    [House Hearing, 119 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

     AMERICA BUILDS: A REVIEW OF OUR NATION'S TRANSIT POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

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

                                    (119-16)

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                              HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT

                                     OF THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                       TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 APRIL 9, 2025

                                   __________

                           Printed for the use of the
                 Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

    GRAPHIC(S) 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
     60-508 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,
    Jerrold Nadler, New York               Vice Chairman
    Steve Cohen, Tennessee               Daniel Webster, Florida
    John Garamendi, California           Thomas Massie, Kentucky
    Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Georgiaott Perry, Pennsylvania
    Andre Carson, Indiana                Brian Babin, Texas
    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        Pete Stauber, Minnesota
    Greg Stanton, Arizona                Tim Burchett, Tennessee
    Sharice Davids, Kansas               Dusty Johnson, South Dakota
    Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, Illinois   Jefferson Van Drew, New Jersey
    Chris Pappas, New Hampshire          Troy E. Nehls, Texas
    Seth Moulton, Massachusetts          Tracey Mann, Kansas
    Marilyn Strickland, Washington       Burgess Owens, Utah
    Patrick Ryan, New York               Eric Burlison, Missouri
    Val T. Hoyle, Oregon                 Mike Collins, Georgia
    Emilia Strong Sykes, Ohio,           Mike Ezell, Mississippi
      Vice Ranking Member                Kevin Kiley, California
    Hillary J. Scholten, Michigan        Vince Fong, California
    Valerie P. Foushee, North Carolina   Tony Wied, Wisconsin
    Christopher R. Deluzio, Pennsylvania Tom Barrett, Michigan
    Robert Garcia, California            Nicholas J. Begich III, Alaska
    Nellie Pou, New Jersey               Robert P. Bresnahan, Jr.,
    Kristen McDonald Rivet, Michigan     Pennsylvania
    Laura Friedman, California           Jeff Hurd, Colorado
    Laura Gillen, New York               Jefferson Shreve, Indiana
    Shomari Figures, Alabama             Addison P. McDowell, North
                                         Carolina
                                         David J. Taylor, Ohio
                                         Brad Knott, North Carolina
                                         Kimberlyn King-Hinds,
                                           Northern Mariana Islands
                                         Mike Kennedy, Utah
                                         Robert F. Onder, Jr., Missouri
                                         Vacancy

                      Subcommittee on Highways and Transit

      David Rouzer, North Carolina,
                 Chairman
    Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
         Columbia, Ranking Member
    John Garamendi, California           Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford,
    Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Georgiakansas
    Jared Huffman, California            Daniel Webster, Florida
    Julia Brownley, California           Thomas Massie, Kentucky
    Mark DeSaulnier, California          Brian Babin, Texas
    Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, Illinois   Mike Bost, Illinois
    Chris Pappas, New Hampshire          Doug LaMalfa, California
    Marilyn Strickland, Washington       Bruce Westerman, Arkansas
    Patrick Ryan, New York               Pete Stauber, Minnesota
    Val T. Hoyle, Oregon                 Tim Burchett, Tennessee
    Emilia Strong Sykes, Ohio            Dusty Johnson, South Dakota
    Jerrold Nadler, New York             Jefferson Van Drew, New Jersey
    Nellie Pou, New Jersey               Troy E. Nehls, Texas
    Kristen McDonald Rivet, Michigan     Burgess Owens, Utah
    Laura Friedman, California           Eric Burlison, Missouri
    Laura Gillen, New York               Mike Collins, Georgia
    Shomari Figures, Alabama,            Kevin Kiley, California
      Vice Ranking Member                Vince Fong, California
    Steve Cohen, Tennessee               Tony Wied, Wisconsin
    Dina Titus, Nevada                   Tom Barrett, Michigan
    Salud O. Carbajal, California        Robert P. Bresnahan, Jr.,
    Greg Stanton, Arizona                Pennsylvania, Vice Chairman
    Sharice Davids, Kansas               Jeff Hurd, Colorado
    Seth Moulton, Massachusetts          Jefferson Shreve, Indiana
    Robert Garcia, California            Addison P. McDowell, North
    Rick Larsen, Washington (Ex Officio) Carolina
                                         David J. Taylor, Ohio
                                         Brad Knott, North Carolina
                                         Kimberlyn King-Hinds,
                                           Northern Mariana Islands
                                         Mike Kennedy, Utah
                                         Sam Graves, Missouri (Ex Officio)

                                    CONTENTS

                                                                       Page

    Summary of Subject Matter........................................   vii

                     STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

    Hon. David Rouzer, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      North Carolina, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Highways and
      Transit, opening statement.....................................     1
        Prepared statement...........................................     3
    Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Washington, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and
      Infrastructure, opening statement..............................     4
        Prepared statement...........................................     5
    Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Delegate in Congress from the
      District of Columbia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
      Highways and Transit, opening statement........................     6
        Prepared statement...........................................     7
    Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Missouri, and Chairman, Committee on Transportation and
      Infrastructure, prepared statement.............................    93

                                   WITNESSES

    Nathaniel Phillip Ford, Sr., Chief Executive Officer,
      Jacksonville Transportation Authority, on behalf of the
      American Public Transportation Association (APTA), oral
      statement......................................................     9
        Prepared statement...........................................    11
    Barbara K. Cline, Executive Director, Prairie Hills Transit, on
      behalf of the Community Transportation Association of America
      (CTAA), oral statement.........................................    18
        Prepared statement...........................................    20
    Matthew Booterbaugh, Chief Executive Officer, RATP Dev USA, on
      behalf of the North American Transit Alliance (NATA), oral
      statement......................................................    24
        Prepared statement...........................................    26
    Baruch Feigenbaum, Senior Managing Director for Transportation
      Policy, Reason Foundation, oral statement......................    29
        Prepared statement...........................................    31
    Greg Regan, President, Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO
      (TTD), oral statement..........................................    33
        Prepared statement...........................................    35

                                    APPENDIX

    Questions from Hon. Hillary J. Scholten to Nathaniel Phillip
      Ford, Sr., Chief Executive Officer, Jacksonville Transportation
      Authority, on behalf of the American Public Transportation
      Association (APTA).............................................    95

                                 April 4, 2025

        SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER

        TO:      LMembers, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
        FROM:  LStaff, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
        RE:      LSubcommittee Hearing on ``America Builds: A
    Review of Our Nation's Transit Policies and Programs''
    _______________________________________________________________________

                                   I. PURPOSE

        The Subcommittee on Highways and Transit of the Committee
    on Transportation and Infrastructure will meet on Wednesday,
    April 9, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. ET in 2167 of the Rayburn House
    Office Building to receive testimony at a hearing entitled,
    ``America Builds: A Review of Our Nation's Transit Policies and
    Programs.'' The hearing will provide Subcommittee Members with
    the opportunity to receive testimony on policies and programs
    within the United States Department of Transportation's (DOT's)
    Federal Transit Administration (FTA). At the hearing, Members
    will receive testimony from witnesses on behalf of the American
    Public Transportation Association (APTA), the Community
    Transportation Association of America (CTAA), the North
    American Transit Alliance (NATA), the Reason Foundation, and
    the Transportation Trades Department of the AFL-CIO.

                                 II. BACKGROUND

        The first Federal transit program was created under the
    Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, and was managed by the
    Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).\1\ In 1968,
    the Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) was created
    under DOT.\2\ As the program grew to support Nationwide transit
    systems for all communities--including rural areas, seniors,
    and people with disabilities--UMTA was renamed FTA in 1991.\3\
    FTA aims to improve America's communities by supporting transit
    systems across the Nation with funding and technical
    assistance. Transit systems include buses, subways, light rail,
    commuter rail, trolleys, and ferries.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Dep't of Transp., FTA, FTA History, (last updated Feb. 25,
    2025), available at https://www.transit.dot.gov/about/brief-history-
    mass-transit.
        \2\ Id.
        \3\ Id.
        \4\ Dep't of Transp., FTA, About FTA, available at https://
    www.transit.dot.gov/about-fta.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In 1982, Congress enacted the Surface Transportation
    Assistance Act (STAA) (P.L. 97-424), which implemented a five-
    cent per gallon increase in the gasoline tax, for a total tax
    of nine-cents per gallon.\5\ Under STAA, Congress also
    established a mass transit account (MTA) in the Highway Trust
    Fund (HTF).\6\ The MTA was created to fund public
    transportation such as buses, railways, subways, and ferries,
    and allows for the use of limited funds for operating expenses
    in rural and small urbanized areas.\7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Jeff Davis, Highway Trust Fund 101, Eno Center for Transp.,
    (updated Aug. 15, 2023), available at https://enotrans.org/article/
    highway-trust-fund-101/ [hereinafter Davis].
        \6\ Davis, supra note 5.
        \7\ Robert S. Kirk & William J. Mallett, Cong. Rsch. Serv.
    (R47573), Funding and Financing Highway and Public Transportation Under
    the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, (May 24, 2023), available
    at https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/2023-05-
    24_R47573_2fdd993640445d646286ecfe0df6cc5570d409a6.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Under STAA, lawmakers enacted a political agreement
    referred to as the ``Great Compromise'' or the ``80-20 highway-
    transit split.'' The compromise traded an increase in the gas
    tax for an agreement to deposit one cent (20 percent of the new
    tax increase) into the newly created MTA within the HTF. The
    remaining four cents (80 percent of the new tax increase) would
    be deposited into the highway account (HA). The Great
    Compromise agreement only pertained to the gas tax increase in
    STAA, not total gas taxes collected. Further, it did not
    dictate authorization amounts or spending from either the HA or
    the MTA. All subsequent fuel tax increases have maintained the
    80-20 highway-transit split on revenue deposited into the HTF.
    The entirety of the pre-1982 gasoline and diesel tax rates, as
    well as all trucking industry excise taxes, continue to be
    deposited into the HA. The MTA's share of HTF revenue is
    approximately 12 to 13 percent.\8\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ Davis, supra note 5.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        III. COVID-19 IMPACT ON TRANSIT

        In October 2014, transit ridership reached a record high of
    nearly 990 million rides.\9\ 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.\10\ 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.\11\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ Fed. Reserve Bank of St. Louis, Public Transit Ridership, (last
    accessed May 22, 2024), available at https://fred.stlouisfed.org/
    series/TRANSIT [hereinafter Fed. Reserve Bank].
        \10\ Id.
        \11\ 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.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
               LFigure 1: Public Transit Ridership 2002-2024.\12\

        The\\ COVID-19 pandemic had a sharp impact on public
    transportation.\13\ 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.\14\ 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.\15\ By
    April 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic and various suggested and
    mandated mitigation practices caused monthly ridership to
    plummet by more than 78 percent.\16\ Some larger systems saw a
    drop in ridership of up to 90 percent.\17\ These dramatic
    decreases in ridership and associated fare collections forced
    local transit agencies to consider dynamic changes to
    operational strategies.\18\ By July 2020, nearly 50 percent of
    transit agencies reported service modifications in response to
    the loss of riders whose daily travel had lessened.\19\ This
    loss of fare-paying riders, paired with decreased local sales
    tax collections, created a historic deficiency of incoming
    revenue for transit systems.\20\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ Fed. Reserve Bank, supra note 9.
        \13\ 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.
        \14\ 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.
        \15\ American Public Transit Assoc.., Moving Through the Crisis:
    Mobility Recovery & Restoration Task Force Rep., (Oct. 2020) available
    at https://www.apta.com/wp-content/uploads/APTA-Task-Force-Report-
    2020.pdf.
        \16\ Id.
        \17\ Robert Puentes, COVID's Differing Impact on Transit Ridership,
    Eno Center for Transp., (Apr. 24, 2020), available at https://
    enotrans.org/article/covids-differing-impact-on-transit-ridership/.
        \18\ 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.
        \19\ 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.
        \20\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        FTA 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.\21\
    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).\22\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \21\ Cong. Budget Off., Federal Financial Support for Public
    Transp., (Mar. 2022), available at https://www.cbo.gov/publication/
    57940.
        \22\ 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; see also 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; see also
    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, was greater than three times the amount
    recovered from fares and additional operating revenue in 2019,
    with much of the provided funding eligible to be expended for
    transit agency operating expenses.\23\ 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.\24\ Allowing emergency funding to be used on operating
    expenses kept transit workers on the job and helped maintain
    essential mobility services.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \23\ 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.
        \24\ 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.\25\ For example, as
    more employees return to in-office work, ridership numbers have
    slowly started to increase. The Washington Metropolitan Area
    Transit Authority (WMATA) has reported its highest ridership
    levels during the morning rush hour since the pandemic with the
    Administration's return to work order for Federal
    employees.\26\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \25\ 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.
        \26\ Adam Tuss, Metro Ridership Nears 5-Year High as Federal
    Workers Return to Offices, NBC4 Washington, (Feb. 25, 2025), available
    at https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/transportation/metro-
    ridership-nears-5-year-high-as-federal-workers-return-to-offices/
    3852751/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      IV. MAJOR FTA POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

    FUNDING

        The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) (P.L.
    117-58), 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.\27\
    This legislation authorized historic increases for both formula
    and discretionary funding, as well as provided advanced
    appropriations for transit programs.\28\ Of the provided $108.2
    billion, $69.9 billion was authorized from the MTA of the
    HTF.\29\ IIJA provided a 77 percent increase over FTA annual
    funding amounts compared to the previous authorization
    period.\30\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \27\ Dep't of Transp., FTA, IIJA, (last updated Nov. 15, 2023),
    available at https://www.transit.dot.gov/IIJA.
        \28\ IIJA, Pub. L. No. 117-58, 135 Stat. 429
        \29\ IIJA, Pub. L. No. 117-58, 135 Stat. 429 (numbers tabulated by
    Transp. and Infrastructure Comm. Staff).
        \30\ Dep't of Transp., Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
    Authorized Funding, (last accessed June 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; see also 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 Urbanized Area Formula 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.\31\ 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 (FRA).\32\ 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), in addition to the
    almost $70 billion provided by Congress in emergency
    supplemental funding.\33\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \31\ Dep't of Transp., FTA, IIJA, (last updated Nov. 15, 2023),
    available at https://www.transit.dot.gov/IIJA.
        \32\ 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.
        \33\ Dep't of Transp., Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
    Authorized Funding, (last accessed June 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; see also 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

        IIJA 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.\34\ On September 25, 2024, FTA published
    General Directive 24-1: Required Actions Regarding Assaults on
    Transit Workers, to address transit worker assaults and
    mitigation tactics to include in Agency Safety Plans.\35\ 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.\36\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \34\ Dep't of Transp., FTA, IIJA, (last updated Nov. 15, 2023),
    available at https://www.transit.dot.gov/IIJA.
        \35\ 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.
        \36\ 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.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        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.\37\ On April 9, 2024, the FTA published a
    Final Rule updating the Public Transportation Agency Safety
    Plan regulations requiring greater safety-related engagement
    between agency workers and management and updated safety data
    standards.\38\ Additionally, the Final Rule establishes joint
    labor-management Safety Committees, which require an equal
    number of frontline employees as management representatives.
    Frontline employees must be selected by a labor organization
    representing the plurality of employees.\39\ Safety Committees
    must approve Agency Safety Plans for the agency to receive
    Federal funding under the Urbanized Area Formula grant
    program.\40\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \37\ Dep't of Transp., FTA, Public Transportation Agency Safety
    Plans, (last accessed Mar. 17, 2025), available at https://
    www.transit.dot.gov/PTASP.
        \38\ Id.
        \39\ Public Transp. Agency Safety Plans, 89 Fed. Reg. 25694 (Apr.
    11, 2024).
        \40\ 49 U.S.C. Sec.  5307.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MODERNIZATION AND NEW PROPULSION TECHNOLOGIES

        FTA has a number of programs aimed at modernizing transit
    systems. The Urbanized Area Formula funding program (5307) and
    the Rural Area Formula funding program (5311) funds are
    apportioned to states and designated recipients for transit
    capital and operating assistance.\41\ An ``urban area'' is
    defined as a population of 50,000 or more, while a ``rural
    area'' is less than 50,000 in population.\42\ The State of Good
    Repair Grant Program (5337) provides formula funds to urbanized
    areas to help maintain, replace, or rehabilitate projects on
    fixed-guideway and motorbus systems. Entities can also develop
    Transit Asset Management plans under 5337.\43\ The Rail Vehicle
    Replacement grant program also falls under 5337 and is a
    competitive program that funds capital projects to replace rail
    rolling stock.\44\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \41\ Id.; see also 49 U.S.C. Sec.  5311.
        \42\ Id.
        \43\ 49 U.S.C. Sec.  5337.
        \44\ 49 U.S.C. Sec.  5337(f).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Capital Investment Grants (CIG) program is a
    competitive program that funds capital investments for larger
    projects, including heavy rail, commuter rail, light rail,
    street cars, and bus rapid transit.\45\ CIG funding requires
    applicants to complete multiple phases prior to receiving
    funding. The CIG program is broken down into three categories:
    New Starts, Core Capacity, and Small Starts. The New Starts
    account funds projects whose total cost is equal to or greater
    than $400 million, while the Small Starts account funds
    projects whose total cost is less than $400 million.\46\ The
    Core Capacity account is for substantial corridor-based
    investments in existing fixed guideway systems that will
    increase capacity by at least ten percent.\47\ The New Starts
    and Core Capacity accounts are required to complete the project
    development phase and engineering phase before receiving a full
    funding grant agreement (FFGA).\48\ The Small Starts program
    requires applicants to pass through the project development
    phase before a grant agreement is reached.\49\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \45\ 49 U.S.C. Sec.  5309.
        \46\ Id.
        \47\ Id.
        \48\ William J. Mallett, Cong. Rsch Serv. (R44534), Public
    Transportation Capital Investment Grant (New Starts) Program:
    Background and Issues for Congress, (June 20, 2016), available at
    https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R44534.
        \49\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        FTA's Bus and Bus Facilities (5339) has both a formula
    (5339)(a) and competitive (5339)(b) grant program to help
    replace, rehabilitate, or purchase buses and related equipment
    and construct bus facilities.\50\ The Low- or No-Emission grant
    program (5339)(c) is an additional competitive program that
    provides funding to purchase or lease zero-emission and low-
    emission transit buses and related equipment.\51\ Under IIJA, a
    25 percent set aside was created for funding to go towards low-
    emission buses, rather than zero-emission buses.\52\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \50\ 49 U.S.C. Sec.  5339.
        \51\ 49 U.S.C. Sec.  5339(c).
        \52\ Id.; see also IIJA Sec.  30018; see also IIJA Division J.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ACCESSIBILITY

        FTA also has dedicated programs to address accessibility on
    transit systems. The All Stations Accessibility Program (ASAP)
    is a competitive program that allows transit agencies to
    repair, improve, modify or retrofit stations or facilities to
    make it accessible for individuals with disabilities.\53\
    Enhanced Mobility for Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities
    is a formula program that apportions funds based on each
    state's share of population for seniors and individuals with
    disabilities to address mobility challenges, such as wheelchair
    lifts or contracted paratransit services.\54\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \53\ IIJA Division J.
        \54\ 49 U.S.C. Sec.  5310.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                  V. WITNESSES

         LMr. Nathaniel P. Ford, Sr., Chief Executive
    Officer, Jacksonville Transportation Authority, on behalf of
    the American Public Transportation Association (APTA)
         LMs. Barbara K. Cline, Executive Director, Prairie
    Hills Transit, on behalf of the Community Transportation
    Association of America (CTAA)
         LMr. Matthew Booterbaugh, Chief Executive Officer,
    RATP Dev USA, on behalf of the North American Transit Alliance
    (NATA)
         LMr. Baruch Feigenbaum, Senior Managing Director,
    Transportation Policy, Reason Foundation
         LMr. Greg Regan, President, Transportation Trades
    Department, AFL-CIO (TTD)

     AMERICA BUILDS: A REVIEW OF OUR NATION'S TRANSIT POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, APRIL 9, 2025

                      House of Representatives,
                  Subcommittee on Highways and Transit,
                Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:11 a.m., in
    Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. David Rouzer
    (Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Mr. Rouzer. The Subcommittee on Highways and Transit will
    come to order.
        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 also email it to DocumentsTI@mail.house.gov.
        Now, before I deliver an opening statement, I understand
    that we have a big birthday coming up.
        Ms. King-Hinds, I understand you will be 30 years old. Is
    that correct?
        Ms. King-Hinds. That's right.
        Mr. Rouzer. Happy birthday.
        [Applause.]
        Mr. Rouzer. I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for the
    purposes of an opening statement.

       OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID ROUZER OF NORTH CAROLINA,
             CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT

        Mr. Rouzer. Today's hearing examines key issues concerning
    our Nation's public transportation programs as the subcommittee
    works to develop and enact an on-time, multiyear surface
    transportation bill.
        The Federal Transit Administration, or FTA, provides
    funding and technical assistance to public transportation
    systems across the Nation to move people safely, connecting
    them to workplaces, airports, doctors' appointments, and more.
    From buses and streetcars to ferries and rail systems, transit
    systems connect our communities and have the potential to drive
    greater economic opportunities, especially in rural areas.
        Ensuring transit services reflect the needs of communities
    served while providing such services efficiently and safely is
    a goal all lawmakers share. Unfortunately, it is no secret that
    pandemic-era restrictions and work-from-home policies made
    already declining ridership rates that much worse, resulting in
    a historic decline in overall fare revenue collections for
    transit systems of all sizes across the Nation.
        In response, Congress provided FTA with nearly $70 billion
    in supplemental funding to cover short-term budget gaps, mainly
    for operating expenses and labor costs. Shortly after, the
    Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, or IIJA as we call it,
    was signed into law in November 2021 and provided $108.2
    billion for public transportation through fiscal year 2026.
        IIJA alone authorized a 77-percent increase in Federal
    funds for FTA compared to the prior FAST Act authorization.
        When you combine both IIJA and the supplemental COVID
    funding, nearly 180 billion Federal taxpayer dollars have been
    directed to public transportation systems since 2020.
        Despite this significant investment, ridership today hovers
    around 79 percent of prepandemic levels. Concerningly, crime
    has become more rampant on several transit systems, endangering
    passengers and transit workers alike. The traveling public
    deserves better and so do the men and women who work around the
    clock to transport riders safely to their destinations.
    Congress must work to hold recipients of Federal dollars
    accountable and ensure public transportation services are
    reliable, safe, and maintained to a certain standard.
        Thankfully, the Trump administration has taken Federal
    investments in our transit system seriously and is directing
    certain legacy systems to reduce crime and fare evasion to
    improve security for passengers and workers. I commend
    Secretary Duffy for taking a strong look at this and conducting
    much-needed oversight of these systems. We look forward to
    working with the administration to advance commonsense reforms
    to improve the ridership experience.
        Now, with the structural deficits our Nation is running, we
    can no longer afford to throw money at issues and hope to see
    changes, and this includes public transportation systems. We
    have an opportunity in the next surface bill to ensure public
    transportation systems have the flexibilities needed to deliver
    high-quality services.
        Each community is unique in its ridership needs and its
    delivery of services. And while some systems have reduced or
    eliminated fares in the hopes of increasing their ridership
    rates, others have pursued innovative strategies to increase
    efficiency, such as reorienting services and routes, employing
    microtransit, or expanding use of contracted services.
        It is always helpful to define what success is, and it begs
    the question as to whether ridership is the appropriate measure
    to determine the health of the transit system, given the
    variation of factors that apply.
        I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about
    what they feel is working in the transit industry and what
    challenges transit systems face that this subcommittee may need
    to address as we work to reauthorize our Nation's surface
    transportation programs.
        [Mr. Rouzer's prepared statement follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Hon. David Rouzer, a Representative in Congress
        from the State of North Carolina, and Chairman, Subcommittee on
                              Highways and Transit
        Today's hearing examines key issues concerning our nation's public
    transportation programs as the Subcommittee works to develop and enact
    an on-time, multi-year surface transportation bill.
        The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) provides funding and
    technical assistance to public transportation systems across the nation
    to move people safely and connect them to workplaces, airports,
    doctors' appointments, and more. From buses and streetcars to ferries
    and rail systems, transit systems connect our communities and have the
    potential to drive greater economic opportunities, especially in rural
    areas.
        Ensuring that transit services reflect the needs of the communities
    served, while providing such services efficiently and safely, is a goal
    that I believe all lawmakers share. Unfortunately, it is no secret that
    pandemic era restrictions and work-from-home policies made already
    declining ridership rates that much worse, resulting in a historic
    decline in overall fare revenue collections for transit systems of all
    sizes across the nation. In response, Congress provided FTA with nearly
    $70 billion in supplemental funding to cover short-term budget gaps,
    mainly for operating expenses and labor costs. Shortly after, the
    Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) was signed into law in
    November 2021 and provided $108.2 billion for public transportation
    through fiscal year 2026.
        IIJA alone authorized a 77 percent increase in federal funds for
    FTA compared to the prior authorization, the FAST Act. When you combine
    both IIJA and the supplemental COVID funding, nearly $180 billion
    federal taxpayer dollars have been directed to public transportation
    systems since 2020.
        Despite this significant investment, ridership today hovers around
    79 percent of pre-pandemic levels. Concerningly, crime has become more
    rampant on several transit systems, endangering passengers and transit
    workers alike. The traveling public deserves better and so do the men
    and women who work around the clock to transport riders safely to their
    destinations. Congress must work to hold recipients of federal dollars
    accountable and ensure that public transportation services are
    reliable, safe, and maintained to a certain standard.
        Thankfully, the Trump Administration has taken federal investments
    in our transit systems seriously and is directing certain legacy
    systems to reduce crime and fare evasion to improve security for
    passengers and workers. I commend Secretary Duffy for taking a strong
    look at this and conducting much needed oversight of these systems. I
    look forward to working with the Trump Administration to advance
    commonsense reforms to improve the ridership experience.
        Now with the structural deficits our nation is running, we can no
    longer afford to throw money at issues and hope to see change, and this
    includes public transportation systems. We have an opportunity in the
    next surface bill to ensure that public transportation systems have the
    flexibilities they need to deliver high-quality services.
        Each community is unique in its ridership needs and its delivery of
    services. And while some systems have reduced or eliminated fares in
    hopes of increasing their ridership rates, others have pursued
    innovative strategies to increase efficiency, such as reorienting
    services and routes, employing microtransit, or expanding use of
    contracted services.
        It is always helpful to define what success is, and it begs the
    question as to whether ridership is an appropriate measure to determine
    the health of a transit system given the variation of factors that
    apply.
        I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about what they
    feel is working in the transit industry, and what challenges transit
    systems face that this subcommittee may need to address as we work to
    reauthorize our nation's surface transportation programs.

        Mr. Rouzer. I now recognize the ranking member of the full
    committee, Mr. Larsen, for his opening statement.

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICK LARSEN OF WASHINGTON, RANKING
         MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

        Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you, Chair Rouzer.
        And as we know, Ranking Member Norton is in a markup in a
    different committee that has its hearing room moved to the
    other side of the Capitol, so it is taking a bit to get over
    here.
        So I will just step in to get us started and just note that
    the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law has made landmark investments
    across all ways of traveling that keep people moving and keep
    our economy moving. That includes investments in transit.
        Congress provided record transit investments that are
    improving safety. They are helping transit agencies purchase
    new buses and railcars, and, therefore, creating jobs and
    economic opportunity. Transit agencies are taking proactive
    steps to support ridership by redesigning bus networks, adding
    service on nights and weekends, improving frequency, and
    providing better pay and incentives to workers.
        Communities are reaping these benefits with transit
    rebounding to 84 percent of pre-COVID ridership levels. In my
    own district, a lot of this is happening. All these innovations
    that the chair discussed are all happening in my district,
    depending on the transit agency, as well. A lot of these
    investments have occurred in my district, including $15 million
    for Island Transit on Whidbey Island that is exploring the
    purchasing of hydrogen fuel cell buses and fueling
    infrastructure. There are reinvestments into operation and
    maintenance of facilities, as well.
        These investments have brought over $58 million for
    Community Transit's Swift Orange Line BRT. That service has
    been open for just over 1 year, and it has already transported
    810,000 riders. Similar investments are happening all over the
    country.
        The BIL included investments to broaden the reach of
    transit and ensure that transit works better for everyone.
    Congress created the All Stations Accessibility Program to make
    sure we are living up to the promises of the Americans with
    Disabilities Act. Congress has provided support for ferry
    service in rural areas and investments in low-emission vessels
    of the future.
        The BIL is replacing aging railcars to make transit systems
    more reliable for travelers. Congress also prioritized
    protecting frontline transit workers and providing them the
    skills they need to operate and maintain the next generation of
    buses. These investments are, as well, boosting the economy and
    creating jobs.
        Transit provides economic security for those who ride
    transit systems and those who help build, maintain, and operate
    them. The transit industry is a significant job creator,
    directly employing 430,000 people and, of course, supporting
    millions of private-sector jobs. Seventy-seven percent of
    Federal public transportation investments flow to the private
    sector, and every $1 billion that we authorize and gets spent
    for transit that we provide creates or sustains 50,000 jobs.
        And so today, we will hear a lot of testimony. We will hear
    from the Transportation Trades Department of the AFL-CIO whose
    members proudly do these jobs every day. I look forward to
    learning how Congress can continue to support transit workers
    in the reauthorization bill.
        Even businesses that do not have a direct tie to the
    transit industry reap these benefits since nearly 9 out of 10
    transit trips have a direct impact on local economies.
        Transit is a tangible cost-saver for individual families.
    According to one of our witnesses today, the American Public
    Transportation Association, the average household spends 16
    cents of every dollar on transportation, and 93 percent of this
    goes to buying, maintaining, and operating cars--the largest
    single-family expenditure after housing.
        By taking transit and living with one less car, the
    potential for households is that they can save $13,000 a year
    to spend on other things. Providing options to ensure people
    can get to where they need to go is even more crucial today as
    costs mount for Americans.
        Now, while the BIL made historic strides to improve public
    transit systems and service, transit systems require ongoing
    investment. The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates a
    $152 billion backlog over the next 10 years to bring our
    transit systems up to a state of good repair. Disinvestment in
    America's infrastructure did not happen overnight, nor will it
    be fixed overnight. That is why we need to build on the
    progress that we made in the BIL.
        I am committed to developing a bipartisan transportation
    bill, and transit will be a key component of that. Whether you
    represent a major city, suburban communities, or rural areas,
    like I do in my district--all over the place--there are people,
    regardless of how they get around, they do rely on transit, and
    they are employed in the transit sector.
        So I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about
    how we can build on the success from the BIL and what we ought
    to be thinking about as we build the new surface transportation
    bill.
        With that, 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 Rouzer and Ranking Member Norton, for holding
    this hearing on the role of transit in supporting our economy and
    getting people where they need to go.
        The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law made landmark investments across
    all ways of traveling that keep our economy moving, including transit.
        Congress provided record transit investments that are improving
    safety, helping transit agencies purchase new buses and rail cars and,
    therefore, creating jobs and economic opportunity.
        Transit agencies are taking proactive steps to support ridership by
    redesigning bus networks, adding service on nights and weekends,
    improving frequency and providing better pay and incentives to workers.
        Communities are reaping the benefits of these efforts, with transit
    rebounding to 84 percent of its pre-COVID ridership levels.
        A lot of these investments have occurred in my district, including
    $15 million for Island Transit on Whidbey Island. It is exploring
    purchasing hydrogen fuel cell buses and fueling infrastructure. There's
    reinvestments into operation maintenance facilities, as well.
        These investments have brought over $58 million for Community
    Transit's Swift Orange Line BRT. The service has been open for just
    over a year and has already transported 810,000 riders.
        Similar investments are happening all across the country.
        The BIL included investments to broaden the reach of transit and
    ensure that transit works better for everyone.
        Congress created the All Stations Accessibility Program to make
    sure we are living up to the promises of the Americans with
    Disabilities Act.
        Congress provided support for ferry service in rural areas and
    investments in the low-emission vessels of the future.
        The BIL is replacing aging railcars to make transit systems more
    reliable for travelers.
        Congress also prioritized protecting frontline transit workers and
    providing them the skills they need to operate and maintain the next
    generation of buses.
        These investments are boosting our economy and creating jobs.
        Transit provides economic security for those who ride transit
    systems and those who help build, maintain and operate them. The
    transit industry is a significant job creator, directly employing
    430,000 people and supporting millions of private-sector jobs.
        Seventy-seven percent of federal public transportation investments
    flow to the private sector, and every $1 billion Congress provides
    creates or sustains 50,000 jobs.
        Today, we will hear testimony from the Transportation Trades
    Department, whose members proudly do these jobs every day. I look
    forward to learning how Congress can continue to support transit
    workers in the reauthorization bill.
        Even businesses that do not have a direct tie to the transit
    industry reap the benefits since nearly nine out of every ten transit
    trips have a direct impact on local economies.
        Transit is also a tangible cost saver for individual families.
    According to one of our witnesses today, the American Public
    Transportation Association, the average household spends 16 cents of
    every dollar on transportation, and 93 percent of this goes to buying,
    maintaining and operating cars--the largest single-family expenditure
    after housing.
        By taking transit and living with one less car, households can save
    $13,000 each year to spend on other things. Providing options to ensure
    people can get where they need to go is even more crucial today as
    costs mount for more Americans.
        While the BIL made historic strides to improve public transit
    systems and service, transit systems require ongoing investment.
        The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates a $152 billion
    backlog over the next 10 years to bring our transit systems up to a
    state of good repair.
        Disinvestment in America's infrastructure did not happen
    overnight--nor will it be fixed overnight. That's why we need to build
    on the progress made in the BIL.
        I am committed to developing a bipartisan reauthorization bill, and
    transit will be a key component of that.
        Whether you represent a major city, a suburban community or a rural
    area, like I do, there are people in your district who rely on transit
    or are employed in the transit sector.
        I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about how we can
    continue the success we have seen from the BIL and what elements this
    Committee should be thinking about as we reauthorize it.

