SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1999
Tuesday, February 3, 1998.
TESTIMONY OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND OTHER INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS
REGIONAL PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, CITY OF PHOENIX, AND CITY OF TEMPE
WITNESSES
HON. NEIL GIULIANO, MAYOR, CITY OF TEMPE, ARIZONA AND CHAIRMAN, REGIONAL PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS
VALERIE MANNING, PRESIDENT AND CEO, PHOENIX CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
Opening Remarks
Mr. WOLF. The hearing will come to order.
We are a few minutes early, but we have a lot of witnesses and we just felt we would start now. I would just ask everybody that when the red light comes on, if you could just begin to summarize and end quickly, I would appreciate it. We have about 62 witnesses so we're going to be here all day. There will be an opportunity, too, for people to come back and ask you questions through the mail, to submit questions to you. But out of courtesy to the people asking can you guarantee that I won't miss my flight here or my flight there, if we can keep on schedule, it would be very, very helpful.
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So with that, beginning a little bit early, I want to welcome you. You can submit your full statement for the record and proceed as you see fit, subject to the fact of the light. And I apologize for that. I wish we didn't really have to do this. I wish we could stay here and just let you talk. But because of where we are and the time limits, we're restricted to that.
So, Mayor, you may proceed.
Mayor GIULIANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate the opportunity to be here. My name is Neil Giuliano. I am the Chair of the Regional Public Transportation Authority and the Mayor of Tempe, Arizona. It is an honor to be here to appear before you as you prepare for the fiscal year 1999 transportation appropriations bill.
With me today is Valerie Manning, who is the President and CEO of the Phoenix Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber represents 3,300 businesses in our Phoenix metropolitan area. The Phoenix Chamber, as well as the Tempe Chamber, supports our fiscal year 1999 appropriation request by the cities of Phoenix, Tempe, and the RPTA.
The Phoenix metropolitan area is one of the fastest growing regions in the country. Our Maricopa County population exceeds 2.5 million and is expected to grow by over 70 percent in the next 20 years.
Phoenix is the 7th largest city, the 14th largest urbanized area in the country, and our transit system is really lagging and is only the 34th largest in terms of passenger trips made. In addition, we're among only three of the twenty largest metropolitan areas that have not constructed a fixed guideway system.
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In September of 1996 residents of my City of Tempe approved a one-half cent sales tax dedicated to improving the transit system within Tempe. Our significant expansion program is currently being implemented and will continue to be connected to the region over the next five years. Other cities in the Valley are also developing plans to expand their transit services.
Our metropolitan area has expressed a significant interest in implementing passenger rail service to help relieve congestion in heavily travelled corridors and improve our regional mobility. Last January, our Maricopa County Association of Governments adopted an 18-mile base-fixed guideway corridor into the region's long-range transportation plan, a corridor that would connect Phoenix, Tempe, and Mesa.
During the past year, our Central Phoenix East Valley major investment study was conducted in an important transportation corridor and it is expected to be completed this month. The study will recommend a 13-mile light rail transit segment between Phoenix and Tempe be implemented. In addition, bus service expansion is recommended within the corridor as well.
Our appropriation request for fiscal year 1999 includes two elements. There is a serious need to replace old polluting buses in Phoenix, and to expand the bus fleet to coincide with major immediate expansions in Tempe as well as some expansions in Scottsdale and Glendale. The total fleet request includes 129 buses and the Federal funding request is $34.4 million. All of these buses will be alternatively fueled using liquified natural gas as required by State air quality legislation. In addition, all the buses will be fully accessible to persons with disabilities.
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The second component of our request includes continued funding for the 13-mile LRT corridor which I just described. Last year's appropriations bill approved $4 million which will be used for preliminary engineering/environmental work and emergency land acquisition. The Federal fiscal year 1999 funding request is to complete final design. Our request is for $8 million and assumes a 50 percent local match ratio. With continued Federal support, we anticipate the first segment of the LRT to be ready for operation in the year 2003.
We believe our Phoenix metropolitan area is long overdue with regard to a fair share of Federal transit funding. Last year we were fortunate enough to receive $8.5 million appropriation from Congress for bus purchases and rail planning. We're thankful for those funds which we are over-matching to provide the maximum leverage of Federal dollars. However, as one of the largest metropolitan areas in the Nation, we have growing traffic congestion, mobility constraints, and air quality concerns that must be addressed beginning now. With your help, we can take an important step towards solving our region's transportation issues.
We understand the demands of the committee and understand the entire Congress has needs in meeting local and regional transportation infrastructure needs. We thank you very much for giving us this time to be before you today and for your thoughtful consideration for our projects that are taking place within the Phoenix metropolitan region.
Mr. WOLF. I thank you very much. I appreciate your testimony, and Mr. Pastor has been very supportive of your efforts. We do appreciate the over-match, too. I think that's a very significant thing. So I thank you very much. I have no questions. We may have some questions for the record.
Mr. Packard.
Mr. PACKARD. I have no questions.
Mr. WOLF. Thank you.
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mayor GIULIANO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mayor Giuliano follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Tuesday, February 3, 1998.
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT OF DENVER
WITNESS
HON. DIANA DeGETTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Mr. WOLF. Welcome, Congresswoman DeGette. I appreciate your taking the time to come.
Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Packard. I'm glad to be back here again this year testifying before this subcommittee about an issue that Congressman Dan Shaefer, my colleague to the West, and I have been working very hard on, which is the western expansion of our light rail project in Colorado. Most of this project is in Mr. Shaefer's district, but part of it is in my district as well.
The Regional Transportation District (RTD) in Colorado is seeking an appropriation of $60 million for fiscal year 1999. I know that this committee has a hard task ahead of it in allocating this money, and I appreciate working cooperatively with you on these projects.
We were very pleased by last year's appropriation which enabled us to continue with the planning and construction of this southwest light rail expansion. I will say that the project is moving along well; we now have the core light rail in place. I've been remarkably impressed at how well this light rail system is working. Many of us were dubious about it when it was first constructed, but it has very high ridership and is quite successful.
The southwestern expansion through Congressman Shaefer's district is the next expansion of this light rail. I think once we complete that we can move forward to construct a world class transit system.
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
RTD is continuing its progress in the southwest corridor and there will be three major activity centers served by the southwest expansion: First of all, the Denver central business district because the expansion will connect to the existing light rail; secondly, a major retail and commercial facility in Englewood which is currently undergoing substantial redevelopment; and finally, the Littleton central business district. This project will also provide residents of Douglas County, which is the fastest growing county in Colorado and one of the two or three fastest growing counties in the country, with light rail and mass transit to the central Denver area.
The reason why Congressman Shaefer and I are working so hard on this, as well as our colleagues in the RTD and the State, is because it will provide major economic benefits for the region. In the first year of operation, the southwest light rail project is projected to provide its passengers with a 56 percent travel time-savings as compared to the same trip by automobile. By 2015, the light rail project is expected to cut auto travel time in half, saving its 22,000 passengers over 25 minutes per trip. In addition, the southwest corridor light rail project allows RTD to operate more efficiently. By the year 2015, RTD can provide this light rail service at $2.60 per passenger trip compared to a similar trip by bus that would cost $3.10.
And let me add, the way the growth patterns are occurring right now in Colorado, so much of the pressure is along two central transportation routes. We really need to find some kind of alternative like light rail to the current auto trips. We simply don't have the resources to expand those highway systems.
Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I would say we think this is our top priority. There are also two other priorities which we have been working on and we talked to the committee about last year. One is the Broadway viaduct in Denver which has received bridge priority funding over the last number of years, and the other one is the multimodal transportation at the former Stapleton Airport. I would simply ask your permission to submit testimony as to those projects in writing.
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. WOLF. Without objection.
Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you very much.
Mr. WOLF. If you could just have the RTD submit too the ridership so we can see how well it's going, what the projections were and how many are riding it.
Ms. DEGETTE. Sure.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. WOLF. Yes, Mr. Packard.
Mr. PACKARD. Madam, does any of your light rail project go underground?
Ms. DEGETTE. No, I don't believe any of it is planned to go underground.
Mr. PACKARD. And does it connect with the new airport?
Ms. DEGETTE. These two segments, the existing segment we have right now does not; obviously, the southwest segment does not. But in the overall plan, we will have a connecting cog to the airport. That's down the road a little bit in the plan.
I will say that the municipalities in the Denver metropolitan area have worked extremely well cooperating, figuring out which leg of the light rail will be built at which time. I believe after we complete the southwest corridor, we're then going to complete the southern corridor which goes through a portion of Congressman Hefley's district, and then on into my district, and then will go up North to the airport after that.
Mr. PACKARD. It does intend though to implement the multimodal concepts that we've tried to include?
Ms. DEGETTE. Absolutely. In fact, this multimodal transportation center that I just spoke of will be at the old Stapleton airport site and will connect the new airport as well as our whole transportation system. I'm very pleased with how well we're working in the metro area to connect all of our forms of mass transit, and we badly need them.
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. PACKARD. Thank you, Congresswoman.
Mr. WOLF. Thank you.
I want to welcome Mr. Cramer, a new member of the committee. I don't know if you would have any questions?
Mr. CRAMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm very pleased to be here.
No, at this point, I don't want to do any grilling. Thank you. [Laughter.]
Ms. DEGETTE. And I promise that we will not paint all of the cars orange and blue, despite our temptation to do so. [Laughter.]
Mr. WOLF. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Diana DeGette follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Tuesday, February 3, 1998.
CENTRAL FLORIDA REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (LYNX)
WITNESSES
HON. BILL McCOLLUM, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
HON. JOHN L. MICA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA LEO AUGER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, LYNX
JOHN TILLIETSON, DIRECTOR, GREATER ORLANDO AVIATION AUTHORITY
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. WOLF. Next, we have Mr. Mica and Mr. McCollum. You can proceed any way you want. If you wish to submit the full statement, it will appear in the record.
Mr. MICA. If I may, Mr. Chairman, Mr. McCollum is far senior and much more intelligent than I. [Laughter.]
