Segment 2 Of 6 Previous Hearing Segment(1) Next Hearing Segment(3)
SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 82 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
PLEASE NOTE: The following transcript is a portion of the official hearing record of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Additional material pertinent to this transcript may be found on the web site of the Committee at [http://www.house.gov/transportation]. Complete hearing records are available for review at the Committee offices and also may be purchased at the U.S. Government Printing Office.
LEGISLATION TO APPROVE THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM (NHS) AND ANCILLARY ISSUES RELATING TO HIGHWAY AND TRANSIT PROGRAMS
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1995
U.S. House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Surface Transportation,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Thomas Petri, (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. PETRI. The meeting will come to order.
We're meeting today to continue the subcommittee's review of our highway and transit programs to identify mandates, regulatory burdens or recommended improvements to these programs. For the most part, our witnesses today represent local governments, transit providers, both public and private, and transit workers.
Page 83 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
While a wide range of subjects will be examined today, several particular issues associated with the Americans with Disabilities Act will also be examined, including requirements relating to over-the-road buses, para-transit services, and the issue of detectable warning strips on transit platform edges.
This last issue is of considerable importance to people in this area. The question of whether or not Metro will be forced to spend millions of dollars at a time when riders are facing cuts in service and increases in fares to install miles of rubber strips with truncated domes in order to improve safety for the blind and visually impaired is one that has generated a great deal of attention over the last several months.
Having lived through the ADA debate myself 5 years ago, and as a user of this particular system, I have followed the issue, as many in this area have, with a great deal of interest. The Federal Transit Administration indicates that it does not feel under the statute it has the flexibility to approve any plan other than one which is consistent with guidelines of the access board which call for detectable warning strips on transit platform edges.
I know that there's not total agreement within the blind community on the issue of detectable warning strips, and we'll hear from both sides of that issue today. I also know that the Washington Metro feels passionately about the safety of its current system, and is proud of its record since Metro opened nearly 20 years ago.
So I'm looking forward to this panel, and believe that there are some lessons that may be learned that could serve us generally and favorably in the future. We'll also be hearing some issues of less, maybe, cosmic importance but of a great deal of importance, including mandates for small, rural towns, something that's near and dear to me and people in my district. I feel is very important, although not too much money may be involved, unlike the Metro situation.
Page 84 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
With that, let me welcome our witnesses this morning. We appreciate your taking the time to join us to share your ideas and perspectives with the subcommittee. And of course as you know, oral testimony is limited to 5 minutes to give adequate time for questioning, but full written statements will be included in the record.
And now I'd like to yield to the senior minority member of the subcommittee, Congressman Nick Rahall, for any opening statement.
Mr. RAHALL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I noticed that there are a number of issues that are the subject of today's hearings. I do want to limit my opening remarks, however, to one particular matter involving transit. And it will not be anything new that I'm stating this morning that I have not already stated before this subcommittee or full committee.
In our last hearing on February 8th, we received testimony from several metropolitan transit authorities whose primary focus was elimination of Section 13(c), the labor protection provisions in Federal law. And as I noted at that time, when Congress passed the Urban Mass Transit Act of 1964, we entered into a contract, a contract with transit employees.
We said at that time, and with the full concurrence of the transit industry, that we will allow Federal funds to be used to acquire private transit companies and operate transit services. But at the same time we said these actions should not worsen the transit employees' position, that the infusion of Federal funds should not lead to harming these workers. That's what Section 13(c) is all about. It is a contract with the employees, a contract made in 1964, with the concurrence of the transit industry, with the concurrence of the transit employees.
Page 85 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Now, today, after we've heaped billions of taxpayer dollars onto public transit systems, we are hearing the big city transit authorities say, break that contract with our workers. And Mr. Chairman, as I've said before, I will not be a party to the breaking of that contract. The issue is pretty clear-cut in my mind. Greed is taking precedence over human decency in dealing with the working men and women in the transit industry. Even though I represent a rural area of the country, I've always been a supporter of Section 3, capital assistance to the transit industry.
So the question in my mind today is whether this support is appropriate in light of increased preoccupation that some in transit management have in taking up the so-called regulatory burdens banner as a ruse to deny collective bargaining rights to their employees. In large part due to Section 13(c), interruptions of transit service as a result of labor unrest is a rarity.
This serves the public interest. It serves the interest of the transit workers, it serves the interests of their families and it serves the interests of the transit industry. And it should serve that industry and its management that is so heavily subsidized by taxpayer dollars.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that I will not have to keep beating this bandwagon. I hope that perhaps, and I say this with all due respect to you, Mr. Chairman, because I know perhaps the orders and the directives are coming from beyond this level. Perhaps they're coming from higher up.
Page 86 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
But I do hope that this subcommittee can move expeditiously in approving what should be our number one priority this year, and that is the approval of the National Highway System legislation. And I hope that once we get beyond the bashing of Davis-Bacon, Section 13(c), other labor protection divisions and sections, that we can move on with what I consider the number one priority of this subcommittee this year, and as I've said before, if we do not do that, if we fail to enact the National Highway System legislation, then we'll be passing on to the states the grand-daddy of all unfunded mandates by requiring them to repair Federal roads without Federal dollars.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
Mr. LaHood would like to introduce a member of the first panel. So if you could come up, and while they're coming up, are there other opening statements that anyone wishes to make?
All right, then, panel one, Commissioner Andrew Warren, Bucks County, Pennsylvania and Mr. George Miller of the Town Officials of the State of Illinois. I recognize Mr. LaHood.
Mr. LAHOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to make special note of Mr. George Miller, who is one of the witnesses in the first panel. I have known George for about the last hundred years or more. He has served the people of Illinois very well as the Director of the Township Officials of Illinois. And the Township Officials of Illinois represent the very grass-roots of elected officials in our state.
Page 87 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
And George, it's with great pleasure that I welcome you to our committee. Because if anybody knows what folks at the grass roots are feeling and saying, particularly elected officials, you surely do. So Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to recognize George Miller. He's done marvelous work for the citizens of Illinois for a good, long period of time. Thank you.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you, Representative LaHood.
Gentlemen, which of you would like to proceed? Mr. Miller.
TESTIMONY OF GEORGE MILLER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, TOWNSHIP OFFICIALS OF ILLINOIS, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF TOWNSAND TOWNSHIPS; AND ANDREW WARREN, COUNTY COMMISSIONER, BUCKS COUNTY, PA, AND CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF TRANSPORTATION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS STEERING COMMITTEE
Mr. MILLER. Well, first of all, Congressman LaHood, thank you for your kind words and thank the people of Illinois for having such great perception in sending you to Washington to represent us. I do appreciate it.
Mr. Chairman, and committee members, I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify on the issue of commercial drivers license, CDL and drug and alcohol testing requirements. My name is George Miller, and as Congressman LaHood expressed, I'm the Executive Director of the Township Officials of Illinois. I'm testifying on behalf of the 1,433 townships in Illinois, 49 percent of which have fewer than 1,000 residents. My association is also a member of the National Association of Towns and Townships, and I am also testifying on that organization's behalf. We appreciate the subcommittee's interest in hearing from local governments on transportation related mandates.
Page 88 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you personally for your past efforts to rationalize CDL requirements. I know that you've introduced legislation that gives some relief in the past, and that is appreciated.
What I have to say about the problems associated with the commercial drivers licenses and drug and alcohol testing of CDL holders must be taken within the context of its impact on smaller, local governments. NATaT represents approximately 13,000 of the Nation's 39,000 general purpose units of local government. Most town and township governments are small and rural. For that matter, 48 percent of all local governments have fewer than 1,000 residents, according to the most recent census figures.
The Omnibus Transportation and Employee Testing Act of 1991 requires all employers with 50 or more commercial drivers licensed employees as of January 1, 1995, and all employers with one or more commercial drivers licensed employees as of January 1, 1996, to implement and administer an alcohol and drug testing program. Details of these programs have been submitted in writing as a memorandum from HealthNet, a company providing program administration.
NATaT's members believe these requirements are an unnecessary requirement for local governments. This is especially burdensome for small governments with only one or two full-time employees and a small number of part-time employees who only plow snow in winter. The risk of these snow plow operators being under the influence of drugs and alcohol has not been documented.
However, our state association has established TOIRMA, Township Officials of Illinois Risk management Association, to provide protection locally for the townships in Illinois. In the last eight and a half years, we represent more than 1,000 of the state's 1,400 plus townships. In only one accident reported has there been any indication of alcohol abuse, and absolutely none of drug abuse. These are the only figures we have, but we feel that they are very important figures.
Page 89 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
The risk of, the commercial drivers license law was intended to focus on over the road truckers, but because of the definition of commercial vehicles, it was given for any vehicle of 26,001 pounds or more, not including graders. Snow plow trucks became vehicles for which a CDL was required. Now the alcohol and drug testing rules apply to these operators also.
The Federal Act did recognize that some drivers license requirements were not appropriate for everyone. Fire truck drivers, ambulance drivers and farmers within a 150 mile radius of their home are exempt from the licensing requirement. However, if that farmer driving an 80,000 pound load 150 miles from home changes hats and becomes the operator of a snow plow 5 miles from home, he's required to have a CDL.
NATaT believes several options should be considered to relieve local governments of these overburdensome and unnecessary requirements. Here are some options for your consideration.
Provide by Federal legislation an exemption from CDL licensing requirements for all local government employees. Provide by legislation an exemption from alcohol and drug testing requirements for local government employees. Provide by Federal legislation an exemption from CDL licensing or alcohol and drug testing for part-time employees, or specific part-time employees such as snow plow operators. And there are several more that we have submitted in the written statement.
I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Page 90 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Mr. PETRI. Thank you very much, Mr. Miller.
Commissioner Warren.
Mr. WARREN. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
I am Andy Warren, I'm Chairman of the Bucks County, Pennsylvania Board of Commissioners, and Chairman of the National Association of Counties Transportation and Telecommunications Steering Committee. And I'm pleased to be here today.
I represent county officials, and we are most interested in this topic in that counties own 1.7 million miles of highway, 219,000 bridges, and one-third of all the transit systems in the United States, more than any other level of government. We also invest $15 billion annually in transportation infrastrusture.
Parenthetically, I might add that the Federal Highway Administration has never been able to tell us how many Federal highway dollars reach county governments. Data on distribution of Federal highway funds would be very helpful to county commissioners. And I would ask the committee today to write FHWA and ask for an accounting of how Federal highway dollars are distributed or spent by category among state, county, and city governments on a state-by-state basis.
Also, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and any of the members of your subcommittee who have heard from county commissioners, elected officials, and citizens all over the United States the recent unfunded mandate legislation. We certainly appreciate that move.
Page 91 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Federal transportation requirements, which start off as well-meaning, often result in adding costs to projects. Some of the costs and delays are understandable, but many others are not. They would include higher costs for a project which generate long delays with less work getting done and in some cases, Federal funds actually being rejected and projects not being undertaken.
Let me mention just a few, and I am not here to bash Davis-Bacon, Mr. Rahall, but hope that we might be able to beautify it a little as Davis-Bacon adds tremendous costs to every county project. Recently I was in a conversation where a government bid a project with Davis-Bacon and without it, knowing they would keep it. The cost was 30 percent higher with Davis-Bacon. What we would ask is that perhaps a consideration for some reform, perhaps a threshold of $500,000.
Also, we would suggest that county boundaries would generally be a better loacal wage determination area for Davis-Bacon and where it should apply, rather than urban wage data in rural areas are vice versa. Also, we would ask for the repeal of the Crumb Rubber mandate. The benefits of the Crumb Rubber requirement are yet not clearly justified versus additional cost.
Also, we know that the metric conversion for highway signage has been temporarily stopped. We would ask the permanent ban of that mandate in that it will cost county governments an estimated $2 billion to implement. No county official would ever suggest that we build substandard roads and bridges. However, we all want to make the most cost-effective use of limited resources and see a certain amount of flexibility in Federal regulations. Let me offer quickly some examples. First of all, in Sandusky County, Ohio, they have had an opportunity to replace a bridge using Federal funds.
Page 92 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
However, because the county was required to pay a consulting engineer to design the bridge to Federal standards and contribute 20 percent, it has proven to be less expensive for the county to build a bridge to its own standards than to use Federal funds and build the bridge to Federal standards. Fortunately, Sandusky can afford to do that. Others could not afford to not accept Federal funds.
In Maricopa County, Arizona, a $4.5 million urban road construction project was ready to go to construction using county highway funds. At the last minute, Federal funds were added to the project. The cost for contract administration went from a $450,000 to a $786,000 project and required additional named personnel to be added.
Racine County, Wisconsin recently completed the construction of a 45 foot single span bridge with Federal trade. The cost was 60 percent higher, 20 months preconstruction phase could have been done in 7 months had not the Federal guidelines been mandated.
Let me just quickly add two or three where Federal mandates are backing heads with each other. In Bucks County, Pennsylvania, we had the opportunity to create a 500 space parking lot to help us comply with the Clean Air Act. We would have encouraged more commuters to get off I-95 and the commuter rail. What we wanted to do was use land right adjacent to a railroad track that was originally, land purchased for a transfer station.
What happened was due to improper maintenance over the years, the water backed up on the land, creating a wetland. Now we've had a wetland created for lack of maintenance. The supporters of wetlands blocked the project and that has caused the cleaning of the air by getting cars off of the road to not be able to work. These are conflicting Federal regulations we've got to speak to.
Page 93 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
And one last point. I also serve as chairperson of the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission. Last week at the meeting we had a discussion relative to para-transit. SEPTA, serves 600,000 riders a year on para-transit in Philadelphia and the Delaware Valley. It costs $10 million. And that, we believe certainly, is an excellent investment. In comparison, New Jersey Transit, right across the river, provides 21,000 rides for $2.6 million.
I asked what the difference was; what SEPTA knew that New Jersey Transit didn't. I was told it was startup costs. Surely, there's a difference. Pottstown Transit Authority provides 5 mile para-transit trips at $90 a ride. Surely, Mr. Chairman, one size in this case does not fit all. And that's what we would ask this subcommittee to address, to speak to.
And in the written testimony, there is an example of land that might be acceptable for a rail line except for the possibility of a bog turtle habitat. Never has a bog turtle been seen. But because a bog turtle might be there, SEPTA has backed away from providing rail transportation to get people off of the road which would clean the air.
My one concluding point is that, we would urge this committee and the rest of Congress to release the transportation trust funds. Trust county commissioners, trust the people in local government to invest those funds, and release them from the general budget and put them to the purpose for which they are to be used.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you both for your testimony.
Page 94 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
We've been joined by the Chairman of the full committee, the Honorable Bud Shuster from Altoona, Pennsylvania. And I don't know, Bud, would you care to say anything?
All right. Representative Rahall, do you have any questions?
Mr. RAHALL. No, I don't have any questions.
Mr. PETRI. Are there any other—yes, Representative LaHood.
Mr. LAHOOD. Mr. Miller, George, let me just ask two questions. What cost do you think would be incurred, have been incurred as a result of these regulations being placed? What savings would be rendered if they were lifted? And then how do you address the safety issues that are raised by those who say that if we were to lift these particular regulations, that we might be inhibiting safety that could occur as a result of them?
Mr. MILLER. Congressman, the dollar, the monetary cost is the cost of the license and testing and so forth, which you might say is minimal for a full-time employee, a couple of hundred dollars a year. Going beyond that, in the event that there is an accident involving one of these vehicles, whether that driver, the operator, appears to be under the influence of alcohol and/or a drug substance, they are required to abandon their vehicle and be taken in for testing then.
That is part of the Act. The testing facilities may be a hundred miles away. What if this accident occurs, and they can occur, at 1:00 o'clock in the morning during a snowstorm? What do we do with the roads they're opening? What do we do with the piece of equipment that's right there?
Page 95 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
These, for the most part, are jurisdictions that are rural in nature. They don't have a garage or a site where they have additional people within the immediate area. It isn't just the dollars, it's the inconvenience and the handicap, and the inability to hire part-time people to undertake this project. Because they don't have to go through the testing and the licensing requirement in their own industry or their own business or their regular jobs.
But if they're called out in the middle of the night to operate a snow plow, they have to fulfill these obligations. It just doesn't make a lot of sense to apply to them the same restrictions that are applied to an over the road driver. If we could see just an exemption for the very small units, say, one that employees 15 or fewer people. And then only while they're working in their own jurisdiction. This would meet our criteria, our needs.
Mr. LAHOOD. Did you say 15 or 50?
Mr. MILLER. Fifteen. We'd settle for 15.
Mr. LAHOOD. Fifteen.
Mr. MILLER. That's how small these jurisdictions generally are.
Mr. LAHOOD. Yes. Do you have any statistics on the accident rates for Illinois with respect to township government and the use of these vehicles and plowing and that sort of——
Page 96 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Mr. MILLER. I don't have those with me. We have had, as I mentioned, in our eight and a half year period of our own program, we've had several hundred accidents, some major and some minor. But there has only been one in eight and a half years that involved anybody that had been drinking. And there have been none that involved anyone with using drugs.
The other commercial carriers, I'm sure that they have similar figures on their records.
Mr. LAHOOD. That's a very important statistic.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
Representative Mineta.
Mr. Poshard, you go ahead.
Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to welcome Mr. Miller to the panel here today. I've known George for a long time. His folks do a wonderful job. The township officials back in Illinois provide the most basic services to our people of just about any unit of government. And I've been appreciative over the years for what George and his people have done.
Page 97 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
In fact, I've just spent, a couple weekends ago, I think, George, up in Long Creek Township with Brian Smith. And that's a township that manages a huge rural water district for the benefit of the people there. So I congratulate you on the efforts that you've made, and your people.
And I appreciate your concerns with some common sense things here with respect to the CDL requirements. I think this committee certainly needs to take into consideration what you have given here. I don't have any questions on it. But thank you for participating in our deliberations.
Mr. PETRI. Are there any other questions of the witnesses?
[No response.]
Mr. PETRI. If not, I just wanted to thank you both. And Commissioner Warren, you mentioned the lack of good statistics for Federal highway funds going to county government. We'd be eager to work with you on that. But could you illustrate what the purpose of it would be, or what the benefit of trying to get statistics——
Mr. WARREN. It would be very helpful for county commissioners throughout the United States to know the percentage of dollars that highways and bridges are being sent to a given state, Pennsylvania, for example, and that are allocated to county and other local governments.
Page 98 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
As I said, counties have more miles of highway than any other level of government in the United States. And in some states, it's difficult for those counties who have to maintain roads to know just how much Federal funds you all send to the State government which is passed on to counties, the people who can, in my opinion, use it best. We have never been able, by asking the Federal Highway Department what is the figure that's sent to Pennsylvania.
It seems it ought to be relatively simple. We haven't, at NaCO, been able to get that. Hopefully, with your intercession, we could. You've got two Pennsylvanians on this committee. We can do anything.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you both very much.
The second panel is comprised of Mr. Larry Reuter, General Manager of the Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority, Mr. Oral O. Miller, National Representative of the American Council of the Blind, and Mr. James Gashel, Director of Government Affairs of the National Federation of the Blind. We'd like to welcome the three of you to this committee, and let's see, perhaps Mr. Reuter, would you like to start off?
TESTIMONY OF LAWRENCE G. REUTER, GENERAL MANAGER, WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY; ORAL O. MILLER, NATIONAL REPRESENTATIVE, AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND, ACCOMPANIED BY, AMANDA LEE; JAMES GASHEL, DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND
Mr. REUTER. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this hearing today.
Page 99 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
My name is Larry Reuter, and I'm the General Manager of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, and also the father of a disabled child. So I'm here to speak to you with both hats on this morning.
As you know, the Metro, as WMATA is more favorably known in this area, provides bus and rail service in the District of Columbia, Northern Virginia and the northern suburbs of Maryland. Our subway system is sometimes referred to as America's subway, and we thank the Congress for supporting us over the years, for it in fact is public transportation at its best.
Metrorail faces the same challenges Federal regulations place on transit budgets that my colleagues have mentioned in the earlier testimony before this committee. But this morning, I would like to draw your attention to something that isn't just a dollars and cents issue, but a common sense issue. My issue is a Department of Transportation regulation that goes far so afield of Congressional intent, that it defies reason.
When Congress enacted the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990, its clear intent was to remove barriers to public services for people with disabilities. At Metro, anyone able to travel independently can travel safely using every one of our rail stations and every one of our rail cars. This is far more than the law requires, and far more than any other U.S. rail system can say.