        Mr. Rouzer. Ms. Norton, you are recognized.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON OF THE DISTRICT
       OF COLUMBIA, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND
                                TRANSIT

        Ms. Norton. I would like to thank subcommittee Chair Rouzer
    for holding this hearing on our Nation's transit systems.
    Transit is the backbone of communities of every size, safely
    and efficiently connecting people to jobs, healthcare,
    education, groceries, amenities, and loved ones.
        The story of our Nation's transit systems in the post-COVID
    era is a comeback story. Transit systems are steadily
    recovering from pandemic ridership loss. On average, transit
    systems have regained 84 percent of riders since the earliest
    days of the pandemic, a rebound that is evident across every
    mode.
        In some systems, that number is even higher. Here in the
    national capital region, Metro recently surpassed 1 million
    daily riders, a 5-year high. Metro has led the country in
    ridership recovery with 48 consecutive months of ridership
    growth.
        You don't have to be a transit rider yourself to celebrate
    these gains. Every dollar Congress invests in transit generates
    $5 in economic returns. Without public transit, DC would lose
    more than $9 billion--that is billion dollars with a ``b''--
    worth of economic activity due to traffic gridlock, delays in
    freight shipments, and lack of access to jobs.
        Transit is also the safest way to travel. Traveling by
    transit is 10 times safer than driving.
        In 2021, Congress delivered the largest transit investment
    in the Nation's history through the Infrastructure Investment
    and Jobs Act. That law provided $108 billion to upgrade and
    modernize transit systems.
        In rural and urban communities alike, that law is helping
    transit agencies expand their service areas; purchase newer,
    greener fleets; and keep operators safe on the job. For
    example, Metro received more than $100 million to transition to
    zero-emission buses, which will reduce pollution, improve air
    quality, and keep the DC region on the move.
        Whether you are a transit rider or not, transit plays a
    crucial role in our transit system. Contrary to popular belief,
    there are more rural transit agencies than urban transit
    agencies.
        For many, riding transit is a choice. For others, transit
    may be their only option, including if they are in the 10
    percent of the adult population which does not drive because of
    disability, cost, or personal choice. Transit is a lifeline
    that is safe, affordable, and climate friendly.
        I look forward to working with my colleagues to continue
    this committee's long history of supporting transit in the next
    surface transportation bill.
        Thank you.
        [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 Rouzer for holding this
    hearing on our nation's transit systems. Transit is the backbone of
    communities of every size, safely and efficiently connecting people to
    jobs, health care, education, groceries, amenities and loved ones.
        The story of our nation's transit systems in the post-COVID era is
    a comeback story. Transit systems are steadily recovering from pandemic
    ridership loss.
        On average, transit systems have regained 84 percent of riders
    since the earliest days of the pandemic, a rebound that is evident
    across every mode. In some systems, that number is even higher.
        Here in the national capital region, Metro recently surpassed one
    million daily riders--a five-year high. Metro has led the country in
    ridership recovery, with forty-eight consecutive months of ridership
    growth.
        You don't have to be a transit rider yourself to celebrate these
    gains. Every dollar Congress invests in transit generates five dollars
    in economic returns. Without public transit, the D.C. region would lose
    more than nine billion dollars' worth of economic activity due to
    traffic gridlock, delays in freight shipments and lack of access to
    jobs.
        Transit is also the safest way to travel. Traveling by transit is
    10 times safer than driving.
        In 2021, Congress delivered the largest transit investment in our
    nation's history through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
    That law provided $108 billion to upgrade and modernize transit
    systems.
        In rural and urban communities alike, that law is helping transit
    agencies expand their service areas, purchase newer, greener fleets and
    keep operators safe on the job. For example, Metro received more than
    $100 million to transition to zero-emission buses, which will reduce
    pollution, improve air quality and keep the D.C. region on the move.
        Whether you are a transit rider or not, transit plays a crucial
    role in our transportation system. Contrary to popular belief, there
    are more rural transit agencies than urban transit agencies.
        For many, riding transit is a choice. For others, transit may be
    their only option, including if they are in the 10 percent of the adult
    population that does not drive because of disability, cost or personal
    choice. Transit is a lifeline that is safe, affordable and climate
    friendly.
        I look forward to working with my colleagues to continue this
    Committee's long history of supporting transit in the next surface
    transportation bill.
        Thank you.

        Mr. Rouzer. The gentlelady yields back.
        I would now like to welcome our witnesses and thank them
    for being here.
        Mr. Johnson, you have a constituent on the panel. I will
    introduce you to introduce her.
        Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. Well, I hate to correct you,
    Mr. Chairman, but I don't have a constituent, I have got a
    friend.
        Barb Cline, since 1989, has been one of the really great
    transit leaders in South Dakota.
        And of course, things are different in rural America. You
    all have mentioned that in your opening comments. It is not
    always that easy to just dash off to the doctor's office or to
    the school or the grocery store or to work. And Barb's agency,
    Prairie Hills Transit, which started with 1 van and has grown
    to 60 vehicles that serves a 16,500-square-mile area, it is
    just remarkable.
        And she has a passion and knowledge, and we are all going
    to learn a lot from her today. My friends, my colleagues,
    buckle up, you are going to get the full Barb Cline today.
        Mr. Rouzer. I understand, Ms. Cline, your grandson Jackson
    is with you.
        Ms. Cline. Yes, he is.
        Mr. Rouzer. Jackson, where are you?
        Oh, right back there. I see.
        With that, let me also introduce Mr. Nat Ford, who is
    testifying on behalf of the American Public Transportation
    Association.
        We have Mr. Matt Booterbaugh--I love that name, by the
    way--who is testifying on behalf of the North American Transit
    Alliance.
        Mr. Baruch Feigenbaum, who is representing the Reason
    Foundation.
        And Mr. Greg Regan, representing the Transportation Trades
    Department of the AFL-CIO.
        I thank each of you for being here today.
        Now, briefly, I want to take a moment to explain our
    lighting system. Pretty self-explanatory. There are three
    lights you will find in front of you. One is green, it means
    go. Yellow means time is about to run out. And red means wrap
    it up just as quickly as you possibly can.
        I ask unanimous consent that the witnesses' full statements
    be included in the record.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        I 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 be submitted to them in
    writing.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        I also 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, as
    mentioned previously, to 5 minutes.
        With that, Mr. Ford, you are recognized for 5 minutes for
    your testimony.

       TESTIMONY OF NATHANIEL PHILLIP FORD, Sr., CHIEF EXECUTIVE
     OFFICER, JACKSONVILLE TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, ON BEHALF OF
    THE AMERICAN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION (APTA); BARBARA
    K. CLINE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PRAIRIE HILLS TRANSIT, ON BEHALF
    OF THE COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA (CTAA);
    MATTHEW BOOTERBAUGH, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, RATP DEV USA, ON
     BEHALF OF THE NORTH AMERICAN TRANSIT ALLIANCE (NATA); BARUCH
    FEIGENBAUM, SENIOR MANAGING DIRECTOR FOR TRANSPORTATION POLICY,
     REASON FOUNDATION; AND GREG REGAN, PRESIDENT, TRANSPORTATION
                    TRADES DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO (TTD)

       TESTIMONY OF NATHANIEL PHILLIP FORD, Sr., CHIEF EXECUTIVE
     OFFICER, JACKSONVILLE TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, ON BEHALF OF
         THE AMERICAN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION (APTA)

        Mr. Ford. Well, thank you, and good morning, Chairman
    Rouzer, Ranking Member Norton, Ranking Member Larsen and
    Chairman Graves, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for
    the opportunity to testify on behalf of the American Public
    Transportation Association, better known as APTA.
        My name is Nat Ford, and I have the honor of serving as the
    CEO of the Jacksonville Transportation Authority in
    Jacksonville, Florida. We are a multimodal agency that operates
    public transportation in northeast Florida and has the duties
    and responsibilities of an expressway authority.
        We have delivered on-time and on-budget transportation and
    infrastructure projects worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
    In addition to our road building responsibilities, we operate
    fixed-route bus service, paratransit service for the disabled
    community, and various mobility on-demand services, as well as
    regional services, the St. Johns River Ferry, and a downtown
    automated people mover.
        The JTA is a long-time member of the APTA association,
    which represents a $79 billion industry that directly employs
    430,000 people and supports millions of private-sector jobs
    across America.
        As this committee develops the next surface transportation
    authorization bill, we urge you to recognize that public
    transportation creates growth opportunities for businesses of
    all sizes, and it creates good-paying, family-supporting jobs.
        Transit not only connects workers to jobs and students to
    school and people to healthcare, it is an economic driver for
    the private sector. Seventy-seven percent of Federal public
    transportation investment flows to the American businesses.
        Transit capital projects support businesses and communities
    across the Nation. Federal funding impacts over 2,000 suppliers
    in 48 States, including Washington, DC, and it also includes
    smaller urban and rural areas where buses, railcars, and their
    parts are actually manufactured.
        Every dollar invested in public transportation generates $5
    in long-term economic benefits. Our industry not only moves
    people, but it helps to drive the economy forward to success.
        As the recent nominee to lead the Federal Transit
    Administration, Mr. Marc Molinaro, recently said: ``Transit is
    more than a system of buses, ferries, and rails--it's the
    shared circulatory system of our economy. It connects rural
    towns and big cities, creates opportunity, and drives growth.''
        We call on Congress to continue to invest in transportation
    and infrastructure to ensure that public transit agencies can
    continue to address the $100 billion state-of-good-repair
    backlog and meet the mobility demands of our people across this
    Nation.
        Moreover, these investments create family-wage jobs and
    help communities grow their economies.
        Public transportation is also embracing mobility
    innovation. We are ushering in new modes of transportation that
    will improve public transportation and serve as an agent of
    positive growth and investment in our country.
        Congress should also be forward-thinking, enabling transit
    agencies to continue to be the leaders in this Nation in
    adopting new technologies for our 21st-century transportation
    system.
        In the wake of the pandemic, public transportation agencies
    have had to redesign our services. We have had to add mobility-
    on-demand options, and we are creating an ecosystem for our
    riders to reach all mobility needs and options that they
    require.
        Transit agencies are harnessing new smart technologies to
    better serve our customers and enhance safety, such as using
    artificial intelligence to identify potential hazards for
    pedestrian safety and leveraging data to produce a stronger
    business model.
        In Jacksonville, we have embarked on a transformative plan
    to expand downtown Jacksonville's public transportation service
    by introducing autonomous vehicles into our system we call the
    Ultimate Urban Circulator program.
        But more importantly, this program started with a BUILD
    grant back in 2018 and now has been leveraged into a
    multimillion-dollar investment by HOLON, which is a subsidiary
    of the BENTELER Corporation, and it is selecting Jacksonville
    to build the first U.S.-produced, ground-up, autonomous
    vehicles in this Nation.
        This 500,000-square-foot plant will generate an estimated
    839 jobs with $63 million in labor income and $201 million in
    economic output.
        With that, thank you for the opportunity to testify before
    you, and I look forward to your questions.
        [Mr. Ford's prepared statement follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Nathaniel Phillip Ford, Sr., Chief Executive
       Officer, Jacksonville Transportation Authority, on behalf of the
               American Public Transportation Association (APTA)
                                  Introduction
        Chairman Rouzer, Ranking Member Norton, 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 for this
    very important hearing.
        My name is Nat Ford, and I am a former 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 Jacksonville Transportation Authority
    (JTA), a multi-modal agency that operates public transportation in
    Duval County and neighboring counties. We also have the duties and
    responsibilities of an expressway authority, carrying out major
    highway, bridgework and roadways infrastructure projects. With each
    project and service, the JTA is one step closer in achieving its
    mission to enhance Northeast Florida's economy, environment, and
    quality of life through mobility solutions.
        We began JTA's MobilityWorks program in 2015 which included 27
    complete streets, transit enhancement projects and upgrades to the
    ferry at a cost totaling $200 million. It was completed two years ahead
    of schedule. This success led the way for an extension of a local
    option gas tax, which will generate an additional $500 million in
    capital projects, with the creation of more jobs and positive economic
    impact.
        As a multi-modal agency, mobility innovation is key to ensuring
    reliable and safe services to all our customers. We provide fixed
    route; First Coast Flyer, which is our bus rapid transit (BRT) service;
    paratransit with Connexion and Connexion Plus; mobility on demand
    services, such as Go Tuk-In, Beachside Buggies, and ReadiRide zones;
    and regional services to three neighboring counties. In addition, JTA
    operates transit services in both Clay and Nassau Counties, as well as
    the St. Johns River Ferry. We also operate the Skyway, an automated
    elevated people mover that we are transforming into a shared autonomous
    vehicle network called the Ultimate Urban Circulator.
        On behalf of APTA, I would like to share with the Subcommittee some
    of the issues that are critical to our industry and discuss some of the
    innovations and unprecedented approaches that public transit agencies
    are advancing every day to deliver better, safer, and more cost-
    effective mobility services for Americans. As always, we offer any
    assistance we can provide as an association to help Congress pass a
    surface transportation authorization bill that invests in American jobs
    and supports support the millions of people who rely on public
    transportation and its significant economic benefits each day.
        Investment in public transportation helps communities of all sizes
    flourish--connecting workers to jobs, students to school, and people to
    healthcare. Private-sector businesses depend on Federal transit funding
    to create jobs in communities across the country, consistent with Buy
    America laws. In fact, 77 percent of Federal public transit investment
    flows to the private sector, and public transportation manufacturing
    relies on more than 2,000 suppliers in 48 States and Washington, DC.
        Americans continue to demonstrate the need for public
    transportation. Our industry has seen ridership steadily increase after
    falling to 20 percent of 2019 levels in April 2020. Since then, public
    transit ridership has reached more than 80 percent of 2019 levels, and
    it continues to grow. For instance, in 2023, ridership increased 16
    percent. In 2024, ridership increased by more than 490 million trips,
    or 7 percent. A growing number of systems have fully recovered and have
    exceeded 2019 levels. These facts demonstrate the tremendous resiliency
    of this industry.
        And it is important to recognize the enormous scale of our nation's
    public transit ridership. Transit riders took 7.7 billion trips in
    2024--an average of 25 million trips each day. Beyond ridership numbers
    and percentages, it is critically important to recognize why people
    take public transit--it creates opportunities. For millions upon
    millions of Americans, accessible, affordable public transportation
    helps families, students, and workers save money and grow the economy.
    According to a recent APTA study, people can save more than $13,000
    each year by using public transit instead of driving.
                            Building for the Future
        APTA is sincerely thankful for the historic investments in public
    transportation in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-
    58) (IIJA). The IIJA provides $108.2 billion for public transit over
    five years (FY 2022 through FY 2026).
        By using IIJA transit and rail funding as a baseline to build from,
    recognizing increased costs due to inflation, and adopting commonsense
    streamlining reforms, Congress can ensure that the next surface
    transportation authorization bill will help address the state-of-good-
    repair backlog, encourage continued ridership growth, have a greater
    economic impact for communities, and provide a greater value for
    taxpayers.
        Transit agencies across the country are working toward a state of
    good repair, providing economic opportunities to their communities and
    driving innovation. 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.

          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. Phoenix will soon complete its South
    Central Extension/Downtown Hub corridor to connect the current light
    rail system in downtown Phoenix with other culturally significant
    neighborhoods.

          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.

          The Metro Gold Line in the Minnesota Twin Cities region
    recently opened on time and under budget, the first of three Twin City
    bus rapid transit (BRT) lines that will open in 2025. The 10-mile bus
    rapid transit line connects people to job centers and other
    destinations in St. Paul, Maplewood, Landfall, Oakdale, and Woodbury
    with frequent, all-day service.

        APTA urges Congress to build upon the successful investments of the
    IIJA. To make Federal dollars go further (as described in more detail
    below) APTA recommends that Congress:

          Conduct a zero-based review of Capital Investment Grants
    (CIG) program requirements to eliminate any requirements that do not
    meet a two-part test: to build good CIG projects that protect the
    taxpayer interest.

          Provide flexibility for public transit agencies to
    acquire land prior to National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review
    completion, on parity with highway projects.

          Help address transit workforce needs by eliminating the
    Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's (FMCSA) Commercial
    Driver's License (CDL) under-the-hood testing for bus operators.

          Improve drug testing processes and results by urging the
    Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to certify laboratories
    needed to conduct oral fluid drug testing.
            Investing in Public Transportation Yields Great Benefits
    Creating Jobs, Growing the Economy, and Providing Opportunities
        Public transportation represents a $79 billion industry that
    directly employs more than 430,000 people and supports millions of
    private-sector jobs. 77 percent of Federal public transit investment
    flows to the private sector through spending on capital projects,
    contracted and other services, fuel, materials, and supplies.
        For every $1 billion invested in public transportation, nearly
    50,000 jobs are created or sustained across the entire economy,
    including in non-transit industries.\2\ For every $1 invested in public
    transportation, approximately $5 in long-term economic return is
    generated.\3\ 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.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ APTA, Economic Impact of Public Transportation Investment--2019
    Update (February 2020). Public transportation can also enhance the
    productivity of industries not directly associated with transit, such
    as the technology industry.
        \3\ Id.

        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. And public transportation agencies rely on
    their private-sector partners to help deliver innovative transit
    projects efficiently.
        For instance, a Capital Investment Grant (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 and Rail Schematics:

        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.
    Addressing State-of-Good-Repair Needs
        With a Department of Transportation (DOT) estimated state-of-good-
    repair backlog of more than $101 billion, support from all levels of
    government is sorely needed. The recent American Society of Civil
    Engineers (ASCE) Report Card echoes DOT's findings. ASCE gives public
    transit a grade of ``D'', a slight improvement from the last report
    card in 2021. Moreover, ASCE identifies a $152 billion funding gap for
    public transit over the next 10 years.
        Today, most agencies operate 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.\4\ For rail transit vehicles, the average
    fleet age is 24 years. Agencies are using the investments of the
    current authorization law to bring their rolling stock, guideway
    elements, systems, stations, and facilities to a state of good
    repair.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ 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 (2024), at page ES-13.
        \5\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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 50 percent.\6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ See APTA, Public Transit Is Key Strategy in Advancing Vision
    Zero, Eliminating Traffic Fatalities (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, increasing the number of law enforcement personnel and
    supporting them with ``transit ambassadors'', mental health
    professionals, and public awareness campaigns.
        In Jacksonville, Federal and local policies supporting DOT's Vision
    Zero initiatives align with investments in public transportation to
    create safer, more accessible communities. JTA is developing a transit-
    centered approach to Vision Zero through its Creating Safe Spaces
    Action Plan (CSSAP), which focuses on pedestrian and bicyclist safety
    around public transit assets. In addition, smart traffic signals,
    connected vehicle technology, and AI-based safety monitoring can reduce
    accidents and enhance transit reliability.
    Driving Innovation
        Public transit is at the forefront of innovation. 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, 55 percent of transit buses use
    alternative fuels, with 20 percent of all buses utilizing hybrid-
    electric technology, compared to only three percent of U.S. cars and
    Sport Utility Vehicles. 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.
        In addition, public transit agencies are harnessing new
    technologies to better serve our customers. Well-planned public
    transportation reduces congestion, improves accessibility, and
    encourages private-sector investment in infrastructure. Enhancing
    transportation networks can revitalize downtowns and commercial
    corridors, supporting small businesses and increasing local tax
    revenues. Smart city technologies, such as AI-powered traffic
    management and digital fare integration, can improve transit efficiency
    and user experience.
        In Jacksonville, we are moving forward with a transformative
    project we call the Ultimate Urban Circulator (U\2\C). U\2\C is a
    comprehensive program to modernize the existing Skyway and expand
    downtown Jacksonville's public transportation service by introducing
    shared autonomous vehicles into the system. The U\2\C will provide
    greater connectivity and mobility by expanding the reach of the Skyway
    to at-grade roadways.
        We are completing an unfinished story when we convert, modernize,
    and repurpose existing infrastructure with the Skyway Conversion. The
    U\2\C program will deliver an estimated 10-mile autonomous
    transportation network into adjacent neighborhoods in a cost-effective
    method that leverages existing infrastructure with agnostic and
    evolving system upgrades.
        The first phase of the U\2\C, known as the Bay Street Innovation
    Corridor, was spearheaded by a Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage
    Development (BUILD) grant from the U.S. Department of Transportation,
    awarded in 2018. This same program awarded two other autonomous
    vehicles projects that year in other parts of the United States.
        Thanks to this Federal investment, investment from the Florida
    Department of Transportation, and local funding, the JTA will deploy
    the first autonomous vehicle network for public transportation in June
    2025.
        The benefits have exceeded our expectations, with the U\2\C
    attracting national and international attention that led to HOLON, a
    subsidiary of the BENTELER Group, to select Jacksonville to establish
    its first U.S. production facility for shared autonomous vehicles. This
    project marks Florida's first automotive vehicle manufacturing
    operation and represents a significant economic opportunity for
    Jacksonville and Northeast Florida. Key sectors benefiting from these
    impacts include manufacturing, real estate, healthcare, and
    professional services.
        We believe that transportation is the great equalizer. JTA will
    continue to adopt innovative technologies, and shared autonomous
    shuttles will provide agile, nimble, reliant, and safe transportation
    throughout our system.
    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, 1,253 transit
    agencies operate in rural areas and 941 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.\7\
    Ridership in rural areas is estimated to be 135 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.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ APTA, Public Transportation's Impact on Rural and Small Towns
    (2017).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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. Projects include BRT projects in Minnesota,
    Nevada, and Pennsylvania; 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, 61 projects across the nation are seeking $35 billion of CIG
    funding in FY 2026 and subsequent years.\8\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ APTA's Capital Investment Grant Project Pipeline Dashboard
    (March 25, 2025).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         CIG Projects From 2010	Present

    APTA Regulatory Reform Proposals
        APTA is committed to working with Congress to advance critical
    public transportation funding and policy provisions in the next Surface
    Transportation Authorization bill. We are engaging our members to
    develop a comprehensive proposal and have already adopted several
    policies that would help advance projects in a timelier and more cost-
    effective way. For instance, enclosed are several regulatory proposals
    that APTA has adopted and that we will be submitting to the Committee
    for its consideration. We stand ready to help to advance these policies
    in the next authorization bill.
                Zero-based Review of CIG Program
        Beginning with enactment of the Transportation Equity Act for the
    21st Century (TEA 21) (P.L. 105-178) in 1998, both Congress and FTA
    have repeatedly layered additional requirements on the CIG program,
    resulting in a less than clear process. APTA urges both Congress and
    FTA to adopt CIG reforms to strengthen the CIG program, expedite
    approval, and ensure that beneficial projects across the nation are
    delivered in a timely manner. We urge Congress to undertake a zero-
    based review of all CIG statutory requirements in the next
    authorization bill to eliminate any requirements that do not meet a
    two-part test: to build good CIG projects that protect the taxpayer
    interest.
        In addition, project sponsors applying for both CIG funding and
    Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) credit
    assistance are receiving contradictory requirements from FTA and the
    DOT Build America Bureau for processing their applications. APTA
    recommends that the Bureau and FTA produce joint guidance for projects
    seeking credit assistance and CIG funding to streamline the application
    and selection process. Congress should require the Build America Bureau
    and Federal Transit Administration to release joint guidance outlining
    a step-by-step process for applicants seeking both TIFIA loan or loan
    guarantees and Capital Investment Grants funding.
                Real Property Acquisition
        Public transit agencies face difficulties purchasing real property
    for operations and maintenance facilities because FTA policies restrict
    the purchase of real property where Federal funds will be, or are
    anticipated to be, used for the purchase or development of that
    property. In most cases, transit agencies cannot acquire such real
    property until NEPA processes are completed.\9\ Expanded flexibility
    for early real property acquisition for public transportation projects
    is needed to reduce delays and associated costs of projects and to
    create certainty in property rights with a view toward future use.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ On July 11, 2022, FTA sent a Dear Colleague letter to remind
    project sponsors that the purchase of real property outside of existing
    transit corridors cannot proceed until the NEPA process is completed or
    until FTA has either determined that the project is exempt as a
    Categorical Exclusion (CE) (i.e., corridor preservation or there will
    be no substantial changes); issued a decision that there is ``Finding
    of No Significant Impact''; or issued a combined or separate final
    Environmental Impact Statement and or Record of Decision, ultimately
    clearing the project.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We urge Congress to add flexibility to FTA's policy on land
    acquisition prior to NEPA by amending 49 U.S.C. Sec.  5323(q) (Corridor
    Preservation) to replace the term ``right-of-way'' with ``real property
    interests''. This proposal would bring FTA's authority into parity with
    the Federal Highway Administration's property acquisition authority,
    thereby expanding the opportunity for broader property acquisition
    prior to the completion of environmental reviews.
                Eliminate ``Under-the-Hood'' CDL Requirements
        The public transit industry continues to experience a severe
    shortage of drivers and is struggling to maintain its workforce. APTA
    has identified the FMCSA's CDL under-the-hood testing requirement as a
    significant impediment to hiring bus operators, contributing to the
    nationwide shortage of drivers. This shortage leads to reduced transit
    service, missed trips, and higher costs for public transit agencies.
        Congress should eliminate the FMSCA CDL under-the-hood testing
    requirement for applicants seeking to operate vehicles in public
    transportation to alleviate the bus operator shortage; reduce costs and
    increase efficiency; and advance opportunity.
                Certify Labs for Drug Testing
        Under current drug testing protocols, public transit agencies must
    drug test employees using urine tests. In May 2023, DOT added oral
    fluid drug testing to the existing urine testing procedures. However,
    oral fluid testing cannot be implemented until HHS certifies two
    laboratories to conduct the drug testing. To date, HHS has not
    certified these laboratories. Oral fluid drug testing provides several
    key benefits, including a less invasive collection process, reduced
    risk of tampering, and a better measure of impairment given the shorter
    latency period for detection.
        APTA encourages Congress to urge HHS to certify laboratories needed
    to conduct oral fluid drug testing.
                                   Conclusion
        On behalf of APTA, thank you for including us in this important
    hearing. In each of your States, 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 significant, sustained
    investments in public transportation will lead the way.

        Mr. Rouzer. I don't think I have ever had a witness that
    was perfectly timed.
        Ms. Cline.
        Mr. Ford. Well, transportation, we are supposed to be on
    schedule, sir.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Rouzer. Great answer.

      TESTIMONY OF BARBARA K. CLINE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PRAIRIE
       HILLS TRANSIT, ON BEHALF OF THE COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION
                     ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA (CTAA)

        Ms. Cline. Chairman Rouzer, Ranking Member Holmes Norton,
    and members of the House T&I Committee's Highways and Transit
    Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before
    you today as you review the Nation's transit programs and
    policies in advance of reauthorizing the Infrastructure
    Investment and Jobs Act.
        I am here today both in my role as the executive director
    of Prairie Hills Transit, located in Spearfish, South Dakota,
    and as a board member of the Community Transportation
    Association of America.
        Prairie Hills Transit serves a 16,500-square-mile area in
    South Dakota. Our operations started with a single van 36 years
    ago. Today, we operate 60 vehicles with a staff of 60.
        In 2024, we carried 132,000 passengers, representing a
    nearly 5-percent increase from our prepandemic ridership.
        Prairie Hills Transit has been a member of CTAA since we
    provided that first trip in 1989. CTAA is a national nonprofit
    association providing training, resources, and advocacy for the
    Nation's smaller transit network of more than 1,200 rural,
    small urban, Tribal, nonemergency medical, and specialized
    transit agencies.
        In addition to providing general public transit in our
    service area to jobs, school, supermarket, and much more,
    Prairie Hills Transit serves assisted living, nursing home, and
    medical facilities. Twelve years ago, the major healthcare
    provider in our region contracted with us for discharge trips,
    returns to home out of the area, and trips between medical
    facilities.
        In addition to healthcare, veterans are a focus of Prairie
    Hills Transit. We operate a service for veterans living in 51
    highly rural counties across South Dakota, Wyoming, and
    Nebraska. Within our service area, Hot Springs, Rapid City, and
    Sturgis all have veteran hospitals and clinics that generate a
    significant demand for our transit service.
        Last year, we built South Dakota's first propane fueling
    station. We now operate five propane buses and are seeing a $14
    savings per vehicle per day, which allows us to serve more
    people more effectively.
        As a CTAA board member, I am here representing smaller
    transit. Despite smaller teams and budgets, these transit
    systems are highly innovative, deploying the latest
    technologies that improve their efficiencies.
        Across the United States, rural transit ridership has
    recovered 108 percent of prepandemic numbers, according to the
    most recent data from the National Transit Database. Rural
    transit ridership has increased by nearly 25 percent since
    2007, while the share of America's populations living in those
    same areas declined by 3 percent.
        Smaller transit systems generally rely on Federal
    investment to serve their communities. Continued and adequate
    support of the transit formula programs is essential. Within
    Federal transit discretionary or competitive programs, we need
    set-asides that guarantee levels of participation for smaller
    transit agencies and allow systems like mine to only compete
    with other rural agencies.
        Coming up with local match is an increasing challenge for
    rural and small city public transit systems. The vast majority
    of Federal transit programs require 20 percent local match.
    Rural and small city transit systems require to match at 50
    percent.
        The solution is standardizing the match rate for rural and
    small urban operating funds at 20 percent. This would not
    increase the Federal spending on this level.
        A critical way that this committee can assist smaller
    transit is right-sizing the regulatory burden. Like my
    operation back home, CTAA's members typically have small
    administrative staffs that perform a variety of job functions.
    My written testimony provides a number of regulatory relief
    strategies.
        Smaller transit systems are highly effective and efficient
    providers that coordinate a variety of funding sources and
    contracts into vital mobility.
        Thank you for allowing us to tell that story today. I look
    forward to questions you might have.
        [Ms. Cline's prepared statement follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Barbara K. Cline, Executive Director, Prairie
    Hills Transit, on behalf of the Community Transportation Association of
                                 America (CTAA)
        Subcommittee Chairman Rouzer, Ranking Member Holmes Norton, and
    members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee's
    Highways and Transit Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to appear
    before you today as you review the nation's transit programs and
    policies in advance of reauthorizing the Infrastructure Investment and
    Jobs Act (IIJA). I appear before you today both in my role as the
    Executive Director of Prairie Hills Transit, located in Spearfish,
    S.D., and as a Board Member of the Community Transportation Association
    of America (CTAA).
        Prairie Hills Transit serves a 16,500 square-mile service area and
    grew from an operation that started with a single van to one today
    comprised of 60 vehicles and 60 employees across western South Dakota.
    Our service area goes from the North Dakota border in the north down to
    the Nebraska in the south. In 2024, we carried 132,000 passengers,
    which represents a nearly 5 percent increase from our pre-pandemic
    ridership.
        In addition to providing rural public transit in our service area,
    for more than 30 years PHT has been the primary transportation provider
    contracted across our service area to serve assisted living, nursing
    home and medical facilities. Twelve years ago the major healthcare
    provider in our region contracted with PHT for discharge trips from the
    hospital, returns to homes out of the area and for trips between
    medical facilities. At the time they purchased our first bus because we
    didn't have money to purchase one. Through the years the single bus was
    replaced by two ADA vans and then recently with four ADA vans--all
    purchased by Monument Health. Through the quality of our work and our
    focus on customer care, both the largest surgery hospital and another
    large rehabilitation hospital in the urbanized area of Rapid City have
    entered into service contracts with us. (This has precipitated the need
    to build a transit facility in Rapid City housing 4 storage bays,
    office area, and a service/wash bay.) Because of the delays in grant
    awards the building has cost significantly more. Due to the volume of
    requests we have already added another three ADA vans to the four
    purchased by Monument Health.
        PHT operates a service for veterans who live in highly rural
    counties (Highly rural is any county with a population of seven (7) or
    less people per square mile). We serve six counties in South Dakota and
    have formal agreements with another six counties in Wyoming and with
    Open Plains Transit in Western Nebraska to serve another 39 counties.
    Within our service area, Hot Springs, Rapid City and Sturgis all have
    veteran hospitals and clinics which generate a significant number of
    trips provided by PHT without a subsidy of any type.
        Last year, we built South Dakota's first propane fueling station.
    We now operate five propane buses and thanks to an excellent
    partnership with our propane provider, we are seeing a $14 savings per
    vehicle per day, which allows us to serve more people more efficiently.
    We've also found the heaters put out much more heat on cold days than
    our gas buses.
        PHT has been a member of the Community Transportation Association
    of America (CTAA) since we provided our first trips in 1989. CTAA is a
    national nonprofit association of more than 1,200 organizations and
    individuals who believe that mobility is a basic human right. Mobility
    directly impacts the quality of life of people in communities across
    the nation by providing access to work and education, to life-
    sustaining health care and human services programs, to shopping and
    visiting with family and friends. CTAA members are in the business of
    moving people efficiently and cost-effectively.
                        America's Other Transit Network
        For many Americans, the image that comes to mind when they think of
    public transportation is that of a crowded urban subway serving one of
    the country's largest cities. Barb Cline is testifying today on behalf
    of the Community Transportation Association of America (CTAA) which
    represents our nation's other transit network. The agency Ms. Cline
    directs--Prairie Hills Transit, headquartered in Spearfish, S.D., is a
    fine example of this other transit network.
        Transit systems serving the nation's small cities and towns; rural
    and tribal communities; older adults; people with disabilities,
    veterans, non-emergency medical trips comprise this other network that
    often serves in relative obscurity. They use traditional buses, shuttle
    buses, vans, minivans and sedans to take their passengers to work,
    school, medical appointments, shopping, human services and so much
    more. This network has evolved a right-sized scale and approach to the
    communities and passengers they serve, and have deployed technological
    innovations to enhance performance and efficiency; everything from
    autonomous vehicle implementations to microtransit applications and on-
    demand mobility.
        Here are some key data points that highlight this other network's
    effectiveness:
          According to the most recent set (2023) of National
    Transit Database (NTD) data, rural transit ridership across the US had
    reached 108 percent of pre-pandemic levels (the comparisons are Sept.
    2019 vs. Sept. 2023).

