S. Hrg. 103-291. Pt. 1
Senate Hearings
Before the Committee on Appropriations
Y4.AP 6/2; S. HRG, 103-291/
PT.l
Depirtnent of Transportition ind Re...
Department of
Transportation and Related
• •
Agencies Appropriations
Fiscal Year
1994
103
d CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION
H.R. 2490/2750
PART 1 (Pages 1-809)
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (AMTRAK)
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
'""Vf'
MM ft yqp4
'"^^.U^!\:i:?-.
S. Hrg. 103-291, Pt. 1
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELAT-
ED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR HSCAL
YEAR 1994
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
H.R. 2490/2750
AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANS-
PORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING
SEPTEMBER 30, 1994, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
PART 1 (Pages 1-809)
Department of Transportation
General Accounting Office
National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)
National Transportation Safety Board
Nondepartmental witnesses
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
68-623 cc WASHINGTON : 1993
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-043223-5
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia, Chairman
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii MARK O. HATFIELD, Oregon
ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South CaroUna TED STEVENS, Alaska
J. BENNETT JOHNSTON, Louisiana THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont ALFONSE M. D'AMATO, New York
JIM SASSER, Tennessee ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
DENNIS DeCONCINI, Arizona PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
DALE BUMPERS, Arkansas DON NICKLES, Oklahoma
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey PHIL GRAMM, Texas
TOM HARKIN, Iowa CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland SLADE GORTON. Washington
HARRY REID, Nevada MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
J. ROBERT KERREY, Nebraska CONNIE MACK, Florida
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin CONRAD BURNS, Montana
PATTY MURRAY, Washington
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
James H. English, Staff Director
Mary S. Dewald, Chief Clerk
J. Keith Kennedy, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Transportation and Related Agencies
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey, Chairman
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia ALFONSE M. D'AMATO, New York
TOM HARKIN, Iowa PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
JIM SASSER, Tennessee MARK O. HATFIELD, Oregon
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
Professional Staff
Patrick J. McCann
Peter Rogoff
Anne M. Miano (Minority)
Administrative Support
Joyce C. Rose
(II)
/
CONTENTS
Thursday, March 4, 1993
high-speed rail issues
Page
Panel I: National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) and nondepart-
mental witness 1
Panel II: General Accounting Office and nondepartmental witnesses 39
Panel III: Nondepartmental witnesses 103
Material submitted subsequent to the hearing 153
Thursday, March 11, 1993
transit needs
Panel I:
General Accounting Office and nondepartmental witnesses 159
Department of Transportation: Federal Transit Administration 159
Panel II: Nondepartmental witnesses 257
Panel III: Nondepartmental witnesses 321
Wednesday, March 17, 1993
national transportation safety board
National Transportation Safety Board 365
Wednesday, March 31, 1993
implementation of istea
General Accounting Office 501
Department of Transportation: Federtd Highway Administration 501
Nondepartmental witness 501
Nondepartmental witnesses 567
Material submitted subsequent to the hesiring 693
Wednesday, April 21, 1993
DOT fiscal year 1994 BUDGET REQUEST
Department of Transportation: Office of the Secretary 699
(III)
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RE-
LATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 1994
THURSDAY, MARCH 4, 1993
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen Sen-
ate Office Building, Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg (chairman) presid-
ing.
Present: Senators Lautenberg, Mikulski, and Specter.
panel I
NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION
(AMTRAK)
STATEMENT OF W. GRAHAM CLAYTOR, JR., PRESTOENT AND CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER
ACCOMPANIED BY DENNIS F. SULLIVAN, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT
AND CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESS
Association of American Railroads
statement of bob blanchette, for the general counsel
opening remarks
Senator Lautenberg. I call this hearing to order for the Sub-
committee of Transportation of the Senate Appropriations Commit-
tee. The subject today is high-speed rail, a favorite subject of mine.
In the last few months, there have been a couple of new arrivals
in Washington, DC, that together, I hope, signal the dawn of a new
era in passenger rail transportation.
One arrival that most got a pretty good look at — pictures, TV, or
otherwise — is the X2000 tilt train. This subcommittee provided
funding for this new experiment over the Northeast corridor in
order to demonstrate what new high-tech equipment might mean
to American passenger rail service.
Personally, I had hoped that it would serve as a catalyst for re-
newed interest in rail transportation, but even I have been sur-
prised at the popularity and the interest in the X2000, both with
the media and the traveling public. In the X2000, people are seeing
just how convenient, reliable, and comfortable railroading can be.
(1)
Later this year, Amtrak is going to be testing the German ICE
train and, possibly, some others. For decisionmakers, experiments
like these will help demonstrate that expanded investment in rail
service can promote leadership in rail service, increase ridership,
and produce benefits that we are fiilly familiar with: reduced high-
way congestion, reduced airport congestion, cleaner air, and less
energy dependence on others.
Of course, the other, and even more important, new arrival in
Washington, DC, is President Clinton. After 12 years of doing bat-
tle with the White House merely to keep Amtrak alive, it's been a
delightful and refreshing change to have a President in the White
House who believes that a Federal investment in high-speed rail is
long overdue.
In addition to all of the environmental, energy, and transpor-
tation benefits that this investment will yield, it will also yield the
thing that America needs most: jobs, jobs, and jobs.
By investing in high-speed rail transportation, we will succeed in
creating thousands of new jobs across the country. Indeed, evidence
in Grermany indicates that investments in high-speed rail transpor-
tation projects produce 1.4 jobs for every one job generated by an
equal investment in highways.
Investing in high-speed rail transportation will also enable the
United States to regain expertise in critical new technologies that
should create additional well-paying jobs for many skilled techni-
cians and assembly workers currently facing an unemployment
line.
Amtrak will soon be developing specifications to procure dozens
of new trainsets suitable for corridors all over this country that will
be capable of speeds of 150 miles an hour. I intend to see to it that
every one of these trains is manufactured here in the United
States.
Nowhere have we better seen the benefits of high-speed rail
transportation in the United States than in the Northeast corridor.
Each year, about 11 million passengers travel by train in the
Northeast corridor. Sixty-five million commuters depend on the cor-
ridor to get to work every day. And over 40 percent of all of the
people traveling between New York and Washington use Amtrak.
And it's estimated that this committee's effort to attain less than
3-hour service between New York and Boston will divert an addi-
tional 2.5 to 3 million passengers from our congested highways and
sk5rways to rail.
Currently, almost one-quarter of all traffic out of Boston's Logan
Airport heads for New York City. Now, compare the $1 billion in-
vestment that might be required in Northeast corridor electrifica-
tion with the multiple billions of dollars necessary to expand or
construct a new airport in Boston. If Amtrak didn't exist between
New York and Washington, we'd have to invent it, because we sim-
ply could not accommodate all of those travelers in our airports or
on our highways.
We would need at least 40 more shuttle flights a day to service
the same number of people without rail service. Anyone who flies
out of National, Newark Airport, or LaGuardia, can tell you that
our airports just can't handle that additional load.
They can barely handle the current load. And take it from one
who knows from experience, I have had longer delays on the
ground after getting on an airplane than I have had in total flying
time.
Our experience in the Northeast corridor shows that given even
moderate high-speed rail service or moderate-speed rail service —
that is to say, not truly high-speed — people will take the train. Im-
provements in elapsed travel time, immediately get attention and
direct response from the traveling public.
At today's hearing, the subcommittee is going to focus on how we
can emulate the success of the Northeast corridor through the rest
of the country. The success of this corridor should be repeated. Sev-
eral new high-speed corridors have been identified and should be
developed. Basically, any place that we have major cities within
200 to 300 miles of one another, rail could provide the type of bene-
fits that we've seen in Washington and New York.
The Clinton administration has embraced this goal by calling for
a coordinated program, combining direct Federal expenditures and
private sector investment incentives, to establish nigh-speed rail
throughout the country.
At last, we have an administration that's prepared to implement
a truly balanced transportation network. The question that faces
this new administration, as well as this subcommittee, however, is
how do we best invest those funds? And how do we maximize pri-
vate sector involvement and investment in the expansion of high-
speed rail service?
Today, we're going to discuss the ways that Federal investment
can be com seed — can best leverage the maximum level of private
sector funds for high-speed rail. And I hope that we're also going
to explore what incentives the private sector might need to increase
its interest and its investments in rail projects.
We're also going to hear about the role that the States and the
freight railroads can play. To address these questions, we have a
diverse group of witnesses to testify this morning.
They include representatives of Amtrak and the Nation's freight
railroads, the Greneral Accounting Office, representatives of several
fledgling high-speed rail projects across the country, and represent-
atives from the investment community.
I welcome all of you here this morning and thank you for your
willingness to discuss with us how we can best structure our long
overdue investment in high-speed rail transportation.
I'm delighted now to ask my distinguished colleague and friend,
Senator Mikulski, if she would like to make an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR MIKULSKI
Senator Mikulski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to thank
you for holding this very important hearing on the future of high-
speed rail in the United States of America.
I'm going to thank you, also, for keeping Amtrak alive during
this very difficult decade, when everyone wanted to sell it off, cher-
ry pick it, and just would have broken up the system.
We would not be at the point we are at today, had not the U.S.
Congress preserved Amtrak. And we want to acknowledge the role
of your leadership in Amtrak and sustaining it.
Now, I think we will have opportunity to look for what is the
next generation of Amtrak, what is the next generation of Amer-
ican trains, and how this will then generate jobs today and jobs to-
morrow.
I look forward to listening to our distinguished panelists discuss
maglev and high-speed rail this morning.
Mr. Chairman, I'm also here to say — let's bring, however, the
analysis soon to a close and start making some real rail progress.
It's time to get moving on maglev.
I happen to believe in that great line from "Field of Dreams." Do
you remember when they said, "Build it and they will come?"
Well, that's the way I feel about high-speed rail. And that's the
way I feel about maglev. I can't wait until this American-made
technology is up and running at 300 miles an hour. I can't wait
until I walk out of my little home in Baltimore, go to my favorite
diner, pick up coffee and a bagel, zip to Washington, in less than
12 minutes. I won't even have a chance to say "Good morning," to
all of those voters of mine.
We know that President Clinton has proposed a lot, a great deal
of money for maglev and high-speed rail development. And we
know that in the Technology Policy Statement, which he and Vice
President Gore released in February, they called for providing
funds for a maglev prototype.
We also know, Mr. Chairman, with your support, this sub-
committee included $45 million in last year's transportation appro-
priation for a maglev prototype development program authorized in
ISTEA. Unfortunately, the House chose to fight us on that. And we
had to put it aside in conference.
But you and I know the Federal Gk)vemment has spent $30 mil-
lion on studies, preliminary assessments of maglev, which find that
the technology is feasible and it's already moving ahead in other
countries. However, what we've also found is that there is no one
really in charge of the maglev policy in the United States of Amer-
ica.
So, Mr. Chairman, that is why I'm saying today, with the sup-
port of Senator Moynihan and other colleagues, we are sending a
letter to President Clinton urging the President to put a qualified
person in charge of the maglev effort, without delay, in the Federal
Railroad Administration.
With the appointment of a maglev project director and the estab-
lishment of a maglev project office called for in ISTEA, we will then
be able to move on this undertaking.
I want to be sure that when we look at maglev, we do not see
it in lieu of the high-speed rail undertakings that are all underway.
I support those. I look forward to riding with them. I look forward
to working with you on funding them. And at the same time, I'm
going to look even beyond the horizon to what maglev could mean
in the 21st century that would help America and help us have
something to sell around the world, so we could be the Yankee
traders and peddlers that we are.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I look forward to lis-
tening to the testimony of the panel.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much. Senator Mikulski.
With that sales pitch, it's obvious to those hearing Senator Mikul-
ski's dynamic delivery that we have here someone who used to be
an outstanding salesperson. But what you're going to have to do,
Mr. Claytor, is make sure that bagels are available on the train,
because, in that short time, it's hard to move it along.
We thank you. Senator Mikulski. And I'm delighted that you're
here with us. I know of your interest in high-speed rail. We share
a common kind of makeup within our States, urbanized States,
where relatively short distances can be very congested, and we
need alternatives.
PREPARED STATEMENTS
Two of my colleagues on the subcommittee, Senator D'Amato and
Senator Sasser, are unable to join us today. I will, at this point,
insert their opening statements for today's hearing.
[The statements follow:]
Statement of Senator D'Amato
Mr. Chairman, I join you in welcoming today's witnesses. Todajr's hearing prom-
ises to be very interesting as we will focus on the development of high speed rail
and magnetic levitation r^ systems in this country.
I believe that we are at the crossroads as far as this Nation's involvement in the
high speed rail program. With leadership and support from Congress, Amtrak, and
the Administration as well as the involvement of private sector entities, we can fos-
ter the full utilization of this Nation's rail resources. This would aid the environ-
ment, reduce airport and highway congestion, and provide better transportation
service to the public.
I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Statement of Senator Sasser
Good morning. I join in welcoming all of the witnesses. Today's hearing focuses
on the role of rml investments in future United States policy.
Let me begin my comments by saying a few words about Amtrak. It is hardly a
secret along these corridors that Amtrak's biggest challenge, apart from operational
self-sufficiency, has been its sheer survival. Whereas in recent years past, Amtrak
has appeared before this Subcommittee under an ominous 0MB cloud, the change
in Administrations has favorablv improved Amtrak's budgetary forecast.
While Amtrak has estabUshed a long, albeit battle-tested, track record, the United
States' experience with high speed rail and magnetic levitation technologies is still
evolving even as we meet here today. Clearly, there is great promise in the develop-
ment and operation of advanced rail technologies. However, a fully operational high
speed rail and magnetic levitation network will neither come swiftly nor cheaply.
There are undeniable benefits to transportation, the environment, and energy ob-
jectives of investing in high speed rail. But the investment is not one that the Fed-
eral government can reaUsticallv undertake alone. It's going to take a significant
public-private partnership to make each and every dollar invested in rail today reap
substantial, and long-lasting economic and social benefits tomorrow. It is against
this backdrop, this fiscal challenge, that the Subcommittee assesses the role of rail
investments in U.S. transportation policy.
The Clinton Administration has already signalled its support for increased gov-
ernment involvement in rail technologies. The Administration correctly recognizes
the importance of transportation investments, not onlv in rebuilding America, but
in the overall global economic climate. As a first step, the Clinton economic stimulus
package addresses the economic realities of today without losing focus of the kind
of long-term commitment to infrastructxire that is essential to fiiture economic
growth.
Indeed, the realities of the day dictate a change in the way we move people and
goods. High speed rail and mag lev promise to refieve congestion, reduce dependence
on foreign energy resources, and adhere to high air quality standards. Still, many
questions remain regarding how much the Federal government can do, and how
much the private sector will do to make advanced rail systems an operational re-
ality.
The United States already lags behind Germany, Japan, and France in this tech-
nology. Western Europe and Japan have already committed billions of dollars to
commercial development of advanced rail technologies. As a result, the United
States now finds itself at a "make or break" point in the development of high speed
rail technologies. The Clinton Administration's support for rail technologies provides
an important endorsement at a most critical time in the decisionmaking process.
One of the most important features of ISTEA was its recognition that community
transportation needs vary fi-om state to state, and fi-om region to region. The con-
gested Northeast Corridor and the rapid growth areas of the Sunbelt and Southeast,
offer uniquely different rsiil challenges from Middle America, or the South. Yet, each
region's unique rail needs must be balanced in a comprehensive United States inter-
modal strategy.
I would hope that we can proceed expeditiously to make the critical decisions re-
garding high speed rail and magnetic levitation. At the same time, I believe im-
provements to existing raU providers, notably Amtrak, must fill the mobility void
of Middle America. Amtrak can accomplish this through station improvements,
equipment upgrades, increased scheduling, and additional service routes to those
areas of the country that have for far too long gone without viable rail service. In
short, the most effective rail strategy is one that meets the unique mobility needs
of every community.
I thank the Chairman, and look forward to hearing the testimony.
INTRODUCTION OF WITNESS
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Claytor, it is always a pleasure to wel-
come you. We've watched, with admiration, and I must say, some
trepidation, as the rumors developed that the principal engineer on
Amtrak may be content one day to just do it with model trains. The
thought is a forbidding one. We want you to take vitamin C every-
day, Mr. Chairman, and continue your good work.
Despite all of the compliments and everything else, we would ask
you to summarize your statement, as we will Mr. Blanchette, and
invite you now to proceed.
STATEMENT OF W. GRAHAM CLAYTOR
Mr. Claytor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm extremely pleased
to have the privilege of appearing before this subcommittee today
to discuss Amtrak's role in the development of high-speed rail
transportation in this country.
I have with me, on my right, Dennis F. Sullivan, Amtrak's Exec-
utive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer. And then follow-
ing me, on my left, is Bob Blanchette, the General Counsel for the
Association of American Railroads, who will represent the AAR.
Mr. Chairman, I will very briefly summarize the main points in
my prepared statement, but I would like to ask that it be included
in the record in full.
Senator Lautenberg. The full statement will be.
Mr. Claytor. I also ask that my written statement on our fiscal
year 1994 grant request be included in the record, as well.
Senator Lautenberg. It will be included, as requested.
Mr. Claytor. Mr. Chairman, we would not even have a high-
speed program to discuss today, but for your leadership and cour-
age in this field. Together with Senator D'Amato, this subcommit-
tee has really launched the high-speed rail development in this
country.
Now, at the outset, let me just mention again, as I've done be-
fore, there are two types of high-speed rail. We must recognize that
both of them exist separately.
First, is the 100 to 150 mile-an-hour speeds on existing roadbed
and tracks. This, I call, high-speed. The press mixes it all up. And
I try to straighten it out, because one must draw a distinction be-
tween the two.
Second, is the over 150 miles an hour and up to 200 to 300 miles
an hour, requiring a newly constructed dedicated right-of-way. We
may have service of either steel-wheel on steel-rail, such as the
TGV or the Japanese bullet train, or magnetic levitation, both of
which I call ultra-high-speed rail, and both of which Amtrak
strongly supports. Amtrak hopes to be the operator of any of those
systems that is finally started.
Now, Mr. Chairman, where are we today? Amtrak is the only
high-speed operation in the United States between New York and
Washington with 125 miles-an-hour Metroliner service.
As a result of your leadership, we are now constructing the only
new high-speed rail operation on what has been a largely conven-
tional speed passenger and freight Northeast corridor line between
New York and Boston, including electrification of the Amtrak line
between New Haven and Boston. This very important project will
serve as a model for high-speed corridors elsewhere in the country.
And I'm satisfied that that's the way it's going to work.
Now, what about equipment? Amtrak is in the forefront of devel-
oping up to 150 mile-an-hour high-speed trainsets for operation on
existing roadbeds in this country. You have already mentioned the
Swedish X2000 and the Grerman ICE train, to be tested this sum-
mer. Both of these are electrically powered for operation on the
Northeast corridor, but Amtrak is also taking a lead with New
York State in developing high-speed nonelectric power systems for
use outside the corridor. This is described in some detail in my for-
mal statement.
We would hope to be able to substitute the fossil fueled power
for the electric power on trainsets that we would design for use on
the Northeast corridor. In other words, I think the trainsets that
we are talking about getting first for the Northeast corridor, which
will be electrically powered, could be powered by fossil fueled loco-
motives at least 125 miles an hour and, hopefully, higher later on,
outside of the corridor.
And, with the State of New York, we are in the process of trsdng
to develop that technology. That is an advanced technology that is
not in hand today, but I think it can be. And we are working hard
to bring it on as fast as possible.
Now, what steps are needed to move ahead on developing high-
speed corridors outside of the Northeast corridor? First, while run-
ning high-speed trains on existing tracks is far less costly than
building new dedicated roadbeds, significant infrastructure costs
must still be faced, in addition to the cost of new equipment for
that kind of an operation.
What are these costs? These costs include grade-crossing elimi-
nations, new train control and signal installations, some upgrading
of track bridges and interlockings. The extent of the latter would
8
depend, of course, on the existing condition of the railroad and the
volume of the existing and anticipated track.
And before any particular high-speed corridor is to be examined
in detail, we must have an engineering study of that line, its exist-
ing situation, the existing and proposed track, and analysis of what
does need to be done. There are these categories of improvements
that I've mentioned that will have to be done in all cases. We can-
not do this in detail without these studies.
Now, substantial funding will be needed from many sources for
these improvements. Amtrak must have a dedicated source of cap-
ital. For example, one penny of the fuel tax could provide for equip-
ment and for some contribution to track and signal improvements
in the high-speed corridors, as provided in the Swift bill.
Mr. Chairman, I was very disappointed to hear that the 0MB
plans to devote the entire 2.5 cents that's now marked for deficit
reduction to highway operation.
I think that would be a bad mistake. It seems to me that this
2.5 cents ought to be devoted to transportation, but it ought to be
devoted to the kind of transportation that can preserve the environ-
ment, save money, and as you have pointed out, address congestion
in airports and airways and highways. And we ought to do that.
To take this 2.5 cents and put it back in highways, I think, would
be a bad mistake. And it would make it very difficult for us to go
ahead with a lot of these programs.
So, next, we must also get highway funds for grade-crossing
eliminations. That could come, in part, from ISTEA, because it's a
highway problem. It must be done. You cannot operate more than
100 miles an hour over a grade-crossing with just gates and light
protection, because we have demonstrated all too graphically that
in this country, people go through and around the gates and lights.
And we can't have that. So highway crossing elimination must be
provided. And that should come from highway money.
State and local contributions for station, track, and signal im-
provements have got to be made.
And, finally and most importantly, we must have reimbursement
for the costs and liability for potential passenger claims, if we're
going to operate on somebody else's freight railroad.
While freight railroads have agreed to work with Amtrak and ap-
propriate government agencies to accomplish high-speed passenger
service on the rail corridors that they own, it's plain that Amtrak
or any other operator must reimburse the freight railroad owner
for any costs actually incurred by them, and most importantly,
must indemnify the owner against liability from a passenger train
accident without regard to fault or the degree of negligence in-
volved.
Without that, we're not going to be able to get on the railroad.
And I'm perfectly satisfied that that problem must be solved. The
enormous open-ended potential liability for punitive damages that
are now growing every day at a greater rate than ever, means that
the uncompensated freight railroad could not afford to have high-
speed trains operated without the indemnification.
And Amtrak, in turn, could not afford to do that indemnification
for extensive new high-speed operations without, at least, limited
relief from punitive damages, just for passenger claims. It's the
9
passenger claim problem that presents the problem, an insurable
problem. And that's the one that we've just got to face.
I believe the problem can be solved, but unless it is, I'm afraid
that high-speed train operations may be limited to operation over
Amtrak's own or, at least, government-owned properties. And this
is a problem we've got to work up to, first, before we actually start
the operation on such a railroad.
Now, the above are some of the hurdles we must overcome as we
move ahead to develop multiple high-speed corridors in this coun-
try. We look forward to working with this subcommittee to over-
come them successfully and to continue to move forward with both
kinds of high-speed rail development.
Again, Mr. Chairman, we applaud the subcommittee and its
chairman for forward looking vision and leadership already dem-
onstrated here.
And while I have emphasized in this testimony, in this oral testi-
mony, primarily, the high-speed rail on existing track, as distin-
guished from the ultra high-speed, I do not mean to underestimate
that.
It seems to me that we're first going to move into the high-speed
operation, but we must look at the other two. I think maglev, as
well as the TGV type of operations that are being proposed in
Texas, offer a great opportunity in this country. And we need to de-
velop them both. Amtrak stands ready to be the operator of any of
those and to work with them on doing this.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much, Mr. Claytor. We
have your complete statement and it will be made part of the
record.
Statement of W. Graham Claytor, Jr.
My name is W. Graham Claytor, Jr. I am President and Chairman of the Board
of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, better known as Amtrak. I am ex-
tremely pleased to have the opportunitAr to appear before the Subcommittee today
to discuss Amtrak's important role in the development of high-speed rail transpor-
tation in this country.
I want to state at the outset that were it not for the extraordinarily capable and
even courageous efforts of the Chairman of the Subcommittee, Senator Frank R.
Lautenberg, we would not be here today discussing the future of high-speed rail in
the United States. His vision and leadership in uds area are directly responsible
for the significant progress we are making in implementing high-speed rail on the
Northeast Corridor — a project that will point the way to similar developments in
other high-density rail corridors elsewhere in the country — and in developing state-
of-the-art high-speed passenger rail equipment. We also appreciate the strong sup-
port and leadership that Senator D'Amato has provided in the area of high-speed
rail, particularly his support for both the Northeast Corridor and the criticalW im-
portant Empire Corridor in upstate New York. I am aware of few public officials
who have so positively influenced the development of a technology upon which the
future of American rail passenger transportation is so likely to depend.
High-speed rail development will greatly impact and in manv areas define Am-
trak's future in the national transportation system. We intend to pursue aggres-
sively opportunities to design, build, operate and maintain new high-speed systems.
While our ability to help fund the cost of these systems is strictly limited, our goal
is to be the high-speed rail operator of choice in this countrv.
While I know that the Subcommittee is very knowledgeable about the various cat-
egories of high-speed rail transportation, there is still some pubhc confiision and
misunderstanding about this. Accordingly, I think it is worthwhile to make clear for
10
the record that there is a substantial difference between what I like to call "high-
speed rail," with maximum speeds of 125 to 150 mph, and "ultra high-speed rail"
with maximum speeds as high as 200 to 300 mph. Amtrak has already proven the
feasibility in this country ofproviding "high-speed rtiil" service on existing tracks
and roadbeds, built and used tor manv years for conventional-speed freight and pas-
senger service. The "ultra high-speed" service, however, requires construction of a
new and dedicated track system. This may involve the steel-wheel-on-steel-rail sys-
tem such as those used by the French TGV and Japanese bullet trains, or it may
involve the very different magnetic levitation systems that have been tested in both
Germany and Japan.
At the outset, let's take a brief look at where Amtrak is today. This is the starting
point from which to move into both high-speed and ultra high-speed operations:
—On the Northeast Corridor between Washington and New York, Amtrak's
Metroliner Service is the only high-speed rail passenger service operating in the
western hemisphere. Daily, our trains travel the fastest and highest density rail
corridor in the country at a top speed of 125 mph, with high reliability and
growing marketabihty.
— Amtrak is the only company in the nation actively involved in designing and
converting an existing passenger and freirfit rail line to a high-speed electrified
operation. The Northeast High-Speed Rail Improvement Project, initiated
through the efforts of the Chairman, will dramaticfilly improve transportation
in the Northeast by reducing travel time between New York and Boston. Am-
trak has been charged with implementing and managing this important project.
The project likely will establish the model for upgramng other rail corridors
around the country to permit high-speed rail service.
— ^Amtrak is at the forefront of developing the nation's first modem high-speed
rail equipment, using European developed technology but American construc-
tion and safety standards. Following the current operational and market testing
of the Swedish X2000 tilt trtiin and the planned testing of the German ICE
train this summer, Amtrak expects to procure 26 new high-speed electrically-
powered trainsets for use on the Northeast Corridor. 'This new generation
train — capable of a maximum 150 mph operation and with significantly im-
proved passenger accommodations and ridership quality — will be manufactured
in the United States and meet this country's strict safety standards. Impor-
tantiy, Amtrak also plans to design and test a non-electric power system for the
new trainsets that will permit their use off-Corridor at initial speeds of up to
125 mph, with the hope that even higher speeds can eventually be achieved.
Thus, Amtrak will be developing a standardized family of high-speed rail equip-
ment that can be used nationwide over electric and non-electric rail lines.
— Finally, Amtrak already provides conventional-speed passenger service over
most of the potential high-speed rail corridors in the nation, including all of the
five corridors recentiv identified by the Department of Transportation. As a re-
sult, Amtrak is the logical operator of high-speed service over these lines and
may well be the most logical entity to oversee any high-speed rail improvements
on those lines.
Amtrak's interest in fast passenger service extends well beyond the 150 mph
threshold of what we call "high-speed" rail service to the operation of new "ulti-a
high-speed" — 150-300 mph — systems. The two most promising candidates for ultra
high-speed rail are the proposed TGV steel-wheel system between Houston, Dallas
and San Antonio and the 15-mile magnetic levitation system planned at the Orlando
International Airport in Florida. Amtrak has been designated as the operator of the
Orlando project and plans to work with the sponsors of the Texas TGV project and
to ultimately play the same role in Texas. We strongly support both of these
projects.
Amtrak's intention to play a leading role in the high-speed rail revolution is based
on two key motives. First, both types of fast rail will contribute significantly to im-
proving the nation's transportation system and in enhancing regional air quality —
both long-term Amtrak objectives. Our Northeast Corridor experience vividly dem-
onstrates this. Although Amtrak's long-distance service is being recognized as in-
creasingly important to the nation, particularly to rural America, we must also ad-
dress the critical highway, airport and airway congestion and air quality concerns
in our most densely populated transportation corridors. With our extensive experi-
ence to date and our nationwide coverage, it is most appropriate that Amtrak as-
sume a leadership role in the inevitable increase that is coming in high-speed rail.
Second, our success in the Northeast Corridor demonstrates that high-speed train
service can generate a substantial operating profit, and such profit wul play an im-
portant role in Amtrak's continuing efforts to eliminate its need for federal operat-
ing support. Existing Metroliner Service trains, for example, cover up to 200 percent
11
of their long-term operating costs, thus contributing significantly to Amtrak's over-
head and bottom line. Revenues from Amtrak's growing contract commuter oper-
ations and from its future high-speed rail operations increasingly contribute to o\ir
f[oal of covering more of our operating costs. However, as discussed in more detail
ater in my testimony, our experience also demonstrates that it will be virtually im-
possible for any high-speed system at the outset to fully cover its cost of capital —
both construction and long-term infrastructure maintenance costs — without substan-
tial public assistance. Federal and state funding for these capital costs — from the
incremental upgrade of existing rail lines to construction of new dedicated rights-
of-way — will be essential if high-speed rail is to progress beyond the Northeast Cor-
ridor.
I think it would be useful to detail to the Subcommittee the progress we are mak-
ing in high-speed rail development in a number of areas, as well as to discuss sev-
eral other issues that I believe are critical to the successful development of high-
speed rail transportation in this country.
amtrak's northeast high-speed rail improvement project
Amtrak is making substantial progress towards its goal of reducing travel time
between New York and Boston to under three hours. As the Subcommittee is aware,
over the next four years, Amtrak plans to electrify and upgrade this portion of the
Northeast Corridor to permit up to 150 mph operations. 'The result will be a rail
line supporting high-speed intercity passenger trains, numerous commuter rail oper-
ations, and freight rail service. Importantly, between 2.5 million and 3 million addi-
tional riders are projected to switch from other transportation modes to rail, thereby
reducing congestion on the region's highways and at its airports and contributing
to improved air quality. Given the very high cost of building dedicated rights-of-way
for ultra-high-speed rail systems, this incremental improvement approach is the
likely scenario for most early high-speed rail systems in this country in densely pop-
ulated transportation corridors.
Amtrak has been charged with the responsibility for implementing and managing
this construction project. We take this responsibility extremely seriously and have
created a highly competent and efficient project organization. I am very confident
of Amtrak's ability to achieve all of the project objectives in a manner that will
make it a model for high-speed rail construction throughout the United States.
Considerable work is currently underway. This includes:
— Environmental impact analysis: The environmental review underway by the De-
f)artment of Transportation should be completed by early autumn following pub-
ication of the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in June and the
final EIS in September. The review will determine if the electrification of the
rail line poses any significant adverse environmental impacts, and if so, what
steps Amtrak will have to take to mitigate those impacts.
— Electrification system: In June 1992, Amtrak awarded a contract to a joint ven-
ture consisting of Morrison Knudsen Corporation, L. K. Comstock and Spie
Group to design and construct the electrification system. Thirty percent design
of the system was completed in February. Initiation of the construction phase
could begin later this year following completion of the federal environmental im-
pact analysis and the issuance of permits by Connecticut, Rhode Island and
Massachusetts.
— Track improvements: Amtrak is undertaking various track improvements nec-
essary to permit up to 150 mph train operations and to reduce long-term main-
tenance of the rail line. These include installation of additional concrete ties
and new continuous welded rail, undercutting, and installation of four high-
speed interlockings to permit trains to switch tracks at speeds of up to 80 mph
(compared to 40 mph today). Amtrak expects to have significant track work un-
derway during the spring and summer while awaiting completion of the EIS
and subsequent commencement of actual construction work on the electrifica-
tion system.
— Signal system: Amtrak is well on its way to completing installation of a modern
train and speed control signal system to permit high-speed operations between
New Haven and Boston on both tracks in either (Erection. This is essential to
enable the rail line to handle safely and efficiently high-speed passenger trains
along with slower commuter and freight trains. It also will enable Amtrak to
remove the existing pole-strung signsS line that now runs along the rail line.
The Northeast High-Speed Rail Improvement project is strongly supported in the
Northeast by transportation planners and environmentalists ana is expected to help
generate important regional economic and job growth. The significant ridership im-
pact will help regional compliance with the Clean Air Act and could help to avoid
12
the enormous cost of local airport and highway expansion projects. While it is inevi-
table that there will be some opposition to electrification and additional train move-
ments fi*om some of those living immediately adjacent to the rail line, the concerns
that have been raised to date are the focus of review by the federal government and
will be addressed in the Environmented Impact Statement.
HIGH-SPEED RAIL EQUIPMENT DEVELOPMENT
Of equal importance are Amtrak's plans to develop a family of standardized high-
speed rail passenger equipment components that will result in a consistent high-
speed rail service in this country and significantly reduce the cost of producing and
maintaining the cars and locomotives. Amtrak is now in the process of preparing
specifications for the procurement of the new high-speed trains, resulting in tne de-
velopment in this country of a broader rail car and locomotive manufacturing capa-
bility. This will have major implications for national economic development and will
act as an important spur to development of high-speed rail elsewhere in the country.
If high-speed rail is to develop outside the electrified Northeast Corridor, however,
a new generation of non-electnc locomotives capable of high acceleration and sus-
tained speeds of at least 125 mph must be developed. Until recently there has been
no market in this country for high-speed rail. Consequently, there has been no in-
centive for the industry to invest research and development funding for high-speed
locomotives particularly for the non-electrified corridors outside the Northeast. Al-
though Congress has appropriated some $14 million to Amtrak to develop such a
locomotive (with the capability to also operate electrically under third rail power),
to date Amtrak has not been satisfied with the proposals it has received from its
manufacturers.
As a result, Amtrak has adopted a two-prong strategy to push industry as quickly
as possible towards development of a satisfactory non-electric high-speed locomotive.
— Amtrak has strongly endorsed and agreed to participate in a proposal made by
New York State to develop operating and maintenance data on the latest gen-
eration turbine engine. Turbine technology, similar to that used to power a jet
airplane, permits a lighter-weight locomotive, thereby generating a higher
horsepower-to-weight ratio. This should make it easier to produce higher oper-
ating speeds. Amtrak's experience to date with its current turbine engines, how-
ever, is that they are more expensive to operate and maintain. In addition, ac-
celeration at higher speeds can also be a problem. Under New York's proposal,
two of Amtrak's existing turbine locomotives would be rebuilt with tne latest
version of the turbine engine — Turbomeca's Makila. The new engines should en-
able a trainset of two locomotives (each with seating capacity) and three pas-
senger cars to operate at 125 mph. Detailed data wUl be collected regarding the
operation and maintenance of the new engines to determine their capabilities
and costs versus the most advanced diesel locomotive technology. Because high-
speed non-electric operations may well depend on turbo technology, this test
could prove to be an extremely beneficial next step in the development of high-
speed locomotive technology for non-electrified rail lines. For Empire Service,
these locomotives will also be able to use the electrified third rail system for
operation through the Penn Station tunnels to Long Island at acceptable
speeds.
New York State has submitted an Expression of Interest for funding from the
Federal Railroad Administration under the High-Speed Technology Demonstra-
tion Program (under Section 1036c of ISTEA) in part to undertake such a retro-
fit of turbine locomotives with the new Makila engine. If New York is awarded
a grant for this test, Amtrak would fiind the overhaul of the passenger sections
of the trainset in order to use the test train as a development base for perfect-
ing new seating and interior components that will be used later this decade in
the new Northeast Corridor high-speed trainsets and on other Amtrak equip-
ment. The result would be the first Amtrak owned, non-electrified high-speed
trainset in revenue service that would be comparable to world standards.
— Amtrak views procurement of 26 new high-speed electric trainsets for the
Northeast Corridor as the most important early step in bringing high-speed rail
equipment to the rest of the country. The technology currently being evaluated
for these trains includes tilting capability, good acceleration at higher speeds,
integrated internal communications, standardized power and comfort sub-
systems, telecommunication, and video systems, and high-speed trucks and sus-
pension systems. A next step would be to integrate these characteristics into a
family of high-speed equipment that can be used systemwide, building perhaps
on the Makila turbine train mentioned above. As a result, Amtrak will consider
including in its procurement for the electrically powered high-speed trainsets
13
the feasibility of substituting acceptable non-electric power units, with a dual-
power third-rail capability. These power units could be substituted for the elec-
tric locomotive when used on non-electrified rail lines, such as on the Empire
Corridor and other routes radiating off the Northeast Corridor, as well as other
potential high-speed corridors including the five identified by the Department
of Transportation. The non-electric locomotives will be fossil fueled, with three-
phase AC drives or hydraulic transmissions to achieve speeds of up to 125 mph,
depending on the route profile and curvature. The key technological milestone
will be the ability of the new locomotives — whether diesel or turbo — ^to provide
extra horsepower for short time periods to generate the high acceleration re-
quired to reduce travel time on most routes.
With this strategy, Amtrak hopes to be able to encourage the industry to push
the technological envelope as far and rapidly as possible in tne development of nigh-
speed non-electric motive power. In this way, Amtrak will help set the standard for
high-speed rail equipment development in the nation, much as it is setting the
standard for upgrading rail lines to permit high-speed operations. Amtrak will work
closely with private industry and state and federal agencies in this effort to advance
high-speed locomotive development. With our operating experience and the technical
know-how in the industry, we believe that this public/private partnership is the best
and most practical way to achieve the research and development necessary to attain
high-speea rail service in this country. This is an area tnat holds much potential
and challenge for American manufacturing and, indeed, the future of widespread
American high-speed rail may well depend on it.
FUNDING HIGH-SPEED RAIL DEVELOPMENT
A critical issue that remains to be addressed is how to provide the capital nec-
essary to upgrade existing or build new railroad infrastructure and to acquire the
expensive high-speed rail equipment for new service. Funding for equipment is of
particular concern since the same set of equipment may operate in many states and
hence is less likely to be a candidate for funding under state transportation pro-
grams. As the Subcommittee is aware, Amtrak has urged establishment of an inter-
city passenger rail capitel trust fund to support Amtrak's burgeoning capital needs
and to help support development of high-speed rail. Representative Al Swift last
year introducea a bill that would have established such a trust fund financed with
one penny of the federal fuel tax currently allocated to deficit reduction. The bill
was co-sponsored by some 30 members of Congress and was supported by a host
of transportation and environmental groups.
The difficulties that have developed in the past in jump-starting high-speed rail
service in California, Florida and currently in Texas demonstrate Just how essential
public financial support for high-speed rail development will be. The Swift proposal
provides a reasonable and equitable mechanism for meeting both Amtrak's system-
wide capital needs and some (but certainly not all) of the public infrastructure in-
vestment so critical to new high-speed rail corridors. I strongly urge members of the
Subcommittee to consider the merits of the proposal.
SUMMARY OF COSTS FOR DEVELOPING EXISTING FREIGHT RAILROAD TRACKS FOR HIGH-
SPEED PASSENGER CORRIDORS
In addition to funding Amtrak's needs for equipment and engineering for off-cor-
ridor high-speed corridor operations, multiple other sources of funding must be
tapped to bring these objectives to fruition. As pointed out earlier, while the capital
costs needed in high-speed operations over existing freight-owned railroad lines are
far less than the costs involved in constructing the whole new dedicated railroad re-
quired for ultra high-speed passenger service, these costs are still not small. The
infrastructure improvement costs for each corridor will be unique to that corridor
and will depend on a great many different factors — quality of track and bridge
structure; curvature; signal and train control systems; number of running and pas-
senger tracks; number, location and control of interlockings; number of grade cross-
ings; volume and nature of existing freight and passenger traffic, etc. While it is
not practical to reach generalized conclusions about these costs without detailed
analysis, it is feasible to list several categories of problems that must as a minimum
be resolved in all cases. I list the following as a reasonable sampling of these.
(1) Highway Grade Crossings. — All highway grade crossings over which trains will
operate at 100 mph or more should be closed or eliminated by overpasses or
underpasses. At these speeds, the likelihood of a maior derailment with resulting
passenger casualties from a collision with an automobile or truck is too great, re-
gardless of the existence of the usual gates and lights protection, which experience
shows is often bypassed by irresponsible motorists. These are really highway, not
14
railroad, problems, and it is believed that the major funding for grade crossing
elimination should come from highway funds.
(2) Signal Improvements. — Under present (and we think appropriate) FRA regula-
tions, passenger train speeds may not exceed 79 mph without signals that register
in the locomotive cab or provision of an automatic train-stop system. As a practical
matter today, this means the installation of the essential elements of an Automatic
Train Control System (ATCS). In many cases this will significantly benefit the
freight railroad operation as well, but it is quite expensive to install. A significant
part of this cost must come from appropriate state DOT's, community contribution,
ISTEA, or FRA. Signal improvements are a critical safety measure.
(3) Running and Passing Tracks and Interlockings. — The extent of running and
passing tracks and interlockings needed will depend on the volume and nature of
the freight and passenger traffic to be accommodated. In a few cases, extensive addi-
tional trackage on the same right-of-way may be required, and in almost all cases,
some improvements will be needed if high-speed passenger trains are to be added.
(4) Rail, Tie, Bridge and Track Improvements. — In many cases, the rail line may
have good welded rail, good condition wood or concrete ties, satisfactory bridges,
etc., but again significant expenditures may be required to assure the quality re-
quired for high-speed passenger use.
Without a significant assured source of capital funding, Amtrak will not be in a
position to contribute to the funding required to adapt to existing fi*eight railroad
tracks for high-speed passenger service. Even with a capital funding source, Amtrak
could not handle more than a modest fi*action of the infrastructure improvement
costs on a railroad owned by a fi-eight carrier or anyone else. Other sources must
be utilized if high-speed corridors are to be developed on existing tracks.
The freight railroads, through the Association of American Railroads, have indi-
cated a wulingness to work with Amtrak and others to develop these corridors for
high-speed passenger service, but only if they can be guaranteed with no net cost
and adequate protection against liability.
ADDRESSING LIABIUTY CONCERNS
A final issue, discussed in Amtrak's 1993 Legislative Report, is presented by the
legitimate concerns of freight railroads about potential passenger injury claims re-
sulting from Amtrak, future high-speed or other passenger rail operations over their
tracks. Clearly, the potential cost of an unfavorable jury award as a result of a pas-
senger train accident could easily exceed (many times over) the revenues or other
benefits received by freight railroads for high-speed operations conducted by Amtrak
over their lines.
The factor most responsible for driving up the cost of liability is the ability of ju-
ries to award punitive damages when a jury determines, ofl^n on highly conflicting
evidence, that an employee of a defendant company is giiilty of conduct that is more
serious than ordinary negligence. Courts have rarely set limits on the amount a jury
can award to punish the defendant, and examples abound of punitive damage
awards far in excess of the amount required to compensate an injured person for
his or her injuries. The threat of such awards often causes defendants (including,
unfortunately, Amtrak) to agree to large settlements rather than expose themselves
to the risks of a hostile jury.
It is perfectly plain that the freight railroads — including those that own the track-
age in most potential high-speed rail corridors — will not permit high-speed pas-
senger operations without at least relief fi-om passenger injury liability. Indeed, as
noted above, the Association of American Railroads, which represents the major rail-
roads in this country, has conditioned its support for high-speed rail development
over private railroad lines on a requirement that the owners be totally protected
from potential exposure to enormously costly passenger injury claims. That condi-
tion will require an unlimited indemnification by Amtrak or any other passenger
train operator against passenger liability regardless of fault or degree of fault.
Amtrak already faces unlimited liability for punitive damage resulting fi-om inju-
ries it causes to its own passengers. If one were to add to this the liability for puni-
tive damages incurred from indemnifying freight railroads where the freight rail-
road was at fault, Amtrak likely would be unable to afford to undertake extensive
high-speed rail passenger operations outside its own Northeast Corridor. This is
why relief from punitive damages is so vital. Only a limited exemption is needed
to cover liability to passengers resulting from a passenger train accident. Amtrak
is not seeking relief from all punitive damage liability, as is provided for claims
against the iJnited States and under various state laws with respect to commuter
agencies, but rather only relief from punitive damage awards resulting from pas-
15
senger injuries. I firmly believe that this is essential if we are to extend our oper-
ations to include high-speed trains over fi-eight-owned rail lines.
This is an extremely miportant issue with enormous repercussions on the develop-
ment of high-speed rail on privately owned railroad rights-of-way. Amtrak urges
Congress to address this issue before liability concerns block the path of high-speed
rail development in some of the nation's most heavily traveled transportation cor-
ridors.
CONCLUSION
High-speed rail can play an important role in helping to address the nation's
transportation and environmental needs. For our part, Amtrak intends to be a lead-
er in developing high-speed rail technologies and in operating the nation's high-
speed rail systems. We are the most experienced in the country in this area and,
in many ways, our successful involvement in high-speed rail transportation will de-
termine our success in the future. Amtrak looks forward to working with the Sub-
committee in shaping high-speed rail and applauds the Subcommittee, particularly
its Chairman and ranking minority member, tor the vision and leadership it already
has demonstrated in this area.
Amtrak's Fiscal Year 1994 Grant Request
As President and Chairman of the Board of the National Railroad Passenger Cor-
poration, better known as Amtrak, I am very pleased to present Amtrak's fiscal year
1994 request for federal operating and capital assistance and to outline several im-
portant steps we have taken to improve Amtrak's financial performance as the na-
tion's economy strengthens. Also, I will provide the Committee further details on
Amtrak's neea for a supplemental operating appropriation for fiscal year 1993.
IN THE short-term: A TOUGH YEAR IN A TOUGH ECONOMY
It would be an understatement to report that Amtrak has been deeply impacted
by the now three-year-old national economic recession. Compared to other compa-
nies across the nation, particularly in the troubled travel sector, Amtrak has weath-
ered the slow down in demand for services relatively well. Indeed, when one looks
at the impact of the recession on the jiirline industry — three bankruptcies and four
liquidations in three years and losses of $2 billion in 1992 — ^Amtrak s rather stable
financial performance over this period demonstrates important underlying market
strength.
Nonetheless, for the first time since 1975, revenues actually declined ($34.2 mil-
lion or 3.3 percent) compared to our record performance in 1991. While this should
not obscure the fact that Amtrak generated well over $1.3 billion in passenger and
other revenues during the year, our performance failed to meet even our modest ex-
pectations for the year. This is the result of several factors:
— Poor passenger demand: the recession took a serious toll on demand for travel
services. Passenger ticket revenues fell 3.5 percent, intercity ridership fell some
3 percent, and passenger miles declined fi*om 6.3 billion to 6.1 billion. Three iso-
lated events also significantiy undermined ticket revenues: Hurricane Andrew
virtually wiped out travel to the south for several weeks; a threatened rail pas-
senger strike and actual freight railroad shutdown forced our passengers to use
other travel modes; and a fi"atricidal airline fare war devastated long-distance
rail demand during the peak summer months.
— Weak real estate performance: the poor rental and leasing market, resulting
fi"om the recession and significant over-building during the 1980's, seriously un-
dermined Amtrak's real estate revenues. Revenue fell 11.5 percent under last
year.
On the other hand, Amtrak's considerable success at reducing corporate expenses
last year represents an important achievement and bodes extremely well for future
financied improvement as both passenger revenues and real estate development re-
bound with a stronger national economy. Expenses declined $44 million from fiscal
year 1991 — a decrease of 2.1 percent— despite inflation and the costs associated with
the operation of several new services. Much of this was due to corporate-wide cost
cutting efforts, which included a management salary fi-eeze, decreased staffing of
trains and services, and some productivity gains resulting from new labor agree-
ments. Indeed, with the decrease in expenses, Amtrak actually posted its highest
revenue-to-cost ratio in its twenty-one year history — .791.
While I am pleased that we were able to reduce costs so effectively during this
diflBcult time, I must emphasize that some of the cost cutting actions have degraded
16
the quality of service we are trying to — and indeed must — provide if we are to suc-
cessfully compete with travel alternatives. In particular, we have had to severely
reduce the number of passenger equipment overhauls at our Beech Grove mainte-
nance facilities. This cost savings, however, is illusive in the long run. Much of the
equipment we are running today simply is too old to withstand a delay in overhaul
work and the result — a significant increase in equipment failures and the use of
equipment that looks and functions badlv — will severely undermine the market-
ability of our service in coming years. Delaying the overhaul of equipment simply
is incompatible with, and directly impacts, achievement of Amtrak's goal of steadily
improving the quality of its service.
In order to restore this quality that has been impacted by the short-term need
to reduce corporate expenses and in order to avoid a potential severe cash shortage
at the end of fiscal year 1993, Amtrak has submitted to this committee a request
for supplemental operating funds of $57.5 million for fiscal year 1993, which is with-
in funding levels approved by Amtrak's reauthorization last year. I want to empha-
size that requesting additional funding for current year operations is not a step I
take lightly. Only because continued operation of the system depends on this re-
quest has Amtrak made the difficult choice to turn to Congress tor further assist-
ance. Specifically, the request includes $57.5 funding to increase overhauls; restore
on-board, station and reservation safes office staffing; restore advertising and sales
support; and restore seriously depleted working capital.
IN THE LONG-TERM: A RETURN TO IMPRESSIVE GROWTH
Despite the setbacks of the past year, I remain extremely bullish on Amtrak's fu-
ture for the rest of the decade. Interest in the rail passenger alternative — both con-
ventional and high-speed intercity rail service as well as commuter rail — has never
been greater in this country, and Amtrak is well positioned to benefit enormously
from this interest. The tremendous amount of public interest and enthusiasm over
Amtrak's recent testing of the Swedish high-speed X2000 tilt train is reflective of
an American public that remains fascinated by the lure of the "iron horse" of yester-
day and the high-speed one of the future. Amtrak has proven that Americans prefer
to travel by rail where service is reliable and price and time competitive. The chal-
lenge for Amtrak, Congress and state governments is twofold: to identify those cor-
ridors and routes where the energy efficient and environmentally superior rail mode
makes good transportation and environmental sense; and to provide the funding
needed to establish reliable, high-quality and time-competitive service over existing
rail corridors or on new dedicated rights-of-way.
For its part, Amtrak has taken several critically important steps that will permit
it to operate new service in the most efficient way possible and with the highest
level 01 quality.
Quality Improvement. — Amtrak has begun the critical process of revamping its
corporate culture to change the way in which its employees manage the corporation.
Using the tools of continuous quality improvement, Amtrak is beginning the change-
over to a customer-driven, management-led system in which all employees, working
in teams, will use a variety of statistical and non-statistical tools to continuously
improve the processes that drive our operation. The result will be incremental im-
provements in the quality of Amtrak products and services to meet or exceed our
customers' expectations. Accomplishing these goals will require an evolution in Am-
trak's corporate culture to one in which there is more open communication, fewer
barriers between departments and between employees, a spirit of innovation and in-
volvement, and a high level of employee satisfaction.
These will not come easily — particularly in an industry that resounds with the
phrase: "but that is how it has always been done!" Nonetiieless, I finnly believe that
Amtrak will succeed in this goal for two reasons. First, senior management is totally
behind this effort and is willing to take the steps necessary to change its own way
of doing things. Second, many of the new labor agreements for the first time commit
the employees to participate in quality improvements. Clearly, Amtrak cannot mas-
ter the tools of continuous quality improvement without the full commitment and
fiarticipation of all our employees — ^management and agreement-covered and their
abor union representatives — to train, strategize, problem solve and work together
in ways that are innovative for this industry. This will take years to fully imple-
ment, but it is a key to establishing the cost efficiencies and quality of service that
will be essential if, as I believe, a genuine renaissance in demand for rail passenger
service develops.
The growing interest in and demand for both additional conventional intercity rail
passenger service and new high-speed rail service is truly breathtaking. Amtrak
stands to gain enormously fi-om this recent surge in interest as a result of our long
17
experience in operating high-speed service on the Northeast Corridor and our steady
progress in implementing nigh-speed service between New York and Boston.
Labor Contracts.— One such step was the resolution of new labor agreements,
which will help lay the foundation tor our future success. After four years of negotia-
tions, agreements were finally reached with nearly all of Amtrak's 14 labor organi-
zations. Some were reached voluntarily, while others were a imposed through con-
gressionally mandated arbitration. While the process was at times divisive, the re-
sulting agreements achieved important objectives for both Amtrak and its employ-
ees. Work rule changes, including the right to use part-time workers and increased
use of shop craft employees across union jurisdictions, will allow Amtrak to struc-
ture its operations more efficiently and cost effectively. Steps to help control the
enormous cost of health benefits were also agreed to with the employees. In return,
wage increases considerably in excess of those received by workers in other indus-
tries (including freight railroad employees) have been provided. In order to prevent
the drawn-out contract negotiations process from undermining the financial position
of our employees, the contract includes a cost-of-living wage adjustment, to be made
every six months, during the negotiation of new contracts. With negotiations now
behind us, there is an opportunity for a new commitment by both management and
labor to jointly focus on an improved Amtrak.
New Service. — New service between New Orleans and Miami — extending our cur-
rent Los Angeles-New Orleans Sunset Limited — will start this year, initiating Am-
trak's first transcontinental route. New routes in California and North Carolina, as
well as efforts to bring service to Maine, reflect the willingness of states to support
rail initiatives even during such financially strapped times. The decision by Con-
gress in last year's Amtrak reauthorization act to authorize separate funding for
new state-supported rail passenger service sent a clear message to the states that
the federal government is willing to support efforts to jointly fund new Amtrak serv-
ice where it makes sense.
New Equipment. — ^With the support of this Subcommittee, Amtrak has initiated
several important equipment acquisition orders that will help provide the capacity
we need to meet growing demandf and help reduce our dependence on federal operat-
ing support. As the 140 Superliners begin arriving this year, we will gradually be
able to upgrade the equipment used on the Auto Train, convert the Capitol Limited
and City of New Orleans to Superliner equipment, increase capacity on numerous
long-distance routes, and convert the Cardinal to daily service (using single-level
equipment released as a result of the delivery of Superliners). In October 1992, Am-
trak ordered the first 50 new Viewliner cars that ultimately will replace nearly our
entire fleet of Heritage cars. These new Viewliners will begin to arrive two years
from notice to proceed. Finally, beginning in May of this year, new locomotives will
be arriving at the rate of 5 per month, providing relief to our exhausted and under-
sized fleet of diesel and duaf power engines.
These cars and locomotives represent the first of many that will have to be or-
dered as we move towards the next decade. They will be coming on line just at the
right time — as the a strengthening national economv brings a populace eager to
travel again — and symbolize the vision that Amtrak has for the Future of rail pas-
senger service in this country.
Commuter Contracts. — During fiscal year 1992, Amtrak was awarded contracts to
operate commuter rail service between San Jose and San Francisco, in Northern
\arginia, and in the Los Angeles area. These contracts are of major importance for
Amtrak and will provide substantial incremental revenue for the corporation. In ad-
dition, they further cement Amtrak's role as the commuter operator of choice in the
nation. Amtrak is now operating all or portions of the commuter rail service in
many of the nation's major cities including Boston, Providence, New Haven, Wash-
ington, Baltimore, San Francisco and Los Angeles, and indeed commuter ridership
on Amtrak now exceeds intercity ridership. We intend to work hard to win addi-
tional commuter service contracts as plans for new systems in over 20 cities nation-
wide move toward fi-uition. We are extremely proud of our progress in this area and
we believe it demonstrates the high level of confidence in Amtrak held by transpor-
tation planners across the country.
AMTRAK'S FISCAL YEAR 1994 GRANT REQUEST
Amtrak has provided the Subcommittee with its fiscal year 1994 request for fed-
eral operating and capital support. It disappoints me greatly to report that, as a re-
sult of poorer revenue growth than projected last year, and continued weakness in
the national economy, Amtrak will seek its first increase in federal operating assist-
ance in over a decade. It is essential that the Subcommittee understand that Am-
trak's request for additional fiinding does not in any way alter our desire and com-
18
mitment to reduce our need for federal operating assistance. Nonetheless, as we
have explained at great length in the past, generating greater revenues relative to
operating costs requires both a growing market for our service and the ability,
through capital investment, to expand and improve our service and productivity.
Clearly, the state of the national economy has deprived us of the strong passenger
market that so characterized the 1980's, when Amtrak routinely experienced double
digit revenue growth. While our projected fiscal year 1994 revenues reflect the im-
proving national economy, growth remains sluggish and is likely to remain that way
for the rest of the fiscal year.
For the fiscal year 1994, Amtrak is requesting $381 million in operating assist-
ance. It is important to note that Congress foresaw the difficulties posed by the
weak national economy for Amtrak by authorizing an increase in operating assist-
ance to the $381 million level in the recently enacted Amtrak reauthorization. That
legislation also provided a separate authorization of $9.5 million for the operating
losses associated with the initiation of new services, and Amtrak is requesting the
full $9.5 million for fiscal year 1994. This funding for new services is critical to Am-
trak's ability to comply with report language accompanjdng recent authorization and
appropriations bills and directing Amtrak to begin service between New Orleans,
LA, and Mobile, AL, and between Raleigh and Charlotte, N.C.
The Amtrak reauthorization recommended federal capital support in the amount
of $250 million, which is the level we are requesting for the year. This capital,
which is so vitally important to us, would support, among others, the following:
— new electric locomotives to augment the fleet, in addition to new high-speed
trainsets at the end of the decade.
— overhaul of cars and locomotives that no longer can be delayed.
— accessibility improvements mandated by the Americans With Disabilities Act
and waste system improvements required by the National and Community
Service Act.
— improvements required to ensure that Amtrak's on-board food service meets
strict Food and Drug Administration requirements.
— improvements at Amtrak's maintenance facilities to streamline and modernize
operations and improve the efficiency of maintenance activities.
As the Subcommittee is aware, these improvements are essential if Amtrak is to
provide the capacity it needs to generate new revenues while controlling costs. In-
deed, it should be no surprise at all that the goal of reducing our operating costs
simply will be impossible without a significant boost in capital appropriations. Much
of our revenue growth during the 1980's was due to the increased capacity of new
equipment, and we believe that capital investment in Amtrak wUl result in those
types of increases again.
For the Northeast Corridor Improvement Project, Amtrak is requesting $250 mil-
lion, the amount authorized in the recent Amtrak reauthorization act. Of this
amount, $183.7 million will support the ongoing Northeast High-speed Rail Im-
provement Project. Considerable work is underway in this exciting Amtrak initiative
and we are extremely grateful that Congress has provided the funding for it during
this difficult financial period. Ongoing work includes:
— Environmental impact analysis: The environmental review underway by the De-
f)artment of Transportation should be completed by early autumn following pub-
ication of the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in June and the
final EIS in September. The review will determine if the electrification of the
rail line poses any significant adverse environmental impacts, and if so, what
steps Amtrak will have to take to mitigate those impacts.
— ^Electrification system: In June 1992, Amtrak awarded a contract to a joint ven-
ture consisting of Morrison Knudsen Corporation, L. K. Comstock and Spie
Group to design and construct the electrification system. Thirty percent design
of the system was completed in February, and initiation of the construction
phase could begin later this year following completion of the federal environ-
mental impact analysis and the issuance of permits by Connecticut, Rhode Is-
land and Massachusetts.
— ^Track improvements: Amtrak is undertaking various track improvements nec-
essary to permit up to 150 mph train operations and to reduce long-term main-
tenance of the rail line. These include installation of additional concrete ties
and new continuous welded rail, undercutting, and installation of four high-
speed interlockings to permit trains to switch tracks at speeds of up to 80 mph
(compared to 40 mph today). Amtrak expects to have significant track work un-
derway during the spring and summer while a awaiting completion of the EIS
and subsequent commencement of actual construction work on the electrifica-
tion system.
19
— Signal system: Amtrak is well on its way to completing installation of a modem
train and speed control signal system to permit high-speed operations between
New Haven and Boston on both tracks in either direction. Tnis is essential to
enable the rail line to handle safely and efficiently high-speed passenger trains
along with slower commuter and freight trains. It also will enable Amtrak to
remove the existing pole-strung signal line that now runs along the rail line.
The project is strongly supported in the Northeast by transportation planners, en-
vironmentalists, and high-speed rail advocates. In addition, this project will contrib-
ute important regional economic and job growth. Amtrak projects that three-hour
New York-Boston service will pull between 2.5 million and 3.0 million travelers from
congested airports and highways onto the train, resulting in important air quality
improvements and helping to delay the enormous cost of regional airport and high-
way expansion projects. While there is always some opposition to increased service
and electrification from some of those living immediately adjacent to the rail line,
the concerns that have been raised are the focus of review by the federal govern-
ment and will be addressed in the environmental impact statement.
Of the funds requested for the project, some $68 million would be used to support
the acquisition of the 26 new hign-speed Metroliner service trainsets. We currently
are projecting the trainsets to cost about $450 million. As directed bv the Senate
report to the fiscal year 1993 transportation appropriations bill, Amtrak will be pro-
viding the Subcommittee with a report on options for financing the new equipment.
We wll keep the Subcommittee fully updated on the status of the procurement for
this new equipment.
The NECIP request also includes $67 million for improvements south of New York
on the Northeast Corridor. These include safety improvements to the rail tunnels
under the Hudson and East Rivers and upgrading of the electric traction and com-
munication systems.
The Northeast Corridor is providing the only high-speed rail service in the hemi-
sphere and, with improved infrastructure and new high-speed equipment, it can be
a show case for the world. Importantly, it is doing so while at the same time provid-
ing service to over 65 million commuter rail passengers and numerous freight cus-
tomers. Americans should be proud of the commitment Congress has made to pre-
serving and upgrading this enormously important national transportation asset.
CONCLUSION
While the past year has brought some disappointments, Amtrak succeeded in set-
ting the course for what should be a very successful decade. With an improving
economy and an increase in travel demand, Amtrak revenues should resume the
high growth rates achieved during the 1980's, provided Amtrak is given the capital
it needs to invest in new equipment and facilities. We look forward to working with
the new Congress and Administration in developing a national rail passenger sys-
tem that meets the country's growing transportation and environmental needs.
National Railroad Passenger Corporation 1993 Legislative Report
introduction
The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) is required to submit a
legislative report to the President and to the Congress pursuant to section 302(b)
of the Rail Passenger Service Act, 45 U.S.C. 548(b). That provision directs Amtrak
to report on its operations and to recommend desired changes in the law that could
improve productivity, enable the corporation to operate more efficiently, or reduce
Amtrak's need for federal financial support.
Revenue growth over the last ten years has enabled Amtrak to dramatically re-
duce its dependence on federal operating support. Amtrak now covers about 80 per-
cent of its operating costs with its own revenues, up from 48 percent a decade ago.
Given adequate capital investment and a growing economy, Amtrak believes it can
continue to move toward covering more of its operating expenses. Capital invest-
ment in the latter part of the 1970's helped Amtrak to average double-digit percent-
age increases in revenue during the 1980's, allowing revenues to grow at a much
more rapid rate than costs. Additional capital investment will enable Amtrak to con-
tinue that type of revenue growth and service expansion. With a healthy infrastruc-
ture and a stable and fairly compensated work force, Amtrak can play a critical role
in improving the environment and reducing congestion at tiirports and a on roads
as we move into the 21st century. , _ ,
On October 27, 1992, Public Law 102-533, the Amtrak Authorization and Devel-
opment Act, was signed into law. In addition to making changes recommended in
20
previous Amtrak legislative reports, this law authorized federal funding for Amtrak
for fiscal years 1993 and 1994, with a level of $381 million for operating support
and $250 million for capital investment for each year. Funds for the Northeast Cor-
ridor Improvement Project (NECIP) were also authorized at $220 million for fiscal
year 1993 and $250 million for fiscal year 1994. For the current fiscal year, fiscal
year 1993. Congress appropriated $331 million for operating expenses; $165 million
for capital expenses; $150 million for mandatory payments; and $204.1 million for
NECIP.
Amtrak is requesting $381 million in federal operating assistance for fiscal year
1994. Although this request is an increase in federal operating support over fiscal
year 1993, the increase is essential in the current economic environment if Amtrak
IS to operate its existing national rail passenger system and avoid reductions in
forces and services. Indeed, because of the continued weakness in the national econ-
omy, and particularly the travel sector, an increase in operating support to $381
million was contemplated by Congress in the Amtrak Authorization and Develop-
ment Act. With an improving national economy, Amtrak fiilly expects to continue
its past success at reducing its need for federal operating support and improving its
ratio of revenues to costs.
Amtrak also is requesting $250 million for capital improvements, particularly for
use in acquiring new equipment and overhauling its existing aging fleet of cars and
locomotives. Tms capital investment is an essential part of Amtrak's program to
eliminate its need for federal operating support. Finally, Amtrak is requesting $250
million under the Northeast Corridor Improvement Project to progress its New
York-Boston high-speed rail improvement program and to address critical capital
improvements between Washington and New York.
There are a number of states that are interested in pursuing new state-supported
403(b) rail passenger service. Specific states include Wisconsin, Illinois, Nebraska,
and Iowa in the Midwest; Washington and California in the west; Louisiana, Mis-
sissippi, Alabama, and North Carolina in the south; and Maine in the northeast.
Like many new services, these trjiins will suffer operating deficits in the early years.
As a result. Public Law 102-533 separated funding required to operate new state-
supported 403(b) service fi-om that required for Amtrak's basic system. With this
change, Amtrak can continue to minimize its operating losses without limiting the
ability of states to test the viability of new intercity rail passenger service options.
Amtrak requests that this provision be funded at the a newly authorized level of
$9.5 million for fiscal year 1994.
This report proposes several legislative changes that would permit a more effi-
cient and less costly operation for Amtrak. First, however, it oners a vision of the
role Amtrak can play in this country's struggle to stimulate the economy and to
make long-term investment in the nation's rail infrastructure through the develop-
ment of high-speed rail and other capital investments in the passenger rail system.
ELIMINATING ROADBLOCKS TO HIGH-SPEED RAIL
The nation is at a critical juncture in the development of high-speed rail. Interest
in and demand for fast rail or magnetic levitation passenger service have never been
higher, driven by increasing congestion on our highways and at our airports, as well
as by concerns over the quality of the air we breathe and other environmental is-
sues. In addition to New York's Empire Corridor and the Northeast Corridor, the
Federal Railroad Administration has previously identified additional corridors that
appear to have the potential for successful high-speed rail service. They include
Washington-Richmond-Charlotte; Chicago to De&oit, Milwaukee and St. Louis; San
Diego-Los Angeles-Bakersfield-Bay Area-Sacramento; Eugene-Portland-Seattle-Van-
couver; Tampa-Orlando-Miami.
At the outset, however, we should distinguish between two different areas of fast
surface rail passenger operation. The first, which Amtrak has called "high-speed,"
involves the operation of passenger trains at speeds from 100 to not over 150 mph
on existing railroad tracks and rights-of-way. The second category, "ultra high-
speed," involves rail or magnetic levitation operations at speeds in excess of 150
mph; they may operate as fast as 200-300 mph. Ultra high-speed operations will
a require the construction of an entirely new railroad or maglev guideway and are
not suitable for operation on existing fi*eight or passenger lines.
Ultra High-Speed Surface Transportation Systems. — Federal interest in magnetic
levitation, as well as Bullet train or TGV ultra high-speed steel-wheel rail tech-
nology, has grown significantly under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Effi-
ciency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). Since both of these technologies require construction of
a totally new guideway or roadbed at very considerable capital investment, neither
has so far been financed nor has construction been started. The two that appear
21
closest to fruition are the proposed 15-mile maglev operation between Orlando Air-
port and International Drive in Florida and the proposed TGV rail operation be-
tween Houston, Dallas and San Antonio in Texas. Amtrak supports both of these
projects, as well as others that have been proposed elsewhere. As the only operator
of intercity passenger service and as a major operator of commuter rail passenger
service we are well suited to operate and maintain these systems. Amtrak is not,
however, in a position to provide capital funds for ultra high-speed operations such
as these.
High-Speed Rail Passenger Operations on Existing Railroad Rights-of-Way. — ^As
noted above, these high-speed operations involve maximum speeds in the 100 mph
to 150 mph range. The Department of Transportation recently identified five exist-
ing rail corridors, outside the Northeast Corridor, eligible to receive special funds
to eliminate at-grade highway/rail crossings in order to promote high-speed rail pas-
senger service on existing freight railroad-owned rights-of-way. Numerous state and
regional authorities are studying the potential of such high-speed rail operation in
their regions. In addition, the General Accounting Office is currently completing a
detailed analysis of the status of high-speed and ultra high-speed rail in the United
States and is expected to recommend federal actions which could facilitate its devel-
opment to help meet the transportation needs of the next century.
In the Northeast Corridor, Amtrak is undertaking an ambitious high-speed rail
project of its own to reduce the travel time between New York and Boston to under
three hours. This will be accomplished through electrification of the existing Amtrak
rail line east of New Haven, improvement of the tracks and signals to permit higher
average speed and a top speed of 150 mph and reduction in the number of low speed
segments, and acquisition of a new generation of state-of-the-art American-bvult
high-speed rail equipment. Amtrak is currently testing a prototype, the Swedish
X2000, and this Julv another, the German ICE, will also be tested in our Northeast
Corridor. This Nortneast Corridor project will serve as a test bed for the incremen-
tal upgrade of existing rail lines located on many of the nation's most densely popu-
lated transportation corridors. Three-hour New York-Boston service is expected to
draw up to three million passengers from existing modes of transportation, resulting
in significant congestion relief and improved air quality in the region.
Unfortunately, two fundamental issues threaten to undermine the development of
high-speed rail in this country: funding the significant initial capital infrastructure
costs of new systems, including equipment, grade crossing elimination, and track
and signal upgrading- and the potential of liability costs related to high-speed oper-
ations over existing freight railway lines. Unless these issues are addressed, it is
unlikely that "high-speecf ' rail passenger service will be able to develop to the extent
we think both feasible and desirable on potential corridors outside the Northeast
Corridor.
Funding Both Conventional and High Speed Rail Projects. — Unlike other modes
of transportation, which are heavily subsidized by dedicated federal funding sources
such as the Highway Trust Fund, no dedicated capital ftinding has ever been estab-
lished to support the capital costs of Amtrak's conventional or high-speed rail sys-
tems. Despite support for rail passenger service, competition for scarce federal re-
sources in a deficit environment has limited the availability of capital resources for
Amtrak and has made development of high-speed rail corridor initiatives outside of
the Northeast Corridor impossible. Similarly, absent federal or state policy that both
encourages this development and funds substantial capital investment, as well as
relief of liability concerns, the future of any new high-speed rail project in the Unit-
ed States remains in question.
Amtrak has proposed in the past that a mechanism be established to support the
facilities and equipment costs associated with its existing national rail passenger
system as well as to provide the initial capital required for equipment and mainte-
nance for new high-speed rail systems. Last year, H.R. 4414, which would establish
a capital fund financed by one cent of the current two and one-half cent federal fuel
tax now allocated to deficit reduction, was introduced in the House of Representa-
tives with over 30 co-sponsors and was widely supported in the environmental and
transportation industries. The Bill would have two major impacts. First, under the
proposal, Amtrak would for the first time have access to a secure capital funding
source necessary to plan for and acquire modem rail passenger equipment and to
upgrade and expand its system, resulting in a national system that would be of sig-
nificantly higher quality than today's system. Second, a funding mechanism of this
nature is necessary if this country intends to support efforts for the development
of new high-speed rail corridors.
As Congress studies ways in which to stimulate job creation, new domestic manu-
facturing capability, economic development and an improved national transportation
infrastructure, Amtrak urges it to consider establishment of a dedicated fund that
22
will change the nature of rail passenger transportation in this country and at the
same time create jobs in manufacturing, construction and service industries. For the
first time, rail passenger service wovud be placed on an even footing with other
transportation modes, thereby allowing transportation planners to make decisions
based on the merits of a proposed transportation project and not just the availability
of federal funding for a particular modal prooosal. In the process, the United States
could again establish itself as a world leader in the design and manufacture of
state-of-the-art rail passenger equipment and rail infi*astructure.
It should be emphasized that such a funding mechanism would and should not
be the only source of funding for high-speed rail. Indeed, many of the localized rail
infrastructure improvements that would have to be undertaken to reduce travel
time should be funded from state transportation programs, particularly those estab-
lished under the ISTEA. Amtrak believes that the intercity rail passenger trust
fund would be particularly important as a means of funding equipment capital
costs — rolling stock that will often operate in several states — and other related fa-
cilities.
In this regard, Amtrak supports two recent proposals that would provide an im-
portant stimulus to the development of high-speed rail systems and a rail equip-
ment manufacturing capability in this country. The first is an investment tax credit
that would include investments in conventional and high-speed passenger rail
equipment. The second would remove barriers on tax-exempt authority for the reha-
bilitation of rail passenger facilities and equipment. These two proposals would dra-
matically reduce Amtrak's costs of financing equipment purchases vital to the real-
ization of high-speed rail in the United States.
Addressing Liability Concerns. — ^Another fundsimental issue creating a barrier to
the development of high-speed rail service is the threat of huge damage awards that
could result from rail accidents. Clearly, the potential cost of an unfavorable jury
award as a result of a passenger train accident could easily exceed (many times
over) the revenues received by freight railroads for high-speed operations conducted
by Amtrak over their lines.
The factor most responsible for driving up the cost of liability is the ability of ju-
ries to award punitive damages when a jury determines, often on highly coiilicting
evidence, that a defendant is guilty of conduct that is more serious than ordinary
negligence. Courts have rarely set umits on the amount a jury can award to punish
the defendant, and examples abound of punitive damage awards far in excess of the
amount required to compensate an injured person for his or her injuries. The threat
of such awards often causes defendants to agree to large settlements rather than
expose themselves to the risks of a hostile jury. Indeed, it is for this very reason
that Congress enacted legislation to make the United States exempt from the award
of punitive damages in the Federal Tort Claims Act. Regional commuter rail au-
thorities are also generally protected from such high awards from operations within
the state, limiting liability concerns and protecting taxpayers against unduly expen-
sive jury awards because their function is in the public interest.
It is unlikely that freight railroads — including those that own the trackage in
most potential high-speed rail corridors — will permit high-speed passenger oper-
ations without this issue being addressed. The potential exposure to enormously
costly punitive damage jury awards from passenger train accidents is simply too
great and too real. In addition to the understandable concerns and expected opposi-
tion of railroads who own tracks required for operation of passenger services by Am-
trak and local commuter authorities, the excessive cost of liability exposure contin-
ues to drain resources from Amtrak and other passenger service providers that
could better be used to improve safety of operations or expand service. However,
Amtrak cannot afford to give an unconditional guarantee against risk of liability for
high-speed service unless it is insulated from the high cost of punitive damages.
Amtrak will work with the new Administration and the Congress in an effort to
seek a consensus on the best way to control the liability costs associated with public
transportation by passenger trains. This issue is extremely important and timely,
and Amtrak encourages Congress and the Administration to examine the issue.
1993 LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS
Amtrak has identified below several changes that would assist Amtrak in becom-
ing a more efficient operation.
Assigning Appropriate Environmental Responsibility. — In 1976, Congress trans-
ferred to Amtrak title to several properties formerly owned by other reulroads, pri-
marily the bankrupt Penn Central Railroad. However, neither Congress nor Amtrak
were aware at that time that these properties would be subject to subsequently en-
acted federal and state legislation that imposes liability on the title holder for the
23
enormous costs of cleaning up contamination and pollution that had occurred prior
to the transfer of the proper^ in 1976. Amtrak believes that the costs for cleaning
up pollution that occurred prior to April 1, 1976, should be the obligation of the re-
sponsible party — ^the owner which caused the pollution.
Aside from the consideration of fairness, it would be illogical for the federal gov-
ernment to impose these clean-up costs on federal taxpayers through Amtrak appro-
priations, particularly if the responsible party can be identified and has the ability
to pay to clean up the pollution it caused. In the event that the previous owner is
protected by bankruptcy laws, then Amtrak, and the taxpayers who would eventu-
ally have to pay the bill, should not be required to pay for cleaning up pollution
it did not cause on property transferred to it by the federal government.
Unless some relief is provided, Amtrak may be required by EPA to pay multi-mil-
lion dollar clean-up costs for a commuter train yard at Paoli, Pennsylvania, which
was never sought by Amtrak nor used for Amtrak train operations. The PCB pollu-
tion at this site resulted primarily from operations over several decades by the
Pennsylvania Railroad, and its successor, Penn Central Transportation Company.
Any pa5Tnent by Amtrak would have to be appropriated as an addition to its operat-
ing subsidy.
Removal of Barriers to Private Financing. — Currently Amtrak is authorized to
issue various forms of financial obligations, and Amtrak utiHzes this authority in
connection with private financing initiatives. However, Amtrak must obtain tiie con-
sent of the Secretary of Transportation to issue even routine obligations with a liq-
uidation interest superior to the preferred stock held by the Secretary or secured
by a lien on Amtrak property. Amtrak can compete effectively for funds in the pri-
vate financial markets only if its ability to incur the necessary obligations is not
conditioned by a statutory requirement to obtain the Secretary's prior consent.
CONCLUSION
Amtrak welcomes the present debate about reinvesting in the nation's infrastruc-
ture and is eager to work closely with Congress and the new Administration in for-
mulating a comprehensive plan that will provide immediate economic stimulus
through job creation, offer long-term economic development, and establish an envi-
ronmentally sound, energy efficient transportation system. High-speed rail is now
widely recognized to be an integral part of such a system and, with the suggestions
included in this report, Amtrak stands ready to develop the full potential of rail pas-
senger service in this country.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT BLANCHETTE
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Blanchette, we'd like to hear from you
now. Again, welcome.
Mr. Blanchette. Mr. Chairman, Senator Mikulski, thank you
very much for the opportunity to appear before you.
My name is Robert Blanchette. I am the chief legal officer of the
Association of American Railroads, but let me say. Senator Mikul-
ski, that if you do take that maglev from Baltimore to Washington,
if you will go by Bethesda, I can assure you that my family will
be out and waving at you as you munch on your bagel and drink
your coffee.
Mr. Claytor is a good, longstanding friend of mine. And I can say,
in all candor, that I share the desire of everyone in this room that
I be brief, so you can get on with your questions of him.
I have my prepared testimony. And I'd ask that it be incor-
porated in the record of these hearings.
Senator Lautenberg. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Blanchette. Let me only say that I have spent more years
than I care to count worrying about the continuation of passenger
service and high-speed passenger service in the United States.
I started as general counsel of the New Haven; nursed the
TurboTrain into creation and extinction. I served, later, as a trust-
24
ee of the Penn Central, where we tried to keep the payrolls going
and maintain Metroliner service.
I then served as Federal Railroad Administrator and worked
very closely with Mr. Claytor to bring Amtrak to the commendable
business basis that it's now on. I later served as the counsel for the
French TGV interests in the United States.
So I am delighted to see the way this committee is proceeding
to look ahead of it and rather than the way it's always proceeded
in the past, and that has been to look behind and say, "Well, we've
got to have something. Let's start Tuesday morning at 9 o'clock. We
don't know what the technology is. We don't know whether it will
work. We don't know where it's all going to end, but we'll force ev-
erybody to do it our way."
I think the deliberate manner in which you have approached it,
encouraged by Mr. Claytor and his associates, is most commend-
able. And I do hope it augers a new era and one in which the
freight railroads of this country would be pleased and proud to be
a contributor and a participant.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you, Mr. Blanchette. Your complete
statement will be inserted in the record.
Statement of Robert W. Blanchette
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, the Association of American
Railroads (AAR) is pleased to respond to your invitation to appear today on the sub-
ject of high-speed rail passenger service.
Recently, AAR broke new ground with the announcement of a major policy posi-
tion regarding the railroad industry and the burgeoning high-speed rail evolution
in the United States. The position was of particular significance in that AAR's mem-
ber roads include Amtrak, the nation's rail passenger service carrier, and its major
freight railroads. These roads comprise 92 percent of the route miles operated in the
United States and they carry over 90 percent of the nation's freight. Apart from the
Northeast Corridor, Amtrak's passenger trains operate over the national freight sys-
tem; as a result, close cooperation and coordination are required. In years to come,
many corridors recommended for high speed development could operate along or ad-
jacent to intercity railroad rights-of-way.
In consequence, the recently issued policy statement offers definitive guidelines
where, in the past, considerable ambiguity existed.
I attach the policy statement and incorporate it by reference in this testimony.
It is brief and requires little interpretative comment. I should, of course, be pleased
to answer your questions.
In the past, the relationship between freight and passenger service was beclouded
by historical precedents. Long after passenger service ceased being able to pay for
itself, its deficit operations were imposed upon the railroads as compelled public
service obligations. Early experiments into improving rail speeds — the TurboTrains
on the old New Haven line between New York and Boston, the original Metroliner
service between New York and Washington on the Penn Central — failed to reflect
the balance that must be struck between public and private entities in order to cre-
ate successful partnerships and projects.
With the formation of Amtrak in the early 1970's, the relationship changed. To
be sure, there are statutory requirements which affect the relationship between Am-
trak and the underlying freight system. Nevertheless, the pattern of dealing has be-
come more businesslike. And that evolution has resulted in better service to the
public.
Just as high-speed rail is an emergent feature on the American transportation
scene, the policy statement affords us a new basis for dealing with the relationships
that can be formed — and with those that cannot be. The new alignment of interests
is businesslike; it addresses the realities and is promising.
25
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the Association of American Railroads and its mem-
ber companies stand ready to assist in the development of any high speed rail initia-
tive and I welcome your questions.
High-Speed Rail Passenger and Freight Services: Opportunities for
Partnership
executive summary
(1) Rail transportation offers America significant economic, environmental and
safety benefits, and is a solution to increasing highway congestion.
(2) America's freight railroads are ready to cooperate in the extension and ad-
vance of high-speed rail passenger service, as well as in other rail passenger serv-
ices.
(3) There are distinct types of passenger services: commuter, conventional inter-
city (Amtrak), high-speed and ultra high-speed. These differences must be under-
stood because they control the extent to which rail freight and passenger operations
can operate over tiie same rights-of-way.
(4) In general, ultra high-speed rail service (over 150 miles-per-hour) cannot oper-
ate compatibly on the freight railroads' rights-of-way. There are fewer limitations
on high-speed service (up to 150 mph), but strict safeguards are necessary. Freight
railroads already accommodate conventional Amtrak service and viable partnership
arrangements normally are possible. The same is true in most commuter areas. Es-
sentially, partnership possibilities must be examined on a case-by-case basis.
(5) The formation of^ partnerships among railroads and sponsors of new passenger
rail projects will benefit the public.
(6) The full costs of changes in existing freight rail operations to accommodate
new passenger operations must be borne by the entity sponsoring the new service.
(7) Freight railroads must be indemnified and insured against any and all finan-
cial liability arising from accidents affecting passenger services.
AMERICA'S RAILROADS SEEK TO ENHANCE PASSENGER SERVICE
Greater use of railroads will permit America to alleviate highway and airport con-
gestion, decrease dependence on foreign oil, reduce pollution, and eliminate injuries
and fatalities associated with automobile and truck transportation.
In both urban and rural areas, highway congestion is growing, and many airports
are taxed well beyond their design capabilities.
In some areas, railroad rights-of-way offer already assembled corridors that can
be utilized without the cost and environmental degradation associated with highway
and new airport construction.
The public interest favors increased reliance on rail service. Railroads are sub-
stantially more energy efficient than any form of highway transportation; and en-
ergy efficiency implies less air pollution. Railroads are far safer than highway to
move both passengers and freight — and the railroads' safety record has improved
over the past 10 years.
For these reasons, policy makers support greater use of railroads to move both
passengers as weU as freight; similarly, many poUcy makers support the introduc-
tion of high-speed rail passenger service as a national priority. In fact, the High
Speed Rail Association nas identified more than 40 candidate high-speed rail cor-
ridors in the United States and Canada.
America's freight railroads are ready to cooperate in the advance and introduction
of high-speed rail passenger service.
Admittedly, technological and operating differences between various forms of rail-
roading sometimes impose limitations on the shared use of some track. As America
moves to increase its use of rail to move both passengers and freight, high-speed
rail initiatives must be considered on a case-by-case basis to determine their com-
patibility with existing train operations.
America's freight railroads are prepared to continue their history of cooperation
in identifying and solving engineering and operational difficulties, and in assisting
public policy makers to reach economically sound choices.
DIFFERENCES IN PASSENGER OPERATIONS MUST BE ANALYZED
Memy potential high-speed corridors do not appear to have the potential ridership
economically to justify dedicated rights-of-way, and therefore may seek to share
trackage with freight operations.
26
Launching mixed freight and high-speed rail passenger service on the same tracks
must, of course, be accomplished without compromising safety or interrupting the
efiScient movement of freignt.
The concept of shared use requires an analysis of the four distinct rail passenger
services that might share rights-of-way with freight railroads:
(1) Commuter rail provides mass transportation between suburbs and core cities
and within combined metropolitan areas. Commuter rail is the fastest growing seg-
ment of raU passenger service, and includes lines operated by regional transit au-
thorities (New Jersey Transit, South East Pennsylvania Transit Authority, Metro
North, Long Island Railroad, and Metra) or for such authorities by contract (Am-
trak, Burlington Northern, Chicago & North Western, and CSX).
(2) Amtrak is a federally owned company that operates coast-to-coast, primarily
on rights-of-way owned by freight railroads, and at top speeds ranging from 79 to
90 mph, depending on the availability of cab signals.^ Apart from its conventional
trains, Amtrak owns the right-of-way in the Northeast (Jorridor between Washing-
ton and Boston. Between Washington and New York, Amtrak operates high-speed
rail peissenger service at speeds up to 125 mph.
(3) High-speed rail passenger service is well established in Europe and Japan, and
operates at speeds oi 100-150 mph between cities generally fewer than 300 miles
apart. Federal funding will permit Amtrak to extend its high-speed corridor from
New York to Boston. Joining city pairs such as Washington-New York and New
York-Boston will result in hign-speed service in a corridor of some 500 nules length.
(4) Ultra high-speed rail passenger service includes the French TGV and Japanese
Bullet trains that operate at speeds at or above 150 mph. Ultra high-speed rail re-
quires new rights-ot-way entirely dedicated to this kind of service. It also includes
transportation systems using magnetic levitation technolom^. Except for existing rail
lines that are or may be abandoned, it is doubtful that uie freight railroads have
any assets appropriate for the development of ultra high-speed rail passenger serv-
ices.
In integrating these types of rail passenger services into rights-of-way owned and
maintained by freight railroads, planners and engineers must focus on four key
areas:
(1) Significantly Different Operating Speeds. — High-speed passenger trains travel
between 100 and 150 mph, while the speed range of freight trains generally is SO-
SO mph. This difference of speed constrains the scheduling of freight operations, or
requires construction of additional track capacity. Accommodation may not be fea-
sible in all cases.
(2) Signal Systems. — Generally, signal systems for America's freight railroads are
visual tracksiae systems. High-speed rail passenger operations require speed control
and cab signals.^ Most freignt trains, because of their slower operating speeds, do
not utilize speed control, and not all freight railroads utilize cab signals. Therefore,
additional investments will be required where high-speed rail can be operated over
existing rights-of-way.
(3) Right-of-Way Protection and Grade-Crossings. — High-speed rail passenger op-
erations require toted raU-highway grade-crossing protection, which generally means
the construction of highway underpasses or overpasses to prevent highway traffic
from crossing a rail line at grade. Additionally, high-speed rail corridors may re-
qviire special protection such as fencing to prevent trespassing and vandsilism.
(4) Maintenance Requirements. — High-speed rail passenger maintenance require-
ments are substantially greater than those for freight operations. Obviously, ride
?[uality is paramount, and for safety purposes more visual inspections are necessary,
n curves, track elevations vary with speed, and this constraint may further limit
the areas of compatibihty.
PASSENGER/FREIGHT PARTNERSHIPS REQUIRE CASE-BY-CASE REVIEW
Because local circumstances and rail transportation goals vary by region, each
passenger service project must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. While pas-
senger and freight operations can be compatible on the same track, the differences
between freight railroad service and ultra high-speed rail passenger service create
^ Cab signals allow for continuous display in the locomotive cab of upcoming trackside signals.
Cab signtus allow the locomotive engineer to acyust speed promptly, rather than waiting until
the next trackside signal is in view.
^Cab signals are defined in fh. 1.
Speed control is a system that detects an overspeed condition by the locomotive and automati-
cally gives an audible warning. If the locomotive is still not operating within the speed restric-
tions within 25 seconds, the train automatically is brought to a halt.
27
obstacles that cannot be overcome. In other areas, the potential depends upon the
facts.
Recently consummated projects involving commuter rail in Los Angeles, Houston,
Denver, Salt Lake City and Northern Virginia are evidence that joint-use agree-
ments can be made that are beneficial to all participants.
After the facts are known, the nature of the partnership between the fi-eight rail-
road and the passenger service proponent can be assessed. The partnership must
be on a business basis. Railroads no longer bear entrepreneurial risk for passenger
operations and will enter the arena only on a fully compensatory basis.
It is therefore a matter of equity that the full costs of changes necessary to accom-
modate high-speed rail passenger service be borne by the public entity sponsoring
the high-speed rail passenger project.
Where mixed freight and high-speed rail passenger operations are feasible, leases,
parallel easements and/or trackage rights agreements should be negotiated in an
arm's length manner.
Another matter of importance is liability in the event of accidents. Freight rail-
roads have no incentive to allow high-speed operations on their lines if they must
accept potentially catastrophic, uninsurable financial liabilities. Thus, the freight
railroacfa believe equity demands that they be indemnified against any and all fi-
nancial liability in the case of passenger operations.
SUCCESS OF THE X2000 TEST
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Claytor, I think, to kind of start, we
may just get a quick summary of what the results have been with
the 5^000 thus far on the existing railbeds and the character of the
lines over which it travels.
Mr. Claytor. There are two phases. The first phase was the en-
gineering phase to check out the safety, the ability to reach the
necessary speeds, and the operation. That has all been 100 percent
successful.
We have operated the train at just over 150 miles an hour on our
track up in New Jersey in the test run. We havQ checked the tilt
mechanism. And we're now being permitted by the FRA in the
present market test, to operate at 135 miles an hour, instead of
just limiting it to 125.
And, I believe, if we get the trains in this country, they will be
built in this country. Amtrak is not going to buy anything abroad.
We import the technology, but we build the trains here. We hope
that we'll be able to operate at up to about 140 miles an hour.
It's going to depend, of course, on the ability to accelerate and
other things like that, that we finally develop in the final model.
But I'm satisfied that this has been successful.
Second, we've done a market test to see what the reaction of pas-
sengers is. So far, it's been almost 100 percent favorable. The pas-
sengers think it's a great ride.
My own view is that the somewhat improved running times from
here to New York are not the big deal. We may get 20 minutes out
of the schedule, which would be very important if we're talking
about competing with airplanes. But I think the most important
factor is that this train rides as smoothly as your desk rides right
now, not moving. It really does.
The problem with our existing equipment, all of which was de-
signed for speeds of basically 80 miles an hour some years ago, be-
cause there wasn't anything else available, is not really designed
to ride smoothly at 125 miles an hour.
So it jiggles and it vibrates and it's noisy. And a businessman
can't write. That is a great drawback. I think that a lot of busmess-
men who are still on the shuttle would be on the train, if they
28
could ride the X2000 quality of ride everyday. You can have con-
ferences. You can write. Lawyers can write briefs. And they love
to get the time to do that on a train without interruption.
So, I think the market test has been equally good. We plan to
do exactly the same thing with a competing train that the Germans
have developed called the ICE, the InterCity Express. And we want
to test all of the same factors with it, as well as we've done with
the X2000.
POTENTIAL TIME SAVINGS
Senator Lautenberg. You said that there was a savings, a time
savings, even under the existing conditions. Are you comfortable
with that reduction in travel time?
Mr. Claytor. We don't know, until we get the final model and
we can test it out completely. We'd like to have more power on the
train than this one has, because we need more acceleration.
One of the important things is to have a lot of acceleration, so
that when you slow down — as even the tilt train must do for
curves, to some extent — ^you can then speed up quickly and make
up time on the straight. And so there are a number of other things
that we will be developing.
I don't think we're in a position to say exactly how much time
we can save between here and New York with the ultimate model,
but it obviously will be something significant.
Senator Lautenberg. Does it presently save time even in its
demonstration mode?
Mr. Claytor. We have saved, I believe, above 10 minutes on the
nonstop run between Philadelphia and New York, for example.
On tne nonstop runs, we have saved some time, but our regular
trains, the X2000, is running on a Metroliner schedule. We have
to leave each station at the same time that's listed in the schedule,
so we can make up time between stations, to some extent, but not
in the overall picture. That's the way we're now doing it.
Senator Lautenberg. OK. By the way, I confirm what the pas-
senger response has been, since I rode the train. We rode together.
And it was a wonderful ride. One can write even if one couldn't
write before one got on it.
Mr. Claytor. That's right.
Senator Lautenberg. It's so smooth. But it was an excellent
ride, very comfortable, and none of the swaying and shaking as you
made the trip.
administration's high-speed rail proposal
Mr. Claytor, President Clinton has called for an investment pro-
gram of $1.3 billion in maglev and high-speed rail projects over the
next 5 years. How do you see us allocating these funds in order to
maximize the expansion of high-speed rail systems across the coun-
try? Where and how would you see those investments develop?
Mr. Sullivan. This is the $1.3 billion, Mr. Chairman, that the
administration is proposing
Senator LAUTENBERG. Pull the mike closer.
Mr. Sullivan [continuing]. That the administration has pro-
posed. We haven't actually sat down and laid out how that money
29
should be used from Amtrak's standpoint, but certainly funds
should be put into high-speed rail corridors, which the administra-
tion has identified throughout the country.
We are working with the FRA now to do a demonstration run of
the X2000 around this Nation, including the high-speed rail cor-
ridors. And we would encourage consideration of investment in
some of those corridors.
New York State is one that we work very closely with. They have
put in a 1036 application for ISTEA funds to do a demonstration
project in New York State for high-speed rail. And we're already
running 110 miles an hour in New York State with our TurboLiner
trains. And so that could be one corridor in which some investment
could be made.
Senator Lautenberg. Do you think that the funds ought to go
into a couple of high visibility projects or should we use these funds
to finance several projects across the country? Because you're going
to have to do some selling, or I'm going to have to do some selling.
We've tried to get friends from this body and from the House to
join in. Some of them may not quite see the value in a particular
congressional district or a State, but we've got something on the
market here. And that's why I asked that question.
Mr. Claytor. Well, Mr. Chairman, as I pointed out in my testi-
mony, a major part of the work that has to be done on a corridor
has got to come from other than Amtrak and Federal sources. It's
got to come from highway funds. It's got to come from the local
community.
For example, I've just learned that the city of Seattle is going to
put $600,000 right away into rebuilding the Chain Street Station.
That type of expenditure is going to have to be done in the local
corridors.
And my own view is that you can make the greatest progress by
picking a corridor and worlang on that as the first of the off-cor-
ridor areas to really develop high-speed, rather than trying to
spread it over several, because there won't be enough money to do
very much if you try to do it across the board.
Now, one of the things we could do is to say, "Which one are you
going to pick first?"
We'll pick the one that will produce the most other money from
the State and the local community. We will not have enough money
in $l-plus billion over a 5-year period to do all of the work that has
to be done on these corridors. It must be done locally. And whoever
comes up with the most money to do the most locally, I would say,
ought to be given consideration to be the first trial.
ALLOCATION OF GAS TAX REVENUES
Senator Latjtenberg. It sounds reasonable. You mentioned ear-
lier that the 2.5 cents that was allocated for deficit reduction would
be going into highways. I think a small correction there is it's going
into the highway trust fund.
Mr. Claytor. Right. There is a highway trust fund. Yes.
Senator Lautenberg. Right. And, therefore, we might, legisla-
tively, in the future or through a regulation, be able to call on some
of those funds for use in rail passenger service.
68-623 O— 93-
30
When we originally drafted the Intermodal Surface Transpor-
tation Efficiency Act [ISTEA], I proposed making intercity rail eli-
gible for highway funds. And it passed the Senate, but, unfortu-
nately, in the conference, it fell off of the table.
We're going to be here. And we're going to keep working on get-
ting it back.
Mr. Claytor. Yes; to me, that's of critical importance, if Amtrak
is really going to keep going as a vibrant alternate means of trans-
portation.
PRIVATE SECTOR FINANCING
Senator Lautenberg. I'm with you. Amtrak has worked with the
private sector to try to finance some of its capital programs. What's
been the experience to date? Are there any lessons learned that we
ought to note?
Mr. Claytor. Well, we are financing a significant amount of new
equipment, largely, privately. I had said that we ought to try to
have 50 percent of our new equipment costs paid by a Federsd Ciov-
emment investment and the other 50 percent raised from private
sources. Unfortunately, so far, we haven't gotten the Federal Cjov-
emment investment. We've gone ahead and financed up to 70 and
80 percent privately.
The problem is that you've got to service the investment and
you've got to pay it back. And we don't think we can afford to do
very much more of that until we can get Federal Grovemment in-
vestment.
I think doing more than 50 percent private financing is going to
put Amtrak in a debt hole that we can't afford.
potential for high-speed to cover costs
Senator Lautenberg. In your formal remarks, you stated that
Metroliner service trains cover over 200 percent of their long-term
operating costs.
Mr. Claytor. Most of them do, yes.
Senator Lautenberg. Do you think it's reasonable to expect the
100-percent long-term operating result from other high-speed cor-
ridors?
Mr. Claytor. I think it would be reasonable to do that. I would
hope that we would pick a corridor with that potential and that we
could do that. Remember, that is the long-term operating costs. It
does not include the necessary contribution to overhead, which in-
cludes an awful lot of very heavy expenses, especially in the North-
east corridor.
Senator Lautenberg. In Amtrak's experience, we've learned that
it's virtually impossible for any high-speed rail system, at the out-
set, to fully cover their capital costs without Federal money, public
assistance.
Mr. Claytor. Yes.
Senator Lautenberg. Representations have been made that the
French TGV system and other European systems will be able to
fully cover their capital and operating costs. Are those assertions
ones that hold water?
31
Mr. Claytor. Let me comment on that, Mr. Chairman, if I may.
The capital costs for the TGV construction has already been raised
by French Government money with bonds. The effort is being
made, and is successfully being made, to pay those bonds off ex
post facto. You don't raise the money to start. The government puts
the money up. And then if the system is successful, you can then
pay the bonds off.
Now, France has got a situation that is extraordinarily favorable
for that, that I'm afraid we don't have. The French Government
has a national policy that makes a great deal of sense for a country
the size of France — it's a densely populated country — without any
domestic source of oil.
Oil that is used for transportation or anything else has to be im-
ported. They have developed an electric grid that's entirely owned
and operated by the government, all nuclear power, all nuclear
generated power. As a result the power available to pull the elec-
tric trains — and electrification is very extensive in France — is very
cheap.
The attempt to travel by anything else that uses oil is extremely
expensive. They have taxed the use of oil to the absolute maximum,
to what would be considered in this country impossible levels, as
a matter of national policy, because they have to import.
And they don't want to import it. They want to use domestic
sources. They want to use their electricity. And the combination of
making it practically impossible to travel by any other means and
then making the fuel used relatively cheap, gives you a tremendous
step up.
If we prevented people by enormous tax costs from driving their
own automobiles, which is what happens in France over any dis-
tance, or from flying airplanes, because air's cost of fuel is much
bigger than the rail cost of fuel — we would have an additional
push.
So we don't quite have the situation that they have in France.
France is unique. The other countries do the same thing, but to a
lesser extent. France is the best example of a national policy that
makes it necessary to travel by train.
And then you make the train travel so superbly good, that it's
a good thing, too. So it's a combination of the two, but you must
have the inability to travel other ways, which is one of the things
that puts it on ice.
Senator Lautenberg. That's going to be very difficult for some-
one in our position, I think.
Mr. Claytor. I'm afraid so.
Senator Lautenberg. But we can do the positive thing and make
it so good that it's irresistible.
Mr. Claytor. Yes.
Senator LAUTENBERG. And, frankly, I think that can be done at
a cost that's very competitive with highway construction
Mr. Claytor. Right.
Senator Lautenberg. And with improving our national airway
system. If you've just noticed, there's some sad commentary about
the investment that we've put thus far in the automated airspace.
Highway projects, also, traditionally, run way over.
32
And we're going to continue to use and build highways in the
country, as needed, but we've got to make room for a balanced
transportation network. And that includes an investment in high-
speed rail, which, on a passenger-mile basis is relatively small,
compared to the subsidies and encouragement we give the others.
Mr. Claytor. Mr. Chairman, the point you made is such an im-
portant one that I'm going to emphasize it, too. The difficulty we
have is that money assigned for airports and airways is in category
A. Money assigned to build highways is in category B.
To try to get the money away from the interests that want to
spend it on those things is extraordinarily difficult. But, if one
looks at the big picture, we can actually save money by building
high-speed rail and not building, as you pointed out, new airports
that would otherwise be needed, whole new lanes of interstate
highways.
Our whole new interstate highway system is incredibly expen-
sive. The amount of money that it costs is enormous, compared to
what it would cost to do what we want to do, but we've gotten in
the habit of spending that kind of money in those areas. But if we
look at the overall picture, it is cheaper, as well as more environ-
mentally sound, to investigate in high-speed rail than to let that
money continue to go into more new airports and airways.
The airways are terribly crowded, too; particularly around New
York, Chicago, and Los Ajigeles. The airways themselves are pre-
senting a tough problem.
Senator Lautenberg. If you listen to some of our constituents
who live on the approaches to the airports, they'd be supporting
rail
Mr. Claytor. Yes, sir; I'm one of them. [Laughter.]
Senator LAUTENBERG. In a burst of energy — I, too.
Mr. Blanchette, before we turn to my colleague, who has been
very patient — Senator Mikulski, we will get to you in just a couple
of minutes. I wanted to ask Mr. Blanchette a couple of questions.
Because we get into the question, and I thought that Mr. Claytor
handled it very well, of whether or not freight rails can be used ef-
fectively and whether we can expropriate property here. I mean,
there has to be some compensation.
Mr. Blanchette, in your paper on high-speed rail, you state that
"Railroads will enter the high-speed rail arena only on a fully com-
pensatory basis."
One of your member railroads, Conrail, has stated that it must
be completely reimbursed for any capital improvements, mainte-
nance and overhead costs associated with passenger service re-
quirements.
Isn't it true that track improvements for high-speed rail, how-
ever, will also enable freight trains to move faster and deliver their
products quicker than their competitors?
Mr. Blanchette. Well, I think there may be instances in which
that is the case. And in that fortuitous circumstance, I would an-
ticipate there would be a joint venture type of arrangement where
each would contribute according to his resources and each would
derive benefit according to his enhanced benefits from the joint
venture.
33
So I would say that that may be a different use of words, but I
think that both the Conrail and the general policy statement at-
tached to my testimony are compatible.
Senator Lautenberg. Well, then, I don't think — let me not preju-
dice any point of view here, if I can avoid it. Should the freight rail-
roads be completely reimbursed for enhancements that also benefit
them?
It seems that they ought not to be looking to passenger rail serv-
ice to make improvements for the national good that otherwise
would not be made, while expecting to get a return that would oth-
erwise not be there.
Mr. Blanchette. Mr. Chairman, I think that history will reflect
that there have been few, if any, subsidies that have worked in the
direction of the Government's to the freight railroads in respect of
passenger service within the last 50 years.
So I don't think that's much of a fear. I think that we ought to
concentrate our efforts — and Mr. Claytor stated the instances quite
well — on instances that are kind of beyond the passenger and
freight railroads to control; for example, grade-crossing protection.
We know that very few trains have been known to leave the
tracks in search of an automobile. And consequently, that is really
a highway problem. And I think that there has to be a contribution
there that doesn't enhance freight service and it doesn't enhance
passenger service. It's just a reality of life. Just as you don't have
truck lanes going across the runways at LaGuardia Airport, you
shouldn't have automobiles traversing the rights-of-way of high-
speed rail without some kind of protection.
So that's something that doesn't benefit the rail mode. It benefits
the highway mode. So we can take a whole series of things, such
as single lane and protection and things like that way that don't —
that enhance the public interest and don't enhance private interest.
Senator Lautenberg. I think that there's a risk, a high risk, to
extending that argument, because there are lots of people who
would say, "OK. If that's a highway enhancement, stop sending
trains over these things and just let's not have the delays that are
caused by rail service going through there."
So is there any operating or maintenance costs for high-speed
rail for which the freight railroads will not be looking for com-
pensation? Can you think of any areas?
Mr. Blanchette. We will not be looking for any compensation.
I think that — I'd hate to have an exhaustive list of examples, but
where a freight railroad system is planning, for example, to im-
prove its dispatching or its cab signal capacity, and the high-speed
rail system will also require that in those corridors, there could be
a useful dialog as to combining the investment.
You wouldn't want the rail mode to make an investment that's
incompatible with the passenger mode. In those instances where
rail freight and rail passenger would both serve and benefit by an
enhancement, then I think there could be a useful joint venture in
those areas; heavier rail, welded rail.
So I think that there are instances, without enumerating them,
where there could be, but I must say, Mr. Chairman, that it be-
muses me somewhat the concept that anybody would consider that
the solution to the highway grade-crossing problem would be to
34
have the train stop, because if you stop the trains which carry 38
percent of the intercity traffic in this country, you're going to talk —
you will not be able to see New Jersey while standing in it.
Senator Lautenberg. We agree. Ajid that was a counter to your
commentary about the fact that rail crossings were a highway
problem and not a rail problem. I mean, you can't shift the burden
of responsibility that way.
It's good for everybody if we can eliminate those crossings. And
that's what we ought to do.
Mr. Claytor. Mr. Chairman, could I mention just one thing? The
way I'd like to put this, in general terms, is that the freight rail-
roads should be reimbursed for their net costs.
Now, I can give you an example. Suppose we were going to put
in an automatic train control system that would enormously benefit
the railroads, that they don't have the money to do, weren't going
to do, but it sure would be good for them if it were done. We would
pay for that.
That's a net plus, but there's some other things that are net
minuses. I balance them off and look at this as a net — anything
that's net costs to the railroads has got to be reimbursed, but you
have to balance that against benefits that they need, that they can
use.
Now the main benefits they can't use, for example, just putting
cab signals in, would be of no use at all to the freight railroad. It
would enable us to run faster under the FRA rules, but that, alone,
is not an improvement that would save them any money. It would
not do any good.
So when I say net, I mean we have to look at what is a real ben-
efit to the railroad versus the real cost of the railroads and then
net it out. And that would be the way I'd try to approach it.
Senator Lautenberg. I think, also, it's important to note that if
the Federal Government hadn't designated or granted millions of
acres for rail access, there wouldn't be a freight railroad. So there's
very few freebies or subsidies that aren't shared along the way.
Senator Mikulski, thank you for your patience.
Senator Mikulski. Thank you, Senator Lautenberg. Actually, my
line of questioning was going to go to freight railroads.
In Maryland, and particularly the Baltimore-Metropolitan area,
freight rail is really bread and butter in terms of jobs and keeping
core industries going. One day's delay of freight delivery to Greneral
Motors Mini-Van, now, with their new ontime delivery, could be
very costly to the line as a whole.
So we're very conscientious about the need to maintain dual
use — ^what I call dual use compatibility — ^between passenger and
freight, which then takes me to my question to you, Mr.
Blanchette, just to be sure I understand your comments to the
chairman.
Under the existing system that we now have in the Northeast
corridor, there is what I think you would regard dual use compat-
ibility. Am I correct in that?
Mr. Blanchette. Yes; in which the freight fragment is
Senator Mikulski. When I say dual use, I mean between freight
and passenger.
35
Mr. Blanchette. Yes; in which the freight aspect of it is increas-
ingly decreasing and to the benefit of all, in my judgment, so that
it is not minimal, but it is dwindling and will continue to decrease,
but it is shared use at present.
Senator MiKULSKl. Now, but there are issues continually around
safety, where there is dual use, not only in terms of the scheduling,
the switching — we all remember the tragedy between Amtrak and
Conrail, which was both human and technological — but also these
things at crossings, where there is both a highway and rail inter-
section, is this correct?
Mr. Blanchette. Well, between — on the Northeast corridor, be-
tween New York and Washington, if memory serves, there are no
longer any unprotected crossings. So the right thing has been done.
Senator Mikulski. Right. But, nationwide, where we are
Mr. Blanchette. Well, nationwide, you're right, Senator. There
are hundreds of
Senator Mikulski. But when we talk about public investments
that generate jobs, that save jobs and save lives, this railroad
crossing issue would be a significant one.
Mr. Blanchette. It's a significant problem for the freight rail-
roads alone, much less one in which there's high — and I concur
completely in Mr. Claytor's analysis that at speeds in excess, I
think he said, of 100 miles an hour or whatever the threshold
speed was in his testimony, there ought not to be unprotected
crossings.
Senator Mikulski. Yes; but when I'm talking about dual use
compatibility, my question's now related to the existing system, not
the high-speed system and not the ultra high-speed.
Mr. Blanchette. OK.
Senator Mikulski. Which then, also, to continue that, does the
freight rail community see any benefits — just to be clear what you
said to the chairman — to itself, if America moves to the high-speed
framework, which we are doing; existing tracks, modernization of
the tracks, new types of cars themselves, which has been amplified,
do you see benefits to yourselves for really rapid delivery of the
same product?
Mr. Blanchette. I think it is more — each railroad can speak for
itself, obviously, but I think they see more of a business oppor-
tunity, just as railroads are getting into various aspects of com-
muter service, where they once eschewed any thought of stajdng in
that area. Across the country, right around here with MARC and
with the Virginia Expressway System, you see railroads looking at
an opportunity
Senator MiKULSKi. But that would be diversification. I'm talking
about the actual delivery of freight,
Mr. Blanchette. I think that probably
Senator MiKULSKl. Will we look forward to rapid freight trains?
Mr. Blanchette. Yes; I think. Senator, that in the corridors that
I can think of, I haven't heard an awful lot of discussion that it
would benefit the freight service. That does not diminish the enthu-
siasm which the freight railroads have for increased use on a con-
tractual basis with the passenger service. The freight railroads al-
ready do a fairly good job on increased service.
36
Now, there's obviously going to be a case where with the addition
of passenger service, there may be an enhanced opportunity, but
I'm saying that that has not been the key that turns this policy
statement.
It was an opportunity, a business opportunity, to see greater ex-
ploitation of the right-of-way, and an opportunity to show that the
railroads, indeed, can be significant contributors to the reduction of
pollution and congestion in urban and rural areas.
Now, in areas where, as Mr. Clajrtor points out — and he is a
skilled and excellent negotiator and I can see he's already started
the initial negotiating initiative — in areas where a rail freight serv-
ice would be materially enhanced by an improvement to the right-
of-way, we see now what the opening gambit would be in the nego-
tiation. And I think it's not an unreasonable gambit.
Senator Mikulski. Well, I don't know about negotiations and
gambits. What I do know is, I think the Congress is committed to
the fact that we need two types of rail service in the United States
of America.
One to move passengers, and the other to move freight. Both are
important to our economic development and our economic security.
What we're looking forward to is what are those things that would
have dual use compatibility and also attitudes from the private sec-
tor, as well, that would be trying to look ahead with us, as to what
those opportunities are and how the private sector would want to
participate in them. And that's what the chairman was getting at.
That's what I'm getting at. We want to have freight service, but
it can't always be looked at that it is a cost to or an obstacle to
and/or inconvenience about. And whether, in addition to diversifica-
tion, if they've looked forward to those benefits themselves, rec-
ognizing issues around safety, the need to invest in new types of
stock.
Mr. Blanchette. Well, I think, Senator, that your point is well
taken. And I saw among the chief executive officers who partici-
pated in the formulation of this policy, no negative views or no re-
luctance to endorse this policy. In fact, it was unanimously en-
dorsed by the freight railroads and by Amtrak.
So there wasn't any reluctance to advance the breakthrough
that's announced in this policy statement.
Senator Mikulski. I'm glad to hear it.
Mr. Chairman, I think that kind of — other questions I have will
be for the next panel, if I can stay.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much, Senator Mikulski.
I couldn't agree more than with your statement about — do we have
to search for ways to have our rail service enhanced, whether it's
for freight rail or for passenger rail? And they ought not to be at
loggerheads.
And when I talked about compensation, I was talking about com-
pensation that results as a matter of increased expense for the
freight line. There are going to be benefits, if we enhance the rails
for the use of high-speed rail. And they ought not to be done to in-
convenience the freight lines.
So, but the worst thing I can imagine would be a tug-of-war be-
tween the two interests, because a result would not be for the long-
term well-being of our country.
37
Mr. Claytor. And Mr. Chairman, our joint announcement some
weeks ago, in which all of the presidents of the leading railroads
to the AAR and myself jointly announced that we are going to be
working together.
Two-thirds of our passenger miles come from operations over the
freight railroads. And, roughly, two-thirds of our revenue does the
same.
So we are working day in and day out with the freight railroads.
My experience has been that the only way you're going to do this
in a way that benefits both parties is we both have to work to-
gether. We're a team.
And I think we've developed with the freight railroads a team-
work approach on, not only our conventional service, but the an-
nouncement that we are both going to work together to find a fair
way to put high-speed rail on appropriate corridors.
And I think that's the key thing, but we do have to do this in
a cooperative venture. In the early days of Amtrak, we spent all
of our time litigating with the freight railroads about one thing or
another. The result was chaos. You can't do that. We have to be
partners.
We were running trains over the same railroad tracks. We've got
to work together on it. We are now doing that. And I think we're
going to be able to do it in high-speed rail. And I think that there
will gdways be differences of opinion. We argue about things. We
negotiate various arrangements, but together we've got a common
objective. We've got to stick to that common objective or neither
one of us is going to get any where.
Senator Lautenberg. I couldn't agree more. I thank you both.
We have additional questions which will be submitted for the
record. We have other witnesses. And at this point, we'll say thank
you.
Mr. Claytor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
PANEL II
GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
STATEMENT OF KENNETH M. MEAD, DIRECTOR, RESOURCES, COMMU-
NITY, AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
ACCOMPANIED BY DR. FRANK MULVEY
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
High-Speed Rail Association
statement of joseph vranich, executive director
Texas TGV Corporation
statement of larry salci, president
URS Consultants, Inc.
statement of roger faulkner
Florida Department of Transportation
statement of charles h. smith, manager, high-speed rail
projects
introduction of witnesses
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Ken Mead, Mr. Joseph Vranich, Mr.
Larry Salci, Roger Faulkner, and Charles Smith.
In order to try to move this along, we're going to get somewhat
more strict about the time for opening statements. And we'll try to
follow on with shorter questions from the Senators, as well.
In the following order, we'd like to hear your testimony — 5 min-
utes. The light will indicate when we've used our time. And I would
ask you to stop promptly at that point.
First, let's hear from Ken Mead.
STATEMENT OF KENNETH MEAD
Mr. Mead. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Accompanying me is Dr.
Frank Mulvey, who heads our work in the high-speed rail area.
We have a very straight forward message today. First, I'd like to
establish a frame of reference. There are a number of approaches
to high-speed ground transportation. Not surprisingly, the cost in-
creases with speed. Incremental improvements to existing rights-of-
way, such as those planned for the Northeast corridor, will allow
speeds between 125 mph and 150 mph, at a cost of about $2 to $10
million per mile.
Speeds achievable with TGV type of technology, that is between
150 mph and 200 mph, require new, dedicated, and reasonably
(39)
40
straight rights-of-way, raising the cost to between $10 and $20 mil-
lion per mile.
Maglev systems, which are the top tier, require very expensive
guideways, which further raise the cost to between $20 and $60
million per mile.
For a hypothetical system of about 200 miles in length, achieving
speeds greater than 150 mph, will range between $2 and $12 bil-
lion, depending on the approach used.
A number of systems have been proposed. These proposals in-
clude the five corridors designated for grade-crossing improve-
ments, as well as the French TGV style systems, as in Texas, and
maglev, as proposed for the route between Anaheim and Las Vegas.
These proposed systems plan to rely mostly on private financing.
None of these projects have moved much beyond the planning
stage.
We've met with bankers at a number of the major investment
houses to discuss financing, Mr. Chairman. And this is, I think,
probably the most important part of my message today.
They were virtually unanimous in their view that no high-speed
ground transportation systems will be built in this country without
a greatly increased Federal commitment.
There are three key risk areas. The first is that there is no U.S.
experience with high-speed ground transportation. And there was
a general view that at least in the near term, revenues will not
cover capital costs.
Second, these are very large-scale projects which could be subject
to construction delays and cost overruns.
Third, there are major political risks in permitting, obtaining
rights-of-way, securing environmental clearances, and the like.
If the Federal commitment were to increase, it could take a num-
ber of forms. The Federal Government could provide financial as-
sistance during the high-risk initial development and construction
phase of the project. This could take the form of equity capital or
loan guarantees to induce private investment.
The Federal Government could also exempt high-speed ground
transportation bonds from the State volume cap on private activity
bonds thereby, putting high-speed ground transportation on the
same footing as airports and seaports. I note that there's recent
legislation on this point.
Direct loans, through a revolving loan fund, is another option.
That has been recommended by the recently issued report from the
Infrastructure Investment Commission.
Value-capture is another technique. The value-capture relies on
the use of the expected increase in property values and the use of
those revenues to repay government investment in a project.
Because the size of these projects is going to be enormous, some
combination of financing techniques will be necessary.
How much the Gk)vemment should invest in high-speed ground
transport depends on the expected benefits. The Government must
balance these benefits, of course, with the likely cost of the sys-
tems. Unfortunately, key data are lacking. And this makes it very
difficult to forecast traffic diversion, particularly, from the auto-
mobile.
41
This is a very important issue, because the data would bear di-
rectly, not only on ridership forecasts and how many people will
pay to ride high-speed rail, but also what impact high-speed rail
will have on congestion, air quality, and energy consumption.
A quick word on where we are in terms of the Federal commit-
ment. Most of the Federal Government's effort has focused on the
Northeast corridor; $2.5 billion to date, and about $1.3 billion to go
by the turn of the century to achieve speeds of 150 mph.
There has been some planning money appropriated under the
ISTEA legislation that was enacted by the U.S. Congress. For ex-
ample, $30 million has been authorized, for eliminating grade
crossings in five potentially high-speed corridors.
Also, the ISTEA authorized, but Congress did not appropriate,
$725 million for a national maglev prototype development program.
And President Clinton has proposed a $646 million program dedi-
cated to maglev and high-speed rail. Because of the confusion re-
garding Clinton's proposal, we were not sure whether the $646 mil-
lion was in addition to the authorized $725 million.
In summary, we see three tiers of questions facing the Congress,
Mr. Chairman. First, should the Federal commitment be increased?
Second, by how much? And third, what type of technology and in
which corridors?
Thank you.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you, Mr. Mead. Your complete
statement will be inserted in the record.
[The statement follows:]
Statement of Kenneth M. Mead
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: We appreciate the opportunity
to testify on the issues surrounding the introduction of high-speed ground transpor-
tation (HSGT) in the United States. Our work to date on HSGT is based on meet-
ings and discussions with members of the financial community with experience in
financing these types of projects, Amtrak and other railroad officials, HSGT project
planners, and other transportation analysts. We have analyzed the available data
on the progress of HSGT both in the United States and abroad, and to gain some
first-hand experience, we have ridden on several of the new systems, including the
Swedish X2000 train. Our work is being done in response to interests expressed by
both the Senate and House Appropriations Committees and the House Committee
on Energy and Commerce.
By high speed we refer to systems capable of sustained speeds of at least 125
mph.^ Advanced high-speed rail systems, such as the French TGV and the Japanese
Shinkansen, have carried millions of passengers over the years at speeds between
130 and 185 mph, and magnetic levitation (maglev) technology is being developed
in Germany and Japan that could carry passengers safely and efficiently at speeds
over 250 miles per hour. Progress toward increased speeds in the United States has
been limited to incremental improvements to existing Amtrak routes, especially in
the Northeast Corridor, where Amtrak's Metroliner trains achieve 125 mph speeds
over some stretches between Washington and New York. (See fig. 1).
Policy choices with significant financial impacts will have to be made before
HSGT is developed in the United States. High speed systems, like those of Europe
and Japan, will be very expensive to bviild and no organization, thus far, has been
willing to bear the risk of investing in HSGT in America.
^ In the United States, most Amtrak trains travel at speeds below 79 mph, and often average
only 50 to 60 mph.
42
Figure 1: Relative Top Speeds of High Speed Ground Transportation Systems
Mils* P*r Hour
334
300
275
250
225
200
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
270
1M
|1U
1S6
150
1125
/
jT
/
J
sf
X
/
J?
/
.O*
/
/
^
.<?
X?
/
Typ«t o( High Sp«*d Qround TraniporUtlon Syttami
Our basic points are as follows:
— The United States could pursue several levels of technological improvements to
make HSGT a reality here. Each higher level of improvement would result in
greater speed, but onl^ at a greater cost. Generally, incremental approaches
that build on the existing rail infrastructxire would allow increased speeds of
up to 150 mph and would incvu" the lowest capital cost. This has been Amtrak's
strategy in the Northeast Corridor. More advanced approaches, such as the
Frencn TGV or maglev, are much more costly and are perceived as being more
risky by potential investors. Because these systems are untried in the U.S. envi-
ronment, there is uncertainty about whether they could generate revenues suffi-
cient to cover operating costs, repay lenders, and produce an acceptable return
on investment.
— In addition to Amtrak's efforts, more than a dozen HSGT projects have been
proposed around the nation, but none has obtained private mnds to begin con-
struction and federal support has been minimal. These proposals have tried, un-
successfully, to rely lar]gely on private capital to fund system construction, but
our review shows uiat it is unlikely that any major HSGT projects will be built
if developers must rely primarily on private capital. Until HSGT systems are
proven to be successful in the United States or until the public sector decides
that there are sufiBcient public benefits to justify underwriting some of the risk,
private financing sufficient to launch a major HSGT project will not be forth-
coming.
— If HSGT systems are to be built in the United States, increased federal leader-
ship and financial commitment will be necessary. To date, federal involvement
has concentrated on underwriting Amtrak's program to bring about incremental
improvements in the Northeast Corridor and to authorize funds for further re-
search on HSGT. The financial community believes that federal commitment,
especially through substantial financial assistance for the initial HSGT systems,
is necessary to leverage significant amounts of capital fi-om the private sector
and to help establish public-private partnerships to develop additional HSGT
systems.
43
— Both private and public investors require realistic forecasts of potential rider-
ship. Private investors need the data to project expected returns on investment.
The public sector requires better data to judge the appropriate commitment of
public resources. The federal commitment to HSGT must be proportional to the
expected net social benefits, such as congestion relief and reduced pollution,
that could result from investment in HSGT. Accurate estimates of the size of
these benefits also depends on reliable forecasts of ridership. However, some
data, especially for auto travel, are lacking and without these data accurate es-
timation of system use and social benefits is problematic. In addition, many so-
cial benefits are not easy to monetarize making it difficult to compare benefits
with costs. While the data can never be perfect, there is room for considerable
improvement. Given the size of the investments at stake, the data bases and
benefit estimates should be improved.
I would like to turn to a more detailed discussion of these points.
QUESTIONS TO BE ADDRESSED BEFORE INCREASED COMMITMENT TO HSGT
Federal participation in developing HSGT in the United States depends on the an-
swers to some basic questions: who? what? where? and why? Who will elect to ride
such systems (and how much will they pay)? What kind of system should we build —
rail or maglev? Where should such systems be built — in densely traveled corridors
or between airports? Why should the federal government be involved — what are the
social benefits from such systems? These questions are not easy to answer, and they
are interrelated. Where we choose to build a system will help determine what tj^pe
of system we should build. Who chooses to ride the system can help answer what
public benefits might accrue. There is one other question, however, for which we do
have at least a qualitative answer, and that is how much will it cost to bring HSGT
to America? Quite a bit; the exact amounts depend on which technologies are cho-
sen.
PERFORMANCE AND COSTS VARY FOR DIFFERENT HSGT TECHNOLOGIES
Each of the technology options performs differently and carries a different price
tag. Not surprisingly, the cost of these options increases as the design speed in-
creases. According to a recent estimate, the capital costs of achieving high speed op-
erations for a hypothetical 200-mile-long system ranges from $500 million for incre-
mental improvements to existing tracks that could bring speeds up to 110 mph to
more than $12 billion for a maglev system that might allow speeds of more than
200 mph. (See fig. 2.)
44
Figure 2: Relative Costs of High Speed Ground Transportation
70 Millions o( Dollars Per Mil*
65
Typ«t of High Sp*«d Ground Trinaportatlon
I I High Esllmate
1^^^ Low Esllmate
The lower cost option would achieve higher speeds by improving the existing
track, roadbed, and signal systems, and eliminating grade crossings. According to
the National Research Council, the cost to upgrade an existing rail line to allow
speeds of about 110 mph would be about $2.7 million per mile.^ For most Amtrak
routes outside the Northeast Corridor, this would represent a significant improve-
ment over current conditions. Speeds on most Amtrak routes are restricted to below
79 mph, and on some sections of track, considerably below 79 mph. To achieve
speeds of up to 150 mph while continuing to use existing rail infrastructure would
require electrification of the rights-of-way and construction of additional track to
permit high-speed passenger trains to pass slower freight and commuter trains. The
capital cost to achieve speeds approaching 150 mph could range up to $10 million
per mile.
PROGRESS SO FAR LIMITED TO INCREMENTAL IMPROVEMENTS IN NORTHEAST CORRIDOR
To date, most of the improvements in rail operating speeds have been in the
Northeast Corridor. Metroliner trains travel over electrified rights-of-way between
Washington and New York at speeds up to 125 mph. North of New Haven, Amtrak
must use diesel locomotives and speeds are further reduced due to the numerous
curves between New Haven and Boston. Amtrak is currently experimenting with
the Swedish X2000 tilt train. Tilt trains can traverse curves at higher speeds and,
if adopted, can help shorten trip times significantly between New York and Boston
after Amtrak completes its electrification of that part of the corridor. The X2000 is
a part of an "incremental" approach to attaining higher speeds, and it is such incre-
mental improvements that Amtrak plans for other corridors around the nation. By
using technologies like the X2000 and continuing to eliminate grade crossings, im-
2 Transportation Research Board, Special Report 233: In Pursuit of Speed-New Options for
Intercity Passenger Transport (Washington: National Research Council, 1991).
45
proving signalling, and making other improvements Amtrak hopes to be able to offer
150 mph service in the Northeast Corridor by the end of the century.
The only major segment of the U.S. rail network owned by Amtrak is the North-
east Corridor. Outside of the Corridor, the railroad network is owned by freight rail-
road companies. Amtrak recently reached an agreement with the nation's freight
railroads over the issue of liability for accidents on freight railroad-owned tracks
where high-speed trains would share the track with freight trains. The agreement
recognized the need to protect freight railroads from the consequences of accidents
involving high-speed passenger trains, but does not remove the numerous logistical
obstacles to operating freight and high-speed trains on the same track. Assuming
that high-speed passenger service would be relatively frequent, there would be seri-
ous interruptions to freight operations. In the Northeast Corridor, some freight traf-
fic is limited to night operations to accommodate passenger trains that operate over
the same track during the day. Other costs, such as those for maintaining rights-
of-way, will be higher if heavier freight trains share the track with high-speed pas-
senger trains. Regardless of who bears the added costs from joint operation, the na-
tion's privately owned freight redlroads will, understandably, examine the impact on
their operations before acquiescing to high-speed passenger trains over their tracks.
HIGH-SPEED SYSTEMS BEYOND INCREMENTAL IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE EXPENSIVE TO
BUILD
Proposals to go beyond incremental improvements have been advanced by groups
other than Amtrak. While Amtrak is often viewed as a potential operator of these
systems once built, it has been independent state and regional interests that have
advanced HSGT thus far. For HSGT service over 150 mpn, new track, new rights-
of-way, or entirely new guideways will be required. The French TGV, for example,
operates mostly over a dedicated right-of-way and achieves speeds above 180 mph.
Tnese types of systems reduce raU travel times so much that they might be competi-
tive with air travel for many trips shorter than 400 miles. Both the French and the
Japanese recorded substantial traffic shifts from air to raU following the introduc-
tion of high-speed rail systems.^ The National Research Council estimated that cap-
ital costs for a TGV-type system could exceed $3.5 billion for a 200-mile system, or
more than $17 million per mile. Alternatively, lanes could be added to expand ca-
pacity of interstate highways. Additional lanes would serve multiple users not just
intercity travelers — although not at such high speeds. However, there are problems
with widening highway rights-of-way that could frustrate such efforts to expand ca-
pacity. In some places where congestion is greatest, the highway is already bounded
by development making expansion impossible without acquiring more land — often
an expensive proposition.
A maglev system could allow even faster speeds, but also would require an en-
tirely new guideway infrastructure, making maglev more costly than all high-speed
rail alternatives. Although successfully tested at 320 mph in Japan and 270 mph
in Germany, no high-speed maglev system has ever been placed in revenue service.
In fact, the Germans have not chosen to introduce maglev on major routes, but have
proceeded, instead, to introduce a new high-speed train that uses conventional rail-
way track — the Intercity Express or ICE trains. A maglev system could cost between
$20 million and $60 million per mile. The National Research Council estimated a
cost of $6.4 billion for a 200-mile maglev system, or about $32 million per mUe.
Some advocates of maglev believe that it is the coming technology and that only
maglev can offer Americans such a dramatic improvement in speed and service that
they will switch to HSGT in large numbers. Other supporters believe that if the
United States chose to develop its own version of maglev, the investment could gen-
erate new jobs and develop a new high-tech industry. Still, the cost of building a
200-mile system to serve one route could be twice as high as the $3.1 billion it cost
to build the new Denver Airport, and while the maglev route serves only one cor-
ridor, the new Denver Airport connects Denver directly to hundreds of cities around
the nation and the world. Like highways, however, fiirports face serious restrictions
on new construction and expansion.
Any HSGT systems that operate at speeds over 150 mph require dedicated rights-
of-way except in urban areas, where new rights-of-way are difficult to obtain. There-
^ European nations and Japan have historically followed policies that favor rail over air and
auto travel for intra-national trips. Air fares are much higher and investment in the highway
systems came later than in the United States, and so rail has preserved a higher market share
than in the United States even in markets not served by high-speed trains. Nevertheless, the
rail share increased significantly in French and Japanese markets after high-speed service was
introduced.
46
fore, a major part of the cost of such a system will be right-of-way acquisition. As
reported last year in our study of HSGT right-of-way issues, both high-speed rail
and maglev systems will require new, relatively straight, and level rights-of-way
compared with existing rail rights-of-way to eliminate safety and passenger discom-
fort problems.''
Operating and maintenance (O&M) costs of HSGT systems are also likely to be
high, relative to those for conventional rail for several reasons. Track and guideways
must be maintained to very high standards, and safe operation of HSGT requires
expensive signal and control systems. One an£dysis reported that track maintenance
costs are 5 times higher for 125 mph trains than for trains traveling 60 mph. The
O&M cost per train mile for a maglev system has been estimated to be about 20
percent higher than that for a high-speed rail system. However, as there is no U.S.
experience with operating HSGT systems, O&M costs in the U.S. operating environ-
ment can only be roughly estimated until a system is actually put in operation.
PRIVATE FINANCIAL COMMUNITY VIEWS HSGT AS A RISKY INVESTMENT
A general unwillingness to commit private and public financial resources to Amer-
ican HSGT projects is the principal reason why no such projects have progressed
beyond the planning stage. On the basis of the projects and analyses that we re-
viewed and on discussions with members of the financial community who have expe-
rience with major infrastructure investment projects, we believe that unless the fed-
eral government underwrites a large part of the risk and assumes a larger role in
HSGT financing, these projects are urdikely to be built. HSGT development will re-
quire a long-term commitment of capital and resources. Because there is little assur-
ance that these systems can earn a positive return on invested capital, they are con-
sidered to be very risky investments by private investors.
Private investors will review HSGT projects to determine if the potential returns
on investment are commensurate with the level of risk. Equity investors want a cor-
respondingly high rate of return, as high as 30 percent according to some analysts,
for investing in a high-risk venture. Providers of debt-capital also want to be certain
that the system will generate revenues to pay the interest and repay principal.
Moreover, while the discussion below focuses on the risks to private investors, there
are also risks associated with public investments. Ridership and revenues may be
less than projected leading to larger operating subsidies and to fewer social benefits.
PubUc funds that could have gone for other projects or to deficit reduction would
be lost.
According to members of the financial community to whom we spoke, there are
several sources of risks for these projects that explain why private investors are un-
willing to go it alone.
First, because of the lack of experience in the United States with HSGT, ridership
and revenue forecasts majy be exaggerated. The financial community typically dis-
counts demand forecasts for demand-sensitive start-up projects, like toll roads and,
presumably, HSGT projects. Furthermore, projects are usually expected to generate
revenues sufficient to more than cover their debt service needs. For some projects,
these "coverage factors" can be as high as 150 percent of actu£il debt service needs
or greater. These relatively high levels of coverage are desirable because they can
offset various uncontrollable events that could afiect demand and revenues. Unless
the financial community believes that HSGT projects can generate enough revenues
to both cover debt service and provide a return on investment commensurate with
the risks, it is unlikely that private capital will be forthcoming.
Financial analysts with whom we spoke agree that in the near term most HSGT
projects will not generate enough revenues from their operations to pay off their
capital debt, malang such projects unattractive to debt investors. Moreover, new
technologies on the horizon, such as tiltrotor and teleconferencing, may compete fa-
vorably with all forms of transportation including HSGT.
Second, the large scale of proposed HSGT projects adds to the risk. The larger
the project, especially when new technologies are being introduced, the greater the
likelihood that delays and cost overruns will undermine the financial feasibility of
the project. Generally, projects that issue debt to raise capital will need to begin re-
paying the debt by a specific date. A concern of potential lenders is that unless ade-
quate revenues or other cash are available on that date, the project could go into
default. Furthermore, system start-up delays cause interest to accrue on outstand-
ing debt.
* High-Speed Ground Transport: Acquiring Rights-of-way for Maglev Systems Requires a Flexi-
ble Approach (GAO/RCED-92-82, Feb. 10, 1992).
47
Third, large-scale projects like HSGT systems face a number of political risks, in
part, because many jurisdictions at different levels of government will be involved
in issuing the permits and other clearances needed to build and operate the system.
In our review of the problems associated with acquiring rights-of-way for HSGT
projects, we vmcoverea numerous constraints. For example, the proposed maglev
route between Anaheim and Las Vegas would face scrutiny by the Bureau of Land
Management because of possible disruption of the habitat of several endangered
species. These are not the only risks associated with investing in an HSGT project,
but they are representative of the concerns of the financial community.
Obtaining either equity or debt financing from private investors may prove prob-
lematic for developers of HSGT projects. Investments of equity in a project are often
needed before commercial lines of credit can be obtained or investment-grade debt
can be issued. However, equity investors often demand high rates of return and a
relatively qviick payback. Because HSGT projects will have lengthy development and
construction periods, it will be difiBcult to provide the timely payback that equity
investors want. Therefore, HSGT developers may find it difficult to obtain private
equity for capital purposes. By contrast, bond buyers are generally interested in a
secure investment witn a guaranteed return over time. Debt instruments are typi-
cally rated on the probability that they can be paid off by the project. Equity in tne
project can bolster confidence in the project's chance of success and thus enhance
the ability to raise capital through debt instruments.
FEDERAL COMMITMENT TO HSGT NEEDED TO ENCOURAGE PRIVATE INVESTMENT
Members of the financial community familiar with large-scale projects told us that
in order for major HSGT systems to be built, the federal government must make
a greater commitment. They stated that until the federal government assumes a
major role in HSGT development, thereby reducing the perceived investment risks,
private capital generally will not be available. Government involvement in financing
could take a number of forms such as providing financial and administrative assist-
ance and equity capital at an early stage, providing loan guarantees, exempting in-
terest income from taxation, establishing revolving loan funds, and participating in
value capture strategies. However, any federal financial involvement would need to
be evaluated to determine its budget and deficit impacts. If the federal government
concludes that a greater commitment to HSGT is warranted, it could help lower the
risk to private investors in several ways.
SEVERAL STRATEGIES COULD BE PURSUED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERl^MENT TO REDUCE
THE RISKINESS OF INVESTMENTS IN HSGT
The federal government could provide financial and administrative assistance dur-
ing the initial development and construction phase of HSGT projects. This stage is
typically a high-risk period for new infrastructure projects because many time-con-
suming regulatory and financial obstacles must be overcome. FurtJier, several ana-
lysts suggested that the federal government is the enti^ best suited to be the prin-
cipal provider of equity capital during the early phase of an HSGT project. The early
phase---between designing the system and commencing construction — is often the
most risky period. Pnvate financial markets want the project to have equity in it
before lines of credit or other private assistance will be extended. The federal gov-
ernment could also provide financial assistance through loan guarantees and tax ex-
emptions.
Provide Loan Guarantees. — The federal government could become a guarantor for
different components of a project. Under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Ef-
ficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), a loan guarantee program for HSGT was authorized
as an amendment to the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976,
although no appropriations for new commitments have been made under this pro-
grtun. According to HSGT proponents, contingent loan guarantees such as these
could induce pnvate debt and equity investments in HSGT. Similarly, the federal
government could become a guarantor of revenues for HSGT projects. Such guaran-
tees could be particularly helpfiil during the first few years of operations, giving the
Sstem time to bmld up ridership and revenues. Again, with sucn guarantees benind
e project, an HSGT developers ability to secure private financing would likely be
enhanced.
Extend Tax-Exempt Status. — The Congress could extend tax exempt status to debt
issued to build HSGT systems. HSGT proponents believe that tax-exempt status is
critical if these systems are to be bmlt. Tax-exempt bonds are an attractive mecha-
nism for raising capital because bond issuers pay a lower interest rate than on tax-
able debt, thereby lowering the cost of capitaL While the current tax code does not
restrict the amount of private activity, tax-exempt bonds issued for mrports and wa-
48
tenvays, it restricts tax-exempt bond issues for high-speed rail. The limitation on
these bonds was imposed in 1986 in response to a proliferation of such bonds for
private, profit-oriented projects, and the resultant loss of revenue to the federal gov-
ernment. However, some financial community representatives believe that HSGT,
even if developed and operated as a private venture, would clearlv serve a public
purpose. The Congress last year considered but did not enact legislation to remove
this restriction for HSGT. The Congress has again taken up removing the restriction
on using tax-exempt bonds to finance HSGT development. However, the benefits to
HSGT will need to be weighed against the potentisil impact on the federal deficit
as well as against other initiatives that may also seek to receive favorable tax treat-
ment.
Create a Revolving Loan Program. — Direct loans, through a revolving loan pro-
gram, is another option for a federal role in HSGT development. Some members of
the financial community, as well as the Infrastructure Investment Commission,
have suggested that the federal government should establish its own revolving loan
fund for infi-astructure development or help fund state-level funds for the same pur-
pose. To capitalize such a fund would require a large initial appropriation or several
smaller appropriations over the span of several years. HSGT projects, however, are
likely to be so large that only a portion of their financing needs could come from
such a fund, particularly since HSGT will have to compete with other infrastructure
projects. However, loans from such a fund would presumably carry below-market in-
terest rates. Thus, they could help lower the cost of capital for HSGT and enhance
their financial feasibility.
Use Value-Capture to Fund Parts of Projects. — Finally, value capture is a way for
other government entities to assist the development of HSGT. Under a t3rpical value
capture strategy, a local or state government would provide funding for components
of an HSGT system, such as a station, in anticipation that property values would
increase in the vicinity of the HSGT property after the system is in place. Rising
property values could generate increased tax receipts or other assessments which
could offset the state's initial expenditure. In this sense, the HSGT system "cap-
tures" the benefits of higher future property values, and uses them as a source of
funds. In the past, value-capture strategies have been used successfully to provide
revenues for several urban transit systems. An innovative value-capture-type fi-
nancing strategy was used in California, where a new publicly administered but
mostly privately financed toll road has imposed fees on new construction in the
areas that will presumably benefit fi"om the toll road. These fees will be used to help
leverage private capital investments to build the road.
For HSGT, however, value capture could be used to finance specific components
of a system, but could not be the major funding source. The plan to build the
Tampa-Orlando-Miami HSGT system initially relied on a strategy similar to value
capture as the major source of finance, but found that it would not generate suffi-
cient funds and has since revised its financial strategy. Furthermore, it may take
several years to generate any revenue fi"om value-capture strategies, since land
value increases and development around an HSGT system might not occur until the
system's construction or operation is well underway.
Nevertheless, there are a number of options for increased government involve-
ment at all levels in financing HSGT projects. Furthermore, it seems likely that
some combination of these options woiild be necessary to bring an HSGT project
from concept to reality. Different financing methods could be used at different "risk
points" during a project's development period. For example, the Texas HSR Corpora-
tion plans to use different financing tecnniques in various pheses of its plan to bring
TGV-style service to the "Texas Triangle" cities of Dallas, Houston and San Antonio.
The plan includes using initial equity contributions, tax-exempt debt backed by
long-term letters of credit, and after operations and revenues become steady, a pub-
lic stock offering.^ Such a combination of approaches spreads, and therefore mini-
mizes, risk over time and across investors and creditors, thereby making investment
in such a project more plausible.
Regardless of how creative high-speed rail developers are with their financing
plans, it seems apparent that the private sector alone will not assume all, or even
a substantial share of, the risks associated with HSGT development financing.
Many states and localities are experiencing financial difficulties, with little, if any,
funding resources available for financing high-risk, large-scale infrastructure
projects. While the federal government is also faced with making difficult spending
choices, it is the only entity capable of underwriting the sizeable risks associated
^The system was originally scheduled to begin service in 1998. Obstacles, including financial
ones, have seen the schedule slip and the start up date is now uncertain.
49
with HSGT projects. Therefore, the federal government would need to assume a
major role in financing HSGT if such projects were to be built in this country.
FEDERAL INVOLVEMENT TO DATE
The federal government has provided assistance to Amtrak to improve speeds on
the Northeast Corridor. Amtralc has spent about $2 billion to date and expects to
Send an additional $1.5 billion to complete improvements which it expects will
low 150 mph speeds by the turn of the century.
The federal government has also sponsored the National Maglev Initiative (NMI),
which is a 3-year effort to assess the potential role of maglev in the United States.
Funding for the NMI, has totaled $36 million, according to figures provided by the
Federal Railroad Adininistration (FRA). The report is due in the Spring of this year.
In 1991, as part of the ISTEA, the Congress authorized $725 million for a Na-
tional Maglev Prototjrpe Development Program. The Congress has not appropriated
any fiinds for this program for fiscal year 1993.
In fiscal years 1991 and 1992, the Congress appropriated $3 million for HSGT
studies in specific corridors, contingent on matchmg funds. Additionally, FRA has
used some of its R&D funds to develop safety regulations for HSGT systems.
President Clinton often offered HSGT as an example of the kind of infi-astructure
spending that the nation should be making. The new administration has now pro-
posed to spend $646 million between 1994 and 1997 above and beyond what is al-
ready been appropriated for HSGT. Whether this increased spending will signal a
change of commitment to the investment community remains to be seen.
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO WEIGH CAREFULLY THE BENEFITS AND COSTS OF
HSGT BEFORE MAKING MAJOR RESOURCE COMMITMENT
Federal resources are scarce and becoming increasingly so. At a time of national
belt- tightening, all new projects must be given careful scrutiny to ensure that they
are cost-effective. If the federal government decides to invest in HSGT, it will need
to be certain that such investments are cost-effective over the long term — that is,
that investing in HSGT is an efficient way to capture desirable social benefits.
In order to determine the amount of federal resources that might be committed
to developing HSGT in the United States, the Congress and the Clinton administra-
tion need good data to determine what social benefits might result from such sys-
tems. But, the data often do not exist or can not help determine whether HSGT is
the best way to achieve these benefits. HSGT must be evaluated in comparison to
alternative approaches. Airport congestion could be relieved by building HSGT or
it could be relieved by adding another runway. Air pollution emissions could be re-
duced by diverting auto traffic from congested highways onto HSGT or stricter emis-
sions standards could be adopted.
In order to determine the relative cost-effectiveness of HSGT, better estimates of
potential demand are needed, but there are gaps in the necessary data. The data
are either too aggregated or do not exist at aJl. For example, diverting auto traffic
can be an important source of public benefits, but there are virtually no data on
intercity auto travel that could be useful for forecasting demand for HSGT. In addi-
tion, there are problems with translating social benefits into comparable monetary
terms. For example, how much is it worth to remove a ton of automobile-generated
£iir pollution? How does the fact that the reductions occur over a widespread, often
non-urbanized area affect the estimates of the benefit? How reliable are the esti-
mates of the relationships between emissions and health costs? How much, if any-
thing, beyond the current market price of energy is reduced reliance on foreign pe-
troleum worth?
While there are many problems with calculating the potential social benefits from
investing in HSGT systems, the federal government could consider investing in de-
veloping better data on which to base demand forecasts for HSGT. Although data
collection can be costly, the cost will be relatively insignificant compared with the
size of the investment at stake. Gaining improved prior information on the likely
success of an investment in HSGT seems to be the prudent course of action.
CONCLUSION
The decision to increase spending for HSGT is an important one that must be
made at a time when efforts to pare down the size of the federal deficit are making
discretionary dollars increasingly scarce. Yet, without an increased federal commit-
ment, HSGT will not advance in the United States.
If the Congress decides to increase the federal role in developing HSGT, the Con-
gress will need to balance the resources it provides between continued support for
50
incremental improvements by Amtrak and underwriting the risks of more ambitious
projects through forging public-private partnerships. The Congress will also need to
decide where to target the resources it makes available for specific HSGT projects.
This will require a fuller understanding of the benefits and costs of individual
HSGT projects, and gaining that understanding requires, in turn, reasonably reli-
able data. Better information will help the Congress as it sets priorities for tiie fu-
ture of HSGT in America.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes our testimony. We would be happy to respond to
any questions you might have.
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH VRANICH
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Vranich, you're next, please.
Mr. Vranich. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator Mi-
kulski. We appreciate the opportunity to appear here today.
I represent a diverse coalition. We're now named the High-Speed
Rail/Magi ev Association, because interest in that has been growing
so much. And our coalition is united in supporting both steel-wheel
and maglev train systems.
We have a membership that includes railway suppliers, aero-
space companies, labor unions, electrical utilities, universities, and
others.
At the outset, on behalf of our board of directors and members,
I want to express our appreciation to you, Mr. Chairman, for your
work to improve Amtrak's Northeast corridor.
I'm convinced that the demonstration of the X2000 train, which
is, indeed, drawing rave reviews, is an outgrowth of your commit-
ment to improving conditions for America's beleaguered travelers.
And, also, Senator Mikulski, your support of the maglev program
has been an inspiration to many of our high-technology members.
We also are pleased that President Clinton has gone on the
record that he would bring about the development of high-speed
rail. And this is a new day for us.
Our submission for the record is not the usual testimony, but it's
what we call our blueprint for high-speed rail, which we hope you
will put in the record in its entirety.
Senator Lautenberg. It's noted.
Mr. Vranich. The document represents specific proposals to in-
duce private funding into high-speed rail, public-private partner-
ships, as well as, of course, sharing the cost through public moneys.
There are a number of tools that could be used or a menu of
things, so to speak, like tax-exempt bond financing, a guaranteed
obligations program, investment tax credits, diversion of defense
funding and, of course, stable capital funding for Amtrak's North-
east corridor.
And I want to offer a specific plug for Senator Bob Graham's bill,
introduced on Thursday, S. 438, a bill to put high-speed rail tax-
exempt bonds under the same rules as airport tax-exempt bonds.
I think the most important sentence I could say here today is
this: Technology is not the issue. We could build these high-speed
trains, but to bring them from concept to reality, we need to elimi-
nate the institutional and the financial roadblocks.
The interesting thing about our proposals is that the rec-
ommendations for high-speed rail include only those programs com-
parable to aviation or highway programs already in place or that
have served those modes for many, many, many years.
51
And also for the record, high-speed rsdl systems can create jobs.
And I believe that representatives from the Ohio or Texas or Flor-
ida projects and so forth could better tell that story than I. I think
this is a way to create jobs in an environmentally benign way.
If we really want to be serious about reducing oil imports in this
country, then we ought to get to this high-speed train business.
If we are serious about providing safer travel, we ought to be
building high-speed train systems. The most startling virtues of
these trains is that in Japan, the Japanese bullet trains have oper-
ated for 27 years; in France, the TGVs for 10 years. Together,
they've carried almost 3.5 billion passengers. And, Senator, there's
never been one, not one, passenger fatality.
If the United States built transportation systems based on safety
considerations alone, we would have high-speed rail up and run-
ning in some of our busiest travel corridors.
Prior to concluding, I do want to, more or less, adlib one point
here. I'm a very strong supporter of Amtrak. Those of you who
have read my book, "Super Trains," know I gave no quarter in
making the case for Amtrak, but, for the record, I do want you to
know that I get disturbed when I hear Amtrak appear in a public
forum and make a couple of comments like they made today.
I have a high regard for Graham Cla3^or. ^d in a couple of in-
stances, I think he's being not as well advised as he could be. I be-
lieve that it should be noted for the record that the French TGV
system, the original line, was built with private funds, indeed,
through the Grovemment guaranteed loan process. It should be
known that the second system was built 85/15 percent — 85, private
funding; 15 percent public.
I'm saying this, not because I think these same formulas will
work in the United States, but it plays into the opponents of high-
speed rail hands when the chairman of Amtrak sits here and lets
people assume that the whole system, the TGV system, was built
totally with private funds. And that was an inference that people
in this room could have drawn.
I'm also becoming increasingly concerned about the term "high-
speed rail" for trains as slow as 100 miles an hour. We had trains
doing 120 miles an hour, 110 miles an hour, back in the 1930's.
And I think, while I'm in favor of incremental improvements to
Amtrak, totally in favor of it, I would like to point out that the Am-
trak organization is now starting to take the term "high-speed rail"
and water it down. It's watering it down to where I fear it might
become a low goal kind of thing.
And what I'm worried about is — ^well, let me put it this way: I
used to be the Boeing public affairs director in Washington, DC.
And with Boeing, I never argued for small airplanes for DC-3's to
land on. No; you argue for big airplanes. When I was with the
roadbuilders, we didn't argue to build small two-lane country
roads. We argued to build new interstates, the best.
And I, as long as I am president of this organization, will define
high-speed rail as trains capable of traveling at sustained speeds
of 150 miles an hour and above. True high-speed rail, we can make
a true contribution to removing people out of our congested avia-
tion system.
52
And I think, with that, Fll simply conclude by thanking you,
again, for the opportunity to be here. Our members, coast to coast,
are gratified with your interest, Mr. Chairman.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much, Mr. Vranich. We
have your prepared statement and it will be made part of the
record.
[The statement follows:]
I
53
BLUEPRINT FOR HIGH SPEED RAIL
HOW THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
COULD HELP BRING ABOUT
HIGH-SPEED GROUND TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
SUMMARY
President Bill Clinton has gone on the record during
the campaign that he would bring about high-speed rail to
the United States. The Clinton Administration could assist
many states and industries that now are in various stages of
planning high-speed rail systems.
This paper presents a Federal Action Plan, with
specific proposals outlined as follows:
I. Financial and Institutional Incentives
A. Divert Defense Funding
B. Tax-Exempt Bond Financing
C. Guaranteed Obligations Program
D. Investment Tax Credit
E. Amtrak Corridors/Stable Funding
II. Long-Term R&D and Competitiveness Issues
A. Fund Maglev Program
This plan is comprehensive. The recommendations for
high-speed rail include only those programs comparable to
aviation or highway programs already in place or that have
served those modes for many years. The Administration could
consider highlighting the following rationales for
undertaking a high-speed rail initiative:
• The need for more transport capacity
• Job Creation
• Environmental Benefits
• Energy Savings
• Reduction in Pollution
• Land Savings
• Safest Form of Travel
President Dwight Eisenhower is known for establishing
the Interstate Highway System, President John Kennedy, the
Apollo program. It's time once again for visionary
thinking. Bill Clinton has a golden opportunity to be known
as the President who launched the latest transportation
innovation in the United States -- high-speed, high-tech,
super-safe trains.
54
INTRODUCTION
President Bill Clinton went on the record repeatedly
during the campaign as being in favor of a high-speed rail
program for the United States. He presented the public with
sound reasons for such a program, saying:
"I strongly support the development of high-speed rail
because we need to ensure that we possess a
transportation system that boosts American productivity
and international competitiveness."
"Passenger rail service creates jobs, conserves energy
and provides an opportunity to avoid airport expansion. "
"I think we ought to take defense cuts and invest them in
building an economy of the 21st Century, including . . .
high-speed rail in particular. A half a million
Americans would ride fast trains every day if we built
them ... It will create an unbelievable number of jobs
and really help our economy. Also, as you know, it will
be good for air pollution out there in California and on
the East Coast."
"A Clinton Administration will use a portion of
transportation funding and possibly funds transferred
from defense to create a high-speed rail network between
our nation's major cities. Bullet trains in five major
corridors could serve 500,000 passengers a day at speeds
up to 3 00 miles an hour."
vice President Al Gore, in his book Earth In The Balance,
wrote, "We should be emphasizing attractive and efficient
forms of mass transportation .... New and improved forms of
mass transit, like the magnetically levitated trains should be
enthusiastically encouraged."
The incoming Administration could help numerous programs,
which generally fall into three categories:
Planning For High Speed Rail Construction
Calif ornia -Nevada
Florida
Northeast Corridor
Ohio
Pittsburgh
Texas
High Speed Rail Studies Planned/Underway
California
Illinois /Wisconsin/Michigan
Maryland
Massachusetts
New York
Washington State
55
Interest in High Speed Rail Starting
Arizona
Georgia
Louisiana
Missouri
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
Virginia
FEDERAL ACTION PLAN
The High Speed Rail/Maglev Association is the umbrella
group concerned with all forms o£ high-speed surface
transportation. We offer a wide range of information and
capabilities because of the broad nature of our coalition.
Growth in transportation will be so significant that the
United States will spend hundreds of billions of public and
private dollars in the next 20 years on expanded transport
capacity. There is no doubt about that -- all the experts in
all of the modes agree. The question becomes not will we
finance transport infrastructure, but how.
Technology is not the issue. To bring high-speed train
programs from concept to reality, we need to eliminate
institutional and financing roadblocks. The Federal
government needs to put equity into the nation's
transportation policies.
The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
(ISTEA) passed in November, 1991, contained provisions that
could advance development of high-speed train systems.
However, they are "enhancing" rather than "enabling"
provisions. More needs to be done.
What follows are ideas provided for the benefit of the
incoming Administration and the benefit of the public, ideas
distilled from years of research, planning and other activity.
High-speed rail can lead the way for a new era in public-
private investment in infrastructure. With that theme in
mind, the following proposals are oriented to stimulate
existing private-sector and state and local initiatives.
These proposals include:
I. Financial and Institutional Incentives
A. Divert Defense Funding
B. Tax-Exempt Bond Financing
C. Guaranteed Obligations Program
D. Investment Tax Credit
E. Amtrak Corridors /Stable Funding
II. Long-Term R&D and Competitiveness Issues
A. Fund Maglev Progrsun
56
I. Financial and Institutional Incentives
A. Divert Defense Funding
The concept of committing defense dollars to investment
in infrastructure could measurably aid development of high-
speed rail systems. Such funds could be the basis for direct
grants to bring high-speed systems from the drawing boards to
reality. Exeunples of activities that could qualify for such
grants could be (a) environmental assessments; (b) route
planning; (c) right-of-way acquisition; (d) preliminary and
final design plans; (e) construction of fixed facilities and
rolling stock; and (d) personnel training.
B. Tax-Exempt Bond Financing
There is a role for significant private funding for high-
speed train systems throughout the United States. Projects
planned in California, Nevada, Texas and Florida all were
predicated on substantial private investments. However, the
risks to private investors were too great to go it alone
without some financing incentives, such as tax-exempt bonds.
For private financing to play any role, however, a minor
change is needed in the tax code whereby private-activity
high-speed rail tax-exempt bonds (which already exist) would
be put under the same rules as airport tax-exempt bonds.
Senator Bob Graham has been exceptionally active in
support of this provision, with support from Senator Arlen
Specter and others.
This measure would facilitate the investment of private
capital into high-speed rail and maglev system construction.
The bill would remove the requirement that an allocation under
the state volume cap must be obtained for 25 percent of the
bonds issued for such systems. Congress already has
recognized the importance of tax-exempt bonding authority for
the development of airports, seaports and high-speed train
systems. However, the cap allocation applies only to high-
speed train systems. Since many states are already operating
near their volume caps, the 25 percent limit serves as an
illogical barrier to the use of tax-exempt bonds to build such
systems .
Specifically, an amendment to Sec. 146 of the Internal
Revenue Code is needed to remove the requirement that an
allocation under the state volume cap must be obtained for 25
percent of the bonds issues for high-speed train systems. For
most high-speed systems, this 25 percent constraint proves too
restrictive due to the initial capital requirements for such
systems .
No transportation technology in the U.S. has developed
commercially without meaningful Federal participation. Tax-
exempt financing will facilitate the investment of private
capital and will provide a limited but effective form of
Federal involvement to help bring about high-speed train
systems .
57
C. Guaranteed Obligations
We ought to begin the process that will permit use of
Federal guarantees for high-speed rail obligations, permitted
under ISTEA last year, to provide a positive signal to the
investment community that private financing is welcome in
high-speed rail infrastructure. Consideration also should be
given to expanding the program by establishing a guaranteed
loan program insured through a Federal Infrastructure
Insurance Corporation.
High-speed rail planners are often encouraged to learn
how the overseas experts financed their high-speed lines. Let
the record show that most of the French TGV lines were
financed through loans guaranteed by the French government.
That means private financing from the United States and many
other countries flowed into France to help build important
infrastructure. American institutions are earning a profit
from loans to the French. Let's let America permit American
investors to do here what foreign governments let American
investors do overseas.
Section 1036 of ISTEA made high-speed steel-wheel
projects eligible for loan guarantees under the Railroad
Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act. When Congress
adopted this provision, it recognized that the Federal
government has an important role to play in assisting
developing technologies in attracting private investment. It
is for this reason that for many years government guaranteed
loans were available under certain conditions to airlines for
the purchase of new aircraft.
Beginning in fiscal 1993, high-speed steel-wheel planners
should be in a position to apply to the Secretary of
Transportation for loan guarantees for projects to develop or
establish high-speed rail facilities. We request that the
spadework begin in the appropriations process to bring ISTEA
guarantees to the point where they can be utilized while
consideration is given to establishment of a Federal
Infrastructure Insurance Corporation to issue additional
guarantees .
Such efforts will send a strong signal to the investment
community that the Federal government welcomes their
participation in building an important future component of the
U.S. transportation infrastructure.
D. Investment Tax Credit
As a further inducement to private investment in high-
speed surface systems, the Federal government should provide
an investment tax credit for new rail technology. The credit
could be determined by the purchase price of new equipment
placed in service during a tax year. It should be noted that
investment tax credits exist in the aviation industry.
58
E. Amtrak -- Corridors /Stable Funding
Amtrak remains capital starved. Many corridors in the
nation are not yet quite ripe for all-new high-speed lines,
but the public deserves the benefits that come from making
carefully selected "incremental iinjrovements" to Amtrak.
In particular, it's time to provide adequate capital to
Amtrak' s Northeast Corridor Improvement Prograun. Amtrak
requested $272 million in Fiscal 1993 to invest in the entire
Northeast Corridor, with $220 of that dedicated to
electrification and other badly needed work between Boston and
New York. Its appropriation, however, will total $204.1
million, only $168 million of which is for the Boston-New York
portion of the route. A Fiscal Year 1993 supplemental
appropriation could quicken the pace of this Amtrak program.
We support Amtrak in its goal of initially reducing
Boston-New York travel time to three hours or less. We agree
with Amtrak Chairman Graham Claytor's recent testimony before
Congress that "Completion of the improvement is of utmost
importance to transportation in the entire Northeastern part
of the country. ... In an era of $5 billion urban highway
tunnel projects and $15 billion airports, support for a $1.2
billion program that is projected to pull three million riders
off other congested transportation modes makes sound
transportation and financial sense."
On a related point, the Bush Administration designated
five routes around the nation as having potential for high-
speed service, designations that were required by the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act. The law
allocates $30 million over five years to improve safety at
highway-rail grade crossings and permit train speeds to be
increased moderately ,on short segments of the routes. For the
record, the routes are: A three-pronged corridor from Chicago
to St. Louis, Milwaukee and Detroit; Mi eoni- Orlando -Tampa ;
Washington-Richmond-Charlotte, N.C.; San Diego-Sacramento via
Los Angeles and San Francisco; and Eugene-Portland-Seattle-
Vancouver, B.C. The Boston-New York-Washington and New York-
Albany-Buffalo routes were also given "special status,"
although that meaning was left unclear.
On a broader note, to make meaningful progress, we simply
must find a way to put Amtrak capital funding on a more stable
basis. We draw attention to a recent bill, H.R. 4414,
introduced by Representative Al Swift, to put some rationality
into the Amtrak investment process. He proposes that one
penny a gallon from the 2.5 cents Federal motor fuels tax now
collected for deficit reduction be redirected to Amtrak.
We do have a concern that the bill's language regarding
funding from the "Intercity Rail Passenger Capital Improvement
Trust Fund" contains ambiguous language regarding non-Amtrak
high-speed systems. We believe this measure should apply to
high-speed rail projects undertaken independent of Amtrak. To
fail to do so would be to ignore the many public and private
efforts over the last decade to build high-speed systems. It
has been estimated that approximately $60 million of primarily
59
non-Federal investments have been made to bring high-speed
rail planning to the point it has reached today. Indeed, such
efforts have been thwarted by the lack of Federal involvement.
Let us not now penalize the pioneers who, for two decades,
forged ahead while Washington ignored high-speed rail; let us
encourage those pioneers .
II. Long-Term R&D and Competitiveness Issues
A. Maglev Proqrcun
The nation needs to adequately fund the development of
high-speed magnetic leviation technology to insure a brighter
technological future for domestic industry and labor.
We believe the Federal Railroad Administration/Army Corps
of Engineers' National Maglev Initiative should be brought to
a speedy close so that the focus of maglev efforts will be
toward selecting the national maglev prototype pursuant to
Sec. 1036, ISTEA. We urge that the $45 million authorized in
ISTEA be appropriated in 1993 for the purpose along with the
$26 million appropriation for the National Maglev Initiative.
Only with a Federal program of research and development in
maglev, just as we have aeronautic R&D, can we as a country
hope to meet the transportation challenges of tomorrow.
We are concerned that the Bush Administration zero-funded
the maglev prototype program for Fiscal 1993. This will
result in a one-year delay in the issuance of the program's
first phase Request For Proposals. It is the position of the
Association that it is not necessary for the National Maglev
Initiative to issue its final recommendations prior to the
issuance of the maglev prototype program RFP. Our members
advise us that American industry is prepared to meet the
schedule for the maglev prototype program established in
ISTEA.
The nation should, in conjunction with industry, support
development of a high-speed magnetic levitation train system.
A maglev program is vital to our long-term technological
prowess. We hope the Congress will give full support to
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan and others in their drive to
develop a maglev program.
The Congress, in passing ISTEA last year, recognized that
the private sector cannot by itself invest the substantial
sums necessary to produce a maglev technology in the United
States. ISTEA offers a necessary financial stimulant to U.S.
Industry to establish expertise to insure long-term American
competitiveness. We supported that legislation and we support
the full funding of the program \inder the timetable
established by Congress.
PERSPECTIVE
This Action Plan is comprehensive. It should be noted
that the recommendations for high-speed rail include only
60
those programs comparable to aviation or highway programs
already in place or that have served those modes for many
years .
What would help the public debate on this topic is to use
the same terms to describe government budgeting for aviation
and rail. A double standard is applied in the appropriations
process where funding for rail is labeled a "subsidy."
However, that same appropriations process identifies general-
fund subsidies to aviation as "investments," "obligations,"
"capital items," or "line items." This double standard put
advocates for high-speed rail at a disadvantage.
We call for fair treatment by labeling expenditures for
rail in the same way, or by labeling all general-fund
appropriations for aviation as "subsidies." On a related
point, we endorse the Clinton campaign call to label
infrastructure spending as "capital items" in the budget and
not "subsidies."
In proposing any major initiative, the administration
could consider highlighting the following rationales for
undertaking a high-speed rail initiative. These include the
following benefits.
ADDITIONAL TRANSPORT CAPACITY NEEDED
Numerous reports are available from transportation
agencies that identify the need in the United States to
greatly expand transport capacity in future years. In our
busiest travel corridors, insufficient space exists for an
unchecked expansion of airports and highways. High-capacity,
high-tech, high-speed trains are the answer to mobility
problems in selected high-travel-density corridors.
EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS OF HIGH SPEED RAIL/MAGLEV
The President is correct that the United States needs an
investment orientation to infrastructure. Investment is not a
liability; it is an asset. Federal investment in high-speed
rail should occur by direct appropriation as well as by
facilitating the flow of private investment into construction
of such systems.
Many new jobs could be created through institution of
high-speed rail programs. One estimate is that construction
jobs on five major corridors would exceed one hundred thousand
full-time positions.
Approximately 85 percent of all capital expenditures for
high-speed surface systems are in infrastructure (tracks or
guideways, stations, parking lots, electrical and signaling
systems, maintenance bases, etc.) while only 15 percent would
be expended for the actual trains. Even those, which may be
of foreign design, would be manufactured in the United States
to the benefit of domestic industries.
61
The Federal government could boost employment related to
high-speed rail in the following ways:
Accelerate Construction; Existing plans to upgrade
Amtrak's Boston-New York-Washington line (including
electrification of the Boston-New Haven portion) could be
accelerated by advancing work schedules. "Incremental"
improvements could be undertaken to improve schedules on other
short distance routes, such as New York-Buffalo, Milwaukee-
Chicago-Detroit and Los Angeles-San Diego. Such incremental
improvements are worthwhile on selected routes, but would not
bring about truly high-speed trains, which is defined by the
Railway Safety Act as trains capable of sustained speeds in
excess of 150 mph. Other projects such as the Florida maglev
project, which is proceeding to final design, could be
accelerated by further Federal investment in a "pre-
construction funding" program. Short-term employment
benefits ; Employment would be created fairly quickly in
engineering and surveying firms and in the grading,
construction, bridge-building, fabrication, electrical,
signaling and railway supply industries. Long-term employment
benefits ; Approximately two years from now, orders could be
placed for locomotives and passenger cars specifically for use
on such lines, equipment that would be operated faster than
equipment in use today.
Accelerate Planning; Existing plans to build high-speed
rail or maglev systems in Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas
and California-Nevada could benefit from an expedited process.
Methods ought to be examined to expedite the environmental
review process -- while insuring that all stringent
environmental requirements are left in place -- as well as
conduct additional needed route studies. Short-term
employment benefits: Engineering firms, environmental review
firms, surveying firms, law firms (because of the permitting
process) . Long-term employment benefits; Within a year,
employment could be created in the grading, construction,
bridge-building, fabrication, electrical and supplier
industries for the Florida maglev demonstration project; such
employment could come within a two-to-five year period for
other projects. As with other large infrastructure projects,
the niombers can be sizable. Examples:
One study showed that if a Pittsburgh-Philadelphia high-
speed line were built that between 7,000 and 29,000 jobs
would be created per year over a seven-year construction
period. After that, additional personnel would be
required to operate the line, just as staff is require to
operate an airline.
The California-Nevada Project would create 25,000 to
30,000 jobs as well as aid the long-term economies of
both states.
In Texas, during a four-year construction period,
approximately $3.8 billion in direct construction
expenditures are expected to occur in the counties where
rail infrastructure will be located, generating 17,000
68-623 O— 93-
62
person-years of direct construction employment. The
total impact in the Texas economy could result in more
than 100,000 person-years of work.
Accelerate Research & Development ; The Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act contained a niunber of
provisions designed to spark U.S. investment in high-speed
technologies -- both maglev and steel-wheel -- provisions that
have gone unfunded. The most visible project is the $725
million Maglev Prototype Development Program while the others
are a $25 million Research & Development program and a $50
million Technology Demonstration Program. Implementation of
these provisions would create short-term employment in some of
America's aerospace and computer industries, high-tech firms
that are reeling from the impact of the recession as well as
defense-related cutbacks. The provisions would also benefit
America's railway supply industry, which is lagging behind
overseas firms in technological development. The same long-
term employment would result from construction of new high-
speed surface technologies that would result from the first
two categories outlined above.
All of these programs create direct employment, of
course, but the indii^ect benefits would include jobs in
various supplier and manufacturing industries, jobs that
create additional spin-off economic benefits.
After construction, thousands of additional personnel
will be required to operate and maintain the trains, tracks,
signal systems and train stations. Our nation will see the
growth of a new generation of engineers, conductors, track and
signal maintainers, and related crafts, necessary for the
smooth functioning of high-speed train lines.
An often overlooked benefit is that virtually all of the
high-speed systems in planning call for placement of train
terminals in the city centers. On a short-term basis, that
would create employment in distressed areas. Long-term, the
location of stations in city centers would help revitalize and
redevelop such areas as economic activity always is encouraged
where new transportation terminals are located.
Further, placement of high-speed train terminals at
airports could improve operations at the nation's most crowded
airports by diverting short -distance passengers from planes to
trains. Using limited landing and takeoff slots could in
turn, improve the operational efficiency of the airline
industry. This is an exan^le of how the nation could make
wise use of transportation technology -- aircraft for the
longer-distance flights that make sense and trains for the
shorter-distance trips. Such an "intermodal" spirit is sorely
needed in our transportation planning process.
ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS OF HIGH SPEED RAIL SERVICE
The creation of high-speed rail systems can stimulate the
economy while bringing about environmentally benign
transportation infrastructure.
63
The benefits of high-speed rail are thoroughly
documented. Therefore, only a summary need be presented here:
Energy Savings ; The nation would benefit by shifting
travelers from oil-dependent air and auto travel to
electrified trains for selected short- and medium-
distance travel. No form of intercity travel is as
energy-efficient as high-speed trains. The Edison
Electric Institute reports that U.S. powerplants generate
only four percent of their electricity with oil.
Therefore, a shift to electrified high-speed trains on
any one route would benefit the entire nation. (See
Appendix A. )
Reduction in Pollution; Such trains would reduce air
pollution in some of our largest urban areas because
electrical power plants place far fewer pollutants in the
air than the accumulation of individual auto and jetliner
exhausts. According to Southern California Edison,
studies sponsored by the Natural Resources Defense
Council show that electric high-speed trains are up to 98
percent cleaner than the autos and planes they displace.
That is true even in cities heavily reliant on coal-
generated electricity.
Land Savings ; High-speed trains are high-capacity
systems requiring only small amounts of land. Such
trains would reduce the "land take" required for an
expansion of transport infrastructure (e.g., the land
required for the entire French high-speed rail system is
less than that required for the Charles de Gaulle Airport
in Paris alone) .
Safest Form of Travel: High-speed trains are the safest
form of transportation ever devised. Such systems have
operated in Japan for 28 years and France for a decade.
Together, the trains have served more than 3-1/2 billion
passengers. Yet, there has not been a single passenger
fatality. If America made transport decisions based on
safety alone, it would have high-speed trains in service
on a number of high-travel routes.
SUPPORT FROM THIS ASSOCIATION
The High Speed Rail/Maglev Association was formed ten
years ago. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss the
recommendations contained in this paper with Congress and the
Administration.
Our views are based on a wide range of research and
experience. We are an "umbrella group" with broad support --
more widespread than typically found in a trade group --
because we include a variety of interests. Active are
construction firms; railway suppliers; electric utilities;
aerospace companies; universities; law and engineering firms;
maglev scientists; labor unions; transit operators; tourist
boards; railroads; and the investment community. Membership
also includes every state Commission and Transportation
64
Department active in high-speed rail, as well as en5)loyeea
from city, state, and Federal agencies.
SEGMENTAL FINANCING
Long-term, the nation also must reevaluate how it commits
public investment in transportation, with a review of trust
funds. This Association has worked to create a new dimension
in rail funding by leveraging public and private
transportation financing. One area that needs consideration
is reorientation of trust fund financing based on need as
opposed to mode .
A flexible use of trust funds can aid travel in America's
skies and on its highways, provided we integrate high-speed
rail into our existing transportation systems. We should
remove artificial funding constraints by putting more
flexibility in aviation and highway trust fund financing so
that the most appropriate transportation systems can be built
in appropriate areas.
This could be termed a strategy of "segmental financing, "
whereby selected funds would be committed to constructing
selected portions of high-speed rail projects.
A recent report entitled In Pursuit Of Speed issued by
the Transportation Research Board, a unit of the National
Academy of Sciences, stated that high-speed ground transport
systems could be an effective alternative in corridors where
travel demand is increasing, but where adding capacity to
reduce highway and airport congestion and delays is difficult.
The study stated that no mechanism exists for introducing a
new mode based on the savings achieved by reducing the need
for more airports and highways or extending another mode's
economic life. It suggested that if public outlays for high-
speed rail are justified, they could include contributions
from the aviation and highway trust funds because users of
those systems will benefit.
The Aviation Trust Fund specifically should be opened to
allow funding for access to airports for high-speed trains.
Airports are intermodal facilities and create significant
travel demand within their regions. Because most major U.S.
airports are located within 25 miles of the cities they serve,
legislative language should require that aviation trust fund
financing of high-speed rail lines include intermodal stations
located at airports as well as all terminal, track and signal
facilities necessary to access and adequately serve aviation
travelers. Provisions could require that such facilities do
not exceed 25 miles in length per airport served and that
maintenance shops, offices and rolling stock would be
excluded. Facilities constructed with such funds would be
publicly owned.
Highway fund financing could be limited to those projects
that require all-new construction, the very projects that
benefit grading, construction and bridge contractors (as well
as their suppliers) experienced in building new highways. To
65
further limit the scope of such funding, language could
require that highway trust fund financing of high-speed
surface systems be limited to those systems powered by
electricity that will serve communities now in violation of
air-quality standards. Financing of maintenance shops,
offices and rolling stock would be excluded. Facilities
constructed with highway funds would be publicly owned.
CONCLUSION
A substantial number of short-term and long-term efforts
should be placed on the nation's agenda to improve prospects
of building and operating successful high-speed rail systems.
In particular, the program outlined on pages 3 through 11 of
this report is key to development of high-speed rail.
Whatever the specific content of a high-speed rail
program, it is clear that the Clinton Administration and the
new Congress should set as a goal that America will have the
world's finest high-speed rail system. It is an achievable
goal .
President Dwight Eisenhower is known for establishing the
Interstate Highway System. President John Kennedy, the Apollo
program. It's time once again for visionary thinking. Bill
Clinton has a golden opportunity to be known as the President
who launched the latest transportation innovation in the
United States -- high-speed, high-tech, super-safe trains. He
can do that with the legislative program outlined above.
66
APPENDIX A
Excerpt from:
Supertrains: Solutions To America's
Transportation Gridlocl<
by Joseph Vranich
U.S. Energy Policy & High Speed Trains
"Our public fails to utxJerstand that America's
Achilles Heel is our over-dependence on foreign
oil." said Ohio's Lt. Gov Paul Leonard, in a 1989
speech promoting high-speed trains He wants
to see Americans riding in trains powered by
electricity, not pumping gas shipp>ed over from
the Mideast oil cartel.
According to the Federal Highway Administra-
tion. California led the nation in 1989 in total
gasoline use for highway travel. Texas ranked
second, while Florida took third place. These
very states are in the forefront of high-speed
train planning, and any shifts from auto to train
travel will reduce oil imports. The energy
savings, as well as reduced p>ollution. on just
one route will be substantial. Look at the Los
Angeles-Las Vegas train:
"Over a million interstate travelers and (between
1-1/2 million and 2-1/2 million commuters would
leave their cars to ride this new. last, quiet,
non-polluting system." sakJ Richard Katz. former
chairman of the California-Nevada Super Speed
Train Commission. "Approximately 70 millkjn
vehicle-miles would be trimmed from the
region's trips each year, resulting in reduced
tailpipe pollutants by hundreds of tons and
saving millions of gallons of fuel. In fact,
estimates in the Las Vegas to Southern
California corridor alone are a fuel reduction of
17 percent."
Similar savings wilt occur in othier states
High-speed trains powered by electrfcity in
Rorida would result in a reduction of 20 million
gallons of imp)orted oil in one year alone.
The Senate's 1989 maglev advisory committee
report said that maglev trains are Twice as
efficient as autos and four times as efficient as
airplanes, in terms of gross energy used."
Trains like the French TGVs are fuel-stingy, too.
Their per-passenger energy consumption is so
low that TGVs use atxjut one-sixth as much
energy per mile as a narrow-body aircraft. Dear-
ly, the French TGVs help minimize Frances oH
imports. Considering tfiat gas-guzzling airplanes
in the United States use about 16 billion gallons
of fuel annually - much of it wasted on short-
hop flights better served by fast trains - the
potential savings are enormous.
An example of concern over energy can be
found in Germany Peter Haefner of the German
Federal Railway explained: "We want major
independence from oH, especially from imported
oil. The electric train is the only means capable
of using all kinds of energy and at the same time
has the lowest specKic energy consumption of
all modes. This is why our government believes
it's sensible to interfere and steer investments
into rail."
When it comes to wise use of energy, the United
States can learn from several of its industrialized
competitors - Japan, France and Germany.
Copyright. Supertrains: Solutions To America's Transportation
Gridlock, published by St. Martin's Press, New York, January 1992.
67
APPENDIX B
HIGH SPEED RAIL/MAGLEV ASSOCIATION
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Joseph Vranich
703-941-8927
The High Speed Rail/Maglev Association applauded
President Bill Clinton for his endorsement of the high-speed
rail idea. A statement by the Association's new president,
Joseph Vranich, follows:
"We're cheered by the President's inclusion of this
issue in his State of the Union speech.
"If President Clinton wants to leave a legacy of
progress, he started on the right foot regarding high-speed
rail. As communities are served by all-new trains traveling
at more than 200 mph, perhaps as early as 1998, we will have
Bill Clinton to thank.
"President Clinton may call for change, but this
initiative is cautious and evolutionary. The President is
starting to put some equity in transport policies. He is
opening a door. On the other side of that door high-speed
rail planners will now find some help, encouragement and a
prudent investment of public funds to induce private
investment .
"His plan includes two excellent proposals.
"The recommendation to fund high-speed rail-maglev
development under the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act would leverage public funding to induce
private investment. As we understand it, the proposal
includes an additional $646 million for the 1994-1997
period. That is helpful.
"The plan to use tax-exempt bonds to lure private
investment to high-speed systems would put such bonds on an
equal footing with tax-exempt airport bonds. The Clinton
Administration would do this by removing the rail bonds from
state bond volume limitations just as airport bonds are
exempted from such limits.
"Further, a BTU tax also would work in favor of fast-
train systems. Electrified high-speed rail is the most
energy-efficient form of transport ever devised. Thus, the
impact of BTU taxes would be minimal on such systems."
(end)
68
STATEMENT OF SENATOR SPECTER
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Salci.
Senator Specter. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might say a word
at this point?
Senator Lautenberg. Sure.
Senator Specter. First, I thank the Chair for convening these
hearings. I believe that high-speed rail transit is a matter of enor-
mous importance. It's a subject that I've been working on for more
than a decade.
Some very substantial leadership has been provided by State
representative, Rick Geist, from Altoona, on plans for a high-speed
line, which would travel from Pittsburgh to Philadelphia, illustra-
tively, in 2 hours and 7 minutes with a number of intermediate
stops and an additional projection to move beyond to south New
Jersey.
Pittsburgh has been the center of the development of maglev
technologies, which is now ready to go on a 19-mile demonstration
program, which would go to the airport and with an extension
which would tie into West Virginia and Ohio.
It is my sense, that given the problems in air travel and the
problems in fuels, some of which you have referred to, Mr. Vranich,
and others have in their prepared statements, that this is a line
which we really ought to proceed on.
There is no reason that a country with the technology of the
United States in proposing the super collider and the space sta-
tions, should not be moving ahead on high-speed rail development.
High-speed rail and maglev technology are something that I have
pushed and will continue to push. These technologies are some-
thing that we have put some funding into the appropriation bills
in the immediate past, but something that we have to do more of.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much. Senator Specter,
we're from the same region, with densely populated States, and the
needs of the populations of these States can be very well served by
high-speed rail. And you have had a long and abiding interest in
this. We appreciate your participation.
Senator Specter. Oh, I agree with you about that, Mr. Chair-
man. Certainly, when you take the eastern end of my State which
abuts to your State and the very heavy demands for transit into
south New Jersey, which would tie right into a Pittsburgh-to-Phila-
delphia line, and the very heavy needs for high-speed transit in the
Northeast corridor, which traverses both of our States, those are
items which really command our joint attention.
Senator Lautenberg. If you look at the map here, one of the
areas identified as deserving of attention, vis-a-vis high-speed rail,
was the — indicated there from Philadelphia — I guess that's to Pitts-
burgh— and just an ideal kind of corridor; Harrisburg, also.
There are several cities in Pennsylvania that could benefit. And
we're going to continue to pursue this. I'm delighted that you are
a new member of this subcommittee, because we have a commonal-
ity of interest. And it's good to have allies as we work the problem
through.
69
And, Mr. Vranich, I don't want to interrupt the flow of state-
ments, but your testimony, as was Mr. Mead's, was very interest-
ing. We'll continue along. And then if you can stay, we'll have our
questions then.
Mr. Salci, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF LARRY SALCI
Mr. Salcl Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Specter. Thank
you for inviting me to testify before you on behalf of the Texas TGV
Corp. Mv testimony, as the others, will be submitted for the record.
And I'll be brief, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Lautenberg. Without objection, it will all be included in
the record.
Mr. Salcl I would like to take just a moment to briefly describe
the Texas TGV project and move directly to suggestions to promote
the development of high-speed rail in the United States.
The Texas TGV will provide nonstop 200-mile-per-hour service
between Houston and Dallas, between San Antonio, Austin and
Dallas, and between Dallas DFW Airport and Fort Worth. This is
a service area, commonly referred to as the 'Texas Triangle."
The rolling stock will be specially adapted for the Texas TGV and
will be based on the design of the operationally proven TGV
Atlantique, the second generation of TGV technology. This was the
same design which established the world ground speed record for
fixed guideway vehicles of 320 miles per hour in May 1990.
The system planned for Texas will go beyond the Atlantique in
terms of onboard services and amenities to its passengers. I want
to emphasize, Mr. Chairman, that while the Texas TGV project will
incorporate French technology through technology transfer from
GEC-Alsthom of France and the significant United States presence
of Bombardier Corp., manufacture of the rolling stock will fully
comply with Buy America requirements.
Moreover, the engineering and the civil work construction, which
is by far the largest component of the project's cost, will be per-
formed by U.S. corporations and managed by our corporate share-
holder, Morrison-Knudsen.
Based on our studies, the Texas TGV project is expected to pro-
vide between 30,000 to 35,000 construction phase jobs and nearly
10,000 direct jobs once the system becomes operational.
We would offer the following suggestions to encourage high-speed
rail development in corridors beyond the Northeast corridor. One,
Federal assistance for planning, feasibility, ridership and environ-
mental studies, as well as other Federal mandates should be con-
sidered.
Today, every other mode of passenger transportation is eligible
for Federal assistance in the planning, engineering, and environ-
mental impact analysis phase of a given project. In the case of
highways and rapid transit new starts, 80 percent of these costs
are assisted by Federal grant funds.
In an effort to reduce modsJ bias, we would suggest a similar
structure of assistance for high-speed rail projects. Following the
efforts of ISTEA to minimize the bias among surface transportation
modes, we believe that Federal funding for these essential steps,
which minimize engineering and financial problems later, is a rea-
70
sonable Federal investment and an appropriate Federal promotion
role.
Two, high-speed rail transportation trust fund account. Given the
President's and Congress* dual focus on infrastructure investment
and reducing the deficit, we would suggest a user fee concept. Spe-
cifically, in exchange for extending eligibility to high-speed rail pro-
grams for highway trust funds today, we would propose a plan to
repay today's investment with a 10-percent ticket tax to be imposed
on high-speed rail passengers, the proceeds of which would be re-
turned to the highway trust fund.
This concept is similar to the user fees employed by both surface
transportation and aviation modes.
Three, permit States to use right-of-way revolving funds for high-
speed rail projects. Mr. Chairman, you will no doubt recall your ef-
forts in 1991 to have this very concept included in the final version
of ISTEA. Section 128 of Senate bill 1204, the Senate version of
what became ISTEA, proposed passenger rail facilities as eligible
projects for the use of right-of-way revolving account funds. Al-
though this provision was dropped in conference, we would suggest
its reconsideration.
Four, Senior Grade Bond Insurance Program. Last week, the
Commission to Promote Investment in America's Infrastructure,
which was established under ISTEA, issued its final report.
Among its recommendations is a proposal to establish an insur-
ance mechanism to enhance the rating of infrastructure projects,
which might include high-speed rail, to attract private capital to a
project. By providing this bond guarantee, project ratings are
raised, potentially, to investment grade, attracting investors which
otherwise might ignore such investment opportunities.
And five, tax-exempt bond treatment for high-speed rail projects.
Under current law, bonds issued for high-speed rail projects are
tax-exempt. They are, however, subject to the State private activity
volume cap which renders them almost useless because these caps
are so low, given the scale of the projects. By allowing bonds issued
for high-speed rail projects to be treated in an identical fashion to
bonds issued for airports or other surface transportation projects,
that is, outside these volume caps, significant private investment
can be attracted to high-speed rail projects.
Mr. Chairman, these five suggestions are offered as an array of
ideas which will greatly assist in the attraction of private capital
to high-speed rail. Clearly, what we are proposing also involves di-
rect Federal expenditures for high-speed rail, a clear change in the
Federal policy which has prevailed over the past decade.
Perhaps the most difficult capital to find is the venture capital
needed to begin these projects. For this reason, we have suggested
direct Federal assistance on par with that historically accorded to
other modes of transportation.
We have also suggested direct funding for construction. While we
have not settled on any match levels, it is our assessment that
overmatches of private funds similar to the overmatch of State or
local funds for the Federal Transit Assistance Section 3 New Start
Program might be considered.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, let me say that while the President's
leadership in high-speed rail has attracted national interest in this
71
technology, I wish to thank you for the many years of leadership
you have provided in advancing interests of all Americans through
your support of high-speed rail, new transportation technologies,
new applications of old technologies and investment in our Nation's
infrastructure. Those of us who have spent our career in transpor-
tation know well the important role you have played in improving
our nation's transportation system.
I thank you for inviting me to testify. And I'd be pleased to an-
swer any questions.
PREPAEED STATEMENT
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much, Mr. Salci. We have
your prepared statement and it will be made part of the record.
[The statement follows:]
Statement of Larry E. Salci
Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to
testify before you on behalf of the Texas TGV Corporation. The scheduling of this
hearing is indeed timely, coming just two weeks after President Clinton's announce-
ment of important policy initiatives to assist the start-up phase and construction of
high speed rail projects, this hearing presents the unique opportunity to suggest a
structure for the President's initiatives. I applaud your quick action in holding this
hearing and appreciate your hearing our views on Mgh speed rail.
I would like to take just a moment to briefly describe the Texas TGV Corporation
and the project we are pursuing. The three major industrial shareholders are Morri-
son-Knudsen, Bombardier Corporation and GEC-Alsthom.
ROUTE ALIGNMENT
The Texas TGV will provide nonstop 200 MPH service between Houston and Dal-
las, between San Antonio, Austin and Dallas, and between Dallas DFW Airport and
Fort Worth. This is a service area, commonly referred to as the 'Texas Triangle,"
which contains 60 percent of the state's population and which generates over 75 per-
cent of the state's gross domestic product.
Travel between these cities will be on a non-stop schedule with half hour depar-
tures through most of the day and with fifteen minute departures during peak peri-
ods. The TGV will provide service at a very high level of reliabihty, comfort, and
ease of use. Stations or terminals are planned for:
— Houston, Central Business District;
— Houston, Northwest Suburban;
— Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport;
—Fort Worth;
— ^Austin; and
— San Antonio.
In addition to these principal stations, service is being planned for the cities of
Bryan-College Station and Waco, and possibly Houston Intercontinental Airport
though fi-equency and method of service to these communities has yet to be deter-
mined.
The route for the Texas TGV is appended to this statement.
PASSENGER ROLLING STOCK AND ON BOARD SERVICE
The rolling stock will be specially adapted for the Texas TGV and will be based
on the design of the next generation of the operationally proven TGV Atlantique
which currently operates at 186 M.P.H. This was the same design which established
the world ground speed record for fixed guideway vehicles of 320 miles per hour in
May of 1990. The system planned for Texas will go beyond the Atlantique; it will
initially operate at 200 M.P.H. and the system infi-astructure is designed to accom-
modate speeds up to 250 M.P.H. Also, in terms of on-board services and amenities,
features have been specifically developed to enhance the productivity of the Texas
TGV passenger, and include:
— Three classes of passenger accommodations: First Class, Business Class and
Coach.
72
— Expanded seat spacing and legroom in all accommodations which approaches
First Class seat spacing in airlines.
— Reserved seating for all passengers.
— Several small group seating arrangements with conference/work tables.
— High quality commercial phone service available throughout the train. Free
phone calls may be made to either destination or departure terminal cities. All
long distance carriers will be accessible for calls outside of the Triangle simply
by using the "Dial O" service which is available on most public phones today.
— Business productivity features including on board rental car services as well as
facsimile transmission and receive capabilities.
— ^A food and beverage car at the center of train, with in-seat service to First and
Business Class passengers.
— Integrated tickets with selected airlines will allow for smooth feeder operations
to mtgor hub airports, such as DFW. Check in service provided at TGV termi-
nals by host carrier personnel will include baggage check through and seat as-
signments for all trip segments.
— ^A total "Customer Service" approach has been contemplated to provide seamless
service for all passengers including those with an airport connection.
— Arrival and departure schedules at half hour intervals throughout the day with
increased frequency during heavy demand periods.
— Specially designed seating and other accommodations — including level platform
access — will enable persons with disabilities to easily board and use the high
speed train services.
— Texas TGV expects a fare structure that will be competitive with or less than
the airline fare structure.
A detailed analysis of the revenue impacts of these features is currently under-
way.
TEXAS TGV CAN EFFECTIVELY LINK WITH LONG HAUL AIR OPERATIONS
With these kinds of amenities and reliable performance, the Texas TGV should
be highly competitive with all modes of travel between Texas Triangle cities. The
Texas TGV should also be ideally suited in a feeder role for major hub airports such
as Dallas/Fort Worth (DFW) and Houston Intercontinental (LAH). Over the next
twenty years, carriers serving these airports will be looking to ever distant markets
to serve out of these hubs. New, more efBcient long haul aircraft will accentuate
this effort.
On the operational side, airlines will continue to look for better operating effi-
ciencies. They are finding these efficiencies in their hub operations by considering
the shift to "continuous" hubbing. This will require high-frequency and high volume
feeds, particularly on the short haul routes, to make them especially effective. At
the same time, it is very costly to offer more than twelve to thirteen such short haul
connections by air. An integrated service using the Texas TGV, on the other hand,
should be able to dramaticaJly increase service fi-equencies to all Texas cities by per-
haps a factor of three. This service should also be able to offer this for lower total
costs than these carriers now incur, and should be able to do so with much greater
on-time reliability. With highly integrated facilities at the hub airport and a contin-
ued role for the long haul carriers in selling the tickets and handling passenger
check in, the Texas TGV should be a highly complimentary — and highly efficient —
alternative to continued use of aircraft to feed passengers from the Texas Triangle
cities to Texas' major air hubs.
This alliance can be crucial in improving the ability of long haul carriers to effi-
ciently serve more distant markets sooner and existing markets better.
EMPLOYMENT IMPACTS
The Texas TGV Project is expected to provide 30,000-35,000 construction phase
jobs and nearly 10,000 direct and indirect jobs during its operations phase. High
speed train technology will utilize many of the telecommunications and aerospace
skills which have already come to Texas. Further, with an assembly plant in the
state, Texas TGV will position Texas as a base from which high speed rail skills,
services, and products can be provided to other parts of the country as they follow
in their development of intercity high speed rsiil.
I can not overemphasize, however, Mr. Chairman, that while the Texas TGV
Project will incorporate French technology, through technology transfer from GEC-
Alsthom and the significant United States presence of Bombardier Corporation,
manufacture of the rolling stock will fullv comply with Buy America requirements.
Moreover, the engineering and civil work construction which is by far the largest
73
component of the project's cost will be performed by U.S. corporations and managed
by our corporate shareholder, Morrison-Knudsen.
Having provided you with the scope of the Texas TGV Project as a backdrop; I
would like to turn to the focus of your hearing today: How can high speed rail be
developed in corridors beyond the Northeast Corridor? We would offer the following
suggestions.
FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FOR PLANNING, FEASIBIUTY, RIDERSHIP AND ENVIRONMENTAL
STUDIES AS WELL AS OTHER FEDERAL MANDATES
Today, virtually every other mode of passenger transportation is eligible for fed-
eral assistance in the planning, engineering and environmental impact analysis
phase of a given project. In the case of highways and rapid transit new starts, 80
percent of the planning, engineering and environmental impact statement costs are
assisted by federal grant funds. In an effort to reduce modal bias, we would suggest
a similar structure of assistance for high speed rail projects. Following the efforts
of ISTEA to minimize tiie bias among surface transportation modes, we believe that
federal funding for these essential steps, which minimize engineering and financial
mistakes later, is a reasonable federal investment and an appropriate federal pro-
motion role. The source of these funds could perhaps come through adding some
flexibility provisions to Section 1036 of the High Speed Rail Ground Transportation
Program which has already been authorized in ISTEA through 1997.
fflGH SPEED RAIL TRANSPORTATION TRUST FUND ACCOUNT
Given the President's and the Congress' dual focus on infrastructure investment
and reducing the deficit, we would suggest a user fee concept. Specifically, in ex-
change for extending eligibility to high speed rail programs for Highway Trust
Funds today, we would propose a plan to repay today's investment with a 10 percent
ticket tax to be imposed on high speed rail passengers, the proceeds of which would
be returned to the Highway Trust Fund. The amount to be made eligible for high
speed rail funding could be based upon such factors as conservative ridership projec-
tions, a repajmient schedule which reflects the useful life of the system, and the
near-term financial needs of developing other high speed rail projects. This concept
is similar to the user fees employed by both surface transportation and aviation
modes. Admittedly, there is a draw on the trust fund in advance of repayment, but
this investment would be analogous to the federal support provided to highways and
the aviation industry prior to the establishment of their respective trust fiinds.
PERMIT STATES TO USE RIGHT OF WAY REVOLVING FUNDS FOR HIGH SPEED RAIL
PROJECTS
Mr. Chairman, you will no doubt recall your efforts in 1991 to have this very con-
cept included in the final version of ISTEA. Section 128 of S. 1204, the Senate ver-
sion of what became ISTEA, proposed "passenger rail facilities" as eUgible projects
for the use of right-of-way revolving account funds. Although this provision was
dropped in conference, we would suggest its reconsideration. The revolving fund con-
cept has saved many millions of dollars in highway construction costs, it could pro-
vide similar savings to high speed rail projects.
SENIOR GRADE BOND INSURANCE PROGRAM
Mr. Chairman, the initiation of an investment grade bond insurance program for
infrastructure is really the adaptation of a concept that has worked in attracting
private sector investments to health care and educational facilities. Last week the
Commission to Promote Investment in America's Infi-astructure, which was estab-
lished under ISTEA, issued its final report. Among it's recommendations is a pro-
posal to establish an insurance mechanism to enhance the rating of infrastructure
projects (which might include high speed rail) to attract private capital to a project.
Using the model of the College Construction Loan Insurance Association
(ConnieLee), the Commission focused on the success that ConnieLee has achieved
in guaranteeing bonds issued by colleges, universities and teaching hospitals. By
providing this bond guarantee, project ratings are raised to investment grade, at-
tracting investors which otherwise might ignore such investment opportunities. A
bond insurance program, established with a minimum federal investment, could fos-
ter literally millions of dollars in private investment into high speed rail and other
infrastructure projects.
74
TAX-EXEMPT BOND TREATMENT FOR fflGH SPEED RAIL PROJECTS
Under current law, bonds issued for high speed rail projects are tax-exempt. They
are, however, subject to the state private activity volume cap which renders them
almost useless because these caps are so low. By allowing bonds issued for high
speed rail projects to be treated in an identical fashion to bonds issued for airports
or other siirface transportation projects, i.e., outside these volume caps, significant
private investment can be attracted to high speed rail projects.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Chairman, these five suggestions are offered as a array of ideas which will
greatly assist in the attraction of private capital to high speed rail. Clearly, what
we are proposing also involves direct federal expenditures for high speed rail, a
clear change in Qie federal policy which has prevailed over the past decade. High
speed rail is not a technology still under test and development. It's benefits have
been demonstrated widely in Europe and Japan. Promoting the development of high
speed rail in the U.S. will have real and substantive benefits beyond just mobility
enhancement. Environmental and social improvements, and long-term job creation
are benefits which will have real impact on our nation.
We are suggesting a federal role which will serve to attract private capital. We
will acknowledge that levels of private investment are determined by levels of risk.
Some of the concepts we have outiined are clearly designed to reduce levels of risk
which in turn have the inverse effect of attracting private capital.
Perhaps the most difficult capital to find is the venture capital needed to begin
these projects. For this reason we have suggested direct federal assistance on par
with that historically accorded to other modes of transportation. We have also sug-
gested direct funding for construction. While we have not settied on any match lev-
els, it is our assessment that "over-matches" of private funds similar to the "over-
match" of state or local funds for the FTA Section 3 New Start program should be
considered. While the Federal government would clearly take on the initiad burden
of establishing project feasibility, as it does in other modes of transportation, we
would propose that the private sector fund a large share of construction costs in
terms of absolute dollars.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, let me say that while the President's leadership on high
speed rail nas attracted national interest in this technology, I wish to thank you
for the many years of leadership you have provided in advancing the interests of
all Americans through your support of high speed rail, new transportation tech-
nologies, new applications of old technologies and investment in our nation's infira-
structure. Those of us who have spent our career in transportation know well the
important role you have played in improving our nation's transportation system.
Thank you for inviting me to testify. I will be pleased to answer any questions.
75
O/FW
Dallas
Fort Worth
Waco
.45;
35J
Austin
Bryan
College
Station
lAH
>«««i'
San Antonio
^10
A — Slalions
76
STATEMENT OF ROGER FAULKNER
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Faulkner, you're next.
Mr. Faulkner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Specter,
for this opportunity to testify on our efforts to bring high-speed rail
to the residents of Ohio.
I'm here today representing the Ohio Railway Organization,
which is a private consortium of firms which has developed an im-
plementation plan for making a privately operated, profitable high-
speed rail system for Ohio a reality. Our plan was officially accept-
ed by the Ohio High-Speed Rail Authority on June 23, 1992.
To begin, let me give you a brief overview of ORO's plan. The
alignment of the system, commonly referred to as the "3-C cor-
ridor," cuts diagonally across the State from Cincinnati to Cleve-
land through Columbus. The entire length of the system is 260
miles long with nine stations. And most of the alignment is on new
right-of-way, except where the system enters the major metropoli-
tan areas.
The results of our year-long effort concluded with a system cap-
ital cost estimated at $3.1 billion in 1991 dollars. The annual oper-
ating and maintenance costs were estimated to be $62 million. And
the annual projected revenues are estimated to be $88 million,
based on 1.8 million riders per year.
I would like to say this ridership estimate is conservative, be-
cause it was based on our traditional rail ridership patterns as we
know today in the United States.
The results of our cost estimates indicate that there is very little
of the project that could be supported by private investment. The
resulting $26 million new operating revenues could realistically
only attract $100 to $150 million of private finances.
The total estimated economic benefits of developing and operat-
ing a high-speed rail system in Ohio will amount to $11.1 billion,
which is over a 3 to 1 investment on the capital expenditures. This
is creating, in the construction phase, over 71,000 jobs. During the
operations phase, it is estimated that at least 79,000 jobs over a
25-year period.
Like highways, airports, and other transportation facilities, high-
speed rail provides a vital public service. For the 3-C corridor
project to be financeable, it will be necessary to fuse public and pri-
vate finance concepts.
Rather than implementing a pure privatization model, the goals
of a financing plan for the 3-C corridor system are to ensure that
adequate funds are available for planning, development, construc-
tion, and operation on a basis which minimizes overall construction
cost and financing cost, and thereby limits the level of public sup-
port required from the State of Ohio. These goals can be accom-
plished by maximizing the use of Federal financial assistance, tax-
exempt financing, and private debt and equity capital.
Due to the size and magnitude of this program, the State of Ohio
needs significant support from the Federal Government to proceed.
Several potential sources of Federal assistance are already incor-
porated in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of
1991, commonly known as ISTEA.
77
These sources, if funded, would provide an initial basis of funds
to allow several projects, such as Ohio's, to at least proceed into the
preconstruction phase. To date, all of the activities culminating in
the submission and acceptance of our implementation plan have
been totally privately funded through sweat equity and cash con-
tributions by our consortium members. However, continual attrac-
tion of this private capital will be very difficult unless public fund-
ing sources become available.
At the present time. Federal programs specifically aimed at fos-
tering high-speed rail are primarily concentrated in the area of re-
search, development, and demonstration. However, ISTEA did initi-
ate one change in Federal law which, if fully implemented, ulti-
mately could have important ramifications for the construction of
high-speed rail.
ISTEA amended the Loan Guarantee Program under the Rail-
road Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 to authorize
Federal guarantees specifically for the financing of high-speed rail
facilities. Notwithstanding the enactment of ISTEA, the Federal
Railway Administration has not been given budget authority at the
present time to enter into any of these loan agreements.
ISTEA also established a new Federal matching program of
funds for the highway trust fund. In addition, the traditional high-
way and bridge projects, STP funds may be used, among other
things, for transit projects and surface transportation planning pro-
grams. It is not completely clear what rail systems are eligible for
assistance under the Federal Transit Act; however, high-speed rail
proponents should be urging upon FTA to do this.
Clearly, a favorable resolution of the availability of STP funds
would facilitate high-speed rail construction by providing a layer of
Federal equity to supplement debt financing.
It is preferable to use tax-exempt financing for the debt; how-
ever, the project may or may not qualify, depending on the owner-
ship structure of the project.
Current IRS requirements essentially require that the project
must be owned and operated by the State in order to qualify for
tax-exempt financing.
First, if the facility is set up on a private-ownership basis, only
that portion of the project which constitutes a high-speed rail may
be eligible for tax-exempt financing. If it's on a public ownership/
private basis, the project may be privately operated, but still qual-
ify for tax-exempt financing if the operator's contract satisfies the
management contract rules.
To summarize, continued development of high-speed rail in Ohio
will require fulfillment of the Federal Grovemment's commitment to
high-speed rail. It should be an accepted fact that financing a new
transportation mode such as high-speed rail must be primarily
borne by the public.
Efficient and safe transportation are a vital component of our so-
ciety. So, should we finally cross the privately funded only hurdle
facing high-speed rail and move forward with sufficient funding ap-
propriations and finally acknowledge that the Federal role in lead-
ing high-speed rail development is long overdue.
I thank you for the time to testify, Mr. Chairman, And I'll be
available later for questions.
78
PREPARED STATEMENT
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you, Mr. Faulkner. We have your
prepared statement and it will be made part of the record.
[The statement follows:]
Statement of Roger A. Faulkner
Thank you for this opportunity to testify on our efforts to bring a new mode of
transportation, high speed passenger reiil, to the residents of Ohio. I am here today
representing the Ohio Railway Organization, Inc. (ORO), a private consortium of
firms which has developed an implementation plan for making a privately-operated,
Erofitable high speed raO system for Ohio a reality. Our plan was officially accepted
y the Ohio-High Speed Rail Authority on June 23, 1992.
OVERVIEW OF PLAN
To begin, let me give you a brief overview of ORO's Plan. The alignment of the
system, commonly referred to as the "3-C Corridor" alignment goes north from Cin-
cinnati to Dayton, then east to Columbus and then on north to Cleveland. Essen-
tially, the alignment cuts diagonally across the state from southwest to northeast.
The entire length of the system is 260 miles long with nine stations and most of
the alignment is on new right-of-way except where the system enters the major met-
ropolitan areas.
The result of our year long effort concluded with a system capital cost estimated
at $3.1 billion in 1991 dollars. The annual operating and maintenance costs were
estimated to be $62 milUon (1991 dollars), and the annual projected revenues are
estimated to be $88 million (1991 dollars) based on 1.8 million riders.
An operations model was developed to account for the travel times between the
stations and yielded travel times of 68 min. between Cleveland and Columbus (com-
pared to 150 min. auto time), 94 min. between Columbus and Cincinnati (compared
to 120 min. auto time) and 166 min. between Cleveland and Cincinnati (compared
to 270 min. auto travel). The fleet size will be eight trains consisting of one power
unit, one business class ceir and two custom coaches seating 200 passengers. There
is also the option of adding a separate restaurant car in lieu of having catering in
the first custom coach. The trains will operate 16 round trips per day in the 3-C
Corridor on an hourly basis.
The results of our cost estimates indicate that very little of the project could be
supported by private investment. The resulting $26 million net operating revenues
could realistically onJy attract $100-$ 150 million of private finances.
ECONOMIC BENEFITS
While the costs of developing and operating the Ohio high speed rail system be-
tween Cleveland and Cincmnati are substantial, so are the economic, transpor-
tation, energy and environmental benefits that will accrue to the State of Ohio, its
communities along the route and the people in those communities. The total esti-
mated economic benefits of developing and operating a high speed rail system in
Ohio will amount to $11.1 billion in 1991 dollars.
A breakdown of these benefits is presented on the following page with a few key
conclusions:
^-Constructing the high speed rail system will result in over $5.5 billion in direct
economic output for the state, increasing household earnings by over $1.7 billion
and creating 71,000 person-years of employment;
— Ongoing operations activities will result in over $3.2 billion in economic output
for the state over a 25-year period following construction of the system, increas-
ing household earnings in Ohio by over $1.2 billion and creating 79,000 person-
years of employment;
— Users of the high speed rail system will save the equivalent of $400 million
through reduced travel times by not using their automobiles for journeys along
this corridor; and
— As travellers divert to high speed rail, fewer automobile accidents, injuries and
fatalities will result in a total savings to society of $200 million.
As the economy of the state begins its rebound from the recent recession, the high
speed rail system, even though balanced with other competing interests, would pro-
vide an economic boost to the manufacturing and service sectors of the economy to
enable recovery and increase long term development potential within the state.
Symbolizing effective, progressive state management of its resources, the system's
79
prestige value and business and emplovment impact could attract not only concerns
involved in the development of the rail system itself but also those desiring to take
advantage of the enhanced opportunities presented by the development of a reliable,
high speed system of transportation.
PROJECT FINANCING
Like highways, airports and other transportation facilities, high speed rail pro-
vides a vital public service which is the proper concern of state and local govern-
ment and a proper object of governmental financial assistance. High speed rail is
also a candidate for a financing structure which relies substantially on private user
charges — ^in this case, passenger fares. For the 3-C Corridor project to be
financeable, it will be necessary to fiise public and private finance concepts; as our
plan reveals, fares and other operating revenues, standing alone, will not be suffi-
cient to support the full development and construction costs of the system, the ac-
quisition cost for rolling stock and the necessary competitive return on eauity. It
will not be possible to look solely to the private sector for the necessary development
and construction funds. Indeed, substantial public subsidies will be required if the
pubUc pvuposes served by the 3-C rail corridor are to be met.
Rather than implementing a pure privatization model, the goals of a financing
plan for the 3-C Corridor system are to ensure that adequate funds are available
for planning, development, construction and operation on a basis which minimizes
overall construction cost and financing cost, and thereby limits the level of public
support required from the State of Ohio. These goals can be accomplished by maxi-
mizing:
— The use of federal financial assistance programs;
— The use of tax-exempt financing; and
— The role of private debt and equity capital.
FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
Due to the size and magnitude of this program, the State of Ohio needs significant
support fi-om the federal government to proceed. The successful completion of plan-
ning, design and demonstration activities must depend heavily on governmental in-
vestment. Several potential sources of federal assistance are already incorporated in
the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) which in-
clude:
— ^A high speed ground transportation technology demonstration program — $50
million;
— ^A high speed ground transportation research and development program — $25
million; and
— The National Magnetic Levitation Protype Development program — $725 million.
These sources, if fiuided, would provide an initial basis of funds to allow several
projects, such as Ohio's, to at least proceed into the pre-construction phase. To date,
all of our activities culminating in the submission and acceptance of our implemen-
tation plan have been totally privately funded through "sweat equity" and cash con-
tributions by our consortium members. However, continual attraction of this private
capital will be difficult unless public funding sources become available.
At the present time, federal programs specifically aimed at fostering high speed
rail are primarily concentrated in the areas of research, development, and dem-
onstration. However, ISTELA did initiate one change in the federal law which, if fiilly
implemented, ultimately could have important ramifications for the construction of
high speed rail systems.
ISTEA amended the loan guarantee program under the Railroad Revitalization
and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 to authorize federal guarantees specifically for
the financing of high speed rail facilities. The law now permits the Secretary of
Transportation to guarantee obligations of a public or private railroad, including (as
a resiilt of ISTEA) obligations incurred to estabhsh high speed rail facilities and
equipment. High speed rail is defined as rail transportation "reasonably expected"
to reach spee(w of 125 mph. Not more than one biflion dollars of guaranteed debt
can be outstanding at any one time.
Any high speed rail facilities and equipment financed with a federally guaranteed
loan must be at least 85 percent produced or manufactured in the United States,
unless the Secretary finds that such a requirement would be inconsistent with the
public interest, that items of satisfactory quality could not be produced in the U.S.
in sufficient quantities, that the requirement would increase the cost of the facilities
bv more than 25 percent, or that the requirement would result in a violation of the
obligations of the U.S. under an international trade agreement. While the federal
guarantee is outstanding, dividends payable by a privately owned railroad are lim-
80
ited. Notwithstanding the enactment of ISTEA, the Federal Railway Administration
has not been given budget authority at the present time to enter into any loan guar-
antee agreements. Correction of this situation should be high on the legislative
agenda of advocat«s of high speed rail.
ISTEA also established a new federal matching program for use of fvmds in the
Highway Trust Fund — the Surface Transportation Program (STP). The hallmark of
this program is flexibility. In addition to traditional highway and bridge projects,
STP funds may be used, among other things, for:
— Capital costs for transit project eligible for assistance under the Federal Transit
Act;
— Highway and transit safety improvements programs, hazard eliminations, and
projects to mitigate hazards caused by wildlife and railway-highway grade
crossings;
— Highway and transit research and development and technology transfer pro-
grams; and
— Surface transportation planning programs.
As noted above, it is not completely clear what rail systems are eligible for assist-
ance under the Federal Transit Act, and thus are an eligible use of funds from the
STP. However, FTA could reasonably interpret its statutory mandate to allow it to
direct STP funds toward high speed rail projects, such as the 3-C Corridor. There
is a rationale for doing so, which high speed rail proponents should be urging upon
the FTA.
ISTEA may also open the door to federal funding even of the non-commuter por-
tions of the rail lines. ISTEA amends the Federal Transit Act to make the terms
"transit", "public transportation", and "mass transportation" synonymous, and de-
fines these terms to include publicly or privately owned rail facilities without ref-
erence to the geographical area served.
Clearly, a favorable resolution of the availability of STP funds would facilitate
high speed rail construction finance, by providing a layer of federal "equity^ to sup-
plement debt financing.
In addition, ISTEA authorizes each state to lend federal assistence funds to public
or private developers of specified tolled transportation facilities (bridges, tunnels,
highways and approaches) and to deposit loan repayments in a revolving fund,
which may then be reloaned for other eligible transportation projects (including
mass transportetion, which, as we have seen, arguably includes high speed rail).
Many stotes are exploring the extent to which they can achieve a rapid first revolu-
tion of such funds so that federally-imposed restrictions on subsequent fund use will
be reduced. Assuming that a portion of the proposed Ohio high speed rail facility
qualifies for transit funding under federal law, amounts contained in any transpor-
tation revolving fund established by Ohio pursuant to ISTEA could be made avail-
able for finamcing of the 3-C Corridor. This could prove to be a powerful financing
tool.
TAX-EXEMPT FINANCING
It is preferable to use tax-exempt financing for the debt issued by the State due
to the interest cost savings. However, the project may or may not qualify for tax-
exempt financing depending on the ownership structure of the project.
Cvurent Internal Revenue Code requirements essentially require that the project
must be owned and operated by the State or another govemmentel agency in order
to qualify for tax-exempt financing. However, in order to develop high speed rail on
a public/private partnership basis, certain rules may need to be revised.
First, if the facility is set up on a private ownership and operation basis, only that
portion of the project which constitutes a "high speed intercity rail facility" may be
eligible for tax-exempt financing. For purposes of qualifying as a high speed inter-
city rail facility, the facility must provide fixed guideway r^ transportetion of pas-
sengers between metropoUtan areas using vehicles expected to operate at speeds in
excess of 150 miles per hour. However, rolling stock is excluded from the definition
of a high speed intercity rail facility for purposes of this t3T)e of tax-exempt financ-
ing. Also the private owner would not be entitled to the depreciation deductions nor-
mally available to the private owner of a facility of this type. These restrictions do
not make private ownership of the facUity an attractive option.
Second, if the facility is set up on a public ownership/private operation basis, the
project may be privately operated and still qualify for tax-exempt financing if the
operator's contract satisfies the "management contract" rules. The management con-
tract rules can be summarized as foUows:
— The term of the contract cannot exceed five years.
81
— The contract must be terminable at the government's option at the end of any
3-year period within the contract's 5-year term.
— ^At least 50 percent of the operator's compensation must be on a periodic, fixed-
fee basis.
— No portion of the operator's compensation may be based on net profits.
If a portion of the 3-C project also qualifies as a mass commuting facility, tax-
exempt financing for that portion of the project will not be subject to the manage-
ment contract rules. The mass commuting portion of the project must be publicly
owned, but it may be leased to a private party under a long-term lease.
The long-term lease effectively gives the operator multi-year operational rights for
the project. For federal income tax purposes the State as lessor will be considered
the owner of the mass commuting portion of the project and the private party as
lessee will not be entitled to claim any depreciation deductions with respect to that
portion of the project.
As can be seen, current IRS requirements are not oriented properly to large inter-
city systems which can only be emcientiy operated on a long-term basis and as one
system. It is our strong recommendation that these and all rules related to tax-ex-
empt financing be reviewed to relieve these hindering requirements.
PRIVATE DEBT AND EQUITY CAPITAL
In order to reduce the need for public financial support, some of the components
of the high speed rail system might be developed and owned by the private sector.
Rail cars are well smted to private ownership, since they are not eligible under
current IRS rules for financing with tax-exempt private activity bonds. Privately
owned and financed rail cars could then be leased by the private owner to the facil-
ity operator.
Stations and terminals are also candidates for private ownership because of the
potential economic benefits which mixed use facilities present in addition to support
of the rail facility. Also, right-of-way or space for construction of stations may also
be donated by landowners wishing to enhance the value of their real estate holdings
or business enterprises.
However, the summation of these items in our implementation plan only con-
stitutes 10-15 percent of the total capital cost of the system. Again, this leads to
the same earlier conclusion that the majority of the funding for the system must
come fi*om public sources.
REQUIRED GOVERNMENTAL ACTION
Continued development of high speed rail in Ohio will require fulfillment of the
State's commitment since 1975 to implementation of this quality transportation
service. The time has come for Ohio to agree in principle to go forward with high
speed rail subject to further advancement of the design. Such a^eement must in-
clude willingness to invest substantial public funds in the activities necessary for
project development up to the point of a decision whether to proceed with construc-
tion. ORO estimates that three years and forty to sixty million dollars may be need-
ed to complete the design, environmental, financial and other investigations which
must necessarily precede construction. Not all of the cost must necessarily be borne
by the state, but a substantial share can be expected to be derived from public
sources.
The other key governmental participant in realization of high speed rail in Ohio
is the federal government. In 1990 and 1991 the U.S. Congress in both houses has
indicated strong support for establishment of high speed rail in the United States.
This support has, in turn, provided to the Federal Railroad Administration funds
and encouragement that were not in evidence during Ohio's earlier efforts to imple-
ment high speed rail service. The current highly supportive thrust of federal partici-
pation in high speed rail offers a great opportunity to seek and define federal part-
nership for development and construction of the project.
It should be an accepted fact that financing a new transportation mode such as
high speed rail must be primarily borne by the public. EfBcient and safe transpor-
tation is a vited component of our society and economy and our nation's highways
and airports are facing ever increasing levels of congestion. Our interstate highway
system was built with public monies as well as our airport system. So we should
finally cross the "privately fiinded only" hurdle facing high speed rail development,
and move forwara with sufficient funding appropriations and finally acknowledge
the federal role in leading high speed rail development.
Ohio is ready but they caimot do it alone. They need the federal government to
lead the way and finally add the third component to our transportation infi-astruc-
ture — ^high speed rail.
82
SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC BENEFITS
OF
OHIO HIGH SPEED RAIL
A. CONSTRUCTION PERIOO
CONSTRUCTION SPENOINC
t 3.1BIU.ON
(S St9 MILLION/ YEAR)
I
DIRECT SPtNOING ON L>«eOR.
MATERIALS AND EQUIPkCNT
IN OHIO
» 2.2 B«J.ION
(t 370 BLUON/YEAR)
I
DFECT. INDIRECT AND INDUCED
ECONOMIC OUTPUT FOR
OHIO ECONOMY
t i* 8«.LI0N
(« 908 MILUON/YEAR)
I
71.150
JOBS
I 1.7 BILION
^N HOUSEHOLd
EARNWCS
B. ONCOMC OPERATIONS
DIRECT OPERATIONS AW
MAJNTENANCE SPENDING
< L46 BLLION
I
ORECT, INDIRECT ANO INDUCED
ECONOktC OUTPUT FOR
OmO ECONOMY
t i.2 BILLION
79,000
JOBS
I
« 1.2 BILLION
N rJCKEASED
HOUSEHOLD
EARNNGS
C. TIfcC TRAVEL SAVWCS
TRAVEL TIME SAVINGS
8.7 BLLION HOURS TOTAL
WORTH" t 390 MILLION
0. ACCIDENT COST SAVNCS
SUMM>«Y TOTALS
K CONSTRUCTION PERtOO
19911-S
1 5.4 B>.LION
B. ONGONC OPERATIONS
I 3.1 BLLION
C. TliC TRAVEL SAVNCS
1 0.4 BLLION
D. ACCIDENT COST SAVNCS
1 0.2 BLUON
E. SAVINGS N VEWCLE
« 1.6 BILLION
OPERATING COSTS
F. FOSSl FUEL SAVWGS
« 0.3 BILLION
TOTAL BEfCFITS Of
S n.1 BLUON
OHO HCH SPEED RA«.
50 FATALITCS AVERTED
1.980 ACODENTS AVERTED
200 NJUR1ES AVERTED
I 197 IkfLLION N
SOCIETAL COSTS SAVED
SAVWCS W VEWCLE
OPERATWC COSTS
SAVINGS FROM NOT HAVING
TO OPERATE AUTOMOBLES
S 1.6 BLLION
F. rOSSl FUEL SAVWCS
220 MLLION GALLONS
OF FUEL SAVED
I 268 MLLION SAVED
83
STATEMENT OF CHARLES H. SMITH
Senator Lautenberg. Now, well hear from Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, Senator Specter, thank you for this
opportunity to testify on the important subject of high-speed rail
and maglev transportation.
Florida has been one of the most active States in pursuing and
developing high-speed rail and maglev programs for well over 10
years. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit
a more comprehensive written statement in a few days.
Senator Lautenberg. Without objection, we will await receipt of
the statement, and it should be soon, Mr. Smith
Mr. Smith. For the record, it will be. All right. In 1981, Senator
Graham, then Governor of Florida, traveled to Japan and was the
first foreigner to ride on the Japanese superconducting maglev
train operating on a test track in southern Japan.
On that same trip, he also evaluated and piloted the Japanese
Shinkhansen high-speed bullet train as well. When he got back to
Florida, he immediately directed the DOT to conduct a feasibility
study on the possibility of setting up a high-speed rail system in
Florida. That study was completed in a year. And a public-private
partnership was recommended to be established using a variety of
innovative financing incentives.
This public-private partnership concept was later incorporated in
the State, enabling legislation. The key incentives provided in this
enabling legislation were: the opportunity to use real estate as a
means to finance the system, the use of highway rights-of-way, and
the ability of the State to issue tax-exempt bonds on behalf of the
private company.
After several years of joint planning with two international pri-
vate consortiums for a 300-mile route connecting Miami, Orlando,
and Tampa, it was concluded in 1991 that even with these incen-
tives, the Florida high-speed rail project could not be financed and
built solely as a private sector sponsored project.
There were several reasons. The volatility of the real estate mar-
ket, the savings and loan disaster, and so forth, wiped out real es-
tate as an incentive for private investment. However, we still be-
lieve private investment through real estate can help support the
construction of these systems.
Second, although high-speed highway corridors and railroad cor-
ridors were considered in these plans, it was often found that these
rights-of-way are not suitable for high-speed train operations for
the reasons that have already been mentioned; numerous grade
crossings, curvatures, vertical alignments, et cetera. Nevertheless,
in any event, high-speed trains operating in excess of 110 miles an
hour are going to need a completely grade-separated route.
Third, tax-exempt bonds were considered essential for private
sector investments. We were successful, in 1988, in getting the
Federal tax code amended, but only to the extent that 25 percent
of any bonds issued still must be allocated from the State's current
private activity bond volume.
Mr. Chairman, we are appreciative of your support and cospon-
sorship with Senator Graham on the bill to amend that this year,
again.
84
Based on our experience in Florida, we believe there are a num-
ber of areas where Federal legislation, programs, and policies could
be used to encourage and facilitate high-speed rail and maglev sys-
tems.
First and foremost, high-speed rail needs to have a stable and se-
cure source of Federal revenue dedicated for this purpose. A trust
fund modeled on the highway or airport trust fund, based on the
equivalent of 1 or 2 cents on the gas tax, would be appropriate. In
any event, without predictable earmarked allocations, high-speed
rail and maglev cannot compete with highway and airport projects
funded at 70 to 90 percent from Federal sources.
Second, we support the passage of President Clinton's economic
stimulus package, which includes the already authorized $725 mil-
lion funding for the ISTEA maglev prototype and an additional
$646 million for the high-speed rail projects. There are a number
of maglev projects around the country, including several in Florida,
that are being developed to take advantage of this prototype pro-
gram and to develop an American-made technology.
We strongly believe that public-private partnerships should be
encouraged and developed to deliver high-speed rail and maglev
systems. The contributions and role of the public sector must be ex-
panded. It is unrealistic to expect private enterprise to build high-
speed transportation systems, while, at the same time, public enti-
ties are financing and building highway and aviation infrastruc-
ture.
We are also pleased the Florida high-speed rail corridor was des-
ignated by U.S. DOT as one of the five ISTEA section 1010 cor-
ridors for grade crossing hazard elimination. Although the Federal
funding of $1 million per year is not great, this is an important rec-
ognition by Congress and the Federal Government of the value of
high-speed intercity rail service.
We are also working with Amtrak to encourage them to operate
the X2000 tilt train in Florida. And we're encouraged by their in-
terest in doing that.
Finally, we are just completing a study to use the median of I-
4, Interstate 4, between Tampa and Orlando, for high-speed rail.
This highway is scheduled for rebuild. And Secretary Watts has di-
rected that the highway design include provisions for a high-speed
rail line. This will save money, reduce environmental impacts and
implement the intermodal policy and intent of the ISTEA Act.
Throughout our work in Florida, we have recognized the need to
include Amtrak as a partner in proposed intercity passenger oper-
ations. And we support the efforts to provide Amtrak with a long
term stable source of funding.
Mr. Chairman, Florida has been through a full cycle of enabling
legislation, route planning, technology and operational assessment,
private sector participation, project development, and financial
analysis. Although we haven't yet found the precise combination
for complete success, we have built a solid base of experience and
data, and will be moving forward with our high-speed rail and
maglev projects. We are pleased to be able to share our experience
with others and with the Federal Government.
Thank you for your interest.
85
PREPARED STATEMENT
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks very much, Mr. Smith. We have
your prepared statement and we will insert it in the record along
with your more comprehensive statement when it is received.
[The statements follow:]
Statement of Charles H. Smith
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity
to testify on the important subject of high speed rail and maglev transportation. My
name is Charles H. Smith, Manager of High Speed Transportation for the Florida
Department of Transportation. Florida has been one of the most active states in
pursuing and developing high speed transportation programs for well over ten
years. With your permission, and because of the short notification for this hearing,
I would like to submit a more comprehensive written statement within the next sev-
eral days.
In 1981, Senator Graham, then Governor of Florida, was the first foreigner to ride
the Japanese superconducting maglev train operating on a test track in southern
Japan, and he also was able to evaluate and pilot the Japanese Shinkhansen or bul-
let train which had been in operation since 1964. Upon his return to Florida he di-
rected the DOT to conduct a statewide high speed rail feasibility study. That study
concluded that a pubUc-private partnership should be established and that with a
variety of innovative financial incentives, a high speed raQ system financed largely
by the private sector through real estate development could be built.
This public-private partnership concept was incorporated in enabling legislation
enacted by the Florida legislature in 1984 as the Florida High Speed Rail Transpor-
tation Act (subsequently amended and streamlined in 1992). The key incentives pro-
vided in this enabling legislation were:
— The opportunity for the private sector to use real estate development to finance
the system, including benefit assessments and tax increment financing,
— The use of state highway right of way,
— The ability for the state to issue tax exempt bonds on behalf of the private com-
pany, and
— ^A centralized environmental permitting and licensure process.
After several years of joint planning by the state and two international private
consortiums for a 300-mile route connecting Miami, Orlando and Tampa it was con-
cluded that even with these incentives the Florida high speed rail project could not
be financed and built solely as a private sector sponsored project.
First, the volatility and general decline in real estate investments in Florida, cou-
f)led with the national savings and loan disaster and the oncoming recession in the
ate 1980's wiped out real estate as an incentive for private investment. We still be-
Ueve the concept of real estate "value capture" can contribute to financing, but
projects of this magnitude cannot depend on this as a principal source of funds.
Second, although these high speed rail plans used: highway and publicly-owned
ran lines, these corridors do not necessarily provide the best alignments for high
speed systems due to curvature, vertical alignments and at-grade crossings. High
speed trains operating at speeds greater than 110 mph will need dedicated, grade-
separated routes.
Third, tax-exempt bonds were considered essential for private sector investments.
We were successful in 1988 in getting the federal tax code amended but only to the
extent that 25 percent of anv bond issue still must be allocated from a state's cur-
rent private activity bond volume. Unfortunately, this 25 percent requirement is an
effective barrier to the use of tax-exempt bonds. Mr. Chairman, we are appreciative
of your support and co-sponsorship with Senator Graham and others of an amend-
ment to the tax laws that would remove high speed rail bonds from this volume cap
and allow high speed rail the same treatment as airports and transit systems.
I would also say that a centralized environmental permitting and licensing proc-
ess at the state level is essential for the timely and cost effective approval of inter-
city systems. This centralized process was later incorporated in the 1988 state
maglev enabling law and the Florida maglev project in Orlando which was subse-
quently certified for construction in about 18 months.
Based on our experience in Florida, we believe there are a number of areas where
federal legislation, programs and policies could be used to encourage and facilitate
high speed rail and maglev systems:
— First and foremost, high speed rail needs to have a stable and secure source
of federal revenue dedicated for this purpose. A trust fund modeled on the high-
86
way and airport trust funds based on the equivalence of a penny or two of gas
tax revenue would be appropriate. In any event, without a secure, earmarked
allocation, high speed rail and maglev cannot compete with highway and airport
projects funded at 70-90 percent from federal sources.
— We support the passage of President Clinton's economic stimulus package,
which includes the already authorized $725 million funding for the ISTEA
maglev prototype program and an additional $646 million for high speed rail
projects. There are a number of prototype maglev projects on the drawing
boards around the country to develop an American-made maglev system. Two
private maglev consortiums in Florida have announced plans to begin develop-
ment of maglev prototypes that could become the new high tech industry for
the post-cold war era, and employ the expertise of our defense and aerospace
industries in the process.
— We strongly believe that while public-private partnerships should be encouraged
and developed to deliver high speed rail and maglev systems, the contributions
and role of the public sector must be expanded. It is unrealistic to expect pri-
vate enterprise to build a high speed transportation system while, at tne same
time, public entities are financing and building our highway and aviation infra-
structure with public subsidies.
— We are pleased the Florida high speed rail corridor was designated by the
USDOT as one of the five ISTEA 1010 corridors for grade crossing hazard elimi-
nation. Although the federal funding of $1 million per year is not great, this
is an important recognition by Congress and the federal government of the
value of high speed intercity rail service. We have also taken advantage of the
high speed rail demonstration provisions of ISTEA Section 1036 and requested
demonstration of the ABB X2000 train in Florida along with several innovative
grade crossing barrier systems for lines where total grade separation may not
be possible.
— ^Finally, we are just completing a study to use the median of Interstate 4 be-
tween Tampa and Orlando for high speed rail. This highway is scheduled for
rebuild and Secretary Watts has directed that the highway design include provi-
sions for a high speed line. This will save money, reduce environmental impacts
and implements the intermodal policy and intent of ISTEA. Also, we will soon
be completing a comprehensive statewide high speed rail ridership and market-
ing study. Preliminary results confirm that Florida has an excellent market for
intercity high speed rail.
— Throughout our work in Florida we have recognized the need to include Amtrak
as a partner in proposed intercity passenger operations and we support efforts
to provide Amtrak with a long term, staole source of funding for capital im-
provement. The success of Amtrak's X2000 tilt train test clearly demonstrates
the potential and need for high speed trains.