And for anyone who can't travel independently, we have a Federally-mandated paratransit system that will provide curb to curb service at an annualized cost of $11 million. We have the most accessible rail system in the country. I ask, what's the problem?
Page 100 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Industry data indicate that the number of people falling from platforms is very small. And Metro has the best record of one fall for every 14 million passenger trips. In 19 years, since we started operating, in 11 billion miles of passenger service, there have only been 10 recorded accidental falls involving visually impaired patrons. There has never been, and I repeat, has never been a platform accident in Metro in which the edge surface of the platform was implicated as a contributing factor. We have the safest rail system in the country. Again, where's the problem?
Metro was built in the late sixties, with a distinctive platform edge detection system, the first in the country to have a platform edge detection system, and it was expressly designed to provide travel cues to the hearing and visually impaired. We have some photos, for those that aren't familiar with the system.
At all our stations, both indoors and outdoors, you'll see the paver tile in the middle, 18 inches of granite on the edge, and the lights. And in fact, that is a platform edge detection system, so that people can see the contrasting colors and recognize the approach and presence of the train.
Yet, even with this, the Department of Transportation wants us to change our platform edges to comply with the regulation. This regulation is a solution looking for a problem. DOT regulators decided that underfoot detectability is necessary on the platform edge for visually impaired passengers. The regulation calls for 24 inches of equidistant, quarter-inch truncated domes on all platforms. And this is a sample of some of that type of material.
Page 101 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
We could have kept quiet and complied like other transit properties did, by installing an edge for as little as $5 million dollars. Let me show you what the fourth generation of this economical approach looks like on a California property. We've got some photos here of the truncated domes installed at a property in California.
These are photographs I personally took last year at a rail conference that this property was hosting. Remember, this is the fourth generation, so they've been doing this for a while. Over the last 5 years, they have been trying to correct these problems. You see the tiles missing and peeling. The Department of Transportation accepts this performance as complying with the regulation. Metro would never accept it.
How do you justify even a $5 million expenditure of public money on something that's unnecessary? Anyway, these tiles are a safety and maintenance nightmare, particularly in a location like Washington, with snow and ice. And in fact, I've talked to my peers in the industry in Boston, California and New York. They are having tremendous maintenance problems with these materials.
I could not in good conscience approve the application of this kind of material to Metro, even if you gave me the money. The only way we could comply without creating a safety hazard would be to remove the existing granite edge and replace it with one that is custom crafted, including custom crafting the light domes on the granite edge. Our estimate is that would cost $30 million to do that system-wide.
As we said, this is not merely an issue of dollars and cents. Metro has invested over $40 million in ADA related improvements and has gone far beyond what is required by the law in modifying all of its stations. We have not just modified key stations, as the regulation requires. When required to make fare gates accessible to wheelchairs, we commissioned a special design that far exceeds regulatory standards and allows patrons in wheelchairs to enter and exit through our regular array of fare gates. We've got a picture here of one introduced last year. We also had the fare card feeder mechanism lowered so that those with mobilities in their arms could retrieve their card much easier.
Page 102 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Independence, not just regulatory compliance, is a goal of Metro. Accommodations for people with disabilities is our goal. We asked to be grandfathered, pursuant to the provisions of 49CFR, Section 37.9, since we began construction before the ADA law was enacted and we complied with Federal requirements in place at that time. The Department said no. We once before asked for equivalent facilitation from the Department, and they said no again. Based on comments the FTA Administrator made yesterday at a press conference, we're fairly sure they are going to say no to our request this time. And now I guess it's time for Metro to say the same. We're going to say no to installing truncated domes.
In the transit industry, we don't deal with real safety issues through civil rights legislation. If there's a safety problem, we fix it, and not just in key stations. This is not a safety issue. The Department denied our previous request for equivalent facilitation, saying that our safety data were irrelevant because at the current rate of falls, we would need at least 152 years of data to make a valid accident analysis. Those are their words, not mine.
Yet the same department cites the Bay Area Rapid Transit System, BART, in San Francisco, with only 3 years of data, and says look at them, they've installed the domes, look at their statistics. We've got the data to show you. I ask you, look at the data and see for yourself. In fact, if you look at all falls from platforms, the black line is BART, the red lines are Metro. We're the best. Our accident data shows that our platform edge detection system works, and we are safer than transit systems that have installed truncated domes.
The far chart shows the falls for sight impairs from the platform for persons with sight impairments. Again, you see the same results. Out platforms are safer. We have fewer falls from the platform than BART does.
Page 103 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
We entered into an agreement with the Department last July to test alternative platform treatments. We agreed to abide by those results. We commissioned the only studies that have ever been done with a platform drop-off. The results received this past December indicate that no surface provides any significant enhancement of safety or accessibility for visually impaired passengers. The studies demonstrate that Metro does not need to change its platform edge, because it is equal to or exceeds the design called for in the regulation.
This may be the only problem brought before this committee that has an easy way out. Secretary Peña has the discretion to grant us equivalent facilitation and save taxpayers $30 million in higher subsidies. The DOT regulation has already cost taxpayers millions of dollars nationwide.
But Metro has neither the money nor the will to do something that makes no sense. Federal regulations for which there is no budget are a real challenge. Federal regulations for which there is no reason are an affront. I would ask the esteemed Chairman and members of this committee to support us in our bid for equivalent facilitation, relieving us of this senseless burden.
I thank you, Chairman. I would like my written statement entered into the record.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
Mr. Miller, would you like to proceed next?
Page 104 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Mr. MILLER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
My name is Oral Miller, I'm the national representative of the American Council of the Blind, which is now the largest organization of blind people in the Nation.
I'm also testifying today in behalf of the Blinded Veterans Association, the Association for the Education and Rehabilitation of the Blind and Visually Impaired, the National Capital Council of Citizens with Low Vision, the Washington Orientation and Mobility Association, the American Foundation for the Blind, the Columbia Lighthouse for the Blind, and the Alexandria, Virginia Commission on Persons with Disabilities. All these organizations are dedicated to improving the lives of people with disabilities.
We thank you for this opportunity to speak today about detectable warnings, because we believe they certainly are not a burden and they certainly are not an inefficiency. In terms of the phrasing of the tone of today's hearing, they certainly are extremely important as a means of assuring that we, as blind people, have an accessible transit system, a system that blind people can use safety and independently.
Why is there so much concern about detectable warnings? Over the years, a number of blind people in the United States have died rather gruesome deaths falling from subway and rail platforms not protected by detectable warnings. In addition to that, scores of others have been injured and many others don't use subway systems now because they are afraid of falling.
Page 105 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
I'm sorry, but we have identified, right here in the Washington area, 19 blind people who have fallen off Metro platforms over the years. And unfortunately, there have been three fatalities, three people were killed after falling from Metro platforms in this area. Blind people are represented at a disproportionately high rate among the statistics of people who have fallen from platforms.
What causes people to fall from platforms? Blind people can generally detect the edge of a subway platform with their cane or with their guide dog. But detectable warnings become important when there is something that interferes with the operation and the use of these guides. Or, when there is a momentary disorientation or when a person is nearly walking parallel to the track, in other words, he's not walking straight toward the edge of the platform, which is essentially the way the research referred to earlier was conducted.
One blind gentleman who fell onto the tracks here and fortunately survived did so after he stopped to help a lady in front of him who dropped packages on the platform. He helped her pick them up, and in the process of doing this and moving around, he changed his position ever so slightly in relation to the track, and then proceeded, as soon as the packages were picked up, he almost fell off, he did actually fall off, but as I indicated, was not killed.
Why did he fall off? Because he was near the tracks, near the edge in the first place, and because there were no warnings, there was no detectable warning to tell him exactly how close he was to the edge, that slight disorientation caused him to fall off.
One safety engineer recently reported that the transit edges are about the only drop-off that members of the public are exposed to now not protected by some sort of rail or protective device. When you stop and think about it, society is full of safeguards that really should not be necessary for sighted people who can see the potential danger they're approaching. Stop and think. You have doors on elevator shafts, you have banisters on balconies, you have banisters on stairways, society is full of such examples.
Page 106 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I'd like to introduce to you Ms. Amanda Lee for a brief statement.
Ms. LEE. I'm a computer professional with the Government. I commute daily to and from Washington, DC via the WMATA Metrorail system, to and from work and to other activities.
On two occasions, I have encountered life-threatening circumstances with the WMATA Metrorail system. One occurred when I fell from the platform edge. I was new to the area, and had received orientation through a qualified orientation and mobility instructor, who informed me that there is a detectable granite surface that is detectable with the cane or underfoot. I was unable to detect a difference in the platform surface and lost my balance.
The other incident happened while walking on a center platform to an escalator for the next level of the station, where I was to meet another train. I dodged pillars, people, benches, recycling bins, trash cans, and someone's briefcase, plus other items in a pile on the platform, almost falling as my foot became entangled in a strap. Stepping a few inches to the right of the pile, I moved on. Then I felt the arm of a fellow commuter placed across my body as he said, ''Stop.'' I stopped, just as my foot stepped off the edge of the platform.
I did not fall this time, but a discernible detectable surface would have prevented my loss of orientation to the platform. I'm a high functioning blind person with better than average orientation and mobility skills. All blind people do not have the same skills. Yet they must conduct life's activities with generally using public transit services.
Page 107 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Daily, I am afraid of using this system. So please consider this mandate.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you, very much.
Mr. Miller, your 5 minutes are up, the bells have rung. I think we will give Mr. Gashel a chance to give his 5 minutes of testimony, and then when the next bells ring or shortly thereafter, we're going to have to go and vote on the floor.
Oh, are we in recess? I'm sorry. Then if you want to proceed, Mr. Gashel.
Mr. GASHEL. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
My name is James Gashel, and I am the Director of Governmental Affairs for the National Federation of the Blind, as you know, an organization which includes blind people all over the United States, many of whom have come this morning to be a part of this hearing.
Since all of the leaders of the National Federation of the Blind are blind, and since the vast majority of the members of the Federation are blind, we're often referred to as the voice of the Nation's blind. We've come to discuss the ADA this morning, Mr. Chairman, as it applies to rail stations and blind people using them.
Now, the ADA is first and foremost and only a civil rights law. Its purpose is to provide equal and effective access for persons with disabilities. By law, that should be the purpose of any of the ADA's implementing regulations.
Page 108 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
So I think it is a fair question for the American people, for the Congress, for the taxpayers, and for that matter, for blind people to ask, is it really necessary to mandate a particular configuration of bumps on a platform edge for purposes of upholding or protecting our civil rights? We're prepared to address that question, because that really is the question under the ADA.
The competent and safe use of rail systems by blind people is really not in question. We can use them, we use them every day, we use them successfully. We do so to get to work, to pleasure, to take part thoroughly in society. The fact is that there never was a Metrorail system built in this country that blind people could not use and use successfully.
A fact which seems to be overlooked in all of the uproar over detectable warnings is that the platform edge is a perfectly useful, provenly effective detectable warning. What could be more detectable? This conclusion is supported by the daily experience of blind people in the Washington area and all over this country, and it's also supported by WMATA's recent research findings.
In contravention of the studies and our daily experience, the Department of Transportation's regulation for bumpy platform edges falsely says to everyone that we are unable to be safe and that we are at harm in thinking that we can be safe in using a Metrorail system. It really says something like this: ''We, the Government, must see that they, the blind, are protected whether they need to be protected or not.'' It is hard to believe that this is actually being done in the name of civil rights, but it is that way.
Page 109 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
I would say, Mr. Chairman, that the worst form of discrimination against me as a blind person has come when people falsely presume that I cannot do things which I really can do. The fact that in this case the false presumption is propounded by the Government in the name of civil rights only makes it worse, in my opinion. In the name of civil rights, blind people are being forced to accept a degree of incompetence that we cannot accept, that we will not accept, and that the American people wouldn't want us to accept. We are being forced to accept a level of incompetence which is simply not true.
Mr. Chairman, the Department of Transportation's irrational attachment to mandating bumps on platform edges sends a message to the American people: take care and look out for the blind, because our failure to do things to take care of the blind means that they cannot look out for themselves. It is this complete overbearing and untrue situation, not the smooth platform edge, that is the really important civil rights issue facing blind people. To enforce the ADA and to do so appropriately, the Department of Transportation should really be promoting our competence, not presuming our incompetence.
In regulating under the ADA, Mr. Chairman, the burden is, or at least it should be, on the Government to show that the bumps on the platform edges are necessary to protect civil rights. That's all it is about. It is not enough for a regulation to make people simply feel comfortable for themselves. It is probably not possible for the Government to regulate to the extent that everybody will feel comfortable. And even if it were, the ADA, that is the underlying statute involved here, is a law designed to protect civil rights, not necessarily designed to make everybody feel comfortable all of the time.
Talk about excessive Government regulation, this is a good example of it. And speaking of ineffective over-regulation, Mr. Chairman, my final point is this. If the Department of Transportation cannot be dissuaded from its present fanatical assistance upon bumps to serve as a detectable warning, when a smooth platform edge surface is provably just as effective as a detectable warning would be, I predict that the cause of civil rights for persons with disabilities in general is in deep, deep trouble and in grave danger. Because people will cease to take our civil rights seriously.
Page 110 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
I hope and believe that you will help us seek to ensure that this does not happen. Just because somebody can think up a rule doesn't mean that the Government should make the rule. And I think that's what we're dealing with here, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you very much.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you all for your initial testimony.
Representative Rahall, do you have a question or questions? Representative Mineta.
Mr. MINETA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and let me thank our panelists for testifying today.
Let me ask whether or not WMATA is currently opposed to make any changes whatsoever to the current edge warning strips in your Metrorail stations.
Mr. REUTER. Mr. Mineta, I've offered to the DOT that we would look at anything that we think makes logical and rational sense that could improve safety. If I could correct one thing that was said by one of the groups, Metrorail, by the way, has not had 19 falls from the platform involving persons with visual impairments. Our records show 13 accidents involving visually impaired persons, plus 1 which occured just last month, and only 2 of those were fatalities on the system. I just wanted to correct that for the record.
Mr. MINETA. Since the discussion is more directed to the requirement for the truncated domes, has WMATA considered scoring in some way this smooth finish that you have on the granite edge?
Page 111 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Mr. REUTER. Yes, Mr. Mineta, and that's exactly what we tested. We submitted several different granite textures testing in the fall and winter of last year. Those are the test results that came back and said there is no difference among the surfaces. The type of textures on the material, whether it is truncated domes or scored material, does not generate any statistical difference in detectability of the platform edge. We've submitted these test for the hearing record.
Mr. MINETA. But does that scoring also mean that you have to extend that width from 18 to 24 inches if you go to the scoring method? And what would then the cost be?
Mr. REUTER. The DOT has remained adamant that the regulation requires 24 inches of truncated material. Our $30 million is for 24 inches of material. Obviously, if it was 18 inches, it would be slightly less. But right now, our data shows there's no reason to do anything.
One of the things I have indicated, Mr. Mineta, is that in our review of accident data, both here at Metro and during my
10 years at New York and 4 years in California, is that when blind people fall off the platform, they usually fall between the cars. My experience in California a was in Mr. Mineta's home district, as he knows.
In these instances, blind individuals have successfully found the edge of the platform, and either by their error, or by themselves hasting to enter the car, and they mistake the opening between the cars for the open train door. We have offered to look at ways to address that issue although we don't see that as a major problem.
Page 112 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Miller, did you wish to comment?
Mr. MILLER. Yes. Concerning alternative surfaces, there is one which was experimented with called step squares. We have contacted Metro within the last week asking for price information concerning that particular surface. If anyone here believes that the smooth granite surface that goes along the Metro platforms is as detectable to a blind person as is either the domes or the step square, which is one of the techniques, one of the systems that was researched by Metro's own commissioned testing agent, if anybody believes that granite strip is that good, I'll sell you a bridge in Brooklyn at a discount price.
Twenty years ago, before this system was opened, approximately 20 years ago, a colleague, Dr. Bud Keith and I, crawled around on our hands and knees at one of the stations before it was open to the public, with the Metro public information director. He explained how wonderful this system would be, and we said, Mr. Phanstiel, that's beautiful, that looks great, but as far as that granite strip working as a marker or any sort of warning for blind people, it just won't cut it. It didn't then and it doesn't now.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Miller, is there also a uniformity issue in the sense that if I'm in San Francisco or New York or Chicago or Cincinnati, as Ms. Lee had indicated, that I know what my sense of what a truncated dome is, whether it's in Cincinnati, San Francisco, Chicago, New York or Washington, D.C., that as soon as I feel that underfoot or with my cane, I know that there is then an edge that I've got to be careful about.
Mr. MILLER. Yes.
Page 113 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Mr. MINETA. And is not that uniformity also as important as it is a safety issue, and that it is not just a question of access?
Mr. MILLER. Yes. It would be extremely important if blind travelers, and blind people do travel around the country the same as everybody else, would be able to know whenever he or she goes into the subway station, that when he feels that roughened edge, whether the system chosen is the domes or the step squares or something else that works, it would be extremely important for him to know he's near the edge, he's near the edge.
Mr. MINETA. Having been one of the four authors of the ADA Act, I just want to thank the members of the panel for the testimony today, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you, Mr. Mineta.
Mr. LaHood.
Mr. LAHOOD. Mr. Reuter, did you want to say something?
Mr. REUTER. Yes, I could respond to the uniformity issue.
Mr. GASHEL. This is Jim Gashel. I do, too, at some point, if I can.
Page 114 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Mr. MINETA. Does this detract from my time, Mr. Chairman?
[Laughter.]
Mr. MINETA. Go ahead, Mr. Reuter.
Mr. REUTER. My point on uniformity is that one of the things Metro is concerned with is that we absolutely want all our rail stations to be consistent and uniform. But the regulations are flawed in that respect. The regulations require these modifications only at key stations. For example, Amtrak will modify 8 out of its 500 stations. There's going to be no uniformity in that. New York and SEPTA in Philadelphia will modify 12 percent of their stations, and they have 40 years to do this Atlanta is modifying one station.
There is not going to be uniformity across the country based on this regulation. Anything we propose to do, and what you've seen on Metro is current system, is consistent at all our stations.
Mr. GASHEL. I would just add only this. Blind people cannot hope to get used to traveling by what is uniformly going to be under their feet. I don't think the Government has enough money to regulate that. It's not possible nor desirable to try to teach people that when you feel a certain shape under your foot it's going to be this particular thing that comes next. You just can't. It's not practical. Plus what Mr. Reuter said about the key rail stations—you won't know when you're going into a key rail station from some other station.
WMATA, as far as I know, is the only transit system that has designed all of its stations to be key rail stations. I understand that in Atlanta, they have one key rail station. You don't know where you're going to go that's not a key rail station. I guess if you only have one station with detectable warnings, because that's a key rail station, that doesn't make any sense, either.
Page 115 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
I would just say this. It's clear that Mr. Miller and I, both blind people, can't really agree on what's detectable. I would tell you that the smooth edges are very detectable, because the cane finds them, drops off the edge, and you know that that's the edge. It's very easy to find. Now, you know, I don't think that it's really the job of the Congress or the Government, for that matter, to try to tell blind people what is detectable.
And if you try to do it, it's a never-ending, no-win battle for anyone. It seems to me that the question here for the Congress and for the Government is what constitutes civil rights for people. And I think the ADA answered that by saying equal and effective access. We've had it, we had it before the ADA, and we have it now.
Mr. LAHOOD. Mr. Reuter, what's the cost involved to comply with DOT's requirements here?
Mr. REUTER. To modify all our platforms and to do it right, not as shown in these pictures, is $30 million. This is a system-wide estimate.
Mr. LAHOOD. Either Mr. Miller or Mr. Gashel, what about the dispute here on the statistics, where Mr. Reuter claims there are 13 accidents with two fatalities, and you claim a different number?
Mr. MILLER. I can answer that. As far as the number of people who have fallen, as the gentleman back here——
Page 116 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Mr. LAHOOD. What I'm really interested in are fatalities. To me that is the most significant. Accidents are important. The difference seems, the dispute really is over the fatalities.
Mr. MILLER. In the Washington area, three people have been killed, two from Metro falls and one from a commuter rail fall. So that's the number here. In terms of the number of people who've fallen, and many have been injured quite significantly, Metro counts in a very strange way, obviously. They count only the number of people who go to the hospital.
