Official US Government Icon

Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure Site Icon

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Testimony

In This Section

FTA Implementation of the New Starts and Small Starts Programs

Statement of

James S. Simpson
Administrator

Federal Transit Administration
U.S. Department of Transportation

Before the

Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
U.S. House of Representatives

FTA Implementation of the New Starts and Small Starts Programs

September 26, 2007

 

Good morning, Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Duncan, and Members of this Subcommittee.  Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the recent Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) New Starts and Small Starts programs, which are among the Federal government’s largest discretionary programs.  This Proposed Rule is intended to continue and strengthen our successful management of this important program.  Our goal for New Starts remains to deliver the best projects, on time and within budget, that realize the benefits projected.  At the same time, we want to streamline the New Starts process so that decisions are made more quickly and projects are delivered sooner.

As I testified in May, we believe FTA’s management of the New Starts program fosters highly successful Federal-local partnerships that benefit millions of Americans across the country on a daily basis, with additional transportation capacity and increased travel choices available to both transit riders and users of our Nation’s highway system.  At that time, I reported that we were focusing on continuous improvement of the New Starts program, by planning to implement a number of management changes and by issuing the NPRM which is the subject of this hearing.  I am pleased to report today that we have made substantial progress on these process improvements.  In addition, the NPRM proposes to codify a number of regulatory improvements to the New Starts process that we have already implemented as policy.

New Starts Program Status

Since the passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, FTA has provided nearly $13.7 billion in New Starts funds to help build 27 light rail, 19 commuter and heavy rail, and a number of streetcar, bus, and other transit projects with total project costs of approximately $41.8 billion.  Since June 2006, FTA has executed 6 Full Funding Grant Agreements (FFGAs) with a Federal share of $3.42 billion, and total project costs of approximately $10 billion.  Our most recent FFGA, with the Tri- County Metropolitan Transportation District for the Portland, Oregon, I-205/Downtown Mall Light Rail Transit project, was executed on June 19, 2007.  On August 1, 2007, we transmitted an FFGA for the Norfolk Light Rail project to Congress for 60-day review and on September 18, we transmitted an FFGA for the Second Avenue Subway project in New York City to Congress.

In its May 10, 2007 report, the U.S. Government Accountability Office reiterated that our New Starts evaluation process “could serve as a model for other transportation programs.”  The NPRM we are discussing today continues our efforts to ensure that we make the best investment choices and provide strong oversight. Granted, we have some work to do in streamlining the Small Starts application and implementing other changes in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act:  A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), but the New Starts program remains the gold standard of Federal funding programs.  FTA’s current portfolio of projects under construction, which total $21.5 billion in project costs, is being managed to within 0.5 percent of the FFGA baseline and cost estimates; this demonstrates that our processes are working.  The challenge of producing accurate travel forecasts remains significant, as our forthcoming Contractor Performance Report will indicate, even as we have seen recent improvements.  While we have done well in the post-FFGA world, it is clear that we need to increase our focus on improving the accuracy of traffic and revenue forecasts in order to ensure that Federal transit investments are cost beneficial.  Improving the reliability of project cost and benefit estimates will help ensure that Federal investment in transit is directed to the most worthwhile projects and also improves the information available to support local decision-making.  The result is successful projects that ultimately foster Federal and local commitment to additional investment in transit.

Progress in New Starts Process Improvements

As I testified last May, FTA strives for continuous process improvement, quality, and increased customer satisfaction.  At that time, we had just completed our New Starts Process Review conducted by Deloitte Consulting, LLP, and were beginning to implement several of its recommendations.  The Report made a series of recommendations in each of four general areas: project development and evaluations processes; New Starts process management; FTA’s organizational structure; and, improved communications.  Let me briefly describe our progress to date in each area.

With respect to streamlining project development and evaluation processes, in our June 2007 Final Policy Guidance on New Starts and Small Starts, FTA eliminated a number of New Starts reporting requirements, including, for many projects, the need to re-report any criteria on an annual basis.  Second, as part of the NPRM to be discussed in more detail later, we are proposing the use of Project Development Agreements under which a New Starts project sponsor and FTA would agree to key project development deliverables and schedule and clarify FTA and local expectations for demonstrating project development progress.  Third, FTA unveiled a program of guidance and training in project risk management.  Finally, FTA has made significant progress in implementing the Public-Private-Partnership Pilot Program, by selecting three projects in which to participate. We believe Penta-P will be a successful extension of the Federal-local partnership, which can result in more efficient Federal investments in new major public transit capital projects. 

New Starts process management improvements are exemplified by our recent publication of several important new industry guidance documents.  These include methods to capture previously unmeasured benefits in local travel forecasting procedures and a Preliminary Engineering “checklist,” which clarifies in one source document, the distinct requirements for advancing projects into this project development stage.  Further, FTA released the first set in a series of New Starts “fact sheets” – one page synopses geared to local policymakers and agency staff alike.  These fact sheets describe the guiding principles supporting New Starts activities, including project development, evaluation, technical competencies, and FTA requirements.  Finally, FTA is implementing a pilot internet-based case management system designed to respond to the need for better tracking of project deliverables, FTA review periods, FTA comments and direction, and grantee responses to that direction.

The third theme focuses on FTA’s own organizational structure.  FTA has made substantial progress in implementing the “New Starts Team” concept, designed to bring together technical and programmatic resources to deliver responsive technical assistance and to bring a “problem-solving” attitude to the implementation of our program.  We recently published internal standard operating procedures for the New Starts Teams and earlier this month provided training to key members of the New Starts Teams from Headquarters and the Regional Offices on a wide range of New Starts program operational issues.  This training included over 60 staff from FTA Regional Offices, making it the largest internal meeting the agency has held in almost 10 years.

Finally, we have made significant progress in improving communications with program stakeholders.  Many of FTA’s initiatives, such as enhanced guidance, FTA procedural and technical requirements and expectations training, a transparent New Starts case management system, and clearer lines of FTA responsibility contribute to improved communications.  During this year, we continued the popular “New Starts Roundtable” discussions with transit agency staff and will be conducting extensive outreach on the New Starts NPRM. 

Development of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Final Rule

As you know, FTA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on New Starts and Small Starts in the Federal Register on August 3, 2007.  This document represents the culmination of a significant effort to obtain input from key stakeholders.  The issuance of the NPRM is consistent with requirements in SAFETEA-LU for FTA to provide notice of any changes in policy or procedures in general, and in the New Starts program in particular.  Accordingly, on January 19, 2006, FTA published a Federal Register Notice of Proposed New Starts Policy Guidance that included as Part 2 a series of key questions that would become the subject of this NPRM.  Because of the wide range of issues that needed to be addressed in some detail on the new Small Starts program, on January 30, 2006, FTA published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on Small Starts.  FTA provided further opportunity for public involvement by holding three listening sessions (in San Francisco, Fort Worth, and Washington, D.C.) in February and March of 2006. 

FTA received over 70 written comments on the draft of the New Starts Policy Guidance and its related policy issues and over 90 comments on the Small Starts ANPRM.  In response, on May 22, 2006, FTA published final New Starts Policy Guidance and FY 2008 Reporting Instructions for the New Starts program. FTA is also providing further responses to these comments in this NPRM.   After a period of public review and comment, FTA published additional policy guidance on June 4, 2007, which included the aforementioned streamlined reporting of the New Starts criteria for annual evaluation.

I would note that we are planning extensive outreach on the NPRM we have just issued.  We have already held two outreach sessions (in Los Angeles and Denver) and one is being held in Chicago today.  Two more outreach sessions are scheduled, one in Washington, D.C., on October 2, 2007, and a final session, in coordination with the American Public Transportation Association’s Annual Meeting in Charlotte, N.C., next week.  At these sessions, FTA staff will provide further explanation of our NPRM and related proposed evaluation measures, and invite public comment to the docket, which closes on November 1, 2007.

Once the docket closes, we plan on closely examining the comments we have received.  Given the apparent stakeholder interest on this topic, and on the NPRM itself, we expect that it will take some time to carefully consider input and to prepare a Final Rule.  We expect that the Final Rule will be issued some time in 2008.

Summary of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

The NPRM implements the changes made in the New Starts Program and in the establishment of the Small Starts Program, as provided for in SAFETEA-LU.  Key features include:

  • Formal establishment of a streamlined Small Starts program for projects requesting less than $75 million in Federal Capital Program funds and with a total cost of not more than $250 million;
  • Codification of an even-more-streamlined Very Small Starts program for projects costing less than $50 million which have certain characteristics;
  • Making substantial bus corridor improvements (like Bus Rapid Transit) eligible for Small Starts funds;
  • Full consideration of all statutory project justification criteria (including the land use and economic development benefits of New Starts projects);
  • Enhanced attention to the congestion mitigation impacts of New Starts projects; and
  • Continued emphasis on assuring that only cost-effective projects are recommended for Federal funding.

Small Start and Very Small Starts

The Small Starts program is a significant departure from the traditional New Starts program, which has long required as a defining feature of eligibility a “fixed guideway,” that is, either an exclusive or semi-exclusive transit right-of-way or in-street rail operations.  SAFETEA-LU established the Small Starts program to advance lower-cost fixed guideway and non-fixed guideway projects such as bus rapid transit, streetcars, and commuter rail projects through an expedited and streamlined evaluation and rating process.  Many of the Small Starts program features included in the NPRM were initiated in the Interim Guidance on Small Starts that we issued in August 2006.  For example, the NPRM provides details on requisite features of a non-fixed guideway project in order for a project to qualify.  Small Starts project justification includes only cost effectiveness and two measures of project effectiveness: land use and economic development benefits and mobility.  Project justification may be made based on simplified travel demand forecasts based on year of opening, rather than a complex, twenty-year forecast.  Local financial commitment is assessed based on a short-term financial plan that demonstrates the capacity to build and operate the proposed project, again in the first years of operation.    

In the Interim Guidance issued in August 2006, FTA introduced a project concept called “Very Small Starts.”  The NPRM proposes to continue this approach for simple, low-risk projects.  These types of projects would qualify for a highly simplified project evaluation and rating process by FTA.  A project would be required to be a bus, rail or ferry project, contain certain features and have a total project cost of less than $50 million.  Such projects, by their nature, have sufficient benefits to rate well without further analysis.

Project Justification and Local Financial Commitment Criteria

A key feature of the New Starts portion of the NPRM is the consideration of all of the project justification criteria pred for in SAFETEA-LU.  In recent years, while FTA has gathered and reported information on all of the criteria, only cost-effectiveness and land use have been weighed in assessing overall project justification.  The NPRM changes this by reorganizing the justification criteria into cost-effectiveness and several measures of effectiveness (land use and economic development benefits, mobility improvements, and environmental benefits) and by clarifying that operating efficiencies are covered by cost-effectiveness.

In doing so, FTA expands the evaluation of the economic development benefits of proposed New Starts and Small Starts projects in a new combined measure of land use and economic development benefits.  FTA continues to believe tht it is extremely difficult to discern economic development benefits from land use benefits.  FTA’s current measures for transit supportive land use do, in fact, qualitatively capture the potential for economic development in a New Starts corridor.  However, the NPRM provides an opportunity for input on how we might better distinguish between land use and economic development effects of transit investments.  We have engaged a consultant to assist us in this matter and to provide us with technical advice on how to improve our approach to measuring these important benefits.  Finally, the NRPM continues to include an assessment of transit supportive land use policies and patterns, which is a current part of our evaluation criteria, as part of the assessment of the reliability of the project justification evaluation.

While we believe that the approach we have proposed for evaluation of the land use and economic development benefits of proposed investments is workable, it would be desirable to develop approaches that could measure these benefits more directly.  At present, our measure of effectiveness includes the mobility benefits attributable to the proposed transit project, and hence forms the core of our analysis of cost-effectiveness.  However, that measure is necessarily limited to those benefits which can be reliably measured using well-defined travel demand models.  The NRPM includes a question seeking input on how FTA might implement improved measures of project merit that would include the land use and economic development benefits more directly.

The NPRM continues our current approach for evaluating local financial commitment.  Project sponsors must develop financial plans that indicate sufficient resources to build and operate the proposed project, as well as to maintain and operate the transit system as a whole.  For New Starts projects, the financial plan must cover a 20 year planning horizon.  For Small Starts projects, the plan can cover the period up through revenue service, which reflects the smaller scale, and relative simplicity of these projects.  The NPRM continues to emphasize the importance of the amount of the local financial contribution, providing a higher rating for those projects which overmatch the Federal investment, thus continuing our longstanding practice of rewarding those projects which help leverage the scarce Federal investment dollar, allowing for more worthy projects to be funded with Federal support.

Traffic congestion is a major issue in the urban areas where New Starts projects are being considered.  When investments in transit are made in coordination with congestion reduction plans that include effective road pricing strategies, we believe such projects have greater potential to relieve road congestion.  Accordingly, the NPRM proposes to consider the relationship of the project to road pricing strategies as an “other factor” in evaluating project justification.  In addition, the NPRM includes evaluation of the congestion reduction potential of the proposed investment in the assessment of the mobility benefits of the project.  Finally, the NPRM asks for input into how FTA could include highway system user benefits as part of the measure of mobility improvements counted in calculating the cost-effectiveness of the proposed project.  While the definition of “user benefits” is proposed to continue to include such benefits, FTA has not been able to do so because the forecasts of such benefits have not been consistent or reliable.  Input on this topic, as well as research DOT will initiate on this topic, could provide a basis to include these benefits in our calculations.

While cost-effectiveness is only one portion of the project justification criteria, the NPRM proposes to make permanent our current policy of recommending for funding only those projects which rate at least “medium” on this measure.  Projects that have lower cost-effectiveness ratings may continue through the project development process and be approved for Preliminary Engineering and Final Design, in order that they have an opportunity to continue project development.  Such projects could either find ways to reduce costs or improve on the benefits forecast, and thus qualify for a funding recommendation, or to develop an alternative financing plan which would not involve New Starts funds (but could use other FTA formula funds, flexible Title 23 funds, or local funds).  However, we would not expect such projects to receive Full Funding Grant Agreements (for New Starts) or Project Construction Grant Agreements (for Small Starts).

We believe that it is appropriate to include this requirement in the NPRM and Final Rule since cost-effectiveness is the only measure that compares a project’s benefits to its costs.  The measure of effectiveness we use—user benefits—is an objective, quantifiable measure of benefits.  It is based on the same travel models that forecast the project’s ridership and that support the metropolitan planning process.  User benefits are made up of travel time savings and other less tangible benefits such as improved reliability and predictability, ride quality, sheltered waiting and other comfort and convenience factors.  User benefits are a good surrogate measure for other benefits such as improved accessibility and mobility (the more travel time savings which can be measured the more accessible certain locations become).  User benefits also can reflect the propensity for increases in property values (which is likely to occur based on how much more accessible certain locations become). 

Our assessment of cost-effectiveness essentially considers such other benefits as mobility improvements, environmental benefits, congestion reduction, and land use and economic development to be directly proportional to the user benefits we measure.  A project with a high rating on cost-effectiveness almost always has high ratings on other factors such as mobility improvements and environmental benefits, in particular.

Conclusion

Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Duncan, and Members of this Subcommittee, FTA is committed to the New Starts and Small Starts programs.  We believe that the NPRM we have issued provides a good basis on which to make continued improvements to the management of this important program.  We remain committed to streamlining project delivery while providing strong project management oversight.  We strive to bring good projects in on-time and within budget.  We are enhancing customer service through improved communications.  We look forward to working with Congress on these and other issues facing our Nation’s public transportation system.  I will be happy to respond to your questions. 

 

FTA Implementation of the New Starts and Small Starts Programs

Statement of

James S. Simpson
Administrator

Federal Transit Administration
U.S. Department of Transportation

Before the

Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
U.S. House of Representatives

FTA Implementation of the New Starts and Small Starts Programs

May 10, 2007

 

Good morning, Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Duncan, and Members of this Subcommittee.  Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) New Starts and Small Starts programs, which are among the Federal government’s largest discretionary programs.  When the New Starts program was last evaluated by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the program received the highest rating among 62 competitive Federal grant programs.  The Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Department of Transportation Office of the Inspector General have lauded our management of the program as one of the government’s most rigorous.

At this time, FTA also would like to thank GAO for its annual review of the New Starts program.  Over the years, we have cultivated a good working relationship with GAO representatives and have taken into account many of the findings and recommendations in past reports as we manage the program.

FTA’s management of the New Starts program fosters highly successful Federal-local partnerships that positively impact millions of Americans across the country on a daily basis – both transit riders and users of our Nation’s highway system who benefit from additional transportation capacity.  Communities across the country count on public transportation systems to provide a reliable alternative to congested highways and highway users who fund large percentages of the costs of public transportation expect these systems to be integrated with highway policies.  For example, the Texas Transportation Institute estimates that without public transportation, the cost of lost time and wasted fuel on our Nation’s highways would be nearly $20 billion more every year. New Starts and Small Starts investments can be particularly effective when utilized in connection with a highway congestion reduction strategy.  In addition, millions of Americans who lack access to an automobile need public transportation for their basic mobility needs.  And, public transportation contributes to economic development, air quality, and other local goals and objectives. 

Strong Project Management Oversight Program

Since the passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, FTA has provided nearly $17 billion in New Starts funds to help build 27 light rail, 19 commuter and heavy rail, and a number of streetcar, bus, and other transit projects with total project costs of approximately $37 billion.  Since June 2006, FTA has executed 5 Full Funding Grant Agreements (FFGAs) having a Federal share of $3.42 billion, with total project costs of approximately $10 billion.  On April 12 of this year, FTA sent Congress a 60-day notification of our intent to execute an FFGA with the Tri County Metropolitan Transit District for the Portland, Oregon, I-205/Downtown Mall Light Rail Transit project.  Even as we execute more FFGA’s, FTA has increased its commitment to the sound management of these limited Federal resources.  We understand the pressures and anticipation that local communities face as they plan, develop, and construct major transit capital investments.  We also know that schedule delays may result in increased costs.  However, the costs to taxpayers that result when proper oversight is not provided can be much greater.  It is imperative that FTA continue to provide strong and on-going oversight in order to mitigate this risk. 

FTA believes it is making good investment choices and our oversight program supports our decision-making process.  FTA’s current portfolio of projects under construction totals $21.5 billion in project costs, and FTA is managing costs to within 0.5 percent of the FFGA baseline and cost estimates.  We have achieved this success through a close working relationship with New Starts project sponsors, and by providing oversight, technical assistance and risk management.  FTA helps local sponsors identify risks in cost estimates and schedule assumptions early on, and develop strategies to minimize and manage these risks as projects proceed through design and construction.  FTA has made significant investments in oversight resources to carry out these activities.  Likewise, we have invested heavily in tools, techniques, and training to help local agencies better estimate the ridership and travel time savings anticipated by their proposed New Starts projects, and to better understand the travel markets that benefit from the proposed investment.

