present day
            transit systems went public in the 1960s and 1970s as a result
            of the establishment of the Federal transit program. Many
            workers who began their careers more than 30 years ago are
            retiring.

        It is in constant contact with the public, and about 75
            percent of employees--operators and maintenance staff--are
            responsible for high standards of efficiency and public safety.

        Approximately 90 percent of the workforce is unionized.

        Opportunities for advancement are generally limited.

        The industry has suffered from a poor or uncomplimentary
            image in the past, which hampers recruiting efforts.

        Transit agencies provide a schedule-driven customer
            service. As a result, the majority of the transit workforce--
            transit equipment operators--functions in a rule-bound,
            seniority-based environment with little flexibility. This type
            of workplace has its drawbacks for recruiting younger
            employees.

        At the highest levels, the transit industry has issues with
            diversity.

        The industry has institutional barriers to workforce
            competitiveness and innovation, i.e., noncompetitive
            compensation practices, inadequate career development and
            succession planning, lack of workplace flexibility, and failure
            to systematically integrate human resources considerations into
            overall business planning.

        According to an industry survey, driver recruitment and retention
    continues to be the greatest challenge for 63 percent of transit
    systems. Finding experienced labor trails only funding costs and
    concerns as transit agencies' top concern. \1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         \1\ Metro Magazine 2008 Fact Book, November 2007.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Impact of New Technology and Need for Training
        New technology is having a dramatic impact on every aspect of the
    industry, from electronic fare collection, to alternative fuel
    vehicles, to new communications devices that will forever alter the way
    people travel. Much of the new technology has been spurred by record
    funding from the Federal Government. Since the enactment of TEA 21 in
    1998, transit systems have been fortunate to participate in many ribbon
    cutting ceremonies celebrating the opening of new bus depots and rail
    lines. Without question, the industry has an excellent record investing
    in rolling stock.
        Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of our ability to invest in
    so-called ``human capital''--the people who serve as the backbone of
    any successful transit system. Bus and train operators serve as the
    public face of the organization on the street. In this post-9/11 world,
    they also protect passengers and other community members with their
    eyes and ears. Maintenance workers and others working behind the
    scenes--both blue and white collar employees--ensure that the system
    continues to operate in a cost effective, time efficient manner. Yet,
    funding for training and career ladder programs within the transit
    industry is virtually nonexistent.
        With the imminent retirement of a huge percentage of the workforce,
    the need for training is even greater in order to avoid the loss of
    institutional knowledge.

    Current Law Ignored
        Under 49 USC 5322(a), the Secretary is authorized to make grants
    for programs that address human resource needs as they apply to public
    transportation activities. A program may include an employment training
    program; an outreach program to increase minority and female employment
    in public transportation activities; research on public transportation
    personnel and training needs; and training and assistance for minority
    business opportunities. This long-standing provision of Federal law has
    been ignored by the industry and the FTA.
        Moreover, under Section 5322(b), FTA is authorized to make grants
    to States, local governmental authorities, and operators of public
    transportation systems to provide fellowships to train personnel
    employed in managerial, technical, and professional positions in the
    public transportation field. Remarkably, this program has been funded
    at $0 throughout the life of SAFETEA-LU, and no program of significance
    came about as a result of this section under TEA 21.

    The Transportation Job Corps Act
        The ATU supports the Transportation Job Corps Act of 2011 (H.R.
    929, Nadler) groundbreaking legislation that would finally address the
    training needs of the public transportation industry and serve to
    provide disconnected youth outside the industry with an incentive to
    pursue careers in transit.
        The bill--which is also endorsed by the American Public
    Transportation Association--would rewrite Section 5322 and authorize
    the creation of 10 new regional Joint Workforce Development Councils--
    one for each FTA region. The councils, made up of equal numbers of
    labor and management representatives, would be responsible for setting
    up a process to offer workforce development programs to transit
    agencies in each of the FTA zones.
        The primary purpose of this program would be to identify skills
    gaps in transit agency maintenance departments and to develop programs
    to train maintenance employees on a regional basis, rather than one
    agency at a time. The councils would also develop programs--outside of
    the traditional collective bargaining environment--to address the
    recruitment and retention of white and blue collar workers as well as
    programs to deal with Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) issues, including
    absenteeism, ergonomics, ``well care'' programs, child care and other
    employment-linked services, and other matters.
        Furthermore, the bill would create new programs aimed at enhancing
    the transit workforce by initiating and maintaining transit worker
    retention programs, including grants for career ladder programs,
    workforce diversity grants, and ``Transit Youth Opportunity Grants.''
        ATU Supports:

        The Transportation Job Corps Act of 2011, which would
            create a career ladder grant program within the FTA to help
            existing workers retain jobs while also recruiting and
            preparing young adults across the Nation for jobs in the
            transit sector.

    Conclusion
        ATU's recommendations for improving and reforming the Nation's
    surface transportation programs may be summed up in just one word:
    people.
        Congress should recognize that we cannot get our economy back on
    track if millions of people do not have a ride to work. Federal
    assistance is needed to help our Nation's transit systems provide for
    the mobility needs of the 15 million daily U.S. transit riders. We can
    no longer leave anyone behind.
        Similarly, protecting the lives of our citizens when they rely on
    the bus or train to visit family, friends, and other destinations is a
    central function of our Federal Government.
        Finally, while providing funding for major transit capital
    investments is critical, we must also deal with the major ``human
    capital'' issues which threaten to paralyze public transportation
    systems throughout the United States.
        ATU looks forward to working with this Committee on these critical
    issues during the surface transportation bill reauthorization process.
        Thank you for your consideration of our views.

                    PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAYETTA Z. HECKER
      Director of Transportation Advocacy, National Transportation Policy
                       Project, Bipartisan Policy Center
                                  May 19, 2011

        Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Shelby, and Members of the
    Committee, I am honored to be here speaking on behalf of the Bipartisan
    Policy Center's (BPC), National Transportation Policy Project (NTPP).
    As you may recall, prior to my past 3 years with the NTPP, I had the
    privilege of serving the Congress and this Committee as a Director of
    Physical Infrastructure at the GAO, directing hundreds of comprehensive
    studies of the Nation's surface transportation programs, for over 25
    years.
        I appreciate this opportunity to discuss issues and priorities for
    the reauthorization of the surface transportation program on behalf of
    the Bipartisan Policy Center. My statement is drawn from both completed
    and ongoing research, deliberations, and reports of the NTPP. In
    addition to the ``long range vision'' for a future performance-based
    program which we released in 2009, \1\ we have continued to develop
    more specific and pragmatic building block measures that can be taken
    to lay the groundwork for a new performance-based program. \2\ We are
    just now finalizing a comprehensive new report--which will provide
    specific recommendations for restructuring the current Federal surface
    transportation programs to both focus on advancing clear national
    priorities--and do so within the level of revenue collected to support
    the Federal program.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         \1\ ``Performance-Driven: New Vision for U.S. Transportation
    Policy'', National Transportation Policy Project, BPC, 2009.
         \2\ ``Transitioning to a Performance-Based Federal Surface
    Transportation Policy'', http://bipartisanpolicy.org/library/report/
    transitioning-performance-based-federal-surface-transportation-policy,
    June, 2010; ``How Fair Is Road Pricing?'', http://bipartisanpolicy.org/
    library/research/how-fair-road-pricing-evaluating-equity-
    transportation-pricing-and-finance, September, 2010; ``Strengthening
    Connections Between Transportation Investments and Economic Growth'',
    http://bipartisanpolicy.org/library/research/transportation-
    investments, January, 2011;`` Joint Statement With Financing Commission
    Members'', http://bipartisanpolicy.org/library/national-transportation-
    policy-project/joint-statement-undersigned-members-national-surface,
    December 2010.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        My statement is organized around three central observations and
    conclusions of our work:

        The current environment for reauthorization presents
            significant challenges--and opportunities,

        NTPP priorities for reauthorization include promoting
            performance, improving planning, and developing an integrated,
            multimodal focus on optimizing transportation networks, and

        Funding challenges are profound and require immediate
            incentives for increases in nonfederal revenue, and
            reestablishing the credibility of the Federal program to gain
            support for increased Federal revenues.

    Background

    The Bipartisan Policy Center and the National Transportation Policy
            Project
        The BPC was founded by four former Senate majority leaders, Tom
    Daschle, Bob Dole, Howard Bake,r and George Mitchell. BPC was created
    to help provide the motivation and infrastructure to forge the
    bipartisan consensus we believe is necessary for durable change across
    a range of difficult policy challenges. The BPC works to develop and
    promote sound policy solutions that can attract public support and
    political momentum to achieve real progress in a wide range of sectors
    including national security, agriculture, energy, health care,
    financial services, debt reduction, and science. In line with the BPC's
    overarching purpose to develop and advance pragmatic, politically
    viable solutions to critical public policy problems, NTPP was designed
    to bring new approaches and fresh thinking to our Nation's pressing
    transportation challenges.
        The NTPP is cochaired by four former elected officials and includes
    membership of renowned experts and leaders in transportation policy, as
    well as users of the system whose voices have not typically been heard
    in previous policy debates. \3\ Your current colleague and Member of
    this Committee, Senator Mark Warner, was an original cochair before
    joining the Senate. We have been pleased to continue working with him
    in furtherance of our shared interest in and commitment to advancing a
    performance-based transportation program.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         \3\ A list of all NTPP members is included at the end of this
    statement.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Core NTPP Recommendations--Define National Goals and Develop
            Performance Metrics
        To set the stage for my remarks, I'd like to briefly summarize the
    NTPP conclusions, many of which reflect a widespread consensus on the
    need for fundamental reform of the existing program to foster
    performance, accountability, and results. We concluded that the single
    most urgent need is for Congress to define specific goals for the
    Federal transportation program that direct resources to the achievement
    of clear national interests. To best lay the foundation for a truly
    performance-based program, national goals need to be focused on
    outcomes and reflect the societal and economic rationale for a Federal
    role in this sector that is characterized by major private and
    individual investments and choices as well as substantial local
    variations in community development patterns and preferences.
        NTPP recommends the national interests in transportation investment
    be recognized as advancing the following fundamental national concerns:

        Economic Growth--Producing maximum national economic growth
            per dollar of investment

        National Connectivity--Connecting people and goods across
            the Nation with effective surface transportation options

        Metropolitan Accessibility--Supporting comprehensive
            metropolitan efforts to provide efficient access to jobs,
            labor, and other activities throughout metropolitan areas

        Energy Security and Environmental Protection--Promote the
            integration of energy security and environmental protection
            objectives with transportation policies, programs, and
            investment choices

        Safety--Improving safety by reducing the number of
            accidents, injuries, and fatalities associated with
            transportation

        We recognize that moving toward a performance-driven approach will
    challenge entrenched interests and require Government institutions at
    all levels to change longstanding practices and ways of doing business.
    Beyond articulating clear goals for a new performance-based program,
    Congress should support an aggressive but deliberate transition to a
    performance-based system. This requires support for comprehensive
    testing and refining of outcome-oriented national metrics to capture
    progress toward the achievement of these five central national goals.
    This will require strong Federal support for the improved data and
    tools essential for managing performance as well as pilot testing the
    application of broad, mode-neutral national performance metrics on the
    State and metropolitan level to identify and address specific
    implementation challenges. \4\ This is the strategy Senator Warner has
    been advancing in a stand-alone legislative proposal.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         \4\ Recognizing the criticality of defining a bold but pragmatic
    strategy for laying the essential foundation of a performance-based
    program, NTPP convened an intensive workshop of diverse experts with
    direct experience to chart a transition strategy. See, Bellagio
    report--http://bipartisanpolicy.org/library/report/transitioning-
    performance-based-federal-surface-transportation-policy, June, 2010.
    The importance of a cautious and deliberate strategy was underscored by
    opening the workshop with a briefing on the sobering RAND Corporation
    review of the results of recent efforts to apply performance focus in 5
    diverse Federal programs. See, ``Toward A Culture of Consequences--
    Performance-Based Accountability in Public Services, Brian Stecher, et
    al., 2010.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Importance of Presidential Leadership
        The Nation is clearly at a pivotal moment in considering the future
    Federal role in transportation. We have a program that is bankrupt in
    both funds and purpose. We remain hopeful that even though a new
    authorization has been deferred and extended several times, proposals
    will start to emerge from both the executive and legislative branch on
    a new path forward. Leadership from the President has always been
    essential for progress in this important arena--and will likely remain
    critical during this especially challenging period. We are impressed by
    a number of the principles for authorization contained in the
    Administration's proposal as set forth in the President's FY2012 Budget
    that are consistent with the themes and principles of NTPP's June 2009
    report. These include the needed emphasis on asset management focusing
    on system preservation and state of good repair, the focus on
    performance and accountability as well as developing incentives for
    performance (e.g., Transportation Leadership Awards), a focus on
    multimodalism, and a plan for significant program simplification and
    consolidation.
        With a detailed Administration proposal yet to be released, we are
    not able to provide specific comments on the Administration's strategy.
    While we share many of the President's reform principles, we are not
    optimistic that the Congress is prepared to enact new taxes sufficient
    to support a program at the level proposed by the President. In the
    more likely outcome that new revenue sources are not enacted, our
    members remain firmly committed to a program that is consistent with
    available revenues. We also believe it will be important to support
    outcomes rather than any specific mode and establish a coordinated
    program to support sustainable revenue flows by States and metro
    regions--which remain at the front line of our vital transportation
    investments.
        With this context, I turn to the focus of this important and timely
    hearing--setting the context for a discussion of reauthorization
    generally and the focus on transit and metro regions more specifically
    by covering three broad issues:

      1.  The challenges and opportunities of the current economic and
            political context

      2.  NTPP Priorities for a new authorization in this environment, and

      3.  Key funding issues and challenges

    Challenges and Opportunities of Reauthorization in the Current
            Environment
        In 2007 many operated under the assumption that there would
    eventually be a large multiyear surface transportation bill passed by
    Congress. Through each successive ``TEA'' bill (ISTEA, TEA-21 and
    SAFETEA-LU) Congress has increased transportation investment, and
    ``reforms'' or innovations have generally been additive with
    stakeholders and States all assured a share of the increasing size of
    the pie.
        The current environment is substantially different making it
    extremely difficult if not impossible to raise additional revenue in
    the near term for Federal transportation investment. This new
    environment is shaped by several factors:

        Prolonged economic downturn--contributing to decreased
            revenues coming into the Highway Trust Fund (HTF); the Recovery
            Act, by making billions of dollars available for infrastructure
            spending with no State or local share, diffused focus on the
            bankruptcy of the Trust Fund; the economic environment
            similarly delayed any serious political focus on badly needed
            reforms; and persistently high unemployment and ever increasing
            gas prices have made it even more difficult than it has been
            over the past 19 years to ask Americans to pay more in fees to
            begin to cover the costs of maintaining or improving our
            national system.

