[Senate Hearing 116-427]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 116-427
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION REAUTHORIZATION: PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
STAKEHOLDERS' PERSPECTIVES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
BANKING,HOUSING,AND URBAN AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
FOCUSING ON THE REAUTHORIZATION OF THE FAST ACT, THE NATION'S CURRENT
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BILL, AND HEARING PERSPECTIVES AND PRIORITIES OF
KEY PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION STAKEHOLDERS
__________
FEBRUARY 25, 2020
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available at: https: //www.govinfo.gov /
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
44-071PDF WASHINGTON : 2022
COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS
MIKE CRAPO, Idaho, Chairman
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania JACK REED, Rhode Island
TIM SCOTT, South Carolina ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
BEN SASSE, Nebraska JON TESTER, Montana
TOM COTTON, Arkansas MARK R. WARNER, Virginia
MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts
DAVID PERDUE, Georgia BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
THOM TILLIS, North Carolina CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada
MARTHA McSALLY, Arizona DOUG JONES, Alabama
JERRY MORAN, Kansas TINA SMITH, Minnesota
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona
Gregg Richard, Staff Director
Laura Swanson, Democratic Staff Director
Jen Deci, Professional Staff Member
Homer Carlisle, Democratic Professional Staff Member
Cameron Ricker, Chief Clerk
Shelvin Simmons, IT Director
Charles J. Moffat, Hearing Clerk
Jim Crowell, Editor
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2020
Page
Opening statement of Chairman Crapo.............................. 1
Prepared statement........................................... 31
Opening statements, comments, or prepared statements of:
Senator Brown................................................ 2
Prepared statement....................................... 32
WITNESSES
Paul P. Skoutelas, President and CEO, American Public
Transportation Association..................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 34
Responses to written questions of:
Senator Brown............................................ 177
Senator Tester........................................... 178
Senator Warren........................................... 179
Senator Cortez Masto..................................... 181
Senator McSally.......................................... 183
Patrick K. McKenna, President, American Association of State
Highway Transportation Officials............................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 45
Responses to written questions of:
Senator Tester........................................... 184
Senator Cortez Masto..................................... 187
Scott Bogren, Executive Director, Community Transportation
Association of America......................................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 153
Senator Tester........................................... 188
Senator Cortez Masto..................................... 190
Senator McSally.......................................... 191
Ed Mortimer, Vice President, Transportation and Infrastructure,
United States Chamber of Commerce.............................. 10
Prepared statement........................................... 158
Senator Tester........................................... 192
Senator Warren........................................... 193
Larry I. Willis, President, Transportation Trades Department,
AFL-CIO........................................................ 11
Prepared statement........................................... 172
Senator Brown............................................ 194
Senator Tester........................................... 194
Senator Menendez......................................... 195
Senator Warren........................................... 195
Senator Cortez Masto..................................... 196
Additional Material Supplied for the Record
Statement of the Association of American Railroads, submitted by
Chairman Crapo................................................. 197
Statement of the American Society of Civil Engineers, submitted
by Chairman Crapo.............................................. 204
Statement of the Rail Security Alliance, submitted by Chairman
Crapo.......................................................... 208
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION REAUTHORIZATION: PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
STAKEHOLDERS' PERSPECTIVES
----------
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2020
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met at 10:01 a.m., in room SD-538, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Mike Crapo, Chairman of the
Committee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MIKE CRAPO
Chairman Crapo. The Committee will come to order.
Today's hearing will focus on the reauthorization of the
FAST Act, the Nation's current surface transportation bill,
which expires on September 30th.
We will hear the perspective and priorities of key public
transportation stakeholders.
A long-term reauthorization bill is critical to providing
the certainty and stability that transit agencies, cities, and
States across the country need to make responsible
transportation planning decisions.
Public transportation plays a key role in our Nation's
economy.
There are over 430,000 workers employed in public
transportation in the United States.
Transit provides approximately 33 million trips every day,
taking many Americans to and from work, school, and medical
appointments, and not just in big, urban cities, but also in
small, rural areas.
However, we find ourselves at yet another surface
transportation reauthorization where the solvency of the
Highway Trust Fund is the most significant issue that needs to
be addressed in order to advance a comprehensive, long-term
reauthorization bill.
While this Committee does not have jurisdiction over how
surface transportation bills are paid for, it is important that
revenue shortfalls are addressed in a way that meets current
transportation needs.
The Highway Trust Fund was originally intended to be funded
with Federal gas and diesel taxes.
However, since 1993, Congress has chosen to transfer
general fund money into the Highway Trust Fund to pay for
reauthorization bills.
The highway account required a $52.8 billion general fund
transfer to pay for the FAST Act and the transit portion of the
FAST Act required an $18.1 billion general fund infusion.
As Congress explores options for offsetting the cost of a
multi-year reauthorization, I would remind them that Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac guarantee fees, or ``g-fees,'' and Federal
Reserve dividends and Federal Reserve surplus funds should not
be used as a piggybank.
Public transportation is an area of our Committee which is
historically known for having overwhelming bipartisan support.
I intend to work with Senator Brown to continue the
bipartisan tradition as we seek to balance the needs of bus and
rail, urban and rural systems across the country.
There are many changes to the mobility landscape, such as
the rise of on-demand service, transitions to electric
vehicles, and deployment of autonomous technologies that should
be addressed in a comprehensive long-term bill.
Traditional fixed-route transit service is an essential
backbone for comprehensive transportation networks. However,
there have been numerous technological advances that can enable
a higher quality of service at a lower cost that agencies
should consider.
For example, transit agencies should incorporate these
technologies to complement fixed-route service outside of
service hours, to provide nonemergency medical transportation,
to bring riders to or from fixed-route service to their final
destinations, and to modernize fare payment collection, just to
name a few.
Federal policies should provide more certainty to transit
agencies by addressing statutory and regulatory burdens in
order to invite more innovation into the transit industry.
Federal policies should encourage business-like operations
of transit systems.
This includes streamlining efficiencies, assessing current
service needs, maintaining assets in a state of good repair,
leveraging resources for procurements, and seeking out
partnerships with the private sector where appropriate.
While there are many challenges ahead, it is possible for
this Committee to work together to produce a long-term,
fiscally responsible reauthorization bill that can garner the
bipartisan support both here at the Committee and on the Senate
floor.
I look forward to hearing from each of our witnesses the
priorities of their organizations, and I thank them for their
willingness to appear here today.
Senator Brown.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SHERROD BROWN
Senator Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this
hearing. I look forward to working with you to develop a
bipartisan transit title for a surface transportation bill.
Thank you to the witnesses and all you do for public
transit in this country.
Public transportation helps the people we serve reach
better jobs and spend less of their time and their hard-earned
money commuting.
Hard work should pay off. But for most people, wages are
flat, and the cost of everything is up--housing, health care,
child care, and, yes, transportation.
We know how transportation can be a huge drain on family
budgets and on their time. It can limit job choices; it makes
it harder to hold down jobs far from where people live.
The average American household spends 13 percent of its
income on transportation. Low-income workers spend between 20
and 30 percent of their wages on commuting.
We know how an unexpected car repair or a car accident can
devastate families who rely on their cars to get to work. We
know that 40 percent of Americans do not have the money to
cover a $400 expense in an emergency. We know that 25 percent
of renters in this country spend at least half their income on
rent. We know how so many people live on the edge.
So what happens? They lose their job because they cannot
get to work after they car breaks down. They go to a payday
lender; they get trapped in a cycle of debt. Either way, people
feel trapped. There is not much dignity in a job that you are
one car breakdown away from losing.
A more balanced transportation system with high-quality
transit service can give riders a quick and affordable trip to
and from work, to school, or to a doctor's appointment.
It is pretty simple. When you have better, faster transit
service, more people use it. In Columbus, the capital of my
State, the Central Ohio Transit Authority--COTA--redesigned
their bus routes and built a bus rapid transit line. What
happened? Last year COTA had its highest ridership in 31 years.
The C-MAX BRT, which I proudly supported, contributed to a 25
percent increase in ridership on the Cleveland Avenue corridor
since it opened about 2 years ago.
When we build better public transportation, everyone wins.
The Cincinnati USA Regional Chamber understands that. They are
part of a broad coalition championing a ballot issue in March
to fund high-frequency bus service and road improvements
throughout Hamilton County.
In addition to connecting more workers to jobs, transit
reduces highway congestion. Again, it is pretty simple: When
there are fewer people on the roads, those that do have to
drive can get to work faster.
And public transit reduces greenhouse gas emissions from
the transportation sector, the fastest-growing source of carbon
pollution. We hear all the time about the supposed tradeoffs
between creating jobs and fighting climate change, but public
transit we know does both. It reduces emissions while creating
new jobs in manufacturing and in operating buses and subways.
The FAST Act in 2015 provided record level of Federal
investment in public transportation, but it expires at the end
of September, and the amount of backlogged repairs at the
Nation's transit systems has continued to grow, peaking at $99
billion in U.S. DOT's most recent estimate.
What do those backlogs mean? They mean delays when rail
cars and buses break down; they mean longer commutes; they mean
more crowded highways.
In Cleveland, the RTA operates a fleet of 74 rail cars; all
of them, every single one of them, are more than 34 years old
and needed to be replaced years ago. Cities like Cleveland face
sizable repairs that cannot be delayed any longer.
In addition to providing more funding for repairs, the next
transportation bill needs record investment in the Bus and Bus
Facilities Program and the Low and No Emission Vehicle Program
to help transit agencies replace aging vehicles and begin fully
converting their fleets to zero-emission technology.
We must also ensure that FTA is processing applications
under the Capital Investment Grants Program fairly and
efficiently, in accordance with the law, not adding extra
requirements or delaying projects.
Every single one of these investments should be an
investment in good-paying American jobs. We need to strengthen
Buy America requirements. It is not complicated. American tax
dollars should be spent on American products made in America.
Safety is always a priority of this Committee. Chairman
Crapo and I have already developed legislation to improve rail
inspections. We should also make sure our transit workers have
the right training, and we should ensure that they have a safe
workplace. We should not be outsourcing safety functions and
essential services.
I look forward to hearing from the representatives of our
Nation's transit providers and the U.S. Chamber, which supports
transit investment. I look forward to hearing from Mr. Willis,
who can speak to the transit workforce's needs.
To move the transportation bill forward, the Finance
Committee will need to find new funds for the Highway Trust
Fund. I will continue working to ensure that the Mass Transit
Account receives, always as tradition, 20 percent or more of
any new revenue added to the Highway Trust Fund.
Finally, while I look forward to working on the
transportation bill, housing is also critical infrastructure,
and there is much for our Committee to do. There are health
hazards in homes across the country, including lead, that we
need to combat. We need to create more safe, affordable homes,
and preserve the ones we have got. I hope the transportation
bill can support opportunities for transit-oriented residential
development and other development, but we need comprehensive
investment in this country's infrastructure. Housing needs to
be part of that investment.
Thank you.
Chairman Crapo. Thank you, Senator Brown.
Today's witnesses are Mr. Paul Skoutelas, president and
chief executive officer of the American Public Transportation
Association; Mr. Patrick McKenna, the president of the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials; Mr.
Scott Bogren, executive director of the Community
Transportation Association of America; Mr. Ed Mortimer, vice
president, Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. Chamber of
Commerce; and Mr. Larry Willis, president of the Transportation
Trades Department, AFL-CIO.
Again, welcome to all of you. Your written testimony has
been entered into the record, and I encourage each of you to
wrap up your initial comments by paying attention to the clock
and the 5 minutes. We do have a vote called that may jam us in
a little while. I do not know if that will happen or not. But
if you will stay on time, it will help us stay on time.
With that, Mr. Skoutelas, you may proceed.
STATEMENT OF PAUL P. SKOUTELAS, PRESIDENT AND CEO, AMERICAN
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION
Mr. Skoutelas. Chairman Crapo, Ranking Member Brown,
Chairman Perdue, Ranking Member Menendez, and Members of the
Committee, thank you for this opportunity to testify today on
the surface transportation reauthorization. My name is Paul
Skoutelas, and I am the president and chief executive officer
of the American Public Transportation Association, known as
APTA. The association represents over 1,500 public and private
sector organizations that touch all areas of public transit,
and we are the voice of public transit in North America.
At the outset, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and
particularly Senators Jones and McSally, for your critical
leadership in passing the Jones-McSally amendment to the 2020
transportation appropriations bill, which blocked an automatic
12 percent, $1.2 billion reduction for transit agencies across
the country. It would have affected every agency. We are deeply
grateful for your efforts.
Americans ride public transportation nearly 10 billion
times each year, with every trip meeting a need or providing an
opportunity. Transit is 10-times safer than driving an
automobile. It saves money. People can save $10,000 a year by
riding public transit instead of driving. And yet we still have
work to do to provide these benefits and opportunities to more
communities, as 45 percent of Americans still do not have
access to public transportation.
Transit is a job creator. It is a $74 billion industry that
directly employs some 435,000 employees and supports several
million private sector jobs. Importantly, 55 percent of all
transit expenditures flow to the private sector, creating or
sustaining nearly 50,000 jobs for every $1 billion that is
invested.
Transit is also important for rural access. For people who
live in rural areas, transit, especially for veterans, seniors,
and people with disabilities, is a lifeline, ensuring that
access to medical care and other essential appointments can be
taken.
We have three top priorities as part of the reauthorization
that I want to share with you. Those priorities are the
following:
Number one, providing $145 billion over 6 years for public
transit to fund critical projects that will address the entire
state of good repair backlog and fund all the capital
investment grant projects in the pipeline in the next 6 years;
number two, reestablishing the historical share of 20
percent capital funding for Bus and Bus Facilities;
And, number three, creating a new mobility innovation and
technology initiative to integrate cutting-edge technologies,
new service delivery approaches, and mobility options in the
transit marketplace.
To make these necessary investments, the pending shortfall
in the Highway Trust Fund must be addressed. We strongly
support the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's proposal to increase the
gas tax by 5 cents per year for 5 years. However, we are also
open to any other reasonable bipartisan plan to increase
revenues to the Highway Trust Fund.
As you make these difficult choices necessary to fund this
bill, we urge you to, first, fix the shortfall in the Highway
Trust Fund. Second, after you fix the trust fund shortfall, we
urge that you increase investment in public transportation and
that it receive at least 20 percent of the new revenue.
Bold investment in public transportation will address our
state of good repair needs, $99 billion is the U.S. DOT figure.
That is several years old. That number is growing and likely
will continue to grow. Today almost one in five transit buses
and vans are beyond their useful life, and the average age of a
rail vehicle is close to 20 years.
Transit is also a key link to equity and opportunity.
Public transportation provides a ladder to opportunity for
millions of Americans. One out of five transit users are from
households earning less than $15,000 a year.
Transit is also a contributor to ensuring cleaner air as
the industry is at the forefront of transitioning to cleaner
fuel technologies and fuel sources. Currently more than half of
the transit buses use alternative fuels, with more than 17
percent of those vehicles utilizing hybrid electric technology,
and there are nearly 300 electric buses full electric buses, in
service today with zero emission. These are battery-powered and
hydrogen-fueled, and many more are on order.
A major source of funding for expanding service throughout
the country is through our Capital Investment Grant Program
that is administered by FTA. Over the past decade, more than
half of all States have benefited from the CIG projects. The
economic benefits of CIG projects are wide-ranging. In addition
to the critical local economic benefits that each individual
project provides, there are vehicles, parts, and supplies that
are made in America, in States all across the Nation, that are
part of the supply chain. Currently there are 50 CIG projects
in the FTA pipeline requesting nearly $25 billion in CIG
funding.
Unfortunately, over the past two decades, both Congress and
FTA have repeatedly layered additional requirements on the CIG
Program, resulting in a bureaucratic maze. APTA strongly urges
the Committee to conduct a zero-based review to assess all
statutory, regulatory, and administrative requirements.
On behalf of APTA, thank you for this opportunity to appear
before you. We look forward to working with you, and I would be
happy to answer any questions you may have.
Chairman Crapo. Thank you.
Mr. McKenna.
STATEMENT OF PATRICK K. McKENNA, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN
ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS
Mr. McKenna. Chairman Crapo, Ranking Member Brown, and
Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
discuss the future of public transportation and the
reauthorization of the FAST Act. My name is Patrick McKenna. I
serve as director of the Missouri Department of Transportation
and president of the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials. Today it is my honor to testify on
behalf of the great State of Missouri and AASHTO, representing
the transportation departments of all 50 States, Washington,
DC, and Puerto Rico.
Public transportation is a vital public service in urban
and rural communities throughout the United States, providing
more than 10 billion passenger trips annually since 2006. State
DOTs and transit agencies are key providers of essential
mobility services.
States continue to make significant investments in public
transportation at levels consistently higher than the Federal
Government. While States are willing to commit more of their
funds for public transit, they need to see a significant growth
in Federal investments in order to improve our Nation's public
transportation systems.
AASHTO and its member DOTs welcome today's discussion
related to the public transportation title of the FAST Act
which expires at the end of September. This morning, I would
like to emphasize the following priorities: our vision for FAST
Act reauthorization; our core principles for reauthorization as
it relates to Federal public transportation policy; and
specific public transportation reauthorization policy
recommendations.
Ensuring the safety of Americans using our surface
transportation system remains the foremost priority of each
State DOT. In 2018, nearly 37,000 lives were lost on our
Nation's roadways. Human behavior is the cause of more than 90
percent of fatalities and serious incidents each year. But that
is a loss of 100 souls a day, and we should all find this
totally unacceptable.
Public transportation provides the safest form of
transportation. Rural public transportation is even safer,
having recorded only three fatalities nationwide for 2018, and,
thankfully, none in Missouri since 2016.
Each year in Missouri, public transportation delivers more
than 60 million rides and $3 billion of economic impacts.
Public transportation helps mitigate traffic congestion,
conserve fuel, enhance highway efficiency, and addresses air
quality issues.
In October 2019, the AASHTO Board of Directors adopted
policy recommendations for the next surface transportation
authorization bill. To summarize several key points, we must
ensure timely reauthorization of a long-term Federal surface
transportation bill, fix the Highway Trust Fund, and enact a
long-term sustainable revenue solution now; increase and
prioritize formula-based Federal funding provided to States;
increase flexibility, reduce program burdens, and improve
project delivery; and support and ensure State DOTs' ability to
harness innovation and technology.
In Missouri, transit operators would like to increase the
Federal share for transit capital assistance projects to 90
percent. It is difficult for rural and specialized transit
agencies to meet the local share requirement for new vehicles.
Here are some key reauthorization policy recommendations
from the AASHTO Council on Public Transportation.
We should the goals of safety management systems, the
Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan, and State of Good
Repair; retain, strengthen, and expand the Federal program for
public transportation; retain the mass transit account within
the Highway Trust Fund; maintain and growth the Bus and Bus
Facility formula and discretionary program, including the Low
or No Emission Vehicle Discretionary Grant Program; maintain
the current maximum Federal funding match ratios for public
transit programs to support rural and urban communities,
individuals with disabilities and seniors, and our Nation's
transit infrastructure.
State DOTs remain committed to assisting Congress in the
development of strategies to ensure long-term economic growth
and enhanced quality of life through robust investments in
public transportation programs and projects.