FTA oversight is paying off for the transit program.  Travel forecasting methods are much improved.  Improving the reliability of project cost and benefit estimates helps ensure that Federal investment in transit is directed to the most worthwhile projects and also improves the information available to support local decision-making.  The result is successful projects that ultimately foster Federal and local commitment to additional investment in transit.

New Starts Program Assessment and Resultant Improvements

FTA strives for continuous process improvement, quality, and increased customer satisfaction.  As a result, we undertook the further step last summer of engaging an international business and management consulting firm to review our New Starts process.  That firm, Deloitte Consulting, LLP, reviewed and assessed every aspect of the New Starts competitive process from organizational structure and operations to improved project delivery.  The Deloitte report is organized around four general themes, i.e., streamlining project development and evaluations processes; New Starts process management; FTA’s organizational structure; and, improved communications.

The Deloitte report first discusses streamlining project development and evaluation processes, i.e., how FTA can move projects faster, reduce reporting requirements, and shorten, or at least standardize, review times.  On this front, we are happy to report on some short-term measures that we are prepared to implement in the coming weeks, and some longer-term opportunities we intend to flesh out in the near future.  As first outlined in our February 2007 Proposed Policy Guidance on New Starts and Small Starts, FTA proposed eliminating a number of New Starts reporting requirements, including, for many projects, the need to re-report any criteria on an annual basis.  New Starts stakeholders voiced support for this idea through the public comment process, and we will address their comments in the final New Starts Policy Guidance, which we will issue in the very near future.  In terms of improving FTA response times, the Deloitte group endorsed the Project Development Agreement – or PDA – a concept that we have encouraged the industry to consider for some time.  Under a PDA, the New Starts project sponsor and FTA would agree to a delivery schedule, a review of key project development deliverables, and clarify FTA and local expectations for demonstrating project development progress.  Both parties to the agreement would be held accountable for the advancement of candidate New Starts projects.  FTA looks forward to working with project sponsors on such agreements.

In addition, FTA is looking at ways to more efficiently address project development risk, such as the potential for cost overruns and schedule delays.  One way is to incorporate risk management into the project development process, and we are happy to report to you that in the next several weeks FTA will be unveiling a robust program of guidance and training in project risk management.  A second way is to encourage alternative project delivery methods, including various public private partnership delivery methods commonly utilized in the highway sector around the world such as design build, design build operate and maintain agreements, and long term concessions. FTA’s Public-Private-Partnership Pilot Program – or Penta-P – acknowledges this transfer of risk from the public to the private sector with the advantage of streamlined FTA oversight requirements.  Under Penta-P, FTA will remove the private sector investment in a proposed New Starts project from its cost effectiveness calculation to the extent the terms of such investment provide powerful incentives for more efficient operations and management of a project.  The investment of private capital in major transit capital projects is likely to improve the accuracy of cost and ridership projections used to justify public investment in such projects.  We believe Penta-P will be a successful extension of the Federal-local partnership, resulting in more efficient Federal investments in new major capital projects. 

A second theme found in the Deloitte report is New Starts process management.  In this regard, Deloitte recommended that FTA develop and better integrate meaningful program performance measures into its strategic business plan, which we are actively considering.  Deloitte also recommended that FTA improve upon its industry guidance.  The development of major transit capital investment projects is a complex endeavor, often among the largest and most technically challenging public infrastructure efforts undertaken in many urban areas.  FTA possesses considerable technical expertise in this area and has developed a number of guidance documents available on its website, as well as training opportunities in such topics as alternatives analysis, travel forecasting, and construction management.  In addition to the risk management initiative, FTA is developing technical guidance on capturing previously unmeasurable benefits in local travel forecasting procedures.  Both efforts will result in better New Starts project cost and benefit estimates.

Deloitte further recommended that FTA develop guidance that clarifies and simplifies its procedural requirements for advancing projects through the New Starts project development process.   FTA agrees, and is responding to this recommendation.  In addition to the New Starts Policy Guidance and updated New Starts Criteria Reporting Instructions, FTA plans to publish Preliminary Engineering and Final Design “checklists,” clarifying, in one source document, the distinct requirements for advancing projects into each project development stage.  Also, in the coming weeks, FTA will clarify guidance on the New Starts baseline alternative, including substantial streamlining in the baseline development and approval process; issue final guidance on the Before and After study and the first set in a series of New Starts “fact sheets” – one page synopses geared to local policymakers and agency staff alike - of the guiding principles supporting the myriad of New Starts activities, including project development, evaluation, technical competencies, and FTA requirements.  The industry can expect even more guidance in the months ahead.  

To further improve the New Starts management process, FTA is implementing more efficient and transparent management systems to facilitate project development delivery reviews.  Technology will play a large role in this endeavor.  FTA is engaged in its own “alternatives analysis” of several internet-based case management systems designed to respond to the need for project tracking, tracking of project deliverables, FTA review periods, FTA comments and direction, and accountability for that direction – in essence, the writing of a project development history, at least in terms of FTA involvement and its significant milestone approvals.   Importantly, this system will be open and available to project sponsors, so that they can be assured that FTA is delivering timely reviews and technical assistance.

The third theme in the Deloitte report focuses on FTA’s own organizational structure.  FTA has dedicated staff serving both a national program in Washington, DC and its implementation arm(s) in 10 regional and 5 metropolitan offices across the country.  As part of our stewardship responsibilities, we work hard to ensure that all New Starts project sponsors are provided the same level of agency support, and that their projects compete on a level playing field.  We endeavor to optimize employee skill sets in program administration.  We also strive to improve upon the stakeholder service that we take such pride in.  To that end, FTA is implementing the “New Starts Team” concept, designed to bring together technical and programmatic resources to deliver responsive technical assistance and to bring a “problem-solving” attitude to the implementation of our program.  Essentially, New Starts project sponsors are paired with a “New Starts Team,” whose primary point of contact resides in the FTA Regional Office. Both the project sponsor and the FTA Regional Office can rely on transit planners, environmental specialists, engineers, and other resources in headquarters to provide timely technical support, reviews and responses to questions.  FTA is developing internal standard operating procedures for the New Starts Teams and then will issue guidance on the range of New Starts Teams’ services and the process for working with the Teams.

The fourth theme evident in the Deloitte report is the need for improved communications with program stakeholders.  At this juncture, I would like to note our close working relationship with Congress on the New Starts process and the status of individual projects.  We have a monthly New Starts conference call with House and Senate Committee staffs during which we provide individual project updates and discuss notable problems or policy changes.  We have found this to be an invaluable tool in keeping Congress apprised of project status and policy updates.

In addition, we communicate with Congress in writing before each New Starts project proceeds to the next stage of development.  Before a project proceeds into Preliminary Engineering, Final Design, or Project Development, we provide Congress with a 10 day notice and a short description of the project.  Prior to signing an FFGA, we provide Congress with a 60 day notice, an in-depth briefing and a copy of the agreement and supporting documentation.   It is certainly our desire to make the New Starts process as transparent as possible and having a close working relationship with Congress is a key component of that goal.

Aside from our discussions with Congress, many of FTA’s initiatives mentioned in my testimony, such as enhanced guidance, training on FTA procedural and technical requirements and expectations, a transparent New Starts case management system, and clearer lines of FTA responsibility for key aspects of the program, certainly contribute to improved communications.  We also will perform more stakeholder outreach, which will include the popular “New Starts Roundtable” discussions with transit agency staff. 

Small Starts

The Small Starts program is a significant departure from the traditional New Starts program, which has long required as a defining feature of eligibility a “fixed guideway,” that is, either an exclusive or semi-exclusive transit right-of-way or in-street rail operations.  Communities with low population densities are often unable to successfully compete in the New Starts process because travel markets inherent to such areas generally do not justify investment in complex fixed guideway systems.  And yet, certain transit investments in these communities often require more funding than can be generated locally or provided under FTA’s discretionary bus program.  In addition, we have found that project sponsors often avoided less-costly public transportation projects because New Starts funds were limited to fixed guideway investments.  For these reasons, SAFETEA-LU established the Small Starts program to advance lower-cost fixed guideway and non-fixed guideway projects such as bus rapid transit, streetcars, and commuter rail projects through an expedited and streamlined evaluation and rating process.  

Subsequent to the passage of SAFETEA-LU, FTA introduced a project concept called “Very Small Starts.”  These projects are simple, low-risk projects that qualify for a highly simplified project evaluation and rating process by FTA.  A project must be a bus, rail or ferry project, contain certain features and have a total project cost of less than $50 million.  Such projects, by their nature, have sufficient benefits to rate well without further analysis. 

Interest in the Small Starts program is growing, but until recently there were not enough eligible projects to justify the authorized funding levels.  That looks to be changing, however.  In addition to the four projects that the Administration recommended for funding in the President’s FY 2008 budget request, FTA is working with several potential Small Starts project sponsors on preparing a request for entry into project development.  FTA may recommend any one of these projects for FY 2008 funding.  With your support, Mr. Chairman, and the support of the Subcommittee members, I am confident that we can administer a robust Small Starts program during this reauthorization period.

Guidance and Regulations

In early 2006, FTA issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on the Small Starts program and draft policy guidance on the New Starts program to seek public input for later development of a notice of proposed rulemaking  (NPRM).  Over the next several months, FTA held a number of outreach sessions to discuss these two documents.  Given the complexity of the issues involved and the level of interest in both the New Starts and Small Starts programs, the comments we received were extensive.  FTA has worked diligently to review and reconcile the comments, and we hope to soon issue an NPRM for both the New Starts and Small Starts programs. 

In the meantime, FTA issued final New Starts Policy Guidance in May 2006 and an Interim Guidance on the Small Starts program, including Very Small Starts, in July 2006.  Both documents are intended to guide the development and advancement of New Starts and Small Starts until issuance of a final regulation or subsequent policy guidance in the next few months, followed by a final rule sometime in 2008. 

Conclusion

Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Duncan, and Members of this Subcommittee, FTA is committed to the New Starts and Small Starts programs.  The Deloitte report provides FTA with an independent process review and assessment of the programs and we are implementing many of the firm’s recommendations.  We are committed to streamlining project delivery while providing strong project management oversight.  We strive to bring good projects in on-time and within budget.  We are enhancing customer service through improved communications and are eager to provide program guidance and establish regulatory requirements for both these programs.  We look forward to working with Congress on these and other issues facing our Nation’s public transportation system.  I will be happy to respond to your questions.

 

Green Transportation Infrastructure: Challenges to Access and Implementation

Statement of

Gloria M. Shepherd,
Associate Administrator

Office of Planning, Environment, & Realty
Federal Highway Administration
United States Department of Transportation

Hearing on

"Green Transportation Infrastructure: Challenges to Access and Implementation"

Before the

Committee on Science and Technology
Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation
United States House of Representatives

May 10, 2007

 

Chairman Wu, Ranking Member Gingrey, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today about the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) efforts to advance environmentally sensitive transportation infrastructure.  FHWA is fostering a continued shift in the focus of the highway community from simply mitigating environmental impacts to actively contributing to environmental improvements.  In fulfilling this responsibility, we work closely with our partners at the Federal, State, and local levels to provide a coordinated national research agenda and deliver research results through training and technical assistance

Following the direction provided by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), FHWA and the State departments of transportation (DOTs) have become proactive partners in the environmental area.  The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) expanded the focus of environmental considerations from project development, construction, and operations, to the area of transportation planning.  SAFETEA-LU also contains a number of provisions to improve coordination between transportation and resource agencies.  Minimizing damage from, and mitigating negative impacts of, transportation facilities on the human and natural environments are always significant considerations for every Federal-aid funded highway project, from the initial planning and design stages, through development and construction, to operation and maintenance.

Our State partners are learning from experience that introducing environmentally sound technologies and construction practices early in project development can produce savings in costs and in time to completion, and can reduce future remediation expenses.  FHWA and its partners have made substantial contributions to the natural environment and to communities, through planning and programs that support context sensitive solutions, stormwater management, beneficial reuse of industrial byproducts materials, wetland banking, habitat restoration, historic preservation, air quality improvements, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, wildlife crossings, and public and tribal government involvement in transportation project development.

FHWA will continue to support these programs while it also works with State, local, and Federal partners to conduct sound environmental reviews in a timely way. With prompt decision-making, we routinely reduce project cost escalation, ease congestion, and deliver the transportation and safety improvements that the American public expects.

Research Programs for Environmentally Sound Practices and Technologies

Working with its partners, FHWA supports a research and technology program that is focused on developing and implementing an environmentally sensitive transportation program.

State Planning and Research (SP&R) Program.  Section 505 of title 23, United States Code, requires that States set aside 2 percent of the apportionments from the Interstate Maintenance, National Highway System, Surface Transportation, Highway Safety Improvement, Highway Bridge, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement, and Equity Bonus programs for State planning and research activities.  Of this amount, States must allocate 25 percent for research, development, and technology, unless the State certifies that transportation planning expenditures will require more than 75 percent of the amount set aside.  In fiscal year 2006, the set aside amounted to almost $600 million and, thus, provided almost $150 million for the State Planning and Research (SP&R) Program.  SP&R-funded  activities involve researching new areas of knowledge, adapting findings to practical applications by developing new technologies, transferring the technologies, and training the users of the technologies.

The SP&R Program is intended to solve problems identified by the States.  State DOTs are encouraged to establish research, development, and training programs that anticipate and address transportation concerns before they become critical problems.  Each State must implement a program that ensures effective use of available SP&R funds on a Statewide basis, and each State is permitted to tailor its program to meet local needs.  High priority is given to applied research on State or regional problems, transfer of technology from researcher to user, and research for setting standards and specifications.  Major research and development areas include infrastructure renewal (including pavement, structures, and asset management); activities relating to safety, operations, and management; environmental and real estate planning; and policy analysis and systems monitoring.

State DOTs have used SP&R funds for substantial research into regional stormwater issues and development of best management practices suitable for the particular issues in that locality or State.  An example of ongoing research related to stormwater at the State level is an "Investigation of Stormwater Quality Improvements Utilizing Permeable Pavement and/or Porous Friction Courses," which is being sponsored by the Texas DOT using SP&R funds.

Surface Transportation Environment and Planning Cooperative Research Program (STEP).  At the national level, FHWA currently administers environment and planning research funds under the STEP program created by SAFETEA-LU in section 5207.  STEP is intended to improve understanding of the complex relationship between surface transportation, planning, and the environment.  The program is authorized at $16.875 million per year for fiscal years 2006 through 2009.

Current initiatives propose research in areas related to planning, air quality, noise abatement, wetlands, vegetation management, wildlife connectivity, brownfields, and stormwater.  Some specific stormwater initiatives are the International Stormwater Best Management Practices Database, Evaluation and Update of FHWA Pollutant Loadings Model for Highway Stormwater Runoff, and Synthesis on the Fate and Effects of Chloride from Road Salt Applied to Highways for Deicing.  Other proposed research would examine tools such as Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and Global Positioning Systems (GPS) to better map important ecosystem features, including wildlife corridors and invasive plants, to improve our ability to recognize and address environmental concerns very early in the process of planning a project.

Center for Environmental Excellence.  In section 5309, SAFETEA-LU authorizes $1.25 million per year for fiscal years 2006 through 2009 to establish a Center for Environmental Excellence to provide technical assistance, information sharing of best practices, and training in the use of tools and decision-making processes that can assist States in planning and delivering environmentally sound surface transportation projects.  FHWA is currently reviewing proposals from universities and expects to announce the establishment of the new Center for Excellence shortly.

Infrastructure Research and Technology.  FHWA’s infrastructure research and technology programs also pursue initiatives with potential environmental benefits, including:

  • Cantilever construction of bridges, which keeps construction equipment out of the waterway.
  • Prefabricated technologies for construction and repair of infrastructure (bridges and pavements) and other accelerated construction technologies which reduce environmental impacts by (a) moving much of the construction process to controlled environments and (b) reducing the duration of damaging activities.
  • “Warm mix” technology for asphalt paving which reduces the temperature at which asphalt paving materials are manufactured and placed, thereby reducing both emissions and fuel consumption.  This technology also has the potential to increase the amount of recycled asphalt pavement that can be effectively used in the paving mixture.

FHWA promotes and supports the use of recycled materials in highway construction and, through our contractor, the Recycled Materials Resource Center, currently at the University of New Hampshire, we are making changes in the extent of use of several industrial by-product materials in highway construction.  FHWA also has an active Recycling Team that works with the States, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and industry to implement recycling technology. 

Funding for these initiatives comes from several sources, including the Innovative Pavement Research and Deployment Program and the Innovative Bridge Research and Deployment Program.  The Highways for LIFE program will also contribute to implementation of these technologies.

Research Coordination, Training and Technical Assistance, and Partnerships 

Coordination.  As more transportation and environmental research is being undertaken by a diverse array of organizations, there is a growing need for organized approaches that support well-crafted research agendas.  FHWA hosts, funds, or participates in various research coordination efforts.  FHWA’s STEP program is a cooperative research program, and stakeholders were extensively engaged in defining the research agenda and  identifying focus areas and projects.  In addition to FHWA's STEP program, National and State-level research programs of particular interest to State DOT transportation and environmental practitioners include the Strategic Highway Research Program Two (SHRP-2) led by the Transportation Research Board (TRB); the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) research programs, including the 25-25 research initiative, which provides funding for quick turnaround research by American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials' (AASHTO) Standing Committee on Environment; individual State DOTs’ research programs, which increasingly include environmental components that are often conducted in coordination with university partners; and university research, particularly practitioner-oriented research conducted by University Transportation Centers around the nation that receive funding authorized under SAFETEA-LU.

An additional key area of investment is the AASHTO Center for Environmental Excellence Transportation Environmental Research Ideas (TERI) Database.  TERI is a dynamic tool that helps practitioners keep track of and prioritize constantly evolving transportation and environmental research needs.

Training and Technical Assistance.  Important components of a coordinated research agenda are training and technical assistance.  FHWA is working with our partners at all levels to share research results and promote environmentally sound practices.

The FHWA's National Highway Institute (NHI) has developed courses addressing environmental issues associated with infrastructure construction, operation, and maintenance, including a number of courses relating to water quality and runoff.  Development of courses in these areas is coordinated with the appropriate Federal agencies--most often EPA, the United States Army Corps of Engineers, and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)--and with representatives of State DOTs.  Courses include "Design and Implementation of Erosion and Sediment Control," "Water Quality Management of Highway Runoff, and "Managing  Road Impacts on Stream Ecosystems: An Interdisciplinary Approach."  Attached to this statement is a summary of research related to stormwater runoff, directly carried out, funded, or supported by FHWA, which provides additional information on these courses.  (See Attachment - "Status of Current FHWA Water Quality Research.”)

FHWA will be developing a NHI short course entitled “Environmental Factors of Construction and Maintenance.”  The course is intended to familiarize construction teams with environmental concerns to be addressed as part of construction and maintenance operations.  The scope of work for the training has been prepared, and a request for proposals will be issued shortly.  This is the latest of several courses developed and offered by FHWA's NHI relating to water quality and runoff.  The Attachment also includes additional information on this course.

