[Senate Hearing 117-346]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 117-346
21ST CENTURY COMMUNITIES: PUBLIC TRANSPOR-
TATION INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT AND FAST
ACT REAUTHORIZATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
BANKING,HOUSING,AND URBAN AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
EXAMINING PUBLIC TRANSIT AND INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT TO CREATE GROWTH
IN OUR COMMUNITIES, TO LOWER PEOPLE'S TRANSPORTATION COSTS, AND TO
CREATE GOOD-PAYING JOBS
__________
APRIL 15, 2021
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available at: https: //www.govinfo.gov /
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
48-366 PDF WASHINGTON : 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio, Chairman
JACK REED, Rhode Island PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
JON TESTER, Montana MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
MARK R. WARNER, Virginia TIM SCOTT, South Carolina
ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland THOM TILLIS, North Carolina
CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana
TINA SMITH, Minnesota BILL HAGERTY, Tennessee
KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming
JON OSSOFF, Georgia JERRY MORAN, Kansas
RAPHAEL WARNOCK, Georgia KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
STEVE DAINES, Montana
Laura Swanson, Staff Director
Brad Grantz, Republican Staff Director
Elisha Tuku, Chief Counsel
Homer Carlisle, Professional Staff Member
Dan Sullivan, Republican Chief Counsel
Ken Acuna, Republican Professional Staff Member
Cameron Ricker, Chief Clerk
Shelvin Simmons, IT Director
Charles J. Moffat, Hearing Clerk
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 15, 2021
Page
Opening statement of Chairman Brown.............................. 1
Prepared statement....................................... 35
Opening statements, comments, or prepared statements of:
Senator Toomey............................................... 4
Prepared statement....................................... 36
WITNESSES
Darryl Haley, Chief Executive Officer and General Manager,
Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority/Metro................ 7
Prepared statement........................................... 37
Responses to written questions of:
Chairman Brown........................................... 56
Senator Sinema........................................... 56
Senator Daines........................................... 57
John Samuelsen, International President, Transport Workers Union
of America, AFL-CIO............................................ 9
Prepared statement........................................... 41
Responses to written questions of:
Chairman Brown........................................... 58
Senator Sinema........................................... 59
Senator Daines........................................... 59
Beth Osborne, Director, Transportation for America............... 10
Prepared statement........................................... 47
Responses to written questions of:
Senator Daines........................................... 60
Baruch Feigenbaum, Senior Managing Director, Transportation
Policy, Reason Foundation...................................... 12
Prepared statement........................................... 50
Responses to written questions of:
Senator Crapo............................................ 61
Senator Daines........................................... 61
David Ditch, Research Associate, Grover M. Hermann Center for the
Federal Budget, The Heritage Foundation........................ 14
Prepared statement........................................... 52
Responses to written questions of:
Senator Daines........................................... 62
(iii)
21ST CENTURY COMMUNITIES: PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE
INVESTMENT AND FAST ACT REAUTHORIZATION
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 15, 2021
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met at 10 a.m., via Webex, Hon. Sherrod
Brown, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN SHERROD BROWN
Chairman Brown. The Senate Committee on Banking, Housing,
and Urban Affairs will come to order. Thank you for joining us.
Thank you for your promptness.
This hearing is in the virtual format. A few reminders as
we begin.
Once you start speaking, there will be a slight delay
before you are displayed on the screen. To minimize background
noise, please click the mute button until it is your turn to
speak or ask questions.
You should all have one box on your screens labeled
``Clock'' that will show you how much time is remaining. For
witnesses, you will have 5 minutes for your opening statements.
For all Senators, the 5-minute clock still applies for your
questions.
At 30 seconds remaining for your statements and questions,
you will hear a bell ring to remind you your time has almost
expired. It will ring again when your time has expired.
If there is a technology issue, we will move to the next
witness or Senator until it is resolved. To simplify the
speaking order process, Senator Toomey and I have agreed to go
by seniority for this hearing.
Before my opening remarks, I wanted to thank the Ranking
Member. Senator Toomey joined me on the floor yesterday with
five others of our colleagues to join in the annual reading of
Dr. King's letter from the Birmingham Jail in 1963, and we
split it up in seven segments and read it. And Pat read the
closing part of the letter, and it was inspiring for all of us
just to read those words again, which seemed just as relevant
today as they did in 1963, written by a real genius of American
history, a beautiful writer and an incredible thinker and moral
force. So, Pat, I just wanted to publicly say thank you for
joining us and doing that.
Senator Toomey. Thank you, and, Mr. Chairman, thanks for
organizing it and leading the effort.
Chairman Brown. Thanks, Pat.
Shortly before the pandemic, Chairman Crapo and our
Committee held a well-attended hearing on the reauthorization
of Federal transit programs. We are picking back up on those
efforts. I hope to work with Ranking Member Toomey and all of
the Members of our Committee to advance a surface
transportation bill and tackle other infrastructure investment
that we need to create economic growth in all communities.
Public transportation helps people get to work and school
and to doctors' appointments and the grocery store and to spend
less of their time and hard-earned money commuting.
When we say public transportation, of course, we just do
not mean big-city subways. This Committee understands that
public transportation plays a critical role in pretty much
every community in our country--in rural areas and small towns
like Mansfield and Xenia and Chillicothe in my State, and in
mid-sized cities like Dayton and cities that Pat represents, as
I do, in old industrial towns, on the coasts and in the
heartland.
During the pandemic, essential workers have relied on
public transportation to reach their jobs at pharmacies and
hospitals and supermarkets. Transit now is a lifeline to
vaccination centers.
And when more Americans return to offices and schools, all
of the problems facing our transportation systems will come
roaring back.
We know the cost of transportation is a huge drain on
families' budgets and on their time. If a bus or train does not
run, Americans who do not have the option to work from home
lose out on hours and the paychecks that come with them.
Sometimes they even lose their jobs.
An unexpected car repair or a car accident can devastate
families who rely on their cars to get to work--especially when
we recognize that 40 percent of Americans do not have the money
to cover a $400 emergency expense.
We know who gets hurt the most when transit is not a
reliable option. It is the Black and Brown neighborhoods who
have been historically cutoff from job centers. It is women
working at essential jobs. It is rural areas where walking is
not even an option.
For our Nation's seniors, particularly in our suburbs and
rural communities, a van or bus from the local transit service
is a lifeline to the doctor or the grocery store or church.
A taxi or an Uber may work for some. But in my State, as in
many others, that is often not a reliable option outside of our
larger cities. It is usually not an affordable option, and the
rideshare model is denying millions of workers protections on
the job and benefits like health care.
We can do better than that.
All Americans should have high-quality, frequent transit
service that saves them time and money.
The solution is pretty simple. When you have better, faster
transit service, more people use it.
Public transit will help restore and grow our economy as we
emerge from the pandemic. Good transit attracts good jobs.
The Cincinnati USA Regional Chamber understands that. It
led the business community's support of a historic ballot
measure to invest in the Cincinnati Metro. And congratulations,
Darryl, it passed last May.
We see this in cities across the country--business and
civic leaders coming together to support transit as a tool for
growth and inclusion.
Whether it is the business community in Columbus or
Charlotte in Senator Tillis' State or Atlanta in Senators
Ossoff and Warnock's State, we witness an emerging consensus
that a vibrant, fully functioning transit system is essential
to attract investment and create communities where people want
to live and to work.
And, of course, public transit remains one of our best
tools to fight climate change. When more people take public
transit, we get less traffic on the roads and we, of course,
get lower emissions.
We need to seize new opportunities to get the next
generation of buses and rail cars into our communities and
support American manufacturing.
That means expanding the Low- or No-Emission Vehicle
Program. Transit agencies save money in the long run by
adopting more efficient vehicles, and with Buy America
requirements, we can create a significant number of
manufacturing jobs building those buses in the U.S.
One Member of our Committee is particularly interested in
that: Senator Smith.
Running more efficient buses and supporting American
industry is something I hope we can all agree on. Our Committee
has worked on a bipartisan basis to reject efforts by Chinese
Government-backed companies to infiltrate the transit industry
and instead support the deployment of advanced, American-made
zero-emission buses.
Fixing deteriorated infrastructure and replacing old rail
cars can make transit more efficient. Riders in places like
Cleveland and Boston and the Ranking Member's Philadelphia face
delays when old tracks and outdated rail cars slow our transit
system and cause longer commutes. And those repairs, of course,
are done generally--by always well qualified general union
workforces doing jobs that cannot be shipped overseas.
In Cleveland, the RTA operates a fleet of 74 rail cars. All
of them--all of them--are more than 35 years old.
America's transit workforce is ready for this job. Transit
workers made enormous sacrifices during the pandemic. As Mr.
Samuelsen so well knows, more than 350 transit workers have
died from the virus, many from communities like New York that
experienced horrible rates of infection in the early stages of
the pandemic. The transit workforce, like other frontline
workers, kept our Nation functioning.
We need to listen to the voices of transit workers to offer
better, safer service in the years ahead. We need to partner
with the transit workforce as agencies consider adopting new
technology and automation.
Technology should be used to make transit service safer,
but there is no substitute for a well-trained bus operator to
help riders and keep them safe, particularly passengers with
disabilities. We should never outsource critical safety
functions and never outsource essential services.
These are all critical national issues, and we need to take
a leading role and solve big problems.
The American Jobs Plan is bold, it is necessary, it is how
we finally seize opportunities instead of running from them. It
would put people to work. It would invest in the places that
have been left on their own by Washington and Wall Street for
too long.
I look forward to hearing from Committee Members and
witnesses about how we can build this infrastructure. I know
that together we will delve into other transit subjects on this
Committee in the weeks and months ahead.
We can--we must--revitalize public transit and
infrastructure to create growth in our communities, to lower
people's transportation costs, and to create good-paying jobs.
Senator Toomey.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATRICK J. TOOMEY
Senator Toomey. Thank you, Chairman Brown.
COVID obviously was an extraordinary experience, an
extraordinary crisis, and Congress responded to it in an
extraordinary way. Over the course of 2020, Congress provided
almost $4 trillion in COVID and economic relief through five
overwhelmingly bipartisan bills. As part of those bills, we
gave $40 billion to transit on top of the $12 billion that we
annually and ordinarily spend on transit.
Last month, our Democratic colleagues broke from the
bipartisan approach we had maintained in dealing with this
crisis, and they passed a very wasteful and partisan $1.9
trillion spending bill, which among its many provisions one was
an additional $30 billion for transit.
So just to recap, in 2020, Congress provided $12 billion in
annual transit funding; then we spent another $40 billion in
COVID relief transit funding, and then last month passed
another bill with yet another $30 billion for transit. That is
a total of $82 billion passed over the course of a year.
So by way of context, one might ask: What is the annual
cost of operating all of the transit agencies in the entire
United States of America combined? Well, in 2019, that was $54
billion. And yet we sent $82 billion in 1 year. If you add in
the transit agencies' capital expenses to their annual
operating costs, it is still less than $82 billion. It is
staggering how much we have just spent.
Now, our colleagues will justify this spending by saying
that, well, transit systems would collapse from declines in
ridership and State and local government revenues. But
ridership did not drop to zero, and ridership has increased
since the worst days of the pandemic. It has increased
significantly. And these systems are, after all, by definition
local. They serve a city or maybe a metropolitan area. But they
are not national in scope. Should the local jurisdictions and
the States in which they operate, should they have any
responsibility at all to contribute to the costs of these
systems? Evidently not, when the Federal Government is sending
more money than it costs to operate them. And that is despite
the fact that in 2020 State and local tax collections set an
all-time record high. We did not think that was going to be the
case early in the year, but that is exactly what ended up
happening. And that is separate from the $500 billion the
Federal Government sent to State and local governments over the
course of 2020.
And then last month, our Democratic colleagues insisted on
yet another $350 billion on top of all that. It just boggles
the mind.
Now, to add insult to injury here, we send all these
billions of dollars to transit agencies without requiring any
kind of reforms to be implemented. And let us face it, the
financial woes of many big-city transit agencies long pre-date
COVID, and they are tied to chronic financial mismanagement.
Take, for example, New York City's MTA, the country's
largest transit agency. It has been mismanaged for years. It
has had huge mounting debts. Its long-term debt tripled from
the year 2000 to 2019, to over $35 billion now. And since 2014,
it has had $7 billion in questionable and suspicious overtime
expenses.
Well, back in February, just this past February, the MTA
was finally close to making some reforms to address its chronic
problems. But then our Democratic colleagues threw a tremendous
amount of money at them, and lo and behold, the proposed
reforms went out the window. They have not been fixed. They
have just been kicked down the road, courtesy of the U.S.
Federal taxpayer.
Now the Biden administration comes along and it wants
another $85 billion for transit as part of this huge, enormous,
new welfare and infrastructure bill.
Now, here is a way to think about just how excessive all of
this is. If we were to pass this bill that President Biden has
requested and if we do the ordinary funding extension that is
being contemplated here at this hearing and we combined that
with the $82 billion we have provided over the last year, all
of that money is enough that, according to 2019 census data, we
could buy every transit commuter in America a $30,000 car. That
is how much we are spending in the course of just a few years.
So, Mr. Chairman, I am glad we are having this hearing on
FAST Act reauthorization, because this is what we should be
talking about, how we reform our existing transit funding
system, rather than how we pile on yet another $85 billion on
top of the $82 billion we just spent. And as we work on this
reform, I think we should be guided by some sensible principles
that will protect taxpayer dollars from misuse. It should
include prioritizing and maintaining the existing systems
rather than expanding systems with the hope that there will
someday be demand. We ought to be ensuring that State and local
governments pay their fair share and that they are accountable.
We ought to remove useless and unnecessary regulations that
delay projects and increase costs. We should be reforming
planning requirements that otherwise lock local governments
into rigid, long-term system expansions. We ought to be paying
for infrastructure improvements responsibly, including
addressing the insolvency of the Highway Trust Fund. And we
should limit transit's share of the Highway Trust Fund to the
longstanding level of 20 percent.
Importantly, we also need to ask a tough question, which
is: Does every mass transit system in America make sense at its
current scale given the circumstances we have now?
Today we will hear from two witnesses about how we can take
a more thoughtful approach to funding transit than just
throwing still more money at it. Baruch Feigenbaum is a
transportation expert at the Reason Foundation. He will testify
that transit systems and lawmakers really need to adjust to the
shifting work and transportation trends that have been
accelerated by the COVID pandemic.
We will also hear from David Ditch, a budget and
transportation expert at the Heritage Foundation. He will
testify that the transit funding in the recent spending bills
bailed out chronically mismanaged big-city transit agencies.
Mr. Chairman, this year Congress I think should come
together and responsibly reauthorize the FAST Act and in the
process reduce wasteful, outdated, and duplicative spending. I
hope my Democratic colleagues will follow that path of
cooperation rather than just focusing on another partisan bill
that wastes billions and billions of taxpayer dollars without
making necessary reforms.
Thank you.
Chairman Brown. Thank you, Ranking Member Toomey.
I will now introduce today's witnesses.
Darryl Haley is the CEO and general manager in the
Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority in Cincinnati, known
as ``Metro,'' which provides about 14 million rides per year on
fixed-route and paratransit buses. The Cincinnati native has
held leadership positions there since 2006. Welcome, Mr. Haley.
We appreciate your perspective as a leader who puts service on
the street every day and wants to offer better transit across
his region to connect more of your customers with better jobs.
Mr. John Samuelsen is the international president of the
Transport Workers Union, TWU, a position he has held since
2017. TWU represents 150,000 members in transit and other
sectors. He began his career as a track worker for New York
City Transit, later became head of New York's TWU Local 100,
the Nation's largest local transit union.
Beth Osborne is the director of Transportation for America,
a nonprofit advocacy group. Ms. Osborne previously was Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Policy at U.S. DOT in the Obama
administration. She has held various other transportation
policy roles in her career, including in the office of our
colleague Senator Carper. Welcome, Ms. Osborne.
Baruch Feigenbaum is the senior managing director of
transportation policy at the Reason Foundation, a think tank
with offices in L.A. and Washington. Mr. Feigenbaum has spent
his career in transportation planning and research. He has also
served as a Legislative Assistant on Capitol Hill. Welcome, Mr.
Feigenbaum.
And last but not least, of course, Mr. David Ditch is a
budget and transportation associate at the Heritage Foundation.
He previously worked in the Senate for the Budget and Small
Business Committees as well as for several House Members.
Welcome, Mr. Ditch.
Mr. Haley, you begin. Thank you, sir.
STATEMENT OF DARRYL HALEY, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND GENERAL
MANAGER, SOUTHWEST OHIO REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY/METRO
Mr. Haley. Chairman Brown, Ranking Member Toomey, and
Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify today on Public Transportation Infrastructure
Investment and FAST Act Reauthorization.
My name is Darryl Haley. I am the CEO and general manager
of the Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority. We are the
public transport agency serving Hamilton County, including
greater Cincinnati as well as commuter service from Butler,
Clermont County, and Warren counties. I would like to share
with the Committee some of the issues that are critical to our
agency and the broader industry as you consider policies
related to surface transportation reauthorization.
SORTA operates 46 major fixed-route buses and a demand-
responsive paratransit service, making approximately 14 million
passenger trips annually. We are excited about the future of
transit in our region due to the historic support we recently
received from the citizens of Hamilton County. Last May, in the
midst of a global pandemic, they voiced their significant
support of public transportation by approving a sales tax levy
of 0.8 percent to fund Metro and transit-related infrastructure
improvements. SORTA is now bringing to life its Reinventing
Metro plan, which will offer the greater Cincinnati region bold
new transit innovations that will help grow the regional
economy and better connect our community to jobs, education,
and health care. Reinventing Metro will deliver enhanced
amenities for our riders such as new buses, free onboard WiFi,
as well as significant service improvements. This means more
frequent service, 24-hour service on some of our major routes,
and two new bus rapid transit corridors, more suburban job
connectivity with mobile demand-response services, and more.
In the next 5 years, the plan will deliver job access
improvements that will drive economic growth across all of
Hamilton County by making 20,000 more jobs accessible by Metro,
740 more employers accessible by Metro, and $850 million in
total wages accessible by Metro.
Of course, in the midst of all this excitement about the
future of public transit in our region, COVID-19 has devastated
many of our communities. I would like to thank each of you for
your leadership in supporting transit during this pandemic. The
COVID-19 relief packages have been critical to ensuring our
ability to keep our doors open and maintaining staffing levels
throughout the pandemic and avoid any layoffs. Because our
employees have remained on the front line, other members of the
community have had the ability to go to work, to school, to the
doctor, to the grocery store, and other essential activities.
Thanks to the funding provided by the CARES Act, SORTA has
been able to provide PPE for our employees, as well as our
passengers, and install plexiglass barriers on each of our
vehicles. This year has not been easy, but I am proud to say
that SORTA has worked hard each and every day to serve the
community and to continue looking forward to the future.
Prior to COVID-19, we had increased our ridership 4.3
percent in the first quarter. Today ridership is down about 50
percent due to COVID, and we have incurred related cost
increases that forced a delay to the rollout of our Reinventing
Metro Plan from 2020 to 2021. Given the current circumstances,
as you consider reauthorization of the FAST Act, there are a
few policy recommendations I would like to make.
First, I am pleased to see President Biden's extraordinary
commitment to public transit included in his transformational
America Jobs Plan and within his fiscal year 2022 budget
request. His call for new funding to modernize existing public
transportation and for transit expansion aligns with the work
we are doing here at SORTA. I believe this forward-thinking
proposal along with the top three policy recommendations
presented by our the American Public Transportation Association
would provide the investment that are necessary to build a 21st
century transportation system that our country desperately
needs. These are premised on erasing the infrastructure
deficit, rebuilding and expanding our public transportation
systems to best meet the needs of today's commuting public and
future demands, and enhancing our Nation's economic
competitiveness.
APTA calls for a total Federal investment of $178 billion
over 6 years for public transit and passenger rail. If enacted,
this investment will create or sustain more than 2 million
jobs.
The first priority is Highway Trust Fund solvency and long-
term increased investment. Specifically, we are calling for
Federal investment of $145 billion over 6 years to fund
critical projects that will repair, maintain, and improve our
public transit systems today and in the future.
The second priority is reestablishing a 40-40-20 capital
investment ratio among the CIG, State of Good Repair, and Buses
and Bus Facilities program. Recent authorization acts have not
maintained that ratio, and as a result, the Buses and Bus
Facility programs have received less funding.
Third, a new Mobility Innovation and Technology Initiative
to introduce cutting-edge technologies and integrate new
service development approaches and mobility options in the
transit marketplace by transit agencies across the country. We
are using technology to ensure greater reliability and expand
service and improve customers' experiences.
In addition, SORTA supports significant funding increases
for such programs as Bus, Bus Facility, competitive grants, and
low- or no-emission competitive grants which can support zero
emission infrastructure.
Thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to
answering any questions.
Chairman Brown. Mr. Haley, thank you. There is a website
called ``Room Rater,'' which rates on a 1-to-10 scale what the
background looks like when you are in this all-Zoom world, and
I think Room Rater would give you a 10 out of 10 for the
transit bus background. So thank you for that. Mr. Samuelsen is
recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JOHN SAMUELSEN, INTERNATIONAL PRESIDENT, TRANSPORT
WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO
Mr. Samuelsen. Thank you, Chairman Brown and Ranking Member
Toomey, for inviting me here to testify today. I speak on
behalf of over 150,000 members of the Transport Workers Union
who work in public transit, airlines, railroads, bikeshare,
school and tour buses, utilities, and the service sector. I
started my career on the New York City subway tracks 28 years
ago in Brooklyn, and I am still an active track work on that
roster with Local 100 in New York. I am here to join the call
for significant investments in public transit and good union
jobs.
It has been a long year. COVID-19 delivered a body blow to
both transit workers and the systems we operate and maintain.
Frontline workers have been absolutely decimated. The TWU alone
has lost over 170 members to this virus and over 10,000 of us
were quarantined due to exposure. More than 350 transit workers
across America have died from the virus, but Federal support
made a big difference. The American Rescue Plan and coronavirus
aid truly saved our transportation industries.