Fortunately, infrastructure investment has been one of the
top national policy agenda items for the last few years, even
if significant action is yet to be taken. But Americans get it.
They understand the benefits, and they want to see investment
in our transportation systems. This is a unique window of
opportunity to take bold action to invest in our transportation
infrastructure at the level to guarantee the success of our
Nation's future. This action has the clear support of the
American public, and it is time for the President and Congress
to make it happen.
We cannot streamline our way into providing a safe and
sound transportation system. We cannot cut our way to buying
steel, concrete, asphalt, equipment, and labor. We must work
together to move transportation policy in the direction of
providing safety, service, and stability for all.
Thank you again for the honor and opportunity to testify
today, and I am happy to answer any questions.
Chairman Crapo. Thank you.
Mr. Bogren.
STATEMENT OF SCOTT BOGREN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY
TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA
Mr. Bogren. Good morning, Chairman Crapo, Ranking Member
Brown, and Members of the Committee. I am here today
representing the more than 1,400 members of the Community
Transportation Association of America, or CTAA, and we
appreciate this important opportunity to discuss our views on
surface transportation reauthorization.
CTAA's membership is comprised of transportation providers
in smaller cities, in rural and tribal communities, and with
those providing specialized services to older adults, people
with disabilities, veterans, and those providing nonemergency
medical transportation trips.
To briefly summarize our reauthorization priorities, our
membership has told us that it needs funding stability and
growth in surface transportation reauthorization, along with
commonsense regulatory reform. And because our members operates
buses and vans, increasing dedicated Bus and Bus Facilities
capital has been a priority, and we have certainly appreciated
the support from the Senate in recent appropriations that have
boosted those funds.
The reauthorization of the FAST Act is a prime opportunity
for Congress to make the Nation's surface transportation system
more responsive to the American people. Public and community
transportation will play a vital role in doing this by keeping
our growing population of older adults active, healthy, and
aging in place; by connecting Americans of all ages with
increasingly transportation-dependent outpatient and
therapeutic health care services; by taking millions of
Americans to and from work and education every day; by easing
congestion in traffic-snarled urban areas; and connecting
increasingly regional rural areas.
CTAA members will help meet these objectives by deploying
new technologies and operational strategies to make public and
community transportation more customer-friendly, efficient, and
cost-effective; by taking a value-based approach to the
importance of public and community transportation that looks
beyond ridership and instead focuses on the economic activities
that take place after our passengers leave the bus; by building
partnerships with the public and private sectors predicated on
economic impacts and outcomes; and by uniting the full
collection of transit providers in a community into a
responsive network that includes both traditional fixed-route
services and new on-demand mobility.
To meet these goals, we need stable, predictable investment
from the traditional Federal, State, local partnership that has
built the current network. We are going to need new investment
programs that take into account new ways of serving passengers,
new metrics of success like cost savings and cost avoidance in
the health care industry, land values, emission reductions; and
we are going to need right-sized regulations for smaller
operators, where we can maintain accessibility, safety, and
quality while providing these systems room to grow.
You know, it is one thing to discuss issues of policy,
investment, and regulation today, but we must not forget that
public and community transportation is a people business and
that the trips CTAA members provide all across the country
every day are really a lifeline. Here is an example?
This past fall in rural Petersburg, West Virginia, a
passenger on one of our member systems began to cry after
having been safely boarded onto a Potomac Valley Transit
Authority bus. After composing herself, she told the driver
that she had been confined to her house for years, only able to
leave for medical appointments, and the system's new Ready Ride
On-Demand service in a rural area allowed her to go
independently to the store, hair appointments, the bank.
As they began the trip, she started to cry again, and she
told the driver that she realized how much she had missed
seeing the colors of leaves in eastern West Virginia.
It is these kinds of trips that make CTAA members unique.
Reauthorization is an important opportunity to better support
these community and public transportation providers, who are
selflessly serving their communities, keeping our growing
populations active, and connecting Americans with critical
services.
I am really happy to be here today and look forward to the
discussion that will ensue. Thank you.
Chairman Crapo. Thank you very much.
Mr. Mortimer.
STATEMENT OF ED MORTIMER, VICE PRESIDENT, TRANSPORTATION AND
INFRASTRUCTURE, UNITED STATES CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
Mr. Mortimer. Good morning, Chairman Crapo, Ranking Member
Brown, and Members of the Committee. My name is Ed Mortimer,
and I serve as vice president of transportation and
infrastructure at the United States Chamber of Commerce. I am
also privileged to serve as the executive director of the
Americans for Transportation Mobility, which was established in
2000, and includes business, labor, trucking, and various
stakeholders advocating for improved and increased Federal
investment in the Nation's aging and overburdened
transportation system. APTA was a founding member of the ATM,
and Paul Skoutelas serves on our management committee.
Public transportation provides very real and tangible
benefits to employers, employees, and communities. One-half of
all trips taken on public transportation are to and from work.
The changing travel patterns of Americans today underscore
the role of public transportation as a critical component of
the new mobility landscape. For many communities, both rural
and urban, public transportation provides access to jobs and
economic opportunity. More and more communities nationwide are
utilizing public transportation to attract a younger workforce
that expects to have accessibility to these options.
Public transportation could also play a key role in
providing previously underserved parts of our Nation the
opportunity for mobility and growth. Public transportation not
only spurs economic growth, but reduces congestion, improves
air quality, saves time and money, and advances an equitable
and better quality of life.
As my written testimony describes, America's surface
transportation infrastructure, once the envy of the world, is
at a crisis point. Much of our Nation's infrastructure was
built 60 to 100 years ago. Our Nation has moved from a brick
and mortar economy to one of e-commerce, and new mobility
options are required. The Chamber believes now is the time not
just to maintain our current public transportation program but
to modernize it. This effort has been building for many years,
but this Committee and this Congress has an opportunity to do
something about it.
While improvements to the State of Good Repair Program and
the Capital Investment Grant Program are needed, as well as a
long-term sustainable funding source for the future of the
Highway Trust Fund, without a timely reauthorization of surface
transportation programs, gridlock will continue.
From the moment the last surface transportation bill was
enacted into law in 2015, business, labor, and other key
stakeholder groups have worked tirelessly for prompt action in
2020 to reauthorize these critical highway, bridge, and transit
programs. The Chamber and the ATM coalition have met with
business and community leaders around the country to ask what
they expect their Federal Government to provide in legislation
to modernize America's infrastructure.
From Boise to Cincinnati and countless cities and towns
nationwide, we heard loud and clear the need for a 21st century
transportation network, one that will ensure America can
compete in the global marketplace, provide mobility options for
a growing and diverse population. The Chamber produced a four-
point plan to modernize America's infrastructure and have
discuss it with Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle
and both sides of Capitol Hill. We have expressed our
willingness to work with both Republicans and Democrats to
ensure commonsense funding and policy solutions and get them
enacted into law.
I am glad to discuss the details of the Chamber's ideas
during the question period, but I wanted to use my opening
statement to express the frustration of millions of Americans
who waste so much time stuck in congestion, who miss their
kids' baseball game, because of a bridge was closed, a transit
line was delayed due to repairs. Is this the America this
Committee and this Congress wants?
As has been said many times, the cost of inaction costs
more than the cost of action. We ask the Federal Government to
get back to business and to vision that made America the
greatest Nation on Earth. From Teddy Roosevelt who oversaw the
creation of the Nation's inland waterways, to Dwight Eisenhower
who developed the Interstate Highway System, to Ronald Reagan
who created the mass transit account of the Highway Trust
Fund--and he did it by adjusting the Federal user fee--Federal
leadership is key to connect our Nation.
The bottom line is the time to make these important
infrastructure investments is now. Delaying action only makes
the decisions more difficult and projects costlier. From the
business community's perspective, the question is not if we
need to make these decisions, but when?
The World Economic Forum just ranked America's
infrastructure 13th. That is right, 13th. Is this the legacy we
want to leave our kids and our grandkids? The reauthorization
of surface transportation programs needs to be bipartisan and
ensure both rural and urban infrastructure issues are
addressed. The bill needs to be paid for, and adjusting the
Federal motor fee is the most efficient and transparent way to
invest in highways, bridges, and transit.
The time to act is now on behalf of the American people. We
appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today, and we
look forward to your questions. Thank you.
Chairman Crapo. Thank you.
Mr. Willis.
STATEMENT OF LARRY I. WILLIS, PRESIDENT, TRANSPORTATION TRADES
DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO
Mr. Willis. Good morning. On behalf of the Transportation
Trades Department, AFL-CIO, our 33 affiliated unions, and the
400,000 front-line employees who build, operate, and maintain
our buses, rail cars, and subway systems, I want to thank you,
Chairman Crapo and Ranking Member Brown and the Members of this
Committee, for inviting me to testify today.
My friends on this panel have already raised the
significant needs of our public transportation system, and I
echo and support that call. Increasing Federal funding is a
critical step this Committee can and must take to improve
services across the country, not just for our members who work
in this sector, not just for the millions of Americans who
already rely on public transit each day, but for the family in
Des Moines, Iowa, who has to walk 2 miles to the grocery store
because the community in which they live is not served by the
local bus system, but the transit authority would like to
extend service there if it has the funds to do so.
But I am also here today to talk about the needs and
concerns of our members, front-line employees, and steps that
this Committee can take to address their concerns and create
good, safe jobs in this sector.
First, we must end the epidemic of violence faced by
transit operators. While the FAST Act contained a bipartisan
agreement to help stop assaults on front-line workers, two
administrations have failed to implement this mandate, leaving
drivers like Thomas Dunn in harm's way. Dunn--an ATU member,
Air Force veteran, husband, and father--drove for the transit
authority in Tampa, Florida. Last May, he was stabbed to death
while on duty. Heroically, and despite his injuries, Dunn
pulled his bus to the side of the road, ensuring the safety of
his passengers. A few months before this incident, Dunn had
complained about driver safety, and just 6 months after his
passing, one of his co-workers was hospitalized after also
being attacked while on duty.
The Transit Worker Protection Act, introduced by Senator
Van Hollen, would help prevent these tragedies. Under this
bill, transit agencies would be required to gather accurate
assault data and to work with front-line employees and their
unions to identify real solutions tailored to meet local needs.
Second, the spread of new tech-based mobility options,
including ride-hailing services, shared scooters, bikes,
automated vehicle pilot projects, is changing public
transportation in our communities. What mobility options are
adopted and how they are implemented matter. Ride-hailing, for
example, may seem like a good, low-cost alternative for transit
systems, but the appearance of affordability offered by the
Ubers and Lyfts of the world are dependent on a business model
that passes operating cost onto drivers and denies those same
drivers fundamental rights to fair wages and benefits that a
union contract can provide.
We know that automated transit pilot projects are already
on the ground in a number of cities, and more are on the way.
We also know that this administration and some in Congress are
setting policies and regulatory frameworks designed to
facilitate the deployment of AVs without considering the
workforce impacts of new technologies and services.
History tells us that strong unions and worker engagement
are essential to mitigate harms caused by rapid changes in
industries. TTD urges this Committee to ensure that transit
workers and the public are given a real voice at the table as
any new automation services are discussed.
Third, 90 percent of transit workers are bus and rail
operators, station employees, mechanics, and other
nonmanagement positions, yet Federal policy has failed to
support the training needs of this workforce, risking major
shortages in skill gaps in the coming years. Furthermore, as
technology evolves in the transit sector, we know that the
needs to recruit, train, and retrain the next generation of
technicians and other high-skilled workers will only expand. To
address these challenges, Congress should provide funding for a
transit training center that focuses on the needs of these
front-line workers.
Finally, we know that jobs created by investments in public
transit are good jobs that workers can raise families on. That
is because of high union density in the sector and because of
Federal policies that have been associated with transit
investments since the creation of the program. It would be a
mistake to use a surface bill to attack these important laws or
to undercut collective bargaining. This Committee must also
strengthen and fully apply Buy America rules to public transit
investments. Doing so will ensure that buses, rail cars, and
raw materials are made here in the United States, creating the
kind of good jobs that we can be proud of and supporting
another critical sector of our economy.
With that, I would be happy to answer any questions.
Chairman Crapo. Thank you very much, Mr. Willis.
First, let me say I appreciate all of the testimony that
you have provided. It has been very interesting and helpful.
And I also want to acknowledge appreciation for the fact that,
in addition to testifying here today, you and your colleagues
and your associations are working very carefully with us and
closely with us, and we appreciate that. And we want to get
this right, and we want to get it done.
My first question is really going to be much more of a
statement that I ask you to be sure to acknowledge, and it
might not surprise you that it is going to focus on rural needs
in transit. Often when folks think about mass transit, they
think about heavily populated areas. But as has been so well
indicated by a couple of you, this is a huge issue in rural
communities as well.
I was interested, Mr. McKenna, in your statistics about the
safety record in rural areas, and, Mr. Bogren, your story about
the lady who cried because she was given access to so much more
that we often take for granted in our life is critical. And so,
really, one of the focuses I have--and I just want to ask if
you would each quickly just acknowledge--is we really need to
strengthen and expand our focus on rural areas as we deal with
our transit issues in this country.
Mr. Skoutelas. Mr. Chairman, certainly from the perspective
of APTA, we embrace entirely what you have described and
certainly our colleagues here, in particular Scott Bogren, who
leads the CTAA, we have worked very closely together. We have
common interests. APTA represents, from the very largest
authorities, for example, New York, but also some very small
systems that have just a handful of vans.
The issue of rural transportation and public transit is
critically important. We are committed to that. Our proposal
embraces that, calling for a doubling of funding for the rural
areas for public transit, and also for a significant increase
in the historical share to 20 percent for Bus and Bus
Facilities. That is the category in particular that is very
helpful to those rural systems.
Chairman Crapo. It really is. Does anybody else want to
pitch in? Mr. McKenna?
Mr. McKenna. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the question.
Missouri operates one of the largest rural transit networks in
the Nation. We have OATS Transit, which has over 800 vehicles
and provides service throughout the State. It is critically
important. You know, when you think of the rural issues, even
thinking about the ability to age in place gracefully in your
home, access to transit in the rural areas helps our
communities and the people that live in them do that.
We have a really innovative program that connects even on
the rural basis with workforce development. Our Cape Girardeau
transit, county transit, is actually operating a van pool, and
they are working with the local communities there, working with
a couple manufacturing facilities, and they are bringing
workers directly to those manufacturing facilities. A great
example of how rural transit is trying to be dynamic in meeting
the needs of our citizens.
Chairman Crapo. Thank you.
Mr. Bogren.
Mr. Bogren. Well, I certainly appreciate the emphasis. We
have worked with rural transit systems, I have been working
with rural transit systems personally for 30 years, and rural
America has changed quite a bit in that period. Really, we are
looking at regions in many parts of the country now that have
health care and employment, higher education. You have to go
further distances. And our members, they are really focused on
outcomes and trying to create these kinds of measurable
outcomes--employment, health care--through what now many people
are looking at, on-demand mobility, and this is a new thing. In
the rural space, this is all we have ever been, is on-demand
mobility. There really has not been the kind of population
densities to do traditional fixed routes.
So, you know, when we are talking about rural isolation and
other issues like that, transit is a really great solution.
Chairman Crapo. Well, I appreciate that.
Mr. Mortimer or Mr. Willis, do you want to add anything?
Mr. Mortimer. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Certainly the American
business community recognizes public transit as a critical
component in the rural areas, particularly connecting to more
urban areas. And, again, we are in a global economy. I agree
with the health care and the quality of life issues, but also
we are in a global economy, and it is critical that we have a
variety of options that are allowing to connect our rural areas
with our more urban areas, because mobility is key in the 21st
century.
Chairman Crapo. Thank you.
Mr. Willis, we only have about 30 seconds left, but do you
want to add anything?
Mr. Willis. I will make it 20 seconds. You know, our
members on the operating side represent workers across the
country in both rural and suburban, and obviously in the
cities. We are supportive of all of the above. And, of course,
our members are also commuters that use the service in all of
the above communities. So I think the emphasis that you point
out is absolutely correct, and we support it.
Chairman Crapo. Thank you. I appreciate all of you helping
me to put an exclamation point on my statements.
Senator Brown.
Senator Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
the excellent comments from all of you. Mr. Skoutelas, thanks
for your advocacy for big-city systems. There are, I guess,
eight in my State. Thank you for what you do.
Mr. McKenna, the Chairman and I were talking about the
number of deaths in 2018, I think you said, was three. I think
that is--I am asking my staff, a member of my staff to look at
the number year by year, but that is a tremendous argument for
Mr. Bogren and what he does in rural transit systems.
As the Chairman said, the look of this Committee is sort of
the Democratic side we have a lot of urban systems, and on the
Republican side they have fewer. But we also have a number of
rural systems in my State and in every one of these States, and
it matters in Minneapolis and Las Vegas and Baltimore and DC
metro, but it matters in western Maryland and the Iron Range,
too, and in my State in Appalachia and in small towns.
Mr. Bogren, my staff has also said your work with Medicaid
to make sure that--thank you for that.
Mr. Mortimer, thank you for your passion about this. I
would ask your organization, however, or ask you to ask your
organization to put a little less political capital on tax cuts
and a little more political capital on advocating for
infrastructure, because I have heard your position, and you
argued it beautifully. Thank you for that, genuinely and
sincerely, my staff tells me, but I see your organization
asking for money for infrastructure all the time, but not
putting the ``oomph'' behind that that they put behind asking
for tax cuts and deregulation and getting people on board to
actually fund public transit.
Mr. Willis, thank you for your advocacy always for workers,
and it is good to have you back.
Mr. Skoutelas, let me start with you. The Cleveland RTA's
entire fleet of rail cars is more than 34 years old and needs
replacement, as I said. They are struggling to come up with a
plan to pay for a new fleet. What happens when agencies operate
vehicles that have exceeded their useful service life like
that?
Mr. Skoutelas. That is indeed unfortunate, and it is not an
isolated situation. There are many agencies all across the
country facing very similar circumstances as you have just
described for Cleveland RTA. What happens is really quite
simple. Costs go up and reliability goes down and ridership
suffers. And, really, the analogy, I think, is most apropos for
our automobiles. If you have an automobile that is 20 years old
and that is what you are using to take around, you are paying a
lot more to keep it in running condition. It is out of service
often. Your reliability goes down.
So that is what happens for transit, and as a result, we
are seeing that. We have seen it here in Washington, DC, as
WMATA fell behind on its infrastructure investment needs. We
have seen that really turn the corner. I think WMATA has done
an admirable job here over the last few years by making that
investment. We are seeing ridership increase. They had a 4-
percent ridership increase year-to-year growth.
So that relationship is very clear. Costs increase,
reliability goes down, ridership suffers.
Senator Brown. Thank you for that. I illustrated in my
opening statement about Columbus introduced some new routes and
saw ridership go up significantly. I assume Cleveland, because
of the aging of that fleet, I would assume it would have much
more ridership if they could invest in it. I think there is no
question about that.
Mr. Skoutelas. No question.
Senator Brown. Mr. Willis, the FTA has not acted on the
rulemaking on operator assault required by the FAST Act, as you
know. Are transit agencies' safety plans sufficient to mitigate
all safety risks, or is further action required on certain
issues like operator assault?