          Five of the top ten transit agencies in the country, when
    ranked in terms of ridership per capita, come from small cities. Ames,
    Iowa's CyRide, for example, serving a population of 66,000 (2020
    Census), provides 68 trips per capita which ranks third, nationally.

          In 2023, 13 rural transit systems reported ridership
    above 1 million, serving areas with less than 50,000 population.
    Notably, the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority in Colorado provided
    4.5 million trips in 2023.

          America's rural population is declining, but rural
    transit ridership increased 15.6 percent from 2007 to 2019. Rural
    veterans represent 25 percent of the veterans enrolled in the VA health
    care system. In 2023, rural households spend 75 percent more of their
    total household income on gasoline than urban households.

          The performance-based Small Transit Intensive Cities
    (STIC) program has seen a 9 percent increase in small city transit
    system participation in the past five years, spotlighting increased
    efficiency and effectiveness of these systems in their communities.

        Thanks to increased federal, state and local investment, America's
    other public transportation network is dynamically rising to meet the
    growing and changing needs of its communities and passengers.
        CTAA recently completed a survey of its 1,200 member organizations
    and individuals, which provides a useful snapshot of this other public
    transportation network. Here are the highlights:
          The average CTAA member transit system has 61 employees
    (mostly drivers); operates 27 vehicles (mostly small buses and
    minivans); and serves its community with a combination of on-demand
    (majority) and fixed-route operations.

          CTAA members report that their top trip destinations are
    (in order): healthcare, employment, social services, retail, and
    education.

          Smaller transit fleets and facilities, according to CTAA
    members, are aging. Fifty-seven percent report that half of their
    current fleet of vehicles is past its useful life standard. Further, 44
    percent say their facility(ies) are past due or within two years of
    needed a major update.

          The nature of rural transit service makes zero-emission
    vehicle technologies very difficult to deploy. For example, battery
    ranges of 90-100 miles do not work in rural America where one-way trips
    lengths can regularly exceed these ranges and where charging
    infrastructure is scarce. CTAA members have been successfully deploying
    low-emission technologies like hybrids, CNG and propane-fueled
    vehicles.
          What the Other Public Transportation Network Needs in IIJA
                                Reauthorization
        Smaller transit systems, generally, rely on federal investment to
    serve their communities. Continued and adequate support of the formula
    programs (Sections 5307, 5310 and 5311) is essential to their ability
    to serve their communities and passengers.
        Within federal transit discretionary or competitive programs,
    smaller transit agencies need set-asides that guarantee levels of
    participation for smaller transit agencies. Also, these set-asides
    ensure that smaller transit providers are competing with their peers
    (and not major metropolitan areas) for these important discretionary
    funding opportunities. CTAA has seen that set-asides in competitive
    programs increase smaller system participation and assure that these
    funds are more fairly distributed, nationally.
        Local match is an increasing challenge for rural and small-urban
    public transit systems. As opposed to the vast majority of the federal
    transit program--where a 20 percent local match is typical--operating
    expenses for both rural and small city transit systems match at 50
    percent. Coming up with this match is a burden for the leadership of
    smaller systems, particularly in states that choose not to invest
    heavily in transit. One of CTAA members' top priorities in IIJA
    reauthorization is standardizing the match rate for rural and small
    urban operating funding at the same 20 percent where the rest of their
    federal funding matches. It is an ideal way to allow these agencies to
    extend their services at no additional federal cost. The American
    Association of Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) supports
    this important priority.
                       Right-sizing the Regulatory Burden
        A critical way that the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
    can assist smaller transit systems through IIJA reauthorization is,
    broadly, right-sizing the regulatory burden. CTAA's members, typically,
    have quite small administrative staffs. Many rural transit general
    managers, for example, will drive a vehicle when short staffed. It is
    standard among smaller transit systems that administrative staff
    members perform a variety of job functions. At the same time, much of
    the regulatory and data collection efforts promulgated by both Congress
    and the Federal Transit Administration are designed for the nation's
    largest transit operators that have the requisite sized administrative
    staffs to manage these requirements. Scalabilty is often discussed, but
    rarely implemented.
        CTAA would like the Committee to consider the following regulatory
    relief solutions:
          FTA's current regulatory regime and its review and
    oversight requirements, including, but not limited to triennial reviews
    and other routine compliance reviews of its grantees, should only be
    applied to those transit agencies directly receiving more than $100
    million in federal financial assistance, or that directly receive more
    than $10 million of FTA funding for any one specific project (not
    including routine awards of formula-based federal transit funds
    directly to the transit agency).

          For all other direct recipients of FTA funds, other than
    those who receive transit funding from their state or tribal
    government, their signed attestations on FTA's annual certifications
    and assurances shall serve as evidence of compliance, except when
    indicated otherwise through an FTA-developed, objective process to
    identify grantees at highest risk of non-compliance with applicable
    federal statutory requirements.

          Transit agencies receiving federal transit assistance
    through their state government already are expected to comply with
    applicable state-level regulatory requirements, which henceforth shall
    be deemed to be compatible with comparable federal requirements.
    Oversight of states' transit grantees' compliance with these statutory
    and regulatory requirements shall be the responsibility of the state,
    not the federal government, except that FTA may use its state
    management review process to document and assure that states' rules and
    processes are not in conflict with federal requirements.

          In cooperation with the states, FTA should review its
    National Transit Database reporting processes as they pertain to
    grantees of state-managed transit grant programs and other
    subrecipients of federal transit assistance, all with the goal of
    implementing a more effective and appropriate means of ``rural'' and
    ``reduced'' reporting in time for the 2027 NTD reporting year, if not
    sooner.

          FTA should review its agency-specific regulations in
    Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, identifying how to
    streamline these regulations' burdens on its direct grantees that
    receive less than $100 million in federal financial assistance,
    reporting its findings and progress no later than September 30, 2027,
    and issuing relevant notices of proposed rulemaking no later than
    December 31, 2027.

          Every FTA administrative procedure and requirement must
    identify its statutory basis, or else must allow for voluntary
    compliance.

          FTA should immediately end the practice of using ``FAQs''
    on its website for issuing regulatory requirements or policy
    directives.

          FTA should immediately begin a review of its program
    circulars, and should remove any circulars, or portions of circulars,
    that imply regulatory or other requirements that cannot be linked
    directly to applicable statutes or regulations. Issuance of new
    circulars must include a full 90-day comment period.

          When it comes to facility projects, CTAA recommends
    strongly that current FTA NEPA guidelines be made consistent with FHWA
    rules to allow for property acquisition prior to conducting NEPA
    required reviews.
                        Making it Easier to Buy Vehicles
        The cost and availability of transit vehicles of all sizes
    continues to be a challenge to CTAA members. The once-robust American
    transit vehicle marketplace is in crisis. CTAA, in consultation with
    its operating, state Department of Transportation, and business partner
    members, recommends the following strategies for IIJA reauthorization.
          Local Government Purchasing schedules should be allowed.
    The use of these arrangements is encouraged by law (The Common Grant
    Rule), but FTA has proscribed their use by striking reference to them
    in the latest version of its ``Third Party Contracting Guidelines''.
    These schedules allow procurement cooperatives greater flexibility to
    assist small rural transit agencies, non-profits and tribes that do not
    have procurement staff and are unable to join joint procurements in
    buying vehicles from a federally compliant procurement schedule. Local
    Governments who are FTA recipients are end users of the products such
    as rolling stock and bus shelters and have an intimate knowledge of the
    necessary specifications and service requirements which large state
    procurement divisions by nature cannot have.

          CTAA and its members fully support Buy America. We
    recommend changing its implementation to allow for one-time Buy America
    vehicle certifications performed by FTA or another entity. Once a
    vehicle is certified to meet Buy America, any transit agency or state
    DOT should be able to purchase that vehicle without needing to do
    another--redundant, costly and inefficient--Buy America certification.

          CTAA and its members believe that the best decisions
    about the types of buses deployed in communities are made at the local
    level by agency directors, their Boards and local officials. Dedicated
    bus capital funds are vital to CTAA's members, but these important
    investments must be flexible to allow systems to buy the right rolling
    stock for their operations and not force them into technologies that
    don't work for them.

          As CTAA members' vehicles reach the end of their useful
    lives, and there is no remaining federal financial interest in that
    asset, CTAA proposes that the transit agency retain 100 percent of any
    proceeds arising from its sale or disposition, regardless of amount.
                   Common-Sense Solutions to Labor Shortages
        Even prior to the pandemic, many CTAA member agencies were
    experiencing chronic labor shortages that often impacted their ability
    to fully serve their communities and passengers. The challenges
    attracting and retaining front-line workforce remains a challenge for
    many CTAA members. We recommend the following:
          CTAA and its members support an exemption to the
    Commercial Driver's License (CDL) to allow State Driver Licensing
    Agencies to waive the ``under the hood'' portion of the pre-trip
    vehicle inspection skills test requirement (currently required under 49
    CFR 383.113(a)(1)(i) for public transit. This small change will make a
    big difference in the time and way in which transit agencies on-board
    new drivers.

          Many CTAA members use volunteer drivers to serve their
    communities. CTAA recommends increasing the federal reimbursement rate
    for volunteer drivers to match the rate set by the IRS for business
    mileage (70 cents per mile). CTAA has endorsed and actively supported
    Rep. Stauber's Volunteer Driver Tax Appreciation Act of 2024, which
    accomplishes this important change.
     Helping Smaller Transit Operators Serve the Communities in Emergencies
        Last year, several CTAA members heroically served their communities
    in Western North Carolina and East Tennessee in the aftermath Hurricane
    Helene. They transported National Guard members and other aid workers,
    they continued to serve their most critical dialysis trips and they
    helped transport needed supplies throughout the region. CTAA would like
    the subcommittee to consider appropriate investment to FTA's Emergency
    Relief Program (Section 5324) to help offset the extraordinary costs of
    smaller transit agencies providing these critical services to their
    community and for lost operating costs, in addition to capital, to be
    eligible for these critical funds.
                                 In Conclusion
        The nation's other transit network is a highly effective and
    efficient collection of smaller providers that coordinate a variety of
    funding sources and contracts into vital mobility that is focused on
    the needs of their communities and passengers. No two operators are
    alike, because no two service areas are the same.
        But what is consistent among all of these systems is a commitment
    to serve. CTAA's members have always understood the value of their
    services because they are an active and engaged part of the communities
    that they serve. Thank you for allowing us to tell that story today.

        Mr. Rouzer. Thank you, Ms. Cline.
        Mr. Booterbaugh.

    TESTIMONY OF MATTHEW BOOTERBAUGH, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, RATP
       DEV USA, ON BEHALF OF THE NORTH AMERICAN TRANSIT ALLIANCE
                                 (NATA)

        Mr. Booterbaugh. Chairman Rouzer, Ranking Member Norton,
    and members of the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, on
    behalf of the North American Transit Alliance, NATA, I thank
    you for the opportunity to testify on ``America Builds: A
    Review of Our Nation's Transit Policies and Programs.''
        My name is Matt Booterbaugh. I am CEO of RATP Dev USA. I am
    also a board member of NATA. NATA represents the six largest
    private transit contractors in the U.S., including RATP Dev,
    Transdev, Keolis, MV Transportation, WeDriveU, and Beacon
    Mobility.
        Collectively, our members employ over 71,000 people and
    serve more than 700 million riders annually. We operate a
    variety of transit services, including bus, rail, paratransit,
    and microtransit.
        NATA's mission is to advocate for the role of private
    contractors in providing safe, dependable, and cost-effective
    public transit.
        More than half of U.S. transit agencies contract out
    services, and our members provide expertise that helps improve
    efficiency, safety, and innovation in transit systems
    nationwide.
        Private contractors bring unique value to public transit,
    such as leveraging scale for better operations and maintenance
    support, operator training, and technology focuses;
    implementing innovations like alternative-fuel vehicles and
    microtransit; offering competitive bidding that maximizes
    taxpayer value.
        Since the COVID-19 pandemic, transit ridership has
    recovered to about 77 percent with significant growth in
    evening and weekend services.
        As Congress works on reauthorizing the public
    transportation program, we urge continued investment in public
    transit which remains essential for many people and helps
    reduce traffic congestion.
        While the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act increased
    funding for capital expenses, operating expenses are still
    primarily funded by farebox revenue and State and local
    subsidies.
        NATA members can help close the gap by delivering cost-
    effective services. From micromobility and innovative operator
    recruiting, to maintenance supply chain enhancements, our
    members are pioneering innovative solutions to meet customer
    demand.
        I would like to highlight just a few examples.
        RAPT Dev in Durham, North Carolina, restored service to
    prepandemic levels and beyond, well ahead of schedule and
    achieved record ridership in process by refining focus on
    operator recruitment and evolved focus on safety culture.
        Transdev in Nassau County, New York, improved service
    through new fare systems and launched a new microtransit
    offering called NICE MINI that offsets more expensive big bus
    service while meeting the community's evolving transit needs.
        Keolis, partnered with Massachusetts Bay Transportation
    Authority, introduced popular $10 weekend fares for those
    riding the Metro, boosting ridership during the weekend as a
    new generation of riders use public transit not just to commute
    to work on typical workdays, but to also spend time enriching
    their lives in the city of Boston on the weekends.
        And MV Transportation and LADOT in Los Angeles also
    developed a microtransit service with a 97-percent rider
    satisfaction rate at a lower cost than other options.
        NATA's recommendations are as follows.
        Transit agencies should annually consider whether
    contracting out services could improve service and reduce
    costs. Before cutting needed services, agencies should
    evaluate, through a formal RFP process, if contracting out can
    maintain service levels at a lower price point.
        Congress and FTA should consider contracting practices when
    awarding discretionary grants, assessing systems funded under
    the Capital Investment Grant program, the idea being that those
    agencies with an eye on running the most cost-effective and
    efficient services should be given priority on grant awards.
        Incentives and disincentives outlined in contracts should
    be limited to no more than 1 percent of annual contract value,
    encouraging competition and ensuring contract stability in a
    low-margin industry.
        Related to actual contracting process, an updated FTA's
    best practices procurement manual to reflect current best
    practices and increase competition to include clearly defined
    scope of work and performance metrics during RFPs is essential.
        Enabling the ability for negotiations to occur when
    unforeseen things happen and change the scope of a contract,
    extending operations and maintenance contracts to a 6- to 10-
    year base term, rather than the 3- to 5-year base terms that we
    see today, and language that supports bilateral decisioning of
    option extension periods versus the unilateral language that we
    see in contracts today.
        In conclusion, NATA looks forward to continuing to work
    with the subcommittee as you develop reauthorization
    legislation.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I would
    be happy to answer any questions that the committee may have.
        [Mr. Booterbaugh's prepared statement follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Matthew Booterbaugh, Chief Executive Officer,
     RATP Dev USA, on behalf of the North American Transit Alliance (NATA)
                                  Introduction
        Chairman Rouzer, 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
    ``American Builds: A Review of our Nation's Transit Policies''.
        My name is Matt Booterbaugh, and I am the Chief Executive Officer
    of RATP Dev USA. I joined RATP Dev in 2019 and was named CEO in 2024.
    RATP Dev 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 am a member of the board of NATA, and I am appearing before
    this committee in that capacity.
        NATA is comprised of the six largest private transit contracting
    firms. In addition to RATP Dev, our members include Transdev, Keolis,
    MV Transportation, WeDriveU, and Beacon Mobility. 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, including RATP Dev, 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. NATA members also are members of the American
    Public Transportation Association (APTA).
        The private sector has a long history of operating public transit
    services under contract to city and county transit agencies. More than
    half of the agencies in the U.S. contract with the private sector to
    operate all or a portion of their transit service. Our members operate
    bus rail and paratransit 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, providing them with the benefits of our unmatched
    scale and reach, including:
          The ability to leverage support services, training
    programs and costs (including in safety, maintenance and HR) across
    multiple contracts;
          Investments in technology and innovation to manage
    employees, improve safety and drive innovation;
          Experience across multiple markets with key industry
    changes, including alternative fuel vehicles, microtransit models and
    software platforms; and
          Volume discounts on parts and faster delivery times due
    to larger volumes

        Our companies also provide the added benefit of competition. When
    multiple private-sector entities compete for transit contracts,
    taxpayers are assured of maximum value for every dollar spent.
    Challenging Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), which are part of every
    contract, ensure riders receive world class service.
        Transit ridership across the country has recovered about 77 percent
    on average since the COVID-19 Pandemic with bus service recovering 78
    percent. Most significant growth in transit ridership occurred between
    2022 and 2023, with the growth trend continuing in 2024. While some
    passengers have changed their travel patterns and no longer commute to
    a downtown office five days a week, more people are using transit
    throughout the day, in the evenings and on weekends.
        As the Subcommittee begins the process of reauthorizing the public
    transportation program, we urge Congress to continue to invest in
    public transportation as it is the only transportation option for many
    people and relieves traffic congestion on our roadways. Public
    transportation also enhances economic development by providing access
    to jobs for employees.
        Recognizing that Congress increased funding for public
    transportation in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, that
    funding was largely for capital expenses. Transit agencies must rely on
    farebox revenues and state and local subsidies to fund their operating
    expenses. Our companies can help transit agencies close the gap in
    operating shortfalls by delivering services that meet customer demand
    at a cost-effective price. From micromobility, to autonomous shuttles,
    to greater adaptation of alternative fuel vehicles such as hydrogen and
    compressed natural gas (CNG), 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
    in their respective communities, is cost effective and provides good
    salaries, benefits, and job opportunities for our valued workforce. In
    many cases we save money by centralizing overhead costs.
        Today, I would like to share with the Subcommittee some examples of
    how NATA members have partnered with our transit agency customers to
    deliver service that meets the needs of their community at reduced
    costs.
        The business case for fixed route service is challenging in
    suburban areas with lower population density. To address the issue of
    buses that are empty and service that does not take passengers where
    they need to go, NATA members are partnering with transit agencies to
    deliver microtransit service in smaller vehicles, which eliminates the
    overall operational cost of running 40 foot buses on routes where they
    are not justified based on the productivity rates. Smaller transit
    vehicles are generally less expensive to operate. As demand increases
    for micro transit service, NATA member companies can help agencies find
    the right balance of fixed route and microtransit.
        In 2023, RATP Dev began working with Durham, North Carolina's
    GoDurham transit service to transition from a management contract to a
    full operations contract. At the same time, the City of Durham set
    ambitious goals to restore service to pre-pandemic levels by 2024. RATP
    Dev exceeded expectations, successfully restoring 100% of pre-pandemic
    service levels ahead of schedule in early 2024 and implementing
    multiple service expansions. As a result, GoDurham achieved the highest
    monthly ridership in its history in October 2024. This success was
    driven by innovative solutions RATP Dev introduced in partnership with
    the city, including new strategies for recruitment, enhanced community
    engagement, and improved system safety performance (62% reduction in
    preventable accidents).
        Transdev has been operating the NICE Bus contract in Nassau County,
    New York since 2012. NICE Bus is a critical transit system connecting
    people throughout Nassau County and providing connections to the NY
    MTA's Long Island Railroad for connections into New York City.
    Transdev's responsibilities not only include the operations and
    maintenance of the contract, but also encompass FTA compliance,
    marketing, HR, finance, procurement, ADA eligibility certification,
    reservations, customer service, scheduling and dispatching. Transdev
    continues to bring additional value by regularly adding to the positive
    passenger experience through restructuring routes to increase service
    frequency, incorporating a contactless fare payment system, adding new
    passenger applications and recently launching NICE MINI, the area's
    newest microtransit service.
        In partnership with Keolis, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation
    Authority (MBTA) introduced $10 weekend fares for the MBTA Commuter
    Rail network. These fares allow for unlimited travel across the entire
    network all weekend and have proven popular. Along with new regional
    rail style schedules that feature trains at regular all-day intervals,
    these new fares have contributed to weekend ridership growth above and
    beyond pre-pandemic figures.
        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 stops 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 service.
        Just last year, Beacon Mobility saw significantly improved customer
    satisfaction levels that resulted in a 25% increase in passengers in
    less than 18 months--going from 20% below pre-COVID levels to 5%--in an
    urban area where it used innovation by implementing multiple modes of
    transportation to create more customer-specific solutions in a market
    where the use of traditional service methods was compromised by driver
    shortages.
                             NATA's Recommendations
        While transit agencies contract out a large portion of their
    paratransit service, they only contract out less than a third of fixed
    route service based on total number of systems or less than a quarter
    when comparing total potential revenue. This contrasts sharply with
    other countries that contract out almost all public transportation
    service. While contracting out may not be the best approach for every
    transit agency and every type of service, many transit agencies are
    reluctant to even consider contracting out because they have always
    operated service in-house with their own workforce. For these reasons,
    we recommend that Congress and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
    take steps to encourage transit agencies to consider whether
    contracting out is in the best interest of the agency and the riders.
    We recommend that Congress consider including the following policies in
    the reauthorization legislation:

        (1)  Transit agencies should consider whether to contract out all
    or a portion of their service at least annually, including various
    factors such as whether contracting out could lead to improved service
    delivery and cost efficiencies. Congress or FTA should include specific
    factors transit agencies should consider in making this analysis and
    FTA should review the analysis during its triennial review of each
    agency.

        (2)  Before cutting service, transit agencies should consider
    whether contracting out would enable the transit agency to continue to
    provide the service. To aid in the analysis, transit agencies should
    consider whether to solicit proposals to evaluate whether contracting
    out would enable it to continue service. FTA should review this
    analysis during its triennial review. Transit agencies do not save as
    much money as one might think by cutting service or mothballing
    equipment. Agencies tend to favor cutting weekend service, which is
    recovering at the strongest rate in many cities, but still need to keep
    and train drivers and mechanics. Buses still need to be maintained.
    Said another way: the amount of services cut is not proportional to the
    savings a transit agency realizes. Therefore, there is no downside to
    considering contracting out as an alternative.

        (3)  DOT and FTA should consider whether a transit agency contracts
    out as a factor in awarding discretionary grants, focusing on whether
    and how a transit agency proposes to contract out to operate service
    that will benefit from a capital project.

        (4)  FTA should consider whether a transit agency will contract out
    as a factor in assessing a transit agency's ability to operate a fixed
    guideway system funded under the Capital Investment Grant (CIG)
    program.

        (5)  Congress should limit liquidated damages and award incentives
    to no more than one percent of the annual contract value for transit
    operations and maintenance contracts. This will give transit agencies
    and contractors certainty around price impact in what is today a very
    competitive, low financial margin business and allow contractors to
    offer the best value to the agency. Transit agencies would remain able
    to terminate contracts for default in the event of a contract breach.

        (6)  We also urge Congress to ask FTA to update its ``Best
    Practices Procurement and Lessons Learned Manual'', which it has not
    done since 2016. NATA has shared its recommendations with FTA. While
    many transit agencies already follow the practices we are proposing, by
    incorporating our recommendations in the Manual, more proposers are
    likely to respond to solicitations and transit agencies are more likely
    to receive the best value from proposers. I am going to summarize our
    recommendations:

            a.  Transit agencies 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 more informed
    questions and seek clarifications and exceptions. Transit agencies also
    should allow sufficient time for proposers to develop high quality
    responses.

            b.  Transit agencies 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.

            c.  Operations and maintenance contracts should be longer in
    length since it typically can take between 6 to 10 years for a
    contractor to recoup their initial investment in a contract.

            d.  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.

            e.  Transit agencies should make 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.

            f.  Transit agencies should ensure liquidated damages are not
    punitive and bear a reasonable relationship to the impact a failure to
    meet a key performance indicator has on the transit agency and riders.

            g.  Transit agencies 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.
                                   Conclusion
        In closing, NATA members look forward to continuing to work with
    the Subcommittee as it develops reauthorization legislation. Thank you
    for the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee today. I would be
    pleased to respond to any questions you may have.

        Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Feigenbaum.

     TESTIMONY OF BARUCH FEIGENBAUM, SENIOR MANAGING DIRECTOR FOR
                TRANSPORTATION POLICY, REASON FOUNDATION

        Mr. Feigenbaum. Chairman Rouzer, Ranking Member Norton, and
    fellow Members, my name is Baruch Feigenbaum. I am the senior
    managing director for transportation policy at Reason
    Foundation, a nonprofit think tank with offices in Los Angeles
    and here in DC.
        I am a graduate of the Georgia Institute of Technology with
    degrees in public policy and transportation planning with a
    concentration in engineering.
        I have been studying transportation since my undergraduate
    capstone on freeway congestion.
        I worked here on Capitol Hill for Representative Lynn
    Westmoreland of Georgia, who some of you may remember, fondly
    or otherwise.
        With Reason, I have worked with more than 20 States, as
    well as the Federal Government, to implement transportation
    policy and funding reform, and I currently serve on three
    National Academy of Sciences committees--Managed Lanes,
    Intelligent Transportation Systems, and--most relevant to
    today--Bus Transit Systems.
        Transit systems operate across the country from New York
    City to Cheyenne, Wyoming. They use different vehicles, have
    different ridership profiles, and serve vastly different
    communities. There is no one-size-fits-all solution, but I want
    to highlight some trends that apply to most systems and then
    suggest some possible solutions.
        COVID-19 dealt a serious blow to the transit industry. Five
    years later, transit agencies are facing at least five major
    problems. The most serious problem remains crime. While some
    may feel perception of crime is worse than the actual problem
    itself, all it takes is one incident for some riders to never
    use the system again.
        Los Angeles Metro provides an example. Between 2020 and
    2023, crime on its system increased 55 percent. After creating
    its own police force in a concerted effort to curb fare
    evasion, overall crime continued to increase, although violent
    crime did decrease slightly. It still remains at 2,057
    incidents per year. Just in the first 6 months of 2024, last
    year, a rider was shot on a train platform, another was shot on
    a bus, one was stabbed on a bus, another was attacked with a
    wrench. Another rider was stabbed inside an elevator. A bus was
    hijacked. A busdriver was stabbed in the chest. A train rider
    was shot dead. An altercation on a bus spread into the street
    near the transit station, leading to multiple stabbings.
        Ridership has been hard hit. While a few transit agencies
    in areas with fast-growing populations have recovered, transit
    use in most regions is down anywhere from about 20 percent to
    as much as 60 percent compared to 2019. And 2019 was far from
    the high water mark for passengers. APTA's ``2022 Public
    Transportation Fact Book'' shows transit ridership has declined
    approximately 20 percent across the country between 2014 and
    2019.
        There are several reasons why ridership levels have
    declined. I mentioned crime. Another is the increase in
    people's ability to work from home. A third is convenience.
    During the pandemic, many workers switched to driving and found
    it faster and more enjoyable, and they have been hesitant to
    switch back from driving, carpooling, or vanpooling.
        As a result, the farebox recovery rate, the percentage that
    riders' fares pay of operating costs, has slipped from 20 to 60
    percent, to 5 to 40 percent. That means taxpayers are now
    subsidizing the majority of the operating costs for every
    system in the country.
        Given these high costs with limited ridership, it helps to
    examine who we are subsidizing. There are two types of transit
    riders: choice and dependent. Choice riders have access to a
    vehicle. These riders tend to like living near stations but
    tend to use transit less frequently. They also tend to ride
    rail far more than bus. Most of the decline in transit
    ridership has come from choice riders.
        Dependent riders do not have access to a vehicle and tend
    to ride transit more frequently. They tend to ride bus more
    than rail and tend to have lower income. While dependent riders
    traditionally lived in the urban core of metro areas, they also
    now live in suburban, exurban, and rural areas in the U.S.
        Part of the cost escalation is the proliferation of new
    light rail lines. A newer technology, bus rapid transit, is
    one-third to one-ninth cheaper, and many metro areas are
    adopting it.
        For operating and maintenance costs, agencies often wait
    too long to complete needed maintenance. I would just point to
    some of the problems that WMATA here in the region has had,
    including a fire that led to a tragic loss of life. Obviously
    we want to fix that.
        So given these challenges, what should we be doing?
        First, focus on the core customers: transit-dependent
    riders. They need transit and they tend to use it much more
    than choice riders.
        Right-size the type of transit system being used. Transit-
    dependent customers use bus more than rail. In urban areas,
    focus on expanding your bus network, make sure it is set up in
    a grid design, not a radial design, operate schedules on a
    regular basis, and focus on areas of extreme density. Look at
    on-demand options in suburban agencies.
        Second, encourage agencies to focus on transit operations
    and not capital. The share of Federal funding for capital
    costs, in my opinion, should be reduced from 80 percent to 50
    percent.
        Focus on generating additional new revenue, where possible,
    from advertising, and deploy more officers to transit systems.
        Thanks for the opportunity to testify. I am happy to answer
    any and all questions either here or for the record.
        [Mr. Feigenbaum's prepared statement follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Baruch Feigenbaum, Senior Managing Director for
                    Transportation Policy, Reason Foundation
        Chairman Rouzer, Ranking Member Norton, and fellow Members:
        My name is Baruch Feigenbaum. I am the Senior Managing Director for
    Transportation Policy at Reason Foundation, a non-profit think tank
    with offices in Los Angeles and Washington. I am a graduate of the
    Georgia Institute of Technology with degrees in public policy and
    transportation planning with a concentration in engineering.
                        My Credentials on Today's Topic
        I have been studying transportation since my undergraduate capstone
    on freeway congestion. My master's thesis studied induced demand in
    growing areas and potential solutions. While in school, I wrote a
    special report for Cobb County, GA on the development of a vanpool
    system. With Reason, I have worked with more than 20 states to
    implement transportation policy and funding reform. I currently serve
    on three National Academy of Sciences Transportation Research Board
    Committees: Managed Lanes, Intelligent Transportation Systems, and--
    most relevant to my testimony today--Bus Transit Systems.
                             Overview of Testimony
        Transit systems operate across the country from New York City to
    Cheyenne, Wyoming. They use different vehicles, have different
    ridership profiles, and serve vastly different communities. There is
    not a one-size-fits-all solution, but I want to highlight some trends
    that apply to most systems and then suggest some possible solutions.
        COVID-19 dealt a serious blow to the transit industry. Five years
    later, transit agencies are facing at least five major problems. The
    most serious problem is crime. While some may feel perception of crime
    is worse than the actual problem itself, all it takes is one incident
    for some riders to never use the system again. Riders will return after
    an agency corrects other problems, like headways or lighting.
        Los Angeles Metro provides a good example. Between 2020 and 2023,
    crime on its system increased 55%. After creating its own police force
    and a concerted effort to curb fare evasion, overall crime continued to
    increase--although violent crimes did decrease by 8%, but remains
    stubbornly high at 2,057 incidents per year. Just in the first six
    months in 2024, a rider was shot on a train platform, another was shot
    on a bus, one was stabbed on a bus, another was attacked with a wrench,
    another rider was stabbed inside an elevator, a bus was hijacked, a bus
    driver was stabbed in the chest, a train rider was shot dead, and an
    altercation on a bus spread into the street near the transit station
    leading to multiple stabbings. Certainly, this type of activity will
    not attract riders.
        Ridership has been hard hit. While a few transit agencies in areas
    with fast-growing populations have recovered, transit use in most
    regions is down anywhere from 20-60% compared to 2019. And 2019 was far
    from the high-water mark for passengers. APTA's 2022 Public
    Transportation Fact Book shows transit ridership had declined
    approximately 20% across the country between 2014 and 2019. As a
    result, some public transit agencies have seen a ridership decline of
    approximately 80% in 11 years.
        There are several reasons why ridership levels have declined. One
    is concern about crime. A second is the increase in people's ability to
    work at home. A third is convenience; many workers switched to driving
    during the pandemic and found it faster and more enjoyable. Even as
    traffic congestion worsened, many of these former riders chose to
    drive, carpool, or vanpool.
        As a result, the farebox recovery rate--the percentage that rider's
    fares pay of operating costs--has slipped from 20-60% to 5-40%,
    depending on the system. That means taxpayers are now subsidizing the
    majority of the operating costs for almost every system in the country.
    Compared with other modes, transit is highly subsidized. Highways are
    almost self-sustaining, although there have been increasing transfers
    from general revenue recently. Commercial aviation is almost self-
    sustaining as well. Freight rail is nearly completely self-sustaining.
    Working from home requires no subsidies at all, although it is not a
    feasible option for many.
        Given these high costs with limited ridership, it helps to examine
    who we are subsidizing. There are two types of transit riders: choice
    and dependent. Choice riders have access to a vehicle. These riders
    tend to like living near stations but tend to use transit less
    frequently. They also tend to ride rail far more than bus. Most of the
    decline in transit ridership has come from choice riders. Dependent
    riders do not have access to a vehicle and tend to ride transit more
    frequently. They tend to ride bus more than rail, and tend to have
    lower incomes. While dependent riders traditionally lived in the urban
    cores of metro areas, they now also live in suburban, exurban, and
    rural areas of the U.S.
        Costs have increased substantially. For capital costs, there are
    several reasons. One reason is that agencies continue to outfit
    vehicles with modern technologies such as Wi-Fi that increase costs.
    Another is that many agencies continue to chase white elephant capital
    projects that don't increase ridership but are built for political
    reasons. But the greatest is the high costs to build transit in this
    country. As the Marron Institute noted, it costs 20 times as much to
    build a kilometer of rail in New York as in Seoul. This is due to three
    reasons: station costs, which are higher due to boring techniques,
    procurement costs that do not privatize risk, and labor, which is about
    50% of the hard costs in unionized states compared to 25% in Turkey,
    Italy, and Sweden.
        As noted, part of the cost escalation is the proliferation of new
    light-rail lines. A newer technology--bus rapid transit (BRT)--is one-
    third to one-ninth cheaper for roughly the same service. BRT is growing
    across the country, but many regions that cannot support light-rail
    service still choose light rail.
        For operating and maintenance costs, often agencies wait too long
    to complete needed maintenance, resulting in some of the problems we've
    seen with the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA)
    the last decade. In one incident, the train caught fire, causing tragic
    loss of life. But delaying maintenance leads to higher costs, than if
    maintenance had been performed on a schedule.
        Other agencies don't take fare evasion seriously. While fares may
    only cover 20% of an agency's costs, that 20% is nontrivial in agency
    budgets.
        Given these challenges what should agencies be doing? Clearly, the
    same old approach is not going to work in a very new world.