Mr. LAHOOD. So you are in agreement on the fatality figure? You are in agreement with Mr. Reuter on that, is that correct, Mr. Miller?
Mr. MILLER. That we know of, yes.
Mr. LAHOOD. What's your response to Mr. Reuter's exhibit here that shows these truncated domes actually, after they're in place for a year or 2, particularly in the photos that he showed from Los Angeles, that they come up, they're loose, they fall, they're actually removed. They seem to be more of a hindrance than a help. What's your response to that?
Mr. MILLER. Well, there's a variety of ways, first of all, there are various different materials. At the beginning, there was a statement by someone that we're only talking about rubberized tiles, etc. That's not necessarily the case since there are many different types of tiles that do qualify.
Page 117 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
But going beyond that, there are different ways of hooking them down. Some are hooked with a good quality adhesive, attached by good quality adhesive, others are hooked in with pegs, bolts, a variety of different systems. And it would obviously depend on using the right system for the right conditions as to what would last and what would stay hooked down.
We certainly wouldn't advocate a system that would come loose in a short period of time and pop up and create a hazard. Obviously, maintenance is an important factor, and that's an important factor with any surface, whether it be a smooth granite edge or the tiles behind the smooth granite edge or whatever.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
Mr. Rahall.
Mr. RAHALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Reuter, correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding that every other transit system in the country has either implemented or is in the process of implementing, or are at least negotiating with the FTA on the safety strips, that is, they're sitting down and they're talking to one another.
Yet only one, it seems to me, is intent on debating this issue, either in the news media or now before the Congress. And that is the Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority. And today we now found, we're actually conducting a Congressional hearing about the merits of 18 inch strips without bumps versus 24 inch strips with truncated domes.
Page 118 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Now, from my reading of the newspapers, it appears to me that the District appears to be having enough problems experiencing severe financial problems, home rule is going out the window, Congress is being asked by the Mayor to take over many of the city's responsibilities. But I never really thought we'd come down to this particular point that we are today.
So my question is rather simple. What's the problem here? Why can't you sit down and talk with the interested parties, with the FTA, and work this out like every other transit company in the country appears to have either done or is in the process of doing or at least are sitting down and talking with one another? Why can't it be done here?
Mr. REUTER. We have sat down with FTA on numerous occasions. There has been extensive communication over. But, FTA's position is quite clear. Thier position is regulation is the regulation is the regulation, and you have to comply with it. We have shown FTA our test results, that we are the safest system, that there's no reason to modify a successful platform system.
When FAA developed the regulation, they never took into consideration that the Metrorail system was designed with a platform edge system. We've showed FTA our data. And their answer has been, our hands are tied. We've got to do this, whether we like to do it or not. We've got to impose this regulation on you.
Mr. RAHALL. How long a period and how often have these meetings taken place?
Page 119 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Mr. REUTER. I've only been General Manager about a year, and I've had approximately a half a dozen meetings and correspondence with them. However there's correspondence in the file from the previous general manager going back to 1992. There have been numerous meetings held on this subject over several years. Just yesterday the FTA Administrator held a news conference and said that their position is, ''Metro's going to comply with the regulation and we will not grant equivalent facilitation. Metro is going to have to put down the bumps.''
Mr. RAHALL. They held a news conference, that's what I'm saying, it's being debated in the media. But actually sitting down face to face——
Mr. REUTER. We've sat down face to face numerous times.
Mr. MINETA. Would my colleague yield?
Mr. RAHALL. Sure, be glad to yield.
Mr. MINETA. Do I understand that FTA is now willing to grant a waiver to WMATA to go with scoring and stay with the 18 inches?
Mr. REUTER. Not to my knowledge, no. I've never been told that.
Mr. MINETA. Would you be willing to discuss that alternative, or option?
Page 120 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Mr. REUTER. I'd be willing to discuss anything with them, as I've said. But we've been told clearly, Mr. Mineta, it's 24 inches of truncated domes.
Mr. MINETA. All right. If they were willing to go with a waiver on the 18 inches on the basis that you would score it, would you have any idea as to what that would cost?
Mr. REUTER. No, I'd have to estimate that depending on what we did. Mr. Mineta, one of the things you've heard about is the stepped square opition. This option was our design and we tested it. We would not put the stepped squares in, even though the test results for it were slightly better than the truncated domes. We think it's a tripping hazard, so we couldn't put the step squares in. But, we would talk to them about other alternatives.
Mr. MINETA. Well, I hope, then, in following up on Mr. Rahall's line of questioning, that you would, instead of trying to stonewall or to try to debate this in the media, is to have some serious face to face, sit-down talks.
Mr. REUTER. We have offered to do that. We have not had the meeting accepted.
Mr. RAHALL. Jim, did you wish to comment?
Mr. GASHEL. All I wanted to say, Mr. Rahall, is that, with respect to the step square issue—a lot of these edge detection I tried these out—the Metro put some down that we could experiment with down here at Union Station and also out at another test facility. And I tried them all personally.
Page 121 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
And anything but the smooth edge, my cane snagged up to the point where it either punched me in the belly or it folded up. This one telescopes and so the ends would come in.
And so, Mr. Mineta, there really is a practical problem here in just going to anything that looks like an expedient solution. We shouldn't do that. The Metrorail system has really worked very, very well for blind people ever since it opened. That smooth edge, you can find it with your cane and know you're there. And we really shouldn't abandon that.
I don't think that's something for the Congress to get into. It's really a question of are we being denied our civil rights by something that the Metro's doing, and we don't think we are.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, may I indulge the committee one more minute and ask Mr. Miller a question?
Mr. PETRI. Very briefly.
Mr. RAHALL. One more minute, Mr. Miller, you may respond.
Mr. MILLER. Yes, the comment is made, and I'm not going to debate the research that was conducted, the comment continues to be made that the edge can be felt with a cane. Of course, the edge can be felt with a cane. That's not the issue. The issue is what happens when the cane isn't able to do that, when the person steps sideways, as Ms. Lee pointed out earlier, or there is a momentary disorientation or whatever.
Page 122 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
I don't know of very many people who are simply going to walk straight off the edge of the Metro platform. That's not the issue. The issue is, when these other conditions exist, the real life conditions, if a person has some extra information coming to him to tell him that he is near the edge. And we're not talking just from a realistic standpoint as a blind person who uses a cane in travel. We're not talking about walking down that 18 inch strip, either. That's the detection to let the person know he's near the edge, and that's what it's for.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Mr. Bateman, I understand, does not have any questions at this point. Mr. Horn.
Mr. HORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'd just be curious, since one of you represents the National Federation of the Blind, Mr. Gashel, and the other, Mr. Miller, represents the American Council of the Blind, are there continuing philosophical differences between those two organizations?
[Laughter.]
Mr. HORN. Educate me, educate me briefly as to what is the philosophical thrust of each organization, so I can understand why we're in this debate.
Mr. GASHEL. Well, so that I don't speak for Mr. Miller and he doesn't speak for me, let me first of all say, sure, there are philosophical differences between those organizations. There isn't any question about it. And those are legitimate philosophical differences. There are philosophical differences between Republicans and Democrats and those are legitimate, or for the most part, legitimate philosophical differences.
Page 123 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
[Laughter.]
Mr. GASHEL. No question about that. And I appreciate your sensitivity in understanding that, and bringing out the question.
As far as the National Federation of the Blind is concerned, we really don't believe that civil rights for blind people is an issue that stands or falls based on the makeup of the architecture. There was never a building built, including this one or any other, for that matter, that blind people couldn't get into and use and do so safely.
And I said that's true also of the Metro systems. Those systems didn't have to be built with blind people in mind. There's nothing inherent about blindness, according to the philosophy of the National Federation of the Blind, in our experience, that says that we have to have the world modified or rebuilt for us. There are a few areas where modification is helpful, and I'm not going to belabor the hearing with it, but having things in Braille, such as this testimony that I read. That's a modification that's necessary.
But as far as whether the platform edge is detectable by something or not, that's something which we as human beings—and you could do it, too, if you were blind—can do perfectly well for ourselves. And just concluding this, we happen to believe that we ought to be fairly on the conservative side in what we ask society to do in the way of modifications. Because you know, blindness isn't a social burden. It is a physical characteristic that we need to figure out how to live with. We can figure it out, and we do figure it out.
Page 124 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Mr. HORN. Mr. Miller.
Mr. MILLER. Yes, thank you. I have some comments on that, too, perhaps a little briefer.
The American Council, I will point out to you, is testifying today not just for the American Council, but in behalf of about half a dozen other organizations, including the Blinded Veterans Association, American Foundation, AER, and many others. The position which we take concerning detectable warnings, that is, some detectable warning that works, is the result of a democratically reached resolution by the membership of the American Council.
And to answer your specific question, as Mr. Gashel pointed out, there are on some issues philosophical differences between the American Council and the National Federation. I'm pleased to say there are some issues on which the two organizations agree, and are able to work together very effectively.
As far as what accommodations, if you want to call them that, must be made, we're interested in things that enable blind people to, and we advocate for, things that will enable blind people to function as independently as possible, and obviously as safe as possible. If there is fear that a facility is not safe, that facility certainly is not very accessible and very usable. We're quite aware of costs and we certainly take a responsible attitude.
After all, I live in the District of Columbia. We don't even have trash collection for a couple of weeks. I'm aware of what it means when you say we don't want to spend money recklessly or unnecessarily.
Page 125 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
But the American Council believes there are some occasions where, and accommodations where the expenditure is very appropriate, and in this case, there are very cost-effective means available, because there are materials at vastly lower prices, and installation processes vastly lower than the figures that Metro has been quoting.
Mr. HORN. Thank you.
Mr. Moran, do you have any questions?
Mr. DEFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I've been here longer, and I'm on the committee, I'd like to go first.
Mr. PETRI. Oh, sorry.
Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
Mr. Reuter, what's the total annual operating cost of your system?
Mr. REUTER. This year, it's about $650 million.
Mr. DEFAZIO. How many passengers?
Mr. REUTER. We carry, on a daily basis, about 550,000 people on the rail system and about 430,000 on the bus system.
Page 126 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Mr. DEFAZIO. Okay, but the rail, 550,000 a day?
Mr. REUTER. Right.
Mr. DEFAZIO. Okay. So, and then let's go to, your estimates are $30 million for installation. Is that a competitively bid estimate, or is that something concocted by ——
Mr. REUTER. It's an engineer's estimate.
Mr. DEFAZIO. Okay, an engineer. Who does the engineer work for?
Mr. REUTER. Works for us.
Mr. DEFAZIO. Yes, of course.
[Laughter.]
Mr. DEFAZIO. But you're certain that is like a, you know, real tight competitively bid cost estimate?
Mr. REUTER. Yes.
Page 127 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Mr. DEFAZIO. How does that compare per square foot with the installation costs of other facilities around the country?
Mr. REUTER. Well, other facilities are doing something like this, and we won't do that. What we would have to do is to remove our existing platform, cut out six more inches of the platform to install 24 inches adjucent to the paver tile.
Mr. DEFAZIO. Every other transit authority in the country has done something that's inadequate or inappropriate, and you would do something that is more appropriate but would be much more expensive?
Mr. REUTER. I can't speak for every other property in the country, but many that I've seen are having problems. And I want to make a correction. These pictures are not Los Angeles. It's Sacramento is this picture.
Mr. DEFAZIO. Has anybody installed a more permanent solution that has worked?
Mr. REUTER. I'm not aware of it, but I'm sure there probably is one.
Mr. DEFAZIO. Yes, I think there are. What was the total tort liability cost in settlements for the 13 accidents and two fatalities which you admitted to?
Mr. REUTER. I don't know.
Page 128 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Mr. DEFAZIO. Don't you think it would be useful to know that number?
Mr. REUTER. We can get that number. But I can tell you——
Mr. DEFAZIO. No, I would like to have that number. I mean, that's I think an important point. I mean, first off, I mean, I've been through this with the aviation interests, and now I'm going through it with you. And when you look at the number of passengers or the cost of your system, if you're, you know, I understand, times are tough and tight for everybody.
But you know, even if your cost estimates were accurate, I can't cost it right here, but it looks like maybe a penny a day per person and we could pay for this in fairly short order. And I don't know whether, maybe it's not worth that. You know, we're talking about fatalities, people died.
Ms. Lee, was your accident counted? You fell off the platform?
Ms. LEE. Oh, no, I seriously doubt it was ever counted.
Mr. DEFAZIO. You didn't go to the hospital?
Ms. LEE. No, sir.
Page 129 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Mr. DEFAZIO. Okay, was her accident counted? She didn't go to the hospital.
Mr. REUTER. I don't know if her accident was counted. It's the first I've heard of it today. I'd have to look. But we do not just report people that go to the hospital. Anybody that our people find or are reported to us are recorded accidents. Clearly, if an accidents is not reported by them to us, we wouldn't have that record. But we report everyone. We had an accident last week. She didn't go to the hospital, but we reported it. It's in our statistics.
Mr. DEFAZIO. Okay. But I think you might want to look at what your settlement costs have been. I mean, at some point you're setting a value on lives, and the question is, how expensive are they.
Mr. REUTER. I would like to respond to that, if you'd let me. We would calculate that, but with respect to the accidents on the system having the truncated domed edge would not have prevented these accidents.
Mr. DEFAZIO. Well, that's a subject judgment and I'm certain the attorneys for the, you know, the people who died or for their families perhaps have a different view. And I'm certain that perhaps there have been some settlements. I'm just getting at people falling off platforms, whether or not it had to do with the edge. You know, what does it cost you and what would it cost.
Page 130 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Mr. REUTER. We can give you that data.
Mr. DEFAZIO. Okay, that would be a useful number.
[Information to be supplied follows:]
The authority has settled only one suit involving a fatality of a person with a visual impairment. The cost was approximately $580,000.
Me. DEFAZIO. Mr. Gashel, I guess Ms. Lee is just, what, poorly trained? Is she incompetent? Why, when she describes that situation, which to me would be very confusing, you know, where she was on that platform, there were numerous obstacles, including luggage people had left there, and she got just turned just a little bit and was moving a little bit too much sideways as opposed to directly. That's—she just had a bad trainer, is that it, and you are much better at doing this and you have never had a problem like that?
Mr. GASHEL. I think it's fairly unfair of you to try to put words into my mouth. Why don't you—excuse me, why don't you——
Mr. DEFAZIO. Well, you were extraordinarily aggressive, sir, in your testimony——
Mr. GASHEL. But why don't you let me answer the question that you then tried to ask, and I would be glad to. I can't speak for why Ms. Lee fell off the platform. And I regret the fact that she did. The question is for the Congress, I think, whether or not this is a civil rights issue. There are 137 other people, not blind people, who have fallen off of the Metro platforms in its 20 years. I don't know why they fell, either.
Page 131 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
I don't think we do know. Some of them were drunk, some of them weren't watching where they were going. Some of them simply weren't attending. Who knows why they did? It's unfortunate if one person falls, no question about that. And certainly, that Ms. Lee fell. But the question is, does that rise to the level of a civil rights issue, and I don't think it does——
Mr. DEFAZIO. Excuse me, sir, reclaiming my time——
Mr. PETRI. Your time is up.
Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mrs. FOWLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for not having been here earlier. We have several hearings going on today at the same time. I just want to thank the members of the panel for being here with us this morning, and I was just trying to read through some of the testimony. I will read through all of it. I do understand that there is a debate, from what I gather, going on here.
I would just say, I represent Jacksonville, Florida. And in my city, what we did in requirement with the law was go around through all the handicapped accesses to sidewalks and put the rubberized coating on. And then I proceeded to get all sorts of complaints. I don't know whether this had been brought forward yet today or not, but people in wheelchairs who couldn't go up, and people on walkers who couldn't use them.
Page 132 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
So, somehow, I don't think we've still found the right solution that can help everyone. And that's my worry, if we are spending a lot of dollars on what we think is going to be a solution to help one part of our society but it's then causing new handicaps for other parts of society.
And so seeing first-hand and hearing, I was at that time on the city council, when you're very directly involved with your citizens, who were calling me, complaining about it, and these were handicapped citizens who liked the ramps until now they can't use them because they aren't able, because of the raised parts of this rubberized coating.
So I can't speak to what our Metropolitan Transit Authority should or should not do, but I just think we need to get our scientists back to work and find something that's not only cost effective but that really works, so that all aspects, all people in our society, can have access to wherever they want to go without putting something in that's going to all of a sudden cause new problems for other people.
So thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this hearing, and I will review all this testimony.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Representative Collins, do you have any questions? Representative Tucker. Excuse me, did I skip Representative Poshard? Excuse me.
Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Chairman, I have no questions. Thank you.
Mr. PETRI. Representative Collins. Representative Tucker.
Page 133 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Mr. TUCKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Reuter, let me try to summarize and clarify for myself, the strip to your right and my left, that's a rubberized strip, is that right?
Mr. REUTER. That's correct.
Mr. TUCKER. And you're saying that that strip is being used at various locations throughout the country, but that's not the kind of strip that you are intending to build, is that right?
Mr. REUTER. If we were required to install it, that is not the strip we would.
Mr. TUCKER. And the one that you would like to do, if you were forced to do the strip, with the 24 inches, is made out of what material?
Mr. REUTER. It would no doubt be made out of granite. We would use something similar as our current edge. I don't want to do any modification, because the tests results show we don't need to do anything. But if we did it, we would do it out of granite.
Mr. TUCKER. That would be the truncated——
Mr. REUTER. It would be similar to a truncated dome, yes.
Page 134 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Mr. TUCKER. The question was posed to you about how many persons and passengers on rail per year. Do you have any information as to what percentage of that 500,000 happen to be blind persons?
Mr. REUTER. We have some stats, I don't have them with me. I don't know how accurate broad information would be. We have data on the people that register with us. We can give you that data.
Mr. TUCKER. Could you provide that data also? Because apparently you have the data on how many blind persons were injured during the course of a year.
Mr. REUTER. That's right.
Mr. TUCKER. I believe you made a correction from what, 19 to 13?
Mr. REUTER. That's correct.
Mr. TUCKER. Fatalities?
Mr. REUTER. No, our data show 13 falls onto the track, plus 1 last month, of which 2 were fatalities.
Mr. TUCKER. Okay, 13 falls and 2 fatalities.
Page 135 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Mr. REUTER. Right.
Mr. TUCKER. Okay. I'd like the information as to how many blind persons typically travel.
[Information to be supplied follows:]
As of March 1995, the Authority has issued 2,153 disability cards that are currently for individuals with visual impairments. We do not collect statistics on the number of trips taken by individuals with disabilities.
Mr. TUCKER. And also, in conjunction with that, the question that was put to you about the tort liability, I think that that's also a good question, not only for the blind persons, but for your non-blind injuries. Apparently you had 137 non-blind injuries? Were those injuries or fatalities?
Mr. REUTER. Those were total falls onto tracks. Some were fatalities. The recorded number is 13 fatalities, both sighted and sight-impaired, out of that 137. We have 10 times as many sighted people that have fallen as non-sighted people.
Mr. TUCKER. All right, for those 13 fatalities, I think it would be prudent and relevant to also have the tort liability of those fatalities as it relates to even non-blind persons. The point——
Page 136 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Mr. REUTER. I will give you the best we can give you. We may not have all the records, because we're going back 19 years. We'll give you the best data we can put together.
Mr. TUCKER. The point I'm making seems to go to the area of whether or not some protective or detectable strip could be a benefit not only to the blind as well as the non-blind.
Mr. REUTER. I think you've seen it, if you look at our statistics that we show up there on the board. We have an excellent edge detection system. That's why our number of fallsz are less than BART. When BART was originally built, they had a solid undifferentiated platform, went from edge to edge. They then added their truncated domes, so that they now have two different materials. You transfer from one material to the other.
On the chart here you'll see that the number of sighted people falling on our tracks is far less than BART, because we have an existing edge detection system. This system was built with it. It was originally designed and considered in the design phase. So what's going on in many properties is they're putting an edge detection system, they use this material. We were built with one, and we've showed you pictures of what it was. Ours also has lights in it.
Mr. TUCKER. I understand. But you would agree also that if you were, as you say, you had to succumb and were forced to put in the granite edge detection system that that system would nonetheless be detectable to blind as well as non-blind, is that right?
Mr. REUTER. It would be detectable.
Page 137 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Mr. TUCKER. Now, Mr. Gashel wouldn't agree with that, or would you? Would you agree? The question is to him, would you agree that if they put in a granite truncated cone detection system that that would be detectable?
