Statement of

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

Before the

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

Hearing on

The Federal Transit Administration FY 2007 Budget

February 28, 2006

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify today on the Federal Transit Administration’s fiscal year (FY) 2007 budget request.  We appreciate your continued interest and strong commitment to public transportation as embodied in 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.

I am pleased to report to the committee that the President’s FY 2007 budget for transit is a record $8.9 billion.  This is a significant commitment given the overall context of the President’s FY 2007 budget.  At a time when most non-security related domestic programs are experiencing reductions in their funding levels and when the Department of Transportation’s total budget is holding steady, funding for transit in this budget grows by more than 4 percent or $370 million above the FY 2006 level.  This shows the high priority this Administration puts on funding public transportation among many competing national priorities.  

Top FY 2007 Priorities

            Since my recent arrival, I have been impressed with the energy and dedication of FTA’s staff.  Thus I want to take this opportunity to focus on FTA’s top priorities. They include:

• Effective and timely implementation of SAFETEA-LU
• Effective management and oversight of almost $8.9 billion in formula and capital investment grants, especially New Starts full funding grant agreements
• Improved coordination of human services transportation for disabled persons, older adults and individuals with lower incomes
• Continued work with the Department of Homeland Security to strengthen transit security, including training, emergency preparedness and public awareness
• Use of performance information and program assessments to better manage risk and drive agency results, and
• Attracting and retaining the best workforce with the skill-set to meet the challenges facing the agency

SAFETEA-LU Implementation

SAFETEA-LU authorizes a total of $45.3 billion in guaranteed funding for Federal transit programs over the five-year period FYs 2005 - 2009, an increase of 46 percent over TEA‑21 funding.  In addition to historic funding levels, SAFETEA-LU added new programs such as New Freedom and Alternative Transportation in the Parks and Public Lands that began in FY 2006, and modified other programs.  SAFETEA‑LU also required that FTA promulgate about a dozen new regulations for joint planning requirements, New Starts (including the Small Starts program), Buy America, Charter Bus, and a joint rulemaking on security with the Department of Homeland Security.

Since the President signed SAFETEA-LU in August 2005, FTA has worked diligently to implement the many changes and requirements.  FTA has demonstrated progress with an aggressive schedule to meet the requirements in SAFETEA-LU and facilitate program implementation.  In the early months following enactment, FTA signed the Memorandum of Understanding Annex with the Department of Homeland Security, published interim FY 2006 transit program guidance for public comment, and initiated a communications and outreach strategy that included publishing informational materials on its web site and hosting several dozen listening sessions to solicit public and industry input on its program proposals. 

Since January, FTA has worked to publish for public comment in the Federal Register New Starts Policy Guidance, an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the Small Starts program, and a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Buy America.  FTA will continue its aggressive implementation of SAFETEA-LU and will hold additional listening and outreach sessions to obtain public input for agency consideration as it develops circulars and guidance for official comment.

FY 2007 Budget Request

Now I would like to touch on some of the highlights of the President’s FY 2007 budget for the FTA.  The budget reflects the Administration’s commitment to public transportation as envisioned in SAFETEA-LU.

Urbanized Area Programs

In FY 2007, $7.3 billion is requested in a solely trust-funded account for Formula and Bus Grants.  This includes $3.9 billion for the Urbanized Area Formula Grants Program, including Growing States and High Density States and $1.4 billion for the Fixed Guideway Modernization Program to ensure that the Nation’s older fixed guideway systems continue to meet the transportation needs of the communities they serve.

Formula Grants funding can be used for all capital transit purposes and, in areas under 200,000 in population, for operating assistance.  Eligible capital expenses include: planning, bus, van, railcar, intelligent transportation systems (ITS), and equipment purchases; facility repair and construction, new technology introduction, and preventive maintenance.    These funds help public transit agencies reduce congestion, ensure basic mobility, promote economically vital communities and meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Clean Air Act (CAA).

Bus and Bus-Facilities

FTA requests $856 million for bus and bus-related capital projects that enhance the efficiency and safety of the nation’s bus systems.  In FY 2007, FTA is proposing a clean fuels and electric drive bus deployment (hybrid-electric) program to encourage and provide incentives to transit agencies to procure low emission technology buses, including hybrid electric buses.  The FTA hybrid-electric program will develop a comprehensive approach to addressing existing barriers and challenges to the adoption and deployment of new low emission technology by a greater number of the Nation’s transit agencies. 

State Administered Grants

The important goal of improving mobility for the elderly, persons with disabilities, and individuals with low-incomes requires more flexibility and fewer funding constraints on communities.  FTA’s budget requests $809 million for several transit programs administered primarily by States.  For the Nonurbanized Area Formula program, $467 million may be used to support intercity bus service as well as to help meet rural and small urban areas’ transit needs and includes funding for the new Growing States program.  A total of $117 million in formula grants for the Elderly and Individuals with Disabilities program will be apportioned to each State according to a legislatively required formula to assist in providing transportation to the elderly and individuals with disabilities.  The budget includes $144 million for the Job Access and Reverse Commute program apportioned to States by formula for grants to non-profit organizations and local transit agencies to support transportation services for welfare recipients and low-income individuals.  Funding for the New Freedom program totals $81 million and will provide additional support to overcome the significant transportation barriers facing millions of Americans with disabilities seeking access to jobs and integration into the workforce.

Metropolitan and Statewide Planning

In FY 2007, FTA requests a total of $99 million for Metropolitan and Statewide Planning.  Funding will support implementation of the expanded analytic, environmental, transportation air-quality conformity, and evaluative work necessary to ensure that Federal and other transportation investments are cost-effective.  Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and State departments of transportation use these funds for planning activities that support over $8 billion in annual capital transit projects located in all 50 States, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia.  These funds also support planning activities for FTA capital grants that will be made to rural transit operators and tribal governments.  Both the FTA and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) carry out statutory planning requirements through Metropolitan Planning Organizations, State DOT’s, and transit operators as a condition of Federal assistance for most mass transportation and highway projects.  

Alternative Transportation in Parks and PublicLands

For FY 2007, $23 million is requested to enhance the protection of America’s national parks and public lands by improving the experience of those visiting our national parks, while ensuring transportation access and mobility for all visitors, including individuals with disabilities.  FTA is working with the Department of the Interior and the U.S. Forest Service to implement this new program.  Investment in alternative transportation solutions in our national parks and public lands has many benefits, such as relieving traffic congestion and parking shortages, enhancing visitor mobility, accessibility, and safety, enhancing mobility and safety for local residents, conserving sensitive natural, cultural, and historic resources, and reducing pollution.

Clean Fuels Grant Program

The Clean Fuels Grant program is requested at $45 million to provide financing for the purchase or lease of clean fuel buses and facilities and the improvement of existing facilities to accommodate these buses.  This includes buses powered by compressed natural gas, biodiesel fuels, batteries, alcohol-based fuels, hybrid electric technology, fuel cell and certain clean diesel fuels (up to 2 percent of grants annually), and other low or zero emissions technology.

Major Capital Investments

The budget requests almost $1.5 billion for the New Starts program.  New Starts projects help improve mobility, reduce congestion and pollution, and promote new economic activity throughout the Nation.  The $1.5 billion fully funds the Federal commitment included in 16 existing full funding grant agreements (FFGAs) with transit agencies.  Funding also supports two FFGAs that we expect to sign before the end of FY 2006, one in Pittsburgh and one in New York City.

I am also pleased that five new projects have made it to the New Starts finish line and are ready for FFGAs.  These projects include three light rail transit projects in Denver, Portland and Dallas.  In addition, commuter rail projects in Washington County, Oregon and Salt Lake City are also ready for FFGAs.

I want to share with the committee our plans for implementing the new “Small Starts” program in FY 2007.  This program will provide Federal Small Starts funding up to $75 million for projects under $250 million in total cost.  We are very excited about this new program.  It is a program we recommended to Congress because it levels the playing field for medium and small communities. 

We know from several listening sessions we have held that communities across the country are interested in this new program and how it will work.  Last month, we published in the Federal Register for public comment an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the evaluation criteria and other requirements.  Final regulations are not expected until June of 2007.  Given all the work ahead of us and the strong interest by communities to help develop the program requirements, we believe that $100 million will provide a sound first investment for a program we are committed to implement during FY 2007.

Project Oversight

FTA remains committed to ensuring the completion of New Starts projects on time and on budget.  Our successful oversight program works with transit agencies to identify potential problems before they grow into major crises.  The DOT Inspector General has reported that FTA’s oversight program is “essentially a sound approach that can provide early warnings of cost, schedule, and quality problems.”

One tool we use to help ensure that projects meet their cost, schedule and transportation benefit expectations is a quantitative risk assessment.  These risk assessments help project sponsors identify the issues that could affect schedule or cost, as well as the probability that they will do so.  Utilizing the risk assessment tool, every project sponsor is required to: identify the project’s key cost drivers; identify, quantify, and prioritize based on impact and probability the risks associated with potential cost increases and schedule delays; and develop contingency levels and risk mitigation plans sufficient to assure confidence in the project cost estimates.

Research and University Research Centers

In 2007, $61 million is requested for the National Research and Technology program, Transit Cooperative Research Program, the National Transit Institute and University Research Centers.  Of this amount, $40 million is requested for the National Research and Technology program.  These funds support the goals of FTA’s Strategic Transit Research Plan developed in consultation with the transit industry.  The budget includes $9.3 million for the Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP), which focuses on issues significant to the transit industry.  The budget requests $4.3 million for the National Transit Institute (NTI) and $7 million for University Research Centers that provide continued support for research, education, and technology transfer activities aimed at addressing regional and national transportation problems.

Administrative Expenses

FTA is requesting $85 million in administrative expenses to help ensure it can effectively and efficiently fulfill its mission.  This request supports 14 additional full time equivalent (FTE) personnel for a total of 531 FTEs, information technology, space management, travel, training, and other related administrative expenses.

New requirements and program changes must be supported with higher staffing levels if FTA is to be effective and timely in implementing SAFETEA-LU.  The law creates a number of new programs such as Small Starts, Transit in the Parks, and New Freedom, and requires that regulations be developed and published in the Federal Register for New Starts, Buy America, security, and Charter Bus.  In addition, significant outreach efforts are needed in order to provide other Federal and State agencies, public transit agencies, the transit industry and the transit riding public with information on changes in statute, policies and procedures, guidance and technical assistance. 