As our country looks beyond the pandemic, I hope you will
fight to dramatically reshape transportation as outlined in the
President's American Jobs Plan and the Moving Forward Act which
passed the House last year.
One of the big challenges public transit workers face is
new technology, including zero-emission vehicles, automated
vehicles, and shared mobility. We need to help transit systems
and workers prepare for the technological changes that are
rapidly approaching, if not here already.
The TWU believes new transportation technology should meet
four key principles. These principles should guide action on
any implementation of new technology. The principles are:
Number one, as new technologies arise, we must prioritize a
just transition for career transport workers.
Second, any technology utilized should be safe and secure
for both riders and workers.
Third, implementation planning must be open and transparent
with the workforce involved.
Last, we need strong privacy and cybersecurity standards.
This week, the labor movement issued our principles on one
of these new technologies: vehicle electrification. We are
calling for strong Federal leadership to move manufacturers,
State and local governments, transit agencies, and workforce
development toward buying, operating, and developing hybrid and
zero-emission vehicles and infrastructure with a pro-worker
focus. Congress should join us and embrace these principles.
The reauthorization bill also needs to focus on training
workers who could lose jobs because of zero-emission vehicles
and other technology. Electric engines are dramatically
different from diesel engines, and transit mechanics need to be
prepared for that change. We strongly support creating and
funding a national transit frontline workforce training
consortium to train frontline workers for the future. And I
urge you to stop the dangerous deployment of fully autonomous
transit vehicles. We cannot allow robot-controlled buses with
passengers to barrel down crowded American streets at rush
hour. Every bus needs a human operator onboard to preserve
passenger safety and security. The Moving Forward Act directly
addresses these concerns, and we hope that the Senate bill will
include that language as well.
I would also like to raise concerns about rideshare
companies, which are attempting to get transit funding.
Companies like Uber have long avoided public transit rules on
drug and alcohol testing, transit labor protections, and
accessibility requirements. We cannot allow rideshare companies
to get Federal funding when they lower essential safety,
equity, and labor standards. Their goal is first and foremost
to make a profit, never to deliver high-quality transit
service.
We need to invest in bikeshare. We strongly support the
funding for the expansion of these systems and applying Buy
America and labor protections to ensure these investments
create thousands of quality jobs.
I also urge you to support Senator Van Hollen's Transit
Worker and Pedestrian Protection Act. Every single day a
transit worker is assaulted in this country. The Van Hollen
bill will help ensure the FTA uses its leverage to end this
onslaught of assaults on bus drivers and transit workers.
And so to wrap up, as we rise out of the pandemic, we need
to create jobs and revitalize our cities and our towns. Transit
investments are central to creating jobs, accessing health
care, getting kids to school, and ensuring safe commutes for
our essential workers. Safe and reliable public transit is the
gateway back to normalcy for millions of Americans. The time to
act is now, to rebuild our manufacturing sector, to train the
American workforce, to invest in public transit, and to create
and sustain solid blue-collar jobs right here in America.
Thank you.
Chairman Brown. Thank you, Mr. Samuelsen.
Ms. Osborne is recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF BETH OSBORNE, DIRECTOR, TRANSPORTATION FOR AMERICA
Ms. Osborne. Thank you, Chairman Brown and Ranking Member
Toomey, for including me in this important hearing.
I am the director of Transportation for America, a national
nonprofit committed to a transportation system that connects
people to jobs and essential services by all modes of travel no
matter their financial means or physical ability. Over the last
year, Transportation for America and our partners have been
gratified to see Congress support, mostly on a bipartisan
basis, emergency transit operating funds. You all kept an
essential service in place for essential workers, and the
country is better for it.
Now we are starting to talk about getting back to some
semblance of normal. As we do so, it is important to state that
the transportation system we had before COVID was not what we
were looking for in terms of efficiency, safety, affordability,
or equity. Part of the recovery can and should be seeking to
improve that.
In my statement this morning, I am going to focus on
equity. The lack of reliable transit and alternative means of
travel in the U.S. means low-income Americans spend close to 30
percent of their household income on transportation to get
where they need to go. The average American spends only 13
percent. And in my neighborhood, in the heart of
Washington, DC, the average household spends 8 to 9 percent
of transportation due to the close proximity of destinations,
the general walkability, and the access to multiple bus and
rail lines.
The lack of access to transit and safe biking or walking
routes requires people to stretch financially to buy cars, an
expensive assets that loses value the moment you buy it, rather
than use that money for education, property, savings, or
retirement. We are not just talking about a household that
might want to be car-free and cannot. We are talking about a
system that requires a household of five to have three to four
cars instead of one to two. At $8,000 a year to operate a car,
that is a heavy financial burden indeed, and because of our
current system being so car-oriented, it is actually a cover
charge required if you want to participate in the U.S. economy
in so many parts of the country.
Transit dependence is a problem we associate with urban
America, yet according to the latest American Community Survey,
the majority of counties with high rates of zero-car households
are rural. Rural Americans without cars face unique barriers,
and they need and deserve a tailored approach to their transit
needs rather than just assuming that they can or will drive
everywhere.
Part of recovery is also recognizing that
COVID has caused many to lose work, and people are
struggling to pay rent, mortgages, and car payments. As the
recovery begins, the number of transit-dependent people who we
want to help get back to work will likely be higher, at least
temporarily. High-quality transit will be an important part of
ensuring that everyone gets back to work and can reach their
daily necessities.
To support this goal, there are a few things to consider
for transit in the next reauthorization bill and as we consider
any sort of stimulus. We need to refocus the Federal transit
program to improve transit frequency, reliability, and
ridership and expand access to jobs and essential services in
both urban and rural areas. Transit projects, like all
transportation, should be evaluated based on that, how well it
gets people to the things they need.
While we focus almost exclusively on the work trip in
transportation, not just transit but all transportation, the
work trip accounts for only 20 percent of trips. The nonwork
trip is a bigger factor in whether someone needs a car, how
many cars, and how much they spend on transportation. Transit
and transportation overall needs to be better designed to serve
nonwork trips.
Two, we should fund transit operations in addition to
capital projects. Long-term Federal support for transit
operations--particularly to support greater frequencies,
expanded hours, and new service--will help agencies deliver the
high-quality, safe, and affordable public transit service in
both urban and rural America.
And, last, it is time to rebalance transit funding to match
funding for highways. For nearly 40 years, we have stuck to a
deal that was made during the Reagan administration in order to
raise gas taxes by bringing transit into the surface
transportation program. At the time, the gas tax paid for the
whole program, something that has not been true in over a
decade. To make a highway-level commitment to providing
Americans in large cities, small cities, and rural towns alike,
it will require a similar funding commitment.
Communities are constantly changing. COVID has caused even
more. It is time that we harness that change to make our
transportation system more efficient, affordable, equitable,
and accessible for everyone, and transit is key to that goal.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
Chairman Brown. Thank you, Ms. Osborne.
Mr. Feigenbaum, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Welcome.
STATEMENT OF BARUCH FEIGENBAUM, SENIOR MANAGING DIRECTOR,
TRANSPORTATION POLICY, REASON FOUNDATION
Mr. Feigenbaum. Thank you. Chairman Brown, Ranking Member
Toomey, and fellow Members, my name is Baruch Feigenbaum. I am
the senior managing director for transportation policy at
Reason Foundation, a nonprofit think tank with offices in Los
Angeles and Washington, DC. For more than four decades,
Reason's transportation experts have been advising Federal,
State, and local policymakers on market-based approaches to
transportation.
I am a graduate of the Georgia Institute of Technology with
degrees in public policy and transportation planning with a
concentration in engineering. With Reason, I have authored
studies on mobility, highway congestion, transit options,
funding alternatives, and innovative financing. I currently
serve on two National Academy of Sciences Transportation
Research Board committees: bus transit systems, where I serve
as secretary and conference planning chair, and intelligent
transportation systems. My testimony today draws on these
experiences.
COVID-19 has dramatically changed many aspects of life.
While all aspects of transportation have been impacted, no mode
has been affected more than mass transit.
Ridership on rail transit has decreased 70 to 90 percent,
while ridership on bus transit has decreased a more modest 40
to 60 percent. Even when COVID-19 subsides, a majority of
experts expect transit to recover 90 percent of its riders at
most, with some expecting a recovery rate of only 70 percent.
Transit use was on a multiyear decline even before COVID,
with only 5 percent of Americans commuting by transit. Yet,
according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, in a
typical year the U.S. spends $70 billion per year on transit.
Transit policy was in need of reform even before COVID, but
COVID has made a rethinking of transit critical. Many commuters
in our current environment have substituted working at home for
transit. In 2020, 35 percent of all Americans worked from home.
In a PricewaterhouseCoopers survey, 83 percent of employers and
71 percent of employees say remote work has been a success.
Once COVID subsides, many predict the work-at-home share will
be 20 to 25 percent.
Due to a combination of COVID and longer-term changes among
transit riders, I have the following six recommendations:
One, prioritize service for transit-dependent riders;
Two, prioritize maintenance and operations over capital
expenditures;
Three, adjust quantitative metrics in project evaluation;
Four, fund bus rapid transit from the Capital Investments
Grants program;
Five, fund transit from the general fund;
And, six, unlock the private market and transit innovation.
Recommendation number one prioritizing service for transit-
dependent riders. The increase in the number of employees
working at home has reduced transit ridership. There are two
types of riders: transit-dependent riders who do not have easy
access to a vehicle and transit-choice riders who do. Transit-
choice riders work in fields such as engineering or law that
are easy to work at home form; whereas, transit-dependent
riders are in fields such as nursing or technical support that
require being at a specific physical location. Today since most
transit ridership is by dependent riders, U.S. policy should
focus on serving these riders. And since most of these riders
are more likely to use bus over rail, U.S. policy should focus
on bus over rail. Over the last 20 years, the largest 30 metro
areas have added miles of rail lines, but most of those same
metro areas have cut bus service.
Recommendation number two, prioritize maintenance and
operations over capital expenditures. Many DOTs have adopted a
``fix-it-first'' approach for their highways, but many transit
agencies are focused on expansion. The local transit agency for
the DC area, WMATA, is one example. Rather than focus on
rebuilding the existing system, WMATA decided to expand the
system, contracting with the Metro Washington Airport Authority
to build the Silver Line. We are all familiar with some of the
problems, the fires, mechanical breakdowns on the WMATA system,
and this system is not alone. Over the next few years, there
are going to be 20 light-rail systems that will need major
reconstruction, and that does not count the heavy-rail systems
in New York City, San Francisco, and Atlanta that also are
going to need reconstruction.
Adjusting the quantitative metrics in project evaluation.
Currently, projects are rated 50 percent on project
justification and 50 percent on local financial commitment. The
project justification rankings, mobility improvements,
environmental benefits, congestion relief, cost-effectiveness,
economic development, and land use, are rated 16.6 percent. I
believe that the two most important rankings are cost-
effectiveness and the number of passengers that the system is
moving. Those two categories should be rated more highly than
others.
Funding BRT from the Capital Investment Grant Program. The
Capital Investment Grant Program is the largest funding program
which includes new starts, small starts, and core capacity
projects. Unfortunately, currently only fixed-route bus rapid
transit can be funded. However, most of the bus rapid transit
that is being built is BRT light or freeway BRT that does not
require a dedicated running way. I believe all types of BRT
should be able to be funded from the Capital Investment Grant
Program.
Funding transit from the general revenue and exploring new
and innovative private sector transit options are also
important. I would be happy to talk more about these in
questioning.
Thank you for the ability to testify.
Chairman Brown. Thank you, Mr. Feigenbaum.
Mr. Ditch is recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF DAVID DITCH, RESEARCH ASSOCIATE, GROVER M. HERMANN
CENTER FOR THE FEDERAL BUDGET, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION
Mr. Ditch. Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to
testify today. The views I express in this testimony are my own
and should not be construed as representing any official
opinion of the Heritage Foundation.
As the Committee begins the important work of drafting the
public transportation section of the highway bill
reauthorization, it is my hope that Senators will carefully
consider how the Federal Government uses hard-earned taxpayer
dollars in this area.
Spending from the mass transit account of the Highway Trust
Fund is roughly $10 billion per year, or about 20 percent of
annual trust fund spending. It is important for Senators and
the public to keep in mind in mind the Highway Trust Fund is
primarily fueled by Federal gas tax revenues while no fund
revenue comes from transit users. Users----
Chairman Brown. Mr. Ditch, your audio is uneven. We will
work on it. I hate to do this to you. We will start with
questions. After my questions, then we will come back and see
if your audio can work better. I am really sorry. Is that all
right? But you will certainly have an opportunity to give your
opening statement. Most of us--I do not think any of us can
hear it very well because of technical issues, so we will come
back to you right after I begin the questions.
Mr. Haley, I will begin with you. The Cincinnati USA
Regional Chamber helped bring together the business and
nonprofit community--we were talking about that--to support
expansion. The supporters include some of the largest employers
well known to everybody on this call, really: Procter & Gamble,
Kroger, Cincinnati Children's, known as one of the best
hospitals in the country, nonprofit leaders like the Cincinnati
Foundation and United Way.
Why did leaders come together? That is beginning to happen
more and more around the country. Shed some light on why that
happens.
Mr. Haley. Well, they really recognized that investment in
transit was an investment in the economic vitality and
competitiveness in our region. And I talked earlier about, you
know, the access to more jobs, to higher-paying jobs. And, of
course, with those connections to the higher-paying jobs, a
decrease in poverty, a decrease in crime, you know, it also
makes us more attractive to businesses that are looking for
places to land, you know, to start their businesses, to move
their businesses. It makes Cincinnati more attractive, and it
helps us also to retain talent.
Additionally, the increase in local funding will unlock the
ability for us to increase BRT. We have got two BRT lines on
the plan in Reinventing Metro, but it will help us move that
forward, do it quicker, and then create even more connection in
our region.
Chairman Brown. Thank you, Mr. Haley.
Mr. Samuelsen, President Samuelsen, thanks for the
sacrifices of your members during the pandemic. I do not think
we can mention that often enough. I am glad you highlighted the
need to transition and train workers. As new technologies
evolve, workers are always needing a seat at the table as this
happens. We have heard a lot of debate lately about the term
what counts infrastructure, and the Jobs Act, as you know, has
funding for quality housing and rural broadband and replacing
toxic lead water pipes and more.
Talk about what does infrastructure mean to you in the
context of making America more prosperous and healthy and
secure in this century.
You are not on. Your mute button is on.
Mr. Samuelsen. Infrastructure from our perspective, from my
perspective, is any physical or organizational structure that
betters society or advances the economy. Certainly housing
falls into that category. The lead pipes that you discussed
fall into that category. Broadband--as we go forward,
infrastructure is not a static thing. It evolves. It is a
dynamic thing. It evolves as technology evolves. A hundred
years ago, there was probably a conversation about whether the
electrification of America was part of the infrastructure,
because it had really never happened before. I think it was in
the 1930s when the Federal Government decided to begin heavily
investing in electrical grids across the country.
So on the issue of broadband, right now everything that we
consider traditional infrastructure, whether it be a railroad
or housing or highways, they are all broadband-dependent at
this point. And just from my own perspective, right out of my
own frame of reference, subway signaling systems at one time
were absolutely hard-wired, and then we moved to something
called ``communication-based train control.'' It was done off
of broadband, fiberoptic at first, and now it is going into the
realm of complete wirelessness.
So infrastructure evolves. Housing is certainly part of
infrastructure. Anything that is creates job, stimulates the
economy, that is infrastructure.
Chairman Brown. Thank you, Mr. Samuelsen.
Ms. Osborne, improving transit service has a national
impact when it comes to things, as you point out, like growing
overall the economy, fighting congestion, dealing with climate
change, remaining internationally competitive. I mentioned
Cleveland's needs. SEPTA in Philadelphia also needs more than
$1.7 billion to replace, if I could say, its Nixon era rail
cars. There is a huge need to replace outdated buses across the
Nation.
Ms. Osborne, what would a transformative investment in
fixing transit mean for these regions and the country as a
whole? Can you talk about the effect that it will have on job
creation, if done right on job creation?
Ms. Osborne. Absolutely. It would mean greater reliability
of service, which is essential for those who rely on it. But it
also makes transit more attractive to those who could choose
any method of travel. As someone who when I was starting out
could not find a job that I could get to outside of a car but
could not afford a car because I could not get a job, it means
access to work. It means participating in the economy. It would
be a huge impact overall.
Chairman Brown. Thank you very much, Ms. Osborne.
Mr. Ditch has checked back in, I believe. We want to try
again. I am sorry for the interruption. You are recognized for
5 minutes. This is for the opening statement for those that
have joined a bit late.
Mr. Ditch. Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to
testify today. The views I express in this testimony are my own
and should not be construed as representing any official
opinion of the Heritage Foundation.
As the Committee begins the important work of drafting the
public transportation section of the highway bill
reauthorization, it is my hope that Senators will have the
Federal Government uses hard-earned taxpayer dollars in this
area.
Spending keep in mind that the Highway Trust Fund is
primarily fueled by Federal gas tax revenues while no fund
revenue comes from transit users. Users of highways and
airports directly cover most of the cost of highway and airport
infrastructure. In contrast, transit users cover less than a
third of the cost of transit system, which receive a variety of
subsidies.
As such, the mass transit account represents a longstanding
wealth transfer from people who drive to people who do not
drive and from rural areas to urban areas. Even when setting
aside the issue of fairness, the amount of Highway Trust Fund
spending dedicated to mass transit is and has been grossly
disproportionate to public transit usage. Despite four decades
of lavish subsidies and despite urban areas containing a
growing share of America's population over that period, mass
transit only represented a single-digit share of national
transportation use in 2019. Even States with minimal urban
populations are required to divert a substantial amount of
Federal highway bill funds to transit.
The COVID-19 pandemic caused a sharp drop in transit use
and a corresponding reduction in revenue for transit agencies.
To date, Congress has passed $67 billion in supplemental
funding for transit through pandemic response legislation, $30
billion of which came from the relief bill signed in March this
year. However, this amount was excessive; $67 billion
represents just over three times the amount of fare revenue
collected by transit agencies in 2019. Thus, while small
businesses across the country have struggled to make ends meet
in recession, transit agencies received a windfall in revenue.
Labor costs represent 60 to 80 percent of transit operating
expenses. In cities that have the largest transit systems,
compensation for transit works is more than 50 percent above
the metropolitan area average. Total labor costs are $151,000
per transit worker in New York City and $187,000 per transit
work in San Francisco.
Transit agencies are insulated from economic reality by the
subsidies they receive each year. Worse, the nontransparent
nature of transit funding coming through the Highway Trust Fund
means that there is less accountability when it comes to how
transit agencies manage their finances.
Everyone understands that the postpandemic world will be
different from the prepandemic world. When it comes to
transportation, a long-term increase in remote work will mean a
reduction in commuting. This would most heavily affect urban
cores, reducing the need for transit. In the context of
disproportionate annual subsidies for transit, a substantial
COVID-19 relief funding for transit agencies, and uncertainty
surrounding future transit use, increasing Federal funding for
mass transit would be an unwise use of public funds. A
reduction of transit subsidies is in order.
Rather than simply expanding the flawed status quo,
Congress should enact reforms, including: first, providing
flexibility to low-density States for the amount they spend on
transit from their Highway Trust Fund allocation; second,
prioritizing operations and maintenance of transit systems
rather than expanding them; third, eliminating costly Federal
mandates such as the Davis-Bacon Act or at least allowing
States to request waivers from these mandates on transit
construction projects; and, fourth, reduce the amount of cross-
subsidization between Americans who prefer different modes of
transportation. Such changes would enhance fairness and value
for taxpayers across the country.
Thank you, and thanks for giving me another shot at this.
Chairman Brown. Thank you very much, Mr. Ditch.
Senator Toomey is recognized for 5 minutes for his
questions.
Senator Toomey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me
stick with Mr. Ditch for a minute, and let me thank all of our
witnesses for testifying today.
You know, I tried to catalogue the various categories of
spending that Congress has done over the last year. You alluded
to that as well, Mr. Ditch, and if you add the extraordinary
payments through COVID relief bills to the ordinary funding, I
think the figure over the last 12 months is about $82 billion.
I have a question for you, and I wonder if you happen to
have these figures handy. Do you have an estimate of the
aggregate total for the entire country, the entire United
States of America? Do we know approximately what the fare
revenue loss was last year due to COVID and due to the very
significant decline in ridership? Do we know how much money was
lost in fare revenue?
Mr. Ditch. I would estimate somewhere between $14 and $15
billion in revenue losses, and that would include both--that
would be things like fares, concessions, advertising, and the
like.
Senator Toomey. So from basically all categories, so not
just--that is not just fare revenue; that is all sources of
revenue. So what we sent them was, what, six, seven times all
lost revenue? Is that about right?
Mr. Ditch. Closer to, I believe, about four to five, but
yes.
Senator Toomey. OK, so four or five times all the lost
revenue.
Let me ask you this: Back in 2010, the New York State
comptroller did a report and found that, and I quote, ``The
MTA''--New York's MTA, that is. ``The MTA has not effectively
managed and controlled its overtime costs. No real efforts were
made to make significant changes in longstanding practices that
resulted in routine and often unnecessary overtime.''
In 2019, a report by a law firm that was hired by the MTA
to investigate this issue came to the conclusion that, and I
quote, ``This critical finding remains equally true almost 10
years later.'' So that is a pretty clear example--I am sure
there are others--of fiscal mismanagement.
In your view, when Congress comes in and replaces, say,
four or five times all lost revenue for transit systems, does
that encourage the kind of reforms they need to be on a solvent
basis going forward?
Mr. Ditch. It really does not. There is a real lack of
accountability when there are subsidies, and especially the
further removed the subsidies are from the system. So, for
example, there is a substantial amount of transit subsidy that
takes place within metro areas themselves because of
accountability. If the systems are not run well, the citizens
in those areas are going to let their elected officials know.
But when there is Federal subsidies, often it is coming from
people who are living hundreds or thousands of miles away for
whom transit use is something that never crosses their mind.
There is no accountability, there is no pressure for these
transit agencies to use their funds wisely and to, for example,
prioritize increasing service over increasing compensation.
Senator Toomey. Thank you. I am going to run out of time
here, so let me just ask a quick question of Mr. Feigenbaum.