Mr. GASHEL. No, I wouldn't agree with that. I really do think that the smooth edge is absolutely the best edge.
Mr. TUCKER. Well, that wasn't my question. That wasn't my question, sir. My question to you was, would a granite system with the truncated cones, would that be detectable?
Mr. GASHEL. It would be detectable at a disadvantage.
Mr. TUCKER. All right, but my question was, it would be detectable. So what you're concerned about is the disadvantage, but you're not taking into account the disadvantage of those who can't detect the smooth system. You can detect the smooth edge system, but others cannot. But what you are saying is you could detect the granite edge system, isn't that right?
Mr. GASHEL. It wouldn't tell me anything.
Mr. TUCKER. Well, it would tell you it's there, right?
Mr. GASHEL. It might. But there are a lot of bumps in the pathway. In the Metro station——
Page 138 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Mr. TUCKER. Seems to me you're skirting the issue that a granite edge at the edge of the platform would be detectable. Your point, and I believe it is relevant, at least to you and whoever may feel that way, is that it creates some disadvantage to you. But my question just had to do with the essence of whether or not it's detectable. And I think you admitted that it would even be detectable.
Mr. GASHEL. Right. I just don't think the decision should be made solely on the basis of what is detectable. A wall, a pure solid wall, would be detectable.
Mr. TUCKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
Mr. REUTER. Could I respond to that? If you want to go back to what I told you earlier for the fatalities involving falls by sight-iimpaired persons that this system has recorded, our analysis showed this edge would not have helped. One walked between two cars, and the other became disoriented and lost their cane and fell off the edge. So that edge would not have solved made a difference in those situations.
If you go to Mrs. Fowler's comments earlier about the mobility impaired, I'll tell you about a specific incident of my own son, who is, as I said, disabled. He tripped and fell on the bumpy dots in BART when I lived in California, because his cane got twisted on those dots. We're dealing with a very serious and sensitive issue here that needs to encompass all of the disabilities in order to correct the problem.
Page 139 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
And we're saying, let's identify the problem and correct it. We're there. We want to do that. We don't think this is going to solve any problems.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Miller, you wanted to add a point?
Mr. MILLER. Yes, the comment about the lady becoming disoriented and dropping her cane, the lady was a guide dog user. The other fatality that was commented on, and yes, there was obviously some disorientation. So you know, let's correct the record on that.
The argument as to whether any of these accidents would have been prevented, preventable, etc., if there had been detectable edges, we can certainly learn from the experience in other jurisdictions. One of the fatalities which the Boston system suffered in 1993 involved a blind lady who fell off but wasn't killed immediately.
And she said afterwards, and we won't get into the rules of evidence about dying declarations, and verbal acts and so forth, she said that had there been detectable warnings, a detectable warning system that worked, she wouldn't have fallen off because she would have known where the edge was.
Mr. PETRI. Representative Weller, did you have any questions? No? Representative LaHood.
Mr. LAHOOD. Mr. Reuter, is it correct that all other cities in the country have complied with this except your system?
Page 140 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Mr. REUTER. Many of the cities have complied, are in the process of complying, or are still negotiating with FTA to comply. However, compliance means, for example, that Philadelphia and New York have 40 years to install this, and then only at their key stations. Many systems are working out compliance plans.
So they are still negotiating on those. We are to the stage that we have not been able to negotiate, and we're saying, no, we're not putting them down.
Mr. LAHOOD. Who has jurisdiction over the system? What is the governing board or who has responsibility?
Mr. REUTER. We have a 12 member board, made up of four representatives from the District of Columbia, four from Virginia and four from Maryland. We're an interstate compact created by Congress in the sixties to build and run this transsit system.
Mr. LAHOOD. Of the other communities that have moved along in the process of compliance, do you know what dollar figure it costs comparable sized systems?
Mr. REUTER. No, I couldn't tell you that. I don't know off the top of my head.
Mr. LAHOOD. Do you know of another community that is in compliance or in the process of compliance that's on the brink of bankruptcy?
Page 141 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Mr. REUTER. Well, I guess you could probably look at Philadelphia as being close to that. But its situation probably not as severe as the District of Columbia is right now.
Mr. LAHOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
Representative Moran.
Mr. MORAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I'd like to ask a few questions about the cost and where the money to change the platform edge would come from. I understand that the District of Columbia has been remiss in making all of its payments, which may cause an additional financial burden on the suburbs.
Do you know what the fiscal impact would be to all the riders if you were forced to pull up the existing platform edges and put in the new ones?
Mr. REUTER. Well, the cost would be $30 million. We'd have to work out how we would charge that, either through jurisdictional subsidies or fare increases. One or the other of those two methods to pay for it.
Mr. MORAN. Do you have any estimate of the magnitude of those fare increases? I understand that no decision has been made as to the fare increases that would be necessitated, because no decision has been made with regard to the platform edges. But if the platform edges were required to be put down, do you have an idea of what it would mean to the local jurisdictions contributing to Metro subsidy?
Page 142 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Mr. REUTER. Well, we can do a calculation for you. I don't have it off the top of my head, but we can calculate based on the fact we've committed to do this in 30 months system-wide, and that we'd spend $30 million. So we can calculate it, but I wouldn't want to do it right here and make a mistake.
Mr. MORAN. Okay.
Mr. REUTER. We can submit it for the record for you.
Mr. MORAN. I think that might be helpful, Mr. Chairman, to know how it would be paid for, because there's no Federal money to pay for it, for the additional cost.
[Information to be supplied follows:]
It would require a 25 cents fare increase to raise $30 million in one year.
Mr. MORAN. Do you have an estimate of——
Mr. REUTER. Well, there is no Federal money and no local jurisdictional money to cover cost, so I image it's going to come through fare increases.
Mr. MORAN. It will come through fare increases. The jurisdictions don't have the money either, no.
Page 143 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Mr. REUTER. No, I'm having enough trouble with the District getting regular payments now.
Mr. MORAN. Do you have an estimate of what it costs in current dollars for the initial platform edge that you put in before it was required?
Mr. REUTER. We have that. It is the most expensive in the industry. I don't have it with me. I don't know if we've got somebody here that has it. But we can give that to you. It's a very expensive edge.
Mr. MORAN. Would you know, Mr. Chairman, whether the new bill that has been passed with regard to cost benefit, well, it's being considered on the floor right now, in the House, as to cost benefit analysis and risk assessment, whether that would have any applicability to this particular regulation?
Mr. PETRI. I think we may be voting on amendments that would determine that.
Mr. MORAN. That would apply directly to this issue.
Mr. PETRI. Whether it goes retroactive or not, I think.
Mr. MORAN. Okay. Well, I appreciate being able to ask questions here, Mr. Chairman. I'm reluctant to ask all the ones that are on my mind, because I suspect that they have already been asked and the answers have been provided, but I'm very appreciative of the committee for holding this hearing on a subject that's important nationally, but particularly important to the Washington metropolitan area. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Page 144 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
Are there other questions of the witnesses? Mr. Horn.
Mr. HORN. Brief question, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Reuter, several times comments have been made about the City of Washington. And I'd like to know the relationship, if any, between the Authority and the City of Washington.
Mr. REUTER. Okay. We, as I said, are an interstate compact, made up of the District of Columbia, the Commomwealth of Virginia and the State of Maryland. These jurisdictions are three equal partners that fund our operating subsidy, which is the difference between our costs and fares taken in. Washington provides funds for operations of about $130 million a year.
Mr. HORN. Okay, so is that generally what they've paid over the last few years, $130 million a year?
Mr. REUTER. That's what they paid this year. It's gone up each year as costs and services go up. But this year it was about $130 million.
Mr. HORN. Now, is that out of their own derived revenue or really the Federal payment, or can you not differentiate between the two?
Page 145 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Mr. REUTER. I don't think you can differentiate between the two, but they consider it their own revenue.
Mr. HORN. Very good.
Mr. LAHOOD. Would you yield on that point?
Mr. HORN. Sure.
Mr. LAHOOD. Is the District of Columbia up to date on their payments to you for service that you provide to them?
Mr. REUTER. As of last Thursday morning at 9:00 o'clock when they wired money to me, yes, they are.
Mr. LAHOOD. And prior to that?
Mr. REUTER. Prior to that, they were behind. They were behind $18.5 million.
Mr. LAHOOD. I mean, Mr. Chairman, I do think that is part of the dilemma here, that this is not like any other city in the whole country.
Mr. REUTER. They also have a $20 some million payment due April 1. We're probably going to be visiting the payment issue again in April. In July, we're looking at somewhere in the neighborhood of $80 million that they'll owe us.
Page 146 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Mr. LAHOOD. Thank you.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Are there other questions of the witnesses?
Mr. TUCKER. Mr. Chairman, just a quick comment. I don't know if the Chair of this committee is going to be bringing someone from the city down to talk about their financial capabilities, but it would seem, based on those questions, and I would agree that that information would be extremely germane. And it would seem to me reasonable that we would get that from the horse's mouth, as to what their financial capability is, even though there are a lot of other concerns about doing the right thing in this instance.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
Thank you all for coming and for your testimony on this issue, and we'd be eager as a committee to work with you. I guess either the mandate's going to have to be changed or the money's going to have to come from somewhere, and we'll see how we can work that out.
Mr. REUTER. We appreciate your help and look forward to working with you.
Mr. PETRI. Let's see. The next panel is number three, Mr. Michael S. Townes, Executive Director of the Peninsula Transportation District Commission in Hampton, Virginia, who is representing the American Public Transit Association. And I think Representative Bateman wanted to say a word at this point.
Page 147 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Mr. BATEMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
If I may, I'll wait until our other guests have had an opportunity to leave the room.
Mr. Chairman, shall I proceed?
Mr. PETRI. Yes, please.
Mr. BATEMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
It's a great pleasure for me to be able to present to the committee a very distinguished constituent from the First District of Virginia. He is Michael S. Townes. He is a dedicated public servant who's already had a distinguished career serving in a variety of positions. He began his career as a planning technician with the Richmond Regional Planning District Commission and advanced to become Manager of Planning and Marketing for the Saudi Arabian Public Transport Company, a very interesting assignment, I'm sure.
He now serves as the Executive Director for the Peninsula Transportation District Commission, where he has served since 1989. Mr. Townes has been frequently recognized and the recipient of meritorious awards, including the Department of Transportation's outstanding transit system award in 1990, 1991 and 1992. And 1993 is not to be overlooked, because in that year, he received the outstanding public transportation system achievement award.
Page 148 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
We are indeed fortunate to have him serving us in the Lower Virginia Peninsula, and I'm proud to welcome Michael today to share his expertise with the subcommittee on behalf of his association. Michael, welcome.
*ERR11*TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL S. TOWNES, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PENINSULA TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT COMMISSION, HAMPTON, VA, AND VICE PRESIDENT FOR GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, AMERICAN PUBLIC TRANSIT ASSOCIATION
Mr. TOWNES. I am extremely honored at that introduction, Mr. Bateman. Thank you.
Mr. PETRI. Please proceed.
Mr. TOWNES. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to comment on ways to make the Federal transit program more efficient. Those of us who provide transit service face increasing challenges, including expensive Federal mandates, labor protections in need of reform, and proposed reductions in Federal operating and capital assistance.
We urge the subcommittee to consider reforms that would allow use of capital funds for associated capital maintenance items and all bus rehabilitations, reform the Section 13(c) labor protection process, and Mr. Rahall, I emphasize reform, not repeal, clarify Federal procurement rules and expand overmatch provisions for ADA-related vehicles.
While APTA advocates full funding of the authorized program, we recognize the need to make government more efficient and get the best return on Federal spending. We applaud the move to withdraw transportation trust funds from the unified Federal budget. The mass transit account of the Highway Trust Fund has an unobligated, uncommitted balance of some $4 billion. That money is urgently needed to help transit authorities meet APTA's estimated $9.7 billion in annual unfunded capital needs.
Page 149 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
APTA supports and encourages this committee's efforts, but until the entire Federal transit program can be supported by a wholly dedicated funding source, we must advocate continued general fund support for transit as well. The use of capital funds to purchase materials and supplies for maintenance rolling stock without regard to the cost of such parts should be expanded. We should be able to use capital funds for all bus rehabilitation and remanufacturing. The use of such funds for maintenance is consistent with Federal highway law under which resurfacing and restoration of highways is analogous to maintenance of transit capital investment.
APTA members remain strongly committed to the collective bargaining process and will strive to maintain the best possible labor management relationship. We know that the men and women who operate and maintain our transit systems are extremely important. And we recognize and reaffirm the contract that Congressman Rahall mentioned at the beginning of this hearing.
At the same time, however, APTA has long sought administrative reform of the Section 13(c) labor protection process administered by the Labor Department. There is a growing sense of frustration in the transit industry over DOL's inability to improve Section 13 processes. We have made a number of specific suggestions in our written statement relating to reform of the Section 13(c) process, including exemption for routine purchases and time limits on the process.
On other matters, we recommend that Congress clarify applicability of Federal procurement rules. The FTA has ruled that if a transit operator takes one penny of operating aid, its entire operating budget is subject to Federal procurement regulations. The transit community also believes that Congress should restate its intention to apply Federal rules to Federally-assisted purchases, not the activities carried out with state or local resources.
Page 150 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Flexibility should also be considered where it's appropriate for transit providers to provide charter or school bus service. And you know, Mr. Bateman, how important that is to our district.
With regard to commuter rail operations, we support creation of a forum for the resolution of disputes between commuter railroads and private railroads over the use of trackage rights. In addition, the APTA commuter rail subcommittee is reviewing the applicability of rail labor laws to commuter railroads. And we may have additional recommendations on these issues in the near future.
While APTA fully supports drug and alcohol testing, we question the necessity for the new FTA regulations that requires an increase in the random testing of 50 percent of the work force annually. These costs include taking drivers out of service and paying replacement drivers as well as the cost of testing.
While APTA fully supports implementation of the Americans with Disabilities Act—strongly supports it—we also note the significant costs associated with the law, and encourage Congressional efforts to help pay for these costs. APTA supports expansion of the 90 percent overmatch standard under ADA, which now applies to the incremental cost of making vehicles accessible, to the entire cost of acquiring vehicles to meet requirements of the ADA. We also welcome flexibility in the implementation of final ADA plans.
Finally, APTA supports efforts to extend the current exemption for transit buses that exceed Interstate axle weight standards, consistent with the recent Federal Highway Transit Administration study on the subject.
Page 151 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
In closing, once again I'd like to say I appreciate the opportunity to share our ideas on efficiency, and pledge to work with Congress during the year and in reauthorizing ISTEA in the future. I'll be pleased to answer any questions that you may have.
Mr. PETRI. Well, thank you very much.
Representative Rahall.
Mr. RAHALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Townes, in your submitted testimony, you stated that APTA participated in litigation that established Section 13(c) as allowing alternatives to interest arbitration and settling labor disputes. What litigation was that?
Mr. TOWNES. I will defer to staff. What litigation was that?
Mr. RAHALL. Well, let me, perhaps I can help. The litigation to which you are referencing was decided by the Supreme Court in 1982, in a case known as ATU v. Donovan. Your testimony states that since this case was decided, grants continued to get held up for many months on the very issue that the Court sought to settle. I'm not aware of this happening at all, that DOL has held up any grants on the basis of interest arbitration as opposed to using fact-finding or mediation.
So my question is, can you document this particular contention?
Page 152 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Mr. TOWNES. I believe we can. Because I am personally aware of a case or two where that has happened, and I would ask staff to provide that.
Mr. RAHALL. You'll document it for us?
Mr. TOWNES. Yes.
Mr. RAHALL. You will submit it to the record at a later time?
Mr. TOWNES. I will submit it to the record.
[Information to be received follows:]
[INSERT here.]
Mr. RAHALL. All right. You know, coming from the coal fields in southern West Virginia as I do, the United Mine Workers of America periodically engage in some, well, for lack of a better word, I guess lively strikes. But I can tell you that labor and management disputes are certainly not fertile grounds for those of us in the public arena to engage in, or to tread upon.
For that matter, any type of labor dispute is not really fertile grounds for our trespassing. And I think we can, as a witness to that, we can see what has happened with the effort to get Congress involved in the baseball strike.
Page 153 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
But in other words, it's always better for labor and management to sit down, to work out any problems that they have among themselves without public intervention. Yet, according to the transit unions, management has not come to them and said, we've had some problems with Section 13(c). Let's sit down, talk about them and see if we can resolve them in a face to face manner.
So I guess I am a bit perplexed as to why APTA and the individuals we heard from, particularly on February 8th, would come before the subcommittee with proposals to completely eliminate Section 13(c) or per your testimony, to reform or what I would say, mildly gut Section 13(c) without first making an attempt to work out the problems or the perceived problems with the labor unions involved. Can you tell me why there has not been this face to face attempt to resolve the problems?
Mr. TOWNES. Well, I believe there has been discussion between the various labor unions and the APTA structure on the issue of Section 13(c). Perhaps we couldn't find a forum where that could be discussed in a productive manner. It is my goal, as Vice President of Government Affairs of APTA, to find that forum and begin those discussions. The reason I emphasized that we weren't here to ask of the outright repeal, but the restructuring of Section 13(c) is because I would like to start those discussions to include the appropriate representatives of labor and the appropriate representatives of Congress.
I think that's the way to solve it. I think it's undisputable, at least from management's point of view, that Section 13(c) has caused delays and excess costs in the way that it's managed presently by the Department of Labor. If we could overcome those management and structural issues that cause those delays and excess costs, then I think the union representatives and management representatives could walk hand in hand with Section 13(c) as one of the cornerstones of our cooperative efforts.
Page 154 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Mr. RAHALL. Well, I can appreciate that's your role, to bring the groups together, and I certainly support that effort totally. What I'm a little bit concerned about is that any perceived changes in the political climate here on Capitol Hill give you the impetus to first go to the public arena and seek these changes, rather than through the private channels, through the face to face negotiations that should have been conducted long before political changes occur here on Capitol Hill.
So I hope that that will be the thrust of your effort, to do it through face to face, rather than come here in a public hearing or through other individuals that have represented transit companies and come here and ask for a complete elimination right off the bat without those private efforts being made to resolve or restructure, as you call it, beforehand.
Mr. TOWNES. Well, obviously I wasn't here the day that testimony was given, and it doesn't reflect APTA's presently-held positions. I can also say that it is not the change in political climate that is leading these comments that we've made in my oral and written testimony. These are positions that I'm aware we have held for quite some time, and as I stated a little earlier, from my standpoint, we have had, tried to have discussions with the representatives of labor to address these issues. And it's my job to make sure that those discussions reach a higher plane.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
Representative Bateman.
Page 155 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Mr. BATEMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Townes, for your testimony.
I suspect my dear friend and colleague from West Virginia is perhaps protesting a little too much with this witness. There is a, certainly, not only a perceived but a real change in the political climate here in Washington. But I think Mr. Townes has made it clear that that is not what he is here about today, that he is bespeaking a position of his association as the Chairman of its Government Affairs committee that he believes that the context in which Section 13(c) operates can and should be improved, and wishes to discuss with union officials as well as others how that might be done.
I must confess that I am very unschooled in the matter in which Section 13(c) has operated in the past or operates today. But I hear nothing but sweet words of reasonableness from my friend and constituent, and certainly I think all of us should applaud the fact that he and the association he's representing today want to carry on those kind of discussions which perhaps should have been carried on before, but we shouldn't beat up on him when he's before us today saying that's what he wants to do.
Having delivered myself of those views, I'm going to have to apologize, Mr. Chairman, because I'm called to another meeting which I'll arrive late for. But I must depart at this time, and thank Mr. Townes.
Mr. TOWNES. Thank you, Mr. Bateman. Perhaps the reason that Mr. Bateman is not so schooled on those issues is because we don't, at Peninsula Transportation District Commission, have any serious problem with our Section 13(c) agreements. We have a very cooperative relationship with our union, and I think the union representatives who are going to speak here soon would agree with that.
Page 156 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
And I also want to make the point, as we tried to make in our written and oral testimony that our real problems aren't with the labor unions and the representatives of the labor unions. The problems exist with the Department of Labor and their management of the Section 13(c) process. The delays occur at the Department of Labor, up to 6 months in many instances, and those 6-month delays cause costs, and they delay the implementation of needed transit programs for the citizens that we serve back in our home districts.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Representative Horn, any more questions?