        National debt crisis--this issue is finally taking center
            stage with a BPC Commission \5\ as well as a Presidential
            Commission both recommending major changes to taxes and
            spending to restore fiscal balance; the Congress is currently
            engaging in a major debate about the depth and breadth of
            spending reductions and revenue increases to accompany the
            required increase in the debt ceiling; overall this environment
            makes it more difficult than ever to generate support for
            increased spending on any Federal program, even one with
            promising long-term benefits such as transportation.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         \5\ ``Restoring America's Future'', November, 2010 http://
    bipartisanpolicy.org/library/report/restoring-americas-future.

        Greater hostility to taxes--there is a broad public
            unwillingness to accept new or additional Federal taxes making
            the potential for finding new revenue for transportation even
            more of a challenge.

    The Opportunity of Constrained Resources
        The new reality we confront today is clearly one of severely
    constrained resources for transportation investment. The Highway Trust
    Fund (HTF) is solvent only because of repeated infusions of over $30
    billion over the past 2 years. With the environment supporting debt-
    financed stimulus spending now past, it is more clear than ever that
    ``funding'' transportation with general revenues means more borrowing
    and increased public debt. With national attention on strategies for
    decreasing the national debt, and growing opposition to any kind of
    Government spending, the transportation sector will have to determine
    how to be nimble, surviving with fewer Federal resources.
        Our work and that of many others supports the need for higher
    levels of Federal investment, with the evidence increasingly apparent
    that we are neither maintaining our core system nor preparing for the
    steady increases in our populations, freight flows, and growth. Few
    dispute that strategic investment in transportation infrastructure can
    be an essential element of a growing economy. However, our panel
    believes that continued general fund transfers--i.e., increased
    borrowing--is no longer an option. Until the President and the Congress
    are prepared to identify and enact new sustainable revenue sources to
    support an expanded program, we believe the program should be refocused
    and scaled back to a spending level aligned with existing revenue. Our
    program recommendations for the pending authorization focus on setting
    clear national priorities and limited to the level of revenue coming in
    to the Trust Fund--approximately $40 billion annually. There are risks
    and severe economic consequences associated with lower levels of
    investment. However, this difficult environment where it has become
    clearer that every dollar should be spent wisely can also be seen as an
    opportunity for implementing substantial reform. Acknowledging a
    reality of constrained resources puts pressure on the Federal
    Government to spend wisely, to make the most of every dollar spent--and
    to assure critical and true national priorities are being funded. We
    also believe that devising a strategy when funds are so scarce
    highlights the importance of spurring innovation and forcing a closer
    look at how we might better leverage funds from nonfederal sources.
        Our forthcoming report will present specific and detailed
    recommendations for consolidating, refocusing, or eliminating all
    existing Federal programs currently funded under the SAFETEA-LU
    authorization to focus directly on areas of clear national interest.
    Our proposed program structure will more directly align Federal
    resources with compelling national interests, and seize this
    challenging juncture to move the Nation towards a more performance-
    based surface transportation system.

    Highlights of NTPP Priorities/Major Opportunities for Reauthorization
        While our report won't be final for another few weeks, I'm pleased
    to take this opportunity to outline several priorities our proposal
    will include for a scaled back but well targeted Federal program.

    Laying the Groundwork for Performance Measurement, Reporting and
            Accountability
        Not surprisingly, the major priority for our proposed streamlined
    program will be for Congress to lay the groundwork for meaningful
    progress toward a true performance-based system. Consistent with both
    our June 2009 report and subsequent research and reports, we will call
    for:

        Establishment of outcome-oriented national goals of our
            surface transportation program

        Consolidation of formula programs into new outcome-oriented
            programs emphasizing maintaining and improving the performance
            of our existing assets

        Introducing performance-bonuses on formula programs based
            initially on improved data collection, planning, and reporting
            and eventually on meeting specific measurable criteria.

    Improving the Programmatic and Holistic Focus on Transportation
            Planning
        We believe a revitalized program is needed to substantially reform
    the Federal planning process to become more outcome oriented. Funds
    would be allocated by formula to States and metro regions with bonus
    funding available for improved planning processes, as well as
    supplemental grants to incentivize greater collaboration.

    Consolidating Programs to Focus on Improving Metropolitan Accessibility
        With our core focus on outcomes, our June 2009 long range vision
    recommended development of a new multimodal ``Metropolitan
    Accessibility'' Program. Our focus was on creating an outcome-based
    program focused not on modes or modalities but emphasizing mode
    neutrality, ``programs, not projects,'' and the use of outcome-based
    metrics that would capture achievement of overall desired outcomes or
    goals (e.g., labor market flexibility, job access, improved
    environmental sustainability, reduced dependence of the system on
    fossil fuels and safety). To promote innovation and more comprehensive
    regional programmatic planning, we contemplated a significant portion
    of the funds be provided on a competitive basis.
        Given the current economic and fiscal environment with funds
    extremely limited and low Congressional appetite for transitioning to a
    new large competitive program, we envision substantially modifying this
    preferred long term approach. NTPP recommendations for a new
    metropolitan accessibility program will likely to call for a formula
    program with funding going to both States and metro regions. We
    envision a performance incentive or bonus, which in the short term will
    reward improved data collection, broader programmatic analyses, and
    providing a foundation of public reporting on the performance of the
    broad network and projected returns from a mix of investments. We are
    confident that the values and principles that we articulated in the
    2009 report can be applicable to such a formula program, that is, mode
    neutrality, a focus on preservation, restoration, and performance of
    existing facilities and systems, comprehensive strategic plans and
    capital programming, job access, and energy security. We envision
    existing transit programs that create new capacity, like New Starts,
    would be part of such a comprehensive program, which within such a
    constrained funding environment will be a smaller feature in most
    regions investment strategies--although each region will be free to
    make their own programmatic priorities.
        The Brookings Institution has completed a body of work
    demonstrating the vital role the Nation's metropolitan regions play in
    the economic growth of our Nation and the quality of life of our
    Nation's citizens. A recent report provides a new analysis of how
    investments in transit have not included an explicit focus on improving
    the access and use of transit to reach employment centers. \6\ We agree
    that not only do transit investments need to more explicitly focus on
    this vital outcome, but a similar focus is needed on our metropolitan
    road network. The Brookings data reveal that only 7 percent of workers
    in 100 largest metro areas rely on transit to get to work, underscoring
    the need for integrated programs and strategies to enhance the
    performance of entire transportation networks in our metropolitan
    regions.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         \6\ ``Missed Opportunities: Transit and Jobs in Metropolitan
    America'', Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program, May, 2011.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Funding Challenges/Issues
        Even as we put forward a program that assumes no new revenue in the
    near term, the proposal in fact incorporates several elements directly
    related to funding issue and challenges--both in the longer term as
    well as immediately.

    Experts View Absence of Program Credibility as Critical Barrier To
            Increasing Federal Investment/Revenue
        Continuing NTPP's model of bringing together renowned experts from
    various fields who hold widely varying views, we convened an intensive
    workshop in March on ``Breaking New Ground--Exploring Long Term Options
    for Funding the Surface Transportation Program.'' Major topics included
    exploration of the:

      1.  Future Federal Role in Transportation (including economic and
            fiscal realities, national goals and political consensus on
            scope/purpose of Federal program, and facilitating and
            incentivizing private, State, and local funding),

      2.  Sustainable Revenue Options (including a review of the varying
            performance and efficiency results and pros and cons of user
            fee foundation), and

      3.  Institutional and structural options (including the role and
            relevance of the Trust Fund mechanism).

        We are still developing a report based on this rich and thoughtful
    exchange. Some highlights, however, include the following key
    observations:

        Exploration of future funding options must be in context of
            a clear and specific set of national goals/purposes--i.e.,
            identifying future revenue sources cannot really be separated
            from first defining a clear and compelling focus of the
            national interests and program purposes.

        The core challenge to funding achieving either public or
            political is restoring public confidence in the ``returns'' of
            the Federal program.

        Revenue options have widely varying performance and
            efficiency results and as alternatives are further evaluated,
            assessment should heavily weigh such positive and intentional
            impacts.

        The funding structure, particularly the Trust Fund, needs
            to be reinvented for a new era, noting that like revenue
            sources, a funding structure may either support or impede mode
            and outcome-based programming and achievement toward nationally
            significant outcomes.

        Efforts should begin to support and coordinate State
            efforts to study new mileage/use-based revenue option.

        With Federal resources declining, focused Federal program
            needed to facilitate and incentivize sustainable revenue
            sources at State level

    Comprehensive New Program Needed To Facilitate, Support, and
            Incentivize Increased Nonfederal Investment
        In addition to this issue being a major focus of the Funding
    Workshop, NTPP sponsored new research to develop in more detail, what a
    new program should be composed of, to most effectively leverage the
    Federal revenue--and explicitly support increased and sustained revenue
    flows by nonfederal partners.
        Due to the likely continued scarcity of surface transportation
    funding relative to nationwide investment needs, NTPP believes there
    should be a substantially enhanced Federal role in facilitating,
    incentivizing, and rewarding sustainable State, local, and private
    funding. The greater need to maximize nonfederal resources, and the
    national benefits that such leveraging can provide, demands a set of
    substantial and comprehensive loan and other financing assistance
    programs. A new program dedicated to maximizing the leveraging
    potential of Federal resources could form the basis for a new,
    important focus on incentives. A program dedicated to maximizing the
    leveraging potential of Federal funds could form the basis for
    transitioning to a national infrastructure bank.
        A new program could greatly enhance the ability of the Federal
    Government to support State, local, and private funding in a way that
    advances national transportation goals. The essential features of such
    a program could include three distinct but complementary dimensions:

        Remove barriers to nonfederal investment, in particular
            barriers to tolling and pricing;

        Expand and improve TIFIA and other financing tools to
            support revenue-generating projects, and

        Reward the generation of sustainable revenue and investment
            by nonfederal entities.

    Remove Barriers to Nonfederal Investment
        Current limitations on tolling the existing Interstate system
    should be largely removed. Tolling is a potentially viable mechanism
    for improving performance and generating increased transportation
    revenues that could be used to back project financing. Similarly other
    Federal requirements for certain projects should be relaxed to
    facilitate increased private investment.

    Expand and Improve TIFIA and Other Financing Tools
        The TIFIA program should be increased in size, while continuing to
    focus on credit-worthiness and the market discipline afforded by
    requiring significant nonfederal coinvestment. A new program should be
    included that provides technical and predevelopment assistance to
    increase the pipeline of sound projects, as well as new financing tools
    or tax code incentives to stimulate infrastructure investment. A
    discretionary Toll and User Fee Technical Support and Discretionary
    Federal Funding Assistance Program should be made available to promote
    sound pricing projects, assisting in the development of new tolls, and
    other user fee projects.
        Tax Code Incentives could include a range of tools including
    increasing the volume cap on Private Activity Bonds (PABs)
    reestablishing the Build America Bonds program , creating Qualified
    Tax-Credit Bonds (QTCBs) as a new category for major surface
    transportation projects, and continuing to permit States to use a
    portion of their Federal apportionments to further capitalize their
    State Infrastructure Banks (SIBs).

