Statement of

Robert D. Jamison
Deputy Administrator
Federal Transit Administration
United States Department of Transportation

Before the

U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Homeland Security
Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Science, and Technology

Hearing on

Transit Security

July 26, 2005

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today on behalf of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) regarding the security of America’s transit systems and in particular the critical role of training and emergency preparedness.

            We are all dismayed by the tragic and despicable acts of violence in London on July 7 and July 21.  Our hearts go out to the victims, their families, and their countrymen who stood shoulder-to-shoulder with America in the wake of September 11.  July 7 was a grim reminder of how difficult it is to balance economic prosperity, freedoms, and security.  

Mass transit systems are essential to the freedom of movement that Americans cherish and enjoy.  They permit large numbers of people to travel rapidly and efficiently between home, work, and other activities on a daily basis.  To do that effectively, transit must be open and accessible. 

Every workday, transit and commuter rail systems move more than 14 million passengers in the United States.  In two weeks, transit and commuter rail systems carry more passengers than Amtrak carries in a year.  In a single month, transit and commuter rail systems carry more passengers than U.S. airlines carry in a year. 

• On a daily basis, nearly 900,000 people take the Long Island Railroad or the New York City subway to Grand Central Terminal. 

• Prior to their destruction on September 11, the World Trade Center and Fulton Street subway stations handled over 380,000 people each day -- the equivalent of the entire population of Miami, Sacramento, or Pittsburgh.

• In 2004, 251 million trips were taken on Washington DC’s Metrorail.

The very characteristics of public transit systems that make them convenient and reliable, also make providing effective security an ongoing challenge.   Each year, more than 2.7 billion passengers use over 1,000 stations to access America’s heavy rail stations.  Although passenger screening devices similar to those used in airports have been successfully tested in locations with limited access points and relatively few passengers, the widespread application of current passenger screening devices on mass transit – even on heavy rail – is unrealistic.  During peak periods in New York’s Penn Station, for example, more than 1,500 people per minute would have to be screened to maintain current levels of mobility and access.  Therefore, even as we continue to improve the security of our Nation’s transit systems, we must not lose sight of the need to improve our ability to respond to emergencies in order to save lives and minimize injuries.

FTA and America’s Transit Systems

America’s public transportation is provided by more than 6,000 locally governed and operated transit systems.  These systems range from very small bus-only operations in small and rural communities, to very large multi-modal systems in urban areas that may combine bus, light rail, subway, and commuter rail operations. 

The Federal Transit Administration provides capital funding to States and urbanized areas to develop new and extensions to existing public transportation systems, and to improve and maintain existing systems.  Smaller urbanized areas with less than 200,000 population, may use FTA formula funds for limited support of their operations.  However, FTA does not have regulatory authority over the day-to-day operations of transit agencies.

Historically, FTA has shaped the practices of transit agencies through its training programs, the development of best practices and guidance, and by conducting research that is critical to the industry.  Since September 11, we have used all of these techniques to significantly influence the security practices of transit agencies. 

Response to September 11

Immediately following September 11, 2001, FTA undertook an aggressive nationwide security program and led the initial Federal effort on transit security.  With the creation of the Transportation Security Administration in 2001 and the Department of Homeland Security in 2003, lead responsibility for the Federal Government’s activities in the area of public transit security now rests by statute with DHS.  DOT 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.  While TSA is the lead federal agency for ensuring the security of all transportation modes, as part of its own authority, FTA conducts non-regulatory safety and security activities, including safety and security related training, research, and demonstration projects.

With the assistance of national and international security experts, FTA identified and has focused on three important priorities:  employee training, public awareness, and emergency preparedness, and we continue to work with our DHS partners in all of these areas. 

            FTA’s initial response included conducting threat and vulnerability assessments in 37 large transit systems, 30 of which carry almost 90 percent of all transit riders.  These assessments, conducted with the full cooperation and support of every transit agency involved and at no cost to the transit agencies, formed the basis of our security efforts.  The assessments considered the entire transportation system and network in each area, not just the physical assets of one mode or site.  Each assessment identified high risk and high consequence assets; evaluated security gaps; made recommendations to reduce security risks to acceptable levels; educated transit agencies on threat and vulnerability analysis; and reviewed agencies’ emergency response plans, particularly their degree of coordination with emergency responders throughout the region. 

Based on these assessments, FTA sent technical assistance teams to 46 transit agencies, and will begin four additional technical assistance visits in the next few months.  These teams help transit agencies strengthen their security and emergency preparedness plans; implement immediate operational security improvements; and offer tailored assistance based on threat assessments.  The results have also been utilized by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to assess the relative risks and requirements in the transit environment.   Further, as part of a $3 million program involving 83 transit agencies, FTA funded emergency response drills conducted in conjunction with local fire, police, and other emergency responders.  

In 2002, to help guide transit agency priorities, FTA issued its Top 20 Security Action Item List to improve transit safety and security operations, particularly with regard to employee training, public awareness, and emergency preparedness.  Since that time, the implementation of these action items by the 30 largest transit agencies has been one of four core accountabilities of every FTA senior executive, and I am pleased to report that FTA has achieved its goals in this area every year. 

In addition, to address concerns identified through its threat and vulnerability assessments, FTA developed and disseminated standard protocols for responding to chemical or biological incidents in rail tunnels and transit vehicle environments.   More recently, FTA has developed Security Design Considerations for use by transit agencies as they design or redesign infrastructure, communications, access control systems, and other transit system components.  Important considerations include designing stations for easy detection, so people cannot leave objects hidden out of sight; separating public and private spaces in facilities, so that access to controls and equipment can be restricted; and designing facilities for easy decontamination and recovery operations.  FTA is incorporating security design as a component of the New Starts development and evaluation process. 

Since 9/11, FTA has also significantly improved its ability to communicate with transit agencies.  We now utilize a voice system known as Dialogics to communicate security messages verbally to the general managers and security chiefs at the 30 largest transit agencies.  This system, which requires an affirmative acknowledgement that the message has been received, has been utilized extensively by both DHS and FTA in recent weeks.  In addition, we maintain and utilize the capability to communicate electronically with the general managers and security chiefs of the 100 largest transit agencies.

We recognize that good intelligence must be America’s first line of defense against terrorism, and FTA has worked diligently with our partners to improve intelligence sharing in the transit industry.  FTA funded and worked with the American Public Transportation Association to create the Surface Transportation Information Sharing and Analysis Center (ST-ISAC), which is used by transit agencies throughout the country to obtain and share intelligence information that is specific to the industry.  This system provides two-way communication between the intelligence community and the transit industry, as well as transit-specific intelligence analysis.   The ST-ISAC is located at the Transportation Security Operations Center, TSA’s 24/7 communications center that provides real time data on potential threats throughout all modes of transportation.  In addition, FTA worked with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to enable transit agencies to participate on their local or regional FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF), giving nearly all of the 30 largest transit agencies access to real-time intelligence information regarding their community and the ability to contribute information they may have regarding threats to their own operations.  

Response to London Attacks

In response to the London terror attacks, transit agencies across the country implemented “Orange Alert” protective measures, even before the threat level was officially raised.  This quick response was a direct result of the extensive work done in identifying best practices, developing security-related guidance, and working collaboratively to plan and test emergency response procedures. 

  Among the specific protective measures implemented by the 30 largest transit agencies immediately following the London attacks were:

• Deployment of  bomb-sniffing dogs to patrol transit stations;

• More frequent reminders to passengers about how to identify and report suspicious activities and behaviors;

• Deployment of transit police to the local police department command center; and

• Deployment of additional transit agency staff and law enforcement personnel to increase patrols and visibility in public areas.  

In addition, I am pleased to report that DHS and FTA worked cooperatively for the benefit and safety of transit riders across the Nation.  FTA provided input to DHS in the development of a DHS/FBI Joint Advisory regarding recommended measures for mass transit and passenger rail systems.  DHS and FTA also consulted on the alert timing, level, and actions; utilized shared communication systems to reach out immediately to our transit agency partners; and met jointly with transit agency leaders via teleconference. 

As you know, the prevention of attacks like those in London will be grounded in useful intelligence that is promptly shared with local officials.  Unfortunately, little intelligence was available prior to those attacks.

Although opportunities to improve U.S. transit system security still exist, we know that capital expenditures alone are not enough to assure security.  Perimeter fencing, securing yards, tunnels, and bridges, facial recognition technology, and even extensive use of security cameras did not and would not have prevented either the London or Madrid attacks. 

The fact is, good transit security is grounded in operations.  Reports from both Madrid and London confirm that our focus on public awareness, employee training, and emergency preparedness is well-founded.   In light of that knowledge, I would like to share some additional information about our efforts in these three areas, and our plans for the coming year.

Public Awareness

            Originally, many people were concerned that efforts to share security-related information with the riding public would generate fear and depress ridership.  As a result, early efforts to increase public awareness, including FTA’s Transit Watch campaign materials, were general in nature, telling passengers to be on the look-out for suspicious individuals or activities.  Over time, however, experience and research have indicated that people feel more secure and are more capable of responding if they receive more specific security-related information. 

As a result, transit agencies now focus their public awareness efforts on the specific actions that passengers should take.  For example, one widely used public education campaign, originally developed by the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, instructs passengers to ask, “Is That Your Bag?” if they see an unattended bag or package.  Another campaign, using the tag line “See Something, Say Something,” tells passengers how to contact transit officials if they see something that seems out-of-place.  Public awareness campaigns have also begun to focus more specifically on emergency evacuation procedures. 