Mr. Chairman, Florida has been through a full cycle of enabling legislation, route
planning, technology and operational assessment, private sector participation,
project development and financial analyses. Although we haven't yet found the pre-
cise combination for complete success, we have built a solid base of experience and
data, and have learned a lot. We are pleased to be able to share our experience for
the benefit of others, including the federal government.
Thank you for your interest.
Statement of Charles H. Smith
Mr. Chairman and members of the Transportation Subcommittee, thank you for
permitting me to submit this written statement to accompany my oral presentation
to the subcommittee on March 4. This report will proviae additional oetail on the
high speed rail and maglev projects in Florida.
For the past ten years, the State of Florida has been aggressively working to es-
tablish high speed rail and maglev transportation systems as a component of our
state's transportation network. Not only do we have to accommodate our normal
population and business activities, but we also have to supply transportation facili-
ties for the 40 million tourists who visit our state each year. As you can imagine,
this places an extraordinary strain on our existing highways and airports. High
speed surface systems must be developed to complement these other modes and
allow us to minimize the difficult prospect of trying to accommodate all of our travel
with new or expanded highways and airports. RQgh speed ground transportation,
whether wheel on rail or maglev technologies, is an energy efficient ancf environ-
mentally sensitive form of passenger transportation that can reduce our dependence
87
on foreign oil and create a new industry with all of the attendant jobs and economic
stimulus activity.
FEASIBIUTY STUDIES
Commencing with statewide feasibility and technology studies in 1982, our state
has moved forward deliberately and systematicallv with environmental, financial
and technology evaluations for several high speed rail and maglev proposals. In
1984, a high speed rail feasibility study concluded that implementation of a high
speed rail system in the state was feasible and that these systems could be bmlt
and operated profitably by private sector enterprise using innovative financing tech-
niques. This conclusion was based on the assimiptions that right of way would be
provided by the state and that tax exempt bonding, real estate development and
benefit assessment methods would be used to finance the project's infi-astructure
costs.
PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP
In 1984, the Florida legislature enacted the Florida High Speed Rail Transpor-
tation Commission Act which established the authority to solicit private sector pro-
posals to finance, build and operate high speed rail systems in the State. The Act
estabUshed a centralized, competitive procurement and licensing procedxire for the
award of a franchise. Once issued, the fi-anchise was to become the sole authority
for the rail line, stations, and any real estate developments used for financing the
system. The Act created a "one-stop permitting process" for all environmental and
land use requirements.
In 1987, the State issued a request for proposals which was responded to in
March, 1988 by two private sector entities, the Florida High Speed Rail Corporation
and the Florida TGV Company. Both companies proposed to build a high speed rail
system from Miami to Orlando and Tampa. The Florida High Speed Rail Corpora-
tion proposed to use the ABB X-2000 technology and the Florida TGV Company
proposed to use the French TGV Atlantique train. Initiallv, both proposals assumed
revenues generated fi"om real estate developments would be used to offset capital
and infi-astructure costs. The local governments' opposition to the expanded use of
real estate development as the major means of financing this project along with the
realization by the two proposers that high speed rail systems could not be built
without public fiinding, led to the withdrawal of the applications fi-om further con-
sideration.
1992 HIGH SPEED RAIL ACT
A serious shortcoming in the 1984 statutory process was its failure to structure
decision-m£iking in a progressive, logical sequence that corresponded to business de-
cisions of any private entity undertaking a major capital investment. The Florida
legislature, amended the High Speed Rail Act in 1992 to deal with these problems
and to streamline the application and franchise process. The new law emphasizes
the need for a stronger public/private partnership.
Instead of the all encompassing process established by the original act, the
amended law created a phased approach to the application and fi-anchise process.
The first phase would be the approval and award of a fi-anchise to a private entity
to build a high speed rail system based on that entity's business and financial plans.
Once that is done, the Department, along with other local, regional and state agen-
cies, would work together with the fi"anchisee to develop the more detailed plans
such as design, construction and all environmental documentation for the project.
Formal local and statewide hearings would then be conducted and finally the Flor-
ida Governor an Cabinet would award certification for the project to move forward
to implementation.
CURRENT HIGH SPEED RAIL STUDIES
Before proceeding with a new request for proposals in accordance with the 1992
high speed rail act and with the new application and fi-anchise process, the Florida
Department of Transportation opted to conduct more detailed analysis of both inter-
city high speed rail ridership potential and of alignments and corridors throughout
the state that are suitable for high speed rail operation.
Starting in December, 1991, the Department undertook three study efforts as fol-
lows:
1. Statewide corridor assessment study: This study investigated various corridors
throughout the state and their potential for high speed rail implementation. The
88
study evaluated many existing rail, highway, and utility corridors and identified the
most promising candidates based on environmental consideration, physical features,
geometry, operational considerations and potential for capacity enhancement and for
high speed rail implementations.
2. Orlando-Tampa Corridor Assessment Study: This study investigated in more
detail the Orlando-Tampa Corridor and its suitability for high speed rail implemen-
tation. Because of intensive development and the existence of major wetlands within
the Corridor, the Orlando-Tampa Study was forced to focus on existing corridors
connecting Tampa to Orlando — mainly the I— 4/1-275 and the CSX rail corridors. Be-
cause of the geometric limitations associated with the CSX Corridor and the numer-
ous at-grade crossings that would have to be separated, the I-4/I-275 corridor is
f)roving to be the best alternative for high speed rail implementation between Or-
ando and Tampa. For this reason, the Department has undertaken a bold effort to
preserve an envelope within the median oi the I-4/I-275 corridor between Orlando
and Tampa for future high speed rail implementation. Several alternative route
alignments and station sites have been investigated as shown in Figure 1.
3. Statewide Market and Ridership Study. The purpose of this study is to docu-
ment existing intercity travel between Florida's major cities, to assess intercity trav-
el potential by alternative modes to develop intercity travel forecasting model, and
to forecast future intercity rail travel using different classes of rail service. As part
of this study, intercept surveys were conducted at several major highways and air-
ports throughout the state.
Data collected from the surveys were used to develop the Total Travel and Mode
Share Demand Models as shown in Figure 2. Figure 3 shows the 1992 travel market
analysis results. The largest intercity travel market is the Orlando-Tampa market
with 12.6 million person trips per year. As expected, the intercity travel market is
dominated by the automobile mode over short distance trips while bigger portions
of air trips are evident in longer distance trips such as Tampa — Southeast Florida
where air trips represent about 24 percent of the total intercity travel for that mar-
ket.
Applying the ridership models developed under this study, the annual ridership
on an Orlando-Tampa mgh speed rail system ranged from 1.8 to 2.8 million riders
depending on technology ana alignment, stations served, level of service provided,
and mode of access to the high speed rail stations. Appljdng the same models for
a Miami-Orlando-Tampa system, annual ridership estimates ranged from 4.6 to 7.3
million riders.
Upon completion of these studies in the spring of 1993, the Department will begin
implementation of a statewide high speed rail system in accordance with Qie
amended high speed rail act.
MAGLEV DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
In addition to its efforts to implement intercity high speed rail in Florida, the
state, through the enactment of the Maglev Demonstration Project Act by the Flor-
ida Legislature in 1988, is taking a lead role in furthering the development and im-
plementation of new high speed ground transportation technologies. The state is-
sued a request for proposals in 1988 to solicit domestic and international companies
to submit plans for wnat would likely be the first commercial maglev oneration in
the world. Responding to this request for proposals, a new Florida-basea company,
Maglev Transit, Inc., formed a consortium of domestic and international companies,
organized around the Transrapid maglev technology and submitted a proposal for
what we now call the Florida Maglev Project. Since its submittal in 1989, the MTI
proposal has gone through multiple certification reviews, numerous public hearings
and intense scrutiny by federal, state and local agencies to assure compliance vnth
every aspect of developing and approving a maior transportation project.
In June 1991, the Florida Governor and Cabinet issued a final certification order
which authorized MTI to proceed with project development. As of March 1993, MTI
has advised the Department that the partnership's financial plans are not process-
ing as planned and that they may request an extension of the deadlines for submis-
sion of final financial plans. Whether or not an extension will be granted will de-
pend on the nature ana extent of the MTI request.
MTI PLAN HIGHLIGHTS
If the project is built this system willprovide visitors to Orlando rapid access from
Orlando International Airport to the Cfentral Florida tourist area at International
Drive, 14 miles to the west. Figure 4 shows the location of this project.
More than 8 million annual passengers are projected to ride this system which
will operate around the clock with 15 minute headways during peak periods. The
89
13.5 mile trip will take only 6.5 minutes at a top speed of 250 mph. Highlights of
this proposal are as follows:
The Maglev Line
— Ler^th is 13.5 miles.
— Sin^e track guidewav will be on an elevated structure, minimizing environ-
mental impact on wetlands.
— Maintenance facility will be located at the International Drive end.
Technology
— Electromagnetic systems (EMS) Transrapid technology developed and tested in
Germany. Operational on test track since 1983, with speed capability of 350
mph.
— F*ropulsion is provided by a linear synchronous motor (LSM) constructed as an
integral part of liie guideway.
Financing
— ^Total project cost of $622 million. Major private financing will be provided by
Japanese investors. $97.5 million in federal funds were authorized in the Inter-
modal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 for the project.
— ^Equity financing will be provided through an international partnership of C.
Itoh, Dai-Ichi Kangyo Bank and others.
— Project developers also plan a major hotel complex at the International Drive
station.
Operations
— Projected to begin in 1997.
— 24 hour operations; 4 train sets of 5 cars. Each train has seating capacity of
400; daily carrying capacity of 51,200. 128 daily one-way trips planned with a
total annual ridership of 8.4 million in the first mil year of operation.
— ^Trains operate on 15 min. headways in peak periods. 6 minute trip time be-
tween stations; maximum speed of 250 mph.
Implementation Schedule
— The Department will provide public agency oversight for compliance with all
certification conditions.
— The Federal Railroad Administration will have jurisdiction for safety compli-
ance in accordance with the 1988 Railroad Safety Act.
— Construction must begin within 3 years of certification (June 1994).
— Construction will take approximately 2.5 years.
— ^Vehicle operational testing can be completed in 4 months after construction is
complete.
— Revenue operation must begin no later than 3 years after construction begins.
MAGLEV PROTOTYPE DEVELOPMENT
Recently two US-based maglev companies have announced plans to begin develop-
ment of domestic maglev prototjrpes in Florida. The American Magneplane consor-
tium has initiated plans to construct a 2-3 mile test track in the Lakeland area to
begin development of the superconducting Magneplane system.
The American Maglev Star consortium has issued plans to build a 20-mile reve-
nue line connecting Port Canaveral, Kennedy Space Center and the mainland. Ini-
tially, the line will be used to develop and test a superconducting maglev technology
for extension throughout the U.S.
Both these projects are being initiated with private funding, but expect to compete
for the maglev prototype program authorized in Section 1036(c) of the Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act.
Florida is recognized as a progressive center for maglev development because of
its state legislative initiatives and innovative technical work over many years. The
State of Florida and the private consortiums developing maglev and high speed rail
look forward to working closely with other states, the federal government and pri-
vate enterprise to make maglev and high speed rail a reality for the benefit of the
entire nation.
90
FIGURE 1
91
^
>>
9
.a
r/1
cd
o
o<
IH
jta
&I
2
&.
4>
<J
u
C/3
■**
•p-4
.^
^
ll
>^
a
:s
a
^^
0
< •
T3
u
a
cd
e
«4
4>
V
F"^
D.
a>
00
>
ji
cd
60
M
ffi
H
(0
>■
UJ
>
cc
UJ
»-
»-
oc
t
o
<
m
•
• • w
U • <•
e o «
• CO
I 5 -
£ £ t:
X, °- «
e -o c
- • o
^ *^ m
• (« w
> " •
OC
e
o I «.
e o jc
O H
il
oc -
O lu
S; "
^ I
< «
or Ul
(0
UJ
!<
o
UJ
(t
o
o
<
CO
_J
UJ
•«
o
•
^^
~
o
2
<
•
m
K
UJ
•
•
•
c
o
E
o
e
•
<
o
a
X
CO
«
c
«
>
«
UJ
3
9
o
■<
e
T
o
2
o
O
CO
m
oc
O
«
a.
o
H "
(Hi »s
o ::
CO
H
O
H
X
tt)
H
Q
FIGURE 2
92
1
.»'*H
*— ^
^^*
^
^
^
^
?
?
^
^
^
CO
CO
T-
a>
CO
<j>
^
2
o.
o^
o.
CO
^
O
o
ai
d
h,'
(0
CM
r-
Q.
Di:
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
o
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
o
JQ
K-
CN|
O
T—
CO
(D
CM
00
^
lO
^
c^
?■
co'
▼-"
cd"
h-"
cm'
cvi"
ctT
cd"
oo"
3
<o
-^
o
>
-^
<
u>
lO
>
r
O
a:
c
0)
^
#
?
^
^
?
^
^
^
9wmt
1^
r^
o>
T—
h-;
en
o>
<D
T—
if>
(0
Q.
o>
O)
oi
<o
uj
ai
ai
d
ai
csi
s
>
2-
2.
2-
r-^
2-
a>
2-
2-
2-
00
0
<TJ
0^
O
O
O
O
o
O
O
O
O
O
c
H
O
O
O
O
o
O
O
O
O
O
2
<
o
h-
'^^
00
O
CO
ai
CO
CO
to
CM
co"
^-f
O)
CO
CO
o
CD
00
^ —
lO
00
>
(1)
15
in
C7)
h-
CO
O
lO
h-
5
CD
CD
c
^
<
(N
r-"
T-'
o'
C)
^J-"
Cvf
0
u
T-
T~
C
(Q
«
S
■c
a
a
c
Hi.
£
re
</:
o
s:
U
"O
r
>
<n
o
o
<D
m
re
mmm
>
■4-»
W
re
o
o
re
o
m
re
re
■a
jO)
>
c
'ki
o
C 1
i
E
c
u
o
O
(0
'C
C
M^
c
O
UL
o
UJ
•
CV4
c
o
u
c
o
o
u.
o
(0
o
o
re
o
>»
(0
- .2
o>
iS
to
>»
UJ
(/)
i
u
Q.
re
LU
re
T-
o
1
Q.
(0
1
Q
1
re
7
CO
o
Q
1
O
6
7
o
>
c
re
n
(«
re
re
T3
■o
T3
T3
o
a
a.
Q.
Q.
Q.
C
c
C
C
</>
E
E
E
E
E
re
re
re
re
o
ra
(0
re
re
re
k.
k.
k.
^
re
1-
H
H
H
1-
O
O
O
O
.->
FIGURE
3
•
93
/a
Q.
20
X
Q a
UJ
Z QC
UJ
3<
z
Ij
1
op!
111
z
LU
z
QC
:2L
UJ
m
pL_
UJ
I
5o
^"^^
Q.
P Q
^
k
t z
\
i^
\
J
o £
\
f
Q o
r
s
FIGURE A
68-623 0—93 4
94
FUNDING HIGH-SPEED RAIL AND MAGLEV SYSTEMS
Senator Lautenberg. I think we've established a record for six
witnesses, each of whom has finished on time. That talks about
high speed in the condensed form.
I assume that you heard some of the questions that were asked
before of the first panel. And I want to resubmit those questions
to you. And any one of you who would like to jump in, I would in-
vite to do so.
And that is, with the $1.3 billion that President Clinton has pro-
posed to be available for the development of high-speed rail and
maglev systems, any comments you'd like to make about how this
committee should distribute these funds in order to maximize the
development of high-speed rail systems around the country.
Are there any volunteers? Ken?
Mr. Mead. Yes, sir. Do you see this map here, down on the floor?
Senator Lautenberg. I see it.
Mr. Mead. There are more high-speed rail corridors designated
on there than FRA has designated. You would be interested in no-
ticing that of the five corridors that FRA designated, none of them
are the corridors for which there is a pending ultra high-speed pro-
posal.
I think the incremental approach definitely ought to be pursued.
I think that the committee needs to give some attention to higher
speeds in the nonelectrified corridors.
And also I think some attention ought to be paid to one or two
flagship projects in this country. If we try to pursue five or six flag-
ship projects, you're going to spread the money too thin. The pri-
vate investors will not be there.
Senator Lautenberg. Do any of you disagree with Mr. Mead's
comments?
Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I think there are several
States that have been very active in high-speed rail planning and
have gotten their plans well along; certainly Texas ana Florida.
We're engaged in trying to develop a maglev project right now.
I mentioned to you that we have plans to preserve and to actually
design the Interstate 4 median between Tampa and Orlando. To
me, that illustrates a very, very good place to begin to develop a
real serious high-speed rail program.
The market is there. We've done a market study. We think we
are ready to really move forward, if the funds are there, and would
do that.
Senator Lautenberg. I'm not surprised, Mr. Smith, that you rec-
ommended we consider the initiatives developed by Florida, but if
one were to argue another side, one could say, well, you have a sig-
nificant problem with grade crossings in Florida. But I'm not sug-
gesting tnat your State should not be one of those.
I think it could be very well served by high-speed rail in the
State of Florida, but it's hard not to agree that is concentrating our
relatively limited investment capability in a few areas. Let's get
these programs going.
Mr. Mead, I'm struck by the chart that sits on the bottom there,
that says if you want to get into maglev, the costs per mile are sig-
nificantly more than the others. And I assume that the other cal-
95
culations include the cost for acquiring rights-of-way and so forth,
which is essential for the TGV kinds of programs.
Mr. Mead. Yes, sir.
Senator Lautenberg. OK. Does anyone at the table know of any
maglev programs that are operational for passenger service on a
routine basis? Mr. Vranich?
Mr. Vranich. Mr. Chairman, none are in operation in revenue
service. I did, about 6 months ago, ride the Grerman Transrapid
maglev line at 190 miles an hour.
Senator Lautenberg. The length of that trip was?
Mr. Vranich. The length of the — oh, it isn't very long. It's only
about
Senator LAUTENBERG. It's harder to stop and then start-
Mr. Vranich [continuing]. Seven miles or something like that.
But it was remarkable to me how good the ride was. And I think
what we have with maglev is an emerging technology that I always
like to say it's a sure thing. It's going to happen. Just like every-
body was convinced that the Wright Brothers' second flight would
happen.
Senator Lautenberg. Do you know when the first maglev dem-
onstration was performed?
Mr. Vranich. Starting 20 years ago, the Germans and Japanese
began developing these projects and have poured — each country
has poured more than $1 billion into it.
The Japanese technology, by the way, is the one that comes in
at about $60 million a mile, because it's a unique superconducting
system that has to handle Japan's rugged mountains. And there's
a lot of tunneling there.
I always disagree that that is a possible cost in the United
States, because other than the first line, demonstration line, I
think the costs for maglev can be brought way down. And experts
at companies like Gruman say that they could build it for between
$10, $15, and $20 million a mile, depending on topography.
Senator Lautenberg. Why wouldn't an inclination be there to
try to adopt the TGV steel-on-steel type of system? Because it's my
understanding that in the Northeast corridor section north of New
York on the way to Boston, that some track straightening could be
done for a cost of around $1 billion, plus a small sum, maybe a
total of $1.2 billion, and you could get benefits almost immediately
upon completion of some of the track realignment?
Mr. Vranich. Oh, you can. And I'm fond of seeing that there are
different high-speed surface transportation solutions for different
parts of the country.
In brief, I could make an argument to you that we probably
should go to maglev line from Anaheim, CA, to Las Vegas, over the
rough mountains, avoid tunneling, save money. Maybe I could
build that less expensively than a steel-wheel line.
In a place like Ohio, from Cleveland to Cincinnati, or Texas, Dal-
las to Houston, trains like the French TGV, German ICE, are per-
fect. They're fairly flat. And there's a lot of reasons why they work.
So, I always like to say that there are different trains for different
terrains.
Senator Lautenberg. We could have the "love train." [Laughter.]
96
That's the counterpart to the boat. What's the distance of the Or-
lando project, Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith. It's 13 V2 miles, Senator. And it's the only project in
the country that actually has gone through a certification process,
where the State has actually awarded the rights to a company to
build that project.
On its present schedule, it's to go under construction within 2
years, and would be in operation in 3 years.
Senator Lautenberg. What would be the mission there for high-
speed service? Is that the primary reason for doing high-speed
service or does maglev lend itself to the terrain or the
topographical
Mr. Smith. No; this is a demonstration project. It's in a unique
market in Orlando going over to the Disney area. And it does have
a built-in ridership market. The State law that authorized this
project was a demonstration statute that wanted to demonstrate
this new technology.
This system certainly could become the high-speed intercity tech-
nology, once it's proven, but obviously we'd want to make sure it
works and gets built.
Senator Lautenberg. Would it be part of the Disney complex?
Is the mission to get folks to take an amusing ride? Because for 15
miles, if you go 60 miles an hour, the arithmetic's pretty simple.
I mean, it's not the kind of thing that would say, well, let's fly in-
stead of taking that 15-minute train ride,
I just wonder whether maybe we ought to call up Michael Eisner,
whom I know, and see if they would do it out of the Disney funds.
Mr. Smith. I think somebody called him. And he said no.
Senator LAUTENBERG. He said no. But what about the question
of uniformity? Should the systems be the same? Is there an advan-
tage to having a national standard — of technology A or technology
B — and having high-speed sections of that system?
I mean, you're not going to go cross-country at 200 miles an hour
on a train. It's just not going to be economically feasible. But how
about the fact that there is an interconnect and you can use equip-
ment easily, interchangeably, between the different systems?
Mr. Mead. I think that's an interesting point. The Ministry of
Research and Development in Grermany sponsors the Transrapid
maglev. It's interesting to note that the Ministry of Transport
seems to be supporting steel-wheel on steel-rail, where the research
arm of the government is supporting maglev.
And I'm not sure what the answer to your question is, but I be-
lieve the Grermans are facing this issue. The maglev research and
development in Grermany is being financed, but has not been put
into revenue service there. And I don't know of any immediate
plans to put it into revenue service in Grermany.
Dr. MULVEY. There's also some trends toward integrating these
high-speed rail systems with the Nation's airports, so that these
systems become feeder operations, substituting for many short dis-
tance air trips and becoming not only part of the Nation's rsiil sys-
tem, but part of its overall intermodaJ transportation system.
Senator Lautenberg. The loan guarantees present an interest-
ing prospect, because it's believed that at least $10 in private sec-
97
tor financing can be arranged for every $1 appropriated. That's
with, again, Government guarantees.
Does it strike you as reliably the best way to leverage private
sector dollars toward the development of high-speed rail systems?
Mr. Salci. I think that to answer that question and to preface
it by your former question, I think that the project that we're in-
volved in in Texas, which has been a project where there has been
certificate of public need established by a public agency and about
3 years of work and about $30 million of actual private investment
to complete ridership and environmental studies, is nearing com-
pletion.
The ability for any of these projects, like Texas, to be successfully
financed, obviously depends primarily on what the ridership num-
bers are going to be, because that's going to generate revenue.
But getting them off of the ground, as I said in my remarks, the
venture capital required, the up-front moneys, clearly having the
capacity of Government-backed guarantees is critical. And to fur-
ther amplify that, the comment you made earlier to Mr. Cla3rtor
about the TGV and the financing, it is true that the French have
a very strong national policy on their ground transport systems,
but the reality is that setting aside that, yes, there's electrical nu-
clear power, the system was financed with Government guaran-
tees— ^the initial system, the Southeast Line — initially on an 11-
year schedule, and it was repaid in 9.
And the Atlantique Line, the second line that was put up and
running in 1989, is undergoing the same kind of payback, even
with a greater acceleration.
So the realitv is, under the right environments, yes, these things
can be privately financed, but this is not France and I don't want
to represent that. The case in Texas, in particular, is we have a sit-
uation where there are 19 million people today traveling amongst
these three major cities, of which about two-thirds of the State of
Texas live or reside within that Texas Triangle.
The forecasted ridership for the 1998 timeframe, when this sys-
tem would be theoretically up and running if it proceeds, is about
30 million travelers, and by the year 2015, about 60 million.
So the reality is. No. 1, the existing capacities of highways and
airports simply can't even begin to meet the growing demand that's
going to be there. And Texas is a populous and growing State.
And, second, we believe the project in Texas will be compatible
with airline travel. In fact, a large part of the forecasted ridership
analysis is based on the ability to supplant the intrastate ridership
currently carried by American and Delta Airlines, who have large
hubs and who don't make a lot of money running these hubs. I
mean, American Airlines just recently announced they want to get
out of the short haul business.
These cities are of ideal distances, about 200 to 300 miles apart.
And the TGV type of system, we think, is ideal, but up front
Senator Lautenberg. Has Texas, the State of Texas, decided to
put any State funding into this project at this juncture?
Mr. Salci. At this juncture, the State has not. The State, in the
creation of its authority, indicated that the authority itself would
be not eligible for State funds, but that doesn't prohibit the cor-
poration itself from potentially being eligible, but that's an issue
98
that we're going to have to address, Mr. Chairman, There's no
question about that.
Senator Lautenberg. Could guarantees be a substitute for
bonds, do you think? Would there be larger appeal for guarantees,
significantly, than straight bonding issues?
Mr. Salci. I think that's a function of interest rates and the mar-
kets at the time you go to market, Mr. Chairman. And today's mar-
ket rates are very attractive. And tax-exempt bonds versus conven-
tional, the basis point spread isn't that great, but this current situ-
ation isn't going to last forever. And having that capacity, I think,
is very important.
Senator Lautenberg. The Question is: How do we treat the ac-
counting here? Is there a standard now by which we charge our op-
erating budgets with credit guarantees?
Mr. Mead. Yes; I'll get back to vou on a full response for that
question for the record, but, you know, several years ago, these
things, guaranteed programs, were off-budget.
For example, title 11, Maritime Administration Program had in-
vested heavily in L and G fleets. It went belly-up. The full faith
and credit of the United States then was called upon. And Con-
gress had to keep putting money into this program, but it was to-
tally off-budget.
It has been changed, but I'm not sure exactly how it has been
changed. I don't think it is considered 100-percent outlay.
Senator Lautenberg. Since I asked Mr. Salci the question: How
much funding has been provided by the other States who have a
specific interest represented?
Mr. Smith. Well, in Florida, Senator, our statute does not pro-
hibit public funding. Although during the process, the private com-
panies have come in and evaluated whether or not they could pro-
vide the financing through their own sources; equity, loan guaran-
tees from their own sources, as well as the real estate. And they
pursued that for several years and never did ask the State until
the very end for funding.
And at that point, it was a little — politically, it just wasn't pos-
sible. The State of Florida was in a budget crunch. And we weren't
able to respond favorably, but they simply weren't able to finance
it through the private sector process that had been established, but
we're not prohibited from spending public funds.
Senator Lautenberg. But there's been nothing so far.
Mr. Faulkner, is there anything from Ohio?
Mr. Faulkner. All of the effort, to date, on the implementation
plan of our consortium has amounted to about $1.5 million, which
is basically a feasibility plan for moving forward, but we have not
advanced into the actual preliminary development until the clearer
signs of the sources are there.
Senator Lautenberg. How about the involvement of your State
environmental agencies in supporting the projects and interest in
compliance with clean air environmental impact statements? What
kind of response have you seen thus far?
Mr. Smith. In our process in Florida, we have an environmental
certification process tnat goes with the project. And all of the State
agencies and local agencies; in fact, the private environmental
groups, were very, very supportive of high-speed rail and maglev.
99
Probably in the case of the maglev project, it was certified in record
time, because it was viewed as an environmentally sound project.
The environmental people would look at it and say the alter-
native is so much worse, that high-speed rail or maglev systems
really should be built in environmentally sensitive areas, such as
Florida and other States as well.
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Faulkner, have you had any involve-
ment at all from your State environmental department?
Mr. Faulkner. The environmental group has been pretty much
like Florida. They're very supportive in theory of what high-speed
rail can do, but to be quite honest, I don't think they see it as a
near-term reality. So they aren't really taking any official position.
Most of the effort has been directed more to metropolitan areas
where they're having to deal with the requirements under the
Clean Air Act.
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Salci, do you
Mr. Salci. We have made substantial progress. We have-
through the franchise process in Texas, the authority itself that's
governing the regulatory aspects — has hired an environmental con-
sultant, which we, the private consortium, are paying for. The work
is about one-half complete.
It basically is work that's being done at the basic level of comply-
ing with the National Environmental Protection Act. We've had
about 50 scoping meetings throughout the State, soliciting public
participation; that includes all of the various State agencies. And
the Federal Railway Administration has been very deeply involved
in assisting us in that process.
Senator Lautenberg. Do any of you believe that — Mr. Smith, in
your case, I just had visited Florida and I spoke to some of the
transportation people there. There's a great deal of interest in an-
other north-south highway adjunct to the turnpike and 95, I guess
it is, or 195 — I don't remember the number. Do you think your
State would support your high-speed rail projects with Federal
highway funds if they had the opportunity to do so?
Mr. Smith. In principle, if they had the opportunity to do so. I
guess. Senator, the — unfortunately, Florida is one of the donor
States where we send a lot more money to Washington than we get
back. I think it's about 82 cents on the dollar we get back. So it
makes it difficult.
However, let me state that our policy in our State and Secretary
of our Transportation Department, Secretary Watts, about a year
ago, announced a policy that we would not build anymore inter-
state or intrastate highways greater than 10 lanes total, 4 of which
would be HOV lanes; and as part of that policy, said that any time
we plan or rebuild a highway, we're going to plan to accommodate
a high-speed rail or transit system in urban areas, depending on
the location.
So I think our policy is very clear that we're going to support
high-speed rail to the extent we can, using the flexibility of provi-
sions of ISTEA or any other future provisions that may come along.
The project I mentioned about the Orlando-Tampa 1-4 recon-
struction, that work is, right now, being funded, obviously, from the
highway program; however, some of those funds and some of that
work will, in fact, result in a right-of-way, a grade-separated, fully
100
dedicated right-of-way for a high-speed rail line connecting Tampa
to Orlando on a route of about 75 miles. So, in effect, we are using
highway funds and planning activities to support the high-speed
rail effort.
Senator Lautenberg. Don't you think — and by the way, I sup-
port rail rights-of-way along our highways, but don't you think that
it then presents a competitive attraction for the passenger who
says, "Well, OK. Today the weather is a little bad. I'll hop on the
train. Tomorrow, if it's a nice day, we'll put the top down and go"?
The answer I get from your comments, Mr. Smith, is that, yes,
if we can build highways, we can kind of include some rail service.
Florida got $97 million, I believe, for its interests, to date. I hope
that your State doesn't feel short-changed on the terms of donor or
donee relationship. We had quite a discussion about that during
the ISTEA debate. And I think that things have been adjusted to
make sure that our friends in Florida, particularly, are treated fair-
ly. There's a lot of appeal here.
Mr. Smith. We appreciate that. And we are, indeed, treated fair-
ly. My only thought was that we have such tremendous highway
needs that, probably, it would be very difficult for our highway pol-
icymakers to just be able to take money that is absolutely essential
for highways and transfer it to high-speed rail, but where it can
work, we certainly intend to use the flexibility provisions of the
highway program.
Senator LAUTENBERG. Your maglev project was scheduled to have
all of its financing arranged — I think you mentioned in your com-
ments— by this June and can start construction within 1993. Is
that schedule still on track?
Mr. Smith. Senator, probably, just as — quite recently, it probably
isn't. We probably will be asked to consider an extension of time
for that deadline. I think with a project of this magnitude, with the
new technology and totally a new concept, it's not unexpected, but
we probably will be asked to extend it, which the department has
the authority to do.
Senator Lautenberg. Is the Japanese investment community in-
terested in financing the project?
Mr. Smith. Yes; the project is financed, primarily, by Japanese
investments. The Bank of Tokyo and several other large trading
companies are involved in the financing arrangement with the — of
course, the German organization is supplying the technology. And
that's been somewhat of a difficult set of negotiations, as I under-
stand, of getting that partnership agreement.
Senator Lautenberg. Translation. [Laughter.]
Why isn't the American investment community interested, in
your view, Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith. As a matter of fact, I think they are interested. I
think that — ^we're going to begin to see and you're going to hear
very shortly an announcement in Florida of an American consor-
tium that is going to build the prototype maglev system for the
United States, the United States of America, using aerospace and
defense industries.
A number of companies are beginning to form up. This is a very
serious effort that's being promoted by the inventors of this
maglev — originally, Dr. Gordon Danby and Jim Powell from New
101
York. And they have been very interested and active in defining
and designing what they think should be the prototype system for
the United States, which answers one of your questions you raised
earlier about should we have a single type of technology.
Certainly, in the case of maglev. We're probably going to have
maglev and wheel rail systems in this country. I don't have any
doubt about that, but for the maglev system that becomes the
interstate or the intercity system for large regions, clearly, it ought
to be one technology. And I think that's the purpose of the ISTEA
prototype program.
So there are U.S. companies being formed up for that purpose.
Mr. Mead. Just a prospective point, Mr. Chairman. For the cost
of these systems, the R&D component is important, but the actual
hardware is about 20 to 25 percent of the cost.
Senator Lautenberg. That's a lot of soft costs, if you can de-
scribe it that way.
Thank you very much, gentlemen.
PANEL III
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
Lehman Brothers
statement of mr. robert c. brown, senior vice president
Moody's Investment Services
statement of kathy evers, assistant vice president, mass
transit specialty group
The Hadley Group
statement of harriet stanley, principal
Dillon Reed & Co., Inc.
statement of marc fasteau, managing director, public fi-
nance department
Public Securities Association
statement of micah green, executive vice president
introduction of witnesses
Senator Lautenberg. We'd now, at this late moment, like to
hear from the next panel, the people from the investment commu-
nity. We're anxious to hear their testimony.
Thank you very much.
Take the right name plate, otherwise we'll attribute your state-
ments to your predecessors here.
Mr. Brown, Ms. Evers, Ms. Stanley, Mr. Fasteau, Mr. Perez, and
Mr. Green. Is everybody here?
Well, we thank you very much. We're anxious to have the testi-
mony summarized. And we would call first on Mr. Brown, senior
vice president of Lehman Brothers, where I, in my former iteration,
had a significant amount of contact. It has nothing to do with my
favorability, I must tell you, but Lehman Brothers did a lot of work
with my old company, ADP.
Now, once again, Mr. Brown, please.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT C. BROWN
Mr. Brown. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I can tell
you, Lehman Brothers has very much valued its association with
you during your time in the private sector.
Just by way of introduction, prior to coming to Wall Street, I was
assistant director of the Ohio Department of Transportation. And
one of my responsibilities there was administration of Ohio's work,
(103)
104
at that time, in the 1980's, in investigating the feasibility of a high-
speed rail system for the State of Ohio.
There really are two finance issues, I think, raised by high-speed
rail. One is the credit question, and the second is revenue suffi-
ciency.
There are a number of panelists here today on credit. And I will
say very little about that, except to say that certainly there are ele-
ments of a high-speed rail system that — for which credits can be
fashioned, which will be creditworthy and marketable.
And those elements could be financed. But the more fundamental
question for high-speed rail, as you have been hearing from many
panelists today, is the question of revenues and project economics.
And we should be blunt about this, Mr. Chairman.
In the United States, high-speed rail is not a self-financing prop-
osition. There simply are not enough revenues generated by a
project to finance the entire program. A 1991 transportation re-
search board study, which was an excellent and comprehensive
study, concluded it is unlikelv that any new high-speed rail system
in a major U.S. corridor would cover its capital and operating costs
from farebox revenues.
This is not a situation, but for congressional enactment of liberal-
izing enabling legislation, the private sector will come forward and
finance. And by enabling legislation, I include in that category the
loan guarantees that there's been some talk of this morning. That
kind of credit enhancement or other enabling legislation is not
enough to enable one of these projects to be financed.
What I would propose, Mr. Chairman, is a system of public high-
speed rail corridors. And by that, I mean corridors that would be
provided right-of-way that would be provided by the Government,
drawing on the kinds of lessons that the Federal Government has
learned from the successful experience with aviation and highway
systems.
The right-of-ways would be constructed through some sort of
Federal-State partnership, very much like the interstate system.
The users of the corridor, the operators in the corridor, would be
private. They would be private carriers, which would lease space.
The technology could be varied in the corridors. In fact, that I
would envision would actually make provision for both steel-wheel
type facilities and the maglev facilities that there's been some talk
about today.
The lease payments that private carriers would pay should be
sufficient to cover operating and maintenance costs. You've heard
some discussion about that today. There are those kinds of projec-
tions for usage of these corridors, but operating and maintenance
costs — and that would include energy costs — could be covered.
There might be, in addition, some contribution to capital, but cer-
tainly, clearly, not enough to fully fund all of the capital costs of
these programs.
The benefits that I would see from this kind of program are that
there would be some sort of national uniformity of purpose. And
you talked a few minutes ago in some of your questions, Mr. Chair-
man— raised some questions about a somewhat haphazard pattern
developing as these different projects are being constructed and de-
signed all over the country.
105
With this kind of a program, there would be some national uni-
formity of purpose and also national uniformity of standards in
terms of safety and environmental standards.
At the same time, by having private operators in the corridor,
you would draw upon all of the private sector benefits that we typi-
cally find attractive in the American economy; innovation, effi-
ciency, competition, those sorts of things.
This kind of program is not a small program. I don't mean to
suggest that it is not a major effort by the Federal Grovemment. It
would be an expensive program, but it is the kind of program that
is in the same order of magnitude as the programs that we have
had and do have now for the highway and aviation industry. It par-
allels those programs very much.
And if we are headed for a major effort in infrastructure, in re-
building and revitalizing our infrastructure, this is the kind of
thing that I do think makes sense. It does have elements of user
financing that the existing programs have. It also has the kind of
private entrepreneurship that you get in the — for example, the air-
line industry, by having competing air carriers.
And, yet, you also have, by virtue of the Federal involvement,
you do have the kind of national planning and attention to national
goals, consistent national goals, that is important in any kind of a
vast public works program like that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Mr. Brown. I do have a statement for the record that I'd like to
submit.
Senator Lautenberg. We'll include that.
[The statement follows:]
Statement of Robert Clarke Brown
My name is Robert Clarke Brown. I am a Senior Vice President of Lehman Broth-
ers' transportation group, which is part of the Firm's pubUc finance investment
banking department. Lehman Brothers provides investment banking and financial
advisory services to public agencies throughout the United States, particularly those
engaged in financing transportation and other infi-astructure facilities.
In assessing the financial capability of high speed rail, the investment community
will look at two questions:
(1) Is revenue from the project sufficient to be leveraged into enough debt to build
the project?
(2) Is the credit strong enough that the debt can be sold in the bond market?
As I wUl discuss below, the answer to the first question is No, available revenues
fall far short of required levels. The answer to the second is more complicated, but
encouraging: credit structures can be devised for certain elements of a high speed
rail project to enable it to be financed.
REVENUE SUFFICIENCY
Let's be blunt. High speed rail in the United States is not a self-financing propo-
sition. Project revenues alone — in every corridor with the possible, but unlikely, ex-
ception of Boston-New York-Washington — will not support both capital costs and op-
erating expenses. As the Transportation Research Board concluded in a 1991 study:
106
It Is unlikely that any new [high speed rail] system in a major U.S. corridor would
cover its capital and operating costs from farebox revenues.^
If TRB is right, and I have no doubt that it is, government guarantees and similar
off-budget fixes will be of no help, for the problem is not with tiie credit. The prob-
lem is insufficient revenue.
But TRB's candid assessment does not mean high speed rail has no futxire in the
United States. It simply means that governmental assistance is necessary. To date,
infatuation with theories like privatization, joint development, and the like has
tended to obscure that need.
Prior to going to Wall Street, I served in the mid-1980's as Assistant Director of
the Ohio Department of Transportation. One of my responsibilities was to admin-
ister the state's efforts with regard to high speed rail transportation. It quickly be-
came clear to me that high speed rail, for all its varied attractions — efficient, envi-
ronmental, even romantic, was far too expensive to stand on its own. Ohio's project
could never go forward without substantial state financial support. But there was
neither the political consensus nor the political leadership necessary to fashion that
support in Ohio.
Nor has there been anjnvhere else in the United States. To this day, ovu- country
has no high speed rail project. And there will be none, I believe, until there is an
acknowledgment of the need for government support. TTie issue for the Congress is
how to design that support so that it imposes tne smallest cost on the federal gov-
ernment while drawing maximum support fi^m other sources.
THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT IN NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS
Building any transportation system is a costiy undertaking, and many of the sys-
tem's benefits are too difiuse to be captured and applied to project cost — that is why
government gets involved. Building a high speed rail system is no exception. It is
no more realistic to expect the private sector to step forward and alone finance an
American high speed rail network than it would have been to expect it to finance
the Interstate highway system.
The nation's transportation systems are its economic lifeblood. They are enor-
mously expensive to build, and once built, they affect the way Americans live and
work for generations. For those reasons, they have been constructed through col-
laborative efforts of the federal, state and local governments and the private sector.
These collaborative efforts ensure that the programs are based on both sound eco-
nomics and wise policies.
The federal highway system (of which the Interstate system is a part), for exam-
ple, has been designed and bmlt by a federal-state partnership. The private sector's
contribution has been in the funding — principally fuel excise taxes. Airports are also
built bv intergovernmental partnerships, usually between the federal government
and a local agency. User fees imposed on both passengers and airlines contribute
a major share of airport costs. "The federal government contributes the "right-of-
wajr" — the air traffic control system.
"The collaborative efforts which have produced the highway and air travel systems
work well for many reasons:
— Participation of all interested parties forces an economic realism on project
scope and cost.
— Federal involvement produces adherence to environmental and safety stand-
ards.
— Local government participation introduces land-use planning considerations.
But it is the role of the federal government that is most important in shaping
these programs. Drawing upon a national political consensus, federal leadership cre-
ates the uniformity of vision and purpose that is critical for an investment of^such
vast proportion and so pervasive and permanent an effect.
AN AMERICAN SYSTEM BASED ON PUBUC mGH-SPEED RAIL CORRIDORS
The federal government can draw upon its successful experience with its highway
and air programs to devise a collaborative plan that will bring high speed rsul serv-
ice to the United States. The heart of the plan should be a system of "public high
speed rail corridors." The corridors would be built, owned, and maintained by the
government. Transportation service in the corridors would be provided by private
parties.
^ Transportation Research Board, In Pursuit of Speed— New Options for Intercity Passenger
Transport, p. 8.
107
The corridors would be built by a federal-state partnership similar to that which
built the Interstate highway system. Federal design standards would ensure safety
and technical compatibility with a variety of types of rolling stock; states would op-
erate and maintain the system. The federal government and the states would jointly
determine corridor locations, with substantial input from those likely to use it.
Initial construction in the corridors would, in all likelihood, be for conventional
steel-wheel high speed technology. But the corridors should be of adequate size and
alignment to later accommodate mag-lev technology. Large sections would be
double- and triple-tracked to allow for multiple users and equipment of differing
performance capabilities (e.g., different operating speeds).
Usage of the corridors could be leased by any private party, which in most cases
would be a common carrier. Such leases would not be financing leases, since use
of the corridors would not generate sufficient revenues to amortize the capital cost
of the corridor. Revenues would be at least sufficient, however, to cover both the
maintenance and energy costs of the governmental owner. They should also be large
enough to pay debt service on the tax-exempt bonds the states would issue to fund
their share of the capital cost.
The private users would supply the rolling stock, just as the airlines supply air-
craft. Because of its mobility and relative standardization, rolling stock woiUd be
financable, either by the operator or by a leasing company, as are aircraft. Under
present law, high speed rail rolling stock cannot be financed with tax-exempt bonds,
although other tax benefits, such as the investment tax credit and depreciation,
would be available to a private party.
Individual private users might build privately owned spur lines connecting to the
Eublic corridor system, just as there are some private interchanges on Interstate
ighways.
Stations could be funded, as are airport terminals, through financing leases with
the private users of the corridors. Local governments seeking to attract better rail
service might contribute to the construction of such stations, either directly or by
lending their credit. Stations can probably be financed with tax-exempt bonds under
current law.
Who might the private users of the new high speed rail corridors be? Some would
be new entrants to the transportation industry, to be sure. But airlines might also
find it a profitable business, both because it's a business they already know — trans-
portation— and because it would be a way to collect customers for their air service
and funnel them to airports — a multi-modal elaboration of the current hub system
the large carriers all now use. And of course the railroads, which do not want the
complication of high speed passenger trains on their own right-of-way, might find
new markets to develop as operators of a high speed rail service.
But the market for the corridors may well be larger than just passenger carriers.
Experience teaches that new technology and new services find many new homes in
the market place. Overnight delivery of small packages has become a staple of mod-
em commerce. Providers of that service might find it more economical to replace
some of the aircraft in their fleets with trainsets. The federal government might also
find ways to support corridor users, as it supported the embryonic airline industry
at a critical time with mail contracts.
SOURCE OF GOVERNMENT FUNDING
Some may object to the idea of government provision of high speed rail right-of-
way, particularly if paid for from general funds. Other modes, they might say, are
funded by user fees. Unquestionably, user financing is an important and valid con-
cept in transportation funding. But examples of pure user funding are few and far
between.
Even though we think of both highways and airports as being "user" funded, nei-
ther is totally so. While users ■typically pay most of an airport's cost, the airwavs
provided by the federal air traffic control svstem — the "right-of-way — are paid wr
in part with general revenues. The federal excise tax on motor fuel is levied on
every gallon sold, not just those consumed on roads making up the federal highway
system. Moreover, within each program there are complex cross-subsidies. Most
studies show, for example, that large trucks pay less than the full cost of their use
of public roads and thus are the beneficiaries of a cross-subsidy from automobile
owners. Commercial airlines and general aviation users each believe costs and bene-
fits are unfairly apportioned between them.
In effect, the federal role in the case of both highways and air travel has been
to focus greater resources on the program than the program itself generates. A simi-
lar focusing of resources on high speed rail, particularly during its start-up phase,
seems equally appropriate.
108
CREDIT ISSUES
Financings tied directly to project revenues, particularly the first few, will be dif-
ficult credits in the market. This is so for two reasons. First, any start-up project
is a test of faith for investors. The large bond issues for the toll roads built in the
1950's, for example, were all sold without credit ratings because the rating agencies
would not rate start-ups. Even today, financings for start-up toll roads have a much
more difficult time of it in the market than do those for expansions of existing toll
roads. That is particularly so when the toll road is in a new market or represents
a new type of financing. Just yesterday, bonds were sold for a large start-up toll
road in California; it was rated by only one of the three major rating agencies.
Second, the inherent difficulty of start-up financings is compounded by the fact
that there is no significant American experience with commercial high speed rail
service. Consequently, ridership forecasts will be viewed even more skeptically than
are toll road traffic forecasts.
These kinds of credit concerns can be overcome, however, in the context of a pub-
lic high speed rail corridor program. By limiting the project elements which are fi-
nanced and structuring the credit to take advantage of outside credit support, it will
be possible to finance certain elements of the program. The rolling stock can be se-
cured by a pledge of the assets themselves, so those financings need not rely exclu-
sively on project revenues. States may choose to finance their match of federal as-
sistance by pledging lease revenues from the lessees of the corridor but then but-
tressing that pledge with a pledge of the state's credit.
TECHNICAL FIXES
Certainly the standard technical fixes the financial community has called for are
in order. Liberalization of tax-exempt bonding authority, such as the Clinton Admin-
istration's proposed removal of the requirement that 25 percent of any bond issue
for high speed rail must be under the private activity bond cap allocation, would
help. So would creation of a new category of "public activity" tax-exempt bonds not
subject to the alternative minimum tax. So would liberalization of the tax treatment
of non-governmental owners of high speed rail facilities financed with tax-exempt
bonds and expansion of tax-exempt bonding authority to include rolling stock.
But these improvements are only marginal. Both the Interstate highway system
and the air travel system have had profound effects on the American economy and
Americans' way of life, and so will a high speed rail network. Major change does
not come about through tinkering with the old way. It requires a clearly articulated
government policy and a concerted effort to implement it. Until that happens, there
will be no high speed rail in America.
109
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL PROGRAM
Florida was one of the Tirst states torccognlrc that its future transportation needs could
not be met solely tlirougb the extensive and very fine highway network and airport systems we
enjoy la this state. In 1982 Governor Bob Graham, by executive order, created a blue ribbon
committee to begin planning for a statewide high speed rail system. The committee initiated
»nd completed a comprehensive feasibility study in 1983 which concluded that a high speed
rail system could be built in Florida and, with innovative financing and incentives, could be
accomplished largely tbrough private sector initiative.
In 1984, the Florida Legislature enacted the Florida High Speed Rail Commission Act
which formalized this public-private partnership and created a seven-member Commission
within the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) to oversee the development and
implementation of high speed surface lines.
With the enactment of the High Speed Rail Act in 1984, Florida embarked on an
Innovative and far-reaching program to meet its future needs for an efficient trnntportatlon
system by planning for a statewide high speed rail line. Several foreign and domestic
technology companies with both operating and prototype systems expressed interest in
competing for a franchise to finance, build and operate the Florida system. The technologies
included advanced electrified whcet-on-rail systems, magnetically levitated and propelled
vehicles and linear induction motor technologies using advanced propulsion systems.
The Act authorized the state to plan and establish a high speed ground transportation
system for Florida based on the concept of a public-private partnership. This privatization
approach to pi ovidlng for major transportation facilities and services was unique and exclusive
to the High Speed Rail Act of 1984 and the subsequent Magnetic Lcvltation Demonstration
Project Act which was enacted in 1988. Planning for both ot these projects has been underway
in Florida (0 provide a statewide high speed rail system Initially connecting major urban areas
with trains capable of operating in excess of 120 mph. The Maglev demonstration project is
proposed to connect the Orlando International Airport with (he tourist attractions located along
iDternalional Drive in the vicinity of Walt Disney World.
Recognizing the difficulty in getting private sector financing for such huge projects,
the High Speed Rail Act provided several important iooentives for private enterprise to
consider in planning projects of this magnitadc. The primhry incentive was the opportunity
to use real estate development as a means of financing the eapital cost of the system. The Act
authorized the use of joint development, benefit assessment districts, tax increment financing
and the award of development rights as part of the franchise agreement. All of these methods
were available to the applicants In developing their proposajs. The Act also made available the
state's power of eminent domain to acquire corridor property through condemnation if that
were necessary.
The Act envisioned the use of already existing highway and rail corridors to minimize
environmental impact and the cost of land acquisition to thle applicant. Finally, the State was
authorized to issue tax-exempt bonds on behalf of the applicant Any bonds Issued under this
provision would have to be secured solely from the assets or revenues of the private sector
franchisee. No public funds derived from the taxing authority of the state or local jurisdiction
was to be used to secure any bonds issued for this purpose.
A« the application process progressed, two companies submitted their plans in 1988 for
review. The Florida High Speed Rail Corporation submitted » plan using Swedish high Speed
rail technology with financing based totally on real estati development revenues. The TOY.
Company of Florida based its'plans on the French developed TOY high speed train systems but
indicated that It would require publlp funding to* initiate its program. The proposed route
connected Miami, Orlando, and^he Tampa Bay area. •
Over the next three years an intensive review process was conducted involving
numerous public meetings. In 1989, the TGV proposal was li'ithdrawn by the applicant, leaving
the Florida High Speed Rail Corporation's plan as [he only proposal for continued
consideration. However, In July 1991, this proposal was also withdrawn due to the Inability
Of the private consortium to finance their plan.
no
On Jonc 6, 1991^ the Florida LcgUInlure abolished Ihe Florida High Speed Rail
Transportation Commission and integrated responsibilities for all high speed rail and maglev
programf within the Florida Deparlment of Transportation] This move consolidated highspeed
rail planning with the statewide rail iraprbvcmcnt prog/am that includes high speed rail,
commuter rail and intercity (Amtrak) services. In July 19^1, the Governor and the Secretary
of Transportation announced that the high speed rail franchise process would be reopened
pending revisions to the HSR Act that would streamline the franchise and certification
procedures. The revised High Speed Transportation Act df 1992 was enacted by the Florida
Legislature on March 8, 1992.
• In accordance with the High Speed Transportation' Act of 1992, the Department will
proceed to develop intercity rail facilities and services baicd on the following objective?:
Establish a statewide high speed rail system but perinlt implementation on a segmental
basis, first building those segments that generate tHe maximum riders and benefits.
Where appropriate, upgrade existing tracks and serVicc to allow Amtrak and commuter
rail to operate interim service pending funding abd construction to high speed rail
standards.
Use existing public funding, if available, for the iililial infrastructure and upgrades.
Conduct necessary riderjhip, market and cnvlroomehtal studies to support project right
of way, route alignment and engineering.
Continue efforts to secure federal funding and favorable legislation to support Florida
efforts.
Preserve the private sector role and real estate value capture as the bails for the future
«
Finally, establish a long term dedicated source of revenue for the total rail Improvement
prograrau
Based on the High Speed Transportation Act of 199^, the Department will continue to
work with private sector intircsU in developing the Floridi high speed transportation system.
FLORIDA MAGLEV PROJECT " .
The first operational high speed maglev train project in the United States is being
planned for the Orlando area in Central Florida. This project will be a 13.5 mile revenue
service demonstration of the Triosrapld Maglev Technology developed In Germany. The
Florida maglev train will connect (he Orlando International Airport with the Disney World
tourist area at a station on International Drive. .
MAGNETIC LEYITATION DEMONSTRATION PROJECT ACT
In 1988 the Florida Legislature enacted the 'Maglev Act" which directed the Florida
High Speed Rail Transportation Commission' to initiate the planning for a project to
demonstrate the new state-of-the-art maglev technology and establish Florida as a center for
the development of this new high-tech Industry.
In 1988 the Commlesion issued a Request for Proposals and in early 1989 a Florida
corpofatkuii Maglev Transit, Inc. (MTI) submitted a proposal for the Orlando project. Over a
two-year period following the appiicallon submittal, MTl's plan went through multiple
certification hearings conducted by the Commission, local organizations and an independent
Hearing Officer, These eertiflontion hearings were for the purpose of assuring the project met
all statutory requirements for financial feasibility, environmental protection, safety,
consistency with local comprehensive plans, compatibility with other transportation services
and facilities and numerous other requirements.
k)n June 6, 1991, the Florida High 5pe<d Rail Transportation Commission was abolished
by the Florida Legislature and the reBponslblllties for all high speed rail end maglev projects
were transferred 10 the FPOT.
Ill
On June 12, 1991. the Governor and Cabinet Issued a Tinal certification order which
authorized MTI lo complele Tina! plans and implement the project tubjeci to certain conditions
of certification. MTI expects to begin conKruction in 1993 and begin operation by 1996. The
Florida DepartmcDt of Transportation will have oversight responsibility to assure that the
project is built and operated pursuant to the certification order,
SUM^^ARY of the plan
TheMaglevT.ine
Length It 13.5 miles.
Single track gutdeway will be on an elevated structure, mSnimlzing environmental
impact on wetlands.
Maintenance facility will be located at the International Drive end.
technology
Electromagnetic syitens (EMS) Transrapid technology developed and tested In
Germany. Operational on test (rack since 1983, with speed capability of 350 mph.
Propulsion is provided by a linear lyncbronous motor (LSM) constructed at an integral
part of the guldeway.
FltundnK ,
Total project cost of $62} million. Major private financing will be provided by
Japanese investors. $97J million in federal funds vi'cre authorized in the tntermodat
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 for the project.
Item Cost
Land 30
. Guideway 115
Equipment/Stationary Facilities 99
Stationt/OftMFacUitic* 99
Freight/Insurance A Guaranty H
Engineering & Construction Management 32
Yohiolet . lOS
Pre-Operation Cost 45
Others 45
Contingonoy 35
TOTAL 622
Equity financing will be provided through an international partnership of Transrapid
International, Ino^ C. Iloh Company. Dai-Ichi Kangyo Bank and others.
• . . Project developert also plan a major hotel complex at the International Drive station.
Qpgia.Ug.na
Projected to begin in 1996.
24 hour operations; 4 train sets of 5 cars. Each tralfl has seating capacity of 400; dally
carrying capacity of 51.200. 128 dally one-way trips planned with a total annual-
rldershlp of 8.4 million in the first full year of operation.
Trains operate on 15 min. headways In peak periods. 6 min, trip time between stations;
max speed of 250 mph
Implementation Scb^dylt
The Department will provide public agency oversight for compliaace with all
eertification conditions.
112
the Fcdcrftl Railroad Administrallon will have jurisdiction for safety compliance in
accordance wltli the 1988 Railroad Safety Act,
Construction must begin within 3 year* of certification (June 1994),
Construction will take eppro^Jmately 2.S years.
Vehicle operational testing oan be oompleted in A months after conatniction It complete.
Itevcnuc operation wilt begin no later than 3 years after construction begins.
PROPOSED ORLANDO AREA MAGLEY ROUTE
orHANDO
113
114
STATEMENT OF KATHY EVERS
Senator Lautenberg. Ms. Evers.
Ms. Evers. Grood afternoon. Thank you very much for inviting us
today.
I'm Kathy Evers from Moody's Investors Service. At Mood/s, of
course, we are well acquainted with the issues surrounding large
transportation projects, as we currently rate bonds that have fund-
ed construction of new airports, toll roads and, of course, mass
transit systems.
The security for these bonds — and I'm going to speak in com-
ments directly to the issue of credit quality — the security for these
bonds, of course, varies by project. Airports and toll roads, by and
large, in this country, have an established track record of generat-
ing revenues sufficient to pay both the operating and debt service
expenses associated with them. Their bonds are generally secured
by the net revenues of their operations.
Mass transit, of course, is different. And given the history in this
country of the subsidies required for transit systems, their opera-
tors have successfully explored alternate security for their bond
issuances. For example, in some cases, bonds are secured by a gen-
eral obligation pledge of the State within which the transit system
operates. A notable example would be the MBTA, providing service
in the Boston area.
Other transit agencies have developed financing structures that
allow leveraging of Federal transit funds, while, at the same time,
building in protection for bondholders. Certainly, we expect more
interest in this area with the ISTEA legislation. And we are work-
ing very closely with issuers in helping them to leverage those
funds and develop those structures.
In looking at high-speed rail, there are three general concerns
from our prospective. And, in fact, we did have an opportunity ear-
lier this year to talk with a representative from GAO and give our
input, which my impression is the investment community was fair-
ly uniform in the feedback to GAO.
Clearly, we're concerned about the magnitude of investment and
the level of fixed costs, which will be very high. We also see that
the use of new technology is likely, not necessarily, but is likely,
to present additional risk for bondholders.
And, finally, project feasibility, which Mr. Brown was just ref-
erencing. The ability of the project to generate revenue sufficient
to pay both debt service and operating costs is critical, but it would
be very difficult to establish. And, again, looking at airports and
toll roads, we do have a track record in place of being able to estab-
lish the ability of net revenues to cover those expenses. And it's not
there for high-speed rail in this country.
Several speakers — in fact, I've modified my comments today to
follow up on some points that were made earlier. Several speakers
have mentioned the potential use of revolving funds and loan guar-
antees. And I'd like to specifically address the issue of revolving
funds as a way to possibily offset some of the risks for bondholders
and reach an investment grade rating.
Our experience with State revolving funds, at Moody's and
around the country, obviously, for the issuers involved, shows that
115
such programs can be very successful in leveraging State and Fed-
eral funding, as I'm sure you know, Mr. Chairman.
These programs, by and large, have been set up for clean water
purposes. We have to keep in mind, though, I think that it's very
important that water and sewage services are an essential part of
our everyday lives, unlike high-speed rail, which clearly would
have competing modes of transportation.
And also we need to point out, too, from the credit prospective,
that the success of these funds in the marketplace and their wide-
spread acceptance and generally high credit quality, it lies in the
structure of their portfolios, which — the risks in these portfolios is
mitigated by the number of participants and also the structure of
the programs where reserves are built in to offset the risk pre-
sented by any particular participant.
Obviously, tne likelihood with high-speed rail projects is that
there will be very few of them, relatively few of them, that will cost
a tremendous amount of money. And the use of the revolving loan
concept becomes less useful, because the size of the reserves nec-
essary to offset the risks would, of necessity, have to be quite large.
I want to keep this short today. I'm interested in your questions,
but obviously, at Moody's, we are very much interested in keeping
in touch with issuers, potential issuers, and working with them on
developing alternate structures for the issuance of bonds.
Thank you.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much. The first two panel-
ists each had a Lautenberg daughter working for the same compa-
nies. They're no longer tnere, out — one got married and moved
south on me. That's why we're so interested in the Florida rail
project. [Laughter.]
TTie other one decided to go to law school at a later stage in life.
That has no prejudice nor favorability, I want you to know. We
deal totally objectively.
Ms. Stanley, you're next, and thank you.
STATEMENT OF HARRIET STANLEY
Ms. Stanley. Thank you, Senator. I'm sitting here scrambling to
see if I can come up with a Lautenberg connection in either Massa-
chusetts or Texas.
It's an honor to be here today and to offer some observations
about the potential role of Federal involvement in high-speed rail.
My observations are made as a result of having spent 10 years
in the area of transportation finance, in general, and high-speed
rail transportation finance, in particular. And because my firm
serves as financial advisor to the Texas High-Speed Rail Authority,
I'm involved in some of the operational issues on a daily basis. I
do need to say, however, that my comments today represent my
own thoughts and not necessarily those of the Texas board or its
staff.
I believe that the development of a balanced 21st century trans-
portation system should be a priority for this administration and
this Congress. The Nation's transportation policy has been fun-
dsmientally reactive for some time. And continuation of that ap-
proach will limit our capacity for economic growth in the 21st cen-
tury, now just 7 years away.
116
Even the most conservative growth projections point to a dou-
bling of passenger trips in the United States during the next 20
years. And many of those will take place in intercity corridors that
are already heavily traveled.
I believe that high-speed rail can play a part in the solution to
the congestion and relieving capacity in those corridors. Specifi-
cally, carefully considered use of high-speed rail can increase the
efficiency of existing transportation systems. It can extend the life-
time of existing transportation infrastructure. And it can stimulate
new private investment in a more balanced and more diversified
transportation system.
I believe the system of the future involves the X2000, conven-
tional high-speed rail and maglev as well.
As you know, Senator, high-speed rail projects are currently un-
derway in several States. Although each project is unique and they
have covered various hurdles, almost without exception, the chief
obstacle is the attraction of private investment capital. Left to pure
marketplace determinations, one or two State systems may slowly
develop.
Assisted by the Federal Government through a very specific and
defined set of actions, I believe that the State and regional sys-
tems, perhaps two or three, can be up and going in 5 years or
under construction in 5 years.
Having said that, let me give you five specific Federal actions
that will assist the timely development of high-speed rail. I want
to tell you that these are very close to Mr. Salci's. And I assure you
that I did not steal his speech.
First, passage of the Graham bill, which allows high-speed rail
the same access to tax-exempt funding currently enjoyed by air-
ports.
Second would be funding of section 1036(e) of ISTEA, which has,
at this point, I believe, not been fully funded. I think that the fund-
ing of that section will help demonstrate to early entry investors
that there is project completion funding available.
Third would be implementation of the recommendation that we
establish a National Infrastructure Corporation, in that revolving
funds — and I'm well advised by Moody's comments — and bond in-
surance can provide a buffer for institutional investors.
Fourth would be activation of a surface transportation trust fund
very much like the one that was created in 1956, that allowed the
national highway system to go forward.
And fifth, the creation of an office of high-speed ground transpor-
tation, a super- agency, reporting directly to the Secretary of Trans-
portation. Now, being one who believes that Government, at times,
should be limited, I think they should have a built-in sunset provi-
sion.
And its charge, its mandate, would be to break ground on two
or three high-speed rail systems within 5 years. And perhaps a
model for an effort like that should be drawn from our national his-
tory, such as the space program.
I'd like to finish with that thought. I want to thank you very
much, as well. Your clear interest in these issues is most appre-
ciated. And I look forward to working with you and your staff in
being part of the solution.
117
PREPARED STATEMENT
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much, Ms. Stanley. We
have your prepared statement and it will be made part of the
record.
[The statement follows:]
Statement of Harriett L. Stanley
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: It is an honor to appear before
you today to offer observations about the potential role of federal support in the de-
velopment of high speed rail.
These observations are the result of more than ten years of active involvement
with transportation finance in general and high speed rail in particular. Because my
firm serves as financial advisor to the Texas High-Speed Rail Authority, I am in-
volved with these issues on a daily basis.
I believe that the development of a balanced 21st century transportation system
should be a priority for this Administration and this Congress. The nation's trans-
portation policy has been fiindamentally reactive for some time and continuation of
that approach will limit our capacity for economic growth in the next century — now
just seven years away. Even the most conservative growth projections point to a
doubling of passenger trips within the United States during the next twenty years
and much of this growth will occur in inter-city corridors that are already heavily
traveled. High speed rail can be an important part of the solution to reducing con-
gestion and relieving capacity problems in a number of these corridors. Carefully
considered use of the high speed rail mode can:
— Increase the efficiency of existing transportation systems by moving travelers
directly between city pairs and, perhaps, to major hub airports.
— Extend the lifetime of existing transportation infrastructure by reducing normal
system wear and tear, thus extending the times between construction of new
capacity.
— Stimulate new, largely private investment in a more diversified national trans-
portation system.
As you know, high speed rail projects are currently under development in several
states. Although each project is unique, almost without exception the chief obstacle
is the attraction of private investment capital. Left to pure marketplace determina-
tions, one or two of the state systems may slowly develop. Assisted by the federal
government through a defined set of actions, several key state and regional systems
can probably be under construction in five years.
Summarized below are a specific set of federal actions that will assist the timely
development of high speed rail:
Funding of the Loan Guarantee Program of the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Act of 1991 aSTEAJ.— Section 1036(e) of ISTEA amended earlier legislation to per-
mit federal loan guarantees for high speed rail facilities. However, it has not been
funded. Implementation of Section 1036(e) will help demonstrate the availability of
project completion funding to early-entry risk investors.
Implementation of the National Infrastructure Corporation. — ^This recently pro-
posed body can implement specific programs — such as revolving funds and bond in-
surance— that will provide a buffer for institutional investors.
Activation of a Surface Transportation Trust Fund. — This would be modeled after
the Highway Trust Fund created in 1956, which allowed development of a national
highway system.
Creation of an Office of High Speed Ground Transportation reporting directly to
the Secretary of Transportation. — ^This would be a super-agency,with a built-in sun-
set provision, that would be charged with breaking ground on three or more appro-
priately sited high speed rail systems within five years. Perhaps the model for an
effort like this could be drawn from our national history, with the space program
as an example.
I'd like to finish with that last thought. Your clear interest in these issues is very
much appreciated and I look forward to working with you and being part of the so-
lution.
STATEMENT OF MARC FASTEAU
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Fasteau.
118
Mr. Fasteau. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to say, by
way of background that I served on the TRB high-speed rail. De-
partment of Transportation Research Committee. And our firm,
Dillon Read, currently serves as one of the financial advisors to the
Texas TGV project.
What I'd like to address briefly in my comments is the particular
importance of direct Federal support during the development
stages of high-speed rail projects. The development of a financeable
high-speed rail project requires a number of critical studies, as you
know; ridership and revenue, land use, noise and vibration, air and
water quality, and in some cases, intermodal facility analysis, the
airportAiigh-speed rail connection, as well as design and engineer-
ing.
These studies are expensive, running individually, often well
over $1 million, and collectively for each project into the tens of
millions. And they also must be carried out in a preliminary stage
when the future of the project itself is highly uncertain. In the par-
lance of the capital markets, this is venture capital money.
On the other hand, the returns on this investment, if the project
is successful, are pretty far off into the future, often farther away
than the usual venture capital time horizon.
So the results of this are several things. First of all, the develop-
ment of high-speed rail projects is often delayed directly at this
point, because the private capital markets are not geared to pro-
vide this stage of funding particularly well.
Second, because of insufficient funding at this particular stage,
required studies are often performed the first one or two times
through with insufficient rigor, requiring that they be redone again
at a later stage, before an investment grade proposal is really as-
sembled.
This creates additional delays. It wastes a lot of money. And per-
haps most important, it makes the process that a local or State or
even the Federal Government goes through to decide which project
to support or whether a particular project should have larger scale
public funding, much more difficult and more politically conten-
tious and controversial.
Finally, when private capital is raised for these preliminary stud-
ies, it is very expensive. Investors will demand extremely high re-
turns on funds invested at this stage. Although the investments at
this stage largely take the form of equity.
The equity reserve for these investors reduces the equity avail-
able for later stage investors. And generally speaking, this will re-
duce the degree of risk that these later stage investors are willing
to take and increase the required rate of return on fixed rate in-
vestments and the minimum projected return on the equity that
they do get.
So Federal funding of these development stage studies, again
through full funding of section 1036(c) of the ISTEA, is an effective
and efficient way of dealing with these problems and promoting the
development of sound and well analyzed high-speed rail projects.
To summarize, it will reduce the time required for this particular
lengthy stage of project development. It will ensure that these
studies are carried out with sufficient rigor to serve as the basis
119
for private investors, local and State governments, and the Federal
Government to make sound decisions about future involvement.
And it will also ensure that the Federal dollars spent at these
stages are — ^this stage is highly leveraged. For those projects that
do go forward, again, $1 put in here will reduce— do more than re-
duce the ultimate ticket price and thus improve the viability of a
project, than $1 put in at any other single stage.
And, finally. Federal funding of these studies would parallel Fed-
eral funding of these — of similar studies for highways and airports.
And leveling the financial playing field in this way will both facili-
tate intermodal planning and also, again, make the governmental
evaluation process more accurate.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much. Mr. Green.
STATEMENT OF MICAH GREEN
Mr. Green. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It's a pleasure
to be before you today. And I commend you for your leadership over
the years on this issue. You and other members of the subcommit-
tee, I know, have sponsored legislation, cosponsored legislation, in
the area of developing high-speed rail.
And Senator Moynihan, in his service on environment and public
works, and now as chairman of the Finance Committee, has been
a leader. And Senator Graham, from Florida, has also been a lead-
er. And it's encouraging to see this kind of creative thinking and
leadership on the part of the U.S. Senate in this area.
And I think, as a back drop, I would say that the Public Securi-
ties Association, who I work for and am executive vice president of,
does not promote one mode of transportation over another. Our
members trade, underwrite, sell and deal in municipal securities,
mortgage securities, Grovemment securities, the securities issued
by Federal agencies to the guaranteed securities. And what we
strive to do is to ensure that whatever mode of transportation is
decided to be prioritized by our Nation's leaders and the transpor-
tation experts, that there is a source of affordable capital to achieve
those goals.
And if I may comment on the tax-exempt bond market and the
roles that the tax-exempt bond market has played in transportation
finance over the years. The tax exemption has provided, truly, the
lowest cost of financing for helping to meet the Nation's infrastruc-
ture needs. And I say the lowest cost, if one looks at the macro
view of what the sources of funding are, there is no straight cash.
Everything is leveraged in some way, shape, or form.
As you mentioned, a Federal guarantee. A Federal guarantee,
the kinds of securities that would be issued to fund the Federal
guarantee would inherently be taxable securities. So that, in and
of itself, would be a more costly route to take than utilizing the
tax-exempt market.
So in analyzing the issues, you have to look at cost. And you also
have to look at what is an appropriate use of the tax exemption.
And over history, it's been an appropriate use of the tax exemption
to help fund highway systems, leveraging Federal funds with State
and local funds, and attracting private capital.
It's also been an appropriate use of the tax-exempt market to
help fund the construction, modernization, and expansion of airport
120
facilities. And in airport facilities, it's gone one step further to en-
gaging in broader public-private partnerships, because it's a role
that the large carriers play.
And in 1988, Congress did make a decision to expand that defini-
tion of an allowable use of tax-exempt bonds to the development of
high-speed rail systems; not rail stock, giving the parallel to air-
craft, but to the development of high-speed rail systems.
The law was changed under the Tax Act of then — I think it was
the Technical and Miscellaneous Tax Act, to allow for the use of
tax-exempt bonds. Recognizing that there would be a volume cap
problem, they applied only 25 percent of those bonds to the state-
wide volume cap. Since that time, it's become very clear that even
that 25 percent would be inhibitive. And I think as you've heard
earlier from the various State agencies that are developing these
systems, it has been an inhibition.
So the proposal that was introduced by Senator Graham and ac-
tually passed the Senate last year as part of the energy bill, it
would remove the bonds issued for high-speed rail from the state-
wide volume caps and given them like treatment to highway and
airport development bonds.
We are very pleased to see that the Clinton economic program
included further Federal commitments on the spending side, as
well as an acknowledgement that the bond side must play a role
to help achieve the goals of financing these projects.
And I guess, Secretary Peiia testified before you and the Budget
Committee yesterday, and acknowledged that the reason for that
bond proposal was an acknowledgment that the Federal funds are
not sufficient enough and somehow you've got to leverage them.
And the bond market allows a leveraging of Federal resources with
State and local resources or credit capacity with attraction of pri-
vate capital that would otherwise go to other purposes.
So I sit here today to express our support for this proposal that's
in the administration's economic plan, because we believe the bond
market can answer the call.
And, again, we're not trying to decide between modes of transpor-
tation, we're just saying that the bond market can answer that call,
step up to the plate and help finance those needed projects. And
if you look at the capacity of the bond market right now, last year
the tax-exempt bond market had absorbed over $230 billion of new
securities.
This year we anticipate volume to be down, but chances are with
the lower interest rates that volume will go back up. If tax rates
go up, there will be even greater capacity in the marketplace to
meet future needs.
So if there's a concern at all of the ability of the bond market
to absorb these securities, the professionals that I talk to in this
marketplace feel very confident that it can.
So, with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions that you'd
have.
121
PREPARED STATEME^^^
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much, Mr. Green. We
have your prepared statement and it will be made part of the
record.
[The statement follows:]
122
STATEMENT OF MICAH GREEN
Mr. Chainnan wid Mcmberi of the Subcommittee, good momli^. My name is Mic«h Greea I
am the Executive Vice President of the Public Securities Association (PSA). PSA is the
International organization of banlcs and brokerage finns that trade, acU, and underwrite municipal
securities, U.S. government and Federal agency securities, mortgage securities, and money
market iiutmments. I am pleased to be here thii morning to discuss the role of tax-exempt bonds
in financing the nation'! high speed rail needs.
Every m^jor industrialized country in the worid either operates a system of high-speed passenger
rail service or is in the process of developing one^ with the exception of the United States. The
French TGV, the German ICA. the ItaUan ETTl'SOO, the Swedish X-2000. and the famed
Japanese Bullet Train all cany passengers saiely. cleanly and comfortably from city cemer to dty
center, some at average speeds of 200 miles per hour. Meanwhile, the fiutest American passenger
train, tfie Amtrak Metroliner, csrries passengers between New York and Washington at average
speeds of just 85 miles per hour, using 1930's technology.
Other forms of our nation's inter-city passenger trantportatiofl network are approaching thdr
capacity. Our aiq)orts and highways are crowded to the point where delays are everyday
occurrences. Gridlock in the system costs our economy billions ofdollars every year. The
technology exists today to implement in the U.S. the same kind of dean, safe and efficient high-
speed rail system that is enjoyed by millions of others around the worid.
In order to develop a viable system of high-speed rail transportation in the U.S., cooperation is
necessary between the public and private sectors. One of the most efiective ways for the Federal
government to encourage and assist the development of private high-speed rail is by expanding
the tax code providon permitting tax-exempt bond ftnandng for these projects.
Background
The Federal Tax Code generally prohibits tax-«xerapt financing for projects where greater than 10
percent of tiie bond proceeds would be used by a private party and 10 percent of the d^ service
would be secured by a private party. However, in recognition that certain public-private ventures
123
ire deserving of Fedenl auistince, the Code peninti lo-cailed "private-activity" bond finandng
fiff t limited number of narrowly defined clauei of these projects. Under the Code, the annual
volume of pijvate-activity bonds that each state can issue Is limited to the greater of S90 per
capita or SISO milfion. Each state is permitted to allocate its annual cap in any way it chooses
among the various pennittcd uses.
Current Statni
In 1988, Congrau added to the list of pennitted uses of private-activity bond financing qualified
Mgb-ipeed r«D projects. Undtr that statute, 25 percent of any bond issue fbr a public-private
high-speed rail project must be coumed toward a state's private-activity bond volume cap.
However, it is now clear that because of the size of high-speed rail projects, qjplying even 25
percent of a project's bond issue towards a vohnie cap can use up the state's entire cap for thai
year.
Several high-speed rail prcrfects will be inhil>ited in their ability to practicaUy tq) the municipal
bond imrket These prefects include. Texas, Cafifbmia/Nevada, lUbiois/Mlnnesota. Florida, the
Northeast Corridor, Ohk), PenraylvanU and Washfaigton.
CwiclfuieB
Preddent Clioton*s economlo plan faicludes aivenl proposals dealing Tsdth HgMpeed raQ
development. These proposals are part oftheTresidenfspadcage to increase faivestmentb
inftistnicture capital Induded in this |4an are additional fimds for Magnetio Leivitation and M^
qieed rafl. The Prevdenf s program also indudes a proposal to permit public-private U^i-^ieed
rail fiuifities to be financed with tax-egcempt bonds outside of the private-actMty bond vohuBs
caps. This proposal is tfmflar to l^Uadoa introduced by Senator Bob Graham, (D-FLX S.43I.
A precedent for sueha policy tfretify exisu. Uiider current law, airports, docks and wiiarves oan
be financed with tsoc-exen^ bonds outside of tfie vohnne cap. fftfaey could not, these piojecti
would consunN large portions of th^pp in states wfMre they are bulk. The Administntlon's
proposal would allow states to Issue tax-exempt high-speed raH bonds without threatening other
progransftrfiich most compete for cap allocatioa In addition, the proposal would demonstrate
the Fedenl govemmeot's commitniatt to allowing states and locafities flexibility in addressing
124
their traniportAtion problemi by petmitting all three major modes of inter-dty tranipoTtitlon; air,
road and rail, acceti to the low-coit tax-exempt bond market
PSA commends the President and the Administration fbr lupporting public-private hlgh-ipeed rail
projects. We also oonrunend Senators LautenberB. D'Amato, and Mikulski of this Subcommittee
and Senator Graham for their leadership in this eSbrt. PSA would be happy to work with the
Subcommittee and other Congressional conunittees in trying to address the nation's transportation
needs, Thank you for the opportunity to testiiy on this cxitical and timely issue.
NEED TO INTEREST INVESTMENT COMMUNITY IN PROJECTS
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you all very much. What you did,
and I think was necessary, was to throw a dash of realism on our
capacity to finance these programs.
I was particularly struck by the call that Ms. Evers put out when
you said that you've got to deal with your sewage, your wastewater
treatment facilities in a realistic fashion. They're there and people
are going to use them.
And Mr. Fasteau's comment about the long-term prospects for re-
turn. We're not going to see anything for a while. These are enor-
mous capital investment projects. And the time allocated for get-
ting a return is out there in tne distance.
And each of you made a significant contribution to the fact that,
unless the Federal Grovemment's willing to step up and put some
of the seed money in place, the rest of it is not going to come very
easily.
I guess, Mr. Green, with interest rates down like they are, with
taxes likely to increase, that the tax-exempt marketplace is going
to be more appealing.
Those issues are not going to be settled in this committee, but
as we examine the economic package that the President has pre-
sented, there will be further opportunity to examine just what we
have to do in terms of public financing to get these programs un-
derway.
I wanted to ask you a question collectively that I put forward to
the other two panels, and that is, we have a job among all of us
in marketing a concept that gets the financing in place to get these
programs underway. There seems to be little doubt that there's
enough interest to get to work on them.
We haven't, in fact, as was noted yet had an example of long-
term functioning that says these are going to be good investments
or attractive programs for garnering capital, like we have with the
airports and with other programs.
So should we be focusing on just a few high-visibility projects to
say, here, this is going to be the testing ground; this is going to be
the place where we'll determine how interested the investment
community is, or should we kind of spread it around to get every-
body involved? Do you have any notions or any response to that,
Mr. Fasteau?
125
Mr. Fasteau. Well, two thoughts. From the investment commu-
nity's point of view, maglev and steel-wheel are at different stages
of development. Steel-wheel on rail is in commercial use in several
countries of the world. It's proven. Maglev is not yet there. So you
add technology risks to any project that you're really trying to put
into service in terms of making it financeable.
Beyond that — so I think you need to think about them differently
for that purpose. Beyond that, the strategy that seems to me to
make the most sense — again, I come back to this design stage kind
of — not bottleneck, but this part of the project development, is to
fund a wide range of development stage projects, but in the proc-
ess, with the funding, have a uniform set of standards for the stud-
ies, so that they can be compared and evaluated.
And you can end up with a sound selection of a few projects
where the big money that is available can then be concentrated. It
would provide a broad opportunity and kind of a level playing field
to end up with the appropriate project.
Senator Lautenberg. That then establishes a sequential pro-
gram, that's going to take somewhat longer to move these along.
And especially, as you know, with the differences in the technology.
One is working and the other needs some further development.
Now, there could be catchup, but that's some years away.
Is there, in your judgment, a kind of demand for bonds serving
these purposes that are different than any other? Are we just talk-
ing about a marketplace that says, OK, here's a risk, here's the op-
portunity, and whether it's high-speed rail or other programs, the
evaluation formulas, I assume, are relatively similar, is that cor-
rect?
Are we seeing the enthusiastic marketplace available for financ-
ing capital projects? I'm not watching the bond markets or the eq-
uity markets. There's not much here by way of appeal for equity
placement, I don't think, but is there a pretty substantial market-
place out there now for bond issues?
Mr. Fasteau. It all depends on what the particular project looks
like and what its creditworthiness and how our
Senator Lautenberg. Risk assessment.
Mr. Fasteau. How it's assessed and rated.
Senator Lautenberg. So that we're going to be competing with
any other source of opportunity. And the purchasers will evaluate
it accordingly a la Moody's and a couple of the others.
How would you evaluate the willingness of the private sector to
lend money for high-speed rail projects with or without a Federal
guarantee? We've established, I think, at least in the relatively
brief discussions, that first the Government's got to be there with
some seed money to get things going. Then, following onto that,
Federal guarantees are needed.
Mr. Green, your point about tax-exempt versus simply Federal
guarantees funding were next in order. Is the Federal guarantee,
of and by itself, appealing enough, or is that all part of the matrix
that you bring the instrument to market with?
Mr. Green. I think it would certainly be a major factor in the
investor's mind about the Federal guarantee. I think when looking
at the policy of a Federal guarantee, if there are inherent risks
that the marketplace doesn't feel comfortable accepting, one has to
68-623 O— 93-
126
ask yourself about the advisability of a guarantee in that environ-
ment.
If the marketplace is willing to accept the risks and there are
streams of identifiable revenues that can be capitalized and the
risks are adequately measured, then you step back and look at the
cost of financing. And then it's a question of the marketplace at the
time. If the guarantee is less expensive than other options
Senator Lautenberg. It's a relatively simple mathematic deriva-
tion. I mean, you get there by — again, risks over here, other com-
peting instruments over there. Is there any opportunity for equity?
Is there any opportunity for deferred and improved value later on?
All of those things have to be put into the computer and come
up with the yes or no and the scale evaluation accordingly.
Mr. Fasteau. Mr. Chairman, I think it's useful in thinking about
this question to think of the financing in different traunches with
different degrees of risk, and ask the question: Well, guarantee
which portion, which or all of the portions? You've got the venture
capital money, really, at the very beginning or even pre- that, the
sponsors' money, then some venture capital money.
Then you have equity. And then you're going to have some sec-
ond stage subordinated financing which may be convertible debt,
but it's going to be either quite risky debt or less risky equity. And
then you have senior stage financing.
And just to make the point, a guarantee of only the senior stage
financing will be helpful in moving the project forward, because it
will reduce the cost of that financing, and thus, make the econom-
ics work better, but it only helps you get the equity and — which is
the most difficult — and then the subordinate stage financing,
through the indirect effect of reducing the cost of the project and
maldng the economics look better. It's not the same thing as guar-
anteeing the subordinate stage financing or putting equity into it
so you reduce the amount of equity that you need from the
Senator LAUTENBERG. Is there a factor for the collateral value of
rolling stock or does that depend on the uniformity of systems
around the country? I mean, if these are all unique prototj^ical
kinds of things, that rolling stock doesn't have a lot of value, if the
system
Mr. Fasteau. Turn it into a restaurant if it doesn't work.
[Laughter. 1
Senator Lautenberg. Diners are out of— no. I think they're com-
ing back.
How about the data availability? GAO says it's difficult to con-
duct ridership studies with a degree of accuracy, because of lack of
good data. As private sector investors, you've got to analyze the po-
tential profitability or chance for return on investment of these rail
projects.
What kind of comfort level do you have for getting the data avail-
able to determine ridership, project ridership? Anybody? Mr.
Brown.
Mr. Brown. Well, certainly, that is one of the major difficulties.
There is no American commercial experience with this kind of serv-
ice. And so the investment community does look rather skeptically
at any kinds of ridership forecasts. I would add to that, though, the
127
observation that there is also a fair amount of skepticism about
any kinds of traffic forecasts for transportation systems.
There are, for example, all of the turnpikes that were built in the
1950's, the big roads, like the Ohio and a number of others, were,
I believe — and Ms. Evers can confirm this, but I believe that all or
most of those were sold as unrated credits, because the rating
agencies wouldn't rate them, because no one really knew how they
were going to turn out.
And those kinds of problems really still exist today in the high-
way area. This big California financing that was sold yesterday for
the San Wakein project, that was rated only by one of the three
rating agencies. And certainly one of the issues there is — ^there are
a number of project risks there, but certainly one of them is uncer-
tainty about traffic.
So this is not something that is unique to high-speed rail, but I
think that it is exacerbated by the fact that while we have highway
experience in the United States, toll road experience, we don't have
high-speed rail passenger experience.
Senator Lautenberg. The California project came to market yes-
terday.
Mr. Brown. Yes.
Senator Lautenberg. What was the rate that they
Mr. Brown. About 7.15, I think, was the — on some 40-year
bonds. They were around 7.15, I think.
Senator LAUTENBERG. 7.15. Were there any guarantees, State
guarantees or otherwise, included in that package?
Mr. Brown. There is a Federal guarantee, actually, for
Senator Lautenberg. For how much?
Mr. Brown. About $100 million or something. Do you know.
Marc, about that? I'm not exactly sure how that was structured,
but there was essential
Senator Lautenberg. Is that a fairly high rate for issuances
these days?
Mr. Brown. In today's market, that is a high market value. Two
years ago, that was not
Senator LAUTENBERG. For a 40-year term.
Mr. Brown. Yes.
Mr. Fasteau. That's very unusual today, too.
Mr. Brown. There are many 40-year bonds sold. There were a
lot of zero coupon bonds — there were lots of different bonds in this,
but it was
Senator Lautenberg. Zero coupons
Mr. Brown. Yes.
Senator Lautenberg. For 40 years.
Mr. Brown. No; I don't believe the zeroes were 40 years, but
there were a number of different
Senator Lautenberg. I'd buy those if it could be guaranteed that
I'd be here to collect them. [Laughter.]
Mr. Brown. That's college savings for your great-grandchildren
or something.
Mr. Fasteau. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to comment on the rider-
ship question. I think that what's been said is accurate, in that
many ridership studies, as I said earlier, have not been carried out
as well as they can be carried out.
128
And part of the skepticism of, I believe, both the rating agencies
and investors comes from a history of studies which haven't been
carried out, again, using the best available methods and tech-
nology. I think that studies can be carried out — and, again, they're
expensive to do — which can give you a reasonably good degree of
confidence in the result.
I know for the Texas TGV project, they're being carried out by
an American firm, which is, again, at the cutting edge of the statis-
tical methods and survey techniques being used, and the French
operation that has done it for the TGV there.
Now, that doesn't mean that if $10 million of revenue is pro-
jected, you can get an investment grade bond issue rated, which is
$10 million of debt service to be covered on a one-time basis, but
you might have enough confidence to sell bonds with a two-time
projected coverage instead of three or four, which, again, makes an
enormous difference in how much money you can raise on a speci-
fied projected stream of revenue.
Senator Lautenberg. Since we're kind of coin tossing here, if we
have Federal loan guarantees and got some tax exemption, what
might the cost of capital be for these high-speed rail projects? Does
anybody want to
Mr. Fasteau. Overall integrated cost of capital? Couldn't begin
to guess.
Senator Lautenberg. These rates, I guess, will differ from other
infrastructure projects based on, I think, the comment you made,
and that is, how badly do you need it?
Mr. Fasteau. Credit rating.
Senator LAUTENBERG. I was interested in Ms. Stanley of the
Hadley Group's concept of a national transportation commission.
Do you just want to repeat that for a minute?
Ms. Stanley. What I proposed is to create a super-agency. I'm
not entirely sure that the magnitude of the task in front of us, in
terms of high-speed rail, can be handled by existing agencies.
If you want to remove institutional obstacles and you want to
focus on a goal someplace, I think you need something that reports
directly to the Secretary of Transportation and has a very specific
mission. And once that mission is accomplished, that the agency is
basically disbanded.
To go back to one of your questions, Senator, I think that the an-
swer, from my standpoint, is that you do identify several key high-
speed rail corridors and — or potential high-speed rail corridors and
invest most of your resources, if not all of your resources, in that
fashion.
I would disagree with the gentleman from the GAO who believed
that incrementalism might be the best way to go. I think that
incrementalism has been more of a problem from the past, and so
that you want to concentrate on achieving two or three successes
and go from there.
Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much.
Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, could I also respond
Senator LAUTENBERG. Sure.
Mr. Brown [continuing]. To the point that Harriet addressed,
which I know you've been asking all of the panelists, and that is
129
this question of how you spread the money around and do you try
to bullet specific projects.
I think one of the problems with doing that is that, No. 1, it sort
of postpones the Federal Government's coming to grips with exactly
what kind of program structure are you really going to have to
move this forward if you do sort of ad hoc appropriation or ear-
marking for specific programs.
And it also continues the problem that you alluded to earlier of
compatibility of these different systems. You have different systems
operating in different parts of the country. At some point, maybe
there is — ^you do end up with more of a national network and there
may be some point in having those linked.
And you do want to make sure that they're compatible. And it
seems to me that the really threshold interests that are at issue
for the Congress is to decide what kind of Federal program there
will be and design a program.
And then whether that program is started slowly by addressing
a handful of projects or bringing a larger number of projects up at
a slower rate around the country, I think, is sort of a secondary
issue.
Senator Lautenberg. That's a very valuable comment. I want to
thank all of you. I know that you had to travel here. I know that
none of you were able to come by high-speed rail. I hope that you'll
be here before we wait for that to be in place.
It was very interesting. It added a touch of significant realism
that has to be considered in this. And part of it includes how do
we plan to bring this to the public and the question of compatibil-
ity. I mean, if there's any collateral value to the equipment, et
cetera, and each one is a unique system, that doesn't do us any
good.
It doesn't help finance these programs. And the desire seems to
be there. There s a lot of interest. And I calculate that somewhat
informally by comments that I get from all around the country, but
I believe it's going to happen.
SUBMITTED QUESTIONS
And I thank you all very, very much. We will submit some other
questions to be answered for the record.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were
submitted for response subsequent to the hearing:]
130
NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION
(AMTRAK)
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR SASSER
MEMPHIS CENTRAL STATION INTERMODAL FACILITY
SENATOR SASSER: In 1991, the Memphis Area Transit
Authority (MATA) completed a Planning and Feasibility
Study for renovation of Central Station as an intermodal
terminal. Amtrak reviewed the document and provided
comments on September 26, 1991. Does Amtrak still plan to
be involved in the project if the concerns described in
the September 26 letter are resolved?
ANSWER: Amtrak remains supportive of the project to
renovate Central Station in Memphis as an intermodal
facility. We are committed to providing guality rail
service to Memphis, and renovating Central Station appears
to be the only viable station alternative available.
Amtrak is hopeful that the station renovation is part of a
larger redevelopment plan for this area of the city. We
feel that this is essential in order to address safety
concerns we have for our passengers and employees. Our
September 26, 1991 letter to the Memphis Area Transit
Authority raised some broad issues regarding some of our
operating requirements. These and other details can be
worked out as the project moves forward.
SENATOR SASSER: The City of Memphis is making a
significant investment in the Central Station renovation.
Currently, Amtrak provides only two trips per day to/from
Memphis. What plans does Amtrak have to (a) increase
service on the current route; (b) add service to connect
Memphis to other cities; and (c) upgrade its equipment
once the project is completed?
ANSWER: (a) In July 1992, Amtrak evaluated extending
the Chicago-Carbondale mini to Memphis. As this service
was projected to increase our federal subsidy requirements
by $2 million, which exceeds our self-imposed limit of $1
million for new services, this service is not being
pursued. (b) Amtrak has no current plans to add service
connecting Memphis to other cities. (c) Beginning in
late 1994, Amtrak will begin replacing the current
Heritage Fleet cars on the Chicago-Memphis-New Orleans
City of New Orleans with new Bi-Level Super liner
equipment. The entire train will be upgraded to
Superliner equipment by the end of 1995.
SENATOR SASSER: What plans does Amtrak have to pay
for its share of the Central Station renovation?
ANSWER: As you know, Amtrak has a limited capital
budget and we have, therefore, had to rely on communities
131
to provide for station improvements. Once the new
facility is built, we fully expect to pay our share of
operating costs.
SENATOR SASSER: MATA will begin rail trolley service
in downtown Memphis in April. Future plans call for
expansion of service to tracks along the riverfront
currently utilized by Amtrak (i.e., the Riverfront Loop).
Does Amtrak foresee any problems co-existing with trolleys
and jointly using the tracks if the system were to be
extended to these tracks?
ANSWER: While we have not seen specific plans for
instituting trolley service along the riverfront, we
understand that only one of the two tracks will be used by
trolleys. This would leave the other track for Amtrak
use. However, because of the proximity of the two tracks,
it will be necessary to ensure a safe interface between
the two services with respect both to patrons and to rail
operations, particularly since we understand the trolley
could cross the tracks used by Amtrak.
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR D'AMATO
DEVELOPMENT OF A HIGH-SPEED, NON-ELECTRIC LOCOMOTIVE
SENATOR D'AMATO: How fast will you have the "systems
approach" specifications on the street for the electric
locomotive, dual-mode locomotive, and passenger vehicles?
ANSWER: Public notice to solicit interest from prime
contractors will be published prior to April 15. The responding
firms that have adequate technical staff, facilities, qualified
sub-contractors, and domestic assembly facilities will be invited
to participate in the technical development program between May,
1993 and October, 1993. Formal requests for pricing will be made
once the magnitude of the available funds is known in FY94. This
process will require the delivering of a fully integrated trainset
of locomotive( s) and passenger carrying vehicles to meet the
stated trip times in the New York-Boston corridor and similarly
improve the comfort and performance in the New York-Washington
corridor.
SENATOR D'AMATO: In FY 91, Congress provided $14 million
for a dual-mode lightweight locomotive for use in designated high-
speed corridors. Are you now going to sit on this project further
while we await funding for the 26 Northeast Corridor electric
trainsets?
ANSWER: Amtrak has been pursuing this project as directed
by Congress with the principal suppliers of locomotives in this
country. We issued a solicitation to diesel and turbine
locomotive builders at the start of the program, and received only
three expressions of interest. All three turned out to be unable
to meet the congressionally directed speed goals within the
operating constraints of America's railway network. We firmly
believe that the dual-mode locomotive can be developed quickly if
it is a part of the trainset procurement, because many of the
systems and sub-systems of the Northeast Corridor trainsets are
also required for the dual-mode locomotive. The benefit of
combining the two programs is that the NEC trainsets will be able
132
to serve the non-electrified feeder lines of NEC with through
service, one of the original intents of the FY91 legislation.
Amtrak has requested adequate funds in FY94 to move this program
forward. Our goal is to have some of the trainsets delivered upon
completion of the North End electrification in 1997. We expect
the non-electric (including dual-mode) versions of motive power
for the other national corridors to be developed and delivered in
parallel.
SENATOR D'AMATO: Dual power means the ability to operate
either on gas turbine or diesel, and on third-rail electric
through the New York Tunnels. Developing new dual power
technology to a point where trains will have the extra horsepower
to operate onto Long Island is very important. This technology is
non-existent today. New York State and I fear that from Amtrak' s
perspective, this is a minor element in the context of the overall
trainset procurement.
ANSWER: Amtrak is, and remains committed to, advancing the
dual-mode technology as fast as the supply industry can reliably
and economically advance this technology. Amtrak presently has on
order ten AMD103 dual-mode locomotives from General Electric rated
at 3200 horsepower that will go into New York/Empire Service and
can serve Long Island directly. These units are scheduled to be
delivered in the second half of 1994. Amtrak has actively pursued
the dual-mode options for our unique environment and has hosted
meetings with the NEC commuter agencies to stimulate interest for
additional orders to advance the development of dual-mode
locomotives, especially in those instances where air quality in
stations covered by air rights development has become an issue.
Our thrust continues to be one of promoting more orders, so the
front end development costs can be apportioned over a greater
number of locomotives and railway customers. This effort also
allows us to encourage the supply industry to stretch their
capabilities as we extend the specified performance envelope of
each procurement. As a part of the AMD125 procurement, Amtrak
tried to push the industry to the next logical step which was a
125 mile per hour version of the dual-mode locomotive. We expect
that this step can be achieved through the NEC trainset
procurement .
SENATOR D'AMATO: Today, I would like a commitment from
Amtrak that you will immediately move to layout the specifications
and develop the new dual-mode technology. Will you commit to
allocating part of the $14 million for this purpose?
ANSWER: Amtrak is committed to this effort and believes it
is achievable at this time, when the project can be done in
parallel with the electric trainset procurement. The large amount
of commonality in systems and components significantly reduces the
risk of this development process. We at Amtrak have watched the
Metro North FL-9 program which is now close to completion. The
pioneering work by Metro North on this program has helped advance
the feasibility and confidence level of the locomotive suppliers
for this type of unit, and that is now allowing the Amtrak
requests for improved performance to be taken seriously. However,
to advance the dual-mode program, we require much of the original
$14 million to be allocated to this program. Amtrak is firmly
convinced that this approach — essentially combining the dual
power development program with the NEC trainset development —
will succeed and that we will end up with a family of high-speed
rail equipment that can be used effectively nationwide.
SENATOR D'AMATO: I would also like your assurance that,
once you have released the overall trainset system specification,
you will proceed vigorously with the development of the prototype
dual-mode locomotive. I don't believe there is any reason why the
dual-mode prototype locomotive should await funding (about
$450 million) for the 26 trainsets for the Northeast Corridor. Do
you agree?
133
ANSWER; To have a successful program that can be rapidly
executed with a high level of confidence for success, it is
imperative that the two programs be treated as one with parallel
development. Amtrak has requested $68.5 million for FY94 to
progress the development of the 26 trainsets with electric and
dual power capability. Amtrak anticipates the need to finance a
good portion of the total $450 million equipment acquisition, so
additional congressional funding will be required to complete the
full procurement. Our goal is to first procure 2 trainsets with
electric and dual power capability, de-bug the systems, and then
complete the full 26 trainset order. We would anticipate the
first two trainsets and the fossil fueled, dual-mode locomotives
being available at the same time. We believe this approach will
be the fastest overall program to support both the New York-Boston
electrification and improvements, as well as the non-electric
feeder routes and the FRA designated high-speed corridors.
Supporting this expedited development program will be the New York
State ISTEA demonstration with the Makila turbine retrofit and the
development and deployment of the Amtrak AMD103 dual-mode. Never
at any time in the past have so many separate programs come
together on a common time line that could move high-speed and
high-quality rail passenger transportation forward economically
and expeditiously. It is essential that we do not spend untold
sums recreating a variant of locomotive and trainset for each
corridor, diluting the available funding in studies, and re-
engineering as opposed to spending funds on hardware that can
deliver better transportation for all regions of this nation.
In addition, it is important that trainset development in
the United States be coordinated to ensure standards that assure
commonality of equipment on the various U.S. high-speed corridors
to control the after costs of maintenance, inventory and training
of the work force.
SENATOR D'AMATO: I am anxious about Amtrak' s ability to
move ahead with the procurement of dual-powered, high-speed
equipment. My concern is simple: without dual-mode equipment,
Amtrak will never provide high-speed intercity rail passenger
service anyplace other than the electrified Northeast Corridor.
Since over 95% of Amtrak's 25,000 route miles are non-electrified,
it is vital that Amtrak actively promote extending high-speed
service to selected non-electric corridors. Amtrak plans to
procure 26 electrified, high-speed trainsets for the Northeast
Corridor PLUS non-electric, dual power equipment. I have been
informed this procurement could begin late spring, early summer of
1993. However, Mr. Claytor's testimony says that; "...Amtrak is
CONSIDERING including in its procurement for the electrically
powered high-speed trainsets the FEASIBILITY of substituting
acceptable non-electric power units, WITH A DUAL POWER third rail
capability." Are you going to procure the dual power equipment or
not, and when?
ANSWER; Amtrak has been taking a leading role in the
procurement of dual-mode locomotives, and the integration of non-
electric dual power locomotives in Amtrak's procurement for 26
high-speed Northeast Corridor trainsets is, we believe, the
fastest and most commercially viable way to achieve the goals set
forth in the FY91 authorization. Amtrak is committed to making
this acquisition on a production order basis and not on a one time
prototype that takes a subsequent three to five years to
commercialize. The specifications and prequalif ication of
suppliers for the trainset development program, including the non-
electric dual power locomotives, are being pursued now. Amtrak
has set a project milestone of haying competitive technical
proposals in hand by the end of 1993, so commercial negotiations
can be completed in the first quarter of FY94.
134
NYS INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANCE ACT
' (ISTEA) SECTION 1036, HIGH-SPEED DEMO PROJECT
SENATOR D'AMATO: NYS has proposed a $5 million demo project
(funded by the Federal Railroad Administration). Under this
project, the current RTL turbo trains used on the Empire Corridor
would be retrofitted from their current turmo 3 or turmo 12
engines to Makila turbo engines, also the trains would be revamped
to have a "modern looking" high-speed trainset appearance.
Mr. Claytor's testimony says that the retrofitted RTL turbo liners
"will be able to use the electrified third rail tunnels for
operation through the Penn Station tunnels to Long Island at
acceptable speeds." However, I understand that the retro-fitted
turbo liners will not have any change to their electric power.
How is Amtrak planning to change the existing (poor) third rail
capability of these trains?
ANSWER: As part of the retro-fitted turboliner package, we
intend to include the requirement for a higher horse power
electric motor and solid state control system in place of the
existing transit car motor.
SENATOR D'AMATO: I understand that these trains now must be
TOWED by 40 year-old FL-9 locomotives to make it up the grade
through the East River tunnels to reach the Sunnyside Yards in
Long Island. When will the retrofitted trains acquire this
improved capability referred to in Amtrak' s testimony?
ANSWER: Turboliners presently only go into Sunnyside Yard
as an emergency situation, and they are then hauled by electric
locomotives.
The retrofit would take over a year to accomplish when
taking into account realistic procurement and commissioning times
for the prototype set. Upon receipt of our AMD103 dual mode
locomotives in the last quarter of 1994, we will then be in a
position to provide train service through the East River Tunnel on
to Long Island.
THROUGH OPERATION OF EMPIRE CORRIDOR TRAINS TO LONG ISLAND
SENATOR D'AMATO: Are the existing RTL Turboliners able to
run through the East River Tunnels today?
ANSWER: They can operate through the tunnels, but the
maximum speed is well below the normal operating speed of other
trains, hence they significantly reduce the capacity of the
tunnels.
SENATOR D'AMATO: These trainsets are 15 years old; is it
reasonable to expect electrical equipment to operate reliably past
that age?
ANSWER: The life of electrical equipment, especially DC
equipment, is determined by many factors including hours of
service, exposure to moisture, lubricant contamination, and
component wear. The trainsets are over fifteen years old, but
many of the electrical components have been replaced over the
years as maintenance requirements have dictated. The third rail
power system is used for very short periods of time when compared
to the total hours of operation.
SENATOR D'AMATO: Do the existing turboliner's electric
motors have enough power, when operating properly as designed, to
move a train through the East River Tunnels within the maximum
time period allowed?
ANSWER: No. The Turboliner design was created for service
into Grand Central Terminal at a maximum speed of 30 miles per
hour. The route into Grand Central Terminal is practically level.
135
The East River Tunnels have a 60 mile per hour speed limit and
have gradients of .7% to 1.3%.
SENATOR D'AMATO: I understand a test run was performed in
the East River Tunnels. What was the result?
ANSWER: The test produced results that were reflective of
the limited design capability of the original design. Speeds in
the tunnel dropped to 18 miles per hour.
SENATOR D'AMATO: I am pleased that Amtrak is cooperating
with New York State's application for ISTEA Section 1036 (c) High-
speed Demonstration, which would include retrofitting an RTL
trainset with several upgrades of the propulsion system and
passenger accommodations. Will this retrofitted trainset be able
to operate in regularly scheduled through service from upstate to
Long Island?
ANSWER: This trainset would be able to operate through the
East River Tunnel to Long Island in revenue service.
SENATOR D'AMATO: Will this trainset have any improvements
made in the third rail propulsion system? (Pick-up shoes,
controls, drive motor, etc?)
ANSWER: The full scope of the demonstration project is
still being researched and defined with TURBOMECA and key
component suppliers such as VOITH transmissions. Our goal is to
achieve 60 miles per hour in the East River Tunnels by increasing
the horsepower of the DC drive motors from 300 Horsepower to as
much as 900 Horsepower, subject to the limitations of weight,
balance, and strength of the transmission drive train. To handle
this added horsepower, a new DC control package will be required
and the contractors are researching what type would best suit the
service requirements.
SENATOR D'AMATO: What will be done that would make this
retrofitted trainset able to operate reliably through the East
River Tunnel?
ANSWER: The third rail shoes have been the subject of on-
going research for many years and are still one of the most
vulnerable elements of the DC drive system. We are continuing
research with several suppliers as is the General Electric Company
in regard to their responsibility to deliver a dual mode AMD-103
locomotive in 1994.
SENATOR D'AMATO: Will something be done to make it less
failure prone?
ANSWER: The DC Controls will incorporate considerable solid
state and chopper technology that is more reliable than open
contactor controls currently utilized. The new Makila Turbine is
modular in design with a microprocessor control system that will
provide advance indication of deteriorating engine performance.
SENATOR D'AMATO: Will it be more powerful in electric mode?
ANSWER: Amtrak and TURBOMECA have embarked upon a program
to increase the horsepower of the DC drive as much as physically
possible. Each Turbine power unit has a 300 horsepower motor. We
anticipate going to as much as 900 horsepower, which will
represent 60% of the turbine horsepower.
136
COSTS OF HIGH-SPEED RAIL DEVELOPMENT
SENATOR D'AMATO: According to the General Accounting
Office's written testimony, it could cost from $500
million to upgrade an existing 200-mile stretch of rail
track to high-speed operations (110 miles per hour) to
over $12 billion for a magnetic levitation rail system
(over 200 miles per hour).
Given these estimates, doesn't it make sense for
Amtrak and the Federal Railroad Administration to focus
their efforts on demonstrating high-speed rail on New York
State's Empire Corridor, the nation's only existing high-
speed corridor (110 mph, ready for 125 mph with some work)
outside the Northeast Corridor?
ANSWER: Amtrak agrees that the Empire Corridor, as
an existing multi-freguency corridor with high population
densities and near-high speed track guality, is an
excellent candidate for high-speed technology
demonstrations outside of the Northeast Corridor, It
should be noted, however that other corridors throughout
the United States are also good candidates, although track
standards on those corridors may not be as advanced as
those achieved by the State of New York through its
ambitious upgrade program. The five corridors designated
by the Federal Railroad Administration to receive funding
for track improvements under the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Act of 1991 are good examples of other
potential corridors that could benefit from such high-
speed technology demonstrations.
Additionally, Section 812 of Public Law 102-533, the
Amtrak Authorization and Development Act, which was signed
into legislation on October 27, 1992, outlines certain
directives relating to experimentation with new high-speed
technologies. Section 812(c) mandates that Amtrak "in
order to facilitate efforts to increase train speeds
throughout the national intercity rail passenger system,
shall upon request by eligible applicants, consult and
cooperate, to the extent feasible, with such applicants
proposing technology demonstrations authorized and funded
pursuant to federal law." Thus, the Corporation has a
legislative mandate to demonstrate new technology
throughout the national system.
SENATOR D'AMATO: New York State has invested about
$150 million of its funds to bring the Empire Corridor up
to high-speed standards. Amtrak serves a high population
density in this corridor and enjoys an excellent revenue
stream from this service. What do you think can be done
to further promote the demonstration of high-speed rail
operations in this corridor?
ANSWER: Amtrak has identified three mechanisms to
address the difficult issue of funding the large capital
investments required for right-of-way improvements and
state-of-the-art high-speed rolling stock.
The first of these is the establishment of a
continuous, dedicated funding source for rail, similar to
137
the Highway Trust Fund. Last year, Representative
Al Swift, Chairman of the House Subcommittee on
Transportation and Hazardous Materials, introduced
H.R. 4414, which would establish a capital fund financed
by one cent of the current two and one-half cent federal
fuel tax now allocated to deficit reduction. The measure,
which was co-sponsored by some 30 members of the House of
Representatives, was widely supported in the environmental
and transportation industries, and would for the first
time provide a secure capital funding source for Amtrak.
This would allow the Corporation to upgrade and expand its
current system, and would make possible the establishment
of high-speed rail on routes other than the Northeast
Corridor. The Empire Corridor would be an excellent
candidate for such an upgrade.
Second, Amtrak fully supports recent proposals for an
investment tax credit to appropriate capital investments
to assist in stimulating the economy, including
specifically such a tax credit for investments in rail
eguipment, both conventional and high speed.
Finally, Amtrak recommends removing statutory limits
on states' and localities' tax-exempt expenditures for the
rehabilitation of rail passenger facilities and equipment.
This proposal would dramatically reduce Amtrak 's costs of
financing equipment purchases.
PROPOSED MOVE FROM PENN STATION TO POST OFFICE BUILDING
SENATOR D'AMATO: Today, the Long Island Railroad accounts
for over 75% of the passenger and train arrivals at Penn
Station New York during the AM peak period while it is
allocated (by Amtrak) ,only 45% of the platform space at
Penn Station. In fact, some of the track space that LIRR
relies on regularly (tracks 13-16) are designated not to
LIRR exclusively but for joint Amtrak and LIRR.
Does AMTRAK 's James A. Farley Proposal provide any
significant direct benefits to Long Island Rail Road?
ANSWER: Amtrak 's James A. Farley Proposal includes a
major renovation of the existing Penn Station facilities,
together with the relocation of Amtrak operations to the
James A. Farley Building. The Long Island Rail Road and
its passengers will benefit from the reduced congestion
and enhanced accessibility that will result, as well as
the ability of the renovated Penn Station complex to
accommodate projected future passenger utilization.
Specific improvements benefitting the long Island Rail
Road are:
o Corrects numerous fire and life and safety
deficiencies in the current station, increasing
the level of safety in the station for all
passengers;
o Increases total station platform capacity by
allowing access to and usage of the mail
platform for passenger loading;
138
o Improves vertical access on Platforms 7 and 8 by
providing two new escalators, a passenger
elevator, a passenger/freight elevator and an
emergency stairway on each platform, which will
significantly reduce platform clearance and
dwell tiroes;
o Improves the environment and passenger
orientation at the interchange of the West End
Concourse and the Eighth Avenue Subway;
o Provides additional access and egress for Long
Island Rail Road passengers through the James A.
Farley building concourse via the West End
Concourse ;
o Improves the ability of Long Island Rail Road
passengers to transfer to New Jersey Transit and
Amtrak trains via the extended West End
Concourse;
o Increases the capacity of the station's
mechanical systems, providing the opportunity
for supplemental service to the Long Island Rail
Road premises;
o Increases loading dock capacity by relocating
Amtrak 's loading dock operations into the James
A. Farley building.
SENATOR D'AMATO: Won't the Farley proposal result in less
access for LIRR given AMTRAK 's better access to tracks 13-
16?
ANSWER: No. Amtrak has made a commitment to LIRR that
their usage of the station at track level will not
decrease from current levels. The project provides
increased access to all station tracks, including improved
access for LIRR. Additionally, the project increases
overall station capacity and efficiency by allowing the
mail-handling platform, under the James A. Farley
building, to be used for passenger train handling as well
as mail operations.
SENATOR D'AMATO: Does the Farley proposal create any
capital costs for LIRR?
ANSWER: No. The expansion proposed pursuant to the
Farley proposal and the renovation of Penn Station does
not create any capital costs for LIRR. Although LIRR will
derive numerous benefits from the Farley proposal, Amtrak
recognizes that the LIRR is already investing significant
funds in Penn Station as part of their station renovation
program. We understand LIRR's position that additional
capital contributions cannot be budgeted for Penn Station.
Although LIRR is not being asked to provide funding,
it is likely that the proposed improvements to the
139
station's mechanical and life safety systems, and the ADA
accessibility improvements at the station's entrances will
reduce the LIRR's need for future capital improvements to
upgrade those systems .
SENATOR D'AMATO: Do MTA and LIRR support the Farley
proposal?
ANSWER: MTA and LIRR, along with Amtrak and New Jersey
Transit, have participated in the two-year Penn Station
Master Plan process. As a result, they have reviewed
documents and have commented on the proposal during the
process. Amtrak has requested the formal support of
MTA/LIRR for the Farley proposal that was recommended as a
result of the planning process because the Farley proposal
provides significant benefits to the city of New York and
its travelling public, as well as Amtrak, the Metropolitan
Transportation Authority, the Long Island Railroad, and
New Jersey Transit. However, the MTA/LIRR has expressed
concern that the Farley proposal may compete with funding
for their Grand Central Station Project.
SENATOR D'AMATO: Today LIRR and Amtrak are working on
several short term strategies to increase operating
flexibility at Penn Station. These strategies include:
(a) the construction of a new connection, known as 5x/6x
to permit LIRR to access periodically, additional tracks,
(b) the extension of platform 11 to allow longer LIRR
trains to access an existing LIRR platform, and (c) and
operating plan to better manage the train movements of
LIRR, Amtrak and NJT in the Terminal.
What is the impact of the Farley proposal on these
short-term strategies?
ANSWER: The Farley proposal has positive impacts on the
short-term strategies enumerated. It provides increased
vertical circulation and decreases loading and unloading
time for passengers on trains using tracks 1 through 16,
thereby reducing train dwell time and increasing platform
capacity.
SENATOR D'AMATO: What is the overall progress on these
strategies?
ANSWER: Amtrak believes that overall progress has been
positive. The current status of these strategies is as
follows:
Amtrak engineering conducted a detailed review of the
preliminary design for the 5X/6X connection and found that
the proposed geometry was not workable. An alternate
conceptual layout was proposed which meets the LIRR's need
to directly access tracks 13 and 14, in the station, from
the West Side Yard while maintaining Amtrak and New Jersey
Transit's need for flexibility in accessing the Hudson
River tunnels for trains bound to New Jersey. Preliminary
design is in progress on this alternative. Amtrak is
committed to finding a workable solution to provide the
140
LIRR direct access to tracks 13 and 14, in a way that does
not compromise future capacity needed for New Jersey
Transit and its own operation into New Jersey.
Amtrak supports the proposed Platform 11 extension
because it will contribute to the efficient use of the
LIRR's portion of the station. The LIRR has retained a
design consultant for the extension of Platform 11.
Amtrak has participated in design review meetings on this
project. Amtrak suggested, and the LIRR has agreed to
retain tracks in and access to C Yard for continued use as
a maintenance staging area for the entire station.
Accordingly, the LIRR and Amtrak are in general agreement
on the overall design of the Platform 11 extension.
A draft plan for the current operation of the station
has been developed, incorporating the operations of all of
the transportation agencies. Work is underway on the plan
so that it can be put into effect for the Spring timetable
changes. This process of review and discussion among the
agencies is now a regular part of the joint planning for
operations at Penn Station.
SENATOR D'AMATO: Amtrak is seeking funding support for
the Farley Proposal from a number of sources including
ISTEA, State and local funds.
Wouldn't the use of ISTEA funds for the Farley
project inevitably compete with other New York area
transportation agencies (including LIRR and MTA) needs for
these same funds?
ANSWER: ISTEA funding is but one potential source of
funding for the proposed renovation and expansion of the
Penn Station project. Our discussions with state and city
officials have explored the use of a number of economic
development mechanisms because of the significant
benefits, in terms of new jobs and increased state and
city taxes that will result from the proposed project. In
addition, any infusion of state and city funding can be
expected to leverage significant funding contributions
from other sources. Because of the flexible uses of ISTEA
funding, it is likely that cooperative efforts of transit
agencies in the region would result in a net increase in
the portion of ISTEA funds allocated for mass transit,
rather than intensifying competition for existing
allocations.
SENATOR D'AMATO: Have LIRR, MTA and other NY area
transportation agencies endorsed ISTEA funding in the
Farley Project?
ANSWER: No, because these agencies have not been asked to
endorse any specific funding source and LIRR and MTA have
been asked to provide their support for the project
because of the significant benefits that will be provided
for passengers who use the Penn Station facilities.
141
SENATOR D'AMATO: Should the remaining unfunded safety
needs at Penn Station, including the East River tunnels,
take precedence over investing in a new facility?
ANSWER: The Farley Proposal should not be characterized
strictly as an investment in a new facility. The proposal
involves a staged expansion of station facilities designed
to accommodate the needs of passengers using Amtrak, LIRR,
MTA and NJT services. It also addresses fire, life and
safety issues.
The serious fire, life and safety deficiencies need
to be addressed as soon as possible, and we are working
toward this end. Representatives of the Long Island Rail
Road, New Jersey Transit, and Amtrak are working through a
formal Joint Task Force to formulate program requirements
and develop a funding and implementation strategy for the
improvement of the life safety scenario for Penn Station
and the connecting tunnels. Many life and safety-related
improvements have been or are nearing completion. Other
significant projects are progressing through the planning
and design phases. A fully developed program plan
describing all components of the Life Safety Program is
expected to be available at year's end.
Improvement in passenger egress from the platforms is
essential to improve safety, as well as passenger
convenience. The Farley proposal, if adopted, would
achieve a major improvement in this function by extending
the existing West End Concourse to the Amtrak side of the
station thereby improving egress even as LIRR's current
terminal project improves access/egress to platforms LIRR
patrons use.
The LIRR recognized the need to address station level
safety and capacity issues, and implemented their station
renovation program. Similarly, the Farley proposal will
address these concerns for New Jersey Transit and Amtrak
passengers. Amtrak believes that it is important to fund
all of these projects.
QUESTION SUBMITTED BY SENATOR HATFIELD
HIGH-SPEED RAIL IMPROVEMENTS IN OREGON
SENATOR HATFIELD: Mr. Claytor, first let me say that
I am roost pleased that the Eugene, Oregon - Vancouver, BC,
corridor was designated as one of the five high-speed rail
corridors in our nation. It was a pleasure of mine to be
a part of the public announcement of that designation at
the Amtrak station in Portland.
Through the recently adopted 40 year Oregon
Transportation Plan, high-speed rail has been identified
as a critical transportation line to Oregon's major
population centers. The State of Oregon has just
142
completed a passenger rail plan that recommends
development of high-speed rail by the year 2000. A
critical piece of this effort is the availability of
federal funds. Oregon's estimated share of the corridor
cost is $450 million. The state of Oregon has identified
$2.6 million of Amtrak projects that would qualify for
funding under the President's economic stimulus package.
If the stimulus package is passed by Congress with
these increases, can you give me some assurance that this
Oregon request will be met with federal funds?
ANSWER: Amtrak has recently been made aware of
several improvements requested by the State of Oregon if
the economic stimulus package is passed. These
improvements were not identified, however, until after a
proposed project list was submitted to Congress. Projects
benefitting the state of Oregon which were included,
however, involved improvements to several stations in the
state. Amtrak will make every effort to ensure that these
projects are funded. This, of course, depends on the
amount of funding received, as well as possible
Congressional mandates on how the funds will be spent.
143
ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR LAUTENBERG
"ANTIQUATED" FRA RULES
SENATOR LAUTENBERG. Mr. Blanchette, as a former
FRA Administrator, are you aware of any antiquated FRA
rules that you think unnecessarily inhibit the expansion
of high-speed rail in the country? Would the repeal of
these rules require legislative action, or just a
regulatory change?
ANSWER. A number of FRA regulations were drafted
without TGV-type rail operations in mind, much less
magnetic levitation. The subjects range from the need
to install grab irons and hand holds to the standards of
"crashworthiness. "
It is my understanding that FRA has been studying
this area for some time. In respect of very high-speed
service, FRA has elected to begin with proposed rules of
particular applicability dealing with precise corridor
projects. From comments received and experience gained,
the agency will then be able to decide the
appropriateness of regulations of general applicability.
It will also be able to judge whether the regulatory
route alone will suffice.
In my judgment, this approach seems a sensible one
since the technologies are new and each corridor may be
different.
I am not aware of any similar problems that may
exist in respect of more conventional high-speed
operations. However, Amtrak's experience in the
Northeast Corridor with speeds up to 125 m.p.h. should
provide valuable insights as the Nation looks to the
future. Amtrak's existing Corridor service has operated
without the need for legislative action.
COMPENSATING FREIGHT RAILROADS FOR HIGH-SPEED OPERATION
SENATOR LAUTENBERG. Mr. Blanchette, in your policy
paper on high-speed rail, you state that railroads will
enter the high-speed rail arena only on a fully
compensatory basis. One of your member railroads,
Conrail, has stated that it must be completely
reimbursed for any capital improvements, maintenance,
and overhead costs associated with passenger service
requirements. Should the freight railroads be
completely reimbursed for enhancements that also
benefits the freight railroad?
How, if at all, does AAR's position differ from that of
Conrail on the whole issue of High Speed Rail over
freight railroads?
144
ANSWER. After shedding deficit passenger service
which they had been forced to operate for decades, the
Nation's freight railroads will not re-enter the field
in any fashion unless they are compensated.
The policy statement contemplates that the basis of
compensation would be settled upon in arm's length
bargaining between a freight road and the passenger
authority sponsoring the proposed service. Under that
concept, each negotiating railroad would address the
issue of "enhancements," presumably capital investments
desired by the passenger authority which might, in some
fashion, benefit freight operations in some measure.
Since cases will arise in a variety of contexts, it is
impossible at this juncture to predict how individual
negotiations will deal with these proposed investments.
In general, however, accommodations of rail
facilities to permit high-speed service will not benefit
freight operations. As a result, the presumption of the
freight railroads is that all enhancements necessary to
accommodate high-speed passenger service to freight
operations will be financed by the sponsoring passenger
authority.
The industry policy statement appended to the AAR
testimony was subscribed to by all AAR member roads,
including Amtrak. As I testified at the hearing, I
consider Conrail's position compatible with the industry
statement.
FREIGHT RAILROADS' ATTITUDE TOWARD HSR SYSTEMS
SENATOR LAUTENBERG. Unlike the European high-speed
rail systems, almost all passenger trains in the U.S.
outside the Northeast Corridor run over private rights-
of-way. Amtrak currently compensates the freight
railroads for its operations over their rights-of-way to
the tune of roughly $65 million per year. Are you aware
of any Class I railroads that view high-speed passenger
operations over their rights-of-way as a significant
money making , opportunity? Are you aware of any Class I
railroads that are genuinely interested in seeing high-
speed rail operations over their track? Separate from
the issue of maintenance costs, do the freight railroads
expect to be compensated in a different fashion for
high-speed operations versus current Amtrak operations
over their rights-of-way?
ANSWER. The issue centers upon incremental
improvements to existing conventional (not exceeding 90
m.p.h.) passenger service. As noted in the policy
statement, the major freight railroads do not anticipate
their participation in TGV-type service requiring
dedicated rights-of-way.
145
There are several factors which make it difficult
to assess the future profit potential of high-speed rail
for the underlying railroads.
First, the railroad industry in this country has no
substantial body of experience in dealing with mixed
service involving passenger operations between 90 and
150 m.p.h. Experiments in the 1960 's and early 1970 's
on the Northeast Corridor were not profitable for the
underlying carriers, all of which were eventually
bankrupted, but the circumstances may well have been
unique.
Secondly, while some corridors have been
identified, none has been selected. No pro forma
financial statements of the kind normally associated
with project financing have been issued. The frequency
of proposed service and the demands that will be made on
the roads' essential freight operations are not known.
Finally, the question of liability must be
resolved. The freight railroads advise that no
potential justifies running the risk of uninsurable
liabilities of great magnitude.
Those caveats noted, the railroads recognize the
contributions rail technology can make to alleviate
modern problems of moving people between America's
cities. The railroads are prepared to assist in that
effort. They have made clear, however, that they are
not willing to assume entrepreneurial risk since
profitability is neither ensured, nor, in terms of
social benefits, necessarily relevant. It is for those
reasons that the policy statement speaks in terms of the
passenger authority assuming full costs of accommodating
the proposed service.
The policy statement does not enumerate precise
compensation formulas which might serve these
objectives. It envisages a two-step process. First, a
determination must be made that the proposed passenger
service is compatible with freight operations in a
particular corridor. Thereafter, the nature of this
joint-use arrangement can be assessed; alternatively, it
might be practical for the freight service to be
relocated, thereby allowing purchase of the right-of-way
for exclusive passenger use. Each step in the process
should be on a case-by-case basis. Existing contractual
arrangements with Amtrak or other passenger authorities
may offer useful guidance, but cannot be determined as
controlling on an a priori basis. What is salient is
that the freight railroads anticipate full compensation.
GRADE SEPARATION vs. IMPROVED CROSSING GATES
SENATOR LAUTENBERG. Both the AAR paper and the
Conrail paper state that high-speed rail operations
require complete grade separation, which means the
146
construction of numerous bridges and overpasses to
eliminate all grade crossings. As you know, the Swedish
railway authorities have had great success in using
special crossing gates that prohibit any traffic from
gaining access to the track and are relatively
inexpensive. Do you think that these Swedish crossing
gates hold promise to greatly minimize the cost of grade
separation for new high-speed rail corridors?
ANSWER. AAR is advised that FRA is considering
research into the Swedish crossing gate technology to
assess its feasibility in the United States. Subject to
that agency's own assessments of its budgetary
priorities, research in this area is meritorious.
Ultimately, however, high-speed passenger service
requires the elimination of grade crossings, as was done
in the New York-Washington corridor.
CONDEMNING PRIVATE RAILROADS
SENATOR LAUTENBERG. Do you see any scenario where
Amtrak would be required to use its condemnation
authority to gain access to freight rail corridors in
order to provide high-speed rail service?
ANSWER. AAR contemplates that where mixed use is
compatible, the financial arrangements can be
negotiated. Both Amtrak and the major freight railroads
subscribed to the policy statement incorporating that
view.
It is not envisaged that the parties will be called
upon to test the limits of condemnation authority in
this area. However, that process as well requires full
compensation .
FREIGHT RAILROADS COMPETING FOR TRANSIT SYSTEMS
SENATOR LAUTENBERG. It is my understanding that a
few of the Class I freight railroads are competing
against Amtrak for the contracts to operate certain
transit systems. Do you believe this signals a renewed
interest on the part of the freight railroads in
passenger service? Are any freight railroads to your
knowledge considering expansion into inter-city
passenger service, outside of California?
ANSWER. The railroads incurred staggering losses
operating commuter and inter-city passenger services for
their own account. AAR is aware of no road anxious to
re-enter the field as an equity venturer.
AAR has not been involved in the negotiations among
various railroads and commuter authorities. These
transactions seem to have in common the perspective that
the railroads will be adequately compensated for the
service rendered. AAR is aware of no service, inter-
147
city or commuter, which a freight railroad proposes to
launch other than on a compensatory basis.
RE-NEGOTIATING AMTRAK'S OPERATING AGREEMENTS
SENATOR LAUTENBERG. Amtrak will be required to re-
negotiate its operating agreements with the freight
railroads in 1996. Amtrak currently pays the freight
railroads for the incremental costs of their operations
over freight track — roughly $65 million a year. Mr.
Blanchette, is it true that the freight railroads are
looking to dramatically increase their compensation from
Amtrak in 1996? Is this true for all the Class I
railroads with a current agreement with Amtrak? What is
the rationale for a significant increase in Amtrak 's
payments to the freight railroads? What percentage and
dollar increase will the freight railroads be seeking in
1996? Is the AAR likely to play a role in these
negotiations, or will each railroad be negotiating on
its own behalf? Given Amtrak 's recent revenue and cost
trends, do you anticipate that the negotiating process
is likely to increase Amtrak 's requirement for a Federal
operating subsidy? If so, by how much?
ANSWER. The renewal of the operating agreements
with Amtrak has not been discussed in the councils of
AAR. As a result, the Association is not privy to the
expectations of the parties. The role, if any, which
AAR would play in the negotiations has not been
determined.
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR SASSER
EMPLOYMENT POTENTIAL
SENATOR SASSER: One of the important benefits of
the President's economic stimulus package is its
potential for job creation. What is the estimated
employment potential for commercial development of
magnetic levitation? Will such operation involve any
training or re-training initiatives?
ANSWER: A maglev system could generate employment
during both the construction and operation stage.
According to the Federal Railroad Administration, if a
maglev system were built in the Northeast Corridor, it
might require 15,000 person-years for planning and
development, 352,000 person-years for construction, and
2,250 employees in 2020 for the operation of the system,
However, to the extent that maglev investment replaces
investments in highways and airports, the net change in
the number of jobs will be less.
Because the maglev would be a new technology, a
certain amount of training and retraining would be
148
required, and would probably be similar for a new modern
transit system, according to the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA).
MAGLEV'S EFFECT ON AIRLINE HUBS
SENATOR SASSER: The primary market for maglev would
be densely populated, heavily traveled corridors ranging
between 100 to 500 miles. The airlines, Amtrak, and
Greyhound have already established their presence in
these markets. To the extent that maglev must compete and
draw ridership away from these sources, specifically with
respect to airlines, what might be the impact of
commercial development of maglev on airline hub
operations?
ANSWER: Since there is no experience with maglev
systems anywhere, the number of passengers that would
switch from airlines to maglev is difficult to accurately
forecast. The TGV route from Paris to Lyon is the best
example available for estimating the amount of travelers
that might be diverted from air to a system with maglev
type speeds. However, domestic air fares in Europe are
much higher than in the U.S. and Europeans have a long
history of reliance on rail for intra-national trips. In
addition, the French government directed the airlines to
reduce service on the Paris to Lyon route after TGV
commercial operation. Therefore, it is difficult to
transfer the French experience to the U.S.
The estimated impact on a hub airport might be
minimal because the maglev would serve only cities in a
single corridor while a hub airport by their very nature
would serve many different destinations. A maglev route
could affect only air traffic to cities on the route
served by the maglev system. In a few markets, such as
the Northeast Corridor, there are numerous shuttle
flights between principal cities and in these cases, a
significant number of flights could be affected and the
available capacity at these airports would increase.
However, those few airports with shuttle service are
generally not hub airports.
SHORT LOW-SPEED MAGLEV
SENATOR SASSER: The Office of Technology Report,
"New Ways" notes "maglev trains already carry passengers
on short, low-speed transit lines in Germany and
England." What might be the potential of such trains
operating in rural areas, and how would you assess the
economic feasibility?
ANSWER: The potential of short low-speed maglev
trains operating in rural areas is probably minimal. The
low-speed maglev trains travel at speeds less than 50 mph
and serve urban areas. A car or conventional train could
149
travel at speeds faster than the low-speed maglev. in
addition, travel by car allows more flexibility in
traveling to many different points.
To assess the economic feasibility of a low-speed
maglev train would be similar to completing a cost-
benefit analysis for any transportation project. That
is, all costs (planning, construction, and operation)
would be compared to the estimated revenues and social
benefits/costs. A sensitivity analysis of key variables
for both the costs and revenues should also be completed
For example, a high and low estimate for inflation would
be used .
ACCURACY OF RIDERSHIP FORECASTS
SENATOR SASSER: The vast majority of maglev 's cost,
between 75 and 90%, is attributed to construction of the
fixed guideway. The location of the guideway is very
much dependent on dense population with a high ridership
potential. Briefly explain the process for determining
the accuracy of the potential ridership base.
ANSWER: Ridership is usually projected from
estimates of total travel demand in a market and then a
forecast of the proportion that will use the new system.
These ridership forecasts generally use models that
assign travelers based on modal characteristics such as
trip time, passenger comfort, and frequency of trains and
traveler requirements. These models work well when used
to forecast transportation demand using existing
technology. However, for new technologies, such as
maglev, ridership forecasts are more problematic because
we lack experience with user response to sets of
performance characteristics. Attempts are now being made
to marry "stated preference" models (i.e. what people say
they will do when given a set of alternatives) with
revealed preference models (i.e. actual response to a
condition) .
The process for determining the accuracy of the
potential ridership base should include a review of the
data sources and assumptions for reasonableness. Because
the data for origin and destination of automobile trips
are generally not available, proxies are often used.
Ridership forecasts are based on a number of assumptions.
Ridership forecasts typically assume that the fare on a
high speed ground transportation (HSGT) system will be
less than the competing airline fare. However, an
airline would likely lower its fares if HSGT offered a
serious challenge. The ridership forecasts also
typically assume that a certain percentage of ridership
will result from trips that would not have occurred in
the absence of HSGT. Estimates of this ridership, called
"induced demand," have ranged from 10 percent up to about
40 percent of the total ridership in the forecast. Some
analysts believe that any assumption of induced demand
150
over 10 percent is too high. Nevertheless, induced
demand could be important in cases where the project is
designed to be a part of a broader strategy to affect
land use. In France, for example, the ridership of TGV
between Paris and Lyon has been compounded by business
location and travel patterns.
POPULATION SHIFTS EFFECT ON MAGLEV
SENATOR SASSER: The 1990 Census indicated a shift
in population from inner cities and rural areas to the
suburbs. In many instances, the jobs followed the
people. How have these shifts in population affected the
maglev planning process?
ANSWER: To the extent suburbanization has
decentralized and dispersed the population, fixed
guideway systems such as maglev are disadvantaged. The
relocation or addition of stops and increased land
acquisition would be the primary affects on a maglev
system. Population shifts to suburbs would indicate that
more stations might be required. Any such additional
stop would increase the trip time and lower average
speeds, which in turn would decrease the number of
travelers likely to be diverted from other transportation
modes .
MPO'S INVOLVEMENT WITH MAGLEV
SENATOR SASSER: The ISTEA legislation provided
greater input for Metropolitan Planning Organizations
(MPOs). What has been the involvement of MPOs in the
potential commercial development of maglev?
ANSWER: The states and MPOs, transportation
planning organizations for areas with 50,000 or more
people, are still trying to define their role with
regards to the ISTEA legislation. The ISTEA established
specific criteria for selecting transportation projects
to be funded and for flexibility in the spending of
highway trust funds. The states and MPOs are to select
the projects and determine the funding.
With the roles of MPOs still undefined, the
commercial development of maglev by MPOs is still
undecided. However, prior to the passage of ISTEA, the
MPO which includes Orlando, Florida, was involved in the
planning of the potential maglev project from the Orlando
airport to International Drive. Since, the passage of
ISTEA, there has been no plans for this maglev project to
receive funds through the MPOs increased flexibility of
funding.
151
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
SENATOR SASSER: There are frequent examples,
notably with respect to airports, of projects otherwise
ready to go but stalled due to environmental concerns.
The environmental review process can be quite lengthy.
What affect might the environmental review process have
on the timing of future maglev development?
ANSWER: The environmental review process or
environmental impact statement (EIS) would be no
different for maglev development than for any other major
projects. A well planned maglev project would start the
EIS during the engineering planning stage. An EIS could
take two years or longer. If lawsuits protesting the
construction of a maglev system were filed, the process
could take longer. In addition, acquiring new rights-of-
way often involves changes in land use and could lead to
encroachment on wetlands and the habitats of endangered
or threatened species. In our report, "High Speed Ground
Transport: Acquiring Riqhts-of-wav for Maglev Systems
Requires a Flexible Approach." we found that there were
significant concerns of the impact of this maglev project
from Anaheim, California, to Las Vegas, Nevada, on the
desert environment.
EMF GUIDELINES
SENATOR SASSER: There is heightened public
sensitivity to potential health risks of projects
affecting their communities. While maglev promises a :
"clean, efficient, and safe energy source," there is
still uncertainty regarding the health risk of human
exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs). The potential
risks affect not only riders, but residents along the
right-of-way. What is the Department of Health and Human
Service's (HHS) guideline regarding the potential health
risk from exposure to EMFs, and how will maglev
development affect such guidelines?
ANSWER: HHS does not have any guidelines on the
potential health risk from exposure to EMF. Within HHS,
the Food and Drug Administration has some performance
guidelines for specific appliances such as microwave
ovens. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers (IEEE) has developed some industry standards
for EMF. However, these are industry standards, rather
than Federal standards. Also, these standards are
primarily for workers in electricity-generating
substations.
In 1990, the FRA started a program to define the EMF
emissions of HSGT, identify and assess potential health
and safety effects, and determine potential EMF control,
mitigation, and regulatory options. So far, reports have
been completed on the magnetic field characteristics
measured on board the German maglev and at maglev
facilities.
152 I
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS \
Senator Lautenberg, The subcommittee stands in recess until j
Thursday, March 11, at 10 a.m. We're going to hold a hearing then i
on transit needs involving the Federal Transit Administration, |
General Accounting Office, and various nondepartmental witnesses. i
The hearing is now recessed. I
[Whereupon, at 12:50 p.m., Thusday, March 4, the subcommittee |
was recessed, to reconvene at 10:04 a.m., Thursday, March 11.] '
MATERIAL SUBMITTED SUBSEQUENT TO THE
HEARING
[Clerk's note. — Testimony from organizations that did not par-
ticipate in the high-speed rail hearing follow:]
Statement of Ross Capon, Executive Director, National Association of
Railroad Passengers
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for your leadership in developing Amtrak and the
Northeast Corridor Improvement Project in general, and for your support for fund-
ing the New York-Boston improvements in particular.
We support the President's "Vision of Change," especially:
— ^the $188 million fiscal year 1993 supplemental capital for Amtrak;
— the increased spending for transit, both short and long term;
— the $1.3 billion for high speed rail; and
— the energy tax and its gasoUne emphasis.
With respect to our issues, "Vision" reflects thinking that is worlds ahead of per-
haps evenf previous White House. However, we have two disappointments and one
concern. First, Amtrak desperately needs an expanded long-term capital program,
which "Vision" does not include. Second, for fiscal year 1993, "Vision" fiinds ISTEA
at 100 percent for highways but only 53 percent for transit. Moreover, Secretary
Peiia on March 3 told the Senate Budget Committee that 0MB has approved
redirecting all of the federal deficit reduction 2.5 cents-a-gallon to highways.
Now, to our concern. It is simple. We believe the public interest requires spending
all or most of the "high speed" $1.3 billion on "incremental" improvements to exist-
ing Amtrak routes and services.
Incrementalism" means making the best use of existing resources, and increasing
rail ridership in the near term. This is exactly what a "pro-environment," "pro-cost-
effectiveness" administration — and an administration that wants to do something
that benefits travelers before 1996 — shovild be pushing! Incremental improvements
mean the administration will immediately get credit, ridership will improve and op-
erating subsidies will decline.
For years we have heard upbeat discussions of "quantum leaps" — very high speed
services using mostly-new rights-of-way. We believe development of such services
depends on prior incremental improvements, just as existing high speed services —
abroad and in our Northeast — developed in corridors with a pre-existing, high train-
riding habit.
In sum, the incremental approach:
— holds by far the best — perhaps the only — hope of actually providing improved
service within the next several years;
— would increase revenues and reduce operating subsidy requirements on the af-
fected lines and, to a lesser extent, on connecting services; and
— ^would partially offset "Vision's" failure to provide increased long-term Amtrak
capital ftmding.
The public thinks high speed rail means service that is air-competitive, i.e., able
to attract a significant number of riders fi"om airplanes, with resulting benefits in
terms of environmental impact, overall U. S. energy efficiency, and reduced conges-
tion in the aviation — and, to a lesser extent, highwav — systems.
This definition is market-driven, not technology-driven. Travelers on trains as on
planes care littie about top speed, onlv about how the modes' total travel times com-
pare. Amtrak's Metroliners only reach 125 mph. Japan's bullet trains captured the
world's imagination witii a top speed of 130 mph when service began in 1964. Bullet
trains did not exceed 142 mph until 1992, and 142 remains the lunit for many such
trains. However, all of these trains are air-competitive and most people consider
them "high speed," although Amtrak's equipment compares most unfavorably to the
X2000 in terms of noise and general ambiance.
To maintain the program's credibility, to insure that the best projects prevail, and
to expand the total pool of fiinds available for passenger rail, we urge requiring a
(153)
154
20 percent non-federal match where any of the $1.3 billion is awarded to states or
projects. (Twenty percent is the standard, "level-playing-field" ISTEA figure.) The
match should be cash up front, not a promise to repay a portion of ticket revenues
in some fiiture year. Such a promise would become meaningless if a project never
opened or failed to generate anticipated revenues.
Credibility is an issue because, if a non-federal match is not required, money
could go to the state with the best lobb3dst or the best-positioned legislators. Cur-
rently, for example, California is investing substantial sums in its rail passenger
corridors, whereas Texas is investing nothing. If Texas were to get a major portion
of this $1.3 billion, there could be tremendous bitterness in California and a chilling
message to all states: if you spend your own money on passenger rail, you risk hav-
ing the feds make you look foolish in a few years.
Thank you for considering our views.
155
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM S. BROWN, III, CHAIRMAN OF
THE BOARD, MAGLEV, INC.
Mr. Chainnan and members of the Committee, gcxxl afternoon. My name is BU]
Brown and I am the Chairman of the Board of MAGLEV, Inc., a Pittsburgh baaed
company which we believe Is the only MAGLEV public/private/labor consortium in tlie
country. We very much appreciate the opportunity to zppcai before you today,
MAGLEV, an acronym for Magnetic Levitalion, is a technology that many people have
only recently become aware. MAGLEV, Inc., however, began to form six years ago,
when Carnegie-Mellon University established a High Speed Ground Transportation
Center in Pittsburgh in response to the growing transportation crisis in the United
States. While crcating a database on High Speed Ground Transportation (HSGT)
technologies and projects around the world, the Center became aware of the rapid
development in MAGLEV technologies and recognized that the future of HSGT
Systems would be highway and airport oriented in addition to helping to revitalize
passenger service from city center to city center. With Pittsburgh's strategic location
midway between the east coast and the large cities in the midwest, planners at the
Center recognized that an opportunity existed to implement an HSGT System to these
regions out of a Pittsburgh hub. In 1988, the MAGLEV Working Group was formed.
The Group was a unique public-private partnership which included private firms, labor
unions, government representation at the City, County, and State level, a large utility,
and the university. A preliminary feasibility study issued by the group in 1990
concluded that a MAGLEV system linking Pittsburgh with the surrounding region is
feasible, and could create a MAGLEV industrial base in the region which could
providing MAGLEV Systems to world markets.
In 1990, the Working Group formed MAGLEV, Inc. This unique corporation's
shareholders include businesses, government, steelworkers, building trades, and most
recently, USAir. The fust task of the corporation was to complete a more extensive
Design, Development and Demonstration CDD&D) Study with the following objectives:
• Plan the Mid-Atlantic Regional System connecting Pittsburgh to West Virginia,
Ohio, the midwest, the east coast, as well as other cities in Pennsylvania.
• Develop a financing plan for the System.
• Develop a manufacturing and assembly plan.
• Develop, in greater detail, plans and an environmental overview of a
Demonstration System linking downtown Pittsburgh and the new Pittsburgh
International Airport The Demonsttation System will prove the technology,
establish the Pittsburgh Tri-State Region as the American MAGLEV
manufacturing bcie, be part of the Intermodal solution to a growing local
corridor congestion problem, and serve as the critical first Unk in the Regional
System. !
Afber rigorous study of alternative technologies, MAGLEV was chosen for the system,
over conventional High Speed Rail (HSR). MAGLEV is high-speed guided ground
transportation which depends on magnetic forces for vehicle suspension, guidance and
propulsion. It operates on electricity, making it clean and quiet. It is also safe, as the
156
MAGLEV cars wrap around an elevated guideway and cannot derail. The capital
cost5, approximately $30 milJJon per mile, are similar to those of new highways, but
the system is far less damaging to the environment. HSR systems have a lower capital
cost, but higher operating and maintenance (O&M) cost. Since a MAGLEV system
has no friction between vehicle and track with its attendant wear and tear, Jong term
maintenance costs will be low compared to other rail systems. At speeds of 185 mph
or more, MAGLEV consumes 32% less electricity per seat-mile than otJier types of
HSR. It can attain higher speeds with much faster acceleration than HSR, which will
increase ridership by reducing travel times. It can climb much steeper grades and take
sharper curves than HSR, critical factors in the rugged terrain in our area. The speed
of such a system (150 to 300 mph) complements the air and auto modes by providing a
desirable aJiemative for trips in Uie 100 to 600 mile range. Thus, MAGLEV can be
used to link airports and city centers. This link will ease congestion in the air and on
the highway. Air travel can then be used primarily for long bips, for which it is most
efficient, and highways can similarly serve shorter trips with Jess congestion.
Once MAGLEV was chosen as the technology for the system, a type of MAGLEV
technology had to be chosen. There are basically two types of high speed MAGLEV
Systems. The electromagnetic suspension or EMS, commonly referred to as an
"attractive" system, uses electromagnets to pull the vehicle up toward the bottom of the
guideway, while elcctrodynamic or EDS systems use superconducting magnets to
generate magnetic fields to repel the vehicle up from the top of the guideway. Both
systems use linear motors for propubion.
EDS technology was first proposed here in the United Stales by Drs. Gordon Danby
and James Powell in the mid 1960s. Although several models and schemes were
developed, most research stopped in the mid 1970s as federal funding was halted. The
Japanese, however, picked up the research and ran laboratory tests of magnetic
levilation using superconductivity in 1971. In 1979, a test vel)icle without passengers
achieved a speed of 320 mph on the Miyazaki test track. Since then, however, despite
the spending of over $1 billion in research and testing, the system has been plagued by
problems that will prevent it from achieving commercial operation before the year
2005. Recently, there has been a surge of activity in the United States to develop an
all- American "leapfrog" MAGLEV, using EDS technology. It must be stressed,
however, that such a system will require hundreds of milh'ons of research and
development dollars alone, and cannot possibly be ready for commercial operation in
this century. This is not in agreement with MAGLEV Inc's. goals to immediately start
a system which addresses the growing transportation crisis in the region, and to deliver
badly needed economic development through the creation of a new manufacturing base.
On the other hand, EMS technology is ready to build today. In fact, a low speed (30
mph) EMS system has been in commercial operation at Birmingham Airport in the
United Kingdom smce 1984, This "attractive" system technology goes back to 1922
when a German engineer, Herman Kemper, first proposed this principle for "floating
trains". Full scale development of high-speed EMS began in Germany in 1969, and
culminated in 1988 with the development of the Transrapid TR07, built by a
consortium of German firms. Over $1 billion has been spent in developing this train,
but unlike the EDS technologies, it is ready for commercial operation. It has been
continuously tested on a 20 mile test track at speeds in excess of 270 mph, has
undergone rigorous tests for safety and reliability by the German government, and has
been closely scrutiniicd by experts from all over the world, including the United States
Federal Railway Administration (FRA). Because this technology is ready to put people
157
to work and address our transportation problems today, it was chosen by MAQLEV,
Inc. as the basis for the Regional and Demonstration Systems. In the course of
preparing final design of such a system, MAGLEV, Inc. wiU Americanize the system
to meet the unique needs of our market. We believe changes can be made to the
guldeway to lower the capital costs, and to allow it lo take sharper curves at higher
speeds, thus maximizing the use of existing highway rights-of-way. The signaJJing and
communications systems also will be redesigned to make tJiem state-of-the-art
American systems. It is our intent to manufacture the system here, using American
labor and material. It can be noted that a double - track MAGLEV system uses one
ton of steel per linear foot of guideway in terms of the economic impact of
manufacturing such a system.
MAGLEV, Inc. is currently completing the DD&D Study mentioned previously. In
this study, we have developed conceptual alignments, cost estimates and performance
plans for the Regional System linking Pittsburgh to cities throughout Pennsylvania,
West Virginia and the Mid-Atlantic Region. The study has also examined, in more
detail, four alternate alignments for a Demonstration System between the new
Pittsburgh International Airport and the Downtown Pittsburgh area. This
demonstration line will serve to prove the technology under commercial operation, and
to establish Pittsburgh as the MAGLEV manufacturing center in North America. In
addition, the Demonstration Line will serve as the critical first link in the Regional
System, and complement other existing and planned transportation facilities in the
corridor by serving as one of the most effective Intermodal Transfer Transportation
Systems in the world. The line will link the new Pittsburgh International Airport via
an 8 minute ride to Station Square near downtown Pittsburgh. At this point, passengers
can transfer to a light rail system and subway, buses (traveling on exclusive busways),
water taxis, taxis, park and ride lots, a commuter fiinicular (an inclined railroad up the
side of Mt. Washington), or can take a short walk to downtown,
Tlie Demonstration System has widespread community support, including that of local
governments, business, labor, the academic community, the state legislature and the
Governor. The ISTEA legislation includes federal funding for design and construcdon
of a prototyjw system, for which MAGLEV, Inc. is well positioned due to the work
already completed. The estimated cost of the Demonstration System is $500 to $600
million, well within the amount authorized in the legislation for a prototype system.
An economic model prepared during this study indicates Uiat this investment will create
8,700 person-years of jobs during construction, primarily in the areas of
manufacturing, construction, transportation and mining. The total economic benefits
would be $1 billion to $2 billion. It is absolutely the only system which can beat Uie
ISTEA requirement of being on the ground running within 6 years of starting the
conceptual design competition, because it is based on a teclinology which already
exists. Because it is in an existing transportation corridor, die Demonstration System is
forecasted to generate enough revenue from ridcrship to cover its operating and
maintenance costs, thus defraying some of the testing expenses that would be associated
wiU) the prototype system.
Upon successful completion and implementation of tiic Demonstration System,
MAGLEV, Inc. is pr^ared to expand Uiis first link into a fully Regional System
serving all of Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Ohio. The economic model developed
as part of the study indicates that such a system would, at a minimum, cover its
operating and maintenance costs out of farebox revenue, and bring tremendous
economic benefits to the region by creating jobs and improving mobility. A ridcrship
68-623 0—93-
158
model prepared for ihe system uidicates that, when completed, the system would can7
17 miiiion passengers annually, generating annual revenues of approximately $1
billion, which is considerably more than the projected annual operating and
maintenance costs, estimated at approximately $400 million.
Obviously, considerable public investment is required to generate the capital costs for
the system, but the benefits are many and diverse. Construction of the system will
create 675,000 person-years of employment, which translates to 22,000 full time jobs
over a 30 year construction period. Manufacturing, in a region which desperately
needs new industries, would account for 34% of this work, with 10% in construction,
and the rest spread over other industries as the benefits multiply through the economy.
The improvement in mobility created by the system will be crucial in bringing tlie
economy of the region into the 2l8t Century. All areas of Western Pennsylvania, West
Virginia and Ohio will be opened to Increased tourism and a dramatic increase in
economic activity from tlie east coast. The speed of the system would make all of West
Virginia and Western Pennsylvania "bedroom communities" to Pittsburgh and
Washington, D.C. These areas will also have the improved access they need to the
new Pittsburgh International Airport, forecasted (by the FAA) to be the 8th busiest
airport in the country by the year 2005.
In summary, MAGLEV, Inc. is a wclJ established, broad-based organization with the
support of business, labor, academia, government and the public throughout the
Pittsburgh and Mid-Atlantic Region. We have studied and selected a system which can
improve mobility and create jobs now, not 15 years from now, with a technology that
is more environmentally benign than any other mode of transportation in the world.
An Investment in this project is an investment in the future of this country.
In closing, MAGLEV, Inc., is appreciative of the support for high speed ground
transportation being put forth by the Administration and by Congress. We especially
laud the efforts of Senators Specter, Wofford, Lautenberg, D'Amato and Mikulsld for
their tireless efforts to bring the United States back to the forefront of this critical
technology. We look forward to working with this subcommittee and other members
of Congress to bring this dream to reality. We thank you for affording us this
opportunity to testify, and stand prepared to take any questions which you may have.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RE-
LATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 1994
THURSDAY, MARCH 11, 1993
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:04 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg (chairman) pre-
siding.
Present: Senators Lautenberg, D'Amato, Domenici, and Specter.
panel I — methodologies used to determine transit needs
GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
STATEMENT OF KEN MEAD, DIRECTOR, TRANSPORTATION ISSUES,
RCED
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
American Public Transit Association
statement of jack gilstrap, executive vice president
American Association of State Highway Transportation
Officials
statement of frank FRANCOIS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Transit Administration
statement of ROBERT McMANUS, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR
OPENING REMARKS
Senator Lautenberg. I will call the Subcommittee on Transpor-
tation of the Senate Committee on Appropriations to order.
We are going to try to stay on schedule. There is the possibility
of a call for a vote in the Budget Committee on which I sit and
there could be an interruption. If we have one, we will try to make
it short and in an appropriate place of the program.
After 12 years of administration budget neglect. President Clin-
ton has sent to Congress a stimulus package that contains an addi-
tional $752 million for the Federal Transit Program for fiscal year
(159)
160
1993. And the President has proposed a long-term investment pro-
gram of significantly enhanced transit funding.
This is encouraging news for, as we will hear today, America's
transit needs are significant, to say the least. We must meet these
needs if mass transit is to realize its full potential to speed Ameri-
cans to work, reduce traffic congestion, clear our air, and provide
access to work, education, and recreation for all Americans regard-
less of income or disability.
As we are going to hear today, the various estimates put transit's
capital financial needs at between $6.4 and $15.7 billion a year. As
large as those numbers appear, in the context of an annual public
expenditure in our Nation's airways, airports, highways, rivers,
harbors, railroads, and transit needs of $96.5 billion, these transit
needs do not appear to be out of line.
These projected transit needs are dwarfed by the many more bil-
lions of dollars of American productivity wasted each year in traffic
congestion and the preventable health care costs of air pollution,
not to mention the damage to structures within our communities
also from air pollution.
The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act [ISTEA]
was a blueprint, an outline, a sketch, if you will, as to how we
might level the surface transportation pla3dng field to give transit
a fair chance, by introducing new ideas regarding funding flexibil-
ity. It included new programs, such as congestion mitigation, air
quality relief, and intelligent vehicle/highway systems, and it in-
creased the overall funding levels for both highways and transit.
But as sound as these concepts are, they need to be implemented
and they need to be a reality. To paraphrase an old expression,
"Man cannot live by bread alone," well, we cannot travel from place
to place throughout our country by highways alone. The playing
field must be leveled. We have to think of moving goods and people
as a problem to be solved with an integrated surface transportation
system — not mode versus mode.
President Clinton's proposals are a good start. The short-term
stimulus funding will not only provide a needed increase but will
create new jobs for the economy. And I am confident that there will
be no problem in obligating this new money within the timeframe,
the 60-day period, called for in the President's stimulus package.
Lou Gambaccini, the APTA Chairman, also the General Manager
of SEPTA, provided us earlier with testimony that additional tran-
sit funding is desperately needed. A survey conducted by the asso-
ciation identified major needs and stated that new funding would
be disbursed all across the country and could be put to good use
on 649 different projects on 98 transit systems in 31 States.
Thus it can be seen that any transit supplemental would be a
broad-based stimulus to the economy and would bolster the transit
infrastructure of this country. I believe that it is a program well
suited to putting people back to work very quickly, while at the
same time addressing some very pressing domestic needs.
Beyond this fiscal year, however, the committee needs to know
that, whatever the needs are of the transit industry, these figures
offered by the most recent administrations were significantly dif-
ferent than those estimates we heard from the associations and in-
dustries that represent transit.
161
This committee needs to have the best available information in
order to facilitate the decisionmaking process. We need the best in-
formation available on how individual States and transit authori-
ties will use the funds that the committee provides.
There are probably valid reasons on why funding levels sug-
gested by the various parties have varied. We want to hear them.
I think it was once said: The facts, just the facts, please. Well, we
would like to have those facts from as many objective sources as
we can find.
Today, the GAO will testify on what needs to be done to improve
funding level projections. In addition to getting better and more re-
liable information concerning transit's needs, I believe Congress
also needs to understand the needs transit operators face due to
the enactment of the Americans With Disabilities Act [ADA], and
the Clean Air Act of 1990. These were both very important pieces
of legislation that I strongly supported. However, from the prelimi-
nary information that we have, these requirements appear to be
imposing significant unanticipated costs. We will hear from several
witnesses on these issues.
In addition, we will hear testimony on how we can better manage
transit programs to encourage more private sector involvement so
that buses, railcars, locomotives, air conditioning, brake systems,
safety equipment, and the like are made here in the United States
rather than, as is all too common, relying on foreign manufacturers
to meet these equipment needs.
Today's hearing, by examining transit needs and exploring what
we need to do to get good, accurate numbers, is another attempt
to make the ideas and the goals of ISTEA a reality, so that we will
once again employ our people to produce our goods and services,
supported with the most advanced, balanced transportation net-
work in the world.
With that, I am pleased to note that the witnesses are at the
table. One minor housekeeping rule is that, in order to accommo-
date the full plan for witness statements, we are going to have to
limit your comments to 5 minutes. Any record statements that you
want to be included will be inserted in the record.
PREPARED STATEMENT
At this point, I will insert in the record an opening statement
from my colleague. Senator Sasser, who is unable to join us due to
schedule conflicts
[The statement follows:]
Statement of Senator Sasser
Good morning. I join in welcoming today's witnesses. Although this morning's
hearing will examine the fiscal needs of transit systems, it's really about the needs
of people as they go about the various activities of their daily lives. The efficiency
of work and the quality of leisure are measured, in large part, by the effectiveness
of transit systems.
A strong Federal-local partnership is essential to a safe, efficient, and affordable
transit network. Contrary to the budget rationales of previous administrations, the
federal government does, indeed, have a stake, a vital interest in transit operations.
Local transit operations, whether urban or rural, are vehicles to the nation's eco-
nomic productivity. Failure to invest prudently or adequately in transit stagnates
tiie economy and stymies the nation's overall competitiveness.
162
For the past twelve years, previous administrations have not held up the federal
end of the transit partnership. Since 1980, federal aid to transit has declined some
50 percent. Nowhere has the federal disinvestment in transit been more evident
than in operating assistance.
Since 1980, the federal investment in transit operations has steadily declined. In
1980, the federal government invested $1.09 billion in transit operating assistance.
By 1990, federal support for transit operations had diminished to $0.86 billion. Over
the decade of the 1980's, the ratio of state and local versus federal funds committed
to transit operations was 9 to 1. That's nine state and local dollars for every one
dollar contributed by the federal government.
As a result, local transit systems have been forced to juggle limited funds to ad-
dress mounting capital and operating needs. Absent consistent federal support, the
balance between capital and operating needs becomes a losing proposition. The situ-
ation is made even more tenuous because local transit systems must also find ways
to operate under the added weight of compliance with important Clean Air Act and
Americans With Disabilities Act requirements.
Enactment of ISTEA promised to end the transit juggling act by making transit
needs a central component of a balanced, well-planned national transportation net-
work. Moreover, ISTEA recognized that an investment in transit is an investment
in people. For people who work, and those who seek work, transit is the vehicle to
an enhanced standard of living.
An investment in transit not only maintains jobs, but creates them. And, the Clin-
ton Administration recognizes the link between transit investments and jobs. The
Administration's Fiscal Year 1993 Supplemental includes some $750 million for
transit needs. It is estimated that these funds alone will create some 9,000 as part
of a long-term strategy to get the country moving productively into the next century.
An investment in transit today promises substantial, long-term benefits tomorrow.
In short, America has a vested interest in transit. Every segment of society — the
poor, the elderly, the socially disadvantaged, those who work and those who want
to work, all have a shared stake in transit. Indeed, if enterprise zones, as the Ad-
ministration has proposed, are to have a chance, then transit investments provide
the key to opening avenues of economic access and opportunity to millions of Ameri-
cans. It's time to make the ISTEA commitment to transit work for people.
I look forward to hearing the testimony.
STATEMENT OF KEN MEAD
Senator Lautenberg. I would first call on Ken Mead for his
statement, again, within the 5-minute limitation.
You will see the clock go off when the 5 minutes are up.
Mr. Mead. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We appreciate the opportunity to discuss transit needs projec-
tions. As Congress decides how to allocate limited transportation
resources, it needs data that reflect State and local transit needs.
So I would like to discuss the different transit needs projections,
the extent to which they varied, what factors could affect future
transit needs, and opportunities for improving the projections.
We have a report that was required by the ISTEA legislation. I
believe it is in your package. It was issued this week.
If you look at the chart we have made available, you can see pro-
jections of transit needs from three organizations. FTA projected
the needs to be $7.5 billion annually; AASHTO projected $20.5 bil-
lion; APTA provided the largest projection at $32 billion.
Before explaining the reasons for the variances, I want to com-
pliment FTA. FTA's 1992 needs report is a significant improvement
over its past reports since it includes both maintenance and expan-
sion needs. I think you know that in the 1980's, FTA's needs re-
ports did not make any needs projections at all.
The overall variance between the projections is substantial,
about $25 billion. The largest difference occurred because FTA ex-
163
eluded operating needs. AASHTO and APTA project those to be
about $14 billion and $16 billion, respectively.
Since operating costs are about 75 percent of all transit needs,
FTA's exclusion of these costs clearly does not provide a complete
picture of the needs situation.
It is not an issue, Mr. Chairman, of whether the Federal Govern-
ment covers these costs or not. The fact is they are needs. Those
needs are required to be reported by law.
Transit needs also include capital, which is broken down into two
components. First is maintenance and replacement; second is ex-
pansion. All three projections included costs for those two capital
components. Annual capital needs were projected at $7.5 billion by
FTA, $6.4 billion by AASHTO, and $15.7 billion by APTA. That led
to another substantial variance of about $9 billion.
The reasons? FTA, for example, calculated a portion of capital ex-
pansion needs on an assumption by the Highway Administration
that a portion of needed highway capacity wouldn't be built. The
assumption was that a portion of the people that would otherwise
have used those highways would move to transit.
In contrast to FTA's approach, AASHTO and APTA relied on cost
estimates for specific transit projects for expansion needs. AASHTO
relied on the projects that were in FTA's new starts pipeline while
APTA actually did a survey of its members to ask them what they
thought would be good projects. APTA included them, regardless of
whether FTA had approved the projects or not.
Also, in estimating expansion needs, FTA based the cost of serv-
ing additional riders on the cost of bus service. The problem with
that is some expansion would be met by rail service, and rail serv-
ice tends to be more costly than bus service.
Factors that can increase these projections include Federal legis-
lation, such as the Clean Air Act amendments, the Americans With
Disabilities Act, and the Energy Policy Act. These could cause fu-
ture transit needs to exceed all the needs projections.
AASHTO's and APTA's estimates do not include costs associated
with those laws because they were not passed at the time, or the
regulations implementing them were not out by the time the esti-
mates came out. FTA's did include about $260 million per year, I
believe, for the ADA but not the other laws.
Our report makes several recommendations, Mr. Chairman. I di-
vide them into short- and long-term recommendations.
In the short term, we need to get operating needs factored into
the estimates, and various other assumptions, such as the mode —
rail or bus — that transit users will be using, need to be factored in.
In the longer term, we think the answer is provided by the
ISTEA legislation. The ISTEA legislation does a couple of things
that will be very useful in this area. Specifically, you have to have
a State transportation plan. You also have to have a public trans-
portation management system. Operating in tandem, these will
provide actual data relevant to transit needs.
The new data sources will provide Congress with information on
what projects are planned given current levels of funding, what the
implications of those choices are, and what impact increased or de-
creased funding might have.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
164
PREPARED STATEMENT
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks very much, Mr. Mead. Your full
statement will be made part of the record.
[The statement follows:]
Statement of Kenneth M. Mead
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: It is a pleasure to be here
today to present our views on the nation's transit needs and the challenges the Fed-
eral Transit Administration (FTA) and the transit community face in addressing
these needs. Our testimony today is based on our work at FTA over the past several
years, including a report'' released this week on transit needs projections, which
was required by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
(ISTEA).
In order to make important decisions to support public transit's role in the future,
the Congress needs the best information available about how states and localities
intend to use transit to achieve their transportation-related goals. These goals in-
clude increased mobility, reduced traffic congestion, improved air quality, and eco-
nomic development.
Our testimony today will focus on the different transit needs projections provided
to the Congress, why these projections varied, what factors could affect the transit
needs, and opportunities for improving FTA's transit needs projections. In summary,
our work shows that:
— The Congress has been provided several projections of transit needs which vary
widely, from $7.5 billion to $32 billion per year. These projections were pre-
pared by FTA, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO), and the American Public Transit Association (APTA). Such
a wide variation in the need for funds complicates the Congress' decision-mak-
ing process.
— The projections varied because each defined transit needs differently by includ-
ing or excluding certain cost elements and by making different assumptions to
determine cost. The largest difference occurred because FTA excluded operating
needs, which AASHTO and APTA projected to be $14 billion and $16.3 billion
a year, respectively. In addition to operating needs, the key components of tran-
sit's overall needs are capital expansion needs, and capital maintenance and re-
placement needs. All projections included some costs for these two needs, but
FTA possibly understated needs in these categories by making several conserv-
ative assumptions.
— Several factors, including federal legislation such as the Clean Air Act Amend-
ments of 1990 (CAA), the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), and the En-
ergy Policy Act of 1992, could cause future transit needs to exceed all of the
needs projections. FTA addressed some potential impacts of ADA and CAA, but
AASHTO and APTA did not include estimates because these laws and regula-
tions were not yet in place when they prepared their projections. However, none
of the projections included the increased transit needs that might occur if states
and localities decide to increase transit services to help meet a broad range of
transportation-related goals.
— There are short- and long-term improvements that FTA should make to improve
its transit needs projections. In the short term, FTA should include operating
costs in its projections to provide a complete pictvire of transit needs, particu-
larly since operating costs have historically been more than three times capital
costs. FTA should also modify certain assumptions and methodologies to better
reflect future transit costs. In the longer term, since states and localities deter-
mine transit's role, FTA should utilize the state public transportation manage-
ment systems (PTMSs) and the state and local transportation improvement
plans required under ISTEA. The PTMSs will provide transit system condition
and performance data not currently available nationwide. The state transpor-
tation plans will include those transit projects that states and localities have
decideci to fund. By basing needs on state-specific data, FTA will be able to pro-
vide the Congress better information about needs in individual states and local-
ities.
Let me discuss these issues in more detail.
^Mass Transit: Needs Projections Could Better Reflect Future Costs (GAO/RCED-93-61,
March 9, 1993).
165
TRANSIT NEEDS PROJECTIONS VARY WIDELY
Our report compared FTA's most recent transit needs report, issued in June
1992,2 AASHTO's September 1988 report, and APTA's October 1990 report, which
Erojected annual transit needs in constant 1991 dollars to be $7.5 billion, $20.5 bU-
on, and $32 billion, respectively (see table 1). FTA is required by law to report to
the Congress on the condition and performance of the nation's transit systems (49
U.S.C. 308), whereas AASHTO and APTA provided needs projections to contribute
to the reauthorization debate that resulted in the passage of ISTEA.
The nation's transit needs include operating costs, such as employee wages, fuel,
and insurance; capital maintenance costs, such as vehicle and facility replacement;
and capital expansion costs, such as bus and rail expansion, and previously deferred
maintenance activities. Annual capital needs, for both maintenance and expansion,
were projected to be $7.5 billion by FTA, $6.4 billion by AASHTO, and $15.7 bilhon
by APTA. FTA limited its report to only capital needs, unlike AASHTO and APTA,
which projected operating needs to be $14.0 billion and $16.3 biUion, respectively.
TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF TRANSIT NEEDS PROJECTIONS
[Dollars in billions per year]
Needs FTA 1992 AASHTO 1988 APTA 1990
Maintenance/replacement $3.9 $4.4 $6.5
Expansion 3.6 2.0 9.2
Subtotal, Capital 7.5 6.4 15.7
Operating MA 14.0 16.3
Total 7^5 20^5 32^
Note: All figures are expressed In constant 1991 dollars. "NA" indicates that this element was not addressed.
Source: GAO analysis of FTA, AASHTO, and APTA data.
DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS OF TRANSIT NEEDS CAUSED FTA'S, AASHTO'S AND APTA'S NEEDS
PROJECTIONS TO VARY
The three organizations defined needs differently by including or excluding cer-
tain cost elements and by making different assumptions. Moreover, the;y relied to
varying degrees on the two basic data sources currently available — ^historical capital
and operating data and local plans for future transit services — to project operating,
capital expansion, and capital maintenance needs.
OPERATING NEEDS
The largest difference between the three projections was for operating needs, pri-
marily because FTA did not include any operating needs. Transit operating ex-
penses are substantial, costing more than three times the amount spent on capital
items. Transit services require large expenditures for bus drivers, train operators,
fuel, tires, and so on. AASHTO and APTA projected operating needs to be $14 bil-
lion and $16.3 billion, respectively. AASHTO's and APTA's operating needs projec-
tions differed because they used actual operating expense data from different years.
Although required to include operating needs in its transit needs reports, FTA has
not done so. FTA did not include operating needs because including them would
make its report inconsistent with the highway needs report, which includes only
capital needs. FTA officials told us that consistent needs definitions are important
because FTA and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) are working toward
a consolidated report. FTA also cited the complexity and sensitivity of operating
needs projections as reasons for not including these needs.
We support the move to a consolidated report and agree that improved consist-
ency in needs definition is an important component of tiiis effort. We believe, how-
ever, that operating needs should be included in future FTA reports, because (1)
transit's operating expenses are a significant portion of transit costs (far exceeding
capital expenses); (2) FTA's statutory requirement specifically calls for capital, oper-
2 The most recent highway needs report, The Status of the Nation's Highways, Bridges, and
Transit: Conditions and Performance (January 1993), also presents transit needs. The transit
needs in this report are the same as those in FTA's 1992 transit needs report, except that the
costs to eliminate the backlog of deferred maintenance are distributed over 20, rather than 10,
years. Out report also includwi FTA's 1991 transit needs report.
166
ating, and maintenance projections; and (3) acceptable methodologies for projecting
operating needs are available.
CAPITAL EXPANSION NEEDS
The second largest difference among the projections was for transit capital expan-
sion needs to improve or increase transit services. Annued capital expansion needs
were projected at $2 billion by AASHTO, $3.6 bilUon by FTA, and $9.2 billion by
APT A. FTA's expansion needs are based on (1) bringing buses, rail vehicles, and rail
facilities up to good condition by performing historically deferred maintenance and
(2) serving additional riders whose highway needs will not be met. FTA potentially
understates capital expansion needs by calculating the cost of these services on the
basis of the cost of bus services. However, FTA acknowledges that some expansion
would be met by rail service, which is more costly than bus service.
AASHTO's and APTA's reports also included capital expansion, but they based
their capital expansion projections on cost estimates for specific transit projects, ei-
ther approved or proposed, rather than on historic average costs (as FTA did). How-
ever, AASHTO and APTA each made different assumptions about what expansion
projects to include. AASHTO limited expanded transit services to those included in
FTA's "pipeline of projects" — those transit projects that FTA has approved for plan-
ning, engineering, and/or construction — and in a 1983 APTA list of proposed high-
occupancy vehicle (HOV)/busway projects. APTA limited its capital expansion needs
to those identified by its operating members in a 1990 survey that asked for esti-
mates of all ftinds needed to meet their communities' transit goals, whether or not
these projects were approved by FTA.
CAPITAL MAINTENANCE NEEDS
The smallest differences among the three projections (FTA's estimate was $3.9 bil-
lion, AASHTO's $4.4 billion, and APTA's $6.5 bilUon) were for maintenance needs —
the costs to maintain existing transit vehicles, facilities, and equipment. FTA's and
AASHTO's first premise is that the nation needs to maintain the existing vehicle
fleet, and they both used average vehicle cost and age data to estimate these needs.
For facilities and equipment maintenance needs, FTA calculated these as a percent-
age of vehicle costs, whereas AASHTO rehed on 1983 surveys of rail and bus facility
needs. APTA, on the other hand, projected greater needs than the others because
its methodology allowed for facilities expansion and used projected future costs rath-
er than average historic costs.
Some of FTA's assumptions in determining capital maintenance needs resulted in
understating these needs. For example, FTA's cost calculations for replacing aging
vehicles operated by private nonprofit agencies — for programs such as Head Start —
included only vehicles that FTA had funded, which is about half of the total fleet.
ITie other vehicles were mostly funded by the Department of Health and Human
Services, and FTA did not consider them to be a "transit need."
TRANSIT NEEDS MAY INCREASE BEYOND THE PROJECTIONS
All three projections excluded several factors that are likely to significantly in-
crease fixture transit needs. Specifically, none of them fully takes into account the
following factors: (1) costs for transit vehicles to convert to alternative fuels, due to
clean tor or energy conservation reqviirements; (2) ADA requirements to make exist-
ing transit stations and vehicles accessible to persons wiui disabilities and to pro-
vide expanded special services for the disabled; and (3) expanded transit services to
meet specific transportation-related goals, such as reduced traffic congestion or im-
proved air quality. Fiuiiiermore, future transit operating needs may exceed those
forecasted by either APTA or AASHTO, since these projections did not account for
the operating needs associated with their projected capital expansion needs.
Several recently enacted federal laws, such as CAA and ADA, could increase tran-
sit needs in two ways: by imposing requirements that increase the costs of providing
existing transit services and by possibly leading to new transit services. For exam-
ple, costs for transit services could increase because ADA requires transit operators
to make all services fully accessible, which adds to transit's capital and operating
costs. Additionally to the extent that new transit services are implemented to im-
prove air quality and mobility for persons with disabilities, the nation's transit
needs would increase.
FTA included projected capital costs to conform to ADA requirements and pre-
sented some possible impacts of the CAA on the basis of potential regulatory re-
quirements, but AASHTO and APTA did not address these laws since they had not
167
been enacted at the time their projections were prepared. However, none of the pro-
jections included tiie full range of transit needs that might occur.
FTA NEEDS TO MAKE SHORT- AND LONG-TERM IMPROVEMENTS TO ITS NEEDS
PROJECTIONS
FTA could strengthen its needs projections by improving its methodologies and by
making use of improved data that will be available imder new ISTEA requirements.
Our report recommends several specific ways, both in the short and long terms, that
FTA can improve its projections. In the short term, FTA could improve its meth-
odologies by including operating needs in its futvu^ transit needs reports. FTA
should also modify certain assumptions and methodologies to reflect future costs.
For example, FTA should calculate expansion costs on the basis of a mix of rail and
bus services rather than estimating these needs using only bus service costs, which
are lower than those for rail.
In the longer term, rather than projecting needs based on nationwide averages,
FTA should use new data sources that better reflect state and local transit situa-
tions. ISTEA requirements will make available state and local investment plans, as
well as data on transit systems' physical condition and service effectiveness, which
better predict fixture transit investment needs than do existing data sources. These
requirements include a state transportation plan and improvement program docu-
menting local transit decisions and a state public transportation management sys-
tem containing transit performance and condition data. In developing regulations
for these ISTEA requirements, the Department of Transportation can help ensure
that transit data are collected that will be usefiil in projecting needs. For example,
FTA now relies on a 1983 physical survey of rail conditions, and the PTMS could
provide FTA access to current information on actual vehicle and facihty conditions
without having to periodically conduct survey updates.
In siunmary, future transit needs will depend upon a complex set of decisions
made by each state and locality as they determine how their transportation systems
will address transportation, environmental, economic, social and other goals. Until
better information about local decisions is available nationwide, our recommenda-
tions should improve the transit needs projections that are based on historical data.
Using the ISTKA-required state transportation plans and the PTMS data on the
condition and efficiency of transit sjystems, when these become available, should re-
sult in needs reports that better reflect local transit investment decisions.
Mr. Chairman, this Subcommittee is facing competing demands for funding in
high speed rail, highways, bridges, mass transit, aviation, Amtrak, and other areas.
Many of these choices are policy decisions that only the Congress can make. It is
of the utmost importance that when making these decisions m this time of scarce
resources, the Congress have the best information available.
This concludes my prepared statement. I will be pleased to respond to any ques-
tions you or other members of the Subcommittee may have.
168
Mass Transit: Needs Projections Could Better
Reflect Future Costs
GAO
United States
General Accounting OfTlcc
Washington, D.C. 20548
Resources, Community, and
Economic Development Division
B-251732
March 9, 1993
The Honorable Donald W. Riegle, Jr.
Cliairman
The Honorable Alfonse D'Amato
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Banking, Housing and
Urban Affairs
United States Senate
The Honorable Norman Y. Minela
Chairman
Tlie Honorable Bud Shuster
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Public Works
and Transportation
House of Representatives
In order to make important policy and funding decisions to support public
transit's role In Uie future, the Congress needs the best information
available about how slates and localities Intend to use transit to achieve
their transportation-related goals. These goals include increased mobility,
reduced traffic congestion, improved air quality, and econonuc
development. Since 1988 the Congress has been provided with four
projections of overall trarisit needs that range from about $3 billion to
$32 billion per year. The Federal Transit Administration (fta), an agency
of the Department of Transportation (dot), has prepared two reports as
required by law; the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (aasiito) and the American Public Transit
Association (apta) — two nonprofit associations representing stale
transportation and transit Interests, respectively — have each prepared one
projection to contribute to reauthorization discussions.
Because of longstanding concerns about existing needs projections, the
Congress, in section 3028 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991 (istea), required gao to examine Issues concerning
estimates of trarxsit needs. In discussions with your offices, we agreed to
Identify (1) why the projections of transit needs varied, (2) what other
factors could affect the accuracy of future projectioixs, and (3) any
opporturUties for improving future transit needs projections.
Results in Bripf "^^ projections varied because each organization defined transit needs
differently by including or excluding certain cost elements or by making
different assumptions to determine cost. Tlie key cost elements that
determine transit's overall needs are (1) operating, (2) capital expansion,
and (3) capital maintenance and replacement, fta excluded all operating
needs in both of its reports, whereas these costs were projected to be
$14 billion/year and $16.3 billion/year by aasiito and aita, respectively.
Three of the four projections included capital expansion costs for
increasing transit services. However, fta's projection possibly understated
needs by making several conservative assumptions. For example, fta
assumed that the cost of new transit services would be the same as
current average costs, while aasiito and ajta relied on cost projections for
specific new transit services, fta also conservatively estimated human
service (for the elderly and disabled) capital replacement needs by limiting
these to capital that fta has historically funded.
169
Several factors, including federal legislation such as the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 (caa), the Americans With Disabilities Act (ada), and
the Energy Policy Act of 1992, could cause future transit needs to exceed
all of the needs projections. For example, transit service may be expancUxl
to contribute to emissions reductions required by tlie caa. Additionally,
states and localities may choose to Increase transit services In their
communities beyond projected levels to help meet a broad range of
transportation-related goals, such as facilitating land use and economic
development plans. Since these laws and regulations were not yet In place
when fta's 1991, aashto's, and apta's reports were prepared, tJiese
projections did not Include the expanded transit needs tliat might rcsulL
fta's 1992 report did address some potential Impacts of ada, caa, and some
service expansion. However, none of the projections included Ihc full
range of Increased transit needs that might occur.
In the short term, dot could help to ensure that the projections are more
reflective of potential future costs by including operating costs and tlie
estimated costs to comply with laws such as caa and ada. In tlie longer
term, dot could develop more meaningful needs projections by using slate
and local transit investment plans as well as data on transit systems'
physical conditions and service effectiveness. These data will be made
available by three btea requirements: (1) a state transportation plan and
Improvement program documenting local traiuit decisions; (2) a state
public transportation mai\agement system (pt»is) containing data on
traruit performance and condition; and (3) a Bureau of Transportation
Statistics (BTS) within dot that, among other things, will compile, analyze,
and publish daU on the availability, use, and condition of transit services.
In developing regulations for these istea requirements, dot can help
ensure that transit daU are collected that will be useful in projecting
needs.
History of Transit
Needs Reports
fta Is required by 49 U.S.C. section 308 to biennially report to the Congress
on the current performance and condition of public mass transportation
systems, Including a complete assessment of all public transportation
facilities In the United States, fta is also required to include an assessment
of future capital, operating, and maintenance requirements for 1-year,
&-year, and 10-year periods at specified levels of service.
FTA has published five reports to satisfy section 308, although none
addressed all the required elements. The last two reports (which were
published in February 1991 and Jtine 1992) discussed transit's
performance (e.g., ridership and cost trends), and unlike the first three
reports, these Included an assessment of future traiuit needs for urban and
commuter rail and for urban, rural, and human service bus services, fta is
also working toward a Joint traiuit and highway needs report, and the
January 1993 Federal Highway AdmUnistratlon's (fiiwa) report. The Status
of the Nation's Highways, Bridges, and Transit CondiUons and
Performance, is the fust dot needs report to include both transit and
highway needs, fta oflidals told us that the transit needs in the 1993 niwA
report are basically those trom fta's 1992 needs report
AASirro and atta have prepared several projections of the i\atlon's trarult
needs. Both AASirro's September 1988 and apta's October 1990 needs
reports, prepared to contribute to the reauthorization debate Utat resulted
In the passage of btba, concluded that needs exceeded current funding.
Table 1 presents each report's projected needs. (A more complete
discussion of the Individual reports and how we compared them are
Included In app. I.)
TaMe 1: Summary of Tranilt Needi
Reports
Dollars in billions per year
Needs
FTA 1991
FTA 1992
AASHTO 19M
APTA 1990
Maintenance/
replacement
$3 210
40
$3 9
$44
$65
Expansion
NA
36
20
92
Subtotal— capHal
3 2 to
40
7.5
64
157
Operating
NA
NA
140
16.3
Total
$ 3.2 lo
4.0
$73
$20.5
$32.0
Note Ail figures are expressed In constanl 1991 doAars Table I 1 (app I) describes how these
values were calculaied. "NA' irKAcales ihai iNs element was rxM addressed.
170
Different Definitions
of Needs Caused
Projections to Vary
Different derinilions of transit needs caused fta's, aasiito's, and apta's
needs projections to vary from $3 billion to nearly $32 billion per year.
Each organization operationally defined transit needs by including (or
excluding) certain cost elements or by making different assumptions to
determine cost. The lliree key elements that determine transit's overall
needs are the costs to operate, expand, and maintain/replace existing
transit services.
FFA's Reports Did Not
Include Operating
Expenses
Although FTA is required by law to include capital and operating needs in
its transit needs projections, fta did not include operating needs in any of
its projections, addressing capital needs only. AASirro and apta, on tlie
other hand, reported on both capital and operating needs. Because
aasiito's and apta's operating needs projections were $14.0 billion and
$16.2 billion, respectively, it is clear why their overall needs projections
were so much greater than fta's.
By not including operating costs in its 1991 and 1992 transit needs
projections, fta omitted the largest experwe category for the nation's
transit systems. Transit operating exper\ses are substantial, costing more
tlian three times the amount spent on capital items. Transit services
require large, continual expenditures for bus drivers, train operators, fuel,
tires, and so on.
FTA officials told us that botli fta reports excluded operating needs for
several reasons. First, since fta is working with fhwa on joint
highway/transit needs reports, fta seeks a conunon definition of needs
with FIIWA, which defines highway needs as capital only. Second, fta notes
that addressing operating needs would require introducing a myriad of
complex Issues (e.g., fare policies, demand elasticities, etc.) that would
increase the report's complexity while adding little value. TItird, fta
believes that the assumptions necessary to project operating needs would
compromise the capital projection's integrity when presented as an overall
single need. However, estimating methodologies similar to tJiose used for
capital projections are available for operating needs, and by Including only
capital needs in its reports, fta did not provide the complete picture of
future transit needs as envisioned In its reporting requirements.
Assumptions About Capital
Expansion Needs
Signincantly Affected
Projections
The second largest difference among the needs reports was tl>e treatment
of expanded tramsit capital needs to Improve or Increase transit services.
Although fta's 1991 report did not Include any expansion needs, its 1992
report did address expansion by calculating the capital cost to provide for
additional transit passenger miles. AASirro's and apta's reports also
included capital expansion, but each took a different approach to
calculating these costs. Capital expar«ion needs in the three studies that
included them ranged from about $2 billion to over $5 billion per year.
fta's 1992 report presented two types of capital costs in its expanded
transit service scenario: the costs to Improve conditiotw and the costs to
improve performance. Improving transit conditions requires bringing all
bus and rail vehicles and facilities up to "good" condition by performing
historically deferred maintenance. Improving transit performance requires
adding transit capacity to meet potential increases in current demand
trends. This potential increased demand stems from niWA's report entitled
The 1991 Status of the Nation's Highways and Bridges: Conditions,
Performance, and Capital Investment Requirements, which forecast that
about 34,000 lane-miles of needed highways would not be builL fta's 1992
report assumed that 10 percent of the passenger miles of travel that would
have been served by these lane-miles could result in additional transit
ridership. Although fta acknowledged that some of the expanded service
needs would likely be met by more costly rail service, the report
calculated only the costs of expanded bus service to meet those needs,
thereby understating the costs of needs actually met by rail service.
Both AASirro and apta based their capital expansion projections on
estimates for specific transit projects, either approved or proposed. AASirro
quantified Uie capital costs for expanded transit services on tJie basis of
fta's "pipeline of projects" — those transit projects tliat fta has approved
171
and begun to fund — and an apta list of proposed high-occupancy vehicle
(HOv)/busway projects, ajta based its capital expansion estimate on its
1990 survey of operating members' needs.'
Although
Maintenance/Replacement
Projections Were Similar,
Some Assumptions
Underestimated Needs
The smallest differences among tlie four projections (a gap of $3.3 billion
for existing capital versus $9.2 billion for capital expansion and
$16.3 billion for operating needs) were for the costs to maintain existing
transit capital — the only category of needs that all four studies included
Although the specific calculation methods differed, there were relatively
small differences among fta's two maintenance/replacement cost
estimates and AASirro's because these three projections (1) used average
vehicle cost and age data to estimate the cost to replace the existing
operating vehicle fleet and (2) added facilities' maintenance costs as a
percentage of vehicle costs, apta, which surveyed its members on what
they need to maintain their existing services, projected greater needs than
tlie others because its methodology did not limit respondents to the
current ratio of vehicles to facilities.
fta's 1991 report calculated the average annual replacement cost of buses
on the basis of minimum-useful-life standards (the minimum veliicle age or
mileage for fta to fund replacement) and average vehicle costs; the report
estimated maintenance facility needs as a percentage of bus purchases.
However, some of the assumptions that fta made caused it to
underestimate replacement needs. For example, fta's calculations of the
cost to replace aging human service fleets included only the vehicles fta
had funded — about one-half of the total. The other vehicles were mostly
funded by the Department of Health and Human Services, and fta did not
consider these to be a "transit need.' fta's 1992 report made the same
assumption.
fta's 1992 report treatment of capital maintenance/replacement needs was
an improvement over its 1991 report. For example, fta's 1992 report
increased annual replacement costs by 0.8 percent to maintain transit's
current performance of Increasing ridership.^ However, by using current
average costs rather than marginal costs (the incremental cost to provide
new services), fta potentially understated the costs of this ridership
growth. The marginal costs to Increase ridership are likely to be higher
than current average costs, because expenses increase (because
efficiencies decline) as service is extended into less densely populated
areas.
Although AASHTO's maintenance/replacement needs projections closely
match fta's, aashto's do not include human service and rural needs.' apta's
report presented the largest projection of existing transit systems' needs
by allowing operators to include facility needs beyond tlie historical ratio
of vehicle-to-facility investments. Differences among the projections also
occurred because apta relied primarily on its own data collection — a
survey of its operating members expanded to reflect the entire transit
industry — for its projections, while fta and AASirro both primarily used
audited historical data.
(App. 1 provides more detailed information on the four different needs
projections and the methods used to prepare each projection.)
New Requirements
May Increase Transit
Needs Beyond the
Projections
All four projections excluded several factors that could significantly
increase future transit needs. Specifically, none of them fully take into
account the following factors: (1) costs for transit vehicles to convert to
alternative fuels because of clean air or energy conservation re<|uirements;
(2) ADA requirements to make existing transit stations and vehicles
accessible to persons with disabilities and to provide expanded special
services for the disabled; and (3) expanded transit services to meet
specific transportation-related goals, such as reduced traffic congestion or
'APTA operating members actually provide transit services, and these survey resiKimlenls carry wi-c
90 percent of all persons using urban public transit in the United States.
This figure Is based on the fact that total transit ridership has increased by 8 percent over thclast 10
years. Tlie average annual increase, therefore, has been 0 8 percent
'AASirrO recognlied human service and riiral transit needs but presented only additional funding
needs'short/alls (not txjtal needs) Therefore, these costs were n« Included In our report.
172
improved air quality. Furthermore, future transit operating needs may
exceed those forecast by either apta or AASirro, since U>ese projections did
not account for the operating needs associated wiUi their projected capital
expansion needs. Until such time as these factors are talcen into account,
projections may understate future transit needs.
Additional Capital
Investments May Be
Necessary
To the extent that local communities select transit projects to help meet
transportation-related goals, such as improved air quality and reduced
trafric congestion, transit capital needs will increase. None of tlie needs
reports explicitly projected transit's costs to support all these goals.
Additionally, several recently enacted federal laws — caa, ada, and Uie
Energy Policy Act of 1992— impose greater capital costs to maintain
existing transit service levels. None of these laws had been enacted at Uie
time the aasiito and apta projections were made, fta's 1992 report
included projected capital costs to conform to ada requirements and
presented some possible impacts of caa based on potential regulatory
requirements. The Energy Policy Act was not enacted prior to issuance of
fta's 1992 report and therefore was not reflected in the needs projections.
Trar\sit can contribute to improved air quality, reduced traffic congestion,
enhanced mobility for the disabled, energy conservation, and land use and
economic development plans. For example, increased transit is one of
several caa transportation control measures for making required air
quality improvements. To the extent that expanded transit services are
chosen to meet these or otlier goals, the nation's transit needs will
increase.
Even if transit services are not expanded to meet transportation and other
goals, recently enacted federal legislation Imposes new costs on trar\sit
operators. For example, ada requires transit operators to make all services
fully accessible — Including equipping all new buses with wheelchair lifts,
putting elevators in all transit stations not at grade, and providing
information in accessible formats — all of which add to transit's capital and
operating costs. Because the ada regulations were released after fta's
1991, AASirro's and apta's reports were prepared, the law's effects were not
Included in these projections, fta's 1992 report, however, included the
capital costs to comply with ada — $260 million by dot's estimate. The ada
regulations (49 C.F.R. parts 27, 37, and 38) require each transit operator to
develop a plan for complying with ada's paratransit (demand-responsive
service) requirements within 5 years, including cost estimates. These
estimates provide a new opportunity for fta to include the most complete
and accurate data available In its needs projections concerning estimated
ADA costs to be incurred by local transit operators.
Operating Needs Increase
With Capital Expansion
Future operating costs could increase for a variety of reasons, including
expanded trar\sit services and deteriorating transit equipment. Future
decisions to expand transit services would increase transit's future
operating needs, as operating and maintenance exper\ses increase in
cor\)unction with the additional miles and hours operated. Additionally, if
routine maintenance and replacement activities are deferred, which has
occurred In the past, operating costs and inefficiencies will increase
because poorly maintained and older vehicles are more costly to operate
(e.g., are less fuel efficient, break down more often).
If operating costs Increase, local communities may have to reduce transit
service (which reduces capital effectiveness) or provide greater transit
subsidies. For example, federal operating assistance declined from
$1,185 million in 1984 to $845 million in 1990, and while stale and local
assistance increased from $6.9 billion to $8.7 billion, not all areas were
able to find sufficient funds to support current transit operatior« and
reduced service accordingly. Two of the eight states we visited told us tliat
they have already cut services because of shortages of operating funds,
and every transit official we spoke witli told us that future service cuts
were a possibility because of Increased requirements ard potential
reductions in subsidies from all levels of govemnjenL
173
New Requirements
Offer Opportunity to
Improve Future Needs
Projections
New opportunities exist for improving national transit needs projections
by looking to stale and local transit plans as well as data on transit
systems' condition, performance, and effectiveness, istea's new
requirements for state-developed transportation plans and improvement
programs, new management systems, and the creation of the Bureau of
Transportation Statistics offer an opportunity for ix)t to gatlier Improved
data on future transit investments and system condition, which can serve
as inputs to future needs analysis. Tlie processes necessary to collect this
information are still being developed, but over the next several years, great
progress could be made to lay the foundation for improvements to future
transit needs projections.
ISTEA requires states and localities to prepare transportation plans and
improvement programs that reflect local assessments of transit needs.
Previously, such documents were neither required nor standardized;
therefore, data from all areas were not available for national transit needs
projections. As a result, all of the projections assumed that current
services would be maintained, and some would be expanded, without
considering actual plans. The projections Uierefore included current
services that are no longer needed and may have understated needs
exceeding current services. As fta stated in its 1992 report, ita plans to tiy
to include data from urban area plans and improvement programs in its
future needs reports. By also looking to the new stale plans, infonnation
on actual needs, as reflected by new services as well as any planned
reduction in existing services, could be included in future needs
projections.
Besides new planning processes istea requires all slates to implement
several transportation management systems, including a public
transportation management system, before January 1, 1995. A ptms can
provide fta with access to better local data and decisions from which
nationwide needs can be better projected. For example, past fta needs
projections have relied on fta's Rail Modernization Study, which describes
the 1983 condition of the nation's rail transit systems, fta would have
access to more recent data on rail systems' condition if the states' itmss
contained this type of information, dot is still developing tlie regulations
for these management systems, but its announcement of a notice of
proposed rulemaking indicates that the ptmss will describe the condition,
efficiency, and effectiveness of transit systems in each state. However, dot
wall need to provide descriptive guidance to the states and localities so
that the data collected will be consistent. If dot's regulations address these
factors, the ptmss could be an invaluable resource for future needs
projections.
iSTEA also creates, within dot, bts to compile, analyze, and publish a
comprehensive set of transportation statistics. In doing this work, bts is to
coordinate with existing dot administrations, including fta, to prepare,
among other things, (1) statistics on the availability, use, and condition of
the nation's transit services and (2) infonnation that crosses modes, such
as variables influencing travel behavior Although fta is working toward
improving its data in these areas, in part with ntWA, when in place bts may
provide another opportunity for dot to collect and analyze state and local
information relevant to trartsit needs projections and to ensure data
consistency between the modes.
It is important to note that istea's plemning and management system
changes vrill not immediately lead to improved needs projections, since it
will take several years to develop and implement these changes. However,
by including improved data as tliey become available, fta's national transit
needs projections can become more reflective of state and local transit
needs.
Conclusions
The four transit needs projections were different because they included
different cost elements and made different assumptions to calculate costs.
By not including operating needs in its projections, fta omitted the largest
expense category for the nation's transit systems. Additionally, fta
potentially underestimated capital needs in a number of areas For
example, to maintain the existing human service fleet, fta limited
replacement needs to only tliose vehicles that were purchased with dot
funds, thereby leaving out half the vehicles in this fleet
174
New federal requirements, which were not nnalized when the needs
reports were prepared (e.g., ada and caa), will likely Increase costs beyond
the projections. Additionally, transit needs could potentially exceetl all of
tlie projections should states and localities choose to increase transit
services to meet a broad range of transportation-related goals. New
planning requirements for state and local transit plans could become the
basis for a nationwide estimate of transit needs. These kinds of data are
not being collected currently, but dot has an opportunity to facilitate
future data availability. In developing the requirements for istea mandated
transportation planning, management systems, and bts, dot can help
ensure that useful data are collected for future transit needs reports.
Recommendations
To better assist the Congress and others in the transportation community,
we recommend that the Secretary of Transportation take actions to
improve future Federal Transit Administration transit needs reports
required by 49 U.S.C. section 308 by
including operating needs (current as well as expanded system) for U>e
nation's transit systems;
including vehicle replacement needs for the entire human service operator
rieet, not Just tlie vehicles dot has funded;
Including transit operators' cost estimates for ada compliance as reported
to FTA under 49 C.F.R. parts 27, 37, and 38;
developing new needs projection methods that are more reflective of
potential costs, such as estimating the propoition of expanded ridership
that will use rail versus bus service and projecting costs accordingly, and
including costs to address caa and the Energy Policy Act of 1992;
ensuring tJiat standard data requirements for transit needs projectioris,
such as planned transit expansions and transit systems' condition and
maintenance information, are included in tlie new istba transportation
planning and management system regulations that are currently under
development; and
considering transit needs data requirements, such as variables that
influence the selection of transit over other alternative modes, when
determining bts' future activities.
Agency Comments
We discussed the contents of this report willi officials from the Office of
the Secretary of Transportation; fta's Deputy Associate Administrator,
Office of Budget and Policy; and other fta officials from the Offices of
Grants Management and Budget and Policy. We also obtained the views of
AASirro's Program Director and apta's Director of Policy Analysis and other
officials from these organizations. Officials from each of these offices
generally agreed with our findings and recommendations, and we have
incorporated their comments and clarifications where appropriate.
However, the dot officials disagreed with our recommendation to project
operating needs in future dot/fta transit needs reports for several reasons.
Including that such projections would make tlieir report inconsistent with
the highway needs report, which includes only capital needs, fta officials
told us that consistent needs definitions are important because ita and
FiiWA are working toward a consolidated report. We support the move to a
consolidated report and agree that improved consistency in needs
definition is an important component of this effort. However, we continue
to believe that operating needs should be included in future fta needs
reports, because (1) transit's operating expenses are a significant portion
of transit costs (far exceeding capital expenses); (2) fta's statutory
requirement specifically calls for capital, operating, and maintenance
projections; and (3) acceptable methodologies for projecting operating
needs are available. As agreed with your offices, we did not obtain written
comments on a draft of this report.
Scope and
Methodology
To evaluate tl\e four transit needs reports, examine other factors that
could affect the accuracy of these reports, and identify opportunities to
Improve future reports, we obtained Information from fta, AASirro, apta,
and state and local transportation officials in eight states. Our review was
conducted between April and November 1992 in accordance witli
generally accepted government auditing standards. Our objectives, scope,
and methodology are discussed more fully in appendix II.
175
We are sending copies of tliis report to the Secretary of Transportation;
the Administrator, Federal Transit Adnunistration; the Director, Office of
Management and Budget; participating organizations; and interested
congressional committees. We will also send copies to other interested
parties upon request.
Our work was performed under the direction of Kenneth M. Mead,
Director, Transportation Issues, who can be reached on (202) 512-2834.
Oilier msyor contributors to tliis report are listed in appendix III.
J. Dexter Peach
Assistant Comptroller General
Appendix I
Comparison of Transit Needs Projections
The Federal Transit Administration (fta), American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (aasiito), and American Public
Transit Association (apta) have prepared projections of the nation's transit
investment needs. Each projection was prepared at a different time and
covered different time periods. In addition, each projection made different
assumptions about what constituted either an existing or expanded transit
system need. As a result of these differences, the projections' needs
ranged from about $3 billion to $32 billion per year.
Overview of Transit
Needs Reports
Witliin tlie last 5 years, fta has published two needs reports, and AASirro
£md APTA have published one each — a total of four reports, fta's 1991
Report did not quantify needs over a specified time frame, whereas the
other three reports specified periods from 1 to 33 years. The two fta
reports were required by federal law, while the other two reports were
produced for planning and legislative purposes. As table 1.1 shows, fta's
1991 report presented the most conservative amount for the nation's
transit needs, as low as $ 3.2 billion per year. At the other extreme was
apta's projection of nearly $32 billion per year.
FTA's 1991 Report
FTA released its fourth transit needs report in February 1991.' This report
did not specify any time frame for its projections. The report presented
one scenario of transit needs (replacing existing capital) and reported tlie
annual cost to maintain Uie conditions of the nation's existing transit
systems to be between $3 billion and $3.7 billion, fta's 1991 report did not
include any transit system expansion or operating needs.
»
'dot Is required by 49 U.S.C. section 308 to biennially report to the Congress on the current
performance and condition of public mass tiansportaUon systems, Including an assessment of future
capital, operaUng, and maintenance requirements for 1-year, B-year, and 10-year periods at specified
levels of service The requirement was established by 1983 technical correcUons to the 1982 Surface
TransportaOon Assistance Act; FTA also published reporU In 1984, 1987, and 1988.
176
TabI* 1.1: Ovarviaw of Tranall Nmd* Report*
Dollars in mUHons per year*
Report lima Iramea
FTA— 1991 report
Indonnlta period
FTA— 1992 report
1992 through 2001
AASHTO— 1988 raport
1988 through 2000*
APTA— 1990 report
1992 through 1997
Capital:
Slalus quo
$3.23810 3.994
$3,891
$4,440
$6,459
ExparKied syslem
NA«
$3,607
$2,006
$6,166
Other*
MA
NA
NA
$3,057
Subtotal:
$3,23a to 3,994
$7,499
$8,448
$15,682
Operating:
Slalus quo
NA
NA
$14,019'
$16,269'
Expanded syslem
NA
NA
NA
Unquanlilled. new
services would
Increase needs
Total need
13,238 to 3,994
$7,498
$20,467
$31,951
Source: OAO analysis ol FTA. AASHTO. and APTA dal*
'Tabla presents constanl 1991 doiart per year lor al studies lor comparative purposes These
needs are the overai needs profecllons and are not adjusted to rallecl receipts ot individual
operatori Both of FTA's reports presented rteeds In arvHjel arriounts. wtiereas AASHTO srKl
APTA presented • total amount for a multiyear llrm period Arviuat amrxjnts for both AASHTO tnd
APTA were calculeled by dM<Mr>g lotel amounts by Ihe number ol yeers IrKluded in Itie lime
period FTA s 1991 lepon presented needs In 19IN dolers. FTA's 1992 report presented 1991
dcaers. AASHTO's report presented 1968 dolars. end APTA's 1990 report presented 1990
doiars Al values heve lieen convened to corrstent (1991) dollars using 9w Gross Domestic
Proriuci tmpecti price deHala. Except es oltierwlse noted, doaar velues do not Include Mlebon
>AASHTO protected transit needs Irom 1968 through XX For this enalysls. AASHTO's
protections have been sbbrevlaled to reflect only needs tfcm 1988 Itwough 2000 This more
doeely metches the time frames In FTA's arxf APTA's pro|ectlom However. AASHTO's enalysls
asstxnes heavy Investmeni from 1968 through 2000 to arldrest the twcWog of deferred
meMenerKa needs Annual cosu alter 2000 ere protected lo be lower llien those kx 1968
through 2600
• NA Indlceles Ihet an alemenl was not arMessed In the slurty.
•Other cepltel Hems Include service vehicles, computers, tare ca*ectlon systems, and
communlcetlons equlpmenl.
■AASHTO'S needs protecHon esstmed a 4.1 percent Inllatlon rale In Us celcitetlon ol IransHs
operellng needs For comperellve purposes, GAO took AASHTO's bese yeer (1968) needs
esUmele end converted the estlmele lo Its 1991 doRer equlvelsnt
'APTAs needs proleclfon staled that 1990 operating needs were SIS 7 tjWon and Ihet nearty
$100 baion would be needed over the 1992 to 1997 period For comparative purposes. GAO tooK
APTA's bese yeM( 1990) needs estlmele and converted the estlmete tons 1991 dollar eqiArelenl.
FTA's 1992 Report
FTA released a subsequent transit needs report In June 1092. This report
projected costs over a 10-year period, from 1992 through 2001. fta's 1992
report presented two difTerent scenarios for transit needs: (1) maintain
conditions and performance and (2) Improve conditions and performance.
The first scenario focused primarily on replacing existing capital
equipment, but also Included costs to modestly Increase transit
services — coiuistent with transit's ridershlp growth trends. The second
scenario Included the additional costs to improve transit facilities and
services over those In the maintain scenario, fta's report discussed bus
and rail needs within each scenario, fta calculated annual costs for each
of these elements and then added them to present a total annual cost of
$7.6 billion to maintain and improve transit conditions and performance.
The report projected a limited amount of growtli In transit services, but It
did not project any operating needs.
AASHTO's 1988 Report
AASirro's 1988 transit needs report was published In September 1988 as an
appendix to The Bottom Line report' AASirro's transit needs report
presented several different categories of transit needs without combining
them into one total needs requirement The categories presented were
maintenance of the current system, new starts, operations, rural, and
specialized services. Within each category, aasiito projected transit needs
and funding for the 1988 to 2020 time period.' If all of AASirro's categories
of needs for 1988 through 2000 are added togetlier, a total annual transit
investment of about $20 billion is required.
The Bottom line and rrtited reports were part of AASirrO's 2020 efTort, a lr>rig.<enn planning efTort to
reach consensus on alternatives lor mecUng the nation's transportation reriulrements througii the year
2020.
'For this analysis, AASHTO's projections have been abbreviated to reflect only needs from 1088 in
2000. This more closely matches the time frames in FTA's arHl APTA's projecUorw- However.
AASHTO's analysis assumed that higher levels of transit Investment are itukIc immediately (In the near
term) to restore the condldon of the nation's transit systems to a state of good repair. 11 these higher
Investments are made, AASI rrO estimates that needed annual expenditures would decrease after the
year 2000.
177
APTA's 1990 Report
apta's transit needs report was published in October 1990, in time to be
included in the pre-isrEA congressional debate. Tlie report projected needs
from 1992 through 1997 for most types of needs, such as maintaining and
improving current capital equipment and facilities, expanding transit
services, and operating transit systems. Although apta did not explicitly
request data on human service transportation needs, some respondents
may have included human service transit needs in their response to atta's
survey, atta's total projection was nearly $32 billion per year.
Assumptions Made
Regarding Existing
Transit System Needs
Although all of the transit needs reports included the costs to maintain
current transit systems, each projection calculated these costs differently.
For example, fta and apta collected and generated their own data tliat fed
their calculations, whereas aashto largely relied on existing sources of
data. Table 1.2 summarizes the assumptions made about existing transit
system needs. These needs are divided into bus, rail, and human service
for comparative purposes, although the original studies may not have
followed this same organization.
FTA's 1991 Report
fta's 1991 report focused on replacing existing capital equipment and
fcicilities that were already in service. The report categorized needs ii\to
two types: bus and rail. To quantify replacement needs, FfA calculated the
annual cost to replace existing fleet vehicles on tlie basis of its information
on current vehicle fleet age, standards for veliicle useful life, and average
costs of replacement vehicles.
Table 1.2: Assumptions Made lo Determine Existing System Maintenance Needs
FTA— 1991 report
FTA— 1992 report
AASHTO— 1988 report
APTA— 1990 report
Bus systems:
Vehicle replacement
Minimum uselul lile lor
peak Heel In service
Average current age lor
peak Heel, plus ridership
growth trends'
Average current age lor
peak Heel In service
1990 APTA survey ol
transit operators polled
operator needs"
Vehicle rehab
NA»
NA
NA
1990 APTA survey ol
Iransil operators
Service vehicles
NA
NA
NA
1990 APTA survey ol
transit operators
MainI lacililles
Ratio (1 2) ol vehicle
grants
Ratio o( vehicle grants
(1:1 urban) (1:2 rural)
Urban: 1983 APTA
survey Rural: (1:2) ratio
ol vehicle grants
1990 APTA survey ol
transit operators
Operaling lacililles
NA
included In main!
lacililies above
NA
1990 APTA survey ol
Iransil operators
Non-DOT-lunded
systems
NA
NA
NA
1990 APTA survey
expanded lo include all
operators
Rail systems
Vehicle replacemeni
1987 Rail Modernlzalion
Study (RMS) (lor
services In operation in
1983)
1987 (RMS)
Average current age
and cost lor peak Heel in
service
1990 APTA survey ol
iransil operators polled
operator needs
Vehicle rehab
1987 (RMS)
1987 (RMS)
NA
1990 APTA survey ol
transit operators
Service vehicles
NA
1987 (RMS)
NA
1990 APTA survey ol
Iransil operators
Maim lacililles
1987 (RMS)
1987 (RMS)
1987 (RMS)
1990 APTA survey ol
transit operalors
Operaling lacililles
1987 (RMS)
1987 (RMS)
1987 (RMS)
1990 APTA survey ol
transit operators
Human service systems
Vehicle replacemeni
Minimum uselul life for
1/2 ol DOT-lunded
operator Heel (estimated
by CTAA)
Average lile lor 1/2 ol
DOT-lunded operator
lleet (estimated by
CTAA)
Minimum uselul lile lor
lleet (estimated by
CTAA)
Only il included in 1990
APTA survey ol transit
operators
Vehicle rehab
NA
NA
NA
NA
Service vehicles
NA
NA
NA
NA
Maim lacililies
NA
Ralio(1 2) ol vehicle
grants
NA
Only il included in 1990
APTA sun/ey ol transit
operalors
Operaling lacililies
NA
Include In main! lacililies NA
NA
ADA services in place
ADA requirements NA
included in bus services
above
NA
178
FTA— 1991 raporl FTA— 1993 repoft AASHTO— 19M npofi APTA— 1990 rapoit
Non-OOT-funded NA NA NA na
syslenw
TTA lieaU conUnued sytlem growth (M rscani hMortcd tavels) as 'malnuinlng ihe petlofmance'
ol exisling uantH systami, although Ihls doM r«presen< tyilem expansion
*APTA conducled a survey d al Hs U S oparallng membets behveen Febfuary and June 1990 A
lolal 01166 Iransll operators. tepreMnting nearty 60 percent o( Ihe US llaet of transit passenger
vehicles. lesporxled lo Ihe survey The survey asked operalors lo protect caprial needed Irom al
lunding sources lo meet llieir commur^nies reciulrements lor public transprxtallon Improvements
Ifom 1992 tNough 1997. Esumated total needs (or aa UansH agencies were protected Irom survey
response*
<NA Indicates that this etemeni was not addressed
Bus needs were divided Into urban, rural, tmd human service
transportation needs, fta calculated the urban bus fleet Inventory on the
basis of tl>e maximum number of peak-hour vehicles In service.* fta added
a 20 percent spare ratio (additional buses) to the reported peak-service
inventory to allow for buses to receive needed maintenance and other
contingencies, fta then determined the average cost for a new bus on the
basis of information contained In recent grant applicatioiu. Since fta
specifies that the minimum useful life for a full-size bus is 12 years, fta
assumed that urban bus replacement needs were 1/12 of Uie bus fleet
multiplied by the average bus cost identified above.
Rural bus needs were calculated similarly, except that fta relied on a
contractor for fleet size information. Information on rural transit systems
Is difficult to obtain, since rural operators are not required to report to fta
in section 16 reports, and many rural o[>erators are small systems (often
fewer than five vehicles). The Community Transportation Association of
America ((tfaa) prepared a 1986 fleet inventory of rural transit operators
under a contract to fta. fta multiplied the fleet, divided by an average
useful life of 5 years (since rural buses are smaller and less durable than
urban buses), by the average vehicle cost to determine annual replacement
needs.
Human service bus needs were calculated similarly to rural needs, except
that FTA limited needs to only those vehicles purchased witli fta/dot funds.
ctaa prepared the estimate of the vehicles operated by fta section
16(bX2) recipients — nonprofit human service agencies. However, since
many of these nonprofit human service agencies also receive vehicle funds
from the Department of Health and Human Services (liiis), ctaa estimated
that just over half of the fleets' vehicles were purchased with fta 16(b)(2)
funds, fta then assumed that only one-half of tJie total vehicle replacement
represented a "transit need." Replacement costs for these vehicles were
based on average cost and a 5-year useful life, fta multiplied the annual
vehicle replacement costs by fta's portion of the total fleet to determine
the total replacement needs for human service transportation.
In addition to vehicle replacement needs, fta included an amount for bus
maintenance facilities (maintenance buildings, etc.). fta assumed capital
costs for bus facilities to be one-half the annual bus replacement costs for
urban and rural providers.
Rail needs were calculated differently than were bus needs, fta based its
rail needs projections on the 1987 Rail Modernization Study.' The study
estimated the costs to restore the nation's rail trar\sit systems to a "state of
good condition" on the basis of the systems' 1983 conditions. Tl>e study
did not Include the cost of any service or technology improvements to tlic
systems and was limited to oiJy services In operation before 1983. Costs
for new rail systems and new extertsions to existing (pre- 1983) systcins
were not included in Ihe study.
FTA made two changes to Information in the rail modernization report
before including It in the 1991 needs report First, fta Inflated the reported
costs to 1989 dollars, since the rail modernization study used 1983 dollars
TTA coOecU thb tnfbnnatlon In Ma annual section 16 reporta Ttie 1988 aecUon 16 rrperta wen used
to rietenntne the wiaadiwum number rrf vehtclea in peak aerrtce (vehicle taiwentmy) for the 1991 report's
calcvlatlone.
It^l Modemliatloo Study F^nal Report. April 19*7. GaniwU FVmlnf Transportation Enflnccra. hit,
prepared under crmtiact to FT£
179
for its calculations. Second, fta calculated tlie amount of replacement and
rehabilitation that had occurred since 1983. Because fta was not able to
identify whether improvements identified in tlie rail modernization study
had been completed, fta presented a range of remaining rail investment
needs. The range reflected the percentage of total rail capilal fimds that
may have been used to reduce Uie backlog of rail modernization needs
between 1983 and 1989.
FTA's 1992 Report
fta's 1992 report included three basic categories of existing transit system
needs: maintaining current conditions, maintaining current performance,
and the effects of recent legal requirements, fta assumed tl)at current
conditions could be maintained by replacing rolling stock according to its
present age, as opposed to its minimum usefiil life. To maintain current
performance, fta assumed that transit ridership would need to increase
8 percent over the next 10 years, which would match actual ridership
increases over the last 10 years. Finally, fta included the costs to meet
Americans With Disabilities Act (ada) requirements and discussed
potential requirements that may be effected by the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 (caa).
To maintain current conditions, fta calculated the annual costs to replace
the nation's bus and rail systems. Bus systems were divided into urban,
rural, and human service fleets. The urban peak-service inventory was
obtained from 1990 section IB data. Unlike the 1991 report, which grouped
all buses together, the 1992 report identified the number and replacement
costs of several types of buses (full-size, mid-size, and small). Annual
vehicle replacement costs were estimated to be tlie average bus purchase
price (by vehicle type) divided by twice Uie current average age of the
vehicle fleet Tliis resulted in a slower replacement schedule tlian was
used in tlie 1991 report, e.g., maintaining the current age of Uie fleet ratlier
than replacing vehicles according to their minimum useful life. For
example, the 1991 report assumed replacement of full-size buses eveiy 12
years, fta's minimum useful life. The 1992 report calculates costs based on
replacing buses every 15 years, thus maintaining the current average bus
age of about 8 years.
Since no information was available on the average age of the rural and
human service operator fleets, fta used average useful life, ctaa's
estimates of these fleets were used to determine the vehicle replacement
needs for the rural and 16(b)(2) operators, fta included only about half of
the 16(bX2) operators fleets' needs in its replacement needs, as It did in its
1991 report'
fta's 1992 report treated bus facilities differently from its 1991 report
Whereas the 1991 report assumed that replacement needs for bus
malntetwnce facilities were roughly half of annual velJcle purchases, Uie
1992 report includes both maintenance and notunaintenance facilities
(e.g., shelters, transit malls, etc.). Tlie costs for both types of facilities
were estimated to be equal to annual vehicle replacement costs, since fta
grants for all facilities have averaged about the same as bus purchase
grants, fta assumed tliat rural and human service bus facilities
(maintenance and other) are only half of FTA-provided bus purcliase
grants, since these operators have fewer needs for nonmaintciiance
facilities.
Rail systems maintenance needs were based on the 1987 Rail
Modernization Study Gike the 1991 report). The study identined an annual
amount of investment needed to bring rail systems to a slate of good
repair over a 10-year period. Since the Rail Modernization Study provided
costs in 1983 dollars, fta iriflated the amounts into 1991 dollars and
included this amount in Its needs report
fta's 1992 report included cost estimates to comply witli recent legal
requirements, such as the ada and the caa. ada requires operators to make
fixed-route systems accessible to the disabled and to provide equivalent
services for Individuals unable (due to disabilities) to use fixed-route
service. The caa could require some transit operators to purchase only
\)nly h»lf of the n«et nwb were Induded becMse CTAA esttiMted U..t Just €>vtr hilf of •!! the
TChtctes w<« potth«»ed with DOT fuiKto. iniS ttoo provldM »ut»untW MsisUnCT lo <li«« operatora.
180
vehicles that could run on alternative fuels, fta Included costs to comply
witli ADA, such as installing lifts on buses, on the basis of dot's ada
Regulatory Impact Assessment Since caa requirements for alternative
fuels had not been determined, for informational purposes fta presented
costs of converting transit fleets but did not include these costs in its total
needs projections.
FTa's 1992 report included costs to maintain the 'performance* of the
nation's transit systems, defined as continuing Uic recent ridersliip growUi
trends, in its treatment of existing system needs, fta estimated the
additional dollars needed to maintain performance levels in terms of
meeting continuing transit growth. During tlie 1980s transit ridersliip
increased 8 percent, or about 0.8 percent per year, fta assumed for the
purposes of projecting needs that a 0.8 percent Increase in the number of
vehicles would result in an additional 0.8 percent increase in the number
of passenger miles, fta provided for 0.8 percent annual rail ridership
growth by including cost estimates for additional rail cars for existing
systems and some additional capital funds for new-start rail projects.
However, fta likely underestimated the costs of new rail service, because
it based its projections on forecast costs that were all exceeded by actual
costs.
AASHTO's 1988 Report AASirro presented several types of needs for maintaining tlie nation's
transit systems, including capital maintenance, human service
transportation, and operating assistance. In calculating the costs for these
different needs, AASirro did not utilize any original sources of data for its
projectioiw, relying instead on fta section 15 and atta survey data.'
AASirro's total projections of need differ significantly from tliose in both
FTA reports because AASirro assumed that transit needs include more than
Just capital maintenance costs.
To quantify capital maintenance needs, AASirro assumed that transit
vehicles should be replaced at a rate that would maintain the current
average age.' Accordingly, AASirro calculated the annual needed
expenditure to replace the current bus and rail (car) fleet (similar to the
methodology used by fta for bus facilities in its 1991 needs report). The
source of urban fleet iiUormatlon (botii bus and rail) was 1985 fta secUon
15 reports. The rural fleet size was based on dot's 1986 Directory of Rural
and Specialized Tramit Operators.
To determine facilities and equipment needs, aasiito used different
sources of Information. Unlike fta, AASirro did not assume that bus
facilities and equipment needs were proportionally related to annual
vehicle replacement costs, instead, aashto based its bus facilities
estimates on the results of a 1983 atta survey of transit operators in which
respondents reported what they considered to be their future needs. For
rail facilities needs, aashto used fta's Rail ModenJzation Study instead of
apta's survey. Overall, the different data sources used for calculating
current capital infrastructure did not result in a large difference between
AASinX)'s and fta's estimates of capital maintenance needs (see table 1. 1).
Human service transportation needs were assumed to Include the
replacement of all vehicles for fta 16(b)(2) operators' fleets. Like fta,
AASHTO relied on ctaa's estimate of the nation's section 16(b)(2) operators'
fleets. Unlike fta, aashto included replacement costs for the entire fleet,
rather than limiting the number of vehicles to those originally purchased
with DOT funds. Vehicle replacement costs were calculated by multiplying
average vehicle costs by the number of vehicles needed to maintain the
current average age of the fleet
AASHTO Included operating assistance needs in its discussion of
maintaining existing systems. AASirro obtained actual operating cost
information from the 1987 Transit Fact Book prepared by apta. To project
future operating needs, aashto assumed that operating costs would
increase at an annual rate of 4. 1 percent aashto then presented three
'aashto acknowtedged In Its report that th« level of accuracy among dliTerent data aourcea varted,
Bince aofne Infonnatlon was based on surveys while oilier Information came from actual audited filings
and Aeld studies
'AASirro also Included the costs to reduce the sverage vehicle sge to one-hsif the minimum useful
life
181
different scenarios for operating revenues. The scenarios assumed tliat
(1) current funding (federal, local, and passenger fare revenues) would
remain constant; (2) passenger fare revenues would increase the same as
tlie cost of inflation, with federal and local subsidies remaining constant;
and (3) passenger fare revenues and local subsidies would increase at
4.1 percent, with federal assistance remaining constant. All Uiree scenarios
for future funding availability predicted that there would be insufTicient
funds to sustain current operatior\s, resulting in cutbacks in existing
services should new sources of revenue not be found.
APTA's 1990 Report
atta's report presented the largest projection of existing transit systems'
needs, apta distinguislted needs for passenger vehicle replacement,
passenger vehicle rehabilitation, service vehicles, maintenance facilities,
and operating (nonmaintenance) facilities, aita relied primarily on its own
data collection for its needs report, altltough aita compared its own
sources with fta's information (e.g., section 15 reports).
APTA projected needs on the basis of a survey of its operating members.
Survey respondents were asked to report their total "needs," williout
considering existing or future flnancial constraints, apta expanded the
actual reported needs to reflect the entire transit industry on the basis of
the ratio of respondents to the total U.S. fleet (by vehicle type), not
including human service transportation other than that provided by fta
section 9 grantees.' apta's responding operating membership included
primarily urban operators, which represented most of the nation's rail fleet
and more than half of the nation's bus fleet.
Assumptions Made to
Determine Expanded
and Improved System
Needs
While all four needs reports generally agreed that the costs to maintain
existing transit systems should be included in their projections, they
disagreed on how expansion needs should be included, if at all (see table
1.3). fta's 1991 report did not Include any expansion needs in its
projections, fta's 1992 report acknowledged that some unmet highway
demand could result in greater demand for transit services and attempted
to develop an estimate of the costs to provide these additional services.
AASirro's report included the projected costs of completing transit projects
already approved by fta for planning, apta's report presented the most
robust projection of future needs by including costs for all projects tltat
transit operators stated were needed to meet their communities'
transportation goals.
FTA's 1991 Report
fta's 1991 report did not quantify expansion needs and stated that building
new transit systems goes beyond maintaining the existing transit
Infrastructure. The report goes on to indicate that several new projects are
under development, and several appear to have the potential to be
cost-effective. However, the report does not quantify the costs of these
projects and does not include them in its transit needs estimate.
•Limited human service by section 16(b)(2) grantees was included if these grantees were APTA
members, although only a small number of these operators reported to APTA-
Table 1.3: Assumptions Made to Determine System
Expansion and Improvement Needs
FTA— 1991 report
FfA— 1992 report
AASHTO— 1988 report
APTA— 1990 report
Bus systems:
Vehicle replacement
NA«
Reduction ol avg. bus
age lo one-hall minimum
uselul lile
Included in existing
system maintenance
needs
1990 APTA survey ol
transit operators polled
operator needs
Vehicle rehab
NA
NA
NA
1990 APTA survey ol
transit operators
Service vehicles
NA
NA
NA
1990 APTA survey ol
transit operators
Maim, lacilities
NA
Ratio ol vehicle grants
(1:1)
NA
1990 APTA survey ol
transit operators
Operating lacilities
NA
Included In maint
lacilities above
NA
1990 APTA survey ol
transit operators
Service expansion
NA
Added bus capacity to
serve Incrsased
passenger trips (10
percent ol unmet
highway demand)
Bus-related new-start
projects, already
receiving FTA lunds
(FTA's pipeline)
Bus-relaled new-start
proiecis, (RA's
pipeline) or 1990 APTA
survey ol operating
members
182
FT A— 1991 report
FTA— 1992 report
AASHTO— 19BB report
APTA— 1990 report
Non-DOT-tunded
systems
NA
NA
NA
1990 APIA survey ot
operating members
Rail systems:
Vehicle replacement
NA
1987 Rail Modernization
Study (RIVIS)
Included In existing
system maintenance
needs
1990 APTA survey ol
transit operators polled
operator needs
Vehicle rehab
NA
1987 (RMS)
NA
1990 APTA survey ol
transit operators
Service vehicles
NA
1987 (RMS)
NA
1990 APTA survey ol
transit operators
Maint. lacMlles
NA
1987 (RMS) plus R A
esllmales lor Improving
condition ol older rail
lacililles
1987 (RMS)
1990 APTA survey ol
Iransil operators
Operating lacilltles
NA
Included In maint,
lacllllies above
1987 (RMS)
1990 APTA survey ol
transit operators
Service expansion
NA
NA"
Rail-related new-start
prolects, already
receiving FTA funds
(RAs pipeline)
Rail related new-start
projects. (RAs
pipeline) or 1990 APTA
survey ol operating
members
Human service systems:
Vehicle replacement
NA
NA
NA
NA
Vehicle rehab
NA
NA
NA
NA
Service vehicles
NA
NA
NA
NA
Maint lacilltles
NA
NA
NA
NA
Operating lacililles
NA
NA
NA
NA
New ADA-requlred
sen/lces
Regulations did not exist
when projection was
made
Compliance costs taken
Irom ADA regulatory
Impact assessment*
Regulations did not exist
when projection was
made
Regulations did not exist
when piojeclion was
made
Sewice expansion
NA
NA
Statement that growing
elderly population could
Increase needs
NA
Non-OOT-lunded
systems
NA
NA
NA
NA
*NA Indicates that INs elemenl was not addressed.
*FTA calculated thai 10 percenl of ihe unmet demand lo( hlgt^way lane miles could result In
Increased transll rlderstitp For needs projection purposes. FTA quanlilied the cosis ol providing
this Increased service via buses, allhough tl acknowledged Ihat some ol Ihe actual Increase in
ridership would occur on rail systems
*00T prepared a regulalory Impact assessment lo determine ihe cost lo comply with ADA
FTA's 1992 Report
To demonstrate tlie cost to Improve the condition of the nation's bus
systems, In 1992 fta Included costs to reduce the average age of the bus
fleet and bus facilities to half their minimum useful life, which requires
replacing vehicles faster than had been occurring. Using information on
the average age of the urban fleet from Its section 15 reports, fta
calculated the accelerated replacement costs tliat would be required to
achieve the optimal vehicle age (half of the minimum useful life) in the
urban fleet over a 10-year Investment period. Unlike urban fleet ages, no
data were readily available on the age or condition of urban bus
maintenance and nonmaintenance facilities. Therefore, fta assumed that
the costs of eliminating the backlog of deferred facilities needs would
equal annual vehicle replacement needs (similar to the assumption made
in the "maintain" scenario above). As noted earlier, Information on tlie
average age of the turaU and specialized fleets and facilities was not
available; thus, costs to eliminate a backlog of needs were not included in
FTA's 1992 report.
To improve the condition of the nation's rail systems, fta included costs to
restore rail cars and facilities to good condition. As noted earlier, the 1987
Rail Modernization Study identified annual expenditures (in 1983 dollars)
that were needed to eliminate the backlog of deferred maintenance and
restore rail systems to "good" condition over a 10-year period, fta inflated
this amount into 1991 dollars and included it in the report fta
acknowledged that current standards have changed significantly since the
old systeins were built. Consequently, fta estimated the annual costs to
bring these very old systems to current standards over a 20-year time
period and included tliis amount in its needs assessment
To improve tlie performance of the nation's transit systems, fta included
costs to provide added transit capacity to meet potential future demand
183
for services. The source for increased future demand stems from tlie
Federal Higliway Administration's 1991 highway needs report, which
forecasted Uiat demand for about 34,000 lane-miles of highway capacity
could be replaced by aggressive system and demand management, fta
assumed that 10 percent of the passenger miles of travel that would have
been served by these lane-miles could potentially result in additional
transit ridership. fta calculated the costs to meet all of this potential
ridership tlirough expanded bus services, on the basis of the current
reported average cost per bus passenger mile, fta acknowledged that it is
unlikely that all new service would be provided by buses and that rail
costs exceed those for buses, but stated that bus capital costs could serve
as an estimated amount for increased transit service. In addition, by using
current average costs rather Uian marginal costs (the incremental cost to
provide new senices), fta potentially understated the costs of this
ridership growth. Tlie marginal costs to increase ridership are likely to be
higher than current average costs, because operating expenses increase
(because efficiencies decline) as service is extended into less densely
populated areas.
AASIiTO's 1988 Report
AASHTO included tl\e costs of constructing new-start projects in its
discussion of transit needs. AASirro included those transit projects tliat
were in fta's "pipeline" — projects that had been approved by fta for
preliminary planning and analysis, final design, and/or construction as of
July 1987. In addition, AASHTO included costs to complete a list of
high-occupancy vehicle and busway projects over the 1988 through 1992
time period.'"
APIA'S 1990 Report
apta's report presented the largest estimate for expanded transit system
service needs, atta based this estimate on its 1990 survey of operating
members' needs, apta's survey asked transit operators to report all
projects tliat were needed "to meet their conununities' trar\sportation
goals." APIA officials told us that tlie resulting projections represented
needs without regard to financial constraints. Wliile it is true that apta
presented the greatest needs estimate, we were told by state and local
officials we visited that they did not provide apta with an unconstrained
list of projects. Transit operators stated that they did not provide an
unconstrained list of needs since their planning efforts refiect financial
constraints. Nevertheless, apta's projection was tlie largest of tlie four
projections studied.
Appendix II
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
The objectives of our study were to identify (1) why fta's, aasiito's, and
apta's transit needs projections varied, (2) what other factors could affect
the accuracy of these transit needs projections, and (3) any opportunities
for improving future transit needs projections. We made our review in
response to section 3028 (a) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991 (P.L. 102-240), which requires the General
Accounting Office to study the extent to which current transit needs are
adequately addressed and estimate the future transit needs of the nation.
To fulfill our three objectives, we (1) reviewed the individual needs
projections and oUier relevant transportation literature; (2) interviewed
officials at fta (headquarters and one regional office), aasiito, and apta;
and (3) interviewed state and local transportation officials in
Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Alabama, Florida, and California. We chose these areas to provide
variation by geographic region and types of mass transit available.
'*The projections were based on an APTA survey of ctjsts to complete proposed HOV and busway
projects from 1988 through 1992.
184
In order to compare and contrast Uic dilTercnt nce(k projections, we
calculated an annual amount by msgor need category for each transit need
projection, fta's two needs reports presented annual amounts; tliercfore,
no change was required. However, AASirro's and a)Ta's needs projections
present total dollar amoimts for a specific multiyear lime pcrio<l For lliese
two projections, we divided the total amount by (he number of years to
result in an average annual need amount, except as oUierwise noted. Since
all four needs projections were prepared at different times and reported in
different years' dollars, we inflated all projections into sanie-year 1991
dollars to allow direct comparisons and to eliminate differences between
the projections due to Itillation.