Transit Security

The security of our public transportation system remains a high priority of this Administration and the Department and our budget includes $42 million to support security, within which is the one percent set aside from urban formula grants to fund public transportation security projects.  Transit agencies across America have strengthened their security systems and enhanced their emergency response plans, and FTA has placed a high priority on increasing the security of our public transportation systems and ensuring that they are prepared for security threats and emergency situations.

Working with the Department of Homeland Security, FTA has identified three priority areas with regard to security: 1) training transit employees to deter, detect, mitigate and respond to a variety of emergency scenarios; 2) ensuring that local agencies have emergency plans in place and routinely practice them; and, 3) increasing public awareness, so that passengers can identify suspicious or unusual behavior, communicate with transit officials, and exit safely in the event of an emergency. 

Enhanced Coordination of Human Service Transportation   

In response to the recommendations of the President’s Council on Access and Mobility, and in accordance with the President’s Executive Order 13330, FTA implemented United We Ride, a five-part nationwide initiative to improve transportation services for people with disabilities, individuals with low incomes, and older adults.  The initiative to improve the coordination of human services transportation includes: 1) publication of “A Framework for Action”-- a self-assessment tool that States and communities can use to identify areas of success and the actions still needed to improve the coordination of human service transportation; 2) recognition of leadership -- in February 2004, Secretary Mineta recognized five States -- Ohio, North Carolina, Washington, Florida, and Maryland that are leading the way in building and implementing infrastructures, policies and programs that facilitate human service transportation coordination; 3) holding a National Leadership Forum -- Governor-appointed senior leadership teams from 47 States and U.S. territories met to raise the visibility of the need to improve human service transportation coordination among State leaders, provide technical assistance, and secure commitments to action; 4) providing grants -- $1.5 million to address gaps and needs related to human service transportation in their geographic regions; and 5) providing technical assistance -- “Help Along the Way” was launched that built on the work of the Community Transportation Assistance Program, the Rural Transportation Assistance Program, and Easter Seals Project ACTION.

            Mr. Chairman, we look forward to working with this Committee in support of public transportation in our great country.  Thank you again for the opportunity to testify on the FY 2007 budget request and other issues important to us.  I would be happy to respond to questions from the Committee.

Written Statement of

Peter M. Rogoff,
Administrator
Federal Transit Administration

Before the

House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

April 21, 2010

Chairman Towns, Ranking Member Issa, and Members of the Committee:

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) audit of the Tri-State Oversight Committee (TOC) and the Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority (WMATA).

Before I summarize some of the highlights of our audit report, I want to point out that this audit was very different from past audits conducted by FTA.  Because FTA currently lacks the legal authority to establish national safety standards that would govern agencies like WMATA, FTA limits the focus of our audits to the State Safety Oversight (SSO) agency, which in this case is the TOC.  At the request of Senator Mikulski and Secretary Ray LaHood, and with the encouragement of WMATA’s interim Chief Safety Officer, this audit, for the first time, took a hard look at WMATA’s own safety program. 

FTA’s audit uncovered a number of troubling facts about WMATA and TOC.  The audit concludes that these two agencies face serious challenges that could compromise the safety of WMATA’s riders, if left unaddressed.  While each of these agencies has effected recent improvements, a great deal more needs to be done to ensure that those advances become a permanent feature within the safety culture.

Our audit resulted in 21 findings and recommendations: 11 findings to TOC and 10 recommendations to WMATA.

Before I highlight the findings and recommendations made by FTA, I want to convey to you three important messages. 

First, the findings in our audit are merely symptoms of a larger problem. Each finding and recommendation in our report reveals a hole or vulnerability in the very systems that have been implemented to ensure the safety of WMATA passengers and employees.  Without a strong and daily commitment to safety from everyone at WMATA, from executive leadership down to the most junior employee, these systems cannot succeed.  Addressing each of our recommendations, one by one, will not solve the whole safety problem.  The overarching safety problem will only be solved through a top-to-bottom change in the safety culture and focus at WMATA.

Second, I want to emphasize that, under current law, FTA does not have the legal authority to compel WMATA to take specific corrective action to address our recommendations.  As I have testified before, FTA is not empowered legally to issue national safety regulations for transit systems.  And with few exceptions, State Safety Organizations, like the TOC, similarly have no legal authority to compel transit agencies like WMATA to respond to their safety findings.  They don’t have to respond to them in a timely way.  In fact, they don’t have to respond to them at all. 

Over the 15 years that the SSO regulations have been in place, only a few states have developed comprehensive state-level regulations and granted an SSO with authority to enforce them. While there is no federal impediment preventing states from developing independent authority, the vast majority of states have not done so. This is precisely the reason why Secretary LaHood, on behalf of President Obama, transmitted a transit safety reform bill to the Congress back in December 2009.  I want to thank Chairman Dodd, Subcommittee Chairman Menendez, Senator Mikulski, and Senator Cardin for their assistance in getting this bill introduced.  I also want to thank Representative Edwards for serving as an original co-sponsor of the House bill along with Chairman Oberstar and Subcommittee Chairman DeFazio.   

The WMATA crash last summer certainly accelerated our efforts within the Obama Administration to develop and transmit our transit safety reform bill.  But, WMATA is not the only transit system that has had accidents recently or safety lapses. We have been greatly concerned because the Chicago Transit Authority, the MTA (formerly MUNI) system in San Francisco, the “T” in Boston, and rail systems elsewhere have also experienced accidents or safety incidents.  While we believe the situation at WMATA is particularly urgent, we believe that some of the deficiencies and vulnerabilities identified in our audit of WMATA and TOC are similar to problems that exist at other transit operators and State Safety Oversight organizations across America. 

That is why it is so imperative to public safety that Congress enact our rail transit safety reform bill now.   The U.S. Department of Transportation cannot move forward to address these problems in any meaningful way while we lack the authority to issue national safety regulations and to conduct direct safety oversight of rail transit agencies and operators.   Just a few weeks ago, Secretary LaHood used his statutory authority to prohibit texting while driving nationwide for commercial truck and bus drivers.  But even a simple common-sense safety measure like that will not automatically apply to employees operating the rail transit portions of systems, such as WMATA, until Congress changes the law.  So, on behalf of the President and Secretary LaHood, I must ask you collectively to do all you can to rapidly move this legislation to the President’s desk.    

Third, we must remember that, despite WMATA’s safety challenges, every Washington area commuter is safer traveling on WMATA than they are traveling on our highways.   Thus, we cannot allow any degradation in WMATA’s reliability and performance such that commuters opt to abandon Metro in favor of our already congested highways.  We must also caution against any proposals that will reduce significantly WMATA’s existing capacity, forcing more commuters onto our highways.  Any actions or proposals pushing WMATA riders onto our highways simply will degrade safety and worsen congestion in the region.

Moving on to the results of our audit of WMATA and TOC, I will first provide a brief summary of FTA’s State Safety Oversight Program and then I will summarize some of the findings from our audit that concern us most. As I summarize our findings, you will see that there are common challenges faced by both TOC and WMATA in the areas of: inadequate management of resources, inadequate expertise, inadequate authority, and inadequate communication. Should this Committee wish to review our findings in more detail, we have provided every Member a complete copy of the audit report and the report can be found on our public website at http://www.fta.dot.gov/news/speeches/news_events_11396.html.

FTA’s State Safety Oversight Program

Congress authorized FTA’s State Safety Oversight (SSO) program in 1991, in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. FTA published a final rule in 1995, with a phased-in effectiveness period. States with rail transit agencies had to come into compliance with all of the rule’s requirements by January 1, 1998. The SSO regulations use a framework of shared safety oversight responsibility that is unique among all of the operating administrations within the Department of Transportation. The SSO program is designed to work through the states to establish minimum safety requirements for the rail transit industry, must designate an oversight agency, and must develop a Program Standard. The Program Standard requires each rail transit agency to prepare and implement a System Safety Program Plan (SSPP). Under FTA’s SSO regulations the designated SSO agency must hold each rail transit agency accountable for implementing its safety program.

FTA’s regulations also require states to review and approve annually the rail transit agency’s SSPP. And, once every three years, SSO agencies must conduct on-site reviews to assess the rail transit agency’s implementation of its SSPP and to determine whether these plans need to be updated. States are also required to review and approve accident investigation reports and corrective action plans, participate in the rail transit agency’s hazard management program, and oversee the rail transit agency’s implementation of its internal safety and security audit program.

While I mention FTA’s current authority to regulate SSO’s, it is important to note that FTA’s authority is indirect, at best, in relation to the actual operations of the rail transit systems. In fact, the establishment of any safety standards is left to the decision-making of each individual SSO, which results in a hodge-podge of non-uniform and inconsistent requirements across the country.  Implementation of the resulting SSO safety requirements and program standards also suffer greatly because such enforcement is only as effective as the state specific SSO administering and monitoring those requirements.  This does not provide for a uniform, nationwide, assurance of safety.  It is one of many reasons this Administration finds the status quo unacceptable and has proposed legislative reforms designed to enhance the SSO program through the establishment of consistent, uniform, national safety standards.

Inadequate Management of Resources

This audit of TOC and WMATA revealed that each agency faces resource management challenges that limit its ability to effectively oversee and implement a safety program in accordance with FTA’s State Safety Oversight regulations. For example, at the time of our audit we learned that out of 41 positions in WMATA’s Safety Department, 25 percent are vacant. We also were told by WMATA representatives that recent accidents have placed additional burdens on the Safety Department’s ability to carry out its daily activities. In addition, WMATA officials noted that unfilled vacancies limit the Safety Department’s ability to ensure its SSPP is implemented. This is a key point because part of the SSPP is the hazard management program, which is at the core of an effective safety program.

A hazard management program fosters hazard identification and analysis, which provide the rail transit agency an opportunity to proactively eliminate hazards before an accident. For WMATA, however, its representatives stated that due to a lack of resources, a formal hazard analysis is not routinely performed on system-wide issues. Furthermore, WMATA personnel also pointed out that WMATA’s Board of Directors rarely requests formal hazard analysis or other information on how operating, maintenance or budget decisions may have safety impacts or how the agency is addressing safety-related concerns. This is exemplified by the fact that at the time of the audit, WMATA and TOC representatives were unable to identify the agency’s top ten safety concerns or hazards.