Mr. HORN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Does the American Public Transit Association have a position on Davis-Bacon?
Mr. TOWNES. No, we do not. We are subject to Davis-Bacon. I have completed a few projects in my home area recently with Davis-Bacon as a part of the construction contracts that we managed. We haven't come to a consensus position one way or the other on it. I think we deal with it successfully and as long as those provisions exist, we'll continue to deal with it successfully.
Mr. HORN. So you've found no difficulty in terms of working under the contracts that require Davis-Bacon wage rates, then?
Mr. TOWNES. Not in my home property. I think the difficulties that existed were with the general contractors that had to make sure that their subcontractors paid at the Davis-Bacon rates.
Page 157 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Mr. HORN. Yes. Because I think oftentimes we've heard, I think for 30 years, the story, I was at one time in my past assistant to the Secretary of Labor under President Eisenhower. and the charge was made, and to some degree it was justified, that it was urban rates being escalated out into the rural areas, and I just wonder, given your particular labor market area, you felt the rate decisions were appropriate, I take it.
Mr. TOWNES. I feel that they are appropriate. I do know that some of the subcontractors on a non Davis-Bacon job pay at a slightly lower rate, especially for unskilled labor positions. But we haven't had any particular problem. We know that the workers who receive the Davis-Bacon wage rates during our projects have really appreciated them. I don't think that they are, they are applicable in Newport News and Hampton. I don't think they would be applicable, personally, I don't think they would be applicable in the less than urban areas of James City County or New Kent County.
Mr. HORN. Thank you very much.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
Very good. Well, thank you very much for your testimony and I would encourage you and your associates, if you can work some changes out, or if we need to help prod people at the Labor Department or make some changes in the framework to help make this situation less costly and burdensome for the public that you serve, do it quicker rather than slower.
Mr. TOWNES. Thank you, Chairman Petri, and one of the things that, I promised to do some things last year in this capacity, and I hope that you all have recognized that when I say I'm going to do something, I try my best.
Page 158 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Mr. PETRI. Thank you very much for your testimony.
Well, it's an honor for me now to ask the President of the Building and Construction Trades Department of the AFL–CIO, Mr. Robert Georgine, and the President of the Amalgamated Transit Union, Jim LaSala, accompanied by Earl Putnam, General Counsel and Robert Molosky, Legislative Director, as well as the President of the Transportation Workers Union, Mr. Sonny Hall, and the Legislative Director of the United Transportation Union, James Brunkenhoefer, to come to the witness stand and offer testimony to this committee.
Mr. Georgine, would you like to start?
*ERR11*TESTIMONY OF ROBERT A. GEORGINE, PRESIDENT, BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES DEPARTMENT, AFL–CIO; JIM LA SALA, INTERNATIONAL PRESIDENT, AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION, ACCOMPANIED BY, EARL PUTNAM, GENERAL COUNSEL, AND ROBERT MOLOSKY, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION; SONNY HALL, INTERNATIONAL PRESIDENT, TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, AFL–CIO; AND JAMES M. BRUNKENHOEFER, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION
Mr. GEORGINE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Petri and members of the subcommittee, my name of course is Bob Georgine. I'm President of the Building and Construction Trades Department of the AFL–CIO. And I represent the 4 million members of the national and international unions affiliated with the Building and Construction Trades Department.
Page 159 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
I've provided you with a detailed written statement that I request be made a part of the record.
The Building and Construction Trades Department supports the enactment of the National Highway System legislation. I'm here today in support of one legal requirement that should certainly not be eliminated from the National Highway System legislation. I'm here in support of the requirement that workers on federally-funded construction projects be paid no less than the rate of wages and benefits that prevail in their locality.
The Davis-Bacon Act is essential to cost-effective construction of highways, bridges and mass transportation projects. The repeal or the defunding of the prevailing wage requirement would have effects that are far different from those that are expected and advocated by its proponents. In fact, the elimination of prevailing wage requirements on transportation and infrastructure projects would ultimately harm the construction industry, its workers and the public at large.
Previous witnesses before the subcommittee have argued that the Davis-Bacon Act is a burdensome regulation that should be eliminated. Their main argument is that paying prevailing wages to workers leads to higher Federal construction costs. To the contrary, it will impose massive costs on the construction industry, construction workers and the Federal Government.
Let me explain briefly how the costs of the Act are far less than the benefits that it bestows. First, the estimates of the cost of the Act are greatly exaggerated. The Congressional Budget Office study of Davis-Bacon costs is outdated and it's just simply wrong. This is not just my opinion. Seventeen leading economists have signed a paper that criticizes CBO's study and its assumptions.
Page 160 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
I have submitted a copy of this critique with my written statement, and I won't go into the details of their criticisms here. Let me cover just two. First, the CBO estimate completely ignored the role of worker productivity in determining total construction costs. In the construction industry, differences in wages are offset by the skill and productivity of the higher paid workers, higher wages bring higher skilled workers. The higher skilled workers bring greater productivity.
Using data from the Federal Highway Administration, we compared the average construction and labor costs of highway and bridge constructions in two groups or of two states. The average hourly wage in the higher wage states was $17.95, compared with an average wage of $9.76 in the lower wage states. We then compared the cost and productivity performance of these two groups of states. Here's what we found.
The higher wage states built a mile of highway for 18 percent less than the lower wage states. The average cost per mile of highway in the higher wage states was $1.1 million. In comparison, the lower wage states built a mile of highway for almost $1.4 million. The states that paid their workers the least ended up building roads that were more expensive by a quarter of a million dollars for every mile of highway.
This result occurred because higher wage states completed an average mile of highway with 37 percent fewer labor hours than the lower wage states. The higher wage states built an average of 10.1 miles of highway with 100,000 hours of labor, whereas the lower wage states could build only 6.4 miles with the same labor input. As these Federal Highway Administration statistics indicate, if you cut wage levels on highway and bridge products, it is very likely that less skilled and less productive workers will be employed, and this will take away the savings that the CBO counts on.
Page 161 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
There is a second reason why the CBO estimate is wrong. It does not consider the economic benefits of the Davis-Bacon Act. It's a questionable kind of cost benefit analysis that looks only at the cost and not at the benefits. Contrary to popular propaganda, the benefits of the Davis-Bacon Act are many. It stabilizes the hyper-competitive world of construction. Because the wages and benefits are determined prior to the submission of bids, contractors can bid on projects with some measure of certainty as to their expected labor costs.
Profit is gained through construction management, productivity and quality instead of through depression of workers' wages and benefits. And the Act helps to maintain the high quality of the construction labor force by encouraging contractors to employ apprentices and support bona fide training programs. The stability of wages and benefits reduces employee turnover and encourages construction workers to remain in the industry for their career. And safety and health on Davis-Bacon construction projects is assured, because contractors are less likely to cut corners, rush the work, and hire unskilled workers to do dangerous work.
These benefits of Davis-Bacon are not speculative. They have been empirically confirmed in a recent study by a group of economists at the University of Utah, studied what happened after nine States repealed their little Davis-Bacon Acts. I've included a copy of their study with my statement.
The Utah economists estimate that Federal Government would lost almost $1 billion each year through lost income tax revenues. State and local governments would also lose revenues from state income tax and sales tax revenues. After Utah repealed its little Davis-Bacon law, the practice of lowballing bids to win jobs and then seeking bailouts for cost overruns grew enormously. They also found that the repeal of prevailing wage requirements hurt safety and health in the construction industry.
Page 162 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
I don't have to tell you that construction work is one of the most dangerous occupations in our economy. The Utah economists noted a 15 percent rise in occupational injuries in the wake of repeal of the little Davis-Bacon Acts. All workers, union and non-union, will be hurt if Davis-Bacon is repealed.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I do not claim that the existing Act is perfect. There are ways that the prevailing wage law can be improved, and for this reason, we support H.R. 967, the bill that Congressman Clay introduced this session.
I look forward to working with the subcommittee to help rebuild our Nation's infrastructure through high quality, cost-effective construction. But to be clear about our position, we cannot under any circumstances accept consideration of repealing the Davis-Bacon Act. The Nation just can't afford it.
Thank you very much.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Now, who would like to proceed next? Yes, Mr. LaSala.
Mr. LASALA. Thank you, Chairman Petri and remaining members of the subcommittee. I guess you're getting tired about now, and we'll try to move this thing along for you.
My name is Jim LaSala, and I'm the International President of the Amalgamated Transit Union, representing about 160,000 members employed in the transit industry in the United States and Canada. We of transit labor welcome this opportunity to respond to our critics who have advocated repeal or substantial emasculation of the employee protective provisions included in Section 13(c) of the Federal Transit Act. You have heard them uniformly denounce this section of the statute as one of the more notorious unfunded Federal mandates, one which is most burdensome, costly and delaying to transit agencies waiting for much-needed Federal assistance.
Page 163 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
We strongly disagree. While we are glad to make this prompt response to the claims of those who malign these protections, we nevertheless believe this committee should not address these Section 13(c) concerns in the context of the currently pending legislation. Administrative improvements worked out between the government agencies involved and the affected parties in interest are the most appropriate way to improve the operations of this program.
Section 13(c) as administered and interpreted by the Department of Labor and the courts is far from an employee entitlement program. It provides no long-term job assurances except possibly in the case of public acquisitions with Federal funds, as we have recently learned from the Secretary of Labor's Las Vegas determination. While it protects vested employee pension rights, it provides no guaranteed floor for employee wages and benefits.
From labor's viewpoint, the main impact and function of the labor protective provisions has essentially been to preserve the collective bargaining rights of transit employees following public takeovers with Federal funds of private transit systems. It is unthinkable that such requirements should now be abolished, merely to enhance local self-determination by transit management in the alleged interest of cost saving, service innovation and operational efficiency.
The potential for exorbitant costs of Section 13(c) claims protecting employees against adverse impacts of Federal programs has never been substantiated. Throughout the entire history of the program, Section 13(c) cash payments, in the form of dismissal allowances, severance pay, displacement allowances, moving expenses or training expenses have been virtually nil. In fact, the first level of the provisions against job displacements are those mandating that all available jobs affected by the project be filled first by affected employees.
Page 164 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
The main thrust of these first level protections is to avoid increased costs by allowing continued employment whenever possible, even though jobs have been eliminated by a funded project through reorganization, automation or other changes. Under Section 13(c), there is no liability for jobs lost for pure economic reasons. In every instance, Section 13(c) and the protective arrangements we have negotiated have done no more than to seek to preserve existing jobs, wages and benefits, and collective bargaining rights. It is not intended to protect any specific union as a bargaining representative.
Much of the hue and cry about the economic impact of Section 13(c) and complaints about the Department's administration of it are and have always been reduced to a charge that state and local public bodies should not be required by law to bargain collectively, or to engage in interest arbitration. While the bargaining requirements remain, it should be pointed out that in the years since 1984, the Department itself has consistently permitted ATU-represented transit property applicants to escape from their previously negotiated Section 13(c) interest arbitration commitments. While we continue to believe in interest arbitration, there is no longer any validity to the assertion often made by our critics that the statute has been interpreted to mandate interest arbitration.
It is clear, too, that over the past 30 years, the transit labor protections have helped meet the needs of the riding public and the taxpayer for a reliable service providing mobility to all citizens despite the pressures of declining budgets. It is noteworthy that 93 percent of the 1,437 contracts negotiated by the ATU over the 1984–1994 period were settled by peaceful collective bargaining without the necessity of a strike or arbitration.
Page 165 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Under any fair analysis, the true legacy of the Section 13(c) protection has been to enhance the economic values and benefits received from these Federal dollars. Since the original Act was passed in 1964, over $70 billion worth of Federal grants have been funded under fair and equitable guarantees as determined by the Secretary of Labor, to protect employees against adverse effects of transit improvements accomplished with Federal funds.
Implementation of these protections has actually made possible, rather than prevented, many service improvements and other changes that have benefitted transit union users and citizens in most communities throughout the Nation, especially those who have no other means of transport, including school children, seniors, low wage earners, and the disabled individuals. We have heard much about the cost of delays in the administration of the Section 13(c) program, especially from those who have studiously resisted compliance with historical program standards and whose hidden agenda may be to sabotage for legislative purposes otherwise routine grant approvals.
It is significant that over 1,000 transit grants are processed each year, distributing more than $4 billion in Federal monies in support of the local transit operating and capital needs. Of these grants, over 85 percent are approved under Section 13(c) in 90 days or less. We of transit labor are no less interested than the industry in finding a better way to expedite the flow and delivery of these essential project funds.
We agree that no one benefits from delays or from protections that are ambiguous. To the contrary, the record of Labor in this program has been to seek expeditious handling and approval of grants under agreements understandable for our local unions and enforceable for their members' benefit.
Page 166 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
We do believe functional improvements in administration of the program are attainable without undue tampering, either with the substantive protections or the basic process between the parties affected under the guidelines described by the Department of Labor.
If that red light is telling me to end, I've got about another 35 seconds. Is that what it's intended to do?
At a time when a major restructuring of the Federal Transit and Highway programs is in prospect, we believe it would be counterproductive to both of these programs for this committee to impose drastic changes in Section 13(c) requirements and procedural arrangements. We urge you to leave untouched these longstanding labor provisions.
As stated, we are prepared to work with you, the Department of Labor, the Federal Transit Administration and the affected parties in interest to develop appropriate administrative reforms to make this program work better. In these brief remarks, I have not been able to provide a detailed rebuttal to those who have testified adversely to the Section 13(c) program. But if you would believe it would be helpful to the committee's deliberations, we would gladly provide you with our more detailed comments and other documentation for inclusion in the record.
Thank you, Mr. Petri.
Mr. PETRI. We would appreciate that, and I suspect you notice, we apply the same 5-minute rule to ourselves on the floor, and then we ask unanimous consent to talk for a couple more minutes, and it's almost always granted.
Page 167 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Mr. LASALA. I don't take exception to it, I just thought I'd find out what the rules are. I'll know better next time I come down. You don't know how long I had getting this thing down to where it is.
Mr. PETRI. I know. And it's one of those things where we have to try to have a combination of as much access as possible, and yet do it without making the day longer. We've got to work something out. So again, thank you.
Mr. Hall.
Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, my name is Sonny Hall, I am the International President of the Transport Workers Union of America, AFL–CIO. The TWU represents 110,000 workers involved in some form of common carriage, including air, rail and bus.
With respect to the subject matter of this hearing, we represent some 56,000 urban transit workers, including employees at properties as large as the New York Authority and as small as Waco, Texas. All of these employees would be impacted to one degree or another by various proposals that have been discussed before this committee to amend this bill, to repeal or roll back Section 13(c) of the Federal Transit Act.
As it is well know, Section 13(c) requires in general that the recipients of Federal transit assistance make fair and equitable arrangements for employees impacted by Federal grants as condition of the award of the grant. Prior to becoming International President in 1993, I was President of TWU Local 100, representing some 35,000 employees in public and private operations in and around New York.
Page 168 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
In both my capacity as International and Local President I have reviewed countless grant applications and awards. In the time between when I first became Local President in 1985 up until the present I can recall no more than five instances where the TWU challenged the terms of a grant to a local transit authority as being inconsistent with the requirements of Section 13(c). I would note that one of these challenges involved a forced privatization program in Miami which was subsequently established to have been an unmitigated fiasco.
During the same time frame I would estimate that approximately 3,000 grants were forwarded to TWU represented properties without delay or controversy over labor protection. In short, the notion that transit unions cause significant delay in the flow of Federal assistance through abuse of Section 13(c) is, at least in our experience, pure bunk.
From the perspective of the TWU, Section 13(c) serves two basic purposes. First, it requires that we be kept informed of the terms and purposes of capital and operating grants. This allows us to tell our members of the impact of these programs and work with management on an informal basis or in bargaining to make sure our people can take advantage of new work opportunities as well as make arrangement for those who may be displaced by restructuring or technological change. This is a perfectly legitimate role for a union to ploy and in my view strengthens rather than weakens Federal transit assistance program.
The other equally significant purpose served by Section 13(c) is protection of our collective bargaining rights. May cities which receive substantial Federal transit assistance are in states which outlaw or substantially circumscribe public sector collective bargaining. While Section 13(c) does not dictate a particular result in bargaining, it has always been construed to require than an authority recognize and bargain with a properly certified union.
Page 169 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
To put it differently, Section 13(c) prevents the conversion from private to public operations from being an occasion for union busting. I see no reason why any authority needs to break its union or evade collective bargaining, nor do I believe the FTA should assist in doing so.
I must also note that I have serious problems about the way this issue has been raised by the various organizations representing transit management. The TWU deals with the managers of a number of properties on a daily basis. Not a single manager, not a single manager has called me or any of my officers to complain that the TWU has misused Section 13(c) of improperly delayed the flow of assistance. Before asking Congress to amend a 30-year old statute, I think transit management should make a bona fide attempt to work its problems out with labor directly. That effort has not been made.
I would like to add a couple of brief comments. As I have stated, during my tenure of TWU president, no manager complained that we have misused Section 13(c). This being so, I was amazed to hear Peter Stengel from the New York Transit Authority, my home property, complain of the need for relief from Section 13(c). Let me make it very clear. I have known Peter Stengel for many years. I talk to him on a monthly and sometimes weekly basis. I confess, I've even shared lunch with him once or twice.
Peter Stengel has never once told me, never once told me that he had a problem with Section 13(c), or has complained that TWU has in any sense misused Section 13(c). And I can tell you that he is not hesitant to complain if he believes we have done something that hinders the operation.
Page 170 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
My point is that we are having Congressional hearings, and the affected parties have never directly discussed the issue. I would add that every time I've gone to the Hill to complain about the problems of my members, the first thing I'm asked is whether I have tried to work these issues out with management. I don't think it's too much to ask the committee to apply the same principle when management comes to the Hill.
And I would add, I'd been working with APTA for many years. And the first time I've had anybody say they had a problem with Section 13(c) to this union, I heard at this table just a few minutes ago.
Thank you very much.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you, Mr. Hall.
Mr. Brunkenhoefer.
Mr. BRUNKENHOEFER. I'm James Brunkenhoefer, with the United Transportation Union. We are primarily railroad folks and we're glad to be over here and be under one umbrella, but please don't tell Mr. Dingle I said that.
First of all, I'm here to probably confirm a couple of things. One is exactly what Mr. Hall and Mr. LaSala said, we support the bipartisan developed Section 13(c) legislation that is not a product that is only of one group in Congress or one party in Congress. This was bipartisan.
Page 171 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Second is just what Mr. Hall has said, I'm not a hard guy to find. APTA hasn't called me yet and said, let's talk about it beforehand. Most of my members in the railroad industry, usually, 99.9 percent of the time, when we have a problem, we at least sit down and try to work it through before we bring it to Congress. If we've got a problem, I've got a telephone number and everybody at this table's got a telephone number. We're not hard people to find. It's just very unusual for this person to look at that we bring it to Congress first before we try to settle it among ourselves.
On the issue that APTA talked about in dealing with commuter rail, we're all adults here, let's be honest with each other. This is not a let's do a little paperwork problem here of where the commuter railroads are under the jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission. What they want out from under is the Railroad Retirement System. The Railroad Retirement System has a higher employer and employee participation.
If that change takes place, get your checkbook out, somebody's going to make up the unfunded liability of that system. Or you're going to go and take Grandma's pension check out of her mailbox. There aren't any other options if we allow the commuter railroads to get what they're trying to get here, making it sound like it's something relatively simple. It is very inaccurate, and will be economically destabling to about a million people who are on pensions or will be coming on pension.
So let's at least, I feel incumbent to look at you and tell you, this is not a minor technical paint over problem. These are some real structural problems that are going to have massive negative impact on either the budget or on the retirees, and I don't believe either one of us want any of that.
Page 172 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Now, I have submitted my statement, I don't think that reading it at this point, I'm sure staff has found a place to file it in the appropriate file. I want to relate to you something else that has been a problem of our union. We have a private bus company in the Rio Grande Valley known as Valley Transit. It's operated by a family known as Robert Ferris. Robert Ferris and this union negotiate. We try to get agreements. Sometimes we like it and sometimes he likes it. And sometimes neither one of us likes them.
Our relationship went on for many years. Then we have had the deregulation take place, deregulation both by the ICC and deregulation through NAFTA. And let me tell you a story about a guy that we call Juan Gomez. Juan Gomez is a driver who drives for the Valley Transit. The Rio Grande Valley is not a built-up area, a suburban area like you would expect outside of Chicago or New York.