Mr. WOLF. Since he's younger than you but he's been here longer, I think that's a good idea.
Mr. MICA. Better looking. More handsome.
Mr. MCCOLLUM. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We all know each other well. John Mica has a great deal of expertise in transportation, so I don't know that seniority needs to come first in this.
I'm just really pleased to be before you today to introduce, along with John, our two very distinguished members from Florida representing the two interests that we have before you. Lee Tillietson, on my far right, John's far right, is with the Greater Orlando Aviation Authority as its principal party here today and main honcho down there, and on my left is Leo Auger, the Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority's chief person, which, as you may know, that's commonly known as LYNX.
We're here in two different ways. They wish to talk to you today, and I strongly support, as I'm sure Mr. Mica does, both the airport interests at Orlando's International Airport, and the major transportation concerns that the area has with regard to both highways and rail and buses. I think the LYNX program with the bus transportation part of this has been terribly important over time. So I strongly support what they have to say.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Bill McCollum follows:]
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I want to thank you and your staff particularly for your interest in our community and for recognizing the problem that we have and the problem that so many others have in meeting transportation needs. Central Florida is particularly hard hit because of it being a primary tourist destination for folks all over the world. We are called upon to really be a gateway for America with tourism.
I would like to introduce first Leo Auger. Leo Auger is testifying for his first time as our new director of the Regional Transit Authority. He replaces Paul Skoutelas, who I think you all have known and worked with before. But we are proud to have him on board. He's addressing, first of all, the overall issue of our Regional Transit Authority.
With that, Mr. Chairman, if we may?
Mr. WOLF. Sure. If you can limit the statement, we would appreciate it.
Mr. MICA. I have a statement——
Mr. WOLF. Your full statement will appear in the record.
Mr. MICA. It's about 4,000 or 5,000 pages.
[The prepared statement of Hon. John Mica follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. WOLF. Welcome, Mr. Auger.
Mr. AUGER. Thank you, Chairman Wolf, members of the subcommittee. I am happy to represent the Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority, the public transportation agency serving the Orlando metropolitan area. LYNX, as it is known locally, serves the counties of Orange, Seminole, and Osceola with a population of over 1.4 million residents through a variety of services which include bus, carpool, vanpool, and door-to-door paratransit.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I greatly appreciate the opportunity to present the testimony today to emphasize the importance of the fiscal year 1999 appropriations, and, in particular, to discuss the high priority capital projects in Central Florida.
We are requesting funds from the Federal Transit Administration under Section 3, Discretionary Capital Grant funds. We are requesting a total of $104 million from Section 3, New Start Program; $43.7 million from Bus and Bus Facilities; and $24 million from the Intermodal Project. The total would be $171.7 million.
The light rail project along Interstate 4, which extends through the entire Orlando metropolitan area, is the major transportation facility serving this region. Virtually all of the region's major attractions and activity centers, including the Orlando central business district, the International Drive district which includes Sea World and Universal Studios, Walt Disney World, and the suburban residential and mixed use centers, are within the Interstate 4 corridor. However, construction of many of the segments of this facility date back to the late 1960's and to the 1970's prior to the area's significant commercial and residential growth. In essence, Interstate 4 is functionally obsolete and incapable of providing existing and future capacity for the regional mobility.
Understanding the importance of developing multimodal transportation solutions, the Florida Department of Transportation adopted a statewide policy of constraining the Florida urban Interstate to no more than six general purpose lanes and four high occupancy vehicle lanes. This FDOT policy also indicates that a fixed guideway public transportation mode shall be used to compliment the highway facility and serve the mobility requirements of the Interstate corridor.
In September of 1992, the Florida Department of Transportation began developing a multimodal master plan to identify the improvement of the Interstate 4 corridor from Polk, the Osceola County line, to I–94 in Volusia County. An initial LRT line would encompass approximately 24 miles. The draft Environmental Impact Statement indicates a light rail transit line from State Route 434 in Longwood in Seminole County to the Orlando, Orange County International Drive tourist district.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The implementing agency, LYNX, is requesting a Federal support for additional design, right-of-way acquisition, yard and shop land acquisition, utility relocation, vehicle requirements, initial construction activities, and construction management for the initial LRT segment, or the minimal operating segment from Central Florida Parkway near Sea World to Livingston Street in downtown Orlando. The estimated cost for this segment is $548 million.
The Florida Department of Transportation has already committed 25 percent of the capital funding needed for this segment. And with the assistance of Orange County and the City of Orlando, LYNX is securing 25 percent, or approximately $137 million in additional funds from local/private enterprise, from the local business community. The increment of funds requested for this work for the upcoming fiscal year is $104 million.
Let me briefly describe our other projects.
The Transit Bus Project. In order to meet the growing needs of the Orlando metropolitan area, LYNX is requesting funds to purchase 50 new coaches. The Federal funding request for this purchase is $12.5 million to continue to replace the aging buses and to expand the bus fleet.
The new operating facility required. The current LYNX operations and maintenance base was designed for approximately 110 buses. Today it is handling over 195 buses and over 400 employees. As early as in 1984 the Transportation Authority recognized the need for a new operating base. Currently, LYNX and the Florida Department of Transportation are in the selection process for an operating base site within a two mile radius of downtown Orlando with a land acquisition valued at approximately $5 million. This purchase will exhaust the funds program for this facility. The Federal funds requested at this date is approximately $28 million for the construction of that facility.
Lastly, passenger amenities. LYNX has created an awareness of fixed route bus service with its improved and expanded services along with its nationally recognized marketing program. However, in order to increase accessibility and mobility, more than vehicles are required. The basic infrastructure improvements in the form of signage, lighting, streetscape, information shelters are critical to attract new ridership as well as to maintain the current ridership. The passenger amenity program calls for the installation of approximately 85 shelters per year. This Federal funding request is $800,000.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
LYNX is currently also pursuing an application for intelligent transportation system technology. This includes a new communication system, customer information network, travel planning centers, automatic vehicle location system, and signal preemption system. LYNX will be implementing this ITS system in partnership with other public entities as well as the private sector. The Federal funding requested for this project is $2.4 million.
Specific regional land-use activity centers throughout the region have been designated as intermodal sites. There's a need to advance intermodal stationary development through the detail function design and station area right-of-way purchases. The Federal request for this project is $24 million.
LYNX has achieved many accomplishments over the past five years. We're most proud of our ridership growth which has more than doubled, making LYNX the fastest growing system of its size in the country. Over this period, over 8 million riders have been added to the system annually. Transportation is the life blood of our community and public transportation, in particular, a critical component of our transportation system in Central Florida.
Thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today and for the consideration of our request. I would be pleased to answer your questions.
[The prepared statement of Leo Auger follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. WOLF. We have no questions. I appreciate your taking the time. Bill McConum and Mr. Mica have been very strong supporters of the LYNX and also with regard to the airport. So we appreciate your coming.
Mr. MICA. If Mr. Tillietson could say a couple of words on the airport, we would appreciate it.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. WOLF. Yes.
Mr. TILLIETSON. Thank you, Congressman Mica. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to make four quick points and we've included, of course, the details in our testimony.
First, Orlando International Airport was the fastest growing airport in the world in 1996. In 1997 and as we go into 1998, we're still experiencing explosive growth, this moving us well out in front of our master plan forecast.
Second, the airlines have agreed to a financing package for $1.2 billion to add additional terminal and infrastructure to the airport. We have contracts for the additional gates and agreements that support that.
The third point is we're asking for a multi-year support for an LOI that would allow us to complete a North cross-field taxiway that connects the East part of the airport to the West part of our airport. As we complete the North terminal complex and a fourth air site for this explosive growth, that particular taxiway will be critical. We've completed a cost-benefit analysis and we show a significant net present savings in operating costs with this taxiway. We are committing four years of our entitlement money to this project, and we think it is critical to our future.
The fourth point, our airport is what we refer to as a ''destination origination airport.'' We've had an independent economic analysis showing that our airport generates direct and indirect economic value to Central Florida of over $14 billion and 54,000 jobs. It is a critical economic engine, if you will, of Central Florida. This expansion program that has been approved by the airlines is going to allow us to keep pace with the tremendous investment that's being made by both the business community and the entertainment community in Central Florida. So we ask for your support for this four-year LOI and allow us to complete this very critical project to allow us to match the airline expansion.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I thank you very much for being here today to present this information.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Packard.
Mr. PACKARD. I have no questions.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Torres.
Mr. TORRES. No questions.
Mr. WOLF. Thank you, gentlemen. We appreciate it.
[The GOAA prepared statement follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Tuesday, February 3, 1998.
MIAMI AND DADE COUNTY PROJECTS
WITNESSES
HON. E. CLAY SHAW, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
HON. WILLIAM LEHMAN, CHAIRMAN, INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, DECA BOARD
SONNY HOLTZMAN, CHAIRPERSON, DECA
HON. JOSÉ SMITH, VICE MAYOR, CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
Mr. WOLF. Next, Mr. Shaw, with former Congressman and Chairman, Mr. Lehman, and also the Vice Mayor José Smith of Miami Beach can join them at the table.
Welcome, Clay.
Mr. SHAW. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I congratulate you, you're way ahead of schedule, both by the calendar and the clock. So I will keep you on that schedule and be brief. You have announced who I am, accompanied by Mr. Lehman and Mr. Smith.
Because of the speed with which you're undergoing these hearings, there will be some written testimony as to other projects that will be submitted to the committee for your consideration.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. WOLF. Without objection. We will keep the record open, Clay.
Mr. SHAW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Very briefly, just at the end of last week I had the privilege of being on Miami Beach and being a part, a very small part I might say, of opening a very innovative system of electric vehicles for mass transit that the City of Miami Beach has inaugurated called the ElectroWave. I think it is probably the wave of the future, which certainly is quite appropriate to its name, but I think it is also a very ambitious program which is somewhat unique, not totally unique. I think Chattanooga has got one of these; they were made in Chattanooga, Tennessee. But it is the first in Florida and I think it is something that we should be taking a look at in that area.