Technical assistance is also available through FHWA’s Resource Center technical teams and through the Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP) and Tribal Technical Assistance Program (TTAP).  The latter two organizations represent 58 centers that work directly with local agencies to transfer technology and train practitioners at city, town, county, and tribal levels.

In addition, FHWA has developed case studies to showcase best practices or innovative techniques.  Transportation enhancement funds have often been used for projects that improve the quality of highway stormwater runoff.  The Sebago Lake-Route 35 Environmental Mitigation in Standish, Maine; the Santa Monica Urban Runoff Recycling Facility; and the Rock Creek Watershed Restoration, Montgomery County, Maryland, are three examples of such projects showcased on our transportation enhancements website. 

We also showcase important water quality improvement projects or mitigation measures in our Environmental Excellence Awards Program and our Exemplary Ecosystem Initiatives.  An example is the Berthoud Pass Mountain Access Project in Colorado.  This project received the 2005 Environmental Excellence Award for Roadside Resource Management and Maintenance.  Prior to this project, the sediment and de-icing materials  needed for safety considerations on US. Highway 40, as it passed through the mountains in northwest Colorado, were pushed into the forest floor causing streams to fill up and clogging pipes.  Now, when Colorado DOT maintenance crews plow the highway in the winter, snow and sand travel through a sophisticated system of culverts and ditches to collect in a strategically placed concrete storage basin.  Once in the basins, the sand is allowed to settle out and clean water is released into the watershed below the highway.  Colorado DOT crews then recover the sand from sloped access ramps, and the process begins again.

Partnerships.  FHWA has actively supported a multi-agency effort to develop a non-prescriptive approach to making infrastructure more sensitive to wildlife and ecosystems through greater agency cooperative conservation.  The collaborative ecosystem approach to transportation development is described in "Eco-Logical: an Ecosystem Approach to Developing Infrastructure Projects."  FHWA currently has dedicated $1 million for grants to transportation agencies, local governments, non-governmental organizations, and others to advance pilot projects based on Eco-Logical and integrated planning principles.  Integrated planning is a process for the collection, sharing, analysis, and presentation of data contained in agencies’ plans--conservation, watershed, historic preservation, transportation, and others--to more comprehensively address the multiple needs of an area.  The solicitation for these grants is expected to be posted at http://www.grants.gov/  and several FHWA websites in the next few days.

National Partnerships are also being promoted through workshops on Linking Conservation and Transportation Planning and Project Development.  Pilot workshops were held last year in Arizona, Colorado, and Arkansas.  The workshop content is being updated and workshops will be offered again in fiscal year 2008.  The purposes of the workshops are to (1) facilitate the exchange of ideas, concepts, and methods for better collaboration between transportation and conservation planning practitioners and (2) promote the sharing of conservation and transportation geospatial data, methodologies, and tools to advance planning, environmental stewardship, and streamlining goals.  The primary audience for the training will be conservation and transportation planning and project review/development staffs at the Federal, State, regional, and local levels.

FHWA is also becoming an active participant in the Green Infrastructure Planning Workshops developed by a number of resource and regulatory agencies in cooperation with the Conservation Fund.  Green infrastructure relates to a strategic approach to conservation that promotes planning, protection, restoration, and long-term management that is proactive, systematic, holistic, multifunctional, and science-based.  Green Infrastructure workshops approach transportation planning as a way of promoting integrated planning principles.  FHWA has provided funding support for Green Infrastructure Workshops held recently in Anchorage, Alaska, and Colorado Springs, Colorado.

FHWA has been a leading partner in the Mid-Atlantic Green Highways Partnership (GHP).  The GHP is a public-private initiative that seeks to revolutionize the manner in which our nation's transportation infrastructure is planned and constructed.  The GHP promotes integrated planning, regulatory flexibility, and market-based rewards.  The GHP provides State DOTs an opportunity to highlight good environmental practices already underway and encourages additional innovations. FHWA has contributed significant resources towards the partnership including staff time, monetary commitments, and technological expertise.  Recently, FHWA and EPA co-founded a Green Highways Partnership grant for innovative watershed management projects within the Anacostia Watershed.  The grant, announced on Earth Day 2006, awarded a total of $1 million to three different groups working on projects designed to protect and restore urban water resources through a holistic watershed approach to managing water quality.  The grant supports Low Impact Development and restoration work in the Anacostia River watershed.  This partnership represents significant leveraging of public, private, and non-profit resources, while playing a pivotal role in advancing environmental results; safe, sustainable transportation systems; and economic competitiveness in and around the Anacostia watershed in D.C. and Maryland. 

Another recent event was a GHP workshop with Maryland that reviewed a project in the early Environmental Impact Statement stage to discuss stormwater management, conservation practices, and recycle/reuse of industrial byproducts, with a focus on what can then be used in the construction plans for the project.

In addition to work on stormwater runoff management, FHWA is collaborating with the multi-disciplinary, interagency teams of the GHP in the following areas:

Recycling and Reuse.  Recycling of industrial byproducts and their reuse as materials for infrastructure construction can not only reduce a wide range of environmental impacts (conserve landfill, reduce water/air pollution, reduce greenhouse gases), but can also save energy, money, and conserve non-renewable resources. The GHP recycling and reuse team has a number of efforts underway, primarily to overcome informational barriers.  After identifying and evaluating existing environmental regulations and construction/material specifications, the team will develop guidance documents for State and local agencies on the best methods and specifications for the use of industrial byproduct materials in road and bridge construction.  The team will also produce a comprehensive toolkit that provides technical information and guidance to help DOTs and regulatory agencies overcome barriers. 

Another GHP priority is to highlight existing State DOT projects that optimize the beneficial reuse of industrial byproducts.  An example of a project that has been showcased through the GHP is the Tarrtown Bridge in Pennsylvania, where the Pennsylvania DOT used shredded tires as lightweight embankment fill on two bridge approaches.  The project incorporated approximately 780,000 scrap tires, thereby easing the load on landfills. 

In West Virginia, the State DOT is using recycled blast furnace slag as the aggregate of choice in the western part of the State for the majority of the asphalt surface course pavements.  The effort results in a safer pavement due to the aggregate's nonpolishing properties (higher friction number).  Further, recycling blast furnace slag, when available locally, offers an economic advantage compared with using virgin limestone aggregate.

These are just two examples of the various industrial byproduct materials that FHWA is actively promoting for reuse in highway and bridge construction.  As noted above, the Recycled Materials Resource Center mission is to conduct research to insure that the use of recycled materials does not have a negative impact on the environment and to provide technical information to State and local agencies on the proper reuse of the materials.

Conservation and Ecosystem Management (principles and practices).  The conservation and ecosystem management team within the GHP focuses on bringing advances in mapping and data management together with various initiatives in conservation and ecosystem management to achieve greener highways.  The data and regulatory managers are working to gain agreement on how to develop a set of tailored, core data-sets and maps that can be integrated at both the transportation project and planning levels.  The maps will facilitate information sharing at the Federal, State, metropolitan planning organization, and local levels, and will facilitate the integration of conservation and ecosystem management practices into land-use planning.  Priority areas for conservation will emerge from the development of a regional ecosystem framework.

The Green Highways Partnership represents the next logical step in the evolution of EPA, FHWA, and Mid-Atlantic State DOT efforts in environmental streamlining and stewardship.  

Management of Highway Stormwater Runoff

FHWA has made the issue of managing stormwater runoff a particular focus in its efforts to promote technologies that mitigate damage and impacts to the environment from highway construction and operation.

Highway stormwater runoff, as part of development and urbanization, is a potential source of a wide variety of possible pollutants to surrounding water bodies.  Highway surfaces, along with adjoining areas, collect a variety of materials as a result of highway usage, maintenance, natural conditions, and pollution fallout.  While highway runoff may be a potential threat to receiving waters, if handled properly the runoff does not have to be a serious problem. 

There are a number of highly effective measures available to treat the runoff before it actually reaches any receiving waters.  Site-specific practices remain important treatment options, but a changing management style has also embraced the practice of planning at the watershed and sub-basin scales.  Best management practices are no longer driven only by water-quality criteria.  We are not looking only at “end of the pipe” treatment technologies but, increasingly, are focusing on practices and techniques that look at ecosystem-level impacts and stressors, such as conserving ecosystems, maintaining natural drainage courses, and minimizing cleared and graded area.

FHWA researches and showcases the various best management practices for managing stormwater runoff from highway projects.  These best management practices can generally be categorized as "structural" or "non-structural."

Structural best management practices consist of infiltration technologies, detention, retention, vegetative practices, filtering systems, and porous pavements.  Structural best management practices operate by physically trapping runoff until contaminants settle out or are filtered through the underlying soils.  They work through gravity settling the constituents, the infiltration of soluble nutrients through the soil or filters, or other biological and chemical processes.

Stormwater management innovations are underway throughout the mid-Atlantic region, where urbanized areas are particularly challenging.  In 2004 in Washington, D.C., the District Department of Transportation installed a biocell for stormwater management at Benning Road Bridge.  A biocell is composed of natural materials such as mulch, soil mix, and various types of vegetation.  Rather than require an engineered structure like a weir or drainage pit, a biocell acts like a filtration trench, where the soil or natural drainage materials filter the water. A biocell can remove up to 90 percent of the suspended solids from stormwater.  This project represented the first use of low-impact stormwater management technology by the District government.

The non-structural best management practices deal mainly with source controls such as land use planning, street sweeping, fertilizer application controls, reduced mowing, and litter removal from roads and roadside areas.  These methods help reduce the initial concentration and accumulation of contaminants in the stormwater runoff.  Non-structural controls can reduce the need for structural controls.

Many States, including Oregon, have implemented a requirement that any engineered stormwater facility, such as detention, treatment, pumping, or infiltration, must be accompanied by a site specific "Operation & Maintenance" manual.  This manual is necessary to ensure the agreements and assumptions made during the water resources analysis conducted during the NEPA environmental review process are fulfilled for the life of the facility.  The manual is provided to the people responsible for the long-term maintenance of the facility.

FHWA’s promotion and technical support for more environmentally sensitive use of de-icing agents and chemicals, as well as abrasion use for winter road maintenance activities, is saving operating budgets and increasing roadway asset service life, with less impact on the roadside environment.  We find a similar payoff for improvements in summer work managing the roadsides using improved herbicide and pesticide application and control.

In selecting the most appropriate best management practice, careful consideration must be given to the expected amount of runoff, the type and amount of contaminants, the availability of land, and the physical characteristics of the site.  Some best management practices can operate in any weather conditions, while others cannot.  Where there is limited space, certain of the structural practices may not be reasonable or feasible, while the non-structural practices can be implemented effectively anywhere.

FHWA encourages all States to study the quality of the highway runoff and its properties before implementing or designing any control treatment strategies for a specific area.  Given that every watershed is different, a one-size fits all approach could result in spending funds for unnecessary or inappropriate treatment.  We encourage early study by providing funding for mitigation of impacts associated with Federal-aid highway projects, including stormwater control, technical assistance, training, and research assistance to State and local transportation staff. 

See the Attachment to this statement for a status report on research, training, and publications related to stormwater runoff, being carried out, funded, or supported by FHWA. 

Obstacles to Implementation of Environmentally-Sensitive Technologies

The permitting program under the Clean Water Act, regulating discharges to waters of the United States, addresses stormwater discharges associated with urban areas and certain industrial activities, and includes transportation facilities.  Because of a lack of monitoring information, scientific analysis, and third-party evaluations, it may be difficult for new and innovative technologies  to demonstrate significant water quality treatment to satisfy regulatory agencies.   For example, the EPA's Environmental Technology Verification Program approves innovative treatment technologies through performance verification and dissemination of information.  Some State regulatory agencies have similar programs.  While these programs are beginning to test and approve innovative technologies in their region, many technologies  are still being tested, thus the level of acceptance by the regulatory agency for meeting permitting requirements may be limited, even if the technology theoretically demonstrates the necessary ability to meet the requirements.

Lack of a sound track record regarding the costs versus the benefits of a particular technology also can be a problem.  The business case has to be made for why a new technology is promising for both the environment and transportation.  Lifecycle information from existing infrastructure construction will help inform future decisions.

Of course safety and engineering considerations must always be balanced with environmental benefits.  However, safety and environmentally sensitive technologies can be compatible.  Context Sensitive Solutions that fully integrate safety into the project development process ensure that both the environment and highway safety benefit.  For example, properly designed landscaping can ensure adequate sight distances for drivers, avoid deadly fixed object hazards, and maintain the ability of drivers and pedestrians to see each other.  Water quality and highway safety can both be improved with gently sloping clear zones that allow errant motorists to regain control of their vehicles and reduce the risk of fixed-object crashes.  These clear zones also allow highway runoff to be filtered or absorbed before entering waterways.

Conclusion

When appropriately applied, "green" transportation technologies and practices, such as use of highway infrastructure to mitigate stormwater runoff, beneficial reuse of industrial byproduct materials, and context sensitive solutions, not only yield significant benefits for avoiding or mitigating negative environmental impacts of highway construction, but can produce safety enhancements and economic savings as well.  Ongoing research, transfer of technologies and best practices, and new partnerships are providing States and tribal governments more knowledge and tools to address such issues as stormwater runoff control.  A heightened focus on integrated planning should help ensure that potential environmental impacts are identified and addressed early in the project development process.

Mr. Chairman, members, thank you for this opportunity to testify.  I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

 

================ ATTACHMENT =======================

ATTACHMENT

Status of Current FHWA Water Quality Research

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/natural.htm

5/10/2007

 

I.  Research Projects

ProjectInternational Stormwater BMP Database

Contractor:  Wright Water Engineers, Inc, and GeoSyntec Consultants

Purpose of Work:  Water Environment Research Foundation, American Society of Civil Engineers-Environmental and Water Resources Institute, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Highway Administration and American Public Works Association have formed a coalition of organizations to fund and manage the International Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMP) Database.  The work will consist of entering currently available and newly developed data sets, keeping the Web site and database up to date, providing data analysis and developing protocols for integrating low impact development techniques into the database.

Status:  The work is ongoing and the database is currently accessible through the Web site at http://www.bmpdatabase.org

ProjectEvaluation and Update of FHWA Pollutant Loadings Model for Highway Stormwater Runoff

Contractor:  U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia

Purpose of Work:  The Federal Highway Administration and the U.S. Geological Survey are cooperating on a national project to evaluate the existing highway stormwater runoff model and update the model using new information and software.  This work will incorporate the existing model in a new software platform, provide information on the probability distributions of:  precipitation characteristics, highway-runoff-volumes, highway-runoff concentrations, upstream flow, upstream receiving-water concentrations, and structural best management practice performance.  This information will be used to estimate the probability of concentration and loads in receiving waters downstream of the highway outfall and it will estimate the probability of the outfall exceeding water quality standards.

Status:   The model is in preparation.  Information on this project can be found at:  http://ma.water.usgs.gov/fhwa/, along with the 1990 FHWA Pollutant Loadings Model for Highway Stormwater Runoff.

ProjectState Transportation Agency Strategies to Address NPDES Phase II Requirements, NCHRP 25-25(16)

Contractor:  Venner Consulting, GeoSyntec, and Parsons Brinckerhoff

Purpose of Work:  The research will focus on determining how state transportation agencies have addressed compliance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II requirements. Research will be directed toward determining staffing and organizational structure throughout the entire agency to address NPDES Phase II compliance for construction activities as well as the stormwater management program as a regulated Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4)

Status:  The final draft report was submitted in November 2006 and the consultant is addressing comments from the review panel.  The final report should be published soon.

ProjectWater Quality Analyses for NEPA Documents: Selecting Appropriate Methodologies, NCHRP 25-25(35)

Contractor:  Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade & Douglas, Inc.

Purpose of Work:  The National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) requires that sponsors of transportation projects consider the impacts of those projects on water quality and water resources.  There are numerous methodologies available to perform these analyses; however, there is little or no guidance on selecting the most effective analytical tool for the particular information being presented for NEPA documentation.  Some methods developed by the EPA and FHWA may be more suited for detailed project level analysis and some better suited for planning level studies and watershed-based analyses.  The objective of this study is to identify those water quality analysis methodologies that are best suited for detailed project-level impact assessment for NEPA documents.

Status:   The research started in December 2006, and will be concluded in the fall of 2007.

ProjectQuantifying the Components of Impervious Surfaces

Contractor:  U.S. Geological Survey

Purpose of Work:  The purpose of this research is to determine, using existing land use, land cover, and impervious surface data, the individual contribution of the various components to impervious surfaces, to the overall storm water runoff issue.  Preliminary results of this report for 6 case studies (Washington, Virginia, Nebraska, Iowa, Florida) shows that the percentage of impervious cover contributions from road surfaces in these studies varied between 20 – 35%.  Generally roads were at 28%, buildings at 29%, and parking lots at 25% for total impervious areas in a watershed.  As the watershed becomes more developed and the impervious surfaces increase, the contribution from the road surfaces decreases.

Status:  Final report can be found on the web at:  http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1008/.

ProjectGuidelines for the Selection of Snow and Ice Control Materials to Mitigate Environmental Impacts, NCHRP Project 6-16

Contractor:  Levelton Consultants, Ltd.

Purpose of Work:  Every year considerable quantities of snow and ice control products are applied to highways.  This application involves a balancing act of maintaining safety and applying what is needed without causing environmental impacts.  This project is looking at a way to define the selection of winter maintenance materials based on their environmental impact.  They will be looking at the most common chemical alternatives such as sodium chloride, magnesium chloride, calcium chloride, calcium magnesium acetate, potassium acetate, etc.  This project will develop guidelines for selection of snow and ice control chemicals and abrasives, based on their constituents, performance, environmental impacts, cost, and site-specific conditions.  Investigators will look at the environmental impacts of the effects on human health, aquatic life, flora and fauna, surface-water and groundwater quality, air quality, vehicles, and physical infrastructure including bridges, pavements, railway electronic signaling systems, and power distribution lines.  In the past, transportation departments have focused on performance and cost under various weather conditions without evaluating their relative impacts on the environment.

Status:  The final report is available upon request from NCHPR.

II.  State Planning and Research Funds

The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) requires that States set aside 2 percent of the apportionments they receive from the Interstate Maintenance, National Highway System, Surface Transportation, Highway Safety Improvement, Highway Bridge, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement, and Equity Bonus programs for State planning and research activities. Of this amount, States must allocate 25 percent for research, development, and technology (RD&T), unless the State certifies and the Secretary accepts the certification, that transportation planning expenditures will require more than 75 percent of the earmarked amount. These activities involve research on new areas of knowledge; adapting findings to practical applications by developing new technologies; and the transfer of these technologies, including the process of dissemination, demonstration, training, and adoption of innovations by users.

The State Planning and Research (SP&R) Program is intended to address problems identified by the States. State Departments of Transportation are encouraged to develop, establish, and implement RD&T programs that anticipate and address transportation concerns before they become critical problems. Each State must develop, establish, and implement a program that ensures effective use of available SP&R funds for RD&T activities on a statewide basis, and each State is permitted to tailor its RD&T program to meet local needs. High priority is given to applied research on State or regional problems, transfer of technology from researcher to user, and research for setting standards and specifications. Major RD&T areas include infrastructure renewal (including pavement, structures, and asset management); activities relating to safety, operations, and management; environmental and real estate planning; and policy analysis and systems monitoring.