There are two dynamics that I want to raise, and maybe you
could touch on both of them. One is this idea that I think
there is a very broad view that there is a pretty significant
chance that there will be an ongoing tendency for some people
to work from home, and that the effect of that is that
ridership on our transit systems are maybe unlikely to ever
reclaim the level they were at prepandemic. Exceeding that is
very questionable in many places.
Is that an argument for focusing on maintaining the
existing system rather than expanding and hoping that demand
emerges? That is question number one.
And question number two, if systems do choose to expand
into, say, an affluent suburb, is it reasonable to ask affluent
people in the suburb to pay the cost of their ridership?
Mr. Feigenbaum. Sure, so those are great questions. The
first one I would say it is absolutely true that transit
ridership is unlikely to recover to the level prepandemic.
Depending on who you ask, it is between about 70 percent and 90
percent, and that can make a significant financial difference
to some of these transit systems. And so focusing on repairing
and maintenance and operations is critical, especially when you
consider many of these systems have some maintenance problems
and breakdowns to begin with.
And, yeah, I think it is absolutely true that if we want to
expand service to transit-choice riders, commuter rail, for
example, it is absolutely fair to ask those folks to pay for
it. I actually have no objections to that. I think if we are
willing to cover 100 percent of the costs of the transit
systems, that is great. I just do not think Federal taxpayers
should be subsidizing the costs of these systems.
Senator Toomey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Brown. Thanks, Senator Toomey.
Senator Menendez from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to
make a brief comment following up on the Ranking Member's
questions and the responses received.
You know, it was transit that brought essential workers to
the essential work they were doing during the period of time of
the pandemic. And in terms of subsidizing, well, we subsidize
highways. We subsidize bridges. We subsidize all of those
things by the Federal investments that we make. So I am not
quite sure what is the difference.
First, my thanks to you, Mr. Chairman, because we have not
had a transit hearing in this Committee in a very long time, so
I appreciate you exerting the jurisdictional breadth.
You know, the Northeast corridor produces 20 percent of our
national GDP. A shutdown of the Northeast corridor could cost
the economy an estimated $100 million per day. We have century-
old tunnels running under the Hudson River that really got
badly damaged during Superstorm Sandy. Yet the project to build
this new tunnels--the ``Gateway Program'', as we call it--was
delayed for years under the Trump administration for purely
political reasons. I am glad that we were able to get another
piece of the Gateway Program, the Portal North Bridge, across
the finish line, and I am encouraged that the Biden
administration is moving quickly to get this project moving
again, but we have got plenty of work to do.
So, Ms. Osborne, do you agree that Gateway is critical to
the continued success of transit and inter-city rail across the
Northeast corridor and its impact will be felt nationally?
Ms. Osborne. Absolutely. It serves hundreds of thousands of
riders a day, and so often the everyday benefit of transit and
rail is not noticed until it fails. If the 100-year-old
infrastructure we are relying on fails, it is going to have a
profound impact not just on the New York City region, but on
the Nation as a whole, our national economy. Unfortunately, we
have a history of waiting for predictable disasters to do
anything about it, and I am excited that we are moving in a
direction to get this project moving and not wait until we are
trying to fix a problem.
We have watched years of delay just drive up the cost of
this project in spite of calls for project streamlining and
better project delivery, which apparently only applies to some
projects. But we are moving in the right direction now, and
this is essential--this is a project of national significance
if ever there was one.
Senator Menendez. I appreciate that last comment that you
made. As such, don't you believe the Federal Government should
be a strong partner in projects that have national
significance?
Ms. Osborne. Yeah, but I just--I do not understand if
something that serves 200,000 people a day traveling into the
largest metro area and the largest metro economy does not count
as a project the Feds should be involved in, then I am not sure
why we have a transportation program at all.
Senator Menendez. Thank you. In recent history, when
working on surface transportation reauthorizations, we have
adhered to an 80/20 rule of 80 percent spending on highways, 20
percent goes to transit. Ms. Osborne, your organization has
advocated for a much more aggressive 50/50 split for highways
and transit. What makes increasing the share of funding
allocated to transit an effective investment of Federal
resources, particularly as we face challenges related to
increased congestion, rising demand for mobility, coupled with
climate crisis issues?
Ms. Osborne. Yeah, we have never made the kind of
investment in transit at the national level that we have in
highways. While there is frustration and people refer to
transit funding being ``diverted'' from the Highway Trust Fund,
this is the only way people have been willing to support a
national program, because we as a Nation know that we need to
move people by multiple modes. And, again, if we want people to
get to work, if we want them to get to food, to school, we need
to make sure that those just starting out, those who might be
struggling have a way in. And, again, we do not recognize the
importance of transit until it is done.
Here in the DC region, when transit lines have been shut
down for repair, we have had tons of people decide not to
travel around the region at all. The notion that we should just
put every single human being in their own vehicle and throw
them on the roads at the same time, I think we hear a lot of
complaints about that pretty quickly. Transit is absolutely
essential for a functioning economy.
Senator Menendez. Thank you. We have a transit state of
good repair backlog of more than $100 billion. That is $100
billion of transit assets that are not being adequately
maintained or that have outlived their useful lives.
Mr. Haley, as the CEO of a large transit system, do you
believe the Federal Government needs to significantly increase
its investment in the state of good repair? And what benefits
would that have for transit riders?
Mr. Haley. I absolutely do. Here in Cincinnati, we have got
$25 to $30 million state of good repair that we have
backlogged. You know, it is recommended that the state of good
repair programs are needed to upgrade our facilities, our
technologies. One of the things that we have done over the
course of time is we have ignored our technology, we have
ignored our facilities to upgrade to keep as much service on
the street as we possibly can to move as many people. But it is
now time to improve our state of good repair, and it is time to
improve our technology.
Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Brown. Thanks, Senator Menendez.
Next will be Senator Reed of Rhode Island for 5 minutes,
followed by Senator Mark Warner from Virginia. So after Senator
Reed, Senator Warner will proceed. Thank you.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is an
incredibly important hearing on transit because it is an issue
that has not received the attention it should have over many
years.
Ms. Osborne, our Rhode Island transit system is faced with
providing transportation to a number of people in a diverse
population that do not often work 9 to 5 jobs, et cetera. And
so all of our agencies together are facing operational cost
pressures. We have been making investments in state of good
repair, et cetera. Is it your view that we should also provide
access to some operating support for transit agencies?
Ms. Osborne. It absolutely is, especially if we want to
support really functional transit that provides high-frequency
support to move people to work and essential services. People
cannot rely on transit that comes every 45 minutes or an hour.
We need to have the reliability that frequency brings and not
just at the time where the majority and often white-collar
people travel, but when everybody travels.
I would also again emphasize it is not just about getting
people to work. People who stay home actually tend to take more
trips for nonwork causes, and transit needs to serve those
trips, too.
Senator Reed. So this in a way would increase demand and
resources to the agency, so by investing in more frequent
service, we will get a return on more passengers, and that
seems to be a logical sort of approach to trying to help our
agencies. Does that make sense?
Ms. Osborne. We see it every time. If you add frequency,
ridership goes up. If you reduce frequency, ridership goes
down. People appreciate convenient, reliable service by all
means of travel.
Senator Reed. Thank you.
Mr. Haley, we have been working and you have been working
very hard to get low-energy buses on the road. We have a
program, the Low-No program, low-, no-emissions bus grant
program. And last year, working with my colleague Senator Susan
Collins from Maine, we were able to add additional $125 million
to the Low-No program, bringing it up to about $180 million.
And as we look to the conversion to electric buses, which
is at the heart of most of the Low-No funding, we found in
Rhode Island that one of the costs is really the charging
infrastructure and utility improvements to make it work. And
right now we are not devoting sufficient resources to this
charging. We are buying lots of electric buses, but that is not
going to get us to the point we want to do.
So can you talk about increasing the investment in Low-No
so that we cover not only new buses but also the charging--the
infrastructure as well as the bus?
Mr. Haley. Absolutely. We are committed to greening our
fleet, to coming up with electric buses to really reduce the
carbon footprint in our region. And you are absolutely right.
It is not just the cost of the bus. The bus costs a little more
than the diesel bus, but it is also the infrastructure, the
infrastructure in our garages, and to be able to electrify that
fleet along the routes. So it is the information inside the
garages; it is the infrastructure along the routes, but it is
the benefit of having less carbon output.
Senator Reed. Well, thank you very much. Thank you all for
excellent testimony. And, Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I will
yield my time.
I guess he will not let me yield my time. I have to keep
talking.
Senator Warner. Senator Reed, this is Mark. I think I was
up next.
Senator Reed. Mark, as the senior--not the Chairman, but
the senior Democrat on the Committee, I think you can go. OK?
Thank you.
Senator Warner [presiding]. Thank you, Jack.
Well, let me in absentia, if the Chairman is off hitting
the Finance Committee hearing, let me add my thanks to him as
well for having this kind of hearing on transit, long overdue.
I am going to take a moment or two and speak to an issue
that I am sure my friend Chris Van Hollen will also speak to as
well, and that is the importance of the Washington region's
Metro system. The truth is in many ways the whole Federal
Government runs on Metro, and before the pandemic, this was the
system that really kept our Federal Government running, kept
our region running. As a matter of fact, 40 percent of Metro
riders were Federal Government employees, and the unfortunate
thing is that COVID has had a dramatic effect on Metro and it
has had on transit systems all across the country. The entity
that runs Metro is called ``WMATA''. So we have got to make
sure--and one of the things that we feel very strongly about
and we made sure that we put into the CARES bills was support
for Washington Metro.
In 2008, Congress recognized the fact and finally passed in
a bipartisan way what is called ``PRIIA'' legislation that was
basically a 10-year deal where $150 million a year in Federal
funds were authorized to the Metro system, to recognize the
fact that we were--while our localities, DC, Maryland, and
Virginia, were chipping in a lot, the Federal Government was
chipping in a bit here to take care of the special needs of
Federal workers. Since that time, the surrounding jurisdictions
have upped their contributions to Metro. It is now time for the
Federal Government to do the same. That 10-year run has
obviously expired. Chris and I and Ben Cardin and Tim Kaine
have kept that $150 million going on an annual basis the last
couple years, but we have now introduced legislation called the
``Metro Safety, Accountability, and Investment Act'' that would
fund Metro with a dependable revenue stream for an additional
10 years. This would not only continue the $150 million a year
that Metro has received from the Federal Government, but it
would also increase if we meet certain additional safety
requirements, because we have had some safety challenges on
Metro over the years. It would increase that commitment by 10
years.
I am looking forward to working with the Chairman and
Senator Van Hollen to make sure that we continue to move this
stream forward, and at least for me, it is clearly one of my
top priorities.
Moving on to try to get a question in as well, you know,
one of the things that we have to grapple with is the state of
good repair investments. They are critically important to
transit systems all around the country, including Metro,
including some of the smaller systems around Virginia. WMATA's
current state of good repair needs are estimated at $16 billion
in order to rehabilitate and replace some of the aging assets,
including upgrading a number of the rail cars.
So, Ms. Osborne, can you talk about the importance of the
Federal formula for funding for the state of good repair
program and how these funds are so essential to programs like
Metro and other major transit systems around the country?
Ms. Osborne. Absolutely, Senator Warner. You mentioned how
much the Federal Government and the region relies on WMATA, and
it reminds me of how strong support comes across the country
from local businesses, because it turns out that all
businesses, whether it is the Federal Government or private
business, rely heavily on transit. It is why we see in places
like Cincinnati and Atlanta the business community leading the
effort to support transit. We just would not function as a
community without it.
State of repair is a super-high priority of my
organization. It is our top priority not just for transit but
for highway investment. Our ``fix-it-first'' approach is
something we have been supporting, pushing amendments and
language on for a long time. We have a better record in
requiring a look at maintenance needs on the transit, and I
hope that is something that we continue to support to ensure
that our region can operate efficiently and effectively.
Senator Warner. Well, I agree with that. Having been a
former Governor and fought transportation and infrastructure
battles for many, many years, you know, making sure that we do
not see the deterioration of our systems is so critically
important. I do not have time for another question, but I do
want to just acknowledge Mr. Samuelsen and all the transit
worker unions. Your workers had to stay on the front lines
through the whole COVID experience and even with the enormous
challenges. I want to commend you and your workforce. One of
the things why it is so important that we get these transit
funds in place not only is for the dollars needed to continue
to operate, but to again show support for our workforce.
I think with that, I see Senator Warren, but I believe I
was supposed to call on Senator Tester next. I have been given
a cheat sheet here. Jon, are you--if not, I am going to call on
Senator Warren, but, Jon Tester, are you on the line?
With that, going once, twice, three times, gone, Tester.
Over to Warren.
Senator Warren. All right. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman.
Climate change is an existential threat to our planet and
to our economy, and we just cannot wait any longer to make
Federal investments necessary to reduce carbon emissions. But
the same things that cause climate change have long been
causing severe public health problems, and that has happened
disproportionately in Black and Brown communities. Redlining
and other racist Federal policies have exposed frontline,
vulnerable, and disadvantaged communities to environmental
harms at unacceptably higher rates than in neighboring
communities.
For instance, people of color in greater Boston are more
likely to live near roads that expose them to higher levels of
vehicular air pollution, and Black Americans nationwide are
exposed to air that is nearly 40 percent more polluted than
White Americans.
Transportation is a huge source of this pollution,
especially diesel buses. So as we tackle climate change,
transportation infrastructure has to be a big part of the
picture.
So let me start there. Ms. Osborne, working families depend
on buses to get to work, to get to school, and they are often
the only form of mass transit in our frontline, vulnerable, and
disadvantaged communities. Why is it so important that we
invest in clean transportation within these communities?
Ms. Osborne. Absolutely, it is vitally important that we
invest in efficient modes and clean vehicles. As you said, it
is important to meeting our climate goals, but it really does
not stop there. Gas engines emit pollution that cause heart and
lung disease that also happen to create the preexisting
conditions that made people more vulnerable to COVID. Black and
Brown communities are exposed to these air pollutants at a
higher rate than White people, 24 to 25 percent more, due to
proximity to major roadways and highways. Investing in clean
vehicles, including transit vehicles, is important in reducing
that impact, and having robust transit provides those same
people access to the things they need.
Senator Warren. Yes, and the need is really critical. In
2018, 84 percent of transit buses and 90 percent of school
buses were powered by diesel. If these public transit options
were instead powered by clean, renewable electricity, they
would produce far fewer pollutants. But replacing current buses
with electric ones is a huge financial challenge. Every school
district, every city government in this country, is already
facing tight budgets that the pandemic has made tighter. So
electrifying public transit is going to require help from the
Federal Government.
Mr. Haley, my colleagues and I recently introduced a bill
that would dedicate $500 billion over the next decade in
competitive grant funding through the Department of
Transportation to help State and local governments electrify
our public transportation systems. Let me ask you, would that
funding have a big impact on our country's electric transit,
especially the ability of transit authorities to add electric
buses?
Mr. Haley. There is no question about that whatsoever. It
would be a huge help. Nationally, public transportation reduces
carbon dioxide emissions by 37 million metric tons every year,
and we have got 27 hybrid buses in our fleet, and they reduce
emissions by more than 90 percent. To electrify our fleet would
be a great, great movement toward reducing carbon dioxide. It
would be a big help. And you are right, the finance of that is
a huge undertaking. It would be a great help to us.
Senator Warren. That is good to hear. So public health,
clean up the environment, and one analysis found that our bill
would create nearly a million jobs. It would lead to 4,200
fewer deaths caused by air pollution every year, and it would
save us about $100 billion a year in avoided health damages.
This legislation directs 40 percent of all funding to
frontline communities that have been harmed by racist and
unjust environmental practices in order to ensure that these
communities are not left behind as we tackle the climate
challenge. So I am so glad to see that President Biden included
funding in his American Jobs Act proposal to replace diesel
transit vehicles and electrify a share of our yellow school bus
fleet. It is clear we need to make real investments in this
country at a size and scope that will modernize our
infrastructure, electrify our buses and rail, tackle climate
change, create good jobs, improve public health. The climate
crisis is here, and this is a powerful way to fight back.
So thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Brown [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Warren.
Senator Tester is recognized for 5 minutes.
Senator Tester. Thank you, Chairman Brown. I appreciate it.
I appreciate this hearing. I appreciate all of your testimony.
I am going to direct my questions to Ms. Osborne, and I
want to thank you for your testimony today and your attention
to rural transportation needs. And I agree that too often
transit solutions developed for urban environments are used,
ineffectively by the way, to address rural transportation
needs. It does not work, and as you said in your testimony, it
puts a square peg in a round hole. And so that is why I think
we need to rethink rural infrastructure investment and not push
for one-size-fits-all regulations.
In your estimation, Ms. Osborne, is Congress doing enough
to consider and support the unique transportation needs of
rural America where distance is a real challenge?
Ms. Osborne. Well, I think we certainly need to do a lot
more. A lot of times when we talk about rural America, we are
thinking about open land farmland, forestland, and we forget
that there are concentrations of humans that live in these
beautiful towns and that they need access to hospitals, jobs,
and all kinds of things. And as many of these services have
been consolidated, they have been moved farther and farther
away.
So it is not unlike urban transit in that you need to get
to those destinations. It is that they are clustered in some
sort of, you know, community that serves an entire region, and
we need to develop a transit system that recognizes those
distances and can pull people into that regional hub.
My colleague John Robert Smith is from Meridian,
Mississippi. Meridian served as that regional hub for a lot of
rural communities, and that is the approach they took and is I
think what we need to look at more for the Federal program for
rural transit.
Senator Tester. I think you have touched on the answer to
my next question, and that is, how can we better connect rural
public transit to our national transportation system?
Ms. Osborne. Well, I think that it does require more study,
and luckily we have access to better information and better
tools now to be able to evaluate how to get people to those
destinations effectively. I think we need to deploy it with a
little more concentration in rural America. But we see our
neighbors to the north in Canada investing in a $250 billion
Rural Transit Fund. I think we do as much as Canada. We have
folks within our country doing a lot of work in this, like in
Oklahoma that has developed a really impressive transit plan
for statewide transit in rural and urban areas, and we should
learn from their experience as well.
Senator Tester. Well, thank you, Ms. Osborne, and I want to
thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this Committee hearing. I
will yield back my time.
Chairman Brown. Thank you.
Senator Van Hollen is recognized for 5 minutes.
Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am really
glad that the Committee is turning its attention to the issue
of transit. It has been very overlooked in the past, and I am
pleased that President Biden's American Jobs Act calls for
significant investment in transit. We have seen that the
American Society of Civil Engineers gives us a miserable grade
of D-minus as a country in this area.
In this National Capital Region, we do have a good system,
WMATA. I am going to be working with Senators Warner, Cardin,
and Kaine to reauthorize the Federal commitment there.
In the city of Baltimore, 30 percent of households do not
own a vehicle, and for years the Federal delegation worked, and
ultimately successfully, to get the FTA to approve a major
transit system, Metro system, in the Baltimore area, committing
$1 billion. Unfortunately, Maryland's Governor pulled the plug
on that, and we are going to be investigating ways to renew
that Federal commitment.
In Baltimore, you also have kind of the opposite problem,
which was that a highway to nowhere, a big highway that was
going to cut across the city, was stopped, but dividing
neighborhoods, leaving a big scar on the city, and I am very
pleased that the Biden Jobs Plan also would address that so we
could reunite that community, something I have been working on.
But as was just said, in addition to urban areas, transit
can play a really important role in suburban and rural areas.
The Maryland General Assembly just passed what is called the
``Southern Maryland rapid transit bill,'' and we are going to
be looking for ways here on the Committee to provide additional
resources for technical assistance and planning for those small
projects and look for ways to be supportive there.
Of course, transit workers are the lifeblood of our transit
systems. I want to thank them for being on the front lines
during this pandemic, putting themselves at risk to continue to
carry people to work, and making the necessities of their daily
lives. President John Samuelsen, thank you for your leadership
there. As you know and you mentioned in your testimony, a bill
that I introduced last year I will be reintroducing soon to
better protect transit workers and pedestrians. Can you just
talk briefly about the importance of getting that done?
Mr. Samuelsen. Yeah, absolutely. So what we are
experiencing right now is really, aside from COVID-19, an
epidemic of assaults against transit workers, frontline transit
staff, and in addition to riders of the systems. But just in
the media this morning or yesterday, 1,100 New York City
transit workers alone were assaulted in the last 6 months or
victims of aggressive crimes, including assault, spitting,
menacing, that type of thing.
So it preexisted COVID-19, but under COVID-19 there is
truly a full moon atmosphere in public transit across America.
Transit workers go to work every day riddled with anxiety about
whether they are going to come home in one piece, and it is an
incredibly unfortunate situation, and hopefully--and we greatly
appreciate the bill that you introduced, Senator, and having
the FTA utilize the leverage that they do have in order to
compel transit agencies to develop assault reduction plans,
crime reduction plans, is spot-on. It is something that we have
been looking for for a long time.
Wrapping our arms around how to stop and how to reverse the
assaults on transit workers is probably the most talked about
issue among transit presidents of the unions across this
country, even in the age of COVID-19. It is really total
insanity out there in public transit systems for our workforce.
So thank you.
Senator Van Hollen. Well, thank you, and thanks to all your
members, and we will work to get that done, along with the
other legislation on workforce training for transit workers.
Ms. Osborne, we currently have a funding system when it
comes to transportation that treats highway funding support
from the Federal Government much more favorably than transit,
despite the congestion, also despite the environmental benefits
of transit. Can you talk a little bit about that?
Ms. Osborne. Absolutely. You know, if we really want to
commit to transit, it is time to commit in a way we did to
highways 7 years ago. There is no reason that every city in the
United States should not have access to high-quality transit.
Americans travel elsewhere and ask why they have such good
transit service there and why can't we have, and the answer is
we have not made the same level of commitment. We instead say
it is a local concern or discuss putting everybody in their own
car all at the same time and see how efficient that will work.
Transit is in high demand and low supply. It drives up
property values where transit exists because we are not meeting
market demand. It is long past due for that kind of commitment
that you are describing.
Senator Van Hollen. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Brown. Thank you, Senator Van Hollen.