Mr. Willis. Well, thank you, Senator. And, yes, I do think
additional action is needed. You know, as we discussed earlier
in my opening statement, we were able to work with you and
others on this Committee and the other body to make sure that
in the FAST Act we had a Federal mandate to deal with driver
assaults. Unfortunately, that has gone unimplemented. The Trump
administration's FTA put a document out last year that simply
said that assaults could be considered in the context of the
Public Transportation Safety Agency Plans, but did not really
direct or require them to take any specific actions. And I
should note that, within that docket, we filed comments asking
FTA to deal with the driver assault as part of the safety
plans, and they said they would do a separate rulemaking, which
now they are saying they will not do.
So it is very frustrating. I think at a minimum there needs
to be a worker voice as part of those safety plans, making sure
that we can work with management, and making sure that we are
getting real data. That is part of the problem under the
current regime, that very little of this actual assault data is
getting reported in the right way to FTA because it has to be a
serious injury or result in an arrest. A lot of those assaults
fall outside that, so we really do not have a scope of the
problem, and we are not talking to workers on the front line. I
think through the agency safety plan you can do that and
hopefully deal with that issue.
Senator Brown. Thank you.
Chairman Crapo. Senator Menendez.
Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening
this hearing today.
Ensuring the long-term viability of our transit systems is
a critical component of addressing our broader infrastructure
needs as a Nation. Transit systems are an economic driver for
our communities, generating $4 of economic return for every $1
invested and creating over 50,000 jobs for every $1 billion we
invest. And while I have always supported funding for our
critical highway programs as well, we need to place that same
emphasis on our transit systems. They cannot be an
afterthought.
As the Ranking Member of the Committee's Transit
Subcommittee, I hope that the Subcommittee can begin to engage
more substantively on this issue and that this is the beginning
of a robust process that results in the transit title for the
FAST Act reauthorization that we can all be proud of.
Mr. Mortimer, let me start with you. The Northeast Corridor
produces 20 percent of our Nation's GDP, and a shutdown of the
Northeast Corridor would cost the economy an estimated $100
million per day, according to Amtrak. The century-old rail
tunnels under the Hudson River that currently connect New
Jersey to Penn Station in New York and the nearly 110-year-old
Portal Bridge are linchpins of the entire Northeast Corridor's
dire need of repair and replacement. The Gateway Program would
replace this aging infrastructure and make other improvements
to a 10-mile stretch of the Northeast Corridor that serves over
200,000 daily New Jersey transit and Amtrak passenger trips on
450 trains.
So let me ask you, do you believe that Gateway is a
nationally significant project vital to the continued viability
of the Northeast Corridor?
Mr. Mortimer. Senator, there is no doubt that the Gateway
corridor is a key project that not just affects north New
Jersey but the whole Eastern seaboard. We believe there is a
Federal component about that, and we certainly want to see all
stakeholders come together to address that issue. The longer we
wait, the more it is going to cost.
And I do want to say real quick while I have the mic, I
want to defend the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. We have advocated
extremely hard for infrastructure, as equally as hard as we had
for tax relief. Our CEO, Tom Donohue, I dare any Senator to say
there is not an advocate more for investing in infrastructure
than Tom Donohue. We have been out there for years on
infrastructure, so, sir, we really do care about
infrastructure, and this is a top issue for business.
Senator Menendez. OK. I am glad to hear that. I did not
raise that question, but I assume someone else did, and you are
taking my time to do that.
[Laughter.]
Senator Menendez. Let me move on. Mr. Skoutelas, having
just discussed the importance of Gateway on a national scale,
do you believe that the Federal Government has an important
role to play in the funding of such nationally significant
projects?
Mr. Skoutelas. Senator, I do. For the reasons that you
mentioned and that Ed Mortimer reiterated, there is no question
about the importance of that investment and the merits that it
does have. So we are very supportive. We think it should be
included for Federal funding, and it is something that we want
to see move forward.
Senator Menendez. And, Mr. Willis, as a project that will
have a ripple effect across the Northeast Corridor, can you
speak to the impacts that Gateway will have on your members as
well as the importance of having Federal engagement on
transportation projects that have a national economic impact?
Mr. Willis. Thank you, Senator. Look, what I can add is a
couple things. When you talk to our members who have to operate
the trains through those tunnels, that have to maintain the
signal systems, the electrical systems, the tracks themselves,
they tell real horror stories. We have got a big problem on our
hand. Obviously, you know the economic consequences of shutting
down that tunnel. You reduce capacity by 75 percent. By our
members will tell you that there is a real problem right now
going on in there that needs to be addressed.
We were heartened that the administration changed the
rating for Portal Bridge North, disappointed that they did not
do the same for the tunnel itself. The cost recently has been
reduced by $1.4 billion. Amtrak is kicking in several hundred
extra million dollars. The percentage of Federal share has been
reduced again. So this project is ready. We hope the
administration sees fit to approve it and get it funded in the
right way.
Senator Menendez. Thank you.
Mr. Skoutelas, in APTA's recommendation for a surface
transportation reauthorization, you recommend codifying the
RRIF loans that should be used as a non-Federal share of a
project, which is common sense considering that these loans
will have to be paid back by the project sponsors.
The Gateway Project ran into this issue with the current
administration counting financing, which, again, must be paid
back as part of the Federal share of the project. We fought to
include language in recent appropriation bills to prevent this
policy from taking effect.
Why is it important that transit systems have access to a
wide array of financing tools and that these loans, which,
again, must be paid back, be appropriately counted as a non-
Federal share?
Mr. Skoutelas. Well, Senator I think it is critically
important that the public transit industry be able to exercise
a full view of all the tools that it can leverage to implement
these major projects. The idea of the TIFIA loans and RRIF
loans being considered as Federal financing really goes to an
argument that we think does not hold water. We believe that
TIFIA loans and RRIF loans to be paid back by local dollars are
indeed local's share and should be considered as such.
Senator Menendez. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Crapo. Thank you.
Senator Cortez Masto.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. First of all, let me thank
Chairman Crapo and Ranking Member Brown for holding this
clearly important discussion that we should be working on in a
bipartisan way to really invest in our transportation network
and our infrastructure. I am hopeful that we carry this out
through regular order and that there will be a markup in
Banking at some point in time. But I appreciate the bipartisan
support, Chairman, that you have brought to this discussion, so
thank you.
Let me start a little bit with an issue that we are dealing
with in Nevada, that is, affordable housing. Mr. Skoutelas and
Mr. McKenna, in many places in Nevada, as well as throughout
the country, we are seeing challenges within our housing
sector. I have been working to find ways to help us better
consider our affordable housing and economic job centers within
transportation planning. And so I guess my question to you is:
Can you speak to the possibility and existing dynamics at play
between how we lay out our roads and transit systems and where
those who need it live and work? In other words, should we be
planning and how do we incentivize at the Federal level that
type of local planning when they are looking at their transit
system and they should be incorporating that affordable housing
or that housing piece in it as well? So I would love your
comments on that.
Mr. McKenna. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. You know, in
Missouri, we see that same issue, and in many cases what we
find is that some of our communities, particularly ringing kind
of the outer edge of our major metropolitan areas like St.
Louis and Kansas City, in some cases we have areas where the
housing stock and the people that live in them, the
affordability is a difficult issue, but also the access to
vehicles is a difficult issue. In some parts just outside of
St. Louis, we have upwards of 10 to 15 percent of the
households do not have access to vehicles. So when we are doing
major reconstruction, and that is mostly what we are planning
right now, we are just about to embark on reconstructing a
major part of Interstate 270. That reinvestment there, we are
considering the transit work. We are adding a transit lane to
connect to a transit stop. We are trying to add more pedestrian
crossings and others.
I think it is critical to keep in mind and consider--and
this is what we work with the metropolitan planning
organizations, regional planning commissions--that we do
consider the time and the cost connecting the housing with
where people are working and where they are seeking medical
treatment and where they are grocery shopping, for goodness'
sakes. That is a critical part of what we are starting to
incorporate in. I think it is a great point and needs to be
more of the discussion. That partnership between the Federal
Government, the States, and those planning commissions and the
local communities is critical.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you, and, Mr. Skoutelas, I will
ask you or anybody else to weigh in. But it is true. Clearly
the zoning happens at the local level when it comes to transit
and the regional transit commissions that we work with. Should
we be doing a better job at the Federal level incentivizing
that connection to affordable housing as they move through that
zoning piece for transit at the local level? And I guess that
is my question. Can we do a better job at the Federal level?
Mr. Skoutelas. Yes, Senator. Thank you for that question. I
think there is a great deal more that can be done. Our
industry, transit agencies are doing more in terms of planning
their facilities, their new investments along the lines of
transit-oriented developments. In fact, that has now really
evolved to the point of discussing transit-oriented
communities. Let us make the investment in transit with an idea
in mind how we can best serve our residents, making sure that
they have availability of public transit, or at the very least
have walkable options to get to public transit facilities.
So it is a growing interest, it is a growing trend within
agencies to take that very aggressive attack, to work with our
local communities, the local municipalities. I think there can
be more that can be done incentivizing some of these transit
grants, the TOD so-called grants. I think that is the way to do
it. And, again, our agencies are very receptive to that
planning. We think that transit is very critical for livable,
walkable, transit-oriented communities.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. And would you touch on--
and I know I am running out of time here--new technology? I
have heard and I work closely with our regional transportation
commissions in Nevada, but one of the executive directors said
that technology is the asphalt of the future. Can you talk a
little bit about that? Because I truly think that--and that is
why I have legislation, the Moving FIRST Act, the STAT Act. How
do we start incentivizing more smart communities and utilizing
this technology in our transportation as part of the smart
communities, smart traffic lights, smart cars that are
connecting and communicating with the traffic lights or the
traffic management system? Do you see the potential for this
technology to take us and give us more opportunities for
commuters when we are talking about transportation?
Mr. Skoutelas. Sure. Again, great question. There is no
doubt that what we have seen in terms of the tech revolution
here over the last several years. I think for our industry and
public transit it has been a wake-up call that we need to be
more aggressive about adapting to and embracing these
technologies. That is happening all over the country. It is one
of the reasons why we want to keep bringing attention to new
innovations that are happening, new partnerships are evolving,
new forms of transit, sometimes complementing TNCs like Uber
and Lyft, other sides looking how we can develop new services
like micro mobility transit options.
So technology is driving it, and I think the public transit
industry is very receptive to that in making a lot of
advancements. It is a very exciting future that we have, across
the board transportation but also in public transit.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
Mr. McKenna. You know, Senator, I think that is a critical
component to replacing the rolling stock that exists. We are
looking at many transit agencies that have aging stock. Being
able to replace that and update with newer technologies that
you are seeing in automobiles right now, the Ford collision
prevention systems, the back-up systems that have automatic
braking, this can improve safety dramatically and just make
sure that our operators have an easier time navigating through
congested roadways.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Senator Brown. [Presiding.] Senator Van Hollen.
Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Senator Brown. I want to
thank you and the Chairman for having this hearing. I thank all
of you for your testimony. I am a big supporter of moving
forward as quickly as possible with this reauthorization.
I also serve on the Environment Committee, and we have
already passed unanimously the highway portion of this bill. So
I am hopeful that this Committee will achieve the same
consensus in moving forward with the transit portion.
Of course, funding is the key missing element. We have got
to come up with an increased, more robust funding source. Many
of us have put forward proposals over the years, and my
challenge to people who do not support one of those is come up
with another funding proposal, and let us get bipartisan
support for it so we can move forward. We have been deadlocked
on something that has broad support throughout the country for
a long time because of that.
Mr. Skoutelas, thank you for mentioning WMATA, and we have
seen a 4-percent increase in ridership. I think that is a
result of many of the improvements that were made. We took a
little bit of a timeout. It created some inconvenience, but as
a result, we have seen an uptick. That is, of course, the
Nation's Metro. Forty percent of the Federal workforce travels
in peak hours on our Metro system. We are grateful for the
Federal contribution to that system, $150 million a year. The
surrounding States have been meeting their shares. In fact,
they have changed their laws in order to comply. I was pleased
to see the Trump administration include funding this year for
that.
But I would just say to Mr. Chairman and the Committee,
Senator Warner and I and Senator Cardin and Senator Kaine have
introduced legislation to extend the authorization for WMATA
and both increase the investment but also increase some of
the--provide some reforms and provide a little more oversight
in the process. So I hope we can fold that into this
legislation.
Mr. Willis, thank you for mentioning the transit workforce
safety bill that we have introduced. I hope we can also fold
that into this reauthorization effort.
And I just want to focus for a minute, Mr. Bogren, you gave
a great sort of story about the woman in West Virginia who was
able to finally get out and about because of public transit.
One of the challenges we continue to face is the first
mile/last mile issue. We have these great transportation
networks, but we also know that when we find ways to get people
from that first mile from their home to transit, we can
dramatically increase it and improve quality of life for
people.
So as we look at this reauthorization, I am interested in
your perspectives on how we can as a Federal Government more
incentivize first and last mile links. In Maryland, we have a
pilot project going on in Montgomery County. The county has got
this kind of Uber-like system where they are beginning to take
people back and forth for those components of the trip. But I
am interested in your thoughts on how we can expand those
efforts.
Mr. Bogren. I live in Germantown and I take a Ride-on bus
to the Metro every morning, so I am very familiar with the
first and last mile trips in Montgomery County.
You know, one of the ways that a lot of smaller communities
and smaller systems are looking at that is using volunteer
drivers and providing incentives to have folks that are
recently retired or looking to kind of give back into the
community, particularly, you know, I am thinking western
Maryland, the eastern shore, these areas. This is a real
resource that we need to tap into, and that is one way to do
it.
Then the other thing is really to focus first mile/last
mile around outcomes. What is the purpose? Are we feeding fixed
routes? Which is a good outcome. But there are some times when
we are forcing folks into fixed routes that are just not the
way they want to travel. And so I think along with kind of the
traditional getting someone into the system, are short trips
that are healthcare-related, human and social service-related,
that we can do a much better job of, technology is a big piece,
and all these things, asking the customers what they want.
Senator Van Hollen. I appreciate it. Any other thoughts
from anybody?
Mr. Skoutelas. Yes, Senator. One of our proposals as part
of our reauthorization recommendations is a new category of
mobility innovation and technology, and it is specifically to
do the kinds of things you are talking about here.
Right now there is a lot of experimentation going on with
pilot programs all across the country by our agencies, so they
are being very aggressive. But they are very modest. They are
learning by going forward. We believe that there needs to be an
infusion of more resources there so that the agencies can take
a bit more risk, try some additional things, expand the scale
of some of their demonstration projects, and they come in all
forms. It could be a fixed-route system. It could be a TNC in
partnership with the agency. It could be a micro mobility
project. But we need to accelerate that work, and we believe
the Federal Government does have an interest here to help that
process along.
Senator Van Hollen. I appreciate it. Any others?
Mr. McKenna. Yes, Senator. One of the things we find from
an operator perspective is even the very basic construct of
creating flexibility between operating and capital accounts.
Through the grant management process, if our transit operators
had more flexibility to convert, they could do things that
expand service hours, get there on a more flexible basis that
they really are not able to afford today. But if they managed
that and had the flexibility through the Federal program, that
could very well help that.
Senator Van Hollen. Thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you
all.
Chairman Crapo. [Presiding.] Senator Smith.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and also Ranking
Member, and I also really appreciate the bipartisan effort
here. I do not completely see it here, but I know it exists.
[Laughter.]
Senator Sinema. The Chairman is here.
Senator Smith. Yes, exactly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Crapo. You are welcome.
Senator Smith. You know, when I was Lieutenant Governor, I
did a lot of work on transportation issues and, you know,
certainly a lot of it in big cities and cities the size of
Duluth, Minnesota, and St. Cloud, Minnesota, but also cities
the size of Marshall and Worthington, smaller communities, and
then rural areas. And so I appreciate what both Senator Crapo
and Senator Brown said about how this is an issue that is not
just a rural issue or an urban issue.
The one thing I remember the most hearing from all those
county commissioners that I talk to who are trying to address
transit and transportation issues is we need the Federal
Government to be a good partner on the funding side of this.
And we can sort of talk about this, but until we are ready to
kind of put our money where our mouth is on this, we are just
going to be talking about it. So I hope that we can come
together around this. I understand that this is a policy
committee, but this is what I hear so much about.
And so let me just dive in on one thing related to that,
and maybe I will direct this question to Mr. Bogren. The
Department of Transportation recently solicited comments for
their ROUTES initiative, which is about providing transit
opportunities in rural areas. And, you know, what I hear from a
lot of my rural communities in Minnesota is that while this
Federal transportation funding is really important, for a small
community to try to come up with the matching funds that are
required, it is like a devilish choice, because like we want to
help you but we do not possibly have the tax base or the
population to be able to support those matching dollars. And we
are talking about places where people are a long way from the
nearest hospital, working people who want to work but do not
have--I mean, it does not work. So could you just address that
issue? I would appreciate your thoughts on that.
Mr. Bogren. Certainly, and I appreciate the question. Yes,
this is a real challenge for rural transit systems. You have
got managers of these systems that oftentimes may be drive the
vehicle in the afternoon, and then spend most of their evenings
going to many of the small towns in their region hoping to get
$1,000 just to do exactly what you are talking about and all
the work that goes into that.
One of the things that we have called for in our plan is to
be able to take into account poverty levels and the lack of
health care. As rural hospitals are moving further and further,
it is hard for folks on the east coast to understand that in
many parts of the country you might have a 2-hour drive to the
nearest dialysis clinic.
Senator Smith. Right.
Mr. Bogren. That lack of health care is measured, and where
we have that along with certain poverty rates, we are calling
for lower matching rates for those rural communities for that
reason.
I would also echo what Mr. McKenna had to say about
operating versus capital. Operating is critical to these
systems, and any flexibility on that is also really helpful.
Senator Smith. Would you like to answer, too, Mr.
Skoutelas?
Mr. Skoutelas. Senator, I would, and maybe a little
different perspective as well. Certainly the need for service
for the rural areas is critically important, as we have been
discussing. There is another aspect, though, that gets often
overlooked, and that is the jobs, job availability. While a
community, a small area, a small system, a small city may not
have a large transit system in place, they often are the
creators or recipients of the jobs that the industry produces.
A case in point is Anniston, Alabama. New Flyer is home where
they build and manufacture buses, a smaller community but
critically important in terms of the job creation. And we have
developed a set of schematics that we would be happy to share
with you that show how the supply chain really touches all
aspects of the country in all 50 States, in many communities
that may not have a large role in public transit in terms of
service delivery but have the jobs that are supporting the
industry. So it is a critically important piece.
Senator Smith. Absolutely, and New Flyer has a big and very
important facility in St. Cloud, Minnesota.
Senator Jones. Not as good as ours.
[Laughter.]
Senator Smith. We can collaborate on this, Doug.
I just have a couple minutes left, but I would like to ask
Mr. Willis something. One other thing that we hear about in
Minnesota is sometimes the challenge in recruiting and
retaining and training workers in transit and transportation.
Could you just address what we might be able to do to address
that issue, in addition to providing a safe workplace?
Mr. Willis. Well, absolutely, and you are very familiar
with that. There are issues in your State.
Senator Smith. Yes.