Similarly, WMATA officials explained that the Safety Department’s Division of Regulatory Compliance, which is responsible for hazard analysis, has experienced reductions in work force and on-going budget issues. As a result, all four analyst positions within the Regulatory Compliance Division have been vacant for over a year.

TOC fares no better when it comes to resource allocation. Since its inception in 1997, TOC has experienced considerable turnover among its members. Only one TOC member has served on TOC for three years, two other members have served for less than two years, and one member has served for less than one year. Further, with the exception of one Virginia representative, each member serves on the TOC as a collateral duty and TOC membership was not included in TOC member employee job descriptions with their home agencies. Only recently did the Virginia member begin dedicating full-time effort to TOC. Equally troubling, the home jurisdictions provide no training for serving on TOC, and a background in rail transit or system safety is not required.

Since there is a steep learning curve required to understand WMATA’s operations and issues, part-time involvement of new members who change from year to year does not give TOC a strong foundation to carry out its oversight mission. We made this finding in past audits and the Government Accountability Office made a similar finding when it recommended that the jurisdictions provide one or more TOC full-time members to enhance responsiveness to WMATA requests, and to provide dedicated, on-site support at WMATA. Virginia has made this commitment and the other TOC jurisdictions must also dedicate full-time specialized employees to carry out the SSO activities.

We also find that the safety program management in all three jurisdictions has failed to assess the level of resources needed to meet TOC responsibilities. The jurisdictions must conduct an assessment and use the results of that assessment to establish resource commitments from each jurisdiction for the next three calendar years.

For WMATA, we recommend that management conduct an assessment to identify and prioritize the resources necessary to adequately administer its safety program and use the results of the assessment to ensure adequate staffing levels within the Safety Department.

Inadequate Expertise

During audit interviews, representatives from WMATA’s Safety Department stated that the department lacks sufficient skills to conduct ongoing hazard analyses. In fact, over the last five years, TOC and FTA have made repeated findings regarding the inability of WMATA’s Safety Department to work with other WMATA departments to develop and manage an effective internal audit program. For example, in FTA’s audit of TOC in 2005, FTA raised a concern about WMATA’s ability to identify, elevate, and address safety deficiencies. In 2007, when FTA again audited TOC, FTA found TOC deficient in ensuring that WMATA conducts internal safety audits according to approved schedules. As this 2009 audit was being conducted, WMATA personnel, noting similar deficiencies, explained that they did not have the expertise to provide training on how to conduct internal safety audits and would need to rely on outside contractor support.

Furthermore, during audits in 2005 and 2007, FTA determined that TOC was not ensuring that WMATA conducted internal safety audits according to approved schedules and requirements. Independent reviews conducted by TOC in 2004 and 2007 identified the same deficiency. WMATA began its new internal safety audit cycle in 2009 by submitting an audit schedule and audit checklists to TOC. WMATA failed, however, to meet approved schedules and has not performed the audits in an on-going manner as required by TOC Program Standards and Procedures and FTA’s State Safety Oversight regulations.

When the Safety Department does conduct an audit, it does so primarily to assess compliance with Occupational Safety and Health Administration and Environmental Protection Agency rules and requirements and to ensure the use of appropriate Personal Protective Equipment at work sites. WMATA’s Safety Department does not routinely design and execute methodologies to effectively review documentation, interview personnel, and conduct field observations to determine compliance with specific operating rules and procedures. Further, our audit revealed that there is general confusion within the Safety Department as to why it would need to conduct or manage internal audits of other departments.

Given this, FTA is concerned that over the last decade WMATA has failed to develop an effective internal safety audit process even after repeated warnings by FTA and TOC. While TOC has monitored this process, and noted its deficiencies, FTA finds that TOC must take a more active role in ensuring that WMATA develops the necessary expertise within its Safety Department to implement this critical process. We also find that TOC must evaluate the technical and professional skills that TOC representatives need to effective carry out their oversight duties.

Inadequate TOC Authority

Throughout the course of our audit, we identified several deficiencies regarding the implementation of the State Safety Oversight regulations, as well as on-going challenges in maintaining the quality of the oversight relationship.

The TOC jurisdictions—the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the State of Maryland—have structured TOC as a committee created by Memorandum of Understanding. While the TOC members and the home jurisdictions are committed to implementing the State Safety Oversight requirements, the jurisdictions have not provided TOC with the authority to ensure that WMATA effectively implements its SSPP. For example, until recently, TOC had limited interaction with WMATA’s executive leadership. Instead, TOC members corresponded primarily with the Chief Safety Officer and held working meetings with lower level staff at WMATA. Also, because TOC lacks authority to compel action by WMATA, requests for information were provided late or not at all, TOC members were denied access to the right-of-way, and TOC members were excluded from key meetings.

We find that TOC must determine the best method for quickly and professionally responding to safety issues that arise at WMATA. We ask the jurisdictions to consider vesting the full-time TOC positions with decision-making authority to act in specific safety situations with WMATA.

Inadequate Communication

Most troubling about the findings in this audit is the clear indication that both TOC and WMATA suffer from inadequate communication within their organizations and between the two agencies. This defect impacts how quickly TOC can react to safety findings, how WMATA communicates internally regarding safety issues identified by TOC, and how the agencies communicate with one another.

TOC Communication

When specific compliance issues emerge at WMATA, TOC members often must obtain the authority to act from higher level executives in their own separate agencies. This creates challenges for TOC members because there is no formal process to manage conflicts of law or policy that arise among the three jurisdictions. Thus, our audit revealed that it is difficult for TOC members to speak as a unified entity. This is further exacerbated by the fact that most of TOC is part-time. The one full-time member of TOC conducts various meetings with WMATA and then has to debrief the part-time members regarding his activities. Our audit shows that the part-time involvement of a majority of the committee, who change from year-to-year, is not an effective communication strategy and does not give TOC a strong foundation for developing institutional knowledge to carry out its oversight mission.

WMATA Communication

Throughout FTA’s audit, evidence indicates that WMATA’s Safety Department is not “plugged in” to critical conversations, decision-making meetings and reporting systems that provide information on hazards and potential safety concerns throughout the agency. Key documents, reports, and decision are not consistently shared with the Safety Department. For example, the Safety Department does not receive and review available monthly reports from Rail Operation, Quality, or Maintenance. On numerous occasions during the audit interviews, Safety Department representatives indicated that they were learning, for the first time, that information of a safety nature was being documented by operating departments.

The lack of communication from operating and maintenance departments to the Safety Department, coupled with the lack of communication of top safety priorities from the Safety Department to the General Manager presents a disconnect in the flow of critical safety information within and throughout WMATA.

Communication between WMATA and TOC

It should not be surprising that communication lapses in TOC and WMATA lead to communication failures between the agencies. During this audit, WMATA staff told us that it believes that TOC, at times, appeared to be using the media in a punitive manner to resolve differences of opinion with WMATA. WMATA managers stated that, in a few instances recently, media reporters were better informed regarding a conflict with TOC than WMATA’s own senior leadership. TOC members disagree with WMATA on this point, but they acknowledge media coverage has been largely helpful to TOC because, as noted earlier, TOC has had problems in the past with WMATA’s responsiveness to TOC’s specific requests.

TOC representatives stated that when TOC members disagreed with the decision of the Chief Safety Officer, or did not believe that enough work had been done in a specific area, there was no process in place to bring these concerns directly to the General Manager for action. (At FTA’s recommendation, TOC did conduct an annual meeting with the General Manager, but minutes show that these meetings were introductory and general in nature.) WMATA’s General Manager and Board of Directors have since taken action to ensure greater responsiveness to TOC.

As a result of this audit, FTA is requiring TOC to develop a procedure to ensure that critical safety concerns are elevated to the highest levels in each jurisdiction and WMATA for immediate action. We also recommend that WMATA develop an internal process to require communication of safety-related information across all WMATA departments.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I want to take a moment to explain how the Obama Administration’s transit safety reform bill would address many of the deficiencies that we found at WMATA and TOC.

First, our legislative proposal would provide FTA, as the delegate of the Secretary of Transportation, direct oversight authority over transit agencies and operators.  The bill would grant us the authority to issue notice and comment regulations, and to enforce those regulations.  Our legislative proposal would allow FTA to set minimum, national standards in areas such as track worker protection, transit rail car crashworthiness, on-board event recorders or the institution of safety management systems to ensure critical safety issues receive the attention they deserve. Under our legislative proposal, FTA would be empowered with tools similar to those available to agencies like the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), allowing the FAA to compel the compliance of regulated parties.  While State Safety Oversight agencies would have the opportunity to enforce Federal regulations on FTA’s behalf, they would only be allowed to do so if they had the staff strength, expertise, and legislative authority as determined by FTA. 

Moreover, our legislative proposal would provide Federal funds to SSOs for hiring, training, inspections, and other safety-related activities.  Rather than having SSOs that are understaffed and undertrained, FTA would provide resources to ensure that they are up to the task. 

Finally, our legislative proposal is built around the goal of getting every rail transit provider, including WMATA, to embrace a state-of-the-art Safety Management System (SMS).  An effective SMS is one where all employees, from the lowest to the highest rungs of the operation, are keeping their eyes and ears on safety concerns.  When operating under an SMS model, employees at every level of the organization should be routinely reporting their observations and concerns in a non-threatening environment to agency experts who regularly analyze and address the most critical safety concerns first.  It’s an environment where communication is constant and safety is paramount.  That is our vision for safer rail transit systems across the nation.  We ask for your help in getting us there by passing President Obama’s transit safety legislation promptly. 

I thank you again for the opportunity to be here today to summarize our audit findings, and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

STATEMENT OF

PETER M. ROGOFF
ADMINISTRATOR
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS
U.S. SENATE

January 16, 2014

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Crapo, and Members of the Committee:

Thank you for inviting me to appear before you today to report on the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) progress toward implementing public transportation assistance programs under the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, known as MAP-21. This two-year reauthorization codifies some of President Obama’s highest priorities for enhancing the safety of public transportation, strengthening our nation’s transportation infrastructure, and streamlining government to serve taxpayers’ needs more efficiently.