Since September 11, the use and effectiveness of public awareness messages has significantly increased.  Washington Metro has been a leader in ensuring that detailed emergency evacuation information is more widely and openly disseminated to transit riders and the general public.   Nevertheless, in most transit systems, there is still room for improvement to ensure that the public is familiar with the operation of emergency exit doors, understands the emergency evacuation procedures for each location on their particular route, and is prepared to facilitate a prompt and effective emergency response.

 FTA will be focusing efforts to improve standard public awareness templates to help local transit agencies incorporate this important information.  In addition, FTA is developing standard protocols for the content and frequency of security announcements for each Homeland Security threat level.  Further, security and emergency preparedness messages are being developed in a variety of languages in an effort to better communicate with the diverse community of transit riders.

Employee Training

Transit employees are America’s first line of defense and will be our first responders in the event of a terrorist attack or other emergency on a transit system.  The actions taken in the critical moments immediately after an attack or an emergency can significantly reduce the severity of injuries and the number of deaths that result.  Therefore, there is simply no substitute for security awareness and emergency response training for transit employees.  We must rely on – and cultivate – human capabilities to prevent, detect, and respond to security threats.

The 400,000-plus transit employees throughout America are the “eyes and ears” of our most important security system.  Transit employees travel the same routes, maintain the same facilities, and see the same people every day as they go about their duties.  They are in the best position to identify unusual packages, suspicious substances, and people who are acting suspiciously.  But they need to develop an understanding of what to look for and skills in how to respond.  These skills can be acquired through rigorous emergency planning, regular emergency testing and drills, and extensive training.

FTA has developed and delivered guidance and security courses through the National Transit Institute (NTI), the Transportation Safety Institute (TSI) and Johns Hopkins University (JHU).  Since September 11, over 77,000 transit agency employees from across the Nation have received security-related training.   Among the newest training courses now being offered are:

• Terrorist Activity Recognition and Reaction.  This course incorporates the latest in international counter-terrorism techniques to provide training to frontline transit employees.  To date, over 4,200 transit employees from 28 of the 30 largest transit agencies have taken this training.

• Strategic Counter-Terrorism for Transit Managers.   This course provides counter-terrorism management training to transit managers and transit security officials.  It offers an effective approach to security planning and the tactical deployment of law enforcement personnel.  The course will be delivered to the 30 largest transit agencies beginning in August 2005.

• Chemical/Biological Detection Protocols.   This course will provide agency-specific information for operations control personnel and train operators on chemical and biological incident management.  The course is also slated for delivery to the 30 largest transit agencies beginning in August 2005.

Despite widespread success and the significant numbers of transit agency employees who have received training, we recognize that hurdles, such as overtime costs and shift coverage, can negatively affect the ability of transit agencies to take advantage of the free training opportunities that are available through FTA.  Therefore, we are working with transit stakeholders to identify strategies that will permit as many frontline employees as possible to be trained.

Emergency Preparedness

While transit employee training is important, there is no substitute for a good emergency response plan that has been tried and tested by the full array of emergency responders in a community.  However, the threat and vulnerability assessments conducted after September 11 suggested that most transit agencies had not even established working relationships with other emergency responders. 

To assist in building these relationships and developing community-wide response plans, FTA sponsored 18 Connecting Community Forums.  These forums brought together transit, law enforcement, fire, medical, and city/county officials for three days of regional planning and response exercises  FTA will work with DHS’s Office of State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness and Transportation Security Administration to hold ten additional Connecting Community Forums in the coming year that are customized to address weaknesses in those particular communities.  Two of the forums will he held in conjunction with small and/or rural transit agencies. 

To date, 77 communities have conducted full-scale emergency response drills funded by FTA.  One important condition of these grants was that the drills include the participation of local and regional police, fire and emergency response agencies.  There is no doubt that the safety and security of our communities is significantly enhanced when public transportation systems are linked to police, fire, medical and other emergency response agencies.  Community-wide planning, emergency response drills, and unified emergency command centers make this critical link effective.  FTA is currently updating its guidance on how to conduct emergency drills based on the results of the drills held to date.  In addition, we plan to provide additional grants to transit agencies to conduct full-scale drills. 

While we continue to believe that there is no substitute for practicing emergency response skills in an operating environment, we continue to look for ways to improve and practice skills more frequently and at a lower cost than full-scale community drills.  Therefore, FTA has also piloted web-based emergency drills in Boston (MBTA), Portland (Tri-Met), Seattle (Sound Transit), San Francisco (BART), Rock Island, IL (Metrolink), and Montgomery County, MD (Ride On).  This approach will provide transit agencies, particularly small and rural agencies, with a tool for conducting tabletop drills more effectively, efficiently, and affordably.

Conclusion

Mr. Chairman, the Nation’s transit operators have responded admirably to the new threat environment.  Thanks to their efforts, transit is more secure and more prepared to respond to emergencies than it has ever been.  FTA will continue to support transit agencies throughout the Nation by providing security-related training for transit employees, materials and guidance to educate transit passengers, and improved emergency response planning and procedures.

I appreciate the opportunity to provide this important update on transit safety and security, and look forward to working with you to keep Americans safe and moving on public transportation.

Statement of

Jennifer L. Dorn
Administrator
Federal Transit Administration
United States Department of Transportation

Before the

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

Hearing on

"Rebuilding Highway and Transit Infrastructure on the Gulf Coast following Hurricane Katrina"

October 20, 2005

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) regarding FTA’s activities and progress in the Gulf regions affected by Hurricane Katrina.

The weekend of August 27, our nation watched with growing concern as Hurricane Katrina strengthened across the Gulf.  Although we could not prevent landfall or deflect Katrina’s course, FTA’s regional offices were actively engaged with transit agencies prior to landfall.  In Katrina’s aftermath, FTA’s response has been focused, aggressive, and ambitious.

Public transportation is a lifeline for countless Americans.  Nowhere is that more evident than in the Gulf region disaster area.  From the start of the response effort, FTA has been providing on-site and hands-on technical assistance to transit agencies.  We have focused on freeing up transit resources to support the broad response effort, and on expediting the delivery of relief funds to support transit agencies’ long-term rebuilding efforts.

As we move forward, we are dealing with two separate but related crises.  We need to restore service in communities devastated by Hurricane Katrina, and we need to expand services in communities such as Baton Rouge that have seen their populations double almost overnight with the influx of evacuees.  FTA has met--and will continue to meet--both of these goals.

In the first days after landfall, FTA helped to provide transportation into and out of hurricane-ravaged communities. FTA coordinated with transit agencies unaffected by the disaster and with our industry partners to provide buses, equipment and personnel for the immediate response. To date, over 60 transit agencies nationwide have offered free transit for evacuees.

Communication in the aftermath of Katrina was critical--and challenging. Within the first week after landfall, FTA got vital information into the hands of our grantees through phone calls, the FTA website, and informational packets with comprehensive contact information and policy guidance. Our message was clear: using public transit vehicles to restore mobility and for emergency transportation is consistent with Federal law— and an agency priority.

Before and after Katrina, our headquarters staff and regional office staff in Atlanta and Fort Worth reached out to transit authorities in the Gulf region to ascertain their operating status and offer assistance. In the first week after landfall, once the full scope of the damage was known, we began to detail over 20 staff and seven contract teams to disaster areas across the entire affected region to help local transit authorities re-establish transit service and support the recovery effort. In Louisiana, a team of FTA regional administrators, project management oversight contractors, and transit operations consultants was deployed. This FTA team produced damage assessments and assisted both urban and rural transit authorities with service restoration plans.  Similar teams have also been assisting Mississippi and Alabama. Thus, we deployed the formidable human resources of FTA where they are needed the most.

Transit has a vital role to play in the restoration of strength and vitality to hurricane-ravaged communities. Our nation’s ability to repopulate these communities and restore economies washed away by disaster will require, among other things, local transit systems to provide transportation for workers, commuters, and families—many of whom lost their only means of getting around.

With this priority in mind, we considered ways to expedite the delivery of emergency funds for transit systems to restore service. Two weeks after landfall, on September 15, FTA announced that it would allow transit agencies affected by the hurricane to make use of federal funds to buy supplies, repair equipment, or begin reconstruction without immediately having to provide local matching funds. The local match, typically 20 percent, has been deferred for many communities in the disaster area.

This means that federal dollars already designated for these areas can flow more quickly, and we can award new grants before local funds can be identified. The Mississippi Department of Transportation became the first agency to benefit from this action, as FTA gave 22 transit bus operators access to a total of $6.1 million in FY 2005 transit formula funds to buy new vehicles, pay salaries or provide other necessities that will help restore service.

Before Hurricane Katrina, the New Orleans Regional Transit Authority (NORTA) provided over 50 million transit trips per year. The system sustained considerable damage and destruction to vehicles, rail, and facilities in the hurricane’s wake. An on-site assessment of NORTA’s transit facilities was not possible until September 20. On that day, at our first opportunity, an FTA team conducted an initial damage assessment, including vehicle storage and maintenance facilities. We are still honing our estimates of recapitalization costs.

        On the same day, we worked to secure a $47 million mission assignment with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for emergency relief funds for transit services in New Orleans and Baton Rouge for a period of six months. These funds will provide existing Baton Rouge residents with more transit options and give evacuees in Baton Rouge access to vital social services, jobs, and medical care. 

            It will help returning residents of New Orleans reclaim their city.  The funds will also facilitate the re-employment of NORTA workers to establish transit service in Baton Rouge, New Orleans, and surrounding parishes. We are working to address the need for intercity services between Baton Rouge and New Orleans for recovery workers and commuters. 