Mr. Willis. But in terms of attracting workers and training
those workers, you know, I would say a couple of things. We
call for in our testimony a national training transit center to
deal with the needs of front-line workers. This Committee
already funds the National Transit Institute, which focuses
more on the white-collar workforce. We support that. But,
currently, there is no training center that meets the needs of
the front-line workers that we know are out there. In the last
appropriations bill, there was $2.5 million included in those
bills for these activities. That effort was supported by labor
but also by APTA and others at this table.
So I think those are sort of concrete things that you can
do both on the appropriations side and in the authorizing
context. Putting a training center in place I think is a very
good step.
Senator Smith. Thank you.
Chairman Crapo. Senator Jones.
Senator Jones. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for
being here today. I really appreciate it. And thank you for the
shout-out for Anniston. We are very proud of New Flyer in
Anniston, Alabama, and the electric buses they make, which I
think is a growing demand as well.
In December of last year, the city of Birmingham launched a
new transportation micro transit pilot program with Via.
Birmingham On-Demand is an on-demand shared ride service with a
fleet of vans that can accommodate six passengers. It is
wheelchair-accessible. It complements and extends our public
transportation for select areas of the city and focuses on
increasing and improving connections for work, education,
entertainment venues, all for a flat rate of about $1.50. I
would like to ask how those kind of things can help alleviate
some of the public transportation concerns with the first and
last gap mile, but also can those programs--how best can we
expand those into rural areas? I have got a lot of rural areas,
and I know that is a big issue for everybody on this panel. How
can we expand those kind of micro transit pilot programs into
rural areas? And I will just open it up and whoever can best
answer.
Mr. Skoutelas. Well, Senator, just from my part, I think
that what you have described again is something that is
occurring across our industry in cities all across the United
States, looking for new options, how can we deliver more
services in places perhaps that have not had it before, or to
do it more efficiently. So I think that has great potential. We
would like to see a special funding category, mobility
innovation and technology, within reauthorization that would
encourage and help fund these activities, because communities
on their own really are limited in terms of the kind of risk
they can take. But I think the Federal Government does have a
role to accelerate that investment, accelerate that
experimentation, and we think that would be the most
appropriate way to do it.
Senator Jones. Great. Yes, sir?
Mr. Bogren. Thanks for the question. I think it is
important. In rural communities--in Birmingham, you can put
something like this together and just kind of lay it out there
for the general public, and there is enough population to do
that. In rural communities, the similar--a process needs to
take place, but with more specific outcomes in mind. For
instance, we have got a project that we are working on with
some of our members in West Virginia to put these types of
systems together to deal specifically with opioid recovery and
treatment. We have got a project in Oklahoma that is doing
similarly with trying to improve performance in the foster care
system. I think that is the key. As you get to smaller
communities, you have got to have it focused. And you have got
to have that conversation with the community about what would
you like to achieve but for a lack of transportation you are
not getting there. And you will get all sorts of answers back
to that, and then you fine-tune these concepts that are out
there to deal with that specific issue.
Senator Jones. All right. Great. Thank you for that.
Real quick, briefly, I want to make sure we get on the
record here how important the census is to counting everyone in
these communities, especially the rural communities. Can
somebody just for the record here talk about that again?
Because I am trying to push that in my State everywhere, every
opportunity I can. Anybody?
[No response.]
Senator Jones. OK.
[Laughter.]
Senator Jones. Yes, please.
Mr. Bogren. We have had a lot of conversations with our
members about that. At our annual conference, we have got
sessions, because the census, when it comes to drawing lines
around communities for urbanized and rural areas, when it comes
to the counts, it is always a concern. You get a rural area
that suddenly finds itself part of a UZA and the different
rules that have to apply. So every 10 years, this kind of
changes the whole landscape for a lot of the way we fund public
transportation.
Senator Jones. Is there any information for the census that
needs to be updated to more accurately reflect mass transit
needs for rural communities that you all know of? And you can
get back to me, but----
Mr. Skoutelas. Well, Senator, obviously the census and the
population numbers drive the formulas for distribution of the
urban and the rural fund. So it is critically important that we
have got the best information we can get, make sure that we are
not neglecting the proper counts and that they drive the
formulas.
Senator Jones. OK. Last thing. Mr. Mortimer, I was not here
earlier on, so I do not know what all was said about the
infrastructure versus tax cuts, but I am probably a little bit
more Chamber-friendly than most folks over here, and I would
invite you to come to the office, because in Alabama we have a
real serious need for infrastructure, but we are also very
concerned about ballooning deficits that are in part caused by
that tax bill. I would love to have a dialog about what we can
do from the standpoint to try to balance those two so we can
get more infrastructure in the State of Alabama and across the
country. So thank you.
Mr. Mortimer. Senator, I would be glad to, and I am
actually going to down to Mobile to talk about the I-10 bridge
because I know that is a critical bridge project----
Senator Jones. Well, jump in that frying pan, Mr. Mortimer.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Mortimer. I know, but it needs to get done. We have got
to come up with some solutions and get it done.
Senator Jones. It is badly, badly needed there, and we are
happy to help. Thank you.
Mr. Mortimer. Thank you.
Chairman Crapo. Senator Sinema.
Senator Sinema. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to
our witnesses for being here today.
Last year, Maricopa County saw two important public transit
developments. In September, the Valley Metro agency received
Federal approval to expand our light rail into South Phoenix,
which is a 26-mile-long rail line that connects Arizonans
across Phoenix, Tempe, and Mesa. In October, Valley Metro then
received the Federal funding needed to complete construction of
the Tempe Street Car Project, which is a 3-mile extension of
the light rail that will further link downtown Tempe and
eventually Arizona State University's Tempe campus with the
greater Phoenix area.
I have supported both projects since my time in the House,
and I am really delighted to see their progress. Maricopa
County is the fastest-growing county in the Nation, and we face
a growing public transit challenge that must be met with smart,
strategic investments and effective long-term planning. Transit
projects like light rail and the Tempe Street Car guarantee
that more Arizonans can get to work, school, or wherever it is
that they want to go.
So, Mr. Skoutelas, thank you for being here. Valley Metro
was able to build the Tempe Street Car through a combination of
private investors, Arizona State University, local government
funds, and funding from the Federal Transit Administration's
Capital Investment Grant Program. But what steps can Congress
take to encourage similar public-private partnerships in the
Capital Investment Grant Program?
Mr. Skoutelas. Well, thank you for your question. I am very
familiar with Phoenix and the great success that they have had,
including the initial 20 miles of startup line of LRT, which
exceeded its ridership expectations and I think by last count
has generated something close to $10 billion in private
investment. I think the process the CIG, Capital Investment
Grant, Program that exists is so critically important. It does
allow cities that are growing, communities that are growing to
tap an investment category of funding to advance their
projects.
What we are finding is that more and more developers,
private interests, recognize that importance. Just to cite the
example that we all know, Amazon located their facilities in
close connection to transit. And so what is happening is there
is a greater recognition that that marriage between the
investment and private investment is there.
I think the Capital Investment Grant category does provide
some means to encourage that. We could see that being
accelerated through some of the TOD planning work that can feed
into that process as well. I think that is a key piece. While,
again, local municipalities control that process more so than
the transit agencies, that is one way that it can be encouraged
through this planning process and through the grant process.
Senator Sinema. Excellent. Thank you.
You know, public transit is not just an economic issue for
Arizonans. It is also a health issue because, you know, having
a great doctor does not count if you cannot make it to your
appointment. We believe that good public transit can make it
easier for Arizonans of all ages and from all corners of our
State to see a doctor and get access to essential health and
wellness services.
Health care costs are too high for Arizonans, and the
shortage of doctors, nurses, and other health care
professionals throughout our State only makes it worse. So for
many, especially seniors, veterans, and those who have chronic
health conditions, the healthcare-related transportation costs
can be prohibitively expensive.
The good news is that programs such at the FTA's
Coordinated Access and Mobility Pilot Program and the Enhanced
Mobility Formula Grants provide Arizonans a safe and affordable
way to get to their doctor.
So my two-part question is for the whole panel. How have
these programs helped to improve access to care for patients in
need? And as Congress considers a surface transit
reauthorization, how can we strengthen these programs to ensure
that all Americans can access and afford quality health care?
Mr. Bogren. Well, I think it is critical. We see that with
our members. We are having very productive conversations with
the health care industry because we are starting to learn how
they measure, and some of those measurements equate to real
economic impact, the things that they focus on: reducing no-
shows and the cost of the no-show versus the cost of the trip
to make sure that does not happen; ER readmits and the
penalties that a lot of health care facilities face, we can
reduce those. Improper use of ambulances when we do not need an
ambulance at $500 a trip versus our services that can do that
much more inexpensively. And, last, timely discharge. I think
all of those things can really speak to the importance, and it
is nice to see that health care is looking to us now to provide
these services for them.
Mr. McKenna. Yes, Senator, that is a great question. You
know, at the Federal level, we would ask Congress to really
consider making sure that Federal agency funding in programs,
specifically the 5310 and 5311 program that serve people with
disability and seniors, as well as in rural communities, are
flexible enough to work together so that they do not restrict
passengers by trip purpose. That is a critical aspect as we try
to be flexible enough to meet the demands of the population.
Mr. Skoutelas. Senator, what I would add to that given what
has been said is simply increasing the level of investment in
public transportation will go a long way to helping that.
Communities can then figure out how best to meet that, whether
it is a fixed-route system, a door-to-door, demand-responsive
system. But more than 45 percent of our American citizens do
not even have access to any public transportation, so we have
been an industry that has been underserved for decades in terms
of investment.
So increasing that investment as we are asking for here and
calling for with the reauthorization would be a major step
forward. More service, more expanded opportunities, whether it
is bus rapid transit in the community or whether it is light
rail, whatever it might be, those are the resources that are
necessary for communities to help make those decisions how best
to meet their citizens' needs.
Senator Smith. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Chairman and
Ranking Member Brown, for holding this hearing. This is a
really important topic for my community. Thanks.
Chairman Crapo. Thank you.
Senator Warner.
Senator Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am going to cover some ground that I think my colleague
Senator Van Hollen covered. We cannot have a hearing on public
transit without talking about Metro. I think as Senator Van
Hollen already mentioned, in many ways the Federal Government
literally runs on Metro. I think he pointed out that close to
40 percent of Metro's riders during rush hour are Federal
employees, and that is critically important to the functioning
of our Government.
WMATA also serves a critically important role in terms of
continuation of Government in the event of a disaster. If we
ever have to deal with an evacuation similar to what we dealt
with post-9/11, the burden falls on Metro. As well as the fact
it is the Nation's Metro system, it is obviously used on a
regular basis by tourists who always come to Washington or is
absolutely critical in national events like inaugurations.
Back in 2008, Congress put together and recognized this in
the PRIIA legislation back then and laid out a 10-year, $150-
million-a-year commitment from the Federal Government to
Washington's Metro to make sure that we would have that long-
term investment in the safety and viability of the system. At
that moment there was also a request for the local
jurisdictions--DC, Maryland, and Virginia--to step up and do
more. Those local jurisdictions have stepped up and do more.
They have committed an additional $500 million to make sure
that Metro can have the safe, efficient system that the region
needs but our country needs as well.
So as probably has been mentioned, along with Senator Van
Hollen, Senator Cardin, Senator Kaine and I have put in another
10-year reauthorization of Metro with the $150 million a year.
I am happy to see that the administration this year has gone
ahead and put forward in the President's budget that $150
million, but we do need this 10-year authorization. I am
looking forward to working on this Committee and with Members
on both sides of the aisle, and I thank the Chairman and the
Ranking Member for their willingness to listen on this. It is
critical that it gets done this year.
Mr. Skoutelas, have I forgotten anything in terms of my
description of the importance Metro plays to the National
Capital Area and, frankly, as the Nation's Metro system?
Mr. Skoutelas. Senator, thank you. No, I would simply say I
will tell you as someone who has been in this industry for 40
years and has been on the operating side as well, we have a
marvelous system in the WMATA system here in the District and
beyond, and we are very fortunate to have that. But it
underscores the importance of keeping up with the investment
needs that it has. Otherwise, we suffer, as we have over the
last several years, with delays, with breakdowns, with really
unreliable service. I think WMATA has turned the corner on that
in good measure, in large part because of the investment that
is coming. So there is no shortcut to getting where we need to
go, and really, WMATA and Washington, DC, are not the only
example. We can go to New York, we can go to Chicago, we can go
to San Francisco. We can go all over the country----
Senator Warner. Not in my 5 minutes.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Skoutelas. We have a great need.
Senator Warner. And I would be the first to acknowledge
that as one of the newest systems in our country, I think for a
long time, you know, we coasted without putting appropriate
maintenance in. And then as we have seen in the last decade
literally, we have seen the failure to continue to reinvest in
that maintenance, and I do think the system is turning the
corner, but that continued Federal commitment must be
maintained. The local jurisdictions have stepped up in a level
that, frankly, I was not even sure they were going to step up.
They have. We do need that 10-year reauthorization. I know we
have been working with the Chairman for some time on this
issue. I do not agree with this administration on a number of
things, but I was happy to see the President put that good-
faith $150 million down. But we have got to have that
predictability. Local jurisdictions have stepped up. As has
been mentioned, the Federal Government could not function
without Metro. The Federal Government has got to do its share,
and my hope is that we can see that pass this year. I have got
only one, and I will allow the other members to raise the other
great Metro systems around the country.
One issue I want to just briefly touch on with Mr.
Mortimer. One of the other areas in Virginia where we have got
enormous transportation challenges is the I-81 corridor. It is
not necessarily a public transit issue, but with the amount of
traffic and particularly commerce that flows for the whole east
coast on I-81 and the level of bottlenecks, the level of safety
concerns, I know with the Chamber's interest in both the INFRA
and the BUILD grant programs, you have been supportive of these
efforts. I have got legislation with Senator Blunt that would
put additional financing tools in place. But if you could speak
to that in these remaining seconds, I would appreciate it.
Mr. Mortimer. Sure, Senator. I am very aware of that
effort, and I know a lot of our chambers in the region have
tried to work with other leaders to figure that out. And,
again, it is a shared responsibility--Federal, State, and
local. There needs to be a solution. We have been talking about
it for too long. And so we certainly are convincing our
chambers, and we recognize it is not just a Virginia issue. It
is broader than that. And so that is where the Federal
investment is needed, and so hopefully that can get done in the
near future.
Senator Warner. And we are proud of the fact that we have
got both Chamber support, labor support, and others on the I-81
corridor, and we hope we can actually get to a solution.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Crapo. Thank you, Senator Warner.
Senator Brown has another question, and it looks like we
may actually finish just in time for the votes on the floor.
Senator Brown?
Senator Brown. Thank you again for the good answers from
all five of you, and the discussion. A question to answer
briefly, starting, Mr. Willis, right to left, if that is OK.
There appears to be consensus within transit to significantly
expand both the Bus and Bus Facilities Program and the Low or
No Emission Vehicle Program. As you know, the Low or No
Program's funding from mass transit counts less than one-fifth
the size of the larger competitive bus program. I supported
doubling the size of the Low or No Program in the FAST Act. The
program supported fuel cell buses in places like Canton, Ohio,
and battery electric buses in Columbus, in our now largest
county, in Lake County, an urban-suburban county east of
Cleveland. As transit agencies adopt aggressive goals to
convert their fleets to zero emission technologies, should the
share of Low-No funding increase in the next reauthorization?
Mr. Willis, either a yes or no or something briefly, if you
can.
Mr. Willis. Yes, with the caveat that, again, we have got
real training needs as we transition to those buses, and when
we manufacture the vehicles, let us make sure we are doing
procurement policy right, not only buying them here in America,
but making sure those are good jobs on the manufacturing side.
Senator Brown. Thank you.
Mr. Mortimer?
Mr. Mortimer. Yes.
Senator Brown. OK, thank you.
Mr. Bogren. Yes, but for smaller operators there are not a
lot of electric buses available yet, and so we are only buying
30- and 40-foot buses right now.
Senator Brown. OK. Go ahead, Mr. McKenna.
Mr. McKenna. I agree with that comment. Flexibility in
procurement is important, particularly in the smaller
operators.
Mr. Skoutelas. Yes, we have proposed in our reauthorization
proposal a tripling of the investment level.
Senator Brown. OK. Thank you.
Chairman Crapo. Thank you. And, again, to each of you, we
appreciate your testimony and your taking the time to be here
and the work that you are putting in to help us get this to the
right place. It is, as you can see, a very important and
critical issue, and we do intend to move forward and get it
resolved.
For Senators who wish to submit questions for the record,
those questions are due on Tuesday, March 3, and I encourage
each of the panelists, if you get extra questions, to respond
as promptly as you can.
Again, thank you all for being here today, and the hearing
is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[Prepared statements, additional material, and responses to
written questions supplied for the record follow:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MIKE CRAPO
Today's hearing will focus on the reauthorization of the FAST Act,
the Nation's current surface transportation bill, which expires on
September 30.
We will hear the perspective and priorities of key public
transportation stakeholders.
A long-term reauthorization bill is critical to providing the
certainty and stability that transit agencies, cities and States across
the country need to make responsible transportation planning decisions.
Public transportation plays a key role in our Nation's economy.
There are over 430,000 workers employed in public transportation in
the United States.
Transit provides approximately 33 million trips every workday,
taking many Americans to and from work, school and medical
appointments, not just in big, urban cities, but also in small, rural
areas.
However, we find ourselves at yet another surface transportation
reauthorization where the solvency of the Highway Trust Fund is the
most significant issue that needs to be addressed in order to advance a
comprehensive, long-term reauthorization bill.
While this Committee does not have jurisdiction over how surface
transportation bills are paid for, it is important that revenue
shortfalls are addressed in a way that meets current transportation
needs.
The Highway Trust Fund was originally intended to be funded with
Federal gas and diesel taxes.
However, since 1993, Congress has chosen to transfer general fund
money into the Highway Trust Fund to pay for reauthorization bills.
The highway account required a $52.8 billion general fund transfer
to pay for the FAST Act and the transit portion of the FAST Act
required an $18.1 billion general fund infusion.
As Congress explores options for offsetting the cost of a multi-
year reauthorization, I would remind them that Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac guarantee, or `G' fees, and Federal Reserve dividends and Federal
Reserve surplus funds should not be used as a piggybank.
While this Committee does not have jurisdiction over how surface
transportation bills are paid for, it is important that revenue
shortfalls are addressed in a way that meets current transportation
needs.
Public transportation is an area of our Committee which is
historically known for having overwhelming bipartisan support.
I intend to work with Senator Brown to continue the bipartisan
tradition as we seek to balance the needs of bus and rail, urban and
rural systems across the country.
There are many changes to the mobility landscape, such as the rise
of on-demand service, transitions to electric vehicles and deployment
of autonomous technologies that should be addressed in a comprehensive
long-term bill.
Traditional fixed-route transit service is an essential backbone
for comprehensive transportation networks. However, there have been
numerous technological advances that can enable a higher quality of
service at a lower cost that agencies should consider.
For example, transit agencies should incorporate these technologies
to complement fixed-route service outside of service hours, to provide
non-emergency medical transportation, to bring riders to or from fixed-
route service to their final destinations, and to modernize fare
payment collection, just to name a few.