Senator Smith from Minnesota is recognized for 5 minutes.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Chair Brown, and thanks so much
to our panelists for being with us today. I think this is such
an important topic.
As I think about Minnesota and the role that transit plays
in the economic competitiveness of our State, not only in big
cities but also in rural areas, I am just particularly grateful
for the conversation that we are having today.
I want to start with that question of rural transit that my
colleague Senator Tester touched on a little bit. I think that
COVID has really shown us how important it is--what an
important role transit plays, especially for our essential
workers getting to work, families being connected to child care
and to grocery stores and all of the basic services that they
need in their lives. It is really connecting people to
opportunity. And, of course, some areas rely more on transit
than others, especially people living in low population density
areas where there are often also large senior citizen
populations are increasingly reliant on transit. We do not
think about that a lot when we think about transit.
So with this in mind, I have worked with Senator Mike
Rounds from South Dakota to develop a bipartisan proposal to
help increase Federal investments in rural transit, and our
bill is called the ``Investments in Rural Transit Act'', and
what it would do is to increase the Federal share of operating
expenses so that more transit services can be offered in the
communities that need them.
Ms. Osborne, I would like to just ask you about this. Can
you talk a little bit more about the value of transit in rural
areas and how increased investments are really contributing to
the economic competitiveness of rural communities?
Ms. Osborne. You are absolutely right. People actually,
when they are asked, young people who have a choice of where to
move, often want to move to small and rural communities. They
just do not want to have to spend their entire life in a
vehicle. They want to move to a walkable community where they
can be near the things they need, and they do still want access
to things like transit. So giving them the sort of access to
transit like you are talking about is very important for
attracting people back to those communities.
I will also say that sometimes those small communities are
in many ways more easy to serve with transit because the town
itself that you are serving is compact. It is about--it is a
little harder when you have to move people out of the town to a
neighboring community for services. But both can be done, and
there are great examples across the country of this, including,
you know, a small community like Oxford, Mississippi, that has
extraordinarily good transit. And as an LSU grad, I cannot tell
you how much it hurts me to compliment the town of Ole Miss,
but it must be done because their service is so fantastic.
And so I think we have a lot that we can learn from
communities across the country, and those that have invested
have done well. And through COVID, rural transit did not just
look at cuts like we did in places like DC. They looked at
nonexistence. So it is really important to recognize many are
putting things together with a shoestring budget and, with a
little more operations support, could expand service and
provide more robust support to their locals.
Senator Smith. That is great. I think you touch on
something which is so important, which is that there are great
models and some really great innovation happening in small
towns and rural areas about using transit, getting transit out
there. What they lack is the resources and the support to bring
those ideas to scale. And I think, you know, I hear from
mayors, from county commissioners in Minnesota, from business
leaders in Minnesota about how important transit is to the
competitiveness of these rural communities. I think that is a
big opportunity for us, colleagues, in the American Jobs Plan
to really make a push for rural transit.
I have a minute or so left. I want to come back to you, Ms.
Osborne. You touched on the connection between transit and
housing, and I want to touch on this. We are seeing a huge
problem with affordable housing, and as housing prices
increase, people of moderate means or low-income families are
having to move farther and farther away from their jobs. That
creates a whole new set of challenges for us.
The University of Minnesota has done some research that
shows if you coordinate transit service with housing and
workforce, that really supports economic growth and economic
competitiveness, really looking at this accessibility issue
with transit.
So could you just say, what do you think are the benefits
of transit investments through that prism of accessibility? And
why should we consider that as we look at these investments?
Ms. Osborne. Access to jobs and essential services by all
modes of travel should be the way we determine whether or not
the transportation system functions the way we want, because
that is the fundamental purpose behind it. And where you have
high access, particularly to those nonwork destinations, that
is where people are spending less on transportation; they are
having higher access to opportunity. They are more efficient
members of the economy. It has positive benefits in the
environment, in the economy, in quality of life, everything
across the board. And what the University of Minnesota is doing
in this is extraordinary and something we should really be
importing into the whole program.
Senator Smith. That is great. Thank you so much.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Brown. Thank you, Senator Smith.
Senator Ossoff from Georgia is recognized for 5 minutes.
Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to
our panel.
Ms. Osborne, I am working with Mayor Davis in Augusta,
Georgia, which hosts the Cyber Center and has a growing high-
tech industry, to expand autonomous vehicle development
capacity, possibly including the development of a testing
center in or around Augusta for autonomous vehicles. Can you
discuss how August and its work on autonomous vehicle
development could contribute to the quality of life and transit
opportunities and technologies over the next few years in
Georgia and across the country?
Ms. Osborne. I am happy to. My lens toward transportation
is much more about the policy that governs how any mode or any
technology of transportation moves through it. The more we
build the multimodal system, multimodal roadways, the better
things like autonomous vehicles will work, the better transit
will work, the more easily people will be able to walk and bike
to that transit and to their opportunity.
Unfortunately, in our current policy environment, these
technologies will be somewhat squandered, so I am hoping to see
places like Augusta and my friends in Pittsburgh who are
heavily involved in autonomous vehicles look at how the design
of our transportation system and particularly our roadways
interferes with the deployment of AVs, because I think we will
find that the same things that interfere with AV testing and
movement is what is making our current system with old-
fashioned people, drivers, less efficient and less safe as
well.
Senator Ossoff. Ms. Osborne, I appreciate that. Another
topic of great interest across Georgia is the electrification
of our bus fleet. I have been working with Mayor Miller in
Macon advancing the electrification of Macon's bus fleet as a
top priority. Can you comment on how that can improve quality
of life for the people of Macon?
Ms. Osborne. Absolutely. Investing in clean transportation
in terms of an efficient mode of travel like transit and clean
vehicles like electric transit vehicles is incredibly
important. As Senator Warren mentioned, it is not just about
climate. It is about gas engines that emit pollution that
causes heart and lung disease, that have contributed to the
very preexisting conditions that make people more vulnerable to
COVID.
So ensuring that the vehicles that the Federal Government
is supporting are not contributing to those public health
problems, which greatly impact Black and Brown communities, 24
to 25 percent more than White communities, is going to be part
of being a responsible citizen, but, also, making sure that as
we invest in clean vehicles, that we are expanding service so
that the same people we are trying to protect are getting more
access to the things they need. That is the one-two punch that
is going to really support better equity and better outcomes.
Senator Ossoff. Thank you so much, Ms. Osborne.
The city of Valdosta under Mayor Matheson's leadership is
interested in expanding microtransit opportunities. Can you
talk about how for smaller cities like Valdosta microtransit
can be an innovation that improves quality of life?
Ms. Osborne. Yeah, we are seeing a lot of experimentation
in this and in a lot of areas. COVID just encouraged more
experimentation, which I guess is one good outcome. I know that
folks in Sacramento have been also experimenting with using
microtransit to support movement of people, particularly in
less dense areas of the city, and we are learning a lot. And
what I am hoping is, as these various communities experiment
and learn, we are able to put together what their experience
tells us so that we can better support the most effective ways
to move people around, whether it is through buses, trains,
microtransit, you know, sneakers, whatever it may be.
Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Ms. Osborne.
Columbus, Georgia, relies heavily on a hub-and-spoke model
of routes for its bus system, and there is great interest in
increasing the capacity of riders to get directly from one
destination to another rather than having to return to central
stops and central stations. Can you talk about how we could
reduce ride times for the residents of Columbus and support
economic growth by expanding routes in Columbus?
Ms. Osborne. Yeah, I think that something that Senator
Smith just mentioned out of the University of Minnesota and
what I have worked with from the University of Wisconsin in
measuring access to jobs and services can be very instructive
in determining how routes might change and give people better
crosstown connections and even circulator connections.
We carry a lot of great data in our smartphones about
access to various destinations, and it is probably time to
deploy that to our transportation system and planning so that
people can have the most efficient access to the things they
need.
Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Ms. Osborne, and with my brief
remaining time--and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me
just a couple more seconds here--Metro Atlanta, there is a lot
of interest in bus rapid transit. Can you talk about bus rapid
transit, Ms. Osborne, and how it can improve quality of life in
metropolitan Atlanta, please?
Ms. Osborne. Bus rapid transit is an incredible service. It
is easy to deploy and can utilize buses in a way that, again,
just increases access to the things people need. We definitely
should provide all forms of transit to people and support at
the Federal level so that the locals can choose the best form
possible.
Senator Ossoff. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Brown. Thank you, Senator Ossoff.
Senator Warnock from Georgia is recognized for 5 minutes.
Senator Warnock. Thank you so very much, Mr. Chairman, and
I thank all of you for your testimony.
Too often in American politics there is a false dichotomy
between urban and rural, which plays into the politics of
division. I do not know that we get much done in that approach.
But the truth is in my home State of Georgia, for example,
public transportation not only connects people to restaurants
and shops and friends and family in big cities like Atlanta,
but it is also critical to opening the doors of opportunity and
education and jobs in rural communities and small towns where
people suffer from access, lack of access and mobility. In
Georgia, we have transit providers in nearly 80 percent of 159
counties, 17 urban systems, 80 rural systems--80 rural systems,
17 urban systems.
So I think it is important when we talk about public
transportation that people recognize that both urban and rural
communities, small towns and big cities have a stake in that
investment.
The truth is we are not investing enough in public
transportation, especially in rural and low-income communities.
Nearly 100 of our 159 counties are considered areas of
persistent poverty, and that is not including the very low
income neighborhoods in Atlanta, 159 counties, 100 of those
Georgia counties considered areas of persistent poverty, lack
of economic upward mobility, inextricably connected to a lack
of mobility. Public transportation is not only a ticket to
literal mobility but to social mobility.
Ms. Osborne, do you agree that public transportation
improves mobility, equity, and quality of life in both rural
and urban areas? Can you talk about that?
Ms. Osborne. Absolutely. As someone who could not get to a
job because I did not have a care but could not afford a car
because I could not get a job, it was moving to a community
like the one I live in now that had transit that finally
impacted economic opportunity. For people with less than me, it
is even more essential.
Senator Warnock. So what should we do to support,
prioritize, and improve service for people who are living in
these areas that are experiencing persistent poverty, both in
our cities and our rural counties and across the country? And
does that start with providing funds specifically to study the
issue and develop ways to strategically address it?
Ms. Osborne. Absolutely. Having funding to support good
planning and using the tools like the one Senator Smith pointed
out that the University of Minnesota has worked on on measuring
access to jobs and services by all modes of travel, you do it
through GIS. You can cross-reference it with areas of
persistent poverty, communities of color, underserved areas,
and determine where their barriers are and what services will
improve it, absolutely could unlock a big change in access to
economic opportunity. It starts with planning, and that
planning will be all the more effective if there is money to
actually institute that plan at the end.
Senator Warnock. So do measures like ridership, for
example, sometimes stymie our efforts or do we need a broader
view of how we analyze what is actually needed in these
communities? Can you speak to that?
Ms. Osborne. That is an excellent question, Senator, and I
think ridership was one of the best measures we had for
decades. But now we have access to much better information,
which is not how many people are on a bus at any given time,
but how many people are able to move to jobs and to essential
services. We should be measuring all modes of transportation
this way. Right now we measure whether or not vehicles move or
whether or not people get on and off buses, but we really need
to measure whether or not we have moved people, particularly in
areas of persistent poverty, to the things that they need. And
we can do it. We just have not chosen to yet.
Senator Warnock. So in the effort then to be fiscally
responsible, so I understand your answer, to be fiscally
responsible, to be efficient in the deployment of public
resources to address this issue, and there is a sense in which
looking only at ridership is a rather crude approach rather
than a smart and strategic approach to thinking about public
transportation and, thus, mobility, both physical mobility and
economic mobility?
Ms. Osborne. Absolutely. It is a proxy for those legitimate
outcomes you are seeking, and we can now just measure those
outcomes, so we should do it.
Senator Warnock. Great. Thank you so much.
Chairman Brown. Thank you, Senator Warnock.
Senator Cortez Masto is nearby, and I am not sure she is
going to be able to join us. I cannot really tell yet. So we
will wrap up. Thanks to all of the witnesses for being here
today and providing testimony.
For Senators who wish to submit questions for the record,
those questions are due 1 week from today, on Thursday, April
22nd. For witnesses, all of the five of you, you have 45 days
to respond to any questions in writing, if you would do that.
I will close with a final question for my friend from
Cincinnati, if I could. We need to remember we are talking
about decisions--all this theoretical talk and budget numbers
and all, these are decisions that affect real people's lives.
Mr. Haley, if you would end by walking us through what it would
mean for a worker in Cincinnati if we took away her bus stop
or, conversely, what it would mean for that worker if we added
a bus stop in her neighborhood and increased the number of
times the bus comes? What are some Cincinnati neighborhoods
this would help?
Mr. Haley. Well, I will start off by telling a story. There
was a customer of ours--we do not run a lot of service on
Sunday, and she had a job where she was not working Monday
through Friday 9 to 5. She had a different type of schedule.
And on Sundays, the bus was not able to get her to and from her
job, so she was taking an Uber on Sunday to get to and from
work. So her entire salary for her job at Wendy's on Sunday
went to pay for her transportation to and from her job for that
day. If she had very robust transit to get to her job, you
know, during a Sunday or a Saturday or second shift, it would
save her a lot of money. If we have really robust transit that
a customer could get to and from their destination very
quickly, they could spend less time on a bus and more time
doing the things that are important to them. It will give
people time in their day back. And, you know, the things that
we are doing in transit with WiFi on buses and things like
that, people can spend their time on the bus, in traveling,
they can spend it working, you know, rather than just being in
their car driving. Having a close bus stop, having very
frequent service, access to jobs, school, health care,
shopping, 7 days a week, all shifts, because people work
different shifts, it is a game changer in people's lives. It is
extremely important.
Chairman Brown. That may have been the best story to
illustrate what this is about of the whole morning. So thank
you for that, Mr. Haley. I had asked you--and you do not need
to answer, so I will turn to Senator Cortez Masto--what
Cincinnati neighborhoods, and I know it is mostly all
Cincinnati neighborhoods, but I know some crucially especially
that you serve well. So thank you.
Before adjourning, Senator Cortez Masto is recognized for 5
minutes.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
for holding this hearing. And let me just say it is incredibly
timely for us to be discussing these issues and working toward
a bipartisan transportation reauthorization. And I hope that it
can be part of a broader and more comprehensive infrastructure
package. We have underinvested in both our physical and human
infrastructure for far too long, and the COVID-19 pandemic and
increased global competition have highlighted the gaps in our
current infrastructure. So it is time to reinvest in our
Nation's infrastructure, including our transit systems and in
the workforce that is needed today and to take us into the next
century. And it is important that we do this equitably because
the infrastructure needs of one region, State, or community
might be different than the needs of another community, and
that includes modes of transportation.
So let me start with Ms. Osborne and Mr. Haley. I know
there are many places experiencing infrastructure deficiencies
and the aging infrastructure throughout the country, but in
Nevada, the State that I am from and representing, there is a
need for investments that balance rapid population growth and
our most important tourism industry. And as just one example,
one recent national report ranked Nevada as having the fewest
deficient bridges in America. All of this is to say that
regions of the country are different, and we all have different
needs.
In the same respect, minority communities have always borne
the brunt of economic downturns and crisis like the COVID-19
pandemic, and they still suffer from redlining and highway
construction that disconnected Black and Brown communities from
job centers and commerce. So every community deserves frequent,
high-quality transit service that builds connections to
opportunities.
So my question to both Ms. Osborne and Mr. Haley is: Given
the focus on equity for this administration, how should we be
addressing the differing needs of marginalized communities and
communities with aging infrastructure without penalizing
communities with newer infrastructure who need to address
population growth? Yes, please.
Ms. Osborne. I think you are absolutely right that
communities differ. However, even those newer communities, if
we want to weave communities back together, have some retrofits
to do as well. So I think starting from a perspective of, you
know, the priorities of my organization, which is fix-it-first;
once you have got a system in a state of repair, make sure it
is fixed better so that we are valuing human safety over
vehicle speed, which is going to require retrofit of a lot of
roads we have built over the last 50 years; and evaluating the
system based on access to jobs and essential services by all
modes of travel, with a particular focus on those very
disadvantaged communities you are talking about.
We can map it. We can discover what the barriers to access
are. It might be that there is infrastructure blocking
someone's way. It might be a lack of transit service. We can
compare all of those, we can put them together, and we can make
much more targeted and helpful decisions, whether it is an area
that is aging and needs to focus more on the fix, or it is a
new area that needs to better accommodate their growing
community.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
Mr. Haley, any comments?
Mr. Haley. Yes, I agree. We really have to make sure that
we are connecting the region. You know, you look at the
Cincinnati region. Northern Kentucky is right across the river,
and there are people that travel between Cincinnati and
northern Kentucky or into Warren County or Clermont County or
Butler County, and we have to make sure we are creating systems
for all of those neighborhoods to connect our entire region so
that they have access, so they have access to jobs. I talked
earlier about access to better-paying jobs, to have access to
health care, to have access to education. So a system that
creates the span of service that these communities need, the
frequency of service that these communities need, and good-
quality bus service, good-quality public transportation is
necessary.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. Thank you for the
discussion. This is such an important discussion. I really
appreciate all the panelists.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, again, for holding this hearing.
Chairman Brown. Thank you, Senator Cortez Masto.
So as I said earlier, the 45 days, please respond. Thank
you, all five of you, for your participation today and your
good insight, and I think we have moved things forward as we
move on public transit issues.
Thank you so much. The Senate Committee on Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[Prepared statements and responses to written questions
supplied for the record follow:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN SHERROD BROWN
Shortly before the pandemic, Chairman Crapo and our Committee held
a well-attended hearing on the reauthorization of Federal transit
programs. We are picking back up on those efforts. I hope to work with
Ranking Member Toomey and all of the Members of our Committee to
advance a surface transportation bill and tackle other infrastructure
investment we need to create economic growth, in all communities.
Public transportation helps people get to work and school and to
doctors' appointments and the grocery store, and spend less of their
time and hard-earned money commuting.
And when we say public transportation, of course we don't just mean
big city subways. This Committee understands that public transportation
plays a critical role in pretty much every community--in rural areas
and small towns, in mid-sized cities and old industrial towns, on the
coasts and in the heartland.
During the pandemic, essential workers have relied on public
transportation to reach their jobs at supermarkets, pharmacies, and
hospitals. Now, transit is a lifeline to vaccination centers.
And when more Americans return to offices and schools, all of the
problems facing our transportation systems will come roaring back.
We know the cost of transportation is a huge drain on families'
budgets and on their time.
If a bus or train doesn't run, Americans who don't have the option
to work from home lose out on hours and the paychecks that come with
them--and sometimes even lose their jobs.
An unexpected car repair or a car accident can devastate families
who rely on their cars to get to work--especially when 40 percent of
Americans don't have the money to cover a $400 emergency expense.
And we know who gets hurt the most when transit isn't a reliable
option--it's the Black and Brown neighborhoods who have been
historically cut off from job centers, it's the women working at
essential jobs, it's rural areas where walking isn't an option.
For our Nation's seniors, particularly in our suburbs and rural
communities, a van or bus from the local transit service is a lifeline
to the doctor or the grocery store or church.
A taxi or an Uber may work for some. But in Ohio, that's often not
a reliable option outside of our larger cities, it's usually not an
affordable option, and the rideshare model is denying millions of
workers protections on the job and benefits like health care.
We can do better.
All Americans should have high-quality, frequent transit service
that saves them time and money.
The solution is pretty simple--when you have better, faster transit
service, more people use it.
Public transit will help restore and grow our economy as we emerge
from the pandemic. Good transit attracts good jobs.
The Cincinnati USA Regional Chamber understands that--it led the
business community's support of a historic ballot measure to invest in
the Cincinnati Metro, which passed last May.
And we are seeing this in cities across the country--business and
civic leaders coming together to support transit as a tool for economic
growth and inclusion.
Whether it is the business community in Columbus, or Charlotte, or
Atlanta, we are witnessing an emerging consensus that a vibrant, fully
functioning transit system is essential to attract investment and
create communities where people want to live and work.
And of course, public transit remains one of our best tools to
fight climate change. When more people take public transit, we get less
traffic on the roads and lower emissions.
We need to seize new opportunities to get the next generation of
buses and rail cars into our communities, and support American
manufacturing.
That means expanding the Low- or No-Emission Vehicle Program.
Transit agencies save money in the long-run by adopting more efficient
vehicles, and with Buy America requirements, we will create a
significant number of manufacturing jobs building those buses in the
U.S.
Running more efficient buses and supporting American industry is
something I hope we can all agree on. Our Committee has worked on a
bipartisan basis to reject efforts by Chinese Government-backed
companies to infiltrate the transit industry, and instead support the
deployment of advanced, American-made zero-emission buses.
Fixing deteriorated infrastructure and replacing old rail cars make
transit more efficient. Riders in places like Cleveland, Boston, and
Philadelphia face delays when old tracks and outdated rail cars slow
our transit system and cause longer commutes. And those repairs are all
jobs that cannot be shipped overseas.
In Cleveland, the RTA operates a fleet of 74 rail cars: all of them
are more than 35 years old and needed to be replaced years ago.
America's transit workforce is ready for the job. Transit workers
made enormous sacrifices during the pandemic. More than 350 transit
workers have died from the virus, many from communities like New York
City that experienced horrible rates of infection in the early stages
of the pandemic. The transit workforce, like other frontline workers,
kept our Nation functioning.
We need to listen to the voices of transit workers to offer better,
safer service in the years ahead. And we need to partner with the
transit workforce as agencies consider adopting new technology and
automation.
Technology should be used to make transit service safer, but there
is no substitute for a well-trained bus operator to help riders and
keep them safe, particularly passengers with disabilities. And we
should never outsource critical safety functions and essential
services.
These are all critical national issues, and we need to take a
leading role--that's how we solve big problems.
The American Jobs Plan is bold, it's necessary, and it's how we
finally seize opportunities instead of running from them. It would put
people to work, and it would invest in the places that have been left
on their own by Washington and Wall Street for too long.
I look forward to hearing from Committee Members and witnesses
about how we can build the infrastructure our communities need. I also
know that together we'll delve into other transit subjects on our
Committee in the weeks and months ahead, including looking at how
housing and transit interact, and the issues facing our rural transit
providers.