I want to thank the Committee for its support in passing MAP-21, which has offered an opportunity for us to work together to support transit systems across the country at a time when national ridership is on track to exceed 10 billion trips annually for the seventh year in a row. Through investment in public transportation, we spur new economic development to help build strong communities in cities, suburbs, and rural areas alike.

Progress Made Despite Fiscal Challenges

MAP-21, which took effect on October 1, 2012, authorizes $10.6 billion in Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 and $10.7 billion in FY 2014 for public transportation.  FTA has made significant progress in implementing key provisions and providing guidance to states, metropolitan planning organizations and transit agencies. We have an active and engaged legislative implementation team and an aggressive timetable in place that helps to ensure that the American people can reap the benefits associated with investing in public transportation services that improve transportation equity, provide access to jobs and services, offer an efficient alternative to congested urban traffic, and stimulate economic development in cities and communities throughout the nation.

I discuss, below, several areas where FTA has made real progress to implement MAP-21. However, I fully recognize that much work and many challenges lie ahead. Chief among these challenges are significant annual funding constraints and the potential insolvency of the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund.

The funding constraints imposed by the full FY 2013 and the partial FY 2014 continuing resolutions, coupled with cuts imposed by sequestration—including a $5 million cut in our administrative budget—have hampered our ability to move implementation forward at an even more rapid pace. The cuts have, for instance, affected our ability to implement significant new safety authority and reduced our ability to conduct outreach and training with stakeholders.  Every budget request under my stewardship has sought additional funding to allow for additional staffing at FTA to better address our core responsibilities.  Congress has yet to provide those resources.  Moreover, in FY 2013, FTA had more than 30 New Starts projects in the pipeline, but since that time, FTA has been unable to make new funding commitments to any of those projects for the first time in roughly 20 years.  Consequently, for the first time, FTA was unable to keep its financial end of the bargain, cutting payments owed to communities with projects already under way, which potentially raises local costs as project sponsors and local governments seek to make up for the Federal government’s shortfall.

With respect to the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund, estimates of the account’s cash balance at the time MAP-21 was enacted were assumed to be sufficient through FY 2014.  We have reason for concern as to whether this will be the case going forward. The U.S. Departments of Transportation (DOT) and Treasury are currently in the process of updating program outlay and revenue assumptions used to estimate trust fund balances as part of the President’s FY 2015 budget.  These estimates will be important in determining whether the cash balance is sufficient through the remainder of the current authorization and will provide useful information on the cash balance needed beyond FY 2014.  Once the President’s budget is transmitted to Congress, FTA and DOT will brief the Committee on the new estimates, upon request.      

Despite such challenges, we have nevertheless achieved several significant milestones for implementing MAP-21, most notably with respect to safety; state of good repair needs; the capital investment grant program; and our new Emergency Relief Program.  A summary of progress in these and other areas follows.

Safety Authority

MAP-21 gave FTA long-sought authority to establish safety criteria for all modes of public transportation and establish minimum safety standards for public transportation vehicles used in revenue operations.  Implementing the new safety provisions in MAP-21 has been among our highest priorities.  In October 2013, FTA issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on Safety and Transit Asset Management.  The ANPRM signals FTA’s commitment to ensure that efforts to keep transit systems in good working order go hand-in-hand with efforts to keep them safe.  FTA is now reviewing over 150 comments submitted by safety advocates, industry leaders and the general public on key topics, such as:

• Developing and implementing meaningful national, state-level, and transit agency safety plans; and
• Implementing a national transit asset management program to help transit agencies establish a systematic means for managing their assets and establishing performance measures for making improvements to the condition of their facilities, equipment, rolling stock, and infrastructure.

While Congress has yet to appropriate additional administrative funds to carry out this new area of responsibility, FTA has established a new safety office using already strained existing resources. FTA is sensitive to stakeholder concerns on this new safety oversight authority and will build a 21st century regulatory program over a period of several years only after careful consideration of comments received from our stakeholders and the public.

In May 2013, FTA made available for the first time approximately $22 million in Federal matching funds to help strengthen public transportation safety for millions of riders and transit workers nationwide. The funding notice included a proposed formula for the apportionment of those funds based on MAP-21 criteria.  During the past three months, FTA has aggressively and proactively reached out to the 30 states with state safety oversight (SSO) obligations through face-to-face meetings and one-on-one conference calls to ensure that their programs will conform with MAP-21’s new requirements, thereby positioning those states to receive a share of the $21.9 million available to carry out SSO responsibilities.  FTA expects to release these funds in the near future. 

Going forward, FTA will act as the leader, facilitator, and final regulatory authority setting minimum safety standards, and be held fundamentally accountable for the overall safety performance of the nation’s fixed-guideway rail transit systems.  To achieve these goals, FTA will concentrate on strengthening the capacity of SSOs to serve as effective day-to-day safety regulators capable of holding transit systems accountable for safe operations at the local level and ensuring they comply with minimum safety standards.

Additionally, FTA will work to adapt its comprehensive safety approach to all modes of public transportation within its safety authority. Specifically, we will work to ensure that the bus segment of public transportation, upon which millions of riders depend every day, receives the resources, tools and technical assistance it too will need to ensure the safety of the riding public. 

State of Good Repair and Transit Asset Management

Since 2008, FTA has staked out a leadership role in highlighting the critical need to bring the nation’s aging transit assets into a state of good repair, especially in large urban areas—and to hold transit agencies accountable for implementing a more strategic approach to managing the lifecycle of their assets. The momentum we have initiated is real, but the gains that will truly benefit the American people require sustained investment. FTA obligated $1.9 billion—about one-fifth of our share of funds under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009—and also allocated more than $2.2 billion in discretionary bus funds over the last four years for this very purpose.  Indeed, the Administration has made increased funding for a new State of Good Repair program the centerpiece of its annual budget requests for FTA.  Congress incorporated our proposal on this essential area into MAP-21 by creating a more needs-based state-of-good-repair formula program for rail, ferry, and busway systems.  This new program will help further address our state-of-good-repair needs, so fixed guideway agencies have a predictable two-year stream of Federal funds to help them address an enormous maintenance and repair backlog that exceeds $78 billion nationwide.  By the end of FY 2013, FTA had awarded 37 formula grants funded by the State of Good Repair program for over $675.6 million.  We are working to award the remaining program funds as quickly as possible.

FTA recognizes that while a sustained Federal contribution to our state-of-good-repair needs is in the best interest of our nation’s public transportation systems, this problem cannot be solved by Federal action alone. Tackling this problem requires a concerted effort by Federal, state, and local resources in a coordinated, strategic manner. That is why FTA is establishing a national Transit Asset Management (TAM) System. The new section 5326 TAM program authorized under MAP-21 is vitally important to carrying out these infrastructure investments effectively and responsibly.

This innovative program requires all FTA funding recipients to adopt a strategic approach for managing their capital assets and be accountable for leveraging all available resources to bring their systems into a state of good repair.  FTA has sponsored a successful public dialogue with over 700 stakeholders to obtain critical input on policy implementation. Subsequently, in October 2013, FTA used the aforementioned Safety ANPRM as an appropriate vehicle for seeking public comment on its initial interpretations, proposals it is considering, and questions regarding the requirements of the national TAM System.  This includes proposed options under consideration for defining and measuring state of good repair, and the relationship among safety, transit asset management and state of good repair.  Comments we receive on the ANPRM will be very helpful to us in drafting a proposed definition of state of good repair in the future rulemaking we will issue on TAM.  

FTA will solicit comments in the Federal Register on ways to improve how asset inventories and asset conditions are reported to the National Transit Database—an important first step toward refining estimates of the nation’s transit-related state-of-good-repair backlog.  This is a very important initiative that will assist FTA in ensuring that local transit investment financed with Federal dollars are being effectively targeted on each transit agency’s greatest needs.  It will also assist us in ensuring that Federal investments are being well-managed and well-utilized.

Capital Investment Grants (New Starts/Small Starts)

Managing costs on capital investment grant projects is a key area where FTA has made strides.  Since 2009, FTA has executed 26 Full Funding Grant Agreements or Project Construction Grant Agreements for new major capital investments, and 100 percent of those projects have either been completed or are on schedule to be completed on time; 96 percent of those are also on budget.  This Administration has done its service to America's taxpayers, who expect no less than responsible stewardship of their investments.

Since MAP-21 went into effect, FTA has continued to cut red tape and bureaucracy so we can have more progress and less process related to New Starts planning.  For example, FTA recently rolled out a new tool to help project sponsors estimate transit trips on proposed projects. The new method, known as Transit STOPS (Simplified Trips-on-Project Software), will enable some communities to reduce from two years to two weeks the time needed for project sponsors to develop ridership forecasts on planned projects. This new tool may save taxpayers in communities that do not currently have travel forecasting tools as much as 1 million dollars.

In addition, in August 2013, FTA issued final policy guidance to sponsors of New Starts and Small Starts projects, which accompanies the final rule for Major Capital Investment Projects promulgated in January 2013.  The final rule adopted a more straightforward approach for measuring a proposed transit project’s cost-effectiveness; expanded the range of environmental benefits used to evaluate proposed projects; added new economic development factors to its ratings process; and streamlined the project evaluation process.  The revised ratings and evaluation criteria will better capture the full range of benefits that FTA’s transit investments provide through the New Starts/Small Starts program, while continuing an appropriate level of oversight of taxpayer dollars.  These revisions align with major purposes of MAP-21, including improving the development and delivery of capital projects and moving us toward a more performance-driven system. We appreciate the Committee’s support for this important achievement.

Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program

FTA has been very aggressive in implementing the provisions of MAP-21 in the area of emergency relief.  The President’s budget proposed in FY 2012 a new emergency relief program for FTA to parallel a similar capability in FHWA. The President proposed this program to strengthen the agency’s authority to provide disaster assistance to transit agencies in the wake of major natural disasters and other emergencies.  The program was authorized by Congress in MAP-21.

The authorization of this new program arrived just in time for Hurricane Sandy, which, based on the extent of storm damage, was the worst public transit disaster in the history of the United States.  Hurricane Sandy devastated transportation systems in the hardest-hit parts of New York and New Jersey—which together include three of the twenty largest transit operators in the nation and represent nearly 40 percent of our nation’s transit ridership—and triggered a very rapid implementation path for the program.  The Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of 2013 appropriated $10.9 billion for the Emergency Relief Program for recovery, relief, and resiliency efforts in areas affected by Hurricane Sandy.  Unfortunately, this amount was almost immediately reduced by $545 million as part of sequestration.  FTA is allocating the remaining $10.4 billion in multiple tiers for response, recovery, and rebuilding; for locally prioritized resiliency projects; and for competitively selected resiliency work.