But it's enough population that it is the base for three Congressional districts, it's about 60 miles wide and about 30 miles, 60 miles long and about 30 miles wide. And Valley Transit provides the inner city bus operation in that area, and then also from there about 350 miles to Houston and to San Antonio and to Laredo and Corpus Christi. It moves those people within the valley into the cities where a lot of them catch Greyhound.
Now, because of the deregulation, we have Mexican operations, and God bless them, I'm not against people trying to make a living on either side of the border, who come over the border, who are paid less a day than our drivers make an hour, who carry no insurance, who pay no workers compensation, who are not supposed to but do pick up the customers on the American side that are moving inner city. The state highway patrol says, we cannot enforce treaties. They tell us they cannot enforce the regulations, and that many of the regulations don't apply to the Mexican operators.
Page 173 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Now, we had these grand ideas that would probably have been very well thought of by Cato or Heritage, about we will drive from our center city courthouse to their Zokolo or their square, back and forth. So we bring our bus over and let the Americans off, and they would pick up the customers and bring them across in a reciprocity, not changing drivers at the border. It worked very well, but the guys from Cato and the guys from Heritage who had this wonderful idea didn't understand how they enforced their regulations. It is a person that he gets on with a 357 magnum and says, get off this bus, you are taking my job in Mexico, and abandoning the bus and the passengers within it.
And so something needs to be done before we start repealing Section 13(c) or doing deregulation. It is a threat to peoples' lives in some cases, we're going to try an American operator who pays workers compensation, who does collective bargaining. In this case, Juan Gomez was replaced by Juan Gomez, Juan Gomez from Rio Noso replaced Juan Gomez from Edinburgh. And he is a Desert Storm veteran, and now he's going to be on unemployment.
And so before the committee starts moving in areas rapidly to make changes, I think we need to take into consideration something more than the philosophical viewpoint. Thank you for being here, and I'm sure these men will answer the questions, and I'll help if I can.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you all for your testimony, and Mr. Brunkenhoefer, welcome to our committee. We're happy you're here, too.
Mr. BRUNKENHOEFER. It's at least as pleasurable as Energy and Commerce.
Page 174 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Mr. PETRI. Thank you, I guess.
[Laughter.]
Mr. PETRI. We're hoping to have later this year, once we're through with the bulk of the budget process, some regional hearings, particularly on the U.S.-Mexican region, on some transportation related issues. We've been hearing from a lot of different people. And so we welcome your participation in that process a little later on as well.
Mr. Rahall.
Mr. RAHALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I agree, you're easy to find, you're easy to locate, and we appreciate that very much. I want to compliment each of the individuals for your presentation this morning, as well as for your openness and your ability to work with Congress. Mr. LaSala, I know you're very well represented by the gentleman behind you, Mr. Molosky, who's a very important source of information, and we appreciate that openness and two-way communication. And you, Mr. Georgine, by our former colleague, Mr. Leo Zephereti, that's sitting behind you. He is well-known to many of us here on the Hill as well.
Let me ask you, Mr. Georgine, the first question. You know, many of us in Congress work for projects for our district, whether it's a highway project or water and sewage treatment facility, or a dam project, like in controlling water, or whatever it may be. And we're very happy to announce these projects and see them come to our Congressional districts.
Page 175 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
At the same time, we want to see local contractors do the work. We want to see people in our area get the jobs to build these projects. We often see, as we do in southern West Virginia, that once these projects come to our area, that contractors from other parts of the country are getting the work, contractors from the Carolinas or wherever. Our local guys are in competition with them.
Would you not agree that the Davis-Bacon requirements benefit many contractors in that it allows them to compete with these outside contractors who may employ a less costly labor force? In other words, isn't the premise of Davis-Bacon built upon allowing local private construction rates to set the guidelines, not Federal Government, but then to ensure that the Federal Government lives by those same guidelines that are set by local private market forces?
Mr. GEORGINE. You're exactly right. In 1931, when the bill was introduced by Congressman Bacon——
Mr. RAHALL. A Republican.
Mr. GEORGINE. A Republican, that's right.
Mr. RAHALL. And Mr. Davis, a Republican.
Mr. GEORGINE. The whole purpose of the legislation at that time was to protect the contractors in the local communities, those that were, had lived there and worked in that local community. And it is the local community that decides what wages are paid to their local workers, and those are the wages that are surveyed by the Department of Labor, and whatever is determined to be prevailing is what the Department of Labor says the labor rate is.
Page 176 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
And it's there to protect the local community and the economy in the local community. It also protects our wages.
Mr. RAHALL. Well, that leads into my next question, because one of the alleged premises of the so-called Contract with America is to put more money into the pockets of average Americans through things that they say are needed, like the BBA and middle class tax cuts. And that all sounds agreeable, and it's catchy with the American people, and we all want to put more money back into the pockets of average Americans.
But be that as it may, it seems that these attacks on Davis-Bacon, and Section 13(c), contradict with that very premise. We're going to harm the wages, benefits of the working class Americans, and at the same time, as you so well document in your testimony, we're going to cost the American Treasury money through the loss of revenues. You estimate in your prepared testimony that it would cost the American Treasury some billion dollars through lost taxes paid upon wages.
Mr. GEORGINE. That again is exactly right. I mean, you know, those are economists from the University of Utah, and those are the conclusions that they came up with, their study in those states that had repealed their existing little Davis-Bacon Acts for the state.
Mr. RAHALL. Thank you. I'd like to come back on the second round.
Page 177 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Mr. PETRI. Sure. Representative LaHood. Representative Hutchinson.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Georgine, let me follow up on some of the comments by Nick. We hear that Davis-Bacon doesn't really cost us money because it's based upon prevailing local wages. And then we turn around and say, we've got to have it, or wages are going to fall for construction workers. If in fact those Davis-Bacon wages mirror the prevailing wage in the locality, then how and why would repeal of Davis-Bacon cost, why would wages fall, if they're mirroring those local wage rates?
Mr. GEORGINE. That's—that's very simple. If the Government didn't say that the prevailing wage rate in the area had to be sustained, then contractors from out of the area would come in with workers that they are paying lower wages to and compete successfully for the jobs. So that would in fact depress wages. Not only would it depress the wages of the workers working on the job. It would deprive the people in the local community from working on that job.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. You argue that if you keep Davis-Bacon, that Davis-Bacon results in higher productivity. It seemed to me that if you have high productivity on those kinds of contracts, the union contracts, that those companies are going to be able to bid at a lower rate, that they ought to always have the advantage. And yet we know time and time again they don't come in with the lower bids.
Page 178 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
So once again, I don't see how that supposed higher productivity from Davis-Bacon transfers into reality, or that it's really accurate.
Mr. GEORGINE. Well, the fact of the matter is that the rates established by the Department of Labor nationally, 70 percent of those rates are lower than the collective bargained rate in the area. And yet, the union contractors are successful bidders in many of those areas, Because they have higher productivity and better skilled workers. And they are competing.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. One of the things that you cited in your testimony was a Utah study.
Mr. GEORGINE. Yes.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. It's my understanding that that Utah study was funded entirely by unions. Do you have a, can you tell us what the cost was, how much that study cost?
Mr. GEORGINE. No, I can't tell you off hand. I don't know. I can get that information for you, I think.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. I would appreciate that.
And Mr. Hall, I have one question for you as well on Section 13(c). I appreciate very much the work that our transit workers do, and we're grateful, all of us are grateful for that. But I would ask that, is there any other industry that would provide the kind of labor protection comparable to Section 13(c) apart from transit workers, and why is it that transit workers deserve that kind of labor protection, when other industries do not provide it?
Page 179 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Mr. HALL. Well, I think the most vital point is the fact that Federal Government is supporting with capital dollars mostly and therefore they want to make sure that those dollars doesn't displace workers or cause hardship to workers in the community. And that's the main goal. And mass transit, this is covered for mass transit throughout the country, almost all are under these same guidelines. Private operations are also, if they're getting subsidies.
So if there's any others that are around that are similar, I mean, we have some protections that are on the railroads, there are others on the airlines. This one is unique to itself because it's mass transit. And the massive amount of capital dollars that come to the different agencies, I think the transit authority is clearly one of them.
If you didn't have Section 13(c), the fact of the matter is, even though it's not abused by us, and management has not complained for a moment, it would open the door that would allow them to get the cheapest bidder possible and the workers on the property who's been 20 and 30 years, being professionals, have to compete with people who are out on the bread line now, right now, looking for work. And I thought the whole idea was to maintain the standard of living for working people.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Well, I understand that you said that there haven't been any complaints. I assure you that we have heard many, many complaints about Section 13(c) and its impact, and its delays and the impact that it's had. So while you may not be aware of that, I want you to know that the subcommittee has been made aware of a lot of those concerns.
Page 180 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Thank you. I appreciate your testimony.
Mr. PETRI. Representative Brown.
Ms. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
At this time, I would like to submit to the record a copy of Losing Ground, Lessons from the Repeal of Nine Little Davis-Bacon Act, done by professors from the University of Utah, for the record. And I would encourage my colleagues to read it.
[Information to be supplied follows:]
[INSERT here.]
Ms. BROWN. I have a question. People that introduced the bill to repeal the Davis-Bacon Act because they claimed that this bill would save $3 billion over 5 years, I want to know, is that true, and would this money save, would we lose money if this law is repealed. And I have a follow-up question to that.
Mr. GEORGINE. Well, I think as I testified that that same study that you just cited indicated that the Federal Government would lose a billion dollars just in taxes alone, in income taxes, not to mention what the states themselves would lose on state income taxes and sales taxes.
It also, the fact that the, it would save, the Federal Government, the study that the Federal Government is depending upon is outdated. It was done 10 years ago. It doesn't take into consideration the economic factors that exist today. And it's just not accurate. The Federal Government will lose money if you repeal Davis-Bacon.
Page 181 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Ms. BROWN. My last question. States that don't have the Davis-Bacon Act, do they have lower cost per miles when they construct highways?
Mr. GEORGINE. We have just done a study where we looked at the states with the higher wage rates, and compared them to states with lower wage rates in those areas where Davis-Bacon was repealed, or where the state Davis-Bacon was repealed. And we found that the higher wage rates build more miles per hour, per work hour, than the lower wage rates, and that they actually saved a quarter of a million dollars per mile in the states that have a higher wage rate, as opposed to those that have a lower wage rate.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you, Representative Brown, and your submission will be a part of the record of the hearing.
Representative Baker.
Mr. BAKER. I can sympathize with your position, but the whole world is changing. We now have $36 trillion of unfunded liabilities out there. Don't just talk about Social Security or the national debt of $4.6 trillion. We're talking about railroad pensions, we're talking about every kind of retirement in the military, every obligation of the Federal Government. We haven't a clue where we're going to get it.
So we're going to be dependent upon you, despite Mr. Rahall's defense, and I'm glad you're here, because he's been carrying your water very, very well in these hearings. So it's good that you're getting some support, Mr. Rahall, and I'm thrilled for that.
Page 182 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
But just like Newt Gingrich said to his peanut farmers who came in and explained how the subsidized peanut was so much better than the unsubsidized peanut, he said, you've got 3 years. Show me a way out of here. The Federal Government is not going to have marketing orders, is not going to set the price of peanuts. Show me the way out.
You guys have to show us the way out. We only have so much money. We have many more rails to build. And I'm a convert to this process. I think mass transit, at least I thought in 1980 when I was first elected, was my ability to get you off my highway. Now I really believe it is a meaningful alternative, that if we work together to provide alternatives to the highway, certain people will use it.
But we don't have an endless pot of money. We never did. We were willing to spend our grandchildren's money for a long, long time. Now we've got to balance the books. It isn't Republican. It isn't Democrat. It isn't a liberal, it isn't conservative. Seventy percent of the American people realize that we can't go on spending our grandchildren's money. We've got to balance the books.
So you have to come to us and tell us when it makes sense for someone to fix the wages. Your idea that somewhere there is this pool of cheap labor that's going to come into all of the projects everywhere and work just to depress the wages is ludicrous, just as it's ludicrous to have a $25 an hour flag man, flag woman, in California. That doesn't affect the quality of work.
So you've got to come to us and say, we realize the 1931 law, as important as it is, is no longer relevant, and here's the way, in the future, that we're going to allow wage rates to be changed to make them more competitive.
Page 183 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Mr. GEORGINE. If I could answer that——
Mr. HALL. I'd like to respond also, because you mentioned also mass transit and Section 13(c). In principle I agree, but in practice, you're not living up to the statement. I think. It was mentioned just a minute ago about complaints that legislators are being aware of. Well, if those complaints haven't been brought to us, as a union, and I represent not just a few people, a lot of people throughout the country, the larger cities, New York, San Francisco, not one single complaint. And I would ask the legislator——
Mr. BAKER. Excuse me. You're responding to Mr. Hutchinson.
Mr. HALL. I think they're both relevant.
Mr. BAKER. Let me assume for you no one's complaining. Everybody's willing to pay more than the current——
Mr. HALL. No, that's Davis-Bacon. I'm talking about Section 13(c).
Mr. BAKER. All right. No complaints. Everything's perfect.
Mr. HALL. Fine.
Mr. BAKER. We're going to run out of money really soon.
Page 184 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Mr. HALL. What has that got to do with Section 13(c), sir?
Mr. BAKER. It doesn't have anything to do with it, apparently, if you're happy with the system, fine. I asked Mr. Rahall if he'd be willing to negotiate, he said no. So you're carrying on perfectly. Let's keep everything as it is. We just through the appropriations process, Republicans and Democrats, eliminated a lot of projects. Why? We didn't have the money. So the answer is, we've got to stretch that dollar and find more ways to become more efficient.
Mr. HALL. Let me just take one last shot at that, then, if Bob wouldn't mind if I do that. Because I'm not Davis-Bacon, but just in the response I just heard now, I don't think it's a question of who's carrying what water. In one case, I'm wondering what water's being carried.
When we talked about Davis-Bacon and paying a good wage, honest wage, and taxes being fed off that, revenues coming from that, as opposed to some contractor coming out of another state and trying to make a quick dollar by underbidding everybody else, whose water is being carried there? And how is that costing the taxpayer money?
Mr. BAKER. I was one of the sponsors of the 9 cent gas tax in California so that we could have more rail and road projects. That's not exactly what you'd expect a conservative to do. But I was the lead Republican in the House and was the author of this bill. I wouldn't let them go to 5 cents. Why? Because we had 9 cents worth of work to do.
Page 185 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
All I'm asking you is find a way to make this process more efficient. If you want to say it's all perfect, fine. It was all perfect in manufacturing, too. That's why it's all overseas. There was no relenting, no negotiations. It's all fine. The 1931 law is fine, Section 13(c) is fine, they're all fine. We're losing the war, and we're going to have to have your help to revamp the laws.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you, Representative Baker. Representative DeFazio has the time now.
Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Since the gentleman from California raised the issue, I would like to pursue this, because I haven't heard this raised yet, but perhaps it's on some peoples' minds, when he talked about the corporations which are producing overseas. What about foreign contractors? Because I imagine that if we're going to get into a battle over Davis-Bacon, we might see that issue raised.
Particularly now that we've got NAFTA, I guess we could have Mexican contractors come in, they could bring in workers. With the new depreciated peso, they could pay them 40 cents an hours, I guess we could really build a lot more miles of highway by doing that.
What do you think? Do you think that's maybe something we should be looking at?
Mr. GEORGINE. Well, I think you raise some very serious questions, sir. And the fact of the matter is, though, that kind of labor doesn't build the miles of highway at a lesser cost to the Government and to the people that are going to use those highways.
Page 186 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Mr. DEFAZIO. In fact, isn't it true that major new autobahn they build that goes from Mexico City over to the coast, my understanding is it was more expensive per mile than premier construction costs in the United States. And they're going broke with it.
Mr. GEORGINE. It would have to be, but I don't know that for a fact, because I'm not familiar with the costs on that highway. But we do know, we do know, we're recognized as having the best apprenticeship system in the world, in the construction industry in the United States, on the union side of the construction industry in the United States. And that's a fact.
And the reason that we get higher productivity is because we have higher skilled people. The reason that we have fewer accidents and fewer fatalities is because we have people that are trained to work carefully. All of that reduces the cost of construction. Higher productivity, fewer accidents, and that's how you save money. You don't save money by depressing wages.
You know, they used to build highways for nothing. They used slaves. And the Romans did it, they built great highways. They just took people along the way and worked them until they died and paid them nothing. I don't think that that's what we want to bring this country to.
Mr. DEFAZIO. Mr. Georgine, if I could, are you familiar with the experience in Oregon? I find the debate interesting here, because in Oregon, where the Republicans took over the legislature for the first time in 40 years, as they did here, at the same time we had a vigorously fought little Davis-Bacon initiative, and by an overwhelming margin, the same electorate that delivered the Republicans a large majority in the state house overwhelmingly rejected repeal of little Davis-Bacon.
Page 187 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
They heard all these arguments, they concluded that there was a lot of money to be saved, they concluded there was some value in paying people a decent wage. Are you familiar with that campaign? I just think it's instructive.
Mr. GEORGINE. Very familiar. And as a matter of fact, wherever that issue has been raised and brought to the general public, where they had the right to vote on it, not the assembly, or, you know, the state government, the general public has turned it down. We did it in Massachusetts, we did it in Oregon, by tremendous margins.
And I think that any Congressman ought to think about that a little bit, because the electorate don't want the Congress to reduce the wages of workers in any area. They're not getting paid enough money now. For 20 years now, we haven't received a real increase in construction. We received some increases, but they haven't kept up with the cost of living and the change in the value of the dollar.
So for 20 years, we haven't gotten an increase. And these people, you know, they're up to here with working for wages that don't give them enough to eat, where you have to have two people in a family work when you used to only have to have one person in a family work. That's the kind of thing that the American people are facing. And I think that Congress has to be accountable to the American people.
Mr. DEFAZIO. And even where the wages to some might seem high, they could talk about, isn't it true that, I mean, given the fact that it's construction, it's not a 50 week a year, 5 days a week work. I mean, that's my understanding. Generally most people involved in the trade can't work during freezing weather, or, you know, there are certain projects that just can't go forward.
Page 188 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Mr. GEORGINE. That's exactly right also. Construction workers only get paid when they work. If it rains and they don't work, they don't get paid. If it snows, they don't get paid. If the contractor hasn't brought the materials on the job, and they don't have anything to work with, they don't get paid.
The average construction worker in this country works about half the time, works about a 1000 hours a year. He barely qualifies for his pension and his health and welfare. That's the minimum. And that's nothing. You talk about unfunded liability. You make it so that these union contractors can't work on these jobs, there's $80 billion in multi-employer funds, most of which are construction. And if we can't keep our pension funds funded, you're going to have that much less money going to older people when they get an opportunity to retire.
Mr. PETRI. Okay, thank you.
Mr. LaHood.
Mr. LAHOOD. What is the average salary of a transit worker around the country? I mean, what's the disparity between someone in Peoria and someone in Chicago?
Mr. LASALA. Might be anywhere from $19 an hour to down to about $10 an hour. I would imagine the average rate would probably be around $14 or $15 an hour.
Mr. LAHOOD. The average around the country?
Page 189 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Mr. LASALA. Yes.
Mr. LAHOOD. And annualized, what does a transit worker make, say, in Chicago?
Mr. LASALA. Well, they can make as much as $40,000 or $50,000 a year, depending upon the amount of overtime that's available to them and they're required to work. I think if you base their wages on a 40-hour week, their salary would probably be around $35,000 to $40,000 a year.
Mr. LAHOOD. And typically, do they work more than 40 hours or typically do they work 40 hours?
Mr. LASALA. Well, a transit worker can come to work as early as 5 o'clock in the morning and still be on a property as late as 7 o'clock in the evening, sometimes theywill have a 4 or 5 hour split in between. But generally—very rarely do they have straight shifts any longer. That's almost obsolete since the advent of part-timers.
Mr. LAHOOD. Transit worker is defined as someone who drives a bus or a train or, give me some sort of a general definition.
Mr. LASALA. Transit is mostly a bus driver, and in some cases a motorman and a conductor in the city transit systems, in the ones that we mostly represent, in the Amalgamated Transit Union.
Page 190 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Mr. LAHOOD. So somebody in Chicago who drives the El, and somebody who drives a bus would be classified as a transit worker?
Mr. LASALA. Yes.