On October 3, we helped to secure a $1.4 million, 60-day mission assignment with FEMA for emergency transit in the three Mississippi gulf coast counties of Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson. FTA expects to finalize an additional 60-day mission assignment of $492,000 for the three rural Mississippi counties of Pearl River, Stone, and George. These emergency funds will give residents the mobility and freedom to go grocery shopping, apply for much-needed social services, or visit a doctor. These are small steps in the re-establishment of normal, daily routines.

I want to underscore the importance of these funds for rural communities throughout the entire region affected by the disaster. Small transit agencies, non-profit providers, and many rural areas in the Gulf region have seen demand increase dramatically as thousands of evacuees have joined their communities. But, they often do not have the excess operating capacity to meet that demand. Many have also lost buses and vans to the disaster, and staff and drivers have been displaced. In some cases, evacuees are set up in temporary housing, where public transportation does not exist. Funding for emergency services will help local authorities give residents and evacuees the basic mobility they need. It is a first, vital step in the long process of rebuilding individual lives and communities.

Our priorities for the coming months are to:

• Implement FEMA mission assignments in Louisiana and Mississippi;
• Work with the Gulf states and FEMA to fund transit service in areas that have a significant number of evacuees;
• Continue to work with transit agencies to secure FEMA emergency funding assistance for assets damaged or destroyed;
• Continue our on-site technical assistance to transit agencies in four states. This assistance ranges from identifying staff to helping with bus route planning in devastated communities. And, a final goal is to:
• Engage in the planning process, as communities invite us to do so, to ensure that transportation options are part of the future planning for cities and regions.

               I am proud of the exemplary and proactive efforts of the FTA before and after Hurricane Katrina made landfall. As with any natural disaster, Hurricane Katrina mandated us as public servants to deploy the substantial resources of the government and our own common sense to help rebuild lives and communities. In the seven weeks since Katrina made landfall, FTA has met that challenge, and we will continue to do so in the coming months. Thank you.

Susan E. Schruth
Associate Administrator for Program Management
Federal Transit Administration
U.S. Department of Transportation

before the

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

"State Safety Oversight Program"

July 19, 2006

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to testify on behalf of the U.S. Department of Transportation, about the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) State Safety Oversight (SSO) Program.  I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Government Accountability Office (GAO) for the thoroughness of the review it conducted over the last year, and for its recommendations to strengthen further the SSO Program.  Finally, I would like to extend my appreciation to the representatives of the agencies here to testify before this Committee today.

In this written testimony, I highlight many accomplishments of the SSO Program, as well as background on how we have developed the program to be the success we believe it is today.

The SSO program affects 26 States and 43 rail transit agencies nationwide.  Collectively, the SSO community has much to be proud of.  Rail transit provides more than 3 billion passenger trips each year, and moves millions of people each day. 

As reported by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) in its Safety Report for 2004, rail transit is responsible for less than 0.1 percent of the 44,870 transportation fatalities that occurred in the United States that year. In addition, rail transit was responsible for less than 0.15 percent of the nation’s 3.5 million transportation-related injuries, and less than 0.06 percent of the nation’s total transportation-related property damage.

Of course, unfortunately, accidents do occur in rail transit, and the potential for a catastrophic event remains.  FTA is committed to continual improvement in the industry, and works everyday to ensure the safety of rail transit passengers, employees, emergency responders, and all others who come into contact with these systems.

This morning, in these few minutes, I would like to discuss the key aspects of the program, including changes to the program in our final rule published last year, the key improvements to the program specified in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act:  A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU) and how we are implementing those, and finally, to highlight areas that we are working to improve.

Background on the SSO Program and Changes in the Rule

First, by way of introduction, Mr. Chairman, your committee authorized the SSO program in 1991, in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA).  FTA published a final rule in 1995, with a phased-in effectiveness period. States and rail transit agencies had to be in compliance with all of the rule’s requirements by January 1, 1998.  Today, the rule remains codified in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 659.

FTA’s SSO program offers a unique approach to oversight.  This approach was recommended by the (NTSB as the result of their extensive study of oversight options for rail transit. The design of the program places primary responsibility for rail transit safety oversight with the States.  FTA is responsible for setting minimum requirements to be met by the States and rail transit agencies, and for monitoring implementation of the program.  After over a decade of experience with this program, we believe it is an effective model.

The first few years of the program were challenging ones. When the rule was published, only five States had existing oversight programs, and not one of these programs fully met FTA’s requirements.  Between 1995 and 1998, we worked closely with the affected States and rail transit agencies to ensure that resources were devoted to establish the oversight agencies, and that these agencies were led by technically competent managers. In addition, the rail transit agencies did their part to provide familiarization training to oversight personnel regarding their organizations, operations, procedures, challenges and needs.

Through the Transportation Safety Institute (TSI) and the National Transit Institute (NTI), FTA established a comprehensive safety training program addressing a range of technical issues faced by industry.  This training was provided free of charge, and has been given to the majority of SSO agencies and representatives from the affected rail transit safety and security departments. FTA believes this training is critical to ensure that all personnel involved in implementing the SSO program develop core competencies in rail transit safety.

To further fulfill our obligation to monitor the SSO program implementation, FTA initiated compliance audits of SSO agencies in the fall of 1998. This is an extensive program comprised of pre-audit interviews and document reviews, on-site program examination, and generation of a final audit report, delivered in draft form to the SSO agency at the Exit Interview. Through this program, between 1998 and 2005, FTA effectively identified and resolved over 220 findings at the State agencies.

To address the special needs of new States and rail transit agencies joining the program, we also conducted Safety and Security Readiness Reviews (SSRRs). Since 1999, seven States and seven rail transit agencies have joined the program. FTA has worked with each of these States and rail transit agencies to review their programs, evaluate their initial submissions, provide technical assistance, and ensure compliance with the program requirements.

FTA also established an annual report that is submitted by the SSO agencies documenting their oversight activities for the year and collecting detailed information regarding the rail transit accidents occurring in their jurisdictions.

Based on the results of the SSO audit program, the SSRRs and annual reports, as well as input from NTSB and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) – with whom we share oversight for several light rail systems with shared use track or limited connections to the general railroad system, FTA initiated work on a revision to its rule in 2003. On April 29, 2005, our revised final rule was published, with an effective date of May 1, 2006.

The revised rule clarifies that program requirements apply in situations where rail transit agencies are built entirely with State and local funds, but plan to receive FTA formula funds during revenue service. Examples of these systems include Houston Metro’s light rail and New Jersey Transit’s RiverLINE. The revised rule also addresses an NTSB recommendation regarding the need for proficiency and efficiency testing for operations and maintenance personnel.  Finally, the revised rule improves oversight of internal safety and security auditing at rail transit agencies; expands the role of the oversight agency in the hazard management process; promotes consistency between FTA’s National Transit Database (NTD) and oversight agency accident notification and investigation thresholds; and clarifies requirements for security.

On May 1, FTA received the required initial submissions from each of the 26 affected SSO agencies.  FTA has completed its evaluation of these submissions, and is now working with the SSO agencies and rail transit agencies to address identified deficiencies and concerns.  FTA anticipates that the SSO agencies will be in full compliance with the revised rule by October 1, 2006.

SAFETEA-LU Changes

Last year, SAFETEA-LU amended the SSO program.  First, SAFETEA-LU requires that the program be extended to rail transit projects that are in the design phases.  Second, SAFETEA-LU clarifies that in those instances where a rail transit agency operates across State lines, the rail transit agency should not be subject to more than one set of safety oversight standards.

FTA is working to address both of these changes, and will be preparing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for publication in the Federal Register.   Regarding the role of SSO agencies in projects in the design phase, we have increased coordination with our Regional Offices, and now invite the SSO agencies to all Quarterly Review Meetings conducted for New Starts projects in their jurisdictions.  We are also requiring Safety and Security Management Plans (SSMPs) for all major capital projects.  A critical element addressed in these plans is the grantee’s readiness to comply with SSO requirements with the initiation of revenue service. Finally, our Project Management Oversight (PMO) contractors, using the safety and security technical experts on their teams, interface with SSO agencies and personnel during their monthly visits to the projects to identify and resolve any potential issues.

FTA already addressed the multi-State coordination issue in its revised rule, ensuring that in the event multiple States share oversight responsibility, the rail transit agency “is subject to a single program standard, adopted by all affected states.”

Program Accomplishments and Areas of Improvement

Mr. Chairman, we can cite numerous examples of the positive effect this program has had on safety in the rail transit industry.  I would like to share a few examples with you.

Over the last few years, in Massachusetts, the oversight agency, Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Energy (MDTE) has worked closely with the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) in Boston to resolve hazards resulting from the introduction of low-floor rail transit vehicles into that agency’s operations.  MDTE activities resulted in a significant re-engineering effort. Retrofitted vehicles are now being tested and phased into service.

In New York, during the late 1990s, the oversight agency, New York State Public Safety Board (PTSB), played a critical role in evaluating New York City Transit’s (NYCT) decision to implement one-person-train operation (OPTO) pilot programs on five shuttle lines.  PTSB worked closely with NYCT to ensure sufficient countermeasures were in place to allow the removal of the conductor from the trains. The next phase of this pilot involves integration of NYCT's new communications-based train control system into OPTO service on the Canarsie Line.

The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) played a critical role in overseeing the Utah Transit Authority (UTA) as the designated transportation provider during the 2002 Winter Olympics.  UDOT worked tirelessly with UTA to ensure that service plans and contracts with the Salt Lake City Olympic Organizing Committee addressed safety and security for all Olympic spectators, and that loaned vehicles from Dallas were safely integrated into UTA’s Olympic service plan. During the two weeks of the games, UTA’s Olympic Spectator System carried a total of over 2.5 million passengers without a single safety incident.