FTA allocated to the hardest-hit transit agencies a total of $5.7 billion for critical Sandy recovery and resiliency work in a span of approximately 16 weeks, beginning one week after President Obama signed the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act.  Funds were allocated to the New York Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA), the Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corp. (PATH), New Jersey Transit (NJT), the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA), and others for expenses incurred while preparing for and recovering from Hurricane Sandy.

On December 23, 2013, FTA announced the availability of approximately $3 billion in Disaster Relief appropriations to strengthen the resiliency of public transportation systems affected by Hurricane Sandy.  FTA will award the funds on a competitive basis first and foremost for projects that protect critical transit infrastructure from being damaged or destroyed by future natural disasters. Our goal is to advance the best regionally coordinated projects, so taxpayers will not have to pay to restore the same transit services a second or third time.

While FTA has been extraordinarily successful in responsibly and rapidly responding to the needs triggered by Hurricane Sandy, an important note of caution is in order.  At present, FTA has only those emergency relief funds that Congress made available exclusively for Hurricane Sandy.  The President’s FY 2013 and 2014 budget requests each sought $25 million to capitalize the Emergency Relief Program for disasters throughout the country.  Congress did not appropriate those funds in FY 2013, and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, currently under consideration, likewise does not include funding for the program.   In the future, I strongly encourage Congress to appropriate the amount requested so, when the next disaster strikes and takes public transportation systems offline, FTA will be in a position to respond immediately.

FTA has made an extraordinary effort to make emergency relief and recovery funding available as expeditiously as possible, to ensure that millions of riders have access to the transit services they depend on. To that end, FTA issued an interim final rule in March 2013 that established eligible activities, processes, and procedures for applying for grants.  After considering comments, FTA anticipates publishing a final rule.

Urbanized Area Formula Grants

The largest of FTA’s grant programs, this program provides grants to urbanized areas to support public transportation.  Funding is distributed by formula based on the level of transit service provision, population, and other factors.  MAP-21 provides total funding of $4.9 billion in FY2013 and $5 billion in FY 2014. The program remains largely unchanged with a few exceptions.  Job access and reverse commute activities providing services to low-income individuals to access jobs have been consolidated into this program and are now an eligible expense.  MAP-21 expanded eligibility for operating expenses for systems with 100 or fewer buses in urbanized areas with populations of 200,000 or more.  Operating assistance remains an eligible activity for small urbanized areas. 

Rural Transportation Service

The Administration recognizes that public transportation in rural areas functions not as a luxury but as a lifeline for low-income working families, seniors, veterans, individuals with disabilities, tribal residents, and others.  Many people living in rural and tribal communities can ill-afford to travel considerable distances to work, medical appointments and other destinations.  It is not surprising that, given these constraints, demand for public transportation in these areas has been rising.  Thanks in large part to recent Federal investments in rural transit, there are now more than 1,400 operators in rural areas, providing more than 140 million rural transit trips each year.  FTA anticipates that demand for rural service will continue to rise and, as a result, we will continue to need legislation and policy solutions to deliver transportation solutions that rural America needs.

MAP-21 provides $1.2 billion in funds for rural communities and Indian reservations over the next two years.  It increases rural area formula funds by 29 percent, from $465 million to $600 million.  (Under MAP-21, urbanized area formula funds increased by 6 percent over the prior authorization, SAFETEA-LU.)  Funding increased for rural areas because we recognize that public transportation in these areas is urgently needed, especially for residents who do not have access to personal vehicles.  Public transportation is important for providing links between workers and rural area employers, and encouraging rural economic development.  Further, public transportation in rural areas can provide links to urban areas and provide access to opportunities found in those areas.  For example, the VelociRFTA Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) line serving the Roaring Forks Valley, which just opened last September, is the first rural BRT line in the nation.  It allows commuters from Glenwood Springs and surrounding communities to reach employers in Aspen, about 40 miles away, in an hour. That is roughly half the time the trip takes by regular bus service. FTA committed nearly $25 million to the $46.2 million project through its Very Small Starts Capital Investment Grant program.

Tribal Transit Program

The Administration understands that access to reliable, affordable transportation is a high priority for Indian tribes.  We want to ensure that every American Indian or Alaskan native who needs a ride to earn a paycheck, attend school, see the doctor, or buy groceries has that opportunity to do so. 

MAP-21 doubles the funds available for the Tribal Transit program from $15 million in FY 2012 to $30 million in FY 2013 and FY 2014.  Under MAP-21, $25 million of the $30 million available for the program is distributed by formula.  The remaining $5 million is provided for a discretionary grant program, and we encourage Indian tribes to apply for this funding as well.  This resource will improve tribal public transportation in tribal areas throughout the United States.  Tribal Transit program funds may be awarded for capital, operating, planning, job access and reverse commute projects, and administrative assistance for rural and tribal public transit services and rural intercity bus service.

MAP-21 states that Indian tribes providing public transportation shall be apportioned funds consistent with formula factors that include vehicle revenue miles and the number of low-income individuals residing on tribal lands.  Funds apportioned pursuant to the formula will provide Indian tribes operating public transportation with a steady and predictable stream of funding.  FTA has actively reached out to tribal and rural stakeholders to discuss the impact of proposed program changes and funding priorities and considered comments before finalizing a formula allocation methodology published in the Federal Register on May 9, 2013.  This Notice also established the framework and guidance for the Tribal Transit Program and terms and conditions for the formula and discretionary programs.  FTA’s outreach with the tribes continued through the fall of 2013, with the delivery of three tribal transit workshops designed to provide hands-on training and technical assistance with the new program structure and applicable FTA requirements.

Bus and Bus Facilities Program

MAP-21 followed the Administration’s request to fold the discretionary bus program into a formula program.  This capital program provides funding to replace, rehabilitate, and purchase buses and related equipment, and to construct bus-related facilities. MAP-21 authorized $422 million in FY 2013 and $428 million in FY 2014.  Each fiscal year, each state will be allocated $1.25 million and each territory (including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico) will receive $500,000.  The remaining funds will be distributed by formula.  Funds are available to designated recipients and States that operate or allocate funding to fixed-route bus operators.  Eligible subrecipients include public agencies or private nonprofit organizations engaged in public transportation, including those providing services open to a segment of the general public, as defined by age, disability, or low income.  We have heard from our stakeholders, primarily states and recipients in small urbanized areas and rural areas, that the funding under this program is insufficient to meet rural bus acquisitions due to replacement or expansion needs. 

Formula Grants for the Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities

The Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities program provides formula funding to increase the mobility of seniors and persons with disabilities.  MAP-21 merges the former New Freedom program, which provided grants for services that went above and beyond the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), with this program.  Projects selected for funding must be included in a locally developed, coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan; and the competitive selection process, which was required under the former New Freedom program, is now optional. 

A portion of program funds may be used for public transportation projects that exceed the requirements of the ADA; public transportation projects that improve access to fixed-route service and decrease reliance by individuals with disabilities on complementary paratransit (a comparable service to public transportation required by the ADA for individuals with disabilities who are unable to use fixed-route transportation systems); or alternatives to public transportation that assist seniors and individuals with disabilities.

Coordinated Transportation

Senior and medical transportation is vitally important to the nation’s growing senior population and citizens suffering debilitating illnesses and chronic diseases.  For example, in South Dakota, 14.6 percent of the population is 65 or older and this segment of the population is projected to grow to 23.1 percent by 2030.  We need to support seniors who want to continue living in communities they call home.  This requires human services policies and programs that work for the traveling public, including seniors, individuals with disabilities, and all those seeking medical care.  Moreover, transportation services focused on these populations are often fragmented, underutilized, or difficult to navigate, and can be costly because of inconsistent, duplicative, and often restrictive Federal and state program rules and regulations. And, in some cases, narrowly focused programs leave service gaps and the available transportation services are simply not able to meet certain needs.  We are working to determine how best to integrate the full range of mobility needs, which include ADA paratransit, transportation for seniors, and medical transport programs, with public transportation operations and plans.  This means focusing on the customer and coordinating the best solutions with public and private operators and volunteer programs in the mix, as well as coordinating with other Federal agencies that fund transportation for these targeted populations. 

MAP-21 continues the requirement that, to the maximum extent feasible, FTA should coordinate activities funded under the Enhanced Mobility program with similar transportation activities provided by other Federal agencies. 

Significant Rulemakings and New Guidance Activities

MAP-21changes require FTA to issue a number of rulemakings and guidance documents—a reflection of the law’s many new and innovative programs, initiatives, and requirements.  FTA has worked diligently to advance several rulemakings, and to issue proposed new guidance, engaging thousands of stakeholders in the process.  Our accomplishments in this area in 2013 include the following:

• FTA is currently evaluating comments received on our ANPRM on Safety and Transit Asset Management. This was the first segment of a significant rulemaking related to FTA’s new safety authority under MAP-21, and the input we received will greatly inform our proposed regulations in the coming year.
• FTA issued proposed guidance to assist grantees in implementing the Enhanced Mobility for Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities Program—a new program under MAP-21 that consolidates the New Freedom Program and the Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities Program. 
• FTA issued proposed guidance to assist recipients in their implementation of the Urbanized Area Formula Program, which changed under MAP-21.  Final guidance is available for public inspection today and will be published in the Federal Register tomorrow.
• FTA issued proposed guidance to assist recipients in their implementation of the Rural Area Formula Program.  The purpose of the proposed guidance is to provide potential recipients with updated instructions on program administration and the grant application process brought about by MAP-21 changes.
• FTA issued proposed guidance on the application of a new provision regarding corridor preservation for future transit projects.  MAP–21 amended a previously existing provision such that FTA can now, under certain conditions, assist in the acquisition of right-of-way for corridor preservation before the environmental review process for any transit project that eventually will use that right-of-way and permit corridor preservation with local funds for a transit project that could later receive FTA financial assistance. 

FTA also co-sponsored several important inter-agency proposals under MAP-21.