Mr. LAHOOD. What is the average salary of somebody who's classified as a construction worker?
Mr. GEORGINE. The average salary of construction workers is about between $25,00 and $30,000 a year, which is less than the median wage in this country.
Mr. LAHOOD. And that's for what, half a year's work, 6 months, or how do you classify that?
Mr. GEORGINE. That's the average salary, the average annual salary, as the Department of Labor has determined.
Mr. LAHOOD. Do any of you ever conceive of the idea that there should be some modification of Section 13(c), or do you just all of you consider that it's in law, it should stay in law, and there should be some modifications? I'm sorry I missed the testimony, I came in late, so if this was covered, I apologize for that.
Mr. HALL. No, I think that the first thing we're trying to say, that if management and their properties are saying that something's broke, they ought to sit down with their labor organizations and tell them what's broke. We have not, speaking for my union, received one complaint in 15 years now as a top officer, and as a vice president below that and actually as a driver before that.
Page 191 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
So first thing, first thing is sit down and talk to the union. And if they can justify, if there's a foundation, after all, these are jobs for not only our members but for construction workers and other people. We don't want to delay projects. And if there's something we may be doing that we can help to speed up something that's happening, but we're not even aware of what anybody is saying we're doing wrong, or inaccurately. So that's the first thing.
Second one, are we open to constructive adjustments? Absolutely.
Mr. LAHOOD. Is that the same feeling about Davis-Bacon? If there are some things, or do you come from the point of view that Davis-Bacon is in the law, it's been there, and we should not change it. Are you flexible in the point of view of saying that you know, if changes need to be made, that you're willing to consider that?
Mr. GEORGINE. Yes, see, in my statement I said I would——
Mr. LAHOOD. I apologize, I missed that, sir.
Mr. GEORGINE. I said I would endorse Congressman Clay's legislation that would change Davis-Bacon, would modify it. We have said for years that we're willing to look at the law and to make it, to bring it up to today's standards, if that's what you're referring to. We're glad to do that.
Mr. LAHOOD. Have you heard of the idea of having the Department of Transportation have jurisdiction over Section 13(c), and what's your feeling about that? Maybe you covered that, too, I don't know.
Page 192 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Mr. LASALA. No, our preference is that it remains with the Department of Labor. But I would also like to respond, Congressman LaHood, there is a myth that Section 13(c) adds to the cost of mass transportation, and it's never been substantiated that this is the case. There's an insignificant, perhaps, cost that might be attributable.
But the cost of providing mass transit is providing mass transit. There's not a system in the country, in the world, that doesn't have some form of subsidy, otherwise they would be inoperative. If we go back 30 years to the inception of the Urban Mass Transportation Act, it was born because the transit systems were dying, and they were dead. And the companies at that time, the private entrepreneurs at that time, took the Federal dollars at 80/20, matching fund, and sold the dilapidated buses and the run-down garages and there was, mass transit in most cities was non-existent.
Today, because of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, there are transportation systems that flourish in every city throughout our country. And if you tamper with that, that's our concern, but it's not been substantiated that Section 13(c) adds significantly to the cost.
Mr. LAHOOD. May I just, just one more point. Why do you like the Department of Labor rather than the Department of Transportation which some have suggested?
Mr. LASALA. Well, it would appear that if the Department of Transportation is going to issue the grant that someone else ought to determine what is fair and equitable for the employees that might be adversely affected.
Page 193 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Mr. HALL. It's also true, if I could, about the right fix. I think the first thing to do is to tell all of us, you tell us, labor, management, sit down and find out what the problem is, resolve it. If we can't together do that, then by all means, I think Congress has the responsibility to take a look at the end result of those conversations.
I think coming up with an idea in your own mind now is really the second step. Because if management could talk to us and say they're having a problem, whether DOT handles it, or Transportation, we're unaware of those problems. And maybe they're right, maybe we'd sit down and talk to them. But that should be done before Congress forms any opinion.
Mr. LAHOOD. Could I—do you mind? Let me just pose this question. Prior to this panel coming up here, we had a panel from the District of Columbia talking about complying with laws that have been passed by this body. And since you are, the people that, particularly the transit workers, I would assume, are the people that operate the Metro in Washington, D.C., is that correct?
Mr. LASALA. Correct.
Mr. LAHOOD. Yes. I mean, do you have any strong feelings about this idea of requiring the District of Columbia Metro system to spend $30 million to comply? Particularly, I mean, I would assume it has some effect on, some impact on the people that actually work for the system. I'd just be curious if you've given any thought to that.
Mr. LASALA. Well, you're talking about these unfunded mandates. It's nice to have, you know, those that are adequate for everyone that travels. But it's at a cost, and we understand that it's at a cost. And we think that other things ought to be worked out, other than what's being required.
Page 194 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
You know, and I guess I can talk about those that are disabled, because I have a son that's disabled myself. But the costs that we're imposing on the transit systems in order to meet the necessities of a handicapped person is exorbitant. And I don't know that the systems themselves can absorb it.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
Representative Rahall.
Mr. RAHALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate the concerns and comments expressed by my good friend from California, Mr. Baker, and certainly want to thank him for his comments. I also appreciate my very good friend from Illinois, Mr. LaHood's question, as well. But I'm sure he and Mr. Baker both realize as we all do that when we're talking about Section 13(c) we're not talking about a Federal subsidy for workers.
We're not talking about, not talking about a Federal subsidy of any nature for workers. We're talking about when Federal grants are given for transit projects that normal collective bargaining processes be protected, as they are in the private sector. We're talking about the employees being given clear and open communication as to how their wages would be affected, their benefits would be affected, etc., when there are Federal grants given to transit projects. It's not a Federal subsidy for wages in any manner whatsoever.
Page 195 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Let me ask you, Mr. Hall, in particular, about many of the allegations we hear about Section 13(c), none of which I've seen yet backed up by statistics or other non-biased data. Can you tell us what percentage of all Federal transit grants are the subject of negotiations involving transit labor and management?
Mr. HALL. Speaking for TWU, I would say, are you talking about what percentage we're discussing that we have an issue with?
Mr. RAHALL. Right.
Mr. HALL. If that's it, if it's 2 percent it's a big number. I think 98, fall through. I'm unaware of any issue that's impeding the operation, other than maybe the bureaucracy itself that's maybe covering other than labor and management, and that might be something to look at. But delay from my union across the country, 2 percent at most.
Mr. RAHALL. All right. Okay, Mr. LaSala, did you want to comment on that?
Mr. LASALA. Well, coincidentally, I just brought with me, just happened to have here, in the State of Illinois, there were 102 grants, and the average processing time was 78 days from the date the application is applied for until the day it's been approved. In the State of Virginia, we have a total of 54 grants and the average processing time was 58 days. And we can go on, Wisconsin, I just happened to have this handy also, total of 68 grants and the average processing time was 74 days.
Page 196 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
And I would suppose, if you wanted to pick and choose, there's nothing perfect, Congressman Rahall, and there would be a couple of instances where there has been some delays, and you know, we would admit to that. But for the most part, 85 percent of all grants, and we perhaps handle more than any other union, are done within a prescribed time, within 90 days.
Mr. RAHALL. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Baker, any further questions?
Mr. BAKER. Just very briefly. Back to the macro problem, we're lopping off lines of Amtrak, which I ride on most mornings, because there's not enough money and because the fare box is paying for like 10 percent of the cost. We have to do something to drive those costs down. Again, I want to make sure that you understand, if everything were perfect and there was plenty of money to subsidize that, no one would be complaining. But you're beginning to see the fruits of this problem in the fact that we're going to have less and less service in all states, not just California.
Second, at Alameda Contra Costa Transit, AC Transit, we had a tremendous problem with absenteeism. Unexcused days was approaching 60 days a year. Is that a nationwide phenomenon, or is that peculiar to the Bay area?
Mr. LASALA. I think it had been more of a problem a few years back. But we've been meeting jointly with APTA labor and management on ways of getting more people on the buses and ways of preventing abuse such as may say existed at one time. But I think the absenteeism problem has been addressed by both sides, us and the APTA people. And we're working towards eliminating it totally if we can.
Page 197 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Mr. HALL. My union represents the Bay area. I certainly would have an opportunity some time in the near future to talk to you about that and other issues. I'm not aware of the numbers that you're talking about. I'll talk to my people.
But I would like to state for the record that transit is unique. It's sometimes, when you can come to work, if you're going to be clerk, or maybe even in some forms of physical labor, but if you're a bus driver, or you're a mechanic repairing a bus, and if you're not feeling all that well that day, it would be dangerous to go to work.
Now, I'm not excusing excessive absenteeism. And there is certainly some of that, and we ought to address it. But I do think transit is unique. Clear example, the drug and alcohol testing, where anybody impaired in the slightest way, they don't want them performing work. And then I've been one of those, under some criticism from my own people, quite frankly, that that's a fair way to look at transit, that we're carrying people, and we ought to treat it in that way.
The only other thing I'd like to mention, just so the record is straight, you mentioned Amtrak, which we also represent. And the fare box, if you want to call it the fare box, the fare, is between 70 and 80 percent of the fare pays the operating cost for Amtrak, not 10 percent.
Mr. BAKER. Fifty percent is rare.
Mr. HALL. I'm sorry?
Page 198 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Mr. BAKER. Fifty percent is rare. BART is approaching 50 percent and struggles to stay there. That is rare.
Mr. HALL. But Amtrak is in that category of between 70 and 80 percent.
Mr. BRUNKENHOEFER. This wasn't one of our studies that was funded by labor, this is Amtrak's numbers, that they're been 70 and 80 percent. And as you look at the macro, and they're all micro solutions, and if we're going to deal with, we cannot solve the macro problems with micro solutions.
The transportation problem we have, if we look at where our problems are, right now you get more use out of hydrocarbons that we get out of the ground moving freight and people, by fixed wheel on fixed rail. We went and sent a half a million people into the desert in order to not keep Kuwait free, but to keep free the lines of the hydrocarbons coming so that we can make your district in northern California look more like a district in southern California when you look at the sky.
And so if we don't make those capital investments in mass transportation or Amtrak, your district's going to look a lot more like someplace around Southgate than it's going to look like it was when you grew up and in the fifties.
Mr. BAKER. Well, I apologize for correcting you, but we're dangerously close in attaining clean air standards, and we're going to lose a lot of Federal transportation bucks. So we're on the other side of the fence, we're begging for more pollution so we can hang on to transit funds for a few more years. But basically I understand what you're saying.
Page 199 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Mr. PETRI. If I could, Mr. LaSala, just one area I wonder if you could touch on briefly. Some of the others who testified last week about Section 13(c) have been saying that this is something that happened by, almost by, as an afterthought at the time of the transaction between I guess the District of Columbia and Mr. Harry Crown to make sure that nothing happened that would disadvantage the employees of the operation, and then it kind of grew like topsy over the intervening period.
Could you comment on that, and also, could you give us your rationale for Section 13(c) and what purpose it serves?
Mr. LASALA. Well, the primary purpose is to protect the collective bargaining rights that we had and enjoyed as private employees.
Again, it goes back to the birth of Section 13(c), what happened at the time is there were many, many transit systems surrounding each major city. And they formed a regional transit authority and absorbed them all. And when they did that, they took them all over with their seniority, they protected their pension rights that they had earned with the private employer and this was pretty much the basis.
Understand, it's only been recent, Congressman, that we were subjected to competitive bidding. Now that the Federal dollars are available, many of the private entrepreneurs have come back into play, they're looking to take over the systems, and we don't take exception. We represent many of them.
Page 200 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
But what's happened, and I cite the Las Vegas case, is currently, ATC Vancom is the successful contractor. Its contract will run for 3 years. Our position had been with the Department of Labor that should he lose the contract to a successor bidder that those employees should have the right to go with the successor employer without any discrimination. They should be picked from the top person right on down.
And while the Department of Labor ruled against us inasmuch as it was not an acquisition, we did get a commitment from the RTC in Las Vegas that they would assure that these people would follow their work.
And our argument had been that if they get a job, and the wage rate in Las Vegas, being a new property, it's from $8 to $12 an hour, they go to schools, they put their children in schools there, they build a home, and they expect some longevity on the job. And then they find out that if another bidder comes in and bids a lower contract, and whether it be ATE or Laidlaw or one of the others, they might lose their job. Our position had only been that they have a right to follow their job.
But this basically is what Section 13(c) has provided for us over the years. What it purports to do today is protect our collective bargaining rights, where we would lose it in most states, most of the southern states especially, if we didn't have the Section 13(c) levels of protection. And as has already been testified, Congressman, in 39 cities arbitration has been removed as a condition.
Mr. HALL. In my testimony also, it defines what the exactly what the major purposes are. And it outlined the first was simply to keep us informed of what grants are coming down and what they mean. And then if we determine an inappropriate impact on workers, how can we resolve that if we have the rights within the statute, within our bargaining agreements, to resolve protection for our workers, or if need be, give them an opportunity to compete for that same kind of work.
Page 201 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Mr. PETRI. Are there other similar arrangements in public law, where changes in the way an operation conducts itself are approved by the union before they go into effect, or is this unique?
Mr. HALL. Well, I think you might draw a parallel of some degree, service contracts, those kinds of things are pretty similar, but the same concept. But this is special and unique, because of the grant levels, the kind of dollars we're talking about to maintain properties that quite frankly were abandoned by privates.
And a lot of people like to forget when they talk about privatization, that they were all private. And they were abandoned. And there was no ridership, and nobody cared about the person going to work at 2:00 o'clock in the morning cleaning the office that we all work in.
And therefore, the Government said we have to step in. But they knew capitalization, improving the operations was key. How to give those grants without adversely affecting existing employees or labor rights was the diagram for Section 13(c).
Mr. BRUNKENHOEFER. Just one quick question. Mr. Petri, most of this work is Davis-Bacon work. And I haven't ever had my telephone ring from someone in building trades saying I'm a problem and our issues with Section 13(c) are a problem that's keeping his people from getting the work. And I can assure you that the trade unionism is kind of like one of the party caucuses, when you close the door, you have meaningful dialogue.
Page 202 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
[Laughter.]
Mr. BRUNKENHOEFER. And usually they leave them, most of the times, they try to make impressions on each other, and hopefully, stitches will close them. And so in our case inside organized labor, that discussion has never taken place, is that the building trades people who would benefit the quickest from the release of the grant money is not beating up on the transit unions and the transportation unions saying, you're doing something unreasonable and holding up our work, and I feel certain that Mr. Georgine is not the least bit bashful, and if he were, he would be more than happy to explain it to me in a fashion I could fail to understand.
Mr. GEORGINE. Well, Mr. Chairman, one point I'd like to raise before we go, if I can, is that, I don't think there is any better testimony than to hear an owner, as we did in the previous panel before us, where the owner said that Davis-Bacon has no effect on the cost of his projects at all, and that he works Davis-Bacon and he thinks it's a good operation. You know, you hear it from us, it's one thing. But to hear it from an owner, I think that just amplifies and strengthens what we're trying to tell you, that it doesn't increase the cost of the job.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you, thank you all for taking the time to testify. Another committee I serve on, Mr. Georgine, we're working a lot of employment training issues. I just want to say that your organizations in our area have a tremendous reputation for really helping provide skilled people, out of the hiring halls and other organizations that our committee has to deal with.
Mr. GEORGINE. Thank you. Well, of course, Wisconsin is just a suburb of my home town, Chicago. So——
Page 203 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
[Laughter.]
Mr. PETRI. Don't say that.
Let's see, the next panel is Craig Bates, the President of the International Taxicab and Livery Association, and Mr. Kevin Adams, representing the American Transit Services Council. Gentlemen, welcome.
Mr. Bates, would you care to proceed?
Mr. BATES. Yes, I would.
*ERR11*TESTIMONY OF CRAIG BATES, PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL TAXICAB AND LIVERY ASSOCIATION; KEVIN ADAMS, PRESIDENT, EC CORPORTATION/TCT TRANSIT SERVICES, AND BOARD MEMBER, AMERICAN TRANSIT SERVICES COUNCIL
Mr. BATES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee.
My name is Craig Bates, I am owner of BatesWay Companies in Kansas City, Missouri. My companies operate taxis and van services and we provide transportation services under contract to our local transit authority and various school districts.
This year I have the pleasure of serving as President of the International Taxicab and Livery Association. ITLA is a non-profit trade association composed of small businesses that operate taxicabs, liveries, vans and minibuses. Our industry operates over 200,000 vehicles, provides livelihoods for over 350,000 men and women, and transports 2 billion passengers per year. That is 20 percent of all public transportation trips.
Page 204 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Mr. Chairman, I am here to state our concern that the 1994 rescission of the Federal Transit Administration's Private Enterprise Participation Policy, combined with the continuation of Section 13(c) of the Federal Transit Act, have so tilted the playing field against private sector providers that grievous economic harm will be imposed on this segment of the public transportation industry.
Since its inception over 30 years ago, the Federal Transit Act has specified certain protections and activities for private transportation companies. The statutory requirement is that public entities seeking Federal transit assistance must utilize the private sector to the maximum extent feasible. Although protection and activities are explicitly contained in the Federal Transit Act, no process is described in the statute for these requirements. Therefore, enforcement of these provisions is left to the rulemaking process.
For the first 20 years, ''to the maximum extent feasible,'' were just words paid little attention to by most public agencies. In fact, during the time period 1964 to 1984 the private sector was not even considered a resource. In 1984, there was about $5 million of transit service contracted from private operators, less than 1 percent of all transit service. From 1964 to 1984, however, the cost of providing one hour of transit service nearly doubled. Something had to be done to reinstill efficiency.
And in 1984, the FTA issued its Private Enterprise Participation Policy. The impact of the Private enterprise requirements was dramatic. Since the mid-1980s, the amount of contracted public transit service has grown significantly from $5 million in 1984 to more than $500 million in 1994. As a result of competitive contracting, localities experienced an average savings of approximately 30 percent. On the basis of these results, we can estimate that this policy saved over $1 billion in transit operating expenses in the last 5 years.
Page 205 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Unfortunately, the negative consequences of the rescission for the private sector are starting to roll in. Charlotte, North Carolina, Memphis, Tennessee, and Dayton, Ohio, which all had contracted for para-transit services for many years, have recently pulled the service in-house. The transit unions in Portland and Phoenix were quick to try to force the public agencies to put clauses in their contracts requiring union succession, even if services were contracted out.
By limiting free market activity in transit services, the poor, the transit dependent and the taxpayer suffer high costs, less service and less innovation. For these reasons, it is important that competitive contracting opportunities be permitted to work in public transit, and that private enterprise requirements and guidelines be reinstated.
Now I would like to review an issue that is even more onerous, and that is the manipulation of Section 13(c) to prevent public agencies from even considering using the private sector. There are two onerous aspects of Section 13(c) that we urge the committee to note, as you consider whether it should be repealed.
First, when a grant application is submitted to the Federal Government by a transit authority, it must be signed off not only by the U.S. Department of Transportation and the U.S. Department of Labor, but by the national office of the labor union that represents the workers of that transit authority. Yes, the application goes to the office of a private entity, the labor union, and they do not just review the application, they have sign-off authority.
So if there is a portion of the grant application that the national union office does not like, they will simply refuse to sign off, and they will use that power to have that portion of the application removed. This threat is used all the time. It has impeded innovation and flexibility, as you heard on February 8th from a number of transit agencies, their managers, and state DOTs that testified before this committee.
Page 206 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Second, with reductions in transit operating subsidies, transit authorities need to have more flexibility to respond quickly to the changing environment. If a transit authority decides that it would like to competitively bid 10 percent of its service, any current labor employees who lose their job are entitled under Section 13(c) to 6 years full salary. Six years full salary, with a golden parachute provision like that, how can a transit authority ever save money and meet future challenges?
The original purpose of Section 13(c) was to preserve the collective bargaining rights of private transit employees in public acquisitions. Given the fact that the public buyouts have concluded, Section 13(c) has outlived its usefulness. Now, taxpayers, transit riders and the private sector are being harmed by Section 13(c).
Taxpayers are being harmed by having their tax dollars used to subsidize growing deficits incurred because transit authorities are unable to use competitive practices to operate more efficiently and to keep costs down. Transit riders are being harmed because they pay more and receive less service. Private operators and workers are being harmed by lost opportunities. Section 13(c) is truly an unfunded Federal mandate that must be eliminated.