I support the City of Miami Beach's $7 million request for a discretionary earmark through the Federal Transit Administration. The earmark would be used for a Miami Beach multimodal transit center project that will support the City's existing electric shuttle park-and-ride and provide service known as the ElectroWave.
My statement goes on to give more detail and I will ask that that be made a part of the record, and I will yield to either Mr. Smith or Mr. Lehman for further comments regarding that project.
Mr. WOLF. Without objection.
Mr. SHAW. And then I would like to briefly bring up——
Mr. WOLF. Well, do you want to cover both of them now, Clay?
Mr. SHAW. I'll go ahead. Another project which is in Fort Lauderdale, which doesn't have anything to do with this, is a project that is not new to this committee, and it is the Ellert Drive widening project going into Port Everglades. Port Everglades is the second largest cruise ship port in the country, second only to the port of Miami.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This project has not been authorized. It was, however, in the 1994 National Highway System designation legislation but, unfortunately, it was dropped by the Senate. We are going to be working on it again and hopefully we can make that part of ISTEA. The price tag on that particular project is $4.5 million.
A third project I would like to bring to the attention of the committee is one that was born out of this committee, and that is the Tri-Rail Project. I know, Mr. Chairman, you and perhaps other members of the committee are familiar with it. What we're asking for is $26 million in new start funds for the construction of the multi-year Southeast Florida Rail Corridor Improvement Program which includes adding a second track to the corridor.
With that, I would yield to Mr. Lehman.
[The prepared statement of Hon. E. Clay Shaw follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. WOLF. Okay. Mr. Lehman? Bill, welcome back to the committee.
Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I will submit my written testimony for the record.
Mr. WOLF. Without objection.
Mr. LEHMAN. Sonny Holtzman is the chairman of the Dade County Expressway Authority and he couldn't make it. I'm the vice chairman, so I'll be testifying on his behalf. But first, I want to thank you and the committee for the help you gave us in fiscal year 1998. We're asking for a continuation of an effort on your part to help us install the electronic toll facilities. It will try to alleviate traffic congestion in metro Dade County and this is a big effort in that respect.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Before I sign off, I just want to remind you that ten years ago you and the subcommittee came down to Miami for the Super Bowl.
Mr. WOLF. I never went to the Super Bowl. I came down after the Super Bowl was over, but I did come down. [Laughter.]
Mr. LEHMAN. You came down for the working part.
Mr. WOLF. I came down for the working part. I left after watching the Super Bowl from my house and went out to the airport.
Mr. LEHMAN. May the record show that. [Laughter.]
Mr. SHAW. Bill, he was in the McLean area at the time, I know that for a fact.
Mr. LEHMAN. Anyway, I've been in touch with the mayor's office in Miami and we would like to invite the subcommittee to come down again in January of 1999 for the next Super Bowl. So you have an invitation.
Mr. WOLF. Okay. I may want to watch it up here, but we'll talk about that. Thank you.
Mr. LEHMAN. Thank you very much. And it is in the written testimony.
Mr. WOLF. Your full statement, Bill, will be in the record.
Mr. LEHMAN. I'll be back in touch.
Mr. WOLF. Thank you, sir.
[The DCEA prepared statement follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. WOLF. Sir?
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is José Smith, and I am the Vice-Mayor of the City of Miami Beach. On behalf of the City, I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to you this morning.
The City respectfully submits a transportation-related project for a discretionary earmark through the Federal Transit Administration within the fiscal year 1999 transportation appropriations bill. The City-proposed earmark of $7 million will be used towards a Miami Beach multimodal transit center project that will support the City's existing electric shuttle park-and-ride service, known as the ElectroWave.
This innovative and environmentally-friendly park-and-ride program is already serving South Beach, a congested urban, residential, and commercial historic district of Miami Beach. This program was inaugurated last Friday. However, an outlying transit center/parking facility to support the park-and-ride and other transit services is still very much needed.
The multimodal center will provide a vital transportation hub and terminal for this area, bringing commuters and visitors together with parking, an information center, the local and regional transit services, as well as the ElectroWave. Employees of South Beach businesses will also be able to park-and-ride from this facility which will be strategically located to serve the incoming traffic from a major arterial causeway. The transit center will also include a full-scale facility for the ElectroWave program and its electric battery-operated vehicles. In addition, the multimodal center will serve as the terminus of an East-West multimodal corridor, a regional transportation project which proposes to interconnect the Florida Turnpike, the Palmetto Expressway, the Dolphin Expressway, and I–95 with Miami International Airport, intermodal center, downtown, the sea port, and the City of Miami Beach.
The ElectroWave program is included in the five-year transportation improvement program of Miami-Dade County and has the financial support of the City, the Florida Department of Transportation, the FTA, Miami-Dade County Transit Agency, the Florida Power and Light Company, and other clean air and energy organizations.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A fiscal year 1999 discretionary FTA fund earmark toward a Miami Beach multimodal center project is critical to the long-term effectiveness of the ElectroWave park-and-ride service and to our City's interconnection with a 21st century East-West multimodal transportation corridor.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to address the subcommittee.
[The prepared statement of José Smith follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. WOLF. Thank you very much for your testimony. And I appreciate, Clay, your taking the time to appear. You've always been a great advocate, taking over from Mr. Lehman who did an unbelievable job to help your area.
Mr. SHAW. Those are tough shoes to fill, I can assure you.
If I may just very, very briefly.
Mr. WOLF. Sure.
Mr. SHAW. The City of Miami Beach, after decades of laying dormant, has within the last decade gone through a rebirth which is nothing short of spectacular. There is new hotel construction going on, South Beach and what it has done, Lincoln Road, which used to be a wonderful place and sort of fell into disrepair with a lot of vacant buildings, now is a very lively place. This is a very important project. The City Commission is certainly to be commended for their work in contributing to the revitalization of a wonderful, wonderful area of our country which is enjoyed by people from all over the world.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. WOLF. Thank you.
Mr. Packard.
Mr. PACKARD. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Sabo just came in.
Mr. SABO. No questions.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Aderholt.
Mr. ADERHOLT. No questions.
Mr. WOLF. Again, thank you very much. Your full statements will be in the record.
Mr. SHAW. I thank the committee for your time.
Tuesday, February 3, 1998.
HILLSBOROUGH AREA REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY (HART), AND CITY OF GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
WITNESSES
HON. JIM DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
DAVE MECHANIK, CHAIRMAN, HILLSBOROUGH REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY
PERRY MAULL, TRANSIT DIRECTOR, REGIONAL TRANSIT SYSTEM
Mr. WOLF. Next, Congressman Davis and also Dave Mechanik, Chairman of the Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority. And also, if we can get the City of Gainesville, Florida, Perry Maull, Transit Director, Regional Transit System, just maybe those two together.
What we're doing is we're asking, if at all possible, that the statement be limited to five minutes and any other statement we will submit for the record. And there may be questions, too.
Welcome to the hearing, Jim.
Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With me this morning is Dave Mechanik, the Chairman of the Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority. He and I want to briefly highlight to you three funding issues, much of which is a continuation of the work this committee has already done for which we are very grateful.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
One is $3 million for revenue rolling stock purchases for buses. The second is $6 million to fund a streetcar station which is intended ultimately to be part of an intermodal system in the Tampa Bay Area, in downtown Tampa, specifically. The third, and I think the most important one, is $10 million for preliminary engineering and environmental studies associated with the Tampa Bay Regional Rail Project which eventually is expected to extend to the East into Congressman Canady's district, who has been very supportive of the project, and to the West to Congressman Bilirakis' district.
In the last fiscal year, the subcommittee provided funding to help replace the aging bus fleet in Tampa. Compliance with ADA has been an issue for our buses, as it has been with many around the country. The $3 million additionally we're asking for will help to replace some of those aging buses and get into compliance with the ADA.
The Ybor Streetcar Station would be situated in an area where economic development is really teeming, much in the ways that Congressman Shaw related were happening in South Beach in the Miami area. Apart from that, it also is intended to ultimately be the hub of an intermodal system within the community that will be tied into the rail project I will mention lastly. The subcommittee provided $1 million for developmental and preliminary engineering with respect to the Ybor Rail Project in the last budget.
The final element is the Tampa Bay Regional Rail Project. This project I think is somewhat unique from the others that you will consider from the standpoint that we expect roughly about 50 percent of the cost ultimately to be handled through State and local government sources. This, unlike other rail projects, is to be constructed based on existing right-of-way owned by CSX, who has been very supportive of the cost of the project. Acquiring existing right-of-way, obviously, reduces the overall cost of the project.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The MIS study is due to be completed shortly. We'll be working with the authorization committee with respect to at least the first phase of this project. Today, we are requesting $10 million for preliminary engineering and environmental studies associated with this project. The studies would include that portion of the project that ultimately will extend into Congressman Canady's district, and, as I mentioned earlier, this subcommittee has generously provided some early funding for preliminary studies with respect to the environmental aspects of this project.
So I think there are some very strong merits here to consider, Mr. Chairman. And I would like to turn over the remainder of my time to Mr. David Mechanik.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Jim Davis (FL) follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. MECHANIK. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, subcommittee members. I'm David Mechanik, Chairman of the Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority.
As Representative Davis described, we have three projects we're asking for this committee's support for—$3 million for bus replacement purchases, $6 million for Tampa Ybor intermodal station, and $10 million for the Tampa Bay Regional Rail Project which would be for environmental study and preliminary engineering.
The funds to purchase buses are requested to help HART replaces buses which are currently 16 years old. We are currently becoming one of the oldest bus fleets in the Nation. If this request is approved, it would bring our fleet age to an average of nine years, which would be a significant improvement for our system.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We are also requesting funding for an intermodal station where the historic electric streetcar and bus routes will meet. The station, as Mr. Davis mentioned, would be in the historic Ybor City area which would provide many economic development opportunities. The station will provide important connections for local transit travellers, pedestrians, and intercity travellers. It will serve the downtown area, the channel district, and Ybor City, as I mentioned. The project also enhances a number of new development projects in Tampa; the Tampa cruise ship port at Garrison Sea Port, the Convention Center Hotel which is just getting underway, the Tampa Bay Lightning Hockey Arena, and the Florida Aquarium.
