[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 25 (Monday, March 3, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H705-H706]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




[[Page H705]]



 AMERICA'S TRANSPORTATION FUNDING NEEDS EXCEED THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET 
                               PROPOSALS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 7, 1997, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, last week the House Subcommittee on 
Transportation of the Committee on Appropriations and Related Agencies 
kicked off its hearings on the fiscal year 1998 transportation 
appropriation legislation.
  For 2 days the subcommittee received testimony from Members of 
Congress and public witnesses on transportation policy and funding, 
including issues related to public transportation. Many, many witnesses 
representing mass transit organizations and properties located across 
the country stressed the urgent mass transit needs now existing, the 
greater needs projected for the future, and the need for additional 
spending for public transportation.
  Earlier last month the President presented his fiscal year 1998 
budget proposals, and the budget request for public transportation 
falls far short of the needs articulated by the witnesses who testified 
last week. In fact, the Clinton budget proposes to hold the line on 
public transportation funding at current spending levels, calling for a 
reduction of 1 percent from last year's level.
  Clearly the transportation community is at an important crossroads. 
Identified mass transit needs far outstrip the President's budget 
proposals. Under even the rosiest of economic projections, and 602(b) 
allocations, Congress will never, never be able to fund all of these 
transit needs.
  Further complicating this situation is the upcoming expiration of 
ISTEA. As Members know, the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act of 1991, known as ISTEA, expires at the end of fiscal 
year 1997. Already, in fact, beginning last year, States and their 
Governors and transportation departments, Amtrak and commuter rail 
users, environmentalists and bicyclists, highway folks and the transit 
community, are staking their positions on legislation to succeed ISTEA.

                              {time}  1415

  It seems that everyone is an interested party in this discussion and 
every interest is in competition with each other. Are you interested in 
protecting the status quo, changing formulas, seeking major program 
reforms or otherwise merely looking to increase your relative take of 
this massive $150 billion authorization bill? There is a place for you 
in the debate.
  I understand there is a tongue in cheek expression making its way 
around the Capitol these days. That is that the reauthorization bill 
reported by the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
will be named ``Hot-Tea'' for Highway Only Transportation Efficiency 
Act, the implication being that the general authorization for the 
transit programs and many of the flexible funding provisions included 
within ISTEA that benefit the transit community will either be 
eliminated or greatly diminished while authorization for concrete and 
pavement will increase dramatically.
  I certainly support, strongly support highway spending and providing 
funding for concrete and pavement to build these necessary roads. 
However, highway programs must continue to be only one component of a 
balanced transportation program, one that meets the needs of highway 
users as well as those who depend on public transportation.
  To ensure balance in our comprehensive transportation program, we 
need to pull together to improve the current program structure and the 
delivery of services to those that use public transportation regularly. 
Public transportation is not just about using a sleek subway system 
when visiting the Nation's capital, nor is it simply about riding in 
San Francisco's famed street cars while vacationing on the West Coast, 
nor is it just about getting an earmark for a favored project back 
home, no matter how small the earmark may be, to ensure that one more 
transit project is listed in the appropriations legislation and thereby 
legitimized for continued funding through the lifetime of the project.
  No, public transportation is also about, really it is primarily 
about, getting people to work, getting children to school, providing 
the way for people to get to the hospital, to the store, to visit 
friends and relatives across town and across the country. Public 
transportation represents a vital transportation link for many people, 
including millions of Americans with disabilities. And without public 
transportation, many people would virtually be stranded, unable to 
venture beyond the confines of their neighborhoods. Simply stated, we 
need to change the way we view providing for public transportation.
  First, what are we spending on public transportation? Second, where 
is that money going? Third, are those funding decisions consistent and 
appropriate given budgetary constraints? Last, can we develop a 
comprehensive coherent public transportation program? This is our 
challenge and this is our goal.
  Do you know that annually the Federal Government spends over $4 
billion on transit programs alone? These funds are provided to 
modernize older rail systems, to purchase and rehabilitate buses and 
rail cars, and to build or improve existing bus facilities, rail yards, 
stations and heavy and light rail systems in many of our Nation's 
cities.
  Where is that money actually going? Each year the transportation 
appropriations bill provides funds designated specifically for transit 
properties across the country. Last year Congress provided $4.4 billion 
for transit, of which over $800 million was provided for construction 
and design of some 54 transit projects, called new starts, throughout 
the country, and Puerto Rico.
  Are these funding decisions appropriate? The Federal Transit 
Administration currently has entered into 13 full funding grant 
agreements and expects to enter into two more very soon. These full 
funding grant agreements represent a commitment by the Federal 
Government to fund these transit new start projects through to their 
completion. The 13 funding grant agreements now in place represent a 
total of $5.4 billion in Federal commitments, of which nearly $3 
billion remains to be funded. The FTA will have to maintain a grant 
portfolio of roughly $800 million per year through the year 2001 to 
fund these projects; $800 million per year for these projects alone, 
yet the President's budget for fiscal year 1998 requests only $634 
million for all new start projects, nearly $170 million below the 
amounts negotiated by FTA for the full funding grant agreements.
  What does this mean? It means that FTA is further increasing the 
outyear commitments in its already limited portfolio and will increase 
the project costs as well. Is this our total commitment to public 
transportation and new starts? Not by a long shot. As I mentioned 
earlier, the fiscal year 1997 act provides new start funding for 54 
projects. Obviously that is far more than the number of projects having 
full funding grant agreements. In short, we are providing funds for 
projects above and beyond those that have secured full funding grant 
agreements.
  The FTA also plans to enter into two additional full funding grant 
agreements this fiscal year. These agreements would add significantly 
to out-year commitments. It does not end here either. According to the 
FTA, there are currently 53 major investment studies now underway 
throughout the country that may lead to requests for new starts 
funding. These studies are examining a number of transportation 
alternatives and corridor alignments.
  Many of these studies are in their early stages but to date of the 53 
major investment studies that have produced capital cost estimates, the 
total capital cost of these fixed guideway alternatives exceeds $30 
billion.
  These figures are alarming. The new start program is increasingly 
oversubscribed and overcommitted. The cost of completing all projects 
in the development process at any one time vastly exceeds the amount of 
Federal funds that are available now and in the foreseeable future. 
Another interesting fact worth noting is that since fiscal year 1992, 
California has received nearly a quarter of all the funds in the new 
start program, more than any other

