[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
REVENUE, RIDERSHIP, AND POST-PANDEMIC
LESSONS IN PUBLIC TRANSIT
=======================================================================
(118-62)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 13, 2024
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-
transportation?path=/browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/
transportation
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
58-380 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Sam Graves, Missouri, Chairman
Rick Larsen, Washington, Ranking
Member
Eleanor Holmes Norton, Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford,
District of Columbia Arkansas
Grace F. Napolitano, California Daniel Webster, Florida
Steve Cohen, Tennessee Thomas Massie, Kentucky
John Garamendi, California Scott Perry, Pennsylvania
Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Georgiaian Babin, Texas
Andre Carson, Indiana Garret Graves, Louisiana
Dina Titus, Nevada David Rouzer, North Carolina
Jared Huffman, California Mike Bost, Illinois
Julia Brownley, California Doug LaMalfa, California
Frederica S. Wilson, Florida Bruce Westerman, Arkansas
Mark DeSaulnier, California Brian J. Mast, Florida
Salud O. Carbajal, California Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon,
Greg Stanton, Arizona, Puerto Rico
Vice Ranking Member Pete Stauber, Minnesota
Colin Z. Allred, Texas Tim Burchett, Tennessee
Sharice Davids, Kansas Dusty Johnson, South Dakota
Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, Illinois Jefferson Van Drew, New Jersey,
Chris Pappas, New Hampshire Vice Chairman
Seth Moulton, Massachusetts Troy E. Nehls, Texas
Jake Auchincloss, Massachusetts Tracey Mann, Kansas
Marilyn Strickland, Washington Burgess Owens, Utah
Troy A. Carter, Louisiana Rudy Yakym III, Indiana
Patrick Ryan, New York Lori Chavez-DeRemer, Oregon
Mary Sattler Peltola, Alaska Thomas H. Kean, Jr., New Jersey
Robert Menendez, New Jersey Anthony D'Esposito, New York
Val T. Hoyle, Oregon Eric Burlison, Missouri
Emilia Strong Sykes, Ohio Derrick Van Orden, Wisconsin
Hillary J. Scholten, Michigan Brandon Williams, New York
Valerie P. Foushee, North Carolina Marcus J. Molinaro, New York
Christopher R. Deluzio, Pennsylvania Mike Collins, Georgia
Mike Ezell, Mississippi
John S. Duarte, California
Aaron Bean, Florida
Celeste Maloy, Utah
Kevin Kiley, California
Vince Fong, California
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford,
Arkansas, Chairman
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
Columbia, Ranking Member
Jared Huffman, California Daniel Webster, Florida
Chris Pappas, New Hampshire Thomas Massie, Kentucky
Marilyn Strickland, Washington Mike Bost, Illinois
Patrick Ryan, New York Doug LaMalfa, California
Robert Menendez, New Jersey Pete Stauber, Minnesota
Val T. Hoyle, Oregon, Tim Burchett, Tennessee
Vice Ranking Member Dusty Johnson, South Dakota
Valerie P. Foushee, North Carolina Jefferson Van Drew, New Jersey
Grace F. Napolitano, California Troy E. Nehls, Texas
Steve Cohen, Tennessee Tracey Mann, Kansas
Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Georgiargess Owens, Utah
Julia Brownley, California Rudy Yakym III, Indiana
Greg Stanton, Arizona Lori Chavez-DeRemer, Oregon
Colin Z. Allred, Texas Thomas H. Kean, Jr., New Jersey
Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, Illinois Anthony D'Esposito, New York
Seth Moulton, Massachusetts Eric Burlison, Missouri
Emilia Strong Sykes, Ohio Derrick Van Orden, Wisconsin
John Garamendi, California Brandon Williams, New York
Dina Titus, Nevada Marcus J. Molinaro, New York
Salud O. Carbajal, California Mike Collins, Georgia
Jake Auchincloss, Massachusetts John S. Duarte, California,
Mark DeSaulnier, California Vice Chairman
Rick Larsen, Washington (Ex Officio) Aaron Bean, Florida
Celeste Maloy, Utah
Kevin Kiley, California
Sam Graves, Missouri (Ex Officio)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vii
STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Arkansas, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Highways
and Transit, opening statement................................. 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Delegate in Congress from the
District of Columbia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Highways and Transit, opening statement........................ 4
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Washington, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, opening statement.............................. 7
Prepared statement........................................... 8
WITNESSES
M.J. Maynard, Chief Executive Officer, Regional Transportation
Commission of Southern Nevada, on behalf of the American Public
Transportation Association, oral statement..................... 10
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Laura Hendricks, Chief Executive Officer, Transdev U.S., on
behalf of the North American Transit Alliance, oral statement.. 20
Prepared statement........................................... 22
Marc Scribner, Senior Transportation Policy Analyst, Reason
Foundation, oral statement..................................... 26
Prepared statement........................................... 27
Greg Regan, President, Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO,
oral statement................................................. 35
Prepared statement........................................... 37
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Post-Hearing Supplement to Remarks from Laura Hendricks, Chief
Executive Officer, Transdev U.S., on behalf of the North
American Transit Alliance...................................... 69
Letter of June 13, 2024, to Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford,
Chairman, and Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, from John Samuelsen,
International President, Transport Workers Union of America,
AFL-CIO, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton 81
APPENDIX
Questions to M.J. Maynard, Chief Executive Officer, Regional
Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada, on behalf of the
American Public Transportation Association, from:
Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford............................... 85
Hon. Greg Stanton............................................ 86
Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr........................... 88
Question from Hon. Greg Stanton to Laura Hendricks, Chief
Executive Officer, Transdev U.S., on behalf of the North
American Transit Alliance...................................... 89
Questions from Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford to Marc Scribner,
Senior Transportation Policy Analyst, Reason Foundation........ 89
Questions from Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. to Greg Regan,
President, Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO........... 91
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
June 10, 2024
SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER
TO: LMembers, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
FROM: LStaff, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
RE: LSubcommittee on Highways and Transit Hearing on
``Revenue, Ridership, and Post-Pandemic Lessons in Public
Transit''
_______________________________________________________________________
I. PURPOSE
The Subcommittee on Highways and Transit of the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure will meet on Thursday,
June 13, 2024, at 11:00 a.m. ET in 2167 Rayburn House Office
Building to receive testimony at a hearing entitled, ``Revenue,
Ridership, and Post-Pandemic Lessons in Public Transit.'' The
purpose of the hearing is to review current transit ridership
and revenue, assess the implementation of programs authorized
in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) (P.L. 117-
58) related to improving transit system infrastructure,
operations, and safety, and consider lessons learned from post-
pandemic transit agency operational adaptations. At the
hearing, Members will receive testimony from witnesses on
behalf of the American Public Transportation Association
(APTA), the North American Transit Alliance (NATA), the Reason
Foundation, and the Transportation Trades Department (TTD),
AFL-CIO.
II. BACKGROUND: IMPACTS OF COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON TRANSIT
A decade ago, in October 2014, transit ridership was
recorded at a high of nearly 990 million rides that month.\1\
From that peak until the pandemic, National ridership levels
largely stayed between 700 million and 900 million, but trended
downward, as shown on the chart below.\2\ Public transportation
ridership declined by about seven percent in the years before
COVID-19 due to a combination of factors, including the
relatively low cost of driving, the rise of shared ride and
micromobility options, and the continued decentralization of
jobs and housing.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, Public Transit Ridership,
(last accessed May 22, 2024), available at https://fred.stlouisfed.org/
series/TRANSIT.
\2\ Id.
\3\ William J. Mallett, Cong. Rsch Serv., (IN11913), Public
Transportation Faces Post-Pandemic Challenges, (Apr. 18, 2022),
available at https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN11913
[hereinafter Mallett].
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The COVID-19 pandemic had a sharp impact on public
transportation.\4\ Frontline transit workers, who stayed on the
job to ensure other essential workers could access their
workplaces, were among the many tragic deaths attributable to
COVID-19 in America.\5\ Transit agencies Nationwide experienced
declining ridership in the early days of the pandemic and
ridership on the Nation's transit systems has yet to recover
fully from the disruption of COVID-19, including the lasting
changes to travel, work, and commuting patterns by
Americans.\6\ By April 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic and various
suggested and mandated mitigation practices caused monthly
ridership to plummet by more than 78 percent.\7\ Some larger
systems saw a drop in ridership of up to 90 percent.\8\ These
dramatic decreases in ridership and associated fare collections
forced local transit agencies to consider dynamic changes to
operational strategies.\9\ By July 2020, nearly 50 percent of
transit agencies reported service modifications in response to
the loss of riders whose daily travel had lessened.\10\ This
loss of fare-paying riders, paired with decreased local sales
tax collections, created a historic deficiency of incoming
revenue for transit systems.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Johns Hopkins University of Medicine, Coronavirus Resource
Center, United States Overview, (last updated Mar. 10, 2023), available
at https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/region/united-states.
\5\ Dana Rubinstein, MTA Agrees to Give Death Benefits to Scores of
Coronavirus Victims' Families, Politico, (Apr. 14, 2020), available at
https://www.politico.com/states/new-york/albany/story/2020/04/14/mta-
agrees-to-give-death-benefits-to-scores-of-coronavirus-victims-
families-1275743.
\6\ American Public Transit Association, Moving Through the Crisis:
Mobility Recovery & Restoration Task Force Report, (Oct. 2020)
available at https://www.apta.com/wp-content/uploads/APTA-Task-Force-
Report-2020.pdf.
\7\ Id.
\8\ Robert Puentes, COVID's Differing Impact on Transit Ridership,
Eno Center for Transportation, (Apr. 24, 2020), available at https://
enotrans.org/article/covids-differing-impact-on-transit-ridership/.
\9\ Mallett, supra note 3.
\10\ Moving the Nation Through Crisis: Mobility Recovery &
Restoration Task Force Report, APTA, (Oct. 2020), available at https://
www.apta.com/wp-content/uploads/APTA-Task-Force-Report-2020.pdf.
\11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA), which administers
Federal financial assistance to the Nation's public
transportation agencies, distributed almost $70 billion in
emergency supplemental funding enacted by Congress to systems
to cover short-term budget gaps due to the reduction in farebox
returns and increased costs resulting from COVID-19
requirements.\12\ Of the total, Congress provided $25 billion
in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES)
Act, (P.L. 116-136), $14 billion in the Coronavirus Response
and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act (CRRSAA) (P.L.116-
260), and $30.5 billion in the American Rescue Plan (ARPA)
(P.L. 117-2).\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Congressional Budget Office, Federal Financial Support for
Public Transportation, (Mar. 2022), available at https://www.cbo.gov/
publication/57940.
\13\ Dep't of Transp., FTA, Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic
Security (CARES) Act, (last updated Feb. 19, 2021), available at
https://www.transit.dot.gov/cares-act; Dep't of Transp., FTA,
Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act
(CRRSAA) Transit Infrastructure Grants, (Jan. 8, 2021), available at
https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-programs/legislation/
coronavirus-response-and-relief-supplemental-appropriations; Dep't of
Transp., FTA, American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, (last accessed May, 22,
2024), available at https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/american-
rescue-plan-act-2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emergency COVID supplemental funding for transit agencies
enacted by Congress, much of which was eligible to be expended
for transit agency operating expenses, was greater than three
times the amount recovered from fares and additional operating
revenue in 2019.\14\ Non-emergency Federal transit funding
typically cannot be expended on transit agency operating
expenses in large urbanized areas. Labor costs, which include
wages, salaries, and pension benefits, made up more than half
of all operating expenses for transit agencies in 2022.\15\
Allowing emergency funding to be used on operating expenses
kept transit workers on the job and helped maintain essential
mobility services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ William J. Mallett, Cong. Rsch Serv. (R47900), Federal Support
of Public Transportation Operating Expenses, (Jan. 18, 2024), available
at https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47900 [hereinafter
CRS Report R47900].
\15\ Dep't of Transp., FTA Office of Budget and Policy, Single
Summary of Transit Report: 2022 Edition, (last updated Jan. 3, 2024),
available at https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/2024-
01/2022-Single-Summary-of-Transit_v1_1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As pandemic-era restrictions waned and new work
arrangements and traveling patterns developed, public
transportation agencies were forced to reorient services and
operations to meet new commuter habits.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Parth Doshi et al., Adapting to the Future: Transformative
Actions for Transit Agencies in a Post-COVID Era, Boston Consulting
Group, (June 2023), available at https://web-assets.bcg.com/3d/00/
ff2c27f34d93a43554175899c967/adapting-to-the-future-transformative-
actions-for-transit-agencies-in-a-post-covid-era.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. FARE REVENUE AND TRANSIT RIDERSHIP
FARE REVENUE
In 2019, fare revenues totaled $15.8 billion and accounted
for 23.5 percent of public transportation agency operating and
capital budgets, with income from state, local and Federal
programs filling the remaining budget gaps.\17\ Nationwide,
transit agency fare revenue dropped by nearly half to $8.7
billion in 2020.\18\ By the end of 2022, total fare revenue
recovery across National transit systems had reached $8.94
billion, still down more than $7 billion from pre-pandemic
levels, due in part to a combination of decreased ridership
numbers and agencies providing various levels of subsidized
fares.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ CRS Report R47900, supra note 14.
\18\ Garrett Shrode, The Mass Transit Fiscal Cliff: Estimating the
Size and Scope of the Problem, Eno Center for Transportation, (Sep. 19,
2022), available at https://enotrans.org/article/the-mass-transit-
fiscal-cliff-estimating-the-size-and-scope-of-the-problem/.
\19\ Jeff Davis, Transit Farebox Revenues in 2022 Were Still 44%
Below Pre-COVID Levels, Eno Center for Transportation, (Nov. 13, 2023),
available at https://enotrans.org/article/transit-farebox-revenues-in-
2022-were-still-44-below-pre-covid-levels/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These dramatic decreases in fare revenue forced local
transit agencies to consider dynamic changes to operational
strategies.\20\ By July 2020, nearly 50 percent of transit
agencies reported service modifications in response to the loss
of riders whose daily travel had lessened.\21\ Reporting year
2022 data also reveals that different modes of public
transportation recovered fare revenue at variable rates, with
commuter rail and light rail systems reporting the lowest fare
recovery, down 51 percent from pre-pandemic levels.\22\ The
ridership and fare recovery for metropolitan transit agencies
were more greatly impacted as commuter behaviors shifted after
the pandemic.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Mallett, supra note 3.
\21\ Moving the Nation Through Crisis: Mobility Recovery &
Restoration Task Force Report, APTA, (Oct. 2020), available at https://
www.apta.com/wp-content/uploads/APTA-Task-Force-Report-2020.pdf.
\22\ Id.
\23\ Mallett, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to accommodate changing needs, some public
transportation agencies have expanded on-demand services or
contracted with private sector service providers with the goal
of enhancing efficiencies and providing essential workers and
riders transportation services.\24\ Some transit agencies,
including legacy transit systems, introduced or expanded
reduced-fare or zero-fare programs, enhancing mobility and
access but generating less fare revenue.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Jenni Bergal, In Some Cities, On-demand Public Transit is
Replacing Old-fashioned Buses, Fast Company, (Aug. 24, 2022), available
at https://www.fastcompany.com/90781665/in-some-cities-on-demand-
public-transit-is-replacing-old-fashioned-buses.
\25\ Jenni Bergal, Transit Agencies Dangle Discounts and Perks to
Woo Riders, Stateline, (June 13, 2022), available at https://
stateline.org/2022/06/13/transit-agencies-dangle-discounts-and-perks-
to-woo-riders/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSIT RIDERSHIP
Transit riders took 9.7 billion transit trips in 2019, and
in 2023, that number reached 7.1 billion after the dramatic
drops of the pandemic.\26\ Trips on transit, however, are not
equally spread among the population because close to half of
all Americans do not have access to public transportation.\27\
Only 3.1 percent of Americans report using public
transportation to travel to or from work whereas a majority of
Americans report driving to work alone.\28\ Commuting trips
only make up 50 percent of transit rides, while 37 percent of
trips are for shopping and recreation.\29\ Additionally, 70
percent of all public transit commuters reside in one of seven
major metropolitan areas: Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, New
York City, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and Washington,
D.C.\30\ The density of ridership, however, does not make
transit in other areas of the country unimportant, as riders in
those areas also rely on public transportation for access to
health care, places of employment, goods, and services.\31\
According to 2018 Census data, an estimated 2.8 million
essential workers Nationwide relied on public transit to
commute to their jobs, including 600,000 who work in hospitals,
doctors' offices, or healthcare providers; 165,000 who work in
grocery stores or pharmacies; and 150,000 who work in social
services.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ APTA, Research Reports, (last accessed Jun. 7, 2024),
available at https://www.apta.com/research-technical-resources/
research-reports/.
\27\ Sara Chernikoff, Most Americans are in support of public
transit, but 3% use it to commute, USA Today, (May 28, 2024), available
at https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2024/05/28/public-
transportation-usage-united-states-after-covid/73802157007/.
\28\ Id.
\29\ APTA, 2023 Public Transportation Fact Book, (March 2024),
available at https://www.apta.com/wp-content/uploads/APTA-2023-Public-
Transportation-Fact-Book.pdf.
\30\ Id.
\31\ Rural Transportation Challenges: Stakeholder Perspectives:
Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Highways and Transit of the H. Comm. on
Transp. and Infrastructure, 118th Cong. (2024), (Testimony of Todd
Morrow).
\32\ Transit Center, Transit is Essential: 2.8 Million U.S.
Essential Workers Ride Transit to their Jobs, (Mar. 24, 2020),
available at https://transitcenter.org/2-8-million-u-s-essential-
workers-ride-transit-to-their-jobs/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An April 2024 quarterly ridership update found that overall
public transit ridership, without denoting fare recovery, had
reached 79 percent of pre-pandemic levels by the fourth quarter
of 2023.\33\ Different public transportation modes, however,
reported a wide disparity in ridership recovery totals with bus
transit recording the highest return percentage versus pre-
pandemic numbers at 81 percent and commuter rail the lowest,
reporting only 65 percent.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Dan Zukowski, Transit Ridership is 16% in 2023: APTA Report,
Smart Cities Dive, (Apr. 10, 2024), available at https://
www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/public-transit-ridership-grew-apta-report/
712737/.
\34\ Jared Bonina and Matthew Dickens, APTA Public Transportation
Ridership Update, APTA, (Apr. 2024), available at https://www.apta.com/
wp-content/uploads/APTA-POLICY-BRIEF-Transit-Ridership-04.01.2024.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peak in-person office occupancy in urban areas averaged
around 60 percent of pre-pandemic levels whereas earlier this
year, office building vacancies in major American cities
measured 19.6 percent, affecting demand for transit for some
office workers.\35\ As of January 2024, 20 to 25 percent of
American workers operated on hybrid schedules, combining work-
from-home and in-office attendance at least part of the work
week, a number that averaged just three percent prior to the
pandemic.\36\ Though additional shifts towards required in-
office attendance may occur, the preservation of hybrid work
arrangements and work-from-home accommodations are expected to
remain in effect long-term, according to the National Bureau of
Economic Research.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Getting America Back to Work, Kastle, (last accessed May 22,
2024), available at https://www.kastle.com/safety-wellness/getting-
america-back-to-work/; Konrad Putzier, Offices Around America Hit a New
Vacancy Record, Wall St. J., (Jan. 8, 2024), available at https://
www.wsj.com/real-estate/commercial/offices-around-america-hit-a-new-
vacancy-record-166d98a5?mod=hp_lead_pos5.
\36\ Emily Peck, The Return-to-office Wars are Over, Axios, (Jan.
16, 2024), available at https://www.axios.com/2024/01/16/ceo-return-to-
office-wars.
\37\ Jose Barrero et al., Why Working From Home Will Stick,
National Bureau Of Economic Research, (Apr. 2021), available at https:/
/www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w28731/w28731.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another factor affecting transit ridership is car
ownership. Nationwide, about nine percent of households do not
have a personal vehicle, and for some communities, the
percentage is higher.\38\ Transit is one alternative for
Americans who cannot or chose not to drive a personal car.
Another consideration affecting ridership is the safety of
public transportation. According to APTA, traveling by transit
is 10 times safer per mile than traveling by automobile.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Car Access: Everyone Needs Reliable Transportation and in Most
Communities That Means a Car, National Equity Atlas, available at
https://nationalequityatlas.org/indicators/Car_access.
\39\ APTA, Public Transportation Facts, (last accessed Jun. 7,
2024), available at https://www.apta.com/news-publications/public-
transportation-facts/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After years of decline, violent crime rose in communities
of all types during the COVID-19 pandemic.\40\ Transit systems
are open transportation modes that do not require a ticketed
reservation, unlike air trips, and they occur in shared space,
unlike a personal vehicle. Some types of violent crime and
assaults on and around transit systems have been steadily on
the rise since the pandemic. Assaults increased by 13 percent
by the end of 2022 and homicides, a statistic which includes
negligent manslaughter, grew from 18 in 2019 to 50 in 2022.\41\
During the same time period, reports of robbery decreased by 52
percent.\42\ While these incidents and security challenges pose
real risk to transit workers and the traveling public,
recovering ridership and concurrent fare revenues can be
challenging if transit riders feel unsafe.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Brennan Center For Justice, Myths and Realities: Understanding
Recent Trends in Violent Crime (July 12, 2022) available at https://
www.brennancenter.org/our-work/
research-reports/myths-and-realities-understanding-recent-trends-
violent-crime?gclid=Cj0K
CQiAj4ecBhD3ARIsAM4Q_jGg-az7emFerr78dXXnoCA9hlEl1BvevFxQeYm_0xwCqf
FR7Id8cjIaAiZKEALw_wcB&ms=gad_violent%20crime_617000456634_8626214133_
143843260761.
\41\ Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Transp. Statistics, Security
Events of Crime by Transit Mode, (last accessed May 28, 2024),
available at https://www.bts.gov/content/reports-violent-crime-
property-crime-and-arrests-transit-mode.
\42\ Id.
\43\ Dan Zukowski, With Attacks on Public Transit Up, Cities
Struggle to Make Riders Feel Safer, Smart Cities Dive, (Sept 14, 2022),
available at https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/us-leads-violent-
transit-crimes-nyc-los-angeles-san-francisco-philadelphia/631738/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. ONGOING OPERATIONAL ADAPTATIONS
CONTRACTED SERVICE AND ON-DEMAND TRANSIT
Contracting with private partners can result in the
delivery of cost-effective transit services for local agencies
and provide additional focus on customer service for transit
riders.\44\ Nearly two thirds of transit agencies contract
some, or all, of their operations, a practice that dates back
decades.\45\ At the same time, when transit agencies develop
poor contracts, focus on the least-cost bidder, and provide
inadequate worker compensation, the agencies and riders can be
left with substandard, overpriced service and the private
contractors must deal with suboptimal agreements.\46\ Post-
COVID, the prevalence of contracted services among transit
agencies has increased, especially among those agencies
operating in rural and suburban areas, both as a means to
provide needed flexibility in service and staffing and to
enhance responsiveness to meet shifting societal travel
behaviors.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ Eno Center for Transportation, Success Factors in Private
Contracting for Public Transportation, (Mar. 15, 2024), available at
https://enotrans.org/eno-resources/success-factors-in-private-
contracting-for-public-transportation/.
\45\ Id.
\46\ Id.
\47\ Jenni Bergal, Can Uber-like Public Transit Replace Old-
Fashioned Buses?, Stateline, (Aug. 17, 2022), available at https://
stateline.org/2022/08/17/can-uber-like-public-transit-replace-old-
fashioned-buses/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Microtransit is a type of shared mobility transit that uses
technology-enabled services to provide on-demand
transportation, often along non-fixed route pathways.\48\
Microtransit can provide broader mobility and access options,
including first- and last-mile connections, service for seniors
or people with disabilities, or to provide transit options in
places that lack the density to support fixed-route bus
service.\49\ Microtransit can be operated as either an in-house
service for public transportation agencies or on a contract
basis with private providers.\50\ Prior to the pandemic,
microtransit increased in popularity among many traditional
transit users, as technology developed to better directly
connect users of the service to transit options and scheduling
software provided efficiencies absent from the services
provided by fixed-route operations.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ Dep't of Transp., FTA, Shared Mobility Definitions, (last
updated Dec. 12, 2023), available at https://www.transit.dot.gov/
regulations-and-guidance/shared-mobility-definitions.
\49\ National Center For Applied Transit Technology, Microtransit:
What is it and Why Use it? Factsheet, (May 24, 2022), available at
https://n-catt.org/guidebooks/microtransit-what-is-it-and-why-use-it-
factsheet/.
\50\ Joel Volinski, Micro transit or General Public Demand-Response
Transit Services: State of the Practice, Transit Cooperative Research
Program, (2019), available at https://nap.nationalacademies.org/
catalog/25414/microtransit-or-general-public-demand-response-transit-
services-state-of-the-practice.
\51\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES TO TRANSIT FARES
In response to the loss of fare revenue resulting from
decreased ridership, some transit agencies have implemented
increased fares to meet budgetary demands. Large public
transportation agencies such as New Jersey Transit and the
Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority (WMATA)
have announced or implemented increased fares, as well as
smaller agencies, such as MetroLink Tulsa in Oklahoma and the
Napa Valley Transportation Authority in California.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ New Jersey Transit, New NJ Transit Fares to Take Effect April
1, (Mar. 27, 2002), available at https://www.njtransit.com/press-
releases/new-nj-transit-fares-take-effect-april-1; Justin George, Metro
Approves First Fare Hike in Five Years, Discount for Low-income Riders,
Wash. Post, (Apr. 14, 2024), available at https://
www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2023/04/14/dc-metro-fare-
increase/; Ben Abrams, Tulsa Bus Fares to Increase July 1, Public Radio
Tulsa, (May 14, 2024), available at https://www.publicradiotulsa.org/
local-regional/2024-05-14/tulsa-bus-fares-to-increase-july-1; https://
www.pressdemocrat.com/article/napa/napa-transit-agency-moving-to-
increase-vine-transit-bus-fares/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to APTA, at least 35 United States transit
agencies have eliminated fares, in an effort to increase
ridership numbers, an option that primarily developed as
agencies received FTA funding to cover operating costs but has
continued in some places beyond the end of the pandemic.\53\
Most of these transit agencies that have implemented fare-free
systems are small or medium-sized.\54\ Fare-free policies
require transit agency budgets to identify alternative funding
resources such as additional sales tax collections, state or
local assessment programs, or a greater reliance on potential
Federal funding intervention.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ Nathaniel Meyersohn, These Cities are Ending Fares on Transit.
Here's Why, CNN, (July 8, 2024), available at https://www.cnn.com/2023/
07/08/business/free-buses-us-public-transit/index.html.
\54\ Id.
\55\ Mariel Kirschen et al., Fare-Free Transit Evaluation
Framework, Transit Cooperative Research Program, (2023), available at
https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/26732/fare-free-transit-
evaluation-framework.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUS NETWORK REDESIGNS
Through a process of public comment and engagement, transit
agencies can better understand where transit service will be
most useful. Many legacy bus system maps were developed decades
ago and a fresh approach to bus routing and service can respond
to demographic and geographic changes of where people live,
work, and recreate.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ Transit Center, Bus Network Redesigns, (Jul. 12, 2017),
available at https://transitcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/
BusNetworkRedesign.compressed-2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP), which is
administered by the Transportation Research Board, defines
``bus network redesigns'' as a planning effort ``in which
transit agencies fundamentally alter the structure and
organization of their bus networks.'' \57\ TCRP identified some
of the objectives of a bus network redesigns as including: 1)
increase ridership; 2) address congested corridors; 3) better
match the system to current and future travel patterns; and, 4)
to adapt to transit investments and new technologies.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ Laura B. Byala, Katie Filardo, Oren Hirsch, Michael J. Walk,
James P. Cardenas, and Jinuk Hwang, Comprehensive Bus Network
Redesigns, Transportation Research Board (2019), available at https://
doi.org/10.17226/25487.
\58\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In recent years, dozens of transit agencies across the
United States have started or completed bus network redesign
efforts. A 2019 survey conducted by TCRP of 36 transit agencies
representing 22 states and one Canadian province found that 17
(47 percent) of those agencies have implemented bus network
redesigns, 16 (44 percent) were in the planning process, and
three were actively considering them.\59\ These 36 agencies
were geographically diverse and varied in size and modes
operated--15 of the systems operate in areas with no regular
heavy, light or commuter rail service.\60\ Small agencies
surveyed represented communities in Clemson, South Carolina;
Bloomington, Indiana; Erie, Pennsylvania; McAllen, Texas;
Salem, Oregon; Boise, Idaho; and Wilmington, North
Carolina.\61\ Additionally, in the last five years, the
following agencies have pursued bus network redesign efforts:
New Jersey Transit; Washington Metropolitan Area Transit
Authority; San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency;
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority; and the New York
Metropolitan Transportation Authority.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ Id.
\60\ Id.
\61\ Id.
\62\ New Jersey Transit, NewBus, (last accessed Jun. 6, 2024),
available at https://www.njtransit.com/newbus; Washington Metropolitan
Area Transit Authority, Better Bus: About the Project, (last accessed
Jun. 7, 2024), available at https://wmata.com/initiatives/plans/Better-
Bus/about-the-project.cfm; San Francisco Metropolitan Authority, Muni
Forward: More Reliable Transit for San Francisco, (last accessed Jun.
7, 2024), available at https://www.sfmta.com/projects/muni-forward;
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, Bus Network Redesign, (last
accessed Jun. 7, 2024), available at https://www.mbta.com/projects/bus-
network-redesign.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. IIJA FUNDING AND SAFETY PROGRAMS
FUNDING
IIJA, enacted in November 2021, reauthorized and expanded
Federal public transportation agency programs. IIJA authorized
$108.2 billion for public transportation, the largest Federal
investment in transit programs in United States history.\63\
This legislation authorized historic increases for both formula
and discretionary funding, as well as provided advanced
appropriations for transit programs.\64\ IIJA has provided a 77
percent increase over FTA annual funding amounts compared to
the previous authorization period.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ Dep't of Transp., FTA, Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, (last
updated Nov. 15, 2023), available at https://www.transit.dot.gov/BIL.
\64\ Dep't of Transp., FTA, Building Better Transit, (Jan. 7,
2022), available at https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/
files/2022-01/FTA-BIL-Implementation-Webinar-Presentation-01-07-
2022.pdf.
\65\ Cong. Rsch Serv., Federal Public Transportation Program: In
Brief, (R47002), (Mar. 15, 2024), available at https://
crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47002; DOT, Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act Authorized Funding, (last accessed Jun. 7,
2024), available at https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/
2022-01/DOT_Infrastructure_Investment_and_
Jobs_Act_Authorization_Table_%28IIJA%29.pdf; DOT, FTA, FAST Act
Estimated Program Totals, (Dec. 1, 2015), available at https://
www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/
FAST_ACT_FTA_Program_Totals.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the five-year span of IIJA, the law authorizes and
appropriates $33.5 billion to UZA Grants, $4.6 billion for
Rural Area Formula Grants, $23 billion for the Capital
Investment Grant program, $23.1 billion for State of Good
Repair Grants for transit system repair and maintenance, $5.6
billion for low- or no-emission vehicle grants, and nearly $4
billion for transit system accessibility and mobility grant
programs.\66\ IIJA also provided approximately $50 million
annually, on average, for the State Safety Oversight program,
which supports the oversight of safety on rail fixed guideway
transit systems not under the jurisdiction of the Federal
Railroad Administration.\67\ These funding amounts constitute a
77 percent increase over the prior FTA authorization included
in the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act (P.L.
114-94).\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ Dep't of Transp., Supra, note 63.
\67\ Dep't of Transp., FTA, Fact Sheet: Public Transportation
Safety Program, (Dec. 9, 2023), available at https://
www.transit.dot.gov/funding/grants/fact-sheet-public-transportation-
safety-program.
\68\ Dep't of Transp., Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
Authorized Funding, (last accessed Jun. 7, 2024), available at https://
www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2022-01/
DOT_Infrastructure_Investment_and_Jobs_Act_Authorization_Table_%28IIJA%2
9.pdf; DOT, FTA, FAST Act Estimated Program Totals, (Dec. 1, 2015),
available at https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/
FAST_ACT_FTA_Program_Totals.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAFETY PROGRAMS
IIJA also included provisions to continue and update FTA-
administered programs dedicated to transit rider and transit
worker safety, including updates to improve safety training and
reduce assaults on transit workers, revisions to transit agency
safety plans, the creation of new joint labor-management safety
committees, and the issuance of updated standards for transit
worker protections.\69\ On December 20, 2023, FTA published
Proposed General Directive 24-1: Required Actions Regarding
Assaults on Transit Workers, seeking comments on proposals to
address transit worker assaults and mitigation tactics to
include in Agency Safety Plans.\70\ On March 25, 2024, FTA
published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking related to Rail
Transit Roadway Worker Protection, including new performance
standard measures to prevent accidents, incidents, fatalities,
and injuries to transit workers in rail transit rights-of-
way.\71\ IIJA also updated the requirements for FTA's National
Public Transportation Safety Plan and the requirements for
transit agency Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans,
including requirements that FTA update safety management system
processes, expand de-escalation training, and promulgate
measures to address safety risks, including assaults, for
transit workers.\72\ On April 9, 2024, FTA published a Final
Rule updating Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan
regulations requiring greater safety-related engagement between
agency workers and management and updated safety data
standards.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ Dep't of Transp., Supra, note 63.
\70\ Proposed General Directive 24-1: Required Actions Regarding
Assaults on Transit Workers, 88 Fed. Reg. 88213 (Dec. 20, 2023),
available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/12/20/2023-
28002/proposed-general-directive-24-1-required-actions-regarding-
assaults-on-transit-workers.
\71\ Rail Transit Roadway Worker Protection, 89 Fed. Reg. 20605,
(Mar. 25, 2024), available at https://www.federalregister.gov/
documents/2024/03/25/2024-06251/rail-transit-roadway-worker-protection.