The Regional Rail Project arises out of the major investment study which is just being completed this quarter. The study included pedestrian elements, expansion of the bus system including a bus emphasis corridor on 40th Street, and an extension of the streetcar system in downtown Tampa. The completed project would include a rail system that would link various points within Hillsborough County, Lakeland, and potentially Pinellas County. The Regional Rail Project is critically needed as Tampa Bay is experiencing dramatic growth both in population and employment and road improvements alone will not be sufficient to accommodate that growth.
Your assistance in these three projects is greatly appreciated. Thank you very much for your time.
[The prepared statement of David Mechanik follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. WOLF. Thank you.
Sir?
Mr. MAULL. I'm Perry Maull. I'm the Transit Director for the City of Gainesville. I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee for this opportunity to appear before you to request an earmark of bus discretionary funds in the amount of $7 million, for a total appropriation of $8.75 million, to allow us to acquire 25 new low-floor buses and related equipment. This will enable the City of Gainesville and its partners, Alachua County, the Florida Department of Transportation, and the University of Florida to dramatically enhance our bus service to the University of Florida campus.
Just by way of a little bit of background, we have more of a statement for you in the written record. In December 1996 a Presidential Task Force on Parking and Transportation on the University of Florida Campus recommended a major change in the way transportation and parking was addressed. In the past, most of the 42,000 students and another 17,000 faculty and staff have relied on their private automobiles. Parking has been plentiful and cheap. In the future, as the University grows to some 50,000 students and a related number of faculty and staff, the amount of parking and its cost is going to be increased—the cost will be increased, the parking won't be.
As a result of this, the task force recommended a major enhancement to bus service. We've already begun to do that. We've added buses to our services and have had record-breaking ridership. These 25 buses will allow us to do ten minute services on corridors to campus and change the whole way that transportation is provided in Gainesville. And I might add that in March of 1997, the University of Florida student body voted to implement a fee on themselves up to $1 a credit hour which next fall will be implemented and give them free unlimited access to the bus system. So we will have 42,000 students with bus passes next Fall. We need these 25 buses as soon as we can get them.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Perry Maull follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. WOLF. Thank you very much. I appreciate your coming. I have no questions, just one comment. In the rail, the higher the match, the better. As you're looking to that, we don't have your match yet. I don't know what you've said, but as you've listened to the previous witness was talking about 50–50. The higher the match, obviously, the better it is. But I appreciate your taking the time to come before the committee.
Mr. Pastor.
Mr. PASTOR. No questions, thank you.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Aderholt.
Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, to that point, I believe the representation is the 50 percent. I'm anxious for you to have the benefit of the MIS study, which I'm looking forward to reviewing, but our representation last year and this year continues to be 50 percent. We're working hard at that.
Mr. WOLF. Thank you very much.
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1998.
THE COALITION FOR AMERICAN TRAUMA CARE AND ComCARE ALLIANCE
WITNESS
HOWARD R. CHAMPION, MD, PRESIDENT, COALITION FOR AMERICAN TRAUMA CARE, AND RESEARCH DIRECTOR, PROGRAM IN TRAUMA, AND RESEARCH PROFESSOR OF SURGERY, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND
Mr. WOLF. The Coalition for American Trauma Care, Doctor Champion. Welcome to the committee. Your full statement will appear in the record.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Dr. CHAMPION. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I'm a trauma surgeon. I've been working in the Baltimore-Washington area for 25 years. During that time I've established guidelines for the type of patients that should be taken from automobile crashes into trauma centers, and they've been implemented throughout the country as part of the American College of Surgeons Guidelines for Trauma Systems.
Last year, we did some analyses of the NITSA databases to look at the automobile trauma problem because—this is the common graph that is available showing automobile crash deaths in the United States have gone down, generally speaking, since the late 1970s, but are now on the upswing over the past three or four years. NITSA's own figures will project about 55,000 deaths per year early next century, which is about a 10 percent increase on where we are at the present time.
What we found when we did these analyses, that graph that everybody is aware of disguises or hides an even more troubling set of figures, which is that the number of deaths prior to receiving emergency care in this country has doubled over a period of 20 years; it was around 10,000 in 1976, and last year in 1996 it went over 20,000. The prehospital time prior to emergency care reaching automobile crash victims in this country is about an hour in rural areas, and about 30 minutes before they get into hospital in urban areas. We tried to revise our guidelines for emergency system response based on the NITSA databases and, after about 150 analyses, were unable to do so. In other words, the rudimentary system for identifying crash victims that need trauma centers and those at risk of dying could not be improved with the current analyses.
We came up, therefore, with an alternative system which is basically placing a black box in cars and linking the automobiles to the emergency system. With available technology. Now, this is not magic, it doesn't need investments in technology, it just needs investment in the linkage between the automobile crash which will give a crash signature by a cellular mechanism to the EMS system and also predict the risk of injury and the risk of serious injury, removing that 5 to 10 to 20 minutes, depending on where you are, between the crash and the identification of the crash and the location of the crash.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Now all these bits of technology exist. It's just a question of linking them up and reducing the time between injury and the receipt of care. The system, the Automatic Crash Notification System will provide the crash signature, the risk of injury, and provide it promptly and immediately to the EMS system together with the location of the crash. That's all summarized in this little graph, which I can pass around if you want to look at it. This should be in an ambulance dispatch center. And it is, as I say, existing technology. It identifies the street map, the coordinates of the car crash at the time the crash occurred or promptly thereafter using a 911 system through triangulated cellular or GPS systems. Technology available today.
On these bars down here, you'll see the information that we know predicts the risk of injury. We can say that anything from a zero percentage risk of injury to a 30 percent risk of injury are serious injuries, and that will prompt EMS systems to come quickly and, presumably, hopefully reduce the increasing carnage that we see on our roads today.
So we're asking for an increasing investment in this technology. There are putative efforts involved at the present time but there are resources that should be mobilized from ITS into this. We have spoken with Doctor Johnson. We do believe that more can be done. There is a minuscule fraction of intelligent transport system budgets moving in this direction at the present time. This is a matter of life and death. It's not a question of roads and so forth, it's something that could relate to saving human lives.
Mr. WOLF. Good. I appreciate your testimony. The technology is available. The committee has funded the ITS. I guess it is all a question of putting it in the ITS that's implemented and put it in the automobiles.
What I would suggest is having staff set up a meeting for you. I think you ought to go and meet with Doctor Martinez. It is not that you're from California, you're from here, so it would not pose travel inconveniences. So we're going to set up a meeting for you to meet with Dr. Martinez before he comes up before the committee, which is on March 11. We can ask him about that.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Dr. CHAMPION. Dr. Martinez is aware of this.
Mr. WOLF. But I want you to meet with him directly so you can talk to him directly.
Dr. CHAMPION. Very good, sir.
Mr. WOLF. Okay. Mr. Pastor.
Mr. PASTOR. Good morning.
Dr. CHAMPION. Good morning, sir.
Mr. PASTOR. More information on the black box. Recently, I rented a car and it was able to tell me where I started and gave me directions as I drove to the place I was going to. Is this what you referred to as the black box, or is this something similar?
Dr. CHAMPION. No, no, no. That is part of the system, that is one technology. The AAA have mapped every centimeter of the road system in this country and GPS can tell you where you are. If you have the local roadmaps and so forth, you can tell it where you want to go and what the appropriate route is, and, if you have traffic information, the best way to get there.
The ACN takes actually information from the airbag which gives you the velocity of an impact, whether the airbag was released or not, the principal direction of force, whether the car was rolled over, whether someone was ejected or not, whether seatbelts were used, ultimately whether you're a big person or a little person, whether the seatbelt is likely to damage you or not, and gives you a prediction of whether you have an injury or not because the speed was over 5 miles an hour, 10 miles, or over 30 miles an hour which would give you a risk of life-threatening injury.
If it's a life-threatening injury, most people die within an hour; we've known that for 30 or 40 years. If we can take 10 minutes, 15 minutes off this pre-hospital, pre-AMS time, we can save lives. That plus there's a lot of improvements in emergency care coming around the corner. All these little boutique drugmakers in California have gotten drugs which will stop the brain dying, stop the heart dying. If we can get there quicker, by early next century we're going to be able to substantially put a dent in what is the second biggest global health problem, which is moving vehicle crash deaths, a growing and hugely costly problem in this country.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. PASTOR. You talked about the crash signature. Is this the crash signature there?
Dr. CHAMPION. Some of that is crash signature, yes. I'll have to put my glasses on. The crash signature would actually give the delta V, that's part of the crashing measure, that's the change in velocity, would give the VIN number of the car to give you the weight and the model and the year, it would give you the principal direction of force, whether the car rolled over, the clear weight of the car, that's part of the VIN. So this is really basically the crash signature here. We've got a mathematical computation which gives risk of injury, risk of death from this.
Mr. PASTOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. WOLF. Thank you.
Staff will set that meeting up for you, Doctor. Thank you very much for coming before the committee.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Champion follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1998.
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF AIRPORT EXECUTIVES
AIRPORTS COUNCIL INTERNATIONAL—NORTH AMERICA (ACI—NORTH AMERICA)
WITNESS
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
CHARLES M. BARCLAY, PRESIDENT, AAAE
Mr. WOLF. Next, to save time, if we can have, at the table the American Association of Airport Executives, Mr. Barclay; the Professional Airways Systems Specialists, Mr. Fanfalone; General Aviation Manufacturers Association, Mr. Bolen; and the National Organization to Insure a Sound-Controlled Environment (NOISE), Betty Ann Krahnke. If you can all come up together, we would appreciate it.
Mr. Barclay, you may start. Your full statement will appear in the record.
Mr. BARCLAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to emphasize a couple of points from our testimony. Airports appreciate this committee's leadership of last year in providing $1.7 billion in AIP, particularly in light of the administration's request which was only $1 billion last year. That was an essential increase and we appreciate it very much.