• FTA and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) jointly published a final rule that amends their joint procedures that implement the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by creating a new categorical exclusion (CE) for emergency actions as required by Section 1315 of MAP-21. The final rule modifies the existing lists of FHWA and FTA CEs and expands the existing CE for emergencies.
• FTA and FHWA jointly published an important final rule streamlining the environmental review process under NEPA that a proposed transit project seeking Federal funds must undergo. The rule established ten new CEs defined specifically for transit projects. CEs significantly expedite FTA’s environmental review of projects that have been shown to have little environmental impact while preserving critical community input on how planned transit projects affect the local environment.  These NEPA revisions, like the New Starts changes, are closely aligned with the MAP-21 policy goals of accelerating the development and delivery of capital transportation projects.
• FTA and FHWA jointly issued another final rule, adding new categorical exclusions for projects within an existing operational right-of-way and projects receiving limited Federal funding for purposes of improving project delivery.  The final rule was published on January 13, 2014.
• FTA and FHWA jointly issued proposed guidance on implementation of MAP-21 provisions that requires public transportation providers to be represented as part of each metropolitan planning organization (MPO) by the end of FY 2014.
• FHWA and FTA jointly issued interim guidance on implementing Section 1319 of the MAP-21, which provides for the preparation of a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) by attaching errata sheets to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) if certain conditions are met, and requires, to the maximum extent practicable, that the lead agency will develop a single document that combines the FEIS and Record of Decision (ROD), except under certain circumstances.
• FTA, FHWA, and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) issued proposed regulations for the Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program, which MAP-21 converted from a pilot to a permanent program.  MAP-21 changes also helped to accelerate project delivery by allowing the Secretary to assign, and for states to assume, the Federal responsibilities for the review of highway, transit, rail and multi-modal projects under NEPA and responsibilities for environmental review, consultation or other action required under any Federal environmental law pertaining to the review.

Conclusion

MAP-21 offers an important opportunity to recalibrate the way our government evaluates and invests in our federally funded public transportation infrastructure. From a transit perspective, the law’s major provisions enable FTA to focus limited resources on strategic investments and policies that will result in a better and safer riding experience for millions of Americans, while repairing and modernizing transit systems for generations to come.   I look forward to working with this Committee toward reauthorization.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony and I am happy to answer any questions you may have.

Statement of

James S. Simpson
Administrator
Federal Transit Administration
U.S. Department of Transportation

Before the

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

FTA Implementation of the New Starts and Small Starts Programs

September 26, 2007

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

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

New Starts Program Status

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

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

Progress in New Starts Process Improvements

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

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

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

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

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

Development of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Final Rule

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

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

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

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

Summary of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

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

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

Small Start and Very Small Starts

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

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

Project Justification and Local Financial Commitment Criteria

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

Statement of

James S. Simpson
Administrator
Federal Transit Administration
U.S. Department of Transportation

Before the

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

FTA Implementation of the New Starts and Small Starts Programs

May 10, 2007

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

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

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

Strong Project Management Oversight Program

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

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

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

New Starts Program Assessment and Resultant Improvements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Small Starts

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

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

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

Guidance and Regulations

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

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

Conclusion

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

Statement of

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

before the

Committee on Homeland Security
U.S. House of Representatives

 Rail and Public Transportation Security

March 6, 2007

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

FTA and Transit Security

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

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

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

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

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

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

The eight teams are as follows:

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

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

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

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

###

Statement of

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

before the

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

Hearing Entitled,

"Update on Rail and Public Transportation Security Efforts"

February 6, 2007

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

FTA and Transit Security

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

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

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

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

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

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

The eight teams are as follows:

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

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

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

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

###

STATEMENT OF

THERESE W. MCMILLAN
DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

BEFORE THE

 SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING
UNITED STATES SENATE

November 6, 2013

Chairman Nelson, Ranking Member Collins, and Members of the Committee:

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Administration’s efforts to address the transportation and mobility needs of today’s seniors living in urban, suburban, and rural communities around the nation, and to anticipate the related economic and social challenges that an aging America poses for our nation as a whole. This is an issue that cuts across party lines and geographic boundaries, as the majority of us will one day confront the health care and quality of life issues that are a natural part of the aging process, even as many of us wrestle today with caring for an aging loved one.

Our nation is undergoing a significant demographic shift that will profoundly affect our policies and priorities for years to come. By 2050, the number of Americans aged 65 and older is projected to more than double, from 40.2 million in 2010 to 88.5 million in 2050, and in particular, the number of men and women 85 and older is expected to increase fivefold by mid-century. The states with the fastest-growing percentage of older residents over the next two decades will see that growth in both urban and rural communities, from California to Texas, Florida to Virginia, and Maine. The challenges facing this population are significant. For instance, U.S. Census data indicate that nearly half of rural elders live below 200 percent of the federal poverty level, compared to roughly one-third of urban residents. Many seniors combat isolation and struggle to obtain access to medical care and other vital social services, especially in geographically dispersed areas. And yet while many elderly people face similar challenges, strategies to address the needs of elderly populations in rural and urban settings are not identical; there is no one-size-fits-all solution.

The Role of Federally Coordinated Transportation to Address Elders’ Needs

Challenges such as these require a carefully coordinated continuum of services at the federal, state, and local level, involving both public and private resources. Transportation, in particular, cuts across every aspect of elder care, from health care and housing to employment and social activities. Transportation is an indisputable lifeline for aging Americans in urban and rural settings alike, and is therefore a major focus of federally coordinated efforts. Nearly one in five Americans over the age of 70 does not hold a driver’s license, and those who do drive benefit from enhanced road safety provisions that also protect the rest of the driving public. As older residents cut back on or relinquish driving, they still need to stay connected to their communities, access healthcare services, and other destinations.  Transportation can foster livable communities, allowing residents safe and convenient ways to travel by automobile, foot, bicycle, and transit for everyone in the community regardless of age or ability.

The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) is committed to taking into account the mobility needs of aging Americans across its core programs and in coordination with other federal departments. Specifically, the Federal Interagency Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility (CCAM), which is chaired by the U.S. Secretary of Transportation, includes representatives from 11 federal agencies, including the U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and Education. The CCAM’s mission focuses on developing and implementing initiatives that improve mobility and community accessibility for seniors, individuals with disabilities, and low-income individuals and their families. The CCAM’s Strategic Action Plan encourages the creation and growth of coordinated transportation networks that provide streamlined access to health and wellness care, jobs, and community services. The plan’s objectives range from improving health outcomes by enhancing coordination of transportation services to promoting local business, economic, and transportation partnerships on behalf of seniors, dislocated workers, and others seeking to rejoin the workforce and access economic opportunities and training.

The most significant CCAM-led outcome in the Obama Administration is the Veterans Transportation and Community Living Initiative. This initiative, launched in Fiscal Year (FY) 2011, and led by the DOT’s Federal Transit Administration (FTA), in collaboration with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Department of Labor, benefits all users of public transportation resources, including veterans, people with disabilities, and seniors. It particularly addresses the Administration’s challenge to improve access to jobs and services for America’s military veterans and members of the Armed Forces returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, along with their families. The Veterans Initiative has committed over $63 million in competitive grant funds for 86 innovative projects in 38 states, the Northern Mariana Islands, and Guam that help communities to develop or enhance one-call/one-click access to locally coordinated transportation services, ranging from fixed-route buses to on-demand paratransit taxi service.

For example, the Veterans Initiative awarded $1.4 million to Lee County, Florida, to enable the installation of new information kiosks at a new Department of Veterans Administration outpatient clinic in Cape Coral and other locations, where veterans—many of them elderly—will eventually be able to readily obtain real-time information on transit rides and schedules, day or night.

Another important CCAM accomplishment is the United We Ride initiative, which improves the availability, quality, and efficient delivery of transportation services for older adults, people with disabilities, and low-income individuals and families. Established in 2004, United We Ride has been a driver of the movement toward inclusive planning of transportation services, pushing for communities to ensure that the people using these systems, including older Americans, have a say in how and where they are developed. Under FTA’s direction, this high-profile initiative encourages states to integrate transportation and social service needs in major urban areas as well as improve citizens’ access at the local level to federally funded programs such as Medicaid, aging assistance, workforce training, and other services. The initiative emphasizes coordination that cuts across providers. For example, if there is room for a Medicaid beneficiary on a bus or van operated by the local Administration on Aging bus or van (which in turn benefits from federal transportation dollars awarded to the state), the passenger can hop aboard.

CCAM members are also moving forward to help ensure that transportation assets are efficiently deployed to help evacuate those without personal transportation resources in times of emergency, and to clarify policies on vehicle sharing and cost sharing between federally funded agencies to facilitate collaborative use of transportation assets on the ground.  Progress in this area is important in light of devastating disasters such as Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy.

 Outside of the CCAM, at the DOT modal level, many efforts are under way to continue to adapt programs and policies to the needs and concerns of seniors. For example, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is working to make roads safer for older users through various initiatives, including a revised design handbook specifically addressing the needs of older drivers and pedestrians, approving the use of enhanced fonts to increase legibility on road signs, and making roadway crossings safer for pedestrians of all ages and abilities. FHWA also encourages States and local planning organizations to use the full range of existing design flexibility to identify and adopt safe and convenient designs for all pedestrians and bicyclists, particularly in urban areas.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has also published draft guidance for states to use in addressing older driver safety, including guidance on driver licensing and medical review of at-risk drivers and collaboration with social services and transportation service providers. NHTSA has also solicited and received comments on potential modifications to the New Car Assessment Program, including comments on a potential Silver Car Rating System for Older Occupants, which would help older people identify and select vehicles that would potentially be safer for them.

Progress to Strengthen Public Transportation Coordination and Access

FTA has long addressed the mobility needs of seniors as part of a broader strategy that seeks to invest in transportation choices to meet the needs of citizens at every stage of life. Indeed, activities addressing seniors’ mobility management needs are eligible expenses under FTA’s transit assistance programs, with an 80 percent FTA share. The remaining 20 percent in matching funds can be drawn from non-DOT federally funded programs that involve older Americans, Medicaid recipients, those with developmental disabilities, work force investment programs, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) programs, Head Start, and more. Providing access to affordable public transit is especially important to the growing number of older citizens who prefer to maintain independence while remaining connected to their communities. FTA has funded a number of initiatives, and collaborated successfully with non-federal partners, to improve access to transit—and improve the coordination of federal, state, and local resources—in ways that benefit the elderly as well as other populations needing more and better access to transportation choices. These efforts leverage federal investments through private partnerships and cooperative agreements, with new and strengthened programs shaped by MAP-21.