\72\ Dep't of Transp., FTA, Public Transportation Agency Safety
Plans, (last accessed May 22, 2024), available at https://
www.transit.dot.gov/PTASP.
\73\ Dep't of Transp., FTA, USDOT Finalizes Important National
Regulation to Promote Transit Safety and Protect Transit Workers, (Apr.
9, 2024), available at https://www.transit.dot.gov/about/news/usdot-
finalizes-important-national-regulation-promote-transit-safety-and-
protect-transit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. WITNESSES
LMs. MJ Maynard, Chief Executive Officer, Regional
Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada, on behalf of the
American Public Transportation Association (APTA)
LMs. Laura Hendricks, Chief Executive Officer,
Transdev, U.S., on behalf of the North American Transit
Alliance (NATA)
Mr. Marc Scribner, Senior Transportation Policy
Analyst, Reason Foundation
Mr. Greg Regan, President, Transportation Trades
Department, AFL-CIO
REVENUE, RIDERSHIP, AND POST-PANDEMIC LESSONS IN PUBLIC TRANSIT
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 13, 2024
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11 a.m., in room
2167 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Eric A. ``Rick''
Crawford (Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Crawford. The Subcommittee on Highways and Transit will
come to order.
Before we begin, I want to take just a quick opportunity to
wish my colleague, Ranking Member Holmes Norton, a happy
birthday. And I am not going to sing, and I am not even going
to ask how old you are, but I am just going to say happy
birthday and wish you many happy returns of the day.
I ask unanimous consent that the chairman be authorized to
declare a recess at any time during today's hearing. Without
objection, so ordered.
I also ask unanimous consent that Members not on the
subcommittee be permitted to sit with the subcommittee at
today's hearing and ask questions. Without objection, so
ordered.
As a reminder, if Members wish to insert a document into
the record, please email it to [email protected].
I now recognize myself for the purposes of an opening
statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD OF
ARKANSAS, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT
Mr. Crawford. I want to thank our witnesses for being here
today and offering their perspectives on lessons learned in
transit over the past several years.
Transit agencies provide transportation services in nearly
every community across the country: big, small, rural, and
urban.
In my home State of Arkansas, we have the Rock Region Metro
in Little Rock that operates buses and a 3-mile streetcar, the
University of Arkansas in Fayetteville maintains the local
system, and the Jonesboro Economical Transportation, JET,
allows my constituents to utilize bus service to get to and
from work, school, healthcare appointments, and all sorts of
other activities.
According to the Federal Transit Administration, our
national system of transit providers includes nearly 3,000
agencies that operate around the country.
Like all industries, COVID had a huge impact on transit
services, accelerating what were already declining ridership
rates and causing a historic decline in overall ridership and
fare revenue collections. Due to this, the FTA received
significant funding in the various COVID relief bills.
Specifically, FTA was provided nearly $70 billion to distribute
to transit agencies nationwide to cover short-term budgets
gaps, primarily operating expenses such as labor costs.
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, or IIJA, was
subsequently signed into law in November 2021, and provided a
further $108.2 billion for public transportation, the largest
amount of funding for those programs in American history. For
those keeping count, that is almost $180 billion in Federal
money that has been allocated since 2020 for transit programs.
IIJA alone provided a 77-percent increase over FTA funding
amounts from the prior authorization, and all this money will
be distributed to local transit agencies in just over a 6-year
window of time.
One goal for today's hearing will be to gain a better
understanding of how that massive amount of funding has been
used. I also hope that our witnesses will provide us with the
good, the bad, and the ugly in terms of changes to transit
operations implemented in response to the impacts of COVID-19.
I referenced the $70 billion the FTA received in pandemic
relief funding, and it is important to point out that not all
transit systems or agencies are created equal for the purposes
of funding allotment. Transit, broadly, includes all sorts of
transportation services, ranging from large bus systems and
subways to ferries and paratransit.
The Nation's largest and longest operating systems are
often referred to as ``legacy systems.'' Major American cities
which are home to these legacy systems include Boston, Chicago,
New York, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and right here in
Washington. Collectively, these six metropolitan regions
received more than half--53.6 percent--of all urban FTA-
apportioned funding from COVID relief packages. These cities
also happen to be where reports of crime, assaults, and attacks
on transit riders and workers have grown at an alarming rate.
In New York City, for example, the circumstances became so
dangerous to the public that, earlier this year, the Governor
was forced to deploy National Guard troops and State police
officers to help patrol the subway system.
Last month, I joined many of my Republican colleagues in
authoring a letter to FTA seeking more information about its
safety and security training programs and how it plans to
address the rising crime in and around transit systems. The
overwhelming sense of fear and danger for many transit users
escalates the challenge of increasing ridership to pre-pandemic
numbers.
It is important that this subcommittee gain insight into
how newly established ridership patterns are being considered
by the transit industry. According to the National Transit
Database, or NTD, the Federal repository for transit agency
performance data, monthly ridership on transit reached an all-
time high nearly a decade ago in October of 2014 and has been
on a slow but steady trend downward since that time.
While the pandemic did cause an unprecedented loss of daily
riders on transit systems, it only accelerated an ongoing
trend. The latest data shows that national transit use has
returned to about 79 percent of pre-pandemic levels. Seventy-
nine percent is better than where those ridership numbers were
a year ago, but it still means that about one out of every five
revenue-generating riders from before the pandemic has not
returned to regular use of the service.
So, how are transit agencies responding to this new normal
to deliver to their customers? Some have expanded their use of
private contracted services. Most have had to reorient
services, routes, and other operations, and many, especially in
large metro areas, have reduced or eliminated fares to try and
draw riders back.
I hope that our witnesses will address those various
strategies, including the financial math behind them, and
provide us with facts on the ground about how those adaptations
that have proven successful can be replicated.
[Mr. Crawford's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Arkansas, and Chairman, Subcommittee on
Highways and Transit
Transit agencies provide transportation services in nearly every
community across this country--big, small, rural, and urban.
In my home state of Arkansas, we have the Rock Region Metro in
Little Rock that operates buses and a three-mile streetcar, the
University of Arkansas in Fayetteville maintains a local system, and
the Jonesboro Economical Transportation (JET) allows my constituents to
utilize bus service to get to and from work, school, healthcare
appointments, and all sorts of other activities.
According to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), our national
system of transit providers includes nearly 3,000 agencies that operate
around the country.
Like all industries, COVID had a huge impact on transit services,
accelerating what were already declining ridership rates and causing a
historic decline in overall ridership and fare revenue collections. Due
to this, the FTA received significant funding in the various COVID-
relief bills. Specifically, FTA was provided nearly $70 billion to
distribute to transit agencies nationwide to cover short-term budget
gaps--primarily operating expenses such as labor costs.
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) was subsequently
signed into law in November 2021, and provided a further $108.2 billion
for public transportation, the largest amount of funding for those
programs in American history. For those keeping count, that's almost
$180 billion in federal money that has been allocated since 2020 for
transit programs.
IIJA alone provided a 77 percent increase over FTA funding amounts
from the prior authorization. And all of this money will be distributed
to local transit agencies in just over a six-year window of time.
One goal for today's hearing will be to gain a better understanding
of how that massive amount of funding has been used. I also hope that
our witnesses will provide us with the good, the bad, and the ugly in
terms of changes to transit operations implemented in response to the
impacts of COVID-19.
I referenced the $70 billion that FTA received in pandemic relief
funding, and I think it's important to point out that not all transit
systems or agencies are created equal for the purposes of funding
allotment. Transit, broadly, includes all sorts of transportation
services ranging from large bus systems and subways, to ferries and
paratransit.
The nation's largest and longest-operating systems are often
referred to as ``legacy systems.'' Major American cities, which are
home to these legacy systems include Boston, Chicago, New York City,
Philadelphia, San Francisco, and right here in Washington, D.C.
Collectively, these six metropolitan regions received more than half--
53.6 percent--of all urban area FTA-apportioned funding from the COVID
relief packages. These cities also happen to be where reports of crime,
assaults, and attacks on transit riders and workers have grown at an
alarming rate.
In New York City, for example, the circumstances became so
dangerous to the public that earlier this year the Governor was forced
to deploy National Guard troops and state police officers to help
patrol the subway system.
Last month, I joined many of my Republican colleagues in authoring
a letter to FTA seeking more information about its safety and security
training programs and how it plans to address the rising crime in and
around transit systems. The overwhelming sense of fear and danger for
many transit users escalates the challenge of increasing ridership to
pre-pandemic numbers.
It is important that this subcommittee gain insight into how newly
established ridership patterns are being considered by the transit
industry. According to the National Transit Database (NTD), the federal
repository for transit agency performance data, monthly ridership on
transit reached an all-time high nearly a decade ago in October 2014
and has been on a slow but steady trend downward since then.
While the pandemic did cause an unprecedented loss of daily riders
on transit systems, it only accelerated an ongoing trend. The latest
data shows that national transit use has returned to about 79 percent
of pre-pandemic levels. Seventy-nine percent is better than where those
ridership numbers were a year ago, but it still means that about one
out of every five revenue-generating riders from before the pandemic
has not returned to regular use of the service.
So how are transit agencies responding to this new normal to
deliver for their customers? Some have expanded their use of private
contracted services. Most have had to reorient services, routes, and
other operations. And many, especially in large metro areas, have
reduced or eliminated fares to try and draw riders back.
I hope that our witnesses will address these various strategies,
including the financial math behind them, and provide us with facts on
the ground about how those adaptations that have proven successful can
be replicated.
Mr. Crawford. Again, I want to thank all our witnesses for
being here, and I look forward to your testimony.
I now recognize Ranking Member Norton for an opening
statement for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON OF THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND
TRANSIT
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I would
like to thank subcommittee Chair Rick Crawford for holding this
hearing on public transportation.
During COVID-19, that pandemic, Americans were reminded
about how important public transit is.
Millions of essential workers rely on public transit to get
to their jobs. During the worst days of the pandemic,
busdrivers, train operators, station managers, and maintenance
personnel risked their safety to make sure that other essential
workers could get to their jobs. In doing so, hundreds of
public transit workers lost their lives to COVID-19. We owe
them a debt of gratitude, along with our continued commitment
to give public transit employees safe workplaces and fair
compensation.
I would like to thank Greg Regan, the president of the
Transportation Trades Department, for being here today on
behalf of those workers.
The COVID relief funds, including the more than $30 billion
provided by this subcommittee as part of the American Rescue
Plan, were part of our commitment to public transit workers and
riders alike. Congress built on that commitment with the
passage of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which
provided a record $108 billion in funding for public
transportation.
Together, these investments, along with support from State
and local governments, have created a foundation from which
transit agencies can rebuild and recover.
Changes in ridership, travel patterns, and commuting mean
that transit agencies must rethink their service to ensure that
they can meet the needs of their communities.
Here in the Nation's Capital that I represent, the
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority has made several
recent changes that have supported its recovery. Last year, it
launched Metro Lift, a program to provide reduced transit fares
to low-income residents. It also increased service, including
on nights and weekends, making public transit a more reliable
and efficient option for travelers.
And Metro is also working on redesigning its bus network.
The changes will be based on extensive public comments, with
the goal of improving connectivity, equity, and access.
Metro's efforts are already paying off. Earlier this month,
Metro bus ridership surpassed pre-pandemic levels, and
Metrorail continues to show strong ridership recovery.
Metro's success is critical to our region's public transit
riders. But it is critical to our economy--without public
transit, our region would lose more than 9 billion--that is
billion with a B--dollars' worth of economic activity to
traffic gridlock, delays in freight shipments, and lack of
access to jobs--and to the environment.
And as we heard in recent testimony in this subcommittee,
public transit is also critically important to riders in
suburban and rural areas who depend on bus and paratransit
service for access to jobs and medical appointments.
Public transit is among the safest transportation modes and
is 10 times safer than driving.
The benefits of public transit are clear. It is equally
clear that if we want the benefits that public transit brings,
all levels of Government must be willing to invest in it, all
levels.
Like many other modes of transportation, including most
highways, public transit systems are not intended to turn a
profit.
The benefits from public transit investment include more
successful businesses and stronger local economies. They
include good jobs for public transit workers and connections to
jobs for other workers. They include avoiding traffic
fatalities and fewer commutes down gridlocked highways. They
include cleaner air and better health outcomes.
If those are the benefits we seek in our communities, we
must be willing to invest in them.
I look forward to working with colleagues to continue this
committee's long history of supporting public transit.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
[Ms. Norton's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Delegate in
Congress from the District of Columbia, and Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
I would like to thank Subcommittee Chair Rick Crawford for holding
this hearing on public transportation.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, Americans were reminded just how
important public transit is.
Millions of essential workers rely on public transit to get to
their jobs. During the worst days of the pandemic, bus drivers, train
operators, station managers and maintenance personnel risked their
safety to make sure that other essential workers could get to their
jobs.
In doing so, hundreds of public transit workers lost their lives to
COVID-19. We owe them a debt of gratitude, along with our continued
commitment to give public transit employees safe workplaces and fair
compensation.
I would like to thank Greg Regan, the President of the
Transportation Trades Department, for being here today on behalf of
those workers.
The COVID relief funds, including the more than $30 billion
provided by this Subcommittee as part of the American Rescue Plan, were
part of our commitment to public transit workers and riders alike.
Congress built on that commitment with the passage of the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which provided a record $108
billion in funding for public transportation.
Together, these investments--along with support from state and
local governments--have created a foundation from which transit
agencies can rebuild and recover.
Changes in ridership, travel patterns and commuting mean that
transit agencies must rethink their service to ensure they can meet the
needs of their communities.
Here in the nation's capital, the Washington Metropolitan Area
Transit Authority has made several recent changes that have supported
its recovery. Last year, it launched ``Metro Lift,'' a program to
provide reduced transit fares to low-income residents.
It also increased service, including on nights and weekends, making
public transit a more reliable and efficient option for travelers.
And Metro is also working on redesigning its bus network. The
changes will be based on extensive public comments, with the goal of
improving connectivity, equity and access.
Metro's efforts are already paying off. Earlier this month,
Metrobus ridership surpassed pre-pandemic levels, and Metrorail
continues to show strong ridership recovery.
Metro's success is critical to our region's public transit riders.
But it is critical to our economy--without public transit, our region
would lose more than $9 billion worth of economic activity due to
traffic gridlock, delays in freight shipments and lack of access to
jobs--and to the environment.
And as we heard in recent testimony to this Subcommittee, public
transit is also critically important to riders in suburban and rural
areas, who depend on bus and paratransit service for access to jobs and
medical appointments.
Public transit is also among the safest transportation modes and is
ten times safer than driving.
The benefits of public transit are clear. It is equally clear that
if we want the benefits that public transit brings, all levels of
government must be willing to invest in it.
Like many other modes of transportation--including most highways--
public transit systems are not intended to turn a profit.
The benefits from public transit investment include more successful
businesses and stronger local economies. They include good jobs for
public transit workers and connections to jobs for other workers. They
include avoided traffic fatalities and fewer commutes down gridlocked
highways. They include cleaner air and better health outcomes.
If those are the benefits we seek for our communities, we must be
willing to invest in them. I look forward to working with colleagues to
continue this Committee's long history of supporting public transit.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you.
I now recognize full committee Ranking Member Larsen for up
to 60 seconds.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Crawford. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICK LARSEN OF WASHINGTON, RANKING
MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Mr. Larsen of Washington. You might be surprised, I might
finish much sooner than that. But thank you, Chair Crawford and
Ranking Member Norton, for holding this hearing.
Today's hearing allows the committee to examine public
transit operations and the unique challenges that transit
agencies face emerging from the COVID-19 pandemic.
Now, during the pandemic, we saw how communities across the
country depend on their transit systems and how essential these
services are. Transit agencies and their workers played an
important role. The dedicated public service of transit workers
ensured that doctors, nurses, and other essential workers were
able to get to their work.
That is why Congress delivered for transit agencies and
their workers with nearly $70 billion in emergency funding.
These dollars ensured that these essential mobility services
kept operating. And today, transit agencies are rising to the
challenge as they explore new ways to provide efficient, safe,
and quality service while navigating the changing needs of
riders and communities post-pandemic.
During the pandemic, some businesses shifted to remote
work, people moved to new communities or States, and many
invested in buying a car or a bike as a mode of transportation.
Riders continue to return to transit, but current ridership
volume nationwide is about 80 percent of what it was in 2019.
This drop in ridership has had lingering impacts on transit
agency operations and budgets, which rely on fare revenue. In
2020, transit agency fare revenue nationwide dropped by nearly
half, and roughly 50 percent of transit agencies reported
having to make service modifications in response to the loss of
riders and revenue.
As ridership has returned, fare revenue is also rebounding,
but transit agencies continue to need to cover the gap in their
operational costs.
Like so many parts of the transportation industry, many
transit agencies have also had workforce challenges, which
directly impacts service levels. While there is competition
with the private sector for qualified commercial drivers,
agencies have had some success with enhanced recruiting and
retention programs and incentives.
Now, in order to address these current challenges, agencies
must start by reviewing the needs of their communities, how
their legacy routes and operations can improve, and what new
service will grow ridership.
Public opinion surveys show that people want frequent
service, more accurate trip information, routes that are more
convenient for riders' travel needs, cleaner vehicles and
stations, and improved safety on board vehicles. Transit
agencies are acting on this. Dozens of agencies across the U.S.
are seeking public input as they redesign their bus networks,
build new transit projects, and adapt service levels for post-
pandemic demands.
In my district, Community Transit has been leading several
efforts to modernize and adapt service, including developing a
new plan for a bus network redesign to prepare for light rail
that is coming to Snohomish County this summer. This plan
enhances bus connections with the new light rail station,
expands access to routes with more frequent service, and
adjusts service levels based on post-pandemic rider trends.
This is a critical effort that ensures the agency is
operating efficiently and responding to the changing needs of
northwest Washington travelers while improving the overall
rider experience.
Additionally, this particular agency is working on more
flexible service options to address transportation gaps in the
community and better connect riders to hospitals, grocery
stores, job centers, and eventually the new Lynnwood Transit
Center.
So, while transit systems were hard hit by the pandemic, we
have seen positives in the response and recovery. Transit
remains an efficient, safe, and affordable mode of
transportation, and I know, as a former board member of
Community Transit in my district and a rider on Metro, even as
recently as this morning when I am here in DC working.
So, thank you to each of the witnesses for being here
today, and I look forward to the discussion.
I yield back.
[Mr. Larsen of Washington's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Washington, and Ranking Member, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure
Thank you, Chairman Crawford and Ranking Member Norton, for holding
this hearing.
Today's hearing allows the Committee to examine public transit
operations and the unique challenges transit agencies face emerging
from the COVID-19 pandemic.
During the pandemic, we saw how communities across the country
depend on their transit systems and how essential these services are.
Transit agencies and their workers played an important role. The
dedicated public service of transit workers ensured doctors, nurses and
other essential workers were able to get to their jobs.
That is why Congress delivered for transit agencies and their
workers with nearly $70 billion in emergency funding. These dollars
ensured that these essential mobility services kept operating.
Today, transit agencies are rising to the challenge as they explore
new ways to provide efficient, safe and quality service while
navigating the changing needs of riders and communities post-pandemic.
During the pandemic, some businesses shifted to remote work, people
moved to new communities or states and many invested in buying a car or
a bike as a mode of transportation.
Riders continue to return to transit, but current ridership volume
nationwide is about 80 percent of what it was in 2019.
This drop in ridership has had lingering impacts on transit agency
operations and budgets, which rely on fare revenue. In 2020, transit
agency fare revenue nationwide dropped by nearly half, and roughly 50
percent of transit agencies reported having to make service
modifications in response to the loss of riders and revenue.
As ridership has returned, fare revenue is also rebounding, but
transit agencies continue to need to cover the gap in their operational
costs.
Like so many parts of the transportation industry, many transit
agencies have also had workforce challenges, which directly impacts
service levels. While there is competition with the private sector for
qualified commercial drivers, agencies have had some success with
enhanced recruiting and retention programs and incentives.
In order to address these current challenges, agencies must start
by reviewing the needs of their communities, how their legacy routes
and operations can improve and what new service will grow ridership.
Public opinion surveys show that people want frequent service, more
accurate trip information, routes that are more convenient for riders'
travel needs, cleaner vehicles and stations and improved safety on
board vehicles.
Transit agencies are acting on this. Dozens of agencies across the
U.S. are seeking public input as they redesign their bus networks,
build new transit projects and adapt service levels for post-pandemic
demands.
In my district, Community Transit has been leading several efforts
to modernize and adapt service, including developing a new plan for a
bus network redesign to prepare for light rail coming to Snohomish
County this summer. This plan enhances bus connections with the new
light rail station, expands access to routes with more frequent service
and adjusts service levels based on post-pandemic rider trends.
This is a critical effort that ensures the agency is operating
efficiently and responding to the changing needs of Northwest
Washington travelers while improving the overall rider experience.
Additionally, Community Transit is working on more flexible service
options to address transportation gaps in the community and better
connect riders to hospitals, grocery stores, job centers and eventually
the new Lynnwood Transit Center.
While transit systems were hard hit by the pandemic, we have seen
positives in their response and recovery.
Transit remains an efficient, safe and affordable mode of
transportation, and I know, as a former board member of Community
Transit in my district and a rider of the metro--as recently as this
morning--when I am in D.C.
Thank you to each of the witnesses for being here today, and I look
forward to the discussion.
Mr. Crawford. I thank the gentleman.
I now want to welcome our witnesses once again for being
here today.
I want to explain the lighting system. It should be pretty
self-explanatory. Green means go. Yellow means step on the gas
because it is fixing to turn red. And when it turns red, you
might hear a little of this [tapping gavel] just as a reminder
that that means to stop. So, that having been said, I just want
to make sure you are aware of that.
I ask unanimous consent that the witnesses' full statements
be included in the record. Without objection, so ordered.
I also ask unanimous consent that the record of today's
hearing remain open until such time as our witnesses have
provided answers to any questions that may have been submitted
to them in writing. Without objection, so ordered.
I also ask unanimous consent that the record remain open
for 15 days for any additional comments and information
submitted by Members or witnesses to be included in the record
of today's hearing. Without objection, so ordered.
As your written testimony has been made part of the record,
the subcommittee asks that you limit your oral remarks to 5
minutes.
Before our first witness, Ms. Maynard, gives testimony, I
would like to recognize Representative Titus to give a short
introduction.
Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Yellow means step on the gas and go but not when you are
driving, only when you are sitting in this committee.
Mr. Crawford. That is a little different than our
traditional lighting system.
Ms. Titus. I just want to clarify that.
So, thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure for me to get
to introduce M.J. Maynard, who is here representing the
American Public Transportation Association. When you hear her
qualifications, I am sure you will agree with me that she is
the exact kind of person we need to listen to and learn from as
we approach transit and how it affects our constituents, our
businesses, and our communities.
Ms. Maynard is a whip-smart leader of a large and vital
government agency. She is a recognized expert on all things
transportation around the country, and she is my good friend.
So, I am glad she is here.
M.J. is the chief executive officer of the Regional
Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada, which is the only
agency nationwide that operates a one-stop shop for public
transportation, traffic management, roadway and construction
funding, and regional and transportation planning. This allows
more efficient operations, as the statistics under M.J.'s
leadership show.
The RTC serves an average of 153,000 riders every weekday,
while maintaining the third lowest operating cost in the
country. Over 1.8 million residents in southern Nevada,
including my district, which is the heart of the valley, live
near an RTC bus stop, which provides access to almost every
hospital, college, and over 90 percent of the grocery stores in
the region.
M.J. understands the importance of improving connectivity
and accessibility so that we can continue to move southern
Nevada forward.
Under her leadership, the RTC has also made sure advances
in infrastructure serve our tourist economy and benefit every
subcommunity within the valley. That is why M.J. has been
recognized with numerous awards, including Nevada Business'
Most Respected Leaders in 2023, Las Vegas Inc.'s Women
Inspiring Nevada award in 2022, Nevada Business Magazine's
Women to Watch in 2021, and the National Association of Women
Business Owners 2021 Women of Distinction award in the Glass
Ceiling category.
It is an honor to have you here, and we look forward to
your testimony and continuing to work together. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Crawford. And with that, Ms. Maynard, you are
recognized for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF M.J. MAYNARD, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, REGIONAL
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA, ON BEHALF OF THE
AMERICAN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION; LAURA HENDRICKS,
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TRANSDEV U.S., ON BEHALF OF THE NORTH
AMERICAN TRANSIT ALLIANCE; MARC SCRIBNER, SENIOR TRANSPORTATION
POLICY ANALYST, REASON FOUNDATION; AND GREG REGAN, PRESIDENT,
TRANSPORTATION TRADES DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO
TESTIMONY OF M.J. MAYNARD, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, REGIONAL
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA, ON BEHALF OF THE
AMERICAN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION
Ms. Maynard. Thank you.
And thank you, Congresswoman Titus, for that kind
introduction. We are extremely grateful for your efforts to
help us deliver essential public transit services to the people
of southern Nevada, including the Maryland Parkway Bus Rapid
Transit project.
Chairman Crawford, Ranking Member Norton, and members of
the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on
behalf of the American Public Transportation Association, or
APTA.
Again, my name is M.J. Maynard. I am the CEO for the
Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada.
RTC is the 14th busiest bus system in the United States. We
provide over 150,000 daily trips, with 80 percent of our
transit riders going to work or looking for work. Our system is
a model of transit efficiency. We have the highest fare box
recovery ratio, the lowest public subsidy, and the third lowest
operating costs in the Nation.
I serve as vice chair of APTA whose broad membership
represents a $79 billion industry that directly employs more
than 430,000 people and supports millions of private-sector
jobs across America. For every $1 invested in public
transportation, it generates $5 in long-term economic returns.
And the impacts are felt across the Nation. More than 2,000
suppliers in 48 States and Washington, DC, including smaller
urban and rural areas, where buses, railcars, and their parts
are often manufactured. Public transportation does far more
than carry people from their destination to another. Our
industry helps carry the economy.
This morning, I want to share with the subcommittee why
public transit is critical in America's future. We know that
investment in public transportation helps communities of all
sizes flourish, connecting workers to jobs, students to school,
and people to healthcare.
During the pandemic, we continued to serve our communities
despite significant operating challenges. We thank Congress for
passing COVID-19 emergency relief. With this critical funding,
transit agencies were able to keep riders and employees safe
and get people to essential jobs at hospitals, pharmacies, and
community centers.
Today, 99.8 percent of the COVID-19 transit funding has
been obligated. The pandemic and resulting remote work trend
took a toll on transit ridership fare revenue and State and
local funding. But transit ridership continues to grow and we
have achieved, as you heard, 80 percent of pre-pandemic levels.
In 2023, transit riders took 7.1 billion trips, and that is
an average of 24 million trips each day. That represents a 16-
percent increase even though office occupancy remains stagnant
at 50 percent.
Public transit agencies have redesigned services and routes
to meet changing travel preferences. In addition, transit
agencies are harnessing new smart technologies to help better
serve our customers, reduce operating costs, and enhance
safety.
For example, RTC has invested more than $33 million in
additional safety and security measures, including installing
GPS-based security response devices on our 450 fixed-route
buses. We are using community project funding to implement a
pedestrian detection and collision avoidance system that uses
artificial intelligence.
Today, traveling by public transit, as you heard, is 10
times safer for passengers than traveling by car, and we are
working to make it even safer.
The future of America's mobility depends on Federal, State,
and local partnerships. Given the enormous impact of our
industry on our Nation's economy, if you have a transit
problem, you have an economic problem.
The historic Bipartisan Infrastructure Law clearly
recognized that while transit services are delivered locally or
regionally, our industry contributes nationally to jobs,
economic growth, and productivity. Therefore, we urge Congress
to honor the promise of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and
fully fund public transit and passenger rail in the fiscal year
2025 THUD Appropriations Act.
These funds will provide the resources necessary to invest
in our Nation's economic future, bringing systems to a state of
good repair, providing rural access, and driving innovation and
clean technologies.
Capital investment grants will help us address mobility
demands of growing communities like the Las Vegas BRT project,
which will transform a 13-mile corridor by connecting the Harry
Reid International Airport, UNLV, Sunrise Hospital, an area
that is home to 90,000 residents, 85,000 jobs, and 9,000 daily
transit riders.
Again, thank you, Congresswoman Titus, for ensuring these
Federal funds are made available.
This is just 1 of the 9,000 transit projects made possible
by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
In closing, I believe America's strength and progress has
always been built on mobility and the opportunity it provides.
In each of your districts, public transportation is changing
lives. It provides real economic, social, and environmental
benefits to your constituents and communities.
Mr. Chairman, on behalf of APTA, thank you for including us
in this important hearing.
[Ms. Maynard's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of M.J. Maynard, Chief Executive Officer, Regional
Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada, on behalf of the American
Public Transportation Association
Introduction
Chairman Crawford, Ranking Member Norton, Representative Titus, and
Members of the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, on behalf of the American Public
Transportation Association (APTA) and its more than 1,600 public- and
private-sector member organizations, thank you for the opportunity to
testify on Revenue, Ridership, and Post-Pandemic Lessons in Public
Transit.
My name is M.J. Maynard and I am Vice Chair of APTA, an
international association representing the $79 billion public
transportation industry that directly employs more than 430,000 people
and supports millions of private-sector jobs.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ APTA represents all modes of public transportation and all
elements of the industry from public agencies to manufacturers. APTA
members include public transportation systems; planning, design,
construction, and finance firms; product and service providers;
academic institutions; state transit associations; and state
departments of transportation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I also serve as CEO of the Regional Transportation Commission of
Southern Nevada (RTC). RTC is the public transit provider, traffic
management agency, and Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for
Southern Nevada. As the MPO, RTC works with local jurisdictions to
plan, program, and fund roadway and other surface transportation
projects in the Las Vegas region. RTC's public transit service is a
core component of our mission--it connects our region's underserved
communities, provides access and opportunities for 2.3 million
residents to get to work, school, home, healthcare services, and social
activities. It is the 14th busiest bus system in the United States,
serving an average of 153,000 boardings every weekday. In 2023, RTC
provided more than 50 million passenger trips, and 80 percent of our
transit riders use the service to get to and from work. RTC operates
the most efficient bus-only transit system in the country, with the
highest farebox recovery ratio, lowest public subsidy, and third lowest
operating costs.
On behalf of APTA, I would like to share with the Subcommittee
issues that are critical to our industry, including ridership, revenue,
and the need for sustained investment. Investment in public
transportation helps communities of all sizes flourish--connecting
workers to jobs, students to school, and people to healthcare.
Accessible, affordable public transportation helps families, students,
and workers save money and grow the economy.
Public Transit Is Essential
Public transit is an essential service--providing mobility options
for Americans, supporting economic growth, improving the environment,
making our roads safer for drivers and pedestrians, and serving
critical roles during natural disasters and other emergencies. When the
COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the lives of every American, public transit
served as an essential lifeline. Public transportation systems brought
healthcare professionals to the frontlines, delivered groceries and
medicine to at-risk populations, and connected essential workers to
their places of work.
Given official declarations to close businesses and impose stay-at-
home orders, as well as other measures such as a dramatic increase in
remote work, public transit agencies across the nation faced severe
ridership declines and state and local revenue losses. Yet, we
continued to serve our communities despite significantly increased
operating costs and dramatically reduced sources of funding, including
fares and other revenues. In most places, fare collection was suspended
for safety reasons.
We thank Congress for recognizing public transit's essential role
and passing COVID-19 emergency relief legislation to provide
significant support for transit operating costs that was essential to
the very survival of public transit agencies. Transit agencies invested
these emergency funds in services that are vital to their communities.
These funds also allowed agencies to continue investing in their
capital programs, such as funding state-of-good-repair projects.
Together, these efforts enabled agencies to maintain good-paying jobs
and help the U.S. economy recover in the wake of the pandemic.
Today, 99.8 percent of the COVID-19 public transit emergency funds
are obligated to specific projects and more than 90 percent of these
funds are fully expended.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ridership Recovery
Public transit is a key driver in building a 21st-century
transportation system that will support economic recovery, provide
opportunities, address climate resilience, and increase our global
competitiveness. After falling to 20 percent of pre-pandemic levels in
April 2020, public transit ridership has reached 80 percent of pre-
pandemic levels. For instance, in 2023, ridership increased by 16
percent, and a growing number of systems have surpassed their pre-
pandemic ridership. These facts demonstrate the tremendous resiliency
of this industry.
It is important to recognize the enormous scale of our nation's
public transit ridership. Transit riders took 7.1 billion trips in
2023--an average of 24 million trips each day. Success in ridership
recovery has been dependent on transit service delivery and reliability
and external factors, such as the makeup of local economies.
In Southern Nevada, transit ridership has recovered to the national
average of nearly 80 percent of pre-pandemic levels. At RTC, transit
riders took more than 50 million trips in 2023. To date, RTC ridership
recovery has been driven by its daily riders, rather than tourists on
the Las Vegas Strip.\2\ Thus, we have more room to grow in the coming
year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ RTC's general ridership (83 percent) has recovered at a much
faster pace than its Las Vegas Strip/tourist ridership (56 percent).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2023, public transit increased 16 percent nationwide,\3\ even
though office occupancy remained stagnant. According to Kastle Systems,
throughout all of 2023, office occupancy remained flat at approximately
50 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Appendix A for APTA data comparing bus and rail transit
ridership.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Developing Solution-Oriented Service Models
Public transit agencies have outpaced the return to office by
developing new solution-oriented service models to address specific
community needs: people living in areas currently underserved by
transit, individuals who require wheelchair access, and riders who
commute during off-peak, late-night hours. On-demand ride-sharing
services, vans and shuttle buses, and other micro-mobility options
(e.g., bikes, scooters) provide customers the access and flexibility
they need to connect to transit or their final destinations, reduce
commute times, and decrease reliance on personal cars.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See generally, APTA, Mobility Innovation: The Case for Federal
Investment and Support [https://www.apta.com/wp-content/uploads/APTA-
Mobility-Innovation-Case-Studies-Final-Report-07.28.21.pdf] (July
2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, public transit agencies are harnessing new smart
technologies to better serve customers and enhance safety. As traffic
manager for the Las Vegas region, RTC received a $3.5 million grant to
implement a pedestrian detection/collision avoidance system that uses
artificial intelligence (AI) to identify potential hazards and alert
drivers in real time. The system is comprised of multiple smart cameras
equipped with night-vision technology, strategically placed to maximize
coverage of vulnerable road users who enter designated danger zones
surrounding the bus; interior and exterior speakers that provide
audible alerts to warn drivers and vulnerable road users of a potential
collision; and driver alert displays within the bus that warn the
operator of a potential hazard.