          First, focus on your core customers: transit-dependent
    riders. These riders need transit and they tend to use it much more
    than choice riders. They are located all over the country--in urban,
    suburban, and rural areas. And no matter where they are located, some
    type of transit is the difference between them getting to a job or them
    being on government assistance programs. While I'm not a fan of
    extensive government welfare systems, subsidizing this type of transit
    user could save taxpayers money in the end.

           Right-size the type of transit service that is being used.
    Transit dependent customers use bus more than rail. In urban areas,
    focus on expanding your bus network. Make sure it is set up in a grid-
    design, not a radial-design. Operate service on a regular schedule, 18
    hours a day, seven days a week. Do not build rail lines unless they are
    in corridors with extremely high density. In suburban areas, a mix of
    bus and on-demand options including microtransit, vanpools, employer
    shuttles, and ride-hail vehicles work best. In rural areas, limited bus
    service in towns and microtransit and ride-hail service everywhere else
    is the best option.

          Second, encourage agencies to focus on transit operations
    instead of new capital projects. Currently, the federal government
    incentivizes transit agencies to build systems that they do not have
    money to operate. Many systems have spent money building light rail
    systems for transit choice riders and gone over budget, resulting in
    them discontinuing bus lines for transit dependent riders, lowering
    ridership across the system. The share of federal funding for capital
    costs should be reduced from 80% to 50%. Operating and maintaining
    systems should be prioritized. If agencies want to build new capacity
    for fixed guideway (heavy rail, light rail, and some bus rapid transit)
    they should prioritize local funding.

          Third, focus on lowering costs and generating additional
    revenue. Adapt some of the reforms of other transit agencies across the
    world. Contract out service. Studies have shown that contracted service
    can cost up to 30% less and provide better service quality to riders.
    Contracting is not the best option in every situation, but it should be
    explored for all new routes.

           Find secondary funding sources such as advertising by wrapping
    buses and placing more ads in rail cars. Use more transit-oriented
    development for new and infill rail and BRT stations. Lease property to
    ride-hailing companies and scooter sharing companies to operate.

          Fourth, deploy more officers to transit systems,
    prosecute criminals, and improve the station experience by increasing
    lighting and adding higher fare gates.

        Thanks for the opportunity to testify. I am happy to answer any and
    all questions, either here or for the record.

        Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Regan.

       TESTIMONY OF GREG REGAN, PRESIDENT, TRANSPORTATION TRADES
                       DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO (TTD)

        Mr. Regan. Good morning, Chairman Rouzer, Ranking Member
    Norton, and members of the subcommittee. On behalf of the
    Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO and our 37 affiliated
    unions, I thank you for this opportunity.
        As America's largest transportation labor federation, TTD
    proudly represents 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.
        As Congress prepares to craft the next surface
    reauthorization, it faces a fundamental choice: Continue
    treating workers as an afterthought, or recognize them as
    essential partners in building a transit system worthy of
    America's future.
        The upcoming surface bill must address the scourge of
    violent assaults on transit workers. For over a decade,
    transportation labor unions have sounded the alarm about the
    epidemic of assaults on transit workers of all kinds.
    Busdrivers, subway operators, and commuter rail workers have
    all experienced it.
        The number of assault-related injuries in U.S. public
    transit rose by 232 percent in the last 10 years.
        In December, ATU member Shawn Yim, a Seattle busdriver, was
    beaten and then murdered by a passenger who escalated a dispute
    over an open window.
        In February, a bus in Madison, Wisconsin, crashed during
    its route, after a passenger's relentless pushing and shoving
    of the operator.
        We have made some headway with our allies in Congress, but
    much work remains to be done. Specifically, transit operators
    need physical barriers that fully enclose their workstation to
    protect them, especially from unwanted entry of violent
    persons, dangerous fluids, or hurled objects.
        Congress must provide for such infrastructure and apply its
    oversight authority to encourage the Federal Transit
    Administration to finally promulgate a rule establishing
    vehicle safety standards designed to mitigate the threat of
    assaults.
        As far as workforce development, to ensure a strong transit
    workforce for the future, we must also ensure employees receive
    adequate training and upskilling. We urge Congress to build on
    existing transit workforce development measures in any surface
    bill.
        For example, the Low or No Emission Bus Grant Program in
    the infrastructure law is a great program that requires 5
    percent of funds be used for workforce development.
        Now that this program has been put to the test, we see that
    more resources are needed, and we support raising that set-
    aside 10 percent.
        Congress must also codify the Transit Workforce Center,
    ensure that it is funded so that transit systems across the
    country and their employees have high-quality curricula for
    training their workers.
        Congress not only has the power to shape the transit
    workforce of the future, it also has a central role to play in
    shaping the future of automation in transit. When drafting the
    upcoming surface bill, Congress must prioritize public safety
    by including a clear and enforceable Federal framework for
    autonomous vehicles.
        Any framework must, one, require certified operators on
    board; two, ensure any agency receiving Federal funds submits a
    comprehensive workforce development plan. And this should
    ensure that workers are not replaced but retrained so that
    these technologies, if they one day prove themselves safe, that
    the workers have the ability to upskill and be ready to move
    these systems forward.
        This is especially urgent as some AV deployments have moved
    forward with temporary waivers or exemptions from core transit
    safety rules, which is an unacceptable trend. FTA already has a
    statutory safety mandate. It must use it to ensure that public
    dollars fund public goods, not unsafe, unregulated
    alternatives.
        Any surface reauthorization bill must also address the
    fiscal cliffs that many transit agencies across the country are
    facing. After ridership fell to 20 percent of prepandemic
    levels during the COVID-19 crisis, Congress rightfully stepped
    in and provided operational support to keep the doors open.
    This helped essential workers get to their essential jobs and
    retained operational capacity for when our systems fully
    recovered after the pandemic.
        Now ridership has recovered about 85 percent of its 2019
    levels, and that is worth celebrating. But recovered ridership
    alone won't be enough to protect this public good.
        Congress must amend Federal funding programs to restore the
    flexibility that would allow transit systems to keep their
    service running, improve reliability, and address this public
    safety crisis.
        This involves opening Federal funds up for operations use
    instead of keeping the current restriction on capital projects.
    Giving agencies better access to operational support would
    empower them to make much-needed safety investments, like
    installing physical barriers to protect the operator
    workstation, expanding the presence of law enforcement, and
    other physical improvements like more effective cameras and
    better fare gates.
        We are confident that the upcoming surface bill is an
    opportunity to improve safety and service across our transit
    systems, large or small.
        I look forward to working with each of you to address the
    transit worker assault crisis, operational funding issues,
    workforce development needs, autonomous technology deployment,
    and more.
        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 (TTD)
        On behalf of the Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO (TTD),
    and our 37 affiliated unions, I thank Chairman Rouzer, Ranking Member
    Norton, and Members of the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit for
    inviting me to testify before the Subcommittee today.
        Our nation's public transit infrastructure stands at a pivotal
    moment that will define its future for generations. While we've made
    significant investments in physical assets, we have systematically
    neglected the most essential component of any transit system: the
    workers who make it function. Today, these frontline professionals face
    an unprecedented convergence of threats--from physical assaults that
    have risen 152% in less than a decade, to destabilizing fiscal cliffs
    that threaten service reliability, to a technological revolution being
    deployed without adequate safety frameworks, to an administration
    openly hostile to their right to organize. Each challenge targets a
    different aspect of transit workers' ability to deliver the service
    Americans depend on.
        What links these seemingly disparate issues is a dangerous shift
    away from viewing public transportation as a public good. When
    operators are attacked without consequence, when funding prioritizes
    capital projects while neglecting sustainable operations, when
    autonomous vehicles are deployed without human oversight, and when
    contracted services replace union jobs with gig work--we're witnessing
    the same fundamental problem in different forms. Private interests and
    short-term thinking are systematically undermining transit systems
    designed to serve the public equitably and reliably. The push to
    privatize benefits, socialize costs, and minimize the role of workers
    comes from the same ideological playbook, whether it's deployed by
    Silicon Valley entrepreneurs promising technological salvation or
    politicians seeking to weaken labor protections in the name of
    efficiency.
        The members of TTD's affiliated unions aren't just employees--
    they're guardians of a public trust. They're not opposed to innovation
    or fiscal responsibility, but they recognize that genuine progress must
    include, not exclude, the workforce that makes transit possible. As
    Congress prepares to craft the next surface transportation
    reauthorization, it faces a fundamental choice: continue treating
    workers as an afterthought--mere inputs to be optimized away--or
    recognize them as essential partners in building a transit system
    worthy of America's future. The testimony I present today makes an
    unequivocal case for the latter, offering concrete policies that
    protect workers while enhancing service for the traveling public--
    because these goals are fundamentally inseparable.
     The Human Cost of Transit Violence: Protecting Workers and Passengers
        In rural counties, suburban neighborhoods, and urban centers alike,
    transit provides essential mobility that powers local economies and
    creates pathways to opportunity. Yet the dedicated professionals who
    operate these systems face unprecedented challenges. Every day, transit
    operators across America face the threat of violence simply for doing
    their jobs. In Seattle this January, bus driver Shawn Yim was murdered
    by a passenger after a dispute over an open window escalated to
    needless violence. A Madison, WI woman endangered herself and her
    fellow passengers when her pushing and shoving of the driver caused the
    entire bus to crash just a few weeks ago. In Los Angeles, a series of
    violent attacks against bus drivers prompted Metro to take emergency
    action in 2024 to install protective barriers across its entire 2,000+
    bus fleet. These aren't isolated incidents--they represent a systemic
    crisis in transit worker safety that directly threatens the public
    transportation system all Americans rely on.
        Alarmingly, many perpetrators are able to flee from the scene of
    this crime, and prosecutors are therefore unable to stop them, or even
    ban them from future use of public transportation service. Therefore,
    we must work proactively to mitigate transit operators' exposure. It's
    well past time that we redesign the bus operator workstation, and we
    implore this Committee to get to work on legislation that would do just
    that.
        For well over a decade, transportation labor advocates have sounded
    the alarm to federal policymakers over this epidemic of reprehensible
    assaults on public transit workers including bus operators, subway
    operators, and commuter rail workers. Data collected through the
    National Transit Database indicates an astonishing rise in the number
    of assault-related injuries on public transit in the U.S., a documented
    increase of 232% from 2014 through 2024, and a tripling of events
    resulting in fatality or injury requiring medical transport between
    2008 and 2022. TTD applauds the IIJA's requirement effective since 2023
    forcing transit agencies to report all assaults, not just ones that
    resulted in a fatality or an ambulance transport. Behind these
    statistics are real people--professionals who have been stabbed, shot,
    struck with objects, burned with hot coffee, doused with bodily fluids,
    and sexually assaulted while serving the public. When transit operators
    are attacked, everyone's safety is compromised--passengers,
    pedestrians, and other road users all face immediate danger.
        Transit operator unions successfully fought for the inclusion of
    language to address the transit worker safety crisis 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 minimum safety standards
    to protect operators from assault. FTA was specifically required to
    review and assess the need for bus safety standards, practices, and
    protocols as they relate to bus design with the goal of protecting bus
    operators from assault to inform the NPRM. To date, no rule has been
    implemented, despite repeated calls from labor unions and Congress to
    do so. This Committee must finish the job by mandating minimum vehicle
    design safety standards for transit vehicles.
        Fortunately, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA)
    provided the opportunity for another bite at the apple, and we are
    pleased to see the first fruits of that labor come to pass recently
    from the Federal Transit Administration. 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.
        Last fall, the Federal Transit Administration built upon the
    foundation of the PTASP rule when it published its first-ever General
    Directive 24:1; Required Actions Regarding Assaults on Transit Workers,
    bringing real teeth to the provisions labor fought for in the IIJA.
    Every agency that is subject to PTASP is now required to perform
    several actions addressing safety in their systems or risk a potential
    loss of federal funding. The General Directive now requires agencies to
    conduct risk assessments of assaults on their transit workers using the
    Safety Management System processes outlined in their Agency Safety
    Plans; identify strategies to mitigate risk and improve transit worker
    safety; comply with PTASP requirements to involve the joint labor-
    management Safety Committee when identifying risk mitigation
    strategies; and promptly provide information to FTA on the risk level
    identified in its system, how it is mitigating that risk, and how it is
    monitoring that risk. FTA's analysis of the first data set stemming
    from this General Directive noted that its findings could support the
    development of ``federal minimum safety standards'' for bus design.
    This kind of policy assessment informed by workers and their advocates
    on the ground is exactly what unions have been fighting for.
        We thank the more than 200 members of Congress--including Democrats
    and Republicans on this Committee and current FTA nominee Marc
    Molinaro--who co-sponsored the legislation ultimately included in the
    IIJA and later pressed the FTA to take action. While we applaud this
    progress, much work remains to be done.
        Although meaningful efforts are underway across many transit
    systems to separate out the risky task of fare collection, provide de-
    escalation training to transit operators, and address systemic causes
    of violent outbursts on public transportation, our members are in
    serious need of physical barriers that fully enclose the operator's
    workstation, protecting them from unruly passengers. Such barriers must
    prevent the unwanted entry of persons, fluids, and objects; and they
    must also provide for positive airflow, which better protects operators
    from exposure to viruses and other airborne pathogens. Given their
    truly essential work and the lessons learned from the COVID-19
    pandemic, this should be a given.
        We call on FTA to promulgate a rule requiring strong minimum safety
    standards for public transit vehicles. We look forward to working with
    members of the committee to ensure FTA acts quickly to provide improved
    transit safety to workers and passengers.

    Congress must ensure long-term financial stability for public
    transportation

        This Spring marks five years since the beginning of the COVID-19
    pandemic, and unfortunately, public transit systems are still bearing
    the scars from this challenging time. After falling to 20% of pre-
    pandemic levels, ridership has continued in a steady climb, recovering
    to 85% of pre-pandemic levels by March 1, 2025 \1\.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://transitapp.com/APTA
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Although bus ridership has rebounded faster, commuter rail
    ridership is recovering more gradually around the country with some
    notable success in Boston's MBTA, which has nearly recovered all of its
    pre-pandemic ridership. Many other commuter rail systems across the
    country are experiencing year-on-year increases to their ridership
    levels and examining changes in their strategies for boosting ridership
    and revenues. Several states are also stepping up to the plate,
    providing additional transit funding to address the fiscal cliff, but
    they still need the federal government to provide additional funding.
        With various large employers and the federal government
    implementing Return to Office mandates, we can reasonably expect
    ridership to continue to rise. Despite this positive indication of the
    traveling public's regard for the value of public transportation,
    transit agencies across the country are facing a potentially
    devastating fiscal cliff that if unaddressed could wind back their
    progress and hamstring their ability to address other needs within
    their systems, like serious mitigation of assaults on transit
    operators.
        Given the upcoming surface transportation reauthorization, this
    Congress has an important opportunity to address federal policy flaws
    that the COVID-19 pandemic exposed, like the prioritizing of capital
    investment over operating expense support, which in turn incentivizes
    transit agencies to direct their revenues to matching federal capital
    investments (more federal dollars are available to match capital
    expenses and they match at higher rates than operating expenses) rather
    than making urgently needed improvements to their systems. This skewed
    financial strategy is misguided, and not effective in improving transit
    systems holistically. The associated bureaucratic requirements that
    large urban agencies maintain two sets of accounts for their two
    separate sets of expenses is needlessly onerous as well.
        The consequent operational funding shortfalls lead to reduced
    service frequency, increased fares, and a diminished ability to meet
    the mobility needs of their communities. This misalignment of federal
    support and incentives ultimately leads us to many of the challenges
    public transit systems face today.
        It's especially worth noting that the federal prohibition on
    funding transit operations is also fueling public safety crises in many
    transit systems. Policing, monitoring security cameras, installing
    physical barriers that prevent assaults, and many other vital
    components of a secure environment all must be paid for exclusively out
    of local funds. TTD also supports ensuring that federal funding is
    eligible to be spent on transit ambassadors, personnel that are
    empowered to supply fare enforcement and provide important monitoring
    ability as crime and safety issues develop. Considering that the
    presence of uniformed law enforcement personnel is the most effective
    strategy for reducing violence in public transit, the federal
    restriction against operations funding essentially ties one arm behind
    our agencies' backs. As persistent concerns about violence in our
    transit systems continues to slow ridership recovery, ending this
    arbitrary ban on operations funding would immediately raise both the
    level of safety in the systems, as well as fare box revenue as riders
    regain confidence in these systems.
        We learned a valuable lesson about the benefits of funding
    flexibility during the COVID-19 pandemic when Congress temporarily
    allowed agencies to use all federal formula funds--not just emergency
    funds--awarded from 2020 to 2022 for operations. A boon to our nation's
    public transportation systems, this flexibility ensured that essential
    workers in public transit were able to continue doing their jobs and
    delivering service during the pandemic, in turn allowing their
    passengers to continue doing their essential work and providing
    valuable service to our communities and our economy. Now, years later,
    federal transportation funding policies put us right back where we
    started.
        Public transit systems provide widespread benefits that transcend
    local boundaries and fundamentally support national economic,
    environmental, and social goals. Congress must not treat public
    transportation as a solely local issue, as effective transit can have a
    multiplier effect on economic productivity and growth. Not to mention,
    they are the absolute lifeline to school, work, places of worship, and
    medical care for citizens without the funds or ability to own a car.
    Transit systems that have the long term viability and federal support
    to absorb unexpected shocks and challenges like the COVID-19 pandemic
    are as invaluable to our national economic interests as they are to the
    social fabric of the communities they serve. Congress must treat public
    transit as the critical component of our national infrastructure that
    it is.
        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.
    Fortunately, there are leaders in Congress who understand this and have
    introduced a legislative solution addressing just that. Subcommittee
    member Hank Johnson, introduced H.R. 7039, the Stronger Communities
    Through Better Transit Act, last Congress, which would significantly
    enhance public transit service nationwide by providing $20 billion per
    year for four years for operations funding. This would enable transit
    agencies to increase service frequency, expand service areas, and
    extend operating hours, thus improving accountability and convenience
    for passengers. The model provided in this bill directly addresses the
    operational shortfalls and skewed incentives created by our current
    federal funding framework. Transportation labor also applauds Senators
    Chris Van Hollen and John Fetterman for their similar legislation, the
    Moving Transit Forward Act of 2024. TTD and our affiliates very much
    look forward to working with Congress to move these bills forward and
    ensure the long-term success and sustainability of our public transit
    systems.
        Transit labor implores the Subcommittee to build on transit
    workforce development measures in any surface transportation
    reauthorization legislation as well. Since the labor-supported broader
    adoption of battery electric buses, the bus mechanic job has evolved to
    be more of a technician role, now including new skills like electric
    motor repair, computer literacy, diagnostic troubleshooting, and
    competency with select sophisticated software programs. On the
    operations side, new skills are needed as well to bring drivers and
    depot staff up to speed on managing electric buses. The IIJA
    successfully addressed this challenge by stipulating that 5% of Low or
    No (Lo-No) Emission Bus Competitive grant funds must be used by transit
    systems to fund workforce development. Now that this program has been
    put to the test, labor unions report that more resources are needed,
    and we support raising the workforce development set-aside to 10% of
    the grant. It's also important that Congress work to officially
    recognize the Transit Workforce Center (TWC) in Title 49 USC and ensure
    adequate funding so that transit systems across the country have high-
    quality curricula for training their workers.

    Eroding transit labor protections is not a viable solution for
    improving transit service or addressing budget shortfalls

        Strong labor protections are not a barrier to effective public
    transportation--they are essential to it. For over 50 years, transit
    labor protections have ensured that federal investments in transit
    systems do not come at the expense of the workers who operate,
    maintain, and power them. These protections uphold the basic principle
    that public dollars should strengthen communities, not erode the wages,
    rights, or working conditions of the very people delivering public
    services.
        Attempts to scapegoat transit labor protections as the cause of
    budget challenges or inefficiencies are both misleading and deeply
    cynical. They present a false choice between protecting workers and
    improving service--when, in fact, the two go hand in hand. Stable,
    well-supported workforces are the foundation of safe, reliable, and
    resilient transit systems.
        Far from obstructing progress, these protections have supported it.
    Reports from the Government Accountability Office \2\ and others have
    shown that transit labor protections have had minimal impact on costs
    or the adoption of new technologies. Instead, it has fostered stronger
    labor-management relationships, reduced conflict, and provided a
    framework for negotiating necessary change. Transit agencies that
    invest in their workforce--not just in hardware--are better positioned
    to deliver consistent, high-quality service to the public.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-02-78.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        And most importantly, union transit workers aren't just doing a
    job--they're building careers in public service. Whether it's a bus
    operator, station agent, mechanic, or dispatcher, these are skilled
    professionals who take pride in the work they do and the communities
    they serve. Because they have a long-term stake in the system, they
    become some of our most trusted sources of insight--raising red flags
    about safety issues, identifying inefficiencies, and offering practical
    solutions that only come from lived experience. Their institutional
    knowledge and daily presence on the front lines make them invaluable
    partners in improving service, maintaining public trust, and ensuring
    that transit systems operate safely and effectively.
        At TTD, we believe the federal government has a responsibility to
    ensure its investments lift standards--not lower them. That principle
    applies across every mode of transportation and to every worker who
    keeps our systems running.
        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 and common sense. Instead, we should uphold the principles that
    have long supported a fair and equitable transit workforce.
        Transit operator jobs have long been a pathway to the middle class
    for hard-working and public-service oriented professionals who love to
    interact with and serve their communities while they earn an honest
    living that can sustain themselves and their families. Transit labor
    protections are an essential part of how the profession came to be
    known this way, and are integral to the continued success of this
    profession as well.

    IIJA wins lead to promising opportunities in surface transportation
    reauthorization

        This Congress will be an exciting one for transportation policy, as
    Members, stakeholders, and transportation policy experts go back to the
    drawing board to craft the next surface transportation reauthorization.
    Before doing so, I want to take a look back at all that was
    accomplished for our nation's transit policies and programs through the
    IIJA.
        Prior to the passage of the IIJA, TTD and our affiliated unions had
    called for transportation infrastructure investments of the scale that
    this legislation delivered for decades. We would be remiss if we did
    not applaud President Biden and the leaders in Congress who put
    partisanship aside and showed Americans that we can all still work
    together. I hope that together we can accomplish a similar feat, in the
    same bipartisan fashion, with this next surface reauthorization.
        The efforts of transportation labor advocates and partners in
    Congress secured provisions in the IIJA that now statutorily require
    FTA to collect accurate data on transit workforce assaults, reform its
    PTASP process to include valuable worker voices and incorporate
    measures to reduce the risk of assault in every transit system, and to
    update its national safety plan to address the risk of assault and
    other public health concerns. The IIJA also ensured that major new
    investments in zero emission transit were paired with workforce
    training policies to ensure both the incumbent and future workforce
    have the necessary skills to maintain complex electrical equipment. We
    hope that this approach will serve as a model for the responsible
    deployment of other technological changes in transit systems in the
    future. Beyond the bounds of transit service, the IIJA made financial
    investments in transportation infrastructure that are reflective of the
    fact that efficient movement of people and goods across America
    requires a seamless, multimodal network. The IIJA ensured the expansion
    of this network was done so in a way that upholds high-road wages and
    labor standards for those that lay track, pour concrete, reinforce
    bridges, and install electrical equipment. It also ensured that as many
    materials and rolling stock acquisitions as possible were made in
    America with its Buy America provisions. TTD will always work to ensure
    that the power of the federal purse never works to undermine workers in
    their own communities.
        These IIJA accomplishments give Congress much to build on going
    forward, although much still remains to be done. TTD and its affiliates
    call for a surface transportation reauthorization that provides for the
    widespread retrofitting of buses to include physical barriers that
    protect drivers from bodily harm, whether it strikes in the form of a
    fist, bodily fluid, or physical object. We call for reauthorization
    legislation that seriously addresses funding challenges for transit
    agencies by providing funding flexibility and operating assistance. We
    also call on Congress to ensure that qualified, certified, operators be
    present on all vehicles used for public transportation, including
    vehicles that claim autonomous driving capabilities. The federal
    government must ensure that any new technologies onboard public
    transportation equipment meet existing safety and operational
    standards.

    Deployment of AV technology

        The deployment of automated vehicle (AV) technology in public
    transportation--absent a clear, enforceable federal framework--poses a
    significant risk not only to public safety but to the workforce that
    keeps our transit systems running. Without federal guardrails, we are
    witnessing a growing patchwork of state regulations, pilot projects,
    and private vendor practices that threaten to undermine labor
    protections, reduce service quality, and endanger passengers and
    workers alike. We've already seen examples of AV shuttles deployed with
    no human onboard, operated by third-party contractors with little or no
    training. This is not innovation--it's deregulation.
        Transit labor has never been anti-technology. What we oppose is a
    model of automation that treats workers as disposable, bypasses
    established safety protocols, and turns public transportation into a
    live experiment conducted at the expense of working people,
    pedestrians, road users, and some of the most vulnerable populations
    these companies claim will benefit but who unwittingly have become
    guinea pigs in service to testing unproven tech in real time. We
    strongly support policies that regulate AV deployment in transit by
    requiring certified operators to be onboard with the ability to assume
    control when necessary. At a minimum, any agency receiving federal
    funds for automated vehicles should be required to submit a
    comprehensive workforce development plan--ensuring that frontline
    transit workers are not replaced, but retrained, upskilled, and
    meaningfully integrated into the evolving transit ecosystem should
    these technologies one day prove themselves safe to operate.
        Congress has a central role to play in shaping the future of
    automation in transit. It is not enough to passively monitor this
    technology's emergence--a level of oversight that the National Highway
    Traffic Safety Administration is abjectly failing to provide, despite
    urgent calls from nearly 30 transportation unions and even the National
    Transportation Safety Board to take action. What we need is a
    proactive, worker-centered regulatory framework with enforceable
    standards, and that will require this committee's commitment to safety
    and to the workers back home in your districts. That means directing
    the Federal Transit Administration to use its authority to issue
    binding rules governing how AVs are deployed in public transit systems.
    A federal safety framework cannot be optional or advisory. Without
    clear direction from this Committee and the full Congress, we risk
    letting technology outpace the rules meant to keep riders and workers
    safe.
        We must require the Federal Transit Administration to establish
    binding minimum safety standards for the deployment of automated
    transit vehicles, and it must do so now--before experimentation becomes
    normalization. These standards must include requirements for operator
    presence, physical workstation protections, and full compliance with
    all existing drug and alcohol testing rules. Safety cannot be left to
    the discretion of vendors or negotiated piecemeal in local pilot
    programs. This is especially urgent as some AV deployments have moved
    forward with temporary waivers or exemptions from core transit safety
    rules--an unacceptable trend that Congress must halt. FTA already has a
    statutory safety mandate; it must use it to ensure that public dollars
    fund public goods--not unsafe, unregulated alternatives.
        Equally important is the need to prevent the misuse of federal
    transit funding to support unregulated, third-party-operated
    microtransit services that undermine public transit systems and the
    union workforce that operates them. We align ourselves with our
    affiliated unions, who are unified in calling for strict federal limits
    on these services: they must start or end at existing transit hubs;
    they must fully comply with all FTA safety and labor requirements,
    including drug and alcohol testing; and they must not duplicate
    existing fixed-route service or accrue deadhead miles on the public
    dime. Federal dollars must never be used to subsidize the erosion of
    worker protections or the outsourcing of core transit functions to the
    lowest bidder. If microtransit is to play a role in the future of
    mobility, it must supplement--not replace--public transit, and it must
    be held to the same standards. Anything less risks turning public
    transportation into a fragmented, unaccountable gig economy.

    Congress should use its oversight authority to ensure a fully
    functioning FTA

        As America's largest transportation labor federation representing
    thousands of federal workers, we must take a moment to comment on the
    new administration's brazen and unconsidered actions towards the
    federal workforce.
        To be absolutely clear: Forcing the Federal Transit Administration
    to abruptly scale back its staff--especially amid an unprecedented
    volume of active, high-stakes projects--would be deeply damaging to the
    public interest. FTA's workforce includes experienced professionals who
    don't just administer grant programs; they serve as long-term stewards
    of public investment. Like unionized transit workers on the frontlines,
    these career staff are deeply invested in the success, safety, and
    integrity of the systems they support. They know how to spot problems
    before they derail a project, how to navigate complex local conditions,
    and how to help agencies design programs that are equitable, efficient,
    and durable. Gutting that institutional capacity risks leaving billions
    in critical infrastructure funding stranded and hundreds of transit
    projects stuck in limbo--not because communities failed to plan, but
    because Washington chose to pull expertise off the field at the exact
    moment it was needed most.
        Should recent trends regarding the White House's approach to
    federal workers' collective bargaining rights be extended to FTA
    employees, I urge you to keep in mind that federal employees already
    abide by strict collective bargaining terms, and forfeit many of the
    rights that private sector employees maintain, including wage and
    benefit negotiations and the right to strike. The Trump
    Administration's recent actions in gutting multiple federal labor
    relations institutions leave these workers powerless to employer
    retaliation and unfair labor practices. Without the career public
    servants and their collective expertise built from years of experience
    in office to implement your legislation and directions, this
    Subcommittee's authority becomes effectively neutered.
        TTD believes in the value each of you bring to this Subcommittee,
    we believe in the value of bipartisan and bicameral work in Congress,
    we believe in the good intentions and expertise of your staff, and we
    believe in the checks and balances Congress and the Executive Branch
    impose on one another. Just as we implore you to believe in the
    insights of frontline workers as the eyes and ears of our
    transportation system, we insist that you believe in the value and
    expertise of federal employees, and in their rights to bargain
    collectively.