Together, we can--and must--revitalize public transit and
infrastructure to create growth in our communities, lower people's
transportation cost, and create good-paying jobs.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATRICK J. TOOMEY
Chairman Brown, thank you.
COVID has been an extraordinary crisis that Congress has responded
to in an extraordinary way. In 2020, Congress provided almost $4
trillion in COVID relief through five overwhelmingly bipartisan bills.
As part of those bills, we gave $40 billion to transit on top of the
$12 billion we annually spend on transit.
Last month, Democrats broke from that spirit of cooperation to ram
through a wasteful, partisan $1.9 trillion spending bill. Among its
provisions was an extra $30 billion for transit. To recap, in 2020,
Congress provided $12 billion in annual transit funding, then we spent
$40 billion in COVID relief, and last month we spent another $30
billion. That's a total of $82 billion.
What's the annual cost of operating all of the transit agencies in
the U.S. combined? In 2019, it was $54 billion. Even if you add to that
the transit agencies' capital expenses, their combined annual costs
were still less than $82 billion.
Democrats tried to justify this spending by saying that transit
systems would collapse from declines in ridership and State and local
government revenues. But ridership did not drop to zero and ridership
has increased since the worst days of the pandemic last spring. Their
systems are by definition local. They serve a city or maybe a
metropolitan area. Should the local jurisdictions and States where
these systems reside have any responsibility to pay for these systems?
Evidently not, according to my colleagues.
The fact is, on the whole, State and local tax collections set a
new record in 2020. Plus in 2020 we sent more than $500 billion to
States and local governments for COVID relief. And last month, the
Democrat spending bill gave them another $350 billion.
To add insult to injury, we sent these billions to transit agencies
without requiring them to implement any reforms. The financial woes of
many big-city transit agencies pre-date COVID and are tied to chronic
financial mismanagement.
For example, New York City's MTA, the country's largest transit
agency, has been mismanaged for years. It's had mounting debts--with
its long-term debt tripling, from 2000 to 2019, to over $35 billion. In
2019, MTA projected enormous budget deficits, reaching $1 billion in
2022. And since 2014, it's had $7 billion in questionable and
suspicious overtime expenses.
This February, MTA was finally close to making reforms to address
its chronic problems. But then Democrats threw more money at MTA, and,
lo and behold, MTA's proposed reforms went away. MTA's problems haven't
been fixed--they've just been kicked down the road, courtesy of the
U.S. taxpayer.
Now the Biden administration wants another $85 billion for transit
as part of a wasteful, multitrillion dollar welfare and infrastructure
bill. Let's consider how excessive this is. If we pass the Biden bill,
along with the transit funding extension that is being contemplated
here, and combined it with the $82 billion we provided over the last
year, we could, based on 2019 Census data, buy every transit commuter
in America a $30,000 car.
Mr. Chairman, I'm glad you're holding a hearing on FAST Act
reauthorization. Because we should be talking about how to reform our
existing transit funding system. We should certainly be doing that
rather than thinking about spending another $85 billion on transit.
In doing so, we should be guided by sensible principles that will
protect taxpayer dollars from misuse, including: prioritizing
maintaining existing systems rather than expanding with the hope that
there will be demand; ensuring State and local governments pay their
fair share and are accountable; removing useless regulations that delay
projects and increase costs; reforming planning requirements that
otherwise lock local governments into rigid, long-term system
expansions; paying for infrastructure improvements responsibly,
including addressing the insolvency of the Highway Trust Fund, and
limiting transit's share of the Highway Trust Fund expenditures to the
long standing level of 20 percent.
Importantly, we need to ask, does mass transit continue to make
sense in every U.S. city at its current scale?
Today, we will hear from two witnesses how we can take a more
thoughtful approach to funding transit than just throwing money at it.
Baruch Feigenbaum is a transportation expert at the Reason Foundation.
He will testify that transit systems and lawmakers must adjust to the
shifting work and transportation trends accelerated by the COVID
pandemic.
We will also hear from David Ditch, a budget and transportation
expert at the Heritage Foundation. He will testify that the transit
funding in the recent Democrat spending bill bailed out chronically
mismanaged big city transit agencies.
This year, Congress should come together to responsibly reauthorize
the FAST Act, while reducing wasteful, outdated, and duplicative
spending. I hope my Democratic colleagues will follow that path of
cooperation rather than ramming through another partisan spending bill
that wastes taxpayer dollars on transit bailouts and other liberal
priorities.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF DARRYL HALEY
Chief Executive Officer and General Manager, Southwest Ohio Regional
Transit Authority/Metro
April 15, 2021
Chairman Brown, Ranking Member Toomey, and Members of the Committee
on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, on behalf of the Southwest Ohio
Regional Transportation Authority (SORTA) thank you for the opportunity
to testify on the ``21st Century Communities: Public Transportation
Infrastructure Investment and FAST Act Reauthorization''.
My name is Darryl Haley, and I am the Chief Executive Officer and
General Manager of SORTA, the public transport agency serving Greater
Cincinnati and its surrounding suburbs. Our service area includes
Hamilton County, in addition to providing commuter routes from Butler
County, Clermont County, and Warren County. I would like to share with
the Committee some of the issues that are critical to our agency and
the broader industry as you consider policies related to the next
surface transportation reauthorization that will succeed the Fixing
America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act).
By way of background, SORTA operates 46 major fixed bus routes, as
well as a demand-responsive paratransit service, making approximately
14 million passenger trips annually. We are excited about the future of
transit in our region due to the support we recently received from the
citizens of Hamilton County. On May 14, 2020 the citizens voiced their
confidence in our authority by passing a new countywide transportation
levy. Issue 7 approved a 0.8 percent countywide sales tax increase for
transit service and transit-related infrastructure improvements, which
triggered elimination of the 0.3 percent city of Cincinnati earnings
tax on city residents and workers that has been Metro's primary funding
source for nearly 50 years. In the coming month, Metro will begin
rolling out the Reinventing Metro plan, which will provide much needed
improvements and expansions, including: more crosstown routes, more
frequent service, 24-hour service on several routes, expanded weekend
service, earlier and later service on several routes, circulator
routes, extension of Express routes, new service to emerging job
centers, and an overall expansion of its service area. During this
multiyear rollout we will continue to engage the community to ensure
their evolving needs are met.
Additionally, we are proud of the job access improvements the plan
we will provide including:
20,000 more job accessible by Metro
740 more employers accessible by Metro; and
$850 Million total wages accessible by Metro
As you all are most certainly aware, COVID-19 has devastated many
of our communities and SORTA has been laser focused on making sure we
do our part in uplifting our fellow citizens that are still struggling.
Our Everybody Rides Metro Foundation (Empowerment Fund), continues to
support low-income riders, and we relaunched the Fund in January 2021
with the first contribution of $42K of the $500,000 to be received
annually. Currently we have 21 social service agencies registered and
these agencies are reimbursed 50 percent of the fare for travel for
trips related to:
Work and job training
Medical services; and
Social services
I would like to thank each of you for your leadership in supporting
transit during this pandemic. The COVID-19 relief packages have been
critical to ensuring our ability to keep our doors open, buses on the
streets, our employees being able to keep their good paying jobs to
support their families, and their health insurance; all while many of
them come to work every day putting themselves on the front line to
make sure other members of the community have the ability to get to
work, school, doctor's appointments, the grocery store and other
essential activities.
Thanks to funding provided by the CARES Act, SORTA has been able to
provide PPE for our employees, as well as our passengers, and install
plexiglass barriers on each of our vehicles. The funds enabled SORTA to
maintain staffing levels throughout the pandemic and avoid any layoffs.
We were also able to retrofit our workspaces and return to full service
more quickly after the stay-at-home orders were lifted.
Currently, Metro is offering free rides to support our regional
``Get Out the Vax'' efforts to remove transportation barriers and
ensure equal access to COVID-19 vaccines in our community.
This year has not been easy, but I am proud to say that SORTA has
worked hard each and every day to serve our community and we have had
some significant accomplishments during this season as well. As I
mentioned earlier, we passed a countywide levy in the midst of a
panemic; opened a new transit center in our second busiest transfer
location; brought Access para-transit service in-house; increased
ridership 4.3 percent first quarter (prior to COVID-19); updated our
fleet with 19 new buses featuring Wi-Fi and charging ports for customer
usage; signed an advertising contract whose revenue will be used to add
400+ benches and 200 shelters at high traffic bus stops; became fully
staffed with operators; and we were among the first business in the
city to recognize Juneteenth as a paid holiday, just to highlight a
few.
As you might expect we have had our challenges as well; ridership
is down about 50 percent due to COVID-19; we have incurred increased
costs related to COVID-19 supplies, i.e., masks, gloves, sanitation
solution, installing barriers, etc.; and delayed the rollout of the
Reinventing Metro Plan from Q4 2020 to Q2 2021.
Given our current circumstances and as you consider reauthorization
of the FAST Act, there are a few policy recommendations I would like to
make this morning. First, I was pleased to see President Biden's
commitment to transit included in his transformational America Jobs
Plan, and within his FY2022 Budget. His call for new funding to
modernize existing public transportation and for transit expansion
aligns with the work we are doing at SORTA and the local investment
being made by our Reinventing Metro Plan.
I believe this forward-thinking along with the top policy
recommendations presented by our industry association the American
Public Transportation Association (APTA) would provide the investment
needed to build a 21st century transportation system our country is in
dire need of.
The top three APTA policy priorities are premised on erasing the
infrastructure deficit, rebuilding and expanding our public
transportation systems to best meet the needs of today's commuting
public and future demands, and enhancing our Nation's economic
competitiveness. APTA calls for a total Federal investment of $178
billion over 6 years for public transit and passenger rail. If enacted,
this investment will create or sustain more than two million jobs.
Highway Trust Fund Solvency and Long-Term, Increased Investment
APTA calls for Federal investment of $145 billion over 6 years to
fund critical projects that will repair, maintain, and improve our
public transit systems today and in the future. APTA based this
Recommendation on the funding needed to provide the Federal share
necessary to eliminate the transit state-of-good-repair backlog, which
the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) has determined is more than
$99 billion and growing. \1\ Additionally, our plan would fully fund
each of the projects currently in the Capital Investment Grants (CIG)
pipeline, and fund other key priorities outlined below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ DOT, ``Status of the Nation's Highways, Bridges, and Transit,
Conditions and Performance'' (November 2019) (hereinafter referred to
as the ``DOT Report'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It has been more than 25 years since Congress last raised the
Federal fuel taxes that primarily support the Highway Trust Fund, and
the purchasing power of this revenue has decreased by more than 40
percent over that time. Current revenues deposited into the Trust Fund
are insufficient to support the existing Federal highway and public
transportation programs without significant general fund contributions.
This status quo is unsustainable and tough choices need to be made by
Congress.
Reestablish a 40-40-20 Capital Investment Ratio Among Key Programs
APTA calls on Congress to reestablish a 40-40-20 capital investment
ratio among the CIG, State of Good Repair, and Buses and Bus Facilities
program. Historically, Congress allocated funding on a 40-40-20 basis
among the CIG, State of Good Repair and Buses and Bus Facilities
programs. The 40-40-20 ratio was maintained in authorizing law from
1987 through 1998, and for guaranteed authorizations from 1999 through
2003. Recent authorization acts have not maintained that ratio and, as
a result, the Buses and Bus Facilities program has received less
funding.
Our Recommendations provide significant increases for the CIG,
State of Good Repair and Buses and Bus Facilities programs. In growing
each program, APTA believes that a relative distribution of 40 percent
for CIG, 40 percent for State of Good Repair, and 20 percent for Buses
and Bus Facilities is the fairest allocation of funding for these three
capital investment programs. To achieve this objective, APTA proposes
that the Buses and Bus Facilities program grow at a higher rate in the
early years of the authorization period.
In Cincinnati, SORTA will need roughly $25 to $30 million to get
facilities into a state of good repair, which is more than is available
in current grant programs. SORTA also depends on the Bus and Bus
Facilities Program and the 5339 B competitive program for replacement
buses. SORTA is going to need roughly $44 million over the next 4 years
for replacement buses, and another $54 million for a planned fleet
expansion of roughly 102 buses over 4 years.
APTA calls on Congress to increase the capital cost thresholds for
the Small Starts program from $300 million for total project cost to
$400 million and the Capital Investment grants share from $100 million
to $200 million. For New Start and Core Capacity projects, APTA
requests that the time period to complete Project Development be
increased from 2 year to 3 years, that the Risk Assessment and the
establishment of the Federal share occur during the Engineering phase
for New Starts and Core Capacity projects, and that the risk
probability for the Risk Assessment be reduced from 65 percent to no
higher than 50 percent. APTA also requests that expenditures incurred
to comply with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) prior to entry
into Project Development be counted as local match for the project.
Mobility Innovation and Technology Initiative
APTA calls for the creation of a new Mobility Innovation and
Technology Initiative to introduce cutting-edge technologies and
integrate new service-delivery approaches and mobility options in the
transit marketplace. We need to invest in public transportation
innovation that meets the evolving needs of our residents and the
places they live. Advances in technology have allowed vehicles to
operate with increased autonomy and efficiencies, and data capabilities
enable effortless trip planning and streamlined information sharing.
Today, there are more transportation options than ever--commuters may
ride a shared scooter to a bus stop or take rideshare to a rail
station. \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ According to The Transformation of the American Commuter, 77
percent of Americans say public transportation is the backbone of a
multitransit lifestyle. APTA is leading the charge to support public
transportation agencies' efforts to implement innovative mobility
management strategies, while utilizing business models originating in
the private sector.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our members are redefining mobility in their communities and using
technology to ensure greater reliability, expand services, and improve
customer experiences. We believe that smart investments in
demonstration and implementation projects today will meet the mobility
demands of our riders in the future.
As part of the Reinventing Metro plan, SORTA is utilizing
technology to examine how to integrate mobility on-demand services with
our fixed route service and have installed electric charging stations
at our newest transit centers to plan for electric vehicles, as part of
our ongoing efforts to continuously evolve to meet the needs of our
community and changing technology.
Providing Equity and Opportunity
Public transportation provides a ladder to opportunity for millions
of Americans and is one of the most direct ways to address income
inequality. One out of five transit users are from households earning
less than $15,000. \3\ One of the fastest growing job segments in the
U.S. is late-shift work that begins between 4 p.m. and 6 a.m. Late-
shift workers make 14 percent less than their daytime peers and are
more likely to be people of color. \4\ Expanding public transit service
to the late shift is critical to increasing workforce opportunities.
Although late-shift public transit commuters represent a small share of
today's late-shift workforce, they already have a large economic
footprint: These workers bring home $28 billion in wages per year and
facilitate an estimated $84 billion in annual sales. Furthermore, there
is significant demand for housing near transit which points to a need
for more transit-served communities. \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ APTA, ``Who Rides Public Transportation'' (January 2017).
\4\ APTA, ``Supporting Late-Shift Workers, Transportation Needs
and the Economy'' (September 2019).
\5\ APTA, ``The Real Estate Mantra--Locate Near Transit'' (October
2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toward Cleaner Air
Investing in public transit is an investment toward cleaner air.
There is a dramatic shift underway in our industry and APTA members are
at the forefront of transitioning to cleaner fuel sources. \6\
Currently, more than 56 percent of transit buses use alternative fuels,
with more than 17 percent of those vehicles utilizing hybrid-electric
technology. Today, there are nearly 300 electric buses in service with
hundreds more electric buses on order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ APTA, Public Transit Leading in Transition to Clean Technology
(November 2019). Transitioning a fleet to electric buses requires
significant work, planning, and negotiation with utilities to ensure
that the infrastructure and capacity exist to support the fleet. There
are numerous examples of transit agencies adopting these new
technologies, each with a different process and relationship with their
local utilities and with infrastructure providers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Communities that invest in public transit reduce the Nation's
carbon emissions by 37 million metric tons annually. Overall, public
transportation saves the U.S. 4.2 billion gallons of gasoline annually.
As new and cleaner technologies become available, the public transit
industry is poised to lead in adaptation.
There are always challenges to adoption of new technologies. For
public transit agencies transitioning to electric buses, these
challenges have included larger up-front costs and the range of the
vehicles. Public transit agencies are beginning to integrate zero-
emission buses into their fleets and are setting goals for 100 percent
zero-emission bus fleets in future years. Federal grant programs have
been vital resources for public transit agencies nationwide in
acquiring new zero-emission vehicles. APTA urges significant funding
increases for programs, such as Buses and Bus Facilities competitive
grants and Low or No Emission competitive grants, that can support
zero-emission infrastructure.
SORTA is currently working on a long-term no emissions strategy and
has applied for LowNo grant funding to begin the implementation of a
no-emissions fleet, specifically through six no-emissions electric
buses and the related infrastructure and charging equipment.
Again, I thank you for your time and consideration on the matter.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN SAMUELSEN
International President, Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO
April 15, 2021
Good morning, thank you Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Toomey
for inviting me to testify before the Senate Banking, Housing, and
Urban Affairs Committee.
I speak today on behalf of more than 150,000 members of the
Transport Workers Union (TWU) who work in the public transit, airline,
railroad, utility, university and services sectors. The TWU's transit
locals represent bus and subway workers in and around New York City,
Akron, Ann Arbor, Columbus, Houston, Miami, Omaha, Philadelphia, San
Francisco, and other cities across the country. Our membership includes
over 1,000 bikeshare workers in the Bay Area, Boston, Chicago, Detroit,
the New York City area, Portland, Ore., and Washington, DC. We also
represent school bus, paratransit, and a variety of other transit
services. The TWU is organizing workers across the transportation
industry and has had significant successes in the microtransit sector.
I started my career working on the New York City Transit Authority
subway tracks in Brooklyn, New York, and I am still a Trackworker on
the active Local 100 seniority roster. I am excited by the real
possibility of significant investments in public transportation, as
shown by the President's infrastructure proposals and congressional
efforts. These investments would have an immediate effect on the people
who make our transit systems function: bus and train operators,
mechanics, signal maintainers, station agents, and others who dedicate
their working lives to this industry. As the president of the TWU,
their safety and wellbeing are my primary concern.
Public transit is an essential part of communities around the
country. Without the local bus, streetcar or subway, many Americans
would be unable to go to work, school, the doctor's office or the
grocery store. In Columbus, Ohio, the Central Ohio Transit Authority
(COTA) had about 19 million annual passengers before the pandemic. In
nearby Akron, residents use the METRO Regional Transit Authority to get
around their own city and also as far as Cleveland and Canton. Transit
is a vital part of small towns and big cities around the country. But
underfunding and lack of investment have led to insufficient and
unreliable service. I urge you to make large-scale investments to
connect our communities and grow our economy for decades to come.
Let me first thank the Committee for your work on the American
Rescue Plan, the Coronavirus Supplemental Response and Recovery Act,
the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, and the rest of
the work you have done during the pandemic to keep transit operating
and help workers stay safe. The Federal Government's response to the
crisis in public transit saved the transportation industry and ensured
that our members can provide essential service across the country. The
Members of this Committee have led these efforts. From the bottom of my
heart, thank you.
As our country looks beyond the pandemic, reauthorizing the FAST
Act and investing in our public transportation infrastructure is one of
the most important tasks remaining for this Congress. The TWU believes
that we must act now to address the major issues facing our public
transportation sector before our systems and our workers face ruin.
Transformational investment is needed to ensure our systems achieve and
maintain a state of good repair and to expand service to meet demand
over the next several decades. Policy change is urgently needed to
shape the course of new innovations and to allow our workers to develop
and train for jobs with more automation, more electrification, and
other technology. Protections are needed more than ever to save transit
workers from assaults on the job. And Congress must definitively close
the door on bad actors such as Uber and Lyft from accessing public
funds without agreeing to meet our existing standards for safety,
labor, and other protections.
These are both exciting and challenging times for public
transportation workers. Our country has not developed and executed on a
long-term plan for how we operate and maintain our transportation
infrastructure since President Eisenhower created the national highway
system and Presidents Kennedy and Johnson launched the Federal transit
program. These landmark acts completely transformed our nation's
mobility and created hundreds of thousands of good jobs in
transportation and across the economy. Three generations later, we have
not modernized that vision and today our communities are suffering from
severe neglect and underinvestment.
The pandemic dealt a severe blow to transit workers and our transit
systems. Frontline workers have been decimated by COVID--more than 350
transit workers have died from the virus. The TWU has lost more than
170 members to this disease and over 10,000 have been quarantined.
Across the country, transit systems are now evaluating the future of
mobility in the wake of the dramatic changes the pandemic has forced on
all of us. The decisions Congress makes on infrastructure investment
will determine the future health of our cities and towns, the quality
of life for transit riders and commuters, and the availability of
opportunities for our businesses.
Technology is also altering our transit future as we adopt and
implement low- and zero-emission vehicles, micromobility, vehicle and
system automations, and many more innovations. It is essential that our
elected officials ensure these changes and innovations benefit everyone
by sustaining and creating millions of good, union jobs here in our
country.
Happily, the largest proponents and drivers of transformational
infrastructure investment are also some of America's strongest pro-
labor leaders. That includes Chairman Brown, who has spent his career
fighting for workers in Ohio and around the country, as well as
President Biden, the first president in generations who has so
aggressively and publicly supported workers and their unions, and
Secretary Buttigieg, who is working closely with us to advance a
transformative, worker-centered transportation vision like the one I am
advocating for today. Not a day goes by without these leaders
commenting on the need to create good union jobs in transportation and
beyond. This support for working people includes the President's
endorsement of the PRO Act, legislation that would level the playing
field for working people and give them a chance to secure a union voice
on the job.
This year, Congress is poised to consider the surface
reauthorization bill. I hope you will seize the opportunity to invest
in a way that will reshape public transportation for the better, just
as proposed by the President in the American Jobs Plan and your House
colleagues through the Moving Forward Act, which passed that chamber
last year. The TWU has enthusiastically endorsed both of these efforts,
which would significantly boost funding for our transit systems and
allow the benefits of public transportation to reach millions more
Americans. President Biden's proposal would invest $85 billion in
public transit and $2.25 trillion in infrastructure, creating 19
million jobs over 8 years. The plan also calls for investments of $2
billion in transit worker training and retraining, which is one of my
biggest priorities. I urge the Members of this Committee to fight to
make sure the final bill advances infrastructure investments that
create good union jobs for the people who operate, maintain, build and
manufacture every piece of our transportation system.
