[Senate Hearing 117-346]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                      S. Hrg. 117-346

           21ST CENTURY COMMUNITIES: PUBLIC TRANSPOR-
            TATION INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT AND FAST 
            ACT REAUTHORIZATION

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

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

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                                   ON

EXAMINING PUBLIC TRANSIT AND INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT TO CREATE GROWTH 
  IN OUR COMMUNITIES, TO LOWER PEOPLE'S TRANSPORTATION COSTS, AND TO 
                        CREATE GOOD-PAYING JOBS

                               __________

                             APRIL 15, 2021

                               __________

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

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                Available at: https: //www.govinfo.gov /

                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
48-366 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2022                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------  

            COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS

                     SHERROD BROWN, Ohio, Chairman

JACK REED, Rhode Island              PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey          RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
JON TESTER, Montana                  MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
MARK R. WARNER, Virginia             TIM SCOTT, South Carolina
ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts      MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland           THOM TILLIS, North Carolina
CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada       JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana
TINA SMITH, Minnesota                BILL HAGERTY, Tennessee
KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona              CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming
JON OSSOFF, Georgia                  JERRY MORAN, Kansas
RAPHAEL WARNOCK, Georgia             KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
                                     STEVE DAINES, Montana

                     Laura Swanson, Staff Director

                 Brad Grantz, Republican Staff Director

                       Elisha Tuku, Chief Counsel

               Homer Carlisle, Professional Staff Member

                 Dan Sullivan, Republican Chief Counsel

            Ken Acuna, Republican Professional Staff Member

                      Cameron Ricker, Chief Clerk

                      Shelvin Simmons, IT Director

                    Charles J. Moffat, Hearing Clerk

                                  (ii)


                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                        THURSDAY, APRIL 15, 2021

                                                                   Page

Opening statement of Chairman Brown..............................     1
        Prepared statement.......................................    35

Opening statements, comments, or prepared statements of:
    Senator Toomey...............................................     4
        Prepared statement.......................................    36

                               WITNESSES

Darryl Haley, Chief Executive Officer and General Manager, 
  Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority/Metro................     7
    Prepared statement...........................................    37
    Responses to written questions of:
        Chairman Brown...........................................    56
        Senator Sinema...........................................    56
        Senator Daines...........................................    57
John Samuelsen, International President, Transport Workers Union 
  of America, AFL-CIO............................................     9
    Prepared statement...........................................    41
    Responses to written questions of:
        Chairman Brown...........................................    58
        Senator Sinema...........................................    59
        Senator Daines...........................................    59
Beth Osborne, Director, Transportation for America...............    10
    Prepared statement...........................................    47
    Responses to written questions of:
        Senator Daines...........................................    60
Baruch Feigenbaum, Senior Managing Director, Transportation 
  Policy, Reason Foundation......................................    12
    Prepared statement...........................................    50
    Responses to written questions of:
        Senator Crapo............................................    61
        Senator Daines...........................................    61
David Ditch, Research Associate, Grover M. Hermann Center for the 
  Federal Budget, The Heritage Foundation........................    14
    Prepared statement...........................................    52
    Responses to written questions of:
        Senator Daines...........................................    62

                                 (iii)

 
    21ST CENTURY COMMUNITIES: PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE 
                INVESTMENT AND FAST ACT REAUTHORIZATION

                              ----------                              


                        THURSDAY, APRIL 15, 2021

                                       U.S. Senate,
          Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met at 10 a.m., via Webex, Hon. Sherrod 
Brown, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.

          OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN SHERROD BROWN

    Chairman Brown. The Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, 
and Urban Affairs will come to order. Thank you for joining us. 
Thank you for your promptness.
    This hearing is in the virtual format. A few reminders as 
we begin.
    Once you start speaking, there will be a slight delay 
before you are displayed on the screen. To minimize background 
noise, please click the mute button until it is your turn to 
speak or ask questions.
    You should all have one box on your screens labeled 
``Clock'' that will show you how much time is remaining. For 
witnesses, you will have 5 minutes for your opening statements. 
For all Senators, the 5-minute clock still applies for your 
questions.
    At 30 seconds remaining for your statements and questions, 
you will hear a bell ring to remind you your time has almost 
expired. It will ring again when your time has expired.
    If there is a technology issue, we will move to the next 
witness or Senator until it is resolved. To simplify the 
speaking order process, Senator Toomey and I have agreed to go 
by seniority for this hearing.
    Before my opening remarks, I wanted to thank the Ranking 
Member. Senator Toomey joined me on the floor yesterday with 
five others of our colleagues to join in the annual reading of 
Dr. King's letter from the Birmingham Jail in 1963, and we 
split it up in seven segments and read it. And Pat read the 
closing part of the letter, and it was inspiring for all of us 
just to read those words again, which seemed just as relevant 
today as they did in 1963, written by a real genius of American 
history, a beautiful writer and an incredible thinker and moral 
force. So, Pat, I just wanted to publicly say thank you for 
joining us and doing that.
    Senator Toomey. Thank you, and, Mr. Chairman, thanks for 
organizing it and leading the effort.
    Chairman Brown. Thanks, Pat.
    Shortly before the pandemic, Chairman Crapo and our 
Committee held a well-attended hearing on the reauthorization 
of Federal transit programs. We are picking back up on those 
efforts. I hope to work with Ranking Member Toomey and all of 
the Members of our Committee to advance a surface 
transportation bill and tackle other infrastructure investment 
that we need to create economic growth in all communities.
    Public transportation helps people get to work and school 
and to doctors' appointments and the grocery store and to spend 
less of their time and hard-earned money commuting.
    When we say public transportation, of course, we just do 
not mean big-city subways. This Committee understands that 
public transportation plays a critical role in pretty much 
every community in our country--in rural areas and small towns 
like Mansfield and Xenia and Chillicothe in my State, and in 
mid-sized cities like Dayton and cities that Pat represents, as 
I do, in old industrial towns, on the coasts and in the 
heartland.
    During the pandemic, essential workers have relied on 
public transportation to reach their jobs at pharmacies and 
hospitals and supermarkets. Transit now is a lifeline to 
vaccination centers.
    And when more Americans return to offices and schools, all 
of the problems facing our transportation systems will come 
roaring back.
    We know the cost of transportation is a huge drain on 
families' budgets and on their time. If a bus or train does not 
run, Americans who do not have the option to work from home 
lose out on hours and the paychecks that come with them. 
Sometimes they even lose their jobs.
    An unexpected car repair or a car accident can devastate 
families who rely on their cars to get to work--especially when 
we recognize that 40 percent of Americans do not have the money 
to cover a $400 emergency expense.
    We know who gets hurt the most when transit is not a 
reliable option. It is the Black and Brown neighborhoods who 
have been historically cutoff from job centers. It is women 
working at essential jobs. It is rural areas where walking is 
not even an option.
    For our Nation's seniors, particularly in our suburbs and 
rural communities, a van or bus from the local transit service 
is a lifeline to the doctor or the grocery store or church.
    A taxi or an Uber may work for some. But in my State, as in 
many others, that is often not a reliable option outside of our 
larger cities. It is usually not an affordable option, and the 
rideshare model is denying millions of workers protections on 
the job and benefits like health care.
    We can do better than that.
    All Americans should have high-quality, frequent transit 
service that saves them time and money.
    The solution is pretty simple. When you have better, faster 
transit service, more people use it.
    Public transit will help restore and grow our economy as we 
emerge from the pandemic. Good transit attracts good jobs.
    The Cincinnati USA Regional Chamber understands that. It 
led the business community's support of a historic ballot 
measure to invest in the Cincinnati Metro. And congratulations, 
Darryl, it passed last May.
    We see this in cities across the country--business and 
civic leaders coming together to support transit as a tool for 
growth and inclusion.
    Whether it is the business community in Columbus or 
Charlotte in Senator Tillis' State or Atlanta in Senators 
Ossoff and Warnock's State, we witness an emerging consensus 
that a vibrant, fully functioning transit system is essential 
to attract investment and create communities where people want 
to live and to work.
    And, of course, public transit remains one of our best 
tools to fight climate change. When more people take public 
transit, we get less traffic on the roads and we, of course, 
get lower emissions.
    We need to seize new opportunities to get the next 
generation of buses and rail cars into our communities and 
support American manufacturing.
    That means expanding the Low- or No-Emission Vehicle 
Program. Transit agencies save money in the long run by 
adopting more efficient vehicles, and with Buy America 
requirements, we can create a significant number of 
manufacturing jobs building those buses in the U.S.
    One Member of our Committee is particularly interested in 
that: Senator Smith.
    Running more efficient buses and supporting American 
industry is something I hope we can all agree on. Our Committee 
has worked on a bipartisan basis to reject efforts by Chinese 
Government-backed companies to infiltrate the transit industry 
and instead support the deployment of advanced, American-made 
zero-emission buses.
    Fixing deteriorated infrastructure and replacing old rail 
cars can make transit more efficient. Riders in places like 
Cleveland and Boston and the Ranking Member's Philadelphia face 
delays when old tracks and outdated rail cars slow our transit 
system and cause longer commutes. And those repairs, of course, 
are done generally--by always well qualified general union 
workforces doing jobs that cannot be shipped overseas.
    In Cleveland, the RTA operates a fleet of 74 rail cars. All 
of them--all of them--are more than 35 years old.
    America's transit workforce is ready for this job. Transit 
workers made enormous sacrifices during the pandemic. As Mr. 
Samuelsen so well knows, more than 350 transit workers have 
died from the virus, many from communities like New York that 
experienced horrible rates of infection in the early stages of 
the pandemic. The transit workforce, like other frontline 
workers, kept our Nation functioning.
    We need to listen to the voices of transit workers to offer 
better, safer service in the years ahead. We need to partner 
with the transit workforce as agencies consider adopting new 
technology and automation.
    Technology should be used to make transit service safer, 
but there is no substitute for a well-trained bus operator to 
help riders and keep them safe, particularly passengers with 
disabilities. We should never outsource critical safety 
functions and never outsource essential services.
    These are all critical national issues, and we need to take 
a leading role and solve big problems.
    The American Jobs Plan is bold, it is necessary, it is how 
we finally seize opportunities instead of running from them. It 
would put people to work. It would invest in the places that 
have been left on their own by Washington and Wall Street for 
too long.
    I look forward to hearing from Committee Members and 
witnesses about how we can build this infrastructure. I know 
that together we will delve into other transit subjects on this 
Committee in the weeks and months ahead.
    We can--we must--revitalize public transit and 
infrastructure to create growth in our communities, to lower 
people's transportation costs, and to create good-paying jobs.
    Senator Toomey.

         OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATRICK J. TOOMEY

    Senator Toomey. Thank you, Chairman Brown.
    COVID obviously was an extraordinary experience, an 
extraordinary crisis, and Congress responded to it in an 
extraordinary way. Over the course of 2020, Congress provided 
almost $4 trillion in COVID and economic relief through five 
overwhelmingly bipartisan bills. As part of those bills, we 
gave $40 billion to transit on top of the $12 billion that we 
annually and ordinarily spend on transit.
    Last month, our Democratic colleagues broke from the 
bipartisan approach we had maintained in dealing with this 
crisis, and they passed a very wasteful and partisan $1.9 
trillion spending bill, which among its many provisions one was 
an additional $30 billion for transit.
    So just to recap, in 2020, Congress provided $12 billion in 
annual transit funding; then we spent another $40 billion in 
COVID relief transit funding, and then last month passed 
another bill with yet another $30 billion for transit. That is 
a total of $82 billion passed over the course of a year.
    So by way of context, one might ask: What is the annual 
cost of operating all of the transit agencies in the entire 
United States of America combined? Well, in 2019, that was $54 
billion. And yet we sent $82 billion in 1 year. If you add in 
the transit agencies' capital expenses to their annual 
operating costs, it is still less than $82 billion. It is 
staggering how much we have just spent.
    Now, our colleagues will justify this spending by saying 
that, well, transit systems would collapse from declines in 
ridership and State and local government revenues. But 
ridership did not drop to zero, and ridership has increased 
since the worst days of the pandemic. It has increased 
significantly. And these systems are, after all, by definition 
local. They serve a city or maybe a metropolitan area. But they 
are not national in scope. Should the local jurisdictions and 
the States in which they operate, should they have any 
responsibility at all to contribute to the costs of these 
systems? Evidently not, when the Federal Government is sending 
more money than it costs to operate them. And that is despite 
the fact that in 2020 State and local tax collections set an 
all-time record high. We did not think that was going to be the 
case early in the year, but that is exactly what ended up 
happening. And that is separate from the $500 billion the 
Federal Government sent to State and local governments over the 
course of 2020.
    And then last month, our Democratic colleagues insisted on 
yet another $350 billion on top of all that. It just boggles 
the mind.
    Now, to add insult to injury here, we send all these 
billions of dollars to transit agencies without requiring any 
kind of reforms to be implemented. And let us face it, the 
financial woes of many big-city transit agencies long pre-date 
COVID, and they are tied to chronic financial mismanagement.
    Take, for example, New York City's MTA, the country's 
largest transit agency. It has been mismanaged for years. It 
has had huge mounting debts. Its long-term debt tripled from 
the year 2000 to 2019, to over $35 billion now. And since 2014, 
it has had $7 billion in questionable and suspicious overtime 
expenses.
    Well, back in February, just this past February, the MTA 
was finally close to making some reforms to address its chronic 
problems. But then our Democratic colleagues threw a tremendous 
amount of money at them, and lo and behold, the proposed 
reforms went out the window. They have not been fixed. They 
have just been kicked down the road, courtesy of the U.S. 
Federal taxpayer.
    Now the Biden administration comes along and it wants 
another $85 billion for transit as part of this huge, enormous, 
new welfare and infrastructure bill.
    Now, here is a way to think about just how excessive all of 
this is. If we were to pass this bill that President Biden has 
requested and if we do the ordinary funding extension that is 
being contemplated here at this hearing and we combined that 
with the $82 billion we have provided over the last year, all 
of that money is enough that, according to 2019 census data, we 
could buy every transit commuter in America a $30,000 car. That 
is how much we are spending in the course of just a few years.
    So, Mr. Chairman, I am glad we are having this hearing on 
FAST Act reauthorization, because this is what we should be 
talking about, how we reform our existing transit funding 
system, rather than how we pile on yet another $85 billion on 
top of the $82 billion we just spent. And as we work on this 
reform, I think we should be guided by some sensible principles 
that will protect taxpayer dollars from misuse. It should 
include prioritizing and maintaining the existing systems 
rather than expanding systems with the hope that there will 
someday be demand. We ought to be ensuring that State and local 
governments pay their fair share and that they are accountable. 
We ought to remove useless and unnecessary regulations that 
delay projects and increase costs. We should be reforming 
planning requirements that otherwise lock local governments 
into rigid, long-term system expansions. We ought to be paying 
for infrastructure improvements responsibly, including 
addressing the insolvency of the Highway Trust Fund. And we 
should limit transit's share of the Highway Trust Fund to the 
longstanding level of 20 percent.
    Importantly, we also need to ask a tough question, which 
is: Does every mass transit system in America make sense at its 
current scale given the circumstances we have now?
    Today we will hear from two witnesses about how we can take 
a more thoughtful approach to funding transit than just 
throwing still more money at it. Baruch Feigenbaum is a 
transportation expert at the Reason Foundation. He will testify 
that transit systems and lawmakers really need to adjust to the 
shifting work and transportation trends that have been 
accelerated by the COVID pandemic.
    We will also hear from David Ditch, a budget and 
transportation expert at the Heritage Foundation. He will 
testify that the transit funding in the recent spending bills 
bailed out chronically mismanaged big-city transit agencies.
    Mr. Chairman, this year Congress I think should come 
together and responsibly reauthorize the FAST Act and in the 
process reduce wasteful, outdated, and duplicative spending. I 
hope my Democratic colleagues will follow that path of 
cooperation rather than just focusing on another partisan bill 
that wastes billions and billions of taxpayer dollars without 
making necessary reforms.
    Thank you.
    Chairman Brown. Thank you, Ranking Member Toomey.
    I will now introduce today's witnesses.
    Darryl Haley is the CEO and general manager in the 
Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority in Cincinnati, known 
as ``Metro,'' which provides about 14 million rides per year on 
fixed-route and paratransit buses. The Cincinnati native has 
held leadership positions there since 2006. Welcome, Mr. Haley. 
We appreciate your perspective as a leader who puts service on 
the street every day and wants to offer better transit across 
his region to connect more of your customers with better jobs.
    Mr. John Samuelsen is the international president of the 
Transport Workers Union, TWU, a position he has held since 
2017. TWU represents 150,000 members in transit and other 
sectors. He began his career as a track worker for New York 
City Transit, later became head of New York's TWU Local 100, 
the Nation's largest local transit union.
    Beth Osborne is the director of Transportation for America, 
a nonprofit advocacy group. Ms. Osborne previously was Deputy 
Assistant Secretary for Policy at U.S. DOT in the Obama 
administration. She has held various other transportation 
policy roles in her career, including in the office of our 
colleague Senator Carper. Welcome, Ms. Osborne.
    Baruch Feigenbaum is the senior managing director of 
transportation policy at the Reason Foundation, a think tank 
with offices in L.A. and Washington. Mr. Feigenbaum has spent 
his career in transportation planning and research. He has also 
served as a Legislative Assistant on Capitol Hill. Welcome, Mr. 
Feigenbaum.
    And last but not least, of course, Mr. David Ditch is a 
budget and transportation associate at the Heritage Foundation. 
He previously worked in the Senate for the Budget and Small 
Business Committees as well as for several House Members. 
Welcome, Mr. Ditch.
    Mr. Haley, you begin. Thank you, sir.

STATEMENT OF DARRYL HALEY, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND GENERAL 
    MANAGER, SOUTHWEST OHIO REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY/METRO

    Mr. Haley. Chairman Brown, Ranking Member Toomey, and 
Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to 
testify today on Public Transportation Infrastructure 
Investment and FAST Act Reauthorization.
    My name is Darryl Haley. I am the CEO and general manager 
of the Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority. We are the 
public transport agency serving Hamilton County, including 
greater Cincinnati as well as commuter service from Butler, 
Clermont County, and Warren counties. I would like to share 
with the Committee some of the issues that are critical to our 
agency and the broader industry as you consider policies 
related to surface transportation reauthorization.
    SORTA operates 46 major fixed-route buses and a demand-
responsive paratransit service, making approximately 14 million 
passenger trips annually. We are excited about the future of 
transit in our region due to the historic support we recently 
received from the citizens of Hamilton County. Last May, in the 
midst of a global pandemic, they voiced their significant 
support of public transportation by approving a sales tax levy 
of 0.8 percent to fund Metro and transit-related infrastructure 
improvements. SORTA is now bringing to life its Reinventing 
Metro plan, which will offer the greater Cincinnati region bold 
new transit innovations that will help grow the regional 
economy and better connect our community to jobs, education, 
and health care. Reinventing Metro will deliver enhanced 
amenities for our riders such as new buses, free onboard WiFi, 
as well as significant service improvements. This means more 
frequent service, 24-hour service on some of our major routes, 
and two new bus rapid transit corridors, more suburban job 
connectivity with mobile demand-response services, and more.
    In the next 5 years, the plan will deliver job access 
improvements that will drive economic growth across all of 
Hamilton County by making 20,000 more jobs accessible by Metro, 
740 more employers accessible by Metro, and $850 million in 
total wages accessible by Metro.
    Of course, in the midst of all this excitement about the 
future of public transit in our region, COVID-19 has devastated 
many of our communities. I would like to thank each of you for 
your leadership in supporting transit during this pandemic. The 
COVID-19 relief packages have been critical to ensuring our 
ability to keep our doors open and maintaining staffing levels 
throughout the pandemic and avoid any layoffs. Because our 
employees have remained on the front line, other members of the 
community have had the ability to go to work, to school, to the 
doctor, to the grocery store, and other essential activities.
    Thanks to the funding provided by the CARES Act, SORTA has 
been able to provide PPE for our employees, as well as our 
passengers, and install plexiglass barriers on each of our 
vehicles. This year has not been easy, but I am proud to say 
that SORTA has worked hard each and every day to serve the 
community and to continue looking forward to the future.
    Prior to COVID-19, we had increased our ridership 4.3 
percent in the first quarter. Today ridership is down about 50 
percent due to COVID, and we have incurred related cost 
increases that forced a delay to the rollout of our Reinventing 
Metro Plan from 2020 to 2021. Given the current circumstances, 
as you consider reauthorization of the FAST Act, there are a 
few policy recommendations I would like to make.
    First, I am pleased to see President Biden's extraordinary 
commitment to public transit included in his transformational 
America Jobs Plan and within his fiscal year 2022 budget 
request. His call for new funding to modernize existing public 
transportation and for transit expansion aligns with the work 
we are doing here at SORTA. I believe this forward-thinking 
proposal along with the top three policy recommendations 
presented by our the American Public Transportation Association 
would provide the investment that are necessary to build a 21st 
century transportation system that our country desperately 
needs. These are premised on erasing the infrastructure 
deficit, rebuilding and expanding our public transportation 
systems to best meet the needs of today's commuting public and 
future demands, and enhancing our Nation's economic 
competitiveness.
    APTA calls for a total Federal investment of $178 billion 
over 6 years for public transit and passenger rail. If enacted, 
this investment will create or sustain more than 2 million 
jobs.
    The first priority is Highway Trust Fund solvency and long-
term increased investment. Specifically, we are calling for 
Federal investment of $145 billion over 6 years to fund 
critical projects that will repair, maintain, and improve our 
public transit systems today and in the future.
    The second priority is reestablishing a 40-40-20 capital 
investment ratio among the CIG, State of Good Repair, and Buses 
and Bus Facilities program. Recent authorization acts have not 
maintained that ratio, and as a result, the Buses and Bus 
Facility programs have received less funding.
    Third, a new Mobility Innovation and Technology Initiative 
to introduce cutting-edge technologies and integrate new 
service development approaches and mobility options in the 
transit marketplace by transit agencies across the country. We 
are using technology to ensure greater reliability and expand 
service and improve customers' experiences.
    In addition, SORTA supports significant funding increases 
for such programs as Bus, Bus Facility, competitive grants, and 
low- or no-emission competitive grants which can support zero 
emission infrastructure.
    Thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to 
answering any questions.
    Chairman Brown. Mr. Haley, thank you. There is a website 
called ``Room Rater,'' which rates on a 1-to-10 scale what the 
background looks like when you are in this all-Zoom world, and 
I think Room Rater would give you a 10 out of 10 for the 
transit bus background. So thank you for that. Mr. Samuelsen is 
recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF JOHN SAMUELSEN, INTERNATIONAL PRESIDENT, TRANSPORT 
               WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO

    Mr. Samuelsen. Thank you, Chairman Brown and Ranking Member 
Toomey, for inviting me here to testify today. I speak on 
behalf of over 150,000 members of the Transport Workers Union 
who work in public transit, airlines, railroads, bikeshare, 
school and tour buses, utilities, and the service sector. I 
started my career on the New York City subway tracks 28 years 
ago in Brooklyn, and I am still an active track work on that 
roster with Local 100 in New York. I am here to join the call 
for significant investments in public transit and good union 
jobs.
    It has been a long year. COVID-19 delivered a body blow to 
both transit workers and the systems we operate and maintain. 
Frontline workers have been absolutely decimated. The TWU alone 
has lost over 170 members to this virus and over 10,000 of us 
were quarantined due to exposure. More than 350 transit workers 
across America have died from the virus, but Federal support 
made a big difference. The American Rescue Plan and coronavirus 
aid truly saved our transportation industries.
    As our country looks beyond the pandemic, I hope you will 
fight to dramatically reshape transportation as outlined in the 
President's American Jobs Plan and the Moving Forward Act which 
passed the House last year.
    One of the big challenges public transit workers face is 
new technology, including zero-emission vehicles, automated 
vehicles, and shared mobility. We need to help transit systems 
and workers prepare for the technological changes that are 
rapidly approaching, if not here already.
    The TWU believes new transportation technology should meet 
four key principles. These principles should guide action on 
any implementation of new technology. The principles are:
    Number one, as new technologies arise, we must prioritize a 
just transition for career transport workers.
    Second, any technology utilized should be safe and secure 
for both riders and workers.
    Third, implementation planning must be open and transparent 
with the workforce involved.
    Last, we need strong privacy and cybersecurity standards.
    This week, the labor movement issued our principles on one 
of these new technologies: vehicle electrification. We are 
calling for strong Federal leadership to move manufacturers, 
State and local governments, transit agencies, and workforce 
development toward buying, operating, and developing hybrid and 
zero-emission vehicles and infrastructure with a pro-worker 
focus. Congress should join us and embrace these principles.
    The reauthorization bill also needs to focus on training 
workers who could lose jobs because of zero-emission vehicles 
and other technology. Electric engines are dramatically 
different from diesel engines, and transit mechanics need to be 
prepared for that change. We strongly support creating and 
funding a national transit frontline workforce training 
consortium to train frontline workers for the future. And I 
urge you to stop the dangerous deployment of fully autonomous 
transit vehicles. We cannot allow robot-controlled buses with 
passengers to barrel down crowded American streets at rush 
hour. Every bus needs a human operator onboard to preserve 
passenger safety and security. The Moving Forward Act directly 
addresses these concerns, and we hope that the Senate bill will 
include that language as well.
    I would also like to raise concerns about rideshare 
companies, which are attempting to get transit funding. 
Companies like Uber have long avoided public transit rules on 
drug and alcohol testing, transit labor protections, and 
accessibility requirements. We cannot allow rideshare companies 
to get Federal funding when they lower essential safety, 
equity, and labor standards. Their goal is first and foremost 
to make a profit, never to deliver high-quality transit 
service.
    We need to invest in bikeshare. We strongly support the 
funding for the expansion of these systems and applying Buy 
America and labor protections to ensure these investments 
create thousands of quality jobs.
    I also urge you to support Senator Van Hollen's Transit 
Worker and Pedestrian Protection Act. Every single day a 
transit worker is assaulted in this country. The Van Hollen 
bill will help ensure the FTA uses its leverage to end this 
onslaught of assaults on bus drivers and transit workers.
    And so to wrap up, as we rise out of the pandemic, we need 
to create jobs and revitalize our cities and our towns. Transit 
investments are central to creating jobs, accessing health 
care, getting kids to school, and ensuring safe commutes for 
our essential workers. Safe and reliable public transit is the 
gateway back to normalcy for millions of Americans. The time to 
act is now, to rebuild our manufacturing sector, to train the 
American workforce, to invest in public transit, and to create 
and sustain solid blue-collar jobs right here in America.
    Thank you.
    Chairman Brown. Thank you, Mr. Samuelsen.
    Ms. Osborne is recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF BETH OSBORNE, DIRECTOR, TRANSPORTATION FOR AMERICA

    Ms. Osborne. Thank you, Chairman Brown and Ranking Member 
Toomey, for including me in this important hearing.
    I am the director of Transportation for America, a national 
nonprofit committed to a transportation system that connects 
people to jobs and essential services by all modes of travel no 
matter their financial means or physical ability. Over the last 
year, Transportation for America and our partners have been 
gratified to see Congress support, mostly on a bipartisan 
basis, emergency transit operating funds. You all kept an 
essential service in place for essential workers, and the 
country is better for it.
    Now we are starting to talk about getting back to some 
semblance of normal. As we do so, it is important to state that 
the transportation system we had before COVID was not what we 
were looking for in terms of efficiency, safety, affordability, 
or equity. Part of the recovery can and should be seeking to 
improve that.
    In my statement this morning, I am going to focus on 
equity. The lack of reliable transit and alternative means of 
travel in the U.S. means low-income Americans spend close to 30 
percent of their household income on transportation to get 
where they need to go. The average American spends only 13 
percent. And in my neighborhood, in the heart of
    Washington, DC, the average household spends 8 to 9 percent 
of transportation due to the close proximity of destinations, 
the general walkability, and the access to multiple bus and 
rail lines.
    The lack of access to transit and safe biking or walking 
routes requires people to stretch financially to buy cars, an 
expensive assets that loses value the moment you buy it, rather 
than use that money for education, property, savings, or 
retirement. We are not just talking about a household that 
might want to be car-free and cannot. We are talking about a 
system that requires a household of five to have three to four 
cars instead of one to two. At $8,000 a year to operate a car, 
that is a heavy financial burden indeed, and because of our 
current system being so car-oriented, it is actually a cover 
charge required if you want to participate in the U.S. economy 
in so many parts of the country.
    Transit dependence is a problem we associate with urban 
America, yet according to the latest American Community Survey, 
the majority of counties with high rates of zero-car households 
are rural. Rural Americans without cars face unique barriers, 
and they need and deserve a tailored approach to their transit 
needs rather than just assuming that they can or will drive 
everywhere.
    Part of recovery is also recognizing that
    COVID has caused many to lose work, and people are 
struggling to pay rent, mortgages, and car payments. As the 
recovery begins, the number of transit-dependent people who we 
want to help get back to work will likely be higher, at least 
temporarily. High-quality transit will be an important part of 
ensuring that everyone gets back to work and can reach their 
daily necessities.
    To support this goal, there are a few things to consider 
for transit in the next reauthorization bill and as we consider 
any sort of stimulus. We need to refocus the Federal transit 
program to improve transit frequency, reliability, and 
ridership and expand access to jobs and essential services in 
both urban and rural areas. Transit projects, like all 
transportation, should be evaluated based on that, how well it 
gets people to the things they need.
    While we focus almost exclusively on the work trip in 
transportation, not just transit but all transportation, the 
work trip accounts for only 20 percent of trips. The nonwork 
trip is a bigger factor in whether someone needs a car, how 
many cars, and how much they spend on transportation. Transit 
and transportation overall needs to be better designed to serve 
nonwork trips.
    Two, we should fund transit operations in addition to 
capital projects. Long-term Federal support for transit 
operations--particularly to support greater frequencies, 
expanded hours, and new service--will help agencies deliver the 
high-quality, safe, and affordable public transit service in 
both urban and rural America.
    And, last, it is time to rebalance transit funding to match 
funding for highways. For nearly 40 years, we have stuck to a 
deal that was made during the Reagan administration in order to 
raise gas taxes by bringing transit into the surface 
transportation program. At the time, the gas tax paid for the 
whole program, something that has not been true in over a 
decade. To make a highway-level commitment to providing 
Americans in large cities, small cities, and rural towns alike, 
it will require a similar funding commitment.
    Communities are constantly changing. COVID has caused even 
more. It is time that we harness that change to make our 
transportation system more efficient, affordable, equitable, 
and accessible for everyone, and transit is key to that goal.
    Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
    Chairman Brown. Thank you, Ms. Osborne.
    Mr. Feigenbaum, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Welcome.

   STATEMENT OF BARUCH FEIGENBAUM, SENIOR MANAGING DIRECTOR, 
            TRANSPORTATION POLICY, REASON FOUNDATION

    Mr. Feigenbaum. Thank you. Chairman Brown, Ranking Member 
Toomey, and fellow Members, my name is Baruch Feigenbaum. I am 
the senior managing director for transportation policy at 
Reason Foundation, a nonprofit think tank with offices in Los 
Angeles and Washington, DC. For more than four decades, 
Reason's transportation experts have been advising Federal, 
State, and local policymakers on market-based approaches to 
transportation.
    I am a graduate of the Georgia Institute of Technology with 
degrees in public policy and transportation planning with a 
concentration in engineering. With Reason, I have authored 
studies on mobility, highway congestion, transit options, 
funding alternatives, and innovative financing. I currently 
serve on two National Academy of Sciences Transportation 
Research Board committees: bus transit systems, where I serve 
as secretary and conference planning chair, and intelligent 
transportation systems. My testimony today draws on these 
experiences.
    COVID-19 has dramatically changed many aspects of life. 
While all aspects of transportation have been impacted, no mode 
has been affected more than mass transit.
    Ridership on rail transit has decreased 70 to 90 percent, 
while ridership on bus transit has decreased a more modest 40 
to 60 percent. Even when COVID-19 subsides, a majority of 
experts expect transit to recover 90 percent of its riders at 
most, with some expecting a recovery rate of only 70 percent.
    Transit use was on a multiyear decline even before COVID, 
with only 5 percent of Americans commuting by transit. Yet, 
according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, in a 
typical year the U.S. spends $70 billion per year on transit. 
Transit policy was in need of reform even before COVID, but 
COVID has made a rethinking of transit critical. Many commuters 
in our current environment have substituted working at home for 
transit. In 2020, 35 percent of all Americans worked from home. 
In a PricewaterhouseCoopers survey, 83 percent of employers and 
71 percent of employees say remote work has been a success. 
Once COVID subsides, many predict the work-at-home share will 
be 20 to 25 percent.
    Due to a combination of COVID and longer-term changes among 
transit riders, I have the following six recommendations:
    One, prioritize service for transit-dependent riders;
    Two, prioritize maintenance and operations over capital 
expenditures;
    Three, adjust quantitative metrics in project evaluation;
    Four, fund bus rapid transit from the Capital Investments 
Grants program;
    Five, fund transit from the general fund;
    And, six, unlock the private market and transit innovation.
    Recommendation number one prioritizing service for transit-
dependent riders. The increase in the number of employees 
working at home has reduced transit ridership. There are two 
types of riders: transit-dependent riders who do not have easy 
access to a vehicle and transit-choice riders who do. Transit-
choice riders work in fields such as engineering or law that 
are easy to work at home form; whereas, transit-dependent 
riders are in fields such as nursing or technical support that 
require being at a specific physical location. Today since most 
transit ridership is by dependent riders, U.S. policy should 
focus on serving these riders. And since most of these riders 
are more likely to use bus over rail, U.S. policy should focus 
on bus over rail. Over the last 20 years, the largest 30 metro 
areas have added miles of rail lines, but most of those same 
metro areas have cut bus service.
    Recommendation number two, prioritize maintenance and 
operations over capital expenditures. Many DOTs have adopted a 
``fix-it-first'' approach for their highways, but many transit 
agencies are focused on expansion. The local transit agency for 
the DC area, WMATA, is one example. Rather than focus on 
rebuilding the existing system, WMATA decided to expand the 
system, contracting with the Metro Washington Airport Authority 
to build the Silver Line. We are all familiar with some of the 
problems, the fires, mechanical breakdowns on the WMATA system, 
and this system is not alone. Over the next few years, there 
are going to be 20 light-rail systems that will need major 
reconstruction, and that does not count the heavy-rail systems 
in New York City, San Francisco, and Atlanta that also are 
going to need reconstruction.
    Adjusting the quantitative metrics in project evaluation. 
Currently, projects are rated 50 percent on project 
justification and 50 percent on local financial commitment. The 
project justification rankings, mobility improvements, 
environmental benefits, congestion relief, cost-effectiveness, 
economic development, and land use, are rated 16.6 percent. I 
believe that the two most important rankings are cost-
effectiveness and the number of passengers that the system is 
moving. Those two categories should be rated more highly than 
others.
    Funding BRT from the Capital Investment Grant Program. The 
Capital Investment Grant Program is the largest funding program 
which includes new starts, small starts, and core capacity 
projects. Unfortunately, currently only fixed-route bus rapid 
transit can be funded. However, most of the bus rapid transit 
that is being built is BRT light or freeway BRT that does not 
require a dedicated running way. I believe all types of BRT 
should be able to be funded from the Capital Investment Grant 
Program.
    Funding transit from the general revenue and exploring new 
and innovative private sector transit options are also 
important. I would be happy to talk more about these in 
questioning.
    Thank you for the ability to testify.
    Chairman Brown. Thank you, Mr. Feigenbaum.
    Mr. Ditch is recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF DAVID DITCH, RESEARCH ASSOCIATE, GROVER M. HERMANN 
     CENTER FOR THE FEDERAL BUDGET, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION

    Mr. Ditch. Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to 
testify today. The views I express in this testimony are my own 
and should not be construed as representing any official 
opinion of the Heritage Foundation.
    As the Committee begins the important work of drafting the 
public transportation section of the highway bill 
reauthorization, it is my hope that Senators will carefully 
consider how the Federal Government uses hard-earned taxpayer 
dollars in this area.
    Spending from the mass transit account of the Highway Trust 
Fund is roughly $10 billion per year, or about 20 percent of 
annual trust fund spending. It is important for Senators and 
the public to keep in mind in mind the Highway Trust Fund is 
primarily fueled by Federal gas tax revenues while no fund 
revenue comes from transit users. Users----
    Chairman Brown. Mr. Ditch, your audio is uneven. We will 
work on it. I hate to do this to you. We will start with 
questions. After my questions, then we will come back and see 
if your audio can work better. I am really sorry. Is that all 
right? But you will certainly have an opportunity to give your 
opening statement. Most of us--I do not think any of us can 
hear it very well because of technical issues, so we will come 
back to you right after I begin the questions.
    Mr. Haley, I will begin with you. The Cincinnati USA 
Regional Chamber helped bring together the business and 
nonprofit community--we were talking about that--to support 
expansion. The supporters include some of the largest employers 
well known to everybody on this call, really: Procter & Gamble, 
Kroger, Cincinnati Children's, known as one of the best 
hospitals in the country, nonprofit leaders like the Cincinnati 
Foundation and United Way.
    Why did leaders come together? That is beginning to happen 
more and more around the country. Shed some light on why that 
happens.
    Mr. Haley. Well, they really recognized that investment in 
transit was an investment in the economic vitality and 
competitiveness in our region. And I talked earlier about, you 
know, the access to more jobs, to higher-paying jobs. And, of 
course, with those connections to the higher-paying jobs, a 
decrease in poverty, a decrease in crime, you know, it also 
makes us more attractive to businesses that are looking for 
places to land, you know, to start their businesses, to move 
their businesses. It makes Cincinnati more attractive, and it 
helps us also to retain talent.
    Additionally, the increase in local funding will unlock the 
ability for us to increase BRT. We have got two BRT lines on 
the plan in Reinventing Metro, but it will help us move that 
forward, do it quicker, and then create even more connection in 
our region.
    Chairman Brown. Thank you, Mr. Haley.
    Mr. Samuelsen, President Samuelsen, thanks for the 
sacrifices of your members during the pandemic. I do not think 
we can mention that often enough. I am glad you highlighted the 
need to transition and train workers. As new technologies 
evolve, workers are always needing a seat at the table as this 
happens. We have heard a lot of debate lately about the term 
what counts infrastructure, and the Jobs Act, as you know, has 
funding for quality housing and rural broadband and replacing 
toxic lead water pipes and more.
    Talk about what does infrastructure mean to you in the 
context of making America more prosperous and healthy and 
secure in this century.
    You are not on. Your mute button is on.
    Mr. Samuelsen. Infrastructure from our perspective, from my 
perspective, is any physical or organizational structure that 
betters society or advances the economy. Certainly housing 
falls into that category. The lead pipes that you discussed 
fall into that category. Broadband--as we go forward, 
infrastructure is not a static thing. It evolves. It is a 
dynamic thing. It evolves as technology evolves. A hundred 
years ago, there was probably a conversation about whether the 
electrification of America was part of the infrastructure, 
because it had really never happened before. I think it was in 
the 1930s when the Federal Government decided to begin heavily 
investing in electrical grids across the country.
    So on the issue of broadband, right now everything that we 
consider traditional infrastructure, whether it be a railroad 
or housing or highways, they are all broadband-dependent at 
this point. And just from my own perspective, right out of my 
own frame of reference, subway signaling systems at one time 
were absolutely hard-wired, and then we moved to something 
called ``communication-based train control.'' It was done off 
of broadband, fiberoptic at first, and now it is going into the 
realm of complete wirelessness.
    So infrastructure evolves. Housing is certainly part of 
infrastructure. Anything that is creates job, stimulates the 
economy, that is infrastructure.
    Chairman Brown. Thank you, Mr. Samuelsen.
    Ms. Osborne, improving transit service has a national 
impact when it comes to things, as you point out, like growing 
overall the economy, fighting congestion, dealing with climate 
change, remaining internationally competitive. I mentioned 
Cleveland's needs. SEPTA in Philadelphia also needs more than 
$1.7 billion to replace, if I could say, its Nixon era rail 
cars. There is a huge need to replace outdated buses across the 
Nation.
    Ms. Osborne, what would a transformative investment in 
fixing transit mean for these regions and the country as a 
whole? Can you talk about the effect that it will have on job 
creation, if done right on job creation?
    Ms. Osborne. Absolutely. It would mean greater reliability 
of service, which is essential for those who rely on it. But it 
also makes transit more attractive to those who could choose 
any method of travel. As someone who when I was starting out 
could not find a job that I could get to outside of a car but 
could not afford a car because I could not get a job, it means 
access to work. It means participating in the economy. It would 
be a huge impact overall.
    Chairman Brown. Thank you very much, Ms. Osborne.
    Mr. Ditch has checked back in, I believe. We want to try 
again. I am sorry for the interruption. You are recognized for 
5 minutes. This is for the opening statement for those that 
have joined a bit late.
    Mr. Ditch. Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to 
testify today. The views I express in this testimony are my own 
and should not be construed as representing any official 
opinion of the Heritage Foundation.
    As the Committee begins the important work of drafting the 
public transportation section of the highway bill 
reauthorization, it is my hope that Senators will have the 
Federal Government uses hard-earned taxpayer dollars in this 
area.
    Spending keep in mind that the Highway Trust Fund is 
primarily fueled by Federal gas tax revenues while no fund 
revenue comes from transit users. Users of highways and 
airports directly cover most of the cost of highway and airport 
infrastructure. In contrast, transit users cover less than a 
third of the cost of transit system, which receive a variety of 
subsidies.
    As such, the mass transit account represents a longstanding 
wealth transfer from people who drive to people who do not 
drive and from rural areas to urban areas. Even when setting 
aside the issue of fairness, the amount of Highway Trust Fund 
spending dedicated to mass transit is and has been grossly 
disproportionate to public transit usage. Despite four decades 
of lavish subsidies and despite urban areas containing a 
growing share of America's population over that period, mass 
transit only represented a single-digit share of national 
transportation use in 2019. Even States with minimal urban 
populations are required to divert a substantial amount of 
Federal highway bill funds to transit.
    The COVID-19 pandemic caused a sharp drop in transit use 
and a corresponding reduction in revenue for transit agencies. 
To date, Congress has passed $67 billion in supplemental 
funding for transit through pandemic response legislation, $30 
billion of which came from the relief bill signed in March this 
year. However, this amount was excessive; $67 billion 
represents just over three times the amount of fare revenue 
collected by transit agencies in 2019. Thus, while small 
businesses across the country have struggled to make ends meet 
in recession, transit agencies received a windfall in revenue.
    Labor costs represent 60 to 80 percent of transit operating 
expenses. In cities that have the largest transit systems, 
compensation for transit works is more than 50 percent above 
the metropolitan area average. Total labor costs are $151,000 
per transit worker in New York City and $187,000 per transit 
work in San Francisco.
    Transit agencies are insulated from economic reality by the 
subsidies they receive each year. Worse, the nontransparent 
nature of transit funding coming through the Highway Trust Fund 
means that there is less accountability when it comes to how 
transit agencies manage their finances.
    Everyone understands that the postpandemic world will be 
different from the prepandemic world. When it comes to 
transportation, a long-term increase in remote work will mean a 
reduction in commuting. This would most heavily affect urban 
cores, reducing the need for transit. In the context of 
disproportionate annual subsidies for transit, a substantial 
COVID-19 relief funding for transit agencies, and uncertainty 
surrounding future transit use, increasing Federal funding for 
mass transit would be an unwise use of public funds. A 
reduction of transit subsidies is in order.
    Rather than simply expanding the flawed status quo, 
Congress should enact reforms, including: first, providing 
flexibility to low-density States for the amount they spend on 
transit from their Highway Trust Fund allocation; second, 
prioritizing operations and maintenance of transit systems 
rather than expanding them; third, eliminating costly Federal 
mandates such as the Davis-Bacon Act or at least allowing 
States to request waivers from these mandates on transit 
construction projects; and, fourth, reduce the amount of cross-
subsidization between Americans who prefer different modes of 
transportation. Such changes would enhance fairness and value 
for taxpayers across the country.
    Thank you, and thanks for giving me another shot at this.
    Chairman Brown. Thank you very much, Mr. Ditch.
    Senator Toomey is recognized for 5 minutes for his 
questions.
    Senator Toomey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me 
stick with Mr. Ditch for a minute, and let me thank all of our 
witnesses for testifying today.
    You know, I tried to catalogue the various categories of 
spending that Congress has done over the last year. You alluded 
to that as well, Mr. Ditch, and if you add the extraordinary 
payments through COVID relief bills to the ordinary funding, I 
think the figure over the last 12 months is about $82 billion.
    I have a question for you, and I wonder if you happen to 
have these figures handy. Do you have an estimate of the 
aggregate total for the entire country, the entire United 
States of America? Do we know approximately what the fare 
revenue loss was last year due to COVID and due to the very 
significant decline in ridership? Do we know how much money was 
lost in fare revenue?
    Mr. Ditch. I would estimate somewhere between $14 and $15 
billion in revenue losses, and that would include both--that 
would be things like fares, concessions, advertising, and the 
like.
    Senator Toomey. So from basically all categories, so not 
just--that is not just fare revenue; that is all sources of 
revenue. So what we sent them was, what, six, seven times all 
lost revenue? Is that about right?
    Mr. Ditch. Closer to, I believe, about four to five, but 
yes.
    Senator Toomey. OK, so four or five times all the lost 
revenue.
    Let me ask you this: Back in 2010, the New York State 
comptroller did a report and found that, and I quote, ``The 
MTA''--New York's MTA, that is. ``The MTA has not effectively 
managed and controlled its overtime costs. No real efforts were 
made to make significant changes in longstanding practices that 
resulted in routine and often unnecessary overtime.''
    In 2019, a report by a law firm that was hired by the MTA 
to investigate this issue came to the conclusion that, and I 
quote, ``This critical finding remains equally true almost 10 
years later.'' So that is a pretty clear example--I am sure 
there are others--of fiscal mismanagement.
    In your view, when Congress comes in and replaces, say, 
four or five times all lost revenue for transit systems, does 
that encourage the kind of reforms they need to be on a solvent 
basis going forward?
    Mr. Ditch. It really does not. There is a real lack of 
accountability when there are subsidies, and especially the 
further removed the subsidies are from the system. So, for 
example, there is a substantial amount of transit subsidy that 
takes place within metro areas themselves because of 
accountability. If the systems are not run well, the citizens 
in those areas are going to let their elected officials know. 
But when there is Federal subsidies, often it is coming from 
people who are living hundreds or thousands of miles away for 
whom transit use is something that never crosses their mind. 
There is no accountability, there is no pressure for these 
transit agencies to use their funds wisely and to, for example, 
prioritize increasing service over increasing compensation.
    Senator Toomey. Thank you. I am going to run out of time 
here, so let me just ask a quick question of Mr. Feigenbaum. 
There are two dynamics that I want to raise, and maybe you 
could touch on both of them. One is this idea that I think 
there is a very broad view that there is a pretty significant 
chance that there will be an ongoing tendency for some people 
to work from home, and that the effect of that is that 
ridership on our transit systems are maybe unlikely to ever 
reclaim the level they were at prepandemic. Exceeding that is 
very questionable in many places.
    Is that an argument for focusing on maintaining the 
existing system rather than expanding and hoping that demand 
emerges? That is question number one.
    And question number two, if systems do choose to expand 
into, say, an affluent suburb, is it reasonable to ask affluent 
people in the suburb to pay the cost of their ridership?
    Mr. Feigenbaum. Sure, so those are great questions. The 
first one I would say it is absolutely true that transit 
ridership is unlikely to recover to the level prepandemic. 
Depending on who you ask, it is between about 70 percent and 90 
percent, and that can make a significant financial difference 
to some of these transit systems. And so focusing on repairing 
and maintenance and operations is critical, especially when you 
consider many of these systems have some maintenance problems 
and breakdowns to begin with.
    And, yeah, I think it is absolutely true that if we want to 
expand service to transit-choice riders, commuter rail, for 
example, it is absolutely fair to ask those folks to pay for 
it. I actually have no objections to that. I think if we are 
willing to cover 100 percent of the costs of the transit 
systems, that is great. I just do not think Federal taxpayers 
should be subsidizing the costs of these systems.
    Senator Toomey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Brown. Thanks, Senator Toomey.
    Senator Menendez from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to 
make a brief comment following up on the Ranking Member's 
questions and the responses received.
    You know, it was transit that brought essential workers to 
the essential work they were doing during the period of time of 
the pandemic. And in terms of subsidizing, well, we subsidize 
highways. We subsidize bridges. We subsidize all of those 
things by the Federal investments that we make. So I am not 
quite sure what is the difference.
    First, my thanks to you, Mr. Chairman, because we have not 
had a transit hearing in this Committee in a very long time, so 
I appreciate you exerting the jurisdictional breadth.
    You know, the Northeast corridor produces 20 percent of our 
national GDP. A shutdown of the Northeast corridor could cost 
the economy an estimated $100 million per day. We have century-
old tunnels running under the Hudson River that really got 
badly damaged during Superstorm Sandy. Yet the project to build 
this new tunnels--the ``Gateway Program'', as we call it--was 
delayed for years under the Trump administration for purely 
political reasons. I am glad that we were able to get another 
piece of the Gateway Program, the Portal North Bridge, across 
the finish line, and I am encouraged that the Biden 
administration is moving quickly to get this project moving 
again, but we have got plenty of work to do.
    So, Ms. Osborne, do you agree that Gateway is critical to 
the continued success of transit and inter-city rail across the 
Northeast corridor and its impact will be felt nationally?
    Ms. Osborne. Absolutely. It serves hundreds of thousands of 
riders a day, and so often the everyday benefit of transit and 
rail is not noticed until it fails. If the 100-year-old 
infrastructure we are relying on fails, it is going to have a 
profound impact not just on the New York City region, but on 
the Nation as a whole, our national economy. Unfortunately, we 
have a history of waiting for predictable disasters to do 
anything about it, and I am excited that we are moving in a 
direction to get this project moving and not wait until we are 
trying to fix a problem.
    We have watched years of delay just drive up the cost of 
this project in spite of calls for project streamlining and 
better project delivery, which apparently only applies to some 
projects. But we are moving in the right direction now, and 
this is essential--this is a project of national significance 
if ever there was one.
    Senator Menendez. I appreciate that last comment that you 
made. As such, don't you believe the Federal Government should 
be a strong partner in projects that have national 
significance?
    Ms. Osborne. Yeah, but I just--I do not understand if 
something that serves 200,000 people a day traveling into the 
largest metro area and the largest metro economy does not count 
as a project the Feds should be involved in, then I am not sure 
why we have a transportation program at all.
    Senator Menendez. Thank you. In recent history, when 
working on surface transportation reauthorizations, we have 
adhered to an 80/20 rule of 80 percent spending on highways, 20 
percent goes to transit. Ms. Osborne, your organization has 
advocated for a much more aggressive 50/50 split for highways 
and transit. What makes increasing the share of funding 
allocated to transit an effective investment of Federal 
resources, particularly as we face challenges related to 
increased congestion, rising demand for mobility, coupled with 
climate crisis issues?
    Ms. Osborne. Yeah, we have never made the kind of 
investment in transit at the national level that we have in 
highways. While there is frustration and people refer to 
transit funding being ``diverted'' from the Highway Trust Fund, 
this is the only way people have been willing to support a 
national program, because we as a Nation know that we need to 
move people by multiple modes. And, again, if we want people to 
get to work, if we want them to get to food, to school, we need 
to make sure that those just starting out, those who might be 
struggling have a way in. And, again, we do not recognize the 
importance of transit until it is done.
    Here in the DC region, when transit lines have been shut 
down for repair, we have had tons of people decide not to 
travel around the region at all. The notion that we should just 
put every single human being in their own vehicle and throw 
them on the roads at the same time, I think we hear a lot of 
complaints about that pretty quickly. Transit is absolutely 
essential for a functioning economy.
    Senator Menendez. Thank you. We have a transit state of 
good repair backlog of more than $100 billion. That is $100 
billion of transit assets that are not being adequately 
maintained or that have outlived their useful lives.
    Mr. Haley, as the CEO of a large transit system, do you 
believe the Federal Government needs to significantly increase 
its investment in the state of good repair? And what benefits 
would that have for transit riders?
    Mr. Haley. I absolutely do. Here in Cincinnati, we have got 
$25 to $30 million state of good repair that we have 
backlogged. You know, it is recommended that the state of good 
repair programs are needed to upgrade our facilities, our 
technologies. One of the things that we have done over the 
course of time is we have ignored our technology, we have 
ignored our facilities to upgrade to keep as much service on 
the street as we possibly can to move as many people. But it is 
now time to improve our state of good repair, and it is time to 
improve our technology.
    Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Brown. Thanks, Senator Menendez.
    Next will be Senator Reed of Rhode Island for 5 minutes, 
followed by Senator Mark Warner from Virginia. So after Senator 
Reed, Senator Warner will proceed. Thank you.
    Senator Reed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is an 
incredibly important hearing on transit because it is an issue 
that has not received the attention it should have over many 
years.
    Ms. Osborne, our Rhode Island transit system is faced with 
providing transportation to a number of people in a diverse 
population that do not often work 9 to 5 jobs, et cetera. And 
so all of our agencies together are facing operational cost 
pressures. We have been making investments in state of good 
repair, et cetera. Is it your view that we should also provide 
access to some operating support for transit agencies?
    Ms. Osborne. It absolutely is, especially if we want to 
support really functional transit that provides high-frequency 
support to move people to work and essential services. People 
cannot rely on transit that comes every 45 minutes or an hour. 
We need to have the reliability that frequency brings and not 
just at the time where the majority and often white-collar 
people travel, but when everybody travels.
    I would also again emphasize it is not just about getting 
people to work. People who stay home actually tend to take more 
trips for nonwork causes, and transit needs to serve those 
trips, too.
    Senator Reed. So this in a way would increase demand and 
resources to the agency, so by investing in more frequent 
service, we will get a return on more passengers, and that 
seems to be a logical sort of approach to trying to help our 
agencies. Does that make sense?
    Ms. Osborne. We see it every time. If you add frequency, 
ridership goes up. If you reduce frequency, ridership goes 
down. People appreciate convenient, reliable service by all 
means of travel.
    Senator Reed. Thank you.
    Mr. Haley, we have been working and you have been working 
very hard to get low-energy buses on the road. We have a 
program, the Low-No program, low-, no-emissions bus grant 
program. And last year, working with my colleague Senator Susan 
Collins from Maine, we were able to add additional $125 million 
to the Low-No program, bringing it up to about $180 million.
    And as we look to the conversion to electric buses, which 
is at the heart of most of the Low-No funding, we found in 
Rhode Island that one of the costs is really the charging 
infrastructure and utility improvements to make it work. And 
right now we are not devoting sufficient resources to this 
charging. We are buying lots of electric buses, but that is not 
going to get us to the point we want to do.
    So can you talk about increasing the investment in Low-No 
so that we cover not only new buses but also the charging--the 
infrastructure as well as the bus?
    Mr. Haley. Absolutely. We are committed to greening our 
fleet, to coming up with electric buses to really reduce the 
carbon footprint in our region. And you are absolutely right. 
It is not just the cost of the bus. The bus costs a little more 
than the diesel bus, but it is also the infrastructure, the 
infrastructure in our garages, and to be able to electrify that 
fleet along the routes. So it is the information inside the 
garages; it is the infrastructure along the routes, but it is 
the benefit of having less carbon output.
    Senator Reed. Well, thank you very much. Thank you all for 
excellent testimony. And, Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I will 
yield my time.
    I guess he will not let me yield my time. I have to keep 
talking.
    Senator Warner. Senator Reed, this is Mark. I think I was 
up next.
    Senator Reed. Mark, as the senior--not the Chairman, but 
the senior Democrat on the Committee, I think you can go. OK? 
Thank you.
    Senator Warner [presiding]. Thank you, Jack.
    Well, let me in absentia, if the Chairman is off hitting 
the Finance Committee hearing, let me add my thanks to him as 
well for having this kind of hearing on transit, long overdue.
    I am going to take a moment or two and speak to an issue 
that I am sure my friend Chris Van Hollen will also speak to as 
well, and that is the importance of the Washington region's 
Metro system. The truth is in many ways the whole Federal 
Government runs on Metro, and before the pandemic, this was the 
system that really kept our Federal Government running, kept 
our region running. As a matter of fact, 40 percent of Metro 
riders were Federal Government employees, and the unfortunate 
thing is that COVID has had a dramatic effect on Metro and it 
has had on transit systems all across the country. The entity 
that runs Metro is called ``WMATA''. So we have got to make 
sure--and one of the things that we feel very strongly about 
and we made sure that we put into the CARES bills was support 
for Washington Metro.
    In 2008, Congress recognized the fact and finally passed in 
a bipartisan way what is called ``PRIIA'' legislation that was 
basically a 10-year deal where $150 million a year in Federal 
funds were authorized to the Metro system, to recognize the 
fact that we were--while our localities, DC, Maryland, and 
Virginia, were chipping in a lot, the Federal Government was 
chipping in a bit here to take care of the special needs of 
Federal workers. Since that time, the surrounding jurisdictions 
have upped their contributions to Metro. It is now time for the 
Federal Government to do the same. That 10-year run has 
obviously expired. Chris and I and Ben Cardin and Tim Kaine 
have kept that $150 million going on an annual basis the last 
couple years, but we have now introduced legislation called the 
``Metro Safety, Accountability, and Investment Act'' that would 
fund Metro with a dependable revenue stream for an additional 
10 years. This would not only continue the $150 million a year 
that Metro has received from the Federal Government, but it 
would also increase if we meet certain additional safety 
requirements, because we have had some safety challenges on 
Metro over the years. It would increase that commitment by 10 
years.
    I am looking forward to working with the Chairman and 
Senator Van Hollen to make sure that we continue to move this 
stream forward, and at least for me, it is clearly one of my 
top priorities.
    Moving on to try to get a question in as well, you know, 
one of the things that we have to grapple with is the state of 
good repair investments. They are critically important to 
transit systems all around the country, including Metro, 
including some of the smaller systems around Virginia. WMATA's 
current state of good repair needs are estimated at $16 billion 
in order to rehabilitate and replace some of the aging assets, 
including upgrading a number of the rail cars.
    So, Ms. Osborne, can you talk about the importance of the 
Federal formula for funding for the state of good repair 
program and how these funds are so essential to programs like 
Metro and other major transit systems around the country?
    Ms. Osborne. Absolutely, Senator Warner. You mentioned how 
much the Federal Government and the region relies on WMATA, and 
it reminds me of how strong support comes across the country 
from local businesses, because it turns out that all 
businesses, whether it is the Federal Government or private 
business, rely heavily on transit. It is why we see in places 
like Cincinnati and Atlanta the business community leading the 
effort to support transit. We just would not function as a 
community without it.
    State of repair is a super-high priority of my 
organization. It is our top priority not just for transit but 
for highway investment. Our ``fix-it-first'' approach is 
something we have been supporting, pushing amendments and 
language on for a long time. We have a better record in 
requiring a look at maintenance needs on the transit, and I 
hope that is something that we continue to support to ensure 
that our region can operate efficiently and effectively.
    Senator Warner. Well, I agree with that. Having been a 
former Governor and fought transportation and infrastructure 
battles for many, many years, you know, making sure that we do 
not see the deterioration of our systems is so critically 
important. I do not have time for another question, but I do 
want to just acknowledge Mr. Samuelsen and all the transit 
worker unions. Your workers had to stay on the front lines 
through the whole COVID experience and even with the enormous 
challenges. I want to commend you and your workforce. One of 
the things why it is so important that we get these transit 
funds in place not only is for the dollars needed to continue 
to operate, but to again show support for our workforce.
    I think with that, I see Senator Warren, but I believe I 
was supposed to call on Senator Tester next. I have been given 
a cheat sheet here. Jon, are you--if not, I am going to call on 
Senator Warren, but, Jon Tester, are you on the line?
    With that, going once, twice, three times, gone, Tester. 
Over to Warren.
    Senator Warren. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Climate change is an existential threat to our planet and 
to our economy, and we just cannot wait any longer to make 
Federal investments necessary to reduce carbon emissions. But 
the same things that cause climate change have long been 
causing severe public health problems, and that has happened 
disproportionately in Black and Brown communities. Redlining 
and other racist Federal policies have exposed frontline, 
vulnerable, and disadvantaged communities to environmental 
harms at unacceptably higher rates than in neighboring 
communities.
    For instance, people of color in greater Boston are more 
likely to live near roads that expose them to higher levels of 
vehicular air pollution, and Black Americans nationwide are 
exposed to air that is nearly 40 percent more polluted than 
White Americans.
    Transportation is a huge source of this pollution, 
especially diesel buses. So as we tackle climate change, 
transportation infrastructure has to be a big part of the 
picture.
    So let me start there. Ms. Osborne, working families depend 
on buses to get to work, to get to school, and they are often 
the only form of mass transit in our frontline, vulnerable, and 
disadvantaged communities. Why is it so important that we 
invest in clean transportation within these communities?
    Ms. Osborne. Absolutely, it is vitally important that we 
invest in efficient modes and clean vehicles. As you said, it 
is important to meeting our climate goals, but it really does 
not stop there. Gas engines emit pollution that cause heart and 
lung disease that also happen to create the preexisting 
conditions that made people more vulnerable to COVID. Black and 
Brown communities are exposed to these air pollutants at a 
higher rate than White people, 24 to 25 percent more, due to 
proximity to major roadways and highways. Investing in clean 
vehicles, including transit vehicles, is important in reducing 
that impact, and having robust transit provides those same 
people access to the things they need.
    Senator Warren. Yes, and the need is really critical. In 
2018, 84 percent of transit buses and 90 percent of school 
buses were powered by diesel. If these public transit options 
were instead powered by clean, renewable electricity, they 
would produce far fewer pollutants. But replacing current buses 
with electric ones is a huge financial challenge. Every school 
district, every city government in this country, is already 
facing tight budgets that the pandemic has made tighter. So 
electrifying public transit is going to require help from the 
Federal Government.
    Mr. Haley, my colleagues and I recently introduced a bill 
that would dedicate $500 billion over the next decade in 
competitive grant funding through the Department of 
Transportation to help State and local governments electrify 
our public transportation systems. Let me ask you, would that 
funding have a big impact on our country's electric transit, 
especially the ability of transit authorities to add electric 
buses?
    Mr. Haley. There is no question about that whatsoever. It 
would be a huge help. Nationally, public transportation reduces 
carbon dioxide emissions by 37 million metric tons every year, 
and we have got 27 hybrid buses in our fleet, and they reduce 
emissions by more than 90 percent. To electrify our fleet would 
be a great, great movement toward reducing carbon dioxide. It 
would be a big help. And you are right, the finance of that is 
a huge undertaking. It would be a great help to us.
    Senator Warren. That is good to hear. So public health, 
clean up the environment, and one analysis found that our bill 
would create nearly a million jobs. It would lead to 4,200 
fewer deaths caused by air pollution every year, and it would 
save us about $100 billion a year in avoided health damages.
    This legislation directs 40 percent of all funding to 
frontline communities that have been harmed by racist and 
unjust environmental practices in order to ensure that these 
communities are not left behind as we tackle the climate 
challenge. So I am so glad to see that President Biden included 
funding in his American Jobs Act proposal to replace diesel 
transit vehicles and electrify a share of our yellow school bus 
fleet. It is clear we need to make real investments in this 
country at a size and scope that will modernize our 
infrastructure, electrify our buses and rail, tackle climate 
change, create good jobs, improve public health. The climate 
crisis is here, and this is a powerful way to fight back.
    So thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Brown [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Warren.
    Senator Tester is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Senator Tester. Thank you, Chairman Brown. I appreciate it. 
I appreciate this hearing. I appreciate all of your testimony.
    I am going to direct my questions to Ms. Osborne, and I 
want to thank you for your testimony today and your attention 
to rural transportation needs. And I agree that too often 
transit solutions developed for urban environments are used, 
ineffectively by the way, to address rural transportation 
needs. It does not work, and as you said in your testimony, it 
puts a square peg in a round hole. And so that is why I think 
we need to rethink rural infrastructure investment and not push 
for one-size-fits-all regulations.
    In your estimation, Ms. Osborne, is Congress doing enough 
to consider and support the unique transportation needs of 
rural America where distance is a real challenge?
    Ms. Osborne. Well, I think we certainly need to do a lot 
more. A lot of times when we talk about rural America, we are 
thinking about open land farmland, forestland, and we forget 
that there are concentrations of humans that live in these 
beautiful towns and that they need access to hospitals, jobs, 
and all kinds of things. And as many of these services have 
been consolidated, they have been moved farther and farther 
away.
    So it is not unlike urban transit in that you need to get 
to those destinations. It is that they are clustered in some 
sort of, you know, community that serves an entire region, and 
we need to develop a transit system that recognizes those 
distances and can pull people into that regional hub.
    My colleague John Robert Smith is from Meridian, 
Mississippi. Meridian served as that regional hub for a lot of 
rural communities, and that is the approach they took and is I 
think what we need to look at more for the Federal program for 
rural transit.
    Senator Tester. I think you have touched on the answer to 
my next question, and that is, how can we better connect rural 
public transit to our national transportation system?
    Ms. Osborne. Well, I think that it does require more study, 
and luckily we have access to better information and better 
tools now to be able to evaluate how to get people to those 
destinations effectively. I think we need to deploy it with a 
little more concentration in rural America. But we see our 
neighbors to the north in Canada investing in a $250 billion 
Rural Transit Fund. I think we do as much as Canada. We have 
folks within our country doing a lot of work in this, like in 
Oklahoma that has developed a really impressive transit plan 
for statewide transit in rural and urban areas, and we should 
learn from their experience as well.
    Senator Tester. Well, thank you, Ms. Osborne, and I want to 
thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this Committee hearing. I 
will yield back my time.
    Chairman Brown. Thank you.
    Senator Van Hollen is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am really 
glad that the Committee is turning its attention to the issue 
of transit. It has been very overlooked in the past, and I am 
pleased that President Biden's American Jobs Act calls for 
significant investment in transit. We have seen that the 
American Society of Civil Engineers gives us a miserable grade 
of D-minus as a country in this area.
    In this National Capital Region, we do have a good system, 
WMATA. I am going to be working with Senators Warner, Cardin, 
and Kaine to reauthorize the Federal commitment there.
    In the city of Baltimore, 30 percent of households do not 
own a vehicle, and for years the Federal delegation worked, and 
ultimately successfully, to get the FTA to approve a major 
transit system, Metro system, in the Baltimore area, committing 
$1 billion. Unfortunately, Maryland's Governor pulled the plug 
on that, and we are going to be investigating ways to renew 
that Federal commitment.
    In Baltimore, you also have kind of the opposite problem, 
which was that a highway to nowhere, a big highway that was 
going to cut across the city, was stopped, but dividing 
neighborhoods, leaving a big scar on the city, and I am very 
pleased that the Biden Jobs Plan also would address that so we 
could reunite that community, something I have been working on.
    But as was just said, in addition to urban areas, transit 
can play a really important role in suburban and rural areas. 
The Maryland General Assembly just passed what is called the 
``Southern Maryland rapid transit bill,'' and we are going to 
be looking for ways here on the Committee to provide additional 
resources for technical assistance and planning for those small 
projects and look for ways to be supportive there.
    Of course, transit workers are the lifeblood of our transit 
systems. I want to thank them for being on the front lines 
during this pandemic, putting themselves at risk to continue to 
carry people to work, and making the necessities of their daily 
lives. President John Samuelsen, thank you for your leadership 
there. As you know and you mentioned in your testimony, a bill 
that I introduced last year I will be reintroducing soon to 
better protect transit workers and pedestrians. Can you just 
talk briefly about the importance of getting that done?
    Mr. Samuelsen. Yeah, absolutely. So what we are 
experiencing right now is really, aside from COVID-19, an 
epidemic of assaults against transit workers, frontline transit 
staff, and in addition to riders of the systems. But just in 
the media this morning or yesterday, 1,100 New York City 
transit workers alone were assaulted in the last 6 months or 
victims of aggressive crimes, including assault, spitting, 
menacing, that type of thing.
    So it preexisted COVID-19, but under COVID-19 there is 
truly a full moon atmosphere in public transit across America. 
Transit workers go to work every day riddled with anxiety about 
whether they are going to come home in one piece, and it is an 
incredibly unfortunate situation, and hopefully--and we greatly 
appreciate the bill that you introduced, Senator, and having 
the FTA utilize the leverage that they do have in order to 
compel transit agencies to develop assault reduction plans, 
crime reduction plans, is spot-on. It is something that we have 
been looking for for a long time.
    Wrapping our arms around how to stop and how to reverse the 
assaults on transit workers is probably the most talked about 
issue among transit presidents of the unions across this 
country, even in the age of COVID-19. It is really total 
insanity out there in public transit systems for our workforce. 
So thank you.
    Senator Van Hollen. Well, thank you, and thanks to all your 
members, and we will work to get that done, along with the 
other legislation on workforce training for transit workers.
    Ms. Osborne, we currently have a funding system when it 
comes to transportation that treats highway funding support 
from the Federal Government much more favorably than transit, 
despite the congestion, also despite the environmental benefits 
of transit. Can you talk a little bit about that?
    Ms. Osborne. Absolutely. You know, if we really want to 
commit to transit, it is time to commit in a way we did to 
highways 7 years ago. There is no reason that every city in the 
United States should not have access to high-quality transit. 
Americans travel elsewhere and ask why they have such good 
transit service there and why can't we have, and the answer is 
we have not made the same level of commitment. We instead say 
it is a local concern or discuss putting everybody in their own 
car all at the same time and see how efficient that will work.
    Transit is in high demand and low supply. It drives up 
property values where transit exists because we are not meeting 
market demand. It is long past due for that kind of commitment 
that you are describing.
    Senator Van Hollen. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Brown. Thank you, Senator Van Hollen.
    Senator Smith from Minnesota is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Senator Smith. Thank you, Chair Brown, and thanks so much 
to our panelists for being with us today. I think this is such 
an important topic.
    As I think about Minnesota and the role that transit plays 
in the economic competitiveness of our State, not only in big 
cities but also in rural areas, I am just particularly grateful 
for the conversation that we are having today.
    I want to start with that question of rural transit that my 
colleague Senator Tester touched on a little bit. I think that 
COVID has really shown us how important it is--what an 
important role transit plays, especially for our essential 
workers getting to work, families being connected to child care 
and to grocery stores and all of the basic services that they 
need in their lives. It is really connecting people to 
opportunity. And, of course, some areas rely more on transit 
than others, especially people living in low population density 
areas where there are often also large senior citizen 
populations are increasingly reliant on transit. We do not 
think about that a lot when we think about transit.
    So with this in mind, I have worked with Senator Mike 
Rounds from South Dakota to develop a bipartisan proposal to 
help increase Federal investments in rural transit, and our 
bill is called the ``Investments in Rural Transit Act'', and 
what it would do is to increase the Federal share of operating 
expenses so that more transit services can be offered in the 
communities that need them.
    Ms. Osborne, I would like to just ask you about this. Can 
you talk a little bit more about the value of transit in rural 
areas and how increased investments are really contributing to 
the economic competitiveness of rural communities?
    Ms. Osborne. You are absolutely right. People actually, 
when they are asked, young people who have a choice of where to 
move, often want to move to small and rural communities. They 
just do not want to have to spend their entire life in a 
vehicle. They want to move to a walkable community where they 
can be near the things they need, and they do still want access 
to things like transit. So giving them the sort of access to 
transit like you are talking about is very important for 
attracting people back to those communities.
    I will also say that sometimes those small communities are 
in many ways more easy to serve with transit because the town 
itself that you are serving is compact. It is about--it is a 
little harder when you have to move people out of the town to a 
neighboring community for services. But both can be done, and 
there are great examples across the country of this, including, 
you know, a small community like Oxford, Mississippi, that has 
extraordinarily good transit. And as an LSU grad, I cannot tell 
you how much it hurts me to compliment the town of Ole Miss, 
but it must be done because their service is so fantastic.
    And so I think we have a lot that we can learn from 
communities across the country, and those that have invested 
have done well. And through COVID, rural transit did not just 
look at cuts like we did in places like DC. They looked at 
nonexistence. So it is really important to recognize many are 
putting things together with a shoestring budget and, with a 
little more operations support, could expand service and 
provide more robust support to their locals.
    Senator Smith. That is great. I think you touch on 
something which is so important, which is that there are great 
models and some really great innovation happening in small 
towns and rural areas about using transit, getting transit out 
there. What they lack is the resources and the support to bring 
those ideas to scale. And I think, you know, I hear from 
mayors, from county commissioners in Minnesota, from business 
leaders in Minnesota about how important transit is to the 
competitiveness of these rural communities. I think that is a 
big opportunity for us, colleagues, in the American Jobs Plan 
to really make a push for rural transit.
    I have a minute or so left. I want to come back to you, Ms. 
Osborne. You touched on the connection between transit and 
housing, and I want to touch on this. We are seeing a huge 
problem with affordable housing, and as housing prices 
increase, people of moderate means or low-income families are 
having to move farther and farther away from their jobs. That 
creates a whole new set of challenges for us.
    The University of Minnesota has done some research that 
shows if you coordinate transit service with housing and 
workforce, that really supports economic growth and economic 
competitiveness, really looking at this accessibility issue 
with transit.
    So could you just say, what do you think are the benefits 
of transit investments through that prism of accessibility? And 
why should we consider that as we look at these investments?
    Ms. Osborne. Access to jobs and essential services by all 
modes of travel should be the way we determine whether or not 
the transportation system functions the way we want, because 
that is the fundamental purpose behind it. And where you have 
high access, particularly to those nonwork destinations, that 
is where people are spending less on transportation; they are 
having higher access to opportunity. They are more efficient 
members of the economy. It has positive benefits in the 
environment, in the economy, in quality of life, everything 
across the board. And what the University of Minnesota is doing 
in this is extraordinary and something we should really be 
importing into the whole program.
    Senator Smith. That is great. Thank you so much.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Chairman Brown. Thank you, Senator Smith.
    Senator Ossoff from Georgia is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to 
our panel.
    Ms. Osborne, I am working with Mayor Davis in Augusta, 
Georgia, which hosts the Cyber Center and has a growing high-
tech industry, to expand autonomous vehicle development 
capacity, possibly including the development of a testing 
center in or around Augusta for autonomous vehicles. Can you 
discuss how August and its work on autonomous vehicle 
development could contribute to the quality of life and transit 
opportunities and technologies over the next few years in 
Georgia and across the country?
    Ms. Osborne. I am happy to. My lens toward transportation 
is much more about the policy that governs how any mode or any 
technology of transportation moves through it. The more we 
build the multimodal system, multimodal roadways, the better 
things like autonomous vehicles will work, the better transit 
will work, the more easily people will be able to walk and bike 
to that transit and to their opportunity.
    Unfortunately, in our current policy environment, these 
technologies will be somewhat squandered, so I am hoping to see 
places like Augusta and my friends in Pittsburgh who are 
heavily involved in autonomous vehicles look at how the design 
of our transportation system and particularly our roadways 
interferes with the deployment of AVs, because I think we will 
find that the same things that interfere with AV testing and 
movement is what is making our current system with old-
fashioned people, drivers, less efficient and less safe as 
well.
    Senator Ossoff. Ms. Osborne, I appreciate that. Another 
topic of great interest across Georgia is the electrification 
of our bus fleet. I have been working with Mayor Miller in 
Macon advancing the electrification of Macon's bus fleet as a 
top priority. Can you comment on how that can improve quality 
of life for the people of Macon?
    Ms. Osborne. Absolutely. Investing in clean transportation 
in terms of an efficient mode of travel like transit and clean 
vehicles like electric transit vehicles is incredibly 
important. As Senator Warren mentioned, it is not just about 
climate. It is about gas engines that emit pollution that 
causes heart and lung disease, that have contributed to the 
very preexisting conditions that make people more vulnerable to 
COVID.
    So ensuring that the vehicles that the Federal Government 
is supporting are not contributing to those public health 
problems, which greatly impact Black and Brown communities, 24 
to 25 percent more than White communities, is going to be part 
of being a responsible citizen, but, also, making sure that as 
we invest in clean vehicles, that we are expanding service so 
that the same people we are trying to protect are getting more 
access to the things they need. That is the one-two punch that 
is going to really support better equity and better outcomes.
    Senator Ossoff. Thank you so much, Ms. Osborne.
    The city of Valdosta under Mayor Matheson's leadership is 
interested in expanding microtransit opportunities. Can you 
talk about how for smaller cities like Valdosta microtransit 
can be an innovation that improves quality of life?
    Ms. Osborne. Yeah, we are seeing a lot of experimentation 
in this and in a lot of areas. COVID just encouraged more 
experimentation, which I guess is one good outcome. I know that 
folks in Sacramento have been also experimenting with using 
microtransit to support movement of people, particularly in 
less dense areas of the city, and we are learning a lot. And 
what I am hoping is, as these various communities experiment 
and learn, we are able to put together what their experience 
tells us so that we can better support the most effective ways 
to move people around, whether it is through buses, trains, 
microtransit, you know, sneakers, whatever it may be.
    Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Ms. Osborne.
    Columbus, Georgia, relies heavily on a hub-and-spoke model 
of routes for its bus system, and there is great interest in 
increasing the capacity of riders to get directly from one 
destination to another rather than having to return to central 
stops and central stations. Can you talk about how we could 
reduce ride times for the residents of Columbus and support 
economic growth by expanding routes in Columbus?
    Ms. Osborne. Yeah, I think that something that Senator 
Smith just mentioned out of the University of Minnesota and 
what I have worked with from the University of Wisconsin in 
measuring access to jobs and services can be very instructive 
in determining how routes might change and give people better 
crosstown connections and even circulator connections.
    We carry a lot of great data in our smartphones about 
access to various destinations, and it is probably time to 
deploy that to our transportation system and planning so that 
people can have the most efficient access to the things they 
need.
    Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Ms. Osborne, and with my brief 
remaining time--and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me 
just a couple more seconds here--Metro Atlanta, there is a lot 
of interest in bus rapid transit. Can you talk about bus rapid 
transit, Ms. Osborne, and how it can improve quality of life in 
metropolitan Atlanta, please?
    Ms. Osborne. Bus rapid transit is an incredible service. It 
is easy to deploy and can utilize buses in a way that, again, 
just increases access to the things people need. We definitely 
should provide all forms of transit to people and support at 
the Federal level so that the locals can choose the best form 
possible.
    Senator Ossoff. Thank you. I yield back.
    Chairman Brown. Thank you, Senator Ossoff.
    Senator Warnock from Georgia is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Senator Warnock. Thank you so very much, Mr. Chairman, and 
I thank all of you for your testimony.
    Too often in American politics there is a false dichotomy 
between urban and rural, which plays into the politics of 
division. I do not know that we get much done in that approach. 
But the truth is in my home State of Georgia, for example, 
public transportation not only connects people to restaurants 
and shops and friends and family in big cities like Atlanta, 
but it is also critical to opening the doors of opportunity and 
education and jobs in rural communities and small towns where 
people suffer from access, lack of access and mobility. In 
Georgia, we have transit providers in nearly 80 percent of 159 
counties, 17 urban systems, 80 rural systems--80 rural systems, 
17 urban systems.
    So I think it is important when we talk about public 
transportation that people recognize that both urban and rural 
communities, small towns and big cities have a stake in that 
investment.
    The truth is we are not investing enough in public 
transportation, especially in rural and low-income communities. 
Nearly 100 of our 159 counties are considered areas of 
persistent poverty, and that is not including the very low 
income neighborhoods in Atlanta, 159 counties, 100 of those 
Georgia counties considered areas of persistent poverty, lack 
of economic upward mobility, inextricably connected to a lack 
of mobility. Public transportation is not only a ticket to 
literal mobility but to social mobility.
    Ms. Osborne, do you agree that public transportation 
improves mobility, equity, and quality of life in both rural 
and urban areas? Can you talk about that?
    Ms. Osborne. Absolutely. As someone who could not get to a 
job because I did not have a care but could not afford a car 
because I could not get a job, it was moving to a community 
like the one I live in now that had transit that finally 
impacted economic opportunity. For people with less than me, it 
is even more essential.
    Senator Warnock. So what should we do to support, 
prioritize, and improve service for people who are living in 
these areas that are experiencing persistent poverty, both in 
our cities and our rural counties and across the country? And 
does that start with providing funds specifically to study the 
issue and develop ways to strategically address it?
    Ms. Osborne. Absolutely. Having funding to support good 
planning and using the tools like the one Senator Smith pointed 
out that the University of Minnesota has worked on on measuring 
access to jobs and services by all modes of travel, you do it 
through GIS. You can cross-reference it with areas of 
persistent poverty, communities of color, underserved areas, 
and determine where their barriers are and what services will 
improve it, absolutely could unlock a big change in access to 
economic opportunity. It starts with planning, and that 
planning will be all the more effective if there is money to 
actually institute that plan at the end.
    Senator Warnock. So do measures like ridership, for 
example, sometimes stymie our efforts or do we need a broader 
view of how we analyze what is actually needed in these 
communities? Can you speak to that?
    Ms. Osborne. That is an excellent question, Senator, and I 
think ridership was one of the best measures we had for 
decades. But now we have access to much better information, 
which is not how many people are on a bus at any given time, 
but how many people are able to move to jobs and to essential 
services. We should be measuring all modes of transportation 
this way. Right now we measure whether or not vehicles move or 
whether or not people get on and off buses, but we really need 
to measure whether or not we have moved people, particularly in 
areas of persistent poverty, to the things that they need. And 
we can do it. We just have not chosen to yet.
    Senator Warnock. So in the effort then to be fiscally 
responsible, so I understand your answer, to be fiscally 
responsible, to be efficient in the deployment of public 
resources to address this issue, and there is a sense in which 
looking only at ridership is a rather crude approach rather 
than a smart and strategic approach to thinking about public 
transportation and, thus, mobility, both physical mobility and 
economic mobility?
    Ms. Osborne. Absolutely. It is a proxy for those legitimate 
outcomes you are seeking, and we can now just measure those 
outcomes, so we should do it.
    Senator Warnock. Great. Thank you so much.
    Chairman Brown. Thank you, Senator Warnock.
    Senator Cortez Masto is nearby, and I am not sure she is 
going to be able to join us. I cannot really tell yet. So we 
will wrap up. Thanks to all of the witnesses for being here 
today and providing testimony.
    For Senators who wish to submit questions for the record, 
those questions are due 1 week from today, on Thursday, April 
22nd. For witnesses, all of the five of you, you have 45 days 
to respond to any questions in writing, if you would do that.
    I will close with a final question for my friend from 
Cincinnati, if I could. We need to remember we are talking 
about decisions--all this theoretical talk and budget numbers 
and all, these are decisions that affect real people's lives. 
Mr. Haley, if you would end by walking us through what it would 
mean for a worker in Cincinnati if we took away her bus stop 
or, conversely, what it would mean for that worker if we added 
a bus stop in her neighborhood and increased the number of 
times the bus comes? What are some Cincinnati neighborhoods 
this would help?
    Mr. Haley. Well, I will start off by telling a story. There 
was a customer of ours--we do not run a lot of service on 
Sunday, and she had a job where she was not working Monday 
through Friday 9 to 5. She had a different type of schedule. 
And on Sundays, the bus was not able to get her to and from her 
job, so she was taking an Uber on Sunday to get to and from 
work. So her entire salary for her job at Wendy's on Sunday 
went to pay for her transportation to and from her job for that 
day. If she had very robust transit to get to her job, you 
know, during a Sunday or a Saturday or second shift, it would 
save her a lot of money. If we have really robust transit that 
a customer could get to and from their destination very 
quickly, they could spend less time on a bus and more time 
doing the things that are important to them. It will give 
people time in their day back. And, you know, the things that 
we are doing in transit with WiFi on buses and things like 
that, people can spend their time on the bus, in traveling, 
they can spend it working, you know, rather than just being in 
their car driving. Having a close bus stop, having very 
frequent service, access to jobs, school, health care, 
shopping, 7 days a week, all shifts, because people work 
different shifts, it is a game changer in people's lives. It is 
extremely important.
    Chairman Brown. That may have been the best story to 
illustrate what this is about of the whole morning. So thank 
you for that, Mr. Haley. I had asked you--and you do not need 
to answer, so I will turn to Senator Cortez Masto--what 
Cincinnati neighborhoods, and I know it is mostly all 
Cincinnati neighborhoods, but I know some crucially especially 
that you serve well. So thank you.
    Before adjourning, Senator Cortez Masto is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, 
for holding this hearing. And let me just say it is incredibly 
timely for us to be discussing these issues and working toward 
a bipartisan transportation reauthorization. And I hope that it 
can be part of a broader and more comprehensive infrastructure 
package. We have underinvested in both our physical and human 
infrastructure for far too long, and the COVID-19 pandemic and 
increased global competition have highlighted the gaps in our 
current infrastructure. So it is time to reinvest in our 
Nation's infrastructure, including our transit systems and in 
the workforce that is needed today and to take us into the next 
century. And it is important that we do this equitably because 
the infrastructure needs of one region, State, or community 
might be different than the needs of another community, and 
that includes modes of transportation.
    So let me start with Ms. Osborne and Mr. Haley. I know 
there are many places experiencing infrastructure deficiencies 
and the aging infrastructure throughout the country, but in 
Nevada, the State that I am from and representing, there is a 
need for investments that balance rapid population growth and 
our most important tourism industry. And as just one example, 
one recent national report ranked Nevada as having the fewest 
deficient bridges in America. All of this is to say that 
regions of the country are different, and we all have different 
needs.
    In the same respect, minority communities have always borne 
the brunt of economic downturns and crisis like the COVID-19 
pandemic, and they still suffer from redlining and highway 
construction that disconnected Black and Brown communities from 
job centers and commerce. So every community deserves frequent, 
high-quality transit service that builds connections to 
opportunities.
    So my question to both Ms. Osborne and Mr. Haley is: Given 
the focus on equity for this administration, how should we be 
addressing the differing needs of marginalized communities and 
communities with aging infrastructure without penalizing 
communities with newer infrastructure who need to address 
population growth? Yes, please.
    Ms. Osborne. I think you are absolutely right that 
communities differ. However, even those newer communities, if 
we want to weave communities back together, have some retrofits 
to do as well. So I think starting from a perspective of, you 
know, the priorities of my organization, which is fix-it-first; 
once you have got a system in a state of repair, make sure it 
is fixed better so that we are valuing human safety over 
vehicle speed, which is going to require retrofit of a lot of 
roads we have built over the last 50 years; and evaluating the 
system based on access to jobs and essential services by all 
modes of travel, with a particular focus on those very 
disadvantaged communities you are talking about.
    We can map it. We can discover what the barriers to access 
are. It might be that there is infrastructure blocking 
someone's way. It might be a lack of transit service. We can 
compare all of those, we can put them together, and we can make 
much more targeted and helpful decisions, whether it is an area 
that is aging and needs to focus more on the fix, or it is a 
new area that needs to better accommodate their growing 
community.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
    Mr. Haley, any comments?
    Mr. Haley. Yes, I agree. We really have to make sure that 
we are connecting the region. You know, you look at the 
Cincinnati region. Northern Kentucky is right across the river, 
and there are people that travel between Cincinnati and 
northern Kentucky or into Warren County or Clermont County or 
Butler County, and we have to make sure we are creating systems 
for all of those neighborhoods to connect our entire region so 
that they have access, so they have access to jobs. I talked 
earlier about access to better-paying jobs, to have access to 
health care, to have access to education. So a system that 
creates the span of service that these communities need, the 
frequency of service that these communities need, and good-
quality bus service, good-quality public transportation is 
necessary.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. Thank you for the 
discussion. This is such an important discussion. I really 
appreciate all the panelists.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair, again, for holding this hearing.
    Chairman Brown. Thank you, Senator Cortez Masto.
    So as I said earlier, the 45 days, please respond. Thank 
you, all five of you, for your participation today and your 
good insight, and I think we have moved things forward as we 
move on public transit issues.
    Thank you so much. The Senate Committee on Banking, 
Housing, and Urban Affairs is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
    [Prepared statements and responses to written questions 
supplied for the record follow:]
              PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN SHERROD BROWN
    Shortly before the pandemic, Chairman Crapo and our Committee held 
a well-attended hearing on the reauthorization of Federal transit 
programs. We are picking back up on those efforts. I hope to work with 
Ranking Member Toomey and all of the Members of our Committee to 
advance a surface transportation bill and tackle other infrastructure 
investment we need to create economic growth, in all communities.
    Public transportation helps people get to work and school and to 
doctors' appointments and the grocery store, and spend less of their 
time and hard-earned money commuting.
    And when we say public transportation, of course we don't just mean 
big city subways. This Committee understands that public transportation 
plays a critical role in pretty much every community--in rural areas 
and small towns, in mid-sized cities and old industrial towns, on the 
coasts and in the heartland.
    During the pandemic, essential workers have relied on public 
transportation to reach their jobs at supermarkets, pharmacies, and 
hospitals. Now, transit is a lifeline to vaccination centers.
    And when more Americans return to offices and schools, all of the 
problems facing our transportation systems will come roaring back.
    We know the cost of transportation is a huge drain on families' 
budgets and on their time.
    If a bus or train doesn't run, Americans who don't have the option 
to work from home lose out on hours and the paychecks that come with 
them--and sometimes even lose their jobs.
    An unexpected car repair or a car accident can devastate families 
who rely on their cars to get to work--especially when 40 percent of 
Americans don't have the money to cover a $400 emergency expense.
    And we know who gets hurt the most when transit isn't a reliable 
option--it's the Black and Brown neighborhoods who have been 
historically cut off from job centers, it's the women working at 
essential jobs, it's rural areas where walking isn't an option.
    For our Nation's seniors, particularly in our suburbs and rural 
communities, a van or bus from the local transit service is a lifeline 
to the doctor or the grocery store or church.
    A taxi or an Uber may work for some. But in Ohio, that's often not 
a reliable option outside of our larger cities, it's usually not an 
affordable option, and the rideshare model is denying millions of 
workers protections on the job and benefits like health care.
    We can do better.
    All Americans should have high-quality, frequent transit service 
that saves them time and money.
    The solution is pretty simple--when you have better, faster transit 
service, more people use it.
    Public transit will help restore and grow our economy as we emerge 
from the pandemic. Good transit attracts good jobs.
    The Cincinnati USA Regional Chamber understands that--it led the 
business community's support of a historic ballot measure to invest in 
the Cincinnati Metro, which passed last May.
    And we are seeing this in cities across the country--business and 
civic leaders coming together to support transit as a tool for economic 
growth and inclusion.
    Whether it is the business community in Columbus, or Charlotte, or 
Atlanta, we are witnessing an emerging consensus that a vibrant, fully 
functioning transit system is essential to attract investment and 
create communities where people want to live and work.
    And of course, public transit remains one of our best tools to 
fight climate change. When more people take public transit, we get less 
traffic on the roads and lower emissions.
    We need to seize new opportunities to get the next generation of 
buses and rail cars into our communities, and support American 
manufacturing.
    That means expanding the Low- or No-Emission Vehicle Program. 
Transit agencies save money in the long-run by adopting more efficient 
vehicles, and with Buy America requirements, we will create a 
significant number of manufacturing jobs building those buses in the 
U.S.
    Running more efficient buses and supporting American industry is 
something I hope we can all agree on. Our Committee has worked on a 
bipartisan basis to reject efforts by Chinese Government-backed 
companies to infiltrate the transit industry, and instead support the 
deployment of advanced, American-made zero-emission buses.
    Fixing deteriorated infrastructure and replacing old rail cars make 
transit more efficient. Riders in places like Cleveland, Boston, and 
Philadelphia face delays when old tracks and outdated rail cars slow 
our transit system and cause longer commutes. And those repairs are all 
jobs that cannot be shipped overseas.
    In Cleveland, the RTA operates a fleet of 74 rail cars: all of them 
are more than 35 years old and needed to be replaced years ago.
    America's transit workforce is ready for the job. Transit workers 
made enormous sacrifices during the pandemic. More than 350 transit 
workers have died from the virus, many from communities like New York 
City that experienced horrible rates of infection in the early stages 
of the pandemic. The transit workforce, like other frontline workers, 
kept our Nation functioning.
    We need to listen to the voices of transit workers to offer better, 
safer service in the years ahead. And we need to partner with the 
transit workforce as agencies consider adopting new technology and 
automation.
    Technology should be used to make transit service safer, but there 
is no substitute for a well-trained bus operator to help riders and 
keep them safe, particularly passengers with disabilities. And we 
should never outsource critical safety functions and essential 
services.
    These are all critical national issues, and we need to take a 
leading role--that's how we solve big problems.
    The American Jobs Plan is bold, it's necessary, and it's how we 
finally seize opportunities instead of running from them. It would put 
people to work, and it would invest in the places that have been left 
on their own by Washington and Wall Street for too long.
    I look forward to hearing from Committee Members and witnesses 
about how we can build the infrastructure our communities need. I also 
know that together we'll delve into other transit subjects on our 
Committee in the weeks and months ahead, including looking at how 
housing and transit interact, and the issues facing our rural transit 
providers.
    Together, we can--and must--revitalize public transit and 
infrastructure to create growth in our communities, lower people's 
transportation cost, and create good-paying jobs.
                                 ______
                                 
            PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATRICK J. TOOMEY
    Chairman Brown, thank you.
    COVID has been an extraordinary crisis that Congress has responded 
to in an extraordinary way. In 2020, Congress provided almost $4 
trillion in COVID relief through five overwhelmingly bipartisan bills. 
As part of those bills, we gave $40 billion to transit on top of the 
$12 billion we annually spend on transit.
    Last month, Democrats broke from that spirit of cooperation to ram 
through a wasteful, partisan $1.9 trillion spending bill. Among its 
provisions was an extra $30 billion for transit. To recap, in 2020, 
Congress provided $12 billion in annual transit funding, then we spent 
$40 billion in COVID relief, and last month we spent another $30 
billion. That's a total of $82 billion.
    What's the annual cost of operating all of the transit agencies in 
the U.S. combined? In 2019, it was $54 billion. Even if you add to that 
the transit agencies' capital expenses, their combined annual costs 
were still less than $82 billion.
    Democrats tried to justify this spending by saying that transit 
systems would collapse from declines in ridership and State and local 
government revenues. But ridership did not drop to zero and ridership 
has increased since the worst days of the pandemic last spring. Their 
systems are by definition local. They serve a city or maybe a 
metropolitan area. Should the local jurisdictions and States where 
these systems reside have any responsibility to pay for these systems? 
Evidently not, according to my colleagues.
    The fact is, on the whole, State and local tax collections set a 
new record in 2020. Plus in 2020 we sent more than $500 billion to 
States and local governments for COVID relief. And last month, the 
Democrat spending bill gave them another $350 billion.
    To add insult to injury, we sent these billions to transit agencies 
without requiring them to implement any reforms. The financial woes of 
many big-city transit agencies pre-date COVID and are tied to chronic 
financial mismanagement.
    For example, New York City's MTA, the country's largest transit 
agency, has been mismanaged for years. It's had mounting debts--with 
its long-term debt tripling, from 2000 to 2019, to over $35 billion. In 
2019, MTA projected enormous budget deficits, reaching $1 billion in 
2022. And since 2014, it's had $7 billion in questionable and 
suspicious overtime expenses.
    This February, MTA was finally close to making reforms to address 
its chronic problems. But then Democrats threw more money at MTA, and, 
lo and behold, MTA's proposed reforms went away. MTA's problems haven't 
been fixed--they've just been kicked down the road, courtesy of the 
U.S. taxpayer.
    Now the Biden administration wants another $85 billion for transit 
as part of a wasteful, multitrillion dollar welfare and infrastructure 
bill. Let's consider how excessive this is. If we pass the Biden bill, 
along with the transit funding extension that is being contemplated 
here, and combined it with the $82 billion we provided over the last 
year, we could, based on 2019 Census data, buy every transit commuter 
in America a $30,000 car.
    Mr. Chairman, I'm glad you're holding a hearing on FAST Act 
reauthorization. Because we should be talking about how to reform our 
existing transit funding system. We should certainly be doing that 
rather than thinking about spending another $85 billion on transit.
    In doing so, we should be guided by sensible principles that will 
protect taxpayer dollars from misuse, including: prioritizing 
maintaining existing systems rather than expanding with the hope that 
there will be demand; ensuring State and local governments pay their 
fair share and are accountable; removing useless regulations that delay 
projects and increase costs; reforming planning requirements that 
otherwise lock local governments into rigid, long-term system 
expansions; paying for infrastructure improvements responsibly, 
including addressing the insolvency of the Highway Trust Fund, and 
limiting transit's share of the Highway Trust Fund expenditures to the 
long standing level of 20 percent.
    Importantly, we need to ask, does mass transit continue to make 
sense in every U.S. city at its current scale?
    Today, we will hear from two witnesses how we can take a more 
thoughtful approach to funding transit than just throwing money at it. 
Baruch Feigenbaum is a transportation expert at the Reason Foundation. 
He will testify that transit systems and lawmakers must adjust to the 
shifting work and transportation trends accelerated by the COVID 
pandemic.
    We will also hear from David Ditch, a budget and transportation 
expert at the Heritage Foundation. He will testify that the transit 
funding in the recent Democrat spending bill bailed out chronically 
mismanaged big city transit agencies.
    This year, Congress should come together to responsibly reauthorize 
the FAST Act, while reducing wasteful, outdated, and duplicative 
spending. I hope my Democratic colleagues will follow that path of 
cooperation rather than ramming through another partisan spending bill 
that wastes taxpayer dollars on transit bailouts and other liberal 
priorities.
                                 ______
                                 