Our review was conducted from April 1992 to November 1992 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Appendix III
Major Contributors to This Report
Rpcni irr'pt: ■'°*^" ^' Anderson, Jr., Associate Director
resources, ^^^ ^ j^^^^ Assistant Director
Community, and Uune S. ZelUIn, Assignment Manager
Economic '^"'^ ^ Heldtman, Evaluator-in-Charge
Development Division,
Wasliington, D.C.
STATEMENT OF JACK GILSTRAP
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Gilstrap.
Mr. Gilstrap. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My name is Jack Gilstrap. I am executive vice president of the
American Public Transit Association [APTA].
At the outset, let me state that APTA fully supports the Presi-
dent's short-term economic stimulus proposal as presented by the
President. As you indicated, it would provide $752 million in much
needed supplemental transit funding in the current fiscal year and
would be a positive first step toward our No. 1 priority, full funding
of ISTEA for mass transit.
Looking to the longer term, our association did survey our mem-
bers, as Ken has indicated, to determine their capital needs
through fiscal year 1997. The capital requirements total approxi-
mately $90 billion, or $15 billion annually over the next 6 years.
We have submitted for the record a copy of our study presenting
these needs in detail, Mr. Chairman.
Our APTA study shows that an investment at this level is need-
ed to rehabilitate our old, worn out systems, build new ones, and
replace overage buses, vans, and railcars.
Now I must tell you that because of the lack of funding, bus pur-
chases in the United States are down over 50 percent the past 2
years. This is having a terrible effect on our bus manufacturing in-
dustry, which is operating today at only 25 percent capacity. An-
other important consideration, which has already been mentioned,
is compliance with national mandates, which carry an enormous
price tag and seriously complicate the overall funding picture.
185
DOT estimates the national cost to comply with ADA ranges
from $844 million to $1.3 billion a year. This is the cost to put
wheelchair lifts on all new buses, to make key rail stations, transit
centers, and railcars accessible, as well as to develop paratransit
systems, all of which are required under ADA. In addition, the
Clean Air Act of 1990 requires reduced vehicle emissions. The cost
to install exhaust cleaners and upgrade fuel is estimated to be $110
million a year.
In short, the Nation's transit operators are in dire need of addi-
tional capital funding, even beyond the authorized levels of ISTEA.
The principal reason why is that, in addition to the costly new
mandates, public transit has suffered a 10-year decline in Federal
transit funding, over 50 percent when adjusted for inflation.
These cuts, Mr. Chairman, would have been even worse except
for the heroic efforts of key members, like yourself and your com-
mittee. But the fact is 10 years ago, transit received $1 for every
$2 highways received, and today it is $1 for transit for every $4.50
for highways.
Well, that is history. What about the future?
Although President Clinton's proposal does call for increased
transit aid in the out-years, it calls for full funding of highways but
not for mass transit. We are deeply concerned about this and want
to work with you and the administration on this issue.
The administration also is calling for an extension after 1995 of
the 2.5-cent gas tax that went to deficit reduction, with the reve-
nues to be deposited exclusively in the highway account of the
transit fund, none for mass transit. Gas tax increases in 1982 and
1987 included a decided portion of revenues for transit. Excluding
transit from future increases in the gas tax would break with past
precedent and would have devastating consequences for mass tran-
sit. Furthermore, excluding transit would clearly be counter to the
spirit of ISTEA, which was so carefully crafted by Congress to pro-
vide a balance and a level playing field among transportation
modes.
I conclude, Mr. Chairman, by again expressing our full support
for the administration's economic stimulus package and for full
funding of ISTEA. I commend you, Mr. Chairman, and your com-
mittee for holding this hearing to focus on transit's long-range
funding needs. Thank you.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much. Your full statement
will be made part of the record.
[The statement follows:]
Statement of Jack R. Gilstrap
introduction
Mr. Chairman and Subcommittee Members, thank you for giving the American
Public Transit Association this chance to testify on the need for increased transit
investment, and on the Federal role in meeting tiiose needs.
I am Jack R. Gilstrap, Executive Vice-President of the American Public Transit
Association (APTA). APTA represents the transit systems that provide about 97 per-
cent of our nation's mass transit services. We also represent many of the manufac-
turers and suppliers who provide the goods and services to the industry.
186
APTA SUPPORTS THE ECONOMIC STIMULUS PROPOSAL
We endorse the President's call for $752 million in additional fiscal year 1993 cap-
ital funding for the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). This includes $482 mil-
lion for distribution to states and metropolitan areas through the Section 9, 18, and
16 formula programs, and a $270 million increase in the Section 3 Bus Discre-
tionary program.
This is a very positive first step toward fiill fiinding of the federal transit program
authorized by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). The
approved fiscal year 1993 ISTEA funding of $3.6 billion was far short of the $5.2
bilLon aul^orized, but the $752 million supplemental goes far toward bridging the
gap. APTA believes that transit funding should, at a nunimum, be set at ISTEA lev-
els in fiscal year 1994, and we look forward to working with the Administration and
Congress to reach that goal.
The transit industry recognizes that the purpose of these funding increases is to
stimulate the economy by moving forward with projects that will qmckly create jobs.
In fact, both the $482 million formula program increase and the $270 million bus
capital increase are ideally suited to fulnll this objective of the President's economic
stimulus program. We will now provide more detailed information on our capacity
to create jobs and provide a quick boost to the economy. We can also play a critical
role in providing people with transportation to and fi*om new job opportunities.
FORMULA PROGRAM INCREASES
The $482 million formula funding increase is especially welcome because it ad-
dresses the fact that formula assistance was cut this year by $280 million below the
previous year's level. The Section 9 Urban Formula Program would receive $438.5
million in additional funds, the Section 18 Non-Urban Formula Program would re-
ceive $26.4 million, and the Section 16 Elderly/Handicapped Formula Program
would receive $17.4 million. These increases not only restore these programs to
their fiscal year 1992 funding levels but bring them closer to the fiscal year 1993
authorized level.
The formula program increases will reach all parts of the country where they can
be spent on ready-to-go projects. Can the transit industnrput these funds to good
use? The answer is a resounding yes. A partial survey of APTA members has identi-
fied 649 ready-to-go projects from 98 transit agencies in 31 states, the District of
Columbia, and Puerto Rico with a federal funding component of $5.19 billion. These
projects would support 310,000 jobs. We are continuing to compile additional infor-
mation on ready-to-go projects firom transit agencies across the nation. A copy of the
latest available list of these projects is included with this testimony.
In addition to bus purchases, which will be discussed in greater detail below,
projects range from creation of new park-and-ride lots and high-occupancy vehicle
lanes to the upgrading of communications equipment and computer systems to the
addition of facilities needed to comply with federal accessibility, clean air, and en-
ergy conservation mandates. These proiects can all be auickly started, they will cre-
ate thousands of jobs, and they are all essential to address unmet needs and im-
prove the efficiency of the nation's transit systems.
It is important to note that in today's market we in transit can obtain greater
value for less money than we could have in the recent past, or probably will be able
to in the future.
We view this proposal as a major statement by President Clinton about his inten-
tion to rebuild the nation's cities and considerably enhance the quality of life for
inner city poor and other transit dependent individuals. We believe that increased
transit investment is essential to meeting the nation's environmental and energy
conservation goals. This investment in transit's capital assets will help to serve tens
of millions of people today, tomorrow, and for generations to come.
BUS CAPITAL INCREASES
The $270 million increase in bus capital funding is ideally suited to put people
back to work, quickly, in a critical segment of the domestic motor vehicle inaustiy.
The U.S. bus manufacturing industry and its suppliers have factories in many com-
munities around the country. The industry is now operating at only 25 percent of
its capacity, so it is in a very strong position to speed up production in short order.
With these funds, we can replace oosolete buses and speed up compliance with
Americans witii Ehsabilities Act (ADA) and Clean Air Act requirements for clean-
operating buses that are accessible to people with disabilities.
Calendar Year 1992 is the third consecutive year of unprecedented, severely de-
pressed demand for new standard size transit buses. The 1980-89 average annual
187
volume was 3,252 units, while the 1990-92 average annual volume was less than
half that amount, at 1,560 units. The bus manufacturing industry's capacity is 6,240
units per year, so the 1990-92 capacity utilization is only 25 percent.
This situation, cleeirly, is tailor-made for an immediate stimulus. There is more
than enough idle capacity to put additional funds directly into production. In the
longer run, the healui of this U.S. industry will depend on continued commitments
for increased investments. Manufacturers will not add people to their workforces
and invest in the required plant and equipment if they do not believe there is a
long-term market for their products.
If the ability to supply additional buses is there, then so is the demand for new
buses. The transit industry, nationwide, operates some 55,000 standard size buses.
An estimated 12,000, 22 percent of the total, exceed the 12-year age at which the
FTA recommends replacement. Some 40 percent of small buses and vans in use ex-
ceed age for recommended replacement.
In the partial survey of transit systems mentioned above, bus and van needs ac-
count for $833 million worth of orders with the potential to create 35,640 jobs in
fiscal year 1993. These would be full-time jobs in the private sector and not the re-
sult of short-term make-work programs. In other words, transit systems are ready
to place bus orders with U.S. manufacturing firms worth more than three times the
dollar value of the proposed bus capital funding increase.
This expanded bus procurement will have other benefits. New buses must be ac-
cessible to people with disabilities as required by the Americans with Disabilities
Act, and in many cases they will replace older ones that are not lift-equipped. So
any acceleration of bus purchases will speed up the process of compljdng with the
ADA.
New transit buses can help reduce energy use and air pollution — a full bus is six
times more energy efficient tnan a single occupant automobile, and transit buses are
responsible for just 0.3 percent of transportation energy consumption compared to
72.1 percent for automobiles and trucks. Nonetheless, the $270 million supple-
mental investment program will hasten the replacement of older buses, which are
the least fuel efficient, least reliable, and most expensive to maintain.
Like the $482 million increase in formula capital fiinds, the $270 million increase
in bus discretionary fiinds is an ideal means of priming the economy.
LONG-TERM INVESTMENT NEEDS
As we strive to meet this short-term responsibility, we want to work with Con-
gress and the Administration for full funding of the ISTEA transit program in fiscal
year 1994. That is the critical next step in implementing a program of nationwide
transit investments that will sustain prosperity, enhance mobility, improve produc-
tivity, and meet the clean air, energy conservation, and other goals that we all sup-
port.
ISTEA created a carefully balanced program designed to meet the transit needs
of urban, suburban, and rural EU-eas in every region of the country. Full fiinding of
each individual program at its authorized level is essential if the transit industry
is to plan effectively for the next century.
I must note that even at the levels authorized in the ISTEA, transit funding is
still well below 1981 appropriations levels in real terms. We recognize the pressure
to reduce the deficit, but we also believe that we must make the investments re-
quired to meet transportation needs of the twenty-first century.
Ease of movement is vital for every American and for the businesses and indus-
tries that create the nation's wealth. In many ways, our ability to travel is a meas-
ure of our quality of life and the competitiveness of our economy.
Today, our ease of movement is severely threatened. Major cities are regularly
gridlocked, resulting in waste of energy and serious air quality damage. Suburbs are
clogged throughout the day with traffic. The increasing isolation of rural residents
is all too commonplace.
Inadequate public investment in transportation lies at the heart of the problem.
In particular, we have failed to plan and invest adequately in the most fundamental
mode of transportation: public transit.
Between 1992 and 1997, transit will reauire $90.8 billion in capital investment.
Transit systems will need 63,800 new vehicles and another 29,930 rehabilitated
buses and rail cars.
The backlog of transit investment needs continues to mount for two reasons: 1)
the ten-year decline in federal fimding; and 2) the increasing demand for transit
service. Because of inadequate fiinding, essential reinvestment in existing transit
systems is not being made, and service improvements are being slowed or deferred.
In some areas, service reductions are becoming commonplace.
188
Equally important, efforts to add new transit capacity have been stjrmied by lack
of funds. The following needs demonstrate the size of the funding commitment that
should be made to public transit through 1997.
FIXED-GUIDEWAY NEW STARTS AND EXTENSIONS: $30.1 BILUON
Transit's greatest advantage lies in high-capacity services operating on exclusive
rights-of-way, including commuter rail, light rail (also known as modem trolleys),
subway systems and exclusive bus and transitways. Eight major urban centers with
a long history of rail transit continue to benefit from this investment and seek to
expand or modernize their systems. Another ten urban areas built fixed-guideway
transit in the past 15 years. All seek to expand them, forty-eight cities in 29 states
plan new or expanded fixed-guideway systems, either rail lines or busways. These
include 1,770 miles of rights-of-way, 2,400 rail cars, and 830 stations.
Capital investment needs for new fixed-guideway (rail and bus) transit services
between 1992 and 1997 totals $30.1 billion including $3.9 billion for the necessary
vehicles.
These needs are broken down as follows: 1) $1.4 billion for busways and high oc-
cupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes; 2) $3.5 billion for commuter rail; 3) $9.7 billion for
heavy rail; 4) $13.5 billion for light rail; and, 5) $2.0 billion for related capital facili-
ties.
OTHER CAPITAL INVESTMENT NEEDS: $17.7 BILLION
To ensure top quality service, an additional $17.7 billion in capital investment is
needed. These dollars are needed to purchase a wide range of capital items includ-
ing service vehicles, computers and systems for fare collection and communications.
SUPPORT OF THE CAPITAL INVESTMENT: $100 BILUON FOR MAINTENANCE AND
OPERATIONS
Capital Investment by itself is not enough to ensure efficient effective service.
Day-to-day maintenance and operations require a stable and reliable major financial
commitment.
The Federal Government, and State and localities, have already made a huge in-
vestment in the transit infrastructure. It is important that we properly maintain
that investment, which includes everything from rail systems to buses and garages.
If we are to make increased investment in facilities we must also have the funds
to operate the additional buses and trains so the benefits of increased transit rider-
ship can be realized.
Today, maintenance and operations of the nation's transit systems require an in-
vestment of $15.7 billion per year, of which seven percent is fi-om the federal gov-
ernment. Operating todays systems through 1997 will cost nearly $100 billion in
current dollars. As transit systems offer both expanded and new services to meet
new passenger demand, increased support for operations, as well as capital, will be
required.
NEW BUS FACIUTIES: $5.6 BILLION
As transit systems continue to provide current services as well as offer new ones,
a variety of new bus facilities will be needed.
Through 1997, $5.6 billion is needed to build the following bus facilities: 1) 280
terminal/transfer centers; 2) 130 maintenance and repair shops; 3) 95 storage facili-
ties or garages; 4) 45 administrative offices; 5) 590 parking structures for transit
passengers.
MODERNIZATION OF EXISTING BUS AND RAIL FACILITIES: $17.1 BILLION
Comfortable, convenient and efficient transit service requires a wide range of sup-
port facilities and up-to-date equipment.
Through 1997, $17.1 billion is needed to modernize: 1) 450 maintenance and other
facilities; 2) 880 rail and bus stations; 3) 1,230 miles of rights-of-way
NEW VEHICLE NEEDS FOR EXISTING SERVICES: $16.8 BILUON
Through 1997, transit authorities will require $16.8 billion in new vehicle invest-
ment for existing services plus $4.9 billion for vehicles for new-fixed guideway
routes and extensions; a total of $20.7 billion for new vehicles.
189
Total New Vehicle Requirementa 1992-1997
Type Number
Bus 49,610
Van 9.130
Heavy Rail 1,940
Light Rail 1,500
Commuter Rail 1,220
Other 400
Total 63,800
Buses are truly the workhorse of public transit. They carry 64 percent of the na-
tion's transit passengers and are responsible for 51 percent of passenger miles.
Through 1997, new bus needs total $12 bilUon.
Rail transit, defined as light, heavy, or commuter, carries passengers longer dis-
tances. Rail accounts for 36 percent of all transit trips and 49 percent of total pas-
senger miles. The percentage of passenger miles on rail is increasing every year.
Rail transit c£irries more than 10 million passengers an average of 65 million miles
each weekday. Rail transit is probably the mode that is least damaging to the envi-
ronment and the most energy-efficient.
Through 1997, new rail vehicle needs for existiiig service are $4.8 billion and $3.9
biUion for new fijEed guideway systems and extensions.
TRANSIT VEHICLE REHABILITATION: $3.5 BILUON
Rehabilitation is a cost-effective way to extend the life of transit vehicles. A sound
rehabilitation program can add six years to the 12 year useful life of a bus and 15
years to the 30 year average life of a rail car.
Through 1997, $3.5 bilhon is required to rehabilitate: 1) 18,570 buses; 2) 11,360
rail cars (heavy, light and commuter).
MEETING THE COST OF FEDERAL MANDATES
Over the past several years. Congress has enacted several comprehensive pieces
of legislation that are imposing great costs on the transit industry. Both the Ameri-
cans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 impose
mandates without providing the financing to carry them out.
The transit industry supports these laws and the policies they represent because
the ADA will increase mobility for all people with disabilities and the Clean Air Act
Amendments will help reduce air pollution and conserve energy. However, full fund-
ing of the ISTEA is necessary to properly implement the mandates estabUshed in
both of these laws.
For example, in the provision of services to people with disabilities, there is a
growing and alarming trend toward health and human service agencies discontinu-
ing their transportation services for their clients and "dumping" them on the local
public transit system who must provide service under the ADA. This practice adds
a tremendous burden to an already challenging financial struggle.
The U.S. Department of Transportation estimates the national, annual cost to
comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) ranges fi-om $844
milhon to $1.3 bilUon. The costs covers proposed lifts on buses, making key rail sta-
tions, transit centers and rail cars accessible as well as developing paratransit sys-
tems.
The Clean Air Act of 1990 requires reduced vehicle emissions. The annual cost
to install exhaust cleaners and upgrade fuel is $110 million. One nationwide survey
of transit systems found that installation of particulate traps on the U.S. bus fleet
would cost an estimated $522 million.
We are hopeful that Congress and the new Administration recognize the value of
helping the industry with me costs of federally mandated operating and capital in-
creases resulting from federal mandates. If transit operators are forced to raise fares
and reduce service to pay for federal mandates, there will be a corresponding reduc-
tion in transit ridersnip. This will undercut transit's abUity to fulfill its role in
achieving national goals related to the environment, congestion, mobility, energy
conservation, and the economy. For every 10 percent increase in fares there is a 4
percent reduction in ridership.
TRANSIT FUNDING SOURCE JEOPARDIZED
APTA has heard that President Clinton's long-term investment program caUs for
extension of the 2.5 cents per gallon gasoline tax currently scheduled to expire in
68-623 O— 93-
190
1995, with the revenues to be deposited exclusively in the Highway Account of the
Highway Trust Fund.
The entire transit industry firmly believes that a portion of any increase in the
gas tax should continue to be dedicated to the mass Transit Account of the Highway
Trust Fund. Gas tax increases for surface transportation purposes in 1982 ana 1987
included a dedicated portion of revenues for transit. Breaking with past precedents
and excluding transit from future increases in the gas tax would have devastating
consequences for our industry. It may also send the wrong signal to those who feel
that increased transit use can reduce pollution and energy consumption.
Annual transit capital needs far exceed available resources, and we strongly be-
lieve that the proceeds of any future gas tax increase be distributed equitably
among surface transportation modes. Transit funding declined fi-om $4.6 buLion in
1981 to $3.8 billion in the current yeeu", while funding for Title 23 highway pro-
grams went from $9.1 billion to over $18 billion. We urge that some of the revenues
from future gas tax increases be used to provide a stable, reliable source of funding
for the federal transit program.
CONCLUSION
Thank you for this opportunity to testify on transit's needs. I want to again ex-
press our support for the economic stimulus proposal and for full funding of ISTEA
in fiscal vear 1994 and bevond.
As pollution grows, highway traffic is at a standstill, and energy consumption in-
creases, we believe we must invest more in public transit: a rational solution to each
of these national concerns. APTA looks forward to working with this Committee to
meet our nation's infrastructure needs and prepare us for the 21st Century.
We also feel strongly that funding for all surface transportation modes be in-
creased in an equitable manner. Past inequities between highway and transit pro-
grams must be reversed so that the people of this nation have real transportation
alternatives. We urge Congress and the Administration to adhere to the funding pri-
orities established m the ISTEA at whatever funding level Congress establishes in
Appropriations Acts.
191
READY-TOGO CAPITAL PROJECTS
Summary of a Survey of Transit System
Members of the American Public Transit Association
The American Public Transit Association (APT A) was requested by the U.S.
Conference of Mayors (USCM) to support their effort to answer a request by Federico
Perta, U.S. Secretary of Transportation, and Henry Cisr>eros, U.S. Secretary of Housing
arxJ Urban Devekjpment, to gather information concerning "ready-to-go" transportation
and community development projects from USCM members. APTA distributed a revised
format of the USCM survey to its transit agerKry members by facsimile on February 2.
1993. This summary describes results received as of February 7, 1993.
According to the cover memorandum of the USCM survey dated January 27, 1993,
the Secretaries "requested mayors to provide examples of ready-to-go projects in the
transportation arxJ CDBG (community development block grant] areas, where federal
assistance (when provided) would be obligated within a maximum of 120 days and
completion of the ready-to-go project would be finished within the 1993 calendar year.'
The results of the APTA survey as of Felxuary 5, 1993 were provided to the USCM
in order to help meet the Socretaries" request. The results of this survey as of February
8, 1993 were also forwarded to all members of the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of
Representatives.
Results
A total of 96 responses have been received. This report will be updated to include
later submissions, which we expect to receive. The 98 respondents refjorted 649 transit
projects. These projects would spend a total of $5.2 billion in federal funds and create
310,CXX) direct and indirect jobs through the life of the projects.
In addition to transit projects, other surface transportation projects for which APTA
member agencies are responsible were included in the responses. These projects add
an additional $1.3 billion needed for ready-to-go projects bringing the total to S6.5 billion
reported for all types of ready-to-go projects by responding agencies.
Table 1 summarizes the number and value of projects reported stratified by the
amount of time they require for obligation. Table 2, listing each project in alphabetical
order by state/city, follows the summary. Some of the responses are edited as described
in the section "Description of Survey Parameters." that follows, for conformity of
presentation.
192
Table 1 : Ready-To-Go Projects by Obligation Period
Time Required for
Obligation
Number of
Projects
Federal Dollars
Needed
(Millions)
, — ~— ^^ — ^-|
Total Jobs
Created
(as reported)
30 Days or Fewer
93
$584.7
37,252
31 to 60 Days
120
$296 8
19.549
61 to 90 Days
129
$ 755.3
41.400
91 to 120 Days
188
$ 1,823.9
125.121
More than 120 Days
55
$ 919.0
43.300
Uncertain/Not Specified
64
$808 7
44.014
Total Transit
649
$5,190.4
310.636
Road and Other
23
$ 1.304.3
76.103
Total Reported
672
$ 6.494 6
386.739
Comparison to Prior Surveys
These responses are a sample that illustrate the types of projects that transit
agencies could go forward with if funding were available. The total amount of federal
funds thai transit agencies would be able to spend in Fiscal Year 1993, beyond the
amount of funds available, was determined by a survey conducted by APTA in November
and December of 1992 that resulted in a report titled Survey of Ability to Spend Federal
Transit Funds During Fiscal Year 1993. That report found that transit agencies could
spend $7 billion dollars in additional federal funds during Fiscal Year 1993. Spending was
defined as obligating capital funds or actually spending operating funds. The amount
included an additional $5.6 billion in capital funds and $1.4 billion in operating funds. The
amount is a projection for the entire U.S. transit industry. The results of the Ready-To-Go
Capital Projects survey indicate that transit agencies can obligate at least the S5 6 billion
capital amount previously projected and possibly an even greater amount.
The ability to spend an additional total of $7 billion was estimated from detailed
statistical analysis of responses from 113 APTA member transit agencies. The agencies
sampled for that analysis operate over 69 percent of all transit vehicles operated by APTA
members.
Description of Survey Parameters
Investment in transit infrastructure includes not only rights-of-way and buildings,
but also vehicles, maintenance equipment, communications equipment, and other capital
items. Only the information in the original facsimile (see Appendix One) was available to
respondents unless they contacted APTA by telephone for additional information.
Respondents who requested additional information were advised to consider infrastructure
to be any project that would qualify for capital assistance under the Federal Transit Act
Any separately identified portion of a project directed toward operations was deleted from
survey responses. When the same project is reported by both a local and a regional
agency, the duplicated amount is not included in Table 1 summation but all reported
amounts are included in individual agency reports on Table 2.
193
When respondents identified a "federal share" amount for project cost this amount
is Hsted on Table 2. If only a total amount without a federal share was reported, the total
amount is listed on Table 2. The requirement for local funding participation in an
administration supplemental program was not known when this survey was conducted.
Current funding sources used by transit agencies require from 20 percent down to no
local match, with a waiver applicable to the requirement in some cases.
Many respondents were unable to estimate the job impact of their projects. If the
1993 job impact was left blank on a response, APTA calculated a number for that
response. The numljers calculated by APTA are indicated by an asterisk (•) on Table 2.
Total direct and indirect jobs from capital projects are estimated at a rate of 53 3 jobs per
one million project dollars.
When obligation time periods where not exact, the longest reported time-period
was used in summarizing for Table 1 . Some projects with an uncertain time period for
obligation could be obligated within 30 days or 60 days.
Productive Capacity for Reported Bus Demand
One of the most frequently reported needs, in terms of number of respcnce'-is is
for additional or replacement buses and other road vehicles. Current bus manu'a::-ring
capacity in the U.S. is estimated at 6,200 standard-size (35 and 40 foot) units ce- .ear
Production capacity for small buses and vans is not estimated, but is known tc ce 3'ge.
Only about 25 percent of the standard-size bus capacity is currently be^; ^sed.
f^anufacturers report that full capacity production could be reached after approximately
four months but employment benefits of increased orders would be felt quickly both at
the manufacturing site and at the locations of a large number of component and
subsystem suppliers. A substantial 'ramping-up" of standard-size bus production can be
accomplished during Calendar Year 1993, but full production for the remainder of 1993
requires early approval of an infrastructure or economk: stimulus program.
Mechanism for Distribution of Funds
It is important to note that the Fiscal Year 1993 transit appropriation of $3.8 billion
substantially underfunded the transit program when compared to the fully authorized level
of $5.2 billion. More than $1.1 billkxi of this shortfall occurred in the formula program,
which is distributed to each urbanized area as well as small urban and rural areas through
sections 9, 18, and 16(b) of the Federal Transit Act. On average, this actually produced
a 14 percent cut in each recipient's formula funding in Fiscal Year 1993 compared to
Fiscal Year 1992. These funds are normally used for routine capital replacement needs.
Given the response APTA has received to this and other surveys, we believe that
the section 9, 18, and 16(b) formulas represent a fair and equitable method of distributing
short-term economic stimulus funds provided through a Fiscal Year 1993 supplemental
appropriation. A supplemental appropriation would normally be apportioned to or be
available for grant requests from all transit agencies, not just agencies reporting projects
in this or other surveys. We believe virtually every recipient of these funds would be able
to utilize them in a reasonable period of time with an emphasis on job creation projects.
194
1 1?
O tl
Is-
o C
O O Q O
SO ^ Q
O w^ O
SO W^ O
o •- o
P*l u^ f^ O
3
u
>« 1(1
< «
9 u
.? I
tl >^ «l
1-2
«i a B
•^ lit:
- «) «
w O V w
S3 5
O »A
>^ rvj" o"
<
i;9
I?
II
- X . _<
o
• o
o >
: »
fn •
: S
3 ;
K> .
: ^
S :
: S
t tr»
K» 1
1 rj
S i
u *
• •
M •
?:
?l :
«3 1
• VI
M •
> u
. ui
t O
\ i
• ec
1- I
• a.
? =
• <
P
• tk
•
■ o
> ^
s
• o
UI
3
-O fM •- t/t »- .
P\j rg
OOOOOOOOOO
K1 OOQOQOQ<
go O O O Q O O I
O O O O O -^ O <
Kl OQ^O'O^Oi
rg od*-'0<-r^o<
K> O (M •- rg ■
isl
«^
1
— V 9 C V
d 8
si? W--5 s
(A u g « b.
O Q. — trt 3 u u t. o
w OCC '*-«w4 rg
0£^ 7«— M V C
O l/> O */> t/* f\j K.
C ;ii'
g
o o o o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o o
§*r» o o* «o o*
■c o rvj rg oo
o ^ ^ r>j
M v. 71
V «
■c ^^ e
x X^
o UI c a
1^1' «^
O t- iC u u
«) w o M u 3
w g w 4 «/
^ a g 2 . .
v>
*-*
u
Ui
-1
o
> 6 w o
ac
o u -n F - -
»> e 8 ..
a.
— c a u 3 b
^
8 V « 'O /< u
^
<
u.
r _ 1 V ? ?
O
T] — tP « Ifl ^
<
O
o S S - c 5
CM tr» ^ O O Q.
Jtf J< ^
III! ! ?= H I iiiiumi I iiiifi I
J _l J ta O
>.>.>.>.>.
oooooooooo a
MM M
tflMVItA « ^k- ►-
Wt tfl V) M M
Cft)4)« V MM « ^^
a a a 5. a
M C C C C :
C • 4 a « t
M u u u . -
WW • II I I I iiiiiiiiii | iii^H
2§2§ § H il ? ill iiiliii I iiir^-
xxzz X u<j u <J 13 a.Q.o.o.o.aa.a.0.0. o. <«<■««■•
195
lis
it
e
M
• —
°8
•
W
u.
II
g:
O c.
CL •■
3S
iiC
I
M U
3 ^
n
m »
« II
« •
u u
I- e
M M
O O
§§ t
«
:8
V <l
!■ 1.
Ui
??
R
«l
Ui Ul
UJ
<
II
1
33
o
sssss
§o o o o
o o o o
o o o l/> o
U M k I. w
a. u 3 3 ac
s s
I. k.
• « « ■ • a
u u u u u o
in in in VI ID in
lllll I
lllll I
u u u u u u
lllll I
a a • a a a
lllll I
C W U U U I.
a a a a a a
u u u u u o
rx
s s
a 3 33333 3 3 3
I lllll I I I
3
8 S
« a
f f
s
s s
1 1
§ s
2 2
o o
o
eeEeeeosEE
ooooooooooo
OOOOOQOOOOO
ooooooooooo
ooooooooooo
82
aavvtivtiXuXX
oi 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
iiiiiiiiiii
aaaaaaaaaaa
Sccccccccc
L. U U I-
>->->■>
>. X >^ >>
j < uuuuuuuuuu
in VI in V) vt X vi »
«i <i o
X 1) « <> tl « v
010101010)9^919*0*01^
A A r Jt
196
ill
i9.
o o —
u m
* a.
o u
■^ 8
<M ^- ^ (M •— tr» •—
EEEEeeseeEeBBEceeeEceBeEeeeEEEEEeEECEEE
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
O O
O O _ _
o o o o
SSiSS§SSSSSSSSSS§
SOOQQOOOOQOOOOOOOO
OQOOQQOOOOOOOOOOO
oooooooooooooooooo
ooOoooooooo
O O O
ooooo>f"0^•-OOOir^ooK^«l/>>*^»oo^«■^Ou^ipw^K(^J^o-igQ<^J^^o^-o
flO -* »- o •- •-
»r» rv •- K»
rginj)K»*- f^J■o<^J<^0•-f^J•-Ql
w >• w
u o o
■ u u —
I
J
-1 =
If?
**
i
■ o
>•
t;?i:
a
2
u a 1
11 c
«
w -O tl
S
f|£
^
« >
«
M ^
w
rss
(A
s
2Si
V ig u
s
t, i_ -
z >- a.
I. o
II
w u V
u Hi
€1
ti — —
£ -< —
VI
5^«
1 5
« —
>- u
VI w
u —
'*- ■ « <
< o
o
o —
r
I;
V c —
sgsi ss
H
88
asE^a
fBuo-j^a.v)v>3z
4000000000000
•- •- ir» -o •- •- '
www >.«l >.>>>.>.>->>VV
u at
O -»
<l •>
W ftrf
8i
>
i
3
83
> > >
000
X Z X
O >r» i/^
— 00
f\j ^ -o
33
V «f «l «f 4> O
33
OK dc at (X oe
3 3 3
at oc oc
333333335253355553533333533335553533255 5
lllllllillililiilllii|irtirtiiii!!iifii I
«ii»«»«i«i«i»«2g2i;55
gSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSoooooooooooooocoo
ii
UUI_II-IUUCJU
a a
116111
U tJ <J 0 (J
a d d d a
niitiiiininiiiliniisiliy
o.Q.Q.a.o.a.ii&a.Q-O'&O'Q'&'S'S'
i i
0 3
S s S S § § i I § i i i i ^
§ i s I S S § I S i s s § s s § §
iiiiisii|i||||II|i!IIIII!iii|iiiii
>->■>■>'>->->■>'.>->■>• .'r^^i-'ri-i'i-
>.v>>.>.>.>>.>.vv>.>.>-v>->>->-v>.>>->->-
wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww _
UUUUUUUUi
Wl tfl « VI M M
(I «l •) V « «
??
•i«i«>»i<ri»i»i!i?P5;2*S22!!
??f????????||||||||||||
00000000000000000
U (-1 U «-« '-J
»i»i«i«i((»«>i««)«i«>??'r
S«Sti«iti«ti<>«>«><'>'-'
OOOOOOOOOOOO- .
197
it
o J3
»°8
11
o Z
>■ u
' s
2g : : :
ir> •< ^ •-
O «
u o w
u M
— o
• . o
ut: *-
« a u •
S Via
U w k •
^ g o S. u
— S a > >
O I. • b
w «
V a a X I.
o s 1 i :
u — O • -^
w w i. o
• u m •
u •' >. e
-<«•■ —
u > a -■
"JO"-
S
SSS
o o S
o" o* o"
m lA *n
•- rw rg
5?
St ?
-8S
« —
So —
u a. <
s
N
'i
o
r»r*o-«<f%moam
S2°8~ : C
S
So O O O O O 9
nj IV IM fM (M fM $
!8;
sssss:
«M o i/> "- vn I
!8
U w
w a «
if?
yi'-5«l8cw
IiOkunaCug
o — £|w>.u«a
w a ■ « ft' M u
• k — 0 u — « w
- jl • J! i S • " -
ugw_>3u«-ao
« a. u <i ■ # k
8 c k B — k 5
Owj< u9«'« —
S
^ »^ »/»•**'
- -' o o o o o
o o o o o o o
O O Q -O O o' o'
o Aj o > o o o
o — ^ o <o —
£1
^1
n
k *
— VI o -> » -
« Kl -
Si-
I- u
« V a
w k -^
c »
« «l «
C /I o
Si
? =
£ (J •« t.
to ^ •— rvi
3:5333 3 333 3 3 3 333333333 3
t_J kf kf u U
u
•I «l « • •
mil I HI I
8 a ■ M
o e e
SSS
X X z
• •
k k
s ■
I I I
oSSdooooS o
T) r ^ ^ -3 ■a -o
k k k w . . .
2 c c c : c
M K ■ « « « «
0 0 0 0 = 03
o o o o o
c c c c e
k k k k k
o o o o o
a a a a a
u u u u u
c e c c e
k k k k k
• » • • •
mil I
VI Vl </l Wl VI VI
*^ W W
SSS
2 jc X
o o o
>> > >-
s s
W U
I I
a a
Wl (A
>> >•
•I •
k k
« •
s s
ooooooooo o
sssssssss s
iliiiiiii I
• •••••••a •
kkkkkkkkk k
a ■ t
k k ^
a M / ^
3 a t t
o : ■
U kl v^ -
II !
198
I?
0^5
o a —
8-1
O I.
I. u
»■ s
^ »• */\ -o -o ►*•
O Q Q O O '
ssiss;
CM 'O •- r»j r«j •- K»
?«
g--
« o
> u
o
N a. w
a ii « o
■< w «# '8
«. u u
V >. >- o
w « «| u
i S: V
I £ a w
0 o > —
u c u
9 ■- ^
j< a. (I «
u u
L. «l
« V w
-is
w > w
w a *«
is 8
»< > ■^
C I.
1 I?
Ir
— «
-Si
'^ • k
w a
' O M £
M -V
Ksi
. o •- 5
Sou
--S
•^—00
o u u
> I w w
w C c a
— m 9 m
m
u a — -^
U <M W^
3_.
k * * **
• 4 u «
ssssasssssa 3
'O'a'O'QPTITI'a'QTI'O «
||3SS|3|fn I
00000000000 o
kUU(.t.UbCl.l.k u
• •••••••••a
8SSS3888S8S 8
uuuuuuuuuuu u
£££££££££££ £
s
;g2
S SSS
8
3 3
« I
a a
• •
> >
IsiiMsiris i I I
s s
> >
ss;
in m <
f
j< C tt
n
s;.?s
ga a
a a
w a a
^ c c
u u u
oooooooooo
I
SOOpOlAOOOOOOOO
:s:
> o o o o o o
88 8§SS8SS§gSg
u
O
Js?
W^MaCxaaaui.-
w I. > 0 - - - C CI.
C-00>c — ^— na> X
3
uk— cvl v«Bw if it 9t
uw 5 -ac-e-e'S
a •£ C— *vCM--ut«iUi
awiaawaxavaJx**
1. oa&wfMkQ^'aoo
o
at
333 3 3333333333333 3
o e e o
ft# W M %*
iii i
b I. k b
W M M M
ooooooooooooo
SSSSSSiiSSSiS
8888888338333
o
?
o
i
8^ a a a •{••••SaaobSS
SS fi 0000000000002
iiiiiiiiUUl
U U U i.
^ ^* »- ^
III I
•( •( ■ •>
e e o e
b b b b
liiiitiiiinkn
III I I^IHIIII
o o :
v y T
ii •. :
b b b b
VI V> VI VI
0000000000022 2
S i S S i S i S S ^ ^ ^^ ^.
199
tft e w%
<M * •-
Hi
a. -»
e •
<te *# M
e I.
b u
a M
•
s
§§§
Hi
II
ill
-■So
■ w w
— « —
— • •
m u w
ill
3
3ICS3
§§§§
r >8
" -a
• iiSS
u ] C <•
iiU
«l U w b
w O ft'
* u - -a
o • a C
h- w i e
• D >• V
dc U < s
§
e e • •
§§§§
S3
^ : » -
k « O i.
V C «# w
8 p • -•
u £ o ui
8
oom^fMoeeooo
e o 1/^ a tf\ ^ *^
<« r\i 1*4 rM r>j
S SSSSSSS33333
§ §§§§§§§§§§§§
</* Q ^ e* e* e o* e a m o o «>
8 SKSSS2'^K'^^~'-
• « •<
— I— UK 'S*
tiis.-fiiii I
>«k8k^u-alM3
3Bww»<.>*iB«oa.
S^.= — o. o I. ■ ■
wk •wAOtt vww
U W ^ •* W 3 M W ■* ■ —
S S Z k • o b I.
s
3
ssa 3 ssss a ssss s sssassssssss s
e e e
o
it
Siiii ii
k k u i.
Ik Ik tk Ik
iSS S
III! I
His I
M fi « <• m
'5 5 "d "5 '3
•J ^ ^ .^ -J
SSSi S
«• «• M «l «•
b b b k k
2222 2
SSSi S
V> V> V> M M
333333333333 3
bbbbbbbbbbbb b
uuuuuuuuuuuu u
■ ■•«•■•••«•• a
ssssssssssss s
I
>■ X > >•
J13 J
111 1
u u u u
III I
e o e e
ui i
k k c k
Ik Ik u. Ik
Wl VI M M
ssss s
b b b b b
^ ^ ^ ^ »*
>• V >. >. >.
*rf «^ W W M
u o u u u
« fl M M W
« « •• « <•
"5 '3 3 '3 '3
•J ^ ^ ^ ^
ssss s
en «l Wl M M
a e e o o
b b b b
b b b b
ssss
M M «• «l
aoaoaaaaaoaa a
SSSxzxzsss's «
333333333^33 3
t_bbbbbbbbbbb b
UUUUUUUUUUUU u
• ■■••••■•••■ *
SSSSSSSSSSSS s
200
ill
-1 • •-
a. -1
o «
o ■
M O)
5-1
a. M
«
o o o
N, K* 5« I
o g o ~r
8 3 g -^
o o f^
8" «p" o' (m"
>n o o-
m •- rg f>4
CI w u
U IK
- >
1: 2 J
> <- u 3
W U. * M
- £« «
«- e - «
a S. a u
^ « u a.
«) »i - O
2 o 3 t?
= " I SJ
N. O •
;j?::'
I 4 o <Nr o
•o "»* •- <*
OOQOOOOOO
s:
inuioootnvro
rg (M
-s
8;
M E V 8
I S;?_ _
V - C 8 O C
-EC- - - ♦>
gU U w M O M V
aai/iCuec —
'b— vauifla'*-
«^8
«| «l t>
g y . J
o a «> -
" c i -^
s s * •*
E -^ <i a
G • u c
o> c - I.
?_ > «,
B 1- w
a tJ V —
5|-
a C o «> o
(. a c u
8. u. 8 a
« > a.
C a 2 w u
c :: S 2 2
•» u — a u
w C M I.
0 a K a —
u s ui a. u.
^■^l^i*>'*>u^»0#^l/\i/>0000»-000
2 e
3
'P»»/»'0^^«>jrM.-^ ' """<> ■ "^<»
3333SS33SSS3SSSS§§
OQQOOOOOOOOOOOOO
;s;
o o o o o o o
go O O O Q O
o o o o o o
f9PQ^^SOQOooFOooooo
«)oi'Q<p^ONr'Ou^>frv/ u^O'-oo
•"•"-O^rofMrM r\j oo
uuUOljOljuu O
3 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< <
W W k« *i* *rf
Jtf Jtf JC Jtf M
*rf *rf «rf *« fcrf
lA V> <rt Wt V)
aaeaaaaaa •
333333333 3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3
333333333 3
<<<<<<<<< <
vv>.>>>->«>->->->->->>-v
(A M VI 1A lA
o o o o a
W W W W *rf
VI V) tfl M M
s g s s s
ssss s
*rf *rf w «« «^
^ J< Jtf Jtf Jtf
^ ^ ii 8 ^
fc« w w w *«
i/> (/I tn (/I </>
SS2SS2SSS s
ooooooooo o
oooooooooooooooooo o
333333333333333111 3
S§S§sSSSS§§liiiiii i
S 8S SSSS SS S
UI.UUUL.L.UU L.
oooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooo
201
ill
!„5I
• • ■
O • *
<te •>» M *
sss
M 9 f •
1.000,000
750,000
3,000,000
e C
k u
I si
In
M M W
W
C A' W
In
S3S 9
> X >■
www
u u u
lA • <r< o o o o
s
sss s
3 3 3 3
W> V> t/> tfl
S . ii^
I
I
I
I
t
u
>
o o
r>« r>i f^ i/%
SO e e
R IX ril
§§§§
§g§§
•- r- r>i
s §
o e
3 3
In
C C w •
tisi
& k I. _
• 1^ s
J< o —
I. k ..» w
o o — ■
tfc •.- • w
k £ ••
Ills
So o o
u u u
s
S3S
s
§
§§§
o
in
*
<o
S88
u
Ul
Ik
O
^11 ^ II nil I
a a o a
W W W M W
u u u u u
k k k k k
w w w w w
«•!«•• «
o o o o o
88S 8 8
k k k k k
sSSS S
k k k k k
1111 1
at at ac a at
81
It
• «
w e
21.
•So
8St
Sits
u • u
'^ — ■•• ^
s-ss : s
888 3
> > >
•^ "W "W
o e o
rsi fx ^ ^ •#
8e o e e e
<M IX N IX fx
3
§§§li
•e o*o"t a*
w «» •- o «
• WW —
III]
hi?
• — —
1 : 2 ^ ^
• O -• -w •*•
Mil
Hill
u u u u u
k k k k k
III!
^ ^ fl ^
u k u i.
o e a o o
o
sssss s
k k k k k
9
k k k k k
§§i I
k k k k k k
« « • tl V •)
::s3: :
U i> I- <- ^ 4
O tS O V9 U O
SO e g >«i
«^ i^i o >n
o o o o o
r\i fM rs« fv «^
l§|3§
S S S o o
o> « « » f^
*n «M •- ^ *Ni
o - u •
- w « ^ w
w • — 3 -
I* w a '1 —
w — « £ -
- — k I. A
- - «) <*
- O k > c
A I V : v
a « i <-
f7 3 k
k — 3 u
k O - 3
9 «r «f
U u do
k k3- =
o o « <■ a
!!! !!
I" ? ? ? ?
£ £ C £ C
yl .- ■ .• /
a 1 t t ?
a a J J 3
C C f £ C
3 r " ~ 1
< 4 4 < «
S i ^ ^ -
3 I • • •
202
:|?
O u
•- u
a. w
•>
a
>p^^O'noeo>t^a0orNJw^fNii/«r>jomr>i(rim>*m(nKio
SPPPP°°°°°°°°°ooe>oooooooooooooooooo
2Jrv;2;'V''vi~rjrgrgrgrgrgr\jr\jrk)rsi(>jrijpgrjf\jrgryrkir3Sr;rgr3SSrgrir«S
Sooooooooooooei
OOOOOOOOOOOOOi
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOi
SSI
O O I
o <
O Q O O O '
i O O O O O I
' o o o o o <
fvj OJ (M Kt ^ •-
« •- (M 1«
'- -O « h. .-
■
- • u
*t 8.
4;r^
« !l
s? ell
£ Cr o « a
V) V W >v
U — M
MM U — O 4 w 4
7g'6oXM«<.t!S«
t|t|s| .22SS
"O • T5 u — £ - — - -
U w « >. « «;
*- a w M t-* I.
< w — - D
■ t/t w w — w
o
4
*
1^
8
« •
■I 9
U ■
•— u
■^ o
•*• *«
O V)
II
o c
»^ W C_
ill- -
?
c^?
85
r t: &"
— ti
I- c
• -
I 3
— Q. X £ -• VI M
^1
g -
53
i5
3 <3 S
a a 3
c
— M
a 3
uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
oaooaoooooooooooaoaaoooooaoooaooooo
>■
u
<
1
S SS 8 s ss ss ss ss ss ss gs gs ss ss ss ssss ss s§
??ff??f?????f?????f????f????f????f?
• «l«1M(Atf>tfttnwiV1(/IV)tflWI(AVtMMMM<AMMrtMM«AMMMMlAVtWlCf!
33333333333333333333333333333333333
£X:££££Ci:£C£££C££C££££££££££££££££££
33333333333333333333333333333333333
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i i i i I I l I I I I I I I I I I 1
aaaaacaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaf"
«ititiii4i«>«>«i«i«ivvv«i«ivti«i«i«a«««av«<iv«<'*>«*'*>
IIIHIIiiiiiiiiliiiililillllliiiiil
ggS§§§SgSggSSSg§SSS§SSSS8§SSSSS§SS§
H^II^^^IIIII^jIIIIIjU^^jIIjIIIIjI
333333333
£££££££££
(A ui U4 tA
3333333333
33333333
£ C £ C
3 3 3 3 3
g
203
di
g?
e •
o ■
M 9
• > —
O • —
o C
k. u
a. «
u
o o -o o aj o c
S
O^^^0K^•^^/^O*/'
I O 'M *A IM O
*c>o-3SSSSSSSSSS
iiii
s
I o o <
:§g:
IS
o o
gS:
gsssssi
K- 'O •- »r\ O i/% <
9 c o
— « «
■5*5
S
H?
"I§
C X V « V
V)
8?
fr' "O ^
u — X
« U Cl <te —
o
o — u
O t^ t^
M (0 C
« U U
£ O O
U I. 1.
^ ki* «■>
3 «f tl
a. 3C X
r IS
e C z
— c
a -
u a
at a.
« a • >- o >■
U ■ M w — w —
- 0 i " " •"
X « i .O U
> t. > EL - « a
o g - M £ -^
- -^ ff «l u •
S-Q — u O X C
I. u b S K a
lAwaoaEMCB
o a a. u C k
u (. 3 w
u a •
a u z
— <i
- •> > —
a M g —
u a f 3
o £ 0 ■^
-^ U) I.
w (. w <
<i 3 II a
z a. z <
M w V « •«
«l >■ L. — b
w 01 b w 41
« 01 2 o g
■c 3 _ 6
•I JO ^ b -^
3 a 8 — a
fiO < v« u. oc
s
o
g'
w-i
liiSIf i f f SI SSS I
zzzzzzzzzzzzzz z
oooooooooooooo
4)«4f«f4)4»4»4>tl««4»4f«l
« « • •
SKI K. sT
t/^ (M »
«l « « O
w M w rv
« « « •-
iii
;g:
I
I! 1
if I
N. —
rg o w
•-> a
^ - 8.
w "^ 0
••- O M
— b b e
•^ w 41 w
tl w
<l b — C
n « 9
a « £ -
f C M w
\\t%
a. ui a <
g
IIH I
3 3 3 3
< < < <
< < < <
r«j KS O ^*- fO N^ ^^
t/^ K> -O *Ni u^ l/^ (M
•^ ^- m~
g:
•- IM »0 -- ^
Is
It
u — —
I Sg
•* A -M .M
w « U U
— £ • «
u w u u
a u w w
U •— C 4
u a
a -o
c —
— - 3 <rt
o. < ae z oe uj z
u d 3
b wi is
3 01 X
I O 3 "^
§ss
o o o o
o o o o
o o o o
b c
- 1;
^ c c
Sc c c c c
a a a a a
<<<<<<<
■O TJ ■O •O ■« -O -O
!§§§ § iliiili
ae Qc ae oe
???? ? SSSSSSi §
<<<<<<<
S i SS9 S g
<
s
III II rrrrni i
« tf ir «i tf f «i
e e s
C 5 S
A J-- r
>- > V
(/» l/» J«
S § 3
3 C O
2 J B
X r c
33oOu33 U XXX X
204
§!i
o • -»
o
o
o
o.
cBBsespce
uucuuuCuu
OtlOOVtlVIIU
ooooooooo
ooQooooeo
OOOQOOOQO
ooooooooo
ooooooooo
ooooooooo
ooooooooo
? ?
£? ? I "!
U _i -J ^ U
HI U M
C "~ _i tr
I. ti — - o - 9
dip Mzailo —
u u t» w
s> X a o c V
"O -.«!»---
- •! "
•» — -
, <- o "a __ _
8 «i £ • <t n "^ 9
oo«-M«i — zc
K^ K^ eo *^ •
U U • O U • ' ■ fl
s
s
?
I
s
Si
o 3
I
•^ J!
K I.
ty^0000t/>00
O00(/^tf^000
§0000000
o o o o o o o
w-iooooooo
r-»-fNiOQu^oo
Oxr0O>o<Ou^o
r«- f^ ^ fM •- ^ w~
si
Si
g a «j
S "H
"i J?
«l c >-
w «( I.
£ "2
u • a
• M 3
^i ?
i . S
•:; 8
>« «> -
- I. c
o a. 3 I
w C q
«> w J X
>- M fi —
M VI >. a -
« ul o —
o c u -
— O VI Ol u
> - ti ^ a
U w C £ -^
« a V •-
M — C O 9>
- r\j c
« " >-
9 C o a n
•*- U V 9
3 & a M
o " — u
o a «i u —
£ c
MMMWWMMX
>■
U
I I
i §
o o
eeoooeooo
aiOl9l9CTCTVO>9
££££££
1 1
i 1
1 1
« • «
11 1
it I
•tf *« w
« n M
>■ >■ X
«l v> v>
•^ *J w
Is s
I. u u
II I
• « «
ii I
>>>>>>>>
33|3g3|3
vxxvxxxx
uGuuuuui->
ctacccatacecacx
o o o o o o
>■>.>->■>■>>■>■
00000003
£££££C£C
33333333
S § S S i S S i
205
!i
- n
N- «o m o
« « -*
o c
VI
^ 131
< < < <
S
t/> rsj fO f\t njior*J^
rj K> fM flO
o o o o o <
gssss;
O Q 5 I
O O O O I
ssss;
O O O O I
o •} r^ . - -
;ssss
> o a o o
u^ ^ w^ ^** ^/^ »A
«- t) 6 »
If
9 at — «i
. lA a o £ - —
. f c - k £ u
c u w • t —
I :: JJ 5 * f
> . w . -
' " •! V M V W
u ae 3 i> »
— JO T3 £
lii^S ^ »^
.- u — •- u u
trt w c ^ Q
— — o — ro •-
« « C w fl w w
u u S C L. C C
i y £
I u u j< C ^ I 6
« it U V « V w
: w w « u w u u
ifl:«fii
u u oc iL <-> a. a.
s
:s
o o
o o
o o
g2
« a
^
> M
— 3
0 fQ 4Q IQ Q
3
22SSSSS2S22$ 2 S 2 $2 2
^ i 2 °
li^ ^ - •■' 4*
fo C C fl irt
C O «f C U
£ 3 C 41 3
»- w O > O.
C C t. (.
> > > >
I. u u w
X £ £ f
VI Wl V) Vf
ssssssssssss s
I I
en oi o*
if it it U V
tfl ■>! ,« V» Jl
3 3 3 3 3
o o o o
o o u o o
£ £ £ £ £
£ £ C C C
SSSS s
U I. i. u u
»^ w *« w k^
u u u u k
as.s.s. &
VI V> Vl VI VI
333333333333
<<<<<<<<<<<<
aaaaaaaaaaaa
g ig § S SS Si g S §
a
>->•>->■
■ • a •
OD 0 9 9 (
M M (A tfl Wf (A
• • • • •
o OB a a CD
333333333333
££££££££££££
uuuuuuuuuuuu
tAtfl<rtUIMtAW11/)lrtcrtW)Vl
MtAtnMWM«AIAtrt(/ltfl«
c««a«a«aaaaa
3 3
< <
at ac
u CI
3 3 3
< < <
i§
??
V tl «
MM 2
3 3 3
£ £ £
u u u
• a •
II I
o o o o o
£ £ £ £ £
3 3 3 3 3
< < < < <
g s § § g
c a <« 4) -^
(ft vt vrt yt />
C C C C C
a (Q (0 (0 (0
< < < < <
CJ u (-) >-> 1^
206
dt
it
o «
•te Arf W
o •
M at
• >■■-
o a —
1?J
J'5
i! a
?
82
5L«
1=
it
I I
« • • • «
K> »o ^* ^ rg
sssss
o o o o o
Kl Q tn o ^
rg o iM m N.
'^ »n •- o ^
rg •- »-
S
s
in Ki »- o*
SQOOQOOtntrtOw-tOOOOkno ■ o
-o^fvi'O'O'O'^-sr'C'^-OpgrNjfM^o . rg
o o o q o o <
o o <£ ^ q o •
^ O O — « O i
^ooooooo
r^ooooovo
mooooO'^o
oeiNON.'^OOrgQOOtt^rgrgQ
rgO'0-*#«>orgoi/^^orgrgO'*r»^-^
M
M
Jt; li Kt
• n k
J > o
W ^ Irt >w
■•- U
S« U M
£ - 1.
I- >. M 4
w «i g I-
" 3*2
II
ir
<
::9
U O I-
— •^ «»
<l M —
E M -VI
C «i 3
s?
5 8 « g
IT Wl — m
e >. c o -
O M U — I
V w <X
O C WW
• w •
u k # u u
(L (^ ui 3 Z
i "•
§1 .
I
• O VI
W) (A C
i/t a.
a V
— u o
= 1°
— O. —
III
-Q ti •
« « «l
^1
o m >
w u O
" il "
tA « V
>-
Owe
o — o>
oo u a
= 82
« (A M
i 33
» (S CB
— 3
(A
h
8< k
a. o M
uj •*- 13
w k
Wl 9 vt <e
>• C k g
v> - V O
w > k
«> «i o o
u b u o
« _ ^
£8 S
c «» >
— X
?«l —
<J
— C w
V '— VI
ti '•- «i
u —
C w c
— V -
a «i •
ac u- t/i
? ; iJ
ss s s s
SSS89 8
"5 "5
« « <l « V
3 3
< <
3
<
SS 8
SS s
« < <
I f
i s
> > > > > >
J< Jtf Jtf Jri ^ Jtf
ij Jj ij ij !j >i
oc at at OL at at
O O O Q o g
a o o a a a
>•>•>■>■>■ >■
W W W W V **
§§§§§ §
u u u u u u
U C L. U U U
Ol Ot 0> 9 9 9
g§ggl 8
X X X X Z X
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
ooooooooooooooooo o
! ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i § 1 .1 1 rn 5
*rfW^W^W^Wk^W*'*'W«i«WMW k-
WWWWW*'*'*'Wk^*'WWWWWW ■-
Ul.UUUUUl.UUUWWt.UC*. -
UI«IAWI<A<AtAtflVltAIA(A(A<A(A<A^
XZZXXXXXXZZXZXZXX X
207
di
O I.
•- u
a. VI
sss
o o o
si's
n
u > €
V) u
is 8
»o < "
rg Q «
O I. M
C >
S <*
i >■-
— II -
»- *n **
pn o •-
»o iNi ^«.
SSS
sss
o o o
§88
»r* -o ^
■ « c
8
S
^ — OOO — — w-'OO^
3
SSSSSS:
I o o o o o
_ _ _ _ ^ _iOOOOO
ooooooooooo
I
oooooooooi
l/^ u^ K^ o I
Z ZZzzzzzrzzz
a
c
a
?
I ?
a.
? ?
sss
8
ill
1
« « «
M M W
■
id
EEC !
3
W M W
<
M tf) M
, > >^ >.
w
Vt Vt VI
« ti tr
Z Z X
88 8
•^ •* •<
ill
I?? I
M M « M
SSS s
s
o o o
0 o o
c 5 c
a 8 •
01 9 9
£ £ £ £
u u u u
o o o
«l tl il
g s
O O
E E
S S
S 8
1 S
o
lll&lllllll
zzzzzzzzzzz
Mill! I! ! n
(/) (A (A (A M V^ /" ^
ifl W» tfl l/l V» \fl /■
iiiii in ti!
W I- k- »-«-»- -
208
III
Ih
e • -s
Hi
s
e C
«M*-^oooooeooo • e
'^^•-eoooe^oeO'^^^-'O
8«»"=»-i"
3S33333SSSSSSSSS
§§l§i§§§§§§§§§§§
80 V o* rg o* o" o' o o' »^' rS «C o Q* kT
E«
w «l w
- - — ^^
I?
j = = r :|
^ w M •« U •
• > >
Ok •
• • s
MS?
r - s •
« o
u I. -
!.«•••
W «• W i.
,.>" =
* ^ — ^
I
«
hi,
u S 1 3
u s • c
* ' • •
•» • « «
I
m
S
If,
c •«
- 1
*^
it
f s
11
II
33
§§
ii
1
i
!
o
§ §§§§§§§i§§§§ii§
« §§g§§§§2§|§|880
Jti-:iii i-
II
i s
i s
CkfO.
Ia— ec— o-> Mwattf
uwi.ca- c CkfO.
S'i ^s i iii t S^l i g
■»au 'Q axjiM
. ._ E — 4 '— — — — ^ <• a k - -
ft^^akc^-^^^e a.^.^
M >da a -kx^
e> o— oowawuoo
wk — a>kukkxi« kk
aM*#v»>*«a*«%«9-*k *•*•*
Ul2«tllWKM'2zKOU.MXS
iiiiiiiliiiiiiii i ii i iilii i!i!iiii i!
I Jill fill II If III I
^ ££.£.£.£ E .£££££ £ 5 E
<
1
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa a
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i
UUUUUUUUUUUklUUUU u
liilllllllllllll I
SSSSSSSiSSSSSSSS S
>.>.>>.>■>.>•>■>■>•>■>>•>•>•
ij I iiuirrrriinn
««««a<i««a«««««<ia •
II 2
II I
MM M
V> VI VI
ooooooaoooooooo
M^*'*'*'*'MM*#Wa« tm -> ■>*.
wi*rtvi«ivi*/i«/»t/iviv»w»(/»^ -^ <■'»
oitBttMStoAsacaaa x xx
209
III
IN
o ■ -2
sag
8:-:
O w
I. u
•n •- *^ ^ i/> N# r«j
O '
I o o o
I O O Q
I o o o
fV CM ^j
f
me Z
B u u 8 c
I > t w we
> u w y F o -x
o « a " w •
(L ** 8 w >. • 3.
■ o
>•
• • *» - ■o -
O 3 O w ^ w
w z c
— u 9 g u >. u
> 5 a
l^a^ll?""'
6 u u ^ <- • u
> S ^ ^ 3 u
WW O ** J
c :
iiisiiiii! i
3 III I II III
1
cccccccccc
c
Vii/tVtVtViVitAiAVtVi
■
>>>>.>>.v>v>
llllllllll -
>>>>>>>>>> >
oooooooooo o
WWi^*««rfA^WWWW w
!5§
S S
m s
Cm
(M
u
a I.
a a.
« —
ft
■ •
x2
§1 §
ii
liiliiiiil i 2! I
0)09010)019999 9 ** •
I CO 9 CD n CO
o o o
o o a
U I. I-
o o O
X z 2
o o o
>" >■ X
WW w
§1 §
fNj(Vf>jrNirgr4rsjf>jrji
S3§ss§ss:
00000000(
o o g o o o
o o o o o o
I o o o o o o
lOi/iSiriN.oooogod
lt/^K)(r)^)/^•— ooo-ooo
^ rM o 9 Ki r» -o
s s.
51
w «1
§3
w u w
■ •
w gi w
— «
— o
JO.
lie
els- 3«-|
.2 - i: !J S S « "=
Ew-wuwu ^ ^ S 9
•flo* oi«— wflc
— C C 9 9 eo - -
g I - C w - a. u
" I. w i ti ■ a
a^
'.{
■ u t) g
tl w w ^
g^w8*||i
i.ajkwvj<£aao
'C-XQw£«ll.
-'it-— u^3uww
I-— oaoo«a«
<
o
Saaaaaaaaaaaaaa a
iiiisiilifllll! I
210
III
lU
e • ^
mag
Hi
e Z
•^ 8
o
u
9C
• p*^
o ■
i *
: ~
S :
;§
§;
:s
8:
* «/%
irt t
rx 1
M •
II
:i
1. <
• •
M •
m 1
1 t
• VI
1 ¥»
3 I
* \U
< ->
o •
: S
• &
•^ (
o •
• -1
• <
Si
U 1
• <
: 2
11
m •
e e » — >M •-
» ># - ni o ^
9 «/^ ^ ^ w^
9
«
1
i i
I I
II
i i
II
o o
> >■
sis 5«-* = »0?SC52'^R5S38 = S-'3^S?; = SS3?aKK3
SSSSSSgSSSSSSaSS55555S5S!55SS5i55
§ §§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§i§§§:
I §l!8§§||§§|§§8g§§8|8|||§|||;
I 1
s s
;8
1^ fM ^ •- tf\<«#fM •- (M
&&
1 I g
III i ?^i^5 i ^1
s-85ir^i?|u:l*fr':i|l«:«iii:t
Co— uua<« Sf'^'k ■->'9^l*- 4u C*^
— jivuualw— tiaet.— wcuCaaa w
Is
2i
eeooeeeeeeooeeeoooeoooooooooooo
211
it?
a
a. -»
o if
o «
o u
flOOOOOPOv-st'
— rg
arsj flO */> flO
»o r^ IM —
SSSSSSSSSS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^'^^'^^^S^^^^^^'^^
o o o O '
ooooopooo<
^OpOO'
;s
sss
ogoooooooooooooooo
~ooooogoooaoooooao
SSS
ooooooooooo
o o o o o <
o o o a o <
o ^* >r ^- *n <
SQQOOgOOOOQQOOOOOOSOOOQQQOOOOOOOOOO
SooooooooooQoooogSgogoogoqoooooooo
c
en c
— 9
VI -
8 ^ w c -f
w -^ • 9 S
M « • • £ —
• y c I <->
i-
g </> — — 3
S.S
|8
— N^ «
I. — « » 4
k I « 01 o
K >■••(-■
« ^ w HI -O w
88:-i . 3
tl ^ — _ O I
".. as E-
: I 8 - S 2
w U >■ «l -' u
o « a ■ '
III? !
s . = =
a i w » -
M. ac M vi ac
so. •( X u w
I
01 « £ 9
11 «l -
•I 4 w
? 'C i c
I E f a. 9
I •< 3 u
I c o c
— •ill.
— K(
III '
« '9 t! r! u •)
•- Kl »- «M O
z\
« tM M k' 4 A' — ' *
- — — I. ■fl I- c
w z z w r^ c o
— «•■>.• «i.-C— —
U -^ *« U •• •• •- M — W
'it
^ n
5«. u -^li*
— 3 « M-
*# k k *«
lU s «c u
U^ « f J< • • w
.. f 1 s ! » s{ ■*
, 1 .2 - g " ?
C X w «l ■ lO •
'- a a -< _
Sw w s a A M —
• aw a u V
N42abcaa
• 33rM aa ■-<.<
CMMT-uac^-i/i
ae*cacit««ai> • • '
l.bkUl.«>k.
ooooooc;
212
m
lU
o •
o • ■:
mag
fc5;«fc«"»RS°R = 5:iR::«» = R5
o C
a. «■
22SI — 'S'^*2®s*a
I "^ — 'a — ./» K • — </»-••- r* ■• M •* « » r« « Z^ 7 S ra«% ? S
SSSSSSSSgS55!55S3SSgSSSSSSSSSS
§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
'- r<4 •- r^ rx rj N n «* « (vT •- <^J" P>.* V •-* m* -o* •-" .-" ru* kT
.?5
s;t I
* - £
■ <*
§:
ii
— >■•>■•.
« • ' S d
S
>■ w
-"I
>■
O Z
I?
«
— w •
-f^
8 = 5
« -
sis
I
n
Hi I
3
^■5 i
«u>baicu woous
• . 5 - a --sf " <- - _fl1!
S " 8
4
f s
I!
9
5^5 9
voi-aC''oBlaa.«
<.>»a.oj|u».0«
8 •« ?8.S2 l?{- .5
— — — ^ jj ._ _ a « u ._
- 55 2
• 4 •<
•*■ • • ■
• • a. u
" ::%z
c i « w I c
3 I X • 8 c
» S f I. >.— -
U I U " X •
I si
c "i
S C >'
ot04u>a0uizviacoi3aexacou~>woxo9«
2
II
i§
§3
u
k •
— u
o -
>
w u
M •
■•- m
^3
It
r a
IS
3> s a s
<
s
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo o
lillllillllllllllllllllllllll I
3
<
s
kUkkUt.CkUb.i.l.CUUki.b.l.kk.U b
'••■■■ a •••••■■'•'•'••'• a '•'• '■ a
oatararacacaiKataiaiaiaiarataiaiocataiaiac S
£? =
o o a
M «
n £
O U ■J
213
-IV —
o «
^^ ** *^
o •
• > —
1?:
a. «
«
o
f\' •—
o o o
o o o
o o o
o" o" o
o a o
r\j >r o
SLS
? 8?
in > ij
CM
u w
«) - V
i/l w 3
• « U
^ is
3
« « •
333
222
< < < <
N> W* N> ^-
oe ac OK OK
Jd ^ M M
I. U I. u
o o o o
o o o <
O O O I
o o o <
egg;
OO Kl O I
11
a < »i
« o «
d • a o
- 3 « "
(A Ui «
S ?« 8
U — III —
u ti e
a > o «
< ti £ u
9 o t 2
»- o X
•I z >
> •!
— V £ U
•^ Iff « ■—
c I. a B
CM flO •- •— Kl K»
OOOOQOOOOO
gg:
o o
gg
!g
ggggggSfg^S
»i 8 3 u at —
T] ._ ^ 3 ._ M
C w I- M ii
9 c o w Jl -Q
~ " 3 g ^
_r"S
CSS
— I. u C *^ O
^ O N.^ o « —
C C <^ -^ w w w
f ■? s 1 1 -^ ^?
— Ol w 0.4 -• —
a «i a • « • r •;
tlOIKI^'— Jtf(-(-
atntif— acti
k.3wiiui-09
• ^fiauaw — -Q
01 w -•- w —
— — a. «i a u M
.•635? 5 55^
3SSS s ssssssssss s
ll??lln?? 1
SS8S S
< < < <
>>>>>>>>>>
civvvavtfvav
b b u b
o e o o
£ £ £ £
*^ w w w
3 3 3 3
< < < <
O
« M M a a
ssss s
i. w u U u
H- ^ H» ►— ^
1111 1
<<<<<<<<<
t ac at at
n 91 91 ei
41 S Ii «
0000
ac « ac CK
UJ UJ UJ UJ
vativvaava,
>>>>>>>>>>
«««(i«i«««aa
uuuuuuuuuu
l.l.kl.t.l.l.l.Ul.
vowtititiaawa
aaaaaaaaaa
ti«itivt>«v<iav
t.i.i.ki.i.i.i.1.1-
o o
u u
o o
£ £
i 5
|||||||||| 1 I I
Kl 'J o »o
"O ^ -O fM
E
E
E
E
L.
i-
<l
V
u
ti
**
^
^
^
fc.
w
^
^
U
u
u
t.
0
0
0
0
£
£
£
£
Wl
t/l
W1
1-^
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
f^
0
0
0
0
3S
0
r J ?
O D -
U w t_
- 5J S
U I- c >-
I. I/I 9> —
w a e —
u I- *» -
») •^ u
X E 1:!
•- y) -yi u
•o 3 X »l
(I c
Ifl X >■ 41
a » — ^
£ — a /I
u — Q. 'Q
I. o 3 a
i.t ^_
4f U Of <S
w — J 6
± t: &e
a u 1;
g tf OD —
O — •- fl
LJ UJ UJ (/I
!!!!
>. >- X >■
a a 4 'O
a a 0 a
?
0
e
X X X >
•
u
s
s
■3 a a a
^
.^
> > > >
II
m
a
a
V
1.
i
u
! !! !
z z z z
214
m
V a
o C
o
Hi
o q O Q Q o
^ O tn O O Q
^ fs. rg K» %# o
it
M — —
« C w
- -3; ^S -
■ . ^ w o
L- U O £ W
w w fiO M U •
C « b V V
V -> 3 c wi ^
o» w -*- a ■ o
u a MO.'*
" ' 5 ? S I
u
55 i
u u i
__•*♦* o
U U U 4 « w
3 3 3 0 0 5
a. a. a. u u <
1
S|
Si
o S
s
si
5-
• u
a —
o
3rsi
^ s
I
o
<
o
-J
<
o
ss
3 1
8"
8 5
lit
•O •>
rg u
u
u u
3 3
o. a.
s
S
O O fM 3 o
t/>>rrMrsjp^'0'O<0«l
§ SSSSgfSSS
<
o
-J
<
o
OOQOOOOOO
ooooooooo
ooooooooo
§{
«
II
3 S S
- o» -
c - -
(. VI o
3 —
.*. a 3
■"^ o o
a ■
i'
c H I/I u
» C .- u -
Wl .C 3 «l «
8"" u * — >.
w ** U £ - _
3UM^9<0«E»
Q.Q.'— -fQrQuC
oe'*-«iui-uo —
£0'^ 3«('0'0«-'D
8 ?2 ^
sss
S S 8 8
U i. 4. U U C U
tl II tl tl « V V
>>>>>> >
Grand R
Grand R
Grand R
Grand R
Grand R
Grand R
Grand R
II
o o
1
O
3
<
c c c c c c c
■ 9 a a • • a
3 i
i i
i^ 1 I I
w ^ w O O
§i 1
< < <
S 5
1. u t.
gs s
3 3
< •<
onat
onal
onal
&i 1
8 .1
zz z
o o o
• •
Area
Area
Area
and N
and N
and N
& S.
ii i.
< <
%,% %
5 S
o o o
§ *
11 I
^ -1 ~t
< <
S i I S ^ i i i i
OOOOOOO 33
MMMVtyi/l^/J/l
ooooor::D
3333^1133
<<<<<•<■* <<
«fl«««t t to
^^-^■»— — — — — —
>V>->>' *• •- *-^
3 3 3 5 « ! • ! 5
U U U U -
215
I?
O V
•^ «« 4^
o e
• >.—
e • w
gs§
o o o
o o o
o o o
l> c c
t. S u
u a —
• tl k.
«l — c
u M «l
C Wl U
a •>
C U w
55
S
ill I
t
«
8
>«>.>• >.
b U k b
o o o o
£ £ JI £
«4 w *J *4
3 3 3 3
< < « <
i5§ §
c u u u
►- ^ ►- ►-
>" V >. >
w ^^ *rf *«
§11 I
u u u u
• ■ ■ •
t. W I. c
111 I
I fVi ^ f\< *-
rvj
pj tr> O 0> <M rv «
Kt O fo o u^ 'O "
.^ ro K. *- r- r- '
I r^ •- ^ ^ ■
ooooooqooQqoQOOOQ'QOoao
ooooooqooi
OOOOOOOOOl
So o o o o '
o o o g o I
o o o o o o '
o g o o
o o o o
o o o a
oooooooooooooooooooooo
00«0(MO«3^0000dOOOO^(MOQ
CO ^
w w > v a.
U ■ O C E
« M (. — o
•I M
0 o c
— i. I-
||5
U w (A
- 5J-5
U L. C
a w oi
u Ifl -—
og*"
rvj y >'
O V M
-M « W
C > ti
c «l tf
- UJ >.
«« — — «>
I. — — <l
3 — —
w (A ^
5J S 5
%. — <A
w w «|
0) « U
e w u
c M a
C >-<
— « Q
'- 3 5
O M o
ti w
b I. M
1
c o 9
- n|
5 S >. « .5
(J V W U k' o *^
£Ccau»iau>-
> o V u b S • •
■ — »_ o — t. •
J3 O 13 O O C
'Q w fc/ O
>. C w V —
«■> 4 •» *« *4 *4 »^
« b
C abjtCbiSc
VbOuiObbS
Vul-^-— # b— Wfcrf-l
wacbbt-bwiin
w o *^ ^^ >"
— »- h- o o _
" FO fO 3
>- 3 a. -I t/9 v« u
|1 I
V > M N
> O tl -
b o> I
II ll
3rg -g"
- V «
b w w il C 9
<i »i u (71 • a
w u a ■ > b
w o o _
w .-. — «t rg ^
w w u V O
g 2±± 3 S.
U w «l « £ U
o V o 'O ^9
at jz at — 3 c
ae u oc Z a. 3
a.a.a.Q.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.cLa.cLa.a.a.a,
i i i i i i i i i i -i. 1 1 i i i i i i i 1 i
1
a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.o.a.a.a.a.aa.aLa.a.a.a.a.a.
a.
'C£'C'C'C'C'C£'C'C'C'C'e£5£5'55555
3333333333333333333333
aQ.o.do.da.o.aao.d.a.a.a.dd.a.aaaa
t.Ui.t.t.i.Ui.Ul.k.UL.UUl.l.U4.L.I.L.
£
3
<
d
i
g||^^iggg§|g|g§gli§^ll I
a. a. a, a
cccccccccccc
bbbbbbbbbbbb
«IM«ttAMMMtrtM0ltAM
■ •aaeaaaaaaa
tlilVtItllltIV
a.a.a.a.(La.Qka.a.ai
cccccccccc c
bbbbbbbbbb b
£ £ £ £ £
aaaaaaaaaa
tiaauvvvvvvvovv
C£££££££££££££
U bf bl bl
33 33 333333333333333383
o *r» o o
■o -o »o o
^^ >0 */^ ^»
s
sss
s
o
m
s
o o o
o
o o o
o
o
o o o
o
Q
o o o
o
o o o
o
3
— Kl CO
\r*
^
^ IV o-
Kl
I
Wl
g
g-
5JS gt:
(_ t- — tft
w w c
Wt ^ « Q
C - - t-
o (rt — *-
u c c
«; a (. o
t_ u V «rt
u Q
ot C 6 -*-
a O o
u w E
oi c w c
— trt V
3 tf) Wt V
3 o :3
Wt • "O o
O fc* « L.
oc z oe CL
s
oi o> o* o> o^
1. u u u u
VI M Vt 1/1 V)
*■ *" i' w
U b) bl u
>->■>->- >■
C C C C u
£ £ £ £ £
01 Ol Ql 91 Oi
H I tl <l V
< < < <
o o o o
b b b b
o o o o
£ £ £ £
216
5!i
l«j
o •
^ te' ■«
o •
e • -s
mag
1*
e k
» 9^ m r>4
^ ^ t^ 0n
■^•^gg
§§§§
an
It
-III
— b M 9
a, a. u a.
* *
: :;{
•
S :
: *l
f^ •
■ o
e •
. IM
IM I
■ ^
>^ '<
: s
s :
i§
§i
;S
i\
1 -#
»»» •
S :
il
1 :
S i
o •
X •
u •
s i
! M
j\
! u
* IM
8 :
! o
W 1
• ai
• •
t a.
w *
» •
* ^
.?:
: °
1 ;
• ^
• <
o •
* ^
5 :
2 ss
s
iS
§§
II
II
8
e
w •
e ^
r.
• 3
s
s
s
3
1
§
§
§
§
ft
8
I e o oa o ■ oi
I o e « o
Soeeee
*0 #0 f^ fO 9^
§ §§§§§
>
is i[
^r?
8"
^ S* fl i >
« * S li r
o • • •
w ^88 I
^ — w u «
S S ^ > 8
•( ^ a £ a
3
§ S
o
3
S
o
or
a
H
<
s
• • • •
1
a. d a. d. d
ssss s
k k C U k
^ »- ^ ^ ^
• • • • •
• « • •
U k. U b
< < < <
« • • «
s If
e
u
3 3
8 8
« •
8 £
u u
11 I
u i
o e o
ii 3
• • •
a ■ a
WW w
&& &
n I
M W
8 8
I
>- >•
• •
•I m
o e
3
1 J
8 8
i!!!! !
>. >. > V X
u k c u w
o o o o o
X £ -C C -C
3 r 3 3 3
< < < < <
sssss s
• ■ ■ • ■
• • « « «
U 1. k U I.
< « « « <
illlf I
I I
a.
s
217
I?
it •
« a
o Z
?
s
s
o o o
So o
in q" to
>i3
S "
I- V
ti in
n
« V V
N t- «-
" s
Kl PS* tJ
s
S3
11
«
li
— u
«
V
— «
3
>r PN. ^ ^ O
— o ^ o
M-l O « O
•- fM
2 2 2 2SSS
a « a a w^ K> lo
I II I s s s
i§ISiii
iM ^ <M m tr» ^ o
m wo rg iM m
w
M
O MM
%j w *^ w
3 5 ll i
o ■^ > >
coo
s 5 2 : f I
w ^ — *> C 9
2-58 5 * !
2 S:: 1"" i *
*« w c — — "% ««
- i u u -
u - - aw V
2 i a-t; 2.r g
? r t J s s 1^
i. (A M O O U «
g 3 3 3 S •£ 5
CB oo cB CB oe > ^
OOOOOOOOOO
gdoopooooo
OO^OOtTtOOO
o
s
X M X X X X X
3333333333
w
_— oooo ooo
i^w MOM M 333
- — ■ • ■ ■
>> a-OL^a. www
S S ^ — -, -. OO o
ooeooee e
i i g g 1 g g g
c c c c c c c
a • • « • a 3
ut en 1/1 c/f w) (/> v>
c
<
e
a
>.>->->.>->->-v>.
a«aaaaa««9
>-
>■
X
3 3
< <
3
<
t
g
gg
g
«rf
9
<
<
a a
a
ansi
ansi
ansi
ansi
ansi
ansi
ansi
§
*"*'*'wi'i'i'--
n
g
w ^ w u u t> ^
U
^CUWIaW^ —
KK
8
^
££££££££ i
^
;i
Ts
§
SSiSSSS
s
5llll5li^
>.
>
1. u
I.
.^
^
etro
etro
etro
o
u
If
etropo
etropo
etropo
etropo
etropo
etropo
etropo
1
w
§ii§|iin
t
V
Sun M
Sun H
Sun M
X
5
o o
w
U
o
X X X X X X X
>>>>>>>
<
>
^ 5 2 ! 5 2 2 1 -
3333333 =
218
III
IM
11
e Z
k u
a. M
•
3
§
3 SSS
§
s s
I I
I I
II •
I 1
a a.
s s
3 9
8 8
S i
a. a.
88S
w% K .-
a »>* e*
i
III
m iM ni r« N
SO e e o
<M M ^ ^
S S3S3S
S
> > >
sss s
w w M *«
3 9 3 3
< < < <
d d a d
b b k b
^ ^ ^ »-
>> > > >.
§§§§§
iiiii
I
* ;
Si -*
> A ■
8 b b •
« • V
I
b b • •
fill
■ • ■ i
z s. s. •
mils
o o o e c
^ M »- < O
rt ^ K4 • fM «
8
s
3
§
J3SSSSS8
§§§§§§§
f-S 8
j|g?b ^?
811 «• • e
9
i|8i=l
g
3
m
a.
o
33339 3 3333333 3
SSSSS 8
*« «« w *« *# *«
U U i. k b u
iiiii i
U U C b b c
III I rrr- r S S ! ! bH 1 S
«.ww w MMMMN • lllllll I
1x2 2 r r r t: = r lllllll I
S33S
§§§§
g s e s
lis
li-l"
o - ~ *■
• <i c »
r.ii
"c So
« - •■ b
9iiT
3333 3
nil I
b b b b
o o o o
& 0. a. a
8
3
s
SSSi c
88SS s
•■ M « « />
W W k b.
• • • «» :.
1^ «• ^ ^ ^
•^ '^ <^ ^ ^
• • • «
219
§!?
o «
^ M M
o ■
« 9
• >■ —
o • —
8-i
a u
I. u
a
s
« « ■ •
« •- Kl N.
9. rti *- •-
o 3 5
o ir> o
•* f) m' ru'
cv S- .# o>
■« <M rvi ^j
IS
Mil
was
n
• • •
• • • w
■ ■ • '-
£ C £ •
U U U C
lilt
— o
It
Is
?!
k •
li
0000000 • o
a Ki .
sssssss
8 s. o o
M^ e in
w^ r>j o w-i <
r4 o «
n .A
m w 5 «
o a 3 M s Ji
" S 1 1 r i ?
— C w « • k 5
— •• It u o a.
>• t. ■
^ -^ » m ^ — i9
s
s
3 9 39SS 9 99 9
3 3 3 3 3 3
J( J(
ssss s
JJJJ J
II
I
M M M W M M M
M
e
i i
SSSS S II I SSSSSH S
• • • •
' -c 'S -S
•I « « »
lis!
W <rt M Kl <rt
U U
u
u
• • • • •
I I
220
III
M PA W
V-i
a. -»
o «
•^ *^ *#
e ■
m 9
• >■ —
o • —
Hi
s
e k
a. M
>■
u
ot
I
;s
in
§2^
1. fc. <
Ai' W O
8 &^
II
<
Ill
w <
• go
£ 3 w
8
• • • •
« « a •
•• ■ • 9
o o o o
U U t. I.
sss s
C U U k
^. ^. ^. »-
III I
u u u u
III I
• • • •
• MM M
m m m m
o o o e
k I. U k
!
I I
-I
u
u .
ll^
•il
^ w ^
« J{ u
« I. o
o —
U "O «
a. -• v.
&
8
Hi «
5il
• « M
I. •
m *^ •
w I u
— • •
o -
k o
a
o
8
-1 «. <
3t
£8
• c
11
— • —
• —
8*
«1
w II
I- <
35
221
Appendix One
Facsimile Survey Request
Sent 9:00 a.m. February 2, 1993
To: APIA U.S. Transit System Members
From: Jack R. Gilstrap, Executive Vice President
Subject: Ready-to-Go Projects: Urgent Information Request
We have had an urgent information request from the U.S. Conference
of Mayors to provide information to the Clinton Administration on
"Ready-to-Go" transit projects by close of business on February 4.
The request was made personally by Federico Pena, Secretary of
Transportation, and the information we provide will help shape
Administration proposals for a short term economic stimulus
package. For purposes of this survey, "ready-to-go" means a
project for which funds can be obligated within 120 days and the
project will be finished within calendar 1993.
If you have such a project or projects, please answer the questions
set out below and FAX your response to John Neff by COB February 4.
FAX number (202) 898-4049, or if you have questions please contact
Mr. Neff at (202) 898-4112. APTA will develop a response for all
APTA members.
For each project please supply, in the order listed, the following
information:
1. Description: (Be brief)
2. 1993 funding needed:
3. Number of days needed to obligate funding:
4. Potential 1993 jobs:
5. Employment potential beyond 1993:
Note: All projects listed must have completed all necessary local
approval processes, such as engineering and environmental reviews,
and be able to move forward immediately to obligate funding within
a maximum of 120 days and complete construction within calendar
1993.
Thanks for your help.
68-623 O— 93-
222
AMERICAN PUBLIC TRANSIT A^OCIATION
FINAL REPORT: !
SURVEY OF ABILITY TO SPEMD FEDERAL
TRANSIT FUNDS DURING RSc4l YEAR 1993
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS:
Transit Agenclaa NecKl and Can Spend $7 Billion
of Additional Federal Funds Creating
405,000 New Jobs During Flsdal Year 1993
Transit agencies can spend $7 billion dollars h new federal funds during Fiscal
Year 1993 If additional federal funds are made available.
This Is in addition to $4.6 billion in federal funds currently available to transit
agencies from all federal sources during Fiscal Year 1993.
Tna $7 billion in additional federal funding would result in 405,000 Jobs, directly and
Indirectly.
Nearly 40 percent of the needed funds are for jransit vehicles to replaoe over-age
buses, vans, and rails cars. The additional $ii2 billion of federal funds for buses
and vans woUd purchase 8,370 more vehiqies. These buses and vans are
urgently needed to replace expenslve-to-malnt^in vehicles currently In service and
to provide vehicles to meet the requirements of ^he Americans with Disabilities Act.
o Full appropriation of the intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (IStea)
authorization for Fiscal Year 1 993 would have f^ovlded $1 .6 billion of the additional
funds transit agencies could spend this year, i Full appropriation of ISTEA would
also provide an additional $105 million for research and training, administration of
the transit program, and grants to social servipe agencies.
Transit Agencies Expeet to Speiid $4.8 Biaion
In Currently Available Funds Durlnfj Rsoal Year 1903
•
Transit agencies expect to spend over $4.8 sllHon dollars in already available
federal funds during Rscal Year 1893. These expenditures include funds appropriated
to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) fbr Rscal Year 1993, carry-over funds from
previous years' appropriations that have not yet t>i^n obligated, flexible funds from
Federal Aid Highways appropriations transferred tb transit use In accordance with
provisions of the Intennodal Surface Transportation EffWency Act (ISTEA), axl funds from
other federal agencies used for transit purposes. '
The federal funds will be spent for a variety ofi purposes. Fifteen percent of the
expenditure is plarwied for operations, 17 percent for riew buses and vans, 23 percent fbr
223
new start flxed-guideway system Infrastructure, 17 pBrcent for modernization of existing
fixed-guldeway systems, 2 percent for new rail cars, 17 percent for other new buildings
and facilities, and 10 percent for other capital purposes.
Transit Agencies Need and Can Spj»nd an Additional
$7.0 Billion In Federal Funds During Fiscal Year 1993
Transit agencies could spend an additional $7 billion In federal funds during Fiscal
Year 1993 for maintenance and operations, to buy capital equipment and build
infrastructure, to Increase service to meet federal rtiandates, and provide Increased
service demanded by growing communities. The fiinds would be spent for the wide
variety of uses shown on Table 1 .
TABLE 1 : ADDfTIONAL FEDERAL FUNDS THAT WOULD iBE SPENT IN FISCAL YEAB 1993
Use of Funds
Anwunt:
Percent of Funds
Operations
$1.49 ttllllon
20.3%
Buses and Vans
1.23 bflllon
17.1 %
Other VelTlcles
1,5J) billion
21.8%
Rxed-OuWoway Modernization
1.10 billion
17.0%
New Starts
0.sb billion
7.1 %
Other FacliKles
O.ej) billion
12.5%
Other Purposes
O.sj} billion
4.2%
Total
7.04 billion
100.0 %
Funds that can be expended include 20 percent for operations, 39 percent for
buses, vans, and rail cars, 1 7 percent for fixed-guldew^y modernization, 7 percent for new
start fixed-guldeway construction, and 17 percent |for other capital purposes.' This
distribution of needs is different from the way federal fqinds already available are projected
to be spent. j
I
A larger percentage of expenditure would beidirected toward new vehicles and
operations arid a smaller percentage for fixed-guideway new starts, other facilities, and
other capital purposes. Although this shift reflects in! part the needs of transit agencies,
it is also a recognition of the purposes for which junds can be most quickly spent.
Survey respondents were restricted to reporting only needed federal funds that could be
spent by the end of Fiscal Year 1993 or for which corttracts for capital projects could be
signed and work begun before the end of Fiscal Ye^r 1993.
Rgure 1 shows the amount of additional funds! that could be expended compared
to available funds by use. Transit agencies could sfjend a total of $2,0 billion for flxed-
guideway modernization, 148 percent more than the amount available from all federal
sources. Potential expenditures of $2.2 billion for operations are 192 percent more than
available federal funds, of $3.6 billion for new veilicles are 305 percent more than
available, and of $4.1 billion for new Infrastructure are 70 percent more than available.
224
FIGURE 1 : TRANSIT AGENCY ABIUTY TO SP^ND ADDITIONAL FUNDS
IN FY 1993 COMPARED TO AVAILABLE FEpERAL FUNDS BY USE
Mo49calt«lioD Opvcatlon*
■•4 ■•>
V«hi«l** I nf I • • t rur tu I <
Addltloial rg4«iil ruadt Thtt C>> t« Sptit
Avillibl* r*dii>l rundi
, . _J : —
The Additional Spending Would Create 405,000 Jobs
Additional federal funding of $7 billion would result In an additional 405,000 jobs
with each Job equal to one person-year of employment, The Jobs created include both
direct employment by transit agencies and In Industrie^ providing goods and services and
building infrastructure for transit agencies and indirect Jobs resulting from the effects of
those expenditures In the economy. •
Approximated 58,(X)0 Jobs are created for each $1 billion of transit spending. The
number of Jobs created by specific use of additional trpnsit spending are shown on Table
2. Investment In operations has the greatest potential for rapid Job creation and creating
the largest number of Jobs. Spending for operations results in 68,000 Jobs per $1 billion
while capital investment results In 53,000 to 57,000 Jobs per $1 bdlllon.
The Job creation potential of transit projects iS estimated by APTA using input-
output analysis techniques. Other researchers hav^ described the positive impact of
transit Investment on the economy. Michael Renner of the WorldWatch Institute has
described German studies showing light rail track construction generates up to 64 percent
more Jobs than highway construction.^
The Urban Institute has found that shutting down the Southeastern Pennsylvania
Transportation Authority (SEPTA) which employs 9,250 persons would result In a long-
term loss of 175,000 Jobs throughout Pennsylvania.* Economist David Aschauer has
found that investment In transit Infrastructure has mpre potential to stimulate long-run
economic grovrth than does highway spending.'
225
TABLE 2: JOBS CREATED BY ADDITIONAL TFWNSIT SPENDING IN FY 1993
I
— — . , — .
Use of Funds
Funding In Bllllone
o( Dollars
Jpbs Per Billion
: Dollars (a)
Total Jobs
Created
Operations
$1.43
60,000
97,300
Busaft and Vans
1.21
55,000
66,600
Other Vehicles
1.53
65,000
84,200
FIxed-QuWeway Modernization
1.19
64.000
04.300
N6W 6uin«
OSO
j 55,000
27,500
All Olher Capital
1,18
55,000
64.900
Total
$7.04
57,500
404,800
(a) Direct and Indirect job* equivalent to one person ye^r of omploynient.
An Additional $2.7 Billion Can Bo Speint for Vehicles,
$1.4 Billion for Operations! and
$2.9 Billion for OUier CapitalJNeede
The use of additional federal funds would vary between types of transit agencies.
Medium size bus systems would use 38 percent of add tlonai funds for operations wlille
larger bus systems, rail systems, and small bus systems' would use only 18 to 19 percent
of additional funds for operations. Table 3 shiows the percent of additional funds needed
by purpose for three groups of transit systems.
"nie first grouping Is large bus systems which owi|i or lease 501 or more buses and
vans, any system operating only rail cars or ferry boats, and multi-modal systems
operating any number of buses and vans plus three or more rail cars, trolley coaches, or
ferry boats. The second group Is medium size bus only systems which own or lease 151
to 500 buses and vans. The final group is small bus 6nly systems which own or lease
150 or fewer buses and vans.
TABLE 3: PERCENT OF ADDITIONAL FUNDS NEEDED BY SYSTEM TYPE
Use of Funds
Operations
Multi-Mode, Rail,
and Large Bus
Type pf Transit System
1
ia9%
Medium Bus Only
37.9%
Small Bus Only
18.5%
Buses and Vans
10.7%
48.9%
54.6^
Other vehtdes
25.6%
1.9%
0.9%
Rxed-Guldeway Modernization
10.0%
0.0%
0.0%
New Starts
8.0%
2,7%
1.9%
Other Facimias
12.6%
4.2%
»U
4.3%
4.3%
17.0%
7 1 %
226
The primary need for small and medium size blis systems is for buses and vans.
Medium size bus systems would spend 49 percent of additional federal funds for buses
and vans, and small bus systems would spend 55 percent for buses and vans. Larger
systems would still spend 10 percent of their funds foi* buses and vans but would devote
26 percent of additional funds to purchasing rail cars and other vehicles. The small
percentage of funds designated for "other vehicles;' by medium size and small bus
systems is for service vehicles such as tow trucks ar)d dispatcher vehicles.
The Additional Spending Would Buy 8,37(1) New Buses and Vans;
Even Including Buses and Vane Thai will be Bought with Available .
Funds, 60 Percent of Bus and Van Need^ Would Still Qo Unmet
The additional $1.2 billion that would be spent fdr buses and vans would purchase
approximately 8,370 new vehicles of all sizes. If the nlimber of vehicles by size Is in the
same proportion as Federal Transit Administration-fuhded vehicles were in Fiscal Year
1991, the additional funds would provide for 4,110 ftjll size buses of 35 feet or longer,
1 ,820 small buses of 30 feet or shorter, and 2,440 vahs.'' This number of vehicles also
assumes the deferral of state and local matching funds. If state or local matching funds
are also included, the number of vehicles would be greater. A larger number of vehicles
of any size could, of course, be purchased with a redaction in the number o( vehicles of
other sizes purchased. j
i
As of January 1, 1992 there were 12,400 full sizb buses, 2,800 smaller buses, and
4,400 vans being operated that were older than their ebonomically useful lives as defined
by the Federal Transit Administration. Over age vehidles are not reliable, are expensive
to maintain, end because they are expensive to maintain are used only when necessary
while new vehicles are Intensively used and wear out npore quickly than necessary. New
vehicles that meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and The Clean
Air Act increase mobility for the transit dependent arid reduce air polluting emissions.
APTA estimates that transit systems will also need i)p to 7,500 more vans and small
buses to meet new mobility requirements recently riiandated by the Americans with
Disabilities Act. |
Approximately 3,500 buses and vans are expe;cted to be ordered In Fiscal Year
1993 with already-available funds. Even if those vehicles are added to the 8,370 that
would be bought with additional funds, less than 40 percent of the buses and vans
needed to meet ADA mandates, replace over age vehicles, and replace vehicles that will
exceed their economic life this year will be purchased! The $1.2 billion additional funds
for buses and vans is only a portion of the funds needed to bring America's bus and van
fleets to acceptable standards. \
These numbers exclude a portion of vans needdd for use by social service or other
agencies eligible for Federal Transit Act Section I6(b|) funding for elderly and disabled
special services. On average over the past six years, |the Federal Transit Administration
has funded 1 ,400 to i ,500 of those vehicles. Becauie a very limited number of these
agencies are APTA members, funds and vehicles for th^eir use are not fully included in this
projection. Full appropriation of the Fiscal Year 1993 aLJthorlzation of the transit program-
as proposed by APTA-would provide funds for an additional 650 vans for Section 16(b)
service providers beyond those Included In this report.
227
Full Funding of ISTEA Would Provide $1.5 Billion
of Additional Funds for Transit Agencies
Transit appropriations in Fiscal Year 1993 werb $1.6 billion less than the amount
authorized by the Intermodal Surface Transportation efficiency Act. Of that amount, $1 .5
billion is authorized for transit system uses and $100 fnillion Is for research and training,
Federal Transit Administration operations, and vehicles for social service agencies. APTA
supports full appropriation of ISTEA as an essential j goal In federal support of transit.
Even if, however, ISTEA were appropriated at fully buthorized levels, transit agencies
would still be able to spend an additional $5.5 billion; during Fiscal Year 1993 to create
Jobs and improve America's infrastructure.
i
Figure 2 shows the uses of additional funds fr6m a fully appropriated ISTEA and
the additional amount transit systems could spend beyond full appropriation of ISTEA
The additional $231 million tiiat would be available for operations from full appropriation
of ISTEA is 16 percent of the amount that can be sp^nt, $90 million for new starts is 18
percent of the amount that can be spent, $146 milllori for fixed-guideway modernization
Is 12 percent of the amount that can be spent, and $1] billion for other uses Is 27 percent
of the amount that can be spent. I
FIGURE 2: POFfTION OF ADDITIONAL SPENDABLE FUNDS THAT WOULD
BE PROVIDED BY FULL APPROPRIATION OF ISTEA IN FISCAL YEAR 1993
S '
OptZftClODB
Idilltlonil fundi X«sd>d OVtt ISTtt L9v*lt
I
ISTEA Shoitfgll of Aithoilizasd LtT«l«
Survey Results Are Estimated From Data From 113 APTA Members
Operating 69 Percent of Trarisit Vehicles
The amounts reported for transit systems' ability to spend additional funds In Fiscal
Year 1993 are based on responses by APTA memberb to a survey distrlbuied at the end
of October 1992. The survey asked each participant t{) identify (1) the amount of existing
federal funds they anticipate spending in Fiscal Year 1993, I.e., amounts already
apportioned or earmarked for their use and other fiinds they expect to receive from
successful grant applications; and (2) of additional furi'ds they could spend In Fiscal Year
1893. The local match for additional funds was assuhied to be waived for capital uses
for at least two years but not waived for funds us^d for operations. Spending was
228
defined as the actual outlay of operating funds and j the signing of contracts or other
instruments of obligation for capital funds that would allow contractors to commence wori<
and create Jobs. i
Responses were received from 113 APTA merrjber partidpants. Responses were
solicited from all of the largest multi-modal transit systems and from e sample of other
systems. The responding systems own and lease 69 percent of all transit vehicles
operated by APTA members. APTA-member transit systems provide approximately 97
percent of all U.S. transit ser^^ice. I
•
Data from respondents was expanded to estimated totals for all transit systems In
five categories of systems In order to account tor thej variation In needs between types
of transit systems Identified by vehicle mode and slz^. Those categories were (1) very
large multi-modal transit systems wliere data was Obtained from all identified transit
systems, (2) other multi-modal and all rail-only systemi, (3) large bus and van only transit
systems, (4) medium size bus and van only transit systems, and (5) small bus and van
only transit .«;ystBms. !
j
Information was also requested in an open encjed format about any Impediments
transit systems face in spending federal funds that Vesult from federal regulations or
procedures and what the effect Is on their system of ithe 14 percent reduction in transit
formula fund appropriations In Fiscal Year 1993 contrasted to Fiscal Year 1992.
i .
j
These Survey Results Are Cot^sistent With
Studies Of Long-Term Transit Needs
This survey identified $4.8 billion in federal furids that transit systems anticipate
spending in Fiscal Year 1993 plus $7 billion in additional federal funds that could be spent
for a total of $11,8 billion dollars in federal funds thalt could potentially be spent. This
amount of federal funds that transit systems report ttjey can spend In Fiscal Year 1993
is consistent with other estimates of transit system fujiding needs.
An APTA proposal for reauthorization of federal kransit legislation called for eventual
program growth to $11 billion in 1991 dollars.* In 1993 dollars this amount would be
approximately $11,9 billion, almost the exact amoun predicted by the Ability to Spend
Survey. The proposed level of $11.0 billion in 1991 dollars was based on a model of
investment required for long-term nationwide growth irt transit riderstilp to levels achieved
in the most transit Intensive U.S. and Canadian cities with ridershlp goals stratified by
population size. {
An APTA survey of long-term Investment needs In mid-1991 projected an average
need for $15 billion In capital funds from all sources over the following six years.* with
standard capital grant matching ratios of 80 percent of, funds from the federal government
and 20 percent from state and local governments, this Is an average need for $12 billion
In federal capital funds. The Ability to Spend Survey ekimates transit systems can spend
a total of $9.7 billion In federal capital funds in Fiscal Year 1993 out of the total $11.8
billion, somewhat less than the average long-term need.
The U.S. Department of Transportation has isjsued several studies that support
transit's needs for funds for specific uses. The Office of The Secretary estimated that the
additional annual cost of compliance with provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act
Is up to $628 million for operations and $310 for venicles and capital improvements.^
The Federal Transit Administration estimates that on average $1.7 billion (1991 dollars)
will be needed annually for fixed guldewey modernization over the next decade.* In 1993
229
dollars this amount would be approximately $1.9 bllllbn, slightly less than the $2 billion
transit systems report they would be able to spend Iq Fiscal Year 1993. The FTA study
does not, however, include relatively smaller fixed-guidev/ay operations in 10 urbanized
areas that received fixed-guideway apportionments fro^ Fiscal Year 1993 appropriations.
The Federal Transit Administration has estimated a need for over $10 billion in
federal funds to complete new start fixed-guldeway projects that had advanced to at least
the alternatives analysis stage.* Only a portion of this iamount can be spent immediately,
however, dependent upon the stage of development of individual projects, because of the
large scale and complex nature of their constructlc|n. The Ability to Spend Survey
projection that transit systems can spend $1.6 billion in Fiscal Year 1993 indicates a
reasonable six plus year average to complete all llste^ projects.
Federal Transit Pundlnd Has
Declined Substantially In Pad 12 Years
Federal funding for transit has declined sigr ificantly over the past 12 years.
Measured In today's dollars, the Fiscal Year 1981 feceral transit program of $4.6 billion
has a value of $7.4 billion. As show on Figure 3, the value of the program measured m
1992 dollars declined to $3.4 billion In Fiscal Year 1990 and has only returned to $3 8
billion in Fiscal Year 1993. The real value of the federal transit program is now only 52
percent of its value in Fiscal Year 1981.
The decline in the real value of federal operating assistance has been even greater.
Operating assistance for urbanized areas in Fiscal Yeal- 19B0 was $l.i billion which would
have a real worth of nearly $1.9 billion in 1992 dollars. The actual limit on operating
assistance In Fiscal Year 1993 Is $802 million, a decline to 43 percent of the real value of
operating assistance since Fiscal Year 1980. in 1980, federal assistance from all
programs represented nearly 17 percent of all transit operating funds while In 1991,
federal assistance accounted for less than six percent of transit operating dollars.
FIGURE 3; REAL VALUE OF FEDERAL TRANSIT FUNDING IN 1992 DOLLARS
1
FUh
230
Fiscal Year 1993 Reductions In Fiscleral Formula
Funds Havo Hurt Many Transit Agencies
Survey participants were asked in an open end 3d question to describe the effects
they are experiencing from the 14 percent reduction; of federal formula funds In Fiscal
Year 1993, contrasted to Fiscal Year 1992. Respor^dents reported problems in both
operating and capital financing, compounded by the c(j»sts of new federal mandates of the
Clean Air Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.j
Difficulties financing capital purchases, especleilly regular bus and van purchases,
were the most frequently cited negative effect. Inadequate funding for replacement and
expansion of bus and van fleets will cause difficulty In Innpiementing service to comply with
the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Clean Air Act. Without the ability to buy new
buses many communities will not be able to meet Increased demands for service, forcing
potential riders to continue to depend upon expensive private transportation. The gradual
decline transit systems are experiencing In their ability to replace worn out equipment or
expand service is the same situation that forced privajte operators out of business In the
19508 and 608. The continued use of old vehicles (increases maintenance costs and
causes service to become less reliable and less saf^, a vicious cycle that discourages
ridership end increases future costs to pay for today's mistakes.
Capital improvement budgets also are being strained. Facilities cannot be
Improved to take advantage of technological Improvements. New communication
systems that Improve the efficiency of operations, (ar^ collection system Improvements,
and automation are being deferred by many systems. Lack of capital investment reduces
the potential for productivity Improvements In transit system operations.
Lack of growth In federal operating funds Is forcing many transit systems to
increase fares, increase local financial assistance, or reduce service. Fare increases and
service reductions are, of course, counterproductive qind Increase the cost to individuals
and local governments. Even transit systems that aje able to get by v/ithout reducing
service or raising fares are making cuts in other activities such as training and advertising.
Although hidden, these cuts have a serious, long-term effects because the quality of
employee performance can deteriorate without training and a system's market share can
drop if the public is not aware of services offered, j
Many transit systems that are fortunate enougli not to be affected this year noted
that continued low levels of federal funding will affect ithem next year. Systems making
up operating funds from reserves will use up their reserves and be forced to find funds
from other sources or cut service. Almost all respondents have experienced or expect
a negative effect from the reductions In federal formula funds.
Other Federal Actions Could Spe^d Up Spending
I
Rapid spending of Increased federal funding tjy transit systems would be much
easier If a number of activities that are now viewed as ifnpeding the process are modified.
Respondents were eisked to identify changes In ; current federal regulations and
procedures that would aid them in the rapid spending bf the additional federal funds they
need. Their responses resembled a check list of hearly all federal regulations and
procedures that applied to transit. One respondent noted that ail federal regulations
Impede spending. The following list summarizes recurring responses:
231
o Required approval of local Transportation lmprc|vement Programs at the state level.
I
o Failure of the Federal Transit Administration to fully implement the Uke-Klnd Bus
Program.
o Delays by regional Federal Transit Administration staff In processing grant requests.
Some systems suggest this is due to a tack of an ad equate size staff In Federal Transit
Administration regional offlcee.
o Routine Federal Transit Administration revisions of requirements for a granl
application. The Federal Transit Administration does rjot have clearly defined procedures
for grant applications. Unclear procedures result In requests for additional material that
seriously delay the grant process.
o Slowness of the grant amendment process ancj requiring amendments when only
simple changes in a grant are required.
o Spare ratio requirement prevents acquisition \>i new buses without first retiring
existing buses.
o New pre-award/post-dellvery audits are eMremely complicated and time
consuming.
o Department of Labor delay In review and approval of 13(c) agreements that have
been signed and approved by ail parties. '
o The application of Buy America requirements to all purchases.
i
o Slow processing of Letter Of No Prejudice requests.
o Federal Transit Administration policy of releasing funds on a quarterly cycle delays
funds that are ready to go before the end of a quarter.
o Bus testing for medium and small buses Is 4n excessive expense and delays
procurement.
References:
1 . Michael Renner. Jots In a Sustainable Economy, WorldWatch Paper 104. Washington:
WorldWatch Institute, 1991.
2. Public Transportation Renewal as an Investment: 7pe Economic Impacts of SEPTA on
the Regional and State Economy. Washington: Th^ Urban institute and Cambridge
Systematics, Inc., 1991.
3. David Alan Aschauer. Transportation Spending ai\d Economic Growth. Washington:
American Public Transit Association, 1991.
4. 799T Statistical Summaries, Grant Assistance Programs. Washington: U.S. Department
of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, 1992. Tables 41 and 44.
5. Reauthorization Proposal for the Federal Putfllc Transportation Act of 1991.
Washington: American Public Transit Association, February 1991.
232
6. Public Translt'-Souna Investment for tne 21 st Cenkiry. Washington: American Pubiic
Transit Association, August 1991. |
7. Final Regulatory Impact Analysis Assessing the National Compliance Costs of the
Department of Transportation's Final Rule Implementlhg the American's with Disabilities
Act of 1990 Surface TronsportatJon Accessibility ftequfrements. Washington: U.S.
Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary| November 1991.
8. The Status of the Modernlzaiion of the Nation's RallTransit Systems. Washington: U.S.
Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, June 1992.
9. Report on Funding Levels and Allocation of Funds. Washington: Department of
Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, June iggz.
233
LETTER FROM BILL CLINTON
To Members of the American Public Transit Association and Users and Supporters of
America's Public Transportation Systems:
My best wishes to you on the occasion of your Annual Meeting in San Diego. With only
days left before the election, I firmly believe that we are on the threshold of a new era
for public transportation.
In traveling throughout the nation. Senator Gore and I have seen firsthand a hunger for
new ideas and new leadership to put our nation back on course. We cannot move
America into the 21st century by relying on past policies and programs, or by further
diminishing federal attention to national transportation needs. Our competitors around
the world have certainly learned this lesson and are making extraordinary investments in
a new generation of integrated, multi-modal transportation systems that rely heavily on
high-occupancy, high-technology passenger transportation services.
Accordingly, we must introduce a builders agenda into our 21st century national
transportation policy. It will be essential to expand the role of public transportation in
this agenda, and I ask for your help and support as we move ahead.
Improving public transportation is an essential element of a larger, essential commitment
to rebuild Americas crumbling infrastructure and revitalize our communities. Already,
through your industry's leadership and foresight, despite a decade of neglect and hostility
by two successive Administrations in Washington, a new era in public transportation has
been launched in America. I see the evidence all across the country. Yet there is more
that must be done, and competing transportation interests must come together in the
effort. Metropolitan and rural transit, commuter rail, high speed rail and community-
based services must be expanded and fully integrated as part of tomorrow's surface
transportation system.
In addition, I am keenly aware of the enormous potential of the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 to serve as a catalyst to spur long overdue
investment in our surface transportation system, and in public transportation in
particular. I strongly support full funding of ISTEA and the flexible local decision-
making that is the hallmark of the bill.
Your industry's strategic objective - to enhance mobility and assure a better balance
among the transportation options available to every American - is entirely consistent with
the broader goals we all share. These include economic and productivity growth, job
opportunities, energy conservation, clean air and improved access for disabled
Americans.
For us to make meaningful progress, however, our national leadership must recognize
and act on these coimertions too, and it is my intention that we do so. ISTEA and the
commitment of inspired and dedicated leaders around the country have already launched
a new era in public transportation in community after community, both urban and rural.
The challenge to a new Administration - a challenge I intend to meet fully - will be to
enhance, and to guide, and to enable you and the people you serve to fully realize the
enormous potential of public transportation as we enter the 21st century. Our goal for
transit will be to add resources, to remove barriers, to catalyze partnerships and to instill
a new ethic based on the value of moving together.
I applaud your ongoing efforts to move us in this direction and look forward, beginning
next January, to your help in building an Administration that will serve as a strong ally
and advocate for enhanced public transportation across America.
7W <?ftiujto.r^
Bill ainton
234
PUBLIC TRANSIT-
SOUND INVESTMENT
FOR THE 21st CENTURY
Ease of movement is vital for every American and for the businesses and industries that create the nation's wealth.
In many ways, our ability to travel is a measure of our quality of life and the competitiveness of our economy.
Today, our ease of movement is severely threatened. Major cities are regularly gridlocked, resulting in waste
of energy and serious air quality damage. Suburbs are clogged throughout the day with traffic. The increasing
isolation of rural residents is all too commonplace.
Inadequate public investment in transportation
lies at the heart of the problem. In particular, we
have failed to plan and invest adequately in the most
fundamental mode of transportation; public transit.
• Between 1992 and 1997, transit will require $90.8
billion in capital investment.
• Tiransit systems will need 63,800 new vehicles and
another 29,930 rehabilitated buses and rail cars.
If transit capital funding from the federal gov-
ernment continues at the current level, only
16% of transit's capital needs will be met.
• $17.1 billion will be necessary to modernize bus
and rail facilities.
• Forty-eight metropolitan areas in 29 slates are
planning new fixed-guideway rail and busway sys-
tems or extensions.
• Between now and 1997, transit operations and
maintenance will require $100 billion.
Today, more than at any other time in recent his-
tory, America's public transit systems and services
should be upgraded and expanded.
The Problem: Lack of Investment in Transit
Budgetary decisions made by the federal govern-
ment have led to inadequate investments in Ameri-
ca's public services and facilities, its infrastructure.
Percent of Total Transit Funding From
Federal Assistance, 1981-1989
1981 19B2 19B3 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 I9B9
The Value of Federal Funding for Transit Has
Decreased 53 Percent In the Past Decade
1981 Funding:
$4 66 Billion
1991 Funding:
$2.18 Billion
In 1981 Dollars
hR '
Overall investment in the U.S.'s public infrastruc-
ture, including transit, is in a 20-year decline.
In the ten years since 1981, as transit ridership
increased, federal transit funding declined 53%,
adjusted for inflation.
235
Tomorrow's Problem: Addressing New National Priorities and
Telling Trends
Increased investment in public transit is essential.
Consider these trends.
• The number of vehicle-miles we travel are growing faster than both population and the number of vehicle
registrations.
• The era of massive highway construction is over. Between 1984 and 1988, vehicle-miles travelled increased
more than four times faster than the number urban freeway miles built.
• The U.S. Department of Transportation estimates that annual total vehicle delays will exceed 3.9 billion
hours by the year 2005.
• Transportation uses 63% of our oil and is the only sector of the economy where oil consumption continues
to increase.
• America's population is changing. An older, more diverse workforce will be more dependent on public
transit. The needs of disabled persons must also be served.
Ttansit is proud of its role in achieving clean air and broader service to the disabled, but new national
priorities in these areas carry a substantial price tag.
The Cost o( Accessibility
for Disabled Persons
The U.S. Department of Transportation esti-
mates the national, annual cost to comply with
the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
(ADA) ranges from $844 million to $1.3 billion.
The cost covers proposed lifts on buses, mak-
ing key rail stations, transit centers and rail cars
accessible as well as developing paratransil
systems.
The Cost of Transit's Flole
In Achieving Clean Air
The Clean Air Act of 1990 requires reduced
vehicle emissions. The annual cost to install
exhaust cleaners and upgrade fuel is $110 mil-
lion. One nationwide survey* of transit systems
found that installation ol particulate traps on
the U.S. bus fleet would cost an estimated $522
million.*
'The S522 mWion represenls the additional costs ot the traps on new buses
when they are brought (nio use. Based on a 12-year reptacemeot cycle, ttie
cost pef year would t»e approximalely $44 million.
Additional diesel fuel costs per year are estimated to be $56.6 million.
Source: Southern Calilornia Rapid Transit District.
Six-Year Transit Investm.ent Needs: $90.8 Billion
The backlog of transit investment needs contin-
ues to mount for two reasons; I) the ten-year decline
in federal funding; and 2) the increasing demand for
transit service.
Because of inadequate funding, essential rein-
vestment in existing transit systems is not being
made, and service improvements are being slowed
or deferred. In some areas, service reductions are
becoming commonplace.
Equally important, efforts to add new transit capac-
ity have been stymied by lack of funds. The needs
cited here show the size of the funding commitment
that should be made to public transit for the next six
years.
236
Transit agencies will require $90.8 billion' in capital funding from 1992 through 1997 in order to
satisfy their communities' mobility needs.
Transit Capital Needs 1992-1997 Capital Needs by Mode, 1992-1997
(Millions of Dollars) (Millions of Dollars)
MolcM BusA/an
S26.I00
New FIxedGuldeway
Modeinl7Bllon of eus/-^.^^
and Rail Facililles: / ^\^
J17.I00 / ^^
— ■'^\ New Bus Facililles:
\ .^— -^^ »5.600
Heavy Raw: /
$27,700 /
k:
\ \ ^^^'y^hef Capllal Needs
k
sie.800
Vehicle RehablWallon:
$3,500
LigMRaK
$16,300
Commuler Rail
$17,800
Total Needs: $90,800 Million Total Needs: $90,800 Million
New Bus Facilities: $5.6 Billion
As transit systems continue to provide current services as well as offer new ones, a variety of new bus
facilities will be needed. Between 1992 and 1997, $5.6 billion is needed to build these bus facilities:
• 280 terminal/transfer centers
• 130 maintenance and repair shops
• 95 storage facilities or garages
• 45 administrative offices
• 590 parking structures for transit passengers
'Source Oala summarized in this paper Is drawn Irom a comprehensive, nationwide survey ol Iraruil systems, conducted In 1990 by the American Public
Transit Assoclatloo The survey requested transH systems 1o IrKlude all tunds the systems would nr^ed to meel their communtlies' reoulremenls lor public
transportation Improverr^ents Irom 1992 through 1997; H is not Imlled by what Ihey thought lundlng levels would be based on current lurking trends. The
mastmum lederal assistance portion (current law) is 60% or $12 billion per year ($90 billion - six years.. $15 billion per year x 60% -$12 brllion per year)
237
Modernization of Existing Bus and Rail Facilities: $17.1 Billion
Comfortable, convenient and efficienl transit service requires a wide range of support facilities and up-to-date
equipment. Between 1992 and 1997, $17.1 billion is needed to modernize:
• 450 facilities
• 880 stations
• 1,230 miles of rights-of-way
New Vehicle Needs For Existing Services: $16.8 Billion
Between 1992 and 1997, transit authorities will
require $16.8 billion in new vehicle investment for
existing services plus $3.9 billion for vehicles for
new Fixed-guideway routes and extensions; a total
of $20.7 billion for new vehicles.
Total New Vehicle Re<
^uiremenl
1992-1997
Type
Number
Bus
49,610
Van
9,130
Heavy Rail
1,940
Light Rail
1.500
Commuter Rail
1,220
Other
400
Ibtal
63,800
Buses are truly the workhorse of public transit.
They carry 64% of the nation's transit passengers
and are responsible for 51% of passenger miles.
Through 1997, new bus needs total $12 billion.
Rail transit, defmed as light, heavy, or commuter,
carries p.issengers longer distances. Rail accounts
for 36% of all transit trips and 49% of total passen-
ger miles. The percentage of pas.senger miles on rail
is increasing every year. Rail transit carries more
than 10 million passengers an average of 65 million
miles each weekday. Rail transit is least damaging
to the environment and most energy-efficient.
Through 1997, new rail vehicle needs for existing
service are $4.8 billion and for new fixed guideway
systems and extensions are $3.9 billion.
Transit Vehicle Rehabilitation: $3.5 Billion
Rehabilitation is a cost-effective way to extend the life of transit vehicles. A sound rehabilitation program
can add six years to the 12 year useful life of a bus and 15 years to the 30 year average life of a r.iil car.
Between 1992 and 1997, $3.5 billion is required to rehabilitate:
• 18,570 buses
• 11,360 rail cars (heavy, light and commuter)
238
Fixed Guideway New Starts and Extensions: $30.1 Billion
Transits greatest advantage lies in high-capacity
services operating on exclusive rights-of-way, includ-
ing commuter rail, light rail (also known as modem
trolleys), subway systems and exclusive bus and
transilways. Eight major urban centers with a long
history of rail transit continue to benefit from this
investment and seek to expand or modernize their
systems. Another ten urban areas built fixed-guideway
transit in the past 15 years. All seek to expand them.
Forty-eight cities in 29 states plan new or expanded
fixed-guideway systems, either rail lines or busways.
These include 1,770 miles of rights-of-way, 2,400
rail cars, and 830 stations.
Capital investment needs for new fixed-guideway
(rail and bus) transit services between 1992-1997
totals $30.1 billion including $3.9 billion for the
necessary vehicles.
• $1.4 billion for busways and high occupancy
vehicle (HOV) lanes
• $3.5 billion for commuter rail
• $9.7 billion for heavy rail
• $13.5 billion for light rail
• $2.0 billion for related capital facilities
Urban Areas Constructing, Planning, or
Investigating New or Expanded Fixed-Guldeway
Transit Investments
Otiier Capital Investment Needs: $17.7 Billion
To ensure top quality service, an additional $177 billion in capital investment is needed. These dollars are
needed to purchase a wide range of capital items including service vehicles, computers and systems for fare
collection and communications.
Support of the Capital Investment:
$100 Billion for Maintenance and Operations
Capital investment by itself is not enough to ensure efficient, effective service. Day-to-day maintenance and
operations require a stable and reliable major financial commitment.
Today, maintenance and operations of the nations transit systems require an investment of $15.7 billion per
year, of which seven percent is from the federal government. Operating today's systems between 1992-1997
will cost nearly $100 billion in current dollars. As transit systems offer both expanded and new services to
meet new passenger demand, increased support for operations, as well as capital, will be required.
239
OUR NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION STRATEGY
REQUIRES INCREASED FUNDING
FOR PUBLIC TRANSIT
The mobility challenge facing the nation
demands immediate attention. If we are to
move freely in the 21st century, we should
begin now to provide major increases in fed-
eral transit investment.
$90.8 billion in total capital needs between
1992-1997 translates into a $12 billion annual
federal funding program if the federal share
is maintained as in current law. Today, how-
ever, federal capital funding is about $2 bil-
lion per year.
To prepare for the 21st century, we should:
• Redirect transportation spending to sup-
port expanded transit services;
• Restore, at a minimum, federal transit
funding to the 1981 level, $6.5 billion per
year in today 's dollars;
• Provide an additional $1.5 billion annu-
ally to achieve the transit-related goals of
the Clean Air Act of 1990 and the Ameri-
cans with Disabilities Act of 1990; and,
• Increase federal transit investment in the
decade ahead to $11-15 billion per year to
support a national goal of increased transit
use.
For further information on transit planning and investment needs, contact the
American Public Transit Association or your local public transit authority.
American Public Transit Association
1201 New York Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 898-4000
APTA
240
CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS ESTIMATES
Senator Lautenberg. I just want to ask one question here.
In these projections — and either Ken Mead or Jack Gilstrap can
answer — for capital requirements, are these estimates those funds
needed not only to catch up but to stay abreast of our capital re-
quirements, or are these for a specific number of years? For exam-
ple, is it a 5-year program to catch up and then so much in capital
for maintenance? I ask because there is kind of an inconsistency
here. Otherwise, what we are saying is, over the last years we have
not had enough of an investment in the capital side, so we have
to catch up with that backlog of needs. And what about the future?
Would either one of you respond, so that, as we continue this dis-
cussion, we have a frame of reference?
Jack?
Mr. Gilstrap. Well, I believe that our APTA recommendations
are gleaned, as indicated, from a survey of our members of their
current capital needs and the needs that they see in their various
proposals for the next 5 years.
Senator LAUTENBERG. So we are talking about just for the next
5 years?
Mr. Gilstrap. Yes, sir; 5 or 6 years, I guess it is.
Senator Lautenberg. Are all of the parties in agreement? Does
AASHTO's figure for capital needs contemplate a 5-year plan, or
something longer, Mr. Francois?
Mr. Francois. Mr. Chairman, we were looking at an annualized
cost over a number of years beyond that. But the assumptions
were, basically, status quo. We did not take into account growth.
I will talk more about that.
Mr. Mead. The difficulty here, Mr. Chairman, is that different
people have different views and get the information about what
constitutes expansion needs from different sources.
FTA did not ask communities what their needs were whereas
APTA did. So, obviously, you are going to get a different figure.
Senator Lautenberg. It would be helpful if we could conform all
of these projections with one side, to say, you know, this is to make
up for what we missed in the past several years and something
that we think will be virtually an annualized figure. After all, cap-
ital needs are going to go on as long as systems operate.
OK. I did not mean to interrupt the flow here.
Now, Mr. Francois, if you would, proceed.
STATEMENT OF FRANK FRANCOIS
Mr. Francois. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Francis B., or
Frank, Francois, executive director of the American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials. We have given our
statement to the record, together with some backup documents. So
I would just take my 5 minutes and try to summarize that a bit.
First of all, AASHTO strongly believes that we must increase our
investment in transit. From our examination of our transit needs,
we have already identified both short- and long-term needs that
should be addressed. Finally, we support a continuing and ex-
panded Federal role in financing transit, both for capital and oper-
ating purposes.
241
Now we have provided in our testimony comments from the re-
cently sent to Congress "Status of the Nation's Highways, Bridges,
Transit Conditions, and Performance Report" of the USDOT and
have noted some of the projections for transit expenditure in there,
which do substantially exceed what we are now doing, obviously,
as all these numbers do.
I think GAO has served us all well. The first time I saw this re-
port was this morning, but table 1 I think is very important in that
it does do one thing that none of the others do. It states everything
in terms of 1991 dollars. So at least we do have comparable data.
Now the work that AASHTO did — and we have outlined that to
you in the bottomline report and in the backup document to that
report — from a capital viewpoint, we looked in terms of ranges. The
low range that we used was one that simply said patch it up and
keep it running — not an acceptable way to run a transit system,
but that is a bare, minimum need that you would have to have just
to stay operating. You will lose customers and you will not be able
to expand service.
Our higher level of investment assumed a replacement of the bus
fleets so that we would get down to an acceptable average age; the
same with respect to rail mod, et cetera.
In both of tnose cases, the goal was simply to try to retain the
current share of passenger transport carried on transit.
Obviously, if you want to increase the amount of transit usage,
we must talk in terms of substantially greater investments than
any of these numbers before you.
Now that leads directly, of course, into the ISTEA and into the
Clean Air Act amendments of 1990. All of us know that, as we
begin to do comprehensive, intramodal planning, the needs for ad-
ditional transit services will be clearly identified, and we will have
to find ways to finance those needs.
We do not yet know what the full impacts of the conformity regu-
lations will be that will ultimately be adopted by EPA and that the
Clean Air Act amendments will impose. But, very likely, it is going
to call for substantial increases in transit carrying capacity.
If this occurs, there is no question but that the current systems
will not be able to handle the load. We will then be talking in
terms of much larger investments.
This is why I say that, currently, we are looking at simply main-
taining current share. But if this Nation really wants to move to
a much larger share, we must have much larger funding. How
large? It depends upon what the plans are. So it is very difficult
at this time to even estimate what those costs are.
Fortunately, the ISTEA, and particularly the STP portion of it,
does provide flexibility in the use and in the allocation of funds.
This will allow us, I think, to grow into these new needs. But it
will take time to reach that point.
Let me turn now to one other document and then I will quit. We
also provided to you a copy of our 1992 survey of what the States
are investing in transit. I think that document may be more impor-
tant than any other one as to how the States view transit funding.
The bottom line of that document is that in 1992, the States col-
lectively invested $6.2 billion in transit, which is considerably more
than the Federal investment.
242
Tables 14 and 15 of that document indicate what the capital lev-
els of expenditure are, respectively, for urbanized and for non-
urbanized areas in 1992. In our urbanized areas, direct capital as-
sistance was $1.7 billion, operating assistance was $2.2 billion, cap-
ital or operating assistance — ^the choice being up to the user — a lit-
tle over $446 million.
On the rural side, it was $22 billion for capital, $40 billion for
operating assistance, and $37 billion for capital or operating.
What is most instructive is if you compare those 1992 numbers —
I did this this morning before coming over — with our similar report
for 1997. Remember, it was a 1997 concept of transit that basically
shaped AASHTO's 1988 report.
What a comparison of those two documents show is this, that
total urban assistance increased 54 percent from the States over
that 5-year period of time. Of that increase, 118 percent was in
capital assistance. Operating assistance increased only 18 percent,
and capital or operating, 155 percent.
So the State legislatures and Governors clearly see a growing
capital need in urban areas, and that is even more pronounced in
rural areas.
In rural areas, there was a 107-percent total increase in State
funding. With respect to capital assistance for rural properties,
there was a 189-percent increase in that 5-year period, a smaller
increase in operating assistance, et cetera.
So, Mr. Chairman, I think we have demonstrated that the States
clearly are involved. We see a need both for ongoing assistance at
both the Federal and State level. Obviously, in the judgment of the
States, the rural area needs are growing rapidly, and that is where
we especially think we need Federal assistance. But over all, the
bottom line is what do we want transit to do. Thank you.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much. Your full statement
will be made part of the record.
[The statement follows:]
Statement of Francis B. Francois
Mr. Chairman, I am Francis B. Francois, Executive Director of the American As-
sociation of State Highway and Transportation Officials, commonly called AASHTO.
AASHTO is a unique transportation organization, in that it is concerned with all
of the major modes of transportation, including highways, transit, rail, aviation, and
water transportation.
On behalf of AASHTO, we are pleased to respond to your invitation asking our
views on the need for increased transit investment, the short and long term transit
needs of the country, and the federal role in financing transit.
Let me first provide a short response to each of the subjects just listed, after
which I will comment further on each.
The Association believes that we must increase our investment in transit. From
our examination of our transit needs, we have identified both short and long term
needs that should be addressed. Finally, AASHTO supports a continuing and ex-
panded federal role in financing transit, both for capital and operating purposes.
THE NEED FOR INCREASED TRANSIT INVESTMENT
The total transit expenditure for 1990 in our nation is reported to have been $19
billion according to the January, 1993 report to Congress by the U.S. Department
of Transportation, titled The Status of the Nation's Highways, Bridges, and Transit:
243
Conditions and Performance. Of that amount $14.7 billion was for transit service,
and capital expenditures were $4.3 billion.
As to the source of this funding, turning first to transit services, 43 percent came
from the fare box, 52 percent from state and locsd governments, and 6 percent from
the federal government, according to the U.S. DOT report. The U.S. DOT report also
states that the federal share of capital expenditure was about 60 percent, or $2.58
billion.
Turning to needs, the U.S. DOT report finds that over the period 1992-2011 the
annual capital investment in transit from all sources should be at least $3.9 billion
to maintain conditions and performance at current levels, and $6.6 billion to im-
prove conditions and performance. Both capital expenditure levels include metropoli-
tan expansions, and are stated in 1991 dollars with no allowance for inflation. As
to what the $6.6 billion level would accomplish, the report states that it would:
"(1) eliminate the backlog of bus and rail deficiencies; (2) maintain current transit
market share; (3) add additional service to accommodate anticipated urban demand
not included in the highway analysis; (4) improve transit stations to current stand-
ards; and (5) meet statutory requirements to serve disabled Americans."
The findings of this recent U.S. DOT report are compatible with AASHTO's find-
ings contained in our September, 1988 The Bottom Line report, which summarized
the Association's findings as to surface transportation investment requirements over
the 1988-2020 period. A copy of this report is being submitted with this statement,
for your convemence.
In The Bottom Line, the approach taken was to establish a range of needed in-
vestment in transit, for urban areas above and below 200,000. As shown in TABLE
C of the report, the estimated needs were as follows:
ANNUAL TRANSIT CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS AASHTO FINDINGS— 1988-2020
[1988 dollars in billions]
Program area
Investment range
Low High
Capital Urban Above 200,000
$2 6 $3 2
Capital Urban Under 200,000
.1 .2
Totals
7 7 .•?4
Not included in these requirement estimates were rural capital needs, capital
needs in the service to elderly and disabled persons program, and capital neeos to
meet the requirements of the subsequently enacted Americans With Disabilities Act
(ADA). According to the U.S. DOT report, the annual capital requirements gen-
erated by these three need areas under a maintain current conditions scenario are
as follows:
Billions
Rural vehicle replacements and facilities $.112
Services to elderly and disabled persons, vehicle replacement and facilities .107
ADA generated capital needs 255
Total 0.474
If these additional estimated capital needs are added to the needs estimates in
AASHTO's table, and if the AASHTO totals are stated in 1991 dollars, then the As-
sociation's capital need estimates are similar to those contained in the U.S. DOT
report.
SHORT AND LONG TERM NEEDS
The methodology to develop the transit needs included in The Bottom Line report
is discussed in Appendix 2 to that report titled Public Transportation Needs, a copy
of which is also attached for your use. Public transportation data were analyzed to
estimate the capital and operating condition, performance and funding requirements
of the nation's transit systems at interim periods through the year 2020. Transit
systems were divided into three categories: systems serving urbanized areas over
200,000 in population; systems serving urbanized areas of 50,000 to 200,000; and
specialized and rural transit systems funded through Section 16 and Section 18.
Much of the analysis was developed based on the 1985 Urban Mass Transpor-
tation Administration (UMTA) Section 15 report, the UMTA Rail Modernization
244
Study, the American Public Transit Association's (APTA) Transit Passenger Vehicle
Fleet Inventory, and the APTA Transit Capital Needs: 1984-1988 report.
It needs to be emphasized that the estimates in the AASHTO The Bottom Line
report were deliberately conservative. Both AASHTO and the U.S. DOT report as-
sume that generally transit will retain its current share of urban travel. If the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 result in efforts to greatly increase transit rider-
ship in urban areas, then a corresponding increase in the capacity of the nation's
transit systems will need to occur. Similarly, the costs to implement the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) are additions to the funds needed for transit. Both of
these legislative initiatives could in turn generate a large need for additional cap-
ital, to levels much larger than those currently estimated by U.S. DOT and
AASHTO.
In the short term, we have need now to reduce the average age of bus fleets to
acceptable levels, and to assure adequate maintenance of transit systems. These ac-
tions are necessary to assure the acceptability and reliability of service, both of
which are essential if we are to keep our current riders and attract more. Once the
backlog is eliminated, then any long term program must assure that todays prob-
lems do not again occur.
As to the long term, the Congress and many in our nation want to sharply in-
crease transit use. To do this will require a much larger investment in transit. It
is not possible now to predict where and when those investments should be made.
Rather, this is one of the products that should flow out of the new transportation
planning provisions of the ISTEA, both the urban and state Transportation Im-
provement Programs (TIPs). In addition, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
will influence the future of transit in major ways, depending on the area of the na-
tion. While we cannot now predict the long term needs of transit, it is safe to say
that they will probably be much larger than we now project.
State transportation departments are playing a growing role in public transpor-
tation. State transit directors for each of the state transportation departments par-
ticipate in the AASHTO Standing Committee on Public Transportation, which has
been active in networking information among the states to assist these transit direc-
tors in their expanding roles.
The states recognize that transit funding must be increased, and they are increas-
ingly placing their own funding behind that belief. AASHTO has recently published
its 1992 Survey of State Involvement in PubUc Transportation report, a copy of
which is being submitted with this statement. As shown on TABLE 3 of the report,
AASHTO found that in fiscal year 1991-92 the states collectively provided at least
$6,054 billion in fiinding to transit. Of our 52 member departments 50 responded
to the survey, and of the 50 only five states reported providing no transit funding.
The comparable amount for fiscal years 1990-91 was $4,651 billion, and in every
year since 1987 the combined state investment in transit has exceeded the federal
transit program, as shown in FIGURE 1 of the AASHTO report.
As to how the state funding was applied in fiscal years 1991-92, this is shown
in TABLE 14 for urbanized areas, and in TABLE 15 for non-urbanized areas.
In urbanized areas, a total of $1,734 billion went toward capital, $2,230 toward
operating assistance, and $447 million for either capital or operating assistance. The
comparable amounts for non-urbanized areas were $22.5 million for capital, $40.7
million for operating assistance, and $37.2 million for either capital or operating as-
sistance.
The findings of the 1992 AASHTO report indicate the need felt by the states for
increased transit investments, and that the states interest in supporting transit has
increased since the 1988 The Bottom Line report.
FEDERAL ROLE
AASHTO supported the increased transit authorizations contained in the 1991
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), as well as the flexibility
to use certain funding for either highways or transit, according to decisions made
in the planning process. We also supported other transit-related features of the
ISTEA, such as establishment of a transit research program, and efforts to provide
better data regarding current activities and future needs for all modes of transpor-
tation. We continue to support these features of the ISTEA, and in particular full
funding of the authorized levels of the Act for both highways and transit.
Our member departments believe there is need and justification for federal sup-
port of transit, for both capital and operating support. A sound transit system is
clearly in the national interest, and the best way to assure such a sound system
is with continuing federal support and involvement.
245
AASHTO's support for additional federal funding for public transportation applies
to both urban and rural areas of the nation. In rural areas, state transit officials
have been working closely with the FTA Section 18 program. Under Section 18, ap-
proximately 94 million transit trips a year are provided by the rural transit net-
work, with the t3T)ical agency providing between 25,000 and 30,000 trips a year.
While in 1989, 1,161 Section 18 providers operated 10,107 vehicles across the na-
tion, there were still over 1,200 counties that had no Section 18 program.
The Section 18 rural program should continue to be supported at the levels pro-
vided under ISTEA. This is particularly true in light of figures produced by the
Community Transportation Association of America, which indicate that while Con-
gress in fiscal year 1993 allocated $35 per capita in large urban areas, the equiva-
lent in rural areas is $1.50 per capita. While we certainly need to continue our com-
mitment to transit in our major urban areas, we also need to focus on the transit
needs in rural parts of our nation as well.
We have been pleased to hear Secretary Federico Pena support full funding of the
ISTEA, and we welcome the $752 million in additional funding included in Presi-
dent CUnton's economic stimulus proposal for transit. A shorter term package to
boost the economy and funding for transportation infrastructure projects is vitally
needed.
We also need to look at the longer term as well, and the importance of a major
investment to meet the nation's transportation infrastructure needs, including tran-
sit. This investment is an important part of a longer range effort to support our na-
tional economy and to be competitive in the global economy.
We look forward to working with you and the members of your committee on ef-
forts to provide adequate funding for transit needs in both the short term and over
the longer term.
Mr. Chairman, we appreciate this opportunity to provide the Association's views
on the future of our nation's transit programs. We are available to respond to any
questions that you may have.
[Clerk's note. — Mr. Francois' statement was accompanied by a
report (with executive summary and detached appendix) entitled,
"The Bottom Line: A Summary of Surface Transportation Invest-
ment Requirements 1988-2020," and by a 1992 "Survey of State
Involvement in Public Transportation." Both documents will be
kept on file by the subcommittee.]
STATEMENT OF ROBERT MCMANUS
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. McManus, we now look forward to
hearing from you.
Mr. McManus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have submitted an
extended statement for the record and I should like to highlight it
in these few remarks.
Senator Lautenberg. It shall be included in the record.
Mr. McManus. The Secretary has been required, beginning in
January 1984, to report biennially to Congress on the condition and
performance of mass transportation in America and to provide esti-
mates of the dollars needed to sustain these systems over 1-, 5-,
and 10-year periods.
The submissions in 1984, 1986, and 1988 focused primarily on
transit performance and did not address the subject of transit
needs. The last two reports, issued in 1991 and 1992, addressed
transit needs, where the 1992 report provided what we believe for
the first time is a complete assessment of capital needs from the
department.
The statute explicitly calls for providing future capital needs at
various levels of service. The 1992 report complies with this re-
quirement by defining two scenarios of performance for which cap-
ital investment costs are estimated: investments needed to main-
246
tain condition and performance and investments needed to improve
condition and performance.
In our first scenario, we have defined maintain conditions as the
kind of investments that are required to sustain today's physical
conditions.
In the second scenario, we have defined improve conditions as
those investments needed to address past disinvestment and return
transit equipment and facilities to a state of good repair.
The other half of our scenario is performance, and by this we
mean the performance of transit in terms of the amount of transit
service provided.
During the 1980's, transit patronage grew 0.8 percent per year.
We have included in our estimate of maintaining current perform-
ance the capital costs needed to expand capacity at this rate.
We have defined improve performance in a way that com-
plements a key finding of the FHWA needs report. In its two most
recent highway needs reports, FHWA has said that, despite the
fact that all the numbers say the travel demand will be there, it
will not be possible to build highways to accommodate that de-
mand, and that 34,000 lane miles of needed highway construction
will have to be forgone and replaced by travel management meas-
ures, traffic operational improvements, changes in vehicle occu-
pancy, and increased transit use.
We have taken 10 percent of the travel demand that is rep-
resented by those 34,000 lane miles of forgone construction and
built our estimates for improved transit performance around the
assumption that this 10 percent will require new transit capacity
to satisfy the mobility needs. As to the investment needs that this
methodology generates, our estimates are: to maintain current con-
ditions and performance, an annual capital investment of $3.9 bil-
lion in mass transportation is needed over a 10-year period; and,
to improve conditions and handle 10 percent of the travel from the
forgone highway lane miles, an additional $3.6 billion a year for 10
years is needed, for a total of $7.5 billion per year.
If the $7.5 billion estimate of annual capital needs in our 1992
report to Congress is used as a benchmark, then it is evident that
the full annual authorization levels for the transit capital program
in the ISTEA, together with substantial overmatching by State and
local authorities, would be required to put us on a reasonable path
toward meeting those investment needs.
The ISTEA authorized level for fiscal year 1993, for example,
would finance about 55 percent of the need, or about $4.1 billion,
including WMATA, leaving 45 percent for local match and over-
match.
The budget authority provided in fiscal year 1993, however, was
short of the authorized level for capital by over $1 billion.
The President's economic stimulus package would restore $752
million of this $1 billion shortfall.
Apart from this brief review of our own report, I would like to
make reference to the varying dollar figures for need, depending on
who is doing the estimating. Frankly, I do not find the variations
troublesome, as long as they are explainable. The seemingly wide
variation between FTA needs estimates and those of other organi-
zations are not nearly as far apart as they may at first seem to be.
247
The GAO, in my opinion, is performing a real service in explain-
ing the differences accurately and in assessing the several needs
estimates. In fact, I am willing to stipulate to the accuracy of their
analysis.
This is the extent of my opening remarks, Mr. Chairman. I would
be pleased to take questions.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much. Your full statement
will be made part of the record.
[The statement follows:]
Statement of Robert H. McManus
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is Robert McManus and
I am the acting Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration.
I welcome this opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the general ques-
tion of mass transit investment needs in our country.
If we are going to take the position that investment in mass transportation is im-
portant for the social and economic well-being of our cities, our states, and our coun-
try, we should bring to our discussion information that is as clear and compelling
as it possibly can be.
The Secretary has been required, beginning in January 1984, to report biennially
to Congress on the condition and performance of mass transportation in America,
and to provide estimates of the capital dollars needed to sustain these systems over
one, five, and ten year periods. The submissions in 1984, 1986 and 1988 focused pri-
marily on transit performance, and did not address the subject of transit needs. The
last two reports, issued in 1991 and 1992, addressed transit needs, with the 1992
report providing what we believe for the first time is a complete assessment.
We believe that the 1992 report presents an objective and dispassionate estimate
of total transit needs. The report does not, however, indicate whether these needs
are to be funded from Federal, State, local or private sources. Investment needs and
Federal spending are two very separate, and separable, issues.
In order to advance this purpose and to establish some consistency in the ap-
S roach of the Department's agencies to reporting on the subject of capital needs, we
ave paralleled our latest report with the method of presentation of the Federal
Highway Administration in its own biennial needs report to the Congress.
In reality we are doing more than simply presenting the FTA's Section 308 Report
in a methodology similar to that used by FHWA; we have actually moved toward
combining these two needs assessments into a single surface transportation report.
The FHWA report to Congress is due each odd-numbered Januarj', ours each
even-numbered year. This year, 1993, the FHWA Report that you received in mid-
January contains new and updated highway information since the last FHWA re-
port was issued two years ago; it also contains all the information that was in the
FTA report for 1992.
Ovir goal is to have a single report, prepared every two years. We recognize it will
take legislative action before we can satisfy both statutory requirements with the
issuance of such a single biennial report; meanwhile, our intention is to have each
mode's formal report cover both modes, and, as in the 1993 Highway Conditions and
Performance Report, contain the other's data and information.
Much more important than the format of presentation is the methodology we used
to develop our estimates. The statute explicitly calls for providing future capital in-
vestment needs at "various levels of service." The 1992 Section 308 Report complies
with this requirement by defining two scenarios for which capital investment costs
are estimated: investments needed to Maintain Condition and Performance, and in-
vestments needed to Improve Condition and Performance.
Each scenario has two parts, consistent with the approach that FHWA has long
used. We distinguish the condition of mass transit facilities fi-om their performance.
Condition is an engineering description; it talks about how the physical state of
the existing infrastructure is. In our first scenario, we have defined 'maintain condi-
tions" as the kind of investments that are required to sustain today's physical condi-
tions. In our second scenario, we have defined "improve conditions" as those invest-
ments needed to restore the backlog of past disinvestment and return transit equip-
ment and faciUties to a good state of repair.
248
The other half of our scenarios is performance. By this we mean the ability of
transit to meet overall transportation demand. Performance has implications for the
level of transit service required.
We have defined "current performance" in a djmamic way; by it we mean that
mass transportation is expected to grow at rates experienced in the 1980's. During
the 1980's, transit patronage grew 0.8 percent per year, reflecting a growth in popu-
lation and a continuing rise in travel. To estimate mass transportation investment
needs, we have included in our estimate of maintaining current performance the
capital costs needed to expand capacity at this rate.
We have defined "improved performance" in a way that complements a key find-
ing of the FHWA needs report. Over the years, FHWA has gained a solid reputation
among transportation professionals for its ability to forecast future travel demand.
In years past, once the demand was known, it was a relatively simple arithmetic
procedure to determine how many miles of new highways would be needed to handle
that demand, and from that, a dollar figure representing highway needs.
Such an approach no longer works, though, because in many areas we have
reached a real- world limit on the amount of new highways our economy can afford,
our environment can tolerate, our cities can endure, and, frankly, our people want.
So in its two most recent highway needs reports, FHWA has said that despite the
fact all the numbers say the travel demand will be there, it will not be possible to
build highways to accommodate that demand. In fact, FHWA says that there will
be 34,000 lane miles of needed highway construction that will have to be foregone,
replaced by travel management measures, traffic operational improvements,
changes in vehicle occupancy, and increased transit use.
Using this FHWA estimate as a base, FTA projected an increased level of transit
service to compensate for a portion of this foregone lane mileage. It then estimated
the capital investment that would be necessary to permit such transit performance
to happen. Based on a broad-scale review of the kind of travel which would be rep-
resented by these foregone lane miles, FTA took 10 percent of the travel demand
that is represented by those 34,000 lane miles of foregone construction, and built
our estimates for improved transit performance around the assumption that this ten
percent will require new transit capacity to satisfy its mobility needs. I must caution
that this is not a prediction; we are not saying that mass transit in America will,
in fact, register such performance increases.
In sum, the Section 308 Report attempts to be true to its statutory mandate
which calls for estimates at various levels of service: Level one is a continuation of
current conditions and performance; and level two is an improvement of conditions
and an improvement in performance through an increase in transit level of service
sufficient to handle 10 percent of the travel that FHWA estimates would have re-
quired the construction of 34,000 additional lane miles of highway.
As to the investment needs that this generates, our estimates are: to maintain
current conditions and performance, an annual capital investment from all sources
of $3.9 billion (in 1991 dollars) in mass transportation is needed; and to improve
conditions and handle 10 percent of the travel from the foregone highway lane miles
an additional $3.6 billion a year for ten years is needed from all sources, for a total
of $7.5 billion per year.
These needs estimates are structured on the basis of an analysis geared to speci-
fied transit service levels and related forecasts of travel demand. And, as stated, the
estimates take an approach which is consistent with FHWA. However, they are also
consistent with empirical estimates of need which come from sources such as spe-
cific studies of rail modernization and bus maintenance facilities needs which we
have recently completed.
With respect to rail modernization, it was this very committee that requested the
Urban Mass Transportation Administration some years ago to conduct an extensive
evaluation of how much it would cost to restore all rail transit systems in America
to a condition of good repair.
That study was performed almost 10 years ago and estimated that it would cost
$17.8 billion in 1983 dollars over a ten year period to accomplish this goal. Just this
past year we retained the same consultant who performed the original work and
asked them to update their original findings.
This follow up study reached the general conclusion that while rail modernization
needs on our older transit systems remain extensive, we have begun to make
progress in improving conditions on these systems. The study found, however, that
the capit£il cost needs which remain total $15.5 to $17 billion in 1991 dollars.
With respect to bus needs, simple engineering estimates form the basis for the
bus vehicle replacement needs estimates in the Section 308 report. Detailed fleet in-
ventory information is collected annually through the Section 15 Reporting System.
249
Estimating bus facility needs in the Section 308 Report was not so simple, but
a recently completed consultant evaluation gives credence to the Section 308 esti-
mates. This study found that transit operators are programming $2.1 billion in bus
facility projects over the next five years.
Apart from this review of our own report, I want to make reference to the general
phenomenon of varying dollar figures for need depending on who is doing the esti-
mating. Frankly, I do not find the variations troublesome, as lon^ as they are ex-
plainaole. The seemingly wide variations between FTA needs estimates and those
of various constituency organizations are not nearly as far apart as they may at first
seem to be. The GAO, in my opinion is performing a real service in explaining the
differences accurately, and in critiquing tne several needs estimates.
To summarize, FTA's estimates have been at the macro level; they are intended
to provide a factual basis for a long term program of Federal investment. Such esti-
mates need to be objective and reasonable. Supportable needs estimates are useful
to inform decisions about authorization levels, program structure and annual budget
authority and ideally to guide policy design of the appropriate roles of the different
levels of government in financing the transit function. Supportable needs estimates
also provide information on how well we are doing in maintaining and improving
our transit systems.
If the assumption that transit service capacity must grow above historical rates
in order to meet a portion of the travel demand that cannot be accommodated by
highway construction is accepted and the resulting $7.5 billion estimate of annual
capital needs in FTA's 1992 report to Congress is used as a benchmark, it is evident
that the full annual authorization levels for the transit capital program in the
ISTEA, together with continued overmatching by State and local authorities, would
be required to meet that investment goal. The ISTEA authorized level for fiscal year
1993, for example, would finance about 55 percent of the need ($4. 125 billion includ-
ing WMATA) leaving 45 percent for local match and overmatch.
The budget authority provided in fiscal year 1993 for capital purposes, however,
was short of the authorized level for capital by over $1 billion although the Adminis-
tration has requested an additional $752 million in capital funds for fiscal year
1993. In addition to the amounts appropriated to the Federal Transit Administra-
tion, about 70 percent of Federal-aid Highway funding is eligible to be used for cer-
tain transit projects at the discretion of State and local decisionmakers.
Mr. Chairman thank you very much for this opportunity to appear before the com-
mittee.
CURRENT NEEDS AND PROJECTIONS
Senator Lautenberg. I would say that that is a good array of
professionalism. Everybody finished before the allotted time.
[Laughter.]
It reminds me of a time when I was on your side of the witness
table. I was running a computer service company that I helped
build. I think Senator McClellan may have been the chairman.
Someone here did me a favor, they thought, by dragging out my
testimony. It was almost bizarre in terms of the time that I had
expected to be talking and also the philosophical treatise that I was
presenting. It shows you the difference when experience is there.
I thank everybody.
For Ken Mead, I want to ask you this question. But first, I do
want to make note of the fact that Mr. McManus in his testimony
kind of confronted the question I asked with my question of how
do you catch up with the disinvestment and so forth.
Now that is not reflected in this analysis here, obviously, because
this talks about a 1992 review, and I am still not sure about how
we got AASHTO from 1988, APTA in 1990 and FTA in 1992, even
though those figures are expressed in constant 1991 dollars. The
fact is, if the estimates were made based on that period of time and
those conditions, how do we adjust for current needs and current
projections?
How do you see that?
250
Mr. Mead. That is so, Mr. Chairman. For example, capital ex-
pansion, AASHTO's was done in 1988. We did all the adjustments
that we could possibly do to reconcile the three. But in AASHTO's
case, they relied on a pipeline of grants applications that people
had submitted to FTA.
Now, if you recall that period of time, this was not exactly a pro-
gram that was undergoing expansion. If you took 1991 grant appli-
cations, it might very well be different. But these organizations did
do their estimating in different years, and there are some imperfec-
tions, as you point out.
Senator Lautenberg. I would ask each one of the people from
the two non-FTA organizations whether this information is not
available on a more current basis?
Jack?
Mr. GiLSTRAP. We have recently conducted a survey of our mem-
bers in regard to the questions asked by the administration about
what we could do in terms of economic stimulus and how many
jobs might be created, how many projects might be gotten under-
way within the next 6 months.
We have submitted a report to that question. We have not up-
dated this one beyond what you have now. But I must say, Mr.
Chairman, I think we have a good deal of confidence in what we
have submitted to you because it goes into quite a bit of detail as
to the specific kinds of projects and the expansion programs and
proposals that our members have in mind. That has been submit-
ted for the record to you.
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Francois.
Mr. Francois. Mr. Chairman, it is difficult to do transit projec-
tions currently because of the many factors I have noted that are
still to be decided. Overall, we do rely heavily on the section 15 re-
ports, obviously, that the FTA does.
The future I think will change sharply in this regard. As a result
of the ISTEA, the MPO plan with its transportation improvement
program must address both highways and transit in very real
terms in a relatively short timeframe, a 3-year time period. That
in turn, must be reflected in the newly required State transpor-
tation plan, which also must take transit into account.
So, in my judgment, by this time next year we are going to have
some very hard numbers to work with.
Senator Lautenberg. I would hope that would be the case be-
cause it gives me a little more confidence as I look at the numbers.
I come to a conclusion, perhaps incorrectly arrived at, that these
needs might be significantly higher based on ISTEA, based on an
understanding of where we are going, based on the recognition
within the various State transit agencies, transportation agencies,
that it's possible to get funding for projects, which gives them a lit-
tle encouragement to ask for the grants. There is such a keen inter-
est by private parties in getting involved with this that it expands
the horizons.
Mr. Mead, one of the things that I wanted to ask you is if you
have a kind of thumbnail view of the disparity between these needs
projections. Where do you see them? I mean, FTA's, in sum total,
is much different than the other groups' projections.
251
Mr. Mead. Yes, sir; I think the climate is right. There is an air
of constructiveness. I think you are going to see a much greater
commonality between the projections of these organizations in the
future.
FTA does need to include operating costs. It is a separate issue,
as I said, whether or not Congress decides to fund those. They are,
in fact, a need. There is no point ignoring that. And, as Mr. Fran-
cois said, the ISTEA transportation plans and the underlying sys-
tems that feed into that plan will provide you with actual data
from transit authorities. You do not have that information now in
terms of prospective need in the FTA estimate.
VALIDITY OF OPERATING NEEDS PROJECTIONS
Senator Lautenberg. Do you want to comment on the validity
of AASHTO's or APTA's operating needs projections? There is a de-
free of closeness there, but, nevertheless, we are still talking about
2 billion. What kind of perspective is that?
Mr. Mead. AASHTO used a different base year for calculating
operating needs than did APTA. That accounts, I think, largely for
the difference between those two.
Actually, the dollars for operating needs reflect mostly historical
costs without much accommodation for any expansion. It is almost
an auditing exercise.
Senator Lautenberg. But is there an estimate of need resulting
from ADA or Clean Air?
Mr. Mead. Only in the FTA estimate, and I would not go to the
bank with that one. It is about $260 million a year. It is based on
a highly generalized regulatory cost estimate with no projections
from State and local jurisdictions as to what it might cost.
Mr. McManus. I just could add a comment, Mr. Chairman, if it
would be helpful.
Senator Lautenberg. Yes, please.
Mr. McManus. In the regulatory impact analysis for the ADA
regulation, there was an analysis of operating cost implications of
that regulation and the law. The figure used I believe was some-
thing like $230 million a year, beginning at the beginning of the
period of adjustment to the ADA, going up to as much as $500 mil-
lion in the latter part of the 5-year period in which the grantees
have to adapt to the requirement for trie paratransit plans.
But it was a rough estimate. It does, nevertheless, indicate that
there are costs generated by that Federal requirement.
Senator Lautenberg. I assume that once the present inventory
of buses, railcars, et cetera, are dealt with, the ADA costs will be
more of normal capital costs and not require the catchup costs.
Mr. McManus. The ADA capital costs are included within the
context of the FTA needs report, and they are estimated to run
roughly, including both bus and rail systems, at about $255 million
a year.
Senator Lautenberg. Jack.
Mr. GiLSTRAP. Mr. Chairman, I would also point out that one of
the important new services mandated by ADA is the paratransit
door-to-door service which all transit systems must now provide as
a supplement to the regular line haul operation. We are finding
those services to be extremely expensive in terms of operating
252
costs. That, of course, is an ongoing thing. Unlike the capital, we
are faced with that permanently.
Senator Lautenberg. Yes; tnat we recognize. There is a service
to which we are committed, and when you make a commitment to
have the service, you also, whether you choose to or not, make a
commitment to provide the funds to supply those services.
But I was interested in the capital siae because one day there
will not be buses manufactured, I assume, that do not have the ap-
propriate facility for the disabled. So also with railroad cars, and
I assume that changes will be made in stations, et cetera, that are
going to be more or less one-time modifications. It may take some
years to catch up, but, once done, that is the way we are going to
live our lives in the transportation world.
In trying to determine expansion needs, what would any of you
say in terms of what kind of a system, what kind of matrix do we
lay out for ourselves to try to estimate expansion needs? They
ought to be really dealt with. But they ought to be dealt with sepa-
rately because those are so specific in terms of requests by mem-
bers, requests by organizations — ^you know, do we want to expand
city A, city B, area D, whatever. So what can we do to anticipate
what these might be in timely fashion?
Mr. Mead. I think one possibility, Mr. Chairman, is that in im-
plementing regulations over the coming months for what should be
in these transportation management systems at the local level and
what should be in the State plans, DOT could prescribe some cri-
teria so that you would not get expansion estimates that were to-
tally unconstrained. You would not want expansion needs that
were simply wish lists. On the other hand, you do want realistic
expansion needs within possible ranges of funding availability.
Mr. McManus. Well, we think we have done a major thing in
this 1992 needs report in picking up on the methodology used by
FHWA, where they use travel demand forecasts and then convert
those forecasts into capacity requirements.
We have done the same thing with the transit needs estimate,
and we are collaborating with FHWA so that, within the next cou-
ple of years, we expect to be putting together a common needs re-
port on surface transportation that is based on a common meth-
odology for forecasting expansion requirements.
FHWA has used that technique for years and years, and it does
result in taking into account things like the requirements of the
Clean Air Act, the impacts, and some judgment about to what ex-
tent transit has to pick up on providing some of the capacity re-
quirements that the highway construction will not be able to ac-
commodate.
I think that is a very big breakthrough in our approach to esti-
mating demand.
TRANSIT NEEDS OF REMOTE AREAS
Senator Lautenberg. I think the ADA and Clean Air are rel-
atively easy things to introduce into the formula. When you get
into, you know, where is the growth going to come from, the projec-
tions about the population movement closer to the coasts, like Sen-
ator D'Amato and I have those beautiful places of ours, how do you
deal with population growth in different areas? What is the respon-
253
sibility to some of the more remote areas for transit and transpor-
tation needs?
Mr. Francois. Mr. Chairman, I would underline what Mr.
McManus has said here. I think we need to emphasize it again.
In our judgment, the splendid cooperation that has developed
over the last 4 years between FTA and FHWA is extremely impor-
tant.
Senator Lautenberg. I agree.
Mr. Francois. The need number that FTA is including here I
would underline again is based in large part on the FHWA's judg-
ment that some 34,000 lane miles of projected highways in urban
areas will never be built. Ergo, transit had to pick up that.
Now that is what we are going to find more and more as these
planning processes move forward.
With respect to ADA costs, it is true from a capital standpoint
ves, it is a one-time cost, but not really, because every time you
buy a replacement bus in future years, it, too, will cost more. So
that keeps rolling through the process also.
But I think that the important thing is that we are beginning to
come to grips with looking at highways and transit as part of a sys-
tem more in context with land use patterns, which gets to another
issue that you are touching on, growth and how do you accommo-
date it. The new transportation plans that will come out of ISTEA
are going to look very different tnan anything we have seen before.
Senator Lautenberg. Jack, did you want to comment on that?
Mr. GiLSTRAP. Senator, I think Frank's final comment here is
certainly on the money. I think we have to be very careful about
relying too much on demand forecasts because that does not take
into account other national priorities. We have already mentioned
the Clean Air Act. We have energy considerations. There is a whole
array of other issues, and it raises the question in land use, as
Frank said, it raises the question of do we attempt to constantly,
constantly, forever, forever respond to the single-occupant auto-
mobile demand.
I think that is probably the crux of the issue, and we have to
somehow get on top of that vehicle-mile travel issue. I think to
focus too greatly simply on demand and try to continue to build to
satisfy a demand without trjdng to adjust that curve would be a
mistake.
STATES' SHARE OF CAPITAL INVESTMENT
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Francois, you produced a number that
was the State, the collective States' share of capital investment. It
was $6.2 billion, I think.
Mr. Francois. Right. $6.2 billion counts everything, both operat-
ing and capital.
Senator Lautenberg. Right. In the number that you presented
for this chart, you include, I assume, the States' share when we
look at a figure for AASHTO of $20.5 billion?
Mr. Francois. Yes; all sources would be in that number.
Senator Lautenberg. Is everybody agreed on that? I mean, do
the others also include it?
Mr. Mead. [Nods affirmatively.]
Mr. McManus. [Nods affirmatively.]
68-623 O— 93-
254
Senator Lautenberg. So this is not a request by any stretch of
the imagination.
Mr. Francois. No; that is not the Federal program, Mr. Chair-
man.
Senator Lautenberg. I just wanted to be sure.
Mr. Francois. We would like it, though. [Laughter.]
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Francois, in terms of the FHWA num-
bers that are produced, do they accurately, do you think, depict the
economic development and cost tradeoffs between highways and
transit?
Mr. Francois. Mr. Chairman, they have been working with that
issue for several versions of this every 2 year document. I do not
think they are there yet, either. They are certainly doing far better
than they were. They are doing better than we are doing.
We have some research underway in this £irea right now. We
think that their work is adequate, given the knowledge that we
had to work with.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much.
We were joined earlier by my colleague from New York, Senator
D'Amato, the ranking member of this subcommittee.
Senator D'Amato, we are delighted, as usual, to have you with
us. The witnesses are there to question, or if you would like, make
a statement.
statement of senator D'AMATO
Senator D'AMATO. Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask that my
statement be included in the record.
Senator Lautenberg. Without objection.
[The statement follows:]
Statement of Senator D'Amato
Mr. Chairman, I join you in welcoming our many witnesses today. Although we
do not yet have a fiscal year 1994 budget proposal K>r the Federal Transit Adminis-
tration, the FTA and transit advocates have estimated general progranunatic needs.
Transit authorizing l^iislation, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Assistance
Act (ISTEA) has provided for the basic $30 billion, 6-year fundii^ program.
ISTEA authorizes transit funding of rou^y $5 billion per year though fiscal year
1996, with an increase to $7.25 biUion in fiscal year 1997, the final year of the bill.
The Department of Transportation has estimated that $3.9 billion per year is need-
ed simply to maintain current transit conditions, and $7.5 billion per year would
be needed to improve conditions. The fiscal year 1993 Transportation Appropriations
Bill provided $3.8 billion for the Federal Transit Administration, including $802 mil-
lion in operating aid.
The Administration's fiscal year 1993 Stimulus proposal would increase cvirrent
year transit fiinding by $752 million ($482 million for formula capital grants and
$270 million for discretionary capital bus grants) up to a total of $4.55 billion. If
enacted, the new funds would still leave transit about $685 million short of the
$5,235 billion authorized for this year. No additional operating funds were re-
quested.
According to DOT, the transit program now has $1,125 billion unobligated in the
Section 9 ftrmula capital and operating aid program, and $2.87 billion unobligated
in the Section 3 discretionary capital grants program.
The Section 9 money can be expected to spend down fairly quickly during this fis-
cal year; however the $2.87 billion in Section 3 is slower spending capital for new
starts, rail modernization, and large bus-related projects.
Even though transit investment needs are significant, it is especially hard to jus-
tify the additional $270 million for discretionary bus projects in the stimulus pro-
posal given the cvurent Section 3 backlog, and our more pressing need to reduce the
deficit and cut spending.
255
Mr. Chairman, I am interested in hearing fi-om our many, varied witnesses on to-
dajr's panels.
ENCOURAGING ALTERNATIVE FUELS
Senator D'Amato. I would be remiss if I did not tell you that I
am looking forward to this forthcoming session with you, as we
have these past years, in a cooperative effort to see that we man-
age our resources and meet some of the pressing needs that the
witnesses have testified to as they relate to moving people in the
most cost effective and efficient manner and in a manner environ-
mentally that makes sense.
Although this committee, probably going back 6 years ago, 4
years ago, and even 2 years ago, has done as much if not more in
the area of encouraging alternative fuels — natural gas buses, et
cetera — I would hope that, together, we could even do more in that
area.
I do not like to come down on anyone in particular. Some of the
transit properties, for example, in my own home State, have dem-
onstrated a great concern and flexibility and have undertaken
these programs, albeit maybe in small steps, particularly our up-
state communities of Rochester, Buffalo, and S3n'acuse, and down
in Long Island, Nassau. But the major offender of these operations
in terms of running diesel buses that spew out all kinds of toxins
into the air is our own local transit authority in the city of New
York. You cannot get these people to even begin to look at what
has taken place.
I have to tell you that I am determined, and because you have
shown a keen leadership, with your help I hope not to yield to the
same old, tired local rhetoric, which are such that well, "we will
put on a trap to catch all the stuff," or "it is too costly."
It is not too costly. We have to deal with this now because sooner
rather than later we are going to have the EPA come in and start
really doing some dreadful things that the law requires if we are
not in compliance with these clean air standards.
I am looking forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, and
making that a very real push. I know that Senator Mo3niihan
shares my concern. He has been a leader in the area of basic envi-
ronment.
I know that you have demonstrated a keen awareness in leader-
ship in the environment. I just look to my city of New York and
it is disgraceful to see those machines operating the way they do
almost 24 hours a day, spewing forth that stuff. It is not right and
we should not be funding it.
I don't know if anybody wants to comment on that. I would be
very interested if they do.
Senator Lautenberg. I do not, but perhaps a witness does.
[Laughter.]
Senator D'Amato. Mr. Gilstrap, do you care to comment? I put
you in a ticklish position, didn't I?
Mr. Gilstrap. Senator, we are trying very hard as an industry
to respond.
Senator D'Amato. Jack, tell them I may not be successful, but
don't bet against me. I am going to look for ways to limit the use
of dollars as it relates to buses unless we begin to bring in at least
256
certain percentages, particularly in the big properties, that use
clean burning fuels.
Mr, GiLSTRAP. I will tell them, Senator.
Senator D'Amato, We cannot continue business as usual. If we
can do it cooperatively, fine.
Let me tell you that I don't care if I lose a fight. But I am bound
and determined, and I win as many as I lose. I am telling you that
I am not going to let it go. This just has to stop. I mean, this is
long enough.
Now, obviously, it is easier for any and all and most institutions
to do business as usual, and the people who run these properties
are good people. They are not bad people. And there are problems
attendant with change.
The President has talked about the need for change. By gosh, if
there isn't a need for change the way these properties operate, I
mean they are soot producing, grimy machines. That is what they
are. It is wrong.
And, by the way, we are importing most of that stuff. So if we
want to make a sound, rational policy, why don't we use fuels that
we produce for the most part, whether it is natural gas or other
alternatives, and hold down on the importation, improve the envi-
ronment, and move in the right direction.
So I don't know if you want to invite me to be your speaker. You
used to do it. [Laughter.]
Mr. GiLSTRAP. We'd love to have you. Senator.
Senator D'Amato. They used to also have a small stipend at-
tached to it. So I used to love to come — off the record, of course.
[Laughter.]
I mean, that is no longer the case.
Now I want you to know I didn't really say that. Ann sitting be-
hind me is a ventriloquist. [Laughter.]
That is the end of my little D'Amatoesque joke.
Senator Lautenberg. One of the things that I certainly would
agree with is you win more fights. Senator D'Amato, than you lose.
Being on the other side of an issue with you is not a lot of fun.
Senator D'Amato. We have not been on too many opposite sides
of things.
Senator Lautenberg. Oh, no, no. But I have seen other people
fall in the aisles against you. [Laughter.]
But I would say this, that you are not wrong in demanding clean-
er emissions because there is a toll, as yet unmeasured but signifi-
cantly there, on human health. There is a toll, as yet not signifi-
cantly measured, on buildings and structures, facilities, infrastruc-
ture. It's enormous.
Senator D'Amato. That's right.
Senator LAUTENBERG. I guess the only people who disagree with
you might be an auto laundry association or something. They
would like to keep things as they are.
Thank you very much. Thank you. Senator D'Amato and thank
you all at the witness table.
PANEL II — TRANSIT AUTHORITIES
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority [SEPTA]
statement of lou gambaccini, general manager
Portland Tri-Met
statement of tom walsh, general manager
City of Portland Transportation Bureau
STATEMENT OF EARL BLUMENAUER, COMMISSIONER
South West Transit Association and Louisiana Public Transit
Association
STATEMENT OF PAT JUDGE, PRESIDENT
INTRODUCTION OF WITNESSES
Senator Lautenberg. We will now hear from the next panel, in-
cluding Lou Gambaccini, Tom Walsh, Patrick Judge, and Earl
Blumenauer.
We invite you to give your testimony under the same rules and
conditions. The clock is a menacing thing, but we want to hear
what you have to say in very serious fashion. We have your formal
statements submitted for the record. Any who have not presented
them, we invite you to do so. We would ask that Mr. Gambaccini
be the first to testify. Welcome.
Mr. Gambaccini. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to
be here and to talk about SEPTA's problems, particularly as they
relate to financing and physical infrastructure.
SEPTA operates five modes of service. It is a very extensive sys-
tem which includes service into Trenton and West Trenton, NJ, as
well as into Wilmington, DE. We operate some 1,400 buses, 13
commuter rail lines, 5 trackless trolley routes, 3 high-speed rail
systems, and 7 light rail routes.
We are a multimodal system, much like the other major cities of
New York, Chicago, Boston, Cleveland, and the like, and we have
many of the problems — in some cases worse — in the physical dis-
repair.
We have been suffering in recent years a decline in ridership,
which is a direct result of a decline in population, decline in jobs,
and out-migration of population. The overall state of the economy
has contributed to it.
In our city division, we have lost 16 percent of our city ridership
in a 4-year period. We have had to reduce service by 10 percent in
the same period, and this fiscal year we cut 10 percent — $65 mil-
(257)
258
lion^-out of our budget. We were able to do it for most of one-half
of that saving through other than service cuts. We exhausted every
possibility to pick up savings, including a major successful attack
on fraudulent claims, which has reduced claims exposure and out-
lays by close to 50 percent in the last 3 years.
We have reduced administrative staff by 300 people. We have re-
duced benefits to our employees by $7 million in the first year's ef-
fort, thanks to the cooperation of the union, which has helped to
offset the pressures of our budget.
The Federal operating contribution is now less than one-half of
what it was 12 years ago. Twelve years ago, it was $61 million.
Today it is $27 million.
We have gone from about 18 percent of our operating budget to
less than 4 percent of our operating budget supported by the Fed-
eral Government.
You mentioned earlier ADA and mandates. This year, despite a
$65 million budget cut and service cuts to the basic operation, we
are increasing our operating costs to serve the requirements of the
disabled under ADA by $7 million and our capital costs by $5 mil-
lion. We expect our operating costs to rise $3 to $5 million a year
over the next 4 to 5 years until we get to full compliance with ADA
requirements.
We believe that our passengers are already paying substantial
fares. We are among the highest for operating recovery ratio sys-
tems in the country and, given the decline in ridership, the ex-
treme condition of unemplo3anent, and poverty in our region, we
believe that increasing fares is not a constructive way to go, given
all the other realities.
The single biggest crisis confronting us is the operating budget
currently. But in the background is the physical disrepair.
When I first arrived at SEPTA 4V2 years ago, I was determined
to lay out a 10-year rehabilitation program which we estimated at
$4.5 billion, or about $450 million a year. We were then getting
about $100 million a year. So we were deficient $350 million in
order to rebuild the system to an adequate level.
I would mention, by the way, that of the $4.5 billion, well in ex-
cess of $1 billion is the disrepair of the former Conrail passenger
service, which we took over responsibility for 10 years ago and still
have a massive reconstruction effort to accomplish.
We were successful in getting 2 years ago a State dedicated fund
which doubled our capital funding from $100 to $200 million a
year. This is a significant step forward. It is still, however, overall
far less than is needed.
If I could digress from the testimony for a second just to tell you
about one project. Rail Works, which is in the process of replacing
25 bridges affecting six of our commuter rail lines, this is on the
former Conrail service. This has been a model, in my opinion, of
what we should be looking at in economic stimulus around the
country. It is vitally needed work, replacement of 25 bridges, well
within budget with all kinds of beneficial community benefits, in-
cluding substantial achievements in jobs for local, minority, and
unemployed.
259
We strongly support the economic stimulus. Our needs far exceed
the stimulus money. But, nevertheless, again, it is a step in the
right direction.
We are dismayed to hear discussion in Washington currently
about the allocation of the 2.5-cent gas tax which previously went
to the deficit reduction and now proposed all to be put in the high-
way account. This would be a travesty, given the extreme needs of
transit and the historic allocation of 20 percent of gas tax refunds
to transit.
In short, let me just say that we support the economic stimulus
package. We strongly support full funding for ISTEA. We support,
indeed we almost insist, that at least the maintenance of 20 per-
cent of gas tax revenues be preserved for transit. We really believe
that it should be increased. We are prepared to delay discussion of
that into a deeper future. But we do oelieve maintenance of the
status quo is essential.
We have got to attack new problems — for example, suburb-to-
suburb commute, reverse commute. We have done some innovative
things in our area, which I will be happy to discuss if there is any
interest.
Mr. Chairman, as general manager of SEPTA and as chairman
of the American Public Transit Association, we applaud your efforts
in being such a leader in support of transit and particularly in
keeping us alive on the operating assistance front. We look forward
to working with you in the future. Thank you.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much, Mr. Gambaccini.
We have your complete statement and it will be made part of the
record.
[The statement follows:]
Statement of Louis J. Gambaccini
Good morning. My name is Louis J. Gambaccini. I am the General Manager/Chief
Operations Officer of the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority
(^PTA). SEPTA provides public transit service in Philadelphia and the four adja-
cent Pennsylvania suburban counties. We also provide commuter rail services to
Trenton and West Trenton, New Jersey, as well as to Wilmington, Delaware.
We are a large multi-modal system with over one million boardings a day on our
1400 buses, 13 commuter rail lines, five trackless trolley routes, three high speed
rail systems and seven light rail routes.
Similar to the systems in New York, Chicago, Boston, Cleveland, and San Fran-
cisco, septa's infrastructure is old and continues to suffer from the disinvestment
practiced by our predecessors from the private sector and from the substantial de-
cline of assistance from the Federal Government over the past 12 years.
In spite of this, SEPTA delivers nearly 70 percent of Philadelphia's central busi-
ness district work force to their jobs each day. We have also been able to develop
a "reverse commute" clientele of Philadelphia residents who utilize our system to
get to jobs in the expanding suburban employment centers.
Like most transit systems in the nation, SEPTA faces a number of challenges. We
confront difficulties in the areas of operating, capital and in the basic structure of
the transit services we operate. I would like to take a few moments to describe the
nature, magnitude and possible solutions in each of these areas.
Perhaps most illustrative of SEPTA's operating budget difficulties is the situation
which confronted us during the current fiscal year. Transit as a business is ex-
tremely sensitive to economic downturns. If there are no jobs for people to go to,
they do not need transit to get there. If consumer confidence is low, people do not
take transit to shop. As a result, SEPTA, like most other transit systems, has expe-
rienced a decline in ridership. In fact, SEPTA's City Transit Division ridership today
260
is approximately 16 percent below what it was four years ago. Although we have
seen a slight improvement in the last two months, we are not yet confident that
the trend will be permanently over until the economy fully recovers. In addition, due
to the decline in revenues as a result of this ridership loss and the failure of subsi-
dizing governments at the federal, state and local levels to provide sufficient funds
to fill the gap, SEPTA has also been forced to reduce service. In the last four years
we have reduced service by about 10 percent. This has led to further reductions in
ridership. In terms of actual operating expenses, SEPTA has reduced its expendi-
tures this year by 65 million dollars, to a level of $600 million. Last fiscal year, we
spent $628 million to provide transit service.
We attempted to minimize the disruption to our riders while we cut these ex-
penses. Before we made any service cuts, we reduced administrative staff by 300
people. We worked with our unions to reduce benefit expenses by $7 million in the
first year. In addition, we restructured many SEPTA functions, to reduce costs. We
met more than half of our required reductions without reducing service levels. How-
ever, we were forced to reduce service in order to meet our budget constraints.
The federal operating subsidy to SEPTA today is less than half of what it was
more than 10 years ago. In fiscal year 1981, SEPTA received approximately $61 mil-
lion from the federal government toward our operating expenses. This fiscal year,
we will receive slightly more than $27 million. When it was enacted, the Intermodal
Surface Transportation EfBciency Act (ISTEA) recognized the declining role the fed-
eral government played in supporting mass transit operation. It provided, for the
first time in 10 years, a mechanism to increase operating subsidy to reflect transit's
increased cost of doing business. However, the funding necessary to allow this in-
crease has never been made available.
As we begin to prepare our budget for next year, SEPTA is again confi*onting a
difficult situation. We believe it is counter-productive to cut service any further. In
addition, we believe that it would be difficult for many of our passengers to pay
higher fares. That leaves us with the final segment of our budget as a solution —
increased subsidy fi-om our govemmentel sponsors. And yet, Philadelphia remains
in a difficult fiscal situation itself, just beginning to recover from near bankruptey.
The State of Pennsylvania is experiencing slight growth in revenues and vet it must
fund reauired increases in many social service programs to address problems which
receive less federal funding today than they aid a few years ago. Recognition by
Congress of the ISTEA provisions allowing for inflationary growth in operating sub-
sidy would contribute to a solution of the operating difficulties confi-onting us.
The next major difficulty confi-onting SEPTA is the deterioration of our physical
plant. Many of SEPTA's fixed assets, such as track bed, elevated structure and rail
stations date from the end of last century and the beginning of this century. As pri-
vate operators became less profitable, they ceased investing in the future of their
assets. Thus, when SEPTA came into existence to acquire and operate the formerly
private systems in the Philadelphia region in the 1960's, it was presented with a
severely deteriorated system.
When I got to SEPTA, one of the first things which I attempted to define was
the overall capital needs of the system to bring it into safe operating condition and
to begin to make improvements to encourage ridership and meet new travel de-
mands. At that time, we identified a 10-year capitel need of $4.5 billion — $450 mil-
lion a year. Available resources were primarily available through the federal pro-
gram and totalled approximately $100 million per year.
Together with the other transit systems, large and small, Urban and rural, in
Pennsylvania and in unison with the highway industry, SEPTA sought a dedicated
source of funding for capital investment at the stete level. We succeeded in obtain-
ing a funding source which provides SEPTA with approximately $100 million in new
money every year. However, this still leaves us woefully short of the total need.
At approximately the same time, Congress passed the ISTEA reauthorizing pack-
age. It promised great aid in finally being able to restore our system. However, as
you are well aware, ISTEA has not been funded at its fully authorized levels. We
anticipate with great hope the passage of the President's proposed economic stimu-
lus package which will bring SEPTA approximately $15 million in formula money
and from which SEPTA also will seek ninding of it's Midvale garage project — a re-
?lacement facility for which SEPTA has had an application on file with the Federal
ransit Administration since 1989. It has never oeen approved because there has
never been sufficient funding available in the Section 3 bus Category to do so.
However, the need for capital funding exceeds the need for a one-time shot of
extra federal money. Although we are grateful for the economic stimulus proposal,
I should point out that the moneys proposed bring the highway program to the level
of full funding under the ISTEA, while the level of funding proposed for mass tran-
sit takes us only halfway fi-om current levels to the fiilly-fiinded level. In addition.
261
although the Administration's expressed support of mass transit has made us very
hopeful, the proposal to extend the two and a half cent gas tax which is currently
devoted to deficit reduction and dedicate it to highways causes us some concern. We
believe that the money should be used for transportation purposes, however, we be-
heve that the money should not abrogate the hard fought sharing arrangement
which transit was able to achieve in the 1980's — 20 percent of the funds for transit
with the remaining 80 percent going to highways. Yet, that is what the Administra-
tion has proposed.
In summary, transit is seeking Congressional action in three areas to support re-
investment in transit infi-astructvire: Quick enactment of the economic stimulus
package; fiill funding of ISTEA for the remainder of the authorizing period; and
dedication to transit of at least V2 cent of the two and a half cent gas tax which
the Administration has proposed to extend and convert fi-om deficit reduction to
highway uses.
The final difficulty which confronts SEPTA is the need to restructure its role and
its services to meet the demands of the future and to allow transit to meet the chal-
lenges of such social goals as clean air, reduction in congestion, and economic vital-
ity. Most older large transit systems like SEPTA were built to accommodate a com-
muting pattern from the suburbs to the city — in radiating spokes fi-om the down-
town area. Today, the largest increase in commuting is fi-om suburb-to-suburb. Tra-
ditional bus services cannot compete because they must travel in the same con-
gested traffic as the automobile. Aiid travel patterns are not easily serviced by tradi-
tional transit because of dispersed patterns of residential and commercial property
uses.
Some of this challenge can be met through simply restructuring routes. Other as-
pects of it must be met through a revised view of what is needed to provide mobility
for the citizens of our urban areas. ISTEA went a long way toward doing that by
allowing localities to determine whether transit was a better solution to mobility
needs than more highways — by creating the ability to "flex" funds from the highway
program to mass transit projects. However, to date, many states, such as Pennsylva-
nia, have not taken advantage of the flexibility created by ISTEA. They have contin-
ued to do business as usual, or they have simply been unable to proceed in any di-
rection due to the newness of the concepts in ISTEA.
Some of the problems in fully utilizing the ISTEA provisions will be cured simply
by the passage of time and greater familiarity with its mechanisms. Some, however,
may take further urging from Congress to truly level the playing field by measuring
the benefits of competing projects clearly in terms of their ability to meet Congres-
sional mandates for clean air.
I look forward to working with you on these various issues, both in my role as
General Manager of SEPTA and in my current role as Chairman of the American
Public Transit Association. I believe that transit plays a role in a number of areas
that are of critical importance to this country. However, I also believe that we may
need your assistance in order to be able to play that role effectively.
Thank you for your attention. I would be happy to answer any questions you
have.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR SPECTER
Senator Lautenberg. We are joined by our colleague from our
neighboring State, Senator Specter, Senator Specter has an active
interest in this subject.
Mr. Gambaccini. I'm sorry. I did not see Senator Specter arrive,
or I would certainly have mentioned him in connection with the
support we have had, which has been great.
Senator Lautenberg. I'm sure of that.
Senator Specter has been a vigorous proponent of funding for the
SEPTA system and very helpful on transit funding. I know that he
wanted to be here to greet you.
With that, Senator Specter.
Senator Specter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate an op-
portunity to say just a word or two at this time. I did want to stop
by and pay my respects to the Chair for convening these important
hearings and to the witnesses who are coming in, and to give spe-
262
cial greetings to Lou Gambaccini, who has done such an extraor-
dinary job as the head of SEPTA.
It is a lonely iob being a subcommittee chairman, which Senator
Lautenberg is here. You may wonder where all the other sub-
committee members are. I can assure you that I just came from an
Energy Committee hearing and on the floor with health care. There
are just so many other items.
But the transportation needs are very important, and I am de-
lighted to see that the supplemental appropriations bill is going to
have increased funding. I am delighted that the new President,
President Clinton, is making the infrastructure a priority item.
I am just hopeful that we can come to the day where we have
the entire trust fund from the gas tax dedicated in part to mass
transit to be used for that purpose because those issues are enor-
mously important.
The chairman has been very diligent in proceeding with a num-
ber, of hearings. This is the fourth so far this year, which is the
most of any subcommittee, to my knowledge, and I am on five sub-
committees, of the Appropriations Committee. Some have not met
at all, and this is our fourth meeting, which is a good sign of the
focus of activity.
I have staff here who will follow closely what is being done. We
will work very hard with the chairman and others to try to get in-
creased funding for mass transit.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks very much, Senator Specter. One
of the things that transportation seems to do veir readily is attract
bipartisan support. I was delighted and thankful for Senator Spec-
ter's support of the stimulus package proposed by the administra-
tion ana by ourselves here.
We are going to work hard to get it. I, too, share Mr.
Gambaccini's dismay in terms of portraying the 2.5 cents that will
become available to us as solely highway funds. I think there may
be some question of terminology here. But since the public state-
ment, the Secretary knows very well that there is a good deal of
interest in getting a share of those funds for transit. It is des-
perately needed.
In the last few years, Senator Specter and I shared a very com-
mon interest in what happens in the Philadelphia area and in the
region, generally, because what is good for New Jersey, is good for
Philadelphia, and vice versa. We have traffic going back and forth,
and we are distressed that only Senator Spedter has been the sin-
gle leader trying to keep the Philadelphia Navy Yard going with its
employment base solidly in place. We work together on that and on
the transportation side of things also.
It is very important that we have the kind of unity that you have
heard from Senator D'Amato and now from Senator Specter and
from others on our side.
We thank you very much.
Now we will hear ftt)m the Portland folks. I don't know whether
you want to divide the time. You have 5 minutes to share. Does
one of you want to testify and the other provide backup?
However you want to do it, you have 5 minutes. If you want to
toss a coin, we are allowed to do that here.
263
STATEMENT OF TOM WALSH
Mr. Walsh. Mr. Chairman, we will split the time. My name is
Tom Walsh. I am the general manager of Tri-Met.
In modest contrast to Lou, I come from the opposite coast. I come
from a transit system which is thriving, and I am new to the indus-
try.
I come out of 30 years as a private contractor. As I joined this
almost unique public agency, four things struck me as very similar
to experiences I had had in the private sector.
It is a group that operates by common sense. We have an ethic
that says do it right the first time. We think ahead practically and
we treat our customers well.
We have entered into the record and put before you a document,
our strategic plan, which is also a business plan. In it we empha-
size not only what it cost but what does the investment buy.
A hallmark of that document is our concept of partnership. We
have 27 local governments, 3 State agencies, including our Depart-
ment of Transportation, our statewide land use agency, and our
Department of Environmental Quality, who are crucial partners to
us in making transit thrive in Oregon.
We see a transit system which has three active rail lines by the
year 2005 and three other lines in construction and planning. With
help which you gave us a year ago, we will, 60 days from now,
place an order for the first low floor light rail vehicles in North
America.
Our system will expand from 500 buses to 1,500 buses of all sizes
and all flexibility over the next 12 years. We have made a commit-
ment enthusiastically and aggressively to complying with ADA.
Like all agencies, like all growing concerns, we look to funding.
Our needs are principally capital funding. We will, in the current
rail line that we have under construction, make aggressive use not
only of section 3 appropriations but under the first full funding
grant agreement negotiated with FTA under ISTEA include STP
funds in the construction of that line.
We have simple rules for our capital projects. We finish them on
time, under budget, and without litigation.
This committee and the Congress have given us significant help
over the years. You, Senator Lautenberg, and your colleagues, in-
cluding Senator Hatfield, have been superb partners with us. For
a continuation of the efforts that you have put in place, we specifi-
cally urge full funding of ISTEA. We ask, last, that you continue
to demand not only of our agency but of all agencies real coopera-
tion both from transit and highway, that you require us to set ex-
pectations high and to meet those with performance.
PREPARED statement
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I will submit my prepared statement
to be inserted in the record.
[The statement follows:]
264
STATEMENT OF TOM WALSH
Mr. Chairaan, Members of the Committee. I am Tom Walsh, General
Manager, of Trl-Met In Portland, Oregon. I an honored and
privileged to appear before you today to discuss transit Issues
In our community.
We have been asked about transit needs and the federal role.
Clearly, we, like other systems, need financial help for the
maintenance and preservation of our fleet and for long term
expansion.
To put it quite succinctly, we need:
1. $110 million a year for the next four years to finish
the Wests ide light rail project
2. $19.5 million for bus replacements next year, and we
have made the application to FTA's regional office as part of the
President's stimulus package
3. Strong Section 3 new start appropriations and FHWA
Surface Transportation Program appropriations so that we may
finish a region wide twcstale Light Rail Transit system that
will cost over $4 billion
Innovation. Plexibllitv and Partnership
But today I would like to emphasize that our help from the
federal government can't be limited to funding. We need support
and help with innovative strategies that make transit work
better. We need more flexibility in using what funds are
available and we need encouragement to form partnerships with
federal as well as local agencies in forming solutions to the
problems of a growing urban environment.
Content
We are a mid-sized community. There are slightly more than one
million people in the Portland area.
We have 5B2 transit vehicles, 26 of them light rail vehicles. We
employ 1,750 persons, over 1,000 are bus and rail car. operators.
For seven years, since the start up of light railln 1986, we have
been riding a tide of success. Ridership la up, public approval
is in the 90 percentile. Development has surged around the rail
line. Transit Is seen as a key factor in housing, development/
clean air, economic development and congestion control.
Portland's comnitment to public transportation is now intense,
visible, and accepted.
But this hasn't always been the case. Public transit in Portland
has gone through a resurgence. Transit had 60 million riders a
year In 1946, but only 17 million in 1969.
How it has reappeared as an important ingredient In the Portland
area landscape, with 44 million passengers a year, an efficient
bus system, an elderly and handicapped system that carries
560,000 rides a year, and a modern and attractive rail line. We
carry 200,000 boarding riders a day, up front about 150,000 in
1987.
265
Three years ago the American Public Transit Association, awarded
Tri-Met the honor of being named "America's Best."
But it is not simply a love affair with trains and buses that
caused this resurgence.
Instead, it is a belief that the community of the future will be
a product of the wise use of the land and sensitive development
of the economy, innovation in investment and market strategies,
creation of strategic partnerships, and a commitment to well run
organizations. In short, a vision for the future and a plan to
get there.
These notions depend upon the presence of a transportation system
that balances the application of roads and public transit in a
tightly compact emerging community. The concepts that led to the
present commitment were:
1. The community's underlying values; what it has wanted
to be.
2. The development of transit as a strategy in a system
that supports density and orderly growths.
3. Establishing governmental partnerships as a tool for
community goals.
THE COMMUNITY'S UNDERLYING VALUES
Much has been said of Oregon, that we're conscious and
protective of our native environment, protective of our
neighborhoods, committed to conserving energy, and worked
hard to prevent urban sprawl.
The fact of the matter is that until 1972, the Portland
area's vision of itself was one that cut up the central city
and its neighborhoods with 54 urban freeways, turned its
back on the central business district in favor of suburban
development, in fact sprawl, and demanded the support of an
auto reliant transportation system that relied heavily on
fuel consumption from foreign sources, casting the transit
system adrift in a sea of inefficiency.
There was a revolution of sorts starting in 1972 that caused
the community to look at itself hard.
The transportation plan on the books at the time was the
Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area Transportation study
PVMETS). With 54 new freeways and expressways, it literally
would have cut up the community.
One of its freeway projects had just been added to the
interstate system, the Mt. Hood freeway. When the community
began to realize that it would remove one percent of the
housing stock of the city, and still not reach Mt. Hood, a
freeway revolt ensued,
A citizens' group called S.T.o.P. (Sensible Transportation
Options for People) was formed to kill the freeway.
At the same time as this uprising was causing a political
stir in Portland, the Environmental Protection Agency was
pressuring the city regarding the high level of air
pollutants and a constant day-to-day stream of violations of
federal standards-
266
Meanwhile/ development pressures were subdividing suburban
and even rural land, as residential coiwnunities, commercial
areas, and even In one glaring example, the campus of a
community college moved further away from the central city
into raw farmland.
The community took a good look at itself at about the time
of Neil Goldschmidt's election as mayor, and didn't like
what it saw. It. wanted something better for, its people. It
began to express that wish through countless hearings, and
finally, through the elective process.
As a result, a new city administration, the county, the
governor of the state, and the legislature, in the period
between 1972 and 1974, felt compelled to institute some
sweeping changes.
These changes envisioned a new and vibrant community that
would never be the same again.
Some of those changes were:
In 1972 - the adoption of the new Downtown Plan, followed in
1973 by the passage of the state's comprehensive land use
law, end the first steps taken to establish county-wide
zoning. (Figure 1)
These efforts directly described the kind of community the
people wanted to have. County-wide zoning actively began to
preserve farmlands with restrictions against selling off
parcels of large acreages. The downtown plan established a
people orientation with its requirement of 50 percent retail
use on all ground floor properties within a described area.
The comprehensive land use laws reflected the Interest in a
healthy urban environment with its emphasis on urban infill
and requirements for the establishment of an urban growth
boundary, beyond which there could be no subdividing.
The state land use laws as such, however, went far beyond
the narrow definition of land use. The 19 planning goals
for the state to which all communities must respond is a
statement of what the citizens of the state want for
themselves and all of its communities.
The city comprehensive plan emphasized densif icatlon as
opposed to sprawl in neighborhoods as well as downtown. Its
goals were to enhance the downtown as the retail, office,
and cultural and entertainment center of the metro area, it
called for a greater Increase In the number of residential
units downtown, required open spaces, and a return to the
Willatmette river as a central focus for the city.
Clearly, this meant amending the plan for more expressways
and freeways. As a result, In 1975, the metropolitan area
adapted an "Interim Transportation Plan." This plan relied
on large park and ride lots adjacent to freeways and other
major corridors. These corridors were then planned to have
special lemes for mass transit. (Figure 2)
REDUCING COKFLICTS AHO REDOCIHG RISK
The strategies that supported the community vision in
Portland acted to reduce the broad political conflict over
alternatives.
267
This is an inportant concept. In the absence of a clear set
of community goals, the conflict over land use would rage on
unabated. A key notion: land use conveys benefits, both to
private and public entities. A land use plan can state some
of the conununity's assumptions about itself and begin to
channel the discussion. The ultimate political decision
that had to be made was then served by a reduction in
conflict over alternatives.
When the Portland area started land use plemning efforts,
several Key assumptions led to strategies that had United
alternatives:
The notion that farmlands and tiraberlands need protection
led to the objectives to limit growth in non-urban areas.
This led to a strategy that actually prohibited urban
development in a non-urban setting. With the adoption of
the urban growth boundary around the metro region in the
late 70 's the conflict ceased. No development was allowed
outside the growth boundary. (Figure 3)
The downtown plan in 1972-1974 insisted on a greater people
emphasis. Thus, it was decided that between Third and 10th,
Alder and Salmon streets, 50 percent of the ground floor
development would be retail. The conflict over other uses
for that 50 percent, such as parking, office space, and
warehousing was, in effect, finished.
The concentration of retail development in the core, and the
limits on growth up to the boundary, served to resolve the
argument about what happened in between. In fact, it forced
the conclusion. And development of residential, commercial,
and industrial areas began to focus there.
It wasn't easy. Residents sometimes were restive at the
obvious implications of ♦'urban in-fill." The community was
going to get more dense. There were still conflicts, such
as "How dense is dense?" , but they were reduced, limited,
and focused.
In the central city, this meant zoning amendments would
allow mother-in-law apartments In old established single-
family neighborhoods.
In the core, it meant increased land values and high rise
development.
For transportation, it meant a new system to support
densities.
TRANSIT - THE STRATEGY FOR A NEW TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
The new transportation system finally grew out of the
political catharsis of the mid 1970's that surrounded the
community's struggle to establish a vision for the future.
This system canceled the freeways, extended bus service,
sited a Central Hall, established a parking lid and finally.
Instituted high capacity rail service.
1. The plan for freeways and expressways was abandoned.
This was a noisy and politically contentious decision.
But by withdrawing two segments of the Interstate,
significant monies were availeible for other
transportation projects, including rail transit.
268
Eventually 141 projects were built instead of two
freeways.
2. Bus service was greatly expanded.. In 1974, the hours
of service district-wide were increased 40 percent and
the fleet was greatly expanded. A strong, viable
alternative to the car was provided just as the air
pollution index in the city started to become
dangerous.
3« Transit Mall - Two city streets were dedicated to
exclusive transit use along the north-south spine of
the downtown area. It was in this area that the
downtown plan called for the city's highest densities.
Of Tri-Met's 71 lines, 45 run on the Mall. Even before
MAX, Tri-Met began to deliver 43 percent of the
downtown workers into the Hall. Private development
along the §17 nilllon Mall, since its conception, is
valued at $1.3 billion. (Figure 4)
4. A downtown parking lid was established. The policy of
requiring new buildings downtown to have a miniraura of
parking spaces was reversed. Now, they have a naxinun.
And that maximum is given at the consent of City Hall,
The application of the lid had two results: use of
mass transit dramatically increased, vehicular traffic
into the downtown remained at about the 1975 level for
10 years, with only slight increase since then.
But the roost import factor was that employment
increased about one-third while traffic into downtown
remained the same.
5. Rail service was established from Portland's downtown
eastward to the suburban community of Gresham.
Ridership on the new system was immediately nearly one-
third more than expected and has grown steadily at
about 14 percent a year in the peak periods.
Two things have happened. 1) Interest In development
along the rail line, or as Portlanders call it the MAX
line (Metropolitan Area Express) has soared, and 2)
Interest in more rail lines, including vintage trolley
lines, has virtually consumed the attention of
planners, politicians, and ordinary citizens.
Development along the MAX line since the decision to
construct was made and has resulted in 5.9 million
square feet of commercial and retail development valued
at $690 million. Another $440 nilllon is being
planned.
This has led directly to an interest in rail service to
six other suburban communities surrounding the city.
This will cost at least $4.0 billion and seems
unattainable to many. However, this first leg of the
expansion, a Westward extension, has already received
funding from your committee, it will open in September
1997. (Figure 5)
Innovation and Partnership
Transit has to be a strategy, not a goal. It's not just the
efficient running of the bus and rail operations we concern
269
ourselves with, but also clean air, disabled access, the strength
of the central business district.
This has taken partnership with others, and the development of
innovation in our own service to help meet community goals. We
have brought on compressed and liquid natural gas buses with the
help of the Northwest Natural Gas Co.; developed a proposal for
low floor light rail wheels with the assistance of the disabled
community.
We have kept a high base of off-peak service hours to help with
shopping tripS/ as well as the work trips served in the peaks.
We developed timed transfers to speed up suburban service during
the peak. We successfully developed an honor fare system for use
on the rail system, which greatly adds to its efficiency at
little cost. At the same time we tried the honor fare system-
wide, and found that it didn't work well. An example of the idea
that if you don't fail once in a while, it means you didn't try.
A number of our goals would not have been attainable without the
following federal innovations:
- 90 percent match for ADA compliance
- Flexibility for Surface Transportation funds. One-
third of the Hillsboro segment of our new rail line will be
built with STP funds.
- Flexibility of the previous Interstate Transfer
program. Without that program's flexibility the current LRT
line could not have been built. Our Section 3 usage there
was limited to 29 percent.
What would help in the future would be these further actions:
1. Increase funding for the surface Transportation Program
in order to Increase flexibility and the ultimate funding of
transit capital.
2. Incentives iri funding that reward land use actions.
Transit projects are more effective and highway expenditures are
needed less with land use actions that encourage density.
3. Evaluation of transit projects for federal funding
should give greater consideration to community land use rules,
particularly urban containment and density rules,
4. Funding incentives, such as Increased match ratios,
could encourage greater utilization of the pongestion mitigation
and air quality authority in the ISTEA.
5. Assistance with cash flow problems. The state's
revolving loan fund can only be replenished by toll revenues. If
authority existed to replenish these funds with any revenues,
this program could be more useful.
Similarly, the contingent commitment authority in the ISTEA
would be extremely helpful If it were possible to use it as a
back up for contracted but not yet appropriated funds. The final
slowdown that might be experienced by limited yearly
appropriations could then be alleviated.
6. Communities contemplating entire rail systems should be
encouraged to do so, particularly when offsets to highway
construction are contemplated. The present one-corridor-at-a-
time rule is an obstacle In timely system development.
270
STATEMENT OF EARL BLUMENAUER
Mr. Walsh. I would like to introduce Commissioner Earl
Blumenauer from the city council in Portland.
Mr. Blumenauer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will use the re-
mainder of our time to just give you three brief messages. One is
to express our appreciation from the Portland region for the flexi-
bility we had 20 years ago that rescued us from a transportation
plan that doomed us to an auto-dependent solution where 1 out of
every 10 people in our community would either live next to a free-
way or be displaced by one.
We traded those freeways in. We built the first leg of our light
rail system. We renovated existing facilities. And, most impor-
tantly, we spent 57 percent of that money outside Portland, with
our regional partners, tr3dng to manage the system. For that flexi-
bility and that resource, we thank you.
Second, I am here to report that we are using the flexibility and
the resources under ISTEA as the cornerstone of our State trans-
portation financing package. Using that flexibility to be the
linchpin, we are putting all of those flexible resources into transit,
backfilling with increased proposals for transportation funding
which will enable us to put together a balanced system that brings
together rural and urban, highway transit, bicycle, and pedestrian
issues I think in the best tradition of what you were seeking with
ISTEA. We are absolutely committed to following through on that
principle, and it is making a great difference in our State already.
Finally, I am here to plead that if, in fact, you go forward with
the stimulus package — which we all do, there are tremendous
unmet needs in our community and around the country for tran-
sit— to plead that you force local governments and State govern-
ments to prove that they are integrating transportation, land use,
housing, into an integrated package to coax the most out of those
resources. Demand of us — whether it is through a bonus provision
or a threshold requirement I am not here to speak — but demand
that we prove that we are achieving the partnership that Mr.
Walsh talked about, that we are making sure that we are spending
those dollars in effect two, three, four times over — for cleaner air,
for greater mobility, for sounder land use, for getting the most out
of all our resources.
I think that is what leverage is about. The Federal Government
is uniquely positioned to carry us in that next generation of activi-
ties.
What you have done is made the difference for our community,
allowing us to trade in the freeway. ISTEA is making the dif-
ference in bringing us together. We hope that you will challenge us
for the next step with a stimulus package. Reward us for doing the
right thing.
prepared statement
~~~~ SenatorJLAUTENBERG. Thank you. We have your complete state-
ment and it will be made part of the record.
[The statement follows:]
271
STATEMENT OF EARL BLUMENAUER
Mr. Chairman and nenbers of the Committee, thank you for this
opportunity to appear before you today. I am honored to be here
today representing the Portland region. I want to start by
congratulating you on the innovative surface transportation bill
passed by Congress in Deoenber, 1991. The Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEX) has had a trenendously
positive inpaot on transportation policies and investment in the
State of Oregon and In the Portland region.
Oregon's use of the ISTEA's flexible fund provisions began
shortly after the bill was enacted. In the spring of 1992, the
Portland region and the State of Oregon each committed $22 million
of Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds for the extension of
the Hestside Light Rail Project to Hillsboro. The commitment of
STP funds to this one highly visible project was soon translated
into a broader vision for financing the state's transportation
system.
In September 1992, the state, in partnership with cities,
counties, and other transportation stakeholders completed the Oregon
Transportation Plan. This plan, which was developed over a year
and a half, is Oregon's first long range, comprehensive, multi-
modal transportation plan. The Plan describes a system of road,
transit, rail, port and aviation improvements for the State of
Oregon. The Oregon Transportation Plan and a biennial review of
unmet road and bridge needs, have resulted in the development of
a transportation financing package which is now before the Oregon
Legislature. What Is unique about the transportation finance
package is the way in which the federal flexibility will be used.
The Constitution for the state of Oregon, like many other
states, limits the use of revenue collected from the ownership.
272
use, or operation of notor vehicles to expenditures in roads and
bridges. With a daunting $19 billion unmet need for Oregon's roads
and bridges over the next twenty years, battle lines are quickly
drawn when talk turns to using revenues currently dedicated to
roads, for alternative oodes of transportation. The challenge for
transportation stakeholders was to devise a financing package that
invests in transit, denand, management and bicycle and pedestrian
paths but not at the expense of roads. The ISTEA has provided a
unique solution for Oregon. Stakeholders have agreed -to dedicate
federal Surface Transportation Program funds to alternative modes
of transportation, in combination with a substantial increase in
the gas tax. Part of the gas tax increase will "backfill** STP funds
transferred to other nodes, the remainder will be used to meet road
and bridge needs.
Another central feature of the state transportation finance
package is a vehicle emission fee. This fee, is passed, will be
a key component of the state's ozone maintenance plan for the
Portland region that is required by the Clean Air Act Amendments.
The emission fee will bo based on the emission rating of the vehicle
and the vehicle miles travelled per year. The idea of the emission
fee is to promote a market based solution to air pollution and to
move away form regulatory actions. Revenue from the fee will bo
used to make transportation improvements that clean the air. A
substantial portion of the fee revenue will go towards transit
expansion.
Opportunities for innovation such as those opposed in Oregon
exist in every state. Federal programs and funding can be used
as leverage at the local level to complement and shape the programs
that the states implement. The ISTEA and the clean Air Act
amendments are helping the Portland region achieve long standing
goals for maintaining a liveable community.
273
Transportation systems are one of the nost Inportant elenents
in helping coBnunities remain livable. Light rail is at the core
of the Portland region's strategy for maintaining a livable
coBiMunity. In the next twenty years the Portland region's
population is expected to increase by half a nlllion people. That
is slightly more than the total number of people who reside in the
City of Portland today. The way in which we accommodate the
increase in travel demand that will accompany this growth will
determine the livability of our community.
We know that the transportation system alone will not make a
livable community. Through Oregon's land use planning program, now
over twenty years old, and Washington state's Growth Management Act,
the region is developing an efficient urban form that reduces the
need to travel, preserves inportant greenspaces, provides affordable
housing and conserves energy.
In the late 1970 's the region took its first major step toward
this livable future when it used the federal freeway withdrawal
program to invest funds in the construction of the first 15 miles
of a light rail system known as MAX - the Metropolitan Area express.
Nothing has contributed more to the renaissance of downto«m Portland
and the close-in east side area than the existence of MAX — a
comprehensive, transit-oriented transportation facility that
supports our land use goals. In 1990, voters of the Portland
Metropolitan Area affirmed its support for accommodating growth with
high capacity transit when they passed by 74 percent a $125 million
general obligation bond measure to finance the local share of the
Westside Light Rail Project.
With the help of Congress, we have authorization for the
Westside Project and will begin construction soon. Currently, this
Region is in the process of selecting corridors for a north/south
light rail line that will rxin from Clark County, Washington to
274
Clackamas County Oregon -- the end of the Oregon Trail, whose
sesquicentennial the nation celebrates thia year.
The Portland region is committed to continuing, and exceeding,
past efforts to develop a livable and efficient region:
* We will continue and expand our regional partnership with
our neighbors in Washington state for a bi-state
partnership for both light rail between the two states
and for the establishment of high rail speed rail from
Seattle to Eugene.
* We will seek local financial coonitment to the north/south
light rail line through enactment of legislation in Oregon
and the creative use of Surface Transportation funds.
* We will continue to be creative in our growth management
and transportation programs by considering further use
of parking management and through the investigation of
congestion pricing.
* We will continue to act now — before the traffic
congestion and air quality problems become a brake on our
growth and our quality of life.
Federal innovation has made the difference for our region from
the freeway funding transfer in the 1970 's to ISTEA in the l990's.
We stand willing to go the extra mile with you to prove the power
and wisdom of this federal partnership.
It is not just a question of more money. (But make no mistake,
we do need more money in our community and around the country.)
The question is how to wisely spend those additional dollars
275
aoaording to plans integrating land use, housing and transportation.
Our light rail system has proven to be a catalyst leading to cleaner
air, energy conservation, more efficient infrastructure investments
and more money from more partners. All this means aore and better
choices for how our coninunity manages growth and change.
The parade of people coming to Portland looking at how we've
put the pieces together suggest we are doing something right. He
could not be a national model without innovative federal help. We
respectfully suggest that by rewarding this type of investment
strategy and innovation in Portland you will be sending the right
signals to the nation and you will show the way for federal dollars
to have more impact.
276
&TRI-MET
■\
TRWVIET
Strategic Plan
Pursuing a
Shared Vision
CONTENTS
Quality of Life:
A Matter of Choice
The case fi)ra regional vision
and strirtcgy
Lessons learned from Seattle;
Vancouver J B.C.
A Vision for Growth and
Livabiiity
' One vision of the re>*ion 20 years
from now
Growth and a Sense of
Cotnfnunity
Pactntrships to acliieve a livable
future
The Challenge to Tri-Mef
Tri'Met's role in achieving llie
vision
Tri-Met's Mission and
Goals ^
A foldout of Tri-Met's draft
' Strategic Plan
Business Plan .
December 1992
277
\
Tri-Met Board of Directors
Loren Wyss, President ■ Robert Bocci .
Pl)il Bogue Nita Brueggeman >'
Sliirley Huffman 3M Robertson
Ron Tonkin - ' ' .
Strategic Plan Working Group
!Tom Walsh I BoG Post
Bill Robertson Nita Brueggeman '
Bruce Marder , . Dick Feeney ^
DougCapps: . Bill Allen
Dan Hoyt David Calver
G. B. Arrington,, Project Manager .
Karl Maflantes, Consultant . '' . ' -
Paula Coppel, Consultant
•., - ■ • -• ■■ , '; « .
' ' t ; *
5-Year-Plan Working Group ' ' i
RickGerhart .Ken Zatarain"
Claire Cushman ,' Ross Roberts
. /
I - "• N • .
- I ^ - , .
Production and Design ^
Warren Schlegel JeffFrane v
Diana Smith
\ |'MiiH"lf f Hr. ^.i(-1I' 11.^
278
Dear Friend,
The Portland metropolitan area is facing a critically important decision:
How call we accommodate 500,000 more people over the next 20 years without
sacrificing our high quality of life?
A number of local jurisdictions and public agencies have been trying to
address that question through their long-range plans and strategies. The attached
docuinent expresses Tri-Met's view, and suggests one way all of us in the region can
join efforts to create the kind of future we want.
This document is the second draft of Tri-Met's strategic plan. You may he
one of tiic 5000 individuals who received and reviewed the first draft. Most of the
people who commented on the first draft encouraged us to pursue the vision laid out
in the plan; they also recommended some changes and additions. This new version
reflects the helpful feedback we received from people throughout the region as well
as our own employees.
. The main focus continues to be on maintaining rnobility and livability as the
region grows. Specifically, the new draft:
• • Has a stronger regional orientation; • . ' . .
• Provides more detail on obr suggested vision and ho\y to achieve it;
• Recognizes moreTully the essential role our employees will play in achieving tlie
vision and Tri-Met's specific goals; •
• Describes in more detail the land use implications of the vision, and Tri-Met's
anticipated role in that arena; -
• Includes a separate section on regional partnerships to underscore the impor-
tance of mutual support and cooperation; and
' • ■ Describes the funding that will he needed to support the level of transit service
implied by the vision, as well as possible sources of funding.
We have tried to address most of the concerns raised by those who reviewed
draft one. If you have comments on this draft, please contact Tri-Mct Public
Affairs, 4012 SE 17th Avenue, Portland, OR 97202. or call 238-4960T The plan will
be presented to the Tri-Met Board of Director^ for a public hearing Jan. 27, 1993 -
at 3:30 p.m. In Room C of the Portland Building, 11 20 SW Fifth Avenue, Portland.
While this report is Tri-Met's strategic plan, it is clearly a regional document.
We hope it will be refined, shared and "owt^ed" by our partners throughout the
metropolitan area.
Circulating this second draft gives us a chance to ask: Is this what you want from
Tri-Met.' And, if so, are you willing to help pay for it?
"Tliank you for taking the time to work with us on this document. Your thought-
ful comments and suggestions will help us develop a final strategic plan that is
supported by the region and reflects the wants "and needs of the>customers we serve.
Loren Wyss ^ Tom Walsh
President of the Board General Manager
279
Quality of Life
A matter of choice
Today the Portland metropolitan area — .from Forest
Grove, to Troutdale, Vancouver to EstacaJn — ofTcis a (|tiality
of life that is the envy of much of the nation. Vibrant commu-
nities, beautifiil parks, stable neighborhoods, cultural opportu-
nities, inrwvative development, model transportation and
trend'Settir^g environmental initiatives all contribute to a way
of life that is cherished and ufiique,
"Y^e^' ^ t^^ region's population increases,
our quality of life is at risk. There is a .
■ real danger that rapid growth could
diminish much of the progress and good
deeds that have shaped this area into the
' special place it is today. : '
The people of our region are becoming increasingly
concerned. They know that, over the next 20 years, even
at historic rates of growth^ the region's population is
expected to increase by 500,000 : — the equivalent of . ,
another city the size of Portland. That's faster than the
entire state of Oregon grew in the 1980s. , . •
The most common fear Is that.major and rapid growth
could cause our region tp lose its livability. Even citizens
who welcome the economic benefits of grbwth worry that
it will make our cities and towns less people-friendly.
That's what has happened to other-gtpwing metropoli-
' tan areas: Livability declined as the population increffaed.
' Unbridled growth led to urban sprawl, traffic jams, dirty air
atxl decaying downtowns.' .
That needri't be the case in our region. \X/e can hw\d on
oi4r post iuccaxs m growth 'manag<iment. Traffic congestion,
air pollution, and other urban problems are not an inevi-
table part of growth — they are the result of growing tlie
wrong way.
280
The fact is: Wq have a choice. W.^can accommodate
growth in ways the^t wi)l allow us to maintain our quahty of
life even as the population grows: But if we as a region
don't make a conscious choice to follow that path, we will
.inevitably fall prey to the same forces that have ruined the -
livabilitypfother major American cities, y
• The first step is to recognize the challenge before us.
TTien we as a region lAust rise to meet it. . ■ '
Current Trends ^re Troubling . - ■ >.
Despite, the region's past achievement^, some of the ; '
current trends are. troubling.
• I raf/ic congestion is increasing. A recent Vurvey of .
residents in Washington and Clackamas counties shqwed
traffic was the number one concern. Light, rail on the'west
side will alleviate some of the traffic in Washington
County, but it cannot do the job alone. Light rail will
mainly just keep cohgestiori from getting wane. . •
\4 ost disturbing is tbe fact that even if the
, region is successful in.carrying out its cur' -
■ rent land use and transportation plans, traffic'
congestion could still more than double. . ' ;
The fact that our highways are overloaded underscores a
second major concern: InKginc investment in public works
Regional Rail System
f /
•
p3 ■ -^S^v^^RT
|bVANCOUVER ' ,
■• 1^ .-[
\ Z, AIRPORT^'^
^'^^lllfc
1 ^^ ■
•^?^
HIUSBORO PORTUND^
^^^S^ WE9T8IDE MAX - jKk
\ — (_ -^^^ EXISTING MAX
■EAWERTON ^^^
m^
GREiHAM
TIGARD
^^ CLACKAMAS
■■■
Opening the Westside
Project in 1998 i< the next >
link in' the development b( ,
(he proposed regional light
rail syatem.
281
San Francisco Bay Area
Traditional Neighborhoods
Made 42% Fewer
Automobile Trips
9 Trips
Per Day
11 Trips
Per Day
Standard
Suburtan
Communities
, Traditional
Pre-1950
Communities
Transll/
Walk/
Bike
Auto
Source: Fehr & Peers Associalies, 1992
Compact growth can cause a reduction in total
trips and an increase in traiisit use! '
; — IncluJing' transportation, wastewater, storm sewers an«J
other utilities. In transportation alone, according to the
Oregon Department of Transportation, the region as a'
whole is $10 billion shorj of the funding needed to restore
and maintain its deteriorating roads.
The question at this point is not whether we will fall short
in necessary investments like new roads and transit, but by
how miich. The mote carefully we plan for growth, the more
efficiently we can provide these public services to our citizens.
Air quality is another source of concern. The number
of vehicle miles traveled in our regioii has been growing by '
about 6 percent a year. To keep the air clean and safe and
meet federal clean air guidelines, we will need to reduce
that to only 2" to 4 percent a year — or face tough federal
mandates and higher costs to industry to force compliance,
which could lead to loss of jobs and slower economic
growth. ■ -
< While the pressure is mounting to reduce vehicular,
travel in the region, the current pattern of growth will
result in more trips and more travel by automobile.
Growing Outward Means
More Travel, Less Transit
Our region is currently growing outward rather than
inward, through compact "development. TTie pattern that
is emerging is one of sprqwl within the urban growth
boundary (UGB). Growth is generally being contained
within the UGB, but, according to a State of Oregon
' study, it is occurring on average at only 70 percent of
pla.nned densities, intetisifying the pressure to expand the
UGB. If current patterns continue, future growth will
maiiily occur on the fringes of the UGB — or, if the
existing boundary is expanded, onto neighboring farm and '
forest lands. ^ • ' *
Spreading out presents two problems: First, it causes '
the number of vehicular trips to increase at a fate even
faster than the population. In Oregon in the 1980s, the
nuinber of vehicle miles traveled increased eight times
" faster than the population. , ^ ■ '
Second, this land use pattern cannot be served cost-
effeCtively by transit. Buses and light rail are simply not an
^ efficient choice for low-density, dispersed development.
A study.of different neighborhoods in the San Fraii-
cisco area revealed the dramatic difference in the number
of automobile trips between people living in low-density '■
standard suburban developments and those in compact
282
traditional neighborhoods. Residents in pre-1950 tradi-
tional neighborhoods made 42 percent fewer trips by car
" than their suburban counterparts. The San Francisco study
found that a doubling of density resulted in a 30 percent
drop in the number of vehicle miles traveled. . -•
In our region, current projections show the number of"
total trips within the suburbs will increase by 72 percent
over the next 20 years. Evenjvith a majbr increase iri .^ .
transit service, the percentage of those trips served by
transit, will stay at today's level of 1 percent. Unless
development in outlying areas becomes more clustered and ■
transit-oriented, the percentage of suburban trips being
taken on bus and light rail is not expected to change at all.
Contained growth -^ moving "in" rather than "out" -~
can allow a community to fully use transit as a way to • . '
maintain mobility while accbmmodatihg growth. /
Two West Coast citief — Seattle and Vancouver, B.C.,
-^ provide striking examples of how mobilityand livability
arc affected when a community grows outward instead of
inward.
Seattle: 'Paradise Lost' , ■
In the early 1980t, Seattle was considered one of the
most livable cities in the country. Now, just a decade .
later, it is listed as the sixth mojt Congested urban area in
the United States. In recent times, the Puget Sound.arca ,
has been referred to as "paradise lost."
What happened tft cause such a dramatic decline in
one decade? Ppmarily, rapid, uncontrolled growth. The
\
.Rx for Gridlock
Seattle: F*ercent Growth Irom 1970
Source: Pufl«l Sound Cowtdl oLGovwnmoon
87%
136%
46%
38%
18%
1990
1980
io%
1
1
1
1990
1980
Population
Developed Land Vehicle Miles Traveled
Portland is currently ,
following the same trends
that overtook Seadle: land <
consumed at a faster rate
than population growth,
increased dependence on the
automobile, and an explo-
sion in vehicle miles
traveled. /
283
Seattle region grew by 500,000 people in the 1980s. How-
ever, it had no overall vision or strong planning to guide
its growth. As a result, the region slid into a pattern of
sprawl. From 1970 to 1990, die population grew by 38
percent — while the amount of larid developed increased
by 87 percent.
Outward growth (ed to greater reliance on the auto-
mobile. Consequently, vehicle miles traveled went up 136
percent from 1970 to 1990 — almost four times as much as
. the population. At the same time, the level of funding for
transportation dropped in terms of real dollars.
Seattle is now trying to play "catch-up," but the costs
are enormous. Once a community has spread out, it is
nearly impossible to reverse the trend. Tlic Seattle region
has identified the need for more than $20 billion in capital
investments and $10 billion in opera'tions and mainte-
nance to improve transportation over the next 30 years: ■
That total of^30 billion would not reduce today's level of
congestion, but would only keep it from getting signifi-
(cantly worse. ' , "
. - Seattle did not have the advantage the Portland .'
. region has of well-established lahd use planning. It grew
"out" not "in" — and has paid dearly in terms of traffic
jams, gridlock and lost liyability.
Vancouver: A Better Way To Grow
The Vancouver, British Columbia, area has managed
its growth differently. 'Through careful planning, clustered
development and a pervasive commitment to transit, the
metropolitan area has become a thriving, growing region
that works — a bustling place as renowned for its charm,
mobility and livability as its spectacular physical beauty.
Tlic characteristics of the Vancouver area today are
similar to what we might expect or hope fof in the Port- •
land area by the year 2020. • '
XTancbuver currently has one-third
more people than Portland; only one-
third higher density; and three times the
transit ridership. . * •
In Vancouver, 10 percent of all trips and 17 percent of
work trips are taken on transit. In Portland, while over 40
percent of downtown Portland work trips are on" transit,
only 3 percent-of all trips and 7 percent of work trips arc
taken on transit. '
284
Vancouver's progress can be traced to its citizens'
longstanding support for transit and land use planning.
In the 1960s, when many cities^were investing in the
construction of freeways, the people of Vancouver opposed
them. They preferred expanding their bus and trolley
scrvite and, eventually, adding the ScaBus cross-iharbor
ferry system, and the Sky Train advanced light rail system. ■
TcxJay Vancouver is the only city in North America with
less than one mile of freeway within its city limits.
Vancouver is Canada's fastest growing city. Thai; growth
has brought problems, but Vancouver's population continues
to make choices that support compact development and
transit use.' Under the area's "Livable Region Strategy,"
growth has been focused in large regional town centers that are
linked to Vancouver by Sky Train and buses. . ' .
A Matter of Choice
The Portland metropolitan area is at a critical cross-
roads. We can grow like Seattle, or we can grow like •
Vaticouver. We have a choice. . - !• ■ •
However, judging by the experience of other cities, we '
need to act now. We cannot rest on our past successes. If
we do, our future will be decided for us. Inerti^ will lead us
into the same fate of undisciplined growth, traffic jams,
dirty air and lost livability that has befallen other growing
American cities.
Sprawling, congestion-cldgged cities like Los Angeles
and Seattle are the way they are today not because their ■
people want them that way, but because they missed the
chance to make their choice. 'Seattle had its opportunity
in the mid-1970s to plan for growth, and let it slip away.-
Now it is our turn. We have already applied sothe tech-,
hiques that work. Downtown Portjand, like Vancouver,
provides ^n example of growing the right way. The key ele-
ments in Portland's success were the downtown plan and an
investment in transit. Tlie downtown area has grown from
56,000 jobs in 1975 to 86,000 plus jobs today — an increase of
more than 50 percent. At the same time, air quali^ has -
improved and traffic congestion has not increased.
The challenge now is to build on our successes. There ij a ;
way to grow and still keep our livability, and we as a region can ■
achieve it ^ — if we have the collective will to do so. -
A Vision for
Growth and
Liability
285
To de'cide how to grow, the region must first determine
what it wants to look like. What follows is one vision o"f
how the Portland metropolitan area might look 20 years
from now:
Our region is a bustling metropolitan, area with
some 2 million people, set off fron^ surrounding farm
and forest lands by a distinct, unchanging urban
growth boundary. The air is clean and the landscape
a striking balance of attractive, well-planned devel-
opment and natural beauty>
The region has retained its unique charm and
llvability, despite substantial growth in recent years. '
People enjoy working, playing ahd living here.
Ample parks and open spaces complement vibrant
urban centers. The comfortable pace of life contrib-
utes, to people caring about and interacting with one
another to a degree unheard of in other fast-growing
metropolitan areas. .
Cars, buses and light rail trains move throughout
the region at a steady, continuous pace.' The trans-
portation network, including.a five-line light rail
system (with one more line under construction) and
major transit corridors, accommodates travel be-
tween and within our cities, and provides the back-
bone connecting develofJment throughout the .
region.- In all parts of the area, development is lo^ .
cated near and afouhd transit stops.
:*"S^
Source: Catthorpe Associates
68-623 O— 93-
-10
286
A 11 of the region's cities have used their
land carefully to avoid sprawl. The
• - ''_-.■'
downtown areas of cities like Beaverton,
' ■ ' -
Hillsboro and Gresham are thriving,
people-oriented places, where jobs, » , -
shops, services, schools and parks are
conveniently located together within
. walking or biking distance of transit -
stops and a variety of housing options
that surround the downtown core.
Portland's central city, redeveloped land and revital'
ized neighborhoods have strengthened and
reinvigorated the city. Much of the new development -
along Portland's major streets and rail lines consists of 3>
or 4'rstory multi-family units over street level .shops.
There is good pedestrian access to services and shop-
ping, and good transit access to employment.
In other parts of the region, new communities
have been created around major transit stops. At
stations such as the Sunset Highway/2 1-7 interchange
and Clackamas Town Center, the development is
self-contained, offering local choices of services and
schools within walking distance. The center of
many of these "villages" consists of a transit staUon • .
and central park, surrounded by a main street or
square of shops, offices, restaurants, smaller busi-
nesses, child care facilities and recreational opportu-
nities. . In some locations^ multi-family housing is
located near the central park. Walking paths and -
bike paths connect the entire community, g
- The region's commitment to sensible growth and _
transit-oriented development has provided practical
alternatives to the automobile aiKl the attendant air
pollution and traffic jams.
The percentage of total trips taken on transit
(including buses, light rail, pbuttles and van pools iu
well as. taxis) is as high'in our inelh>politan ■rea.aa
anywhere else in the country. ^ • . •' '
Residertts find the lifestyle here stimulating and
"Before
Rldtoril Pouil*. AIA
287
satisfying. They enjoy the amenities of a major city
wtthout^e associated sprawl, congestion, crime,
crowding and tensions found elsewhere. In our
fegion, livability is still prized, and 'citizens and juris'
dictions w6rk together to protect and enhance it.
As fof Tti-Met itself, we envision:
An agency that leads the nation ini the
quality, integrity and success of its tran'
sit system. Tri-Met operates an excep-
tional regional rail system, comple-
mented by a network of major bus corri-,
dors that provide fast, frequent, conve- .
nient service to key destinations. The
' agency also provides personalized service
With its neighborhood mini-buses that '
link residents to the bps corridors and
regional railif ' -"
Tri-Met works closely with Ipcal jurisdictions,
decbion-makers,and developers to encourage land
use and transportation patterns that enhance the
region's mobility and livability. The agency's public
approval rating is high. Tri-Met is well-funded and
Well-supported at both the state and local levels, and
at the federal level, where Tri-Met is considered a •
model for the country. - " "
Tri-Met's employees are ^mong the best and
brightest in the Northwest. They are actively in-
volved in problem-solving within the agency, and
find their ideas for improvement are frequently
implemented. Two-way communication is integral
to the agency's method of operation. Managers
freely and openly share information with each other
and with employees, and employees continually
' contribute ideas for improving customer service.
Each employee understands Tri-Met's mission
and goals, the obstacles that^must.be overcome to
achieve them, and what he or she can do to contrib-
ute to Tri-Met's success. ' ' . '
288
Outstanding customer 'service is a shared passion, .
and employees roif tinely ask themselves, "What will
this do to help us attract br keep more customers?"
Tlie philosophy at Tri-Met is: "Customers, one at a
time." While the agency serves the endre region, it
treats its customers as individual, and strives to satisfy
them just that way: one at a time.
■ ■• 'i •
■'.■■■ ■ , > . ■
■ •**"■'. . ' .■ t
■■'■ 1 '.: ..••
289
Growth and a
Sense of :
Community
/Ttie vision suggests ways ,in which we as a
region can enjdy ithe economic benefits of
growth while still preserving our smiall-' .
town cha^ and livability. Through well- »
planned communities, our region can^c-
commodate more residents while still offer-
' . ing a lifestyle that is pleasant and comfort- -
able. Whether in the suburbs, downtown
Portland ojr in a new mixed-use neighbor-
hood, people can live in places where they
know their neighbors and' local merchants, , .
and can walk to schools, parks, the comer' .
grocery, heigjiborhbod restaurants, the post
pfficej-transit stations, shops and other .
' ■ ^ services. •, ,
This clustering of development offers other benefits as
; welhTheopportunity for all of us to breatheclean air; get
where we want to go quickly and easily; live in the type of
housing we want and cap afford; rriinimize our tax dollars
for public servjces; enjoy safer streets and neighborhoods;
■ and take greater advantage of green and open spaces iti our
. communities. Such a pattern would not only enhance our
eyeryplay life, it would put this region on the niap as one of
. the only mettopolitan areas in the country that has been , '
able to groxy while actually improving its livability. ^
V^hile achieving the vision would be a significant
,accomplishment,-it would not require a major departure
from some of tRe things we are doing today. Many of the
' cothponents for the.visibn already exist throughout the
region. For example, state law already requires that half of
all new housing in the metropolitan area be multi-family
bousing. Foi; the last 10 years, the real estate market has
been meeting that goal. However, many of the multiple
family housing developntients have been located on the
■ fringes of the urban erowth boundary, and arc difficult to ,
290
serve by transit. The vision would have us meet those
same customer needs, improve on the response by mixing
in other uses (such as retail, commercial, and recreational),
and locate the new development in a transit corridor. The
resulting mixed-use communities will be attractive places
to live, work, shop, play, fall in love and raise children.
Otherwise, the market will not support them because v
people won't want to live there.
Whose Vision Is It?
While the vision as stated here has been proposed by ' ,
Tri-Met, many of the same principles and values have been
advanced by others throughout the region. A number of
local jurisdictions and state and regional agencies.have
been developing long-range plans.
'T'he common thread in each of theoi is a
recognized need to change current patterns
of growth which, if unchecked, will lead to a
serious deterioration in the region's livability.
• , The City of Beaverton in its Downtown Development
Plan calls for promoting downtown Beaverton "as a •
public transit and pedestrian-oriented district"; for
concentrating new commercial development in a "
compact area to facilitate pedestrian access; and for
increasing the supply of close-in multi-family housing,
linked to the downtown core by transit. ^
• In its vision for the future, the City of Gresham calls .
for the creation of a downtown mixed-use center
organized around light rail that includes a high-density
reuil core with multi-stOry office buildings, surrounded
//
Beaverton Civic Center: Transit PUza Concept
(Soanet Banttaa DvwMowii Ptw)
291
Metro 2040:
Alternative Growth Concepts
Continuing with Current Poiicies
Growing Inside the Urban Growth
Boundary
Communities Growing at the Edg6
Metro's 2040 process is the (orum for
developing a consensus on a vision for how
the region wants to grow, ~
by residential and commercial buildings. CJresham's
plan also calls for neighborhood comttiunity tenters
and "liye-wbrk" communities linked to downtown
■ Gresham via trarisit, mixed-use development along the
light rail corridor, and expanded public, transit includ-
ing a downtown light rail loop, bus service, shuttles
■ and park-and-rides. ■ ^
• 1000 Friend_s of Oregon, in its LUTRAQ (Making the
Land Use Transportation Air Quality Connection)
' study, envisions a new land use developmrnt pattern
that encourages a reduction in the number of auto trips
and vehicle miles traveled "by creating opportunities
to walk, bike and use transit." LUTRAQ also strongly
.advocates transit-oriented development and "the
maximum use of existing urbanized areas accessible to
transit through sensitive infill and rfedevelopment."
Clearly, there is no shortage of support for carefully- '
managed growth. But with so many organizE^tions tackling
the issue fipm different perspectives, the question arises:
How can we-as a region coordinate our efforts and work
together to achieve one overall vision for this metropoli-
tan area?" The answer lies in one word: Parinerships.