Federal policies should provide more certainty to transit agencies
by addressing statutory and regulatory burdens in order to invite more
innovation into the transit industry.
Federal policies should encourage business-like operations of
transit systems.
This includes streamlining efficiencies, assessing current service
with needs, maintaining assets in a state of good repair, leveraging
resources for procurements, and seeking out partnerships with the
private sector where appropriate.
While there are many challenges ahead, it is possible for this
Committee to work together to produce a long-term, fiscally responsible
reauthorization bill that can garner broad bipartisan support both here
at the Committee and on the Senate floor.
I look forward to hearing from each of our witnesses the priorities
of their organizations and I thank the witnesses for their willingness
to appear today.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR SHERROD BROWN
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this hearing. I look forward
to working with you to develop a bipartisan transit title for a surface
transportation bill.
Public transportation helps the people we serve reach better jobs,
and spend less of their time and their hard-earned money commuting.
Hard work should pay off. But for most people, wages are flat, and
the cost of everything is up--housing, health care, child care, and,
yes, transportation.
We know how transportation can be a huge drain on families' budgets
and on their time. And it can limit their job choices, and make it
harder to hold down jobs that are far from where they live.
The average American household spends 13 percent of their income on
transportation--and low-income workers spend between 20 and 30 percent
of their wages on commuting.
And we know how an unexpected car repair or a car accident can
devastate families who rely on their cars to get to work--40 percent of
Americans don't have the money to cover a $400 expense in an emergency.
So what happens? They lose their job because they can't get to
work, or they go to a payday lender and get trapped in a cycle of debt.
Either way, people feel trapped. There's not much dignity in a job that
you're one car breakdown away from losing.
A more balanced transportation system with high-quality transit
service can give riders a quick and affordable trip to and from work,
or school or a medical appointment.
It's pretty simple--when you have better, faster transit service,
more people use it. In Columbus, the Central Ohio Transit Authority,
better known as COTA, redesigned their bus routes and built a bus rapid
transit line. What happened? Last year COTA had its highest ridership
in 31 years. The C-MAX B-R-T, which I proudly supported, contributed to
a 25 percent increase in ridership on the Cleveland Avenue corridor
since it opened in early 2018.
When we build better public transportation, everyone wins. The
Cincinnati USA Regional Chamber gets it. They are part of a broad
coalition championing a ballot measure in March to fund high-frequency
bus service and road improvements throughout Hamilton County.
In addition to connecting more workers to jobs, transit reduces
highway congestion--again, it's pretty simple: when there are fewer
people on the roads, those that do have to drive get to work faster.
And public transit reduces greenhouse gas emissions from the
transportation sector, the fastest growing source of carbon pollution--
we hear all the time about the supposed tradeoffs between creating jobs
and fighting climate change, but public transit does both. It reduces
emissions while creating new jobs in manufacturing, and in operating
buses and subways.
In 2015, the FAST Act provided record level of Federal investment
in public transportation, but it expires at the end of September, and
the amount of backlogged repairs at the Nation's transit systems has
continued to grow, peaking at $99 billion in U.S. D-O-T's most recent
estimate.
What do those backlogs mean? More delays when rail cars and buses
break down, longer commutes, and more crowded highways.
In Cleveland, the RTA operates a fleet of 74 rail cars: all of them
are more than 34 years old and needed to be replaced years ago. Cities
like Cleveland are facing sizable repairs that cannot be delayed any
longer.
In addition to providing more funding for repairs, the next
transportation bill needs record investment in the Bus and Bus
Facilities program and the Low and No Emission Vehicle Program to help
transit agencies replace aging vehicles and begin fully converting
their fleets to zero-emission technology.
We must also ensure that FTA is processing applications under the
Capital Investment Grants program fairly and efficiently, in accordance
with the law, not adding extra requirements or delaying projects.
And every single one of these investments should be an investment
in good-paying American jobs. We need to strengthen Buy America
requirements, it's not complicated: American tax dollars should be
spent on products made in America.
Safety is always a priority of this Committee, and Chairman Crapo
and I have already developed legislation to improve rail inspections.
We should also make sure our transit workers have the right training,
and we should ensure they have a safe workplace. And we should not be
outsourcing safety functions and essential services.
I look forward to hearing from the representatives of our Nation's
transit providers and the U.S. Chamber, which supports transit
investment. I also look forward to hearing from Mr. Willis, who can
speak to the transit workforce's needs.
To move the transportation bill forward, the Finance Committee will
need to find new funds for the Highway Trust Fund. I will continue
working to ensure that the Mass Transit Account receives 20 percent or
more of any new revenue added to the Highway Trust Fund.
Finally, while I look forward to working on the transportation
bill, housing is also critical infrastructure, and there is much for
our Committee to do. There are health hazards in homes across this
country, including lead, that we need to combat. We need to create more
safe, affordable homes--and preserve the ones we've got. I hope the
transportation bill can support opportunities for transit-oriented
development, but we need comprehensive investment in this country's
infrastructure, and housing needs to be part of that investment.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SCOTT BOGREN
Executive Director, Community Transportation Association of America
February 25, 2020
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Brown and Members of the Committee:
My name is Scott Bogren and I have been the Executive Director of
the Community Transportation Association of America, better known as
CTAA, for 4 years. I have been with CTAA for a total of 31 years,
working in communications, membership and policy development.
As the Executive Director of a national membership organization
representing more than 1,400 rural, small-urban, specialized, non-
emergency medical transportation (NEMT) and tribal transit systems
across the country, it is with great appreciation and honor to be
selected to appear before you today regarding the state of community
and public transportation and the reauthorization of surface
transportation legislation.
CTAA believes that a robust, predictable and sustainable
reauthorization of the FAST Act is the top transportation legislative
and policy priority for Congress and the Administration. This
reauthorization is an opportunity to pivot the Nation's surface
transportation policy in a new direction that is inclusive of emerging
technologies, changing public demand and much-needed new transportation
investment streams.
In brief, CTAA has four top priorities for this reauthorization
legislation:
stable, predictable investment emanating from the
traditional Federal-State-local partnership that has built the
current transportation network;
investment programs that take into account new metrics of
success like cost savings/avoidance in the health care
industry, land values, and/or emissions reductions;
right-sized regulations for small city, rural, tribal and
specialized transportation systems that maintain accessibility,
safety and quality while providing these smaller systems with
the room to innovate and grow; and
increased dedicated bus and bus facilities investment, to
support the needs of systems to replace aging vehicle fleets.
We understand that the major challenge for passage of the past
three surface transportation reauthorization bills has been the lack of
congressional and Administration support to increase revenues in the
Highway Trust Fund. We believe that the wisest path forward is to raise
the Federal gas tax in a responsible, incremental way in this
reauthorization, while also beginning the transition to more
sustainable funding mechanisms like vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
concepts.
VMT concepts--in either pilot or initial phases--must be launched
in FAST Act reauthorization to take into account electric vehicle
usage. These concepts must not disproportionately impact rural parts of
the Nation where residents must travel further to access work,
education, health care and other vital activities. Additionally, any
concept that reduces the Federal role in transit investment, or that
promises to move transit programs out of the trust fund is damaging to
the transit industry and to the communities and passengers who rely on
these services.
Outside of investment needed for the Highway Trust Fund, CTAA sees
the need for increased, reliable funding for key transit formula
programs (Sections 5307, 5310, 5311 and 5339), which are funded out of
the Highway Trust Fund's Mass Transit Account.
Rural and Tribal Transit Programs
Rural and tribal transit programs (generally funded through Section
5311) are a diverse and essential part of the Nation's transit network,
connecting workers with jobs, assuring mobility for older adults and
individuals with disabilities, linking people with necessary health
care, providing mobility for low-income and middle-class families
alike, and more. Because America's communities with populations under
50,000 are so diverse, rural and tribal transit systems are a showcase
of transportation innovation, partnership and creativity.
Specifically, CTAA's rural and tribal transit members would like to
see the following in reauthorization:
predictable growth throughout the reauthorization in the
Section 5311 program;
allowing an increased Federal share for Section 5311 rural
and tribal projects in areas of economic distress, unusually
high concentrations of transit dependency, or shortages of
locally available health care;
making permanent the current deferral of Section 5311-
funded transit agencies from FTA's bus safety regulations;
growing the tribal transit formula and competitive funding
programs, with incremental growth throughout the period of the
reauthorization;
assuring sustained, incrementally increasing Federal
support for planning and launching tribal and rural transit
services in currently unserved areas;
allowing all recipients of FTA operating assistance,
including rural and tribal transit providers, to claim the
value of volunteer drivers as in-kind match for their FTA
funds;
authorizing FTA rural and tribal transit providers to
reimburse their volunteers' expenses at the IRS business
mileage rate without incurring a tax liability for the
volunteer;
including CNG, propane and other low- and no-emission
vehicle technologies into the Section 5339 competitive Low/No
grant program, and not just battery electric vehicles; and
targeting new/pilot projects that address emerging applied
technology in rural, small-urban and tribal regions.
Small-Urban Transit Programs
Small-urban transit providers typically serve their communities
with fixed-route operations and many of our members provide highly
productive transit services in college towns. CTAA's small-urban
members are also exploring new on-demand service modes, bus rapid
transit and autonomous shuttles.
Specifically, CTAA's small-urban transit members would like to see
the following in reauthorization:
predictable growth throughout the reauthorization in the
Section 5307 program;
increasing the Section 5307 set-aside in the Small Transit
Intensive Cities (STIC) program to 3 percent. This initiative
has support in the Senate; shown with the introduction of S.
2663 by Senators Sinema and McSally;
full funding of the Capital Investment Grant program to
assure Small Starts investment is available for small-urban bus
rapid transit projects;
including CNG, propane and other low- and no-emission
vehicle technologies into the Section 5339 competitive Low/No
program, and not just battery electric buses;
right-sized and risk-based regulatory reform to include:
the potential of less involved, more productive oversight
reviews, common sense application of DBE/MBE target setting,
NTD and safety planning streamlining;
targeting new/pilot projects addressing emerging applied
technology in small cities; and
providing streamlined--or waived, where allowable--
reporting, procedural and administrative requirements for
Section 5307 recipients operating 10 or fewer vehicles in
maximum service.
Specialized Transit Programs for Older Adults and People with
Disabilities
Nearly one in five of all CTAA operating members rely on funding
from FTA's Section 5310 program to provide valuable transportation
services for older adults and individuals with disabilities who aren't
being served by more conventional public transit and paratransit
programs. Section 5310 helps fund the acquisition of buses and vans and
other capital assets that help make transportation more accessible to
these populations, helps support mobility management and travel
training programs, and expands the reach of transit to these priority
populations beyond the geographic scope of other public transit
services.
To be most responsive to the public transportation-related mobility
needs of older adults and individuals with disabilities in the 21st
century, CTAA and its members would like to see the following from FAST
Act reauthorization:
continuing to provide predictable, sustainable, and
steadily increasing growth in FTA Section 5310 funding;
setting the Federal share for Section 5310 projects at the
same rates as comparable Section 5311 (rural) and 5307 (urban)
transit grants, including increased Federal share of grants
that match the sliding scale rate in States with high amounts
of Federal lands, along with any other adjustments or
flexibility that is available in the Federal share of Section
5311 or 5307 projects;
removing the 55 percent rule that has limited the ability
of States and urban recipients to use their local coordinated
planning processes when deciding whether to fund Section 5310
capital projects, accessibility enhancements, mobility
management, or other eligible activities, based on local needs
and priorities;
continuing to allow Section 5310 funds to be used for
either capital assistance or operating assistance, as per the
project priorities locally identified in recipients'
coordinated planning processes;
having rural Section 5310 projects comply with FTA's
statutes and policies for its Section 5311 rural transit
grants, rather than the terms and conditions of FTA Section
5307 urban transit grants;
continuing to exempt those transportation entities for whom
Section 5310 is their sole source of FTA assistance from FTA's
urban public transit safety rules, its national transit asset
management system, reporting to the National Transit Data base,
and from the scope of FTA's charter service regulations;
permanently excluding standard production vans, minivans
and sedans from Buy America requirements;
allowing all recipients of FTA operating assistance,
including Section 5310-funded transit providers, to claim the
value of volunteer drivers as in-kind match for their FTA
funds; and
authorizing FTA Section 5310-funded transit providers to
reimburse their volunteers' expenses at the IRS business
mileage rate without incurring a tax liability for the
volunteer.
Dedicated Bus and Bus Facility Capital
Dedicated investment for bus and bus facilities is a top priority
for CTAA members. The passage of 2012's MAP-21 surface transportation
reauthorization dramatically cut dedicated bus and bus facilities
investment. Ever since, CTAA and its members have been working to
provide members access to the investment they need to recapitalize
their operations.
Here are CTAA members' recommendations for surface transportation
reauthorization regarding dedicated bus and bus facilities investment:
recent Federal appropriations have raised dedicated bus and
bus facilities capital (Section 5339) above authorized levels,
acknowledging the dire need for additional investment--these
figures should constitute the new floor for FAST Act
reauthorization levels;
increasing the State set aside in Section 5339 to $5
million per year, per State;
including CNG, propane and other low- and no-emission
vehicles into the Section 5339 competitive Low/No grant
program, and not just battery electric vehicles;
raising the end-of-life fair market value of transit buses
and vehicles to a fixed percentage of their purchase price;
providing incentives for both vehicle manufacturers and
operators to be able to procure the full suite of safety
technology currently available in private automobiles (warning
sensors, automated braking, etc.); and
permanently excluding standard production vans, minivans
and sedans from Buy America requirements.
Regulatory Reform
CTAA's members understand that transit safety, equity, and proper
stewardship of public dollars and transit assets require rules and
requirements. Out of our commitment to do what is right for transit
users, transit providers, and the compelling Federal interest, CTAA and
its members have identified the following improvements in FAST Act
reauthorization that will help promote a properly managed, safe and
equitable public transit program:
harmonizing regulatory, funding, NTD reporting and other
requirements to better fit the ever-increasing situations when
transit agencies receive funding from two or more FTA programs,
such as when they receive both Section 5307 and 5311 funding;
making permanent the current deferral of Section 5311-
funded transit agencies from FTA's urban bus safety
regulations, and making sure these rules are not applied to
Section 5310 subrecipients;
applying a risk-based approach to FTA's triennial reviews
of its urban grantees, so that low-risk grantees need only to
receive a desk review, and thus allowing FTA to focus its
oversight mechanisms where they're needed to help address
challenges experienced by higher-risk grantees;
arranging the schedules and scopes of triennial and State
management reviews so that recipients of both Section 5307 and
State-managed grants don't receive conflicting results from
these reviews, and so that these grantees don't experience a
State management review and a triennial review at the same
time;
fine-tuning the applicability of FTA's charter service
regulations to Section 5310 and 5311 recipients, including
clarity that rural and tribal demand-response public transit is
not restricted under FTA's charter service regulations, and
that other activities that programmatically are part of a
public transit operation are not proscribed under these rules;
making it easier for rural and tribal transit providers to
include transportation services for elementary and secondary
students as part of an open-door public transit program;
permanently excluding standard production vans, minivans
and sedans from Buy America requirements;
having rural Section 5310 projects comply with FTA's
statutes and policies for its Section 5311 rural transit
grants, instead of subjecting these rural subrecipients to the
terms and conditions of FTA urban transit grants;
continuing to exempt those transportation entities for whom
Section 5310 is their sole source of FTA assistance from FTA's
national transit asset management system, reporting to the
National Transit Data base, and from the scope of FTA's charter
service regulations;
allowing all recipients of FTA operating assistance,
including rural and tribal transit providers, to claim the
value of volunteer drivers as in-kind match for their FTA
funds;
authorizing FTA rural and tribal transit providers to
reimburse their volunteers' expenses at the IRS business
mileage rate without incurring a tax liability for the
volunteer;
establishing a new tier for FTA transit providers, Tier 3,
that operate 10 or fewer vehicles in peak service, to included
reduced regulatory burden included with staff and budget size;
providing streamlined--or waived, where allowable--
reporting, procedural and administrative requirements for
Section 5307 recipients operating 10 or fewer vehicles in
maximum service;
allowing CMAQ-assisted transit projects in rural (and
urban) areas to continue for as long as those areas remain in
Clean Air Act non-attainment status; and
streamlining of regulatory, funding, NTD reporting and
other requirements that impede coordination of Section 5307 and
5311 funding within transit agencies.
Innovative Transit Programs and Projects
The confluence of real-time scheduling technologies, smart phones,
advanced fare payment systems, autonomous vehicles and radically
changing customer expectations has created a dynamic environment for
CTAA members, rife with equal parts opportunity and challenge. FAST Act
reauthorization is the ideal time to address this emerging new mobility
environment and provide the resources, regulations and support to help
CTAA members, their communities and their passengers. Here's how this
can best be accomplished:
continuing FTA sandbox program investment where new
service, technology and data concepts can be tried and tested;
providing investment and incentives for transit system
service redesign concepts focused on improving ridership and on
outcome-based metrics like health care and employment;
developing pilot autonomous vehicles program funding and
investment for smaller transit agencies to cost effectively
explore these options;
targeting new/pilot projects addressing emerging applied
technology in rural communities, tribal areas and small cities;
and
assisting smaller transit agencies with both partnership
and deployment opportunities of ride-hailing service models.
Transit: Efficiently and Cost-Effectively Moving People
The reauthorization of the FAST Act is a prime opportunity for
Congress to make the Nation's surface transportation system more
responsive to the American people. It's one thing to discuss issues of
policy, investment and regulation today--and in many ways, that's what
we're all here to do. However, we shouldn't forget that public and
community transportation is a people business. The trips CTAA members
provide everyday all across the country are often a life line. Here's
an example one of our members shared with us recently.
This past fall in rural Petersburg, West Virginia, a passenger
began to weep after having been safely boarded onto a Potomac Valley
Transit Authority (PVTA) vehicle. After composing herself, she told her
driver that she had been confined to her house for years only able to
go to medical appointments. PVTA's new Ready Ride On-Demand service
allowed her to go independently to the store, hair appointments, the
bank--anywhere she wanted to go. As the driver began the trip, she
cried again. It was fall, and she realized how much she missed seeing
the colors of leaves in the hills of eastern West Virginia.
It is these kinds of trips that make CTAA members unique.
Reauthorization is an important opportunity to better support these
community and public transportation providers; providers who are
selflessly serving their communities, keeping our growing populations
active and connecting Americans with critical services.
It is our pleasure and honor to share this testimony with the
members of the Senate Banking Committee. We look forward to working
with the Committee to shape the best possible reauthorization of the
Federal transit program. Please feel free to use me as a personal
resource during this process. Thank you.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF LARRY I. WILLIS
President, Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO
February 25, 2020
On behalf of the Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO (TTD),
and our 33 affiliated unions, I want to first thank Chairman Crapo and
Ranking Member Brown for inviting me to testify before the Senate
Banking Committee this morning.
I have no doubt that we will hear about the critical funding needs
of our public transportation system today. You will hear the same from
me. I have no doubt that we will hear about the important lifeline
transit systems provide to urban and rural communities alike. About the
value they provide to American businesses, who count on transit to move
employees and customers to and from their stores on main streets across
this country every day. I stand by all of my friends on this panel and
share their support when they talk about the importance of public
transportation and its unmet funding needs.