This year we also want to offer our thanks to Secretary Slater and Administrator Garvey for their strong and effective campaign within the administration to come up with a more realistic AIP level, and the administration's budget does reflect a following of this committee's leadership in recommending a $1.7 billion level for fiscal year 1999. We think that's a much more realistic starting point for the committee's deliberations.
Second, airports are requesting that the committee consider an obligational ceiling level that would match the authorized level of $2.4 billion for this fiscal year. We think that level is not only justified by all the studies that have been done on airport needs, but considering the added revenue going into the Aviation Trust Fund, we think it would be a wise investment. When one considers that place as small as Hong Kong is investing $25 billion in one new airport, it puts in perspective our request for $2.4 billion for 3,400 airports nationwide in this country. We think that would be a modest investment in our system.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
If the committee's choices won't allow that kind of a level, we would appreciate consideration of at least a $2 billion, which was the minimum recommended by the National Civil Aviation Review Commission, and it is also the minimum recommended by both airlines and airports who agree on this issue.
Finally, I would like to leave the committee with the emphasis that these are requests for investments as opposed to consumption spending. If one tries to picture our economy without an aviation system in a country as large as ours, it quickly becomes apparent that we couldn't run a modern competitive economy for the simple fact of geography. It is also clear that aviation capacity can quickly then become a bottleneck in our economy, to its expansion and growth, if we're not meeting demand with capacity in an aviation system. So while we appreciate the $1.7 billion level, it is also sobering to note that that was below the level AIP was at back in 1991 when we had 100 million fewer passengers in the system.
I would conclude by saying we think an increased AIP level would not only be important for aviation, which it is, and for our members, but it's a sound investment in a growing and competitive economy.
Mr. WOLF. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Charles Barclay follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Tuesday, February 3, 1998.
PROFESSIONAL AIRWAYS SYSTEMS SPECIALISTS (PASS)
WITNESS
MICHAEL D. FANFALONE, PRESIDENT, PASS
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Fanfalone.
Mr. FANFALONE. Good morning, Chairman Wolf and members of the subcommittee. My name is Michael Fanfalone. I am the president of the Professional Airways Systems Specialists (PASS). Thank you for inviting PASS to testify today.
PASS provides exclusive representation for over 10,000 systems specialists, flight inspection pilots, aviation safety inspectors, and safety support staff employed by the FAA. PASS has testified in previous years that while we have the safest air traffic control system in the world, the system's capacity is being stretched to its limits. We already have proof that the reliability and efficiency of the system is being compromised.
Today, the time to restore equipment has increased from approximately 7 hours in 1983 to about 27.5 hours in 1997. Modernization of the NAS is years behind schedule, and with the year 2000 fast approaching, the old systems are no longer reliable.
Year after year we testify about the same concerns and not only do they remain unresolved, they are getting worse. Staffing is a major concern for all the FAA bargaining units we represent. For Airway Facilities, the systems specialists workforce is staffed at 71 percent of the staffing standard. Airway Facilities recognizes that the level needs to be at a minimum of 80 percent of the staffing standard, which would result in 575 currently vacant positions being filled.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
PASS, however, feels that the FAA should be at 100 percent of the staffing standard, especially since aviation activity is growing, aviation technology is changing rapidly, and the number of facilities will continue to expand. PASS does not understand why the FAA is requesting funding for only 150 system specialists instead of the 575 that Airway Facilities believes are needed.
Unfortunately, staffing shortages and training deficits have led the FAA to use contract maintenance. This has proven to be a more expensive and dangerously inefficient alternative to in-house maintenance. There are countless examples of FAA contractors directly causing air traffic control system problems or outages. However, if the FAA did the required cost-benefit analysis for the many systems under contractor maintenance, the agency would discover that in-house maintenance is more cost-efficient.
For flight standards aviation safety inspectors, staffing shortages in the support areas has resulted in our inspector workforce spending much of their time doing paperwork in the office instead of being out in the field doing inspections. Inspectors need at least 500 additional support staff in the form of aviation safety assistance and aviation safety technicians. The positions provide support by writing up accident investigation reports, enforcement investigation reports, answering Freedom of Information Act requests, and interfacing with the general public.
Not only is support staff desperately needed, but more inspectors are also needed. In December of 1997, approximately 3 to 4 percent of the inspector workforce retired. With the understanding that a time period of two to three years is needed to bring any new inspector up to a level of competence, the FAA must address retirements immediately and hire new inspectors to bring the staffing levels up to insure the safety of the flying public.
There's also a problem with the year 2000. Getting system specialists trained to maintain the new computer system is of deep concern. The FAA has chosen only to use the Professional Airways Systems Specialists to help with the Y2K problem in a few of its many systems. We would like to be part of more of the Y2K resolution.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
With that, I conclude my comments and invite your questions. Thank you.
Mr. WOLF. I have no questions, just one comment though to Mr. Fanfalone. I am worried about the Y2K problem. We have sent a letter over to Mrs. Garvey. I'm worried they're going to run out of time. If you think you can make a constructive contribution, Rich Elford will call Mrs. Garvey and suggest that they have you or your people meet with them within the next week, because this problem will become critical. I think the number of people who have the capability to deal with this are actually declining because they're being hired in the private sector and government can't really afford to bring some of these people on. So we would like to have you work with her. We have asked that they designate one person at the FAA to be responsible for this. So Mr. Elford will work out an arrangement for you to meet with their people to make sure that every opportunity that you want is available for you to participate in solving this very, very difficult problem.
Mr. FANFALONE. I appreciate the offer. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Michael Fanfalone follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. WOLF. Thank you.
Mr. Bolen.
Mr. BOLEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for the opportunity to testify today. I'll be brief and to the point. I've submitted by written testimony.
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1998.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
GENERAL AVIATION MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION (GAMA)
WITNESS
ED BOLEN, PRESIDENT, GAMA
Mr. WOLF. Your testimony will appear in the record.
Mr. BOLEN. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, as you well know, for two years the aviation industry has been embroiled in a very bitter battle over FAA funding. The debate over whether to fund the FAA through user fees or excise taxes has, frankly, brought the aviation community to a standstill. It has taken all of our time and all of our effort and very little else has been done besides focus on that issue. It was a critical issue for us. From a general aviation perspective, user fees would have been very damaging for our industry which has begun to rebound since passage of the General Aviation Revitalization Act. So it was an issue of such seriousness we had to focus on it.
But I believe that last fall, with Congress reinstating the aviation excise taxes, and because of this committee's particularly strong language in the appropriations bill on user fees, I believe that the aviation community has an opportunity to put the funding issue behind us and begin to focus on how we modernize the system and move forward into the 21st century. It's a critical issue and one that we should have been working together on for a long time but have not. I think we now have that opportunity.
At GAMA, we are very supportive of moving toward a satellite-based navigation system. Because of that, we hope that this committee will continue to work on the Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS). Clearly, it is a program that has had some problems, but it is our understanding that the new contractor is performing under that. We believe the benefits make continued support worthwhile. We know it requires tough management and close oversight on your perspective, but we hope that will continue. We also support a Beta test of these technologies.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I think there is a lot about these issues which need to be resolved and we're going to work on those. There are still a lot of details that are unknown, but we believe the benefits are out there and we pledge our support to working on that.
Mr. WOLF. Thank you very much. I have no questions.
Mr. Pastor.
Mr. PASTOR. Simply to say that in mid-January or early January the American Association of Airport Executives had their annual conference and they asked me to participate along with other Members of Congress. I certainly highly recommend that if you're ever invited to go and participate in their conference that you would accept their invitation. It was very well done, Mr. Barclay.
Mr. BARCLAY. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. WOLF. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Edward Bolen follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Tuesday, February 3, 1998.
AMERICAN SHORT LINE AND REGIONAL RAILROAD ASSOCIATION
WITNESS
WILLIAM LOFTUS, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN SHORT LINE AND REGIONAL RAILROAD ASSOCIATION
Mr. WOLF. The American Public Transit Association, Mr. Millar, and also if the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association, the American Passenger Rail Coalition, the American Road and Transportation Builders Association, and the American Society of Civil Engineers can all approach the table together.
Mr. Millar is driving and that's why he's late. [Laughter.]
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We will begin with Mr. Loftus.
Mr. LOFTUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am William E. Loftus, president of the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association. We appreciate the opportunity to appear again before you on a familiar subject.
We urge your support for funding the small railroad pilot project program which is authorized in the current version of the ISTEA legislation, both in the House and the Senate. The authorization in the House provides $25 million a year over the next three fiscal years. The authorization has been included in the bipartisan managers' bill in both the House and the Senate, and we fully expect it to remain in the legislation as it moves through the conference committee and to Congress later this year.
Over 40 members cosponsored this effort in the House and gave us their active support as we worked to place the provision in the ISTEA bill. These members were drawn together in the common belief that there is a huge gap in this Nation's transportation policy. That gap concerns the role of hundreds of short line and regional railroads that are fighting to preserve rail service in mostly rural areas. These areas do not have traffic volume sufficient to support large Class I rail operations and these small railroads are often the only viable alternative to rail line abandonment. However, many of these rail lines require substantial upgrading if they are able to handle the increasingly heavy rail cars being built by the Class I railroads for general use in the industry.
There are many examples where a light density rail line project is the most cost-effective use of States' scarce transportation dollars. Many State Departments of Transportation have indicated that they want this flexibility to be able to invest in light density rail line projects at local option. I anticipate the committee will hear from the States in support of funding for these light density rail line projects.
These projects, for instance, could enhance the ability of a rail line to handle the new heavy axle-load rail equipment and, thus, stay part of the national rail network for moving grain to market, minerals from mines, or unit coal trains into utility plants. There are numerous examples where it is most cost-effective for the State to make a small investment in a light density rail line in order to avoid the much larger expenditure that would be required to upgrade and maintain a secondary road, bridge, or traffic that would be shifted if the rail line did not handle it.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, we know the committee did not provide funding for the Local Rail Freight Assistance Program in its most recent years. This is not LRFA. We have attempted to fashion a pilot program that gives individual States the opportunity to decide for themselves how light density rail lines fit into their transportation plans. Where the State decides that a private railroad does address a public transportation need, we envision substantial private financial participation in the project.