        Mr. Rouzer. Thank you very much.
        And I thank all of you for your testimony. Very, very good.
        Mr. Ford, I got a little ahead of myself and did not
    recognize, I believe, you have your wife here.
        Mr. Ford. Yes.
        Mr. Rouzer. If you want to recognize her real quickly.
        Mr. Ford. My wife, Janet Walker Ford, has joined me today
    to support me in my testimony.
        Janet.
        Mr. Rouzer. Well, they say behind every great man is a
    really, really great woman.
        Mr. Ford. Yes, definitely.
        Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Ford, I am going to start with you on the
    questions.
        As I mentioned in my opening remarks, FTA received a
    historic level of investment from IIJA and supplemental COVID
    funding, yet ridership numbers remain below prepandemic levels.
        The FTA also reports the injury rate per 100 million
    passengers has jumped 294 percent, and fatalities 300 percent,
    from 2008 to 2022.
        So what suggestions does APTA have to address crime and
    improve overall ridership numbers on transit systems, with the
    understanding, of course, that we don't have an unlimited
    checkbook?
        Mr. Ford. Yes. Thank you for that question, Mr. Chairman.
        And let me start by saying to the entire committee, one
    crime or one incident harming an employee or any of our riders
    is one too many.
        And my peers around the country, both on the private-sector
    side as well as on the public agency side, we are doing all
    that we can, using technology to identify risks, in terms of
    our operations, where potential accidents may occur or
    incidents may occur as it relates to crime, using artificial
    intelligence and a whole host of other tools to dissuade crime
    on our systems.
        We want to try and put this in a bit of perspective in
    terms of safety overall. Public transportation is one of the
    safest modes in carrying people, in moving people in our
    community. In fact, compared to actual cars operating on our
    roads and our streets, we are 10 times safer. However, in terms
    of our systems, a crime, unfortunately, is one too many.
        Having said that, I just want to keep things in
    perspective. Using transit saves lives by getting people off
    the street and getting them on our public transportation
    systems. We do believe that Federal funding is critical in
    that.
        You may have heard that in terms of our state of good
    repair, the backlog of state of good repair does move into the
    realm of creating unsafe systems and operations. And so
    continuing Federal funding at the highest levels that we could
    have it provided will allow us to be safer systems.
        We have also looked at data related to the communities we
    operate in. As we watch crime throughout our communities, our
    systems, in many cases, are the place of refuge for a lot of
    the citizens in our communities. They see our stations and our
    terminals as places of safety and security. We have deployments
    of officers, as well as security guards, and then also
    hardening of our vehicles with barriers for the bus operators
    or the train operator to continue to do their jobs in a safe
    manner.
        So I think I just want to end with what I started with. We
    take crime very seriously. We are working with local
    jurisdictions in our communities, police departments, sheriff's
    offices to ensure the highest levels of safety on our system.
        Are we 100 percent there? There is still always more work
    to do until we get to zero crimes and incidents on our systems.
        Mr. Rouzer. Ms. Cline, can you elaborate on the types of
    services Prairie Hills Transit offers and how you are able to
    operate on a balanced budget, understanding, of course, that
    rural areas have challenges that you may not have in other
    areas, obviously?
        Ms. Cline. Thank you for the question.
        We provide all types of service up until we get to
    emergency, such as ambulance service. But we are providing all
    the way from transportation for school-age children,
    transportation for individuals with disabilities.
        The majority of our vehicles are lift-equipped or ramp-
    equipped, and the fact that we are able to provide a full
    service is very important to all the communities that we serve.
        Now, let me remind you that the majority of our service
    area can be seven people or less per square mile. So the fact
    that we are able to still serve those individuals living in
    highly rural areas--or sometimes we call them ``frontier''--is
    optimal to allowing those individuals to continue living in
    their own homes, being taxpaying members, productive citizens
    in their own communities.
        Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Booterbaugh, really quickly, contracted
    services can improve efficiency and decrease overall costs. Can
    you talk about that a little bit in the last 20 seconds?
        Mr. Booterbaugh. Sure. I will try to be quick.
        So we really view it as an opportunity by strengthening
    transit, by combining public oversight with private innovation
    and flexibility.
        So our focus is really to look at systems, work with
    agencies in collaboration to figure out how we can build more
    effective, efficient systems through operator training,
    innovation, and just our scale across the globe.
        Mr. Rouzer. My time has expired.
        Ms. Norton.
        Ms. Norton. Mr. Regan, bus operator safety is a key issue
    for your members and needs to be a priority for this committee
    in the next surface transportation reauthorization bill.
        What recommendations do you have for making sure frontline
    workers are protected on the job?
        Mr. Regan. Thank you, Ranking Member.
        This has become an increasing problem. And what we have
    recommended certainly is to go beyond what was already achieved
    by Congress in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
        We would like to see a full requirement of physical
    barriers so we can redesign the workspace for bus operators and
    transit operators to protect them from outside threats, be it
    somebody trying to force their way in, someone throwing
    something at the operator.
        But redesigning that workspace--and that is what it is for
    these transit operators, is their office--and we need to have a
    direction, a directive and Federal leadership to ensure that we
    are designing these spaces in a way that they are safe but also
    that the passengers that they are driving are safe as well.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Regan.
        Mr. Ford and Mr. Regan, riding transit is 10 times safer
    than driving a car. However, the Trump administration has
    threatened to withhold funds for major transit systems, citing
    purported concerns about safety.
        What would withholding Federal funds mean for transit
    safety?
        Mr. Ford. Thank you for the question.
        In terms of Federal funding, it is very important that we
    look at the overall funding picture for public transportation.
    The work that we do and the funding we receive to maintain our
    systems in a state of good repair, it inures to us having safe
    systems from an operational standpoint, the reliability of our
    equipment, the maintenance of our equipment, ensuring that our
    systems, our infrastructure is kept in a state of good repair.
        I would also say that we rely on our Federal partners in
    terms of that funding because then there is additional funding
    that could be utilized to create security for our operators and
    our maintenance personnel, frontline personnel who are actually
    working in our facilities.
        So funding is critical in terms of the overall safety of
    our systems.
        Mr. Regan. I agree entirely with what Mr. Ford said. This
    is a critical issue. And if we are trying--if we are going to
    make progress on improving safety, we need to have these
    investments in our systems.
        Whether it be having more uniformed police available, just
    the visual of having people, security personnel there in the
    systems, helps a great deal, but also improving the
    infrastructure of the system itself.
        There can be better gate technology, which we are seeing
    here in Washington, DC, for example. There could be designing
    the facilities on the buses themselves, ensuring that we have
    better camera coverage, as well.
        Those are all things that require funding and stuff that
    the Federal Government needs to take a leadership role in to
    make sure that we have it across the needs of different
    agencies.
        Ms. Norton. Mr. Ford, your testimony noted that
    Jacksonville is developing a transit-centered approach to
    Vision Zero which focuses on improving bicycles and pedestrian
    safety around public transit facilities.
        How is Jacksonville improving safety across modes?
        Mr. Ford. Thank you for the question.
        We believe in a holistic transportation system approach,
    and so as we have done work with our current transit system--
    and back in 2015, we did a total restructuring of our route
    structure that had been in place for 30 years.
        When we did that, we identified gaps--sidewalk gaps, bike
    lane gaps--that actually hindered the utilization of our
    transit system. So we have adopted a complete streets process
    that when we do a road project or a transit project, we look at
    accessibility for all modes, whether you are in a car, riding
    public transit, biking, or walking.
        And we have a holistic approach to infrastructure, which
    has improved the safety in our community for all users of our
    roadways.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Webster.
        Mr. Webster of Florida. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
    for having this committee meeting. It is timely.
        Mr. Ford, I have long been concerned about improving the
    transportation for seniors and for people with disabilities. In
    my district is The Villages, where all your dreams come true,
    and they hosted a pilot program 2 years ago in conjunction with
    the Florida Department of Transportation that deployed a shared
    autonomous shuttle. And it was used in conjunction with a
    healthcare facility there, and it worked out great.
        But are autonomous vehicles you deploy in Jacksonville
    accessible by seniors and those with disabilities?
        Mr. Ford. Yes. Thank you for the question.
        Yes, they are accessible for senior citizens in our
    community, and in fact, we used our Senior and Disabled
    Advisory Committee to help us design the vehicles that will be
    deployed on our project this summer.
        And so, we sought their input very early on, with our
    contractors, to develop a fully accessible public transit
    autonomous vehicle shuttle.
        Mr. Webster of Florida. In your experience, how are you
    ensuring that accessibility is a key feature as we continue to
    develop this technology?
        Mr. Ford. Yes. As we developed this technology, we
    recognize that for senior citizens, as well as the disabled
    community, having those special needs, we drive our design of
    these systems to support those individuals first, which then
    clearly will provide accessibility for the rest of our
    community.
        So we design with the most challenging accessibility
    population in our community, which is seniors, children,
    disabled members of our community. That is part of our initial
    design, and they were there at the very forefront of the U\2\C
    program.
        Mr. Webster of Florida. Fantastic.
        Ms. Cline, if there were an infrastructure bank created for
    each State, funded totally by private money and leveraged
    maybe--and you leveraged 10 percent of that for local projects
    that are rural in nature, could you see that helping in
    addressing some of the infrastructure needs that are a benefit
    to the transit industry?
        Ms. Cline. Thank you for that question.
        Our system never misses an opportunity to apply for funding
    similar to what you are speaking. And I believe that if we had
    something where we were able to do that, that it would
    definitely be beneficial for the rural areas and small
    communities.
        Mr. Webster of Florida. Great. Thank you very much.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Johnson, you are recognized.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
    Member, for holding this hearing.
        And thank the witnesses for your testimony today.
        It is time that we start thinking about working class
    Americans. They are living in constant fear, seeing headlines
    every day about the economy going into the tank because of
    tariffs, about cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and
    other programs that they depend on.
        And my office is flooded with calls and emails from people
    terrified they will lose their benefits, their job, and their
    security.
        When we talk about our transit system, we are really
    talking about people. I think about the working families who
    depend on transit to get to work on time, to get their kids to
    school, or to make a doctor's appointment without a car.
        During the pandemic, Congress stepped up. We made sure that
    buses ran, trains kept moving, and workers stayed on the job.
    Then we doubled down with the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law,
    the largest transit investment in U.S. history.
        Now is not the time to be stepping back from that progress.
    We would be neglecting the very workers who kept this country
    running and who risked their lives during a global crisis to
    keep the wheels of America turning.
        So cutting transit investment will not just slow progress,
    it will raise unemployment and send a dangerous message that
    some people simply don't matter. It is time to stop taking from
    working class Americans and start giving them the future that
    they deserve.
        Mr. Regan, on March 27, President Trump signed an Executive
    order ending collective bargaining at agencies involved in
    national security, claiming it would allow these agencies to,
    quote, ``execute their missions without delays or interference
    from union-related obstacles,'' end quote.
        There is a concern that this Executive order will be used
    to erode collective bargaining rights in other agencies like
    the Federal Transit Administration.
        Given the challenges transit workers are facing, can you
    discuss how this Executive order could affect their ability to
    advocate for themselves?
        Mr. Regan. Yes, and thank you for the question.
        The Executive order--Federal employees already--it is
    already a right-to-work environment. They don't have the
    ability to collectively--or to bargain for wages and benefits.
        I mean, this is about protections in the workplace. The
    union representation they get is to make sure that they are not
    unfairly punished.
        The way that that Executive order is executed, what they
    are trying to do, essentially it says that you are a national
    security threat if you exercise your right of freedom of
    assembly. That is what they are saying, that the minute you
    join a union, you are now unable to help a safety-sensitive or
    a security-sensitive function in your job.
        And I think that is a very chilling message, because it is
    one of the most American things you can do, is to vote for and
    join a union. It is a First Amendment, freedom of assembly
    right. And that type of mindset should be chilling to all other
    union workers and certainly in areas where safety is critical
    and where Federal funding is also critical.
        So we are vocally opposed to that Executive order. We are
    really concerned about it stretching into other areas. But we
    are going to fight back because we think it is vital that these
    workers have the protections that they have earned and that are
    enshrined in our Constitution.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you.
        Sir, we have seen how public transit agencies have
    navigated the challenges brought on by the pandemic. Federal
    investments, such as the $108 billion in the Bipartisan
    Infrastructure Law and the $30 billion in the American Rescue
    Plan, were vital in keeping these agencies operational.
        However, this funding is starting to run out, and many
    systems are now facing a financial crisis.
        As Congress works on the next surface transportation bill,
    what do transit agencies and workers need from Congress to
    avoid financial instability and to maintain the recovery
    momentum?
        Mr. Regan. Well, I think we need to--I think this is a
    really important opportunity for us as a Government to evaluate
    how our programs are working. And I think we had a brief pause
    during the pandemic where we allowed for operational
    assistance, the use of Federal funds for operating assistance.
    That obviously has ended now.
        I think we need to make sure that, as we are looking to
    reauthorize these programs, we are meeting the needs of the
    various agencies throughout our country. That includes some
    areas where they need capital investments. In some agencies,
    they may need capital investments. In other areas, they may
    need operational assistance.
        And there should be flexibility built in to meet the needs
    of the communities that are relying on these funds. So how we
    do that is an important question that this committee and all
    stakeholders are going to have going forward.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. All right. Thank you.
        I am out of time, and I yield back.
        Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Johnson.
        Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Cline, I will come to you again. Of course, you talked
    about how large your agency is, the area it covers.
        Although it is not just you. I was at River Cities Transit
    not that long ago, and they cover an area from Pennington
    County in the west, to Dewey County in the north, to Todd
    County in the south, Minnehaha County in the east.
        I mean, this is really--the geography can be daunting, and
    yet, you mentioned the ridership for Prairie Hills is up 5
    percent. Tell us why that is.
        Ms. Cline. Great question.
        I think part of it is that for 35 years, people have relied
    on Prairie Hills Transit. They know the name, they know the
    reputation. We have three drivers that have been there for 25
    years. So they know their friends, their drivers, their
    neighbors.
        But increased ridership in particular for children needing
    to get to schools so parents can stay at work, not have to
    leave work, increased ridership for different types of pools--
    National Guard, soccer parents, those kinds of things.
        We are not just doing business the way we have always done
    it. We are always looking for new ways to meet what the people
    in the communities are really looking forward to.
        Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. So, I mean, obviously
    increased ridership means increased number of drivers. I
    suspect you, like a lot of agencies, even with the long-tenured
    drivers you have got, probably it is difficult to find good
    drivers when you do have an opening.
        Some have suggested that the CDL ``under the hood''
    exemption would be helpful. Tell us more about that.
        Ms. Cline. Yes, that would remove one of the restrictions
    that drivers who are CDL-eligible or have their passenger
    endorsements need to meet.
        Many of the buses, I think, and agencies downsized to
    smaller vehicles, but definitely the CDL requirements got much
    more cumbersome, much more intensive. And so removing that one
    piece would definitely be helpful to agencies, in particular
    smaller ones.
        Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. So often these new
    regulations, they may be well intentioned, but they can
    actually be really detrimental. And so you look at some of
    these CDL requirements, I mean, ostensibly, that should make us
    safer.
        I mean, what does the data with your agency say? I mean,
    are the safety numbers worse for the drivers without CDL
    driving those smaller vehicles? I would assume you have safe
    driver data on either class of vehicle.
        Ms. Cline. No. And the example I would use is the three
    drivers that have that 25 years of experience, that has been
    accident-free.
        But we also have a significant amount of training that goes
    into our drivers before they ever hit the road. And so they
    have certification courses that are trained through CTAA, and
    we do first aid, CPR.
        The training that drivers have is, I think, sometimes not
    identified by the general public--oh, we hired this guy, threw
    him in a bus, and now they are driving us--but it is
    significant. And so, our agency has never had an accident of
    significance and definitely never a fatality in that 35 years.
        Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. So--but I want to make sure I
    understand. The new CDL requirements that went into effect
    maybe a couple of years ago now, you haven't seen any evidence
    in the field that that has increased safety?
        Ms. Cline. No. And, in fact, for agencies like us, it has
    become a real burden because to go to a university and get the
    training, it is extremely expensive. To have an in-house person
    that has already got multiple other duties doing that training.
    We are even training drivers for the school system. So it is
    cumbersome, and it doesn't need to be.
        Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. Are there other examples you
    can think of, of where Federal regulations complicate rather
    than aid your work? Like, what do we need to work on? I mean,
    tell us, on a bipartisan basis, what can we go fix so you can
    do a better job of connecting people to social, economic, and
    educational opportunities?
        Ms. Cline. Okay. Well, my example is, I have a staff of 60.
    You already heard that. Four of us are administrative people.
    So every time a regulation comes up that says, ``You need to do
    this, you need to do that,'' it is up to that staff of four to
    figure out how we do that to meet the relationships of all of
    the additional regulation.
        But certainly, we can downsize that. We would really like
    to downsize that. NEPA is one of the requirements that would
    definitely help us in new projects, building projects.
        Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, I told you she
    was good.
        With that, I would yield back.
        Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Garcia.
        Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, of
    course, the witnesses today.
        The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law provided a stable,
    predictable source of funding for numerous types of projects
    over a 5-year period. As we sit here, however, this
    administration is seeking to revoke projects that were funded
    by the infrastructure law.
        They are looking for projects that mention words like
    ``green,'' ``bicycle infrastructure,'' ``equity,'' and
    ``climate change.'' Some unobligated projects with these words
    would be subject to an additional layer of review according to
    a recent DOT memo.
        What message are we sending to State and local partners
    about the Federal Government's ability to keep its funding
    promises? What precedent does this set?
        We are talking about safety projects. Protected bike lanes
    connect people to bus and rail lines. Streetscape improvements
    enhance pedestrian safety and incentivize the use of public
    transit. Billions of dollars are at risk.
        Mr. Regan, your testimony mentions that public transit
    ridership has recovered to about 85 percent or so of
    prepandemic levels. We seem to be on the right track, but
    fiscal cliff challenges remain.
        Can you detail what impact this funding freeze would have
    on the public transit sector, both on workforce and service
    levels as well?
        Mr. Regan. Thank you for the question.
        I think it is very risky to be subjecting extra layering to
    these projects, both from the jobs perspective that I am happy
    to represent, but also from the progress perspective of what
    the infrastructure law was intended to do over a 5-year period.
        And I think it is also important to remember that these
    grants, these projects that were being awarded, these were not
    developed by people at FTA. This is what your community needs.
    These are from local leaders who decided we should apply for
    money for this purpose because this is a need in our community.
        And I don't care if you are in a large city, like if you
    are in Manhattan, or if you are in Lincoln, Nebraska, or if you
    are in Jackson, Mississippi, there is going to be a need for
    Federal funds, and the local leaders are deciding that this is
    something that will benefit our constituents.
        So when you are scrutinizing specific words in an
    application like that, it is going after the decisions made by
    local leaders that I think is very sort of tone-deaf to what
    they--they are telling you what they need. They are telling you
    that this is how this program, this money can help us. And we
    should be supporting all those efforts regardless of where the
    project is.
        Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you. I hope people are
    listening.
        I also appreciate your highlighting a topic that some see
    as an easy fix for financial challenges faced by transit
    agencies. That is using autonomous vehicles in the public
    transit sector.
        We are seeing local pilot programs experiment with this
    technology. Without a Federal framework, States are free to
    develop their own plans, potentially without regard to the
    safety of pedestrians or bicyclists, or, worse, allow
    unregulated testing.
        Mr. Regan, do you agree that we need a uniform standard for
    autonomous vehicles in public transit?
        Mr. Regan. One hundred percent. We cannot be deploying
    untested technology without a strict Federal framework for how
    it can be deployed. And that includes on the safety front, but
    also on the workforce front.
        We should make sure that technology, as it is incorporated
    into our existing public transit systems, is additive to the
    workforce, that there are training opportunities, there are
    growth opportunities for the people who have these middle class
    jobs in communities across the country.
        It would be unwise to think you can stop technology, but it
    is wise to think that we can create a policy framework that
    makes sure that, as it is incorporated, it is done safely in a
    way that also benefits the communities economically and the
    people who are working in those systems.
        Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Well, thank you, and I am working
    on a bill to do just that.
        On AV testing on our roads--this is my final question, and
    we have got a half a minute to answer--what should this
    committee be thinking about regarding this technology as we
    approach the next surface reauthorization?
        Mr. Regan. Safety first. Any vehicles in the transit
    systems share the road space with pedestrians, with bicyclists,
    with private car operators. Adding into it a new technology,
    there are a lot of risks involved with that.
        And I think that it is incumbent upon regulators and
    legislators to make sure that we are doing it with an eye
    towards safety. If it is proven, if it is able to move forward,
    that we have safety is not going to be compromised at the
    least.
        Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you.
        And thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chairman. I yield
    back.
        Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Crawford.
        Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I guess one of the biggest issues that we wrestle with in
    this body across committees is urban-versus-rural divide, one
    of the things that we struggle with regardless of the topic of
    conversation.
        But the lane I want to go down today is exactly that, and
    that is, as you know, Ms. Cline, IIJA provided approximately
    $108.2 billion for FTA-administered programs.
        Large transit systems account for the majority of national
    transit ridership and service, but many of those systems can't
    even turn a profit and depend on Federal funding to operate.
        For example, through COVID-relief bills, FTA was provided
    with almost $70 billion in emergency supplemental funding and
    somehow that large transit system received 53.6 percent of that
    funding. Districts like mine are left watching these large
    transit systems take the bulk of the funding, and then my
    communities are scraping the bottom of the barrel for what is
    left.
        These metropolitan transit authorities are taking advantage
    of the system and leaving the rural areas to fend for
    themselves.
        So, Ms. Cline, can you explain to me how rural communities
    can compete against large transit authorities when it comes to
    Federal funding?
        Ms. Cline. The honest answer is I don't think we can
    compete with them. But we do a really good job of being able to
    develop private partnerships, public partnerships, engage in
    additional contractual work that helps support what we do.
        And because we are so rural, I think the majority of the
    individuals living in those communities have our backs, too. So
    they are helping us with the dollars that come in.
        But we are not able to compete with the huge urbanized
    properties. We develop close relationships with our closest
    small urban system and work with them closely, but funding-
    wise, their funding is a totally different resource. It comes
    directly to them. For a rural system like us, we are a
    subrecipient of the dollars that come to the State.
        Mr. Crawford. One of the things that--you start talking
    about transit systems, and most people sort of default to rail,
    commuter rail, things like this. But rural communities, that
    construct just doesn't exist. So we rely more heavily on
    infrastructure, that is our roads and bridges that serve
    transit authorities like yours.
        Infrastructure is the most important part of transit
    operations. Whether it is rail or road, it is vital that they
    are properly maintained and updated.
        But when it comes to funding for transit infrastructure,
    the bulk of the funding goes toward those large transit
    authorities that I described, what we consider--our first
    thought is some of the rail infrastructure.
        So it is important to continue to update and improve
    transit infrastructure for large metro areas. I am not denying
    that. This doesn't address the overall issue of the rural
    problem, though.
        And I am just wondering if you can provide me with some
    insight on how improving rural infrastructure can impact the
    overall health of our Nation's transit systems.
        Ms. Cline. Thank you.
        I think that improving funding would be very helpful in
    South Dakota in particular and many other rural States. Roads,
    highways, bridges are very important.
        And as an aside, sort of, we have done a suspension system
    on our buses. But that is all we operate. We don't operate
    rail. We don't operate ferries in South Dakota.
        So the ability to work through that is the important part
    for us. Additional funding is always great. Do we think that is
    going to happen right now? Probably not. But formulized
    funding--section 5310, 5311, 5339--are really important in the
    continued support through those funds.
        Mr. Crawford. Appreciate that.
        Let me talk about innovation. Transit legacy systems, such
    as subways, things that we probably most often think about when
    we talk about transit systems, are often very cost-inefficient,
    unable to turn a profit.
        So let me ask you, Mr. Feigenbaum, would investments in new
    technology and transit systems such as autonomous vehicles and
    buses free up more transit dollars to be invested in smaller
    and more rural communities?
        Mr. Feigenbaum. Yes, they absolutely would, and I think
    they are something that should be tested. Obviously, some of
    them are not ready for primetime right now, which is why we
    have the testing programs.
        I know it is a contentious issue, but labor costs are one
    of the highest costs of transit, and so to try to get the
    overall system, more service at a lower cost, that is one of
    the things that a lot of transit agencies are looking at.
        Mr. Crawford. Excellent.
        Thank you all for being here. You have been very helpful.
    Appreciate it.
        Mr. Rouzer. Ms. Hoyle.
        Ms. Hoyle of Oregon. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        First of all, I would like to recognize two constituents
    who are here from my district, Jameson Auten, the director of
    Lane Transit District, and Susan Soonkeum Cox, who is the chair
    of the Lane Transit Board. Thank you for being here. Very much
    appreciate the work that you do in both our urban and rural
    communities.
        Our people rely on the infrastructure that you are willing
    to put forward. And I think our transit system, for the size
    that we are, is exceptional. So thank you for utilizing our
    taxpayer dollars efficiently.
        So transit workers are facing increasing threats on the
    job; 121-percent increase in reported assaults on operators
    from 2008 until 2021. I talk to many of our transit operators
    who really have come to fear going to work. It is incredibly
    stressful.
        Nearly 60 percent of the Amalgamated Transit Union members
    report that the risk of assault affects their mental health.
    And there is a real reason to fear.
        Many assaults are also underreported. Workers often stay
    silent because they believe reporting it won't lead to action
    or they fear retaliation.
        Concerns about crime can drive people away from public
    transit, right? That is a real fear. A safer transit system
    brings in more riders, builds public trust, and creates better
    working conditions for workers who keep it running.
        Mr. Regan, how can we ensure operator assault data required
    by the FTA isn't just collected, but actually leads to
    enforcements, accountability, and required safety improvements?
        Mr. Regan. Thank you for the question.
        I think those of us in the labor community always viewed
    those worker-safety provisions in the IIJA as an important
    first step, that that was by no means the solution to the
    problem. And we also have an understanding that when you are
    trying to correct such a big problem, it is going to take time.
    And data that informs you where the risks are is so critical to
    making sure that we can make informed decisions about how to
    protect workers and passengers.
        The other important aspect is, that data needs to get to
    the safety committees at each of these agencies. And one of the
    most important reforms we did there was to make sure that the
    workers, the unions, had an equal seat at the table in terms of
    creating a safe work environment, to create a safe transit
    system, because there is nobody who is going to understand the
    risks better than the people who are on the ground, on the
    buses, doing the jobs.
        So those committees, as they take in the data and as they
    incorporate the legitimate views of their workforce, that is
    going to be a really important step for how we can actually try
    to solve this.
        But we do need to go farther. We need to make sure that we
    are redesigning workspaces, as I mentioned, incorporating
    barriers where possible.
        Moving the ball forward in this next bill is going to be a
    critical point on how are we going to solve this problem for
    good and not just give a wave at it and move on.
        Ms. Hoyle of Oregon. Right. Thank you.
        Transit agencies are on the front lines of public health,
    housing insecurity, community safety, often without the
    resources to address those challenges.
        Mr. Regan, do you think this shows the need for more
    flexible Federal operating funds to keep agencies protecting
    workers, supporting riders, and keeping systems running safely?
    And do you, very briefly, have some examples of how you think
    that could work?
        Mr. Regan. Yes, and I think Mr. Ford mentioned this, as
    well, in his testimony, that as the Federal programs are meant
    to support these agencies across the country, in many ways, the
    programs need to meet agencies where they are.
        That means there are going to be some places that
    desperately need operating assistance and other places that
    need capital assistance to invest in new buses. And we should
    be designing these programs so that it is meeting the needs of
    different types of agencies across the board.
        Ms. Hoyle of Oregon. Great. Thank you very much.
        And I yield back.
        Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Babin.
        Dr. Babin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And I want to thank the witnesses here. Appreciate you.
        Mr. Feigenbaum, you mentioned in your testimony that
    contracting certain services can cut individual transit
    authorities' operating budgets by as much as 30 percent.
        Why haven't more agencies adopted this approach? And what
    barriers are there to prevent more public transit folks from
    using this strategy?
        Mr. Feigenbaum. Sure. Thanks for the question.
        Dr. Babin. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Feigenbaum. So the easiest answer is that it is much
    easier when you are starting up a new service than when you
    have an established service. Because when you have an
    established service, depending on the rules you have with
    labor, depending on some of the other conditions, it can be
    more challenging. There is also just institutional inertia:
    ``We have done it this way. We are not interested in looking.''
        And it is not always the cheapest solution. But I do think
    that agencies should look to get three bids, minimum of three
    bids, from private contractors--there are many of them that
    operate across this country--and also look at doing it
    themselves and seeing what gets the best value. Because it is a
    combination of lower cost and better ridership experience.
        Dr. Babin. Okay. Thank you.
        Mr. Ford, thank you for being here.
        You talked in your testimony about the cost savings
    associated with introducing autonomous vehicles into your
    fleet. What barriers have you encountered as your agency has
    worked through the Ultimate Urban Circulator project while
    adopting this cutting-edge technology?
        Mr. Ford. Thank you for the question.
        Dr. Babin. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Ford. This has been a challenge. And it is probably
    something that our community has embraced as a challenge, to
    provide more transportation in our community at a much more
    cost-efficient level.
        I think it was spoken of earlier, in terms of the cost of
    providing 1 mile of service, the largest cost is the operator
    cost. We do believe, though, in terms of our fixed-route
    services, the larger buses, that impact on our busdrivers will
    come much farther in the future. We will upskill them so they
    will be able to take advantage of the jobs in the future.
        However, as it relates to the autonomous shuttles that we
    are operating, we see them actually helping us solve the first-
    mile/last-mile-type issue. While we may have a robust fixed-
    route bus system, the challenge in an 870-square-mile community
    is getting people to that bus stop. And so our Urban Circulator
    program is focused on downtown, but we see it expanding
    throughout our community and being tailormade for those
    particular communities that don't need a 40-foot bus.
        Dr. Babin. Okay. Thank you very much.
        And one more, Mr. Ford. You also talked in your testimony
    about integrating emerging technologies like AI into traffic
    management systems. And what has Jacksonville's experience with
    AI been in your transit system, and how would you recommend
    other agencies adopt it to make their systems safer and more
    efficient?
        And then, finally, how does Jacksonville implement the
    data-security measures to prevent all the data collected and
    analyzed by the system from being used to surveil American
    citizens, the citizens of your fair city there, as we have seen
    the Communist Party of China do in their country?
        Mr. Ford. Very good question.
        So, as it relates to ensuring that our technology isn't
    leveraged, or, I guess, hacked, for a better description, we
    have put together some very robust cybersecurity programs and
    testing, in terms of testing those systems for penetration and
    things of that nature.
        In fact, in terms of our autonomous vehicle program, we set
    up a separate cybersecurity IT system, separate for those
    vehicles, because we would assume they would be a very
    lucrative target for mal-actors, criminals.
        Dr. Babin. Right.
        Mr. Ford. As it relates to data management and AI, we are
    using it for everything from determining our route structures,
    how we determine what levels of service to provide, origins and
    destinations of our customers, as well as safety and security
    on our vehicles.
        We are able to identify hotspots in our community, and that
    is where we target our security forces and our investments in
    terms of the sheriff's office and our security guards to ensure
    safety.
        So we use data and analytics to actually make those
    decisions.
        Dr. Babin. And that data and analytics does not include
    surveillance and----
        Mr. Ford [interrupting]. No, sir.
        Dr. Babin [continuing]. Anything like that?
        Mr. Ford. No, sir.
        Dr. Babin. Okay. All right. Thank you very much.
        I am running out of time, but I appreciate all the
    questions in the past on criminal activity in these transit
    systems. Prosecution, arrests, and protection of workers and
    customers is absolutely necessary.
        So, with that, I will yield back.
        Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Nadler.
        Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Secretary Duffy's crusade against agencies like the MTA
    paints a picture of unsafe, unaccountable transit, but the
    facts tell a different story. According to the National Safety
    Council, public transit is 10 times safer than driving. In New
    York, subway crime is at its lowest level in nearly 30 years,
    thanks to Federal investments in cameras, operator barriers,
    safety teams, and training.
        So, when Secretary Duffy threatens to withhold funding, he
    is not improving safety; he is undermining it. Instead of
    making threats, the Federal Government should increase funding
    for public transit and give agencies added flexibility to
    better use that funding to keep riders and workers safe.
        Mr. Ford, your testimony highlighted that ridership is
    rising across the country and that even modest shifts from
    driving to transit can reduce traffic fatalities by as much as
    50 percent. You also emphasized that agencies are taking a
    layered approach to safety, investing in everything from
    transit ambassadors to cutting-edge technologies to keep riders
    secure.
        Given that progress, what do you want the traveling public
    to understand about the safety of taking transit today?
        Mr. Ford. Thank you for that question.
        Transit is one of the safest modes for our citizens in this
    country in terms of transportation and potential safety and
    criminal activity. So we are very proud of our record in terms
    of the progress that has been made.
        The challenge is that, as we go forward, how do we continue
    to have the funding that allows us to maintain and keep our
    systems safe as we go forward? And that is critical, and just
    making sure that adequate funding is in place for us to
    maintain the safety of our systems.
        Mr. Nadler. So, when Secretary Duffy threatens to withhold
    funding, either because of the alleged high crime rates or
    because he doesn't like the State's stand on congestion
    pricing, that would not help crime or safety in the system?
        Mr. Ford. As it relates to New York and safety of that
    system, it is a very unique situation. They are carrying
    millions of people on a daily basis. I can better speak to
    specifically in Jacksonville, where our citizens and our
    riders, we survey them every year.
        We carried over 7\1/2\ million passengers last year. Their
    ratings in terms of safety on the system--they feel that we
    are, in some cases, much safer than the communities that we
    actually operate in. And so they see us as a respite in terms
    of safety, as it relates to the wide swath of areas and
    communities that we traverse through.
        Mr. Nadler. As I said in my opening statement, in New York,
    subway crime is at its lowest level in 30 years. So, when the
    Secretary threatens to withhold funding because of allegedly
    high crime rates, which are not in fact high, or because of an
    unrelated subject where the administration doesn't like an MTA
    program on congestion pricing, that would not help crime; it
    would obviously go in the other direction.
        Mr. Regan, your testimony warns that recent efforts to roll
    back federally funded workforce development programs and
    dismantle union-negotiated training plans are not just
    misguided, they are dangerous. You point out that these
    programs are essential to building a skilled, stable, and safe
    transit workforce and that politicizing them puts both workers
    and passengers at risk.
        If these programs are weakened or eliminated under new
    ideological directives, what recourse do frontline transit
    workers have? And what role should Congress play in defending
    their rights and protections?
        Mr. Regan. Thank you for the question.
        And I think every transit operator in the country would
    acknowledge that hiring and retaining workers is a real concern
    for them right now. And these workforce development programs
    are a vital part of making sure that we have that sustained
    pipeline of workers that are going to be bus operators or
    transit operators or mechanics and maintenance workers.
        So, as we make investments, I think one of the most
    important things that was done in the IIJA was the requirement
    for workforce development as 5 percent of the Low or No
    Emission Bus Grants, for example. What that does is, it
    acknowledges that we are not just investing in stuff; we are
    investing in people. We are investing in our communities and
    the workers that are going to be responsible for transporting
    our constituents safely from point A to point B.
        So, as we invest in people as well as in new stuff, I think
    we get better outcomes all around.
        Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Stauber.
        Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        I want to talk to you briefly about a success story in
    northern Minnesota called Arrowhead Transit. It was established
    in 1974, and it is a primary provider of public transportation
    in the Arrowhead region of Minnesota. They are the largest
    rural public transportation system in the State.
        And they quote themselves: ``Our services cater to the
    diverse needs of our travelers, commuters, and community
    members. From scheduled services to our Volunteer Driver
    Program, we ensure convenient and accessible public
    transportation options for all. Our drivers undergo
    comprehensive training, covering defensive driving
    techniques,'' et cetera.
        ``At the core of our services is Dial-A-Ride, a flexible
    and personalized public transportation solution for those
    seeking adaptability in their commute. Unlike traditional
    routes, Dial-A-Ride offers inner-city public transportation
    with the flexibility you need, providing a quick and efficient
    journey tailored to your requirements,'' end quote.
        Ms. Cline, I have sponsored the Volunteer Driver Tax
    Appreciation Act in the past two sessions of Congress. This
    legislation increases the Federal tax-deduction mileage rate
    for volunteer drivers from its current rate, 14 cents per mile,
    to be equal to the Internal Revenue Service's business rate,
    currently set at 70 cents per mile.
        CTAA is a national sponsor of the bill. How could this help
    your agency and other rural transit agencies?
        Ms. Cline. Well, Prairie Hills Transit does not use
    volunteer drivers; however, we are very supportive of this. We
    do more of a neighbor-helping-neighbor-type situation with our
    drivers and communities.
        But I think, in the long run, it would be very beneficial
    for agencies using volunteer drivers to know that that is an
    option. It is certainly much more of an incentive to bring in
    that volunteer pool.
        Mr. Stauber. Yes, I spoke to some seniors in the district
    that I represent that use volunteer drivers. And the drivers
    and the citizen or neighbor, they build a relationship with
    that volunteer driver, they trust that volunteer driver. I have
    actually had them tell me they get nervous if another driver
    takes them to their appointment or the grocery store.
        I have also found it interesting that some of these
    volunteer drivers, they are not doing it for the money. They
    are doing it for the love of their community. And at least we
    can pay them the rate that the IRS is putting out. I mean, it
    is ridiculous. They can't even--in some instances in the past,
    they could not even pay for their gas to equate the cost of the
    trip. I mean, that is just unconscionable.
        And the Volunteer Driver Program--Arrowhead Transit
    regulates and puts it forward and helps establish the
    guidelines--that is a lifeline for our rural communities,
    especially in northern Minnesota.
        Systems serving large, rural regions, like your service
    area or like Arrowhead Transit in my district, have unique
    challenges. Ms. Cline, where can the regulatory burden be
    reduced to help you better serve the communities?
        Ms. Cline. Well, one of the things that we see is that--
    and, again, let me reiterate, we have 4 administrative staff to
    the total 60 employees that we have--we have both State and
    Federal regulations that we have to adhere to.
        Simplifying the vehicle procurement for us; reducing
    unnecessary data collection; I mentioned previously the NEPA
    guidance needs to be consistent with Federal highway rules to
    allow for property acquisition--those are all things that
    really compile and cause us to stay up at night.
        There are just so many things that a small staff needs to
    adhere to to make sure that you are doing them correctly.
        Mr. Stauber. And I appreciate what you do.
        And one of the rules and regulations was, volunteer drivers
    were going to be--and it didn't happen--were going to be
    required to have commercial insurance. You talk about ending a
    volunteer-driver service for rural America? You put that on the
    drivers. And you and your staff and the other agencies pushed
    back on that, and we must continue to push back on that.
        Thank you for your service.
        And, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
        Mr. Rouzer. Ms. Davids.
        Ms. Davids of Kansas. Thank you, Chairman.
        Thank you, also, just to the chair and to our ranking
    member for holding this hearing today.
        And then thank you to our witnesses for taking the time to
    be here and sharing your expertise with us.
        I am going to talk a little bit about where I am at, which
    is the Kansas Third. I am in the Kansas City metro area. And,
    next summer, Kansas City is going to be serving as one of the
    World Cup host cities--I am very excited about it; we are all
    very excited about it--with six games coming to the Kansas City
    region. Hundreds of thousands of visitors are going to be
    coming, not just from the U.S. but internationally, to
    experience the world-class soccer culture that we have, our
    hospitality, and, obviously, our barbecue.
        But I will say that this visitor load is--it is undoubtedly
    going to put a burden on the various transit systems that we
    have in the Kansas City region. And by holding a series of
    community conversations at the local level, I have been doing
    what I can to try to make sure that all our stakeholders are
    communicating, but, also, what the level of preparedness is,
    asking necessary questions from the Federal perspective about
    what we can do to make sure that this is successful.
        And we know that there are extraordinary--we are hearing
    about it today--extraordinary resource needs for transit, for
    security, workforce, and other areas of support. And that is
    especially true for this worldwide event that is going to be
    happening.
        So my first question is for the full panel. In your
    opinion, would a separate funding source or a separate funding
    mechanism for cities that are hosting large special events,
    whether it is the World Cup, things like the Olympics--those
    added costs to our transit systems, do you think that there
    should be or it would be beneficial to have some separate