Beyond ridership numbers and percentages, it is critically
important to recognize why people take public transit--it creates
opportunities. In Southern Nevada, based on a recent survey,
approximately 80 percent of customers use RTC to get to and from work
or to seek employment. Particularly for lower-income workers, public
transit is a lifeline. According to a recent APTA study, people can
save more than $13,000 each year by using public transit instead of
driving.
State and Local Fiscal Impacts
Public transit agencies navigated the unprecedented decreases in
ridership and fare revenue resulting from the pandemic by adapting
services to different needs, including aligning service patterns,
investing in innovative projects to draw ridership, and improving
capital planning. While ridership levels have recovered to 80 percent
of pre-pandemic levels nationwide, they vary by mode and agency. The
slower recovery of rail ridership has a significant impact on multi-
modal transit agency fare revenues because rail systems generally have
a much higher fare box recovery ratio compared to bus systems. In
addition, there is some evidence that fare evasion has increased in the
last three years leading to lost revenue for public transit systems.
Transit agencies are making significant efforts to reduce fare
evasion.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ For example, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
(WMATA) is retrofitting faregates with new barriers to prevent fare
evasion, resulting in a 79 percent decrease in fare evasion at those
stations. Metro Transit Police have also stepped-up fare enforcement
efforts. Systemwide, fare evasion is down 69 percent compared to last
year. WMATA, With Ridership Up and Crime, Fare Evasion Down, Metro
Continues to Thrive [https://www.wmata.com/about/news/With-Ridership-
Up-and-Crime-Fare-Evasion-Down-Metro-Continues-to-Thrive.cfm] (April 4,
2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The loss of farebox revenue has a much more pronounced impact on
public transit agency operating budgets because farebox and other
agency revenues (such as advertising) provide on average 35 percent of
transit agency operating budgets. Conversely, these revenues provide
only 11 percent of capital budgets.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The Federal Government provides one-third of capital funding
but less than 10 percent of operations funding. Under current law,
public transit agencies in large, urbanized areas (i.e., areas with a
population of 200,000 or more) may not use Federal transit formula
funds for operating assistance. These funds are only available for
capital projects. Conversely, transit agencies in smaller communities
may use Federal transit formula funds for operating or capital
expenses, although the Federal share is lower for operating assistance
grants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, operating costs have increased substantially since
2019. Inflation has increased the price of goods and services that
transit agencies purchase. The tight labor market has led agencies to
increase compensation to attract and retain workers, which has also
increased costs.
As a result of these increased costs, together with the fact that
fare revenues have not fully recovered, some transit agencies are
facing looming operating budget shortfalls, or a ``fiscal cliff''. In a
2023 APTA survey, one-half of responding agencies (51 percent)
indicated that they will experience a fiscal cliff in the next five
fiscal years.\7\ Many public transit agencies have implemented
efficiencies to reduce their costs and worked with their communities to
identify state and local funding sources to address operating
shortfalls. In 2023 and 2024, many States, including New York,
California, Minnesota, New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, and the District
of Columbia, have reached State and local budget agreements that
provide tens of billions of dollars of new State and local funding for
public transit through a combination of revenue, funding, cost
reduction measures, and fare increases. These agreements include
everything from sales taxes and casino licensing fees to streamlining
operations and fare increases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ APTA, Public Transit Agencies Face Severe Fiscal Cliff [https:/
/www.apta.com/wp-content/uploads/APTA-Survey-Brief-Fiscal-Cliff-June-
2023.pdf] (June 2023). Seven of 10 large agencies (71 percent) stated
that they are likely to experience a fiscal cliff in the next five
years. The operating budget shortfalls that the largest agencies expect
to encounter range from 10 to 30 percent of their operating budgets.
Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Building for the Future
APTA is sincerely thankful for the historic investments in public
transportation in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, commonly
referred to as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL). The BIL
provides $108.2 billion for public transit over five years (FY 2022
through FY 2026).
Transit agencies across the country are working toward a state of
good repair, providing economic opportunities to their communities, and
driving innovation and clean technology. For example:
The Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District
added 26 miles to double track its South Shore Line. It eliminates 13
grade crossings, adds 14 new weekday trains, and cuts the travel to
Chicago by 30 minutes. The project, awarded a construction grant
agreement in 2021, was completed on time and under budget and opened
last month.
Valley Metro also completed its 2021 Northwest Extension
Phase II light rail project ahead of schedule and under budget. The
project connects the West Valley to downtown Phoenix and neighboring
communities and is already averaging 50,000 riders per month since
opening in January 2024. Phoenix is now working on redeveloping its new
terminus--a former mall--into multi-family housing, hotels,
restaurants, and new retail space.
Skagit Transit, in a small Washington State community, is
moving its operations facility, currently located in a 100-year
floodplain, to a new facility with clean energy infrastructure that
will enable a transition to a zero-emission fleet. In addition, the
facility will help Skagit Transit, as a partner in county emergency
preparedness operations, support community resiliency during emergency
events.
APTA urges Congress to honor the promise of the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law and build upon this success. Specifically, we urge
Congress to fully fund public transportation as authorized by the BIL:
provide at least $21.9 billion for public transit and
$20.6 billion for passenger rail in the FY 2025 Transportation, Housing
and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act; and
accelerate project delivery by enacting commonsense
regulatory reform, such as streamlining real property acquisition for
public transit projects.
This BIL funding is an investment in our nation's economic recovery
and future.
Creating Jobs, Growing the Economy, and Providing Opportunities
Each $1 invested in public transportation generates $5 in long-term
economic returns.\8\ Every $1 billion invested in public transportation
creates or sustains nearly 50,000 jobs across the entire economy,
including in non-transit industries.\9\ Investment in public
transportation creates jobs in communities of all sizes throughout the
country, including in smaller urban and rural areas where buses,
railcars, and their parts are often manufactured.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ APTA, Economic Impact of Public Transportation Investment--2020
Update [https://www.apta.com/research-technical-resources/research-
reports/economic-impact-of-public-transportation-investment/] (February
2020).
\9\ Id. Public transportation can also enhance the productivity of
industries not directly associated with transit, such as the technology
industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, more than $42 billion, or almost 60 percent, of public
transit investment flows directly to the private sector--a 65 percent
increase since 2000.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
In addition, the public transportation industry provides investment
opportunities across the country, ranging from manufacturing to design
and construction, to operations and maintenance, to data management and
technological innovation. Public transportation manufacturing relies on
more than 2,000 suppliers in 48 States and Washington, DC. And public
transportation agencies rely on their private-sector partners to help
deliver innovative transit projects efficiently.
For instance, a Capital Investment Grants (CIG) project in
California may include thousands of construction jobs onsite, but its
rolling stock, parts, or materials may come from manufacturers and
suppliers in Alabama, Georgia, Kansas, or Pennsylvania.
Bus Manufacturing [https://www.apta.com/wp-content/uploads/Bus-
Schematic-2019-Updated-Logo-03.08.2023.pdf] and Rail Manufacturing
[https://www.apta.com/wp-content/uploads/Rail-Schematic-2019-Updated-
Logo-03.08.2023.pdf] Schematics:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Moreover, after a new transit line is constructed and operational,
there are ongoing, permanent economic growth and development impacts
enabled by the transportation improvements and associated economic
productivity gains.
Traveling Safely to Your Destination
For the public transportation industry, safety is a core value--a
non-negotiable operating principle and promise to our riders and
workers. The men and women responsible for managing and operating
public transportation systems are fully committed to the safety of
their passengers, employees, systems, and the public. As a result,
traveling by public transportation is 10 times safer for passengers
than traveling by car, and modest increases in transit ridership can
cut traffic fatalities by one-half.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See APTA, Public Transit Is Key Strategy in Advancing Vision
Zero, Eliminating Traffic Fatalities [https://www.apta.com/wp-content/
uploads/Resources/resources/hottopics/Documents/
APTA%20VZN%20Transit%20Safety%20Brief%208.2018.pdf] (August 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rider-focused investments to improve service, safety, and
accessibility are why ridership is increasing across the country. To
address transit safety concerns, many agencies are adopting a layered
approach, using ``transit ambassadors'', mental health professionals,
public awareness campaigns, and more law enforcement personnel.
At RTC, safety and security are of paramount importance. Over the
past three years, RTC has invested more than $33 million in additional
safety and security measures to continue keeping its customers and
operators safe. RTC is the first transit agency in the nation to
install GPS-based security devices on its 450 fixed-route buses that
operators can activate if they need to notify a security contractor and
the bus operations center of a safety or security incident, even if the
operator has departed from the bus.
In July, RTC will increase the number of armed security officers by
nearly 12 percent (from 271 to 304 officers) and more than double the
number of roving security vehicles (from six to 14 vehicles). Security
officers will focus on enforcing RTC's fare policy to reduce the number
of chronic violators and friction between them and operators.
Providing Rural Access
Today, approximately 6,800 organizations provide public
transportation, and the majority of agencies serve rural areas.
According to Federal Transit Administration (FTA) data, 1,281 transit
agencies operate in rural areas and 929 transit agencies operate in
urbanized areas (i.e., areas with a population of 50,000 or more). In
addition, there are approximately 4,580 nonprofit public transportation
providers operating across the nation.
In rural areas, especially for seniors and people with
disabilities, public transportation is a lifeline. Rural residents with
disabilities rely heavily on public transit, taking approximately 50
percent more public transit trips than those without disabilities.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ APTA, Public Transportation's Impact on Rural and Small Towns
[https://www.apta.com/wp-content/uploads/Resources/resources/
reportsandpublications/Documents/APTA-Rural-Transit-2017.pdf] (2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ridership in rural areas is estimated to be 107 million annual
trips. Public transit is critical for connecting users to needed
services, including access to medical care for the almost five million
U.S. veterans living in rural areas and for providing Medicaid
recipients with non-emergency medical transportation (NEMT) services to
mental health, substance abuse, chemotherapy, dialysis, and other
critical chronic and preventive care appointments.
Addressing State-of-Good-Repair Needs
With a state-of-good-repair backlog of more than $101 billion and
growing, support from all levels of government is sorely needed. Today,
most agencies are operating buses and railcars beyond their useful
lives. Of the 119,000 transit buses and vans, almost one in six are not
in a state of good repair.\12\ For rail transit vehicles, the average
fleet age is 24 years. Agencies are using the historic investments of
the BIL to begin to bring their rolling stock, guideway elements,
systems, stations, and facilities to a state of good repair.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration and Federal Transit Administration, Status of the
Nation's Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions & Performance
Report to Congress, 25th Edition [https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/
25cpr/pdf/CP25_Full_Report.pdf] (2024), at page ES-13.
\13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To help address rail rolling stock state-of-good-repair needs, the
BIL specifically created the Rail Vehicle Replacement program to
provide grants to public transit agencies to replace their aging fleets
with new, American-made railcars. For instance, Chicago's Metra
commuter railroad received a grant to procure 50 modern, multi-level
railcars to replace 50-year-old railcars built in the mid-1970s that
include asbestos materials and do not meet current crashworthiness
standards or comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. The new
cars will be more efficient, improve reliability, and provide a better
experience for the traveling public.
Providing More Mobility Choices
Public transit investment also helps communities begin to address
the demand for more mobility choices. CIG funding provides critical
investments for new and expanded subways, light rail, commuter rail,
streetcars, and bus rapid transit (BRT), among others. Over the past 15
years, 28 States have received CIG construction grant agreements or are
in the current pipeline. From BRT projects in Minnesota, Nevada, and
Pennsylvania; to commuter rail projects in Texas and Indiana; and heavy
and light rail projects in Arizona, California, New York, and Utah.
Public transportation projects that are funded through the CIG program
are an essential component of addressing the mobility demands of
growing communities. Today, 65 projects across the nation are seeking
almost $45 billion of CIG funding in FY 2025 and subsequent years.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ APTA's Capital Investment Grant Project Pipeline Dashboard
[https://www.apta.com/wp-content/uploads/APTA-CIG-Project-Pipeline-
Dashboard-06-04-2024.pdf] (June 4, 2024).
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
For example, RTC's Maryland Parkway BRT will transform the 13-mile
corridor for the benefit of everyone in the region. Home to 90,000
residents, 85,000 jobs, and 9,000 daily transit riders, the Maryland
Parkway BRT will connect residents to jobs, education, medical
services, shopping, and neighborhood services. FTA's $150 million
investment will ensure Southern Nevada residents and visitors have
better options while traveling to Harry Reid International Airport, the
University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), Sunrise Hospital, and other
important areas of the city. In addition, buses, bikes, cars, and
pedestrians will all experience safer conditions thanks to wider
sidewalks, enhanced transit shelters, improved lighting, and better
roadways.
Driving Innovation in Clean Technologies
Finally, public transit is at the forefront of innovation,
particularly in clean technologies. From hybrid buses to light rail
systems, public transportation agencies are leveraging new technologies
to promote clean energy, electric vehicle deployment, and fuel
efficiency. Currently, 49 percent of transit buses use alternative
fuels, with nearly 18 percent of all buses utilizing hybrid-electric
technology, compared to only 2.2 percent of U.S. cars and Sport Utility
Vehicles. Today, there are more than 1,500 zero-emission buses in
service with hundreds more battery electric and hydrogen buses on
order.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ APTA, 2023 Vehicle Database [https://www.apta.com/research-
technical-resources/transit-statistics/vehicle-database/] (September
2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Communities that invest in public transit reduce the nation's
carbon emissions by 63 million metric tons annually. Overall, public
transportation saves the U.S. six billion gallons of gasoline each
year. The public transit industry will continue to lead the way in
adopting new technologies.
Conclusion
On behalf of APTA, thank you for including us in this important
hearing. In each of your Congressional Districts, public transportation
provides very real benefits to your constituents, their communities,
and the national transportation network. To maintain our position as a
global leader, our country needs more job creation, a stronger economy,
a cleaner environment, and more opportunity--and sustained investments
in public transportation will lead the way.
Appendix A
Compared to pre-pandemic ridership, bus ridership has consistently
recovered faster than rail services because rail ridership has seen
greater impacts from work-from-home and downtown occupancy trends. In
addition, bus systems tend to serve more transit-dependent riders and
non-commute trips, which have more closely returned to pre-pandemic
levels.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Crawford. Thank you.
Ms. Hendricks, you are recognized for 5 minutes for your
testimony.
TESTIMONY OF LAURA HENDRICKS, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TRANSDEV
U.S., ON BEHALF OF THE NORTH AMERICAN TRANSIT ALLIANCE
Ms. Hendricks. Chairman Crawford and Ranking Member Norton,
on behalf of the North American Transit Alliance, or as
referred to NATA, thank you for the opportunity to testify
before you this morning.
My name is Laura Hendricks, and I am the CEO of Transdev
U.S. Transdev operates multimodes of public transportation in
the U.S. and around the world, including bus, paratransit,
rail, nonemergency medical transportation, microtransit,
shuttle, and autonomous vehicles.
I also serve as the board chair of the North American
Transit Alliance. NATA is comprised of the five largest private
transit contracting firms. In addition to Transdev, our members
include Keolis, MV Transportation, WeDriveU, and RATPDev. Our
member companies operate and maintain paratransit, fixed route,
and other transportation services on behalf of public transit
agencies in the U.S. and around the world.
Our member companies comprise up to 15 percent of U.S.
public transportation workforce, encompassing more than 71,000
employees and delivering over 700 million passenger trips per
year. Eighty-five percent of NATA companies' workforce are
represented by labor unions.
The private sector has a long history of operating public
transit services under contract to transit agencies. More than
two-thirds of transit agencies in the U.S. contract with
private sector to operate all or a portion of their transit
services.
We are on the forefront of innovation and are continually
training our workforce to adapt to the changes in public
transit offerings, whether it be operating and maintaining
electric vehicles or the new hydrogen fuel cell vehicles or
using innovative technology platforms.
In the aftermath of the pandemic, we have watched the
transit ridership slowly bounce back, although there have been
shifts in ridership with more people working hybrid or remote
schedules. We have witnessed transit agencies struggle with
budget deficits and make hard decisions about how to best
structure service to meet their ridership and communities. We
also recognize that there is no one-size-fits-all approach.
What works in a big city may not work in a small city or a
rural area.
Our companies see the opportunity to partner with transit
agencies to design services that best serve its riders and
communities. From micromobility to greater adaptation of
electric vehicles, to new and expanded rail and bus rapid
transit, to changing schedules to better adapt to a workforce
that no longer adheres to a traditional workday, NATA member
companies are sharing our experience to enable transit agencies
to deliver transit services in a way that best serve the
traveling public, are cost effective, and provide good
salaries, benefits, and job opportunities to our valued
workforce.
One of the ways transit agencies are responding to the
change in public transit demand is by offering microtransit,
overcoming the first- and last-mile hurdle. As referenced in
more detail in my written testimony, NATA member companies
continue successful partnership with transit agencies around
the U.S. and innovative microtransit options.
As the committee looks towards reauthorization, we
anticipate transportation solutions like microtransit will
continue to emerge to develop and address the changing
landscape and meet a variety of riders' needs.
Today, I would also like to share our association's
recommendations for how transit agencies could work more
cooperatively with private operators of public transportation.
We believe that transit agencies and communities will benefit
greatly from soliciting external input, streamlining the
procurement process, and rethinking and redefining the benefits
of contracting.
We recommend establishing an advisory committee that would
provide recommendations to the FTA on how transit agencies can
adapt to changing demand and usage, explore how technology
innovations can help transit agencies meet the change in
demand, and suggest what workforce training needs will be
needed.
FTA should summarize the findings and report
recommendations to Congress. We urge FTA and transit agencies
to rethink procurement strategies to improve the efficiency in
the process itself, as well as designing request for proposals
in such a way that improves competitiveness amongst contractors
and promotes innovation.
I want to also note that NATA expresses strong support for
funding of public transit levels necessary to enable transit
agencies to make critical investments in infrastructure and
rolling stock. We believe that robust Federal support for
public transportation is a key to ensuring our citizens have
mobility solutions.
In closing, NATA members are excited to continue to partner
with transit agencies and organized labor to advocate for
reliable funding for public transit. We look forward to
continuing to work with the subcommittee as it develops
reauthorization legislation.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today,
and I look forward to answering your questions.
[Ms. Hendricks' prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Laura Hendricks, Chief Executive Officer,
Transdev U.S., on behalf of the North American Transit Alliance
Introduction
Chairman Crawford, Ranking Member Norton, and Members of the
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, on behalf of the North American
Transit Alliance (NATA), thank you for the opportunity to testify on
``Revenue, Ridership and Post Pandemic Lessons in Public Transit''.
My name is Laura Hendricks, and I am the Chief Executive Officer
(CEO) of Transdev U.S. I joined Transdev in 2019 as President of our
Transdev Services division and was named CEO of Transdev U.S. in 2020.
Transdev operates multiple modes of public transportation in the United
States and around the world, including bus, paratransit, rail, non-
emergency medical transportation, microtransit, shuttle, and autonomous
vehicles. I also serve as the chair of the board of NATA and my
appearance before this committee is in that capacity.
NATA is comprised of the five largest private transit contracting
firms. In addition to Transdev, our members include Keolis, MV
Transportation, WeDriveU and RATPDev. NATA member companies operate and
maintain paratransit, fixed route, and other transportation services on
behalf of public transit agencies in the U.S. and Canada and several of
our companies also operate public transit systems around the world. Our
member companies comprise up to 15 percent of the U.S. public
transportation workforce, encompassing more than 71,000 employees. NATA
members collectively serve over 700 million riders per year. Eighty-
five percent of the NATA companies' workforce are represented by labor
unions.
NATA's mission is to advocate for the essential role private
contractors play in delivering safe and reliable public transit. Every
day our members transport millions of people to jobs, school, medical
centers, retail stores and more. The services we provide have a major
positive impact on economic development and the quality of life in the
communities we serve.
The private sector has a long history of operating public transit
services under contract to city and county transit agencies. More than
two-thirds of transit agencies in the U.S. contract with the private
sector to operate all or a portion of their transit service. Sixty-six
percent of U.S. transit agencies contract with the private sector. Our
members operate bus and rail service in large and small cities and
rural areas throughout the country. Our companies bring our global
expertise to the public transit agencies we serve, including new
technologies, best practices, and the ability to see around corners and
react quickly to incidents like the COVID Pandemic. We are on the
forefront of innovation and are continually training our workforce to
adapt to changes in public transit offerings, whether it be operating
and maintaining electric and autonomous vehicles or using innovative
technology platforms enabling us to better operate and maintain bus and
rail transit systems. We are on the cutting edge of the energy
transition actively decarbonizing transit by operating battery electric
and hydrogen vehicles and deploying other clean technologies. We also
are helping transit agencies attract old and new passengers with new
fare products and service offerings.
NATA and our member companies are members of the American Public
Transportation Association (APTA) and collaborate closely with them on
advocacy efforts. We worked collaboratively with APTA and organized
labor during the COVID-19 pandemic to ensure transit agencies could use
relief dollars directly for frontline employees regardless of whether
they worked for a contractor or were direct employees, when transit
service had to be curtailed. In the aftermath of the Pandemic, we have
watched transit ridership slowly bounce back, although there have been
shifts in ridership with more people working hybrid or remote
schedules. We have witnessed transit agencies struggle with budget
deficits and make hard decisions about how to best structure service to
serve their ridership. We also recognize that there is no one-size-
fits-all approach and what works in a big city may not work in a small
city or rural area.
Our companies see opportunities to partner with transit agencies to
design service that best serves its riders. From micromobility, to
autonomous shuttles, to greater adaptation of electric vehicles, to new
and expanded rail and bus rapid transit, to changing schedules to
better adapt to a workforce that no longer adheres to a 9 to 5 workday,
NATA member companies are sharing our experiences and recommendations
to enable transit agencies to deliver transit services in a way that
best serves the traveling public, is cost effective and provides good
salaries, benefits, and job opportunities for our valued workforce.
Today, I would like to share with the Subcommittee how NATA members
are working with transit agencies to deliver service that is responsive
to passenger demand.
Defining Microtransit
With fewer passengers commuting to work in downtown offices during
the traditional rush hour, large buses providing fixed route service
often operate with fewer passengers. Some transit agencies are
responding to the change in public transit demand by offering
microtransit. This on-demand service operates similar to Uber or Lyft,
but it is shared ride service in a shuttle bus. In other words, the
passenger may ride with other passengers and the shuttle may make
multiple stops, but the passenger will receive door-to-door service.
The National Academy of Sciences also describes microtransit as
``the `tweener' of public transportation, being less expensive per trip
than traditional paratransit services but considerably more expensive
per trip than fixed route service. It is less efficient than fixed
route service in dense areas but more efficient than fixed route
service in areas of lower density or demand.'' The Academy correctly
describes microtransit as ``another tool in the toolbox available to
public transit agencies as they try to provide the appropriate levels
of supply to match the various levels of demand in their diverse
service areas.''
The business case for fixed route service is challenging in
suburban areas with lower population density. Microtransit can bring
riders to fixed route service, overcoming the first and last mile
hurdle. These additional riders improve the cost effectiveness of fixed
route service because each additional rider does not add to operating
costs. As demand increases for micro transit service, NATA member
companies can help agencies find the right balance of fixed route and
micro transit.
An example of a successful partnership can be found in Nassau
County, NY with the Nassau Inter-County Express (NICE). On behalf of
Nassau County, Transdev began testing various microtransit solutions as
early as 2014. Through many iterations, NICE deploys solutions
specifically tailored for various communities based upon their needs.
Today, NICE operates four unique services customized for each community
and performs over 500+ trips a day on its on-demand services.
Starting this fall, NICE will launch three additional on-demand
services that all use state-of-the-art rider centric technology to hail
and book rides. We ensure efficiency and quick adoption by creating
service zones that include trip generators like libraries, schools,
medical facilities. We also create easy frictionless connections to the
Long Island Rail Road, and other major NICE fixed service bus routes.
Trip zones use a more efficient approach by concentrating on Travel
Corridors such as downtown areas, which are surrounded by medium to
high density areas. We are proud of the innovation we've employed in
Nassau County and the service has been well received by our customers.
As the Committees in Congress begin to look toward reauthorization, we
anticipate that transportation solutions like microtransit will
continue to emerge and develop to address the changing landscape and
meet rider's needs.
Together with Loudon County and its technology partners, Keolis
increased ridership per vehicle hour by 15 percent while maintaining a
high passenger satisfaction (approx. 4.4/5 stars currently) and low
wait times (average < 10 minutes). These improvements followed the
implementation of an automated scheduling and dispatching software as
well as the implementation of an app-based subscription/booking option.
RATP Dev partnered with Citibus in Lubbock, TX to implement new on-
demand microtransit services. Before partnering with Spare, Citibus
operated its paratransit and non-emergency Medicaid transportation
(NEMT) services through a legacy system. The agency wanted to adopt
automation, on-duty optimization, and data-driven planning to improve
efficiency and the passenger experience. It also had a limited,
nighttime-only demand-response service called Citibus NiteRide, which
ran as a stand-alone service from its paratransit. With COVID-19,
Citibus had to reevaluate its operations. With Spare's technology, it
upgraded its paratransit operations and introduced a microtransit
service that allows passengers to book trips on-demand without
increasing the fleet or operational costs. Spare's automated platform
allowed the agency to commingle these two services. Now both
paratransit and microtransit passengers share the same fleet.
Commingling has enabled Citibus to offer paratransit riders a truly on-
demand, scalable service, and microtransit passengers a real public
transit alternative that encourages social mixing.
And, in 2017, MV Transportation (``MV'') and the Los Angeles
Department of Transportation launched a microtransit project in West
Los Angeles to enhance mobility options in the area. Anchored to a
MetroLink rail station, the service provided on-demand rides with a
goal to create a cost-efficient, productive, and passenger-oriented
service instead of adding a fixed route. MV and LADOT jointly developed
the service and established 700 virtual steps steadily growing to 1,600
trips per month prior to the pandemic. Since then, LADOT, its
technology partner and MV have continued to operate and grow the
service with a 97% rider satisfaction rate at a cost lower than
competing TNC services.
NATA's Reauthorization Proposal
Today, I also would like to share with the Subcommittee our
Association's recommendations for how our industry could work more
cooperatively with private sector providers of public transportation
like our NATA member companies. We believe that transit agencies and
riders both will benefit greatly from soliciting external input,
streamlining the procurement process, and rethinking and redefining the
benefits of contractors. NATA will happily provide a comprehensive list
of our ideas, but I have highlighted a few below that could be
instituted with either statutory changes or revisions to 42201.F ``Best
Practices Procurement and Lessons Learned Manual'' that has not been
updated since 2016.
Specifically, we would first recommend establishing an advisory
committee to Federal Transit Administration (FTA) comprised of industry
representatives. The advisory committee would be charged with providing
recommendations to FTA on how transit agencies can adapt to changes in
public transit demand and usage, exploring how technology innovation
can help transit agencies meet this changing demand, and suggesting
what workforce training needs will be needed to adapt to changes in
demand. Just in the course of the past few years, there have been
significant changes--from the Pandemic and changed travel patterns in
its aftermath, to widespread adoption of electric vehicles, to the
potential deployment of autonomous vehicles. FTA should seek input from
an advisory committee, synthesize the findings, and report
recommendations to Congress.
We would also urge FTA and transit agencies to rethink procurement
strategies with an eye toward improving the efficiency of the process
itself, as well as designing the Request for Proposals (RFP) in such a
way that improves competitiveness amongst contractors and promotes
innovation. NATA member companies recommend that when transit agencies
are planning to procure operations and maintenance contracts should
clearly define the scope of work and performance metrics in the RFP,
including expected costs to be borne by the contractor. For example, it
would be very beneficial for bidders to know upfront the details of
current Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBA), run cuts, performance
history and liquidated damages history. This knowledge would allow
bidders to ask questions and seek clarifications and exceptions.
Transit agencies also should allow sufficient time for proposers to
develop high quality responses. Compressed timelines can impact both
the quality of proposals and the ultimate relationship between the
agency and the contractor. As a general rule, transit agencies should
allow a minimum of 2 months for an RFP response.
Further, contracts should account for the unpredictability and
changing nature of public transportation by providing opportunities to
negotiate changes based on unforeseen circumstances, including labor
disputes, significant increases in costs and in service demand, to
ensure that the recipient can attain the best value and offer public
transportation to meet the needs of the community over the life of the
contract.
Agencies also should include a provision in operations and
maintenance contracts requiring the contractor in the event of a new
procurement to provide information to the recipient regarding the
number of employees who are performing services under the contract and
the wage rates, benefits, and job classifications of those employees to
enable the agency to share this information with other proposers. This
will enable proposers to develop proposals that are appropriately
priced to manage risk and provide best value to the recipient.
Similarly, it would be more effective to have flexible operations'
contracts be longer in length. It typically can take somewhere between
6-10 years for a contractor to recoup their initial investment in a
system with certain types of contracts, but instead most contracts are
between 3 to 5 years in length. Irrespective of contract length, there
should also be the opportunity to reopen a contract in light of
unforeseeable circumstances. To address upfront investment risk,
transit agencies may want to consider paying start-up costs during the
mobilization period (amortized through annual rates), and/or paying the
unamortized value of assets and other tangible property used in the
contract.
Agencies should consider making the exercise of an option to extend
the contract term bilateral versus unilateral. Providing greater
flexibility regarding negotiating option terms should result in
contractors offering the most competitive prices.
Addressing liquidated damages can also be an effective tool for
ensuring service meets defined performance standards. Unfortunately,
the way liquidated damages are currently employed has the perverse
effect of thwarting contractors from delivering greater efficiencies
and innovation and better long-term performance. As a best practice,
agencies should consider capping liquidated damages to hold the private
operator accountable without levying unreasonable penalties.
I also want to make note that NATA--along with our partners at
APTA--express strong federal support for funding public transit at the
levels necessary to enable transit agencies to make critical
investments in transit infrastructure and rolling stock. We believe
that robust support for public transportation at the federal level is
critical toward ensuring that our citizens have mobility options that
reflect their needs.
Conclusion
In closing, NATA members are excited to continue to partner with
transit agencies and organized labor to advocate for reliable funding
for public transit as well as to ensure a trained workforce that can
deliver safe and reliable public transit services that best meet the
needs of the traveling public. We look forward to continuing to work
with the Subcommittee as it develops reauthorization legislation. Thank
you for the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee. Thank you
for the opportunity to appear before you today. I would be pleased to
respond to any questions you may have.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Ms. Hendricks.
Mr. Scribner, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF MARC SCRIBNER, SENIOR TRANSPORTATION POLICY
ANALYST, REASON FOUNDATION
Mr. Scribner. Good morning, Chairman Crawford, Ranking
Member Norton, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for
the opportunity to testify before you today.
My name is Marc Scribner. I am a senior transportation
policy analyst at Reason Foundation, a national 501(c)(3)
public policy research and education organization with
expertise across a range of policy areas, including
transportation.
My testimony surveys transit productivity trends prior to
the pandemic, examines the impact of the pandemic on travel
behavior and transit systems, and discusses potential
strategies for increasing the efficiency of transit operations.
More detailed information is contained in my written testimony,
but I want to highlight a few key points.
The COVID-19 pandemic caused transit ridership to crater,
and recovery has been slow. Nationwide transit ridership today
stands at approximately three-quarters of 2019 levels. This has
led to growing concerns about the long-term viability of
transit in the United States.
However, concerns about transit productivity are not new
and long predate the pandemic. Researchers have developed a
variety of measurement and analysis tools to gauge transit
productivity, but to highlight two striking trends, between
1960 and 2019, inflation-adjusted transit operating costs more
than quintupled while ridership remained flat.
In the years preceding the pandemic, the Bureau of Labor
Statistics began measuring transit labor productivity, which
they calculate by dividing an index of passenger-miles traveled
by an index of hours worked. Ridership between 2013 and 2019
decreased by an average rate of 1 percent per year while
transit work hours increased at an average rate of 2.5 percent
per year. Hours worked per employee remained relatively
constant, meaning new hires were responsible for the additional
work hours and, thus, most of the decline in labor
productivity.
When the pandemic hit, transit was especially vulnerable to
changes that followed because transit systems were largely
designed to serve peak hour weekday commuting travel. Prior to
the pandemic, commuting accounted for approximately one-fifth
of travel by all modes of transportation, but between one-third
to one-half of travel by transit.
Between 2017 and 2022, travel to and from work as a share
of travel by transit declined from 41.5 percent to 28.6
percent. Much of this decline can be explained by the dramatic
increase in working from home.
In the face of this large decline in transit ridership,
which is largely attributable to work travel trends, U.S.
transit systems received record-setting Federal subsidies. This
large increase in Federal funding allowed transit agencies to
continue to provide service close to pre-pandemic levels.
While transit ridership decreased by 27.8 percent between
2019 and 2023, transit service provided fell by only 9.5
percent. These dynamics had predictable effects on transit
labor productivity. As I noted, the decline in transit labor
productivity between 2013 and 2019 was primarily driven by
increases in hours worked by new transit agency employees.
Following the pandemic, the steep declines in transit labor
productivity between 2019 and 2021 were almost entirely driven
by decreased ridership.