    Rewarding the Generation of Revenue by Nonfederal Entities
        A new program should be created to facilitate and reward States and
    metropolitan regions that sustain or increase the net amount of
    nonfederal revenue they contribute to investments. In addition to
    including a Maintenance of Effort Funding Program, specific incentives
    could include Preferential Treatment for Discretionary Program Awards
    and Programmatic Flexibility and Regulatory Relief.
        This concludes my prepared remarks. I thank you again for the
    opportunity to provide BPC's perspectives and preliminary
    recommendations. I look forward to any questions you may have. In
    addition, we stand ready to support the Committee in the significant
    challenges that lay ahead.

                                    ------

            RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR SHELBY
                          FROM PETER M. ROGOFF

    Q.1. The Administration has proposed that the 5307 program be
    opened up to allow transit systems to use these funds to
    subsidize their operating costs. While I appreciate that the
    Administration's proposal promotes a very measured approach to
    the issue of operating assistance, I am extremely concerned
    about the Pandora's Box we may be opening.
        You will recall that prior authorization bill eliminated
    operating assistance as an eligible expense but did, alter the
    program to include a new category of eligible expenses very
    similar to operating costs, called preventive maintenance.
    Thus, preventive maintenance can be used to pay for virtually
    all the same items except for wages and benefits and fuel
    costs.
        With these additional tools available to transit systems
    across the country; why then do we need yet another subsidy to
    public transportation?

    A.1. The temporary and targeted operating assistance proposal
    is aimed at helping struggling transit agencies provide
    critical services during difficult economic times, when State
    and local revenues are reduced by lower property and sales
    taxes used to support transit. FTA is not proposing the
    development of a new funding source or permanent fund to
    supplement operating costs as this new authority gives transit
    agencies in urbanized areas 200,000 or over in population the
    option to use their urbanized area formula funds to continue
    critical services for 3 years, if needed. It is important that
    transit agencies have the flexibility during economic downturns
    to provide essential transit services, especially to transit-
    dependent populations.
        Finally, the proposal requires each transit agency that
    uses it to certify to FTA that its local funding partners did
    not reduce the proportion of local funding dedicated to transit
    and that service levels are maintained and not cut below
    previous levels. This ensures that State and local assistance
    is not supplanted by Federal operating assistance or that
    critical service levels are maintained.

    Q.2. Would each of you also comment on how performance-based
    measures should be used?

    A.2. Over the past few decades, Federal surface transportation
    law has increasingly recognized the importance of
    transportation planning as the basis of transportation spending
    decisions by State and local officials. States and localities
    need to better identify and address their transportation
    problems and needs by making full use of performance data. The
    Administration supports enhancing the effectiveness of States
    and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) in developing
    and implementing transportation plans and improvement programs
    while also ensuring transparency and accountability in public
    investments. Performance-based planning would help accomplish
    this. Both metropolitan plans and statewide plans should
    include performance based goals, outcomes, and targets. These
    would address not only transportation based outcomes, but
    environmental and economic development considerations, among
    others. Performance-based measures would also increase the
    accountability of MPOs and States who would be required to
    demonstrate how investments included in adopted transportation
    plans, Transportation Improvement Programs and Statewide
    Transportation Improve Programs (TIPs/STIPs) directly link to
    the adopted plan's outcomes and performance targets.
        FTA also supports the increased use of performance data in
    managing transit assets. As bringing our Nation's transit
    systems into a State of Good Repair is one of FTA's highest
    priorities, FTA has already invested more than $10 million in
    funding to support transit asset management efforts, including
    the enhanced collection of asset condition data to support
    performance. In our proposed State of Good Repair Bus and Rail
    Formula program, FTA would create a new formula program that
    would be based upon repair and replacement needs of aging
    assets. Further, we would seek greater use of asset management
    data by transit agencies receiving funding under our Urbanized
    Area Formula grant program as well as this new program. It is
    through these types of performance-base efforts that we seek a
    more strategic use of resources with demonstrable results.
        Recognizing that competition often drives innovation, FTA
    also proposes a ``race-to-the-top'' style incentive program to
    encourage fundamental reforms in the planning, building, and
    management of transportation system. This program would reward
    States and regions that implement proven strategies that
    further the Department's strategic goals, strengthen
    collaboration among different levels of Government, focus on
    performance and outcomes, and encourage the development of a
    multimodal transportation system that connects people to
    opportunities and goods to markets.

    Q.3. Each of you has addressed the need for more robust
    planning tools. However, there is a delicate balance between
    encouraging better planning that takes into account the diverse
    needs of a community, and planning that presupposes an outcome
    and drives all decision making toward that end.
        How do we ensure that any changes made to the planning
    process enhance the ability of States and localities to plan
    while still allowing them to make the decisions that work for
    their communities?

    A.3. A performance-based planning process would enhance
    transportation decision making by States and localities. The
    use of robust local performance data would contribute to a
    better understanding of State and local transportation needs.
    The development of performance-based measures and outcomes
    through a robust public participation process would result in
    the identification of projects and strategies that work for
    their communities. In addition, national and locally based
    performance-based measures provide a platform to demonstrate
    the effectiveness of transportation investments in achieving
    expected outcomes. By linking spending with performance, States
    and localities can demonstrate results and can account to their
    communities that transportation investments are working.
                                    ------

           RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR MENENDEZ
                          FROM PETER M. ROGOFF

    Q.1. The Department of Transportation currently employs a
    variety of programs, databases, and other tools to support
    travel forecasting, modeling, multimodal transportation
    planning, scenario planning, data management, and related
    processes. These functions reside across different
    Administrations and offices at the Department of
    Transportation. How well are these programs integrated and do
    they support one another most effectively? How well are States,
    regions, local municipalities, and transit agencies served by
    these tools? Given today's fiscal constraints, what is the
    Department doing to better coordinate internal resources to
    ensure that it is serving communities in the most effective
    manner possible?

    A.1. The Federal Transportation Administration (FTA) supports
    the National Transit Database (NTD) and the Transit Economic
    Requirements Model (TERM). NTD data is available on the
    Internet and is widely used throughout the department, the
    industry, academia, and the public. The NTD data Web site
    averaged 2305 visits per month over the last 12 months. Data
    from the NTD is cited in dozens of academic research papers
    each year and in presentations and at the Transportation
    Research Board Annual Meeting. In addition, many State DOTs
    regularly use NTD data to benchmark operational performance of
    local transit agencies in their respective States.
        Congress directed FTA to improve our assessments of the
    State of Good Repair of transit assets through the FY2010
    Department of Transportation Appropriations process. FTA is
    working with the transit community to develop a template for
    collecting asset inventory data that will meet local agency
    needs and facilitate more timely and comprehensive reporting of
    this data to the NTD. With this effort, FTA will be able to
    leverage the data agencies already collect rather than require
    that agencies develop separate data formats for Federal
    reporting. This asset inventory template will be compatible
    with FTA-developed analytic tools (like TERM) and will provide
    a de facto standard format to enable development of private-
    sector analysis tools. FTA expects to pilot test this template
    in 2012.
        NTD data is coordinated with the rest of the Department
    through staff contacts with the Research and Innovative
    Technology Administration (RITA), which includes NTD data in
    its annual Transportation Statistics Report. Additionally, the
    NTD Program recently transferred its training activities to the
    National Transit Institute (NTI), which is funded through FTA's
    Office of Research, Demonstration, and Innovation. Having NTI
    take the lead in providing training to local transit agencies
    on how to complete their NTD reports is expected to reduce
    duplication of effort through increased and more efficient
    interoffice coordination.
        TERM is a financial forecasting model with inputs that
    includes data on transit assets (about 70 percent of the total
    value of U.S. transit assets), estimated growth in demand for
    transit services, and available investment levels. It produces
    projections of capital reinvestment levels and performance
    conditions for various asset categories from 1 to 20 years out
    under various funding scenarios. It is used to produce the
    biennial Conditions & Performance report to Congress in
    cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
    whose models of capital investment levels for highways and
    bridges are similar in purpose. Although these models are not
    integrated and stand alone, the analysis that we do with them
    for the C&P report is coordinated, particularly where issues
    that impact across modes are concerned (e.g., congestion
    pricing). Both TERM and the Highway Economic Requirements
    System (HERS) are available to agencies and the public in user-
    friendly versions for analysis of capital needs at the local
    level. The State version of HERS (HERS-ST) has been available
    for several years and the local version of TERM (TERM-Lite)
    will be available on FTA's Web site later this summer. TERM was
    instrumental in FTA's investigation of deferred reinvestment in
    the transit industry for the 2009 Rail Modernization Report to
    Congress. FTA also is funding the Transportation Research
    Board's independent evaluation of TERM functionality starting
    in July of 2011.
        FTA also participates in the Department's Analysis,
    Modeling, and Simulation Working Group, which coordinates the
    development of research efforts by FHWA and FTA on improving
    the state of the art in transportation modeling. Also supported
    is the Travel Model Improvement Program, which provides a forum
    for U.S. DOT staff to interact with personnel from State DOT's,
    Metropolitan Planning Organizations, university researchers,
    and private industry on improving transportation demand models
    and forecasts.
        FTA sponsored development of the Aggregate Rail Ridership
    Forecasting Model (ARRF) that uses worker-flow data from the
    Census Transportation Planning Package (CTPP) to predict
    ridership on ``starter'' rail lines in metropolitan areas. The
    model is calibrated against rider survey data from completed
    New Starts projects that were also starter lines. The CTPP2000
    worker-flow data are available nationally from the Census
    Bureau and similar tabulations are expected from the American
    Community Survey. FTA maintains an informal library of datasets
    from surveys of transit riders as the data become available.

    Q.2. The 2010 Census and demographic projections tell us that
    the U.S. population is growing, aging and becoming more
    diverse. Who will be the future public transportation users and
    what needs and preferences are they likely to have? How are the
    Department of Transportation and the Federal Transit
    Administration supporting States, regions, and local
    municipalities in anticipating this new reality and what it
    will demand of a multimodal transportation system with a strong
    public transportation component?

    A.2. To meet the future demands of a growing, changing
    population, with continually evolving needs, the Department of
    Transportation (DOT) and FTA are leading the Livable
    Communities Initiative and Partnership for Sustainable
    Communities with the Department of Housing and Urban
    Development (HUD) and the Environmental Protection Agency
    (EPA). This initiative is aimed toward helping families in all
    communities--rural, suburban, and urban--gain better access to
    affordable housing, and lower transportation costs.
        More broadly, FTA has also worked with HUD over the longer
    term to develop stronger programs that encourage transit-
    oriented development (TOD), which combines higher-density,
    mixed use development that is designed and built to benefit its
    proximity to a public transit station or transfer node. Not
    only do these developments provide more transportation options
    to residents, they also support a more diverse population
    because of their emphasis on including affordable housing in
    the development mix.
        FTA also supports States, regions, and local municipalities
    meet their future transportation needs through its State of
    Good Repair (SGR) initiative. A June 2010 FTA study found that
    the Nation's transit systems, including bus systems, have a $78
    billion backlog of assets in marginal or poor condition and
    that our Nation's transit systems will require an estimated
    $14.4 billion annual investment from all sources (Federal,
    State, local and fare box) to continue to maintain a state of
    good repair once that backlog is addressed. FTA's new Bus and
    Rail State of Good Repair program proposed in the FY2012 budget
    will provide formula grants to transit agencies over the next 6
    years to enable them to improve the condition of their existing
    capital assets.

    Q.3. Today, with gas prices at $4 a gallon, oil companies
    reaping record profits, and the threat of climate change and
    growing wealth disparity looming, transit is part of the
    solution for a number of interconnected challenges. How are the
    Department of Transportation and Federal Transit Administration
    thinking about transportation, in particular public
    transportation, and its connection to economic development, job
    creation, housing, education, public health, and quality of
    life? When we analyze the costs and benefits of different
    projects or systems plans, we do not often factor in variables
    such as environmental costs and benefits or public health
    implications, although we know that impacts, positive or
    negative, can be enormous. We know that transportation plays a
    major role in the economy and peoples' lives, so how do the
    Department and the Federal Transit Administration consider
    impacts across a spectrum of transportation interventions to
    ensure that communities have the right information and tools to
    choose the appropriate mode for a given community context?