But funding alone is not enough to solve the challenges facing
public transportation in this country. What I offer is the perspective
of nearly 400,000 frontline employees who design, build, operate, and
maintain our critical network of buses, railcars, and subway systems.
While SAFETEA-LU, MAP-21, and FAST each offered important steps forward
for public transportation employees, the needs of America's workforce
remain significant, are changing rapidly with technology, and are
vastly underserved at the Federal and local level.
Increase Funding for Public Transportation
First, TTD applauds the efforts of Environment and Public Works
Committee Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper, who worked
together in a truly bipartisan fashion to pass the largest increase in
Federal highway funding in the history of the program: a 27 percent
increase over FAST Act levels. TTD strongly supports increasing Federal
funding for our surface transportation program across the board, and
looks forward to working with this Committee to increase funding for
public transportation proportionate to the highway funding increase in
the EPW title.
In communities across the country, public transportation is the
vital lifeline people rely on to get to their homes, jobs, schools,
healthcare, and job training programs. Yet, investment simply has not
kept pace with demand in our communities, leading to unreliable or
inadequate service. Riders often find bus and subway systems
undependable, unpredictable, and in some cases, even dangerous. As a
result, our roads become more congested as commuters find alternative
methods of getting around. Whether we are talking major investments
like the Gateway Project in the Northeast or rural bus service in
Plainview, Nebraska, we know that we put the mobility and economic
needs of our communities at a disadvantage when we fail to make
adequate investments in public transportation.
Support the Critical Safety Needs of our Transit Workforce
Congress must take seriously, and fully address, critical safety
needs of transit workers in the next surface transportation
reauthorization. Right now in America, public transportation workers
face an epidemic of assaults. Reports involving transit operators being
hit, spat on, pelted with objects, or worse, being assaulted with a
deadly weapon, have become all too common.
Take, for example, the tragedy that occurred in Florida in May of
last year. Thomas Dunn--an ATU member, Air Force veteran, husband, and
father--was stabbed to death in a random act of violence while
operating a bus for the Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority
(HART) in Tampa, Florida. Heroically, the last thing he did before
succumbing to his injuries was pull his bus to the side of the road and
place it in park, sparing the lives of his passengers and those around
them on the street. Five months prior to this horrific incident, Dunn
voiced concerns to the HART board about his safety, yet management took
no action to protect the life of Dunn or his fellow operators. Just 6
months after this tragedy, one of Dunn's coworkers and union brothers
was brutally stabbed while on duty.
The truth is that transit agencies are simply not doing enough to
improve working conditions for our members. While we were very
encouraged by a bipartisan agreement in the FAST Act to help solve this
problem, sadly, the required FTA rulemaking under that law has now gone
ignored by two administrations. We need this Committee's help to
improve safety, to support those transit agencies that want to help,
and to force the hands of those who have said, frankly, that they have
no interest in lifting a finger. By including the Transit Worker and
Pedestrian Protection Act (S. 436/H.R. 1139) in a surface
transportation reauthorization, this Committee can take an immediate
step to protect transit workers from assault.
Importantly, this bill contains no onerous one-size-fits-all
requirements and no unfunded mandates. Instead, it requires that
transit agencies report accurate and complete assault data to the
National Transit Data base (NTD), and that transit agencies and the
frontline workforce use that data to identify real solutions tailored
to meet their local needs. We understand that not every agency and not
every route has the same problems, but if agencies are not looking at
properly reported data and talking to their employees, we will not be
able to make positive steps forward in solving this crisis.
No one who works for a living should have to face the kind of
unimaginable horror that resulted in Brother Dunn losing his life.
While it is too late to save his, we can work today to prevent another
family from wondering if their mom or dad, husband or wife, will come
home safely from work that evening.
It is not just bus drivers and other transit operators who go to
work fearing for their wellbeing. Conditions can also be dangerous for
those who work at repair facilities. A recent news story, for example,
highlighted hazards at a Baltimore Metro maintenance facility. Photos
showed high-voltage rattraps in public places, outdated smoke
detectors, exposed live wires, wet floors, a defective ventilation
system, and inadequate fire extinguishers. These kinds of working
conditions are unacceptable to the maintenance employees who suffer
them each day, would be unacceptable to any other working American, and
should be unacceptable to this Committee. The Public Transportation
Agency Safety Plan process established under MAP-21, while an important
step forward for safety, fails to include the voices of frontline
workers in the development and approval of the safety plans, leaving
problems like the one in Baltimore unaddressed.
New Technologies and Services
Over the last 10 years, we have witnessed the rapid proliferation
of new, tech-based mobility options in our communities, including ride-
hailing services like Uber, Lyft, and Via; docked and dockless
micromobility services, including electric scooters, bicycles, and now
mopeds; microtransit; shared vehicles; and automated vehicle
demonstration projects. Some of these technologies and services have
already shown real benefits for public transportation. For instance,
bike-sharing has been demonstrated to boost transit ridership, and
workers who are classified correctly as employees in that industry have
successfully exercised their right to form and join unions across the
country.
While TTD and our affiliated unions welcome the opportunity to work
with any partners who are advocating for more and better public
transportation services, we expect partners in innovation to subscribe
to the promise of public transportation established by more than 50
years of Federal policy. That is, it must be equitable and accessible
to all, affordable, safe, and reliable. However, we have serious
concerns about the ride-hailing industry's commitment to that promise.
From the perspective of the transit industry, we understand the
appeal of supplementing first-and last-mile or nighttime service with
companies like Uber, Lyft, and Via. But the appeal of affordability
that they offer is unsustainable and the true costs are hidden. These
companies are sustained by a business model in which operating costs
such as maintenance and insurance are passed on to their drivers, who
are also denied their fundamental rights to fair wages and benefits
that collective bargaining can provide. The result is that drivers
often make less than minimum wage in many cities in which they operate.
Any new technology or innovation in the transportation sector worth
investing public dollars in must be better than this.
The appeal of this technology also poses serious risks related to
the responsible use of both Federal and local funds. Some public
transportation agencies and local governments appear to be attracted to
new mobility and automation technologies simply due to the appeal of
being on the cutting edge, rather than on how they fit into a long-term
transportation plan focused on solving mobility challenges. In such
cases, public funds may be wasted on technology that either does little
to enhance transit services or drains resources that could have been
deployed elsewhere to improve and expand service.
Unlike public transportation, ride-hailing platforms are not, and
were never, intended to serve all users equally. The fact is, the
majority of ride-hailing platform users come from wealthy households,
and the average ride cost puts their services squarely out of the hands
of lower-income customers. The effect of higher income users moving to
single-occupancy vehicles is reduced fare box collections on buses and,
ultimately, reduced transit service in the communities that most
heavily depend on it. Also concerning is the fact that companies like
Uber, Lyft, and Via are not obligated to serve communities where they
may currently have a presence. Unlike public transportation, we have no
idea how much we can count on them in the future.
At the same time, we are seeing a rapid expansion of formal
arrangements between transit agencies and companies like Uber, Lyft,
and Via. TTD does not consider this an appropriate or responsible use
of Federal dollars unless you subject them to the same safety and labor
standards the rest of the industry is correctly expected to abide by.
TTD also has serious concerns that the FTA is setting the stage to
normalize the use of ride-hailing companies in cooperation with or as a
substitute for public transportation without fully considering the
effects of this policy. In a recent notice, FTA added ride-hailing
companies (TN) as a reportable service mode to the NTD under certain
circumstances without accounting for the limitations of the service
they provide and the true costs of those services when compared to
transit buses.
The Federal Government allocates funds to transit agencies through
a formula that includes a variety of factors including bus passenger
miles. As written in the FTA's notice, transit agencies will receive
the same allocation of funding for ride-hailing service as they do bus
service. Yet, operating a bus is significantly more expensive than a
passenger vehicle and provides a far greater utility in total
ridership. To compare the provision of service by a vehicle that on
average serves less than one passenger at a time to a bus that may
serve 60 or more passengers is clearly not in line with the intended
purpose of the NTD and should not be treated equally by Federal
regulation.
With regard to automated vehicles, we know that automated shuttle,
micro-transit, and ride-hailing pilot projects are already on the
ground in a growing number of American cities and more of these
deployments are on the way. We also know that the Administration and
some in Congress are setting policies and regulatory frameworks
designed to facilitate the further deployment of AVs, and it is
imperative that workforce impacts and mitigation strategies are
considered and addressed in these debates. Good union jobs in the
transit sector cannot be jettisoned or ignored simply to satisfy the
demands of tech companies or Wall Street investors.
History tells us that strong unions and worker engagement are
essential to mitigate harms inherent in rapid changes to industries.
Relatively high union density in the transportation workforce and
opportunities to manage change through the collective bargaining
process will play an important role in assisting this sector. At the
same time, Federal regulations that establish a high bar for safety,
worker dislocation policies, and assurances that transportation
services will meet a basic public service standard must be in place. To
that end, TTD urges this Committee to ensure that transit agencies
consult with the public and their employees as they plan deployments of
AV technologies. Both riders and agency employees deserve a voice in
the use of automation technology.
Meeting Workforce Training Needs
Approximately 400,000 Americans work in the public transportation
sector. Of those, 90 percent serve in frontline occupations that
include bus and rail transit operators, station employees, mechanics,
and other non-management positions. Yet, Federal policy has failed to
support the training needs of the frontline transit workforce, risking
major workforce shortages and skill gaps in the coming years.
The reality of this problem is staggering. With the median age in
many frontline transit jobs approaching 52, a large portion of the
blue-collar transit workforce will retire in the next few years. The
result is that the equivalent of more than 120 percent of today's
transit workforce will have to be hired and/or retrained in the next 10
years just to meet our existing needs. Furthermore, as technology
rapidly evolves (e.g., the transition to battery electric buses), the
transit industry has demonstrated that it simply does not have the
tools it needs to recruit, train, and retrain the next generation of
technicians and other high-skilled workers. Without an adequate
pipeline of new recruits and upskilling opportunities for the existing
workers, our transit systems will face serious challenges providing
service.
On average, transit agencies spend just .66 to .88 percent of total
payroll on training compared to the average of 4 to 5 percent in many
parts of the private sector. This lack of investment in human capital
is driven in part by a lack of funding. Virtually no reliable funding
is set aside for frontline transit workforce development and training.
Currently, 80 percent of the Federal Transit Administration's limited
workforce funds go to white-collar roles. The recipient of a
significant portion of those funds, the National Transit Institute
(NTI), by its own admission focuses on training the transit workforce
in management and front office roles.
While TTD recognizes the importance of NTI and the role it plays in
supporting the training needs of the transit industry, the largest
workforce skills gaps and retention issues remain among those on the
frontlines of our transit systems, including technicians, drivers,
electricians, and signal operators--professions that do not receive
training at 4-year universities. To meet the training needs for the
entire transit workforce, Congress should provide funding for a similar
NTI-like training center that is focused on the frontline workforce and
effective labor-management partnerships for training and safety.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recognized the need for
such an organization in its recent industry needs analysis, and funding
was provided for a comparable undertaking in fiscal year Transportation
Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill. While TTD applauds
the Appropriation committee's efforts, authorizing a permanent program
will ensure that an organization with a demonstrated capacity to
develop and provide standards-based training in maintenance and
operations will create positive change for frontline workers and
transit agencies on a permanent, reliable basis.
Standing up For America's Workforce
We know that jobs created by investments in public transportation
are good jobs that support workers and their families. This is because
of high union density in this sector and because of the Federal
policies that have been associated with these investments since the
creation of this program. It would be a grave mistake for the health of
our Nation to use a surface transportation bill to attack these
important laws or to undercut collective bargaining rights that are
essential to the good jobs that can and should be created in this
space.
This Committee should also strengthen Buy America and other
domestic content and manufacturing provisions. For too long,
manufacturing was in decline in the United States, leaving workers
without the good jobs that were once the bedrock of their communities.
Thankfully, manufacturing is once again growing here at home, and that
is due in part to Federal regulations like Buy America, which ensures
raw materials and the buses, rail cars, and other equipment they are
used to produce are all sourced and manufactured right here in our own
back yards. This Committee should stand proudly by those provisions and
continue to promote policies that will expand and strengthen Buy
America application throughout the entirety of the supply chain, and
increase transparency and compliance to all projects receiving Federal
dollars. This will ensure that public dollars support the American
manufacturing industry and not just the lowest bidder.
Finally, while TTD supports the responsible use of public-private
partnerships, these financing models must not be used for the purpose
of undercutting good stable jobs in this industry. Any transit P3 that
receives Federal funding must include the same Davis-Bacon, 13(c), and
Buy America labor standards applied to them as Federal formula funds
available under Titles 23 and 49 of the U.S. Code. By way of example,
the FAST Act included sensible requirements in the pilot program for
public transportation P3s that should not just be preserved, but also
considered the norm for any future Federal P3 legislation. We also urge
this Committee not to include provisions that will mandate or
incentivize the privatization of local public transit services at the
expense of frontline workers or reliable service that communities and
commuters depend on.
With that, I am happy to answer any questions.
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR BROWN FROM PAUL P.
SKOUTELAS
Q.1. The FAST Act allows CIG projects to seek up to a 60
percent Federal share for most large projects, but our
Committee and the Appropriations Committee heard that FTA has
pressured agencies to reduce their Federal share from the CIG
program to less than 40 percent. The THUD subcommittee and its
Ranking Member, Senator Reed, responded by adding a provision
to the recent omnibus that protects projects.
How do APTA members feel about FTA adding additional
requirements after projects have entered the CIG program?
A.1. First, thank you Senator Brown for your continued
commitment to the Capital Investment Grants (CIG) program.
Capital Investment Grants are a critical tool to address
mobility demands across the country and to grow the national
economy. APTA strongly supported your efforts to prohibit FTA
from impeding or hindering a project from advancing or
approving projects seeking a reduced CIG Federal share.
APTA also strongly supported your efforts to block new
policies detailed in FTA's June 29, 2018, Dear Colleague letter
to CIG project sponsors. I summarized APTA's position in July
16, 2019, testimony before the House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee: ``Although we have a great
partnership with FTA, we have a serious difference of opinion
with the agency regarding the policies outlined in FTA's Dear
Colleague letter. We regret that FTA did not consult with the
public transit industry prior to making these significant
policy changes. FTA's Dear Colleague letter has created
considerable confusion among project sponsors regarding certain
CIG policies.'' We look forward to continuing to work with you
to ensure that CIG projects are advanced expeditiously and
fairly to improve mobility across the Nation.
Q.2. Congress first authorized agencies to apply for ``Programs
of Interrelated Projects'' in 2012. Is it time for FTA to allow
multi-corridor applications, and how can agencies save taxpayer
funds by building multiple rail or bus rapid transit lines
simultaneously?
A.2. APTA has long supported implementation of the Program of
Interrelated Projects to enable simultaneous development of new
projects. APTA's Recommendations on Surface Transportation Law
propose adding ``a Congressional notification requirement on
the status of implementation for the Program of Interrelated
Projects and the Expedited Project Delivery Pilot Program.''
There is no question that the Program of Interrelated Projects
has the potential to improve project delivery by helping enable
the simultaneous development of fixed guideway projects, small
start projects, and core capacity improvement projects.
------
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR TESTER FROM PAUL P.
SKOUTELAS
Affordable Housing
Q.1. Transit is incredibly important to rural states, but when
we think of transit, we often think of mass transit systems in
big cities. That would discount the enormous impact that rural
transit has on Montana, providing folks with affordable
transportation around the State.
What can be done to ensure that this bill works for rural
America?
A.1. First, thank you Senator Tester for your commitment to
public transportation. I agree wholeheartedly with your
statement that transit has an enormous impact in rural states
like Montana. According to the FTA, there are 1,279 transit
agencies operating in rural areas and 928 transit agencies
operating in urbanized areas. In addition, there are
approximately 4,580 nonprofit public transportation providers
operating across the Nation. A majority of providers operate in
rural areas.
Support for transit operators in rural America begins with
robust and reliable Federal funding. As a general rule, smaller
systems are more reliant on Federal funds as a percentage of
capital budgets than larger systems. Many smaller agencies are
also able to use Federal funds for operating budgets under the
``100 bus rule''. Additionally, ensuring that the next
authorization act provides long-term funding and there is no
funding lapse during Congressional negotiations is extremely
important. The funding uncertainty during Government shutdowns
has, in general, affected smaller agencies more acutely than
larger systems.
APTA's Recommendations on Surface Transportation Law
include several key investments including more than doubling
Rural Formula Grants, which supports public transportation in
rural areas with populations of less than 50,000 and includes
the Tribal Transit Program. We also propose more than tripling
current Buses and Bus Facilities program funding over a 6-year
authorization period.
We also recommend a number of programmatic reforms that
would help smaller agencies, including protection in the event
of the Government shutdown, direct apportionment of funds to
agencies in Urbanized Areas with a population between 50,000 to
200,000, and greater flexibility in FTA spare ratio
requirements.
Veterans
Q.2. Missoula, Montana has one of the most robust bus systems
in the State. Recently, Congress approved the authorization and
funding for a new Missoula Veterans Community Based Outpatient
Clinic that will open late next year or early 2022. While there
is a bus stop at the old clinic, there is no guarantee that a
stop at the new clinic will be possible. Missoula transit is
already at capacity, and does not have the resources to expand
the bus route, but will also be faced with skyrocketing
paratransit costs without a bus stop.
Do you have any recommendations for how Congress can work
to make surface transportation reauthorization responsive to
the needs of veterans so that when we build Federal facilities
we also have Federal funds to help people get to them via
transit?
A.2. There is no question that connecting rural veterans to
health care facilities is a critical service provided by public
transportation operators in many areas. There are almost five
million U.S. veterans living in rural areas and each has
specific mobility needs.
It is important that public transportation operators be
given the resources necessary to perform those services.
Additionally, State and regional planning should always include
consideration of transportation options to connect Americans to
health, education, economic, and other opportunities.
Many communities are prioritizing ``transit-oriented
development'' to spur economic development and connectivity,
but we believe that the focus should really evolve to
``transit-oriented communities''. APTA worked in conjunction
with CTAA on a report ``Public Transportation's Impact on Rural
and Small Towns'' that describes this and other opportunities
in rural areas.
Capital Investment Grants
Q.3. Regarding Capital Investment Grants and Bus Rapid Transit,
the transit system in Missoula does more than 1.5 million rides
per year, which helps get cars off the road in one of Montana's
fastest growing towns. There is a road that comes down from the
Bitterroot Mountains called Brooks Street, which is the main
line of traffic through Missoula, and a BRT system would
alleviate congestion and improve safety. But, as you all know,
the bulk of the Capital Investment Grant funding pool goes to
bigger cities across the United States. This funding doesn't
necessarily go to Main Street Montana, where these dollars
would make a big difference.
What recommendations do you have to improve the Capital
Investment Grant program so that we can better serve our small
urbanized areas in Montana?
A.3. APTA strongly supports the Capital Investment Grants (CIG)
program, which includes New Starts, Core Capacity, and Small
Starts projects. Small urbanized areas have taken advantage of
this program. For example, Flagstaff, Arizona recently
completed a successful Small Starts bus rapid transit project.
Flagstaff currently has another project in the CIG pipeline as
well.