Transit's narrow role in U.S. transportation was further
diminished by travel behavior changes following the pandemic.
Between 2017 and 2022, total U.S. person trips made by transit
fell from 2.5 percent to 1.4 percent.
Further, U.S. transit ridership is highly concentrated in a
small number of cities. In the first quarter of 2024, 76.4
percent of U.S. transit ridership took place in just 10
urbanized areas, with New York alone accounting for 45.7
percent of nationwide transit trips.
Despite transit's niche status, it is a vital service for
those who cannot afford private vehicle transportation. Recent
negative trends in transit productivity are especially
troubling because of the disproportionate burden that
inefficient transit service imposes on low-income Americans
dependent upon transit.
In my written testimony, I suggest that transit agencies
should be given increased flexibility to engage in competitive
service contracting and to investigate in the long term the
potential for automation in order to realize substantial
operating cost savings.
Unfortunately, Federal transit labor law section 13(c)
imposes a substantial barrier to realizing productivity
improvements through labor-saving practices and technologies.
Given that the decline in transit productivity is driven by
the divergence of labor costs and ridership, removing Federal
barriers to transit agency self-help should be prioritized
before additional Federal subsidies are considered.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the
subcommittee, and I welcome your questions.
[Mr. Scribner's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Marc Scribner, Senior Transportation Policy
Analyst, Reason Foundation
Chairman Crawford, Ranking Member Norton, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you
today. My name is Marc Scribner. I am a senior transportation policy
analyst at Reason Foundation, a national 501(c)(3) public policy
research and education organization with expertise across a range of
policy areas, including transportation.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ My biography and writings are available at https://reason.org/
author/marc-scribner/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For nearly half a century, Reason Foundation has conducted research
on urban transportation improvements enabled by innovative procurement
methods, management practices, and technologies. My testimony surveys
transit productivity trends prior to the pandemic, examines the impact
of the pandemic on travel behavior and transit systems, and discusses
potential strategies for increasing the efficiency of transit
operations.
I. Pre-Pandemic Transit Productivity
Public transit ridership in the United States cratered during the
COVID-19 pandemic and, as of the first quarter of 2024, has only been
able to recover 76.2% of its 2019 riders.\2\ At the same time,
operating expenditures have significantly increased, which has led to
growing concerns about the viability of transit systems nationwide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Federal Transit Administration, ``Monthly Ridership
Dashboard,'' National Transit Database (May 2024), https://
www.transit.dot.gov/ntd/monthly-ridership-dashboard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, declining transit productivity is not a new phenomenon.
Transit productivity has been declining since the Urban Mass
Transportation Act (UMTA) of 1964, when Congress first authorized
federal funding for state and local governments to take over ailing
private transit companies.\3\ Initially, federal subsidies focused on
capital improvements. At the time, customer fares were able to cover
operating costs but not equipment and infrastructure refurbishment and
replacement. As a result, transit capital stock was rapidly
depreciating. One popular theory held that modernizing transit vehicles
and facilities with new capital subsidies would bring customers back to
transit.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, Pub. L. 88-365, 78 Stat.
302 (July 9, 1964).
\4\ Charles Lave, ``It Wasn't Supposed to Turn Out Like This:
Federal Subsidies and Declining Transit Productivity,'' ACCESS, No. 5
(Fall 1994), p. 22, https://www.accessmagazine.org/wp-content/uploads/
sites/7/2016/07/access05-04-It-Wasnt-Supposed-to-Turn-Out-Like-
This.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This theory misdiagnosed the principal causes of transit's
structural decline: rising household incomes, increasing private
automobile ownership, and the dispersal of urban households and then
workplaces into the suburbs. Increasingly, metropolitan area residents
were residing in the suburbs and commuting to jobs also in the suburbs,
travel patterns poorly served by transit.\5\ These changes led to a 60%
decline in ridership from 1945 to 1960.\6\ While federal capital
subsidies authorized by UMTA were able to slow the ridership decline,
they failed to attract customers back to transit who had already left.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See, e.g., Marc Scribner, ``The Problematic Equity Case for
Mass Transit,'' Reason Foundation (May 7, 2021), https://reason.org/
commentary/the-problematic-equity-case-for-mass-transit/.
\6\ William J. Mallett, ``Federal Support of Public Transportation
Operating Expenses,'' Congressional Research Service (Jan. 18, 2024),
p. 5, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47900.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These dynamics led to substantial declines in transit productivity.
In the 15 years prior to UMTA, transit productivity fell an average of
1.4% per year (measured in bus hours/real dollars) across all transit
systems and 1.3% for large systems.\7\ Between 1964 and 1972,
productivity declines averaged 2.1% per year for all systems and 3.1%
for large systems.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Charles A. Lave, ``Federal Subsidies and the Ruinous Decline in
Transit Productivity: It Wasn't Supposed to Turn out Like This,''
Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Irvine
(June 1991), Table 6, https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7c83c6gc.
\8\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1975, the federal government began subsidizing transit
operations as well as capital expenditures.\9\ State and local transit
subsidies were also increasing. Between 1975 and 1985, transit
productivity declines averaged 3.1% per year for all systems and 3.8%
for large systems.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ National Mass Transportation Act of 1974, Pub. L. 93-503, 88
Stat. 1565 (Nov. 26, 1974).
\10\ Lave, ``Federal Subsidies and the Ruinous Decline in Transit
Productivity,'' Table 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transit system size was found to be correlated with the rate of
productivity decline. This finding has been attributed to the fact that
large systems tended to serve more transit-dependent populations,
giving agency management a stronger incentive to prioritize labor peace
(through more generous collective bargaining agreements) over cost
containment.\11\ As a result, the cumulative decline in transit
productivity for large systems between 1964 and 1985 was twice as large
as the decline experienced by small systems.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Ibid., pp. 11-13.
\12\ Ibid., Table 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By 1980, just five years after Congress expanded federal funding
eligibility to operating expenses, operating grants accounted for 30%
of total federal transit funding.\13\ Lawmakers and transportation
researchers expressed growing alarm about rising transit subsidies and
their inability to stimulate ridership growth. In the 1980s, empirical
research on the efficiency impacts of transit operating subsidies in
the United States found:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Mallett, p. 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal subsidies had three times the negative effect on
transit productivity as state and local subsidies.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ John Pucher et al., ``Impacts of Subsidies on the Costs of
Urban Public transport,'' Journal of Transport Economics and Policy,
Vol. 17, No. 2 (May 1983), pp. 155-176.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nearly all operating subsidies were absorbed by rapidly
growing operating expenses rather than stimulating demand for transit
service.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Don H. Pickrell, ``Rising Deficits and the Uses of Transit
Subsidies in the United States,'' Journal of Transport Economics and
Policy, Vol. 19, No. 3 (Sept. 1985), pp. 281-298.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both public ownership of transit systems and increasing
subsidies to these systems encouraged wasteful expenditures.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ John Pucher and Anders Markstedt, ``Consequences of public
ownership and subsidies for mass transit: Evidence from case studies
and regression analysis,'' Transportation, Vol. 11, No. 4 (March 1983),
pp. 323-345.
While a small number of studies arrived at contrary findings, there
came to be ``a general consensus that subsidies have had a degrading
effect on system efficiency and productivity and have increased
operating costs,'' although the impacts varied by subsidy source and
transit system characteristics.\17\ In 1998, Congress largely
eliminated federal operating subsidies for transit agencies serving
urbanized areas with populations of 200,000 residents or more (although
maintenance was recategorized as a capital expense).\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Matt G. Karlaftis and Patrick McCarthy, ``Operating Subsidies
and Performance in Public Transit: An Empirical Study,'' Transportation
Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 32, No. 5 (1998), pp. 359-
375.
\18\ Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Pub. L. 105-
178, 112 Stat. 107 (June 9, 1998), Sec. 3007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, changes in subsidy policy did little to address the
long-term decline in U.S. transit productivity. As Figure 1 from the
Congressional Research Service shows, from 1960 to 2019, the inflation-
adjusted operating costs more than quintupled while ridership largely
remained constant.
Figure 1: Measures of Productivity in Public Transportation, 1960 2019
Source: William J. Mallett, ``Federal Support of Public Transportation
Operating Expenses,'' Congressional Research Service (Jan. 2024).
Since 2018, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has published measures
of urban transit labor productivity.\19\ Labor productivity is
calculated by dividing an index of output (passenger-miles traveled) by
an index of hours worked.\20\ Figure 2 displays transit productivity
trends in the 13 years leading up to the COVID-19 pandemic. Labor
productivity between 2007 and 2013 was slightly positive, increasing at
an average rate of 1.4% per year. Output over this period increased at
an average rate of 1.5% per year. However, between 2013 and 2019, labor
productivity declined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Bureau of Labor Statistics, ``Urban Transit Systems Labor
Productivity,'' (June 29, 2023), https://www.bls.gov/productivity/
highlights/urban-transit-systems-labor-productivity.htm.
\20\ Brian Chansky and Nathan F. Modica, ``Productivity in transit:
a new measure of labor productivity for urban transit systems,''
Monthly Labor Review, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (Aug. 2018),
https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2018/article/productivity-in-transit-a-
new-measure-of-labor-productivity-for-urban-transit-systems.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One important takeaway is that the 2013-2019 decline in transit
labor productivity can mostly be explained by increases in transit
agency employment. Ridership during this period decreased by an average
rate of 1% per year while transit work hours increased at an average
rate of 2.5% per year. Hours worked per employee remained relatively
constant, meaning new hires were responsible for the additional work
hours and thus most of the decline in labor productivity. And as Figure
2 shows, labor compensation increased at an even faster rate during
this period.
Figure 2: Transit Industry Labor Productivity Trends, 2007 2019
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, ``Urban Transit Systems Labor
Productivity: Urban Transit Dashboard'' (June 29, 2023).
II. Pandemic Impacts on Travel Behavior and Transit Systems
The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic led to large declines in transit
ridership. While nationwide ridership has since partially recovered
from its nadir, it remains significantly depressed at 76.2% of the pre-
pandemic ridership level as of the first quarter of 2024.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Federal Transit Administration, ``Monthly Ridership
Dashboard,'' National Transit Database (May 2024), https://
www.transit.dot.gov/ntd/monthly-ridership-dashboard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transit systems were largely designed to serve peak-hour weekday
commuting travel. Figure 3 displays data compiled from the Federal
Highway Administration's National Household Travel Survey on commuting
travel's share of total personal travel from 1990 to 2022. As it shows,
commuting to and from work accounted for approximately one-fifth of
personal travel (all modes) through that time period. Commuting
accounted for one-third to one-half of travel by transit prior to the
pandemic. Following the pandemic, commuting diminished significantly as
a share of travel by transit.
Figure 3: Travel to and from Work as a Share of Personal Travel, 1990
2022
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: Federal Highway Administration, ``Table 4-7. Daily PMT per
Person by Mode of Transportation and Trip Purpose,'' Summary of Travel
Trends: 2022 National Household Travel Survey (Jan. 2024); author's
calculations.
Much of this decline in transit commuting travel can be attributed
to dramatic increases in working at home. In 2019, the Census Bureau's
American Community Survey estimated 5% of U.S. workers rode transit to
and from work.\22\ In 2022, transit's commuting mode share had
decreased to 3.1%.\23\ In contrast, working from home increased from
5.7% in 2019 to 15.2% in 2022.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Census Bureau, ``Table S0801: Commuting Characteristics by
Sex,'' American Community Survey 2019: 1-Year Estimates, https://
data.census.gov/table/ACSST1Y2019.S0801.
\23\ Census Bureau, ``Table S0801: Commuting Characteristics by
Sex,'' American Community Survey 2022: 1-Year Estimates, https://
data.census.gov/table/ACSST1Y2022.S0801.
\24\ Ibid.; Census Bureau, ``Table S0801: Commuting Characteristics
by Sex,'' American Community Survey 2019: 1-Year Estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Due to the design of the American Community Survey, this likely
significantly underestimates working from home because it poorly
captures hybrid work schedules where workers split their work time
between their workplaces and homes. The latest results from the Survey
of Working Arrangements and Attitudes estimate that 27% of paid days in
the U.S. in May 2024 were work-from-home days.\25\ The upshot is remote
work remains three to five times its pre-pandemic share of
``commuting''--and five to nine times the share of mass transit
commuting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Jose Maria Barrero et al., ``SWAA June 2024 Updates,'' Survey
of Working Arrangements and Attitudes (SWAA) (June 6, 2024), https://
wfhresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/
WFHResearch_updates_June2024.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the face of this large decline in transit ridership, which is
largely attributable to work travel trends, U.S. transit systems
received record-setting federal subsidies. Supplemental COVID-19
appropriations during FYs 2020 and 2021 provided $69.5 billion in
emergency support for transit agencies.\26\ The Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act enacted in FY 2022 increased federal transit
funding by 67% over the levels previously authorized by the FAST Act
(in nominal dollars).\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Mallett, p. 8.
\27\ Ibid., p. 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This large increase in federal funding allowed transit agencies to
continue to provide service close to pre-pandemic levels. As Figure 4
shows, while transit ridership (unlinked passenger trips) decreased by
27.8% between 2019 and 2023, transit service provided (vehicle revenue
miles) fell by only 9.5%.
Figure 4: Trends in Transit Ridership and Service Provision, 2016 2023
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: Federal Transit Administration, ``Monthly Ridership
Dashboard,'' National Transit Database (May 2024).
These dynamics had predictable effects on transit labor
productivity. Recall, as shown in Figure 2, that the decline in transit
labor productivity from 2013 to 2019 was primarily driven by increases
in hours worked by new transit agency employee hires. Following the
pandemic, as shown in Figure 5, the declines in labor productivity
between 2019 and 2021 were almost entirely driven by decreased
ridership (output in passenger-miles traveled).
Figure 5: Transit Industry Labor Productivity Trends, 2013 2021
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, ``Urban Transit Systems Labor
Productivity: Urban Transit Dashboard'' (June 29, 2023).
III. Strategies for Increasing the Efficiency of Transit Operations
The COVID-19 pandemic amplified preexisting trends and reduced
transit efficiency to the lowest levels on record. Working from home
remains elevated and is likely to persist at several multiples of
transit's share of commuting. While commuting accounted for between
one-third and one-half of pre-pandemic transit ridership, transit
accounted for a tiny share of person trips in the United States. As
Figure 6 shows, just 2.5% of person trips were made by transit in 2017,
compared to 82.6% made by private vehicle. In 2022, transit's share of
person trips had fallen to 1.4% versus 86.6% of trips made by private
vehicle.
Figure 6: Share of U.S. Person Trips by Mode, 1990 2022
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: Federal Highway Administration, ``Table 4-2. Distribution of
Person Trips by Trip Mode and Trip Purpose (Percent),'' Summary of
Travel Trends: 2022 National Household Travel Survey (Jan. 2024).
Further, U.S. transit ridership is highly concentrated in a small
number of cities. As Figure 7 shows, in the first quarter of 2024,
76.4% of U.S. transit ridership took place in just 10 urbanized areas--
with the New York City urbanized area alone accounting for 45.7% of
nationwide transit trips.
Figure 7: Geographic Distribution of U.S. Public Transit Trips, Q1 2024
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: Federal Transit Administration, ``April 2024 Complete Monthly
Ridership,'' National Transit Database; author's calculations.
Despite transit's status as a niche mode of passenger
transportation, it is a vital service outside of New York to those who
cannot afford private vehicle transportation. Recent negative trends in
transit productivity are especially troubling because of the
disproportionate burden that inefficient transit service imposes on
low-income Americans dependent upon transit.
As historical experience with transit subsidies has shown,
advancing transit efficiency is not a simple question of additional
funding. Making better use of existing resources must be the priority
to avoid counterproductive subsidy policies that merely deepen and
prolong transit's productivity crisis.
Transit agencies should be encouraged to experiment with operating
practices that could improve system efficiency. With remote work
expected to remain elevated, a number of agencies have begun
rebalancing their operating schedules to de-emphasize traditional peak-
hour service during the workweek to better serve their core customers.
These service adjustments may produce some benefits but are
unlikely to address the steep declines in labor productivity. Two other
policies show more promise to deliver substantial efficiency
improvements by directly addressing labor costs, which account for
approximately two-thirds of transit operating expenses.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Mallett, p. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, competitive contracting should be encouraged. Under public-
private partnerships, transit agencies can contract out transit service
provision to private firms. The agency would serve as the coordinating
and oversight entity, developing performance requirements and ensuring
private partners adhere to those requirements embedded in their
contracts. Poorly performing contractors can have their contracts
terminated for cause and be replaced by a competing provider. Commuter
rail and paratransit services are regularly contracted-out today.
Properly writing and enforcing service contracts could lead to
substantial efficiency gains. A 2017 study published in the Journal of
Public Economics estimated that contracting out bus service in the
United States could reduce operating costs by 30%.\29\ Importantly,
these cost savings were realized through increased labor flexibility,
not cuts to service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Rhiannon Jerch et al., ``The efficiency of local government:
The role of privatization and public sector unions,'' Journal of Public
Economics, Vol. 154 (Oct. 2017), pp. 95-121.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, automation of operations should be examined in longer-term
capital planning. Fully automated trains are increasingly used in
heavy-rail transit systems around the world and are in widespread use
at U.S. airports.\30\ In addition, the Federal Transit Administration
recently renewed its Strategic Transit Automation Research (STAR) Plan,
which focuses on the automation of transit buses and other road
vehicles.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ ``List of driverless train systems,'' Wikimedia Foundation,
last modified June 3, 2024, 08:32, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
List_of_driverless_train_systems.
\31\ Joshua Cregger et al., ``Strategic Transit Automation Research
Plan 2.0: 2023-2028,'' Federal Transit Administration (May 2024),
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/2024-05/FTA-Report-
No-0264.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A September 2023 report from the C2SMART university transportation
research consortium compared automated and non-automated rail transit
systems, finding that automated systems had operating costs 46% below
non-automated systems.\32\ To put this in perspective, the authors
suggest that ``automation alone could generate an operational profit on
the Boston T's Red, Blue, and Orange Line, as well as the New York
Subway, Philadelphia Subway, [San Francisco's Bay Area Rapid Transit],
and Caltrain,'' based on pre-pandemic cost and ridership trends.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Chetan Sharma and Joseph Y. J. Chow, ``Reducing US Transit
Costs: An Empirical Review and Comparative Case Study of Portland,
Manchester Rail Systems,'' C2SMART Center (Sept. 2023), p. 76, https://
c2smarter.engineering.nyu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/2024-05-19-
Sharma-Chow-C2SMART-Report-Reducing-US-Transit-Costs.pdf.
\33\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is important to note that retrofitting existing transit rail
lines for automated operations is significantly more costly than
automating newly built lines from the beginning, so these estimated
cost savings are too optimistic in that context.\34\ But the savings
could still be very large and worth pursuing in the long term.
Honolulu's newly built Skyline elevated light-rail system is fully
automated and should be closely examined in the years ahead.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Keith Foley, ``GoA4: The Way Forward for Metro Systems
Worldwide,'' WSP (Aug. 4, 2022), https://www.wsp.com/en-gb/insights/
goa4-the-way-forward-for-metro-systems-worldwide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While competitive contracting and automation can result in
substantial savings, they will undoubtedly face opposition from labor
organizations. While this opposition is understandable--if unfortunate
from the taxpayer and transit-rider perspectives--it is also unjustly
supported by federal law: Section 13(c).
Section 13(c) was included in the Urban Mass Transportation Act of
1964 to protect existing labor contracts as mass transit was
transitioning from private to public provision.\35\ It persists to this
day. As a result, in exchange for federal funding, transit agencies are
required to adopt ``protective arrangements'' to be certified by the
Department of Labor, including:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Presently codified at 49 U.S.C. Sec. 5333(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The preservation of rights and benefits of employees
under existing collective bargaining agreements;
The continuation of collective bargaining rights;
The protection of individual employees against a
worsening of their positions in relation to their employment;
Assurances of employment to employees of acquired transit
systems;
Assurances of priority of reemployment of employees whose
employment is ended or who are laid off; and
Paid training or retraining programs.
As a result, the mechanisms to increase transit productivity have
been frozen for 60 years. While Section 13(c) as interpreted does not
forbid contracting out service, it is in practice extremely challenging
for agencies to contract out existing service in a cost-effective
manner, especially under the sole-provider and ``carryover'' rights
clauses contained in Section 13(c) agreements.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ G. Kent Woodman et al., ``Transit Labor Protection: A Guide to
Section 13(c) of the Federal Transit Act,'' Legal Research Digest No.
4, Transit Cooperative Research Program (June 1995), pp. 21-24, https:/
/onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_lrd_04.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Likewise, automating existing transit service faces similar
barriers under the labor-management relations environment distorted by
Section 13(c). As a 1976 report to Congress from the Office of
Technology Assessment concluded:
[Section 13(c)] allows the elimination of jobs, but only as
workers presently holding those jobs retire or vacate the
positions for other reasons. Thus, the economic benefits of
workforce reduction through automation of an existing transit
system may be deferred for a number of years until retraining,
transfer, or attrition can account for the displaced workers.
Alternatively, direct compensation can be paid to affected
workers, eliminating the jobs earlier but at an earlier
cost.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Office of Technology Assessment, Automatic Train Control in
Rail Rapid Transit (May 1976), p. 162, available at https://
ota.fas.org/reports/7614.pdf.
Given that deploying automation requires transit agencies to either
incur substantial upfront costs to pay off affected employees or delay
the realization of labor-saving benefits, transit agencies largely
dependent on annual government appropriations face a strong financial
disincentive to investing in automation that would improve service and
reduce growing operating subsidies.
IV. Conclusion
Addressing the transit productivity crisis should be a top policy
priority. Section 13(c) is designed to restrict transit management
negotiating tactics, so the entire collective bargaining process is
distorted to advantage labor. Given that the decline in transit
productivity is driven by the divergence of labor costs and transit
ridership, removing federal barriers to transit agency self-help should
be prioritized before additional federal subsidies are considered.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee,
and I welcome your questions.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Scribner.
Mr. Regan, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF GREG REGAN, PRESIDENT, TRANSPORTATION TRADES
DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO
Mr. Regan. Thank you, and good morning, Chairman, Ranking
Member Norton, and the rest of the subcommittee. Thank you for
having me here this morning.
I am Greg Regan, president of the Transportation Trades
Department, AFL-CIO. We are a federation of 37 unions that
together represent the majority of public transportation
workers in this country.
Nobody knows the challenges and opportunities in this
industry better than the frontline workers who keep it moving
every single day, and it is a pleasure to bring their
perspective to this hearing.
Often we reduce discussions over public transportation to
simple calculations of costs and revenues. In doing so, we
overlook the important reality that transit is a public good
that not only serves our local communities but also provides
benefits that advance national economic, environmental, and
social objectives.
Transit riders are not merely revenue. They are people in
the communities you represent traveling to and from work, the
supermarket, school, or a doctor's appointment. And transit
workers are not a cost. They use their skills to serve millions
of commuters every single day in one of the safest, most
efficient, and most affordable modes of transportation we
offer.
If we want to grow this industry and the good jobs that
come with it, we have to start by reversing decades of broken
Federal policy that heavily prioritizes spending on capital
over operating costs.
The erosion of Federal policy that ensured support for
transit operating costs, which began under President Reagan and
ultimately came to a head in the late nineties when it was
nearly eliminated in favor of strictly funding capital
projects, was premised largely on ideological arguments at the
time and not ones backed by empirical evidence.
The consequence of this has been decades of flawed public
policy, which encourages local governments and transit agencies
to prioritize securing Federal dollars with their limited local
funds for capital projects over the crucial daily operations of
services.
John Samuelsen, president of the Transport Workers Union,
succinctly summed up this problem when he said, ``So, the
government will give an agency a lot of money to buy a bus but
not a dime towards hiring an operator to drive it or a mechanic
to maintain it.''
We see the worst effects of this during periods of economic
downturn. The result is a predictable cyclical pattern of
decreased revenues that lead to fare increases and service cuts
in order to balance budgets. Those, in turn, lead to greater
declines in ridership.
During the Great Recession, billions were allocated to
transit systems, but only 2 percent was allowed for operational
costs. When other revenue streams that supported operations
waned, like local and State taxes, 84 percent of agencies ended
up reducing service and 73 percent increased fares.
This pattern is so well-known that it has been colloquially
named ``the transit death spiral,'' and it has been well
documented in both media and research. Congress recognized this
during the pandemic and temporarily allowed transit agencies to
use Federal formula funds for operations, ensuring that
essential services continued.
But while the pandemic forever changed how our communities
function, policy has not changed with it, and we are, once
again, working under the old funding scheme.
I thank Congressman Hank Johnson for introducing the
Stronger Communities through Better Transit Act, which would
address this problem by allocating Federal matching funds for
operational needs.
Some transit critics have taken this opportunity to once
again offer solutions that have nothing to do with improving
service and everything to do with undermining labor protections
that have ensured this industry is supported by a stable,
highly skilled workforce for more than a half century. Attacks
on these labor protections would simply ensure that Federal
investments don't displace, destroy, or undermine existing jobs
and disrupt local economies back home in your districts. It is
an argument that has never stood up to scrutiny.
Rather than blaming workers, we should be taking lessons
from transit systems that are successfully addressing
operational inefficiencies that we know deter commuters across
from using transit, like unreliable service, long waits, and
overcrowded vehicles.
Prior to the pandemic, cities like Seattle and Houston
overhauled their bus routes to provide better coverage and
frequency, and they were met with significant increases in
ridership as a result. A similar effort is underway here in
Washington, DC, which WMATA believes will give people access to
17,000 additional jobs within 60 minutes of where they live.
For labor's part, we have been actively working to address
other challenges that we know have impacts on ridership, like
concerns over persistent public safety issues on buses and rail
lines. The workers our unions represent, who are often victims
of violent attacks while on the job, have become all too
familiar with this problem.
After labor spent years advocating for long overdue worker
and public safety needs that were ultimately included in the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, I am pleased to announce that
FTA recently issued a final rule implementing significant
portions of those provisions.
The law requires joint labor-management safety committees
to conduct data-driven safety risk assessments and devise
strategies to mitigate the risks of transit worker assaults as
new components of the federally mandated safety process. This
is critical because by establishing partnership with frontline
workers who are the eyes and ears of the system, they can help
provide their insights on how to improve safety not only for
themselves but for passengers as a whole.
So, in conclusion, instead of looking for solutions that
would simply undermine service or workers, we need to be
looking at policy changes that will enhance the growth of
transit moving forward and provide greater opportunity and
greater services for the communities that you are proud enough
to represent.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[Mr. Regan's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Greg Regan, President, Transportation Trades
Department, AFL-CIO
On behalf of the Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO (TTD),
and our 37 affiliated unions, I thank Chairman Crawford and Ranking
Member Norton for inviting me to testify before the Subcommittee today
on the current state of our public transit systems and the lessons we
can take away from the pandemic. The workers represented by TTD-
affiliated unions make up the vast majority of public transportation
workers across the country--whether they are bus or rail operators,
maintenance and safety inspection workers, dispatchers, station agents,
customer service representatives, administrative and clerical staff, or
fare inspectors and collectors. They are the eyes and ears of our
nation's public transit systems. Nobody knows the challenges and
opportunities better than these frontline workers, and it is a pleasure
to bring their perspective before Congress today.
I want to start by sharing a theme that will permeate throughout my
written testimony today. Too often, whether it be here in Congress, at
transit agencies nationwide, or in the communities they serve, we
reduce the value of transit to discussions over costs and revenues. In
doing so, we often overlook the fact that transit is a public good.
Transit riders are not just revenue; they are people in the communities
you represent, traveling to and from work, the supermarket, school, or
a doctor's appointment. And transit workers are not a cost; they bring
their skills to serve millions of commuters every day in one of the
safest, most efficient, affordable, and accessible modes of surface
transportation.
Questions about the long-term financial health and possible
efficiencies in this industry are clearly important--and I will address
some of those today--but we must also recognize the value the public
transit workforce and the industry jointly provide. They deliver
billions of dollars in value to American businesses in both major urban
areas and rural communities. They reduce congestion on our already
overcrowded roads and highways, lowering maintenance costs and
improving commute times for others. They protect the health and well-
being of our families by reducing dangerous emissions in our air. They
provide essential mobility for millions of people in this country who
do not have access to a car and who would otherwise struggle to get to
work or meet other daily needs that those with personal vehicles might
take for granted.
These factors should always be front and center when we calculate
the value of this public good in our communities, determine how we pay
for it, operate it, and ensure its long-term success in this country.
Congress must meet the needs of their constituents by providing long-
term financial stability for public transportation
The COVID-19 pandemic once again highlighted serious funding and
workforce challenges in public transit--ones that transportation labor
has cautioned this committee about for years--exposing flaws in federal
policy that, among others discussed elsewhere in this testimony,
prioritize capital investment over operating expense support. As
ridership plummeted and revenues dropped, transit agencies struggled to
maintain essential services, revealing the need for more flexible
funding that supports daily operations. The pandemic, much like the
Great Recession, underscores the urgent need to revisit federal support
policies for operating expenses.
By way of background, federal support for public transit began in
earnest with the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, which aimed to
address the growing transportation needs of urban areas. As noted in a
2023 Urban Institute report, there was a prevailing belief at the time
that ``private operators should cover operating costs, with the federal
government stepping in to invest in improved lines, for example,'' and
the main thrust of the Act was focused on capital investments.\1\
Subsequent legislation in the 1970s, particularly the National Mass
Transportation Assistance Act of 1974, expanded federal support for
operating expenses more explicitly. Recognizing the need for ongoing
operational support to maintain and improve transit services, Congress
authorized billions of dollars for transit systems, with a substantial
portion allocated to operating expenses.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Urban Institute. (2023). Surmounting the Fiscal Cliff: The
COVID-19 Pandemic's Effect on Transit. Retrieved from https://
www.urban.org/sites/default/files/2023-11/Surmounting%20the
%20Fiscal%20Cliff.pdf.
\2\ Congressional Research Service. (2024). Federal Support of
Public Transportation Operating Expenses. Congressional Research
Service. Retrieved from https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/
R47900.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 1980s marked a significant shift in federal transit policy,
driven largely by the Reagan Administration's argument that transit
agencies should be more self-sufficient and rely on local and state
funding for operational costs, which would result in greater efficiency
and fiscal discipline. However, this argument was not supported by
empirical evidence at the time, and critics pointed out that reducing
federal operating support could lead to service cuts, fare increases,
and a decline in transit ridership, particularly affecting low-income
and minority communities who relied heavily on public transit.\3\ This
marked the beginning of a gradual decline in federal support for
transit operating expenses throughout the 1980s and 1990s, ultimately
culminating in the 1998 TEA-21 transportation law forbidding the use of
the vast majority of federal transit funds to support operating costs,
with some limited exceptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ American Public Transportation Association. (1981), 1981
Transit Fact Book. Retrieved from https://www.apta.com/wp-content/
uploads/Resources/resources/statistics/Documents/FactBook/APTA-1981-
Transit_Fact_Book.pdf; Transportation Research Board. (1983). Deferred
Maintenance and Its Impacts on Transportation Systems. Retrieved from
https://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/trr/1983/936/936-007.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The result is a federal policy that, for more than two decades, has
incentivized transit agencies to allocate their limited local match
funds towards capital projects to maximize federal support, as more
money is available to match capital expenses, and at higher rates than
operating expenses. This creates a skewed financial strategy, where
agencies prioritize infrastructure investments over the essential daily
operation of services. Consequently, they face operational funding
shortfalls, leading to reduced service frequency, increased fares, and
a diminished ability to meet the mobility needs of their communities.
This misalignment ultimately compromises the effectiveness and
sustainability of transit systems and leads us to many of the difficult
questions, and often implausibly bad solutions we are facing today.
The federal response to the Great Recession should have awakened
Congress to the shortcomings of current federal transit policy. In
response to the 2008 financial crisis, the 2009 American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act allocated $8.8 billion to transit systems as part of
its overall effort to stimulate job growth. However, transit agencies
were significantly restricted in using these funds for operational
costs, with only 2 percent of the expenditure directed toward
operations. The majority of federal funding was instead invested in
capital projects, such as building transit facilities and purchasing
buses. This approach left transit agencies vulnerable when other
revenue streams they relied on to support operating costs, like local
and state taxes, diminished.
As noted in the Urban Institute report, a 2010 survey of 151 major
transit agencies revealed that 90 percent experienced either stagnant
or reduced local funding, and 89 percent saw similar trends in state
funding during the 2009 fiscal year. As a consequence, transit agencies
addressed budget deficits through other measures. Between January 2009
and March 2010, the most common strategies employed were reducing
service (by 84 percent of agencies) and increasing fares (by 73
percent). This was a predictable, cyclical effect of the current
federal funding structure that we have seen time and again. So much so
that this pattern has a name: the transit death spiral. Local or
national economic circumstances impact ridership, causing transit
systems to cut service or increase fares, driving away riders, thus
further reducing revenue and perpetuating the cycle.
Congress recognized the backward incentives created by this
structure when they allowed transit agencies to use all federal formula
funds--not just emergency funds--awarded from 2020-2022 for operations.
This money ensured essential workers in public transit were able to
continue doing their jobs and delivering service throughout the
pandemic. Yet, while the pandemic forever changed how communities
function, work, socialize, and commute, federal policy did not change
with it, and we are once again operating under the old funding scheme.
John Samuelsen, International President of the Transport Workers Union
of America (TWU), may have said it best: ``So, the government will give
an agency a lot of money to buy a bus--but not a dime toward hiring an
operator to drive it, or a mechanic to maintain it.''
Also cyclical are the tired arguments of those who use an economic
downturn to attack the value of public transportation or the use of
federal dollars to support it. I want to be absolutely clear in my
position: public transit systems provide widespread benefits that
transcend local boundaries and fundamentally support national economic,
environmental, and social goals. It would be a mistake to argue that
the long-term viability of these systems is a local issue and not
recognize that public transit is a critical component of our national
infrastructure. Federal support is essential to maximize the potential
of public transportation and ensure sustainable, inclusive growth in
our communities.