Public transit has always been an engine for good job creation and
a lifeline for workers and their families. If we invest today and
deliver a historic bill that is properly focused on equitable access to
transit and the creation and retention of good jobs, we will provide
family sustaining job opportunities and mobility for millions who have
been left behind.
Investing in Public Transit
The TWU strongly supports massive increases in investment into
public transit, including the proposals put forward in the Moving
Forward Act and President Biden's American Jobs Plan. We know that
transit riders are victims of severe underinvestment. Now is the time
to move forward and correct this long-term failure to fund both
operations and capital projects, as well as to finally invest in the
workforce. At a minimum, $85 billion is needed to expand service,
modernize facilities, and connect more people and businesses to
transit. These investments are an essential component in revitalizing
our national economy and global competitiveness. They will also make
our transportation system more equitable for and accessible to
marginalized communities, begin to address systemic inequities, and
bridge the gap for those who need reliable transit to escape poverty
and pursue better job opportunities. Further, these investments will
reduce our reliance on single occupancy vehicles and produce concrete
and immediate environmental benefits.
Transportation Technology and the Workforce
New developments in transportation technology are creating dramatic
shifts in our infrastructure sector. Some of these changes present
major threats to the number and quality of jobs in our economy, while
others offer opportunities to improve safety and reduce emissions. We
cannot blindly endorse all innovations equally when we know that many
run counter to the public interest. Transit workers could see real
improvements in safety, ergonomics, pay and benefits if pro-worker,
pro-rider technologies are elevated with workers in partnership on
implementation. The next surface transportation reauthorization must
prepare our transit systems for new technologies before they create
widespread economic pain. We have the power to control how technology
will affect us and what role we want it to play in our future.
Investors and big tech companies should not make those decisions for
us.
Our members have been at the center of technological change for
decades. Life-saving innovations, such as automatic braking, have been
implemented and made our operations safer for everyone. But some
corporate interests are not focused on improving the safety or
accessibility of our transit systems. Many have placed big bets on
pieces of technology and are seeking a payoff from the public sector
regardless of whether the marketed benefits of their investment are
real or in the public interest. Decision-makers must separate the good
from the bad and ensure that new innovations create shared prosperity
rather than enrich investors selling empty promises.
Transportation technology is rapidly evolving in a variety of
areas, including zero emissions vehicles (ZEVs), automated vehicles
(AVs), shared mobility, and safety technologies. We need to focus now
on the technological changes in the pipeline to ensure workforce
readiness. Failure to act now, ahead of any potential negative effects,
will lead to mass disruption and dislocation in the transit workforce.
With this in mind, the TWU recently released, ``New Technologies in
Transit Systems'', \1\ a white paper that outlines our approach to
innovation. In it, we describe four principles that policy makers
should apply as they adapt new transportation technology. These
principles are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See, http://www.twu.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Innovation-
White-PaperV2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transparent Planning and Reporting
Employers should be required to develop a timeline for reporting,
budgeting, worker impact analysis, and investment in reskilling of
workers prior to implementing new technology that will significantly
impact jobs and/or job functions.
Public Safety and Security
New transit technology must have failsafe systems that detect
malfunctions and allow for human intervention if the technology breaks
down. In transit, on-board operators must remain mandatory, as we know
from experience that these workers do much more than drive. There
should be rigid and fully enforceable safety standards. New technology
that fails to meet existing safety, labor, and environment standards
should be rejected.
Workforce Involvement
Worker representatives should be included on all technology-related
working groups and committees established by our Government and these
groups must address job issues as part of their work. Formal advance
notice should be sent to the workforce prior to introducing and
implementing a new product or service that will significantly impact
jobs and/or job functions. Transit agencies and other employers should
be required to create a comprehensive plan to transition or train
employees to ensure new jobs created by technology benefit existing
workers. Collective bargaining over the terms of implementing new
technology should be mandated.
Privacy and Cybersecurity
Clear, uniform, and enforceable safety, security and privacy
standards are essential. New technology should be subjected to
cybersecurity requirements to prevent hacking and to ensure mitigation
and remediation of cybersecurity events. Robust privacy and data
collection safeguards for new technology should be required.
These principles, which focus on information sharing, community
collaboration, partnership with workers, and prior notice, will help to
ensure that technological developments improve local communities,
protect critically needed transit services, and improve transit
workers' lives. Most immediately, these principles must guide action on
zero-emissions and automated vehicle technology.
Electrification and Zero-Emissions Vehicles
Policymakers are grappling with the challenge of transitioning to
zero-emission transportation vehicles and infrastructure over the next
few decades. A large coalition of labor organizations, including the
TWU, is poised to issue our principles on electrification. We will
outline the need for strong Federal leadership to move manufacturers,
State and local governments, transit agencies, and the workforce
development system toward developing, procuring, and operating hybrid
and zero-emission vehicles and infrastructure in a pro-worker manner.
Absent this leadership from Congress and the Administration, any
widespread adoption of zero-emission vehicles will destroy good, union
jobs and harm American workers.
Several core ideas guide these principles:
Public policies and research, development, and deployment
funding must enhance community voices and ensure input from
frontline workers at the core of policy development. A key
Government goal of any transition to a new technology must be
the creation and retention of good jobs.
The next generation of vehicles should be made in America
with union labor.
Procurement of new, hybrid and zero-emission vehicles and
infrastructure must be transparent and honest. As the
transition to the clean energy economy is embraced by transit
agencies, trucking and bus companies, motor vehicle and parts
manufacturers, and others, the disclosure of plans to the
workforce has to happen. Early notice of electrification plans
must be provided to the incumbent workforce.
Existing safety, labor, environmental, accessibility and
performance standards cannot be compromised in any transition
to new technology. Buy America requirements must be
strengthened and enforced. These standards protect the public
and our workers from harm, support American jobs, and ensure
disadvantaged communities have access to opportunity and our
transportation systems.
The existing workforce must benefit directly from
investments in zero-emission infrastructure. Displaced workers
must have access to resources for training, apprenticeship and
career ladder programs for reskilling the existing workforce
and providing them with the first opportunity for new jobs
created by the adopting new equipment and infrastructure.
Automated Vehicles
The TWU has long fought against the unchecked and dangerous
deployment of fully autonomous transit vehicles. This unproven
technology has been temporarily pulled down from many demonstration
projects following hazardous safety incidents. \2\ The companies
selling this technology have relied on exemptions and waivers from
labor, safety and environmental requirements to avoid meeting existing
standards--metrics that they cannot attain because AVs are not ready
for widespread deployment in the transit sector.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Mark Ferenchik, The Columbus Dispatch, ``Video Shows Self-
Driving Shuttle Stop, Passenger Fall'', March 5, 2020, https://
www.dispatch.com/news/20200304/video-shows-self-driving-shuttle-stop-
passenger-fall.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even if AV transit vehicles were able to safely travel crowded
urban environments, transit agencies are unlikely to see any cost
benefit as bus operators will still be needed for safety and security.
Today, operators not only drive their buses, but also keep order on the
vehicle, assist passengers with mobility issues, reroute in response to
unexpected obstacles, and respond to emergencies. All of these
responsibilities will still be essential in a world with AVs and will
require a human worker onboard to accomplish. More importantly, as we
have learned all too often from aircraft accidents, the most valuable
piece of safety equipment in any vehicle is a well-trained, qualified
human operator who can intervene when an automated system fails.
Removing a trained bus operator from a commercial vehicle navigating a
crowded street at rush hour is a recipe for disaster. The elimination
of operators would undermine traffic safety and severely harm the
passenger experiences on the vehicle. The Moving Forward Act directly
addresses these concerns by prohibiting fully automated vehicles from
replacing any existing transit service and requiring transit agencies
that pursue large-scale adoption of AVs to create a workforce
development plan that can successfully transition transit operators to
new roles at their employer. \3\ This approach is urgently needed to
inform the direction that technology firms pursue in their products and
we hope the Senate will include this language in any reauthorization
bill as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Moving Forward Act, H.R. 2, section 2603, 116th Congress
(2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The previous Administration embraced a deregulatory philosophy on
AVs, which ignored roadway and passenger safety concerns, as well as
those from the frontline workforce. For too long, our regulators have
played the role of AV cheerleader rather than rulemaker by refusing to
make any of the tough decisions that would force the industry to live
up to our existing standards. We have called for a policy reboot at
DOT, as reflected in several comments we have filed with the agency.
The TWU has submitted comments criticizing this wholesale forfeiture of
oversight responsibility. \4\ We are pleased to see that Sec. Buttigieg
is rethinking this approach with an eye toward improving transportation
safety and addressing worker concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ ``Framework for Automated Driving System Safety'', NHTSA-2020-
0106, comments submitted April 1, 2021; ``Automated Vehicles
Comprehensive Plan'', DOT-OST-2021-0005, comments submitted March 22,
2021; ``Pathways to the Future of Transportation by the Non-Traditional
and Emerging Transportation Technology (NETT) Council'', DOT-OST-2020-
0112, comments submitted September 28, 2020; ``Motor Carriers Using
Certain Advanced Driver Assistance Systems. Hours of Service of
Drivers: Pronto.ai, Inc.; Application for Exemption from 49 CFR
395.3(a)(2) and 395.3(a)(3)'', FMCSA-2020-0116, comments submitted May
20, 2020; ``Ensuring American Leadership in Automated Vehicle
Technologies 4.0'', DOT-OST-2019-0179. comments submitted April 2,
2020; and ``Preparing for the Future of Transportation: Automated
Vehicles 3.0'', DOT-OST-2018-0149, comments submitted December 3, 2018.
See, http://www.twu.org/regulatory-comments/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ending Assaults on Transit Workers
According to the Transportation Research Board, there is an assault
on a transit worker in this country more than once every day. This
number relies on the Department of Transportation's very limited
definition of ``assault'' and significantly underestimates the
frequency of attacks on bus drivers, subway operators, station agents,
and cleaners in our systems. A worker could have their nose broken, be
hospitalized for 24 hours, and suffer first degree burns without
triggering any mandatory reporting requirements to the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA). The pace of these assaults has not fallen over
the past year even as transit ridership has declined due to the
pandemic. Congress must require immediate action from transit agencies
to protect workers from assaults by passengers just as it has for
flight attendants and airline customer service agents.
During the last Congress, Senator Van Hollen introduced the Transit
Worker and Pedestrian Protection Act which would make important
progress in protecting our members from harm. This bill mandates that
transit agencies submit risk reduction plans to the FTA that improve
transit safety and reduce the number of assaults in their systems. The
TWU has strongly endorsed this bill and we want to thank Senator Van
Hollen for his leadership on this issue. We urge the Committee to
include the latest iteration of the bill in its entirety in any surface
reauthorization legislation it considers.
Worker Training
As discussed above, technology is a tool, not a cure-all.
Successfully using complicated transit technology requires training.
Public transit systems need to make significant investments in worker
training to properly implement the innovations we know are coming in
the near future. We need to make sure that transit workers are able to
transition to new jobs--in the same transit agency and without
diminishing job quality and pay--no matter the technology.
Transit agencies spend just 0.66 to 0.88 percent of total payroll
on employee training, compared to the average of 4 to 5 percent in many
parts of the private sector. \5\ The DOT oversees several workforce
development funding programs, which can be helpful, but they generally
focus on white collar and university training. This approach is at odds
with the reality that the largest workforce skills gaps are among the
blue-collar technicians, electricians, and signal operators--
professions that do not receive training at 4-year universities.
Currently, 80 percent of the FTA's limited workforce funding goes to
white-collar roles. That is why we strongly support efforts to create
and fund a national transit frontline workforce training consortium
that would coordinate the development of materials and training of
frontline workers. This consortium should be coordinated by a national
organization that has a strong track record of developing standards-
based curriculum for the public transportation industry through joint
labor-management partnerships involving frontline subject matter
experts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ ``Aligning Federal Surface Transportation Policy To Meet 21st
Century Needs'', U.S. House Transportation Infrastructure Subcommittee
on Highways and Transit, Testimony of Transportation Learning Center
Executive Director Jack Clark, March 13, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The immediate need for this funding is particularly evident with
regard to zero-emissions vehicles. While many of the skills required to
maintain, overhaul, and repair electric and hydrogen-fuel cell buses
are substantially similar to those for traditional buses, the engine is
a very different piece of equipment. The Transportation Learning Center
has found a consistent pattern: fewer than 20 percent of working bus
mechanics have the skills needed to use a digital voltmeter, the most
basic diagnostic tool for electric engines. This problem persists
across many transit agencies, even at some large agencies with robust
training capacity. Any wide scale adoption of zero-emission buses will
result in massive job loss among public transit mechanics unless
Congress acts now to provide agencies with the resources needed to
train and develop a workforce that can do the work in-house.
Microtransit and Mobility on Demand
The TWU is the only union with significant membership in new
mobility technology. We represent more than half of all bikeshare
workers nationwide and we are actively organizing workers in all new
forms of mobility as a service and mobility on demand operations. These
innovative solutions to first-mile/last-mile and low-density transit
service should provide good jobs just like the rest of the transit
sector. However, not all new service has been conceived or implemented
with rider, community or worker interests in mind. Micromobility
operations such as bikeshare projects which connect more people to
existing public transit systems and provide good-paying jobs are very
different from the parasitic business model of transportation network
companies (TNCs).
Bikeshare
Bikeshare, scooters, and other micromobility systems allow
individual riders to travel through urban environments over distances
or spaces that may not be efficient for buses and trains. When
implemented thoughtfully, these services feed riders into existing
transit hubs, complementing and expanding the reach of traditional
transit service, as well as boosting ridership. Bikeshare is by far the
most mature of these modes with a bikeshare system operating in 264
cities and nearly every state of the union.
While bikeshare is clearly a component of public transit, much of
the infrastructure required for it is not currently eligible for
Federal support. The TWU supports amending the definition of
``associated transit improvement'' to include bikeshare projects. Doing
this would allow transit agencies to continue to expand these systems
under existing FTA rules, including Buy America and labor protections,
that would help ensure quality jobs in the industry.
Additionally, the TWU supports expanding the commuter tax benefits
to include bikeshare commuters so that these riders have access to the
same Federal tax incentives given to cars.
Transportation Network Companies
TNCs such as Uber and Lyft pose significant threats to the safety
and financing of our public transportation systems. These companies
have a demonstrated history of ignoring environmental, labor, safety,
and other laws while lobbying for exemptions for themselves. \6\ The
TWU has been actively fighting against these companies' abuse of labor
rights and their antiregulation agenda. \7\ This same fight is now
playing out as these companies seek access to Federal funding through
the FTA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ ``The Costs of Doing Business: Why Lawmakers Must Hold the
Ride-Hailing Industry Accountable as They Undermine Their Workers and
Play by Their Own Rules'', Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO,
October 2019, https://ttd.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/The-Cost-Of-
Doing-Business-Why-lawmakers-must-hold-the-ride-hailing-industry-
accountable-TTD-report.pdf.
\7\ For examples, please refer to the TWU's comments on TNC
regulatory issues, including worker misclassification, at http://
www.twu.org/regulatory-comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today, no TNC exists that meets the statutory definition of public
transportation. \8\ This definition has been carefully crafted over
decades to ensure safe, equitable, accessible public transit across the
country. Additionally, public transit providers who receive Federal
funds also have obligations in return for that public investment.
Providers must conform with drug and alcohol testing requirements,
transit labor protections, equity mandates, accessibility requirements,
and a host of other core standards. Transit is a public service and our
standards for it must never be lowered at the request of companies
seeking to bail out their investors from a loss-making business model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 49 U.S.C. 5302.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thankfully, the Moving Forward Act included strong language to
address these concerns while allowing good actors to potentially
innovate new shared ride services. Under the House bill, funding for
mobility-on-demand projects would be limited to those that increase
transit ridership, cut traffic congestion, comply with the Americans
with Disabilities Act, and follow the same drug and alcohol testing
rules as public transit workers. These requirements are essential to
ensuring that TNCs cannot undermine the goals of public transportation
or lower vital civil rights protections and safety standards.
Conclusion
Congress has a rare opportunity to correct past mistakes and
prepare our country for the future by passing a transformational
infrastructure bill now. By getting the policy right on transit
investment and innovation, we can ensure that future generations look
to this year with the same admiration that we all share for the
creation of the interstate highway system and the Federal transit
program.
Thank you for the opportunity to present the TWU's views on these
vital issues before this Committee.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF BETH OSBORNE
Director, Transportation for America
April 15, 2021
Thank you to Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Toomey for including
in this important hearing.
I am the director of Transportation for America, a national
nonprofit committed to a transportation system that connects people to
jobs and essential services by all modes of travel no matter their
financial means or physical ability. We do our work through direct
technical assistance to local and State agencies, research and analysis
of how the existing transportation system is working, and policy
development and advocacy.
Transportation for America has called for Congress to use the next
surface transportation bill to accomplish three things: (1) address the
maintenance backlog by adopting a fix-it-first strategy; (2) improve
the safety of our roadways by prioritizing safety over vehicle speed;
and (3) measure the success of our transportation system based on how
well it connects people (in and out of a car) to jobs and essential
services.
These three principles are key to creating jobs, both by connecting
people to work and for the people who work on the transportation system
that takes them there; for reducing climate emissions; and for ensuring
equitable access to opportunity. Transit is a crucial component in all
of these goals.
Over the last year, Transportation for America and its partners
have been excited to see Congress recognize how essential transit is by
coming together on a bipartisan basis to keep transit operating for our
essential workers through emergency operating funds. Through this act,
Congress recognized that everyone is transit dependent. Those of us who
can drive to the grocery or the hospital rely on the people that stock
the shelves or provide medical treatment who might need transit to get
to work. Now we will need to pull together again as we move out of the
pandemic to help people get back to work and to build the 21st century
transportation system we need.
The transportation system was not efficient, safe, affordable, or
equitable before COVID. We had rising fatalities for those outside of a
car--a 45 percent increase over the last 10 reported years, 2010-2019.
The exposure to danger changes based on race and ethnicity, as our
recent Dangerous by Design showed.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Preliminary data from 2020 showed a massive increase in roadway
fatalities for people in and out of cars. While traffic levels dropped
13 percent, fatalities increased 8 percent, causing the greatest
increase in the fatality rate in 96 years. As traffic dropped, speeding
increased because our roadways are built to encourage high-speed
vehicle travel. That danger has always been a barrier for transit
users, but last year it was more dangerous that ever. And it is a
danger that applies equally to people in urban and rural places.
Our transportation system was inequitable before COVID. The lack of
reliable transit in the U.S. means low income Americans to spend close
to 30 percent of their household income on transportation to get where
they need to go. The average American spends only 13 percent. In my
neighborhood, Columbia Heights in the heart of Washington, DC, the
average household spends 8 percent on transportation due to the close
proximity of destinations (like groceries, clinics, schools,
restaurants, and retail), the general walkability, and the access to
multiple bus lines and rail.
That lack of access to transit and safe walking or biking routes
requires people to stretch financially to buy cars, an expensive asset
that loses value the moment you buy it, rather than use that money for
education, property, or retirement. We aren't just talking about
household that might want to be car-free. It is a system that requires
a household of 5 people to have 3-4 cars instead of 1-2. At $8,000 a
year to operate a car, that is a heavy financial burden indeed.
Lack of access to a car or reliable transit can be a blockage to
work itself. When I was in school in Baton Rouge, LA, I needed a job to
help pay my bills. But I could not find a job that I could get to
without a car and could not afford a car without a job. The message was
clear: if I didn't have thousands to pay the cover charge to enter the
U.S. economy, my labor was not needed or particularly wanted. What a
ridiculous and inefficient notion--but it is a message we send to
millions every day in this country.
Again this is a problem we associate with urban America. Yet
according to the latest American Community Survey, the majority of
counties with high rates of zero-car households (10 percent or more)
are rural. In fact, more than one million households in predominantly
rural counties do not have access to a vehicle. Rural Americans without
cars face unique barriers and they deserve a tailored approach to their
transit needs rather than just assuming they can or will drive
everywhere.
COVID has caused many to lose work, and people are struggling to
pay rent, mortgages, and car payments. As the economic recovery begins,
the number of transit dependent people who we want to help to get back
to work will likely only rise. High quality transit will be an
important part of ensuring that everyone gets back to work.
COVID also pointed to the folly of our approach to transportation
in general. While work trips made up approximately 20 percent of
people's trips before the pandemic, nearly all of our focus in
transportation was on that 20 percent of trips and those alone. Neither
our roadways nor transit is designed to help people get to things like
the grocery, school or medical care. Short trips of a few blocks are
often too dangerous on foot, whether to the store or to the bus. And
transit lines point to downtowns and job centers, not necessarily
neighborhood centers.
Retooling to address nonwork trips will require data and resources.
Congress could play an important role in both the transit and highway
programs by bringing those resources and accountability for transit and
highway agencies to serve the 80 percent of nonwork trips. We focus on
traffic during rush hour, and this is certainly inconvenient. But it is
nowhere near the stress and challenge faced by the parent without
access to a reliable car who needs not just to get to work but to drop
off and pick up kids from school and drop by the grocery.
The good news is we have ways to truly measure how well our system
performs in terms of getting people where they need to go, whether they
have access to a car or not. My partners at the State Smart
Transportation Institute have published a guide to using GIS and the
cloud to compute all potential trips by all modes from homes to jobs
and other essential destinations (like groceries, banks, schools, and
health care). This analysis can be used to measure performance,
identify neighborhoods cut off by infrastructure, areas that need
transit, and more. It can also be used to evaluate proposed projects on
whether they improve that access. The Commonwealth of Virginia has used
this approach as part of their Smart Scale system for years now to
determine which projects to prioritize for funding.
Today, instead of using this approach, most transit and highway
projects are evaluated using the speed of travel as a proxy for time
saved. In transit, it is looked at for the end-to-end user of a line,
something few customers do. In highways, it is looked at in terms of
travel between two observed points. Neither approach measures anyone's
trip from door to door nor whether anyone actually arrives anywhere.