    A.3. DOT and FTA consider public transportation to be essential
    to the mobility, accessibility, and connectivity necessary to
    create and sustain viable, livable communities. To that end,
    Secretary LaHood has launched a Livability Initiative that
    establishes livability as a multi- and intermodal priority in
    all programs across the Department for the purpose of making
    real improvements in the lives of all Americans. Since June
    2009, the DOT has joined its efforts with those of the U.S.
    Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the
    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Partnership for
    Sustainable Communities (Partnership) to coordinate Federal
    housing, transportation and environmental investments, protect
    public health and the environment, promote equitable
    development, and help address the challenges of climate change.
    As a member of this Partnership, the DOT has fostered livable
    communities through place-based policies and investments that
    increase transportation choices and access to employment,
    education, health and social services, and other essential
    needs and services required for a high quality of life, as well
    as promoted transportation policies and investments that bring
    lasting and equitable economic benefits to the Nation and its
    citizens. Specific programs have been categorized for
    livability purposes, while a broad array of programs promote
    DOT's livable communities strategic goal ranging from planning
    and research to fixed guideway systems investments and surface
    transportation improvement to accessibility for disadvantaged
    populations.
        Over the 2 years, FTA, alone, has issued a total of
    $8,778,730,416 in grants in American Recovery and Reinvestment
    Act of 2009 funds covering transportation/transit planning,
    research and capital investment projects; $2,678.9 million in
    Major Capital Improvement discretionary grants, including for
    Urban Circulators; and $14,951.5 million in Bus and Bus
    Facilities discretionary grants for Bus Livability projects.
    All of these programs have created jobs for Americans in both
    manufacturing and construction. The Secretary recently
    announced another $175 million of grant opportunities for FTA's
    Bus Livability Program and its Alternatives Analysis Program.
    Several of these grants have been combined with funding
    opportunities provided by HUD for Regional Sustainability
    Planning and Challenge Planning Grants, and EPA Smart Growth
    Implementation Assistance, Brownfields, and Technical
    Assistance Grants in order to target resources to help States
    and local communities create jobs and stronger economies by
    developing more sustainably.
        DOT and FTA have taken several steps to strengthen the
    connections between public transportation and economic
    development, including:

        Changes to the New Starts Program--rescission of
            the New Starts cost-effectiveness policy, and
            additional emphasis on developing measures to reflect
            the economic benefits of New Starts projects;

        Changes to bicycle and pedestrian policies--
            issuance of new departmental policy ending the bias of
            motorized transportation over nonmotorized
            transportation, and development of FTA policy
            clarifying the eligibility for transit funds for
            bicycle and pedestrian facilities that link to transit
            service;

        Development of web-based tools for linking transit
            to community-based economic development--release of
            FTA's Mixed Income Transit-Oriented Development Action
            Guide to assist local governments and communities with
            strategies to facilitate mixed-income housing near
            transit, and release of the TOD Database to facilitate
            broad community development in conjunction with transit
            stations and intermodal facilities; and

        Review of joint development policies--FTA is
            developing comprehensive guidance on its joint
            development policies and requirements, highlighting
            best practices.

        The New Starts and Small Starts programs, established under
    49 U.S.C. 5309(d) and (e), are FTA's primary capital funding
    programs through which we analysis the costs and benefits of
    new or extended transit systems across the country, including
    rapid rail, light rail, commuter rail, bus rapid transit, and
    ferries. Under this discretionary program, proposed projects
    are evaluated and rated as they seek FTA approval for a
    multiyear Federal funding commitment to finance project
    construction. On January 13, 2010, the Secretary of the
    Department of Transportation (DOT) announced a change in policy
    to the New Starts program that restores the statutorily
    prescribed process for recommending funding for New Starts and
    Small Starts projects. FTA now gives consideration to the full
    range of transit benefits: economic development, environmental,
    social, mobility, and congestion relief benefits. On June 3,
    2010, FTA issued an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking
    (ANPRM) to seek public input on three of the evaluation
    criteria under the project justification category: cost
    effectiveness, environmental benefits, and economic development
    benefits. Based on a review of the comments received to the
    ANPRM and the lessons learned from implementation of the
    current methods, FTA is preparing a Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking which will propose to measure more explicitly the
    broad range of benefits that transit projects provide including
    livability principles and goals that relate strongly to the
    purposes of many transit investments. More specifically, FTA
    will seek public comment on project specific measures of
    nonmobility benefits in the calculation of cost effectiveness
    and meaningful measures of the environmental benefits and
    economic development effects of projects.

    Q.4. Continuing workforce development and succession planning
    are persistent challenges for an aging transit workforce. This
    is especially critical in the area of safety. Do you think
    transit agencies are doing enough to address these issues? If
    not, what can we do in a fiscally constrained bill to address
    them? What is the appropriate role for the Federal Transit
    Administration?

    A.4. Current workforce development activities and programs are
    insufficient to address the needs of a changing workforce.
    Under current law, FTA funds a variety of workforce development
    and training programs and permits recipients of FTA urban area
    formula grants (Section 5307) and capital program funds
    (Section 5309) to use up to 0.5 percent of those funds to cover
    the costs of training employees in areas focused on public
    transportation at the National Transit Institute (NTI). The
    latter program is extremely undersubscribed. In FY2009, $16.2
    million was available, but only $608,000 was spent by a small
    number of mid-sized transit agencies.
        Part of the Federal Role is to examine the best methods to
    undertake workforce development and on-the-job training
    involving all facets of the public transportation industry,
    including, safety. Recently, FTA has allocated $3 million under
    the Innovative Workforce Development Program to fund a variety
    of workforce efforts to address this need. This includes
    programs in New Orleans and Denver that train new entrants to
    the workforce for jobs in the transit industry; vocational
    programs in Massachusetts and New Jersey that prepare high
    school and college students for careers in transit; leadership
    training programs in California, New York, Pennsylvania; and
    Ohio transit agencies, and a distance learning center in South
    Dakota targeted at rural transit agencies. By highlighting new
    and existing innovative workforce development programs, FTA
    feels that it can lead the way for the industry in supporting
    sustainable and innovative examples and practices that can be
    duplicated and implemented locally.
        Building upon this effort, FTA provided technical
    assistance to this Committee on a Workforce Development Program
    to allow the Secretary to make competitively selected grants
    directly to recipients of Federal public transportation
    assistance that would be targeted at under-represented
    populations in areas of high unemployment areas for training
    apprenticeship and development. Using up to 0.5 percent of the
    amounts made available to carry out FTA's urbanized area
    formula grants program, the goal of this program would be to
    ensure a workforce with the sufficient skill-set available to
    fill the transit jobs of the future.
        Additionally, FTA would expand the eligibility of training
    purposes for funding provided to transit agencies by formula
    beyond just the provision of NTI courses. Not more than 0.5
    percent of the amounts made available under 5306, 5307, 5310,
    and 5311 to a recipient and a subrecipient would be available
    for expenditure, with the approval of DOT, to pay up to 80
    percent of the cost of tuition and direct education expenses
    related to educating and training State and local
    transportation employees in developments, techniques and
    procedures related to public transportation.
        Building upon past training carried out by the National
    Transit Institute, FTA would also recommend funding National
    Public Transportation Institutes to develop and conduct
    training and education al programs for Federal, State, and
    local transportation employees, U.S. citizens, and foreign
    national engaged or to be engaged in Government-aid public
    transportation work. Education and training of Government,
    State and local transportation workers would be provided at no
    cost for subjects that are a Government program responsibility.

    Q.5. In your testimony, you outlined the Administration's
    proposal for temporary and targeted operating assistance to
    transit agencies operating in urbanized areas with populations
    greater than 200,000. Is there anything the Federal Transit
    Administration is doing now, or could do right now to provide
    some more immediate relief to transit agencies so that they
    have not completely decimated their staffs by the time a bill
    passes?

    A.5. Under current law, FTA cannot provide operating support to
    transit agencies in urbanized areas 200,000 or greater in
    population under the Urbanized Area (5307) Formula Grants
    program. However, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
    (ARRA) did provide limited operating assistance to agencies
    during the economic downturn. Recognizing the challenges of an
    economic recession on transit agencies, the President proposed
    in his FY2012 Budget to Congress temporary and targeted
    operating assistance for transit agencies. This proposal will
    provide transit agencies with much-needed flexibility to
    support vehicle operators and fuel costs, when this assistance
    is absolutely needed for a limited time.
        While transit agencies in urbanized areas 200,000 or
    greater in population are generally not allowed to use their
    Section 5307 Formula Grants for operating assistance, the
    definition of capital in 49 U.S.C. 5302(a)(1)(A) does permit
    funds to be used for preventive maintenance related to
    operations. Of the 152 urbanized area transit systems in areas
    200,000 or greater in population, 136 reported to FTA that
    overall maintenance expenditures typically exceed their total
    Section 5307 apportionment. Only five of these transit systems
    reported total maintenance expenditures that were less than 75
    percent of their Section 5307 apportionment. Thus, the vast
    majority of these systems can and typically do use their
    Section 5307 formula funding towards ensuring that their
    existing capital asset base is well-maintained.

    Q.6. Transportation, especially transit, is multimodal and yet
    we authorize, regulate, and administer modes separately. People
    of all ages and abilities may walk, bicycle, roll, or drive to
    transit. How can we ensure that transit services and facilities
    provide for a variety of travel options for a variety of users?
    Is there a Federal role for highlighting best practices in
    planning, project programming, and system design?

    A.6. The first Livability Principle embraced by DOT is to
    provide more transportation choices. FTA has long promoted
    accessibility to disadvantaged populations through its Elderly
    and Persons with Disabilities, Job Access and Reverse Commute,
    and New Freedom Programs. However, recent demographic trends
    and economic conditions indicate that providing special transit
    services for certain populations is becoming too costly for
    transit providers to continue at current levels. FTA encourages
    transit providers to ``mainstream'' members of these
    populations, as practicable, to use regular transit services.
    Further, FTA emphasizes planning and designing station areas
    and their access routes to better interface with the
    communities they serve. As part of the Department's Livability
    Initiative, FTA is also working with the Federal Highway
    Administration in promoting ``Complete Streets'' and ``Context
    Sensitive Solutions'' to provide for pertinent planning
    guidelines and practices in a variety of communities.
                                    ------

            RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR SHELBY
                         FROM WILLIAM W. MILLAR

    Q.1. I am concerned that we continue to make investments in
    infrastructure without any state of good repair requirement.
        What is APTA's position regarding a state of good repair
    requirement?

    A.1. Safety is the number one priority of the public
    transportation industry and bringing the Nation's transit
    assets up to a state of good repair is essential for ensuring
    the safety of riders and transit employees. APTA believes
    Congress should take a ``needs based'' approach to the
    distribution of funds under the Federal public transportation
    program which builds on the current program structure and
    begins to address unmet program needs.
        We need a well funded, long-term authorization bill that
    ensures assets are maintained in a state of good repair or
    better but also provides the capacity expansion necessary to
    accommodate the projected doubling of transit ridership over
    the next 20 year period.

    Q.2. What do you believe should be done to ensure that
    infrastructure assets are adequately maintained?
    A.2. Transit systems are presently starved for funding, with a
    nearly $78 billion state of good repair backlog according to
    the FTA. The necessary resources to maintain infrastructure
    assets must be made available. While ``doing more with less''
    is a valid approach, it only addresses the needs of the public
    transportation program around the margins. The needs are simply
    too great to maintain infrastructure assets without
    predictable, robust investment.

    Q.3. Comment on how performance measures should be used?

    A.3. In its recommendations on the development of a new Federal
    surface transportation authorization bill APTA identified a
    number of goals that should be included as part of a national
    transportation policy which recognizes public transportation
    needs and benefits. APTA believes that the bill should help
    every metropolitan region to operate a high-capacity, high
    quality, energy efficient, environmentally responsible public
    transportation system, with a choice of travel options
    available to Americans in all regions. It should support public
    transportation investment that accommodates a doubling of
    public transportation ridership over the next 20 years. It
    should be part of a national strategy to strengthen the economy
    and promote energy independence, improve air quality, address
    climate change, and provide mobility choices, and it should
    serve national defense needs by providing mobility options in
    emergencies.
        APTA supports performance measures and accountability that
    ensure the efficient and transparent use of Federal funds and
    supports national goals, but such measures must recognize the
    differences between different types of transit agencies and
    different communities. For example, it does not make sense to
    compare ridership growth in a small community with a new
    transit system or new commuter rail operation with such growth
    in an older city with a transit rail system already operating
    at close to capacity levels. We also urge Congress to establish
    performance measures that serve national goals, but do not
    create unnecessary or counterproductive administrative burdens
    or reporting requirements.
        Any performance based program established at the Federal
    level should:

        Acknowledge the significance of State and local
            funding contributions and the need for local authority
            in establishing the performance objectives and
            priorities.

        Recognize that many regions include numerous
            transit systems with disparate funding sources and that
            performance measurement requirements should take into
            account this complexity when developing requirements.

        Protect and recognize the critical need for
            predictable funding levels.

    Q.4. Each of you has addressed the need for more robust
    planning tools. However, there is a delicate balance between
    encouraging better planning that takes into account the diverse
    needs of a community, and planning that presupposes an outcome
    and drives all decision making toward that end.
        How do we ensure that any changes made to the planning
    process enhance the ability of States and localities to plan
    while still allowing them to make the decisions that work for
    their communities?