New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT), which oversees four rail transit systems, has experienced many successes in its program. NJDOT has established a ground-breaking partnership with FRA regarding the management of track waivers for systems in Newark and southern New Jersey. In addition, NJDOT has provided effective oversight to the nation’s first public transportation public-private partnership using a "DBOM" (design/build/operate/maintain) contract.  The approach used by NJDOT to managing the DBOM process to address safety and security has become a model throughout the country and in other modal transportation projects using DBOM contracts.

Finally, the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (CoPUC) in partnership with the Denver Regional Transportation District (RTD), has worked effectively to overcome resource challenges at both agencies. Colorado PUC proposed combining its three-year safety and security review process with Denver RTD’s internal safety and security auditing process. 

Performance Measures

As you may sense from these examples, it is difficult to quantify the benefits that correlate directly to the SSO program. Developing performance measures has been on our agenda for several years.  Fortunately, as I stated during my introduction, the safety record of rail transit is better than any other mode of transportation.  This good news makes it difficult to measure improvement, especially when the statistics that need to be evaluated are measured in fragments of percentages rather than whole numbers.

Currently we are working to develop performance measures and to establish a performance measurement program that can yield statistical data to document and substantiate anecdotal evidence of success on an industry-wide level. 

Going to the "next level" of performance measures poses some unique challenges. It is difficult to "prove the negative" of an accident or incident that was prevented through the SSO program. Technically, it is also a challenge to achieve statistical significance in performance measures for the rail transit industry based on what is—quite fortunately—a low number of accidents and incidents. Nevertheless, we are committed to documenting industry performance as it relates to specific activities in the SSO program—and we are committed to establishing strategic goals and performance measures for the program by the end of fiscal year 2006.

As a first step we have developed a plan to collect and evaluate existing NTD and data submitted by the States’ Safety Offices, and we will soon release our Rail Transit Safety Action Plan. We plan annual updates of that plan based on ongoing data to report to the SSO community on how well we are collectively doing.

In a more ambitious step, we are conducting a cutting-edge study with Oklahoma State University (OSU) to develop a performance program to assess the benefits of SSO and rail transit program that moves beyond accident data. With the completion of the OSU study we anticipate being able to use performance measures to capture less tangible but no less important safety measures, such as how well rail transit employees are complying with safety rules and procedures; measures of how passengers perceive safety and security; measures of "near misses;” and measures that express the safety benefits from specific design features or operating procedures.

Finally, to assess implementation of the revised rule, we are modifying our SSO compliance audit program to collect additional information to support program performance measures. During the three-year period between October 2006 and September 2009, we will audit each of the 26 SSO agencies. Using a set of web-based tools, we will be able to capture and report critical program information obtained from the States during the audits.  Examples of the types of data we will be able to collect include the following: the level of resources devoted to the program, training and certifications obtained by the SSO program managers, the functions performed by contractors, hazards identified and managed by the program, the development of corrective action plans, and the time required to address them."

Training

Another important issue that we are dedicating thought, resources, and time to concerns the training of SSO staff and program managers. We have always recognized the importance of this training, although we do not have the authority to mandate specific certification requirements or stipulate minimum levels of experience or education.

Since 2000, FTA has encouraged the SSO program managers to complete a Transportation Safety Institute (TSI) safety and security certification program. FTA also provides training on a range of other topics through the NTI.

All in all, staff and program managers have availed themselves of these safety and security training options. The majority of SSO program managers have taken at least three of the TSI courses.

Management training on the conduct of oversight is not yet as robust as the safety and security training options. We are taking several steps to assist States in ensuring the technical expertise of the personnel assigned to manage the program. In recognition of the limited State funds available for management training, FTA is working with TSI to revise its course on Transit Rail System Safety so that it includes several modules specifically for program managers. This course will be piloted in-house in August of this year.

We have also secured funds to continue at least one invitational workshop for program managers each year. Finally, we will be conducting a survey of SSO program managers to identify training gaps and needs. Overall, given the small population of SSO program managers and the specialized, idiosyncratic types of activities they perform, FTA believes that invitational workshops will prove the best forum for management training.

Coordination with the Department of Homeland Security’s Transportation Security Administration (TSA)

Finally, we are working to improve coordination between the SSO agencies and the new TSA Surface Transportation Security Inspection Program (STSIP) and FRA with regard to the rule’s security requirements.  The Federal Government is partnering a select group of SSO agencies and rail transit agencies to develop a “model program” to establish a framework through which the SSO agencies and the Federal Government can work together. In sessions throughout the summer, we will work with our government and industry partners to complete the draft “model program,” which will be presented to the SSO agencies and rail transit agencies for discussion and further refinement during a day-long session at the 10th Annual SSO Workshop in September.  Final guidance will be published to clarify the roles and responsibilities for SSO agencies in the spring of 2007.

Conclusion

Since its inception in 1991, the SSO program has contributed to rail and transit safety, and has proven its merits as a sound, successful oversight program. As with any safety program, it is always a work in progress.  FTA and those with whom we collaborate proactively seek ways to continuously improve and better measure performance. The SSO program had been further improved by FTA's own efforts in April 2005 to clarify the rule and later by SAFETEA-LU’s amendments. Today, we are continuing to refine the program and move it forward by working to implement statistical performance measures, and to improve SSO community training.

And now I'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have. Thank you. 

Statement of

Terry Rosapep
Deputy Associate Administrator for Program Management
Federal Transit Administration
United States Department of Transportation

before the

U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Homeland Security
Subcommittee on Economic Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Cybersecurity

Hearing on

Transit and Rail Security Training

September 28, 2006

Mr. Chairman and 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, with my colleague,

William Fagan, Director of Security at the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), to update you on transit and rail security training and the U. S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) initiatives in that area.

FTA and Transit Security

America's transit system is complex, dynamic, interconnected, and composed of over 6,000 local systems. By their nature, these systems--and the entire transit network--are open and accessible, and therefore difficult to secure. Each workday, transit and commuter rail systems move approximately 14 million passengers in the United States. 

FTA, its 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. FTA has designed its security training programs with the certainty that regardless of where an attack comes from or how it is devised, security training of employees and passenger awareness will always help to prevent or mitigate damage.

Since September 11, in our ongoing collaboration with partners at the National Transit Institute (NTI) of Rutgers University, the Transportation Safety Institute (TSI) of the Department of Transportation, and Johns Hopkins University (JHU), FTA has delivered security training to almost 80,000 transit employees nationwide.  We have utilized an array of formats for security training, ranging from classroom instruction and roundtables to videos and toolkits, to suit the needs of each audience and to disseminate broadly our knowledge about security.

In September 2005, FTA and two agencies within the Department Homeland Security – the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and the Office for Domestic Preparedness, now the Office of Grants and Training (G&T), signed the Public Transportation Security Annex to the Department of Transportation (DOT/Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on security.  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 that interacts with DHS, DOT, 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, which again are public awareness, employee training, and emergency preparedness.  We have been implementing the Annex energetically since its inception.  

The "Training Team" looks specifically at how to develop new courses on timely, cutting-edge security topics such as strategic counter-terrorism, and biological and chemical threats. The Annex's "Safety and Security Roundtables" team also enhances security training. It works on direct outreach to the transit industry, and plans two educational events a year for the security chiefs of the 50 largest transit agencies. Transit security leaders have responded favorably to opportunities for peer-to-peer forums, and the security roundtables provide just that. The next roundtable, our third, will be held in December 2006 in Secaucus, New Jersey.

It is also worth noting that the Annex includes a team dedicated to the "Transit Watch" program, which is tantamount to a security training initiative that teaches transit passengers to become more mindful of their environment in the context of risks of the times for terrorism.

FTA, with our Federal partners at DHS, continues to work with Johns Hopkins, TSI, and NTI to deliver and develop security training programs.

Before I detail these course offerings, I would like to call your attention to a few highlights. First, FTA's course offerings are comprehensive and focus on all transit environments, including smaller agencies. Second, security training aims to disseminate the most current and up to date thinking on the most current and up to date threat information for the transit industry. Third, these courses cover a comprehensive range of topics that mesh with transit industry realities and needs. Finally, FTA's courses equip transit agencies to implement security training for all of their employees. This magnifies the impact of security training courses, as it encourages those we educate to educate, in turn, their peers and employees.

In partnership with JHU, FTA has already piloted and revised a two-day course on Strategic Counter-Terrorism for Transit Managers. This course provides counter-terrorism management training to transit police and security forces in a large enough number to ensure a core, consistent approach to security planning across transit agencies.

With JHU, FTA has also developed a Strategic Curriculum Development Guidance Document, which is an essential tool for standardized, high quality security training.

Finally, in conjunction with JHU, FTA is just now completing the Security Training Assessment for Top 30 Transit Agencies, and for 20 smaller agencies.  This assessment will help FTA and our partners in the Federal government identify security training gaps and needs in the industry. Usefully, it takes into account smaller agencies, whose requirements and characteristics often differ from those of larger urban systems.

FTA is working with NTI to deliver six security training initiatives for the transit industry: 

The System Security Awareness for Transportation Employees training that FTA developed with NTI imparts basic security skills and is offered in the form of a four-hour class, DVD/video or employee handouts.  FTA has also distributed over 4,200 copies of its system security awareness Warning Signs video, developed in collaboration with NTI. FTA is in the process of developing a parallel video targeted specifically to smaller transit agencies.