III.  Available Reports and Publications:

Evaluation of Best Management Practices for Highway Runoff Control, 2006, NCHRP Report 565, Project 25-20(1)

This report focuses on improving the scientific and technical knowledge base for the selection of best management practices (BMP) through a better understanding of BMP performance and application.  This report documents an extensive program of research on the characterization of BMPs and stormwater, and the influence of factors such as land use practice, hydraulic characteristics, regional factors, and performance evaluation.  In addition to the report, a CD is affixed to the back cover containing three additional volumes and a spreadsheet model.  The additional volumes are:  User’s Guide for BMP/LID Selection, Appendices to the User’s Guide, and Low Impact Development Design Manual for Highway Runoff Control.

Great Lakes Initiative - Stormwater Workshop Report

The Great Lakes Regional Collaboration was initiated by Executive Order (EO) 13340, issued in May 2004. This EO acknowledged the national significance of the Great Lakes and created a unique partnership of key members from Federal, State, and local governments, tribes and others for the purpose of developing a strategic plan to restore and protect the Great Lakes ecosystem. EO 13340 set up a Federal Interagency Task Force and a Regional Working Group. On December 12, 2005, the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force met to reinforce and demonstrate commitment and collaborative efforts to promote further work and progress in the Great Lakes area. The task force identified existing Federal programs that will support Great Lakes ecosystem restoration and developed a list of action items. From this meeting in December, the Federal Highway Administration committed to convene a gathering of Great Lakes State DOTs to collaborate, share information, build contacts, examine issues, and develop strategies for dealing with stormwater runoff in the Great Lakes region.  The workshop was held in August 2006 and report was issued on the results of this workshop.  Copy of the report can be requested by calling 202-366-4085.

Eco-Logical (2006)

Eco-Logical is a guide or process for a comprehensive management approach that Federal, State, and local partners can use to get involved in infrastructure, planning, design, review, and the construction of projects to work more efficiently and effectively together.  The process integrates infrastructure development with ecosystem management to advance project approvals with conservation and sustainable land development practices.  The guide is available on-line at:  http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/ecological/ecological.pdf.

Environmental Stewardship Practices, Policies, and Procedures for Road Construction and Maintenance (2005)

This report developed a compendium of environmental stewardship practices, policies, and procedures in areas of construction and maintenance.  This manual can be downloaded at:  http://www.environment.transportation.org/center/products_programs/environmental_stewardship.aspx.

Common Native Roadside Wildflowers (2005)     

This field guide highlights 100 native forbs and grasses commonly found on highway rights-of-way in Western America.  All are native to the United States and do not include plants that have been naturalized. 

The Nature of Roadsides and the Tools to Work with It – 2003

This publication discusses the various tools available for right-of-way managers.  Highway corridors crisscross our Nation and the management of these acres of land is complicated by many uses:  recovery zone for errant vehicles, utility lines, snow storage, open space, wetland mitigation, wildlife corridors, greenways, signage, and biodiversity.  This publication discusses some of the methods and tools available to protect and manage the beauty and value of our roadside biota.

The National Highway Runoff Data and Methodology Synthesis -2003

Volume I: Technical Issues for Monitoring Highway Runoff and Urban Stormwater 

Volume II :  Project Documentation with CD based bibliographic database of reports

Volume III – Availability and Documentation of Published Information for Synthesis of Regional or National Highway Runoff Quality Data 

This report evaluates the existing highway runoff quality data to determine if the quality and processes contributing to water quality constituents in highway runoff can be adequately characterized on a nationwide basis to fulfill the information needs of highway practitioners.  Results are also available through the internet at: http://ma.water.usgs.gov/FHWA/.

Common Roadside Wildflowers (2003)   

This field guide highlights 100 native forbs and grasses commonly found on highway rights-of-way and other natural areas across Eastern America.  State Departments of Transportation are encouraging their use for many reasons:  their natural beauty, adaptation to arid environments, usefulness to wildlife, addition to biodiversity and land health, ability to slow water runoff, and slope stabilization.

Aquatic Ecology and Stream Restoration Video – Fall 2003 

This video showcases six stream restoration case studies from across the Nation and promotes the importance of restoring our streams after road construction.  This project documents examples of a nationwide effort on stream restoration showing the appropriate designs and techniques for stream relocation, fish and wildlife habitat preservation, and methods to improve the water quality while providing safe, efficient roadways.  The series of videos has been developed by North Carolina Department of Transportation for Federal Highway Administration and is now available and a copy can be obtained by calling 202-366-2054.

Keeping it Simple – Easy Ways to Help Wildlife Along Roads (2003) 

This brochure highlights more than 100 simple, successful activities that help make roads more wildlife friendly, from all 50 States.  These success stories are also available at our Web site:  www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/wildlifeprotection  The Web site allows users to search by State and by category, and it provides contact information for sending new “keeping it simple” success stories to be added to the site.

Assessing the Impacts of Bridge Deck Runoff Contaminants in Receiving Waters- 2002, NCHRP Report 474, Volume 1: Final Report, Volume 2: Practitioner’s Handbook

This report presents guidance for assessing and, if necessary, mitigating the impacts of bridge deck runoff.  The final report includes findings of the literature review and a survey of highway agency practices, consultation and testing of sites.  The second volume or practitioner’s handbook presents the assessment process as a result of the final report.

Wet Detention Pond Design for Highway Runoff Pollution Control

The research developed a methodology for designing efficient wet detention ponds in the highway environment.  The methodology included performance characteristics, design guidelines, conditions, limitations, and applications for use.  A comparison was made between wet detention ponds and dry detention ponds in order to show the advantages and disadvantages of each system.  The research is complete and the preliminary draft final report was submitted to the technical oversight panel for review. The unedited final report for NCHRP Project 25-12 as prepared by the University of Washington is available for loan by contacting NCHRP at NCHRP@nas.edu.

Common Roadside Invasives (2002)   

This laminated field guide identifies common and showy roadside invasive grasses and forbs, all of which are on various State noxious weed lists.  We provide this guide with the expectation that it will help roadside vegetation managers and maintenance personnel to identify and control invasive plants in their jurisdictions.

Wildlife Habitat Connectivity Across European Highways – August 2002 

The Federal Highway Administration, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, and the National Cooperative Highway Research Program sponsored an international technology scan to learn what actions are being taken in Europe to address habitat and wildlife issues.  As a result of the trip, the team formed conclusions and recommendations for U.S. application in the areas of policy, communication, guidance manuals, and research.  This publication is available from our Office of International Programs.

Management of Runoff from Surface Transportation Facilities--Synthesis and Research Plan, 2001, NCHRP Web Document 37 

The final report has been posted at: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_w37.pdf.  The objectives of this research on the management of the quality and quantity of runoff waters from surface transportation facilities, was to (1) synthesize existing knowledge and practice into a form usable by practitioners; (2) develop a strategic research plan to address gaps in existing knowledge; and (3) recommend a system for continued exchange of information between practitioners and others interested in water-quality and runoff issues.

Guidance Manual for Monitoring Highway Runoff Water Quality – June 2001 

The Federal Highway Administration contracted with URS Group, Inc. to conduct an evaluation of water quality monitoring equipment for measuring the constituents of highway stormwater runoff.  Testing was done on the methodologies and use of these various monitoring and sampling equipment in the highway environment.  The results are presented in this manual.  This manual will assist State and local governments prepare highway stormwater monitoring programs based on monitoring goals.  Guidance is provided to assist the user in not only selecting equipment, but also with highway stormwater runoff monitoring designs for a comprehensive plan.  Recommendations and field evaluations are given for specific equipment and monitoring methods.  The report provides recommendations on adaptations necessary for using available off-the-shelf equipment to improve the evaluation of stormwater runoff in the highway setting.

Wetlands Data Reporting System – Spring 2001 

The FHWA has developed the Wetlands Accounting Database for collecting and analyzing wetland mitigation data.  The database is designed to accumulate data about wetlands mitigation projects.  It collects, correlates, and presents this data as useful and meaningful information.  The CD-based software is available upon request.

Case Histories of Wetland Restoration - December 2000

This report highlights four wetland restoration projects from regionally different areas within the United States.  These studies show that restoration can result in highly successful ecological communities that are similar in structure and function to the natural ones.  The goals, objectives, and criteria for restoration should be established in relation to the water regime of the drainage basin and ecosystem in which they lie.  The four projects in this publication offer some insight into what elements lead to a successful restoration project.  There is no single path, but certain elements and themes emerge from the examination of these projects.

Environmental Impact of Construction and Repair Materials on Surface and Ground Waters – NCHRP 25-9 – June 2000 

The CD-ROM based report presents a validated methodology for assessing the environmental impact of highway construction and repair materials on surface and ground water under six general highway reference environments. This methodology includes: (1) a set of comprehensive bioassay protocols that directly measure the toxicity of leachates from highway construction and repair materials on two target organisms, the water flea, Daphnia magna, and the freshwater algae, Selenastrum capricornutum, and (2) the IMPACT model that can estimate the fate and transport of such leachates in typical highway environments. The IMPACT model is based on an extensive database of bioassay toxicity results for materials ranging from common construction and repair products to waste and recycled materials proposed for use in highway construction.

Stormwater Management Practices in an Ultra-Urban Setting: Selection and Monitoring - May 2000  

This report focuses on design criteria and monitoring studies on stormwater best management practices (BMPs) implemented in ultra-urban settings.   The report provides planning level review of the applicability and use of new and more traditional BMPs in ultra-urban areas.  The report provides specific guidance for selecting and siting stormwater management technologies.  Case studies are used to highlight various examples throughout the country that address ultra-urban considerations.   

Critter Crossings -Linking Habitats and Reducing Roadkill - February 2000

This brochure describes the transportation impacts on wildlife and highlights projects and processes that help to reduce these impacts.

Roadside Use of Native Plants - September 1999

This publication is for use in making site specific decisions.  The primer provides a holistic background information for decisionmaking.  It addresses basic techniques for using native plants.  The State-by-State section pulls together native, endangered, and noxious plant lists to aid in design and management.  The manual includes definitions, bibliographies, and policy citations to clarify the use of native plants on roadsides.

Evaluation and Management of Highway Runoff Water Quality - June 1996

This manual synthesizes the results of past documentation and research on highway stormwater runoff into a single-volume user’s manual on water quality impact assessment and mitigation.  It presents available and appropriate impact prediction and mitigation tools for use during highway project planning and development activities.

IV. Training Courses, Workshops, and Award Programs

Design and Implementation of Erosion and Sediment Control –NHI Course #142054

This NHI course was developed as a joint effort between FHWA and the EPA Office of Water.  The course reflects the Agencies' commitment to providing education and training on planning, design, implementation, enforcement, inspection, and maintenance strategies to control erosion and sediment on highway construction projects, as well as to ensure that regulatory issues are addressed accurately and uniformly. Each discipline involved in a highway construction project has a different set of priorities. The course offers participants opportunities for discussion and joint problem solving, through which they will gain information about the roles and responsibilities of other team members.

Water Quality Management of Highway Runoff –NHI Course #142047

This NHI course, developed with EPA Office of Water, provides an overview of the basic water quality parameters and processes, along with the requirements and guidance on best management practices the transportation community can use in mitigating highway runoff impacts and protecting water quality.  This course shares approaches and technologies for the water quality management of highway runoff, including the effective maintenance, inspection and evaluation of Best Management Practices (BMPs).

Managing Road Impacts on Stream Ecosystems: An Interdisciplinary Approach – NHI Course #142048

This NHI course will introduce and discuss the basic concepts related to the impacts that roadways have on streams and stream ecosystems.  The course will be structured to first address the ecological and physical characteristics of stream ecosystems, discuss the impacts that roadways can have on those ecosystems, and then look at tools that the practitioner can use to help avoid and mitigate those effects.  Through the use of case studies, discussion, and other techniques, the participants will be afforded an opportunity to use critical thinking to identify solutions and preventative measures related to the impacts of roads on streams and their riparian communities.  The course will be available at the end of the fiscal year 2007.

International Conference on Ecology and Transportation – May 20-25, 2007 in Little Rock, Arkansas 

Multi-disciplinary, inter-agency event conducted biennially to identify and share quality research applications and best management practices that address wildlife, habitat, and ecosystem issues related to the delivery of surface transportation systems.

2007 Environmental Excellence Awards

These awards have been designed to recognize outstanding transportation projects, processes, and people who incorporate environmental stewardship into the planning and project development processes using FHWA funding sources.  The winners will be recognized at our International Conference on Ecology and Transportation in Little Rock, Arkansas on May 20-25, 2007.

Exemplary Ecosystem Initiatives (EEI)

Since 2002, FHWA has designated 43 Exemplary Ecosystem Initiatives in 31 States.  An EEI is an initiative that sustains or restores natural systems and their functions and values.  EEIs are developed within a landscape context, using partnering and collaborative approaches and the best available science in ecosystem and habitat conservation.  All EEIs are posted on FHWA’s Web site at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/ecosystems/index.htm.

Alternative Practices for Highway Stormwater Management (2006)  

This previously aired four-part Webcast series, which can be accessed on the Web at any time, was presented by the Izaak Walton League and sponsored by FHWA. The sessions outline the latest techniques available to help transportation agencies save money, comply with water quality and water supply regulations, and improve water quality with context-sensitive stormwater management practices, including low impact development techniques. These techniques also can help highway department personnel manage stormwater quantity and quality while using existing rights of way and providing easy access for maintenance crews. Each session includes valuable background information and specific guidance on how to apply these principles for highway projects. The series also addresses barriers to using innovative stormwater management techniques and how to overcome those barriers. This series provides valuable information to design engineers, planners, regulators, students, maintenance supervisors, construction engineers, and consultants.  To view the archived Webcast, go to:  http://itre.ncsu.edu/cte/TechTransfer/Teleconferences/iwla2006.asp.

Environmental Factors of Construction and Maintenance (Under Development)

FHWA is developing a training course on how to mitigate environmental impacts during construction and maintenance projects.  The course is intended to familiarize State and contractor construction personnel with environmental concerns that should be addressed as part of construction operations.  These concerns include construction noise, construction dust, light pollution from nighttime operations, vibration, alkali runoff from concrete pour/ sawcut, emissions from equipment exhaust, disruption of species habitat or migration/ESA commitments, damage to archaeological or cultural resources, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)-maintenance activities, and hazardous materials.  We expect the course to be available sometime next year.

 

Congestion and Mobility Issues

STATEMENT OF

THE HONORABLE JEFFREY N. SHANE
UNDER SECRETARY FOR POLICY
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 7, 2007

 

Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Duncan, and Members of the Subcommittee, I am grateful for the opportunity to come before you today to testify on congestion and mobility issues.  I am also very pleased to be accompanied today by our Federal Highway Administrator, Rick Capka, and by our Federal Transit Administrator, Jim Simpson.

Last May, the Department of Transportation announced a new effort to respond to the growing crisis of traffic congestion:  the Secretary’s National Strategy to Reduce Congestion on America’s Transportation Network, which we often refer to as the Congestion Initiative.  The President reaffirmed the importance of this effort in this year’s State of the Union policy initiatives, in which he directed the Department to work with States and cities to utilize new approaches to reduce traffic congestion, save fuel, and shorten commute times.  This year’s Economic Report of the President further amplified the importance of the issue with an entire chapter dedicated to transportation and energy. 

When Secretary Peters was sworn in as Secretary of Transportation, she promised that the Department would do everything it could to reduce the growing costs to businesses and families attributable to transportation system failures.  Protecting the public interest requires policymakers and lawmakers to seriously consider the fundamental causes of these failures and to enact policy reforms that respond directly to them.  The Congestion Initiative – the implementation of Secretary Peters’ promise – demonstrates the Bush Administration’s commitment to keeping our nation moving.  Today, I would like to explore with you how Congress and this Committee can join us in this cause.

The Costs of Congestion

Transportation system congestion is an enormous threat to our economic prosperity and way of life.  Whether it takes the form of trucks stalled in traffic, cargo stuck at overwhelmed seaports, or airplanes waiting on crowded runways, congestion costs America an estimated $200 billion a year.  Beyond these immediate costs, transportation delay and unreliability have begun to chip away at one of our nation’s most important economic assets: an efficient transportation system that allows businesses freedom of location and the ability to quickly reach customers across the nation and around the world.  Large U.S. companies that rely on the international supply chain repeatedly tell us that growing system failures are propelling them to make inefficient decisions in the form of facility re-locations, delivery time shifts, and building in more and more expensive “buffer” time, among other costs.  These trends pose a material threat to an inventory management revolution that has helped smooth business cycles and reduce economic volatility.

Congestion also imposes substantial costs on our nation’s travelers.  Traffic jams are increasingly stealing from busy citizens and families their single most valuable commodity:  time.  Last Sunday, the Washington Post Magazine ran a cover story on this very topic, entitled “Hell on Wheels:  Inside the Nerve-Jangling, Marriage-Rattling Reality of Marathon Commuting.”  The article put names and faces to some of the statistics with which the Department is very familiar.  About 10 percent of commuting Americans travel more than an hour each way to and from work, averaging 82 minutes per trip.  In 2003 – the most recent year for which we have complete data – Americans wasted 3.7 billion hours and 2.3 billion gallons of fuel sitting in traffic jams.  And in the nation’s largest cities, each rush hour traveler spends the equivalent of almost 8 work days each year stuck in traffic, “paying” the equivalent of between $850 and $1,600 each year in lost time and fuel.  Traffic forces parents to miss events with their children, limits the time that friends and families can spend together, and reduces opportunities for civic participation.  While difficult to quantify, these social costs of traffic congestion are enormous and growing.

America  is not alone in this experience.  I represented Secretary Peters at an important meeting of transport ministers from around the world last week in Sofia, Bulgaria.  The entire two-day meeting was devoted to the single topic of transportation congestion.  A great many countries are taking aggressive steps to combat this problem, which they believe has the potential to compromise economic growth significantly.

The Congestion Initiative

Despite these alarming trends, the country has never had a better opportunity to reverse them.  With the convergence of new technologies, a vibrant private sector ready and able to heavily invest in our nation’s transportation infrastructure, a traveling public that is increasingly willing to try new approaches, and a growing consensus among transportation experts that current policy approaches are ineffective and unsustainable, this is an extremely exciting time to be in transportation.

It was this excitement and this convergence that led us to establish our Congestion Initiative.  The Initiative is founded on two key premises.  First, we do not have to accept growing transportation congestion as an uncontrollable or inevitable affliction.  Second, chronic congestion is the result of poor policy choices – a failure to distinguish between solutions that are effective and those that are not.  Our plan is an attempt to highlight the viability of new approaches that hold the potential both to reduce delay in the short term and build the foundation for successful longer-term congestion-reduction efforts.