Light density rail lines are not typically found in heavy populated metropolitan areas that are blessed with four-lane highways and Class I railroad main lines. Generally, they are in the more rural areas where small shippers depend on small railroads to get their products to market in the most cost-effective way possible. Often it is much cheaper for the State to save an existing light density rail line than build a new highway for truck transportation.
In addition to providing the States the flexibility to address their specific needs, I believe helping these small railroads is a cost-effective way to help achieve a number of national goals. These benefits include: reduced highway repair costs, highway congestion relief, air quality improvements, and enhanced safety. We are confident that the final ISTEA legislation will authorize the pilot projects and we urge the subcommittee and the committee to move forward with the appropriations in support of them.
Thank you for your time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. WOLF. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of William Loftus follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Tuesday, February 3, 1998.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
AMERICAN PASSENGER RAIL COALITION (APRC)
WITNESS
HARRIET PARCELLS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, APRC
Mr. WOLF. Ms. Parcells.
Ms. PARCELLS. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, my name is Harriet Parcells and I am the executive director of the American Passenger Rail Coalition (APRC), a national association of rail equipment suppliers and rail businesses. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
The investments Amtrak has been making in new equipment and facilities, combined with service improvements, a renewed focus on customer service, and better marketing are yielding positive results. Amtrak ridership in October through December 1997, the first quarter of fiscal year 1998, rose nearly 7 percent—the largest quarterly increase in 14 years. Passenger revenues for the quarter rose 3.4 percent. This ridership increase comes on top of a 5.5 percent increase in the prior quarter and a 2.6 percent Amtrak ridership increase in fiscal year 1997 overall.
Two crucial bills were passed by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton in 1997 that reaffirmed the Nation's commitment to an economically strong, healthy national Amtrak system. First, as part of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, Congress set aside $2.3 billion for Amtrak capital investments; and second, the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 was enacted which provides Amtrak with the needed reauthorization and includes important labor, liability, and other reforms to allow Amtrak to operate more efficiently. These bills are essential building blocks to a better future for Amtrak. But Amtrak must continue to receive adequate capital and operating appropriations from Congress in order to continue the success it is experiencing and to achieve the goal of being operating subsidy-free by the year 2002.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
When APRC appeared before this subcommittee last year we spoke about our strong support for dedicating a half-cent of the Federal gasoline tax for Amtrak capital investments. This would have generated approximately $4 billion in capital funding for Amtrak. Instead, Congress set aside $2.3 billion in capital funding. We greatly appreciate this act that was taken by Congress and this vital funding will be used by Amtrak for high rate of return capital investments. But Congress must recognize that the $2.3 billion is substantially less capital than would have been generated by the half-cent of the Federal gas tax. If Amtrak is to stay on track to operating self-sufficiency by the year 2002, strong capital and operating appropriations are essential to supplement the $2.3 billion.
The $2.3 billion is for capital investment. APRC strongly believes that this funding must be preserved for its intended purpose—for capital investment. Amtrak will use this funding to modernize equipment and facilities, and Congress should prevent the funding from being siphoned off for operating expenditures or other non-capital investment expenses.
Several years ago, Congress and the Administration reached a consensus on a plan that would enable Amtrak to reach the goal of operating subsidy-free by the year 2002. The success of this plan is predicated on Congress providing Amtrak with sufficient capital and maintaining Amtrak on a downward glide path of Federal operating assistance until the year 2002.
We believe that Congress crafted a good plan and that it is working, but we are here before you as businesses who are in the practice of adopting business plans that set a course for action. These business plans only work if the assumptions on which they are built are met. Yet there's been a significant shortfall or underfunding of the glide path for Amtrak. If the goal line Congress has set remains the year 2002, Congress needs to provide Amtrak with the agreed upon operating funds.
For fiscal year 1999, APRC urges Congress to appropriate Amtrak at least $376 million to meet its operating needs, $329 million to address its capital needs to be supplemented by funds from the Taxpayer Relief Act.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I would like to just comment very quickly on the Administration's budget that was unveiled yesterday. The Administration has proposed $621 million for Amtrak in capital for fiscal year 1999. While we appreciate the Administration's recognition of the importance of capital, they propose taking the entire $621 million from the Highway Trust Fund. First of all, there is no enabling legislation which would be needed to allow this to move forward. My sense also is that at this point there isn't a consensus yet reached in Congress on the levels of highway funding that there will be and I suspect that this proposal will encounter strong opposition.
We feel Congress crafted a good plan to get Amtrak to being operating subsidy-free. We urge you to stick to that plan. Our testimony also includes our support for Operation Life Saver, the next generation high speed rail R&D program, and for FRA safety work. Thank you.
Mr. WOLF. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Harriet Parcells follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Tuesday, February 3, 1998.
AMERICAN ROAD AND TRANSPORTATION BUILDERS ASSOCIATION (ARTBA)
WITNESS
MAX R. SPROLES, ARTBA GENERAL CHAIRMAN, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, FREDERIC R. HARRIS, INC.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Sproles.
Mr. SPROLES. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. My name is Max Sproles, vice president of Frederic R. Harris, Incorporated. I am here today as chairman of the American Road and Transportation Builders Association. I am a long-time resident of Northern Virginia, a Virginia native. My company has an office in Fairfax with over 40 people working on transportation projects. I appreciate the opportunity to testify on fiscal year 1999 transportation funding.
ARTBA was founded in 1902 and is the only national association devoted solely to the planning, construction, and safe operation of transportation facilities of all types. Our nationwide membership of 4,000 companies and organizations is composed of contractors, engineers, planners, equipment manufacturers, materials suppliers, financial institutions, educators, and transportation officials from Federal, State, and local government.
ARTBA commends you and members of the subcommittee for your leadership and strong support of the Federal transportation program. We particularly commend you for the exemplary efforts this subcommittee waged during the fiscal year 1998 appropriations cycle to increase transportation funding and meet our national transportation needs.
Mr. Chairman, my written testimony has been submitted for the record. I would just summarize several points this morning. First, Federal transportation investments not only improve safety for all Americans, they have a dramatic impact on the economy. A new ARTBA research project study to be released later this month will show that 1.6 million American jobs are directly related to transportation construction activities. This represents 1.3 percent of all U.S. jobs. Each additional billion dollars invested in the Federal Highway Program creates over 42,000. The total value of the Nation's transportation infrastructure exceeds $1.5 trillion, and that's more than 6 percent of the Nation's total tangible wealth in Government and privately-owned structures and equipment.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Even more important, however, transportation infrastructure accounts for 12 percent, or $1 out of $8, of the Nation's stock of productive assets. One example helps put the value of transportation investments in perspective. The total value of all the computers and peripherals owned by American businesses is about $160 billion. That's one-tenth of the value of the Nation's transportation infrastructure.
The second point I would like to make is that Congress should have access to the latest information available on the condition and investment requirements for the Nation's transportation infrastructure as it makes these key funding decisions. The U.S. Department of Transportation's biannual Highway Needs Report to Congress, which is required by law, is now more than one year late. We believe that this report has been held hostage by the White House Office of Management and Budget. We also have reason to believe that the report will have a new format that will make it difficult to assess whether or not progress is being made, and this would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the law.
Two weeks ago, ARTBA filed a Freedom of Information Act request with OMB seeking all information related to its decisions on the development and delivery, or lack thereof, of this report. We urge the committee to help spring this important report from the Administration so that it can be used in your deliberations and during upcoming ISTEA reauthorization and budget debates.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a few brief comments on the Administration's budget released yesterday. Overall, we were pleased that the Federal transportation investment would appear to at least keep pace with inflation. Attention must be drawn, however, to the fact that the Administration's budget would invest about $12 billion less on highways and bridges during fiscal year 1999 than the Government will collect in highway user fees from the Nation's motorists and truckers. In our view, that is highway robbery.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The fact is the Nation's motorists will be paying for a $34.4 billion highway program and under the Administration's plan getting a $22.2 billion program. ARTBA urges the committee to fully fund the highway program and the Mass Transit Capital program at the level that can be accommodated through the trust fund revenue stream. We also urge that you fund the user-financed Airport Improvement Program at least at a $2 billion level during fiscal year 1999.
Mr. Chairman, a moment ago I briefly referred to an ARTBA report on the economic benefits of transportation that will be released later this month. This report is detailed in my written testimony and was prepared by ARTBA's director of economics and research, Dr. William Butner, who previously spent 22 years as a senior economist for the Joint Economic Committee. Mr. Butner is here with me today.
Mr. Chairman, once again we commend the subcommittee for its dedication to America's transportation programs and its work to provide needed financial support. ARTBA will continue to work with you as we try to aggressively meet these most important national needs. Dr. Butner and I would be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Sproles.
[The prepared statement of Max Sproles follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1998.
AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS (ASCE)
WITNESS
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
JAMES E. DAVIS, P.E., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ASCE
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Davis.
Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Jim Davis. I am a civil engineer. I am also the executive director and chief executive officer of the American Society of Civil Engineers. As you know, civil engineers are the designers, builders, operators, and maintainers of the world's infrastructure, including the transportation systems here in America. On behalf of all of our 124,000 members, I would like to thank you and the other members of the committee for the opportunity to address the fiscal year 1999 budget.
Regardless of what gets appropriated, civil engineers will make do with whatever we have. We've done so in the past, we'll do so in the future. However, it is difficult for us to come in year after year and look at the budget, and a budget for this year that's relatively about the same as last year, that's relatively flat. The only glimmer of hope we saw in the budget was a potential 10 percent increase in the research and development. We would encourage that that activity take place.