FTA has just developed a six-hour course on Chemical/Biological and Explosive Incident Management for Operations Control Center Personnel.  This course has been developed and is currently being delivered to ten transit agencies in large metro areas; an additional 20 deliveries will be scheduled for 2007.

The Terrorist Activity Recognition and Reaction course draws on FTA's work with Israeli experts on passenger monitoring, and lessons learned from Israel's security experts. FTA has already reached 6,000 employees with this material. In the next quarter, FTA plans to complete two additional training initiatives with NTI. The first is an Emergency Drills/ Exercise Guidance Document for transit agencies. The second is a new training course that will help ensure that transit employees can use the National Incident Management System for Transit to collaborate effectively with emergency responders and services during an incident.

During 2006, FTA has collaborated with TSI to offer or develop six security training courses.

In June, FTA and TSI offered a Crime Prevention through Environmental Design course in El Paso, Texas; FTA is now developing a Security Design training course with TSI that achieves the same purpose but with the emphasis against terrorism.

From April to August of this year, FTA offered its Transit System Security course five times. This course encourages participants to develop and implement security policies in a uniform format. The FTA-TSI course in Effectively Managing Transit Emergencies also takes a broad perspective and teaches transit employees how to understand the emergency management concept.

Two additional courses train employees to handle specific kinds of security threats. FTA offered the Threat Management and Emergency Response to Bus and Rail Hijackings course eight times this year. It also offered a course in the Transit Response to Weapons of Mass Destruction.

TSI is in the process of updating and revising all of its courses so as to be in compliance with FTA and DHS requirements. 

As this brief review illustrates, FTA has forged successful collaborations both within the Federal government, between the government and the transit industry, and with JHU, NTI and TSI, to develop and disseminate the latest security training and knowledge. FTA's work with these organizations and within the MOU Annex is the primary way that we influence security training practices in the transit industry.

FRA’s Role in Railroad Security

FRA’s primary mission is to promote the safety of the U.S. railroad industry.  FRA’s railroad safety mission necessarily includes its involvement in railroad security issues, and FRA works closely with TSA and the railroad industry on a daily basis in addressing railroad security issues. 

The United States railroad network is a vital link in the Nation’s transportation system and is critical to the economy, national defense, and public health.  Amtrak and commuter railroads provide passenger rail service to more than 500 million passengers yearly.  Freight railroads connect businesses with each other across the country and with markets overseas, moving 42 percent of all intercity freight, measured in ton-miles.  Passenger and freight railroads operate over 170,000 route miles of track and employ over 227,000 workers.

FRA’s involvement in railroad security predates the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.  From 1997 through the enactment of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 in March of this year, DOT worked closely with Congress to secure the enactment of Federal criminal legislation to more effectively deter and punish terrorist who attack railroads and mass transportation systems.  In 1998, FRA issued regulations requiring passenger railroads to prepare and secure FRA approval of plans to address emergencies (such as security threats), conduct employee training on the plan, and conduct emergency simulations.  This regulation is discussed in more detail below.

Since the terrorist atrocities on September 11, 2001, FRA has been actively engaged in the railroad industry’s response to the terrorist threat.  The railroads have developed their own security plans, and FRA has worked with the railroads, rail labor, and law enforcement personnel to develop the Railway Alert Network, which enables timely distribution of information and intelligence on security issues.  Working with the FTA, we have participated in security risk assessments on commuter railroads, and we have conducted security risk assessments of Amtrak as well.  FRA’s security director works on a daily basis to facilitate communications on security issues between government agencies and the railroad industry.

Freight Railroad Security

A special focus for FRA and DOT, collectively, is the security of hazmat transported by rail.  A major initiative to improve hazmat security has been the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration’s (PHMSA) March 2003 regulation requiring each shipper and carrier of significant quantities (amounts for which placards are required) of hazmat to adopt and comply with a security plan. Under the regulation, security plans must include an assessment of security risks and appropriate countermeasures or mitigation strategies, or both, to address those risks.  The plans must, at a minimum, address three specific areas:  the company personnel who prepare and handle hazmat shipments; unauthorized access to hazmat shipments or transport conveyances; and the security of hazmat shipped or transported by the company from its origin to its destination.  To assist railroads that transport hazmat and shippers that offer hazmat for transportation by rail to comply with this regulation, particularly small- and medium-sized companies, FRA and PHMSA developed a program on how to write and implement security plans for their companies.  FRA, PHMSA, and TSA have been working together on developing proposed revisions to the PHMSA rule.

FRA recognizes that railroad and shipper employees’ awareness and understanding of the PHMSA regulation and procedures governing the safe and secure transportation of hazmat shipments are critical.  Therefore, PHMSA’s regulation provides for safety and security training for employees engaged in the transportation of hazmat.  Specifically, every shipper and carrier of hazmat must give its employees training in awareness of risks associated with hazmat transportation and methods designed to enhance hazmat transportation security.  In addition, every shipper and carrier required to have a security plan must give its employees in-depth security training concerning the company’s security plan and its implementation.  These training requirements are also recurrent; employees must receive the required training at least every three years. To date, FRA personnel have reviewed more than 6,105 security plans (including the plans for all Class I freight railroad carriers) and conducted 4,054 inspections for compliance with the security training requirements.    

Further, as a result of extensive collaboration with the freight railroad industry, on June 23, 2006, DHS and DOT issued “Recommended Security Action Items for the Rail Transportation of Toxic Inhalation Hazard (TIH) Materials.”  The Action Items are based on lessons learned from an assessment of high-threat urban area rail corridors and from reviews of railroads’ security plans.  Implementation of the Action Items is expected to  raise the security baseline for the transportation of TIH materials.  We believe the Security Action Items are of great value and can be quickly implemented.  They include regularly reinforcing security awareness and operational security concepts to all employees at all levels of the organization, training employees to recognize suspicious activity and report security concerns found during inspections of cars containing TIH materials, and other security training program elements.  DOT and TSA are monitoring implementation of the Action Items and, should they not be voluntarily adopted as expected, we will consider more formally instituting the Action Items.

While we must remain ever vigilant to secure hazmat shipments on our Nation’s railroads, for the sake of railroad employees and the public whom we all serve, it bears emphasis that the vast majority of hazmat shipments arrive at their destinations safely; few tank cars have leaks or spills of any kind; fewer still are breached in an accident or incident.  Considering just chlorine, for example, since 1965 (the earliest data available) there have been at least 2.2 million tank car shipments of chlorine–only 788 of which were involved in accidents (0.036 percent of all the shipments).  Of those accidents, there were 11 instances of a catastrophic loss (i.e., a loss of all, or nearly all) of the chlorine lading (0.0005 percent of all the shipments).  Of the 11 catastrophic losses, four resulted in fatalities (0.00018 percent of all the shipments).  For all hazardous materials, in the 12 years from 1994 through 2005, hazardous materials released in railroad accidents resulted in a total of 14 fatalities.  While one death is obviously too many, the record of transporting these commodities is very good. 

Railroads have also voluntarily imposed their own, additional security requirements addressing the security of not only hazmat but of freight in general.  The Nation’s freight railroads have developed and put in place security plans based on comprehensive risk analyses and the national intelligence community’s best practices.  The Association of American Railroads (AAR) has established guidance for the major freight railroads in the form of a model strategic security plan.  Further, the AAR and Class I railroads have been working with the National Transit Institute at Rutgers University to develop employee training modules for security.  With FRA and TSA input, four video modules have been developed covering security awareness training.  In particular, the video training modules help frontline employees identify potential security breaches, threats and risks and explain how they should report them.  A fifth training module is being developed to address the notification of employees in a security incident and what they need to do under the railroad’s security plan, such as moving cars to more secure areas.  Notably, the training is intended for all railroad employees—not just those employees responsible for the transportation of hazmat.  The video training modules will be made part of a training library for use in recurrent training, rules classes, training of new employees, and other training.  The training modules will also continue to be shared with the smaller railroads.

Passenger Railroad Security

In the area of passenger railroad security, FRA requires railroads that operate intercity or commuter passenger train service or that host the operation of that service to adopt and comply with a written emergency preparedness plan approved by FRA.  Each plan must address employee training and qualification.  Crewmembers aboard a passenger train must be trained initially and then periodically every two years on the applicable plan provisions.  At a minimum, training must include the following subjects:  rail equipment familiarization; situational awareness; passenger evacuation; coordination of functions; and “hands-on” instruction concerning the location, function, and operation of on-board emergency equipment.  Personnel of a control center (a central location on a railroad with responsibility for directing the safe movement of trains) must also be trained initially and then periodically every two years on appropriate courses of action for potential emergency situations.  This training must include dispatch territory familiarization and protocols governing internal communications between appropriate control center personnel whenever an imminent, potential emergency situation exists.  Additionally, each railroad must establish and maintain a working relationship with emergency responders on its line by developing and making available a training program on the plan, inviting them to participate in emergency simulations, discussed more below, and by distributing updated plans to them, including documentation concerning the railroad’s equipment, the physical characteristics of its line, necessary maps, and the position titles and telephone numbers of relevant railroad officers to contact.   Further, railroads providing passenger service must periodically conduct full-scale passenger train emergency simulations and must conduct a debriefing and critique session after actual or simulated passenger train emergency situations.  These requirements for full-scale simulations and for post-simulation and post-emergency debriefing help ensure that employees’ abstract knowledge of emergency procedures is put into practice and then refined based on their collective experience.