The Congestion Initiative includes a broad range of activities, not all of which I will discuss today.  As part of the Initiative, the Department will sign later this summer Urban Partnership Agreements with communities that show a willingness to pursue new strategies that respond to urban congestion.  We are encouraging States to tap private sector resources and expertise to improve customer accountability, to help focus resources on the most critical transportation projects, and to unleash innovation in transportation infrastructure that has stagnated.  Our operations office at the Federal Highway Administration is working closely with States to spread the use of innovative congestion-reducing operational and technological strategies.  We have established a competitive process for designating up to five new multi-State “Corridors of the Future” to meet projected long-distance passenger and freight needs.  By focusing resources on the most congested and economically significant corridors, we can make substantial improvements to the overall performance of the interstate system.  We are also directing Departmental attention toward congestion at key freight gateways in Southern California and along our nation’s borders.  And we are pursuing policies that accelerate major airport capacity projects and use the nation’s airspace and airports more efficiently.

Responding to the Causes of Congestion

At its most fundamental level, congestion is caused by a supply and demand imbalance, particularly during peak periods.  There are three basic mechanisms available to address this problem: 1) rationing highway space through queuing; 2) formally allocating access rights to use the network at various times, as is done in the rail and aviation sectors; or 3) using prices, as we do with most other goods and services.  As long as 50 years ago, economists began advocating for the third option, championing the implementation of variable highway pricing as the single most effective and sustainable mechanism to reduce the costs of congestion. 

Today, a growing chorus of economists, academics, and transportation planners is now arguing that the fundamental mis-pricing of highway travel must be addressed to tackle the congestion problem in any sustainable way.  Secretary Peters agrees that the time has arrived for extensive real-world demonstrations of this concept.  As the Economic Report of the President notes,

“When there is a shortage of something – for instance, space on a ski lift, or attendants at the Department of Motor Vehicles – those willing to get in line and wait eventually receive what they want.  This approach to road-use management is inefficient because it allocates road space to those with the time to wait in traffic, not necessarily to those who value its use most highly.  If a roadway is priced – that is, if drivers have to pay a fee to access a particular road – then congestion can be avoided by adjusting the price up or down at different times of day to reflect changes in demand for its use.  Road space is allocated to drivers who most highly value a reliable and unimpaired commute. 

This arrangement encourages drivers to consider the tradeoff between the price of using the road and the additional time and inconvenience of using a nonpriced, alternate route, or driving at a noncongested time.  Drivers who place a high value on the predictability and reduced time of commuting, for instance, a doctor who has been called to the hospital for an emergency, have the option to pay for access to noncongested roads.  Drivers with more time flexibility, for instance a person doing his or her grocery shopping, can avoid the road and the fee.  They can use alternative but more congested roads, shift when they drive to nonpeak hours, or use mass transit when it provides a cheaper alternative to driving.  The average cost to each driver falls because drivers have a choice in how they pay for roadway use, in time or in money.”[1]

In the U.S., dedicated gas taxes are often justified on the basis that they are user charges.  However, taxing fuel consumption rather than road usage disconnects the price travelers pay for using the transportation system – and thus their decisions about when and how much to use it – from the true of travel.  Today a U.S. automobile driver pays the equivalent of about 2-3 cents per mile in Federal and State gas taxes.  Yet, when that driver uses a congested roadway during rush hour, he or she imposes between 10 and 50 cents per mile – and in some cases even more – in costs upon the other drivers stuck in traffic by taking space on the highway and exacerbating congestion.  Similarly, gas tax charges for off-peak travel are not adjusted to reflect the lower costs of such travel.

Moreover, the enormous cost savings potentially available from highway pricing are even closer than previously believed.  Research in recent years confirms that very small reductions in the number of vehicles using a congested highway facility can produce significant increases in traffic speeds.  One study in the United Kingdom estimated that just a 4-9 percent reduction in traffic at any given moment during rush hour could reduce congestion by as much as 50 percent.  By substantially increasing traffic speeds and preventing gridlock, pricing can substantially increase facility throughput.  Counter-intuitively, this means that an initial diversion of drivers actually allows for MORE customers to be served in a given time period.  The most powerful example of this takes places every day on State Route 91 in California, where the two variably priced lanes handle as much traffic as the four “free” lanes every morning and afternoon.

The benefits of congestion pricing extend beyond simply enhancing the speed of travel and the efficiency of highways.  Road pricing encourages the use of mass transit, and by reducing traffic delays it can enable the operation of high-speed, reliable commuter transit services such as bus rapid transit (BRT).  Pricing will improve fuel economy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by cutting out stop-and-go movement and idling.  Pricing will encourage more sustainable land use patterns by providing transparent signals about the true costs of real estate development on the outskirts of major cities.  Finally, congestion-based user charges can dramatically improve project planning processes by providing clear signals as to where and when the benefits of expanding capacity are likely to exceed the costs of providing that capacity.  As prices rise, the case for adding new lanes or roads becomes increasingly obvious, to say nothing of the new supply of revenues from pricing that can be used to finance the improvements.

Congestion pricing has demonstrated powerful positive results both here in the U.S. and, as I learned last week in Sofia, around the world.  Successful U.S. applications of congestion pricing are operating on California’s State Route 91 in Orange County, I-15 in San Diego, I-25 in Denver, and I-394 in Minneapolis, all of which have enabled congestion-free rush-hour commuting and proven popular with drivers of all income levels.  Internationally, broad-based congestion pricing has yielded dramatic reductions in traffic congestion in Singapore, London, and Stockholm.

In addition to the mis-pricing of highway travel, a large percentage of highway congestion is caused by non-recurring events, such as accidents, work zones, or weather.  The Federal Highway Administration is working extensively with State and local transportation leaders to encourage a significant focus on the reduction on non-recurring congestion.   We believe that this “low hanging fruit” deserves far more attention from political leaders and transportation experts.  The benefit-cost ratios of investments to reduce the impacts of non-recurring congestion are often quite high, demonstrating that greater State investment in this area is warranted. 

The Urban Partnership Program

While congestion pricing may independently improve the performance of our highway systems, it can be even more effective when used in combination with other complementary policies.  This concept is the basis for the Department’s Urban Partnership Program, which is arguably the most critical component of the Congestion Initiative.  The Department plans to sign Urban Partnership Agreements (UPAs) with up to five “Urban Partners” – metro areas that agree to implement a comprehensive policy response to urban congestion that includes what we refer to as the “4 Ts”: (1) a tolling (congestion pricing) demonstration, (b) enhanced transit services, (c) increased emphasis on telecommuting and flex scheduling, and (d) the deployment of advanced technology.  In exchange for their policy commitments, the Department will support its Urban Partners with financial resources (using current budget authority), regulatory flexibility, and expertise.

The Department received UPA applications from twenty-seven metropolitan areas.  Under the terms of the UPA process, applicants were strongly encouraged, though not required, to include in their proposals all four of the Ts (tolling, transit, telecommuting, and technology).  The majority of the applications included some type of pricing proposal, ranging from studies of pricing to converting high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes to high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes to using “cordon pricing” to charge all drivers entering a central business district.  Complementary transit proposals included operating bus rapid transit (BRT) service on priced highways, instituting transit-preferential priorities for downtown streets, and creating universal transportation accounts that could be used to pay for highway, rail, or bus fares.  Technology proposals included systems to support the pricing and transit applications and to collect and disseminate real-time traveler information.  Finally, many applications included telecommuting components, such as telework centers and results-only work environments, which focus on employees’ outputs, rather than the location in which they perform their duties.

After carefully reviewing all twenty-seven applications, the Department has selected nine Preliminary Urban Partners.  The Department will soon enter into negotiations with each of the nine regarding the specifics of their proposals and will select up to five final Urban Partners.  In support of these selections, the Department will give preference to our Partners in awarding grant funding from a variety of Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA) discretionary programs.

Targeting discretionary grant funding in support of Urban Partners will yield two benefits.  First and foremost, it will allow the Department to strategically focus its scarce discretionary dollars toward the national priority of congestion reduction.  Beyond this, it will also serve as a step away from the Federal transportation program’s historical modal funding silos and toward a more coordinated and multi-modal transportation policy.  Our emphasis on strategic use of discretionary resources and multi-modal coordination is repeated in the President’s FY08 budget proposal, which includes a request to reprogram $175 million in unspent earmarks toward the Congestion Initiative.  We seek your support for this budget request, which would allow the Department to continue our congestion-related activities.

In closing

I commend the Committee for holding today’s hearing.  We all share the enormous responsibility of ensuring that future generations can experience the freedom of an efficient and vital American transportation system.  It is important for Americans to understand that congestion is not an insurmountable problem, but that solutions will require a smarter approach to capacity expansion and improving the productivity of existing transportation assets. 

Thank you for inviting us to share these ideas.  Messrs. Capka, Simpson, and I all look forward to answering your questions, and to working with the Committee to generate these solutions.

 

[1] 2007 Economic Report of the President. pg. 139-140.

The Surface Transportation System: Challenges for the Future

Statement of

Jeffrey N. Shane
Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy

Before the

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
U.S. House of Representatives

January 24, 2007

The Surface Transportation System:  Challenges for the Future

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Duncan, and Members of the Subcommittee:

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today on the Surface Transportation System:  Challenges for the Future. 

You have asked us, in preparing for this hearing, to take the long view, and to look ahead 50 years to examine what kind of economy we will have in 50 years, and what kind of surface transportation system we will need to serve that economy.  Our analysis of this long-term prospect is not yet complete, but enough of the work has been completed for us to see the broad outlines of the task that lies before us.

Over the next 50 years, we expect the U.S. population to rise by over 60 percent, and for the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to quadruple.  As our population grows, and as incomes rise, the demand for transportation will grow accordingly.  When people have more money, they want to buy more goods, which need to be transported, and they want to travel more.  So we expect the demand for both freight and passenger transportation to increase by about two-and-a-half times over the next 50 years.

There are likely to be shifts in the kinds of transportation demands that we will face.  It is no secret that the economy is becoming increasingly dependent upon global sources of supplies, but exports have grown as well.  Since 1970, exports as a percentage of GDP have almost doubled, and imports have tripled.  Moreover, the U.S. manufacturing base is increasingly shifting to high-value, high-tech products like pharmaceuticals and instruments, in which we retain a comparative advantage.  These high-value products require an expedited transportation system that relies increasingly on overnight truck and air freight delivery.  Our increasing reliance on imports of lower-value manufactured goods (and parts for domestic manufacturers) places a growing reliance on key ports of entry, such as the San Pedro Bay ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, and the Puget Sound ports of Seattle and Tacoma.  Landside connections to these ports, linked to an efficient domestic intermodal rail and truck freight transportation system, will be important to keeping the delivery costs of these commodities low.  Overall, the shift in GDP from goods production to services production will cause freight vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) to grow more slowly than GDP, but the growth will still be large.

On the passenger side, the growing globalization of the world economy will result in increasing demand for international air travel as business people fly abroad to conduct international business relationships, and as international leisure travel increases.  That in turn will increase the demand for land-side connections at our key international airport hubs.  An aging population will increasingly challenge our transportation system.  The percentage of the population over 65 will almost double, from 12 percent to 21 percent of the population.  These older people – the people just graduating from college today – will expect a high level of mobility, and we expect the percentage of VMT by older people to grow appreciably.  Drivers in their late 70’s have triple the fatality rate (per VMT) of drivers aged 30 – 65, and for drivers in their 80’s it is even worse.  So we will face a serious safety challenge in providing for the safety of an aging population.

Also, our dynamic economy results in uneven economic growth in different regions.  Almost two-thirds of all VMT growth over the next 25 years will take place in only six states, so that even if we keep up with transportation demands on the average, it will be difficult to keep up with these demands in the high-growth states where demands are growing most rapidly.  Migration among regions in the U.S. is dominated by immigrants and young college graduates, who often move to central cities and increase demands for transit.  We expect demand for urban transit (measured in passenger-miles traveled, or PMT) to almost double by 2050.  Within metropolitan areas, non-work-related trips will become a larger percentage of all trips, as the population ages and the percentage of population in the workforce declines.  Some of this non-work-related travel will take place during peak commuting hours, as workers engage in trip-chaining on their way to and from work.  Some will take place outside of traditional peak commuting hours, contributing to the spreading of the peak traffic hours over the entire day.

Overall, we can anticipate an economy in the year 2050 four times as large, with surface transportation demands increasing by perhaps two-and-a-half times.  How will our transportation system handle these demands?  We certainly do not plan to more than double the number of lanes-miles of highways.  Lane-miles of highway have increased by only 5.3 percent over the past 24 years, and an extrapolation to 2050 suggests that highway capacity will only increase by 10 percent by that year.  So we can anticipate that transportation capacity will not keep up with transportation demand, and that congestion in our transportation system will grow. 

Congestion already imposes heavy costs on our economy.  The Texas Transportation Institute has estimated that, in 2003, highway congestion cost $63 billion per year, but this estimate leaves out several important factors.  It leaves out productivity losses, costs of delayed freight shipments, costs of unreliable freight and passenger travel trip times, and safety and environmental costs.  We estimate that, if all these other costs were included, the total costs of highway congestion would be about $170 billion per year.  Moreover, congestion has been growing faster than GDP.  Since 1982, the costs of congestion have been growing at 8 percent per year, more than double the growth rate of GDP.  In 2003, congestion costs were about 1.5 percent of GDP.  If congestion costs continue to rise at this rate, by 2050 they would be over $6 trillion, more than 14 percent of GDP.

How can we meet these challenges?

First, we need to find ways to use our existing surface transportation system more efficiently. 

Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) technology holds great promise for reducing congestion.  We have invested billions of dollars in ITS technology since ISTEA created the program in 1991, and we have developed a wide range of technologies that can address congestion problems.  On toll highways, Electronic Toll Collection can speed the flow of traffic where previously it was stopped for manual toll collection. Automatic Incident Detection can alert highway managers to non-recurring congestion and speed emergency response vehicles to clear problems.  Variable Message Signs and other forms of traveler information systems can alert drivers to congestion problems and give them an opportunity to divert to alternative routes.  On arterials, adaptive traffic signal controls can adjust traffic signal timing in response to changes in traffic levels, speeding traffic on its way.  Signal priority for transit buses can make bus service more like rapid transit, enhancing the attractiveness of transit and reducing congestion.

But deployment has been slower than anticipated.  Even in cities where deployment of ITS technology is considered to be high, barely half of freeway miles might be instrumented to detect traffic breakdowns.  One major city has installed almost 5,000 traffic signal detectors, but almost half of them are out of service.  Many cities do not even manually update the timing of their traffic lights regularly, much less install adaptive traffic signal controls that can adjust traffic signal timing automatically.  Moreover, as GAO pointed out in a report last year, even where ITS technology has been deployed, sufficient operating funds have not always been committed to pay for staffing of traffic management centers.  So we have quite a challenge in deploying ITS technology everywhere that it is needed.

A second proven approach to using our transportation system more effectively is by using congestion pricing.  While congestion pricing may still be controversial to some people, it is not controversial to people who have tried it.  In Southern California, where State Route 91 has been using congestion pricing for 10 years, support for congestion pricing is widespread, and the reasons are obvious.  Experience with congestion pricing on SR-91 shows that congestion pricing doubles the throughput on the congestion-priced lanes as compared with the unpriced lanes right next to them.  With each priced lane handling twice as much traffic as a comparable unpriced lane, there is less traffic on the unpriced lane, and congestion is reduced for all travelers on the road.  While lower-income people do not use the congestion-priced lanes as often as higher-income people, even lower-income people value the flexibility of a congestion-priced lane when they absolutely, positively have to get somewhere on time.  In fact, about 70 percent of lower-income people in Southern California support congestion pricing.  In Minnesota, 64 percent of lower-income people support the MNPass High-Occupancy Toll lanes.

Congestion pricing is something that we can do in the short run to reduce congestion.  In the longer run, congestion pricing provides one of the best signals that we have of the need for new capacity.  If people are willing to pay a high price to travel on a particular corridor, that gives us a good signal that capacity expansion in that corridor is money well-spent.  It clearly is unlikely that we will be able to build enough capacity to keep up with the increases in transportation demands that we have forecasted.  That means that we have to be extremely strategic about the capacity expansions that we do undertake – we need to make sure we spend our investment dollars in those places where the demand is the greatest and the impact on congestion reduction is clearest.  If people are paying 50 cents or a dollar per mile to drive on an uncongested lane, that is a pretty clear signal that the demand for capacity expansion on that route is high, and that an infrastructure investment on that route will pay substantial returns in congestion reduction.

There are no magic bullets in solving the congestion problem.  The approach that will work best is a multi-faceted, comprehensive approach that takes advantage of the complementarities among multiple strategies.  That is the approach that we have taken in planning the Secretary’s Congestion Initiative.  We have emphasized four complementary strategies – congestion pricing, expanded transit capacity, greater use of ITS technology, and more widespread use of telecommuting and other forms of flexible work scheduling.

We have already discussed congestion pricing – it works, and people like it when they get a chance to use it.  But congestion pricing cannot do the job all by itself, and it is more difficult to use on arterials that are not limited-access. 

For people who find charges on congestion-priced roads too high, we need to provide transportation alternatives, and that is where expansion of transit capacity comes in.  Transit and congestion pricing complement each other.  Transit provides an alternative for those who choose not to pay the congestion charge, so it improves the effectiveness of congestion pricing by encouraging people to divert to another mode.  Likewise, congestion pricing improves the effectiveness of transit.  Transit buses get free access to congestion-priced freeway lanes, so transit buses go faster with congestion pricing, providing the “rapid” in Bus Rapid Transit.  That rapid service both reduces costs for transit authorities and encourages more people to use transit.  The more people use transit, the more schedule frequency can be increased, and the better the quality of service.  Congestion pricing sets off a “virtuous circle” with transit, where demand increases, allowing an improvement in service quality, which stimulates even more demand, which allows even more improvements in service quality. 

Congestion pricing is more difficult to implement on non-limited access arterials.  On these heavily used roads, ITS technology plays a particularly important role.  Adaptive traffic signal control technology can make traffic on these arterials flow more smoothly.  And again, there are complementarities between ITS technology and transit.  ITS technology can include traffic signal priority for transit buses, helping them to go faster.  ITS-induced improvements in transit service quality can set off the same “virtuous circle” as congestion pricing does – increasing transit demand, increasing service frequency, and increasing service quality.  Increasing transit use in turn reduces the congestion burden that the ITS technology was deployed to deal with.

Finally, congestion is not a problem that government can solve by itself.  We need help from private employers.  There are a number of policies that reduce the extent to which vehicles have to use the roadways during peak hours.  These include flex-time – allowing people to come in before or after the peak hour -- and cashing out parking subsidies so that people get the same commuting subsidy whether they drive a car or use transit.  They also include telecommuting – allowing people to work at home at least part of the time.  The Federal Government has increased the number of employees telecommuting by ten-fold between 1995 and 1999, and then by more than three times from 1999 to 2003.  Private sector employers can do the same.