But the strength of America has been and continues to be its transportation systems. It must continue to be its transportation systems—its highway systems, its railroad systems, its air transport systems. But to maintain our international competitiveness and to serve our members, we need to put more resources into our transportation systems. For civil engineers it is very appalling when we see bridges—we're sort of the doctors of the transportation field—we can look at a bridge, we can determine that it is obsolete, that it needs to be repaired or replaced, and we can come down and say this. However, as I said earlier, we spend what we get year-in, year-out. It is time though for us to look at the backlog that is currently out there. As we understand the report from Federal Highway Administration, over 200,000 of 600,000 bridges are obsolete and need to be replaced. That is a need to invest $80 billion additional in bridges.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
When we look at mass transit, an area that I know well, we need to invest an additional $7.9 billion to maintain our current mass transit system. We look at the $4.5 billion we have today and we say we're doing good. Twenty years ago when I worked for then the Urban Mass Transportation Administration, I was responsible for the capital and operating assistance budget of $4.1 billion. Twenty years later we look at $4.5 billion and we pat ourselves on the back. There's something wrong with that number. There's something wrong with the way we've been managing our systems.
We talk about our road system in this country. As I understand the numbers, there are $23 billion we waste on roadways because of ill repair. I was reading a report recently that said 50 to 60 percent of our major highway systems in this country are in need of repair. Civil engineers, again, can design, rebuild the transportation systems in this country. We're trained to do that. However, we need your help.
We come today to offer to partner with you, to reach out with you to help build safe, efficient, and cost-effective transportation systems. Thank you.
Mr. WOLF. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of James Davis follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Tuesday, February 3, 1998.
AMERICAN PUBLIC TRANSIT ASSOCIATION (APTA)
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
WITNESS
WILLIAM W. MILLAR, PRESIDENT, APTA
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Millar, we're all wondering if you came by Metro or by car?
Mr. MILLAR. Well, as a matter of fact, sir, I can report Metro is running very well this morning, I just started a little later than I should have.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the committee. I must start by just thanking you and the members of the committee so much for your work last year. We really started in a very deep hole with the Administration's proposal last year and you and your committee members worked very hard to make changes in the appropriations as it went through the process. We were very, very pleased with the results of the work of this committee last year. We thank you for that very much. It is consistent with your long career and your long support for public transportation, and we really do appreciate that.
So, really, we're here today to ask that you continue to build on that excellent record that was established by the committee last year. There's no doubt about it, as some of my colleagues have said here, there's a clear need for further investment in public transportation and, in fact, in all of surface transportation. DOT says it is $13 billion a year, AASHTO says it is $14 billion a year, our numbers show $15 billion; whosever numbers you want to use, it is clear there is a need for additional investment in surface transportation and public transit, in particular.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The investments that this committee has approved in the past are starting to pay off. I have the great joy really to tell you that the customers are rewarding us by using our services more. In fact, in 1997 ridership was up on public transportation systems across the country, just as it was up in 1996, and it is up across all modes—bus is up, rail is up, commuter rail is up, rapid transit is up. So, again, I think we're seeing the results of a lot of things, including investment.
That increase in ridership is coming while we're maintaining our efficiency. The farebox recovery ratio of transit systems around the country continues to improve. Our members at APTA are taking seriously the requirements to be good stewards of the public funds, to make sure that they keep their expenses under control, and that they work hard to see that the passengers pay a fair share of the cost of operating our systems. And finally in this regard, we've seen an increase in both State and local assistance for public transportation. So I'm very, very pleased about that.
In this past year, we've seen some improvements around the country; one of them certainly here in Washington, D.C., the opening of the new MCI Arena. We've seen that when people are given high quality, convenient public transportation service, they will use it. I understand now that MCI is seeing over 50 percent of the people who go to the arena using public transportation. I know around the country, whether it is Cleveland with Jacobs Field, or Baltimore with Camden Yards, and on and on and on, that's a pattern we are seeing. In fact, the benefits of public transportation we have documented in a number of reports in the past year—our Dollars and Cents Report which shows transit's contribution to the economics of the country as well as reduction in traffic congestion, a recently released report on the benefits of commuter rail. I would be very happy to make those available to the committee. So, I think we're beginning to see the pay-off in many of the investments that have been made.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Today I have several points to make to you about the specifics of the appropriation, some of which will be of no surprise to you, you've heard APTA before. We are, of course, advocating the highest possible funding for the Federal Transit Program. We believe that, as has been described by the earlier witnesses, that the money is there in the Highway Trust Fund and the Mass Transit account. We would like to see that money spent.
We believe that the efforts of this committee and others to deal with the long-standing issues relating to operating assistance, that very good progress was made last year and we would again encourage the committee to continue the flexibility for those communities of less than 200,000, but allow all transit systems flexibility to spend formula money on preventative maintenance. I just returned literally at 1:00 this morning from a meeting out in California of over 130 transit general managers and I had a chance to talk with them about how well that preventative maintenance activity is working. With one or two exceptions, it is working very well over the country. So we thank you for that and want to continue it.
Next, it was mentioned earlier about research. We too believe that research money needs to be spent. We are very disappointed that the Administration in the fiscal year 1998 cycle has been saying to us they are not going to be able to fund the Transit Cooperative Research Program which is so important to us at the same level in 1997, that it is going to be reduced. We would like to see the Transit Cooperative Research Program specifically called out in the appropriations bill and funded at least at the $8.2 level from 1997.
We also understand the FTA has critical administrative funding needs and we would support that as well.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Later this week, Mr. Chairman, I am going to be doing something that, as far as I know, APTA has never done. I'm going to be appearing before Mr. Porter's subcommittee on Labor/Health and Human Resources/Education to talk with them about the benefits of making sure that public transit is thought of as the Nation carries out its efforts in welfare-to-work and the other very important social programs that our Nation sponsors. I'm very much looking forward to that.
As my colleagues have done, let me close by commenting on the Administration's budget proposal, as much as we understand of it since it was just released yesterday. As far as public transit, I have to tell you we're generally disappointed. Overall, the level of funding the Administration is proposing for public transit is less for 1999 than was appropriated in 1998. There's no new money to assist in welfare-to-work. It has often been said that transit is the ''to'' in welfare-to-work. There's no new money for that.
There is again the Administration proposal to take the discretion away from the Congress with regard to the allocation of bus and bus facility funds and fold that into a formula with the rail modernization funds. We don't see any good public policy purpose to be served by that.
And finally, we are concerned that in the rural areas they would fund the ARTAP program out of the rural formula funds, thus effectively reducing the rural formula funds. Certainly, rural areas have a great need for public transit. In fact, later this year we expect to be able to submit to the committee a report that will document the economic benefit of investment in rural public transportation.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
On the good news side, yesterday the President did announce a new Climate Change Initiative and announced a proposal to equalize the tax treatment of parking benefits and public transit benefits, something that our Association has advocated for years and we would certainly recommend that to the Congress if it chooses to take action on the Climate Change Initiative.
So on balance, Mr. Chairman, first, we're very pleased with the work of this committee and especially the work you were able to do for us last year. We would ask you to build on that. We believe the higher ridership that we're seeing in public transit, the increase in the farebox recovery ratio shows that we're good stewards of the money and the American people are responding to improvements in the system. We would like to see the highest possible funding levels, and we would be happy to work with you on the details of that as you pull together your bill this year.
Thank you very much. We're very pleased to be with you.
Mr. WOLF. Thank you.
I appreciate all of you coming today. I think the committee is sympathetic to much of what you have said. I think what the committee has done over the years in a bipartisan fashion has demonstrated our commitment.
Mr. Millar, I would just ask if you could submit for the record how the flexibility has worked. You talked about the 130 transits; tell us where it worked well and where it didn't work so we can take a look at that.
Mr. MILLAR. Yes, sir.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The prepared statement of William Millar and additional information follow:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. WOLF. I really have no questions of this panel.
I just might say to the rail passenger people, my sense tells me that Mr. Tom Downs was treated somewhat shoddy; that's my sense, my intuition. I'm not going to ask you to comment on it, but I think he was working hard and trying. I think that's taking somebody who had a relatively good record and treating him in a very, very poor way. How that comes out, we just don't know. But I just would like to say that for the record.
Mr. Pastor.
Mr. PASTOR. No questions.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Packard.
Mr. PACKARD. Just a question, Mr. Millar. What is the farebox recovery now nationwide?
Mr. MILLAR. The last year for which the final numbers are in was fiscal year 1995, and at that point I have 37.9 percent as the national average. Based on some preliminary numbers from 1996, we expect when the final numbers are in that will grow to over 38 percent.
Mr. PACKARD. Thank you.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Aderholt.
Mr. ADERHOLT. No questions.
Mr. WOLF. Is there anything we can do to get that number up even higher?
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MILLAR. Well, I think you keep reminding us of our responsibilities, we'll keep working on it, and together we can make it happen.
Mr. WOLF. What legislative change would enable that to go higher?
Mr. MILLAR. I'll have to think on that a little bit, but I'm sure there are some ideas. I've always been a big believer in incentives; if you want people to do things, hold out carrots for them to reach. Certainly, we could work with you to fashion some ideas on incentives that would encourage higher operating ratios. Be happy to work on that with you.
Mr. WOLF. We would welcome any thoughts you might have.
Mr. MILLAR. Thank you.
Mr. WOLF. Again, I thank all of you for coming. We appreciate it very much.
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1998.
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION TO INSURE A SOUND-CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT (NOISE)
WITNESS
BETTY ANN KRAHNKE, MEMBER, EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, NOISE, AND COUNCIL MEMBER, MONTGOMERY COUNTY COUNCIL
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
BETTY ANN KANE, WASHINGTON REPRESENTATIVE, NOISE
Mr. WOLF. Betty Ann Krahnke.
Are you two together?
Ms. KRAHNKE. Yes.
Mr. WOLF. We're limited to five minutes, but if you want to have someone come up and share the time, you're certainly welcome.
Ms. KRAHNKE. Thank you.
Mr. WOLF. Welcome.
Ms. KRAHNKE. Chairman Wolf and members of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, my name is Betty Ann Krahnke. I am a member of the Montgomery County, Maryland, County Council, chairman of the Committee on Noise Abatement of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, and the treasurer and member of the Executive Committee of the National Organization to Insure a Sound-Controlled Environment, better known as NOISE. Betty Ann Kane is the lobbying coordinator for NOISE.