[[Page H706]]

State. In fact, the top three recipient States, California, New Jersey 
and Oregon today received more than half of the funds in the program 
during that period.

  In fiscal year 1998, the President's budget for new starts looks much 
the same. Of the $634 million proposed for the program, California is 
to receive almost one-third of the total funding. New Jersey would get 
13 percent and Oregon would get 10 percent. Again, in fiscal year 1998, 
these three States account for more than half of the total amount 
requested of the new start program.
  For those of you considering light and heavy rail projects in your 
areas any time in the near future, let me just say this, under the 
current system, there are no funds available.
  In addition, one has to wonder whether some transit capital grants 
are being spent wisely today. The Congressional Budget Office looked at 
the cost effectiveness of various forms of public transportation 
assistance. Using Department of Transportation data to compute the 
total annualized cost per passenger-mile of these different forms of 
transit, CBO concluded that ordinary buses average 35 cents per 
passenger-mile; commuter rail averaged 65 cents per passenger-mile; 
heavy rail at $1.40 per passenger-mile; and light rail at $3.40 per 
passenger-mile, nearly a tenfold increase over buses. Yet what kind of 
transit have cities and other local governments been rushing to build 
with their Federal grants?


                               Light rail

  Some transit advocates claim that only light rail can attract 
suburban commuters and stop the declining use of transit by the middle 
class. But almost every city that has built either light or heavy rail 
in the past 25 years has a smaller share of commuting by transit in 
1990 than they did 10 years earlier.
  This is true in Portland, San Francisco and even here in Washington, 
DC. In fact, the only major city that has witnessed growth in mass 
transit's share over the last decade has been Houston, TX, and they are 
building busways in Houston, not a rail system.
  This brings me to my final point, which is really a call to action. 
What do we need to do? What can we do to develop a comprehensive 
coherent public transportation program which responsibly meets critical 
public transportation needs in a manner consistent with the reality of 
constrained resources? I do not claim to have the answer. But I do know 
this. The Federal Government is already overcommitted on transit 
spending, while new requests for funding, many of which would certainly 
meet identified needs, pour in, when large increases in spending for 
public transportation are not likely and when important programmatic 
changes are anticipated during reauthorization of ISTEA.
  Those of us who care about support of public transportation must be 
able to offer alternatives to the current methods of doing public 
transportation business. I challenge my colleagues to talk with transit 
managers, urban planners, as well as State and local officials to 
consider a number of questions, including the following:
  First, does the current new starts program structure encourage 
metropolitan areas to build fixed-guideway systems rather than an 
alternative that may be more appropriate but less likely to obtain 
Federal funding.
  Second, does the current system of providing Federal funds 
specifically for fixed-guideway, new start systems induce metropolitan 
areas to pursue more costly, less flexible systems compared to flexible 
route transit systems, such as buses, which can use rights-of-way that 
are shared by other vehicles?
  Third, should the current program be changed to provide more 
flexibility to State and local government and transit authorities to 
enable them to be more responsive to the needs of their particular 
communities?
  Fourth, does the current funding formula, 80 Federal/20 local match, 
have the effect of gold plating projects or providing incentive to 
pursue projects that transit districts and municipalities otherwise 
would not because of local financial limitations.
  Fifth, should we continue to fund projects in the very early stages 
of engineering and major investment studies, the cost of which can and 
perhaps should be paid from State and local funds to indicate strong 
local support, or limit appropriations to only those projects in their 
final design and construction?
  Sixth, should the current program be modified to provide priority 
funding or other preferences to projects supported by a greater local 
match?
  Seventh, should transit capital assistance be allocated to the States 
and localities in a way that mirrors Federal aid highway assistance to 
guarantee States a minimum return on the taxes they send to Washington?
  Eighth, what level of Federal funding should be made available for 
public transportation, and what should the source of this funding be?
  One thing is certain, public transportation is an integral part of 
the Nation's transportation network and a vital life link for many 
segments of our population. As such, there must be a continuing, strong 
Federal role in transit. Local transit systems are the beginning and 
ending point for inner city transportation and are therefore very much 
a part of our national transportation network. And road users should 
help pay for transit programs in some circumstances since they benefit 
from them. As public transportation reduces the number of automobiles 
on the road, it therefore reduces congestion on roads and bridges.
  Beyond this, however, our transit programs and policies must be 
updated. Budgetary constraints coupled with ISTEA reauthorizations 
demand that we develop new ways of dealing with public transportation. 
It is time to think differently, to be more innovative, creative and 
more efficient in the transit services we provide and the alternatives 
we present to our local boards, States, Federal Government and 
Congress.

                          ____________________