                   PREPARED STATEMENT OF DARRYL HALEY
 Chief Executive Officer and General Manager, Southwest Ohio Regional 
                        Transit Authority/Metro
                             April 15, 2021
    Chairman Brown, Ranking Member Toomey, and Members of the Committee 
on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, on behalf of the Southwest Ohio 
Regional Transportation Authority (SORTA) thank you for the opportunity 
to testify on the ``21st Century Communities: Public Transportation 
Infrastructure Investment and FAST Act Reauthorization''.
    My name is Darryl Haley, and I am the Chief Executive Officer and 
General Manager of SORTA, the public transport agency serving Greater 
Cincinnati and its surrounding suburbs. Our service area includes 
Hamilton County, in addition to providing commuter routes from Butler 
County, Clermont County, and Warren County. I would like to share with 
the Committee some of the issues that are critical to our agency and 
the broader industry as you consider policies related to the next 
surface transportation reauthorization that will succeed the Fixing 
America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act).
    By way of background, SORTA operates 46 major fixed bus routes, as 
well as a demand-responsive paratransit service, making approximately 
14 million passenger trips annually. We are excited about the future of 
transit in our region due to the support we recently received from the 
citizens of Hamilton County. On May 14, 2020 the citizens voiced their 
confidence in our authority by passing a new countywide transportation 
levy. Issue 7 approved a 0.8 percent countywide sales tax increase for 
transit service and transit-related infrastructure improvements, which 
triggered elimination of the 0.3 percent city of Cincinnati earnings 
tax on city residents and workers that has been Metro's primary funding 
source for nearly 50 years. In the coming month, Metro will begin 
rolling out the Reinventing Metro plan, which will provide much needed 
improvements and expansions, including: more crosstown routes, more 
frequent service, 24-hour service on several routes, expanded weekend 
service, earlier and later service on several routes, circulator 
routes, extension of Express routes, new service to emerging job 
centers, and an overall expansion of its service area. During this 
multiyear rollout we will continue to engage the community to ensure 
their evolving needs are met.
    Additionally, we are proud of the job access improvements the plan 
we will provide including:

    20,000 more job accessible by Metro

    740 more employers accessible by Metro; and

    $850 Million total wages accessible by Metro

    As you all are most certainly aware, COVID-19 has devastated many 
of our communities and SORTA has been laser focused on making sure we 
do our part in uplifting our fellow citizens that are still struggling. 
Our Everybody Rides Metro Foundation (Empowerment Fund), continues to 
support low-income riders, and we relaunched the Fund in January 2021 
with the first contribution of $42K of the $500,000 to be received 
annually. Currently we have 21 social service agencies registered and 
these agencies are reimbursed 50 percent of the fare for travel for 
trips related to:

    Work and job training

    Medical services; and

    Social services

    I would like to thank each of you for your leadership in supporting 
transit during this pandemic. The COVID-19 relief packages have been 
critical to ensuring our ability to keep our doors open, buses on the 
streets, our employees being able to keep their good paying jobs to 
support their families, and their health insurance; all while many of 
them come to work every day putting themselves on the front line to 
make sure other members of the community have the ability to get to 
work, school, doctor's appointments, the grocery store and other 
essential activities.
    Thanks to funding provided by the CARES Act, SORTA has been able to 
provide PPE for our employees, as well as our passengers, and install 
plexiglass barriers on each of our vehicles. The funds enabled SORTA to 
maintain staffing levels throughout the pandemic and avoid any layoffs. 
We were also able to retrofit our workspaces and return to full service 
more quickly after the stay-at-home orders were lifted.
    Currently, Metro is offering free rides to support our regional 
``Get Out the Vax'' efforts to remove transportation barriers and 
ensure equal access to COVID-19 vaccines in our community.
    This year has not been easy, but I am proud to say that SORTA has 
worked hard each and every day to serve our community and we have had 
some significant accomplishments during this season as well. As I 
mentioned earlier, we passed a countywide levy in the midst of a 
panemic; opened a new transit center in our second busiest transfer 
location; brought Access para-transit service in-house; increased 
ridership 4.3 percent first quarter (prior to COVID-19); updated our 
fleet with 19 new buses featuring Wi-Fi and charging ports for customer 
usage; signed an advertising contract whose revenue will be used to add 
400+ benches and 200 shelters at high traffic bus stops; became fully 
staffed with operators; and we were among the first business in the 
city to recognize Juneteenth as a paid holiday, just to highlight a 
few.
    As you might expect we have had our challenges as well; ridership 
is down about 50 percent due to COVID-19; we have incurred increased 
costs related to COVID-19 supplies, i.e., masks, gloves, sanitation 
solution, installing barriers, etc.; and delayed the rollout of the 
Reinventing Metro Plan from Q4 2020 to Q2 2021.
    Given our current circumstances and as you consider reauthorization 
of the FAST Act, there are a few policy recommendations I would like to 
make this morning. First, I was pleased to see President Biden's 
commitment to transit included in his transformational America Jobs 
Plan, and within his FY2022 Budget. His call for new funding to 
modernize existing public transportation and for transit expansion 
aligns with the work we are doing at SORTA and the local investment 
being made by our Reinventing Metro Plan.
    I believe this forward-thinking along with the top policy 
recommendations presented by our industry association the American 
Public Transportation Association (APTA) would provide the investment 
needed to build a 21st century transportation system our country is in 
dire need of.
    The top three APTA policy priorities are premised on erasing the 
infrastructure deficit, rebuilding and expanding our public 
transportation systems to best meet the needs of today's commuting 
public and future demands, and enhancing our Nation's economic 
competitiveness. APTA calls for a total Federal investment of $178 
billion over 6 years for public transit and passenger rail. If enacted, 
this investment will create or sustain more than two million jobs.
Highway Trust Fund Solvency and Long-Term, Increased Investment
    APTA calls for Federal investment of $145 billion over 6 years to 
fund critical projects that will repair, maintain, and improve our 
public transit systems today and in the future. APTA based this 
Recommendation on the funding needed to provide the Federal share 
necessary to eliminate the transit state-of-good-repair backlog, which 
the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) has determined is more than 
$99 billion and growing. \1\ Additionally, our plan would fully fund 
each of the projects currently in the Capital Investment Grants (CIG) 
pipeline, and fund other key priorities outlined below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \1\ DOT, ``Status of the Nation's Highways, Bridges, and Transit, 
Conditions and Performance'' (November 2019) (hereinafter referred to 
as the ``DOT Report'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It has been more than 25 years since Congress last raised the 
Federal fuel taxes that primarily support the Highway Trust Fund, and 
the purchasing power of this revenue has decreased by more than 40 
percent over that time. Current revenues deposited into the Trust Fund 
are insufficient to support the existing Federal highway and public 
transportation programs without significant general fund contributions. 
This status quo is unsustainable and tough choices need to be made by 
Congress.
Reestablish a 40-40-20 Capital Investment Ratio Among Key Programs
    APTA calls on Congress to reestablish a 40-40-20 capital investment 
ratio among the CIG, State of Good Repair, and Buses and Bus Facilities 
program. Historically, Congress allocated funding on a 40-40-20 basis 
among the CIG, State of Good Repair and Buses and Bus Facilities 
programs. The 40-40-20 ratio was maintained in authorizing law from 
1987 through 1998, and for guaranteed authorizations from 1999 through 
2003. Recent authorization acts have not maintained that ratio and, as 
a result, the Buses and Bus Facilities program has received less 
funding.
    Our Recommendations provide significant increases for the CIG, 
State of Good Repair and Buses and Bus Facilities programs. In growing 
each program, APTA believes that a relative distribution of 40 percent 
for CIG, 40 percent for State of Good Repair, and 20 percent for Buses 
and Bus Facilities is the fairest allocation of funding for these three 
capital investment programs. To achieve this objective, APTA proposes 
that the Buses and Bus Facilities program grow at a higher rate in the 
early years of the authorization period.
    In Cincinnati, SORTA will need roughly $25 to $30 million to get 
facilities into a state of good repair, which is more than is available 
in current grant programs. SORTA also depends on the Bus and Bus 
Facilities Program and the 5339 B competitive program for replacement 
buses. SORTA is going to need roughly $44 million over the next 4 years 
for replacement buses, and another $54 million for a planned fleet 
expansion of roughly 102 buses over 4 years.
    APTA calls on Congress to increase the capital cost thresholds for 
the Small Starts program from $300 million for total project cost to 
$400 million and the Capital Investment grants share from $100 million 
to $200 million. For New Start and Core Capacity projects, APTA 
requests that the time period to complete Project Development be 
increased from 2 year to 3 years, that the Risk Assessment and the 
establishment of the Federal share occur during the Engineering phase 
for New Starts and Core Capacity projects, and that the risk 
probability for the Risk Assessment be reduced from 65 percent to no 
higher than 50 percent. APTA also requests that expenditures incurred 
to comply with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) prior to entry 
into Project Development be counted as local match for the project.
Mobility Innovation and Technology Initiative
    APTA calls for the creation of a new Mobility Innovation and 
Technology Initiative to introduce cutting-edge technologies and 
integrate new service-delivery approaches and mobility options in the 
transit marketplace. We need to invest in public transportation 
innovation that meets the evolving needs of our residents and the 
places they live. Advances in technology have allowed vehicles to 
operate with increased autonomy and efficiencies, and data capabilities 
enable effortless trip planning and streamlined information sharing. 
Today, there are more transportation options than ever--commuters may 
ride a shared scooter to a bus stop or take rideshare to a rail 
station. \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \2\ According to The Transformation of the American Commuter, 77 
percent of Americans say public transportation is the backbone of a 
multitransit lifestyle. APTA is leading the charge to support public 
transportation agencies' efforts to implement innovative mobility 
management strategies, while utilizing business models originating in 
the private sector.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Our members are redefining mobility in their communities and using 
technology to ensure greater reliability, expand services, and improve 
customer experiences. We believe that smart investments in 
demonstration and implementation projects today will meet the mobility 
demands of our riders in the future.
    As part of the Reinventing Metro plan, SORTA is utilizing 
technology to examine how to integrate mobility on-demand services with 
our fixed route service and have installed electric charging stations 
at our newest transit centers to plan for electric vehicles, as part of 
our ongoing efforts to continuously evolve to meet the needs of our 
community and changing technology.
Providing Equity and Opportunity
    Public transportation provides a ladder to opportunity for millions 
of Americans and is one of the most direct ways to address income 
inequality. One out of five transit users are from households earning 
less than $15,000. \3\ One of the fastest growing job segments in the 
U.S. is late-shift work that begins between 4 p.m. and 6 a.m. Late-
shift workers make 14 percent less than their daytime peers and are 
more likely to be people of color. \4\ Expanding public transit service 
to the late shift is critical to increasing workforce opportunities. 
Although late-shift public transit commuters represent a small share of 
today's late-shift workforce, they already have a large economic 
footprint: These workers bring home $28 billion in wages per year and 
facilitate an estimated $84 billion in annual sales. Furthermore, there 
is significant demand for housing near transit which points to a need 
for more transit-served communities. \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \3\ APTA, ``Who Rides Public Transportation'' (January 2017).
     \4\ APTA, ``Supporting Late-Shift Workers, Transportation Needs 
and the Economy'' (September 2019).
     \5\ APTA, ``The Real Estate Mantra--Locate Near Transit'' (October 
2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toward Cleaner Air
    Investing in public transit is an investment toward cleaner air. 
There is a dramatic shift underway in our industry and APTA members are 
at the forefront of transitioning to cleaner fuel sources. \6\ 
Currently, more than 56 percent of transit buses use alternative fuels, 
with more than 17 percent of those vehicles utilizing hybrid-electric 
technology. Today, there are nearly 300 electric buses in service with 
hundreds more electric buses on order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \6\ APTA, Public Transit Leading in Transition to Clean Technology 
(November 2019). Transitioning a fleet to electric buses requires 
significant work, planning, and negotiation with utilities to ensure 
that the infrastructure and capacity exist to support the fleet. There 
are numerous examples of transit agencies adopting these new 
technologies, each with a different process and relationship with their 
local utilities and with infrastructure providers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Communities that invest in public transit reduce the Nation's 
carbon emissions by 37 million metric tons annually. Overall, public 
transportation saves the U.S. 4.2 billion gallons of gasoline annually. 
As new and cleaner technologies become available, the public transit 
industry is poised to lead in adaptation.
    There are always challenges to adoption of new technologies. For 
public transit agencies transitioning to electric buses, these 
challenges have included larger up-front costs and the range of the 
vehicles. Public transit agencies are beginning to integrate zero-
emission buses into their fleets and are setting goals for 100 percent 
zero-emission bus fleets in future years. Federal grant programs have 
been vital resources for public transit agencies nationwide in 
acquiring new zero-emission vehicles. APTA urges significant funding 
increases for programs, such as Buses and Bus Facilities competitive 
grants and Low or No Emission competitive grants, that can support 
zero-emission infrastructure.
    SORTA is currently working on a long-term no emissions strategy and 
has applied for LowNo grant funding to begin the implementation of a 
no-emissions fleet, specifically through six no-emissions electric 
buses and the related infrastructure and charging equipment.
    Again, I thank you for your time and consideration on the matter.
                                 ______
                                 
                  PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN SAMUELSEN
  International President, Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO
                             April 15, 2021
    Good morning, thank you Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Toomey 
for inviting me to testify before the Senate Banking, Housing, and 
Urban Affairs Committee.
    I speak today on behalf of more than 150,000 members of the 
Transport Workers Union (TWU) who work in the public transit, airline, 
railroad, utility, university and services sectors. The TWU's transit 
locals represent bus and subway workers in and around New York City, 
Akron, Ann Arbor, Columbus, Houston, Miami, Omaha, Philadelphia, San 
Francisco, and other cities across the country. Our membership includes 
over 1,000 bikeshare workers in the Bay Area, Boston, Chicago, Detroit, 
the New York City area, Portland, Ore., and Washington, DC. We also 
represent school bus, paratransit, and a variety of other transit 
services. The TWU is organizing workers across the transportation 
industry and has had significant successes in the microtransit sector.
    I started my career working on the New York City Transit Authority 
subway tracks in Brooklyn, New York, and I am still a Trackworker on 
the active Local 100 seniority roster. I am excited by the real 
possibility of significant investments in public transportation, as 
shown by the President's infrastructure proposals and congressional 
efforts. These investments would have an immediate effect on the people 
who make our transit systems function: bus and train operators, 
mechanics, signal maintainers, station agents, and others who dedicate 
their working lives to this industry. As the president of the TWU, 
their safety and wellbeing are my primary concern.
    Public transit is an essential part of communities around the 
country. Without the local bus, streetcar or subway, many Americans 
would be unable to go to work, school, the doctor's office or the 
grocery store. In Columbus, Ohio, the Central Ohio Transit Authority 
(COTA) had about 19 million annual passengers before the pandemic. In 
nearby Akron, residents use the METRO Regional Transit Authority to get 
around their own city and also as far as Cleveland and Canton. Transit 
is a vital part of small towns and big cities around the country. But 
underfunding and lack of investment have led to insufficient and 
unreliable service. I urge you to make large-scale investments to 
connect our communities and grow our economy for decades to come.
    Let me first thank the Committee for your work on the American 
Rescue Plan, the Coronavirus Supplemental Response and Recovery Act, 
the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, and the rest of 
the work you have done during the pandemic to keep transit operating 
and help workers stay safe. The Federal Government's response to the 
crisis in public transit saved the transportation industry and ensured 
that our members can provide essential service across the country. The 
Members of this Committee have led these efforts. From the bottom of my 
heart, thank you.
    As our country looks beyond the pandemic, reauthorizing the FAST 
Act and investing in our public transportation infrastructure is one of 
the most important tasks remaining for this Congress. The TWU believes 
that we must act now to address the major issues facing our public 
transportation sector before our systems and our workers face ruin. 
Transformational investment is needed to ensure our systems achieve and 
maintain a state of good repair and to expand service to meet demand 
over the next several decades. Policy change is urgently needed to 
shape the course of new innovations and to allow our workers to develop 
and train for jobs with more automation, more electrification, and 
other technology. Protections are needed more than ever to save transit 
workers from assaults on the job. And Congress must definitively close 
the door on bad actors such as Uber and Lyft from accessing public 
funds without agreeing to meet our existing standards for safety, 
labor, and other protections.
    These are both exciting and challenging times for public 
transportation workers. Our country has not developed and executed on a 
long-term plan for how we operate and maintain our transportation 
infrastructure since President Eisenhower created the national highway 
system and Presidents Kennedy and Johnson launched the Federal transit 
program. These landmark acts completely transformed our nation's 
mobility and created hundreds of thousands of good jobs in 
transportation and across the economy. Three generations later, we have 
not modernized that vision and today our communities are suffering from 
severe neglect and underinvestment.
    The pandemic dealt a severe blow to transit workers and our transit 
systems. Frontline workers have been decimated by COVID--more than 350 
transit workers have died from the virus. The TWU has lost more than 
170 members to this disease and over 10,000 have been quarantined. 
Across the country, transit systems are now evaluating the future of 
mobility in the wake of the dramatic changes the pandemic has forced on 
all of us. The decisions Congress makes on infrastructure investment 
will determine the future health of our cities and towns, the quality 
of life for transit riders and commuters, and the availability of 
opportunities for our businesses.
    Technology is also altering our transit future as we adopt and 
implement low- and zero-emission vehicles, micromobility, vehicle and 
system automations, and many more innovations. It is essential that our 
elected officials ensure these changes and innovations benefit everyone 
by sustaining and creating millions of good, union jobs here in our 
country.
    Happily, the largest proponents and drivers of transformational 
infrastructure investment are also some of America's strongest pro-
labor leaders. That includes Chairman Brown, who has spent his career 
fighting for workers in Ohio and around the country, as well as 
President Biden, the first president in generations who has so 
aggressively and publicly supported workers and their unions, and 
Secretary Buttigieg, who is working closely with us to advance a 
transformative, worker-centered transportation vision like the one I am 
advocating for today. Not a day goes by without these leaders 
commenting on the need to create good union jobs in transportation and 
beyond. This support for working people includes the President's 
endorsement of the PRO Act, legislation that would level the playing 
field for working people and give them a chance to secure a union voice 
on the job.
    This year, Congress is poised to consider the surface 
reauthorization bill. I hope you will seize the opportunity to invest 
in a way that will reshape public transportation for the better, just 
as proposed by the President in the American Jobs Plan and your House 
colleagues through the Moving Forward Act, which passed that chamber 
last year. The TWU has enthusiastically endorsed both of these efforts, 
which would significantly boost funding for our transit systems and 
allow the benefits of public transportation to reach millions more 
Americans. President Biden's proposal would invest $85 billion in 
public transit and $2.25 trillion in infrastructure, creating 19 
million jobs over 8 years. The plan also calls for investments of $2 
billion in transit worker training and retraining, which is one of my 
biggest priorities. I urge the Members of this Committee to fight to 
make sure the final bill advances infrastructure investments that 
create good union jobs for the people who operate, maintain, build and 
manufacture every piece of our transportation system.
    Public transit has always been an engine for good job creation and 
a lifeline for workers and their families. If we invest today and 
deliver a historic bill that is properly focused on equitable access to 
transit and the creation and retention of good jobs, we will provide 
family sustaining job opportunities and mobility for millions who have 
been left behind.
Investing in Public Transit
    The TWU strongly supports massive increases in investment into 
public transit, including the proposals put forward in the Moving 
Forward Act and President Biden's American Jobs Plan. We know that 
transit riders are victims of severe underinvestment. Now is the time 
to move forward and correct this long-term failure to fund both 
operations and capital projects, as well as to finally invest in the 
workforce. At a minimum, $85 billion is needed to expand service, 
modernize facilities, and connect more people and businesses to 
transit. These investments are an essential component in revitalizing 
our national economy and global competitiveness. They will also make 
our transportation system more equitable for and accessible to 
marginalized communities, begin to address systemic inequities, and 
bridge the gap for those who need reliable transit to escape poverty 
and pursue better job opportunities. Further, these investments will 
reduce our reliance on single occupancy vehicles and produce concrete 
and immediate environmental benefits.
Transportation Technology and the Workforce
    New developments in transportation technology are creating dramatic 
shifts in our infrastructure sector. Some of these changes present 
major threats to the number and quality of jobs in our economy, while 
others offer opportunities to improve safety and reduce emissions. We 
cannot blindly endorse all innovations equally when we know that many 
run counter to the public interest. Transit workers could see real 
improvements in safety, ergonomics, pay and benefits if pro-worker, 
pro-rider technologies are elevated with workers in partnership on 
implementation. The next surface transportation reauthorization must 
prepare our transit systems for new technologies before they create 
widespread economic pain. We have the power to control how technology 
will affect us and what role we want it to play in our future. 
Investors and big tech companies should not make those decisions for 
us.
    Our members have been at the center of technological change for 
decades. Life-saving innovations, such as automatic braking, have been 
implemented and made our operations safer for everyone. But some 
corporate interests are not focused on improving the safety or 
accessibility of our transit systems. Many have placed big bets on 
pieces of technology and are seeking a payoff from the public sector 
regardless of whether the marketed benefits of their investment are 
real or in the public interest. Decision-makers must separate the good 
from the bad and ensure that new innovations create shared prosperity 
rather than enrich investors selling empty promises.
    Transportation technology is rapidly evolving in a variety of 
areas, including zero emissions vehicles (ZEVs), automated vehicles 
(AVs), shared mobility, and safety technologies. We need to focus now 
on the technological changes in the pipeline to ensure workforce 
readiness. Failure to act now, ahead of any potential negative effects, 
will lead to mass disruption and dislocation in the transit workforce. 
With this in mind, the TWU recently released, ``New Technologies in 
Transit Systems'', \1\ a white paper that outlines our approach to 
innovation. In it, we describe four principles that policy makers 
should apply as they adapt new transportation technology. These 
principles are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \1\ See, http://www.twu.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Innovation-
White-PaperV2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transparent Planning and Reporting
    Employers should be required to develop a timeline for reporting, 
budgeting, worker impact analysis, and investment in reskilling of 
workers prior to implementing new technology that will significantly 
impact jobs and/or job functions.
Public Safety and Security
    New transit technology must have failsafe systems that detect 
malfunctions and allow for human intervention if the technology breaks 
down. In transit, on-board operators must remain mandatory, as we know 
from experience that these workers do much more than drive. There 
should be rigid and fully enforceable safety standards. New technology 
that fails to meet existing safety, labor, and environment standards 
should be rejected.
Workforce Involvement
    Worker representatives should be included on all technology-related 
working groups and committees established by our Government and these 
groups must address job issues as part of their work. Formal advance 
notice should be sent to the workforce prior to introducing and 
implementing a new product or service that will significantly impact 
jobs and/or job functions. Transit agencies and other employers should 
be required to create a comprehensive plan to transition or train 
employees to ensure new jobs created by technology benefit existing 
workers. Collective bargaining over the terms of implementing new 
technology should be mandated.
Privacy and Cybersecurity
    Clear, uniform, and enforceable safety, security and privacy 
standards are essential. New technology should be subjected to 
cybersecurity requirements to prevent hacking and to ensure mitigation 
and remediation of cybersecurity events. Robust privacy and data 
collection safeguards for new technology should be required.
    These principles, which focus on information sharing, community 
collaboration, partnership with workers, and prior notice, will help to 
ensure that technological developments improve local communities, 
protect critically needed transit services, and improve transit 
workers' lives. Most immediately, these principles must guide action on 
zero-emissions and automated vehicle technology.
Electrification and Zero-Emissions Vehicles
    Policymakers are grappling with the challenge of transitioning to 
zero-emission transportation vehicles and infrastructure over the next 
few decades. A large coalition of labor organizations, including the 
TWU, is poised to issue our principles on electrification. We will 
outline the need for strong Federal leadership to move manufacturers, 
State and local governments, transit agencies, and the workforce 
development system toward developing, procuring, and operating hybrid 
and zero-emission vehicles and infrastructure in a pro-worker manner. 
Absent this leadership from Congress and the Administration, any 
widespread adoption of zero-emission vehicles will destroy good, union 
jobs and harm American workers.
    Several core ideas guide these principles:

    Public policies and research, development, and deployment 
        funding must enhance community voices and ensure input from 
        frontline workers at the core of policy development. A key 
        Government goal of any transition to a new technology must be 
        the creation and retention of good jobs.

    The next generation of vehicles should be made in America 
        with union labor.

    Procurement of new, hybrid and zero-emission vehicles and 
        infrastructure must be transparent and honest. As the 
        transition to the clean energy economy is embraced by transit 
        agencies, trucking and bus companies, motor vehicle and parts 
        manufacturers, and others, the disclosure of plans to the 
        workforce has to happen. Early notice of electrification plans 
        must be provided to the incumbent workforce.

    Existing safety, labor, environmental, accessibility and 
        performance standards cannot be compromised in any transition 
        to new technology. Buy America requirements must be 
        strengthened and enforced. These standards protect the public 
        and our workers from harm, support American jobs, and ensure 
        disadvantaged communities have access to opportunity and our 
        transportation systems.

    The existing workforce must benefit directly from 
        investments in zero-emission infrastructure. Displaced workers 
        must have access to resources for training, apprenticeship and 
        career ladder programs for reskilling the existing workforce 
        and providing them with the first opportunity for new jobs 
        created by the adopting new equipment and infrastructure.
Automated Vehicles
    The TWU has long fought against the unchecked and dangerous 
deployment of fully autonomous transit vehicles. This unproven 
technology has been temporarily pulled down from many demonstration 
projects following hazardous safety incidents. \2\ The companies 
selling this technology have relied on exemptions and waivers from 
labor, safety and environmental requirements to avoid meeting existing 
standards--metrics that they cannot attain because AVs are not ready 
for widespread deployment in the transit sector.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \2\ Mark Ferenchik, The Columbus Dispatch, ``Video Shows Self-
Driving Shuttle Stop, Passenger Fall'', March 5, 2020, https://
www.dispatch.com/news/20200304/video-shows-self-driving-shuttle-stop-
passenger-fall.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Even if AV transit vehicles were able to safely travel crowded 
urban environments, transit agencies are unlikely to see any cost 
benefit as bus operators will still be needed for safety and security. 
Today, operators not only drive their buses, but also keep order on the 
vehicle, assist passengers with mobility issues, reroute in response to 
unexpected obstacles, and respond to emergencies. All of these 
responsibilities will still be essential in a world with AVs and will 
require a human worker onboard to accomplish. More importantly, as we 
have learned all too often from aircraft accidents, the most valuable 
piece of safety equipment in any vehicle is a well-trained, qualified 
human operator who can intervene when an automated system fails. 
Removing a trained bus operator from a commercial vehicle navigating a 
crowded street at rush hour is a recipe for disaster. The elimination 
of operators would undermine traffic safety and severely harm the 
passenger experiences on the vehicle. The Moving Forward Act directly 
addresses these concerns by prohibiting fully automated vehicles from 
replacing any existing transit service and requiring transit agencies 
that pursue large-scale adoption of AVs to create a workforce 
development plan that can successfully transition transit operators to 
new roles at their employer. \3\ This approach is urgently needed to 
inform the direction that technology firms pursue in their products and 
we hope the Senate will include this language in any reauthorization 
bill as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \3\ Moving Forward Act, H.R. 2, section 2603, 116th Congress 
(2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The previous Administration embraced a deregulatory philosophy on 
AVs, which ignored roadway and passenger safety concerns, as well as 
those from the frontline workforce. For too long, our regulators have 
played the role of AV cheerleader rather than rulemaker by refusing to 
make any of the tough decisions that would force the industry to live 
up to our existing standards. We have called for a policy reboot at 
DOT, as reflected in several comments we have filed with the agency. 
The TWU has submitted comments criticizing this wholesale forfeiture of 
oversight responsibility. \4\ We are pleased to see that Sec. Buttigieg 
is rethinking this approach with an eye toward improving transportation 
safety and addressing worker concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \4\ ``Framework for Automated Driving System Safety'', NHTSA-2020-
0106, comments submitted April 1, 2021; ``Automated Vehicles 
Comprehensive Plan'', DOT-OST-2021-0005, comments submitted March 22, 
2021; ``Pathways to the Future of Transportation by the Non-Traditional 
and Emerging Transportation Technology (NETT) Council'', DOT-OST-2020-
0112, comments submitted September 28, 2020; ``Motor Carriers Using 
Certain Advanced Driver Assistance Systems. Hours of Service of 
Drivers: Pronto.ai, Inc.; Application for Exemption from 49 CFR 
395.3(a)(2) and 395.3(a)(3)'', FMCSA-2020-0116, comments submitted May 
20, 2020; ``Ensuring American Leadership in Automated Vehicle 
Technologies 4.0'', DOT-OST-2019-0179. comments submitted April 2, 
2020; and ``Preparing for the Future of Transportation: Automated 
Vehicles 3.0'', DOT-OST-2018-0149, comments submitted December 3, 2018. 
See, http://www.twu.org/regulatory-comments/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ending Assaults on Transit Workers
    According to the Transportation Research Board, there is an assault 
on a transit worker in this country more than once every day. This 
number relies on the Department of Transportation's very limited 
definition of ``assault'' and significantly underestimates the 
frequency of attacks on bus drivers, subway operators, station agents, 
and cleaners in our systems. A worker could have their nose broken, be 
hospitalized for 24 hours, and suffer first degree burns without 
triggering any mandatory reporting requirements to the Federal Transit 
Administration (FTA). The pace of these assaults has not fallen over 
the past year even as transit ridership has declined due to the 
pandemic. Congress must require immediate action from transit agencies 
to protect workers from assaults by passengers just as it has for 
flight attendants and airline customer service agents.
    During the last Congress, Senator Van Hollen introduced the Transit 
Worker and Pedestrian Protection Act which would make important 
progress in protecting our members from harm. This bill mandates that 
transit agencies submit risk reduction plans to the FTA that improve 
transit safety and reduce the number of assaults in their systems. The 
TWU has strongly endorsed this bill and we want to thank Senator Van 
Hollen for his leadership on this issue. We urge the Committee to 
include the latest iteration of the bill in its entirety in any surface 
reauthorization legislation it considers.
Worker Training
    As discussed above, technology is a tool, not a cure-all. 
Successfully using complicated transit technology requires training. 
Public transit systems need to make significant investments in worker 
training to properly implement the innovations we know are coming in 
the near future. We need to make sure that transit workers are able to 
transition to new jobs--in the same transit agency and without 
diminishing job quality and pay--no matter the technology.
    Transit agencies spend just 0.66 to 0.88 percent of total payroll 
on employee training, compared to the average of 4 to 5 percent in many 
parts of the private sector. \5\ The DOT oversees several workforce 
development funding programs, which can be helpful, but they generally 
focus on white collar and university training. This approach is at odds 
with the reality that the largest workforce skills gaps are among the 
blue-collar technicians, electricians, and signal operators--
professions that do not receive training at 4-year universities. 
Currently, 80 percent of the FTA's limited workforce funding goes to 
white-collar roles. That is why we strongly support efforts to create 
and fund a national transit frontline workforce training consortium 
that would coordinate the development of materials and training of 
frontline workers. This consortium should be coordinated by a national 
organization that has a strong track record of developing standards-
based curriculum for the public transportation industry through joint 
labor-management partnerships involving frontline subject matter 
experts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \5\ ``Aligning Federal Surface Transportation Policy To Meet 21st 
Century Needs'', U.S. House Transportation Infrastructure Subcommittee 
on Highways and Transit, Testimony of Transportation Learning Center 
Executive Director Jack Clark, March 13, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The immediate need for this funding is particularly evident with 
regard to zero-emissions vehicles. While many of the skills required to 
maintain, overhaul, and repair electric and hydrogen-fuel cell buses 
are substantially similar to those for traditional buses, the engine is 
a very different piece of equipment. The Transportation Learning Center 
has found a consistent pattern: fewer than 20 percent of working bus 
mechanics have the skills needed to use a digital voltmeter, the most 
basic diagnostic tool for electric engines. This problem persists 
across many transit agencies, even at some large agencies with robust 
training capacity. Any wide scale adoption of zero-emission buses will 
result in massive job loss among public transit mechanics unless 
Congress acts now to provide agencies with the resources needed to 
train and develop a workforce that can do the work in-house.
Microtransit and Mobility on Demand
    The TWU is the only union with significant membership in new 
mobility technology. We represent more than half of all bikeshare 
workers nationwide and we are actively organizing workers in all new 
forms of mobility as a service and mobility on demand operations. These 
innovative solutions to first-mile/last-mile and low-density transit 
service should provide good jobs just like the rest of the transit 
sector. However, not all new service has been conceived or implemented 
with rider, community or worker interests in mind. Micromobility 
operations such as bikeshare projects which connect more people to 
existing public transit systems and provide good-paying jobs are very 
different from the parasitic business model of transportation network 
companies (TNCs).
Bikeshare
    Bikeshare, scooters, and other micromobility systems allow 
individual riders to travel through urban environments over distances 
or spaces that may not be efficient for buses and trains. When 
implemented thoughtfully, these services feed riders into existing 
transit hubs, complementing and expanding the reach of traditional 
transit service, as well as boosting ridership. Bikeshare is by far the 
most mature of these modes with a bikeshare system operating in 264 
cities and nearly every state of the union.
    While bikeshare is clearly a component of public transit, much of 
the infrastructure required for it is not currently eligible for 
Federal support. The TWU supports amending the definition of 
``associated transit improvement'' to include bikeshare projects. Doing 
this would allow transit agencies to continue to expand these systems 
under existing FTA rules, including Buy America and labor protections, 
that would help ensure quality jobs in the industry.
    Additionally, the TWU supports expanding the commuter tax benefits 
to include bikeshare commuters so that these riders have access to the 
same Federal tax incentives given to cars.
Transportation Network Companies
    TNCs such as Uber and Lyft pose significant threats to the safety 
and financing of our public transportation systems. These companies 
have a demonstrated history of ignoring environmental, labor, safety, 
and other laws while lobbying for exemptions for themselves. \6\ The 
TWU has been actively fighting against these companies' abuse of labor 
rights and their antiregulation agenda. \7\ This same fight is now 
playing out as these companies seek access to Federal funding through 
the FTA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \6\ ``The Costs of Doing Business: Why Lawmakers Must Hold the 
Ride-Hailing Industry Accountable as They Undermine Their Workers and 
Play by Their Own Rules'', Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO, 
October 2019, https://ttd.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/The-Cost-Of-
Doing-Business-Why-lawmakers-must-hold-the-ride-hailing-industry-
accountable-TTD-report.pdf.
     \7\ For examples, please refer to the TWU's comments on TNC 
regulatory issues, including worker misclassification, at http://
www.twu.org/regulatory-comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Today, no TNC exists that meets the statutory definition of public 
transportation. \8\ This definition has been carefully crafted over 
decades to ensure safe, equitable, accessible public transit across the 
country. Additionally, public transit providers who receive Federal 
funds also have obligations in return for that public investment. 
Providers must conform with drug and alcohol testing requirements, 
transit labor protections, equity mandates, accessibility requirements, 
and a host of other core standards. Transit is a public service and our 
standards for it must never be lowered at the request of companies 
seeking to bail out their investors from a loss-making business model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \8\ 49 U.S.C. 5302.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Thankfully, the Moving Forward Act included strong language to 
address these concerns while allowing good actors to potentially 
innovate new shared ride services. Under the House bill, funding for 
mobility-on-demand projects would be limited to those that increase 
transit ridership, cut traffic congestion, comply with the Americans 
with Disabilities Act, and follow the same drug and alcohol testing 
rules as public transit workers. These requirements are essential to 
ensuring that TNCs cannot undermine the goals of public transportation 
or lower vital civil rights protections and safety standards.
Conclusion
    Congress has a rare opportunity to correct past mistakes and 
prepare our country for the future by passing a transformational 
infrastructure bill now. By getting the policy right on transit 
investment and innovation, we can ensure that future generations look 
to this year with the same admiration that we all share for the 
creation of the interstate highway system and the Federal transit 
program.
    Thank you for the opportunity to present the TWU's views on these 
vital issues before this Committee.
                                 ______
                                 
                   PREPARED STATEMENT OF BETH OSBORNE
                  Director, Transportation for America
                             April 15, 2021
    Thank you to Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Toomey for including 
in this important hearing.
    I am the director of Transportation for America, a national 
nonprofit committed to a transportation system that connects people to 
jobs and essential services by all modes of travel no matter their 
financial means or physical ability. We do our work through direct 
technical assistance to local and State agencies, research and analysis 
of how the existing transportation system is working, and policy 
development and advocacy.
    Transportation for America has called for Congress to use the next 
surface transportation bill to accomplish three things: (1) address the 
maintenance backlog by adopting a fix-it-first strategy; (2) improve 
the safety of our roadways by prioritizing safety over vehicle speed; 
and (3) measure the success of our transportation system based on how 
well it connects people (in and out of a car) to jobs and essential 
services.
    These three principles are key to creating jobs, both by connecting 
people to work and for the people who work on the transportation system 
that takes them there; for reducing climate emissions; and for ensuring 
equitable access to opportunity. Transit is a crucial component in all 
of these goals.
    Over the last year, Transportation for America and its partners 
have been excited to see Congress recognize how essential transit is by 
coming together on a bipartisan basis to keep transit operating for our 
essential workers through emergency operating funds. Through this act, 
Congress recognized that everyone is transit dependent. Those of us who 
can drive to the grocery or the hospital rely on the people that stock 
the shelves or provide medical treatment who might need transit to get 
to work. Now we will need to pull together again as we move out of the 
pandemic to help people get back to work and to build the 21st century 
transportation system we need.
    The transportation system was not efficient, safe, affordable, or 
equitable before COVID. We had rising fatalities for those outside of a 
car--a 45 percent increase over the last 10 reported years, 2010-2019. 
The exposure to danger changes based on race and ethnicity, as our 
recent Dangerous by Design showed.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Preliminary data from 2020 showed a massive increase in roadway 
fatalities for people in and out of cars. While traffic levels dropped 
13 percent, fatalities increased 8 percent, causing the greatest 
increase in the fatality rate in 96 years. As traffic dropped, speeding 
increased because our roadways are built to encourage high-speed 
vehicle travel. That danger has always been a barrier for transit 
users, but last year it was more dangerous that ever. And it is a 
danger that applies equally to people in urban and rural places.
    Our transportation system was inequitable before COVID. The lack of 
reliable transit in the U.S. means low income Americans to spend close 
to 30 percent of their household income on transportation to get where 
they need to go. The average American spends only 13 percent. In my 
neighborhood, Columbia Heights in the heart of Washington, DC, the 
average household spends 8 percent on transportation due to the close 
proximity of destinations (like groceries, clinics, schools, 
restaurants, and retail), the general walkability, and the access to 
multiple bus lines and rail.
    That lack of access to transit and safe walking or biking routes 
requires people to stretch financially to buy cars, an expensive asset 
that loses value the moment you buy it, rather than use that money for 
education, property, or retirement. We aren't just talking about 
household that might want to be car-free. It is a system that requires 
a household of 5 people to have 3-4 cars instead of 1-2. At $8,000 a 
year to operate a car, that is a heavy financial burden indeed.
    Lack of access to a car or reliable transit can be a blockage to 
work itself. When I was in school in Baton Rouge, LA, I needed a job to 
help pay my bills. But I could not find a job that I could get to 
without a car and could not afford a car without a job. The message was 
clear: if I didn't have thousands to pay the cover charge to enter the 
U.S. economy, my labor was not needed or particularly wanted. What a 
ridiculous and inefficient notion--but it is a message we send to 
millions every day in this country.
    Again this is a problem we associate with urban America. Yet 
according to the latest American Community Survey, the majority of 
counties with high rates of zero-car households (10 percent or more) 
are rural. In fact, more than one million households in predominantly 
rural counties do not have access to a vehicle. Rural Americans without 
cars face unique barriers and they deserve a tailored approach to their 
transit needs rather than just assuming they can or will drive 
everywhere.
    COVID has caused many to lose work, and people are struggling to 
pay rent, mortgages, and car payments. As the economic recovery begins, 
the number of transit dependent people who we want to help to get back 
to work will likely only rise. High quality transit will be an 
important part of ensuring that everyone gets back to work.
    COVID also pointed to the folly of our approach to transportation 
in general. While work trips made up approximately 20 percent of 
people's trips before the pandemic, nearly all of our focus in 
transportation was on that 20 percent of trips and those alone. Neither 
our roadways nor transit is designed to help people get to things like 
the grocery, school or medical care. Short trips of a few blocks are 
often too dangerous on foot, whether to the store or to the bus. And 
transit lines point to downtowns and job centers, not necessarily 
neighborhood centers.
    Retooling to address nonwork trips will require data and resources. 
Congress could play an important role in both the transit and highway 
programs by bringing those resources and accountability for transit and 
highway agencies to serve the 80 percent of nonwork trips. We focus on 
traffic during rush hour, and this is certainly inconvenient. But it is 
nowhere near the stress and challenge faced by the parent without 
access to a reliable car who needs not just to get to work but to drop 
off and pick up kids from school and drop by the grocery.
    The good news is we have ways to truly measure how well our system 
performs in terms of getting people where they need to go, whether they 
have access to a car or not. My partners at the State Smart 
Transportation Institute have published a guide to using GIS and the 
cloud to compute all potential trips by all modes from homes to jobs 
and other essential destinations (like groceries, banks, schools, and 
health care). This analysis can be used to measure performance, 
identify neighborhoods cut off by infrastructure, areas that need 
transit, and more. It can also be used to evaluate proposed projects on 
whether they improve that access. The Commonwealth of Virginia has used 
this approach as part of their Smart Scale system for years now to 
determine which projects to prioritize for funding.
    Today, instead of using this approach, most transit and highway 
projects are evaluated using the speed of travel as a proxy for time 
saved. In transit, it is looked at for the end-to-end user of a line, 
something few customers do. In highways, it is looked at in terms of 
travel between two observed points. Neither approach measures anyone's 
trip from door to door nor whether anyone actually arrives anywhere.
    This is another way Congress could play an important role in the 
next reauthorization. Provide access to the data and tools now 
available to consider how we can give people, particularly those 
struggling financially, access to work and essential services by all 
modes of travel. The Senate bill last Congress provided a pilot for 
measuring multimodal access. The House bill created a new performance 
measure. This year, these data could help transit (as well as highway) 
agencies plan a more holistic transportation system that is equally 
designed for the 80 percent of nonwork trips and the 20 percent of work 
trips (which will likely fall). They can also plan for all people 
whether they travel by car, transit, foot, bike, scooter, or 
wheelchair.
    Long before COVID, our transportation system created problems in 
air quality, climate emissions, water quality, heat island effect, and 
more. None of these issues are fully addressed by electrifying 
vehicles; neither are the inequities or safety problems with the 
existing program. Let me be clear: electrification is essential and is 
something Transportation for America supports completely. In fact, we 
recently helped launch a new coalition called CHARGE that calls for 
strengthening and growing public transit while rapidly transitioning to 
electric fleets.
    But while electrification is essential, it is insufficient to 
address climate. In our report Driving Down Emissions, we cite several 
States that have found they need to electrify vehicles and allow people 
to use cars less to reach their climate goals. California has found 
that even if the State meets its ambitious target of 15 percent zero 
emissions vehicles on the road by 2030, people would still need to 
drive 4.5 fewer miles per day to reach the State's 2030 climate target. 
Within Minnesota, even assuming a 65 percent onroad EV adoption rate in 
2050, Minneapolis needs to reduce driving by 38 percent to meet an 80 
percent carbon reduction goal. This is where transit and making roads 
safer so that people can get to transit becomes so essential.
    Finally, it is time to develop a targeted rural transit program. As 
the Director of the Oklahoma Transit Association Mark Nestlen said in a 
recent Vice article: Congress never sat down at the table and said 
`let's develop a rural transit program. What should it look like?' They 
sat down at a table and said, `here's the urban transit program.we're 
going to have everything be the same and just put it in rural.' When 
you do that, you're going to put a square peg into a round hole.
    Last month, Canada's Minister of Infrastructure and Communities and 
the Minister for Rural Economic Development announced a Rural Transit 
Fund, which will provide $250 million over 5 years to help address the 
transit needs of those living in rural, remote and small communities. 
Last fall, the State of Oklahoma developed a statewide plan for public 
transportation that unites urban and rural transit services by laying 
out mobility priorities for the next 20 years. The plan received input 
from transit providers across the State and focuses on overall mobility 
priorities and goals for improving transit service and connectivity. 
This is the kind of approach to rural transit needed to connect rural 
Americans to jobs and essential services across the country.
    Transit is a major and essential part of reaching our goals for 
economic recovery, economic opportunity, climate and racial equity. And 
the country requires a major investment in transit to accomplish these 
goals--the kind of commitment we made to highways starting in the 
1950s. To support this, there are three things to consider in the next 
reauthorization bill:

    Refocus the Federal transit program to improve transit 
        frequency, reliability, and ridership and expand access to jobs 
        and services in both urban and rural areas. The traditional 
        metrics used to measure a transit system's performance, such as 
        costs per traveler trip or mile, on-time performance, and 
        ridership, do not capture transit's true value to riders and 
        local economies. Transit projects should be evaluated based on 
        how well they get people to the places they need to go, 
        measured through multimodal access. The things that factor into 
        this access are service frequency and reliability; safe access 
        to transit stops; and transit that serves work and nonwork 
        trips alike.