Amtrak and commuter railroads have instituted their own security plans and conduct security training.  FRA assisted Amtrak in the development of its security plan.  Specifically, in coordination with Amtrak’s Inspector General, FRA contracted with the RAND Corporation to conduct a systematic review and assessment of Amtrak’s security posture, corporate strategic security planning, and programs focusing on the adequacy of preparedness for combating terrorist threats. 

              In partnership with FTA, FRA participated in security risk assessments on the ten largest commuter railroads and contributed the funding for security risk assessments on three of these railroads.  FRA also participated in FTA’s “best practices tool kit” initiative, contributing our knowledge of commuter rail operations, infrastructure, and organization to ensure that the recommended security enhancement measures were sound and feasible in a railroad environment.  FRA staff worked closely with many of the railroads that receive FTA grant funding, to plan and assist in the development and implementation of security simulations and drills.  FRA also devoted staff with both railroad knowledge and facilitation skills to the 17 FTA-sponsored workshops across the country (called “Connecting Communities”) to bring together commuter railroads, emergency responders, and State and local government leaders so that they might better coordinate their security plans and emergency response efforts. 

The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) is also leading commuter railroads in the development of industry standards for passenger rail security.  This initiative is in addition to APTA’s system safety audit program, to which most commuter railroads subscribe, and which includes security as an element of overall system safety. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, be assured that the Department of Transportation will continue to strengthen transit and rail security.  We look forward to continuing to work with Congress to advance the shared goal of protecting our transit and rail infrastructure, and all that rides on it. I, and my colleagues, will be happy to answer any questions you may have.

###

Statement of

Bernard Cohen,
Director
Lower Manhattan Recovery Office
Federal Transit Administration
U.S. Department of Transportation

Before the

Subcommittee on Management, Integration, and Oversight
Committee on Homeland Security
U.S. House of Representatives

July 13, 2006

on

Lower Manhattan Transit Recovery

            Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.  I am pleased to join this panel, and to have an opportunity to testify on the progress we are making in the Lower Manhattan transportation recovery effort.  My name is Bernard Cohen, Director of the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) Lower Manhattan Recovery Office (LMRO).

              The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, crippled Lower Manhattan's transportation infrastructure.  The worst of this devastation was not visible above ground. Lower Manhattan lost the PATH line from New Jersey to the World Trade Center – operated by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (Port Authority) that had carried an average of 67,000 passengers daily.  Debris from the Twin Towers crushed the PATH World Trade Center station—the gateway to New York City for so many.  Two New York City subway lines were heavily damaged, along with a major arterial highway.  Remarkably, despite the scale of this destruction, not a single life was lost on transit due to the terrorist attacks on that day.

              Shortly after 9/11, President Bush declared New York a national disaster area.  Congress appropriated $20 billion for many aspects of Lower Manhattan's recovery, out of which they budgeted $4.55 billion for transportation needs.  An additional $200 million for ferry facilities and rail infrastructure was appropriated by Congress and made part of the overall transportation recovery effort.

              That recovery effort still benefits today from sound decisions that public agencies made immediately after the President's declaration.  The most elemental of these decisions was a proactive commitment to coordination.  Nine months after the attacks, FTA established a beachhead in Lower Manhattan—a dedicated office that strengthened lines of communication and collaboration in Lower Manhattan.  FTA worked to establish "one-stop shopping" for Federal transportation funds, to ease administrative burdens on project sponsors.  Through a Memorandum of Agreement with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), FTA became the lead agency to move transportation money and projects forward.

              When we became the lead agency in this effort, we formulated a straightforward but challenging mission:  to streamline transit recovery while maintaining responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars, and exceptional oversight.  Unlike other FTA-funded projects, the Lower Manhattan projects are almost entirely Federally funded, so we felt the stewardship obligation just as keenly as the imperative that we revive Lower Manhattan's transit lifelines as quickly as possible.

              We also recognized that we would have to operate simultaneously in two "time zones"—the immediate and the long term—to meet the transit needs of Lower Manhattan.

              The LMRO has now obligated most of the money entrusted to Lower Manhattan transportation.  A total of $4 billion of the $4.55 billion budget has been committed to projects.  This figure includes a reserve for each project as a prudent measure of stewardship to ensure that we have the resources in place to complete our program.   

              I am very pleased to report that all of the three major, fully-funded transit projects for which initial grants were made are under construction today.  These projects promise not only to improve service, but also to enhance dramatically the passenger convenience and visibility of transit in Lower Manhattan.  Indeed, the United States, determined to come back from the 9/11 attacks stronger than ever, resolved not just to reconstruct Lower Manhattan’s infrastructure as it existed before, but to improve upon it. The recovery presented Lower Manhattan with an opportunity to modernize and rationalize its infamous "spaghetti bowl" tangle of transit lines.  The Federal Government and Lower Manhattan have seized that opportunity. We are creating a vastly more visible, navigable, seamless, and customer-friendly system for Lower Manhattan. 

              Construction began in March of this year on the permanent World Trade Center PATH terminal.  Since 2003, FTA has awarded the Port Authority up to $2.2 billion for the PATH terminal, and project sponsors completed their environmental review in June 2005.  In addition to restoring commuter service, the project includes pedestrian connections to the Fulton Street Transit Center and the World Financial Center.  The Port Authority has engaged the renowned architect Santiago Calatrava to design the PATH terminal, which many have come to regard as the Grand Central Station of Lower Manhattan, a transit focal point.  The majestic glass and steel terminal is scheduled for completion in June 2011.

FTA has also provided a $478 million grant to develop a state of the art World Trade Center Site Security Center that will screen all vehicles for security threats and provide parking for tour buses.  This facility will ensure that vehicles servicing the buildings or parking in the Center will not be used as weapons.

              In July 2005, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) began construction of the Fulton Street Transit Center, used by 275,000 people a day.  The construction agreement between FTA and MTA provides for up to $847 million in Federal funds.  This grant will fully fund a multi-level complex of stations that will serve 12 different subway lines.  The existing maze of narrow ramps, stairs, and platforms will be transformed into a more spacious and rational configuration.  A prominent transit center will replace street entrances previously hidden inside buildings.  MTA was awarded this grant in December 2003.  The environmental review for Fulton was completed in November 2004, and completion of construction is scheduled for June 2009.

              Also in December 2003, FTA awarded MTA a grant up to $420 million for the South Ferry Terminal Station, the last station at the southern end of the IRT #1 subway line.  This project will eliminate the tight-curve platforms that prevent operators from opening the doors on the rear five cars of their trains.  It will increase the number of entrances from one to three, and make the station accessible to disabled passengers.  Construction on the terminal began in March 2005, and should be completed by April 2008.

              I should add that LMRO is also providing $287 million toward the cost of rebuilding Route 9A/West Street, the major north-south state arterial highway that runs down the West Side of Lower Manhattan.  FTA and the Federal Highway Administration have executed two Memoranda of Agreement in the last two years to provide for the transfer of funds and outline the oversight responsibilities of each agency.  This roadway project is already under construction and is scheduled to be completed by June 2009.

              Community leaders envision these transit projects as anchors of the overall recovery effort that is unfolding today, and will continue into the next decade.                    

              Over the last four years, many of our office's priorities have also been Lower Manhattan's priorities.  The economic renaissance in many respects begins with the vanguard of transit systems that can carry riders, visitors, and workers into and out of the area.  We have been the beneficiaries of a broad understanding that transportation is a first chapter in the Lower Manhattan success story.

              The LMRO has also made a priority of working collaboratively with other major players in transportation reconstruction, which was crucial in the project selection process.  FTA worked closely with a committee formed by Governor Pataki and including key city and state transportation agencies, as well as the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation.  This committee generated the initial list of transportation recovery projects from which our three projects were selected.  Because of this collaboration, we have been able to advance well-designed, well-received transit projects. In turn, the business community has responded with a burst of optimism to renovate and build in Lower Manhattan. 

              As construction progresses on the three major transit projects, Lower Manhattan has become an incubator for innovations and lessons learned that can benefit other transit systems and projects.

              Certainly, the Lower Manhattan context rewards innovation, and creative ways of doing business.  FTA adopted a novel, risk-based oversight approach to management.  We undertook formal risk assessments early in the development of each project, and tailored our oversight accordingly.  We focused on the preemption of risks rather than the mitigation of problems after the fact.  We established reserves for our projects based on our risk assessments in order to ensure that sufficient resources will be in place to complete the recovery projects.

              Throughout this entire process, the LMRO has endeavored to exercise a truly exceptional level of proactive oversight.  Specifically, this means that we have paid close attention to costs and schedules at every step.  We have given project sponsors approval to move through various phases of design and development.  We have entered into construction agreements when sponsors have been ready to begin work.  And, we have carefully scrutinized and reviewed procurement procedures and financial systems.

              We have applied the same extraordinary degree of oversight to transit security in Lower Manhattan.  FTA has been centrally involved in, and well aware of, key security design features for all of the projects, from the earliest phases of work.  Security features are being integrated into the very design of these projects.  FTA retained a consultant to review security documents that we required our project sponsors to prepare, including threat and vulnerability assessments, construction site security plans, security management plans, and design guidelines. 

              To meet environmental standards while advancing these important projects as quickly as possible, we worked closely with project sponsors to create an active environmental oversight approach.  We adapted a Cumulative Effects Analysis approach to assess the overall environmental impact of all of the transit projects in Lower Manhattan.  Our project sponsors, in turn, have made a landmark agreement to implement aggressive mitigations for those effects.  Collaborating with project sponsors, we established one single, consistent set of methodologies, data, sources, and assumptions for all of the projects.  These shared assumptions allowed for comparability across projects, and vastly shortened the time traditionally needed to prepare and review environmental documents.