• . - ■ '
Regional Partnerships: Working
Together to Shape Our Future
Tri-Met is eager to work with its regional partners to
achieve a vision we all agree on. Leaders, organizations
'and citizeris in the metropolitan area will need to wor|c
together to pursue ^he deSired changes.
TTiree areas requiring cooperation are of partidular
concern to Tri-Met:
l.« Defining the vision,
2. Identifying funding for traiisit expansion, and .
3. Achieving the desired land use patterns.
Defining the ^^ion . .^ \ , •
While there is some healthy overlap among many of the
plans being put forth in the state and region, the metropolitan
area as a whole has not yet reached a coiisensus on Its vision,
for the future. The proper forum for developing that consen-
sus is Metro's Region 2040, at) effort now underway to plan for
the region's future thrpu^ the year 2040. The 2040 activities
provide a vehicle for the community to discuss alternative
ways to grow and address the txade-offs jh choosing.one
approach over another. ' . -
292
Metro has circulated a publication that presents three
development patterns to be evaluSited in 1993 through the
Region 2040 process. One of the concepts offered —
•Concept B — includes many of the same principles advo-
cated by Tri-Met. Concept B would accommodate growth
within today's urban growth boundary by using land more
effectively, increasing redevelopment, mainly along major
transportation corridors, and encouraging clustered, com-
munities with mixed uses and pedestrian amenities.
But before tTJese or any other ideas can be pursiied,
agencies and jurisdictions in the region must be committed '
to a cornmon vision.
For its part, Tri-Met will modify its strategic plan to
reflect the results of 2040 and expects the rest of the region
to do the same with their plans. Tri-Met will need a clear
understanding of what the region wants and expects from
its transit agency. Then Tri-Met 'will need the help of its
regional partners in meeting those expectatioris.
•' The support and involvement of others will.be espe-
cially important in two key areas: identifying funding for,
transit and achieving desired land use patterns.
Identifying Funding for Transit
To achieve the level of transit expansion suggested in all of
the region's currently adopted plans, or any of the Metro 2040
concepts, Tri-Met will need additional funding. ■
Tip move ahead. with its own Strategic
plan, Tri-Met will need>assurances from
its regional partners that they agree with
the proposed level of transit expansion
and will help Tri-Met secure the funding
to achieve iti
The agency will need $45 million more a year in
, operating revenue starting in fiscal year 1995 and an
additional $30'million a year starting in pY 1998 in order
to achieve the strategic plan and increase mobility as the
population grows. Those amounts represent a major .
infusion of additional support — equal to about 70 percent
of Tri-Met's operating bXidget today. "
It is unlikely that all of those funds will come from a
single source. Rather, it i> expected that they will come
■ from a number of sources oyer time, and will likely involve "
,/
293
placing ballot measures before the voters to secure transit
financing measures. Seeking additional funding in incre-
ments will help Tti-Met stay attuned to voters' concerns
and desires. • ,1
Some efforts to increase transit funding are already
underway. A number of agencies are working on an
overall transportation finance package to help fund both
highway and transit needs! The Oregon Transportation
Commission, the Governor's Task Force on Vehicle
Emissions and Metro's Joint Policy Advisory Committee
on Transportation (JPAQT) are developing a cooperative
state and regional strategy for transportation financing.
Transportation '93 — a statewide group of government, ^ •
business and community interests — is reviewing all of the
funding proposals and will-act as the final clearinghouse to
recomnriend to the 1993 Oregon Legislature a broad trans-
portation strategy that includes a transi,t financing pro-
posal.
. The current transportation strategy under consider-
ation is based on the Oregon Transportation Plan ap- ,
■proved by the Oregon Transportation Commission. That
plan, like the new federal Surface Transportation Act,
"contains first-time-ever provisions for flexibility and
balance between highway and transit funding.
1-Jalf of the federal transportation money
allocated to Oregon can now .^be used for
either highway or transit projects. The
investments, are interrelated. According to
the State, more than $11 billion in road
investments can be avoided by shifting land
use patterns and.expariding transit, For the
. Portland region, that's a savings of nearly
$10,000 for every household.
Looking beyond the 1993. legislative session, possible
sources of funding being considered for tr£(psit include:
• A systems development charge imjxKed on the con-
'_ .• struction of new parking spaces to support transit;'arid
• A general obligation bond for light rail and bus capital
expansion. » . ■
294
In general, Tri-Met would prefer transportation-related
sources of funding for transit than general purpose taxes.
The agency will be seeking voter, legislative and jufisdic-
tional support for transit expansion. .
^ ' " ,1
Achieving Transit-Oriented '
Land Use Patterns , -
We will all need to work together to avoid the pattern of
sprawl that has plagued most growing American cities.
Tri-Met has no formal autlAority in the land use arena, nor
does it want any. Nevertheless, the agency's ability to efffec-
tively meet the regipn's transportation needs depends heavily
on the pattern of land use here. Transit cannot serve a pattern
of low -density development efficiently or .economically.
As land use issues are debated, Tri-Met will emphasize
that compactly developed areas are given the highest •
priority for transit service. The lower-density development
in outlying areas may have to wait as operating efficiencies
permit and may not be serviced by large buses and light rail
at all.
Tri-Met will advocate three major pubbc policy initia-
tives:,
1. Containing growth within the existing UGB;
2. Substantially increasing development in transit corri- ■
dors; and
3. Helping to assure development is designed to be served
efficiently by transit.
The agency will generally support the concepts of
building "in" rather than "out"; developing self-contained
comriiunities-, and encouraging pedestrian-friendly urban
and suburban centers. These patterns help the region get
the best return on its public investment in not only ex-
panded transit service, but all forms of public works, in-
cluding sewers, schools, parks and roads.
Tri-Met will aisp work with local jutisdictiotu to help
them comply with the new requirements under the trans- .
portation goal of the state's planntt)g regulations. As an
example, the hietropolitan area must reduce vehicle miles
traveled per capita by 20 percent in the next 30 yrars. . ,
Jurisdictions also must change their planning and zoning
codes to allow for transit-oriented development and must
find ways to achieve a lOpercent reduction in the number
of parking spaces per capita over the next 30 years. Trl-
Mct's mission of improving mobility fits precisely with
these state-mandated goals.
Tri-Met will support the concepts of building
"in" rather than "out" ind developing pedes-
. trian-lriendly centers. (Sourcei Calthorpc Awociawj)
295
The vision not only implies major challenges for the
.-.region; it also has significant iipplications for Tri-Met. ,
to ' I l*l««rViCt First of all, it suggests that Tri-Met ha? ar\ overriding
, purpose beyond the provision of bus and rail service.
The Challenge
'"Tri'Met's job, as stated in the vision, is
to help this Tegiop stay livable as it '.
; - grows by making sure citizens can get
> \ where thfey want to go quickly, easily '
and safely.. , - « . .
That me^ni Tri-M^t's role is not only to provide bus, ■
. special needs, -carpool and tight rail service, but also to -
help citizens access other alternatives to the single-occu-
pant vehicle. such as biking ahd walking.
\ Second, the vision implied the need for a dramatic
increase in Trj-Met's service to enhance mobility. If the ' '
■ agency's service .continues fo grow at the recent rate of
only 1 to 1 Vi percent a year, a visiorv of growth without . •
increased congestion cannot be achieved. • -.
Tri-Met has developed a new strategic plan to rise to these
two challenges ^ broadening the ways in whichit contrib-
~utes to enhanced mobihty, and dramatically increasine its
service and ridership tQ keep the region livable.
According to the ne\^ strategic plan, Tri-Met's mission
is "to assure people increased mobility irv our growing, ,
compact urban region." The agency has set six strategic
goals to steer its course. A detailed strategy for achieving
the goals will corne later in Tri-Met's Five Year Transit '
Development Plan and individual program^ strategies. The
goals can be grouped into three categories: Getting more
riders, getting more funding, and achieving tnobility-
Oriented land use.
. ■ ■ . - ' ■ .>7
Getting More Riders
•The surest way to reduce traffic congestion as the >
■ population grows is for mor? people to bike, walk, carpool,
or use transit. Tri-Met's ridership goal calls for an aggres*
sive but achievable leap in the nupnber of customers
.^served: from today's 200,000 riders per day' to 690,000
riders' by 2005— si hnotp than .three-fold jump.
To achieve th6 ridership goal, Tri-Met must attract as "
well as retain more customers. The entire agency will be ^d- ■
cused on making transit so convenient, so easy-to-use, so eco-
nomical and so appealing that customers simply can't resist it
296
Particular emphasis will be placed on further improving
the reliability of Tri-Met's service, and on assuring that the
transit system is safe and secure. Customers should be able
to virtually set their watches by the arrival of a Tri-Met
vehicle. In addition, they should feel assured when they .
board a Tri'Met bus or train, that they will travel in safety.
Customer service will be a driving ethic at Tri-Met.
Employees will be highly trained and oriented to meeting
the needs of customers. Hiring, communications, team
building and employee development will all underscore the
strongest possible customer orientation-
In addition, Tri-Met will initiate a full range of. market- -
ing activities to understand and address the needs of its
customers. Market research will be used to help the agency
find out who its future customers are and how it can serve
them with tratuit. '
New Types of Service Planned
Two new types of service are being planned to help Tri-
• Met reach out to more customers. They are "lO-minute
corridor service" and "neighborhood mini-bus service."
The lO-minute corridors will provide a network of
service from transit center to transit center throughout the
region, replicating the attractiveness of regional light rail.
Tlie corridors will become the backbone of Tri-Met's bus
s^tem.. They will consist of major transit routes where
service and capital improvements have been made (such as
traffic signals that give preference to buses, special bus
bypass lanes at intersections, curb extensions at bus stops,
etc.) so that a bus can arrive at least every 10 minutes.
t •
Strategic Plan Ridenhip Curve
•
5 7(K)
^
c
^^^^
^^^^
8 600
' ^^^^^
4lh Rail
S c~.
^^^
Una
£ 500
^^x
'ard Rail
Opana
2^ 400
• j^r^
Una
•
^X"»»'"'"*«
Opans
S 300
j^^ Open*
? 200
»^^^^
^Naw
\
5 . 100
.
Ravanuaa
\
-S 0
92 SS ,.
2000
2005
D^nutically Increased ridenhip If critical for
.Tri-Met to achieve Its mlstlon o( enhanced
regional mobility.
297
Capital improvements to the transit lanes will allow the
buses to'mov^ faster th^n nearby automobiles.
"The lO^minute ggrridor service will be easy to use. , .
Custotners will not have to use schedules because of the •
frequency of service.
• . ; Pilot projects will initially be tested on a few key
routes. The first 10-minute corridor could begin operating
in fiscal year 1 995. .' • ^ -,
Tri-Met is also proposing to mtrtxlu<;e "neighborhood
mini'bus service." This service Xvould be an outgrowth of '
the special needs transportation service Tri-Met provides-
to' disabled people. It will operate in a given neighborhod
like a local shuttle service or in low.-density areas inappro-
priate for big buses. 'These smaller buses — possibly elec-'
trie — will take passengers to local destinations, 10-mi_nute
corridor stops or light rail stations. ^
'Xb help keefi the region mobile, Tri-
Met is planning a piajor service cx|>an-
'; • sian over the hext 13 years -^ from \
.' some 30,000 weekly hours of bus and
rail service toiday, to almpst 87 »Q.90 - '
weekly hours of sfei"vice by IJY 2005; -
■ This will include expansion of the regional tail system' '
and increases in tradittpnal bus and mini-bus service to '
feed into the rail lines and 10-minute. corridors. Tri-Met
A new concept, "10-
minute" corridors will
provide the backbone ot
Tri-Met servicf , creating
(he bua and rait equiva-
lent of an above ground
subway.
lO'Minute Corridors Concept
HIUSBORO
:IUUl
' lUS
OREGON
cmr
298
will also promote other modes of transportation, such as
biking and walking to improve regional mobility. ^ : i
The accelerated development of a six'line regiohal rail'
system will be a top priority. Tri-Met's most important ' •,
short-term objective will be completing the Westside light •
rail project on time and within budget. The agency fore-
casts 20,000 riders on Westside MAX when the line opens
In September of 1997. The line will extei^d to Hilisboro by . •
1998. A third rail corridor should be ready for final design
• in 1996 anda fourth in 2000. Bus and mini-bus services
will grow at a complementary pace. ^ *
Where. will Tri-Met place its additional bus service?
Tlie agency will continue to make specific service decisioiu
' in consultation with local jurisdictions, neighborhoods ainl
cominunity groups, as part of the preparation of Tri-Met's • . * .
annual service plan. Toppriority will be given to provid-
ing additional service to those parts of the regioo that have >
compact, transit-supportive land Use patterns. , • . _
' > ^- . .."''.■
Getting the Funding ' ^ .
Tri-Met will not be able to do its part in improving
regional mobility unless it can obtain additioiul funding tg ,' .
serve more riders.. • . , ■.•■..
The fiscal stability goal focuses Tri-Met on: l)Ob-
..taining additional funding; and 2) Getting the best return ,
for each dollar spent. •
To secure' additional funding, Tri-Met will need sup-
port throughout the region /or a collective vision of com-
pact urban growth served increasingly by transit. It will •
need to achieve a regional consensus on a finance package,
mobility goals, expansion of the tf;^nsit system and adop- ^ < '
tion of land use plans that fGster mobility. ,
To get the best retutn on each dollar spent, Tri-Met ' * .
will carefully target its 6wn spending toward achieving the "" '
vision, and will emphasize efficiency throughout its opera-
tions. Tl»e most effective way to steadily reduce the cost of
each ride is to steadily increase the number of riders.
Hence, steady ridership growth will be essential for increas- ', , •
ing efficiency. Tri-Met will work with its customen and its
regional partners to identify the most valuable service lines ' . - '
and reallocate resources as appropriate.'
The fiscal stability goal also calb for Trf-Met to main- . -.
tain three months o( working capital for operations, in ' '
order to stay closely attuned to risk, keep capital replace- V
mcnt and operating needs in harrnony and assure wise. '
spending and the care and maintenance of funding vjurces. •
The agency is well aware of the need to spend'wisfly: If it
299
, doesn't, it could lose. its public support and its base of
„ 'Operations.. ; ' .
Getting the Land Use "
Tf i-Met's lar^d use goal calls for working with public .',
and private, interests to help assure that 75 percent of all •
new housing anti jobs inside the region's urban growth
boundary are served by a designated major transit corridor -
within a 5-minut!e walk. ' ' ' ^ '
, More detail on Tri-Met's involvement in the regional
approach to land use is provided in the "Partnerships"
sedtion of this report.. . ' ' .'
Tri-Met's Peoplfe Make the Difference '
■ To provide the level of service called for in its strategic
• plan, Tri;Met will need a workforce of sortie 4500 employ- ,
■ ees by ,2pp5, compared to its 1800 e;nployees today. The
agency will neejd to dramatically increase its recruitment,
training and retention activities to attract and retain a top
■ quality workforce. , ■ .. ' -
Employeeis will need to be trained to not Only operate
• the agency's equipment; but also to be Tri-Met's niajor
source of contact with customers.- A dedicattort to out-'
standing customer service will be the oveniding ethicat
, Tri-Met. The philosophy of "custome'rs, one at a time" will
require that Tri-Met employee^ be attuned to fiustorrier
needs and that they be empowered to help the agency find
]W&ys to serve customers even better. • . .' •
■ ■ . To make full use of the skills and talents' of its people,
Tri-Met will enhance its mechanisms for obtaining and . >
.using information from Employees to improve service and
efficiency. Tri-Met has already begun stepping up its
- communitations activities to listen to epiployeei and help .
. Jthem understand the Strategic Plan and relate .their work '
to it. , • ..
In addition, a human resources pUn is being prepared
to determine how Tri-Met can give its people more oppor-
. J;unities to contribute to achieving the plan. Tri-Met is
investigating such possibilities as increased employee '
■ training and education, total quality improvement tech- '
niques, two-way communication activities and incentive '
. and recognition programs. At the san;ie time, individual
^ . departments within Tri-Met are looking at ways to involve
' employees specifically In generating ideas to improve
service ^nd attract more riders. • '
300
♦ ♦
V-
CO
(U
:^.s
:3
H«
ilthiiiffl^ij
I ill
z .
— (/) V - 2 = C^
301
Tri-Met's .mission: To assure people increased mobility
in our growing'^ compact urban region.
Goal I
Customer Service:
Steadily increase system reliability and ■
decrease the number of customer ,
complaints. •
Overall Approach:
Tri-Met will be driven by an eihic
of superlative customer service." A
sinmc oricntatinn to ciKtumcrs and tn .
(KHstanJing service will b^ ftistercd
tluoueliour the agency The agency's
principle will he satisfying customers-
"onc at^ time."
Tri-Mct will alw iinprove the
transit system Itself by making it more
cimvenicnt, reliable, easy-touiKJefsiarKJ
and appealing to customers. Particular
emphasis will be given to system safety
and security.
Capital improvements will include
creation (»f lO-minule conidor's (where
faster, more frequent service will be
prijvideil on primary routes), ar*d
improvements in and aroumj trarvsit
stops, including park-and-ridc lols.
Tri-Mei will strive to increase
c»sti>mer satisfactii»n and reduce
customer complaints regarding regular
and special service It will improve its
wa)-s of listening ntxl responding to
customed, and will enhance its system
for organizing ar»d responding to •
customer complaints. C^tomcr,
community arnJ Tri-Mct erpployee
input will be used t(> improve ser\'icc.
Tri-Met will also fix:us tm meeting
or exceeding the criteria set forth in
Trl'Mel's Service Siandnrtis for on-time
performance in fixed-rinjte bus service.
Tlie reli;ibilitv of the system will be ,
assured by maintaining adequate levels
of service arwj vcliicle maintenance.
. The agency will expand its efforts to
help more pct»ple learn Ik»w ti> use
transit Omtinuing emphasis will be
placed (Ki providing the kind of high
qiinlity scr\'ice that keeps custimicrs
coming back.
Goal 2. : ■
Ridership: .
Increase transit ridership to 690,000
riders per day by 2005.
Overall Approach; »
Til e goal represents a- dramatic'
increase from the 200,000 daily riders
who now use transit. This Increase will
be accomplUhcd irt incremental stagei?.
By the end of fiscal year 1997, Tri-Met
plarw to achieve an average of 310,000
riders per day. - . .
Bus service will continue to be th^
mairwtay of Tri-Met's tratisit service, arvJ
will be bolstered by two new concepts;
1 ) 'Ten-minute corridors" )vill be
created on two dozen major transit ■
corridors, where Tri-Met will increase .
bus frequency ar>d speed so that a bus
comes by every 10 minutes (c;eating the
bus equivalent oTan abovc-gtijurvl
subway system). Tri-Mct will work witK
Its regional partners td determine the -
location of the lO-minute corridors, and
will begin implcmentmg therri oy fiscal
year 1995. Tri-Met will also work with
local jurisdictions to achieve road
treatmepts that give prefercrice lo
trarvsit. , ' ,
2) Nei|rhb«>rhood mini-bus service
will provide service to customers close
to home, offering^fllmtst door-to-door
pickup and delivery to link customers
with light rail and the lO-minutc'
corridors-
■ Tri-Met will itKrease the riumbcrof
hours-of bqs arvd light rail service to \
50,000 per Week froth tiw current level of
30.000 per week - a 67 percent increase '
in weekly vehicle hours --by the end of
F>'97.
Tfi-Mct wilt use marketing,
advertising, customer service, promfv-
tions ar>d pricirig sttateglcs to boost
transit ridership. It will also strive to
Increase trarisii ridership by elderly and
disabled citiicris..O\'erall, the agency
will work to substantially increase
system reliability, operating speeds,'
capacity, frequency, security znd
.convenience. Attracting and retaining
more custtwners will be the primary ,
focus of every Tri-Met employee.
Goal 3 '
Human Resources:
Attract, (raio and retain 4,500
employees by 2005 who wil! provide
superior customer service- Refine
internal systems for using Information
from employees to improve service and
efficiency. \
Overall Approach:
Tri'Met will, frrsj, njsure that it has
the number and quality of employees it
needs, and, second, make sure it is
managing them to achieve (^timym
results. The agency will expand its
recruitment, training and retenil()n
activities to attract and retain.ihe best -
employees: ' '
A strong emphasis will be placed
on orienting all employees to the
Strategic gi»aU aml4Jn particular, to . .
customer service. "Custoiucr" can qienn
an external Tri-Mct cuslomer, or
someone within Tri-Met who serves
external customers
Management's role i'; to sup(iort
employees and help them do their hest.
Employee training arxJ etiucarion will be
cxpar>deti as neevled- Mutual resncct,
rbamwork arul open communication will
be rcinforceU as key values thnniglxHit
Tri-Met. Significant emplinsis will be
placed on achieving diversity at all levels
of the agerKy.
Specific initiative* will include:
• Develop n human rcstnirces plan.
• Revise arul improve the classificatitm
and compensation system as nccilctl.
• Expand recognition pri>grams.
• Investigate the potential for total
quality management at Tri-Met.
• Focus employees on key Issues related
lo customer service improvement.
-Develop a systCrn or management
apprtXKh that empowers employees to
take the initiative to solve pri>lilcms.
• Assure that all employees understaiKl
tl»c Strategic Plan and their role In
helping to achieve it. Help managers
assume a stronger role in twivway
comnmnication witli employees.
302
Goal 4
Fiscal Stability: , \
Steadily decrease the cost of each
originating ride provided, maintain the '
equivalent of three mboths' working
capital, and increase the continuing
revenue base by $14? million per year
by 2005.
Qyefall Approach: '
' To iichfev* this gool,Tri-Met will
fticuson: s
1 ) Obtaining ncklitioiial funding;
;ind
2) Getting the best returri for each
(Itilliir .spent.
. To iJitain mklitionpl binding, Tri-
Mct will need support ihroughotit the-
region for a sh:ired vision of compact "^
urbitn growth and a regional rail system.
It will be critical to achieve regional
consensus on mobility goals, finance )
p:ickaging, expansion of the transit
system and adoption of bmd use plai>s'
that foster mobility.
Tri-Mct will seek legislative
,:iuihority on one or mtvtt taxing j
mcMsiirc:) ami pl^n.s to secure a major
new VHitce o( fumling for operatioru
ami riHitine capir;il.hy July of 1994-
Voter a|^ov:d will be sotii^ht foe a *
funding mechanism ftw construction of-
a third mil corridor in 1999 and ft»r the
local share of support for the 20-ycar
rail ilevelopmcnt plan. It is unlikely
that those funds will come from a single
source. Tltey are imnc likely to cctfne
fnmi a numbtr of sofirces over time.
Tri-Mct will increase efficiency
aiul get the best return f<if e;Kh dollar
spent by incre:ising ridershipanj
consistently apf^lying cstahlishetl
fmancial controls Main(»lning three
months' capital will provide a control /
mechanism for keeping Tri-Met on \
track financially. ^
Goals *
Service Expansion:
By 2005, expand dnd diversify service
to t ,650 buses and mini'buses and
three operating rail corridors; with one
rail corridor in construction and one
in final design. Double the percentage
of carppol, bike and walk trips..
Overall Approach:
Tri-Met will seek to accelerate
development ofo six-line regional'TuI
system. '
Plans cnll for completing Wcstside
light rail within budget ami serving
20,000 daily hoarding riders when the
line opens in September 1997. The
extension to Hillsboro is to be added lo •
the projecMn 1994, with completion in
1998., Th^ ihirj rail corridor -- to *"
Nj Clackamas County and possibly north
to Vancouver'-- should be /eady for
construction in 1999, with completion
in 2003. TrI-Mct will also work with
Oark County's iransir agehcy,
C-TRAN, to strengthen the integratii>n
of the two systems to better meet hl-
state travel needs. The capital ctwt of
system expansion will be $) to $4
billion.
Tri-Met will exparvl its Uts service
to support the lO-minute corridors arxl
existing ami future rail lines. The -
agency will increase its fixei.l-route bus
fleet by 208 conches ( 1 1 8 to meet
service st;mdard$; 90 Tor the lO-mintite
corridors). '*> a total of 734 fixed-route
Kises by the end of FY 97
To house aruJ ^rvtce its bus ami '
rail cars, Tri-Met will expand its
existing operating and main teriance
centers, or add a new one.
- Tri-Met will also explore new
service possibilities to better meet
customer needs- It will work with itj
regional partners to obf ain rmwe
funding arnl -staffing for carpotMing
programs, ar>d Increase employer
vanpnojlng. T^ic agency will also work
to achieve attractive, iratuit-supponive
pedestrian arxl hiking environments.
Goat 6, '
Land Use:
Using public and private partncrshlptt.
help assure that 75 percent of all new
bousing and jobs inside the region's
Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) are
served by a designated transit corridor
within a S-mlnute walk.
Overall Approach: ^
Tri-'Mei is not a laixJ use^agency.
Rather, it Ciin act as an advocatl* jnd
catalyst for shaping land tise patterns in
ways that Improve inttbtlliy. The
agency will wtirk with others to achieve
Irtnd use plans that can be civ^t -effec-
tively sen-eJ by transit. Tri-Met will
adv(x:ate three major Initiatives:
1 . Contalnirf^ groi/vth within the
existing; ttrhan growth li^mndary
(UOB); , ,
2. Substantially Increasing development
in ttansit corridors; and
3. 1 telping to, ,issure that new develop-
ment is ilesigped tt) be scrveil .effi-
ciently by transit.
Tri-Met will cimsi^ler thew three'
factors in deciding where to proviile
service. Trattsit service and land use are
Interrelilexl. Tri-Mct caninH achieve
Its rider^bip gtmis without changes In
larvjusoi' The agency's scrvjte Stan-
ibrds ami Five Year Plan will lie
changed to inc«>rponite land use
coruiilerathms intt> service expansion
decisitMis. , '
On a regional level. Tri-Met will be
initiating a C(K>pcrative priKCss with
local jurisdKiions to select the "desig-
nated tninsit ct»rrUlttrs" callcil for ip the
gtxil Because the cifrridors will he
limited In nuirtlxT, tt>p priority will Ik*
placed on locating ihein in areas with
lurid use p;itterns comp;itibl^ with
transit. '*
' '- V
Tri-Met will enc<Hir.igc the irKliisi«Hi
of its land use initiatives In the region's
l;irHJ UM.* ami tran.s|ionation plan*
(Mein>'s<^cgi«»n 2040 Plan ami revlseil
RcgiiKial Tr.insf^>nhtion Plan) arvJ in
k)c;il cofiiprelK'iisive plans. Tl»e agency
will also strive to achieve* rectignition ■
from the ikvelopinent community tliai
tr.tfult-urienieil development is hnh
a<.hievable aixl profitable. | ,
303
PREPARED STATEMElSfT
Senator Lautenberg. I am sorry that Senator Hatfield did not
have an opportunity to be with us. He has a full agenda. He want-
ed to make sure that he conveyed his interest in your being here
and his pleasure at knowing that his State was so well rep-
resented. He also asked that I insert a statement in the record on
his behalf.
We thank you both for joining us.
[The statement follows:]
Statement of Senator Hatfield
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding this hearing today. As you said
in your opening statement, "we can't travel by highways alone," and your commit-
ment to addressing transit needs makes this Nation a better place to live.
I also salute President Clinton's emphasis for light rail funding as demonstrated
by his $752 million request in the stimulus package. I look forward to working with
this administration and this subcommittee to address the estimated $6.4 billion to
$15.7 billion needed per year for the Nation's transit capital needs.
Through the support of this subcommittee, Portland, Oregon's westside light rail
project is ready for construction. Last fall, FTA signed the Westside Full Ending
Grant Agreement and contracts for the construction of the tunnel and low floor cars
are due this spring.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, Portland's growth management serves as a labora-
tory for city planners worldwide. Traffic congestion, air pollution, and other urban
problems are not an inevitable part of growtii — they are the result of growing the
wrong way.
As Tom Walsh, Tri-Met's general manager, and Earl Blumenauer, Portland's
transportation commissioner, will point out, the Westside will build on our past suc-
cesses in growth management. These two gentlemen demonstrate the type of vision-
ary leadership that has blessed Portland for many years.
Working together, we will bmld a system to serve the growing, compact urban re-
gion while maintaining the growth management practices that nave made Portland
a model.
STATEMENT OF PAT JUDGE
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Judge, you are the last of this panel.
Mr. Judge. Thank you, Chairman Lautenberg. I truly appreciate
the opportunity to be here today.
My name is Pat Judge. I am manager of transit development for
the Regional Transit Authority in New Orleans.
On behalf of the smaller transit operators, I am speaking as
president of the South West Transit Association [SWTA] and presi-
dent of the Louisiana Public Transit Association.
Before I start on the substance of my remarks, I would like to
commend and thank the chairman and this subcommittee for your
efforts in restoring operating assistance in last year's appropria-
tions bill. Many of SWTA's systems owe their survival to that
action.
On behalf of small operators, I want to focus on the cuts in the
transit formula programs, operating assistance, and the cost of
Federal mandates, such as the ADA, as they relate to small opera-
tors.
Most small transit operators rely almost exclusively on Federal
formula funding when it comes to support of their capital and oper-
ating costs. Both operating assistance and formula funding overall
has been stagnant for most of the last decade. Since 1988, operat-
304
ing aid has been stuck at about $800 million, and funding for 2dl
formula programs was at $1.7 billion this year.
Suffice it to say that transit operators can barely afford to main-
tain current services, let alone buy new buses or service if they
cannot count on operating assistance being predictable and grow-
ing. I hold the strong belief that the Federal Government should
protect its massive investment in transit as it does its highways by
providing some assistance for its upkeep.
This year was particularly tough because transit funding under
the formula program declined by some 15 percent for all operators,
and that, coming on top of census adjustments, spread a small
amount even thinner.
We like the fact that the President proposes in his supplemental
funding plan to devote the majority of the new funding to the for-
mula program. Additionally, we join with the American Public
Transit Association hoping that this action will be followed through
to fiscal year 1994 by funding the transit program according to the
ratio set within ISTEA.
By way of examples, I would like to stress to you the value of
operating assistance to communities in our region. In Louisiana,
operating assistance accounts for nearly 20 percent of the Shreve-
port system's service budget, and in Lafayette, that ratio is at 50
percent.
While the level is only 5 percent of the New Orleans RTA budget,
it represents 5 percent of a barebones budget that has just suffered
through a major service reduction, layoffs, and two fare increases
in the past 3 years.
Other SWTA systems, such as the Central Arkansas Transit Au-
thority of Little Rock, utilize Federal operating assistance for 25
percent of their support, and Lubbock, TX, depends on it at 35
percent.
Many of these and other systems across the Nation would not
survive without the support from the Federal Government.
We are also trjdng to meet the costs of the Americans With Dis-
abilities Act. The Department of Transportation has estimated that
ADA costs run somewhere between $800 million and $1.3 billion
annually. Little Rock's Central Arkansas Transit Authority expects
its paratransit costs to grow from 5 percent of their current budget
to 11 percent by the date of full ADA compliance.
Similarly, Shreveport's commitment will increase to 8.2 percent
from the present 4 percent, while the New Orleans paratransit
budget will go from 2.8 to 7 percent by 1996-97.
Assuming no growth in Federal, State, or local support, which,
unfortunately, we must consider a likely scenario, all of this growth
must come out of the regular fixed route service budget. AJl this
and the Clean Air Act, drug testing, bus testing, and health care
cost increases are already here or just around the comer.
Meanwhile, many of the smaller section 18 systems in rural
areas are truly going through severe adjustments. Due to the im-
pact of this year's reduction in the formula programs. Panhandle
Community Services, a section 18 agency based in Amarillo, TX,
will reduce their budget by 54 percent, a loss of 35 percent of their
employees, and a service reduction to the community of almost 40
percent. The Arkansas Public Transit Program expects a 15-per-
305
cent cut in rural transit operating budgets, resulting in probable
layoffs and/or reductions in people served.
While we are grateful to this subcommittee and the Congress for
preserving the transit program these past 12 years, we are anxious
that the spotlight now on domestic problems and programs will
shine on and include financial support for transit in an equitable,
comprehensive, and complete approach.
In any case, we would like to urge those of you on this committee
to support all transit funding at the authorized levels. I know how
difficult it is to fiind fast-spending programs, such as the operating
program, but I would ask that you make every effort to fund oper-
ating assistance at the authorized level. To be quite honest, while
you and I may know the relationship between authorizations and
outlays, that concept cannot be readily explained to the rider who
must pay more or even who now must find another way to work.
South West Transit Association strongly supports the President's
proposals for increased funding in the current year, although we
would have preferred the levels in your bill, particularly the match
requirements. We hope that transit funding can be increased in fu-
ture years.
I would ask and hope that we have some predictability from year
to year.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I want again
to thank you for this opportunity. I will be happy to try to answer
some questions.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much, Mr. Judge. We
have your complete statement and it will be made part of the
record.
[The statement follows:]
306
STATEMENT OF PATRICK JUDGE
THANK YOU CHAIRMAN LAUTENBERG AND MEMBERS OF THE
SUBCOMMITTEE. I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE
TODAY.
MY NAME IS PAT JUDGE. I AM MANAGER OF TRANSIT
DEVELOPMENT FOR THE REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORHT IN NEW
ORLEANS. ON BEHALF OF SMALL TRANSIT OPERATORS I AM
SPEAKING AS PRESIDENT OF THE SOUTHWEST TRANSIT
ASSOCIATION AND AS PRESIDENT OF THE LOUISIANA PUBLIC
TRANSIT ASSOCIATION. FOR THE RECORD, THE SOUTHWEST
TRANSIT ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIP CONSISTS OF TRANSIT
AGENCIES FROM ARKANSAS, ARIZONA, KANSAS, LOUISIANA, NEW
MEXICO, OKLAHOMA AND TEXAS.
BEFORE I START ON THE SUBSTANCE OF MY REMARKS, I WOULD
LIKE TO COMMEND AND THANK THE CHAIRMAN AND THIS
SUBCOMMITTEE FOR YOUR EFFORTS IN RESTORING OPERATING
ASSISTANCE IN LAST YEAR'S APPROPRIATIONS BILL. MANY OF
SWTA'S SYSTEMS OWE THEIR SURVIVAL TO THAT ACTION.
ON BEHALF OF SMALL OPERATORS I WANT TO FOCUS ON THE
CUTS IN THE TRANSIT FORMULA PROGRAMS, OPERATING
ASSISTANCE, AND THE COSTS OF FEDERAL MANDATES SUCH AS
THE ADA AS THEY RELATE TO SMALL OPERATORS. I WOULD LIKE
307
TO EMPHASIZE THAT TRANSIT FORMULA PROGRAMS INCLUDE
NOT JUST THE SECTION 9 PROGRAM, BUT ALSO THE SECTION 18
AND 16(B) PROGRAMS WHICH CONTINUE TO GROW AS VITAL
COMPONENTS OF THIS NATION'S TRANSPORTATION
INFRASTRUCTURE.
MOST SMALL TRANSIT OPERATORS RELY ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY
ON FEDERAL FORMULA FUNDING WHEN IT COMES TO SUPPORT
OF THEIR CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS. AND, AS YOU MAY
KNOW, IN THE CASE OF SECTION 18 PROPERTIES, ALL OF THEIR
FUNDING CAN BE USED TO HELP MEET OPERATING COSTS.
BOTH OPERATING ASSISTANCE AND FORMULA FUNDING OVERALL
HAS BEEN STAGNANT FOR MOST OF THE LAST DECADE. TRANSIT
FORMULA PROGRAMS WERE FUNDED AT TWO TO TWO AND A
HALF BILLION ANNUALLY BETWEEN 1983 AND 1987. OPERATING
ASSISTANCE DURING THAT PERIOD WAS $860 TO $875 MILLION
ANNUALLY. BUT SINCE 1988 OPERATING AID HAS BEEN STUCK AT
ABOUT $800, MILUON AND FUNDING FOR ALL FORMULA
PROGRAMS WAS AT $1.7 BILUON THIS YEAR. ($48.6 MILLION FOR
16(B) AND $91.4 FOR 18). SUFFICE TO SAY THAT TRANSIT
OPERATORS CAN BARELY AFFORD TO MAINTAIN CURRENT
SERVICES, LET ALONE BUY NEW BUSES OR SERVICE IF THEY
CANNOT COUNT ON OPERATING ASSISTANCE BEING
PREDICTABLE AND GROWING. I HOLD THE STRONG BELIEF THAT
308
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD PROTECT ITS MASSIVE
INVESTMENT IN TRANSIT AS IT DOES ITS HIGHWAYS BY
PROVIDING SOME ASSISTANCE FOR ITS UPKEEP.
THIS YEAR WAS PARTICULARLY TOUGH BECAUSE TRANSIT
FUNDING UNDER THE FORMULA PROGRAM DECLINED BY SOME
15% FOR ALL OPERATORS, AND TIUT COMING ON TOP OF CENSUS
ADJUSTMENTS THAT SPREAD A SMALL AMOUNT EVEN THINNER.
WE LIKE THE FACT THAT THE PRESIDENT PROPOSES IN HIS
SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING PLAN TO DEVOTE THE MAJORITY OF
THE NEW FUNDING TO THE FORMULA PROGRAM.
ADDITIONALLY, WE JOIN WITH APTA IN HOPING THAT THIS
ACTION WILL BE FOLLOWED THROUGH TO FY 94 BY FUNDING
THE TRANSIT PROGRAM ACCORDING TO RATIOS SET WITHIN
ISTEA.
BY WAY OF EXAMPLES, I WOULD LIKE TO STRESS TO YOU THE
VALUE OF OPERATING ASSISTANCE TO COMMUNITIES IN OUR
REGION. IN LOUISIANA, OPERATING ASSISTANCE ACCOUNTS FOR
NEARLY 21% OF THE SHREVEPORT SYSTEM'S SERVICE BUDGET,
AND IN LAFAYETTE THAT RATIO IS AT 50%. WHILE THE LEVEL IS
ONLY 5% OF THE NEW ORLEANS RTA BUDGET, IT REPRESENTS 5%
OF A BARE BONES BUDGET THAT HAS JUST SUFFERED THROUGH
A MAJOR SERVICE REDUCTION, LAYOFFS, AND TWO FARE
INCREASES IN THE PAST THREE YEARS. OTHER SWTA SYSTEMS
SUCH AS THE CENTRAL ARKANSAS TRANSTT AUTHORTTY OF
309
LITTLE ROCK UTILIZES FEDERAL OPERATING ASSISTANCE FOR
25% OF ITS SUPPORT, AND LUBBOCK, TEXAS DEPENDS ON IT AT
35%. MANY OF THESE AND OTHER SYSTEMS ACROSS THE NATION
WOULD NOT SURVIVE WITHOUT THAT SUPPORT FROM THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
WE ARE ALSO TRYING TO MEET THE COSTS OF THE AMERICANS
WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA), DRUG TESTING IN THE NEAR
FUTURE, AND OTHER FEDERAL MANDATES (CLEAN AIR ACT, ETC).
ADA COMPLIANCE IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE MORE SIGNIFICANT
COSTS FOR A SMALL OPERATOR- THE DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION HAS ESTIMATED THAT ADA COSTS RUN
SOMEWHERE BETWEEN $800 MILLION AND $1J BILLION
ANNUALLY. PARATRANSIT REQUIREMENTS UNDER ADA ARE
EXTREMELY LABOR INTENSIVE.
LITTLE ROCK'S CENTRAL ARKANSAS TRANSIT AUTHORITY
EXPECTS ITS PARATRANSIT COSTS TO GROW FROM 5% OF THEIR
CURRENT BUDGET TO 11% BY THE DATE OF FULL ADA
COMPLIANCE. SIMILARLY, SHREVEPORTS COMMITMENT WILL
INCREASE TO 8.2% FROM THE PRESENT 4% WHILE THE NEW
ORLEANS PARATRANSIT BUDGET WILL GO FROM 2.8% TO 7% BY
1996-97. ASSUMING NO GROWTH IN FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL
SUPPORT, WHICH UNFORTUNATELY WE MUST CONSIDER A
LIKELY SCENARIO, ALL OF THIS GROWTH MUST COME OUT OF
THE REGULAR FIXED ROUTE SERVICE BUDGET. ALL THIS AND
310
THE CLEAN AIR ACT, DRUG TESTING, BUS TESTING AND HEALTH
CARE COST INCREASES ALREADY HERE OR JUST AROUND THE
CORNER.
MEANWHILE, MANY OF THE SMALLER SECTION 18 SYSTEMS IN
RURAL AREAS ARE USING VOLUNTEER DRIVERS, WTIO USE THEIR
OWN CARS TO GET THE ELDERLY AND SICK TO THE HOSPITAL OR
SHOPPING. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE WHO DRIVE FOR
THE MILEAGE. THESE ARE TRULY LOW BUDGET OPERATIONS,
OFTEN SERVING PEOPLE WHOSE ONLY LINK TO THE OUTSIDE
WORLD IS PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION. THESE SYSTEMS ARE
TRULY GOING THROUGH SEVERE ADJUSTMENTS.
DUE TO THE IMPACT OF THIS YEAR'S REDUCTION IN THE
FORMULA PROGRAMS, PANHANDLE COMMUNITY SERVICES, A
SECTION 18 AGENCY BASED IN AMARILLO, TEXAS WILL REDUCE
THEIR BUDGET BY 54%, A LOSS OF 35% OF THEIR EMPLOYEES,
AND A SERVICE REDUCTION TO THE COMMUNITY OF ALMOST
40%. THE ARKANSAS PUBLIC TRANSIT PROGRAM EXPECTS A 15%
CUT IN RURAL TRANSIT OPERATING BUDGETS RESULTING IN
PROBABLE LAYOFFS AND/OR REDUCTIONS IN PEOPLE SERVED.
THEY FEEL THE INTERCITY BUS PROVISIONS SET BY ISTEA IS
ALSO PRODUCING ANOTHER DRAG ON THE SECTION 18
PROGRAM, WHICH IS PROBABLY BEING EXACERBATED BY THE FY
93 CUTS.
311
WHILE WE ARE GRATEFUL TO THIS SUBCOMMITTEE AND THE
CONGRESS FOR PRESERVING THE TRANSIT PROGRAM THESE
PAST 12 YEARS WE ARE ANXIOUS THAT THE SPOTLIGHT NOW ON
DOMESTIC PROBLEMS AND PROGRAMS WILL SHINE ON AND
INCLUDE nNANCIAL SUPPORT FOR TRANSIT IN AN EQUITABLE,
COMPREHENSIVE AND COMPLETE APPROACH.
IN ANY CASE, WE WOULD LIKE TO URGE THOSE OF YOU ON THIS
COMMITTEE TO SUPPORT ALL TRANSIT FUNDING AT THE
AUTHORIZED LEVELS. I KNOW HOW DIFFICULT ITIS TO FUND
FAST SPENDING PROGRAMS SUCH AS THE OPERATING PROGRAM,
BUT I WOULD ASK THAT YOU MAKE EVERY EFFORT TO FUND
OPERATING ASSISTANCE AT THE AUTHORIZED LEVEL. TO BE
QUITE HONEST, WHILE YOU AND I MAY KNOW THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AUTHORIZATIONS AND OUTLAYS, THAT
CONCEPT CANNOT BE READILY EXPLAINED TO THE RIDER WHO
MUST PAY MORE OR EVEN WHO NOW MUST RND ANOTHER WAY
TO WORK.
THE SOUTHWEST TRANSIT ASSOCIATION STRONGLY SUPPORTS
THE PRESIDENT'S PROPOSALS FOR INCREASED FUNDING IN THE
CURRENT YEAR - WE WOULD HAVE PREFERRED THE FUNDING
LEVELS OF THE LAUTENBERG BILL - AND WE HOPE THAT
TRANSIT FUNDING CAN BE INCREASED IN FUTURE YEARS. I
WOULD ASK AND HOPE THAT WE HAVE SOME PREDICTABILITY
FROM YEAR TO YEAR.
312
MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, I WANT TO
AGAIN THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY. FOR YOUR
REFERENCE, I HAVE ATTACHED A COPY OF THE SOUTHWEST
TRANSIT ASSOCIATION'S 1993 LEGISLATIVE POSITIONS AND FACT
SHEET. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO TRY AND ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. THANK YOU.
1993 LEGISLATIVE POSITIONS
The South West Transit Association supports equity and balance in the funding of federal
transit programs, with the primary aim of ensuring full funding for all formula
programs. This balanced approach will help retain existing jobs and create new
employment in the public transit industry to help contribute to national economic growth.
Economic Stimulus Package
The South West Transit Association supports the Clinton Administration's proposal
to Increase funding for public transit by $750 million In Fiscal Year 1993. This short-
term boost in funding for projects that can be initiated before September 30 will give
transit systems of all sizes the opportunity to fulfill their immediate capital needs, further
contributing to job creation and economic growth. Consideration should be given to
waiving local match requirements, as many transit systems would otherwise be unable
to match the new funds.
Full Funding at ISTEA Levels
The South West Transit Association supports fully funding the federal transit
program in FY94 at the $5,325 billion amount authorized In the Intermodai Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). This level of support would maintain the
integrity of transit formula programs, including operating assistance, at the fully authorized
level of $2,865 billion. If funding does not reach the ISTEA authorization level, SWTA
supports funding the formula program at $1.36 for every $1 spent on the major capital
investment program (Section 3).
Primary emphasis should be given to providing full funding at the authorized levels for
transit formula programs aimed at the elderly and disabled and the rural areas of
the country, since these systems are most dependent on the funds for their continued
existence. The FY94 I ST EA-authorized funding level is $153.8 million for Section 18 rural
programs, $68.7 million for Section 1 6 (b) programs for the elderly and disabled, and $7.7
million for the Rural Technical Assistance Program. These three proqrams combined
comprise only 4.3% of the entire FY94 transit budget at its fully authorized level.
The South West Transit Association is a regional transit association formed in 1979
to represent transit operators and others interested in public transit issues in the states
of Arizona, Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. Its goals
are:
313
To provide forums for professional development, including the exchange
of experiences, and the discussion and study of problems common to the
public transit industry, through convenient and inexpensive training seminars
and conferences held throughout the SWTA region;
To provide advice and counsel to the executive and legislative branches
of the federal government on transit-related issues and legislative and
regulatory matters of importance to SWTA members;
To emphasize the Importance of public transportation and the necessity
of encouraging the improvement and use of public transit systems;
To compile and collect data and information related to public
transportation in the region; and
To promote research, investigation, and study toward improving public
transportation.
SWTA has regular voting members who are representatives of public transit systems in
the region, including municipalities that operate some form of public transit; associate
(vendor) members; and professional members, including universities, regional coundls
of govemments, state departments of transportation, state transit associations, and transit
systems and individuals from outside the SWTA region.
For more infomiation, contact the SWTA office at the address or phone number listed
below.
314
SOUTH WEST TRANSIT ASSOCIATION
1993 BOARD OF DIRECTORS
President Patrick R. Judge
Manager of Transit Development
Regional Transit Authority
6700 Plaza Dr.
New Orleans, LA 70127
504/569-2725; fax 504/941-3105
Vice President Keith Jooes
Executive Director
Central Arkansas Transit Authority
901 Maple St.
North LitUc Rock, AR 72114
501/375-6717; fax 501/375-6812
Secretary-Treasurer John Bartosiewicz
General Manager
Fort Worth Transportation Authority
P.O. Box 1477
Fort Worth. TX 76101
817/871-6223; fax 817/871-6217
At-Large Member Larry Hall
Transit Director
Kibois Area Transit
310 E. Main
SUgler. OK 74462
918^67-3325; fax 918/967-8660
At-Large Member Craig Cole
General Manager
Topeka Transit
201 N. Kansas Ave.
Topeka. KS 66603
913/233-2011; fax 913/233-3063
Arizona Transit Associaticn
President Bruce Behocke
General Manager
Sun Tian
P.O. Box 26765
Tucson, AZ 85726-6765
602/623-4301; fax 602/791-2285
Arkansas Transit Association ■
President Betty Bradsbaw
AiAA of Southeast Arkansas
P.O. Box 8569
Pine Bluff, AR 71601
501/534-3268; fax 501/534-2152
Kansas Public Transit Association
President's Alternate Steve Fcigenbaum
Executive Director
Kansas Public Transit Association
10250 Gamett
Overland Park, KS 66214
913/492-9092; lax 913/492-9094
Louisiana Public Transit Association
President's Altemale Eugene R. Eddy
General Manager
SporTran
P.O. Box 7314, Industrial Station
Shreveport.LA 71137-7314
318/674-2670; fax 318/674-2678
New Mexico Transit Association
Acting President Jobo Parker
Manager of Development
Sun Tran
601 Yale Blvd. SE
Albuquerque. NM 87106
505/764-6105; fax 505/764-6146
Oklahoma Transit Association
President's Allemate Steve Klika
Administrator
Central Oklahoma Transportation and
Parking Authority
300 S.W. 7th
Oklahoma City. OK 73109
405/297-2484; fax 405/297-2111
Texas Transit Association
President Tom Niskala
GerMral Manager
Corpus Christ! Regional Transit Authority
P.O. Box 23040
Corpus Christi, TX 78403-3040
512/883-2287; fax 512/883-9938
Staff:
Cindc Wcalherby. Executive Director
Tim Baldwin, Associate Executive Director
P.O. Box 2100
Waxahachie, TX 75165-1200
214/937-0052 FAX 214/937^707
315
REASONS FOR DECLINE IN RIDERSHIP
Senator Lautenberg. I think it was important for the record and
for those who are here today to hear the appeals made on a prac-
tical or a functional basis that exist for small systems and more
rural areas, as well as for the large urban areas. This bias that was
developed in the past, and I think was unfair to transportation
needs generally, but it also, in the process, was trying to pit the
smaller areas against the larger areas. The smaller areas are more
dependent, even, on Federal assistance. But the numbers in the
large areas are so, so enormous.
I want to ask Mr. Gambaccini a couple of questions.
You talked about the decline in ridership and the reasons that
you enumerated, such as declining population, et cetera. Is any
part of that due, in your view, to lack of service, poor quality of
service, that kind of thing? Are conditions discouraging ridership?
Mr. Gambaccini. There is no question of that. Senator.
When we introduced new cars or replaced the fleet on the Broad
Street line of the subway system and the new cars on our West
Philadelphia light rail, traffic surged.
On the existing lines that are in the worst shape, there is a high-
er level of decline. There is no question that the conditions are
abominable. In fact, I have shown a slide presentation to a number
of congressional groups here, particularly to the delegation from
Pennsylvania, and challenged the group to show me conditions in
any Third World country worse than the conditions, for example,
on our Market-Frankfort line. It is deplorable. It is a national dis-
grace, and there is no question it contributes to the decline in
ridership.
Fares are another thing. Regarding our fares, we did an analysis.
Right now, Senator, the price of gasoline adjusted for inflation is
$1 less per gallon that it was 10 years ago, and it's 40 cents a gal-
lon less than it was 40 years ago.
The price of a fare in Philadelphia, adjusted for inflation, is 65
percent greater than it was 40 years ago, and the level of service
is substantially less. So we have really adversely impacted the very
people most dependent and most in need of public service.
Senator Lautenberg. That has discouraged ridership. There is
no doubt about it.
Mr. Gambaccini. Absolutely.
Senator Lautenberg. It also has enormous social consequences.
The ftiU impact of transportation in our society is too often looked
at in terms of the specific numbers related to transportation.
When you hear the Portland story, it includes land use and it in-
cludes total planning, and it makes a difference in the world in
which we live.
operating expenses covered by farebox
What percentage of the operating expenses now, Lou, are covered
by the farebox?
Mr. Gambaccini. In our city, it ranges plus or minus 1 or 2 per-
cent at around 55 percent, which puts us right at the top. New Jer-
sey, New York, and Philadelphia are right at the top. The average
316
around the country is about 38 percent, ranging down to about 20
percent or below.
Senator Lautenberg. State and local assistance represents what
share?
Mr. Gambaccini. It's about one-half of our operating budget. It's
close to one-half of our operating budget.
Share of the total budget, do you mean?
Senator Lautenberg. Operating.
Mr, Gambaccini. It's on the order of 40 percent.
Senator Lautenberg. Small, relative to other systems around
the country maybe?
Mr. Gambaccini. Our State is substantially greater than most
other States. I think there is only one other State that is higher.
Senator Lautenberg. Is that a relatively new phenomenon or a
relatively new program?
Mr. Gambaccini. It has been progressive through the last 10
years, largely displacing the decline in Federal support. However,
as you know, the city of Philadelphia is in extreme fiscal distress.
Senator Lautenberg. Right.
Mr. Gambaccini. Therefore, the State has picked up the slack.
Local governments do not have the latitude and are strapped. They
are overwhelmed by the offload of other functions to local govern-
ment support. So, in our case, unlike many other, in fact most
other, States, the State has been the principal provider.
Senator Lautenberg. I see. I thought there was a question in
Pennsylvania about State share of transit needs.
Mr. Gambaccini. Well, yes. We made a major push, and, in fact,
this spilled over to the Federal scene, where there was an effort to
hold back highway funds until and unless the State created this
dedicated fund.
Senator LAUTENBERG. Right.
Mr. Gambaccini. The dedicated fund was enacted in mid- 1991.
Senator Lautenberg. Has that been helpful?
Mr. Gambaccini. Very. It doubled our capital capacity. It was
very, very helpful.
Senator Lautenberg. Can we take the difference between the
farebox contribution of State and local and attribute the remainder
to Federal assistance? We have 95 percent accounted for thusly,
and that would leave 5 percent, roughly, from the Federal Govern-
ment for operating assistance.
Mr. Gambaccini. It's 4 percent Federal for operating assistance.
It was up, as I said, at 18 percent 10 years ago.
AREAS OF increasing EXPENSES
Senator Lautenberg. It is not as significant a share, in my view,
as it ought to be. The question is how do we change it.
What areas of your budget are growing most rapidly?
Mr. Gambaccini. I'm sorry?
Senator Lautenberg, What areas of your budget are growing
most rapidly — operating expenses, capital expenses, or expansion?
Mr, Gambaccini, At the moment, ADA is growing. It is the sin-
gle, it is the only growth service. Everything else is declining in
volume of service.
317
Senator Lautenberg. But is not that a relatively small portion
of the growth of expense?
Mr. Gambaccini. Yes, it is.
Senator Lautenberg. But it is the largest single one. You are
saying on a percentage basis here, not in absolute dollars?
Mr. Gambaccini. No. That's right.
My point, though, is we are in a state of retrenchment and have
been for several years. We are operating with an operating budget
the same as 4 years ago. When you can take into account inflation
and other pressures for improvement in service, including a sub-
stantial increase in police, one of the areas — not currently, but in
the last 4 years — one of the largest percentage increases has been
police. We have gone from on the order of, we have doubled from
about 150 to 325 the police officers. We reduced crime 50 percent
in most of the serious crime categories in that same period.
Senator Lautenberg. What has been the cost to SEPTA of de-
ferred maintenance?
Mr. Gambaccini. I'm sorry.
Senator Lautenberg. What has been the cost and the penalty on
quality of service as a result of deferred maintenance?
Mr. Gambaccini. This is the single biggest tragedy. We have dis-
ruptions, frequent breakdowns of equipment, including support
equipment, power catenaries. Catenaries are constantly being
pulled out. That has been a contributing factor to the decline in
ridership, the unreliability.
We do not believe there are any serious immediate safety con-
cerns. But we have gotten close a number of times and had to do
extraordinary things to keep the system safe and operating. But it
is pervasive.
We are paying a dear price. We are paying an extraordinary
amount for wasteful maintenance merely to keep things afloat, put-
ting on patches, literally, steel patches, to keep conditions from
falling apart. The prudent thing, obviously, is to fix it.
We have one line. Senator, if I might, our busiest line on the sys-
tem— the Market-Frankfort elevated system — which we undertook
to start rehabilitating, the elevated structure, several years ago. It
would have been a 6-year $400 million project. It is now a 21-year
$950 million project. Because of the lack of funding, we have had
to stretch it out. And, rather than completing it on a systems ap-
proach, section by section, which we began and then ran out of
money, we had to go through and put a complete new
understructure to hold the thing from collapsing, go back and do
the track work, go back and do the stations, disrupting the commu-
nity.
It is maddening, the wasteful nature of that expenditure and the
disruption of the community.
WHAT IS needed TO HELP LARGER TRANSIT SYSTEMS
Senator LAUTENBERG. What do you think this committee might
do, Lou, to help the larger transit systems in the country — and a
short answer, if you would?
Mr. Gambaccini. Senator, this is probably not the appropriate
place to say this or do this, but I would love to invite your commit-
68-623 0-93— 11
318
tee to come up and see the conditions for yourself and then ask you
to develop the political will to help us out on an urgent basis.
There are hundreds of thousands of daily riders on that line, 1
million a day, that are affected. The original concept of the UMTA
program was capital grant for rail modernization. It has since been
evolved into a variety of other things. A shrinking fund has been
expanded to cover many, many more objectives, and that is the
heart of the problem.
We have a unique set of problems. South West particularly is
looking to develop new starts and the like. Both are needed.
I would submit that the single best thing you could do is to come
and see for yourself and then do the appropriate thing in terms of
followthrough down here.
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Walsh, Tri-Met is somewhat unique in
that transit is being used as a tool for some significant social
change — cultural change, actually. That is a very positive direction.
It appears as though, through a combination of strict zoning and
land use planning, you hope to manage future development so that
certain corridors of your region can be served by your rail system
and not just blight the land by pouring concrete, et cetera.
Is this a fair assessment of what you are attempting to do by de-
veloping and building this new rail system?
Mr. Walsh. Very much so, Senator. I think two keystones to
that — statewide land use planning regulations were put in place in
1971 that require urban growth boundaries to be drawn around
each urban area in the State and to be maintained. That has fos-
tered compact, urban growth. With that comes moderate densities.
With those moderate densities come all the efficiencies of a transit
system.
Second, we have had just significant support not only from our
citizens, generally, but from the business community to grow this
transit system. It is a grand experiment and so far it is working.
Our ridership is up 35 percent over 7 years ago.
Senator Lautenberg. It is a wonderful part of our country. I
think the citizens in Oregon, and particularly the Portland region,
want to maintain a certain quality of life that brought them there
in the first place. We would like to see that happen across the
country.
Do you believe that FTA's assessment of your system fairly ap-
preciates what you are trying to do by using transit in this grand
scheme?
Mr. Walsh. Moderately. The evaluation of new start projects
places a real emphasis on curing massive problems, and our focus
is to stay ahead of those problems. Our cost effectiveness index is
clearly acceptable, but it is not, by those FTA standards, in the
very best range. But we work well with them, as I indicated in my
opening comments. Within 9 months after the new ISTEA, we had
negotiated the first new full funding grant agreement under that.
Bob McManus and Brian Clymer were of significant help. We have
an extension to that. Language will come by way of amendment to
that full funding grant agreement. The cost effectiveness index on
that is not as favorable as the baseline. But I expect those negotia-
tions to be successful.
319
Senator Lautenberg. It may be a little immodest of me, but
ISTEA was a significant change in our thinking in our transpor-
tation culture in this country.
Mr. Walsh. It was an absolute sea-change.
Senator Lautenberg. Senator Moynihan and my former col-
league, Congressman Bob Rowe, worked so hard. I joined in as did
Senator D'i^ato. We worked very hard. It is heartening to me to
hear of the kinds of use that can be made under that structure, the
kind of applications that can be developed that really make sense
for our country.
I am delighted to have this witness panel here because you rep-
resent some different aspects of what it is that we need in our
transportation matrix. It is very helpful.
MEDIUM AND SMALL CITY TRANSIT SERVICES
Mr. Judge, what do you think the most pressing issues are that
face operators of medium and small city transit services?
Mr. Judge. From our viewpoint, it is just consistency in the ef-
fort and, hopefully, some growth on particularly the operating as-
sistance, which I know is always a tough issue. But for the smsdler
systems, we could have all the capital money in the world, but if
we do not have the money to operate it, that capital money will go
wanting. That is unfortunate.
Senator Lautenberg. These are symbiotic forces. One really can-
not operate without the other and maximize the value that we are
getting.
I have always argued for increased transit operating assistance,
and opponents have argued that the smaller sized systems should
not provide service if they have to depend so heavily on Federal op-
erating help. How do you answer the critics of that?
Mr. Judge. The critics could be right in some instances or some
locations where the local government has not quite gotten around
to supporting the function as well as they could. But in all due re-
spect, many of those same systems have gone through economic
hard times. They are very small. The transit systems are aimed
just toward a certain population, whether it is fortunate or unfortu-
nate, that oftentimes is not represented at the local level. Whatever
incentives can be made to promote local sources to fund it, funding
is one thing. But the realities of economics back home will dictate
what is reality.
Senator Lautenberg. I think the critics are not intending to
simply level a negative message, but, rather, to try and get some
yardstick by which you measure local interest. The Federal Grovem-
ment just is not going to take over and do all these things. But that
does not necessarily mean that the requirements, match require-
ments, et cetera, have to be precisely the same.
You are not going to get a passenger-per-mile equivalent typi-
cally in smaller systems. But you cannot isolate populations and
you cannot say to everybody OK, come on, move into town and we
are going to abandon the rest of the area.
Mr. Judge. If I could use one example very briefly, I will use
New Orleans. We have a dedicated, we have a one penny sales tax.
We have increased our fares, as I said, 2 times in the last 3 years.
And the FTA, or UMTA at the time, proposed to eliminate operat-
320
ing assistance for cities 1 million and above. But when they cast
a net that big, they got us. But within our region, we have 3 other
providers. The New Orleans Economic Commission, the last figures
I have seen show that 45 percent of that population is at the pov-
erty level or below. We have a transit dependency of 20 percent.
There is no way to get more money out of them or out of the city
budget, which has lost block grants in the form of urban renewal
grants and that kind of thing.
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Blumenauer, did you want to add any-
thing?
Mr. Blumenauer. Mr. Chairman, just on your previous question,
it seems to me one of the serious problems we have is that people
are not comparing apples and oranges in the transportation sys-
tem. We have done some calculations about the degree of subsidy
for the automobile in our community which is in the neighborhood
of some $5,000 per vehicle. Forty percent in Pasadena — our col-
leagues have analyzed the impact on their police system and 40
percent of the law enforcement budget goes to the consequences of
the automobile.
I would think that if we were able, with your help, to have a
transportation system that looks at all of the pieces and looks at
comparable degrees of subsidy, both for operations and for capital,
we would find, in fact, that it is far more cost effective to take the
direction in which you are leading us.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you. I think we have to throw avia-
tion in there and take a look at what it costs to operate the system.
This is not to criticize the system. We have a dam good aviation
system. I would like it supplemented by a high-speed rail, as I
think most people know. We are going to continue to work on that.
Thank all very much for being with us.
PANEL III — COMPANIES ADDRESSING NEW TECHNOLOGICAL NEEDS
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
Georgetown University
statement of rev. william l. george, s.j., assistant for fed-
ERAL relations
H Power Corp.
statement of dr. art kaufman, president
Transportation Manufactitring Corp.
statement of eugene tunila, executive vice president
INTRODUCTION OF WITNESSES
Senator Lautenberg. Next we have Dr. Arthur Kaufman, Rev.
William George, and Mr. Eugene Tunila.
Reverend George, it is nice to see you. We are not going to dis-
cuss Seton Hall, none of that today. We are not going to discuss
the important issues. We are going to discuss other things.
Reverend George. I'm going to be there.
Senator Lautenberg. I flew up to New York, funny enough, with
the Georgetown team a couple of weeks ago and sat next to a
young man whose first name was Vladimir. He is from Yugoslavia,
actually I think Croatia, as is one of the star players for the New
Jersey Nets, Petrovic. It was quite interesting.
Reverend George. Vladimir has parents and grandparents on
both sides, Serbian and Bosnian.
Senator Lautenberg. We had a long talk.
Reverend George. He is a wonderful kid.
Senator Lautenberg. Yes, a wonderful person. Wonderful.
OK. We are pressed for time, as always. We are down to the
wire.
I would ask Father Greorge to give his testimony first. Welcome.
It is nice to see you again.
STATEMENT OF FATHER GEORGE
Reverend George. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
committee, and staff. I am Father George, assistant to the presi-
dent of Georgetown. It is nice to be here at the table with Mr.
Tunila and Art Kaufman from TMC and H-Power, people we have
worked with for quite a while. It is nice to be with competent pro-
fessionals.
Behind us are Dean Price and Sam Romano. Sam is our expert
on the bus program at Georgetown, directing it now. Dean is the
(321)
322
person who had the genius to recognize the value of phos-acid fuel
cells for buses.
The program started way back in 1984, when the committee pro-
vided funds to do a study. We estimated after it was deemed fea-
sible that it would cost about $17 million over a 5- or 6-year period
to get a fleet of 30 foot buses.
We have kept to that budget. It is going to end up being about
$17 million over the years, but we will end up with fewer buses.
That is how we kept the price down of the research project and de-
velopment.
It was a marriage between a university that, because it believes
in a liberal education, figured out how to solve a problem of buses
and cleanliness, with the industry that we worked with, and the
Department of Transportation, actually in those days with the
Urban Mass Transit Authority, and the Department of Energy,
which in those days was way back to ERTA.
So with all those pieces together, it was quite a wonderful act to
juggle. It was a lot of juggling but it really worked because the De-
partment of Energy, being more interested in research, would
never have gotten a bus in my opinion. But the Department of
Transportation, wanting a real vehicle in production, and with the
industry to keep it read and actual, we have ended up where we
are going to have a white book approved — not approved, but a vehi-
cle that fits the white book standards of the Federal Transit Ad-
ministration— ready to drive this October.
We cannot drive it on the roads yet because of legal problems
when that happens. But we would invite you to drive it if you
would like to come October or November. It would be neat if you
could invite some other people. Think big. Ask the President.
Senator Lautenberg. Friends or colleagues.
Reverend George. We are so confident that it is going to be
there. It is not a theoretical bus. It will fit the Transit Administra-
tion's guidelines. We are grateful for that.
When we started this program, it was all American. Then
Engelhard sold its patents to Fuji. Well, in the meantime, we fig-
ured out a way to get those patent licenses back. So we are sort
of reversing that trend. It is a stimulating thing to do.
That is almost everything I want to say except that these buses
are so clean. I was listening to Senator D'Amato. Hundreds of these
buses pollute as much as one diesel bus. That is a tremendous step
forward. It is real. The technology is better than we ever antici-
pated.
I would like to thank you for that.
One quick aside. The phos-acid fuel cell is really do-able for
trains. When I went to Japan a while back, they were going to use
these phos-acid mechanisms to run the alternative energies, like
the air conditioning, the lights, the microwaves, or whatever on a
train because they did not want to put up a whole new line of
power lines for electricity. So it is a very viable technology.
I think once we get it on the road, the world will be believing
it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
323
PREPARED STATEMENT
Senator Lautenberg. We will all watch it with interest, Father
George. We have your complete statement and it will be made part
of the record.
[The statement follows:]
324
STATEMENT OF FATHER GEORGE
Dear Mr. Chairman and Subcommittee Members:
I am Father William L. George, SJ, Special Assistant to the President of Georgetown
University, the Reverend Leo J. O'Donovan, SJ. Thank you for the opportunity to testify
before your Subcommittee.
The fuel cell bus development program is well underway to producing working
prototypes of a methanol fueled phosphoric acid fuel cell bus. These buses meet the
Department of Transportation's (DoT) white book standards for buses and will be
demonstrated in the fall of this year, 1993. See Exhibit I.
This is a consortium effort of the Department of Transportation, the Department of
Energy (DoE), Georgetown University (coordinating manager), H-Power Corporation in New
Jersey and TMC, bus manufacturing firm in New Mexico.
Since 1984 the appropriation committees for DoT and Interior have jointly funded this
prototype production. The invested federal funds by DoT is approximately $7 million and
DoE is approximately $10 million.
The emissions from this bus are far less than the requirement of the Clean Air Act.
The provision in the Clean Air Act for urban buses states that clean fuel bus emissions of
PM not exceed 50 percent of emissions allowed for conventional heavy duty vehicles or
engines beginning in May 1994 and thereafter (.05 grams per brake hph). See Exhibit 2.
As a comparative example: several hundred fuel cell buses will emit less pollutants
than one current diesel powered bus.
The next essential step is to get this bus to market. The Transportation
Appropriation Committees wisely provided $5.1 million for the development of
manufacturing process of this fuel cell bus with a promise of funds to follow in Conference
Report 102-924. The need for commercialization funds to do production preplanning and
engineering is critical. Other countries have produced below standard prototypes but are
serious in their efforts to capture a market. The U.S. is a few years ahead, but any delay
and we could be importing buses.
As a result, the Department of Transportation and Georgetown University in a
coordinated effort are in a process of planning to arrange for production of an initial fleet of
about 30, 40ft. buses with H-Power and TMC. The program will provide robotic production
of fuel cell plates and assembly. TMC would gear a robotic production line to produce the
first Heet. After this initial fieet they would go into production.
FY 1994 and 1995 pre-production funds are essential in the range of $12-15 million
per year. See Exhibit 3. Specific state and regional transportation authorities have stated
they will arrange for purchase of the initial fleet in 1996, once close to commercial levels of
production.
Sincerely,
Rev. William L. George, S.J. y
325
en
Q
UJ
liJ
uuu
_l
H-
UJUJUJ
XX
>— •
U
Lntninx
CLO.
2:
UJ
CL
2:2:
~)
iD-^ms:
+
0
Tin
ta
q:
m-^mcD
TT '-
in
CL
u
UJ
en
UJ
_J
muux
XX
•— •
UJ
UJUJCL
0.0.
2:
1-^^
(DC/) CO 2:
2:2:
— 0
S)
xo
mcDsin
Th-
in
sm
— (Din
'T
— '
liJ
<
2:
CD
UJ
□ UJ
XXXUJ
<□
Q-CLCLUJ
q:<
2:2:2:0.
ldq:
1j_
□
t/1
CD
UJ
en
UJ
E3S S
>^
CD
LlI
UJ
— oomcL
uix
Z
CL
D_
1 1 1 0
■CM
<
CO
SSSl—
t\J^
q:
CO
X
X
UJ
326
m
X
X
ULl
327
EXHIBIT 2
Clean-Air Act
Title II PL-101-549
Urban Buses *
• EmissioB* atAadards for cleaa-foel buses. Requires the
administrator to promulgsie by Jan. 1. 1992, emissions standards
for dean-fuei buses for MY 1994 and thereafter. The standards will
be based on the best technolo^ that could reasonably be anuci-
pated to be available at the time the standards are implemented.
Lakinf into account cost, safety, enerfy, lead time and other
relevant factors. Except for the specific requirements referred to in
the next parafiaph, the standards must require compliance with
emissions standards for conventional heavy-duty vehicles ot the
same type and model year.
• Specific requirements for buses. Requires that clean-fuel
bus emissions of PM not exceed 50 percent of the emissions allowed
for convenuonai heavy-duty vehicles or engines m MY 1994 and
thereafter. Tht administrator could exceed the 50 percent level if it
was technoloficaily achievable but could not increase allowable
emissions above 70 percent.
• Additional fuel requiremenL Requires the EPA adminis-
trator annually to test urban buses subject to the PM standard to
determme if they comply over their fuU useful life. If nou the
administrator must require that all buses purchased or put into
service in meuopolitan statistical areas (MSAs) or consolidated
metropolitan statistical areas (CMSAs) with a 1980 population of
750.000 be operated on dean fuels (methanol, ethanol. propane,
natural gas or any comparably low-polluting fuel). The adminis-
trator must phase in the requirement over five years, beginning
three years after the administrator's determination above.
• Existing urban buses. Require that the foregoing clean-fuel
regxilations also apply to existing buses that have their engines
rebuilt or replaced after Jan. 1. 1995, and that operate in the areas
iescnbed.
• PM. Requires that emissions of PM from buses before 1994 not
•xceed 0.25 gram per brake horsepower hour in MY 1991 and MY
L992 and 0.10 gram per brake horsepower hour in MY 1993 and
iiereafter.
Summary. CQ - Nov. 24, 1990. Pg. 3941
328
EXHIBIT 3
PROGRAM PLAN FOR A U.S. PRODUCED FUEL CELL SYSTEM
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This document contains the Program Plan for the development of a U.S. produced fuel
cell system for transit buses. The program is designed to provide the front end engineering and
development activities necessary to make U.S. manufacturers and suppliers ready for
production of fuel cell powered buses in the 1996 period. The Program Plan is responsive to a
Congressionally mandated program as submitted by the Senate Appropriations Committee for
the Department of Transportation and confirmed in the joint House Senate Conference Report.
BACKGROUND
The Departments of Transportation and Energy have been conducting a multi-phased
program to develop a phosphoric acid fuel cell (PAFC) powered bus for the transit industry.
The program which is jointly funded through the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) of The
Department of Transportation and the Electric and Hybrid Propulsion Division of the
Department of Energy's Office of Transportation Technology is presently in the Phase II stage
where three 30 ft fuel cell powered buses are being built. The program, which has been
underway since 1987 will have the first bus operating in 1993. Phase I of this program
produced and tested a fuel cell power system which demonstrated the feasibility of the concept.
The phosphoric acid fuel cell (PAFC) being used in this program was developed by Englehard
Industries in earlier programs using NASA and DOE fund as well as their own. Prior to the
official start of Phase I, Englehard sold the development and manufacturing rights to Fuji
Electric of Japan.
This Program Plan is focused on reinstating the U.S. lead in fuel cell development and
preparing for the serial production of units by U.S. manufacturers.
PROGRAM APPROACH
Georgetown University initiated the fuel cell bus program and under the auspices of the
Department of Transportation's Urban Mass Transportation Administration (now FTA)
managed the initial feasibility study. At present Georgetown provides the technical and
program management for the ongoing three bus development program. It is proposed to
continue Georgetown in this role to direct the introduction of a U.S. supplier for Fuel Cell
Buses production.
To assist Georgetown TMC, the bus manufacturer presently conducting the design
study for a fuel cell powered 40 ft bus under the ongoing contract, will share the management
role for this program. TMC is the largest transit bus manufacturer in the U.S. Their expertise
in bus manufacturing and their experience in the fuel cell bus program will provide a
significant cost and time advantage in configuring a U.S. produced FC bus system.
The first step, as shown in Figure 1 will be for Georgetown to prepare a program
definition and requirements document and request proposals for a study. One or more U.S.
fuel cell developers will be given a 6 month Phase O study contract to prepare plans to develop
and produce a domestic PAFC system and submit a proposal for the plan. The program will
be divided into three phases to carry out the plan proposed by the selected contractor. The
329
phased program will develop a domestic fuel cell for a 40 ft transit bus, build fuel cells and
buses for testing, build a limited number of 40ft. pre-prototype fuel cell buses for evaluation
and prepare plans and organize the infrastructure needed for the production phase. Upon
completion of this program, pilot production can begin and buses procured under the FTA
capital grant funding program.
The phases and duration are as follows:
Phase I, Preliminary Design of Prototype Production Units
This will be a 12 month program and will also include the configuration of the
40 ft. bus for the PAFC power system.
Phase II, Fabrication of Two PC Test Units and One 40 Ft. Bus System
This is a 12 month program which will confirm the FC design and proceed to
integrate it with the bus.
Phase III, Test Bus Evaluation and Fabrication of Three Pre-Prototype Bus Systems
This phase is 18 months long and will evaluate the test buses and produce pre-
production systems for further evaluation. It will confirm the design is ready for
pilot production.
Figure 2 is the funding plan which indicates the distribution of the funds and the
phasing of funding requests for the additional funds over and above the $5. 1 M authorized.
330
s
i
*^ s ■"
n 3 o
u! £ £
• s
f I
= c ^ ">
Ul S ° 5
• VI ■ IS ea
I < J s „
c ~ « u. 3?
UJ
H
V)
>
(/>
V)
D
m
o
o
D
O
o
a.
_ c -8 ^
- 9 = ,
UJ s c 3
V) u ^ m
Z s « O
Q. u. >- *
s
3
m
- e- ^ g 2
lu c 2 S !!
X • o "
a. £ o £ r
<
a.
•
E
o
O
O
z
Si
<
z
a.
S
4
cc
O
o
oc
i
* <
„ c 2
o S a _
s: u ^ I
C ^ rf O
■ o p o
f/> <^ U. Q.
UJ c
X S
ft. a. O 10
I
s i
3
m
lU
<
X
<-
(3-5
"SO*
s 2 - o
>- " n: " S
ki. (J ^ *
O)
u. t ^
<
a.
u
E
o
o
Ul
vt
<
X
<-
1 1 °
3 3 «
*n u. <*
111
(/>
<
Z
Li
ff
lO 3
01 <T
>£
t <»5
I ^ o
3 3 —
<n
2 2 o
U
I 1 -i
3 3 —
</) u. <^
331
332
STATEME^^^ of dr. art KAUFMAN
Senator Lautenberg. Dr. Kaufman, welcome.
Dr. Kaufman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee and staff.
I am Arthur Kaufman, president of H-Power Corp., a small busi-
ness located in Belleville, NJ. Thank you for the opportunity to
speak with you today about our company and about our views on
transportation needs in this country.
We at H-Power have been active in the development of fuel cells
and commercialization activities for that since 1988. H-Power is
pursuing phosphoric acid and membrane electrolyte fuel cells for
certain vehicular and stationary applications. One major emphasis
is in low wattage, battery replacement type devices that take ad-
vantage of the high energy density of hydrogen, as stored in metal
hydride cartridges.
H-Power is also engaged in the development of subsystems for
fuel processing and energy storage in conjunction with integrated
fuel cell systems. One approach of particular promise involves re-
acting steam in a bed of iron particles to generate hydrogen in situ,
safely and inexpensively, to produce zero emissions fuel cell power
or, alternatively, ultra low emissions I.C. engine power.
Most pertinent to today's discussion is the methanol-fueled, liq-
uid-cooled phosphoric acid fuel cell power source for vehicular ap-
plications. H-Power is the prime contractor for the current DOE
phase II project to implement such a power source in transit buses.
This contract will result in the fabrication, testing, and deplo3rment
of three 29-foot test bed buses as well as the conceptual design for
a full-size 40-foot fuel cell powered transit bus.
The fuel cell technology being applied by an overseas subcontrac-
tor in this project is based on technology developed by myself and
H-Power colleagues while we were at Engelhard Corp. in New Jer-
sey. It is H-Power's objective to become an integrator and supplier
of fuel cell based propulsion systems for transit buses and other ve-
hicles, and we shall seek to manufacture substantial portions of the
fuel cell subsystem itself.
What we are advocating, Mr. Chairman, is not business as usual
in relation to what was said earlier by Senator D'Amato. H-Power
advocates that the phosphoric acid fuel cell bus program be recog-
nized for its outstanding potential in creating a reasonably near-
term environmental asset for our cities.
Furthermore, we often use the term "pathfinder" for this pro-
gram since its commercial success would be expected to foster the
acceptance and implementation of other fuel cell technologies in
various transportation and related applications.
Specifically, the existing DOE fuel cell phase II program and its
logical successors, leading to the construction and evaluation of
small fleets of fuel cell powered buses, should be fully supported.
Equally important, however, is strong support for the DOT pro-
gram to provide funding for manufacturing engineering and tooling
that will enable such construction to proceed at reasonable cost,
starting in 1996.
Other key government actions to stimulate commercialization of
this vital technology would be: (1) high DOT subsidies, say 90 per-
333
cent, for purchase of fuel cell powered buses by transit properties
nationwide; (2) requirements for including such vehicles in Federal
fleet purchases; and (3) examination of possible alterations in Fed-
eral, State, and local laws and regulations to facilitate demonstra-
tion and commercialization of such fuel cell powered vehicles.
We also wish to highlight the role of small business in this sce-
nario. H-Power, as a prime contractor in the phase II fuel cell pow-
ered bus project, does not profit from this position. In fact, our com-
pany is required to contribute dearly to accommodate built-in cost-
share obligations.
We believe that this is an acceptable price to pay in fostering this
highly desirable transportation technology, providing that there is
an opportunity for profitability down the road. We, as a product-
oriented small business, can move responsively to address the mar-
ket. We are not constrained by market-size concerns. We seek to
exploit domestically created technology that we, as a company and
as individuals, helped establish.
Our business sector is responsible for the overwhelming portion
of job creation in this country in recent years, and this transpor-
tation technology has great potential for enhancing this trend.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, our country has the opportunity to
foster a transportation technology that can greatly improve air
quality in our cities and make a salient contribution toward our
meeting Clean Air Act goals.
Furthermore, noise would be significantly reduced and high fuel
efficiently can be realized while utilizing domestic fuels.
Finally, this transportation initiative can help bolster our coun-
try's position in fuel cell technology, create domestic jobs, and, es-
pecially because of substantially nigher energy pricing overseas,
provide an attractive export opportunity.
Thank you very much, Mr. Cnairman.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you. That was done with engineer-
ing precision in 5 minutes. I am sure that that is your background.
Dr. Kaufman. I plead guilty.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Senator Lautenberg. We have your prepared statement and it
will be made part of the record.
[The statement follows:]
Statement of Arthur Kaufman
Dear Mr. Chairman and Subcommittee Members: I am Arthur Kaufinan, Presi-
dent of H Power Corp., a small business located in Belleville, New Jersey. Thank
you for the opportunity to speak with you today about our company and our views
on transit needs in this country.
We at H Power have been active in the development of and pre-commercial activi-
ties for fuel cell power systems since 1988. I, personally, and some of my colleagues
at H Power, have over 25 years of experience in the fuel cell field.
H Power is pursuing phosphoric acid and membrane electrol3rte fuel cells for cer-
tain vehicular and stationary applications. One major emphasis, in addition to the
phosphoric acid fuel cell based vehicle propulsion systems that wUl be discussed
here today, is in low-wattage, battery-replacement type devices that take advantage
of the high energy density provided by hydrogen as stored in metal hydride car-
tridges. We are cvurently making initial shipments of such units (at the nominal
25 W level) as demonstration devices.
H Power is also engaged in the development of subsystems for fuel processing and
energy storage in conjunction with integrated fuel cell systems. One approach of
334
particular promise involves reacting steam in a bed of iron particles to generate hy-
drogen in situ — safely and inexpensively — to produce zero-emissions fuel cell power
(or, alternatively, ultra-low emissions I.C. engine power). The iron for such a process
represents an alternative fuel since it can be formed through the use of a broad
range of domestic fuels and waste-derived fuels.
Most pertinent to today's discussion, however, is the methanol-fueled, liquid-
cooled phosphoric acid fuel cell power source for vehicular applications. H Power is
the Prime Contractor for the current DOE Phase II project to implement such a
power source in transit buses. This contract will result m the fabrication, testing
and deployment of three 29-foot test-bed buses as well as the conceptual design for
a full-size 40-foot fuel cell powered transit bus.
The fuel cell technology being applied by an overseas subcontractor in this project
is based on technology developed oy myself and H Power colleagues while we were
at Engelhard Corporation in New Jersey. It is H Power's objective to become an in-
tegrator and supplier of fuel cell based propulsion systems for transit buses and
other vehicles, and we shall seek to manufacture substantial portions of the fuel cell
subsystem itself
Permit me to offer my perspective on the application of fuel cells in transit appli-
cations at this point. Ever since I was involved in the application of such technology
in forklift trucks in the 1980's, I have been convinced that the methanol-fueled, liq-
uid-cooled phosphoric acid fuel cell, in conjunction with a surge battery, comprises
an outstanding system for transit buses (and other vehicle applications as well). The
system integrates well and our current projections indicate that performance will
readily meet diesel bus benchmarks. Here is a fuel cell technology that is virtually
ready (pending a modest degree of system optimization) and an application that
truly makes commercial sense, provided that initial economic barriers can be over-
come.
H Power advocates that the phosphoric acid fuel cell bus program be recognized
for its outstanding potential in creating a reasonably near-term environmental asset
for our cities. Furthermore, we often use the term "pathfinder" for this program
since its commercial success would be expected to foster the acceptance and imple-
mentation of other fuel cell technologies in various transportation and related appli-
cations. Specifically, the existing DOE Phase II program and its logical successors,
leading to the constiniction and evaluation of small fleets of fuel cell powered buses,
should be fully supported. Equally important, however, is strong support for the
DOT program to provide funding for manufacturing engineering and tooling that
will enable such construction to proceed at reasonable cost, starting in 1996. This
dual-pronged approach will help break the vicious cycle that so often prevents costs
of new technology from being lowered because of insufficient volume, while volume
remains low because costs are too high.
Other key Gfovemment actions to stimulate commercialization of this vital tech-
nology would be (i) high DOT subsidies (90 percent) for purchase of fuel cell powered
buses by transit properties nationwide; (ii) requirements for including such vehicles
in federal fleet purchases; and (iii) examination of possible alterations in federal,
state and local laws to facilitate demonstration and commercialization of such fuel
cell powered vehicles. These actions would serve to boost the new technology over
the introductory commercialization threshold and then allow normal market forces
to take over with respect to long-term commercialization.
We also wish to highlight the role of small business in this scenario. H Power,
as Prime Contractor in the Phase II ftiel cell powered bus project, does not profit
from this position. In fact, our company is required to contribute dearly to accommo-
date built-in cost-share obligations. We believe that this is an acceptable price to
pay in fostering this highly desirable transportation technology, providing that there
is an opportunity for profitability down the road. We, as a product-oriented small
business, can move responsively to address the market. We are not constrained by
market-size concerns. We seek to exploit domestically-created technology that we, as
a company and as individuals, helped establish. Our business sector is responsible
for the overwhelming portion of job creation in this country in recent years, and this
transportation technology has great potential for enhancing this trend.
In conclusion, our country has the opportunity to foster a transportation tech-
nology that can greatly improve air quality in our cities (the methanol-fueled fuel
cell powered bus being virtually non-polluting) and make a salient contribution to-
ward meeting Clean Air Act goals. Furtiiermore, noise would be significantly re-
duced, and high fiiel efficiency can be realized while utilizing domestic fuels. Fi-
nally, this transportation initiative can help bolster our country's position in fuel
cell technology, create domestic jobs, and — especially because of substantially higher
energy pricing overseas — provide an attractive export opportunity.
335
STATEMENT OF ENGENE TUNILA
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Tunila, it is nice to see you. We invite
you to testify.
Mr. Tunila. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Eugene Tunila, ex-
ecutive vice president of Transportation Manufacturing Corp.
Senator Lautenberg. If you pull the microphone a little closer,
we'll hear you a bit better. Thank you.
Mr. Tunila. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before your
subcommittee. My subjects discussed this morning will be, first, a
brief resume of the past history of the transit bus industry, concep-
tual proposals for investments and needs as well as their benefits,
and, finally, ideas that can generate significant investment savings
for operating as well as the passengers' properties and manufactur-
ers.
The bus transit industry in the 1970's has been characterized as
a national effort to achieve a strengthened transportation infra-
structure oriented toward major population mobility in order to
minimize the anticipated gridlock and improve the general eco-
nomic welfare.
In the late 1970's and early 1980's, a multitude of offshore manu-
facturers entered the U.S. market in anticipation of growth and
perceived opportunities, such as the European manufactured, expe-
rienced in more reliance on urban transportation.
M.A.N., Volvo, and Saab entered and exited our market and left
behind a fleet of orphans which has, in turn, eventually increased
the properties' operating costs as the offshore fleet aged.
The 1980's and the 1990's reflected a trend of funding erosion in
the face of needs, as evidenced by ISTEA and additional regula-
tions mandated by requirements for cleaner air and further product
enhancements for the disadvantaged.
The present unit cost impact of providing an alternate fueled bus
in compliance with ADA regulations is $50,000 per vehicle of in-
creased capital cost, which does not include the operating cost pen-
alty. Other consequences include 2,000 to 3,000 pounds of addi-
tional weight on a clean air bus, reduced seating capacity per bus,
from about 50 to 45 people, which, in return, requires more buses
and/or bus utilization per passenger trip, in spite of the increasing
number of same.
Third is increased training in new technologies on the supply as
well as the user side.
OEM development funding diversions have occurred toward the
regulations that have been mandated at the expense of new prod-
uct development and enhancements.
Six, increased transition funding for conversion to new alter-
native fueling stations at the properties.
Seven is more weight, less passengers, cleaner air, and less fuel
economy equate to higher operating costs to be borne by all, most
especially in the nonattainment areas.
To further compound our situation, our fleets are aging since
funding levels forced us to abandon the recommended replacement
cycle. For example, during the 1980's, the average age of our fleets
has increased to over 8 years on average versus a desired 6-year
average. We are currently trapped in a whirlpool of obsolete tech-
336
nology and product. We are past the point of prudent deferral, and
a planned effective program to minimize capital and operating
costs while maximizing intermodal service is required.
TMC has basically four priority recommendations. One, funding
program available with a consistent flow and predictability that
supports a replacement cycle of an average fleet age of 6 to 8 years.
The replacement cycle would equate to a U.S. volume of approxi-
mately 3,000 to 4,000 units per year plus or minus growth.
Two, to update our fleets by a transition or bridge program pro-
viding a framework within ISTEA to remanufacture aged buses
and incorporate the latest ADA and clean air standards at approxi-
mately 60 percent of the cost of a new bus but with a new war-
ranty. This program will also stretch the public's dollar.
Three, support R&D efforts on the 21st century technology, such
as the fuel cell project, which can achieve ZEV status and also be-
come the vanguard for eventual bus exports from the United States
with U.S. built fuel cells. In addition, the program has the advan-
tage of utilizing the existing fueling stations being put in place for
alternate fuel vehicles — no throw-away investments in the fuel cell
program.
Fourth, fund a total systems approach to coordinate, evaluate,
and manage all the interfaces for transportation R&D, the
intermodality network, exportable product and technology goals,
product recyclability, IVHS, clean air and energy dependency. Such
a proposal already exists and is being sponsored Toy Sandia Na-
tional Laboratories.
Areas where TMC recommends for your consideration on capital
and operating savings include: one, replace the 80 to 90 percent
funding for bus purchases with a fixed per unit funding level to
discourage specification proliferation and provide incentives to min-
imize unnecessary specifications and government controls, all with-
in accepted heavy duty bus standards.
Two, provide a stimulus for a remanufactured bus program at 60
percent of new bus cost on properties or for properties whose appli-
cations do not require a new bus, perhaps rural use.
Three, reassess trolley bus funding and divert to the purchase of
alternate fueled vehicles as well as alternate fueled fueling stations
as an interim step toward the implementation of fuel cell tech-
nology. The trolley product is not only imported, but it is also obso-
lete technology and will become even more obsolete after the intro-
duction of the fuel cell.
Four, mandate that all new buses produced after 1997 must be
capable of being remanufactured to accept fuel cell technology.
Five, foreign aid should be tied directly to the purchases of U.S.
manufactured goods, for example, new or used buses to create a
transportation infrastructure for emerging Nations.
Six, reevaluate the duplication on the proposed R&D projects,
such as CALSTART, Chesapeake, the Houston-New York Consor-
tium, and ATTB, and focus more efforts on the fuel cell.
Seven, afl^er transaction prices are established between the man-
ufacturer and buyer, mandate that progress payments are to be
utilized with the manufacturer to pass through the capital cost sav-
ings to the buyer. This is a 2-percent potential reduction to the
total capital program.
337
Last, trade parity with Canada for transit buses is basically non-
existent, as currently one-third of the United States market for
transit buses is Canadian export versus no exports to Canada by
United States manufacturers for transit buses.
I sincerely appreciate this opportunity to share our vision, Sen-
ator. I believe with the fuel cell, we are on the cutting edge of tech-
nology.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you, Mr. Tunila. We have your pre-
pared statement and it will be made part of the record.
[The statement follows:]
338
STATEMENT OF EUGENE F. TUNILA
Dear Mr. Chairman and Sub Committee Members:
A TMC PERSPECTIVE OF THE TRANSIT BUS INDUSTRY
(Status and Needs)
I AM Eugene F. Tunzla, Executive Vice President of Transportation
Manufacturing Corporation, division of Dial Corp. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify before your sub committee.
The SUBJECTS discussed this morning will be first, a brief RESUME
of the past history of the transit bus as well as the CURRENT
INDUSTRY STATUS. SECONDLY, CONCEPTUAL PROPOSALS ON INVESTMENTS,
NEEDS AND THEIR BENEFITS, AND FINALLY, IDEAS THAT CAN GENERATE
SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENT AND OPERATING SAVINGS FOR TRANSIT BUS
PASSENGERS, PROPERTIES AND MANUFACTURERS.
What I will not address are quantitative funding sources and levels
WHICH ARE BEST DETERMINED AFTER THE RE-EVALUATION OF THE TRANSIT
BUS PROGRAM, A DYNAMIC AND REVITALIZED PROGRAM WILL ADOPT ALL OR
MOST OF OUR RECOMMENDED IDEAS AS THEY RELATE TO THE TOTAL
XNTERMODALITY OF OUR NATIONAL TRANSIT NEEDS.
The BUS transit industry in the 1970 's has been characterized as a
NATIONAL effort TO ACHIEVE A STRENGTHENED TRANSPORTATION
INFRASTRUCTURE ORIENTED TOWARD MAJOR POPULATION INTERMOBILITY IN
ORDER TO MINIMIZE THE ANTICIPATED GRIDLOCK AND IMPROVE THE GENERAL
ECONOMIC WELFARE. INTERMODALITY CONSIDERATIONS WERE NOT AS
PREVALENT AS IN TODAY'S STRATEGY. CRITICS WOULD SAY IT WAS A
PERIOD OF HASTE AND WASTE RATHER THAN A PLANNED INTEGRAL
PROGRESSION TOWARDS A NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY. In THE LATE
70 'S AND EARLY 80'S A MULTITUDE OF OFFSHORE MANUFACTURERS ENTERED
THE US MARKET IN ANTICIPATION OF GROWTH AND PERCEIVED OPPORTUNITIES
SUCH AS THE EUROPEAN MANUFACTURERS EXPERIENCED FROM MORE RELIANCE
ON URBAN TRANSPORTATION. H.A.N. , VOLVO, AND SAAB ENTERED AND
EXITED OUR MARKET AND LEFT BEHIND A FLEET OF ORPHANS WHICH HAS IN
turn eventually increased the properties operating costs as the
offshore fleet aged.
The 80 '5 were also characterized as a continual erosion of funding
levels in spite of an awareness of societies needs for cleaner air
and transportation mobility for the disadvantaged.
The 90's continued this trend of funding erosion in the face of
needs as evidenced by istea and additional regulations mandated by
requirements for cleaner air and further product enhancements for
the disadvantaged. as a consequence, the present unit cost has
EXCEEDED THE INFLATIONARY COST GENERALLY ASSOCIATED WITH OTHER
AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS. THE PRESENT UNIT COST IMPACT OF PROVIDING AN
339
alternate fueled bus in compliance with ada regulations 1$ $50,000
per vehicle of increased capital costs.
Other consequences include:
0 two to three thousand pounds of adoztzonal weight.
0 Reduced seating capacity per bus from about 50 to 45 people
which in turn requires more buses and/or bus utilization per
passenger TRIP IN SPITE OF AN INCREASING NUMBER OF SAME.
o Increased training in new technologies on the supply and user
SIDE.
0 OEM development FUNDING DIVERSIONS TOWARD REGULATIONS AT THE
expense of new product development and enhancements.
0 Increased transition funding for transition to new alternative
FUELING stations AT THE PROPERTIES.
0 NORE WEIGHT. LESS PASSENGERS, CLEANER AIR, LESS FUEL ECONOMY
EQUATES TO HIGHER OPERATING COSTS TO BE BORNE BY ALL, HOST
ESPECIALLY WITHIN NONATTAINMENT AREAS.
To FURTHER COMPOUND OUR SITUATION OUR FLEETS ARE AGING SINCE
FUNDING LEVELS FORCED US TO ABANDON THE RECOMMENDED REPLACEMENT
CYCLE. For EXAMPLE, DURING THE 80 'S THE AVERAGE AGE OF OUR FLEETS
HAS INCREASED TO OVER 8 YEARS VERSUS A DESIRED AVERAGE AGE OF SIX
YEARS. We ARE CURRENTLY TRAPPED IN A WHIRLPOOL OF OBSOLETE
TECHNOLOGY AND PRODUCT. We ARC PAST THE POINT OF PRUDENT DEFERRAL.
A PLANNED-EFFECTIVE PROGRAM TO MINIMI2E CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS
WHILE MAXIMIZING INTERMODAL SERVICE AND AVOIDING THE HASTE/WASTE
over/under PRODUCTION OF THE PAST IS REQUIRED. TMC RECOMMENDS FOR
YOUR CONSIDERATION A "FIX THE PROBLEM" SCENARIO NOT "WHO IS TO
BLAME" SCENARIO.
The TOP FOUR investment priorities are:
o Funding program available with a consistent flow and
predictability that supports a replacement cycle of an average
fleet age of 6-8 years. The replacement cycle would equate to
A U.S. volume op three to four thousand units per year +/-
GROWTH.
0 To update our fleets by a transition OR bridge program
providing a framework within ISTEA to rehanufacture aged buses
and incorporate the latest ADA and cleaner air STANDARDS AT
approximately 60% of the cost of a new bus, but with a new bus
WARRANTY. THIS PROGRAM WILL ALSO STRETCH THE PUBLICS
investment DOLLAR.
o Support R & 0 efforts on the 21st century technolocy such as
THE fuel cell PROJECT WHICH CAN ACHIEVE ZEV STATUS AND ALSO
BECOME THE VaNGUARO FOR EVENTUAL BUS EXPORTS WITH U.S. BUILT
FUEL CELLS. IN ADDITION, THE PROGRAM HAS THE ADVANTAGE OF
UTILIZING THE EXISTING FUELING STATIONS BEING PUT IN PLACE FOR
340
alternative fueled vehicles. no throw away investment in this
program!
0 Fund the total systems approach for transportation R&D
ZNTERNODALITY NETWORK, EXPORTABLE PRODUCT AND TECHNOLOGY,
PRODUCT RECYC LABILITY, IVHS, CLEAN AIR AND ENERGY DEPENDENCY
AS THE PROGRAM PROPOSED BY THE SaNDIA NATIONAL LABORATORIES.
Areas where TMC recommends for your consideration on capital and
OPERATING savings INCLUDE:
0 Replace the 80 to 90% funding for bus purchases with a fixed
per unit funding level to discourage specification
proliferation AND PROVIDE INCENTIVES TO MINIMIZE UNNECESSARY
specifications and government controls all within accepted
heavy duty bus standards.
0 Provide stimulus for remanufactured bus program at 60% of new
BUS costs - on properties WHICH APPLICATIONS DO NOT REQUIRE A
NEW BUS.
0 RE-ACCESS TROLLEY BUS FUNDING AND DIVERT TO THE PURCHASE OF
ALTERNATE FUELED BUSES, ALTERNATE FUEL FUELING STATIONS AS AN
INTERIM STEP TOWARD FUEL CELL TECHNOLOGY. TROLLEY PRODUCT IS
IMPORTED AND WILL BECOME OBSOLETE SHORTLY AFTER THE
INTRODUCTION OF THE FUEL CELL.
0 A MANDATE THAT ALL NEW BUSES PRODUCED AFTER 1997 MUST BE
CAPABLE OF BEING REMANUFACTURED TO ACCEPT FUEL CELL
TECHNOLOGY.
o Foreign aid should be directly tied to purchases of U.S.
MANUFACTURED GOODS, EG: NEW OR USED BUSES TO CREATE A
transportation INFRASTRUCTURE FOR EMERGING NATIONS.
O Re-EVALUATE THE POTENTIAL DUPLICATION ON THE PROPOSED R&D
PROJECTS, SUCH AS CALSTART, Chesapeake, Houston, New York
Consortium, and ATTB.
0 After transaction prices are established between the
manufacturer and buyer, mandate that progress payments are to
be utili2ed with the manufacturer to pass through to the buyer
THE COST OF CAPITAL SAVINGS. ThIS IS A POTENTIAL 2% SAVINGS
on the total capital program.
0 Trade parity with Canada for transit buses is non existent -
as currently one-third of the u.s. market for transit buses zs
Canadian export versus no exports to Canada by U.S.
MANUFACTURERS FOR TRANSIT BUSES.
1 SINCERELY APPRECIATE THIS OPPORTUNITY OF SHARING OUR VISION OF A
TRANSIT SYSTEM WHICH IS ON THE CUTTING EDGE OF TECHNOLOGY, PROVIDES
INCREASED PUBLIC APPRECIATION OF OUR SYSTEMS, AND STRETCHES THE
PUBLIC INVESTMENT IN OUR VITAL INDUSTRY.
341
STATEMENT OF SENATOR DOMENICI
Senator Lautenberg. We are pleased to be joined by Senator Do-
menici, our colleague, who is knowledgeable and very much inter-
ested in transportation matters. He wanted to have a chance to say
a word.
Senator DOMENICI. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I wanted
to make sure that my friend from TMC in Roswell knew that I am
a member of this subcommittee, but I am upstairs marking up the
budget resolution. We have another 5 hours to go, so I have to re-
turn.
But I wanted to thank you for coming up here and sharing your
expertise with this subcommittee. It is good to see the other two
witnesses. I know Father George quite well. So two out of the three
witnesses I know very well, and I welcome you also.
Reverend GEORGE. Thank you.
Senator DOMENICI. Let me speak to you for a moment, Mr.
Tunila, and congratulate you on the effort that TMC is involved
with in trying to use modern technology and modern research, in-
cluding some research that can be supplied by the Federal Govern-
ment's excellent national laboratories to move ahead. With this ef-
fort, our buses will be not only more competitive, but serve their
purposes better, and be more durable and of higher quality. I con-
gratulate TMC for taking the lead on this important initiative.
Last, we are delighted that you are in New Mexico, in Roswell,
NM.
I think at one point you told me that Roswell, NM, was a small
New Mexico city that produced more buses than any other city in
the United States. I don't know if that is still the case, but that
was a very exciting plus for New Mexico.
Mr. TUNILA. If it isn't. Senator, it will be.
Senator DOMENICI. Thank you.
Senator Lautenberg. By the efforts of this committee, Mr.
Tunila?
Senator Domenici. Yes; I will help you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much, Senator Domenici.
One of the things that we want to try to do is to move, as you
noted in your comments, some of this manufacture back here to the
United States where most of this was begun. We ought not to have
lost this important manufacturing opportunity.
We would like to find out how the Federal Government can bet-
ter promote and encourage domestic content in transit equipment,
see what kind of reforms need to be made to encourage more Amer-
ican manufacturers to get involved with transit manufacturing, and
review what kind of technologies seem to be the most promising for
transit applications in order to make our transit operations more
effective.
I have one word to Dr. Kaufman. I don't know whether you know
where Washington Avenue is in Belleville.
Dr. Kaufman. Yes; I certainly do.
Senator Lautenberg. Do you know where Girolovan Street is?
Dr. Kaufman. Oh, yes.
Senator Lautenberg. Well, I lived off the comer, upstairs, over
my father's store.
342
Dr. Kaufman. Oh, a neighbor.
Senator Lautenberg. That was with my family and a lot of
years ago. It was en route to getting here that I worked behind the
counter of that store with my parents.
alternate energy systems for city buses
Father George, your university is involved in a very exciting and
promising area of research for the development of alternate energy
systems for city buses. How did Georgetown get involved in this
field?
Reverend George. Well, I have been asked that on a number of
energy issues, Mr. Chairman, and it is the value of a liberal edu-
cation. You study history so that you do not make the mistakes of
the past. You study philosophy so that you do not try to rework
how people philosophize on how to live, so that you can make
progress. And you learn logic so you can solve problems. That is
the purpose of a liberal education, to get you to think for yourself
so that you are not manipulated out of ignorance.
Well, we have all kinds of energy problems. We are just a small
city, really, when you get down to it. And we had an aging fleet
of buses. My thought was — actually, it was Dean Price's thought —
that we could either just buy some more Mercedes diesel buses,
like we had, or think of something imaginative that would serve
the purposes of the university and the Federal Government. We
came to the conclusion that this technology, which had been stud-
ied at Los Alamos, was really feasible, but nobody seemed to recog-
nize that if you pushed it, you could actually have clean buses and
we could get a fleet of buses out of this. That was my original
thought — to get a fleet of buses for Greorgetown.
It ended up much more than that. It got to the point where at
times I would say is it really worth all this for 12 lousy buses. You
know, why don't we just buy some Fords?
But we understood that if you get your car behind a diesel bus
with your air conditioner on and your windows up, that soot still
gets inside the car.
Now I don't smoke and I would smell that stuff. I said if we could
do this, it would really benefit our cities and the world.
I just made some friends in Mexico. I could not believe that city
and what clean buses would do there. So then it became that it is
the right thing to do. True to form, we could not solve the problem,
but we could think through how to solve the problem. That is how
we ended up with H-Power and TMC. These are the experts. You
do not have to solve the problem yourself Just find the right ex-
perts. That is how we got involved with it and found the answer
to the solution.
Fortunately, the wisdom of this committee has seen that. We
thank you.
Senator Lautenberg. That is very interesting.
Do you know what advantages the technology you are pursuing
offer for lower operating costs and meeting the Clean Air Act re-
quirements?
Reverend GEORGE. Well, I would bow to the experts on that, but
I am certain that we have read the Clean Air Act law. I thought
you might ask that question.
343
The fuel cell bus — I checked this out with Sam — puts out NOX
at 0.18. A diesel bus puts out 5.0. The carbon monoxide in these
buses is 0.55. A diesel's is 15.5. That is how we come to the conclu-
sion that it takes hundreds of these buses to pollute as much as
one diesel.
Just think about that. It is phenomenal.
Senator Lautenberg. It is incredible. If you ever want to get a
first-hand opinion of the effect of the emissions from diesels, go to
talk to people who work in toll booths, who collect. Whether it is
at the Washington Bridge, the Lincoln Tunnel, the New Jersey
Turnpike, you name it. Wherever there is a traffic stop where hu-
mans are involved, they will tell you about what an unpleasant as-
signment that is. So we would like to see your success, all of you.
Continue to work on this.
We have to find out how the Federal Grovemment can help. What
can wc do besides giving money, which is a very hard thing to do
these days. But we have to do it. We have to invest in the future,
just like any company.
I ran a company and our investments in the future were made
every day, often off the sweat of our backs because we could only
afford to do things that our own labor and our own intellect could
supply. But it took a long time to get it going.
PROMOTING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
What can the Federal Government do. Dr. Kaufman, do you
think, to promote more research and development in energy?
Dr. Kaufman. We had alluded to some of the factors beyond the
funding of these key DOE and DOT programs in terms of regu-
latory issues and legal issues that are on the State, Federal, and
local levels that tend to be impediments to introducing new tech-
nology, things that tend to get in the way of progress. Redtape just
slows things down so much. We already have been faced with an
awful lot of that type of thing.
So it is that type of thing. It is the requirement of Federal fleets
to utilize this new technology appropriately so it can be dem-
onstrated and get over this introductory commercialization hurdle
that the Federal Government can to do help over and above the
funding of these programs that I alluded to earlier.
Reverend George. Mr. Chairman, just on one thing there, this
program is — really, we could have had a bus 2 years ago. But be-
cause of bureaucratic problems between the Urban Mass Transit
Authority and the DOE, and moneys going back and forth, and the
contracting procedures, and the protests here and there, it delayed
things to where the window for us capitalizing on this industry is
shorter. I think people estimate that we have a 4- or 5-year lead
on other countries with this technology, but that window will get
shorter as it takes or goes a bit longer.
What I have noticed in my brief— not too brief anymore — history
at Georgetown is that we are really good at developing good tech-
nology. I mean, the space program has done it. There is a variety
of ways.
It is the industry, it is the getting of this stuff to where the Unit-
ed States captures the market that is where we break down. Sort
of the Government forgets about things. It's oh, good, we can create
344
phos-acid fuel cells good enough. They can run trains and buses?
Forget it.
Well, you cannot do that if you don't want to be buying foreign
buses because the other people will capitalize on that technology
and how to get those early prototype factories going. That is where
we have to take the next step.
Senator Lautenberg. So there is always the question of whether
or not the product leads the market or the market leads the prod-
uct. Very often, in matters that include science and technology, it
is the product that leads the market. And if vou do not get going
on it and you don't say hey, listen, we can ao it, if what we are
going to do is wait for our industry to be protected from others, I,
frankly, do not think that is the right way to go. I think what we
have to do is encourage the Government to encourage research, to
encourage development, to get out there and make the awareness
factor a larger one in terms of wh^t kind of opportunity exists out
there.
We have been delinquent. It has been easier for a lot of compa-
nies in this country to shift their jobs overseas and buy the prod-
ucts there, instead of putting the time, the effort, and the funds in
to making the product here. We have the creativity. That is the
great thing about this country. That is the resource. In addition to
our wonderful physical condition in this world, we have the ingenu-
ity and the creativity that this disparate population of ours brings.
It is an energy force, and it has not been properly used.
So we would like to see that change.
Father George, I have only one significant question further for
you. How is Georgetown going to do in the next round of the Big
East Tournament?
Reverend George. You could be in trouble Tuesday night. You
could really be in trouble. No; it's Friday afternoon. We think our
freshmen are coming of age. [Laughter.]
I mean, Seton Hall definitely has seniority, and we do respect
our elders. [Laughter.]
Senator Lautenberg. Are you saying to wait for next year?
[Laughter.]
Seton Hall has such a place in New Jersey's heart. I must tell
you that it is a proud institution. They have worked very hard.
They have developed a wonderful law school up there.
By the way, is De Lello a familiar name to you. Father Alex, or
Andrew? He comes from New Jersey and teaches maybe Semitic
language or something? Is it not familiar to you?
Reverend George. It's ringing, but I don't know why.
You know, Seton Hall is the best in the Big East this year. But
we love to upset people at Georgetown, you know.
Senator Lautenberg. They'll never lie down. Never. [Laughter.]
DECLINE OF AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS IN TRANSIT FIELD
Mr. Tunila, you have been working in the private sector and
manufacturing transit equipment for some time. Why do you think
we have seen, over these past years, such a decline in the number
of American manufacturers involved in the transit field?
Mr. TUNILA. Well, the cost of entry is very expensive with all the
mandated changes, and with uneven funding and unpredictable
345
source of funds for the transit buyer, you end up not having a very
attractive industry to attract competent engineers and professional
people. And you do not have a career path to follow.
It is almost the same exodus that has occurred in other indus-
tries where we have exported our manufacturing jobs for a variety
of reasons. The instability of the marketplace is such that we had
mandated changes. Everybody bought buses to avoid the cost of
mandated changes in terms of some of the properties, which cre-
ated a boom or bust situation. Well, the bust took some people out.
The low bid process allowed degradation of product, which, in
turn, hurt the high value or severe service vehicle manufacturers.
So it is not any one thing, Senator. It is a whole combination of
things.
It is not a good business environment to be in.
Senator Lautenberg. It could be made better.
Mr. TUNILA. Oh, yes.
Senator Lautenberg. Do you think the Federal Grovemment can
lead that charge, then?
Mr. TUNILA. Well, yes; I think we can make an exportable prod-
uct. We do not export any buses from our country to other coun-
tries, any transit buses. That is a testimony to the type of tech-
nology we have today in our buses and what is required, versus the
rest of the world.
Senator Lautenberg. So we are behind.
Mr. TUNILA. Yes; there isn't any doubt about that.
Senator Lautenberg. Is there any tariff or trade restrictions
that you are aware of that keep us from getting a share of the ex-
port market, or does the problem lie principally in the product?
Mr. TUNILA. Well, I think somehow transit buses have a great
national pride, not national but State also.
Senator Lautenberg. Do we have the capacity here to meet our
transit capital needs for rolling stock, subsystems, brakes, air con-
ditioners, and the like?
Mr. Tunila. We have more than enough capacity in this country
for the foreseeable future. In fact, we have too much capacity.
Senator Lautenberg. We just have to develop the appropriate
technology and the marketplace, then.
Mr. Tunila. That's right. We need an exportable product. We are
a very small business. We have to take advantage of ancillary in-
dustries, such as heavy duty trucks, and use their components,
which have 20, 30, 40 times the volume we have. So we have to
do a different concept of development within our industry.
As it stands right now, all our development funds have gone to
meet mandated changes, such as the Clean Air Act. We do not
have a focused policy on clean air. We have too many alternatives
to explore. It is just like some of the R&D proposed projects. There
are too many alternatives. We should focus and have a national en-
ergy program on exactly where are we going.
This does not mean we have to make a choice of one. We should
have several alternatives. But we have too many today. You cannot
keep up with them all — at least we can't. Let's put it that way.
346
SUBMITTED QUESTIONS
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you all very much for being here.
I will submit some other questions to be answered for the record.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were
submitted for response subsequent to the hearing:]
347
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR LAUTENBERG
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Even though FTA is, by statute,
required to project the transit needs in both the capital,
maintenance, and operating areas, your agency has not done
so for operating. Why is that?
ANSWER: We believe that it is better for the Section
308 Report to focus on capital costs, rather than include
operating needs. "Needs" generally refers only to capital
costs. The Highway Needs study which we parallel focuses
needs exclusively on the capital costs. Other
infrastructure needs studies similarly focus only on
capital. Addressing operating costs would increase the
complexity of the report. It would require FTA to make
decisions on fare policies, elasticities of demand with
respect to fares, the proper role of fares versus public
subsidies, and other similar concerns. Most of these
decisions are controlled by local decisionmakers. For
example, Washington Metro has variable fares of up to
$3.00 for rail trips, while Atlanta charges flat fares.
Inclusion of operating costs is likely to decrease the
reliability of the estimates included because of the large
number of assumptions which would have to be made in these
areas.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: The two previous administrations
did not believe that it was the responsibility of the
Federal government to provide operating assistance for the
larger transit operators of this country. Is this the
reason why FTA's projections do not include the operating
needs in its report.
ANSWER: No. . Our decision to focus on capital needs
was based on the technical issues only.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: The Federal Highway
Administration projects future highway demand when
determining highway maintenance and expansion needs. How
does your needs estimate address future demand?
ANSWER: Our estimates of capital needs are based on
two scenarios for future transit demand. The Maintain
Conditions and Performance scenario includes the cost of
expanding service at a rate equal to recent trends in
patronage growth (0.8 percent per year). Under this
scenario, transit use would increase by 17 percent over
the next twenty years to 44 billion passenger miles,
compared with 38 billion today. The Improve Conditions
and Performance scenario includes increased transit demand
based on FHWA's estimate in its 1991 Highway Needs Study
that, over the next twenty years, 34,000 lane miles of
additional highway capacity would be foregone, replaced by
increased high occupancy vehicle use, improved traffic
operations, and transit use. Under this scenario, transit
use would increase by 65 percent over the next twenty
years, to 64 billion passenger miles.
348
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: All the methodologies appear not
to adequately reflect the cost of Federally-imposed
requirements such as the Clean Air Act and the Americans
with Disabilities Act. Please explain how you arrived at
your figures?
ANSWER: For the Americans with Disabilities Act, the
report used the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the
Department's Final Rule to develop the estimates. The
costs to Maintain Conditions and Performance include an
incremental annual cost of $42 million to make fixed route
buses accessible, $90 million per year to acquire the
vehicles and ecjuipment necessary to provide supplemental
paratransit service, and $123 million per year to make
rail systems accessible.
As far as the Clean Air Act is concerned, the report
estimates an annual need of $150 million for alternative
fuel buses and $100 million for the costs of retrofitting
maintenance facilities to deal with alternative fuels.
However, the costs are not added in the total estimated
needs because it is not yet clear whether or not "Clean
Diesel" technology will be able to meet EPA's emission
standards for buses. If "Clean Diesel" is capable of
meeting the standards, then alternative fuel buses will
not be required and the costs of meeting these standards
will be significantly less.
While we believe that these estimates are accurate,
we are making efforts to improve the reliability of the
data for the 1994 Section 308 Report. We expect to use
the contents of the ADA Transition Plans, which are now
being reviewed by FTA, to determine the currently planned
costs of complying. On the Clean Air Act, we will have
better information on whether or not alternative fuel
buses will be required. In addition, in subsequent
reports, we expect to use the contents of the State and
Metropolitan Transportation Plans and Transportation
Improvement Programs to determine how State and local
governments assuring that these plans are in conformity
with air quality requirements. We expect that transit
will become increasingly important in these plans due to
air quality concerns.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Some argue that we should
actually reduce the Federal share of transit capital
investment, since the current levels encourage localities
to amass capital that they do not need and cannot afford
to operate. Do you agree with this assertion?
ANSWER: No. There is clear evidence that the amount
of Federal funding provided is not excessive. First, even
though the statutory share for Federal capital assistance
is 80 percent, in reality State and local governments are
investing substantially in excess of the minimum non-
Federal share on transit. In 1991, the Federal
government's share of total capital spending of
$5.1 billion was only 50 percent.
Second, the total amount of capital spending on
transit is well within the needs estimated in the
Section 308 Report, and additional funding could be put to
productive use. At present, spending is adequate to
349
Maintain Conditions and Performance and make some strides
toward restoring the backlog of past disinvestment to
Improve Conditions. The President's Economic Stimulus
Package is likely to increase total capital spending to
about $6.2 billion per year, still within the overall
needs estimated.
Third, the new requirements for financially-
constrained Transportation Plans and Transportation
Improvement Programs should go a long way to assuring that
States and local governments have adequate resources to
operate the capital stock which they acquire. Since 1987,
FTA has used its Financial Capacity Circular to review
plans and programs in a similar manner. Also, FTA's Major
Investment Policy requires a strong local financial
commitment to projects, including both the local share of
capital costs as well as the long term operating cost
component .
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: How is FTA ensuring that Federal
capital investments are optimized, and what criteria are
used?
ANSWER: For major capital investments. Section 3(i)
of the Federal Transit Act and our Major Investments
Policy require projects to undergo an analysis of
alternatives and preliminary engineering, pass a project
justification test, and be supported by an adequate degree
of local financial commitment. Project justification
includes cost-effectiveness, mobility improvements, and
operating efficiencies. The policy statement calls for
cost-effectiveness to be measured in terms of the cost to
attract a new transit rider. We believe that this is a
representative measure of the benefits of transit
investments.
All projects must result from the ongoing
transportation planning process. The Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) strengthens
the planning process considerably. This will improve the
quality of the projects which are included in the required
Transportation Plans and Transportation Improvement
Programs.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: How do you determine if
individual transit systems are making optimum use of
Federal capital investment funds?
ANSWER: We do not second guess the decisions made
by transit operators on the allocation of the funds made
available to them by formula. However, we do assure that
the projects are eligible for Federal funding and are the
result of the planning and programming process. Since the
amount of formula funds available is still short of the
total which could be used for cost-effective projects in
most areas, we believe that the transit operators and
Metropolitan Planning Organizations have a strong
incentive to use the funds for the best projects.
For major investments, we use the Section 3(j) Report
to describe the merits of the projects in the New Starts
pipeline. We also make recommendations on which projects
are the best candidates for New Starts funding in the next
fiscal year. These recommendations are designed to assure
68-623 O— 93 12
350
that projects which are ready to go, or are already
underway, receive an amount of funds sufficient to allow
them to proceed on an efficient construction schedule.
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR SASSER
SENATOR SASSER: Please describe the
Administration's proposed Fiscal Year 1994 electric
vehicle program.
ANSWER: The ISTEA provided $12 million for an
Advanced Transportation and Electric Vehicles Research
and Development Program. Four consortia were selected
for funding in FY 1992 and their progress is being
monitored: (1) Calstart is developing advanced electric
vehicle components and subsystems; will demonstrate and
evaluate components and issues concerning the necessary
infrastructure support systems; and will develop
advanced prototypes and specifications for Electric
Vehicle (EV) buses; (2) the Chesapeake Consortium is
developing an advanced powertrain for electric vehicles
that will be demonstrated and evaluated in 10 prototype
electric vehicles; (3) the New York State Consortium
will develop and demonstrate a low floor, full sized bus
with a hybrid electric propulsion system; and (4) the
Advanced Lead Acid Battery Consortium (ALABC) is
developing rapid recharging systems and battery
monitoring and control systems.
Work efforts will continue with the Electric
Transit Vehicle Institute (ETVI) of Chattanooga to
promote the design, production, and use of electric
vehicles in transit. The ETVI will continue to serve as
the facilitator and resource center for electric vehicle
development for the transit industry.
FTA will increase its involvement and assume a
greater role in the joint Fuel Cell/Battery Bus Program
that is being conducted with the Department of Energy.
Three prototype fuel cell/battery buses will be placed
in demonstrations: two of these buses will use methanol
fuel as the source for the hydrogen used in the fuel
cell, one of these will be used in Los Angeles in
coordination with the South Coast Air Quality Management
District efforts and the other will be located at
Georgetown University; the third prototype will use
ethanol fuel and will be demonstrated in revenue service
at PACE in Chicago. Data collection and evaluation of
the operation and maintenance of these buses will be
conducted. We will also initiate a project to examine
the issues with regard to the safe use and storage of
hydrogen as a fuel for fuel cell applications.
SENATOR SASSER: Will the Administration's budget
request include this funding? To ensure the success of
the project, will the Federal Transit Administration
request that other electric vehicle FTA grant recipients
fully cooperate with CARTA and ETVI?
351
ANSWER: FTA ' s FY 1994 budget request does include
$100,000 for the continuation of the project with the
Electric Transit Vehicle Institute.
We are already seeing cooperative efforts between
the four consortia members selected under the ISTEA
program and ETVI . The Chesapeake Consortium has already
discussed the application of their advanced electric
vehicle powertrain in EV buses that CARTA is operating.
The Advanced Lead Acid Battery Consortium (ALABC) has
had preliminary discussions about providing rapid
rechargers, battery systems and battery monitoring and
management systems for demonstration in CARTA'S EV
buses .
SENATOR SASSER: In 1991, Congress appropriated
$1 million from the FTA's "New Construction" account
for the Chattanooga downtown circular. Originally,
the system was designed to utilize light rail.
However, as the result of subsequent changes, the new
system now utilizes electric vehicles.
Unfortunately, the new project cannot utilize funds
from the "New Construction" account. Would you
support efforts to transfer the $1 million from the
"New Construction" to the "Bus and Facilities"
account to complete the funding needs for
Chattanooga?
ANSWER: The $1 million in Section 3 new systems
funds earmarked for the Chattanooga trolley system in
the Conference Report accompanying the 1991
Appropriations bill has been transferred to the
Section 3 bus category pursuant to language contained
in the Conference Report accompanying the 1992
Appropriations Bill. This language directed FTA to
transfer the $1 million FY 1991 new start earmark for
Chattanooga to the bus category, for the downtown
circular. However, the ISTEA, which was passed
subsequent to the 1991 Appropriations Act, directed
that an additional $1 million in FY 1992 Section 3
new start funds be made available for the trolley
circular. FTA would support Congressional
legislation to transfer the $1 million earmarked for
Chattanooga in ISTEA under the new start category to
the bus account. This $1 million would then be used
in concert with the $14 million in Section 3 bus
funds earmarked for the Chattanooga trolley system in
the 1993 Appropriations Conference Report.
SENATOR SASSER: Enactment of ISTEA provided many
transit systems with the opportunity to make important
capital improvements. However, many small urban systems,
such as Knoxville Transit, still face the problem of not
being able to maintain and operate the equipment. To
assist local communities in meeting their particular
transit needs, would FTA support allowing local discretion
in the allocation of Section 9 formula funding among
Capital, Planning, and Operating needs?
ANSWER: We believe that Federal transit assistance
should be focused on investments in infrastructure. Thus,
352
we would prefer that funds be targeted primarily to
capital projects, assuring that the condition of transit
infrastructure is improved, for long-term benefits in
productivity.
Federal operating assistance constitutes a relatively
small share of the total revenue stream for transit
authorities, typically less than one-fifth. However,
despite the small percentage, it still represents a
significant dollar amount that local officials would have
substantial difficulty in replacing, especially given the
current economic climate. Thus, while we believe that the
present arrangement, under which there is a cap for use of
formula funds for operating purposes, is appropriate, we
believe that the current cap need not be reduced, as was
proposed by the previous Administration.
It should be noted that Section 9 capital-only funds
can be used for planning purposes. This permits operators
the flexibility to support there planning programs with
Section 9 capital funds, giving them some flexibility in
the use of these funds.
SENATOR SASSER: The concept of intermodalism promises many constructive
changes in the way we think about and meet the nation's transit needs. Much of the
focus has been on larger areas with particular emphasis on the role of the Metropolitan
Planning Organization (MPO).
What specific information can you provide the Subcommittee regarding how the
ISTEA emphasis on greater MPO input particularly with respect to planning, is being
implemented in practice?
ANSWER: One city where the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) has
been leading the intermodal planning effort is Portland, Oregon. The Metropolitan
Service District (Metro~the MPO) leads a planning process that demonstrates a
commitment to developing and implementing intermodal means of meeting regional
mobility needs, with the cooperative participation of officials from three counties, a
number of cities, the major transit operator, and the State of Oregon. In a region that
anticipates substantial population and employment growth accompanied by strong
market demand for residential, commercial and industrial development, the 1992
long-range transportation plan proposes a regional system that focuses on providing
cost-effective mobility in interconnected travel corridors rather than serving the
separate needs of modes such as autos and transit.
With this systemic perspective, the Portland plan encourages investments that
result in corridor travel services combining freeway and arterial roads, transit trunk
and feeder routes, and demand management techniques such as ridesharing, park and
ride, central parking disincentives, and bicycle and pedestrian services. Light rail
extensions and transit transfer centers will play important roles. Overall mobility,
through the provision of alternative mode combinations, is the long-term goal. MPO
planners emphasize the integration of modes by noting in the plan that "a lack of
investment in any individual element or corridor will seriously affect the ability of the
remainder of the system to provide adequate levels of transportation service."
In Minnesota's Twin Cities, the Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities Area (the
MPO) has initiated intermodal transit planning. By issuing a Regional Transit
Facilities Plan in early 1992, the Council firmly established its role and created a
blueprint for moving forward with high-occupancy vehicle and light rail transit
353
planning and construction, with the support of the Minnesota Department of
Transportation, the Regional Transit Board and the region's cities and counties. The
plan outlines alternatives for transit development in accordance with the regional
mobility vision established in the long-range plan. It proposes a reorganization of
transit services into a constellation of transit hubs and spokes to provide better service
for suburb-to-suburb travel, reverse commute trips, and disabled individuals in
developing areas. Hubs would serve as transfer points for passengers moving to and
from local and express transit services, suburban circulators, carpools and paratransit.
SENATOR SASSER: To what extent can or will FT A work with
other agencies to ensure that viable transit project needs are met in
potential enterprise zones?
ANSWER: FTA will cooperate with other agencies, as it has done
in the past, to ensure that transit services are provided as broadly as
possible in areas where it is most needed. FTA funded a grant this year
for the American Association of Enterprise Zones Educational
Foundation, to perform a survey and profile of the transportation needs of
enterprise zones. This will include a five case analysis of challenges and
opportunities in developing innovative transportation options for
enterprise zones, a compendium guide to federal, state and private
transportation resources, and interagency forums to discuss ways to better
streamline the delivery of transportation services. The effort will also
include community transportation outreach workshops and a business
developers' roundtabie.
FTA is a partner in the DOT- DHHS Coordinating Council on
Human Services Transportation, which seeks to coordinate public
transportation services for clients of the many DHHS programs such as
the Health Care Financing Administration, Administration on Aging, or
the Agency for Native Americans.
FTA also has signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the
Department of Housing and Urban Development, to facilitate funds
transfers to provide reverse commuting services to public housing projects
in the inner cities. Such an MOU could easily be used, (or updated to
make it possible) to target enterprise zones for special transit projects.
Most recently, FTA initiated implementation of the ISTEA
provision that establishes the JOBSLink program, to provide
transportation to persons who are currently receiving public support for
job training. JOBSLink will be demonstrated in cooperation with the
DHHS JOBS program, which provides job training, interview and job
search skills, and other services to its clients, but is prohibited fi^om
providing transportation to those same clients.
SENATOR SASSER: One of the recurring areas of
disagreement between previous Administrations and a
majority in Congress was the issue of operating
assistance, whether severe cuts in assistance or its
outright elimination. I know many of the Nation's mayors
have met with President Clinton and have provided valuable
insights about the role of urban America in the Nation's
economic growth. What assurances have the Nation's mayors
been given on this issue of operating assistance?
354
ANSWER: As noted, we believe that Federal transit
assistance should be focused on investments in
infrastructure. Thus, we would prefer that funds be
targeted primarily to capital projects, assuring that the
condition of transit infrastructure is improved, for long-
term benefits in productivity.
However, we are aware that operating assistance
represents a significant dollar amount that local
officials have told us they would have substantial
difficulty in replacing, especially given the current
economic climate. Thus, while we believe that the present
arrangement, under which there is a cap for use of fomnula
funds for operating purposes, is appropriate, we believe
that the current cap need not be reduced, as was proposed
by the previous Administration.
SENATOR SASSER: The estimated cost of compliance with the
Americans with Disabilities Act requirements is nearly $1 billion per year.
One third of the total, approximately $3 10 million, will be for capital
improvements. According to the American Public Transit Association,
40 percent of all the cost of ADA is for vans and buses.
What is the current procurement process for such vehicles and
equipment? What is the potential employment impact for the manufactur-
ing sector for these vehicles?
ANSWER: The current procurement process for the ADA vans
and buses is the same as for any other grant-supported capital expendi-
ture, except that a particular effort must be made to acquire accessible
vehicles. Otherwise, the procurement follows standard FTA grant
procedures, which include nationally-advertised competitive bids,
appropriate local matching funds, compliance with Buy America
regulations, Department of Labor section 13(c) certifications, etc.
The potential employment impact for manufacturers of ADA-
required buses and vans, based on the U.S. Department of Commerce
Regional Input Output Modeling System (RIMS-U) is approximately 3 1.6
job years per million dollars (direct, indirect, and induced) of final demand
expenditure. Of these, 8.8 job years would be generated directly in bus
and van manufacturing. In other words, $310 million in capital
expenditures would support approximately 2,728 direct job years and
7,068 indirect and induced job years, for a total of 9,796 job years.
SENATOR SASSER: ISTEA recognized that various regions of the
country have different transportation needs. While the MPO will assume a larger
role in planning urban project needs, rural communities don't have a comparable
organizational body. What specific steps can FTA take to ensure that rural transit
needs will be met? . .
ANSWER: As in the past, FTA looks to the states to assume responsibility
for planning in nonurbanized areas, since there are no local planning organizations
comparable to the MPO's. The state may use up to fifteen percent of its Section 18
apportionment for administrative activities, including planning. Other resources are
also available for statewide planning, particularly the state's allocation under
Section 26(a)(2).
355
Before ISTEA, there were no formal planning requirements for rural areas.
Now, however, the state must include Section 18 and Section 16 (about half of
which is spent in nonurbanized areas) in the Statewide Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP) This will help ensure that rural transit needs are considered along
with other transit and highway needs in both rural and urban areas.
Significant transfers of flexible funds to the Section 18 program are
occurring, an indication that the states are including rural transit in their assessment
of highway and transit needs.
To promote the inclusion of rural transit in the statewide planning process
under ISTEA, FTA participated in a series of eight workshops for rural and small
urban officials during 1993, cosponsored by the US Departments of Agriculture
and Transportation, the National Association of Counties, and the National
Association of County Engineers.
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR D'AMATO
SENATOR D'AMATO: Do you think operating aid should be
expanded to help transit providers meet ADA requirements?
ANSWER: The Federal role in transit support is one of providing
capital assistance. Our FY 1994 budget request is a 21 percent increase
over the 1993 enacted level, which is more than enough to cover
anticipated increases in capital costs as a result of implementation of the
ADA. Local communities will thus have the flexibility to shift some of
their funds to the increased operating costs.
The Americans with Disabilities Act is currently being
implemented by transit properties nationwide. The provision of accessible
fixed route service will not increase operating costs very much for most
transit operators. However, FTA believes that the paratransit service
provision is likely to increase operating costs significantly over the next
four years, with the bulk of the increase taking place in cities of over
1 million in population.
SENATOR D'AMATO: Although I am not convinced that we
now need a supplemental appropriation for economic
stimulus, I am intrigued by the categories of funding that
were requested by the Administration. Why does the
proposed FY 1993 "Stimulus Supplemental" request the full
authorized funding level for highways (an additional
$2.9 billion) but only partial funding for transit (an
additional $752 million — a shortage of $685 million from
authorized levels)?
ANSWER: The transit level is made up of $270 million
in additional Section 3 discretionary bus funds and
$482 million in formula funds. These are funds which can
be put to work quickly by transit operators to improve the
conditions of existing transit systems. The entire ISTEA
authorization was not sought because transit operators
would not have been able to use these funds as quickly.
In addition, it should be noted that some of the
additional funds which would be made available by
356
increasing the Federal Highway Administration's Obligation
Limitation for FY 199 3 could be used for transit projects.
About 2/3 of the funds authorized for FHWA in FY 1993 can
be used for transit projects. By increasing the
Obligation Limitation, these authorized funds could then
be obligated in accordance with normal FHWA program
eligibilities. Surface Transportation Program funds and
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program funds are
the most likely authorizations which can be used for
transit.
SENATOR D'AMATO: Why were no additional transit
operating funds requested?
ANSWER: The purpose of these funds was both to
stimulate the economy as well as to make permanent
improvements in the Nation's infrastructure. Thus, we
have targeted all of the stimulus to capital projects,
assuring that the condition of transit infrastructure is
improved, for long-term benefits in productivity.
SENATOR D'AMATO: I understand that there are
about $2.87 billion unobligated in the Section 3
discretionary capital account. How does this backlog
break down by category of Section 3 funding, i.e.,
how much is new starts, rail modernization, or bus
projects?
ANSWER: The unobligated balance of Section 3
discretionary capital funds as of March 31, 1993 is
$2.14 billion. These funds are distributed among
bus, fixed guideway, and new start projects in the
amounts shown below. In addition, there are
$21.6 million in Section 3 funds which have been set
aside for oversight activities under Section 23,
which have not been obligated. These are also shown
below.
Bus $ 341,322,599
Fixed Guideway $ 554,699,319
New Starts $ 1,223,145,846
Sec. 23 Set-aside S 21.665.152
Total $ 2,140,832,916
SENATOR D'AMATO: What obstacles are faced by American
companies in producing rail cars and systems? What can be done to
address these concerns?
ANSWER; The basic obstacles facing American companies that
wish to compete in the U.S. railcar market are 1) a small and very erratic
market, which rarely exceeds 400 railcars per year; 2) the inability to
"break into" foreign markets, where local suppliers are protected from
U.S. competition; and 3) relatively high engineering costs for low volumes
of railcars sold.
We are currently looking at options for addressing these obstacles.
357
SENATOR D'AMATO: Are foreign companies better positioned
to produce replacement rail cars and buses, as well as advanced
transportation equipment and systems, than domestic companies?
ANSWER: In Japan, the Ministry of International Trade and
Industry (MITI) coordinates a nationwide cooperative network that
ensures Japanese companies will give preference in purchases to Japanese
manufacturers. In Germany, the national railway system buys German
railcars, and the Trade Ministry cooperates with the Ministry of Transport
to ensure that local and regional rail systems purchase German railcars as
well. The German super-lightweight, low-floor bus, which features a
carbon-fiber body, was designed by a consortium of German companies
with government assistance. France and Canada are also highly
supportive of their manufacturing industries.
The ability to rely upon their own, protected, markets gives these
manufacturers the base fi-om which to export to the U.S. as well as to
other countries that do not have highly developed rail or bus manufactur-
ing sectors. Government support for research and development allows
these firms to market sophisticated, highly engineered railcars in the U.S.
at lower cost than U.S. manufacturers can manage. This is primarily
because the U.S. firm must attempt to recover engineering costs through
the price of its first order - it cannot count on a follow-on order. In fact,
throughout the 1980's, no railcar manufacturer has won two bids in a row
fi^om the same transit property.
SENATOR D'AMATO: What can be done to improve the
Federal grant and procurement process to enable private
business to contribute to the rebuilding of our
transportation infrastructure?
ANSWER: We^ have already seen increased private
investment in the form of public/private partnerships for
urban development projects and innovative public financing
of transit investments through use of leasing and
municipal bonds. We are taking steps through such means
as our leasing regulation and Cross Border Leasing
Circular to assure that Federal program requirements do
not pose a barrier to such innovation. In addition, we
are developing technical assistance in the area of joint
development and innovative finance to assure that State
and local governments are aware of the possibilities for
use of these innovations.
In addition, several reports issued recently have
suggested additional measures such a creation of a
National Infrastructure Bank or other government sponsored
enterprise who would guarantee infrastructure bonds or
engage in the securitization of transportation debt.
These concepts are worthy of continued exploration.
SENATOR D'AMATO: IVhat safeguards are needed to assure that grant
monies are spent most effectively and appropriately?
ANSWER: The primary safeguards that assure that transit grant
money is spent effectively and appropriately are the local planning
and decision-making processes which are required by the Act and the
joint planning regulations which implement it. A grant may not be
approved unless the project is a result of these processes. The
local metropolitan planning organization is required to evaluate
projects based on transportation needs and to establish a project
selection process which involves all State and local officials,
including local elected officials and transit and highway operating
agencies .
358
GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR LAUTENBERG
TRANSIT NEEDS REPORTS
Question. In the highway area, the highway and
bridge needs as measured by the Federal Highway
Administration are viewed as credible by contractors
and State highway administrators. Can we hope for such
commonality in the transit area? If not, why not?
Answer. Yes, greater commonality among needs
reports is possible and is already underway through
FTA's improvements in its recent needs report. In
addition, development of new data sources, such as the
public transportation management systems, may lead to
increased commonality if FTA, AASHTO, and APTA use
information from these databases for their projections.
Question. Are the differences in the estimates
based on the complexity of the issues, the lack of good
data, the differences in how to define "needs", or on
the different (political) perceptions of the Federal
role regarding transit?
Answer. Transit is a locally determined and
managed service and there is no standard definition of
need. The estimates varied because each organization
defined transit needs differently by including or
excluding certain cost elements or by making different
assumptions to determine costs. The most significant
difference was that AASHTO and APTA included operating
needs while FTA did not. Smaller differences also
resulted over the treatment of complex issues and the
use of different data sources. However, all three
organizations presented gross needs estimates, rather
than limiting their projections to just the Federal
share.
Question. If FTA were to make the short-term
changes you suggest to their methodology and
assumptions, will their reports on further needs be
more accurate?
Answer. Making the short-term changes we suggest
would help to ensure that the projections are more
reflective of potential future costs. However, FTA
still needs to move towards longer term solutions such
as using the public transportation management systems
(PTMSs) and state and local transportation plans. FTA
efforts now, in developing the regulations for the
PTMSs and new plans, can help ensure that better data
are available to develop more accurate needs
projections in the future.
359
AMERICAN PUBLIC TRANSIT ASSOCIATION
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR LAUTENBERG
BEST REPRESENTATION OF TRANSIT NEEDS
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Do you believe that APTA's projections are
the best representation of transit needs? If so, why?
ANSWER: The American Public Transit Association's (APTA)
projections of transit needs are the best available representation of transit needs.
According to the General Accounting Office (GAO) Report Mass Transit, Needs
Projections Could Better Reflect Future Costs, released at the Subcommittee
hearing, "APTA's report presented the most robust projection of future needs by
including costs for all projects that transit operators stated were needed to meet
their communities' transportation goals." APTA's projections were the only
projections based on each community's transportation needs, rather than a
constrained definition of needs that limited the expansion of transit service.
APTA's needs, however, are still less than real needs according to the
GAO. Their report noted that APTA's projection was made before the
requirements of the Clean Air Act and Americans with Disabilities Act were
known, therefore these mandates were not included; that needs for only a limited
amount for 16(b) operators were included; and that APTA's members tended to
underreport their needs. In regard to the underreporting of needs, the GAO
stated that, "While it is true that APTA presented the greatest needs estimate, we
were told by state and local officials we visited that they did not provide APTA
with an unconstrained list of projects. Transit operators stated that they did not
provide an unconstrained list of needs since their planning efforts reflect financial
constraints. Nevertheless, APTA's projection was the largest of the four
projections studied."
Reliance on only federal government generated needs assessments could
result in an inadequate projection of needs. The level of needs projected by
federal government studies might be restricted by the philosophy of the
administration in office. Projections may be influenced by fiscal restraints and the
need to hold down federal spending. There should always be an independent
source of needs information based on independently established goals. We feel
that APTA, as a trade association, is a good independent source of needs
information because APTA must answer to its membership which includes the
actual providers of public transportation, local and regional government units, and
state government agencies.
BASIS OF TRANSIT NEEDS PROJECTIONS
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Do you agree with the GAO's
recommendations that we should use the public transportation management
systems' and state transportation plans for the basis of transit needs projections?
ANSWER: The development of public transportation management
systems and state transportation plans should provide better data for the
360
development of needs assessments. The Public Transportation Facilities and
Equipment Management Systems (PTMS) should provide a comprehensive and
current data base of the physical condition of transit assets. Statewide
Transportation Plans will require long-term intermodal needs assessments that
should foster the inclusion of transit in needs projections. Both of these programs
are in the proposed rule making stage of development. Comments on proposed
rules are due by May 3, 1993. APTA is currently in the process of developing
comments on the proposed rules and will provide these comments in conformance
with the rule making process.
These information sources potentially have several limitations. The GAO
points out that it "will take several years to develop and implement these
changes." Therefore, in the short-run other sources must be used to determine
transit needs. The PTMS and Statewide Transportation Plans are expected to
provide background data and needs based on local and state assessments. They
will not, however, provide a national policy perspective as a basis for determining
those needs. The national policy perspective may be the determining factor in
the scope of a national needs statements. Needs projections would be different
under a national goal to double transit ridership than they would be under a goal
of maintaining current services. Clean air goals, enhanced service, local factors
or resources, and other objectives would also influence needs assessments. APTA
feels it will always be important to consider independent needs projections that
might confirm or might conflict with federally projected needs due to variation
in policy and goals.
We are also concerned that the submission of local need statements that
describe transit needs will not necessarily result in all transit needs being included
in national needs assessments. Many areas have submitted locally determined
new start projects to the federal government and found these projects not to be
supported by the FTA and amounts for these projects not included in FTA needs
assessments.
COSTS OF NEW REPORTING PROCESS
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Do you believe that using these processes
would be an additional burden on transit operators? If so, why?
ANSWER: Because the regulations guiding the PTMS and Statewide
Transportation Plans programs are still being developed, and the procedures for
data collection or data to be collected have not been defined, we are unable to
determine the additional cost that will accrue to transit operators. We encourage
the coordination of data collection with existing reporting requirements in order
to minimize additional costs.
IMPROVING DATA COLLECTION
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: In addition to the recommendations made
by GAO, what suggestions do you have for improving the collecting of data, the
reporting of that data, and the resulting projection of needs?
361
ANSWER: The collection of more and better data without a defined
policy direction will not necessarily result in better information for decision
making. The needs of each program funded by federal surface transportation
legislation, if taken independently, will surely far exceed even the most generous
projection of available funds. Improved data must be collected and analyzed in
the context of a definite federal transportation policy with clear goals toward
pollution reduction, energy savings, improved mobility and safety, job creation,
and resource conservation to achieve national goals. The federal policy in place
when data is collected has a significant effect on the type of data that is collected,
and a determining effect on the specific questions that are asked. When the
Congress analyzes this data, it will only be able to answer questions for which
data has been collected.
Data should be collected multi-modally as well as for individual modes.
Data should be collected on the movement of people and goods as well as on the
movement of vehicles. Transportation is more than just highways, automobiles,
buses, and rail cars. Good transportation is the most effective and efficient
movement of people and goods in the context of national goals and available
resources. Needs should not be measured in a closed single mode context
without reference to the effect meeting those needs will have on social, economic,
political, and natural environments.
Data should also be collected on the goals local and state plans are
designed to achieve, not just on the cost of those'plans. It may be useful for the
federal government to merge these state and local plans into a program that
meets national as well as state and local needs.
DEFERRING CRITICAL CAPITAL MAINTENANCE
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: In his testimony, Mr. Mead said that transit
operating expenses are substantial, and are costing more than three times the
amount spent on capital items. This concerns me, and seems to imply that maybe
we are possibly deferring critical capital maintenance and capital purchases, and
not making investments as needs. Do you feel this is an accurate conclusion?
ANSWER: Not enough funds are being spent on capital because not
enough funds are available, not because funds are being diverted to operations.
The amount spent on capital is not a direct function of the amount spent on
operating, there is not a dollar for dollar substitution, and transit operating
expenditures include items that would be considered capital in other accounting
systems.
A large portion of capital maintenance expenditures by transit agencies are
accounted as operating expenses. Capitalized maintenance costs would only
include major upgrade or rehabilitation projects such as those funded by Section
3 Fbced Guideway Modernization grants, bus rehabilitation or remanufacturing,
rail rolling stock overhaul, or associated capital items which cost no less than Vi
of one percent of the fair market value of the rolling stock on which the item will
be used. Otherwise, maintenance costs are accounted as operating costs. In 1991,
vehicle maintenance costs accounted for 18.1 percent of all transit operating
expenses, and non-vehicle maintenance costs accounted for 9.6 percent. Direct
maintenance costs were therefore 27.7 percent of all transit operating costs.
362
Purchased transportation was 10.0 percent of all operating costs and includes a
non-reported percentage of maintenance costs of the purchased transportation
service. Measuring only direct costs where maintenance costs are identifiable
shows that maintenance costs are actually 30.8 percent of operating costs. Fuel
costs accounted for another 3%. In addition, federally required service under the
ADA, particularly paratransit services, increased transit operating costs
dramatically.
In 1991, transit operating costs (excluding reconciling items) were $16,785
billion and capital revenues were $5,485 billion, for a total of $22,270 billion.
Only capital revenue data, not capital expenditure, has been reported to the FTA
because of the Section 15 accounting system design. Of the $22 billion total, 24.6
percent is capital which is in agreement with Mr. Mead's testimony. If, however,
$4,654 billion in maintenance costs that are accounted as operating costs were
considered capital costs, the capital portion would rise to 45.5 percent.
ADEQUACY OF FLEXIBLE FUNDING
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: The FTA Administrator told this
subcommittee last year that the new flexibility allowed in ISTEA would make
available a much larger pot of money to transit than just the $3 billion in Federal
transit assistance. What did transit actually gain in FY 1993 from this new
flexibility?
ANSWER: Through January 31, 1993, $132.5 million in FY 1993 flexible
funds had been transferred from the FHWA to the FTA. The FTA projects total
transfers and obligations in excess of a preliminary estimate of $235.7 million by
the end of FY 1993. In FY 1992 a total of $302.4 million was transferred of
which $243.3 was obligated by the end of FY 1992.
These transferred funds have met important transit needs throughout the
nation. The transferred amount, however, increased transit funding only 8.0
percent above appropriations in FY 1992, and is projected to increase funding
only 6.2 percent above appropriated levels in FY 1993. Transit agencies are
working with their local and state governments to insure they receive transfer
funds for vital projects in their areas, but according to GAO testimony before the
Subcommittee on Transportation on March 31, 1993, "a variety of barriers stand
in the way of states and localities thinking cross-modally." The GAO supports
federal help to overcome these barriers, including development of cross-modal
comparison criteria and improved analytical tools for assessing the impacts of
transportation investment choices.
We are confident that an increasing level of flexible funds will be used for
transit purposes, but we also recognize that flexibility will likely be inhibited by
the fact that transportation needs for all modes exceed available resources. We
would also note that the ISTEA processes are a dramatic departure from past
practices, and that effective implementation of the new law will therefore be
gradual and slower than many would like. For instance, joint planning regulations
are still being developed almost two years after ISTEA's enactment. Proposed
regulations requiring conformity with congestion management plans (which would
prohibit construction of additional single occupant vehicle (SOV) lanes without
concurrent offsets) are not scheduled to take effect before 1995 and would allow
for a slower phase-in of even these plans.
363
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY
AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR LAUTENBERG
ACCURATE DEPICTION OF TRANSIT NEEDS
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: The Federal Highway Administration
annually publishes a report on the conditions and performance of
the highways and bridges of this country.
Question. Why do you believe that the numbers produced by
FHWA are readily agreed to and accepted, while the FTA's
projections are not given a great deal of credibility?
Answer. The FHWA gathers its data from the States, through
a rigorous process that has been developed over the years. The
collected data is the same as is usually employed by States in
their own analysis and programming, which are also rigorous
processes. The data collected by the FHWA is then analyzed
according to procedures with which the States are familiar. The
result is that the FHWA results are generally accepted by the
States, and by the highway industry.
In past years, the FTA data collection process was not
strong, and there was not full agreement on what data should be
collected. This situation has improved considerably, and current
need estimates are receiving a higher acceptability than in the
past. Part of the reason why the FTA data was suspected by many
over the past 12 years was the perception that the Administration
was either anti-transit or luke warm to public transportation, and
the feeling that needs were therefore being underestimated.
Currently, this perception has generally abated.
Question. Do you believe that it is a worthwhile goal to
have the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit
Administration produce a consolidated report that estimates the
surface/passenger needs of this country?
Answer. Yes, especially under the ISTEA. The ISTEA
provides flexibility among the surface modes, attempts to
establish a level playing field, and features intermodal planning.
Accordingly, it makes sense to produce a consolidated report.
Question. Do you believe such a report could accurately
depict the economic development and cost trade-offs between
highways and transit?
Answer. Over time, probably. But first a better
understanding of the linkage between transportation and economic
development need to be determined, and agreement would need to be
reached on the relative "costs" of highways and transit. The
costs to be included for both modes would need to be agreed upon,
after which credible methods for estimating those costs would be
needed. Only then can the trade-off issue be properly addressed.
AASHTO has been sponsoring research into the economic
linkages between highways and economic development, and progress
is being made. Some States have also done research of this type.
364
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Lautenberg. The hearing is now recessed. This sub-
committee's next hearing is March 17, next Wednesday, in room
SD-192. We are going to hear from the National Transportation
Safety Board.
[Whereupon, at 12:22 p.m., Thursday, March 11, the subcommit-
tee was recessed, to reconvene at 10:05 a.m., Wednesday, March
17.]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RE-
LATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 1994
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 17, 1993
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:05 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg (chairman) pre-
siding.
Present: Senator Lautenberg.
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD
STATEMENT OF CARL W. VOGT, CHAIRMAN
ACCOMPANIED BY:
TIMOTHY P. FORTE, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF AVIATION SAFETY
BARRY M. SWEEDLER, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF SAFETY REC-
OMMENDATIONS
opening REMARKS
Senator Lautenberg. Good morning. I call the Subcommittee on
Transportation of the Appropriations Committee to order.
This morning, we are going to spend some time reviewing some
of the portfolio of the National Transportation Safety Board
[NTSB]. I particularly want to discuss the tragedy of the loss of
young lives across this country where prevention is, if not totally,
at least partially possible — we could save more lives than we do.
Next year we are going to be celebrating the 10th anniversary of
the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, which was passed in
1984. I am very proud of my role as the Senate sponsor of this im-
portant law. It serves to motivate all 50 States to raise their drink-
ing age to 21, and it is estimated that, since this law has been en-
acted, it has saved over 12,000 lives.
But the numbers really do not tell the whole story, do they, when
you think of people under 21 — children of 14, 16, and 17 years of
age — ^whose families will not have to mourn and experience the loss
of a child, brother, or sister. This drives home the personal value
of enactment of a law that sometimes can get submerged in statis-
tics, but when you talk about 12,000 young lives saved, it makes
me proud to have been the sponsor of that legislation.
However, it is not time to congratulate ourselves. There contin-
ues to be an appallingly high number of fatalities stemming from
illegal drinking by underage youth. We continue to see more than
(365)
366
1,400 deaths a year caused by underage drunk drivers. Forty per-
cent of all underage fatalities on our Nation's roads had alcohol in
their bloodstreams.
Even more disturbing is that we have begun to see a reversal in
the progress we have made in lowering the percentage of teenage
automotive fatalities that result from drunk driving. The human
tragedy of teenage drunk driving is measured by too many funerals
of too many bright, promising young people who failed to make the
right decision about drinking and driving. Too many funerals of
law-abiding citizens who were innocently victimized by drunk driv-
ers.
As if this tragedy were not enough, the real tragedy is that so
many of these deaths are avoidable. The Surgeon General, in re-
viewing the efforts by States to prevent teenage drunk driving, con-
cluded that the National Minimum Drinking Age Act is riddled
with "loopholes, laxity, and lip service," to quote.
Today, enforcement of the National Minimum Drinking Age Act
is a cruel joke. Almost 10 years after the act was put into law, we
still find several States that do not prohibit minors from attempt-
ing to purchase alcohol or possessing it. In many States, it is not
illegal for teenagers to use fake ID's to purchase alcohol, but even
these loopholes are largely irrelevant when the principal law pro-
hibiting the sale of alcohol to minors is ignored across the country.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that 97 out of
100 underage youths who attempted to purchase alcohol in the Dis-
trict of Columbia were successful. In Westchester County, NY, a
county known for its affluence, 80 out of 100 kids were successful
in obtaining alcohol under the age of 21.
Now, I did not attach my name to this legislation almost 10
years ago just to see its enactment. It also has to be enforced by
the States involved and by the alcohol retailers and the enforce-
ment authorities. I plan to introduce legislation in the coming
months to put some teeth into the National Minimum Drinking
Age Act, and I plan to see it enacted prior to the act's 10th anniver-
sary.
This morning, we look forward to hearing testimony from the
Chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board. The Board
recently released a comprehensive study on this issue and made
several recommendations to the Nation's Grovemors on steps to ad-
dress drinking and driving by underage youth. It was hard to miss
the story on the front page of the Washington Post a few days
ago — March 3, actually — in which was the fact that there is insuffi-
cient enforcement to make the law really work as effectively as it
might.
While the Board's recommendations center on legislation to be
enacted by the Governors to address this problem, I hope to focus
this morning on how the Federal Government might encourage or
even compel action by the States to implement this legislation.
More importantly, I hope to pursue ways that we can encourage or
compel the States to enforce the laws that are already on the
books. We are also going to hear testimony about some of the other
critical safety issues the Board is considering including aircraft
safety, winter weather conditions, and marine safety, and finally I
367
will have some questions for the Board on their fiscal year 1994
budget request.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I will, at this point, insert Senator D'Amato's and Senator Sas-
ser's opening statements in the record. They are attending a Bank-
ing Committee hearing, and will be unable to join us.
[The statements follow:]
Statement of Senator D'Amato
Mr. Chairman, I join you in welcoming Carl Vogt, Chairman of the National
Transportation Safety Board, to today's hearing on NTSB's fiscal year 1994 budget
request. Accompanying him is Terry Baxter, NTSB's Managing Director.
The NTSB is requesting $42.2 million and 384 full-time equivalent [FTE] posi-
tions for fiscal year 1994. This would be an increase of 27 FTE's and $6.2 million
over the fiscal year 1993 funded level.
NTSB performs vital safety investigations of major transportation accidents, and
promotes safety by issuing safety recommendations. Although it has no rulemaking
authority, its safety recommendations are seriously reviewed by lawmakers, govern-
ment agencies and the transportation industry.
The NTSB's abiUty to function as an independent and objective overseer of trans-
portation safety across the modes is vital. I appreciate the importance of providing
NTSB with adequate funds to perform its important work and look forward to hear-
ing fi'om todajr's witnesses.
Statement of Senator Sasser
Good morning. Today's hearing focuses on the important work of the National
Transportation Safety Board. Transportation safety is the critical linchpin to the ef-
ficient movement of people and goods. The NTSB's independent recommendations
provide a focus and gauge to daily transportation safety decisions that occvu* on the
Nation's roads, airways, railways, and waterways.
The National Transportation Safety Board's primary function is to shed Ught on
the "big picture," the most catastrophic of transportation related accidents. Together
with extensive regional investigations, the NTSB provides critical input for im-
proved safety in all modes of transportation. Through its exhaustive attention to the
minutest of details, the National Transportation Safety Board offers preventive in-
sights that can save Uves and reduce the extent of property damage from transpor-
tation related accidents.
Accidents take a cumulative toll on the Nation's overall economic growth and pro-
ductivity. When a transportation system fails, the cost to the Nation, from lost
wages, medical and insurance expenses adds up into the biUions of dollars. The
NTSB's after the fact investigations and recommendations are, therefore, vital to
the Nation's economic well-being.
Human error or equipment deficiencies are fi-equently cited as causes of most
transportation malfiinctions. The NTSB effort to determine the cause of accidents
can extend but so far. It is up to the affected transportation modes to make vital
improvements to its safety standards. Where Uves and property are at stake, the
transportation community can ill afford to cut safety comers. The importance of the
NTSB's role in transportation safety recommendations looms that much larger, en-
suring that today's tragic events are not repeated tomorrow.
I look forward to hearing the testimony.
STATEMENT OF CARL W. VOGT
Senator Lautenberg. With that, we invite the witnesses to tes-
tify. Chairman Vogt, we are glad to see you here. We would ask
that you summarize your testimony and we will put the full testi-
mony in the record, and I ask you now to proceed.
Mr. Vogt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am not only pleased to
be here, but I am privileged to be here representing the National
Transportation Safety Board.
368
With me at the table on my left is Mr. Tim Forte, Director of our
Office of Aviation Safety, and on my right is Barry Sweedler, Direc-
tor of our Office of Safety Recommendations, and a person who I
think is known to you as the godfather of our report on teenagers
and alcohol.
TWENTY-FIFTH ANNIVERSARY
Last year was the 25th anniversary of the National Transpor-
tation Safety Board, and we are very proud of our record. We think
that there is no question that its activities have contributed to sig-
nificantly raising the level of transportation safety in the United
States, and I might add in other nations as well.
As a result of more than 50,000 Safety Board accident investiga-
tions in the past quarter century, 9,000 recommendations to reduce
loss of life and accident recurrence were issued to Government
agencies, private companies, trade associations, and others cover-
ing a wide variety of ssifety improvements.
Eight out of ten of these recommendations have been imple-
mented over the years, a record of which I think the Board is jus-
tifiably proud. Through the Board's efforts and those of this com-
mittee and others, a safer environment for transportation, we
think, has clearly been established.
AVIATION ACCIDENTS
An example of what has happened over the past 25 years in-
volves aviation. According to our records there were 52 aviation ac-
cidents and 226 fatalities in the United States in scheduled pas-
senger service in 1967, the Safety Board's first year. Considering
that there were some 134 million passengers flown that year over
2.1 billion miles, passenger aviation miles, it was not a bad record.
Comparatively speaking, last year there were 40 accidents in the
United States involving 52 passenger deaths in scheduled service.
Yet more than three and one-half times as many people flew in
scheduled airline service over twice as many miles as in 1967.
HIGHWAY ACCIDENTS
In surface, the news is also encouraging. Although the final fig-
ures are not yet available from the National Highway Traffic Safe-
ty Administration, 1992 may mark the first time in modem years
that fewer than 40,000 people died on our highways, railroads, and
waterways. Still a high and tragic number, but relatively speaking,
marking progress.
These achievements, of course, were only possible through the
work of many, many people, and it is always our privilege, Mr.
Chairman, to be here before you as a friend and leader in the
transportation safety field. We feel that we share a kindred spirit.
ACCIDENT AND RECOMMENDATION RESPONSE
There is a lot left to be done, and that is what we really would
like to address with you. We need, for example, internally to reduce
the amount of time it takes from launching a "go team" to the ac-
tual adoption of an accident report by the Safety Board.
369
We need to reduce the amount of time it takes for our rec-
ommendations to be implemented. We need to retain our ability to
respond to upcoming transportation challenges, particularly in an
age when there is a technological revolution going on in almost
every phase of transportation. For example, high-speed trains, the
use of new composite materials, the advent of intelligent highways,
and the development of new technologies across the Board are
going to put new demands on the Board and all Government agen-
cies involved in transportation safety.
Of particular importance, it is imperative that we maintain the
highest level of technical competence and expertise. This translates
into people. The strength of this agency is its people and their ex-
pertise, and the ability to retain them in rewarding and satisfying
careers.
We are committed to this goal. We know this committee is, we
know you are, sir. We look forward to working with you and to an-
swering your questions this morning. Thank you.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much, Mr. Vogt. As I stat-
ed earlier, we have your prepared statement and it will be made
part of the record.
[The statement follows:]
Statement of Carl W. Vogt
Chairman Lautenberg, Senator D'Amato and members of the Subcommittee. I am
very pleased to be here this morning to represent the National Transportation Safe-
ty Board.
Last year marked the 25th tinniversary of the National Transportation Safety
Board (NTSB), and we believe there is no doubt that the Board has significantly
raised the level of transportation safety in the United States, and in many other
nations, during its existence. This has been accomplished by thorough accident in-
vestigations and timely, well considered safety recommendations to correct the defi-
ciencies in our transportation system that were identified in these investigations.
As a result of more than 50,000 Safety Board accident investigations in the past
quarter-century, we have issued more than 9,000 safety recommendations covering
a wide range of safety improvements. Safety studies have also been undertaken in
order to examine problems fi*om a broader, more systemic perspective.
Yet ultimately, the Boards success rests on the acceptance of its safety rec-
ommendations. Safety recommendations are our most important product, and they
are vital to the Safetv Board's basic role of accident prevention since they are the
lever used to bring about changes and improvements in the safety of the nations
transportation system.
"most wanted"
While all the recommendations made by the Board will, if implemented, improve
safety and help prevent accidents, some are so important that the Board gives them
greater emphasis than others. The Board's "Most Wanted" list, a copy of which is
attached at the end of the testimony, is the vehicle employed to stress recommenda-
tions having the greatest potential for saving Uves. There are currently 17 topics
on the list:
— ^boating while intoxicated
— admimstrative revocation of drivers licenses
— airport runway incursions
— positive train separation
— aircraft collision avoidance in airport terminal areas
— fishing vessel safety
— mandatory seatbelt use laws
— adjustable upper anchor point for lap/shoulder automobile seatbelts
— safety standards for railroad tank cars carrying hazardous materials
370
— fatigue and work hour schedules for transportation workers
— school bus safety
— structural fatigue testing of aircraft
— passenger vessel safety
— uniform industry-wide policy on alcohol/drug testing
— runway stopping performance of transport airplanes
— ^heavy commercial truck safety, and
— pipeline excess flow valves
The Board takes many actions to stress these necessary transportation safety im-
provements, and to encourage recommendation recipients to implement them. Once
implemented, the Board acknowledges the positive development.
Last year, for example, the Board voted to remove the issue of Ground Proximity
Warning Systems (GPWS) for commuter airplanes from the "Most Wanted" Ust after
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued final rules regarding this matter.
Even though GPWS is no longer on the "Most Wanted" list, the issue has not been
abandoned and we continue to monitor the FAA's proposal.
The removal of a safety item from the Boards "Most Wanted" list is just one meas-
ure of the Boards impact. Another measure is the overall acceptance rate for Board
safety recommendations. Eight out of ten of all safety recommendations issued over
the years have been implemented, resulting in a safer environment for every trav-
eler. We believe the Safety Board can rightfully take satisfaction in its role as an
advocate for transportation safety — and pride in the results we have seen in these
last 25 years.
TRANSPORTATION FATALITIES IN 1992
America's transportation system again showed safety improvements in 1992 as
fewer accidents and deaths were reported compared to previous years. Although
only preliminary data is available at this time, it would appear that in 1992 fewer
than 40,000 people died on our transportation systems. Transportation-related fa-
talities in 1991 totalled 43,554, compared with 47,014 in 1990.
In aviation, preliminary statistics show the number of fatalities aboard commuter
airplanes dropped to 21 in 1992 — from 77 a year earlier. Large commercial carriers
registered four fatal accidents and 33 fatalities in 1992, compared to the same num-
ber of fatal accidents and 50 deaths the year before. The 33 fatalities represent the
lowest number of deaths since 1986, when five persons died in that category.
In general aviation, although there were fewer fatal accidents (408), more people
(812) were killed in 1992 than the previous year. The comparable nimibers for 1991
were 414 fatal accidents and 746 deaths.
Because major aviation accidents happen so seldom, the nvunber of fatalities can
fluctuate from year to year. Even in high fatality years, such as those experienced
in the late 1980's, relatively few accidents occur. We are convinced that the Safety
Boards efforts through the years have contributed to this impressive record.
1992 SUMMARY
Last year, 353 safety recommendations were issued as a result of 20 major and
2,290 regional Board investigations, as well as nine safety studies and special inves-
tigative reports.
Although I cannot discuss every investigation and recommendation, I would like
to highlight some of the Board's work.
AVIATION
AIRPLANE DEICING
Almost a year ago today, USAir flight 405 crashed on takeoff on a snowy evening
at New York's LaGuardia airport 35 minutes after its second deicing. Twenty-seven
of the fifty-one people on board died.
Last month, the Safety Board determined that the probable cause of the accident
was the failure of the airline industry and the Federal Aviation Administration to
provide flightcrews with procedures, requirements and criteria compatible with de-
parture delays during icing and snowy conditions. Also listed in the adopted prob-
able cause statement was the decision by the flightcrew to take off without positive
assurance that the airplane's wings were free of ice accumulation after 35 minutes
of exposure to precipitation following the second deicing. Airframe icing, even in
minute amounts, can jeopardize an airplane's ability to fly, and extreme care must
be used by crewmembers when assessing wing ice contamination.
371
This accident prompted both the FAA and others in the aviation community to
focus renewed attention on the problems confronting flightcrews operating in winter
conditions. Following an international symposium on airframe icing in May 1992,
the FAA imposed requirements on airlines to define and implement deicing proce-
dures, and instituted changes in air traffic control procedures and airport operations
to minimize the time that airplanes will be exposed to icing conditions following de-
icing. At the same time, the industry is developing technologies to detect the pres-
ence of minute amounts of frozen contamination on the upper surface of airplane
wings.
The Safety Board issued additional recommendations directed at operational pro-
cedures, air traffic delays during icing conditions, the inspection of aircraft for pos-
sible ice contamination, and the composition of deicing fluid used on certain planes.
UNITED AIRLINES/COLORADO SPRINGS, CO
Calendar year 1992 marked only the fourth time in the Safety Board's history
that we were unable to conclusively determine the probable cause of a large air car-
rier accident. On March 31, 1991, in clear skies and at an altitude of approximately
1,000 feet above the ground. United flight 585 suddenly rolled to the right, pitched
nose down to reach a nearly vertical attitude, and impacted the ground. All 25 per-
sons aboard the flight were killed.
The two most likely events that could have resulted in the accident were a mal-
function of the aircrait's lateral or directional control system, or an encounter with
an unusually severe atmospheric disturbance. Although anomalies were identified
in the airplane's rudder control system, none would have produced a rudder move-
ment that could not have been countered by the airplane's lateral controls. The most
likely atmospheric disturbance to produce an uncontrollable rolling moment was a
rotor produced by a combination of high winds aloft and the mountainous terrain
at Colorado Springs.
After a 20-month long investigation, and despite exhaustive efforts by the inves-
tigative teeun, the Board could not identify conclusive evidence to explain the cause
of the accident.
This was one of several major investigations that have been hampered recently
because the aircraft were equipped with old, 4-parameter flight data recorders. We
believe the failure to require more state-of-the-art recorders is a false economy when
it prevents us from determining what happened to a plane like the Boeing 737, one
of the workhorses of the U.S. airline fleet.
The FAA, as a result of Board recommendations, has agreed to initiate a two-
phase program to document and analyze potential meteorological threats to aircraft
operating in the Colorado Springs area, and develop a meteorological aircraft hazard
program for airports in or near mountaiinous terrain.
SIGHTSEEING FXJGHT OPERATIONS
The sightseeing flight industry carries almost 2 million passengers a year in the
United States and, since 1986, the Safety Board has investigated 11 sightseeing
flight accidents resulting in 76 fatalities. All of the fatalities were either in Hawaii
or near the Grand Canyon.
Recently the Safety Board made several recommendations to improve the safety
of sightseeing flight operations as a result of our investigation into a fatal sightsee-
ing accident in Hawaii last year in which nine occupants of a Scenic Air Tours plane
crashed.
The absence of specialized oversight of air tour operations by the FAA was an
issue in the investigation, and the Safety Board has recommended the establish-
ment of a special re^atory classification for commercial sightseeing flights.
In the accident investigation, it was also discovered that the pilot had previously
appUed for employment at another Hawaiian airline but his application had been
rejected aft«r preemployment screening found that he had misrepresented his em-
ployment history. Preemployment screening obviously can protect the public fi:x)m
unqualified pilots, and the Board believes the FAA should require commercial opera-
tors to implement such programs. Previous recommendations that the FAA require
substantive preemployment screening were reissued.
A January 1993 fatal crash of a helicopter sightseeing flight into the ocean near
the Hawaii Volcanoes National Park is also currently being investigated. The Safety
Board is also working closely with the Canadian Government in its investigation of
a midair collision between Ll.S. and Canadian sightseeing aircraft over the Niagara
Falls on September 29, 1992.
372
UNITED AIRLINES FUGHT 8II/BOEING 747
The Safety Board is an acknowledged authority in piecing together the reasons
accidents occur, and determinations of probable cause are basea on exhaustive in-
vestigation. When pertinent material is uncovered, the Safety Board will reopen in-
vestigations.
Such was the case in the accident that occurred February 24, 1989, in Honolulu,
Hawaii, involving United Airlines flight 811. The airplane experienced an explosive
decompression after taking off from Honolulu with three flig:htcrew, 15 flight attend-
ants, and 337 passengers aboard. The accident resulted in nine fatalities.
With the assistance of the U.S. Navy, the Safety Board recovered the plane's
cargo door from the three-mile deep floor of the Pacific Ocean more than a year and
a half after the accident, and several months after the accident report was adopted.
The new evidence obtained through examining the recovered door prompted the
Safety Board to revise its original report to delete the original report's reference to
the cargo door being improperly latched. But the Safety Board reiterated its belief
that a deficiency in the design of the cargo door contributed to the accident, and
left standing three safety recommendations relating to B-747 cargo door.
FLIGHT ATTENDANT TRAINING AND PERFORMANCE
While commercial airline accidents are rare, there are, nonetheless, a number of
emergency situations that passengers may face in flight.
In some emergencies, passengers and crewmembers have sufficient time to pre-
{)are themselves for the situation. More often than not, an emergency occurs with
ittle or no warning, and it may take place in combination with other abnormal situ-
ations, further compromising safety. For example, an encounter with severe air tur-
bulence may cause injuries to the crew and passengers; and a bomb threat, a me-
chanical failure, or an in-flight fire can result in an immediate evacuation upon
landing. In these cases, we depend on flight attendants to provide the most imme-
diate assistance to passengers.
In several recent accident investigations, the Safety Board found that although
flight attendants provided valuable assistance to passengers during emergency situ-
ations, they did not always follow their air carrier's approved emergency procedures
or perform their duties in accordance with their training. In two of the 24 evacu-
ation cases cited in a special investigation report adopted by the Board in 1992, the
actions of some flight attendants contributed to an increase in the number of pas-
senger injuries.
The Safety Board is concerned that these same actions in other situations could
have disastrous results, and that flight attendant training may not adequately pre-
pare flight attendants for actions that they may be required to take.
As a result of our special investigation, the Safety Board made more than a dozen
safety recommendations to the Fi^U^, that are intended to improve flight attendant
training and performance during emergency situations. The FAA response to these
recommendations is currently being evaluated.
ANNISTON, AL/GP EXPRESS
On June 8, 1992, GP Express flight 861 crashed on its final approach to Anniston
Metropolitan Airport in Alabama. Two crewmembers and four passengers were on
board. The captain and two passengers were killed, and the first officer and the two
remaining passengers suffered serious injuries. GP Express had just begun operat-
ing the route three days before the accident. In a recently adopted report, the Safety
Board determined the probable cause of the accident to be the failure of GP Express'
senior management to provide adequate training and operational support for the
startup of the compan/s Southern operation which resulted in the placement of an
inadequately prepared captain in initial revenue passenger service with a relatively
inexperienced first officer. The failure of the flight crew to use approved instrument
flight procedures which resulted in a loss of situational awareness and terrain clear-
ance was also cited in the probable cause statement adopted by the Safety Board.
ON-GOING MAJOR AVIATION ACCIDENT INVESTIGATIONS
On June 16, 1992 a Cessna 402C operated by Adventure AirUnes, Inc. crashed
shortly after takeoff V2 mile south of the Grand Canyon West Airport. The pilot and
nine passengers were fatally injured. Safety Board investigators recovered three vid-
eotapes from cameras among the personal effects in the aircraft wreckage, two of
which recorded portions of the accident flight. Although the investigation continues,
the video evidence and wreckage examination led the Board to issue urgent rec-
373
ommendations to the FAA and Cessna Aircraft Corporation to revise the minimum
fuel loads for takeoff and flight for all Cessna 402C's and other applicable Cessna
400 series aircraft. Inspections of all inlet float valves for wear were also called for
by the Board.
Although a formal response from the FAA has not been received, an Airworthi-
ness Directive weis issued requiring fabricating and installing placards that specify
higher unusable fuel levels and mgher minimum fuel levels for takeoff for eacn
main tank.
On July 30, 1992, TWA fight 843 crashed at JFK International Airport when the
flightcrew elected to abort the takeoff, resulting in an emergency evacuation
through the forward doors. The siirplane was destroyed by fire. The Safetv Board
is examining pUot training in crew coordination for the takeoff phase, and airline
maintenance quality assurance. The Board hopes to determine tlie probable cause
from this investigation by the end of March.
PEGASUS LAUNCH INVESTIGATION
On February 16, 1993, the Department of Transportation requested that the Safe-
ty Board initiate an investigation into the February 9, 1993, launch of a Pegasus
vehicle from an Air Force B-52 bomber by Orbital Sciences Corporation. Prelimi-
nary information indicates that an abort command was issued dvuing the final sec-
onds of the covmtdown- however, the launch proceeded and was uneventful. The Na-
tional Transportation Safety Board and the Department of Transportation, OflBce of
Commercial Space Transportation signed an a^eement dated June 5, 1989, pursu-
ant to which tne Safety Board will conduct the investigation.
FOREIGN INVESTIGATIONS
A significant portion of the Safety Board's work involves our participation in in-
vestigations of aviation accidents and incidents that occur in other countries. Be-
cause of the ever increasing number of U.S. manufactured and U.S. registered air-
planes operating overseas, and the responsibility the Board must fulfill as the Unit-
ed States' sole accredited representative to the International Civil Aviation Organi-
zation (ICAO), this portion of our workload continues to increase, and last year was
not an exception. The FAA, U.S. manufacturers and operators rely heavily upon the
Board to facilitate their involvement in the investigation of foreign incidents and ac-
cidents.
To this end, the NTSB led the U.S. delegation of aviation industry accident inves-
tigation experts to the three-week ICAO Accident Investigation Divisional meeting
at Montreal in February 1992. Accident investigation experts from more than 70
countries participated, and revisions to the international standards and practices for
accident investigation and prevention were developed.
The U.S. delegation was comprised of NTSB experts and specialists from the FAA,
the Air Transit Association of America (ATA), the Air Line Pilots Association
(ALPA), the Greneral Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA), and Aerospace
Industries of America (AIA). Over 270 persons participated. The results of the meet-
ing are highly significant to the interests of the U.S. aviation industry because of
the industrVs ever-expanding role in operating and selling aircraft and equipment
overseas. The NTSB continues to monitor the results of this important meeting, and
we have developed plans to cope with the ever-increasing workload required by our
important role in investigating and preventing international accidents. Any acci-
dent, anywhere in the world, can have an adverse effect on U.S. interests and the
traveling public.
Board investigators participated in 60 investigations in more than 50 different na-
tions in 1992.
Recentiy, the Safety Board sent an accredited representative to lead the U.S. team
in assisting the accident investigators of the Peoples Republic of China in the inves-
tigation of a China Southern Airways Boeing 737-300 that crashed on November
24 on approach to Guilin, China. The airplane crashed into the face of a nearly ver-
tical cliff and the wreckage fell several nundred feet down to the base of the cliff
after impact. The 133 passengers and eight crew were killed.
This was the first U.S. team to be invited to China to participate in an accident
investigation. For some time, meetings and discussions between NTSB staff and
their Chinese counterparts have been underway and the request for Safety Board
participation in this investigation shows that efforts to build stronger international
ties are meeting with success. NTSB staff continue to work with their Chinese coun-
terparts on the investigation.
On October 5, 1992, a NTSB investigative team was sent to The Netherlands to
assist in the investigation of El Al flight 1862, a Boeing 747-200F that crashed into
374
an apartment complex shortly after takeoff at Amsterdsim. All three crewmembers,
one passenger, and 55 persons on the ground were killed in the crash. The flight
data recorder (FDR) was sent to our laboratory for examination, and a NTSB metal-
lurgist assisted in the examination of engine attachment hardware. The FDR data
and the examination of the wreckage indicated that the No. 3 engine separated from
the airplane and struck the No. 4 engine, causing it to separate from the airplane.
The investigation determined that the No. 3 engine separated because of a failure
in midspar pylon attachment fuse pins that seciire the engine to the wing.
Following the Safety Boards November 3, 1992, issuance of urgent safety rec-
ommendations, the FAA issued Airworthiness Directives regarding replacement and
inspection of the fuse pins and the inspection of the midspar fitting lugs on Novem-
ber 13 and December 24, 1992.
On January 15, 1992, Air Canada flight 173, a McDonnell Douglas DC-9, en route
from Ontario to Chicago, Illinois experienced "fi"ozen" aileron controls. Attempts to
free the aileron controls while airborne were unsuccessful. The captain declared an
emergency while in Canadian airspace and made an uneventful landing at Toronto.
An inspection of the airplane after landing disclosed a large accretion of ice on the
aileron and wing spoiler control.
As a result of this incident, on October 21, 1992, the Board issued a safetv rec-
ommendation urging the FAA to issue an Airworthiness Directive requiring the in-
stcdlation of safety devices to prevent such accretion in all DC-9 and MD-80 series
airplanes. We are awaiting the FAA's reply to this safety recommendation.
GENERAL AVIATION
In 1992, the Safety Board initiated more than 2,250 general aviation accident in-
vestigations from its nine regional offices. Although most of these investigations do
not receive as much media attention as those involving major air carriers that are
investigated by a "Go Team" from our Washington headquarters, they do have a sig-
nificant impact on transportation safety.
For example, the Safety Board has investigated several aircraft accidents involv-
ing considerable delays in search and rescue (SAR) responses, including a Cessna
2 ION accident at Shady Grove Comer, Virginia. SAR efforts did not locate the air-
craft until seven days after the accident. Problems in charting the last known posi-
tion of the aircraft were identified in the investigation.
The Board subsequently urged changes in the National Search and Rescue Man-
ual in order to prevent delays and possible unnecessary loss of life in future SAR
operations. The Safety Board is pleased to note that the Coast Guard is gathering
such data for an upcoming revision in its National Search and Rescue Manual. The
Coast Guard expects the revised manual to be published in later Summer 1993.
Currently, the Safety Board is investigating two sky-diving accidents that oc-
curred in 1992 in Perris, California and Hinckley, Illinois. In the Perris accident,
the DeHavilland DH-6 crashed shortly after departing the runway. The plane car-
ried a pilot and 21 parachutists. The pilot and 15 parachutists were killea, and the
other six parachutists received serious injuries.
At Hinckley, Illinois, a Beech 18 carrying a pilot and 11 passengers (four skydiv-
ing instructors, four students jumping in tandem rigs, two video cameramen and
one solo jumper) crashed and all aooard were killed. A number of issues including
plane loading factors are being examined by investigators.
PIPER MALIBU/MIRAGE AIRCRAFT
In July the Board completed a special investigation of five fatal in-flight breakups
in the U.S. involving Piper PA— 46 Malibu/Mirage aircraft, and concluded that the
crashes resulted from deficient pilot handling and training. Twelve persons were
killed in the five accidents. No inherent deficiencies in the design of the plane was
found, nor were defects discovered in the autopilot operations.
As a result of this special investigation, the Board made safety recommendations
concerning modifications to the airplanes flight manual and pilot training.
RAILROAD
The Safety Board performs in-depth analysis of selected reiil accidents and initi-
ates safety studies of significant railroad safety issues.
Ninety-six railroad incidents and accidents were investigated by the Safety Board
in 1992. "Go Teams" from the Washington headquarters were launched to four of
these accidents, while investigators fi"om regional offices investigated the remaining
92.
375
INDIANA COMMUTER TRAIN COLUSION
A "Go Team" was dispatched in January 1993 when two Northern Indiana Com-
muter Transportation District trains coUided in Gary, Indiana. Seven passengers
sustained fatal iiyuries, five passengers serious injuries, five crewmembers and 88
passengers minor injuries, and 100 passengers no injuries. One train was crossing
over a gauntlet bridge when the collision occvirred witii the oncoming train. The vig-
ilance of the train operators and the preparedness and emergency skills of Gary, In-
diana emergency response personnel are issues being examined.
SELECTED ONGOING INVESTIGATIONS
In June, a Burlington Northern fi-eight train derailed in, Superior, Wisconsin.
Three of the 14 fii^ight cars that derailed were transporting hazardous materials;
and one car fell into a river and released its product, an aromatic concentrate which
included benzene as one of its major constituents. Thousands of nearby residents
were evacuated, but no serious injuries resulted.
Issues in the Superior, Wisconsin accident are the U.S. Department of Transpor-
tation's oversight of the shipment of environmentally sensitive materials, the ade-
quacy of existmg rail inspection methods, and the accident performance of the tank
cars.
Two Amtrak derailment investigations were also initiated in 1992. In one inves-
tigation (Newport News, Virginia), the FBI was called in when evidence at the scene
indicated tiie derailment may have resulted fiixjm deliberate tampering with a
switch. Another accident occurred in Stevensville, Michigan, when an Amtrak train
derailed where a frei^t train had collided with an automobile less than an hour
earlier. One of the issues being examined in this case is the adequacy of track in-
spections after a train makes an emergency brake application.
MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT AND WORKER TRAINING
In December 1990, an Amtrak passenger train derailed and struck a commuter
train in Boston's Back Bay Station. On April 12, 1991, an Amtrak train of loco-
motives only, struck a Conrail fi:«ight train at Chase, Maryland. On September 17,
1991, two >forfolk Southern freight trains collided in Knox, Indiana.
In all three of these accident investigations, the quality of supervision and train-
ing were cited and safety recommendations were issued to the appropriate parties
for improvements in supervision and training programs identified in the reports
adopted by the Board. Progress is being made on acceptance of these safety rec-
ommendations among the affected parties and the Board's efforts in this area to
achieve acceptable responses are continviing.
A New York City "Transit Authority (NYCTA) train motorman's alcohol impair-
ment and sleep deprivation were found by the Safety Board to be the probable cause
of the August 1991 subway accident that killed five passengers. In the 24 hours be-
fore the accident, the train motorman had no more than four and one-quarter hours
of sleep, and, based on information the motorman gave the police, the Safety Board
determined that his blood alcohol content (BAC) at the time of the accident was be-
tween 0.29 percent and 0.36 percent. For comparison purposes. New York commer-
cial drivers license regulations prohibit operation of a motor vehicle with a BAC of
0.04 percent or more. Several safety recommendations to improve supervisor train-
ing and the New York City Transit Authority operating rulebook were issued by the
Board.
OTHER RAIL ACCIDENTS
Reports on several other major rail investigations handled by NTSB staff are ex-
pected to be completed in the near future. Final reports are planned soon on the
head-on collision of two Burlington Northern fii^ight trains in Ledger, Montana; the
derailment of an Amtrak passenger train near Lugoff, South Carolina; and the de-
railment of an Amtrak passenger train near Palatka, Plorida.
HIGHWAY
The Safety Board is responsible for the investigation of highway accidents, includ-
ing railroad grade crossing accidents, that it selects in cooperation with the states.
The Board devotes its highway resources to those accidents that have a significant
impact on the public's confidence in highway safety, that generate high public inter-
est, or that concern technical safety issues that cause or contribute to accidents or
injuries on a national scale.
376
iNTERcrry buses
On July 26, 1992, a charter bus owned and operated by Sensational Golden Sons
Bus Service, Inc. was transporting 49 passengers to an amusement park. As the bus
was descending a steep grade in Vernon, New Jersey, the driver lost control of the
vehicle. Six passengers were killed, and all other occupants received minor to criti-
cal injuries. The Board's investigation is on-going, but we have found that all of the
bus' brakes were defective. A two-day public hearing on this matter was held in Oc-
tober in Secaucus, New Jersey. Issues being examined in this investigation include
state and national regulations concerning the certification and inspection require-
ments of intercity bus companies, and the signing and design of the roadway ap-
proaching the accident site.
In a report regarding two accidents involving Greyhound Lines, Inc., the Safety
Board urged that the company implement a new driver certification program. The
Board determined that both accidents were caused by the company's failure to en-
sure that bus drivers had adequate training and experience to operate intercity
buses. The bus drivers involved in the accidents failed to meet even Greyhound's
stated criteria.
BRAKE STANDARDS FOR HEAVY TRUCKS
The safety of heavy commercial trucks is an item on the Board's "Most Wanted"
list of safety issues. As a result of a safety study based in part on Safety Board in-
vestigations into 18 brake-related heavy vehicle accidents that occurred between De-
cember 1988 and November 1990, specific improvements in brake standards were
recommended.
During this safety study, Safety Board staff and state authorities conducted road-
side inspections of neavy trucks along interstate and secondary roads in five states
(Florida, Illinois, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Texas). The most common problem
identified in the study was out-of adjustment brakes, although other issues such as
brake maintenance were addressed. Thirty-five safety recommendations were issued
as a result of this study.
Federed accident data indicate that although combination trucks account for only
1.8 percent of all U.S. highway accidents, they are involved in 6.7 percent of all fatal
accidents. The number of fatal accidents per 100 million miles for combination
trucks is nearly double that of passenger cars. More than 5,000 people are killed
every year in the United States in heavy truck accidents.
WORK ZONES
Based on past Board investigations of 61 accidents that occurred in construction
work zones, the Seifety Board recommended last May that a new national work zone
safety program be developed and that methods for managing traffic at such sites
be improved. According to the Board's safety study on highway work zone safety,
the number of fatalities that occurred in work zones increased from 489 in 1982 to
780 in 1988. Unless action is taken by federal and state authorities, the number
of traffic fatalities that occur at road construction sites can be expected to rise, espe-
cially in light of the anticipated increase in construction and maintenance activities
in the next few years.
fflGHWAY LIMITED-VISIBILITY
As a result of the investigation of six limited-visibility, chain-reaction collisions
since December 1990, and a public hearing into the problem, the Safety Board rec-
ommended that a more uniform approach be developed to review and update driver
licensing and education materials to ensure that guidance for limited-visibility driv-
ing is uniform and complete. The Board believes such an effort should be a joint
feaeral, state, and industry initiative. The Board also asked the Department of
Transportation to include limited-visibility countermeasures in its Intelligent Vehi-
cle Highway System demonstration programs.
TANK TRUCK ROLLOVERS
One of the four special highway safety studies adopted by the Board last year
dealt with hazardous spills fi*om overturned tank trucks. Several accidents that oc-
curred in the first few months of 1991 were examined, and while none of the cargo
tanks were breached, gasoline, hydrochloric acid or fuel oil spilled because closures
or fittings on top of the cargo tanks were damaged during the accident sequence.
The recommendations issued as a result of this study call on the Research and
Special Programs Administration (RSPA) and the Federal Highway Administration
377
(FHWA) to work together to improve the performance of tank truck rollover protec-
tion devices. The Safety Board additionally urged FHWA to require that cargo tanks
failing to comply with DOT standards either oe removed from hazardous materials
service or be modified to comply with those standfirds.
UNDERAGE DRIhfKING AND DRIVING
After analyzing a large body of research involving young driver highway accidents
and actions to prevent crashes by young drivers, the Safety Board nas called for a
major reassessment by the states to reduce crashes among drivers under 21, includ-
ing alcohol-related accidents.
In 1991, more than 9,100 people died in trafiBc crashes involving more than 8,200
15- to 20-year-old drivers. That is more than 22 percent of all fatalities that oc-
curred on our nation's highways in 1991. Moreover, young drivers comprise only 7.1
percent of licensed drivers, but account for 14.9 percent of all driver fatalities ac-
cording to the latest figures from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administra-
tion (NHTSA). Further, while young drivers do only 20 percent of their driving at
night, over half of the crash fatalities of adolescent drivers occur during nighttune
hours.
Underage drinking and driving continues to play a major role in youth trafiBc
crashes and fatalities. Although no state allows tne sale of alcohol to persons under
age 21, the Safety Board research found most states still allow a driver under age
21 to legally drive with a substantial amount of alcohol in his or her system.
Several state legislative and policy actions can be effective in reducing automobile
crashes involving young drivers and the Safety Board has recommended that sev-
eral initiatives be adopted, including the enactment of "zero" Blood Alcohol Content
(BAG) laws to make it illegal for drivers under 21 to drive with any blood alcohol
concentration.
MARINE
In 1992, the Safety Board adopted six major marine accident reports and three
major investigations are underway.
The ongoing investigations include two ships (the Queen Elizabeth II and the con-
tainer ship Chiara) that ran aground off the coast of Massachusetts. The remaining
investigation was initiated last December when the container ship Juraj
Dalmatinac and a barge, Duval 2, collided in the Houston ship channel near Gal-
veston, Texas. The channel was blocked for several hours and it was opened for one-
way trafiBc about sixteen hours after the accident.
ESCORT VESSELS
The Safety Board also commented on a Goast Guard Notice of Proposed Rule-
making (NPRM) to implement provisions in the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 requiring
escort vessels for single-hulled tankers of over 5,000 tons transporting oil in bulk
in Prince William Sound, Alaska (where the Exxon Valdez accident occurred), and
in Rosario Strait and Puget Sound, Washington. The Board urged improvements in
the NPRM to insure that escort vessels have a demonstrated ability to maneuver
a loaded tonker underway in a manner sufiBcient to prevent an accident.
FISHING VESSEL SAFETY
Each year, an estimated 250 fishing vessels are lost and about 100 fishermen die
in the commercial fishing industry. The highest loss and fatality rates are for larger
vessels, but the fatality rates for vessels under 65 feet long are also extraordinarily
high. These are just some reasons why the safety of commercial fishing vessels re-
mains an item on our "Most Wanted" list.
An example of this type of accident was the capsizing and sinking of the 162-foot
U.S. Fishing Processing Vessel Aleutian Enterprise in the Bering Sea resulting in
the loss of nine lives. As a result of our investigation, we found that the vessel was
lacking in watertight doors and hull closures, crew safety equipment and training,
and adequate stability information.
The Board reissued several recommendations concerning fishing vessel safety and
recommended several new actions to the Coast Guard to correct problems involving
watertight doors, load lines, and post-accident toxicological testing requirements.
PIPELINE
The mission of the Safety Board's Pipeline Accident Division is to continually in-
crease pubUc safety by advocating that government, pipeline operators and associa-
378
tions improve their policies, practices and systems. This is accomplished through the
investigation of pipeline accidents that generally involve a fatality, substantial prop-
erty damage, or significant injury to the environment.
Two major pipeune accidents were investigated by the Board in 1992. The first
accident occurred when a low-pressure natural gas system serving a neighborhood
of residences and small businesses in Chicago, Illinois, suffered an overpressure.
The resulting fires killed four persons. In its final report on the accident, tne Board
found the failure of the Chicago utility to adequately train its gas operations section
employees in recognizing and responding to abnormal situations spawned a se-
quence of events that resulted in the deaths and extensive properly damage.
In the second accident. Board investigators are looking into the explosion of a gas
cloud at a salt dome storage cavern in Brenham, Texas on April 7, 1992. The ade-
quacy of federal and state safety controls governing the operation, and maintenance
of underground fuel storage facilities are b«ing examined.
MIUTARY GAS PIPELINE SYSTEMS
The Safetv Board also determined in 1992 that the 1990 explosion that killed two
persons and injured 24 others at Fort Benjamin Harrison, Indiana was caused by
the U.S. Armys failure to follow accepted gas pipeline procedures. As a result, a
valve into a discontinued but uncapped gas line was inadvertently opened. Among
the recommendations issued, the Board said that the Secretary of the Army should
require pipeline systems that are owned or operated by the inilitary to conform to
federal civilian safety regulations.
The Board report also examined the gas pipeline operations of the other military
service branches and found operations similar to those of the Army. Consequently,
the Secretaries of the Navy and the Air Force were urged to evaluate their gas pipe-
line safety programs to identify and correct any deficiencies.
We were pleased to be advised that the Army has updated its guidance document
for the operation and maintenance of gas systems. Tne updated manual has been
forwarded to all Army installations, and coordination is ongoing with the Navy and
Air Force to publish the manual as a Department of Defense Tri-Service Manual.
EXCESS FLOW VALVES
As this Committee knows, the Safety Board has advocated the use of excess flow
valves since 1971. Excess flow valves are an item on the Board's "Most Wanted" list.
The devices, which have been commercially available for about 30 years, can auto-
matically protect against gas flow in excess of that required by normal customer de-
mands when they are installed in the service line at or near its connection to a gas
main. An Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on this matter has languished
at DOT and the agency has taken no concrete action to require this important safety
protection. We are pleased that the 102nd Congress addressed this matter with the
enactment of the Pipeline Safety Act, which calls upon DOT to either mandate ex-
cess flow valves or explain why it has chosen not to require these recognized safety
devices.
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TRANSPORTATION
About four billion tons of regulated hazardous materials are shipped each year,
with more than 250,000 shipments of hazardous materials entering U.S. transpor-
tation system daily. The Boards role is to investigate accidents that occur during
the transportation of the materials, or that result in or threaten deaths, serious in-
juries, or major disruptions within communities caused by the release of hazardous
materials.
As mentioned earlier, the Board is currently investigating a Burlington Northern
train derailment that occurred in June 1992 near Superior, Wisconsin. Three of the
fourteen derailed cars contained hazardous materials and one of these was carrying
more than 26,000 gallons of benzene. This car was breached, resulting in the release
of more than 20,000 gallons of product. Rising temperatures and prevailing winds
generated a massive cloud of vapor fumes of the Superior, Wisconsin/Dulutn, Min-
nesota area. During a 16-hour period, local officials evacuated approximately 40,000
residents.
The safe transport of hazardous materials has been a concern of the Board for
some time. As mentioned earlier in my testimony, the Board has placed strong em-
phasis on the need to enhance highway trucking safety especially when dangerous
materials are being carried.
The same is true for rail tank cars. Just this past December, the Safety Board
issued a series of recommendations calling for better federal testing and inspection
379
requirements for rail tank cars and their components. These recommendations add
to those issued in the past.
The Board found that DOT tank car inspection and testing regulations, which
cover all of the nearly 104,000 tank cars used to carry hazardous materials in the
nation, are ineffective for finding certain types of major structural flaws. The find-
ings were based on a special investigation of two rail tank car accidents in 1992,
one of which resulted in the sudden release of 30,000 gallons of liquified petroleum
gas. The Board issued a series of recommendations calling for better federal testing
and inspection requirements for the cars and their components.
STATE AND LOCAL INITIATIVES
There are a number of safety recommendations that have involved the Safety
Board in issues important to state and local governments. The Board has encour-
aged adoption of its recommendations by testifying before state legislative bodies,
and by disseminating accident investigation findings and reports to state and local
authorities. Among the issues addressed are recommendations that states enact ad-
ministrative license revocation for drunk drivers, mandatory safety belt use laws,
boating while intoxicated laws, and flying while intoxicated laws.
Likewise, the Board has recommended that states undertake safety oversight of
rail rapid transit systems and improve anti-drunk driving programs. These efforts
continue.
The Board is encouraged bv the states' response to our recommendations. Admin-
istrative license revocation laws were passed in Nebraska, New Hampshire and
Ohio in 1992, bringing the total to 32 states. The National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration and the Safety Board participate in a national coalition of more than
30 government and private groups working for enactment of these types of laws in
all states.
Five states have adopted mandatory safety belt laws since the Board issued its
safety recommendation, leaving only eight states that do not require occupants of
cars, vans and light trucks to wear their seatbelts.
Since the Board's 1983 boating while intoxicated recommendation, the number of
states with comprehensive boating while intoxicated laws has increased fi"om three
to 39. The responses from governors to the 1992 study on flying while intoxicated
has also been encouraging.
CONCLUSION
Just as challenges have been confi-onted by the Board in its first 25 years, so too
will the upcoming challenges of the next be met. The introduction of high speed
trains in the United States, the development of new composite materials, the advent
of intelligent highways, and the development of new transportation technologies will
place demands on those in government working to help insure safe transportation
systems.
Our responsibility must be to maintain the highest level of technical competence
and expertise in tiiese fields in order to respond effectively when accidents occur
and to develop sound proposals to prevent their recurrence. The Safety Board is
committed to this goal, as is this panel, and I look forward to working with you to
help insure a safe national transportation network.
"That concludes my formal statement. The staff and I would be pleased to respond
to any questions.
380
MOST WANTED
Transportation Safety Improvements
,. a program to increase the public's awareness of, and support for, action
to adopt safety steps that can help prevent accidents and save lives."
Boating While loloiicaml
-^trrngtlirn Enforcrmf ni ind Tozicologicai Tesfing Prognnu
CO Prtvtoi Beating Accidtnu
ActUm Netded bf Suit Lcjisliium
Administralirt Rtroation of Drirtr's Ucnwt
-Pull Dritf r'l Licf tiw on thf Spoi of Anvoor Failing
or Refusing a Cbcmical Ttsi for Alcohol
Action Netdfd bj Suit LfgiiUtu/ts
Airport Rnnwi)- Uicunion
-Provide Safer Coouol of Aircrafi
on die Ground
Action Serded by (he Federal A>iariofl Adminisiraooo (TAAI
Pwhire Train Srpantioo
-Rtquirt a Railroad Collision Avoidance Sysiem
Action Netdtd bj the Federal Railroad Administntion (FRA)
and the Railroad Industry
Modf C Intruder Conflict Alal in Terminal Arcu
-Install Collision Avoidance Sysieou
for Airport Terminal Areas
Action Uteded by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
Fuhiog Vessel Safety
-Require Basic LifeuTiog Fqulpment for Commertial
Fishing Vrsstls
Adion Heeded by the United States Coast Guard (USCG)
Mandatory Seatbelt Use Laws
-Requirt Occupants of Cars, Vans, and Light Ttudts
to Use Lap/Shoulder Belts
Action Needed by State Legislatures
Adjustable Upper Anchor Point For Lap/Shoulder
Automobile Scaibelts
-Increase Seaibclt Use and Fffeoiveoess
^rtiofl Seeded b) Automobile Manufanurtrs
Railroad Hazanlous Materials Tank dn
-Require Improved Protectioo of Rjulroid Tank Can Carrying
Haurtlous MaJetials
Action Netded by the Rnnrdb and Special Programs Administration
(R5PA) and the Federal Railroad Admioistraiioa (FRA)
Bumao Fatigue In TrantportalJoo Operations
-Study the Relationship of Fatigue and WorV/Rest Cydei in the
Transportation Industry and Update Applicable Regulations
Action Netded by the DeparmeDi of Transporution (DOT)
School Bus Safet)'
-Safer Transporution for Schoolchildren
Action Netded by the Nadonal High» ay Traffic Safety
Administration (hJHTSA)
Structural Fatigue Testing of Aircraft
-Require Testing of Aircraft to die Equivalent of
Two Lifetimes of U«
Action Needed by the Federal Aviatioa Administration (FAA)
Passenger Vessel Safety
-Upgrade Fire Detection and Control. Crt» Communicarionj
and Training on Passenger Cruise Vessels
Action Needed by die United States Coast Guard (USCG)
Akohol/Drug Dettctioa
-Require Uniform Collection, Flaodling. Ptocessing,
and Testing fot Alcohol and Other Drugs
Action Netded by the Depmroent of Transportaoon (DOT)
Brake Wear on Transport Airplanes
-Require Improved BraJcing for Trarupori
Gtegory Airplanes
Action Needed by the Federal Aviidon Administraooo (fAA)
Heary Comroerdal Truck Safet)'
-Improve Prevention of Accidenu Caused by Fatigue, Alcohol,
Drug Use, and Medical Problems
Action Needed by the Federal High* ay Administntion (FlfWA)
and the States
Pipeline Excess Flow Vahes
-Reouire the lostallaiion of Eicess Flow Valves in High Pressure
Residential Natural Gas Distribudon Sptems
Action Needed by the Research and Special Programs Administration
(RSPA) and the AmerKan Gas Association
381
NTSB STAFF COMMITMENT
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Vogt, as you indicate, the statistics
are very encouraging, and we do have a remarkably good safety
record except for spilled coffee, but we have an excellent record for
safety in transportation in this country.
There is something else also I think that happens in an agencv
like yours, and that is the people who work there are often much
more than simply physically committed. They are emotionally com-
mitted because they know how important the work is. Of course,
that is never very satisfactory to someone who has lost someone in
an accident, but our mission is to as much as possible reduce the
numbers. And what is happening in our aviation system is very en-
couraging.
AVIATION STATISTICS
I note that you have a pilot's license, and I do a lot of side-seat
flying in small airplanes. It is really quite astounding the number
of movements that we have in airports across this country and in
all kinds of weather, realistically sometimes there are delays, but
the safety record is quite fantastic.
Mr. Vogt. An interesting statistic that was presented to me the
other day is that if you take a scheduled airline flight in this coun-
try every day for 4,000 years you would not statistically encounter
a fatal accident, and if you did, you would have a 50-percent
chance of surviving it.
Senator Lautenberg. We would have to see who that individual
is.
Mr. Vogt. That does not say much to the families of people who
are lost in an accident, though.
Senator Lautenberg. Do you haopen to have a number in your
papers there about general aviation?
Mr. Vogt. About fatalities in general aviation, yes, we do. Tim.
Mr. Forte. It is preliminary this year, but the numbers have
dropped. We had fewer fatal accidents, 408, but the number of fa-
talities did increase by about 60 to 812 as compared to 1991, 414
accidents and 746 deaths.
Mr. Vogt. In looking at those figures over a 10-year period it is
really hard to relate. For example, in transport aircraft back in the
eighties there were several years where we had very few accidents
in terms of total fatal accidents, but we had high numbers of fatali-
ties because of the type of accident involved, and I think in general
aviation it has been dropping over the years. At least some of that
is due to the drop in volume of general aviation activity, perhaps
related to the recession, certainly related in the manufacturing sec-
tor to liability laws.
Senator Lautenberg. Some of that I hope also is due to better
equipment in the airplanes, and at some of the airports the Mode
C transponders that are required in lots of areas, and that is very,
very helpful.
Mr. Vogt. I think there has been a significant increase in tech-
nology and just safer aviation, but we are finding a lot of, for exam-
ple, nomemade airplanes, and some of them are fairly high per-
formance kit aircraft. It is very hard to break into general aviation
68-623 O— 93 13
382
today because it is so expensive, and that is quite troubling in that
respect.
UNDERAGE DRUNK DRIVING
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Vogt, the Board's recent report on un-
derage drunk driving recommends that State laws be strengthened
to prohibit minors from purchasing alcohol, alcohol possession by
minors, and outlaw the use of false identification. These are not
new ideas, obviously. Many States have already implemented these
laws. What do you think are the largest barriers to enactment of
these laws in the States where they have not done it?
Mr. VOGT. Well, I am going to defer to Mr. S weedier here in a
second, but my own view is that in many States you have very
strong lobbies in the liquor industry. I know when we came out
with this report, I became immediately the most unpopular adult
in my neighborhood. Several parents called to tell me they thought
it was wonderful, but their children were upset about it.
And I am just not sure how much of a factor that is. Barry has
spent a considerable amount of time testifving before State legisla-
tive committees and actively working, as have a number of people
at the NTSB. And some States do very well. There is quite a sig-
nificant disparity between States. And the District, as you pointed
out earlier in your remarks, is one in which it is quite easy to pur-
chase alcohol.
But there were two aspects to this report. One was alcohol and
the other was just the high accident rate among novice drivers,
particularly at night. And when you combine the availability of al-
cohol, the 40-percent involvement of alcohol in teenage fatal acci-
dents, the fact that almost one-half of the teenage drivers are killed
at night, and some 9,150 people died in crashes in 1991 in which
the driver was 15 to 20, it is an enormous problem.
As you postured earlier, how the Federsd Government puts pres-
sure on the States is a question that I certainly do not know the
answer to. Barry, I know you have been at it for a long time.
Mr. SwEEDLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the problem
of easy access is a combination of things. One is the weakness of
many of the State laws, as you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, but the
other thing is where attention is placed in the community. It gets
to a point where if the community, the parents, the interest groups
are not putting pressure on the adcohol control boards of the States
to take stronger action against the outlets that do sell to young
people, then we do not see much progress.
But I think one of the problems is sometimes the laws are so
weak that even when the police are serious about this, they never
get anywhere. I remember — ^you probably recall in northern Vir-
ginia about 3 or 4 years ago they tried a number of sting oper-
ations and brought indictments against merchants who sold. Every
case got thrown out of court because the law was so weak. So the
laws really have to be strengthened and the commitment has to be
made by the community to put pressure on their elected officials
and their police and liquor authority people to really enforce the
law.
Mr. VOGT. One thing that might be worthwhile, and I do not
know that we have done this, is to go into case histories of the
383
States where the laws have been strengthened and enforcement
has been strengthened over the last 10 years, particularly since the
advent of the age 21. I mean it would be a good benchmark to
begin looking at how these laws are enforced; And we may find
some conmion threads among those States that have been success-
ful in implementing stronger laws.
UNDERAGE DRUNK DRIVING
Senator Lautenberg. In my State of New Jersey there is a con-
tingent liability attached to the sale of liquor to obvious drunks, to
minors, and I am sorry I do not have that citation directly with me
now, but I assume that in many States that kind of law exists on
the books. Are you familiar?
Mr. Vogt. We have got some figures here from New Jersey.
Mr. Sweedler. Yes; I was very pleased to see the wonderful job
that was done in New Jersey. In 1980, 81 young drivers under the
age of 21 were killed in accidents involving alcohol. That is 81 dead
in 1980. But in 1991 they reduced that down to 12. That is an 85-
percent reduction, that is a wonderful, wonderful record. I mean,
if we could see that in all States, we would be saving thousands
of lives across the country.
Senator Lautenberg. I think, Mr. Sweedler, as you point out, a
lot of it has to do with the behavior of the people in the community
who are other than the minors who disparage the law and who re-
sist tightening up on these laws. In the District of Columbia we
know that they were dragged kicking and screaming to endorse the
21 drinking age law. Ana we are not pointing any fingers, but we
would like to figure out how we can do better.
In New Jersey where we have such crowded conditions, and we
are very energetic in trying to protect our young people. New Jer-
sey has had significant sting operations in place where .02 blood
alcohol content for minors, and had provisional licenses for teen-
agers— there are a number of things that they have done, I think
that helped bring that number down so dramatically.
Why does the report only make recommendations for actions by
the States? Why not any recommendations for stronger action by
the Federal Government to compel better performance by the
States?
Mr. VOGT. I am clearly going to pitch this one to Barry, but my
own view is that the only way the Federal Government can put
pressure on is through purse strings. And the willingness of the
Federal Government to do that is a very important aspect.
Some legislation, I believe, has been drafted by Senator Dan-
forth, involving incentives to States that enact more stringent laws.
So it has to be done through the money channel, but just how that
is done is a question that I think we really have not gotten into.
Senator Lautenberg. Again, as you know, the law originally was
enacted by the threat of withholding funds. That kind of got it
moving. There was a lot of private resistance by colleagues who
said, you know, why cannot the States take care of it, and we went
through the whole litany of argument that time about the teenager
crossing State boundaries, et cetera.
Mr. Vogt. With all of the money being spent on infrastructure,
it might be a good time to review that.
384
Senator Lautenberg. All right, Mr. Vogt, you are from Texas, I
think. [Laughter.]
There are a couple of people you might talk to for me.
Mr. Vogt. I would be happy to.
UNDERAGE DRUNK DRIVING
Senator Lautenberg. Given the poor record by States at enforc-
ing prohibition on alcohol sales, what would make you think that
putting more laws on the State books could make a difference, as
resistance is there?
Mr. Sweedler. Well, I think as far as the access, if the laws
were easier to enforce I think the police would be more willing to
go out and enforce them. But the other legislative aspects to our
package include, as you mentioned, the lower blood alcohol for
youth. If youth are not supposed to have alcohol under age 21, why
should they be allowed to have any alcohol in their blood while
they are driving. Only 15 States have that. So all of the other
States need to get that important provision.
That is also part of the package, and we have found a recent
study in Maryland where they lowered the BAG to .02 for youth
and then had some good advertising and public information so the
youth knew about this new law. They had a 50-percent reduction
in had-been-drinking crashes of these young drivers. So that shows
that it can work. So we still have 35 States that need to have this
lower blood alcohol.
Senator LAUTENBERG. I think you say something else important,
and that is a lot of young people are not aware of the fact that this
blood alcohol level is law. And maybe if the advertising, as you sug-
gested, were done, why perhaps we would even seen an improve-
ment there.
Mr. VoGT. Mr. Ghairman, the record in New Jersey also with the
very stringent laws that you just mentioned, there seems to be a
strong correlation between the existence of the laws and reductions
in adolescent and alcohol-involved accidents. I do not know wheth-
er to pass those laws you have to change the state of mind, which
results in the enforcement, or which comes first, but there is a cor-
relation there.
Senator LAUTENBERG. Gonceming the whole enforcement ques-
tion, few have not been witness to the violation of the law. I saw
it in a rodeo out West. Kids 15 — they looked like 14-year-olds to
me, going up and buying beer, and there was a cop standing there
and I said to him what is the minimum drinking age, and he said
21. So I said do these kids look 21 to you? He said I am doing traf-
fic, Mister.
Mr. Vogt. He was probably real busy later in the day.
Senator Lautenberg. Yes; he was not about to interfere. But you
see it at ski resorts, you see it wherever young people are — it is
just obvious that there is not a lot of serious attention paid.
Mr. Sweedler. You mentioned the sting operations that were
done in New Jersey. There was one study done of one in Denver.
They had a high rate of selling alcohol to young people, something
like 60 percent, and then they had a sting. They kept going out
with advertising, they told people what they were doing, they wrote
385
letters to those that did not sell thanking them, and warned the
merchants, if they did this again, they would lose their license.
They went back about 2 months later and the number had
dropped to 32 percent, so they had brought it way down. And there
were still some merchants that still sold. Those were prosecuted,
they kept the program up, and by October 1992 they were down
to 26 percent. So it shows that if there is a will and a willingness
to do this on a regular, long-term basis, it can have significant suc-
cess.
DRUNK DRIVING LEGISLATION
Senator Lautenberg. We used the threat of withholding Federal
construction dollars from the highway trust fund for States to
enact the 21-year-old drinking age. Why should we not use these
same mechanisms to require States to implement several other
laws to crack down on underage drinking and driving?
Mr. VOGT. I think we would certainly applaud that.
Senator Lautenberg. Do you think it is wiser, as a matter of
Federal policy, to provide financial incentives to States to enact
and enforce strict drunk driving laws, or — ^the flip side of the coin —
should we penalize States that fail to enact and enforce such laws?
Mr. VoGT. I think our view, Mr. Chairman, would be to do what-
ever works. And I do not know that the incentive route has been
tried, but you had great success with the age 21 law.
Senator Lautenberg. The incentive programs have been tried.
They do not seem to have the same impact as the punitive side.
Mr. VOGT. I think we would be inclined to go with whatever
works, and we would certainly support it.
NATIONAL MINIMUM DRINKING AGE ACT
Senator Lautenberg. Does it make sense for States to be consid-
ered in compliance with the National Minimum Drinking Age Act
simply by outlawing sale but not outlawing possession of alcohol by
minors?
Mr. VOGT. No; we certainly are in favor of outlawing possession.
As Mr. Sweedler pointed out, there are many States that do not
outlaw possession.
Senator Lautenberg. Talking about the blood alcohol content,
according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety we have
made, as you have confirmed, great gains in lowering the percent-
age of teenage drivers who die in highway crashes due to silcohol
since the law has been enacted.
However, it is noted also in recent years progress has begun to
reverse itself and the percentage of teenage drivers djdng in high-
way crashes whose blood alcohol exceeds the legal limit rose from
28 percent in 1987 to 33 percent in 1991. What do you think ex-
plains this reversal in trend?
Mr. Sweedler. I think the emphasis that came immediately
after the enactment of age 21 in all States had a big impact on this
reduction, but now we are starting to see backsliding. The sting op-
erations are showing that we are getting lax in our enforcement,
and I think we really have to crack down again.
386
Mr. VOGT. It may also be, just looking at the charts, that the im-
pact of the age 21 law dropped off. We are beginning to see an in-
crease— 29- to 33-percent range — in the percentage of teenage high-
way accident fatalities. As Barry pointed out, the impact has now
leveled off and we are going to have to find new ways to reduce
teenage highway crash fatalities.
Senator Lautenberg. Some of that also is due to reductions in
law enforcement forces. Then communities begin to analyze their
problems in terms of immediacy and kind of put this kind of thing
on a back burner because the action is not automaticallv connected
with the incident, like a robbery or a shooting or something of that
nature. And I have met with lots of police officers who complain
bitterly about the inadequacy of the force. That also could be part
of it, and just the stress on local and State government in keeping
up with their programming unfortunately permits them to kind of
back step on this and wait for the statistics.
Mr. Vogt, you point out that information indicates that it is dif-
ficult to successfully convict, fine, or revoke the permits of alcohol
beverage vendors who have been caught selling alcohol to underage
youth. You are an attorney. What is it that makes it so hard to
convict the offenders or those who would sell alcohol to minors?
Mr. VoGT. Mr. Chairman, I am going to have to speculate on
that. But I would say that in large measure it is a iury acceptance
of that as a serious criminal violation, and the ability of people to
plea bargain out of the charge without the loss of a license.
Now, Barry, I do not know, you may have gotten into that in
more depth. But taking away a license can be postured to a jury
as the ruination of a business, and that is a very difficult thing for
a jury to swallow particularly in an environment where teenage
drinking may be considered acceptable. And in many jurisdictions,
as we know, it is unfortunately not viewed as a maior problem. It
goes to the education that we were talking about earlier.
UNDERAGE DRUNK DRIVERS
Senator Lautenberg. You point out that young people are ar-
rested for driving while intoxicated at rates far below their actual
rate of involvement in auto accidents. Why do you think young peo-
ple are less likely to be stopped and sirrested for DWI than the
older driver?
Mr. Sweedler. A recent study has shown that young people
have different drinking and driving habits than adults. Ana most
police departments over the years have geared up to catch the typi-
cal drinking driver. And young people have different patterns. And
I think there needs to be some education and assistance to the local
police departments.
And you asked earlier about what the Federal Grovemment might
do. Some of the grants that were given specifically for youth en-
forcement have really had a big impact. I know of a program in
Castle County, DE, where there was special funding given, where
they set up a group of patrol officers who had special training in
how to handle youth. I think they called it the brat patrol. And
they were very successful in coming up with new techniques in how
to handle — especially if they came upon a big party of young people
what would they do? They do not want to let them get in their cars
387
and drive away, so they came up with a way of containing them
and using port;able fingerprinting equipment. And there is another
program in Clackamas County, OR, around the Portland area,
where they have been very, very successful.
But the only way that these departments could afford to do these
special programs was from some Federal grant money. So, that
may be one way for the Federal Grovemment to assist the States
to emphasize this important area.
AIRCRAFT ICE COhTTAMINATION
Senator Lautenberg. I want to turn to aviation for a moment.
The Board last year testified that over the last decade, ice has been
a factor in 25 accidents and 165 fatalities, including USAir flight
405 last year. However, only seven accidents, now eight with flight
405, involved ice on the wing. The GAO reported in November that
FAA's new regulations on deicing should be further tightened. But
FAA does not fully agree.
Do you, with your reviews, find that or believe that pilots can
adequately determine if critical aircraft surfaces are contaminated
with ice by viewing such aircraft from inside the cabin? And if so,
what causes you to think so?
Mr. VOGT. Well as you know, Mr. Chairman, it was an issue in
the 405 crash as to whether or not that wing ice contamination
could have been seen. It certainly could have been seen better from
the passenger cabin than from the cockpit. But there is substantial
doubt on our part that there is a demonstrably proven way to iden-
tify it from inside, that that is an answer to this problem. And we,
likewise, have found problems, as the GAO did, with that aspect
of the FAA's program.
We think the best way to do it is to remove the ice and take off
within the time limits that we know demonstrably will result in
clean wings. And if not, the best is a tactile inspection, or simply
return to the gate.
These accidents you mentioned that involve wing icing, as distin-
guished from other kinds of icing, all involved so-called hard wing,
nonslatted wing aircraft. And one of our recommendations in the
405 crash was that the FAA do further research on the relative
ability of slatted versus unslatted wings to resist and operate in
icing conditions.
But the fundamental concept is to have an ice-free wing, whether
it is slatted or unslatted, and we have serious questions about the
ability to see ice. There is a lot of technology being developed now,
because there is clearly a market for it, for automatic ice detection
systems.
And, finally, the amount of ice that can disrupt the air flow over
the wing is so small and so difficult to detect that there has to be
a better way than a pilot looking at it for ice.
FAA ICE CONTAMINATION REGULATIONS
Senator Lautenberg. Are you satisfied that FAA's current regu-
lations are adequate to assure safe operation when it comes to the
ice problem?
388
Mr. VOGT. Well, we are very encouraged by what they are doing,
and we are anxious to see the results of this winter operation, but
they look very good to us. We think that they are on the right
track. The rulemaking is open until April 15, and we should shortly
be able to assess the effectiveness of the FAA's program.
We think that the FAA should apply some standards to 135 oper-
ations. We understand that they agree with that now. That was a
question GAO had and we have. So, we are very pleased and we
think that this is movement in the right direction.
DEICDSTG
Senator Lautenberg. Are pilots so pressured to meet schedules
that there might be an inclination to take a short cut and not go
back for a second run at deicing?
Mr. VOGT. We have certainly heard about that, and there are
pressures on pilots. One of the things that is coming out of this
year's experience with the FAA's interim final regulation is the
very high degree of cooperation among the airlines, ATC, ground
controllers, and the entire community involved in trying to prevent
icing accidents. So, we think a part of that, and a part that we are
going to be very interested in, is to relieve any pressures which
may exist on pilots to take off with a clean wing rather than meet-
ing the schedule. That is one of the aspects of this winter's experi-
ence that we are interested in evaluating.
GENERAL AVIATION ICING
Senator Lautenberg. Does ice figure significantly in any of your
studies of general aviation?
Mr. VoGT. Tim, I am not sure of what we are doing in terms of
general aviation in that regard, and what the accident record is.
Mr. Forte. I do not know the specifics, but there are ice-related
accidents in general aviation. But there is not a significant trend
that we have identified.
Senator Lautenberg. The weather restrictions that apply to
commercial airlines are the most stringent. Are there restrictions
other than visibility, et cetera, to general aviations operations?
Mr. Forte. There are. Of course, general aviation has the rule
that they will not depart with wing contamination, and there are
visibility restrictions for both departure and arrival, you are cor-
rect. And in commercial operations the rules are more strict, but
we have not seen correlation of that. We also have a difference in
the types of aircraft we are talking about. And the performance
penalty is potentially higher in the higher performance aircraft.
Senator Lautenberg. Is there an analysis of general aviation's
accident rate and weather conditions? I am sure there is, because
in each of these investigations you would be doing a review of the
weather conditions.
Mr. Forte. Weather is always considered in general aviation ac-
cidents.
Senator Lautenberg. I would be interested, if you have any kind
of a statistic that says that the number of accidents related to poor
weather is thus and so.
Mr. Forte. We can provide that for the record.
389
Mr. VOGT. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Sweedler reminds me that several
years ago the board did a study of general aviation instrument me-
teorological conditions involvement, and we would be pleased to
provide that to you.
[The information follows:]
390
SAFETY REPORT
GENERAL AVIATION ACCIDENTS INVOLVING
VISUAL FLIGHT RULES FLIGHT INTO
INSTRUMENT METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS
INTRODUCTION
Between 1975 and 1986. accidents involving visual flight rule (VFR) flight into instrument
meteorological conditions (IMC) accounted for 4 percent of all general aviation (GA) accidents but
produced 19 percent of the resulting fatalities. While the GA accident rate was reduced by 37
percent over the 12-year period, the VFR flight into IMC accident rate decreased by 64 percent.
Seventy-two percent of the VFR flight into IMC accidents were fatal which was substantially higher
than the corresponding 1 7 percent of all GA accidents.
This report presents a statistical compilation of data from the National Transportation Safety
Board's Aviation Accident Data System, The data includes 361 GA accidents that occurred between
1983 and early 1987.' In all of these accidents, VFR flight into IMC was listed as a probable cause or a
related factor. There were 276 fatal accidents which resulted in 583 fatalities. Ninety-four percent
of the aircraft involved in these accidents were airplanes; the remainder were helicopters.
The Safety Board may designate more than one of its investigative findings as "probable causes*
and "related factors' for an accident For the 361 GA accidents reviewed, 1,121 probable causes and
1,714 related factors are cited (see table 4). Ninety-seven percent of these probable causes are
attributed to the flightcrew-361 pilots, 8 copilots, and 2 dual students. Considering only flightcrew-
related probable causes, 42 percent cite the manner in which weather information was obtained (or
not obtained), assimilated, and used. Aircraft handling, another frequently-cited category in
accidents involving VFR flight into IMC, accounts for 30 percent of flightcrew-related probable
causes. Findings explicitly related to the crews' planning, decisionmaking, and judgment account for
14 percent; however, it would be reasonable to consider some of the weather-related probable
causes (for example, preflight briefing service or flight into known adverse weather) in this category.
Training- and experience-related findings do not appear to be a substantial component of the
problem since they constitute only 3 percent of the flightcrew probable causes.
Although rarely cited in connection with the probable cause in the 361 accidents examined,
environmental conditions account for 69 percent of related factors. Fifty percent of these factors
involve weather conditions such as clouds, fog, or precipitation that may have reduced visibility or
limited the airspace available for VFR flight. Most (28 of 31 percent) of the remaining
(nonenvironmental) factors are attributed to the flightcrew and are distributed fairly uniformly
among the five categories of flightcrew causes and factors depicted in chart 6.
Based on the tabulations presented in this data review, the following statistics describe pilots
who were involved in VFR flight into IMC accidents:
• 51 percent were between the ages of 40 and 59 (table 5);
• 71 percent held a private pilot's certificate (table 6);
• 52 percent had less than 500 total flight hours (table 9);
• 46 percent had less than 100 flight hours in the type aircraft (table 10);
'When this data v»ai compiled, all accidents that occurred since 19B3 in which VFR (light into IMC was cited as a probable
cause or a related factor were selected At that time, some ol the calendar year 1986 accident investigations had not been
(inaliied, but some 1987 cases were complete This group o( accidents approximate the characteristics o( the population o(
VFR tlight into IMC accidenu for the years 1983-86 The numbers o( Vf R into IMC accidents presented in tables 1 and 2 as
well as charts 1 through 5 were derived aher the data review sample was chosen Therefore, the tables and charts reflect a
larger number of accidents in the period 1983-86
391
77 percent were not instrument rated (table 12);
57 percent had less than 20 hours instrument time (table 14);
5S percent received a weather briefing from a (light service station or the
National Weather Service (table 15);
79 percent had Tiled no flight plan (table 19);
83 percent were flying a single-engine airplane (table 13);
62 percent were flying their own aircraft (table 1 1);
75 percent were flying for personal reasons (table 16);
62 percent were in the cruise phase of operation when the accident occurred
(table 8);
61 percent crashed in fog or ground fog (table 20); arnl
75 percent were killed (table 3).
392
TABLE 1 - ACCIDENTS, FATAL ACCIDEKTS, FATALITIES, AND RATES
ALL GENERAL AVIATION
1975 - 1986
Fatal
Percent
Year
Accidents
3995
Accidents
Fatal
15.8
Fatalities
1975
633
1252
1976
4018
658
16.4
1216
1977
4079
661
16.2
1276
1978
4216
719
17.1
1556
1979
3818
631
16.5
1221
1980
3590
618
17.2
1239
1981
3500
654
18.7
1282
1982
3233
591
18.3
1187
1983
3075
555
18.0
1064
1984
3010
543
18.0
1039
1985
2741
498
18.2
952
1986
2581
471
18.2
961
1975-1986
41,856
7,232
17.3
14,245
Accident Rate per 100,000 *
Aircraft Hours Flown
Year
Hours Flown
Total
13.87
Fatal
1975
28,799,000
2.19
1976
30,476,000
13.17
2.16
1977
31,578,000
12.91
2.09
1978
34,887,000
12.08
2.06
1979
38.641,000
9.88
1.63
1980
36,402,000
9.86
1.69
1981
36,803,000
9.51
1.78
1982
32,095,000
10.06
1.84
1983
31,048,000
9.90
1.79
1984
31,510,000
9.54
1.72
1985
30,590,000
8.95
1.62
1986
29,318,000
8.80
10.67
1.61
1975-1986
392,147,000
1.84
* Suicide and sabotage accidents excluded from rates as follows:
Total - 1975 (2), 1976 (4), 1977 (1), 1978 (2), 1980 (1), 1982 (3),
1983 (1), 1984 (3), 1985 (3)
Fatal - 1975 (2), 1976 (1), 1977 (1), 1978 (2), 1980 (1),
1984 (2), 1985 (2)
393
TABLE 2 - ACCIDEKTS, FATAL ACCIDEKTS, FATALITIES, AND RATES
VFR FLIGHT INTO IMC *
1975 - 1986
Fatal
Percent
Year
Accidents
Accidents
Fatal
74.5
Fatallt
1975
184
137
314
1976
165
97
58.8
213
1977
158
108
68.4
248
1978
187
137
73.3
293
1979
168
124
73.8
281
1980
140
102
72.9
220
1981
167
114
68.3
251
1982
126
98
77.8
215
1983
116
91
78.4
199
1984
97
75
77.3
158
1985
94
70
74.5
148
1986
68
52
76.5
97
1975-1986 1,670 1,205 72.2 2,637
Accident Rate per 100,000
Aircraft Hours Flown
Year
Hours Flown
Total
0.64
Fatal
1975
28,799,000
0.48
1976
30,476,000
0.54
0.32
1977
31,578,000
0.50
0.34
1978
34,887,000
0.54
0.39
1979
38,641,000
0.43
0.32
1980
36,402,000
0.38
0.28
1981
36,803,000
0.45
0.31
1982
32,095,000
0.39
0.31
1983
31,048,000
0.37
0.29
1984
31,510,000
0.31
0.24
1985
30,590,000
0.31
0.23
1986
29,318,000
0.23
0.43
0.18
1975-1986
392,147,000
0.31
For the years 1975 through 1981, the Safety Board coding system contained
a code for "Continued VFR flight Into adverse weather conditions" which 1s
not necessarily the same as the later coding system's "VFR flight Into
IMC." The absence of a detectable discontinuity in accident rates across
the boundary between the two coding systems supports the assumption that
the two codes have been used to Indicate the same condition.
394
4000
3000
a
I
woo
CHART 1 • ACCIDENTS
ALL OA AND VFR FLIGHT INTO WC
nrS • 1916
AIOA
75 ;•
77
7S
VFR kilo NC
IMl.iyilJiiJW^AIWIIilJipmiiiii HT"
70 (0 11 02 03
Y*tr
npon
04
0S
CHART 2 - ACCIDENT RATES
ALL OA AND VFR FUQHT INTO WC
1975 - 199*
7$ 76 77
AIOA
VFRMoMC
70
79
00
0t
02
03
04
0S
00
Yaw
395
CHART 3 - FATAL ACCIDENTS
ALL QA AND VFR FLIGHT INTO IMC
197S - 19K
700
600
SOO
.-
? 400
- SOO
200
WO
0
7
84
85
88
KffijBBro^H5^JJ§B8B8fflBB&BH8J^^^°'^"^^
1^
5 78 77 . 78 ■ ■ 78 80 81 82
83
Yttr
2.5
CHAHT 4 - FATAL ACCIDENT RATES
ALL GA AND VFR FLIGHT INTO WC
1»7S - 1986
396
CHART 6 - FATALITIES
ALL QA AND VFR FLIGHT INTO MC
1975 - 1916
TABLE 3 - PERSONS BY POSITION AND DEGREE OF INJURY
VFR FLIGHT INTO IHC ACCIDEHTS
Degree of
Injury
Position
Fatal
Serious
Minor
None
Total
Pilot
Copilot
Dual student
Passenger
270
7
2
304
31
1
0
35
23
0
0
31
37
0
0
49
361
8
2
419
Total aboard
583
67
54
86
790
Person on ground
0
1
0
0
1
Grand total
Percent
583
73.7
68
8.6
54
6.8
86
10.9
791
397
TABLE 4 - CAUSE AND FACTOR CITATIONS*
VFR FLIGHT INTO IHC ACCIDENTS
Number of Citations
Cause
or
Factor
Cause
Aircraft
Wing
Fluid, fuel
Wing, spar
Flight control ,stabilator
Fuel system, carburetor
Wing, bracing strut
Flight/nav instruments, directional gyro
Landing gear, main gear
Comm/nav equipment
Flight/nav instruments, attitude indicator
Landing gear, nose gear
Vacuum system
Aircraft performance
Carburetor heat control .cable
Electrical system
Flight control .elevator
Fuel system, ram air
Autopilot/flight director
Door, passenger
Engine assembly
Flight/nav instruments, heading Indicator
Fuselage
Instrument lights
Landing gear, nose gear assembly
Total Aircraft Causes / Factors
Facility
■ Air navigation a1ds,V0R
Airport facilities, rotating beacon
Airport facil 1t1es,runway edge lights
Approach aids
Enroute charts
4
3
I
0
0
0
I
1
0
0
0
0
I
1
I
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
0
0
0
0
0
Total Facility Causes / Factors
The numbers given in this table represent citations by the Safety Board
of each probable cause or related factor In the 361 accidents reviewed.
These numbers may be slightly higher than the number of accidents they
represent. In relatively Infrequent cases, a factor may be cited more
than once in order to encode the sequence of events to accurately
reflect the accident scenario.