That is why transportation labor has long supported a reversal of
the status quo, restoring the federal government's critical role in
supporting sustainable and reliable public transportation service by
providing transit agencies with new, dedicated funding and flexibility
to use portions of their capital budgets for operating costs.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Transportation Trades Department (2011). Mass Transit Systems
Need Spending Flexibility to Avoid Damaging Service and Job Cuts.
Retrieved from https://ttd.org/policy/policy-statements/mass-transit-
systems-need-spending-flexibility-to-avoid-damaging-service-and-job-
cuts/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the current challenges and historical context, I urge you to
give serious consideration to correcting our broken federal transit
funding programs. Taking this one step would spare much of the debate
over cost cutting measures that only harm commuters and workers in your
communities. H.R. 7039, the Stronger Communities Through Better Transit
Act, introduced by Congressman Hank Johnson (GA-04) would help federal
transit policy take a serious step in the right direction. This bill
would significantly enhance public transit service nationwide by
providing $20 billion per year for four years, enabling transit
agencies to increase service frequency, expand service areas, and
extend operating hours, thus improving accessibility and convenience
for riders. This funding model directly addresses the operational
shortfalls and skewed incentives created by our current funding scheme.
Similar legislation, the Moving Transit Forward Act of 2024, has been
introduced by Senators Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) and John Fetterman (D-
PA). Moving these bills forward is the best thing Congress can do today
to ensure the long-term success and sustainability of our public
transit systems, aligning federal policy with the needs of our
communities.
Commuter rail still faces serious challenges, highlighting the
complexity of post-pandemic recovery in transit
While transit ridership has seen a post-pandemic rebound, with many
modes of public transit, such as buses and light rail, recovering much
of their pre-pandemic ridership, commuter rail systems are lagging
behind in their recovery. Commuter rail is a crucial component of the
public transportation network, offering efficient, safe, and climate-
friendly transit for millions of people in major metropolitan areas.
These systems not only facilitate daily commutes for workers but also
create tens of thousands of well-paying jobs across the country. Their
slow recovery highlights the unique challenges facing public
transportation as we seek solutions to adapt to evolving travel
patterns and budgetary constraints without jeopardizing jobs, the needs
of commuters, and the economic wellbeing of our communities.
Commuter rail has historically served people commuting to the
office five days a week around a typical 9 am to 5 pm schedule. With
the rise of remote work during the pandemic, people are less likely to
be in the office every day, especially on Mondays and Fridays, and
working hours have generally become more flexible. This shift is likely
not going away and is posing challenges to both the vitality of
downtowns of major metropolitan areas and the commuter rail systems
that serve those areas.
Many of these systems are facing significant budget deficits in the
coming fiscal year. However, because of the differences between
commuter rail and other modes of public transportation, the fiscal
cliff facing commuter rail agencies is much steeper and more
challenging to resolve. If left unaddressed, commuter rail systems
across the country are likely to take cost cutting actions, such as
implementing steep service cuts, eliminating thousands of jobs, and
reducing capital investments in their systems. These cuts would
devastate the future of commuter rail in this country, hurt commuters
in the communities they serve, and threaten the livelihood of the
workers who provide service on these systems every day.
The economic benefits of commuter rail--and public transit more
broadly--aren't limited to the parts of the country these services
operate in. For example, while the Maryland Area Rail Commuter (MARC)
rolling stock is used to transport passengers in the Washington D.C. &
Baltimore region, the rolling stock is being overhauled at the Alstom
plant in Hornell, New York by proud union workers represented by the
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM).
The Buy America Requirements that were strengthened in the historic
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) and that TTD and our
affiliates strongly support, have helped facilitate a public transit
and commuter supply chain footprint in many states across the country
that provide tens of thousands good paying jobs, many of them union.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ American Public Transportation Association. APTA Industry
Footprint. Retrieved from https://footprint.apta.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transportation labor stands ready to support creative solutions
that don't come at the expense of workers or commuters to address these
challenges. For example, commuter rail systems are looking at new
operating models, like regional rail, that emphasize frequent service
since predictable and frequent service is a major driver of ridership.
One successful example is Metrolink's implementation of 30-minute
headways for the majority of the day on the Antelope Valley line in Los
Angeles County, California. As the CEO of Metrolink testified earlier
this year in the House Transportation Infrastructure Rail, Pipelines,
and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee, there was a 27 percent increase
in ridership in the four months of service expansion on the Antelope
Valley line.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Written Testimony of Darren Kettle, Chief Executive Officer of
Southern California Regional Rail Authority. April 17th House
Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines,
and Hazardous Materials Hearing on ``Getting to Work: Examining
Challenges and Solutions in the Commuter Rail Industry.'' Retrieved
from https://transportation.house.gov/uploadedfiles/04-17-
2024_rph_hearing_-_darren_kettle_-_testimony.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commuter rail systems are also examining how to better connect
commuter rail to other transportation modes. For example, the
Brightline West high-speed rail service between Las Vegas and the Los
Angeles area will have a direct connection with the Metrolink commuter
rail station at Rancho Cucamonga to help facilitate travel via
Metrolink to downtown Los Angeles and other destinations in the region.
In Chicago, Metra is working with the suburban bus operator Pace to
better align Pace's bus routes and service frequency with Metra
stations so riders on Pace have increased access to Metra service.
States are also taking action. Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro
has proposed $161 million in additional funding for SEPTA to avoid
devastating service cuts and the Maryland Legislature increased
transportation funding by $250 million this year, including additional
funding for public transit. Other states, like Illinois, are having
discussions about what the future governance of these agencies should
look like. While transportation labor may agree or disagree on the
particulars of these initiatives, there is no doubt that many states
are doing their part to meet the moment.
As commuter rail systems, states, and the federal government
continue to examine new initiatives, policy changes, and funding
opportunities, I urge you to ensure rail labor is included at every
step. The livelihood of tens of thousands of workers depend on commuter
rail systems successfully adapting to the changes wrought by the
pandemic. Rail labor unions have historically been key partners in
making our commuter rail systems successful and they stand ready to
help build the foundation for future success as well.
TTD welcomes significant federal progress to protect public transit
workers and their passengers
After years of raising alarm over increasingly horrific assaults on
public transit workers, transportation labor unions successfully fought
for the inclusion of assault prevention language in the Fixing
America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act of 2015. This language
required the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to publish a Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that established safety standards,
practices, or protocols for protecting transit operators from the risk
of assault. After the Obama Administration failed to move forward with
an NPRM, the Trump Administration ultimately deemed the requirement
redundant, instead issuing toothless suggestions to transit agencies
suggesting they give the issue a closer look. To date, this requirement
has not been implemented, despite repeated calls from labor unions and
Congress to do so.
In the absence of progress on the FAST Act NPRM, transportation
labor once again successfully fought for a legislative remedy in the
IIJA to help mitigate worker assaults. Though the action is long
delayed, I am happy to share that the FTA has made significant progress
in implementing the requirements of the IIJA.
Among the most significant actions is a final rule requiring
transit agencies to establish joint labor-management Safety Committees
as part of their Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans (PTASP).
These committees are tasked with conducting safety risk assessments and
developing strategies to mitigate risks associated with transit worker
assaults. Of note, this collaborative structure was proposed by labor
unions, who recognized the value of partnership between labor and
management when considering safety planning. Other provisions in the
rule include:
Safety Risk Assessments: Transit agencies must conduct
safety risk assessments focusing on the risk of assaults on transit
workers. They need to identify and implement safety risk mitigations or
strategies, and report these efforts to the FTA.
Safety Performance Targets: Transit agencies must set
safety performance targets as part of their safety plans. These targets
are based on data and aimed at reducing assaults and other safety
incidents.
Health Measures: Agencies are required to incorporate
measures to minimize exposure to infectious diseases, in line with
guidelines from health authorities.
National Safety Plan: Alongside the PTASP updates, the
FTA revised the National Public Transportation Safety Plan, providing
additional tools, best practices, and resources to help transit
agencies improve safety performance.
Our frontline transit workers have firsthand knowledge of the types
of violent and non-violent crimes occurring on our transit systems.
Their insights are invaluable in understanding and addressing these
safety issues. As a downstream effect of the newly established safety
committees, these workers can share their experiences and contribute to
developing effective strategies to mitigate risks. This collaborative
approach not only enhances the safety of transit workers but also
addresses broader public concerns over safety, which can positively
impact ridership by restoring public confidence in the transit system.
We thank those of you in this committee room who helped us secure
these provisions into law, and the Biden Administration, including the
U.S. Department of Transportation and FTA for their leadership in its
implementation. These policies will help ensure that workers who are
just trying to do their job, like anyone else, do not face the fear of
violence on a daily basis.
Eroding transit labor protections is not a viable solution for
improving transit and addressing budget
As we consider opportunities and challenges in public transit, it
is crucial to address the importance of maintaining strong labor
protections for transit workers. These protections have been in place
for nearly 50 years and ensure that federal funds used in public
transit projects do not undermine workers' rights and working
conditions.
Critics of transit labor protections argue that they increase costs
and hinder operational efficiency. However, multiple studies, including
reports from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), have found
that the impact of these protections on labor costs and the adoption of
new technologies is minimal. The GAO's findings indicate that, on the
contrary, they have enhanced labor-management stability and improved
communication and working relationships between management and labor.
Moreover, these protections have not significantly delayed the
implementation of federal grants nor impaired the operational
capabilities of transit systems.
Efforts to overturn these protections under the guise of improving
service by reducing labor costs are misguided and detract from the
substantive policy discussions necessary to ensure the long-term
success of this industry. It is imperative that Congress rejects any
attempts to erode these vital protections based on outdated arguments
that are grounded in a distaste for labor unions rather than sound
policy. Instead, we should uphold the principles that have long
supported a fair and equitable transit workforce.
Congress must view some proposals to solve budget shortfalls with
additional oversight and an appropriate degree of skepticism
We have seen a number of solutions touted as quick fixes for the
financial challenges facing transit agencies. Often, these solutions
are at odds with the goals of public transit, come at the expense of
improved service for commuters, and in some cases, are nothing more
than the promise by a nascent tech industry that is searching for
nothing more than steady contracts to suck up taxpayer money.
We have serious concerns that transit agencies have been
increasingly lured by autonomous vehicle (AV) companies with promises
of reduced labor costs, improved access to transit, and the often
clumsy appearance of being on the cutting edge of new technology.
Transit agencies have taken the bait, despite this technology being
completely unproven in any context, let alone public transit.
In 2022, Carnegie Mellon University's Traffic21 transportation
research institute issued a policy brief highlighting several critical
findings regarding the unique challenges of operating AVs in public
transit environments and emphasized the indispensable role of human
operators. These challenges and the necessity for human oversight
highlight significant limitations that prevent AVs from currently
delivering their purported benefits effectively.
Public transit operates within highly complex and dynamic
environments. These settings are often characterized by the presence of
pedestrians, cyclists, and various unpredictable elements such as
roadwork and traffic signals manually operated by law enforcement.
Autonomous systems often struggle to interpret these varied and subtle
human cues, leading to operational inefficiencies and potential safety
hazards. The ability of human operators to navigate and adapt to these
complex urban scenarios is indispensable, as they provide the necessary
judgment and flexibility that current AV technologies lack.
Among our many articulated concerns over the safety, workforce
challenges, lack of accountability and oversight of the AV industry, we
are deeply concerned that this misallocation of resources will only
erode public confidence in transit authorities. This is especially true
if pilot programs fail to deliver on their promises of improved service
and safety, or if road users or passengers, who are serving as test
subjects for this nascent industry, are injured when the technology
malfunctions.
We thank Congressman Chuy Garcia (IL-04), for introducing the Safe
Regulation of Autonomous Bus Driving Systems Act (Safe ROADS Act). This
legislation highlights serious necessary considerations for autonomous
vehicles in public transit and other large vehicles. The Safe ROADS Act
sets stringent guidelines that must be in place before the use of level
4 and 5 automated buses, school buses, and commercial motor vehicles,
requiring rigorous minimum standards for vehicle testing, pedestrian
and bicyclist detection, safe handoff protocols to drivers, malfunction
detection, and minimum data collection and operator training standards.
I urge all of your support for this safety-first approach to AV
technology in transit.
We also urge greater Congressional oversight over transit agencies'
use of demand response microtransit services. These services have
proven more expensive on a per-passenger basis compared to traditional
fixed-route bus services. Even the lowest-performing bus routes are
more cost-effective than microtransit, which often costs local
governments two to three times more per passenger. Further, we have
seen microtransit systems struggle to scale efficiently to meet
increased demand. This results in unreliable service, particularly for
disabled and low-income passengers who rely most on affordable and
dependable public transit.
Often, microtransit involves contracting out services to private
companies that utilize gig workers. These workers typically receive
lower wages, fewer benefits, and face worse working conditions compared
to unionized public transit workers. This move towards privatization
threatens the quality of transit jobs and undermines the stability of
long-term careers in the transit sector. As transit systems nationwide
continue to suffer from a lack of funding, many are pushed toward
privatization as a proposed solution to their financial problems.
Although private companies claim they can provide better service at
lower costs, they often fail to deliver on these promises.
These for-profit companies lack any incentive to provide high-
quality service and accountability because they were fundamentally not
created to serve the public good. Their primary objective is to
generate profit, which often results in deep service cuts, fewer
experienced workers, and decreased levels of safety and security
measures.
Congress should ensure that transit systems adhere to essential
standards when considering privatization. This includes requiring
public transit operators to consider all relevant factors before
contracting out transit services, such as conducting a cost analysis to
assess the effectiveness of using private business entities versus
existing employees. Potential bidders should be required to demonstrate
their ability to provide high-quality transit services that match or
exceed the standards provided by public transit agencies. Additionally,
public transit driver safety standards should be extended to the
paratransit industry, and local government agencies should give a 25
percent preference to bidders on service contracts who agree to retain
employees of the prior contractor or subcontractor for at least one
year.
As we navigate the challenges highlighted by the COVID-19 pandemic,
it is clear that we need a renewed commitment to providing stable,
flexible, and sufficient funding for transit operations. We must
prioritize the safety and reliability of these systems while ensuring
that the workforce remains safe and well-supported.
Again, thank you Chairman Crawford and Ranking Member Norton, for
the opportunity to testify before the subcommittee today. Your
continued attention and commitment to these issues are crucial as we
work together to strengthen and sustain our nation's public transit
systems for the future.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you.
I now turn to Member questions. I will start by recognizing
myself for 5 minutes.
Mr. Scribner, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
provided $108 billion for public transportation. That is a 77-
percent increase over the prior FTA authorization. This funding
came not long after the collection of COVID relief bills had
pumped a total of nearly $70 billion in supplemental emergency
funding to transit agencies. Even with those historic funding
levels, many public transportation agencies now report that
they will face fiscal uncertainty in the next few years.
So, if a once-in-a-generation-funding increase didn't
provide long-term financial stability for the Nation's transit
agencies, what will?
Mr. Scribner. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman.
As I said in my opening statement and in more detail in my
written testimony, I do think some of these major operational
efficiencies can only be realized by trying to reduce the
excessive cost of labor. And we have seen the trend lines both
before the pandemic and after continue to go down in terms of
labor productivity.
And I think if you look globally at some of the solutions
that peer or near-peer countries have adopted, especially in
contracting and then on heavy rail systems automation, I think
you can realize substantial operating cost savings there and
get a lot more bang for your buck.
Mr. Crawford. Thanks. Appreciate your insight.
So, Ms. Hendricks, the North American Transit Alliance is
comprised of the five largest private transit contracting
firms. Many transit agencies often choose to work with
contractors to maximize the limited budgets to achieve a shared
goal of all of us here today: improving the transit passenger
experience.
And when an agency engages the services of a transit
contractor, it follows guidance outlined in FTA's best
practices and lessons learned manual. As I understand it, FTA
has not updated this guidance document since 2016. That is 8
years ago and one pandemic ago. Clearly, the landscape in
public transportation has changed in that time.
Does NATA have recommendations for how or when FTA should
update this best practices manual?
Ms. Hendricks. Yes. The North American Transit Alliance, as
referred to in my written testimony, would advise for an
advisory committee, as I mentioned. We would also ask that the
procurement process be streamlined with external input to
ensure that the process is better detailed, including the
metrics and the information that is required for a contractor
to put a successful competitive bid together, meaning the
details of the collective bargaining agreement, the scheduling,
or as referred to as the ``run cut,'' the liquidated damages,
and, in partnership, how can we best streamline this process to
open up to be more competitive and more conducive. We would
also ask that the timeline to respond be conducive to all
thoroughness of a competitive bid process.
So, we have suggested to the FTA the streamlining process,
the length of the contract, and ways that outside input can
help be more efficient and cost effective to service the
communities.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you.
And, Ms. Maynard, as I mentioned in my opening statement,
crime on transit systems across the country is on the rise,
especially in our major cities. While the vast majority of
trips on transit take place without incident, the violent
nature of the attacks that I mentioned continue to fuel the
perception that all public transit systems are unsafe.
What policies has the Regional Transportation Commission of
Southern Nevada instituted to address rider and worker safety
during and since the pandemic?
Ms. Maynard. Chairman, thank you for that question.
Public transit as a public space is truly the rolling
microcosm of what is happening in any urban city, and if crime
is increasing, if the unhoused population is increasing, if
drug addiction, mental addiction, if that is increasing or it
is prevalent, you are going to see it on public transit.
And we understand that there is not a one-size-fits-all
solution for that. Public transit agencies around the United
States, including the RTC, are looking at ensuring that we are
making safety a priority, whether it is for the driver or the
passengers.
And we are doing things like driver enclosure enhancements.
We, at the RTC, have a GPS response button that if a driver
needs something, they can literally press a button. It is GPS-
based. We know where they are, on the bus or off the bus, and
we can immediately respond by way of our security department.
It is very important that we continue to partner with our
local law enforcement, whether that is by way of an MOU or
actually having them work on your system. For our customers, it
is about presence. And so, we have invested, the RTC,
additional security officers to ensure that they are following
data. You know, where the incidents may occur, that is where
they are assigned.
And then, again, because we are a reflection of what is
happening in the urban city, we are now, many transit systems
are working with the local jurisdictions with their social
services to connect the folks on our system that may be
unhoused, that may be veterans seeking medical attention,
mental drug addiction. And we are finding that we have the same
customer base, again, because it is part of, again, what is
happening in the urban core.
Trying to solve for those social ills and how they respond
to public transit is a complex problem. Definitely not a one-
size-fits-all solution. So, it is going to be, again, ensuring
that the operators are safe by way of enclosures and
technology, ensure the passengers can see enforcement efforts
by law enforcement or security officers that are employed by
transit agencies, and ensuring that we are investing our time
with those social services to ensure that we, again, try to
help solve for a very complex problem that is not necessarily a
transit problem.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you.
Ms. Holmes Norton.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Regan, your testimony notes that too often
the discussion around public transit focuses exclusively on
costs and revenues. This is a reductive approach that fails to
recognize transit's role as a public service. These same
discussions often fail to mention the far larger subsidies
given to highway projects.
What is the role of transit as a public service, and why it
does not make sense to evaluate transit or other forms of
transportation by how much revenue they generate?
Mr. Regan. Thank you for the question.
And when I think of public transportation, I think the word
``public'' is so critical there. I think about the other areas
where we use that word when we describe a service, whether it
be public libraries, public parks, public schools, public
roads, as you noted.
All of that, when we say ``public,'' it means building the
community. It means making sure that we are tying the community
together and providing resources for the citizens of that
community.
And public transit is an economic lifeblood of cities large
and small all around this country, and we should not be looking
at it in terms of dollars and cents. We should be looking at it
as the value add it brings to communities all throughout our
country.
Ms. Norton. Ms. Maynard, your testimony highlights how safe
it is to travel by public transportation. In fact, traveling by
public transportation is 10 times safer than traveling by car.
Even though transit agencies are already very safe, what
actions are the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern
Nevada and other American Public Transportation Association
members taking to further ensure a safe travel experience?
Ms. Maynard. Thank you for that question.
And again, as I previously mentioned, it really is a
partnership. The public transit agencies need to ensure that
they are working closely with the communities which they serve
for those social services, that connection, law enforcement,
the security and transit agencies themselves that have their
own security firms.
And I think it is important too that, certainly in southern
Nevada, we have one of the deadliest pedestrian-vehicle death
rates in the United States. Public transit is safer, and it is
ensuring that we are providing services that can help reduce
some of the congestion, as an example.
Now that we are not only the entertainment capital of the
world but also now the sports capital of the world, we provide
something called Game Day Express, and we are allowing folks
that would normally drive into the Allegiant Stadium off of Las
Vegas Boulevard. By doing that, we are keeping about 2,000 cars
off the strip in that area. That certainly--that less
congestion improves safety.
So, it is really a multipronged approach in terms of
ensuring that riders are safe by having folks travel on public
transit but also looking at ways to ensure that the public and
the traveling public and the operators and the employees are
safe.
Ms. Norton. Another question for you, Ms. Maynard. Your
testimony also addresses ongoing efforts across the United
States by public transit agencies to regain riders after the
pandemic.
In the District of Columbia, which I represent, the
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority is undergoing a
bus network redesign to update its legacy bus routes and better
serve the current needs of riders.
Why is it important for transit agencies to conduct
community outreach and modernize service levels and routes to
attract and retain riders?
Ms. Maynard. We are in the people business. We are people
connecting people and providing places where they need to go.
It is very important that we understand those travel patterns.
I think your CEO Randy Clarke has done a tremendous job
here in Washington, understanding that the commute travel
patterns have changed, and it is about reallocating those
resources.
And so, if you previously, pre-pandemic, had a heavy
commute pattern, less trips on the weekend, that is how your
teams will schedule those transit trips. When you see those
travel patterns change and you adjust accordingly, that is
something they have done here very well in Washington, and
other transit systems are doing the exact same thing as it
relates to particularly commuter passenger travel.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Ms. Maynard.
And I yield back.
Mr. Crawford. The gentlewoman yields.
Mr. LaMalfa.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Scribner, in talking about the electric vehicle and the
Highway Trust Fund situation, the trust fund has been
backfilled by about $280 billion since 2008, bailouts during
the COVID era, all sorts of issues along that line with the
bailout.
So, with the huge push on electric vehicles, there really
isn't a good mechanism yet for them to be taxed in a way that
is commensurate with what combustion vehicle cars are doing.
What do you see, from your viewpoint, would be the fairest way
of doing that?
I mean, I am looking at, there are ideas for taxing
everybody by the mile or maybe just do that with electric
vehicles or some other method. What do you see as the best way
for making the EVs be part of the solution?
Mr. Scribner. Thank you very much for that question.
I do believe the future is shifting our revenue collection
from per-gallon taxation to per-mile charging, where the method
of propulsion of the vehicle doesn't matter.
So, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act did
reauthorize a State technical assistance grant program for
States to conduct pilots on these kind of mileage fee
approaches, and it also established a national pilot which is
yet to get off the ground. But I do think--and that is
something Reason Foundation has worked on for a couple of
decades--is that the long-term shift will be away from per-
gallon toward per-mile charging.
And I think that not only does that incorporate electric
vehicles, and, in fact, the declines we have seen in fuel tax
collections per vehicle-mile traveled have primarily come, to
date, from improving fuel economy----
Mr. LaMalfa [interrupting]. See, that's the perverse thing
in that is that everybody has been incentivized or shoved into
getting better mileage vehicles, and so, the Government then
says, like, heck, we are not getting enough out of your gas tax
dollars, so, we are going to hit you another way now.
What do you think about, though, with the possibility of
how intrusive keeping track of people's mileage is going to be?
I mean, such as GPS or the meters as you drive past like on
toll roads. How do we do that in a way that isn't in people's
business personally, tracking where they are going and such?
Mr. Scribner. Right. That is an excellent question, and
privacy is a top concern and a major focus of the research
right now. The simplest way is to simply not collect location
information.
Hawaii, for instance, recently established what will become
a mandatory mileage fee program, and what they do is they
leverage their annual safety inspections and collect odometer
readings, which they already were. They were collecting
odometer reading information, and they are simply then applying
a fee to that.
Mr. LaMalfa. Not every State has an annual requirement. You
have to go visit somebody and take time out of your day or week
to do that. So, some have 2-year smog checks. Newer vehicles
don't have to go for their first smog check for 6 or 8 years.
So, now we have another trip people have to make to go report
something.
Is there a way we can do this on an honor system where I
can just fill out a form annually if I can afford it or
quarterly if I want to pay quarterly or an estimate? How about
that?
Mr. Scribner. Well, perhaps, maybe not quite the honor
system, but there are applications. You can take a picture of
your odometer reading with a cell phone and then be subject to
occasional random auditing. So, there are ways to implement----
Mr. LaMalfa [interrupting]. A picture of my odometer or
maybe my neighbor's odometer? I mean, at what point do you
decide you trust people or not?
Mr. Scribner. Right. These mechanisms--and there is a
tradeoff between privacy and auditability for any of these
systems----
Mr. LaMalfa [interrupting]. I am pretty big on the privacy
side, sir. So, I think let's design a system where people
aren't being followed around even more so just for the
Government to take money from them, right.
So, let's shift gears to high-speed rail in California, one
of my favorite things to talk about since it is such a
boondoggle and a rat hole in my home State.
So, what do you see as--let's just shift to--well, let's
keep it with Mr. Scribner.
Now, you have seen how that thing has been estimated $33
billion to begin with. It was what the voters were sold when
they agreed to $9 billion worth of bond money, and it has since
risen to $128 billion and counting, and it is many, many years
behind.
Please expound on the idea. Is high-speed rail really the
be-all end-all, or are there other forms of public transit that
can be helpful?
Mr. Scribner. I think the system that is being built very,
very slowly in California has suffered a number of many
predictable problems, some less predictable, but this is
something we have also worked on at Reason Foundation for the
past two decades. Predicting many of these problems that turned
out--we turned out to be a little more optimistic than reality.
I do think that high-speed rail may serve potentially some
niche routes in the United States. But given the geography and
population density, it is unlikely to serve nationwide
customers. And I think that it is a mistake to oversell the
potential of high-speed rail.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you. I appreciate it.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Crawford. The gentleman yields.
Mr. Larsen.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you, Chair.
Mr. Regan, as Congress looks ahead to the next couple
years, one of the policy decisions we will probably have a
discussion about is this balance between Federal funding
between capital and operations for transit.
Now, currently, Federal law allows rural and small urban
transit agencies to use funds for operations but doesn't allow
transit agencies in large areas, except for preventative
maintenance.
How would you suggest Congress look at this balance,
recognizing there is perhaps a limited amount of dollars--as
much as it is, it is still a limited amount in order to split
between operating and capital?
Mr. Regan. Well, I think, obviously, there are going to be
different needs in different communities. So, I think we have
to provide the opportunity for when there are grant funds for
applicants to use their own discretion about what is the
greatest need right now.
I mean, if you are a community that needs more service or
expanded service, you have got plenty of buses, it doesn't make
sense to invest in more buses. It makes sense to invest in more
people that can operate those buses and maintain them.
Certainly, I think that flexibility aspect is a critical
aspect to this. And certainly, I think we should take a look at
Mr. Johnson's bill that would provide a dedicated matching
grant program that would allow agencies to apply specifically
for operating assistance or operating support from the Federal
Government.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Ms. Maynard, do you have, from
APTA's view, an answer to my question?
Ms. Maynard. I tend to agree with some of what was
previously stated. I think if you have seen one transit agency,
you have seen one transit agency. And certainly, for the rural
providers that depend on the 5307, the Federal grant funding
for their operations, is key for them.
Over half the transit systems in the United States are run
by smaller rural transit agencies. For the larger systems,
particularly the legacy systems, I think there is that
flexibility that is needed.
You might find that one year you are going to invest,
depending on your rolling stock capital replacement plan, on
the capital. You may need more that year or that quarter than
you do for operating.
I think on behalf of APTA, we certainly think the
flexibility is key and that at this point we have not taken a
formal position but do believe it is important to have the
discussion on ensuring that there is funding available for
both.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Ms. Hendricks, in Washington
State, in fact in my district, Community Transit--I mentioned
Community Transit a little bit in my opening statement as doing
a lot of different things, looking at different routes in order
to accommodate the light rail that is coming in.
They are expanding the BRT, bus rapid transit system, as
well, but they are also partnering with local communities on--
it is not really microtransit as much as it is on-demand,
transit on-demand. But it is still kind of the same concept
about filling gaps.
Could you chat a little bit about some of the drawbacks to
microtransit as well as you mentioned some of the benefits?
Ms. Hendricks. Yes. When you think about microtransit, we
have implemented microtransit at NATA, many of our members that
operate for agencies. And at first it appears that it could be
more expensive per rider, but in fact, when you look at the
allocation of the resources and you are replacing a smaller
vehicle in some situations and on-demand with a large--versus a
large fixed-route bus, it actually is balanced out on the costs
and cost effective.
And truly the benefits of microtransit, and on-demand more
specifically, is allowing people to have access in connecting
those individuals on that first and last mile to the public
transit systems that are already in place.
So, we have seen benefits of that, as mentioned in my
written testimony, and in New York, for example, where we are
doing 500 trips a day already, passenger per trip, and it
hasn't increased our cost. It has increased the riderships and
it helped us regain ridership post the pandemic to connect
people on that first and last mile to the infrastructure that
exists within the public transit systems.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thanks. I will have some followup
on that as well.
Mr. Regan, back to you. Regarding the creation of joint
labor-management safety committees and better reporting on
transit worker assaults, has the implementation of these
policies been successful? And what work needs to be done--not
what is left--but what is next to improve safety?
Mr. Regan. Well, the final rule was just announced a month
ago, so, it is wait and see how everything works.
I think a key part is going to be the extent to which
transit agencies embrace their labor partners on how to tackle
this problem collaboratively.
That is what the program was designed to do to make sure
that the people who are every day seeing the risks on the
ground, in the buses, on the trains, in the stations, can
provide that knowledge and expertise into the drafting of
public transportation safety plans that protect both commuters
and drivers.
So, for us, I think that we should be--I hope that agencies
will view their labor partners and their workers as assets in
this process about how do we tackle a very complicated problem
and one that so far has eluded us and also, frankly, provides a
disincentive for people to ride the trains or a disincentive
for people to decide to apply for these jobs when what they
hear about public transit is that it is a dangerous place to
be.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you. I don't yield back my
negative 30 seconds.
Mr. Crawford. We will bank that for the next one.
Mr. Stauber.
Mr. Stauber. Mr. Larsen, I will just take your 30 seconds
anyway.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate you having this meeting.
I recently discussed crime on public transportation in
another subcommittee hearing, but I think this discussion bears
repeating.
In the last few years, Minnesota, like many States, adopted
policies that punished law enforcement and took away their
resources. They complemented this with policies that extended
leniency to criminal behavior, and now our public transit
systems are breeding grounds for crime.
Between January and April of 2024, Minnesota Metro Transit
reports a total of 1,248 criminal incidents. This number
includes 230 assaults, 457 drug offenses, and 299 destruction
of property incidents.
Instead of cracking down on the bad behavior, the
Democratic trifecta in Minnesota, they took a different
approach. Fare violations are now a $35 ticket instead of a
$180 misdemeanor charge, and they have replaced police officers
with full arrest powers with transit rider investment agents,
TRIP agents, non-police agents who are to remind criminals of
the behavior rules.
These soft-on-crime policies are exactly why Metro Transit
still only has half the ridership they did at pre-pandemic
levels.
Mr. Regan, we have seen countless reports citing incidents
in which bus and rail workers have been gruesomely attacked by
unruly passengers, putting the safety of transit workers,
commuters, and pedestrians at risk.
Can you elaborate on how crime has impacted transit
workers?
Mr. Regan. Well, in some cases it has been catastrophic. We
have had members die on the job, attacked while driving a bus,
for example.
In other cases it is--the broader trend, in my view, as I
just mentioned, it is a deterrent towards doing the hiring--
meeting the hiring goals of transit agencies all across the
country are meeting here.
So, I am encouraged by what the Federal Transit
Administration released about a month ago, that the passenger
safety and transit safety plans----
Mr. Stauber [interrupting]. Are you going to request police
officers with full arrest powers or people that just remind
people of bad behavior?
Mr. Regan. We have not taken a position on that moving
forward. We want to make----
Mr. Stauber [interrupting]. So, let me ask this. Are you
saying your union workers are OK with reminding people of bad
behavior?
Mr. Regan. Again, we have not taken a position. That is not
something--what I hear from our members is they want more
active engagement from their employers, from their agencies, to
make sure that their concerns and their needs are being met
when they are on the job.
We are in the process of engaging with them in this
process, and the Federal Government is providing good
leadership when it comes to the real safety concerns on board
these buses and transit systems.
Mr. Stauber. Representative Quigley and I went to the Metra
in Chicago. Very impressive. I don't think those union workers
would be OK with people--TRIP agents--being, quote,
``reminders'' to criminals of the bad behavior, assaulting your
workers.
I, along with several members of this committee, have
attempted to communicate with the Federal Transit
Administration the dangers that our transit workers and law-
abiding citizens face on transit.
Have you felt that your expressed concerns have been heard
by the agency? Because I feel that Congress has been ignored.
Mr. Regan. Certainly when--during the rulemaking process
for this entire--for the passenger and transportation worker
safety plans that were just released, we had extensive
conversations with them and a lot of our concerns were met.
The original version was not quite what we would have
envisioned, what we would have liked. The final version
certainly met a lot more of our needs that are binding in terms
of worker engagement with their employers, ensuring that we can
develop these plans.
And by the way, I think, more importantly, having--we need
to have more information, more data about where the risk
factors are and where the problems are. And these safety plans
that are going to be developed with worker input will help
allow us to make further steps down the road to try to address
some of those problems.