Other portions of the Secretary’s Congestion Initiative will also help to address the congestion problem.  The Corridors for the Future Program, for example, received 38 proposals in response to its Federal Register notice in September, and we are now reviewing these proposals with the intent of ultimately selecting up to five major transportation corridors where substantial infrastructure investment could reduce congestion.  This program will leverage public and private resources to accelerate infrastructure development on these corridors.  The proposals include strategies to use congestion pricing, truck-only lanes, and accelerated deployment of ITS technologies.  The Freight Bottlenecks portion of the Congestion Initiative focuses on Southern California, where we are working to sign a Memorandum of Agreement to accelerate the completion of key capacity projects in the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.

We can make considerable progress on congestion even without building new lane-miles.  But we recognize that we will need to build some new highway capacity.  We cannot handle a two-and-a-half-fold increase in demand without more capacity.

The question is, how can we get the most bang for the buck?

How can we get the most reduction in congestion, and improvement in transportation services, from each dollar that we invest in transportation infrastructure?

First, DOT believes that we need to move toward an environment in which analysis by professional transportation planners forms the primary basis for our transportation decisions, and politicians get involved only as a last resort.  Many of the projects that have been selected by the political process have never been obligated because the projects were not ready to move forward when the money was earmarked, and in some cases the money was never spent because opposition to the project developed.

That’s not to say that transportation planners can’t do a better job.  There is a wide range of analytically sophisticated transportation planning techniques that are just beginning to come into use by transportation planners.  Techniques like benefit-cost analysis and economic impact analysis help us to identify all the effects of a project – positive and negative – so that we can make decisions based on full information.  We are also encouraging states and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to make greater use of performance measures that would allow us to measure how well our improvements to the highway and transit systems perform.  We need to think about Federal funding programs that reward states and MPOs whose investments are successful in achieving their performance targets.  We recognize that there are important political considerations in the decisionmaking process – such as balancing regional needs for transportation infrastructure – but we need to work harder at basing our decisions on sound analytical techniques.

So there are a variety of techniques that we can use to improve the efficiency and performance of our investments in surface transportation infrastructure.  We need to make more widespread use of them.

Finally, let me close by saying that I look forward to hearing from the witnesses from the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission.  Speaking for Secretary Peters and Deputy Secretary Cino, I can tell you that the Commission brings a wide variety of viewpoints to the questions of what kind of transportation system we need, and what kind we should have.  The Commission has just received a tall stack of issue papers, which its members are now examining.  It is making progress on defining surface transportation needs and identifying workable strategies.  The Commission still has a way to go before it will reach consensus on these matters, but the members are hard at work, and I know that the Secretary, the Deputy Secretary, and all the members of the Commission are committed to providing a report to Congress that will provide guidance as you move toward reauthorization of the surface transportation system two years from now.

I appreciate your attention, and I welcome your questions.

The FAA’s Reauthorization Proposal, the "Next Generation Air Transportation System Financing Reform Act of 2007"

STATEMENT OF

D. KIRK SHAFFER,
ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR AIRPORTS,
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION,

BEFORE THE

HOUSE TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION,

ON

THE FAA’S REAUTHORIZATION PROPOSAL,
THE “NEXT GENERATION AIR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FINANCING REFORM ACT OF 2007,”

ON

MARCH 28, 2007.

Chairman Costello, Representative Petri, Members of the Subcommittee:

I am happy to appear before you today as part of the series of hearings that the Subcommittee is holding on the Federal Aviation Administration’s proposal entitled the "Next Generation Air Transportation System Financing Reform Act of 2007” (H.R. 1356).  We have the opportunity during this reauthorization cycle to lay the groundwork to enable us to meet the greatest challenge we currently face---transforming the aviation system so it can accommodate future demand safely and efficiently.  Our nation’s airports—large, medium and small—must be part of that transformation, providing the capacity to serve over 1 billion passengers annually by 2015.  Today I would like to provide an overview of the airport financing reforms we seek in order to provide strategic investment in our national airport system.  Our proposal contains a number of significant reforms to the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) and to the Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) programs.

We started looking at elements of our airport funding system almost two years ago.  We examined airport capital requirements—from the largest commercial service airports to the smallest general aviation fields—and the ability of airports to pay for those capital improvements.  We talked to the municipal bond markets and rating agencies; and we looked at emerging trends in airport financing.

Four major factors came into focus during that review that shaped our proposal. 

  • Capital Requirements are up;
  • Airports have recovered financially from the decline in air travel at the start of this decade, but they need to increase their financial self-sufficiency;
  • Small airports still depend on AIP support to meet their capital needs; and
  • Federal funds for airports are limited, they need to be better targeted to fund priority requirements and to keep pace with the changing trends in aviation.

Capital Requirements are Up

Our last reauthorization came on the heels of the events of 2001.  Airlines and airports were still reacting to the dramatic changes in the aviation industry, spiraling jet fuel prices, and the bankruptcies of major legacy carriers.  Congress crafted a reauthorization package that reflected that unsettled state of the industry.  Airports pulled back from major expansion projects, taking instead a “wait and see” attitude.  Passenger traffic plunged and an atmosphere of cautiousness prevailed.  But now, four years later, the industry has settled and recovered. 

In 2005, for the second year in a row, passenger demand on U.S. airlines was strong with 49 million passengers traveling.  Commercial air carrier enplanements rose seven percent from 2004, and were six percent higher than enplanements in 2000.  With passenger levels back to pre-9/11 levels and air carriers shifting from larger aircraft to smaller regional jets, delays returned to the system.  2006 was the worst year ever for delays, and 2007 is shaping up for more of the same.  Major airfield improvements together with enhanced technology are planned to help mitigate delays at those airports.

The impact of these changes has been shown in our latest National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems or NPIAS, a report we prepare for Congress every two years.  This report details the projected capital needs of airports of all sizes throughout our aviation system.  The current NPIAS report reflects the economic recovery of the airport industry.  Capital needs across all sizes and categories of airports are up four percent over the prior NPIAS, published when the effects of September 11 were still being felt.  In fact, the current NPIAS report may understate the true cost of needed capital investment, as sharp increases in construction costs occurring in the last half of 2006 were not fully reflected in the most recent NPIAS report.

Airports have recovered financially

We also studied the financial health of the airport industry itself.  We found that airports had recovered financially from the difficulties of the early 2000s.  Across all sizes of airports, net operating results (revenue minus expenses) are up.  That does not mean that all categories of airports are profitable however.  There is a direct relationship between the size of the airport (measured by passenger enplanements) and the profitability of the airport.  The large airports (meaning the large- and medium-hub airports, or about the top 70 or so airports) which enplane 89 percent of the nation’s passengers are profitable.  These airports are financially stable and have had the ability to reach beyond federal grant funding for needed capital improvements.  They have ready access to the general airport revenue bond (GARB) markets, and all but four collect a PFC.

The financial performance of small primary airports (small hub and nonhub primary airports) which enplane 11 percent of the nation’s passengers, has returned to the levels of the late 1990s, but those levels are not always robust.  Many of these airports just break even and even more operate at a loss.  Most collect a PFC, but we found that these airports continue to rely on federal AIP grants for major capital improvements.  The general aviation (GA) community also reflects the stratification found in the commercial service airports.  The largest of the general aviation airports are more financially stable, but the GA airport community, as a whole, depends on AIP for funding capital improvements. 

Airports need to increase their financial self-sufficiency

There was also a consensus that airports need to reduce their reliance on air carriers when making major capital improvements.  The financial markets were unified in their positions that airports relying on the inherent revenue-generating potential of their local market‑their passengers‑rather than the vagaries of airline financial health, make the strongest credit risks.  Financial markets see local revenue, especially that generated through PFCs, as stable and desired sources of airport revenue.  The financial markets also recommended that airports increase non-aeronautical sources of revenue, such as from concessions providing services to airport users. 

More strategic Federal investment—AIP and PFC Reform

AIP Reform

Our proposals for Airport Improvement Program and Passenger Facility Charge reform are designed to empower local airports with strong local revenue sources and strategically target federal dollars to the airports where they will have the most impact.  We are proposing major reforms to AIP apportionment and set aside formulas and are also proposing substantial reform to the PFC program. 

FAA is committed to a healthy national air transportation system.  Airports are a key part of the system, and that includes small primary and general aviation airports that rely on AIP funding to help meet their capital needs and complete strategic projects.  Our proposal will stabilize and enhance these funding sources for airports.  The level of our AIP request, when combined with programmatic changes to AIP and the PFC program, will provide the financial resources FAA needs to meet the nation’s highest priorities for safety, security, and capacity.  This includes projects such as upgrading runway safety areas and mitigating runway incursions, funding current and future letters of intent for capacity projects at commercial airports, preserving existing airfield infrastructure, and advancing compliance with airport standards.

Our reform proposal for AIP includes the following major elements:

  • Phasing out passenger entitlements for medium and large hub airports (approximately 70 airports) after FY 2009, while preserving discretionary funding for these airports.  This proposal recognizes on the one hand, the ability of these airports to finance their own routine capital needs through the PFC program.  On the other hand, the important role these airports play in the national system is recognized by continuing to allow these airports to apply for discretionary AIP grants for the most important projects.  This change will provide more discretionary funding for the FAA to direct in order to meet national priorities.  For FY 2008 and 2009, passenger entitlements for these airports would be reduced by 50 percent from current levels.
  • Retaining the higher passenger entitlements for the remaining smaller airports for all levels of AIP funding, eliminating the link, or “trigger,” between these entitlement levels and an AIP funding level of $3.2 billion.  This change recognizes smaller airports’ continued dependency on AIP.
  • Increasing the minimum discretionary fund level from $148 million to $520 million, enabling FAA to better target AIP investment to meet national priorities.
  • Reforming general aviation airport entitlements to better target AIP to those airports that will be impacted by emerging technologies by –
    • Establishing a separate state apportionment fund with a minimum funding level of $300 million;
    • Eliminating the uniform $150,000 individual nonprimary airport entitlement with a tiered system of entitlements.  The largest and busiest airports would receive $400,000, while the very smallest airports would receive no annual guaranteed AIP amount.  These airports would remain eligible for state apportionment and for discretionary funds.
  • Eliminating the Military Airport Program and Reliever airport set aside and instead funding these needs out of regular AIP discretionary funds.

In a strategic investment context, large airports are strong and mature financial enterprises that no longer need guaranteed passenger entitlements to meet their capital needs. Most of these airports are already returning 50 or 75 percent of their passenger entitlements under the PFC turnback requirements in current law.  Moreover, under our proposed PFC increase (discussed below), these airports, as a group, could gain over $3 in PFC revenue for every dollar of AIP passenger entitlement lost.  In FY2006, large airports were allocated approximately $295 million in passenger entitlements.  Using the same passenger counts as FY2006, large airports could see an increase in PFC revenue of approximately $1 billion. 

Large airports will continue to qualify for discretionary funds, including letters of intent or LOIs.  Discretionary funding is a more useful form of Federal assistance to large airports, because it allows AIP to be concentrated on very costly projects that occur infrequently. 

We also propose to update the AIP formula for the discretionary fund.  Current law sets that minimum at $148 million (a figure dating from the 1990s, when the level of AIP was about $1.4 billion), plus a calculated amount based on Letters of Intent prior to January 1, 1996.  However, all those LOIs have been completed.  Our proposal would set a minimum level of $520 million, which will assure that funding is available to cover current and anticipated LOI commitments and high priority safety, capacity, environmental, and security projects, such as runway safety area projects and new runways at Operational Evolutionary Partnership (OEP) airports.  We believe that airports of all sizes will benefit from this change.

Our proposal contains a broad range of formula changes for small primary airports, which depend on AIP to meet their capital needs.  Current levels of small primary airport entitlements will be retained at all levels of AIP.  The current statutory penalty that reduces passenger entitlements by 50 percent and reduces the minimum passenger entitlement from $1,000,000 to $650,000 when AIP levels are less than $3.2 billion will be eliminated.  This proposal thus allows small primary airports to be assured of a stable flow of passenger entitlements.

Small airports of all categories will benefit from a new discretionary small airport fund that would replace the existing Small Airport Fund.  The current Small Airport Fund is financed from the passenger entitlements that large airports collecting a PFC must return to the FAA.  Once passenger entitlements at large airports expire in FY 2010, the current Small Airport Fund will no longer have a source of funding, so our proposal would repeal the fund as it is currently constituted.  The new discretionary small airport fund would be established at 20 percent of available discretionary funds.

As noted above, our proposal also provides a more rational structure for general aviation (GA) airport apportionments while preserving their access to essential AIP funds through three critical reforms.  We propose to restore the state apportionment to a meaningful level by separating it from the non-primary entitlements.  We would set the level of the state apportionment at 10 percent of AIP, and provide for a minimum level of $300 million per fiscal year.  This more robust state apportionment funding will allow states to meet their own strategic investment objectives, with the knowledge that this fund will be stable.  This commitment to local funding through state apportionment will allow prudent growth of the individual state aviation systems. 

Also in order to better target AIP funding to where it is most needed, we propose to modify the current non-primary entitlement program by providing for tiered funding levels based on airport size and aviation activity.  Under current AIP formulas, while primary airports are divided into five categories, the 3,000+ nonprimary, or general aviation airports are allocated a single maximum entitlement regardless of size or role in the system.  We analyzed the infrastructure needs of general aviation airports in detail in developing our proposal.  The outcome should surprise no one.  Busier GA airports – and those used by more sophisticated aircraft – have more complex and costly airfield infrastructure to maintain and improve.  One size does not fit all when it comes to GA airports–just as one size does not fit all with primary airports.  Our investment in the general aviation system must follow the model long established by primary airports.  The entitlement would range from $400,000 per fiscal year for the largest GA airports to $100,000 for those airports with 10 to 49 based aircraft.  Airports with less than 10 based aircraft would not be eligible for a guaranteed annual apportionment.  These airports would continue to qualify for state apportionment and discretionary funds, and would retain the 95% federal share scheduled to sunset at the end of FY 2007. 

The tiered general aviation entitlement is supported by historical data.  This data shows that busier general aviation airports tend to be larger, have more complex airfield geometry and more sophisticated lighting and navigational aids.  All of this translates into greater capital requirements.  The proposed level of the non-primary entitlement is based on engineering and planning reviews that identified essential airfield infrastructure requirements for each tier of airports.  We also looked at a number of measures of activity at GA airports.  None was perfect, but based aircraft data had the benefits of being objective, obtainable and verifiable.  Other options, such as operations or fuel sales lacked one or more of these characteristics.  Based aircraft is a good indicator of the current operational status of an airport.  However, like passenger entitlements, it may not be representative of all of the activity at a GA airport.  There are airports that have high transient operations and low based aircraft counts.  Our experience is that the capital needs of airports with high transient operations tend toward the kinds of high priority airfield projects that compete well for state apportionment or discretionary funds. 

In making this tiered proposal, the FAA is not suggesting that the lowest tier airports do not need AIP funding.  Rather, we have concluded that these airports do not need, and in some cases cannot use, a guaranteed annual entitlement.  In the 42 states that do not participate in the state block grant program, 618 airports would qualify for the lowest tier.  (We focused on the non-block grant states because we cannot readily track individual airport grant activity in the block grant states.)  Of these, 134 airports, or 22 percent, did not qualify for a non-primary entitlement (NPE) in FY 2006 because they had not reported capital development needs in the NPIAS.  Of the remaining airports in the lowest tier that did get a non-primary entitlement, 141 did not take a grant in the four years ending in FY 2006.  In other words, 44 percent of the airports that would not receive a NPE under our proposal have shown that they do not need, and cannot use, an annual guaranteed amount of AIP.  Given this data, we concluded that an annual guarantee to each and every airport in the NPIAS is not justified.

Our proposal also supports the scheduled sunset at the end of FY2007 of temporary subsidies included in Vision 100.  Congress responded to the financial turmoil the airport industry faced in the early 2000s by including temporary, short-term subsidies to airports.  The decision to make these subsidies temporary was the right one.  The financial data shows that airports have recovered to their pre 9/11 financial conditions.  The financial crisis that triggered the subsidies has passed, and the financial subsidies should be allowed to sunset.  The two Vision 100 subsidies, the Virtual Primary subsidy and the temporary increase in federal share for all but the largest primary airports cost over $150 million per year.  At a time when capital development needs are rising, these funds should be better support additional capital projects at small airports.

Passenger Facility Charge Reform

The PFC program, which Congress enacted in 1990 and currently authorizes airports to collect fees of up to $4.50 per enplaned passenger, has been very successful at providing a stable source of revenue to fund capital development projects.  The reforms we propose are designed to enhance the status of PFCs as a revenue source to support airport debt financing.  First, we propose to increase the maximum PFC to $6.00*.  Much of this proposed increase would simply compensate for inflation since the PFC was first authorized.  The remainder would help airports cope with the increased capital needs identified in the current NPIAS.  Also, this increase would bring in an additional $1.5 billion annually in PFC revenues to airports of all sizes.  Large airports would account for about $1 billion of this increase, while small airports would get about $500 million–more than compensating for the loss of passenger entitlements (described above).

Our proposal would also expand PFC eligibility to include most airport capital development projects in non-exclusive use areas, including revenue-producing facilities, as long as it will not hinder competition, and amends statutory PFC provisions to make it easier to use PFCs to help finance intermodal airport ground access projects. 

Except for the requirements for competition, PFC eligibility for capital projects would match the eligibility for using airport revenue to fund capital projects.  PFCs are local airport revenue, and the airport community has demonstrated that they can be trusted to use PFCs responsibly.  In talking to our stakeholders, especially small airports, one of their biggest frustrations is the inability to use PFCs to pay for the construction of revenue-producing facilities.  They told us that if PFCs could help pay for the construction costs of these facilities, the airports would have more net revenue going to the bottom line, which they can share directly with the carriers in the form of reduced landing fees and terminal rents, or indirectly with the carriers by reinvesting in additional revenue-producing facilities.  Either way, small airports in particular have told us that additional PFC flexibility will help them structure their airport finances to retain current air service and attract new service. 

Even connecting passengers will benefit from the use of PFCs for revenue producing facilities.  Airports function as a financially integrated whole.  When profits from revenue-producing facilities increase, those added profits are available to help defray the operating cost of the entire airport.  Those lowered costs in turn are passed on to the carriers and ultimately the passenger.  Similarly, for those airports that issue debt, higher profits from concessions may translate into better credit ratings, which in turn mean lower costs.  This change in eligibility will also address one of the municipal bond market’s major criticisms of PFCs as support for debt.  The current criteria require expensive accounting and tracking procedures to keep PFC revenues separate from other revenue when an airport issues GARBS to finance a combination of PFC eligible and ineligible work. 

The expanded eligibility should not lead to a lessening of PFC support for vital airfield and terminal capacity projects.  We looked at 15 OEP runway projects completed since 1999 or under construction.  Eleven of the 15 included GARB proceeds in the financing package with percentages as high as 65 percent.  In other words, even when they have the freedom to use local revenue on any capital development at an airport, major airports have exercised that freedom to apply their revenue to major capacity projects. 