    A.4. APTA strongly recommends strengthening the public
    transportation role in regional decision making. Planning at
    regional level is crucial for public transportation agency
    plans and programs. Regional planning establishes the
    demographic and land use projections, the social equity
    objectives, the economic development objectives, and the
    environmental stewardship objectives for the region into which
    the public transportation development program must fit. It also
    provides for the development of improved planning tools and
    forecasting models that can support public transportation
    agency planners. Public transportation agency involvement in
    all of those regional planning efforts ensures the region does
    not lose sight of public transportation needs and
    considerations and helps the region make the best decisions to
    meet the needs of local communities.
        The new authorization should include language stipulating
    that the FTA/FHWA regulations on Statewide and Metropolitan
    Transportation Planning require fair and equitable voting
    representation of the region's public transportation operating
    agency or agencies on the policy board and technical committees
    of the Metropolitan Planning Organizations (or other regional
    transportation planning bodies), regardless of whether the body
    is newly formed or existing, no matter the size of the urban
    region.
                                    ------

           RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR MENENDEZ
                         FROM WILLIAM W. MILLAR

    Q.1. Safety is always of paramount concern and a recent train
    accident in Hoboken, New Jersey, underscores that point. As
    Congress works to overhaul transit safety at the Federal
    Transit Administration, what can public transportations systems
    do now to achieve immediate improvements? What the best ways
    for reauthorization to support these activities?

    A.1. The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) is
    dedicated to making an already safe industry even safer and is
    the officially designated standards organization for the public
    transportation industry. For more than 20 years, APTA has
    partnered with the U.S. transit industry, the Federal Transit
    Administration (FTA), and its predecessor organization, the
    Urban Mass Transit Administration (UMTA) to develop
    standardized programs for safe, efficient, and secure transit
    operations. APTA has also developed and continues to manage a
    number of safety specific programs that call for the creation
    of system safety plans and provide safety audits for transit
    operators and other services. APTA's work in this arena served
    as the basis for the existing FTA State Safety Oversight (SSO)
    Program. APTA's safety programs are recognized internationally
    in North America, Europe, and Asia and are designed to examine
    every area of transit planning, construction, acquisition,
    operations, security, emergency preparedness, and maintenance
    to ensure the safety of our public transportation passengers
    and employees. For greater detail about these initiatives,
    please review the testimony previously presented to the
    Committee which can be found here: http://www.apta.com/gap/
    testimony/2009/Documents/091210_SenateBankingTestimony.pdf.
        APTA believes that effective safety oversight of public
    transportation requires a collaborative effort between Federal,
    State, and local agency partners. To that end, the existing SSO
    framework should be strengthened and provided with the tools
    and funding necessary to ensure that SSO's can utilize uniform
    standards for monitoring and auditing that are flexible enough
    to deal with new and emerging technologies. It is not enough to
    simply issue mandates and regulations--State Safety Oversight
    Agencies (SSOA) must have the resources required to carry out
    their mission. Passage of a well-funded, 6-year, multimodal
    reauthorization of surface transportation legislation that
    includes the necessary resources for a strengthened SSO
    framework and that builds upon consensus based industry
    standards will be the most effective way to make immediate
    transit safety improvements.
        Also of critical importance to achieving safety goals is
    that the next authorization of surface transportation law must
    provide the needed resources to ensure that public
    transportation assets achieve a state of good repair or better.

    Q.2. There seems to be some consensus that reauthorization
    should establish national goals for the surface transportation
    program and that State, regional, and local performance
    measures should be tied to those goals. Does APTA have a
    specific proposal for national goals and local performance
    measures for public transportation? What kind of framework
    should States, regions, and localities use to implement
    performance measures for transportation planning and
    programming that advance congressionally identified national
    goals? Finally, how would this approach respect local
    priorities on the ground while preserving the integrity of
    national goals?

    A.2. In its recommendations on the development of a new Federal
    surface transportation authorization bill APTA identified a
    number of goals that should be included as part of a national
    transportation policy which recognizes public transportation
    needs and benefits. APTA believes that the bill should help
    every metropolitan region to operate a high-capacity, high
    quality, energy efficient, environmentally responsible public
    transportation system, with a choice of travel options
    available to Americans in all regions. It should support public
    transportation investment that accommodates a doubling of
    public transportation ridership over the next 20 years. It
    should be part of a national strategy to strengthen the economy
    and promote energy independence, improve air quality, address
    climate change, and provide mobility choices, and it should
    serve national defense needs by providing mobility options in
    emergencies.
        APTA supports performance measures and accountability that
    ensure the efficient and transparent use of Federal funds and
    supports national goals, but such measures must recognize the
    differences between different types of transit agencies and
    different communities. For example, it does not make sense to
    compare ridership growth in a small community with a new
    transit system or new commuter rail operation with such growth
    in an older city with a transit rail system already operating
    at close to capacity levels. We also urge Congress to establish
    performance measures that serve national goals, but do not
    create unnecessary or counterproductive administrative burdens
    or reporting requirements.
        Any performance based program established at the Federal
    level should:

        Acknowledge the significance of State and local
            funding contributions and the need for local authority
            in establishing the performance objectives and
            priorities.

        Recognize that many regions include numerous
            transit systems with disparate funding sources and that
            performance measurement requirements should take into
            account this complexity when developing requirements.

        Protect and recognize the critical need for
            predictable funding levels.

    Q.3. We can address a number of interconnected challenges
    through public transportation: economic development, job
    creation, reducing our dependence on oil, creating more
    equitable communities, and improving the natural environment,
    are a few. Transportation, especially transit, is multimodal
    and yet we authorize, regulate, and administer modes
    separately. How can we ensure that transit services and
    facilities provide for a variety of travel options for a
    variety of users? Is there a Federal role for highlighting best
    practices in planning, project programming, and system design?

    A.3. In APTA's authorization recommendations, coordination and
    intermodalism is specifically discussed as a key priority. The
    new authorization should encourage regional transportation
    investment choices to be multimodal in nature, including:

        The new authorization should include language
            stipulating that the FTA/FHWA regulations on Statewide
            and Metropolitan Transportation Planning require fair
            and equitable voting representation of the region's
            public transportation operating agency or agencies on
            the policy board and technical committees of the
            Metropolitan Planning Organizations (or other regional
            transportation planning bodies), regardless of whether
            the body is newly formed or existing, no matter the
            size of the urban region.

        Provision for multimodal corridor planning that
            looks at public transportation, highway and combination
            options, and avoids competing facilities occurring
            simply because they draw upon different funding
            programs or resources, which are governed by different
            regulations.

        Public transportation megaprojects should be
            eligible under the FHWA High Priority Projects program
            in order for it to be administered and operated as a
            fully functioning, multimodal program.

        Expands the use of flexible funding in making
            regional transportation choices for all modes.

        APTA has also consistently applauded the multimodal
    approach taken through the American Recovery and Reinvestment
    Act (ARRA), in its Transportation Investments Generating
    Economic Recovery (TIGER) program and its successor programs
    and encourages this approach in a new authorization. APTA is
    also supportive of Complete Streets policies that ensure that
    streets are designed with all users in mind. APTA also
    recommends the following policies:

        Extend coordination requirements for federally
            funded agency transportation programs to require the
            development of consistent administrative policies and
            procedures for highway and public transportation
            projects.

        Increase investment in research and development
            programs that will enhance service delivery, promote
            ``best practices'' through technical standards, and
            increase the operational efficiency of transportation
            systems.

        Increase investment in research and development for
            new technologies such as clean fuels, ITS enhancements,
            and interoperable wireless communication.

        Continue to support University Transit Centers,
            Project Action, the National Transit Institute, the
            Transit Cooperative Research Program and the FTA's
            national research program.
                                    ------

           RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR MENENDEZ
                          FROM DALE J. MARISCO

    Q.1. While consolidation can increase the efficiency of program
    administration, important details could be overshadowed by
    bigger goals. As we consider proposals to consolidate programs
    for elderly, disabled, and low income communities, what must we
    be mindful of, so that reauthorization does not compromise our
    ability to continue to provide these populations with high
    quality service?

    A.1. Response not provided.
                                    ------

           RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR MENENDEZ
                           FROM LARRY HANLEY

    Q.1. Workforce development and succession planning are major
    challenges for an aging transit workforce. Do you think transit
    agencies are doing enough to address these issues? If not, what
    can we do in a fiscally constrained bill to address these
    issues?

    A.1. No, we do not believe that nearly enough is being done in
    this area. The public transportation industry, like many
    service-based sectors in the United States, will be faced with
    major challenges in the near future. A large percentage of the
    transit workforce--both blue and white collar--will be retiring
    within the next few years. There is no pipeline of replacements
    on the horizon because the industry has a negative public image
    that hampers its ability to attract, recruit, and retain
    quality employees. And, for the existing workforce, new
    technology is rapidly changing the way transit agencies
    function, affecting every executive director, mid-level
    manager, bus driver and mechanic alike. Yet, relatively few
    programs exist to provide training to workers so that they can
    perform their jobs adequately, move up the career ladder, and
    help the Nation's transit agencies operate at maximum
    efficiency.
        According to an industry survey, driver recruitment and
    retention continues to be the greatest challenge for 63 percent
    of transit systems. Finding experienced labor trails only
    funding costs and concerns as transit agencies' top concern.
        Yet, funding for training and career ladder programs within
    the transit industry is virtually nonexistent. By way of
    comparison, the Paris, France, Metro system spends
    approximately 8 percent of its funding on training. For U.S.
    transit systems, the average system uses less than 1 percent.
        The ATU and APTA support the Transportation Job Corps Act
    of 2011 (H.R. 929, Nadler) groundbreaking legislation that
    would finally address the training needs of the public
    transportation industry and serve to provide disconnected youth
    outside the industry with an incentive to pursue careers in
    transit.
        We understand the constrained fiscal environment in which
    the reauthorization bill is being written. However, the Job
    Corps Act will not break the FTA's budget.
        The bill would simply authorize the creation of 10 new
    regional Joint Workforce Development Councils--one for each FTA
    region. The councils, made up of equal numbers of labor and
    management representatives, would be responsible for setting up
    a process to offer workforce development programs to transit
    agencies in each of the FTA zones.
        The primary purpose of this program would be to identify
    skills gaps in transit agency maintenance departments and to
    develop programs to train maintenance employees on a regional
    basis, rather than one agency at a time. The councils would
    also develop programs--outside of the traditional collective
    bargaining environment--to address the recruitment and
    retention of white and blue collar workers as well as programs
    to deal with Family Medical Leave Act issues, including
    absenteeism, ergonomics, ``well care'' programs, child care and
    other employment-linked services, and other matters.

    Q.2. Whether you are in South Dakota, Alabama, or New Jersey, a
    bus is a bus is a bus. At the same time, transit environments--
    geography, technology, community types, etc., differ from one
    another. Is it possible to take a standardized approach to
    workforce development that responds to national needs and is
    also flexible enough to be useful across a spectrum of public
    transportation agencies?

    A.2. Yes, and we believe the Job Corps Act does exactly that.
        The bill directs the Secretary of Transportation, acting
    through the Administrator, to establish programs for the award
    of grants to: (1) nonprofit organizations and educational
    institutions to introduce disconnected youth (ages 16 through
    24 who are out of school and unemployed) to careers in the
    transit industry by providing them with basic skills education
    and preapprenticeship skills; (2) partnerships of transit
    agencies and unions representing nonmanagerial employees, as
    well as providers of management and technical programs for
    managerial employees, to develop education programs to improve
    job skills of transit employees and to provide education and
    training to assist individuals to enter the transit profession;
    and (3) the same or similar partnerships to develop special
    projects to increase education opportunities for disadvantaged
    transit industry individuals, including racial and ethnic
    minorities underrepresented in transit management, by providing
    student scholarships, preentry preparation, and retention
    activities.
        These modest programs, in combination with the structure
    provided through the councils, would address workforce issues
    that are common throughout U.S. transit agencies in a manner
    that is consistent with local needs.
        In addition, through a new National Joint Workforce
    Development Council, the bill would allow for the sharing of
    innovative workforce development solutions between regions. We
    believe this bill can be a model for labor-management
    partnerships, not only in the transportation arena, but in
    other sectors as well.
                                    ------

            RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR SHELBY
                         FROM JAYETTA Z. HECKER

    Q.1. Ms. Hecker, we heard from Administrator Rogoff regarding
    the Administration's proposal to increase public transportation
    funding. What we did not hear however, was how the
    Administration plans to pay for their proposal or whether such
    a significant increase in funding will supplant State and local
    funding.
        Could you address the proposed increase and how that may
    ultimately impact the funding provided by State and local
    governments?
        What will be the impact on the Trust Fund if we bring all
    public transportation spending under the Trust Fund?

    A.1. Response not provided.

    Q.2. Ms. Hecker, do you believe that we should encourage the
    use of innovative financing methods to advance public
    transportation capital projects given the Federal financing
    limitations we are facing?

    A.2. Response not provided.

    Q.3. Performance based measures seem to be the catch phrase of
    this reauthorization. Yet, the proposals I have seen thus far
    seek to collect a significant amount of data to allow
    bureaucrats in Washington to make infrastructure decisions for
    localities.
        Ms. Hecker, what is your view about the best way to
    implement performance-based measures without it becoming a
    means for central planning by bureaucrats?