Mr. Stauber. How long do you think before that safety plan
will be implemented?
Mr. Regan. Well, there are going to be--there are
requirements on all of the transit agencies to adopt these
plans. I think it will vary, depending on which agency and how
they are going to engage in the process. But we intend to hold
everyone accountable because our members' lives and well-being
are at risk.
Mr. Stauber. Yes. And I agree with you. We talk safety,
safety, safety. It is first, second, and third priority. I
appreciate that. But, again, I don't think your union members
would be OK with reminders or transit TRIP agents for violent
behavior. I think that is what gives our transit a bad name.
I yield back.
Mr. Regan. Well, violent behavior----
Mr. Crawford [interrupting]. The gentleman yields. The
gentleman has yielded.
Ms. Napolitano.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Regan and Ms. Maynard, along that line, in the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, we approved the funding and
requirements for installation of protective shields in buses to
prevent assaults on busdrivers.
How has this provision been implemented? Have there been
obstacles to improving safety measures in these buses? And I
know I have called for increased security shields. Can you
address it?
Mr. Regan. I am sorry? Increased security? Yes, of course.
I think we have long called for reimagining what--again,
for the drivers, this is their workspace.
What does their workspace look like? How do we make sure
that not only are they protected on the job, but also in some
cases, it is about protecting pedestrians, making sure that
blind spots are eliminated, making sure that there is better
visibility on oftentimes very busy streets.
But, yes, I think the workplace for these transit operators
needs to be improved and needs to make sure that they are
protected on the job.
Mrs. Napolitano. Ms. Maynard.
Ms. Maynard. Thanks for the question.
On behalf of the industry, it is very, very important that
we listen to the operators as it is very important that we
listen to our customers and in terms of how they feel safe,
when they don't feel safe.
In Las Vegas, we were one of the first in the United States
to add driver enclosures. We did that in 2016. We meet
regularly with our union employees to understand what they need
to feel more safe as well as our passengers.
We have been given great advice from the operators. To Mr.
Regan's point, it is their workspace, whether it is devising a
system that is fully enclosed but has a window they can open so
they can speak to the passengers. We get the feedback from
those operators.
But we saw over a 70-percent decline in incidents occurring
in our vehicles when we installed driver enclosures.
So, the industry itself, again, is listening to what their
employees want and are asking our bus manufacturing partners to
start designing better enclosures that can be part of the bus
build.
Mrs. Napolitano. More protected? Yes?
Ms. Maynard. I am sorry?
Mrs. Napolitano. More protected?
Ms. Maynard. More protected, exactly.
Mrs. Napolitano. Because we provided funding and
requirements for the installation of protective shields, but we
have no record of whether it has been enough or whether there
is more required.
Ms. Maynard. If I am hearing you correctly, the OEM bus
manufacturers, that wasn't something that you could buy off the
shelf, if you will.
But because of the feedback from the drivers, and certainly
part of it came from the pandemic in terms of just wanting that
protection between yourself and the customers, it really has
proven to be a great safety technique.
And so, there is a manufacturer here in the United States
that is building a really great shield. AROWGuard is the name
of the company. And we are working closely with the bus
manufacturers to make that part of the bus field, because those
shields do work.
Mrs. Napolitano. And how is your transit agency and other
agencies dealing with the rising level of homelessness on
transit? And what are the policies that transportation is
implementing to deal with the issue? What is the cost to the
transit agencies to address the issue?
Ms. Maynard. Thank you for that question.
And, again, it is something that I think a lot of systems
around the U.S. are doing. In Philadelphia, SEPTA has done a
great job. Again, what happens in any urban city is spilling
over and happening on transit.
And so, a very complex issue. And this is about working
closely with the jurisdictional--with their social service
agencies.
For example, in Las Vegas, we work with the city of Las
Vegas and Clark County. They have a team that comes out once a
month or twice a month to meet directly with passengers that
need social services. Housing recommendations, addiction
counseling, things like that. And it is part of partnership
with our law enforcement.
Mrs. Napolitano. Yes. You addressed it a little bit.
Ms. Maynard and Mr. Regan, my district in San Gabriel
Valley has major transit lines, including Foothill Transit,
Metro, and the new Metro Gold Line. And the constituents prefer
to use transit. Some still live and work too far from major
transit lines.
How are you improving first and last line connections, as
Ms. Hendricks indicated more should be done? What more can be
done?
Ms. Hendricks. Yes. As I spoke earlier, what we can do is
implement an on-demand or a microtransit service that is
provided. It is a smaller vehicle where we can have designated
pickup points and allow people to then connect to the transit
system that is in place so everyone can have access to the
essential services needed in our community.
So, we have seen that to be a great solution and we think
that that will continue to develop as we emerge into changing
and adapting to the new needs of public transit within our
cities.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you.
Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Crawford. Gentlewoman yields.
Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
So much of the money and the attention around public
transit goes to metropolitan areas. Obviously, transit is
pretty important for rural areas as well, particularly for
older Americans and for those with disabilities.
That is why I was so grateful, Ms. Maynard, that in your
testimony, you did talk about some of what is going on in rural
transit, particularly with regard to folks with disabilities.
So, put a little bit more meat on that bone. Talk to us
about the challenges that transit providers face in rural
America that they don't face in big cities.
Ms. Maynard. Thank you for that question.
And I have to agree with you, when you talk about fixed
route, I think generally what comes to mind first and foremost
is the able-bodied, the person that can get on a bus and go to
work. But in public transit, we do so much more than that.
Paratransit is a big part of what we do, ensuring the
disabled community has the same access, the same access as
everybody else to where they need to go. We know that rural
transit agencies utilize public transit for the disabled 50
percent more than other transit systems, and so----
Mr. Johnson of South Dakota [interrupting]. OK. Say that
again. I want to make sure we are all hearing that.
Ms. Maynard. So, rural transit systems, their disabled
community, they take transit 50 percent more than your
urbanized systems. It is very important. It is the connection
sometimes to--and I don't want to sound dramatic here--but to
life. It is making sure they get to where they need to go. And
so----
Mr. Johnson of South Dakota [interrupting]. Healthcare and
employment particularly, if you don't have access to those
things, it is really hard to live a full life.
Ms. Maynard. That is correct. In Las Vegas, as an example,
our rural provider, Southern Nevada Transit Coalition, we, RTC,
are the local match. If not for the local match, the rural
transit agencies have a very difficult time ensuring that
funding is available to meet the needs of their rural
residents.
Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. So, let's talk about that
funding. I would imagine that with FTA, so many of the grants
are probably written with metropolitan systems in mind. Again,
that is where most of the ridership and most of the dollars
are.
Are there things we can do to make sure that rural systems
have a fair shake at FTA, or do you think things are good as
they are?
Ms. Maynard. I think that funding is critical now. I came
to the RTC 17 years ago. Prior to that, I was in the private
sector. My job was to make money for the businesses that I
worked in.
I was surprised when I started working in transit that we
don't make money. The model is one that expenses will always
exceed revenues. And it is that public good, serving customers
in rural and urban areas, that matters.
And so, that funding is not only at the Federal level, it
is the State level, the local level. It is a three-pronged
approach, if you will.
But you can't say enough for, again, that funding. It is
necessary, and it is ongoing, and it could be better. And so,
to make it better, again, it is going to require a price.
Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. And almost certainly making
sure that folks who are writing the eligibility criteria are
keeping rural systems in mind, because it is--again, it looks
very different.
We have had some conversation about microtransit today. I
am grateful for that.
Ms. Hendricks, you have talked a bit about that as well.
So, from either of you, other things we should keep in mind
with regard to--and I assume people who are moving toward
microtransit in rural areas are also doing some fixed route.
Talk to me about that transition. How far along are we?
What will the next few years look like?
Ms. Maynard. Well, in southern Nevada, we had an area in
southern Nevada that was one of the fastest growing for 6-plus
years. We did not have funding to add transit there, even
though we got calls from residents and businesses, ``Hey, I
need transit for my employees,'' that sort of thing.
And so, we used some of the Federal funding. We looked at
this area and decided--we did a cost analysis. Should we use
applied fixed-route and your traditional paratransit service in
this area, or do we do microtransit?
And our approach is sort of a ``love all, serve all.'' On
one bus, on-demand, we are moving seniors, students,
paratransit customers, and fixed-route customers, and that
model has turned out to be cost effective. We are spending less
in that model than we are in traditional fixed route of
paratransit. So, I think it is----
Mr. Johnson of South Dakota [interrupting]. A huge success
story.
Let's give Ms. Hendricks 30 seconds here.
Ms. Hendricks. Yes. Similar to what Ms. Maynard said, I
think when you look at commingling the services that are
available, and there are also enhanced technology platforms
that we have recently--some of our NATA members have
implemented, that allows you to do more on-demand in effective
routing and scheduling and commingling those riderships in the
same vehicle that it remains cost effective, but it increases
the availability and access to those that are most needed.
So, we are looking at that. Again, one of our NATA members
in Lubbock, Texas, has implemented that with the proper
software for our RATPDev. And it is really working effectively
to maintain the same amount of cost, or cost-effective but
increased ridership.
Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. Well said.
With that, I yield back.
Mr. Crawford. Gentleman yields.
Mr. DeSaulnier.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Ranking Member.
And thank you to the witnesses.
I'll start with Mr. Regan.
As you know, Mr. Regan, I represent an urban-suburban
district in the East Bay of the San Francisco Bay area. COVID
has changed our world. We have a general accounting office
working in my office with a study about the 10 largest
metropolitan areas, so, sort of the opposite of the last
comments, where 65 percent of the U.S. GDP is.
All of those areas, and particularly in California where we
have transitioned--we are trying to transition from a car
culture and four-bedroom, two-bath houses to higher density and
higher transit ridership.
In the bay area, for years, we have aimed at trying to get
to 10 percent peak trips on transit. We have diminishing
returns on transit agencies and democracy, sort of the opposite
of Los Angeles. But when we look at New York or London, London
at 90 percent, and for climate change our black box for
emissions, that is where our biggest challenge is. And then
along comes COVID.
Because of our tax structure in California and Prop 13, it
doesn't reward local municipalities to provide housing. They
get money from commercial development and retail.
Well, that has all changed. In the last 2 weeks, there was
a study by the Bay Area Council--and, again, this is--we are
probably an example of this, but it is happening in all these,
DC, Boston, New York, Chicago, Atlanta, that a survey of the
major employers in the bay area, in San Francisco, but also in
Silicon Valley and the business parks in the East Bay, the
overwhelming number of largest employers say we are going to 3
days in office a week.
The quality of life for people who have to commute an hour,
2 hours from the far edges of my district, the financial
district of Silicon Valley, is greatly enhanced by that, one of
those two incomes being home with their kids.
So, that is the new reality. The San Francisco Chronicle
did a story yesterday, and I think it was the Bay Area Council
did this, too, that they estimated it would be 20 to 30 years
before the occupancy rate in San Francisco would return to
where it was pre-COVID.
So, we have spent a lot of time in California doing 4/10s,
trying to get people to do 4/10s. We changed labor law.
Now we have sort of got a gift when it comes to quality of
life and emissions reductions and greater efficiencies, but we
have got these infrastructure opportunities that,
unfortunately, the MPO, which I used to be on, and the transit
agencies, want to keep spending money the way they always did.
Like, we are at 40 percent at BART of pre. It is not going to
get back to 100 percent fare box recovery in the near future.
So, being a friend of labor, ATU, and operating engineers,
how do we make this work and protect the rank-and-file, but
also protect the working people who are trying to get transit
and be flexible knowing the traditional heavy investments, like
extension of BART in the Silicon Valley--we are going to do
that, but we have got to look at it differently, in a different
way than we ever have. How do we do that in a collaborative
fashion where we are really efficient about this?
And I would be happy to listen to any of the--the model has
changed for 65 percent of the GDP in this country.
Mr. Regan. Yes. Thank you for the question.
I think that where we have seen some successful transitions
from major transit organizations, and I mentioned this in my
oral testimony, places like Atlanta, that are looking at where
their demand is, how do we evaluate our routes both for bus and
transit and also our timing?
If the traditional Monday and Friday 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. rush
hours are no longer going to be the primary driver of
ridership, how are we going to meet the demands of people in
our communities?
And I think you are seeing it in places like Washington,
DC, for example, where you are not seeing as much of the peak
hour traffic, but you are seeing increased traffic at other
times during the week, whether it be more people using the
Metro to come in on the weekends and visit our lovely museum
systems here in the city.
So, I think as transit agencies look at their resources and
look at how they are allocating their routes, their ridership,
and how they can take the people that are--they are
professionals who are operating these systems--and allocate
their expertise and their resources to better meet the growing
demands.
But I think that takes work. That takes work for people to
study what is actually the demand in their communities right
now.
Mr. DeSaulnier. And I have heard that argument in
California. However, that is a small number of what our fare
box recovery was. I mean, it is 1 or 2 percent potentially.
So, the model is still--we can't keep doing things the way
we always did. We have to adapt to that, but it is not an
answer to what we have lost on the peak in terms of fare box
recovery.
Mr. Regan. Well, but part of it also is you need to have a
system that will draw people into the ridership as well. I
mean, we saw it in California. In L.A., one of their major
lines, they operate 30-minute service. Every 30 minutes you are
going to operate. And they saw their ridership increase by 17
percent.
So, when you have a reliable service, you are going to see
a lot more people that are going to be drawn to that as an
option as opposed to trying to drive or spend 60 bucks on a
ride share, yet you are going to see more people as an
opportunity.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Crawford. Gentleman yields.
Mr. Van Drew.
Dr. Van Drew. Thank you, Chairman.
Just before I begin, I want to associate myself with the
remarks of Congressman Stauber, who just spoke a little while
before. I would maintain, whether you are union, non-union,
whether you are a passenger, whether you are a repair person,
just an American, whether you are a resident, people want to be
safe.
And some of the attitudes and philosophies, unfortunately,
in some areas--and they are unfortunate, because we no longer
enforce the law. When people do bad things, when they commit
crimes, they have to be punished. That is just fair. It is fair
and equitable justice.
So, I think Mr. Stauber brought some good points out.
But I am not here to speak about that. I actually--I am
going to ask forgiveness from my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle, because I am going to speak a little bit in a
parochial way. I am going to speak about southern New Jersey.
For those of you who are familiar at all, southern New
Jersey is much different than the northern part of the State,
which is very compressed, very packed, which is the suburbs of
New York City.
Southern New Jersey is beach and bay, even rural. We have
lots of farmland. And of course I have the largest
congressional district geographically in the State of New
Jersey. It is almost half of the State.
And my district has perpetually been suffering from a lack
of access to public transportation. We are seeing the most
impact of this is people's ability to get to their doctors, to
get to their pharmacies, to get to their grocery stores. It is
real and it is a problem, and I know it is not easy because it
costs a lot of money.
But coupling this with the concern of small and local
physicians and pharmacies, their doors are closing, many of
them. It has changed. They are big centers. Many people,
especially the older population, are traveling greater
distances than ever before.
So, over the years, I have personally worked with groups
such as the South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization,
New Jersey Transit, to address these concerns.
But I want to push it a little further. Believe it or not,
I want to learn.
So, at this time, I am asking all of you for any
suggestions, all of you in your field, to provide guidance,
suggestions, assistance, whatever we can do at the Federal
level to bring more public transportation to my home and my
district of South Jersey.
It still matters there. We have many people who retire
there from the city of Philadelphia, from other areas.
During the summer season, it is not as much of an issue,
because the routes are increased. Our population in some of our
towns by July Fourth, because it is so tourist driven, goes up
tenfold sometimes.
So, our questions that we can now start from the beginning
and just go right through.
Are there any specific groups that you all think that my
team should be working with?
What avenues have you seen to be most successful?
Dusty touched on it a little bit--Congressman Johnson, I
should say--in public transportation in rural areas.
What are the strategies to make this better? Not every town
is a teeming city. There are places that are more spread out
and more rural.
So, I appreciate you being here. I appreciate your advice.
I really mean it.
So, I am going to start with you and go right on down the
line.
Ms. Maynard. Thank you.
Everything you said, we see it. Ridership is important, but
how you connect people to where they need to go, those critical
services, particularly in rural areas, is real.
And through the funding that we receive, because the way
that FTA works, we are considered an urbanized transit system,
and so, our funding comes through 5307. The rural transit
systems are funded under a different category, if you will.
And I think it is taking a look at, again, how that--we
work closely with our rural provider and understand the
challenges that they have.
And, again, every single year we invest in that rural
transit system in the spirit of partnership, knowing that the
needs of those in the rural community are real. They have a
difficult time getting, like to your point, to a pharmacy, to a
doctor's office, just to get groceries.
And so, a suggestion I would make, again, is looking at
that funding piece that goes to the rural portion and
understanding if it is adequate. From what I have been told, at
least from our rural provider, it is a challenge.
And so, funding continues to be a challenge not only in the
urbanized areas but also in the rural areas. You will hear me
say this again and again. If you have seen one transit system,
you have seen one transit system. They are all funded
differently. It is that three-legged stool.
So, at the local level, if it is sales tax or property tax,
that varies all across the United States, and the level of
funding you get from the local or State level will depend on
how much service you are going to provide. Fare revenues only
cover about 30 percent of operating, and that is across the
board.
And so, again, it is looking at that investment. When you
invest in transit, you are investing in the economy, you are
investing in the quality of life of the people in your
community.
So, it is looking, again, at those funding levels and are
they adequate to even meet the needs of your community, those
rural community residents, and working closely with the FTA in
terms of those funding mechanisms that are specifically
addressed for rural transit agencies.
Dr. Van Drew. I thank you. It was a good answer. And you
ended up speaking for everybody, but that is good.
And I yield back.
Mr. Crawford. Gentleman yields.
Ms. Titus.
Ms. Titus. Well, thank you very much.
M.J., I was proud to join you and the Federal Transit
Administration when we announced the $150 million that we got
from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law for the Maryland Parkway
Corridor. Thank you for mentioning that.
I have represented that area for 11 years. It goes right
through the heart of the district, right through the heart of
the valley. People are going to school. They are going to the
hospital. They are going to the airport. They are going
downtown. They are going to work on the strip. It is an amazing
corridor. I can go on and on about it.
But you are the representative from APTA, not just from
RTC, so, could you speak to the value of the CIG program for
improving and providing transit options for people all over the
country?
Ms. Maynard. Congresswoman, I just have to acknowledge that
you know more about your district than--it is impressive. And
you are right, actually the Maryland Parkway, the BRT, without
that $150 million investment--that was a match. We came up with
our local match in order to receive that funding. It was a
competitive grant. Your hard work helped us deliver on that.
It is serving one of the busiest corridors in Nevada. It is
going to revitalize the entire area, enhanced shelters, shade
structures, wider sidewalks, better lighting.
The CIG program is critical for ensuring that you can not
only improve your existing [inaudible] but to also expand and
modernize. And that is exactly the CIG program that transit
systems around the United States are looking to use it for,
again, is to expand and/or improve.
The FTA has more requests than they have funding available.
The CIG program, the BIL, both are oversubscribed to a certain
degree. Again, more transit systems need the resources than
there are funding available.
So, it is critically important as a way to ensure that we
are expanding, growing, modernizing, and improving the services
we have in our communities today.
Ms. Titus. Thank you. Thank you for doing that.
I want to talk about the attacks on transit workers. We see
that increasingly. It has been mentioned. I know that the FTA
has approved a general directive on transit worker assaults.
Mr. Regan, can you address that? Do you support this
directive? Are there other things that Congress could do to
help develop that policy or protect these people who are on the
front lines and really have no control over who might get on
their bus especially?
Mr. Regan. Yes. Thank you. And, yes, we very much support
the rule that was released just a month ago. In fact, I was
happy to go join the FTA in Indianapolis for the rollout of
this rule.
As I mentioned earlier, I think how effective it is going
to be is going to depend on the full buy-in of the agencies
across the country, about how seriously they are going to take
these safety committees, and how readily they are going to
embrace their unions and their workers as partners and as
valuable resources and assets in terms of developing policies
that will protect both their employees as well as passengers in
these systems.
Ms. Titus. Some of the violence that you see on buses is
between passengers, not for the passenger and the busdriver,
but they have to take some responsibility there and often get
involved in that.
Mr. Regan. That is absolutely right. And, again, the
workers, the busdrivers are the ones who see where these
tripwires are, where you have the problems, where the potential
conflicts arise from.
And so, their insight in terms of how we can try to address
this, through policy, through design, through fare services,
all of that, the worker voice needs to be part of it, because
they are the ones who see all of this stuff going down, they
are the ones who can help identify where the risk factors are.
Ms. Titus. Ms. Maynard, do you all, from your side of
things, work with your busdrivers and people on the front lines
to come up with this policy?
Ms. Maynard. Absolutely. You have got to go where the
experts are. Boots on the ground, if you will.
When we make those decisions, and not just we, RTC, but the
industry itself is very involved in ensuring that that--again,
the partnership with your employees, the partnership with law
enforcement, the partnership with social services, it all
matters. You can't make a decision in this silo.
And so, understanding what the drivers need. And the
passengers too. We talk to the passengers to understand what
they need to feel more safe.
But certainly we could not do--we have, not only RTC, but
systems around the United States have those regular meetings,
safety meetings, where they talk to the drivers and the
operators, ``What can we do to support you?''
So, it is a partnership in addressing something, again,
that is very complex.
Ms. Titus. Just as a quick aside. One of the programs you
have with the buses in Las Vegas that I think is great is in
conjunction with the public libraries, so that when you get on
the bus, you can connect to the public library. You can read.
You can hear music. You can browse the catalog. That keeps
maybe riders occupied.
Ms. Maynard. That is right. We have a library on the go.
You can download a library book or music when you are riding
our system.
Ms. Titus. Great. Thank you.
Mr. Crawford. Gentlewoman yields.
Mr. Kean.
Mr. Kean of New Jersey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you to all the witnesses for being here today.
This is an important hearing regarding the lessons learned
by transit agencies during and after the pandemic. And nowhere
is transit more important than in New Jersey.
This vital method of transportation became more evident
when New York City decided to implement the Central Business
District Tolling Program.
It is good that Governor Hochul decided to indefinitely
postpone the implementation of this congestion pricing plan.
From the very beginning, I and many of my colleagues in New
Jersey and around New York City advocated for the cancellation
of the congestion pricing plan, a plan that was and is deeply
flawed, unfair, and simply a money grab on New Jerseyans.
Last year, I was proud to cosponsor and support in this
committee H. Res. 609 expressing strong opposition to this
misguided plan.
And as a member of the Anti-Congestion Tax Caucus, this
indefinite postponement is a win for all New Jerseyans, and I
will work across the aisle to make sure this plan is never
implemented.
Ms. Maynard, as you doubtless know, crime has been on the
rise in transit systems across the country. Many of my own
constituents have been in touch to complain about conditions on
trains and around stations.
What effect have you seen this increased crime having on
post-pandemic recovery plans and efforts to increase ridership?
Ms. Maynard. Congressman, thank you for that question.
I think it has had, again, a very large impact in every
urban setting. This is not necessarily a transit problem. This
is a problem that is occurring in urban cities.
And, again, transit is a rolling microcosm of what is
happening in any urban city. And if crime is increasing, the
homeless--unhoused--population is increasing, drug addiction,
mental illness, things of that nature, if that is occurring in
the city, you will see it on public transit. We are an open
space, a public space.
And so, again, it is working--I have in Las Vegas
personally worked closely with our sheriff. Their police
department, they are understaffed at this point. But they have
been great partners. They are helping to address some of the
crime that is occurring within the urban corridor and at our
stations.
And, again, it is a very complex problem. It takes that
partnership of law enforcement, your own security services,
technology, using data.
We are the first in the United States to----
Mr. Kean of New Jersey [interrupting]. Do you see a
relationship--I am sorry, if I may. Do you see a relationship
between fare evasion and these trends of increased crime?
Ms. Maynard. I think fare evasion has always been a
challenge and an opportunity for transit systems. I think the
way--again, when you talk about a legacy system, cities that
are literally built like yours, built around public transit,
maybe some of the technology, I know they are making technology
improvements in terms of fare evasion here in Washington. They
are doing a great job in increasing or stabilizing the fare
gates, and I think they have seen this over 70 percent.
So, to answer your question directly there, I think, again,
it has been a challenge for transit systems since we started
operating. It is something that we work on every single day.
Mr. Kean of New Jersey. Thank you.
Mr. Regan, we know that the pandemic has had dramatic
effects on transit operations and the workforce.
How have TTD union members weathered these past 4 years as
far as pandemic-related changes to systems, services, and
operations?
And with these broader trends in mind, are TTD union
members being provided the training they need to be successful
in transit systems well into the future?
Mr. Regan. Thank you for the question.
How we adapted, I think, frankly, without the support of--
the Federal support for transit systems across the country, I
think we would have been in really big trouble coming out of
the pandemic when ridership dropped.
I think there was a recognition broadly, on both sides of
the aisle, that these systems are vital to keeping our
communities moving during a very--during a catastrophic time.
We were making sure that grocery workers and doctors and
everybody else were able to use transit to get to work to
provide the vital services we needed.
Moving forward, I think that there is a need to adapt.
There is certainly going to be a need to identify where
ridership trends are going and how we are going to adjust to a
new working world that we are in here.
But, thankfully, because of Federal protections like 13(c),
there are requirements that when we have investments from the
Federal Government into local communities, that we must protect
those workers so they can't just be outsourced, they can't just
have their wages and benefits cut, and that they must be
provided training if they are going to be transitioned to a
different part of the transit agency.
So, I think it is a vital part of this moving forward.
Mr. Kean of New Jersey. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Crawford. Gentleman yields.
Mr. Cohen.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Crawford.
I appreciate all the witnesses here today, and Ranking
Member Norton for holding this hearing.
We are well aware that transit agencies across the country,
including the Memphis Area Transit Authority, also known as
MATA, which is in my district, face challenges in funding their
operating expenses with fares.
I recognize an increased Federal funding for operating
expenses risks a deficit for capital expenses. This is
precedented as funding for the FAA has historically prioritized
the agency's operations account at the expense of its
facilities and equipment account.
The public transit systems are expensive to run and they
should be funded by a partnership of agencies of local and
State and Federal Governments.
That is why I am pleased to cosponsor with my friend,
Representative Hank Johnson, the Stronger Communities through
Better Transit Act, which would take a balanced approach to
remedy operating expense shortfalls without diverting too much
funding away from capital expenses.
I understand the history of it and I understand the
thoughts. But if we put all this money into capital and we
don't have people riding, we are not using the capital. And we
have got to have the system work, and that is going to take
fares and other investments to make sure we have public transit
systems.
Mr. Regan, some would argue that public transit is a local
problem or a local issue and that operating expenses should be
funded locally.
Could you elaborate on how the benefits of public transit
go beyond just the surface area and why Federal and State
funding could be helpful to the whole region?
Mr. Regan. Yes, and thank you for the question.
I mean, we have recognized for over 60 years that public
transit is a national interest, that we have a responsibility
to provide Federal support for these programs.
They keep our economies moving. They provide vital services
for people whether they are elderly, disabled, or just are
unable to afford a car to get to where they need to be, whether
it be to jobs, to medical appointments.
Mr. Cohen. Groceries?
Mr. Regan. Exactly. And so, we have a requirement to
support these communities, whether they are large or small, to
ensure that they have the resources they need to provide a
vital public service to their constituents.
Mr. Cohen. My city, like many major urban areas, has lots
of food deserts. So, people do have problems getting to a
grocery store, and they need public transit, and it takes a
long time, and for their healthcare appointments, because there
are healthcare deserts. It is an issue the Federal Government
should be involved in and State governments, in my opinion.
Supposing that they were expanded, the Federal funding for
operating expenses, how can we ensure that agencies don't
simply shift the funds around to take capital expenses, take it
out of capital expenses, and increase this backlog?
Mr. Regan. Well, I think one aspect, one way to do it is
that you have separate pots of money. So, you have different
programs where you can apply for operating assistance through
one pool of money and you can apply for capital through another
pool of money.
That provides agencies with the flexibility they need to
identify what their needs are at the moment. Whether it is--
there may be the situation where we need to re-fleet our bus
program, and that capital expense is going to be vital for them
to do that.
There may be other situations where there is a shortfall,
there is a gap in their funding, and they need to have
operating assistance or they need to be able to expand services
to areas that are being underserved, in which case, you can
apply for an operating assistance grant.
So, there are different ways to do it so you are ensuring
that people are actually being targeted to what the needs of
the agencies are in that moment.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, sir.
Ms. Maynard, you are not only Vegas, but also the American
Public Transportation Association representative here. Do you
believe that it would be helpful to many communities to have
Federal funding available for operating funds, expenses, as
well as capital?
Ms. Maynard. Thank you, Congressman, for that question.
On behalf of APTA, we have listened to the members. Again,
it is very important, you have some of the smaller rural
transit systems that absolutely rely on the operating
assistance so they can use their Federal funding for operating
over urbanized. It is much more restricted.
I think, first and foremost, you have got to make sure that
whether it is a railcar, a bus, light rail, you have got to
make sure that it is in good working order, so it is reliable,
so they can pick up those folks and take them where they need
to go. So, it is really a balance, and I think that flexibility
is important.
Some agencies will find, based on their capital replacement
program, the timeline that they need to invest in capital
rather than potentially add a new route. So, again, it is that
flexibility that I think is key.
We continue to listen to the members of APTA. We haven't
taken a formal position but do believe flexibility is very
important in this category.
Mr. Cohen. Do you have any idea what percentage of public
transit authorities are able to run on just their fares?
Ms. Maynard. That would be zero. Again, it is a business.
It does not generate a profit. It never--that is just the way--
it is a public good similar to how we are funding roadways and
aviation and public safety. It is an investment, and transit is
an investment in your community.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, ma'am, and thanks to the whole panel.
Mr. Crawford. Gentleman yields.
Mr. Kiley.
Mr. Kiley. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
A paradox of the modern history of our country is that we
are on the leading edge in so many ways when it comes to
technology and innovation, and yet our large-scale public
infrastructure, with public transit being a clear example,
often lags behind the rest of the developed world.
And it can just be an unpleasant experience for people. It
is unsafe. It is unreliable. But then you go to other developed
countries and you see they have really well-functioning and
widely used public transportation systems.
I mean, if you look, just for example, at the San Francisco
Bay area, this is a region populated by the most innovative
companies in the history of the world.
And then you get on Muni or BART, the public transit
systems, and it is very antiquated and often not a good
experience and doesn't get you where you need to be in an
efficient manner.
So, I guess my question is maybe for you, Mr. Scribner.
What can we learn here from places that actually do public
transportation better across the world?
Mr. Scribner. Well, setting aside the differences in income
and sort of the urban geography, I think one thing they do much
better than the United States is leverage innovative
procurement methods. So, there is a lot more--you see a lot
more public-private partnerships in providing competitive
contracting, that service.
I think that lends itself to innovative technologies, where
in the United States, we have no heavy rail systems that are
fully automated. I mean, where we see automated rail systems is
primarily at airports.
That is now standard practice around the world, new lines
being built fully automated. And we are just not seeing that
there because I think we are stuck in the 1960s. We have 60-
year-old transit laws that really haven't been modernized.
And that is not the approach they have taken in Europe and
in Asia and in other places where transit is much more robust
and much higher quality.
Mr. Kiley. So, they have just incorporated better
technology into their infrastructure because they have been
continually updating and modernizing.
Mr. Scribner. I think through providing the incentives
for--under competitive contracting, that creates that incentive
to drive innovation, and I think that is why you see a lot more
interesting things coming out of those countries in the transit
realm than in the United States.
Mr. Kiley. So, on that point of sort of modernizing
technology, I mean, we have in the U.S. been leading the way
when it comes to innovation and transportation. In a lot of
other ways, I mean, our companies have pioneered electric
vehicles, autonomous vehicles.
In San Francisco right now, Waymo has a network of self-
driving cars, and there is every indication that autonomy is
going to become more and more widely adopted in terms of the
number of folks. And there are all kinds of models about how is
this going to affect car ownership.
So, in that context of changing transportation technology
and potentially huge changes in car ownership and other methods
by which people just go about their daily life, how should we
be thinking of the next generation of public transit in that
context, in terms of demand, in terms of the available options?
Mr. Scribner. Well, I think we have heard from some of the
other witnesses a discussion around microtransit, and I think
those kinds of--we may not--the 40-foot bus may not be the
future of transit in America.
So, I think looking at different vehicle sizes, different
operating models, focusing more on on-demand service, really
trying to get at the being closer to private vehicle service.
Because what private vehicles offer, which is why the vast
majority, more than 90 percent of households have cars today,
is because it provides much better access to the surrounding
area.
And I think for transit to compete, it needs to try to take
on some of those characteristics that cause the vast majority
of Americans to not choose transit.
Mr. Kiley. You have spoken to this, Ms. Hendricks, today as
well. Do you have anything to add or any other sort of next-
generation transportation technologies or ideas that are
important for us to keep in mind when thinking about public
transportation?
Ms. Hendricks. Yes. I think it has been mentioned before.
The ability to adapt to the current realities in the future
starting with network design. Understanding where people are
residing and where they are moving to is the first key.
So, really focusing on the network design in order to have
the most safe, reliable, and on time, right? To get people into
public transit, it needs to be safe, it needs to be reliable.
So, when you look at the future, as I mentioned in my
testimony, from representing NATA, the more microtransit on-
demand that allows people to connect to the larger cities and
the urban areas of the public transit systems is one method to
do that.
I think partnering with our labor partners as well to
understand and get their input, because I agree that the people
closest to the position understand. So, we need to listen to
where the driver's input is.
But I think, looking at the shift, that will require a
collaborative effort amongst many, including our public
agencies and our partners, to ensure that we have the right
vehicle in the right place at the right time. It is going to be
safe and reliable to enhance ridership and reduce the
congestion that is currently involved in many of our major
cities.
Mr. Kiley. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Crawford. Gentleman yields.