    Fund transit operations in addition to capital projects. As 
        revenue from fares and local tax measures evaporated virtually 
        overnight, the pandemic demonstrated the need for a stable 
        source of funding for transit service in emergencies. Congress 
        came through. Long-term Federal support for transit 
        operations--particularly for greater frequencies, expanded 
        hours and new service--will help agencies deliver the high 
        quality, safe, and affordable public transit service urban and 
        rural Americans need and deserve.

    Rebalance transit funding to match funding for highways. 
        For nearly 40 years, we have stuck to a deal that was made 
        during the Reagan administration to bring transit into the 
        surface transportation program. At the time, the gas tax paid 
        for the whole program, something that has not been true in over 
        a decade. To make a highway level commitment to providing 
        Americans in large cities, small cities and rural towns alike, 
        it will require a similar funding commitment.

    Communities are constantly changing. COVID has caused even more. It 
is time that we harness that change to make our transportation system 
more efficient, affordable, equitable, and accessible for everyone.
                                 ______
                                 
                PREPARED STATEMENT OF BARUCH FEIGENBAUM
   Senior Managing Director, Transportation Policy, Reason Foundation
                             April 15, 2021
    Chairman Brown, Ranking Member Toomey, and fellow Members:
    My name is Baruch Feigenbaum. I am the Senior Managing Director for 
Transportation Policy at Reason Foundation, a nonprofit think tank with 
offices in Los Angeles and Washington, DC. For more than four decades, 
Reason's transportation experts have been advising Federal, State, and 
local policymakers on market-based approaches to transportation.
My Credentials on Today's Topic
    I am a graduate of the Georgia Institute of Technology with degrees 
in Public Policy and Transportation Planning with a concentration in 
Engineering. With Reason, I have authored studies on mobility, highway 
congestion, transit options, funding alternatives, and innovative 
financing. I have worked with the States of California, Colorado, 
Georgia, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania as well 
as numerous counties to implement transportation policy and funding 
reform. I currently serve on two National Academy of Sciences 
Transportation Research Board committees: Bus Transit Systems, where I 
serve as Secretary and Conference Planning Chair, and Intelligent 
Transportation Systems. Further, I assist the committees on 
Transportation Revenue and Financing and Metropolitan Planning. My 
testimony today draws on these experiences.
Overview of Environment
    COVID-19 has dramatically changed many aspects of life. While all 
aspects of transportation have been impacted, no mode has been affected 
more than mass transit. Ridership on rail transit has decreased 70-90 
percent, while ridership on bus transit has decreased a more modest 40-
60 percent. Even when COVID-19 subsides, a majority of experts expect 
transit to recover 90 percent of its riders at most, with some 
expecting a recovery rate of only 70 percent.
    Transit use was on a multiyear decline even before COVID, with only 
5 percent of Americans commuting by transit. Yet, according to the 
Bureau of Transportation Statistics the U.S. spends $70 billion per 
year on transit. Transit policy was in need of reform even before 
COVID, but COVID has made a rethinking of transit critical.
    Many commuters in our current environment have substituted working 
at home for transit. In 2020, 35 percent of all Americans worked from 
home. In a PricewaterhouseCoopers survey, 83 percent of employers and 
71 percent of employees say remote work has been a success. Once COVID 
subsides, many predict the work at home share will be 20-25 percent.
    Due to a combination of COVID and longer-term changes among transit 
riders, I have the following six recommendations:

  1.  Prioritize service for transit-dependent riders,

  2.  Prioritize maintenance and operations over capital expenditures,

  3.  Adjust quantitative metrics in project evaluation,

  4.  Fund BRT from the Capital Investments Grants program,

  5.  Fund transit from the general fund, and

  6.  Unlock the private market and transit innovation.

Recommendation Number 1: Prioritize Service for Transit-Dependent 
        Riders
    The increase in the number of employees working at home has reduced 
transit ridership. There are two types of riders: transit-dependent 
riders who do not have easy access to a vehicle and transit-choice 
riders who do have easy access to a vehicle. Transit-choice riders in 
fields such as engineering or law have jobs which lend themselves to 
working at home. Transit-dependent riders in fields such as nursing or 
technical support have jobs which require being at a specific physical 
location. Today, since most transit ridership is by dependent and not 
choice riders, U.S. transit policy should focus on serving transit-
dependent riders. And since these riders are more likely to use buses 
than rail, U.S. policymakers should focus more resources on bus 
transit. Over the last 20 years, the largest 30 metro areas have added 
miles of rail lines, but most of those same metro areas have cut bus 
service. Yet during the pandemic, bus ridership has recovered far 
faster than rail ridership.
    One component of serving transit-dependent customers is building 
grid-based networks. Pre-World War II employment was mostly located 
downtown. As a result, transit networks were designed to feed employees 
to downtown job centers. However, since World War II, job locations 
have become more and more suburbanized. As a result, more than 80 
percent of metro area jobs are now located outside the central business 
district. Unfortunately, many transit systems are still designed to 
funnel employees to the central business district. Grid-like networks 
more effectively transport employees from suburban residences to 
suburban job centers. Transit systems with grid-like patterns tend to 
have more than twice as many boardings per hour as legacy radial 
systems. Operating expenses with grid patterns are substantially lower 
while load factors are substantially higher.
    The Federal Government should require transit agencies to show that 
they are meeting the needs of transit-dependent riders before they 
expend resources on transit-choice riders.
Recommendation Number 2: Prioritize Maintenance and Operations Over 
        Capital Expenditures
    Most departments of transportation (DOTs) have adopted a fix-it-
first approach for their highways, but many transit agencies are 
focused on expansion. The local transit agency for the DC metro area, 
the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), is one 
example. Rather than focus on rebuilding the existing system, WMATA 
decided to expand the system, contracting with the Metro Washington 
Airport Authority to build the Silver Line. Meanwhile the condition of 
the existing system deteriorated rapidly. Over the course of 3 months 
in 2016, the system experienced fires 73 times. Currently, trains need 
to be offloaded regularly because they break down. At any given time, 
several elevators and numerous escalators are out of service.
    And WMATA is not alone; transit agencies in New York City, San 
Francisco, and Atlanta suffer from similar problems. More troubling, 
there are approximately 20 light-rail systems that will need major 
reconstruction in the next 10 years, and these systems have not set 
aside the resources needed for reconstruction.
    The state of good repair metrics, which transit agencies must meet 
to receive funding for new capital projects, need to be strengthened. I 
recommend that a minimum of 95 percent of a system be in a state of 
good repair and that FTA audits the findings for accuracy in order for 
a system to receive new capital funding.
    Federal policy also encourages system expansion over operations. 
New capital projects can receive an 80 percent Federal share while the 
share of operating costs is matched at a maximum of 50 percent. This 
can lead to some perverse incentives. The costs of building the Dallas 
Area Rapid Transit (DART) and Houston Metro were so high that they were 
forced to cut bus service. As a result, fewer people took transit after 
the light-rail lines opened than before they opened. Policymakers 
should reverse the funding percentage so operations receive up to an 80 
percent match and capital costs up to a 50 percent match.
Recommendation Number 3: Adjust the Quantitative Metrics in Project 
        Evaluation
    Currently, projects are rated 50 percent on project justification 
and 50 percent on local financial commitment. The project justification 
rankings are Mobility Improvements, Environmental Benefits, Congestion 
Relief, Cost-Effectiveness, Economic Development, and Land Use. Each 
receives a weighting of 16.66 percent. The local financial commitment 
ratings are Current Conditions and Commitment of Funds, with each of 
these receiving 25 percent of the weighting, and Reliability/Capacity 
receiving 50 percent. Since cost-effectiveness is so critical to a 
project's success, it should be weighted at 25 percent of the project 
justification total. Since mobility improvements are the purpose of 
transit, that category should be weighted at 25 percent as well. The 
remaining categories would each be weighted at 12.5 percent.
    Today, projects are rated high, medium-high, medium, medium-low, or 
low in both the engineering and full funding grant agreement phases. 
Projects are required to be ranked medium or better to receive Federal 
funding. Unfortunately, this has led several projects with funding or 
ridership limitations to still receive Federal funding. I recommend the 
minimum project standard for Federal funding be raised to medium-high.
Recommendation Number 4: Fund BRT From the Capital Investment Grants 
        Program
    The Capital Investment Grants program is the largest capital 
funding program. This includes New Starts, Small Starts, and Core 
Capacity projects. The program funds heavy rail, light rail, commuter 
rail, streetcars, and fixed route bus rapid transit (BRT), also known 
as BRT heavy, in which the bus has a dedicated running way. However, it 
does not fund freeway BRT, where the bus travels in the freeway, or BRT 
lite, where the bus shares a lane of traffic with cars. Most BRT 
projects in this country are freeway BRT or BRT lite, since finding 
space dedicated for BRT running ways is challenging. In its current 
form, the law encourages project sponsors to choose a more expensive 
option (BRT heavy) instead of a more cost-effective option (BRT lite or 
freeway BRT).
Recommendation Number 5: Fund Transit With General Fund Revenue
    When Congress passed the prior surface transportation 
reauthorization, the FAST Act, it transferred $83.6 billion from the 
general fund to the Highway Trust Fund. Given the political challenges 
of increasing the gas tax and the reality that a mileage-based user fee 
is still being tested, the transfer of additional general funds is 
likely. And given that funding transit out of the Highway Trust Fund 
violates the users-pay/users-benefit principle, and the large amount of 
general fund revenue needed for the surface transportation 
reauthorization, transit should be funded with general fund revenue 
while highways are funded with highway user tax revenue.
Recommendation Number 6: Unlock the Private Market and Transit 
        Innovation
    Ten years ago if I had predicted the average American would jump 
into a car with a stranger, I would have been laughed out of this room. 
But that is exactly what happened with ride-hailing services such as 
Uber and Lyft. While ride-hailing caused disruption to the taxi 
industry, the innovation was good for customers. The transit market 
could benefit from this sort of disruption.
    Unfortunately, there are several policies which prevent innovation. 
The first is the fact that many transit systems are monopolies, which 
the surface transportation reauthorization should prevent for all 
systems that receive Federal funding. The second is that many transit 
agencies are hesitant to contract out service. The Federal Government 
should encourage transit contracting by requiring agencies that receive 
Federal funding to receive bids from the private sector. The transit 
agencies would not be required to contract with the private sector, but 
they would be required to test the waters to determine if contracting 
is good policy. Finally, Congress should encourage transit agencies to 
experiment with smaller vehicles and automation by continuing grant 
programs for both of these technologies.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on transit funding 
and policy. I would be happy to answer any and all questions.
                                 ______
                                 
                   PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID DITCH
 Research Associate, Grover M. Hermann Center for the Federal Budget, 
                        The Heritage Foundation
                             April 15, 2021
    My name is David Ditch. I am a research associate at The Heritage 
Foundation. The views I express in this testimony are my own, and 
should not be construed as representing any official position of The 
Heritage Foundation.
    Authorization for Federal spending from the Highway Trust Fund 
expires on September 30 this year. Since the Banking and Urban Affairs 
Committee's jurisdiction covers the public transportation portion of 
the trust fund, it has an opportunity to adjust long-standing flaws in 
Federal policy.
    The Highway Trust Fund was originally established in 1956 to pay 
for construction of the interstate highway system using revenue from 
the Federal gas tax. \1\ Over time, Congress has expanded the 
eligibility scope of the trust fund to include mass transit, bike 
paths, sidewalks, streetcars, and other non-highway surface-
transportation modes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \1\ Richard F. Weingroff, ``Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956: 
Creating the Interstate System'', Public Roads, Vol. 60, No. 1 (Summer 
1996), https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/publicroads/96summer/
p96su10.cfm (accessed April 12, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The most significant change to the Highway Trust Fund came in 1982, 
when Congress and the Reagan administration agreed to create a separate 
fund that diverts gas tax revenue toward mass transit. \2\ Currently, 
the shorthand way of describing Highway Trust Fund spending is that 
highways receive 80 percent, and mass transit receives 20 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \2\ Jeff Davis, ``Reagan Devolution: The Real Story of the 1982 
Gas Tax Increase'', Eno Center for Transportation, September 9, 2015, 
https://www.enotrans.org/etl-material/reagandevolution-the-real-story-
of-the-1982-gas-tax-increase-2 (accessed April 12, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Although the transit funding diversion has been the status quo for 
nearly 40 years, it is worth examining the underpinnings of this 
policy. I believe that the diversion has created a multitude of 
problems that legislators should address.
    First, the transit diversion represents a significant departure 
from the ``user pays, user benefits'' principle, which exists to 
promote fairness and discourage free riding for one group at the 
expense of another. While the Federal gas tax is not a perfect user 
fee, in general it has meant that drivers are paying for the cost of 
building and operating the national highway system. \3\ Similar funding 
mechanisms exist for airports and harbors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \3\ Federal spending on highways has overtaken gas tax revenue in 
recent years. However, on a historical basis, gas tax revenues have 
exceeded highway spending. The depletion of the Highway Trust Fund was 
caused primarily by diversions, such as to mass transit. See, David A. 
Ditch and Nicolas D. Loris, ``Improving Surface Transportation Through 
Federalism'', Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3450, November 12, 
2019, https://www.heritage.org/budget-andspending/report/improving-
surface-transportation-through-federalism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In contrast, mass transit users do not pay into the Highway Trust 
Fund, which means that the trnsit account has represented a long-term 
transfer from automobile users to users of public transportation. It is 
also a transfer from rural areas to urban areas, since mass transit is 
not a meaningful part of transportation for rural Americans. Both types 
of transfers are unfair.
    The transit diversion is also a significant factor in the Highway 
Trust Fund's growing annual deficit. Between 25 percent and 30 percent 
of Highway Trust Fund spending does not go to the fund's original 
purpose. \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \4\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Removing diversions to transit and other nonhighway programs would 
bring the fund close to balance, at which point mild reforms to highway 
policy could close the gap entirely.
    Second, Federal transit funding is wildly disproportionate relative 
to its share of transportation use.
    As of 2019, roughly 5 percent of commuting was done through public 
transportation, far less than its share of Federal funding. \5\ This is 
the case despite the high level of total subsidies for transit systems, 
which derive less than one-third of their funds from user fees on 
average, especially outside of the New York City metropolitan area. \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \5\ United States Census Bureau, ``American Community Survey 
2019'', Table B08119, https://data.census.gov/cedsci/
table?q=b08119&tid=ACSDT1Y2019.B08119&hidePreview=false (accessed April 
12, 2021).
     \6\ Federal Transit Administration, ``2019 Data Tables'', https://
www.transit.dot.gov/ntd/data-product/2019-datatables (accessed April 
12, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Federally mandated funding formulas force even highly rural States 
to send a significant portion of their highway bill allotment to mass 
transit. \7\ Transit funds are allocated to metropolitan areas above 
50,000 people, which means that there are qualifying metro areas in 
each State. However, the transit needs for a metro area of under 1 
million people are extremely limited, which means that residents of 
low-density States get very little value from transit spending. This 
exemplifies the folly of one-size-fits-all Federal policies, along with 
the sorts of problems that come with the Federal Government involving 
itself in an issue that is relevant at local and regional levels but 
not nationally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \7\ Federal Transit Administration, ``Table 3: FY2019 Section 5307 
and 5340 Urbanized Area Formula Appropriations (Full Year)'', last 
updated August 30, 2019, https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/
apportionments/table-3-fy-2019-section-5307-and-5340-urbanized-
areaformula-appropriations (accessed April 12, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Disproportionate aid to transit systems was also present in COVID-
19 relief legislation. Bills passed in 2020 contained $37 billion in 
payments to mass transit systems, which had suffered a sharp drop in 
fare revenue during the pandemic. \8\ This would have been more than 
sufficient to cover transit losses in fiscal years (FYs) 2020 and 2021, 
since revenue from transit users is just over $20 billion per year, and 
since COVID-19 did not strike until well into FY2020. \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \8\ Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, ``COVID Money 
Tracker'', https://www.covidmoneytracker.org (accessed April 12, 2021.
     \9\ Federal Transit Administration, ``2019 Data Tables''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    However, Congress then provided an additional $30 billion to 
transit agencies in March 2021. \10\ That brought the total amount of 
COVID-19 transit relief to $67 billion--roughly three full years of 
user fees. Since user revenue did not drop to zero during the pandemic, 
this means that transit agencies received a net financial benefit due 
to the size of the relief payments. Congress should take this fact into 
consideration when setting funding levels for the mass transit account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \10\ Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, ``COVID Money 
Tracker''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Third, continual large-scale subsidies for transit agencies have 
turned these agencies into inefficient jobs programs rather than public 
service providers.
    Based on my examination of budgets for major transit agencies, 
labor costs represent 60 percent to 80 percent of operating expenses. 
The total cost per employee is staggering in city after city: $151,000 
in New York, \11\ $144,000 in Washington, DC, \12\ $120,000 in 
Philadelphia, \13\ $187,000 in San Francisco, \14\ $112,000 in Chicago, 
\15\ $136,000 in Los Angeles, \16\ and $91,000 in Atlanta. \17\ 
Employee compensation at transit agencies is well above average for 
each of the respective metro areas, \18\ and well above average for 
private sector transportation work. \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \11\ Metropolitan Transportation Authority, ``MTA 2021 Adopted 
Budget'', February 2021, https://new.mta.info/document/30186 (accessed 
April 12, 2021).
     \12\ Operational employees only. See, Washington Metropolitan Area 
Transit Authority, ``FY 2022 Proposed Budget'', https://www.wmata.com/
about/records/upload/Proposed-FY2022-Budget.pdf (accessed April 12, 
2021).
     \13\ Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, ``Fiscal 
Year 2021 Operating Budget'', https://planning.septa.org/wpcontent/
uploads/2021/02/Operating-Budget-FY2021.pdf (accessed April 12, 2021).
     \14\ Bay Area Rapid Transit, ``Fiscal Year 2021 Adopted Budget'', 
https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/
FY21%20Adopted%20Budget%20Manual%20Final%2009.23x.pdf (accessed April 
12, 2021).
     \15\ Chicago Transit Authority, ``Public Transit: An Essential Key 
to Recovery--President's 2021 Budget Recommendations'', https://
www.transitchicago.com/assets/1/6/FY2021-BUDGET-BOOK-FINAL-(Online-
Version).pdf (accessed April 12, 2021).
     \16\ Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority, ``Fiscal 
Year 2021 Adopted Budget'', https://media.metro.net/2020/FY21-Adopted-
Budget.pdf (accessed April 12, 2021).
     \17\ Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, ``FY2021 
Proposed Budget Book'', June 2020, https://www.itsmarta.com/
uploadedfiles/FY21-Proposed-Budget-Book.pdf (accessed April 12, 2021).
     \18\ Bureau of Economic Analysis, ``Personal Income by County, 
Metro, and Other Areas'', 2019, https://www.bea.gov/data/income-saving/
personalincome-county-metro-and-other-areas (accessed April 12, 2021).
     \19\ Bureau of Labor Statistics, ``Employer Costs for Employee 
Compensation for Private Industry Workers by Occupational and Industry 
Group'' (December 2020), March 18, 2021, https://www.bls.gov/
news.release/ecec.t04.htm (accessed April 12, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It is important to note that base salaries are not driving the 
transit-worker compensation premium. Instead, it is overtime pay, 
defined benefit pension plans, and other fringe benefits that boost 
compensation to such astonishing levels. The conflict of interest that 
is present in negotiations between transit-worker labor unions and 
metro-area officials, coupled with layers of subsidies, has allowed the 
rapid growth of pension and health-benefit costs to continue unabated 
for decades.
    If transit agencies prioritized self-sufficiency and the needs of 
customers the way a business does, they would provide better service 
with the same amount--or a smaller amount--of taxpayer assistance. 
Reining in the unsustainable growth of fringe benefits would allow room 
in transit budgets to hire more workers and increase the frequency of 
buses and trains, which would benefit transit users, or allow budgets 
and subsidies to shrink, which would benefit taxpayers, or a 
combination of the two. Instead, transit agencies consistently make 
politically motivated choices to prioritize high employee compensation.
    This pattern was exemplified recently when some transit agencies 
threatened severe service reductions if they did not receive a new 
round of Federal COVID-19 relief. \20\ Rather than adjusting budgets by 
reforming exorbitant fringe benefits, these agencies chose to maximize 
public anxiety over service cuts in order to pressure Federal 
legislators for additional bailouts. \21\ When the bailouts 
materialized, transit agencies were able to avoid making tough choices 
on compensation, temporarily sustaining the flawed status quo. \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \20\ Justin George, ``Here's What To Know About Metro's Proposed 
Service Cuts'', Washington Post, December 3, 2020, https://
www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2020/12/03/metro-budget-cuts-faq/ 
(accessed April 12, 2021), and David A. Ditch, ``Blame Unions for NY 
Transit Agency's Deep Red Ink. A Federal Bailout Won't Fix That'', The 
Daily Signal, December 1, 2020, https://www.heritage.org/
transportation/commentary/blame-unions-ny-transit-agencys-deep-red-ink-
federalbailout-wont-fix.
     \21\ Using highly visible service cuts to pressure legislators 
into approving additional funding is sometimes referred to as 
Washington Monument Syndrome. See, Daniel J. Mitchell, ``The 
`Washington Monument Syndrome' Backfires in Massachusetts'', Cato 
Institute blog, July 15, 2009, https://www.cato.org/blog/washington-
monumentsyndrome-backfires-massachusetts (accessed April 12, 2021).
     \22\ David Meyer, ``MTA Calls Off Wage Freeze After Biden Signs 
COVID-19 Stimulus'', New York Post, March 11, 2021, https://nypost.com/
2021/03/11/mtacalls-off-wage-freeze-after-biden-signs-covid-stimulus/ 
(accessed April 12, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Another accountability flaw is the nontransparent nature of the gas 
tax diversion to the mass transit fund. Transit agencies are guaranteed 
to receive a preset amount of gas tax revenue regardless of how they 
perform their duties. Since most drivers are unaware of the diversion, 
they have no incentive to monitor transit performance. This disconnect 
significantly reduces the incentives for transit agencies to use their 
funds prudently.
    The fourth problem with continuing substantial Federal transit 
subsidies is the uncertainty surrounding the postpandemic 
transportation environment.
    One of the key purposes of mass transit is providing a 
transportation option for people to use during daily work commutes, 
whether they live downtown or in the suburbs.
    The COVID-19 pandemic led to a surge in remote work, especially for 
white-collar jobs that are prevalent in city office buildings. One can 
reasonably expect that most people who currently work remotely will 
return to office commutes as vaccinations finally bring the pandemic 
under control. However, one can also expect a permanent increase in 
remote work compared to 2019, as some people commute only a few days 
per week and others hardly commute at all.
    This permanent increase in remote work will have a two-fold effect 
on transit compared to before the pandemic. First, it will directly 
reduce transit use due to the lower volume of commuters. Second, it 
will reduce the volume of people who commute by car. This could further 
reduce transit use if there is a reduction in rush hour traffic 
congestion, leading some transit users to switch to commuting by car. 
The question is not whether remote work will reduce the long-term need 
for transit, but rather the degree of that change.
    Considering the problems outlined above, continuing or increasing 
the status quo of Federal transit subsidies would be a poor use of 
public funds.
    Rather than throwing good money after bad, Congress should use this 
year's highway bill to promote reforms that will increase the value of 
Federal transit spending.
    The first option would be to provide flexibility to low-density 
States regarding how much of their Highway Trust Fund allocation they 
must spend on transit. This flexibility would enable these States to 
better match their transportation spending with the needs of their 
residents.
    Second, the Federal Government should reduce or eliminate funding 
for projects to expand transit systems. Since existing transit 
infrastructure is significantly underused, there is no reason to 
subsidize expansion.
    Third, the Federal Government should eliminate mandates, such as 
the Davis-Bacon Act and ``Buy American'' rules, which increase the cost 
of transit construction projects. \23\ Alternately, the U.S. Department 
of Transportation should be allowed to issue waivers on a project-by-
project basis if a State can show that a given regulation will 
substantially increase the project's cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \23\ David A. Ditch, Nicolas D. Loris, and Adam N. Michel, 
``Highway Bill Reauthorization: Three Do's, Three Don'ts'', Heritage 
Foundation Backgrounder No. 3585, February 18, 2021, https://
www.heritage.org/budget-andspending/report/highway-bill-
reauthorization-three-dosthree-donts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fourth, the Federal Government should reduce or eliminate the 
practice of cross-subsidizing users of one mode of transportation at 
the expense of users of a different mode, especially as it relates to 
the Highway Trust Fund. This would improve transparency, fairness, and 
the financial health of the trust fund.
    I hope that Members of the Committee will take full advantage of 
the opportunity they have to reform Federal transit policy with this 
year's highway bill.
    Thank you.
        RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF CHAIRMAN BROWN
                       FROM DARRYL HALEY