              None of these was a "cookie cutter" approach.  In our environmental streamlining, risk assessment, and project oversight, we have drawn on our collective experience and our creativity to customize solutions that fit specific projects.

              The Lower Manhattan transit recovery is as much a story of building relationships as it is of building track, road, and rail.  From the start, we have focused on coordination and regular communication with state and local officials, public and private project sponsors, other Federal agencies, the business community, organizations representing the families of the victims of 9/11, and other major players in this complex undertaking. That legacy of coordination endures today in the Lower Manhattan Construction Command Center (LMCCC), which is funded largely through an FTA grant.  The LMCCC began as a voluntary collaboration among project sponsors dedicated to minimizing the negative impact of overlapping construction projects on an already-fragile community.  The LMCCC emerged from that undertaking as a formal organization that, today, coordinates construction logistics.  The LMCCC formalizes the kind of coordination that has characterized the transit recovery effort from its earliest days.

              FTA's dual focus on streamlining and stewardship has paid off.  Four years after we first established a beachhead in Lower Manhattan, we have committed the bulk of the Federal transit money to three major, popularly-acclaimed transit projects, for which construction is already well underway.  When complete, these projects will transform—even revolutionize—the transit landscape in Lower Manhattan.  They will make the transit system dramatically more iconic, secure, accessible, and customer-friendly than it was in pre-9/11 days. 

              On behalf of the entire LMRO and FTA, thank you for this opportunity to update you on our progress.  Now I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Statement of

Sandra Bushue
Deputy Administrator
Federal Transit Administration
U.S. Department of Transportation

Before the

Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
United States Senate

Hearing on

Implementation of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act – A Legacy for Users

June 27, 2006

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify today on the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) implementation of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act:  A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) enacted by Congress and signed by the President on August 10, 2005. The hard work of the members of this committee is reflected in the legislation that is good for public transportation.  We appreciate your continued interest and strong commitment to public transportation as embodied in it.

Since my arrival at the FTA in January, I have made timely implementation of SAFETEA-LU my top priority.  I am pleased to report to the committee that the FTA is making substantial progress in implementing this important legislation. 

As you know, SAFETEA-LU authorizes a total of $45.3 billion in guaranteed funding for Federal transit programs over five fiscal years (FY) 2005 - 2009, an increase of 46 percent over the funding provided in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21^st Century (TEA 21).  In addition to historic funding levels, SAFETEA-LU added new programs such as New Freedom, Tribal Transit Program, and Alternative Transportation in the Parks and Public Lands that began in FY 2006, and modified other programs, such as Job Access and Reverse Commute and Clean Fuels.  SAFETEA LU also required that FTA promulgate 17 new regulations, including regulations to implement FTA and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) planning requirements, New Starts (including the Small Starts program), Buy America, Charter Bus, and a joint rulemaking with the Department of Homeland Security on transit security grants.  This is an unprecedented amount of rulemaking for FTA.  In fact, FTA was tasked by SAFETEA-LU with more rulemaking actions than any other Department of Transportation (DOT) modal administration.  Besides regulatory changes, SAFETEA-LU also requires FTA to issue nearly 29 other program guidance documents and 19 reports to Congress.

Since the President signed SAFETEA-LU in August 2005, FTA has worked diligently with an aggressive schedule to meet the requirements in SAFETEA-LU and facilitate program implementation.  First, I will outline the steps we have taken to assure an orderly implementation process, and to get the maximum amount of stakeholder input as possible.  Second, I will describe the regulatory steps taken to date, and our plans for completing these actions.  Finally, I will discuss the implementation of the other program changes.

Implementation Process and Outreac

Immediately after enactment of SAFETEA-LU, FTA set out to define the regulatory actions that had to be taken, the new programs to be implemented, the reports and studies to be undertaken, and the program guidance documents that had to be revised.  Over 60 such products were identified, including 17 regulations, 19 reports, and 29 program guidance documents.  FTA then developed a prioritized listing of these products and a detailed timeline.  FTA identified 12 of these products as first priority items, based on the need for action.  The delivery of these top priority items on time is one of FTA’s core accountabilities for evaluating the performance of our Senior Executives, and will be reflected in their performance appraisals and compensation.  I am extremely pleased to say that we have already completed eight of these twelve first priority items.  Two will not meet our original schedule, but we have deliberately delayed delivery of those items to better accommodate the high degree of interest from our stakeholders in providing input to the design of the program guidance being developed.  We are making steady progress on those not yet completed.  Many of these first priority items involve interim steps, such as publication of Federal Register Notices for public comment 24 of which have been published by FTA to thus far.

Indeed, a key aspect of our implementation plan has involved getting input from our stakeholders.  We have held nearly 100 outreach events, ranging in size from a Webinar, conducted jointly with the American Public Transportation Association, with nearly 1,000 participants, to a series of five general outreach sessions conducted last December, at which about 700 people participated, a series of three outreach sessions focused on New Starts and Small Starts with nearly 500 participants, and two national outreach sessions focused on Tribal Transit with over 100 participants, to more targeted sessions at which small groups of 20 or 30 met to discuss specific program issues.

Let me also stress our efforts to include the Congress in our outreach process.  Over the last several months, we have provided periodic updates to the Congress on the status of our reauthorization implementation efforts and schedules.  Let me assure you of my commitment to continue to provide timely information to Congress on our work to implement all features of this important legislation.

Further, we have taken very seriously the changes made by SAFETEA-LU that calls for FTA to provide notice and an opportunity for comment on any FTA policy or guidance document that might produce a “binding obligation” on our grantees.  In implementing this provision, I am happy to report that FTA has developed a process that is fostering a healthy dialogue between FTA and our stakeholders.  While there may be additional time and steps involved because of this new notice and comment provision, comments received on our draft guidance and policy statements will allow us to assure that the documents are more complete, more responsive to stakeholder needs, and more likely to take account of on-the-ground realities.

Our recent experience with the New Starts Policy Guidance demonstrates how seriously we are taking the Notice and Comment process.  As I will discuss in more detail later, of the nine changes in New Starts procedures we proposed to take effect this year, three were adopted as originally proposed; three were modified to incorporate stakeholder comments; and three were either rejected or deferred pending further analysis.  This is a clear demonstration of FTA’s willingness to listen to our stakeholders, make changes when necessary, and even go back to the drawing board if the comments we receive make it clear that we need to do so. 

Status of Regulatory Actions

Now I would like to quickly review for you the status of some of the key regulatory actions we are taking in response to direction in SAFETEA-LU.  FTA has initiated rulemakings on Buy America and Charter Bus and joint rulemakings with other agencies on Security Grants, Metropolitan and Statewide Planning, and Section 4(f) of the DOT Act.  In general, I believe we are making good progress on our own rulemakings; however, progress on the joint rulemakings has been comparatively slower due to the additional complication of working with other agencies.

Buy America.  FTA issued its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Buy America on November 28, 2005.  The rulemaking covered the definition of microprocessor and end product and the standards for pre-award and post-delivery audits for small transit vehicle purchases, among other issues.  In response, we received comments indicating that the issues were more complex than originally thought.  As a result, we issued a Final Rule covering the non-controversial aspects of the rule, such as the pre-award and post-delivery audits, on March 21, 2006.  We now plan to issue another Notice of Proposed Rulemaking covering the remaining issues, including the definition of end product, by early fall.  In addition, FTA plans to hold a public hearing in Washington, D.C. to discuss the new proposal. 

Charter Bus.  As you know, SAFETEA-LU requires a Negotiated Rulemaking to develop proposed changes to FTA’s Charter Bus regulation.  This involves establishment of a formal Advisory Committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).  To do so, we published an initial Notice in the Federal Register on January 31, 2006 inviting comments on the proposed issues to be addressed and asking for nominations for membership on the Advisory Committee.  We published a Notice responding to these comments and announcing the members of the Advisory Committee on April 10, 2006.  The first meeting of the Committee was held on May 8 and 9, 2006, in Washington D.C.  The next meeting was held on June 19 and 20, 2006 and the next meeting is scheduled for July 17 and 18, 2006.   We expect to hold a series of meetings over the next several months.  The exact timing of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking will depend on the deliberations of the Committee.

­Security Grants.  FTA and DHS are jointly finalizing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking mandated by SAFETEA-LU that outlines requirements and characteristics of public transportation security grants, including funding priorities and eligible activities, methods for awarding these grants, and limits on administrative expenses.  It is anticipated that DHS will administer these grants and DOT will provide technical assistance on development of the application and eligibility process.  Also, as required by SAFETEA-LU, FTA and the Transportation Security Administration of DHS completed an Annex to the Memorandum of Understanding between DOT and DHS on transportation security on September 8, 2005.

Metropolitan and Statewide Planning.  SAFETEA-LU made a number of changes to the metropolitan and statewide transportation planning and programming process.  We have been working with FHWA, with whom FTA jointly administers these requirements, to implement these changes.  On September 2, 2005, we provided joint guidance on the initial changes, and a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published on June 9, 2006.  We expect to have the Final Rule in place by Spring 2007.

Section 4(f).  SAFETEA-LU also made a number of changes in the requirements for protections of parks and historical resources, commonly known as Section 4(f) [of the DOT Act].  We have submitted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on these changes, to the Office of Management and Budget for clearance and we expect to publish this it in July 2006.

New Programs and Program Guidance

In addition to the rulemaking required by SAFETEA-LU, FTA has been working to implement our new program structure, several new programs, and to change our program guidance to reflect the changes made in program requirements.  Among the most important are the New Starts and Small Starts Program, the New Freedom Program (and related changes to the Job Access and Reverse Commute program, and Elderly and Persons with Disabilities programs), the Alternative Transportation in Parks and Public Lands Program, the Tribal Transit Program, and the Public Private Partnership Pilot Program. 