MAP-21 Enhances Funding, Services for Disadvantaged Populations

MAP-21, the two-year transportation authorization that is effective through FY 2014, empowers FTA to implement many bold new policies that strengthen and streamline public transportation for the nation’s most vulnerable populations, including the elderly. For example, MAP-21 provides $28 million more in FY 2013 for the Section 5310 Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities Program than SAFETEA-LU provided in FY 2012 for the Section 5317 New Freedom Program and the Elderly and Individuals with Disabilities Section 5310 Program combined. Projects for this program are developed through a community-based, coordinated planning process that must involve older adults at the outset. Such activities are an eligible capital expense under FTA’s transit assistance programs, with an 80 percent FTA share and the remainder from non-DOT sources. This program also leverages private-sector resources.  For example, taxicabs that meet the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility requirements are now an eligible expense under this program. Accessible taxis offer many communities greater flexibility, and cost savings, over traditional transit agency paratransit service. In cities such as Houston, TX; Madison, WI; and Daytona Beach, FL, these services have been well received.

Under MAP-21, FTA also provides funding to technical assistance centers, including the National Center for Senior Transportation and the new National Center for Mobility Management, both of which provide research and technical assistance resources to support transportation options for older adults.

In addition, FTA’s 5311 Rural Areas Formula Grant program under MAP-21 increases spending on rural transportation by approximately 25 percent over the previous authorization (SAFETEA-LU), providing capital, planning, and operating assistance to in areas with fewer than 50,000 residents. Total funding is $600 million in FY 2013 and $608 million in FY 2014.  The program includes $60 million in funds over two years specifically for Tribal transit, which is also key to reaching elderly citizens. 

Cooperative Agreements Strengthen Local Coordination, Innovation

FTA has further leveraged federal investments through local nonprofit partnerships with entities such as Easter Seals Project Action, whose mission is to promote universal access to transportation for people with disabilities, including the elderly. One of the most pivotal partnerships is the National Center for Mobility Management, which engages FTA with the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), the Community Transportation Association of America (CTAA), and the Easter Seals Transportation Group—all industry leaders in fostering and strengthening access to transportation choices serving diverse communities. This new Center will extend FTA’s outreach by helping communities to adopt transportation strategies and mobility options that foster independent living, self-sufficiency, and promote healthy outcomes for older citizens and others. For example, the Center will develop a database that identifies and documents best practices on mobility management. It will also support FTA’s grantees and other partners in adopting proven, sustainable, and replicable transportation coordination, mobility management and one-call/one-click transportation information services.

Through the United We Ride initiative, FTA also supports technical assistance centers such as the National Center for Senior Transportation, jointly operated by Easter Seals and the National Association of Area Agencies on Aging, and funded, in part, with $1.8 million from FTA in FY 2011 and FY 2012. The Center is a collaborative effort with the HHS Administration on Aging and is instrumental in assessing the real transportation needs of older adults and delivering appropriate technical assistance and training (such as travel training, which helps seniors and others learn how to navigate their transit systems); volunteer transportation resources and training; and new tools and resources to connect seniors with accessible transportation.

Mobility Management

Mobility management improves customer service by developing partnerships among transportation providers to expand the range of viable transportation options within communities. Mobility management programs, funded by combinations of federal, state, local, and nonprofit resources, often target the needs of seniors, people with disabilities and low-income families. FTA has a long-standing tradition of supporting the evolution and proliferation of mobility management programs.

The National Center for Mobility Management, referenced above, is the newest component of FTA’s ongoing commitment to community-based mobility management programs that often target the needs of seniors, people with disabilities, and low-income families. The majority of FTA formula-based programs under MAP-21 can fund mobility management expenses, including, for example, one-call centers, travel navigators and trainers, and local trip-planning services. In FY2012, FTA programs provided over $40 million in funding for mobility management projects—a four percent increase over FY 2011 funding of $38 million. Since 2006, when mobility management became an eligible capital expense in FTA’s formula programs, total annual spending for this activity has grown from just $300,000 to over $40 million. The impacts of these investments are both strengthening and extending FTA’s reach and ability to improve access to transit services at the community level. For example, the effort has enabled APTA to work with CTAA on a five-year strategic plan promoting mobility management in the transit industry nationwide; develop a national education program and materials; and make a business case for local mobility managers. Today, there are over 400 mobility managers operating across the country. Over half the states are planning or implementing one-call centers in urban or rural areas.

Programs and initiatives such as these go a long way to help communities assess specific needs to fill gaps in transportation for seniors and others. Determining the appropriate range of options, based on demographic and socioeconomic needs of a particular community, is important to enhancing choices for all residents. The ride-sharing and volunteer driver programs that work in one community may not be the right fit for other communities where fixed-route service is abundant, as it is in urban areas. Very importantly, seniors and others simply may not know what services and transportation options are available to them and do not know how to connect to them.  That’s why we need to vigorously develop nationwide transportation one-call-/one-click centers that can successfully connect older adults and others to the rides they need.  We need to continue advocating for the formation of these centers and use of technology, along with replicating the presence of mobility managers across the country. 

By coordinating access to and information about transportation choices, reducing duplication of services, and generally increasing the efficiency of our transportation networks, FTA can help to maximize the impact of taxpayer dollars.

Barriers and Challenges to Future Progress

DOT has made tremendous progress working within and across agencies to improve coordinated access to transportation for seniors and disadvantaged populations, but barriers related to funding and coordination remain. With respect to coordination generally, in 2011, the Government Accountability Office identified 80 federal programs as having great potential to be coordinated and maximized through the United We Ride initiative, to help “transportation-disadvantaged” populations. But there are legal barriers to maximizing this potential. In order to make the most of each federal dollar and reduce duplication of services, the various players in the transportation sphere, from any part of the federal government, should be required to take part in coordinated planning efforts guided by the populations served. That level of cross-cutting coordination is not now in place. Moreover, some human service agencies still do not coordinate their services with others.  States, in particular, need to analyze these impacts on overall delivery of transportation services that older adults depend on.  Only by truly working together can we make the most of our efforts. In the meantime, as a result of these barriers, many seniors may be left unserved or underserved, even if local transportation providers have the capacity to serve them.

Effective coordination is key to this effort, and will continue to require hard work at the local level to change traditions, attitudes, and relationships among the many community organizations and agencies that provide human service transportation.  Fortunately, there are a growing number of states and local communities that have embraced this notion. DOT is committed to working with our partners at every level to share best practices and to help break down the remaining barriers to effective coordination.  We want to maximize independence and economic opportunity by providing the most cost effective and most appropriate rides for those in need. 

Our best efforts at coordination, however, are only successful to the degree that actual programs can be implemented and sustained. Notably, significant funding reductions beginning in FY 2013 have reduced FTA’s ability to promote transportation coordination through its technical assistance centers.

These funding challenges must also be viewed in the context of rising demand for public transit services, which are at their highest level in over half a century. In addition to making do with less, communities around the country continue to submit proposals for federally funded capital transit projects that far exceed FTA’s available resources; demand greatly outstrips supply. Additionally, the largest and oldest transit systems around the nation are in desperate need of billions of dollars in postponed maintenance and modernization. Yet as our population ages, we cannot afford the social costs of ignoring the transportation needs of older Americans. We must find ways to continue investing in transit services that provide safe, reliable rides. These are challenges that the executive and legislative branches of government must solve together if we are to preserve a lifecycle of services—and mobility choices—that Americans need at every stage of life.

We at FTA look forward to working with members of this special committee, along with our federal, state, and local partners, to meet the needs and address the challenges of America’s aging population.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony and I would be happy to answer any questions.

STATEMENT OF

PETER M. ROGOFF, ADMINISTRATOR
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

HEARING ON

PROGRESS IN IMPLEMENTING THE
AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009

June 25, 2009

Chairman Oberstar, Ranking Member Mica, and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) progress in implementing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). In the 16 weeks since this hallmark legislation was enacted, FTA has been working hard to deliver funding to support the economic recovery, build public transportation for the future, and do so expeditiously and with unprecedented transparency and accountability. Today, I want to share with the committee how Recovery Act funds have helped local communities and what FTA has been able to accomplish so far in carrying out Recovery Act mandates.

Across the nation we are seeing Recovery Act funds used to create and preserve jobs, save energy, and enrich the lives of people in communities by improving their public transportation systems, and as Secretary LaHood said, “The Recovery Act is working for America.  It is far more than a set of federal statistics.  It’s a testament to our ability to put government to work for the people, and lay the groundwork for a brighter future for all of us.” We are hearing from people about their success in putting Recovery Act dollars to work for transit in their communities.

For example, Advance Transit provides fixed route transit services in the Greater Hanover-Lebanon area in New Hampshire and Vermont.  This transit agency originally planned to move forward with only phase one of a plan to fully expand its bus maintenance and operations facility. The plan called for a three-phase build-out for maximum utilization of the lot. Upon learning of the possibility of funding under the Recovery Act, Advance Transit made plans to complete building phases one and two, which would allow it to nearly double the bus maintenance area and improve the bus operations function. A large part of the phase two project is adding energy efficiency enhancements for the building envelope, a photovoltaic array for electric production, a rainwater and snowmelt harvesting solution for its bus washing facility, and a LEED Silver Certification as a green building. Advance Transit estimates that the solar array will allow it to offset nearly 44 percent of its projected electric use. The “R” values for the building will be improved by 25 percent in the existing structure, which may be enough to offset the cost of heating the additional space. The plan calls for a complete update to the HVAC systems and the addition of computer controls to provide maximum efficiency. According to Advance Transit, Recovery Act funds will allow it to maximize cost advantages in two ways. First, combining phase one and two into a single construction project enables it to reduce costs involved in mobilization for contractors and for the tie-in costs to the existing structure. Second, the energy enhancements to the existing structure and the additional efficiency elements of the new structure will mean lower operating costs for many years to come.