Mr. Menendez.
Mr. Menendez. Thank you, Chair.
And thank you to all of our witnesses.
The COVID-19 pandemic rapidly changed our day-to-day lives,
especially how we work and commute. During the pandemic,
modified work schedules dramatically decreased transit
ridership levels.
While I have recently seen positive trends that show
ridership bouncing back, commuting trends in the post-pandemic
world are still different and transit agencies are still
struggling with budgetary shortfalls.
It is not just transit agencies that are struggling, but
many companies that provide shared ride services, such as bus
companies that service regular routes and coach and charter bus
services. These are often small businesses that provide a
critical service who have struggled during the pandemic and are
still struggling today.
In New Jersey's Eighth Congressional District, A&C Bus
Line, a private bus company, announced the termination of its
Jersey City routes. This could have left residents in our
district with fewer transit options if it weren't for New
Jersey Transit swiftly stepping up to provide services on these
routes.
And we look forward to continuing to work with all of our
partners to ensure we are providing a reliable, quality, safe
commuting experience for all of our residents.
Ms. Maynard, can you talk about how transit agencies are
addressing small-scale transit needs and what Congress can do
to help transit agencies in this effort?
And I know it has been touched on during the course of this
hearing, but sort of thinking about how sort of the universe of
the commuters it is serving in a densely populated area like
the Eighth Congressional District of New Jersey and sort of
what tailored solutions might be available to public transit
agencies as they think about the pathway forward.
Ms. Maynard. Congressman, thanks for that question.
I think it is going to be dependent on where you are. So,
if you have got a large city like--whether it is New Jersey or
New York, Chicago, and you have got multiple modes of
transportation, you have got commuter rail, light rail, heavy
rail, you have got a bus system, paratransit, I don't think you
can have enough options in understanding what your community
needs.
Mr. Menendez. How do you think--in thinking about the
existing infrastructure and making sure that we have an
integrated transit system, how do we--should we be thinking
about where there are gaps currently in service, or should we
be thinking about what we may need to replace or modify within
the existing structure or just building new structures around
the existing infrastructure?
Ms. Maynard. Quite frankly, it is both, I think. You need
to understand where the gaps are. I mean, an integrated system
is the best system for your community.
And I think understanding where those gaps are, that is our
job. Our job is to take a look at the customers that we are
serving, where they are, where they are going, and how do we
adequately assign the assets that we have to ensure that we are
meeting, to the best of our ability, the community.
And in some cases, again, I think it takes a village, if
you will. It isn't just one mode. It isn't just the bus. It is
not just the rail. You have to understand the layout of your
city.
Las Vegas is very car-centric, and so, the way that our
agency may look at implementing public transit and those
connections or gaps could be very different to what you see in
a large urban core.
Mr. Menendez. Sure. I appreciate that.
Mr. Regan, your testimony touches on several workforce
challenges that transit agencies are facing. Can you talk about
what transit agencies and other transit providers can do to
recruit and retain a robust transit workforce?
Mr. Regan. Thank you.
First of all, I think implementing strongly these new
safety plans is going to be a key part of that. There is no
worse recruiting tool than the media reports we see of
busdrivers getting beat up or spit on or ultimately--or even
killed--in terms of bringing people into this workforce.
And I think, frankly, a lot of advertisement about this,
these are good middle-class jobs that you can raise your family
on. They have good healthcare benefits. That is an important
aspect.
Most of the members and every member that I represent, that
I speak to, is very proud of the role they play in this
community. And so, I think exposing more people to that is
going to help bring more people into the workforce.
But we are facing a cliff, let's be honest. I think a huge
percentage of the workers are eligible to retire within the
next 5 years. And we need to get going to make it a safer
working environment and to make sure that we have more people
have access to these great jobs.
Mr. Menendez. And, listen, the safety is a priority of
ours. As you know, last year, we led a bipartisan coalition of
114 Members in a letter to the FTA calling for them to take
action on transit worker assaults, because it is a problem,
especially in this post-COVID environment. We all agree that
these essential public servants deserve a safe working
environment.
Can you talk about how transit worker assaults impact
worker recruitment and retention? It is a followup to sort of
your previous answer.
Mr. Regan. Yes. It couldn't be a worse effect on recruiting
people into the industry when people are afraid to go to the
office. Nobody wants to feel that. That is not a good
advertisement.
And, again, I think we have to address the safety problems.
I think we need to really robustly implement the safety plans
that have been now required. And then we have to start getting
to work to educating people on what the benefits are of this
industry and how vital it is and what a good job it can be for
you.
Mr. Menendez. Listen, I look forward to partnering with you
on that and thankful for all of the essential workers that you
represent.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Crawford. Gentleman yields.
Mr. D'Esposito.
Mr. D'Esposito. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In 2011, Nassau County, the county that I am proud to
represent in New York, privatized our public transportation
system, the largest public transportation provider ever to make
this transition.
In just over 3 months that year, the workers represented by
TWU Local 252 and the new contractor, Veolia, which is now
Transdev, were able to negotiate and implement a new collective
bargaining agreement that sustained all 900 workers and
ultimately expanded transit service in our area.
That success would not have been possible were it not for
the Federal transit worker protections, also known as 13(c)
protections.
The TWU and Veolia were allowed to come together under the
auspices of the 13(c) negotiations to get this done in a
process that would not have been possible under the National
Labor Relations Act.
Ms. Hendricks, Transdev is the contractor for the Nassau
Inter-County Express, we call the NICE Bus. I have heard from
the Transport Workers Union that they have had a great working
relationship with you in that system.
Would you agree that you have a solid working partnership
with the workforce on Long Island?
Ms. Hendricks. Absolutely. We pride ourselves in working
with our frontline team members and our labor partners as well.
They provide the services that make our jobs possible. We don't
forget that.
And I think to recruit and retain the best talent possible,
as we have been able to do in NICE Bus, and it services Long
Island, is to ensure that we continue to connect our frontline
team members to the purpose that we serve and making a
difference in the lives of others: providing public
transportation to get them to essential services.
So, we do have a strong relationship with our labor
partners, and more importantly, with our frontline team members
who come to work every day to service our communities.
Mr. D'Esposito. And when Transdev takes over a transit
system like you did in Nassau County years ago, you do so
knowing that these 13(c) protections are in place for the
workers, correct?
Ms. Hendricks. Absolutely. We abide by all Federal law and
regulations, yes.
Mr. D'Esposito. And do you still make a profit providing
transit service as a third-party contractor?
Ms. Hendricks. We do make a profit as providing a third-
party service contractor.
Post-Hearing Supplement to Remarks from Laura Hendricks, Chief
Executive Officer, Transdev U.S., on behalf of the North American
Transit Alliance
As a private company, we are able to invest in innovation,
technology, and expertise to find efficiencies and save cities money.
We are also able to use this expertise across all our contracts to
ensure we operate as ``best in class.'' We have been able to save
Nassau County approximately $35 million per year or $350 million over
10 years through contracting while making a small profit. This shows
how public-private partnerships allow for the highest level of service
to our communities and in a cost-effective manner. This is a tremendous
win-win scenario that speaks to the benefits of partnering with the
private sector to deliver safe, reliable, and efficient public
transportation service.
Mr. D'Esposito. Now, just going back for a second to your
relationship that you foster with the frontline workers. We are
obviously a county, and my district borders Queens and New York
City, which obviously, the NYPD is doing all they can to fight
crime in Nassau County. The Nassau County Police Department
continues to work each and every day to keep our community
safe.
What, if anything, could be done? Obviously, we know that
the legislation put forth by the State legislature, criminal
justice reform, cashless bail, has seen a rise in certain
crimes, especially those that are being arrested and then
released to commit more crimes.
But what can we do--what have you done with your frontline
workers to--I know, as Mr. Regan had mentioned--what are you
doing to keep that frontline staff safe? And what can we do on
a Federal level to work with you to make sure that when they go
to work each and every day they are kept safe?
Ms. Hendricks. I think there are several things that we
have done, particularly coming out of COVID, where we have seen
the increase. One is the protections that Ms. Maynard mentioned
before in the buses and ensuring there is protection there. But
in addition to that, we have in most buses--representing NATA,
not just Transdev here today, but the North American Transit
Alliance for the five largest private operators--where the
buses are installed with an alert button so that if there is
any activity on the bus, that the driver can notify and hit the
alarm system that is going to notify dispatch or the local
authorities immediately to respond.
But we also, for our frontline workers, we have training,
which is workplace violence, deescalation training, and active
shooter training. So, we are continuously putting all of our
frontline team members through that training that helps them
better prepare to meet the situations that are unknown or
uncertain in today's society.
Mr. D'Esposito. And, obviously, with that training--and I
know the answer specifically in Nassau County is yes, but I am
assuming in other places, you partner and collaborate with the
local law enforcement agencies to make sure----
Ms. Hendricks [interrupting]. Absolutely. We work very
closely and collaboratively with all of our local law
enforcements in all the communities that we serve.
Mr. D'Esposito. Great. Thank you very much.
My time is just about expired. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Crawford. The gentleman yields.
Mr. Carbajal.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Maynard, over the last several years, more and more
transit workers have been assaulted for simply doing their
jobs. We have seen agencies put up their shields to protect
drivers at the wheel, but that does not seem to be slowing the
rate of assaults on these workers.
These assaults, which have been widely publicized, are
discouraging people from riding transit, discouraging workers
from applying for jobs at transit agencies, and pushing more
and more current transit workers into other safer jobs.
The FTA recently proposed a general directive on preventing
assaults on transit workers. I know this is a little redundant,
as many of us are asking similar questions. Can you discuss
what steps transit agencies are taking to prevent assaults on
transit workers and beyond the FTA's minimums?
Ms. Maynard. Thank you. I hope I am--I am a bit redundant
here, but, again, it is understanding what safety mitigation
factors you can use on behalf of drivers. And certainly, with
driver enclosures, we have seen a double digit, over 70-percent
decrease in assaults on drivers because of that enclosure.
It is absolutely--partnering with law enforcement, whether
that transit system has its own law enforcement agency, they
have a private security company, or they have an MOU with the
local police jurisdictions, that partnership is key.
Both the drivers and the passengers feel safer. And we have
done surveys. We have asked them if they feel safer when they
see, whether it is a local police department or just a security
officer, when they see their presence there, they feel safer.
I think it is understanding, again, what partnerships that
you can work with in your local jurisdictions. And as I stated
earlier, it is working with some of the social service
agencies.
Transit is a reflection. It is a microcosm, a moving
microcosm of what is happening in any urban city. And so, if
you see--if crime is up--it is an open space. We love all. We
serve all as public transit.
And so, we are going to see what is happening in an urban
site, it is going to happen on a bus. And so, it is ensuring
that we are spending resources.
One of the things we are doing at RTC, we have invested--
well, the first, two other agencies are following, a company
called ZeroEyes. We have the ability now through artificial
intelligence and predictive analytics to identify a gun, if
someone is carrying a gun, pulls out a gun in any of our
transit terminals, that is in place. So far, it has worked, and
we have had a couple of instances that have proven effective.
We are the first agency in the United States that the
operators are carrying with them this mobile GPS device that if
something happens and they are off the bus, for example, a
layover, they press it, it goes right to our BOC or into our
security office, and we can respond immediately.
And so, I think it is some of the things you would think
of: working with law enforcement. But it is also looking for
technologies that can enhance the protection of both the
customers and the workers.
Our passengers in Las Vegas also have the ability on our
mobile app to anonymously report something that is happening on
a bus. We have live--our local police department asked us to
install live look-in on all of our vehicles. Other transit
systems have that. So, at any point in time, law enforcement
and/or our team can view what is happening on any bus at any
time just by--just, again, by that technology.
So, it is going to take some of that, the work that you
expect, but also technology improvements.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you.
Mr. Regan, following up on my question to Ms. Maynard, what
more can Congress do to better protect these workers?
Mr. Regan. Well, first of all, I want to say that
everything that Ms. Maynard has said has been really great in
terms of what they are doing proactively to help protect their
workers. Unfortunately, that has not been the case in many
transit systems all across the country. That is why Federal
leadership was so necessary and why the provision that you all
included in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law was so vital,
because it does require transit agencies to develop these
safety plans and to do so in a way that is collaborative with
their workforce and with their unions.
And I do think that as the Federal Government, now that we
have a law--a rule that is in place and a law that was passed a
few years ago, attention to your local agencies to ensure
following up with them, what are you doing? How are you
engaging? Where are we in the process of developing these
plans? What results are you seeing?
All of those things as a Federal representative are things
that you can do to try to hold your own transit agencies
accountable. And I assure you, where we see failures, where we
see people not doing what is necessary, when we see agencies
not doing what is necessary, we will be sure to engage you all
to let you know that there are problems with the law, with
fulfilling the intent of the law that you all passed.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chair, I am out of time. I yield back.
Mr. Crawford. The gentleman yields.
Mr. Moulton.
Mr. Moulton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Regan, unfortunately, the MBTA in Boston has had some
troubles with safety over the past couple years, necessitating
the Federal Government to get involved. We are not proud of
this, but we want to fix it and we want to make it better.
Can you share some of the best practices that you have seen
across the country that we might apply back home in
Massachusetts?
Mr. Regan. Certainly. And thank you for the question.
But I know that enclosures and reimagining the workspace
for workers is an important aspect of that because, at the end
of the day, again, we are protecting people in their workspace,
and that is an important aspect.
So, the physical space is important, but also, I think
these safety plans that are going to be developed that are
required now where workers have the opportunity to have their
input, and they have to be adopted jointly with the union and
with the agency. It can't just be--recommendations can't just
be imposed by the employer in this aspect, which is important.
But I think for the most part--I mean, there is not going
to be a one-size-fits-all solution to the safety problems. It
is not going to be the same in Boston as it is in Las Vegas or
as it is in Rochester, New York, where I am from, because they
are very different environments and different agencies.
So, I think the beauty of what the program that was put in
place is, is it is going to take into account the local
agencies, the reality of the local agencies, as well as what
the workers, the eyes and ears on the ground of these systems
are seeing day to day and can help implement meaningful reforms
that will protect both workers and passengers in those systems.
Mr. Moulton. Thank you very much.
Mr. Scribner, I appreciate some of your comments on high-
speed rail and its viability in certain corridors, if I
understand your background correctly, because I have long made
the case that there are a lot of reasons to love high-speed
rail, but one of them is that if you are a fiscal conservative,
it is a good investment and is a good return on investment.
In fact, there is not some vast high-speed rail conspiracy
that infects every other developed country in the world and
just hasn't made it to America yet. It is just that a lot of
other countries weigh the options. They actually have
transportation policy that allows them to choose high-speed
rail over highways with similar amounts of funding, which is
not the case, of course, in the United States. The subsidies
vastly favor airports and highways. And when they do that
analysis, it often comes back that the cost-benefit ratios
favor high-speed rail.
In fact, I happened to coauthor at Harvard Business School
a study on California high-speed rail that reached two basic
conclusions. This was 10 years ago. One, it is going to cost
more than they are saying. We know that is true. But the second
is that it still costs less than making the comparable
investments in airports and expanding highways that you would
have to make to meet 2050 demand. And that is so often left out
of this debate.
I wanted to ask you, what are your views on how we should
subsidize transportation? And how should we be subsidizing
transit, should we be subsidizing highways, et cetera?
Mr. Scribner. Yes, thank you for that question. It is
pretty expansive.
My general view is that we should be trying to reduce
subsidies across all modes and to stop distorting the choices
of people who ultimately choose one mode over the other, the
time they choose to travel, and so on and so forth.
So, I am a----
Mr. Moulton [interrupting]. By the way, this is where I
completely agree. If we just had a level playing field, that we
actually allowed sort of free market in transportation to
determine the best solutions, there would be some corridors
where we say it is too long for trains, you need to fly. Other
corridors, it is just a better drive.
But some corridors really make sense for transit or for
high-speed rail, and we ought to do the economic analysis to
determine that.
We commissioned a study, my office did back in
Massachusetts, to look at, what are the subsidies for driving?
Because I don't think we think about that very much. We often
think about the subsidies for transit agencies, and we hear
these numbers about how much of each fare is covered by the
taxpayer.
We just asked, what are the subsidies for driving? It
turned out that they determined, in the State of Massachusetts,
the State subsidizes driving to the tune of $64 billion every
year. That is $14,000 per taxpayer, regardless of whether you
own a car.
And these subsidies come in the form of everything from
just building and maintaining highways to providing State
police, providing emergency services. Forty thousand Americans
died in car crashes. It is taxpayer dollars that clean all of
those up.
In contrast, by the way, not a single person has died in
the entire history of high-speed rail in Japan.
But as an aside, how do we think about reducing these
subsidies, these gross oversubsidies for highways?
Mr. Scribner. Well, when it comes to the interaction
between subsidies for the road network and transit systems, for
one, I think there is a synergy with congestion pricing and not
simply because of the revenue but more for the incentive to not
drive at those peak hours, and that may make transit more
attractive.
So, I think there are ways to reduce the subsidies across
modes and equalize across modes.
Mr. Moulton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I sure hope you
can speak with the Governor of New York.
I yield back.
Mr. Crawford. The gentleman yields.
Mr. Owens.
Mr. Owens. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and to
the witnesses today.
My home State of Utah has a remarkable story to share with
other States and, more importantly, the Federal Government.
They can follow the same type of success that facilitated
Utah's transit ecosystem to thrive. In fact, Utah's post-
pandemic lessons are a stark contrast to the doom and gloom of
some of the testimony today.
Utah's Transit Authority does not run a budget deficit.
Ridership is up 92 percent of pre-pandemic levels and expected
to exceed pre-pandemic levels by next year. It has not dug
itself into a hole with fiscally irresponsible reduced fares.
There are no National Guardsmen on Utah's transit because of
safety, because safety is not an issue. Riders are and feel
very, very safe.
The State legislature continues to make historic
investments into transit, this year alone putting $400 million
into our FrontRunner double-tracking effort in anticipation for
the 2034 Salt Lake City Olympics. This is not by accident.
The Governor, the legislators of the city, and local
officials work arm-in-arm with their metropolitan planning
committee and organizations to anticipate transportation needs
for the State decades into the future.
Utah's unified transportation plan, which has mapped out
our transportation needs all the way out to 2050, works because
everyone had a hand in it, including our rural partners. They
are not left behind.
I have said this from coming onto this committee, that Utah
does it right. We collaborate. We are innovative. We think
outside the box. We want to make sure we are keeping an
environment that keeps our kids in Utah instead of exporting
them.
And if I can say one thing for the benefit of not only
Utahns, but this country, let us be the model. We know how to
collaborate, how to run a budget, and how to think outside the
box, and take advice from innovators. So, I am going to make
that big ask. Let us be the model.
Ms. Maynard, in your capacity with the Regional
Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada, what do your
interactions with the regional metropolitan planning
organizations look like, and how have you collaborated with
them for the benefit of users within your transportation
authority?
Ms. Maynard. Thank you, Congressman. As your neighbor in
the State of Nevada, you have a fabulous CEO, Jay Fox, running
UTA. You do a great--we admire you from afar, I should say.
I am sorry, could you--I am thinking about the FrontRunner.
If you could ask me that question again. My apologies.
Mr. Owens. Yes. What do your interactions with the regional
metropolitan planning----
Ms. Maynard [interrupting]. Got it. OK, yes.
So, it is interesting, we are one of the only organizations
in the United States; we are also the metropolitan planning
organization. So, literally, transit is on one floor, and you
can walk down the hall and MPO is on the other floor. So, the
collaboration is key because we are, again, we are on the same
team.
We look at funding through our MPO for transit. We work
collaboratively as the MPO. Of course, they are the regional
planning organization for all of southern Nevada. We are the
public transit provider for all of southern Nevada, so, it
works very, very well.
I know that is not always the case in the United States,
but I think, generally speaking, the nexus there to have both
the MPO and the transit system under the same roof has worked
exceedingly well.
Mr. Owens. And just know we have mutual respect for what
the State of Nevada is doing.
The next one is, Nevada, like Utah, has experienced rapid
growth in the last 20 years, and the RTC, like UTA, is fiscally
stable.
What does Nevada and Utah get right that other States are
missing?
Ms. Maynard. Again, I think a lot of it has to do with the
investment that the community, the elected officials, whether
at the local level or the State level, want to make in that
system. I think that--I speak on behalf of the transit systems
today, and I do think there are just some amazing transit CEOs
that are doing the best that they can.
I think we all take it very seriously how we spend tax
dollars. We are a business. We may not generate a revenue, but
we need to operate like a business. And I think when you look
at it that way, again, it is looking at how you can more
efficiently and effectively spend those tax dollars.
And certainly understanding that we have been--Utah,
Arizona, Nevada--one of the fastest growing regions, it is
understanding the origin and destination and where people need
to be and, again, how you allocate the resources that you have.
Mr. Owens. Thank you.
As I close out, I will just say, I think we all need to
look at this as a business. Return on investment and best value
to our customers. So, thank you so much. I appreciate that.
Mr. Crawford. The gentleman yields.
Mr. Garcia.
Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you, Chairman, and thanks to
all the witnesses for being here today.
I think it is important to remember the historical context
of how we got here and who this impacts. The decision to end
the use of Federal funding for transit operating expenses dates
back to the Reagan administration. The deeply rooted Government
culture of deprioritizing transit is inherently tied to the
deprioritizing of certain racial and socioeconomic communities
as well.
When we talk about the transit fiscal cliff, Latino, Black,
and Brown communities are still the same groups of people that
will be harmed the most by further cuts to transit.
We also cannot forget the transit operators who are at the
core of our transportation system. For almost 50 years, 13(c)
transit labor protections have been a core component of our
Federal infrastructure investments, and they prevent Federal
money from undermining existing labor standards. It is critical
that Federal investments directly benefit working people and
don't displace existing jobs. That is exactly what 13(c) does.
Mr. Regan, can you explain how continuing to disinvest in
transit and erode 13(c) protections would impact our most
vulnerable communities and workers?
Mr. Regan. Sure. And thank you for that question.
When you look at the decision that was made during the
pandemic, a wise decision to allow for the use of relief funds
by transit agencies to be used for operating expenses because
Congress rightfully recognized that this is a vital service
that needs the support to keep communities moving during this
crisis that we were facing. As we are looking forward and we
are looking at what the needs are of different transit
agencies, having the flexibility to be able to use Federal
funds for operating assistance is critical.
And as was mentioned by one of my fellow panelists earlier
when asked about the number of transit agencies that operate
that meet their costs entirely based on fare box revenue, the
number was zero. So, there are going to be needs. That could
be--some of that may be on capital. Other areas, that may be on
operating assistance.
But the Federal Government needs to show the leadership to
provide the opportunities for these agencies to use Federal
money as they see fit.
Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you.
I would also like to highlight a topic that some see as a
quick fix for these financial challenges, which is the use of
autonomous vehicles for public transit.
Again, Mr. Regan, do you feel that this is an effective
substitute for transit operators? And what dangers do highly
automated vehicles pose as the technology stands today?
Mr. Regan. Well, as it stands today, there are substantial
risks. There is not a lot of proof that this can duplicate what
is done by professional drivers in the world. I mean, as Waymo
recently reminded us, they still seem to confuse trees from
roads and sometimes make the wrong choice. This is a problem.
So, I think jumping to whatever the futuristic version of
public transit is without the safety testing and the
responsible policymaking that would be required is, frankly,
irresponsible.
And I think transit unions and workers have dealt with
major leaps and changes in technology for over 100 years. This
is not new to us to see more people implementing or bringing
new technology into our industry, but we have had to find a way
to adapt.
And I think as we are looking at what new technology is
coming forward--because we would be foolish to try to just say
no, put it back in a bottle--we do need to have policies in
place that are ensuring not only will it be implemented safely,
that we are going to make sure that it is making workers be
able to do their jobs better, but also look at the economic
impacts and what impact it would have on communities if we are
suddenly gutting jobs, major sources of good jobs in this
country.
Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you for that.
I think it's clear that these technologies are not a
replacement for transit operators to run a safe and smooth
operation and that, at the bare minimum, we need to ensure a
safety network is in place as soon as possible.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
Mr. Crawford. The gentleman yields.
Mr. Molinaro.
Mr. Molinaro. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am glad to join you all. Thanks very much.
For full disclosure, I spent the last 12 years in county
government where in the State of New York I administered a
public transit system.
Mr. Regan, it is good to see you again. Can you reiterate
specifically what kind of protections are afforded through
13(c)?
Mr. Regan. Yes. And thank you for this, because it is--I
think 13(c) is really at the core of what has created such
labor stability over the last 60 years since it was
implemented. It establishes the right--it protects the right to
collectively bargain for the workers when there is Federal
investment being put into a region.
It also makes sure that, if in the event that there is a
new provider, that wages and benefits can't be unilaterally
slashed. Where there are differences, they are negotiated
locally between the union and the provider and signed off on by
the Department of Labor usually very quickly.
And finally, when there are changes that need to be made
due to this investment, Federal investment in the transit
operations, it ensures that workers have the opportunity to be
trained and that there are the resources to train them into
other jobs, oftentimes upskilled with higher wages and
benefits.
So, it is creating more opportunity in communities
throughout the country. So, if you are in a community that
receives Federal funds and you have--13(c) is going to be
attached to it, you are making sure that this is not just an
investment in stuff, it is not just an investment in a vehicle.
It is an investment in the community and in the people in that
community----
Mr. Molinaro [interrupting]. We tend to forget--I am going
to--not to interrupt you, but to reclaim my time, I guess.
We tend to forget that the very people that are protected
by collective bargaining agreements and the relationship
between employer and employee through those agreements are, in
fact, the people paying taxes as well and engaged in our
community. And certainly, during COVID, we know that transit
workers were on the extreme frontline, tragic deaths, and a lot
of violence.
Mr. Scribner, you offered and authored an op-ed that takes
a uniquely different focus and approach as it relates to 13(c).
You called for the repeal of transit worker protections in
order for agencies to more cheaply outsource and automate jobs.
Does the Federal law actually prohibit agencies from using
technology to achieve greater efficiency?
Mr. Scribner. No, but it has been cited as a barrier for 50
years.
Mr. Molinaro. It has been cited as a barrier by whom?
Mr. Scribner. Office of Technology Assessment's study on
automation, the automating rail transit----
Mr. Molinaro [interrupting]. I often wonder how many
collective bargaining agreements those individuals have engaged
in. I happen to think that, in fact, the biggest challenge is
employers, municipal employers especially, don't know how to
negotiate good contracts with good employees.
But to be clear, there is no prohibition, right? Local
providers can achieve technological advancements under Federal
law, and 13(c) doesn't preclude that from happening, correct?
Mr. Scribner. There is not an outright prohibition.
Mr. Molinaro. Right. So, I just offer to a degree that it
is both lack of will and capacity that keeps many of these
transit providers--I was one of them--from achieving the kind
of efficiencies and partnership with their employees, and that
I fear certainly that, to the elimination of 13(c) as
protection, means the elimination of jobs.
So, you, obviously, advocate for more autonomous vehicles.
We certainly know this as a technology transition to make
sense, and, of course, other countries are employing it. Paris
now has unattended train lines, and in that transition, not a
single worker lost their job.
Is there anything in U.S. law that would prevent a transit
agency from doing exactly the same thing? Could they not make
the transition and protect jobs at the same time?
Mr. Scribner. No, but they could not realize labor cost
savings, which provides a pretty strong disincentive to invest
in pretty expensive new capital.
Mr. Molinaro. So, when you say that, that is an assumption
that I don't think plays out when you have a capable municipal
or transit authority employer negotiating a collective
bargaining agreement with capable, qualified employees. And I
do think that this rush to undermine the collective bargaining
agreements and the protections afforded public or municipal
employees is always the excuse we use in order to achieve
savings. I think that that is the kind of thing that gets
addressed by people who don't actually negotiate the contracts
or don't want to take the political risk of negotiating healthy
contracts.
And I do think after COVID, and certainly what we have
seen--and pardon me for isolating and focusing on your
commentary, but I find it offensive because, ultimately, there
are individuals who are going to work every day trying to do
their jobs well, and they want the protection of the Federal
Government. They want the protection of their local
governments.
And what we need is the 13(c) protections but the Federal
transit authorities to ensure that they are supporting the
capacity of local communities to make the most efficient and
effective transit decisions possible while protecting the
people who are moving our people.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Collins [presiding]. All right. Thank you.
The chairman now recognizes himself for 5 minutes.
As someone that has made my living for 30-plus years in the
trucking industry and being in the--my wife and I have owned a
trucking company now for 30-plus years--I can tell you
firsthand that our highway system is in need of a lot of
improvement.
My concern is that money will be diverted from the Highway
Trust Fund in order to pay for transit programs. And so, what
are transit agencies doing to improve the stability of their
finances so that they are not dependent on the Federal
Government to bail them out?
And I would just like to go down the line for anybody that
wants to tackle that question.
Ms. Maynard. Thank you for that question.
I will--again, at the RTC, we are not only the public
transit provider, we are the roadway funding agency. And we
understand that, again, that it is an approach that takes,
whether you are funding your highways or you are funding public
transit, how you move people, goods, and services matters. If
you have a transportation problem, you have an economic problem
in all those modes.
And so, I think, again, if you have got State or local
efforts looking at how you fund--how various regions fund their
roadways are different.
So, in Nevada, we had a ballot question in 26 that passed
overwhelmingly where we were indexing field tax to inflation.
It allows us now--we have a lot more local money. That is a
great match for any Federal opportunities to, again, improve
our roadway systems.
It would be the same for public transit. Again, they both
matter, right. They are both public good. And how roadways are
funded, how the aviation system is funded, how transit is
funded, it all matters in how we move, again, our goods and
services----
Mr. Collins [interrupting]. No, I understand that, but I
don't think I have ever been subsidized with anything.
Normally, we are the one that pays. And so, that is where I am
leading to.
What are the transit agencies out there doing to improve
their own finances so that they are not dependent on the
Federal Government to bail them out all the time?
Ms. Maynard. Again, thank you for that question.
It is an industry that does not generate a profit, and I
think, again, it takes local funding, State funding, and
Federal funding. And, again, it is a public good. When you
invest in transit, you are investing in your community.
I think certainly at the local level, many transit systems
around the United States engage with their local elected
officials to pass ballot initiatives and various funding
mechanisms. Each transit system is funded differently to a
certain degree. If you have seen one transit system, you have
seen one.
So, some transit systems, it is sales tax, property tax,
DMV fees, [inaudible], So, I think it just depends on that
local government.
Mr. Collins. OK. Thank you.
All right. I didn't know if anybody else wanted to tackle
that one.
Well, that is all I had. I wanted to come by and ask that.
With that, I yield back.
Are there any further questions from any members of the
subcommittee who have not been recognized?
Seeing none, that concludes our hearing for today.
I would like to thank each of the witnesses for your
testimony.
The subcommittee now stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:29 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
Submissions for the Record
----------
Letter of June 13, 2024, to Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford, Chairman,
and Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Highways and Transit, from John Samuelsen, International President,
Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, Submitted for the Record
by Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton
June 13, 2024.
The Honorable Rick Crawford, Chair,
The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of
Representatives.
Dear Chair Crawford and Ranking Member Norton,
On behalf of more than 155,000 members of the Transport Workers
Union of America (TWU), I am writing to offer the following statement
for the record as part of your hearing on Revenue, Ridership, and Post-
Pandemic Lessons in Public Transit. Our members operate, maintain, and
service more than half of all public transportation rides in the United
States. We represent transit bus and subway operators, mechanics,
station agents, track workers, dispatchers, supervisors, cleaners,
bikeshare workers, and others across the country. TWU is the lead union
representing transit workers in New York City and its suburbs,
Philadelphia, San Francisco, Houston, Miami, Columbus (OH), Omaha,
Corpus Christi (TX), Akron (OH), and elsewhere.
The TWU strongly supports the testimony presented by the
Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO (TTD). We would echo all of
their comments--in particular the need to establish stable federal
funding for transit operations and emergency relief (as H.R. 7039 and
H.R. 7012 each do, respectively).
We are deeply concerned that the committee has chosen to give a
microphone to an extreme voice calling for the repeal of federal
transit worker protections. It is our experience that these protections
have provided an unmitigated good for our economy over the past sixty
years and that they are more necessary now than ever. These protections
have been intentionally built into the larger machinery of our transit
systems--so much so that many may not realize the essential role they
continue to play. We offer this statement for the record in unequivocal
support for these protections and we encourage the committee to reject
calls for eliminating them.
Transit labor protections--13c--are essential for our economy
Federal transit worker protections--originally signed into law as
section 13c of the Urban Mass Transit Act in 1964 (now codified as 49
USC 5333(b))--are one of the core components of our infrastructure
investments. These protections are designed to prevent federal money
from undermining existing labor standards. 13c ensures that federal
investments directly benefit working people and do not undermine local
economies by displacing, destroying, or undermining existing jobs.
Mechanically, 13c requires recipients of federal transit aid to
maintain ``protective agreements'' that include at least six sets of
assurances:
preservation of workers' rights, privileges, and
benefits;
continuation of collective bargaining rights (note that
13c does not require the creation of any new collective bargaining
rights);
protection of individual workers against worsening of
their positions related to employment;
paid training or retaining for workers whose jobs may
change as a result of federal grants;
assurances of employment for private sector workers whose
employer is acquired by public transportation systems; and
assurances of priority re-employment of workers who have
been laid off.
These protections are under constant attack across the country.
Within the last year, the TWU has had to fight to enforce these rights
in states as politically different as California, Florida, Kentucky,
New York, and Utah. There is no question that 13c is still essential to
transit workers' livelihoods.