    A.3. Response not provided.

    Q.4. Would each of you also comment on how performance-based
    measures should be used?

    A.4. Response not provided.

    Q.5. Each of you has addressed the need for more robust
    planning tools. However, there is a delicate balance between
    encouraging better planning that takes into account the diverse
    needs of a community, and planning that presupposes an outcome
    and drives all decision making toward that end.
        How do we ensure that any changes made to the planning
    process enhance the ability of States and localities to plan
    while still allowing them to make the decisions that work for
    their communities?

    A.5. Response not provided.
                                    ------

           RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR MENENDEZ
                         FROM JAYETTA Z. HECKER

    Q.1. Communities are often not empowered to develop the
    projects they want. Instead they often build the ``business as
    usual'' project which is almost invariably a highway project.
    Highways are appropriate in certain circumstances, but as high-
    speed throughways they do not always address the needs of local
    communities as well as transit projects can. In this bill, what
    barriers can we clear or what resources can we provide to truly
    empower local communities to develop the projects that best fit
    them? What examples from around the country or abroad
    illustrate truly multimodal transportation planning at its
    best? What lessons can we apply to reauthorization?

    A.1. Response not provided.

                  Additional Material Supplied for the Record

        STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY TRANSIT RIDERS FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
    Members: Advocates for Environmental Human Rights (New Orleans, LA),
    Atlanta Transit Riders Union (Atlanta, GA), Alternatives for Community
    & Environment/T Riders Union (Boston, MA), Bus Riders Union/Labor
    Community Strategy Center (Los Angeles, CA), Center for Race, Poverty
    and the Environment (CA), Communities United for Transportation Equity
    (New York, NY), Environmental Justice Resource Center, Clark Atlanta
    University (Atlanta, GA), Just Transition Alliance (national), Little
    Village Environmental Justice Organization (Chicago, IL), New York City
    Environmental Justice Alliance (New York, NY), OPAL Environmental
    Justice Oregon (Portland, OR), Oregon Action (Portland, OR), People
    Organized in Defense of the Earth and Her Resources (Austin, TX),
    Portland Transit Riders Union (Portland, OR), Pratt Center for
    Community Development (New York, NY), Public Advocates Inc. (CA),
    UPROSE (Brooklyn, NY), Urban Habitat (Oakland, CA), and WE-ACT for
    Environmental Justice (New York, NY).

        Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Shelby, and Members of the
    Committee, thank you for the opportunity to present the following
    testimony on behalf of Transit Riders for Public Transportation (TRPT).
    TRPT is a national campaign of civil rights and environmental justice
    organizations dedicated to strengthening civil rights protections in
    the next surface transportation reauthorization so that all Americans,
    no matter their backgrounds or the neighborhoods they live in, benefit
    fairly from Federal transportation investments.
        Transportation is a fundamental lifeline to opportunity. When
    individuals and communities receive a fair share of transportation
    investments and services, their increased mobility opens up greater
    access to jobs, education, health services, and other necessities. In
    contrast, discriminatory transportation outcomes can lead to increased
    housing segregation, isolation, displacement, air pollution, traffic
    and pedestrian fatalities, decreased job access, and other disparities
    along racial lines. Ensuring nondiscrimination in the use of taxpayer
    dollars for transportation is as important today as when our Nation's
    first civil rights laws were enacted.
        A critical safeguard for ensuring fairness in Federal spending is
    Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits recipients of
    Federal dollars from discriminating on the basis of race, color, or
    national origin. Implementing regulations issued by the U.S. Department
    of Transportation (USDOT) include robust protections against federally
    funded activities that have the purpose or effect of discriminating on
    the basis of race, color, or national origin.
        The effectiveness of these safeguards, however, has been
    significantly hampered by a series of judicial decisions, inadequate
    agency enforcement, and a lack of research on racial disparities in
    transportation.
        As a result of the Supreme Court's decision in Alexander v.
    Sandoval in 2001, individuals cannot enforce in court the disparate
    impact regulations issued by Federal agencies to effectuate Title VI.
    As such, Americans who are harmed by federally funded activities that
    cause unjustified racial disparities must rely solely on agency
    enforcement to obtain relief. Such relief, however, has been largely
    frustrated by woefully inadequate enforcement and a growing backlog of
    unresolved administrative complaints.
        A 2010 investigation by the USDOT Office of the Inspector General
    (OIG) has revealed widespread failures by many State highway agencies
    to ensure basic civil rights compliance, across multiple statutes,
    including Title VI, American with Disabilities Act, Equal Employment
    Opportunity, and Contractor Compliance. Nineteen State highway agencies
    were found to lack administrative systems to enforce Title VI, such as
    having adequate civil rights staff or giving staff sufficient decision-
    making authority. Many States did not conduct compliance reviews of
    their subrecipients or investigate Title VI complaints filed by members
    of the public. Four States had not even signed Title VI assurance
    statements--the most basic of Federal compliance obligations. \1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         \1\ See, April 22, 2010, letter from Secretary Ray LaHood to
    Assistant Special Counsel William Reukauf, available at http://bit.ly/
    l4ZdGi.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        According to the 2009 National Civil Rights Program Baseline
    Assessment Final Report by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA):
    \2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         \2\ Available at http://bit.ly/mqEc9E.

        There is an organizationally fragmented approach to civil
            rights program compliance, enforcement, and monitoring
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            throughout the Nation.

        There is a deficiency of civil rights program knowledge in
            the field. In some cases, this includes the expertise level of
            FHWA Division Office staff.

        There is weak data collection and an absence of analysis
            and monitoring systems.

        Forty-seven percent of State highway agencies were rated at
            ``high risk'' in terms of Title VI implementation, 15 percent
            at ``moderate risk,'' and 37 percent at ``low risk.''

        The USDOT Inspector General also found that ten FHWA Division
    Offices violated USDOT's Title VI regulations by failing to launch
    investigations into noncompliance by State highway agencies. Together,
    these findings are particularly alarming since nearly 80 percent of all
    funds in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation
    Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) is channeled through FHWA
    and State highway agencies.
        In addition, a growing backlog of civil rights complaints,
    including Title VI complaints, at USDOT is denying the ability of
    members of the public to utilize the administrative process to have
    discrimination grievances promptly investigated and resolved. As Table
    A below shows, the number of unresolved complaints at USDOT has more
    than doubled between FY2007 and FY2009.

        Congress must take prompt action to restore comprehensive Title VI
    enforcement so that Federal agencies and local communities can ensure
    fairness in transportation investments. Continued research and data
    collection are also needed to identify and remove barriers to
    transportation equity.
        TRPT recommends that the surface transportation reauthorization:

        Provide additional funding to enhance Title VI monitoring,
            enforcement, and technical assistance activities by USDOT.

        Restore the right of victims of discrimination to bring
            suits in court to enforce USDOT's Title VI disparate impact
            regulations.

        Continue funding for the Transportation Equity Research
            Program, which supports rigorous research on the impact of
            transportation planning and investments on low-income and
            minority communities.

        Require a quadrennial assessment by the Secretary of
            Transportation to help identify and remove impediments to equal
            opportunity and nondiscrimination in transportation projects,
            programs, and activities.

        Again, we thank you for the opportunity to submit our testimony for
    the record.
                                     ______

        STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS

        On behalf of the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI),
    thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on public
    transportation in Indian Country. NCAI is the oldest and largest
    national Indian organization in the United States and is dedicated to
    protecting the rights of tribal governments to achieve self-
    determination and self-sufficiency. NCAI looks forward to working with
    Members of this Committee to enhance public transportation
    infrastructure for Indian Country.
        All transportation infrastructure including transit is important to
    economic growth in Indian Country. Tribal transit is a necessary
    element to transportation infrastructure because it offers access to
    employment, health, education, and commerce for tribes. Lack of
    employment has continuously been a difficult issue for tribes.
    Currently, the unemployment rate for on-reservation Indians is 18.6
    percent, while for Alaska Native villages it is 25.1 percent. \1\ In
    addition, 15 percent of tribal members have to travel over 100 miles to
    access basic services such as a bank or ATM. \2\ The combination of
    high unemployment and the far distance to travel to access basic
    services result in a great need for public transportation in Indian
    Country and surrounding non-Indian rural communities.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         \1\ U.S. Census, 2005-2009 American Community Survey 5-Year
    Estimates.
         \2\ U.S. Department of Treasury Community Development Financial
    Institutions Fund, Native American Lending Study, p. 22, (2001) http://
    www.cdfifund.gov/what_we_do/nacd/lending_study.asp.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In 2005, the enactment of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
    Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU),
    Public Law 109-59, authorized the U.S. Department of Transportation
    Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to administer Section 5311(c), the
    ``Public Transportation on Indian Reservations Program'' or as it is
    referred to as, Tribal Transit Program. The purpose of the Tribal
    Transit Program is to fund capital, operating, planning, and
    administrative expenses for public transit projects in rural tribal
    communities.
        The Tribal Transit Program provides grant transit funding through a
    national competitive process to federally recognized tribes. The Tribal
    Transit Program funding level began at $8 million for FY2006 and
    increased to $15 million for FY2010. Since the initiation of the Tribal
    Transit Program, FTA has awarded approximately 236 grants to tribes
    totaling $60 million. However, the total amount requested by tribes who
    have applied for the Tribal Transit program is approximately $189
    million. So, even though the amounts that have been awarded thus far
    are a good start on addressing the immense need for public
    transportation in Indian Country, the overall need is much greater.
        Many tribes utilize the Tribal Transit Program to begin or maintain
    their transit services on tribal lands. NCAI is conscious of the
    significant role that public transportation plays in Indian Country,
    and how much tribes rely on this transit funding to further their
    transportation infrastructure. It is important Congress continues to
    sustain the Tribal Transit Program.
        NCAI recommends the following:

        Funding: Increase funding for Tribal Transit Program to $35
            million for FY2012 with stepped increases of $10 million for
            every year thereafter to $85 million.

        Transit Planning: Raise the current cap for Transit
            Planning Grants to $50,000. Currently, tribes are capped at
            $25,000 to use for planning and design. This cap is a hindrance
            for tribes who do not possess the financial resources to
            initially establish a reliable transit system on their tribal
            land.

        Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act
            (ISDEAA): Extend the Indian Self-Determination and Education
            Assistance Act (ISDEAA) within FTA to allow tribes to contract
            with FTA for the Tribal Transit Program and other transit
            funding. Using ISDEAA agreements within FTA would ensure more
            FTA funds are used to provide actual transit services and less
            money is used in unproductive grants management administration.
            Current grant conditions within FTA are often inconsistent with
            tribal government program administration. By extending the
            ISDEAA to FTA, it would enable tribes to gain greater
            flexibility and sustainability in tribal transit programs.

        Technical Assistance: As tribal transit systems continue to
            grow, tribal governments and Tribal Technical Assistance
            Programs (TTAP) need additional funding to provide training and
            technical assistance to tribal leaders and tribal transit
            officials. Under SAFETEA-LU, Congress now provides roughly $9
            million annually to State governments to provide research,
            training, and technical assistance services to rural transit
            programs, but almost none of these training resources find
            their way to Indian country. As has been proven by the early
            success of the Tribal Transit Program, the best way to ensure
            that tribal governments receive a fair share of these Federal
            resources is to make tribal governments eligible as direct
            recipients of these funds. Given their close working
            relationship with tribes and their proven training expertise in
            tribal transportation matter, it is also sensible to route some
            of these Rural Transit Assistance Program funds to the existing
            TTAP centers to provide rural transit training and technical
            assistance to tribal transit officials.

    Conclusion
        The enactment of SAFETEA-LU allowed Indian tribes to pursue
    improved public transportation for their tribal communities; however,
    there continues to be significant need in Indian Country. NCAI is
    committed to working with this Committee and tribal governments to
    improve and build upon the successes from the last transportation
    authorization. Indian tribes recognize that transportation
    infrastructure is vital to the enhancement of Indian tribal economic
    development and to provide safe and reliable public transportation
    infrastructure to tribal communities and surrounding nontribal areas.
                                     ______

         STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY WADE HENDERSON, PRESIDENT AND CEO, THE
                LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE ON CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS

        Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Shelby, and Members of the
    Committee: I am Wade Henderson, President and CEO of The Leadership
    Conference on Civil and Human Rights. Thank you for the opportunity to
    submit testimony for the record on the reauthorization of our Nation's
    Federal surface transportation programs.
        The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights is a coalition
    charged by its diverse membership of more than 200 national
    organizations to promote and protect the civil and human rights of all
    persons in the United States. Founded in 1950 by A. Philip Randolph,
    Arnold Aronson, and Roy Wilkins, The Leadership Conference works in
    support of policies that further the goal of equality under law through
    legislative advocacy and public education.
        I applaud the Committee for holding this hearing on a matter of
    great significance to the civil and human rights community. Smart and
    equitable transportation systems connect us to jobs, schools, housing,
    health care services--and even to grocery stores and nutritious food.
    But millions of low-income and working-class people, people of color,
    and people with disabilities live in communities where quality
    transportation options are unaffordable, unreliable, or nonexistent.
    For The Leadership Conference, transportation policy is a key civil
    rights issue and one that is critical to ensuring opportunity for all.
    The choices we make with respect to Federal transportation policy--what
    we build, where we build, who builds it, what energy powers it--have an
    enormous impact on our economy, our climate, our health, and on our
    ability as a society to achieve the American Dream.
        Critical decisions about transportation policy are often made
    without the input of members of underserved communities who most rely
    on public transportation. It's not surprising, then, that
    transportation decisions and spending do not benefit all populations
    equally. As a result, the negative effects of some transportation
    decisions--dissecting neighborhoods of low-income families and people
    of color, physically isolating them from needed services and
    businesses, and disrupting once-stable communities--are broadly felt
    and have lasting effects. The report of our sister organization, The
    Leadership Conference Education Fund, ``Where We Need to Go: A Civil
    Rights Roadmap for Transportation Equity'', discusses some of these
    effects and is the first in a series of reports examining the key roles
    transportation and mobility play in the struggle for civil rights and
    equal opportunity.
        As this Committee develops the transit title of the next surface
    transportation authorization bill, there is a significant opportunity
    to lay a foundation for more equitable transportation options that will
    serve us well into the future. We urge Congress to invest in
    transportation infrastructure in a responsible manner to build a Nation
    where every person, whether in an urban area or rural hamlet, can
    participate and prosper.