APTA believes that the program can be improved in a way
that could encourage greater participation by agencies of all
sizes. Over the years, both Congress and FTA have repeatedly
layered additional requirements on the CIG program, resulting
in a bureaucratic maze. APTA has put forward recommendations
based on the concept of a zero-based review of the CIG program
to assess all statutory, regulatory, and other administrative
requirements. These reforms could make taxpayer dollars go
further by streamlining project delivery and improving the CIG
process for agencies across the country.
------
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR WARREN FROM PAUL P.
SKOUTELAS
Q.1. Transportation represents about 29 percent of U.S.
emissions, which is the largest polluting sector of our
economy. Numerous climate scientists believe that
electrification is the best way to address climate change
within our transportation sector. This is because electric
engines are far more efficient than combustion engines and
reduce the amount of energy needed for transportation by about
two-thirds. In addition, maintenance costs for electric motors
is much lower because they have far fewer moving parts than
conventional motors and are far more efficient. Many public
transit agencies support electrification and are beginning to
integrate zero-emission buses into their fleets including
setting goals for 100 percent zero-emission bus fleets in
future years.
Q.1.a. Does the American Public Transportation Association
support increased Federal funding for electric bus procurement?
A.1.a. First, thank you Senator Warren for your commitment to
public transportation. APTA absolutely supports increased
Federal funding for key transit programs that help agencies
procure alternative fuel vehicles, including electric buses.
There are several programs that support procurement of electric
buses and other vehicles, with the most targeted being the Low
or No Emission Grants program. APTA proposes more than tripling
funding for the program over a 6-year period.
Q.1.b. How much would a transit agency save on maintenance and
fuel costs per electric bus compared to a conventional diesel
or natural gas powered bus?
A.1.b. There is an expectation that battery electric buses will
have lower maintenance costs because they have fewer moving
parts and don't require oil changes. At present, however, there
is not sufficient data on long-term electric bus maintenance
costs to confirm that they will provide maintenance savings. As
agencies continue to collect data, electric bus maintenance
costs will become clearer. Similarly, battery electric drive is
a more efficient propulsion system than diesel or CNG
propulsion, but actual energy costs for battery electric buses
vary significantly depending on the operating conditions and
provide varying results to agencies. Agencies are working
closely with their electric utilities to understand and manage
electricity costs to provide fuel cost savings.
I will note that the California Air Resources Board (CARB),
which is part of the California Environmental Protection
Agency, has indicated that an electric bus can save as much as
$458,000 in fuel and maintenance costs compared with a diesel
bus over its life cycle. CARB also predicts $336,000 in savings
compared with a CNG bus.
Q.1.c. What level of funding do you believe is required to
electrify the entire public bus fleet by 2040?
A.1.c. The cost to electrify the total U.S. transit bus fleet
would of course include the cost of each electric bus, but also
the charging equipment, the cost to prepare facilities to
accommodate charging, and the cost to upgrade facilities to
meet increased power demand. There are also other costs, such
as workforce training, that are difficult to estimate.
We reviewed current prices of electric buses, costs of
necessary chargers and facility upgrades, and we considered
assumptions being made about how those costs could change
between now and 2040. APTA estimates that there were
approximately 72,000 transit vehicles used for bus service in
operation in the U.S. fleet in 2018, and fewer than 1,000 of
those vehicles were electric. Of course, the U.S. transit bus
fleet must expand significantly by 2040 to meet growing demand
and mitigate congestion associated with population growth, but
we will limit our scope for the purpose of this question to the
approximately 72,000 vehicles currently in operation.
Some observers have expressed very optimistic assumptions
about how the cost of electric buses and associated
infrastructure will fall over time. Extrapolating those
predictions would lead to an estimate that delivering
approximately 72,000 electric buses to transit agencies would
cost about $45 billion. Other, more conservative, assumptions
would lead to a wide range of estimates from about $55 billion
to $70 billion.
------
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR CORTEZ MASTO FROM
PAUL P. SKOUTELAS
Q.1. APTA put out a report last fall outlining the needs of
transportation services for late-shift workers, can you explain
what the reaction has been to this report and what policy
prescriptions do you think we can pursue for these workers?
A.1. First, thank you Senator Cortez Masto for your commitment
to public transportation. Our Supporting Late-Shift Workers
report has been very well received as it has highlighted the
mobility needs of a rapidly growing segment of workers in
today's economy. One of the fastest growing job segments in the
United States is late-shift work that begins between 4 p.m. and
6 a.m.
Increased investment in public transportation will give
transit agencies more flexibility to expand service for late-
shift workers. This issue also highlights how critical it is to
get our systems back to a state-of-good-repair. Many public
transit systems have a reduced capacity to operate late-night
public transit service because of maintenance and upkeep needs
that must be performed in off-hours. Additionally, there are
innovative partnerships that transit agencies are pursuing to
better serve late-shift workers.
Q.2. What are the costs that come with delays in support from
the Federal DOT on positively scored CIG projects?
A.2. In 2017, APTA conducted an assessment of the $38 billion
of planned projects in the Capital Investment Grants (CIG)
pipeline. The bottom line was that the projects would ``support
502,000 jobs within the span of constructing these projects--
representing project construction jobs, transit equipment
manufacturing jobs and wider multiplier effects on jobs
associated with parts & materials suppliers and worker re-
spending.'' The analysis found that eliminating the CIG program
would result in a ``possible loss of $90 billion in economic
output due to the reduced hard-hat employment and their
associated spending.''
Those stark outcomes demonstrate just how important it is
that these projects move forward expeditiously. Communities
across the Nation need new and expanded public transportation
options to meet growing demand. The economic, environmental,
safety and other benefits that public transportation provides
just can't wait.
Q.3. What types of policies should the Federal Government
pursue to encourage the use of zero-emissions technology in our
transit systems?
A.3. APTA's Recommendations on Surface Transportation Law
include several proposals for critical Federal investments to
help transit agencies transition to alternative fuel
technologies. First, APTA proposes to increase funding
significantly for Low- or No-Emission Grants--more than
tripling funding for the program over a 6-year period. These
grants are helping many public transit agencies transition
their fleets to zero-emission buses and construct the necessary
recharging, refueling, and maintenance facilities.
In addition, many transit agencies rely on the alternative
fuel infrastructure tax credit (26 U.S.C. 30C). APTA members
also greatly benefit from the alternative fuel tax credit (26
U.S.C. 6426(d) and 6427(e)) that may be utilized by transit
agencies fueling their vehicles with compressed (CNG) or
liquefied (LNG) natural gas. APTA supports extending this
credit to electric and hybrid electric vehicles.
Many transit agencies transitioning to low- and no-emission
fleets are facing difficulties with Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) regulations on ``spare ratio''. Under
current regulations, the number of spare buses in the active
fleet for recipients operating 50 or more fixed-route revenue
vehicles cannot exceed 20 percent of the number of vehicles
operated in maximum fixed-route service. This spare ratio
limitation is a burden on public transit agencies transitioning
to electric buses because these electric buses do not always
have the same range of service as diesel- or CNG-fueled buses.
We recommend providing relief to agencies by instructing FTA to
not consider vehicles operating beyond the minimum useful life
as well as not considering low- or no-emission vehicles in the
spare ratio calculation.
Q.4. Recent National Transit Database data that shows that
transit fleet sizes in America has declined 22 percent, or
16,304 buses, in just five short years.
A.4.a. What does this mean for riders in rural areas? Urban
areas?
A.4.b. Do you think the reduction in Federal funding is the
biggest reason for the fleet size decline and aging fleets?
A.4.c. What can we be doing at the Federal level to help?
A.4.a.-c. Restoring the Buses and Bus Facilities Program to its
historical share of funding is among our top three priorities
in APTA's Recommendations on Surface Transportation Law. This
priority is critical for agencies in both urban and rural
areas, and I highlighted a few examples of acute needs in my
testimony.
In the 2013 National Transit Data base (NTD) Revenue
Vehicle Inventory Report, there were 80,153 buses (including
over-the-road buses, articulated buses, and other buses) and
29,417 vans. The 2013 report did not include a separate
category for cutaway vehicles, and many of these vehicles
appear to be classified as buses in that report. In 2018, the
NTD report included 64,458 buses, 24,641 cutaway vehicles, and
19,961 vans.
APTA strongly believes that funding from all levels of
government (Federal, State, and local) should be sufficient to
allow agencies to operate the vehicles that serve their
communities in the safest, most effective, and most efficient
way possible. Agencies should be able to retire buses that are
beyond their useful life and maintain and grow their fleets to
meet ridership demands.
------
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR McSALLY FROM PAUL P.
SKOUTELAS
Q.1. All of you support increasing funding for infrastructure.
Making sure that Federal transit dollars are targeted to
expanding options and access for the taxpayer is important,
especially since they are the ones who pay for it.
Accountability and performance is something that I believe we
should all be prioritizing. A GAO report to this Committee
identified three performance accountability mechanisms for
making Federal transit programs more performance-based,
including:
Lproviding financial rewards or penalties sanctions,
Lincreasing or decreasing program flexibility as a
performance incentive, and,
Lrecognizing entities that achieve certain
performance goals.
If Congress increased the amount of funding for the transit
programs in the reauthorization, as you all support in your
testimony, what recommendations would you give for encouraging
accountability, innovation, and ultimately performance?
A.1. First, thank you Senator McSally for your commitment to
public transportation. We are always seeking opportunities to
enable transit agencies to have the flexibility and resources
they need to expand and improve service for riders across the
country who are increasingly demanding greater access to
reliable, frequent, and effective public transportation
options. Public transportation agencies work hard every day to
deliver a critical service in their communities. Agencies are
accountable to their boards, municipalities, States, State
safety oversight agencies, FTA, and most importantly, their
riders. APTA has proposed and supported reasonable regulatory
reforms to streamline project delivery to make taxpayer dollars
go further. While sanctions and/or decreased flexibility in
Federal programs are not consistent with the recommendations we
have put forward, we are always happy to give feedback on any
specific proposals and work with your office on achieving our
shared goals.
Q.2. By directing more of those funds to performance incentives
such as the Small-Transit Incentive Cities (STIC) Program or
the incentive tier of the urban formula program, what benefits
should taxpayers expect to receive?
A.2. APTA supports S. 2663, the Small Community Transit
Improvement Act of 2019, which would increase the set-aside for
the STIC program from 2 percent to 3 percent of Urbanized Area
Formula funds. APTA's Recommendations on Surface Transportation
Law includes this percentage increase, and our proposal would
result in STIC funding growing from about $95 million in fiscal
year 2020 to about $350 million in fiscal year 2026.
This is an incredibly important program for eligible
agencies, often in college towns, that exceed certain service
criteria averages for larger communities. STIC supports
projects that grow the economy by connecting riders with
employment, education, and other opportunities that support
Main Street businesses. We look forward to working with your
office to increase funding for this program.
------
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR TESTER FROM PATRICK
K. McKENNA
Affordable Transportation
Q.1. Transit is incredibly important to rural states, but when
we think of transit, we often think of mass transit systems in
big cities. That would discount the enormous impact that rural
transit has on Montana, providing folks with affordable
transportation around the State.
What can be done to ensure that this bill works for rural
America?
A.1. I very much appreciate and understand the concerns you
raise. With the support of Congress, State DOTs have and
continue to provide significant technical and financial support
for public transportation services in rural areas and small
cities. These rural services are not only essential to ensuring
access to mobility; health care; education and recreational
opportunities, they are vital for local economic
competitiveness. These rural services are also most sensitive
to disruptions in the Federal-aid transit program and new
programmatic requirements. As I stated in my written testimony,
one of the best ways to stabilize and support the vital public
transportation services in these communities is to:
1. LEnsure the timely reauthorization of a long-term Federal
surface transportation bill;
2. LFix the Highway Trust Fund supported through a
sustainable revenue source or sources;
3. LIncrease and prioritize the formula-based apportionment
of funds to states;
4. LIncrease the flexibility and reduce program burdens to
enhance the program/project delivery process; and
5. LPromote the ability of states/small systems to implement
new innovative service models and technologies to best
support local needs.
In this context, AASHTO strongly supports retaining the
existing Federal funding program structure that provides
critical and predictable support for rural areas; small cities;
and specialized services addressing the needs of older adults
and people with disabilities. These programs, including the
Urbanized Area Formula Grants program; the Formula Grants for
Rural Areas program; and the Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and
Individuals with Disabilities program provide critical lifeline
services.
To preserve and enhance the availability of rural public
transportation services, AASHTO also encourages Congress to
codify the current Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan
(PTASP) exemption for rural transit providers. Finally,
Congress should reaffirm its commitment to the Coordinating
Council on Access Mobility (CCAM) to encourage Federal
agencies, including the departments of Health and Human
Services and Veterans Affairs, to support efforts to enhance
mobility/optimize services in rural areas.
Veterans
Q.2. Missoula, Montana has one of the most robust bus systems
in the State. Recently, Congress approved the authorization and
funding for a new Missoula Veterans Community Based Outpatient
Clinic that will open late next year or early 2022. While there
is a bus stop at the old clinic, there is no guarantee that a
stop at the new clinic will be possible. Missoula transit is
already at capacity, and does not have the resources to expand
the bus route, but will also be faced with skyrocketing
paratransit costs without a bus stop.
Do you have any recommendations for how Congress can work
to make surface transportation reauthorization responsive to
the needs of veterans so that when we build Federal facilities
we also have Federal funds to help people get to them via
transit?
A.2. Thank you for asking a very critical question pertaining
to how public transportation can better serve our Nation's
veterans who attend medical appointments at Veterans
Administration (VA) facilities. Many VA facilities are not
located near or well served by established, fixed route transit
services. As a result, veterans rely on paratransit services
providers and/or non-emergency medical transportation (NEMT)
transportation service providers, such as ambulettes.
Missouri DOT and its transit providers do a good job at
getting those unable to drive themselves or do not wish to
drive themselves to and from their medical appointments. NEMT
is a vital component of our State's transit program that serves
our rural communities, and our citizens who need transit the
most, including people with disabilities, seniors and veterans.
However, Missouri, similar to other states, has demands
that significantly exceed available services. To address this
need, some of transit service providers in Missouri piloted
programs to utilize volunteer drivers as well as institute a
mobility management process. But the financial need for
additional service remains overwhelming.
How can the next surface transportation reauthorization be
more responsive to the needs of veterans? A good start would be
for Congress to enhance the Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and
Individuals with Disabilities (FTA Section 5310) and Formula
Grants for Rural Areas (Section 5311) programs. In addition,
these programs should be flexible enough to work together and
not restrict passengers by trip purpose. That would allow
veterans, seniors or other individuals making trips to visit
with doctors to make interim stops to pick up medications,
groceries, and other vital, everyday needs.
Additionally, State DOTs, including Missouri DOT, rely on
the work of the Coordinating Council for Access and Mobility--
called the CCAM--to provide a model for states on human service
coordination and how to best eliminate barriers to local
transportation coordination on things like NEMT.
In the next reauthorization, Congress should reaffirm its
commitment to the CCAM, encourage Federal agencies like HHS and
Veterans Affairs to be more active in it and encourage HHS and
Veterans Affairs to work with the Federal Transit
Administration and states on a cost-allocation methodology that
incorporates and recognizes the efficiencies of public
transportation services.
Ideally, Congress could provide more incentives to
coordinate among State agencies, like a higher Federal funding
ratio for programs that coordinate and fund pilot projects to
test various models for coordinating services.
Capital Investment Grants
Q.3. Regarding Capital Investment Grants and Bus Rapid Transit,
the transit system in Missoula does more than 1.5 million rides
per year, which helps get cars off the road in one of Montana's
fastest growing towns. There is a road that comes down from the
Bitterroot Mountains called Brooks Street, which is the main
line of traffic through Missoula, and a BRT system would
alleviate congestion and improve safety. But, as you all know,
the bulk of the Capital Investment Grant funding pool goes to
bigger cities across the United States. This funding doesn't
necessarily go to Main Street Montana, where these dollars
would make a big difference.
What recommendations do you have to improve the Capital
Investment Grant program so that we can better serve our small
urbanized areas in Montana?
A.3. Thank you for the important question related to Capital
Investment Grant program and its importance and role in serving
small urbanized areas in Montana and around the country. For
the next surface transportation authorization, I noted in my
written testimony that AASHTO's third top priority calls for
increasing and prioritizing formula-based Federal funding
provided to states, including ``robust funds for the Capital
Investment Grants program including the New Starts and Small
Starts programs.''
AASHTO agrees with the testimony of APTA and CTAA about the
importance of the Capital Investment Grant program to the
success of transit projects around the country and in Montana.
A good first step would be Congress conducting a review to
assess the Capital Investment Grant program requirements, as
APTA suggests in its testimony. This way, we can begin to
simplify the program's maze of statutory, regulatory and
administrative requirements. This effort is in line with
AASHTO's fourth priority for surface transportation
authorization, as noted in our written testimony, which is to
``increase flexibility, reduce program burdens, and improve
project delivery.'' By reducing the program's burdensome
requirements, combined with robust program funding, we can
ensure that transit projects in Missoula and in cities of
similar size succeed.
------
RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION OF SENATOR CORTEZ MASTO FROM
PATRICK K. McKENNA
Q.1. Rural transportation is something I hear about a lot when
I travel rural Nevada every year, and even with creative and
dedicated folks working hard to address this--in places like
Elko or Ely, or around Lake Tahoe--there are still major
challenges.
From your perspective, how do we better assist and provide
support to these parts of our country that need vital
transportation regular people to their health care, jobs, or
just generally their everyday lives?
A.1. I very much appreciate and understand the concerns you
raise. With the support of Congress, State DOTs have and
continue to provide significant technical and financial support
for public transportation services in rural areas and small
cities. These rural services are not only essential to ensuring
access to mobility; health care; education and recreational
opportunities, they are vital for local economic
competitiveness. These rural services are also most sensitive
to disruptions in the Federal-aid transit program and new
programmatic requirements. As I stated in my written testimony,
one of the best ways to stabilize and support the vital public
transportation services in these communities is to:
1. LEnsure the timely reauthorization of a long-term Federal
surface transportation bill;
2. LFix the Highway Trust Fund supported through a
sustainable revenue source or sources;
3. LIncrease and prioritize the formula-based apportionment
of funds to states;
4. LIncrease the flexibility and reduce program burdens to
enhance the program/project delivery process; and
5. LPromote the ability of states/small systems to implement
new innovative service models and technologies to best
support local needs.
In this context, AASHTO strongly supports retaining the
existing Federal funding program structure that provides
critical and predictable support for rural areas; small cities;
and specialized services addressing the needs of older adults
and people with disabilities. These programs, including the
Urbanized Area Formula Grants program; the Formula Grants for
Rural Areas program; and the Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and
Individuals with Disabilities program provide critical lifeline
services.
To preserve and enhance the availability of rural public
transportation services, AASHTO also encourages Congress to
codify the current Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan
(PTASP) exemption for rural transit providers. Finally,
Congress should reaffirm its commitment to the Coordinating
Council on Access Mobility (CCAM) to encourage Federal
agencies, including the departments of Health and Human
Services and Veterans Affairs, to support efforts to enhance
mobility/optimize services in rural areas.