398
TABLE 4 (Continued) - CAUSE AND FACTOR CITATIONS
VFR FLIGKT INTO IHC ACCIDENTS
Number of Citations
Environment
Terrain condition
Low cell ing
Fog
Clouds
Dark night
Rain
Obscuration
Snow
Tree{s)
Thunderstorm
Turbulence
Icing conditfbns
Night
Whiteout
Dusk
Wire, transmission
Turbulence (thunderstorms)
Haze
High wind
Guy wire
Gusts
Below approach minimums
Turbulence in clouds
Unfavorable wind
Dawn
Fence
Lightning
Utility pole
Mountain wave
Windshear
Carburetor icing conditions
Crosswind
Daylight
Downdraft
Elect tower(marked)
High density altitude
Other person
Residence
Runway 1 ight
Vehicle
Cause
or
Factor
225
216
167
93
83
82
71
51
40
22
19
14
12
12
II
10
9
9
9
6
Cause
4
I
2
2
3
3
0
0
I
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Environment Causes / Factors
1204
20
399
TABLE 4 (Continued) - CAUSE AND FACTOR CITATIONS
VFR FLIGHT INTO IMC ACCIDENTS
Number of Citations
Fl Ightcrew
Obtaining and Using Weather Information
VFR fligFTlnto IHC
Fl Ight Into known adverse weather
Weather evaluation
Prefllght briefing service
Weather forecast
In flight briefing service
In flight weather advisories
Hazardous weather advisory
Weather observation
In flight weather avoidance assistance
Meteorological service
Subtotal
Aircraft Handling
Airplane handling
Proper altitude
Became lost/disoriented
Clearance
Design stress limits of aircraft
Altitude
Remedial action
Precautionary landing
Visual lookout
Airspeed
Procedures/d 1 rec t 1 ves
Flight to alternate destination
Descent
Stall
Directional control
IFR procedure
Pull-up
Unsuitable terrain
VFR procedures
Climb
Spiral
Stall/spin
Low pass
Planned approach
Refueling
Flight controls
Fuel supply
Cause
or
Factor
Cause
364
340
100
49
49
35
40
17
7
6
3
2
2
1
1
0
575
454
64
63
40
40
36
26
29
29
25
25
23
23
16
14
14
6
13
10
12
12
12
10
11
4
7
6
6
6
6
5
5
3
4
4
4
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
1
2
2
2
2
400
TABLE 4 (Continued) - CAUSE AND FACTOR CITATIONS
VFR FLIGHT INTO INC ACCIDENTS
Number of Citations
Cause
or
Factor Cause
Flightcrew (Continued)
Aircraft Handling (Continued)
Maneuver 2
Missed approach 2
Stall/mush 2
Alrspeed(Vs) 2
Improper use of equipment/aircraft 2
Proper g1 idepath 2
Radio communications 2
Total 2
Alrspeed(Vmc) 1
Compensation for wind conditions 1
Decision height 1
Emergency procedure 1
Proper alignment 1
Proper descent rate 1
Proper touchdown point 1
Seat belt 1
Subtotal 377 328
Planning and Decision Making
In-flight planning/decision
Pref light planning/preparation
Judgement
Planning-decision
Operation with known deficiencies in equipment
Improper decision
Maintenance, 100 hour inspection
Subtotal 239 157
Psychological and Physiological
Spatial disorientation
Over confidence In personal ability
Self-induced pressure
Physical impairment(alcohol)
Visual/aural perception
Over confidence in aircraft's ability
Fatigue
Pressure induced by others
Under confidence in personal ability
Visual/aural detection
92
72
86
46
30
22
21
12
7
3
2
2
1
0
92
76
68
15
23
8
8
8
6
2
4
0
3
0
3
0
3
0
3
0
401
TABLE 4 (Continued) - CAUSE AND FACTOR CITATIONS
VFR FLIGHT INTO IHC ACCIDENTS
Number of Citations
Fllghtcrew (Continued)
Psychological and Physiological (Continued)
Pressure
Diverted attention
Mental performance overload
Anxlety/apprenhension
Inattentive
Physical linpalrment(drugs)
Physical Impairment (hyper ten si on)
Subtotal
Training and Experience
Lacic of total instrument time
Lacic of total experience
Lacic of recent instrument time
Qual ification
Lack of total experience in Icind of aircraft
Experience
Inadequate recurrent training
Lacic of total experience in type of aircraft
Improper initial training
Inadequate transition/upgrade training
Lacic of familiarity with aircraft
Lack of total experience in type operation
Inadequate training
Lack of recent experience
Lack of recent experience in type of aircraft
Lack of recent total experience
Subtotal
Cause
or
Factor
Cause
2
2
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
222
113
96
20
13
4
7
1
5
0
2
1
2
0
2
0
2
0
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
0
I
0
1
0
1
0
137
30
Miscellaneous
Lack of familiarity with geographic area
Control tower service
Information insufficient
Inst ructions, writ ten/verbal
Radar assistance to VFR aircraft
Stolen aircraft/unauthorized use
Subtotal
4
1
0
0
0
0
0
Total Fllghtcrew Causes / Factors
1559
1083
402
TABLE 4 (Continued) - CAUSE AND FACTOR CITATIONS
VFR FLIGtfT INTO IMC ACCIDOnS
Number of Citations
Other Person
Heather forecast
Meteorological service
Prefllght briefing service
Clearance
Aircraft
Lack of familiarity with geographic area
Miscellaneous equipment
Procedures/d 1 rec 1 1 ves
Radio communications
Weather evaluation
Total Other Person Causes / Factors
Cause
or
Factor
Cause
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
Total All Causes / Factors
2835
1121
CHART e - FLIGHTCREW-RELATED CAUSES AND FACTORS BY CATEGORY
VFR FLIGHT INTO IMC ACCIDENTS
eoo
600
<oo
O
E
3
Z 200
100
[49]
m
Fietort
3
Causei
Oblilnlng/Uskig Akctall Pltirlng Piychologkal Tttlning
W«ith«t kilo. Handnng Decision Miking Physiological Expetl«nc»
Fllghtcrew-Related Cause/Factor Category
403
TABLE 5 - PILOTS BY AGE GROUP
VFR FLIGJfT IHTO IMC ACCIDEKTS, ALL GENERAL AVIATION ACCIDEKTS,
AND ACTIVE GENERAL AVIATION PILOTS
Other Pilot Samples (Percent)
VFR Fl
ght
into IMC
Pilots
Pilots
Active
Age group
in all GA
GA
of pilot
Number Percent"
Accidents"*^
Pilots**
15-19
1
0.3
1.2
1.8
20-24
20
5.6
6.3
8.6
25-29
37
10.3
10.4
12.0
30-34
47
13.1
13.7
13.5
35-39
41
11.4
16.0
14.7
40-44
52
14.5
13.9
13.8
45-49
54
15.0
10.7
10.2
50-54
49
13.6
10.1
10.8
55-59
29
8.1
8.5
6.8
60 and over
29
8.1
9.3
7.8
Not reported
2
--
--
--
Total Pilots
361
Based on 359 pilots whose age was reported
■•■ Accidents which occurred between 1983 and 1986
"1984 General Aviation Pilot and Aircraft Activity Survey", Federal
Aviation Administration, 1985, p. 6.
CHART 7 - AGE OF ACCIDENT-INVOLVED PILOTS AND ACTIVE PILOTS
ALL GA AND VFR FLIGHT INTO IMC ACCIDENTS 1983 - 1986
ACTIVE PILOTS AS OF DECEMBER t»84
ACTIVE PHOTS
15-19
20-2<
25-29
30-34
35-39 40-44
Plot Age
ALL OA ACC
VFR Into IMC ACC
I I
45-49
50-54
55-59
404
TABLE 6 - PILOTS BY CERTIFICATE AMD AGE GROUP
VFR FLIGHT INTO INC ACCIDENTS
Pilot Certificate
Age group
of pilot
Alrllnp
Pill
ots
Student
Private
Coram' 1
fl 1 1 1 1 lie
Transpt
None
Total
Percent
15-19
1
0
0
0
0
1
0.3
20-24
2
15
3
0
0
20
5.5
25-29
4
25
5
2
1
37
10.2
30-34
2
36
7
2
0
47
13.0
35-39
3
27
8
3
0
41
11.4
40-44
1
41
8
2
0
52
14.4
45-49
1
36
12
5
0
54
15.0
50-54
2
30
14
3
0
49
13.6
55-59
0
22
6
1
0
29
8.0
60-64
0
12
3
0
0
15
4.2
65 and over
1
9
4
0
0
14
3.9
Not reported
0
2
0
0
0
2
0.6
Total pilots
17
255
70
18
1
361
Percent
4.7
70.6
19.4
5.0
0.2
TABLE 7 - PILOTS BY CERTIFICATE AND TYPE OF FLIGHT PLAN FILED
VFR FLIGIfT INTO INC ACCIDENTS
Pilot
Certificate
Student
Private
Commercial
Airline transport pilot
Not reported
Total pilots
Percent
Type of
Flight Plan Filed
None
VFR*
IFR
16
207
57
7
1
1
43
9
8
0
0
5
4
3
0
288
79.8
61
16.9
12
3.3
P11
lots
Total
Percent
17
4.7
255
70.6
70
19.4
18
5.0
1
0.3
361
Includes those filed as Company VFR.
405
TABLE 8 - PILOTS BY CERTIFICATE AND HIASE OF FLIGIFT
VFR FLIGIfT INTO IHC ACCIDENTS
Pilot Certificate
Phase of
Flight*
Stu-
Pri-
Not
r 1
1 uia
dent
vate
Comm'l
ATP
rept
Total
Percent
Takeoff
4
20
2
0
0
26
7.2
Climb
0
14
6
0
0
20
5.5
Cruise
8
169
35
12
1
225
62.3
Descent
2
15
3
0
0
20
5.5
Approach
1
13
8
4
0
26
7.2
Landing
0
20
12
2
0
35
9.7
Unknown
1
4
1
0
0
6
1.7
Total Pilots
17
255
70
18
1
361
Percent
4.7
70.6
19.4
5.0
0.3
The phase of flight of the first accident occurrence
TABLE 9 - PILOTS BY TOTAL FLIGHT TIHE
VFR FLIGHT INTO IMC AND GENERAL AVIATION ACCIDENTS
Tota
1 Time
(In
hours)
Unde
ir 100
100
- 199
200
- 299
300
- 399
400
- 499
500
- 999
1000
- 1499
1500
- 1999
2000
or more
Not reported
Total
pilots
361 100.0
Pilots in all
GA accidents
11,539
Study
pilots
(1983
■1986)
No.
Percent*
No.
Percent'
30
9.3
1,498
13.8
56
17.4
1,033
9.5
30
9.3
739
6.8
22
6.8
649
6.0
28
8.7
475
4.4
46
14.3
1,518
14.0
16
5.0
854
7.9
18
5.6
584
5.4
76
23.6
3,466
32.0
39
—
723
—
100.0
Based on 322 study pilots and 10,818 general aviation accident involved
pilots for whom total flight time is known.
406
TABLE 10 - PILOTS BY EXPERIENCE IN MAKE AND MODEL
VFR FLIGirr INTO IMC ACCIDENTS
Pilots
No. Percent*
Experience in
Malce and
Model
(in hours)
less than
10
10 -
19
20 -
29
30 -
39
40 -
49
50 -
99
100 -
199
200 -
299
300 -
399
400 -
499
500 -
999
1000 -
1499
'1500 -
1999
2000 or
• more
Not reported
All p11
ots
18
7.5
12
5.0
22
9.2
7
2.9
6
2.5
46
19.2
41
17.1
22
9.2
13
5.4
4
1.7
19
7.9
10
4.2
5
2.1
15
191
6.3
361
Based on the 240 pilots for whom experience in malce and model is known.
TABLE 11 - AIRCRAFT BY PILOT OWNERSHIP STATUS AND AIRCRAFT TYPE
VFR FLIUfT INTO INC ACCIDEHTS
Pilot Ownership Status
Aircraft
Bor- Unauth- Em- Not
Aircraft Type Owner Lessee Renter rower orized ployee rept Total Percent
Airplane 219 4 63 17 1 22 13 339 93.9
Single engine
Multi-engine
195
24
3
1
62
1
17
0
1
0
13
9
9
4
300
39
83.1
10.8
Helicopter
5
0
1
1
0
15
0
22
6.1
Single engine
Multi-engine
5
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
12
3
0
0
19
3
5.3
0.8
Total aircraft
Percent
224
62.0
4
1.1
64
17.7
18
5.0
1
0.3
37
10.2
13
3.6
361
407
TABLE 12 - PERCENTAGE OF PILOTS WITH INSTRUMENT RATING
BY TYPE OF PILOT CERTIFICATE
VFR FLIGIfT INTO IHC PILOTS AND ACTIVE GA PILOTS
Type of pilot
Certificate
Student
Private
Commercial
Airline transport
Total pilots
Percent witii Instrument Rating
Study
Pilots
0.0
7.1
68.6
100.0
23.3
Active
GA
Pilots
0.0
34.0
88.9
97.9
70.1
* "1984 General Aviation Pilot and Aircraft Activity Survey", Federal
Aviation Administration, 1985, p. 8.
TABLE 13 - PILOTS BY INSTRUMENT RATING AND HPE OF AIRCRAFT
VFR FLIGIfT IHTO IMC ACCIDENTS
Percent
Pilot
Instrument Rating
Study
Pilots
339
Study
Aircraft
93.9
Active GA
Pilots'
Aircraft Type
No
266
Yes
73
Alrpl
(73
Helic
1)^
Aircraft*
Fixed wing aircraft
96.7
Single engine
Multi-engine
250
16
50
23
(50
(23
1)
0)
300
39
83.1
10.8
78.5
18.2
Helicopter
11
11
( 7
8)
22
6.1
2.0
Single engine
Multi-engine
11
0
8
3
( 5
( 2
6)
2)
19
3
5.3
0.8
Otiier (Gliders, etc)
0
, . 0
0
0.0
1.3
Total Pilots
Percent
277
76.7
84
23.3
(80
9)
361
100.0
100.0
* "1984 General Aviation Pilot and Aircraft Activity Survey",
Federal Aviation Administration, 1985, p. 14.
■•■ A pilot may hold an instrument rating In more than one aircraft type.
408
TABLE 14 - PILOT IHSTRUHEHT EXPERIENCE
VFR FLIGHT INTO IHC ACCIDEKTS
Instrument time
(actual -f simulated,
in Hours)
Less than
1 10
10 -
19
20 -
29
30 -
39
40 -
49
50 -
59
60 -
69
70 -
79
80 -
89
90 -
99
100 -
199
200 -
299
300 -
399 .
400 -
499
500 -
999
1000 -
1499
1500- or more
Not reported
Pilots
No. Percent*
92
16
9
7
6
5
2
5
5
3
13
10
4
1
5
4
1
173
48.9
8.5
4.8
3.7
3.2
2.7
1.1
2.7
2.7
1.
6.
5.
2.
0.
2.
2.
.6
.9
.3
.1
,5
.7
1
0.5
All pilots 361
*Based on the 188 pilots for whom Instrument experience was known.
TABLE 15 - PILOTS BY MFPIOO AND SOURCE OF WEAT1IER BRIEFING
VFR FLIGIfT INTO IMC ACCIDENTS
Method of Briefing
Sourrp of
In
persn
0
Tele-
type
0
Tele-
phone
0
Acft
radio
0
TV/
radio
0
Not
rept
143
Pilots
Weather Briefing
Tota
143
1 Percent
No record of briefing*
39.6
National Weather Service
3
0
6
1
0
1
9
2.5
Flight service station
27
3
142
26
0
7
191
52.9
PATWAS**
0
1
2
0
0
0
3
.8
Company
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
.3
TV/radio weather
0
0
0
1
1
0
2
.6
Military
0
0
1
1
1
0
2
.6
Source not reported
0
0
I
3
1
9
12
3.3
Total pilots
29
4
149
30
3
160
361
Percent
8.0
I.l
41.3
6.3
0.8
44.3
Pilots may have received weather briefings from more than one source.
+ No record of briefing does not necessarily mean that the pilot had received
no weather Information. He may have relied on an unofficial weather forecasting
source or he may have obtained an automated weather briefing for which no record Is
maintained. In the event that a pilot Is killed, the source of weather briefing
received. If any, may not obtainable.
Pilot Automated Telephone Weather Answering Service.
409
TABLE 16 - AIRCRAFT BY PURPOSE OF FLIGHT AND ACCIDEKT INJURY INDEX
VFR FLIGKT INTO IHC ACCIDENTS
Injury Index Aircraft
Purpose of Fl Ight
Fatal
Serious
Minor
None
Total
Percent
Personal
Business
Instructional
Executive/corporate
Aerial application
Other use
202
53
4
3
0
14
26
4
0
0
1
3
13
1
0
0
0
4
28
4
1
0
0
0
269
62
5
3
1
21
74.5
17.2
1.4
0.8
0.3
5.8
Total aircraft
Percent
276
76.5
34
9.4
18
5.0
33
9.1
361
The most serious injury sustained by anyone Involved in an accident.
TABLE 17 - ACCIDENTS BY LOCATION AND LIGHT CONDITIONS
VFR FLIGHT INTO IMC STUDY ACCIDENTS
Accident Location
Light
Conditions
Dawn
Daylight
Night (dark)
Night (bright)
Dusic
Not reported
Total Accidents
Percent
Off
air-
port/
On
On
air-
air-
air-
Not
strip
port
strip
Rept
6
2
0
0
188
3
1
9
102
11
0
6
5
0
0
1
21
2
0
1
3
0
0
0
325
18
1
17
90.0
5.0
0.3
4.7
Accidents
Total
Percent
8
2
.2
201
55.
,7
119
33,
.0
6
1.
,7
24
6.
.6
3
0,
.8
361
410
TABLE 18 - AIRCRAH BY TYPE AND TYPE OF CLEARANCE RECEIVED
VFR FLIGHT INTO INC ACCIDENTS
Type of
Clearance
None
VFR
Special VFR
IFR
Cruise
VFR flight following
Not reported
Total aircraft
Percent
Aircraft
; Type
Air-
Hell
plane
coptr
301
18
15
2
7
1
7
0
1
0
5
0
3
1
339
22
93.9
6.1
A1
rcraft
Total
Percent
319
88.4
17
4.7
8
2.2
7
1.9
1
0.3
5
1.4
4
1.1
361
TABLE 19 - AIRCRAFT BY TYPE OF FLIGIfT PLAN FILED AND IFR EQUIPAGE
VFR FLIGin INTO INC ACCIDENTS
Type of
Flight Plan
Filed
IFR
Equipage
Aircraft
Yes
No
Not
reptd
Total
Per-
cent
None
Visual flight ruli
Instrument flight
Company (VFR)
Not reported
!S (VFR)
rules (IFR)
201
41
12
4
2
59
9
0
2
2
24
5
0
0
0
284
55
12
6
4
78.7
15.2
3.3
1.7
1.1
Total Aircraft
Percent
260
72.0
72
19.9
29
8.0
361
TABLE 20 - ACCIDENTS BY VISIBILITY RESTRICTIONS AND VISIBILITY
VFR FLIGHT INTO IHC ACCIDENTS
Visibility Restric
tions*
Accidents
Visibility
(in statute
Ground
Blown
Blown
Blown
Not
Per-
miles)
None
Haze
Smoke
Fog
fog
spray
dust
snow
rept
Total
cent
Less than 0.5
0
3
0
31
1
1
0
4
1
36
10.0
0.5 - 0.9
1
1
0
27
2
0
0
5
5
39
10.8
1.0 - 1.9
2
3
0
29
1
0
0
4
3
39
10.8
2.0 - 2.9
4
5
1
22
1
0
0
1
3
34
9.4
3.0 - 3.9
3
5
0
12
0
0
0
0
3
20
5.5
4.0 - 4.9
1
1
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
12
3.3
5.0 and over
46
12
2
35
1
1
1
5
7
103
28.5
Not reported
4
2
0
46
2
0
0
5
21
78
21.6
Total accident
s 61
32
3
212
8
2
1
24
43
361
Percent
16.9
8.9
0.8
58.7
2.2
0.6
0.3
6.6
11.9
More than one visibility restriction may be reported for each accident.
411
TABLE Zl - AIRCRAFT BY MAKE AND MODEL
VFR FLIGIfT ItfTO IMC ACCIDEHTS
Make
Model
Number
Aero Commander
520, 680
Aerospatiale
SA365N
Beech
23-24
33, 35, 36
45
55, 95-55, 58
76
200
19
Bell
206B, 206L
212
UH-1
Bellanca
14-19
17-30, 17-31
8KCAB
Boeing
A75N1
Britten Norman
BN-2A-8
Cessna
120, 140, 150 series
170 series
180 series
195
200 series
300 series
400 series
27
51
38
31
10
Champion
7ECA
DeHavllland
Beagle 206
Douglas
AD-4NA
Enstrom
F-28, 280
Ercoupe
415-C
Falrchlld
BC-12, FHllOO
Gulfstream (Grumman)
AA-5, 681
Hello
H-295
Homebullt
Varleze
Hart-Thorp, T-18 Tiger
Pitts, S-1
Teratorn Arcrft, Tierra
II 1
Haule
M-4, M-5
McDonnell -Doug!
as
(Hughes)
269, 369
Mitsubishi
MU-2B
Mooney
M20
Navlon
Rangemaster
North American
Rockwell
112
Partenavia
P68
)
412
TABLE 21 (Continued) - ACCIDENT AIRCRAFT BY HAKE/HODEL
Hake
Piper
Model
Number
Robinson
Ryan
Sikorsky
Stinson
Total Aircraft
PA- 18, PA-22
6
PA- 23
2
PA-24
5
PA-28, PA-32 series
76
PA-60 series
1
PA -30
2
PA-31
2
PA-34
4
PA- 38
3
R-22
3
ST-A
1
S76
1
106. 150, SR6
5
361
TABLE 22 - ACCIDENTS BY LIGIfT CONDITION AND TYPE OF PRECIPITATION
VFR FLIGHT INTO INC ACCIDENTS
Light Conditi
on
A/-<- 4 >!>■.»•■
Type of
Day-
Night Night
Not
HCC
lUCIIbS
Precipitation*
Dawn
6
light
84
dark
58
brite
4
Dusk
9
rept
0
Total
161
Percent
None
44.6
Rain
1
40
27
1
9
1
79
21.9
Snow
1
29
19
0
4
0
53
14.7
Hall
0
I
3
0
0
0
4
Rain showers
0
11
5
0
0
0
16
Freezing rain
0
0
0
1
1
0
2
Snow showers
0
13
2
0
I
0
16
Drizzle
0
17
10
0
0
0
27
Freezing drizzle
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
Not reported
0
12
4
0
0
2
18
Total accidents
8
201
119
6
24
3
361
Percent
2.2
55.7
33.0
1.7
6.6
0.8
More than one precipitation type nay be reported for an accident
413
TABLE 23 - AIRCRAFT BY DAMAGE AND DAY OF MEEK
VFR FLIGHT IHTO IHC ACCIDEHTS
Day of Week
Sunday
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Total aircraft
Percent
Ail
rcraft
; Damage
None H
Inor
Subs
Dest
0
0
16
46
0
0
9
42
0
0
4
30
0
0
3
46
0
1
10
39
0
0
12
46
1
0
14
42
1
1
68
291
0.3
0.3
18.8
80.6
Aircraft
Total
Percent
62
17,
2
51
14.
,1
34
9.
.4
49
13.
.6
50
13.
,9
58
16
.1
57
15
.8
361
TABLE 24 - ACCIDENTS BY CEILING AND VISIBILITY
VFR INTO IHC ACCIDENTS
Lowest
Ceiling
(in feet above
ground
level)
1
Accidents
Visibility
. - - - -
(in statute
100-
200-
300-
400-
500 &
Not
Per-
miles)
None
<100
199
299
399
499
over
rept
Total
cent
Less than 0.5
0
0
7
6
2
0
6
15
36
10.0
0.5 - 0.9
1
0
6
8
4
0
11
9
39
10.8
1.0 - 1.9
2
0
0
6
9
3
9
10
39
10.8
2.0 - 2.9
2
0
2
0
6
5
16
3
34
9.4
3.0 - 3.9
0
0
0
0
1
0
15
4
20
5.5
4.0 - 4.9
0
0
0
1
1
1
7
2
12
3.3
5.0 and over
2
1
3
1
1
2
77
16
103
28.5
Not reported
0
3
2
3
1
1
10
58
78
21.6
Total Accldeni
:s 7
4
20
25
25
12
151
117
361
Percent
1.9
1.1
5.5
6.9
6.9
3.3
41.8
32.4
68-623 0—93-
-14
414
TABLE 25 - ACCIDENTS BY DEGREE OF INJURY AND STATE
VFR FLIGHT INTO IMC ACCIDENTS
State
Degree of Injury
Ser-
None Minor ious Fatal
Accidents
Total Percent
Al abama
0
0
0
4
4
1.1
Alaska
4
3
5
9
21
5.8
Arizona
0
0
0
4
4
l.I
Arkansas
0
0
1
4
5
1.4
California
6
3
6
49
64
17.7
Colorado
1
0
3
16
20
5.5
Connecticut
0
0
0
4
4
I.l
Delaware
0
0
0
1
1
0.3
Florida
0
0
1
16
17
4.7
Georgia
0
0
0
4
4
I.l
Hawaii
0
0
0
1
I
0.3
Idaho
0
0
1
7
8
2.2
Illinois
0
0
0
7
7
1.9
Indiana
1
0
0
3
4
l.I
Iowa
0
0
0
3
3
0.8
Kansas
0
0
0
6
6
1.7
Kentucky
2
0
0
2
4
I.l
Louisiana
2
3
0
4
9
2.5
Massachusetts
0
0
0
2
2
0.6
Michigan
1
0
1
5
7
1.9
Minnesota
1
0
2
3
6
1.7
Mississippi
0
1
1
0
2
0.6
Missouri
2
1
0
4
7
1.9
Montana
1
0
0
4
5
1.4
Nebraska
1
0
0
5
6
1.7
Nevada
0
0
0
3
3
0.8
New Hampshire
0
0
0
2
2
0.6
New Jersey
0
0
0
1
1
0.3
New Mexico
1
0
0
11
12
3.3
New York
0
0
2
6
8
2.2
North Carolina
2
1
2
2
7
1.9
North Dakota
1
0
0
3
4
l.I
Ohio
1
0
0
2
3
0.8
Oklahoma
0
2
0
4
6
1.7
Oregon
1
0
0
6
7
1.9
415
TABLE 25 (Continued) - ACCIDENTS BY DEGREE OF INJURY AND STATE
VFR FLIGirr INTO INC ACCIDENTS
Degree of Injury
State
None Minor
Ser-
ious Fatal
Accidents
Total Percent
Pennsylvania
1
0
0
4
5
1.4
Puerto Rico
0
0
0
1
1
0.3
South Dakota
0
1
1
3
5
1.4
Tennessee
0
1
1
7
9
2.5
Texas
0
0
1
18
19
5.3
Utah
2
1
3
4
10
2.8
Vermont
1
0
0
3
4
1.1
Virginia
0
1
0
6
7
1.9
Washington
0 .
0
1
11
12
3.3
West Virginia
0
0
1
3
4
1.1
Wisconsin
0
0
1
3
4
1.1
Wyoming
1
0
0
6
7
1.9
Total accidents
33
18
34
276
361
Percent
9.1
5.0
9.4
76.5
BY THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD
/$/ JIM BURNETT
Member
/$/ JOHNK.LAUBER
Member
/$/ JOSEPH T. NALL
Member
James L. Kolstad, Acting Chairman, disapproved and Lemoine V. Dickinson, Jr.
dissented. Member Dickinson filed the following concurring and dissenting statement.
Member,
Although I concur with the information that is presented in the narrative and the tables
relative to accidents involving VFR into IMC conditions, I do not believe that we have analyzed the
reasons that these accidents have occurred or the reasons why the numbers of accidents have
decreased over time. It was my understanding that this was the purpose of this safety study and not
just a compilation of several years worth of accident data. Therefore, I will approve the compilation
of data, but would have preferred that the study indicate the reasons behind these changes.
Februarys, 1989
416
APPENDIX A
TITLE14C0DE OF FEDERAL REGULATION 91.105
BASIC VFR WEATHER MINIMUMS
Visual Fuort Rducs
• 11. IW Basic VFR weather minlmuins.
(R) Except as provided in { 91.107, no
person may operate an aircraft under
VFR when the flight visibility is Jess.
or at a distance from clouds that is
less, than that prescribed for the cor-
responding altitude In the following
Ubie:
*muf
Fl^vMaMy
Oatano* kom ctoudt
fJOO fM< or IM« abov* •<• tulaca |r»g««t»»tt ol M^
•nufl-
3 •Utula miM
SOOlMlNHow
1.000 IMI abov*.
2.000 iMl hornontal
^AWHt9 conkoMw] ■ifip*c# _ — ^ „
1 tUlut* mim •■c«pc u provki'
•dInlRI IOS<b|.
Ctow ofckxidi
Mora »«>n 1.200 IMI ttxr— Iw ■w<so* bul ln% ttan 10.000
IMIMSL-
WNNn cjciri»iii»J ilnpam _
J lUhil* m»M
SOOlMlbalow
t.OOO IMI abov*
KKJtWtm OOnvOMVO vnpvcv ». ..»,...
$00 IMI balow
1.000 laal Mbova
Mc* ton 1.200 (Ml abov* tw lulac* wid •) o> itio**
i lUkM ndn
1.000 lM< balow
10.000 |M< MSl_.
1.000 lM< abcK*
1 mla IntKvital.
(b) When the visibility Is less than
one mile, a helicopter may be operated
outside controlled airspace at 1,200
feet or less above the surface if operat-
ed at a speed that allows the pilot ade-
quate opportunity to see any air trai-
flc or other obstruction In time to
avoid a collision.
(c) Except as provided in { 91.107. no
person may operate an aircraft, under
VFR. within a control tone beneath
the ceiling when the ceiling Is less
than 1.000 feet.
(d> Except as provided In i 91.107. no
person may take off or land an alr-
crmft. or enter the traffic pattern of an
airport, under VFR, within a control
w)ne—
(1) Unless ground visibility at that
airport is at least 3 statute miles; or
(2) If ground visibility is not report-
ed at that airport, unless flight visibili-
ty during landing or takeoff, or while
operating in the traffic pattern, is at
least 3 statute miles.
(e) For the purposes of this section,
an aircraft operating at the base alti-
tude of a transition area or control
area la considered to be within the air-
space directly below that area.
(AmdU 91-61, S3 PR MBS. Feb. 16. IMS)
417
APPENDIX B
SAFETY BOARD AVIATION ACCIDENT DATA SYSTEM
In 1983, the Safety Board implemented an Improved and more comprehensive data base
design. The Safety Board developed new accident data collection forms and designed a data base
for storage and retrieval of accident data. The resulting Form 6120.4 consists of a "core" form for
each investigation and 21 supplement forms each of which is completed if specified accident
parameters are present.
A key component of the revised aviation accident data system is the Safety Board "sequence
of events' coding system. This system replaced the previously-used cause and factor coding scheme
in which 10 of the approximately 1,360 predefined items (i.e., aircraft components, pilot actions)
could be associated with an accident to document its causes and related factors The sequence of
events was designed to offer the investigator greater flexibility when determining the probable
causes and related factors. The new system consists of approximately 2,000 "person," "modifier,"
and "subject" codes that are combined to form "findings' (eg, pilot-in-command-inadvertent-VFR
flight into IMC). Each finding may be designated a cause or factor of the accident or may be included
only to complete the coded description of the accident seouence of events.
ICING OF PIPER MALIBU AIRCRAFT
Mr. VOGT. Now, while weather icing was not involved, icing was
involved in a series of accidents involving the Piper Malibu air-
craft. Pitot tube icing was a major factor in causing a series of
these aircraft to lose some of their flight instruments and, we
think, was causal in the loss of control by pilots. But that is a little
bit different aspect. It is a new involvement in general aviation of
the icing question.
NAVIGATIONAL INTERFERENCE FROM ELECTRONIC DEVICES
Senator Lautenberg. I was just handed a piece of paper that
talks about the navigational interference from electronic devices.
The subject of cellular phones, et cetera, in commercial aircraft has
been much in the news these days. And I wonder whether any of
your people had begun to look at this in terms of its interference
with the navigational systems. It does not have to get to be the
cause of an accident in order for you look at it anyway. I am curi-
ous as to whether or not there has been anything, or whether the
rules ought to be promulgated that say this should not be taking
place? Whether you have reviewed it thoroughly enough to come
up, I am sure the FAA is very much concerned with that now.
Mr. VoGT. We are aware of the issue. We have not gone into it
in any detail as yet.
CRUISE SHIP SAFETY
Senator Lautenberg. In terms of marine safety, we are con-
cerned about whether foreign flags present more of a problem be-
cause of crew qualifications and because of the different nations'
regulations. So, I just want to just review some of those things. I
have been looking at this recently with some of the commercial
passenger carriers. There is quite a bit of traffic going on there.
And also, from my position as a member of the Committee on Envi-
ronment and Public Works and coauthor of a bill to make certain
that we have funds available to correct damage resulting from
418
tanker spills, et cetera. I wonder whether you have looked at this
problem closely enough to comment on the foreign flag carriers ob-
servance of safety regulations. Do you find that the foreign flag na-
tions are prepared to accept and implement the Board's rec-
ommendations in this regard in a timely fashion?
Mr. VOGT. Well, as you know, we have had concerns for a num-
ber of years about foreign flag passenger vessels, and our ability
to impose, in particular, safer fire regulations on them. And for a
number of years we urged the Coast Guard to unilaterally adopt
fire regulations and apply them to foreign flagged vessels.
We are very pleased to say that in the last 3 years, the Coast
Guard has aggressively pursued, at the IMO, regulations for for-
eign flag vessels. And the items that we were putting forward for
unilateral action have now been enacted. We think this is a step
in the right direction.
We still have a couple of issues pending at the IMO which the
Coast Guard is pursuing. One, in particular, has to do with life-
jackets and their location. In most cases, lifejackets are stored in
the passenger cabins, and this has resulted in a couple of incidents
of concern. One was on the Mississippi River where a passenger
ship went aground and everybody went below to get his or her life
jacket when they should have been on the deck getting ready to get
off. The Safety Board fosters the position that lifejackets should be
stored in the cabins and at the lifeboats. That is still an open issue
at the IMO.
There are other issues we are urging the Coast Guard to take to
the IMO. One has to do with language speaking abilities of foreign
flag vessel crews. The Safety Board has taken the position that at
least 75 percent of the crew needs to be able to communicate with
one another in a common language, and that 75 percent of those
who are involved in safety matters on vessels operating out of U.S.
ports of call need to be English speaking. This has been quite con-
troversial, and we are anxious to see some progress but none has
been made as yet.
We also have an outstanding issue with the Coast Guard involv-
ing firefighter training, and the requirement that personnel in-
volved in fire fighting operations have specific training. But, on bal-
ance, I would say a lot of progress has been made in the last 3 or
4 years.
CRUISE SHIP SAFETY
Senator Lautenberg. Are you satisfied, though, that the IMO
will be able to get the kind of response that you think is necessary?
Mr. VOGT. Well, I do not know that we are satisfied with that
yet, but we are certainly a lot more satisfied than we were several
years ago. We have seen some important progress, and some in-
creased willingness on the psut of the foreign flag passenger vessels
to accede to these safety requirements. I think it would probably
be too much to say we are satisfied.
Senator Lautenberg. Yes; the problem is that when you go to
an organization like the IMO, you have the political pulls, you have
genuine differences in culture and policy, and it is hard to do
things unilaterally that we think are best for our needs if we are
419
part of an international agreement. But I hope that we can move
them along.
We have to have a certain degree of command of activities within
our waters, particularly when you see the numbers of people who
are now going on cruises, traveling by boat. And the spill incidents
that take place — we must be concerned with the whole issue of
toxic materials. And if crews do not have the training or the under-
standing of what takes place if an incident occurs presents us with
a kind of a dilemma.
We do not want to shut down international traffic. On the other
hand, we do not want to take the exposure that has been wreaked
upon the environment in these last couple of years, starting with
the Valdez, and then the ships off the coast of Scotland and Spain.
Mr. Vogt, 90 percent, you said, of our international commerce is
carried to and from our shores on foreign flag vessels, and most of
the marine accidents in our waters do involve foreign flags, foreign
crews. Have you investigated which of the foreign flag states are
most negligent, or most diligent on the other side, in enforcing
international safety standards?
Mr. VoGT. Mr. Chairman, I cannot answer that question for you
now, but we can certainly get you figures on that.
Senator Lautenberg. We would like to have that.
[The information follows:]
The degree of compliance with international safety standards by the different for-
eign flag states is not quantifiable by statistics on hand. The largest numbers of ac-
cidents involving foreign flag vessels in U.S. waters, not surprisingly, involve those
foreign flag states in which 9ie largest numbers of vessels are registered. These sta-
tistics thereby do not offer a solid beise for better determining, on a comparative
basis, which foreign flag states enforce international safety standards. The Safety
Board has more concern over what appears to be a trend in ships being registered
with nontraditional maritime nations. These nations lack the means to monitor com-
pliance of the ships witii appropriate SOLAS convention regulations, and may not
be able to provide qualified crews. These nontraditional maritime nations have no
organization to inspect ships, or to qualify crews. These nations are quite simply
"flag-of-convenience ' registries.
However, several nations besides the U.S. have maintained the necessary infi-a-
structvire to maintain crew qualification, treiining, inspection, and licensing pro-
grams. The IMO has established a subcommittee on Flag State Implementation
which will meet for the first time in April 1993. This subcommittee will be seeking
methods to improve flag state implementation and enforcement of IMO conventions
such as the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification, and
Watchstanding for Seafarers.
CRUISE SHIP SAFETY
Senator Lautenberg. Have you found in your examination of
marine matters that foreign flag crews are usually less well trained
than American flag crews? There are not many American flag car-
riers out there.
Mr. Vogt. Well, certainly in the passenger areas we have some
serious issues with their training and safety. In terms of ability to
maneuver ships and so forth, I am not sure what our findings have
been since it is hard to find a frame of reference.
NTSB TRIP TO THE REPUBLIC OF CHINA
Senator LAUTENBERG. And that is regrettable. The committee is
aware of the fact that a number of your Board members are plan-
ning a trip to the Republic of China, and I am curious about a cou-
420
pie of things. When is that taking place? What is the purpose of
the trip?
Mr. VOGT, Well, it takes place tomorrow. Two Board members,
Vice Chairman Coughlin and I will be going. Mr. Forte will be
going. And Mr. Greorge Reagle, who heads up our Office of Surface
Transportation.
I would like to give you some background. As you know, under
the ICAO Treaty, the Safety Board is responsible for U.S. inves-
tigations of aviation accidents abroad involving U.S. carriers, U.S.
manufactured aircraft and engines. So, we have a responsibility in
all foreign accidents to lead the teams of U.S. manufacturers, or
carriers, or the FAA. The fastest growing part of our aviation in-
vestigations over the last year has been involvement in foreign ac-
cidents.
The Boeing Co. estimates that China will be its third largest
market for aircraft, and it may move up beyond that over the next
few years. McDonnell Douglas just recently opened a manufactur-
ing assembly operation in China, having won a contract to sell the
Chinese 40 aircraft, 20 MD-80's, and 20 MD-90's.
The aviation industry in China is undergoing an exponential
growth. Just, for example, with the advent of global positioning
navigation, the Chinese will be able to leapfrog a generation of in-
frastructure. Boeing has sold some 50 airplanes in China over the
last 6 years. Seven were delivered last year. They are in the midst
of buying on a large scale our aircraft.
The Chinese Government is in the middle of trying to come to
grips with the fact that they do not have the infrastructure or ex-
pertise in either accident investigation, or in pilot training. They
came to the Safety Board a year ago. The Safety Board, at their
invitation, hosted the delegation for the purpose of meeting with
us, with the DOT, and with the FAA to determine whether they
wanted to ask us to help them build the infrastructure for this bur-
geoning aviation industry. They brought nine people, stayed 10
days, and when they returned to China they wrote us a letter
which arrived in September asking us to send a delegation to meet
in March to formalize some understandings about how to help
them create an NTSB-type multimodal agency in China.
We have found that everyone we have discussed this with in the
airline industry has been extremely enthused. We are proud the
Chinese came to us. They have been dealing in many respects with
the Canadians, for example, in the purchase of simulators. At least
one major aerospace entity here is now in competition to sell the
Chinese a training package for their airlines.
In the meantime, China had the worst disaster in their history
recently when a Boeing 737 with 144 passengers crashed at Gilian.
The pilot was 28 years old, and by their account, was their top
pilot, one of their very top pilots. He had been flying, according to
them, since he was 15. His time in these aircraft has to be limited.
We were not able to get all the information on that.
In this case, there was a split control between the two engines
which, in our aviation milieu, is a fairly minor occurrence. They,
at least according to the flight data recorder, were too late in going
out of autopilot into manual control, and the plane crashed into the
side of a mountain.
421
The Chinese contacted our State Department and asked us to
send a team to help them investigate. They were enormously eager
to see how we did it. Unfortunately, the Chinese have very rudi-
mentary experience, according to our investigators, in how to un-
dertake such an investigation.
I believe that this is probably as important a trip as I am going
to make during my tenure as chairman. We think that our ability
to go into China and effectively investigate accidents involving
American manufactured aircraft or engines, or involving American
passengers, is going to be a very, very important aspect of our oper-
ations in years to come.
Senator Lautenberg. Do they pay for any of this?
Mr. VOGT. No; we do it. And I am pleased to say that I went over
the figures for what it is going to cost. We are taking six people,
and it will be around $5,200 a person for the whole trip.
Senator Lautenberg. Does this include spouses?
Mr. VoGT. No, no.
NTSB TRIP TO THE REPUBLIC OF CHINA
Senator Lautenberg. Is that in the 1993 budget submission that
we got?
Mr. VOGT. Well, it is in our travel budget which involves travel
that board members and members of our staff do, but it is not spe-
cifically in there. But it is well within our travel budget. We are
certainly not exceeding any expenditures on it.
And I might say that it is a very intense working itinerary that
we have. We will visit the MD-80 manufacturing facility in Shang-
hai. We will meet with top aviation people in Beijing. On the way
back, we will spend 2 days with our FAA in Hawaii, and then 1
day in California.
Senator Lautenberg. What about Alaska?
Mr. VoGT. Well, we are going to Alaska, but we are not going to
do it on this trip.
"most wanted" safety issues
Senator Lautenberg. Most of the safety recommendations on the
Board's "most wanted" transportation safety improvements expect
action from the Federal agency. You said that 8 out of 10 of your
safety recommendations are eventually adopted, the other 20 per-
cent are not. Are these listed in order of safety value? Is the re-
maining 20 percent less significant in terms of the actual safety ob-
jective?
Mr. VOGT. No, sir; on the most wanted list, they are in chrono-
logical order by design, so there is no prioritization. There are,
among the 20 percent that have not been enacted overall, some
that we would very much like to see enacted.
I do not know that we have ever done an analysis to say whether
we get the easy ones and leave the hard ones. But we have had
some very satisfying experience in that regard, and some that have
been hanging on for a while.
422
NTSB TRIP TO THE REPUBLIC OF CHINA
Senator Lautenberg. Well, we thank you very much for your ap-
pearance with us today. Yours is a very, very important agency, of-
tentimes not fully understood in terms of the mission, but your suc-
cess is essential in terms of the safety of the traveling public.
And even as we discuss your trip abroad it becomes apparent
that if we are going to protect our own people that we have to look,
at times, beyond our borders. Americans are traveling all over the
place, and if we have American equipment being sold in those mar-
kets we ought to make sure that what we dispense is as good as
can be obtained. And I am sure that the manufacturers whole-
heartedly support that kind of activitv.
I wish that there was a way so that some of those costs could
be borne outside of the regular structure if they are in pursuit of
a more efficient, safer piece of equipment, that in some way we
could derive some of the revenues associated with the costs in-
volved. I think there is a delicate balance, and I am not promoting
one or the other, but whoever is in the marketplace ought to be
happy about the NTSB's review.
Mr. VOGT. One aspect of this, in that regard, is that in our expe-
rience in the Gilian crash relationships with the Chinese are going
to be extremely important on a personal basis because they do not
have an organized structure as you find in Western Europe or
other parts of the world.
We think that by building this bridge and, at their expense, of-
fering to help train some of their people, that the economies are
going to pay off" in efficiencies over time when we are called upon
to investigate accidents involving our aircraft and our carriers in
China. We will be called upon to do that.
SUBMITTED QUESTIONS
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much for being here. We
will submit some other questions to be answered for the record.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were
submitted to the agency for response subsequent to the hearing:]
423
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR LAUTENBERG
NTSB'S REPORT ON DRUNK DRIVING BY UNDERAGE YOUTH
Barriers to Implementation of Tough Laws by States
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: The Board's recent report on underage
drunk driving recommends that State laws be strengthened to:
prohibit minors from purchasing alcohol, outlaw possession of
alcohol by minors, and outlaw the use of false identification.
These ideas are not new. Many States have already implemented these
laws.
Do you think the States that have failed to enact such laws do
so with the knowledge and expectation that there will be large-scale
non-compliance with 21 drinking age?
ANSWER: While enactment of the 21 drinking age law in some
states required the threat of sanctions contained in the National
Minimum Drinking Age Act, the Safety Board has no information that
states expected large-scale non-compliance. However, non-compliance
has been documented and requires state and local action immediately.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Why does your report only make
recommendations for action by the States. Why doesn't the report
recommend stronger action by the Federal government to compel better
performance by the States?
ANSWER: The Federal government already authorizes incentive
grants for sting operations in the states (23 U.S.C. 410). Other
than the report by the Inspector General of the Department of
Health and Human Services, no Federal stimulus for state legislation
has been aggressively applied. The Safety Board intends to
aggressively pursue both state legislation and state and local
enforcement actions. The Safety Board welcomes Congressional or
other Federal action that will reduce youth alcohol purchases and
youth crashes.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What specific recommendations do you
support in strengthening enforcement by the States?
ANSWER: The Safety Board supports stronger laws to provide a
better enforcement environment. We support strong sanctions against
the seller of alcohol to underage persons, including license
revocation and criminal or civil penalties. We support suspension
or revocation for the underage person's driver's license for actions
related to underage alcohol purchases. We support aggressive
enforcement, including sting operations by county, local police, and
sheriffs. We are interested in the evaluation of innovative
enforcement actions such as "Cops in Shops," beer keg tags, etc.
Finally, we strongly support prosecution of persons who illegally
provide alcohol to underage persons.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: As you know, we have used the threat of
withholding formula construction dollars from the highway trust fund
to force States to enact the 21-year-old drinking age. What real
incentives does your report recommend to improve enforcement by the
States?
424
ANSWER: As you know, the Safety Board cannot provide financial
incentives to improve enforcement. Nevertheless, the Board believes
that the report, itself, is an incentive that identifies problems,
proposes a variety of solutions, and makes recommendations that we
believe will be effective.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Do you think it makes sense for States to
be considered in compliance with the National Minimum Drinking Age
Act simply by outlawing the sale of alcohol to minors, but not
outlawing the possession of alcohol by minors?
ANSWER: The National Minimum Drinking Age Act (NMDA) included
provisions prohibiting the purchase and public possession of alcohol
by underage persons. Sale is not the same as purchase. The term
sale is aimed at the vendor while purchase is aimed at the buyer.
Similarly, possession and public possession are not necessarily the
same. Many state laws exempt underage possession in certain
settings. If sale and possession are not equivalent to purchase and
public possession, it seems that states without laws on purchase and
public possession may not be in compliance with the NMDA.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What responses have you received to date
to your report from the nation's governors?
ANSWER: It is too early to expect a large number of responses
to the Board's recommendations. However, we have received responses
from representatives of Alabama, Vermont, Maine and Virginia.
A Maine representative sponsored a type of provisional license
bill this session for which the Board sent a letter of support. The
California Senate is considering a 0.00 BAC law for youth and the
Board plans to testify regarding the bill. Most responses agree
that a youth drinking and youth crash problem exists in their state,
but indicate that the state laws are substantially similar to Safety
Board recommendations. Responders have agreed, in general, to
submit legislation.
How Many More Lives Could Be Saved?
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: NHTSA has estimated that the age 21 law
has now saved more than 12,000 lives since its enactment.
How many more lives do you estimate could have been saved with
the enactment of the State laws that you are proposing to the
governors?
ANSWER: We do not have an analysis available for the lives
that could have been saved. However, if the relatively weak and
relatively weakly enforced laws are improved and vigorous
enforcement is applied, the Safety Board is confident that thousands
of 1 ives can be saved.
What Works to Prohibit Alcohol Sales?
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: In the NTSB's report, you discuss the
Insurance Institute's data showing how obscenely easy it is for
teenagers to purchase alcohol in Washington, D. C. and Westchester
County, New York. However, in Albany, New York and Montgomery
425
County, Maryland, the rate of alcohol sales to minors was less than
half the levels found in Washington and Westchester County.
What exactly do the law enforcement communities in Albany and
Montgomery County do to minimize the sale of alcohol to underage
youth?
ANSWER: Both Albany and Montgomery County have targeted
enforcement to reduce sales to underage persons. Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety researchers attributed the lower
purchase rates in Albany and Schenectady Counties, New York, to
"recent efforts to enforce alcohol purchase age laws." Montgomery
County has conducted sting operations, has elected officials who are
interested in this matter on the County Council, and has a
prevention and intervention program called "Drawing the Line."
Thus, the enforcement and education messages to youth are
consistent.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: If we took a nationwide survey similar to
the surveys done by the Insurance Institute, do you think we would
be more likely to find purchase rates similar to Washington (where
97 percent of minors who attempted to buy alcohol were successful)
or Albany (44 percent were successful)? Why?
ANSWER: We believe that it would vary between these
percentages and may even be below 44 percent depending on political,
enforcement, parental, and community interest and the mores of the
community. Some cities have low rates of successful purchase.
Doctors and Lawyers for a Drug Free Youth have conducted surveys
throughout the nation, though it is not a national survey. Their
data on successful purchase rates is below.
Survey Year Location Rate (percent)
1991/1992 Brooklyn, NY 99
1991/1992 New Orleans, LA 97
1991/1992 Queens, NY 92
1991/1992 Manhattan, NY 87
1991/1992 Champaign, IL 80
1991/1992 Urbana, IL 76
1991/1992 Chicago, IL 75
1991/1992 Schenectady, NY 72
1991/1992 Minneapolis, MN 67
1991/1992 Milwaukee, WI 66
1991/1992 Rochester, NY 56
1991/1992 Washington, DC 56
1991/1992 Madison, WI 55
1991/1992 Utica, NY 55
1991/1992 Mattoon, IL 53
1991/1992 Los Angeles, CA 52
1991/1992 Boston, MA 49
1991/1992 Bronx/Yonkers, NY 48
1991/1992 Syracuse, NY 43
1991/1992 St. Paul, MN 32
1991/1992 Buffalo, NY 32
1991/1992 Salt Lake City, UT 25
1992 Charleston, IL 67
1992 Los Angeles, CA 49
1992 Memphis, TN 47
Kansas City, KS
40
Las Vegas, NV
33
Phoenix, AZ
33
Tucson, AZ
27
St. Louis, MO
25
Dallas, TX
23
Little Rock, AR
20
Denver, CO
20
San Diego, CA
16
Decatur, IL
14
Carlsbad, NM
9
Tulsa, OK
3
426
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
Do Low BAC Laws for Youth Work in All States?
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: In the Board's report, you point out that
by lowering the legal blood alcohol content for teenagers, the State
of Maine has succeeded in reducing fatal crashes by youth. There
are several other States, however, including my own State of New
Jersey, that have also lowered the BAC limit for underage youth.
Have these States also been successful in reducing fatal
accidents involving intoxicated youth?
ANSWER: Evidence from an evaluation of the Maryland 0.02 law
indicates that Maryland was successful in reducing youth alcohol -
related crashes including fatal crashes. In those counties where
the 0.02 law was enhanced by targeted youth education programs,
Maryland achieved nearly a 50 percent reduction in youth alcohol -
related crashes. We believe that other states with low BAC laws for
persons under age 21 have achieved alcohol -related youth crash
reductions. The Safety Board cited additional on-going research
indicating the effectiveness of low BAC laws. New Jersey has been a
national leader in reducing alcohol -related fatal crashes. For
example. New Jersey has the second lowest percentage of driver
fatalities with an illegal BAC and tests over twice the proportion
of fatally injured drivers as the state with the lowest percentage.
We expect that an evaluation of the New Jersey 0.01 law will show
additional impact on youth alcohol -related crashes.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Do you believe this measure by itself can
significantly lower the rate of teenage drunk driving? Do teenagers
really decide to drink less out of fear of being pulled over by the
police?
ANSWER: Experience and evaluation indicate that, in many
cases, legislation by itself can have a significant effect and that
effect can be enhanced by public information, and can achieve a
lasting effect with effective deterrence and prevention that results
in a redefinition of socially acceptable behavior. Low BAC
legislation sends a consistent message to youth that any alcohol is
illegal and will impair their driving. Further, it eases
enforcement, prosecution, adjudication, and license action. License
action provides the greatest potential for deterrence for all
drivers, but especially for this age group. Low BAC legislation
will reduce youth alcohol -related crashes. The reduction will be
enhanced by enforcement and information programs.
427
AIRCRAFT DEICING: USAIR FLIGHT 405
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: The Board testified last year that, over
the last decade, ice has been a factor in 25 accidents and 165
fatalities including USAir Flight 405 last year. However, only
seven accidents -- now eight, with Flight 405 -- involved ice on the
wing. The GAO reported in November that FAA's new regulations on
de-icing should be tightened, but FAA does not fully agree.
Do you believe that pilots and maintenance personnel understand
their responsibilities under FAA's new deicing rules? In particular
do pilots understand how to use the new deicing holdover timetables?
And will airlines be able to provide formal training to all
personnel responsible for deicing before the next winter season?
ANSWER: Based on FAA briefings of Safety Board staff and
anecdotal information about air carrier flight operations during
this past winter it appears that air carrier pilots and maintenance
personnel, as well as FAA operations and maintenance inspectors,
have an excellent awareness and understanding of their
responsibilities, including use of the new deicing holdover
timetables. However, the Board remains concerned that the current
awareness will obviously erode with time, and the constant change in
personnel and equipment dictates the need to continue training on a
recurrent basis. This is equally applicable to the FAA personnel
involved in overseeing the airline programs. The Board is pleased
that the FAA has established a position in each appropriate regional
office to serve as a reference and standardization point of contact.
These individuals and the inspectors assigned to the specific
airlines also need recurrent training. Such training should include
attendance at the assigned carrier's program as well as additional
appropriate training from the agency. The Advisory Circular that
provides guidance for the development of deicing plans should
receive top priority for completion and the widest possible
distribution to the industry. These matters were addressed in
safety recommendations to the FAA following our investigation of the
USAir Flight 405 accident.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: So far, most of the deicing attention has
focused on the larger transport aircraft operated by the trunk
carriers. However, in your comments to FAA on the new deicing
rules, you stated that commuter airlines should also have more
stringent regulations, and FAA plans to propose such rules.
Do you believe more stringent regulations are necessary for air
taxis and general aviation? What are your views on the need for
specific guidance on deicing for this component of the aviation
industry?
ANSWER: Frost, snow, or ice adhering to aircraft surfaces can
pose a serious threat to flight safety for air taxis and general
aviation aircraft, as well as for larger air transport aircraft.
However, the aerodynamic characteristics of the smaller, lower
performance aircraft make them not as susceptible to minute amounts
of contamination as the high performance, swept-wing airplanes.
This is borne out by the accident record as well. Therefore,
although greater awareness and prudence on the part of the entire
pilot community is needed, the need for specific guidance on deicing
428
for this component of the aviation industry does not appear to be
critical .
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: We know that air taxis have higher
accident rates than both air carrier and commuter airlines. What
work has the Safety Board done concerning the air taxi industry and
what would you recommend to decrease air taxi accidents?
ANSWER: The large number of small air taxi operators and their
wide dispersal about the country makes effective FAA surveillance of
them a very difficult and labor intensive task. In light of these
circumstances, the Safety Board has advocated that FAA modify its
operator surveillance program to include more off-hours and
unannounced inspections. Additionally, because of the large number
of controlled flight into terrain accidents in air taxi operations
the Safety Board has advocated the installation of ground proximity
warning systems on those aircraft.
MARINE SAFETY QUESTIONS
Does Acceptance of NTSB Recommendations by IMP Actually Improve
Marine Safety?
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Many of the Board's recommendations to
improve marine safety remain open because the NTSB has recommended
new safety laws for all vessels entering U.S. waters, and the Coast
Guard insists on pursuing safety improvements through international
negotiations at the International Maritime Organization (IMO).
Do you generally find that the foreign flag nations are
prepared to accept and implement the Board's recommendations in a
timely manner?
ANSWER: We have not written to foreign nations directly, but
generally work through the Coast Guard as the U.S. representative to
IMO. However, we have written directly to foreign companies and
foreign classification societies. For example: recommendations were
issued to 18 foreign passenger liner companies to locate lifejackets
at or near emergency debarkation areas have met with success.
Approximately 50% of the companies have adopted it. The USCG
received a companion recommendation and has been working with the
IMO on this issue. Through this two pronged approach we expect this
safety goal will be achieved.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: At times, the NTSB has proposed its
recommendations for improved marine safety directly to the IMO.
Have you found that the international shipping community has acted
promptly on the Board's recommendations in general.
ANSWER: The Safety Board has not made any recommendations
directly to IMO; instead we work through the U.S. Coast Guard, the
designated U.S. representative to the IMO. Although, the Coast
Guard has been receptive to our recommendations, the implementation
of Safety Board recommendations has received mixed support by the
international shipping community. Some recommendations take more
than 8 years to implement like improvements in emergency drill
procedures. Examples of our successes are:
429
Fire safety improvements aboard passenger ships are being
implemented for integrated fire detection and protection systems,
sprinkler systems, hose ports in fire doors, improved fire hoses,
and fire fighter training by the flag state.
The Coast Guard has proposed to the International Maritime
Organization (IMO) that international regulations be developed that
will require lifejackets to be stowed on all passenger vessels at
both the debarkation deck level, as well as in the passenger
staterooms.
Nevertheless, the Safety Board has had difficulties convincing
the Coast Guard to propose to the IMO:
Require periodic marine firefighting training
for ships officers.
Require all passenger ships carrying more than
500 passengers to employ a full-time
professional fire fighter as part of the crew.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Does the Safety Board consider the
acceptance of its recommendations by the IMO to be an adequate
response to its recommendation? Are you satisfied that the foreign
flag states are adequately enforcing the safety rules that they
agree to at the IMO?
ANSWER: We consider the acceptance by IMO of our
recommendations a step in the right direction causing IMO to think
seriously of a corrective effort but, the time delay before
implementation is sometimes excessive, the latitude that is often
allowed in interpretation can greatly lessen the intended safety
improvement, and many countries do not implement or enforce them.
Many ship owners continue to use flags of convenience and/or
substandard classification societies. Of about 40 classification
societies, 10 are recognized by the Coast Guard as competent. Some
of the IMO regulations are unclear, vague, and subject to a wide
range of interpretation by flag states or the classification
societies used by the flag state or ship owner.
Are Foreign Ship Crews Adequately Trained?
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: The Board has pointed out that the
majority of marine safety accidents are a result of human error.
Often, the human error results from bad training or fatigue. I am
concerned that many of the foreign flag nations are giving licenses
to masters and crews who are not adequately trained, even though
these nations are signatories to the international convention on
crew training and certification.
What has been the Board's observations regarding the training
of foreign crews and their impact on marine safety?
ANSWER: The quality of training varies from country to country
and from company to company. There is an economic incentive to hire
less qualified persons as opposed to more highly trained persons
because the more highly trained crewman from more advanced nations
430
demands higher wages. Their impact on marine safety also varies
from country to country and from company to company.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Have you found evidence of marine
casualties resulting from poor training of crews?
ANSWER: Yes. In areas of emergency response to engineroom
casualties and fires, steering and engine failure, or passenger area
fires and evacuation inadequately trained crews have contributed to
fatalities and extensive property damage. The importance of well
trained crews cannot be over emphasized. However, to augment a crew
that is untrained or minimally qualified, the Board feels that all
passenger ships carrying more than 500 passengers should have a
full-time professional fire fighter as part of the crew.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Do you believe we can put our trust on the
certificates and licenses granted by foreign flag states to their
crews?
ANSWER: This would depend on the country and company involved.
There is a vast difference between countries in requirements to
obtain licenses and certificates. Some credentials are subject to
purchase and do not require demonstration of knowledge or
experience.
Does the Coast Guard Remain Uncooperative?
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: For the previous two years the NTSB has
cited the Coast Guard as the most uncooperative of the DOT modal
administrations in implementing the recommendations of the Safety
Board.
Does this continue to be the case? Have you seen any
improvement on the part of the Coast Guard in implementing NTSB
recommendations?
ANSWER: Previously, the Coast Guard's initial response rate to
Safety Board recommendations had slipped to the lowest rate of all
modes of DOT. Recent discussions with Coast Guard senior staff to
define and improve working relationships for accident
investigations, as well as for routine functions between our two
agencies, has improved the response time. We are working together
towards shortening response times and acceptance rates and continued
progress is expected.
NTSB Investigations of Foreign Flag Casualties
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: The Safety Board has expressed concern for
several years about its lack of jurisdiction to investigate off-
shore cruise ship accidents. According to the Board, such authority
would ensure that U.S. passengers aboard foreign flagged vessels
operating from U.S. ports receive the same level of safety oversight
as exists in other transportation vehicles. The Coast Guard has
told us that this is not a problem because the Board has access to
the casualty report conducted by the foreign flag nations.
Do you find these casualty reports conducted by the foreign
flag nations to be sufficiently diligent and thorough for your
purposes?
431
ANSWER: Some reports (Australian, Canadian, and Liberian) when
received appear to be thorough. Other reports, like the UK's
reports are generally confidential. However, most countries either
do not conduct investigations or conduct superficial investigations.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Do you think all of the foreign flag
states that send cruise ships to the United States have adequate
expertise to investigate fully all vessel casualties?
ANSWER: No. In the latest reports from committee meetings at
the IMO, it appears that there are only a few foreign governments
that are regularly submitting accurate vessel casualty reports to
the IMO. The reports submitted are, for the most part, from
governments that have formal marine accident investigation
procedures.
The IMO should be firm and insist that those member
governments abide by the rules set forth in the IMO regulations and
investigate vessel casualties and submit accident reports to the IMO
until foreign flag states routinely, thoroughly investigate
accidents involving cruise ships operating out of U.S. ports. The
USCG and NTSB should conduct the investigations so that casualty
information can be documented and shared by the member nations to
prevent similar accidents from occurring in the future.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: In September 1991, the NTSB send a letter
to Admiral Kime complaining that NTSB investigators were not being
granted adequate access to a casualty investigation even in those
instances when the foreign flag nation has invited the United States
to participate in the investigation.
Has the Coast Guard been more cooperative in granting access to
NTSB investigators during these overseas investigations since
September of 1991?
ANSWER: During the last several months, the Safety Board has
had a series of discussions with Coast Guard senior staff to define
and improve working relationships for accident investigations as
well as for routine functions between our two agencies. As a result
of our discussions with the Coast Guard, the Safety Board will
investigate foreign passenger vessel accidents jointly with the
Coast Guard and flag state under the IMO resolution. The Safety
Board has participated fully in three recent foreign-flag passenger
vessel investigations.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Does the NTSB currently have authority to
investigate airplane accidents when passengers from the U.S are on
board, but the accident occurs outside of U.S. territory?
ANSWER: The provisions of the International Civil Aviation
Organization Treaty, to which the Unites States is a signatory,
allows for the full participation in civil accident investigations
by the government of the country in which an aircraft is registered,
manufactured, or operated primarily. In such cases, the Safety
Board, as the accredited U.S. representative, often participates in
the investigation of foreign aviation accidents.
432
Cruise Ship Safety
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: In October 1989, International Maritime
Organization (IMO) Resolution A. 637 (16) endorsed greater
multilateral cooperation in vessel casualty investigations,
including cruise ships. Since then the U.S. Coast Guard has
participated in several investigations of foreign flagged cruise
ship accidents (e.g., the April 1992 investigation of the Starship
Majestic), including at least one investigation which included NTSB
representatives. In your view, have these joint investigations been
successful? If not, why not?
ANSWER: Yes. Recently there have been three foreign flag
passenger ship accidents involving ships routinely operating from
U.S. ports which have been successfully investigated under IMO
Resolution A. 637:
1. Fire on board BRITANIS on December 11, 1991
2. Fire on board SONG OF AMERICA on December 12, 1991
3. Grounding of QUEEN ELIZABETH 2 on August 7, 1992.
However, in the case of the grounding of the QUEEN ELIZABETH 2
in U.S. waters, the Coast Guard invited the Flag State (UK) to
participate in the investigation under Resolution A. 637, but the UK
investigators stated that national laws of Great Britain precluded
their participation. In every instance where the Safety Board was
invited to participate, it did in fact participate in the
investigations. The Safety Board expects to publish a special
report concerning passenger vessel safety, which will include the
BRITANIS and SONG OF AMERICA accident reports this spring. The
Safety Board also expects to publish the QUEEN ELIZABETH 2 accident
report this spring.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What groups are opposed to the Board's
having investigative authority in off-shore cruise ship accidents,
and what are their objections? How do you answer such objections?
ANSWER: Foreign owners/operators of cruise ships that
regularly board passengers from U.S. ports object to NTSB
investigations. They object because of the broad scope of our
investigations which are not limited to the casualty itself but
cover emergency response, emergency contingency plans, training,
company management of ship operations, company policies and
everything that is investigated is open to the public scrutiny.
They fear that this may lead to "bad press" and the resulting loss
of revenue.
To answer such objections we state that the Safety Board's goal
is to improve public safety, to publicize safety problems or
deficiencies to improve safety, and to have the IMO and the flag
state to improve their regulations and operations. Although the
short term effect of drawing attention to safety reflects on
passenger ships may be a loss in revenue, the long term effect is a
safer industry which will result in increased revenue. The Safety
Board objective is to prevent future accidents and to avoid a major
catastrophe such as the SCANDINAVIAN STAR fire which killed 158
persons three years ago.
433
Although foreign passenger ships operating from U.S. ports have
had a very good safety record in the recent past, the fire on board
the Bahamian passenger ship SCANDINAVIAN STAR in April 1990 showed
that this record could be shattered overnight. The SCANDINAVIAN
STAR left the U.S. cruise trade in March 1990 and less than a month
later suffered a tragic fire in which 158 persons (156 of whom were
passengers) lost their lives. One of the two crewmembers who died
in the fire was a U.S. citizen. The fire that destroyed the
SCANDINAVIAN STAR could easily have occurred a month earlier while
the vessel was still operating in the U.S. trade and the 156 dead
passengers could have been U.S. citizens.
Significantly, the SCANDINAVIAN STAR had previously suffered a
serious fire while operating in the U.S. cruise trade. This fire,
which occurred on March 15, 1988, was investigated by the Safety
Board. The Board's report detailed numerous fire safety
deficiencies which, if corrected, may have prevented or at least
lessened the tragic loss of life that resulted from the 1990 fire.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: In April 1992, the IMO required existing,
primarily older, cruise ships to install fire sprinklers and other
fire safety equipment. Other standards affecting passenger safety,
such as crew proficiency in carrying out fire drills, have not yet
been revised. Are there other type of cruise ship safety concerns
that the Board believes have not been sufficiently addressed?
ANSWER: The technical fire safety improvements are complete
for existing as well as new passenger vessels. The major concerns
now are the role of the human element. Crews on these foreign flag
vessels must meet stringent fire training requirements as well as
other emergency considerations. The Board has recommended that for
vessels with more than 500 persons (crew and passengers) that a paid
firefighter be employed at all times. This individual could train
the crew and would be familiar with all fire aspects of the vessel,
i.e. equipment location, understanding of fire spread, and develop
appropriate training drills.
As a result of a 1988 study, several safety recommendations
were issued to the Coast Guard and the passenger ship industry. One
significant recommendation concerned the stowage of life jackets at
or near the embarkation deck level generated mixed reactions. The
Coast Guard has proposed to the IMO that international regulations
be developed that will require life jackets to be stowed on all
passenger vessels at both the embarkation deck level and in the
passenger staterooms. However, up to the present there has been no
action by the IMO.
In recent communication with passenger vessel operators, the
Safety Board learned that many operators have voluntarily complied
with the recommendation. Because of the need for lifejackets to be
stowed in both the staterooms and the embarkation deck levels (or
the place where most passengers can be expected to congregate) in
order to afford passengers the best opportunity to get their
lifejackets in an emergency, the Safety Board has made lifejacket
stowage an issue in all passenger vessel accident investigations.
Without the dual location requirement, in many instances passengers
have gone below decks into the area of danger to pick up their life
jackets from their staterooms.
434
TRIP TO CHINA
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: It is the Committee's understanding that a
number of Board Members are planning a trip to the Republic of
China. What are the costs associated with this trip?
ANSWER: The total cost of the tip was $31,421.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What other Federal officials are going on
this trip?
ANSWER: There were no other Federal officials except Safety
Board personnel on the trip.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Are any industry representatives going on
this trip? If so, who?
ANSWER: No industry representatives were on this trip.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Who pays for their travel?
ANSWER: Since no industry representatives were on the trip,
there were no travel costs.
OPEN RECOMMENDATIONS:
"MOST WANTED" IMPROVEMENTS
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Most (13 of 17) of the safety
recommendations on the safety Board's "Most Wanted Transportation
Safety Improvements" expect action from a federal agency.
In Chairman Vogt's opening statement, he states that 8 of 10 of
your safety recommendations are eventually adopted. What about the
20 percent not adopted? Why aren't they adopted? Are you
satisfied with the responsiveness of federal agencies to your
recommendations?
ANSWER: Overall, the Board's safety recommendations enjoy a 82
percent acceptance rate. Of the remaining 18 percent, nine to 12
percent at any time are going through negotiations between the Board
and addressees to iron out differences of opinion or interpretation.
Another five to 7 percent are recommendations that have been closed
as no longer applicable or reconsidered in that they have been
addressed by events outside the recommendation process. These
events can include technological advances or the fact that an
addressee ceased to exist. Safety recommendations for which a
response has not been received from the addressee fall into another
category and at any given time about 4 percent of our
recommendations may comprise this category.
As the above statistics show, our safety recommendations are
addressed and they are seldom rejected outright. The
responsiveness of federal agencies to our recommendations remains
positive and the Board continually works to improve the acceptance
of our recommendations or acceptable alternatives.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: To what specific factors do you attribute
some agencies' less-than-rapid consideration and acceptance of your
recommendations?
435
ANSWER: The primary reason for slowness in responding to the
Board's recorranendations is the lack of an institutionalized process
and organization within the recipient's organization designated as
the focal point for responses to our safety recommendations.
The Federal Aviation Administration (or its predecessor agency)
has been responding to our recommendations for decades. Their
process and staff are such that a rapid and usually positive
response is forthcoming -- with a closure of activity also in a
relatively short time period.
Other agencies have been responding to the Board for a far
shorter time and many have only recently seen the need to develop a
process and a core staff to provide oversight of the recommendations
within an agency while the response is being developed. Within the
last 6 years, the Board has assisted such agencies as the U.S. Coast
Guard with internalizing such a process in order to bring down the
time of first response for that agency.
A second factor is that for some recommendations there will be
an honest, professional difference of opinion regarding the
identified problem and the potential solutions to the perceived
problem.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Does the Board have enough influence to
ensure that its recommendations are adopted expeditiously and with
sufficient frequency to merit the resources you invest in your
investigations?
ANSWER: The Board believes that it now has the influence
necessary to ensure that its recommendations receive the proper
review and evaluation by the addressees. The Board has been making
a stronger effort in the last few years to exert that influence to
bring about a higher percentage of "acceptable" actions by the
addressees. This effort has given us dividends as shown by the
increase in the overall acceptance rate and reduction in the time to
first response and to acceptable close outs.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: In terms of the Board's resources, how
much is spent on regional investigations, on major investigations,
and how much on the (nine) safety studies and special reports?
ANSWER: The allocation of resources for regional accident
investigations is $11.8 million, for major accident investigations
it is $18.5 million, and for safety studies and special reports it
is $2 mill ion.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Please provide for the record the
following information on each of your "most wanted" recommendations:
1. Brief background on and a full statement of the
recommendation.
2. Date on which the recommendation was first made.
3. Statement of response to date by the agency.
4. Your rationale for including this recommendation on
your "most wanted" list, the significance of this
436
recommendation, and the impact on transportation safety if
this recommendation is not adopted and implemented.
5. Your assessment of the feasibility, both economic and
administrative, of adopting this recommendation.
ANSWER: As of April 25, 1992, there were 17 issues on the
Safety Board's Most Wanted List. For an issue to be placed on the
Most Wanted List, it must be a specific safety recommendation or a
safety recommendation issue area selected by the Board for intensive
follow-up and heightened awareness.
According to Board Order 83, the recommendation or issue area
must: enhance safety on the national scene; build upon a more
positive/secure view of the transportation system in the eyes of the
public; include the consideration of previous loss of life or
property, potential for future loss of life or property, and public
exposure risk; be attainable in a reasonable time period; or have
not been acted upon at all or for an inordinately long period of
time.
Although the Safety Board does not perform formal cost-benefit
analyses of our recommendations, we do attempt to be aware of the
potential problems that might arise due to economic factors or with
feasibility problems. For these reasons, the Safety Board will
consider acceptable alternatives to its recommendations if those
alternatives meet the same objectives of the safety recommendation.
The material on the "Most Wanted" list is below.
Boating While Intoxicated
Summary:
Improvements are needed in recreational boating laws and
regulations to deal effectively with alcohol/drug abuse in the
Nation's waterways. Although action to improve recreational boating
laws has been taken in many states, the Safety Board believes that
more can and should be done because in some states alcohol
involvement in recreational boating fatalities is as high as 80
percent.
Addressee: The States and the District of Columbia
Date of Issue and Recommendation(s} Text:
November 7, 1983
M-83-76
Adopt legislation to clearly define the level of legal
intoxication for recreational boat operators in order to
strengthen your State's enforcement program for reducing
accidents, fatalities, injuries, and property damage
caused by the use of alcohol.
M-83-77
Adopt legislation to allow a chemical test of blood,
breath, or urine if a recreational boat operator is
437
suspected of being intoxicated and toxicological tests in
the event of a recreational boating accident fatality.
M-83-78
Require procedures for toxicological tests in the event of
a recreational boating fatality to document the role of
alcohol in recreational boating accidents and fatalities.
Status:
Ten States remain which do not have Boating While Intoxicated
laws and they are Alabama, Arkansas, Hawaii, Iowa, Kentucky,
Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico, Oklahoma, West Virginia and the
District of Columbia.
Administrative License Revocation
Summary:
The Safety Board believes that the passage of an administrative
license revocation (ALR) law is the single most important step a
state can take to combat drunk driving. Under an ALR statute, the
police have the right to confiscate, on the spot, the license of a
driver who either "fails or refuses a breath test. The effects of
ALR are twofold -- the licenses of dangerous drivers are revoked
more quickly, and the public is deterred from drinking and driving.
Addressee: The States and the District of Columbia
Date of Issue and Recommendation(s) Text:
April 23, 1984
H-84-13 and H-84-17
Enact legislation or utilize existing authority to provide
for administrative revocation of the licenses of drivers
who refuse a chemical test for alcohol or who provide a
result at or above the State presumptive limit.
Status:
Sixteen States currently do not have an ALR law. The states
are Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Montana, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South
Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Washington.
Runway Incursion-- Ground Collisions of Aircraft
Summary:
A series of safety recommendations address the runway incursion
problem. The safety recommendations came from a 1986 safety study
on the issue, and three major runway incursion accidents between
1990 and 1992.
Addressee: Federal Aviation Administration
Date of Issue and Recommendation(s) Text:
438
May 13, 1986; June 12, 1991; July 23, 1991; December 3, 1991
A-86-33
Require controllers to obtain a read back for all hold,
takeoff, or crossing clearances and the clearances onto an
active runway.
A-91-54
Improve standards for airport marking and lighting during
low-visibility conditions, such as standards for more
conspicuous marking and lighting; evaluation of
unidirectional taxi lines for use on acute angle taxiways;
and requirements for stop bars or position-hold lights at
all taxiways that intersect active runways.
A-91-55
Identify all 14 CFR 139 certificated airports, complex
intersections, where a potential for pilot confusion
exists. Where needed, require additional lighting and
signs.
A-91-56
Require that CFR 139 certificated airports use
reflectorized paint for airport surface markings.
A-91-57
Require that CFR 139 certificated airports install
semiflush runway edge lights in accordance with Advisory
Circular 150/5340-24.
A-91-58
Include directions, in the forthcoming Advisory Circular
for Surface Movement Control Guidance Systems, that 14
CRF 139 certificated airports, which operate at runway
visual ranges of 1,200 feet or less, follow ICAO Annex 14
standards.
A-91-29
Expedite efforts to fund the development and
implementation of an operational system analogous to the
airborne conflict alert system to alert controllers to
pending runway incursions at all terminal facilities that
are scheduled to receive Airport Surface Detection
Equipment (ASDE-3).
A-91-30
Conduct research and development efforts to provide
airports that are not scheduled to receive Airport Surface
Detection Equipment with an alternate, cost effective,
system to bring controller and pilot attention to pending
runway incursions in time to prevent ground collisions.
A-91-110
Conduct a one-time examination of the airport lighting at
all U.S. tower-controlled airports to eliminate or reduce
restrictions to visibility from the control tower to the
runways and other traffic movement areas.
439
A-91-111
Redefine the airplane certification coverage compliance
standards for anticollision light installations to ensure
that the anticollision light(s) of an aircraft in
position on a runway are clearly visible to the pilot of
another aircraft preparing to land or take off on that
runway.
A-91-112
Evaluate and implement, as appropriate, suitable means for
enhancing the conspicuity of aircraft on airport surfaces
during night or periods of reduced visibility. Include in
this effort, measures such as the displacement of an
aircraft away from the runway centerline, where
applicable, and the use of conspicuity enhancements, such
as high-intensity strobe lighting and logo lighting by
aircraft on active runways, and encourage operators of
airplanes certificated prior to September 1, 1977, to
upgrade their airplanes to the present higher intensity
standards for anticollision light installations.
A-91-113
Direct the general aviation community and the airlines to
take steps to ensure that pilot training programs,
including cockpit resource management training and flight
operations procedures, place sufficient emphasis on the
need for pilots to maintain vigilance in monitoring air
traffic control radio communication frequencies for
potential traffic conflicts with their aircraft,
especially when on active runways and/or when conducting a
final approach to a landing.
A-91-114
Incorporate into the Airman's Information Manual language
that will alert pilots to the need for vigilance in
monitoring air traffic frequencies for traffic conflict
situations which may affect the safety of their flight.
A-91-115
Develop for inclusion in the Airman's Information Manual
and the Air Traffic Control Handbook (7110. 65F) specific
phraseology to be used by pilots when requesting an
intersection departure and specific phraseology to be used
by controllers when issuing a position-and-hold clearance
for an intersection departure.
Status:
Of the remaining 14 safety recommendations, 8 are awaiting
further action by the FAA; and 6 are pending the Board's evaluation
of the FAA response. Also, in 1991, the FAA established a number of
Runway Incursion Action Teams that were to inspect airports for
compliance with ground control standards. These teams inspected 18
airports in 1991 and 20 in 1992. Additional inspections are
expected to be conducted during 1993.
Positive Train Separation
Summary:
440
The Safety Board Is a strong advocate of systems which provide
backup control when an engineer fails to properly control a train.
The Board has made several safety recommendations to the Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA) that it require systems to ensure that
trains are equipped with alerting devices.
Addressee: Federal Railroad Administration
Date of Issue and Recommendation(s):
May 19, 1987 and September 16, 1991
R-87-16
Promulgate Federal standards to require the installation
and operation of a train control system on mainline tracks
which will provide for positive separation of all trains.
R-91-25
In conjunction with the Association of American Railroads
and the Railway Progress Institute, expand the effort now
being made to develop and install advanced train control
systems for the purpose of positive train separation.
Status:
The Board is aware of ongoing efforts between the Association
of American Railroads, the FRA and the industry to arrive at a
satisfactory solution in the development of positive train control
systems. It was learned at a meeting with Amtrak staff in January
1993, that the industry had decided to merge the best points of the
2 competing systems under the lead of a ground based system.
Commercial Fishing Vessel Safety
Summary:
The Safety Board has investigated numerous commercial fishing
vessel accidents and recommendations have been issued covering a
variety of safety issues including licensing of fishing vessel
masters, requirements for emergency position indicating radio-
beacons, carriage of basic lifesaving equipment and crew training.
Addressee: United States Coast Guard
Date of Issue & Recommendation(s):
August 12, 1985 and September 22, 1987
M-85-68
Seek legislative authority to require the licensing of
captains of commercial fishing vessels, including a
requirement that they demonstrate minimum qualifications
in vessel safety including rules of the road, vessel
stability, firefighting, watertight integrity, and the use
of lifesaving equipment.
M-86-11
Seek legislative authority to require that stability tests
441
be conducted and that complete stability information be
provided to the masters of commercial fishing vessels.
M-87-52
Seek legislative authority to require uninspected
commercial fishing vessel captain/owners to provide safety
training to all crewmembers.
M-87-54
Seek legislative authority to require basic lifesaving
equipment for uninspected commercial fishing vessels
including but not limited to: flooding detection alarms
and automatic dewatering system.
M-87-56
Seek legislative authority to require basic lifesaving
equipment for uninspected commercial fishing vessels
including but not limited to: Coast Guard-approved
lifeboats or liferafts sufficient to carry all persons
onboard.
M-87-64
Seek legislative authority to require that all
uninspected commercial fishing vessels be certified and
periodically inspected by the Coast Guard or its
recognized representative to ensure that the vessels meet
all applicable Federal Safety standards.
M-88-31
Require a placard with donning instructions for exposure
(immersion) suits to be posted in a conspicuous place on
all fishing vessels that carry such suits.
M-92-25
Seek legislation that bases the requirement for load lines
for fishing, fish tender, and fish processing vessels on
the hazards and risks involved rather than on such
unrelated parameters as the fish processing methods.
Status:
The Coast Guard has steadfastly maintained that voluntary
guidance and education for captains should suffice to enhance
fishing vessel safety and as such, it objects to M-85-68. Work
continues on the other recommendations.
Mode C Intruder Conflict Alert
Summary:
The Safety Board has recommended that an airborne collision
avoidance system be developed since 1969.
Addressee: Federal Aviation Administration
Date of Issue and Recommendation(s):
July 27, 1987
442
Take expedited action to add visual flight rules conflict
alert (Mode C Intruder) logic to automated radar terminal
system (ARTS) computers as an interim measure to the
ultimate implementation of the advanced automation system
(AAS).
Status:
The FAA's most recent letter (February 1992) commits to an
operational Mode C intruder alert system by the end of fiscal year
1995. Installation of the New York Tracon system was complete as of
July 3, 1991 and ultimately there will be 63 sites with the Mode C
system installed. The FAA continues to hold to a projected schedule
that will complete all sites by the end of fiscal year 1995.
Railroad Tank Cars Carrying Hazardous Materials
Summary:
The need to provide protection for hazardous materials being
carried in railroad tank cars is the central point of this item.
Addressee: U.S. Department of Transportation
Date of Issue and Recommendation(s) Text:
February 12, 1990
Evaluate present safety standards for tank cars
transporting hazardous materials by using safety analysis
methods to identify the unacceptable levels of risk and
the degree of risk from the release of a hazardous
material, and then modify existing regulations to achieve
an acceptable level of safety for each product/tank car
combination
Status:
Near the end of 1991, the DOT issued a contract to study the
risk/safety relationships of different hazardous materials being
carried in cars with different kinds of protection. Staff is
monitoring the progress in this area and will review the study when
it is released.
Fatigue of Transportation System Operators
Summary:
In its investigations of numerous accidents in all
transportation modes, the Safety Board has identified serious and
continuing problems concerning the far-reaching effects of fatigue,
sleepiness, sleep disorders, and circadian factors in transportation
system safety. It has become apparent to the Board that neither
management or labor in transportation properly considers the adverse
effects of irregular and unpredictable cycles of work and rest on
vehicle operating personnel. The Safety Board supports a systemic
approach to the problem.
443
Addressee: Secretary, Department of Transportation
Date of Issue and Recommendation(s) :
May 12, 1989
1-89-1
Expedite a coordinated research program on the effects of
fatigue, sleepiness, sleep disorders, and circadian
factors on transportation system safety.
1-89-2
Develop and disseminate educational material for
transportation industry personnel and management regarding
shift work; work and rest schedules; and proper regimens
of health, diet, and rest.
1-89-3
Review and upgrade regulations governing hours of service
for all transportation modes to assure that they are
consistent and that they incorporate the results of the
latest research on fatigue and sleep issues.
Status:
The Board recognized that this effort would be a continuing
activity for a long period of time when the recommendations were
adopted and when they were placed on the "Most Wanted" list. The
Office of the Secretary of Transportation has provided the Board
with two briefings on the efforts being made in the various
administration in DOT. We have requested a third briefing for 1993.
School Bus Safety
Summary:
The Safety Board places special emphasis on school bus safety
matters and particular attention is placed on the flammability of
school bus interior materials, emergency egress, and fuel tank
protection.
Addressee: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Date of Issue and Recommendation{s) Text:
June 5, 1989 and August 22, 1990
H-89-4
Incorporate in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 302
the recommendations of the National Institute of Standards
on technology concerning the new material acceptance
criteria to reduce the rate of fire spread in all buses.
H-89-5
Revise Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 217 to
require that school bus egress be based on vehicle
occupant capacity and be no lower than those currently
required for nonschool buses.
444
H-89-6
Revise Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 301 to
provide additional protection for school buses in severe
crash situations based on an evaluation of the merits of
relocating fuel tanks, providing additional structure to
protect fuel system components, and frangible valves in
critical locations.
H-90-74
Revise Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 217, Bus
Window Retention and Release, to include a requirement
that floor level emergency exits should be designed so
that once opened they remain open during emergencies and
schoolbus evacuation.
Status:
A final rule implementing NHTSA rules that the number of school
bus emergency exits be based on the seating capacity of school
buses, and that floor level emergency exists should remain open
during emergencies was published November 2, 1992. The Board
continues to work on gaining acceptance of its recommendations on
material flammability.
Aircraft Structural Fatigue Testing
Summary:
The airworthiness of the aging U.S. aircraft fleet is an issue
that requires constant attention by operators, airframe and engine
manufacturers, and the FAA. Despite the delivery of new airplanes,
the average age of the airplanes in use in the U.S. continues to
increase, and more planes than ever have exceeded their economic
design life limit.
Addressee: Federal Aviation Administration
Date of Issue and Recommendation{s) Text:
July 21, 1989
A-89-67
Require that all turbojet transport category airplanes
certificated in the future receive full scale structural
fatigue testing to a minimum of two times the projected
economic service life. Also require that all currently
certificated turbojet transport category airplanes that
have not been fatigue tested to two lifetimes, be
subjected to such testing. As a result of this testing
and subsequent inspection and analysis, require
manufacturers to identify structures susceptible to
multiple site damage and adopt inspection programs
appropriate for the detection of such damage.
Status:
Structural integrity rules for new aircraft are completed and
at the Office of Management and Budget for review. The Aviation
445
Regulatory Action Committee is in the process of drafting a
suggested special regulation to cover existing aircraft structural
testing. The committee's report is expected to be out during the
summer of 1993.
Passenger Vessel Safety
Summary:
The Safety Board's main areas of concern in this area concerns
the common language requirements and the authority for accident
investigation in situations involving foreign flag vessels carrying
U.S. citizens as passengers. Key problem areas concern fire
detection and control; heat/smoke detector systems; sprinkler
systems; hose ports in fire doors; lined linen fire hoses; and
common language requirements for the crew.
Addressee: United States Coast Guard
Date of Issue and Recommendation(s) Text:
December 5, 1989
M-89-124
A centralized automatic/manual fire control system on the
navigating bridge that integrates the fire detector,
automatic fire door controls, the ventilation system
controls, and general alarm into unified system.
M-89-125
Integrated heat and/or smoke detectors with automatic fire
door release switches so that the doors will close
automatically when the detectors are activated.
M-89-126
A sprinkler system installed in accommodation areas
regardless of the method of fireproof construction used.
M-89-127
Hose ports in all fire doors so that these doors may be
fully closed when fire hoses to be led through the doors.
M-89-128
Lined linen fire hoses or equivalent that replace unlined
linen fire hoses.
M-89-129
A crew composition in each passenger vessel department
such that at least 75 percent of the crew responsible for
emergency, firefighting, and lifesaving service be able to
understand and communicate in a common language with the
officers and to understand and communicate in English with
passengers.
Status:
With Coast Guard support, the International Maritime
Organization (IMO) has taken action on most of the fire detection
68-623 O— 93 15
446
and control recommendations. The IMO considered various reforms at
a December 1992 meeting and staff is reviewing the actions taken.
Some advisory material on requiring a common language as recommended
may be developed at the IMO, but it does not appear that the Coast
Guard or the IMO Is going to move to require a common language.
Uniform Policy on Collection: Handling: Processing and
Testing of Results of Specimens for Alcohol and other
Drug Detection
Summary:
Investigators of transportation accidents have created concern
about the prevalence of drug and alcohol use and its effect on the
safety of the traveling public. Substantial differences exist among
the post-accident/incident sampling and testing requirements for the
various transportation modes and between the drug testing policies
for DOT employees in safety sensitive positions and for private
sector employees. The Board supports the adoption of uniform
regulations for all drug and alcohol testing in all transportation
modes.
Addressee: Secretary, Department of Transportation
Date of Issue and Recommendation(s) Text:
December 5, 1989
1-89-4
Develop postaccident and postincident testing regulations
that are separate from the pre-employment, random, and
reasonable suspicion testing regulations in all modal
agencies.
1-89-5
Adopt uniform regulations for all drug and alcohol
testing, other than postaccident and postincident testing,
In all transportation modes, Including U.S. Department of
Transportation employees in safety sensitive positions.
Adopt uniform regulations on postaccident testing of private sector
employees for alcohol and drugs in all transportation modes. Use
the Federal Railroad Administration's (FRA) current regulation as a
model regulation for all transportation modes except for the
permissible blood alcohol level of less than 0.04 percent. Using
the FRA regulation as a model for other transportation modes refers
only to the collection of blood and urine and the screening and
confirmation of positives in blood. As a minimum, the drugs
identified in FRA screen should be used in the other modes.
Reference to the FRA model does not refer to the administration or
implementation of the regulation. The Safety Board recognizes that
the implementation of the regulation may be different in the various
transportation modes. The regulations for all modes should provide:
1-89-6
for the collection of blood and urine within 4 hours
following a qualifying incident or accident. When
collection within 4 hours Is not accomplished, blood and
447
urine specimens should be collected as soon as possible
and an explanation for such delay shall be submitted in
writing to the administrator.
1-89-7
testing requirements that include alcohol and drugs beyond
the five drugs or classes specified in the Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS) guidelines and that are
not limited to the cutoff thresholds specified in the HHS
guidelines. Provisions should be made to test for illicit
and licit drugs as information becomes available during an
accident investigation.
Adopt uniform regulations in postaccident and postincident testing
of U.S. Department of Transportation employees in safety sensitive
positions. The regulations should provide:
1-89-8
for the collection of blood and urine within 4 hours
following a qualifying incident or accident. When
collection within 4 hours is not accomplished, blood and
urine should be collected as soon as possible and an
explanation for such delay shall be submitted in writing
to the administrator by the local official making the
decision to test.
1-89-9
testing requirements that include alcohol and drugs beyond
the five drugs or classes specified in the Department of
Health and Human services (HHS) guidelines and that are
not limited to the cutoff thresholds specified in the HHS
guidelines. Provisions should be made to test for illicit
and licit drugs as information becomes available during an
accident investigation.
1-89-11
procedures by which Federal employees are sent to the
nearest hospital or medical facility for obtaining blood
and urine specimens for toxicological testing following a
qualifying incident or accident.
1-89-12
Issue rules specifying zero (no alcohol) as the blood
alcohol concentrations for private sector employees in
safety sensitive positions in all transportation modes and
for Federal employees in safety sensitive positions.
Status:
On December 15, 1992, the DOT published an Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) on the testing of transportation industry
employees for alcohol and other drugs. The Safety Board provided
extensive comments on the NPRM, a copy of which is attached.
448
LETTER FROM CARL W. VOGT, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL
TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD
April H, 1993
Department of Transportation
Office of the Secretary
Docket Clerk
Attn: Docket No. 48513
400 7th Street. S.W.. Room 4107
Washington. D.C. 20590
Dear Sir:
The National Transportation Safety Board has reviewed the Department of
Transportation's (DOT) proposed rules "Limitation on Alcohol use by Transportation
Workers" and 'Procedures for Transportation Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing
Programs." Similarly, we have reviewed the following companion notices of proposed
rulemaking: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). "Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program
for Personnel Engaged in Specified Aviation Activities;' Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA). "Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations; Commercial Motor Carrier Safety
Assistance Program; Controlled Substances and Alcohol Use and Testing; Commercial
Driver's License Standards; Driving of Motor Vehicles; Hours of Service of Drivers;"
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). "Alcohol Testing; Amendments to Alcohol/Drug
Regulations;" Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 'Prevention of Alcohol Misuse in
Transit Operations;' Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), 'Alcohol
Misuse Prevention Program;' and, United States Coast Guard (USCG). "Chemical Drug
and Alcohol Testing of Commercial Vessel Personnel; Collection of Drug and Alcohol
Testing Information." The National Transportation Safety Board offers the following
comments on the proposed rules and companion notices of proposed rulemaking.
The Department of Transportation requested comments on less costly alternatives
to the current random drug testing programs for aviation, motor carrier, rail, mass transit,
pipeline and maritime industries. The Safety Board believes the testing rate should be
set at the lowest rate that will provide deterrence. Any change in the current testing rate
should be based on credible, peer-reviewed research in the transportation industry or in
comparable workplace settings. Pending evaluation of such research, we believe the
current random testing rale should not be changed.
Regarding drug testing in motor carrier operations, the National Transportation
Safety Board has recommended in Safety Recommendation H-90-22 that the Federal
Highway Administration:
Establish a demonstration project(s) to deter the use of alcohol and other
drugs by drivers of medium and heavy trucks that includes alcohol and
other drug testing at special roadside sobriety check-points, truck Inspection
lanes, and truck weigh stations.
The purpose of this recommendation was to encourage the FHWA to explore a low cost
alternative to the current motor carrier random testing program and to conduct the testing
where K should have the greatest deterrent effect. The FHWA is in the process of
evaluating roadside testing in four States. Therefore, we recommend that no changes
in motor carrier testing programs occur until the demonstration projects are complete and
fully evaluated. If the results are positive, a roadside drug testing program should be
developed.
449
Other Safety Board recommendations regarding drug testing are included in Safety
Recommendations 1-89-4 through -12 that have been proposed to the Department, a copy
of which is enclosed. Safety Recommendation 1-89-10 has been closed as no longer
applicable because of Congressional action.
The National Transportation Safety Board is pleased that the Department and rts
operating administrations are proposing rules for transportation workplace alcohol testing.
We support the DOT proposal to use breath as the primary specimen and breath testing
as the primary method for all categories of employer alcohol testing (pre-employment,
random, reasonable suspicion, and postaccident). The Safety Board believes that breath
testing, wrhen used, should include a second test; and the second confirmatory breath test
device should produce hard copy resuKs of the tests.
The Safety Board believes that the alcohol testing rules proposed by the
Department and its operating administrations specified above are very complex and may
be difficult for transportation industries and their workers to understand. Further, the
proposed rules lack uniformity across transportation modes. Therefore, we believe they
will be difficult to apply.
The proposed DOT and modal regulations provide for a prohibition against using
alcohol before reporting for duty. The FRA proposed rules prohibit alcohol use 4 hours
before reporting for duty or during the period after receiving a notice to report for duty.
The FAA rules require an 8 hour abstinence period for flight crevmiembers, but proposed
a 4 hour rule for others performing safety sensitive functions. The FTA proposes to
prohibit alcohol use 4 hours before reporting for duty.
Studies suggest that a 4 hour abstinence period may be too short. The mean
blood alcohol concentration (BAG) of alcohol posrtive persons in fatal accidents is in the
0.15 percent to 0.17 percent range, depending on transportation mode. This suggests
that an abstinence period longer than 8 hours before reporting for duty may enhance
safety. While we would prefer a longer abstinence period, the Safety Board supports an
8 hour rule if it is consistently applied across all modes of transportation.
The proposed rules set a blood alcohol concentration of 0.04 percent or greater
as the rule violation level. The rules also prohibit a person from performing a safety
sensitive function until the BAG is less than 0.02 percent. Permitting a person with any
positive BAG to perform a safety sensitive function in any mode of transportation is
inconsistent wKh the results of research in many transportation modes that indicate "that
there is no lower threshold level below which impairment does not exist for alcohol." (DOT
HS 807 280) Further, there is evidence, in aviation and highway research, of a "hangover
effect" on performance many hours after a person's BAG has returned to zero. The
Safety Board believes that the proposed rules setting 0.04 percent BAG as the offense
level sends the wrong message about the permissibility of alcohol use in all modes of
transportation. We believe that the only safe BAG is a zero (0.00 percent) BAG. All the
proposed rules should specify a zero BAG wrtien reporting for duty to perform safety
sensitive functions.
DOT and its operating administrations should propose a uniform system of
sanctions for violations of the alcohol rules. The proposed rules provide for different
sanctions for the same violations in different transportation modes. For example, work
suspension periods for a posrtive alcohol test vary substantially among the modes of
transportation. Persons with a BAG of 0.04 percent and below cannot perform a safety
sensitive function in aviation for 8 hours, until the next duty period, or until the BAG is less
than 0.02 percent. The FTA proposes similar regulations. In commercial motor carrier
operations, under current regulations, a driver with any measurable alcohol can be placed
out of service for 24 hours. Under one option of the proposed FHWA rules, a driver wrth
any measurable alcohol is prohibrted from safety sensitive functions until the driver's BAG
450
is below 0.02 percent; a driver with a 0.02 percent BAC or greater, but less than 0.04
percent, is prohibited from safety sensitive functions for 24 hours. The Safety Board
believes that any alcohol is impairing and that there may be a residual adverse effect
after the BAC retums to zero. The proposed rules should be consistent among all
modes. The Board suggests that all DOT administrations adopt the current FHWA rule
that removes a driver with a positive BAC from service for 24 hours. Under no
circumstances should a person with a positive BAC perform a safety sensitive function.
Similarly, the proposed rules carry vastly different sanctions for refusal to submit
to a test. For example, the USCG considers refusal as reason for a suspension hearing,
the FHWA considers it grounds for a 1 year suspension, and the FTA considers refusal
a grounds to prohibit a person from duty. The different sanctions for refusal to sulxnit to
a test could result in inequitable treatment of persons engaging in the same behavior
(refusing a test) in the different modes. The Safely Board believes the penalty for test
refusal should be consistent. We recommend that the FHWA suspension period be used.
The proposed postaccident testing rules are inconsistent among the modes of
transportation. The Safety Board has recommended that specimen collection take place
"within four hours following a qualifying incident or accident.* We hope that specimen
collection can be completed wrthin 2 hours in all transportation modes as proposed by
DOT. The Safety Board believes that all modes should require a notification to the modal
Administrator when a postaccident test specimen is not collected within 2 hours of the
accident. Notification requirements should not be further delegated by the Administrator
and the notification should include reasons for the delay. Further, there should be no limit
on the time for testing if 2 hours has elapsed. Testing should be completed as quickly
as possible after the accident wKh the objective of obtaining specimens within eKher the
2 hours proposed or the 4 hours recommended by the Safety Board in Safety
Recommendation 1-89-8 (see enclosure).
The Safety Board is concemed about the proposed postaccident prohibitions on
alcohol use for an 8 hour period unless the person has t«en tested. We suggest that all
proposed rules be revised to prohibit any alcohol use by any person performing a safety
sensrtive function for 24 hours after an accident unless they have been tested. In all
modes, an uninjured person who leaves the accident scene without submitting to an
alcohol test should be considered to have refused the test. Leaving the accident scene
without submitting to a test should carry the same sanctions as test refusal carries.
Postaccident specimen collection for alcohol testing varies across the modes of
transportation. The Safety Board has recommended changes in postaccident specimen
collection for drug testing that can also apply to alcohol. These changes are included in
Safety Recommendations 1-89-4 through -12 (see enclosure). The Safety Board
continues to believe that postaccident and postincident testing for tx3th alcohol and other
drugs should be separate from other testing (pre-employment, random, and reasonable
suspicion testing) in all modes of transportation. With regard to postaccident alcohol
testing, the Safety Board encourages alcohol breath testing for persons who survive the
accident. This should not preclude the Department from rewriting the postaccident drug
testing regulations to require blood specimen collection. In that manner, investigators
would have the most reliable test specimens for both alcohol and other drug use.
The proposed regulations also vary regarding retum to duty testing. The Safety
Board believes that all persons who test positive, refuse to submit to testing, or who
return from rehabilitation should be subject to retum to duty testing in all modes of
transportation. Persons wrth an identified alcohol abuse problem should be subject to
close supervision, including frequent, unannounced tests, for an appropriate period. This
is consistent with Safety Recommendation H-90-20 that the Safety Board issued to the
FHWA (see enclosure).
451
In conclusion, the Safety Board suggests that alcohol testing policy be consistent
among all modes of transportation. The Department should strive for a uniform alcohol
testing policy in critical areas such as blood alcohol concentration (BAC), abstinence prior
to duty, sanctions, and postaccident abstinence. Implementation and enforcement should
be tailored to the specific mode of transportation.
The FAA requested comments on employee training and on the population
performing safety sensitive functions that should be covered by the proposed rules. The
Safety Board believes that training or information and education programs on the effects
of alcohol and other drugs on operations are essential. We have recommended such
programs in Safety Recommendations H-90-21 issued to the FHWA and A-92-1 10 issued
to the FAA (see enclosures). Such information and education efforts are a necessary
part of an accident prevention program. WKh regard to persons performing safety
sensitive functions, the Safety Board believes that any person whose F>erforTnance has
the potential to affect operational safety should be covered. In the aviation area, for
example, covered functions should include persons performing maintenance and fueling
operations.
The National Transportation Safety Board believes that the proposed rules should
be revised and implemented as quickly as possible. Where the modal administrations
such as FAA and FHWA rely on State laws for additional enforcement, States should be
encouraged to enact laws that are consistent with the final rules. Further, the Department
and appropriate modal administrations may need to draft model legislation to assist States
in enacting laws that support the Federal regulations.
The National Transportation Safety Board appreciates the opportunity to comment
on these proposed rules.
Sincerely,
Carl W. Vogt
Chairman
Airplane Wheel Brake Wear Limits
Summary:
As a result of investigations and a special investigation
report, the Safety Board issued safety recommendations addressing
inadequacies in transport airplane brake certification requirements,
rejected takeoff (RTO) safety margin requirements, and DC-10-30/40
brakes.
Addressee: Federal Aviation Administration
Date of Issue and Recommendation(s) Text:
March 21, 1990
A-90-30
Require the appropriate airplane and brake manufacturers
to verify, by conducting tests and analyses, that all
turbojet transport category airplanes meet the maximum
452
energy requirement of 14 CRF 25.735(f) for wheel brake
assemblies at the "maximum brake wear" limits; if the
requirement is not met, reduce the maximum kinetic energy
takeoff limit. In conducting this verification, use
dynamometer brake test curves for demonstrating energy
capacity that are consistent with runway-demonstrated
braking forces during a maximum kinetic energy rejected
takeoff. The test curves should replicate the brake's
high energy absorption rate that occurs at the initiation
of a maximum kinetic energy rejected takeoff. Note: this
recommendation supersedes Safety Recommendation A-88-76.
A-90-31
Require airplane manufacturers to conduct tests and
analyses to determine the increase in the stopping
distance for all turbojet transport category airplanes
currently in service attributed to the difference between
the use of new brakes and the use of brakes worn to
replacement limits without credit for the use of reverse
thrust.
A-90-32
Require the appropriate airplane manufacturers to
determine by tests, simulation, and/or analyses the
accelerate-stop distances for all turbojet transport
category airplanes currently in service as required by 14
CRF 25.109 (pre amendment 42) using demonstrated
certification stopping performance data from worn brakes
and current procedures prescribed for rejected takeoff.
Account for demonstrated pilot reaction times and for
deceleration device reaction times, such as engine spool-
down time and brake force ramp-up time in the
determination of accelerate-stop distances and add a
distance safety margin for in-service variations as
described in advisory circular 25-7 (Chapter 2, Paragraphs
11. C. 12. IV and VII) to be equivalent to at least a
distance traveled in 2 seconds at an appropriate brake-on
speed or VI speed.
A-90-33
Revise, as appropriate, the accelerate-stop data in the
approved flight manuals of all turbojet transport category
airplanes currently in service to include the increase in
stopping distance attributed to worn brakes (determined in
accordance with Safety Recommendation A-90-31) and to
include the proper application of safety margins for in-
service variation (determined in accordance with Safety
Recommendation A-90-32).
A-90-34
Require that the operators of large turbojet transport
category airplanes add the distance required for runway
turn-on and takeoff alignment to the field length
distances as determined from data in the approved flight
manuals.
453
A-90-35
Revise 14 CFR 25.109 to require that the stopping distance
capabilities of brake assemblies at the allowable "maximum
brake wear" limit are included in the requirement for
determining the accel erate-stop distances for
certification of new airplanes without credit for the use
of reverse thrust.
Status:
During the summer of 1991, the FAA issued a number of
Airworthiness Directives related to brake wear limits. Further,
NPRMs were issued for turbojet models L-1011, the DC-9, the B-727,-
37, -47, -57, and -67. The FAA has dropped plans to pursue further
rulemaking action on aircraft performance related to RTOs and
related safety margins. The Safety Board will continue to address
the certification and operational aspects of takeoff performance and
safety as these issues relate to runway overrun accidents and
incidents.
Pipeline Excess Flow Valves
Summary:
Since 1971, the Safety Board has advocated the use of excess
flow valves to minimize the consequences of major gas leaks on
service lines.
Addressee: American Gas Association, American Public Gas
Association, and the Research and Special Programs
Administration
Date of Issue and Recommendation{s) Text:
April 20, 1990
P-90-6
Encourage members to advise their gas customers of the
safety benefits of excess flow valves when installed in
gas service lines and offer their customers the op-
portunity to purchase and have installed at cost an excess
flow valve when installing new, renewing, or replacing gas
service lines.
P-90-12
Require the installation of excess flow valves on new and
renewed single-family residential high pressure service
lines which have operating conditions compatible with the
rated performance parameters of at least one model of
commercial available excess flow valve.
Status:
The Department of Transportation is under Congressional
directive to take some action on this issue. The Pipeline Safety
Act of 1992 requires the Secretary of DOT to issue regulations
specifying the circumstances under which operators must install
454
excess flow valves in new or rebuilt natural gas distribution
systems. We are awaiting final action by DOT on the issue.
Adjustable Upper Anchorage Points for Shoulder
Belts of Automobiles
Summary:
The Safety Board believes that increasing the level of occupant
protection in passenger cars is one of the most effective ways to
lower the number of transportation casualties. One way of
accomplishing that goal is to increase both the number of passenger
vehicle occupants who use lap/shoulder belts and the number of them
who use them properly.
Addressee: Automobile Manufacturers
Date of Issue and Recommendation:
December 19, 1990
H-90-111
Provide all newly manufactured passenger vehicles an
adjustable upper anchorage for the shoulder portion of the
seatbelt.
Status:
Progress continues in bringing about the provision for
adjustable upper anchorage points for shoulder harness seat belts.
A group of letters to the manufacturers that have not fully complied
with this action were sent on January 11, 1993. The Safety Board
letters asked for reports on the status of the Issue within the
various companies.
Mandatory Seat Belt Laws In States
Summary :
The Safety Board believes that lap/shoulder belts clearly offer
occupants of motor vehicles substantial protection in a wide variety
of crashes and further contends that mandatory use laws (MULs) are
an effective way to Increase the use of lap/shoulder belts systems.
Addressee: 12 States: Alabama, Delaware, Kentucky, Maine,
Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota,
Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, and West Virginia.
Date of Issue and Recommendation(s) Text:
April 10, 1991
Enact legislation that requires occupants of all passenger
automobiles, vans, and light trucks to use lap/shoulder
belt systems at seating positions equipped with such belt
systems .
455
Status:
Legislation signed into law redirects a portion of Federal
highway construction funds in states which do not enact MULs by 1993
to highway safety programs. Bills have passed the legislature in
three of the eight states remaining without MULs, North Dakota and
West Virginia, and Vermont. The New Hampshire Senate has cleared a
measure. Maine, Massachusetts, South Dakota and Kentucky have not
enacted MULs.
Heavy Truck Safety
Summary:
As a result of a one-year Safety Board investigation, it found
that 33 percent of the fatally injured truck drivers tested positive
for alcohol and other drugs of abuse. The most frequently cited
probable causes in the fatal accidents were fatigue and alcohol and
other drug impairment. The Safety Board made 46 recommendations
calling for improvements in national data bases on commercial truck
accidents; improved and standardized post-accident toxicological
specimen collection, testing, and reporting; improvements in truck
driver alcohol and other drug screening and medical testing
procedures; automated devices to document hours of service
violations; toxicological testing of all drivers in fatal truck
accidents; and a variety of state laws including a functional zero
blood alcohol content for commercial drivers.
Addressee: The Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway
Administration, American Trucking Association, and
the 50 States.
Date of Issue and Recommendation(s) Text:
April 4, 1990
H-90-17
Require pre-employment alcohol and other drug tests on all
drivers of commercial trucks with a gross vehicle weight
rating of 10,000 pounds and above as a condition of
employment.
H-90-18
Amend 49 CFR 391.21 "Application for Employment" and
391.23 "Investigations and Inquiries" to include a
complete review of alcohol and other drug abuse treatment
history prior to employment as a commercial truck driver.
H-90-19
Require commercial truck driver applicants with a prior
history of drug and/or alcohol abuse to complete a
certified treatment program and obtain a physician's
evaluation of substance abuse and dependency.
H-90-20
Require close supervision, including frequent, unannounced
drug testing, for an appropriate period, of commercial
truck drivers with an identified alcohol and other drug
456
abuse problem. Such testing should be sufficiently
frequent to create the likelihood of detection if the
person uses drugs of abuse.
H-90-21
Disseminate safety information to national, state, and
local police agencies, public service and safety agencies,
professional truck driver groups, and individual truck
drivers, regarding: The effects of fatigue, alcohol and
other drug use; the interaction of alcohol, drugs and
fatigue; the prevalence of drug and alcohol abuse among
professional commercial vehicle operators; and, methods of
minimizing conditions that lead to commercial vehicle
operators driving while fatigued.
H-90-22
Establish a demonstration project(s) to deter the use of
alcohol and other drugs by drivers of medium and heavy
trucks that includes alcohol and other drug testing at
special roadside sobriety checkpoints, truck inspection
lanes, and truck weigh stations.
H-90-23
Establish and fund a program to train instructors to
provide drug recognition expert training to Federal agency
inspectors/investigators, police, and other public
service personnel with commercial truck and truck driver
oversight responsibilities.
H-90-24
Amend 49 CFR 391.43 to require more extensive and frequent
state of the art cardiac screening tests and examinations
of older commercial truck drivers (age 40 and above) and
for all commercial drivers with cardiac conditions.
Commercial drivers with a cardiac history or condition
should be disqualified until cleared by a competent
medical authority.
H-90-25
Develop a clear set of medical standards for cardiac risk
assessment and require physicians to use them in
qualifying older commercial truck drivers and for com-
mercial drivers with cardiac conditions. Medical
certification should include medical state of the art
cardiac risk factors.
H-90-26
Provide for criminal penalties for physicians who
deliberately qualify commercial truck drivers with serious
medical conditions in spite of contradictory medical
evidence and for physicians, commercial drivers, and
others who falsify the medical examiner's certificate.
H-90-27
Improve the medical examination form in 49 CFR 391.43 to
ensure that the examining physician is aware of truck
operation risk factors and of the physical and other
stress producing requirements of commercial truck
457
operation. Provide for a means for physicians to
acknowledge that they understand the rigors of commercial
truck operation and that the driver being examined is
qualified for such commercial truck operations. The
physician should also certify that he understands the
penalties for deliberate and/or false statements on the
medical certificate and for medical certificate
falsification.
H-90-28
Require automated/tamper-proof on-board recording devices
such as tachographs or computerized logs to identify
commercial truck drivers who exceed hours of service
regulations.
H-90-29
As part of the FHWA on-going study of fatigue and loss of
alertness among commercial vehicle operators, investigate
the interactions of fatigue and drug usage.
H-90-30
Revise 49 CFR Parts 391 and 395 to establish driver hours
of service violations, logbook irregularities, or the
presence of multiple logbooks as a reasonable cause
requiring a drug test of the driver. Amend the
regulations and provide notice to drivers of these revised
regulations.
H-90-31
Revise 49 CFR Parts 391 and 392 to establish violation of
the commercial vehicle operation alcohol offense (49 CFR
392.4, 392.5) as a reasonable cause requiring a drug test
of the driver. Amend the regulations and provide notice
to drivers of these revised regulations.
H-90-32
Amend 49 CFR Parts 392 and 395 to prohibit employers,
shippers, receivers, brokers, or drivers from accepting
and scheduling a shipment which would require that the
driver exceed the hours of service regulations in order to
meet the delivery deadline (similar to current regulations
regarding schedules which would require the driver to
exceed the speed limit (49 CFR 392.6).) In conjunction
with the Interstate Commerce Commission, provide for
operating certificate and financial penalties appropriate
to the offense.
To the states:
H-90-42
Enact legislation or issue regulations to require the
collection of blood samples and other drug toxicological
testing from all vehicle operators involved in fatal
commercial truck accidents.
H-90-43
Report alcohol and other drug toxicological tests
requested and results obtained in fatal accidents to the
458
fatal accident reporting system operated by the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
H-90-44
Require intrastate motor carriers in your State to:
Perform pre-employment alcohol and other drug tests for
all applicants seeking to work as drivers of commercial
trucks weighing over 10,000 pounds.
H-90-45
Require intrastate motor carriers in your State to:
Review the alcohol/drug abuse treatment history of all
applicants seeking work as commercial truck drivers.
H-90-46
Require Intrastate motor carriers in your State to:
Obtain proof that applicants seeking work as commercial
truck drivers, who have had a history of alcohol/drug
abuse, have successfully completed a certified treatment
program and obtained a physician's evaluation of substance
abuse and dependency.
H-90-47
Require intrastate motor carriers in your State to:
Require close supervision, including frequent unannounced
drug testing, for an appropriate period, of commercial
truck drivers with an identified alcohol or other drug
abuse problem. Such testing should be sufficiently
frequent to create the likelihood of detection if the
person uses drugs of abuse.
H-90-48
Require intrastate motor carriers in your State to:
Require automated/tamper-proof on-board recording devices
such as tachographs or computerized logs to identify
commercial truck drivers who exceed hours of service
regulations.
H-90-49
Disseminate safety information to commercial truck drivers
in your State regarding the effects of fatigue, alcohol
and other drug use, and the interaction of drugs and
fatigue.
H-90-50
Provide drug recognition training to personnel in State
and local police agencies and in other public safety/law
enforcement agencies who have commercial truck and truck
driver enforcement and oversight responsibilities.
H-90-51
Develop a coordinated Statewide program to conduct
selective alcohol and other drug enforcement operations at
times and locations of high levels of truck accidents--
specifically at times of high incidence of commercial
truck accidents involving alcohol and/or other drugs.
459
H-90-52
Adopt revised Federal regulations or establish State
regulations requiring medical certification of commercial
truck drivers and for more extensive and frequent, state
of the art cardiac screening tests and examinations of
older commercial truck drivers (age 40 and older) and for
commercial drivers with cardiac conditions.
H-90-53
Enact legislation or adopt regulations, as appropriate, to
define the alcohol concentration level that constitutes
driving a commercial motor vehicle "under the influence"
at the lowest possible level consistent with the
capability of testing equipment to measure any ingested
alcohol .
H-90-54
Enact legislation to establish 0.01 percent (the practical
scientific level which allows for instrument sensitivity
and individual differences) as the per se offense blood
alcohol concentration for operators of commercial vehicles
in your State.
Status:
Portions of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking related to
alcohol and other drug use and detection issued by the Department of
Transportation on December 15, 1992, will cover what the Board has
asked for in some of the recommendations. There is still a
difference of opinion regarding the required use of tachographs.
The Federal Highway Administration believes that there is no need
for a regulation as a large percentage of the operators are
installing the devices on their trucks. The Board believes that an
enforceable rule is needed to achieve the highest use possible. The
issues covered by the medical certification process are being worked
on by the Federal Highway Administration.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Please update the information on the
status of your recommendations by modal administration within DOT
and by travel mode. This information is found on pp. 110-102 of
Sen. Hrg. 102-725, pt. 2.
ANSWER: The information is below.
460
Average Days to Closed--Acceptable and to First Response for
Reconunendations Issued Since 1 January 1963
Mode
Recommendations
Closed as
Acceptable
Average Days
to Closeout
Average Days
to First
Response
Aviation
1999
753
70
Highway
756
1457
352
Intermodal
76
1434
272
Marine
821
1370
320
Pipeline
640
1322
589
Railroad
892
1035
197
Rate of Acceptance of Closed Safety Recommendations
(CAA + CAAA + CEX /Total Closed)
Mode
Rate of Acceptance for
Closed Recommendations
Aviation
77.7%
Highway
76.2%
Intermodal
75.0%
Marine
64.3%
Pipeline
79.0%
Railroad
69.6%
Overall
:
73.7%
461
a
o
•H
V
a
u
GQ
o
u
c
CO
§
S
CO
O
s
*!
5
§
g
p
I
s
cvi
oo
00
oo
S
CM
CO
^
to
8
5
u
< e:
o 5
i
CM
1
i
CO
CO
s
8
r^
R
s
£ a
_
1
CM
?
s
3
lO
o
o
3
is
rt
n
o-
£o
c:
rj
^
—
CM
O-
lO
o
«
o
o
<
O
^
o
r>
O
—
—
o
CM
o
s
fV
O
^
o
!§
O-
—
o
o
o
5
o
^
c^
^
^—
o
o
'~~
?^
•^
CO
•~
CM
o
o
o
3
^
^
oo
«
P.
g;
:§
lO
s
o
s
^
CM
lO
o
■Q
?
;$?
3
^
s
?
r».
CM
r)
CM
■o
g
■*: o
£u
^
p-~
fv
00
CO
n
lO
CO
«o
m
t-.
CM
CM
CM
CM
2
u
m
5
r^
r-.
£
ir>
o
2
o
&
c5
CM
^
2;
,_
?J
CO
•—
Ci
o
<>
O
CM
TI
CK
CM
u
O
o
O
O
a>
o
o
o
o
r^
^
CM
3
o
<
^
3
a
•o
^
1
o
00
CO
o
n
r^
u
I
«
9
S
S
lO
•o
2
"
t
u
8:
^-
■o
■o
o
o-
CM
f^
w~-
r—
,^
CM
o>
00
«o
CO
s
"
^
o
o
o
O
o
_
.—
o
.*
o
CO
s
o
fe
s
e
<
<
<
o
1
!3
<
o
5
y
s
1
z
i
a
^
^
3
i
^
s
(D
O
o
1/1
0)
E
(D
O
2
o
Q. TJ
(D $
a. >
» s
O g:
a a
(D <D
o
(J -
< <
as
O O
til
ll%
S> Q> 3)
a a a
O O O
o o o o o
c
o
:p
o
<
(D
■D
C
E
E
o
u
cr
0)
at
o
.3
I
V
(D _
M V3 V)
(D
tJ
a
CO
C C^
O O
® ® -r,
o o "
a _
a> o
o o
O (J
o o
c c
o
a
a
<
ID
C
o
=3 =) a
I
§1
7^
|U
U O
D Q) (D
V) V) VI
O O O
u u u
u o
..CO <
Z5 ID e: to Z
UUUOUUUU
S^
462
•
o
c
O O
&^
O Of
u
u
<
o o
2i
% I
Of
<
O
tt
oe
O
oc
=>
O
n
?
5?
•»
o
o
►-
u
5
??
z
o
13
5
«
o
Q
O
2 5
3
s S
CO .—
3
m
CM •
o
CO
CM
g ^ ^ ^
to —
00 — ■
00 oo
s
— r^
S a 2 S ::
oo CM CM CO
€0
8 — -O
CM CM
•— <0 OO
O CM -Q t/J
n ^ -O ?5
— O lO lO
JO .— —
Jo "" r^ M
o — o o
CM CM r^ a
= - R 9
s
00
o
■o
s
§
o -^
CM >—
CO
o»
CM
^
CM
oo
So-
0> lO
«0 -O IQ O CM
r^ t>. in lo lO
■^ ■^ •— CM
o lo r^ o
^- ^- 00 >—
— CM — O
'J CM CM
CM
CO
f~« ^3 o
'J CD CO
CM — r-
o-
5?
o
CM
CO
CM
00
CM
o
o « • ^
I 5 2L =
£5 5: &
00
oo
s
CM
s
CM
s
o
CM
oo
oo
CM
CM
o
CO
o
CM
3
<
a
0)
q:
B
ll
5 5
P o
R
a
o
o
<
ID
o
f^
x>
a>
Q)
en
>
^
(D
()
p
a
a
(D
(p
0
f*
cc
8
c
1
c
h
0)
a
ss
o o o o o
o o o o o
c
o
<
(D
"D
c
a>
E
E
o
o
(D
q:
*>?
E^
§ (D
O) O
(D
c
«2
^,
S
o
3
<
W
o c
'c
©
S E o
o
5
o
o
*: © <
<
leAc
able
O
"D
©
a
a
-D <
IJ XJ -s
©
■sede
inger
a a o
a
©
o
T3
©(Do
H H o
o
0
O
^ "
o o C
c
©
D O
< < z>
I
cr
1
n
<D (D 9
©
© ©
V) i/> w) to VI
050
o u o
o o
u u
w> in
o o
3
cC)<<r)3o:c/>Z
OOOUUUUOO
463
AVIATION ISSUES
FAA Inspections
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: In 1991, FAA announced a new program to
assess foreign countries' compliance with international safety
standards. To date, FAA has found that 11 of 20 countries assessed
did not meet those standards. In addition, the Safety Board's
statistics show that commuter airline accidents increased about 50
percent between 1990 and 1991. Finally, we note that the GAG
testified last year that FAA's routine inspections of commuter
airlines were not effective in discovering safety violations that
led to emergency revocation orders.
Has NTSB analyzed foreign carrier accident causes based on its
investigations? If so, what were the results? If not, does NTSB
plan to do so?
ANSWER: The Safety Board continues to be deeply involved in
overseas accident circumstances by sending investigators to the
scenes of selected accidents and by monitoring the progress of other
countries' investigations closely. Our staff maintains a close
liaison with the investigation authorities of many countries, even
for cases not involving U.S. airlines or U.S. -manufactured aircraft.
For example, if a foreign-registered aircraft manufactured in
France, Britain, or Holland, etc. crashes in another country, our
staff monitor the accident findings to develop corrective actions
for U.S. operators.
The causes of overseas accidents do not vary substantially from
the causes of U.S. accidents. That is, the majority of the causes
involve some combination of human error, mechanical failures, design
deficiencies, maintenance problems, adverse weather, etc. The
lessons learned from virtually any airline accident can be applied
to improve the safety of U.S. operators. The Safety Board staff
also maintain close communications with the Air Transport
Association member airlines' safety officials, airframe and engine
manufacturers, the Federal Aviation Administration pilot and flight
attendant unions, etc. to ensure dissemination of safety information
that emerges from overseas investigations.
The Safety Board normally sends a U.S. Accredited
Representative, and occasionally an investigative team, per the
provisions of Annex 13 to the ICAO treaty, to assist in the
investigation of major foreign aviation accidents involving U.S.
manufactured airplanes. Additionally, the Safety Board normally
receives copies of the final reports of foreign accident and
incident investigations concerning both U.S. and foreign-
manufactured airplanes from our colleagues overseas. The Safety
Board reviews these accident reports to determine if there are
airworthiness problems that would affect airplanes operating in the
United States and operational procedures of other countries that
could affect the safety of U.S. airlines operating into those
countries. Additionally, the Safety Board reviews foreign accident
reports for areas to improve the safety of the traveling public.
The Safety Board has issued numerous recommendations to the FAA
concerning airworthiness and operational problems that were
discovered as a result of the investigation of foreign accidents.
464
Additionally, as a result of foreign accidents, the Safety Board has
worked with the airlines and manufacturers on serious incidents to
correct practices that did not cause or result in an accident, but
were believed not to be in the best interests of aviation safety.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: NTSB's report on the 1989 Suriname
Airlines accident recommended that FAA perform more in-depth
inspections of foreign air carriers. What did NTSB envision as more
in-depth inspections?
ANSWER: As a result of the Safety Board's participation in the
investigation of the accident involving the Suriname Airways DC-8
that was registered in the U.S., the Safety Board recommended that
the FAA conduct periodic ramp and en route inspections of U.S.
registered airplanes operated by airlines operating under 14 CFR
Part 129. The purpose of this recommendation was to increase the
two types of FAA inspections most likely to result in an increase in
compliance with applicable regulations. These are ramp inspections,
in which an inspector boards and inspects the status of a parked
aircraft but does not observe that aircraft in flight, and en route
inspections, in which an inspector observes a flight of that
aircraft. Since the recommendation was issued the FAA has increased
its activities in the oversight of foreign air carriers operating
under 14 CFR Part 129. Recent FAA action has resulted in several
foreign air carriers being denied access to U.S. airports. The
majority of these are based in Central and South America.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Has NTSB analyzed commuter airline
accident causes to determine trends that need to be addressed? If
so, please discuss the results of such analysis.
ANSWER: In 1992, the total accident rate and the fatal
accident rate for scheduled commuter or regional airline aircraft,
when cited in terms of accidents per 100,000 departures, was nearly
equal to the annual accident rate when averaged over the last 10
years. However, one must note that these statistics refer to
operations conducted under 14 CFR Part 135, smaller aircraft, many
with 19 seats or less. When examined with the larger airplanes that
regional airlines have operated under 14 CFR Part 121, the accident
record has improved over the last 10 years, a trend that we at the
Safety Board have been quite pleased with. We believe that the
decrease is due to several factors.
Because the major airlines have encountered financial
circumstances, they have hired few new pilots over the past several
years, causing a reduced turnover among regional airline pilots, a
major source of new pilots for the airlines. Consequently, the
experience level among regional airline pilots has increased.
In addition, the regional airlines have upgraded their fleets
with bigger, more sophisticated aircraft. Unlike earlier designed
aircraft, flight simulators have been developed as training devices
for many of these aircraft. Generally, economic factors had
prevented the development of flight simulators for the smaller
aircraft that had been used as regional aircraft. Flight simulators
enable better training in emergency scenarios than aircraft because
more realistic situations can be presented to pilots than can be
presented in aircraft.
465
We expect that the accident rate could continue to improve with
the requirement for installation of ground proximity warning systems
(GPWS) that the Federal Aviation Administration has mandated for
regional airline aircraft beginning in 1994. Had GPWS been
installed previously, it is possible that at least two of the
regional airline accidents that occurred in 1992 could have been
avoided.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: How many commuter airline accidents can be
attributed to inadequate FAA inspection surveillance?
ANSWER: Safety Board records indicate that since 1983, there
have been 11 accidents involving scheduled commuter airlines in
which inadequate FAA surveillance of the carrier's operation was
cited as causal or contributory to the accident. Only four of these
accidents occurred after 1985.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: To what extent do pilots exceeding flight
and duty time limits contribute to commuter accidents?
ANSWER: Although the Safety Board has found in several
commuter accidents that the pilots might have been deprived of sleep
as a result of their schedule, the effect of fatigue could not be
proven as a factor in the accidents. In these cases, the pilots
were within the existing flight and duty time requirements.
Although the Board has not evaluated the adequacy of the present
rule, it is aware of the Air Line Pilots Association's concern and
would like to support a further review of this issue.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What should NTSB and FAA do to reduce
commuter accident trends?
ANSWER: In the past few years the Safety Board has issued
several safety recommendations to the FAA as a result of accidents
involving airplanes operated under 14 CFR Part 135. The FAA has
accepted most of these recommendations and has taken positive
actions to increase its surveillance and oversight of commuter
airlines.
The FAA's actions to encourage the use of state-of-the-art
simulators and other modern training aids and techniques by commuter
airlines is a positive step to preventing accidents. The Safety
Board is aware that the commuter air carrier segment of the aviation
industry is growing quickly, and that the complexity of operations
and the types of airplanes used by the commuter fleets is
increasing. Compounding this problem is the fact that the commuter
airlines are often staffed with managers, pilots, and mechanics with
much less experience than the major airlines. The Safety Board
believes that the FAA must sustain its increased surveillance of
expanding commuter air carriers to prevent unsafe trends from
developing. Moreover, the commuter airlines' management personnel
must face the challenges associated with their type of operation
which contain elements that are unique and often differ from the
major airlines' operations.
Lastly, the installation of ground proximity warning systems
(GPWS) in commuter model aircraft will go a long way to preventing
many of the controlled flight into terrain (CFIT) accidents. The
FAA is making progress on addressing this issue that stemmed from
466
previous Safety Board recommendations. GPWS installations in large
aircraft in the 1970s made tremendous strides in preventing many
CFIT accidents.
Aircraft Certification
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Several recent aircraft accidents have
raised serious questions about the FAA's certification and
regulatory activities. FAA uses designated representatives employed
by manufacturers to conduct may of these activities. In 1980 the
National Academy of Sciences raised concerns about FAA's ability to
oversee designee activities.
In January 1992, an Airbus A-320 crashed in France. This was
the third fatal A-320 crash since this model was introduced into
service in 1988. Have these accidents been design related? If so,
what steps should be taken to ensure the safety of those A-320
aircraft now in service in the United States?
ANSWER: The first two accidents involving the Airbus A-320
were the result of the pilots not properly monitoring the total
energy of the airplane and they allowed the airplanes' airspeed to
go below the reference approach speed while at a low altitude with
the engines at an idle power setting. The Safety Board participated
in both investigations. Those investigations found that when the
pilots realized that they needed to add power in order to gain
airspeed and climb, there was insufficient time for the engines to
accelerate to full power prior to the airplane striking the ground.
As a result of those accidents. Airbus has since reprogrammed the A-
320' s flight performance system to monitor the engine power setting,
altitude, and airspeed to not let the total energy of the airplane
decrease to the extent that a successful "go-around" maneuver or
landing is not possible. The investigations determined that neither
accident was directly the result of the design features of this
advanced technology airplane. Rather, they were more related to
human factors and pilot training issues. It is important to add
that the A-320 is incapable of stalling, a factor that may have
prevented additional fatalities. A conventionally designed airplane
would have stalled in both accidents and most likely cartwheeled at
impact, causing many more fatalities.
The most recent accident at Strasbourg is under investigation
by the French authorities and a report is expected to be published
by the end of May. The investigation determined that during the
approach to landing the flightcrew commanded a high rate of descent
when they departed the initial approach point. They may have
mistakenly selected a rate of descent rather than the intended angle
of descent. The French DGAC ordered Airbus to immediately inform
operators of the risk of confusion between the "vertical speed" and
"flight path modes." This action was accomplished within 30 days of
the accident. Provisions to redesign and recertify the system are
still under study and will be addressed in the final report. In
addition. Airbus airplanes operated outside France are protected by
an additional "Ground Proximity Warning System," recently mandated
in France.
During the course of these investigations, the Safety Board
staff continually kept the U.S. operators of the A-320 fully ap-
467
prised of the facts and findings, so that they could ensure that
their procedures and training are adequate.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: The new generation of commercial aircraft
-- the Airbus A320, Boeing 747-400, and Douglas MO-11 -- employ
extremely sophisticated control systems. In the Safety Board's
opinion, does FAA have the technical competence to certify these
systems? If not, what do you believe can be done to improve FAA's
technical competency in the certification field?
ANSWER: We believe that the safety record of the newer modern
airplane indicates that the design engineers and the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) certification staff are doing a good
job. In 1980, following the DC 10 accident that occurred in Chicago
in May 1979, the National Research Council convened a committee of
government and Industry experts to assess the adequacy of the FAA
certification process. The committee concluded that the technical
competence and state of the art currency originated within the
aviation industry and that the FAA generally relied on industry to
catch up. This seems to work, however, because the FAA
certification staff became involved with the manufacturer during the
early stages of a new airplane design and the systematic education
and briefing by company engineers provide the FAA staff with the
background needed to assure that the airplane meets the regulatory
standards. The Safety Board staff believes that the FAA
certification staff are technically competent and dedicated to their
mission.
At the same time, the Safety Board recognizes that most of the
FAA regulations concerning aircraft certification were written
during an era when airplane designs were more basic and do not
address some of the technological advances that come along with each
new generation of airplanes. Thus the FAA has to issue special
conditions to address these new features leaving open the
possibility that something will be overlooked. Fortunately, if an
airplane Is introduced into line operations with undetected
problems, they usually are Identified through the airplane's service
history and corrected before they cause accidents.
One area of concern to the Safety Board Is the emphasis placed
on human factors during the certification process. While the FAA
several years ago increased its attention to human factors by staff
increases and the development of a national human factors plan, the
Board is not aware of any tangible application of the plan to the
certification process, specification, or the Interaction of human
performance with new technology.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: As you know, FAA depends heavily on
designated engineering representatives employed by manufacturers to
certify new aircraft designs. In your opinion, is there a point
where FAA can delegate too many certification duties, resulting in a
lack of understanding on FAA's part of critical systems? Does the
Board believe that FAA currently delegates too many critical tests
and analyses to these designees?
ANSWER: The Safety Board has not found that Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) delegation of certification duties to
designated engineering representatives (DERs) has resulted in
inadequate FAA knowledge of critical systems. The FAA's DER program
468
allows the FAA to make effective use of manufacturer engineering
talent at little or no cost to the taxpayer. The Safety Board often
works with the DERs during our major air carrier accident
investigations, and we have found them to be honest and
conscientious. Our experience is that DERs take their
responsibilities seriously and they provide an invaluable resource
to the FAA.
For example, we were very favorably impressed with the
powerpl ant/thrust reverser system DER at Boeing during our
investigation of the Lauda Airlines Boeing 767 accident in Thailand
in 1991. He provided invaluable assistance in our investigation of
the accident, with his in-depth knowledge of the system design and
knowledge of system service problems. His participation facilitated
our identification of the most likely accident problem and played a
significant role in the problem resolution.
The delegation of critical testing and analysis to DERs
provides the airplane manufacturer the flexibility to meet rigorous
development schedules. Further, the use of DERs provides the FAA
with individuals trained to a greater depth than would be possible
through conventional FAA training. While it would be desirable to
have highly knowledgeable and skilled FAA engineering staff involved
at all levels of the certification process, the DER program, if
appropriately monitored, extends the FAA's engineering certification
capability.
Effective monitoring of the DER program by FAA Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO) staff is essential to the success of this
program. With several new technology aircraft currently involved in
the certification process, this would seem like the appropriate time
to evaluate the adequacy of the FAA's staffing in their ACOs to
assure adequate oversight the DER program in the future.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: In October 1992, a Boeing 747-200 cargo
aircraft crashed in Amsterdam resulting in at least 55 fatalities.
In I99I, a similar crash occurred with a Boeing 747-200 cargo
aircraft in China. Press reports indicate that (1) during takeoff
under full power, the right inboard engine fell off and struck the
right outboard engine, and (2) FAA did not test the 747-200 design
for this possibility as part of its certification activities. If
these reports are accurate, was FAA remiss in overlooking this when
certifying the aircraft?
ANSWER: To our knowledge, the pylon to the wing attachments
for the Boeing 747 were designed as a fail-safe structure. Four
fuse pins support the pylon. In the event of a failure of a fuse
pin, the remaining pins are supposed to support the structure until
the failed pin is detected. The purpose of the fuse pins is to
permit the pylons to separate from the wing during loads imposed in
a crash landing so that the wing structure and integral fuel tanks
remain intact. There apparently was no consideration given to an
inflight separation of an engine or trajectory that the engine would
follow as a result of thrust loads and gyroscopic loads at the time
of separation. Had the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
considered the failure of the pylon attachments as a possibility
during flight, the propensity for the right inboard engine to swing
outboard might have been identified. However, it is not likely that
469
the FAA would have regarded the separation of the pylon-to-wing
structure as an acceptable failure mode as a certification basis.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: In May 1991, due to an in-flight thrust
reverser deployment, a Lauda Air Boeing 767-300 crashed in Thailand
resulting in 223 fatalities. Neither Boeing nor FAA ever analyzed
the system during the certification process for such a deployment at
full power. In NTSB's opinion, should FAA have identified this
possibility during the certification process?
ANSWER: The thrust reverse system of the Boeing 767, like most
other large transport airplanes, is intended for ground use only.
The certification process included testing for inadvertent
deployment in the air. Flight tests were conducted in what was
thought to be the most critical phase of flight, i.e., the approach
and landing. Supporting data for other phases of flight were
derived by interpolating related flight test data. In retrospect,
it is now known that there was a time required for an engine to slow
to idle thrust while in reverse. During this time, a loss of lift
on the affected wing, and resultant severe roll and yaw will be
present. Flight control effectiveness is not sufficient to counter
the roll and yaw which results in the loss of airplane attitude
control. The FAA's certification process and the manufacturer's
airplane performance predications were proven to be deficient by the
accident involving the Lauda Air Boeing 767. However, it is not the
Safety Board's position that the certification process is flawed or
that the certification process should have identified this
possibility. Regrettably, the certification process and associated
flight testing did not consider and verify the effects of all the
failure modes at all flight conditions.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: In February 1989, A Boeing 747-100 cargo
door blew open over Honolulu resulting in nine fatalities. The
Safety Board's accident report recommended that FAA's certification
staff receive training on the interaction of aircraft designs and
human performance. Has FAA adequately responded to this
recommendation? How many of FAA's certification staff have received
such training?
ANSWER: We believe the FAA has adequately responded to this
recommendation. They developed a prototype course for the
certification staff and scheduled four sessions of 30 students per
session, in fiscal year 1990. However, the exact number who
actually attended the course was not immediately available.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: In March 1987, a Spanish CASA C-212
aircraft crashed in Detroit resulting in nine fatalities. The
Safety Board's accident report criticized FAA's oversight of its
bilateral airworthiness program with foreign certification
authorities. FAA responded that it was conducting a full review of
its bilateral program and would forward the final report to the
Board. Did FAA ever issue the report? What did it find? Are you
satisfied with FAA's actions in this area?
ANSWER: In March 1988 the FAA published its report "Review of
the Construcciones Aeronauticas S.A. CASA-212 Certification Program
and the U.S. Import Type Certification Process." In September 1989,
the FAA provided a copy to the Safety Board in response to the
Board's safety recommendation A-88-100. The report recognized that
470
"the import type certification of the CASA-212 could have been done
better" and "the follow-on certification issues could have been
performed more efficiently and effectively," The reasons listed for
the poor performance were: (1) a lack of continuity of staffing and
resultant loss of "corporate memory," (2) a lack of sufficient
management control mechanisms, and (3) ineffective communication.
Seventeen safety recommendations were issued for policy and
procedural changes intended to improve the import type certification
process. The FAA provided the Safety Board with a copy of its
action plan for implementing those recommendations. On that basis,
the Board classified safety recommendation A-88-100 as "Closed-
Acceptable Action."
Mountain Airport Safety
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: FAA's Airman's Information Manual states
that flying in mountainous terrain presents a much higher risk than
other general aviation operations. Nevertheless, FAA has no
regulations aimed at reducing the risks of mountain flying for
general aviation pilots.
On the basis of the Safety Board's investigations of general
aviation accidents, do you agree that mountain flying presents a
higher risk than other types of general aviation operations? If so,
what steps can be taken to minimize this risk? Have you made any
recommendations to FAA in this area?
ANSWER: To our knowledge, the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) does not provide flying time estimates for mountain flying
activity so there is no statistical evidence to support the
statement that mountain flying poses a higher risk. However, we
continue to investigate accidents with causes that are unique to
mountain flying which leads us to believe that it does, in fact,
pose a special hazard. While we have not conducted any studies in
this area, our staff has been sensitive to the situation for several
years and it appears the mitigation of the hazard lies in educating
pilots through FAA and civilian safety publications and forums.
The Safety Board is aware that the Government Accounting Office
currently has a study underway concerning flying in mountainous
terrain.
The Federal Aviation Administration should continue providing
pilots with additional information and educational materials
covering flying in mountainous areas through their accident
prevention program meetings and publications.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Over the last few years, the general
aviation accident rate has been declining. Has the accident rate
for general aviation operations in mountainous areas been declining
as well? If not, what can FAA do, in your opinion, to help prevent
such accidents?
ANSWER: The computerized aviation accident data does not allow
a single question inquiry when trying to address mountain flying. A
variety of inquiries into the accident data, such as high density
altitudes at airports, in-flight collision with terrain and airports
with a high elevation, must be examined to arrive at a general
indication of the accident data trend. This inquiry indicated a
471
general downward trend similar to the overall general aviation
accident trend.
Mountain wave, updrafts and downdrafts, isolated canyon fog,
blind canyons and effects of density altitude are just a few of the
hazards associated with mountain flying. There should be continued
education of the pilots on the hazards associated with mountain
flying. There are a group of flying schools located in the southern
Appalachian Mountain area that offer this type of training. An
evaluation of the school curriculum and application of the more
recognized techniques could be publicized in an Advisory Circular
and/or through safety meetings.
Aircraft Leasing
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Airlines are increasingly financing their
fleets through leasing arrangements rather than directly purchasing
aircraft. Industry sources estimate that nearly 75 percent of the
world's fleet will be leased by the year 2000.
Does the increasing number of aircraft transfers as a result of
leasing have safety implications in terms of deferred maintenance
and accurate record keeping?
ANSWER: The Safety Board has not noted any reduction in the
safety of airline operations or an increase in maintenance-related
problems as a result of the increasing number of leased airplanes.
The FAA airworthiness standards are applicable to all U.S.
registered airplanes no matter whether or not the airplane is leased
by the operator. Therefore, the Safety Board would not anticipate
an increase in maintenance related problems. It has been noted that
often the lessor will require more stringent maintenance schedules
and recordkeeping than the FAA in order to protect the value of its
investment. The Safety Board has investigated several accidents
where the lessor had installed quick access maintenance recorders to
keep accurate accounting of flight hours, the number of takeoff and
landings, and various engine and airplane performance parameters.
These recorders, which are not required by the FAA, are a valuable
asset for monitoring the condition of the airplane and as a backup
to the flight data recorder in the event of an accident.
Additionally, ICAO has taken steps to ensure adequate
international standards in connection with leasing arrangements. In
general, the State of the Operator/Registry is responsible for
maintenance of the continuing airworthiness of a leased aircraft
under ICAO guidance, in addition to the provisions levied on the
operators by the lessors.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: In July 1992, a TWA L-1011 aircraft
crashed during takeoff at JFK airport in New York. The L-1011 was a
20-year-old leased aircraft. Did the Safety Board's investigation
identify leasing as a potential factor in this accident? Have there
been any accidents in the last 5 years or so in which the Board has
identified leasing as a potential factor?
ANSWER: The investigation of this accident did not identify
leasing of the airplane as a factor in the accident. The Safety
Board determined that the probable causes of the accident were
design deficiencies in the stall warning system that permitted a
472
defect to go undetected, the failure of TWA's maintenance program to
correct a repetitive malfunction of the stall warning system, and
inadequate crew coordination between the captain and the first
officer that resulted in their inappropriate response to a false
stall warning.
The Safety Board has investigated numerous incidents and
accidents involving leased airplanes and on occasion has found
maintenance-related problems. However, the Safety Board has not
identified the fact that an airplane was leased as being a
contributing factor in an accident or incident or that the
maintenance of an airplane had been reduced because the airplane was
leased.
HIGHWAY SAFETY ISSUES
Improvements in Commercial Vehicle Safety
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: In 1990, the Safety Board completed a
study of 182 commercial vehicle accidents that were fatal to the
truck driver. In determining the probable cause, fatigue was cited
in 31 percent of the drivers, followed by alcohol and other drug
impairment in 29 percent of the drivers. In addition, the driver's
medical condition caused or contributed to 10 percent of the
accidents. The Board also cited a high frequency of occupant
protection issues and deficiencies in management oversight of
vehicles and drivers. As a result of the study, the Board issued 46
safety recommendations for improvements in commercial vehicle safety
at all levels of government and industry.
What is the status of action on the recommendations resulting
from the study?
ANSWER: Of the 40 safety recommendations issued as a result of
the Safety Board's 1990 truck study, six recommendations are
classified as "Open—Unacceptable Action." The remaining 34
recommendations are classified as "Open—Acceptable Action" or
"Open—Acceptable Alternate Action." The six recommendations
classified as "Open--Unacceptable Action" were issued to the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) and asked FHWA to:
establish a demonstration project to deter use
of alcohol and other drugs by drivers of medium
and heavy trucks;
establish and fund a program to train
instructors to provide drug recognition expert
training to federal agency
inspectors/investigators, police and other with
oversight responsibility;
require automated/tamper-proof on-board
recording devices such as tachographs or
computerized logs to identify drivers who exceed
Hours of Service regulations;
investigate the interaction of fatigue and drug
abuse as part of the FHWA on-going study of
473
fatigue and loss of alertness among commercial
truck operators;
establish driver hours of service violations,
logbook irregularities, or the presence of
multiple logbooks as a reasonable cause
requiring a drug test of the driver; and
establish the violation of the commercial
vehicle operation alcohol offense as a
reasonable cause requiring a drug test of the
driver.
We await responses to follow-up letters we sent to the American
Trucking Association (ATA) regarding the safety recommendations
asking ATA to actively promote and encourage its members to use or
support preempl oyment tests for alcohol and other drugs, driver
violation history checks, and alcohol or other drug abuse treatment
history checks.
The Safety Board is continuing to work with the States, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and the
Territories, on the enactment of legislation or issuance of
regulations to require the collection of blood samples for alcohol
and other drug toxicological testing from all vehicle operators
involved in fatal truck accidents.
GAS AND PIPELINE ISSUES
Excess Flow Valves
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: For the last 10 years, the Safety Board
has recommended that the DOT require excess flow valves on newly
installed or renewed single family high pressure gas service lines
to prevent or minimize the consequences of gas leaks. The Pipeline
Safety Act of 1992 requires the Secretary to issue regulations
prescribing the circumstances, if any, under which operators of
natural gas distribution systems must install excess flow valves.
Do you see any problems with DOT's implementation of this
requirement and/or with the gas distribution companies' compliance
with the requirement and resulting regulations?
ANSWER: The Safety Board believes that Congress has provided
adequate flexibility for the Research and Special Programs
Administration (RSPA) to develop cost-beneficial requirements for
the placement of excess flow valves. The Safety Board anticipates
minimal change to the pipeline industry's construction process as a
result of the rules that RSPA is developing. Many companies are now
using these valves and have not expressed problems with their use.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Since this item has been on the Board's
"Most Wanted Transportation Safety Improvements" list, will you
continue to monitor DOT's and the gas industry's efforts to
implement and carry out this requirement, particularly since the
Secretary has the flexibility to determine that there are no
circumstances under which operators must install excess flow valves?
474
ANSWER: The Safety Board will continue to monitor the
Department of Transportation's and the gas industry's efforts to
Implement and carry out the excess flow valve requirements.
Currently, the Safety Board is working with the Gas Piping Standard
Committee to publish guidance applicable to the industry and the use
of excess flow valves. The Committee is currently developing
information to help operators in selecting and using excess flow
valves appropriate for their operating conditions.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What is the cost of an excess flow valve
installed on a service line?
ANSWER: When an excess flow valve is included during initial
installation or as part of a renewal of a pipeline, the Safety Board
has seen costs of $10 to $25 per installation. The Safety Board
expects with mass installations of excess flow valves that the cost
will be reduced to an average cost of about $15 per installation.
Yard Lines
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Customer-owned pipelines that carry
natural gas from the outlet side of a curb valve -- usually at the
property line -- to the inlet side of the customer's residence or
farm are called yard lines (or, in rural areas, farm taps).
Numerous yard line accidents causing fatalities and property damage
have occurred. For examine, in a 7-month period beginning September
16, 1988, the Safety Board investigated five yard line accidents in
the Kansas City-Topeka area. The accidents killed 4 persons,
injured 12, and destroyed several homes and automobiles. Among the
reasons for yard line accidents are:
questionable design and construction methods used by local
contractors (plumbers),
improper maintenance of lines against corrosion damage, and
lack of gas leak surveys by the yard line owners.
In addition, a majority of states do not have jurisdiction over
yard lines. For one state, a state pipeline official has estimated
that 40 to 50 percent of the 2,200 farm taps do not meet pipeline
safety standards.
How many yard line accidents/incidents has the Board
investigated in the last 5 years? What causes has the Board cited
for the accidents/incidents?
ANSWER: Since the Kansas Power and Light Company accidents,
the Safety Board has not investigated a yard line accident.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What trends, if any, has the Board noticed
in terms of yard line fatalities, injuries, and property damage?
ANSWER: The Safety Board has not observed any trends that
involved yard lines or customer owned portions of service lines
because there is no requirement for accidents of this type to be
reported to the Office of Pipeline Safety. Thus, data is not
available.
1
475
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What recommendations have you made
regarding yard lines?
ANSWER: As part of the Pipeline Accident Report -- Kansas
Power and Light Company Natural Gas Pipeline Accidents September 16,
1988 to March 29, 1989 the Safety Board issued the following
recommendations regarding yard lines:
-- to the Kansas Power and Light Company:
Extend, as applicable, the current programs for leak
surveys, renewal of customer-owned portions of service
lines and yard lines, and replacement of cast-iron pipe to
its gas systems in the State of Oklahoma. (P-90-08)
-- to the Research and Special Programs Administration:
Amend 49 CFR 192 to make buried lines used to transport
natural gas from the outlet of a meter to a customer's
building fuel lines subject to the Federal minimum
pipeline safety requirements. (P-90-19)
Require, by a certain time, that existing buried,
unprotected gas piping be protected against damage from
corrosion or be replaced with piping resistant to
corrosion damage. (P-90-20)
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: In your opinion, are federal and/or state
regulations needed governing the design, construction, maintenance,
inspection, and safety of yard lines.
ANSWER: In the Safety Board's opinion, yard lines and
customer-owned portions of service lines should be subject to 49 CFR
Part 192 - Minimum Standards for Natural Gas Pipelines. This was
the intent of the Safety Board recommendation P-90-19 which stated:
Amend 49 CFR 192 to make buried lines used to transport natural
gas from the outlet of a meter to a customer's building fuel lines
subject to the Federal minimum pipeline safety requirements.
Public Law 102-508 Section 115 requires the Secretary of
Transportation to conduct a review of customer-owned natural gas
service lines and to make recommendations for legislative or
regulatory action. The Safety Board believes that this
Congressional requirement will encourage the Research and Special
Programs Administration to implement recommendation P-90-19.
Instrumented Internal Pipeline Inspection Devices
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: In September 1992, GAO reported that the
safety of the nation's aging natural gas pipelines could be improved
by greater use of instrumented internal inspection devices, called
"smart pigs." According to the report. Natural Gas Pipelines:
Greater Use of Instrumented Inspection Technology Can Improve Safety
(GAO/RCED-92-237), a Safety Board official said that federal
regulations on smart pig inspection were needed and that, if
developed and used by pipeline operators, such regulations would
reduce the number of pipeline incidents.
476
In the Board's experience, how do hazardous liquid pipelines
compare with natural gas pipelines in terms of susceptibility to
ruptures and leakages and in terms of number of incidents and
resulting fatalities, injuries, and property damage?
ANSWER: RSPA data from 1991, the last full year for which data
was available, indicates the following number of incidents:
natural
gas transmission hazardous liquids
incidents/failures 71 210
fatalities 0 0
injuries 12 8
The three leading causes for each type of transmission are
(these are the only comparable categories for which data is
available) :
natural
gas transmission hazardous liauids
Outside damage 37 46
External corrosion 6 43
Internal corrosion 10 19
The data would tend to indicate that hazardous liquids have
more incidents/failures than natural gas transmission lines, but
this data should be normalized against the miles of each type of
line, or the amount of material transported. RSPA could provide
calculations for that type of analysis.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: In your opinion, would the safety of
hazardous liquid pipelines also benefit from the increased use of
instrumented internal inspection devices?
ANSWER: Certainly hazardous liquid pipelines could benefit
from increased use of instrumented internal inspection devices.
These devices can be used in pipes regardless of the types of
service, and are especially useful for hazardous liquids.
RAIL SAFETY ISSUES
Track Safety Standards
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: In 1990, the Safety Board recommended that
the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) review its track safety
standards, including procedures for installing and maintaining
continuous welded rail. A requirement for such a study was included
in the 1992 Rail Safety Enforcement and Review Act. FRA is
currently holding workshops to carry out the requirement. Safety
Board representatives have been involved in this process, observing
and participating in the workshops.
What is your view of the progress being made?
ANSWER: During the workshops, it was confirmed that the
Association of American Railroads is continuing research at its
Pueblo, Colorado test facility to develop a means to determine
477
methods to evaluate the lateral resistance of continuous welded
rail. Also, private industry rail testing firms, are working to
develop testing devices to measure the longitudinal stress in
continuous welded rail.
The Safety Board is satisfied that progress is being made to
address the in-situ stresses of continuous welded rail and the
development of minimum Federal standards.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Do the issues being addressed in the
workshops adequately address the Board's concerns stated in previous
recommendations and testimony?
ANSWER: The Safety Board's staff believes that the issues
being addressed in the workshops are a positive step toward updating
the current Federal Railroad Administration track safety standards,
and do address Board safety recommendations.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Has the Board completed its investigation
of the Camden, South Carolina, Amtrak derailment?: What has the
Safety Board concluded in this investigation? What recommendations
are being made to FRA concerning its enforcement of the track safety
standards?
ANSWER: At this time, the Camden, South Carolina investigation
is about to be completed and the final report will be presented to
the Board in the next few months. We cannot comment on any
conclusions or recommendations the Board may make until the final
report is adopted.
TRANSPORTATION SAFETY STATISTICS
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: The Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991 established a Bureau of Transportation
Statistics and authorized an advisory council on transportation
statistics.
Does the Safety Board have an interest, or has it had a role,
in the establishment of the Bureau of Transportation Statistics?
Will or can the Bureau serve your needs for safety-related data?
ANSWER: The Safety Board has been represented on the Federal
Interagency Transportation Statistics Committee since that body was
established two years ago. This committee has been kept informed of
progress in the development of the Bureau of Transportation
Statistics and has been active in its discussions of appropriate
statistical assessments of transportation system performance and
capacity.
The Safety Board has a particular interest in measures of the
rates of use and exposure to risk in all modes of transportation.
We depend on these exposure measures to develop estimates of
accident rates (e.g., commercial air transport accidents per 100,000
departures flown, etc.) Current exposure and rates of use data are
extremely limited in all of the transportation modes, and we look
forward to improvements as a result of the efforts of the Bureau of
Transportation Statistics. We are optimistic that the Bureau's
development, collection and dissemination of data on the use and
capacity of the various transportation systems will benefit the
68-623 O— 93 16
478
Board's review and analysis of accident trends and patterns and its
conduct of safety studies.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Has DOT consulted or coordinated with the
Safety Board in planning for the new Bureau and in determining the
types of statistics that will be collected, compiled, analyzed, and
published? What types of statistics would be of most use to you?
ANSWER: The Safety Board has been advised of and consulted in
the; planning of the new Bureau and its functions, principally
through membership on the Federal Interagency Transportation
Statistics Committee. The measures and statistics of greatest
interest to the Board are assessments of rates of use and capacity
of each transportation system. We depend upon such measures to
develop Indices of exposure to risk in each transportation mode.
The exposure measures, in turn, allow us to develop estimates of
accident rates (e.g., commercial air transport accidents per 100,000
departures flown, etc.) Current exposure data are very limited In
all transportation modes, and we look forward to improvements as a
result of the efforts of the Bureau.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Could any of the Safety Board's current
data collection and analysis efforts be assumed by the new Bureau?
ANSWER: The Safety Board's data collection activities are
restricted mainly to accident data collection based on accident
investigation activities and thus do not overlap with the data
collection responsibilities of the Bureau of Transportation
Statistics. Similarly, the Board's data analysis efforts
(associated with safety studies, individual accident investigations
and statistical reviews of accidents) are focused on mechanisms of
accident causation, rather than the overall functioning of
transportation systems. We view the missions of the Safety Board
and the Bureau of Transportation Statistics to be very much
complementary and not duplicative.
STAFFING PATTERN
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Your staffing pattern over the past few
years has remained relatively constant. Your personnel are assigned
to one of six distinct categories, as follows:
Number of staff Percent Budget Auth
Policy and Direction 44 12 $ 4,800,000
Aviation Safety 131 36 13,290,000
Surface Transportation Safety 94 26 9,200,000
Research and Engineering 49 14 4,565,000
Administration 29 8 2,580,000
Administrative Law Judges _13 _4 1.565.000
Total 360 100 S36.000.000
The above staffing pattern shows to some degree how NTSB
prioritizes its work. Most of its staff resources are dedicated to
aviation safety (36 percent) and the second most to surface
transportation safety (26 percent).
In view of the "aviation safety" category consuming over one-
third of your total staff resources, could you provide some back-
479
ground describing how this staffing allocation was established and
how you justify the priorities we see in the table?
ANSWER: Unlike in the surface transportation modes in which
the Safety Board's investigation activities are limited by some
definitive selective criteria, the Board must, by law, investigate
and determine the probable cause for aU U.S. civil aviation
accidents. This means that our staff must determine the facts and
circumstances for over 2000 accidents annually. Although about 95
percent of these involve general aviation accidents, approximately
25 percent of these investigations require the travel and on-scene
activities of one or more of our staff. On those accidents that
involve air carrier, commuter, or complex corporate type airplanes,
our investigation team can consist of up to 12 persons, each having
very specialized expertise in disciplines such as operations,
engineering, air traffic control, meteorology, human factors, cabin
safety, airports, and emergency response. Thus, we must maintain a
cadre of persons with such backgrounds.
Furthermore, unlike the surface modes, the aviation accident
investigations and safety oversight requirements are not limited to
the U.S. By both international agreement and necessity in so far
that U.S. -manufactured products and air carriers operate worldwide
and that foreign products operate in the U.S., our aviation staff
becomes heavily involved in foreign aviation activities. Our
current staffing allocation and budget resources reflect the needs
of our safety mandate.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Why do you see aviation as needing
oversight? Is it because of the difficulty in investigating an
aviation accident, the importance of safety to air commerce, or some
other reason?
ANSWER: The occurrence of a major accident involving a large
air carrier aircraft has the potential for catastrophic in terms of
both lives and economics. While no one questions the
excellent/overall safety record of air commerce, every major
accident major accident brings worldwide media attention and arouses
public concern. The continued growth of commercial aviation and the
continual introduction of new technology requires that the safety of
the industry receive constant attention. If we look back at some of
the accidents involving hazards such as windshear, midair collision,
controlled flight into terrain, runway incursions and mechanical
failures on specific aircraft, and review the lessons learned and
resulting corrective actions, we can see the benefits of the
oversight in these areas.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: In the various subsets of surface
transportation safety, such as rail, truck, etc., what are the
Safety Board's criteria for investigating accidents or incidents?
ANSWER: Under its accident selection criteria, the Board's
investigative response will depend primarily on the following
factors: 1) the need for independent investigative oversight of
certain specified areas to ensure public confidence in the
transportation system; 2) the need to concentrate attention and
resources on the most significant and life-threatening safety
issues; and 3) the need to maintain an adequate data base on which
trends can be identified and projected.
480
Railroad
1. Oversight/public confidence:
a. Commercial passenger services, including rail rapid
transit accidents, which result in:
a passenger fatality or serious injury to two or
more persons;
an onboard fire with evacuation of passengers;
property damage of $50,000 or more; or
collisions with on-track equipment.
b. All accidents which involve an employee fatality or
serious injury to two or more persons or result in damage
of $500,000 or more to railroad and non-railroad property.
2. Selected emphasis areas:
a. Advanced Train Control Systems.
b. Train Air Brake Testing/Defects/Inspection.
c. Rail Rapid Transit Systems.
d. Locomotive Crashworthiness.
e. Continuous Welded Rail installation/inspection/
performance.
f. Fatigue/Work/Rest Cycle of employees in safety sensitive
positions.
g. Rail/Highway Grade Crossing Active/Passive Warning
systems.
h. Commuter Cab Control Car Crashworthiness.
Highway
1. Oversight/public confidence:
a. Highway bridge safety (structurally deficient and
functionally obsolete bridges).
b. Motor carrier oversight by Federal and State agencies.
c. Transportation of school children.
d. Intercity bus safety.
2. Selected emphasis areas:
a. Adequacy of passive restraints.
b. Air brake performance of heavy trucks
c. Training and licensing of intercity bus drivers.
d. Highway/Railroad grade crossing accidents involving
commercial, school, or public transportation vehicles.
e. Limited visibility accidents.
f. Driver fatigue in commercial vehicle accidents.
g. Elderly driver safety.
Marine
1. Oversight/public confidence:
a. Loss of six or more lives.
b. Loss of a self-propelled vessel of over 100 gross tons or
damage to any vessel exceeding $500,000.
i
481
c. Serious hazardous materials threat to life, property, and
environment.
s. Coast Guard safety functions (e.g., Vessel Traffic
Services, search and rescue operations, vessel
inspections, aid to navigation positioning/lighting, etc.)
e. A public and non-public vessel collision or other accident
with one or more fatalities or $75,000 or more in property
damage.
2. Selected emphasis areas:
a. Large passenger vessels including ocean cruise ships and
excursion vessels, ferries, and harbor excursion boats.
b. Small passenger vessels carrying more than six passengers.
c. Liftboats.
d. Tankships and tank barges.
e. Fatigue and hours of service on all vessels.
f. Bridge Resource Management.
g. Ship maneuvering capabilities in restricted waters.
h. Collisions and groundings involving oceangoing vessels.
Pipeline
1. Oversight/public confidence:
a. One or more fatalities.
b. Damage exceeding $500,000.
c. Extensive release of highly volatile liquids.
2. Selected emphasis areas:
a. Accidents where consequences could have been reduced by
use of an excess flow valve.
b. Failure of aging pipe systems.
c. Accidents involving human performance issues.
d. Accidents involving recognition or response delays.
e. Major environmental damages resulting from product
release.
Hazardous Materials
1. Oversight/public confidence:
a. Fatalities or serious injuries by the release of hazardous
materials.
b. Major evacuations of the public or major disruptions to a
community's normal functioning due to the threats caused
by a release of hazardous materials.
2. Selected emphasis areas:
a. Non-collision container failures.
b. Failure of containers under accident conditions in which
the containers reasonably should have been expected to
survive.
c. Cargo transfer operations.
d. Unusual or unexpected behavior of hazardous materials.
e. Mis-identified or non-identified hazardous materials.
f. Emergency response difficulties because of the unexpected
482
behavior of hazardous materials involved in an accident or
the lack of adequate information about cargo or containers
involved in an accident.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: How many safety inspectors do you have
assigned to each of these subset areas of surface transportation.
Is this staffing sufficient, considering the number of accidents
that occur in these areas?
ANSWER: The numbers of accident investigators assigned to the
modal disciplines is as follows:
Railroad 8 investigators for major accidents
9 investigators for regional accidents
Highway 9 investigators for major accidents
14 investigators for regional accidents
Marine 11 investigators
Pipeline 3 investigators
The above staffing 1s sufficient to investigate our current
surface accident workload, but additional resources would expand our
investigative capabilities.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Please provide us with a breakdown of the
activities that the staff assigned to aviation safety engage in over
the course of a year.
ANSWER: The primary activity of our aviation staff is the
Investigation of accidents and the determination of cause. The most
Important product of this effort is the preparation and Issuance of
safety recommendations to correct the deficiencies that are
identified in the aircraft, the operation and maintenance of the
aircraft, or the National Airspace System. Most of these
recommendations are sent to the FAA, although some go to air
carriers, manufacturers, and other organizations. We also conduct
special studies and special investigations of specific safety
Issues. For example, we have conducted studies on the air traffic
control system, runway incursions, rejected takeoffs, winter
operations, pilot alcohol use, and so on. Currently we are looking
into midair collisions near uncontrolled airports, the oversight of
foreign carriers operating into the U.S., and the hazards of
mountain flying. Depending on the preliminary findings we may
prepare a report on one or more of these issues.
In addition, we maintain the official U.S. aviation accident
database and respond to public inquiries. We also review aviation-
related rulemaking and comment where appropriate. A significant
portion of our resources is also devoted to the support of
International aviation matters.
ALCOHOL TESTING OF TRANSPORTATION WORKERS
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: In December 1992, DOT issued proposed
regulations for alcohol testing of safety-sensitive workers in the
transportation industry. The types of tests required would include
pre-employment (or pre-duty), reasonable suspicion, post accident,
483
return-to-duty, follow-up after rehabilitation, and random.
Concerns have been expressed about random testing and about the
uniformity of testing requirements across all modes of
transportation-
Has the Safety Board provided, or does it intend to provide,
comments on the proposed regulations?
ANSWER: The Safety Board provided comments on Department of
Transportation proposed rules on April 14, 1993. A copy of our
correspondence is below.
[CLERK'S NOTE.-The Safety Board's comments appear in an answer to one of
Senator Lautenberg's previous questions.]
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: In the past, the Board has expressed its
support for random testing of transportation employees? Has there
been any change in NTSB's position?
ANSWER: The Board's position regarding random testing has not
changed.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: One matter on which DOT has specifically
requested comment is what level of annual random testing -- from 10
to 50 percent -- is appropriate. What is your view on this matter?
ANSWER: In the Safety Board's April 14, 1993, comments to the
Department of Transportation, we stated:
II
The Safety Board believes the testing rate should be set
at the lowest rate that will provide deterrence. Any
change in the current testing rate should be based on
credible, peer-reviewed research in the transportation
industry or in comparable workplace settings. Pending
evaluation of such research, we believe the current random
testing rate should not be changed."
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Do you have a stated position on uniform
testing across all modes of transportation? What is it? Have your
investigations shown differences among the modes of transportation
in regard to alcohol being a contributing or causal factor in
accidents?
ANSWER: The Safety Board's position on uniform testing is
contained in safety recommendations 1-89-4 through -12. We believe
that postaccident and postincident testing are qualitatively
different from more routine types of testing and should be separated
from those types. Further, postaccident/postincident testing should
not be limited to the drugs and cutoff concentrations in the
Department of Health and Human Services guidelines. The Safety
Board believes that the Department of Transportation and its
operating administrations should adopt uniform postaccident/
postincident testing for alcohol and other drugs.
Safety Board investigations have shown a large variation in
alcohol positive tests among the modes of transportation. For
example, no Part 121 pilot has tested positive for alcohol since
484
1964. From 1983 through 1988, no Part 135 scheduled pilot and 1.8
percent of Part 135 scheduled pilots tested positive for alcohol.
About 6 percent of general aviation pilots tested positive during
this period. In a Safety Board study, 29 percent of fatally injured
truck drivers tested positive for alcohol or other drugs. In 1991,
48 percent of the highway traffic fatalities were alcohol -related.
Further, up to 70 percent of boating fatalities may be alcohol -
related. While postaccident drug testing in aviation and commercial
operations is improving, we cannot make a comparison with drug
testing in highway traffic crashes.
A copy of 1-89-4 through -12 is below for your information.
LETTER FROM JAMES L. KOLSTAD, ACTING CHAIRMAN
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD
Date: December 5, 1989
In reply to: 1-89-4 through -12
Honorable Samuel K. Skinner
Secretary
U.S. Department of Transportation
400 Seventh Street, S.W.
Washington D.C. 20590
Investigations of transportation accidents conducted by the National
Transportation Safety Board provide concern about the prevalence of drug and
alcohol use and its effect on the safety of the traveling public. Substance
abuse has been particularly evident in rail and highway accidents and, to a
lesser extent, has also been evident in aviation and marine accidents. The
Safety Board believes that the problems of drug and alcohol use In
transportation should receive the highest level of attention by the U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), specifically In regard to DOT's drug and
alcohol testing regulations. The Safety Board commends the efforts by DOT to
develop regulations to eliminate drug and alcohol use in transportation.
The Safety Board does, however, take exception to the inconsistent
approach taken by the DOT In the formulation of those regulations that pertain
to the drug and alcohol testing of persons Involved in accidents or Incidents.
Substantial differences exist among the postaccldent/incident sampling and
testing requirements for the transportation modes and between the drug testing
policies for DOT employees in safety sensitive positions and private sector
employees. Furthermore, the testing requirements of many pertinent
regulations are not sufficient to permit the Safety Board or the modal
agencies to identify the extent to which drug and alcohol abuse contributes to
transportation accidents.
Under the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) regulations for
postaccldent/incident testing of aviation personnel. Safety Board
investigators may not be able to determine whether surviving air carrier
crewmembers or FAA air traffic controllers caused or contributed to an
accident because of drug or alcohol impairment. The DOT regulations for
postaccident testing incorporate the guidelines developed by the Department of
Health and Human Services (DHHS). The Safety Board has several concerns
regarding the incorporation of these guidelines in postaccldent/incident
testing regulations. First, the guidelines specify the collection of urine
only. Second, the guidelines specify the analysis for only five drugs or drug
classes. These five drugs do not include alcohol, the substance of most
frequent abuse, prescription medications, and other illicit drugs. Third, the
presence of drugs or alcohol (if tests were required) cannot be related to a
485
level of performance impairment without the analysis on a blood sample; such a
test is not required. Fourth, the drug level in the urine may be below the
measurement threshold cutoffs specified in the DHHS guidelines due to the high
thresholds in these guidelines and due to delays in collection of urine
following an accident. Even though drugs may have been present at a level
sufficient to cause performance impairment when an accident occurred, the
level could decline below the high measurement threshold cutoff by the time of
sampling; the presence of a drug and its contribution to an accident would
thus go undetected. Finally, the DHHS guidelines were never intended to be
used for forensic purposes--that is, to determine the causal relationship of
drugs (or alcohol) to a transportation accident--yet the guidelines are being
made to serve that purpose by their incorporation in postaccident/incident
testing regulations.
In contrast to FAA requirements, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
requires the collection of both blood and urine as soon as practical after an
accident involving railroad employees. The investigations of railroad
accidents have shown the benefits of the FRA regulations. The extent of
substance use and abuse includes illicit drugs, prescription medications, and
alcohol, all of which can cause sufficient performance impairment to produce a
serious or catastrophic accident. The Safety Board has advocated adoption of
common rules similar to those used by the FRA in the Board's comments on
notices of proposed rulemaking for drug testing regulations by various DOT
agencies, even though the Safety Board considers the drugs identified in the
FRA program as being minimal requirements. The Safety Board's comments were
unheeded.
Investigation of the grounding of the EXXON VALDEZ in Prince William Sound
on March 24, 1989, disclosed that the captain of the vessel had alcohol in his
blood and urine some 10 hours after the grounding. However, because of the
delay in obtaining specimens, there is an increased uncertainty regarding his
condition at the time of the accident. In addition, a U.S. Coast Guard Vessel
Traffic Service (VTS) employee (a DOT civilian in a safety sensitive position)
on duty at the time of the grounding had gone off duty before being asked to
provide blood and urine specimens for drug and alcohol testing. His blood and
urine specimens were positive for alcohol, which he claimed was due to
drinking after going off duty. The DOT determined that the VTS employee was
not sampled and tested according to the DOT employee testing procedures, which
call for urine testing only and do not provide for alcohol analysis. In
addition, a Coast Guard employee collected the specimen, which was not in
accordance with policy. The DOT employee testing policy calls for a
contractor to collect the specimen; because the contractor could not get to
Alaska within a reasonable time, a second urine sample of the VTS employee was
obtained about 90 hours after the qualifying accident. The DOT policy
establishes a guideline of 32 hours in which to collect a specimen from an
employee after an accident or incident has occurred; this length of time is
unreasonable. Certainly 90 hours far exceeds any reasonable time period for
collection of specimens.
The manner in which DOT regulations do not address alcohol are of concern
to the Safety Board. In addition to the regulatory confusion regarding
whether or not alcohol determinations are to be made and in what body fluid, a
number of the modal agencies (FAA, FHWA, FRA, and the Coast Guard) within DOT
have set a threshold limit for blood alcohol (0.04 percent and above is
prohibited) within the regulations even though a test for alcohol may or may
not be required. Other agencies (UMTA, and Research and Special Programs
Administration) have not defined a limit. The Safety Board addressed the
concern of what blood alcohol content (BAC) constitutes impairment in Safety
Recommendation A-84-45 in 1984 to the Federal Aviation Administration when the
FAA first used the 0.04-percent BAC cutoff. The Safety Board classified this
recommendation as "Closed--Unacceptable Action" on September 15, 1985, when
the FAA established the 0.04-percent BAC as the impairment level.
On December 10, 1987, the Safety Board wrote to Secretary Burnley,
encouraging him to reconsider the Department's position on the BAC definition
of "under the influence" and to implement rules that would penalize any BAC
greater than zero. On February 3, 1988, Assistant Secretary Matthew V.
Scocozza responded to the Safety Board:
486
I agree that we should reevaluate our position on what, if
any, blood alcohol level is acceptable for those
commercial operators within our purview.
I have directed my staff to work with the modal
administrations to develop a department wide definition of
"under the influence," You may be assured that I place a
high priority on this issue and we will move
expeditiously.
The Safety Board has not heard further from the Secretary's office
regarding this issue. On October 4, 1988, the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) published its final rule on permissible blood alcohol levels for
operators of commercial motor vehicles. Drivers having any positive alcohol
concentration are subject to 24-hour out-of-service sanctions; however, 0.04
percent was again established as the level at or above which a person
operating a commercial motor vehicle would be subject to commercial driver
license disqualification. This level was established in spite of a National
Academy of Science conclusion that at any BAG level above zero, the driving
performance of most commercial drivers would be degraded sufficiently to
increase the risk of a crash.
In addition to the FAA and FHWA, the FRA and the Coast Guard have
previously adopted policies prohibiting the operation of vehicles at a BAG of
0.04 percent and above. Other agencies, such as the Research and Special
Programs Administration and the Urban Mass Transportation Administration
(UHTA), have no policy at all. Defining "under the influence" as having a BAG
of 0.04 percent or greater leaves the impression among transportation workers
and the public that drinking is allowable so long as the BAG tests below 0.04
percent. The Safety Board does not believe this is the message the DOT wishes
to send. It should be absolutely clear that no alcohol is acceptable in
commercial transportation because research has demonstrated that low blood
alcohol levels can produce Impairment.
The recent drug and alcohol regulations of the various DOT administrations
treat Federal employees and employees in the private sector differently.
According to Public Law 101-71 (101 Stat. 471, July 11, 1987), disclosure of
toxicological results obtained on Federal employees pursuant to Executive
Order 12564 (September 15, 1989) can be released only (1) to the employee's
medical review official, (2) the administrator of any employee assistance
program in which the employee is receiving counseling, or (3) to any
supervisory or management official within the employee's agency having
authority to take adverse personnel action against such employee, or (4)
pursuant to the order of a court of competent Jurisdiction where required by
the United States Government to defend against any challenge against any
adverse action. Release of test results to anyone else requires the written
consent from the employee. Thus, during an accident investigation.
Information on drug abuse by a government employee in a safety sensitive
position will not be made available to the investigators unless the employee
gives written authorization. In contrast, drug and alcohol testing results
from individuals In the private sector Is released without written consent.
One of the most (if not the most) important objectives of postaccident
drug and alcohol testing Is to determine whether such substances caused or
contributed to the cause of an accident. The use of the results of such
testing by the Safety Board has led and will continue to lead to the
development and implementation of recommendations and procedures to prevent
accidents. If DOT employees In safety sensitive positions are free to
withhold the results of postaccident toxicological test results from the
Safety Board, crucial factual information pertaining to the accident will be
kept secret, and the Safety Board's mandate to determine the facts,
circumstances, and probable cause of the accident and to develop safety
recommendations will be defeated. Therefore, DOT must eliminate the double
standard between the disclosure of toxicological test results on private
persons who have a direct responsibility for transportation safety and DOT
employees who occupy safety sensitive positions.
I
487
At the present time, blood and urine specimens collected during
Investigation of rail accidents and Incidents are under the control of the
FRA. The FRA contracts with and pays for a private laboratory to carry out
the drug analysis of blood and urine specimens. Similarly, the FAA has an
Interagency agreement with the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP) for
testing fatally Injured crewmembers In aviation accidents. In selected cases,
a surviving pilot or crewmember has been tested under this program. However,
postaccldent testing under new regulations for the modal agencies (except the
FRA) places the responsibility for analysis of urine specimens for drugs with
the employer. Furthermore, the reporting of toxicological testing (Including
postaccldent testing) results to the appropriate DOT regulatory agency--such
as the FAA, FHWA, and the Coast Guard--1s done on a 6-month basis. Thus, a
DOT agency may not know the results of postaccldent testing until months after
an accident investigation has been completed.
With the exception of railroad and perhaps marine employees, alcohol- and
drug-impaired persons involved in accidents may not be identified as a result
of the current modal regulations and DOT's Drug-Free Departmental Workplace
Drug Testing Guide for DOT employees in safety sensitive positions. The drug
and alcohol regulations for the various transportation modes are Inconsistent,
confusing, and, in some modes, inappropriate.
Therefore, the National Transportation Safety Board recommends that the
U.S. Department of Transportation:
Develop postaccldent and postincident testing regulations
that are separate from the pre-employment, random, and
reasonable suspicion testing regulations in all modal
agencies. (Class II, Priority Action) (1-89-4)
Adopt uniform regulations for all drug and alcohol
testing, other than postaccldent and postincident testing,
in all transportation modes, including U.S. Department of
Transportation employees who are in safety sensitive
positions. (Class II, Priority Action) (1-89-5)
Adopt uniform regulations on postaccldent and postincident
testing of private sector employees for alcohol and drugs
in all transportation modes. Use the Federal Railroad
Administration's (FRA) current regulation as a model
regulation for all transportation modes except for the
permissible blood alcohol level of less that 0.04 percent.
Using the FRA regulation as a model for other
transportation modes refers only to the collection of
blood and urine and the screening and confirmation of
positives in blood. As a minimum, the drugs identified in
FRA screen should be used in the other modes. Reference
to the FRA model does not refer to the administration or
implementation of the regulation. The Safety Bbard
recognizes that the implementation of the regulation may
be different in the various transportation modes. The
regulations for all modes should provide:
• for the collection of blood and urine
within 4 hours following a qualifying
Incident or accident. When collection
within 4 hours is not accomplished, blood
and urine specimens should be collected as
soon as possible and an explanation for
such delay shall be submitted in writing
to the administrator. (Class II,
Priority Action) (1-89-6);
• testing requirements that include alcohol
and drugs beyond the five drugs or classes
specified in the Department of Health and
Human Services (DHHS) guidelines and that
488
are not limited to the cutoff thresholds
specified In the DHHS guidelines.
Provisions should be made to test for
Illicit and licit drugs as information
becomes available during an accident
investigation (Class II, Priority Action)
(1-89-7).
Adopt uniform regulations in postaccldent and postincident
testing of U.S. Department of Transportation employees in
safety sensitive positions. The regulations should
provide:
• for the collection of blood and urine
within 4 hours following a qualifying
incident or accident. When collection
within 4 hours is not accomplished, blood
and urine should be collected as soon as
possible and an explanation for such delay
shall be submitted in writing to the
administrator by the local official making
the decision to test. (Class II, Priority
Action) (1-89-8);
• testing requirements that include alcohol
and drugs beyond the five drugs or classes
specified In the Department of Health and
Human Services (DHHS) guidelines and that
are not limited to the cutoff thresholds
specified in the DHHS guidelines.
Provisions should be made to test for
Illicit and licit drugs as information
becomes available during an accident
investigation (Class II, Priority Action)
1-89-9);
t that toxicological results from Federal
employees be made available to
investigators of the National
Transportation Safety Board (Class II,
Priority Action) (1-89-10);
• procedures by which Federal employees are
sent to the nearest hospital or medical
facility for obtaining blood and urine
specimens for toxicological testing
following a qualifying incident or
accident (Class II, Priority Action)
(1-89-11);
Issue rules specifying zero (no alcohol) as the blood alcohol
concentration for private sector employees in safety sensitive
positions in all transportation modes and for Federal employees in
safety sensitive positions. (Class II, Priority Action) (1-89-12)
KOLSTAD, Acting Chairman, BURNETT, LAUBER, NALL, and DICKINSON, Members,
concurred in these recommendations.
J». /'
James L. Kolstad
Acting Chairman
■a^^
489
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR HARKIN
SENATOR HARKIN: Despite the improvements in procedures and
equipment over the past ten years, I understand that the number of
train collisions have remained fairly constant. Several of these
have resulted in death and injury to crew and/or passengers. Is
that an accurate perception?
ANSWER: Train collisions have remained at a fairly constant
level over the past six years. The latest published statistics
indicate that the accident rate for train collisions is about 0.5
accidents per million train miles. The number of fatalities
associated with railroad collisions varies from year to year. For
example, only five crew and no passengers were killed due to train
collisions in 1991. Already in 1993, the NTSB has investigated
collision accidents which have resulted in the death of two crew
members and seven passengers. All seven passengers were killed in
the Gary, Indiana accident which occurred on January 18, 1993.
SENATOR HARKIN: What new technologies exist today which could
favorably impact human error, control system accidents. To what
extent do they provide higher assurance that control commands are
correctly and reliably placed on board the locomotive for the crew,
that monitor the crews compliance of those instructions, and can
predict when compliance is not going to occur, at which time such
technologies would step in and would automatically reduce the trains
speed, or even stop the trains involved?
ANSWER: Automatic Train Control System technology currently
exists. A system which could monitor for human error and take over
operation of the train in the event that a train was being operated
in an unsafe manner is entirely feasible and has, in fact, been
demonstrated on North American freight railroads by the Burlington
Northern Railroad under the name Advanced Railroad Electronic
System. Unfortunately, work on this system has been discontinued
because of lack of support within the industry and government. The
Association of American Railroads is sponsoring independent research
into another form of Automatic Train Control, but progress has been
very slow and continuation of this type of research is uncertain.
SENATOR HARKIN: If that is the case, has the technology been
accepted by the railroad industry? Are there any plans for
implementing such systems across the country?
ANSWER: Yes. Specification for the Advanced Train Control
System (ATCS) has been completed and certain segments are being
employed in the rail industry today. The NTSB has seen
demonstrations of some of the major control system pieces of ATCS
developed by Burlington Northern. Other railroads are currently
using ATCS for a variety of tasks including work order reporting,
locomotive performance monitoring and in some cases, track force
equipment management.
Final decisions on implementing ATCS nationwide will be
dependent on a variety of factors, including cost considerations and
the difficulties of adopting a standardized procedure for all
railroads. The Safety Board understands these factors will be
490
discussed at the April 16, 1993 Association of American Railroads
(AARy board meeting.
SENATOR HARKIN: What leadership role does the National
Transportation Safety Board intend to play in this area?
ANSWER: The Safety Board will continue to follow-up on safety
recommendations issued to the Federal Railroad Administration and
the railroad industry to implement Positive Train Separation, and
supporting measures to improve railroad safety.
SENATOR HARKIN: In 1992, Amtrak, in association with the
Burlington Northern brought a high technology locomotive to
Washington. At the time, they were discussing the testing of that
technology on lines used by both Amtrak and Burlington Northern.
Was that technology different from what you have described above?
ANSWER: Last year, the Chairman of Amtrak discussed a pilot
program using the technologies (Advanced Railroad Electronic System,
ARES) developed by Burlington Northern. Since that time, Burlington
Northern has dropped ARES in favor of the standardized approach
being developed through ATCS. A pilot program testing train control
system advances would be beneficial.
SENATOR HARKIN: Does this ATCS technology have application to
the high speed rail systems that are now being considered by Amtrak
and various groups? To what extent would such technology improve
the safety of high speed train operations?
ANSWER: The technologies associated with ATCS represent the
latest strides in train control. Many of them have direct
application to the high speed rail industry, particularly for high
speed trains which operate along existing freight railroad tracks
or other commuter rail service.
SENATOR HARKIN: Can this technology also be applied to the
commuter and transit systems that serve major cities, such as
Washington?
ANSWER: ATCS technology can be used in any type of rail
operation. However, the requirements for transit and some commuter
systems are less stringent under the Federal Transit Administration
than they would be under the Federal Railroad Administration. Many
transit systems already have systems that provide Positive Train
Separation, such as the Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority.
Many of the commuter systems cannot as yet employ ATCS because of
the expense and the lack of technology to facilitate their
electrical propulsion requirements.
491
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR SASSER
SENATOR SASSER: One of my concerns during last year's hearing
was the potential for life-threatening accidents in reduced
visibility areas. I raised that concern, as you know, because of
the 1990 multi-vehicle pileup on Interstate 75 near Calhoun,
Tennessee.
In response to my questions concerning the 1-75 incident, NTSB
responded that "many states do not instruct or direct drivers on
what to do during these hazardous situations."
Reduced visibility warning and detection devices provide one
response. However, in situations of recurring reduced visibility,
to what extent would NTSB recommend to state and local officials
that reduced visibility examinations/simulations be incorporated in
the vehicular licensing process?
ANSWER: As a result of its recent report on limited visibility
accidents the Safety Board issued several national and local safety
recommendations. The U.S. Department of Transportation was asked to
incorporate fog and other limited-visibility condition
countermeasures in demonstration projects of the Intelligent Vehicle
Highway System program.
The Board recommended that the Federal Highway Administration,
following the completion of the National Cooperative Highway
Research Program Project 20-5, Topic 23-12, "Reduced Visibility on
the Highway," ensure the continued development of effective fog and
other limited-visibility countermeasures and make information
available to States on a timely basis. It also recommended that the
Federal Highway Administration cooperate with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, the American Association of Motor
Vehicle Administration Automobile Association, and the American
Driver and Traffic Safety Education Association, review and update
driver license, educational, and remedial training materials to
ensure that guidance for driving during limited-visibility
conditions is uniform and complete, and is included in commercial
driver license materials.
A recommendation was issued to the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) in cooperation with other agencies to
review and update driver license, educational, and remedial training
matet'ials to ensure that guidance for during limited-visibility
conditions is uniform and complete. Also, the Board recommended
that the NHTSA cooperate with the American Association of Motor
Vehicle Administrators to develop model test questions for licensing
examinations on during limited-visibility conditions.
The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators
received a safety recommendation to notify its members of the
circumstances of the Calhoun accident, develop limited-visibility
inserts to be included with driver license renewal, motor vehicle
registration renewals and other similar mailings. It was also asked
to review and update driver license, educational, and remedial
training materials to ensure that guidance for driving during
limited-visibility conditions is uniform and complete. The
Association was also requested to cooperate with the National
492
Highway Traffic Safety Administration in developing model test
questions for driver license examinations.
The American Automobile Association received a safety
recommendation to work in cooperation with other agencies to review
and update driver license, educational (including Triptik maps), and
remedial training materials to ensure that guidance for driving
during limited-visibility conditions is uniform and complete.
The American Driver and Traffic Safety Education Association
received a safety recommendation to work in cooperation with other
agencies to review and update driver license, educational, and
remedial training materials to ensure that guidance for driving
limited-visibility conditions is uniform and complete.
SENATOR SASSER: Interstate 75 is also traveled extensively by
commercial vehicles. In fact, 20 tractor-semitrailers were involved
in the 1990 accident. I note that the NTSB places the safety of
heavy commercial trucks on its "Most Wanted list of safety issues.
And, as your testimony indicates "although combination trucks
account for only 1.8 percent of all U.S. highway accidents, they are
involved in 6.7 percent of all fatal accidents." All totalled, over
5,000 persons a year are killed in accidents involving heavy trucks.
In the aftermath of your investigation of the 1-75 pileup, what
specific findings and recommendations did the NTSB make regarding
instructions to commercial vehicle operators driving in reduced
visibility situations?
ANSWER: The Safety Board found as a result of its
investigation of the Calhoun, Tennessee multiple vehicle collision
that motorists, including drivers of commercial vehicles, are not
provided with sufficient specific behavioral guidance on responding
to limited visibility situations.
As a result, the Safety Board issued safety recommendation H-
92-88 to the Federal Highway Administration on October 28, 1992,
that stated:
In cooperation with the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, the American Association of Motor Vehicle
Administrators, the American Automobile Association, and
the American Driver and Traffic Safety Education
Association, review and update driver license,
educational, and remedial training materials to ensure
that guidance for driving during limited-visibility
conditions is uniform and complete and is included in
commercial driver license materials.
The Federal Highway Administration's March 1993 response to
this safety recommendation is presently being evaluated.
SENATOR SASSER: The Federal Highway Administration has an
ongoing Intelligent Vehicle Highway System project involving
commercial vehicles -- Advantage 1-75.
To what extent, if any, has NTSB been briefed or provided input
regarding commercial vehicle IVHS?
493
ANSWER: The Board Members and staff have been briefed by the
FHWA and NHTSA on IVHS programs and projects funded by those
agencies, and the Members and staff have also received a briefing
from the executive director of IVHS America. Commercial vehicle
projects have been referenced during these sessions. The Safety
Board has had a staff member, designated as a focal point, attend
all three of the annual meetings of IVHS America in order to remain
familiar with IVHS programs. The Safety Board is assessing the
feasibility of funding membership in IVHS America to receive their
periodic publications and serve on committees involving such
projects as Advantage 1-75.
SENATOR SASSER: Your written testimony indicated that a
significant amount of NTSB's work involves aviation incidents and
accidents in other countries.
Can you provide the Subcommittee with a brief description of
these investigations, including the affected airline, number of
fatalities and injuries, if any, and the NTSB conclusion as to the
cause?
ANSWER: In calendar year 1992, the Safety Board sent
investigative teams to assist in the investigation of seven major
aviation accidents overseas. These accidents resulted in 414
fatalities and 154 serious injuries. A brief summary of these major
investigations follows.
On December 21, 1992, about 0830 local time, a Martinair DC-10
crashed on the runway at Faro, Portugal. The airplane was being
operated on a charter flight from Amsterdam to Faro. The airplane
was on its second approach to the airport, in heavy rain, when it
struck the runway. The pilot reported getting a strong down gust of
wind in the final moments of the approach. There were 327
passengers and 13 crew members on board. Two flight attendants and
52 passengers were fatally injured. The Portuguese investigators
are in the process of completing a draft report on the accident.
On November 24, 1992, China Southern Airways flight CZ3943
impacted the face of a nearly vertical mountain while on approach to
Guilin, China. All 141 persons on board the airplane were fatally
injured. The U.S. investigative team was headed by the NTSB U.S.
Accredited Representative and included technical experts from the
FAA, Boeing and General Electric. This was the first ever U.S.
investigative team to work in China on an ICAO Annex 13
investigation. Due to the impact and location of the wreckage in a
falling rock area, only about 2 percent of the wreckage was
recovered. The cockpit voice recorder and the flight data recorder
were located and brought to the Safety Board's laboratory for
inspection. The investigation is examining the extent to which
possible problems with one engine and flightcrew procedures may have
contributed to the accident.
On October 5, 1992, the Safety Board sent a team to Amsterdam,
The Netherlands, to participate in the investigation of the accident
involving El Al flight 1862, a Boeing 747 freighter, which crashed
shortly after takeoff from Schiphol Airport. The five flightcrew
members and 55 persons on the ground were fatally injured.
Previously on December 29, 1991, Safety Board investigators traveled
494
to Taipei, Taiwan to investigate an accident involving China
Airlines flight CI-358, a Boeing 747 freighter, that crashed shortly
after takeoff. The five flightcrew members were fatally injured.
The investigation determined that in both accidents the No. 3 engine
had separated from the wing and subsequently struck the No. 4 engine
which then also separated from the wing. As a result of the Safety
Board's participation in these investigations, on November 3, 1992,
four recommendations were issued to the FAA. The recommendations
addressed the reduction in inspection times for the pylon-to-wing
attachment fuse pins, the installation of a mid-spar fuse pin
indicating stripe as a check for wing-to-pylon misalignment before
each flight, performance of instrumented flight tests to validate
the loads on the fuse pins, and to make available a newly designed
fuse pin. The initial FAA response to these recommendations has
been positive.
On June 7, 1992, the Government of Panama requested that the
Safety Board assist in the investigation of an accident involving
COPA Air Lines flight 201, a Boeing 737-200, which crashed near
Tucuti, Panama on June 6, 1992. All 47 persons on board the
airplane were fatally injured. The investigation of this accident
involved Safety Board investigators spending several weeks in the
Derian jungle of Panama searching for an examining wreckage. The
cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder were sent the NTSB
laboratory for analysis. Additionally, many of the airplane's
instruments, electronic packages, and hydraulic system components
were returned to the United States for examination and testing under
the supervision of Safety Board investigators. The Panamanian
investigator-in-charge expects to have a draft report completed by
the end of May 1993.
On February 9, 1992, a Gamcrest Convair 640 crashed near
Kafoutine, Senegal. The airplane was a charter flight to the Club
Med resort at Cap Shirring, Senegal. Of the 57 persons on board the
airplane, 30 were fatally injured, 20 received serious injuries, and
the remaining 7 had minor or no injuries. The Safety Board sent
investigators to the scene to assist in the investigation. The
investigation determined that the crash had occurred before dawn and
that the flight crew had apparently mistaken a row of lights near
the town to be the runway lights. The airplane descended into the
trees before the pilots realized their mistake and initiated a
climb.
On January 20, 1992, investigators traveled to Strasbourg,
France to participate in the investigation of an Air-Inter A-320.
The airplane crashed while on the landing approach. Of the 96
persons on board, 87 were fatally injured and 4 had serious
injuries. The Safety Board has worked closely with the French
investigative authorities and the manufacturer of the advanced
technology airplane to determine the cause of the accident. A draft
report on the accident is complete and a final report is expected to
be completed by the end of May 1993.
Additionally, during 1992, the Safety Board provided the
services of its laboratories and specialists to support about 50
foreign accident investigations. A considerable amount of these
cases involved reading out and analyzing cockpit voice recorders and
flight data recorders, and the examination and analysis of materials
495
failures in the Safety Board's laboratories. Additionally, the
Safety Board sent specialists to U.S. facilities to attend the
inspection and testing of U.S. -manufactured components sent to the
U.S. by foreign investigation authorities.
SENATOR SASSER: The advent of high speed rail and maglev
operations in this country will have a range of safety implications.
Based on the briefing provided last year by the Federal
Railroad Administration, has the NTSB begun any preliminary
assessment of potential staffing needs? Also, to what extent will
retraining be a component in the NTSB involvement?
ANSWER: The NTSB staff is fully aware of the advent of high
speed and maglev operations in this country. We are doing all that
we can to keep abreast of the latest developments in this area. In
the long term we will have to develop the expertise within our staff
to handle new technology. New technology does not only involve high
speed rail. New transit systems based on light rail vehicles and
other modern rapid transit vehicles are using state of the art
braking, propulsion, and vehicle control technology. Most of these
new control systems are based on microprocessor control which
utilizes computer programs to perform many safety critical
functions. The NTSB must ensure that highly trained staff is in
position to ensure the safety of these new technology systems--
whether the application is high speed rail, maglev, or rapid
transit.
SENATOR SASSER: The Administration's supplemental request
contains significant increases in the area of highway construction.
Your testimony notes the increased incidence of fatalities along
highway zone sites.
To what extent, if any, has the Federal Highway Administration
responded to the NTSB recommendation regarding the development of a
national work zone safety program?
ANSWER: The Federal Highway Administration has not yet
responded to the safety recommendations that were issued as a result
of the Board's Safety Study on highway work zone construction
safety.
SENATOR SASSER: The NTSB could not conclusively determine the
cause of the United Airlines/Colorado Springs accident. Your
testimony cites the aircraft's use of "old, 4-parameter flight data
recorders" as hindering the NTSB investigation.
To what extent is the current U.S. airline fleet equipped with
the 4-parameter flight data recorders? What has been the FAA's
response regarding the NTSB's recommendation regarding use of "more
state-of-the-art recorders"?
ANSWER: As of 1989, all of the U.S. airline fleet was required
to have at least 5-parameter (or more, depending on airplane type
certification date and configuration) digital flight data recorders.
Estimating the extent of the U.S. airline fleet's 5-parameter flight
data recorder equipage would require weeks or more, as the majority
of them do not readily know what parameters their airplanes' flight
496
data recorders record; however, a conservative estimate would be
twelve hundred in number. The FAA was asked to provide an estimate
but said they were not able to do so. There is no FAA requirement
for the carriers to keep documentation for such determination,
despite the NTSB's recent recommendation to that effect. The NTSB
has been actively polling the carriers for this information out of
its own interest for the past several months in order to facilitate
flight data recorder readouts after accidents, as it is sometimes a
lengthy and investigation-hindering process to determine what
parameters were being recorded and how to decode the recorded data.
Since it is in the NTSB's interest to be able to quickly and
accurately read out flight data recorders after accidents, the
polling was independently undertaken by the NTSB instead of waiting
for the FAA to require carriers to develop and keep the
documentation.
The NTSB has, since 1974, issued numerous safety
recommendations to the FAA requesting improved flight data recorder
survivability and expanded parameter recording capabilities. After
a considerable amount of Congressional pressure, the FAA issued a
series of flight recorder rule changes in 1987, 1988, and 1992 that
virtually fulfilled all of the NTSB's prior fligh^t recorder
recommendations, including the requirement to upgrade 5-parameter
flight data recorders (what the United Airlines/Colorado Springs 737
had) to 11-parameters by May of 1994. However, on January 29, 1993,
the FAA granted a petition of exemption to the Air Transport
Association of American (ATA) that eliminates the required 5-
parameter to 11-parameter flight data recorder upgrades on those
Stage 2 noise-certified aircraft that ATA's member air carriers will
be retiring before December of 1998. The NTSB's comments to the FAA
regarding the ATA's Petition for Exemption opposed any exemption,
arguing that 7 years (upgraded flight recorder rules were issued in
1987) was adequate time for 100% compliance considering the average
upgrade cost per airplane would be under $50,000 (including all
parts and labor). The NTSB's comments resulted in a more strict,
scheduled retirement plan than the ATA petitioned for (the
exemption, as granted, requires complete retirement planning be
submitted to the FAA by August of 1993, with 25% of those exempted
aircraft to be retired by the end of 1994, 50% retired by the end of
1996, and the balance retired by the end of 1998), but the exemption
granted nevertheless means that many jet transports (727s, 737s, DC-
8s, DC-9s, and others) could still be operating with 5-parameter
flight data recorders until December of 1998. Therefore, the
potential for undetermined probable cause air carrier accidents like
Colorado Springs where 5-parameter flight data recorders hinder the
determination of probable cause will remain until December of 1998
unless something is done to require 11 or more parameter flight data
recorders on those airplanes currently affected by the FAA-granted
ATA exemption.
Additionally, as a result of a number of recent accidents in
which vital flight recorder information was lost due to thermal
damage to the tape recording media, the NTSB issued safety
recommendation A-92-045 that called for the FAA to cancel the old
Technical Standard Orders (TSOs) C51a and C84 which set inferior
crash and fire survivability requirements for flight recorders. New
TSOs exist that set improved survivability requirements for flight
recorders built to their standards, but until the old TSOs are
497
canceled, recorders and parts for them can still be made to the old
TSO standards. The FAA agreed to cancel the old TSOs C51a and C84
in their August 5, 1992, response to A-92-045; however, the FAA has
not yet done so and recently told NTSB staff that it was a low
priority item and that it would be some time before the cancellation
notice would be issued. The Safety Board is concerned that the
delayed cancellation will extend the service life of flight
recorders that will not survive prolonged exposure to low intensity
fires and, therefore, increase the risk of having an accident in
which flight recorder data is destroyed in post-accident fire.
SENATOR SASSER: As a result of the NTSB recommendation in the
Colorado Springs accident, the FAA did agree to take steps to
measure meteorological threats to an airplane's operational safety.
What is the status of FAA's action in this area, particularly
the development of a meteorological aircraft hazard program?
ANSWER: The Federal Aviation Administration stated that it
agrees with the intent of the recommendation and that it plans to
address this and a related recommendation through an interagency
program with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/
Forecast Systems Laboratory or the National Science Foundation/
National Center for Atmospheric Research. However, the Safety Board
is concerned that the FAA believes that due to budget constraints
and program priorities, these projects cannot be started until
fiscal year 1995. The Safety Board understands the difficulty in
funding these projects in fiscal year 1993, but we believe that the
FAA should reevaluate its priorities to include them in 1993.
Pending further information concerning fiscal year 1993 funding, the
Safety Board classified these safety recoirenendations as "Open--
Unacceptable Response."
SENATOR SASSER: As you know, although the technology will be
imported, there are various efforts underway to develop high speed
rail operations in this country. The Federal Railroad
Administration must develop safety guidelines to accommodate high
speed rail and maglev trains.
What specific safety recommendations might NTSB offer the
Federal Railroad Administration, particularly where there is some
variance among systems technology, i.e., Japanese versus European
technology?
ANSWER: The Safety Board believes that the Federal Railroad
Administration's role in high speed rail should be to establish
minimum safety performance standards. The FRA should not try to
modify the multitude of current railroad regulations to adapt them
for high speed rail. The technology used on high speed rail systems
is based on the standards of the country that designed and developed
the equipment. The standards are often more stringent than the
standards used in the United States. The high speed rail networks
used in Japan and Europe are proven technology based on years of
research and experience.
SENATOR SASSER: Since NTSB anticipate personnel
training/retraining with respect to advanced rail technologies, what
specific recommendations might NTSB offer the Federal Railroad
498
Administration regarding anticipated technical and regulatory
personnel needs with respect to the safety framework for advanced
rail technologies?
ANSWER: The Federal Railroad Administration should take the
opportunity to learn from the operators and manufacturers of the
equipment. A good working relationship with these experts is vital
in order to reach the understanding of high speed rail systems
necessary to ensure the safety of any future U.S. high speed rail
network.
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR D'AMATO
SENATOR D'AMATO: NTSB has recommended that hard-wing aircraft,
like the Fokker 28 involved in the LaGuardia crash, be physically
inspected for adherence of ice prior to take offs in snow/ice
conditions Are you aware that FAA has granted an exception from
physical inspection for the Fokker 28. Evidently, this exception is
based on the new deicing programs created by airlines operating this
jet.
These programs include: painting of a new type of indicator
stripe on aircraft wings; pre-take off visual checks from outside
the aircraft after hold over time has been exceeded (viewing to take
place no more than 16 feet from the wing stripe); and visual check 5
minutes prior to take off.
Do you think that granting exceptions of this kind is
appropriate? Should FAA have considered other alternatives?
ANSWER: We are aware of the procedure that the FAA has
approved for the inspection of the Fokker 28 airplane during icing
conditions. While the Safety Board advocated tactile inspections on
these airplanes, we recognize the difficulties and even the
potential dangers of deploying ground personnel to inspect airplanes
while they are positioned in the takeoff queue. We understand that
before it approved the visual inspection procedure, the FAA observed
a controlled demonstration that showed that the painted stripe did
effectively permit training personnel to observe contamination and
that the training requirement was a part of the approval. Thus, the
acceptance was probably appropriate although the Board has not
evaluated the current procedure first hand.
SENATOR D'AMATO: On March 22, 1992, 27 people were killed in
the crash of a USAir Fokker 28 jet at LaGuardia Airport during a
snowstorm. This subcommittee held a hearing in New York City with
respect to the Federal Aviation Administration's winter operations
policies.
NTSB's report on this crash stated that the flight crew's
decision to take off "without positive assurance" that the wings
were free of Ice caused the crash (ice on the wings caused
aerodynamic stall and loss of control). NTSB also blamed the
airline Industry and the FAA for falling:
499
"... to provide flight crews with procedures, requirements
and criteria compatible with departure delays in
conditions conducive to icing."
This winter FAA has in place preliminary rules regarding de-
icing procedures. How is the new program working? Do you see areas
that need strengthening (e.g., including commuter flights, and
concerns about exceeding hold-over times)?
ANSWER: The Safety Board is generally pleased with the FAA's
interim rule as it applied to the Part 121 air carriers. To our
knowledge, the program worked well during this winter season. We
believe that the adherence to holdover times, along with airport and
air traffic control cooperation to reduce takeoff delays, has been
effective. We understand that pilots know that they have the
support of their air carrier management and are thus less reluctant
to delay flights and taxi back to the gate if they are not certain
of the condition of their airplane.
The Safety Board believes that the commuter carriers should
also be required to address their winter operation procedures even
though the accident record does not indicate that they have had
significant problems.
SENATOR D'AMATO: The February 26 bombing of the World Trade
Center in New York City affected the PATH trains although it was not
a "transportation accident." I understand that NTSB will not
conduct an investigation; however, what involvement will NTSB have
with respect to emergency response procedures?
ANSWER: The Safety Board does not consider the World Trade
Center bombing to be a transportation accident. However, there is
always the possibility that a transportation accident could occur
involving a PATH train at the station located under the World Trade
Center. Given that possibility, the Safety Board feels that a
review of PATH'S emergency procedures would benefit the public.
Consequently, our staff is currently reviewing those procedures to
learn of safety problems that may emerge and to study what
corrective measures might be justified.
SENATOR D'AMATO: What were your findings with respect to New
York City's emergency response capabilities following the August 28,
1991 derailment of a New York City Transit Authority subway train at
Union Square Station? Are there areas requiring improvement?
ANSWER: The Safety Board's most recent experience with
emergency response agencies of the City of New York was very
positive. The Safety Board investigated the New York City Transit
Authority derailment at Union Square Station on August 28, 1991. In
the Board's report it stated that "Emergency response activation was
optimal, with the first responders, security personnel, and medical
units responding within 5 minutes of notification". At this time
the Safety Board sees no need for improvement with respect to New
York City's response capabilities.
SENATOR D'AMATO: What role does NTSB play with respect to
making recommendations for schoolbus safety?
500
ANSWER: Present Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS)
relating to school bus body joint strength, passenger seating, and
occupant protection became effective in 1977, and were promulgated
in large part because of Safety Board school bus accident
investigation which addressed these issues.
More recently, the Safety Board issued a recommendation in 1989
to the NHTSA asking for revision of FMVSS 217 to require egress be
based on vehicle occupant capacity. In 1990, the Safety Board
issued recommendations to the NHTSA to require that floor level
emergency exits be designed so that once opened they remain open,
during emergencies and evacuations. Also in 1990, we issued
recommendations for NHTSA to conduct research to determine the
benefits and disadvantages of larger schoolbus side windows and
amend FMVSS 217 to require larger side windows if research supports
this. The Safety Board has reviewed the final amended rule on FMVSS
217 and responses to the four recommendations issued during 1989 and
1990 and they have been classified "Closed--Acceptable Action."
The Safety Board also issued recommendations in 1989 to the
NHTSA regarding the crashworthiness and post-crash flammability of
school buses. The work on-going at NHTSA in response to these
recommendations has resulted in their classification as "Open--
Acceptable Action."
The Safety Board also issued recommendations during 1992
requesting NHTSA require the use of automatic air brake slack
adjusters on truck and bus chassis. The recent NHTSA requirement in
this area has resulted in these recommendations being classified
"Closed--Acceptable Action."
SENATOR D'AMATO: Does NTSB think that federal agencies have
played an adequate role in schoolbus safety? How great a role do
states play with respect to physical design issues affecting the
safety of schoolbuses as well as their operation?
ANSWER: The NTSB and the NHTSA, throughout their existence,
have placed school bus safety issues as a top priority. These
efforts have been based on countermeasures derived from
investigations of major school bus accidents, as well as input from
state and local school transportation administrators and legislators
to address occupant protection, vehicle structural integrity, and
pupil pedestrian safety. Input from states has influenced federal
regulations in areas such as emergency doors and roof hatches.
State and local governments have also instituted various
regulations and policies on school bus seat belts and lighting and
visibility requirements for buses.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Lautenberg. With that we thank you. This hearing is
now recessed. The subcommittee's next scheduled hearing is 2
weeks from today, Wednesday, March 31, 10 a.m., in SD-138. We
will be discussing the implementation of ISTEA at that time with
the Federal Highway Administration.
[Whereupon, at 11:09 a.m., Wednesday, March 17, the sub-
committee was recessed, to reconvene at 9:32 a.m., Wednesday,
March 31.]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RE-
LATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 1994
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 31, 1993
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 9:32 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg (chairman) pre-
siding.
Present: Senators Lautenberg, Domenici, Hatfield, and Stevens.
GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
STATEMENT OF KEN MEAD, DIRECTOR, TRANSPORTATION ISSUES,
RESOURCES, COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
statement of e. dean carlson, acting administrator
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESS
American Association of State Highway Transportation
Officials
statement of frank francois, executive director
opening remarks of senator lautenberg
Senator Lautenberg. I would like to call the subcommittee to
order. This hearing of the Subcommittee on Transportation is start-
ing off today with a review of the Intermodal Surface Transpor-
tation Efficiency Act [ISTEA] and exactly what has happened since
that law has been put into effect.
Just about 2 years ago. Senator Moynihan introduced legislation
that was the basic blueprint for what was to become the Inter-
modal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act. I am proud that I was
an original cosponsor of that creative and forward looking bill that
described a surface transportation policy that sought greater flexi-
bility, efficiency, and balance among the various modes.
In passing a budget resolution this week, the Senate has gone on
record in support of a plan to significantly increase transportation
funding over the next 5 years to try to meet the goals that were
(501)
502
established in ISTEA. And today we are going to hear about sev-
eral issues that will determine if those funds will be spent as we
planned.
As we implement ISTEA through the appropriations process, we
must continue to be careful to ensure that we are supporting sound
investment decisions. We must safeguard our existing infrastruc-
ture investments and we must make sure to provide and encourage
new technologies that will provide a sound investment that is cost
effective while meeting our congestion, air quality, energy con-
sumption, and mobility problems.
ISTEA was created to do just those things. That law created four
new programs, the Surface Transportation Program, the Conges-
tion Mitigation and the Air Quality Relief Program, the Intelligent
Vehicle and Highway System [FVHS], and the National Highway
System Program.
These were created in recognition that we could not continue to
proceed as we had, that our surface transportation problems could
no longer be addressed by simply pouring more concrete, by build-
ing our way out of them as it were. These programs recognized that
we had to provide creative solutions to the congestion problems
that we faced, the problem of deteriorating air quality, and other
environmental concerns such as wetlands mitigation.
As author of the IVHS Program, it was my intent to make sure
that we got as much productivity and use out of existing highways
as possible. We had to use them more efficiently. We could no
longer build, build, build. Clean air was not limitless, nor was the
land.
Our decisions to build had to be made in the context of alter-
natives, alternatives such as to provide for other modes of transpor-
tation, and the alternative no build by relying on transportation
systems management.
Now, I am anxious to hear from our witnesses today about how
the new ISTEA programs are working. And if they are not, what
are the problems? Is there something more we can do at the Fed-
eral level, or do we need to realize that because these programs are
new? It is going to be some time before they are fully implemented
at the State and local levels.
PREPARED STATEMENTS
Senator Lautenberg. At this point in the record, I will submit
opening statements from my colleagues, Senators D'Amato and
Sasser, who are unable to join us today.
[The statements follow:]
Statement of Senator D'Amato
Mr. Chairman, today's hearing wUl cover many issues concerning the implementa-
tion of the Intermodal Surface 'Transportation Assistance Act of 1991 (ISTEA). How-
ever, since the fiscal vear 1994 budget for the Federal Highway Administration has
not yet been provided to Congress we will not be able to discuss it at this hearing.
However, I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses on the progress of the
new ISTEA programs.
The ISTEA is a remarkable statute that addresses our transportation needs from
an intermodal perspective. It combines sensible transportation policy with the fund-
ing needed to address federal clean air and handicapped accessibility mandates.
Prior to ISTEA, the selection of transportation prmects by states was too often
predetermined by the categories of available federal funds, rather than by the ap-
503
propriateness of the transportation solution to be implemented. ISTEA emphasized
the importance of local metropolitan planning organizations (MPO's). Projects in-
cluded by the \n'0'8 in their transportation improvement programs (TIFs) would
provide a solid basis for states to select the most meritorious projects.
I am looking forward to hearing from today's witnesses. I am especially interested
in the testimony concerning the Intelligent Vehicle Highway System program and
tiie new Ck)ngestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement programs.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Statement of Senator Sasser
Good morning. I thank the Chairman, and join in welcoming all of the witnesses.
The Subcommittee considers the implementation of the Intermodal Surface Trans-
portation EfQciency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) at the same time that the nation continues
to struggle towards economic recovery. Although widely reported, the economic re-
covery has been sluggish or virtually non-existent in many communities throughout
the nation. Despite optimistic economic indicators, the fact remains that far too few
good, high quality jobs are being created.
And, there can be no meaningful discussion of jobs, unless there is an increased
investment in the nation's physical infrastructure. Numerous studies all indicate
that an investment in infrastructure is an investment in people, and in jobs, and
in the nation's immediate and long-term economic pitxluctivity.
In this context, ISTEA represented the need for change and a new direction to
meet the transportation and economic needs of an ever mobile society. The old way
of transporting people and goods could no longer serve the nation's economic and
transportation demands. And, with ISTEA came a heightened sense of urgency re-
garding the futxire of the nation's transportation system. For far too long, previous
Administrations had failed to make the critical Unk between infrastructure invest-
ments and the nation's overall economic health.
Today, in 1993, the nation stands at an economic crossroad created, in part, by
the over decade long disinvestment in America's physical infrastructure. Chir people
are today out of work, in part, because the nation's transportation network does not
work efficiently to meet the demands of a changing, mobile, and competitive world.
Yet, the enactment of ISTEA provided merely the roadmap towards making the
nation's transportation network work for people. The hard part, the essence of the
challenge lies ahead. And, in manv respects, the real promise of ISTEA did not
begin in earnest until the election of 1992.
The nation finally has a President in the White House who understands that the
road to economic recovery and growth cannot be realized unless there is a signifi-
cant, sustained, and shared commitment to the nation's physical infrastructure. All
levels of government and the private sector must do their part. Most importantly,
the Administration has demonstrated its commitment to the infrastructure by step-
ping up to the plate and offering focused, forthright leadership in this area.
Unlike the previous Administration, the Clinton Administration has kept faith
with the goals and challenges of ISTEA. The Clinton Administration has dem-
onstrated its commitment by making increased infrastructure investment a comer-
stone of both its economic stimulus package and its long-term "Vision for America".
As a result, millions of Americans, in commtmities throughout the nation, will
benefit enormously fi^m the Clinton Administration pledge to fiillv fund ISTEA. In
Tennessee, for example, the Clinton plan will mean an additional $57.8 million in
obligation authority. The end result for Tennessee and the nation will be jobs today
and jobs tomorrow.
Let me close by saying I wholeheartedly support the Administration's infrastruc-
ture investment strategy. The Administration is to be applauded for "putting people
first" through increasea investments in infrastructvu«.
I thank the Chairman, and look forward to hearing the testimony.
INTRODUCTION OF FIRST PANEL
Senator Lautenberg. In our first panel we will hear from Ken
Mead from GAO; Dean Carlson, the Acting Administrator of the
Federal Highway Administration; and Frank Francois of the Asso-
ciation of American State and Highway Transportation Officials
[AASHTO]. These folks are going to discuss the flexibility provi-
504
sions that are contained in ISTEA and how the States are making
decisions with their sometimes limited resources.
So with that, I welcome the first panel. And, Ken, I will ask you
to start the hearing for us and present your testimony. You know
the rules of the committee. This is like the real thing, I think we
had a dress rehearsal a couple of weeks ago, and you understand
the clock and the interest in moving things along. Your full testi-
mony will be included in the record as if presented and I would ask
you to present your summary statement now. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF KEN MEAD
Mr. Mead. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to cover three
issues today: highway finance, demonstration projects, and funding
flexibility.
highway finance
On highway finance, DOT*s January 1993 projections show that
over the life of ISTEA, income to the highway account of the high-
way trust fund will fall about $12 billion short of the $122 billion
highway commitment to the States. If the revenue outlook does not
brighten, by law DOT will have to cut State highway apportion-
ments.
Now, we have a chart here. I hope it does not cut into my time
unduly.
Senator Lautenberg. We have to allow a little time for han-
dling.
[The chart follows:]
505
GAO Projected Required Reductions
in Apportionments, FY 1993-1997
25 Dollars in Billions
1993 1994 1995
1996
CZ] Reduction
El Remaining Authorization
Source: GAO analysis ot FHWA data. Projections are based on January 1993 revenue estimates.
Mr. Mead. What the chart is showing is that unless the outlook
brightens, DOT will have to make about $4 billion in cuts in each
of fiscal years 1995, 1996, and 1997. A number of strategies could
be used to cope with the shortfall. I do not want to go through all
of them because most would simply mask the problem.
The most viable way to put this account on a sound footing
would be, in fact, to extend the current 2.5-cent fuel tax that cur-
rently supports deficit reduction and put the money instead in the
trust fund. The tax is due to expire in September 1995. If the full
2.5 cents were continued and credited to the highway account
starting in October 1995, the account would close out the author-
ization period with an uncommitted balance of about $1.8 billion.
That is $800 million over the minimum $1 billion safety cushion
DOT officials recommend.
HIGHWAY DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS
Turning to demonstration projects, ISTEA's demonstration
project authorization was unprecedented, about $6 billion for 539
projects. In 1987, it was $1.3 billion for 152 projects and in 1982
it was only $386 million.
The trust fund, Mr. Chairman, cannot afford to support this
trend, and extreme caution needs to be exercised in authorizing
new projects for several reasons. First, the demonstration projects
are often only authorized at a fraction of their cost. For example,
ISTEA's authorizations for demos will probably cover only about 25
506
percent of total costs. Instead of $6 billion, you are probably look-
ing at something in the neighborhood of $25 billion.
Second, the projects tie up funds that States could use for other
purposes. While there are clearly exceptions, our work is showing
that demos can languish in early development stages or not get
under way at all. Of 66 projects reviewed in 1991, one-third of
them had not been started 4 years after they were authorized, and
nearly one-half of a billion dollars was tied up in the trust fund re-
served for these projects.
Third, and again there are exceptions, demos are frequently not
aligned with the State transportation plans. Less than one-half of
the demos appeared in State or regional plans in 1987 and only
one-half of the ISTEA demos showed up in State plans. So we
think the time has come to develop a framework to guide how
demos are selected.
[The chart follows:]
GAO Actions to Improve Demo
Project Selection and Funding
• Restrict Selection to Projects
Appearing on State Plans
• Change Project Funding Policy By:
• Eliminating Project-Specific
Authorizations
Instituting "Use It or Lose It"
Provision
Mr. Mead. Some of the suggestions we would offer are shown in
this chart. One way to improve the process would be to authorize
only those projects that appear in existing plans. Second, future
demos might be authorized without specific project funding. And
third, current law allowing project funds to remain available in
perpetuity could be changed, such as through creating a use-it-or-
lose-it provision. And if you did that, that would put demonstration
projects on the same footing as most other highway projects.
507
FUNDING FLEXIBILITY
The terms of funding flexibility under ISTEA, as you know, Mr.
Chairman, allow States to use funds flexibly to finance highway
and mass transit and nontraditional projects like HOV lanes. While
the first year of implementation is probably not the best barometer
of the future, our work is indicating that there has been limited
initial use of funding flexibility. In 1992, less than 3 percent of the
flexible funds, or about $350 million, were used to finance mass
transit and nontraditional projects like HOV lanes. The majority of
transfers were concentrated in New York, New Jersey, Massachu-
setts, Illinois, and Virginia, all air quality nonattainment areas.
Looking to the future, Mr. Chairman, making investment trade-
offs among projects within a mode, as well as between modes, will
become increasingly important in the transportation community,
but the state of the art in comparing transportation alternatives is
not well advanced. Most travel demand models were developed
about 20 or 30 years ago and they are not well suited for today's
transportation environment. We think development of a cross-
modal investment framework and improved analj^ic tools under
DOTs leadership would help decisionmakers identify the right mix
of projects to address transportation priorities.
And that concludes our summary statement.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Senator Lautenberg. That is a timely presentation. I hope we
did not deprive you of the opportunity to hit some of the highlights,
but as I indicated the full statement is in the record.
Mr. Mead. Thank vou.
[The statement follows:]
Statement of Kenneth M. Mead
I am pleased to have this opportunity to testify on ke^ issues affecting the imple-
mentation of the Intermodal Surface Transportation EflBciency Act of 1991 (ISTEA)
and the results of some of our past and ongoing work in the area of surface trans-
portation infrastructure. Making surface transportation investment decisions has
become increasingly complex because decision makers need to address deterioration
of the nations roads, brio^es, and transit systems; trafQc congestion; air quality; en-
er^ efi&dencv; and mobihty for the elderly and disabled.
iSTEA authorized an unprecedented level of funding to help meet transportation
needs, and also gave state and local governments more flexibility to determine how
funds should be distributed between highway and transit projects. My testimony
today will address (1) the cvurent fiscal realities that may threaten to umit invest-
ment opportunities, (2) the potential ramifications of authorizing new demonstration
proiects, (3) the use of funding flexibili^, and (4) the need for improved analytic
tools for making intermodal investment cnoices. In summary:
— The finanaal outiook for the highway account of the Hi^wcnr Trust Fund is
worsening. Revenues to the account are expected to fall ^12.5 billion short of
ISTEA's ninding commitment to the states, according to January 1993 projec-
tions developed Dy the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). If the revenue
outiook does not miprove and no remedial action is taken, the consequence will
be that FHWA will be reauired to cut state hirfiway apportionments by approxi-
matelv $4 billion in eacn of fiscal years 1995 tlu-ough 1997, the end of the
ISTEA authorization period.
— ISTEA authorized 539 demonstration projects which accounted for over $6.2 bil-
lion of the total authorization. While some demonstration projects address criti-
cal transportation problems and can be considered nationally significant, au-
thorizing a large number of new demonstration projects will both worsen the
financial outiook for the highway account and reduce states' opportunities to
maximize the payoff from their highway investments. The financial problems of
508
the highway account would be exacerbated because demonstration projects often
cost more than expected. Frequently, they are authorized at a level below their
full cost, which may necessitate the authorization of additional federal funds.
Moreover, demonstration projects can yield a low payoff for a variety of reasons,
including the fact that they often languish in early project development stages
and indeed may never be started at ml. In addition, they are often not aliped
with transportation priorities and thus fail to respond to states' and regions'
critical transportation needs.
— In the context of limited resoiu-ces, identifying and selecting transportation in-
vestments that promise to provide the greatest return on investment is espe-
cially important. ISTEA includes provisions permitting states increased oppor-
tunities to use highway funds for mass transit and nontraditional projects such
as high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes and vice-versa. This funding flexibility
in turn allows state and local decision makers to target funds to the areas of
greatest need. However, in our ongoing work we have found that few funds
nave been used flexibly to date. In fiscal year 1992, less than 3 percent of flexi-
ble highway funds were used to finance mass transit and nontraditional projects
and about 3 percent of flexible mass transit capital funds were used to finance
nontraditional projects. A variety of barriers stand in the way of states and lo-
calities thinking and acting cross-modally. These include restrictions on the use
of state fuel tax revenue and the fact that highway and mass transit infi-astruc-
ture needs exceed available resources.
— ^While ISTEA encouraged a total systems approach to select among transpor-
tation alternatives, state and local decision makers may need help in meeting
this goal. For example, the state of the art in comparing transportation alter-
natives is not well advanced. Development of cross-modal criteria and improved
analytic tools under the leadership of the Department of Transportation's (DOT)
Office of Intermodalism and Bureau of Transportation Statistics could assist de-
cision makers in making trade-offs between projects both within a mode and
across modes. Such assistance will be critical as states and localities identify
the right mix of projects, regardless of mode, that address the myriad objectives
facing transportation decision makers.
I will now address these points in greater detail.
FINANCING CONCERNS DOMINATE THE HIGmVAY SPENDING HORIZON
Of ISTEA's total $155 billion authorization through fiscal year 1997, over $122
billion was targeted to federal-aid highway projects. It was initially expected that
revenues derived fi-om the federal fuel tax and other highway-related taxes would
be adequate to support this level of funding.^ However, subsequent revenue fore-
casts prepared by the Department of the Treasury and released in July 1992 pro-
jected that tax receipts would grow more modestly than previously expected. On the
basis of the July 1992 revenue estimates and the assumption that ISTEA would be
less than fully funded, we reported in September 1992 that the highway account
faced a shortmll.^ Total revenues to the account were expected to fall about $6 bil-
lion short of meeting outstanding authorized funding by the end of the ISTEA au-
thorization period.
HIGHWAY account's FINANCIAL OUTLOOK IS WORSENING
Since our report was issued, the outlook for the highway account has become
worse for two reasons. First, as of January 1993 projected fuel and other highway-
related tax receipts through fiscal year 1999 were expected to be a total of $3.2 bil-
lion lower than amounts projected in July 1992. 'The declining rate of revenue
growth is largely due to revised national economic forecasts, as fuel tax receipts
fluctuate with the number of miles driven each month, which in turn varies with
the level of national economic activity and other key factors. Second, the balance
of the highway account will be drawn down earlier than previously anticipated if
the administration's economic stimulus package and long-term investment strategy.
^ The federal fuel tax is the primary component of all federal highway excise taxes. The fed-
eral gas and diesel taxes currently credited to the Highway Trust Fund are 11.5 cents and 17.5
cents per gallon, respectively. Note that these tax rates exclude an additional 2.5 cents per gal-
lon for both fuels that is credited to the (Jeneral Fund for deficit reduction, and an additional
0.1 cent per gallon that supports the Leaking Underground Storage Trust Fund.
'^Highway Trust Fund: Strategies for Safeguarding Highway Financing (GAO/RCED-92-245,
Sept. 15, 1992). The estimated shortfall was based on the assumption that obUgation levels asso-
ciated with Congressionally enacted obligation ceihngs would on average be held to levels about
$1.5 billion lower than the full authorization from the highway account each year.
509
which support full funding of ISTEA from fiscal year 1993 through fiscal year 1997,
are enacted. For the current year, for example, states may have the opportunity to
obligate nearly $3 billion more than earlier expected. Under these revised assump-
tions, the shortfall will total $12.5 billion through the end of the authorization pe-
riod, according to official administration projections developed by FHWA in January
1993.
The shortfall is calculated using a financial safeguard known as the Byrd Amend-
ment, which serves as a safety mechanism to ensure that revenues to be credited
to the highway account will be sufficient to meet all outstanding authorizations. In
brief, the Bjnrd Amendment requires that in any given fiscal year, the highway ac-
covmt's cash balance plus 2 additional years' revenues be siifficient to honor out-
standing authorizations through that fiscal year.^ Consideration of 2 future years'
revenues is in keeping with the fact that existing highway law provides for the col-
lection of fuel and ouier highway-related taxes for 2 years beyond authorizations.
The Byrd Amendment not only establishes a means of measuring the overall fi-
nancial condition of the highway account, but also mandates FHWA to reduce
states' apportioned funding if a shortfall is predicted. As shown on Attachment 1,
under January 1993 projections, FHWA would be required to cut about $4 bUlion
annually from states' apportionments in fiscal years 1995 through 1997.
INCREASED REVENUE STREAM WOULD SAFEGUARD mOHWAY FINANCING
Our September 1992 report presented a number of strategies that the Congress
could employ to prevent the apportionment reductions. Since that time, however,
the magnitude of^the shortfall nas approximately doubled. Furthermore, the Presi-
dent's long-range investment proposal advocates the extension of a 2.5-cent portion
of the fuel tax currently scheduled to expire at the end of fiscal year 1995. In rec-
ognition of these significant changes, we would like to focvis on two specific ap-
proaches for defiling with the shortfall.
First, the threatened shortfall could be eliminated if the Congress extended and
credited to the highway account the 2.5-cent portion of the fuel tax cvirrently tar-
geted to deficit reduction and scheduled to expire at the end of fiscal year 1995.
While the administration advocates the continued collection of the 2.5 cents beyond
1995, it remains an open question whether these funds will be applied to uses other
than the Highwav Trust Fund. If all the receipts fi*om the 2.5 cent portion of the
tax were cr^tea to the highway account, FHwA's January 1993 estimates show
that the accounts uncommitted balance at the end of the ISTEA authorization pe-
riod would total about $1.8 billion. This is $800 million more than the minimum
$1 billion safety cushion FHWA officials have recommended to guard against un-
foreseen decreases in revenues.
A second approach would be to collect fuel and other highway-related taxes cur-
rently credited to the highway account for 3 years beyond the authorization period
(through fiscal year 2000), instead of the current 2 years. Similarly, the Byrd
Amendment would be changed to consider 3 instead of 2 futxire years' revenues.
These actions would increase the amount of revenue available to offset outstanding
authorizations. While this approach has the apparent advantage of satisfying the
Bjrrd Amendment, it has some serious disadvantages as well. Firat, while extending
the revenue stream would satisfy the Bjrd Amendment, this action would have no
effect on tiie sufficiency of current revenues to sustain a positive cash balance in
the highway account. "This would mean that the highway account would be unable
to support reimbursing states for their expenditures. A second concern with extend-
ing the revenue stream is that by relying even more heavily on future revenues, un-
certainty about anticipated revenue levels would be increased. This is because the
further revenue projections stretch into the future, the greater the potential margin
for error in the estimate.
SELECTION AND FUNDING OF DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS COULD BE IMPROVED
Recent surface transportation legislative actions have generated a proliferation in
funds authorized for nighway demonstration projects and the number of these
projects. Highway demonstration, or specisd, projects fall into several distinct cat-
egories, but are generally specific construction projects identified by name in legisla-
tion. They can range in scope from paving a gravel road to building a multilane
highway. ISTEA included 539 demonstration projects with an accompanying author-
^ Although the calculation associated with the Byrd Amendment does not directly consider ob-
ligation levels, obligation levels can have an indirect effect on the outcome of the calculation.
This is because obhgations have a bearing on the highway account's cash balance, which is a
direct input to the circulation.
68-623 0—93 17
510
ization of $6.2 billion. This amount represents almost a five-fold funding increase
compared to the 1987 reauthorization, which included $1.3 billion for 152 highway
demonstration projects.
Some demonstration projects address critical transportation needs, but their high
costs can preclude a state s capacity to fund them in the near term. Thus, the au-
thorization of federal demonstration funds for such projects can prove essential to
spurring their development. However, authorizing a large numoer of new dem-
onstration projects could be problematic for a variety of reasons. First, authorized
federal funds combined with the required state match are often not sufficient to
complete the projects. Second, demonstration projects are often not aligned with
state and regional transportation priorities. Third, the purchasing power of dem-
onstration project funds is often limited by a slow rate of obligation.
DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS EXACERBATE FINANCIAL OUTLOOK
The financial problems of the highway account will be exacerbated if more dem-
onstration projects are authorized through supplemental appropriations, or if addi-
tional funds are authorized for already approved demonstration projects that are un-
derfunded. This is because new demonstration projects increase total authorized
funding, and thus increase total potential liabilities to be met from the highway ac-
count.
Demonstration projects will compound the financial difficulties facing the highway
account because mese projects frequently cost more than initially expected. In our
1991 review of 66 highway demonstration projects in 8 states, we found that the
cost to complete these projects fi-equently exceeds authorized funding levels.^ We re-
ported, for example, that across ail the projects reviewed, the federal funding and
state match together comprised only 37 percent of total anticipated project costs.
States therefore planned to use other federal, state, and local funds to cover about
half of the additional $1.2 billion needed to complete the projects. State officials,
however, were uncertain how they could cover the remaining needs. The tendency
of the projects to cost more than originally expected will present an additional drain
on the highway account if extra funds must oe authorized and appropriated in fu-
ture years to cover the cost of project completion.
PROJECTS TYPICALLY DO NOT MEET TOP PRIORITIES AND HAVE LIMITED PAYOFF
In addition to worsening the financial status of the highway account, demonstra-
tion projects often provide limited benefits. One reason is that these projects fi:*-
Sfuently are not aligned with key transportation priorities. For example, in 1991 we
ound that a majority of the demonstration projects we reviewed did not appear on
state or regional transportation plans before they were authorized. Thus, these
projects did not receive the same degree of scrutiny as do projects undertaken
through established federal-aid highway plems and programs.
A second reason why the payoff from demonstration projects is limited is that
they often have problems causing them to languish in an earlv project development
stage long after authorization. In our review, we found that these problems ranged
fit)m threatened intrusion on wetlands to citizen opposition. For example, one pro-
posed highway construction project we reviewed would have cut through a low-in-
come housing project undergoing renovation witih federal funds. We also found that
demonstration projects tend to have a slow rate of obUgation;. in 1991, only 36 per-
cent of funding authorized for demonstration projects 4 years earlier had been obli-
gated. Indeed, funds for demonstration projects may never get obligated; for 22 of
the 66 projects we reviewed, none of the authorized mnds ($92 million) had yet been
obligated, even though the projects had been authorized 4 ^ears earlier. There is
no provision for recapturing or redistributing the demonstration projects' budget au-
thority to other programs, and thus there is no guarantee that the authority will
ever be used for either demonstration projects or other transportation needs.
A final concern with demonstration projects is that in addition to being costly and
offering little return on investment, the projects tend to draw funds away fi"om
major federal-aid highway programs such as Interstate Maintenance, the National
Highway System, and the Suriace Transportation Program. Because demonstration
projects are exempt from obligation limitations, the annual obligation limitation
must be lower than it would be otherwise. Moreover, when the obligation limitation
is applied to states' apportionments, demonstration projects emerge unscathed. If
demonstration projects were similarly subject to the obligation limitation, states
* Highway Demonstration Projects: Improved Selection and Funding Controls Are Needed
(GAO/RCED-91-146, May 28, 1991).
511
would have more flexibility to target obligational authority to their core federal-aid
programs.
In our 1991 report, we raised a series of possibilities for improving the current
approach to selecting and funding demonstration projects. As you will see on Attach-
ment 2, we would like to outline a few of them today. One possibility for improving
project selection would be to authorize only those projects that are already incor-
porated in existing transportation plans. Turning to funding policy, we noted that
one possibility would be to finance demonstration projects thi"ough existing federal-
aid highway program categories. In addition, we recommended that the Congress
consider instituting a "use-it-or-lose-it" demonstration project provision requiring
the cancellation or redistribution of federal funds for any demonstration projects
that remain inactive 4 years -after their authorization.
LITTLE INITIAL USE OF ISTEA FUNDING FLEXIBILITY
ISTEA provided unprecedented opportunities for states and local governments to
use federal funds flexibly for highway, mass transit, or nontraditional projects, such
as HOy lanes and ridesharing programs. An estimated $80 billion of ISTEA's total
$155 billion authorization may be used flexibly. To date, however, our ongoing work
has found that states and local governments have made limited use of ISTEA's
funding flexibility provisions. In fiscal year 1992, less than 3 percent of flexible fed-
eral-aid highway funds ($319 million) were used to finance mass transit and non-
traditional projects and about 3 percent of flexible mass transit capital funds ($31
million) were used to finance nontraditional projects.
USE OF FUNDING FLEXIBILITY SPURRED BY AIR QUALITY CONCERNS
Where funding flexibility has been exercised, it has largely been concentrated in
the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) program — an
FHWA program desired to address air quality problems. Approximately 50 percent
of CMAQ's $340 million in total obligations has financed mass transit and nontradi-
tional projects. Even within the CMAQ program, the greatest use of funding flexibil-
ity was concentrated in five states that accounted for about 75 percent of the CMAQ
cross-modal investments.^
TraflBc congestion and air qusdity seem to be pla3dng an important role in fimding
flexibility decisions. For example, CMAQ fiinds have financed mass transit and non-
traditional projects in areas experiencing severe congestion and air quality prob-
lems, such as the Northeast. The funds are being used to finance such projects as
HOV lanes, bus purchases, and transit passenger facilities such as bus shelters,
each of which qu^fies as a transportation control measure under the Clean Air Act
Amendments oi 1990. There are a number of reasons why congestion and air quality
will likely continue to exert a major influence over decision makers' choices to use
funds flexibly. First, 70 percent of peak hour urban Interstate travel in 1991 was
under congested conditions. Second, 38 states have nonattainment areas — that is,
areas that do not meet national air quality standards for at least one pollutant. Fi-
nsdly, in 1991, 6 out of 10 people in the U.S. lived in nonattainment areas.
HINDRANCES TO FUNDING FLEXIBILITY
Although congestion and air quality are key considerations in the decision-making
process, a varielA^ of other factors may hinder states and localities fi-om thinking and
acting cross-moaally. For example, some state departments of transportation have
not historically had a large involvement with mass transit programs and therefore
may be reluctant to transfer funds for nonhighway uses. Local as well as state offi-
cials we talked to agreed that adapting to ISTEA's changes would not occur over
night. In addition, not all state and local funds can be used flexibly for matching
fund purposes. In 1991, 35 states restricted the use of their motor fuel tax revenues
to highway or bridge use only; therefore, about $13.5 biUion out of total state motor
fuel tax collections of $19.3 billion could not be considered for mass transit projects.
Finally, highway and mass transit infi*astructure needs continue to exceed avaflable
resources. Officials fi-om all five states we visited expressed concern about their abil-
ity to meet infrastructure needs. As an official fi"om one state we visited noted, any
new money received fi-om ISTEA was not enough to cover the tremendous backlog
of projects in the pipeline. As a result, this state official believed use of funding
flexibility would be discouraged.
® New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Illinois, and Virginia.
512
IMPROVED TOOLS NEEDED TO SUPPORT CROSS-MODAL DIVESTMENT DECISIONS
Rather than focusing on only one form of transportation at a time, ISTEA encour-
ages an intennodal approach to dealing with transportation issues. States and local-
ities are expected to consider all modes of transportation in developing transpor-
tation plans. However, they may need help in accomplishing these goals. We re-
ported in April 1992 that DOT could better assist state and local governments by
developing a common basis for comparing and evaluating projects in various trans-
portation modes — highway, mass transit, or some combination.^ Such criteria would
provide a common basis for quantifying a proiects ability to meet mobility, environ-
mental quality, cost-effectiveness, safety, ana social and economic objectives. Cur-
rent highway and mass transit selection criteria do not facilitate such comparisons
and choices. We recommended that DOT develop cross-modal comparison criteria to
better assist state and local decision makers in identifying those projects, regardless
of mode, that most effectively deal with congestion and air qualityproblems. Such
criteria have not yet been developed even though state and local oflBcials we talked
to continue to believe that such criteria are necessary for making investment deci-
sions.
As we reported in December 1992, DOT could also better assist state and local
decision makers by supporting the development of methodologies for data collection
and analysis to compare projects.' Our ongoing work focuses on that need in one
area — the capacity of existing analytic tools to determine the air Quality impacts of
transportation projects. Although methods and models exist for forecasting travel
demand in urban areas and for identifydng emissions rates of various vehicle tjrpes,
the state of the art in evaluating air quality impacts of transportation projects is
not well advanced. In general, travel demand models were originally developed some
20 to 30 years ago to analyze the need for new or modified nighway facilities. Be-
cause these models often do not incorporate or fully recognize such factors as vehicle
speed or tjrpe, they are now ill-suited to be used to analyze the air quality impacts
of transportation projects. Officials fi-om all 10 states and 9 metropolitan planning
organizations (MPO) we contacted cited problems in evaluating the air quality im-
pacts of transportation projects with existing information and models. In fact, one
MPO we visited expressed such concerns over existing techniques and tools that it
had deferred use oi CMAQ funds until it had' more confidence in determining the
emission reduction benefits of CMAQ proposals.
A mechanism to collect data and develop methodologies to help states and local-
ities address the above problems exists through DOT's Office of Intermodalism and
Bureau of Transportation Statistics. These ofnces were created to develop and dis-
seminate transportation data and provide technical assistance to states and local-
ities. The development and dissemination of criteria, methods, and models under the
leadership of these offices could assist state and local decision makers not only in
comparing projects in different transportation modes but also in evaluating the
projects' impact on such objectives as air quality. As we reported in December 1992,
depending on the success these new offices have in fostering an intennodal ap-
proach, DOT may also need to consider other organizational changes such as cre-
ation of a Surface Transportation Administration to encompass the missions cur-
rently performed by separate rail, highway, and transit agencies. Assistance to
states and localities will be criticeil as they identify the mix of projects, regardless
of mode, that address problems such as congestion and poor air quality, while devel-
oping an intermodal transportation system.
CONCLUSIONS
Cuts of the magnitude needed to eliminate the shortfall in the Highway Trust
Fund will work counter to efforts to stimulate the economy and spur long-term in-
frastructure investment. A number of strategies could be employee! to deal with the
shortfall, but many of these approaches woiSd do nothing more than mask the im-
minent problem. On the basis of January 1993 assumptions and expectations, the
solvency of the highway account could be ensured and apportionment cuts prevented
by extending the 2.5-cent fuel tax currentiy supporting deficit reduction and apply-
ing a substantial portion of it to the highway account starting in fiscal year 1996
and continuing through fiscal year 1999.
Since transportation needs far outstrip avsiilable resources, federal funds should
be targeted to the most significant transportation problems facing the nation. While
^Transportation Infrastructure: Urban Transportation Planning Can Better Address Modal
Tradeoffs (GAO/RCEI>-92-112, Apr. 2, 1992)
■^ Transportation Issues (GAO/OCG-93-14TR, Dec. 1992).
513
some existing demonstration projects could be classified as nationally significant,
others do not even appear on a state transportation plan. Therefore, improvements
in processes for selecting and funding such projects could better target limited re-
sources. For example, selection criteria might require that the projects' significance
be demonstrated through their inclusion in existing transportation plans. In the
area of funding, if a demonstration project remains inactive 4 years after its author-
ization, cancelling it or redirecting its authorized funds will help to ensure that the
funds are effectively spent.
ISTEA changed the environment in which surface transportation choices are made
by providing states and local governments with an unprecedented opportunity to use
federal funds flexibly for highway, mass transit, and nontraditional projects. To
date, however, the use of highway and mass transit funding flexibility has been lim-
ited. At the federal level, DOT can help to address some of the barriers to the use
of flexible funding. For example, it can assist states and local governments both by
developing cross-modal comparison criteria and by fostering development of im-
proved analytic tools for assessing the impacts of transportetion investment choices.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony. I would be happv to respond to any
questions that you or other members of the subcommittee might have.
WELCOMING SENATOR HATFIELD
Senator Lautenberg. I am delighted to welcome Senator Hat-
field. Senator, we have just started with the first of the witnesses.
Is there anything that you want to say?
Senator Hatfield. No, thank you.
Senator Lautenberg. Next, Mr. Carlson, we would like to hear
fi*om you.
statement of dean CARLSON
Mr. Carlson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the com-
mittee. Thanks for the opportunity to testify on the status of our
efforts to implement the ISTEA and the other related issues. It is
a pleasure to have this opportunity to do this. I have brought with
me some copies of a FHWA stewsirdship report titled "Putting
ISTEA into Motion." I think maybe that is apt because I believe
ISTEA stirred up the industry a little bit.
general implementation
Overall, FHWA and our partners have obligated more than $17.8
billion in Federal-aid highway funds in fiscal year 1992, including
such exempt programs as the minimum allocation apportionment
and demonstration projects, and the rest of the money made avail-
able to us. I could say that the old money was used the fastest,
since the rules for that money were well known, but the congestion
mitigation and air quality money and other new categories also
went out quite well, which tells us that the philosophy of ISTEA
is being accepted by the people that are going to put these projects
into effect.
NATIONAL highway SYSTEM
For FHWA's purposes, we believe the National Highway System
[NHS] is a vitally important element of ISTEA and expect it to be
the major focus of the Federal-aid program into the 21st century.
This 155,000-mile system will consist of about 4 percent of total
rural and urban road and street mileage, but will carry over 40
percent of vehicle travel and more than 70 percent of heavy truck
travel. The NHS will serve most cities over 25,000, in addition to
514
strategic military needs, major ports, airports, public transit facili-
ties, and international border crossings.
We are expecting the States to submit their proposals for the
NHS by April 30, 1993, to ensure that we meet the ISTEA-estab-
lished date of December 18 for submitting the proposed NHS to
Congress and implementing this critically important program. This
will be a complete package to Congress in December that hopefully
will have information that will help us sell this program across the
country. The NHS package will include such things as design
standards, possible options for funding, and possibilities for specific
marking or identification.
FUNDING FLEXIBILITY
One of the fundamental concepts that ISTEA seeks to foster is
funding flexibility and transferability. Taking advantage of these
provisions, States transferred nearly $1.1 billion of their apportion-
ments for certain highway programs to other highway categories.
In fiscal year 1992 and the first 5 months of fiscal year 1993, $331
million of fiscal year 1992 funds from STP and CMAQ programs
were used for transit projects. In fact, a majority of the CMAQ
funds were not spent for traditional highway projects, but included
such things as carpools, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
INTELLIGENT VEHICLE/HIGHWAY SYSTEMS [IVHS]
Mr. Chairman, you particularly have been instrumental in help-
ing us advance the IVHS Program. For that we thank you very
much. A solid foundation has been laid through the completion of
rVHS America's strategic plan for intelligent vehicle/highway sys-
tems in the United States and the Department of Transportation's
strategic plan report to Congress.
Over the spring and summer, we hope to develop a program plan
for IVHS which will become the critical path to get to where we
want to go with this program. The R&D program has grown from
about $5 million in 1991 to about $40 million in 1993, and this we
expect to continue and hope it will give us the information we need
to have a very effective program.
The President has proposed, in his rebuild American initiative,
an increase from $70 million per year starting in fiscal year 1994
up to $100 million in fiscal year 1998 for the IVHS Program. A por-
tion of the additional funding would be used for defense technology
conversion to support the development of IVHS applications of ad-
vanced technologies created by defense firms and the national labs.
I have a current IVHS status report, which I can also supply to
the committee, that gives a good outline of where we are at the mo-
ment. If anybody would like one, we could provide one.
STATEWIDE AND METROPOLITAN PLANNING
Additional implementation activities have been, in my view, a
real challenge, because this bill is different. I have outlined our ef-
forts in a written statement for implementing ISTEA in the areas
of statewide and metropolitan planning, management systems, and
highway and motor carrier safety.
i
515
As an example, we are conducting a series of workshops jointly
with the surface transportation policy project, a representative of
which will testify on the second panel. We also have worked very
hard to disseminate information on ISTEA through an electronic
bulletin board and we issued Federal Register notices on April 23,
1992, and January 4, 1993, with complete information for our part-
ners on how they should use the provisions of ISTEA.
ECONOMIC STIMULUS PROGRAM
Mr. Chairman, the President has proposed an economic stimulus
package, which has been passed by the House as H.R. 1335, that
would let us move forward with this program at a faster rate. It
would also give us additional ability to induce emplojrment and in-
crease funding available for maintaining the conditions and per-
formance of our Nation's highways. The increase in the obligation
limitation would result in job growth in the near term because it
would be used for highway projects that are ready to go.
ISTEA OUTLOOK FOR FISCAL YEAR 1994
And the good news, I believe, is that our 1994 budget will include
a long-term investment program that basically is full funding for
ISTEA. In order to do that, as Mr. Mead said, we need the 2.5-cent
motor fuel tax currently being paid into the general fund to be ex-
tended after October 1995 and put into the highway trust fund.
The administration's message, I believe, is that increased high-
way investment means smarter spending of dollars, not only spend-
ing more dollars. Because if we are to take advantage of the flexi-
bility provisions of ISTEA, we cannot be scrapping over the money
on the table. It will be much easier to use those flexibility provi-
sions if we have full funding. We are also doing things which make
the best use of current surface transportation dollars, such as the
National Quality Initiative which holds tremendous potential for
improved planning, design, and construction at the least annual
cost.
In conclusion, I want to express my appreciation to the members
of this subcommittee, all of whom have been very supportive of the
objectives of ISTEA, and to share with you my pride in the accom-
plishments of the FHWA's employees during the first year of
ISTEA's implementation. I can assure you that under the leader-
ship that has been announced for our agency, this dedication and
outstanding level of effort is going to continue.
I would be happy to answer questions later.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much, Mr. Carlson. We
have your complete statement and it will be made part of the
record.
[The statement follows:]
Statement of E. Dean Carlson
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify before the Subcommittee on the status of our efforts to implement the Inter-
modal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) and related issues.
516
As you know, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) values its positive re-
lationship with this Subcommittee. We look forward to working with you as we
chart the progress of this landmark surface transportation legislation.
GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION
By enacting the ISTEA, Congress set into motion an array of surface transpor-
tation programs, policies, and increased resources for surface transportation. In the
first year of the Act, 1992, the FHWA, along with other Department of Transpor-
tation modal administrations and our many other partners, began to implement the
Act's provisions.
In this regard, I would like to provide the Subcommittee with a pamphlet the
FHWA prepared describing our implementation activities. The pamphlet is entitled
"FHWA Stewardship Putting ISTEA into Motion" and it highlights our major ac-
complishments during the first fiscal year of the legislation.
Overall, the FHWA obligated more than $17.8 billion in Federal-aid highway
funds in fiscal year 1992, including exempt programs such as the minimum alloca-
tion apportionment and demonstration projects. Fiscal year 1992 obligations include
more than $4.4 billion for Interstate programs, $3 billion each for the National
Highway System and Surface Transportation Program (STP), $1.8 billion for the
Bridge Program; and $340 million for the new Congestion Mitigation and Air Qual-
ity Improvement (CMAQ) Program.
NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM
The National Highway System (NHS) is a vitally important element of the ISTEA
and is expected to be the major focus for the Federal-aid highway program into the
21st century. The 155,000 mile system will consist of about 4 percent of total rural
and urban road mileage but will carry over 40 percent of vehicle travel and more
than 70 percent of heavy truck travel. The NHS is expected to serve nearly all
urban areas with a population of at least 25,000, in adoition to meeting strategic
military needs, and serving major ports, airports, public transit facilities and inter-
national border crossings.
To ensure that the national objectives of the NHS are achieved, the FHWA has
played a strong leadership role in working with the States and Metropohtan Plan-
ning Organizations (MPO s) in our combined effort to develop the proposed NHS. Al-
though some routes must be included in the NHS (i.e., the Interstate System, the
Strategic Highway Network (STRAHNET), maior STRAHNET connectors and high
priority corridors) the States have considerable flexibility to propose additional
routes.
The required functional reclassification of all public roads and streets is essen-
tially complete and the States, in cooperation with local officials, are now identifying
proposed routes for the NHS. States must submit these routes by April 30, 1993,
to ensure that we meet the ISTEA-established date of December 18, 1993, for sub-
mitting the proposed NHS to Congress and implementing this critically important
program.
FUNDING FLEXmiLITY/TRANSFERABILITY
One of the fundamental concepts that the ISTEA seeks to foster is funding flexi-
bility and transferability. The Department and the FHWA have encouraged State
and local governments to utilize the ISTEA funding flexibility and broad project eli-
gibility provisions. Taking advantage of these provisions, States transferred almost
$1.1 billion of their apportionments for certain highway programs to other highway
categories.
Similarly, during fiscal year 1992 and the first 5 months of fiscal year 1993, $331
million of fiscal year 1992 funds from the STP and CMAQ Programs were made
available for transit projects. In fact, the majority (60 percent) of CMAQ funds have
been obligated for projects other than traditional highway projects, including car-
pools and bicycle and pedestrian facilities, that improve air quality.
The CMAQ and STP enhancement programs have shown rather slow rates of obli-
gation, in part because States are uncertain about project eligibility and program
structure in these new areas. The FHWA has therefore issued guidance to the
States to address these uncertainties and ensure the successful implementation of
the CMAQ and transportation enhancement provisions. In October, the FHWA and
the Environmental Protection Agency issued a three-phase schedule for implement-
ing the CMAQ program, and in January the FHWA published detailed guidance list-
ing eligible transportation enhancement activities, which include historic preserva-
tion, scenic enhancement, and wetland mitigation projects. We anticipate that this
'
517
guidance will serve as a catalyst for increased use of ISTEA's flexible funding provi-
sions.
Under certain conditions, the ISTEA also permits a State to use toll revenues as
a credit (soft match) toward the non-Federal share of ail programs authorized by
title 23 and the ISTEA. The credit is based on the amount of a toll authori^s reve-
nue used on projects it funds itself to build or improve public highways. This use
of toll revenues as "soft-match" is another example of enhanced ISTEIA flexibility.
In fiscal year 1992, five States estabUshed "soft-match" credits totalling about
$676 million. In New Jersey, for example, a credit amount of over $192 million was
approved for fiscal year 1992. Althougn New Jersey has not yet submitted a credit
amount for fiscal year 1993, it can continue to use the fiscal year 1992 credit. New
Jersey's soft match credit will permit it to run its entire Federal-aid highway and
Federal transit programs with a 100 percent Federal share in 1993.
INTELUGENT VEHICLE-fflGHWAY SYSTEMS
The FHWA stressed the promise for greater innovation that the ISTEA provides
for Intelligent Vehicle-Highway Systems (IVHS) and other research and technology
programs. We continue to aggressively implement the national IVHS program.
A soUd foundation has been estabhshed through the completion of IVHS AMERI-
CA'S "Strategic Plan for Intelligent Vehicle-Highway Systems in the United States"
and the Department of Transportation's "IVHS Strategic Plan Report to Congress."
Over the course of this spring and summer, we will be working cooperatively with
IVHS AMERICA, our federal advisory committee, to fiirther develop these strategic
plans into a National IVHS FVogram Plan which will describe the research, develop-
ment, testing, and deployment guideline activities needed to reach the point of de-
ployment of IVHS user services.
We are currently developing the system architecture for an integrated, nationwide
IVHS deployment. This involves a far reaching, consensus building effort. A series
of regionfd briefings are being considered as we go through the process.
A mil range of priority IVHS research and development (R&D) activities are now
underway with projects sponsored by the FHWA, the Federal Transit Administra-
tion (FTA), and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The
rVHS R&D funding has grown i&om about $5 million in fiscal year 1991, to about
$25 million in fiscal year 1992, and to $40 million in fiscal year 1993. This is ex-
pected to continue to increase.
Under the IVHS Corridors Program created by the ISTEA, we are examining six
priority corridors for operational tests which will be negotiated each year; in the
norUieast, a priority corridor runs along 1-95 fix)m just north of Washington to Con-
necticut.
In the Rebuild America initiative, the President proposed IVHS increases ranging
fix)m $70 million per year starting in fiscal year 1994 up to $100 million in fiscal
year 1998. A portion of this additional funding would be used for defense technolofflr
conversion to support the development of TVHS applications of advanced tech-
nologies created by defense firms and the national labs. This funding would be used
in cooperative IVHS partnerships with the Department of Defense s Advanced Re-
search Projects Agency programs and with the private sector.
We have also initiated an ambitious automated highway systems (AHS) prototype
program which will be funded under the proposed Rebuild America program. By
eliminating human error, an automated highway could provide a nearly accident-
fii-ee driving environment. Automated vehicle control could increase by 2 or 3 times
the capaci^ of present day facilities. Thus, the AHS presents an exciting oppor-
tunity to gain dramatic congestion and safety benefits from IVHS technology. As a
first step for AHS, we expect to use current IVHS R&D funds to let contracts in
May and June 1993 to conduct studies aimed at examination of critical technical
and systems issues. We also plan to work with one or more consortia to meet the
ISTEA requirement to demonstrate a prototype AHS in 1997 and to further develop
and test other promising concepts.
OUTREACH ACTIVmES
We have taken the partnering aspects of ISTEA very seriously by creating and
improving ties with our partners at every level, both within and outside of Federal,
State, and local governments; helping the MPO's; giving a voice and vision to the
diverse public and private interests affected by the ISTEA; encouraging minority
and women business enterprise; and working with our long-established partners like
the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. In addi-
tion, we have held hundreds of outreach and informational meetings with many di-
verse groups throughout the country since the ISTEA was enacted.
518
This outreach will continue. In order to ensure their widespread distribution, in-
terim ISTEA guidance memoranda were compiled and published in two Federal
Register notices issued on April 23, 1992, and January 4, 1993, and we intend to
issue additional ISTEA implementation publications in the future. Early in 1992, we
established a conference on the FHWA Electronic Bulletin Board System (FEBBS)
to help disseminate guidance on implementing the ISTEA. The ISTEA conference
includes nearly 300 questions and answers and 50 policy memoranda on ISTEA im-
plementation, with information from both the FHWA and NHTSA. When the ISTEA
conference was opened to the public, the number of calls to FEBBS each month dou-
bled from 2,500 to 5,000. Thus, FEBBS has been an essential component in our ef-
forts to disseminate information and assist State and local officials and MPOs in
implementing the ISTEA.
STATEWIDE AND METROPOLITAN PLANNING
ISTEA's new planning processes were initiated on March 2, 1993, under proposed
rules for both statewide and metropolitan planning. In the next several weeks, the
FHWA and FTA will hold 4 meetings in Atlanta, Kansas City, Philadelphia, and
San Francisco to obtain public input on the planning and management systems
rulemakings. These ISTEA-fostered changes will result in better transportation in-
vestment decisions based on improved processes, approval mechanisms, project
prioritization, and life-cycle costing.
MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
We have also been actively assisting the States in developing the management
systems provided for in the ISTEA in the areas of highway pavement of Federal-
aid highways, bridges on and off Federal-aid highways, highway safety, traffic con-
gestion, public transportation facilities and equipment, and intermodal transpor-
tation facilities and systems. These six systems will guide the States in making pru-
dent decisions when using their limited resources to improve the efficiency of the
nation's transportation system. Rather than imposing overly prescriptive Federal re-
quirements, the proposed regulations will designate 5ie desired end goals of the sys-
tems, thus granting the States and other affected groups greater flexibility in devel-
oping systems which are tailored to their specific needs.
In addition to holding public meetings on the traffic congestion, public transpor-
tation, and intermodal management systems, we published a proposed rule on the
systems on March 2, 1993, seeking additional information from the public. Because
no final regulations have yet been issued, progress by the States in implementing
these management systems has been vfiried. Several States have appointed commit-
tees to oversee the development of the systems and some have already budgeted
funds for this development, in anticipation of the issuance of the regulations.
MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ACTTVITIES
The FHWA implemented the reauthorization of the Motor Carrier Safety Assist-
ance Program (MCSAP), and we continue to work closely with the States through
the Commercial Vehicle Safety AlUance to expand the truck safety inspection pro-
grams at increased funding levels and to take advantage of innovative featiu^s that
were included in ISTEA. During fiscal year 1992, all but 2 States and 2 Territories
participated in the MCSAP. The program supports approximately 2,800 State per-
sonnel nationwide who perform 1.6 nullion commercial motor vehicle inspections an-
nually.
The FHWA also made progress toward improving uniformity in motor carrier ve-
hicle registration and fuel tax reporting through the International Registration Plan
(IRP) and the International Fuel Tax Agreement (IFTA), respectively. To date, all
of the contiguous 48 States except for Delaware, New Jersey, and Rhode Island are
members of the IRP, and 21 States belong to IFTA. Five additional States (Georgia,
Illinois, Mississippi, New Mexico, and Tennessee) are planning to join IFTA. Those
States participating in the Regional Fuel Tax Agreement (RFTA) as of January 1,
1991, (Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont) are not required to join tiie IFTA. As
mandated by the ISTEA, the FHWA has established a working group to assist the
States in complying with the September 30, 1996, deadline for membership in the
IRP and IFTA. This working group is charged with providing technical assistance
to the States and resolving disputes among uie States participating in the plan. Full
participation in the IRP and IFTA will save industry $1 bilhon annually in the ad-
ministrative costs of complying with varying State registration requirements and
fuel taxes.
519
ECONOMIC STIMULUS
House-passed H.R. 1335, the fiscal year 1993 Emergency Supplemented Appro-
priations bill, contains generally the same highway provisions as proposed by the
Administration in its economic stimulus program. Under H.R. 1335, the fiscal year
1993 Federal-aid obligation limitation would be increased by $2,976 billion above
the current limitation of $15,327 billion. Thus, the new obligation limitation would
be $18,303 billion.
liie increase in the obligation limitation, which would be distributed to all the
States based on existing formulas, is an element of the President's program to em-
phasize investment and to jump-start the economy. The overall impact of the addi-
tional obligation limitation would be to reduce unemplojonent ana to increase the
funding available for maintaining the conditions and performance of our Nation's
highways.
The additional obligation limitation would result in job growth in the near-term
because it would be used for highway projects that are ready to go. The OfiBce of
Management and Budget estimates tnat the additional obligation limitation would
support 72,000 additional direct and indirect highway construction jobs with more
than 13,000 of these jobs created before September 30 of this year. Unemployment
in the construction industry in general is over 15 percent nationally, and even high-
er in many States. The transportation component of the economic stimulus proposal
would thus serve as a key source for job growth in the construction industry and
related businesses.
FISCAL YEAR 1994 LONG-TERM INVESTMENT PROGRAM
While the full details of the fiscal year 1994 Budget have not been released, the
Administration proposal will provide for fiill ISTEA funding of the Federal-aid high-
way program. In fiscal year 1994, the obligation Limitation would be $18,398 billion,
or about $2.7 billion more than the baseline estimate of $15.7 (the pre-stimulus fis-
cal year 1993 enacted budget plus inflation). When programs that £ire exempt from
the obligation limitation are considered, the total Federal-aid highway program will
be about $20.5 billion. This level of funding is consistent with the Administration's
vision of increased public investment to improve productivity.
Full ISTEA funding is also important for the transferability and flexibility provi-
sions to work to their fullest extent. The multi-modal availability of funds and ex-
panded project eligibility have resulted in greater competition for ISTEA funds.
Transferability and innovation could suffer in a climate of restrictive spending. In
many cases, competition for funds may work against newer programs, especially
when they are competing with existing projects which are "on-the-shelf" and ready
to go. While the FHWA has done as much as possible to create a level playing field,
the amount of funds available is probably the single biggest factor in ensuring that
new programs are successfully delivered.
Relative to the future investment proposals, full ISTEA funding would result in
the following investment levels:
—Fiscal year 1995: Obligation limitation, $18.5 bilhon; Federal-aid total, $20.7
billion;
—Fiscal year 1996: Obligation limitation, $18.5 billion; Federal-aid total, $20.9
billion;
—Fiscal year 1997: Obligation limitation, $18.6 billion; Federal-aid total, $21.0
billion.
Thus, under the Administration's highway investment proposal, the total obliga-
tion levels for fiscal year 1994-97 would be $8.6 billion higher than the baseline lev-
els (which are the fiscal year 1993 enacted levels adjusted for inflation). When com-
pared to baseline funding, the Administration's highway investment proposal will
result in:
— Decreased deterioration of the highway system by supporting more highway re-
surfacing, restoration, and rehabilitation projects. These projects reduce pave-
ment deterioration and the resulting higher costs of major reconstruction
projects.
— Less congestion. We have estimated that the congestion cost is about $39 billion
annually in urban areas with populations larger than 1 million.
— Increased highway safety. The Nation's annual cost of motor vehicle accidents
including deaths, injuries, and property damage is approximately $137 billion.
In 1992, about 39,200 people were killed in traffic related accidents. Although
this is a tragic loss of human life, we do note that this is the lowest fatality
toll in 30 years and represents a 16 percent drop in fatalities over the past 4
years. The national highway fatality rate now stands at about 1.8 deaths per
100 milUon vehicle miles of travel. This is the lowest ever, just half of what it
520
was less than 20 years ago, and one of the lowest rates in the world. But we
can and must do more. In addition to the FHWA's ongoing programs to make
the highway environment safer, we are working closely with NHTSA to imple-
ment the safety belt and motorcycle helmet use provisions of the ISTEA. The
ISTEA's sanctions for failure to enact mandatory belt and helmet laws shovild
expedite implementation in all States of these very important safety measures;
to date, 42 States have safety belt laws in effect, 27 have helmet laws. In addi-
tion, we hope to make our arsenal of highway safety measures even more effec-
tive through the highway safety management systems.
With respect to taxes, full ISTEA funding for highways is based on the extension
and transfer to the Highway Trust Fund of the 2.5 cent motor fuel tax currently
being paid into the General Fund of the Treasury. Two cents of this amount would
be demcated to the Highway Account and the remaining one-half cent would be
dedicated to the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund. Without such
additional financing, we project the Byrd Amendment would trigger a reduction in
apportionments as early as fiscal year 1995. Under the Byrd Amendment, as
amended, unfunded authorizations at the end of the fiscal year in which the appor-
tionment is made must be less than the revenues anticipated to be earned in the
following 24-month period.
The Administration's message is also that increased highway investment means
smarter spending of dollars, not only spending more dollars. The FHWA is focusing
on those high pay-off measures which make the best use of current surface transpor-
tation dollars, systems, and techniques. Such programs include the IVHS, the six
management systems required by ISTEA, and the National Quality Initiative, which
holds tremendous potential for improved planning, design, and construction at the
least annual cost. Last November, the FHWA along with leaders in the transpor-
tation industry pledged to make a continuing commitment toward the production of
quality products and services through a partnership approach. We are continuing
tills commitment through regional workshops.
CONCLUSION
While we have completed just one year of this six year landmark surface transpor-
tation legislation, I believe we have established a strong foundation on which to
build the fiature of our nation's surface transportation program. I want to express
my appreciation to the Members of this Subcommittee, all of whom have been very
supportive of the objectives of the ISTEA, and to share with you my pride in the
accomplishments of all FHWA employees during the first year of the ISTEA's imple-
mentation. I can assure you that this dedication and outstanding level of effort will
continue. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
STATEMENT OF FRANCIS B. FRANCOIS
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Francois, we welcome you here, and
we will be pleased to hear from you.
Mr. Francois. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very pleased to
be here. I am Frank Francois, executive director of the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
In my oral testimony, I would like to concentrate on three areas:
funding, flexibility, and possible changes to the ISTEA.
FUNDING
With respect to funding, it is recognized that the authorized lev-
els of the ISTEA hold great promise to helping to meet the needs
of America's transportation system. But the failure to fully fund
those authorizations for both highway and transit programs is seri-
ously affecting the programs of our States, local governments, and
transit agencies. Many of them anticipated full funding and, as a
result, they have had to change their programs over the last sev-
eral months when the full funding did not actually materialize.
These adjustments are painful and they also have created other
problems that I will refer to.
521
Now, when looking at the funding authorized in the bill, we do
need to keep in mind, however, that it is not a cure-all for all of
America's transportation problems. This is made clear by the Janu-
ary 1993 report to Congress by the U.S. DOT, titled "The Status
of the Nation's Highways, Bridges and Transit."
In that document, it points out that for our transit programs, we
should be operating at a level of at least $3.9 billion in capital each
year just to maintain condition and performance at current levels,
and at $6.6 billion if we are to improve those. And all of those
numbers are on the assumption that the transit share of ridership
will stay at about its current level. If we have a much larger use
of transit, you would need much more capital.
The ISTEA approaches those levels, but does not really fund
them.
With respect to highways, this same 1993 report advises us that
in 1991, all levels of government, collectively, spent $81.2 billion on
3.9 million miles of streets, roads, and highways. Of that, about
$36.1 billion was spent for highway and bridge capital improve-
ments. The Federal share of that was about 41 percent in 1991,
compared to 44 percent in 1989.
As to needs, this report indicates that we should be spending
$51.6 billion, not $36.1 billion, just to maintain conditions and per-
formance. If we want to bring our highway performance levels up
to where we believe they ought to be, capital expenditures should
be about $67.3 billion per year.
So, even at full funding, the ISTEA would fall short of meeting
the traditional Federal role for the capital needs of both transit,
highways, and bridges.
But full funding has not been achieved. Thus far, in 1993, high-
way funding has fell some $2.3 billion below authorizations, and
transit about $1.4 billion below for that mode. We are very encour-
aged about the President's transportation supplemental appropria-
tions bill, and we hope it passes the Congress.
The $2.97 billion in additional obligation authority for the high-
way program, in effect, would fully fund highways for fiscal year
1993. And the $712 million additional for transit would restore a
little over one-half of the underfunded portion of this mode.
We strongly support the approval of that bill.
Looking to future years, in recent testimony. Secretary Peiia has
stated it is the intention of the President to fully fund the highway
portion of ISTEA in fiscal year 1994 and later years. And, to help
fund that, to return the 2.5-cent motor fuel tax to the highway
trust fund, as Mr. Mead has indicated here this morning, would be
one way to solve the highway trust fund balance problem. We
strongly support that action also.
Now, I mentioned other problems when ISTEA is underfunded.
Among these are that intense competition is then created between
the highway and transit modes to claim available funding for their
respective modes. In addition, because of the many hold harmless
provisions and other features of the ISTEA distribution formulas,
when underfunding occurs, the distribution intended by the Con-
gress is disrupted, creating relative winners and losers among the
States. This is not a good situation either for Congress or for the
States. The way to solve all of that is with full funding.
522
FLEXIBILITY
Let me now turn to flexibility. We believe that the flexibility fea-
tures of the ISTEA generally are performing as we would have ex-
pected. It is early, obviously, but many States have taken advan-
tage of the flexibility provisions in the bill to transfer funds from
one highway category to another highway category, for example.
We have provided to you a cable provided to us by the Federal
Highway Administration for the period from October 1, 1992,
through March 1993, that shows some $216 million in highway
funds that have been transferred from one category to another.
Since 1991, we have seen a number of transfers of highway funds
to transit. We see none in the other direction, and we know of none
being planned. As of February 28, 1993, some 23 States either have
had money transferred from the Federal Highway Administration
to the FTA to a total of $436 million. In a survey we did in Decem-
ber, we find that some 11 States are planning additional transfer
of highway funds into the STP in 1993 of 294 million dollars'
worth, and some 17 States are planning to transfer STP funds to
transit projects in 1993, for a total of about $102 million.
Now, many of these are projects that have been in the pipeline.
We would anticipate that as the new planning processes go into
place and as the new regional and State transportation improve-
ment programs are developed that we will be able to much better
assess this. But, overall, we think that the transfer is working.
CHANGES TO ISTEA
And, finally, Mr. Chairman, with respect to changes in the
ISTEA, our belief is that this bill is only 15 months, and is really
still an infant. It is the beginning step in a generational change in
our Nation's surface transportation programs. There are many com-
Eonents that are yet to be put fully into effect and, as a result, we
elieve it is premature to talk about changes in the bill right now —
at least major structural changes.
We anticipate that AASHTO may have some specific rec-
ommendations and some States may have some over the coming
months. But, overall, we think the bill needs to be given a chance
to operate over a period of 2 or 3 years before we really consider
major changes.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much, Mr. Francois. We
have your complete statement and it will be made part of the
record.
[The statement follows:]
Statement of Francis B. Francois
Mr. Chairman, I am Francis B. Francois, Executive Director of the American As-
sociation of State Highway and Transportation Officials, commonly called AASHTO.
AASHTO is concerned wiui all of tiie m«gor modes of transportation, including high-
ways, transit, rail, aviation and water transportation.
On behalf of AASHTO, I am pleased to respond to your invitation asking for our
views on implementation of the Intermodal Svuface Transportation Efficiency Act of
1991 (ISTEA). In your invitation you stated the purposes of this hearing to include:
523
examination of the flexibility provisions of ISTEA, including the extent to which
highway and mass transit funds have been used across-modal lines and how such
transfers have affected urban versus rural highway and transit decisions; whether
there are resource constraints that would limit futvu"e investment opportunities; and
the need for changes to the ISTEA, including exploring the federal role in removing
any obstacles to effective and flexible use of surface transportation funding. Let me
address each of these subjects, particularly as they relate to the highway program.
RESOURCE CONSTRAINTS
Given that funding of the ISTEA is an issue of overriding concern and that this
hearing is before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation and
Related Agencies, let me first turn to resource constraints.
The authorized levels of the ISTEA, $120.9 billion for Title I (highways), $1.63
billion for Title II (safety), $31.5 billion for Title III (transit), $ .54 bilUon for Title
rV (motor carrier safety), and $ .84 billion for Title VI (research), promise vitallv
needed support to America's transportation system. But to fulfill that promise, full
funding oi the authorized levels is necessary. Unfortunately, such full funding did
not occur for fiscal year 1992, and thus far for fiscal year 1993.
The failure to fully fund the authorizations of the ISTEA, for both highway and
transit programs, has seriously affected the ability of states, local governments and
transit agencies to meet their transportation needs. Anticipating full fdnding, many
of them proceeded to establish their programs on this basis and have since had to
make adjustments. While making sucn adjustments disrupts orderly fiscal and pro-
gram planning, when the ISTEA is underfunded other problems are also created.
While the new funding promised by the ISTEA is very important, it needs to be
remembered that even with this funding highway and transit needs of our nation
will not be fully met. This is made clear by the January, 1993 report to Congress
by the U.S. Department of Transportation, titled 'The Status of the Nations High-
ways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions and Performance."
With respect to transit, the 1993 Status report states that the total transit ex-
penditiu-e for 1990 in our nation was $19 billion, with $14.7 billion for transit serv-
ice and capital expenditures of $4.3 billion. Turning to needs, the U.S. DOT report
finds that over the period 1992-2011 the annual capital investment in transit from
all sources should be at least $3.9 billion to maintain conditions and performance
at current levels, and $6.6 billion to improve conditions and performance. Both cap-
ital expenditure levels include metropolitan expansions, and are stated in 1991 dol-
lars with no allowance for inflation. As to what the $6.6 billion level would accom-
pUsh, the report states that it would:
"(1) eliminate the backlog of bus and rail deficiencies; (2) maintain current tran-
sit market share; (3) add additional service to accommodate anticipated urban
demand not included in the highway analysis; (4) improve transit stations to
current standards; and (5) meet statutory requirements to serve disabled Amer-
icans."
As to highways, the 1993 Status report states that the total emenditiire on high-
ways by all level of governments in 1991 was $81.2 billion, with $36.1 billion of this
being spent for highway and bridge capital improvements. The federal share of this
$36.1 billion was 41 percent in 1991, compared to 44 percent in 1989. As to the cap-
ital needs of the nations highways and bridges, the 1993 Status report finds that
$51.6 billion should be expended annually to just maintain conditions and perform-
ance, compared to the 1991 total of $36.1 billion, and that if conditions and perform-
ance are to be improved to acceptable levels the annual capital funding should be
$67.3 billion.
As the 1993 Status report makes clear, even at fuU funding the ISTEA falls short
of meeting the traditional federal role toward funding the capital needs of transit,
highwavs and bridges. But full funding of the ISTEA is important, and is supported
by AASHTO. An AASHTO resolution supporting full funding was approved last Oc-
tober, and a copy is being submitted to tne record with this testimony.
Under the ISTEA, for fiscal year 1993 highway funding was to rise to $20,478 bil-
lion, and transit funding was to rise to $5,235 billion. As you, the members of the
Appropriations Committee, well know, the appropriated levels for fiscal year 1993
fell considerably short of that amount. Federal-aid to highways was set at approxi-
mately $18 billion, with transit funding set at only $3.8 billion. Actual 1993 funding
thus fell some $2.3 billion below the authorizations for highways and some $1.4 bil-
Uon bellow for transit.
We are encouraged that the new Administration is seeking to supplement fiscal
year 1993 transportation funding through the emergency supplemental appropria-
tions bill. The $2.97 billion in additional obligation authority for the highway pro-
524
gram contained in the Presidents bill would in effect fully fund the program for fis-
cal year 1993, and the $712 million for transit would restore over half of the fiscal
year 1993 underfunding for this mode. AASHTO strongly supports approval of this
bill.
Looking to future years, in recent testimony Secretary Federico Peria has stated
it is the intention of the President to fully fund the highway portion of the ISTEA
in fiscal year 1994 and later years, and also to return the 2.5 cent motor fuel tax
now devoted to deficit reduction to the Highway Trust Fund, effective in fiscal year
1995. Preserving the use of transportation user fees for transportation purposes has
long been a policy of AASHTO. We believe that the return of the motor fuel tax to
the Highway Trust Fund is critical if the Congress is to fully fund the transpor-
tation investments provided for in ISTEA.
I mentioned that when the ISTEA is underfunded, additional problems are cre-
ated. Among these are that intense competition can be created between the highway
and transit modes, to claim available funding for their respective modes. In addi-
tion, because of the many hold harmless provisions and other features of the ISTEA
distribution formulas, when underfunding occurs the distribution intended by the
Congress is disrupted, creating relative winners and losers among the states. All of
these problems can be avoided with full funding.
In early December of last year, AASHTO issued "A Report on the Highway Pro-
gram Capacity of State Highway and Transportation Departments, FY 1993-1996."
Based on a survey of the 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, the
report provided information on the states' ability to fully utilize the $18 billion in
federal-aid for highways provided under the Department of Transportation Appro-
priations Act (Public Law 102-88), and their ability to use additional highway fund-
ing if it should be made available.
I would like to share with you some of the comments we received from the states
in this AASHTO survey, reflecting the states' concerns over the failure to fully fund
the ISTEA:
"Congressional appropriation of less federal money than ISTEA authorized has
substantially altered our approach to fiscal year 1993."
"The reduction of obligation limits below authorization levels in fiscal year 1992
has disrupted the accomplishment of our published construction programs,
causing delays in both state and local infi*astructure developments."
"The reduction in obligation authority fi^m the amount authorized in ISTEA
has severely hampered our fiscal year 1993 program."
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, we strongly urge fvill funding
of the ISTEA.
ISTEA FLEXIBILITY PROVISIONS
One of the features of the ISTEA is the high degree of flexibility allowed in the
use of the federal funds authorized thereunder, including the possibility of transfer-
ring highway funding from one category to another, transferring highway funding
for use on transit projects, and under certain prescribed circumstances the possibil-
ity of transferring certain transit funds for use on highways. The provisions for
transferring highway funds included in the Act are of two basic types, the first re-
quiring only the decision of the state and local governments to accomplish, and the
second requiring agreement by the U.S. Department of Transportation. Transfers
from transit to highways require that a specific set of conditions be met.
Since the ISTEA was signed into law in December, 1991, many states have taken
advantage of the flexibility provisions to transfer funds from one highway category
to another highway category. Attached is a copy of a table prepared by the Federal
Highway Administration for the period from October 1, 1992 through March 30,
1993, showing that some $216 million in highway funds have been transferred from
one category to another.
In the time since December, 1991 we have seen a number of transfers of highway
funds to transit use. To date, there have been no transfers of transit funds to high-
way use, and to our knowledge none are planned at this time.
'The ISTEA makes transit capital projects eligible for funding under the Surface
Transportation Program, and also in some cases eligible for funding under the Na-
tional Highway System in the corridor of fully access-controlled NHS routes.
According to tiie Federal Highway Administration, as of February 28, 1993 the
following amounts of ISTEA funds have been obligated for transit projects in 23
states:
Surface Transportation Program $54,600,000
Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality 277,000,000
525
Other programs 104,400,000
Total 436,000,000
The "Other" category of funding includes Interstate Highway Substitution Funds
being used for other purposes. Minimum Allocation Urbanized funds, and Priority
Intermodal Projects. Attached is a table from the FHWA indicating a state-by-state
use of funds for transit projects.
The 1992 AASHTO survey leading to our December report did not seek to collect
data on transit projects, since such projects in most cases are not administered by
the states. But we did request information as to planned transfers of highway funds
for transit use and vice versa, as permitted under the ISTEA. A total of 11 states
reported they will transfer highway funds into the Surface Transportation Program
in fiscal year 1993, for an estimated total of some $294 million. A total of 17 states
indicated they plan to transfer STP funds to transit projects in fiscal year 1993, for
a total of about $102 million. No states anticipate using transferred transit funds
for highway projects.
The transfers that have occurred to date largely reflect the first year of implemen-
tation of the ISTEA, which rewrote the rules for the use of federal highway flinds
for transit and other projects. As a result, the transfers that have occurred might
generally be considered as having been made for projects already "in the pipeline."
As the new planning and flexibility provisions are applied to the regional and state
Transportation Improvement Programs that must be in place by Movember, it will
be easier to assess the impact of the new flexibility on the decision-making of state
and local transportation officials.
In California, STP funds have been used for such purposes as the design and con-
struction of a natural gas fueling station in Sacramento, replacement of storage
tanks and bus yards in Santa Clara, the purchase of alternative fiaeled buses, and
the rehabilitation of buses. Congestion Mitigation funds have also been used for re-
placement of buses, signs and bus stops, leasing of coaches, park and ride lots and
operating assistance.
New Jersey has used STP funds for an historic rail station, and applied CMAQ
funds to the purchase of a diesel locomotive and an upgrade of their signal system.
By far the greatest use of ISTEA funds for transit has occurred in New York,
where in excess of $200 million has been obligated for the design and construction
of various capital projects, bus purchases, park and ride lots, and other projects.
Clearly, states are applying the ISTEA funds to a broad spectrum of transpor-
tation needs, fulfilling the miDti-modal spirit of the ISTEA legislation. The transfer
provisions are an option for the state and local governments, not a mandate. Look-
ing specifically at highway to transit transfers, states and Metropolitan Planning
Organizations (MPOs) are attempting to develop methods of evaluating transit vs.
highway projects in order to best use the funds available. In some states transit
projects may simply not be the best solution to transportation needs, and decisions
will be made accordingly. In other states investment in public transit may come to
represent a sizable share of transportation resources.
Mr. Chairman, responding to your question as to how transfers from highways to
transit have affected urban versus rural highway and transit decisions, both urban
and rural states have made such transfers, as detailed in the FHWA's attached
table. It is interesting to observe that the first such transfer, $400,000 from high-
ways to transit to purchase buses, occurred in a rural state, Nebraska.
At this early stage in the implementation of the ISTEA, the evidence is that the
transfer provisions of the bill are being used as intended, to obtain the best use of
the available federal funds as perceived by the states, local governments and transit
agencies. Once the MPO and state TIPS for future years come forward, a more com-
plete judgment can be made.
CHANGES IN THE ISTEA
Mr. Chairman, with respect to changes in the ISTEA, to date AASHTO has not
developed any formal recommendations.
The ISTEA constituted a major, once in a generation restructuring of federal in-
volvement in and support of the nation's surface transportation system. The bill is
only 15 months old, and thus is still an infant. Further, we do not yet know how
the ISTEA and the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990 will interact, as they
must. In the absence of final conformity regulations being adopted by the Environ-
mental Protection Agency and the development of the first TIPs under those regula-
tions, the interaction between tiie ISTEA and the CAAA cannot be fully predicted.
There are also other provisions of the ISTEA still to be implemented, including the
six management systems.
526
At this stage, it appears premature to recommend changes to the overall structure
of the ISTEA. We need a stable program, and until we know major changes are
needed the wiser course seems to be to wait a while longer. This does not mean,
however, that some changes in specific provisions of the ISTEA might not be ad-
vanced by AASHTO, its member department or others over the coming months. In
any case, AASHTO has no specific changes in the ISTEA to recommend at this time.
Mr. Chairman, we again thank you for the opportunity to provide our views to
you and the Subcommittee on implementation of the ISTEA. We stand prepared to
respond to questions, now or later.
Full Funding of the ISTEA Authorization Levels
(October 4, 1992)
PR-20-92
WHEREAS, Public Law 102-240, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Effi-
ciency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), signed by the President on December 18, 1992, estab-
lished a new transportation program featuring increased Federal assistance for
highways and public transportation- and
WHEREAS, these increased authorization levels will still fall short of meeting
America's highway and transportation needs; and
WHEREAS, the higher authorization levels were contemplated to be fully fianded
by Congress when it enacted ISTEA; and
WHEREAS, surface transportation programs are financed by dedicated taxes col-
lected fix)m users to improve their transportation systems, and any proposed reduc-
tions in funding levels wUl result in users receiving less than the full benefit of their
contributions as well as increasing the existing Highway Trust Fund balance; and
WHEREAS, the states and other agencies, based on the authorizations of Public
Law 102-240, have planned, budgeted and contracted for important transportation
public works projects which will stimulate the economy and create jobs for the na-
tions unemployed; and
WHEREAS, the states are prepared to fully utilize all Federal-aid surface trans-
portation funding provided to implement needed transportation improvements and
continue assisting the nation's economic recovery;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) that in considering the Transpor-
tation Appropriations Bills, the Congress should pass and the President should sign
legislation with full funding of the highway and transit programs of the ISTEA; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that copies of this resolution be provided to the
appropriate members of the United States House of Representatives and Senate, the
U. S. Department of Transportation, and the President of the United States.
527
o ^ o
^O H O
• • «
\0 00 H
^ n oo
n rA 0\
K « «i
<r\ n to
o\ 00 <i\
lA O <N
o in o
O 00 o
• t •
•^ r> r>
tH f* 00
00 o H
^ ^ «
CM in o\
€0 00 \D
^ O ON
O O O O
O O O O
00
^ in oo o m
\£> yr Cf\ a in
rs ro o> in CM
ik « « ^ •»
in o in t>> o
v6 in (n H in
H H H in "(t
I
I
I
I
cooinH'tH'^w r^
in H 00 (M CM
<
M Eh
o
U
•< O >< <!<
o
I
I
I
I t^
I m
I CM
I *
( \o
I H
I CM
I
I
I
528
sTiir
AfiWOND
CALirORNU
HKm HICHVtr ADNIHISTRIIION
INURKODAl SURFACE IRAKSfORIAIIOK EFFICUNCT AC) OF I9fl
FUNDS OIIIEAIED FOR IRANSII PROJECIS AONINISIERED IT FIA
CUHUIAIIVE AS OF Ftbruirr 28, 1993
cirr
NONTSONEir
tUCSON
NARICOPA(PHOENtX)
sacrahehto
san dieco
san dieco
sah diego
FRESNO
siocnoN
SAN lERNARDlNO
SIANILAUS
lUlARE
SAN FRANCISCO
SIAIEVIOE
SACRAHENIO
SANTA CLARA
COUNirUIDE
OJAI
SIAtEVIDE
SAN RAFAEL
SACRAKENIO
COLDEN ENPIRE
roio
SAN LUIS
TOlO
LOS ANELES
PROJECT
TRANSIT CAPITAL INPROVENENTS
PURCHASE TVO lUSES
UPGRADE AND REFURIISH lUSES
DESICN/CONSI NATURAL GAS FUEL STN
REPLACE RUSES AND SIGNS
REPL OLD RUSES I SIGNS, lUS STOPS
CONST lUS CIR I PURCHASE lUSES
PURCHASE ?0 lUSES
IU3 PURCHASE AND COHHUTER SERVICE
PURCHASE } IUSES/?0 SHELIERS
AUIOIUIIC VEHICLE LOCAIER
PURCHASE ; lUSES
FACILIIT REHAIILITATION
TRANSFER CNIRS/FARE COLLECTION STS
REGIONAL TRANSIT PROJECTS
REPLACE STORAGE TANI I lUS YARD
PURCHASE i AlIERHAIIVE FUEL RUSES
PROPERir ACQ. TRAUSII FAC.
PURCHASE 2 IROLir RUSES
TRANSFER CNTRS/FARE COLLECTION STS
PARI AND RIDE lOT
REGIONAL TRANSIT PROJECTS
CONSTRUCTION CHC FUELING STATION
PURCHASE 210 tUS RADIOS
LEASE OF 162 COACHES
RETROFIT lUSES FOR ADA CONPIIAKCE
REHAIILITAIE 10 TRANSIT 8USES
RETROFIT lUSES FOR ADA CONPLUNCE
OPERATING ASSISTANCE
SIP
S0I,47(
(00,000
1,200,000
Sll.OOO
1,200,000
ue,7oo
2,t8],9S4
3,(00,000
6(0,000
130,000
FUNDS OILIGATED
CNAO OTHER
STATE
TOIAL
81,300
5,700,000
9,2(9,000
!,?((, BOO
2,205,000
1,780,000
224,000
79,9I(
97,383
177,0(0
7,810,480
400,000
4,4ie,l3S
1,3(0,000
932.800
4,220,000
133,(50
885.300
2,740,100
501,476
(,300,000
48,554,579
COHNECTICVI
GEORGIA
IDHHO
IllINOIS
HARTIAND
NASSACHUSEITS
niNNESOTA
KERRASIA
HEN JERSET
NEH TORI
HARTFORD
IRIDGEPORT
HARTFORD
ATHENS
ROISE
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
lALIINORE
lOSION
CANTON
STATEVIDE
GLOUCESTER
LINCOLN
OLD COLONY
SIATEVIDE
STATENIDE
WORCESTER
DUlUfN
OHAHA
SIATENIDE
SIATEVIDE
STATEWIDE
NEN TORI CITT
DUTCHESS COUNTT
DUTCHESS COUNTT
DUTCHESS COUNTT
NEV TORI CITT
SARATOGA COUNTT
NIAGARA
UNION STATION REHAI (1,832
REPLACE PECI IRIDGE
PURCHASE lUS
IRANSII INPROVENENT 394, 9SJ
PURCHASE NATURAL GAS lUS
COHMUTER LOT
PURCHASE 45 lUSES
PURCHASE 200 VANS
REFURRISH/PURCHASE RAH EOUIP
RESTORE RAH LINE/CONST COIVIUTER STA
INTERNODAl STATION IHPV. IT KIIA
ACCES'iieiLlIT INPV'S CONST. NITA
GRADE CROSSING INPV'S CONS. IT MIA
GRADE CROSSING inPROVENENTS HITA
FIXED RAIL TRANSIT IT NIIA
INIERKODAL PARIIHG FACILITIES NITA
INIERNODAL INPV'V TO UESIFORD STA.
PE I RON TRANS CENTER AON II NITA
CONS. UNDER IHE DIR OF THE NITA
HALL HUl STSTEN AND HIE RACIS
PURCHASE TRANSIT lUSES
HISTORIC RAIL STATION
PURCHASE DIESEL LOCONOTIVE
SIGNAL SrSIEN UPGRADE
DESIGN I CONST VARIOUS CAPITAL
TRANSFER TO FTA-IUS SHELTERS
TRANSFER TO FTA-IUS PURCHASE
TRANSFER TO FIA-NARIEIING
TRANSFER TO FIAOPERIIHt COST
TRANSFER TO FIA FOR lUS PURCHASE 1,048,000
3 PARI AND RIDE LOTS
14,173,(00
4,454,400
870,000
3,900,000
7,000,000
3,900,000
3,300,000
18,(89.832
394,955
870,000
14,800,000
3,300,000
935,000
588,150
120,000
120,000
21,040,000
(.5(0,000 '
2.880,000
800,000
27,200,000
(0,243,150
344,000
344,000
400,000
400,000
4,000,000
13,000,000
17,000,000
34,000,000
!(, 700,000
73,300,000 100,000,001 •
116,000
400,000
(1,000
219,400
492 DOO
in 3J4 401
NORTH CAROLINA DURHAM
TRANSIT PROJECT 1(0.000
1(0,000
OHIO COIUNIUS
COIUHIUS
CLEVELAND
SIAIEVIOE
SORTA
COLUNIUS
PENNSTLVANU ALIENTOW
TENNESSEE NENPHIS
SI ADNIN SCHOOL lUSES/VAHS/NAINT. FAC 1,298,977
20 LIFT EOUIP lusts
PASSENGER ACCESSUAT
SIUDT, FIXED GUIDEVAT TRANSIT STSTEN (00,000
PARI, RIDE AND ROVA 2,758,000
48 lICTCLE STORAGE LOCIERS
PURCHASE LIFT VEHICLES 400,000
NPO PRIORITT 7 400,000
3,500,000
8,648,000
(50,000
17,454,977
400.000
400,000
lEXU
FOfll NOITH
FORI VORTN
TIMSF PROJ TO FTA FOR OVERSIGHT E
lUSES
1,000,000
3,537,(00 •" 3,537.(00
1.000,000
529
FUNDS 0BLI6ATE0
SUTE
cifr
PiojEcr
SIP
CNAO
OTHER
STATE
TOTAl
urtN
STtTEHIDE
PURCHASE 10 lUSES 20 VANS
2,400,000
2,(00,000
verhoni
lURLIHSTON
SriTEHIDE
SIAIEKIDE
SUIEHIDE
SrAIEUIDE
inPROVE nAIHf FAC
PROPERtr ACQUISITOH
COnPUIER EOUIP
TRANSIT PROJECT
PROPERTr APPRAISALS/CONST SERVICES
200,000
I5(,(00
1,884,000
471,000
33,400
2,745,000
VIRSIMIA
KEDPOIIf HEKS
HtnPION
NEUPOSr NEWS
lICHmND
RICHNOHD
ftlCHHOND
mSHIHSIOH, DC.
VISHIHCION, O.C.
HORFOU-POftlSHOUIH
fOUR REPUCEHENT lUSES
lUIlO TRAHSPORUriWI CENTER
lURD TRANSPORTATION CENTER
FEASIIILITT ANO DESIGN STUDY
IMPIEHENT CONPREKENSIVE TRANSIT PLAN
ACO ALT FUEL lUSES FOR 6RIC lUSES
30 REPIACENENI BUSES
FIVE CONIT'IER (USES
20 TRANSIT COACHES FOR HOV EXP BUS
704,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
200,000
800,000
3(7,000
4.600,000
920,000
3,440,000
13,031,000
VEST VIRCIKU
HUMTINerON
PURCHASE AND RENOVATE BUS TERNINAL
291, 24(
291,246
HISCONSIN
NllvturEE
KiKIIOUOC
HiUAUrEE
RILUIUIEE
PURCHASE TRANSIT BUSES
PURCHASE BUS
BUS UPSRADES
PURCHASE BUSES
717,000
200,000
2,118,400
883,000 «•
3.918,400
lOIAL 0IU6MED
1 Inttrstitt Highmr Substitution Funds being «scd for Trinsit Furposts
•• Ninjiuf tllocitiofi Urbinjitd funds
•»» Priorili Interiodal Projtcts
54,(03,344
277,048,(70
104,420,(01
436,072, (15
MINBIUM ALLOCATION AND ISTEA DEMO PROJECTS
Senator Lautenberg. Well, there is one thing that is for certain
as we listen to your comments, that unless we fully fund the pro-
gram we will certainly not have met the mission that ISTEA set
out to accomplish. And you are not going to find any argument
with that from this chairman, I can assure you.
Initially, Federal Highways had advocated in the 1993 vear
budget including the minimum allocation program, an ISTEA dem-
onstration program, within the Federal Highway obligation ceiling.
Mr. Carlson, how much of the available minimum allocation
ISTEA demonstration project obligation authority has been obli-
gated since the enactment of ISTEA?
Mr. Carlson. I will provide that for the record. I believe around
25 percent of the minimum allocation has been obligated.
[The information follows:]
Obligations for Minimum Allocation and ISTEA Demos
As of March 31, 1993, 45.8 percent of authority available for Minimum Allocation
since the beginning of fiscal year 1992 had been obligated, and 21.4 percent of au-
thority available for the ISTEA Demonstration Projects had been obligated. The fol-
lowing table presents additional detail on obligations for these programs:
Minimum
allocation
ISTEA
demonstrations
$388,897
$1,159,988
$1,548,885
$1,050,331
67.8
$498,554
$558,567
Fiscal year 1992:
Unobligated balance (9/30/91)
New authority
Total available
Obligations
Percent obligated
Fiscal year 1993:
Unobligated balance (9/30/92)
$558,567
$124,710
22.3
$433,857
530
Minimum ISTEA
allocation demonstrations
New authority $1,080,460 $1,236,489
Total available $1,579,014 $1,670,346
Obligations (3/31/93) $155,089 $260,174
Percent obligated (3/31/93) 9^ 15£
Overall (3/31/93):
Total available $2,629,345 $1,795,056
Obligations (3/31/93) $1,205,420 $384,884
Percent obligated (3/31/93) 45^8 2U
Senator Lautenberg. What accounts for the slow rate of obliga-
tion for the minimum allocation and the ISTEA demonstration
project funds?
Mr. Carlson. For the demonstration projects, only a certain per-
centage of the amount authorized in the bill for each project is
available each year, so that some of the States have elected to wait
until they can accumulate a bit of a balance before they start to
move those projects. In the minimum allocation category, that
money is not tied to any particular system or project, so the States
consiaer that to be somewhat free money, and they save it to use
for things that they particularly have needs on.
I am told that the 25 percent for demonstration projects is about
the correct number.
Senator Lautenberg. Now, does that 25 percent meet fully the
funding that would have been available, or are there reasons other
than the formula structure that account for the slowness of dis-
tribution?
Mr. Carlson. Well, the GAO study, I believe, found that some
of the projects that were put in as demonstrations even in 1982
have not yet been advanced. So it would appear that some of the
demonstrations selected have not been necessarily popular with the
jurisdictional implementers. Now whether that is an answer, I am
not sure.
Senator Lautenberg. I am not sure whether that is an appro-
priate answer, but it is sure not one that we are going to manage
from here, because if you talk about jurisdictions, we are talking
about State transportation departments selecting priorities, even
though some of my colleagues occasionally would like me to bypass
that, we are not going to attempt to do it.
subjecting ma and demo funds to the obligation ceiling
Would State flexibility be enhanced by subjecting these funds to
the obligation limitation?
Mr. Carlson. It would get at one of the problems that Mr. Fran-
cois mentioned, which is the unintended results of lowered obliga-
tion ceilings; it changes the formula allocations percentages that
the Congress had in mind. And we also think that it might be an
incentive for them to move some of these projects a little quicker.
They would be on a basis similar to the rest of the Federal aid pro-
gram.
Mr. Mead. That is so, Mr. Chairman. I would like to second that.
A slow obligation rate is a significant problem with demonstra-
531
tions, even going back to 1982, and I guess most people would
agree that 10 years is enough time to begin to see the beginnings,
at least, of a project.
Senator Lautenberg. Well, what we will have to review is
whether or not we can move these funds along somewhat quicker
if the projects in fact meet the tests that they are supposed to with-
in their jurisdictions.
EQUITY BETWEEN FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS AND MA/DEMO FUNDING
Mr. Francois, last year the committee, in response to the budget
constraints imposed by the firewalls between defense and domestic
discretionary, had to reduce the obligation on the regular Federal
Aid to Highways Program 16 percent below the fully authorized
level. Yet, the minimum allocation program and the demonstration
projects were exempt from this reduction.
If faced with the need to limit expenditures, would you limit the
minimum allocation in demonstration projects before, or would you
go along with the Federal Aid to Highways Program?
Mr. Francois. Mr. Chairman, AASHTO has no specific position
on this. As you can probably understand, some States are here and
some States are there, and we want to please both of those States.
Senator Lautenberg. Well, that leaves us 48 more to deal with.
Mr. Francois. Realistically, in fairness, some new approach
needs to be taken. Because, clearly, in the old days, before the allo-
cations were locked in, when everything was in formula, if money
came out of the program, everybody's share went down, and it was
clearly equitable. There is inequity now, and this is what many of
the States who are losers complain about when we have
underfunding.
In point of fact, because of all the changes that occurred, as we
understand it, only about five States actually got more money in
fiscal year 1993 than they did in 1992, and all the others had less.
That is a result of what Congress wrote into the bill. But of course
they wrote it in contemplating full funding. And I do not think
Congress necessarily took into account what happens if there would
not be full funding.
So we are all faced with this problem.
gao's criteria for selecting demo projects
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Mead, what is the point in authorizing
demonstration projects that are already included in State or re-
gional transportation funds?
Mr. Mead. Well, there are two objectives that would be served.
One is that it would ensure that the sponsor of the demonstration,
the congressional sponsor, coordinated with the State, and that it
was indeed a State priority.
And the second is that, since it would be a State priority, it
would tend to ensure that the money would at least be spent, in-
stead of sitting there in the trust fund.
Senator Lautenberg. Well, in addition to requiring that these
demonstration programs appear on State plans, does GAO have
any other recommendations to make for criteria for selecting dem-
onstration projects?
532
Mr. Mead. I think a use-it-or-lose-it provision, would put the
demonstration projects on the same footing as your other highway
projects. It would give the States 4 years to obligate the funds, and
after that, redistribute them to the other States.
Senator Lautenberg. That is like losing it.
FLEXIBILITY
Under ISTEA, States and urban areas are now allowed unprece-
dented flexibility to spend money on roads, transit, or other pro-
grams, Mr. Carlson. How is Federal Highways defining or analyz-
ing its funding flexibility?
Mr. Carlson. We obviously have attempted to help the States m
trying to do the projects that they think are best. And we have
many new relationships to build up before the flexibility in some
metropolitan areas is going to be fully utilized.
The planning regulations that we put out this year, the notices
of proposed rulemaking, should help to develop those relationships
a little better and help define the planning provisions of the ISTEA
so that everyone understands their responsibilities.
Right now I am afraid that there may be some areas where there
are organizations that consider their veto power more important
than their power to act affirmatively, and we want to get it so that
everyone is working together to get these projects done as quickly
as we can.
Senator LAUTENBERG. So, you are not developing more specific
yardsticks for doing that?
Mr. Carlson. No; the legislation gives the MPO's additional au-
thority that thev did not have before, and what we are trying to
do is work with the States, the MPO's, and the other interest
groups in metropolitan areas to get partners to the table, and get
them to work well together rather than to look askance at each
other's projects.
Senator LAUTENBERG. To what extent have the States and other
localities used the flexibility available to them?
Mr. Carlson. Well, there are a lot of States that are planning
to use the flexibility Mr. Francois mentioned, at least to the extent
that it could be done, and assuming all the metropolitan planning
organizations were readv to take on the responsibility. I think we
have a ways to go yet, but I think that they are developing those
relationships.
It varies around the country. There are organizations such as the
metropolitan organization in San Francisco and communities in
New York and New Jersey that are ready to move out on these is-
sues. And there are other parts of the country where there really
has been very little accomplished yet in the ability to transfer
funds and implement the flexible provisions of the ISTEA.
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Francois, what obstacles do you think
prevent the use of ISTEA's funding flexibilities?
Mr. Francois. I am not sure they are obstacles. Senator. Part of
it is simply learning a new system. Our State planners are spend-
ing immense hours working among themselves and working with
regional organizations trying to establish new procedures, being
certain there is adequate staffing, being certain that there are ade-
quate tools to examine the transportation issues.
533
It was mentioned here this morning that we are using, in some
instances, predictive tools that are quite old. The Federal Highway
Administration is undertaking some research to develop new traffic
analysis measures, and the States are doing the same. We have to
do things in new ways under this bill, and we are trying to work
with each other.
Now, the AASHTO standing committee on planning is currently
reviewing the NPRN's for both the urban planning and statewide
planning, and for the six proposed management systems of ISTEA.
And how those relate to each other, and they really form a new
concept of doing business that we are just learning to develop.
The relationships with our MPO's, I think, are developing around
the country. Quite frankly, in some States they were sJways good.
In other States, they were always bad. In other States, they have
just been ignored.
Senator Lautenberg. If you looked at the score cards, would you
say that some who were not so good before are getting better?
Mr. Francois. Yes.
Senator Lautenberg. Or is pretty much lined up the way it used
to be?
Mr. Francois. No, no; it is changing drastically out there. And
I think we are all learning, as I said. Planning money is very im-
portant right now for MPO's and for States both.
Another factor that I did not mention that we should mention
here is the ultimate interface between the Clean Air Act Amend-
ments of 1990 and the ISTEA of 1991. The two bills are very close-
ly interwoven with each other, and we do not yet know what that
ultimate interaction will be until we get from EPA the conformity
guidelines that we must live with. And those are under hot contest
right now, as you are well aware Senator.
Senator Lautenberg. Also with the ADA, right?
Mr. Francois. The ADA is less a factor. It affects the transit pro-
grams, obviously. But the potential of the Clean Air Act amend-
ments and the conformity process is enormous on whether or not
there will even be highway programs in many of our nonattain-
ment States in fiscal years 1994-95.
So, until that clarifies, it is very difficult to talk in terms of ulti-
mate transferability and the ultimate use of many of these dollars.
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Mead, is the funding flexibility being
used to make up any difference between mass transit appropria-
tions and the ISTEA authorizations for mass transit?
Mr. Mead. I do not believe that is being done with any intent
or forethought. Obviously, with a $350 million transfer it helps, but
that was for last fiscal year in which they were funded at their full
authorization level.
This year, even with Mr. Clinton's $750 million proposal for tran-
sit, you are still $750 million short of the full authorization.
Senator Lautenberg. Senator Hatfield.
Senator Hatfield. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate very
much the opportunity to hear the testimony this morning from this
transportation panel.
I also, Mr. Chairman, am sony that I will not be able to remain,
since the supplemental appropriations bill comes up again on the
floor at about 10:30, to hear Grace Crunican. I mention that be-
534
cause she was a staff member of this Subcommittee on Transpor-
tation of the Appropriations Committee for a period of time, and
also an expert in transportation for the city of Portland and other
assignments.
So, I would just like to have the record indicate I welcomed a
former fellow alumnus from the University of Oregon, and also a
former member of this committee.
OREGON HIGHWAY NEED — INTERSTATE 5
Mr. Carlson, I know that you are aware of the critical transpor-
tation needs in Oregon. I'd like to specifically focus on the 9-mile
bottleneck on Interstate 5 located at Salem, the State capital. It is
a huge undertaking and a costly project.
This section of 1-5 was built in the early fifties, and probably has
the highest commercial development of any part of the interstate
system in our State.
It is going to have to have some significant help from FHWA and
from Congress. From all assessments, 1-5 is the mainstream of our
basic economic highway of cargo and economic activity. In addition,
they tell me that traffic is expected to double in the next 25 years,
as it has certainly more than doubled since its first construction.
I understand, according to the State highway engineer, that we
will need about $45 million in fiscal year 1994 to reconstruct the
Market Street interchange, and the widening program that goes
with that. And, therefore, that discretionary funding is critical to
the needs of this project.
As you perhaps remember during our consideration of ISTEA,
Oregon projects on 1-5 were designated as the highest priority in
the country as far as discretionary I(4)(r) funding is concerned. Of
course that means that we have to be sensitive of that in the com-
mittee as well as asking you for your support.
First of all, I would assume, may I, that you are familiar with
the priority designation granted to this project in ISTEA? And can
you give me any kind of — I would hope I could use the word assur-
ance. But at least a prediction as to how the agency might handle
this problem in relation to discretionary funding?
Mr. Carlson. The first request from the State of Oregon for
interstate discretionary funding was received in the first allocation
process in October 1984, and it was for $11 million. We were able
to allocate those funds.
We will see, again, in October 1993 what the State may request,
and knowing the priority of the project we will certainly give it
every consideration.
Senator Hatfield. Every consideration. Can you make that a lit-
tle stronger?
Mr. Carlson. Well, one of the problems that we have in this is
that we are always receiving similar requests; in 1992, a total of
$794 million was requested by 22 States. And we were able to give
Oregon all that it wanted. We were not able to give the rest of the
States all that they wanted because we had only $64 million to al-
locate. I am afraid that we will probably have a similar situation
in 1993. Certainly we will do the best job that we can in making
these scarce funds available.
535
Senator Hatfield. As a member of the Appropriations Commit-
tee, I can assure you I appreciate the problem you are describing
because there are many accounts that we deal with that have a
similar problem as you know.
Mr. Carlson. Sure there are.
fflGH-SPEED RAIL CORRIDORS
Senator Hatfield. Mr. Carlson, in section 1010 of the ISTEA es-
tablished a high-speed rail corridor program and provided $30 mil-
lion for the elimination of railroad crossings in order to be able to
increase speeds of such trains.
One corridor has been designated from Vancouver, British Co-
lumbia, to Portland, and Portland to Eugene. In that entire cor-
ridor, there is about 125 miles from Portland to Eugene that goes
across the flat valley in mostly rural Oregon. That is to say, it hits
Albany and Eugene, but basically it is a rural area.
The State of Oregon has put high priority on this corridor. The
Governor, Governor Roberts, has asked the legislature to appro-
priate $11.5 million as the State's share to at least start these
crossing removals. We have about 123, I believe, such crossings
that for relatively low costs can be handled very early on, very
quickly.
Recognizing that the high-speed rail program is still in its in-
fancy and many details have yet to be worked out within the De-
partment of Transportation, can you give me an idea as to what ad-
ditional resources might be expected from your agency or FRA for
those corridors that have adopted plans and identified local money,
local support?
Mr. Carlson. I do not think that we are in a position yet to ask
local agencies to come up with their proposed funding. What we
have, outside of the money that you mentioned, is in the ISTEA it-
self 10 percent of the surface transportation program funds must
be used for safety projects. That includes both hazard elimination
and railroad grade crossing projects.
The thing that distinguishes a high-speed rail corridor from the
rest of the railroad crossings in the country is the speed of the
trains, which almost makes it necessary to separate the road grade
from the railroad grade. While this is not monumental in cost, it
is Quite hard to build a railroad grade separation for less than a
million or two, so that the number of your 123 crossings which will
receive funds probably will not be as large as we would like.
We certainly will work with the State of Oregon in developing
any proposals that they may have for those kinds of crossings.
Senator Hatfield. Oregon is the first State that has really taken
this challenge seriously, and because we had a State railroad agen-
cy that was looking at how we could restore resurrect passenger
rail traffic within our State from interurban traffic.
eliminating highway/railroad crossings
Mr. Carlson. One of the other things I would mention is that
we have worked rather closely with FRA on a proposal that they
have to eliminate 25 percent of the crossings in the country in ad-
dition to the money that we might have available to separate the
536
grades, and also to provide protective devices. It is very difficult to
do this, but really it boils down to the fact that there are probably
too many very local roads that are provided that kind of a service,
considering what we are trying to do with the high-speed rail pro-
gram.
We will be trying to work with the State of Oregon in also look-
ing at those crossings to see if any of them could be eliminated as
well as protected.
Senator Hatfield. I really feel we are on the brink of something
significant. As the chairman knows, there is a very outstanding
Spanish design for interurban passenger service cars. They are now
looking in the United States for a possible location to start manu-
facturing such cars and evidently can do so very reasonably in
terms of the competition and good engineering credentials and a
record.
I think it is iust another indication that there is a growing inter-
est in the public to see a restoration of high-speed rail competitive
to other modes of transportation.
FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAYS
One last question. I understand that your agency has asked for
a $36 million increase for a Federal lands program in fiscal year
1994.
Mr. Carlson. Yes, sir.
Senator Hatfield. I am pleased to know of your interest in that
area since I have, in my State, 51 percent of our State that is
owned by the Federal Government, which does not sound like very
much when I sit next to my colleague from Alaska. But it certainly
is a significant amount considering the square miles of our State.
Can you tell me how you plan to use this additional money,
whether on a State-by-State breakdown or on a discretionary fund-
ing program?
Mr. Carlson. I believe that the proposal is to have that as dis-
cretionary. We will be working with the Park Service and the For-
est Service as we normally do in the development of a program for
using those funds.
It is a good program. It is the basis for funding of public lands.
The requests that we get and the amount of money that we have
available are somewhat reminiscent of our comments on the I4R
discretionary program. There is usually several hundred million in
requests and only $40 or $50 million to allocate.
Senator Hatfield. Is that why I perceive that you have provided
such money, up to this point, to the States with less Federal owner-
ship than those with more Federal ownership?
Mr. Carlson. We have not attempted to cut back on the States.
We have formulas that show the amount of public land and amount
of money that States have been given historically. And we are try-
ing to develop a little bit of a proportionate share arrangement
there.
There have been some special occasions where we have one or
two States that have had major expensive projects that are way
over their share. And we have also been trying to do a little work
here in the District of Columbia in the area of The Mall, the monu-
ments that the American people like to visit.
537
So I suspect we probably have been a little over share there. But
we are trying to continue to fund States like Oregon and Idaho and
Alaska and other States that have a large proportion of public
lands, according to their share.
Senator HATFIELD. I thank you, Mr. Carlson. Mr. Chairman, I
want to express my appreciation for your courtesy. And let me sub-
mit for the record, if I could, the other questions that I have for
Mr. Carlson.
I thank you again. If you will excuse me.
Senator Lautenberg. Glad to have you here with us.
Senator Stevens, did you want to jump in and make some com-
ments?
ALASKA-CANADA HIGHWAY
Senator Stevens. I just have a couple of questions, Mr. Chair-
man. First I want to thank Mr. Carlson for working with us on the
Alaska-Canada Highway problem. The Alcan has been a very dif-
ficult one for us. We lost our great supporter when Senator Mans-
field left. That was really one of his pet projects, because it does
connect Great Falls, Canada into Alaska.
Unfortunately, though, we have another problem. And that is the
Eroblem of the underallocation. As I understand it, there were $2.6
illion in the demonstration projects minimum allocation fund. And
States such as ours, our former allocation was reduced from $213
to $176 million.
My two questions are this. Was the Alcan money subtracted from
our allocation? Are we being penalized because we fought for the
Alcan, funding the Alcan Treaty?
Mr. Carlson. No.
Senator Stevens. Because I do not think anyone else had that
kind of withholding.
Mr. Carlson. Well, there is no similar project in the country,
that is for sure. But Alaska was not penalized for that allocation.
Senator Stevens. Why did we only get 80 percent of our money,
then?
Mr. Carlson. I cannot speak with assurance to the formulas; the
development of the formulas is handled in the conference commit-
tee. But Alaska, one of the States that Mr. Francois mentioned,
was affected by reducing the amount of obligation authority avail-
able, and because your share of demonstration projects and mini-
mal allocation obviously is very, very low.
Alaska is a loser if the full funding of ISTEA is not made avail-
able. That is one of the reasons that we think that minimum allo-
cation funds and demonstration project funds should be put under
obligation authority.
Senator Stevens. Well, I understand that. And I appreciate your
consideration of our problem. But the fact still remains that under
the allocation formula, we — I was listening to the Senator from Or-
egon— we seem to have been penalized because we have so many
Federal lands. Did that happen?
And our funding formula is higher because we do have all those
Federal lands. And yet, we cross mile after mile after mile of them
with our Federal aid highway funds in order to get to State-owned
land.
538
Mr. Carlson. Senator, I do not feel I am in a position to either
support or attack the formula that was used to allocate the funds.
We had, in the proposals that the Federal Highway Administration
put on the table before the development of ISTEA, some formulas
that may have resulted in a more appropriate formula in your view
for Alaska.
But Congress, when they enacted the law, set up the amount of
money and there is not much we can do about it at this stage.
LIMITING MA AND DEMO FUNDS
Senator Stevens. Let me ask this question then. And I will just
quit. Was it not your administration that recommended that there
be a limit on the allocation of the funds, except for demonstration
projects and minimum allocations?
Mr. Carlson. We have never recommended that demonstration
projects be funded. That is something that we have always been
consistently in opposition to.
Senator Stevens. I guess I should talk to the chairman.
Senator Lautenberg. Funded separately.
Senator STEVENS. But there was no ceiling put on them. They
can go off the wall and they are not subject to any limitation.
Mr. Carlson. That is right.
Senator Stevens. And those that do not get demonstration
money end up by losing even more, because of the minimum was
placed into effect on allocation of formula grants. Is that it?
Mr. Carlson. I am not sure. You may have me confused here.
I am not sure that I understood the question, sir.
Senator Stevens. Since demonstration projects and minimum al-
locations are not subject to any obligation ceiling, the net result
was that you had to take more money out of the allocations to
States like mine. That is the way it appears.
Senator LAUTENBERG. The Senator is correct. And we fought that
battle on the floor of the Senate. We won it. And it was lost in con-
ference with the House.
I do not know whether Mr. Carlson wants to volunteer to try to
make changes. But I would tell you this
Mr. Carlson. I could answer that very quickly. No.
Senator Lautenberg. Senator Stevens knows a lot about for-
mulas and so forth. And I think recognizes that demos are funded
at a cost to the overall obligation ceiling.
Senator Stevens. I understand. It appears to us that somehow
or other we got less than we should have gotten. That is what I
am saying.
Senator Lautenberg. I would say that is a foregone conclusion,
from your view. [Laughter.]
Senator Stevens. Even assuming the cap that was put on alloca-
tions, are not some States below that cap because of the necessity
to fully fund the demonstration projects? And in our case, fund the
Alcan highway?
Mr. Carlson. I am sorry, sir. Would you repeat your question?
Senator Stevens. Let me rephrase it. Are there any States that
got less than the obligation ceiling?
Mr. Carlson. All the States got the same ratio of obligation ceil-
ing for those programs that are under obligation control. As you re-
539
call, we had difficulty with the Alaskan highway and we were able
to resolve that problem.
But taking that off the table, the State of Alaska got the same
ratio of obligation authority that all the other States got for those
parts of the program that are under obligation ceilings.
Senator Lautenberg. And the regular funding was reduced by
some 16 percent, because we did not fully fund ISTEA. I look for-
ward to working with the Senator from Alaska to get it fully fund-
ed.
Senator Stevens. State funding was reduced 19.9 percent.
Mr. Carlson. I believe that the 16 percent does not take into
consideration what we may have had to take down for administra-
tion and research and so forth. And that may be — I can assure you
that all of the States got the same percentage.
Senator Lautenberg. The pain was inflicted proportionally?
Mr. Carlson. Proportionally to all States; yes, sir.
Senator Stevens. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be working
with you to try to avoid that in the future, because it does hold up
vital funds.
Mr. Mead. Mr. Chairman, I have one point that might elucidate
that nationally. We reviewed the demonstration projects from 1987
to figure out what would happen if there were not any demos au-
thorized. It is too early to do this for the 1991 demos.
What we came up with was 21 of the States would have received
more money, 14 States would have experienced no change whatso-
ever, and 15 would have received less money.
Senator Stevens. Because they were getting the demo money.
Mr. Mead. Yes, sir.
Senator Stevens. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CONGESTION MANAGEMENT
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you, Senator Stevens. I want to
talk for a moment about congestion management. The ISTEA gives
States and local officials increased funding and flexibility to choose
the best mix of transportation projects to meet the local needs to
reduce congestion and improve air quality.
Mr. Carlson, what is the Department doing to encourage the
States and locals to include transportation management control
projects in their plans, as opposed to relying simply on building
new roads to meet the traffic needs?
Mr. Carlson. One of our management systems is for congestion.
And we will be looking to the States to use the procedures that we
are setting up in those management systems to get at that issue.
Also, we are encouraging that the CMAQ funds, which are di-
rectly tied to the 1990 Clean Air Act, should be used for those
kinds of projects that reduce air pollution induced by motor vehi-
cles. So almost all of them are for either transit or bicycle paths
or some feature like that. There is no other basic use. Construction
of HOV lanes is about the only time you would be building what
some people would consider a typicsd highway project.
Otherwise, all of the CMAQ money is going for those kinds of
features that improve air quality.
Senator Lautenberg. But what can your department do to en-
courage the local management agencies to focus on this?
540
Mr. Carlson. We are, sir. We are working very hard on the rela-
tionships that have to be developed between the MPO's and the
States, and also on the modeling techniques to develop the proper
traffic projection capabilities, so that we can tell what will happen
if certain amount of ADT reduction occurs in a traffic stream.
And the idea of the congestion mitigation funds is to get at those
kind of projects that will help us do that.
Senator Lautenberg. Is there a departmental review of pro-
grams that are designed to deal with the congestion, like the Air
Quality Program, that ascertains whether you are meeting what we
consider your obligations or not meeting them? Are you saying that
everybody is using whatever resources they have to deal with these
problems? Is the congestion mitigation program being treated with
enough seriousness in the local areas to get the attention that we
want them to give it
Mr. Carlson. I think the attention given to it is increasing, cer-
tainly with its new programs. So we had some work to do. But I
think that we are making considerable progress in working with
the States and the MPO's to get the programs underway.
It has been somewhat frustrating because we have an ongoing
process of reviewing the planning process that develops these
projects. And the FHWA has been attempting to get the players to-
gether to make this thing work.
We are also required by ISTEA to certifv that the planning proc-
ess is doing what you are asking that it do. And that will be com-
ing up as a result of our planning regulations. We should be in the
process of certifying the planning activities of the metropolitan
areas within the next year.
ALLEVL^TING CONGESTION WITH IVHS
Senator Lautenberg. The percentage of travel on the urban
interstates increased from about 55 percent to more than 70 per-
cent from 1983 to 1991. And obviously, this growth and congestion
gives rise to substantial cost.
A July 1992 report by the Texas Transportation Institute states
that in 1989 the total cost of congestion for 50 urban areas that
were studied was about $39 billion. Delay accounted for about 85
percent of this amount, excess fuel consumption accounted for
about 15 percent. Eight of the top 10 urban areas had total conges-
tion costs exceeding $1 billion.
To what extent is the IVHS research effort expected to alleviate
this growth in congestion?
Mr. Carlson. Well, the whole effort seeks to do two things. One
is to alleviate congestion and the other is to provide a safer facility.
For our first driver information system activity, some of the evalua-
tion reports on Travtek in Orlando have st^ed to come in, and
some drivers that have rented the vehicles down there and used
them on a daily basis for a period of time are saying they are sav-
ing at least 10 percent of their time on the road.
So I think it would be premature for me to speculate on how ef-
fective this is going to be, but we are starting to see results that
lead me to believe that IVHS will reduce congestion.
Senator Lautenberg. Again, what do you attribute that reduc-
tion to?
541
Mr. Carlson. The fact that in Travtek drivers were given an in-
dication of what highways were congested so they could take alter-
nate routes.
Another thing that IVHS is doing in this area, while it was not
done with IVHS funds, is the type of thing we want to do in the
Los Angeles area. They have interconnected about 800 signalized
intersections, and the result of that, and this has been documented,
has been about 50,000 hours per day of reduced commuting time,
about 8 million less stops per day at red lights, about a 10-percent
reduction of fuel use in the area concerned, and something like a
26-percent reduction in air pollution.
I think this directly answers your question that some of the
things that IVHS is going to do may not be really that visible to
the public because they are somewhat transparent. If you are a
commuter in Los Angeles, you still had to stop at some red lights
that dav, most likely. But there are 8 million less of those stops.
And I think that those numbers, if we could generate that in these
large urbanized areas across the country, get directly at your ques-
tion: "Is rVHS helping?" I think the answer is yes.
Senator Lautenberg. The problem is the individual, as you sug-
gested, does not feel it. When you talk about 55,000 hours, I think
is what you said
Mr. Carlson. 50,000 hours of reduced commuting time per day.
Senator Lautenberg. But if it gets down to each commuter sav-
ing 8 seconds that day, that does not reduce the tension in the
home about where were you when I needed you. [Laughter.]
Mr. Carlson. That is one of our serious marketing problems
with IVHS; the benefits are a little transparent.
Senator Lautenberg. I would say you would have to add a digit
or two in front of the 50,000. But at least we are beginning to see
collectively some results, and the more we develop the program, the
more familiar the States and locals become with it, the better off
the result is. I am optimistic it is just that progress is measured
in very small increments when it comes to an individual basis.
utilizing IVHS FUNDING
In the past appropriations bill, Congress has directed DOT to
support specific IVHS programs, and recommended specific
amounts that could be cost-shared with these projects. Mr. Carlson,
are any of the earmarked projects not moving forward expedi-
tiously in terms of the actual obligation and the expenditure of
funds?
Mr. Carlson. Most of them are moving ahead expeditiously.
There are some where there are difficulties that may be institu-
tional problems getting groups together, some have not moved as
fast as we would like. But in general, certainly a very large per-
centage of the rVHS projects that have been earmarked are moving
forward.
In fact, I may say that it has helped to have that earmarking,
even though we sort of oppose earmarking, but we hope that the
strategic plan will let us convince the Congress that we have a plan
as to where we are going that will be a building block-type plan
and it will be less necessary for Congress to give us the kind of ad-
vice that they have in the past.
68-623 O— 93 18
542
Senator Lautenberg. We are not reluctant to give advice.
For the record, could you please list for us each of the projects
where the amount of unobligated funds appear to be stored for fu-
ture implementation?
Mr. Carlson. Certainly.
[The information follows:]
FISCAL YEAR 1993 FHWA IVHS EARMARKS
i«,,n«n / D,ni«/.f Earmarked Anticipated
Location / Project ^^^^^j Q^^^^l^^^^
Northeast Corridor (MD to CT) $10,500,000 • $4,500,000
Gary Corridor, IN 1,400,000 1,400,000
Houston Corridor 3,105.000 3,105,000
Anaheim Corridor 4,200,000 4,200,000
LA. Smart Corridor 4,900,000 4,900,000
Chicago Corridor 500,000 500,000
Milwaukee Corridor 500,000 500,000
San Diego, CA 2,100,000 2,100,000
Chicago (ADVANCE) 4,550,000 4,550,000
Miami-Fort Lauderdale 2,240,000 2,240,000
Seattle, WA 3,500,000 3,500,000
Detroit, Ml 700,000 700,000
Guidestar, MN 8,750,000 (^)
Orlando (TravTek) 500,000 500,000
Help/Crescent 525,000 525,000
Advantage 1-75 1,400,000 1,400,000
1-80 CVO 700,000 700,000
Oakland County (FAST-TRAC) 10,500,000 10,500,000
Sutter County, CA 1,750,000 1,750,000
Fairfax County, VA 5,250,000 5,250.000
New Jersey (Police Comm. Center) 3,500,000 3,500,000
Signal Computerization, NJ 7,000,000 7,000,000
Toll Road ETTM, NJ 7,000,000 7,000,000
MAGIC, NY/NJ 6,280,000 6,280,000
TRANSCOM, NY/NJ 2,400,000 2,400,000
Southern State Parkway, NY 14,000,000 (^)
New York State Thruway 5,250,000 5,250,000
Total 113,000.000 84,250,000
' The 1-95 Corridor Coalition is a partnership of the major public and private transportation agencies which serve the
Northeast Corridor of the United States. Ttie mission of the Coalition is to improve mobility and transportation efficiency
in the Northeast Corridor through the application of real time IVHS technology. The Coalition is developing a Business
Plan and we anticipate funding three or four initiatives before the end of the fiscal year. Others should be ready for
funding during the first quarter of fiscal year 1994.
^Guidestar continues to be very active in testing of IVHS technologies. They are presently working on those initiatives
that were funded with fiscal year 1992 earmarited funds.
^In addition to the fiscal year 1993 earmarit. the Southern State Parkway has not submitted a program for use of the
fiscal year 1992 earmarii ($20 million) either. Total earmarited funds is $34 million.
Senator Lautenberg. All right. And do you have any rec-
ommendations for improving the utilization of funds currently
being reserved for IVHS projects? Is the Department considering
recommending any legislative initiatives to address this issue?
Mr. Carlson. I do not believe at this point we need legislative
initiatives. What we are most interested in is to continue the devel-
opment with our partner, IVHS America, of a program plan that
will give us a better handle on the critical issues so that we can
address those in the proper sequence and can keep the program
moving. I think that we are showing significant results ana I think
543
that we are making real progress. I do not know that we need any
additional legislation.
NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM DEFINITION
Senator Lautenberg. Section 1006 of the ISTEA requires the
Secretary of Transportation to submit to the Congress by the end
of calendar 1993 a proposed National Highway System with a list
and description of highways proposed for the system, including a
map showing the proposed designations of NHS. The highway mile-
age for NHS is limited to 155,000 miles, sulyect to a 15-percent ad-
justment up or down by the Secretary. What is the status, Mr.
Carlson, of the effort to define the National Highway System?
Mr. Carlson. The first building block is to do a functional classi-
fication, and the functional classification is essentially complete in
all the States, although there are some State boundary problems
that remain to be worked out.
Senator Lautenberg. Is there a due date on that?
Mr. Carlson. I believe it is April 30.
Senator Lautenberg. This year?
Mr. Carlson. Yes; and on April 30, we will receive from the
States their first cut at a proposed NHS. We have given them
urban and rural mileage targets that we would like to have them
aim for. And we will be expecting them to send in their first listing
of specific routes by April 30 that we can look at and negotiate
with the States and use whatever discretion that 15 percent gives
us to come up with a system that will do those things that the act
required in the way of criteria.
Senator Lautenberg. So you will have met the target date?
Mr. Carlson. We anticipate meeting the target date for submis-
sion by December 18.
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Francois, any problems that you see
that you might encounter in designating the system? And if so,
what do you think they are?
Mr. Francois. Mr. Chairman, the designation, as nearly as we
can tell, is going as smoothly as it can in those States. There are
different viewpoints in different States, obviously. California gen-
erally believes in a much smaller system. The Great Plains States
generally believe in a much larger system. And the Federal High-
way Administration will ultimately have to negotiate their way
through all of that. But overall, we think it is going quite well.
And certainly, AASHTO has been a strong supporter of the con-
cept of the National Highway System. We believe it is extremely
important for the future of this Nation. We are hoping very much
that the timetables will be kept, and we would frankly like to see
the Congress not take 2 years, but 1 year, to bring this bill up and
get it moving, because we need it in place as soon as we can to set
the highway pattern of this Nation for the next 20, 30, 40 years.
So we see no real problems at this stage.
Senator Lautenberg. What effect will defining the National
Highway System have on State and local transportation officials
and the private sector, particularly affecting their funding deci-
sions?
Mr. Francois. The National Highway System's purpose, of
course, is to meet the interstate commerce clause demands of the
544
U.S. Constitution for interconnecting States, major urban areas, et
cetera. Within each State, the negotiations must occur between the
local metropolitan planning organizations and the local govern-
ments.
As to what components of this national system are to be estab-
lished within those areas, it is critical that the metropolitan plan-
ning organizations meet the challenge that was placed on them by
the ISTEA to consider a plan for a metropolitan area that deals not
only with passenger transportation but also freight transportation.
The National Highway System is really the underpinning for the
economy of a metropolitan area and for the State and for the whole
Nation. So to that extent, everybody is clearly involved.
The business community is clearly involved. The business com-
munity needs to understand what this network is and what it is
not, and that is an educational process which is ongoing out there
now. There is not clear understanding at the industrial level, much
of the commercial level, and many of the local government levels
as to just what this system is for and how it is to function.
Senator Lautenberg. Could some of that be dealt with when we
have a definition of the system overall?
Mr. Francois. Absolutely. We anticipate the Federal Highway
Administration's presentation of this. We will look at the National
Highway System and also in context with the other surface trans-
portation systems of this Nation.
A group headed by the American Public Transit Association re-
cently presented the other system, if we could call it that, that tries
to bring together the transit systems, the intercity bus networks,
HOV lanes, high-speed rail, and the others, so that we can look at
what the national transportation itself is, and it is all of those
things woven together.
Senator Lautenberg. The mission here is to get the definition
or the structure of the National Highway System in place.
Mr. Francois. Interrelated with these other components of the
national transportation system.
Senator Lautenberg. Those are decisions that will be made lo-
cally to balance between the various modes.
I would like to now call on my friend. Senator Domenici, who has
some questions he would like to ask. We are happy to see you,
Pete.
Senator DOMENICI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
First, I am sorry I was not here earlier, and I do not want to du-
plicate questions. We have a meeting upstairs to confirm the
Comptroller Greneral and recommend him to the Senate. So I went
there first.
Senator Lautenberg. We are glad to have you.
Senator Domenici. First, let me compliment you on the question
regarding the National Highway System. I was going to ask the
same one, and clearly, it is of great concern.
Senator Lautenberg. Redundancy has never been a problem for
the U.S. Senate, Senator.
Senator Domenici. For me, it is not going to be redundant today,
because I heard their answers, and I just hope we get on and make
that program materialize as soon as possible. I think a lot of people
in my State are concerned as well as people around the country.
545
OBLIGATING HIGHWAY DEMO FUNDS
Have questions been asked about the $6.2 billion in demonstra-
tion projects, Mr. Chairman?
Senator Lautenberg. Well, some questions have been asked re-
garding the relationship between that and the obligation ceiling,
but I would be happy to have your comments.
Senator DOMENICI. Let me just ask, do we have a readout, Mr.
Carlson, as to the status of this $6.2 billion in programs? My best
guess would be, based on past history, that this is a very slow
spendout package. You know, we have them authorized, but I
would be very surprised if we have spent very much of the money.
I would be very surprised if the money was not going to spend out
over a very long period of time, if ever. Could you address the sta-
tus, if you have not?
Mr. Carlson. We have obligated about 25 percent of the money
for demonstration projects, and they are very slow to pay out. Part
of it is due to the structure of the authorization because States only
get a certain amount of the cost of a project authorized, and part
of it is because sometimes the governmental jurisdiction that is re-
sponsible for building the project may not have been consulted at
the time the project was put in and they may not be that anxious
to do it. So those two things taken together have slowed down the
process.
Senator Lautenberg. Slightly, did you say earlier, Mr. Carlson?
Mr. Carlson. Pardon me?
Senator Lautenberg. Slightly behind the obligation availability?
Mr. Carlson. They are running about 25 percent of the avail-
ability, and there is no obligation limitation on demos, so you have
to compare that with the use of the 100 percent for the regular
Federal highway program, I guess.
Mr. Mead. Senator Domenici, I am Ken Mead from the GAO. Let
me give you some specific figures because I do believe this is be-
coming a problem, especially with the solvency considerations for
the trust fund.
I can take you back to 1982, and I can tell you that we had a
total of 373 million dollars' worth of demonstration projects author-
ized in 1982 compared to $6 billion and change in 1991. So there
has been some growth.
All the way back to 1982, there is still about $40 million that has
not been spent.
Senator Domenici. Of how much?
Mr. Mead. Out of 373.
Senator Domenici. Million?
Mr. Mead. Yes; taking it back to 1987, out of a total of $1.5 bil-
lion in demos that year, $431 million still have not been obligated.
For 1991, it is a little soon to tell. Earlier in our statement, we
recommended a procedure to place these demos on the same footing
as other highway projects. If the project does not start within 4
years, in other words, start obligating some money for it, then per-
haps there is a need for the money in some other State.
Senator DOMENICI. Or put it back in the ordinary obligation pool
and let the States get a share of it under the formula.
Mr. Mead. Yes, sir.
546
NEED FOR HIGHWAY STIMULUS FUNDING
Senator DOMENICI. What I guess I am wondering about, Mr.
Carlson, is why — maybe you have a thought on this — ^why would
we, in a stimulus package, be obligating $2.5 billion — or, what is
the number for highways?
Mr. Carlson. $2.97 billion, I believe.
Senator Domenici. Why would we be doing that, instead of say-
ing why don't we take a part of this demonstration money that is
clearly not going to produce jobs very soon and just cancel that
much of theirs and say, let us put it as new obligational authority
and appropriate it under the regular program?
Mr. Carlson. I guess I would answer that by saying that FHWA,
after the troubles in getting the apportionment formulas in 1991,
would not be very anxious to recommend something that would
change those apportionments that were in that bill.
Senator Domenici. But we would not be changing the ratios, sir.
I am saying the ratios are great; the demonstrations are not very
good.
Mr. Carlson. Well, the problem is that the demonstration
projects are not uniformly scattered over the States, based on the
formula that Congress put together, so it would make it a little dif-
ficult for those States that have a high number of demonstrations
to be very supportive of that. So we, basically
Senator Domenici. Well, are you suggesting that States really
did not support the formula, they supported it only if they got dem-
onstration programs on top of it? You do not know that, do you?
Mr. Carlson. Sir, that is a very difficult question for me to an-
swer.
Senator Domenici. Yes; I would assume that you do not know
anything about that. I mean, we have to have Senators answer
that. [Laughter.]
Mr, Carlson. I think that our response to that would be that we
would like to see in future appropriation bills that the minimum
allocation in demonstrations be put under an obligation ceiling. But
as far as trjring to, in a sense, unappropriate the money for past
demonstrations, we feel that the stimulus would rise or fall based
on the ability to let the States obligate in the way that they want
to, and that is what our proposal was, and that is what got passed
in the House.
Senator Domenici. But here I am, trying to understand that we
have got to put some stimulus in this economy. And we have what
is left over of the $6.2 billion, and if you are right, you only have
obligated 25 percent, that is one-fourth, so three-fourths of that has
not even been obligated. I am looking at that and saying, my,
wouldn't that be an interesting amount of money to put in a stimu-
lus package, and spend it, rather than let it sit around.
If they are correct in their auditing, we probably, both of us, as
young as he is, we will both be gone from this place before that
$6.2 billion is obligated. And I am thinking of staying here 15
years. How long are you going to stay?
Senator Lautenberg. Well, I am up in 1994; there will be others
making that decision. [Laughter.]
547
But the one thing that I would like to be certain that we are
clear on, because I think there may be some confusion as to per-
centages of distribution. The way the demonstrations are set up,
they are laid out over a 5-year period, typically.
Mr. Carlson. Yes.
Senator Lautenberg. And the first year, 8 percent; second year,
18.4 percent; et cetera. Now, is it 25 percent of those funds that
would have been available under formula, or is it 25 percent of the
total, the $6.2 billion that we are talking about, which would not
have been — there would not have been much more available any-
way in the couple of years, 1992 and 1993?
Mr. Carlson. There is $1.6 billion available in 1992 and 1993,
and it is the 25 percent of that which is gone. But only 8 and 18.4
percent of those authorizations come out in the first 2 years.
So, basicallv, I think if I am answering your question correctly,
we are not taking into consideration the money that is made avail-
able over the entire 6 years. It is 25 percent of what was made
available in those first 2 years.
Senator Lautenberg. So, is the $6.2 billion the number, overall,
that we are using as a reference point?
Mr. Carlson. Yes.
Senator Lautenberg. All right. So, just to do it arithmetically,
so that we are absolutely clear, you are saying that in these couple
of years, 1992-93, roughly $1.6 billion would have been available.
Mr. Carlson. Yes.
Senator Lautenberg. But only $400 million of that has been ob-
ligated for these demonstration programs that have been put into
legislation thus far?
Mr. Carlson. Yes.
Senator Lautenberg. So it is 25 percent of the $6.2 billion.
Senator Domenicl But is 25 percent supposed to be obligated in
the first year?
Senator Lautenberg. 1992 and 1993 would have had 26.4 per-
cent.
Senator Domenicl Got it. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Lautenberg. So, again, these funds have not been obli-
gated for what reasons, Mr. Carlson?
Mr. Carlson. Well, I think that the fact that the authorization
comes out over the full 6 years is certainly one reason, because
some States have not wanted to put up enough money to begin the
project.
Senator Lautenberg. For the match?
Mr. Carlson. Well, in fact, it is certainly a big overmatch on the
part of the State if they only get 8 percent the first year and 18.4
percent the second year. So they have not been willing to put out
the money to go ahead and advance a project.
Now, some projects, and it varies greatly, are long enough in
character that you can take that 8 percent or that 18.4 percent and
have a viable project. Other projects are such that they would want
to have the entire project go at once, just for contract administra-
tion purposes.
Senator LAUTENBERG. So it is possible that, in order to make the
project viable, they would have to store or husband some of this
money so that when the gun goes off they can go ahead and move
548
on it. These are not funds, are they, Mr. Carlson, that are lying
there dormant, that have no commitment made against them, even
though the obligations have not been fully fulfilled at that time?
Mr. Carlson. Well, the authorizations are lying there dormant.
But since this is out from under obligation authority, the obligation
authority is being used for the regular Federal Aid Highway Pro-
gram, and the money that is budget authority is just lying there.
That is the structure of the bill.
Senator Lautenberg. OK.
So the outlays are not there, even though the authorization is
there?
Mr. Carlson. That is right.
Senator Lautenberg. If that were put under the obligation ceil-
ing, the total Federal obligation?
Mr. Carlson. It would have the effect, I believe since the outlays
are so slow, of allowing us to, based on the same outlay numbers,
make a larger amount of obligation authority available to all the
States.
characteristics of demo projects
Senator DOMENICI. Mr. Mead, has GAO done an indepth, long-
term evaluation of demonstration programs? You gave me some
numbers. I am not aware of a report. Do you have a report that
looks at it also?
Mr. Mead. Yes, sir; we have one that looked at the demonstra-
tion projects for 1987. It seemed fair to look at those because some
time has transpired, to see what demonstrations States were start-
ing. And we found, I would say, four notable features about them.
Many times, demonstration projects are not in State plans or re-
gional plans. Second, the money that appears in the authorization
for them is often a very small fraction of their cost. For the 1991
reauthorization, FHWA is estimating that the current crop of $6
billion is probably going to cost in the neighborhood of $25 billion
by the time you are done.
And the third is that the money is available in perpetuity, unlike
the normal highway programs that have a deadline on the avail-
ability period and are funded under the obligation limitations.
And a fourth, but I would not want to get too far into this, is
that there are some questions about just how innovative these
projects are, or what they demonstrate in some instances. There
are clearly exceptions. But some appear fairly ordinary, one might
say.
Senator Domenici. What is the date on the report? And is it pub-
lic now?
Mr. Mead. It is the May 1991 report.
Senator Domenici. I appreciate that. I am sorry, I have not
looked at it heretofore.
putting ma AND DEMO PROJECTS UNDER OBLIGATION CEILING
Could you, Mr. Carlson, explain one more time for me, please, be-
cause I did not quite get it — ^the chairman asked a question, his
last question, and you said that if that were done it would make
549
more money available in the normal program. What is it that
would be done?
Mr. Carlson. Well, we constrain our obligation authority by the
amount of outlays that we expect to have, based on the normal
payout curves for the Federal Aid Highway Program. In other
words, we anticipate that if we obligate $1 on a project, that the
first year we will pay out about 16 cents, and the next year about
54 cents, and then the rest over the next 2 or 3 years.
^d what happens in reality is if that obligation does not occur,
like it would not for these demonstration projects, the outlay esti-
mates that we base that on are not going to outlay at the same
rates. So if we could have minimum allocation and demonstration
projects under the obligation ceiling, we could develop some outlay
curves that would give us a better idea of how much money will
actually be spent.
And I think the impact of that would be that we could probably
put more obligation authority on the table for all programs, based
on the fact that some of these programs are spending out slow. At
least it would give us the ability to use the money a little better.
Senator Domenici. I wonder if the GAO would have the capabil-
ity to respond to this question for this record in due course, and
tell me how long it would take. I would like to take that last re-
sponse of the acting administrator and have you put that into an
actual dollar flow, in both BA and outlays, and tell us what would
happen if that occurred.
Could you do that?
Mr. Mead. Yes; I think, working with the Department, we prob-
ably could do that.
[The information follows:]
550
LETTER FROM KENNETH M. MEAD
B-253984
August 10, 1993
The Honorable Pete Domenicl
United States Senate
Dear Senator Domenici:
The purpose of this letter is to provide you with
information that you requested on funding alternatives for
highway demonstration projects authorized under the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of
1991. Specifically, you asked us to analyze (1) the effect
on states' funding levels of redistributing ISTEA
demonstration project funding as federal-aid highway
program apportionments and (2) the effect on states' rates
of obligation of bringing ISTEA demonstration projects
under the annual obligation limitation.
You requested these two analyses as a follow-up to our
March 31, 1993, testimony entitled Surface Transportation:
Funding Limitations and Barriers to Cross-Modal Decision
Making (GAO/T-RCED-93-25 ) . That testimony presented a
number of concerns regarding the costs of authorizing a
large number of demonstration, or special, highway projects
and the limited payoff that is associated with this type of
highway investment.' As our testimony noted, demonstration
projects tend to have a slow rate of obligation. For
example, in 1991, only 36 percent of funding authorized for
demonstration projects 4 years earlier had been obligated.
Our first analysis considered the impact on individual
states' total funding levels of redistributing ISTEA
demonstration project funding. This analysis assumed the
hypothetical scenario that ISTEA had not included
demonstration projects. We performed the analysis by
assuming that ISTEA '^s demonstration project funds were
redistributed to the states in accordance with each state's
percent share of apportioned funding for federal-aid
highway formula programs.*
In brief, under the first analysis, the hypothetical
scenario tended to favor states that received little
'Demonstration, or special, projects fall into several
distinct categories but are generally specific construction
projects identified by name in legislation. Projects can
range in scope from paving a gravel road to building a
multilane highway.
*Most authorized highway funding is apportioned, meaning
that it Is divided among the states according to a
statutory formula. In contrast, demonstration funds are
allocated on a project-specific basis.
J
551
funding for demonstration projects relative to their
overall federal-aid highway funding. Under this scenario,
31 states plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico
would have received more funding if demonstration project
funds were redistributed as federal-aid highway program
apportionments; 19 states would have received less funding.
The second analysis assumed the status quo--that the
distribution of ISTEA demonstration project funding would
remain unchanged--but also assumed that these demonstration
projects would be brought under the annual obligation
limitation. (The obligation limitation is enacted by the
Congress in authorizing legislation, and repeated or
modified in subsequent appropriation acts. It restricts
the rate at which states may obligate their apportioned
funding.) Under current law, the obligation limitation
applies to the major federal-aid highway programs, such as
the Surface Transporation Program. However, a few funding
categories, including allocations for demonstration
projects, are not subject to the limitation. Thus, the
full amount of a state's allocation for demonstration
projects in a given year is now available for immediate and
full obligation in that same year--though only for the
specified projects. In contrast, under our alternative
analysis for this scenario, states could use obligational
authority associated with demonstration projects for other
programs if projects were brought under the obligation
limitation. This is in keeping with existing law, which
permits the flexible use of all funding subject to the
limitation.
In brief, under the second analysis, all states would
benefit from the increased flexibility resulting from
bringing demonstration projects under the obligation
limitation. As noted above, the flexibility would occur
because funding available for obligation that was
previously restricted to use for demonstration projects
would become available for any federal-aid highway program
that states selected. It should be noted that the
opportunity to obligate funds flexibly from year to year
would in no way relieve states of the requirement to
eventually set aside federal-aid highway funds for
authorized demonstration projects. The reason is that
budget authority remains attached to the projects for which
it was authorized.
The flexibility inherent in the alternative scenario under
the second analysis would come at a cost to some states.
Seventeen states would receive less total funding available
for obligation in a given year. The reason is that these
states have a relatively large amount of demonstration
project funding, and under this scenario, they would face a
new cap on their obligations for these projects. The
remaining 33 states plus the District of Columbia and
Puerto Rico would benefit from a .limitation on obligations
for demonstration projects, since more obligational
authority could be used for core federal-aid highway
programs. It should be noted that any increases and
decreases in states' obligational authority would not have
a lasting effect on any state's funding, since ultimately.
552
no state would gain or lose any authorized funds to which
it was entitled.
Both analyses related to the demonstration projects
authorized in sections 1061, 1103, 1104, 1105, 1106, 1107,
and 1108 of ISTEA. Over the 6-year authorization period
(fiscal years 1992 through 1997), these sections of ISTEA
authorized a total of $6,229 billion for 539 projects. We
focused our analyses on project authorizations for fiscal
year 1993, which total $1,179 billion; this permitted us to
use actual state-by-state data and thus did not require us
to rely on estimated future state-funding levels.
Officials from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
told us that the results identified for fiscal year 1993
could be expected to serve as a good indicator of basic
patterns that would be reflected throughout the ISTEA
authorization period. We performed our work in June and
July 1993 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards.
ANALYSIS 1; REDISTRIBUTION OF ISTEA' S
DEMONSTRATION PROJECT FUNDS
On the basis of financial information provided by FHWA, we
analyzed the state-by-state impact on funding for fiscal
year 1993 under the assumption that funds reserved for
demonstration projects in the same year ($1,179 billion)
were instead redistributed on the basis of each state's
percent share of apportioned federal-aid highway program
funds. Under this scenario, 31 states plus the District of
Columbia and Puerto Rico would have received more
authorized funding. The average dollar gain would have
been $12 million; $70 million would have represented the
high end of the range (Massachusetts), and $1 million would
have represented the low end (Vermont) . Nineteen states
would have received less authorized funding. For this
group of states, the average loss would have been $21
million; $115 million would have represented the greatest
loss (Pennsylvania), and $102,000 would have represented
the lowest loss (Rhode Island). Table 1 indicates which
states' funding would have. increased and decreased, and
enclosure I details the supporting calculations and the
method of analysis.
553
Table 1: Summary of Effects on Fiscal Year 1993
State Funding Under Redistribution of Demonstration
Project Allocations as Apportioned Funds
State-funding increases
State-funding decreases
Alaska
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Illinois
Colorado
Iowa
Connecticut
Kansas
Delaware
Maine
District of Columbia
Minnesota
Florida
Mississippi
Georgia
Missouri
Hawaii
Nevada
Idaho
New Hampshire
Indiana
New Jersey
Kentucky
North Dakota
Louisiana
Oklahoma
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Massachusetts
Rhode Island
Michigan
Virginia
Montana
Washington
Nebraska
West Virginia
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Oregon
Puerto Rico
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
1 Texas
Utah
Vermont
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total: 33 (incl. DC and PR)
Total: 19
1 Average gain: $12 million
Average loss: $21 million
1 Range of gains:
Range of losses:
1 $1 million to $70 million
$102,000 to $115 million
ANALYSIS 2: OBLIGATION LIMITATION IMPOSED
ON DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS' FUNDING
If demonstration projects were brought under the obligation
limitation, all states would benefit from an increase in
their flexibility to target annual obligations to programs
and projects that were ready to go. At present, as we
noted in our March 31, 1993, testimony, funds for
demonstration projects can remain unobligated for years.
In contrast, if projects were brought under the obligation
limitation, authorized funding would no longer sit idle.
The reason is that, under our second analysis, states would
receive an annual block of the obligation limitation to use
554
flexibly across programs and demonstration projects,
whereas at present, states are restricted from using
obligational authority associated with demonstration
projects for any other purpose. Because states have
traditionally used almost all of their obligation
limitation in any given year, it ^is reasonable to expect
that a greater amount of total apportioned and allocated
funding would be obligated each year if projects were made
subject to the limitation.
It should be noted that no state would gain or lose total
funding if demonstration projects were placed under the
obligation limitation; only the rate at which states have
the opportunity to spend the funds would change. This
would cause some variation in each state's annual
obligation authority, but would not affect the total amount
of funding that they would eventually have available for
obligation. Moreover, the benefits associated with states'
increased flexibility to target obligations where they were
most needed could outweigh any decrease in annual
obligational authority that a state might face.
Gains and Losses of Annual Obligation Authority
Using FHWA's financial information, we analyzed the state-
by-state impact of making demonstration project funds
subject to the fiscal year 1993 obligation limitation.'
Under this scenario, 33 states plus the District of
Columbia and Puerto Rico would have received more
obligational authority if projects were made subject to the
obligation limitation. The average dollar increase for
fiscal year 1993 obligational authority would have been $2
million; $15 million would have represented the high end of
the range (Massachusetts), and $14,000 would have
represented the low end (Michigan). Seventeen states would
have received less obligational authority. For this group
of states, the average decrease would have been $5 million;
$23 million would have represented the greatest decrease
(Pennsylvania), and $14,000 would have represented the
lowest decrease (New Hampshire). Table 2 indicates which
states' obligational authority would have increased and
decreased, and enclosure II details our supporting
calculations and our method of analysis.
Again, it should be noted Jthat these increases and
decreases would be temporary, since no state would gain or
lose any authorized funding to which it was entitled.
Moreover, the effect of any short-term decreases would be
mitigated by the benefits of having the ability to use
obligational authority that was previously attached to
demonstration projects for core federal-aid highway
programs until the demonstration projects became ready-to-
go.
'Traditionally, demonstration projects are exempt from the
annual obligation limitation. The Bush administration's
fiscal year 1993 budget request proposed that projects be
held under the obligation limitation, but this proposed
change in legislation was not enacted by the Congress.
555
Table 2: Summary of Effects on States' Obligational
Authority for Fiscal Year 1993 if Demonstration Funds
Were Hade Subject to Obligation Limitation
Obligational authority increases
Obligational authority decreases
Alaska
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Illinois
Colorado
Iowa
Connecticut
Maine
Delaware
Minnesota
District of Columbia
Mississippi
Florida
Missouri
Georgia
Nevada
Hawaii
New Hampshire
Idaho
New Jersey
Indiana
North Dakota
Kansas
Oklahoma
Kentucky
Pennsylvania /
Louisiana
Virginia
Maryland
Washington
Massachusetts
West Virginia
Michigan
Montana
Nebraska
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Oregon
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total: 35 (incl. DC and PR)
Total: 17
Average increase: $2 million
Average decrease: $5 million
Range of increases:
Range of decreases:
$1«.000 to $15 million
$1«,000 to $23 million
We hope that this information is helpful to you. Please
call me at (202) 512-6001 if you have any questions.
Sincerely yours.
Cenneth M. *Mead
Director, Tr^^portation Issues
556
ENCLOSURE I
ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS OF REDISTRIBUTING DEMONSTRATION
PROJECT FUNDS AS A PERCENTAGE OF APPORTIONMENTS
Table I.l details the state-by-state dollar Impacts of a
hypothetical redistribution of fiscal year 1993 demonstration
project funds. The comparison was accomplished in accordance
with the following methodology:
Step 1: We listed each state's total apportionments for fiscal
year 1991. These appear as column 2 of table I.l.
Step 2: We determined each state's fiscal year 1993 funding for
demonstration projects (base case). This is shown as column 3 of
table I.l.
Step 3: We calculated an alternative scenario by redistributing
fiscal year 1993 funding for demonstration projects to all states
in accordance with each state's percent share of total fiscal
year 1993 apportioned funds. This is shown as column 4 of table
I • 1 •
Step 4: We compared individual states' shares of the total
funding reserved for demonstration projects under the base case
with the alternative scenario. This comparison is shown in
column 5 of table I.l. States with a positive difference would
gain funding under the hypothetical redistribution of ISTEA's
demonstration project funding.
Table I.l; Dollar Impacts of Redistributing
Demonstration Prelect Funds
1 1
1
2
3
4
5 1
1
1 1
1
Altsmatlva scanario:
1 1
Basa
casa:
radislrlbutad
1 1
Total
actual FY 1993 |
pro|act allocations
1 1
apportJonmants
projacl
par FY 1993 share o(
1 Stala
1
FY 1993 (a)
allocations (b)
apportionments (c)
DIHeience (d) |
1
1
1 1
1 Alabama
295.013.522
30.537.727
19.871.234
(10.666.493) 1
1 Alaska
213.429.359
0
14.375.968
14.375.968 |
1 Arizona
252.834.628
2.274.913
17.030.189
14.755.278 |
1 Arkanja»
202.071.188
71.500.817
13.610.914
(57.889.903) |
1 Calllornia
1.640.470.852
66.121.811
110.497.243
44.375.632 |
1 Colorado
209.608.042
640.758
14.118.575
13.577.817 1
) Connecticut
338.411.288
14.805.585
22.794.379
7.988.794 |
1 Delawarfl
70.164.032
0
4.727.388
4.727.388 1
1 Dial, ol Columbia
95.385.655
4,120.951
8.424.894
2.303.943 1
1 Florida
718,854.034
33.482.251
48.419.872
14.937.621 1
1 Georgia
506.742.790
20.695.746
34.132.689
13.436.943 |
1 Hawaii
121.802.462
1.118.810
8.204.252
7.085.442 1
1 Idaho
112.637.700
3.411.264
7.586.941
4.175.677 1
1 Illinois
603.998.258
108.40S.0O4
40.683.528
(87.721.476) |
1 Indiana
375.087.994
17.695.842
25.264.813
7.S68.971 1
1 Iowa
212.646.512
21.206.482
14.323.237
(6.683.245) 1
1 Kansas
194.248.484
13.612.187
13.084.001
(528.186) 1
1 Kantucky
258.666.757
4.027,718
17.423.024
13.395.308 1
1 Louisiana
284.541.540
13.582.617
17.818.732
4.236.115 1
1 Malna
1 85.059.477
34.888.222
5.729.354
(29.158.868) 1
1 Maryland
1 295.897.508
8.096.943
19.930.777
11.833.834 1
1 Massachusatts
1 1.062.795.604
1.100.163
71.586.755
70.486.592 1
1 Michigan
1 484.121,007
30.983.259
32.608.953
1.625.694 1
1 Minnesota
1 238.547.741
38.923.398
16.067.867
(22.855.531) |
1 Mississippi
1 195.597.299
16.381.754
13.174.853
P.206.901) 1
557
Slat*
Missouri
Montana
Nsbraska
Navada
New Hampshiro
Naw Jersey
New Mexico
New Yol*
Nortti Carotlna
North Oal<ola
Otiio
Oittatioma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
TOTAL
Total
apportionments
FY 1993 (a)
380.Z20.20a
16S.091.369
139.979.103
105.244.815
82.373.707
491,909.567
179.853.881
920.433.497
♦4S.703.389
105.774,283
637.682.919
241.783.414
200.414,174
740.500.732
88.473.690
107.593.422
216.305.854
113.540.248
354.356,238
1.125.554.206
127,594,198
75,271.842
389.899.001
400,007,435
160.371.192
337.959.860
114.248.153
17.496.794.104
Base case:
actual FY 1993
project
allocations (b)
31.5BS.051
3.356.430
2.207.618
19.681.985
5.985,633
37.834.422
1.734.155
68.281.732
27.881.668
13.239,251
29.491,829
1 6.509.904
8.577.542
164.410.986
0
7.346.718
7.216.324
671.286
5.611.577
45.247.510
2.032.504
3.729.366
27.512,329
27,107,562
58,140.821
13,332.484
4.329.366
1.178.532.071
Alternative scenario:
redistributed
protect allocations
per FY 1993 shared
apportionments (c)
25.610.504
11.120.064
9.428.577
7,088,978
5,548,448
33,133,567
12,114.423
61,997.666
30,021,256
7,124,641
42,952,427
16.285.812
13.499,303
49,877.929
5.959.325
7.247.173
14.569.720
7.647.734
23,868,383
75,813,987
8,594,366
5,070,088
26,262,438
26,943,312
10,802,127
22,763.972
7,695.416
1,178.532.071
DIHerence (d)
(5,954.547)
7,763,634
7,220.961
(12,593,007)
(437,185)
(4,700.855)
10.380.268
5.715.934
2.159.588
(6,114.610)
13,460,598
(224.092)
4.921.761
(114.533.057)
5.959.325
(101,545)
7.353.396
6.976.448
18.256.806
30,566,477
6,561,862
1,340,722
(1,249,891)
(164.250)
(4 7.338.694)
9.431.488
3.366.050
Source: FHWA.
Source: FHWA.
Source: FHWA.
Derived: column 4 - column 3.
Note: FY - Hscal year. A positive ditterence In column 5 Indicate! that a state gains funding under the allomatlve scenario. A
negative dlKerence Indicates that a state loses funding under Ihe alternative scenario.
ENCLOSURE II
ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS OF PLACING DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS
UNDER THE OBLIGATION LIMITATION
Table II. 1 details the state-by-state dollar impacts that would
occur If funding for demonstration projects were made subject to
the obligation limitation. The analysis focuses on the impact on
each state's obllgational authority. In fiscal year 1993, total
obligational authority was approximately 80 percent of total
authorized funding.
The following description of our methodology is broken into three
related parts: (1) the base case, which sets up each state's
obligational authority under current law; (2) the alternative
scenario, which determines each state's obligational authority if
demonstration projects were made subject to the obligation
limitation; and (3) the comparison of the base case and the
alternative scenario.
558
STEP 1: BASE CASE
We began our analysis of the base case (current law) by
determining each state's actual share of the total fiscal year
1993 obligation limitation.* States' dollar shares of the
fiscal year 1993 limitation are shown as column 2 of table II. 1,
and their percent shares of the obligation limitation are shown
as column 5 of table II. 1.
.Next, we determined each state's fiscal year 1993 allocated
funding for demonstration projects. This is shown as column 3 of
table II. 1. Because demonstration projects are not subject to
the obligation limitation under current law, the full amount
allocated for demonstration projects may be obligated. Thus,
each state's obllgational authority for demonstration projects is
simply equal to its project allocation.
Last, by adding together each state's obligation limitation
(column 2) and demonstration project allocation (column 3), we
determined each state's total obllgational authority under the
base case. This is shown as column 4 of table II. 1.
STEP 2; ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO
We analyzed the outcome of making demonstration projects subject
to the obligation limitation by giving each state a fixed
percentage of obllgational authority for demonstration projects.
This was set at 80 percent of each state's fiscal year 1993
demonstration project funding. We selected 80 percent because
this is approximately the amount of apportioned funding subject
to the obligation limitation that was made available for
obligation in fiscal year 1993. Each state's 80-percent share of
demonstration project funding is shown in column 6 of table II. 1.
Next, since 100 percent of demonstration project funding was
available for obligation in fiscal year 1993, applying an
obligation limitation of 80 percent to these projects leaves a
remaining balance of 20 percent. The 20-percent share is shown
as column 7 of table II. 1. Our analysis of the alternative
scenario then assumes that this balance of obllgational authority
is freed up for redistribution among the states.
Thereafter, we figured what each state would have received on the
basis of its share of the total obligation limitation for fiscal
year 1993, which refers back to column 5 of table II. 1. The
results of the 20-percent redistribution are shown as column 8 of
table II. 1.
Last, by summing up each state's (1) individual obligatibn
limitation (column 2), (2) 80-percent share of its demonstration
project funding (column 6), and (3) share of the redistributed
20-percent remaining balance of demonstration project funding
(column 8), we were able to determine each state's total
obllgational authority under the alternative scenario. This is
shown as column 9 of table II. 1, and provides the sum total for
the alternative scenario. Note that, in both the base case and
the altisrnatlve scenario, total funding available for obligation
($14,389,839,111, shown as the total of columns 4 and 9) is
Identical.
"The dollar amounts shown exclude obllgational authority for
programs including Highway Planning and Research, Administration,
and Federal Lands. Although these programs are technically part
of the obligation limitation, they may be obligated at 100
percent of their total funding, and thus are not subject to
constraint.
559
STEP 3; COMPARISON
To complete the analysis, we compared Individual states' total
fiscal year 1993 obllgational authority under the base case
(column 4) with the alternative scenario (column 9). This
comparison is shown in column 10 of table II. 1. States with a
positive difference would gain obllgational authority under the
hypothetical redistribution of ISTEA's demonstration project
funding.
560
c
o
•H
4J
10
4J
•H
e
•H
D
C
•H
U
to
.-I
o
10
■tJ
u
nj
D
B
O
•H
m
D
10
o
u
0)
XI
c
D
tn
■p
u
o
Q
0)
X)
Eh
Q)
•(-
O
M
CU
C
o
•H
10
u
+J
w
c
o
B
a
Ills
as
o n Q
1 a e
St
til
Sell
s is
<n o o tk
I I
3 I
•g -S ■«
3| I
o 2 •
ill
2 5- a
ft
I 1
til
2 S §
a s 2 3 g s si 2 s t s s s s s h 5 a a 2 h 2 s ;: 2 = 3 s
rt V — " "^ • «' »^ •-' • V « ci rt rt »^ W
S " i 3. S 2 = ° ? ? 5 s a i 2 5 5 S S i 3 3 a i a | S 5 s 5 i
2 3 S a ? i s i 5 9 3 i a s S § E S 1 9 ? s ft " s i I 2 S
V W Wo •-' •' *>«* n' «>*
= ssas; s33S58& = s::iKas8;:9s:8ssa
5 1 8 i 5 s 8 S 5 s 5 S ? g I a 1 i 5 I s 3 8 n S 8 H s i5
R 5 " S Z 5 S " 2 Ri ■ a S 2 ri "^ ~ s " s
«i((«r>i«ii«i«i|i«>(i|«fiii|i«i«i/i*l««i«i)*«ri«|ii^i<ifi«i««>
ss^»agsK^yg|sa^sRg|gKS8S28iass
3SSs§S8Saa;:^8iiR38a:;^^232283iis
5°55isa°in5iiis52Ssai2ss58§is35
i S 8 »' § 8 » S 3 2 = S S 8 S' ts S S S 8 S n S 8 S g S 3 ;(
ri ^-
;: s
8
S t R
2 S - ' S S
RQ9n««iNwoSa'*«-«aQ?TNRS«Flr-SSN4>>»-inH
fi K ••" «' a ci a V n w «» — ' w o" «» •' « •-' « o —' « w p W p-' « V g ►* a
vc«gniO«S'VQap>>>'v«iappha«in«r«on*-AaK«-on<"£'
aa3«or«.««i^>oi— oa^a-*n(»Ovr«o^ono<Bah»np
« *^ V p«>' n g c^ a o e» « v o 9 (v ^' « vi 9 « 9 w) «' r^ q a n' (^ V «* 9
sss = a2ti'''-ss"*lat22a«82s2aan = -*8
8
I 5 I s II i J 2 1 f 1 i I s ; J II 1 1 J f 11 1 I e n t
561
• ?^
° . -I
ill *
O C S u
»- 3 « A
5 0 r, I
!li
8 u -
u. & •
5 S
5 _ A >■
M O O U.
o -° S
ll «
£ § 3
lit
£11
5 I Sli 15 15 151? I 8 sills a ^
5 i 3 § 5 5 S ? t R I s I s. 5 3 1 1 s i S
8 s n S 2 5 S 5 S 5 s a S 5 S 2 3 5S R I =
8' w K.' <s.' fs." ©■ o •' •» B f* '^ w W W 2 5 « s — — —
s
r* r» ir ^ ^ ^>. *■
si
V — ^«i V
a a :: R
o o o
9 m N V
■ 8 "
n p « •' V 6 « r» ^•' *•' "* 9 2 2 £! t: 3 t; G r? — ' S
5 8 8 7; S E S = t 5 S S g § S S 8 C 8 t? S S
ri n «-- n rt' « o •- ^ o ^ *'''»'"*"* ^ *^ * •" Q
ssssssis 2SRs88S5«2 5s ;;
5 S S; ;: S 5 2 d S 5 S a ? 8 5 S « S 8 8 8
«) VI «- N «
nM««n*-r« ^^ ^
■ r? t" C! S S
R
— « w o
5 a 2 R
fl « ^
C ft 8 S R 3 S 8 t; S 3 R
-■ '■ S -■ "■ R 5 5 2 "■ 5'
— r»«r*ppOorti^C«'rt^2"2fi2^
8i555525SSr22RCSSS5«S
8S?;ss;;»r;sr8SKC:"ssss8
nwop»«-^^oo
o rJ ■> 6 o
o -- o
; s as 2 5 s 5 3 s ns s I 5 R R S s 5 a =
S S S S 5 5 ft Ci 1 g S 8 § 5 2 a 5 S S 5 8 |
« r» • *o ^ « Ol W S » « O O •-. r*; n «1 P « »^ rt •
o r»* V « Q V • "- c r» »*•' p« ^ i X 2 2 2 — E! $ 2
Rss?as;s°5SSfc25sassss
a* W *^ «• W tt h.' o e* b *-' — ^-' (^ n n ^' o ri g
^. a S R ? I 5 5 S S 6 5 S 3 5. « 2 = 3 S.
- s ft n a 2 " s '- " '
5Sg22s5SaS5?Sg8 2a. SSSS 5
g i 8 2 i 5 2 i i S § I S i 5 i 3 5 = 5 s a
5 = s a I c = 8 8 s g 5 g i g 8 2 g a g s z
S 3
• ^ -E a
II
i Jl|3l|lll|ji3sil|ll| 5
Is - '
II
!!
I i
II
a □
< <
li t!
4
c
S
i^
3
2-
fl i
^
5 ^
3
l!5
1
« N •
•
(column
column
column H
m
i
"O -o i;
•
III
003
3
•
3€.S
i
•
s
m
if
" S
1
1 1
•
ji 8 ' -
1
11
2 c
. 1
IS
V 5
n
z <
562
[Clerk's note. — The following material was submitted by the
Federal Highway Administration:]
Including Minimum Allocation and ISTEA Demos Within the Obugation
Limitation
Including Minimum Allocation (MA) and the ISTEA Demonstration Projects
(Demos) within the Federal-Aid Highways (FAH) obligation limitation could make
more funding available for core FAH programs if actual obligations for MA and
Demos fell short of estimated obligations.
Traditionally, with MA and Demos exempt fixjm the limitation, an estimate of the
obligations and resulting outlays associated with these (and other exempt) programs
is made to "score" the DOT appropriations bill. The total FAH allowance, therefore,
consists of the obligation estimate for exempt programs plus the limitation.
If actual obligations for any exempt programs (including MA and Demos) fall
short of estimated obUgations, then total FAH obligations decrease by that shortfall.
Actual outlays would likely fall short of estimated outlays due to the decrease in
total obligations. In this situation, the FAH program cannot fully utilize the budg-
eted outlay allowance when exernpt obligations and outlays are lower tJ^ian esti-
mates made for scoring purposes. This shortfall in obligations could have been used
to increase the FAH obligation limitation.
However, including MA and Demos within the limitation would prevent total obli-
gations and resulting outlays from decreasing due to lower-than-estimated obliga-
tions for these programs. The current limitation would be increased by the amount
of obligations estimated for MA and Demos. Then, if actual obligations for MA and
Demos fell short of estimated obligations, obligational authority for other core FAH
programs could be increased by the amount of the shortfall since the total limitation
(including MA and Demos) would not exceed the initial limitation based on the esti-
mated obligations for MA and Demos. In effect, all the obligations and resulting out-
lays that are "scored" would be used.
This limitation could allow CBO and 0MB to consider lower estimates for the
scoring of these currently exempt programs which would permit the enactment of
a higher obligation limitation.
The following table illustrates how including MA and Demos within the FAH obli-
gation limitation could make more funding available for other FAH programs. The
scenario presented utilizes estimates contained in the fiscal year 1993 Appropria-
tions Act. It assumes that actual fiscal year 1993 obligations for exempt programs
equal current estimates — based on recent historical obligation trends — contained in
the fiscal year 1994 budget. Excluding MA and Demos from the limitation, as cur-
rently enacted, results in a decrease of $335 million in total obligations. Including
these currently exempt programs within the limitation would allow an addition^
$335 million in obligational authority to be distributed to the States for other (core)
FAH programs unoer this scenario. Budget authority is not affected by this pro-
posal.
INCLUDING MINIMUM ALLOCATION AND ISTEA DEMOS WITHIN THE OBLIGATION LIMITATION
FISCAL YEAR 1993 BUDGET ILLUSTRATION
[Oollars^ in thousands]
Estimates Estimates
contained in contained in ph,nn<.
fiscal year 1993 fiscal year 1994 ^"'"^^
appropriations budget
Enacted limitation plus exempts
Obligation limitation
Exempt Obligations:
Emergency relief ....
Minimum Allocation
ISTEA Demos
Other
Total exempt
Total obligations
$15,326,750
$15,326,750 ..
551,843
1,073,729
449,078
267,025
300,000
1,107,000
1,090,000
180,000
-(-$251,843
-33,271
-640,922
-H 87,025
2,677,000
2,341,675
-335,325
18,003,750
17,668,425
-335,325
563
INCLUDING MINIMUM ALLOCATION AND ISTEA DEMOS WITHIN THE OBLIGATION LIMITATION—
Continued
FISCAL YEAR 1993 BUDGET ILLUSTRATION
[Dollars in thousands]
Estimates
contained in
fiscal year 1993
appropriations
Estimates
contained in
fiscal year 1994
budget
Change
Obligation limitation:
Regular (current) ....
Minimum allocation
ISTEA Demos
Total Federal-aid limitation
Exempt obligations:
Emergency relief
Minimum allocation
ISTEA Demos
Other
Limitation
including MA and Demos
15,326,750
1,107,000
1,090,000
1 15,662,075
1,073,729
449,078
+ 335,325
-33,271
-640,922
17,523,750
17,184,882
-338,868
300,000
isaboo
551,843
'26Ab25
+ 251,843
'+87,()25
Total exempt
480,000
818,868
+ 338,868
Total obligations
18,003,750
18,003,750
'The fiscal year 1993 obligation limitation potentially could be increased by $335 million due to the currently
estimated shortfall in obligations for exempt programs (primarily ISTEA Demos) from scored amounts while adhering to
the overall FAH allowance of $18,004
llion.
Senator Lautenberg. Mav I suggest to the Senator that last
year in the appropriations bill for 1993 we did include the provision
that is being discussed. You supported it. It was lost at conference.
That then would expedite the movement of funds to programs
and projects that the States chose to fund.
Senator Domenici. I understand, Mr. Chairman. But it just
seems to me that, you know, many things that go by the wayside
in 1 year receive a little better focus of attention in a subsequent
year. I frankly think that if the Senate and the House understood
this, they would not dare leave that obligation authority hang out
there for those long periods of time to the detriment of the overall
program for the States, if that is what is occurring.
^so, I wonder, Mr. Mead, if you have drawn any conclusions
about the $6.2 billion and the residue of that, in analyzing that,
have you come up with any similarities to an 1987 package which
might permit you to predict for us what will probably happen to
it also?
Mr. Mead. I think it is a little early to tell. The mix of projects
seem similar, although the 1987 authorization was $1.4 billion. So
with ISTEA there are a lot more projects and a lot more money.
I think this year you have a special problem, which I was allud-
ing to earlier, in that the trust fund is not as well off as it used
to be. And in the next few days you will be getting the President's
budget, and one issue is this 2.5 cents of the gas tax, and whether
it goes to the trust fund. And if you do not have that money, that
extra 2.5 cents going to the trust fund, you will not be able to fully
fund ISTEA. You just will not have enough money left. You will be
short about $12 billion.
564
Senator Lautenberg. That is one of the reasons there is a sub-
stantial debate about the 2.5 cents and where it goes. But, also,
Mr. Mead, is it not fair to say that in 1987, the demonstration
projects were then fully funded, not distributed over a series of
years like we have now?
Mr. Mead. The funds were gdlocated annually. But, right now, in
this year, it is $1.7 billion. Since ISTEA was enacted, only $1.7 bil-
lion of the $6 billion is currently available.
Senator DOMENICI. And only 25 percent of that has been obli-
gated?
Mr. Mead. Yes.
SPEND-OUT RATES OF STIMULUS FUNDING
Senator Domenici. Mr. Carlson, let me ask one question, then
close with a word of appreciation to you and your people.
First, the highway money that is in the so-called stimulus pack-
age, have you testified as to how much of that would spend out in
1993, how much in 1994, 1995, and 1996, based upon the esti-
mates?
Mr. Carlson. I have not testified on that. We have an estimate
in our budget that the 2.97 cents would result in an outlay in the
neighborhood of $316 million. That was based on our original pro-
posal.
Senator DOMENICI. What is $316 million?
Mr. Carlson. We thought that that may outlay that much the
first year.
Senator DOMENICI. In 1993 or 1994?
Mr. Carlson. 1993.
Senator Domenici. The rest of 1993.
Mr. Carlson. But that is very optimistic. Our original proposal
was that under this bill, if passed by April 2, and with a 60-day
bid received criteria on it, that work would be started as early as
July 1. This would let us do some fairly extensive resurfacing-type
projects, for example.
The House changed the bill to 90 days for bids received, and each
month you come closer to bad weather in the northern part of the
country, and I think that we are probably going to see less than
that actually outlaid the first year. How much we really have not
projected yet, because I do not think we wanted to do new projec-
tions, at least until we get what the actual figures are going to be.
Senator Domenici. So, if it is $316 million or less for laymen the
stimulus in 1993 will be $316 million or less, is that correct?
Mr. Carlson. That is outlays to the Federal Government. You
have to understand, sir, that it is a reimbursable program, and the
day that we are able to get the bill passed, we will have people
standing by to put the obligation authority out so the States could
obligate more of their apportionments. They will obligate the
money and receive bids. And when they receive those bids and
award projects, they will start ordering materials and supplies, and
they will start putting people to work. So there are going to be a
lot of things going on before it shows up on our books.
There will be a significant stimulus involved in this program that
will not show up on our outlay tables.
565
Senator Domenici. In your shop, when you have $10 billion in
authority, or $2 billion, let us say, and you put it out to the States,
what is your conventional approach to how that money flows over
the years?
Do you not have sort of a formula now that says, if it is
$2,300,000,000 in the first year, so much — ^tell us about that flow?
Mr. Carlson. Sixteen percent the first year and 54 percent the
second year I believe are the right numbers, and then it extends
out over the next 3 years depending in part on how big the projects
are and so forth.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much. Let me indicate on be-
half of my State, Mr. Carlson — I am not sure you are aware of this,
but we were the first State that applied for some assistance in
intermodal planning for a New Mexico-Mexico intermodal transpor-
tation center for trucks, air, and trains between Mexico and Amer-
ica.
It was not a big grant, a big amount of money, but I want you
to know that it has put the State of New Mexico in a position
where we should know in 5 or 6 months whether it is economically
viable to build an intermodal transportation center for three rail-
roads, and two Mexican railroads, around a little, tiny inter-
national airport, and along some major highways.
Frankly, I cannot imagine under the premise and philosophy of
ISTEA that we could have done better, especially if it reaches fru-
ition.
Mr. Carlson. Sir, I took the opportunity when I was out in New
Mexico speaking at your university to go down to that border cross-
ing and look at it. And it looks like it has a lot of prospect. We
were happy to be able to do that.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much. Thanks, Mr. Chair-
man.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much, Senator Domenici.
With that you are free at last, and we thank you very much for
your participation.
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
Surface Transportation Poucy Project
statement of grace crunican, director
introduction of witnesses
Senator Lautenberg. We would call Ms. Crunican and Mr.
Kassoff to the witness table.
We are happy to see the return of Grace Crunican, having been
here before on this side. We welcome each one of you and would
ask you, Ms. Crunican, to give your testimony first here. The rules
you know. You know what the clock means.
Ms. Crunican. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you
for the opportunity to appear before the committee today to discuss
the implementation of ISTEA.
I am Grace Crunican, the director of the Surface Transportation
Policy Project. We are a broad-based coalition of more than 100
public and private organizations. STPP came together in 1990 to
assure that the Federal transportation policy promotes the attain-
ment of critical national objectives for the environment, economic
competitiveness and sustainability, energy conservation, and com-
munity enhancement.
flexible funding
There are several gains that were made with the passage of
ISTEA. First among tnem is the issue of flexible funding. Though
some categories remain, there is greater latitude now between the
categories. The STP, NHS, and section 9 funds all contain provi-
sions which allow flexibility between traditional highway and tran-
sit programs.
This flexibility was used only to a small degree during the first
year of ISTEA. This is not surprising, given that the bill was
signed after the fiscal year had begun and transportation improve-
ment programs [TIFs] had already been approved.
It will take a while for the opportunity of this flexibility to sink
in at the local level and have much effect. Even then, I do not an-
ticipate a stampede to utilize this authority for two reasons.
First, there are many MPO's in States which have been hesitant
to give up the transportation programs and political agreements of
the past. They call it the pipeline of projects, and are hesitant to
interrupt the flow.
Second, control of one's funds is difficult to give up. Transpor-
tation agencies no more want to contribute their valued section 9
funds to a new metropolitanwide thinking than a county or city
would want to lay their former highway dollars on the table for
consideration of alternative modes. Old habits die hard.
(567)
568
However, it is extremely important to stick with this flexible
funding message on the Federal level. As a former deputy director
of transportation for the city of Portland, I can attest to the conver-
sion which can ultimately occur in a region when they stop think-
ing about narrow funding categories and start thinking about the
region's future.
Portland began with an interstate withdrawal in 1975, so it has
had almost 20 years to let the idea sink in. When ISTEA was
passed, the region immediately began discussing the use of STP
funds for light rail. Most other regions in the country will need
some time to understand how flexibility can work to tneir advan-
tage.
GAINS THROUGH ISTEA
The second gain through ISTEA was the integration of the Clean
Air Act with transportation planning and project selection. ISTEA
marries the planning and funding of the TiP's with the Clean Air
mandated State implementation plans [SIP's]. This forces transpor-
tation officials to consider the implications of their actions on the
environment and, specifically, siir quality.
ISTEA also created the CMAQ category, and new program to tar-
get funds to transportation projects and programs that clean up the
air.
Third, ISTEA directed STP funds through a suballocation to the
metropolitan planning organizations. This is the first time funds
have been directed to the regions rather than to local governments.
This is logical, since transportation systems are regional in nature
and the problems Eire not specific to one jurisdiction within a re-
gion.
But logic is one thing and politics is another. And I would just
note that a great deal of work still needs to be done here.
Fourth, ISTEA for the first time required States to engage in
long-range planning. Many States already had multiyear capital
plans, but this requirement was different. It asks not for the
project list but instead for the States to identify issues that the
transportation system will be facing in 20 years. A list of 20 items
for consideration have been identified for States, and a similar but
shorter list of 15 items have been identified for the MPO's.
The final gain to be highlighted is public participation. The act
calls for early and frequent participation by the public throughout
the planning process. This requirement, when coupled with the
planning requirements, provides hope that the transportation pro-
fessionals will have some fresh perspective added to the way they
have developed transportation systems in the past.
The inclusion of the enhancement program in ISTEA was very
helpful in getting the public's attention and interest. At STPP we
have been attempting to direct that interest beyond the enhance-
ment program and back into the long-range planning process. This
will ensure that the public articulates early in the process that
broader concern for community values such as healthy environment
and better designed communities that are walkable and bikeable.
These are the highlights of the legislation and its intent. I would
now like to just take a few minutes of the committee's time to as-
sess the progress that has been made.
569
PROGRESS IN IMPLEMENTATION
Reports from the first fiscal year of implementation are some-
what predictable. In total, States spent about 119 percent of their
interstate money, and that reflects the old backlog that they had.
Ninety-six percent of NHS, 73 percent of their FTA grants, 70 per-
cent of STP funds, 42 percent of CMAQ money, and 22 percent of
their enhancement money.
The ISTEA programs which were similar to the programs of the
past spent out at a much higher rate than the ISTEA programs
which were newly conceived, such as enhancements and CMAQ's.
This is not to say that those of us working for inclusionary infra-
structure planning are pleased with this with the slow place. We
are not. But we do understand the reasons behind the slow start
and are working with citizens, MPO's, and the States to improve
that balance in the future.
An issue which has hindered implementation of all new pro-
grams is the slowness of the regulatory process. The notice of pro-
posed rulemaking has appeared in the Federal Register for metro-
politan, statewide, and management systems planning. The docket
closes on May 3, but this is about 16 months after the act was
signed.
While FHWA offered what they called interim guidance last sum-
mer, this created a problem for some States and MPO's which de-
layed the ISTEA implementation.
This is especially true on the issue of conformity. The rulemaking
notice period of 60 days ended for conformity on March 12, but the
docket remains open. The merging of the Clean Air Act amend-
ments and ISTEA will probably not actually take effect for another
2 years. This will be using up 4 of the 6 years covered by ISTEA.
This is more than a disappointment, but conversation continues on
the local level between environmentsilists, MPO's, and the States.
Moving on to the issue of flexibility, only three States flexed
NHS funds to STP categories in fiscal year 1992. Vermont flexed
50 percent of its NHS funds. Maine and Massachusetts used 29
percent and 6 percent, respectively. In total, however, this is 1 per-
cent of the flexibility that was utilized.
Some progress was shown on the bridge program, where 15
States flexed bridge funds to STP or NHS, totaling $343 million,
which was 16 percent of the bridge funds authorized.
OBSTACLES TO IMPLEMENTATION
Finally, there are two obstacles to implementation at the State
level which deserve mentioning. First, the gas tax in many States
is constitutionally dedicated to roads. This limits a State's ability
to take advantage of some of the flexibility provided by the Federal
Grovemment. Some State gas taxes cannot be used to match transit
projects or some parts of the enhancement program involving such
areas as historic preservation or rails-to-trails. They do not have
this local match available, meaning that they are unable to come
forward with the enhancement programs in the transit.
The second obstacle is that some States have existing allocation
formulas which predate ISTEA. Frequently, these formulas distrib-
ute funds to all parts of the State or some parts of the State, and
570
do not match well with the new provisions ISTEA has taken such
as the STP suballocations and the enhancement programs.
As State legislatures meet this spring, some of these issues will
be addressed. Virginia, for example, just passed some changes in
this area. Other States will postpone the discussion on this issue
until an agreed-upon approach can be devised.
This is iust a quick overview of the legislation and some observa-
tions on now it is being implemented. Thank you for taking the
committee's valuable time to stay abreast of this legislation and for
the opportunity to testify.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you, Ms. Crunican. We have your
complete statement and it will be made part of the record.
[The statement follows:]
Statement of Grace Crunican
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I want to thank you for the oppor-
tunity to appear before you to discuss the implementation of the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. I am Grace Crunican, the director of the Sur-
face Transportation Policy Project, a broad-based coalition of more than one hundred
public and private organizations. STPP came together in 1990 to assure that Fed-
eral transportation policy promotes the attainment of critical national objectives for
the environment, economic competitiveness and sustainability energy conservation
and community enhancement.
There are several gains which were made with the passage of ISTEA. First among
them is the issue of flexible funding. Though some categories remain, there is great-
er latitude now between the categories. The STP, NHS and section 9 funds all con-
tain provisions which allow flexibility between traditional highway and transit pro-
grams. This flexibility was used only to a small degree during the first year of
ISTEA. This is not surprising given that the bill was signed after the fiscal year
had begun and transportation improvement programs (TIP's) had been approved. It
will take a while for the "opportunity" of this flexibility to sink in at the local level
and have much effect. Even then, I do not anticipate a stampede to utilize this au-
thority for two reasons. First, there are many MPO's and States which have been
hesitant to give up the transportation programs and political agreements of the
past. They call it tne "pipeline of projects and are hesitant to interrupt the "flow".
Second, control of ones funds is difficult to give up. Transit agencies no more want
to "contribute" their valued section 9 funds to a new metropolitan-wide thinking
than a county or city would want to lay their former highway dollars on the table
for consideration of alternative modes. Old habits die hard.
However, it is extremely important to stick with this flexible fiinding message on
the Federal level. As a former deputy director of transportation for the city of Port-
land, Oregon, I can attest to the conversion which can ultimately occur in a region
when they stop thinking about narrow funding categories and start thinking about
the region's future. Portland began with an interstate withdrawal in 1975, so has
had almost 20 years to let the idea sink in. When ISTEA was passed the region
immediately began discussing use of STP funds for light rail. Most other regions in
the country will need some time to understand how flexibility can work to their ad-
vantage.
The second gain through ISTEA was the integration of the Clean Air Act with
transportation planning and project selection. ISTEA marries the planning and
funding of the TIFs with the Clean Air Act's mandated SIFs (State implementation
plans.) This forces transportation officials to consider the implications of their ac-
tions on the environment and specifically on air quality. ISTEA also created
CMAQ— a new program to target funds to transportation projects and programs
that clean up the air.
Third, ISTEA directed STP funds through a suballocation to the metropolitan
planning organizations. This is the first time fiinds have been directed to regions
rather tnan local governments. This is logical since our transportation systems are
regional in nature and the problems sire not specific to one jurisdiction within a re-
fion. Logic is one thing, but politics is another. A great deal of work remains to be
one.
571
Fourth, ISTEA for the first time required States to engage in long range planning.
Many States already had multi-year capital plans, but this requirement was dif-
ferent. It asks not for project lists but, instead asks the States to identify the issues
that the transportation system will be facing in 20 years. A list of 20 items for con-
sideration have been identified for States, and a similar, but shorter, list of 15 items
is required for MPO's.
The final gain to be highlighted is public participation. The act calls for early and
frequent participation by the public throughout the planning process. This require-
ment, when coupled witii the planning requirements, provides hope that the trans-
portation professionals will have some fi-esn perspective added to the way they have
developed transportation systems in the past.
The inclusion of the enhancement program in ISTEA was very helpful in getting
the public's attention and interest. At STPP we have been attempting to direct that
interest beyond the enhancement program and back to the long-range planning
process. This will ensure that the public articulates early in the process their broad-
er concern for community values such as a healthy environment and better designed
commiinities that are walkable and bikeable.
These are the highlights of the legislation and of its intent. I would now like to
take just a few minutes of the committee's time to assess the progress that's been
made.
Reports fi:^m the first fiscal year of implementation are somewhat predictable. In
total States spent: 119 percent of interstate (old money), 96 percent of NHS, 73 per-
cent of FTA grants, 70 percent of STP, 42 percent of CMAQ, and 22 percent of en-
hancement funding (this is an average of State reports not — U.S. total).
The ISTEA programs which were similar to the programs of the past spent out
at a much higher rate than ISTEA programs which were newly conceived such as
enhancements and CMAQ. This is not to say that those of us working for more
inclusionary infi-astructure planning are pleased with this slow pace. We are not.
But we do understand the reasons behind the slow start and are working with citi-
zens, MPO's and States to improve that balance in the future.
An issue which has hindered implementation of all of the new programs is the
slowness of the regulatory process. The notice of proposed rulemaking has appeared
in the Federal Register for metropolitan, statewide and management system plan-
ning. The docket closes on May 3rd — about sixteen months after the act was signed.
While FHWA offered what tiiey called "interim guidance" last summer, this created
a problem for some States and MPO's which has delayed ISTEA implementation.
This is especially true on the issue of conformity. The rulemaking notice period
of 60 days ended for conformity on March 12, but the docket remains open. The
merging of the Clean Air Act amendments and ISTEA will probably not actually
take effect for another two years — using up four of the six years covered by ISTEA.
This is more than a disappointment, but work continues on the local level between
environmentalists, MPO's and the States.
Moving on to the issue of flexible funds, only three States "flexed" NHS fiuids to
the STP category. Vermont flexed 50 percent of its NHS fiinds. Maine and Massa-
chusetts used 29 percent and 6 percent respectively. In total, however, less than 1
percent of this flexibility was utilized. Some progress was shown on the bridge pro-
gram where fifteen States flexed bridge funds to STP or NHS totalling $343 million
(16 percent of authorized bridged funds).
Finally, there are two obstacles to implementation at the State level which de-
serve mentioning. First, the gas tax in many States is constitutionally dedicated to
roads. This limits a State's ability to take advantage of the flexibility provided by
the Federal Government. Some State gas taxes cannot be used to match transit
projects or some parts of the enhancement program involving areas such as historic
preservation or rail-to-trail conversions. Since tiiey do not have local matches which
are flexible to non-road projects, many States have been slow to expend their en-
hancement funds and to utilize their flexibility to fund transit improvements.
The second obstacle is that some States have existing allocation formulas which
predate ISTEA. Frequentiy these formulas distribute mnding to all parts of the
State and don't match well with some of the new approaches ISTEA has taken, such
as the STP suballocations and the enhancement program. As State legislatures meet
this spring some of these issues will be addressed. Virginia, for example, just passed
some changes in this area. Other States will postpone the discussion of this issue
until an agreed approach can be reached.
This was just a quick overview of the new legislation and some observations on
how it is being implemented. 'Thank you for taking the committee's valuable time
to stay abreast of t£is legislation's progress and for Qie opportunity to testify.
572
Maryland State Highway Administration
statement of hal kassoff, chairman, interstate 95 ivhs cor-
ridor coalition administrator
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Kassoff.
Mr, Kassoff. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to
appear before the subcommittee. My name is Hal Kassoff, and I am
the administrator of the Maryland State Highway Administration.
I am here today on behalf of the 1-95 Corridor Coalition, which
I have the honor to chair. The 1-95 Corridor Coalition is a partner-
ship of the major public and private transportation agencies which
serve the Northeast corridor of the United States.
Included in the coalition are each of the 11 departments of trans-
portation in the corridor, stretching from Maine to Virginia, 12 toll
authorities that operate major facilities within the corridor, the
transportation departments of Washington, DC, and New York
City, as well as the Federal Highway Administration.
In addition, we have representation from the Federal Railroad
Administration, the U.S. DOT Office of Intermodalism, Amtrak,
and the American Trucking Association Foundation.
I have attached to my testimony a list of the current member
agencies, as well as a copy of our organizational structure.
The mission of the coalition is to improve mobility and transpor-
tation efficiency in the Northeast corridor through the application
of real time IVHS technology in a coordinated and a concerted way
that emphasizes cooperation and communication, technology and
teamwork.
Although our coalition uses the 1-95 designation, we cover a
broad geographic area in the Northeast which includes all modes
as well as all major free and toll highways which parallel 1-95.
While the ISTEA legislation contains a wide array of very pro-
gressive changes affecting surface transportation in the United
States, I would like to concentrate on what I believe is among the
most visionary and forward-looking provisions, the IVHS sections
of title VI, part B.
ISTEA'S PROVISIONS FOR IVHS
The Intelligent Vehicle Highway System Program, which might
better be called intelligent transportation systems, will provide us
with a smarter intermodal surface transportation system utilizing
technologies that are just beginning to emerge in the civilian sector
of our economy; technologies that will invite crossovers into the ci-
vilian sector by companies that have in the past been almost exclu-
sively defense oriented.
Mr. Chairman, you personally have been a patron saint of IVHS
in America. Certainly, without your leadership and personal inter-
est, our 1-95 coalition could not have been formed. We thank you
for your interest and support for our mission.
THE 1-95 CORRIDOR COALITION
I come to this meeting both enthused and focused as the result
of a 2-day workshop of the chief administrative officers of the coali-
573
tion held in Baltimore earlier this week. In fact, it just ended yes-
terday.
Over 100 people, including the CAO's and their key staff, met for
2 days to begin to turn our idea for cooperation into a plan of ac-
tion. The goal of the workshop was to develop the framework for
both the short- and long-term business plan for the entire corridor
which each of our respective agencies could endorse.
We succeeded in defining such a framework and are now well on
our way to producing a specific business plan that is simulta-
neously visionary and practical for making the 1-95 corridor the
21st century transportation model of technology and teamwork.
With the boost from ISTEA which cited 1-95 as a priority corridor,
we have quickly moved to establish our organization.
We have created a structure which includes an executive board
made up of the CAO's of the transportation agencies in the cor-
ridor, and a steering committee chaired by Matt Edelman who I be-
lieve you do know, and he is from Transcom in New York, which
includes key policy and senior technical staff from each of our
members. We have expanded the geographic scope of the corridor
as defined in ISTEA to include Virginia, Rhode Island, Massachu-
setts, New Hampshire, and Maine.
The 1-95 corridor from Virginia to Maine contains 4 of the Na-
tion's 10 largest urban centers with a population of over 40 million
people, roughly 15 percent of the total U.S. population. It is among
the Nation's most congested travel corridors with nearly the entire
corridor in nonattainment of national air quality standards. The
corridor is highly urban and multimodal, with transportation pro-
vided by numerous public and private modes. The corridor has the
highest density of freight movements in the country and includes
the largest port facilities on the east coast, which are vital to this
Nation's economy.
Our vision for the coalition is really very simple, though the im-
plications may be far reaching and complex. Our vision is for the
providers of transportation services in the 1-95 corridor to establish
the necessary communication links so that collectively, as individ-
ual entities and as a coordinated team, we might operate our part
of the system for the benefit of travel customers whose travel ex-
tends beyond our individual boundaries. Our vision is customer
driven, it is focused on communication with customers and with
each other, and it is based on the concept that we must coordinate
the operation of each of our pieces of the system.
Our coalition has cooperatively accomplished a great deal in the
few months that we have been organized, but the real work is yet
to come. Our business plan will be ready in May and it will provide
a detailed basis for the coalition and its members' agencies to begin
our work. Mr. Chairman, our May meeting is in Princeton, NJ,
your home State, and we would be especially grateful if you could
join us on the afternoon of May 2 for the formal unveiling of our
business plan.
Mr. Chairman, you and your colleagues in the Congress have
demonstrated your recognition of a criticad Federal responsibility in
advancing IVHS applications for the transportation system in our
vital Northeast corridor through your support of the 1-95 coalition.
I thank you for the assistance that the Congress has given. Our co-
68-623 O— 93 19
574
alition members look forward to your continuing guidance and sup-
port.
We still have many questions to address. For example, we will
soon have to face the extremely tough issue of how to allocate
funds and how to share costs. But our overall mission is now before
us, and with your continued support we can and we will make the
transportation system of the Northeast corridor a prime example of
what cooperative and coordinated actions can do to achieve real
breakthroughs in teamwork and technology.
Thank you, again, for the opportunity to be here, and I would be
pleased to answer any questions.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much, Mr. Kassoff. We
have your complete statement and it will be made part of the
record.
[The statement follows:]
575
STATEMENT OF HAL KASSOFF
Mr. Cbainnan, my name is Hal Kassoff, and I am the Administrator of the Maryland State
Highway Administration. I am here today on bdialf of the I-9S Corridor Coalition which I have the
honoi to chair. With mc is Mr. Matt EdefaDan, Director of TRANSCOM, who chairs our Technical
Steering Committee. The I-9S Corridor Coalition is a partnership of the major public and private
transportation agencies which aerve the Northeast Conidor of tiie United States. Included in the Coalition
are each of the 1 1 Departments of Transportation in the Corridor stretching from Maine to Virginia, 12
toll authorities that operate major ^cUities within the conidor, the traiuportatioii departmeots of
Washington D.C. and New Yoric City as well as the Federal Highway Administiation. In addition, we
have representation from Qie Federal Railroad Administration, the USDOT OfGce of Intermodalism,
AMTRAK and the American Trucking Association Foundation. I have attached to my testimony a list
of the current member ageocies as well as a copy of our organizational structure.
The mission of the Coalition is to improve mobility and transportatioa efficiency In the Northeast
Corridor through the application of real time IVHS technology in a coordinated and concerted way that
emphasizes cooperation and cotrnntmlcation, technology and teamwork. Although our Coalition uses the
I-9S designation, we cover a broad geograptiic area in the Northeast which includes ail modes, as well
all major free and toll highways which parallel 1-95.
While the ISTEA legislation contains a wide array of progressive changes affecting surface
transportation in the United States, I would like to concentrate on what I believe is among the most
visionary and forward looking provisions, the IVHS sections of Title Vl-Part B. The Intelligent Vehicle-
Highway System program (wlilch might better be called Intelligent Transportation Systems), will provide
us with a "smarter* intermodal surface transportation system utilizing technologies that are Just beginning
to emerge in the civilian sector of our economy-technologies that will invite crossovers into the civilian
sector by companies that have in the past been almost exclusively defense oriented.
Mr. Chdrman, you personally, have been a "patron saint" of IVHS b America. Certainly,
without your leadership and personal Interest our 1-95 Coalition could not have been formed. We thank
you for your interest and support for our mission.
I come to tills meeting both enthused and fbcussed as the result of a two day Workshop of the
Chief Administrative Officers of the Coalition held b Baltbnore earlier this week. Over 100 people
including the CAO's and theii key staff met for two days to begin to turn our idea for cooperation into
a plan of action. The goal of the Workshop was to develop the framework for both a short and long term
Business Plan for the entire corridor vviiich each of our respective agencies could endorse. We succeeded
in defming such a framework and are now well on our way to producing a specific business plan that is
simultaneously visbnary and practical for makbg the 1-95 Corridor the 2l8t Century's transportadon
model of technology and teamwork.
With the boost from ISTEA, which cited 1-95 as a "priority corridor", we have quickly moved
to establish our organization. We have created a structure which includes an Executive Board made up
of the CAO'a of the transportation agencies In the corridor and a Steering Committee which includes key
policy and senior tedmieal staff from each of our members. We have expanded the geographic scope
of the corridor as defbed m ISTEA to bdude Virginia, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire
and Maine.
The 1-95 Corridor from Virginia to Maine contiins four of the nation's ten largest urban centers
with a population of over 40 million people, roughly 15 percent of the total U.S. Population. It Is among
the nation's most congested travel corridors, with nearly the entire corridor b non-attaimnent of national
ah quality standards. The corridor is highly urban and multimodal, with transporution provided by
numerous public and private modes. The Corridor has the highest density of freight movements b the
country and bdudes the largest port facilities on the East Coast which are vital to this nation's economy.
Our vision for out Coalition is really fairly simple, though the in^Iicatlons may be far-reaching.
Our vision is for the providers of transportation services b the 1-95 Corridor - from Ridimond to
Portland - to establish the necessary communications links so that collectively - as Individual entities and
as a coordbated team - we might operate our part of the system for the benefit of travel customers whose
travel extend beyond our individual boundaries. Our vision Is customer driven. It Is focused on
communication with customers and with each other, and it is based on the concept that we must
coordbate the operation of eadi of our pieces of the system.
576
Our Coalition has cooperatively accoiiplished a great deal in the few months that we have been
organized bat the real woric is yet to come. Our Business Plan will be ready In May and it will provide
a detailed basis for the Coalition and Its member agencies to begin our worlc. Mr. Qiainnao, our May
meeting is in Princeton, New Jersey— your home state— and we would be especially grateful if you could
Johi us on the aRemoon of May Znd for the formal unveiling of our business plan.
Mr. Chairman, you and yoni colleagues hi the Congress have demonstrated your recognition of
a critical Federal responsibility in advancing IVHS applications for the transportation system in our vital
Northeast Corridor tluough your support of the I-9S Coalition. I thank you for the assistance that the
Congress has gh/en. Our Coalition memberi look forward to yonr continuing guidance and support. We
still have many questions to address. For eumple, we will soon have to face the extremely tough issue
of how to allocate funds and how to share costs. But our overall mission is now before us, and with yotir
contimied support we can and we will make the transportation system of the Northeast Corridor a prime
example of what cooperative and coordinated actions can do to achieve real breakthroughs in teamwork
and technology. Thank you, and I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
577
^
578
'4
•2 s.
a -
£h
I
O
U
s
PL.
3
P^ o •— ' ^ c .9
« „ o « s
"^ o O ^
cci w^ •
I
579
PROBLEMS FACING STATES AND MPO'S
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you for your kind words. Sainthood
is not something that is familiar to me, but I appreciate the des-
ignation. We will have to wait and see if others agree. We will be
in Princeton on May 3, so I would not suggest embargoing the un-
veiling until May 3 but we will look forward to having it.
I thank both of you for your comments. We want to just confirm
some of the things that you reviewed in your testimony.
Ms. Crunican, what is the biggest problem facing the States and
MPO's in implementing the new provisions in ISTEA? Is it famili-
arity? Are we still in the middle of the learning curve? Or what is
the reason for the slowness?
Ms. Crunican. Senator, the MPO's would probably say it is the
States and the States would probably say it is the MPO's to some
extent, but I think that the regulations are new. And actually we
have had guidance over the past year, and so one of the biggest
problems is the clarity of what is expected out of the State and
locals.
And the Federal Highway Administration, I did not mean to put
a slam there. They have had a very difficult time trying to get reg-
ulations out, but in doing so the States were issued guidance. And
in conversations with the States, some of them did not know
whether the guidance that was issued would actually turn into the
regulation and they were uncertain as to which course to take. So
for long-range planning, for example, they were not certain as to
what the expectations would be of them not having those.
To some extent, there was some hesitancy to use the flexible
funding because ISTEA was not fully funded, and so by having a
lower level of cash that they were able to work with, they chose not
to do too much creative thinking, if you will. And I think last is
this pipeline issue. A lot of political consensus making goes into
putting together a transportation improvement plan, and given the
lateness of the bill there was a lot of hesitancy to attempt to make
any changes.
Senator LAUTENBERG. Questions have been raised about the abil-
ity of the MPO's to adjust to the new planning requirements under
ISTEA. Are they faced with shortages of resources, information
data, anal5d;ical tools? Do they need more facility to help them ac-
complish their mission?
Ms. Crunican. To some extent they need more help. This guid-
ance program from the Federal Government, in terms of what the
expectations are, is really a critical part of it. The two tasks that
are new, really, are this long-range plan that is required and then
meeting the Clean Air Act.
There is a lot of discussion going on in terms of models. The
black box, you will hear reference to the black box. And that has
to do with the assessment of transportation projects and trjang to
determine whether the transportation improvement that is being
proposed, some transportation system management proposals, any-
thing that would be helpful in meeting the State implementation
plans, trying to assess what those improvements will mean for
clean air is a challenge before the States or before the MPO's right
now.
580
And so to some extent there will be some work done with EPA
and with the private sector on improvement of the models. To some
extent, though, it is an issue of trying to inform the elected officials
and the staff as to what the new game plan is and to try and
match the expectations coming out of Washington in terms of the
regulations. And so it really is going to take, I think, quite a long
time to get that turned around.
Senator Lautenberg. Because there has been knowledge about
what is required for some time now. And is it because there is still
an old cultural bias that says, well, we have got to build roads and
we did not have the same flexibility in mind some years ago as we
are faced with now, or is there just lack of familiarity? What can
we do to kind of move things along to get them to implement the
new provisions?
Ms. Crunican. Senator, I would not want to be on record as
condoning the things that have happened. My group is very inter-
ested in going further and faster. Some of it is a lack of familiarity
and some of it is they have been able to get away with it. They
have been able to get away with not coming up with more creative
things. There is very little pressure on them to do that.
Senator Lautenberg. More requirements, then.
Ms. Crunican. Correct. And at the Federal — because the FHWA,
EPA, and FTA have not yet decided on — what needs to happen at
the Federal level is they need to be able to say what they are going
to say no to. Are they going to say no to the transportation im-
provement plans, do the TIP's not match the SIP's and right now
FHWA is not able to articulate what they are going to say no to.
They will — I mean give them some time, but from the locals point
of view 16 months have gone by and they still do not know what
it is they are supposed to march to.
CMAQ FUNDS
Senator Lautenberg. How about the fact that lots of States see
CMAQ money as a new pot of funds, and, given that these funds
are going for air quality and congestion relief benefits, are the
States just looking at this as the next project on the list of things
that need funding?
Ms. Crunican. As you saw from the numbers, in some cases they
are just not spending them at all, and they are sitting there trying
to figure out what it is they need to do with them. In other cases.
States are, I think, doing some of that — slipping some of the — they
are looking at their TIP's and saying, well, what is it on our TIP
now that we could put on CMAQ and take care of some money.
There are others that are very thoughtfully — it is a mixed bag,
as Frank Francois said. It is just a mixed bag out there, and so
there are a number of them that are trying to assess what a good
project is and how much it will contribute to air quality measure-
ment, and that has taken some time. But there is a piece of each
of those.
Senator Lautenberg. Of course, some of that is being propelled
by deadlines in the Clean Air Act.
Ms. Crunican. That is correct.
581
STP FUNDS
Senator Lautenberg. What about STP? Are these funds consid-
ered transit or highway funds by State and local officials?
Ms. Crunican. By the State and local officials, I think that they
start off as highway funds. At STPP, not to confuse the labels, but
we certainly do not think of them — they come as flexible funds.
With the exception of the safety money which is probably on its
way to most road projects, the other categories within STP are fully
flexible to highway and transit. And while they start with that
bias, again the money comes from the highway trust fund. And the
way the information comes out of Washington, it lists STP. Basi-
cally, it is in title I and so it comes out as a highway program and
that has, to a certain extent, limited the creativity on the part of
the locals.
Senator Lautenberg. It is a cultural change that has to be de-
veloped.
Ms. Crunican. Absolutely.
Senator Lautenberg. Do you think DOT is properly monitoring
State and local use of CMAQ money?
Ms. Crunican. The Department is trying its best to monitor all
the funds that are out there. Because they have no — or few, I do
not mean to sound as though any project would slip by. Because
the guidelines are not established, they really have very little
against which to measure, against which to judge.
In terms of tracking, I have not seen listings of projects. I do
know, on the STP funds, that they ask for less information about
how STP funds are spent than they do for NHS funds and how
they are spent. I could make an assumption that the same thing
is true on CMAQ, but that would be unfair.
Senator Lautenberg. Again, it is a new experience for all parties
concerned, and to get the focus directed is going to take some time.
I think that they do a pretty good job. It is a question of whether
it is enough yet to move things along.
primary objective of 1-95 CORRIDOR COALITION
Mr. KassofF, how would you list the primary progrsim that you
are interested in in terms of improving transportation in the cor-
ridor?
Mr. Kassoff. I think our No. 1 objective, by far, is to establish
communication within modes and between modes. Interestingly,
the highway mode, the first mode in the corridor, going back to the
days of the revolution, is the least advanced in terms of being in
touch with realtime operations on your own system, much less real-
time operations on your neighbor's system.
So we operate with blinders on when we talk about the highway
mode. The railroads and aviation, they are in touch with their own
modes. They control the operations in their modes to a much great-
er extent. Trucking companies and bus companies that operate on
the highways have made great advances in terms of being in touch
with their fleets, but if the entire system is to work together, all
modes, then we need to be in touch with one another. And so the
investment early on, we believe, will be in communications.
582
Senator Lautenberg. What were the key factors in deciding that
the corridor program was the best option? Were others considered?
Mr. Kassoff. Well, clearly, we are in the densest part of the
country with just not many places to expand the infrastructure,
and so we have to operate that system much more efficiently.
There are opportunities — particularly when unanticipated
blockages occur m the system — ^there are opportunities to respond.
There are times when there is excess capacity within the same
mode or across modes, and if we were smart enough to know how
to respond and how to get that information to our customers and
had the facilities to do that, we think we can operate much more
efficiently.
STATE COOPERATION
Senator Lautenberg. Have all the States within the corridor,
Maine to Virginia, agreed to the program? Will they commit State
money to it?
Mr. Kassoff. Remarkably, they are all in the coalition, thev
have all agreed. The State of Vermont is one that we have to talk
to because they really do not have — ^they do not sit quite astride
the corridor the way the others do. But we will be talking with
them. All of the States that have 1-95 in the corridor, all of the
States from Virginia to Maine with the exception of Vermont are
in, and all of the msgor toll authorities.
The level of energy in Baltimore, the level of commitment, was
reaJly incredible to witness. We expected, the leadership of the coa-
lition expected a little bit of why are we here and is this something
we really want to do; we all are autonomous and we want to pro-
tect our autonomy. We did not encounter that at all.
SOURCE OF FUNDING
Senator Lautenberg. What is the source of funds that you are
using to advance the corridor concept? Is that State moneys?
Mr. Kassoff. Well, this is a major question. Within each State,
there are programs that in various states of advancement in FVHS.
Some are much more advanced than others.
And they are using the normal Federal program to advance. For
example, in Maryland we have under construction a center costing
$7 million when using the normal Federal program to do that.
The money that was set aside for the priority corridors in ISTEA
has been used as the seed money to get us together. We believe
that 90 percent of the funds expended in the corridor in the future
are going to be for intrastate programs in IVHS, because 90 per-
cent of the travel is still within the State.
What we need in the future from ISTEA and from the Congress
is incentives to spend that extra 10 percent or less to communicate
with one another. And that is where the funding that was included
in ISTEA has become so critical.
encouragement at federal level
Senator Lautenberg. What is Federal Highway doing to encour-
age the States to use their STP program moneys and other ISTEA
funds to involve themselves in funding the IVHS projects?
583
Mr. Kassoff. Well, they have been nothing but supportive. We
have a program within Maryland. They sit on our various commit-
tees ana have been very encouraging.
They have made a clear distinction for within State programs
that tney expect us to use our normal program categories, that the
money, the $600 million plus, was really to develop the tech-
nologies, to do operational tests.
An issue for the Congress, however, to address is whether some
moneys should be set aside for deployment of parts of the system
that could only be done on a multistate basis. And that is what you
have begun to do and I think that will need to be continued. And
that is probably the one exception for deployment that needs to a
part of that separate category.
SUBMITTED QUESTIONS
Senator Lautenberg. We appreciate your encouragement of the
development of the IVHS programs. We see great hope there and
we are pleased to have your involvement with the 1-95 corridor
people. We will submit additional questions in writing to be an-
swered for the record.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were
I submitted to the Departments for response subsequent to the hear-
ing:]
584
GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR LAUTENBERG
HIGHWAY TRUST FUND REVENUE ESTIMATES
Senator Lautenberg. Could the shortfall be
.eliminated if the Congress extends and credits to the
highway account a substantial portion of the 2.5-cent
portion of the fuel tax currently targeted to deficit
reduction and scheduled to expire in fiscal year 1995?
Answer. Yes. Crediting a substantial portion of
the 2.5-cent fuel tax currently targeted to deficit
reduction would eliminate the projected highway account
shortfall. We should note that at the time of our
statement, the highway account shortfall was expected
to be $12.5 billion. However, revised revenue
estimates released subsequent to our statement now show
an improved revenue picture. As a result, the
projected shortfall in the highway account is now
expected to total $10.1 billion, assuming full funding
of ISTEA throughout the remaining life of the
authorization. Although the severity of the shortfall
has moderated, a substantial portion of the 2.5 cents
would still be needed to eliminate the shortfall.
Senator Lautenberg. What is the feasibility of
extending the 2.5-cent fuel tax for both the highway
account and the mass transit account?
Answer. While both highway and mass transit needs
outstrip available resources, the highway account
currently faces an immediate challenge to its solvency
whereas the mass transit account is financially sound.
As noted above, the severity of the shortfall in the
highway account has moderated slightly since our
statement, and this slight improvement increases the
feasibility of crediting a portion of the 2.5-cent fuel
tax to the transit account. The fact that the highway
account still faces pressing difficulties, however,
does not leave much choice but first to take action to
return the highway account to a sound footing.
Senator Lautenberg. What would be the impact on
the highway and transit accounts' financial condition
if 2.0 cents of the extended fuel tax were credited to
the highway account, and 0.5 cents to the transit
account?
Answer. Given the current projection of a $10.1
billion shortfall, crediting 2.0 cents to the highway
account from October 1, 1995 and through September 30,
1999 would leave the highway account with a $1.6
billion reserve for the next reauthorization and a cash
balance of $2.0 billion at the end pf the ISTEA
585
authorization period. Crediting 0.5 cents to the
transit account over the same span of time would leave
the transit account with a $10 billion cash balance at
the end of the authorization period. The transit
account, however, would be fully solvent throughout the
ISTEA authorization period either with or without the
0.5-cent credit.
Senator Lautenberg. Is a $1 billion highway
account safety cash cushion adequate, given the recent
swings in expected revenue?
Answer. While a $1 billion safety cushion would
seem to be a bare bone minimum to guard against revenue
fluctuations, we would agree with FHWA officials who
have suggested that $3 billion may be a more practical
safety cushion. This is because of the extreme
fluctuations in projected highway account revenues
since enactment of ISTEA--about $9 billion in just one
year. If less than a $3 billion safety cushion is
sought, close monitoring would be needed to ensure that
projected revenues to the highway account are actually
being realized.
FUNDING FLEXIBILITY
Senator Lautenberg. Is funding flexibility being
used to make up any difference between mass transit
appropriations and ISTEA authorizations for mass
transit?
Answer. It appears that this was not the case in
fiscal year 1992, since mass transit programs were
fully funded up to their authorized levels--
approximately $3.7 billion. Consequently, there was no
pressure to use funding flexibility to make up a
difference between appropriations and authorizations.
Fiscal year 1993 appropriations, on the other hand,
were about $1.5 billion below ISTEA' s authorized level
of $5.2 billion. Thus, there may be some move by state
and local governments to use flexible highway funds to
augment their federal mass transit capital assistance.
Any such decisions would be made through the federally
required transportation planning process.
Senator Lautenberg. Your statement indicates that
improved tools are needed for making cross-modal
investment decisions. Why are current tools
inadequate, and just what needs to be fixed?
Answer. ISTEA requires state and local planners
and decision makers to consider all transportation
modes when developing plans and programs . State and
local officials will need help to accomplish this.
586
First, a common basis is needed to evaluate projects
across modes. Highway evaluation and selection
criteria focuses on moving vehicles while transit
criteria focuses on movement of people. There are no
conmion measures that would allow the comparison of
highway and transit projects as to their mobility,
environmental quality, cost-effectiveness, safety, and
social and economic costs and benefits.
Second, better data collection tools and analytic
methodologies are also needed to better evaluate
transportation options. For example, the state of the
art in evaluating the air quality impacts of
transportation projects is not well advanced. In
general, travel demand models, which are an important
component to air quality analysis for transportation
projects, were originally developed some 20 to 30 years
ago to analyze the need for new or modified highway
facilities. Because these models often do not
incorporate or fully recognize such factors as vehicle
speed or type, they are now ill-suited to be used to
analyze the air quality impacts of transportation
projects. DOT can assist states and local governments
both by developing an investment framework to make
cross-modal comparisons and by fostering development of
improved analytic tools for assessing the impacts of
transportation investment choices.
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR SASSER
DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS
Senator Sasser. ISTEA included some 539
demonstration projects. Please provide the
Subcommittee with any preliminary data regarding how
many of the projects might be included in the states'
proposed routes for the National Highway System.
(States are due to submit their proposed routes to the
Federal Highway Administration by April 30, 1993. The
Federal Highway Administration will submit the total
proposed route to the Congress by December 18, 1993.)
Answer. According to FHWA, about 43 percent of
ISTEA 's demonstration and special projects are on the
proposed National Highway System. It should be noted
that this figure is based on 430 proposed projects
surveyed by FHWA in October 1991. Most of these
projects were included in ISTEA, and although about 100
additional projects were ultimately included in ISTEA,
FHWA officials believe that the 43 percent figure can
be extrapolated to all ISTEA projects.
587
METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS
Senator Sasser. Enactment of ISTEA greatly
enhanced the role of the Metropolitan Planning
Organizations (MPOs) in the transportation planning and
project selection process. One year after enactment of
ISTEA, what impact have MPOs had in influencing states'
transportation investment decisions?
Answer. Although we have not specifically looked
at the MPO role in the decisionmaking process, we have
discussed the barriers to using ISTEA 's funding
flexibility provisions with state and MPO officials in
five states. Based on those discussions, it appears
that the influence of the MPOs in this process varies
on a case-by-case basis. There are several
contributing reasons. First, the transportation
community is still in the early stages of ISTEA
implementation. Most officials at all levels of
government spent the first year of ISTEA understanding
the law and discussing how to implement it. Second,
differences in the makeup of individual MPOs, sucli as
any given MPO's resources available and its existing
relationship with its state transportation department,
all contribute to MPOs" ability to influence
transportation investment decisions.
In the future, MPOs, particularly those in air quality
nonattainment areas, may play a stronger role in
project selection. This is because ISTEA allocates
some funds for the Surface Transportation Program and
the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement
Program to MPOs, which then select projects in
consultation with the state. Moreover, as both MPOs
and state transportation departments become more
familiar with ISTEA requirements, building consensus
may become easier.
BUREAU OF TRANSPORTATION STATISTICS
Senator Sasser. Your testimony indicates that
states and localities have had some degree of
uncertainty and difficulty in moving to the ISTEA goal
of intermodalism. Along with the greater flexibility
emphasized in ISTEA came the expectation that states
and localities would make "smarter," more prudent
decisions regarding project investments. To assist
states and localities, ISTEA also created a Bureau of
Transportation Statistics (BTS). The role of the BTS
was envisioned as one of technical support and
assistance to the states and localities in collecting
transportation data and providing analysis, ultimately
to improve the intermodal decisionmaking process.
Also, the BTS is required to publish an annual report
to the Congress on Transportation Statistics.
588
The first report of the BTS is due on January 1, 1994.
In light of that deadline, what information can you
provide to the Committee regarding the Bureau's
ef f ectiveness--i . e . , staffing levels, the degree to
which states and localities have sought technical
assistance--in meeting its first report date.
Answer. The BTS ' s operations are just getting
started. While the Department of Transportation's
fiscal year 1994 budget request provides for 12 FTEs,
the Bureau's current staffing level consists of four
staff members--including the Bureau's highest ranking
official, the Deputy Director, who is on special
assignment to Vice President Gore for six months--plus
two detailees. Position descriptions are being drafted
to accommodate the Bureau's larger staffing needs, but
the present staffing level means that only limited
progress can be made in making statistics available to
states and localities. Also, the present staffing
level should present the Bureau with a real challenge
in meeting a first annual report deadline of January 1,
1994.
589
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND
TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR LAUTENBERG
ACCURATE DEPICTION OF TRANSIT NEEDS
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: The Federal Highway Administration
annually publishes a report on the conditions and performance of
the highways and bridges of this country.
Question. Why do you believe that the numbers produced by
FHWA are readily agreed to and accepted, while the FTA's
projections are not given a great deal of credibility?
Answer. The FHWA gathers its data from the States, through
a rigorous process that has been developed over the years. The
collected data is the same as is usually employed by States in
their own analysis and programming, which are also rigorous
processes. The data collected by the FHWA is then analyzed
according to procedures with which the States are familiar. The
result is that the FHWA results are generally accepted by the
States, and by the highway industry.
In past years, the FTA data collection process was not
strong, and there was not full agreement on what data should be
collected. This situation has improved considerably, and current
need estimates are receiving a higher acceptability than in the
past. Part of the reason why the FTA data was suspected by many
over the past 12 years was the perception that the Administration
was either anti-transit or luke warm to public transportation, and
the feeling that needs were therefore being underestimated.
Currently, this perception has generally abated.
Question. Do you believe that it is a worthwhile goal to
have the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit
Administration produce a consolidated report that estimates the
surface/passenger needs of this country?
Answer. Yes, especially under the ISTEA. The ISTEA
provides flexibility among the surface modes, attempts to
establish a level playing field, and features intermodal planning.
Accordingly, it makes sense to produce a consolidated report.
Question. Do you believe such a report could accurately
depict the economic development and cost trade-offs between
highways and transit?
Answer. Over time, probably. But first a better
understanding of the linkage between transportation and economic
development need to be determined, and agreement would need to be
reached on the relative "costs" of highways and transit. The
costs to be included for both modes would need to be agreed upon,
after which credible methods for estimating those costs would be
needed. Only then can the trade-off issue be properly addressed.
590
AASHTO has been sponsoring research into the economic
linkages between highways and economic development, and progress
is being made. Some States have also done research of this type.
FUNDING FLEXIBILITY
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Under ISTEA, States and urban areas are
now allowed unprecedented flexibility to spend money on roads,
transit or other programs.
Question. To what extent will meeting inter-related
legislative mandates, such as those of the Clean Air Act and the
Americans with Disabilities Act, require funding realignments by
States or urban areas?
Answer. It will depend on the conditions faced by a given
State or urban area. In those States or urban areas in a non-
attainment status under the Clean Air Act, the Transportation
Improvement Program can be heavily influenced away from new
highway capacity and towards transit and other measures by the
need to improve air quality. It is believed that the flexibility
provisions will accommodate this shift of funding, and in some
severe non-attainment States all but highway safety-related
capital funds might be moved to other uses.
On the other hand, under EPA's currently proposed conformity
regulation rural States in attainment status will find little if
any need to transfer funds from one mode to the other, for air
quality reasons. In all States, it is possible that some transfer
of funds from highways to transit will be needed to accommodate
the Americans with Disabilities Act, but overall the need for such
funding does not appear to be huge at this time.
NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Section 1006 of the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) requires the
Secretary of Transportation to submit to the Congress by the end
of calendar year 1993 a proposed National Highway System (NHS)
with a list and description of highways proposed for the system,
including a map showing the proposed designations. The NHS
highway mileage is limited to 155,000 miles, subject to a 15
percent Increase or decrease by the Secretary.
Question. What provisions are available that would permit
NHS adjustments following final designation of the system?
Answer. To the best of my understanding of the ISTEA, there
are no provisions for making such adjustments after Congress
approves the NHS. We would anticipate that this issue might be
addressed in the legislation adopting the NHS.
Question. What effect will defining the NHS have on State
and local transportation officials and the private sector,
especially regarding their funding decisions?
Answer. The effects will vary by State and metropolitan
region, and will depend upon the map finally adopted for the NHS.
591
Generally, the NHS should be a positive economic factor for
the private sector, in that one of its purposes is to provide for
the interstate commerce required for most private sector
activities. With the NHS, factories and suppliers should be able
to make locational decisions with some surety as to the
transportation system that is now or will become available, and
they should have the assurance that the NHS will provide quality
highways .
With regard to the States, the adoption of the NHS will
provide the basic highway network for meeting their needs for both
t intrastate and interstate movements, and the backbone to support
their own system of State and locality roads.
In metropolitan regions, the NHS will provide the
connections with other metropolitan regions and rural areas
necessary to support the urban economy. Urban area NHS roads need
to be carefully planned in conjunction with other roads and
transit, so that they will continue to serve the national needs
for which the NHS is intended.
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR SASSER
NEW HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGY
SENATOR SASSER: The Transportation 2020 document "The
Bottom Line" cited improvements to material sciences and
construction technology as ways to extend the durability of
highway structures and provide cost savings.
Question. Do you have any specific data regarding
technology advances in these areas, in light of ISTEA7 Also, has
AASHTO conducted any studies or surveys citing specific cost
savings from improvements to material sciences and construction
technology?
Answer. The principal highway research programs with which
AASHTO is associated include the National Cooperative Highway
Research Program (NCHRP), directed by AASHTO and managed by the
Transportation Research Board of the National Research Council,
and the now concluding 5-year Strategic Highway Research Program
(SHRP), authorized by Congress and managed during its research
period by a unit of the National Research Council.
Over the years and continuing at the present the NCHRP has
produced many research results that have advanced highway
technology, ranging from solving bridge repair problems to
producing the background research necessary for AASHTO to develop
a new national bridge code, from solutions for specific pavement
problems to research allowing AASHTO to adopt a pavement design
guide, and numerous other products. The funding to support this
program was significantly increased by the ISTEA. and is already
being put to work.
The SHRP has produced some 130 research products, which are
described in a recently produced "SHRP Product Catalog," a copy of
592
which is being filed with the Connnittee together with this
response. The SHRP research highlights the technology advances
that will now be made, assuming a strong implementation effort of
the kind now underway at the FHWA and AASHTO.
There are no definitive studies of all the cost savings from
improvements to material sciences and construction technology, and
'AASHTO has not done a survey on this subject. The Transportation
Research Board has investigated the return on research, and has
published some reports. But there is a general understanding that
the return on the dollars spent for highway research can be very
large. It is of course recognized that some research efforts do
not produce useful results. But when useful results are obtained,
the benefits can be in the ratio of 20 to 1, or larger.
In 1987 the U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment
published a report titled "Construction and Materials Research and
Development for the Nation's Public Works; Science, Education, and
Transportation Program." The report made the following finding,
which is commonly accepted in AASHTO:
"...the benefits of even modest increases in materials R&D
for highway repair, maintenance and construction alone could
be $15 billion to $35 billion over the next 10 to 20 years.
Compare these savings to the current federal and nonfederal
investment in materials R&D for all types of public works of
$53 million to $62 million, and the value of the investment
in R&D becomes even more pronounced. Still more
significant, much of this benefit could be obtained with
materials that are available now, but are not used because
of inadequate technology transfer, the perceived financial
risks of using new materials, and government procurement
practices . "
AASHTO has been increasingly concerned about improving the
implementation of new highway technology, a cause that is advanced
by the ISTEA. Using the new funding provided by the ISTEA, AASHTO
is working with the FHWA and TRB through the Civil Engineering
Research Foundation to establish a new Highway Innovative
Technology Evaluation Center (HITEC), which we hope to make
operational this fall to specifically address the technology
transfer and other factors cited by the OTA in its report.
HIGHWAY AGENCY WORKFORCE
SENATOR SASSER: When the Interstate System was initiated in
1956, the group prominent in that effort were civil engineers.
Question. In the aftermath of ISTEA, with emphasis on new
technologies such as IVHS, greater private sector involvement, and
the changing relationship between state highway officials and
Metropolitan Planning Organizations, how are State highway
officials making modifications to the composition of its
workforce?
Answer. The highway agency of today is organized to include
a great many skills in addition to those of traditional civil
engineer, and the role of the civil engineer is changing to focus
593
more on managing an array of resources. In January, 1993, AASHTO
compiled and published a book containing the organization charts
of our member departments, titled "Organizational Charts of AASHTO
Member Departments 1992." A copy of the book is being filed with
this response, and it illustrates the multi-faceted organization
that is typical today.
The ISTEA is requiring still further diversification, as the
states respond to new planning requirements, the new
transportation enhancement program, the need for intermodal
planning and programming, the need to consider transfers of funds
across the modes, and a host of other issues. Several states are
now working on IVHS projects, which often requires electrical
engineering and computer skills of a new kind or degree.
An area of increased activity faced by all highway agencies,
more intense in some States than others, is responding to
environmental Issues. States now must have experts in wetlands,
noise and mitigation tactics, and the problems in satisfying Clean
Air Act requirements are calling for specialties in another
growing arena.
Adapting to these new human resource needs is costly,
especially at a time when State budgets are strained, and experts
in some areas are in short supply. But our member departments are
nevertheless moving ahead.
INTERMODALISM
SENATOR SASSER: The General Accounting Office has cited a
number of barriers to the States and localities in meeting the
intermodal goals of ISTEA. One concern is that States and
localities are having difficulty evaluation projects for
intermodal investments.
Question. Has AASHTO conducted any surveys amongst its
members that responds to the GAO concern?
Answer. The AASHTO Standing Committee on Planning (SCOP)
has task groups working in a variety of areas requiring attention
under the ISTEA, including intermodal and Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO) issues. As part of their effort they have made
surveys on both topics.
One of the surveys was done in mid-1992 on MPO issues, and
resulted in a report titled "Metropolitan Planning Organizations
and State Departments of Transportation," and a copy is being
supplied with this response. An update survey is now underway on
MPO issues.
Turning specifically to intermodal issues, the SCOP survey
resulted in a report titled "A Survey of States' Current
Multimodal Data Collection," a copy of which is also being
supplied. The report provides an overview of intermodal data
gathering and» planning activities in the states, and indicates
considerably variation across the nation. The intermodal program
arena is still new and in a formative stagfe for most States and
localities, and accordingly considerable work needs to be done to
fully satisfy ISTEA and the issues raised by the GAO.
594
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR LAUTENBERG
HIGHWAY TRUST FUND REVENUE ESTIMATES
When ISTEA was enacted, a balance of $2.7 billion was anticipated at
the end of 1997. Now, only 16 months after enactment, the outlook has totally
changed, and a highway account shortfall of $12.5 billion is expected. The
administration's overview budget document, A Vision of Change for America.
lists extending the 2.5 cent per gallon gas tax as a revenue raising proposal that
would generate $2.6 billion annually in fiscal years 1996 through 1998.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What is FHWA's plan for the allocation of
the 2.5 cents of the motor fuels tax that would be diverted from deficit reduction
to the Highway Trust Fund?
ANSWER: It is not our intention to divert tax receipts from deficit
reduction. The 2.5 cents a gallon motor-fuel tax currently dedicated to deficit
reduction is scheduled to expire on September 30, 1995. The Administration is
asking that the 2.5 cents be extended to 1999 and dedicated to the Highway
Trust Fund (HTF). The Highway Account of the HTF would receive the
revenues from 2 cents a gallon and the Mass Transit Account the revenues from
0.5 cent a gallon.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: How much does FHWA now estimate the
extension of the 2.5 cent tax will generate?
ANSWER: For FY's 1996-1999 extension of the 2.5 cents a gallon will
generate an estimated $13.6 billion of additional revenues to the HTF. The
Highway Account will receive $10.8 billion and the Mass Transit Account
$2.8 billion.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: If the 2.5 cents is now expected to
generate more revenue than expected just a couple of months ago, how much
additional revenue is now expected compared to January 1993 revenue
estimates? What factors account for any difference in revenue expectations?
ANSWER: The Treasury Department estimates used slightly more
optimistic economic assumptions for the April revenue HTF estimates than were
used in previous Administration's baseline budget in January. Disregarding the
revenue increase from extension of the two and one-half cents a gallon motor-
fuel tax the net increase for FY's 1992-1998 is $1,322 billion for the Highway
Account and $103 million for the Mass Transit Account.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Revenue revisions are the primary reason
we have gone from an expected revenue surplus of $2.7 billion to a
$12.5 billion anticipated shortfall in about 16 months. How do you account for
the volatility in revenue estimates?
!
595
ANSWER: The change in tax revenues estimates for FY's 1992-99 from
January 1992 to April 1993 is a decrease of about $7.1 billion for the Highway
Account is due primarily to economic factors. Most of the remainder of the
shortfall is due to the fact that the authorizations against the Highway Account
for FY 1992-97 are about $4.8 billion higher than estimated when ISTEA was
passed due primarily to increases in the estimates of minimum allocation funds
and hold harmless funds. Lower interest earnings due to lower interest rates and
smaller Highway Account balances causing smaller interest earnings account for
the most of the shortfall.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What are DOT and the Department of
Treasury doing to ensure the revenue estimates being provided to Congress are
reliable?
ANSWER: The revenue estimates are the primary responsibility of the
Department of the Treasury and are based economic factors used in the
President's Budget. The DOT reviews the Treasury estimates and offers
comments where appropriate.
NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM
The FHWA budget justification prepared under the Bush
Administration reported that funding at full ISTEA levels would have
maintained the quality of the National Highway System at 1 989 levels.
However, FHWA notes that the quality of the NHS has already dropped below
1989 levels.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What is the type and magnitude of the
NHS's drop in quality?
ANSWER: The principal decrease in quality results from increases in
congestion on the urban Interstates and other freeway and expressways. From
1989 to 1991 the extent of peak hour congested travel on urban Interstate
increased from 69.6 to 70.2 percent. On other freeways and expressways, the
increase was from 59.9 to 61.4 percent. While the rate of increase in congestion
was lower for the past two years than for most equivalent previous time periods,
this reflects the recent economic slowdown and resulting reduced travel. Travel
is already returning to more normal growth rates. On the other hand, pavement
conditions have improved since 1989; there are fewer miles of poor pavement
on all functional categories. Changes in bridge deficiencies are mixed, with a
decrease in the number of structurally deficient Interstate and collector bridges,
but an increase in deficient bridges on the other principal arterial system.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: To what extent will future full funding of
ISTEA erase any drop in quality?
ANSWER: Following is a table that contains the estimated investment
requirements to maintain the NHS in the conditions and performance equivalent
to that in 1991.
NHS Investment
to Maintain System
FY 94
$20.9
FY 95
21.7
FY 96
22.5
FY 97
23.3
596
Total Estimated Estimated
Funding in ISTEA Shortfall
$17.2 $3.8
17.1 4.6
16.5 6.0
16.8 6.4
This shows that conditions and performance will not be maintained even with
full ISTEA funding levels. The ISTEA funding level including estimated State
match over the 4-year period, FY 1994 to 1997, will fall short by an estimated
24 percent of the level required to maintain 1991 conditions and performance on
the NHS. This estimate of funding on the NHS is based on historical funding
levels on the eligible functional systems. Under ISTEA, the States have the
flexibility to spend a different proportion of their Federal-aid funds on the NHS.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What levels of Federal investment would
be needed to "improve" the quality of the NHS?
ANSWER: Following is a table that contains the estimated investment
requirements to improve the NHS to minimum conditions standards over a 20
year period.
NHS Investment
Total estimated
Estimated
to Improve System
Funding
at ISTEA
Shortfall
FY 94 $26.8
$17.2
$9.6
FY 95 27.8
17.1
10.7
FY 96 28.8
16.5
12.3
FY 97 29.8
16.8
13.0
This shows that ISTEA funding levels fall short of improving the NHS to
minimum steuidards by a significant amount. The ISTEA funding level
including State match over the 4-year period, FY 1994 to 1997, will fall short
by an estimated 40 percent of the level required to improve the NHS to these
stzmdards.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What types of NHS improvements could
be realized for each additional $1 billion spent? How would these
improvements be realized?
ANSWER: An additional $1.0 billion in Federal-aid funding will, with
State matching funds, achieves approximately $1.2 billion in highway
improvements. Based on current assessments of highway investment
requirements and historical expenditure patterns, the $1.2 billion will provide
approximately 1 ,800 lane miles of pavement rehabilitation, 430 lane miles of
additional highway capacity, Jind replace or rehabilitate 135 bridges nationwide.
The States have the flexibility to allocate these funds to the types of highway
improvements most needed in their own jurisdictions; therefore, the proportion
of improvement type will vary among the States.
597
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What effect has funding constraints had on
the quality of other Federal-aid highways?
ANSWER: Between 1989 and 1991, the conditions and performance of
Federal-aid highways not eligible for inclusion in the NHS have generally
stabilized. The pavement conditions have improved, and the congestion has
remained about the same. From 1990 to 1992 the number of deficient bridges
have, including those on the local functional system, increased somewhat.
Following is a table that contains estimated investment requirements to maintain
the Federal-aid highways not on the NHS to the conditions and performance
measures equivalent to those in 1991.
Non-NHS Investment Total estimated Estimated
to Maintain System Funding at ISTEA Shortfall
FY 94
$21.8
$14.4
$7.4
FY 95
22.6
14.5
8.1
FY 96
23.4
16.0
7.4
FY 97
24.2
16.5
7.7
This shows that conditions and performance will not be maintained even with
full ISTEA funding levels. The ISTEA funding level including State match
over the 4-year period, FY 1994 to 1997, will fall short by an estimated 33
percent of the amount required to maintain conditions and performance on the
non-NHS Federal-aid highways to the 1991 level.
Private Sector Financing
ISTEA allows the use of Federal-aid funds on privately owned facilities, and is
expected to increase the attractiveness of toll road development as an investment
option. DOT has reported that an estimated $6.4 billion was invested by the
private sector on highway improvements and over $1 billion on off-site
improvements in 1989. However, DOT cautions that these are extremely rough
estimates and should be viewed as very preliminary, as further effort is needed
to get better data on this important and growing area of highway financing.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: To what extent has the ISTEA provision
allowing Federal funds to be used on privately owned transportation facilities
been used? What is the future outlook?
ANSWER: To our knowledge, no Federal funds have yet been used on
privately owned transportation facilities. Although ISTEA provisions changed
the rules at the Federal level, many States will also require legislative action to
take advantage of these provisions. FHWA published an initial guide on
public/private cost-sharing toll financing provisions of the ISTEA in June 1992
and has underway activities to aid States in developing needed provisions,
including a handbook on creation of legislation, and research to further define
and analyze important issues and barriers.
598
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What is the annual potential private section
investment in future highway investments?
ANSWER: We think that the potential for private sector investment in
new highway facilities exists, but will be limited. The U.S. has an extensive,
well-developed highway system built by the States and localities with assistance
from the Federal government. There are not many opportunities to build new
highway capacity in the built-up areas and in other places where congestion is at
its worst. Interest in private investment is most visible in the high-growth
States, and some private investment activity may develop in these areas.
An additional area of potential private investment is in rehabilitating
certain facilities, such as bridges, which could earn a return on the investment
by charging tolls on the facilities.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What is DOT doing to improve the
reliability of information on private sector highway investment?
ANSWER: One of the key factors in improving the reliability of the
information on private sector highway investments is a good operational
definition of "private sector investment." DOT has developed the definition
included in the Conditions and Performance Report to ensure that the
appropriate kinds of investment are classified as "private sector." For example,
investments funded through special district assessments or by development fees
paid to a governmental entity are frequently referred to as private sector
financing. However, this type of financing falls within the operational definition
of public sector financing, i.e., financing for highways that is managed by the
public sector.
Based on these definitions, DOT is working to identify potential sources
of information on private sector highway investment. One of the major
problems is identifying all of the highway investment projects that are included
in this definition of private sector investment. While information is available on
total estimated project costs for larger projects that have been given national
attention, there may also be smaller projects involving private sector investment.
HOW GOOD ARE THE DATA?
dot's 1993 report, The Status of the Nation's Hiehwavs. Bridges, and
Transit; conditions and Performance, advises that, while there is substantial
variation among the States as to the amount of pavement that needs
improvement, the percent of mileage in poor condition in most States has
declined over the past few years. An accompanying table (Exhibit 3-16) on
Interstate pavement in poor condition shows some States have reported
remarkable changes in pavement condition within a two-year period, which is
illustrated by the following excerpt.
Alaska
26.4
Arizona
27.4
Colorado
7.6
Georgia
11.7
Michigan
10.7
Nevada
33.9
New Mexico
1.3
North Dakota
0.2
Rhode Island
31.4
Vermont
18.7
Wisconsin
18.6
599
Percent of Interstate Pavements in Poor Condition
State 1989 1991
5.1
1.2
30.3
0.0
19.0
11.6
38.1
32.3
1.4
5.9
0.0
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: How do you account for such significant
swings in the percent of Interstate pavement in poor condition reported by some
States within a two-year period?
ANSWER: The use of the Present Serviceability Index (PSR) for
evaluating pavement condition has a recognized weakness. PSR is a subjective
measure of pavement ride quality, and can be arrived at by a variety of
procedures. States have attempted to improve their estimation of PSR values by
changing their procedures from time to time. Unfortunately, this invalidates
comparisons with previous years data. While it is possible for a substantial
amount of pavement to deteriorate from "mediocre" to "poor" in a 2-year period,
a large percentage change is suspect. A large decrease in the percentage of poor
pavement would not likely occur unless a large pavement improvement program
was undertaken during the time period in question.
A more objective measure, the International Roughness Index (IRI) is
now being required for all rural arterial highways and urban Interstate and other
freeways and expressways. This is a measured roughness index, with specific
requirements regarding the accuracy and calibration of the measuring equipment.
The increased use of measured pavement roughness (IRI) in the future will
largely eliminate State-to-State and year-to-year variations that have been a
problem with the PSR estimate of pavement condition.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What is FHWA doing to validate the
reliability of the condition of Federal-aid highways?
ANSWER: The FHWA division offices in each State conduct surveys of
a portion of each of the HPMS sample sections each year. This is done to
minimize errors in data reporting. It does not necessarily detect differences
among the various States PSR reporting procedures. Our Region offices attempt
to address that problem by evaluating the procedures of the various States within
the region.
At the national level, we evaluate the data from each State every year.
When large, unexplained differences occur, we question the State about these
apparent anomalies, and attempt to obtain a satisfaptory reason or a correction of
600
the data, if it is acknowledged to be in error. As the number of years of
historical data increase, anomalies become more apparent and can be more
readily identified and the errors corrected.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: When a State show no interstate pavement
in poor condition, does this indicated no poor Interstate pavement exists in the
State, or is it a case of missing information? If the latter, what is FHWA doing
to capture such condition data?
ANSWER: It is possible for a State to have no poor Interstate pavement,
but such reporting does raise cause for question. The HPMS is a sample data
base, and Interstates are currently sampled at a rate of approximately 50 percent.
If there are few sections of poor Interstate pavement statewide, these could
occur on other than HPMS sample sections. While the sample procedures have
been designed to provide statistically valid results, it is possible for poor
sections to exist that are not included in the sample. The sampling error for
Interstate is generally 5 percent, so that statistically there could be 5 percent
poor pavement when the data shows no poor pavement. In the future, the
reporting of 100 percent of the Interstate highway mileage will include all
pavement sections and avoid this problem.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What efforts has FHWA made, or planned,
to assure comparability when States assess the condition of their Federal-aid
highways?
ANSWER: A more objective measure, the International Roughness
Index (IRI) is now being required for all rural arterial highways, urban
Interstate, and other freeways and expressways. This is a measured roughness
index, with specific requirements regarding the accuracy and calibration of the
measuring equipment. However, it measures only roughness, and does not
necessarily capture other pavement distress such as cracking, rutting, etc., unless
roughness is directly affected by the distress. States are now furnishing a
significant amount of IRI data, and this data element will play a more prominent
role in the future.
This requirement does not extend to urban surface streets, because the
equipment must be operated at a constant speed, e.g., 35 or 55 miles per hour.
This is not feasible on many surface streets because of the presence of other
traffic, traffic signals, and other disruptions. However, we encourage the States
to report IRI for all paved streets and highways where such measurement is
practicable.
The increased use of meeisured pavement roughness (IRI) in the future
will largely eliminate State-to-State and year-to-year variations that have been a
problem with the PSR estimate of pavement condition.
CONGESTION PRICING
The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991
authorizes the Department of Treinsportation to enter into up to five cooperative
agreements per year with state or local governments or public authorities to
establish, maintain, and monitor congestion pricing projects.
601
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What progress has been made to date in
implementing this authority? List the recipients of these funds and the amount
allocated to each project.
ANSWER: We are currently negotiating an agreement with the
California Department of Transportation and the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission in the San Francisco Bay Area, California, for implementation of a
congestion pricing pilot project on the Oakland-San Francisco Bay Bridge.
Once these negotiations are complete, we expect to obligate funds for project
planning (e.g., corridor study, development of pricing strategies), capital costs
(e.g., electronic toll and traffic monitoring systems, toll booths, information
signs), operating costs (e.g., salaries and expenses, mainteneince), public
out-reach/marketing, project monitoring and evaluation, and transit enhancement
directly related to the project (e.g., operating and capital costs). We have also
obligated $270,000 of program funds to fund expert consulting services to
produce a guidance document to supplement program documents in providing
assistance to applicants in developing congestion pricing projects which include
adequate planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation components. The
consulting service is also available to provide direct assistance to program
applicants in developing projects that meet our selection criteria.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: How many proposals have you received?
ANSWER: The initial solicitation notice was published in the Federal
Register on November 24, 1992. By January 25, we had received applications
from nine States, covering 16 urban areas.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: If there is an insufficient number of
qualified proposals, will the monies authorized for this program be diverted for
other purposes?
ANSWER: While many of the proposals received during our first
solicitation did not respond well to the criteria contained in the November 24
Notice, we believe an extension of the solicitation period will provide the
opportunity for the Federal Highway Administration to work with applicants to
improve proposals submitted in response to the first Notice, and provide to
several other areas that have expressed interest the time to develop new
proposals. We will therefore issue a new Federal Register Notice to extend the
solicitation period by 4 months. The goal of the Pilot Program remains one of
providing the Congress with an evaluation of congestion pricing projects within
the life of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. We
expect to obligate the full amount of funds available for this program to support
implementation of the Congestion Pricing Pilot Program authorized by
Section 1012(b).
Policy and Planning Research
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Please provide a detailed breakdown of the
following budget requests, specifying in each case project expenditures
whenever possible:
602
$7,369 million for policy research, (p. 91 of FHWA budget justification);
and $3,189 million for planning research, (p. 94).
ANSWER: Policy research will be conducted in the following project
areas:
Improving Policy Analysis of Emerging Energy, Environmental, and
Highway Financing Issues
$1,347,000
Improving Tools for Highway Cost Allocation, Truck Size and Weight,
and Freight Demand Analysis
$1,219,000
Strategic System Performance Analysis
$756,000
Interrelationships Between Highway Investment and Economic
Productivity
$952,000
Improving Transportation Data Acquisition and Management
$3,095,000
TOTAL
$7,369,000
Of the $3,189 million for planning research, funds are scheduled for use in areas as
shown in the following table:
Metropolitan Travel Demand Forecasting Improvements
$625,000
Congestion Management
$525,000
Ensuring the Efficiency of Future Transportation Systems
$300,000
Intermodal and Statewide Planning
$525,000
II Strategic Systems Performance Analysis
$1,000,000
Other
$214,000
TOTAL
$3,189,000
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Please provide a list of the major studies
that have resulted from the policy-oriented research conducted by FHWA during
the last two years. Where were these studies published?
ANSWER: Following is a list of policy-oriented research reports
published during the last two years:
High Priority Research Areas for the Office of the Associate
Administrator for Policy
Exploring the Role of Pricing as a Congestion Management Tool
• Exploring Key Issues in Public-Private Partnerships for Highway
Development
• Public and Private Sector Roles in Intelligent Vehicle Highway
Systems Deployment
603
Assessing the Relationship Between Transportation Infrastructure and
Productivity
Transportation and Air Quality
Edge City and ISTEA ~ Examining the Transportation Implications
of Suburban Development Patterns
Examining Congestion Pricing Implementation Issues
Highway, Bridge, and Transit Conditions and Performance Report
Each of these reports was published by the Office of the Associate
Administrator for Policy.
Policy Planning Research
QUESTION. Many times the research that FHWA conducts on truck
size and weight and rail competitiveness issues is criticized by one or more of
the parties involved. Is there an opportunity to conduct some of this research in
close cooperation or jointly with the involved parties?
ANSWER. Cooperative research efforts with modal interest are pursued
by FHWA whenever and wherever possible. The reason for collaboration,
however, is not to minimize criticism but to benefit from the diversity of views
and expertise which it accesses. Involvement of a wide range of transportation
interest invites constructive criticism, improves the quality of analysis, promotes
understanding, and enhances the possibilities for future consensus building.
An example of our efforts to secure the benefits of intermodal cooperation is our
"Truck Size and Weight and User Fee Policy Analysis Study." Particularly
during the second phase of that work, with representatives of the Federal
Railroad Administration and the Office of the Secretary, we consulted with the
Trucking Research Institute of the American Trucking Associations (TRI/ATA)
and the American Association of Railroads (AAR) on the study design, inputs,
and interim results. Another example is the "Trucking Industry Size Study"
required by the DOT Appropriations Act of 1992, which will involve both the
TRI/ATA and AAR.
PLANNING RESEARCH AREA ONE
1. TITLE AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY: Metropolitan Travel
Demand Forecasting Improvements - This study responds to requirements for
increased ability, application and accuracy from practitioners and policy makers
in the area of understanding/forecasting travel needs. The research approach has
four tracks: (1) Study Design and Outreach - overall project design and outreach
to users of the modeling process; (2) Improvement of Existing Models - near
term effort enheincing existing models to respond to new policies and improved
understanding of behavior, focusing on short term modifications to existing
604
processes; (3) Development of New Procedures - revamping the entire
forecasting process, including improved network analysis models, belter
forecasting of time of day, and improved integration of land use and
transportation; and (4) Dala Collection and Analysis - gathering data (primarily
from existing sources) for calibration, validation, and support of models and
model results. The overall model design must be flexible and sensitive to
changes in decision makers needs, congestion pricing schemes, and air pollution
control technology.
2. SOURCE: This effort is not mandated by law, but it addresses significant
planning policies and procedures important to all levels of government, in
particular the FHWA and DOT. The ability of MPOs and State DOTS to
respond to added responsibilities in understanding travel behavior is of
significant interest to FHWA's missions of ISTEA implementation and technical
assistance.
3. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this effort is for FHWA to lead the
development and refinement of travel forecasting procedures to be used by
policy makers and planners at all levels of government. Results will be
distributed to MPOs, State DOTs, affected agencies, Congress, and the general
public, as appropriate.
4. JUSTIFICATION: This effort will provide new knowledge not available from
existing studies, and will respond to comments from previous studies in this
area. Much of the effort is aimed at incorporating results of previous studies,
and ensuring the use of the latest techniques and procedures. Though current
literature will be gathered to support study efforts, acceptable results cannot be
obtained from researching current literature alone. Nor can a cheaper study
provide required results.
5. PRODUCT: Several products will be yielded from the research tracks.
Results will include reports used by the FHWA, DOT, MPOs, State DOTs and
other agencies in travel forecasting. Also, there will be improved procedures
and analysis tools. Research will be both in-house and contracted out. There
are no specific teirget dates for issuing reports.
6. AMOUNT REQUESTED THIS FISCAL YEAR: FY 93 $325,000 and FY
94 $625,000.
PLANNING RESEARCH AREA TWO
I. TITLE AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY: Intermodal and
Statewide Planning. Research will be conducted in: (1) Intermodal Data and
Modeling - New modeling procedures will be developed which integrate the
intermodal and freight planning processes; model case studies will be conducted
which develop an intermodal data inventory and create a database of
characteristics of intermodal facilities; and trip generation studies will be
conducted for intermodal facilities. (2) New Intermodal Technology - The
potential economic impact of new technology on the financial feasibility of
605
intermodal facilities will be evaluated; and the potential of GIS for evaluating
intermodal projects and identify data sources and technologies for GIS
applications will be evaluated. (3) Economic, Performance, and Legal Aspects of
Intermodal Facilities - A relative cost comparison by mode for equivalent freight
and distance will be conducted; performance measures and industry standards
for evaluating intermodal facilities will be identified; and institutional,
regulatory, and legal barriers will be identified and their impact determined. (4)
Intermodal Outreach, Plans, and Experiences - Operators and users will be
contacted to identify problems, deficiencies, and funding sources; European and
Asian facilities will be evaluated; a national inventory of airport ground access
plans will be conducted, and updated guidelines for planning airport ground
access will be developed; model statewide intermodal plans will be reviewed
and a recommended practice developed for a statewide intermodal plan; and
TRB's TRIS database will be expanded to include intermodal references.
2. SOURCE: This effort is not mandated by law, but it addresses significant
public policy areas important to all levels of government, in particular the
FHWA and USDOT.
3. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this effort is to identify, collect, develop,
exchange, and use timely and accurate information internally, with State DOT's,
and the public. This effort supports the improvement of FHWA's ability to
provide a comprehensive, continuing data collection and dissemination activity
that can furnish relevant and accurate information to the transportation
community. Results will aid FHWA and USDOT in developing legislative
proposals related to funding ground access to intermodal facilities and will be
distributed to effected agencies. Congress, and the public.
4. JUSTIFICATION: This effort will provide new knowledge not available from
existing studies. Acceptable results cannot be obtained from researching current
literature and data, nor could a less costly study provide required results.
5. PRODUCT: Results from this effort will be reports used by the Congress or
other parts of the Administration in policy development and are generally
available to the public. Reports will be prepared both in-house and contracted
out.
6. AMOUNT REQUESTED: $525,000 in FY 94.
PLANNING RESEARCH AREA THREE
1. TITLE AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY: Ensuring the
Efficiency of Future Urban Transportation Systems - This study will focus on
the development of improved procedures and applications in maximizing
transportation efficiency in suburban and urban centers. It is also designed to
develop and disseminate improved planning methods as well as solutions to the
urban congestion and air quality problems facing metropolitan areas.
2. SOURCE: This study is not mandated by law. However, the ISTEA and the
CAAA highlight the need to foster efficiency in our transportation systems. The
68-623 0-93 20
606
responsibilities of MPOs and State Departments of Transportation have been
substantially increased by the legislation to this end. The capacity of MPOs and
DOTs to respond to these added responsibilities is a matter of significant interest
to FHWA in our jurisdiction of technical assistance and implementation.
3. OBJECTIVE: This project will uniquely streamline many of the objectives of
the ISTEA and CAAA with regard to planning tools which promote system
efficiency. It will prepare, print and disseminate analyses of application emd
development of these tools, and produce guidelines for MPO and DOT staff in
the planning and design of facilities and procedures relating to air quality, land
use, activity centers, and facility operations.
4. JUSTIFICATION: The portion of the study proposed for next fiscal year
under the overall research area will provide new knowledge on the physical
design and institutional mechanisms needed to ensure that existing and new
suburban activity centers (SACs) are efficient from a transportation standpoint.
This information is not available from studies already conducted by FHWA or
elsewhere, since suburban centers are a relatively new phenomenon whose
transportation and social implications are only now being recognized. Little
literature exists on the subject, hence a major study effort is necessary.
5. PRODUCT: The result will be a publicly available report documenting the
findings and a handbook for use by State and local governments in directing the
evolution of efficient SACs. The study will be contracted out. The study will
require a little over one person year. The end-product is anticipated to be
available for distribution in October, 1995.
6. AMOUNT REQUESTED THIS FISCAL YEAR: $300,000 -- Additional
funding ~ none for this study on Efficient SACs.
PLANNING RESEARCH AREA FOUR
1. TITLE AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY: Congestion
Management - Congestion on our nation's transportation system has become a
critical concern to officials at all levels of government. This concern has
manifested itself by ISTEA's requirement for each State to develop, establish,
and implement Congestion Management Systems (CMS). Research is devoted
to the development of quantitative tools to assist in CMS development,
congestion related data needs and requirements, and educational materials.
2. SOURCE: This study is not mandated by law. However, the ability of
States, MPO's, local governments, and transit operators to effectively respond to
the CMS requirements is of significant interest to FHWA and FT A.
3. OBJECTIVE: Congestion management research will focus on the policy,
program, and institutional aspects of CMS development, establishment, and
implementation. The results will be distributed to the States, MPO's, local
governments, and other affected agencies in the form of reports, technical
assistance, and formal course instruction. Without FHWA's coordination and
administration of this work at the national level, coitgestion management topics
will not be adequately addressed or researched.
607
4. JUSTIFICATION: The information provided by this research is not
currently available from a national perspective. A project currently under way
to analyze the State of the Practice of congestion management at the State,
MPO, and local levels verifies the fact that many agencies are not actively
addressing congestion reduction strategies, data collection, or interjurisdictional
coordination. The level of knowledge regarding methods of analysis,
development of strategies.and implementation also varies, with most agencies
requiring significant guidance. The proposed research covers all of these
elements.
5. PRODUCT: Studies will be publicly available through publications,
technical assistance, conferences, and formal course presentations. Work will be
contracted out and done in-house. Several products will become available soon
after the final rule on congestion management systems is published.
6. AMOUNT REQUESTED THIS FISCAL YEAR: $525,000 FY 94, with
follow-on money of approximately $400,000 in FY 95 to implement the
research currently being initiated.
POLICY RESEARCH AREA FIVE
1. TITLE AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY: Improving
Transportation Data Acquisition and Management - Research will: (I)
improve efforts to gather and disseminate transportation data to support
timely and informed decisionmaking; (2) identify and meet emerging needs
for domestic and international transportation data; (3) coordinate
transportation data collection activities within the public sector and in
cooperation with the private sector, including development of consistent data
collection standards; (4) support regular evaluation and reports on the state
of the nation's highway system including its usage and expected demands;
£ind, (5) support long-range multimodal planning and associated legislative,
regulatory, budget, and program proposals.
2. SOURCE: This effort is not mandated by law, but it addresses significant
public policy areas important to all levels of government in particular the
FHWA and the DOT.
3. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this effort is to identify, collect, develop,
exchange, and use timely £ind accurate information internally and with state
DOTs and with the public in general. This effort supports the improvement
of FHWA's abilities to provide a comprehensive, continuing data collection
and dissemination activity that can furnish relevant and accurate information
to the transportation community. Results will aid the FHWA and the DOT
in developing legislative proposals related to financing Federal-aid highways
and will be distributed to affected agencies, Congress, and the general
public, as appropriate.
4. JUSTIFICATION: This effort will provide new .knowledge not available
from existing studies. Specific activities in this area include: the Highway
608
Performance Monitoring System (HPMS), which is in its second decade of
providing factual, current information on the condition and performance of
the nation's highway plant; the Travel Monitoring Initiative which provides
guidance on the effective collection of vehicle characteristics data; the
National/International Data Management and Dissemination Initiative
provides for coordinated programs to track and disseminate information on
changes on household travel, vehicle registrations, and driver licensing; and,?
the Highway Finance and Fuel Usage Monitoring Initiative provides for the
collection, analysis, and dissemination of transportation funding information.
Acceptable results cannot be obtained from researching current literature nor
could a cheaper study provide required results.
5. PRODUCT: Policy research is more of a continuing and evolving type of
research and must be responsive to new, often unanticipated, issues.
Results include reports used by the FHWA, DOT, and other agencies in
policy development and are generally available to the public. Reports will
be prepared both in-house and contracted out.
6. AMOUNT REQUESTED THIS FISCAL YEAR: $3,511,000 in FY 1993
with follow-on money of $3,095,000 in FY 1994 and $3,559,000 in
FY 1995.
FLOW STUDY
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What progress has been made on the
multi-modal commodity and passenger flow survey that was initially requested
in fiscal year 1992?
ANSWER: Responsibility for the multi-modal commodity and passenger
flow surveys was assigned to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. The
commodity flow survey is currently underway, and the passenger flow survey is
still being planned. The Bureau of Transportation Statistics has prepared a
detailed progress report on the multi-modal commodity and passenger flow
surveys in response to Report 102-351 of the Senate Appropriations Committee
accompanying the 1993 Department of Transportation Appropriations Bill; that
progress report currently is under review within the Department.
QUESTION: How does FHWA plan to reduce the scope of the study?
When will the study be completed?
ANSWER: The Bureau of Transportation Statistics' progress report on
the multi-modal commodity and passenger flow surveys describes in detail the
scope of those two studies and their schedule. That report will be transmitted to
the Committee as soon as the Departmental review process has been completed.
609
NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: To what extent can the forthcoming NHS
proposal be expected to mirror the illustrative map crafted in
1991?
ANSWER: Although it is too early to say with certainty, the
rural component of the proposed NHS is expected to closely
resemble the illustrative map. The illustrative NHS was developed
with the active involvement of most States, and most routes meet
the NHS criteria contained in Section 1006 of the ISTEA. The
States were encouraged to use the illustrative NHS as the starting
point for developing their proposed systems so a strong similarity
between the two is expected.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What connectivity problems are evident
from the illustrative 1991 National Highway System?
ANSWER: There are no specific connectivity problems that
are evident from the illustrative NHS; however, the development of
the illustrative system served to emphasize the importance, and
the difficulty, of achieving connectivity between States and
between rural and urban areas within each State. Based on the
experiences gained in developing the illustrative NHS, the Federal
Highway Administration is placing a great deal of emphasis on this
area in working with the States and the metropolitan planning
organizations to develop the proposed NHS.
THE INTERACTION OF TRANSPORTATION AND AIR QUALITY
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: The Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990
emphasized demonstrating that federally supported highway and transit
plans and projects will not create or exacerbate air quality problems
in areas that are non- attainment for transportation-related air
pollutants. How has the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA)
environmental research program improved the integration of
transportation and air quality planning?
ANSWER: Satisfying the transportation requirements of the CAAA
will be a major challenge for the transportation community and will
require difficult decisions at the State and local levels of
Government. A variety of research efforts in three general areas
are underway to assist in this effort. The first is activities to
insure that the new requirements are understood and to improve
dialogue between the transportation and air quality communities. The
second is to examine current analytical methods and where possible
expand and update the current knowledge and understanding of the
relationships between transportation and air quality. Finally,
efforts are underway to develop a new generation of evaluation
techniques to respond to air quality concerns that present techniques
cannot address.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What tools is FHWA developing to better
gauge the impact of proposed transportation decisions on air quality?
ANSWER: The following is a listing of major activities that are
currently underway:
1. Improve the Integration of Transportation and Air Quality
Planning.