New Program Structure.  One of our first tasks was to restructure our appropriations accounts to deal with the new program structure enacted in SAFETEA-LU.  I am pleased to say that FTA successfully restructured its accounts in accordance with SAFETEA-LU in time to award grants in FY 2006.  The new accounting structure will prevent the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund from running out of money in FY 2007.   The enactment of a solely trust funded account and 3 separate General Fund accounts should ensure the solvency of the Mass Transit Account well beyond the current authorization period.  In fact, our estimates indicate that the Mass Transit Account should have a positive cash balance of over $6.9 billion at the end of FY 2009.

General Program Guidance.  Even before tackling the major program changes, and new programs, we decided that it was important to make sure that our continuing programs were allowed to proceed on an uninterrupted basis.  Thus, on November 30, 2005, we issued a Federal Register Notice outlining the changes in all our programs, and providing initial guidance on implementing these changes.  This allowed us to make grants in fiscal year 2006 to such programs as the Urbanized Formula Program, the Fixed Guideway Modernization Program, the Other than Urbanized (Rural) Formula Program, and our planning grants programs as soon as FY 2006 funds were appropriated.  We are now proceeding with revising our program guidance circulars on all of these programs to accommodate the changes that were made by SAFETEA-LU.

New Starts and Small Starts.  SAFETEA-LU made a number of changes to the criteria for evaluating New Starts projects, and of course, established the new program category, Small Starts, for projects with a total cost of under $250 million and a New Starts share of under $75 million.  Needless to say, this has generated a significant amount of interest by our stakeholders.  In addition, as we reviewed the Small Starts program as enacted, it became clear that there were a wide range of issues that needed to be addressed in some detail.  Further, SAFETEA-LU specifically required FTA to provide notice and comment on any changes in policy or procedures in the New Starts program early in calendar year 2006 and at least every two years thereafter.  Accordingly, on January 19, 2006, we issued a Notice of Proposed New Starts Policy Guidance in the Federal Register.  And on January 30, 2006, we issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on Small Starts.  While we did not have to take the preliminary step of issuing an ANPRM on Small Starts, the wide range of issues that are posed by the program suggested that we take an opportunity to get stakeholder input before embarking on a more formal NPRM. 

The response to these publications suggests that this was a good idea.  We received over 70 written comments on the draft New Starts Policy Guidance and over 90 comments on the Small Starts ANPRM.  In response, on May 22, 2006, we published our final New Starts Policy Guidance and the FY 2008 Reporting Instructions for the New Starts criteria for submissions for the FY 2008 New Starts Report (submissions are due by June 30 for ridership and cost estimates and August 15 for financial plans).  As I described earlier, we made several modifications to the proposals for specific changes in FTA New Starts Policy made in the January 19, 2006 Federal Register Notice.  We believe that these changes will help make the process more effective in the short term and allow FTA to leave other major changes for later determination during the rulemaking process.

I would note that since coming to FTA, I have expressed my concerns about how long it takes and how much it costs to develop a New Starts project.  While we have been able to address some of these concerns in the New Starts Policy Guidance, I believe that we should systematically reassess all that FTA and our grantees must do to move a project to the finish line.  Accordingly, we have recently engaged a management-consulting firm to undertake a complete review of the New Starts project delivery process.  This quick but intensive effort will be undertaken in parallel with our development of the New Starts Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

With respect to Small Starts, we have just published, on June 9, 2006, draft Interim Guidance that FTA and our grantees may use to develop and evaluate projects beginning this year until the Final Rule is in place.  We are aware that project sponsors are considering a large number of projects that may be eligible for funding under this program.  In fact, a recent survey by the American Public Transportation Association identified over 75 projects in various stages of project development.  Once we have received comments on the June 9 draft, FTA will modify the Interim Guidance and publish it later this summer in final form.  This will allow grantees to assess projects and submit them to us for possible funding during FY 2007 and inclusion in the fiscal year 2008 New Starts report.

We also plan to develop a single NPRM later this year, which would cover both New Starts and Small Starts.  Once comments are received, we would then be able to issue the Final Rule on both programs during 2007.  Given the large number of comments already received on these subjects, and the large amount of interest in these programs, we want to make sure that we, and our stakeholders, have sufficient time to think through the features that should be included in this rule.  The Interim Guidance on Small Starts and the Policy Guidance on New Starts should provide us with the tools needed to assure that the New Starts and Small Starts programs can be effectively executed even while the rulemaking process is underway.

New Freedom, Job Access and Reverse Commute and Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities Programs.  As you know, SAFETEA-LU established a New Freedom program for grants to provide improved public transit services to persons with disabilities, altered the Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) Program to make it a formula rather than discretionary program, and modified the program requirements of the Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities Program.  Taken together, these changes now provide FTA with a portfolio of interrelated programs designed to address certain essential transportation needs.  An important feature of all three programs is a new requirement for locally developed, coordinated public transit--human services transportation plans.  In addition, the New Freedom and JARC programs require selection of subrecipients on a competitive basis.  Finally, there are some complex eligibility questions, particularly with respect to the New Freedom program which is targeted to provide new public transportation service and alternative transportation services beyond those required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

Given the challenges involved in implementing all three programs, and the large amount of interest in them from a wide variety of stakeholders, FTA has undertaken an extensive process of outreach and public involvement.  This process began with the November 30, 2005 Federal Register Notice that outlined the broad parameters of these programs and asked for input on several key issues.  These issues were a major topic for discussion at the outreach sessions held around the country in December 2005 and subsequent meetings early in 2006.  The process culminated with a Federal Register Notice on March 15, 2006 that responded to the comments received on the broad issues outlined in the November 30, 2005 Notice, laid out interim guidance to allow the programs to proceed in FY 2006, and provided further detailed topics for comment with respect to the major issues identified in the comments already received.  FTA then held a major outreach meeting with over 150 participants on March 23, 2006 to discuss the issues in the Notice.  FTA also held public conference calls and began to receive and review comment.  While the comment period was originally set to end by April 21, 2006, FTA received a request for and granted an extension of the comment period through May 21, 2006.  We are reviewing the comments received, and are planning to issue final program guidance later this year.  In the meantime, the interim guidance included in the March 15, 2006 Notice is allowing each of these programs to be implemented during this fiscal year.  The March 15th Federal Register Notice also included proposed strategies for implementation of the programs beginning in FY 2007.

Alternative Transportation in Parks and Public Lands.  SAFETEA-LU established a new discretionary program, to be administered in concert with the Department of the Interior, for alternative transportation in federally-managed parks and public lands.  FTA has been working closely with the Department of Interior and its National Park Service, its Fish and Wildlife Service and its Bureau of Land Management, and the Department of Agriculture’s U.S. Forest Service on implementation of this program.  We have established an inter-agency team with representatives of these organizations.  This group has worked to develop the details of the program and a proposed Memorandum of Agreement between the Departments of Transportation and the Interior.  In addition, the working group developed a Notice of Funding Availability that was published in the Federal Register on March 23, 2006.  This Notice laid out the parameters of the program, and invited proposals for projects for FY 2006 funding.  Proposals were due on May 5, 2006.  Representatives of the participating agencies have been reviewing the proposals and are preparing a final program of projects for funding.  We expect to award these funds later this fiscal year.

Grants to Native American Tribes.  SAFETEA-LU establishes a new program for direct grants to Native American Tribes for public transportation within our Section 5311 program of grants to other-than-urbanized areas (the “Rural Program”).  As you know, prior to passage of SAFETEA-LU, Native American Tribes were eligible to receive funding for transit projects, including projects located on reservations, but only through the States.  This new program sets up a direct relationship between FTA and tribal governments.  We have been working hard to implement this new program.  In the November 30, 2005 Notice, we stated our basic intentions for this program and solicited comment.  At the general outreach sessions held in five cities around the country in December 2005, we received a good deal of comment.  We also had numerous discussions with interested parties on this program during January and February of this year.  Having considered these initial comments, we then issued a Notice proposing specific program details on March 22, 2006.  In that Notice we asked for comments on a number of disparate issues.  We also held a series of public meetings at which tribal governments, and other interested parties, have discussed these subjects with us.  The comment period on that Notice has now closed and we are reviewing the comments.  We hope to issue a final Notice of Funding Availability shortly that will outline program administration details and request applications for funding.  We expect to be able to announce project selections by the end of this fiscal year.

Public Private Partnership Pilot Program.  SAFETEA-LU establishes a Pilot Program to assess the benefits of public private partnerships for delivery and management of major transit investments.  However, the language of the legislation is very broad.  Accordingly, on March 22, 2006, we issued a Notice asking for suggestions and proposals on how FTA might design the program; posing a series of specific questions on the concept of public private partnerships and how they might relate to transit projects and FTA program requirements; and requesting statements of interest for potential participants in the program.  The comment period, and period for initial statements of interest, closed on June 1, 2006.  FTA is quite excited by the concept of public private partnerships, and believes there are significant lessons to be learned by considering how it might be applied to our programs.  We received 19 comments providing useful input on the issues raised, and 4 candidate projects.  We are now reviewing the comments and proposals, and will determine how to respond shortly.

Conclusion

Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee, I believe you will agree that FTA is making excellent progress in implementing SAFETEA-LU.  You have my commitment that we will work hard to sustain this record of achievement in the coming months.  I would be happy to answer any questions you might have.