This is another way Congress could play an important role in the
next reauthorization. Provide access to the data and tools now
available to consider how we can give people, particularly those
struggling financially, access to work and essential services by all
modes of travel. The Senate bill last Congress provided a pilot for
measuring multimodal access. The House bill created a new performance
measure. This year, these data could help transit (as well as highway)
agencies plan a more holistic transportation system that is equally
designed for the 80 percent of nonwork trips and the 20 percent of work
trips (which will likely fall). They can also plan for all people
whether they travel by car, transit, foot, bike, scooter, or
wheelchair.
Long before COVID, our transportation system created problems in
air quality, climate emissions, water quality, heat island effect, and
more. None of these issues are fully addressed by electrifying
vehicles; neither are the inequities or safety problems with the
existing program. Let me be clear: electrification is essential and is
something Transportation for America supports completely. In fact, we
recently helped launch a new coalition called CHARGE that calls for
strengthening and growing public transit while rapidly transitioning to
electric fleets.
But while electrification is essential, it is insufficient to
address climate. In our report Driving Down Emissions, we cite several
States that have found they need to electrify vehicles and allow people
to use cars less to reach their climate goals. California has found
that even if the State meets its ambitious target of 15 percent zero
emissions vehicles on the road by 2030, people would still need to
drive 4.5 fewer miles per day to reach the State's 2030 climate target.
Within Minnesota, even assuming a 65 percent onroad EV adoption rate in
2050, Minneapolis needs to reduce driving by 38 percent to meet an 80
percent carbon reduction goal. This is where transit and making roads
safer so that people can get to transit becomes so essential.
Finally, it is time to develop a targeted rural transit program. As
the Director of the Oklahoma Transit Association Mark Nestlen said in a
recent Vice article: Congress never sat down at the table and said
`let's develop a rural transit program. What should it look like?' They
sat down at a table and said, `here's the urban transit program.we're
going to have everything be the same and just put it in rural.' When
you do that, you're going to put a square peg into a round hole.
Last month, Canada's Minister of Infrastructure and Communities and
the Minister for Rural Economic Development announced a Rural Transit
Fund, which will provide $250 million over 5 years to help address the
transit needs of those living in rural, remote and small communities.
Last fall, the State of Oklahoma developed a statewide plan for public
transportation that unites urban and rural transit services by laying
out mobility priorities for the next 20 years. The plan received input
from transit providers across the State and focuses on overall mobility
priorities and goals for improving transit service and connectivity.
This is the kind of approach to rural transit needed to connect rural
Americans to jobs and essential services across the country.
Transit is a major and essential part of reaching our goals for
economic recovery, economic opportunity, climate and racial equity. And
the country requires a major investment in transit to accomplish these
goals--the kind of commitment we made to highways starting in the
1950s. To support this, there are three things to consider in the next
reauthorization bill:
Refocus the Federal transit program to improve transit
frequency, reliability, and ridership and expand access to jobs
and services in both urban and rural areas. The traditional
metrics used to measure a transit system's performance, such as
costs per traveler trip or mile, on-time performance, and
ridership, do not capture transit's true value to riders and
local economies. Transit projects should be evaluated based on
how well they get people to the places they need to go,
measured through multimodal access. The things that factor into
this access are service frequency and reliability; safe access
to transit stops; and transit that serves work and nonwork
trips alike.
Fund transit operations in addition to capital projects. As
revenue from fares and local tax measures evaporated virtually
overnight, the pandemic demonstrated the need for a stable
source of funding for transit service in emergencies. Congress
came through. Long-term Federal support for transit
operations--particularly for greater frequencies, expanded
hours and new service--will help agencies deliver the high
quality, safe, and affordable public transit service urban and
rural Americans need and deserve.
Rebalance transit funding to match funding for highways.
For nearly 40 years, we have stuck to a deal that was made
during the Reagan administration to bring transit into the
surface transportation program. At the time, the gas tax paid
for the whole program, something that has not been true in over
a decade. To make a highway level commitment to providing
Americans in large cities, small cities and rural towns alike,
it will require a similar funding commitment.
Communities are constantly changing. COVID has caused even more. It
is time that we harness that change to make our transportation system
more efficient, affordable, equitable, and accessible for everyone.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF BARUCH FEIGENBAUM
Senior Managing Director, Transportation Policy, Reason Foundation
April 15, 2021
Chairman Brown, Ranking Member Toomey, and fellow Members:
My name is Baruch Feigenbaum. I am the Senior Managing Director for
Transportation Policy at Reason Foundation, a nonprofit think tank with
offices in Los Angeles and Washington, DC. For more than four decades,
Reason's transportation experts have been advising Federal, State, and
local policymakers on market-based approaches to transportation.
My Credentials on Today's Topic
I am a graduate of the Georgia Institute of Technology with degrees
in Public Policy and Transportation Planning with a concentration in
Engineering. With Reason, I have authored studies on mobility, highway
congestion, transit options, funding alternatives, and innovative
financing. I have worked with the States of California, Colorado,
Georgia, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania as well
as numerous counties to implement transportation policy and funding
reform. I currently serve on two National Academy of Sciences
Transportation Research Board committees: Bus Transit Systems, where I
serve as Secretary and Conference Planning Chair, and Intelligent
Transportation Systems. Further, I assist the committees on
Transportation Revenue and Financing and Metropolitan Planning. My
testimony today draws on these experiences.
Overview of Environment
COVID-19 has dramatically changed many aspects of life. While all
aspects of transportation have been impacted, no mode has been affected
more than mass transit. Ridership on rail transit has decreased 70-90
percent, while ridership on bus transit has decreased a more modest 40-
60 percent. Even when COVID-19 subsides, a majority of experts expect
transit to recover 90 percent of its riders at most, with some
expecting a recovery rate of only 70 percent.
Transit use was on a multiyear decline even before COVID, with only
5 percent of Americans commuting by transit. Yet, according to the
Bureau of Transportation Statistics the U.S. spends $70 billion per
year on transit. Transit policy was in need of reform even before
COVID, but COVID has made a rethinking of transit critical.
Many commuters in our current environment have substituted working
at home for transit. In 2020, 35 percent of all Americans worked from
home. In a PricewaterhouseCoopers survey, 83 percent of employers and
71 percent of employees say remote work has been a success. Once COVID
subsides, many predict the work at home share will be 20-25 percent.
Due to a combination of COVID and longer-term changes among transit
riders, I have the following six recommendations:
1. Prioritize service for transit-dependent riders,
2. Prioritize maintenance and operations over capital expenditures,
3. Adjust quantitative metrics in project evaluation,
4. Fund BRT from the Capital Investments Grants program,
5. Fund transit from the general fund, and
6. Unlock the private market and transit innovation.
Recommendation Number 1: Prioritize Service for Transit-Dependent
Riders
The increase in the number of employees working at home has reduced
transit ridership. There are two types of riders: transit-dependent
riders who do not have easy access to a vehicle and transit-choice
riders who do have easy access to a vehicle. Transit-choice riders in
fields such as engineering or law have jobs which lend themselves to
working at home. Transit-dependent riders in fields such as nursing or
technical support have jobs which require being at a specific physical
location. Today, since most transit ridership is by dependent and not
choice riders, U.S. transit policy should focus on serving transit-
dependent riders. And since these riders are more likely to use buses
than rail, U.S. policymakers should focus more resources on bus
transit. Over the last 20 years, the largest 30 metro areas have added
miles of rail lines, but most of those same metro areas have cut bus
service. Yet during the pandemic, bus ridership has recovered far
faster than rail ridership.
One component of serving transit-dependent customers is building
grid-based networks. Pre-World War II employment was mostly located
downtown. As a result, transit networks were designed to feed employees
to downtown job centers. However, since World War II, job locations
have become more and more suburbanized. As a result, more than 80
percent of metro area jobs are now located outside the central business
district. Unfortunately, many transit systems are still designed to
funnel employees to the central business district. Grid-like networks
more effectively transport employees from suburban residences to
suburban job centers. Transit systems with grid-like patterns tend to
have more than twice as many boardings per hour as legacy radial
systems. Operating expenses with grid patterns are substantially lower
while load factors are substantially higher.
The Federal Government should require transit agencies to show that
they are meeting the needs of transit-dependent riders before they
expend resources on transit-choice riders.
Recommendation Number 2: Prioritize Maintenance and Operations Over
Capital Expenditures
Most departments of transportation (DOTs) have adopted a fix-it-
first approach for their highways, but many transit agencies are
focused on expansion. The local transit agency for the DC metro area,
the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), is one
example. Rather than focus on rebuilding the existing system, WMATA
decided to expand the system, contracting with the Metro Washington
Airport Authority to build the Silver Line. Meanwhile the condition of
the existing system deteriorated rapidly. Over the course of 3 months
in 2016, the system experienced fires 73 times. Currently, trains need
to be offloaded regularly because they break down. At any given time,
several elevators and numerous escalators are out of service.
And WMATA is not alone; transit agencies in New York City, San
Francisco, and Atlanta suffer from similar problems. More troubling,
there are approximately 20 light-rail systems that will need major
reconstruction in the next 10 years, and these systems have not set
aside the resources needed for reconstruction.
The state of good repair metrics, which transit agencies must meet
to receive funding for new capital projects, need to be strengthened. I
recommend that a minimum of 95 percent of a system be in a state of
good repair and that FTA audits the findings for accuracy in order for
a system to receive new capital funding.
Federal policy also encourages system expansion over operations.
New capital projects can receive an 80 percent Federal share while the
share of operating costs is matched at a maximum of 50 percent. This
can lead to some perverse incentives. The costs of building the Dallas
Area Rapid Transit (DART) and Houston Metro were so high that they were
forced to cut bus service. As a result, fewer people took transit after
the light-rail lines opened than before they opened. Policymakers
should reverse the funding percentage so operations receive up to an 80
percent match and capital costs up to a 50 percent match.
Recommendation Number 3: Adjust the Quantitative Metrics in Project
Evaluation
Currently, projects are rated 50 percent on project justification
and 50 percent on local financial commitment. The project justification
rankings are Mobility Improvements, Environmental Benefits, Congestion
Relief, Cost-Effectiveness, Economic Development, and Land Use. Each
receives a weighting of 16.66 percent. The local financial commitment
ratings are Current Conditions and Commitment of Funds, with each of
these receiving 25 percent of the weighting, and Reliability/Capacity
receiving 50 percent. Since cost-effectiveness is so critical to a
project's success, it should be weighted at 25 percent of the project
justification total. Since mobility improvements are the purpose of
transit, that category should be weighted at 25 percent as well. The
remaining categories would each be weighted at 12.5 percent.
Today, projects are rated high, medium-high, medium, medium-low, or
low in both the engineering and full funding grant agreement phases.
Projects are required to be ranked medium or better to receive Federal
funding. Unfortunately, this has led several projects with funding or
ridership limitations to still receive Federal funding. I recommend the
minimum project standard for Federal funding be raised to medium-high.
Recommendation Number 4: Fund BRT From the Capital Investment Grants
Program
The Capital Investment Grants program is the largest capital
funding program. This includes New Starts, Small Starts, and Core
Capacity projects. The program funds heavy rail, light rail, commuter
rail, streetcars, and fixed route bus rapid transit (BRT), also known
as BRT heavy, in which the bus has a dedicated running way. However, it
does not fund freeway BRT, where the bus travels in the freeway, or BRT
lite, where the bus shares a lane of traffic with cars. Most BRT
projects in this country are freeway BRT or BRT lite, since finding
space dedicated for BRT running ways is challenging. In its current
form, the law encourages project sponsors to choose a more expensive
option (BRT heavy) instead of a more cost-effective option (BRT lite or
freeway BRT).
Recommendation Number 5: Fund Transit With General Fund Revenue
When Congress passed the prior surface transportation
reauthorization, the FAST Act, it transferred $83.6 billion from the
general fund to the Highway Trust Fund. Given the political challenges
of increasing the gas tax and the reality that a mileage-based user fee
is still being tested, the transfer of additional general funds is
likely. And given that funding transit out of the Highway Trust Fund
violates the users-pay/users-benefit principle, and the large amount of
general fund revenue needed for the surface transportation
reauthorization, transit should be funded with general fund revenue
while highways are funded with highway user tax revenue.
Recommendation Number 6: Unlock the Private Market and Transit
Innovation
Ten years ago if I had predicted the average American would jump
into a car with a stranger, I would have been laughed out of this room.
But that is exactly what happened with ride-hailing services such as
Uber and Lyft. While ride-hailing caused disruption to the taxi
industry, the innovation was good for customers. The transit market
could benefit from this sort of disruption.
Unfortunately, there are several policies which prevent innovation.
The first is the fact that many transit systems are monopolies, which
the surface transportation reauthorization should prevent for all
systems that receive Federal funding. The second is that many transit
agencies are hesitant to contract out service. The Federal Government
should encourage transit contracting by requiring agencies that receive
Federal funding to receive bids from the private sector. The transit
agencies would not be required to contract with the private sector, but
they would be required to test the waters to determine if contracting
is good policy. Finally, Congress should encourage transit agencies to
experiment with smaller vehicles and automation by continuing grant
programs for both of these technologies.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on transit funding
and policy. I would be happy to answer any and all questions.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID DITCH
Research Associate, Grover M. Hermann Center for the Federal Budget,
The Heritage Foundation
April 15, 2021
My name is David Ditch. I am a research associate at The Heritage
Foundation. The views I express in this testimony are my own, and
should not be construed as representing any official position of The
Heritage Foundation.
Authorization for Federal spending from the Highway Trust Fund
expires on September 30 this year. Since the Banking and Urban Affairs
Committee's jurisdiction covers the public transportation portion of
the trust fund, it has an opportunity to adjust long-standing flaws in
Federal policy.
The Highway Trust Fund was originally established in 1956 to pay
for construction of the interstate highway system using revenue from
the Federal gas tax. \1\ Over time, Congress has expanded the
eligibility scope of the trust fund to include mass transit, bike
paths, sidewalks, streetcars, and other non-highway surface-
transportation modes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Richard F. Weingroff, ``Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956:
Creating the Interstate System'', Public Roads, Vol. 60, No. 1 (Summer
1996), https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/publicroads/96summer/
p96su10.cfm (accessed April 12, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The most significant change to the Highway Trust Fund came in 1982,
when Congress and the Reagan administration agreed to create a separate
fund that diverts gas tax revenue toward mass transit. \2\ Currently,
the shorthand way of describing Highway Trust Fund spending is that
highways receive 80 percent, and mass transit receives 20 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Jeff Davis, ``Reagan Devolution: The Real Story of the 1982
Gas Tax Increase'', Eno Center for Transportation, September 9, 2015,
https://www.enotrans.org/etl-material/reagandevolution-the-real-story-
of-the-1982-gas-tax-increase-2 (accessed April 12, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the transit funding diversion has been the status quo for
nearly 40 years, it is worth examining the underpinnings of this
policy. I believe that the diversion has created a multitude of
problems that legislators should address.
First, the transit diversion represents a significant departure
from the ``user pays, user benefits'' principle, which exists to
promote fairness and discourage free riding for one group at the
expense of another. While the Federal gas tax is not a perfect user
fee, in general it has meant that drivers are paying for the cost of
building and operating the national highway system. \3\ Similar funding
mechanisms exist for airports and harbors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Federal spending on highways has overtaken gas tax revenue in
recent years. However, on a historical basis, gas tax revenues have
exceeded highway spending. The depletion of the Highway Trust Fund was
caused primarily by diversions, such as to mass transit. See, David A.
Ditch and Nicolas D. Loris, ``Improving Surface Transportation Through
Federalism'', Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3450, November 12,
2019, https://www.heritage.org/budget-andspending/report/improving-
surface-transportation-through-federalism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In contrast, mass transit users do not pay into the Highway Trust
Fund, which means that the trnsit account has represented a long-term
transfer from automobile users to users of public transportation. It is
also a transfer from rural areas to urban areas, since mass transit is
not a meaningful part of transportation for rural Americans. Both types
of transfers are unfair.
The transit diversion is also a significant factor in the Highway
Trust Fund's growing annual deficit. Between 25 percent and 30 percent
of Highway Trust Fund spending does not go to the fund's original
purpose. \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Removing diversions to transit and other nonhighway programs would
bring the fund close to balance, at which point mild reforms to highway
policy could close the gap entirely.
Second, Federal transit funding is wildly disproportionate relative
to its share of transportation use.
As of 2019, roughly 5 percent of commuting was done through public
transportation, far less than its share of Federal funding. \5\ This is
the case despite the high level of total subsidies for transit systems,
which derive less than one-third of their funds from user fees on
average, especially outside of the New York City metropolitan area. \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ United States Census Bureau, ``American Community Survey
2019'', Table B08119, https://data.census.gov/cedsci/
table?q=b08119&tid=ACSDT1Y2019.B08119&hidePreview=false (accessed April
12, 2021).
\6\ Federal Transit Administration, ``2019 Data Tables'', https://
www.transit.dot.gov/ntd/data-product/2019-datatables (accessed April
12, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federally mandated funding formulas force even highly rural States
to send a significant portion of their highway bill allotment to mass
transit. \7\ Transit funds are allocated to metropolitan areas above
50,000 people, which means that there are qualifying metro areas in
each State. However, the transit needs for a metro area of under 1
million people are extremely limited, which means that residents of
low-density States get very little value from transit spending. This
exemplifies the folly of one-size-fits-all Federal policies, along with
the sorts of problems that come with the Federal Government involving
itself in an issue that is relevant at local and regional levels but
not nationally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Federal Transit Administration, ``Table 3: FY2019 Section 5307
and 5340 Urbanized Area Formula Appropriations (Full Year)'', last
updated August 30, 2019, https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/
apportionments/table-3-fy-2019-section-5307-and-5340-urbanized-
areaformula-appropriations (accessed April 12, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disproportionate aid to transit systems was also present in COVID-
19 relief legislation. Bills passed in 2020 contained $37 billion in
payments to mass transit systems, which had suffered a sharp drop in
fare revenue during the pandemic. \8\ This would have been more than
sufficient to cover transit losses in fiscal years (FYs) 2020 and 2021,
since revenue from transit users is just over $20 billion per year, and
since COVID-19 did not strike until well into FY2020. \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, ``COVID Money
Tracker'', https://www.covidmoneytracker.org (accessed April 12, 2021.
\9\ Federal Transit Administration, ``2019 Data Tables''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, Congress then provided an additional $30 billion to
transit agencies in March 2021. \10\ That brought the total amount of
COVID-19 transit relief to $67 billion--roughly three full years of
user fees. Since user revenue did not drop to zero during the pandemic,
this means that transit agencies received a net financial benefit due
to the size of the relief payments. Congress should take this fact into
consideration when setting funding levels for the mass transit account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, ``COVID Money
Tracker''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, continual large-scale subsidies for transit agencies have
turned these agencies into inefficient jobs programs rather than public
service providers.
Based on my examination of budgets for major transit agencies,
labor costs represent 60 percent to 80 percent of operating expenses.
The total cost per employee is staggering in city after city: $151,000
in New York, \11\ $144,000 in Washington, DC, \12\ $120,000 in
Philadelphia, \13\ $187,000 in San Francisco, \14\ $112,000 in Chicago,
\15\ $136,000 in Los Angeles, \16\ and $91,000 in Atlanta. \17\
Employee compensation at transit agencies is well above average for
each of the respective metro areas, \18\ and well above average for
private sector transportation work. \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Metropolitan Transportation Authority, ``MTA 2021 Adopted
Budget'', February 2021, https://new.mta.info/document/30186 (accessed
April 12, 2021).
\12\ Operational employees only. See, Washington Metropolitan Area
Transit Authority, ``FY 2022 Proposed Budget'', https://www.wmata.com/
about/records/upload/Proposed-FY2022-Budget.pdf (accessed April 12,
2021).
\13\ Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, ``Fiscal
Year 2021 Operating Budget'', https://planning.septa.org/wpcontent/
uploads/2021/02/Operating-Budget-FY2021.pdf (accessed April 12, 2021).
\14\ Bay Area Rapid Transit, ``Fiscal Year 2021 Adopted Budget'',
https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/
FY21%20Adopted%20Budget%20Manual%20Final%2009.23x.pdf (accessed April
12, 2021).
\15\ Chicago Transit Authority, ``Public Transit: An Essential Key
to Recovery--President's 2021 Budget Recommendations'', https://
www.transitchicago.com/assets/1/6/FY2021-BUDGET-BOOK-FINAL-(Online-
Version).pdf (accessed April 12, 2021).
\16\ Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority, ``Fiscal
Year 2021 Adopted Budget'', https://media.metro.net/2020/FY21-Adopted-
Budget.pdf (accessed April 12, 2021).
\17\ Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, ``FY2021
Proposed Budget Book'', June 2020, https://www.itsmarta.com/
uploadedfiles/FY21-Proposed-Budget-Book.pdf (accessed April 12, 2021).
\18\ Bureau of Economic Analysis, ``Personal Income by County,
Metro, and Other Areas'', 2019, https://www.bea.gov/data/income-saving/
personalincome-county-metro-and-other-areas (accessed April 12, 2021).
\19\ Bureau of Labor Statistics, ``Employer Costs for Employee
Compensation for Private Industry Workers by Occupational and Industry
Group'' (December 2020), March 18, 2021, https://www.bls.gov/
news.release/ecec.t04.htm (accessed April 12, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is important to note that base salaries are not driving the
transit-worker compensation premium. Instead, it is overtime pay,
defined benefit pension plans, and other fringe benefits that boost
compensation to such astonishing levels. The conflict of interest that
is present in negotiations between transit-worker labor unions and
metro-area officials, coupled with layers of subsidies, has allowed the
rapid growth of pension and health-benefit costs to continue unabated
for decades.
If transit agencies prioritized self-sufficiency and the needs of
customers the way a business does, they would provide better service
with the same amount--or a smaller amount--of taxpayer assistance.
Reining in the unsustainable growth of fringe benefits would allow room
in transit budgets to hire more workers and increase the frequency of
buses and trains, which would benefit transit users, or allow budgets
and subsidies to shrink, which would benefit taxpayers, or a
combination of the two. Instead, transit agencies consistently make
politically motivated choices to prioritize high employee compensation.