------
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR TESTER FROM SCOTT
BOGREN
Affordable Housing
Q.1. Transit is incredibly important to rural states, but when
we think of transit, we often think of mass transit systems in
big cities. That would discount the enormous impact that rural
transit has on Montana, providing folks with affordable
transportation around the State.
What can be done to ensure that this bill works for rural
America?
A.1. As we stated in our oral and written testimony, CTAA and
its members understand the value of rural public
transportation. That's why our principles for the next surface
transportation authorization call for: (a) predictable,
sustainable and steadily increasing FTA formula funding for
rural and tribal public transit; (b) providing for increased
Federal share in rural or tribal areas with unusually high
indicators of transit need or economic distress; (c) supporting
the planning and launching of rural or tribal transit in
currently unserved areas; and (d) right-sizing many of the FTA
regulations that shape--or confine--the provision of rural
transit.
Veterans
Q.2. Missoula, Montana has one of the most robust bus systems
in the State. Recently, Congress approved the authorization and
funding for a new Missoula Veterans Community Based Outpatient
Clinic that will open late next year or early 2022. While there
is a bus stop at the old clinic, there is no guarantee that a
stop at the new clinic will be possible. Missoula transit is
already at capacity, and does not have the resources to expand
the bus route, but will also be faced with skyrocketing
paratransit costs without a bus stop.
Do you have any recommendations for how Congress can work
to make surface transportation reauthorization responsive to
the needs of veterans so that when we build Federal facilities
we also have Federal funds to help people get to them via
transit?
A.2. This is a very real challenge, both in Missoula and around
the Nation. To be honest, it's not clear how much more can be
done via the surface transportation bill to assure that there
is available, affordable, accessible transportation to help our
Nation's veterans receive the health care to which they're
entitled on account of their service to our country. For
instance, urban and rural public transportation providers
already are able to use contract revenue from medical and
social services as part of the non-Federal share of their FTA
grants, but the Department of Veterans Affairs lacks any
mechanism for contracting with public transit providers for the
transportation of veterans, aside from its limited
discretionary grant program of transportation for veterans in
highly rural areas (for which a location such as Missoula is
not even eligible). Countless public transit systems in the
United States now provide free or steeply discounted transit
for veterans. Nearly every VA facility in the country has a
website that includes information about available public
transit. There are many transit agencies around the United
States providing ``mobility management'' services that aim to
connect persons having transportation challenges with the
transit services appropriate to their circumstances and
destinations, but with veterans, it often is the case that
they're told, ``we're sorry, but there's no transportation
between your home and your VA healthcare.'' We don't know the
details, but it probably is the case that the VA's decision
about where to relocate the Missoula CBOC was made consistent
with VA and GSA policy, which do not require the agency to
consider transit availability when making these siting and real
estate decisions. If the aim of addressing these issues through
surface transportation legislation is to help find ways for
agencies such as Missoula's public transit system to continue
providing veterans' access to relocated VA healthcare by
extending service it otherwise cannot afford to provide, there
are a few tweaks in the transit program that might ease this
burden, such as requiring veterans' access to VA healthcare to
be a consideration in MPOs' metropolitan transportation plans
and in the Section 5310 program's coordinated public transit-
human services transportation plans, combined with a provision
that a portion of apportioned Section 5307 and 5310 funds be
addressed toward helping these FTA recipients meet those
identified needs for improved veterans transportation.
Capital Investment Grants
Q.3. Regarding Capital Investment Grants and Bus Rapid Transit,
the transit system in Missoula does more than 1.5 million rides
per year, which helps get cars off the road in one of Montana's
fastest growing towns. There is a road that comes down from the
Bitterroot Mountains called Brooks Street, which is the main
line of traffic through Missoula, and a BRT system would
alleviate congestion and improve safety. But, as you all know,
the bulk of the Capital Investment Grant funding pool goes to
bigger cities across the United States. This funding doesn't
necessarily go to Main Street Montana, where these dollars
would make a big difference.
What recommendations do you have to improve the Capital
Investment Grant program so that we can better serve our small
urbanized areas in Montana?
A.3. CTAA recognizes that FTA's Capital Investment Grant
program has not made many inroads into rural or small-urban
America. In fact, FTA's data suggest that the only CIG projects
in places of less than 200,000 population have been bus rapid
transit projects in Flagstaff, AZ, Aspen, CO, and Waco, TX.
When the ``small starts'' category was added to the CIG program
under MAP-21, we're sure that Members of Congress and other
leaders thought this would be a way to assure that important
transit projects in places outside our Nation's largest urban
areas would receive FTA financial support. Recognizing that CIG
is a highly competitive program, and is supported through
general fund appropriations (i.e., not supported with any
Highway Trust Fund dollars), we are sure that Missoula and
other smaller urbanized areas around the country should at
least have a chance to have their BRT or other fixed-guideway
projects considered for CIG funding. Given how few CIG projects
have been approved in places under 200,000 population
throughout FTA's history, one possible mechanism could be a
statutory requirement that some minimum percentage of each
year's CIG funds be directed toward small starts in urbanized
areas of less than 200,000 population, and that FTA be directed
to provide technical assistance to prospective sponsors of
small-urban CIG projects to help assure that viable,
meritorious projects are considered for future small starts
funding under CIG.
------
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR CORTEZ MASTO FROM
SCOTT BOGREN
Q.1. How can we best ensure that communities without many
resources, such as many of our rural areas in Nevada with
nontaxable public land, have the ability to apply for DOT
grants?
A.1. Under current law, the Section 5311 program of rural
transit formula grants has a useful feature for addressing this
situation, in that 49 U.S.C. 5311(g)(1)(B) allows States with
high percentages of public lands to receive a higher Federal
share on their Section 5311 rural transit capital projects,
using the same ``sliding scale'' as they receive for their
Federal highway grants, and 49 U.S.C. 5311(g)(2)(B) provides 5/
8 of this ``sliding scale'' percentage as the Federal share for
rural transit operating costs in these same states, in contrast
to the standard rates of 80 percent Federal share for capital
projects and 50 percent Federal share for operating projects.
In Nevada, this means that the State's rural transit providers'
capital projects are funded at a 94.89 percent Federal share,
and their operating projects are funded at a 59.31 percent
Federal share. This is a proven, equitable strategy. CTAA would
like to see these same sliding scale rates applied to FTA's
other formula grant programs, so that Nevada's nonprofit
elderly and disabled persons' transportation providers can
better access Federal funds through the Section 5310 program,
that Nevada's urban transit programs in Las Vegas, Reno, and
Carson City can better utilize their Section 5307 funding, and
that Section 5310 and 5307 recipients in the other 13 ``sliding
scale'' states may also benefit from these increased Federal
shares that already are part of their rural transit and Federal
highway projects.
Q.2. Recent National Transit Database data that shows that
transit fleet sizes in America has declined 22 percent, or
16,304 buses, in just five short years.
Q.2.a. What does this mean for riders in rural areas? Urban
areas?
A.2.a. There are a lot of moving pieces in this puzzle of
effective transit availability and utilization in both urban
and rural areas. Overall, there's been a decline in transit
ridership over that same 5-year period, but the ridership
decline is only around 6.6 percent. Transit utilization is
driven by many things, including gasoline prices, car
ownership/availability, poverty rates, fares and other elements
of transit pricing, and myriad economic indicators external to
the transit operation. Nonetheless, we maintain that a fleet of
safe, available and accessible transit vehicles is essential,
if we are going to sustain an effective transit program for our
country's rural and urban areas.
Q.2.b. Do you think the reduction in Federal funding is the
biggest reason for the fleet size decline and aging fleets?
A.2.b. What CTAA has heard from our members, and from our
colleagues at states' departments of transportation, is that
the Nation's transit fleet entered a period of increasing
decline in both numbers and condition in 2012, when the MAP-21
legislation dramatically cut funding for the Federal program
that provided dedicated capital for buses and bus facilities in
both urban and rural areas. Funding under the FAST Act, and
additional bus capital funding under the last few cycles of
annual appropriations, have begun a gradual recovery from the
MAP-21 setbacks, but we're not yet out of the woods. If you
look at urban or rural transit systems anywhere in the country,
you'll still see a lot of vehicles that were put into service
during the SAFETEA-LU authorization period (2009-2012), and
there continues to be a large number of transit vehicles
acquired under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009, still seeing daily service more than a decade later, even
as they roll on well beyond their intended useful life.
Q.2.c. What can we be doing at the Federal level to help?
A.2.c. This challenge has a straightforward solution: the
Nation's rural and urban transit providers need to see an
adequately funded program of dedicated funding for buses and
bus facilities. When funded at adequate levels, the Section
5339 program is an effective structure through which Federal
appropriations lead to reliable transit vehicles entering
service around the country. We hope the next cycle of transit
authorizations will help assure that aging, costly to-operate,
and fuel-inefficient transit vehicles no longer need to be
placed into daily service.
------
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR McSALLY FROM SCOTT
BOGREN
Q.1. All of you support increasing funding for infrastructure.
Making sure that Federal transit dollars are targeted to
expanding options and access for the taxpayer is important,
especially since they are the ones who pay for it.
Accountability and performance is something that I believe we
should all be prioritizing. A GAO report to this Committee
identified three performance accountability mechanisms for
making Federal transit programs more performance-based,
including:
Lproviding financial rewards or penalties sanctions,
Lincreasing or decreasing program flexibility as a
performance incentive, and
Lrecognizing entities that achieve certain
performance goals.
If Congress increased the amount of funding for the transit
programs in the reauthorization, as you all support in your
testimony, what recommendations would you give for encouraging
accountability, innovation, and ultimately performance?
A.1. As we said several times in our oral testimony, it's time
that we started recognizing and rewarding the results and
outcomes of how transit is enriching the social, medical and
economic health of the communities it serves. We could start by
increasing the ways in which states and MPOs incorporate public
transit in their federally required performance-based
transportation planning. Currently, the only transit-related
performance targets center on safety and congestion relief.
Those are important, to be sure: we want safe operations that
reduce traffic congestion. But look at some of the other ways
in which transit can improve a community: possible changes in
labor force participation rates when more people can get to
jobs, thanks to transit; improved metrics for social
determinants of health when transit succeeds at helping more
people access preventive and primary health care, or when
transit helps people lead measurably healthier lives; socially
and economically sustainable small cities and rural communities
where the presence of transit allows more older adults a choice
about aging in place in the towns they call home, and provides
mobility options for every generation in their families. In
short, we would recommend that FTA and FHWA help states and
localities increase their encouragement of accountability,
innovation and performance through more rigorous performance-
based planning that develops and nurtures locally defined
performance targets, and that there be a small tier of funding
that can be used to support those places that achieve the
targets they set. We strongly support incentive programs to
reach the types of objectives we outline above.
Q.2. By directing more of those funds to performance incentives
such as the Small-Transit Incentive Cities (STIC) Program or
the incentive tier of the urban formula program, what benefits
should taxpayers expect to receive?
A.2. CTAA believes that modest increases in the portion of FTA
Section 5307 funds that are allocated on the basis of
performance are good public policy. STIC and the performance-
based tiers of Section 5307 are the only elements of urban
transit funding that are determined on the basis of things such
as transit ridership and transit system productivity. And we
think the country's taxpayers want to see their dollars used to
support transit that achieves that fundamental purpose of
moving people where they need to go, and doing so with
efficiency and effectiveness.
------
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR TESTER FROM ED
MORTIMER
Affordable Housing
Q.1. Transit is incredibly important to rural states, but when
we think of transit, we often think of mass transit systems in
big cities. That would discount the enormous impact that rural
transit has on Montana, providing folks with affordable
transportation around the State.
What can be done to ensure that this bill works for rural
America?
A.1. Response not received in time for publication.
Veterans
Q.2. Missoula, Montana has one of the most robust bus systems
in the State. Recently, Congress approved the authorization and
funding for a new Missoula Veterans Community Based Outpatient
Clinic that will open late next year or early 2022. While there
is a bus stop at the old clinic, there is no guarantee that a
stop at the new clinic will be possible. Missoula transit is
already at capacity, and does not have the resources to expand
the bus route, but will also be faced with skyrocketing
paratransit costs without a bus stop.
Do you have any recommendations for how Congress can work
to make surface transportation reauthorization responsive to
the needs of veterans so that when we build Federal facilities
we also have Federal funds to help people get to them via
transit?
A.2. Response not received in time for publication.
Capital Investment Grants
Q.3. Regarding Capital Investment Grants and Bus Rapid Transit,
the transit system in Missoula does more than 1.5 million rides
per year, which helps get cars off the road in one of Montana's
fastest growing towns. There is a road that comes down from the
Bitterroot Mountains called Brooks Street, which is the main
line of traffic through Missoula, and a BRT system would
alleviate congestion and improve safety. But, as you all know,
the bulk of the Capital Investment Grant funding pool goes to
bigger cities across the United States. This funding doesn't
necessarily go to Main Street Montana, where these dollars
would make a big difference.
What recommendations do you have to improve the Capital
Investment Grant program so that we can better serve our small
urbanized areas in Montana?
A.3. Response not received in time for publication.
------
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR WARREN FROM ED
MORTIMER
Q.1. In your testimony, you stated that the Federal Government
should `` . . . make it easier and more attractive for the
private sector to participate in infrastructure projects.''
However, private debt is costly and is not the lowest-cost
means of increasing infrastructure spending. The Congressional
Budget Office (CBO) has pointed out that a special entity that
issues its own debt would not be able to match the lower
interest and issuance costs of the U.S. Treasury. Furthermore,
public private partnerships (P3) financing does not constitute
a new source of funding--because ultimately, the costs will be
borne by the public. The CBO explains, ``Private financing is
unlikely to increase the availability of funds for highway
projects because the revenues from taxpayers and from users of
the highway are the source of repayment regardless of the
financing mechanism chosen for the project. ``Or, as the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) puts it, ``P3 concessions
do not generate revenue, they require it.''
Q.1.a. P3s are contracts between private partners and public
sector where the private partners provide some of the upfront
capital for the project in return for equity returns from the
project. Why do you believe that it is it in the interest of
the Federal or State government to borrow money from a private
entity at a rate that is higher than that of the U.S. Treasury?
A.1.a. Response not received in time for publication.
Q.1.b. Taxpayers ultimately pay for P3s financing through
increased State and locals taxes, user fees, or tolls. Why does
the Chamber of Commerce favor shifting infrastructure costs
away from the Federal Government toward states, local
governments, and taxpayers?
A.1.b. Response not received in time for publication.
Q.1.c. Data suggests that one of the few areas where P3s lowers
infrastructure costs is by avoiding Federal Davis-Bacon wage
requirements and paying construction workers lower wages. Does
the Chamber of Commerce support repealing Davis-Bacon
requirements for Federal P3 financing, which will result in
lower wages for American construction workers?
A.1.c. Response not received in time for publication.
------
RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION OF SENATOR BROWN FROM LARRY I.
WILLIS
Q.1. Mr. Willis, as you pointed out in your written testimony,
there has been virtually no reliable funding from FTA for
frontline transit workforce development and training. How would
a frontline workforce center provide assistance to agencies
nationwide?
A.1. Response not received in time for publication.
------
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR TESTER FROM LARRY I.
WILLIS
Affordable Housing
Q.1. Transit is incredibly important to rural states, but when
we think of transit, we often think of mass transit systems in
big cities. That would discount the enormous impact that rural
transit has on Montana, providing folks with affordable
transportation around the State.
What can be done to ensure that this bill works for rural
America?
A.1. Response not received in time for publication.
Veterans
Q.2. Missoula, Montana has one of the most robust bus systems
in the State. Recently, Congress approved the authorization and
funding for a new Missoula Veterans Community Based Outpatient
Clinic that will open late next year or early 2022. While there
is a bus stop at the old clinic, there is no guarantee that a
stop at the new clinic will be possible. Missoula transit is
already at capacity, and does not have the resources to expand
the bus route, but will also be faced with skyrocketing
paratransit costs without a bus stop.
Do you have any recommendations for how Congress can work
to make surface transportation reauthorization responsive to
the needs of veterans so that when we build Federal facilities
we also have Federal funds to help people get to them via
transit?
A.2. Response not received in time for publication.
Capital Investment Grants
Q.3. Regarding Capital Investment Grants and Bus Rapid Transit,
the transit system in Missoula does more than 1.5 million rides
per year, which helps get cars off the road in one of Montana's
fastest growing towns. There is a road that comes down from the
Bitterroot Mountains called Brooks Street, which is the main
line of traffic through Missoula, and a BRT system would
alleviate congestion and improve safety. But, as you all know,
the bulk of the Capital Investment Grant funding pool goes to
bigger cities across the U.S. This funding doesn't necessarily
go to Main Street Montana, where these dollars would make a big
difference.
What recommendations do you have to improve the Capital
Investment Grant program so that we can better serve our small
urbanized areas in Montana?
A.3. Response not received in time for publication.
------
RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION OF SENATOR MENENDEZ FROM LARRY I.
WILLIS
Q.1. It should be a given that every American has the right to
go to work every day and not fear for their safety, but
according to a POLITICO article from September of last year
there was a 39 percent uptick in assaults to MTA workers. I
know that I've talked to bus drivers back in New Jersey who
were the victims of senseless attacks, and I'm proud to support
legislation, along with several of my colleagues on the
Committee here, to try to address this issue.
Mr. Willis, can you speak of the realities that bus and
train operators face not just in major cities, but cities like
Emmett, Idaho, where a student assaulted a bus driver, and
Midland City, Alabama, where a bus driver was killed trying to
protect students?
A.1. Response not received in time for publication.
------
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR WARREN FROM LARRY I.
WILLIS
Q.1. Reports of assaults on public transportation workers are
becoming a regular occurrence and tragically, a bus operator,
Thomas Dunn, from Tampa was killed last year while operating
his bus . The FAST Act required FTA to undertake a rulemaking
on protecting public transportation operators from the risk of
assault, but instead the FTA determined that transit agencies
could identify and mitigate the risk of operator assault under
their federally required agency safety plan. In response to the
Federal Government's lack of action toward this crisis, my
colleague, Senator Van Hollen has introduced the S. 436--
Transit Worker and Pedestrian Protection Act. I am of a
cosponsor of this bill that will give transit agencies 2 years
to develop Bus Operations Safety Risk Reduction Programs in
partnership with their transit workforce and with oversight
from FTA. The bill also authorizes $25 million per year for 5
years to pay for the implementation of these safety
improvements as part of their Bus Operations Safety Risk
Reduction Program.
A.1. Response not received in time for publication.
Q.1.a. Mr. Willis, do you believe the FTA is abdicating its
duty under the FAST Act to improve safety and protect American
transit workers?
A.1.a. Response not received in time for publication.
Q.1.b. The Transit Worker and Pedestrian Protection Act take a
positive step toward improving protection for transit workers
and Congress needs to include it include it in the next
transportation reauthorization. What other steps can Congress
take to improve driver safety?
A.1.b. Response not received in time for publication.
------
RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION OF SENATOR CORTEZ MASTO FROM LARRY
I. WILLIS
Q.1. APTA put out a report last fall outlining the needs of
transportation services for late-shift workers, what policy
prescriptions do you think we can pursue to better serve this
community?
A.1. Response not received in time for publication.
Additional Material Supplied for the Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]