Another example comes from Philadelphia where the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority or SEPTA plans to launch an ambitious make-over of regional rail stations. We learned that “more than 50 of SEPTA's 151 functioning stations are to be replaced, rebuilt, repaired, or at least repainted in the next five years. For some, it will be the first attention since they were built over a century ago.” Worth noting is the Tulpehocken and Carpenter stations where business developers would like to lease the stations because “for more than nine years, that train station has meant more than just a train station. The coffee shop there has become the heart of the community.” Recovery Act funds mean that the Tulpehocken station and its inbound passenger shelter will get $1.3 million, with the goal of converting the long-uninhabited station into an office and residential space.

Finally, in Idaho, where transit advocates have long fought to build a strong base, the Governor there has approved the use of more than $8.7 million in Recovery Act funds to put more Idahoans to work and improve rural transportation options. The Governor projects that the public transportation projects are calculated to generate or preserve approximately 155 jobs working on a range of projects including a new transit center in Victor, bike and pedestrian paths in Ponderay, and increased transit services in several communities that depend on tourism to support their economy.

Recovery Act funds are making a difference and FTA is proud to support the efforts of transit agencies across the country like ones mentioned above. We believe the Recovery Funds made available for public transportation – $8.4 Billion – created an extraordinary opportunity that FTA has executed enthusiastically in partnership with local transit authorities. The agency worked overtime to stand up the six different public transportation programs, meeting or beating statutory deadlines to make Recovery Act funds available to transit providers and States. Shortly after the Recovery Act’s passage, FTA established a standing internal workgroup comprised of Senior Executives and staff with expertise in financial, policy, planning and environmental requirements, communication, and program implementation to anticipate issues and develop guidance to our grantees. That effort produced guidance to our grantees covering a range of topics to assist them with navigating the Act’s requirements. We accomplished this through a new FTA webpage (www.fta.dot.gov/economicrecovery) that is devoted to Recovery Act issues and through the publication of guidance in the March 5, 2009 Federal Register notice, which also allocated Recovery Act formula resources. Our outreach efforts didn’t end there; we also participated in numerous webinars, attended conferences to present our Recovery Act implementation strategy, and hosted video-conference training for FTA staff to ensure a common understanding of the Act’s requirements and a consistent approach on implementation. Our collaborative efforts have paid off as FTA works with its grantees to approve grants quickly for meritorious transit projects that are “ready-to-go” and will provide long-term investments in livable communities. I want to acknowledge and express thanks for the extraordinary efforts of FTA’s career staff who have worked many long hours to ensure that grantees have the information they need to successfully apply for Recovery Act funds.

In addition to managing FTA Recovery Act resources, FTA plays an active role on the Secretary’s Transportation Investments Generating Economic Recovery team, or TIGER team, which coordinates and oversees the Department’s responsibilities and reports regularly to the Secretary. We also provide staff expertise to the Secretary for the $1.5 billion discretionary grants program for surface transportation infrastructure projects that will have a significant impact on the Nation, a metropolitan area, or region. Because of the potential complexity of a multi-modal grant program, FTA is proud to be part of the extensive review process for those grant proposals and we will work with the Secretary to ensure that those grants are wise investments of taxpayer dollars and awarded as expeditiously as possible to create and preserve jobs.

In fact, the collaboration between FTA and transit providers nationwide has been instrumental in keeping implementation on track. These efforts are delivering public transportation investments. Of the $8.34 billion of Recovery Act funding provided to FTA, $1.79 billion has been obligated already and another $5.72 billion in grants currently are in process for obligation in the near term. In addition, $51.3 million in Recovery Act flexible surface transportation funds have been transferred from the Federal Highway Administration to FTA for public transportation projects. These transfers reflect decisions by States and local authorities to use Recovery Act dollars available for highways or transit for transit projects in their respective locales.

FTA estimates, based on the grants that are currently in process, that approximately 4,000 new transit vehicles will be purchased or on order by this September. Many of these vehicles will help bring the Nation’s transit system closer to a state of good repair by replacing overage vehicles, which will reduce maintenance costs of our transit systems and provide cleaner and more comfortable rides to transit customers. A number of these vehicles will also go toward expanding transit service, providing more transportation choices to families in urban and rural communities across the country.

The Recovery Act sets aggressive deadlines for the obligation of transit funds. FTA has focused on delivering the funds to grantees for sound public transit investments. The Recovery Act calls for the obligation of 50 percent of transit formula dollars in specific geographic areas within 180 days of apportionment, which means by September 1, 2009. The Act requires FTA to withhold a specified portion of funds from areas that do not meet the September 1st deadline.

The September 1 deadline is 68 days away. Right now, 31 of the 204 urbanized areas and States that received urbanized area formula funds have met the 50 percent obligation requirement; ten of the 54 States, territories, and possessions that received non-urbanized area formula funds have met the requirement; and eight of the 39 urbanized areas receiving fixed guideway formula funds have met the deadline. At this time, FTA is working closely with grantees to meet the targets with sound transit investments. FTA is monitoring the obligation rates regularly, identifying problems early, communicating with grantees frequently, and solving issues that are identified.

FTA is also making solid progress on awarding Recovery Act funds for discretionary public transportation programs. The Recovery Act provided $750 million for capital investment grants, known as New Starts and Small Starts; $17 million to invest in our Tribal Transit program; and $100 million to a new program called the Transit Investments for Greenhouse Gas and Energy Reduction -- also known fondly as the “TIGGER” program.

New Starts

The Recovery Act appropriated $750 Million for Capital Investment Grants.  The funds are for major capital projects eligible under the discretionary section 5309 New Starts/Small Starts program, with statutory priority given to projects already under construction or that could obligate funds within 150 days of enactment of the legislation.

FTA announced its allocation of these funds in the Federal Register on May 11, 2009, based on an analysis of construction schedules and cash flow needs of New Starts and Small Starts projects currently under construction.  In the Federal Register notice, FTA indicated that it may de-obligate and reallocate any funds that are not disbursed by May 11, 2010.

Ten of the projects awarded funds have existing Full Funding Grant Agreements (FFGAs) under the New Starts program, and one project is a current Small Start. All are able to use the funds for projects under construction promptly.  The amounts allocated under the Recovery Act did not increase the total Federal investment in these FFGAs. However, the accelerated payout of the Federal New Starts commitment allowed for transit agencies to expedite local projects. In addition, the allocation approach maximized the New Starts commitment authority created by the Recovery Act. A total of $1.5 billion in New Starts and Small Starts commitment authority was created by FTA’s allocation. This has allowed FTA to make New Starts funding commitments that would have otherwise been impossible. The American people will see more, better transit projects sooner because of the Recovery Act.  

Tribal Transit

The Recovery Act set aside 2.5 percent of the funds appropriated for the Section 5311 program to be distributed to Indian Tribes under the provisions of FTA’s Tribal Transit Program.  FTA published a Federal Register notice on March 23, 2009, announcing the availability of $17 million in Recovery Act funding and specifying the unique requirements under the Recovery Act.  Tribes responded to the notice by submitting over 70 applications for funding with a total value of $55 million by the May 22, 2009, deadline.
 
FTA also published an annual Notice of Funding Availability for the FY 2009 Tribal Transit Program ($15 million) on April 29, 2009.  The annually appropriated funds can be used for operations and planning, in addition to capital assistance, while Recovery Act funds can only be used for capital assistance.  Applications for the annual program are due June 29, 2009. FTA will coordinate its review of tribal applications under the Recovery Act and the annual program to maximize the opportunities for Tribes and avoid redundant funding.  Selections under both programs will be announced in the Federal Register, we hope before the end of the fiscal year. 

TIGGER

Additionally, FTA published a Federal Register notice soliciting proposals for the $100 million in TIGGER program funds on March 24, 2009. Proposals for TIGGER program funds were also due on May 22, 2009. FTA has received 200 proposals identifying 450 possible projects and requesting over $1.56 billion in funding. FTA plans to announce successful applicants by the end of the fiscal year.

FTA has taken steps to provide effective management and oversight of these Recovery Act funds, to ensure that the funds provided by Congress are used efficiently, effectively, and to provide maximum benefit to the public. The Recovery Act provides FTA with $64.3 million in combined oversight and administrative funding to support the economic recovery effort, or approximately $16 million per year over the next four years.  FTA has developed a strategy which combines adding term staff appointments with contractor resources to ensure the public transportation Recovery Act funds meet their intended purposes. FTA is in the process of hiring staff, principally in the regions, to accommodate the large influx of additional grants and capital focused projects.

FTA has developed an oversight strategy that recognizes the risks of this funding program. Grants funded with Recovery Act resources are 100 percent federal share. The additional funds made available create opportunities for grantees, who may attempt types of projects typically not undertaken by the grantee -- such as a capital construction project or major rehabilitation. Even transit’s largest grantees will need to be cautious as they add significant Recovery Act funds to their 2009 work programs. We recognize the need for strong and comprehensive oversight of these funds.  FTA has developed Recovery Act-specific oversight strategies that address these unique vulnerabilities associated with Recovery Act recipients and sub-recipients. We are augmenting our oversight program and technical assistance efforts to accommodate the Recovery Act program. In some cases, we have supplemented our standing reviews, such as our Triennial and State Management Reviews, with Recovery Act program questions. In some cases, we are developing spot reviews to focus on high risk areas. Moreover, we have integrated DOT-wide risk identification and risk mitigation strategies into our existing well-established oversight program plans.

We have made strong efforts to pro-actively assist grantees in fully understanding compliance and reporting requirements.  As part of this proactive technical assistance effort, we are developing targeted and customized oversight workshops that will address historically problematic compliance areas as a way to mitigate risk early on.  Further, we have strengthened our current oversight workshops and training sessions by inviting the Office of Inspector General to provide training on ways to identify and prevent waste, fraud, and abuse. FTA is about to roll out a course designed to help the smaller transit agency execute a construction project. We are making the course available state by state, on an as requested basis. FTA also maintains an extensive website, with a query function and multiple questions and answers posed by users. Through these and other efforts, FTA is ensuring effective oversight so that projects funded by the Recovery Act are held to the highest standard of transparency and accountability that has been set forth by President Obama and Secretary LaHood.

I join Secretary LaHood in recognizing that the Recovery Act is more than statistics. Recovery Act funds are enabling transit agencies across the country to enrich the lives of people in their communities and provide local jobs. We knew that Recovery Act investments would make a difference and I applaud this committee, the Congress, and President Obama for making the investment in transit. I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have.