    mechanism for funding transit security, public health?
        We can start here with Mr. Ford and go down.
        Mr. Ford. Thank you for that question, and it is extremely
    relevant. In fact, just this past weekend, at the American
    Public Transportation Association Mobility Conference, we have
    a special group of CEOs who are hosting the Olympics, the World
    Cup, both Los Angeles, Salt Lake, and then the myriad of World
    Cup cities, and that was a topic of discussion: How do we seek
    and secure additional funding to support our operations during
    these mega-events that are beneficial to our country but
    definitely beneficial from a local standpoint, in terms of
    additional revenue and funds and expenditures in that
    community, but that come at a cost? And, in many cases, the
    cost is far greater than the annual budget or the budgets of
    our transit systems. But it is worth the investment at the
    Federal level. We truly believe that.
        Ms. Davids of Kansas. Go ahead.
        Mr. Booterbaugh. Yes. Thanks for the question.
        RATP Dev is actually a Parisian company, so we have run the
    Olympics in Paris over the summer. And I think if you look to
    the organization that happened there, that is very much
    characteristic of how it happened. So there were different
    budgets set up for security, for movement of the athletes,
    people who--coaches.
        So there are different buckets set up that I think make it
    more of a viable option to fund these special events that
    otherwise just would get convoluted and it is difficult to find
    the appropriate funding.
        Ms. Davids of Kansas. Okay. And I appreciate that note,
    that we can look internationally for models----
        Mr. Booterbaugh [interposing]. Absolutely.
        Ms. Davids of Kansas [continuing]. Of funding mechanisms.
        So my second question that--we will see. My second question
    is, kind of, longer term operations of those same systems that
    are going to be very much used during these mega-events in
    communities like the Kansas City area.
        And Federal law allows transit authorities in cities with
    less than 200,000 residents to use Federal formula funds for
    transit operations, and transit systems in regions with more
    than 200,000 are not permitted to do that.
        As we talk about transit agencies continuing to make these
    tough decisions about how to manage budgets, having more
    flexibility to use their section 5307 dollars may help bridge
    the gap to keep bus routes or operations sustained.
        I know this has certainly been the case for the Kansas City
    Area Transportation Authority. They have been struggling to
    keep their bus routes running while dealing with various budget
    challenges.
        Mr. Ford, I will ask you to respond to that maybe in
    writing after. My time has expired. But I would love to hear a
    bit from you about flexibility of using section 5307 funds for
    transit operations.
        Mr. Ford. Yes. Very quickly, within our association, there
    is a great deal of debate----
        Ms. Davids of Kansas [interposing]. Okay.
        Mr. Ford [continuing]. At this juncture. So we have not
    come up with a final determination, as an association, in terms
    of that flexibility. And so, please----
        Ms. Davids of Kansas [interrupting]. A continued
    conversation, then, it sounds like.
        Mr. Ford. Yes, we need to continue that conversation. We
    look forward to working with you.
        Ms. Davids of Kansas. Thank you.
        Apologies for going over, Mr. Chair. I yield.
        Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Kiley.
        Mr. Kiley of California. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Ford, I want to ask you about the Jacksonville
    autonomous vehicle program. Because I think, as policymakers,
    we need to be thinking a lot more about the future of
    transportation, and I think that there is too often a failure
    to fully appreciate the extent to which the future truly has
    arrived, in many ways.
        And to see a very current example of this, you can go to a
    city in my State, San Francisco, where there is this stark
    juxtaposition.
        Starting with the public transportation that exists, you
    have BART, which is one of probably the worst public agencies
    in the U.S. The system is a total disaster. There is a $400
    million deficit right now. It is very unsafe. People don't feel
    safe getting on. It is a system from the 1970s. It is
    unreliable. The trains don't often run on time. Just generally
    an unpleasant passenger experience.
        But then you go aboveground and you see these sort of
    curious-looking vehicles at first that are operated by Waymo
    that have become an increasingly salient feature of the
    landscape in San Francisco. In fact, I believe that they are
    now second in the ride-share market. They have surpassed Lyft,
    and I think still behind Uber. But, in any case, this is
    actually, I feel like, not that well understood throughout the
    country for people who don't live in the few places where Waymo
    currently operates. And they are actually coming to Washington,
    DC, next year, so people around here are going to become a lot
    more familiar with it.
        But you think about, what is the future of transportation?
    And we can consider this to be public transportation. Even
    though that is not the use of Waymo right now, it is clearly
    going to be what you are going to be doing in Jacksonville. Is
    the future of transportation going to look like these systems
    from the past that don't really work very well and are only
    really available in a handful of cities? Or is it going to be
    this sort of seamless, point-to-point transit that is extremely
    reliable, that is extremely safe, and that gets you exactly
    where you want to go?
        Now, of course, there are all kinds of challenges involved
    in making that something that is broadly available and
    affordable and useful across the country, but I am interested
    in the model you are pioneering in Jacksonville.
        Mr. Ford. Thank you for the question.
        As the representative here and the witness testifying for
    the American Public Transportation Association, we do believe
    that the conventional transit systems that we currently
    operate--rail, bus rapid transit, fixed-route bus--it
    definitely has its place, because it helps with dealing with
    congestion in our communities, reducing the number of single-
    occupant cars. And in this Waymo example, you have one to two
    individuals in a conventional-type vehicle, automobile.
        So we are focusing on a shared-ride use of autonomous
    vehicles, and that is something that will be part of a holistic
    system of public transportation that will have our automated
    people mover, it will have our bus system, it will have these
    autonomous vehicles.
        We feel that the first-mile/last-mile challenge is one of
    the biggest challenges of getting people out of automobiles and
    onto public transportation. And in our community--we are not as
    dense as the bay area, but in our community, that first mile
    and last mile is the immediate barrier to people using public
    transportation, which would be, in the long run, much more
    affordable for them and accessible in terms of their lifestyle.
        Mr. Kiley of California. And that is a great point, that
    these systems can complement each other. And I certainly think
    that in areas where we have functional transit and subway
    systems, they will continue to be important. There are many,
    many communities across the country that don't have those
    opportunities available, though. So I think this is a very
    exciting possibility to expand that and to sort of think in a
    more imaginative and broader way about what public
    transportation and transit really looks like.
        And quickly, Ms. Cline--I have about a minute remaining
    here--I wanted to ask you about your transit program for
    veterans. Because this is one of the major obstacles that we
    see for veterans being able to get the care that they need, is
    just being able to get to their appointment at the VA, or,
    especially if they have some sort of specialist they need to
    see or procedure that isn't available within many miles, how do
    they even get to their appointment.
        Can you tell me a little bit about how that works and maybe
    how we could expand these sort of opportunities for our
    veterans?
        Ms. Cline. Certainly.
        The Highly Rural Transportation Grant is a program that was
    established simply for those veterans living in counties that
    have seven or less people per square mile. Now, that doesn't
    mean that if you don't live within that highly rural county
    that we won't provide transportation.
        But that program itself pays for the veterans' trips, so
    there is no charge to them. Some of the longest trips for those
    veterans can be between 200 and 300 miles, because that is the
    closest veteran facility for them.
        And so it is a grant program that you have to apply for
    individually. It is outside the other formulized or
    discretionary grant awards.
        Mr. Kiley of California. Well, thank you for what you are
    doing. And I think it is a great model that we should seek to
    spread and make more widely available for veterans across the
    country.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Stanton.
        Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you to the witnesses for testifying at this important
    hearing.
        Representative Kiley asked a very good question about
    autonomous vehicles. My district, in the East Valley area--
    Chandler, Mesa, Tempe, Ahwatukee--is the epicenter for Waymo
    and autonomous vehicles, and it is a very important part of the
    menu of options for transportation in my region.
        Great cities have as many diverse transportation options as
    possible, whether it is good streets and highways--we need
    thorough funding for those as well, but also more support for
    buses, bus rapid transit, light rail. We have had a huge
    success in my community in light rail. The streetcar system;
    autonomous vehicles, as Representative Kiley was talking about;
    microtransit, which is a great solution for the last-mile issue
    in cities across this country. We also need more support for
    bikeability and walkability of communities, as well.
        The full spectrum of transportation needs to be supported
    at the local and at the Federal level. I am the former mayor of
    Phoenix, and I know all too well how important it is for the
    Federal Government to be a strong partner to State and local
    governments so that we can offer as many transportation options
    to the people of our community as possible.
        And we need to view it not just in terms of ridership,
    although ridership is important. In my community, the economic
    development that has gone along where we have invested in light
    rail--and when I say ``we'' have invested, I mean the people of
    Phoenix, who have--we put it on the ballot. We had the largest
    public transportation investment and election supporting that,
    post-recession, across America, a 35-year, $32 billion plan,
    which was overwhelmingly supported by the people of Phoenix, in
    the red parts of the city and the blue parts of the city.
    People want smart transportation infrastructure investments,
    and I am very proud of the work we did to invest in public
    transportation in the city of Phoenix.
        Phoenix light rail is a case study for how smart
    transportation investment is a catalyst for economic
    development. Employers have flocked to the areas along the
    light-rail line. It has changed the built environment of our
    city, in terms of the density of housing and development. So
    many people moving from North Scottsdale, other parts of the
    city, and downsizing because they want to be near the action
    and energy along the light-rail line. Seventeen-and-a-half
    billion dollars of public and private invested along the 25
    existing miles of light rail. I say ``existing'' because we are
    growing in our light-rail system.
        We have continued to build on that success here in Congress
    to increase Federal investments in transportation, particularly
    through targeted Federal investments like the Capital
    Investment Grants that help local communities fund construction
    or expansion of larger transit projects.
        And I have been a broken record for the need to advocate
    for Federal funding for the project as well as increased
    resources for the CIG program. It has helped to finish
    construction on the northwest extension of light rail to
    Metrocenter, which is an incredibly important expansion of the
    system in Phoenix, an $850 million development that
    incorporates and centers public transit from day one.
        And because of CIG, we are having an amazing moment in my
    community in just a few weeks here, in which we are going to
    open the South Central light-rail expansion, opening 5 new
    miles of track in one of the most economically disadvantaged
    parts of the city, in south Phoenix--one of the most diverse
    parts of our city, as well--bringing new economic opportunities
    and job opportunities to its residents. Recognized as a ladder-
    of-opportunity program--remember that old program in the Obama
    administration?--using public transportation to help people
    improve their financial options, in terms of growth in their
    job opportunities and educational opportunities, because of
    that investment.
        Mr. Ford, as we prepare the next surface transportation
    reauthorization, we know the importance of the CIG program to
    our local communities. I have described how that has positively
    impacted my community that I led as mayor and now represent in
    Congress. Can you give other examples, in your capacity
    representing APTA, of how bolstering local investment in public
    transit betters local economies across the country?
        Mr. Ford. Thank you for the question.
        And, Congressman, I think it is critical, the success that
    the CIG has had across the Nation with a number of projects
    throughout our community.
        In Jacksonville, for example, we were able to build the
    First Coast Flyer bus rapid transit network, which is 58 miles
    of BRT, the largest BRT in the Southeast United States. And
    with that came along transit-oriented development, and,
    literally, the permits and building and residential that has
    been built along that corridor has been astronomical.
        One thing I would want to point out: As we look at
    continuing on Federal funding, that we look at how can we
    streamline the CIG process so that we can speed up the process
    of getting these projects built and in the ground. And so that
    is one of the platforms that APTA is pushing for, which is a
    zero-based examination of the CIG program and how can we move
    faster.
        Mr. Stanton. Yes. An important part of the ``Abundance
    Agenda,'' and----
        Mr. Ford [interposing]. Yes.
        Mr. Stanton [continuing]. That is very important.
        One final quick point, and that is: My friend Sharice
    Davids mentioned big public events. We hosted a very successful
    Super Bowl. We would not have been awarded the Super Bowl
    unless we had made those public transportation investments.
        Mr. Ford. Exactly.
        Mr. Stanton. With that, Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Ford. Thank you.
        Mr. Wied [presiding]. All right. The Chair now recognizes
    myself.
        Thank you to our witnesses for your testimony here today.
        I think it is clear that, while public transit is vital for
    those that have no other means of travel, we can't continue to
    throw money at transit services mindlessly and hope that they
    will magically become successful and self-sustaining. Even
    before COVID, ridership and revenue levels were decreasing. I
    think it is time we reexamine our approach to ensure that
    investments in transit are done in a manner that serves
    everyone, not just the legacy systems in major metropolitan
    areas.
        These issues were exacerbated under the Biden
    administration, which incorporated nonstatutory equity and
    environmental justice criteria into FTA-issued notice of
    funding opportunities to advance their flawed political
    agendas.
        Considering this, Ms. Cline, I was hoping you could
    elaborate on how administrative burdens like these prevent
    smaller transit systems from being able to access Federal
    funding opportunities and how Congress can make these funds
    more accessible.
        Ms. Cline. Well, again, I am going to go back to reducing
    the regulatory burden, because that is one of the biggest
    challenges that we face as a small system, as do many others.
        People have responsibilities in many other areas, but one
    of the things that we do are--many of our trips are 500 miles.
    They are not just across the street or to the grocery store. So
    having the ability to work within that timeframe, as well, and
    the budgetary constraints there.
        So funding us--we operate on a shoestring. And I don't mean
    that lightly, but we don't compare it to the large cities. What
    we do isn't the same. But what we do is every bit as important
    to the individuals living in that 12,500-square-mile area. It
    is important.
        Mr. Wied. All right. Thank you.
        On the topic of fare evasion, a DC Metro report in 2022
    found that one out of three bus riders weren't paying fares.
    And it is not just happening in Washington, DC, this is a
    common issue impacting major transit systems across the
    country.
        This, combined with the increase in violence on transit
    systems, discourages riders and puts the sustainability of
    these systems in jeopardy.
        Mr. Ford, given your background in the transportation
    industry both here and abroad, what policies or technologies
    are best suited to address crime and fare evasion on public
    transit systems?
        Mr. Ford. As it relates to crime, we continue to feel that
    we are one of the safest modes in the country in terms of
    transportation overall. So, if you are riding on public
    transit, you are avoiding an accident that may happen on one of
    our roadways in your automobile or in some other type of
    vehicle, which has about a 10-times greater rate in terms of
    safety and fatalities, things of that nature.
        As it relates to fare collection, our systems are doing a
    great job, I believe, in ensuring fares are being paid. The
    challenge is, in some of these activities related to
    particularly our bus operators, we are asking our bus operators
    to deescalate situations around fare evasion, because,
    unfortunately, in the worst-case scenario, someone gets very
    seriously injured or killed over a $1.50 to $2 fare.
        So we have to find and strike that right balance between
    what is happening in our communities that we serve and what
    happens on our actual transit system and vehicles.
        And so it is finding a right balance of training our
    operators, creating those physical barriers to prevent them
    from being assaulted, our station personnel from being
    assaulted over a fare, and getting the right support from our
    law enforcement officials to enforce fare policies.
        Mr. Wied. All right. Thank you.
        And, with that, I yield back.
        The Chair recognizes Ms. Gillen.
        Ms. Gillen. Thank you, Chair.
        Thank you to all our witnesses.
        I will start today with you, Mr. Ford. As you know, the
    American Public Transportation Association found--and you just
    mentioned this--that it can be 10 times safer per mile to use
    public transit than to travel by car.
        My district is on the South Shore of Long Island, and it
    has faced an alarming increase in fatal traffic collisions.
    According to a major investigation that was just conducted by
    our local newspaper, Newsday, more than 2,100 people have been
    killed and 16,000 have been severely injured over the past 10
    years during traffic accidents on Long Island's highways. Every
    7 minutes, on average, a serious traffic accident happens on
    Long Island. So this is a five-alarm fire, and we must do more
    to address it.
        How can continued and increased investment in public
    transit systems help reduce traffic on our roads and increase
    safety for our constituents?
        Mr. Ford. Thank you very much for the question.
        Continued investment in public transportation allows us to
    build and maintain safe systems, reliable systems.
        One of the opportunities is, with continued Federal
    funding, improving the quality of service that we provide so
    that we can provide frequent service and reliable service and
    the systems that I think our constituents are looking for in
    terms of real-time passenger information and data so that they
    can plan their trip and their travels and leverage our systems,
    not to the degree of having your own personal automobile, but
    very close to that. And that attracts choice riders in addition
    to our dedicated ridership.
        And so we value Federal funding and the support we have had
    over the years, but we need it to continue to go to take us to
    that next level and reduce the amount of congestion and traffic
    that you may be experiencing in your community.
        Ms. Gillen. Thank you. Thank you.
        And as you also shared in your testimony this morning, the
    Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act provides $108.2 billion
    in funding for our public transit systems, and this is a direct
    investment back into our communities. Every $1 billion invested
    in public transit sustains $5 billion in long-term economic
    impact and 50,000 jobs.
        What would a freeze on this funding do to our transit
    systems and our communities? And what should Congress do to
    build on these investments in the next surface transportation
    reauthorization bill?
        Mr. Ford. Freezing or slowing down that funding would have
    a detrimental impact to our communities. The transit systems
    are the lifeblood, it is the backbone of connectivity in our
    communities, and quite often, whether you ride transit or not,
    you are supported by someone who is riding on public
    transportation.
        We also have shared a statistic related to that capital
    funding, that Federal funding: that 77 percent of that funding
    actually goes to the private sector. And it goes to the private
    sector in communities that may not even have a public transit
    system, but they have a factory or a plant that is building
    brake shoes or brake pads, for that example, or seats for our
    buses and our trains.
        And so, in many cases, that--and I think it was in the
    written testimony. We have a graphic showing a railcar and a
    bus and the actual pipeline supply chain that is built in the
    United States in States that may not have robust transit
    systems but they have parts that are operating in a Miami, a
    New York, a New Jersey, or in a Jacksonville.
        Ms. Gillen. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Ford.
        Mr. Regan, one of the most important responsibilities we
    have in Congress is upholding labor standards and protecting
    American workers' rights. Federal labor protections for our
    transit workers are vitally important in ensuring that Federal
    infrastructure investments do not undermine local standards.
        Can you discuss how impactful these protections have been
    for hard-working TWU members and for our country's public
    transit systems?
        Mr. Regan. Yes. And thank you for the question.
        Without these labor protections--labor protections are
    vital for making sure that public transit is a bastion of
    middle-class jobs in this country, that you don't need a
    college degree, you can go be a busdriver and make a middle-
    class living and raise a family. And you don't get that--you
    get a race to the bottom without the labor protections that we
    have in our transit system.
        And without 13(c) and other important protections, I don't
    think we would have those same quality of jobs, and I am
    certain we would have much worse retention issues in terms of
    maintaining a workforce that is able to safely move people
    around the country.
        Ms. Gillen. Thank you. Thank you so much for that.
        I see I am just about out of time, so I will yield back.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Taylor [presiding]. The gentlewoman yields back.
        Mr. Hurd.
        Mr. Hurd of Colorado. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
        I would like to thank Chairman Rouzer and Ranking Member
    Norton for holding this important hearing.
        I represent Colorado's Third Congressional District, which
    is one of the larger districts in the country. It covers
    basically most of western and southern Colorado. Its geographic
    footprint is actually larger than the State of Pennsylvania,
    which, if Mr. Bresnahan were here, I would give him a hard time
    about that. So rural transit is essential for my district.
        And some of our transit systems have quite a bit of tourist
    traffic, as well, in our rural communities. The Roaring Fork
    Transportation Authority, which is in the Aspen-Glenwood
    Springs region of my district, is the largest rural transit
    system in the United States. It has 4.8 million passenger trips
    each year, on average. Or, at least, back in 2023, those were
    the latest numbers.
        So, Ms. Cline, my question for you is: In your testimony,
    you mentioned leading an agency that is part of, quote, the
    ``other transit network'' serving rural communities. Can you
    talk specifically about some of the challenges that you face
    and your agency faces compared to your urban counterparts and
    how Congress might be able to help address these in the surface
    reauthorization bill?
        Ms. Cline. Thank you for the question.
        I think that many of the smaller agencies, mine included,
    were subrecipients of State. So the State receives the money
    that comes from you, and, as a subrecipient, we don't always
    get the dollars that we need, which, in turn, provides service
    constraints. People don't get the days and hours of service
    that they really need to get to the things that they need. So,
    if you have a job where you work 6 days a week, we may only be
    able to run 5 days a week. That is one of the big things.
        Mr. Hurd of Colorado. And is that subaward given--how is
    that determined? Is that at the State level, then?
        Ms. Cline. That is determined, in South Dakota, at a State
    level. Many States are the recipient of the funds, and then the
    agencies apply for the dollars--section 5311 dollars and 5310,
    5339.
        We run out of money by the ninth or tenth money. We run out
    of Federal money. So we are operating on reserves that we have
    been able to acquire, whether it is through Medicaid dollars,
    contractual agreements, fares. We do charge fares.
        But many agencies are--and I am not going to use the word
    ``silo'' again, because that is a bad word, but--we do lots of
    different things to make that money stretch. The issue is, even
    though we got more money in BIL, through that we were able to
    get to a level to actually pay for the new vehicles coming in,
    increase staffing wages and benefits--which are still not where
    they should be.
        So, financially, rural systems are really at a
    disadvantage, I believe.
        Mr. Hurd of Colorado. And are you able to plan--is there a
    fluctuation in funding year over year, or are you able to plan?
    Is it consistent in what you see when it comes to that funding
    as disbursed by the State?
        Ms. Cline. Well, the funding coming into the State is
    consistent; however, our funding is based on individual
    application each year. So we have what is called a report card,
    and depending on how you score on a report card--it has way
    more things than we are going to go into right now, based on an
    individual agency. But----
        Mr. Hurd of Colorado [interrupting]. And are there ways
    that you can think of that Congress could, with respect to
    surface reauthorization and sending the money to the States--
    say, South Dakota--could condition or adjust those dollars to
    make sure that we are prioritizing the right projects for rural
    States like South Dakota?
        Ms. Cline. Yes. Well, one of the things that I said in my
    testimony was that making sure that, when we apply for grants,
    we are applying against other rural agencies, that we are not
    applying against agencies that are supported by APTA, the
    larger agencies. Because we don't have the administrative
    staff. Again, my staff of four writes all the grants that we
    put out. And, actually, only two of us do that, so----
        Mr. Hurd of Colorado [interrupting]. You punch above your
    weight, like most in rural America have to do that exactly.
        So, thank you very much for what you do in the rural part
    of our country. And I know the folks in Colorado, that is an
    important issue for them, as well.
        So, with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back my time.
        Mr. Taylor. The gentleman yields.
        Mr. Moulton.
        Mr. Moulton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Feigenbaum--did I pronounce that correctly, sir?
        Mr. Feigenbaum. Yes, you did. Thank you.
        Mr. Moulton. Okay. Mr. Feigenbaum, you argue that
    congestion pricing in New York City hasn't been effective,
    claiming that the plan is primarily designed to generate money
    instead of effectively managing traffic congestion. However,
    you say that London and Stockholm have, in contrast,
    implemented successful congestion pricing programs.
        So could you explain how New York should modify its
    congestion pricing program to be successful?
        Mr. Feigenbaum. Sure. So, in my view, the problems with the
    New York City congestion pricing are twofold.
        The first is that, instead of setting the tolls actually to
    relieve congestion and manage the roadways, they were set at an
    arbitrary limit to raise money for MTA. And I understand that
    MTA has needs, but if you are going to have a successful
    program, that is not really the way to do it.
        The other challenge that I see is that almost all of the
    money is going toward transit. And I think if you are tolling
    motorists, some of the money needs to go to roadways. Now, in
    Manhattan, that is likely to be operational improvements or
    turn lanes. Obviously, adding new lanes is not a great idea.
    And, still, most of the money makes sense to go to transit
    because Manhattan is unique in having such a high transit share
    in the country.
        But I think those two solutions, one of which I think
    Secretary Duffy stated, would be how I would modify it.
        Mr. Moulton. Since the 1950s, the American taxpayer has
    given enormous subsidies to people who drive, and many cities
    don't have any transit alternatives whatsoever. Certainly,
    there has been a lot more driving, road infrastructure built in
    and around New York City in the last 70 years than transit
    infrastructure. The transit system is basically the same as it
    was 100 years ago.
        Do you think that that was correct in the past, where
    taxpayers who used the subway subsidized building highways?
        Mr. Feigenbaum. Well, I would say that I am generally
    against subsidies in all cases. But transit needs some
    subsidies, I realize, and they should be focused on the
    transit-dependent.
        I wouldn't necessarily view the gas tax as a subsidy,
    because that is something that is actually being paid by the
    motorists. And I wouldn't necessarily view tolls, which New
    York City has, as a subsidy either. So I think it might come
    down to how ``subsidy'' is defined.
        Mr. Moulton. Right, but--I would agree with you on the gas
    tax. And I think tolls are a great example as well. But, of
    course, every single year, we transfer billions of dollars from
    the general taxpayer fund to the Highway Trust Fund because gas
    taxes and tolls do not cover the cost.
        I actually asked Harvard Kennedy School to look at just the
    total cost of the vehicle economy just in Massachusetts. And
    they did a 2019 study that said that the total cost is about
    $64.1 billion in Massachusetts, which equates to about $14,000
    for every family in Massachusetts, whether or not they own a
    car.
        So every family is paying $14,000 just to subsidize
    driving, and yet they don't get any--it is still more expensive
    to take a train into the center of Boston than it is to drive.
    Does that make sense? Does that help congestion?
        Mr. Feigenbaum. Well, I guess my recommendation is that we
    do need to look at new user-pay revenue sources.
        And you are right that the general fund transfers are a
    problem and they are unfair, and I don't think they should
    continue. And there has been, different--increased use of
    tolling, some type of mileage-based fee that have been looked
    at, floated.
        I don't think we are there, but we need to start getting
    aggressive in terms of finding a solution, because, obviously,
    with the next reauthorization on the horizon, the revenue
    problems are a problem.
        Mr. Moulton. The revenues problems are going to get worst
    with electric vehicles, which actually cause more damage to our
    highways because they are so heavy.
        How do you think that should be addressed?
        Mr. Feigenbaum. I think electric vehicles should be paying
    a fee. In many States, they pay anywhere from $200 to $300,
    some less in some places. And perhaps also looking at hybrids.
        Mileage fees over the long term would make that a little
    simpler, because you wouldn't have separate revenue streams.
    But for right now and as a priority for the next surface
    transportation bill, I absolutely think electric vehicles
    should be paying a fee to use roads.
        Mr. Moulton. There are a lot of countries that look at
    transportation problems and do a business case analysis and try
    to determine, is it more efficient to solve this problem with
    roads or building rail or building some other type of system?
    In America, we pretty much just subsidize airports and roads.
        Is there some vast rail conspiracy that infects all of Asia
    and Europe, or are there actually cases where it just makes
    more economic sense to build rail as an alternative?
        Mr. Feigenbaum. Yes, I think it has to do with where it
    makes more economic sense.
        I mean, we have an example in New York City, even though
    our costs are out of control. Part of my testimony I didn't
    mention was that the cost to build a kilometer of rail in New
    York is something like 10 times----
        Mr. Moulton [interposing]. Right.
        Mr. Feigenbaum [continuing]. What it would be in other
    developed places.
        But it's also density, it's urban, it's employment, it's
    residential location. It's a number of factors that in most
    U.S. cities cause rail not to make the most sense.
        Mr. Moulton. I would just point out that, if you look
    around the globe where they are actually making these economic-
    based decisions, there are a lot of cities comparable in size
    to many other cities around the United States where rail makes
    sense.
        You could build brandnew highways in Austin and inspire the
    kind of sprawling development that you have there, or you could
    build a rail system just like they did in New York City and you
    might get more density. A lot of advantages to that as well.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Taylor. Mr. McDowell.
        Mr. McDowell. Thank you, Chairman.
        Public transportation has received more Federal funding
    since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic than at any point
    in American history. Emergency relief packages from 2020 to
    2021 spent a cumulative $70 billion on the Nation's public
    transportation systems, while the 2021 IIJA authorized a
    staggering $108 billion for transit programs. Put simply, the
    transit sector has received a massive infusion of taxpayer
    dollars over the past couple years.
        Despite this historic investment, ridership rates continue
    to decline, and costs poured into operating and maintaining
    transit systems are infrequently recovered.
        As this committee considers the future of public transit
    funding, I believe that we must find ways to stop the bleeding.
    I thank the witnesses for testifying before the subcommittee
    today, and I look forward to discussing creative solutions to
    the current problems facing the public transit sector.
        Mr. Booterbaugh, in your testimony, you describe how
    contracted service worked to restore monthly ridership in
    Durham, North Carolina.
        In your opinion, how can public transit entities coordinate
    with the private sector to improve both services and safety in
    a way that is financially sustainable in the long term? And,
    specifically, what do private-sector partners and operators
    bring to the table that can help improve transit efficiencies?
        Mr. Booterbaugh. Yes. Thank you for the question.
        I think in the case of Durham, it is an interesting, kind
    of, use case. Because, in Durham, as we are carrying out, kind
    of, the vision for service for the agency, they come to us and
    kind of share what that vision looks like, and then we go to
    work in terms of finding more efficient ways for them to
    execute that.
        And, many times, it comes down to simply a question of
    resources. A lot of the agencies are resource-strained. They
    bring in a private operator to really help kind of reassess
    what is needed to move forward. And we help them to look for
    ways to run service more efficiently, to invest in safety
    programs that, at the end of the day, mean that we are running
    a more reliable and safe service.
        So these are all things that we do as we come to the table
    and, kind of, partner with our agency customers to better equip
    them to carry out what they see in the future.
        Specific to ridership, I think, in Durham, the focus that
    they had there was trying to figure out how to serve the needs
    of an evolving community. So not just simply running services
    that have always been run in the past, but looking at who are
    the people in the community that are most dependent on public
    transit, who are those that they could maybe work with to coax
    away from their cars, and come up with innovative new programs
    and coverage models that help drive that ridership.
        And so I think that is really the key for agencies, is
    really being in a position where they take a step back and take
    a look at the broader landscape of what the needs of the
    community are and then figure out, from a multimodal
    standpoint, how can they serve those needs better in the
    future.
        Mr. McDowell. Gotcha. Thank you.
        Ms. Cline, as discussed earlier, transit programs have
    received nearly $180 billion over the past few years.
        In the previous administration, the FTA tacked on
    gratuitous environmental justice criteria for many of the
    funding notices which had nothing to do with the agency's
    mission of improving reliable transit service. Prioritizing
    green investments, in my opinion, does little to help with
    transit ridership levels or efficiency.
        In your opinion, how can Congress get the biggest bang for
    its buck when in comes to Federal investments in transit
    infrastructure?
        Ms. Cline. Thank you for the interesting question.
        I think that we all, especially rural agencies, are facing
    multiple challenges already, without the multitude of ones that
    you discussed initially in your question.
        So, are all of those regulations really necessary for
    agencies receiving under a certain dollar amount--let's say, $1
    million or even $10 million? Most rural agencies don't get that
    much.
        So, again, it is one of those right-sizing regulations to
    fit the type of agency. And I think one of the most fair ways
    is to do it by the dollar amount that an agency receives, and
    leave the rest of it up to the State to monitor.
        Mr. McDowell. Gotcha. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Bresnahan [presiding]. Mr. Cohen.
        Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Project 2025, which we know is the Constitution of this
    administration, although never read by President Trump--nor has
    he read the Bible or any other major publications or books in
    his life--proposes that we eliminate all Federal support for
    transit.
        Mr. Regan, how would that affect most major cities in the
    United States? Most people that depend on public ridership,
    poor people that don't have cars that need to get work, get to
    a hospital, get to the grocery store, get to the drug store,
    how would that affect them and affect their lives?
        Mr. Regan. I think it would grind transportation in major
    cities to a halt. I think people would be unable to get to
    their place of employment. They would be unable to get to
    hospitals, grocery stores, to all the things that people like
    living in a city for.
        Mr. Cohen. So it would be like most of the other things
    that Project 2025 is about--giving to the rich, the powerful,
    the ones with much money----
        Mr. Regan [interposing]. Mm-hmm.
        Mr. Cohen [continuing]. And give them tax breaks, and not
    do anything for the poor people that are paying a burden right
    now?
        Mr. Regan. It would certainly have a disproportionate harm
    on people who rely on public transit or people who are lower
    income, communities of color. There are a lot of areas who rely
    more disproportionately on public transit who would be hurt the
    most by this type of decision.
        Mr. Cohen. Mr. Ford, how would this affect folks in
    Jacksonville?
        Mr. Ford. It would be devastating to Jacksonville on a
    daily basis. We carry nearly 23,000 riders on a daily basis.
    The vast majority are individuals who are going to work to
    support our community, support our economy and the healthcare
    industry, for example--we noticed that during COVID-19--nurses
    and support personnel that were supporting our medical
    facilities.
        So any suspension of Federal funding for public transit
    would be devastating to Jacksonville and our industry overall,
    as well as the private sector that actually benefits from the
    investment that comes from the Federal Government.
        Mr. Cohen. Mr. Ford, you have worked in other cities, I
    presume?
        Mr. Ford. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Cohen. And what are some of those cities?
        Mr. Ford. I started my career with the New York City
    transit system as a train conductor, then worked for the BART
    system in the bay area. I joined the MARTA system after the
    1996 Olympics, served as their CEO, then served as the CEO of
    the San Francisco MTA. And now I have the honor of serving in
    Jacksonville, Florida.
        Mr. Cohen. You have had quite a career. Congratulations.
    You have come a long way.
        Mr. Ford. Thank you.
        Mr. Cohen. All those cities would be affected as well, New
    York especially, I guess, and San Francisco as well?
        Mr. Ford. It would be devastating to those cities. They
    would not survive that type of funding loss.
        Mr. Cohen. Ms. Cline, you represent rural areas; you are a
    rural area. But would that not hurt your area and other rural
    areas as well?
        Ms. Cline. Thank you. And, yes, it would be devastating for
    us, because we already operate on a shoestring. So, lack of
    funding would definitely make a difference to the many people
    that we serve.
        Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Ms. Cline.
        I have sponsored, with Congressman Hank Johnson of Atlanta,
    the Stronger Communities Through Better Transit Act. That would
    allow funds to go to operating expenses as well as capital
    expenses.
        Mr. Regan, would that be helpful to most major city
    transportation authorities?
        Mr. Regan. It would, yes. It would be very helpful.
        And think about, also, what that operating expenses--what
    that assistance allows people to do. There has been a lot of
    talk about safety here, for example. Most of our safety
    initiatives, whether it be camera systems--transit ambassadors
    are a really important part of that, who are our eyes and ears
    on the ground and also help with fare collection; whether it be
    security personnel in those areas.
        So, by not allowing the flexibility, by dedicating most of
    it towards capital expenses and not providing operating
    assistance, we are hindering a lot of the things that allow our
    transit systems to grow, to thrive, to meet the needs of our
    communities, and to meet the expectations of the riders.
        Mr. Cohen. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Ford, would you have anything to add to that?
        Mr. Ford. Thank you for the question.
        I just want to reiterate the importance of Federal funding,
    not just to move the people in our communities, but also the
    downstream impact it would have to the private sector and
    particularly in communities that are supplying parts for our
    transit systems, our rolling stock, our infrastructure. While
    they may not have a major transit system in their community,
    they may have a major manufacturing facility that is supported
    and providing jobs to people in their community--leaders in
    their community.
        Mr. Cohen. Thank you, sir.
        Mr.--``Faygenbaum''? ``Figenbaum''?
        Mr. Feigenbaum. ``Figenbaum.''
        Mr. Cohen. Mr. Feigenbaum, Reason Magazine and Reason
    Foundation prides themselves on supporting the rule of law. How
    have you seen the rule of law being damaged and potentially
    destroyed by this administration?
        Mr. Feigenbaum. Well, I think it is maybe good that I am
    out of time, because that is a very----
        Mr. Cohen [interrupting]. You are not out of time. You can
    respond.
        Mr. Feigenbaum. That is a challenging question.
        I think that obligations--let's talk transportation,
    because that is what I know best. Obligations from a previous
    transportation bill should----
        Mr. Cohen [interrupting]. No, let's talk rule of law.
        Mr. Feigenbaum. Well, I don't think anyone is above the
    Constitution or the rule of law. So all laws should be
    followed, all policies should be followed, period.
        Mr. Bresnahan. Time has expired.
        Mr. Cohen. Thank you, sir.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Bresnahan. The gentleman yields.
        Mr. Taylor.
        Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Chairman and Ranking Member Norton,
    for holding this hearing today.
        And thank you to our witnesses for their time and testimony
    and insight. I appreciate that very much.
        I represent a very rural area. Some of my constituents
    utilize public transportation to commute to work, doctor's
    appointments, school, or to visit family, but very few.
        I am excited to work with members of this committee to
    ensure our transit systems are safe and efficiently utilize
    Federal funding. Essentially, we have the privilege, in my
    district, of paying for public transport with our tax dollars;
    we just, by and large, don't get any of the benefit. So I do
    encourage Secretary Duffy to continue taking a close look at
    how these cities are funded and make sure that those dollars
    are being spent efficiently.
        And if the justification for the wealth transfer from rural
    America to urban America is that there are communities there
    that are underserved, I would point out that 9 of the 20
    poorest counties in Ohio are in my district, and 4 of the top
    5. And we need to get places, too, of course.
        We would like to see urban transit run more like a
    business. Certainly, with the ridership they see, it definitely
    could be improved upon. And we have heard some today about the
    lack of enforcement of rules, because they know that the
    dollars are coming no matter what.
        Ms. Cline, I appreciate your hard work in the area of rural
    transportation and serving rural communities. Are there any
    rules and procedures under the Federal Transit Administration
    that affect rural areas disproportionately compared to urban
    areas, in your opinion?
        Ms. Cline. Well, I think one of the major ones is the
    operating expense for the rurals. We pay a 50-percent match for
    our operating fees, where many of the larger systems are only
    paying 20 percent. To right-size that and allow us to pay 20-
    percent operating instead of 50 would be a huge saving and
    would allow us to put additional services on the street.
        And you will be happy to know that we have always run our
    system as a business. We are not a nonprofit; we are a
    business. And if we don't make the dollars, we can't support
    our system. And for 36 years, I have been an important part of
    a lot of people's lives, including my drivers and staff. I want
    to make sure those people have a livelihood to come to every
    day.
        Mr. Taylor. It seems like, in rural areas, if you can't
    make the numbers work, you don't get to do it, right? The
    dollars are not coming from anywhere else.
        There has been a lot said about how public transport is 10
    times safer than traveling in your private vehicle. Can someone
    explain to me, is that just injuries and fatalities from
    accidents, or are you suggesting that I am 10 times less likely
    to be robbed, raped, or assaulted in my car than I am on a bus?
        Anybody want to----
        Mr. Feigenbaum [interrupting]. My understanding is, that
    has to do with the accident rate----
        Mr. Taylor [interposing]. Okay.
        Mr. Feigenbaum [continuing]. Of being in a vehicle. It
    doesn't have to do with the actual crime itself.
        Mr. Taylor. It has been conflated with crime all day, that
    it is 10 times safer to travel on public transportation than it
    is in your car, whereas--and then we will say--we will refer to
    the crime rate.
        You are much more susceptible to crime, would we all agree,
    on a bus or a subway than you are in your private vehicle?
    Anybody disagree with that? Just--we will make it quick. Raise
    your hand if you disagree.
        [No show of hands.]
        The American people are tired of Federal funds being
    wasted. When Congress appropriates funds, they should be spent
    effectively and provide a good return on investment for
    taxpayers.
        Mr. Feigenbaum, what changes should Congress implement to
    improve transit operations?
        Mr. Feigenbaum. Well, I think the first change that I would
    say is, allow or maybe require some of the funding for capital
    to go to operations. One of the challenges that we have had is,
    in the last surface transportation reauthorization bill, there
    were 101 discretionary grant programs, which is basically
    taking money away from you and giving it to the executive to
    use as they see fit. Now, in theory, if that is used on a
    quantitative, cost-benefit basis, that could be okay, but, in
    my view, it wasn't. And so reducing that to one would be good.
        I would also like to see metrics in terms of on-time
    performance, in terms of transit safety, in terms of ridership
    experience, in terms of making sure that the miles covered with
    the routes offered makes sense. So I think actually building in
    some more metrics to the system is the way to go.
        Mr. Taylor. Thank you all for being here today.
        Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Bresnahan. The gentleman yields.
        Ms. Titus.
        Ms. Titus. Thank you.
        We have heard a lot about safety today and a lot about
    cost. I would like to talk about reliability, because that
    relates to both of those other two things.
        I represent Las Vegas, and we are in the desert. We had a
    120-degree record temperature last summer. Extreme heat is one
    of the challenges that face public transit reliability, because
    you have frequent vehicle breakdowns because of the extreme,
    harsh environmental conditions.
        Now, the agency in my district that deals with this, the
    RTC--Mr. Ford, we know some folks in common there--they have
    advocated for increasing the Federal spare ratio from 20
    percent to 30 percent of the bus fleet. If you do that, that
    would allow quicker deployment of replacement vehicles during
    the summer months.
        Mr. Ford, would you support the FTA reviewing that spare
    ratio requirement? And tell us a little bit about how that
    might grant greater flexibility, increased reliability, and be
    something that encourages ridership because you know the bus is
    going to come and it is going to come at a certain time.
        Mr. Ford. Thank you for that question.
        And the most important aspect, obviously, is safety, but
    next to that is reliability of our systems and our schedules
    and the amount of service that we provide.
        All of our communities are uniquely different in terms of
    the miles that we cover and serve, the climate that we operate
    in. So Chicago is vastly different than what I experience in
    Florida. So I think, depending on climate, I think an
    examination of spare ratios based on that is appropriate.
        I think, at this juncture, we have to recognize one size
    doesn't fit all in all of our communities, based on climate,
    range of operation, the duty cycle of our vehicles. Your duty