On behalf of the president of NOISE, Tom Egan, the mayor of Eagan, Minnesota, and our members from cities and counties all across the country, I am pleased to be here this morning to present our comments to the House Committee on Appropriations' Subcommittee on Transportation concerning the fiscal year 1999 budget for the FAA.
NOISE's primary concerns for the proposed fiscal year 1999 budget are:
1. Full funding of the statutory 31 percent set-aside for aviation noise mitigation as provided in the Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act. Opposition to any attempt to reduce or divert noise funds to other purposes, and opposition to any attempt to cap noise set-aside funds at a level less than the statutory formula would provide.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
2. Adequate funding of the overall Airport Improvement Program at least at the current year's level.
3. Increased funding for FAA research, engineering, and development programs in the Office of Environment and Energy, which includes the development of quieter aircraft engine technology, and support for related programs that are funded by NASA.
4. Adequate funding for the recently established Office of Noise Ombudsman and related community advocacy and involvement initiatives.
5. Opposition to proposed changes in the budgetary treatment of contract authority which may harm the ability of airport operators to fulfill commitments to noise mitigation.
6. A potential erosion of accountability to local communities through the shift from Federal funding to passenger facility charges and other user fees as a source of airport project funding.
Most of these concerns are the same as we expressed last year in comments submitted for the record. NOISE was very pleased that in last year's appropriation Congress rejected the Administration's attempt to significantly reduce overall AIP funding, and that Congress rejected the Administration's proposed drastic reduction in noise set-aside funding to $21 million and instead set it at $200 million. We urge you to continue to recognize airport and aircraft noise as a serious environmental problem and to honor the commitment to provide adequate resources to address it in the fiscal year 1999 budget.
I will briefly touch on each of these issues in more detail. But first, let me provide a little bit of background. NOISE is a national organization of local governments, citizen groups, and others working to reduce the impact of aircraft noise on communities. Locally, the metropolitan Washington Council of Governments through its Committee on Noise Abatement at National and Dulles, CONANDA, is an active member of NOISE. Fairfax, Loudoun, Prince William, and Arlington Counties, the Cities of Fairfax, Falls Church, and Alexandria in Virginia, as well as District of Columbia and Maryland jurisdictions are among the local jurisdictions that participate in NOISE through CONANDA.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In following up on these comments, I just want to be sure that you are aware that NOISE has appreciated the Federal Government having us on various task forces representing communities across the country in noise mitigation and noise research issues. I gather that my time is up from the light, but let me just turn to the specifics of the proposed budget.
First, in terms of the full funding, we are pleased that the Administration's proposed budget does not include language proposed last year that would have diverted discretionary funds from noise mitigation in order to increase funding to small airports. We don't take a position on the funding for small airports, per se, but we do point out that as small airports grow they will face an increased need for noise abatement. There will be little or no designated funds to assist in that, and the potential, therefore, exists for a whole new cycle of noise compatibility and capacity constraint issues and problems. Meanwhile, the cities already with noise plans will not have the money to implement them.
I want to skip to the issue of why you would fund this with other funds other than user fees. The concern is that when you shift the burden of airport improvement funding from appropriated dollars to passenger facility charges and other user fees it can lead to further disenfranchisement of noise-impacted communities. It can also lead to a loss of ability for Congress to ensure that national noise objectives are met through the appropriations and grant-making process.
PFC revenue may be used under much less restrictive conditions than apply to noise compatibility measures and other projects that use Federal AIP grant funds. We are particularly concerned that current law allows airports to use PFC revenue for noise compatibility measures eligible for assistance under the specific site whether or not a program for those measures has been approved under Section 47.504. What this allows is that airports that have approved Part 150 plans can use these funds not to implement that plan, but to implement other procedures even though the communities surrounding the airport rely on those plans when making their own land-use decisions.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It also allows airports to avoid requirements for consulting public agencies and planning authorities in the area surrounding the airport, as part of preparing the project application, for notice and an opportunity for public hearing on the proposed noise compatibility measure, and for demonstrating that a project will reduce existing noncompatible uses and preventing introducing additional noncompatible uses. The only requirement for general public notice in a PFC project application is after submission to the FAA. When airports use PFC funds in ways inconsistent with Part 150 plans without conducting a Part 150 review, including public involvement, or avoid the process entirely, the value of those plans which the Federal Government funds is undermined.
NOISE would support a requirement that FAA hold a public hearing in the airport area before approving an application for use of a PFC where the proposed project is financed by the PFC and is not part of an already approved airport plan. Our concern is that the rules that apply to Federal funds don't apply to PFCs, and the involvement of the communities and the tie-in to the Part 150 are just not there. So we want you to look at that issue.
I'll stop there and try to answer any questions.
Mr. WOLF. I have no questions. I appreciate your taking the time to come. I am very, very sympathetic. At one time, National Airport was in my district and I spent a lot of time, and still work with Congressman Moran and Congressman Davis and members on the other side of the river on that. So I am sympathetic. I am all for development of airports, but I think they ought to be very good neighbors and people that live under them ought to be protected. So I do appreciate your coming. The committee is sensitive and sympathetic to it.
Ms. KRAHNKE. We appreciate your support. NOISE also appreciates the value of the aviation industry in the country and in our communities. We just want the impacts in the communities to be minimized.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Pastor.
Mr. PASTOR. No questions.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Packard.
Mr. PACKARD. Nothing, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. WOLF. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Betty Ann Krahnke follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Tuesday, February 3, 1998.
NIAGARA FRONTIER TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
WITNESS
HON. JACK QUINN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Mr. WOLF. If everyone can come forward, Congressman Quinn, Congressman Fossella, Congressman Weygand, maybe the three together can come up.
Jack?
Mr. QUINN. We're going to shorten it as best we can, Mr. Chairman. I'm thrilled to be back again. It's very important and I just want to discuss three projects under the jurisdiction of NFTA, the Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority in Buffalo, our multimodal transportation authority which services Erie and Niagara County.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The first initiative I want to describe is one that the committee has been supportive of in the past. In fact, for two years running the committee has funded this project in Buffalo. This is the third year that we're asking for some help with the actual start-up, and that's for our HUBLINK project. It is a national model that meets the changing transportation needs resulting from the movement of jobs and populations to the suburbs and out of the city. At the same time, this HUBLINK will help NFTA to continue to meet the goal of our welfare-to-work program, the Clean Air Act, and Americans with Disabilities Act, all of course Federal initiatives.
The shifts in population in Western New York have led to increasing urban sprawl in a region that is otherwise not growing. As jobs move to the suburbs, the City of Buffalo and its share of regional jobs went from 41 percent to 35 percent as a result. Two out of three jobs are located outside of Buffalo, a phenomenon that's happening in other sections of the country.
Consequently, Metro is faced with entering an area, the suburbs, where a significant amount of automobile traffic exists and where buses are riding half full. Compounding the impact of the problems is a reality of decreasing Federal participation in transit. We believe that HUBLINK, so far as the committee has seen fit to fund it these last two years, is critically important. I might also point out, Mr. Chairman and members, that the financial plan that has been put together back in Buffalo has already identified new funding sources and other partnerships that will include State and local funding as well as our Federal participation. So let me make it clear, it is not a hand out, that we've got other people contributing money. The request is for $6 million from the bus capital appropriation for fiscal year 1999.
The second initiative I submit for the subcommittee's consideration today involves improvements to alleviate some of the safety limitations at our new Buffalo-Niagara International Airport. Mr. Chairman, I'm sure you're aware that this past November we opened a brand new airport, $157.7 million of the Airport Improvement Program. That phase included construction of a new terminal, roadway system, and a parking structure. Now Phase II, which includes acquisition and demolition of the airport center, runway work, as well as safety improvements were deferred earlier and now need our attention.
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Now that Phase I is nearly complete, we're seeking $21 million in the transportation appropriations under the FAA Airport Improvement Program for the acquisition and demolition of the building and improvement of runway 14–32.
Finally, the last initiative, just to discuss briefly with you, and everything is contained in the written report, is an important component of the City of Buffalo's waterfront redevelopment plan, including historic projects that consist of development in the new harbor waterfront plaza. Phase II includes redevelopment of the historic DL&W intermodal station connecting the harbor, waterfront, roadways, and our light rail transit in Buffalo. Truly an intermodal situation.
Part III, which we're focusing on today, includes development of the outer harbor and a bridge that connects the inner and outer harbor with the relocation of the city's Amtrak station. This important component in this phase is talking about that relocation of the Amtrak Exchange Street station, which is specific and will be explained in my written testimony. We are suggesting and requesting that the committee consider a $6 million transportation appropriation under the FTA discretionary grant program for fiscal year 1999 for the relocation of the Exchange Street station and construction of the new intermodal transportation center in Buffalo's inner harbor.
Mr. Chairman, basically three projects. All the backup information of course will be provided. We appreciate your hearing our case today and for taking time to talk about Buffalo and the NFTA. Thank you.
Mr. WOLF. Good. Thank you, Jack, for coming before the committee. I have no questions.
Mr. Pastor.
Mr. PASTOR. No questions.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Packard.
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. PACKARD. No questions.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Jack Quinn follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Tuesday, February 3, 1998.
NEW YORK FERRY PROJECTS
WITNESS
HON. VITO FOSSELLA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Mr. WOLF. Going in order, Congressman Fossella. Thank you for coming before the committee today.
Mr. FOSSELLA. Thank you very much, Chairman Wolf, and members of the committee. I appreciate your taking the time out to allow me to testify before this committee. As you may know, Mr. Chairman, this marks my first appearance before this committee and, in fact, it represents my first as a Member of Congress. I think in many ways it is appropriate that I begin my work here.
Because of your efforts and that of my predecessors, Susan Molinari and, before her, her father, we've begun work to really work on some critical transportation concerns that we have on Staten Island. As many of you may know, we are very dependent upon ferry service. The Staten Island ferries provide daily commute for more than 60,00