In addition, the PFC administrative review process would be streamlined.  Instead of filing applications and amendments, airports would file an annual status report reviewing how they used PFCs in the previous year and how they plan on using PFCs in the coming year.  If their plan includes using PFCs for a new project, the airport would have to consult with their air carriers and provide for notice and comment in the community, just as they do today.  Likewise, air carriers and the public would have an opportunity to object to a project before the FAA and to receive a determination by the FAA on project eligibility.  This new administrative procedure will focus FAA’s oversight on the handful of PFC projects that raise serious questions or controversy; and preserve the role of the carriers and the local community in the PFC decision process, while eliminating unnecessary federal oversight and bureaucratic paperwork exercises that provide minimal benefit to the traveling public.  Airports will be able to put their PFCs to work faster building the airport infrastructure the nation needs.

Along with the increased flexibility and streamlining of the review processes for new PFC projects, this provision would also provide explicit authority for the FAA to investigate complaints of non-compliance with PFC requirements.  This approach more closely resembles the same approach that current law provides for oversight of the use of other locally-generated airport revenue, including rates and charges.

For new intermodal rail projects, the current prior approval requirement will be retained.  These projects tend to be controversial and require close coordination between FAA and other Department of Transportation modal administrations to determine the project’s feasibility and likely airport ridership.  Retaining the prior approval requirement will assure that the necessary coordination and review occurs.

Finally, this provision would extend the sunset date of the current non-hub airport PFC pilot program until adoption of final regulations for the new streamlined review procedures called for by this proposal.  Once the new administrative review procedures are implemented, the pilot program will no longer be needed. 

Other Program Highlights

Our proposal includes two pilot programs to encourage airports to be active participants in the NextGen transformation.  One proposes a new pilot program to broaden AIP eligibility to include installing ADS-B ground stations in markets that FAA cannot reach from the ATO capital program.  This program will supplement the FAA program, allowing states or metropolitan planning organizations to install ADS-B ground stations to “fill in” blank areas of ADS-B coverage, or to accelerate ADS-B coverage ahead of the FAA schedule.  FAA has made a technical determination that 100% coverage with ADS-B is not necessary to assure the safety and efficiency of the system.  Likewise, FAA’s planned deployment schedule addresses the needs of the national system.  However there may be some small airports that fall outside the planned national ADS-B coverage areas that will gain regional or local benefits from the added reliability that ADS-B coverage provides.  The pilot program would be open to states, metropolitan planning agencies and regional consortiums to encourage installation of ground stations that would provide coverage at multiple airports.  This coverage could extend the situational awareness offered by ADS-B to include several small airports with only one station. 

To enhance transition to NextGen, the second pilot offers 10 large airports the opportunity to charge an extra dollar of PFCs (to $7.00 total) in exchange for taking over ground based terminal navigational and weather equipment at their airport.  Because the FAA will not simply turn on the NextGen system and turn off the ground based legacy systems on a single day, ground based systems will need to be maintained and operated while the NextGen system is being deployed.  FAA views these terminal navigation aids and weather reporting systems as functional extensions of the runways and runway lighting systems that airports already own and maintain.  In many countries around the world, airports already own and maintain their navigational aids.  The pilot program is limited to large airports, because we know these airports have the financial resources to operate and maintain the equipment to FAA standards.

Finally, I would note that our proposal includes a number of provisions to help FAA and airports work cooperatively to be better environmental stewards.  Our bill would modify the eligibility standards and funding calculation for what now is commonly referred to as the “noise set-aside.”  We would extend eligibility to include water quality mitigation projects that are approved as part of an environmental record of decision (ROD) for an airport project and for carrying out projects authorized as part of a new environmental research pilot program included in Title VI of the bill.  In addition to projects allowed under current law (noise mitigation, compatible land use planning, compliance with Americans with Disability Act requirements, air quality improvements such as low-emission fuel systems, gate electrification, and vehicle conversion), this section’s changes would make these AIP funds more flexible so as to be available for a range broader environmental uses.  To recognize this broader eligibility, we would redesignate it as the “environmental set-aside.”  We also propose to change how the set-aside is apportioned from the current 35% of the AIP discretionary fund to 8% of all AIP apportioned funds.  This change results in a more stable funding stream for the environmental program because each year the amount of the discretionary fund varies depending not only on the overall funding level but also due to the amount of “carryover” of unused entitlements.

As noted, our bill modifies the Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) and includes specific funding for environmental research.  This proposal would provide for the ACRP to enhance R&D support specifically related to airport environmental needs.  Funding for the ACRP would be authorized to increase from $10 million to $15 million per year, of which at least $5 million is specifically targeted to research related to the airport environment.

Finally, I would note that we propose a new pilot program to allow the FAA to fund six projects at public-use airports that would take promising environmental research concepts that have been proven in the laboratory into the actual airport environment for demonstration.  Eligible projects would demonstrate whether implementation of research results would measurably reduce or mitigate aviation impacts on noise, air quality or water quality in the airport environment.  For example, a project could demonstrate new operating procedures that are currently in the developmental stage that offer promising near term environmental improvements. FAA would publish information on best practices based on the results of the projects.  Funding would come from the environmental set-aside of the AIP discretionary fund.  FAA would fund 50 per cent of the project costs except that a maximum Federal contribution of $2.5 million per project would apply.

Mr. Chairman, our authorization proposal provides the targeted investment, program flexibility and innovations, and environmental protection that will support a healthy airport community, enabling them—large or small--to meet their capital needs and plan for future growth.  It provides Federal resources to where they are most needed.  I thank you for the opportunity to be here today and look forward to working with this Subcommittee as well as the airport community over the next few months as reauthorization of our programs proceeds.  This concludes my prepared statement.  I will be happy to answer your questions at this time.

 

* There is one exception to the $6 cap.  To support a new pilot program for the transfer of navigational equipment, an airport selected to participate in the program could adopt a PFC of $7 (see section. 318 of our bill, discussed below).

The FAA’s Oversight of Falsified Airman Medical Certification Applications

STATEMENT OF

NICHOLAS A. SABATINI,
ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR AVIATION SAFETY,
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION,

ON

THE FAA’S OVERSIGHT OF FALSIFIED AIRMAN MEDICAL CERTIFICATION APPLICATIONS,

ON

JULY 17, 2007

Chairman Costello, Congressman Petri, and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss the Federal Aviation Administration’s oversight of the Airman Medical Certification application process.  Let me assure you, at the outset, that the FAA takes this matter seriously, and we are very concerned about any falsification of information in our nation’s aviation system.  Let me also say that the vast majority of our nation’s pilots are honest, dedicated, and have contributed significantly to our current unprecedented safety record.  We support and are in the process of implementing the recommendations of the Inspector General on falsified airman medical applications, as I will discuss.  We are also taking other proactive steps regarding this issue, which I will also discuss.

As you are aware, the Department of Transportation’s Inspector General issued a report in 2005 describing the results of an investigation conducted jointly with the Social Security Administration’s Inspector General, the United States Attorney’s office for Northern California, and the FAA’s Office of Aerospace Medicine, Western-Pacific Region, into the falsification of applications for FAA airman medical certificates.  The investigation was known as “Operation Safe Pilot.”  I will not spend time discussing the details of the IG’s findings, for they are already well known to you; however, I will discuss the IG’s recommendations, and the FAA’s response to those recommendations. 

The Inspector General recommended that FAA work with the Social Security Administration (SSA) and other disability benefits providers, to develop and implement a strategy to conduct checks of applicants for airman medical certificates with the databases of SSA and other disability providers, and take appropriate enforcement actions where falsifications are found.  The IG also recommended that FAA consider revising our Application for Airman Medical Certificate to require applicants to explicitly identify whether they are receiving medical disability benefits from any provider.  I am pleased to inform you that the FAA is moving forward to implement both of the IG’s recommendations.

FAA is working to develop a program, in cooperation with the Office of the Inspector General for the Social Security Administration (SSA), to cross-check randomly selected applicants for FAA airman medical certificates with the SSA disability database to determine if any applicants are receiving disability benefits from SSA.  We hope to start by cross-checking applicants to the SSA database, because to receive SSA disability benefits, an individual must be totally disabled.  Thus, virtually any applicant who is receiving SSA disability benefits will necessarily have a condition that would disqualify the applicant from holding an airman medical certificate from the FAA.  We are still in discussions with the Social Security Administration, with the goal of signing a Memorandum of Understanding regarding the use of their database, and exactly what information the SSA will be able to divulge without violating privacy rules.  Before we consider expanding the cross-checking of applicants to disability databases other than the Social Security Administration, we have to consider the potential resources required to conduct investigations and make medical determinations regarding an applicant’s disability and whether that condition disqualifies the applicant from holding an airman medical certificate. 

In order to proceed with cross-checking applicants for airman medical certificates against the SSA disability database, or any other database, FAA must first revise the system of records notice for FAA’s “Aviation Records on Individuals” to permit disclosure of the records through a routine use.  This will require publishing a notice of the revised system of records in the Federal Register, and a period for public comments, before the records may be disclosed, and FAA can begin any cross-checking.  This process may take six to twelve months to complete.  However, we will immediately begin efforts to implement the IG’s second recommendation, the addition of a question to the airman medical certificate application regarding disability benefits.  The FAA will take appropriate administrative actions to change the application form to include the new question.  Once that is completed, the new application form can be printed and distributed to Airman Medical Examiners (AME) nationwide.

We are proposing to change the Airman Medical Certificate application to add a question specifically asking if the applicant is receiving any disability benefits.  While this additional question appears straightforward, the investigative work will begin after a positive response to the question.  Once an applicant indicates that he or she is receiving disability benefits, FAA must then investigate to determine the disability benefits provider, the condition for which the applicant is receiving disability benefits, and the extent of the applicant’s disability.  Social Security disability benefits, as I’ve already stated, are based on 100% disability, and would, presumably, disqualify the applicant from holding an airman medical certificate in virtually all cases.  However, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) disability benefits, for example, cover a wide range of gradation from minor disabilities to total disability, and many conditions that would qualify for VA benefits would not necessarily disqualify the applicant from holding an airman medical certificate. 

FAA is also being proactive in other areas regarding falsification of data on airman medical certificate applications.  The FAA’s Civil Aerospace Medical Institute (CAMI) has now developed an integrated Scientific Information System (SIS) that will provide a continuous monitoring of all airman medical certification records compared to aviation accidents or incidents and post-mortem toxicology reports.  The FAA will therefore have the capability of continuously monitoring any aircraft accident and assessing any discrepancy between the pre-mortem certification and post-mortem findings.  This includes prescription and non-prescription medications and medical abnormalities that could affect the ability to safely perform duties permitted by the airman certificate, which are related to National Transportation Safety Board causal accident factors.

In 2006, the FAA’s Office of Aerospace Medicine initiated a routine process analysis study to evaluate and improve the efficiency of airman medical certification within the FAA.  The Airman Medical Examiner (AME) Airman Certification Quality Assurance study evaluated the accuracy of AMEs in determining the suitability of airman medical certification.

The review of 2000 records, randomly selected from 320,000 examinations, determined that 2.5 percent of records contained medical issues that should have resulted in the AME not issuing a certificate.  However, further review indicated that most of these cases could have been issued if additional information was provided.  In addition, 1.8 percent of the cases were submitted without enough information to determine if the airman should have been issued a certificate.  Again, it was determined that most of these cases could have been issued if all information had been submitted.

Each of these proactive measures will assist the FAA in monitoring this issue.  We are committed to expanding our efforts to review medical certificates and pursue appropriate enforcement actions when falsifications are discovered.   Let me conclude, Mr. Chairman, by stating that the FAA’s first priority always has been, and always will be, safety.  Safety is our agency’s mission, and we have dedicated our careers to promoting safety.  It is a responsibility we do not take lightly.

This concludes my statement, and I will be happy to answer any questions the Committee may have.

The Federal Aviation Administration's Oversight of Outsourced Aviation Maintenance

STATEMENT OF

NICHOLAS SABATINI,
ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR
FOR AVIATON SAFETY

BEFORE THE

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
AVIATION

ON

THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION’S
OVERSIGHT OF OUTSOURCED AVIATION MAINTENANCE,

ON

MARCH 29, 2007.

 

Chairman Costello, Congressman Petri, Members of the Subcommittee:

I am pleased to appear before you once again, this time to discuss the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) oversight of air carrier maintenance that is outsourced to repair stations, both domestically and abroad.  (Just to be clear, outsourcing is any maintenance performed for an air carrier by any individuals who are not employed by the air carrier here and abroad.)  I know the industry trend to outsource more of its maintenance in recent years has been a concern for some of you.  To some, outsourcing equates to cutting corners to save a few dollars.  To some, less costly maintenance means less safe maintenance.  To some, repair stations represent lesser quality maintenance.  All these assumptions imply that safety is being compromised as more maintenance is outsourced.  I am here today to reassure you that the quality of maintenance is not compromised simply because it is not being done by an air carrier.  No less an authority than the former Department of Transportation Inspector General (IG), Ken Meade, testified before Congress that use of these stations is not a question of quality, but rather an issue of oversight.  We agree, which is why the FAA is continually improving and refining our oversight of maintenance, no matter where it is performed or by whom.

Let me start by stating the obvious.  The system is safe.  As this subcommittee well knows, we have achieved the highest safety standards in the history of aviation.  Even so, our goal is – as always – to continue to improve safety.  I would like to share with you a chart that goes to the heart of this hearing.  (See the attachment at the end of the statement.)  The lines represent the percent of maintenance that is being outsourced and the accident rate, per million operations.  I think this picture is worth a million words.  Although the percentage of outsourcing has never been higher, the accident rate has never been lower.  These statistics amply demonstrate that aviation safety is not dependent on airlines performing their own maintenance. 

Before I explain the specifics of FAA’s oversight of outsourced maintenance, let me take a moment to describe the office of aviation safety.  Last year, after years hard work, my office achieved ISO 9001 certification.  This certification ensures that, worldwide, FAA safety offices provide standardized service and products, and that we adhere to the same safety standards as those businesses we regulate.  We are the only federal organization of our size, scope and complexity to have achieved ISO certification under a single quality management system.  It was through my employees’ dedication and hard work that we achieved ISO certification.  Not one milestone was missed on our road to certification.  So, our oversight of maintenance is part of an independently validated approach to holding ourselves to some pretty high standards.

Previously, our oversight was based largely on inspector knowledge and information that was available as the result of individual inspections.  This approach was the best we could do at the time, but it was far from comprehensive.  The effectiveness of our oversight could vary from facility to facility.  What we are doing now is managing risk and requiring system safety.  Just as we have worked the concept of system safety with the airlines, we are currently introducing the concept to repair stations.

Let me explain what I mean by system safety.  System safety is extremely comprehensive.  It sounds like a simple list of requirements, but in reality, it is a sophisticated approach to ensuring that everything is in place to obtain the information that can identify vulnerability in time to address it before safety is compromised.  System safety requires the following attributes.  It must be clear who is responsible for different aspects of the operation.  The responsible person must have the authority to take necessary action.  There must be procedures in place to execute required actions.  There must be controls in place to insure that a consistent product or service is being provided.  There must be oversight/auditing procedures in place to independently evaluate the effectiveness and consistency of the operation.  And lastly, there must be interface procedures in place to ensure that different parts of the organization are effectively talking to each other.  Consistency is the goal.  Inconsistency signals the need for a closer look and can provide us the early warning we need to get ahead of problems that could affect safety.

In addition, these attributes must be supported by a written Safety Policy expressing senior management’s commitment to continually improve safety and includes safety risk management processes, safety assurances, and safety promotion.  Safety risk management processes are used to assess system design and verify that safety risk management is integrated into all processes.  Safety assurances continually identify new hazards and ensure risk controls achieve their intended objective.  Safety promotion ensures an environment where action is taken to create a positive safety culture where people acknowledge their accountability and act on their own individual responsibility for safety.

This is what we requiring of all organizations for which we have safety oversight responsibility, whether it be an airline, a manufacturer or a repair station.  With these elements in place, our inspectors can perform hazard analyses and identify risk so that threats can be pre-empted.  Instead of relying solely on information from individual inspections alone, we now perform a sophisticated analysis of anomalies identified and entered into the system.  The analysis can provide us trend information that effectively targets our oversight.  This is a much more comprehensive approach than what we were able to do previously.  It allows us to get in front of potential problems in order to prevent them.  This is not only a better use of FAA resources, it enhances safety.

The past few years have been about continuing forward and making adjustments to an already robust system.  We have been working closely with the Department of Transportation Inspector General’s (IG) office since their issuance in 2003 of the report “Review of Air Carriers’ Use of Aircraft Repair Stations.”  The report identified specific areas where the IG felt improvements could be made.  In response to the report, we made a number of changes to our oversight of repair stations.  In 2004, we revised the regulations that apply to repair stations.  The rule improved quality control requirements, equipment requirements, and provided more detailed requirements on the use by repair stations of external maintenance providers.  In 2005, we issued guidance to enhance oversight of repair stations based on system safety requirements and risk assessment.  In 2006, we developed and implemented software to further enhance oversight, risk assessment, and risk management processes used in our oversight.  We’ve improved our Safety Performance Analysis System to provide sharing of information between the inspectors assigned to the repair station, and those assigned to the air carrier.  We’ve also improved the training requirements for certain repair station personnel.

We are currently testing a different way to oversee the work performed by complex repair stations.  We call this approach the Certificate Management Unit (CMU) concept.  CMU is a model of oversight for complex repair stations that parallels the way we conduct oversight of air carriers.  It is currently in place at two of the country’s most complex repair stations.  CMU will provide for dedicated inspectors providing oversight at the assigned repair station.  This addresses the criticism that FAA has failed to adapt its oversight of repair stations to reflect their increasing use by air carriers.  Having assigned inspectors at these repair stations will further reduce the differences between the way we oversee major repair stations versus major airlines.  We will continue to evaluate, modify and expand this concept as appropriate.

I mentioned at the outset that my office is ISO certified.  Part of what this means is that, as an organization, we must continually evaluate what we are doing to identify where we can improve.  So I fully expect ongoing modifications to our oversight procedures and analysis as we learn more and develop new and better tools.

I would now like to turn my focus to foreign repair stations because I know they have been of particular interest to this subcommittee.  As is the case with domestic repair stations, there is an incorrect perception that a carrier’s use of a foreign repair station is somehow unsafe or done solely to reduce maintenance costs.  I know there have been a number of efforts to restrict a U.S. carrier’s ability to use foreign repair stations, but I do not believe these efforts would enhance safety.  It is important to understand that FAA only certifies a foreign repair station if a U.S. carrier wants to use it.  So there is a need element in place.  The repair station must meet the same standards that we apply to repair stations in the United States or we will not certify it.  Safety is addressed because we require that all aircraft that are registered in the United States be maintained to U.S. standards, regardless of where they operate.  Due to the global nature of aviation, we must have repair stations that meet U.S. standards throughout the world.  It is an essential element of the U.S. being a leading provider of international transportation services.  Finally, keep in mind that, as is the case when a carrier uses a domestic repair station, the carrier has the ultimate responsibility to ensure that the maintenance is being performed appropriately.  All of this adds up to a great deal of supervision.  The repair station has internal controls, foreign government oversight, airline oversight, and FAA oversight.\

In three countries (France, Ireland and Germany) where we have Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreements (BASA), we have outlined maintenance information procedures (MIP) to ensure that foreign inspectors are placing appropriate emphasis on the Federal Aviation Regulations when conducting review of work done on U.S. aircraft.  We have a long history and experience with these aviation authorities.  In these countries, we rely on the oversight of the aviation authority in addition to our periodic inspections.  We are also working to ensure that these foreign aviation authorities inform us and seek FAA approval of changes to repair station operations if they directly impact FAA requirements. 