This pattern was exemplified recently when some transit agencies
threatened severe service reductions if they did not receive a new
round of Federal COVID-19 relief. \20\ Rather than adjusting budgets by
reforming exorbitant fringe benefits, these agencies chose to maximize
public anxiety over service cuts in order to pressure Federal
legislators for additional bailouts. \21\ When the bailouts
materialized, transit agencies were able to avoid making tough choices
on compensation, temporarily sustaining the flawed status quo. \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Justin George, ``Here's What To Know About Metro's Proposed
Service Cuts'', Washington Post, December 3, 2020, https://
www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2020/12/03/metro-budget-cuts-faq/
(accessed April 12, 2021), and David A. Ditch, ``Blame Unions for NY
Transit Agency's Deep Red Ink. A Federal Bailout Won't Fix That'', The
Daily Signal, December 1, 2020, https://www.heritage.org/
transportation/commentary/blame-unions-ny-transit-agencys-deep-red-ink-
federalbailout-wont-fix.
\21\ Using highly visible service cuts to pressure legislators
into approving additional funding is sometimes referred to as
Washington Monument Syndrome. See, Daniel J. Mitchell, ``The
`Washington Monument Syndrome' Backfires in Massachusetts'', Cato
Institute blog, July 15, 2009, https://www.cato.org/blog/washington-
monumentsyndrome-backfires-massachusetts (accessed April 12, 2021).
\22\ David Meyer, ``MTA Calls Off Wage Freeze After Biden Signs
COVID-19 Stimulus'', New York Post, March 11, 2021, https://nypost.com/
2021/03/11/mtacalls-off-wage-freeze-after-biden-signs-covid-stimulus/
(accessed April 12, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another accountability flaw is the nontransparent nature of the gas
tax diversion to the mass transit fund. Transit agencies are guaranteed
to receive a preset amount of gas tax revenue regardless of how they
perform their duties. Since most drivers are unaware of the diversion,
they have no incentive to monitor transit performance. This disconnect
significantly reduces the incentives for transit agencies to use their
funds prudently.
The fourth problem with continuing substantial Federal transit
subsidies is the uncertainty surrounding the postpandemic
transportation environment.
One of the key purposes of mass transit is providing a
transportation option for people to use during daily work commutes,
whether they live downtown or in the suburbs.
The COVID-19 pandemic led to a surge in remote work, especially for
white-collar jobs that are prevalent in city office buildings. One can
reasonably expect that most people who currently work remotely will
return to office commutes as vaccinations finally bring the pandemic
under control. However, one can also expect a permanent increase in
remote work compared to 2019, as some people commute only a few days
per week and others hardly commute at all.
This permanent increase in remote work will have a two-fold effect
on transit compared to before the pandemic. First, it will directly
reduce transit use due to the lower volume of commuters. Second, it
will reduce the volume of people who commute by car. This could further
reduce transit use if there is a reduction in rush hour traffic
congestion, leading some transit users to switch to commuting by car.
The question is not whether remote work will reduce the long-term need
for transit, but rather the degree of that change.
Considering the problems outlined above, continuing or increasing
the status quo of Federal transit subsidies would be a poor use of
public funds.
Rather than throwing good money after bad, Congress should use this
year's highway bill to promote reforms that will increase the value of
Federal transit spending.
The first option would be to provide flexibility to low-density
States regarding how much of their Highway Trust Fund allocation they
must spend on transit. This flexibility would enable these States to
better match their transportation spending with the needs of their
residents.
Second, the Federal Government should reduce or eliminate funding
for projects to expand transit systems. Since existing transit
infrastructure is significantly underused, there is no reason to
subsidize expansion.
Third, the Federal Government should eliminate mandates, such as
the Davis-Bacon Act and ``Buy American'' rules, which increase the cost
of transit construction projects. \23\ Alternately, the U.S. Department
of Transportation should be allowed to issue waivers on a project-by-
project basis if a State can show that a given regulation will
substantially increase the project's cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ David A. Ditch, Nicolas D. Loris, and Adam N. Michel,
``Highway Bill Reauthorization: Three Do's, Three Don'ts'', Heritage
Foundation Backgrounder No. 3585, February 18, 2021, https://
www.heritage.org/budget-andspending/report/highway-bill-
reauthorization-three-dosthree-donts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fourth, the Federal Government should reduce or eliminate the
practice of cross-subsidizing users of one mode of transportation at
the expense of users of a different mode, especially as it relates to
the Highway Trust Fund. This would improve transparency, fairness, and
the financial health of the trust fund.
I hope that Members of the Committee will take full advantage of
the opportunity they have to reform Federal transit policy with this
year's highway bill.
Thank you.
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF CHAIRMAN BROWN
FROM DARRYL HALEY
Q.1. What can our Committee do to allow the Capital Investment
Grants program to build Bus Rapid Transit projects faster in
Cincinnati and other cities?
A.1. Thank you for the question. On behalf of the transit
industry, there are several changes that the Banking Committee
could make to the Capital Investment Grants (CIG) program to
facilitate Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) projects moving faster
through the CIG evaluation, rating, and approval process.
First, the vast majority of the BRT projects that have been
funded by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is Small
Starts projects. As a Small Start, these projects have a lower
capital cost and are considerably less complex as compared to a
rail project, whether that be streetcar, light rail, commuter
rail, or heavy rail. Yet, the FTA ratings and evaluation
process uses the same criteria and requires the development of
the same documentation as more complex projects advanced as New
Starts. We encourage Congress to expand the use of warrants for
all six project justification criteria to simply the process
and lower the cost of preparing the information for FTA to rate
and evaluate the projects.
Second, in a related point, Congress should direct FTA to
develop project justification criteria specifically for Small
Starts projects that reflects their lower cost and comparable
impact on land use, economic development, and housing as
compared to New Starts. At present, they are held to the same
project justification measures as New Starts projects despite
their lower cost and lower financial risk to the FTA.
Third, the thresholds for Small Starts projects actually
discourage the advancement of BRT projects since project
sponsors are automatically in an overmatch situation when the
project cost exceeds $125 million in capital cost since the
statute limits Small Starts funding to no more than $100
million CIG funding. The threshold for total capital should be
increased to $400 million to reflect the increasing cost of
projects and CIG share raised to $320 million to be consistent
with the statutory ratio of 80 percent Federal and 20 percent
non-CIG funding. These numbers should then be adjusted for
inflation based on the construction cost index to keep pace
with the capital cost of infrastructure construction projects.
Lastly, I would urge the Committee to amend the statute to
allow expenditures incurred prior to entry into Project
Development (PD) to count as ``local match'' for the project
when it receives a grant agreement. At present, all
expenditures prior to entry into PD are not credited as part of
the local investment in a project.
------
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR SINEMA
FROM DARRYL HALEY
Q.1. Across the country, in both urban and rural areas, transit
infrastructure is crucial for Americans to grow the economy and
connect families. The CIG prograrn fonds transit capital
investments, including heavy rail, commuter rail, light rail,
streetcars, and bus rapid transit. Many Arizona communities are
interested in utilizing CIG support for transit projects. How
can we best ensure that CIG program funds are available to
support transit projects in all comrnunities, urban and rural,
throughout the country?
A.1. Thank you for the question. Capital Investment Grants
provide critical investments for new and expanded subways,
light rail, commuter rail, streetcars, and BRT, among others.
To best ensure that CIG program funds are available to support
transit projects in all communities, urban and rural throughout
the country, SORTA stands in support of the recommendation of
the American Public Transit Association (APTA) to strongly urge
the Committee to conduct a zero-based review of the CIG program
to assess all statutory, regulatory, and other administrative
requirements.
Unfortunately, the CIG program has shifted from an
efficient public transportation capital program that can build
good projects while protecting taxpayer dollars to a grant
program that has requirements above and beyond that of
comparable modes--such as highway grant programs. Today, a CIG
project sponsor faces almost 60,000 words of Federal statutory
law, regulations, and administrative guidance under the
program. Comparatively, a Federal-aid Highway INFRA Grant
applicant faces less than one quarter of the statutory language
of the CIG program and no specific regulations. These
burdensome requirements cause significant delay in project
approvals, which result in considerable increases in project
costs prior to construction.
Additionally, we ask Congress to reestablish a 40-40-20
capital investment ratio among the CIG, State of Good Repair,
and Buses and Bus Facilities program. Historically, Congress
allocated funding on a 40-40-20 basis among the CIG, State of
Good Repair and Buses and Bus Facilities programs. Our
Recommendations provide significant increases for the CIG,
State of Good Repair and Buses and Bus Facilities programs.
Additionally, Bus and Bus Facilities received a General Fund
plus-up for the past 3 fiscal years, while the CIG funds,
unlike most of the programs receiving General Fund plus-ups,
have been cut during the past several fiscal years. In growing
each program, APTA believes that a relative distribution of 40
percent for CIG, 40 percent for State of Good Repair, and 20
percent for Buses and Bus Facilities is the fairest allocation
of funding for these three capital investment programs.
------
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR DAINES
FROM DARRYL HALEY
Q.1. Efficient and effective transit programs are critical in
rural States like Montana--and it's not just subways like
people see in big cities. Busses and vans are a lifeline for
folks without cars to get to and from work or for seniors and
the disabled to get to doctors' appointments or to pharmacies
to get lifesaving medications.
Do you agree that an effective Federal transit program is
critical for rural States and communities?
A.1. Yes, I do agree that an effective Federal transit program
is critical for rural States and communities.
Q.2. One thing I hear constantly when talking with various
groups is the onerous regulatory and reporting requirements
from FTA. In some cases, this has resulted in additional staff
being needed just to deal with meeting these requirement. This
is obviously burdensome for a rural community that may not have
the resources needed to bring on additional staff.
Do you agree that surface transportation reauthorization
should reduce complexities and onerous requirements so that
communities are better able to put these dollars to work?
A.2. Yes, I do agree that surface transportation
reauthorization should reduce complexities and onerous
requirements so that communities are better able to put these
dollars to work.
------
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF CHAIRMAN BROWN
FROM JOHN SAMUELSEN
Q.1. President Samuelsen, some have suggested that transit
agencies could replace current services by paitnering with
transportation network companies, like Uber or Lyft, to provide
service. Do those companies have the long-term interests of
riders, communities and workers in mind? What happens if we
reduce or break apart our current network of fixed bus routes,
and as an aiternative, what should transit agencies do to offer
more innovative service?
A.1. These transportation network companies have demonstrated
that they do not have the interests of the transit community in
mind. These companies have a demonstrated history of ignoring
environmental, labor, safety, and other laws, leaving
destruction in their wake. There is no reason to believe that
they would suddenly change their practices and become a
positive influence if they are allowed to supplant or replace
transit systems.
Our public transit systems are long-term infrastructure
investments built over decades to provide dependable service to
communities. Dismantling those systems in order to replace them
with outsourced ridesharing services would expose communities
to a great deal of risk. As a reminder, none of these
ridesharing companies have yet to show a profit--they are
currently massively subsidized by their investors and seeking
to massive subsidies from our Government instead. What happens
when these services go bankrupt? Relying on transportation
network companies for public transportation is, at best, a
short-term patch to real transit needs that would be better
addressed by expanding our existing systems.
Instead of outsourcing services like this, transit agencies
should follow the lead of systems like COTA in Columbus, Ohio,
which has created a dynamic, point-to-point paratransit service
staffed by TWU members working for the transit agency. This
service provides the same benefits touted by the transportation
network companies, but without many of the negative effects
those companies bring. COTA was able to make this service
happen by actively working with the TWU and our members to
address the problems riders were reporting to the frontline
workforce. By incorporating the frontline workforce into the
project from the start, COTA was able to create new and
innovative service that functions better for their riders than
Uber could ever hope to.
------
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR SINEMA
FROM JOHN SAMUELSEN
Q.1. Many small cities have a robust and successful transit
system, including several in Arizona. Flagstaff and its
Mountain Line is an excellent example of such a city transit
system. The Small Transit Intensive Cities Program (STIC),
which rewards highly efficient small transit systems, has been
incredibly successful over the years. I have a bill to expand
that program and support those small cities. Do you support
that bill?
A.1. The STIC program has been a great source of funding for
smaller cities. The cities that are taking advantage of these
funds enjoy many benefits that larger cities cannot access with
their Federal investments. These systems, for instance, get to
use their Federal funds to support operations while the larger
systems are restricted to solely capital projects. All systems
should have this kind of flexibility to better serve their
communities--large or small.
------
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR DAINES
FROM JOHN SAMUELSEN
Q.1. Efficient and effective transit programs are critical in
rural States like Montana--and it's not just subways like
people see in big cities. Busses and vans are a lifeline for
folks without cars to get to and from work or for seniors and
the disabled to get to doctors' appointments or to pharmacies
to get lifesaving medications.
Do you agree that an effective Federal transit program is
critical for rural States and communities?
A.1. Absolutely. Public transit, supported by Federal, State,
and local governments, is essential for every community.
Q.2. One thing I hear constantly when talking with various
groups is the onerous regulatory and repmting requirements from
FTA. In some cases, this has resulted in additional staff being
needed just to deal with meeting these requirement. This is
obviously burdensome for a rural community that may not have
the resources needed to bring on additional staff.
Do you agree that surface transpmtation reauthorization
should reduce complexities and onerous requirements so that
communities are better able to put these dollars to work?
A.2. The TWU believes that a better way to address these
concerns would be to empower the FTA to provide more support
for transit agencies to help them plan and manage their
responsibilities. We agree that as much money as possible
should be going into providing public transportation services.
The FTA's requirements are intentionally designed for that to
happen in a manner that is consistent with the public interest.
If the FTA had more resources, they could potentially provide
more support for smaller agencies to help them navigate the
process and, ultimately, produce better results for all
communities.
------
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR DAINES
FROM BETH OSBORNE
Q.1. Efficient and effective transit programs are critical in
rural States like Montana--and it's not just subways like
people see in big cities. Buses and vans are a lifeline for
folks without cars to get to and from work or for seniors and
the disabled to get to doctors' appointments or to pharmacies
to get lifesaving medications.
Do you agree that an effective Federal transit program is
critical for rural States and communities?
A.1. Absolutely. More than 1 million rural households have no
access to a car. Based on the latest American Community Survey
(ACS), there are 292 counties in the U.S. where at least 10
percent of households don't have access to a car, out of 3,142
total counties nationwide. Fifty-six percent of them are
majority rural. Rural Americans without cars face unique
barriers, and they deserve a tailored approach to their transit
needs rather than just assuming they can or will drive
everywhere. Rural transit was hit hard by COVID, but it is so
underfunded that it is always on the edge. But many areas have
created impressive transit service and we can learn from them,
including Burlington, NC; Paris, TX; and Washington State. It
is time for the U.S. to create a true rural transit program
designed to connect people in rural communities to job and
service centers. That will require transit that connects spread
out communities rather than connected neighborhoods in urban
America, but it is something we can do and just as important.
It is incredibly frustrating and dismissive when opposition to
transit is expressed through statements like ``transit is for
urban areas'' or ``rural Americans drive.'' What we are really
saying is ``rural American are on their own.''
Q.2. One thing I hear constantly when talking with various
groups is the onerous regulatory and reporting requirements
from FTA. In some cases, this has resulted in additional staff
being needed just to deal with meeting these requirement. This
is obviously burdensome for a rural community that may not have
the resources needed to bring on additional staff.
Do you agree that surface transportation reauthorization
should reduce complexities and onerous requirements so that
communities are better able to put these dollars to work?
A.2. There is an interesting history behind many of these
regulations. When problems with the surface transportation are
raised, the bipartisan agreement reached is often agreement to
apply good Government improvements--to the transit program.
That is even true when the problem raised is from the highway
program. In fact, over 2017-2018, beyond the regulatory
requirements, USDOT required transit agencies to repeat many
analyses within a short period of time in an effort to slow
deployment.
Congress should stop treating transit as the service funded
only as much as they have to so that transit doesn't closed. It
is time for a highway-style commitment in funding, intention
and goals to transit.
------
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR CRAPO
FROM BARUCH FEIGENBAUM
Q.1. How do you propose to ensure that rural transit gets the
resources it needs for those who are truly transit-dependent
and is not overshadowed by large, urban systems? These systems
have often allowed themselves to fall into a state of disrepair
and seeking Federal dollars to bring then into a state of good
repair is not only fiscally irresponsible but takes away
resources from rural communities, like those in Idaho.
Do you agree that support for transit in rural States and
areas is an essential part of the transit portion of surface
transportation reauthorization?
A.1. I believe that all transit systems should get a
proportionate share of Federal transportation dollars. Support
for transit in rural States and regions is a critical part of
the transit title in the surface transportation reauthorization
bill. The funding formula should be based on the number of
unlinked transit trips, and the number of miles that transit
vehicles travel with passengers. Many rural systems have fewer
transit vehicles, traveling longer distances. Therefore, it is
important to take distance into consideration.
There are more than 1,000 transit systems nationwide that
receive Federal funding, and the majority are small systems
with a limited number of routes. While some believe that low-
income transit-dependent riders live in urban areas only, many
transit dependent riders live in suburban, exurban, and rural
areas. In fact, as the economy stagnates in some rural areas,
the number of transit dependent rural riders is expected to
grow by more than 20 percent.
It is also critical that transit systems receive State and
or local support. Mass transit is inherently a local service.
In most cases transit systems do not cross State lines, and do
not support interstate commerce. As a result, mass transit
sytems should be funded primarily at the State and local level.
Federal funds should be considered a supplement, not the main
source of funding.
------
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR DAINES
FROM BARUCH FEIGENBAUM
Q.1. Efficient and effective transit programs are critical in
rural States like Montana--and it's not just subways like
people see in big cities. Busses and vans are a lifeline for
folks without cars to get to and from work or for seniors and
the disabled to get to doctors' appointments or to pharmacies
to get lifesaving medications.
Do you agree that an effective Federal transit program is
critical for rural States and communities?
A.1. There are almost 1,000 transit systems nationwide that
receive Federal funding, and the majority are small systems
with a limited number of routes. While some believe that low-
income transit-dependent riders live in urban areas only, many
transit dependent riders live in suburban, exurban, and rural
areas. In fact, as the economy stagnates in some rural areas,
the number of transit dependent rural riders is expected to
grow by more than 20 percent.
Paratransit, also known as demand response service, plays a
critical role in transporting the elderly and those with
disabilities to work, the grocery store, and doctor's
appointments. Across the country, there are more than 2,000
agencies that provide some level of demand response service.
Many are not traditional transit providers but rather community
centers, churches, or other nonprofit providers.
It is critical that Federal transit support be mode
neutral. Currently, many of the mass transit funding formulas
are written in favor of major metro areas with large rail
systems. Larger metro areas, particularly the six legacy rail
regions of New York, Chicago, Washington, San Francisco,
Philadelphia, and Boston do have more riders, and these regions
should receive more funding. However, metro areas and rural
areas that offer bus-only service or demand response service
should not be short-changed in the process.
Q.2. One thing I hear constantly when talking with various
groups is the onerous regulatory and reporting requirements
from FTA. In some cases, this has resulted in additional staff
being needed just to deal with meeting these requirement. This
is obviously burdensome for a rural community that may not have
the resources needed to bring on additional staff.
Do you agree that surface transportation reauthorization
should reduce complexities and onerous requirements so that
communities are better able to put these dollars to work?
A.2. Transit agencies find regulatory requirements to be one of
the most frustrating parts of operations. Using staff members
to complete reporting requirements takes resources away from
purchasing vehicles and operating service. I believe that the
Federal Transit Administration (FTA)should streamline reporting
requirements, particularly those for service operation, for
agencies that operate only one mode (local bus or demand
response service) while keeping more stringent requirements for
multimodal agencies.
At the same time, basic transit reporting standards are
important. FTA produces the National Transit Database, which is
a very comprehensive guide to taxpayer funded transit system
across the countries. Any transit agencies that receive Federal
funding need to be accountable to taxpayers. For accountability
purposes, agencies need to report basic service information
including hours of service, vehicles purchased, and number of
customers using the service.
------
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR DAINES
FROM DAVID DITCH
Q.1. Efficient and effective transit programs are critical in
rural States like Montana--and it's not just subways like
people see in big cities. Busses and vans are a lifeline for
folks without cars to get to and from work or for seniors and
the disabled to get to doctors' appointments or to pharmacies
to get lifesaving medications.
Do you agree that an effective Federal transit program is
critical for rural States and communities?
A.1. An effective transportation program for rural communities
would be one that provides flexibility to meet the on the
ground conditions, not mandates from Washington. As I stated in
my testimony, public transit in urban areas is overly
subsidized and far from cost-effective. Public transit for low-
density areas requires significantly higher subsidies per user
due to the lack of demand as a percent of travel and the
logistical challenges caused by the distance between locations.
Developing a robust rural transit program would require an
enormous amount of money. Further, rural public transit is not
something the Federal Government should be responsible for.
Nonprofits, State and local governments, and private
transportation services are more appropriate for addressing
these needs.
Q.2. One thing I hear constantly when talking with various
groups is the onerous regulatory and reporting requirements
from FTA. In some cases, this has resulted in additional staff
being needed just to deal with meeting these requirement. This
is obviously burdensome for a rural community that may not have
the resources needed to bring on additional staff.
Do you agree that surface transportation reauthorization
should reduce complexities and onerous requirements so that
communities are better able to put these dollars to work?
A.2. I agree. The Highway Trust Fund is highly convoluted. It
requires gathering gas tax revenue from drivers across the
country, sending the funds to Washington, DC, then sending
funds to State Governments that receive and disburse funds
based on formulas. The States must then receive Federal
approval for project selection and implementation before work
can begin, as projects are subject to Federal rules regarding
wages, labor practices, material sourcing, environmental
effects, and more. Reducing the burden of Federal project
mandates through reforms, consolidations, and eliminations to
these rules would necessarily reduce costs and delays for State
and local governments, improving the value of Federal
infrastructure spending. An even better approach would be to
remove barriers to infrastructure funding for private investors
and State and local governments (such as the prohibition on
highway tolls for most of the country), allowing them to
perform the work themselves and cutting the gordian knot of
Federal bureaucracy.
[all]