13c ensures workers benefit from changes to employment paradigms
Where there is a union present, these rights are generally
implemented as part of collectively bargained agreements. However, 13c
was specifically intended to govern the transitional space between one
employment paradigm and another.\1\ In the 1960s, these rights were
most often applied to private transportation providers being taken over
by public entities (a group which, at the time, frequently prohibited
collective bargaining). At these times, when an entire workforce is
simultaneously changing not only employers but which set of laws govern
employment, workers' are at risk of losing all of the standards 13c is
designed to preserve. As Senator Wayne Morse (D-OR), the author of 13c,
described the intention of this legislation, the federal government
``ought to maintain the status quo'' for these workers when it becomes
involved in transit investments.\2\ He was echoed in this belief by
Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) who stated ``where there are bargaining
agreements, pension plans, and the like, already in existence, they
should be protected.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For a more extensive overview of 13c, see http://
onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_lrd_04.pdf
\2\ Congressional Record, Volume 109, 5671 (April 4, 1963): https:/
/www.congress.gov/88/crecb/1963/04/04/GPO-CRECB-1963-pt5-1-1.pdf
\3\ Ibid. 5672
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A similar set of risks occur when a public entity is privatized.
While the specific rights, privileges, and benefits at risk change for
each case, it is impossible to move from the public sector into the
private sector without changing the dynamics of labor-management
relations. By way of example: public sector pensions generally exclude
private employers from participating; many public sector workers do not
have a right to strike; and, private sector labor rights can often be
enforced in federal court whereas public sector labor rights are the
purview of state courts. Transitioning into the private sector can
cause massive upheaval for workers' retirement, wages, benefits, and
work rules. Making matters worse, no other federal law provides
protections for workers caught in the limbo between a public and
private employer. This is a major reason why privatization is one of
the largest threats to public workers' livelihoods.
Preserving collectively bargained gains for workers and avoiding
chaotic labor strife are unmitigated goods for our economy. 13c is
actually is incentivizing investments that better our larger economy
over short-term cost cutting measures. If any locality feels strongly
that these protections somehow inhibit their ability make transit
investments, they are still free to use their own revenue streams
without triggering any of these protections. The TWU is unaware of any
locality that has opted out of federal funds for a transit project
because of 13c even when they have avoided federal support for other
reasons. We believe this is clear evidence that the transit worker
protections are delivering their promised value to the entire
community, not just transit workers.
13c upskills workers at pace with technological evolution
The other kind of transition 13c is designed to facilitate is
technological. In 1962, New York City introduced a fully autonomous
subway train into service [https://www.nytimes.com/1962/01/05/archives/
first-automated-subway-train-starts-run-shuttle-riders-find-trip.html].
While this service was discontinued in 1964 due to its high costs, the
authors of 13c specifically intended their legislation to address
federal investments in automation and its potential to displace
workers.
There is nothing in federal policy that discourages transit
agencies from innovating or investing in new technologies. While
transit remains extremely underfunded and many agencies choose to delay
investments in new kinds of equipment because of budgetary constraints,
13c actually encourages agencies to upskill their workforce to better
support new technology in-house. This is a major factor in the pace of
adoption for new technologies, which face cultural and practical
barriers to implementation in places where workers are unfamiliar with
and untrained in it. For the long-term success of new technologies, it
is essential that workers can operate and maintain equipment that
utilize those technologies. If in-house workers cannot accomplish this,
the employer is forced to engage relatively more expensive contractors
or eventually stop using the equipment altogether.
Here again 13c is simply encouraging investments in the longer-term
health of our transit systems. There is no shortage of contractors
selling technology solutions to transit agencies who face mounting
operational and budgetary challenges. The protections in 13c help
ensure that when a new technology is adopted, it is ultimately done so
in a way that preserves the existing skilled workforce.
The TWU has successfully transitioned between dozens of
technologies within our transit systems. In our 88 year history at just
the New York subway system, we have changed fare mediums 6 times \4\--a
process that involves massive investment of time, money, training, and
materials, as well as a shift in applicable skills. The station agents
who carried a cash box to a booth to count out tokens have all been
replaced with mechanics carrying laptops to diagnose software errors.
The TWU supported all of those changes, which were accomplish using
federal grants protected by 13c, and we have proactively helped prepare
the workforce for the changes they have brought. Similar transitions
can be found in all of our systems--whether it be the fare medium,
electric buses, positive train control, or any other innovation that
has been implemented over the past sixty years. 13c has helped ensure
that each of these transitions allowed workers to upskill, maintain
their livelihoods, and retire with dignity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Nickels to dimes to all varieties of change to tokens to paper
cards to contactless credit card readers
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case study: Privatizing Transit Service in Nassau County, New York
The case of the Nassau County (NY) transit system is illustrative
of the effectiveness of 13c protections. In 2011, the New York
Metropolitan Transportation Authority withdrew its service agreement to
provide public transportation in Nassau County beginning the process
for the largest privatization of a public transit system in U.S.
history. TWU Local 252 and Veolia Transportation (now TransDev, the
third-party contractor selected by the county to provide public
transportation) had only 90 days to move 900 workers from the public
sector into the private sector.
Under normal circumstances, the TWU and management would not have
been able to begin negotiations until the National Labor Relations
Board certified the union as the representative of the private sector
workforce--a process that could not start, by definition, until Veolia
began employing people and opened transit service. TWU members who had
worked their entire careers under strong union agreements would have
suddenly lost their contract and been forced to start from scratch on a
new agreement many months after Veolia became their employer. The
potential loss of seniority, work schedules, wage rates, etc. would
have caused many transit workers to seek other employment or early
retirement--an extremely problematic reality for the employer given the
short timeline they had to recruit and train 900 certified bus
operators, mechanics, and dispatchers. Were it not for 13c, Nassau
County would never have been able to make this transition work.
Because of the protective agreements required by 13c, TWU Local 252
and Veolia were able to negotiate a new collective bargaining agreement
before the company technically employed any one. The company recognized
the union from day one and guaranteed that every worker currently
employed in Nassau County transit would keep their job at the new
employer under a new union contract. While the abbreviated negotiating
process was difficult, the result was a smooth transition for workers
and riders into the new paradigm. There is no question that, but for
the process allowed for under 13c, there would have been chaos and
significant service disruptions caused by a mass exodus of highly
skilled workers into other endeavors.
Thank you for your attention to these issues. We look forward to
working with you to preserve and extend 13c in the future.
Sincerely,
John Samuelsen,
International President, Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-
CIO.
Appendix
----------
Questions from Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford to M.J. Maynard, Chief
Executive Officer, Regional Transportation Commission of Southern
Nevada, on behalf of the American Public Transportation Association
Question 1.a. In April, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
published a Final Rule updating requirements for Public Transportation
Agency Safety Plans.\1\ In May, APTA formally filed a Petition for
Reconsideration of this rule, citing provisions related to the
designation of an Accountable Executive and suggesting that the Rule,
as published, could lead to delays in the implementation of important
safety plans and protocols.\2\ What specific concerns does APTA have
regarding the Final Rule, as published?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ FTA, Public Transportation Safety Plans Final Rule, 89 Fed.
Reg. 25694 (April 11, 2024) (PTASP Final Rule).
\2\ APTA, Petition for Reconsideration of Final Rule Submitted by
The American Public Transportation Association, (May 13, 2024),
available at https://www.apta.com/wp-content/uploads/
APTA_Petition_for_Reconsideration_of_PTASP_Final_Rule_05-13-2024.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answer. APTA has significant concerns with elements of FTA's PTASP
Final Rule. On May 13, APTA filed a Petition for Reconsideration of
specific PTASP Final Rule provisions regarding: (1) the prohibition in
49 C.F.R. Sec. 673.19(c)(8) preventing the Accountable Executive of a
transit agency from serving in a tiebreaking role as part of Safety
Committee dispute resolution procedures under any circumstance; and (2)
the removal of an Accountable Executive's decision-making authority
regarding safety risk mitigations in the safety risk reduction program
in 49 C.F.R. Sec. 673.23 (d)(1). We believe that these provisions are
contrary to the role of the Accountable Executive, who has ultimate
responsibility for carrying out the PTASP of a public transit agency.
In its comments to the FTA's PTASP Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM), APTA strongly recommended that FTA explicitly identify in Sec.
673.19 that the Accountable Executive is the final decision maker in
all matters concerning the Safety Committee, from adopting dispute
resolution rules to executing the tie-breaking vote in the event of an
impasse in the Committee. This approach is entirely consistent with the
definition of Accountable Executive in proposed 49 C.F.R. Sec. 673.5,
which states that the Accountable Executive is the ``single,
identifiable person who has ultimate responsibility for carrying out
the Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan of a transit agency. . .
.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See APTA Comments on FTA PTASP NPRM (June 26, 2023) at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
APTA's comments also pointed out that FTA has previously supported
this interpretation. In an earlier version of FTA's PTASP Frequently
Asked Questions for the ``New Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
Requirements, Safety Committees'' (Question 10 on FTA's website), FTA
included the following guidance in answer to a question regarding the
implementation of Safety Committee recommendations:
Q10: Is our agency required to implement whichever measures the
Safety Committee recommends?
A10: No. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law does not require the
agency to implement the risk-based mitigations or strategies
recommended by the Safety Committee. The Accountable Executive,
ultimately, must determine whether to implement the risk-based
mitigations or strategies recommended by the Safety Committee
(emphasis added).
FTA rejected APTA's recommendation. Instead of following its
previously articulated guidance and providing no warning of a contrary
approach in the NPRM, FTA abandoned the guidance altogether and adopted
a specific prohibition stating the ``Accountable Executive may not have
a tiebreaking role in resolving Safety Committee disputes, because that
would be inconsistent with the statutory requirements relating to the
roles of Safety Committees.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ FTA, Public Transportation Safety Plans Final Rule, 89 Fed.
Reg. 25694, 25696 (April 11, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, FTA's statutory interpretation is inaccurate. The
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) is silent regarding how
Safety Committees resolve disputes. Accordingly, given that the IIJA is
silent on this point and no statutory authority was referenced by FTA
in its final rule, APTA has challenged the validity of this conclusion
as unnecessary and inconsistent with the NPRM. Moreover, FTA did not
provide APTA, other stakeholders, or the public the opportunity to
comment on this significant revision to decision-making authority.
By promulgating a final rule provision that prohibits the
Accountable Executive from being a designated tiebreaker, FTA has
severely limited the transit agency's ability to enact policies and
procedures unique to its operating environment.
In addition, APTA is concerned that FTA failed to adequately
account for the additional cost burdens on transit agencies to
implement these new PTASP requirements. Last, APTA requested that FTA
reconsider the implementation timeframe for the final rule's provisions
and extend it by one year to May 13, 2025.
Question 1.b. Please describe how FTA has sought to address those
concerns, if at all.
Answer. FTA has not yet responded to APTA's Petition for
Reconsideration.
Questions from Hon. Greg Stanton to M.J. Maynard, Chief Executive
Officer, Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada, on
behalf of the American Public Transportation Association
Question 1. In Arizona, $16 billion in public and private
investment has been made along our light rail, supporting 35,000 jobs.
In January, Valley Metro opened service for the Northwest Extension
Phase II light rail project--a year ahead of schedule and under budget
. . . connecting a Native Health Center, a City Park/Sport Complex, and
ending at what will soon be a redeveloped center that will feature
multifamily housing, restaurants, retail space, and an amphitheater
park. The Tempe Streetcar in my district has served more than 800,000
passengers since its opening in May of 2022. It has exceeded the
ridership goal by more than double the original estimate of 330,000.
When done correctly, public transit can be transformational. We need to
be thoughtful about re-tooling our services with lessons after the
pandemic.
Ms. Maynard: As you know, one trend we have noticed since the
pandemic is a shift in peak ridership--from normal commuter times to
evenings, nights, and weekends.
Both in your capacity overseeing the Regional Transportation
Commission (RTC) of Southern Nevada, and in your work with the American
Public Transportation Association (APTA): what have members of these
organizations found most useful in retooling their service to better
accommodate riders at times beyond the old standard commute-driven
peaks?
Answer. At the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern
Nevada (RTC), we are constantly retooling and refining our services to
better accommodate rides beyond the typical commute times. The strategy
we have found most effective to cater to our region's nontraditional
commutes has been to enhance transit efficiency and responsiveness by
optimizing the times our routes are offered and increasing the
frequency of our service.
To accommodate nontraditional commutes, we have optimized all of
our routes to operate daily, including holidays. Specifically, one-
third of our transit routes operate continuously while the remaining
two-thirds run for 20 to 22 hours each day. This strategic optimization
ensures we remain dedicated to supporting Southern Nevada's tourist-
driven economy by providing essential transit services 24 hours a day
and 7 days a week.
The RTC has maintained a high frequency of rides throughout both
weekdays and weekends to meet our community's needs. Unlike many other
regions across the United States, we do not experience a concentrated
rush of service hours in the morning and late afternoon. Instead, we
have operated on a consistent frequency throughout daytime hours
ensuring reliable and consistent service levels across all days.
Additionally, on Saturdays, our operations see only a 6% reduction in
trips compared to weekdays, while Sundays experience just a 15%
reduction.
Similarly, APTA member agencies navigated the changes in ridership
patterns by adapting services to different needs, including aligning
service patterns, investing in innovative projects to draw and
accommodate ridership, and improving capital planning. In addition,
public transit agencies have developed new solution-oriented service
models to address specific community needs: people living in areas
currently underserved by transit, individuals who require wheelchair
access, and riders who commute during off-peak, late-night hours. On-
demand ride-sharing services, vans and shuttle buses, and other micro-
mobility options (e.g., bikes, scooters) provide customers the access
and flexibility they need to connect to transit or their final
destinations, reduce commute times, and decrease reliance on personal
cars.
As a result of these service changes, nationwide transit riders
took 7.1 billion trips in 2023--an average of 24 million trips each
day.
Question 2. Las Vegas, like Arizona, is a quickly growing area and
we need our transit to keep up. Ms. Maynard: How are you meeting this
challenge in your region? And how are other members of APTA reacting to
changing population trends?
Answer. It has undoubtedly been a challenge for the RTC to keep up
with Southern Nevada's rapidly growing population of 2.3 million
residents and the over 40 million annual visitors. We have responded to
this challenge by focusing on being resourceful, applying innovative
solutions, and working with our elected officials to help secure
additional funding.
The RTC has addressed population growth challenges by maintaining a
focus on efficiency and being resourceful with our limited resources.
We have built one of the most efficient transit systems in the country,
which is also the 14th busiest bus system in the U.S. with an average
of 153,000 weekday boardings. We also have the highest farebox recovery
ratio, the lowest public subsidy, and rank third nationwide for the
lowest operating costs.
Additionally, we have concentrated our efforts on innovative
solutions that enhance accessibility, expand our services, and improve
connectivity for our growing population. For instance, in 2021, we
launched OnDemand microtransit. This service enables anyone within the
designated service zone to schedule a pickup and be transported to an
existing bus stop, where they can transfer onto a fixed route and
continue to their destination. This initiative increased the cost-
effectiveness of our services, improved connectivity in underserved
areas like Enterprise and Southern Highlands, and extended our service
to regions such as West Henderson. And in FY 2024, we completed more
than 102,118 microtransit trips and 3,539 paratransit trips through
this microtransit service. This approach enhances access to essential
services and underscores our commitment to meeting Southern Nevada's
evolving transportation needs.
The RTC is also dedicated to collaborating with our elected and
community leaders to identify potential funding solutions for Southern
Nevada's growing population. This includes working with our elected
officials and our community to explore funding alternatives for our
current and long-term goals.
APTA members across the nation have adapted their services to meet
growing demand and community needs, including aligning service
patterns, providing new solution-oriented service models (e.g., on
demand service), and investing in innovative projects to better serve
their ridership. Such innovative projects include launching integrated
fare payment systems, creating a real-time digital survey app for
immediate customer feedback to improve service, and connecting to state
social service databases to drive and simplify automatic enrollment
into low-income fare programs. APTA members are also actively engaged
in transit-oriented development (TOD) planning efforts to support
community access to public transportation and to lay the groundwork for
affordable housing. Meeting housing demand needs in places with public
transit access enables agencies to provide more efficient service.
Moreover, the business community knows how important public
transportation is for its employees--that is why so many businesses
want to be located near public transportation and are actively engaged
in partnerships with their local public transit systems. For example,
Amazon's decision to locate its new HQ2 in Arlington, Virginia, was in
part influenced by the variety of public transportation options located
in the area.
Question 3. One of the best tools to invest in transit is the
Capital Investment Grants Program. The program is a true partnership
between the Federal government and local communities, with local
funding covering as much as 60 percent of the project. Valley Metro in
my state has made great use of the program in recent years and it's one
of the reasons the Northwest Extension Phase II was so successful. Ms.
Maynard, why is this program so important for APTA, and why is it
important to keep investing in transit through the CIG?
Answer. Public transit investment helps communities begin to
address the demand for more mobility choices. CIG funding provides
critical investments for new and expanded subways, light rail, commuter
rail, streetcars, and bus rapid transit (BRT), among others. Over the
past 15 years, 28 States have received CIG construction grant
agreements or are in the current pipeline--from BRT projects in
Minnesota, Nevada, and Pennsylvania; to commuter rail projects in Texas
and Indiana; and heavy and light rail projects in Arizona, California,
New York, and Utah. Public transportation projects that are funded
through the CIG program are an essential component of addressing the
mobility demands of growing communities. Today, 65 projects across the
nation are seeking almost $44.5 billion of CIG funding in FY 2025 and
subsequent years.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ APTA's Capital Investment Grant Project Pipeline Dashboard
[https://www.apta.com/wp-content/uploads/APTA-CIG-Project-Pipeline-
Dashboard-07-12-2024.pdf] (July 12, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example, the RTC's Maryland Parkway BRT will transform the 13-
mile corridor for the benefit of everyone in the region. Home to 90,000
residents, 85,000 jobs, and 9,000 daily transit riders, the Maryland
Parkway BRT will connect residents to jobs, education, medical
services, shopping, and neighborhood services. FTA's $150 million
investment will ensure Southern Nevada residents and visitors have
better mobility options while traveling to Harry Reid International
Airport, the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), Sunrise Hospital,
and other important areas of the city. In addition, buses, bikes, cars,
and pedestrians will all experience safer conditions thanks to wider
sidewalks, enhanced transit shelters, improved lighting, and better
roadways.
Question from Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. to M.J. Maynard,
Chief Executive Officer, Regional Transportation Commission of Southern
Nevada, on behalf of the American Public Transportation Association
Question 1. This committee has provided substantial funding to
transit in recent years, both through the COVID relief packages and
through the record investment in the BIL.
Should Congress continue to provide significant investment in
public transportation in the next reauthorization, and what would be
the benefits in doing so?
Answer. Yes, Congress should continue to provide significant
investment in public transportation in the next surface transportation
reauthorization act. Investments in public transportation will help
communities of all sizes flourish--connecting workers to jobs, students
to school, and people to healthcare. Accessible, affordable public
transportation helps families, students, and workers save money and
grows our economy.
In addition, with a state-of-good-repair backlog of more than $101
billion and growing, support from all levels of government is sorely
needed. Today, most agencies are operating buses and railcars beyond
their useful lives.\6\ Of the 119,000 transit buses and vans, almost
one in six are not in a state of good repair. For rail transit
vehicles, the average fleet age is 24 years.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration and Federal Transit Administration, Status of the
Nation's Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions & Performance
Report to Congress, 25th Edition [https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/
25cpr/pdf/CP25_Full_Report.pdf] (2024), at page ES-13.
\7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act provides $108.2 billion
for public transit over five years (FY 2022 through FY 2026).
Transit agencies across the country are using these funds to work
toward a state of good repair, provide economic opportunities to their
communities, and drive innovation and clean technology. For example:
The Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District
added 26 miles to double track its South Shore Line. It eliminates 13
grade crossings, adds 14 new weekday trains, and cuts the travel to
Chicago by 30 minutes. The project, awarded a construction grant
agreement in 2021, was completed on time and under budget and opened in
May.
Valley Metro also completed its 2021 Northwest Extension
Phase II light rail project ahead of schedule and under budget. The
project connects the West Valley to downtown Phoenix and neighboring
communities and is already averaging 50,000 riders per month since
opening in January 2024. Phoenix is now working on redeveloping its new
terminus--a former mall--into multi-family housing, hotels,
restaurants, and new retail space.
Skagit Transit, in a small Washington State community, is
moving its operations facility, currently located in a 100-year
floodplain, to a new facility with clean energy infrastructure that
will enable a transition to a zero-emission fleet. In addition, the
facility will help Skagit Transit, as a partner in county emergency
preparedness operations, support community resiliency during emergency
events.
Each $1 invested in public transportation generates $5 in long-term
economic returns. Every $1 billion invested in public transportation
creates or sustains nearly 50,000 jobs across the entire economy,
including in non-transit industries. Investment in public
transportation creates jobs in communities of all sizes throughout the
country, including in smaller urban and rural areas where buses,
railcars, and their parts are often manufactured. Moreover, more than
$42 billion, or almost 60 percent, of public transit investment flows
directly to the private sector--a 65 percent increase since 2000.
Continued investment in public transportation is an investment in
our nation's economic recovery and future.
Question from Hon. Greg Stanton to Laura Hendricks, Chief Executive
Officer, Transdev U.S., on behalf of the North American Transit
Alliance
Question 1. Ms. Hendricks: I understand that Transdev has partnered
with the city of Phoenix to deliver fixed route service for the past 55
years. What has been your biggest challenge post COVID and how have you
addressed it?
Answer. We, like other transit providers worldwide, struggled with
hiring and staffing post pandemic. At Transdev's city of Phoenix
contract, we hired 300 new people in 2023 and became fully staffed
through a wide variety of innovative recruiting tactics to bring new
people into careers in transit. We have a wonderful partnership with
the city of Phoenix and were able to address the issue collaboratively.
For example, our partnership with the Opportunities Industrialization
Center (OIC) in Phoenix allows us to hire and train people to bring
them into the workforce. Dr. Gene Blue and his team at OIC help
disadvantaged youth, homeless people, Veterans and more to re-enter the
workforce. We have also partnered with other organizations to help give
``a hand up'' as they call it, to people in the community needing
access to opportunities. We have also created innovative partnerships
with local colleges and technical programs to create apprenticeship and
internship opportunities to upskill and invest in a transit workforce.
Questions from Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford to Marc Scribner, Senior
Transportation Policy Analyst, Reason Foundation
Question 1. Your testimony referenced Section 13(c) of the Urban
Mass Transportation Act of 1964.\1\ Can you please provide more context
on how Section 13(c) requirements may make it harder for transit
agencies to improve overall system productivity?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Revenue, Ridership, and Post-Pandemic Lessons in Public
Transit: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Highways and Transit of the H.
Comm. on Transp. and Infrastructure, 118th Cong. (June 13, 2024)
(statement of Mr. Marc Scribner).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answer. Typical Section 13(c) agreements include provisions that
greatly constrain transit agency management in any decision involving
employees. For all of these provisions, it is important to keep in mind
that the overarching goal of Section 13(c) is to preserve the status
quo.
First, agreements generally require agencies to notify employee
unions 60 to 90 days prior to any contemplated agency action that would
alter the agency workforce as a result of a federally assisted project.
Once notice has been given, agencies and unions must agree to
implementing terms that apply Section 13(c) requirements to the
proposed agency action. This can be a barrier to implementing any
operational or service changes that impact the agency workforce.
Second, contracting out service is greatly constrained. Many
Section 13(c) agreements include explicit language requiring the
transit agency to be the ``sole provider'' of transit service. The
``sole provider'' clause is included as part of the standard Section
13(c) Model Agreement at Paragraph 23. Generally, these restrictions
are strongest when applied to contracting-out existing service that had
not been previously subcontracted, but some arbitrators have
interpreted ``sole provider'' provisions to prohibit the subcontracting
of new service as well.
Third, ``carryover rights'' clauses often contained in Section
13(c) agreement, which nominally require a new contractor to hire the
employees of the former provider, generate sizeable uncertainty for
agencies. The scope of these protections is unclear, but litigation is
likely to arise if an agency attempts to contract-out service it had
directly provided as the sole provider.
Finally, successor clauses contained in Section 13(c) agreements
tend to require any future contractors to assume obligations that had
previously been agreed on by the transit agency or a preceding
contractor. This greatly limits the ability of new contractors to
introduce productivity-enhancing operational and service changes that
impact the workforce.
Question 2.a. Mr. Regan's written testimony contends that the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) has found that existing transit
labor law, such as Section 13(c), has not delayed the implementation of
new technologies, increased costs, or made it harder to improve
operational efficiencies.\2\ Is this your interpretation of GAO's
findings?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Revenue, Ridership, and Post-Pandemic Lessons in Public
Transit: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Highways and Transit of the H.
Comm. on Transp. and Infrastructure, 118th Cong. (June 13, 2024)
(written testimony of Mr. Greg Regan).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answer. Mr. Regan is mistaken on both the scope and conclusions of
the November 2001 GAO report, which was based on a survey of transit
agency activities between October 1995 and September 2000. First, the
underly GAO survey did not contemplate automation technologies designed
to perform core operating functions. As responses to Survey Question 25
contained in Appendix I of GAO's report show, only the following
technologies were considered: automatic passenger counter, electronic
fare collection system, computerized or internet traveler information
system, computer assisted dispatching and scheduling system, Global
Positioning System (e.g., automatic vehicle location system), automated
demand response dispatching (on-board equipment), articulated buses,
advanced technology buses (e.g., low floor, low emission buses), bus
rapid transit system (e.g., dedicated lanes, automatic guidance
system), on board electronic security monitoring.
Noticeably absent from this list is any technology resembling the
transit vehicle automation systems that I discussed in my testimony.
This is likely due to the fact that three decades ago, fully automated
trains now commonly deployed globally were not yet a mature technology.
Today, there is a thriving global market for transit automation systems
from numerous experienced vendors and contractors.
Second, while GAO's report concluded that ``Section 13(c) had a
minimal impact on most areas of transit operations we identified,'' it
also found that contracting-out was the major exception to this general
conclusion. As responses to Survey Question 22 contained in Appendix I
of GAO's report show, 46.5% of transit agencies reported that ``Section
13(c) has made it much more difficult to contract out'' (18.3%) or
``Section 13(c) has made it somewhat more difficult to contract out''
(28.2%) ``fixed-route transportation or fixed-route transportation-
related services'' during the survey period. ``In addition,'' as GAO
concluded, ``some transit industry officials reported that although
provisions of Section 13(c) arrangements may directly limit contracting
out for services, more often agencies are discouraged from contracting
out because of their perception that such action will cause problems,
such as Section 13(c) claims or delays in the receipt of grants.''
Question 2.b. How have available technologies developed in the
years since the last GAO review of Section 13(c) or other Federal
transit labor provisions?
Answer. Fully driverless trains at Grade of Automation Level 4
(GoA4) are now standard on new rail transit lines worldwide. While the
United States currently has a single GoA4 light-rail system in
Honolulu, many cities around the world have deployed GoA4 light- and
heavy-rail operations since 2000, including: Sydney, Australia; Sao
Paulo, Brazil; Vancouver, Canada (Millenium and Canada Line
expansions); Santiago, Chile; Beijing, Chengdu, Fuzhou, Jinan, Nanjing,
Nanning, Ningbo, Shanghai, Shaoxing, Shenzhen, Suzhou, Taiyuan,
Tianjin, Wuhan, Wuhu, Xi'an, and Zhengzhou, China; Copenhagen, Denmark;
Lyon (Line B expansion), Paris (Lines 1 and 4 expansions), Rennes, and
Toulouse (Line B expansion), France; Nuremberg, Germany; Hong Kong;
Budapest, Hungary; Delhi, Mumbai, and Navi Mumbai, India; Jakarta,
Indonesia; Brescia, Milan, Rome, and Turin, Italy; Nagoya and Tokyo,
Japan; Macau; Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; Lahore, Pakistan; Lima, Peru;
Doha, Qatar; Singapore; Barcelona, Spain; Busan, Incheon, and Seoul,
South Korea; Lausanne, Switzerland; Taichung and Taipei (Circular Line
expansion), Taiwan; Bangkok, Thailand; Istanbul, Turkey; and Dubai,
United Arab Emirates. Dozens of additional fully automated rail lines
are currently in the planning or construction stages globally.
Question 3.a. Based on your analysis, will ridership on our
Nation's transit system recover to pre-pandemic levels?
Answer. The general consensus in the transportation research
community is that nationwide transit ridership is unlikely to recover
its pre-pandemic ridership within the next decade. Beyond 2035,
forecasts are extremely difficult, but transit faces strong headwinds
that call into question the ability of transit ridership to ever
recover to its 2019 levels. Long-term demographic changes and economic
growth are expected to reduce the size of the workforce and increase
household wealth in the coming decades, two trends that bode poorly for
transit's future in the United States.
Question 3.b. If not, what factors should transit agencies consider
when making decisions related to how to attract riders?
Answer. Given transit's ever-diminishing niche in United States
passenger transportation, policymakers and transit agencies should seek
to dramatically reduce construction and operating costs. Operations
should be reoriented to serve transit-dependent riders who cannot
afford private transportation and agencies' costly efforts to convert
affluent residents who can afford private transportation should be
curtailed.
It is important to understand that inefficient capital and
operating expenditures represent an opportunity cost: forgone enhanced
transit service that would be possible under more efficient resource
allocations. As a result, inefficient transit expenditures have a
significant negative impact on transportation equity by denying better
service to transit-dependent riders--and thereby denying them improved
access to employment and social opportunities.
Further, bus transit, with its significantly lower capital costs
and greater flexibility, should be preferred over costly rail transit.
Bus routes can be cheaply and rapidly changed as conditions change, and
competitive contracting is easier to implement for transit bus
operations. Agencies should also examine emerging alternative services
such as microtransit and technologies such as automation that can
better serve their remaining customers and lower costs.
Finally, policymakers and transit agencies should examine
alternatives to traditional transit agency subsidies, such as mode-
neutral transportation vouchers that can be issued directly to transit-
dependent riders. Transportation vouchers would give those riders the
opportunity to choose the travel options that work best for them while
encouraging transit agencies to compete for those dollars with better
service.
Questions from Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. to Greg Regan,
President, Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO
Question 1. In your testimony, you emphasized the need for flexible
funding to support the daily operation of transit systems. The Stronger
Communities through Better Transit Act establishes a grant program in
line with your priorities to support operating projects for public
transportation, particularly in underserved communities and areas of
persistent poverty.
In your experience, can the Stronger Communities through Better
Transit Act address the challenges you highlighted in your testimony
regarding the need for flexible funding to support the daily operations
of transit systems?
Answer. Yes, the Act provides more flexibility to transit agencies
by addressing the historical emphasis on capital investments over
operational funding. Here's how it achieves this:
1. Dedicated Operating Expense Funding
The bill authorizes $20 billion per year for four years
specifically for public transportation operating expenses.
This funding is intended to supplement existing state,
local, and farebox revenue, supporting services beyond what is
currently provided.
2. Flexibility in Usage
Transit agencies are not restricted in how they allocate
the funding for operating expenses, as long as the projects improve
transportation service and increase transit ridership.
Agencies can prioritize operational needs such as hiring
personnel, increasing service frequency, or expanding service areas,
rather than being limited to capital investments.
3. Support for Rural Transit Agencies
The bill increases the federal share of operating costs
for rural transit agencies to 80%, aligning it with the federal share
for capital projects.
This reduces the burden on local funding sources,
providing greater flexibility in resource allocation.
The Act aims to shift the focus from a capital investment-centric
approach to one that acknowledges the critical role of operational
funding in maintaining and improving public transit services. By
providing a dedicated funding stream for operations and increasing the
federal share for rural agencies, the bill empowers transit agencies to
make decisions that best serve their communities.
Question 2. In your testimony, you discussed the importance of
maintaining strong labor protections for transit workers. As a member
of the Labor Caucus, I deeply appreciate the pivotal roles transit
workers play in ensuring millions of Americans reach their workplaces,
schools, medical appointments, and other essential destinations daily.
The Stronger Communities Through Better Transit Act includes provisions
to safeguard your jobs by allocating funding for workforce development
and maintaining the current workforce.
Can you provide examples of how these protections would positively
impact the transit workforce and operations?
Answer. The Stronger Communities Through Better Transit Act
addresses the chronic underinvestment in the transit workforce by
increasing funding for transit operations and explicitly supporting
workforce development.
Challenges Facing the Transit Workforce
The current funding structure prioritizes physical capital, such as
building and maintaining infrastructure, over human capital, including
the workforce responsible for operating and maintaining that
infrastructure. This imbalance has led to several key challenges:
Skills Crisis
+ The aging transit workforce and rapid technological
advancements require significant investment in training to maintain and
enhance critical skills.
+ Underfunding has created a skills gap, making it difficult for
transit agencies to attract and retain qualified workers.
High Turnover
+ Inadequate training and low wages contribute to high turnover
rates, especially among bus drivers.
+ This instability disrupts operations and negatively impacts
the quality of service for riders.
Lack of Diversity
+ Insufficient investment in training limits opportunities for
underrepresented groups to access well-paying transit jobs.
+ This perpetuates a lack of diversity within the transit
workforce.
Solutions Offered by the Act
The Stronger Communities Through Better Transit Act provides
transit agencies with the resources to overcome these challenges by:
Offering Competitive Wages and Benefits
+ Increased funding for operations enables agencies to offer
more competitive wages and benefits, making transit jobs more
attractive and reducing turnover.
Investing in Workforce Development
+ The Act includes explicit provisions for workforce
development, such as supporting apprenticeship programs and providing
enhanced training opportunities.
+ This ensures that existing workers can upgrade their skills
and new talent can enter the field.
Expected Benefits
By addressing underinvestment in human capital, the Stronger
Communities Through Better Transit Act aims to:
Build a stable, skilled, and diverse workforce, leading
to improved service quality, safety, and efficiency.
Attract and retain qualified personnel by offering
competitive compensation and career development opportunities.
Promote equity and inclusion by creating pathways for
underrepresented groups to access well-paying transit jobs.
These initiatives will strengthen the public transportation system,
benefiting millions of Americans who rely on it daily.
[all]