In response to the IG, we have also made some changes to our oversight of foreign repair stations.  For example, we eliminated the 10% sampling requirement on FAA’s inspection of repair stations in countries where there is a BASA/MIP in place.  In FY 2006, FAA conducted sampling inspections in 21% of the repair stations located in these countries.  We have also developed and implemented policy and procedures in the BASA/MIP countries to capture and document the results from the inspections conducted by foreign authorities for inclusion in the Program Tracking and Reporting System.

It is also important to remember that, by its nature, aviation is truly an international enterprise.  An aircraft, especially in commercial aviation, contains parts manufactured all around the world.  The original equipment manufactures (OEMs) have a wealth of expertise in repairing their products.  In addition, their parts may have warranties.  It would be extremely unwise to restrict a U.S. carrier’s ability to use OEM maintenance, even if the OEM is abroad. 

There are a number of other reasons for air carriers to choose to outsource some maintenance and repair activities.  The expertise of OEMs is so considerable and their work is so consistent that maintenance is often outsourced to them, regardless of whether the maintenance being performed is on a part they manufactured.  In other cases, overseas repair and maintenance facilities may provide a great deal of expertise, or lower costs.  Nevertheless, just as aviation safety is in no way compromised by allowing U.S. carriers to fly aircraft made in Europe, in Brazil, or in Canada, so too is safety in no way compromised by allowing other countries to conduct repair and maintenance on our aircraft.

I would like to conclude this morning by saying that our work with the IG’s office in the past few years has been productive.  We have made a number of adjustments that I think have improved the effectiveness of our oversight.  That can only improve safety.  I think we generally agree that we are moving in the right direction.  Certainly, the chart I talked about reflects that airline use of repair stations has not compromised safety.

I understand and appreciate this subcommittee’s concern about the increased use of repair stations in this country and abroad.  Obviously, we share a common goal to find ways to improve safety at a historically safe period in U.S. aviation.  I can assure you that my office is totally committed to making whatever adjustments the situation demands when it comes to safety oversight.  Hearings like the one today continue a necessary dialogue.  I do not claim to have all the answers.  I think the changes we have made in recent years are good ones.  But we can’t sit still.  There will always be ways to improve and we will continue to look for them.

This concludes my statement.  I will be happy to answer your questions at this time.

Rail and Public Transportation Security

Statement of

Terry Rosapep
Deputy Associate Administrator for Program Management
Federal Transit Administration
U.S. Department of Transportation

before the

Committee on Homeland Security
U.S. House of Representatives

 Rail and Public Transportation Security

March 6, 2007

Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member King, and other members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity to testify today on behalf of the Secretary of Transportation and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA).  I am pleased to have this opportunity to update you on transit security and how the U. S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) initiatives in that area support the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) transportation security mission.  Additional DOT initiatives in support of railroad security were previously detailed in the Federal Railroad Administration’s February 6 testimony before this committee, and I refer the Committee to that Statement.

FTA and Transit Security

America’s transit systems are dynamic, interconnected, and composed of over 6,000 local systems. Unlike airports, these systems are also inherently open, and therefore difficult to secure.  In New York’s Penn Station alone, more than 1,600 people per minute pass through its portals during a typical rush hour.  The combination of open access and large numbers of people makes transit systems an inviting target for those who seek to cause the United States harm.  The deliberate targeting of the public transportation systems in Tokyo, Moscow, Madrid, and London by terrorists underscores this point.

FTA, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), other Federal and State partners, and the transit industry have built a solid foundation for security in the years following the attacks of September 11, by focusing on three security priorities:  public awareness, employee training, and emergency preparedness. After September 11, 2001, FTA undertook an aggressive nationwide security program and led the initial Federal effort on transit security.  The initial response included conducting threat and vulnerability assessments in 37 large transit systems, 30 of which carry almost 90 percent of all transit riders.  The assessments at that time gave us a comprehensive view of transit system readiness, vulnerabilities, and consequences, and identified the three important priorities that continue to form the fundamental baseline of DOT’s transit security initiatives.

Today, under Executive Order 13416, FTA, in partnership with FRA and DHS, continues to build upon these priorities as they provide focused benefits to the dynamic, open nature of America’s transit network.  Employee Training develops the skills of 400,000 front-line transit employees, who are the eyes and ears of the transit network, and first line of defense against terrorism.  Public Awareness programs such as Transit Watch educate passengers to be mindful of their environment, and how to react should they see something suspicious.  Emergency Preparedness programs build local, collaborative relationships within communities that allow for quick and coordinated response in a crisis.  Over the last five years, we have learned that terrorists adapt and change their strategies in response to security measures.  But regardless of where an attack comes from or how it is devised, security training of employees and the awareness of passengers can help to prevent or mitigate it.

In 2002, to help guide transit agency priorities, FTA issued a “Top 20 Security Action Item List” to improve transit safety and security operations, particularly with regard to employee training, public awareness, and emergency preparedness.  In a joint effort coordinated with the Mass Transit Sector Coordinating Council, FTA, and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the Security Action Items for transit agencies were revised in 2006.

The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act – A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) mandates several steps to move transit security forward through collaboration among Federal, State, local, and private entities.  In September 2005, FTA and two agencies within DHS -- TSA and the Office for Domestic Preparedness, now the Office of Grants and Training (G&T) -- signed the Public Transportation Security Annex to the DOT/DHS Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on security.  The MOU recognizes that DHS has primary responsibility for transportation security and that DOT plays a supporting role, providing technical assistance and assisting DHS when possible with implementation of its security policies as allowed by DOT statutory authority and available resources.  The Annex identifies specific areas of coordination among the parties, including citizen awareness, training, exercises, risk assessments, and information sharing. To implement the Annex, the three agencies have developed a framework that leverages each agency’s resources and capabilities.

With the Annex in place as a blueprint, FTA, TSA and G&T have established an Executive Steering Committee.  Since 2005, the Executive Steering Committee has interacted with DHS, DOT, FRA and transit industry leaders.  This committee oversees eight project management teams that spearhead the Annex’s programs.  Each of these programs advances one or more of FTA’s three security priority areas (public awareness, employee training, and emergency preparedness). We have been implementing the Annex energetically since its inception.

The eight teams are as follows:

  1. Risk Assessment and Technical Assistance Team
    The Risk Assessment and Technical Assistance team is using a risk-based approach to transit security, working toward one industry model for conducting transit risk assessments.  The team issued the “TSA/FTA Security and Emergency Management Action Items” and is developing the Next Generation Security and Emergency Management Technical Assistance Program Master Plan to identify and prioritize industry security needs.
  2. Transit Watch and Connecting Communities Team
    The Transit Watch and Connecting Communities team is reinstating and expanding these two FTA programs, which foster public awareness and coordinated emergency response. The initial roll-out of Transit Watch helped to institute this program at many transit agencies across the country.  The next phase of Transit Watch, recently released, includes a focus on unattended bags, Spanish language materials and emergency evacuation instructions.  Twelve new Connecting Communities forums are scheduled for 2007; the second forum is being held this week in the National Capitol Region, at WMATA’s Turner facility in New Carrollton, Maryland.
  3. Training Team
    The Training team is developing new courses on timely security topics such as security design considerations and National Incident Management System (NIMS) for transit employees, and also working towards developing one integrated security training curriculum.
  4. Safety and Security Roundtables Team
    The Safety and Security Roundtables team works on direct stakeholder outreach. They are responsible for planning two roundtables each year for the safety and security chiefs of the 50 largest transit agencies and Amtrak.  The roundtable format emphasizes peer-to-peer informational exchanges among the participants.  The last roundtable was held in Newark, New Jersey in December 2006 and the next roundtable is tentatively scheduled for Chicago this spring.
  5. Web-based National Resource Center Team
    The Web-based National Resource Center team is developing a secure library site for information on best practices, grants, and other security matters.  Access to the National Resource Center will be available to security chiefs of transit agencies.
  6. Emergency Drills and Exercises Team
    The Emergency Drills and Exercises team is updating the program to incorporate DHS Exercise program guidance.  The scope of this effort includes both tabletop exercises and regional field drills.
  7. Annual Plan and Grant Guidance Team
    FTA lends its subject matter expertise to the DHS Infrastructure Protection grant process. In the context of the MOU Annex, FTA is also able to leverage its longstanding working relationships with transit agencies to help TSA vet security initiatives.
  8. Standards and Research Team
    The Standards and Research team’s primary focus is the development of industry security standards.  This is a critical area because it provides transit agencies with consistent industry benchmarks and recommended practices.  Leveraging the success of the FTA, FRA and American Public Transportation Association (APTA) process for developing standards in other areas, FTA is proceeding closely with its Federal partners to develop standards in key areas such as infrastructure protection, risk assessments and emergency preparedness.

I would like to add that FTA also supports security projects through its Urbanized Area Formula Grant Program.  Under this program, transit agencies are required to spend at least 1 percent of their annual formula fund allocation on public transportation security, or to certify that they do not need to spend 1 percent of their allocation for such purposes.  For transit agencies in Urbanized Zone Areas (UZAs) over 200,000 in population, only capital projects are eligible to count towards the 1 percent security threshold.  SAFETEA-LU usefully expanded the definition of capital projects to include security planning, training and emergency drills and exercises.  In contrast to TSA’s broad statutory authority for security in all modes of transportation, FTA has limited statutory and regulatory authority on security matters, and does not have a dedicated security grant program. FTA has done a great deal to assist transit agencies in improving their security practices through training programs, research, technical assistance and oversight activities.  FTA and FRA continue to work together to improve passenger rail and rail transit security.  FTA will continue to use all of these resources, in close collaboration with TSA and G&T to improve transit security.

I want to assure you that FTA has been, and is, using all of the resources and capabilities in its toolbox to strengthen the joint security initiative formalized in the September 2005 Public Transportation Security Annex to the DOT/DHS MOU.  The MOU Annex expands that toolbox.  Since September 11, 2001, transit security has benefited from exceptionally strong partnerships, and genuinely collaborative initiatives, among the industry, different agencies and departments, and the MOU Annex captures that spirit of cooperation.

Please also be assured that the FTA will continue to strengthen public transportation security.  We look forward to continuing to work with Congress to achieve the goal of protecting our Nation’s public transportation infrastructure.  I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.  Thank you.

 

###

 

Update on Rail and Public Transportation Security Efforts

Statement of

Terry Rosapep
Deputy Associate Administrator for Program Management
Federal Transit Administration
U.S. Department of Transportation

before the

Subcommittee on Transportation Security and Infrastructure Protection
Committee on Homeland Security
U.S. House of Representatives

Hearing Entitled,

"Update on Rail and Public Transportation Security Efforts"

February 6, 2007

Chairwoman Jackson-Lee, Ranking member Lungren, and other members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to testify today on behalf of the Secretary of Transportation and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA).  I am pleased to have this opportunity to update you on transit security and how the U. S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) initiatives in that area support the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) transportation security mission.

FTA and Transit Security

America’s transit systems are dynamic, interconnected, and composed of over 6,000 local systems. Unlike airports, these systems are also inherently open, and therefore difficult to secure.  In New York’s Penn Station alone, more than 1,600 people per minute pass through its portals during a typical rush hour.  The combination of open access and large numbers of people makes transit systems an inviting target for those who seek to cause the United States harm.  The deliberate targeting of the public transportation systems in Tokyo, Moscow, Madrid, and London by terrorists underscores this point.

FTA, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), other Federal and state partners, and the transit industry have built a solid foundation for security in the years following the attacks of September 11 by focusing on three security priorities:  public awareness, employee training, and emergency preparedness. After September 11, 2001, FTA undertook an aggressive nationwide security program and led the initial Federal effort on transit security.  The initial response included conducting threat and vulnerability assessments in 37 large transit systems, 30 of which carry almost 90 percent of all transit riders.  The assessments at that time gave us a comprehensive view of transit system readiness, vulnerabilities, and consequences, and identified the three important priorities that continue to form the fundamental baseline of DOT’s transit security initiatives: employee training, public awareness, and emergency preparedness. 

Today, under Executive Order 13416, FTA, in partnership with FRA and DHS, continues to build upon these priorities as they provide focused benefits to the dynamic, open nature of America’s transit network.  Employee Training develops the skills of 400,000 front-line transit employees who are the eyes and ears of the transit network and first line of defense against terrorism.  Public Awareness programs such as Transit Watch educate passengers to be mindful of their environment and how to react should they see something suspicious.  Emergency Preparedness programs build local, collaborative relationships within communities that allow for quick and coordinated response in a crisis.  Over the last five years, we have learned that terrorists adapt and change their strategies in response to security measures.  But regardless of where an attack comes from or how it is devised, security training of employees and the awareness of passengers can help to prevent or mitigate it.

In 2002, to help guide transit agency priorities, FTA issued a “Top 20 Security Action Item List” to improve transit safety and security operations, particularly with regard to employee training, public awareness, and emergency preparedness.  In a joint effort coordinated with the Mass Transit Sector Coordinating Council, FTA, and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the Security Action Items for transit agencies were revised in 2006.

The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act – A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) mandates several steps to move transit security forward through collaboration among federal, state, local, and private entities.  In September 2005, FTA and two agencies within DHS -- TSA and the Office for Domestic Preparedness, now the Office of Grants & Training (G&T) -- signed the Public Transportation Security Annex to the DOT/DHS Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on security.  The MOU recognizes that DHS has primary responsibility for transportation security and that DOT plays a supporting role, providing technical assistance and assisting DHS when possible with implementation of its security policies as allowed by DOT statutory authority and available resources.  The Annex identifies specific areas of coordination among the parties, including citizen awareness, training, exercises, risk assessments, and information sharing. To implement the Annex, the three agencies have developed a framework that leverages each agency’s resources and capabilities.

With the Annex in place as a blueprint, FTA, TSA and G&T have established an Executive Steering Committee.  Since 2005, the Executive Steering Committee has interacted with DHS, DOT, FRA and transit industry leaders.  This committee oversees eight project management teams that spearhead the Annex’s programs.  Each of these programs advances one or more of FTA’s three security priority areas (public awareness, employee training, and emergency preparedness). We have been implementing the Annex energetically since its inception.

The eight teams are as follows:

  1. Risk Assessment and Technical Assistance Team
    The Risk Assessment and Technical Assistance team is using a risk-based approach to transit security, working toward one industry model for conducting transit risk assessments.  The team issued the “TSA/FTA Security and Emergency Management Action Items” and is developing the Next Generation Security and Emergency Management Technical Assistance Program Master Plan to identify and prioritize industry security needs.
  2. Transit Watch and Connecting Communities Team
    The Transit Watch and Connecting Communities team is reinstating and expanding these two FTA programs, which foster public awareness and coordinated emergency response. The initial roll-out of Transit Watch helped to institute this program at many transit agencies across the country.  The next phase of Transit Watch, recently released, includes a focus on unattended bags, Spanish language materials and emergency evacuation instructions.  Twelve new Connecting Communities forums are scheduled for 2007; the second forum is being held this week in the National Capitol Region, at WMATA’s Turner facility in New Carrollton, Maryland.
  3. Training Team
    The Training team is developing new courses on timely security topics such as security design considerations and National Incident Management System (NIMS) for transit employees, and also working towards developing one integrated security training curriculum.
  4. Safety and Security Roundtables Team
    The Safety and Security Roundtables team works on direct stakeholder outreach. They are responsible for planning two roundtables each year for the safety and security chiefs of the 50 largest transit agencies and Amtrak.  The roundtable format emphasizes peer-to-peer informational exchanges among the participants.  The last roundtable was held in Newark, New Jersey in December 2006 and the next roundtable is tentatively scheduled for Chicago this spring.
  5. Web-based National Resource Center Team
    The Web-based National Resource Center team is developing a secure library site for information on best practices, grants, and other security matters.  Access to the National Resource Center will be available to security chiefs of transit agencies.
  6. Emergency Drills and Exercises Team
    The Emergency Drills and Exercises team is updating the program to incorporate DHS Exercise program guidance.  The scope of this effort includes both tabletop exercises and regional field drills.
  7. Annual Plan and Grant Guidance Team
    FTA lends its subject matter expertise to the DHS Infrastructure Protection grant process. In the context of the MOU Annex, FTA is also able to leverage its longstanding working relationships with transit agencies to help TSA vet security initiatives.
  8. Standards and Research Team
    The Standards and Research team’s primary focus is the development of industry security standards.  This is a critical area because it provides transit agencies with consistent industry benchmarks and recommended practices.  Leveraging the success of the FTA, FRA and American Public Transportation Association (APTA) process for developing standards in other areas, FTA is proceeding closely with its Federal partners to develop standards in key areas such as infrastructure protection, risk assessments and emergency preparedness.

I would like to add that FTA also supports security projects through its Urbanized Area Formula Grant Program.  Under this program, transit agencies are required to spend at least 1 percent of their annual formula fund allocation on public transportation security, or to certify that they do not need to spend 1 percent of their allocation for such purposes.  For transit agencies in Urbanized Zone Areas (UZAs) over 200,000 in population, only capital projects are eligible to count towards the 1 percent security threshold.  SAFETEA-LU usefully expanded the definition of capital projects to include security planning, training and emergency drills & exercises.  In contrast to TSA’s broad statutory authority for security in all modes of transportation, FTA has limited statutory and regulatory authority on security matters, and does not have a dedicated security grant program.  Historically, FTA has assisted transit agencies in improving their security practices through training programs, research, technical assistance and oversight activities.  FTA and FRA continue to work together to improve passenger rail and rail transit security.  FTA will continue to use all of these resources, in close collaboration with TSA and G&T to improve transit security.

Chairwoman Jackson-Lee, Ranking Member Lungren, and other members of the Subcommittee, I want to assure you that FTA has, and is, using all of the resources and capabilities in its toolbox to strengthen the joint security initiative formalized in the September 2005 Public Transportation Security Annex to the DOT/DHS MOU.  The MOU Annex expands that toolbox.  Since September 11, 2001, transit security has benefited from exceptionally strong partnerships, and genuinely collaborative initiatives, among the industry, different agencies and departments, and the MOU Annex captures that spirit of cooperation.

Please also be assured that the FTA will continue to strengthen public transportation security.  We look forward to continuing to work with Congress to achieve the goal of protecting our Nation’s public transportation infrastructure.  I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.  Thank you.

###