Purpose: This project is a joint grant by EPA and DOT to the
National Association of Regional Councils (NARC) to research
and help facilitate the development and implementation of
transportation/air quality techniques and procedures needed by
Federal, State, and local transportation and air quality
agencies to comply with the transportation provisions of the
CAAA of 1990. In addition to providing an interagency forum
610
-or discussion and coordination, it provides for panels to look
into technical matters needing further research and analysis.
2. Air Quality Technical Services
Purpose: This research will facilitate development of
transportation related air quality procedures such as
developing case studies of the analytical procedures used for
making conformity determinations; evaluating the effectiveness
of transportation control measures; evaluating air quality
violations for receptor location criteria and for air pollutant
dispersion, transport, and persistence; evaluating existing
guidance on the analysis of alternatives to achieve air quality
standards, including the no-build alternative, alternative
modes, and transportation system management and demand
management options; sjmtheslzlng Information and providing
analysis of the merits and potential of various technological
fixes; developing guidance to State Departments of
Transportation and Metropolitan Planning Organizations on EPA
emission models; and developing guidance related to Clean Air
Act implementation.
3. Assessment of Highway Particulate Impacts
Purpose: This research includes (1) a critical review of
existing knowledge of the highway system's contribution to the
small particulate (PM-10) air quality problem; (2) studies to
fill in gaps in the current understanding; and (3) if
appropriate, the development of techniques to quantify and
mitigate highway system Impacts. This research is critical,
because the new conformity provisions contained In the Clean
Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990 also apply to PM-10
nonattainraent areas. Emissions data and analytical tools
however, are currently lacking to make effective conformity
determinations for this pollutant.
4. Analyze and Develop Improved Modeling Procedures for
Determining CO Levels at Intersections, Including
Overcapacity Situations.
Purpose: This research is a joint effort by FHWA and the
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) and will
involve an extensive collection (to provide a national
perspective) of monitored CO, meteorologic , and traffic data at
intersections for comparison with model outputs. It will also
evaluate existing air quality intersection models against the
new data sets under a range of assumptions, Including signal
timing, turning movements, queue lengths, etc. Finally, it
will develop a new and more accurate air quality intersection
model .
5. FHWA/FTA Joint Operational Action Program To
Improve Mobility
Purpose: This program has been Initiated and funded jointly
with FTA to demonstrate innovative, multi-modal transportation
projects. The types of projects receiving funds include:
parking pricing, telecommuting, bus signal preemption, advanced
vehicle identification/location, and incident management.
Project demonstrations awarded FY 1991 and FY 1992. No
additional demonstrations are planned.
6. Effective Travel Demand Management (TDM) Actions
Purpose: This research project is being conducted to develop
guidance and technical assistance materials for public and
private sector personnel responsible for Implementing TDM
actions. A microcomputer model to determine the effectiveness
of TDM actions is also being developed under this research
project. Training course is planned for FY 1994.
7. Traffic Control Hardware and Software Demonstration Project
Purpose: This project will demonstrate the capabilities of
611
various components of hardware and software to relieve
congestion.
8. Highway Incident Management Demonstration Project
Purpose: This demonstration project titled "Highway Incident
Management" is being developed as a two-day workshop to help
establish incident management as a routine emergency response
function. The demonstration project is part of FHWA's
"Marketing Plan" and will be offered to State and local
agencies .
9. Improve Travel Forecasting Techniques to Respond to the
Requirements of the Clean Air Act Amendments and the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act.
Purpose: A multi-agency (FHWA, ETA, EPA) research effort is
underway to redesign the travel forecasting process in
responseto the Clean Air Act Amendments and the Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act requirements. This will
lead to new techniques to forecast land development and travel
impacts of new transportation policies.
10. TRANSIMS - Transportation Simulator
Purpose: This project, through the Los Alamos National
Laboratory, will use state of the art computer technology to
provide micro level simulation of region wide travel patterns.
This project also supports the initiative to convert National
Laboratory capabilities to civilian applications.
11. Evaluate the Effects of Land Use and Travel Demand
Management (TDM) Policies on Travel.
Purpose: A research project to develop procedures for
estimating the effects of land use and TDM policies on travel,
both at the local (site) level and at the regional level.
12. Update Highway Performance Management System (HPMS)
Analytical Process.
Purpose: The FHWA is updating the analytical relationships in
HPMS to include traffic usage patterns, emission estimation,
and user cost estimation. This will result in improved, more
effective data analysis for air quality, VMT, and congestion
monitoring and reporting of system performance. It will also
include methods to capture, display and analyze HPMS data for
use in transportation planning.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: How does FHWA's environmental research
efforts in this area interfere with such efforts conducted by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)?
ANSWER: We are not aware of any conflicts between the FHWA air
quality research efforts and EPA activities. FHWA is attempting to
include appropriate EPA personnel in the development of the research
projects or in the review of work products as they become available
in order to prevent conflicts or misunderstandings. In this way we
are also learning of research results from EPA's past and current
efforts .
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What major transportation data needs arise
from the CAAA of 1990?
ANSWER: EPA is requiring non- attainment areas to propose, by
June 30, 1994, a method to estimate travel on "local" functional
systems by a count based method. This will require enhanced traffic
counting procedures. Further, in non- attainment areas, the travel
forecasting process will need to be significantly improved in order
to accurately forecast the impacts of future travel on air quality.
This will include additional survey data on person trip-making in
order to support the travel models. Additional data collection will
also be necessary to monitor total travel. (See next question)
612
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What data gathering efforts are planned to
assess the travel impacts of implementation of clean air and
congestion management actions?
ANSWER: To assess the impacts of implementation of clean air
strategies, FHWA and EPA will be monitoring the change in travel in
nonattainment and maintenance areas using FHWA's Highway Performance
Monitoring System (HPMS) . State and local officials will need to
increase the number of traffic counts in most areas to provide the
statistical validity requested by EPA.
For congestion management, under our proposed rules
implementing the ISTEA congestion management system (CMS)
requirements, State and local officials will be permitted to custom-
tailor the CMS to meet their own needs. Thus, they will be able to
develop their own performance standards to measure progress in
reducing congestion. They may use the same information they collect
for the HPMS or other measures. In all cases, FHWA and EPA will have
improved traffic information in the future for all areas over 200,000
population.
STATE'S ASSUMPTION OF INCREASED RESPONSIBILITIES
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Under Section 1016 of ISTEA, a State has
considerable flexibility in establishing the degree to which the
FHWA will be involved in the development of Federal -aid highway
projects. FHWA has stated that the framework for its role
recognizes that with an expanding program and the increased
capabilities of the States, it is time to share more of the project
review, oversight, and administration responsibilities with the
States. How many States have elected to assume more oversight and
administrative responsibilities for Federal -aid highway projects?
ANSWER: To date, nearly four-fifths of the States have taken
advantage of the new oversight option and have exempted the FHWA
from oversight of projects off the National Highway System (NHS).
In addition, slightly over half of the States have exempted the FHWA
from oversight of low-cost NHS projects. Nearly half the States are
also using the certification acceptance process, which existed prior
to the passage of the ISTEA, to limit FHWA's oversight role on
higher-cost NHS projects.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What typical review, oversight and
administrative responsibilities are the States assuming?
ANSWER: The States assume responsibility for developing the
design of a project, approving a project's design, overseeing
projects and administering contracts. Typically this removes FHWA
oversight of design activities, plans, specifications and estimates
approval, concurrence in award, and construction activities on
individual projects.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What is the outlook for States continuing
to exercise more self-administration of their Federal -aid highway
projects?
ANSWER: Initial acceptance by the States of this new oversight
responsibility is very encouraging. Our goal is to have all States
under some form of oversight exemption within the next two years.
613
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: If States are assuming more Federal
responsibilities, what effect does this have on FHWA's role and
staff year requirements?
ANSWER: As States elect to assume more responsibility for
design and construction of projects, the FHWA's oversight role on
individual project development is greatly reduced, FHWA division
offices report they are handling significantly less paperwork. In
addition, freed from routine project evaluations on many State and
local projects, division staff have been able to devote more staff
resources and offer more expertise to the NHS projects where there
is a higher Federal interest. Further, staff resources are now
available to focus on other important issues such as safety,
innovative and effective research, implementation and marketing of
technology, and implementation of the new environmental and
statewide and metropolitan planning requirements of the ISTEA.
PAVEMENT DESIGN LIFE OF LESS THAN 20 YEARS
In April 1992, DOT's Office of Inspector General (OIG)
concluded that six asphalt projects in South Carolina should have
been built stronger to last 20 years rather than 10 years. ^ The OIG
noted that this longer design life would have reduced life-cycle
costs by $1,901,185. However, the OIG found the State's design
process intentionally under-designs the asphalt pavement structure
only to last approximately 10 years at forecasted traffic. FHWA
responded that, since the projects were designed for 10 years, it is
not correct to say they are "under-designed" by not being designed
for 20 years. FHWA noted that other than the original Interstate
construction, there is no requirement to use a 20 -year design for
pavements. Further, in many cases, asphalt pavements require
resurface at an age of 10 to 15 years to correct functional
problems .
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: When does FHWA require life-cycle cost
analysis?
ANSWER: The FHWA recognized the need for the use of life-cycle
cost analysis in pavement design by including the requirement for an
economic analysis in the January 1989 Pavement Policy. As a result,
the States perform an economic analysis of alternate designs for new
and reconstructed pavements and for the major rehabilitation of
pavements approaching terminal serviceability and exhibiting
significant structural deficiencies.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What is FHWA's position on designing high
traffic corridors to last longer than the Interstate 's original 20-
year design life?
ANSWER: The FHWA supports designing pavements on high traffic
corridors to last longer than 20 years. We are constantly working
with the States to improve their pavement design procedures. A
number of States now have accepted pavement design procedures which
call for pavement designs in excess of 20 years.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: When would FHWA consider pavement "under-
designed"?
^Reports on Audit of Cost Coraparision of Asphalt Versus
Concrete Pavements State of South Carolina, R4-FH-2-132, April 22,
1992.
614
ANSWER: The FHWA considers a pavement under designed when the
pavement thickness provided is less than that required by the
State's pavement design procedure, for predicted traffic loadings
during the design period.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: If asphalt resurfacing may not be required
until 15 years after construction, does it make sense to provide for
a 10 year design life?
ANSWER: The selection of a pavement design life Is based on a
number of factors including the functional life of the pavement, an
economic analysis of the various alternatives, and funding available
to meet statewide needs. Individual project costs must be balanced
with overall system needs. In cases where needs exceed available
funding, shorter design lives may be required on individual projects
to provide funds for other high priority projects.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: European countries routinely design both
new construction and resurfacing to last more than 20 years. What
does FHWA's pavement research indicate as to the optimal desien
life? ^
ANSWER: A general conclusion on the optimal design life of a
pavement has not been determined. The Long Term Pavement
Performance program should provide data needed to aid in determining
the design lives of various pavement materials under differing site
conditions .
DO PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS OVERLOOK MAINTENANCE?
A Pavement Management System is Intended to provide for
optimization. I.e., best service at least cost. The system is
essentially a set of tools or methods for finding optimum strategies
for providing and maintaining pavements in serviceable condition
over a given period of tine.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: To what extent do existing Pavement
Management systems recognize maintenance costs and allow for trade-
off between corrective maintenance and more costly capital repair
work?
ANSWER: Maintenance cost data is recognized as an important
input for pavement management systems. States with established
systems generally Include maintenance considerations in their
pavement decision processes. Those in the early development stages
are developing historical data on maintenance costs and performance
as parts of these pavement management databases .
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What is FHWA's position on integrating
maintenance into Pavement Management Systems?
ANSWER: The FHWA supports integrating maintenance Into
Pavement Management Systems. This Is covered in our current policy
guidelines and in the Rulemaking now underway.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: ISTEA requires a number of management
systems, but not a maintenance management system. Is there a need
for such a system?
ANSWER: The FHWA began in the 1970 's to encourage and assist
States in developing maintenance management systems. By the mid
1980's, nearly ail States developed and Implemented maintenance
management systems. Based on this sucess , we do not believe it is
necessary to take mandatory measures.
615
REQUIRED USE OF RECYCLED RUBBER
Section 1038 of ISTEA provides that each State satisfy a
minimum utilization requirement for asphalt pavement containing
recycled rubber, which begins with a 5 percent requirement for 1994
and increases to 20 percent for fiscal year 1997 and subsequent
years. However, this requirement can be set aside for 3 years under
certain circumstances, such as a finding that asphalt pavement
containing recycled rubber substantially increases the threat to
human health or the environment compared to the threats associated
with conventional pavement.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What is DOT's position on the advisability
of imposing a minimum state utilization requirement for asphalt
pavement containing recycled rubber in 1994?
ANSWER: The main concern with implementing the minimum
utilization requirements in 1994 is that only a few States have
experience in using this technology. To help them, we developed and
presented 2 -day workshops in Atlanta, Albany, Chicago, Denver,
Dallas, Reno, and Spokane in February/March of this year. Over 1400
from the States and the asphalt paving industry attended. We have
encouraged the States to construct trial projects prior to 1994 to
gain "hands on" experience before the minimum utilization
requirements become effective. Most States are expected to do so.
At this time, we anticipate the States will be able to meet the
minimum utilization requirements.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What is the status of the DOT and EPA
study on asphalt pavement containing recycled rubber?
ANSWER: FHWA and EPA have worked closely on the studies since
passage of ISTEA. The initial phase of the studies required by
Section 1038 is nearing completion, and we are jointly preparing the
report required by 1038(b)(5). We plan to continue evaluating long ,
terra performance and recycling.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What is known at this time about the
health and environmental consequences of using recycled rubber in
asphalt pavements?
ANSWER: Information on the chemicals involved is being
evaluated by EPA. We have information from seven studies of the
environmental effects of using recycled rubber in asphalt pavement.
Our joint report to Congress will address this issue.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What is the recycling potential and
limitations of asphalt pavement using recycled rubber?
ANSWER: To date, data is available on only two projects, one
in Ontario, Canada, constructed in 1991, and one in New Jersey,
constructed in 1992. No problems attributable to the rubber content
of the pavement were encountered during the recycling operations.
It is too early to predict differences in performance due to the
presence of rubber.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What degree of performance variability
could be expected for asphalt pavements containing recycled rubber
based on various climatic and use conditions?
ANSWER: Use of asphalt pavements containing recycled rubber
has not been widespread. Arizona and California have used more than
the rest of the States combined. They have experienced good
performance in their uses, in their climates. Attempts to predict
performance for other uses, and under other climatic conditions,
based on those two States' experiences, would be risky, at best.
616
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: How do asphalt pavements containing
recycled rubber compare with conventional asphalt pavements?
ANSWER: Crumb rubber is one of a family of materials used to
modify the proprieties of asphalt cement (binder) . The modifiers
are used to change the characteristics of the asphalt cement to meet
specific needs of an asphalt pavement. As an example, rubber might
be added to increase the high temperature viscosity of the asphalt
as a measure to reduce susceptibility to rutting of the pavement in
hot jclimates. It is difficult to make general comparisons between
asphalt pavements containing recycled rubber and conventional
asphalt pavements, unless usage, climate, etc., are specified.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What is the cost differential between
conventional asphalt pavements and those containing recycled rubber?
ANSWER: Present costs are 20 percent to upwards of 100 percent
more for asphalt pavements containing recycled rubber, depending on
the process involved. As use increases, we would expect the price
to come down, perhaps to the 20 percent to 75 percent range.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: ISTEA tasks DOT and EPA with studying the
health and environmental effects of asphalt pavement containing
recycled rubber; the degree to which asphalt pavements containing
recycled rubber can be recycled; and the performance of asphalt
pavement containing recycled rubber under various climate and use
conditions. Has EPA participated sufficiently in the required
studies/tasks?
ANSWER: The EPA and the FHWA formed a joint inter -agency
coordination group in January 1992. The EPA has been responsive
and jointly we will conclude our studies and report to the
Congress .
INTELLIGENT VEHICLE/HIGHWAY SYSTEMS (IVHS)
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Since last year, what progress
has been made in addressing the key research questions
facing the implementation of a successful National IVHS
Program?
ANSWER: We have taken significant strides in the
past year to advance IVHS research in virtually every key
area. We are very pleased with the nature of the public
input that was obtained during the past year that will be
excellent for use in preparing the ISTEA mandated report
to Congress on non-technical barriers to IVHS deployment.
Also, work continued on the several ongoing contracts
addressing the implications of human factors on various
IVHS areas.
The area of information collection and communication
was advanced last year under contracts to improve methods
to identify and predict the impact of incidents on
traffic flow so as to minimize the ensuing congestion and
secondary accidents, to investigate deployment issues of
traffic surveillance systems, and to test and evaluate
potential communication alternatives for IVHS information
transfer among traffic management centers, roadside, and
individual vehicles.
Similarly, traffic management and route guidance
will benefit from studies just started that will
determine optimum ways of identifying roadway segments
and representing map databases to achieve compatibility
617
among all the different private and public sector
providers users, provide better analytical tools to
incorporate fuel consumption and emissions calculations
in operating strategies, and develop simulation models
which can accommodate IVHS operating strategies (such as
real-time traffic signal control) for off-line testing.
Trucking and other commercial vehicle operations are
being served by a study to develop systems to address
commercial fleet management and information needs, and by
an effort to examine the feasibility of establishing a
National Automatic Vehicle Identification (AVI) standard
to ensure compatibility among competing systems; AVI
technology facilitates, for example, automatic safety or
size and weight regulatory compliance for commercial
vehicles, saving the valuable time currently involved in
stopping and having these functions performed manually.
Although systems to augment driver abilities is largely a
NHTSA responsibility, the FHWA responsibilities in this
area are being served by the initiation of work to
improve safety through the development of systems to
provide warnings and control during situations involving
adverse visibility conditions, and development of
advanced forms of work zone control.
Automated control systems were advanced by the award
of some 15 contracts in response to a Broad Agency
Announcement on "Precursor Systems for Automated Highway
Systems (AHS)" to examine AHS requirements, issues, and
risks. These efforts are expected to provide a knowledge
base for the subsequent full system development for the
required 1997 prototype demonstration.
It should be noted that the National IVHS Program
Plan described in the answer to question lie. above,
separates IVHS into a set of specific end user services
and defines the sequences of activities needed to develop
and deploy those services. Thus, the Program Plan
includes the key research questions such that we will
track progress by advances towards deployment of user
services.
AUTOMATED HIGHWAY SYSTEM (AHS)
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: How does the Department plan to
pay for the 1997 prototype of the AHS? Have you
developed and published a strategic five-year plan for
the AHS that estimates its costs, sets forth its
objectives, and presents milestones? What would be the
value of developing such a plan?
ANSWER: The DOT expects to establish at least one
consortium during 1993 to guide both the required
demonstration of a prototype Automated Highway System
(AHS) in 1997 and the design of a deployable, practical
and affordable system. The preliminary estimate of
funding for the FY 1994 - 1997 period is $180 million.
Assuming a cost split between Federal funds and non-
Federal funds is 80/20, the Federal share of the funding
would be $145 million and the portion from the private
618
sector and State and local governments participating in
the consortium/ consortia would be $35 million.
The DOT has developed a high-level, long term
program plan for the full AHS program, consisting of an
analysis phase which is currently underway, a
demonstration phase which will culminate in the 1997
demonstration, and an operational evaluation phase
resulting in a system specification which can be used for
AHS deployments. The cost estimate above does not
include this last phase. Due to the necessity of
obtaining broad based private sector and State and local
government support for AHS technologies, a detailed
program plan is properly the responsibility of the
consortium/consortia .
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Does the FY 1994 budget have
funding in it for the consortia that will be necessary to
demonstrate a prototype of the AHS?
ANSWER: The President's "Rebuild America"
initiative includes the necessary funding in FY 1994 for
the AHS program.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Why haven't you issued a
solicitation to partner the AHS prototype with non-
Federal entities? When will such a solicitation be
issued?
ANSWER: The AHS consortium activities are still
scheduled to begin in late 1993. The solicitation for
this public/private partnership is being prepared and can
be expected to be issued this summer with award by the
end of calendar year 1993. Department oversight to
proceed with this size of procurement normally requires
high level approval resulting from a departmental
acquisition review process. This process has been
temporarily delayed by the change in administrations.
APPLICABILITY OF CRADA PROVISIONS OF ISTEA
TO IVHS ACT OF 1991
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Section 6001 of ISTEA,
paragraph 23 U.S.C. 307(a)(2), authorizes the Secretary
to undertake "on a cost-shared basis, collaborative
research and development with non-Federal entities."
Will CRADAs carried out and funded by the IVHS Act (ISTEA
sections 6051-6059) be eligible for the Federal cost
share? If not, does this restriction adversely affect
FHWA's capability of promoting research or cooperative
agreements to advance IVHS? Please be specific in your
answer.
ANSWER: The FHWA Chief Counsel has determined that
•*. . . the statute authorizing Federal cost-sharing is
limited to CRADAs entered into under ... 23 USC
307(a)(2). CRADAs carried out and funded by other
provisions of law are not eligible for the Federal cost
619
share. This included CRADAs to carry out activities
authorized by the IVHS Act (ISTEA sections 6051-6059) and
funded by the ISTEA section 6058."
This restriction does not adversely affect our
capability of promoting research or cooperative
agreements at this time. However, as the need for
accelerating the development of technologies grows and
other technologies move into the operational test phase,
the removal of the prohibition in the Stevenson-Wydler
Technology Innovation Act of 1980, as amended, against
the transfer of funds by Federal laboratories to non-
Federal parties under a cooperative research and
development agreement would enhance our ability to
advance IVHS.
UNIVERSITY TRANSPORTATION CENTER
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: How can you assure the
Committee that Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) ,
together with RSPA, is effectively overseeing the
management and implementation of the highway component of
the University Transportation Centers Program?
ANSWER: The FHWA, together with RSPA, has taken a
number of steps to assure the effective oversight of the
University Transportation Centers Program. Beginning in
1989, FHWA Headquarters and field staffs have
participated in the annual reviews of the University
Transportation Centers. With the FHWA's encouragement,
these reviews have included at least one professional
from a State highway agency in the region. These reviews
covered the management of the centers, education programs
supported, research projects, and technology transfer
activities.
For significant university research projects, the
FHWA has involved FHWA technical experts who provide
input and coordination with other related research in the
Nationally Coordinated Program of Highway Research,
Development, and Technology.
Effective implementation of research begins at the
inception of a research project. With the FHWA's
encouragement, the Centers have involved State highway
agency professionals in the University research projects.
The active involvement of these people assure that the
research results will meet the needs of the agency, and
that the research products will have an implementation
advocate in the agency.
Lastly, the Centers have established a University
Transportation Centers Clearing House to provide a
central source of information on the program's research
results and activities. This will enable transportation
professionals to obtain up-to-date information on
university research projects and reports.
620
IVHS AND MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Please discuss how the National
IVHS Program will help the effectiveness and efficiency of
MCSAP. What advances have been made thus far? Please
breakdown how the $900,000 provided in the last year's
conference report to improve efficiency and effectiveness of
MCSAP is being used.
ANSWER: The FHWA is working with the States, industry,
and other safety interests on plans for the development,
evaluation, and deployment of advanced technologies for IVHS
commercial vehicle operations. MCSAP will benefit directly
from IVHS because it will provide a nationwide network of
automated safety inspection and monitoring systems.
Long range plans include the development of automated
technologies to measure vehicle safety and provide access to
safety records at the roadside. These systems will allow the
States to increase the efficiency of their current enforcement
programs through more accurate, streamlined inspections and
access to data on carriers and drivers.
The $900,000 provided in the conference report is being
used to fund several projects to improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of MCSAP inspections. Of these funds, $355,000
will fund work by the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA)
on planning, technical assistance, and marketing support to
FHWA and the States on the development of IVHS technologies.
Approximately $150,000 will fund analyses of ways to enhance
the Motor Carrier Management Information System to provide
real-time access to the information from this system for
enforcement officers.
The remainder will fund deployment, evaluation, and
testing of several advanced vehicle inspection devices
including rolling dynamometers, skid pad devices, and infrared
sensors. Several States are purchasing these advanced vehicle
inspection devices with MCSAP research and development funds.
Some of the States will be using funds to conduct operational
tests and evaluations of this equipment. The NHTSA ' s Research
and Test Center in East Liberty, Ohio, will also be provided
funds to continue conducting laboratory tests and evaluations
of these devices before they are field tested by the States.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Other than the project in Colorado
that you are considering for funding, does FHWA plan to sponsor
or conduct operational tests during FY 1993 or during FY 1994
involving commercial motor vehicles in which safety dynamics
will receive prominent attention? What is the amount of
funding reserved for the safety component of CVO projects in
your FY 1994 budget? How much of the FY 1993 budget is being
used for this purpose? For the last two questions, please
separate out the safety components directly related to
enforcement activities.
ANSWER: Yes, the FHWA does plan to include a request for
operational testing involving commercial motor vehicle and
driver safety during FY 1994. This Summer FHWA will initiate
an effort to automate the inspection process and the monitoring
of out-of- service vehicles and drivers. Except for the
Colorado CVO project, additional FY 1993 operational test funds
are not being used for CVO safety activities.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Will FHWA likely have to conduct its
own operational tests to evaluate the feasibility of using a
variety of IVHS or other advanced technologies to aid MCSAP
inspectors? Do you plan to initiate such a project during
FY 1994?
ANSWER: The FHWA will conduct laboratory tests of new
technologies such as rolling dynamometers, skid pad devices.
621
and infrared sensors. Several States will conduct the
operational tests of these new devices. Testing of several new
devices began this year and will continue in FY 1994.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Other than supporting the current and
expanded use of the CVSA decal, what is FHWA doing to provide
information to MCSAP inspectors at the roadside that might help
them make more informed decisions about which vehicles should
be subject to either a Level I or II inspection? Couldn't
IVHS-type systems be of benefit to these MCSAP officers?
ANSWER; The FHWA is developing data systems that will
provide information to MCSAP officers at the roadside to help
target their inspection activities. These systems should allow
MCSAP officers to access and input the most current inspection
information on the carrier and driver. This linking may
involve linking current on the driver and motor carrier. The
FHWA is also working with the States to evaluate current
computer hardware, data entry techniques, communications, and
software that is appropriate for roadside use. Further,
through IVHS, FHWA also plans to examine available on-board
vehicle technologies to obtain the safety condition of the
vehicle and driver.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Before deciding to spend 30 or 40
minutes on an inspection, would it be worthwhile for MCSAP
officers to use an advanced information system to query the
past inspection record of the company involved, the safety
rating of that carrier, how many times a particular vehicle has
been inspected during the last 12 months, or how many
inspections have been performed on a specific company during
the last 12 months and its out-of-service ratio? Please
discuss the value of each of these factors to MCSAP inspectors
in terms of improving the efficiency of the overall program.
ANSWER: Yes, it would be a worthwhile to have this
information. One of the objectives of IVHS is to provide this
information to enforcement officers at the roadside.
The FHWA already uses a carrier's past safety record on
audits, safety ratings, accident rates, and roadside
inspections results to target carriers for reviews. All of
these factors may be indicators of vehicles that are likely to
have current safety problems and should be stopped and fully
inspected. As part of the development of these data systems,
FHWA will evaluate the effectiveness of these, and other
factors, as indicators of vehicles that should be targeted for
roadside inspections.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: When do you plan to translate such
an IVHS concept into a nationwide system covering key MCSAP
inspection sites?
ANSWER: The FHWA anticipates that nationwide roadside
access to safety information will be implemented incrementally
over several years. Several States are now evaluating
computers and software for use at the roadside to enter data.
Others are testing cellular, cable, and microwave
communications to access the Commercial Driver License
Information System and other databases. As the new computer
systems and software which are planned become available, MCSAP
officers will have access to more data.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: How much would it cost to provide
this information at 300 MCSAP inspection sites? How much would
it cost to link access to CDLIS, AAMVANETS, MCMIS, and/or
SAFTEYNET and an expert decision-making system regarding
inspection prioritization so various queries would be possible
at the roadside? How did you calculate this?
622
ANSWER: The FHWA has not calculated the cost. The cost
will be based on the requirements and architecture of a system
identified during the development. The requirements being
considered include the number of users, number of data
elements, timeliness of the data, individual size and weight,
fuel tax, and registration data, and individual data needs of
each State. The FHWA and the States are also currently
evaluating roadside computer and communication systems that
could be used by MCSAP officers on the roadside and have not
yet made recommendations on the requirements and specifications
for this equipment.
MEASURES OF PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: NHTSA provides this Committee with
estimates that project how many lives were saved each year
because of specific regulations they issue or because of
specific laws or programs they promote. What similar measures
does the Office of Motor Carriers have regarding its
effectiveness?
ANSWER: We believe it is impossible to establish a
direct cause and effect relationship between our enforcement
programs and the fatality rate. An analysis of 7,000
compliance reviews (CR) performed in FY 1992 shows that nearly
65 percent of the CRs resulted in the motor carrier receiving
an improved safety rating. The favorable trend in the
reduction of the fatal accident rate is an adequate measure of
program improvements.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Please present information showing
different indicators of improvement in motor carrier safety the
last three to five years. (Whenever possible, please show
these data for different types commercial motor vehicle
configurations.) What percentage of these improvements are
related to the OMC activities? What measures of productivity
do you have of these efforts during the last three to five
years? Please include several different measures of your
productivity and industry's compliance record including
different out-of-service rates during this period.
ANSWER: Fatal accident rates for combination vehicles
and medium and heavy trucks have declined over the last five
years .
FATAL ACCIDENT RATES
(Per 100 Million Miles of Travel)
Fatal
Fatal
Fatal
Accident
Accident
Accident
Rate
Rate
Rate
Combination
Medium S
All
Year
Vehicles
Heavy
Trucks
Vehicles
1987
4.4
3.5
2.2
1988
4.4
3.5
2.1
1989
3.9
3.2
1.9
1990
3.7
3.0
1.9
1991
3.2
2.7
1.7
We believe some of this decline can be attributed to
MCSAP and Federal enforcement activities. An exact percentage
of the improvements in motor carrier safety attributable to our
programs cannot be specified.
The vehicle out-of-service (OOS) rate has declined in
each of the last three fiscal years:
623
Out-of-
Percent
Total
Service
Out-of-
FY
InsDSCtions
Vehicles
Service
1990
1,601,230
541,575
33.8%
1991
1,574,188
497,117
31.6%
1992
1,655,668
461,715
27.9%
COMMERCIAL DRIVER'S LICENSE PROGRAM
The initial issuance of commercial drivers licenses (CDL) was
completed in April 1992 with over 5 million CDLs issued.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: How many total CDLs have been issued
since April 1992, and how many total CDLs have been issued to
date?
ANSWER: There were 1.3 million CDLs issued since April
1992, and a total of 6.3 million CDLs were issued by April 30,
1993.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What has the annual cost of
operation been and was this comparable with what was projected?
Is the CDL Information System (CDLIS) annual operational cost
being fully funded by state user fees? If not fully funded by
user fees, what other funding has been used? For what purpose
will Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) funding on
CDL requirements be used?
ANSWER: The annual cost of operation for CDLIS was
$5,082,921 for the year ending September 30, 1991, and
$7,684,505 for the year ending September 30, 1992. These costs
are comparable to what was projected. The annual operational
cost of CDLIS is being fully funded by State user fees. The
MCSAP funding will continue to be used in the area of CDL
enforcement.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Does FHWA have an objective measure
of the effectiveness of the CDL program?
ANSWER: The FHWA plans to review the effectiveness of
the CDL program. Preliminary work is underway with the
American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What monitoring is FHWA doing to
ensure that the States are implementing their CDL program
according to FHWA requirements? What are these requirements?
ANSWER: The FHWA field office in each State is in
constant contact with the State licensing and enforcement
agencies to monitor implementation and enforcement activities.
The FHWA follows up on complaints from drivers, companies or
other interested parties about possible violations of the CDL
requirements. In addition, FHWA will soon publish a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking for determining State compliance with the
requirements for State participation contained in the
Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986. The requirements
are:
1. Adopt and administer CDL testing program that meets
minimum Federal standards.
2. Issue CDLs to persons who pass CDL tests.
3. Adopt and enforce the .04 percent blood alcohol content
standard for determining driving while intoxicated.
4. Issue CDL's meeting minimum driver information
requirements as specified in the Fedferal regulations.
5. Check CDLIS to determine person's eligibility to be
issued a CDL.
624
6. Check person's State driving record for eligibility
before issuing a CDL.
7. Notify CDLIS of issuance of a CDL.
8. Notify CDLIS and issuing State of any driver
disqualification action.
9. Transmit out-of-State CDL convictions to driver's home
State. ,
10. Do not issue CDLs to persons currently disqualified from
operating CMVe or license is suspended, revoked, or
cancelled.
11. Do not issue CDLs to persons currently holding a CDL from
another State until old CDL is surrendered.
12. Issue CDLs only to persons domiciled in that State.
13. Impose appropriate penalties for driving CMV without a
State CDL or driving with suspended, revoked or cancelled
CDL.
14. Allow any holder of a valid CDL to operate a CMV within
the State.
15. Adopt minimum one-year disqualification for first
violation of DWI, leaving scene of accident involving a
CMV, or using CMV in commission of felony.
16. Adopt lifetime disqualifications for violations of more
than one DWI, leaving accident scene, commission of
felony, or a combination of more than one of the above.
17. Adopt lifetime disqualification for persons using CMV in
commission of felony involving controlled substances.
18. Adopt minimum 60-day disqualification of two serious
violations for conviction involving a CMV (in a 3-year
period) .
19. Adopt minimum 120-day disqualification for conviction of
three serious traffic indications involving a CMV (in a
3-year period) .
20. Check NDR on non-CMV driver disqualifications, license
revocations, cancellations, or suspensions before issuing
CDLs.
21. Adopt out-of-service regulations for violations of .04
percent BAC standard.
22. Adopt disqualification for violations of out-of-service
orders.
The ISTEA of 1991 added a 23rd requirement that a State
adopt a violation of an out-of-service order as a serious
traffic violation.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Have States experienced any problems
inputting the convictions for serious/disqualifying violations
to the central information system CDLIS? If so, please
explain.
ANSWER: Information on convictions is part of the'
overall driver record maintained by the issuing State. Some
States take up to four months to post a conviction to the
licensing agency driver record, when the information is not
electronically transmitted by the State's courts.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What is being done to assure that
all convictions are being inputted into the CDLIS on a timely
basis?
ANSWER: Some State courts post conviction data
electronically, thus avoiding delays to the Department of Motor
Vehicles. All States are being encouraged to do this. Other
States are trying to work with their court systems to obtain
more timely transfer of data.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: How current are the convictions
being submitted — is there a lag time between conviction and
reporting to CDLIS in many states? How much of a delay?
625
ANSWER: States that have electronic data entry by the
courts are posting convictions on their driver records, thus
making them available through CDLIS as soon as they are entered
by the courts. The process is slower for those States re-
entering data from the courts; in some States it may take up to
four months to post a conviction on a driver record.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Have there been any problems in
converting one state's violation codes to that of the home
state's in order for all convictions to be captured by the home
states?
ANSWER: Yes, the 51 U.S. jurisdictions have some
difficulty electronically exchanging noncommercial conviction
and withdrawal information. To address this problem, the ANSI
D-20 Conviction and Withdrawal Codes, which were developed over
twenty-five years ago, are currently being revised to include
actions associated with noncommercial offenses.
During design and development of the Commercial Driver's
License Information System (CDLIS) a comprehensive set of
additional codes was added to the ANSI D-20 Conviction and
Withdrawal Codes. This group of codes addresses conviction and
withdrawal actions associated with disqualifying offenses
committed in a commercial motor vehicle. It was developed
specifically for CDLIS and to meet the needs of the States for
internal processing and interstate exchange of CDL information.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: How many drivers have been suspended
or disqualified based on this information? In which states?
ANSWER: AAMVAnet , Inc., the operator of CDLIS, recently
asked States to provide the number of suspensions, revocations
and disqualifications for commercial violations, based on the
CDL requirements in the safety regulations. The total count as
of February 28,1993, was 2,584. Actual numbers ranged from 430
in Florida to zero in 20 jurisdictions that either did not
report at all or reported no actions. Four other States
reported over 200 actions: Georgia — 289, Tennessee — 245,
Virginia — 208, Wisconsin — 228.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Please specify how you know that at
least Sl.O million was used in FY 1992 and in FY 1993 for CDL
enforcement. What did each MCSAP State spend on CDL
enforcement during each of these years?
ANSWER: All States participated in the CDL enforcement
program. Funds ($1,000,000) have been allocated by formula for
CDL enforcement into States' basic grant. Some States have
received supplemental funding above their basic allocation
through reallocated funds for CDL enforcement.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: How much is the Department
requesting in the FY 1994 budget for the improvement and
maintenance of the CDL testing mechanism?
ANSWER: The FHWA has not requested any funding in the
area of CDL testing for FY 1994. In I- Y 1993, the FHWA awarded
a grant to Michigan to improve and enhance the quality and
overall effectiveness of the model CDL testing system. The
work is expected to continue into FY 1994 under the grant.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Has the NDR been effective in
identifying all commercial drivers with suspended or revoked
licenses? From FHWA's perspective, what improvements are
needed in the NDR to make it more effective?
ANSWER: The NDR is effective in identifying commercial
drivers with suspended or revoked licenses. The NDR checks are
626
made by States who generally do not keep data on how frequently
they check NDR. When inquiries are made, the NDR has properly
identified drivers.
COMMERCIAL VEHICLE INFORMATION SYSTEM
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What specific progress has FHWA made
in establishing pilot tests of the Commercial Vehicle
Information System? What specific contracts have been let?
What percentage of FY 1992 and 1993 funds have been committed?
For what purposes? What other States besides Iowa have
received funds to pilot this system?
ANSWER: Work on the Commercial Vehicle Information
System (CVIS) project is progressing well. The Iowa DOT is the
lead State in the CVIS project. A steering committee,
comprised of State and Federal officials, is overseeing the
project and developed a work plan.
Four States — Colorado, Nebraska, Indiana, and Oregon —
have expressed interest in becoming pilot States. The pilots
are expected to begin next year. The CVIS will use information
such as a carrier's safety rating, and accident and inspection
history. The report to Congress on the feasibility of the
project is due January 1, 1995.
All of the FY 1992 and FY 1993 funds totaling $3.5
million have been committed to Iowa DOT to develop and test the
CVIS. We expect to provide grants to other pilot States this
Fall.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Which States, if any, already have
the capability to tie their registration process to their
records of carrier safety fitness, results of MCSAP inspections
or accident records?
ANSWER: To the best of our knowledge, no State is
currently electronically tying its registration files to
records of carrier fitness, MCSAP inspections, and accident
records. Through SAFETYNET, a State could check the safety
fitness rating of an interstate motor carrier. Such a check
would have to be done manually because there is no automated
electronic linkage between the State vehicle registration
system and safety records. The development and testing of the
Commercial Vehicle Information System will provide States with
the capability to electronically link vehicle registration with
safety fitness ratings, as well as carrier accident and
inspection history.
MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ACT OF 1990
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: The Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1990
clearly directed the OMC to get tough with the motor carriers
that violate the safety regulations. Has the number of new
enforcement actions in some of your regions been decreasing
during the last six months? Please use your enforcement
management information systems, which has been supported for
many years by this Committee, to provide data on the number of
enforcement cases initiated by each of your regions during
FY 1991, FY 1992 and thus far during FY 1993. If the data show
that the number of actions is decreasing in any region since
the Spring of 1992, please explain why.
ANSWER: There has not been a decrease in the number of
enforcement cases initiated since the Spring of 1992. The
total number of enforcement cases initiated by the FHWA's
regions increased from 2,245 in FY 1991 to 2,473 in FY 1992.
Over 1,300 enforcement actions have been initiated thus far
during FY 1993.
627
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Please provide data updating us on
the number of enforcement actions that resulted from the first
contact with a motor carrier since the issuance of operational
procedures designed to ensure that serious safety violations
were pursued as a result of any Federal audit or review of a
motor carrier.
ANSWER; The Office of Motor Carriers' policy on serious
safety violations went into effect on January 1, 1991. Since
then, approximately 341 cases were initiated as a result of a
first contact with a motor carrier.
LONGER COMBINATION VEHICLES
Longer combination vehicles (LCV), configured with longer
double trailers and 26 to 28-foot triples trailers, are
commonly known as Rocky Mountain doubles, turnpike doubles, and
triples. LCVs have operated for up to 30 years in 14 Western
states and on designated turnpikes in 6 other states. The
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
(ISTEA) prevents further expansion of LCVs into states that did
not allow them before June 1, 1991, and requires the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) to compile a listing of state LCV
requirements as of that date. A March 1992 report by GAO
concluded that existing truck accident and travel data have
shortcomings, that study outcomes were mixed for a variety of
reasons, and that the actual impact of LCV operation is not
known. (Truck Safety; The Safety of Longer Combination
Vehicles is Unknown. GAO/RCED-92-66, 3/11/92)
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Last year FHWA discussed a truck
travel data conference that was expected to address how to
better determine truck travel data and truck accident data.
What actions have been taken as a result of that conference?
ANSWER: The June 10-12, 1992 Conference on FHWA Truck
Travel developed 12 recommendations. The recommendations and
responses are as follows;
Proposal 1 - Dynamic Grouping Capability. There should be a
dynamic grouping capability for vehicle classification
equipment. There is also a need to redefine data transfer
formats to FHWA to allow for the retention of nested data
elements and individual vehicle records collected by current
and recommended technologies.
Response: FHWA is working with the American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM) to develop standards that allow
for the analysis of individual vehicle records for vehicle
classification. The FHWA sponsored equipment testing by the
Georgia DOT is underway which includes the assessment of
devices that retain individual axle records. Current FHWA
research is also reviewing the feasibility of using neural
network technology to support dynamic grouping. The FHWA is
also working with ASTM committees that are promoting the
development of common data formats among various types of
traffic monitoring equipment.
Proposal 2 - Alternative Precision Levels. A study is
recommended to assess the costs and benefits associated with
alternative precision levels for vehicle classification, by
roadway classification.
Response: The recommended study is part of FHWA's proposed FY
1994 research program.
Proposal 3 - Phased Implementation. state; ■ implementation of a
recommended precision level for vehicle classification data
should be phased by roadway classification.
628
Response: This long-standing FHWA recommendation is extended
to reflect that any such phasing should give emphasis to those
arterials on the NHS over those not on the NHS.
Proposal 4 - Urban Area Emphasis should be given to automated
urban vehicle classification and weighing technologies.
Coordination and sharing of data with (transportation
management) and other systems that monitor traffic in urban
areas is recommended.
Response: Proposed FHWA FY 1994 research is specifically
focused on the special needs in urban areas. FY 1993 research
is directed towards the integration of traffic operations and
traffic data collection.
Proposal 5 - Vehicle Classification Procedure. A study is
recommended to develop a national vehicle classification
algorithm procedure. A recommendation is that FHWA should
continue cooperation with standard setting organizations and
actively encourage the creation of national standard algorithms
for vehicle classification and WIM equipment.
Response: FHWA staff is participating with ASTM Subcommittee
E17.42, Traffic Characteristics, to develop improved
classification algorithms.
Proposal 6 - Truck Safety Studies. A study is recommended to
develop and initiate a series of truck safety monitoring
efforts aimed specifically at obtaining better estimates of
accident rates for different truck configurations. A case study
approach, addressing safety issues of particular vehicle
configurations, is the preferred method. Upon adoption of the
case studies, we recommend that the current Large Dimensioned
Vehicle Study (LDVS) be terminated and a final report be
developed.
Response: The FHWA will be terminating the LDVS in the
immediate future and a final report is planned within the
calendar year. Concurrent with the termination of the LDVS,
FHWA will be initiating a series of truck fleet and state case
studies to focus on large truck safety concerns.
Proposal 7 - Truck Driver Survey. In summary, and following a
lengthy discussion, it was concluded that a special survey of
truck drivers does not seem necessary.
Response: As suggested by the Conferees, FHWA will not be
initiating truck driver surveys.
Proposal 8 - New Truck Travel Data Sources. More accurate
information on annual travel per truck by various
configurations would be beneficial for several reasons. A
first step would be a short-term contract study to inventory
and document current sources of truck registration data.
Response: FHWA sponsored research initiatives are evaluating
various aspects of determining the size of the truck universe.
This includes on going research to estimate heavy vehicle fuel
economy and efforts to assess differences in vehicles in use by
time of year. Other FHWA research will review truck activity
for a select sample of trucks.
Proposal 9 - Assessing the Magnitude of Overweight Trucks and
Their Impact on ESALs. It has been proposed that there be a
study assessing the magnitude of overweight trucks and their
impact on Equivalent Single Axle Loads (ESALs). It would be
helpful for the work that has been completed to be summarized
and reported. It is recommended that there be a synthesis of
629
practice to identify the diverse and complex overweight truck
issues .
Response: This proposal is being evaluated to assess the most
cost-effective method of addressing the issue. The data being
gathered in support of the long-term pavement performance
initiative as well as the Truck Weight Study will give valuable
indications of the frequency and magnitude of overweight axles.
Truck weight data to be collected is support of the Pavement
Management Systems called for by the ISTEA will also provide
valuable system level information on this issue.
Proposal 10 - Coordinating Administrative Records with Road
Data. A small study is recommended to become aware of
practices on existing use of administrative records by
individual States for linking or estimating vehicular and
traffic information.
Response: A number of the activities identified in proposal 8
are germane to this proposal also. In particular is the
ongoing effort to better understand how registrations can be
related to the actual number of vehicles in use over a year's
duration.
Proposal 11 - Long-Run Strategic Plan for Truck Data. The
purpose of this effort is to create a long-run strategic plan
for developing national truck data systems.
Response: The scope of this effort is felt to be most
appropriate to other national organizations such as the TRB.
FHWA is willing to participate with an organization or
organizations that may wish to sponsor the development of such
a plan.
Proposal 12 - Policy Study of Overweight Truck Travel. The
objective of this study is to determine the information on
overweight trucks that the federal government needs for the
purpose of: (1) cost allocation, revenue forecasting, and
highway safety analysis; (2) developing intermodal freight
policy; (3) evaluating State weight enforcement programs; and
(4) evaluating alternative user fee structures. The study must
also determine the type and amount of data needed, identify
alternative sources of the data, and recommend the methods of
collection .
Response: The FHWA provides ongoing review of a wide variety
of issues related to truck operations including the impact of
weight/dimensions. This review is expected to continue as is
the regular analysis and reporting on the impacts of size and
weight trends on safety and cost responsibility.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Will any planned actions provide
improved travel and accident data by truck configurations so
LCV data can be separately identified? Please discuss how this
will be accomplished and when such data will be available.
ANSWER: The FHWA is investigating the feasibility and
costs of conducting studies to obtain more definitive safety
data. The alternatives include more detailed analysis of
current data as well as new truck fleet or State case studies
focused on LCVs .
Because of their scarcity, it is difficult to obtain
sufficient LCV accident data from which to derive conclusive
results. This is also true for LCV travel data, necessary for
making accident rate comparisons. Virtually all the fatal
truck involvements in the TIFA national database now include
individual trailer length and gross vehicle weight, key items
for identifying LCVs. Fatal accident involvements alone,
however, cannot provide the desired results. Obtaining uniform
630
national data on all accidents and travel in sufficient detail
to identify LCVs is currently not feasible. This is why the
State-specific and carrier-specific studies mentioned elsewhere
currently offer the greatest promise for producing meaningful
Lev safety comparisons.
FHWA plans to conduct a study, using individual company
accident and travel records, to compare accident rates for
tractor semitrailers and LCVs. FHWA expects to award a contract
for this study this year with a final report scheduled for
April 1995.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What has resulted from the research
into traffic monitoring equipment and improved traffic data
sampling designs that was planned last year? Has any action
been taken that will improve the collection of LCV-specific
travel data?
ANSWER: The Georgia Department of Transportation is
currently field testing automatic vehicle classification (AVC)
equipment and sampling designs. A report is expected late this
summer. LCV trailer lengths vary considerably. This variation
makes it quite difficult to use AVC equipment to identify LCVs
since overall length or axle spacing is used in the
classification process. The FHWA is considering a study that
would combine both overall truck length and axle spacing to
allow better classification of LCVs.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Does the National Accident Sampling
System (NASS) sampling areas include areas that allow LCVs? If
not, are there any plans to include a sample of LCV areas?
ANSWER: While the NASS includes areas that allow LCVs,
the sampling framework is insufficient to capture a sufficient
number of LCV accidents to draw conclusions about accident
trends. In addition, the reported data extracted from State
and local police accident reports do not include trailer length
needed to identify LCVs. There are no plans to expand NASS to
specifically collect LCV accident data.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What progress has been made in
establishing DOT'S Bureau of Transportation Statistics? Does
FHWA have plans to use the National Governors Association (NGA)
data reported to Safetynet to identify LCV accidents?
ANSWER: The Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS)
was established on December 16, 1992. The BTS has produced a
Transportation Data Sampler, begun a nationwide collection of
multimodal commodity flow data with the Bureau of the Census,
initiated development of a similar survey of passenger flows,
and launched a program to make data from the 1990 Census more
easily usable by States and metropolitan planning
organizations .
The NGA data does not include trailer length. Therefore,
the FHWA cannot use it to identify LCV accidents.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What progress has been made
concerning FHWA/National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration's (NHTSA) research concerning LCV operational
characteristics and the technologies that affect safety? When
will this research be completed? Does FHWA have any interim
results?
ANSWER: Antilock braking systems (ABS) and double-
drawbar dollies will be tested on 17 Rocky Mountain double and
triple-trailer combinations. Data on in-use maintenance,
operational practicality, ABS functionality, trailer lateral
movement, and time histories with and without double-drawbar
dollies will be collected for about a year starting late this
summer. The study will be conducted cooperatively with a group
631
of fleets based in Oregon and Idaho which currently operate
these vehicles.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Will any of the FHWA/NHTSA research
compare the effects of driving LCVs with that of driving
tractors with twin 28 foot trailers being used in the driver
fatigue study?
ANSWER: Many of the same types of data such as steering
actions, driver heartrate variability, eye-hand coordination,
and reaction time will be collected from drivers in both the
Driver Fatigue and Alertness Study and the LCV Driver Stress
and Fatigue Study (the latter mandated by ISTEA) . It may be
possible to compare fatigue and stress for tractor semitrailer
drivers and LCV drivers from the two studies.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What, if any, action does FHWA plan
as a result of the list of state LCV restrictions in place as
of June 1, 1991, submitted by the states? Does FHWA consider
this a complete listing of all restrictions?
ANSWER: Documentation of LCV operations and restrictions
continues. FHWA published a Supplemental Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking on February 25, 1993; the comment period closes May
27, 1993. The FHWA will address all comments received and will
prepare a final list of lengths, routes, and operating
restrictions later this year. The FHWA will also issue
regulations to establish criteria for States to make minor
adjustments to route designation and vehicle restrictions for
specific situations due to safety purposes and road
construction.
RADAR/LASER DETECTORS
Due to concerns about highway safety and commercial motor
vehicles exceeding the speed limit, the Congress, in the
Department of Transportation (DOT) appropriations act for
fiscal year 1992, required DOT to publish a proposed rulemaking
to prohibit the use of radar detectors in operating commercial
vehicles. The proposed rulemaking was published on January 24,
1992, with comments due by May 26, 1992.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What is the status of the rulemaking
on this matter?
ANSWER: The public comment period for proposed
rulemaking closed on May 26, 1992.
Of the more than 26,000 responses to the docket,
approximately 6,400 responders supported a ban and 19,700
opposed a ban. FHWA is considering the pros and cons of
proceeding to a final rule.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What type of comments were provided
during the rulemaking process and when will the rulemaking be
completed?
ANSWER: Of the more than 26,000 responses to the docket,
approximately 6,400 responders support a ban included
representatives of the petitioners, the insurance industry.
State Department of Transportation/Division of Motor Vehicles,
State and local police, medical interests and highway safety
oriented groups. Approximately 19,700 opposing a ban including
driver and driver associations, the radar detector industry,
the legal profession, and other individuals. FHWA is currently
considering the pros and cons of proceeding to a final rule.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: About how many trucks use radar
detectors? .
632
ANSWER: The FHWA does not have a valid, reliable data on
the number of trucks using radar detectors.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Are there data available showing the.
relationship between accidents and speed, particularly in
commercial vehicles?
ANSWER: There are no definitive data which directly link
speed as the single cause of accidents in commercial motor
vehicles. When a driver is speeding, it takes longer for the
vehicle to stop; this could be the difference between an
accident occurring or not occurring. The severity of an
accident is greater when speeding is a contributing factor, and
the likelihood of an accident increases with variations from
the mean speed.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: How many States currently prohibit
the use of radar detectors?
ANSWER: Only Virginia and the District of Columbia ban
the use of radar detectors in all vehicles. Illinois and New
York ban them in commercial vehicles. Connecticut, which in
June 1992 eliminated its total radar detector ban, is
reportedly considering a ban in commercial motor vehicles only.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Is FHWA planning any action to ban
laser detectors before they are developed and marketed? If
not, why not?
ANSWER: In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on radar
detectors, the FHWA requested comments on whether the
definition of "radar detector" should be expanded to include
other devices that may detect advanced speed limit enforcement
technology such as laser beams. Of the 26,000 comments
received on the NPRM, fewer than 50 addressed this issue. FHWA
is currently considering the pros and cons of proceeding to a
final rule on radar detectors.
IMPACT OF ISTEA ON MCSAP
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What have been ISTEA' s major impacts
on the MCSAP program in the first year? What action has FHWA
taken to assist States in accomplishing the new
responsibilities?
ANSWER: Since the implementation of the ISTEA, the MCSAP
has become more comprehensive, giving the States more options
and the flexibility to design motor carrier safety programs to
meet their unique needs. ISTEA has had a positive effect on
MCSAP by increasing the funding for States and expanding the
scope of MCSAP activities for size and weight, drug
interdiction, traffic enforcement, hazardous materials
training, research and development, and public education. In
the ISTEA, funds are now available for two years, giving States
greater control of their programs.
The FHWA continues to encourage the States to develop and
test innovative programs and enforcement strategies that may
improve motor carrier safety. For example, States are testing
a device designed to check commercial vehicle brakes without an
inspector having to get under the vehicle.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Please discuss progress made in each
of the following areas: size and weight, drug interdiction,
hazardous materials (Hazmat) training, truck and bus accident
data, traffic enforcement, coiwnercial drivers license (CDL)
enforcement, research and development, anci public education.
633
ANSWER: Under the ISTEA, funds are earmarked for the
activities you have mentioned. The MCSAP requires States to
identify in the State Enforcement Plan their level of activity
in each program.
Drug interdiction and size and weight enforcement
activities are now integral elements of the basic MCSAP grant,
and are reimbursable activities when conducted in conjunction
with an appropriate level of inspection. States are using
MCSAP funds to support training of enforcement personnel to
detect signs of illegal use or transportation of drugs.
Indiana is discouraging circumvention of inspection sites by
increasing mobile patrol using with portable scales.
Hazardous materials training funds have been allocated by
formula to all States along with their basic and supplemental
grant request. For example, Idaho personnel are receiving
training in cargo tank and hazardous materials enforcement and
compliance.
In FY 1993, $1 million was allocated to the States for
NGA-related activities. Currently, 22 States are submitting
information on motor vehicle accidents consistent with the NGA
elements .
Forty-six States are using MCSAP funds to carry out
traffic enforcement activities in conjunction with roadside
inspections. For example, Kansas uses the funds to increase
enforcement in high-accident areas.
Funds for CDL enforcement are included in the basic
formula allocations to all States. Washington enforcement
personnel check for CDL violations on commercial vehicle
operators who have been stopped for traffic violations.
Minnesota is training additional State Patrol troopers to
participate in CMV traffic enforcement activity (including CDL
checks) .
States are assessing new technologies that will improve
the roadside inspection process by reducing the time needed to
conduct an inspection. Included are a mobile inspection
trailer, a combination brake testing and weighing device, and
an infrared brake testing device.
Maryland was awarded a $350,000 MCSAP grant for a multi-
year project to develop and implement a national "Share the
Road" educational campaign.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Will States have adequate resources
to carry out these new responsibilities while maintaining their
existing inspections activity? How will FHWA monitor to ensure
that this takes place without decreasing roadside inspection
activity?
ANSWER: The ISTEA provides adequate resources for an
expanded MCSAP. We believe that States will meet the major
goals for MCSAP under the requested funding level for FY 1994.
MCSAP — ROADSIDE INSPECTION/REINSPECTION ACTIVITIES
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: How many roadside inspections were
conducted in fiscal year 1992 compared with fiscal year 1991,
and what percentage of vehicles and drivers were placed out-of-
service for violations?
ANSWER: In FY 1992, States conducted 1,655,668 roadside
inspections, compared with 1,574,188 in FY 1991. Twenty eight
percent of the vehicles inspected were placed out-of-service in
FY 1992 (compared with 32 percent in 1991), while 7 percent of
drivers were placed out-of-service (compared with 8 percent in
1991) .
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: How has the mix of inspections
changed and why? ,•
634
ANSWER: From FY 1991 to FY 1992, the rate of level I
inspections (a comprehensive vehicle and driver inspection)
decreased from 64 percent (1,013,017) to 60 percent (999,556).
During that same period. Level III inspections (driver only)
increased from 6 percent (99,561) to 9 percent (152,331). The
percentage of Levels II, IV, and V inspections has remained
roughly the same.
The slight shift toward the driver-only inspection may
reflect the growing awareness of the driver's role in safety.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: How many of the inspections
performed in 1992, compared with 1991, were the more
comprehensive level I inspections, and how did the out-of-
service rates compare on these for both drivers and vehicles?
Level lis?
ANSWER: Of the 1.6 million roadside inspection performed
in 1992 and 1.5 million in 1991, approximately 1 million were
the more comprehensive level I, North American Standard
inspection. In 1992, 35 percent of vehicles were placed out-
of-service while 39 percent were placed out-of-service in 1991.
For drivers, 6 percent were placed out-of-service in 1992 and
6.7 percent in 1991.
Over 475,000 level II walk around driver and vehicle
inspections were performed in 1992, compared with 440,000 in
1991. The percent of vehicles placed out-of-service under a
level II inspection remained approximately 21 percent for both
1992 and 1991. In 1992, 7 percent of drivers were placed
out-of-service while 8 percent were placed out-of-service in
1991.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Are Level II inspections done in
conjunction with stops for moving violations resulting in more
driver out-of-service violations, given their surprise nature
compared with those conducted at weigh stations?
ANSWER: The conduct of inspections in conjunction with
traffic stops is a new MCSAP initiative and data on the results
of this particular activity are just becoming available. The
FHWA is examining ways to improve the effectiveness of all
levels of inspections, particularly driver inspections and
enforcement. We expect to have more definitive data on the
impact of conducting Level II inspections in conjunction with
stops for moving violations on the out-of-service rate this
year.
MCSAP — SAFETYNET
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What progress and improvements have
been made on the inspection and accident modules of SAFETYNET,
FHWA's management information system?
ANSWER: The progress and improvements made on the
inspection and accident modules of SAFETYNET include the
following:
providing information about "repaired at scene" versus
"repaired away from scene" in verification of out-of-
service defects;
adding new data items required by ISTEA (e.g., traffic
enforcement and size and weight initiatives);
- using a faster, more reliable communications system for
transmitting data to FHWA's mainframe computer and to
download national reports; and
- improving the general operation of the system.
Forty-seven MCSAP States are routinely transmitting
inspection data to FHWA.
The accident module was recently thodified to collect all
22 data elements reconmended by the National Governors'
Association. Modifications were also made to improve the
635
general operation of the system. Twenty-two MCSAP States are
routinely transmitting accident data to FHWA.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: How many of the states have all of
the required 1992 inspections uploaded to SAFETYNET? How long
after the end of the year did this take? What is the major
cause of delays? Which states have delays, and what is being
done to improve the situation in those states?
ANSWER: Thirty-eight States have transmitted all the
required 1992 inspections. A major cause of delays was the new
release of SAFETYNET in June 1992. States that maintained
their inspection data on a local mainframe had to reformat and
convert these data files from the old format to the new one.
The following States had delays: New Jersey, New York,
West Virginia, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Arizona, Alaska, and
Idaho. We are working with the States to solve their problems
and achieve timely data entry.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: How many States have modified their
accident reporting forms and reporting criteria to include all
of the National Governors' Association (NGA) accident data
elements? When will all States have this process completed?
ANSWER: The FHWA estimates that about one-third of the
States have adopted the NGA accident data elements and accident
reporting criteria. To get better information, our division
personnel are now conducting process reviews in each State to
assess the extent of the progress and identify problem areas
confronting the States. After completion of the process
reviews, the FHWA will devise strategies to help States move
toward full adoption of the data elements and reporting
criteria.
We do not expect all States to complete the process of
adopting the data elements and reporting criteria, modify their
State-accident report forms, collect data and report the
results through SAFETYNET until 1997.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: How many states consistently upload
all of the NGA accident elements into SAFETYNET 's accident
module as opposed to only those entered under Phase I? How
many are consistently entering only the Phase I data? (Last
year's testimony indicated that although 20 States had uploaded
accident information, only 9 were consistently doing so. )
ANSWER: Fifteen States are consistently uploading all of
the NGA accident elements to FHWA; seven States are uploading
only Phase I data.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What are the planned timeframes to
get all states to enter all of the NGA elements in a timely
fashion? Is additional emphasis being placed on this since the
SOT accident reporting requirement has been dropped?
ANSWER: The FHWA is requiring that all NGA reportable
accident data investigated by State police be uploaded to FHWA
by January 1, 1994. NGA reportable accident data investigated
by local police is to be uploaded by September 30, 1997, Since
the 50T accident reporting requirement has been dropped, the
FHWA is placing greater emphasis on providing technical
guidance and training on NGA accident data reporting to the
States.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Are there plans to include
intrastate accidents in the SAFETYNET database to get a more
complete picture of truck accidents since the 50T requirement
has been dropped?
636
ANSWER: The SAFETYNET accident module has been changed
to include accidents involving interstate and intrastate
carriers and to provide more complete data.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What have been the primary problems
in getting states to upload accident information in a timely
fashion?
ANSWER: The primary problems FHWA has encountered are:
State regulatory, legislative, and budgetary barriers
that must be overcome to change State police accident
reports to include all 22 NGA accident data elements;
- the time required to train State and local police
accident investigators;
- difficulty in coordination between the MCSAP agency that
must report data to FHWA and the State agency that
collects accident reports; and
- delays between State and local jurisdictions in
processing accident reports.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What assurances does FHWA have that
all interstate accidents that meet the NGA criteria are
actually being reported to SAFETYNET?
ANSWER: The FHWA is working with States to ensure they
report all accidents using the NGA-recommended data elements.
The FHWA has provided guidelines outlining reporting
requirements. The FHWA also is conducting process reviews,
providing assistance to States to overcome legislative,
budgetary and regulatory obstacles, and providing technical
support .
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Please explain the progress on other
facets of SAFETYNET, such as the Enforcement and Driver
modules. What are the revised time frames for completion of
these modules?
ANSWER: Driver traffic violations have been added to the
SAFETYNET inspection module. Violations are tracked when a
traffic citation is issued in conjunction with an inspection.
The FHWA has also initiated a procurement action to provide the
capability for Federal and State MCSAP investigators to
electronically access CDLIS to check driver CDL license status.
We expect to implement this portion of the driver module in
1994. The FHWA is working with the States to add carrier
identification (DOT I.D. number) to traffic citations that are
issued during a MCSAP inspection. We hope to have this new
information added to SAFETYNET to help identify carriers which
may need to be reviewed.
TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT AND MCSAP
The Motor Carrier Act of 1991 requires the Secretary to
allocate not less than $4.25 million for each of fiscal years
1993, 1994, and 1995 to the MCSAP States to conduct traffic
enforcement activities. I am told that this relatively new
activity has been rather successful.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Please provide data on the number of
citations or traffic stops and the specific allocation for
traffic enforcement activities for each MCSAP State using these
specified funds.
ANSWER: The preliminary data for first quarter FY 1993
indicate that 5.3 percent of roadside inspections conducted
under MCSAP were initiated by traffic enforcement stops. Below
are the States and the allocation amounts they received for
traffic enforcement:
637
STATE
Alabama
Alaska
Am. Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Dist of Col.
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
FY 1993
ALLOCATION
103,763
25,000
25,000
69,191
*
265,074
78,768
45,217
25,000
*
158, 133
25,000
25,000
40,537
221,903
137,429
105,200
98,881
93,907
81,687
*
80,880
83,372
175,347
116,965
62,757
STATE
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
N. Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
S. Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
FY 1993
ALLOCATION
142,143
41,000
72,316
34,402
25,000
106,204
37,056
226,679
145,035
27,550
213,700
99,044
89,671
240,113
25,000
25,000
*
109,530
*
40,000
25,000
121,451
110,762
3,902
113,840
31,591
* Did not request Supplemental funds in their SEP.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Please discuss in detail how you are
implementing Section 4014 of ISTEA?
ANSWER: The FHWA has
identify commercial motor c
potential risk to highway s
conducting on-site reviews,
factors: (1) potential seve
carrier is likely to be inv
exposure of the motor carri
(3) the safety performance
results of roadside inspect
the motor carrier with the
materials regulations.
modified the criteria used to
arriers that present the greatest
afety and determine priorities for
The criteria includes four
rity of accidents in which the
olved, (2) the mileage travelled or
ers on the Nation's highways,
of the motor carrier, including
ions, and (4) the past compliance of
Federal safety and hazardous
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Are agencies receiving MCSAP funds
for traffic enforcement activities required to place a U.S. DOT
identification number on the traffic ticket so that OMC will be
able to decide which companies are having "too many" traffic
tickets? If not, why?
ANSWER: The FHWA does not require States receiving MCSAP
funds for traffic enforcement activities to place the U.S. DOT
identification number on all traffic tickets for violations
committed by truck or bus drivers.
The FHWA is encouraging States to include this
information on traffic tickets. Several States have agreed to
change their citations, while others are encountering legal,
administrative, and data processing problems. FHWA has formed
a working group of State representatives active in the American
Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, the Commercial
Vehicle Safety Alliance, and the International Association of
Chiefs of Police. The working group will . identify ways to
overcome the barriers to implementing the concept nationwide.
The FHWA prefers to work collectively with the States to
incorporate such changes into enforcement activities while
68-623 0—93-
-21
638
limiting the number of prescriptive requirements as a condition
for Federal funding.
COST-EFFICIENCY AND MCSAP
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: The Motor Carrier Act of 1991
requires FHWA to conduct a rulemaking to determine a revised
allocation formula for disbursement of MCSAP funds. How does
your new formula for disbursement of the basic grant of MCSAP
funds reward cost efficiency or effective programs? If it
doesn't, why not?
ANSWER: The FHWA allocates most MCSAP funds among
participating States and jurisdictions using a formula with the
following factors: (1) road mileage (all roads), (2) vehicle
miles traveled (all vehicles), (3) number of commercial
vehicles over 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight rating
(registered), (4) population (current Census), and (5) special
fuel consumption (net after reciprocity adjustment). The
formula establishes minimum and maximum amounts that each State
may receive. The FHWA redistributes unallocated or unused
funds to enhance existing programs or foster innovative
initiatives in order to help improve the effectiveness and
efficiency of a State's or the National program.
The FHWA conducted a rulemaking to determine whether
revisions were needed as required by the ISTEA. The FHWA
issued final regulations with an updated formula last Fall.
Based on the rulemaking and our working relationship with
States, the FHWA believes the use of the formula is widely
accepted and accounts for differing needs of States.
DATA FOR MONITORING TRUCK SAFETY
The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
(ISTEA) contains several provisions to improve transportation
data, including creation of a Bureau of Transportation
Statistics and an advisory council on transportation
statistics, the truck and bus accident data grant program, the
commercial vehicle information system program, and the
requirement for a National Academy of Sciences study of
Department of Transportation (DOT) data needs.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What progress has been made in
establishing DOT'S Bureau of Transportation Statistics? Does
FHWA have plans to use the National Governors Association (NGA)
data reported to Safetynet to identify LCV accidents?
ANSWER: The Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS)
was established on December 16, 1992. The BTS has produced a
Transportation Data Sampler, begun a nationwide collection of
multimodal commodity flow data with the Bureau of the Census,
initiated planning for a similar survey of passenger flows, and
launched a program to make data from the 1990 Census more
easily usable by States and metropolitan planning organization.
Because NGA data does not include trailer length, the
FHWA cannot use it to identify LCV accidents.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What progress has been made on the
Commercial Vehicle Information System pilot project, which the
Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) funds at up to
$2 million per year?
ANSWER: Work on the Commercial Vehicle Information
System (CVIS) project is progressing well. Iowa DOT is the
lead State in the CVIS project. A steering committee,
comprised of State and Federal officials, is providing
oversight to the project and has developed a work plan.
639
Four States — Colorado, Nebraska, Indiana, and Oregon,
have expressed interest in becoming pilot States. The pilots
are expected to begin next year. A major component of the CVIS
will use standardized data such as a carrier's safety rating,
and accident and inspection history. The report to Congress on
the feasibility of the project is due January 1, 1995.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: How many states have the capability
to tie their registration files to their records of carrier
fitness, MCSAP inspections, and accident records? What actions
will be taken to encourage more states to develop this
capability?
ANSWER: To the best of our knowledge, no State is
currently electronically tying its registration files to
records of carrier fitness, MCSAP inspections, and accident
records. Through SAFETYNET, a State could check the safety
fitness rating of an interstate motor carrier. Such a check
would have to be done manually because there is no automated
electronic linkage between the State vehicle registration
system and safety records. The development and testing of the
Commercial Vehicle Information System will provide States with
the capability to electronically link vehicle registration with
safety fitness ratings, as well as carrier accident and
inspection history.
TRUCK WEIGHT ENFORCEMENT
Overweight trucks pose safety hazards and result in more
rapid highway and bridge deterioration. Yet, FHWA notes that
data from weigh-in-motion surveys and weight scale bypass
studies indicate that overall as many as 10 to 20 percent of
trucks are overweight.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What were the results of FHWA's
latest "Overweight Vehicles - Penalties and Permits" report
with respect to trucks weighed, divisible load multiple-trip
permits issued, and citations issued? How do these figures
compare with those of past years?
ANSWER: The 1989-1991 data are as follows:
1989 1990 1991
Trucks Weighed 146,950,900 149,186,594 150,427,618
DLMT Permits 136,267 140,697 160,914
Citations Issued 692,673 667,954 663,204
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: How many of the trucks weighed were
weighed by using the Weigh-in-Motion (WIM) technology at sites
other than those to screen trucks at existing weighing sites?
What are the results of weighing in nontraditional sites? Does
FHWA have these data from any states?
ANSWER: In FY 1991, 33.7 million trucks were weighed
using WIM and 2.5 million trucks were weighed on portable or
semiportable scales. Because citations are reported by type of
violation and not by the type scale used, the FHWA does not
know the number of citations by scale type. We believe that
most of the WIM weights are from sorter scales located at
permanent stations.
Federal regulations require States to report the number
of trucks weighed by type of scales (permanent, semiportable,
or portable) .
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What progress has been made in
assessing the damage done by trucks using, the divisible load,
multiple-trip permits? What steps has FHWA taken to discourage
state issuance of divisible load, multiple-trip permits?
t
640
ANSWER: The FHWA has prepared a draft Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) with intent to revise its vehicle
size and weight monitoring regulation 23 CFR 657. As part of
the ANPRM, FHWA intends to ask the following questions:
• Has the State determined pavement and bridge costs
attributed to vehicles operating under special permit?
If so, please describe the methodology.
• Does the State have a computerized permit data management
system that reports permits by type, i.e., single trip
non-divisible load, single trip divisible load, multiple-
trip non-divisible load, and multiple-trip divisible
load. If so, please describe the program used.
• Can the State determine from its permit application
system the number of trips made under multiple-trip
permits, the length of each trip, or axle weights?
• Please provide your ideas on the feasibility of
determining pavement and bridge, enforcement, and
administrative costs of the special permit program.
State comments, as well as other docket responses, will
be used to determine the need to document the amount of
pavement wear due to trucks operating under overweight permits
and to develop FHWA policy regarding divisible load, multiple-
trip permits. The FHWA will use its annual program review of
State enforcement activities and its review of a State's
enforcement plans to encourage changes in permit policy.
The FHWA believes the information obtained will help
assess the damage done by trucks operating under divisible load
permits .
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Studies have shown that overweight
axles do considerably more damage to roads and bridges than do
trucks that have gross vehicle weight violations. How many
states have more severe penalties for axle overloads than for
gross weight overloads? Can FHWA use the annual size and
weight plan approval process to encourage more attention to
this area?
ANSWER: The information contained in the most recent
Overweight Vehicles - Penalties and Permits, April 1992,
indicates that 4 States (Florida, Iowa, New York, and Utah)
have more severe penalties for axle overloads than for gross
weight overloads.
The FHWA uses the annual size and weight enforcement plan
approval process to encourage improvements to a State's size
and weight enforcement program. In addition, we will soon be
asking States, through the rulemaking process, to review the
basis for current fine structures. We will assess ways to
improve the fine structure to account for overweight axles.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: FHWA noted last year that some
states charge as little as $5 for an overweight permit and that
this would not even cover the administrative cost of issuing
such permits. Does FHWA have any plans to question these
states' certifications based on their refusal to charge fees
that would cover pavement and bridge damage? If not, why not?
ANSWER: The amount of fees or fines imposed
traditionally has been a State prerogative. The FHWA is
preparing an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) with
intent to revise its vehicle size and weight monitoring
regulation. As part of the ANPRM, we intend to ask the
following questions: What is the basis ,for the current
overweight permit fee and fine structures? Do the fees and
641
fines include the cost of pavement and bridge wear? What are
administrative costs and enforcement costs? The objectives of
the rulemaking are to help determine what information is
available and whether it is appropriate to require States to
provide FHWA additional data and information as part of their
certification of weight enforcement activities.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What has been the result of adding
selected size and weight enforcement to MCSAP activities? Have
the multiple state agencies previously involved complicated the
process?
ANSWER: Adding selected size and weight enforcement to
MCSAP activities has made the MCSAP a more comprehensive
program and gives the States more flexibility in designing
their commercial motor carrier programs. These activities, as
well as the purchase of portable scales, have been added as
eligible costs so long as they do not diminish the
effectiveness of the State's commercial motor vehicle safety
program. The multiple State agencies previously involved in
MCSAP do not further complicate the process. Rather, the
additional activities that are now eligible make the grant
process more complex to monitor and track.
DRUG TESTING
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) issued its
final rule on August 16, 1991, requiring random and post
accident drug testing by interstate motor carriers. This rule
was effective on November 14, 1991, for motor carriers with 50
or more drivers subject to testing, and on January 1, 1992, for
all other motor carriers.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What methods are carriers using to
comply with testing their drivers? What have been the results
of these tests?
ANSWER: To comply with the random drug testing
requirements, many smaller motor carriers utilize a consortium-
based testing program. Carriers join a local consortium with
the expertise to develop and manage a computerized selection
system. The carriers are notified of the random selection and
drivers are instructed to report to a collection facility.
Larger carriers are able to develop and document their own
random testing program procedures.
Commercial motor carriers use a variety of methods to
ensure post-accident drug testing. In the event a driver is
involved an accident, the driver may be directed by the motor
carrier to report to the nearest collection site. Many
carriers have contracted with such collections sites in their
operating areas part of their post-accident testing program.
To ensure use of appropriate drug testing materials, some
carriers place a collection kit in each of their vehicles for
use by qualified collection site personnel. Other carriers
employ their own collection personnel who are sent to the
accident site for driver testing.
Motor carrier compliance with the drug testing
requirements is evaluated as part of Federal and State carrier
reviews. The FHWA does not collect the results of drug tests.
To protect the privacy of individuals, test results are sent to
a medical review official designated by the motor carrier.
Under Federal safety regulations, an individual who tests
positive is prohibited from driving until he tests negative.
The FHWA penalizes motor carriers who do not comply with drug
testing requirements.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Are checks made , during safety
reviews adequate to determine whether carriers are complying
with random testing, given the relatively small percentage of
642
carriers visited each year? Are any other monitoring or
enforcement activities planned to check compliance?
ANSWER: Yes, we believe the checks made during carrier
safety reviews by FHWA safety specialists and State officials
are adequate to determine whether carriers are complying with
random testing. At this time there are no other monitoring or
enforcement activities planned to check compliance.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: How many post-accident drug tests
have been given and what have been the results?
ANSWER: For FY 1992, 2,237 post-accident drug tests were
conducted. This is approximately 0.8 percent of all the drug
tests conducted for FY 1992. Of these tests, 128 were
positive, which is approximately 5.7 percent of the post-
accident drug tests conducted.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Based on the first quarter results
of the pilot drug and alcohol testing program conducted under
MCSAP, what are the use rates of these substances in the motor
carrier industry? What were the results for operators of
commercial buses?
ANSWER: The first quarter results of the drug and
alcohol testing programs conducted under MCSAP resulted in
5,443 drug tests conducted with a positive rate of 4 percent
and 18,275 alcohol tests conducted with a positive rate of 0.2
percent of commercial motor vehicle drivers.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: How many enforcement actions were
closed last year against motor carriers for using drivers that
had tested positive on a drug test, but had not yet retested
negative? How many of these cases were conducted against small
trucking companies?
ANSWER: There were 43 enforcement actions closed in FY
1992 against motor carriers for using drivers who tested
positive on a drug test. Data on the size of carrier are not
readily available.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: One labor organization has told
committee staff that FHWA is not catching a sufficient number
of owner-operators that drive when they are not qualified to
drive because of a positive drug test. What is FHWA's response
to this allegation?
ANSWER: We are not aware of any data that substantiate
this allegation. The FHWA requires owner-operators to be
tested for controlled substances the same as any other
commercial vehicle driver who is subject to the controlled
substances testing regulations.
ALCOHOL AND DRUG INTERDICTION ACTIVITIES UNDER MCSAP
The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
requires states to, among other things, promote alcohol and
drug interdiction activities, under MCSAP.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: How many States have begun to use
MCSAP funds for drug and alcohol interdiction? What have been
the results of these activities, i.e., trucks searched, arrests
made?
ANSWER: Approximately a dozen States have used MCSAP
funds to integrate effective drug interdiction activities and
training strategies into their regular MCSAP activities. For
example, Iowa served as the lead State (with 14 other States)
643
for coordinated drug interdiction checks carried out in
conjunction with traffic enforcement and roadside inspections.
Data on overall drug interdiction results are not yet
available.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: How many more States do you
anticipate will participate in the program?
ANSWER: We expect all States will have an appropriate
level of effort for alcohol and drug interdiction activities.
MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY REVIEWS
In a January 1991 report, GAO stated that the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) was unlikely to meet its goal of
providing safety fitness ratings by September 30, 1992, to the
129,000 interstate motor carriers that still needed to be
rated. FHWA subsequently testified that it was reevaluating
its goal of rating all carriers in favor of rating those with
the greatest safety risk and that state participation in safety
reviews was increasing.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What data do FHWA and the states use
to identify carriers with the greatest potential risk? Has
this process resulted in a greater percentage of carriers rated
in the conditional and unsatisfactory categories? Please give
the number of ratings conducted and the resulting ratings of
the carriers for the last 3 years.
ANSWER: A carrier is prioritized for review based on the
potential severity of accidents in which it is likely to be
involved, its exposure on the Nation's highways, its past
safety performance, and its past compliance with the motor
carrier safety and hazardous materials regulations.
The number of ratings assigned during the past three
fiscal years and the percentages of the total for each rating
category are presented below:
FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992
Satisfactory 10,244 (52%) 14,068 (55%) 12,221 (59%)
Conditional 6,603 (33%) 7,735 (30%) 5,339 (26%)
Unsatisfactory 3,066 (15%) 3,865 (15%) 3,080 (15%)
All Ratings 19,913 (100%) 25,668 (100%) 20,640 (100%)
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: For those carriers rated conditional
and unsatisfactory, how much time lapses before they are
visited again under the Selective Compliance and Enforcement
program? Are those rated unsatisfactory visited more quickly?
ANSWER: The amount of time between visits (i.e.,
reviews) for conditional and unsatisfactory carriers varies
based on the level of risk which the carrier presents to the
public. The Selective Compliance and Enforcement program
includes all carriers rated less than satisfactory, but
recognizes that all carriers having the same (or worse) rating
do not always present the same level of risk. In order to best
focus FHWA's compliance and enforcement resources, a system for
identifying high risk carriers using current information
(SAFETYNET) has been developed for prioritizing compliance
reviews. This process is applied to both conditional and
unsatisfactory rated carriers and considers information such as
the size of the operation, the number of accidents, time since
the last review, the carrier's out-of-service rates, and
previous noncompliance and rating history, among other factors.
In some instances, this process results in a conditional
carrier being reviewed prior to an unsatisfactory carrier.
FHWA's position is that such a carrier presents a greater
hazard to the public and should be visited sooner in the
644
interest of effectiveness. FHWA is evaluating the use of
similar real time information for the safety rating process,
which could result in rating reassignments on a quarterly
basis .
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What enforcement actions has FHWA
taken for serious safety violations? How many motor carriers
has FHWA closed down due to unsatisfactory safety ratings over
the last 3 years? What have been the civil fines assesssed and
collected by this program over the last 3 years?
ANSWER: The FHWA takes appropriate civil enforcement
actions for serious safety violations. The FHWA closed down 11
motor carriers which had continued non-compliance with the
regulations during FY 1991 and 19 carriers in FY 1992. The
total amount of civil fines assessed in FY 1990 was $7,302,706;
in FY 1991, $8,200,243; and in FY 1992, $10,155,278.
USE OF CONSENT ORDERS
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: I have heard some regional offices
rarely if ever, use consent orders, while other regional
offices frequently use this tool. Please specify how many
consent orders each of the regional offices issued last fiscal
year. What are you doing to increase the uniform and effective
use of this enforcement strategy by all of your regions?
ANSWER: The total number of consent orders issued
nationwide is unavailable. To increase the uniform and
effective use of consent orders, they are being issued more
frequently with out-of-service orders.
ENFORCEMENT POLICIES
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: I am told that OMC is expanding the
number and types of officials that can issue claim letter and
negotiate settlements. How many of your Of f icers-in-Charge now
conduct this function? How is this arrangement working and
will it be expanded to all States?
ANSWER: Of f icers-in-charge do not issue claim letters or
negotiate settlements. Claim letters are issued by the
Regional Directors. In some Regions, the claim letters are
prepared by the division offices for signature by the Regional
Director.
A pilot program is now underway in which a limited number
of State Directors negotiate settlement agreements. The
settlement agreements are reviewed and signed by the Regional
Director.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Is it against the spirit of "due
process" or the Administrative Procedures Act to have so many
different people with different backgrounds who are generally
not attorneys handle and process enforcement actions against
motor carriers?
ANSWER: When necessary, the safety specialist or manager
seeks the advice of FHWA legal counsel.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Please list and describe in detail
all of the changes and improvements that were implemented
during the last year in the policies, procedures, and strategy
of CMC's Federal Enforcement Program. Separately, please
respond similarly regarding your hazardous materials
enforcement operations.
645
ANSWER: We are constantly fine-tuning our enforcement
program and have not identified the need for major changes in
the policies, procedures, and strategy of OMC's Federal
Enforcement Program. We have continued to target our
enforcement and compliance activities to motor carriers with
safety problems and enhance our partnership with the States to
develop comprehensive motor carrier safety programs.
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The Congressional Research Service has recently released a
report that reviewed DOT'S implementation of the 1990 Hazardous
Materials Uniform Transportation Safety Act. The report found
that two of the key provisions that have not been implemented
were the responsibility of the FHWA. The report noted that the
final regulation for improved routing, which was due last May,
has not been issued and the final regulation on permitting,
which was due in November 1991, remains in limbo.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Why have you failed to meet the
deadlines in the 1990 Act?
ANSWER: The delay in meeting the deadlines in the 1990
Act was due to the large number of other high priority
regulatory actions, many of which required extensive research,
analysis and data collection. The rulemakings required
coordination and concurrence with other agencies outside of the
Department. Development of the NPRM was further delayed last
year due to work on the regulatory moratorium. Departmental
resources were also focused on development of the
Congressionally mandated alcohol and drug testing regulations.
FHWA was the only modal administration to show a decline in the
total amount of hazardous materials transportation penalties
collected when FY 90 results were compared to FVf 1991 results.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Why did this occur? Didn't the
number of safety specialists increase during this period? What
does comparable data look like for FY 1992?
ANSWER: In FY 1991 there was an overall increase in
compliance by hazardous materials carriers and shippers with
the safety and hazardous materials regulations. Although the
number of safety specialists increased in 1991, the new
specialists were not hired until the last quarter of the fiscal
year and were not yet conducting carrier reviews.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What steps since last year have you
taken to increase the vitality and vigor of OMC's hazardous
materials enforcement program?
ANSWER: The FHWA has directed its attention to shippers
and cargo tanks. We are developing a risk index for
identifying problem shippers of hazardous materials and setting
priorities for on-site reviews. We are developing and
implementing an enforcement strategy for changes in the cargo
tank requirements. The Hazardous Materials Technical Advisory
Group targeted enforcement activities at port facilities,
stepped up reviews of hazardous materials carriers and
shippers, and increased training for State personnel.
SENATOR LAUTENBURG: Please present data on the number of
hazmat enforcement cases, the size of penalties collected, the
number of compliance reviews or audits conducted on shippers
and carriers of hazardous materials during each of the last
three fiscal years.
335
1,
,181,
,590
3,
,189
2,
,889
646
ANSWER: The data are as follows:
1990 1991 1992
Number of HM enforcement
cases 157 160
Penalties settled $613,753 $564,675
Number of reviews
(carriers) 1,947 2,280
Number of reviews 1,515 2,002
( shippers )
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: How much of OMC ' s FY 1994 budget
request will be used to support the hazardous materials
permitting and registration group and other activities
associated with this topic? Please specify each of these
expenses and their objectives.
ANSWER: The FHWA estimates that $150,000 in FY 1994 will
be used for conducting State pilot projects related to Section
22 of the Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act
of 1990. Section 22 requires the establishment of a working
group to develop uniform procedures for registering and
permitting hazardous materials motor carriers and shippers.
The working group (the Alliance for Uniform HazMat
Transportation Procedures), which is staffed by the National
Governors' Association (NGA) and the National Conference of
State Legislatures (NCSL) under a contract with the FHWA, will
deliver final recommendations to the Secretary and Congress
this year.
The FHWA will fund a State pilot test of the
recommendations. Four States (tentatively California, Nevada,
Ohio, and West Virginia) will participate in the pilot test.
Project tasks include: (1) establishment of a repository to
facilitate the exchange of information between the pilot
States, (2) meetings of the steering committee, (3) reviews of
the hazardous materials registration and permitting procedures
of the pilot States, (4) reports to FHWA on the progress of the
pilot test, and (5) recommendations to the Secretary on whether
to modify the recommendations of the Alliance based on the
experience gained from the pilot test. The results of the
pilot test will be available in 1995.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: HM-183 dealing with cargo tanks is
an extremely technical rulemaking that poses specified
inspection demands on OMC. What is the technical ability of
OMC's field staff to ensure compliance with these regulations?
Do you have any structural engineers with expertise in cargo
tanks or engineers that understand ASME certification
requirements pertaining to cargo tanks that can inspect cargo
tank manufacturers?
ANSWER: The FHWA has access to the necessary technical
expertise and training to ensure compliance with the cargo tank
regulations. We draw upon the expertise of FHWA structural
engineers to assist hazardous materials safety specialists in
conducting on-site compliance reviews of cargo tank
manufacturers using specific guidelines. We review
calculations performed by the manufacturer to ensure the
structural integrity of cargo tanks and related devices to help
protect the tanks against accident damage. We have contracted
with universities to help verify calculations when needed.
The 4-year-old Cargo Tank Technical Assistance Group,
composed of Federal and State hazardous materials safety
specialists, helps coordinate enforcement activities and
sponsors training on cargo tank certification requirements.
647
MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY STATISTICS
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Please update for the record with FY
1992 data each of the major charts or graphs presented in the
Fiscal Year 1991 annual report of accomplishments and
effectiveness of the Office of Motor Carrier Field Operations.
Please be certain that you include information on the total
amount of penalties collected, assessed, the number of safety
and compliance reviews conducted by OMC staff, the number of
officers, and the number of reviews of hazmat shippers,
carriers, container manufacturers, and others subject to your
jurisdiction. For each factor compare FY 1991 data to FY 1992
data.
ANSWER: The following is the information requested:
FY 1991 FY 1992
Penalties $8,388,000 $10,155,000
Federally conducted:
Safety Reviews 8,700 3,883
Compliance Reviews 7,995 8,645
Number of Officers 366 397
Hazardous Material Shipper
Reviews conducted 2,002 2,889
Cargo Tank Manufacturers
Reviews conducted Unavailable 32
Hazardous Material Carriers;
Compliance Reviews Conducted 2,280 3,189
TRAINING OF SAFETY SPECIALISTS
I understand that OMC would like to move its training staff
from the Transportation Safety Institute to the Washington,
D.C. area and to co-locate training with the National Highway
Institute.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Please present detailed estimates of
expected cost savings to OMC associated with this proposal.
ANSWER: Based on a preliminary analysis of transferring
the motor carrier training academy to the Federal Highway
Administration and relocating the academy to the Washington
area, we estimate an annual cost savings of approximately
$200,000.
Currently the FHWA is charged overhead expenses for the
management and administrative costs of operating the training
academy. In the event the training academy transfers to FHWA
these overhead charges would be significantly reduced since
current FWHA staff would absorb the majority of those
responsibiities . In addition there will be savings as a result
of the elimination of travel between Oklahoma City and the
Washington area for both headquarters staff and instructors as
well as the training staff located in Oklahoma City.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Is an Appropriations bill or report
language needed to facilitate this move?
ANSWER: No. The move can be accomplished
administratively within the Department.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Won't the per diem expenses of
training be higher in the Washington, D. C. are than at TSI?
Please include this consideration in the requested cost
estimate.
ANSWER: Although the per diem rates in the Washington
area are higher than Oklahoma City, due tp the volume of
648
training conducted we plan to negotiate cost effective lodging
and subsistence rates with local concerns which would be
substantially lower than actual per diem allowances.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What are the advantages of
maintaining the current training relationship with TSI? ,
Doesn't TSI also offer hazmat training courses for OMC safety
specialists?
ANSWER: The advantages of maintaining the Transportation
Safety Institute (TSI) relationship is to retain the
traditional, consistent delivery of training to Federal and
State motor carrier students in a familiar environment and to
maintain support of an established Departmental organization.
Motor carrier hazardous materials training courses for
both Federal and State personnel are offered by TSI through the
motor carrier training academy.
SENATOR LAUNTENBERG: What do the affected training
employees think of a possible move to Washington?
ANSWER: The Transportation Safety Institute's motor
carrier training staff are employees of the Research and
Special Programs Administration. We understand those affected
employees would be willing to transfer to FHWA with their
current position if the motor carrier training function is
relocated to the Washington area.
REPROGRAMMING OFFICE OF MOTOR CARRIER (OMC) FUNDS
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: At any time during the last year has
OMC reshuffled its funds among different object classes?
Please identify the amount and nature of these transfers that
occurred during FY 1992 and 1993 to date. Was there any
reprogramming or transfer among different OMC controlled budget
accounts?
ANSWER: Since the formulation of the budget is 1 1/2
years prior to the receipt of an appropriation it is necessary
to make minor adjustments between object classes to more
accurately reflect the current funding needs of the
organization and to accommodate any earmarkings.
The FHWA did not incur any reprogramming or transfers
among budget accounts during FY 1992.
RESEARCH RESULTS
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What have been the major
accomplishments and benefits of Office of Motor Carriers (OMC)-
sponsored research efforts during the last three years? How
has this information been used in your rulemaking process?
ANSWER: During the past three years, FHWA's motor carrier
research program has:
• assembled and piloted effective, new diagnostic equipment
for measuring commercial driver fatigue and alertness
during actual driving operations;
• obtained current information on a number of driver medical
conditions, including cardiac, hearing and neurological
disorders ;
• evaluated the effectiveness of the motor carrier out-of-
service vehicle criteria and identified defects for
correction;
• piloted procedures to ensure maximum response rate and
assure statistically valid responses to a survey of truck
driver substance abuse;
• assembled and begun piloting various (nethodologies to
perform random roadside testing for driver substance abuse;
649
• worked to develop and provide reliable and uniform accident
data;
• successfully coordinated efforts among the States to
simplify and make more uniform motor carrier registration
and taxation requirements;
• provided (and continues to provide) support for motor
carriers adopting uniform, standardized base-state
procedures on vehicle registration and tax reporting; and
• conducted public hearings to identify performance-based
standards for improving the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations (FMCSRs), setting the stage for research to
construct new FMCSRs.
Much of the motor carrier research effort is designed to
evaluate the current FMCSRs and determine, from the evidence
obtained, if revisions are needed. Research study
recommendations are used frequently to formulate Notices of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRMs). Typically, the NPRM preamble will
discuss the scientific determinations and lay the groundwork
for proposals of alternative standards or procedures for public
comment .
Examples of recent research leading to, or which will lead
to, rulemaking include: the National Governors' Association
study of accident data (new accident reporting guidelines),
diabetes (NPRM on diabetes), vision (Advance NPRM and waiver on
vision), fatigue (future NPRM on driver hours-of-service) , and
brake performance (revisions to braking standards).
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Please prepare a list of OMC-sponsored
research reports that have been entered into the National
Technical Information Service (NTIS) along with their NTIS
identification numbers during the last three years. Please
also list OMC-sponsored research papers or reports (including
their dates of completion) that have either not been published
or have not yet been entered into NTIS for this same period.
Why aren't all of your key research studies placed into NTIS
which would promote broader dissemination?
ANSWER: The following list provides the names of the
reports for which research has been completed and forwarded to
NTIS. Explanations are provided for those reports not sent to
the NTIS.
Contract Research Reports
Available from
National Technical Information Service
Title Accession Number
Conference on Psychiatric
Disorders and Commercial Drivers PB91-236372/AS
Conference on Pulmonary/Respiratory
Disorders and Commercial Drivers PB91-236455/AS
Visual Disorders and Commercial Drivers PB92-143015
Insulin-Using Commercial Motor
Vehicle Drivers PB92-183003
Influence of Braking Strategies on
Brake Temperatures in
Mountain Descents PB93-137032
"Hearing Disorders and Commercial Motor Vehicle Drivers"
has been forwarded to NTIS. FHWA has not been advised of the
accession number.
Review of the report "Enforcement of Hours-of-Service
Regulations" disclosed the lack of available statistical
650
results because the data collected was insufficient to provide
reliable analysis.
Many of FHWA's research projects are multi-year projects.
Interim reports are not required for these efforts and the
final results do not result in a published report for several
years. Other published studies are used solely to augment
analysis conducted by staff and are not considered for NTIS
distribution.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Please compare the research request
submitted to the Congress for FY 1991 and FY 1992 against how
these monies were actually allocated on a project-by-project
basis or topic-by-topic basis.
ANSWER: The $1,782 million appropriated for FY 1991 was
requested and allocated by category as follows: motor carrier
safety ($1,000,000) and information and analysis ($782,000).
The $3,579 million FY 1992 appropriation differed from
allocations as follows: motor carrier safety ($2.6 million
appropriated, $2.3 million allocated), information and analysis
($1.0 million appropriated, $.8 million allocated). The
combined $.5 million not allocated to these categories was
directed towards the support of a hazardous materials
uniformity working gorup authorized under Section 22 of the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 which
was enacted during the appropriations process.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Do you redesign the allocation of
research funds to meet pressing research challenges that arise?
ANSWER: Research planning and administration demand a
constant reassessment of resources. Fund allocations are
changed for several reasons:
• differences between anticipated and budgeted research
funds;
• difference between the planned (estimated) costs of
individual projects and the prices ultimately negotiated
with contractors;
• new funding required by projects not captured by the
planning process (e.g., research necessitated by newly
enacted statutory requirements);
• increases or decreases in the cost of active research, due
to technical challenges, unanticipated problems or task
delays.
• The need to advance or delay planned studies to an earlier
or later fiscal year.
FATIGUE STUDY
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Please summarize the status,
challenges, and progress to date of all fatigue research
sponsored with OMC funds.
ANSWER: Our objectives are to conduct research on a
representative sample of commercial drivers, operating under a
variety of schedules, operation, and equipment, with the goals
of defining and disseminating effective fatigue countermeasures
and scientifically determining if alternative hours-of-service
standards should be enacted through Federal rulemaking. The
fatigue research focuses initially on data gathering and
analysis of driver activities, with subsequent testing of
potential countermeasures under controlled and real-world
conditions .
The FHWA has initiated studies to: (1) measure loss of
alertness and onset of fatigue among commercial motor vehicle
(CMV) drivers, and (2) review and analyze, physiological data of
CMV drivers. Field trials of monitoring equipment and analysis
651
procedures were conducted last summer. Data collection is
planned to commence this year. We expect results in 1994.
A major challenge will be to assess the effects of longer
combination vehicle (LCV) operation on driver stress and
fatigue levels and fatigue-producing effects of LCV operation
to that of conventional combination-unit truck operation.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What is the total amount requested
for this research activity during FY 94? Please break down
this request into specific components.
ANSWER: In FY 1994, $567,000 is allocated to driver
fatigue related research. This includes an estimated $267,000
for research or driver rest and recovery cycles, $150,000 to
study fatigue problems of "on-call" bus drivers, and $150,000
to study the effects of cargo loading and unloading on driver
fatigue.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: When will FHWA start the rulemaking
process that could lead to a redesign of FHWA ' s hours-of-
service regulations?
ANSWER: It is premature to judge whether the study
results will warrant a change in the hours-of-service
regulations .
OMC TRAVEL
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: In what ways have you attempted to
reduce travel expenses?
ANSWER: FHWA uses Federal contract air carriers and
negotiates hotel rates below standard per diem whenever
possible to minimize travel expenses. In addition, FHWA
schedules multiple carrier reviews within close geographical
proximity to help reduce travel time and costs.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: How often and why does FHWA waive
the government per diem rates for travel by OMC employees and
allow actual expenses? How many waivers were granted last
year?
ANSWER: Approval of travel expenses above government per
diem rates is rarely given and only when suitable hotel
accomodations at per diem rates are unavailable. During FY
1992 6 waivers for actual expenses were given.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Please break down travel expenses
requested for FY 1994.
ANSWER: Office of Motor Carriers travel funding by
category:
($ in thousands)
FY 1994
Program(inspections, review, etc.).... $3,164
Washington Office Directed 282
Regional Conferences 622
Training 745
Change of Station 79
Foreign Travel 61
Inflation Factor 134
TOTAL : $5,087
652
REGULATORY BACKLOG
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: How many regulatory dockets are now
under consideration by the CMC? Please prepare a list of these
dockets and their date of origin. What are the points of delay
in the regulatory review process, i.e., which offices at DOT
take the longest in approving proposed regulatory actions?
ANSWER: There are currently 18 rulemaking dockets open.
The regulatory review process within FHWA and OST consists of
several levels of review to ensure any regulatory and economic
burdens placed on the industry in order to improve the safety
of the motoring public. Each level has a responsibility to
review different aspects of a rule. The length of review at
each level varies and depend on the complexity of the aspects
of the issues.
DOCKET
NUMBER TITLE
MC-88-15 Private Carriage of Passengers
MC-87-17 Diabetes
MC-91-8 Safety Fitness Procedures;
Safety Ratings
MC-90-14 Radar Detectors
MC-91-1 Vision
MC-92-15 Restrictions on LCVs
MC-92-35 Studies of the Regulation of Emergency
Vehicles on the Interstate System and
Transporters of Water Well Drilling
Rigs on Public Highways; Request for
Comments; Notice
MC-92-19 Alcohol Testing Rules 12/92
MC-93-2 Qualifications of Drivers; Controlled 12/92
Substances Testing (MIS)
MC-92-23 Drug Testing Rules 12/92
MC-93-3 Controlled Substances and Alcohol 12/92
Use and Testing: Foreign-based
Motor Carriers and Drivers
MC-92-13 Violations of Out-of-Service Orders 1/93
by Commercial Motor Vehicle Operators
MC-92-10 Mandatory Minimum Training 1/93
Requirements for Operators of Longer
Combination Vehicles
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: How many advanced notices of
proposed rulemaking are you now preparing for issuance?
ANSWER: The FHWA is preparing six advance notices of
proposed rulemaking.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: How many notices of proposed
rulemaking are you preparing for issuance?
ANSWER: The FHWA is preparing eleven notices of proposed
rulemakings .
DATE
OPENED
2/89
10/90
1/91
1/92
2/92
3/92
icy
10/92
653
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: How many senior rulemaking
specialists are on board? How many professional positions are
authorized?
ANSWER: There are 12 senior transportation specialists
in the Office of Motor Carrier Standards who help prepare
rulemaking and provide technical oversight for research
contracts. There are 13 senior transportation specialists
positions authorized.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: In view of the enormous regulatory
backlog facing your Standards Division, can you offer any
reasons why the Committee should allow the reassignment of
personnel shifted last year to the Standards Division from
Enforcement to deal with this backlog?
ANSWER: We do not have any plans to shift personnel from
the Standards Division.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: How many professional personnel now
work in your OMC Standards Division? How many professional
positions are authorized?
ANSWER: There are 27 professional staff in the Office of
Motor Carrier Standards has 26 positions authorized.
TIMELY REPAIR OF OUT-OF-SERVICE DEFECTS
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What improvements have FHWA and the
States made to provide better assurances that serious safety
defects found during MCSAP inspections are actually corrected?
ANSWER: The FHWA requires all States to ensure that the
correction of serious defects is an integral provision in their
State Enforcement Plan.
Although States have flexibility in developing their
verification programs, all States must, as a condition for
basic grant approval, develop a program to ensure the
comprehensive enforcement and reinspection of vehicles and
drivers placed out-of-service and the correction of all
violations cited on the roadside inspection reports.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: For each of the States receiving
MCSAP funds during FY 1993 please provide information contained
in SAFETYNET that shows for FY 1993 to date the:
— number of vehicles or drivers observed during any
covert verification operations,
— number of vehicles or drivers rechecked for out-of-
service violations as part of any covert operations,
— number of drivers or vehicles found as a result of any
covert operation to be in violation of an out-of-service order,
— type of initial inspection site (fixed or ■ temporary )
covertly observed,
— verification methodology (unmarked or marked vehicle)
— other major findings relevant to this concern.
ANSWER: Most States did not begin covert activity in the
first part of FY 1993 because they were in the process of
developing their covert program based on a mandate in the MCSAP
final rule. We are unable to report any national data or
trends related to covert activities at this time.
States are conducting a variety of covert activities to
verify compliance with out-of-service orders. These include:
• strategically locating an unmarked car to monitor
vehicles/drivers that have been placed out of
service;
• reinspecting vehicles/drivers that have left the
inspection site to verify that repairs have been
made; and •'
654
• using unmarked vehicles to patrol inspection sites
after closing.
States will submit preliminary results of their covert
activities in their quarterly MCSAP reports due April 30, 1993.
Based on the FY 1993 State Enforcement Plans, the States will
spend over $577,000 for covert activities.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What is the relationship between how
much a State spends on covert verification activities and the
extent of the verification problem in the State? How do you
encourage States to spend more on covert operations if they
discover they have a larger problem than originally envisioned.
ANSWER: As part of their verification program. States
are required to include covert operations to determine the
extent of compliance with out-of-service orders. There are no
specific limitations on the amount of funds that States can
devote to these activities. States may designate funds to:
(1) increase their covert activities, (2) more accurately
assess the problem that exists in the States, or (3) encourage
compliance with the out-of-service orders if they find that
covert activities are an effective deterrent.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: How many cases against carriers or
drivers were brought by the FHWA during the last two years for
violations of out-of-service citations, for moving out-of-
service vehicles, or for health and safety violations for
operating a vehicle declared to be out-of-service? Please
provide specific information on each case with relevant
citations, the number of the claims, initial penalty
assessments and final collection amounts. Please provide
information on any mitigating circumstances for each of the
cases which led to reduced civil penalties. Also, please
include all relevant information about violations of 49 CFR
396(b) during the last two years. Does FHWA routinely base
such cases on information collected by State enforcement
personnel .
ANSWER: Five cases were brought against carriers or
drivers for violations of out-of-service orders pertaining to
hours of service requirements. The fines amounted to $4,300.
Three cases were brought against carriers for moving
vehicles placed out-of-service. The fines amounted to $3,750.
Three cases were brought against drivers for violating an
out-of-service order related to health and safety violations
intoxicating beverages). The fines amounted to $600. We do
not routinely initiate enforcement actions on violations of
out-of-service citations based on information collected by
State enforcement personnel.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: How many state reinspection programs
used the "hide-a-cop" method (observations by out-of-view
inspectors) in determining both vehicle and drivers' violations
of out-of-service orders? What other methods were used and in
how many states?
ANSWER: We do not know how many States use the
"hide-a-cop" method. All States are required to perform some
level of covert activities as part of their efforts to
determine the level of compliance with out-of-service orders.
Beyond this requirement. States are encouraged to be innovative
and use other efficient and cost effective verification
methods .
Several methods that States are using in reinspection
programs are: (1) terminal follow-up inspections and audits of
maintenance and repair files; (2) reinspect ion/verification
during safety and compliance reviews; (3) requiring drivers to
present vehicles for reinspection; and (4)' certification by
carriers or persons who repaired the vehicle.
655
Covert enforcement efforts are resource intensive. We
are looking for alternative cost effective methods which can be
widely and routinely applied for enforcing out-of-service
orders.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What has FHWA done to ensure that
the 1993 reinspection programs by States are effective — not
just expedient steps to compile numbers, such as reinspection
of trucks with brakes out of adjustment at the inspection site?
Is FHWA encouraging States to use a mix of alternate methods to
discourage violation of out-of-service orders.
ANSWER: The FHWA recently produced guidelines for States
to develop improved reinspection programs and to use SAFETYNET
information and other sources for determining which activities
are most effective. We are working with the Commercial
Vehicle Safety Alliance to develop a comprehensive approach to
ensure a motor carrier's compliance with out-of-service orders.
We encourage States to develop new and innovative activities to
ensure compliance with out-of-service orders.
TIMELY REPAIR OF OUT-OF-SERVICE DEFECTS
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Within one year of its enactment,
ISTEA required the Secretary to issue final regulations that
would suspend someone's commercial driver license for a minimum
of three months if they violated an out-of-service order. Not
only have these final regulations not been issued but the
notice of proposed regulations were issued about eleven months
after the deadline specified in ISTEA. When will you issue the
final regulations?
ANSWER: We expect to issue the final regulations this
Summer. The docket closed on March 16, 1993. The comments
from various States agencies and associations, truck
associations, agricultural groups, and other trade associations
are currently under review.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: I am most pleased that OMC responded
positively to the Committee's directive to ensure that each of
the States receiving MCSAP funds conducts at least some covert
operations. Please summarize how you will continue to monitor
State activities in this area.
ANSWER: States are required to include covert activities
in their State Enforcement Plans as a condition of the basic
MCSAP grant approval. We have requested States to report
covert activities on their quarterly reports so we may monitor
their progress and better determine the extent of national
compliance with out-of-service orders.
LONG-TERM STRATEGY FOR OMC
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: We understand that OMC has been
conducting some long-term strategic thinking on its future
direction. What is the scope and nature of your future plans?
Please discuss in detail OMC's goals and objectives as delineated
in the FHWA 2000 planning process. What accomplishments resulted
to date and how were these measured? Which goals remain unmet
and how will they be addressed?
ANSWER: The FWHA's motor carrier program is focusing its
resources on several broad areas.
The FHWA and States will implement the uniformity
provisions of ISTEA to ensure full participation of all States in
the International Registration Plan and the International Fuel
Tax Agreement by September 1996. Thi's will improve the
productivity of the truck and bus industries.
656
The FHWA will develop and implement more efficient,
effective regulations through a full partnership with States,
industry and safety interests in the zero base review of the
Federal motor carrier safety regulations.
The FHWA will strive to reduce the fatality and accidentf
rates for commercial motor vehicles.
The FHWA will continue to work with the States, industry
and safety interests to increase efforts to prevent illegal drug
and alcohol use by drivers, improve the effectiveness of driver
training programs, develop new and innovative ways to better
market safety practices by the motor carrier industry and the
general public, and target unsafe carriers for stepped-up
enforcement .
The FHWA will address the transportation system condition
and performance through the States' use of MCSAP funds to
increase weight enforcement.
Under the FHWA 2000 initiative. Vision, Mission, and Value
statements were developed along with the establishment of eleven
goals. We have successfully met the major milestones toward
achieving these goals.
DATA FOR MONITORING TRUCK SAFETY
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Please specify in detail the
expenditure of funds set aside for the Truck and Bus Accident
Data Grant Program. Aren't most of the States already
submitting accident data to FHWA pursuant to a requirement of
MCSAP?
ANSWER: The FHWA and States cooperatively assessed how
to best use $1 million available in FY 1993 for truck and bus
accident data collection. The majority of the funds were
allocated equally to each State. States are using the funds to
design appropriate forms, develop instruction manuals, train
State and local officers, analyze and evaluate safety data, and
other related activities essential to achieving full
implementation. The remaining amount will be used to prepare
an annual report on program implementation and accident data
forwarded through SAFETYNET.
Collection and reporting of accident data consistent with
the NGA elements and definitions are part of full State
participation in SAFETYNET as a condition for basic MCSAP grant
approval. Currently, 22 States are submitting accident data
into SAFETYNET. As mandated by the ISTEA, all States must be
transmitting accident data into SAFETYNET by January 1994.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: How much of this grant money went to
the States directly? For what other purposes is the grant
money used? Couldn't OMC staff prepare any national reports
derived from accident data generated by the States?
ANSWER: In fiscal year 1993, $900,000 of the $1 million
that was appropriated went directly to the States. The
remaining $100,000 is being used to prepare an annual report on
program implementation and accident data transmitted through
SAFETYNET.
State adoption of the NGA accident data elements and the
reporting of the data collected to FHWA through SAFETYNET will
result in the first national uniform truck and bus accident
database.
GOALS AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE OFFICE OF HIGHWAY SAFETY
FHWA has set a goal to "encourage the development and
implementation of programs in each State that have high potential
to reduce the national fatality rate by an 'average of 7 percent
annually through FY 1996."
657
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Please specify exactly how this goal was
translated Into concrete actions regarding the Section 402 program
and the Office of Highway Safety.
ANSWER: The FHWA administers the "Roadway Safety" portion of
the Section 402 program, which Is based on sound analyses of
roadway- related crash Information. The FHWA applies engineering
principles In Identifying highway design or operational
Improvements that will address the crash problem.
Since the roadway Is but one part of the total safety
equation, FHWA has begun several Initiatives which are designed to
reap the biggest safety benefit. The FHWA applies a comprehensive,
multldlsclpllnary approach when addressing the crash problem by
Integrating the roadway countermeasures with driver behavior and
vehicle dynamics.
The FHWA also has linked Its Corridor Safety Improvement
Program (CSIP) with NHTSA's Community Traffic Safety Program
(CTSP) . This merger results In maximizing human and funding
resources when analyzing, developing, and implementing effective
safety countermeasures. The agencies have presented the CSIP
concept in 22 States and 14 States have adopted the program.
To date, FHWA has held a "train the trainer" workshop on this
venture with NHTSA staff in attendance; participated at a national
CTSP conference; and provided guidance to field offices on
eligibility of 402 funds for CSIP/CTSP projects. As a result of
these efforts, two more States have expressed an Interest in
learning more about the CSIP concept.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What are the major accomplishments of
the 402 funds allocated by FHWA?
ANSWER: FHWA's Section 402 funds have been used for improved
traffic data systems, analyses of high crash locations. Corridor
Safety Improvement Programs (CSIP) , evaluation of the effectiveness
of other Federal-aid funded roadway safety Improvements (Highway
Safety Improvement Program), work zone safety programs, programs
designed to increase awareness of pedestrian and bicycle safety,
and public information and education activities related to roadway
safety issues.
OPERATION LIFESAVER
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What is the FHWA doing to work with and
Improve the activities of Operation Lifesaver? Do you audit the
use of the FHWA funds provided to this agency? If so, what were
the results of this review?
ANSWER: An FHWA representative serves on Operation
Lifesaver' s (OL) Program Development Council (PDC) . The PDC serves
as an advisory council to OL's Board of Directors. Through this
activity, the FHWA is able to offer timely technical assistance and
guidance on a variety of OL activities.
Operation Lifesaver provides FHWA an annual work plan and
quarterly progress reports which document its activities throughout
658
the year. Through these documents and our Involvement with the
PDC, the FHWA is satisfied that the funds provided by FHWA are
utilized effectively. We believe this organization is run in a
highly professional manner and are pleased to be able to contribute
to this public information and education program to reduce grade
crossing crashes.
i Operation Lifesaver contracts annually to have an independent
audit of its financial records. In addition, the FHWA arranged for
a government auditing agency to examine OL's records in 1991.
These audits found OL accounting procedures to be generally sound
and acceptable. Recently, the FHWA requested the government
auditing agency to conduct a followup audit of OL's activities.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: How are your grade crossing activities
coordinated with those of FRA?
ANSWER: There are numerous activities in which FHWA and FRA
are working jointly to reduce train/motor vehicle crashes:
The FHWA and FRA, along with the Federal Transit
Administration, are Jointly sponsoring a $125,000 evaluation of the
Los Angeles Metro Blue Line Grade crossing Safety Improvement
Program. This jointly funded effort is intended to test and
evaluate technologies that support the enforcement of traffic laws
and decrease the frequency of traffic violations at grade crossings
on this rapid transit line.
The FHWA and FRA have been working continually to implement a
number of highway-rail crossing safety initiatives including:
implementing grade crossing safety improvements in high speed rail
I corridors; eliminating unnecessary highway-rail crossings; and
implementing engineering Improvements- -especially the
installation/upgrading of active warning devices and other warning
•and regulatory signs at crossings.
The FHWA and FRA each have a representative on Operation
Lifesaver 's Program Development Council. This group holds three
meetings each year and FHWA and FRA work together in this forum
promoting activities which enhance highway- rail crossing safety.
SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Will the safety management systems that
will be required by FHWA apply to the entire highway system or just
the Surface Transportation Program (STP) or the National Highway
System (NHS)? How will you use these safety management systems
plans in an evaluative manner to look at the total systems as a
means of technology transfer so States will be able to benefit from
successes in other States?
ANSWER: The safety management system will apply to all
public roads. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the safety
management system published on March 3, 1993, requires States to
develop procedures or plans to ensure that safety is considered.
Implemented and evaluated in all phases of planning, design,
construction, maintenance, and operations of the total highway
system. The FHWA will be evaluating each State's system from an
659
end result perspective, I.e., how effective Is It In reducing
crashes, Injuries, and fatalities, while achieving maxlmuni
utilization of resources. The FHWA has Initiated a program plan to
conduct case studies of effective safety management strategies
implemented by the States.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Will FHWA publish a document showing
examples of exemplary safety management systems or strategies used
by different States?
ANSWER: The FHWA plans to utilize the information from the
case studies of effective safety management systems and strategies
in Its technology sharing activities. These case studies and
unique system components will be provided to the States through
publications, technical advisories, and technical demonstrations.
MAINTENANCE SHORTCOMINGS
The Strategic Highway Research Program initiated a major
project to identify all of the materials that had been used for
pavement maintenance. Another goal was to identify how these
materials had performed, and which showed promise and which did
not. The project report. Innovative Materials and Equipment,
Vol. 2. stated that widespread use of deficient and unsuitable
materials, equipment, and procedures has caused poor
performance of pavement surface repairs. As a result, there
has been an acceleration in pavement deterioration with a
related increase in maintenance costs.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: How will the SHRP effort lead to
Improvements in maintenance material, equipment and procedures?
ANSWER: As the U.S. highway system ages and traffic
volumes and weights continue to increase, roadway maintenance
expenditures have become the fastest growing portion of highway
budgets. SHRP researchers thus investigated the performance of
maintenance materials, methods, and equipment to develop
much-needed criteria for their cost-effective use.
A variety of preventive maintenance treatments are in use to
preserve pavements throughout the U.S. To evaluate the
application and effectiveness of several preventative
maintenance techniques, forty States cooperated in the
construction of experimental test sections. The construction
and pavement performance information obtained from these test
sections will be used to develop a rating procedure for chip
seals, slurry seals, and crack seals. The rating procedure is
intended to provide a practical and systematic way to assess
the quality of the application of pavement maintenance
treatments.
Another SHRP research project focused on the development of an
automated crack sealing device. The device will reduce traffic
disruption and improve operator safety, while effectively and
efficiently sealing longitudinal cracks (such as joints between
the pavement and the shoulder) . A prototype automated crack
sealing unit has been constructed by the California Department
of Transportation (CADOT) . The prototype unit has the
capability to prepare, clean, and seal longitudinal cracks and
joints. CAOOT will conduct field trials and equipment
evalutions in 1993.
FHWA has initiated cooperative agreements with a number of
States to conduct field tests to evaluate SHRP-developed
materials and procedures for pavement repair under different
climatic and installation conditions. The tests include
660
materials for spall repair, joint resealing, and crack sealing
of concrete pavements, as well as pothole repair and crack
sealing of asphalt pavements. Twenty-two test sites have been
built. Patch performance will be gauged by when and how the
patches fail. The performance of the test sites will be
monitored by FHWA's, Long-Term Pavement Performance Division,
Office of Engineering and Highway Operations Research and
Development.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: When will SHRP maintenance
improvements be realized?
ANSWER: An interim guide for the use of materials and
procedures for cost-effective pavement repair, based on the i
field test data, will be published by SHRP later in calendar
year 1993. The guide is designed to help engineers select
cost-effective pavement repair materials.
The FHWA has begun the process of implementing the SHRP
maintenance products. Activities completed include the display
of the prototype crack filling vehicle, pothole patching
machine, and pavement condition evaluation unit at major
conferences and meetings, development of a national
implementation plan and the formation of partnerships with the
States, American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, Transportation Research Board,
industry and academia to carry out the implementation. Putting
the SHRP products in the hands of manufacturers and users will
begin in 1994.
Benefits from participation in the SHRP preventative
maintenance studies are already being realized by a number of
western States. In 1991, and again in 1992, a group of western
highway engineers reviewed the SHRP maintenance test pavements.
Early performance results are being used by those highway
agencies to make more cost-effective pavement maintenance
decisions.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What is FHWA doing to ensure quality
in the highway maintenance area?"
I
ANSWER: The approach chosen for a response to this part
of his is to describe the context into which FHWA is delivering
the SHRP products and other innovative technology on materials,
equipment and procedures. In doing so, definitions for
selected words occurring around maintenance activities are
mentioned with occasional references to enabling legislation.
Maintenance, as defined in Section 101 of Title 23, U.S. Code,
is "...the preservation of the entire highway, including
surface, shoulders, roadsides, structures, and such traffic
control devices as are necessary for its safe and efficient
utilization. "
Although not codified, the term maintenance has been further
subdivided informally into routine maintenance and preventive
maintenance. Routine maintenance includes work such as mowing,
snow and ice control, limited pavement patching, limited joint i
resealing, etc. Preventive maintenance includes work which is
more extensive in nature and which is done on a recurring basis
to replace, renew, or repair elements of the highway that are '
at or near the end of their service life. Some examples of I
preventive maintenance could include roadway activities such as
joint repair, pavement sealing, pavement patching, shoulder '
repair, and restoration of drainage systems, and bridge
activities such as crack sealing, joint repair, seismic
retrofit, scour countermeasures, and painting.
661
FHWA has been involved in maintenance-type programs from a
technical and staffing sense for many years and more directly
since the 1976 Highway Act which recognized 3R activities
(Resurfacing, Restoration and Rehabilitation) as eligible
Federal-aid programs. The 1976 Act was revised by the 1981
Highway Act which added a fourth "R" (Reconstruction) as an
eligible Federal-aid program. Subsequent to the 1981 Highway
Act, the FHWA could, within limits, provide funding under the
4R program for such items as joint resealing and bridge
repainting if the FHWA could logically determine that such work
was reconstruction or rehabilitation of a failed highway
element which had served its useful design life. A key
element, however, was that the work was not considered to be
maintenance.
The 1991 ISTEA, under Section 1009(e), recognized preventive
maintenance of the Interstate system as an eligible activity.
This section renamed Section 119 of 23 U.S.C. from "Interstate
System Resurfacing" to "Interstate Maintenance Program."
Necessary 3R work continued to be eligible under the renamed
section but construction of new travel lanes, other than high
occupancy vehicle lanes or auxiliary lanes are no longer
eligible activities. The revised section allows preventive
maintenance activities which can be identified as being cost
effective by the State's pavement management system.
Much effort has gone into implementing the preventive
maintenance provisions of the ISTEA. Appropriate guidance has
been issued in a way that supports and encourages use of
innovative materials and equipment and integration with
necessary safety and geometric enhancements that are still an
integral part of 3R/4R projects.
FHWA's maintenance related programs, in addition to those
promoting greater utilization of preventive maintenance
techniques, also include the maintenance oversight process.
This process has changed with the evolution in FHWA stewardship
programs but still accomplishes the basic responsibility for
assuring that the State is carrying out its obligations under
23 use 116.
FHWA maintenance oversight includes conducting a balanced
program of inspections or reviews of maintenance activities to
assure that each State adequately maintains or causes to be
maintained, the completed Federal-aid construction projects.
Further the process also includes provisions to insure that
each State highway agency has a bridge inspection program
conforming to the National Bridge Inspection program. From a
technology perspective, over the years these have, and continue
to, provide opportunities to disseminate information about
innovative approaches to the maintenance function. Practices
observed in other states, from State Planning and Research
activities, the National Cooperative Highway Research Program
and others that contribute toward a quality maintenance product
and otherwise create an environment for innovation are selected
and passed on.
SECTION 6005 PROGRAM
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: For each of the specified research
topics that are listed in section 6005 of ISTEA, please
summarize the research projects that have been undertaken and
any progress made to date. For each topic, please discuss
whether additional funds are technically necessary or whether
the funds allocated in FY 1992 and FY 1993 are sufficient in
terms of advancing the current state of technology or
addressing current research challenges.
662
ANSWER: Five specific technologies are designated in
ISTEA Section 6005 (e) ( 4-8 ) . The designated technologies
include Heated Bridge Technologies (HBT) , Elastomer Modified
Asphalt (EMA) , High Performance Blended Hydraulic Cement (HPC) ,
Thin Bonded Overlays and Surface Lamination of Pavement (TBO) ,
and All Heather Pavement Markings (AWM) . Annual funding was
specified for HBT, $4.0 million; TBO, $2.5 million; and AWM,
$2.0 million. Funding for the other two was not specified, but
a single EMA project was specified in New Jersey and a single
HPC project was specified in Missouri.
For each of the designated technologies, a Technical Working
Group (TWG) has been established. The FHWA program office is
the lead office and the TWG membership includes representation
from the Office of Research and Development (R&D) and the
Office of Technology Applications (OTA) . When appropriate,
they are supplemented with outside expertise from the States,
Academia and the private sector. The TWG ' s were charged with
the development of national evaluation plans for each
technology, including project selection criteria, for the
solicitation of interest from State transportation agencies
(including the designated States), and for signing of formal
agreements for the installation (construction) of the
technologies and the conduct of the performance evaluations.
All TWG's have been established and are proceeding in the 5
designated technology areas. Suppliers, manufacturers and
additional information on the technologies have been
identified, and solicitations for field projects are well
underway.
Heated Bridge Technologies (HBT)
An implementation plan has been developed by the TWG. A panel
of technical experts has been formed to assist the TWG. On
November 19, 1992, a memorandum was issued to the Regions
asking for candidate projects for FY 93. Included in the
submittal was a description of each of the systems approved by
the TWG.
As of May 1, 1993, five projects in three States have been
approved for funding. Several more are anticipated in fiscal
year 1993. The approved projects include:
Nebraska $234,000 Project approved on February 11,
1993
Minnesota $549,400 2 projects approved on March 1,
1993
Texas $636,960 2 projects approved on March 1,
1993
Total $1,420,360
It has been somewhat difficult to initially interest States in
this technology, however, as projects get built, the interest
is expected to increase and several States are now considering
projects for next year's construction. It is uncertain if we
can solicit sufficient State interest to install heating
equipment on a minimum of 10 bridges per fiscal year. However,
we feel it is important to continue the development of the
technology and to continue its usage. The minimum number
should be eliminated. While it is still too early to tell on
the exact funding needs, the funding level per fiscal year
should continue, and the need will be revisited on an annual
basis. A heated bridge deck conference is being planned, which
should help to promote interest and identify more projects in
this technology area.
663
Elastomer Modified Asphalt (EMA)
A memorandum was sent out on August 5, 1992 to determine if New
Jersey is interested in participating. The State has expressed
an interest in the project and is in the process of preparing a
proposal. A total of $4 million was set aside and remains
available for this project. No additional funds are necessary.
High Performance Blended Hydraulic Cement (HPC)
A memorandum was sent out on July 31, 1992 to determine if
Missouri is interested in participating. The State originally
indicated that, although they originally did not intend to
develop any further projects to experiment with the material,
they have reconsidered that decision. The State has requested
a meeting to discus the project. A total of $4 million was set
aside and remains available for this project. No additional
funds are necessary.
Thin Bonded Overlay and Surface Lamination of Pavement (TBO)
The TWG has been formed and a memorandum to the field
requesting interest in constructing thin bonded overlays or
surface lamination pavements or bridge decks was sent out on
February 23, 1993. Nineteen responses were received. The TWG
is in the process of prioritizing these proposals and selecting
locations.
A total of $5 million has been set aside and remains available
for this project. Based on the response to the initial
solicitation, all of these funds will be utilized. There was a
high level of interest expressed by the States. Because this
technology involves both pavement and bridge overlays,
additional projects are necessary for a complete evaluation,
and funding will continue to be needed. While it is still too
early to tell on the exact funding needs, the funding level per
fiscal year should continue, and the need will be revisited on
an annual basis.
All Weather Pavement Markings (AWM)
An overall plan was prepared and a proposal has been developed
for hiring a contractor to work with the States on experimental
design, data collection and analysis for All Weather Pavement
Markings. The contract is expected to be awarded this fiscal
year.
The memorandum requesting participation by the States went out
on November 20, 1992. Sixteen responses have been received and
the TWG is in the process of prioritizing projects and
selecting locations. A total of $4 million has been set aside
and remains available for this project. Based on the initial
solicitation, all funds allocated will be fully utilized. The
initial responses, if all funded, total more than the $12
million authorized for this technology. The program laid out
is a national experiment and involves multiple field locations.
Continued funding at the level indicated in ISTEA is needed to
complete the experiment.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Are any of the Section 6005 funds
used for projects conducted primarily abroad? What is the
status of the project that is being conducted with the
cooperation of the Government of Saudi Arabia? How many years
does FHWA plan to fund this project? What is the benefit of
this project to the United States.
ANSWER: The FHWA and its Office of. International
Progreuns have not applied any Section 60d5 funds for any
projects conducted/undertaken primarily abroad. However, funds
664
have been used for our efforts in the scanning of international
technologies to identify innovative foreign technologies. The
project referenced in the question is for a proposal for a
joint U.S. -Saudi Arabian demonstration project. This proposal
is being discussed and has not been approved by either party.
The proposal is for a jointly funded demonstration of a fully
automated highspeed truck weight, height, and registration
enforcement station at a site between Jedah and Meccah in Saudi
Arabia. The government of Saudi Arabia would fund all the
installation/ construction costs. The Section 6005 funds would
be applied for the testing, evaluation, and implementation of
these advanced technologies over a 2-year period.
The benefit to the U.S. in undertaking such an effort would be:
1) an IVHS design for enforcement automation beyond anything
proposed in the U.S. to date. 2) an application test beyond
what has been done in the U.S. thus accelerating the testing of
U.S. technology. Participation in this project would give U.S.
firms the opportunity for a leading international role in the
evolving IVHS market and create a working example of advanced
U.S. technology applications with a large international market
potential.
CONGESTION MANAGEMENT
The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA)
gives states and local officials increased funding and flexibility to choose
the best mix of transportation projects to meet local needs to reduce
congestion and improve air quality.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What is the Department doing to
I encourage States and localities to include transportation management
I and control projects in their plans as opposed to relying on building new
! roads to meet traffic needs?"
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Has the Department developed and
made available to the States and localities any criteria to aid them in
choosing the transportation control measures(s) that would be most
beneficial, most cost-effective, etc., for their particular situation?
ANSWERS: The Department, through the Federal Highway
i Administration (FHWA), working in concert with the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
uses a variety of ways to assist states and localities with the
implementation of transportation management and control projects -
commonly referred to as congestion management programs. Some of
, the most effective forms of assistance are:
(1) The FHWA is providing extensive technical assistance and
training to state and local agencies on the most cost-effective congestion
management techniques to meet the requirements of the ISTEA and the
CAAA. For example, the FHWA provides training in Freeway Traffic
Management, Travel Demand Management, High Occupancy Vehicle
Lane Design and Operation, Incident Management, Transportation
Planning and Air Quality Analysis, and Access N^anagement. Other
665
related courses are either being taught or are being developed for the
near future.
(2) Through technology transfer efforts, the FHWA actively
promotes awareness of the effectiveness of congestion management to
all areas, including large and small metropolitan areas as well as rural
jurisdictions. Demonstration projects are being developed to acquaint
States and local areas with the application of new procedures and
technology, providing practitioners with hands-on experience using
selected hardware, software, techniques, etc. Currently, two of the most
successful demonstration projects are
(1) Demonstration Project No. 86 on Incident Management, and (2)
Demonstration Project No. 93 on Traffic Control Hardware and
Software.
(3) The FHWA and the FTA are jointly developing
transportation demand management technical assistance and guidance
materials. The materials include guidance documents to assist both the
public and private sectors in implementing cost-effective programs and a
microcomputer model to analyze the traffic impacts of potential
programs to develop the most effective package of actions. TTie
materials also will include a reference document which presents the
experience of available programs and a video to explain the concepts of
transportation demand management to upper management in the public
and private sectors.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Does the Department have any
performance measures for determining what is being achieved for the
money spent on the various transportation control measures, or the
benefit of using traffic control measures versus building new lanes to
overcome a congestion problem?
ANSWER: Evaluations of the effectiveness of transportation
control measures (TCM) are usually performed using a standard of tons
reduced of a given pollutant. Such criteria are used for evaluations of
ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter (PMjq), the
most common regulated transportation-related pollutants.
Under the Congestion Management and Air Quality Program
(CMAQ), the FHWA is requiring such an analysis as one of the
performance criteria for selection of TCM projects. Our objective is to
identify TCM projects with maximum emission reduction potential. A
larger scale effort is underway by States and local agencies to identify
viable TCM's as part of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) planning
process. The FHWA and the EPA are providing support in this SIP
planning process. Results will be disseminated when the SIP revisions
are submitted in November of 1993 and 1994.
The Department worked closely with the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) in the preparation of the Transportation
Control Measure Information Documents, issued in May 1992. These
documents survey the extensive literature on such measures, and provide
implementation effectiveness. This and other such documents are made
666
available to States and localities to assist them in identifying the
effectiveness of TCM verses building more roadway capacity.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What types of transportation control
measures are being carried out under the various ISTEA programs and
to what extent? Please provide funding by program category.
ANSWER: A number of transportation control measures are
funded under the ISTEA's flexible-funding provisions. The types of
projects funded include high-occupancy vehicle facilities, park-and-ride
and fringe parking facilities, area-wide rideshare incentives, bicycle and
pedestrian programs, and programs for activity centers and special
events. The largest portion of funding for these
projects comes from the Congestion Mitigation and Air
Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) . A total of $568.1
million in CMAQ funds have been obligated to date.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: How many urban areas have
computerized traffic signals? What is the condition of
the traffic signal systems in urban areas? What
amounts of ISTEA funds (NHS, STP, and CMAQ) are being
used to improve traffic signal systems? What staff
resources is the Department investing at headquarters,
regional, and divisional levels in improving traffic
signal systems in major urban areas? Is this
sufficient?
ANSWER: With few exceptions, most urbanized areas
(50,000 population and above) have some form of a
signal system that is centrally controlled. In
urbanized areas, notable exceptions include: Chicago,
II. - Considering a signal system; Pittsburgh and
Philadelphia, Pa. - System construction contract will
be let shortly; Atlanta, Ga. - Specifications for a
system are currently being prepared; San Francisco, Ca.
and Denver, Co. - There are no plans at this time.
A majority of the current systems in operation are
over 15 years old. Therefore, the hardware is obsolete
and in need of replacement. With the advent of
advanced computer technology, most of the existing mini
computer-based systems can be upgraded to super micro
or micro computer-based systems.
A recent survey through our field offices
indicated that there are several examples where ISTEA
funds are being used or planned for arterial or freeway
control systems. Regarding funding for freeway traffic
management centers, for example, the following
information was compiled:
Upgrade of Existing Traffic Management Centers:
* INFORM, Long Island, NY - STP Funding
* Chicago, IL - CMAQ Funding
* Detroit, MI - CMAQ Funding
* Minneapolis/St. Paul - CMAQ Funding
New Traffic Management Centers (Planning and/or
Construction)
* Milwaukee, WI - CMAQ Funding
667
* Cincinnati, OH - CMAQ Funding
* Houston, TX - CMAQ or NHS Funding
* Phoenix, AZ - Two-Year Operational Provision
Future Traffic Management Centers
* Toledo, OH - CMAQ Funding & STP Funding
* San Antonio, TX - CMAQ or NHS Funding
* El Paso, TX - Category Presently Undecided
FHWA continues to emphasize the value of
' computerized signal systems through technical
i assistance, training courses, conferences and symposia.
I A mobile exhibit to emphasize the benefits of
i computerized signal systems is now touring the United
States. This project is envisioned to last at least
j three more years. Additional efforts in this area
I emanate at all levels of FHWA. In order to provide
j additional emphasis in mobility and other IVHS-related
i activities, and to improve multi-regional coverage, an
I Urban Mobility Specialist GM-14 position has been
: staffed in four FHWA regions: Region 1, Albany; Region
! 3, Baltimore; Region 5, Homewood, IL; Region 9, San
j Francisco. Current staffing levels in FHWA devoted to
I oversight of traffic control systems are inadequate
■ considering the challenges and opportunities which have
I been identified by our operational reviews and
i contained in implementing provisions of ISTEA.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: How important are state-of-
i the-art computerized traffic signal systems to the
; future success of the Intelligent Vehicle/Highway
System?
ANSWER: The "foundation" of a typical Intelligent
I Vehicle Highway System consists of a computerized
I signal and freeway control system. These systems
; collect data, manage traffic control devices and
disseminate information to other IVHS user services.
; Consequently, for IVHS to have maximum positive effect,
these systems must operate optimally. Therefore, the
i key elements to the success of IVHS are well maintained
and operated traffic control systems.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Are any of the earmarked
projects not moving forward expeditiously in terms of
■ the actual obligation and expenditure of funds? Please
list for each of these projects the amount of
unobligated funds that appear to be "stored" for future
implementation activities.
ANSWER: We anticipate that six areas will have
; unobligated earmark balances at the end of FY 1993.
• These areas and the status of their IVHS program or
plans are:
(1) 1-95 Corridor Coalition - This is a
partnership of the major public and private
transportation agencies which serve the Northeast
Corridor of the United States. The mission of the
Coalition is to improve mobility a(nd transportation
efficiency in the Northeast Corridor through the
668
application of real time IVHS technology. The
Coalition is developing a Business Plan and we
anticipate funding three or four initiatives before the
end of the fiscal year. Others should be ready for
funding during the first quarter of FY 1994.
(2) Miami-Ft. Lauderdale - FY 1992 earmarked funds
are being used to identify IVHS multi-modal
opportunities in the 1-95 corridor from Broward County
to Dade County, Florida. We anticipate that the FY
i 1993 earmarked funds of $2.24 million will be requested
in early FY 1994 to implement one or more of the study
recommendations.
(3) Guidestar - The Minnesota DOT and their
partners continue to be active in testing of IVHS
I technologies. They are presently working on those
initiatives that were funded with FY 1992 earmarked
funds .
(4) Sutter County, CA - These funds are intended
to support "high tech" features in a new community,
. "Sutter Bay," northwest of Sacramento. We have not
I received any indication of the scope of the IVHS
activities to be included. We may also have legal
! problems in carrying out this earmark.
(5) New Jersey Police Communications Center -
These funds are intended to support a law enforcement
communications/patrol center in New Jersey. We have
not received any details on the planned patrol center.
Legal problems may also surface in carrying out this
earmark.
(6) Southern State Parkway - In addition to the FY
1993 earmark, the Southern State Parkway has not
submitted a program for use of the FY 1992 earmark ($20
million) either. Total unused earmarked funds is $34
million.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Do you have any
recommendations for improving the utilization of funds
currently being reserved for these IVHS projects? Is
the Department considering any legislative initiatives
to address this issue?
ANSWER: FHWA believes that the funds provided
should be put into use to advance the IVHS program in
the most efficient and effective manner. Our primary
concern regarding earmarked projects is that in many
cases the funded activities do not contribute to
advancing the development of new IVHS technologies or
institution arrangements. While they may be very
! deserving transportation projects which deploy IVHS-
I related technologies, regular state-apportioned
I Federal-aid funds are available for this purpose.
I Reserving IVHS funds for these types of projects
detracts from our ability to achieve in a timely manner
the IVHS vision which Congress has established. Funds l<i
; being reserved in this manner should be released for
I use by other IVHS projects and activities which are
ready to proceed. We do not ^ave any specific
j legislative proposals regarding this issue at this
I time.
669
THE GROWTH AND COST OF CONGESTION
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: The percentage of congested
peak-hour travel on urban interstates increased from
about 55 percent to more than 70 percent from 1983 to
1991, and this growth in congestion gives rise to
substantial costs. A July 1992 report by the Texas
Transportation Institute estimates that in 1989, the
total cost of congestion for the 50 urban areas studied
was $39 billion. Delay accounted for about 85 percent
of this amount, while excess fuel consumption accounted
for 15 percent. Eight of the top ten urban areas had
total congestion costs exceeding $1 billion.)
To what extent is the Intelligent Highway Vehicle
System (IVHS) research effort expected to alleviate the
growth in congestion?
ANSWER: "Business as usual" projections of travel
on freeways indicate that without substantial
improvements, by the year 2 005, trips could take from
2 to 4 times as long as they do now due to regularly
occurring (recurring) congestion. IVHS research is
addressing ways that will enhance the flow of traffic
thus reducing the extent of delays and the frequency of
stops for through traffic. IVHS deployments will
provide improved and integrated traffic control along
corridors and throughout networks, especially when
utilizing better traveller information services.
Implementing the major products of IVHS research, will
result in a significant reduction or, in some cases,
the elimination of recurring congestion.
About 60% of traffic delays are the result of what is
now classified as non-recurring incidents. By reducing
the duration of incidents, the resultant non-recurring
congestion will be mitigated. IVHS research is placing
emphasis on developing techniques and strategies for
improving the detection and response time for
incidents. Also, research is proposed to investigate
the potential of better predicting incidents by
determining if there are patterns in the time or
location of incident occurrences that will yield
predictive relationships. This information will permit
State and local transportation agencies to manage
traffic and respond to incidents more efficiently.
Also, as more reliable and direct communication
technologies become available through the research, the
capabilities to divert traffic and reroute travellers
around incidents will be greatly enhanced over what
they are today.
Our best estimates of annual congestion costs
savings (based on 1992 dollar values) are $3.5 billion
for the year 2001 and about $14 billion for the year
2011. These estimates are based on the assumption that
one-half of the Nation's 75 largest cities would have
substantial deployment of IVHS services by 2001 and
that all of these 75 cities would capture the benefits
of development work and field testing related to
advanced traffic management and traveler systems by the
fi8-fi99 n QQ_
670
year 2011. In this same time period, additional
congestion savings are expected from the deployment of
traveler information systems in rural areas and from
the first stage of advanced vehicle control systems.
SENATOR LiAUTENBERG: What major congestion payoffs
are expected from IVHS research and when will they be
i realized?
ANSWER: Congestion relief from IVHS deployments
I will occur gradually. The earliest benefits will be
achieved from substantial upgrading of coordinated
traffic control systems in the 75 largest metropolitan
areas of the country. Improved sensing and
surveillance will allow implementation of adaptive
features of systems being developed, both by us, and
overseas. Over 30 of our cities are now planning for
such upgrades. The first model system which
incorporates many of the key features of a prototype
Advanced Traffic Management System is the "Smart
Corridor" in Los Angeles. It should be operative
within a year. Within this corridor, it is anticipated
that modest gains in reducing congestion will be
achieved. More substantial gains are anticipated when
broader implementations become reality in the region.
Other larger cities are expected to have
implemented much of this technology within the first
few years of the next decade. By then, advanced
traveler information will be in place in many areas and
this in combination with the coordinated control
systems associated with advanced traffic management
technology will greatly enhance traffic operations.
The accumulated benefits of these deployments are
expected to provide major congestion relief in more
than half of our major cities by the year 2001. In
these cities, we expect that by 2001 that a 20 percent
reduction in travel delays can be realized.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What other promising research
techniques offer promise for dealing with congestion?
ANSWER: Apart from the research and development
efforts we are undertaking on IVHS, we believe that
methods for substituting communication for
transportation offers great promise for reducing
congestion and maintaining mobility as well as
enhancing safety, clean air and economic productivity.
The tie-in of communications technologies (e.g.,
teleconferencing and telecommuting) to IVHS program
goals is becoming more apparent as these programs move
forward.
Congestion pricing strategies share much of the
technology which supports some of the IVHS services. It
provides an economic component which is not a part of
the IVHS program. The potential of such pricing
techniques are great if they are socially and
politically acceptable. Experience' in other parts of
the world with implementing such programs is not very
I
671
reassuring. Hopefully the Congestion Pricing pilot
programs being conducted in the U.S. will give us good
information on their potential in this country.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What types of projects are
being generated in response to the ISTEA authorizations
that allows for up to five congestion pricing
agreements?
ANSWER: Projects contained in the Congestion
Pricing Pilot Program applications (section 1012(b) of
the ISTEA) include proposals to conduct feasibility
studies of congestion pricing options, to allow single-
occupant vehicles to pay a price to use excess capacity
on high-occupancy-vehicle (HOV) lanes, to reduce tolls
for high occupancy vehicles, to provide parking pricing
without a road pricing component, and to restrain
demand on congested facilities by raising peak-period
tolls. Many of the proposals received did not respond
well to the Pilot Program selection criteria contained
in the November 24 Federal Register Notice. As a
result, the only proposal selected for further
negotiation of an agreement that is expected to lead to
the implementation of a congestion pricing pilot
project was submitted jointly by the California
Department of Transportation and the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (Oakland/San Francisco) . The
proposed project would raise peak-period tolls and make
transit improvements on the Oakland-San Francisco Bay
Bridge.
Since five acceptable proposals have not been
submitted in response to the initial Notice, a new
Federal Register Notice announcing that the
solicitation will be held open for an additional 4
months will be submitted. This will provide an
opportunity to work with applicants whose proposals to
the first Notice were found deficient, and provide
several other areas that have expressed interest the
time to develop new proposals. The goal remains one of
providing the Congress with an evaluation of congestion
pricing within the life of the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991.
INTELLIGENT VEHICLE/ HIGHWAY SYSTEM (IVHS)
The National IVHS Program
The Department's IVHS Strategic Plan claims that you
will provide the broadest Federal integration of
different agency activities to support the National
Program.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Were you successful in
getting the Department of Justice to conduct legal
studies necessary to examine some of the constraints
facing IVHS? Have you been able to get the FCC to make
available the spectrum space necessary for full scale
672
deployment? Have you been able to get DARPA funding to
supplement your IVHS contract and GOE funds?
ANSWER: The Department of Justice has agreed to
review the Nontechnical Constraints Report,,,
particularly those sections related to IVHS legal
issues. The Federal Communications Commission
recognizes IVHS as a national initiative with high
profile public benefit. The National
Telecommunications and Information Administration,
which is part of the Department of Commerce, has
provided the Department of Transportation with a small
initial allotment of dedicated spectrum for the IVHS
operational testing program.
FHWA has been working with several defense
technology agencies and laboratories to share
information on our respective programs and to identify
technology needs of mutual interest to IVHS and
defense. Our discussions resulted in the
identification of the vehicle technology area for IVHS
which has been included in the "Program Information
Package for Defense Technology Conversion,
Reinvestment, and Transition Assistance" that was
released by DOD's Advanced Research Projects Agency
(ARPA) when the President announced the program on
March 11, 1993. The DOD/ARPA category for vehicle
technology, which includes electronics for both
vehicles and intelligent vehicle infrastructure, is one
of eleven areas identified by the Administration for
the defense technology conversion program.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: How is FHWA incorporating
those IVHS projects that were earmarked for support in
the 1993 Appropriations Act into the corridors program
that was specified in the IVHS Act of 1991?
ANSWER: FY 1993 funding available for the IVHS
program totaled $217.8 million. This included $86
million from the ISTEA IVHS Corridors Program, $27
million from ISTEA Other Activities, $30 million from
GOE, and $74.8 million in carryover funds from FY 1992.
The carryover funds allowed us to absorb the $113
million of Congressional earmarks by charging against
all the accounts and still maintaining a balanced IVHS
program. However, since all available unearmarked
funds will be obligated this year, any FY 1994 eannarks
will have a significant effect on all elements of the
program, including the IVHS Corridors Program.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: If the National IVHS Program
receives additional funds, how do you propose to
strengthen the Department's management of this major
undertaking? Is there a need for an IVHS Program
Office attached to the Office of the Administrator of
the FHWA? Is there a need to transfer some existing
positions from other parts of FHWA to help manage and
conduct an expanded IVHS program? ,
673
ANSWER: In late 1992, the DOT commissioned an
outside group of management experts to review the
management of the IVHS program. This review was
prompted, in part, by the greatly expanded funding of
the IVHS program and its inherent intermodal nature.
The review team recognized that the current IVHS
management structure, which evolved as a matter of
necessity at the outset of the program, is not adequate
as IVHS grows and matures. The report recommends that
the Department establish a strong joint IVHS program
office that would have approval authority over all IVHS
program plans, budget requests, and expenditures. Even
with a new IVHS program office, however, the breadth
and diversity of the IVHS program will continue to
require that a variety of offices, both within and
outside of FHWA, be actively involved. Thus the report
also recommends that the new IVHS program office must
have sufficient organizational stature, whether it is
located within FHWA or elsewhere in the Department, to
motivate program execution by others within DOT and to
enlist the constructive support of other Federal
agencies. We are currently considering how to best
implement these and other recommendations from this
management review.
The new Administration's initiative to reduce
Federal Government administrative costs through
employment attrition is requiring the FHWA to look at
all its staffing needs including those necessary to
effectively manage an expanded IVHS program. A major
full-scale staffing review has recently been initiated.
Pending results from this effort, the IVHS staff is
looking at several interim possibilities. These
include: (1) using staff from other elements of FHWA
to manage certain components of the program; (2)
increase the use of the Volpe National Transportation
Systems Center in those areas where their expertises
line up with program needs; and (3) increase our use
of the national labs in both the technical research and
program management areas. Although we would prefer to
have some additional staff, we believe that in the
short term we can continue to be successful in managing
this rapidly growing program using a variety of program
management techniques.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: For FY 1991 through FY 1993,
please list the number of professional positions that
have been or are working on various aspects of FHWA's
IVHS program. Why aren't you asking for additional
staff for the IVHS program in your FY 1994 budget?
ANSWER: As indicated in our response to the
previous question. President Clinton's initiative to
reduce Federal employment prevents us from asking for
additional FTE. To ensure that the IVHS program will
continue to be managed effectively, several
possibilities to increase the support staffing are
being considered. A few of the options are outlined in
our answer to the previous question.
674
It is very difficult to identify the number of
professional employees working on various aspects of
the IVHS program due to the extensive use of our field
offices and the Headquarters Offices of Policy, Motor
Carriers, Chief Counsel, and Administration in carrying
out certain program activities.
We can provide the requested information for the
two key offices responsible for FHWA's IVHS program.
The Office of Traffic Management and IVHS, which has
the responsibility for directing FHWA's IVHS program as
well as coordinating DOT's IVHS program was created in
1990 with 26 professionals. The current staffing is 30
professionals. The Office of Safety and Traffic
Operations Research and Development, Intelligent
Vehicle/Highway Systems Research Division had 12 full-
time engineers on December 1, 1990. The current
staffing is 16 full-time engineers.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: How is the FHWA interpreting
the language used in the conference report on the
FY 1993 DOT Appropriations Act that allowed funding "up
to" the specified amounts for earmarked IVHS
operational tests or corridor activities? Does this
language provide a sufficient degree of flexibility for
FHWA?
ANSWER: We do appreciate the efforts made by the
Conference Committee to provide us with increased
flexibility through the inclusion of this language. In
working with State-level project representatives during
the past months, we have expressed our willingness to
honor the actual amounts in the report, especially when
project features would truly contribute to advancing
the national IVHS program.
In some cases, however, projects are not true
operational tests of new IVHS technologies or
institutional arrangements. Where we have discussed
project concepts and amounts with Congressional staff
representatives, the original project purposes and
amounts as listed in the report have been strongly sup-
ported by these staff members. We therefore have
accepted these further discussions as evidence of Con-
gressional intent to provide the full amount to the
location. FHWA flexibility in use of the funds has not
been feasible under these circumstances -
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: One of the milestones
identified in the DOT IVHS Strategic Plan is to
complete development of a national, open IVHS
architecture. Please tell us what progress has been
made towards achieving this objective, and how you plan
to ensure that an IVHS architecture is in fact open and
acceptable to the diverse interest of the IVHS
community.
ANSWER: On April 23, proposals were received in
response to the Request for Proposals (RFP) issued on
March 9 for development of an open national
675
architecture. A number of major U.S. technology firms
are involved in the responses. Multiple contract
awards are expected to take place late in the summer.
By pursuing a multiple team approach to define the
architecture, we are minimizing the risk that the
resulting architecture is one that is developed around
a particular company's products. In addition, we have
acquired the services of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory
to oversee the technical development effort and to
ensure that the resulting architecture is in fact open.
To ensure broad IVHS community acceptance, DOT is
currently working with IVHS AMERICA on a proactive
consensus building effort that will proceed in parallel
with the technical development effort. This consensus
building effort will establish a forum by which those
affected by the IVHS architecture can provide their
comments and concerns. By addressing issues early and
throughout the development process, we expect to
I achieve wide community acceptance of the final product.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Why is the Administration
requesting to fund some of NHTSA's IVHS activities out
of the FHWA GOE account?
; ANSWER: NHTSA is already involved in evaluating
j the safety aspects of several ongoing operational tests
j sponsored by the FHWA, including the ADVANCE project in
i Chicago and the FAST-TRAC project in Oakland County,
'mi. a total of $9 million in FHWA GOE funds are
; identified for NHTSA in FY 1994; $4 million out of the
: FHWA GOE account, and another $5 million from the
i President's Rebuild America proposal. Of this amount,
$2.5 million will be used to conduct safety evaluations
I of new and ongoing FHWA-sponsored operational tests.
' $3.5 million will be used for performance specification
! development for collision avoidance systems, many of
! which are critical for the automated highway system.
' The remaining $3 million will provide initial funding
I to form a partnership to operationally test a
; communication system for automatically summoning
emergency medical assistance following an accident, and
for providing precise data on the location of the
crash.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Since last year, what
: progress has been made in addressing the key research
i questions facing the implementation of a successful
: National IVHS Program?
• ANSWER: The National IVHS Program Plan, which
will be completed in September, 1993, disaggregates
IVHS into a manageable set of specific end user
services and delineates the sequences of activities
needed to develop and deploy those services. Thus, the
Program Plan subsumes the key research questions within
the appropriate services and sequences of activities
such that we now track progress by advances towards
deployment of user services. The following are several
676
examples of progress in IVHS research as tracked by
user services:
The traffic control user service research was
advanced last year under contracts to. investigate
deployment issues of traffic surveillance systems and
to develop simulation models which can accommodate IVHS
operating strategies, such as real-time traffic signal
control, for off-line testing.
Several advanced traveler information services will
benefit from a major contract begun last year that will
test and evaluate potential communication alternatives
for IVHS information transfer among traffic management
centers, roadside, and individual vehicles. Similarly,
route guidance services will benefit from a study just
started that will determine optimum ways of identifying
roadway segments and representing map databases to
achieve compatibility among all the different private
and public sector providers and users.
Each user service for commercial vehicle operations
is being advanced by an effort to examine the
feasibility of establishing a national Automatic
Vehicle Identification (AVI) standard. AVI technology
facilities, for example, automatic safety or size and
weight regulatory compliance for commercial vehicles,
saving the valuable time currently required to stop and
manually perform these services.
Public input was obtained during the past year for
use in preparing the ISTEA mandated report to Congress
manually perform these services.
Public input was obtained during the past year for
use in preparing the ISTEA mandated report to Congress
on non-technical barriers to IVHS deployment.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Please specify the percentage
of cost sharing (Federal versus non-Federal monies) for
all IVHS projects that are supported with FHWA funds
other than R&D projects. Please specify whether the
non-Federal contributions are cash or in-kind.
ANSWER: The components of the IVHS program which
are developed primarily through cost-share arrangements
include operational tests, early deployment planning
studies, and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
/ Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Joint
Operational Action Program to Improve Mobility. There
are currently seventeen early deployment planning
studies underway. The FHWA requires a 20% match from
participants in this program.
In 1991, $1.5 million was made available for the
joint FHWA/FTA mobility project. Forty proposals were
received and 12 projects selected nationwide. In 1992,
another $1.5 million was made available. Forty-two
proposals were received and 10 projects selected
nationwide. All the projects represent advancements in
technology and management for intermodal operations.
The federal funds supported 50% of the total project
costs for the two year demonstration period.
677
The chart on the following page shows estimated
Federal IVHS and non-Federal IVHS funding for
operational tests. The nature of individual IVHS
operational tests is quite varied depending on the
partnership arrangements, technical and institutional
issues being addressed, and other issues. The non-IVHS
funds shown are a combination of cash from non-Federal
partners (including public and private sector sources) ,
contributed labor and equipment, and the value of other
project initiatives which are an integral part of the
IVHS operational test.
PROJECT
FEDERAL IVHS
FUNDING
NON-IVHS
FUNDING
1
%
NON-
IVHS
ADVANCE (Chicago. Illinois)
$ 20.000.000
$ 20,000,000
50%
Advantage 1-75 (multi-state)
3.500.000
7.458.000
68%
Ann Arbor Smart Bus (Michigan)
1,980.000
462.500
19%
Boston Smartraveler
1.515.000
1.535.000
50%
California Smart Traveler
355.000
1,000.000
74%
Connecticut ATMS (to FY '92 only)
350.000
1.125.000
76%
CTA Smart Bus (Chicago, Illinois)
490,000
3.150,000
87%
II Detroit Transit Information
50,000
50,000
50%
DIRECT (Ml; to FY '92 only)
2.500,000
2,500,000
50%
Fast-Trac (Ml; to FY '92 only)
10.000.000
3,831,000
28% 1
Guidestar (MN)
11,000.000
2,750,000
20%
HELP/Crescent
5.850,000
15,150.000
72%
Houston Smart Traveler (to FY "92
only)
2,500,000
2,500,000
50%
MTA Smart Bus (Baltimore)
2,000.000
500.000
20%
Norfolk Mobility Manager (VA)
500.000
100.000
17%
PASS (OR)
350,000
222.000
39%
Pathfinder (CA)
1.000.000
1.500,000
60%
Rogue Valley Mobility Manager (OR)
380.000
80,000
17%
1 RTD Smart Bus (Denver. CO)
8.320.000
2,080,000
20%
Satellite Comm. Feasibility (PA)
2,200,000
2,200,000
50%
SMART Corridor (CA; to FY '92 only)
1,100,000
45,900,000
98%
TRANSCOM (NY/NJ/CT)
11,400,000
2,975,000
21%
1 Travel-Aid (WA)
1,828,525
3,157,766
63%
TravTek (FL)
3,000,000
9,000,000
75%
1 TOTAL
$ 92,168,525,
$129,226,266
59% 1
678
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: How much is NHTSA and FTA
spending on IVHS activities?
ANSWER: In FY 1993, NHTSA is spending $9.0
million on IVHS activities, including research on
collision avoidance systems, identification of
critical driving hazards, safety evaluations of IVHS
operational tests, and human factors studies for
heavy trucks. In FY 1994, NHTSA proposes spending a
total of $16.5 million on IVHS activities, including
performance specification development for collision
avoidance systems, safety evaluations of new and
ongoing operational tests, and the formation of a
partnership to operationally test a communication
system for automatically summoning emergency medical
assistance following an accident, and for providing
precise data on the location of the crash.
The FTA funding for IVHS research, development
and operational testing activities is $3.2 million in
each of FYs 1993 and 1994. The FY 1993 activities
focus on "smart card" system design and Advanced
Public Transportation Systems (APTS) system architec-
ture. As the program moves into FY 1994, increased
emphasis will be placed on evaluation and analysis of
advanced technologies and systems involved in
transit-related operational tests.
OPERATIONAL TESTS
Operational tests are described in the DOT IVHS
Strategic Plan as facilitating the transition from
R&D into operational use. Participation by many
different public and private entities would,
therefore, seem to be desirable.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What steps has the
Department taken to achieve this?
ANSWER: The success of the overall National
IVHS Program depends upon active participation by
both the public and private sectors. The forum which
the IVHS AMERICA organization provides is an
effective mechanism for bringing these groups
together to begin and maintain the process of working
together. As an active member of this group, DOT
officials encourage creative partnership arrangements
during face-to-face discussions and initiatives taken
by the various committees. To further promote these
partnerships, the evaluation and selection criteria
which DOT has used in the solicitation for new
operational tests highlights the importance of wide
participation. A number of national associations
have also participated in several public-private IVHS
seminars and workshops.
679
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: How are you evaluating
operational tests? When will you issue national
guidelines of protocols for these evaluations?
ANSWER: Each operational test is required to
conduct a full evaluation appropriate to the scope
and extent of the test. We have developed guidelines
on the conduct of these evaluations, and have
provided this information to operational test
sponsors. We are especially emphasizing the need for
comprehensive evaluations with recent operational
tests, and require that a full evaluation plan be
prepared early in the project's life. We intend to
retain a contractor early in FY 1994 to assist FHWA
and other project managers with the design and
conduct of evaluations at each test site. This
central source of expertise and assistance in the
evaluation aspects of IVHS projects will help to
assure that consistent, nationally-compatible data is
obtained from these tests.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: The TravTek operational
test project was scheduled to end in March 1993.
Please tell us how well the in-vehicle system has
been perceived by the public and share with us any
preliminary results.
ANSWER: The evaluation phase of the TravTek
operational test ended on March 31, 1993. Analysis
of the evaluation data collected over the one-year
operational period will continue for the remainder of
the calendar year. Preliminary results from users'
questionnaires and interviews have shown that the
TravTek experience was very well received. There was
no perception of a negative impact on safety, but
rather, users indicated that they believed they drove
in a safer manner. Users generally believed that the
system saved them time, and some local users claimed
savings of 10 hours over two months of use. These
preliminary results also verified that users might be
willing to pay nearly $1000 for an in-vehicle device
such as TravTek.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: How many intermodal
projects are ongoing? Please list these.
ANSWER: Many IVHS operational tests have
multimodal and intermodal aspects, especially
traveler information initiatives. These projects
will provide information on travel alternatives for
all modes, such as roadway congestion, transit
schedule information, carpool opportunities, and
park-and-ride lot availability. Examples include the
Smart-Traveler project in Boston, Ma. and the Trav-
680
Info project in San Francisco, Ca. As the corridor
programs get underway in the four designated priority
corridors, all will have intermodal aspects
highlighted in their projects.
In addition, the Federal Highway Administration •
and the Federal Transit Administration have
implemented the Joint Operational Action Program to
Improve Mobility. Under this program, 22 intermodal
projects have been initiated in 1991 and 1992. All
are designed to test and demonstrate the application
of innovative intermodal technologies aimed at
relieving congestion and improving mobility. These
projects include: the use of information systems to
provide employees with information on transit,
ridesharing, and roadway conditions; the application
of telecommuting centers; the use of advanced signal
pre-emption systems to enable buses to move past
intersection congestion; and the use of advance
vehicle identification (AVI) systems to help enforce
high occupancy vehicle lanes.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Which, if any, of the
operational tests supported with Federal dollars is
running behind schedule or otherwise encountering
technical or institutional delays or unexpected
challenges?
ANSWER: In general, we have been very pleased
with the progress achieved by operational tests.
Delays have certainly occurred, which is to be
expected when attempting new technological solutions
and new institutional arrangements. Examples include
the ADVANCE project, which is somewhat behind
schedule due to difficulties experienced in
implementation of the in-vehicle hardware components.
Also, the ADVANTAGE 1-75 project has experienced
delays in procurement of various systems, due to the
rapidly changing nature of AVI equipment and other
factors. We are closely following the experiences of
early efforts such as these projects and others, and
the "lessons learned" will help future projects. We
do not feel that the delays and challenges being
faced are a threat to the overall IVHS program, and
in fact are a natural feature of an advanced program.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: How important are non-
traditional public/private sector arrangements for
advancing the National IVHS program? What are you
doing to ensure the use of these innovative arrange-
ments?
ANSWER: Partnerships among public sector
agencies responsible for transportation service and
private sector firms interested in marketing products
681
and services is essential to achieving the ultimate
IVHS vision. We are especially encouraging communi-
cations, automotive, electronics, and computer-
related firms to become involved with the consensus-
building effort underway as part of the IVHS system
architecture initiative. This early involvement will
help to assure that the roadway infrastructure
(primarily a public sector responsibility) is
compatible with in-vehicle and other guidance and
infoirmation systems, which are expected to be
primarily private sector opportunities. For
operational tests, we also encourage early
involvement of private sector firms with public
sector transportation operators. We have seen
innovations such as privatization of operations which
are normally public sector responsibilities,
implementation of "design-build" proposals which call
for one contractor to be responsible for both key
aspects of advanced projects, and "system integrator"
contracts wherein a private-sector contractor is
responsible for numerous smaller contracts. We have
encouraged use of these arrangements in IVHS
operational tests where they would expeditiously
advance project objectives.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: For each of the 4 0 or so
operational tests or other IVHS activities now
receiving FHWA support, please specify which use non-
traditional procurement processes. How will you
address this subject in your next solicitation for
new operational tests? What reasons might explain
the few innovative institutional proposals received
in response to your first solicitation?
ANSWER: Several innovative procurement
technigues, such as design-build and system
integrator contracts, were discussed in the previous
answer concerning private/public sector arrangements.
Most of the operational test projects we have
underway rely on the procurement processes already in
place within the various participating agencies or
firms. Use of these procedures assure that Federal
contracting requirements, which are not waived for
IVHS projects, are met. In general, we have found
that contracting offices dealing with IVHS projects
have been quite responsive to the needs of the
operational tests, and good institutional
relationships among technical, legal, and
administrative functions within project organizations
is key to successful procurement. We are also
continuing to assess unique contracting opportunities
used by DOD and DOC to determine their applicability
to the IVHS program.
682
IVHS AMERICA MEETINGS
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: I have heard that many
State and local government officials are not
participating in meetings of the IVHS AMERICA because
of insufficient travel funds. What, if anything,
should and can FHWA do about this situation?
ANSWER: Under representation in the IVHS program
includes State and local governments, trucking
companies, small businesses, some segments of the
research community, and disadvantage businesses.
Primary reasons for the under representation are lack
of awareness and knowledge about the IVHS program or
an unwillingness to commit short resources, both
personnel and travel funds, to another national
association like IVHS AMERICA.
To improve involvement in the IVHS program the
DOT has been working with IVHS AMERICA in the
development of a major IVHS "Education and Outreach"
component. The first phases of this new initiative
will be implemented later this fiscal year. Also,
recognizing that IVHS AMERICA membership is not for
everyone, the DOT will be working with, and in some
cases contracting with, other national associations
and groups to insure broad based understanding and
involvement in the IVHS program is achieved.
Contracts have been initiated or are being discussed
with the Institute of Transportation Engineers and
the Public Technology, Inc.
i Although we have not ruled out providing travel
: fund support for special situations, we do not feel
j that using $3-5 million per year to fund travel for
: all under represented groups is a prudent use of
' Federal IVHS funds.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Do you allow funds from the
early deployment program to be used to enable State
and local IVHS personnel to attend meetings of IVHS
AMERICA? If not, why?
ANSWER: The Early Deployment Program provides
grants to state and local governments to conduct
I planning studies for the deployment of IVHS services.
' If an IVHS AMERICA meeting is relevant to the
I completion of the study, then travel associated with
I that meeting is an eligible activity for funding
I through an Early Deployment project. See the answer
j to the question above on why routine travel to IVHS
I AMERICA meetings in not an eligible item.
STANDARDS AND PROTOCOLS
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What is FHWA doing to
establish standards for Advanced Vehicle
Identification (AVI) systems?
683
ANSWER: FHWA has contracted with the Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) and the National
Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) to
define the vehicle to roadside cominunications (VRC)
needs for IVHS, and to review the capabilities of the
AVI equipment in the marketplace and that which
vendors are developing. Based on the above, in about
6 months they will recommend a course of action for
FHWA to create a nationally compatible specification
for a vehicle to roadside communication system that
will meet the needs of commercial vehicle IVHS
applications.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: I understand that different
regions of the country are using non-compatible AVI
systems. When and how will this problem be resolved?
ANSWER: Yes, different toll authorities are
using different AVI systems because they are using
generic, performance based specifications in their
bid documents. However, this is not all that bad as
the use of AVI is new to the toll collection industry
and the needed functions are still being defined by
the authorities. Initially, a Type I, "read-only",
AVI unit which provides only an identification number
was thought to be sufficient. However, many toll
authorities are now specifying a Type II, "read-
write" unit, and the current thinking is that a Type
III, "read-write with connections to an on-board the
vehicle device [such as a smart card reader]" unit is
necessary because it will provide more IVHS
opportunities to users. In the next month
IVHS AMERICA [with FHWA present] will be beginning a
series of meetings with States with toll facilities
to determine if a compatible toll AVI specification
can be developed. For CVO applications, see the
above question and answer. Every effort will be made
to seek a common compatible specification with these
two efforts.
INSTITUTIONAL CONSTRAINTS
Towards the end of this year, the Department is
required to submit a report to Congress on the non-
technical constraints facing the National IVHS
Program. By law, the Department is directed to
provide recommendations to address these constraints.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Are you getting the
assistance you need from the Department of Justice
and other Federal agencies to ensure that the DOT
will be able to offer solutions to the major
constraints facing IVHS?
ANSWER: The Department of Transportation is
receiving the assistance required from other Federal
agencies to develop the Nontechnical Constraints
684
Report. The Departments of Justice and Commerce are
aware of the development of the Nontechnical Con-
straints Report and have agreed to serve as reviewers
particularly on those sections related to legal
issues, public/private sector issues, and
privatization.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Please list the major
contracts and reports that have been issued as a
result of the Department's institutional IVHS studies
activity. How much money are you spending in this
area during FY 1993 and proposed for FY 1994? Please
breakdown the use of these monies.
ANSWER: Attached is a summary of FY 199 3
activities. Activities implemented in FY 1994 will
build upon the 1993 program, with rigorous research
proposed on intellectual property and multi-
jurisdictional issues.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION'S
INTELLIGENT VEHICLE HIGHWAY SYSTEMS
INSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL ISSUES PROGRAM UPDATE
Subject Area
Total Cost
Public/Private Cooperation
IVHS Deployment and Publlc/Piivale Sector Issues - Fiscal Year 1992
$121,759 pncludes cost of 12 white papers)
Reletence lof Inslltulional Evaluations • Fiscal Years 1992-1993
$150,000 (est)
Operational Test Case Studies - Rscal Years 1992-1994
$1.1 million (est)
Overcoming Barriers to IVHS Deployment - Lessons Irom Other Tech-
nologies and Public Programs • Fiscal Years 1993-1994
$467,926
Deployment Issues
Education and Stalling Needs - Fiscal Years 1992-1993
$144,449
Metropolitan Traffic Management - Fiscal Years 1992-1993
$200,000
Public Acceptance of IVHS Tecfinologles and Services -
Rscal Years 1992 1994
$500,000
Legal lesueis
Legal Constraints to the Research. Development, and Deployment of
IVHS Technology in the United Stales - Fiscal Years 1992-1993
$11,783
Legal Analysis for Ihe Nontechnical Constraints Report
Fiscal Year 1993
N/A
Public/Private Partnerships: Managing the Legal Issues
Fiscal Year 1993
Support provided through the TRESP contract
administered by FHWA's Office of Traffic
Mgmt. & IVHS
Privacy • Fiscal Years 1993 1994
N/A
Procurement - Fiscal Years 1993-1994
N/A
Environmental Issues
Environmental Conlerence - Fiscal Year 1993
N/A
Nontectinicai Constraints Report
Nontechnical Constraints Report
Rscal Years 1992-1994
N/A
685
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR SASSER
SENATOR SASSER: As you know, one of the on going areas of
dispute with respect to transportation funding is the degree and extent to which
donor states can receive greater funding equity. The donor states, including
Tennessee, all put more money into the Highway Trust Fund than they receive
back. You will recall that the minimum allocation issue consumed a great part
of the debate concerning ISTEA, as well as last year's Appropriations bill.
In this context, an area of concern still remains regarding donor states
receiving discretionary funds. In the past, donor states that aggressively sought
and received discretionary funding had their minimum allocation reduced by that
same amount. By contrast, donee states were not similarly penalized.
What will be the Clinton Administration policy in this area?
ANSWER: The FHWA is administering the provision of law as it was
enacted. We do not believe that any minimum allocation State is penalized
because of receiving discretionary funds.
It should be recognized that, because of the way this provision was
designed by Congress, a State's current donor/donee status and its receipt of
minimum allocation funds have no direct correlation because of the different
time periods involved. In fact, some States that are presently donees get
minimum allocation funds. If one of these States received a discretionary
allocation in a given year, its minimum allocation would be reduced in the
following year, just as with a donor State in the same situation.
The difference in identifying a State as a minimum allocation State of a
donor/donee State lies in the basis of calculation. A State is considered a donor
State if highway user fees attributed to it in a given year with greater than the
total of highway funds distributed to it in that same year. (The comparison may
be done on a cumulative basis since 1956, but it is done to the same year).
MA, on the other hand, is calculated based on Highway Trust Fund
(HTF) contributions 2 years earlier and considers apportionments for the current
year and allocations from the previous year in determining the amount.
If the laws were amended to require FHWA to calculate MA without the
discretionary allocations for all States, then each State receiving MA would
actually receive less. For example, Tennessee would receive approximately $5.3
million less in MA if discretionary allocations were removed from the
calculation. That is $5.3 million less that Tennessee can use for any or all of
several specific categories, as opposed to a discretionary allocation which has a
specific direction.
Curtailing Obligation Ceiling Exemptions
FHWA had advocated in the proposed FY 1993 budget
including the Minimum Allocation program and ISTEA
Demonstration Projects within the Federal-aid Highways
obligation limitation.
How much of available Minimum Allocation and ISTEA
Demonstration Project obligation' authority has been
obligated since enactment of ISTEA? Please provide
686
the information by State for fiscal years starting
with FY 1988, through FY 1993.
Since enactment of ISTEA, $1.4 billion has been obligated
for minimum allocation, and $471 million for ISTEA demo
projects. See attachments for detailed information by
State and fiscal year.
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
OBLIGATIONS BY FISCAL YEAR
FOR HINIHUK ALLOCATION
($ IN THOOSANDS)
STATE
ALABAMA
ALASKA
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
D. C.
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
HAWAII
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MAINE
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MONTANA
NEBRASKA
NEVADA
NEW HAMPSHIRE
HEW JERSEY
NEW MEXICO
NEW YORK
N CAROLINA
NORTH DAKOTA
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
OREGON
PENNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
S CAROLINA
S. DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TEXAS
UTAH
VERMONT
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
W. VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
AMERICAN SOMOA
GUAM
PUERTO RICO
N. MARIANA
VIRGIN ISLANDS
FY 1988 FY 1989 n 1990 FY 1991
87
14,414
62,397
3,641
38,813
180
102,947
1,157
8,619
8,373
102
24,337
199,303
31,893
82,785
9,518
25,537
2,860
1,339
53,239
38,957
195,325
22,616
97,058
42,588
30,151
84,078
184,993
84,926
FY 1992
22,163
55,804
51,551
135,127
106,829
35,725
FY 1993
575
(8,608)
18,254
(13,368)
39,530
5,853
95,033 141,064 73,063 42,578
131
377
2,086
360
617
3,321
4,030
996
1,244
353
1,999
75
504
TOTAL
TO DATE
22,738
143,212
177,664
662,862
389,502
345,160
9,698
480,222
3,461
8,428
6,029
3,027
504
25,235 27,248 16,994 30,324 71,794 29,261 200,856
12,810
44,417
31,375
36,248
34,002
45,116
24,156
52,781
731
10,959
111,693
197,894
94,774 43,512 70,197 54,014 121,068 43,322 426,887
65,884
77,754
77,256
54,709
3,838
204,165
50,032
547)
63,241
36,861
17,568
19,937
31,822
783
29,992
5,110
105)
9,907
460,475
256,288
21,537
9,907
9,367
(627)
28,221
33,942
19,037
(421)
89,519
2,434
397,488
46,591
319,214
45,441
200,220
14,217
290,837
5,748
116,894
(718)
66,422
113,713
1,391,075
6,795
(182)
69,251
41,068
6,618
123,550
40,033
67,914
71,783
64,538
56,634
34,101
335,003
TOTAL
960,392 1,074,556 1,256,683 1,324,774 1,050,331 324,168 5,990,904
687
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADHINISTRATION
STATE
ALABAMA
ALASKA
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
DIST. OF COL.
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
HAWAII
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MAINE
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MONTANA
NEBRASKA
NEVADA
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY
NEW MEXICO
NEW YORK
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH DAKOTA
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
OREGON
PENNSYLVAMIA
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TEXAS
UTAH
VERMONT
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
AMERICAN SAMOA
GUAM
PUERTO RICO
N. MARIANA
VIRGIN ISLANDS
TOTAL
OBLIGATIONS BY FISCAL YEAR
FOR ISTEA DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS
($ IN THOUSANDS)
TOTAL
FY 1992
FY 1993
TO DATE
5,899
5,584
11,483
688
688
4,137
16,996
21,133
6,620
4,355
10,975
6,156
84
12,922
19,078
84
1,366
4,677
6,043
1,206
10,591
11,797
704
326
1,030
40,488
69,327
109,815
3,648
3,648
6,425
13,452
19,877
2,761
2,472
5,233
266
266
172
172
3,264
4,713
7,977
634
4,008
4,642
1,988
14,679
16,667
2,158
11,086
13,244
1,570
1,146
2,716
1,690
14,514
16,204
480
302
782
50
50
8,048
8,048
136
2,824
2,960
794
4,821
5,615
116
(37)
6,589
79
1,890
8,479
1,742
6,269
8,011
3,124
9,903
13,027
102
2,585
2,687
988
9,304
10,292
12,066
31,552
43,618
1,573
1,320
2,893
529
1,855
2,384
421
40
461
5,621
13,200
18,821
281
281
1,097
3,058
4,155
6,044
17,678
23,722
481
6,564
7,045
3,999
13,446
17,445
2,597
2,597
4,851
4,851
128,403
342,672
471,075
688
Curtailing Obligation Ceiling Exemptions
FHWA had advocated in the proposed FY 1993 budget
including the Minimum Allocation program and ISTEA
Demonstration Projects within the Federal-aid Highways
obligation limitation.
What accounts for the slow rate of obligation for
Miriimum Allocation and ISTEA Demonstration Projects
funds?
It is projected Minimum Allocation will obligate at
about the same rate as in FY 1993. ISTEA is
authorized for a six year period, as each year
progresses, obligations accelerate as funds become
available.
FLEXIBLE USE OF STIMULUS FUNDING
SENATOR SASSER: The Clinton Administration's proposed $2.97
billion boost to highway obligation authority will provide the
critical "go-ahead" to important projects idled by lack of funding,
It's my understanding, however, that the States must not only spend
the additional funds within a designated timeframe, but also within
existing ISTEA programs. One of the most important features of
ISTEA was its emphasis on greater State and local flexibility with
respect to assessing how best their funds could be used to meet
their particular transportation needs and demands. What specific
steps will the Administration take to ensure that flexible use of
funds is also accomplished through anticipated stimulus funding?
ANSWER: Since the proposed economic stimulus approach for the
Federal-aid highway program is to basically increase the obligation
limitation so that ISTEA programs are fully funded for fiscal year
1993, the States will continue to be afforded the same flexibility
on funding available under the ISTEA.
SENATOR SASSER: Another key provision of ISTEA provided for
the designation of a 155,000 mile network of roads of national
significance. These roads would comprise the National Highway
System (NHS) , and would include all of the Interstate System.
Congress is due to receive the route proposals by
December 18, 1993.
It is estimated that the NHS will carry approximately 70% of
heavy truck travel. I realize that the States will not actually
submit their route proposals to the Federal Highway Administration
until the end of next month. However, in anticipation of the
submissions, what data does the FHWA have concerning the overall
payment quality of the proposed NHS? Also, is there any preliminary
data regarding progress on pavement management system efforts that
would be pertinent to the NHS route designation process?
ANSWER: The HPMS is FHWA's data base on the condition of all
highways in the Nation. From a statistical sampling, by the States,
the HPMS includes inventory, condition, and performance data. Any
route proposed for the NHS would be included in the HPMS.
FHWA's current policy on Pavement Management System covers
nearly all the anticipated mileage on NHS, except the mileage under
689
local jurisdiction. ISTEA and the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
cover all anticipated mileage on the NHS.
OUTDOOR ADVERTISING CONTROL
SENATOR SASSER: During the debate on ISTEA, an area of
contention for many Tennesseans involved the removal of outdoor
advertising. Like many of my colleagues, I have constituents on
both sides of the issue. On the one hand, there are some
remarkably beautiful areas, particularly in East Tennessee which
many interested persons believe are diminished by billboards.
There are also a great many billboard owners in Tennessee who are
small businesses, small "Mom and Pop" operations if you will.
To clarify the requirements in this area, is removal of
nonconforming billboards mandatory upon the States?
ANSWER: No. Public Law 102-302, relating to the Dire
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, signed into law June 22,
1992, amended 23 U.S.C. 131 (n) making the expenditure of Highway
Trust Funds for the purpose of acquiring and removing nonconforming
signs entirely discretionary with respect to the State.
SENATOR SASSER: What is the average cost of removal?
ANSWER: The average cost of removing nonconforming signs is
not generally reported by the States. However, the cost varies
significantly depending on a number of factors, i.e., sign type and
whether litigation was involved. When the States were acquiring
these signs, the average cost as adjusted for inflation was $3,360
for the standard billboard and site interest. Larger signs, i.e.,
jumbo signs erected beyond 660 feet from the right-of-way are
estimated at $25,486 for the sign and site interest. Although an
average cost could be estimated for both types combined at $14,423,
it would not be considered realistic due to the differences in the
number of each sign type remaining, i.e., 84,758 nonjumbo signs and
5,347 jumbo signs.
SENATOR SASSER: Also, does the Administration have any
actual or proposed avenue of recourse that might minimize the
impact of removal on small business owners?
ANSWER: Yes. There are two signing systems presently in use
in the highway right-of-way that provide information to the
traveling public about the availability of services of small
businesses. Specific service (LOGO) signs provide travelers with
business identification and directional information for essential
motorist services (gas, food, lodging, camping). These signs may
be used on any class of highway and are intended for use primarily
in areas rural in character. Most States use this signing system.
The other signing system. Tourist Oriented Directional Signs
(TODS) provide business identification and directional information
for business services and activities, including seasonal
agricultural products. These signs advertise those businesses and
activities that derive the major portion of their income or
visitors during the normal business season from motorists not
residing in the immediate area of the business or activity. The
signs may only be used on rural conventional roads (nonfreeway type
highways). Approximately 16 States use this signing system.
Section 1059, Use of Tourist Oriented Directional Signs, of
the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
provided that the Secretary shall encourage the States to provide
for equitable participation in the use of tourist oriented
directional signs or "logo" signs along the Interstate System and
the Federal-aid primary system.
690
SENATOR SASSER: The Intelligent Vehicle Highway
Systems technology (IVHS) offers tremendous promise
in addressing the nation's congestion and all-
important safety concerns. The Administration's
"Rebuild America" plan proposed increased for IVHS up
to $100 million in FY 98. A portion of the increase
would be attributed to defense technology
conversions.
Approximately how much of the proposed increase
for IVHS will be dedicated to defense technology
conversions? Also, please elaborate on any defense
technology conversation efforts currently underway.
ANSWER: FHWA has been working with several
defense technology agencies and laboratories to share
information on our respective programs and to
identify technology needs of mutual interest to IVHS
and defense. Our discussions resulted in the
identification of the vehicle technology area for
IVHS which has been included in the "Program
Information Package for Defense Technology
Conversion, Reinvestment, and Transition Assistance"
that was released by DOD's Advanced Research Projects
Agency (ARPA) when the President announced the
program on March 11, 1993. The DOD/ARPA category for
vehicle technology, which includes electronics for
both vehicles and intelligent highway infrastructure,
is one of eleven areas identified by the
Administration for the defense technology conversion.
Numerous defense industry representatives and
defense industry federal laboratories have shown a
strong interest in technology conversion to IVHS.
This have been evidenced by their proposals to FHWA
in response to our Request for Proposals for IVHS
operational tests and in response to our Broad Agency
Announcement for precursor studies for the Automated
Highway System prototype. Their interest has also
been shown by their contacts to ARPA and DOT
following the President's announcement and by their
involvement in IVHS AMERICA.
The Administration's Rebuild America's
Infrastructure proposal includes $20 million per year
for defense applications. These funds will enable
DOT to participate with defense companies, national
labs, and other federal agencies like ARPA in
partnerships to facilitate and accelerate the
transfer of defense technologies to IVHS
applications.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Lautenberg. With that, the meeting of the subcommit-
tee comes to an end. It is recessed. The next subcommittee meeting
will take place on Wednesday, April 21, at 10 a.m. in SD-192. We
are going to be discussing the Department of Transportation's fiscal
year 1994 budget requests with Secretary Pena.
691
Thank you all for your participation. You have been very helpful.
[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., Wednesday, March 31, the sub-
committee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday, April
21.]
MATERIAL SUBMITTED SUBSEQUENT TO THE
HEARING
[Clerk's note. — ^The following statement was submitted subse-
quent to the hearing:]
Statement of the Electric Transportation Coalition
introduction
This statement is submitted by the Electric Transportation Coalition (Coalition),
a national organization of public and private groups interested in the use of elec-
tricity as a transportation mel. (A membership list is attached.) A principle activity
of the Coalition is to encourage the adoption of incentive-based policies emd pro-
grams to support the development and use of electricity as a "fuel" for light and me-
dium duty venicles, public transit and heavy rail services.
This statement addresses the fiscal year 1994 budget for the Department of
Transportation and focuses on funding for programs authorized by the Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA).
Increased investment to revitalize Uie nation's transportation infrastructure is a
cornerstone of President Clinton's "Rebuild America" program. The renewed focus
on transportation systems offers an important opportunity to create employment, in-
crease economic productivity and to assert U.S. technological leadership through the
support and development of advanced transportation technologies "fueled" by elec-
tricity.
THE ROLE OF ELECTRICITY IN THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
The Electric Transportation Coalition believes that electricity is the fuel of the fu-
ture to power the national transportation system. Electricity offers significant ad-
vantages in transportation applications. From an energy security standpoint, elec-
tric transportation presents our nation with a very important means to reduce our
dependency on foreign petroleum and to increase the diversity of the fuels used in
the transportation sector. A wide variety of transportation modes — individual pas-
senger and light-duty vehicles; buses and trollies; light rail; commuter rail; high
speed rail; magnetic levitation; and heavy rail services — can be powered by an abun-
dant, domestically-produced energy resource generated from a variety of sources.
That domestically produced resource is electricity.
Electricity also nolds the potential to significantly reduce emissions from the
transportation sector. Electric vehicles (EVs), for example, are truly "zero emission"
vehicles. They produce no tailpipe emissions and generate insignificant emissions
resulting from operation (such as emissions from braking). And, unlike other vehi-
cles, EVs are not subject to emission system deterioration over time, and there is
no danger of tampering with emission controls.
The only identifiable emissions are from the powerplant which generates the elec-
tricity used to charge the EV batteries. And, powerplant emissions are subject to
rigorous environmental controls; thus, even when powerplant emissions are in-
cluded, electric transportation offers significant improvements over conventional
modes reljdng on petroleum based transportation fuels.
For urban areas, electric transportation is particularly important in substantially
reducing emissions of mobile source pollutants, including volatUe organic compounds
and oxides of nitrogen that are the precursors of urban smog. Air quality consider-
ations have forced municiptd transit operators in mtmy urban areas to begin to ex-
amine clean fuel bus technologies. Electric trolley buses represent a near term, zero
emission alternative. Also, development programs are underway to lead to the com-
mercial introduction of battery-powered electric buses, suitable for a variety of tran-
sit applications. With onboard batteries, these buses require no overhead electric
Unes in order to operate. Longer term research programs to develop fuel cells for
urban transit bus applications are also in progress.
(693)
694
In the heavy rail sector, imposition of NOx emissions limitations could require sig-
nificant emissions reductions. Compliance strategies for rail operators could include
additional emissions controls or operating modifications. An attractive alternative,
particularly in areas with significant air quality problems, is likely to be rail elec-
trification.
Finally, the advancement of electric transportation technologies presents opportu-
nities for U.S. technological innovation and worldwide leadership. Adequate public
investment in a variety of electric transportation modes offers a means to focus the
creative abilities of U.S. industry, including those industries which need to reorient
from military to civilian applications.
THE ROLE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN SUPPORTING THE INTRODUCTION OF
ELECTRIC TRANSPORTATION MODES
The Federal government must be an active partner in the introduction and en-
hancement of electric transportation systems. Creating a market for electric trans-
portation will require that customers have greater access to, and familiarity with,
newly emerging technologies. This is an area where participation by the Federal
government, in particular, can have a significant impact. By joining with local and
state governments, industry and other public and private partners to support re-
search, development, demonstration and deployment of new electric transportation
technologies, the Federal government can help to introduce these newly emerging
technologies to the public. Such exposure, in time, will familiarize the pubUc to
these new forms of transportation and better ensure customer acceptance.
Adequate federal funding must be provided for all electric modes of transportation
to realize the environmental, energy security and efiBciency benefits of these trans-
portation modes. Government should focus also on ways to utilize government in-
vestments to attract increased private investment.
Transit Programs
The Coalition supports full ftinding for the transit programs authorized in ISTEA.
The authorization levels for the surface transportation program (STP) and the other
public transit programs included in ISTEA reflect a careful balancing of interests.
Fvdl funding for each component of the authorization is necessary to maintain this
balance.
Funds provided for transit programs in fiscal year 1993 fell well short of the level
authorized in ISTEA. Even including the pending supplemental appropriations leg-
islation, funding for transit will remain far below the fiscal year 1993 authorized
level of funding.
Transit services reduce air pollution in comparison to individual vehicle travel;
and electric transit promises even greater reductions. Electric transit has an impor-
tant role to play in enhanced environmental quality, congestion relief, and energy
conservation which can only be realized through additional Federal support. The Co-
alition believes that electric transit projects should be a high priority for funding.
Section 3 and Section 9 Programs
The Coalition supports the use of revenues under the Section 3 and Section 9 dis-
cretionary and formula grants programs for electric transit projects. Section 3 and
Section 9 grants are the primary means by which Federal resources currently are
used to support electric transit programs such as light rail and electric bus projects.
The Coalition will work through our membership to encourage various jurisdictions,
especially those located in urban nonattainment areas, to investigate and incor-
porate electric transit modes into local transportation plans. The importance of such
transit modes as effective links in an overall intermodal transportation system also
should be stressed as part of local transit decisionmaking.
Alternatively Fueled Bus Programs
The Energy Policy Act of 1992 authorizes $90 milUon over fiscal years 1993-1995
for alternative fuel bus programs. The Act authorizes the Department of Transpor-
tation to enter into cooperative agreements and joint ventures proposed by transit
authorities in urban areas (population over 100,000) to demonstrate the feasibility
of using alternative fuels in urban buses and other motor vehicles for mass transit.
Private interests may participate in joint ventures and cooperative agreements.
Transit authorities must agree to provide 20 percent of the costs of such projects.
Funding for this program is subject to appropriations being made; in addition, the
$90 million authorization is also to be used to pay incremental cost of dedicated al-
ternative fuel school buses, including costs for refueling facilities and conversion
costs.
,
695
The program authorized under the Act may serve as a successor to the Federal
Transit Aciministration's (FTA) Alternative Fuels Initiative (AFI Program). Over 60
grants, totalling $200 million, have been awarded under the AFI program for 1112
alternative fueled vehicles for use in transit service operations (470 CNG, 35 LNC,
338 methanol, 177 ethanol/ethanol injection). Fimds have been used primarily for
bus purchases, with eligible buses being those that meet normal requirements for
durability and maintainability; the program has been described by the FTA as being
"fuel neutral."
It is unclear from the information currently available whether the Department of
Transportation will seek to aggressively implement the new authority for alter-
native fuel bus programs. The Coalition urges that any alternative fuel bus initia-
tives undertaken by the Department should include both battery powered transit
and school buses and electric trolley buses.
Surface Transportation Program Funding
As a general matter, the Coalition believes that the flexible funding mechanisms
included in the Surface Transportation Program shovdd be utilized to provide addi-
tional support for electric transportation modes wherever possible. With respect to
specific programs, the Coalition is particularly interested in the congestion mitiga-
tion and air quality improvement program (CMAQ) authorized under Section 1008
oflSTEA.
CMAQ was designed as a program to set aside specific monies out of the Highway
Trust Fund to be used for projects to address congestion and improve air quality.
A total of $6 billion is authorized from fiscal year 1992 through fiscal year 1997 for
the CMAQ program.
Experience with the implementation of the CMAQ program to date has varied
widefy from state to state. Because of the obligational cemngs imposed on surface
transportation fUnding, it appears that many states have not fully committed re-
sources up to authorized levels for the CMAQ program. Yet this program represents
one of the most important potential sources of revenues to be utilized to support air
auality enhancement efforts, including efforts required to achieve compliance with
le requirements of the Clean Air Act.
Currently, the Federal Highway Administration is considering the extent to which
the alternative fuel vehicle program will qualify under CMAQ. There are a number
of potential electric vehicle and electric transportation applications which the Coali-
tion believes are fiilly within the scope of the CMAQ program. As an example, a
new initiative slated to get underway shortly in Massachusetts using CMAQ fund-
ing will demonstrate the feasibility of utilizing electric vehicles as the means to
transport residents from neighborhoods to pubfic transit stations. This demonstra-
tion offers a prime example of intermodalism, along with an indication of the scope
of programs uiat can participate in the CMAQ program.
The Coalition is hopeful that to the extent full funding is provided for the Surface
Transportation Program, adeauate resources will be devoted by the states to the
CMAQ program, to make funding available for innovative projects addressing both
air quahty and congestion issues, including electric transportation projects.
Planning Processed Under ISTEA
ISTEA requires both short-term and long-term strategic planning. Funding appro-
priated under the Surface Transportation Program can oe utilized for planmng pur-
poses. The Coalition believes that planning studies should give consideration to elec-
tric transportation as a part of this process. The intent of ISTEA was to promote
increased transportation planning ana intermodal transportation use. While the Co-
alition recognizes that electric transportation may or may not be feasible for a given
area or project, tiie significant benefits that electrification of transportation services
can have wsurants additional focus (and funding) upon plans that address elec-
trification as part of an intermodal transportation system.
By setting aside a portion of traditional planning funds for feasibiUty studies and
plans for electrified intermodal transportation systems, an incentive could be cre-
ated for States and local governments to thoroughly review all transportation op-
tions available to them, including the benefits that electric transportation has to
offer.
OTHER ELECTRIC TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS UNDER ISTEA
Electric Vehicle Research and Development
Title VI of ISTEA created a program of research and development of advanced
transportation systems and electric vehicles. The program provides for federal grant
assistance of up to $4 million to be made to consortia for cost-sharing in the design
696
and development of electric vehicles and advanced transportation systems, or relat-
ed systems or equipment, or for the purpose of enabling serial production processes.
A total of $12 nullion in fiscal year 1992 funds was made available for the pro-
gram, which is administered by the OfBce of Engineering of the Federal Transit Ad-
ministration. Grants have been awarded to CALSTART ($4 million to develop and
exhibit a showcase EV, to demonstrate and evaluate support facilities for EVs, and
to develop a prototype electric bus); the Chesapeake Consortium ($4 million, to dem-
onstrate and^ evaluate EVs with an advanced electric power train and to develop
manufacturing plans for production of EVs); the New York State Consortium ($2.3
million to conduct a commercial viability study of EVs and to develop, demonstrate
and evaluate a hybrid electric bus); and the Advanced Lead Acid Battery Consor-
tium ($1.2 milUon to support a fast charging research program to develop battery
charging hardware). These funds are leveraged by matching contributions of private/
state monies on at least a one to one matching basis.
The large number of private sector responses to this program is indicative of the
breadth of interest and opportunities for development and deployment of advanced
electric transportation tecnnologies in the Unitea States.
High-Speed Ground Transportation
ISTEA also established a program of research, development, and demonstration
of ground transportation technologies. The program was authorized at $50 million
for technology demonstrations. A total of $5 million is available for this progrtun in
fiscal year 1993 to be used for grants and contracts for demonstrations of specific
technologies in high-speed rail transportation proiects. In addition, ISTEA also au-
thorized a $25 million program of research and d:evelopment in high speed ground
transportation.
The Coalition strongly supports full funding to provide needed federal support for
this program. High speed ground transportation systems offer an important national
opportunity to improve intercity transportation.
The Coalition supports the creation of additional incentives for high speed rail,
including the provision of investment tax credit for qualifying expenditures to de-
velop new electric transportation technologies. This investment tax credit could be
limited to areas with serious air Quality problems (e.g. nonattainment areas under
the Clean Air Act Amendments ot 1990). An investment tax credit (ITC) also will
encourage increased private investment in these technologies and is consistent with
the President's intent to utilize the ITC to support "high technology" and job cre-
ation.
The Coalition also endorses legislation introduced by Senator Graham S. 438 to
lift state volume caps on revenue bonds to support financing for high-speed rail sys-
tems. President Clinton has supported this proposal and it has been incorporated
in the Administration's infrastructure investment package. Lifting the cap on reve-
nue bonds will give high speed rail systems the same access to tax-exempt bonds
already provided to airports, docks, and wharves.
Finally, the Coalition supports funding for, and expansion of, the existing loan
Karantee program for private investment in high speed rail. Not only should the
in guarantee program (authorized by the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory
Reform Act of 1976) be funded, but we would urge that other forms of electric trans-
portation including; light rail, bus and paratransit services, people mover services,
and electrified freight service should be eligible under such an expanded program.
Magnetic Levitation
ISTEA authorized a $700 million National Magnetic Levitation Prototype Devel-
opment Program, to be managed jointly by the Department of Transportation and
the Army Corps of Engineers. The program would provide funds to support the de-
velopment of a maglev prototype in the U.S., through a phased program of matehing
grants to project sponsors.
The Coalition supports President CUnton's request to increase outlays to this pro-
gram by $646 million between 1994 through 1997. The President has proposed to
use tJiis funding for the Maglev Prototype Development Program or to support start-
up of private or stete/local high-speed rail projects.
Maglev technology presents a real opportunity to exert U.S. technological leader-
ship in advanced transportation systems.
CONCLUSION
The Coalition appreciates this opportunity to make its concerns known to the
Committee and to submit for the record its funding priorities for the upcoming fiscal
year. We look forward to working with the Committee and the Congress to achieve
these goals.
697
Electric Transportation Coalition
membership — ^april 16, 1993
Allegheny Power Service Corporation
American Electric Power Service Corporation
American Nuclear Energy Council
American Public Power Association
Arizona Public Service Company
Asea Brown Boveri. Inc.
Baltimore Gas & Electric Company
Boston Edison Company
California Department of Commerce
Centerior Energy Corporation
Chattanooga Area Regional Transportation Authority
Chrysler Corporation
City of Albuquerque
City of Chicago Department of Environment
City of Detroit
City of Riverside
City of San Diego
Commonwealth Edison
Consolidated Edison of New York
Consumers Power
Copper Development Association
Detroit Edison
District of Columbia Energy OfBce
Duke Power Company
Edison Electric Institute
El Paso Electric Company
Electrosource, Inc.
Entergy Corporation
Florida Power and Light Company
Florida Power Corporation
Florida Solar Energy Center
FMC Corporation
Ford Motor Company
General Motors Corporation
General Public Utilities
Georgia Tech Research Institute
Hughes Aircraft Company
Illinois Power Company
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
International Lead Zinc Research Organization
Kansas Electric Utilities Research Program
Long Island Lighting Company
Los Angeles Department of Water & Power
National Electrical Manufacturers Association
National Rural Electric Cooperative Association
Nevada Power Company
New York City Department of Telecommunications & Energy
New York Power Authority
New York State Electric and Gas Corporation
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation
Northeast Utilities
Northern Indiana Public Service Company
Oklahoma Gas & Electric Company
PacifiCorp
Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Pennsylvania Energy OfBce
Pennsylvania Power & Light Company
Philadelphia Electric Company
Potomac Electric Power Company
PSA Peugeot-Citroen/USTR
PSI Energy
Public Service Electric & Gas Company
Sacramento Municipal Utility District
Salt River Project
698
San Diego Gas & Electric Company
Solar Electric
Solar Energy Industries Association
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company
Southern California Edison
Southern Company Services, Inc.
State of Colorado
Texas A&M University System
The Doe Run Company
Theodore Barry & Associates
Unique Mobility, Inc.
University of California
Universi^ of South Florida
Virginia Power
West Virginia University
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RE-
LATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 1994
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 21, 1993
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen Sen-
ate Office Building, Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg (chairman) presid-
ing.
Present: Senators Lautenberg, Harkin, and Specter.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
statement of hon. federico pena, secretary of transpor-
TATION
accompanied by KATHERINE E. COLLINS, ACTING ASSISTANT SEC-
RETARY, BUDGET AND PROGRAMS
OPENING REMARKS
Senator LAUTENBERG. I call the Subcommittee on Transportation
appropriations to order. And we will take a moment to greet the
Secretary and to outline what our mission is with this subcommit-
tee.
This is going to be the first hearing on President Clinton's budget
request for transportation for fiscal 1994.
This budget marks a real turning point in transportation policy,
because today we have before us a budget that makes a real at-
tempt at a truly balanced transportation program, a program that
seeks to reverse the trends of the last 12 years of disinvestment in
our Nation's infrastructure, declining productivity, and the loss of
jobs.
Finally, we have a budget before us that recognizes the critical
necessity to invest in new technologies like high-speed rail and in-
telligent vehicle highway systems, technologies that will improve
productivity and create thousands of new jobs throughout their de-
ployment and the new efficiencies that they will bring to our Na-
tion's economy.
Our economy has already paid dearly due to our failure to invest
adequately in our Nation's infrastructure. Just in my own State of
New Jersey, we have seen over 70,000 jobs lost in the construction
industry since 1988.
(699)
700
Japan, on the other hand, invests more than 20 times that which
we do in infrastructure; and in Germany 15 times as much. They
are maintaining their existing systems, developing new tech-
nologies, and making themselves more productive.
And through reduced market shares and exports, we are the ones
that are really paying the price for those investments.
The budget request before us certainly recognizes the critical
value of infrastructure investment. Indeed, 44 percent of the Presi-
dent's investment proposals for fiscal 1994 is in the area of infra-
structure.
Much of this investment would be in the area of transportation.
President Clinton is seeking full funding of the highway program
as contained in ISTEA. He is asking for 180 percent more for trsin-
sit formula and discretionary grants than was requested by Presi-
dent Bush for fiscal 1993.
For Amtrak operating and capital grants, including funding for
the Northeast corridor, the President is requesting 254 percent
more than was requested by President Bush for the last fiscal year,
the current fiscad year. That is good news.
The bad news, unfortunately, is that this subcommittee is not
going to be able to fund the President's entire budget request.
The President has requested, for all domestic discretionary
spending, $5.4 billion more in outlays than is allowed under the
budget resolution already adopted by the Congress.
The budget resolution does indeed mean tough medicine in many
areas as we pursue the goal of reducing our budget deficit. I
strongly support this goal and recognize that transportation, unfor-
tunately, is going to have to take its share of some bitter medicine.
The administration has made a well-intentioned effort at trim-
ming and cutting certain parts of the transportation budget. It
made some tough choices, but the fact is that this subcommittee is
going to have to make some even tougher choices.
So an important focus for us this morning will be a discussion
of those areas where we might succeed in cutting further without
blunting the investment goals that I so strongly support.
As we seek to reverse decades of underinvestment in our trans-
portation infrastructure, we must ensure that increased funds are
spent prudently and efficiently so that we can get the most bang
for our trsmsportation bucks.
One critical area where we must seek to spend more wisely is in
the area of transportation safety. While the majority of funds ap-
propriated to the Transportation Department go toward direct in-
vestment in our Nation's highways, rail systems, and airports, this
subcommittee has never lost sight of the critical safety functions
that DOT has responsibility for.
In many modes of transportation, we now find that either de-
regulation or other economic changes have forced unwelcome
changes in the operating practices of many segments of the trans-
portation industry. And, often, safety is the victim.
Whether it is in the aging oil tankers that ply our waters with
inadequate care, or truckers driving on our highways with inad-
equate rest and deficient brakes, we have to take more aggressive
steps to protect the health and the well-being of our citizens, as
well as the quality of our environment.
701
The Secretary, in previous statements before this committee, has
signaled a renewed commitment to safety, a commitment that is
long overdue.
The Secretary will, I hope, have the resources at hand to move
forward aggressively with your investment agenda, as well as safe-
ty agenda. You can count on this subcommittee to do everything it
can to help in both areas.
Now, Mr. Secretary, I welcome you to the subcommittee this
morning. I know that you just returned from a fairly arduous trip,
but that has become normal, I assume, in your new life here, and
that you may have a thing or two to tell us about the bilateral dis-
cussions that you were involved with in London.
But we are pleased to have you with us and to discuss so many
subjects that come around as a budget is developing. We believe
that you have, for a change, presented a budget that is worth de-
fending. And we look forward to discussing that with you.
PREPARED STATEMENTS
Senator Lautenberg. Before I ask you to present a summary
statement, I will take this opportunity to insert opening statements
from two of my colleagues who are unable to join us this morning.
Senators D'Amato and Sasser.
[The statements follow:]
Statement of Senator D'Amato
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join you in welcoming Secretary Pena. This is the
second time Secretary Peria has testified before this subcommittee, but the first time
since the President's fiscal year 1994 Budget was issued.
The newly proposed fiscal year 1994 budget contains $4.6 billion for transit. This
falls $700 million short of the $5.4 billion authorized for transit by the Intermodal
Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1991 and the National Capital Transpor-
tation Act (D.C. Metro authorization). However, it would be an overall increase of
21 percent ($802 million) over fiscal year 1993 appropriated levels: Transit formula
programs would be increased by 43 percent, new starts would be decreased by 9 per-
cent, while operating aid would stay level at $802 million.
Federal-aid highway programs would fare better than transit, since they would
be fully fiinded at ISTEA authorized levels, $20.6 billion for fiscal year 1994. Given
the Clean Air Act's stringent requirements for our nation's cities and towns, it is
surprising to receive a budget tiiat fiilly fixnds highway programs while transit
again goes begging.
The Federal Aviation Administration would receive $9.2 billion, a slight increase
of 3.5 percent over current appropriated levels.
The U.S. Coast Guard would receive $3.7 billion, a 4-percent increase over current
levels. However, all funds for the Coast Guard are to be transportation fiinds. In
past years, the Defense Department has contributed vital fiinds to this account. It
remains to be seen what problems this subcommittee will encounter in meeting the
many needs of the Coast Guard without DOD assistance.
Some other funding areas of interest include the $1,056 billion proposed for Am-
trak and the Northeast Corridor (current levels) as well as a high-speed ground
transportation initiative.
I look forward to hearing Secretary Peria's views on this new budget proposal.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Statement of Senator Sasser
Good morning. I join in welcoming Secretary Pena to his second appearance before
the Subcommittee. With thousands of jobs in the balance, this Panel and the nation
have eagerly awaited the Administration's proposed Fiscal Year 1994 Transpor-
tation Budget.
68-623 O— 93 23
702
Job growth and creation remain the nation's number one priority. Competition
from abroad and an ever changing, mobUe global climate have heightened the sense
of urgency under which we seek to expand employment opportunities. If America
is to respond effectively to the economic challenges of the day, we must join Presi-
dent Clinton in his call to "Rebuild America".
America's strength has always been in its people. Through diversity and numbers,
America is at its Best when our people are working. President Clinton understands
this. President Clinton also understands that America cannot and will not be all
that it can be unless the American worker leads the way. The quaUty of jobs created
today will define the promise of the nation's economic future.
It is no accident, therefore, that transportation investments are high on the Clin-
ton Administration's economic agenda. A safe and efficient intermodal transpor-
tation system is sjTionymous with securing the nation's competitive edge. Prudent,
well-targeted transportation investments mean expanded emplojmtient opportunities
and the development of important technologies of tne future.
The Administration's economic stimulus plan is a jobs plan. It is the first down-
payment on a long-range commitment to "Rebuild America". The immediate impact
would mean the creation of thousands of jobs, jobs that are desperately needed
today. It is all the more unfortunate that a segment in the Congress chose to throw
up a partisan smokescreen to stall the President's iobs creation plan.
Despite the roadblocks, the President's proposed Fiscal Year 1994 Transportation
Budget maintains the economic high road, focusing on the kind of investment need-
ed to rebuild the nation's infi-astructure, and put our people back to work. The Clin-
ton Administration's proposed Fiscal Yeeir 1994 Transportation Budget begins the
process of reversing what has been a decade long era of disinvestment in the na-
tion's physical infi-astructure.
The Administration's proposed Fiscal Year 1994 Transportation Budget cannot fill
all the potholes, or repair every crumbling bridge overnight. It does, however, recog-
nize the critical nexus between the nation's economic health and the safety and efn-
ciency of our transportation systems.
The Clinton Administration's first transportation budget offers more promise than
the previous two Administrations' budgets combined. Highways, roads and bridges,
the staple of the nation's transportation artery, all would receive increased invest-
ments under the CUnton plan.
In addition, the Administration's fiscal year 1994 Budget begins the ISTEA prom-
ise of taking U.S. transportation policy into the future. Through increased commit-
ments to High Speed Ground Transportation, Magnetic Levitation, and Intelligent
Vehicle Highway Systems, as well as crucial transportation Research and Develop-
ment, the Clinton plan provides a focus and direction to fulfilling ISTEA.
The ultimate beneficiaries are the American people. Transportation investments
create jobs. Equally important, transportation investments enhance the safe and ef-
ficient movement of people and goods, both at home and abroad.
I hope the Congress will work with the Administration to make transportation in-
vestments work for people. I look forward to hearing the testimony.
STATEMENT OF SECRETARY PENA
Senator Lautenberg. Secretary Pena, we invite you to proceed.
Secretary Pena. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And let me tell you how happy I am to be before you and this
committee for many reasons. You are right; I have just returned
from London after our first formal negotiating with my counter-
part, Secretary of State for Transportation John McGregor, to begin
renegotiating our current bilateral agreement with the United
Kingdom.
But while I was there, Mr. Chairman, I had an opportunity to
observe my counterpart participate in a longstanding tradition in
the Parliament, which is called questioning. This is where the
Transport Minister presents himself to the House of Commons.
Members of the House are able to ask him pointed questions, and
he must respond on the floor. I must tell you that I am delighted
to be here in this committee, not to be subject to the kind of ques-
tioning that he was subjected to in the Parliament.
703
Senator Lautenberg. Do you mean that this is the civilized
body?
Secretary Pena. This is a civilized body.
Senator Lautenberg. Interesting.
Secretary Pena. Well, it was fascinating. And I was informed
that there are actually two maroon-colored borders on the carpet
beyond which members cannot cross, because that is the length of
two swords, because in the old days, apparently, every once in a
while where there was serious disagreement — ^you had to be care-
ful— swords were actually drawn. [Laughter.]
But they have improved remarkably, Mr. Chairman. And I am
just happy to be here, not having to worry about crossing maroon
borders.
And by the way, I would be happy in my questioning period to
respond more — ^to explain what we were able to do in our meeting
with Mr. McGregor. I think we have made substantial progress.
But in addition, Mr. Chairman, I am happy to be here, because
I have always appreciated and respected your leadership in this
area of investing in our Nation's infrastructure and your commit-
ment to improving our transportation facilities in the country. And
I look forward to working with you and other members of the com-
mittee in future years.
Your comments today, Mr. Chairman, frankly, reflect very much
my philosophy and much of what I wanted to say. So I will summa-
rize my statement this morning in talking about the 1994 budget
by simply saying that this President and this administration have
a much different view of investment in infrastructure and, particu-
larly, in transportation than have past administrations.
We agree that investment in transportation infrastructure is crit-
ical to our economy. Having come back from Europe, it is abun-
dantly clear to me that we are not maintaining our competitive po-
sition vis-a-vis Europe and Japan, as you stated.
We must invest more in our infrastructure. At the same time, we
have to continue to find ways to reduce the deficit. And the Presi-
dent's budget proposal does that.
Let me give you, Mr. Chairman, an overview of the budget for
1994. We are asking the committee to approve a budget in the
amount of $39.9 billion. That excludes MarAd. That is a 10.9-per-
cent growth over 1993.
To put that in perspective, if we are able — and I understand you
have a vote this morning on the stimulus — to approve the stimulus
program, at least as originally proposed — the $4.1 billion for trans-
portation— the point I want to make is that the 1994 budget I am
talking about this morning would maintain that level of funding.
There were some who were critical of the stimulus, particularly
in transportation, because it was argued that it was only a one-shot
investment, not to be followed up in subsequent years with a simi-
lar level of investment.
Clearly, the 1994 budget does that. And so the stimulus is the
first step of a multiyear commitment and a steady commitment to
infrastructure investment.
The second point I want to make is that the 1994 budget in-
crease includes $3.7 billion for investments which are primarily in
704
infrastructure, but we are also proposing reductions in administra-
tive costs.
We will reduce our full-time equivalent staffing by 1,765 by 1994.
We are committed to making additional administrative cuts in the
amount of $64 million.
BUDGET THEMES
Mr. Chairman, let me talk about the themes of the budget. And
then I will go into a little more specificity. As we look over the next
4 years, you will see the following themes: First, making strategic
transportation investments to strengthen our economy, as I said
earlier, to ensure that we have the economic stimulus we need and
fully allowing our economy to develop as it should.
We recognize that $1 out of every $6 of gross domestic product
is now spent in transportation-related activities. We want to in-
crease speed. We want to increase reliability. We want to improve
cost effectiveness.
The budget has a $28.4 billion investment for infrastructure. And
that investment is 71 percent of our budget.
So when people ask the question, "Where is money going?" 71
percent of my budget is going into actual infrastructure invest-
ment.
I think that is, perhaps, different from other budgets of other de-
partments. And, of course, we want to focus on particular indus-
tries in transportation, airlines and maritime.
The second general theme we will enforce and emphasize, as you
suggested, Mr. Chairman, is the question of safety. It continues to
be a very high priority and a primary responsibility at this Depart-
ment.
You will see investments in safety inspections, maritime safety,
safety grants, particularly to States and localities, Hazmat train-
ing, and programs aimed at reducing highway deaths in the total
amount of $1.95 billion.
Mr. Chairman, you made mention in your opening comments
about truckers. I am reminded of the fact that I stopped a rule-
making which would have allowed truckdrivers to drive longer
hours, because I felt that the analysis done had not adequately re-
sponded to the question of safety.
I think that is the signal that this Department is sending
throughout the country, that safety is a very important priority,
particularly with respect to trucks.
The third theme, Mr. Chairman, you will see is our connecting
environmental policy to transportation investment and programs.
We want to support planning and projects which are supportive of
the environment and to mitigate environmental damage.
We will do this through Federal-aid highways congestion mitiga-
tion funds and other programs. We are already working more close-
ly with the Environmental Protection Agency to ensure that we
work in collaboration.
Let me be very specific. Last week, the EPA Administrator and
I sent a jointly signed letter to the Grovemor of California indicat-
ing to the State of California that, because of our concern that the
State had not yet passed the enhanced inspection and maintenance
program, it was subject to losing Federal highway funds.
705
I believe this was the first time that such a joint letter has been
sent to a State. The message there is, clearly, that we do not want
to cut back on highway fiinding, particularly in California. Califor-
nia has great needs in the area of transportation, but it is my re-
sponsibility to enforce the law. I am working very closely with
Carol Browner to ensure that those messages are sent to States
which are not in compliance, but also to send those messages with
adequate and timely notice so that we simply do not wait until the
end of the assembly's time this year and then tell them they are
subject to enforcement.
So I think we are already beginning to send a signal that work-
ing with EPA very closely, being concerned about environmental is-
sues, is going to be a major theme of this administration.
The fourth general theme is technology improvements, something
you have talked about, something that I am very committed to.
There are ample opportunities in transportation to invest in new
technology.
We are very much committed to the intelligent vehicle highway
system. We are investing in high-speed rail technology, which the
country desperately needs. We are supporting new technology im-
provements such as the use of the global positioning satellite tech-
nology, which I think is very exciting.
And last month, I was in Dallas helping launch a new program
of defense conversion, speaking to 800 defense contractors and en-
couraging them to move into the transportation area.
I had an opportunity to talk to the people at Texas Instruments
who are doing very interesting things as respects toll roads and
using new technology to allow civilian vehicles to use the same
technology that we used in Desert Storm to allow truckdrivers and
others to drive through the night. Those kinds of new technologies,
I think, are very exciting and something that we can do.
The fifth general theme, Mr. Chairman, is the question of
intermodalism which, of course, was very much a part of the
ISTEA legislation. We believe this can become a reality.
I am excited about the fact that many cities throughout the coun-
try are focusing on this concept and are proposing projects that in-
tegrate our modes of transportation.
SPECIFIC BUDGET REQUESTS
Now, having tsdked very briefly about those themes, in the budg-
et you will see in the area of highways, as you said, full funding
of the Federal-aid Highway Program. In addition, the budget in-
cludes $214 million for intelligent vehicles.
In NHTSA, we are asking for a 14-percent increase for a total of
$307 million.
In transit, we will have a much different philosophy and attitude
about transit than did the previous administration. We are sup-
portive of transit. The transit budget is $4.6 billion. That is a 21-
percent growth over 1993 enacted levels. We think it is important
to improve air quality, to relieve congestion. We are going to focus
those dollars on the capital side. As respects operating assistance
in the transit area, we are going to cap that at $802 million, but,
generally speaking, we are much more supportive of transit.
706
Railroads, $1.06 billion; we want to be supportive of Amtrak,
$633 million, and $204 million for the Northeast corridor. And, of
course, my responsibility is to develop a major policy for a new ini-
tiative in high-speed rail technology, a $1.3 billion program over 5
years that the President has asked us to address.
Last, the last two areas, FAA, a 3.5-percent growth over 1993 —
that is $9.2 billion — with special focus and attention on the pro-
curement problems of the FAA, particularly the AAS system where,
I think, we are making significant progress.
And for the Coast Guard, Mr. Chairman, $3.7 billion, a 4-percent
increase over 1993. The Coast Guard continues to provide out-
standing services to the country. They are being asked to do more
and more things.
But I think we are funding it at an adequate level. And, of
course, the Coast Guard also has to adjust, given the decrease in
our investment in defense technology.
So let me close my comments, Mr. Chairman, by simply saying
that these are the five themes we will have in this administration.
The 1994 budget is a significant improvement over 1993.
I think it begins in a very dramatic way to respond to your con-
cerns and those of other Americans about investment in infrastruc-
ture. And I look forward to working with you, to getting that job
done and answering your questions this morning.
Thank you very much.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. It is
a wonderful summary of where we have to be. We have your full
staement, which will be included in the record.
[The statement follows:]
Statement of Federico Pena
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to appear before
you to discuss the Department's budget request for fiscal year 1994. This Sub-
committee has provided strong support for transportation programs and the effec-
tiveness of our programs has benefited from the guidance you nave provided. If this
nation is to have a sound, competitive transportation system to support our economy
and our quality of life, we must invest in our transportation systems. At the same
time, I am sure that you share the concern for deficit reduction and efforts to reduce
the cost of Government.
The President's fiscal year 1994 budget for the Department of Transportation will
ask this Subcommittee to approve $39.9 billion in appropriations, obligation limita-
tions and exempt obligations. (This excludes $380 nullion re<juested for the Mari-
time Administration which is considered by another Subcommittee.) This request is
10.9 percent above the fiscal year 1993 enacted level. Assuming enactment of the
President's fiscal year 1993 stimulus proposals, our request for fiscal year 1994 is
essentially the same as the fiscal year 1993 level, reflecting a continuing commit-
ment to investment in the capital needs of our transportation systems.
The Department's fiscal year 1994 budget responds to the President's emphasis
on investment for the future, while moving concurrentiy to reduce the costs of gov-
ernment. Oxir request includes an increase of $3.7 bilhon for investments, focused
heavily on infrastructxire improvements. As a means of reducing government's bur-
den on the taxpayer, we propose a reduction of 1,114 P\ill Time Equivalent (FTE)
staff in fiscal year 1993 and a further reduction of 651 FTE in fiscal year 1994 fi*om
the 1993 enacted level. The budget reflects savings of $28 million in administrative
expenses and proposes no new funding for certain programs funded in fiscal year
1993 which saves $431 million fi"om the baseline.
This budget request supports a national goal of creating jobs and stimulating the
economy on more than a short-term basis. In particular, capital investment in infi*a-
707
structure, which totals $28.4 billion and accounts for almost 71 percent of the budg-
et, supports iob creation both directly and indirectly and facilitates the productivity
of American business by supporting more efficient transportation.
As we look forward to the next four years and to the goals we seek to accomplish,
there are several key themes which I will stress as we manage our programs, de-
velop our policies and formulate our budget proposals. I seek your support of these
goals, as well as the appropriations entailed in csirrying them out.
These include:
Strengthening Transportation's Role in Supporting the Economy
A competitive, growing economy requires a transportation system that can move
people, goods and services quickly, safely and efficiently. Transportation must be a
means of encouraging our mil economic potential and not a constraint to growth.
With nearb;y one out of every six dollars of Gross Domestic Product now spent in
transportation-related activities, efforts to increase the speed, reliability and cost-
effectiveness of the transportation sector will also play a key role in assuring the
economy's competitiveness and ability to create jobs. Nearly $28.4 billion, or 71 per-
cent, of the Department's budget is for programs directly supporting capital invest-
ments in highway, transit, rail, maritime and aviation infrastructure. Our stimulus
proposal is a down payment on this investment. The fiscal year 1994 budget follows
through in a way that can create real momentum.
Supporting the Safety of Our Transportation Systems
Ensuring and promoting the safety of our transportation systems must be the pri-
mary responsibifity of the Department to the users of the nation's transportation
systems. This includes our own inspection and oversight role as well as encouraging,
through our grant programs. State and local governments to take action to improve
transportation safety.
The budget includes $1.95 billion for programs that directly enhance the safety
of our transportation services. This amount, which is five percent over the fisci
year 1993 enacted level, includes fiinds for safety inspections, maritime safety, safe-
ty grants, and transportation security. In addition, an appropriation limitation of
$15 million on the use of permanent budget authority is proposed for hazardous ma-
terials-related emergency preparedness planning and training grants to States.
Highway and motor-earner safety programs will seek farther reduction of the traffic
fatelity rate which, according to 1992 estimates, stood at an estimated all-time low
of 1.8 fatalities per hundred million vehicle miles travelled.
As a result of legislation enacted in past DOT Appropriations Acts, fiscal year
1994 is the first year that States will face the loss of^ highway fiinds for failure to
enact laws requiring the revocation or suspension of drivers' licenses of individuals
convicted of drug offenses. We wUl work with States to promote the enactment of
such legislation to enhance safety.
Strengthening the Linkage Between Transportation and Environmental Policy
Transportation has a significant impact on the environment. Sound planning, in-
vestments and regulatory actions can support environmental improvements and
mitigate environmental damages. The Department will encourage environmental
improvements by coordinating our actions more closely with the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency and other Federal environmental agencies. We will also encourage
State and local governments to identify environmentally sound transportation alter-
natives and to target their investments to projects and programs to reduce auto-
mobile congestion. The budget includes $508 million for environmental activities.
We recognize an obligation to be responsive in our activities and have included
$47.1 million to clean up environmental damage and ensure environmental compli-
ance at DOT facilities. The budget also includes, as part of our grant programs,
funds that States and localities will use to mitigate siirface transportation conges-
tion and aviation noise. Full funding for the Federal-aid Highways program will give
States latitude to use the newly authorized Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
Improvement Program fiinds for transportation projects to help meet air Quality
standards in non-attainment areas. Also, States may use Feaeral-aid Hignways
funds to finance wetlands mitigation banks, bicycle facilities, billboard removal and
scenic byways. I expect States to recognize these imperatives in their planning and
project selection.
Advancing U.S. Transportation Technology and Expertise
The Clinton Administration is committed to the effective use of technology to meet
national objectives. Sound technological investments can promote long-term eco-
nomic growth that creates jobs and protects the environment; can help make gov-
ernment more efficient; and can provide the basis for national leadership in applica-
708
tion of new technology to economic growth. The budget includes $688 million for re-
search and development, a 6.4 percent increase over the fiscal year 1993 enacted
level. The Department's research and development program not only supports de-
partmental operating and regulatory responsibilities, but also serves as a catalyst
to promote productivity improvements and new technology for transportation sys-
tems and services in support of the nation's economy. Key initiatives in the fiscal
year 1994 budget will bring technology to bear on the issues of high-speed ground
transportation and Intelligent Vehicle Highway Systems (IVHS). Effective introduc-
tion of technological progress in these areas will pay dividends for decades to come.
Fostering Intermodalism
The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) brought new em-
phasis to the obvious, but heretofore unrealized goal of intermodalism.
Intermodalism seeks to foster connections to ensure the safe, efficient transfer of
people and goods between modes of transportation; to ensure choice and competition
in the market; and to coordinate among transportation organizations to improve
transportation service in an environmentally and economically sound manner. Com-
mitment to the flexibility provisions and planning requirements of ISTEA is part
of intermodalism, as is ensuring that our investment decisions do not negatively af-
fect the economic viability of other transportation services and markets.
The program and funding levels proposed for each operating administration in fis-
cal year 1994 are intended to support these key goals, as the balance of my state-
ment will show.
SURFACE PROGRAMS
Our request for the three agencies reauthorized by ISTEA — the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA), and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA)— totals $25.5 billion, 15
gercent growth over the fiscal year 1993 enacted level. Implementing ISTEA, both
nancially and philosophically, and facihtating infrastructure investment are top
priorities for the Department.
Our request for tlie FHWA totals $20.6 billion, including $2.1 billion in exempt
obligations. The obligation limitation for Federal-aid Highways is proposed at the
ISTEA-authorized level of $18,362 billion, plus $36 million (with commensurate in-
crease in contract authority) for the Federal lands program. Legislation will be pro-
posed for this additional authority needed above the ISTEA levels to address the
backlog of necessary road projects on Federal lands. The reauest also includes $75
milUon in total obligation limitations for motor carrier and nighway-related safety
grants, the same level as enacted in fisc£d year 1993.
The Limitation on General Operating Expenses (LGOE) is budgeted at $489 mil-
lion, which includes about $55 million for motor carrier safety activities. The re-
quest for LGOE also includes $101 million to support IVHS activities which, to-
gether with $113 million in contract authority available within the Federal-aid pro-
gram for rVHS, will provide strong support for continued progress in this area. With
this investment, 49 percent growth over fiscal year 1993, and planned investment
in the future, we hope to bring IVHS technologies to the marketplace much faster
and to set a program level that will spur private sector investment.
Under this budget proposal, resources for NHTSA would increase by 14 percent
for a total of $307 million. NHTSA will continue its successful efforts to reduce traf-
fic accidents and fatalities. State highway safety grant programs will increase 25
percent fi"om $142 million (excluding carryover) to $177 milUon, including $50 mil-
lion for grant programs to encourage States to enact safety belt and motorcycle hel-
met use laws and measures to counter drunk and drugged driving. The budget pro-
poses $130 million for the Operations and Research account, which is 1.4 percent
above the fiscal year 1993 enacted level. The request includes $6.5 million for alco-
hol programs and $2 million toward the construction of the National Advanced Driv-
ing Simulator to be located at the University of Iowa. This state-of-the-art simulator
will be used to conduct research in highway trafiBc safety, IVHS and automotive de-
sign. NHTSA recently signed a Cooperative Agreement with the University to en-
sure their participation in the design, fabrication and operation of the simulator.
For FTA, the budget proposes a $4.6 billion program, with major emphasis on a
sustained level of capital assistance. The budget request is a 21 percent increase
over the fiscal year 1993 enacted level which is more growth than transit has re-
ceived in the last four years. The quality of our transit systems is critical, since
transit systems will be called upon to carry even more customers as States and lo-
calities develop strategies to deal with congestion and air quality. Operating sissist-
ance would be capped, as it has been in the past, at $802 million. The urban capital
709
portion of Formula Grants is proposed at $1.46 billion, a 22 percent increase over
the fiscal year 1993 level including the stimulus funds. Discretionary Grants are
funded at $1,772 billion, with $657 million for new starts, $760 million for rail and
guideway modernization and $354 million for bus projects. I am also committed to
making the flexibility provisions of ISTEA work. Last year, $300 million in highway
funds were transferrea for transit use. That compares to only $7 milUon transferred
from highways to transit in all of the previous four years. With the latitude that
the increased highway obligation ceiling permits, I would expect even more aggres-
sive support for transit and other non-traditional uses of these funds. The budget
also includes $200 million for the Washin^n Metro, which supports WMATA's
"fast-track" plan to complete the last 13.5 miles of the system, within the funds au-
thorized for that purpose.
For Federal Railroad Administration programs, the budget requests $1,056 billion.
This budget recognizes the importance of rail in our passenger and fi-eight transpor-
tation systems. Grant assistance to Amtrak is continued at current levels and an
aggressive initiative is proposed to advance the development of high-speed ground
transportation. At the same time, we are sensitive to our safety responsibilities. The
request for Railroad Safety of $45 million, an increase of 10.5 percent, includes
funds for an additional 18 FTE's to strengthen the rail safety inspection program
and to implement rulemakings and other legislative mandates.
With respect to High-Speed Ground Transportation, the budget proposes $140
million in fiscal year 1994 and a total of $1.3 billion over the Gscal year 1994-98
period. The proposal draws on $648 million in contract authority from the highway
trust fund, already authorized in ISTEA, together with $637 million in general
funds over the five-year period. Investment in this technology is not just a transpor-
tation commitment. It supports the growth of interdependent urban regions that are
not bound only to the automobile or the airplane but can provide environmentally
sensitive mobility within their boundaries. Such linkage will enhance the economic
performance of these regions to the overall gotil of national growth. To accomplish
this goal, we would provide financial assistance to States for improvements, such
as track and signal work, necessary to support speeds of 125 mph in selected cor-
ridors. In addition, we would finance development of technologies — ^both conven-
tional and developmental in nature — needed to support high-speed ground transpor-
tation. This would include technical developments in the near term to advance the
traditional steel-wheel-on-steel-rail systems and the initial phase of a maglev proto-
type with appropriate opportunity to measure its progress through the development
and testing stages.
The request for Amtrak is $633 million, including Mandatory Rail Payments. The
Administration supports Amtrak and recognizes the important contribution its serv-
ice makes toward meeting the nation's passenger transportation needs. At the same
time, we support Amtrak's continuing goal of eliminating Federal operating sub-
sidies. Amtrak, Congress and the Administration must pursue every opportunity to
control operating expenses and increase passenger and other revenues in order to
achieve this goaT
AVIATION PROGRAMS
For the Federal Aviation Administration, we propose a budget of $9.2 billion,
which provides 3.5 percent growth over the fiscal year 1993 enacted level. The Air-
port Improvement Program must be reauthorized for fiscal year 1994 and we will
transmit our proposed reauthorization legislation soon. The capital component of the
budget request totals $4.65 billion and includes $2.5 billion for Facilities and Equip-
ment (F&E), $250 million for Research, Engineering and Development (RE&D) and
$1.88 billion for Airport Grants. The request for F&E provides 7 percent growth
($174 million) over tiie fiscal year 1993 enacted level and includes $456 million for
continued work on the Advanced Automation System. The delays and problems we
have faced with this work are of concern to me as I know they are to this commit-
tee. We are committed to more effective oversight of this program, both at FAA and
OST, as we proceed.
FAA Operations is proposed to increase one percent — $38 million — ^to $4.58 bil-
lion. This budget reflects tough choices and significant belt tightening. One of the
budget reductions we propose includes termination of the Pay Demo program in Oc-
tober 1993. This program was due to expire in June 1994. Other actions include re-
ducing discretionary contracts, travel and training expenses. Air traffic controller
employment levels will total 17,871 controllers, the level expected at the end of fis-
cal year 1993.
We are proposing that 75 percent of the FAA budget continue to be financed by
the Airport and ALnway Trust Fund, consistent with current authorization. With the
710
fiscal year 1994 budget request of $9.2 billion and the stimulus funds proposed for
fiscal year 1993, the surplus in the Airport and Airway Trust Fund would decline
from $4.4 billion estimated at the end ot fiscal year 1993 to $3.98 billion at the end
of fiscal year 1994.
MARITIME PROGRAMS
The budget request for the United States Coast Guard totals $3.7 bilUon, a four
percent increase over the fiscal year 1993 enacted level. The request would allow
the Coast Guard to continue the services the public expects. For Operating Ex-
genses, the budget proposes $2.61 billion, an increase of two percent ($52 million),
[olding to this level requires $42 million in reductions, such as closure of the Far
East LORAN chain and reduction of the Anti-Submarine Warfare capability aboard
high endurance cutters, offset by $10 million to operate new or expanded facilities
funded in previous budgets and $7 million for improvements in the marine safety,
marine environmental protection, fisheries protection and work-Ufe initiatives.