    Transportation Policies and Job Access
        Our transportation policy has the potential to expand economic
    opportunity for low-income and underrepresented workers by connecting
    them to highway, transit, and rail construction jobs. Transportation
    spending generates jobs for workers in the construction industry and
    also has indirect effects on job creation by increasing the efficiency
    of the transportation system and improving business productivity. At a
    time of high unemployment and unprecedented income inequality, equity
    in transportation policy is one of the most pressing civil and human
    rights issues our Nation faces.
        The pending reauthorization of our Federal surface transportation
    law is an opportunity to unleash the major job-creation potential of
    transportation-related projects. The next reauthorization should
    dedicate transportation funds to the recruitment, training, and
    retention of underrepresented workers \1\ in the transportation sector.
    Incorporating a construction careers program into the surface
    transportation authorization will create substantial opportunities for
    low-income workers to move into the middle class. The next
    reauthorization should also strengthen and enforce contracting goals
    for disadvantaged business enterprises. The construction industry was
    hit by the recession worse than any other industry. \2\ But spending
    money just to repair infrastructure or create new infrastructure is not
    enough.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         \1\ Of the roughly 8 million people employed in the transportation
    construction industry in 2008, African Americans comprised only 6
    percent and women comprised less than 3 percent. U.S. Bureau of Labor
    Statistics, ``Household Data Annual Averages, Table 11: Employed
    Persons by Detailed Occupation, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin'', 2008.
         \2\ ``Construction Employment Rises in 20 States Between October
    and November'', Associated General Contractors of America Dec. 17,
    2010; Daniel Massey, Hard Hats Among the Hardest Hit, Crain's New York,
    Feb. 28, 2011.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Investing in public transportation is also an essential ingredient
    for continued economic growth. The American Public Transportation
    Association estimates that 36,000 jobs are created or supported for
    every $1 billion invested in public transportation; and every $1
    invested in public transportation generates almost $4 in economic
    benefits. \3\ Public transportation services across the country are
    being drastically cut and fares continue to rise at a time when working
    families and low-income people most need quality, affordable
    transportation options to find and retain work opportunities. More than
    80 percent of the Nation's transit systems are considering or have
    recently enacted fare increases or service cuts, including reductions
    in rush-hour service, off-peak service and geographic coverage. \4\ A
    large number of unemployed workers are transit-dependent individuals
    who can no longer get to work because of these reductions and cuts.
    Nearly 20 percent of African American households, 14 percent of Latino
    households, and 13 percent of Asian households live without a car,
    compared with only 4.6 percent of White households. \5\ The severe
    transit cuts are causing a mobility crisis, preventing transit-
    dependent individuals from getting to work because their rides are
    gone. Our transportation policy could stimulate growth and opportunity
    for low-income individuals by connecting them to jobs and economic
    opportunity.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         \3\ ``Job Impacts of Spending on Public Transportation: An
    Update'', American Public Transportation Association, April 29, 2009,
    at http://www.apta.com/gap/policyresearch/Documents/jobs_impact.pdf.
         \4\ ``Impact of the Recession on Public Transportation Agencies'',
    The American Public Transportation Association, Survey Results March
    2010 at http://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/
    Impacts_of_Recession_March_2010.pdf.
         \5\ Brookings Institution and UC-Berkeley, ``Socioeconomic
    Differences in Household Automobile Ownership Rates'' at http://
    gsppi.berkeley.edu/faculty/sraphael/berubedeakenraphael.pdf. Thirty-
    three percent of poor African Americans and 25 percent of poor Latinos
    lack automobile access, compared to 12.1 percent of poor whites.
    PolicyLink, ``The Transportation Prescription: Bold New Ideas for
    Healthy, Equitable Transportation Reform in America''.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        But we cannot get our economy back on track if millions of
    individuals are unable to travel to work. Congress should maintain
    funding for development and construction of new public transit lines,
    which provide job opportunity and low-cost transportation choices.
    Also, transit systems should be provided with flexibility to use
    Federal funds for operating costs to maintain critical services that
    keep people connected to communities.
        To help provide critically needed jobs and job access, we support:

        Establishing a construction careers program that would
            target jobs to low-income workers, ensure quality job training,
            support quality preapprenticeship training programs, and use
            community workforce agreements.

        Promoting workforce development, such as the Transportation
            Job Corps, which would create a career-ladder grant program
            within the Federal Transportation Administration at the U.S.
            Department of Transportation (DOT) to help existing workers
            retain jobs in the public transportation industry, while also
            recruiting and preparing young adults from low-income
            communities and communities of color, who are underrepresented
            in transit sector jobs. \6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         \6\ Rep. Nadler's H.R. 929, The Transportation Job Corps Act of
    2011 would create a career ladder grant program within the U.S.
    Department of Transportation's Federal Transit Administration. The Act
    would also require FTA to establish national and regional councils to
    identify skill gaps and create programs to train an array of employees,
    including mechanics, managers, and paratransit providers.

        Enhancing DOT's On-The-Job Training Program to apply to
            transit, railways, and all other surface transportation
            projects in order to increase the workforce available to
            complete these projects and increase the participation of
            women, minorities, and disadvantaged individuals. \7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         \7\ Currently, the program only applies to Federal Highway
    Administration-funded projects. (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ojtss.htm)
    States can use On-The-Job funds to provide services such as:
    preemployment counseling; orientation to the expectations and
    requirements of the highway construction industry; basic skills
    improvement; support for contractor recruiting, counseling, or remedial
    training. Funds can also be used for job site mentoring and
    postgraduate monitoring.

        Preserving and expanding Section 5310, which provides
            needed transportation services for seniors and persons with
            disabilities who cannot be reasonably accommodated by existing
            transportation providers. We also support the Job Access and
            Reverse Commute (JARC) program, which makes funds available to
            provide new and expanded transportation services to enable low-
            income individuals to access job training and work. The JARC
            program helps address the barrier of the cost of car ownership
            by providing funds to support the development of new
            transportation services that fill gaps in existing services. In
            addition, we support the New Freedom program, which serves a
            critical transportation need in the disability community. These
            programs should be strengthened by improved oversight and
            transparency to help nonprofit partners provide much needed
            assistance to these communities.

    Transportation Policies and Affordable Housing
        Transportation decisions have contributed to economic and racial
    segregation in our metropolitan areas. Due to the lack of affordable
    and accessible transportation services, aging Americans, including
    persons with disabilities, often remain isolated and segregated in
    their homes with few options to become integrated members of their
    communities.
        Neighborhoods that are accessible only by car are off limits to
    those who can't afford automobiles or lack the ability to drive, even
    if housing costs are within their means. The transportation
    reauthorization bill should create resources to help communities
    undertake transit-oriented development that encourages the creation of
    affordable housing and supports critical community services.
        Effective coordination of transportation and housing policy is
    essential for achieving transportation equity. Our transportation
    policies should:

        Reward and promote affordable housing near public
            transportation by reforming funding programs and providing
            station area planning grants to local communities; and

        Reduce transportation costs in places where housing costs
            are low by strengthening reverse-commute systems or expanding
            public transit service to low-income neighborhoods or
            communities, people with disabilities, and seniors.

    Transportation and Access to Affordable Health
        Inadequate access to transportation has also exacerbated health
    disparities. Isolation from health care providers has serious
    consequences for many disadvantaged communities. Low-income patients
    miss appointments--often worsening their medical problems. And low-
    income people and people of color disproportionately lose out on
    educational and work opportunities due to health problems.
        The high cost of transportation forces low-income families to limit
    spending for other basic needs, including out-of-pocket health care
    expenses and nutritious food. \8\ On the other hand, accessible and
    affordable transportation options can mean the difference between
    isolation and access to quality health care.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         \8\ Low- and moderate-income households spend 42 percent of their
    total annual income that on transportation, including those who live in
    rural areas, as compared to middle-income households, who spend less
    than 22 percent of their annual income on transportation. Bureau of
    Transportation Statistics, Consumer expenditure Survey, 2000.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Because a very small percentage of Federal funds has been used for
    affordable public transportation and for active transportation (i.e.,
    walking, biking) opportunities, people without access to cars have been
    isolated from opportunities and services--including access to health
    care providers. By under-investing in walkable communities, rapid bus
    transit, rail, and bicycle-friendly roads, our policies contribute to
    high concentrations of poor air quality, asthma, \9\ pedestrian
    fatalities, and obesity in urban areas. All of these public health
    risks have disproportionately affected low-income people and people of
    color. The report of The Leadership Conference Education Fund, ``The
    Road to Health Care Parity: Transportation and Access to Health Care'',
    examines the key roles transportation and mobility play in access to
    affordable, quality health care and the health disparities created by
    inadequate access to transportation.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         \9\ Higher percentages of African Americans and Latinos compared
    with Whites live in areas with substandard air quality. Minority
    children disproportionately suffer from asthma; among Puerto Rican
    children, the rate is 20 percent and among African American youngsters,
    the rate is 13 percent, compared with the national childhood average of
    8 percent. The New York Times, ``For Minority Kids, No Room to
    Breathe'', Aug. 29, 2007, http://www.nytimes.com/ref/health/
    healthguide/esn-asthmachildren-ess.html. People living within 300
    meters of major highways are more likely to have leukemia and
    cardiovascular disease. Bullard, R.D. Environmental Justice in the
    Twenty-first Century. The Quest for Environmental Justice. Sierra Club
    Books. San Francisco, CA (2005).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Civil Rights Compliance and Enforcement
        Effective and equitable transportation projects are essential to
    the well-being of transit-dependent communities by providing access to
    employment, affordable housing, education, and health care. Our next
    transportation bill should ensure vigorous enforcement of existing
    civil rights legislation and pursue improved civil rights protections
    in Federal statutes covering recipients of public funds. The bill
    should strengthen administrative enforcement of Title VI of the Civil
    Rights Act of 1964 by providing additional funding for enhanced
    monitoring, technical assistance, and enforcement activities. The need
    for enforcement is acutely felt in public transportation, where
    billions of dollars in investments are at stake, and the most
    disadvantaged communities sustain a disproportionate share of
    transportation-related burdens inhibiting their access to affordable,
    accessible, and reliable transit.
        The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights recommends that
    the surface transportation reauthorization:

        Expand resources to strengthen enforcement of civil rights
            provisions to ensure that recipients of Federal funds meet
            nondiscrimination requirements. One cause of the current
            accountability gap is a shortage of Federal workers to
            administer existing civil rights provisions. The bill should
            direct more resources toward compliance reviews, technical
            assistance, and investigation of Title VI complaints, including
            complaints related to discriminatory language barriers in
            transportation services. \10\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         \10\ Pursuant to Executive Order 13166 requires each Federal
    agency must examine the services it provides and develop and implement
    a system by which Limited English Proficiency persons can meaningfully
    access those services.

        Maintain the Transportation Equity Research Program, which
            funds research projects to understand the impact of
            transportation planning, investment, and operations on low-
            income, minority, and transit-dependent populations. \11\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         \11\ The Transportation Equity Research Program has funded at
    least six projects addressing research needs in a range of communities,
    e.g., research on the impact of transportation investments and land-use
    policies on the ability of innercity Detroit residents to access jobs
    and essential nonwork activities.

        Conduct an equal opportunity assessment to collect and
            evaluate existing demographic data reported by DOT fund
            recipients that would help Federal, local, and State
            transportation officials to avoid the lapses in civil rights
            safeguards in the construction and operation of federally
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            funded transportation projects.

