[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]