For Coast Guard's capital program. Acquisition, Construction and Improvements,
$414 million is requested — an increase of 14 percent over the fiscal year 1993 pro-
gram level which included the use of unobligated balances. Key elements of the re-
quest include $45 million to procure two additional buoytender replacements, $43
million to continue renovation of the medium endurance cutters, $55 million to pro-
cure the last three HH-60J helicopters in support of the OpBAT drug enforcement
program, $22 million for necessary investments in housing for the Coast Guard's
mihtary forces, and $35 million to modernize vessel traffic services.
With this budget proposal. Coast Guard's Environmental Compliance and Restora-
tion program woula increase five percent ($1 million) to $23 million. The Coast
Guard will continue to deliver on its commitment to clean up and restore Coast
Guard locations which have suffered or caused environmental damages and also en-
sure that its vessels are in compliance with applicable laws and regulations.
The budget proposal also contains $64 million for the Coast Guard's Reserve
Training appropriation, a 12 percent decrease. This reduced level will support a Se-
lected Reserve force of 8,000. This down-sized force is based on the Coast Guard's
review of its defense-related mobUization requirements.
The budget requests $10.9 million for the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development
Corporation, less than one percent increase from the fiscal year 1993 enacted level.
In addition to these amounts, the Corporation will use $300 thousand of its reserve
to begin a three-yesu- program of lock concrete repair strongly recommended by the
Army Corps of Engineers.
OTHER DOT PROGRAMS
For the OfBce of the Inspector General, the budget request totals $40.7 million,
a 7 percent increase over the fiscal year 1993 enacted level, to support audit, inspec-
tion/evaluation and investigative activities. In particular, the budget requests $3.6
million to finance independent audits of financial statements required by the Chief
Financial Officers Act. Under the Act, the Inspector General is responsible for au-
dits of financial statements prepared for the Department's trust funds, revolving
funds and commercial type activities.
For the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), the budget re-
quests $34 million which together with a $15 million appropriation limitation on the
use of permanent budget authority will provide a $59 million program level. This
is an increase of 18 percent over the fiscal year 1993 level. This growth will help
RSPA carry out its safety and research activities, particularly in the areas of haz-
ardous material safety and inspection, transportation research, emergency transpor-
tation, and airline statistics. The budget provides $15 million for the Emergency
Preparedness program, for State planning and training grants, and technical assist-
ance to be financed from fees paid by hazardous materials shippers and carriers.
The request for the Pipeline Safety program is $18.9 million, a 25 percent in-
crease over the fiscal year 1993 enacted level. The budget request includes funding
to address new mandates of the Pipeline Safety Act of 1992. The grant program is
continued at $7 million. Increased fimding of $2.6 million is requested to support
RSPA's review and approval of liquid pipeline spill response plans as required by
the Oil Pollution Act of^l990.
The budget includes $15 million in fiscal year 1994, transferred from the Federal-
aid highways account, to finance the new Bureau of Transportation Statistics, which
was directed by the Appropriations Committees and authorized by ISTEA. The pur-
pose of the Bureau is to compile and publish transportation statistics suitable for
use in cost-benefit analyses, establish a long-term data collection program regarding
the performance of tiie national transportation system and identify needed informa-
711
tion not currently collected. Under the law, the Director is appointed by the Presi-
dent and confirmed bv the Senate for a four-year term. In fiscal year 1994, two key
activities planned include completion of the nationwide Commodity Flow Survey in
conjunction with the Census Bureau and initiation of a nationwide multimodal Pas-
senger Flow Survey.
For the OfBce of the Secretary, the budget requests $113 million, a four percent
increase over the fiscal year 1993 enacted level, for salaries and expenses and other
programs of the OST. In addition, $149.6 million is requested for rental payments
to the General Services Administration (GSA) which, together with $17.5 million re-
quested in the FHWA budget to be paid into this account, will support existing
space and critical additions to accommodate forced moves into GSA space and work-
load reqviirements. Funds are requested to continue the Essential Air Service pro-
gram ($38.6 million) and the Transportation, Planning, Research and Development
program ($3 million) at fiscal vear 1993 levels. Resources for the OfBce of Commer-
cial Space Transportation total $5.2 million.
For Salaries and Expenses, the budget requests $65.8 million including funds to
strengthen management oversight in the areas of information technology, acquisi-
tion and grants management and financial management and to continue office auto-
mation and development of financial management systems. The Office of
Intermodalism, authorized by the ISTEA, will be funded fix)m the Federal-aid High-
way program as it was in fiscal year 1993. As evidence of my commitment to reduce
the costs of government and streamline operations, the Office of the Secretan^ will
reduce its staffing by 23 FTE fi-om (two percent) to a level of 1,103 FTE rec-
ommended for fiscal year 1994.
There are a number of changes that I plan for the OST. The most significant is
a reorganization of the Office of Policy into two assistant secretaries, one for avia-
tion and international issues and one for transportation policy. This approach will
allow both areas to get the full management attention they both deserve. The Office
of the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs will become the Director for Public Af-
fairs.
The safety and soundness of the transportation infrastructure are vital to the Na-
tion's economy. The fiscal year 1994 President's Budget for the Department of
Transportation supports the priority this Administration has placed on invest-
ment>---in infi-astructure, in tecnnology and in safety — which is key to America's fu-
ture.
DEFICIENCY IN TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS
Senator Lautenberg. Of course, the question of transportation
is: How do we get there? And that is going to be one that we are
going to be wrestling with, I guess, until we start to see some sig-
nificant improvement in reducing the budget deficit and getting on
with the programs necessary to keep our country functioning in
lots of areas that need attention.
We are coming out of a period of time when programs were ne-
glected across the country, and now are paying the price in so
many ways. Thus, unfortunately, transportation programs are com-
peting with other programs.
Now, you and I probably agree that in terms of the programs,
after fundamental questions of war and peace and the economy,
transportation looms among the largest, because that is the defi-
ciency that has been there.
And it is also one that people understand. If you heard any part
of the debate that has been taking place before we went out on
break, you will notice that even the opponents to the President's
Eackage, came exclusive of severe criticism of the transportation
udget. Transportation was always preserved.
And I guess some of that is because there are very few Senators
who do not see the need for transportation investment in their
State. So we have an area worth investing in and working toward,
but we are going to have to wrestle with the competition for funds
and be aware of that.
712
Could you give us a brief word about what came out of your trip
to London, as long as that is fairly fresh on your mind? You got
back last night.
LONDON DISCUSSIONS ON BILATERAL AVIATION AGREEMENT
Secretary Pena. Yes; I think I am in a different time zone at the
moment.
Mr. Chairman, just by way of background, you will recall that we
tentatively approved the first phase of the British Airway invest-
ment in USAir, a couple of months ago, I believe.
But part of that approval was a commitment on my part to seek
the renegotiation of our current bilateral agreements with the
United mngdom, something called Bermuda II, which was nego-
tiated several years ago, which we believe is restrictive in not al-
lowing United States airlines access to British airports and to have
the kind of competition that we think we should have.
I am happy to report that in our first meeting with my counter-
part, Secretary of State for Transportation, John McGregor, we is-
sued a joint press release in London indicating the following: One,
we are committing ourselves to renegotiating this agreement with-
in 1 year's time.
Two, we support the principles of increased flexibility and liber-
alization to allow all of our carriers to compete in our mutual mar-
kets. That means, specifically, lifting the restrictions we have cur-
rently on the number of cities we can access, the number of routes
and planes we can use, limiting the restrictions on charter services,
et cetera.
The bottom line is to try to achieve what we call open-skies
agreements, or an open-skies regime, which is, essentially, allowing
the carriers to compete. We believe that our United States carriers
can do very well in the United Kingdom and, hopefully, beyond.
That is called Fifth Freedom Rights, which allow our carriers to
go beyond London to other European markets. That was the es-
sence of our discussion.
I was particularly pleased that we were able to agree that y/e
will have our second negotiating session on May 5. So my staff will
be back in London. And that gives you a sense of the priority that
this has for the United Kingdom and for our country. So I think
we are making
Senator Lautenberg. Just one quick thing: When would you ex-
pect that a formal agreement would be executed?
Secretary Pena. Well, our goal is to do it within 1 year's time.
Now, obviously, there is an opportunity for us to accelerate that
schedule. And there are also some interim decisions that can be
made, particularly on the part of the United Kangdom, as respects
some pending matters by certain United States carriers wanting
adjustments to the current bilateral.
We talked about those issues. So I am sensing some flexibility on
the part of the British.
Senator Lautenberg. OK But we are not just talking about, in
this case, USAir having better access. We are talking about
Secretary Pena. All U.S. airlines.
Senator Lautenberg. All.
Secretary Pena. That is correct.
713
Senator Lautenberg. All American carriers.
Secretary Pena. And that is what we mean by a liberalized re-
gime.
Senator LAUTENBERG. OK.
Secretary Pena. It is opening up the markets to all, to allow
more United States carriers who want access to the British market
to have that opportunity.
Senator Lautenberg. It sounds like good news, Mr. Secretary.
And we commend you for the effort and hope that a conclusion can
be drawn fairly quickly, because one of the questions that looms
large in aviation todav is about the requirement for investment in
some of our airlines, but at the same time, not to be giving away
the store by permitting access to all cities here and not getting any-
thing in return for it.
reductions in fiscal year 1994 BUDGET
I want to talk about some of the cuts that have to be made in
order for the investment package to be able to meet the President's
objective and to service tne needs in our transportation budget for
1994.
The amount proposed for domestic discretionary spending in the
Clinton budget is $5.4 billion in outlays above the level allowed
under the budget resolution. 0MB Director Panetta has stated that
the administration is interested in working with the Congress to
find additional cuts in order to pay for the investment package con-
tained in the Clinton budget.
Should we expect a formal amended budget request from 0MB
citing additional cuts for DOT in the coming fiscal year in order to
help us pay for the proposed investment package?
Secretary Pena. Mr. Chairman, I do not think you will see that.
What we would prefer is to work with you in trying to identify
where we think we could make those cuts.
Obviously, from my perspective, we would like to preserve as
much of the transportation investment piece of this, as opposed to
other departments.
I am happy to work with you and see if we can creatively come
up with some strategies, but, no, you will probably not see that
kind of a formal
Senator Lautenberg. We are going to be looking to you, Mr. Sec-
retary, to give us the information that we need to have in order to
make these decisions.
You are going to be the best one to determine what kind of staff-
ing you need to manage these programs, to get rules and regula-
tions out there with dispatch, and to be able to function.
We know that there is a certain amount of overhead that has to
accompany the management of programs. And so we will be looking
to see whether or not there are areas in which you can cut, wheth-
er they are in overhead programs.
We are all agreed that the programs designated for assistance
are important programs. We look forward to working — we do not
really look forward to working with you on how to cut further.
[Laughter.]
But that is a requirement under law, essentially. And we are
going to have to do it.
714
REINVENTING GOVERNMENT
Vice President Gore, as you know, is launching his initiative
called reinventing Grovemment. Have you looked at this enough to
know how this initiative is going to affect DOT for next year?
Is it possible that this initiative will yield more cost savings
within your agencies for the coming years as you now know it to
be?
Secretary Pena. It might, Mr. Chairman. Let me say that in ad-
dition to the Vice President's leadership here, the Department had,
for a couple of years, already been focusing on total quality man-
agement concepts, for example, and other initiatives like that.
We are going to work very closely with the Vice President. He
will be working with all of the departments to have a uniform
strategy throughout the Grovemment.
But the answer to your question is, yes. Let me give you some
examples. We discovered, for example, some unnecessary expendi-
tures in the Department, which we are cutting, for example, exces-
sive vehicles.
We are looking at all of the 300 planes that the Department of
Transportation has to determine if they are absolutely critical. I be-
lieve the overwhelming proportion of them are necessary to the
mission of the FAA or the Coast Guard for safety, et cetera.
But I think we ought to look at that very carefully. And we are
continuing to look at FTE reductions, to ask the Question: Do we
need all the people that we have in the Department?
I come from an environment where we had to make some tough
decisions when I was in a former position. And so I understand
that process. So the answer to your question is, yes.
I think we can find additional cuts as we go through this process.
And it probably has not been done in this fashion for many, many
years.
Senator Lautenberg. Well, you have been on the job 2 months
now. What, in that period of time, have you learned that would
stick out as changes that you would like to make in the way DOT
conducts its business that you can share with us now?
Secretary Pena. Well, generally speaking, Mr. Chairman, I think
there are lots of — I do not want to call them frills.
Senator Lautenberg. Yes.
Secretary Pena. I am looking for a better word than the word
"frills," but activities that we fund that are not critical to the mis-
sion of the Department. I gave you an example.
We have over 20 executive vehicles. We cut those in half We do
not need 20 cars to shuttle DOT staff between my building and the
Capitol to conduct business.
Some might argue that those are small matters, and they are.
They are symbolic, but I think they reflect the fact that we are
going to review these expenditures very methodically.
STAFFING reductions
I am looking at general staffing levels in some of the agencies
and where there is an appearance of redundancy. If you look at the
Department, the various modes, we have some redundancy, at least
in some of the functions of those agencies.
715
I am asking the question of how we can either eliminate some
of that redundancy and do, perhaps, some consolidation, or simply
work more closely.
So I am already beginning to observe some of those improve-
ments we can make. I believe that we will be able to make signifi-
cant progress.
Senator Lautenberg. You know, all of us would like to rid our
respective areas of responsibility of any redundancy. Are there pro-
gram cuts that you think ought to be made?
Secretary Pena. At this point, I have not identified program cuts.
It is more redundancy in the number of people who are
Senator Lautenberg. How significant can that be?
Secretary Pena. It is hard to say at the moment, Mr. Chairman.
What I am concerned about is that as we go about even the FTE
reductions we talked about, that we try not to affect people in the
field where they are critically needed, but look more in our office
in Washington and ask the questions.
Senator Lautenberg. From the administration.
Secretary Pena. Absolutely. Are there some midlevel or top-level
people in positions that we can do without? Oftentimes, I think
that the easy thing to do is to cut somebody in some regional office
where that person is dealing on a daily basis with someone.
Senator Lautenberg. OK.
Secretary Pena. So we are going to be very thoughtful about
that.
TRAVEL
Senator Lautenberg. I do not know whether you have heard the
story about the Saudi Arabian prince who needed transportation
after he arrived — I think it was in Paris — and pulled out a signifi-
cant wad of traveler's checks to charter a Concorde for $235,000.
I could be off $10,000, but no matter.
Secretary Pena. I will never see that Concorde, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Lautenberg. Well, I hope not, because the request you
put in for the purchase of a Concorde, I think, is really excessive
at this time. [Laughter.]
But in any event, this fellow flew to his destination, which I
think was New York, where his private 747 was awaiting him. I
assume, Mr. Secretary, you are not traveling that way. [Laughter.]
Secretary Pena. No, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Lautenberg. Yes; because I heard your comment about
300 airplanes in the Department. It is shocking. I mean, it is big-
ger than some of the air forces that exist in countries around the
world.
Secretary Pena. Well, again, Mr. Chairman, I believe most of
those planes are critical to the mission of the Department, but I am
confident that we are going to be able to cut others.
Another example of that is, as you know, the President has
asked each of us on the Cabinet to fly commercial coach as we trav-
el. I did that to fly to London and back. It is a little thing, but you
would be surprised at how many people come up to me and say,
"Why are you not flying in first class?"
716
There is a $3,000 difference, for example, in flying to London in
business class than flying coach. So we saved the Government that
kind of money.
Second, there are jets available for my use that are used by
NTSB and others, which past secretaries have used, which are at
National Airport. We are not using those. So we are trying to cut
where we can to save the taxpayers' hard-earned money.
Senator Lautenberg. Those aircraft ought to be available for
search and rescue
Secretary Pena. Right.
Senator Lautenberg [continuing]. And other serious missions,
accident review, that kind of thing, but you are absolutely right.
And when one looks at the cost for operating an aircraft on an
hourly basis, you are talking about something significant.
And that is a nice luxury, but it is not one that the American
people either want or understand in terms of the regular needs of
the functioning of Government.
So I would urge you on, even though, again, as we look at the
total that might be saved by reduction of cars, et cetera, it goes
even beyond that, beyond the direct savings. It smacks of a luxury
of lifestyle that is out of phase with where we are today.
REDUCTION TARGETS
Mr. Secretary, your budget request already assumes $28 million
in administrative savings, a reduction of almost 1,800 FTE's by the
end of 1994. Is that realistic target?
Secretary Pena. Yes, Mr. Chairman; and we will meet it. We be-
lieve that most of that can be accomplished through attrition.
There may be circumstances where attrition will not get the job
done, but the President has given me my marching orders. And I
will reach that goal.
Senator Lautenberg. Is there the possibility that even more
staff could be cut without impacting your agency's ability to func-
tion efficiently?
Secretary Pena. That is our goal, Mr. Chairman. I think we can
get the job done without affecting our ability to function.
Senator Lautenberg. Is there the possibility that administrative
expenses within DOT could be cut more than the $28 million pro-
posed in the budget?
Secretary Pena. Actually, Mr. Chairman, the original figure was
$28 million, but let me just clarify for the record that, because of
the way certain expenses were classified, I think in the FAA, the
official figure is $64 million.
And that is my fault, not your fault. That figure is a new figure.
But to answer your question, I think that the more we look at how
we operate, over time, we can find more reductions in administra-
tive costs.
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Secretary, we will look to your man-
agement to achieve as much by way of savings as possible. I know
that you sincerely want to get this accomplished and, at the same
time, be able to preserve management of the functions for which
you are responsible.
717
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
As a leading exponent for the expansion of high-speed rail and
rVHS in this country, I am interested in your effort to promote
these technologies within the country.
Separate from the increased funding contained in your budget,
what specific steps are you taking to see that American companies
get a chance to develop these technologies and produce the maxi-
mum number of jobs within the United States under that umbrella,
to promote the technology wherever we can?
Secretary Pena. Mr. Chairman, I think this is a very exciting op-
portunity for our country. And I share your emphasis on this area.
One, in my presentation in Dallas where I spoke to 800 compa-
nies which had previously been primarily focused on defense pro-
grams and projects, I outlined for them the new opportunities we
have for working with them to convert their operations into
nondefense, and, particularly in the area of transportation, that
there are cooperative funding grants that we have the ability to use
to encourage that kind of technology.
An example of that is Texas Instruments, for example, which will
be starting a new toll road in California — SR-91 — together with
Peter Kiewit Sons, Inc.
That technology is one that, I think, they have invented, which
allows cars to go through the tolls without stopping. And it is all
automatically computed to get a bill at the end of the month, et
cetera.
Senator Lautenberg. I would imagine that what you would get
is a reduction in a debit account, because there is not — it is not
likely to start chasing receivables
Secretary Pena. That is right.
Senator Lautenberg. Accumulating at 50 cents or $1
Secretary Pena. Right.
Senator Lautenberg. At a stop, you know.
Secretary Pena. You are right, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Lautenberg. Yes.
Secretary Pena. You pay in advance. And then there is a
debit
Senator Lautenberg. Right.
Secretary Pena. It will also reduce the amount of travel time
and, of course, reduce pollution by reducing congestion at toll pla-
zas.
Another example of that is a program where they are using the
infrared capability that was used during Desert Storm where they
will put a screen in your vehicle — and I had an opportunity to see
this — so that you can drive at night.
And you can see things at night that, otherwise, you would not
be able to see. For example, they gave me an example in Texas of
deer, which are on the side of the road, which a lot of truckers will
hit.
But it can be used, for example, for police cars that have to do
night driving as they are going through darkened parts of the city.
We are just on the cutting edge of beginning to explore that kind
of technology.
718
And I think that the private sector is really interested in working
with us, and we with them, in trying to support more and more of
this technology. And we are going to have some funding to give
them the kind of incentive and, hopefully, startup assistance to
help move on that technology.
PROMOTING EXPORTS
Senator Lautenberg. All right. How might that funding get ex-
ported or developed so that we can encourage our companies to
take advantage of the research already done, the things that might
be on the drawing boards that would help them also develop an ex-
port business at the same time as we employ these technologies for
our own use?
Secretary Pena. In a number of ways, Mr. Chairman. First of all,
we had that week, I think, five regional meetings throughout the
country. I was in charge of the Dallas meeting.
Other Cabinet secretaries were in other cities. So No. 1, just as
with a new program, we are educating companies about how this
is going to work; and then. No. 2, working in partnership with
them.
There will be proposals, I am sure, which will be submitted,
funding which will be made available. We can also invest in what
States are doing. There are many States that have already taken
the lead here and have set up systems.
For example, the States of Texas and California, we can work
with them. And then there are universities and colleges which also
have programs that we can invest in. So there are really a number
of avenues which are available to help us support U.S. technology.
The other side of that is helping to promote U.S. technology. For
example. Secretary Brown will be traveling to Saudi Arabia to help
a United States company sell its products.
I will probably follow him after that, because it is in the area of
transportation. This is something we have not done in the past.
Take Boeing, for example: When Boeing tries to sell its planes
overseas, sometimes it does it alone. We are going to be there as
a government supporting Boeing and the McDonnell Douglases of
the world, the GE's of the world, to help them sell their products
overseas and to let those governments know that this Grovemment
stands shoulder to shoulder with our corporations. So that is an-
other way in which I think we can be helpful in the export side.
Senator Lautenberg. Yes; well, we ought to do that. And we
ought to be spurred on by the fact that Kuwait Airlines bought
airbuses right after the liberation of the country by our forces.
So we ought to be fairly aggressive about those things, Mr. Sec-
retary. And I would hope that Secretary Brown keeps that in mind
as well. And the fact that you are cooperating to get technology ex-
ported is, I think, the right way to go.
We are joined by Senator Specter, who needs just a moment or
two for some questions.
statement of senator specter
Senator Specter. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
719
Mr. Secretary, I join my colleagues in welcoming you here to this
first budget hearing. You have undertaken a major responsibility
in a very big department, which has enormous national impact and
a tremendous impact everjrwhere, especially in a State like Penn-
sylvania.
Regrettably, we have simultaneous hearings in judiciary on ter-
rorism. And General Powell was testifying on appropriation for de-
fense so that more Members, who I know would like to be here,
could not be present.
And I would just like to conclude the brief moment by asking
unanimous consent that my questions be submitted to you for the
record.
Senator Lautenberg. So heard.
Senator Specter. Thank you. In conclusion, I look forward to
working with you.
Senator LAUTENBERG. We will be pleased to do that.
Senator Specter. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Lautenberg. And I know. Senator, all of us on the Ap-
propriations Committee sit on several committees. And unfortu-
nately, the time available for hearings and meetings is compressed
into a few hours in the morning.
Senator Specter. Yes.
Senator Lautenberg. So thank you for being here.
Senator Specter. Thank you.
Senator Lautenberg. A vote has just gone off. And do you. Sen-
ator Harkin, want to stay for a few minutes?
Senator Harkin. You will be back.
Senator Lautenberg. Yes; you can ask your questions now if you
are prepared to do so.
Senator Harkin. OK I may have to recess it if you are not back
in time. I will just
Senator Lautenberg. Yes; we will be back in time.
statement of senator harkin
Senator Harkin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, it is good to see you again. And I am sorry; I am
a little late myself getting here.
I want to cover a couple or three things: Airline slots to Chicago;
something that has been a key interest of mine for a long time, the
local rail freight assistance program; and some transit drug testing.
AIRLINE slots
On the airline slots to Chicago, many cities in Iowa are disadvan-
taged by the structure of these slots. They suffer with limited serv-
ice. And in the case of a medium-sized city like Dubuque, they can-
not get competing service to O'Hare, which might be economically
logical if slots were available.
For example, right now, American Airlines serves Dubuque. It
has three slots. That is it. So there is no competition. So they have
a monopoly. So they have an effective monopoly through these Gov-
ernment regulations.
720
And the citizens of Dubuque and the surrounding area pay mo-
nopoly prices. Not only does it hurt them in their pocketbook, it
limits the community's ability to compete for business development,
tourist traffic, and conventions.
It is a problem in Iowa, but also in Michigan, Wisconsin, and
surrounding areas around Chicago. During the last administration,
there was a real lack of interest in DOT in moving to deal with
these questions. And I am hopeful that this administration will
start to deal with them.
Great Lakes Aviation, for example, has proposed to DOT that
they would provide essential air service for Manistee and Menomi-
nee, MI, and Ottumwa, LA, without the current $700,000 subsidy.
They would do without the subsidy, if the FAA would authorize
six one-for-one trades within the general aviation slot allocations at
O'Hare. Needless to say, I would want to be sure.
And I am told that this would not be a problem for general avia-
tion. So here we could do it as a subsidy, if they could just trade
some of the slots around. So I do not know if this proposal has yet
come to your attention.
Can you give me any update on your views on this issue of the
slots, for example?
Secretary Pena. Yes; I can. Senator. First of all, we do have a
different view than the past administration about this issue. I am
very interested in reviewing the whole slot program, specifically as
respects the slots at Chicago and O'Hare for the commuter airlines.
There is a notice of proposed rulemaking which is out. The com-
ment period will end fairly soon. That will give us an opportunity
to review it, at least for the commuter airlines.
The proposal that Great Lakes has made, I think, is very inter-
esting. I spent some time in Montana a week or so ago, and there
was discussion about some other proposals that Great Lakes has.
But Great Lakes, as I understand it, has formed a code-sharing
relationship with United Airlines operating out of Denver, which
then allows it better marketing and provides United with feed traf-
fic. In fact, in Great Lakes' proposal to serve Williston, ND, it
would provide essential air service with subsidy for 19 months and
then serve the community subsidy-free thereafter.
So we are intrigued by these proposals that Great Lakes is mak-
ing. And I think it offers a live opportunity to use those funds for
other cities and other airlines that genuinely need the EAS fund-
ing, because we have stabilized the EAS funding. We have not been
able to increase it.
Senator Harkin. That is right.
Secretary Pena. So I very much appreciate those issues. And this
slot area is one that we will be looking at.
Senator Harkin. Well, I am very pleased to hear you say that.
And I am glad you are going to be taldng a look at that and that
you are aware of the Great Lakes situation.
Let me just say that on this issue of Dubuque, American Airlines
has three flights a day. They tell me in Dubuque that they are op-
erating at a minimum of 90 percent capacity, very high fares.
In fact, some people actually drive from Dubuque down to Cedar
Rapids because they get cheaper fares. The fares are that high, but
still they are operating at 90 percent capacity.
721
And American Airlines is dropping one of their flights. Now, why
would they drop a flight if they are at 90 percent capacity and they
are making all that money? Well, I asked the airport people and
the business community in Dubuque.
And they said, well, what they have heard is that, "See, Amer-
ican Airlines has these slots."
Well, the airplanes that they are flving out of Dubuque are 36-
and 48-seaters. They could use that slot to fly a 100-passenger jet
in there, you see. So why would they want to do that when they
can shift the slot so they can shift the business someplace else?
So that is the kind of problem that we are running into in these
areas. They really do just have a monopoly hold. And there is noth-
ing that the people in Dubuque can do about it.
So, again, I am pleased at your answer. And I do hope that you
would keep me informed of any progress you make in that area.
LACK OF FUNDING FOR LOCAL RAIL FREIGHT ASSISTANCE
Local rail freight assistance has been an area of interest of mine
for quite a while. I have seen the good that it has done. And I just
cannot tell you how disappointed I am that it was not funded in
the budget proposal.
I know that the previous administration always tried to kill this
program and would not fund it. We put money into it. We had sup-
port here in the Congress for it. I ain wondering if, perhaps, sonie
of those people that were developing those budget proposals in the
past might not have had some hand in this. Well, anjrway, I just
throw that out there for your consideration.
But I, I guess, have to tell you, Mr. Secretary, the program does
a tremendous amount of good. The charge has been made that it
helps only in specific areas, but in those areas it can mean the dif-
ference between a branch line existing or not.
And the money has always been leveraged. The States have put
in money. The snippers have put in money. The rail lines have put
in money. It is, like, for every $1 that the Federal Government puts
in, it gets leveraged maybe, what, $5— how many times?
Well, in Iowa, the latest case we had was 5 to 1 — I am sorry.
Four to one? Four to one. So $4 for every $1 we put in keeps the
lines open. The shippers are able to ship.
The farmers are able to get their goods to the elevators and down
the branch lines. And if this were not so, if we did not have this,
those branch lines would simply go out of existence.
And so it is very important in many rural areas, this local rail
freight assistance program. It is not a large program. Fiscal year
1994 is only $30 million. So it is not a very big deal.
And I just wonder if you have had the opportunity to become
aware of the pent-up demand that would allow some of these un-
derfunded railroads to improve their rail lines through this local
rail freight assistance program. Have you been — has anything come
to your attention on this?
Secretary Pena. Senator, I wish I could tell you that we would
be able to fund that program. As you know, in a difficult budget
we have to cut at someplace. And we were talking earlier with the
chairman of the committee about the fact that this entire budget
still needs a little trimming, because it exceeds some limits.
722
But having said that, I know, generally speaking, that there has
been some health restored to this industry, but that there are a
significant number of these rail systems that still need some assist-
ance.
And you are absolutely correct. They have to rely on the States.
The budget, as we have submitted it, will put more responsibility
on the States. We know that the rail lines have had mixed success
in accessing private capital.
In some cases, there are financial institutions that are not will-
ing to enter this area. So I am aware of all of that. I guess, at this
point, I have not been able to find counterbalancing cuts elsewhere
in the Department. I know it is important to rural communities.
Senator Harkin. Yes.
Secretary Pena. And you are right. It is not a lot of money.
Senator Harkin. It is not a lot of money.
Secretary Pena. No.
BENEFITS OF LOCAL RAIL FREIGHT ASSISTANCE
Senator Harkin. And the leveraging that goes on — and, again, I
just was pointing out — I wanted to point out that you are proposing
to spend $140 million in high-speed rail, an increase of $135 mil-
lion in high-speed rail.
The administration is proposing to spend $204 million on the
Northeast corridor. That is last year's level. And, again, I am from
Iowa. That Northeast corridor does not mean much to me.
But will I support it? You bet I will, because I know it is impor-
tant. And it is needed. I had hoped that we in the rural areas
would get the same kind of consideration.
A branch line out there may not be as big as that Northeast cor-
ridor, but I tell you, you close that branch line down, and you are
hurting small towns and businesses and farmers all up and down
that local rail line.
And for a small amount of money, you can keep them in busi-
ness. And you can keep that rail line open. And the States have
been willing to come in with their money. The shippers are willing
to come in with their money.
And if you have an underfunded railroad or a new owner of that
railroad, they are willing to put in some money, too. And so, again,
I wish you would look at that, because it is just a small program,
but the amount of good it does — again, I would be glad to meet
with you at any time or to give you any of the information I have
on what it has done in several States in the Midwest in keeping
these branch lines open.
I can get you shippers that can tell you what it has meant to
them and farmers and small business people out there. So for a
small amount of money, we can have, I think, some attention paid
to our rural areas, too.
So I wish you would really look at that. It will be my intention
to try to get that funding back in there. I do not know whether we
are going to get it, but if I have to I will attempt to take it out
of some of the Northeast corridor stuff.
I mean, what is fair is fair. I mean, I understand the need for
that, but we have a need in rural America also. And we have to
balance these interests a little bit. I know you are sensitive to that.
723
And I appreciate it very much, but I just want to work with you
in any way we can to get some funding into that local rail service
assistance program.
I am sorry, Mr. Secretary. I have to go vote now.
Secretary Pena. OK.
Senator Harkin. I had one question I wanted to ask you about
transit drug testing, but could I just submit that to you in writing,
please?
Secretary Pena. That would be fine.
Senator Harkin. I appreciate it very much.
Secretary Pena. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Harkin. The subcommittee will stand in recess until the
chairman returns.
[A brief recess was taken.]
Senator Lautenberg. We will resume the hearing. And I would
ask, Mr. Secretary, if we could get several people on your staff to
go downstairs and monitor the subway between here and the Cap-
itol.
I'd like a high-speed rail program started there. Starting will not
be as difficult as stopping might be when you get to the other end,
but I just waited about 6 minutes for the shortest ride I've ever
taken. Walking is better, I think.
Anyway, please forgive us for any delays. I know that Senator
Harkin had a few things that he wanted to talk to you about. And
I wanted to discuss some transit capital projects.
TRANSIT NEW STARTS
Mr. Secretary, in your budget request for transit new start fund-
ing, you have included funding, stating that the allocation of these
funds will be based on the recommendations contained in the Fed-
eral Transit Administration 3-J Report.
That report has not been used for this purpose in the past, but
has provided the committee with some very useful information on
the various and competing new start projects.
Will the new 3-J report include specific dollar recommendations
for each of the new start projects that currently exist?
Secretary Pena. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Lautenberg. Will the FTA provide a strict ranking sys-
tem of the new start projects?
Secretary Pena. I have looked at a rough draft of the report, Mr.
Chairman. No; there was not an official ranking: this is the first
or second or third. It will be an entire list of recommendations of
all of the projects we want to fund and the exact amounts.
Senator Lautenberg. Is the ranking a requirement to establish
some prioritization?
Secretary Pena. Mr. Chairman, I think, perhaps, what you are
asking about is the criteria we are using to make the judgments.
Senator Lautenberg. Right.
Secretary Pena. Well, in that regard, we do have criteria that \ye
will be applying and have been applying, criteria that exist in
ISTEA; obviously, projects that are ready to go, projects that are
cost effective, et cetera. And so those are a bit
Senator Lautenberg. So that will establish a rank order.
724
Secretary Pena. It will eliminate some projects, as opposed to
those that will make the final cut, but, once we have them listed
on the final cut, those will not be prioritized. I think I am answer-
ing a different question.
Senator Lautenberg. OK. So we are saying that by category, by
grouping, we will establish an order for important or priority
groups and eliminate those that do not meet the standard for sup-
port from the Department.
Secretary Pena. That's correct, Mr. Chairman.
PROCUREMENT PROCESS
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Secretary, a question of procurement
at DOT is one that has been discussed fairly frequently, but doubt
still remains as to whether the procurement process is exactly
where it ought to be.
Both FAA and the Coast Guard have had problems in recent
years procuring major systems: ships, radar, and communications
equipment. We have heard that one of the underlying causes of the
schedule slippage experienced during the acquisition of major sys-
tems is the voluminous set of procurement regulations that agen-
cies must comply with. What is your view of that assertion?
Secretary Pena. Mr. Chairman, first of all, this is a high priority
of mine. I have made it a priority, and I raise this issue regularly
within the Department. I think there is some truth to your com-
ment.
We have, internally, tried to adjust certain criteria in a number
of ways. For example, changing the thresholds that require over-
sight decisions prior to acquisitions, so that when they are minimal
in amount, they do not require 15 people above a certain level to
approve a program or an acquisition which does not require that
kind of oversight.
In addition to some of the regulations that are in place and look-
ing at those and making sure that they achieve the objective for
which they were adopted, we started, in January, a new process.
The acronym is MAPP. And we now have a coordinating group in
the Depgirtment that reviews major acquisitions.
Every agency that comes in for a major procurement project has
to be very specific about its needs. It has to have a very specific
timetable on how it is going to move through this acquisition pro-
gram, very specific goals with respect to costs, et cetera.
I think we are making some improvement. In fact, I am confident
we are mgJdng some improvement. Probably the best example of
that is the AAS system — the best example in terms of the prob-
lems.
Senator Lautenberg. The problems.
Secretary Pena. Yes; that's right. But the good news is that Joe
Del Balzo — and others in the FAA — are putting their arms around
that, have come up with a new schedule, and have elevated the im-
portance of that project in the Department and also with the con-
tractor.
And, in fact, he advised me last week that the new timetable
that was set out, the first one we were supposed to achieve, that
we actually beat that timetable.
725
If we can continue that over the next several years, obviously, we
will be thrilled, but this is an area where we are going to spend
a lot of time and attention to make sure we do a much better job.
Senator Lautenberg. Yes; because the question that arises, I
think, fairly frequently, that is least understandable is what hap-
pens after contracts are issued? After all of the specifications are
in place, what happens with the delivery of the material? There is
slippage in there.
I assume that your review will not only be an evaluation of the
program in terms of its efficacy and its priority, but also what hap-
pens between the time that a contract is let and the time of the
delivery of either the service or the product. That is particularly ob-
vious as we talk about the AAS system.
That is one that someone ought to get — as you described Del
Balzo's feeling, getting his arms around it — ^but it is almost impos-
sible to comprehend how something can slip that far behind. It
seems to be an ongoing problem. And I am glad to see that you are
focusing some of your attention on it.
TRANSIT NEW STARTS PRIORITIES
Before we go on, I want to back up to the FTA question that I
had asked you about the prioritizing. You described a system
whereby, essentially, projects are grouped to see if they meet a cri-
teria that you or the Department feels meets the test of urgency
and importance. Is that correct?
Secretary Pena. Mr. Chairman, I think I was responding to your
question. Let me start again. What we have done
Senator LAUTENBERG. The one thing that I want to be certain is
clearly understood is that when we look at rankings or priorities,
we are always going to be short of funds necessary to move these
problems along, so some prioritizing has to be done.
If I understood you correctly, vou said that the rank, specifically,
was not part of a program. Ratner, categorizing these projects, ac-
cording to some degree of importance, would allow us to take care
of the funding or to put the projects in the loop for funding.
Was that the message that vou were conveying to me in terms
of a response that said we will group these things? There are cer-
tain yardsticks that must be used to measure the value of the pro-
gram or its ability to fit into the Department's criteria.
Secretary Pena. Let me try it again, Mr. Chairman, I apologize
for that. Let me not use the word grouping." Let me use the word
"criteria."
We have all of these requests. We have a set of criteria that we
use to apply to those requests. Some of those proposals will not
meet the criteria, will be excluded, will get zero funding. The oth-
ers that meet those criteria will be put on the list.
Once they are on the list, however, there is no prioritization
among those. We are supporting all of them to the amount of fund-
ing that we have included in the report.
So that is the process that we are using. And I do not think it
includes grouping, but I think it gets to your concern. And that is,
what are the criteria that are being used to make the basic deci-
sion, as you say, no, to a certain proposal, and you say, yes, to oth-
ers?
726
Senator Lautenberg. Right, but there has to be some way of
measuring the program requests that we get, in terms of their
need, their importance, and their contribution to the transportation
system of a particular area. Some of that probably includes meet-
ing some of the air test requirements. Some depend on the avail-
ability of local funding, et cetera, in support.
Secretary Pena. Right.
ALLOCATING NEW STARTS FUNDS
Senator LAUTENBERG. So what do you do to say, "Among the
projects we have looked at, these look like the ones that are best
qualified to get Federal funds"? Is there not a specific ranking once
you meet the criteria for the first part? Do you then just put them
all together, and some how or other we have to determine what
kind of funds are going to be available?
And if we start with projects in the order of their priority, could
one program absorb all of the funding that is available? How do
you make those judgments?
Secretary Pena. I understand, Mr. Chairman. I do not have a
specific answer to that question. I have just had a couple of meet-
ings on this. And I can tell you that the way I have looked at the
projects in that report is in their totality.
Senator LAUTENBERG. Yes.
Secretary Pena. Looking at the amount of funds we have and ob-
viously trying to fund as many projects as we can, but unless my
able assistant here can answer your question
Senator Lautenberg. Yes; please feel free to chime in.
Ms. Collins. First of all, we have a limited pot of funds
Senator LAUTENBERG. Right.
Ms. Collins. Total funding is $657 million. We have existing
commitments we must meet; the projects that have full funding
agreements
Senator LAUTENBERG. Right.
Ms. Collins. Also those projects that are likely to be ready for
full funding agreements in this year or in 1994. For all of those
other projects that are in various stages, not yet to the full funding
agreement stage, we need to make sure that they really are ready
to go.
We do not want to fund projects prematurely. We will also look
at cost effectiveness as a criterion, such as the cost per rider; look
at local support; how the project fits into a local transportation
plan; and how strong the local commitment is
Senator Lautenberg. To support it.
Ms. Collins. And also environmental and congestion factors.
Senator Lautenberg. OK.
Secretary Pena. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry. I did not introduce
Kathy Collins from the
Senator Lautenberg. We know that in an assignment like yours
there are people with expert knowledge and professional experience
that you call upon. So, Ms. Collins, we are happy to have you here.
We knew that you were not just sitting there as a spectator. So we
invite you to join in whenever it is necessary.
727
USER INPUT FOR PROCUREMENT DECISIONS
Mr. Secretary, let us conclude our discussion about procurement,
and then we will call on our distinguished colleague. Senator Ste-
vens, who has just joined us.
As we discussed the regulations and the process for procurement,
I want to give you an example.
GAO recently reported that only 3 of a sample of 25 FAA mis-
sions need statements had incorporated any organized user input.
And now, in light of what we know about the utility of satellite
technology, many of the originally planned navigation systems
could be obsolete.
Does FAA need to retrospectively review the mission needed for
some of the acquisitions already in process? And, if so, what do you
plan to do in that connection?
Secretary Pena. Mr. Chairman, we have started that process
with the AAS system, where we have sat down with a wide variety
of users to get their input, as Mr. Del Balzo did, to develop the next
set of timetables and schedules for the AAS system. And that was
very helpful.
One of the questions, for example, that came up was, are we
going to be able to take advantage of, for example, the GPS system
much more quickly than the program had anticipated 10 years ago?
The answer is, yes.
And I think we can find a way to skip a part of this program that
had been anticipated 5, 6, 7 years ago, given new technology and
the rapidity with which that technology is coming on board, but
that came out of that feedback from the users.
So I personally think it is a very good idea to constantly be sit-
ting down with the users. After all, they are the ones that are
going to make this program work or not work. And I think we have
started that with the AAS system. I will talk to Mr. Del Balzo
about continuing that with other programs the FAA has.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you. Senator Stevens, welcome. Do
you have some questions for the Secretary?
statement of senator STEVENS
Senator Stevens. Mr. Chairman, we have another meeting going
on, the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Mr. Secretary. I
have been there. And I am sorry I have not been here for the full
presentation of your statement.
PROPOSAL FOR A NEW FERRY IN ALASKA
I am here to tell you about a proposal that is going to come to
you. As a matter of fact, I would like to give you a copy of it.
Alaska's situation is that although we are more than twice the
size of Texas, which has about 300,000 miles of roads, we have
about 12,000 miles of roads. We have many, many more miles of
travel by our people and by tourists coming to Alaska on Alaskan
Marine Highway, but we also have the situation that we have a
State that has suffered the worst oilspill in the United States.
And it still has at least, and will have for many years to come,
more than 2 million barrels a day of oil going out of our ports.
728
The State has come up with a concept now of building a new type
of ferry that would be both one that would serve more automobiles
and more passengers over longer routes. We have one-half of the
coastline of the United States in our State.
But it would also be capable of serving, in the event of another
oilspill— God forbid that we get another one of that size, anywav —
but it would be a command vehicle for dealing with catastrophes
at sea.
Several of our tour ships have suffered. We had one that caught
on fire. We had another one that had a collision. And we really be-
lieve that we need an emergency oilspill response vessel, as well as
an emergency crisis vessel for at sea.
None of the existing ferries have that capability. So the State has
come up with a new concept now of a ship that would be built in
the United States, of course; an ail-American ship to deal with the
new standards of pollution at sea, of transportation and of dealing
with the possibility of prices, as far as our tour ship activities in
our waters.
It, however, means that we must call on you, Mr. Secretary, to
see if some of that discretionary money you have available might
be used in this concept.
It will replace, incidentally — as my staff just reminds me — a.
ferry that is very old. It is 30 years old. It is getting dangerous.
And it has reached the end of its useful life.
I would hope that I could give you this copy of the proposal. And
I know the Governor of our State wants to come visit with you —
Governor Hickel — about this proposal, but I wanted to see if we
could just have a discussion as to whether or not this is some-
thing— I know I cannot ask you to make a commitment, but those
of us who are using ferries rather than highways — and that has
been the decision in southeast Alaska.
You know, we do not connect our islands in southeast Alaska.
The whole archipelago is connected only bv ferry. We have — as a
matter of fact, our capital city has no road connection to the rest
of the State. It is only by ferry.
And our connection for that whole area to the south 48 States is
only by ferry, other than by air. We have air transportation, of
course, but we have no surface transportation other than the ferry
system.
What we need is a new concept of dealing with ferries in a State
that is as unique as ours. And I would be hopeful that you would
be willing to review this. And maybe we could set up some sort of
a meeting with our Governor and your people to see if we could
pursue it.
Is that a proposal that I could get your cooperation on, Mr. Sec-
retary?
Secretary Pena. Senator, we would be happy to receive the pro-
posal. Let me just generally say that, if you look at the ISTEA
moneys, those funds can be used for ferries, as long as they are
connected in some fashion to a highway system of some kind.
So I do not know if that would work in this particular case, but
let me answer your question very specifically.
We are looking at this whole notion of intermodalism in the De-
partment and trying to give it a renewed emphasis. And it could
729
be that without understanding all of the implications of this ferry
system, et cetera, and how it connects to other systems of transpor-
tation in your State, that that might be one of these new creative
approaches.
Obviously, we cannot commit on funding now, but we would be
happy to sit down with the governor and talk about this.
FUNDING FOR UNIQUE FEATURES OF THE FERRY
Senator Stevens. I understand we could use the ISTEA for the
ferry portion of it, but I do not think we could use the ISTEA
money for the oilspill response or the crisis-at-sea part of it. And
that is where we are looking for a sort of a unique experiment.
You know, the shipbuilding portion of our economy is not that
well off with the decrease in construction of naval vessels, also.
This, I am told, would provide about 1 million man-hours in em-
ployment for some shipyard over a period of 2 years to build a rath-
er unique vessel.
There is no such vessel in the American fleet. I do not know of
another one worldwide, as a matter of fact. But we have those
three demands. And we would like to find somebody to work with
you to see if we can have an experiment to see if this concept would
work.
And I will ask my staff, now, to give you this. This copy of the
report was just printed up by the State of Alaska. And I would ap-
preciate your consideration of it.
I am also here, sort of, touching the subconscious of my good
friend from New Jersey, as we are looking at this, because it may
be, if you do agree, we will have to find the money in one of these
years to continue that on. [Laughter.]
It can't be used for fishing. So it is not a pleasure craft, but we
could arrange for each of you to come up and see the waters that
it would go through one of these days. If you would like to do a
little marine research, we could handle that, too.
Senator Lautenberg. Alaska certainly is a beautiful, impressive
place. As you know, I spent some time up there immediately after
the Exxon Valdez spill and also a few months later.
Oddly enough, Senator, New Jersey, just across the Hudson
River from New York, is now successfully using ferry systems that
had been abandoned years and years ago to carry part of the com-
muting traffic.
Obviously, when you talk about Alaska, you are not talking
about those short distances. Having seen the expanse of your State,
I would guess that all modes of transportation have to get some
consideration.
The State of Washington has been a long-term exponent of ferry
service.
Senator Stevens. Commuter ferries, they use a great many of
them there.
Senator Lautenberg. Yes; it makes the area function. Certainly
with the budget shortage and with, perhaps, some help from you.
Senator Stevens, and some of your colleagues, we might be able to
break this impasse. [Laughter.]
Senator Lautenberg. In order to get money moving along.
730
Senator Stevens. I thought, perhaps, that might come up, but.
[Laughter.]
And I can assure you that if you see the offer we had made, that
it is highway money in each one of those. I have seen to that, Mr.
Chairman.
So I know you know how much highway money means to us, in
spite of the small amount of roads we have, because we do use a
portion of it on the Marine Highway. It is most important to us.
But I do thank you, Mr. Secretary. Again, I urge you, as I did
at your confirmation, to, as early as you can, plan a trip to come
up and see our State. It is a tremendous domain for your Depart-
ment. I am sure you will find more and more facets of your Depart-
ment that concern Alaska directly. And we would be very much
pleased if you could find a way to come up soon.
Secretary Pena. I will try, Senator. I have a commitment to the
chairman to go to his State. And as soon as we can arrange that
trip, hopefully, we can take a trip to Alaska.
Senator Stevens. We would be delighted if you would bring him
along, as a matter of fact. [Laughter.]
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Lautenberg. That is fairly easy persuasion. It depends
on the time of the year.
Senator Stevens. He does have an airplane, do not forget.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lautenberg. We just got rid of it. [Laughter.]
Before your arrival. Senator Stevens, we got rid of the airplane.
[Laughter.]
We may have to reconsider.
Senator Stevens. You got rid of the airplane.
DOT AIRCRAFT
Senator Lautenberg. No; we got rid of excessive use of air-
planes. And the air force that is employed by DOT, 300 in number,
is getting a thorough examination.
Senator STEVENS. Well, let me speak up for that, because when
we got into this oilspill, it became apparent how much we use the
expertise of our national government people, particularly from
NOAA and the Coast Guard, to deal with oilspills throughout the
world. And I think that that is a civilian fleet that has a — really,
it has not been abused.
I have been on this subcommittee for many years. And I have
watched the development of it. And I do believe it is absolutely es-
sential.
One time, when we had that oilspill going on, you will have to
remember there was an oilspill in New Jersey, there was one in
Texas, and there was another one going on somewhere else in the
world where our — well, and there was one going on down at the
Persian Gulf at the same time. And the people we needed up there
in Alaska had to do their job elsewhere and come back to Alaska,
because of that ongoing problem.
I think that those aircraft were absolutely indispensable to doing
the tasks that our Government is committed to, in terms of marine
pollution.
731
And I would urge you to keep that in mind as you think about
reducing or in any way limiting their use, because I think it is ab-
solutely essential that those people get where they have to be. They
cannot get there by schedules. They have to go on emergency basis.
And they are stationed throughout the United States. One part
of it is in New Jersey. Part of it is Seattle. Part of it is down in
Senator Lautenberg. The gulf.
Senator STEVENS. In the gulf. And they have to go around and
pick up the experts that are available for each place and then get
where they have got to go quickly. So I think it is absolutely-
Senator Lautenberg. We are determined to preserve the facility
necessary for emergency response. The Secretary flew commercial
on a trip he just completed, coming back from London. Frankly, I
think that is a good example.
What we have to do is get rid of the kind of travel that neither
the taxpavers, nor I, nor many of our colleagues, including you, I'm
sure, understand in terms of expense, compared to competitive
travel with commercial airlines. But we want to preserve the op-
tions for the quick dispatch of emergency equipment or personnel
wherever it is required. The Secretary is committed to that, the
Coast Guard, et cetera.
We ought to be able to have a reserve component for air travel
included, perhaps, in the military. We are talking about cargo
equipment and that kind of thing, but I assume there is no inten-
tion to get rid of those siircraft that might be employed for emer-
gency oilspill response and that kind of thing.
Secretary Pena. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. And, Senator, let
me clarify this issue, because this issue has come up, as you have
raised it.
DOT review focused ON NONESSENTIAL AIRCRAFT USE
Our goal is to keep the aircraft critically necessary to the mission
of the Department. I fully understand that the overwhelming pro-
portion of the aircraft are needed for FAA's mission, the Coast
Guard's mission, NSTB and other emergency services.
What we are looking at are the nonessential users of the aircraft.
And I do not want to get into particulars here. I am not intending
to embarrass anybody, but there have been cases in past years
where the planes were used for noncritical purposes at significant
cost to the taxpayer. And the President has asked us not to do that.
And so, for that reason, I fly commercial coach wherever I am fly-
ing.
Obviously, if we have a disaster someplace and I need to use that
airplane, I will use it, but I am talking about normal trips that do
not require the G-4 at substantial cost to you and to the taxpayers,
where I can catch a commercial flight.
So that is what we are looking at, but it will not affect the criti-
cal missions of the Department, particularly, the emergency re-
sponses that we need in the Department.
Senator Stevens. I understand that, but I also believe that the
G— 4's potential to put a person in your position into two or three
areas of critical responsibility in the same day, should not be over-
looked. And I am not certain that I would limit the use of that
plane to crisis.
732
I think when you are talking about going overseas, obviously,
there is a pool of aircraft in Europe that you could call on that are
there from our NATO forces. If you go into the Pacific, you can go
and call on some theater aircraft over there. Those long distance
overseas flights are different than those that I conceive here in the
United States.
When you start going out to where you and I come from, the
west, you cannot drive. And I will tell you, the frequency of com-
mercial aviation goes down considerably in the off period. Whether
it is up my way in the wintertime or down into the desert country
in the summertime, they are not very frequent.
And I find that the cost of a person, such as yourself, in terms
of the amount of work that can be completed on such a trip, of
waiting for commercial transportation means, in some instances,
you are going to wait until the next day or two.
If you want to go — I will tell you what, if you want to go from
Anchorage to Adak, you better have your plane, because, otherwise,
you are going to stay 2 days in Adak. You know
Senator Lautenberg. When that is on your schedule, Mr. Sec-
retary, please remember Senator Stevens' admonition. Any Adak
trips may need some special arrangements.
Senator Stevens. No; I am serious.
Senator Lautenberg. Oh, I am sure you are. The one thing I
would like to do. Senator Stevens, is get back to the subject.
One question I would like to ask while the Secretary is here, is
why there was a no-defense fund requested for Coast Guard, as has
been the custom?
defense funding for coast guard
Here, in the last several years, the Appropriations Committee
has provided roughly $300 million of the Cfoast Guard budget.
These funds are appropriated by the Defense Appropriations Sub-
committee, of which Senator Stevens is the ranking member and
of which I am also a member. This was done in recognition of the
many defense-related activities conducted by the Coast Guard. Last
year, the Bush administration requested defense funding for the
Coast Guard in its fiscal year 1993 Dudget.
So, Mr. Secretary, and while Senator Stevens is still with us,
why are there no requests for funding from DOD for the Coast
Guard?
Senator Stevens. Mr. Chairman, I can almost answer it for him,
but go ahead, Mr. Secretary.
Senator Lautenberg. Well, we will give him a chance, first. And
then you can make the corrections.
Secretary Pena. I may need a little help from Kathy Collins here,
also. But it has to do, Mr. Chairman, with the single cap that we
have for discretionary spending, but let me have I^thy talk about
that more specifically.
I can tell you that as we look at the Coast Guard's budget, the
Coast Guard, as you know, made some cuts, both in the civilian
side and in the defense side, as respects its staff, but it — do you
want to elaborate on this?
Ms. Collins. In last year's budget the administration itself re-
quested money in the defense budget. That was because of the sep-
733
arate caps. Doing that was a way of freeing up room within the do-
mestic cap. Now that we have a single cap, there is less compelling
reason to do that. Also, I have to say that overall we have always
sought full funding of our needs within the transportation budget.
Senator Stevens. Now, can I get into that?
Senator Lautenberg. I'd be happy to have your response, be-
cause we do not have the capacity to fully fund the needs of the
Department; $300 million is a significant portion of that. I think
everyone is aware of the growth in Coast Guard responsibilities,
whether it is monitoring dumping, oilspills, or navigation.
Certainly, Senator Stevens is aware of the value of service that
the Coast Guard performs. And if we had sufficient funds to take
care of the Coast Guard's needs and the rest of our programs, then
I would say fine.
Senator Stevens. Mr. Chairman, I started that when I was
chairman of both the Defense Subcommittee of this committee and
the Surface Transportation Subcommittee, dealing with, basically,
at that time — it has changed a little bit, but ocean transportation.
MILITARY FUNCTIONS OF THE COAST GUARD
The Coast Guard is a paramilitary agency. It has uniforms. It
has requirements for drills. It has almost a military aspect, al-
though it — and in wartime, it is automatically a military agency.
So it must have a military readiness. They must have training in
use of firearms and of boarding vessels at sea, as witnessed what
we did in the Persian Gulf.
Senator Lautenberg. They are still there.
Senator Stevens. And I took the position and I still take the po-
sition— and contrary, ma'am, to what you say — ^the cap is immate-
rial, because we were taking defense money to meet defense costs
of a civilian agency.
And I fought with the Reagan and Bush administration for a se-
ries of years. We did that for 9 years, by the way. Last year we
finally got them to put it in the budget, to recognize what we had
been doing for the previous 8 years. Now, when you examine the
situation that exists today, it is even worse.
We are calling on the Coast Guard for more semimilitary or
backup for military activities and backup for other agencies, such
as DEA, in terms of their drug activities. They are the law enforce-
ment entity in the Pacific, enforcing the ban on drift nets.
Up my way, when I am talking about Adak, between Anchorage
and Adak, there is 2,000 miles. There are no civilian hospitals in
that area. There are no civilian helicopters that have got any range
at all.
The Coast Guard is not only the emergency medical evacuation
organization, they are the midwives. They deliver a lot of babies.
They perform functions out there that people just do not under-
stand. They could not do it without military equipment. They are
using long-range helicopters. They are using high-speed interceptor
type vessels that are built with the military specifications, because
of their wartime role.
And I think it is unfortunate, now, we are going to have to go
back and fight this battle, because it took us time, all of that time.
68-623 0—93 24
734
before that became a budgeted item in the defense bill to recognize
the military costs of the Coast Guard.
And when we have to recognize those needs in this budget that
the chairman oversees, it means we have to cut out other things
that are vital to your Department, to the States that do not have
any ocean problems.
And I think that we are going to have to find a way — and I am
going to tell you right now, I am going to find a way to put it in
the defense bill again. It has to come out of defense money, but the
trouble is it becomes one of those critical items that causes Presi-
dents to think about vetoing defense bills, because we have trans-
ferred money to a civilian activity.
I do not think this is really an activity. We need your advocacy
to get it back in. I think it should be in. Every year there should
be a recognition of the defense costs of the Coast Guard in the de-
fense bill.
And the defense bill is coming down very rapidly. So it is harder
to do now without Presidential approval, but we will do it this
year. I will tell you that, Mr. Secretary. It may not be the $300
million
Senator Lautenberg. Just as a reminder, the Coast Guard is
helping to enforce the arms embargo against the Serbs around
former Yugoslavia. If that is not a military function, I cannot imag-
ine what is.
Senator Stevens. Because of our strained interpretation of posse
comitatus and whether we should use civilians to deal with civil-
ians or military to deal with foreign civilians, and I really think
that we stretch it a little bit, but we are putting a great burden
on them. And it is coming right out of their ability to do what they
should do.
DEMANDS ON THE COAST GUARD
Let me close this, Mr. Secretary. Just so you know, my son is in
town right now. I had breakfast with him this morning. He is cap-
tain of a 140-footer out of Dutch Harbor. He lives in Dutch Harbor
most of the time. And on three — no, two occasions, now, he has
gone out with three boats. And his boat has been the only boat to
come back.
They are beyond the search and rescue capability today of the
Coast Guard, because there is not enough equipment to cover
Dutch Harbor. And yet one-half of our fishing fleet operates out of
Dutch Harbor. So the demands on this agency that you oversee is
going to be even greater.
There is more fishing going on now in the north Pacific than any
other waters of the world. And that, of course, needs to be ex-
panded.
So, I am belaboring it, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Lautenberg. Maybe we ought to try to devise a system
for transferring functions, but if the functions are going to be there,
then the funding ought to be there.
Senator Stevens. Canada budgets the Coast Guard from the
military budget in wartime and from civilian budget in peacetime,
but they transfer the funds, too. We do not. That is what we are
735
trying to do with the $300 million. It takes $300 million a year,
minimum, to do that job.
Secretary Pena. Are the Canadians a uniformed force — is the Ca-
nadian Coast Guard a uniformed force?
Senator Stevens. No; not in peacetime.
Senator Lautenberg. But ours is continually out as part of the
coastal defense mechanism of this country.
Thank you very much, Senator Stevens. You are welcome to stay,
if you would like.
PAA FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT
I want to discuss some of the F&E requests for FAA. The FAA
requests for facilities and equipment grew from $260 million in
1982 to $2.4 billion in 1993.
Over approximately the same period, aircraft operations grew
only 5 percent from $127.6 million in 1982 to $134 million in 1992.
Despite diminishing air traffic over the last 2 years and the over-
estimate of air traffic growth, FAA continues to project growth in
aircraft operations during the nineties and beyond.
Why does the FAA continue to ask for an increase in its F&E
budget, given that the air traffic growth has been substantially less
than originally projected or expected?
Secretary Pena. Mr. Chairman, I think, first of all, there is not
a total connection between air traffic projections and F&E requests.
Generally speaking, most of the F&E requests that you are see-
ing now are to fund projects that were approved some time ago.
And, sir, we are simply ensuring that we fully fund them, but let
me assure you that given the significant budget constraints we
have for the FAA — and they are significant, just as they are for the
Coast Guard — that we will review these expenditures very care-
fully.
In addition to that, it is our view that the aviation industry in
the country will become stabilized. We had 15 new entrants into
the airline industry last year. One airline is expected to come out
of bankruptcy very soon and, perhaps, another.
So we do see things improving over time, particularly, if we can
open up these international markets. But I hear the concerns you
have raised, Mr. Chairman, and we follow it very carefully.
Senator Lautenberg. Well, I raised concern not as a criticism,
but because one need not necessarily connect the movements of
passengers with the expenditures by FAA for facilities and equip-
ment.
The fact is that that system has not kept up with either the tech-
nological pace available, nor the requirements for a more efficient
system. Some part of it has to relate to passenger activity, because
that is where much of the income is derived. I would like to see
us continue to invest and finally catch up, because I think we are
still delinquent when it comes to comparisons to other countries in
terms of systems for the movement of traffic.
I am amazed, Mr. Secretary— and I fly a lot out of Newark,
which is the primary airport for my use — how often delays exist
when the weather is clear and when it is an odd time of day.
736
It is not the 7 to 9 o'clock period in the morning or the 4 to 6
or 7 o'clock period at night. I just cannot understand how it is still
so backed up.
We are told, "Well, it is controller activity, air traffic control, et
cetera, et cetera."
There is something awry there. I hope that as you pursue your
responsibilities you examine that very closely and connect our in-
vestments with improvements in service and safety.
Is it anticipated that the F&E budget is going to level off over
the next few years, when the projects in the original national aero-
space plan come to fruition?
Secretary Pena. I cannot answer the question specifically, Mr.
Chairman, in terms of leveling off. I had better review that before
I say it is going to level off I think you are going to see continued
increases over the next several years or at least demands for in-
creases in expenditures.
AIRCRAFT NOISE
Senator Lautenberg. I would like to raise another issue with
you to which my constituents are sensitive. That is the long-time
subject, aircraft noise, generally, but particularly in New Jersey.
Now FAA is in the process, and has been for as long as I have
served here, of preparing, in retrospect, an environmental impact
statement on the expanded east coast plan.
The final EIS was to have been issued before the end of calendar
year 1992. If I sound a little bit fatigued with it, I truly am, as are
the people who live underneath these approaches in New Jersey.
Do you know what the status is of the environmental impact
statement for the expanded east coast plan? What are the expected
completion dates of the draft and the final statements?
Secretary Pena. Mr. Chairman, you are absolutely correct about
the delays here. And let me say, before I answer this question, that
one of my other priorities in the Department is to ensure that we,
on a more timely basis, make decisions, issue regulations, and — in
particular, where we are responding to a request from the Congress
or more than that, a mandate from the Congress — ^that we act
quickly.
I put enormous pressure on the Department to do a better job
of being timely in all of these areas, because I look at the regula-
tions that we have that are backlogged in the Department. I am
disappointed with the backlogs.
And I want you to know that we have unofficially a regulation
czar in the Department who is to ensure that these regulations are
put out on a timely basis. With respect to the draft EIS, in March
of this year, the comment period was reopened and extended to
June 14. And that was at the request of Grovemor Florio, and also
the Port Authority of New Jersey and New York.
The additional time was also for a group called The New Jersey
Citizens Against Aircraft Noise to obtain technical assistance to re-
view and assess the draft environmental impact statements.
So, hopefully, that will be the last extension of the comment pe-
riod on the draft EIS, so that we can finally complete it.
737
I will commit to you, Senator, that we will do it as quickly as
possible, because I am also very sensitive to the noise issue, having
gone through noise problems in Denver.
I know how important they are; how difficult noise issues are for
communities and the extent of litigation that is brought against
airports and cities, generally. I know this is of particular concern
to you. So we will do our very best to make this the last time that
we extend this comment period.
TRUCK SAFETY
Senator Lautenberg. I look forward to that day, Mr. Secretary.
1 do not know whether you had an opportunity to see an article in
the Sunday Times 2 weeks ago, entitled, "Jackknifmg" or "Jack-
knife."
It portrayed, in very dramatic terms, what has happened with
truck safety, particularly concerning trailers and long-bodied
trucks, trailer trucks, and the devastation that is created in case
of an accident.
Thank goodness it does not always result in a fatality or serious
injury, but it does often cause tieups in traffic. You hear a report
of a jackknifed trailer on some road with traffic backed up 16
miles. We will furnish your Department with a copy of that article,
if you do not already have it.
Truck safety is an area in which the subcommittee and I have
voiced concern for several years. As we pointed out in our commit-
tee report 2 years ago, while medium and heavy trucks comprise
only 3.2 percent of all vehicles on the road, fatal crashes with me-
dium and heavy trucks represent 12 percent of all highway deaths.
For the last couple of years, our committee has been encouraging
DOT to move quickly to require antilock brakes on heavy trucks.
The issue has been around since 1969. Yet the last two administra-
tions have brought us delay after delay. And finally, we were re-
quired to mandate a regulatory decision on this issue in the ISTEA
legislation.
When, Mr. Secretary, do you think we can say that we will have
a final rule requiring antilock brakes on heavy trucks?
Secretary Pena. Mr. Chairman, I will not repeat the comment I
made to the previous question about making this whole area a pri-
ority, but I am advised that NHSTA expects to publish a final rule
by the end of the calendar year, with an effective date beginning
2 years later. That is the current projection, at least.
An advanced notice of proposed rulemaking was published in
June 1992. And they are currently preparing a notice of proposed
rulemaking.
I will focus on this and ensure that we meet our timetables, that
we do not delay, that we not once again postpone tough decisions,
and that we try to respond to your concerns.
Senator Lautenberg. Antilock brakes are already required on
newly manufactured trucks in the European Community and on
most heavy trucks in Japan. Jackknifmg incidents involving heavy
trucks have been greatly reduced in those two regions.
The question, again, is how long will we have to wait until we
have the same protection standard they have?
738
The trucking industry has endorsed a requirement for antilock
brakes for new trucks, but not until the year 2000 for tractors, and
2002 for trailers.
Given the results of NHTSA's recent report, which indicates that
utilizing antilock brakes will only add, roughly, 1 percent to the
maintenance costs on truck fleets, is it reasonable to wait until the
year 2000 to require antilock brakes on heavy trucks?
That is part of your study. I would ask you to respond to that
question when you get back to us on the whole thing.
RADAR DETECTORS IN TRUCKS
In the appropriations bill for 1992, I included a provision man-
dating that the Department initiate a rule banning the use of radar
detectors in trucks. The Department published a proposed rule on
this issue over 15 months ago. The comment period has been closed
for 1 year, and we have heard nothing.
What do you see as a target date for a final rule banning the use
of radar detectors in trucks?
It is an urgent requirement. One need only get out on our major
highways and see these trucks bearing down.
If you look in your rearview mirror and see a truck too close for
comfort, it makes you realize that not many people travel below the
speed limit. The fact is that we often see excessive speeding on our
roads. Radar detectors are one way for these people to get past the
law.
When might we see a final rule?
Secretary Pena. Mr. Chairman, I have been told that there were
over 2,000 comments that were filed during this process. The com-
ment period ended on May 26.
As with the other rulemakings, we will persuade and push the
appropriate people to make a decision as quickly as possible.
Senator Lautenberg. Do you have any idea where those 2,000
comments came from? What portion of our society?
Secretary Pena. I would have
Senator LauTENBERG. What profession?
Secretary PENA. I cannot answer. Mr. Chairman, you probably
have a good suspicion as to where they came from, but the point
is that they are filed. And we have an obligation
Senator Lautenberg. You will follow through.
Secretary Pena. That is right.
DEFECTIVE TRUCK BRAKES
Senator Lautenberg. There is the issue of defective brakes
under truck safety. According to the FHA, one out of every four
trucks inspected bv motor carrier inspectors is cited for defective
brakes. Trucks with mechanical defects are twice as likely to be in-
volved in accidents as those that are defect-free.
Mr. Secretary, I particularly think about it when I travel on
Route 1-70 outside Denver and through the State of Colorado. As
I see the runaway ramps that are provided, I am reminded of the
danger of traveling from one altitude to another.
Some of the hills and inclines result in high-speed travel,
unwillingly in many cases. If we know that the companies and the
739
drivers of these vehicles are responsible, there is some assurance
that they can deal with the possible hazards.
What steps do you plan to take to improve compliance with the
brake requirements?
Secretary Pena. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to say that we are
working very closely with a number of State agencies to ensure
that we have more inspections. And, in fact, the amount of inspec-
tions has increased over the last several years.
In addition to that, we are trying to encourage uniform penalty
standards with respect to drivers who are pulled over. And by con-
tinuing to work very closely in these areas, I think we will do a
much better job of ensuring enforcement in this area.
So it is a serious problem, particularly in States like Colorado,
where you have a 7-percent grade and a truckdriver who is driving
through there who is unaware of the dangers, does not know how
to downshift or slow down as you are supposed to. And you are
right, they are off on those runaway ramps and, hopefully, not
ramming anybody as they go up the ramp.
So it is a serious issue. And we will continue to work with the
States to secure enforcement in this area.
TRUCKDRIVERS' HOURS OF SERVICE
Senator Lautenberg. We have talked about the equipment re-
quirements, antilock brakes, and current brake repair, but there is
also a question about exhaustion with drivers.
It has been shown that drivers who have been behind the wheel
for more than 8 hours on interstates are almost twice as likely to
crash as well-rested drivers. It has also been shown that there is
widespread noncompliance on the part of drivers with the hours-
of-service regulation.
Do you have any measures that might improve that compliance?
Secretary Pena. Well, Senator, we are going to have to do a little
redirection in the Department in this area. As you know, a rule
was proposed which would have allowed more extended hours for
truckdrivers, which I stopped the first day of my administration.
We are going to have to rethink some of the traditional attitudes
that the Department had in this area and make sure that we are
on the safety side, on the driver rest side, and not expose citizens
to unnecessary accidents because of driver fatigue.
Senator Lautenberg. It is quite remarkable to see a bunch of
trailers pulled over on the side of the road. It is almost impossible
to get the necessary rest if one doesn't stop until 10 or 11 o'clock
at night. It is hard to imagine that they could be away from driving
long enough to be rested.
I urge that we look to enforcing the compliance with those rules
as well.
ISTEA FUNDS FOR INTERCITY RAIL PROJECTS
During your confirmation before the EPW Committee, you voiced
support for my view that States should be granted the same flexi-
bility to use highway trust funds for intercity rail projects that they
currently enjoy for transit projects.
740
The State of North CaroHna recently requested authority from
FHWA to use ISTEA for expanded rail service between Raleigh and
Charlotte. Unfortunately, North Carolina's application was denied.
Since you plan to submit new legislation that will amend ISTEA
as it regards the maglev prototype program, we also propose to ex-
pand the flexibility of the States to use their ISTEA funds for inter-
city rail service.
Secretary Pena. Mr. Chairman, thus far, we had not focused on
that particular part of ISTEA, by way of amendment. I would be
happy to look at it. Right now, the program that we have in high-
speed rail would not address that particular issue, but, perhaps, it
is something we might review.
Ms. Collins. If I could just clarify
Senator Lautenberg. You have your own mic there. It might be
more convenient.
Ms. Collins. The budget does propose to use the trust funds
that were made available for maglev. If those are broadened to be
also used to finance high-speed rail, then we will have to address
the issues of whether the trust fund would provide direct support
for rail; like direct maintenance, track improvements, signal im-
provements.
Currently, the ISTEA funds can be used in situations where im-
provements are necessary to accommodate a highway-rail nexus, be
it grade crossings or other right-of-way pieces.
Similarly, the ISTEA funds can be used for preservation of rail
stations, but, in terms of direct support for maintenance, that is a
new avenue.
Senator Lautenberg. If we are going to give the States the flexi-
bility to make those decisions, we ought to be able to make the
funds available to them.
The mission is to provide a balanced transportation network. If
providing that kind of transportation facility is one avenue, we
ought to take a second look at what we can do to make some of
those funds available.
fflGH-SPEED RAIL
You note in your testimony that you will soon be submitting new
legislation for the $140 million you need for high-speed and maglev
projects.
This subcommittee held an informative hearing on high-speed
rail earlier this year, where we gathered many views in both the
private sector and in the railroad industry.
Would that $140 million be focused on a number of projects or
limited to a few high-speed rail projects?
Secretary Pena. Well, Mr. Chairman, I cannot give you a final
answer, because the policy is still being shaped, but let me share
some general thoughts about the approach that we are taking.
Obviously, there were corridors that were identified through a
process mandated in ISTEA for special attention or, at least, for
focus. We may not want to limit ourselves only to those particular
corridors.
We want to look at criteria that allow us to maximize the limited
dollars we have here, because even though it is a $1.3 billion pro-
gram, the needs are far in excess of that.
741
We want to look at a number of different criteria, the extent to
which there are matching funds, either from the State or the city
or the private sector in a particular corridor. And then the tradi-
tional criteria: the ridership, population, et cetera.
My goal, Mr. Chairman, is to make sure that, assuming we can
get this new initiative adopted, we actually see high-speed rail sys-
tems in place. We do not simply want to put out money and then
continue to hope that someday we will see them in operation. We
really want to make sure that we support those areas that have
the most promise in terms of getting these systems up and oper-
ational as quickly as possible.
Senator Lautenberg. It would seem that the funds are not suffi-
cient to handle the numerous requests that we have. There is a lot
of interest in high-speed rail, but, because the technology is fairly
limited, perhaps we should focus in a few places where the invest-
ment can make a significant difference.
We ought to try to give sufficient funding to the couple or three
or four technologies that exist, as you suggest, to find a couple of
places to try these things on a serious level. We should invest in
them and in the development of the technology necessary for the
needs of this country, because we currently look abroad in almost
every case.
MAGLEV
Is the maglev technology, for instance, far enough along? Do you
have enough knowledge about it at this juncture to say that we
should construct a system in the United States in the near term?
As far as I know, there is no operational maglev system in reve-
nue service today. There is a system or two in operation, but they
are more in test mode than in operational mode.
Secretary Pena. Mr. Chairman, that is a very thoughtful ques-
tion. And as you know, there has been discussion of having a
maglev prototype somewhere in the country. And this is what we
are looking at right now, to determine whether or not that is
achievable, given the limited funds we have.
The investment in maglev technology is extraordinary on a per-
mile basis, $30 to $40 million compared to high-speed rail. So, on
the one hand, we want to be supportive. We want to advance the
technology and the research in the area of maglev. Whether or not
we can actually have a prototype operational, in service, is an issue
that we are still reviewing.
Senator Lautenberg. We know that steel on steel works. One
need only go to some of the countries in Europe. France, in particu-
lar, with the TGV, has had wonderful success.
We have had the Swedish transit system here, the X2000. I have
ridden it. I think you have, too. If you have not, I submit that you
ought to try it. It is a wonderful system.
We may have to do some track straightening, where possible, but
significant speeds are obtainable with tried and true technology.
I would be the last one in the world to say we should not try
something new, but it is a question of how to balance your invest-
ment, what the return is and when it comes.
742
We are joined here by our good friend and colleague from New
Mexico, Senator Domenici. Senator, do you have a couple of things
that you would like to ask the Secretary?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR DOMENICI
Senator Domenici. I am late, so I do not want to impose on the
chairman. If I could submit a number of questions. I will. I would
like to talk about one program and then submit the rest of my
questions to the Secretary.
First, Mr. Secretary, let me say, I was flying over your State and
happened into Denver on the way somewhere. I bought one of those
rather shabby newspapers called the Sunday Denver Post. I saw
you and your wonderful wife featured in it. I assume both you and
she have seen it and read it. I brought it home to my wife, and
please tell her how pleased we were to see the background informa-
tion on you and your family and about your role here in Washing-
ton.
I think it is now understood, at least on this committee, that the
Domenici's and the Hart's — ^your wife's maiden name — were great
friends and that she grew up with our children. I hope everything
is going well as you try to stabilize your young family here.
Secretary Pena. Thank you. Senator.
Senator Domenici. We did that once, with eight, as you know.
Secretary Pena. Yes. [Laughter.]
Senator Domenici. It was not very easy. You have it much easier
with just two.
Senator Lautenberg. Senator, are you saying that the Sec-
retards wife was your child's age?
Senator Domenici. Well, I have a daughter. [Laughter.]
Of course, he — ^we do not want to get into how old he is. [Laugh-
ter.]
Or how old I am. We have eight children and our oldest now is
about 33 or 34. I think that Mrs. Peiia she is even younger than
they are. So she is somewhere in the middle of my clan.
AGING AIRCRAFT
Mr. Secretary, in our State there are a number of things that I
would inquire about, and I will give you those for the record. I
would like very much though to talk about a program in the city
of Albuquerque that has to do with aging aircraft, and the science
of determining the true status of aircraft as it ages.
There has been about $7 million heretofore appropriated for a
jointly funded program that is being conducted in Albuquerque
with the science leader being Sandia National Laboratories in part-
nership with the Federal Aviation Administration Technical Cen-
ter.
Let me suggest to you that this aging aircraft, nondestructive
demonstration center is about 3 years old. I would urge that you
have your highest officials in that area review it carefully.
From what I can find out, it is one of two or three that are going
to produce some very startling scientific information about an
aging fleet of airplanes that is not only besetting America, but the
world.
743
It is absolutely tremendous to see this merging of science and
technology to address aging aircraft. The airlines are very coopera-
tive. We now have a Boeing 737 aircraft that has been purchased
that was somewhat aging. It is the demonstration airplane.
Overall, I am very concerned about whether there are sufficient
funds in the budget to continue the aging aircraft research in the
United States.
One of my specific questions has to do with that, which I
wouldn't expect you to know today, but clearly we think that this
and a few others like it are very, very important to the future of
your Department in terms of staying right on the cutting edge of
helping the private sector when it is something that has to be done
by Government. This collaboration has to be melded by Govern-
ment.
Do you have any comments on that?
Secretary Pena. Senator, generally, we have about $22.6 million
in the budget for the aging aircraft program, but let me find out
more about that particular program in Albuquerque and see where
that is at. I can get back to you with more specific information.
DEFICIT-REDUCTION TAX ON MOTOR FUELS
Senator Domenici. I would greatly appreciate that. With ref-
erence to the highway program and its oroadened concept under
ISTEA, we are going to come to a point here when we have to do
something about the 2.5-cent gasoline tax that expires at the end
of fiscal year 1995. The question is: Should it continue? I assume
that it is now clear that the administration recommends that it
continue, that it be extended, is that correct?
Secretary Pena. That it be extended and put into the highway
trust fund.
Senator DoMENici. Correct.
Secretary Pena. So that it will not be used for deficit reduction
after 1995.
Senator Domenici. Right.
Secretary Pena. That is a major shift. I cannot recall at what
Eoint this came up, but you may recall. Senator, that earlier in the
udget discussions, it had been left in for deficit reduction. I was
able to convince 0MB that it belonged in the highway trust fund.
So, starting in October 1995, the revenue will be put into the
highway trust fund. It will be distributed 2 cents into the highway
account and 0.5 cent into the transit account to reflect the philoso-
phy and the compromise that was reached during passage of the
1982 Surface Transportation Assistance Act and the 1990 Budget
Reconciliation Act.
Senator Domenici. Well, I want to ask a little more precise ques-
tion. Are you aware of the Byrd rule?
Secretary Pena. Yes, sir.
Senator Domenici. What is the situation going to be, then, with
reference to the way you choose to handle the 2.5-percent gas tax
versus the triggering of the Byrd rule with reference to transpor-
tation allocations?
Secretary Pena. Senator, and I am giving you an answer based
on our current estimates of what we think the revenue will be and,
of course, as you know, these estimates change year by year, but
744
generally speaking, we should be OK with the Byrd rule, at least,
until 1997, perhaps 1998.
We recognize the reality of the fact that, before that time, the ad-
ministration and the Congress will have to go about rewriting and
thinking about ISTEA 2 or whatever we are going to call it.
From a practical standpoint, we are going to address the long-
term funding issue before those years come, but that is the general
situation that we are in right now with the
Senator Domenici. My understanding, Mr. Secretary, is that the
Congressional Budget Office has projected, without the extension
and dedication of that 2.5 cents to the highway account, the Byrd
rule would be triggered by the end of 1994. Is that what you have?
Ms. Collins. If I
Senator Domenicl Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Collins. Without the transfer, yes. That is exactly right.
And that is why we were so eager to get the revenue back into the
highway account.
Senator Domenici. Right. Correct. But now CBO estimates that
if_with the extension and the allocation of the entire 2.5 cents to
the highway account, the Byrd rule would not be triggered until
1997. Is that what you are counting on?
Ms. Collins. With the 2 cents, and our current revenue projec-
tions, we think we can make it through the authorization, but it
will be very close to the edge. And we would have to watch that
closely.
Secretary Pena. And let me add to that. Senator, because there
has been a lot of discussion about how we separate the 0.5 cent
from the 2 cents.
Senator Domenici. Correct.
Secretary Pena. Recognizing that there is the potential of a prob-
lem in the out years, we have also recommended language to the
effect that in those out years, if there is a cash problem in the
highway account, the highway account would be able to borrow
from the transit account, because the transit account will have a
significant surplus in the out years.
So I think we have built in language which allows us to have
what I call an honest budget on its face, which allows for a contin-
gency in the event that we have that problem.
Senator Domenici. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions.
That one concerns me, because I really think we would have a
tough time if the Byrd rule is triggered. You know how hard it was
to get the bill.
Senator Lautenberg. Yes; I share your concern. Senator. There
is one thing that I want to make sure of, because of the pace of
drawdown, where the highway account has been faster than the
transit account. We must not automaticsdly assume the need is not
there, but the attention that you are calling to it is certainly appro-
priate.
I, for one, think that we ought to preserve that dedicated fund.
People are willing to have that. We ought to look for budget deficit
reduction from other areas.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much.
745
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Secretary, I know that you are kind
of in a rush. I want to ask a couple of quick questions about Am-
trak. Then we will be able to adjourn.
AMTRAK SUPPLEMENTAL
Amtrak has requested a $57.5 million supplemental appropria-
tion for the current fiscal year, because of their operating shortfall.
Last year was the first year in over a decade in which Amtrak
saw a real decline in passenger-related revenue. They were re-
quired to take out a short-term loan to have enough cash on hand
for the last couple of weeks of fiscal year 1992.
Revenues for the current year are well below Amtrak's past pro-
jections. Has the administration given any consideration to the re-
quest for a supplemental for Amtrak's operating expenses for the
current year?
Secretary Pena. Mr. Chairman, I attended my first Amtrak
board meeting, I think, 2 months ago, when this subject came up
and the issue of a supplemental was discussed. As I understand,
the new figure for the supplemental is between $30 and $67 mil-
lion.
I think the earlier estimate was that it would be in the range
that you had discussed. However, we want to see what the revenue
looks like in the early part of next month.
And at that time, we will have a better sense of how well Amtrak
is doing. At that point, I will be able to give you a specific answer
on whether we are going to support that supplemental.
I must say that everyone is delighted with the progress that Am-
trak has made. I think we would realize that, if there were easy
decisions that Amtrak could make, they have been made, and now
they are down to very tough decisions. In addition to that, we think
that the funding that we are recommending on the capital side will
be able to generate more revenue for Amtrak.
So we need to weigh all of those issues, but I will be taking a
position one way or another sometime next month.
Senator LAUTE^fBERG. Do you see any areas in which Amtrak
could make further cost reductions without reducing the ridership
further?
Secretary Pena. Not that they are easy to identify, Mr. Chair-
man. I think everyone agrees that we are now into the tough deci-
sions for Amtrak.
AMTRAK SELF-SUFFICIENCY
Senator Lautenberg. One of the things that is grossly misunder-
stood is the relative proportion of subsidy given different modes of
transportation. People are inclined to ignore that which is given to
aviation or highway.
When we look at the subsidies given to other modes of transpor-
tation, is it possible that Amtrak should be required to achieve op-
erating self-sufficiency when, realistically, it does not happen any
other place?
It does not happen in any other transportation modes. I am also
talking about other countries that have significant passenger rail
746
service. Is it realistic to think that they can operate without some
operating subsidy?
Secretary Pen A. Mr. Chairman, that is a tough question. I think
Amtrak is doing some very creative things and nas done some very
creative things. And we will know very shortly whether or not we
have now reached the point where Amtrak will need some kind of
continuing subsidy.
I would hope, and I think the board feels this way, they will con-
tinue to make more and more progress in becoming self-sufficient.
Who knows? They may surprise us all, but we have no allusions
about this. We know that it is very difficult. And they have made
the easier adjustments. And now they have to make some very
tough decisions.
We may have to help them in the short term, by way of a little
help to get them over a particularly difficult period.
And with the capital investments we are making, they might be
able to increase their ridership sufficiently so as to bring in some
more revenues to help them continue on this program of becoming
self-sufficient, but, Mr. Chairman, I think it is difficult.
Senator Lautenberg. One of the things that would help us all
is to gather, from your Department, the subsidy amounts applied
to the other modes of transportation. Then we would seriously be
comparing apples to apples.
SUBMITTED QUESTIONS
I would a^reciate if you would have that done. With that, we
excuse you. Thank you very much for being here. We will submit
additional questions in writing to be answered for the record.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were
submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hear-
ing:]
747
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR LAUTENBERG
CAN WE CUT ADMINISTRATION/PERSONNEL COSTS DEEPER THAN
CLINTON BUDGET?
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Mr. Secretary, as I mentioned
in my opening statement, this subcommittee will not have
enough money to fully fund your FY 1994 budget request.
Your budget request already assumes $64 million in
administrative savings and the reduction of almost 1,800
full-time equivalent staff by the end of 1994. Please
explain the difference between the originally projected
$28 million in administrative savings and the more recent
figure of $64 million in DOT administrative expense
reductions.
ANSWER: In the course of preparing Congressional
budget justifications, we revised the estimate of
administrative reductions. The major difference between
our original estimate of $28 million and the revised
estimate of $64 million is attributable to the
reclassification of a $34.8 million reduction in FAA
Operations previously classified by 0MB as
"streamlining" .
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: How do you plan to implement
the personnel reductions?
ANSWER: Personnel reductions of 1,765 full-time
equivalents by the end of FY 1994 have been allocated
among the operating administrations and OST. Associated
funding has also been eliminated from the applicable
budget account(s). At this time, these reductions will
be accomplished through attrition or early out programs.
We do not anticipate any reductions-in-force.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: How did you decide which
offices would be reduced by how many personnel?
ANSWER: The President's Executive Order 12839 on
personnel reductions requires a reduction of 1% in FY
1993 and 2.5% in FY 1994 from a base number of FTEs
(ceiling and non-ceiling) consistent with FY 1993 enacted
appropriations. Each DOT operating administration was
allocated the 2.5% reduction with adjustments to reflect
actual and projected staffing levels. We made an
exception for FRA to add staff to manage the High Speed
Ground Transportation program and to strengthen Railroad
Safety.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Is it possible that even more
staff can be cut from DOT without negatively impacting
your agencies' missions?
ANSWER: Once the modal Administrators are on-board,
we will ask them to take a hard look at the staffing
needed to do our work.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Was the size of your proposed
cut in administrative expenses determined by a thorough
748
review within the DOT, or was this taken as a percentage
reduction by the Office of Management and Budget?
ANSWER: Consistent with the President's Executive
Order 12837, the administrative reductions were taken as
a percentage (3%) from the FY 1993 enacted level adjusted
for inflation. As a general rule, the reductions were
taken from a base which included all funds in the object
class 20 series, excluding GSA Rental Payments. Certain
accounts or portions thereof were excluded from the base
computation by OMB. For example, FAA's Facilities and
Equipment and USCG's Operating Expenses accounts have
significant funding in the object class 20 series that
are program oriented rather than administrative in
nature. Other accounts such as FRA's Railroad Safety
and RSPA's Pipeline Safety were totally excluded since
their expenses are offset by user fees and thus no
savings would be realized. In some cases, other
reductions were included to accommodate the amount of the
administrative reduction.
FOSTERING NEW TECHNOLOGIES IN THE U.S.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: As a leading advocate for
expansion of high-speed rail and IVHS in this country, I
am very interested in your efforts to promote these
technologies within the United States. As you know, many
of the programs funded by your Department carry a "Buy
America" provision that requires at least 50 percent U.S.
content for taxpayer-funded projects.
Have you given consideration to restricting funding
for new technologies such as high-speed rail and IVHS to
100 percent U.S. content?
ANSWER: We are giving careful consideration to a
Buy America provision that could be added to the
Administration's proposed High-Speed Rail Development Act
of 1993. This is a complex area, with many issues of
international and domestic policy to balance. We want a
provision that ensures that opportunities for U.S.
products and businesses play a strong role in this
program.
The Buy America provisions of the Surface
Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (23 U.S.C. 101
Note) as amended by ISTEA apply to the IVHS program.
These provisions require that Federal funds cannot be
obligated unless iron, steel, cement and manufactured
products used in a project are produced in the United
States. These provisions do not apply if the Secretary
finds:
(1) that their application would be inconsistent
with the public interest;
(2) that such materials and products are not
produced in the United States in sufficient and
reasonably available quantities and of a satisfactory
quality; and
(3) that inclusion of domestic material will
increase the cost of the overall project contract by more
than 10 per cent in the case of projects for the
749
acquisition of rolling stock, and 25 per cent in the case
of all other projects.
The vast majority of materials used in our IVHS
projects are, in fact, American-made.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Do you believe that the current
technology transfer capability from DOT-funded research
to America's private sector is adequate? How do you plan
to improve it?
ANSWER: Over the past several years, legislation
dealing with technology transfer, most notably the
Stevenson-Wydler Act as updated and the Federal
Technology Transfer Act of 1986, has provided Federal
agencies with an effective set of mechanisms to encourage
application of Federal research results by the private
sector. DOT considers these mechanisms adequate, and
believes that the key to more effective technology
transfer is promoting their use on a broader basis.
The keystones of many of these mechanisms are the
Federal laboratories. DOT is an active member of the
Federal Laboratory Consortium, and has promoted the use
of Cooperative Research and Development Agreements
(CRADA's) to make the capabilities and expertise at the
laboratories available to industry. The Federal Aviation
Administration has been particularly effective in using
this channel, and DOT is moving to foster similar
initiatives in the other operating administrations.
DOT also participates in multi-agency technology
transfer initiatives like the National Technology
Transfer Center, designed to assist industry with
technical problems and help commercialize new
technologies. In addition, private sector users have
full access to the range of clearinghouses, data
services, document distribution systems, and technology
transfer centers used by DOT to communicate technical
material to the transportation community.
TRANSIT CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDING ALLOCATION
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Mr. Secretary, in your budget
request for transit "new start" funding, you have
included language stating that the allocation of these
funds will be based on recommendations contained in the
Federal Transit Administration's 3(j) Report. The 3(j)
Report has not been used for this purpose in the past,
but has provided the Committee very useful information on
the various and competing new start projects. Does this
new statutory proposal to allocate funds according to
proposed use of the 3(j) report require a complete new
format and content of the report?
ANSWER: The reference to the 3(j) report in our
budget proposal does not require either a new format or a
change in content. The report has always contained the
Department's recommendations for funding in the upcoming
fiscal year and its format is still appropriate, even in
light of its new role in decision making.
750
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: When do you expect to have that
report delivered to the Committee?
ANSWER: The 3(j) report will be delivered to
Congressional committees prior to FTA's May 11 hearing
before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on
Transportation .
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Will the new 3(j) report
provide specific dollar recommendations for each new
start project that currently exists?
ANSWER: The 3(j) report provides specific dollar
recommendations consistent with the President's Budget
request for FY 1994 and for outyears for all projects
currently in the new start pipeline.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Will FTA provide a strict
"ranking" system of new start projects?
ANSWER: Projects are prioritized within categories
but not strictly ranked. When making funding allocation
decisions, the Department believes that it is better
policy to make small adjustments in funding to a large
number of projects than to focus all funds on the highest
priority projects.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: The 3(j) report includes the
cost of attracting an additional rider as one measure of
cost/benefit. What other criteria will be used by the
3(j) report in evaluating new start proposals and
allocation of new start funds?
ANSWER: The Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act (ISTEA) provides a set of criteria that
the Department uses to determine which new start projects
will receive funding. This set of criteria consists of:
cost-effectiveness (cost per new trip) ; mobility
improvements; the potential environmental benefits;
operating efficiencies; and local financial commitment.
When considering the specific allocation of funds,
readiness of the project to spend money is also
considered.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: How will the source of funding,
the stability of funding, and the stage of the building
process affect the ranking of a new start project in you
new 3(j) report?
ANSWER: Local financial commitment is considered
equally with the other ISTEA criteria in determining
projects to fund. A project's proposed capital financing
plan is evaluated on the stability and reliability of
each proposed source of local matching funds, on the
provisions made in the plan to cover unanticipated cost
overruns and, on the ability of the local transit agency
to run the system once it is operational. The stage a
project has reached affects its consideration for funding
in two ways. First, the criteria applied to establishing
stability of local funding become stricter as the project
nears construction. Second, the amount of money
allocated to a project in a given year depends upon its
readiness to use those funds; the further a project has
751
moved in the development process, the more likely it is
to be ready to use funds within the fiscal year.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: No such report exists for
capital acquisition projects, such as buses. What
criteria does the Administration plan to use when
allocating the funding for bus purchases?
ANSWER: A number of considerations are taken into
account in evaluating applications for funding of bus
purchases. First, projects are looked at in terms of the
three priority capital categories for Section 3 bus
funds: construction or rehabilitation of maintenance
facilities; acquisition of buses for replacement or
expansion; and other facilities such as intermodal
terminals or transfer centers. Within those categories,
projects are assessed as to how they contribute to the
program emphasis areas: maintaining transit fleet and
infrastructure; contribution to clean air goals;
improving accessibility; and demonstration of innovative
financing/overmatch. Other criteria include providing a
fair share of funding to all city sizes and geographic
areas; readiness of the project for implementation; an
assessment of an area's use of formula funds; and the
system's spare ratio.
TRANSIT OPERATING ASSISTANCE
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: The overall transit formula
grants program is proposed to receive a 44 percent
increase over the level provided in FY 1993. However,
the amount of operating assistance for the urbanized
areas was not increased above the $802 million level.
What were the reasons for freezing the operating
assistance funding level at $802 million?
ANSWER: The budget includes $802 million for
operating assistance, nearly the same as enacted by
Congress each year since FY 1988. By comparison, ISTEA
would allow $1.04 billion in FY 1994. Operating
assistance was kept at the historical level rather than
the ISTEA level because the Administration's priority is
first to fund the much needed long-term capital
investments that maintain and expand the current transit
system. It should be noted that State and local
governments have demonstrated an increasing ability to
fund operating expenses, as evidenced by their non-
Federal share increasing from 85% to 95% over the past 11
years.
PROCUREMENT AT DOT
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Modernizing this nation's air
traffic control system is a 20-plus-year effort and is
fast approaching a total cost of almost $40 billion.
What seemed like a technologically sound idea in 1980
might not be the best alternative in 1990, 1993, or the
year 2000. In fact, one of these new technologies — the
Global Navigation System — would seem to have the
752
potential to replace several parts of FAA's modernization
program. Does the Department have an estimate of the
potential for satellites to supplant the capability now
provided by various radars and landing systems? Which
systems, both installed now and in planning stages, could
potentially be affected?
ANSWER: DOT is actively working with DOD to explore
additional civil use and the appropriate management
structure for the Global Positioning System (GPS) . In
addition, there is an ongoing research program in DOT to
determine what future applications of GPS will be
feasible and economical for DOT. Early results indicate
that GPS will be widely used for Category I precision
landing guidance, and work continues toward deciding
whether or not it can be used for Category II and III
precision guidance. That decision is now scheduled for
1995. GPS will also be used for oceanic navigation, and
it may be used for domestic navigation. However,
replacement of existing systems will take several years.
Given the large investment, both private sector and
government, in existing equipment, a transition of
several years must be provided before requiring the use
of new systems. The Federal Navigation Plan shows that
all present FAA operated navigation systems other than
TACAN will remain in operation until past the year 2000,
because transitioning to a new system takes 10 to 15
years. In addition, virtually every navigation
application requires both a primary and secondary system.
There are no plans to replace radar surveillance for air
traffic control at this time.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: How much can be saved by
scrapping plans for new radars and landing systems with a
satellite-based precision landing system?
ANSWER: About $1 billion would be saved between
1995 and 2003 if the satellite based system is used for
category I landings.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What other major systems in
FAA's Capital Investment Plan could have their
procurement truncated if satellite navigation is
successful and implementation is possible within the next
few years?
ANSWER: Because of the long transition time
necessary to convert to use of a satellite navigation
system, there are no near term savings from cutting short
current system procurements at this time. We will
continue to carefully examine future budgets to find any
programs and expenditures that could be cut, but would
expect that savings would not occur until the year 2 000
or later. In addition, conversion to use of satellite
navigation would require substantial investments to
modify existing automation and communication equipment.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Mr. Secretary, you are well
aware that the need to fund infrastructure activities
that create jobs in the various parts of the
753
transportation sector is creating budget pressures in
other places. For example, we could be forced to look
very carefully at FAA's F&E account to achieve budget
savings. If so, does the Department have mechanisms to
make such a budget review an efficient and effective
exercise? '
ANSWER: If cuts are made in the F&E budget, we
would like to work with the Committee to identify the
areas to be cut.
FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT REQUESTS AND
INCREASES IN AIR TRAFFIC
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: The Federal Aviation
Administration's (FAA) Facilities and Equipment (F&E)
appropriation grew from $260 million in fiscal year 1982
to $2.4 billion in fiscal year 1993, an increase of over
800 percent. Over approximately the same period,
aircraft operations grew only 5 percent (from 127.6
million in 1982 to 134.2 million in 1992). Despite
diminishing air traffic over the last 2 years and the
overestimation of air traffic growth over the last
decade, FAA continues to predict growth in aircraft
operations during the 1990 's and beyond. Does FAA
anticipate that the F&E budget will level off over the
next few years when projects in its original National
Airspace Plan start to come on line?
ANSWER: Current projections show a leveling off in
the future F&E budget requests through the latter half of
the 1990s. The need for infrastructure support such as
building and equipment replacement will continue. There
will also be a continuing need for update of the existing
systems, but system enhancements will be easier because
the design of the current systems use open architecture
software and a more modular configuration.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: FAA has predicted increased
capacity in the air traffic control system when F&E was
implemented. How will we know when the capacity of the
air traffic system catches up with the volume of air
traffic? How will FAA measure this? Should we dxpect a
decrease in the number of delays in the air traffic
system over the next few years as projects are installed
and, if so, how much of a decrease?
ANSWER: FAA's F&E appropriation pays for much more
than just expanding capacity. It pays for modernizing
the air traffic control system, supporting it, and
replacing worn out or obsolete equipment. For example,
FAA replaced the obsolete, vacuum tube computers (which
were at maximum capacity) with modern host computers that
can handle the system into the next century. Another
major and equally important purpose of F&E spending is
increasing safety. Aviation safety has increased
steadily over the years.
FAA has made some progress in reducing delays.
While air traffic operations declined by almost 2 percent
from 1990 to 1992, delays declined at a faster rate — 28
percent from 1990 to 1992. Much of this decline can be
754
attributed to recent FAA capital investments (e.g., the
Traffic Management System) . Further reductions in system
delays are expected in the future with the implementation
of capacity-related capital projects such as modernizing
the precision approach and landing system using the
Microwave Landing System and the Global Positioning
System.
Currently, many major airports do not have
sufficient capacity to handle today's demand. FAA uses
delays, especially capacity-related delays, to measure
where demand exceeds capacity. With the growth in system
capacity resulting from the implementation of capital
investment projects, system delays are expected to
decrease substantially. FAA expects demand to grow.
Although FAA forecasts today are not as optimistic as a
few years ago, they still expect modest long term growth.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Has FAA made adjustments to its
long-term forecasting models as a result of the
inaccurate forecasts in aircraft operations and other
activity measures over the last decade? Does FAA adjust
its future air traffic estimates given changes in other
technologies?
ANSWER: Yes, FAA periodically evaluates and adjusts
its forecast models to account for changes in the
economic environment. FAA sponsors workshops to critique
the techniques and practices used by FAA and other
aviation forecasters and to examine the outlook for the
industry and the prospects for aviation growth. The
workshops focus on the forecast process and ways to
improve the reliability and utility of the forecast
results. The future air traffic estimates are reviewed
and adjusted periodically to account for major influences
such as significant changes in the price of oil and deep
fare discounts. There has been some concern that changes
in technology such as video-conferencing and voice mail
may lead to reduced demand for air transportation by
business travelers. Although many firms have implemented
video conferencing, some people believe that technology
increases productivity, saves time, enhances business
opportunities, and may even increase travel. Changes in
other technologies, such as tilt-rotors, supersonic
transportation, and high speed ground transportation are
considered when preparing and evaluating the aviation
forecasts.
FAA's AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: The Administration favors a 1-
year extension of the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) ,
ostensibly for the purpose of having more time to develop
a long range strategy for airport development. Last
year, FAA issued its report entitled, "Long-term
Availability of Adequate Airport Capacity." Moreover,
FAA's National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS)
forecasts airport needs out past the turn of the century,
and FAA had completed more than 30 airport-specific
755
capacity studies. To what extent do these reports meet
or fall short of your need for strategy documents in the
ar6a of airport development?
ANSWER: The long-term needs report and the NPIAS,
while providing valuable information about the airport
system, fall short of being able to tell us what
investments to make to ensure future needs will be met.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: If they meet your needs, why
would you propose only a temporary extension of the AIP
and not full 5-year reauthorization?
ANSWER: The Department's primary concern is to
ensure that there is no lapse in Airport Improvement
Program (AIP) funding, which will expire at the end of FY
1993. There are a number of critical issues facing the
aviation industry today and a comprehensive review, such
as the one being undertaken by the National Commission to
Promote a Strong and Competitive Airline Industry, will
help shape the course that we should take. While AIP is
an important piece of the FAA reauthorization process, a
number of other issues are also routinely addressed. The
1992 reauthorization act included air traffic controller
and safety inspector staffing, a commission to study the
airline industry, aviation security training, slots and
civil penalties. The 1990 reauthorization act was
equally diverse, including increases in tax levels,
phasing out of Stage 2 aircraft, multi-year contracting
authority, and authority for Passenger Facility Charges.
A number of issues need to be addressed before a
comprehensive bill can be developed. Having the benefit
of the management team in place would be desirable.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: If the report falls short, what
do you intend to do in one year that the Department could
not do in the 4-year period from 1988 to 1992 to develop
a long-range needs assessment for the national aviation
system?
ANSWER: FAA has a number of efforts underway to
improve the planning process including development of
system models to measure performance, an analysis of
airport financing, and a review of airport access.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Because of the expense of —
and sometimes controversy over — developing additional
airport capacity, and the competition among airports for
grants that are available for that activity, I have asked
the General Accounting Office (GAO) to look into the
process FAA uses for awarding grants and would appreciate
any assistance that your Department could provide GAO in
that exercise. The Department has reported to us in the
past that it is developing a way to model the performance
of the airport and airway system to better forecast needs
and to determine how an enhancement in one airspace
sector or at a specific airport can affect the entire
system. Because development of such a model has been
underway for some time, and because something near $10
million per year is appropriated for modeling and
756
simulation in FAA's R,E&D program, please update us on
the status of this effort.
ANSWER: FAA has developed a number of models of the
airport and airway systems. The majority of the effort
and the funding for modeling and simulation in the R,E&D
budget has focused on the airway system. This effort
includes measuring ATC system performance, automating
national traffic flow planning, improving airspace use
and controller work load, and analyzing effectiveness of
new ATC technologies.
With regard to airport performance, FAA uses two
models funded in R,E&D: the National Airspace System
Performance Analysis Capability (NASPAC) model and
Simulation model (SIMMOD) . NASPAC is a system-wide model
that simulates aircraft movements throughout the system
and estimates how delay accumulates during the day.
SIMMOD is an airport and airspace simulation model that
measures capacity, delay, configuration of gates and
runways, and sector demand at a particular airport or in
a region with several airports. This model is useful for
airport specific issues but does not measure system
performance. FAA is developing a new model that they
believe will be more effective in measuring airport
system performance. The model will compute local and
system-wide delay over time for each airport and show how
congestion spreads from one or a few airports over the
entire network.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Although the FAA's long-range
needs study discussed and summarized the findings of
studies done by the National Research Board and others on
airport capacity, it did not identify airport needs into
the next century as intended. What is your assessment of
what the Department needs to do to define the long-term
outlook for airport development?
ANSWER: Projecting the long-term outlook of 20 to
30 years is always difficult, but it is an important
effort in determining what decisions need to be made in
the short term to ensure that the future system will meet
the demand. FAA will continue to refine its capability
to more effectively measure and forecast air
transportation demand and the relative benefits of
airport improvements on the system.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: I want to raise an issue with
you that is very sensitive to my constituents: aircraft
noise in New Jersey. FAA is in the process and has
been for as long as I can remember of preparing in
retrospect an Environmental Impact Statement on the
Expanded East Coast Plan (changes to air routes FAA made
in 1987) . Mr. Secretary, the final EIS was to have been
issued before the end of calendar year 1992. What is the
status of the EIS for the Expanded East Coast Plan and
what are the expected completion dates of the draft and
final statements?
i
757
ANSWER: The Draft Environmental Impact Study (DEIS)
was issued November 12, 1992. Comments were requested by
January 22, 1993, and subsequently extended to March 5,
1993 to allow more time for public comment. On March 15,
1993, the comment period was reopened and extended to
June 14, 1993, to accommodate a request from Governor
Florio of New Jersey and the Port Authority of New York
and New Jersey. The additional time was also granted to
enable the New Jersey Citizens Against Aircraft Noise to
obtain technical assistance to review and assess the
DEIS. Once the comment period has closed, FAA will act
expeditiously to complete the final EIS.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: During the FAA budget hearing
last year, the acting administrator and I had some
discussion about whether property values would be
addressed in the EIS. Has this issue been worked into
the current EIS?
ANSWER: Yes. Property values are addressed in the
EIS.
PAY DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: The FAA recently decided to
terminate the Pay Demonstration Program. This program
was intended to enhance FAA's ability to recruit and
retain experienced, qualified personnel in certain hard-
to-staff facilities by providing a retention allowance of
up to 20 percent of the employee's rate of base pay. FAA
estimated that terminating the program in October 1993
rather than the original end date of June, 1994 would
save $20 million. Has FAA performed a formal evaluation
of this pay demo project? If so, please provide the
highlights of this evaluation.
ANSWER: The formal evaluation of the project is
being conducted by an independent contractor under FAA
and 0PM direction. The first evaluation report covering
the implementation and initial year of operation was
issued in October 1991. A second evaluation is ongoing
and is expected to be completed within 4-5 months.
Preliminary data from the ongoing evaluation reflects:
o Since implementation in June 1989 through mid-
December 1992, staffing levels increased from 2,129 to
2,352, a net increase of 223 (10 percent).
o Total accessions of 1,013: Air traffic 736
Airway facilities 193
Flight standards 84
o Total separations of 790: Air traffic 562
Airway facilities 152
Flight standards 76
o Experience levels increased from 10.3 years per
employee at implementation to an average of 11.3 years.
758
o Full performance level (FPL) controllers increased
from 604 at implementation to 910, a 51 percent increase.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What analysis did FAA conduct
before deciding to terminate the program? How did FAA
arrive at the $20 million cost savings?
ANSWER: FAA considered many different factors
before deciding to terminate the pay demonstration
project, including the current and projected staffing
levels, the ongoing costs, the potential effects of
ending the project early, and other alternatives
available to address recruitment and retention, such as
the Federal Pay Comparability Act. While there has been
a net increase in staffing, FAA decided that the project
had achieved its purpose, that it was no longer
essential, and that the substantial cost of the program
did not justify its continuing. The primary objective
of the project was to test whether a pay allowance would
improve the recruitment and retention of employees at
selected hard-to-staff facilities. This was a five year
demonstration which began in June 1989 and was scheduled
to end in June 1994. By the end of September 1993, more
than four years of data will be available, and ending the
project nine months ahead of schedule will not compromise
the evaluation of project. The $20 million savings is
based on the estimated annual cost of the pay demo
allowances.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Does FAA have any hard-to-staff
facilities? What impact on your ability to staff high-
cost facilities will terminating the pay demonstration
program have? Without the program, how does FAA plan to
attract controllers to those facilities?
ANSWER: There will probably always be some Federal
facilities, including FAA facilities, where it is more
difficult to recruit well-gualif ied employees. However,
system-wide improvements in recruitment and retention
over the past several years, combined with improvements
in overall economic conditions, have alleviated many of
the staffing difficulties at these facilities.
The pay demonstration project was never intended to
address high cost of living. It was designed to test
whether a pay incentive would improve recruitment and
retention of employees at facilities where staffing
problems were most critical and chronic. Since the
demonstration project was implemented in June 1989, the
Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act (enacted in 1990)
gave Federal agencies additional authority to address
recruitment and retention problems and established new
methods for determining government-wide comparability
increases and addressing geographic pay differences.
Given these new authorities and the staffing improvements
that have occurred at FAA facilities, terminating the
demonstration project will likely have little effect on
FAA's ability to attract controllers.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What is the current staffing
situation at the facilities that were included in the
759
program? What impact does terminating the program have
on the work force that has been receiving a pay
differential?
ANSWER: The pay demo payments average $2,300 per
employee per quarter. The employees will no longer
receive this allowance when the demonstration project
terminates. The following table reflects the employment
levels at the facilities as of mid-December 1992:
Air
Airways
Flight
Traffic
Facil
ities
Standards
Total
New York area:
New York Center
412
95
507
New York TRACON
271
62
333
Farmingdale FSDO/
MI DO
23
23
New York FSDO
41
41
Teterboro FSDO/MIDO
41
41
Total NY area
683
157
105
945
Chicago area:
Chicago Center
Chicago O'Hare
544
87
Tower
58
TRACON
115
AF Sector
120
Total Chicago area
717
207
Los Angeles area:
Coast TRACON
88
10
Los Angeles Int'l
Tower
55
TRACON
93
AF Sector
71
Los Angeles FSDO
Total L.A. area
236
81
38
38
631
58
115
120
924
98
55
93
71
38
355
Oakland area:
Bay TRACON
106
22
128
Total for all pay
demo facilities 1,742
467
143
2,352
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What response have you received
from your air traffic controller work force to the early
termination of the program?
ANSWER: Naturally, controllers are not pleased with
having to accept the reduction. The pay demo payouts
were purposely given on a quarterly basis so that the
allowance did not become a part of the controllers
regular paycheck. Many controllers expected that FAA
would continue the pay demo allowance beyond the
scheduled June 1994 expiration date.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Apparently many controllers who
are eligible to retire are staying on because of the pay
760
demonstration project. What impact on your overall
controller numbers will eliminating the pay demo project
have?
ANSWER: FAA does not expect a significant number of
early retirements because of the termination of the pay
demonstration. Since most of the controller work force
has been hired since the 1981 PATCO strike, it is a young
work force and relatively few are eligible to retire.
There are more than 1,500 controllers at all the pay demo
facilities. Only 95 of them are eligible to retire. FAA
does not anticipate any problems replacing these
potential retirees through normal reassignment and
recruitment processes.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Did FAA consider other options
to terminating the program? If so, please explain what
those options were and their pros and cons.
ANSWER: Yes. FAA examined numerous options before
deciding to terminate the pay demonstration project. FAA
is taking cuts in other areas of Operations. In addition
to the $20 million from the pay demonstration, the
Operations budget takes another $149 million reduction
from the baseline. The additional reductions include $71
million in staffing reductions, retirements and turnover,
$40 million in administrative expenses and travel, $11
million for ending the DUATS subsidy, $27 million savings
in leased telecommunications, and other miscellaneous
cost areas.
With personnel costs comprising over 75 percent of
the Operations funding, there is very little flexibility
to reduce program costs in the short term. In order to
avoid further reductions in staffing or critical
contractual support, a decision was made to terminate the
pay demonstration early.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What benefits gained from the
program will be reversed by the termination?
ANSWER: While it appears there have been benefits
from the pay demo program, there have also been system-
wide improvements during the same period, as well as
improvements in general economic conditions. It is
difficult to determine to what extent improvements at the
demonstration sites are attributable solely to the
demonstration project and to what extent, if any, those
benefits would be reversed. Once the evaluation of the
project is completed, FAA should be able to determine
more precisely the actual effects of the project.
CONSOLIDATION OF AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL FACILITIES
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: In response to questions about
consolidating F/LA's air traffic control facilities, FAA
responded that a final plan was under development, and
would be issued to Congress early in 1993. As yet,
however, we have received no plan. Nevertheless, FAA's
decision to consolidate its facilities is pivotal to
reconciling several air traffic control modernization
issues. Mr. Secretary, can you give us any information
761
on the consolidation plan's substance or when the
decision will be made?
ANSWER: The Administration has decided to pursue a
course of limited consolidation, i.e., facilities will be
consolidated only in those locations where it is
justified on operational or economic grounds. Five
locations for new Metroplex Control Facilities (MCFs)
have already been identified. Any additional MCFs to be
established would be based on a case-by-case review of
costs and benefits and operational need. FAA expects to
have a detailed plan to Congress within the next month.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Please provide for the record a
listing of the major capital investment plan systems and
their acquisition costs that are significantly affected
by the facility consolidation decision.
ANSWER: The list below shows the major capital
investment programs that are affected by the limited
consolidation decision, and a preliminary estimate of the
incremental costs (over and above the 1991 CIP)
associated with the limited consolidation decision:
Additional Costs -
Capital Investment Plan Programs Limited Consolidation
o Establish MCFs *
o New automation for TRACONs +$244 million
o Air Traffic Control Tower replacements +$107 million
o Air Traffic Control Tower modernization +$ 81 million
o Data Multiplex System +$ 32 million
o Enhanced Terminal Voice Switch +$ 12 million
* The exact amount spent for MCFs will vary depending on
the number of sites justified. New York is already
established. Southern California, Dallas/Ft. Worth,
Denver, and Chicago combined cost about $400 million
which is virtually all appropriated. Cost of additional
MCFs would be slightly less than $100 million per site.
ANTI-LOCK BRAKES
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Anti-lock brakes are already
required on newly-manufactured trucks in the European
Community, and on most heavy trucks in Japan. As a
result, jack-knifing incidents involving heavy trucks
have been greatly reduced in the EC and Japan. Will
NHTSA's upcoming regulation require anti-lock brakes on
just truck tractors, or also on truck trailers?
ANSWER: NHTSA's upcoming rulemaking on this subject
will address both heavy trucks and trailers. NHTSA is
currently preparing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and
expects to issue a Final Rule by the end of the calendar
year.
762
TRUCK SAFETY
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: In the FY 1993 transportation
appropriations bill, I was successful in earmarking $1
million in highway funds for improving the training of
heavy truck brake mechanics. What is the status of that
project?
ANSWER: The $1 million research project is part of
a $4.5 million package of six research projects that will
be performed for the FHWA by the American Trucking
Associations' Trucking Research Institute (TRI) . The
House Report accompanying the 1993 Appropriations Bill
recommended that FHWA use the expertise available at TRI.
A request for proposal was issued to TRI on April 9
for all six projects. FHWA anticipates that a contract
will be awarded in June 1993.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: I note that your FY 1994 budget
has requested little more than inflation increase for the
Office of Motor Carrier Safety and its grant programs.
Do you believe that the motor carrier safety grant
program is the only avenue you have to improve compliance
by the trucking community?
ANSWER: No. FHWA has established other compliance
enforcement programs to complement States' efforts.
Through its Education and Technical Assistance Program,
the FHWA continues to educate carriers and provide
technical assistance as a means of improving carrier
compliance. The Selective Compliance Enforcement Program
has been successful in identifying and prioritizing
potentially unsafe motor carriers for compliance reviews
and enforcement actions, which has resulted not only in
improved compliance but also in a reduction in accidents.
FHWA's continual effort to improve and enhance its
information systems has resulted in more accurate and
timely carrier data, thus allowing carrier reviews to be
targeted to the most unsafe carriers.
Later this year, FHWA will begin to assess State
compliance with the Commercial Driver's License
provisions contained in the Commercial Motor Vehicle
Safety Act of 1986, in order to achieve increased
compliance with safety requirements.
STATUS OF RADAR DETECTOR BAN FOR TRUCKS
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: In the FY 1992 Transportation
Appropriations Bill, I included a provision mandating the
Department initiate a rulemaking banning the use of radar
detectors in trucks. The Department published a proposed
rule on this issue over 15 months ago. The comment
period on the proposed rule has been closed for a year
and we have heard nothing. When can we finally expect to
see a final rule banning the use of radar detectors in
trucks?
ANSWER: The Federal Highway Administration received
more than 2 6,000 responses to the notice of proposed
rulemaking to ban the use of commercial motor vehicle
763
radar detectors. These comments which represent both
sides of the issue are currently being analyzed.
UNDERAGE DRUNK DRIVING
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Earlier this year, this
subcommittee held a hearing with the National
Transportation Safety Board on the appalling consequences
of drunk driving by underage youth. Your budget request
for FY 1994 seeks increased funding for highway safety
grants, including programs aimed at limiting drunk
driving. As you may know, I am the principal author of
the Federal 21 drinking age legislation, and I am greatly
disturbed by the rate of non-compliance with this law.
What steps do you intend to take to improve enforcement
of the 21 drinking age? Are you looking at any new
Federal legislation in this area?
ANSWER: The Department is certainly concerned about
the problem of underage drinking and driving and works
continually with State highway safety agencies to develop
effective countermeasures . We have seen some improvement
in recent years in accident statistics involving alcohol
use and young drivers.
Our FY 1994 budget requests over $158 million for
Section 402, 410, and 408 grants that can all be used by
States to combat drinking and driving. The Section 402
program can fund education and enforcement programs to
reduce impaired driving, while the Section 410 program
provides incentive funds for States that enact a BAG of
.02 or lower for youth.
We play a leadership role by encouraging States and
national organizations to support laws that will reduce
alcohol involvement in highway accidents. We work with
highway safety agencies, including police departments, to
encourage effective enforcement programs of existing
laws. At this time, we do not think it is necessary for
the Administration to introduce new legislation
concerning underage drunk driving.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: The Bush Administration
committed itself to boosting the seat belt usage rate
across the country to 70 percent by 1992. This was
achieved in some States and not in others, but all States
saw increased use. Are you prepared to commit the
Clinton Administration to a quantifiable goal in reducing
underage drunk driving?
ANSWER: Although we do not have a specific goal for
underage drunk driving in particular, we have set a goal
for reducing overall drunk driving. Currently, 4 6
percent of all crashes are alcohol related. At the
LIFESAVERS Conference in March 1993, the Secretary
announced the goal of reducing the number of alcohol
related accidents to 43 percent by the end of this
Administration .
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Just as we sanctioned States'
highway apportionments for failing to raise the drinking
age to 21, I believe that it may be time to sanction
764
those States that do not adequately enforce the law.
What are your views on this proposal?
ANSWER: The highway safety alcohol incentive grant
programs can be an effective means for achieving changes
in State laws and enforcement programs. However, the
penalty approach may need to be evaluated if it becomes
clear that current programs are not achieving their
purposes.
HIGH-SPEED RAIL PROPOSAL
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: You note in your testimony that
you will soon be submitting new legislation for the $140
million you are seeking for high-speed rail and Maglev
projects. This subcommittee held an informative hearing
on high-speed rail earlier this year, where we gathered
the views of many in the private sector, as well as the
railroad industry. How do you plan to structure this
program in order to maximize the contribution of the
States and the private sector? Will you be calling on
States to make a larger percentage contribution toward a
high-speed rail project than they currently do for a
highway or transit project? Why?
ANSWER: The proposed legislation would establish a
high-speed rail program that would involve a partnership
with state and local governments and the private sector.
Our proposal will incorporate several measures to
facilitate this partnership. First, states would be
required to request designation as a high-speed corridor,
and our decision to designate a high-speed corridor will
be based, in part, on evidence of financial commitment of
the state and local governments and the private sector to
development of high-speed rail service. Second, states
(or other responsible public agencies) would be required
to develop detailed master plans for proposed corridor
improvements, and in reviewing these plans we will be
looking for an allocation of financial responsibilities
and sources of funding, including the private sector.
Third, in developing any subsequent financial assistance
agreement, the maximum amount of private funding for the
project will be sought, and the remaining costs — the
public share — will be shared by the Federal, state and
local governments. The program will fund up to 80
percent of the cost of any eligible improvement project,
as with highway and transit project funding, but no more
than 50 percent of the total public share of any program
of projects.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: You have testified that you
intend to restructure the regular prototype program in
ISTEA to ensure that we do not spend hundreds of millions
of dollars and find that we have nothing to show for it.
How do you intend to ensure that your proposed Maglev
funding will not be wasted?
ANSWER: The prototype development program that we
propose follows the general outline of the program
outlined in ISTEA, but with certain modifications.
765
First, where ISTEA proposes to use five contractors in
Phase I and three contractors in Phase II, we would use
three contractors in Phase I and two in Phase II. The
funding requirement would be reduced accordingly.
Second, in recognition of the complexities involved in
developing new technologies, we would extend Phase I from
12 months (as outlined in ISTEA) to 18 months, and we
would extend Phase II from 18 months to 30 months.
Third, we propose to complete the commercial feasibility
study by the end of CY 1994, rather than in two years as
outlined in ISTEA. We also propose to evaluate the
prototype development program at the end of CY 1994. The
program will not proceed if the commercial feasibility
study and the results of the Phase I design work do not
support continued investment.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What is your general view on
whether we should be directing new high-speed rail funds
to new technologies such as Maglev versus targeting funds
on incremental high-speed improvements over current
rights-of-way?
ANSWER: Both approaches have merit. While, in the
short-term, we would support ongoing efforts to develop
high-speed service with incremental improvements on
existing infrastructure, research conducted in the past
few years suggests that ultra high-speed and maglev
technologies may have potential for helping to meet the
transportation needs in the next century.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: We have heard greatly varying
estimates of the likely cost-per-mile for a prototype
Maglev project, ranging from $20 million to $60 million
per mile. ERA has been researching this question. What
do you estimate to be the likely cost per mile of a
Maglev prototype project? How does that compare to the
costs of incremental improvements to create high-speed
rail corridors over current rights-of-way?
ANSWER: Maglev is an evolving technology and cost
information is still very preliminary. Based on the
ongoing research, it appears that new maglev
infrastructure is likely to cost between $30 million and
$40 million per route mile on a completely separate
right-of-way when the costs of right-of-way, guideway,
stations, vehicles, etc. are considered.
Incremental improvements to existing rail systems
would vary greatly, depending on the location and the
type of improvement. Our most extensive experience with
incremental improvements has been the Northeast Corridor
Improvement Project (NECIP) that cost $5.5 million per
route mile, or about $8 million per route mile in current
dollars.
Preliminary plans submitted to DOT by the States in
connection with the Section 1010 (ISTEA) program
contemplated incremental speed improvements that are
generally more modest than under the NECIP and on
railroads that have only one or two tracks (vs. an
average of three tracks on the Northeast Corridor) .
68-623 O— 93 25
766
According to State estimates, these improvements would
cost between $2 and $6 million per route mile.
PRIORITY ON HIGHWAY FUNDING OVER OTHER MODES
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Mr. Secretary, in your original
proposed FY 1993 stimulus program, you requested the
fully authorized level for highway funding under ISTEA,
but a lesser level of funding than the authorized level
for transit. Similarly, your FY 1994 budget asks us to
fully fund the highway program, but provides some lesser
level of funding, below the authorized level, for transit
and Amtrak. And just this week, President Clinton has
proposed an alternative stimulus package that would
preserve the fully authorized level for highways, but
would cut by 43 percent the proposed stimulus levels for
Amtrak, transit and airports. I am a very strong
advocate for increased highway spending, but I also think
we need to boost spending in all the other modes in order
to bring about a balanced transportation program. Please
explain why the administration has sent a very clear
signal that it prioritizes highway funding above funding
for all other modes.
ANSWER: We would not agree that we have prioritized
highway funding above funding for all other modes. In
our original stimulus proposal, the increases in capital
investment were larger in percentage terms for Amtrak
(114 percent) and transit (22 percent) than for the
Federal-aid highway program (17 percent). Even after the
President agreed reluctantly to some reductions in the
stimulus package, the percentage increase for Amtrak
capital is still larger than for highways, and the
transit capital increase is 12.5 percent.
To the extent that there is a perception that we
have placed a higher priority on highways, it probably
comes primarily from a comparison of our proposals with
the levels authorized in ISTEA for highways and transit.
For FY 1994, we are proposing full funding of highways
and 86 percent of the authorized amount for transit.
Comparison to authorized levels is one way to
evaluate our budget proposals, but there are two others
that we think are compelling: increases over current
spending levels and spending as a percent of capital
needs. Our proposal for the transit budget overall for
FY 1994 represents 21 percent growth over the FY 1993
enacted level. That is more growth in one year than
transit has seen in the past four years. For capital
programs, the increase from FY 1992 to FY 1994 with the
President's investment proposal is 30.2 percent. Under
our proposal, a much higher level of transit capital
needs, than of highway capital needs, will be met. With
full funding of highways, there is a good chance that we
will see a significant amount of highway funds supporting
transit projects. In FY 1992, with total Federal-aid
highway obligations of $17.9 billion, some $300 million
of highway funds were used for transit. With a program
of over $20 billion a year and more experience in
767
implementing these new flexibility provisions, we expect
much more.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Why is the administration
prepared to reduce its stimulus package for Amtrak,
transit, and airports by 4 3 percent while protecting the
funding levels for highways?
ANSWER: We were reluctant to offer any reductions
in the stimulus package, but two reasons for not offering
a reduction in the proposed increase for highways were
that this element of the package enjoyed comparatively
broad support in the Senate and that, as a result of
changes made by ISTEA, highway funding is the most
flexible; that is, an increase in highway funding offers
State and local governments the most choices in meeting
their particular infrastructure needs.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Given that we will likely be
unable to fully fund your budget request for FY 1994,
should we assume that you will want us to fully fund the
highway program, even if it comes at the expense of your
requested funding for transit, Amtrak and airports?
ANSWER: You should not make that assumption. We
will want to work closely with the Committee to
accommodate as much of our total budget request as
possible. But we have proposed increases in all our
infrastructure programs, and, if all those increases
cannot be accommodated, we will want to be sure there is
an appropriate balance among the modes in the final
figures.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Do you have data indicating
that highway spending produces a greater number of jobs
per dollar than Amtrak spending, airport spending, or
transit spending?
ANSWER: In general, there is reason to believe that
there are differences in the job-creation impact of
different categories of capital investment; for example,
highway construction generates more jobs than manufacture
of rolling stock. However, our estimates of job impacts
are not exact enough to reliably predict that highway
investment will produce more jobs than comparable
investment in Amtrak, airports, or transit.
IVHS RESEARCH FUNDING
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Mr. Secretary, the
administration has requested an additional $70 million
for research on intelligent vehicle/highway systems
(IVHS) in FY 1994, for a total program of $100 million.
What prompted this request? What types of programs or
areas would you like to see receive this funding?
ANSWER: The Administration requested a total of
$100.8 million for General Operating Expenses of FHWA's
IVHS program. This $70 million increase over the FY 1993
baseline is in response to our recognition that the
Federal government must invest more in the infrastructure
and future of our country. Money invested in IVHS will
768
provide a return of benefits in the form of reduced
congestion, reduced pollution, and increased safety.
These benefits will be translated into money saved in the
future.
The specific funding will go toward developing an
Automated Highway System and a Commercial Vehicle
Network, converting Defense technologies to civilian use,
and funding additional operational tests and research and
development to hasten the development (and therefore the
benefits) of all IVHS technologies. Further detail on
the use of these funds is found in the budget
justifications for the Federal Highway Administration.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Some of the IVHS money that has
been used in the Corridors Program for field application
has been used on technology that is not American built,
or that is existing off-the-shelf types of technology.
Do you believe there should be "Buy America" requirements
for IVHS technology purchased with Federal funds? Please
provide for the record a listing by field project the
types of systems being installed and the main components
of that system, and whether they use American-made and
American-built equipment.
ANSWER: There currently are "Buy America"
provisions in the Surface Transportation Assistance Act
of 1982 (23 U.S.C. 101 Note) as amended by ISTEA that
apply to the IVHS program. However, these provisions
include three exceptions: 1) for products not produced in
the United States in sufficient quantity or quality, 2)
for domestic material that will increase the cost of the
project by more than 25 percent (10 percent if it
involves purchasing vehicles), and 3) if the provisions
would be inconsistent with the public interest.
Nonetheless, the vast majority of the materials used in
IVHS projects are, in fact, American-made.
Examples of imported equipment include navigation
and route guidance devices manufactured in Germany and
used in the Pathfinder and Fast-Trac IVHS Operational
Tests, Canadian-made weigh-in-motion devices used in a
number of Commercial Vehicle Operation projects, and
adaptive traffic control systems developed in the United
Kingdom and Australia. This use of foreign equipment is
necessary if we want to avoid reinventing the wheel for
every technology.
Corridor Program projects help create an American
market for the IVHS technologies involved. For example,
American firms such as Motorola and Delco Electronics
have in-vehicle route guidance devices planned for
deployment at least in part as a result of their
participation in IVHS Operational Tests. The small
number of foreign devices that have been purchased with
the Corridor Program funds also help to expose the public
to the benefits of IVHS and help to create an American
market for such devices that an American manufacturer can
subsequently fill.
769
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What do you believe are the
critical research questions that must be answered before
we can see the full deployment of IVHS technologies?
ANSWER: The IVHS program is not one for which a
major breakthrough is required in order for it to work.'
IVHS involves the adaptation of advanced surveillance,
communications, and data management, processing and '
display technologies to solving surface transportation
problems. The key research questions do not involve
development of new technologies, but address new
applications of evolving technologies. The key technical
research questions involve developing IVHS services that
are designed to meet user needs, determining the best
system concepts for providing these services under the
framework of a national system architecture, and
determining the effectiveness and safety of different
enabling technologies for providing the services. Other
key research questions involve the resolution of
institutional issues such as government procurement
policy, public/private issues such as intellectual
property rights, and legal issues such as liability, that
all may hinder IVHS deployment.
ELIMINATION OF APPROPRIATED HIGHWAY DEMONSTRATION
PROJECTS
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Mr. Secretary, your budget
proposes the elimination of single-purpose highway
programs that receive appropriated general fund money.
In FY 1993, these programs received about $350 million.
However, your budget proposal does not call for the
reduction or elimination for similar types of highway
projects that were granted trust fund dollars in the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) .
Do you believe there is any real distinction between
those highway demonstration projects that are granted
trust fund dollars in ISTEA and those that received
appropriated general funds from this Committee in the
past?
ANSWER: There is no way to generalize about
demonstration projects, whether they are in authorization
legislation or annual appropriations acts. Each project
would have to be reviewed on its individual merits. The
best way to ensure such a review is to let projects for
which funds are sought go through the normal project
selection procedures that each State must have.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Mr. Secretary, of those highway
projects receiving appropriations, over 65 percent of the
funding went for projects that were authorized, and
therefore were eligible for general fund appropriations.
Why shouldn't the Committee consider legitimate funding
requests for highway projects that are authorized?
ANSWER: Specific demonstration projects that have
been authorized in authorization legislation, like those
that have been provided contract authority, often have
not been through the normal State project selection
process, and their priority for funding has not been
770
established by that process. We generally believe tha^
project selection should be left to State and local
officials, rather than established in Federal statute.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Do you believe projects that
are slated to receive contract authority through ISTEA
authorization are more legitimate, more worthwhile, or
more cost-beneficial than those authorized to receive
general fund appropriations? If so, why? If not, why
didn't you call for a similar reduction in those projects
as a way of reducing costs?
ANSWER: Such a generalized statement about either
projects provided contract authority or authorized for
general fund appropriations cannot be made. We have not
proposed to rescind contract authority already provided
in ISTEA, but we have proposed that there be no new
funding for demonstration projects in the appropriations
bill. There is inequity in our proposal, which reflects
the difficulty of revisiting "automatic" funding in
authorization bills compared to making recommendations
for decisions in annual appropriations bills.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: In a hearing that we conducted
March 31, witnesses — including the GAO, the acting
administrator of the Federal Highway Administration, and
highway association representatives — agreed that it was
not fair to reduce the regular Federal-aid highway
program below the authorized level while other programs,
like ISTEA demonstration projects and the Minimum
Allocation program, received full funding. Do you agree
with their assessment?
ANSWER: Our FY 1994 proposal is for an obligation
limitation on the Federal-Aid Highways program equal to
that established in ISTEA and that ISTEA demonstration
projects and the Minimum Allocation program would be
exempt from the obligation ceiling per ISTEA and in
accordance with past practice in appropriations acts. If
the Committee were to reduce the obligation limitation
from the level we have proposed, we would want to consult
with you on the appropriate treatment of ISTEA
demonstration projects and the Minimum Allocation
program. Fairness would seem to suggest some reduction
in the funds available for those programs in that case.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE TRANSFERS
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: For the last several years, the
Appropriations Committee has provided roughly $300
million of the Coast Guard budget from funds appropriated
by the Defense Appropriations subcommittee. This was
done in recognition of the many defense-related
activities conducted by the Coast Guard. Last year, the
Bush Administration requested defense funding for the
Coast Guard in its FY 1993 budget request. Why does your
budget request that no Defense funds be provided to the
Coast Guard?
ANSWER: The President's Budget did not use Defense
funds to help fund Coast Guard because of the single cap
771
on discretionary spending. Full funding in function 400
has always been our stated position as the proper way to
fund the Coast Guard.
As the Nation's fifth armed service, unquestionably,
the Coast Guard performs a very significant and important
role in the national defense. However, as an agency
within the Department of Transportation, many other
missions are performed that are also not Defense-related.
Full funding in function 4 00 avoids among other things:
potential appropriations subcommittee (Defense vs
Transportation) jurisdictional overlap, conflicting
amounts from the Department of Defense for each account
subject to each subcommittee's actions, and strained
relations between the Coast Guard and the Department of
Defense. Another consideration was the removal of the
"fences" between the defense, domestic, and international
discretionary accounts under the provisions of the Budget
Enforcement Act. In these tight fiscal times, funding
from the DOD has ensured that critical Coast Guard
missions and programs would continue.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Many Coast Guard cutters still
spend some considerable time participating in joint
military exercises with the Navy. Why, if your budget is
requesting no funding from the Defense Department for the
Coast Guard, should Coast Guard cutters participate at
all in these operations?
ANSWER: The joint military exercises conducted with
the Navy are necessary to ensure the Coast Guard is ready
to meet its defense readiness mission set out in Title 14
of the U. S. Code (USC) . This requirement stands,
regardless of the funding source. 14 USC 145 requires
the Secretary of Transportation to provide for this
training to ensure the Coast Guard is ready to operate
with the Navy. This ability to operate with the Navy is
also used for peacetime missions. Current examples of
Coast Guard/Navy joint operations include Alien Migrant
Interdiction Operations (AMIO) in the Caribbean, drug
interdiction operations in the deep Caribbean (JTF 4.1),
and Maritime Intercept Operations in support of United
Nations sanctions against Iraq and the republics of
Serbia and Montenegro of the former Yugoslavia.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Are these defense-related
activities likely to increase, decrease, or remain the
same in the coming year?
ANSWER: The level of effort for these joint
military exercises is expected to remain the same for
fiscal year 1994. Beyond that, if the Navy reduces the
frequency or length of these exercises, there will
possibly be a small reduction in the number of days spent
on this training due to scheduling conflicts. However,
since these exercises are one of the primary means for
maintaining Coast Guard/Navy interoperability, we will
continue to participate to the maximum extent possible.
The Coast Guard will continue to balance the training
resources available between fleet exercises and other
contingency training exercises.
772
COAST GUARD DEFENSE ACTIVITIES AND THE NEW WORLD ORDER
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Your budget request for the
Coast Guard proposes to cut the Reserves by 24 percent.
This proposed reduction grew out of a reassessment by the
Coast Guard of its likely wartime requirements. However,
except for the termination of a few billets involved in
anti-submarine warfare, the Coast Guard proposes no
defense-related budget savings in the active duty Coast
Guard. If the end of the Cold War indicates that we can
cut the Coast Guard Reserves by 24 percent, why isn't
there more savings to be found in the active duty Coast
Guard?
ANSWER: While the size of the Coast Guard Reserve
is defined almost entirely by defense mobilization
requirements which were recently revised, the size of the
active duty force is driven by all multi-mission
requirements. Therefore, a direct correlation between
the relative size or change in size of each would have
little meaning.
The FY 1994 Coast Guard budget request does, in
fact, cut defense-related support costs. In Operating
Expenses, Coast Guard is proposing to cut over $9 million
as a result of the decision to turn over operation of
overseas LORAN stations to Host Nations. Also, in FY
1994, Loran C facilities in the Far East will be shut
down. Also, in FY 1993, Coast Guard took a reduction of
$1.4 million in closing the Central Pacific LORAN chain.
In addition. Coast Guard plans to save over $6 million
annually ($5.8M in FY 1994) by removing — and no longer
having to operate — antisubmarine warfare (ASW)
equipment from its twelve "Hamilton" Class 378' High
Endurance Cutters, as the result of a joint Navy/Coast
Guard decision. The Coast Guard will also reduce
operating costs by eliminating the Navy-furnished Harpoon
surface-to-surface missile system from its 378' cutters.
One of the Commandant's goals is to ensure that
Coast Guard maintains the proper balance among its varied
missions. He sees this as a continual process capable of
responding to changing national priorities. This
includes reviewing defense readiness and mobilization
requirements and recommending appropriate actions. The
proposal to reduce Coast Guard Reserve strength
significantly in FY 1994 is evidence of this process at
work, as are the actions cited above.
The Coast Guard is a multi-missioned armed service.
Many of its operating platforms and personnel are capable
of responding to a broad range of national defense or
defense-related contingencies as well as conducting
domestic peacetime missions. However very few platforms
and personnel are devoted entirely to one specific
mission. Because of this characteristic. Coast Guard
resources cannot always be offered up when a mission area
is de-emphasized. However, when resources can be
identified as performing a single mission which is no
longer required, as is the case for the anti-submarine
warfare resources, a reduction becomes appropriate.
773
DEFICIENT FOREIGN FLAG STATES/CLASSIFICATION SOCIETIES
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Mr. Secretary, in the area of
maritime safety, we depend on the foreign flag nations to
ensure compliance with international safety and pollution
treaties. However, the record indicates that numerous
foreign flag nations do a very poor job at ensuring
compliance by their ships when they enter U.S. waters.
What steps are being taken by the Coast Guard in cracking
down on foreign flag nations who sign international
safety and pollution treaties and do nothing to implement
or enforce them?
ANSWER: The Coast Guard has been one of the driving
forces in the establishment of the Flag State
Implementation Subcommittee at the International Maritime
Organization (IMO) to deal with the issue of
implementation of treaties from both the compliance and
the technical assistance aspects. The first subcommittee
meeting in April 1993 produced three sets of guidelines
to assist in reducing the use of substandard ships.
These guidelines outline Flag State responsibilities,
responsibilities of Flag States in delegating authority,
and standards for those organizations that authority will
be delegated to.
Coast Guard has also altered our MARPOL (Maritime
Pollution) enforcement policy. Since July 1992, the
Coast Guard's policy on MARPOL V (Marine Plastic
Pollution Research and Control Act) enforcement has been
to prosecute all cases against vessels, both foreign or
domestic, where it can be proven that violations have
occurred within the navigable waters of the U.S. or the
EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zone) . This action was driven by
a continued lack of information from flag states on
actions they had taken on cases forwarded to them, which
the Department of Transportation found unacceptable.
SENATOR LAUTENBURG: Most foreign flag nations
depend on "classification societies" to certify
compliance by their ships with international safety and
pollution treaties. The Coast Guard Chief of Marine
Safety stated last year that there are many "tinker toy"
classification societies that are willing "to put a
compliance stamp on a ham sandwich". If this is the
case, why do we let ships that are no safer than a ham
sandwich enter U.S. waters?
ANSWER: The Coast Guard targets its limited vessel
boarding resources to vessels that are believed to pose
the greatest risk to our ports and waterways. The Coast
Guard maintains a history of Coast Guard examinations for
each vessel. Examination results are recorded in the
Coast Guard Marine Safety Information System (MSIS)
computer database. A vessel's MSIS record and history is
reviewed upon notice of a vessel's pending arrival at a
U.S. port. Each ship is evaluated on a case-by-case
basis. If a vessel's record and history indicate that
the vessel should be denied entry into U.S. waters, the
Coast Guard has the authority to direct the vessel to
remain outside U.S. waters. When a vessel is allowed
774
entry into a U.S. port, the MSIS data is used to
prioritize the Coast Guard's Port State Control
Examination program. This program ensures that vessels
utilizing U.S. ports meet the applicable United States
and international safety standards. The scope of these
examinations is increased based on the condition of the
vessel and whether "clear grounds" as defined in IMO
Resolution 681(17) exists. When deficiencies are found,
appropriate action is taken, which may include: civil
penalties, operational restrictions, requiring temporary
or permanent repairs, or formal intervention under
international treaty authority. When formal intervention
is conducted, the Coast Guard notifies the flag state and
classification society of the deficiencies and reports
the particulars of the intervention to the International
Maritime Organization.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: The International Maritime
Organization (IMO) is attempting to address the issue of
deficient flag states and classification societies.
However, the IMO is notoriously slow in bringing about
real change by its members. How long do you think we
will have to wait before we see the international
community crack down on deficient flag states and
classification societies?
ANSWER: IMO has recently formed the new Flag State
Implementation Subcommittee specifically for the purpose
of addressing the issues noted in your question. The
members of IMO are fully cognizant of the immediacy of
this problem, and have acted with great dispatch. The
first subcommittee meeting in April 1993 produced three
sets of guidelines to assist in reducing substandard
ships. These guidelines outline Flag State
responsibilities, including delegating authority, and
standards for those organizations delegated authority.
These guidelines will be forwarded to the 18th assembly
in October 1993 for adoption as Assembly resolutions.
The resolutions will press for immediate adoption of the
guidelines. In addition, the subcommittee completed
guidelines for operational port state control inspections
which will increase the emphasis on identifying
substandard ships.
ENFORCEMENT OF PLASTICS DUMPING TREATY (MARPOL V)
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: The Justice Department just
announced that a cruise ship line will pay the maximum
penalty allowed under Federal law ($500,000) as part of a
guilty plea stemming from illegal dumping of plastic
garbage off of a cruise ship. Last year, this
subcommittee pointed out that many foreign flag nations
were doing little or nothing to prosecute cases of
plastics dumping that were forwarded to them by the U.S.
Coast Guard. As a result, the Justice Department has
begun prosecuting these foreign flag ships under U.S.
law. Should we expect to see many more cases where
foreign flag ships are finally being punished under U.S.
law for plastics dumping?
775
ANSWER: Yes. Since July 1992, the Coast Guard
policy has been, and will continue to be, to prosecute
any case against a vessel, foreign or domestic, where it
can be proven that the violation occurred within the
navigable waters of the U.S. or the Exclusive Economic
Zone (EEZ) . These cases are either forwarded to a Coast
Guard hearing officer for consideration of a civil
penalty or forwarded to a District legal officer for
review and possible referral to the Department of
Justice, depending on the severity of the case and the
evidence available. In addition to the case just settled
for $500,000 in Miami, a second case involving a fish
processing vessel was settled in Seattle for $150,000.
Three other MARPOL V cases have been referred to the U.S.
Attorney in Florida and the Coast Guard is preparing
evidence for referral in several other cases. Each of
these cases could result in a fine of up to $500,000.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: The Coast Guard has stated that
they are giving each foreign flag nation a six-month
period to demonstrate they are prosecuting plastics
dumping violations before we prosecute these ships under
U.S. law. Can you tell me how many foreign flag nations
the Coast Guard has determined do not adequately
prosecute plastics dumping cases?
ANSWER: The Coast Guard has not been able to
determine how many foreign flag nations adequately
prosecute plastics dumping cases. The Coast Guard did
not receive sufficient, reliable information from flag
states to determine which countries adequately prosecute
MARPOL V cases. With this in mind, in July 1992 the
Coast Guard shifted from flag state to port state
enforcement wherever U.S. jurisdiction could be
established. This action was driven by a continued lack
of information from flag states on actions they had taken
on cases forwarded to them, which we found unacceptable.
PROPOSED DECOMMISSIONING OF COAST GUARD UNITS
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Your FY 1994 budget requests
only two percent growth for Coast Guard operating
expenses. The budget proposes to expand funding for
fisheries enforcement and programs to improve the
worklife of Coast Guard members by decommissioning
certain Coast Guard units, including LORAN stations and a
Great Lakes icebreaker — the MACKINAW. Should we expect
the administration to request the decommissioning of
other Coast Guard units in future budgets?
ANSWER: The Administration is attempting to reduce
the federal budget deficit. The initial effort began
with the fiscal year 1994 budget submission with the
elimination of cost-of-living adjustments and reductions
in personnel and administrative expenses.
Additional government-wide deficit reduction
opportunities may become apparent later this year
depending upon the results of the Administration's
Performance Management Review as well as other program
specific reviews, such as the one being conducted by the
776
National Security Council on international law
enforcement interdiction strategy.
In order to fund new initiatives in support of
changing national priorities, along with uncontrollable
cost increases and capital follow-on requirements,
agencies will certainly be expected to achieve
efficiencies, some of which may be in the form of unit
decommissionings .
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: What type of Coast Guard units
are likely to be proposed for closure in coming years?
ANSWER: The following efforts, which are under
review within the Coast Guard, may produce unit closures
or consolidations:
A. The Coast Guard is planning to close or transfer
to host nations, all overseas LORAN C stations by
December 31, 1994: five stations in the Northwest
Pacific, four stations in Northwest Europe, three
stations in Greenland and Iceland, and four stations in
the Mediterranean.
B. While we do not know the final outcome of the
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission
recommendations, the Coast Guard may have to disestablish
or relocate units which are currently collocated or
dependent on DoD facilities for support.
C. There is a possibility that some Reserve units
will close. The proposed FY 1994 Reserve Training
appropriation will require a reduction of 2,500 Selected
Reservists. A downsizing of that magnitude is expected
to generate Reserve unit consolidations and/or closures.
D. The Coast Guard is conducting a mission analysis
for its coastal patrol boat capability requirements. The
current eighty-two foot Point class patrol boats (WPB's)
are reaching the end of their service lives. The outcome
of this mission analysis will be used to determine future
resource requirements, if any, and will be used to
determine if it is possible to reduce the current fleet
of Point class patrol boats prior to their possible
replacement.
E. The Coast Guard is also developing a Unit Change
Guide in response to the 1988 GAO audit which indicated a
better process was needed to justify closing small boat
stations. The guide will be used to review small boat
units to determine if changes are in order.
F. As the replacement sea-going and coastal buoy
tenders come on line, the (more numerous) units that they
are replacing will be decommissioned.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Given the tight funding
envelope we will have this year, are there certain
additional Coast Guard functions that you believe we can
terminate in FY 1994?
ANSWER: The Coast Guard is consolidating and
automating communication stations. The first installment
on those efficiencies is in the FY 1994 budget. In
addition, the Coast Guard is continually evaluating the
need to retain facilities in light of changing mission
777
requirements. The potential for unit consolidations and
other organizational restructuring will be considered
including telecommunications system automation and
streamlining.
The Coast Guard's goal is to make government more
effective and efficient. The requirements analysis and
mission analysis described above should produce some '
efficiencies. However, it would be premature to be more
specific on unit closures other than those mentioned
above until the requirements and/or mission analyses have
been completed.
SELECTED READY RESERVE STRENGTH
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: The FY 1994 budget that you
submitted for the Coast Guard includes a 24% personnel
reduction in the Selected Reserve from 10,500 members in
FY 1993 to 8000 in 1994. The rationale for this
reduction was apparently in large part based on the
reduced military threat with the new world order
resulting from the end of the "cold war." Other than the
$5,838 million Category I savings from reduced
anti-submarine warfare capabilities, what other "post
cold war" reductions do you foresee?
ANSWER: We do not foresee any further decrease in
the Reserve Training appropriation.
The FY 1994 Coast Guard budget request does, in
fact, cut other defense-related support costs. In
Operating Expenses (OE) , Coast Guard is proposing to cut
over $9 million as a result of the decision to turn over
operation of overseas LORAN stations to Host Nations.
Also, in FY 1994, Loran C facilities in the Far East will
be shut down. In FY 1993, Coast Guard took a reduction
of $1.4 million in closing the Central Pacific LORAN
chain. As you indicated, Coast Guard plans to save over
$6 million annually ($5.8M in FY 1994) by removing — and
no longer having to operate — antisubmarine warfare
(ASW) equipment from its twelve "Hamilton" Class 378'
High Endurance Cutters, as the result of a joint
Navy/Coast Guard decision. The Coast Guard will also
reduce operating costs by eliminating the Navy-furn,ished
Harpoon surface-to-surface missile system from its 378'
cutters .
We do not foresee any other significant defense
related reductions in the Coast Guard's Operating
Expenses appropriation at this time. However, the Coast
Guard is currently reviewing its Maritime Defense Zone
requirements which may produce a small number of
personnel savings from the Sectors that have been
deactivated.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Do you anticipate any major
organizational changes either internally within the
service or externally in the Coast Guard's relationships
with other DoD services as a result of this "new world
order"?
ANSWER: We do not anticipate any major changes
internally within the Coast Guard. Externally, some
778
changes have already taken place, and more are possible
as DOD shifts its emphasis from defending against a
global conflict to that of responding to overseas
regional contingencies. This change in focus has
implications on organizations established for the defense
of the continental U. S. and U. S. territories. The
Maritime Defense Zone (MDZ) organization was reviewed in
the Atlantic Region as a result of a "Way Ahead" study
conducted in 1991. A follow up "Way Ahead" study
intended to continue looking at the entire MDZ
organization and how it fits into current and future
scenarios, will be conducted in 1993. Another change in
the Coast Guard/DOD relationship which has manifested
itself recently results from the 1986 Goldwater - Nichols
Reorganization Act. This act gave the regional Commander
in Chiefs (CINCs) combat command of all military forces
within their geographic areas. As a result, we are
working more closely with the CINCs than we had before,
and now receive requests for Coast Guard support from
them, rather than from the Navy.
A Coast Guard/Navy permanent joint working group and
the Navy/Coast Guard (NAVGARD) board continue to refine
how the Coast Guard can best augment Navy efforts to
support national defense and security requirements. The
overall intent is to eliminate duplication, look for
operational cost effectiveness, and to provide service to
the CINCs using capabilities best maintained by the
respective armed forces.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: The Coast Guard's major cutters
have in past years, in support of the services Defense
Readiness responsibilities, participated in joint U. S.
Navy exercises and comprehensive military readiness
training at U. S. Navy Fleet Training Groups (FTG) . Will
the Coast Guard's level of major cutter participation in
defense related exercises and training scenarios be
reduced in the future to a level reflective of the
reduced threat?
ANSWER: The Coast Guard's participation in defense-
related exercises and training scenarios will not be
reduced unless funding limitations force the Navy and DOD
to reduce the frequency and length of these exercises.
The level of participation in military exercises is not
driven by a particular threat. It is intended to
maintain interoperability with DOD forces, allowing the
Coast Guard to operate jointly with them to conduct
peacetime missions, respond to peacetime contingencies,
and to minimize the time necessary to shift to a service
in the Navy when so required. Reduction of the current
level of participation in either fleet exercises or Fleet
Training Group (FTG) training will have a detrimental
effect on the Coast Guard's ability to operate jointly
with the other military services and will also negatively
impact our peacetime missions. A significant portion of
FTG training is in damage control which can result from a
variety of reasons other than battle damage, such as a
shipboard fire or flooding. Other primary training areas
779
are engineering casualty control, communications, and
navigation. Training of this type is required to ensure
the safe and efficient operation of cutters in both peace
and war. If the cutters did not receive this training at
the FTGs, the same training would have to be provided by
Coast Guard resources. In addition, some military
exercises provide other direct benefits to national
security efforts. Some fleet exercises such as UNITAS (a
South American Training Cruise) and the West African
Training Cruise (WATC) provide important opportunities
for assistance to developing nations.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Will the reduced defense
readiness taskings of these cutters allow the
decommissioning of any major cutters and a reduced Coast
Guard fleet?
ANSWER: The number of cutters we currently operate
is driven primarily by all the Coast Guard's mission
requirements, not just the potential wartime taskings.
The Defense Readiness mission of the Coast Guard consumes
relatively little Coast Guard resources. For example, in
FY 1994, it is estimated that 4.8% of the Coast Guard
Operating Expenses appropriation will be used to support
the Defense Readiness mission. That figure has changed
only slightly since FY 1988, when 5.5% of Operating
Expenses went to the Defense Readiness mission. Thus,
approximately 95% of cutter operating time was devoted to
other Coast Guard missions. These percentages are
expected to remain relatively constant in the coming
years.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Do you feel that with the
decreased military threat, the need for the Coast Guard's
defense responsibilities issues are still justified?
ANSWER: The Coast Guard's defense responsibilities
are justified and necessary. DOD is working to identify
operational efficiencies within the armed forces. The
Navy is facing major fleet reductions and will need to
find new, creative ways to meet their forward deployment
commitments. Regional contingencies can be expected to
continue if not increase for the foreseeable future. The
United Nations is asserting its role as world wide
peacekeeper. As a multi-mission force, the Coast Guard
operates assets which are used every day to advance the
national security interests of the United States.
Because of their multi-mission nature, they are an
extremely cost effective national defense asset which
maintains interoperability with existing Navy/DOD forces.
The Coast Guard has core competencies developed from
daily peacetime operations that quickly translate into
specific, necessary national defense capabilities.
Expertise developed from Maritime Law Enforcement
Operations, for example, has been applied to conduct
maritime interception operations to enforce maritime
embargoes.
780
ENFORCEMENT OF SAFETY /POLLUTION TREATIES BY FOREIGN FLAGS
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: The primary checks to ensure
that vessels meet international safety standards are
accomplished through inspections by flag nations and/or
surveys by classification societies. Foreign flag
vessels that enter U.S. ports are additionally boarded by
the U.S. Coast Guard at regular intervals, as an exercise
of port state control authority, to ensure that the
required international inspections have occurred. At
times these port state control inspections have revealed
that the flag nations or classification societies did not
fully identify or adequately resolve all problems that
affect a ship's safety. One of the major problems is
that although a standard set of international safety
standards exists, the standards allow sufficient
flexibility in interpretation and implementation to
result in a widely diverse set of standards when actually
applied. Wide disparity between various flag countries
enforcement practices further exacerbate the actual
differences in safety levels between ships from various
countries. Given the potential for disparate safety
levels between U.S. and foreign flagged ships, should the
U.S. continue to accept verification from flag nations or
classification societies that have less than a
respectable safety history. Should the U.S. increase
their scope of inspection on these vessels?
ANSWER: The Coast Guard Port State Control
Examination program is based on the premise that any ship
from any flag state inspected by any classification
society may not meet the applicable United States and
international safety standards. The Coast Guard
therefore maintains a history of Coast Guard examinations
for each vessel. Examination results are recorded in the
Coast Guard Marine Safety Information System (MSIS)
computer database. A vessel's MSIS record and history is
reviewed upon notice of a vessel's pending arrival at a
U.S. port. Each ship is evaluated on a case by case
basis. If a vessel's record and history indicates that
the vessel should be denied entry into U.S. waters, the
Coast Guard has the authority to direct the vessel to
remain outside U.S. waters. When a vessel is allowed
entry into a U.S. port, the MSIS data is used to
prioritize our Port State Control Examination program.
The Coast Guard targets our limited vessel boarding
resources to vessels that we believe pose the greatest
risk to our ports and waterways. The Port State Control
Examination program ensures that vessels utilizing our
ports meet the applicable United States and international
safety standards. The Coast Guard does increase the
scope of these examinations based on the vessel history,
the condition of the vessel and whether "clear grounds"
as defined in IMO Resolution 681(17) exist. When
deficiencies are found, appropriate action is taken.
Action taken may include civil penalties, operational
restrictions, requiring temporary or permanent repairs,
or formal intervention under international treaty
authority. When formal intervention is conducted, the
781
Coast Guard notifies the flag state and classification
society of the deficiencies and reports the particulars
of the intervention to the International Maritime
Organization .
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: In your view, are the potential
savings from reduced Coast Guard boardings due to
internationally harmonized marine safety inspections
worth the possible risk in safety from reduced oversight?
ANSWER: The Coast Guard does not intend to reduce
its oversight of foreign vessels due to harmonization.
There will be no increase in risk regarding safety.
Harmonization will not decrease the number of boardings.
Harmonization may decrease the amount of time spent on
boardings due to standardization. This will result in
more effective examinations and efficient use of
resources.
ADMINISTRATIVE STREAMLINING
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: As part of President Clinton's
effort to reduce the cost of government, he proposed an
"administrative streamlining" program that included a
100,000 reduction in the federal civilian workforce by
1995, with 10% coming from the ranks of management.
Given the Coast Guard's longstanding history of fully
integrating their civilian employees in critical
positions, and in consideration of the Coast Guard's
non-defense related mission emphasis, will not the
reduction of the civilian workforce within the Coast
Guard upset a delicate balance between the civilian and
military workforce?
ANSWER: As its share of President Clinton's effort
to reduce the federal civilian workforce by 100,000 by
1995, the Coast Guard will be reducing its civilian
workforce by 4% over the course of the next three years.
This will equate to 258 full-time positions. Over the
last four years, the ratio of military to civilians in
the Coast Guard has actually decreased from 6.8:1 to
6.1:1. With respect to the military/civilian workforce
balance, assuming the size of the military workforce
remains relatively constant after the planned reduction
of 486 full-time positions in 1994, the ratio of military
to civilian would rise slightly to 6.3:1 by the end of
1995. Although the civilian workforce reduction slightly
reverses the trend experienced over the last four years,
the military to civilian ratio remains below the level of
four years ago. We do not expect a reduction of this
magnitude to upset the balance. We recognize the
importance of managing these reductions so as to maximize
efficiency, and minimize the impacts on public service,
and our people.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: The Coast Guard has always
relied on the valuable historical knowledge of their
civilian workforce given the large percentage of Coast
Guard missions which evolve around law enforcement and
regulatory administration to ensure fair and consistent
782
standards. Recognizing that the standard military staff
tour is only four years in length, who will maintain
corporate knowledge previously held by these civilians?
ANSWER: The Coast Guard's share of President
Clinton's effort to cut the federal civilian workforce by
100,000 by 1995 equates to 258 positions over the next
three years. We will seek to manage attrition in a
manner that achieves reduction while maintaining fairness
and consistency in mission performance. With respect to
the loss of corporate knowledge through military
transfers, although the standard military tour is four
years, the vast majority of units are comprised of
multiple military billets that do not rotate
simultaneously. In addition, military personnel are
typically assigned to repeated duties in the same
specialty, often at a higher pay grade, further
mitigating this concern.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Do you feel that an across the
board 14% administrative cut to the Coast Guard can be
accomplished without affecting operational missions given
that typically administrative costs to most agencies such
as communications and computer systems are used for
operational Coast Guard missions such as directing CG SAR
efforts and tracking merchant vessel safety deficiencies?
ANSWER: The Coast Guard's Operating Expenses
appropriation will be subject to the majority of the
reduction in administrative expenses. Assuming enactment
at the level of the President's request, the Coast Guard
does not expect the fiscal year 1994 reduction to have an
adverse impact on public service. Activities that can be
quickly scaled back, such as travel and conferences have
been targeted for reduction.
It is expected that the balance of the
administrative efficiencies will be achieved in part
through carefully managed organizational re-engineering,
energy conservation and voice/data communications
reductions. We are assessing the efficiencies that could
be achieved to support further reductions in the outyears
in the other administrative related areas which include:
transportation, communications, utilities, postal
services, printing and reproduction, consulting and other
services, and housekeeping.
STATUS OF OIL POLLUTION REGULATIONS
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: Last year, the Coast Guard
testified that President Bush's regulatory moratorium had
no effect in delaying the issuance of regulations
stemming from the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) .
Even so, there are several critical rulemakings that have
yet to be finalized, two and a half years after the law
was signed. When can we hope to see the rulemaking on
financial responsibility of tanker owners, which is at
the heart of the purposes of the Oil Pollution Act?
ANSWER: The Coast Guard is evaluating all Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) comments and has also prepared
a Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) , which
783
should be made available to the public soon. The RIA
will have a 60 day comment period. About 300 comments to
the NPRM were received, most unfavorable. Many comments
on the Preliminary RIA can be expected. After evaluation
of these comments, we will make our decision on the final
rule.
One of the major issues is whether OPA 90 provides
regulatory flexibility to accept Protection and Indemnity
(P&I) Club membership as evidence of financial
responsibility without the P&I Club being subject to
direct action. The Coast Guard is still evaluating
potential options, although the difficulty is in
promulgating requirements that will assure prompt payment
of removal costs and damages to the limits of liability,
and accord with OPA 90.
Until new rules are published, financial
responsibility is being documented at the .lower levels of
the preexisting laws, but liability is at the new, higher
OPA 90 levels. Vessel owner/operators normally carry
insurance well in excess of OPA 90 limits, but the
coverage is subject to a host of defenses and exclusions
just as any non-guaranteed coverage would be.
SENATOR LAUTENBERG: I was instrumental in
establishing a mandate in the Oil Pollution Act requiring
that the Coast Guard consult a national driver register
to ensure that they are not granting a merchant mariners
license to individuals with a drunk driving record. When
can we expect to see a final regulation implementing this
requirement?
ANSWER: The NPRM was published in September 1991.
However, since the Federal government cannot access the
NDR directly, it must be accessed through participating
States. DOT is considering offering for reintroduction
legislation to amend Section 307 of the NDR Act 1982 to
allow Federal agencies direct access to the NDR. Similar
legislation was introduced by DOT in 1992; the measure
was passed by the House but the Senate failed to approve
it.
QUESTION SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BYRD
WEST VIRGINIA PROJECTS
SENATOR BYRD: Mr. Secretary, there are several
projects under the jurisdiction of the Federal Aviation
Administration that are very important to me and the
State of West Virginia. Please provide for the record
the significant milestone events leading to full
completion of: (1) the Benedum Airport runway extension,
(2) the Martinsburg radar, and (3) the Mid-Atlantic
Aviation Training and Education Center. In addition to
providing the significant milestone events with
description of the project, please provide a record of
the costs involved and whether additional funds are
necessary for successful completion.
784
ANSWER: The information follows:
1) Benedum Airport Runway Extension
Received sponsor's application for land acquisition and
design, September 11, 1992. Letter of Tentative
Allocation sent to sponsor, December 28, 1992. Actions
to be completed: Sponsor submits Project Application;
FAA transmits Grant Offer to Sponsor; Sponsor executes
Grant Agreement; Consultant begins design of extension;
National Guard reviews design and determines what it can
do; FAA reviews National Guard information and makes
funding decision; if funding available. Sponsor submits
preapplication for construction; FAA issues Tentative
Allocation; Sponsor takes bids for construction; Sponsor
submits project application; FAA issues Grant offer;
Sponsor executes Grant Agreement; Runway extension is
constructed. The sponsor expects design work to begin
later this summer with completion in 6-8 months. The
estimated cost of the runway extension is $28 million.
2) Martinsburq. West Virginia ASR-9 Radar
Actions to be completed:
Complete site preparation - October 1994;
Deliver ASR-9 radar - November 1994;
Operational readiness - March 1995;
Commission radar - June 1995
The 3-month period between operational readiness and
commissioning is to conduct operational test and
evaluation to ensure that the radar performs adequately
and that logistical elements are in place. The total
cost to establish the ASR-9 radar at Martinsburg is $22.5
million: $7 million appropriated in FY 1991; $14.5
million in FY 1992; and $1.5 million in FY 1993. No
additional funding is required to complete the project.
3) Mid-Atlantic Aviation Training and Education Center
As directed by Congress, a $3 million grant to Fairmont
State College for site acquisition, construction,
equipment, and personnel costs was awarded in September
24, 1990. Construction began in August 1992. Completion
is projected for July 1993. To date, FAA has reimbursed
FSC a total of $1.6 million. Also, Congress directed in
FY 1991 that FAA award $300,000 to FSC for the
acquisition of computer hardware and software and
aircraft/avionics system training simulation equipment.
The grant agreement was signed on October 5, 1992. The
majority of equipment is on order. To date, no requests
for payment have been submitted to FAA. The FAA is not
aware of additional funding requirements.
785
QUESTION SUBMITTED BY SENATOR HARKIN ; ^
TRANSIT DRUG TESTING *
' SENATOR HARKIN: I do believe that we need to move
forward with testing of employees who operate and work on
transportation vehicles, properly protecting individual
rights and maximizing
the accuracy of the process.
However, there is a specific concern with rural
transit systems — I am not talking about rural as defined
by DOT, cities under 50,000. I am talking about really
rural systems! In Iowa, I am proud to say that almost
the entire rural area of the state has some access to
transit. The rural systems, such as the one in Creston
and Decorah each operate in a 3,500 square mile area with
the largest city having a population of about 8,000
people.
These rural systems have vehicles stationed in very
small towns. There is no transit garage or transit
employees to fix their vehicles. They pull into "Joe's
garage". The trouble is that Joe might not feel that all
of his mechanics should go through this process in order
to occasionally work on one or two vehicles. The result
may be that maintenance will deteriorate and costs will
rise as vehicles may have to be driven or towed 50 miles
to be serviced.
I would appreciate your looking into this problem.
ANSWER: The Department is well aware of this
problem. We have received a number of comments on this
issue as result of the Department's December 15, 1992
notice of proposed rulemaking on drug and alcohol testing
for the transit industry. In addition, the Department
held public hearings on the rulemaking action where
comments were also received on this issue.
The Secretary has directed that high priority be
given to expeditious review of the comments and
publication of a final rule on the drug and alcohol
testing requirements.
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR SASSER
LABOR PROTECTION PROVISIONS
SENATOR SASSER: During last year's Senate debate on
the FY93 Transportation Appropriations bill, an amendment
was approved regarding the preservation of domestic jobs
in the event of a transfer of an international air route
certificate. However, the amendment was dropped in
Conference due to a threatened Bush veto.
Last year. Department of Transportation officials
testified before the Congress that it had "the authority
to impose labor protection provisions (LPPs) on a
case-by-case basis" in international route transfer
786
situations. However, such authority has rarely been
exercised.
The FY94 Transportation Budget includes a proposal
within the Office of the Secretary to reorganize the
Office of Policy and International Affairs. Under the
proposed reorganization, two assistant secretaries would
be established, one of which would oversee aviation and
international issues.
Assuming approval of the proposed reorganization,
what degree of priority would the newly formed office of
aviation and international affairs place on assuming a
more proactive role in preserving domestic jobs in
situations involving the transfer of an international air
route certificate?
ANSWER: The Administration recognizes that airline
employees have an important stake in the future of their
own airlines and in the well being of the airline
industry. As a general approach, we would hope that,
similar to the rest of the economy, appropriate
protection for airline employees' jobs and benefits can
be achieved through the collective bargaining process.
The Administration has not yet had an opportunity to
address the LPP issue directly.
OFFICE OF INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY
SENATOR SASSER: The Administration has requested
just over a million dollars for the Office of
Intelligence and Security. This Office was created in
FY90 upon the recommendation of the Commission on
Aviation Security and Terrorism.
Will the primary focus of this Office involve
aviation security? To what extent, if any, will there be
coordination between this Office and the proposed Office
of Aviation and International Affairs?
Also, during last year's Budget hearings. House
Appropriators expressed some concern that the Office
would go beyond its role of policy, oversight, and
coordination of security issues with intelligence and law
enforcement agencies and officials. The specific concern
was that the Office would assume responsibility in the
areas of research, development, and procurement of
intelligence and security equipment. How would you, Mr.
Secretary, envision the role of the Office of
Intelligence and Security?
ANSWER: The Office of Intelligence and Security was
in fact created in response to the Commission on Aviation
Security and Terrorism, but is also mandated under the
Aviation Security Improvement Act of 1990.
As described below in the "Mission and Functions
Statement," this Office provides a focal point within the
Department on all matters affecting the security of the
traveling public. The Office is limiting itself to
oversight and policy matters; long range strategic
planning; and coordination and liaison with the
Department and other agencies, with the Intelligence
Community, and with the industry and the public in
787
general. The Office will coordinate with the Office of
Aviation and International Affairs on security issues
overseas, particularly those aimed at achieving a level
playing field among nations in the enforcement of
security regulations.
From the start, this Office has focused on aviation
security matters. This is where the greatest threat
continues to be. The Office has not, however, ignored
the very critical area of cruise ship and cruise ship
port security, as well as other modes of transportation.
[The following is an extract from the DOT Organization
Manual] :
OFFICE OF INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY
1. MISSION. To advise the Secretary on domestic and
international intelligence and security matters; to coordinate
the development and implementation of long-term strategic
plans, information management systems and integrated research
and development programs affecting the security of the
travelling public and of cargo; to be the focal point in the
Department for transportation intelligence and security
policy; and to provide oversight of transportation security
and intelligence programs.
2. FUNCTIONS . Under the executive direction of the Secretary,
the Director of Intelligence and Security:
a. Serves as the principal advisor to the
Secretary and Deputy Secretary on transportation
intelligence and security policy, and develops
such policy for approval by the Secretary.
b. Serves as the Department's primary liaison with
the intelligence community; assists the Operating
Administrations in setting up and maintaining
their direct linkages to the intelligence
community and ensures the Secretary is provided
general and specific intelligence on national
security and other issues necessary for effective
performance as a member of the President's
Cabinet.
c. Serves as the Secretary's primary liaison with
public, private and international agencies,
corporations, and interest groups on
transportation intelligence and security policy.
d. Administers a Departmentwide transportation
systems intelligence and security strategic
planning process, with special emphasis on
counter- terror ism.
e. Reviews all transportation security rulemaking.
f. Coordinates policy and procedures for
administering the transportation intelligence and
security information program, including associated
data collection, analysis and dissemination, and
automated information systems.
g. Reviews research and development activities
related to intelligence and security; ensures the
sharing and integration of such activities and
technical expertise among the modes of
788
transportation and other public and private
agencies.
h. Conducts intelligence and security program
analyses; monitors the performance of the
Operating Administrations in transportation
intelligence and security activities in both the
public and private sectors.
i. Performs such other duties as the Secretary may
assign.
3. ELEMENTS. The Director oversees and supervises the following
elements:
o Intelligence Division
o Security Division
o Plans and Policy Division
BTS ROLE IN DATA COLLECTION PROCESS
SENATOR SASSER: Among the accomplishments cited in
the Office of the Secretary of Transportation's Planning
Research and Development justification was DOT'S signing
of a Memorandum of Understanding with the Bureau of the
Census. The Memorandum was for the "coordination and
planning of Census Bureau transportation data collection
program. "
As you know, there was considerable controversy
regarding the significant population undercount in the
1990 Census. Many Federal programs use a population
factor to distribute funds. With limited Federal funding
available, many communities, especially large urban
areas, felt shortchanged by the Census process.
Since then Secretary of Commerce Robert Mosbacher
ruled against a statistical adjustment to correct the
undercount, what specific steps will DOT take to ensure
that data collected from the Census Bureau accurately
reflects the service populations of the affected
communities? Also, to what extent will the Bureau of
Transportation Statistics be involved in the data
collection process?
ANSWER: The Memorandum of Understanding between the
Bureau of the Census and the Bureau of Transportation
Statistics provides a mechanism for mutual discussion of
data needs and opportunities to meet those needs. This
mechanism has been used primarily to discuss economic and
freight transportation issues. The Decennial Census has
been discussed through the pre-existing interagency
groups that include the DOT and many others.
The unadjusted results of the 1990 census issued by
the Bureau of the Census are the official statistics upon
which all Federal programs using decennial census
population factors, including several transportation
programs, distribute funds.
To ensure that data collected in the 2000 census
better reflect the service populations of all
communities, DOT is already working closely with the
Census Bureau in its 2000 census planning activities. As
members of the Policy Committee of the Task Force for
789
Designing the Year 2 000 Census, DOT representatives are
providing Census with guidance as it develops and tests
new techniques for improving the quality of decennial
census data and reducing the undercount. Also, in
response to the Office of Management and Budget's
request, DOT prepared and submitted in February of this
year comprehensive documentation of its requirements for
data from the 2000 census for planning and implementing
transportation programs across the nation during the
decade following the census.
Once the design issues for the 2000 census are
settled, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics will
assist the Census Bureau in the data collection process
by working with Census in designing the transportation
questions included on the 2 000 census questionnaire and
in the assigning of geographic codes to workplace
addresses provided by respondents to the question on
place of work.
FOCUS OF FHWA R&D REQUEST
SENATOR SASSER: The Administration has been a
staunch proponent of the transportation Research and
Technology. The Limitation on General Operating Expenses
Account of the Federal Highway Administration includes
approximately $104.5 million for Highway Research and
Development. Included in that request is $30.8 million
for IVHS Research and Development.
What other specific areas will be the focus of the
balance of the Highway R&D request?
ANSWER: In addition to the $30.8 million for IVHS
research, FHWA'S Research and Technology budget request
focuses on the following program areas:
• The $42.7 million for the Highway Research,
Development, and Technology program includes
sub-programs for: Safety ($5.7 million).
Pavements ($6.8 million). Policy ($7.4
million), and Motor Carriers ($7.7 million).
• The $10 million Long-Term Pavement Performance
(LTPP) program focuses on (1) monitoring LTPP
data collection; (2) finishing all
specifically designed and constructed
experimental test sections identified in the
Specific Pavement Study (SPS) ; (3) integrating
LTPP and other SHRP activities (SHRP research
in asphalt, concrete and structures, and
highway maintenance) ; (4) continuing
international cooperation; and (5) conducting
data analyses and special studies.
• A $15 millon program for Technology Assessment
promotes technology transfer to potential users
of research products. Marketing techniques
include field evaluation to prove the merits of
the technology, demonstrations to convince
potential users of the value of the new
research products, and packaging techniques to
68-623 O— 93 26
790
make the product more readily accepted by the
users.
• The $0.5 million Local Technical Assistance
Program operates 50 technology transfer centers
throughout the country, addressing the needs of
both rural and urban local communities. These
centers are focusing on increasing
transportation expertise in these communities,
as well as, promoting the effective use of
private, local, and State resources for
transportation purposes.
• The $5.5 million National Highway Institute
programs include sponsorship of training
courses related to the latest highway
technology to highway professionals in the
public sector, including State and local
governments, and private groups. In addition
to the courses for State and local agencies,
NHI makes training available to the
international community, manages the Eisenhower
Fellowship program for students interested in
acquiring transportation skills, and oversees
the operation of the Pan America Institute of
Highways.
NATIONAL ACCIDENT DATA COLLECTION
SENATOR SASSER: The Bureau of Transportation
Statistics was created to compile and publish
transportation statistics used in cost-benefit analyses.
Under the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
the Administration is requesting funds to continue a
national accident data collection program.
What is the estimated cost of that program, and to
what extent has or will the information derived from the
program be coordinated with Bureau of Transportation
Statistics?
ANSWER: The FY 1994 President's Budget includes
$9.56 million for the National Accident Sampling System
(NASS) and $4.44 million for the Fatal Accident Reporting
System (FARS) .
The Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) works
with DOT operating administrations as well as other
Federal agencies to obtain needed information, and
assumes leadership in the collection of data only for
subjects that are not covered by existing programs. The
Bureau currently depends on well-established data
programs for information on transportation safety, and is
focussing its initial staff resources and budget on
obtaining multimodal commodity and passenger flow data.
Once these initiatives are under way, the Bureau will
begin to work with the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration and others to consider improvements in the
collection and availability of safety statistics.
791
ENFORCEMENT FUNDING BENEFITS
SENATOR SASSER: The Administration's Transportation
Budget bolsters enforcement activities. Your testimony
notes, in fact, that FY 1994 is the first year that
States will face a loss of highway funds for failure to
enact laws requiring the revocation or suspension of
drivers' licenses of individuals convicted of drug
offenses. Does the Administration have any specific data
that estimates the extent to which funding in enforcement
activities have provided specific cost-savings and
efficiencies in other program areas?
ANSWER: Our enforcement activities are intended to
promote safety or compliance with the law, rather than to
produce cost savings or program efficiencies. For
example, highway funding sanctions for States that do not
require the revocation or suspension of drivers' licenses
of individuals convicted of drug offenses are intended to
encourage States to adopt a measure that will discourage
drug use and trafficking. FAA's enforcement activities
are intended to ensure compliance with safety and
security regulations. The Coast Guard works to ensure
compliance with, for example, marine safety requirements
and fishing restrictions, and to prevent illegal
immigration. We have no evidence that such enforcement
efforts lead to savings or efficiencies in other DOT
program areas. One might expect, however, that safety
enforcement does result in health care savings, which are
reflected in programs outside DOT.
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
SENATOR SASSER: One of the areas in which Tennessee
transit operators, and I'm sure others nationwide, have a
concern is the cost and deadline for compliance with the
Americans with Disabilities (ADA) requirements. The
Administration proposes $4.6 billion for the Federal
Transit Administration. This amount still falls short of
ISTEA full funding for transit. Your testimony indicates
that some $300 million in highway funds have been
transferred to transit under the flexibility provisions
of ISTEA. To what extent have transferred funds been
utilized for ADA purposes?
ANSWER: The FTA budget proposal for FY 1994 is 21
percent more than the FY 1993 budget. Thib additional
funding would help communities in implementing the ADA
transit requirements. In addition, the flexible funding
features of ISTEA are available to assist communities.
Of the $300 million transfer of flexible funds from FHWA,
approximately $250 million of this amount was for
improvements to rail systems, including accessibility
features in rail stations and on new rail vehicles.
SENATOR SASSER: Also, under the OST Transportation
Planning Research and Development request, the
Administration is proposing a study ($75,000) to
determine the national costs and effectiveness of
implementing ADA transportation regulations. DOT'S
792
budget justification indicates that "...many gaps still
exist in (DOT's) knowledge of the cumulative costs of ADA
improvements ..."
Pending specific findings from the proposed study,
what specific steps can DOT and FTA utilize to ensure
against undue financial burdens on communities?
ANSWER: DOT has already estimated the costs of
implementing the transit requirements of the ADA as part
of the Regulatory Impact Analysis. FTA, however, is
updating these costs as paratransit and key station plans
are submitted. The study referred to in the OST budget
will deal specifically with how ADA applies to the
passenger vessel industry.
Section 37.151 of DOT'S regulation implementing the
transit provisions of the ADA allows operators to request
a waiver from the six paratransit service requirements in
cases of undue financial burden. This waiver is really a
time extension, of limited duration, from the requirement
for full compliance. Despite the effect of the recession
on local tax revenues, only 2 of the 543 entities
submitting plans to the FTA in the first year (1992)
requested a waiver due to undue financial burden.
However, these waiver requests are expected to increase
as we approach the 1997 full compliance timeframe for ADA
paratransit service.
ADA COMPLIANCE DEADLINES AND COSTS
SENATOR SASSER: OST's budget justification for
Transportation Planning Research and Development also
indicates the concern of rail operators regarding
compliance deadlines for ADA. The unknown, but
expectedly steep, cost of paratransit service was a
specific concern.
Do you have any preliminary indication of the extent
to which waivers in meeting the compliance deadline have
been requested?
ANSWER: Despite the effect of the recession on
local tax revenues, only Richmond, Virginia and Suffolk
County, New York (out of the 543 entities submitting ADA
paratransit plans to the FTA in the first year) requested
a waiver due to undue financial burden. However, these
waiver requests are expected to increase significantly as
we approach the end of the 5-year phase-in of service in
1997.
SENATOR SASSER: Does the Department of
Transportation have an estimate of the costs to rail
operators for paratransit service compliance? Also, with
respect to the development of High Speed Ground
Transportation and Maglev, are there any estimates
regarding the extent to which ADA requirements might
affect overall cost projections?
ANSWER: High-speed rail, like Amtrak, and other
rail systems, must fully comply with ADA requirements.
These requirements include, among other things,
wheelchair access to passenger cars, spaces both for
parking and storing wheelchairs, and accessible
793
restrooms. (Unlike rapid and light rail service, Amtrak,
high-speed intercity rail, and commuter rail service are
not subject to ADA paratransit requirements) . The
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the Department's '
1991 ADA rule included cost projections for compliance by
then-existing rail systems. While these cost estimates, -
particularly those for Amtrak - may have some relevance
in projecting compliance costs for high-speed rail
systems, the Department did not make specific estimates
applicable to these systems.
NASHVILLE-LONDON ROUTE
SENATOR SASSER: Mr. Secretary, when you approved
the British Airways investment in USAir, you stated that
the United States/United Kingdom bilateral agreement did
not provide a level playing field. You also said the
bilateral agreement prevented U. S. carriers and cities
from getting access to and beyond London. Specifically,
you stated - "I strongly believe that we must eliminate
restrictions that undermine competition and which limit
U. S. carriers' access to British markets." I can
certainly attest to the restrictiveness of the bilateral
agreement.
As you know, Mr. Secretary, the City of Nashville
and the State of Tennessee have for many years
aggressively sought a route to London. Although
officials have made several trips to London and spoken to
British officials, all of their good efforts have been
without success. This is a very important matter for
Nashville and the State of Tennessee. I would invite
you. Secretary Pena, to come to Nashville, meet with the
community and Governor McWherter so that you can get a
better appreciation of just how very important this route
is to all of the citizens of Tennessee. I just have a
few questions to follow-up on this matter. Do you remain
committed to securing nothing short of a truly "open
skies" agreement by year's end?
ANSWER: DOT remains committed to eliminating the
restrictions in our aviation agreement with the British.
On April 19, Secretary Pena met with John MacGregbr, the
U.K. Secretary of State for Transport, and confirmed our
common aim of liberalizing the U.S. -U.K. Air Services
Agreement. Both sides recognize that difficult decisions
will be required, but agree that the potential for an
agreement is there. Negotiations resume on May 5, with
the aim of reaching agreement within a year.
SENATOR SASSER: It is my understanding that as a
result of British Airways' investment in USAir, there are
now three London routes that are available for
reassignment. May I trust and presume that you, Mr.
Secretary, and neither British Airways nor USAir, will
make the determination of where those authorities will be
located?
ANSWER: In assessing both route transfer
applications and authority for new services, the
794
Department always applies the decisional standards of the
Federal Aviation Act, including the requirement that the
grant of authority be consistent with the public
interest. It should also be clarified that the route
authority held by USAir between Philadelphia and London
is not, under the existing bilateral agreement,
transferrable to another gateway.
SENATOR SASSER: In making those determinations, I
urge you to give preference to the needs of those cities
and regions that have no service to Great Britain, rather
than allowing those scarce routes to go to cities already
having multiple routes to Great Britain and Europe. It
is essential for Nashville that this route be in
operation by this summer. Will you use expedited
procedures to award these routes?
ANSWER: The Department is also interested in having
the USAir routes available for other airline services as
quickly as possible. However, we are still reviewing the
filings that we have received and we expect additional
requests to be filed. Consequently, the Department has
not yet determined the best procedures to accomplish our
goal of timely reassignment of the service opportunities.
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR D'AMATO
FAA CONTROLLER PAY DEMONSTRATION
SENATOR D'AMATO: The FY 1994 budget proposal would
terminate one year early the FAA controller pay
demonstration program. I understand that DOT'S goal is
to save about $20 million by this action. About $6.6
million of this cost reflects the NY-NJ area air traffic
controllers. As you know, I wrote legislation extending
this pay "demo" to controllers in the New York - New
Jersey metro areas who were not included in the original
demo program. My chief goals were to recruit and retain
full performance level (FPL) controllers in the complex
airspace around NY city. FAA's own analysis of the
success of the demo project found that the number of FPL
controllers at pay demo facilities increased
significantly from 604 to 910 a fifty one percent
increase! since the program began. Why is DOT
cutting funds that have proven to enhance safety at our
air traffic control facilities?
ANSWER: The controller work force (CWF) has now
stabilized and the number of full performance level (FPL)
controllers has increased system-wide, not just at the
pay demonstration sites. While the total CWF increased
from 16,554 in June 1989 (the beginning of the pay
demonstration project) to 17,826 at the end of March
1993, an 8 percent increase, FPLs have increased from
9,905 to 12,192, a 23 percent increase. This is a
reflection of the increasing experience level of the
workforce. Also, under the Federal Pay Comparability
795
Act, Federal salaries increased with the 8 percent
geographical adjustment in several high cost areas
including the New York area. Finally, the pay
demonstration was a 5-year project. By the end of
September 1993, FAA will have more than four years of
data. The project will have achieved its purpose and
will no longer be essential. Terminating the project 9
months ahead of schedule will not compromise the project,
and will provide significant cost savings during fiscal
year 1994.
SENATOR D'AMATO: FAA's own data show that staffing
levels and experience levels have increased, while
turnover has declined as a result of the pay demo. Why
didn't DOT look for other areas to take cuts, rather than
termination of a successful program?
ANSWER: FAA is taking cuts in other areas of
Operations. In addition to the $20 million from the pay
demonstration, the Operations budget takes another $149
million reduction from the baseline. The additional
reduction includes $71 million in staffing reductions,
retirements and turnover, $40 million in administrative
expenses and travel, $11 million for ending the DUATS
subsidy, and $27 million for savings in leased
telecommunications, and other miscellaneous cost areas.
With personnel costs comprising over 75 percent of
the Operations funding, there is very little flexibility
to reduce program costs in the short term. In order to
avoid further reductions in staffing or critical
contractual support, a decision was made to terminate the
pay demonstration early.
SENATOR D'AMATO: I believe that NY-NJ facilities
joined the pay demo program at least a year later than
other facilities in other locations. Don't they deserve
to be included in the program at least as long as other
facilities have participated?
ANSWER: All facilities currently in the pay
demonstration project, including those in the New York
and New Jersey area, have been covered since the
project's implementation in June 1989. No facilities
have been added to the project since its implementation.
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DOMENICI
FISCAL CONDITION OF THE HIGHWAY ACCOUNT OF THE
HIGHWAY TRUST FUND
SENATOR DOMENICI: In the report to the Chairman of
the Budget Committee dated September, 1992, GAO predicted
that the highway account of the Highway Trust Fund would
be facing a shortfall as early as fiscal year 1995.
Failing the enactment of additional revenues to the trust
fund, the Byrd Amendment would force the Federal Highway
Administration to reduce states' highway apportionments
796
in 1995. On March 31, 1993, the author of that report,
Mr. Ken Mead, testified before this subconunittee that the
problem of projected shortfalls in the highway account of
the trust fund had worsened, even in the six months since
his initial report. Mr. Secretary, would you review for
the Subcommittee the Administration's proposal regarding
the extension of the 2.5 cent fuel tax?
ANSWER: Extension of the 2.5 C fuel tax and
transfer to the Highway Trust Fund is essential to assure
that States' apportionments are not affected by operation
of the Byrd Amendment. That requires legislation to
extend the tax through FY 1999 and switch the fuel taxes
paid by highway users (2^ C/gallon) from the general fund
to the Highway Trust Fund beginning in FY 1996. We would
allocate the revenue from 2 C of the tax ($2.7 billion
annually) to the Highway Account and ^ C ($0,7 billion )
to the Transit Account. This would prevent triggering of
the amendment through the life of ISTEA, based on our
estimates of spending and revenues. As an insurance
measure, we would propose that either Account could
borrow from the other to protect cash balances.
SENATOR DOMENICI: CBO has projected that without
the extension and dedication of the 2.5 cents to the
highway account, the Byrd Rule would be triggered by the
end of fiscal year 1994. CBO estimates that with the
extension and allocation of the entire 2.5 cents to the
highway account, the Byrd Rule would not be triggered
until 1997.
Should the Congress choose to exempt railroads from
the 2.5 cent tax, or designate a half-cent to the transit
account, how would you estimate the timing on the
triggering of the Byrd Rule?
ANSWER: Using the budget and revenue proposals of
the 1994 President's Budget, our projections show that
the Byrd Amendment would be triggered for the beginning
of FY 1998 — to the extent of about $800 million. This
assumes the transfer in FY 1996 of revenue associated
with 2.5 <: paid by highway users. The 1994 President's
Budget, with its FY 1993 Stimulus proposal and the
FY 1994 Investment Initiative, would fully fund Federal-
Aid Highways at ISTEA levels in FY 1993 and FY 1994-1997.
FAA AGING AIRCRAFT NONDESTRUCTIVE INSPECTION
DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION CENTER
SENATOR DOMENICI: Mr. Secretary, it is my pleasure
to see you again and to have the opportunity to discuss
the Administration's FY 1994 budget request for the
Department of Transportation.
Over the past three years, I have been pleased to
work with the distinguished Subcommittee Chairman and
Ranking Member, as well as the Department of
Transportation and the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) on a very important and immediate issue — the
safety of aging aircraft. We have begun to see the
serious implications of an aging fleet of aircraft. U.S.
797
airlines are now operating the oldest fleets in aviation
history with the average age of the fleet of
approximately 3,300 airplanes, being 13 years. One-third
of these planes are actually 20 years or older. They
have, in fact, reached their designed economic life.
I am pleased to report that the FAA Aging Aircraft
Nondestructive Inspection Development and Demonstration
Center in Albuquerque is now officially in operation. I
was extremely pleased to be at the official opening of
the center this last February, and I am very excited that
we have the opportunity to establish a world-class center
to develop and demonstrate nondestructive inspection
techniques on aging aircraft; provide assessments of both
the reliability of proposed inspection techniques and
cost benefits that can be derived by their use by the
aviation industry; and validate the NDI processes
developed throughout the FAA's overall program and
transfer them to industry use.
I hope that you will continue the Administration's
valuable support for this innovative project. I want to
commend the FAA for its support for the project on the
multi-year basis. I am pleased that the FAA and Sandia
National Laboratories in Albuquerque, along with the
University of New Mexico and industry, the Science
Applications International Corporation (SAIC) , have
established a good working relationship that seeks to
meet the needs and interests of the aviation industry.
Mr. Secretary, does the FY 1994 budget for the
Federal Aviation Administration include the necessary
funding to continue the collaboration on the Aging
Aircraft NDI Center? If so, what is the requested
funding level for this initiative?
ANSWER: Yes. The FY 1994 budget includes $3
million to continue the current collaboration on the
Aging Aircraft NDI Validation Center (AANC) operated by
the Sandia National Laboratories on behalf of the Federal
Aviation Administration.
SENATOR DOMENICI: The Congress and the
Administration have placed significant focus on the
economic health of the aviation industry, establishing a
commission to assess its viability. As part of that
initiative, will the Administration be looking at ways to
help the industry remain competitive?
ANSWER: The Aging Aircraft NDI Validation Center
(AANC) validation and reliability enhancement procedures
will accelerate technology transition from applied
nondestructive evaluation science research into the
industrial arena. The potential savings in inspection
methodologies may save the airlines operating costs and
thus contribute to their economic well-being.
SENATOR DOMENICI: I believe that efforts like the
Aging Aircraft Center in New Mexico, which seeks to bring
new technology and efficiency to aircraft inspections,
has the potential to save the airlines operating costs
and contribute to their continued economic viability. Do
798
you see such initiatives as aiding the aviation industry
in the long term?
ANSWER: The innovations as well as the validation
of nondestructive evaluation technology carried out at
the AANC has the potential of aiding the aviation
industry in the long term.
ROSWELL RADAR
SENATOR DOMENICI: Congress has appropriated funds
for the emplacement of an ASR-9 radar to service the
Roswell airport. The FAA, the City of Roswell and
various other interest groups have been examining the
optimum operational arrangement for the system.
Currently the three options are: 1) stand alone in
Roswell, 2) remote to Albuquerque, and 3) remote to
Lubbock .
I am very concerned that I have been unable to get
accurate and timely information from the FAA on this
issue. In January of this year, FAA officials provided
information on the technical feasibility of the various
options which subsequently was refuted by both air
traffic technicians and the manufacturer of the
equipment. On 29 January, I sent a letter to Mr. Del
Bazo asking for an explanation of the apparent
shortcomings in the FAA information provided earlier in
the month and raising several other questions. To date,
and despite several calls by my staff to FAA contacts, I
regret to say that I still have not had the courtesy of a
response.
There have been several concerns raised about the
safety implications of remoting radar service to hub
locations, particularly vulnerability of transmission
lines to outages and the lack of familiarity and
responsiveness of remote radar operators with local
conditions and operational necessities. My understanding
is that there have recently been several breakdowns in
transmission lines which have stopped radar coverage at
remote locations for extended periods of time. Has the
FAA examined these safety issues in detail?
ANSWER: The FAA has extensive experience in remoting
radar service over transmission lines which are often
hundreds of miles long. Although there have been
infrequent interruptions to individual transmission
circuits in the past, FAA continues to reduce or
eliminate the vulnerability. Specifically, the entire
network of leased services is currently being replaced by
the Leased Interf acility NAS Communications System
(LINCS) , which will greatly improve the reliability of
leased circuits through the use of extensive diversity.
Also, in many cases the FAA-owned Radio Communications
Link (RCL) microwave system is now used to supplement
leased services. Dial-up circuits are often used as
another level of back-up for critical connections. This
combination of strategies will essentially remove any
telecommunications vulnerability associated with remoting
of radar service.
799
The air traffic controllers at the Lubbock, Texas,
terminal radar approach control are fully trained and
proficient in all procedures and operational requirements
to absorb the Roswell operation. The distance of the
site from which radar services are provided to the radar
sensor has no bearing on the quality of the service to be
provided.
SENATOR DOMENICI: If the Roswell radar is remoted
to Lubbock, Roswell will receive ground control from its
own tower, approach control from Lubbock (which is in the
Fort Worth ARTCC region) , and ARTCC control and
administrative/ logistic/management oversight from
Albuquerque. When the FAA makes a determination to
remote radar service, does it consider such factors as
ARTCC and hub boundaries in an effort to avoid confusing
cross-border responsibilities and diluted supervisory
authority which can have seriously dilatory effects on
operations?
ANSWER: Airspace boundaries are based on a well
defined area necessary for an air traffic control
facility to provide safe, efficient, and effective air
traffic control services for a specific location of a
designated area.
The supervisory and administrative functions at
Roswell ATCT will remain at Roswell Industrial Air Center
Airport. The air traffic terminal hub facility at
Albuquerque, New Mexico will continue to provide
administrative support, first and second line supervisory
guidance, and training support for Roswell. Logistic
support for all Southwest Region facilities is handled
from the regional office at Fort Worth, Texas.
SENATOR DOMENICI: Has the FAA yet determined, as
the system manufacturer indicates, that it is technically
feasible for the ASR-9 to be remoted to Albuquerque? If
not, when can we anticipate that answer?
ANSWER: It is technically feasible for the Roswell
ASR-9 to be remoted to Albuquerque terminal radar
approach control. However, the cost of this alternative
is approximately $3 million greater than remoting to
Lubbock, primarily because additional equipment would
have to be procured. The automated radar terminal system
at Albuquerque does not have adequate capacity to absorb
the additional radar from Roswell. Also, that equipment
is not immediately available. Remoting to Lubbock would
allow radar services to be available to the Roswell
aviation community a year before Albuquerque could be
commissioned .
SENATOR DOMENICI: Assuming that remoting to
Albuquerque is technically feasible, as we believe the
case to be, when can we anticipate seeing a cost
comparison of the three alternatives?
ANSWER: A cost analysis has been accomplished to
determine the optimum site from which to provide radar
services to Roswell. Three alternatives were studied:
800
remote data from the Roswell surveillance radar sensor to
the Lubbock, Texas terminal radar approach control
(TRACON) ; remote data from the Roswell sensor to the
Albuquerque, New Mexico TRACON; or establish a low
activity radar tower in Roswell. The Albuquerque
alternative was the most costly at almost $3 million
higher than the Lubbock alternative. The results of the
analysis will be provided to the Committee.
SENATOR DOMENICI: What criteria were used to
determine that the Moses Lake, Washington ASR-9 , which
services an airfield very similar in mission to Roswell
Airport, would be operated as a stand alone facility
rather than being remoted to a larger hub? How do these
criteria differ from the situation at Roswell?
ANSWER: Many years ago when Larson Air Force Base
was closed and was converted to Moses Lake Airport,
Congress directed that FAA provide approach control
services at Moses Lake. The radar approach control
services at Moses Lake also provides radar control
services for the Moses Lake Municipal Airport. All
airports are subjected to cost/benefits and quality of
service considerations before being considered for new
establishment or replacement of air traffic services.
SENATOR DOMENICI: To what extent is the dramatic
decline in air traffic and aviation training in
Harlingen, Texas, a function of the initiation of remoted
radar coverage at that location?
ANSWER: The decline of air traffic and aviation in
the Harlingen area was impacted by the Confederate Air
Force moving their museum, air operations, and airshow
activities to Midland, Texas. The decline in petro-
chemical associated activities throughout Texas also
contributed to the decline in air traffic. The Harlingen
air traffic control tower has always been a visual flight
rules tower with the approach control being worked from
other locations. Brownsville non-radar approach control
was responsible for Harlingen airspace prior to being
remoted to Corpus Christi, Texas.
NAFTA-RELATED INFRASTRUCTURE, ISTEA SECTION 6015 STUDY
AND THE CENTER FOR THE NEW WEST
SENATOR DOMENICI: The volume of trade with Mexico
has expanded dramatically since 1986, imposing an
increasing strain on transportation and related
infrastructure along our southern border. It now appears
that the administration is disposed to support the North
American Free Trade Agreement although it is not clear
what the so-called side agreements on environment, labor
and import surges will look like. All agree that a NAFTA
will add even greater pressure on border transportation
infrastructure facilities. It also seems clear that
increased trade will create very different commercial
corridors in North America which will need detailed
analysis — such as that encompassed in Section 6015 of
801
the ISTEA — if we are to optimize our spending in
transportation infrastructure.
Mr. Secretary, would you please explain how
Department of Transportation funding will be focused to *
address the national transportation infrastructure
imperatives along the southwest border?
ANSWER: As you know, the Department is conducting 4
st;udy under Section 1089 of the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) to
determine the feasibility of creating an international
border highway discretionary program, which would be used
to enable state and federal agencies to construct or
replace highway infrastructure facilities along the
border. This study is being conducted in conjunction
with the 6015 study, which is national and multi-modal in
scope, and which should give us a clearer idea of what
national infrastructure needs may result from NAFTA.
Both reports will go to the Congress by September 30,
1993.
SENATOR DOMENICI: Will there be any attempt to
target funds beyond formula distributions to the border
region to address these unique national needs?
ANSWER: The Administration's budget proposal does
not include funding specifically identified for
infrastructure improvements along the borders. However,
it will provide for an increase in infrastructure
investment. For example, the DOT request for the
Federal-Aid Highway Program for FY 1994 is for full
funding of the Highway title of the ISTEA, which includes
$2.7 billion as an investment initiative above the
baseline amount for FY 1994. In addition, our request
for the Airport Improvement Program of $1.88 billion for
FY 1994 represents a 4.4 percent increase above the FY
1993 level. With the planning and prioritizing that has
already been done by States and regional organizations
along the U.S. borders, those communities are
well-positioned to advance applications for funding early
in the fiscal year to the State or federal agency that
will have decisionmaking authority for these funds.
SENATOR DOMENICI: Have you considered how you will
continue the initial work assessing changes in national
commercial flow patterns now being conducted by the
Center for the New West under Section 6015 of the ISTEA?
ANSWER: Future investigation of possible emerging
or transforming trade corridors will depend upon the
outcome of the current ISTEA studies and observed
developments along the borders. It is possible that
additional study efforts may be required. We would be
able to ascertain the additional study efforts upon
completion of the work on the Section 6015 study by the
Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (VNTSC) and
the Center for the New West.
SENATOR DOMENICI: To what extent do you plan to
have the Office of International Programs in the Office
802
of the Secretary directly involved in FHWA management
responsibility for and the Center for the New West
execution of the 6015 program?
ANSWER: The OST Policy Office is working with FHWA,
particularly to facilitate ISTEA requirements for
consultations with the Governments of Mexico and Canada.
The OST Office is also a member of a DOT interagency
study coordinating group that includes concerned modal
administrations and OST Offices involved in cross-border
and NAFTA transportation issues. This group was formed
in order to comply with the ISTEA' s requirement that the
studies be international and multi-modal in scope. All
involved Departmental elements will continue to cooperate
in the development of the studies and in preparation of
the final reports to Congress.
SENATOR DOMENICI: New Mexico, Colorado and several
municipalities are examining the potential of passenger
rail service from El Paso through Albuquerque to Denver
and possibly beyond as north-south routes gain importance
with the development of a North American free trade area.
What do you see as the prospects for enhanced passenger
rail service in the west as the trade relationship with
Mexico and Canada builds?
ANSWER: In July 1992, Amtrak completed a report
mandated by Congress that explored potential new routes
and services. The report did not recommend an El Paso to
Canada route as you have described because Amtrak 's
marketing staff concluded that there was insufficient
demand for such service. We would be interested in
reviewing the state and municipal studies that you
mentioned. While DOT is represented on Amtrak 's Board,
the Department does not have authority to mandate new
routes or services. Amtrak makes those decisions based
on analysis of the net contribution such service would
make to the company.
DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED LEGISLATION
SENATOR DOMENICI: For many years. New Mexico has
recognized the DWI problem that it shares with the rest
of our country. In fact, I am told that our state leads
the nation with over 14 deaths per 100,000 due to DWI-
related accidents. The second ranking state kills in
excess of 12 per 100,000; some states, however, are in
the low single digits.
I understand that, nationally, the costs in human
suffering and drain on our treasury from automobile
crashes is enormous, and that DWI is a major contributing
factor in these statistics: five million motor vehicle
crash victims injured annually, $48.5 billion lost in
costs, wages and productivity, and 15 million days of
lost employee time annually.
The state of New Mexico has now been galvanized into
a committed resolve to deal with this issue as a result
of the tragic loss of a young mother and her three small
daughters to a drunk driver in a horrible crash on
803
Interstate 4 0 in the heart of Albuquerque on Christinas
Eve.
Traffic regulation, including DWI, is principally a
state issue and our New Mexico legislators and Governor
King have been immersed in it throughout this legislative
session. There is, however, a federal role here and
Congressman Steve Schiff in the House and I have
introduced two pieces of legislation to assist in this
campaign to stop the mayhem on our roads and highways.
The first will withhold highway funds from states which,
after a grace period, fail to establish a .08% blood
alcohol standard for intoxication, a top legislative
priority of Mothers Against Drunk Driving this year.
Funds withheld for a period of three years will be
released to the states, but will be limited to use in
programs directly related to prevention of DWI. The
second bill opens up the 1968 Omnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act by adding DWI prosecution and
enforcement as a twenty-second category of initiatives
toward which states can apply formula grant money.
We all appreciate the dedicated concern that NHTSA
has for the well-being of our constituents. Let me ask
just a few questions. Could you summarize the costs paid
annually by the American taxpayer that are incurred as a
result of DWI?
ANSWER: A recently published analysis of the costs
to society of motor vehicle crashes included a detailed
estimate of the cost to society of alcohol-related
crashes. That analysis showed that the total cost to
society of all alcohol related crashes was $46.1 billion
in 1990. Of this amount, eighty one percent, or $37.5
billion, was the result of crashes wherein the driver had
a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.10% or greater.
A BAC of 0.10% is the legal limit for intoxication in
most states. To counter this costly drain on American
society, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration has active programs funded through its
Operations and Research Highway Safety Programs and its
Section 408 and Section 410 grants. In FY 1993, $38.2
million is planned for obligation on these programs.
This federal money leveraged state funds for these
activities. In addition, considerable private sector
funds are available in support of preventing drunk
driving. The bottom line is that the American consumer
ultimately bears the costs of highway crashes through
higher taxes to fund public assistance and injury
prevention programs, higher insurance premiums, and
higher prices as a result of lost productivity in the
workplace.
SENATOR DOMENICI: While new programs and enhanced
enforcement and prosecution have a cost, do your
assessments show that funds spent in highway safety
programs pay meaningful returns on each dollar invested
through the avoidance of fatalities and severe injury?
ANSWER: NHTSA analyzed the Department's highway
safety programs for the twenty five year period from 1966
to 1990. This analysis showed that for each dollar spent
804
on highway safety, society has received a return of
$3.41. This figure is based on a thorough analysis of
highway safety programs, counting only those lives and
injuries that could be directly attributed to a specific
program. The analysis included only the dollar
equivalent of reduced injuries and fatalities, not
reduced property damage. Given the assumptions in this
study, highway safety programs have saved society $552
billion (in 1992 dollars) from 1966 to 1990. The portion
of this estimate attributed to fatalities avoided was
$171 billion (based on 243,000 lives saved, at an average
of $702,000 each). All of these savings are out of
pocket and do not account for the enormous savings in
terms of pain and suffering and quality of life. The
total cost to society of achieving these savings,
including the cost of government programs and the
additional cost to the consumer of adding safety to their
vehicles, totaled $162 billion over the same period.
Thus, as a society we received a return of $552 billion
for an expenditure of $162 billion, or $3.41 for each
dollar spent.
SENATOR DOMENICI: Is the $25 million authorized for
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's
Section 410 Alcohol Incentive Grant Program and requested
in the administration budget adequate in your opinion?
ANSWER: The National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration estimates that the $25 million will cover
the requests from eligible states during FY 1994. If it
turns out that states apply and qualify for more than $25
million, NHTSA has contingency plans to make pro rata
reductions in order to provide partial funding of the
grant amounts authorized for each eligible state.
SENATOR DOMENICI: Should the requirements in the
Section 410 program for both basic and supplemental
grants be tightened so that all criteria must be met in
each category to qualify for the respective funding?
ANSWER: No. NHTSA believes it is appropriate to
continue the currently authorized requirements for basic
and supplemental grants.
In the case of basic grants, the current
requirements encourage significant legal and programmatic
accomplishments by states to reduce drunk driving. At
the same time, it is possible for a significant number of
states to be able to participate in this worthwhile
program.
The supplemental grants provide incentives for
additional actions beyond those required for the basic
grants. The current approach provides an incentive to
states to implement each of the supplemental
countermeasures. No state would now qualify for
supplemental funds if all seven criteria had to be met.
States would not even be motivated to attempt such a
difficult task. Thus, the incentive value of
supplemental grants would be lost.
805
LOCAL RAIL FREIGHT ASSISTANCE ACT
SENATOR DOMENICI: Small local railroads play an
important role in the economic viability of many smaller
communities around this country. This is clearly the
case in New Mexico. Maintaining the condition of the
lines can be a significant burden on these frequently
fragile enterprises, despite the central role they fill
in preserving jobs and the small town way of life in
which many Americans find worth and satisfaction.
This year, two New Mexico railroads have initiated
requests for Local Rail Freight Assistance Act funding to
meet important needs. In order to encourage
manufacturing expansion in the community, the Santa Fe
Southern Railroad is attempting to reestablish the link
from the City of Santa Fe to the main line of the
Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe railroad which bypasses the
city. In the southeast part of the state, the Texas-New
Mexico Railroad seeks to repair 34 miles of track in
order to support the re-opening of the Lea Refinery
between Hobbs and Lovington, New Mexico.
It is my understanding that the budget submitted by
President Clinton has cut all funding for the Local Rail
Freight Assistance Act.
Mr. Secretary, how will the administration support
struggling small railroads in our country as they try to
perform services essential to the economic viability of
and jobs in our small, particularly rural, communities
which rely on them?
ANSWER: Based on travels to rural parts of the
nation, it is apparent how important continued rail
service can be to the economic health of communities. We
need to think carefully, however, about the need for
Federal involvement in assisting shortline railroads,
particularly given the current Federal deficit and the
relative health of the shortline industry, as well as the
local nature of shortline operations.
According to information available to DOT, the
majority of shortline railroads are in good financial
shape and do not need assistance. In the January 1993
report to Congress, "Small Railroad Investment Goals and
Financial Options," the Federal Railroad Administration
reported that only 30 percent of shortline railroads
surveyed expressed any need for external sources of
capital. While this 30 percent may at first blush sound
high, one must remember that their potential sources of
capital are wide-ranging, including the banking system.
States and localities, and shippers. Entrepreneurs have
not been skittish to enter the shortline business;
indeed, the number of short lines has increased from about
200 in 1980 to nearly 600 at the beginning of 1993.
Shortline failures have been rare. The FRA's annual
report on shortlines in February 1993 reported that in
the past three years, only nine shortlines went bankrupt
and 14 abandoned lines. Some abandonments were due to
financial problems of the railroads, but others were due
to low traffic volume, where capital investment might not
806
be justified. According to the FRA, financially shaky
shortlines are usually bought out by better capitalized
parties and service continues. Some entrepreneurial
firms are now acquiring and managing several shortlines,
and in other cases. States, localities and shippers have
stepped in to see that service is maintained.
We will continue to monitor this industry, but at
this point, continued funding of LRFA is not essential or
the best use of Federal dollars.
FAA AIRPORT FUNDING
SENATOR DOMENICI: Albuquerque International Airport
has sought funding for a major renovation project
involving its Taxiway A and ancillary facilities. With a
total projected cost of $26.2 million over FYs 1993 and
1994, the project is now underway. As the single major
scheduled airline airport in the state, this critical
renovation at Albuquerque International will have serious
implications throughout the region if it is for some
reason interrupted or delayed. What is the current
status of funding for the Taxiway A repair at Albuquerque
International Airport?
ANSWER: Reconstruction of Taxiway A (including
related aircraft parking apron, service road and drainage
work) has been partially funded in fiscal years 1992 and
1993 under FAA's Airport Improvement Program (AIP) . The
Federal share of costs to date is approximately $11.8
million. Albuquerque has requested an additional $8,875
million to complete the project. With the fiscal year
1994 AIP budget request of $1,879 billion, approximately
$3.2 million in sponsor entitlement funds would be
available. The remaining $5,675 million will be
considered for fiscal year 1994 discretionary funding.
SENATOR DOMENICI: Artesia Airport has also
submitted its application for Airport Improvement Program
funding. In November, I was advised by the FAA that is
was optimistic that FY 1993 money would be available to
begin work on the most urgent items on the city's
request. What is the current status of Airport
Improvement Program funding for the Artesia project?
ANSWER: FAA has received a $4.1 million request for
runway, taxiway and apron upgrading and reconstruction at
Artesia Airport. Unfortunately, all available funds for
the State of New Mexico for fiscal year 1993 have been
committed to other projects. FAA hopes to fund a portion
of the work in FY 1994, and the remaining portions of the
project would be considered for funding in future years.
807
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR SPECTER
HIGHWAY TRUST FUND
SENATOR SPECTER: Mr. Secretary, I understand that
the highway account of the highway trust fund is
projected to run a deficit given its current revenues by
fiscal year 1997. What is the Department's projection of
the highway account over the next five years?
ANSWER: Without additional revenues, the Highway
Account cannot support the full ISTEA levels in FY 1994-
1997 for Federal-Aid Highways. The Byrd Amendment would
be triggered for the beginning of FY 1995, to force
withholding of about $2.8 billion in state
apportionments. To address the need for additional
revenue, we propose to switch 2 C of the fuel tax
receipts — now dedicated to deficit reduction — to the
highway account. Then, our projections show that the
Byrd Amendment would be triggered for the beginning of
FY 1998 — to the extent of about $800 million. We would
await the next authorization bill to address that
situation.
SENATOR SPECTER: What is the Department's
projection of the transit account over the next five
years?
ANSWER: Using the proposals of the 1994 President's
Budget, our projections show that the transit account at
the end of FY 1998 would have a cash balance of
$9.7 billion, a surplus of $1.4 billion, and a positive
$4.8 billion transit equivalent of the Byrd Amendment
headroom. These figures are based on our proposal to
designate revenues associated with a half-cent of the
fuel tax — now dedicated to deficit reduction — to the
transit account.
SENATOR SPECTER: Does the Administration support
the extension of the 2.5 cent fuel tax currently targeted
to deficit reduction to be applied to the transit and
highway accounts?
ANSWER: We do support that. We propose to extend
the 2.5 0 fuel tax through FY 1999 (consistent with other
trust fund taxes) , and to transfer in FY 1996 to the
Highway Trust Fund the revenues associated with the taxes
paid by highway users. We would allocate the revenue
from 2 <: of the tax ($2.7 billion annually) to the
Highway Account and % <: ($0.7 billion ) to the Transit
Account .
INTERNATIONAL AIR SERVICE
SENATOR SPECTER: Mr. Secretary, international air
service is extremely important to a community's ability
to compete in the international marketplace. Although
808
the Philadelphia Tri-State Region is the fifth largest
metropolitan area in the country, it has very little non-
stop international air service. Specifically,
Philadelphia has non-stop service to only two European
cities, London and Paris. This amount of non-stop
international service is far less than the service
enjoyed by the major gateways, such as New York and
Chicago, and is also less than the service that several
cities much smaller than Philadelphia enjoy. I
understand that there is a case now pending before the
DOT that could eliminate Philadelphia's U. S. flag-
service to London. While I am not asking you about any
particular case pending before the Department, I would
appreciate knowing what efforts you will undertake to
enable Philadelphia and other underserved cities to
retain their existing international service, particularly
to European cities.
ANSWER: It is an important part of my goals for
international aviation that service opportunities be
available from all U.S. cities so that there will be no
question of some cities receiving service at the expense
of others. When route opportunities are not limited by
externally imposed restrictions, the forces of
competition and marketing judgements can determine the
pattern of services in the aviation industry just as they
do in most other sectors of the economy.
SENATOR SPECTER: USAir recently announced that it
was going to start service between Philadelphia and
Frankfurt, but has now been told by the Department of
Transportation that it cannot do so under the existing
agreement between the United States and Germany. This
new service would have been extremely beneficial to
Philadelphia. What can be done to allow service to
Frankfurt from Philadelphia?
ANSWER: We regret that Germany was unwilling to
allow USAir to operate Philadelphia-Frankfurt services
this summer under the interim capacity regime signed last
November. Currently, the only way a U.S. carrier can
provide Philadelphia-Germany nonstop service is by taking
frequencies from another U.S. city and moving them to
Philadelphia. German carriers, however, would be allowed
to provide such service. The bilateral situation with
Germany is very difficult, because Germany is not happy
with the current aviation agreement and is seeking a new
agreement that would significantly limit U.S. carrier
opportunities. We are seeking an agreement that would
ensure that U.S. cities, such as Philadelphia, would have
the opportunity for nonstop service by a carrier of
either country.
AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
SENATOR SPECTER: Mr. Secretary, under the Airport
Improvement Program (AIP) , the FAA may issue Letters of
Intent (LOI) to provide multi-year grants for large
airport projects. It is my understanding that total
809
funding for all LOT projects is limited each year to 50
percent of AIP discretionary funds available. However, I
have heard projections that LOIs approved in prior years
may absorb all of the LOI portion of AIP funding for
fiscal years 1994 and 1995, Do you anticipate that this
problem will actually occur?
ANSWER: LOI's are not subject to a specific
statutory limit in terms of a percent of AIP funds
available. Section 513(d)(1)(F) of the Airport and
Airway Improvement Act states that LOI's shall not exceed
the amount reasonably estimated by the Secretary to be
necessary for grants not covered by LOI's. To comply
with this provision, FAA administratively limits each
fiscal year the total grants issued under LOI's to
approximately 50 percent of the fiscal year's available
discretionary funds not specifically set aside for other
airport types or purposes (e.g., relievers, noise). LOI
commitments for discretionary funding in FY 1994 total
$185 million, approximately 50 percent of the projected
discretionary funds.
SENATOR SPECTER: Mr. Secretary, the apparent
shortfall in funds is of particular concern to the City
of Philadelphia and all of us who have been working to
improve air service throughout the crowded Northeast
Corridor. Philadelphia is planning to construct a new
commuter runway at Philadelphia International Airport.
The runway will increase capacity at the Airport by more
than 40 percent, will reduce delays at Philadelphia, and
will alleviate congestion along the Northeast Corridor.
This project will cost about $215 million and
Philadelphia plans to seek an LOI for about $120 million
in AIP funds over four years, beginning in FY 1994. Can
the Department ensure this Subcommittee that any
shortfall in AIP discretionary dollars due to LOI demands
will not be allowed to postpone airport projects like the
new Philadelphia runway?
ANSWER: FAA administratively limits the total
grants issued under LOI's to approximately 50 percent of
the discretionary funds not specifically set aside for
other airport types or purposes. The purpose of this
administrative limitation is to provide an appropriate
balance between the LOI projects and other airport needs.
This helps to ensure that LOI demands will not be allowed
to postpone high priority projects.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Lautenberg. This subcommittee stands in recess until
May 5, when we will have a hearing on procurement reform, the
FAA.
Thanks very much.
[Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., Wednesday, April 21, the subcommit-
tee was recessed, to reconvene at 2:05 p.m., Wednesday, May 5.]
LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND
PREPARED STATEMENTS
Page
Blanchette, Bob, for the general counsel, Association of American Railroads ... 1
Prepared statement 24
Blimienauer, Earl, commissioner. City of Portland Transportation Bureau 257
Prepared statement 271
Brown, Robert C, senior vice president, Lehman Brothers 103
Prepared statement 105
Brown, William S., Ill, chairman of the board, Maglev, Inc., prepared state-
ment 155
Capon, Ross, executive director, Nationtd Association of Railroad Passengers,
prepared statement 153
Carlson, E. Dean, Acting Administrator, Federal Highway Administration,
Department of Transportation 501
Prepared statement 515
Claytor, W. Graham, Jr., President and Chief Executive OflBcer, National
Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) 1
Prepared statement 9
Clinton, Bill, letter from 233
Collins, Katherine E., Acting Assistant Secretary, Budget and Programs, J>e-
peirtment of Transportation 699
Crunican, Grace, director. Surface Transportation Policy Project 567
Prepared statement 570
D'Amato, Hon. Alfonse M., U.S. Senator from New York, prepared state-
ments 5, 254, 367, 502, 701
Domenici, Hon. Pete V., U.S. Senator from New Mexico 341, 742
Electric Transportation Coalition, prepared statement 693
Evers, Kathy, assistant vice president. Mass Transit Specialty Group, Moody's
Investment Services 103
Fasteau, Marc, managing director. Public Finance Department, Dillon Reed
& Co., Inc 103
Faulkner, Roger, URS Consultants, Inc 39
Prep£U"ed statement 78
Forte, Timothy P., Director, Office of Aviation Safety, National Transportation
Safety Board 365
PYancois, Francis B., executive director, American Association of State High-
way Transportation Officials 159, 501
Prepared statements 242, 522
Gambaccini, Lou, general manager. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transit Au-
thority [SEPTA] 257
Prepared statement 259
George, Rev. William L., S.J., assistant for Federal relations, Georgetown
University 321
Prepared statement 324
Gilstrap, Jack, executive vice president, American Public Transit Association 159
Prepared statement 185
Green, Micah, executive vice president. Public Securities Association 103
Prepared statement 122
Harkin, Hon. Tom, U.S. Senator frt>m Iowa 719
Hatfield, Hon. Mark O., U.S. Senator from Oregon, prepared statement 303
(i)
u
Page
Judge, Pat, president. South West Transit Association and Louisiana Public
Transit Association 257
Prepared statement 306
Kassoff, Hal, chairman, Interstate 95 IVHS Corridor Coalition administrator,
Maryland State Highway Administration 572
Prepared statement 575
Kaufinan, Dr. Art, president, H Power Corp 321
Prepared statement 333
Kolstad, James L., Acting Chairman, National Transportation Safety Board,
letter firom 484
McManus, Robert, Acting Administrator, Federal Transit Administration, De-
partment of Transportation 159
Prepared statement 247
Mead, Kenneth M., Director, Resoxirces, Community, and Economic Develop-
ment Division, General Accounting Office 39, 159, 501
Letter from 550
Prepared statements 41, 164, 507
Mikulski, Hon. Barbara A., U.S. Senator from Maryland 3
Mulvey, Dr. Frank, General Accounting Office 39
Peiia, Hon. Federico, Secretary of Transportation, Department of Transpor-
tation 699
Prepared statement 706
Salci, Larry, president, Texas TGV Corp 39
Prepared statement 71
Sasser, Hon. Jim, U.S. Senator from Tennessee, prepared statements 5,
161, 367, 503, 701
Smith, Charles H., manager, High-Speed Rail Projects, Florida Department
of Transportation 39
Prepared statement 86
Specter, Hon. Arlen, U.S. Senator frt)m Pennsylvania 68, 261, 718
Stanley, Harriet, principal, The Hadley Group 103
Prepared statement 117
Stevens, Hon. Ted, U.S. Senator from Alaska 727
Sullivan, Dennis F., Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer,
National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) 1
Sweedler, Barry M., Director, Office of Safety Recommendations, National
Transportation Safety Board 365
Tvmila, Eugene, executive vice president. Transportation Manufacturing Corp .... 32 1
Prepared statement 338
Vogt, Carl W., Chairman, National Transportation Safety Board 365
Letter from 448
Prepared statement 369
Vranich, Joseph, executive director, High-Sp^ Rail Association 39
Prepared statement 53
Walsh, Tom, general manager, Portland Tri-Met 257
Prepared statement 263
SUBJECT INDEX
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
Page
Air Quality concerns, use of funding flexibility spurred by 511
Alaska-Canada Highway 537
CMAQ funds 580
Congestion management 539
Cross-modal investment decisions, improved tools needed to support 512
Demo projects:
Characteristics of 548
Exacerbate financial outlook 510
GAO's criteria for selecting 531
Selection and funding of could be improved 509
Economic stimulus 519
Economic Stimulus Program 515
Electric transportation modes, the role of the Federal Government in support-
ing the introduction of 694
Eliminating highway/railroad crossings 535
Federal lands highways 536
Federal level, encouragement at 582
Federal-aid highways and MA/demo, funding equity between 531
Financing concerns dominate the highway spending horizon 508
FlexibUity 522,532
Flexible funding 567
Funding 520
Flexibility 507,514
Flexibility/transferability 516
Hindrances to flexibility 511
Source of 582
General implementation 513, 516
High-speed rail corridors 535
Highway:
Account's financial outlook is worsening 508
Demonstration projects 505
Finance 504
Need for stimulus funding 546
1-95 corridor coalition 572
Primary objective of 581
Implementation :
Obstacles to 569
Progress in 569
Increased revenue stream would safegaard highway financing 509
Intelligent vehicle/highway systems [fVHS] 514, 517
Alleviating congestion with 540
ISTEA's provisions for 572
Utilizing funding 541
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act [ISTEA]:
Changes in 525
Changes to 522
Flexibility provisions 524
Full funcUng of the authorization levels 526
Gains through 568
Little initial use of fiinding flexibility 511
(iii)
IV
Page
Other electric transportation projects under 695
Outlook for fiscal year 1994 515
Limiting MA and demo funds 538
Long-term investment program, fiscal year 1994 519
Management systems 518
Minimum allocation and ISTEA demo projects 529
Motor carrier safety activities 518
National highway system 513, 516, 543
National transportation system, the role of electricity in 693
Obligating highway demo fiinds 545
Obligation cefling:
Putting MA and demo projects under 548
Subjecting MA and demo funds to 530
Obligation limitation, including minimum allocation and ISTEA demos with-
in 562
Oregon highway need — Interstate 5 534
Outreach activities 517
Projects tjrpically do not meet top priorities and have limited payofiF 510
Resource constraints 523
State cooperation 582
States and MPO's, problems facing 579
Statewide and metropoUtan planning 514, 518
Stimulus funding, spend-out rates of 564
STP fiinds 581
Submitted questions 583
Federal Transit Administration
Bus capital increases 186
Capital:
Expansion needs 166
Maintenance needs 166
Requirements estimates 240
States' share of investment 253
Support of investment for maintenance and operations 188
City buses, alternate energy systems for 342
Current needs and projections 249
Economic stimulus proposal, APTA supports the 186
Encouraging alternative fuels 255
Existing Dus and rail facilities, modernization of 188
Existing services, new vehicle needs for 188
Farebox, operating expenses covered by 315
Federal mandates, meeting the cost of 189
Federal role 244
Fixed-guideway new starts and extensions 188
Formma program increases 186
Increased transit investment, the need for 242
Increasing expenses, areas of 316
ITS needs projections, FTA needs to make short- and long-term improvements
to 167
Larger transit systems, what is needed to help 317
Long-term investment needs 187
Medivmi and small city transit services 319
New bus facilities 188
Operating needs 165
Valimty of projections 251
Other capital investment needs 188
Promoting research and development 343
Remote areas, transit needs of 252
Ridership, reasons for decline in 315
Short- and long-term needs 243
Submitted questions 346
Transit:
Decline of American manufacturers in field 344
Different definitions of needs caused FTA's, AASHTO's and APTA's needs
projections to vary 165
Funding source jeopardized 189
V
Page
Needs may increase beyond the projections 166
Needs projections vary widely 165
Vehicle rehabilitation 189
Office of the Secretary
Ap^ng edrcraft 742
Aircraft noise 736
Airline slots 719
Alaska, proposal for a new ferry in 727
Allocating new starts funds 726
Amtrak:
Self-sufficiency 745
Supplemental 746
Aviation programs 709
Bilateral aviation agreement, London discussions on 712
Budget themes 704
Coast Guard:
Defense funding for 732
Demands on 734
Military functions of 733
Defective truck brakes 738
DOT aircraft 730
FAA facilities and equipment 735
Ferry, funding for unique features of 729
Fiscal year 1994 budget, reductions in 713
High-speed rail 740
Intercity rail projects, ISTEA funds for 739
Local rail freight assistance:
Benefits of 722
Lack of funding for 721
Maglev 741
Maritime proerams 710
Motor fuels, deficit-reduction tax on 743
Nonessential aircraft use, DOT review focused on 731
Other DOT programs 710
Procurement decisions, user input for 727
Procurement process 724
Promoting exports 718
Reduction tareets 716
Reinventing Government 714
Specific budget requests 705
Staffing reductions 714
Submitted questions 746
Surface programs 708
Technology development 717
Transit new starts 723
Priorities 725
Transportation programs, deficiency in 711
Travel 715
Truck safety 737
.Truckdrivers' hours of service 739
Trucks, radar detectors in 738
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD
Accident tmd recommendation response 368
Aircraft ice contamination 387
Airplane deicing 370
Anniston, AL/GP express 372
Aviation 370
Accidents 368
Statistics 381
Cruise ship safety 417, 418, 419
Deicing 388
Drunk driving legislation 385
Electronic devices, navigational interference fix)m 417
Escort vessels 377
VI
Page
Excess flow valves 378
FAA ice contamination regulations 387
Fishing vessel safety 377
Flight attendant training and performance 372
Foreign investigations 373
General aviation 374
Icing 388
Hazardous materials transportation 378
Heavy trucks, brake standards for 376
Highway 375
Accidents 368
Limited-visibility 376
Indiana commuter train collision 375
Intercity buses 376
Management oversight and worker training 375
Marine 377
Military gas pipeline systems 378
"Most wanted" 369
Safety issues 421
National Minimum Drinking Age Act 385
NTSB staff commitment 381
Ongoing mtyor aviation accident investigations 372
Other rail accidents 375
Pegasus launch investigation 373
Pipeline 377
Piper Malibu/Mirage aircraft 374
Icing of 417
Railroad 374
Republic of China, NTSB trip to 419, 421, 422
Selected ongoing investigations 375
Sightseeing flight operations 371
State and local initiatives 379
Submitted questions 422
Summary, 1992 370
Tank truck rollovers 376
Transportation fatalities in 1992 370
Twenty-fifth anniversary 368
Underage:
Drinking and driving 377
Drunk drivers 386
Drunk driving 382, 383, 384
United Airlines Flight 811/Boeing 747 372
United Airlines/Colorado Springs, CO 371
Work zones 376
NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (AMTRAK)
Addressing liability concerns 14
Administration's high-speed rail proposal 28
America's railroads seek to enhance passenger service 25
Amtrak:
Fiscal year 1994 grant request 15, 17
Northeast high-speed rafl improvement project 11
Costs, potential for high-speed to cover 30
Credit issues 108
Current high-speed rail studies 87
Economic ^nents 78
Employment impacts „, 72
Executive summary 25
Feasibility studies 87
Federal assistance 79
Federal involvement to date 49
Funding high-speed rail development 13
Gas tax revenues, allocation of 29
Government funding, source of 107
High-speed passenger corridors, summary of costs for developing existing
freight railroad tracks for 13
vu
Page
ffigh-Speed Rail Act, 1992 87
High-speed rail:
Eliminating roadblocks to 20
Equipment development 12
Fvmaing and maglev systems 94
Passenger and freight services: opportunities for partnership 25
Permit States to use right of way revolving funds for projects 73
Tax-exempt bond treatment for projects 74
Transportation trust fund accovmt 73
High-speed systems beyond incremental improvements will be expensive to
build 45
High-speed ground transportation [HSGT]:
Federal commitment to needed to encoxirage private investment 47
Federal Government needs to weigh carefully the benefits and costs of
before making major resource commitment 49
Performance and costs vary for different technologies 43
Questions to be addressed before increased commitment to 43
Several strategies could be pursued by the Federal Government to reduce
the riskiness of investments in 47
Legislative proposals, 1993 22
Maglev:
Demonstration project 88
Prototype development 89
MTI plan highlights 88
National Railroad Passenger Corporation 1993 Legislative Report 19
National transportation programs, the role of government in 106
Northeast corridor, progress so far limited to incremental improvements in .... 44
Passenger operations, mfferences in must be analyzed 25
Passenger rolling stock and onboard service 71
Passenger/freight partnerships require case-by-case review 26
Plan, overview of 78
Planning, feasibility, ridership and environmental studies as well as other
Federal mandates. Federal assistance for 73
Potential time savings 28
Private debt and equity capital 81
Private financial community views HSGT as a risky investment 46
Private sector financing 30
Project financing 79
Projects, need to interest investment community in 124
Public high-speed rail corridors, an American system based on 106
Fhiblic-private partnership 87
Required governmental action 81
Revenue sufficiency 105
Route alignment 71
Senior Grade Bond Insurance Program 73
Submitted questions 129
Ttix-exempt financing , 80
Technical fixes 108
Texas TGV can effectively Unk with long haul air operations 72
X2000 test, success of 27
O
BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY
3 9999 05981 845 8
ISBN 0-16-043223-5
9 780160"432231
90000
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11