Q.1. What can our Committee do to allow the Capital Investment 
Grants program to build Bus Rapid Transit projects faster in 
Cincinnati and other cities?

A.1. Thank you for the question. On behalf of the transit 
industry, there are several changes that the Banking Committee 
could make to the Capital Investment Grants (CIG) program to 
facilitate Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) projects moving faster 
through the CIG evaluation, rating, and approval process.
    First, the vast majority of the BRT projects that have been 
funded by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is Small 
Starts projects. As a Small Start, these projects have a lower 
capital cost and are considerably less complex as compared to a 
rail project, whether that be streetcar, light rail, commuter 
rail, or heavy rail. Yet, the FTA ratings and evaluation 
process uses the same criteria and requires the development of 
the same documentation as more complex projects advanced as New 
Starts. We encourage Congress to expand the use of warrants for 
all six project justification criteria to simply the process 
and lower the cost of preparing the information for FTA to rate 
and evaluate the projects.
    Second, in a related point, Congress should direct FTA to 
develop project justification criteria specifically for Small 
Starts projects that reflects their lower cost and comparable 
impact on land use, economic development, and housing as 
compared to New Starts. At present, they are held to the same 
project justification measures as New Starts projects despite 
their lower cost and lower financial risk to the FTA.
    Third, the thresholds for Small Starts projects actually 
discourage the advancement of BRT projects since project 
sponsors are automatically in an overmatch situation when the 
project cost exceeds $125 million in capital cost since the 
statute limits Small Starts funding to no more than $100 
million CIG funding. The threshold for total capital should be 
increased to $400 million to reflect the increasing cost of 
projects and CIG share raised to $320 million to be consistent 
with the statutory ratio of 80 percent Federal and 20 percent 
non-CIG funding. These numbers should then be adjusted for 
inflation based on the construction cost index to keep pace 
with the capital cost of infrastructure construction projects.
    Lastly, I would urge the Committee to amend the statute to 
allow expenditures incurred prior to entry into Project 
Development (PD) to count as ``local match'' for the project 
when it receives a grant agreement. At present, all 
expenditures prior to entry into PD are not credited as part of 
the local investment in a project.
                                ------                                


        RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR SINEMA
                       FROM DARRYL HALEY

Q.1. Across the country, in both urban and rural areas, transit 
infrastructure is crucial for Americans to grow the economy and 
connect families. The CIG prograrn fonds transit capital 
investments, including heavy rail, commuter rail, light rail, 
streetcars, and bus rapid transit. Many Arizona communities are 
interested in utilizing CIG support for transit projects. How 
can we best ensure that CIG program funds are available to 
support transit projects in all comrnunities, urban and rural, 
throughout the country?

A.1. Thank you for the question. Capital Investment Grants 
provide critical investments for new and expanded subways, 
light rail, commuter rail, streetcars, and BRT, among others. 
To best ensure that CIG program funds are available to support 
transit projects in all communities, urban and rural throughout 
the country, SORTA stands in support of the recommendation of 
the American Public Transit Association (APTA) to strongly urge 
the Committee to conduct a zero-based review of the CIG program 
to assess all statutory, regulatory, and other administrative 
requirements.
    Unfortunately, the CIG program has shifted from an 
efficient public transportation capital program that can build 
good projects while protecting taxpayer dollars to a grant 
program that has requirements above and beyond that of 
comparable modes--such as highway grant programs. Today, a CIG 
project sponsor faces almost 60,000 words of Federal statutory 
law, regulations, and administrative guidance under the 
program. Comparatively, a Federal-aid Highway INFRA Grant 
applicant faces less than one quarter of the statutory language 
of the CIG program and no specific regulations. These 
burdensome requirements cause significant delay in project 
approvals, which result in considerable increases in project 
costs prior to construction.
    Additionally, we ask Congress to reestablish a 40-40-20 
capital investment ratio among the CIG, State of Good Repair, 
and Buses and Bus Facilities program. Historically, Congress 
allocated funding on a 40-40-20 basis among the CIG, State of 
Good Repair and Buses and Bus Facilities programs. Our 
Recommendations provide significant increases for the CIG, 
State of Good Repair and Buses and Bus Facilities programs. 
Additionally, Bus and Bus Facilities received a General Fund 
plus-up for the past 3 fiscal years, while the CIG funds, 
unlike most of the programs receiving General Fund plus-ups, 
have been cut during the past several fiscal years. In growing 
each program, APTA believes that a relative distribution of 40 
percent for CIG, 40 percent for State of Good Repair, and 20 
percent for Buses and Bus Facilities is the fairest allocation 
of funding for these three capital investment programs.
                                ------                                


        RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR DAINES
                       FROM DARRYL HALEY

Q.1. Efficient and effective transit programs are critical in 
rural States like Montana--and it's not just subways like 
people see in big cities. Busses and vans are a lifeline for 
folks without cars to get to and from work or for seniors and 
the disabled to get to doctors' appointments or to pharmacies 
to get lifesaving medications.
    Do you agree that an effective Federal transit program is 
critical for rural States and communities?

A.1. Yes, I do agree that an effective Federal transit program 
is critical for rural States and communities.

Q.2. One thing I hear constantly when talking with various 
groups is the onerous regulatory and reporting requirements 
from FTA. In some cases, this has resulted in additional staff 
being needed just to deal with meeting these requirement. This 
is obviously burdensome for a rural community that may not have 
the resources needed to bring on additional staff.
    Do you agree that surface transportation reauthorization 
should reduce complexities and onerous requirements so that 
communities are better able to put these dollars to work?

A.2. Yes, I do agree that surface transportation 
reauthorization should reduce complexities and onerous 
requirements so that communities are better able to put these 
dollars to work.
                                ------                                


        RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF CHAIRMAN BROWN
                      FROM JOHN SAMUELSEN

Q.1. President Samuelsen, some have suggested that transit 
agencies could replace current services by paitnering with 
transportation network companies, like Uber or Lyft, to provide 
service. Do those companies have the long-term interests of 
riders, communities and workers in mind? What happens if we 
reduce or break apart our current network of fixed bus routes, 
and as an aiternative, what should transit agencies do to offer 
more innovative service?

A.1. These transportation network companies have demonstrated 
that they do not have the interests of the transit community in 
mind. These companies have a demonstrated history of ignoring 
environmental, labor, safety, and other laws, leaving 
destruction in their wake. There is no reason to believe that 
they would suddenly change their practices and become a 
positive influence if they are allowed to supplant or replace 
transit systems.
    Our public transit systems are long-term infrastructure 
investments built over decades to provide dependable service to 
communities. Dismantling those systems in order to replace them 
with outsourced ridesharing services would expose communities 
to a great deal of risk. As a reminder, none of these 
ridesharing companies have yet to show a profit--they are 
currently massively subsidized by their investors and seeking 
to massive subsidies from our Government instead. What happens 
when these services go bankrupt? Relying on transportation 
network companies for public transportation is, at best, a 
short-term patch to real transit needs that would be better 
addressed by expanding our existing systems.
    Instead of outsourcing services like this, transit agencies 
should follow the lead of systems like COTA in Columbus, Ohio, 
which has created a dynamic, point-to-point paratransit service 
staffed by TWU members working for the transit agency. This 
service provides the same benefits touted by the transportation 
network companies, but without many of the negative effects 
those companies bring. COTA was able to make this service 
happen by actively working with the TWU and our members to 
address the problems riders were reporting to the frontline 
workforce. By incorporating the frontline workforce into the 
project from the start, COTA was able to create new and 
innovative service that functions better for their riders than 
Uber could ever hope to.
                                ------                                


        RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR SINEMA
                      FROM JOHN SAMUELSEN

Q.1. Many small cities have a robust and successful transit 
system, including several in Arizona. Flagstaff and its 
Mountain Line is an excellent example of such a city transit 
system. The Small Transit Intensive Cities Program (STIC), 
which rewards highly efficient small transit systems, has been 
incredibly successful over the years. I have a bill to expand 
that program and support those small cities. Do you support 
that bill?

A.1. The STIC program has been a great source of funding for 
smaller cities. The cities that are taking advantage of these 
funds enjoy many benefits that larger cities cannot access with 
their Federal investments. These systems, for instance, get to 
use their Federal funds to support operations while the larger 
systems are restricted to solely capital projects. All systems 
should have this kind of flexibility to better serve their 
communities--large or small.
                                ------                                


        RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR DAINES
                      FROM JOHN SAMUELSEN

Q.1. Efficient and effective transit programs are critical in 
rural States like Montana--and it's not just subways like 
people see in big cities. Busses and vans are a lifeline for 
folks without cars to get to and from work or for seniors and 
the disabled to get to doctors' appointments or to pharmacies 
to get lifesaving medications.
    Do you agree that an effective Federal transit program is 
critical for rural States and communities?

A.1. Absolutely. Public transit, supported by Federal, State, 
and local governments, is essential for every community.

Q.2. One thing I hear constantly when talking with various 
groups is the onerous regulatory and repmting requirements from 
FTA. In some cases, this has resulted in additional staff being 
needed just to deal with meeting these requirement. This is 
obviously burdensome for a rural community that may not have 
the resources needed to bring on additional staff.
    Do you agree that surface transpmtation reauthorization 
should reduce complexities and onerous requirements so that 
communities are better able to put these dollars to work?

A.2. The TWU believes that a better way to address these 
concerns would be to empower the FTA to provide more support 
for transit agencies to help them plan and manage their 
responsibilities. We agree that as much money as possible 
should be going into providing public transportation services. 
The FTA's requirements are intentionally designed for that to 
happen in a manner that is consistent with the public interest. 
If the FTA had more resources, they could potentially provide 
more support for smaller agencies to help them navigate the 
process and, ultimately, produce better results for all 
communities.

                                ------                                


        RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR DAINES
                       FROM BETH OSBORNE

Q.1. Efficient and effective transit programs are critical in 
rural States like Montana--and it's not just subways like 
people see in big cities. Buses and vans are a lifeline for 
folks without cars to get to and from work or for seniors and 
the disabled to get to doctors' appointments or to pharmacies 
to get lifesaving medications.
    Do you agree that an effective Federal transit program is 
critical for rural States and communities?

A.1. Absolutely. More than 1 million rural households have no 
access to a car. Based on the latest American Community Survey 
(ACS), there are 292 counties in the U.S. where at least 10 
percent of households don't have access to a car, out of 3,142 
total counties nationwide. Fifty-six percent of them are 
majority rural. Rural Americans without cars face unique 
barriers, and they deserve a tailored approach to their transit 
needs rather than just assuming they can or will drive 
everywhere. Rural transit was hit hard by COVID, but it is so 
underfunded that it is always on the edge. But many areas have 
created impressive transit service and we can learn from them, 
including Burlington, NC; Paris, TX; and Washington State. It 
is time for the U.S. to create a true rural transit program 
designed to connect people in rural communities to job and 
service centers. That will require transit that connects spread 
out communities rather than connected neighborhoods in urban 
America, but it is something we can do and just as important. 
It is incredibly frustrating and dismissive when opposition to 
transit is expressed through statements like ``transit is for 
urban areas'' or ``rural Americans drive.'' What we are really 
saying is ``rural American are on their own.''

Q.2. One thing I hear constantly when talking with various 
groups is the onerous regulatory and reporting requirements 
from FTA. In some cases, this has resulted in additional staff 
being needed just to deal with meeting these requirement. This 
is obviously burdensome for a rural community that may not have 
the resources needed to bring on additional staff.
    Do you agree that surface transportation reauthorization 
should reduce complexities and onerous requirements so that 
communities are better able to put these dollars to work?

A.2. There is an interesting history behind many of these 
regulations. When problems with the surface transportation are 
raised, the bipartisan agreement reached is often agreement to 
apply good Government improvements--to the transit program. 
That is even true when the problem raised is from the highway 
program. In fact, over 2017-2018, beyond the regulatory 
requirements, USDOT required transit agencies to repeat many 
analyses within a short period of time in an effort to slow 
deployment.
    Congress should stop treating transit as the service funded 
only as much as they have to so that transit doesn't closed. It 
is time for a highway-style commitment in funding, intention 
and goals to transit.
                                ------                                


        RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR CRAPO
                     FROM BARUCH FEIGENBAUM

Q.1. How do you propose to ensure that rural transit gets the 
resources it needs for those who are truly transit-dependent 
and is not overshadowed by large, urban systems? These systems 
have often allowed themselves to fall into a state of disrepair 
and seeking Federal dollars to bring then into a state of good 
repair is not only fiscally irresponsible but takes away 
resources from rural communities, like those in Idaho.
    Do you agree that support for transit in rural States and 
areas is an essential part of the transit portion of surface 
transportation reauthorization?

A.1. I believe that all transit systems should get a 
proportionate share of Federal transportation dollars. Support 
for transit in rural States and regions is a critical part of 
the transit title in the surface transportation reauthorization 
bill. The funding formula should be based on the number of 
unlinked transit trips, and the number of miles that transit 
vehicles travel with passengers. Many rural systems have fewer 
transit vehicles, traveling longer distances. Therefore, it is 
important to take distance into consideration.
    There are more than 1,000 transit systems nationwide that 
receive Federal funding, and the majority are small systems 
with a limited number of routes. While some believe that low-
income transit-dependent riders live in urban areas only, many 
transit dependent riders live in suburban, exurban, and rural 
areas. In fact, as the economy stagnates in some rural areas, 
the number of transit dependent rural riders is expected to 
grow by more than 20 percent.
    It is also critical that transit systems receive State and 
or local support. Mass transit is inherently a local service. 
In most cases transit systems do not cross State lines, and do 
not support interstate commerce. As a result, mass transit 
sytems should be funded primarily at the State and local level. 
Federal funds should be considered a supplement, not the main 
source of funding.
                                ------                                


        RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR DAINES
                     FROM BARUCH FEIGENBAUM

Q.1. Efficient and effective transit programs are critical in 
rural States like Montana--and it's not just subways like 
people see in big cities. Busses and vans are a lifeline for 
folks without cars to get to and from work or for seniors and 
the disabled to get to doctors' appointments or to pharmacies 
to get lifesaving medications.
    Do you agree that an effective Federal transit program is 
critical for rural States and communities?

A.1. There are almost 1,000 transit systems nationwide that 
receive Federal funding, and the majority are small systems 
with a limited number of routes. While some believe that low-
income transit-dependent riders live in urban areas only, many 
transit dependent riders live in suburban, exurban, and rural 
areas. In fact, as the economy stagnates in some rural areas, 
the number of transit dependent rural riders is expected to 
grow by more than 20 percent.
    Paratransit, also known as demand response service, plays a 
critical role in transporting the elderly and those with 
disabilities to work, the grocery store, and doctor's 
appointments. Across the country, there are more than 2,000 
agencies that provide some level of demand response service. 
Many are not traditional transit providers but rather community 
centers, churches, or other nonprofit providers.
    It is critical that Federal transit support be mode 
neutral. Currently, many of the mass transit funding formulas 
are written in favor of major metro areas with large rail 
systems. Larger metro areas, particularly the six legacy rail 
regions of New York, Chicago, Washington, San Francisco, 
Philadelphia, and Boston do have more riders, and these regions 
should receive more funding. However, metro areas and rural 
areas that offer bus-only service or demand response service 
should not be short-changed in the process.

Q.2. One thing I hear constantly when talking with various 
groups is the onerous regulatory and reporting requirements 
from FTA. In some cases, this has resulted in additional staff 
being needed just to deal with meeting these requirement. This 
is obviously burdensome for a rural community that may not have 
the resources needed to bring on additional staff.
    Do you agree that surface transportation reauthorization 
should reduce complexities and onerous requirements so that 
communities are better able to put these dollars to work?

A.2. Transit agencies find regulatory requirements to be one of 
the most frustrating parts of operations. Using staff members 
to complete reporting requirements takes resources away from 
purchasing vehicles and operating service. I believe that the 
Federal Transit Administration (FTA)should streamline reporting 
requirements, particularly those for service operation, for 
agencies that operate only one mode (local bus or demand 
response service) while keeping more stringent requirements for 
multimodal agencies.
    At the same time, basic transit reporting standards are 
important. FTA produces the National Transit Database, which is 
a very comprehensive guide to taxpayer funded transit system 
across the countries. Any transit agencies that receive Federal 
funding need to be accountable to taxpayers. For accountability 
purposes, agencies need to report basic service information 
including hours of service, vehicles purchased, and number of 
customers using the service.
                                ------                                


        RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR DAINES
                        FROM DAVID DITCH

Q.1. Efficient and effective transit programs are critical in 
rural States like Montana--and it's not just subways like 
people see in big cities. Busses and vans are a lifeline for 
folks without cars to get to and from work or for seniors and 
the disabled to get to doctors' appointments or to pharmacies 
to get lifesaving medications.
    Do you agree that an effective Federal transit program is 
critical for rural States and communities?

A.1. An effective transportation program for rural communities 
would be one that provides flexibility to meet the on the 
ground conditions, not mandates from Washington. As I stated in 
my testimony, public transit in urban areas is overly 
subsidized and far from cost-effective. Public transit for low-
density areas requires significantly higher subsidies per user 
due to the lack of demand as a percent of travel and the 
logistical challenges caused by the distance between locations.
    Developing a robust rural transit program would require an 
enormous amount of money. Further, rural public transit is not 
something the Federal Government should be responsible for. 
Nonprofits, State and local governments, and private 
transportation services are more appropriate for addressing 
these needs.

Q.2. One thing I hear constantly when talking with various 
groups is the onerous regulatory and reporting requirements 
from FTA. In some cases, this has resulted in additional staff 
being needed just to deal with meeting these requirement. This 
is obviously burdensome for a rural community that may not have 
the resources needed to bring on additional staff.
    Do you agree that surface transportation reauthorization 
should reduce complexities and onerous requirements so that 
communities are better able to put these dollars to work?

A.2. I agree. The Highway Trust Fund is highly convoluted. It 
requires gathering gas tax revenue from drivers across the 
country, sending the funds to Washington, DC, then sending 
funds to State Governments that receive and disburse funds 
based on formulas. The States must then receive Federal 
approval for project selection and implementation before work 
can begin, as projects are subject to Federal rules regarding 
wages, labor practices, material sourcing, environmental 
effects, and more. Reducing the burden of Federal project 
mandates through reforms, consolidations, and eliminations to 
these rules would necessarily reduce costs and delays for State 
and local governments, improving the value of Federal 
infrastructure spending. An even better approach would be to 
remove barriers to infrastructure funding for private investors 
and State and local governments (such as the prohibition on 
highway tolls for most of the country), allowing them to 
perform the work themselves and cutting the gordian knot of 
Federal bureaucracy.

                        [all]