    cycle for your vehicles and your service may be much more
    intense than that bus operating in Jacksonville, Florida, as a
    comparison.
        Ms. Titus. Ms. Cline, wouldn't that be the case comparing
    urban to rural transit as well?
        Ms. Cline. Yes. And I believe in a higher ratio than we can
    currently have. We also fight the extreme cold, so we get both
    ends of the spectrum. So we might start our day with all of our
    buses housed, which hasn't always been the case, but midday or
    after the lunchtime, you might see vehicles that are showing
    some signs of stress, and having that extra spare ratio to
    deploy is very important.
        As, I guess, an aside, because we have bus facilities in
    eight communities, we have to keep spare ratio in each of those
    communities as well. So that ups the need for us to have a
    little higher spare ratio as well.
        Thank you.
        Ms. Titus. As we look at this transit bill--I mean, the
    highway bill, I think we should take that into account as
    something to recommend.
        Also, when you have the Federal funding and you have to
    supplement it with the State or local money and the farebox,
    sometimes it is just keeping the buses running. You don't have
    anything left over for modernizing or for equipping in some
    special way.
        Maybe you all could--anybody could talk about this: what we
    could do to make the ride better, whether it is accommodating
    the disabled, whether it is a creative program where you hook
    with Wi-Fi to the local library system, something like that,
    that gets people on the bus and makes it safer but makes it
    more pleasant.
        Could anybody talk about that?
        Mr. Ford.
        Mr. Ford. Thank you for the question.
        Our agencies across the country, recognizing the shortage
    of customers right after the pandemic, have been working very
    hard to, what we call, upgrade the customer experience--
    everything from Wi-Fi on our buses, charging ports on our buses
    so people can charge their mobile device on our buses,
    upgrading the bus shelters and bus facilities or train stations
    where people are actually congregating waiting for a bus.
        I know, in my system alone, what we are doing is planting
    trees in and around the bus shelters to ensure that our
    passengers have a shaded area, along with all of the other
    benefits of real-time passenger information so a person doesn't
    walk out to a bus stop and wonder when that next bus is
    arriving; they know wirelessly on their personal device, or
    they are able to look at a stanchion with some type of public
    information related to bus schedules.
        So a great deal of work that is occurring to improve the
    customer experience inside the vehicle as well as off the
    vehicle in terms of passenger information.
        Our app is called the MyJTA app, and you can pay your fare.
    You could actually also see when your actual bus is arriving at
    your stop.
        Ms. Titus. Shade is very important in hot weather. And----
        Mr. Ford [interrupting]. We are finding that----
        Ms. Titus [continuing]. Also just moving the bus stop back
    a few feet makes it much safer and much less likely to be hit
    by a car, and that is accommodating some need. So----
        Mr. Ford [interposing]. Exactly.
        Ms. Titus [continuing]. We need to look at the whole
    picture, I think, to increase that ridership.
        Mr. Ford. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Titus. All right. Well, thank you----
        Ms. Cline [interrupting]. And I will follow up with you on
    some ideas that work for us.
        Ms. Titus. Great. Thank you. I would appreciate that.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Bresnahan. The gentlelady yields.
        And I would now like to recognize myself.
        I want to use my brief remarks and questions to highlight
    the work done by transit workers. Moving millions of people
    each day is no small feat, nor is maintaining and repairing
    fleets of buses, trains, and ferries.
        During COVID, transit workers were truly essential workers,
    moving other essential workers like doctors, nurses, and those
    in the service industry to and from work. The CDC found that,
    in California, bus and transit workers were 5.2 times more
    likely to contract COVID. An NYU survey found that 24 percent
    of New York City buses and subway workers contracted COVID in
    2020.
        Post-COVID, there has been a surge in crime on transit
    systems. Transit workers have sadly become victims to
    criminals.
        Public transit employees receive 13(c) protections under
    the Urban Mass Transportation Act. This includes protection
    against worsening of positions in relation to employment,
    continuing of collective bargaining agreements, and paid
    training and retraining programs. My family company was a union
    shop, and I understand and appreciate the value that organized
    labor can bring to an organization.
        My first question, for Mr. Regan: As transit workers have
    experienced and dealt with COVID and its aftermath--funding
    insecurities and an increased cost in contract services--how
    have 13(c) protections ensured that transit workers remain as
    essential partners to our Nation's transit systems?
        Mr. Regan. Thank you for that question.
        I mean, put simply, 13(c) makes sure that people can't use
    Federal funds to undermine the existing workforce and their job
    qualities and their wages. It makes sure that we are
    maintaining a qualified level of worker and one where they are
    being fairly compensated to do that work.
        Mr. Bresnahan. Is there anything specifically that you saw
    over time begin to erode out of those programs, one more so
    than another?
        Mr. Regan. Not necessarily.
        Obviously, during COVID, everything was under strain. We
    still haven't recovered all the way back from ridership levels.
    But you are right, the busdrivers, the transit operators, the
    maintenance workers, they were in harm's way just by going to
    work. They didn't have the luxury that many of us did to work
    behind a computer screen.
        But what was really critical to all of that, as well, is,
    for the first time, with our aid programs to transportation
    systems--and this wasn't just transit; this was true with
    Amtrak and airlines as well--was, we ensured that all of that
    money went toward payroll and benefits to the workers so we
    could maintain service and reliability of these systems.
        And that was true--like, that was vitally true for the
    people who relied on those services during the pandemic--
    healthcare workers, grocery store workers, things like that.
    But it was more important because we knew it was going to end
    at some point, we were going to come out of it, and we needed a
    workforce there that was ready to be able to meet the needs
    when demand surged back. And I thought that was incredibly
    successful.
        I do think we need to go further, certainly on operating
    assistance flexibility, so how we can use Federal funds more
    effectively to meet the needs. But certainly the labor
    protections tied to COVID funding and then on top of our
    existing 13(c) protections meant that our systems were able to
    rebound pretty quickly coming out of the pandemic.
        Mr. Bresnahan. Thank you for that.
        Mr. Booterbaugh, are there particular services or
    transportation modes within transit systems where contracting
    with private partners can offer a significant benefit or
    operational efficiencies?
        Mr. Booterbaugh. Yes. Thank you for the question.
        Yes, I think in general terms, when you bring a private
    contractor into the mix, they are looking at what the short-
    and long-range plans are for any given agency, what multimodal
    approach that they want to take, and they are figuring out how
    can we run it most efficiently, most effectively, not just from
    an operations standpoint, but from a safety perspective, from
    the perspective of training employees, making sure that they
    have a clear path for succession and career development.
        These are all the things that a private operator brings to
    the table.
        Mr. Bresnahan. Are there any glaring efficiency changes
    that could be brought forward by Congress or ways that we could
    implement more efficient ways to deliver?
        Mr. Booterbaugh. Yes, I mean, in my opening, you may
    remember that I talked a little bit about the contracting
    itself. So I think we, as NATA, we feel like there is an
    opportunity to encourage agencies to look at private
    contracting as an option that is more viable for them.
        Today, about 50 percent of agencies are contracting in some
    form or fashion. That could mean a small portion of the
    service; it could mean all of the service. We would really like
    to see agencies be encouraged to look at the opportunity for
    our members to participate in RFPs for services that don't
    exist today.
        Mr. Bresnahan. Thank you for that.
        I yield the remaining 12 seconds.
        And to Ms. Pou.
        Ms. Pou. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Let me just begin with saying that, with nearly 40,000
    zero-vehicle households in my district, the safety,
    reliability, and efficiency of accessible transportation is a
    core priority for my constituents. Our transit workers provide
    vital services to our communities and offer an increasingly
    safe mode of transportation.
        I look forward to working with my colleagues to find
    commonsense solutions to address transportation safety,
    staffing, and reliability challenges and to rebuild the public
    confidence in our system.
        With that being said, Mr. Regan and Mr.--``Figenbaum''? How
    do you say it?
        Mr. Feigenbaum. ``Figenbaum.''
        Ms. Pou. ``Figenbaum.'' Okay, good. Thank you.
        As we look to improve passenger safety, what challenges do
    you face in using Federal funding to support security measures
    like cameras or improved lighting? And what solutions would you
    propose to address the Federal restrictions regarding funding
    transit operations?
        Mr. Regan.
        Mr. Regan. Thank you for the question.
        First of all, I think a lot of the programs that improve
    security and safety on board would be considered--they would
    fall under operating costs, which are not allowed for
    communities over 200,000 people. All of that Federal funding
    has to go towards capital costs.
        So, when you are talking about transit ambassadors,
    security cameras, better doors and entranceways, all of that is
    coming through operating assistance costs. If we can change the
    Federal law to make it available for those purposes--and I
    think that is a really important part.
        As I said earlier, there are going to be situations where a
    local transit agency needs capital assistance so they can buy
    new buses, upgrade their equipment, do that. There are also
    going to be situations where transit operators do not need new
    capital expenses; they need operating assistance so they can
    maintain routes or grow service. Or, in this example of the
    World Cup, they have a big operational need coming right now,
    and they are going to need some assistance to be able to meet
    the flow of people.
        So how we structure these programs to make sure that
    agencies can apply for the type of funding they need is going
    to be an important part of how we move forward in transit in
    this country.
        Ms. Pou. Thank you for that.
        Let me just say--and then I definitely want to hear the
    gentleman's response to my question--I think that is vitally
    important, especially when my State, the State of New Jersey,
    is indeed going to be one of those States that will be hosting
    the World Cup.
        So having the ability to have those transportation
    operations in place and having the wherewithal to do that in a
    safe and reliable manner will be critically important, not only
    to my State, but throughout various other States in the
    country, but especially within my district, where the World Cup
    is actually going to take effect, back in New Jersey.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Feigenbaum. Yes. So I would say, it comes down to, in
    some ways, how money is being spent, and I think it also goes
    to the capital costs.
        Which is that, one of the problems with building new
    systems, in addition to the fact that that is obviously eating
    up revenue, is that it is kind of taking the focus away from
    the nuts and bolts. And the nuts and bolts--I mean, nothing is
    more vital than safety. We say that in roadways; that is true
    in transit.
        And so there has to be a little bit more dedication, I
    think, of funding. I don't think that is something there is
    much opposition to.
        I would also say, we have been talking about cameras, there
    has been talk about barriers for the drivers, we have talked a
    little bit about higher fare gates on rail systems, which tends
    to deter people that are not doing there, and we have talked
    about a viable police system. And there might be some new
    creative ways that other transit agencies are working with, but
    I would certainly start with those four.
        Ms. Pou. Thank you. Thank you so very much.
        And thank you, Mr. Feigenbaum. And I am sorry I
    mispronounced your name at the very beginning.
        I know that my time is coming to a very quick close. Let me
    just thank you both.
        Very quickly, moving on to our community needs, Mr.
    Booterbaugh and Ms. Cline, very quickly, what can the committee
    do to further improve transit services that provide people with
    access to the necessities like grocery stores, schools, and
    medical care?
        Ms. Cline. Thank you.
        Just keep funding us. We will make sure they get to the
    grocery store and to school.
        Ms. Pou. Thank you.
        Mr. Booterbaugh. Yes, no, I agree. I agree.
        Ms. Pou. Okay. That was an easy enough answer. Thank you so
    very much.
        Thank you to all the witnesses. I really appreciate the
    time and the information that you have all provided. I look
    forward to working together to support our transportation
    systems in this Congress.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Dr. Van Drew [presiding]. The gentlelady yields.
        And I recognize the gentleman from Utah.
        Dr. Kennedy of Utah. Thank you, Mr. Chair Pro Tem Van Drew.
    I appreciate your allowance of my opportunity to visit with
    these witnesses.
        And thank you for your testimony today. I appreciate your
    expertise and the ways you have responded to our questions.
        Just last week, I hosted a meeting between Utah State
    leadership and our Federal delegation, and one thing was very
    clear: Utah consistently gets things done, and we do it faster,
    cheaper, and more efficiently than the Federal Government. I
    believe that applies to my witnesses at the table as well.
        During a recent visit to Utah, Secretary Duffy had the
    chance to see our transit system in action, and he shared that
    Utah is doing it the right way.
        Utah's dynamic and growing transit system, including the
    FrontRunner commuter rail, has relied on support from programs
    like the Capital Investment Grant program. These investments
    allow Utah to address current transit demands while laying the
    groundwork for long-term and sustainable growth.
        Utah is doing its part to make every Federal dollar count.
    However, in order to help States do what they do best, the
    Federal Government needs to become a better partner, one that
    empowers local decisionmaking rather than creating unnecessary
    obstacles.
        That starts with rolling back outdated regulatory hurdles,
    like the duplicative NEPA process, that slow down progress and
    drive up costs.
        So, to all of the panelists, and if you would be willing--
    and I will start with Mr. Ford, followed by Ms. Cline, Mr.
    Booterbaugh, Mr. Feigenbaum, and Mr. Regan--I just wanted to
    say those names, by the way. They are really impressive names.
    A few of you carry some really interesting names along the way.
        So this question is for all of you, if you would be willing
    to take a moment just to answer this.
        Time is money, and that is especially true when it comes to
    infrastructure. Redtape and delays don't just stall projects;
    they raise costs and limit access.
        So, to reduce costs and keep projects on schedule, are
    there specific aspects of the FTA's NEPA process that you
    believe are redundant or unnecessarily burdensome? And I would
    appreciate if the panel could identify specific areas for
    reform.
        Mr. Ford, if you would start.
        Mr. Ford. Clearly, as it relates to NEPA, we would like to
    have parity or comparability to what is happening with the
    Federal Highway Administration within the FTA.
        The challenge of not being able to secure right-of-way in
    advance of going through the full NEPA process creates a
    challenge for us and actually increases the cost of the project
    and slows down the, kind of, preliminary steps to get a
    successful project launched.
        And so we are not asking for a totally new policy, but
    looking at just comparable policy to what is being done by the
    Federal Highway Administration.
        Dr. Kennedy of Utah. Thank you very much.
        Ms. Cline.
        Ms. Cline. And I echo what Mr. Ford said. And we have
    projects that it has held up because of the NEPA process. Small
    agencies in particular, going back to that 4 administrative
    staff to my total program of 60, that is huge for us, when we
    have that holdup. So make us comparable.
        Dr. Kennedy of Utah. Thank you.
        Mr. Booterbaugh.
        Mr. Booterbaugh. Yes. As a private operator, we don't
    really receive any proceeds directly. But just from an indirect
    perspective, I mean, the ability for there to be more
    flexibility in Federal dollars being spent both on
    infrastructure as well as operating costs will be very
    impactful for our customers. So--yes.
        Dr. Kennedy of Utah. Thank you.
        Mr. Feigenbaum.
        Mr. Feigenbaum. Yes. I would say, NEPA is basically a part
    of streamlining of environmental reviews. We have processes in
    this country where it can take 8, 10 years----
        Dr. Kennedy of Utah [interposing]. Wow.
        Mr. Feigenbaum [continuing]. Depending on--and other
    countries do it in half the time at half the cost, and we are
    not really helping the environment.
        So we need to look at this bureaucratic mess that we've
    sort out and streamline it so we can get these projects done
    more cheaply and quickly.
        Dr. Kennedy of Utah. Thank you.
        Mr. Regan.
        Mr. Regan. I agree that we--and not just in transit, but in
    transportation broadly--we need to figure out a way to better
    speed up project delivery.
        And I think that also enables you all, in making the laws,
    also to talk about, we are making investments in our
    communities because people see the results more quickly. They
    see investments in their communities, they see expansion of
    lines, they see all that stuff.
        But I also think, going back to what we were saying
    earlier, on the difference between operating and capital and
    providing more flexibility to meet communities where they are
    and what they need and reforming our programs so that the
    agencies, the communities themselves, can make the decisions
    about what are most needed for their systems. And I think there
    is a great opportunity coming up to do just that.
        Dr. Kennedy of Utah. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Chair Pro Tem, I yield back. Thank you.
        Dr. Van Drew. The gentleman yields back.
        I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. DeSaulnier.
        Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to thank the witnesses.
        Challenging times, particularly the last 5 years, in
    transit. I represent a district in the East Bay, the San
    Francisco Bay area. It is home to 4 of the 10 mega-commutes in
    the United States. We still have a car culture. So trying to
    get people--our density is up, so the model is better in the
    suburbs where I represent that we have done on land use--but
    trying to get people consistently to use BART, in particular,
    and connect to the other agencies.
        But we have a lot of people who like remote work and their
    employers do. So San Francisco is about 50-percent vacancy,
    with what is happening today in the tech industry in Silicon
    Valley as we build out the system to there.
        I wanted to ask you, starting with Mr. Ford, and Mr. Regan
    maybe follow up.
        We have done all the right stuff. I think BART is--we have
    put the fare gates in. It is safer. They are not dealing with
    as much of the social problems, but they still are. But there
    is wonderful opportunity, at least in our area, and similar to
    Boston and DC, where the employers and the workforce get good
    productivity from people staying home. Getting them in the
    office 3 days a week is a huge change for us, but it is a
    challenge for transit.
        So how do we adapt to that, sort of accept best practices,
    between COVID, now the economy, and particularly demographics,
    where the employers, like Salesforce--Salesforce is one of our
    biggest employers--they are cutting office space, and they have
    found, with fairly robust oversight, that they get value as
    employers with their workforce if they can stay home.
        And the difference in people's quality of life in two-
    income households who are spending an hour and a half either on
    transit or driving is really significant.
        So how can we keep you going and get ridership up, but also
    take the benefit of getting people to be productive but, at
    least one of those two incomes, to be able to stay home with
    their kids and still be of greater value, really, 2 days a week
    than they would be if they were commuting long times into San
    Francisco or Silicon Valley or Manhattan or 128 or downtown
    Boston or in your area?
        Mr. Ford. Well, thank you for the question.
        First, I would say that, yes, there has been a change in
    terms of the core ridership for public transportation. And so
    the backbone had been those home-to-work trips. At my own
    property, one of the things we have seen is a lot of
    discretionary trips and trips that might not be as long but
    shorter within a community, in terms of actual trips. And so
    that has led us to redesigning our route structure and also
    looking at microtransit as an alternative.
        I would also add, though, we are starting to see increases
    each year, year over year, and that ridership seems to be
    coming back as it relates to some of the return-to-work
    directives that are occurring by corporations, where, yes,
    there is a work-life balance, clearly, with people being able
    to work from home, but there also may be a loss of productivity
    by not having individuals in the office being able to
    collaborate and work together.
        So I think, over the next few years, we are going to have
    to continue to examine these travel patterns that may not be
    work-related, but they may be recreation-related or they may be
    other necessities around healthcare and things of that nature.
    So we will still have to examine those patterns going forward.
        Mr. DeSaulnier. So, Mr. Regan, how do we support your
    members, who are hard-working in difficult circumstances, but
    the people who are commuting they are serving also are hard-
    working?
        Mr. Regan. They are. And I think it is important to
    evaluate the commuting patterns or the travel patterns of each
    individual city, and I don't think any of them are going to be
    exactly the same. There needs to be flexibility within the
    Federal-aid programs, where agencies can apply for what they
    need, to identify what their commuting needs are going forward.
        But I also think we can't abandon those core users who rely
    on that so critically to keep our cities and our communities
    moving. And that includes people who are transit-dependent,
    whether you are in a city where it is just not plausible to own
    a car or you can't physically drive. And we also have people
    that rely on it for different types of jobs, whether you work
    in healthcare, whether you work in grocery stores.
        So we can't abandon the core users while also identifying
    where there are opportunities for growth.
        Mr. DeSaulnier. And I just--one last comment on the
    previous questions, and if you could respond, Mr. Regan,
    briefly.
        As BART has built out our long-term project to get BART to
    Silicon Valley, with all the changes, the procurement process
    has been gamed, and it is way over budget.
        And maybe just a comment, following your previous comments.
        Mr. Regan. Again, I think project delivery is something
    that we need to figure out collectively in a way that is not
    going to sacrifice safety of the people actually doing the work
    and also not sacrifice environmental values. But there are
    certainly ways that we can do that better.
        And the labor movement is ready to be a partner in all of
    that, as well.
        Mr. DeSaulnier. I know you are. I wanted to hear that.
        Thank you.
        I yield back.
        Dr. Van Drew. The gentleman yields back.
        I recognize the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Burlison.
        Mr. Burlison. Thank you.
        Over the past 5 years, the Federal Transit Administration
    has been provided with nearly $250 billion of Federal taxpayer
    dollars. They have received more Federal funding since the
    pandemic than any point in our Nation's history.
        However, despite that historic level, the 2025 Report Card
    recently published by the American Society of Civil Engineers
    gave our Nation's public transit system a ``D'' letter grade.
    Which, I don't know about you, but I find that unacceptable.
        Mr. Ford, do you believe that the ``D'' letter grade
    accurately reflects the state of our transit infrastructure?
        Mr. Ford. We believe that the backlog, which is approaching
    $100 billion in terms of backlog, in Federal funding for public
    transportation has led to a less-than-stellar grade as it
    relates to our infrastructure.
        We are not happy with that rating, and that is why we are
    aggressively imploring that there is additional funding,
    Federal funding, that goes towards reinvestment in our transit
    systems, some of which are aged and need rehabilitation to get
    to a state of good repair.
        Mr. Burlison. So you are saying, despite record levels of
    funding, there is still a huge backlog?
        Mr. Ford. Yes, sir, there is still a huge backlog in spite
    of the record levels of funding for public transportation.
        Mr. Burlison. We had the Biden infrastructure law which
    provided the transit industry about $108 billion in funding
    alone. Where did that money go?
        Mr. Ford. That money went to new transit systems,
    rehabilitation of rolling stock and infrastructure, track
    programs, as well as facility upgrades. But, clearly, it was
    not enough.
        And one point I would like to reiterate is, 77 percent of
    that actual funding goes to the private sector. So it goes
    towards projects, it goes toward rolling stock, as well as
    infrastructure projects to maintain and expand our transit
    network.
        Mr. Burlison. Thank you, Mr. Ford.
        Ms. Cline, in your testimony, you highlight that one way
    that this committee can assist smaller, rural transit systems
    in upcoming surface reauthorization is by ``broadly right-
    sizing the regulatory burden,'' citing that ``much of the
    regulatory and data-collection efforts promulgated by . . . the
    Federal Transit Administration are designed for the Nation's
    largest transit operators,'' not the small, rural operators.
        Could you expand on what you mean by ``broadly right-
    sizing'' those regulatory burdens?
        Ms. Cline. Thank you for the question.
        And, again, I will reiterate, we have four administrative
    staff to do all of our reporting requirements, meet the monthly
    requirements from our DOTs, and so forth and so on. So we don't
    have the ability to meet the regulations within the timeframes
    that they need to be met, although we do meet them. But some of
    those could be downsized.
        And, again, I will go to the----
        Mr. Burlison [interrupting]. Are there some that are kind
    of pointless, in your mind?
        Ms. Cline. Oh, yes, quite a few of them.
        Mr. Burlison. Do you have a list of them?
        Ms. Cline. Yes, I do. I can get you the list.
        Mr. Burlison. We would love to have that list.
        Ms. Cline. Yes.
        Mr. Burlison. So, in your view, some of these regulations
    are definitely not necessary. And so I would love to get that.
    Because I think that, this administration, one thing that we
    can do is figure out how we can cut redtape.
        Mr. Booterbaugh, in your testimony, you make an interesting
    point, that multiple private-sector entities competing for
    transit contracts is better and will maximize every dollar. Can
    you expound on that?
        Mr. Booterbaugh. Yes. I mean, it is pretty simple. For us,
    we believe that the more competition there is, the sharper the
    price point is going to be on these services.
        And we think that there are things that can be done from a
    contracting standpoint and a procurement standpoint that can
    really drive further competition between the private sector.
    Some of those are looking at things like liquidated damages
    today. They are kind of wide-open for private contractors. I
    suggested in my testimony on behalf of NATA that we cap them at
    1 percent for both incentives and disincentives on the
    contract.
        We think that is a good way to drive more private interest
    and also, through the bidding process, put agencies in a
    position where they are getting far more competitive pricing.
        Mr. Burlison. Thank you, panelists.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Dr. Van Drew. The gentleman yields back.
        I recognize the gentlelady from California, Ms. Friedman.
        Ms. Friedman. Thank you very much, Chair Rouzer and Ranking
    Member Norton--who are not here right now--and our witnesses
    for coming to testify today.
        I was very excited to get on this committee, and one reason
    is because it is a place where I do believe that we can work
    across the aisle on issues that are important to the American
    people.
        And I have heard several things today from my Republican
    colleagues that I completely agree with, and I want to call a
    few of those out, one having to do with us having a ``D'' grade
    in transit. And I do think it is important that we keep that in
    mind.
        And I believe that we do need to bring our transit grade
    way up and that the way to do that is to increase our
    investments in transit. It is as simple as that. Our
    investments in transit in the United States are dwarfed by our
    investments in roads and many other types of infrastructure
    that we invest in.
        In fact, we should be investing in infrastructure in
    general in this country. We are a wealthy Nation, and our
    infrastructure should reflect that. And, to me, there is no
    better place to spend money than in transit.
        I also agree with my Republican colleagues who just spoke
    about permitting and making sure that, when we have
    regulations, when we have permits, that they are additive to
    our goals.
        I am proud that, when I chaired the Transportation
    Committee in California, I was part of doing permitting reform
    that was narrowly tailored, but looked at the overall
    environmental benefit of transit projects and found ways to
    streamline those so that we could get those projects on the
    ground with a lot less process. And I am certainly looking
    forward to opportunities to work across the aisle with my
    colleagues on ways that we can do that at the Federal level.
        I do want to bring up--we have talked about the economic
    impact of the investments in transit, and I am going to mention
    a few of those in a second. But I also want to remind people
    that another part of transit investments that people don't
    often think about is their impact on our ability to solve other
    problems.
        And, namely, in Los Angeles, one of our biggest crises
    right now is around housing and people's ability to find
    housing after the recent fires that we had. And, even prior to
    that, a lack of housing has led to a crisis in housing
    affordability.
        And I have always contended that we can't fix our housing
    problem in our urban areas--and in any area--without fixing
    mobility. There is a variety of reasons why people oppose
    housing, and one of the biggest ones we hear is because of
    impacts to congestion, traffic congestion, and parking. And the
    fix to that is better public transportation.
        It is something that the public supports. It is something
    that they use when it is safe and it is convenient and runs
    quickly. To give people that better way of moving around their
    communities helps us also solve our housing crisis.
        Now, in Los Angeles, L.A. Metro has recently received $700
    million from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to support three
    large expansion projects. We are very excited about that in
    L.A.
        These projects are going to generate billions of dollars in
    revenue, they are going to create thousands of good-paying
    jobs, and they are going to reduce traffic congestion and
    connect Los Angelenos much better to the places where they need
    to go. And I do believe that it is going to answer those
    questions about people who are concerned about adding the
    housing that we desperately need in our region.
        The D Line extension alone is going to produce over $3
    billion in business revenue and create over 22,000 jobs in the
    construction phase alone.
        And I will mention that we are going to be hosting FIFA in
    Los Angeles and the Olympics, and we have promised people in
    other countries a way to get around our community. And I hope
    that we use that upcoming event to continue to invest.
        Mr. Ford, as you know, every billion dollars that we invest
    in public transportation sustains approximately $5 billion in
    long-term economic impact and 50,000 jobs. And I was hoping
    that you would speak broadly to the importance of investment
    that you have seen in your community and what that has done in
    your part of the world.
        Mr. Ford. Yes. Thank you for that question.
        And it is clear: The better we move our communities, the
    stronger they become financially, health-wise, as well as
    educationally wise.
        And representing APTA today is a great honor to just
    reiterate that story of public transportation and the ability
    it has to improve the quality of lives in our community--not
    just by moving people.
        And that is why that statistic is so telling, in that there
    are communities that do not have public transportation that
    depend on our operations, depend on our investment, our
    contracts, our purchases of rolling stock to sustain their
    communities, either through a manufacturing plant or some other
    activity that supports our large transit systems, our transit
    systems across the country.
        So thank you for reiterating that fact, that a dollar spent
    in public transportation yields $5 in economic impact. And,
    literally, 77 percent of the Federal funding we receive goes to
    the private sector to build these projects and maintain our
    systems.
        Ms. Friedman. Thank you.
        My time is up, and I yield back.
        Dr. Van Drew. The gentlelady yields back.
        And I yield 5 minutes to myself.
        Funding alone is not going to fix a broken transportation
    system. Money is important; we all know it. It is real
    important. But, besides the money, there are other issues.
        We put $180 billion, invested through the Infrastructure
    Investment and Jobs Act--which I supported, by the way--in a
    bipartisan way, yet major challenges persist. Ridership is
    still low. Fare revenues haven't recovered completely. Crime,
    in some cases, is up. And agencies continue to fall short of
    delivering results that justify completely this level of
    support.
        Meanwhile, the flow of Federal funds is too slow--the Feds
    are at fault, too--the process is too confusing, and oversight
    sometimes is too weak. That is why the upcoming reauthorization
    must focus on smarter investments, faster delivery, stronger
    oversight, and real accountability. We have to do things
    differently.
        I have a friend of mine who is from the South in a rural
    area, and he has this saying: ``Get 'er done.'' ``Get 'er
    done.'' Did you ever hear that? Let's get this done. Let's see
    if we can get this done.
        Everybody supports--I really do believe the vast majority
    of Members of Congress and the public support public
    transportation, as was said by a number of my colleagues, if
    it's clean, if it's safe, if it's quick, if it's responsive.
        Local agencies are stuck navigating vague guidance,
    redtape, shifting timelines that cause delay and increase
    costs, leaves communities waiting and waiting and waiting or
    behind schedule on many projects.
        Mr. Feigenbaum, thank you, first of all, for being here
    today. How can the FTA improve clarity and consistency so that
    the funds are delivered faster, that the projects are done on
    schedule, on time, and on budget?
        Mr. Feigenbaum. Sure. So thank you for the question.
        I think the first thing is to set up a detailed timeline of
    the amount of time, maximum times, it would take for a project
    to be delivered or for a project to go through review and the
    funds to be expended. Right now, there really isn't such a
    timeline, and I think that would be helpful.
        Two, I think there needs to be some clear guidance as to
    exactly what information agencies want and some, maybe,
    realistic-ness. There was a time when a detailed cost-benefit
    analysis was required, and many smaller agencies really didn't
    have the resources for that, and so FTA staff actually ended up
    doing it themselves, and so it was kind of a silly thing to ask
    for.
        So it is a combination of detailed timeline, clear
    instructions, and making sure the agency is asking for
    realistic information.
        Dr. Van Drew. Good answer. Could you do me a favor and get
    that response you just gave me to the staff here on the
    Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and to me
    personally in my office as well?
        Mr. Feigenbaum. Sure.
        Dr. Van Drew. Thank you.
        I think we all agree, taxpayers deserve to know what is
    going on, where their money is going, why they are spending
    this money, if we are making things better, if we are making
    them more efficient, if it's working, period.
        So, Mr. Feigenbaum--I am picking on you today--should
    agencies be required to--in fact, real quickly, almost like a
    ``yes'' or ``no,'' if you could all answer this: Should
    agencies be required to report real-time data on safety,
    service, and ridership to ensure accountability?
        And I will start, actually, with Mr. Regan. It is kind of a
    short answer, if you could.
        Mr. Regan. I am sorry. What was the question?
        Dr. Van Drew. Okay. We will skip you for now.
        Mr. Feigenbaum.
        Mr. Feigenbaum. Yes, I do. With the technology today, it is
    very doable.
        Dr. Van Drew. Mr. Booterbaugh.
        Mr. Booterbaugh. I think it would be great. It would
    require a lot of infrastructure investment to do it.
        Dr. Van Drew. Ms. Cline.
        Ms. Cline. I agree with the gentlemen.
        Dr. Van Drew. So you are saying: Great idea; it is going to
    cost a lot of bucks.
        Mr. Ford.
        Mr. Ford. The answer is yes. And, right now, APTA reports
    that type of data, particularly ridership data, every week.
        Dr. Van Drew. So, Mr. Regan, it was to report real-time
    data on safety, service, and ridership.
        Mr. Regan. One hundred percent, yes.
        Dr. Van Drew. Okay. Thank you.
        Funding flexibility has its place, and it is good, and we
    are all about that, I think, bipartisan. But it shouldn't come
    at the expense of oversight.
        Would you support Congress placing clearer limits on the
    use of Federal transit funds to prevent waste and mismanagement
    before it happens?
        Again, we only have a few seconds, so real quick.
        Mr. Regan. Yes.
        Mr. Feigenbaum. Yes.
        Mr. Booterbaugh. Yes.
        Mr. Ford. Yes.
        Ms. Cline. Yes.
        Dr. Van Drew. And that wouldn't cost a ton of money. I
    think that is something that is really doable.
        So I think these are things maybe, as a committee, we
    should look at. I would appreciate any input, my office would.
    I know the good, great staff here within Transportation and
    Infrastructure would. And maybe we can actually do something. I
    know that's weird for Congress, but maybe we actually could.
        I am being a little sarcastic.
        Thank you so much for your time.
        And I yield back.
        Mr. Carbajal.
        Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I know you saved the
    best for last, but I--well, just when I said that, somebody
    else came in, so almost the best for last.
        Mr. Ford, in my district, the Santa Barbara Metropolitan
    Transit District had previously received Federal dollars
    through the STIC program. However, due to population growth, it
    disqualified MTD from the STIC funds. This has translated to
    roughly a $3 million loss annually.
        Can you discuss how Congress can work to ensure that high-
    performing community public transit providers, like MTD, that
    serve medium-size, urbanized areas are able to compete for
    Federal dollars in order to continue offering quality and
    affordable transportation services to the public?
        Mr. Ford. Thank you. Thank you for the question. Can you
    hear me? It seems like--yes.
        Okay. Thank you for the question.
        I think, when we talk about the midsize systems, we have a
    unique environment to operate within. And it is a challenge to
    continue to compete, similar to the rural systems, with our
    larger brothers and sisters and the larger systems.
        I would be open to specifically working with you and your
    office to identify what has been the success of the JTA and
    what were some of those strategies that we used. I think I
    would need more time to get back to you on that specific
    answer.
        Mr. Carbajal. Thank you. I look forward to working with
    you.
        Mr. Ford, there are 61 transit projects at various stages
    of development in the pipeline for Capital Investment Grant
    funding. These projects are established to meet the mobility
    and economic-opportunity needs identified by local communities.
        The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law provided a historic $23
    billion for the CIG program, $8 billion of which was guaranteed
    funding.
        Your testimony notes several CIG projects that are making a
    difference in communities across the country. How important is
    robust and reliable Federal funding in getting these projects
    built on time and on budget?
        Mr. Ford. It is key to--thank you for the question. It is
    key to the successful delivery of that project.
        For our communities, when we talk about capital projects,
    having that knowledge in advance that the money is secure, the
    funding is secure to move forward, it allows us to properly
    plan and set up the right consultant and engineering and
    construction processes to deliver that program. Also, it gives
    us the opportunity to really articulate to our community the
    benefits of that program.
        So it cuts out a lot of the uncertainty in terms of what
    needs to be advanced for your community and the successful
    delivery of that project. So certainty is important.
        Mr. Carbajal. Thank you.
        Mr. Regan, according to the American Public Transportation
    Association, every $1 invested in transit generates $5 in
    economic return.
        The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law was really a jobs bill.
    However, recent actions by the U.S. Department of
    Transportation to delay, meddle, and cancel transit funding
    threatens the livelihoods of workers directly and indirectly
    connected to this industry.
        Can you discuss the impacts of unpredictable and punitive
    actions several administration Executive orders have had on the
    workforce?
        Mr. Regan. Yes. Thank you for the question.
        One thing that I have found to be a little frustrating
    during this hearing is hearing people say, well, in the last 5
    years----
        Mr. Carbajal [interrupting]. Is your microphone on?
        Mr. Regan. It is, yes.
        Mr. Carbajal. There we go.
        Mr. Regan [continuing]. In the last 5 years, we have had a
    record amount of money for public transit, and how come it is
    not better; we are still at a ``D'' grade on there from the
    American Society of Civil Engineers.
        When you have chronically underfunded a sector of our
    country, like public transit, for decades, it is not going to
    bounce back like that. Mr. Larsen said that in the beginning.
        But, as we are finally funding these programs at a level
    that I think should be our normal level, should be our
    baseline--in fact, we should be growing off of it--and now we
    are going to be meddling with the project delivery at this
    stage of a 5-year bill, it's only going to hurt jobs, it's
    going to delay projects, and it's going to make it harder for
    you all, for Congress, to go back and say, ``Look at the
    accomplishments we had the last time we made real investments
    in these programs, and we need to build upon it.''
        But if we are not seeing real results and if they are
    delaying projects and cutting jobs, that makes the selling job
    a little bit harder in terms of to constituents. If we are
    going to be going back and saying, ``We need to reinvest in
    this and on a much bigger level and continue to invest in our
    communities,'' these types of actions are only going to hurt
    that momentum that we are already seeing right now.
        Mr. Carbajal. Thank you.
        Mr. Chair, I am out of time. I yield back.
        Mr. Burchett [presiding]. Thank you. And we did save the
    absolute best for last, I just want you to know. Thank you for
    noting that. You are out of order. No, I am just kidding.
        I have a question for Mr. Regan.
        Mr. Regan, have instances of crime on public transit
    increased over the past decade?
        Mr. Regan. Yes. Certainly on operators, yes, on the people
    I represent.
        Mr. Burchett. Do we have any data to indicate why that is?
        Mr. Regan. I don't know exactly why. I mean, it is hard to
    legislate the human condition, but----
        Mr. Burchett [interrupting]. Yes. Tell me about it.
        This is for all the witnesses: Are traditional security
    measures, like security cameras and police presence, sufficient
    to deter crime on public transit?
        Mr. Ford.
        Mr. Ford. Thank you for the question.
        I think those are foundational, but there are different
    technologies that our agencies are now deploying: using
    artificial intelligence; using weapon detection in terms of
    cameras and CCTV; using artificial intelligence to predict
    where there may be a proliferation of particular crimes in a
    certain area. That way, you can target your actual police and
    enforcement resources; deescalation training for our operators
    so they recognize someone who is having a mental issue----
        Mr. Burchett [interposing]. Right.
        Mr. Ford [continuing]. And how to deescalate that
    situation.
        So a lot of different tools are needed to be deployed, and
    our agencies are doing that.
        Mr. Burchett. Any of the others?
        Mr. Booterbaugh. Yes, I would just add that one of the
    things that we have noticed in our operations is that there is
    a direct link to places where you are running fare-free. There
    seems to be more assaults in locations----
        Mr. Burchett [interrupting]. Running what?
        Mr. Booterbaugh. Fare-free.
        Mr. Burchett. Fare-free.
        Mr. Booterbaugh. Yes.
        Mr. Burchett. Okay.
        Mr. Booterbaugh. But I do agree with Mr. Ford; there is a
    variety of things that we are trying to keep our operators
    safe. But it is a problem.
        Mr. Feigenbaum. Yes. They are a big part of the solution
    that in some agencies haven't been ramped up quickly enough, in
    my opinion.
        I would also say that fare gates, higher fare gates, are a
    big part of the solution, and more protections in buses for
    drivers.
        Mr. Burchett. Well, let me ask you--I worry about the poor
    folks, the least amongst us, so to speak, that can't afford
    that. How do you segregate that community, between the folks
    that are just on a bad run of luck and the dirtbags?
        Mr. Feigenbaum. Yes. Well, I think the poor folks are
    actually who we should be focusing on in transit. And I think
    it comes down to, in some cases, there might be a rationale for
    a discounted fare, but there is still something that folks are
    paying on the system.
        And it is not--I mean, it is not cheap, but it is not that
    expensive to give drivers protection. Spending your money
    there, as opposed to operating routes that don't have enough
    riders or building new capital systems which can be
    tremendously expensive, is the right place to focus resources--
    Federal, State, and local.
        Mr. Burchett. I know AI was mentioned. Are there any other
    technologies that we could incorporate into public
    infrastructure to deter some of this crime?
        Mr. Ford.
        Mr. Ford. Well, one system--and thank you for the question.
        One system that we are deploying now at the JTA, my
    Jacksonville Transportation Authority, is actually monitors
    where the passengers actually see themselves. You may see that
    in a lot of department stores and things of that nature.
        And so, when we piloted it, that system, we saw that it did
    encourage behaviors, not the far criminal--it deters criminal
    behavior, but, more importantly, just behaviors that are not
    acceptable in public that we were seeing.
        Mr. Burchett. Is this like a camera? They see a video of
    themselves?
        Mr. Ford. Yes, so you actually see yourself sitting on that
    vehicle. And that has triggered a certain behavioral response
    relative to just outbursts, cursing, and----
        Mr. Burchett [interposing]. Right.
        Mr. Ford [continuing]. Behaviors that are not appropriate
    in public.
        Mr. Burchett. Somebody like me would be afraid that my mama
    would see something like that, so I----
        Mr. Ford [interposing]. That's right.
        Mr. Burchett. Back in the day.
        Mr. Ford. Well, we are showing you, ``Our eyes are on
    you.''
        Mr. Burchett. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
        I was in the Middle East, and I remember, I walked into
    this area, and it wasn't particularly friendly towards people
    from our country--I will just leave it at that. And they had
    facial recognition. And I remember, I asked one of their
    leaders, I said, ``Is that facial recognition?'' ``Oh, no, we
    don't have anything like that.'' And I took a picture of it,
    because it had my face on it----
        Mr. Ford [interposing]. Is that so.
        Mr. Burchett [continuing]. And I thought, man, if the
    Taliban had me on file, they are really digging deep.
        But, anyway, anybody else--ma'am, you haven't said one
    thing up here. I haven't heard you. Do you have anything to add
    to any of this?
        Ms. Cline. Well, we do have cameras in all of our vehicles
    and also outside of our facilities.
        And I will tell you that, in our area, law enforcement
    comes to us fairly routinely to check on different activities
    because there aren't a lot of cameras. We are in a residential
    area.
        But, also, we use those to monitor children's behavior on
    the bus. So, if your mama was on the same track that these
    mamas were on, we can tell them if Joey was being a good boy or
    not.
        Mr. Burchett. Yes. My mama is with Jesus right now, so she
    is all right. She is doing better--her and Daddy are doing
    better than all of us. So, thank you.
        And I want to thank you all for being here.
        Apparently I have to read this. I am not generally the
    chairman. It usually--I will never chair a committee or be in
    leadership, I will tell you that.
        Let's see here.
        Thank you all. The gentleman yields back--which is me. I am
    yielding back. I am a little cautious of calling myself a
    gentleman. That usually--anytime anybody calls me ``The
    Honorable Tim Burchett,'' I am always afraid; I know what they
    are getting ready to ask. They need a bridge or a library or
    something. So, I have to be very careful with that.
        Are there further questions from any members of the
    subcommittee who have not been recognized?
        Seeing none, that concludes our hearing for today. And I
    would like to thank each of our witnesses for your testimony.
        The subcommittee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 1:32 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