        Restore the right of private individuals and entities to
            pursue legal enforcement of DOT's Title VI antidiscrimination
            regulations as a means of ensuring nondiscrimination in
            transportation when Federal enforcement fails. This will give
            local communities a tool to redress existing transportation
            disparities while ensuring inclusive treatment and equitable
            outcomes in future investments.

        There is much at stake for the civil and human rights community in
    the next Federal transportation bill. As Congress considers how best to
    rebuild and repair our Nation's roads, bridges, railways, and ports,
    and where and how to prioritize investments in public transportation
    and pedestrian and bicycle access, it's vital that the needs of
    communities of color, low-income people, people with disabilities,
    seniors, and the rural poor are considered.
        Thank you for your leadership on this important issue.

                     STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MULTIPLE GROUPS

    Submitted by: Alliance for Biking and Walking, Alternatives for
    Community & Environment, Amalgamated Transit Union, America Bikes,
    America Walks, Apollo Alliance, Association of Programs for Rural
    Independent Living, Campaign for Community Change, Center for Rural
    Strategies, Change to Win, CLASP, Kirwan Institute for the Study of
    Race and Ethnicity, Local Initiatives Support Corporation, NAACP, NAACP
    Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., National Association of
    County and City Health Officials, National Coalition for Asian Pacific
    American Community Development, National Complete Streets Coalition,
    National Council of La Raza, National Housing Conference, National
    Housing Trust, National Low Income Housing Coalition, Partnership for
    Working Families, PolicyLink, Poverty & Race Research Action Council,
    Public Advocates, Reconnecting America, Safe Routes to School National
    Partnership, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, The
    National Alliance of Community Economic Development Associations,
    Transit Riders for Public Transportation, Transport Workers Union of
    America, AFL-CIO, Trust for America's Health, Wider Opportunities for
    Women, and the William C. Velasquez Institute.

        We appreciate the opportunity to submit this statement for the
    record to express our priorities for the surface transportation
    reauthorization.
        Transportation is a critical link to opportunity--connecting us to
    jobs, schools, housing, health care, and grocery stores. However, our
    inadequate, outdated, and underfunded transportation systems are
    keeping too many Americans from fully connecting and contributing to
    the national economy.

    Transportation Inequity in America
        1. In America, millions of Americans live in communities where
    quality transportation options are unreliable or nonexistent.

        Nearly two-thirds of all residents in small towns and rural
            communities have few if any transportation options: 41 percent
            have no access to transit; and another 25 percent live in areas
            with below-average transit services. \1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         \1\ American Public Transportation Association.

        Fifty percent of older people who do not drive in the
            United States stay home on a given day because they lack
            transportation options. \2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         \2\ Surface Transportation Policy Project.

        Nearly one in five Americans faces a physical challenge
            that impacts their ability to travel for their daily needs
            (i.e., use of wheelchair or diminished vision, hearing, or
            physical movement). \3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         \3\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2005.

        Nearly 20 percent of African American households, 14
            percent of Latino households, and 13 percent of Asian
            households live without a car. \4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         \4\ Brookings Institution and UC-Berkeley, Socioeconomic
    Differences in Household Automobile Ownership Rates.

        Nearly 19 million working age adults, 9.4 percent of those
            ages 16-64, have limited proficiency in English, which leaves
            them unable to communicate effectively with transit operators
            or read information about public transportation routes. \5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         \5\ U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, Public Use
    Microdata Sample, 3-Year Estimates 2007-2009.

        In the last year, more than 80 percent of the Nation's
            transit systems are proposing to or already have eliminated
            transit routes, cut service hours, increased fares, or a
            combination of all of these. \6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         \6\ American Public Transportation Association.

        2. In the midst of these challenging economic times, the
    transportation options for many Americans are becoming less and less
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    affordable.

        Transportation is the second largest expense, after
            housing, for households in the United States, surpassing food,
            clothing, and health care costs. \7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         \7\ National Complete Streets Coalition.

        Low- and moderate-income households spend 42 percent of
            their total annual income on transportation, including those
            who live in rural areas, as compared to middle-income
            households, who spend less than 22 percent of their annual
            income on transportation. \8\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         \8\ Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Consumer Expenditure
    Survey 2000.

        3. All Americans are not sharing the economic benefits of our
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    transportation investments.

        While transportation represents a significant sector of our
            workforce--one in 10 civilian jobs is transportation-related--
            women, communities of color, and low-income people are not
            significant beneficiaries of the jobs and contracting
            opportunities in the industry.

        Of the roughly 8 million people employed in the
            construction of roads, bridges, and transit facilities in 2008,
            only 6 percent were African American and 2.5 percent were
            women, a much smaller proportion than their representation in
            the overall economy. \9\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         \9\ Bureau of Labor Statistics 2008.

        Latinos often occupy the lowest-wage jobs in the
            transportation and construction sectors, such as laborers,
            where 43.1 percent of workers are Latino. \10\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         \10\ U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey,
    2010 Annual Averages, ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/
    aat18.txt (accessed March 30, 2011).

        4. The safety of our roads, bridges, sidewalks, and transit is a
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    significant concern.

        In many neighborhoods, disconnected roadway networks,
            poorly designed and deteriorated streets, inadequate lighting,
            limited sidewalks, and minimal traffic enforcement place
            residents at higher risk of injury. These risks are
            particularly acute for communities of color--Hispanics suffer a
            pedestrian death rate that is 62 percent higher than non-
            Hispanic whites, and African Americans suffer a pedestrian
            death rate that is almost 70 percent than non-Hispanic whites.
            \11\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         \11\ Federal Highways Administration's Pedestrian and Bicyclists
    Safety Research program, 2004.

        It does not have to be this way. The next surface transportation
    authorization is our chance to reform transportation policy to lay a
    strong foundation for future economic growth and expand opportunity for
    millions of people.

    Recommendations for the Transportation Authorization
        1. Preserve and expand existing programs that fund essential
    transportation options--bicycling, walking, and public transportation,
    and provide flexibility to use Federal funds for transit operating
    assistance. Funding for biking, walking, and public transportation
    infrastructure puts people to work; provides safe, low-cost
    transportation choices; reduces dependency on oil; and leverages
    private investment. For every $1 invested in public transportation, $4
    in economic returns is generated. \12\ Transit operating assistance,
    which will allow transit operators to maintain service in these
    fiscally tough times, is vital to ensuring that Americans can benefit
    from the mobility and choice provided by safe, accessible, affordable
    transit and also that businesses can reap the economic rewards
    associated with bicycling, walking, and transit investments. These
    investments are a lifeline for people who depend on these
    transportation options, including people with disabilities, older
    adults, people in rural areas, and low-income households.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         \12\ American Public Transportation Association.

        2. Reform the transportation planning process to be outcome-
    oriented, with equity-focused performance objectives. States and
    regions should develop strategic, performance-driven plans that expand
    opportunity and benefit economically distressed populations.
    Performance-based objectives should include: improved access to jobs
    for low-income individuals; reduced per capita transportation user
    costs for low-income individuals; and safer environments for bicycling
    and walking. Such plans, when created through a robust public
    engagement process, would foster greater accountability and
    transparency. In addition, technical assistance and demonstration
    grants, administered by the Secretary of Transportation, would help to
    build capacity for States and regions to engage in the reformed
    transportation planning process. In particular, economically distressed
    communities that typically lack the benefits of the transportation
    system could leverage these resources to plan for enhancements of the
    transportation system to ensure that projects that are critical to the
    mobility of vulnerable residents are prioritized during the
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    transportation planning process.

        3. Expand access to transportation jobs for the chronically
    unemployed, lower-income people, women, and communities of color. This
    can be accomplished through smart, strategic investments in our
    workforce. Establishing a construction careers workforce development
    program \13\ would help the chronically unemployed, low-income, and
    other disadvantaged workers have better access to construction
    employment in the transportation sector. Additionally, expanding the
    existing On the Job Training Program \14\ to transit, railways, and all
    other surface transportation modes at the United States Department of
    Transportation (USDOT) would provide resources for apprenticeship and
    training programs targeted to move women, people of color, and other
    disadvantaged individuals into transportation jobs and increase the
    workforce available to efficiently complete transportation projects.
    The next surface transportation bill should also include a
    Transportation Job Corps, which would create a career-ladder grant
    program within the Federal Transit Administration at the USDOT to help
    existing workers retain jobs in the public transportation industry,
    while also recruiting and preparing young adults from low-income
    communities and communities of color, who are underrepresented in jobs
    in the transit sector.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         \13\ A similar proposal was included in HR 2454: American Clean
    Energy and Security Act and HR 4929: Enhancing Opportunities for Main
    Street Act of 2010.
         \14\ This program currently exists at the USDOT, but it is limited
    to projects funded by Federal highway dollars.

        4. Reform transportation funding mechanisms to reward projects that
    lower the housing and transportation costs of American families.
    Encouraging development around transit stations has the potential to
    significantly reduce the out of pocket transportation expenses for
    rural, suburban, and urban households. To this end, it is necessary to:
    preserve the New Starts and Small Starts programs and enhance them to
    prioritize preservation and creation of affordable housing proximate to
    regional employment centers; provide credit assistance to communities
    to accelerate construction of locally funded transportation projects
    and local infrastructure that supports affordable housing; and offer
    Station Area Planning Grants to States, regions, and local communities
    that support community development efforts that revitalize economically
    distressed areas and expand and/or preserve affordable housing near
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    public transportation, quality schools, and job centers.

        5. Strengthen enforcement of existing civil rights provisions.
    Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits
    discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin, is an
    important tool for increasing fairness and accountability in the
    transportation system. Recipients and sub-recipients of Federal
    transportation funds must comply with Title VI. However, recent
    investigations \15\ at the USDOT have documented the broad failure of
    many State highway departments to implement basic antidiscrimination
    provisions. These findings illustrate the need for: dedicated resources
    to ensure that recipients of Federal funds meet nondiscrimination
    requirements, including addressing complaints related to discriminatory
    language barriers in transportation; \16\ maintaining the
    Transportation Equity Research Program, which provides valuable
    research for State Departments of Transportation and other
    transportation agencies for assessing the impact of their proposals on
    low-income households, communities of color, and transit-dependent
    populations; \17\ and implementation of an Equal Opportunity Assessment
    to collect and evaluate key information every 4 years, to aid USDOT,
    Federal, local, and State transportation officials in upholding civil
    rights safeguards and promoting more equitable transportation
    investment.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         \15\ Results of a 2010 Office of the Inspector General report on
    the U.S. DOT's Federal Highway Administration: OSC File #10-44-DI-09-
    0965, available at http://www.osc.gov/FYpercent202010percent20A.html.
         \16\ Executive Order 13166 requires each Federal agency to examine
    the services it provides and develop and implement a system by which
    Limited English Proficiency persons can meaningfully access those
    services.
         \17\ The Transportation Equity Research Program has funded six
    projects addressing research needs in a range of communities, e.g.,
    research on the impact of transportation investments and land-use
    policies on the ability of inner-city Detroit residents to access jobs
    and essential nonwork activities.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Americans Believe That Investment in Transportation Is a National
            Priority
        A 2011 poll \18\ commissioned by the Rockefeller Foundation
    includes several key findings that demonstrate Americans' support for
    reform of and investment in our Nation's transportation system:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         \18\ Survey Methodology: From January 29 to February 6, 2011, Hart
    Research (D) and Public Opinion Strategies (R) conducted a national
    survey of voters on behalf of the Rockefeller Foundation. The firms
    interviewed 1,001 registered voters, including 200 voters who have only
    a cell phone. The data's margin of error is +/-3.1 percentage points
    for the full sample, and higher for subgroups of the sample.

        Two out of three voters say that improving the country's
            transportation infrastructure is highly important. Nearly half
            of all voters said that roads are often or totally inadequate
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            and that only some public transportation options exist.

        Eighty percent of voters agree that Federal funding to
            improve and modernize transportation will boost local economies
            and create millions of jobs, and view it as critical to keeping
            the United States as the world's top economic superpower.

        A vast majority, 80 percent of Americans, believe the
            country would benefit from an expanded and improved public
            transportation system and 57 percent believe that ``safer
            streets for our communities and children'' should be one of the
            top two priorities, if more money is to be invested in
            infrastructure.

        Americans want changes in the way the Federal Government
            invests in infrastructure and makes policy. Ninety percent
            support more accountability and certification that projects are
            delivered on time and fit into a national plan. Ninety percent
            also support allowing local regions greater say in how
            transportation dollars are used in their area.

        71 percent of voters think leaders in Washington should
            seek common ground on legislation related to roads, bridges,
            and transit systems, including 66 percent of Tea Party
            supporters and 71 percent of Republicans. More than any other
            issue tested, American voters would like to see compromise on
            legislation related to transportation and infrastructure.

        Americans are ready to get back to work building our Nation's
    future. Americans are also ready for a reformed transportation
    investment that is accountable, just, fair, and equitable--a system
    that connects them to opportunities to participate and prosper in our
    Nation's economy.
        We urge the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
    to work with the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
    Committee to advance a robust transportation bill that helps to move us
    toward that vision, and to this end, we stand ready to work with you.