                           Submissions for the Record

                                  ----------

      Statement of Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress from the
       State of Missouri, and Chairman, Committee on Transportation and
                                 Infrastructure
        Thank you, Chairman Rouzer, and thank you to our witnesses for
    being here today.
        Today's hearing focuses on our Nation's public transportation
    programs that fall under the Federal Transit Administration, or FTA.
        We continue to receive information about what programs are working
    and those that aren't, as we consider where we should be directing our
    investments to facilitate the safe and efficient movement of people and
    goods.
        I'd like to thank Secretary Duffy for his leadership and commitment
    to addressing the crime happening on some of the Nation's public
    transit systems. Since the COVID-19 pandemic, we have seen ridership
    numbers struggle to recover and crime levels skyrocket.
        No place has that been more apparent than Kansas City, where their
    ``free fare'' experiment has gone horribly wrong. Instead of making
    transit affordable and reliable, it made transit unsustainable and
    downright dangerous. Drivers and passengers shouldn't fear for their
    lives every time they step on a bus, yet that's exactly what's happened
    in Kansas City.
        In my district, we've seen crime skyrocket at and around bus stops
    since this ``free fare'' nonsense started. And it's exactly why we've
    seen them reverse course and end this horrible experiment-gone-awry.
        Without addressing this growing concern, we continue to put other
    riders, drivers, operators, and workers in danger.
        Thank you, Chairman Rouzer. I yield back.

                                    Appendix

                                  ----------

    Questions from Hon. Hillary J. Scholten to Nathaniel Phillip Ford, Sr.,
      Chief Executive Officer, Jacksonville Transportation Authority, on
        behalf of the American Public Transportation Association (APTA)

        Question 1. Autonomous vehicles represent the next frontier of
    cutting-edge technology, and we must ensure that the United States
    stays at the forefront so we do not cede our edge to China or the rest
    of the world. Part of that commitment means building more vehicles here
    at home and onshoring our supply chains. In my home state of Michigan,
    we are home to a thriving community of automotive manufacturers and
    suppliers, including Holon which has taken the lead by breaking ground
    on a new plant in your city to build their next generation autonomous
    shuttle. This expansion will help solidify their extensive U.S.
    footprint, which is centered in Michigan. We need more investment like
    that to ensure these jobs stay at home.
        Question 1.a. Can you elaborate on this from your perspective--as
    you are considering options for your community in Jacksonville, how
    important is it to procure a vehicle that is built in the United
    States?
        Answer:
          The JTA and APTA strongly support Buy America policies
    and share the goal of strengthening domestic manufacturing. For over 40
    years, public transportation projects have complied with Buy America,
    ensuring all of the steel, iron, and manufacturing products are made in
    the U.S.

          The public transportation industry has one of the
    strictest Buy America standards, with rolling stock requirements that
    at least 70 percent of the cost of components and subcomponents used
    must be produced in the U.S., and that final assembly also takes place
    in the U.S.

          Public transportation, a $79 billion industry, employs
    more than 430,000 people and supports millions of private-sector jobs.
    In fact, 77 percent of Federal public transportation investment flows
    to the private sector. These are jobs in fields such as manufacturing,
    engineering, operations, construction, and much more, with emerging
    mobility technologies like ITS infrastructure, smart fare collection,
    and predictive maintenance creating additional job opportunities in the
    technology and innovation sectors.

          This was our vision as the JTA moved forward with the
    Ultimate Urban Circulator (U\2\C). By embracing new AV technology that
    is leading in the mobility innovation space, we are able to provide the
    communities we serve with mobility solutions that are agile and
    adaptable to the needs of our customers, understanding that
    transportation is not a one-size-fits-all industry. This ultimately
    results in increasing jobs in America and increased support in
    investments made in products and services here in the U.S.

          HOLON, a subsidiary of the BENTELER Group, is
    establishing its first U.S. production facility for autonomous vehicles
    in Jacksonville, Florida. This plant will have a large economic impact
    in our region, per an economic study:
          +  From 2025 to 2027, the total plant investments will generate
    an estimated 839 jobs and $201.1 million in economic impact.
          +  Starting in 2028, the plant's operations is projected to
    create 736 jobs and $87.2 million in economic impact per year.
        Question 1.b. How can public sector transportation agencies play a
    role in driving local economic development and manufacturing through
    strategic projects?
        Answer:
          Public transportation agencies must play a role in
    helping communities grow and prosper, from a quality-of-life
    perspective that includes the creation of jobs, and positive economic
    growth, through investment as well.

          The U\2\C has been a catalyst, one that was pivotal in
    the decision making for BENTELER to set up its HOLON manufacturing
    plant in Jacksonville, Florida, with an economic impact study stating
    that this will result in over a billion dollars in economic impact in
    just 12 years.

          Every single strategic project and service that we
    evaluate, plan, and ultimately execute, must ensure that it advances
    the mobility of our residents through reliable and safe transportation,
    and bring positive impacts upon our community. This can be achieved
    through the creation of jobs, reliable service to medical and
    educational facilities, incentivizing investment, helping increase land
    value, and other generating revenue options.

          For example, since the JTA launched the First Coast Flyer
    Bus Rapid Transit system, the largest in the southeast with approximate
    57 miles of premium service, we have tracked how residential and
    commercial permitting has exponentially increased along these
    corridors.

          Every $1 invested in public transit generates $5 in
    economic returns. Again, 77 percent of Federal public transportation
    investment flows to the private sector, with APTA identifying more than
    2,000 suppliers (ex. construction, manufacturing, engineering,
    technology, planning, operations) that Federal transit investment
    directly supports.

          Additional benefits from transportation investment come
    from other related areas such as:
          +  Emerging mobility technologies like ITS infrastructure, smart
    fare collection, and predictive maintenance create additional job
    opportunities in the tech and innovation sectors.
          +  Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) attracts businesses,
    housing, and retail around transit hubs, increasing property values and
    economic activity.
          +  Enhancing transportation networks can revitalize downtowns and
    commercial corridors, supporting small businesses and increasing local
    tax revenues.
          +  Smart city technologies, such as AI-powered traffic management
    and digital fare integration, can improve transit efficiency and user
    experience.