In conclusion, we recommend the following legislative changes. First, we urge the committee to repeal Section 13(c) of the current Federal Transit Act. As the testimony given before the committee from transit agencies, state DOTs, and the ITLA have shown, this provision has outlived its usefulness and has become counterproductive to the Federal Transit Assistance Program.
Page 207 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Second, we urge the committee to reinstate the Private Enterprise Participation Policy and its implementing circular. As part of the reinstatement, we ask the committee to require that any subsequent modifications to the policy or the implementing circular be required to go through the formal regulatory review process. Even with the existence of Section 13(c), this would help to level the playing field.
Third, we urge that Section 8(i)(5) of the Federal Transit Act be eliminated. This section was used as the primary justification for the rescission of Private Enterprise Participation Policy, and we believe that the language is ambiguous and at odds with the private enterprise provisions of the Act.
Thank you for this opportunity to share our industry's views on these important matters.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you, Mr. Bates.
Mr. Adams.
Mr. ADAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I only have two sentences on Section 13(c). I figured by the time I got up here, you would have heard a lot about it. But I am prepared to answer questions about Section 13(c).
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I am Kevin Adams, President of the EC Corporation, and ATC Transit Services, and a board member of the American Transit Services Council. On behalf of ATC, I wish to thank you for the opportunity to discuss positive ways in which public dollars can be more efficiently utilized to meet the growing transportation demands of our Nation. As a way of background, TCT Transportation Service provides competitively contracted transit services to public entities.
Page 208 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
The American Transit Services Council membership provides competitively contracted transit services to over 250 public entities. Combined, ATS members employ a high diverse work force of nearly 9,000 employees. More than half of these employees belong to labor unions.
As we all know, costs are going up in the delivery of public transit. Ridership is stable at best, productivity is down. Competitive contracting has proven to be 20 to 30 percent lest costly. That's too simplistic of a solution for everything that you're dealing with. What we need is a revamped partnership of labor, local communities, the private sector, public transit agencies. Our mission is to help officials develop market responsive transit services through competitive contracting.
ATSC endorses the new Federal framework being established by Congress to achieve a balanced budget, fund Federal mandates and return to the states and communities the ability to create services and programs which meet specific goals and needs of their citizens. The following policy principles are recommended for your consideration. The existing Federal categorical funding and transit program policies have created fragmented services within communities and perpetuated insular institutions that are not fully responsive to markets, or to the most efficient utilization of resources.
In community after community, you can see the results of many federally-funded programs, buying vans and buses and operating services. In Indianapolis, for example, there are nine agencies, not counting the FTA funded regional transit authority, plus a separate broker for Medicaid.
Page 209 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Federal policy has been premised on evolving and perpetuating mass public transportation. While that may be an appropriate strategy for our Nation's larger urban areas, as a national framework it has shortchanged the ability of local and state officials to evolve systems that are most conducive to their specific environments.
While Federal policies for transportation and human services programs clearly recognize the value and need for subsidized transportation to provide mobility and achieve national goals, such as clean air, there have not been clear policies or incentives to encourage the most efficient and effective use of those funds. I am challenged to find FTA policy incentives which are designed to encourage the efficient use of these funds, especially since FTA rescinded the policy guidance in private enterprise participation.
There are ample policies within the law that inhibit efforts to meet community needs in a cost effective way. It is clear that Section 13(c) has become an institutional barrier to competitive contracting, and hence, often an impediment to the most efficient utilization of resources.
Until very recently, there has been very little emphasis on how to establish more effective community based transportation utilizing existing and evolving technologies. Most research has been directed to mass transportation technology and rail systems. Given that para-transit and other low density demands have become the focal point of much service, it is surprising that more attention has not been paid to helping communities better provide more specialized services.
Page 210 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Finally, the lack of clear policies or incentives to encourage transit efficiency and effectiveness has inhibited innovations. A case in point is Indianapolis. The most desirable service system they could evolve would include a voucher system and service patterns designed by a mobility manager who would competitively contract out service to both public and private contractors. This approach would better serve the community, reduce costs and increase the use of transit services. Given the current Federal spaghetti government approach to funding and structuring transit programs, the city of Indianapolis faces a Herculean challenge of evolving a system that best meets their needs.
Policies which ATC membership endorses include: the elimination of the existing Federal Transit Act and the creation of a Surface Transportation Administration. The creation of a mobility and accessibility block grant that unifies all the existing funding sources for transit subsidies. Continuation of Section 15, so performance may be measured. The full funding of Federal mandates, including Clean Air, ADA and drug and alcohol testing.
Restructuring or revamping of Section 13(c). Incentives must be built into all block grant funding, based upon states and communities achieving national priorities, achieving increase in productivity and service effectiveness. The passage of H.R. 842, including measures to ensure public transit continues to be funded on an equitable and fair basis with highways.
I notice all the pictures of the buses you have on the walls in here that clearly highway is the dominant force when it comes to funding.
ATSC stands ready to work with you to explore these and other policy options that meet the test of improving the efficiency and effectiveness of public dollars being expended on transit service and providing access to necessary services.
Page 211 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of this subcommittee for inviting ATSC to testify on these important matters. We appreciate your time and attention.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you. I think in 2253 we have a lot of mass transit pictures of various places around the country.
Representative Rahall.
Mr. RAHALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bates, in your testimony, you noted that between 1984 and 1990 the amount of privately-contracted motor bus service dramatically increased by a whopping 135 percent in the case of para-transit service. With the rescission of FTA circular 7005.1 last year, however, you maintain that negative results for your industry are starting to roll in, and you mentioned the three situations involving Dayton, Memphis and Charlotte. Does that, in your mind, constitute an erosion of interest in private sector transit of landslide proportions?
Mr. BATES. We think it has the potential to, yes, sir, we do. We think it allows the municipal planning agency to divert its attention from the private sector and the efficiencies that exist in the private sector.
Mr. RAHALL. Well, in this current environment of everybody complaining about regulatory burdens, I guess it's sort of refreshing to see at least one industry witness appear before the subcommittee in support of an unfunded mandate, which is how many viewed the FTA circular as being. I mean, after all, why shouldn't Dayton, Memphis and Charlotte decide at the local level, at the local level, whether or not they will use private transit?
Page 212 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Mr. BATES. Well, we believe that if there is a mandate, it saves money. And we think that our objective is to be part of the solution to maximize dwindling funds. And we think that all the municipal planning agencies should have that as their chief objective as well.
Mr. RAHALL. Would you not agree that the type of analysis required by that particular circular paints a brighter picture for private transit?
Mr. BATES. Not necessarily.
Mr. RAHALL. I guess what I still don't understand is why does the Federal Government, in your view, need to mandate private transit service alternatives, if private transit service is competitive, what is currently acting as a deterrent?
Mr. BATES. The Private Enterprise Participation Policy does not mandate private participation. It mandates that the municipal planning organizations maintain channels for the private sector to be part of the process. It mandates private sector channels whereby there's no shutout of our industry.
Mr. RAHALL. You heard on the previous panel Mr. LaSala testify that 85 percent of over 1,000 transit grants, totaling more than $4 billion in Federal funds, process each year under Section 13(c) in under 90 days. He noted that since 1974, almost all operator assistance grants have received Section 13(c) certification in under 30 days.
Page 213 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Nobody has brought to my attention any evidence disputing these figures. Instead, we're presented with isolated instances, the type of horror stories that are often employed to press a point on any issue under the sun. And that's certainly what you've done today, you pulled out a few instances where you contend that Section 13(c) allegedly caused delays, and you used them as calling for a basis for its whole repeal.
So I'd be more interested in whether you have any evidence to refute the statistical evidence provided to this subcommittee by Mr. LaSala.
Mr. BATES. Well, there seems to be a lot of concern about Section 13(c). I suppose that if it wasn't that big a factor, why don't we go ahead and try to all be part of the solution, the private sector, labor, transit districts. I think that, if we're all trying to find a solution for how we're going to maintain service, let's just agree not to have Section 13(c).
Mr. RAHALL. Well, most solutions are based upon statistics. Mr. LaSala has presented those statistics. I just ask you the same question.
Mr. BATES. Well, I would answer the question that in the case of my local community, which I wouldn't think that Kansas City's an isolated case, I could give you several minutes of how in fact Section 13(c) was used to hold up a grant.
Mr. RAHALL. There again, you're talking about isolated instances. I'm looking for statistics, as Mr. LaSala provided.
Page 214 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Mr. BATES. I believe we've supplied some statistics.
Mr. RAHALL. Well, we'd appreciate receiving it.
Mr. BATES. We'll try to send you some more.
Mr. RAHALL. All right. You know, I'm just saying that I sit on the rail subcommittee, we hear the horror stories there, as I said, on any issue under the sun you can pull out particular horror stories and show what has happened. But I think what we need is statistics and an overall picture if we're going to try to reach these solutions we all agree we want to reach.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
You heard I think some of the previous panels here today and several of them indicated an interest in attempting to work out some sort of an update or more efficient application or a modified application of Section 13(c) as opposed to Congressional intervention to try to come up with a solution out of our own experience. Do you think that's a fruitful area to explore, or do you think it's beyond that?
Mr. BATES. Well, it's definitely a fruitful area to explore. You know, it's obvious that there may is a great degree of concern. But in the case of Kansas City as an example, where they anticipate a reduction in operating subsidy of 29 percent, our transit manager is looking for ways in which to focus on the 35 or 40 people in the back of the bus, to maintain their route, to maintain their service, to bring solutions to the problem of maintaining service.
Page 215 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
I think the forward thinkers are concerned about Section 13(c). We can talk about history all day. But I know that the transit agencies, APTA, who has testified, they want to rely on competition to keep the 35 and 40 people in the back of the bus, and not to concentrate primarily on the one person behind the driver's wheel. And I think that's the part of the solution that we want to be a part of. So any dialogue that might take place, we want to be there to participate with you.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you, thank you both for your testimony. Did you have something to add, Mr. Adams?
Mr. ADAMS. Would it be appropriate for me to comment on the questions?
Mr. PETRI. Of course.
Mr. ADAMS. In regard to the first question, I think it's a good question, the industry has clearly carved out a very good niche in terms of the volume of business. It's high quality service and it costs less. The problem with the rescission is that the bottom line is that there are many transit authorities in the country who want, the manager of that authority measures themselves by the number of buses they have. That is their domain.
And there is, again, it's an isolated case, but we had a case in Austin, Texas, where we bid, we were the second low bidder, very high chance of winning it, and the transit manger brought it back in-house, saying, I don't need to do that any more. And we know the service costs less.
Page 216 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Regarding the Section 13(c), several questions there. But the union uses Section 13(c) as a leverage. I worked on the public side as a public operator for 13 years before I moved to the private side. And I know for a fact, I've been held up by the union on peripheral issues, totally unrelated to driver protection. They were related to grievance arbitration, they were related to some local issue that doesn't have anything to do with the Federal grant.
There are instances, again setting statistics aside, Atlanta, we had a contract in Atlanta, we operated there for 4 years. They tried to put it back out, they lost the right to do that, Section 13(c) was one of the arguments used. We in no way, this was in a, that system must have had 600 buses. We had 12. Their attrition far exceeded the number of employees we had. I mean, their monthly attrition exceeded the number of employees we had. There's no way that we could have worsened any incumbent employee's condition.
In the end, what do we need to do? I think as far as Section 13(c), we do need to work together. The unions are there, half of our employees are union. Somehow or another, Section 13(c) has to be used to protect the drivers, but not to prevent competitive contracting, not to allow the union to use it as a lever in other issues. They have the right to strike, they have collective bargaining rights. And that's what they should use, not Section 13(c).
Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Thank you both for your testimony and we appreciate your coming here today and being so patient.
I think with your agreement, we are going to combine panels six and seven. Thank you, gentlemen. They are both, I think, on the same issue, with different perspectives. So it may be useful to hear them together. Mr. John Bollinger, the Deputy Executive Director of Paralyzed Veterans of America, accompanied by Jim Weisman, Eastern Paralyzed Veterans of Association, and Mr. Theodore Knappen of the Greyhound Lines, Inc.
Page 217 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Mr. Bollinger, do you want to proceed?
*ERR11*TESTIMONY OF JOHN BOLLINGER, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA, ACCOMPANIED BY JIM WEISMAN, EASTERN PARALYZED VETERANS OF ASSOCIATION; AND THEODORE KNAPPEN, GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS REPRESENTATIVE, GREYHOUND LINES, INC.
Mr. BOLLINGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify this afternoon. My name is John Bollinger. I'm a member and I work for the Paralyzed Veterans of America.
My statement this afternoon will be focused on accessibility to over-the-road buses. My organization, PVA, was founded almost 50 years ago by veterans that were returning from World War II with spinal cord injuries. One of the first things that those veterans found out when they were about to be discharged from VA hospitals was that the world out there was not such a friendly place. The wheelchairs couldn't get over curbs, they couldn't get through doors. And even in many cases, doctor's offices weren't accessible.
So for many of them, the trip from the VA hospital was especially difficult, not just because it was hard to adjust to a severe disability, but because our country's transportation systems weren't quite as user friendly to wheelchairs as they were to able-bodied young soldiers who used them several years before. In 1990, the ADA was enacted to change that. Now, 50 years later after World War II for our members, and especially those members that live in rural areas, the unavailability of accessible over-the-road buses perpetuates the old reality and greatly limits the very freedom for which they fought to preserve.
Page 218 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
The ADA is a well-crafted law whose provisions work in concert with each other, and that's a very important concept. And to put it very simply and easily, you can have all the accessible office spaces, restaurants, theaters, and facilities in the world, but if you can't get to them, what good are they? The ADA is future oriented, that is, new facilities will be built, and vehicles replaced in an accessible manner, leading to increased integration and independence. We need an integrated, multi-modal transportation system.
While clear in its intent to end discrimination in provision of transportation, Congress was less clear on how accessibility to over-the-road buses would be achieved. Conflicting testimony was presented on the cost, reliability and availability of wheelchair lifts and other boarding devices with regard to their use on over-the-road buses. Congress extended the effective date for the entire industry, and required a thorough study of the access needs of individuals with disabilities to these buses, and the cost effectiveness of different methods of providing such access.
The OTA conducted exhaustive fact-finding research, consulting with individuals and groups with technical expertise in the broad range of issues dealing with accessible over-the-road buses. Bus service providers, vehicle and lift manufacturers, and people with disabilities actively participated in that process. And now after almost 3 years of investigation and analysis, OTA found several workable solutions that are financially and technologically feasible.
First, the OTA report stated unequivocally that carrying an individual with a disability, that's carrying by hand or by boarding device does not satisfy the accessibility requirements of ADA. Affordable technology currently exists to allow individuals with disabilities to board and travel while remaining in their wheelchairs. Level entry access to over-the-road buses is the only acceptable means of access to these vehicles.
Page 219 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
The OTA study supports the use of either vehicle or station based lifts to provide level entry boarding onto over-the-road buses. OTA makes clear that operator choice of using either of these technologies is an important factor in minimizing the cost of providing level entry access to over-the-road buses.
After evaluating financial information made available by the industry, OTA found that accessibility can be accomplished in a financially responsible manner. Flexibility is given to the provider to decide what type of level entry access is most feasible. This accessibility will then become built into the system as vehicles are replaced.
Mr. Chairman, the intent of Congress in enacting the ADA could not have been clearer. Congress exhibited great deference to industry concerns by extending compliance with DOT regulations. Now in 1995, 5 years after the enactment of the civil rights law that will enable paralyzed veterans and other Americans with disabilities to participate in all aspects of society, no other covered entity is permitted to perpetuate discrimination by continuing to purchase inaccessible vehicles or failing to provide accessible services. Over-the-road buses are the only ones.
We don't think it's right, Mr. Chairman, that to take a trip with our families we have to be lugged upstairs into a bus, lifted out of our wheelchairs and onto seats from which we can't move. It's time that the industry acts to correct this situation, and we trust that Congress will adhere to their intent when the law was passed, and enforce the ADA's goal of ending discrimination based on disability. Thank you very much.
Page 220 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Mr. Weisman, do you have a statement you would like to make as well?
Mr. WEISMAN. Should we allow Greyhound to do prepared testimony first, and then maybe be responsive?
Mr. PETRI. Yes, well, in either event, we were going to leave, but I just wanted to get some idea——
Mr. WEISMAN. I have no prepared statement. I was going to be responsive.
Mr. PETRI. All right, then we'll take a 10 minute recess and we'll be back to give you all a chance. We have to run over to the floor for a vote, that's what those bells are all about.
Thank you very much.
[Recess.]
Mr. KNAPPEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to be here with you today.
What I'd like to do is to basically talk about three things, if I could. First, where we are today with regard to intercity bus, or over-the-road bus accessibility, how we got to this point and where we need to go from here. Where we are today is that DOT has a mandate which was originally crafted in this subcommittee to impose accessibility standards on over-the-road bus operators, to provide accessibility to disabled travelers in the most cost-effective manner considering all boarding options.
Page 221 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Greyhound has participated in the preliminary DOT rulemaking process. What we have suggested to DOT is a system of level change devices, that is, station based lifts, at our top 500 locations, coupled with airline style boarding chairs, which would achieve full immediate accessibility for 85 percent of our passengers.
For the remaining 15 percent that are traveling to or from the thousands of gas stations, drug stores, and so forth, many in Wisconsin, West Virginia, for example, that serve as Greyhound stations, we've proposed an on-call or reservation style system, which is essentially what rural travelers do anyway. Unlike here in Washington or at the Port Authority in New York City, travelers in rural areas don't go down to the bus station and just hope the bus shows up. They make sure that it's coming, that it's still scheduled at that time, and there's going to be room. So they're calling ahead also.
But for 85 percent, at the top 500 locations, we would be able to achieve full accessibility without reservations, and in a very cost-effective manner. Basically, we estimated that we could implement that program over 7 years at a cost of $350,000 a year.
By comparison, putting a lift on every bus, which is in essence what OTA has recommended, and what the advocates advocate, would cost Greyhound alone $4 million a year just in capital cost for the lifts. In addition, we would lose a minimum of two seats, and you'd have extensive operating and maintenance costs. The reason that, the real crux of the issue and the reason that the advocates, in my opinion at least, oppose the Greyhound proposal, is that it requires the disabled passenger to shift from their wheelchair to the boarding chair and then the boarding chair to the coach seat.
Page 222 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Now, in my opinion, I think there are many disabled travelers who would rather be in a coach seat for a long haul trip. But it is that shifting that is causing, I think, the basic dispute. The fact of the matter is, what we have proposed is exactly what the airlines do. The airlines carry more than 90 percent of intercity public transportation users. Those folks today are using the same kind of system, that is, a level change device and a boarding chair that we're proposing for Greyhound buses.
So that's the basic issue that we're confronted with today. The reason we got here is as you know, this subcommittee mandated that OTA do a study and then DOT do an independent analysis, taking into account recommendations of the study, but also looking independently at the purpose of ADA. OTA took 3 years essentially to say no to this subcommittee, because they concluded early on in their report that they were not going to consider boarding chairs, airline style boarding chairs, as a means of accessibility, despite the fact that that's what the airlines use.
So it seemed to us that they simply missed the boat, didn't read the mandate correctly, and so now DOT is in a position where they've really got to start from square one.
Now, what that means in terms of the future is that there is a real time squeeze. The DOT final rule was to have been in place by Mai 1994 with regard to the issue of cost, just so it's clear where the $4 million number comes from, Greyhound right now has a 2,000 bus fleet. And it has a very new fleet, actually, 6.3 is the average age of the fleet. And the intent is to turn the fleet on a 10-year cycle. It's been running about 11, but I suspect it will get back to 10. So that means 200 new buses purchased every year.
Page 223 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
The latest wheelchair lift figures are taken from the DOT workshop conducted as part of this rulemaking, where the lift manufacturers indicated that their fully installed cost of lifts was $18,000 to $25,000. We took a round figure towards the low end of that range, $20,000 a year times 200, gives you the $4 million. So that's where that comes from.
I would point out, even if you took the most ridiculously lowball number, $8,500, and only had a million and a half dollar cost, it will still take you longer and cost roughly four times as much as the boarding chair alternative that we have suggested.
With regard to the 1989 statement, the point I would make is that if you go back and look at that statement, as actually I did and obviously Mr. Weisman did, you will see that Greyhound proposed a system of accessibility not too different from what we're talking about today.
However, there has been this rigid dogmatic insistence on a lift on every bus, which has led to this extended delay. If we had had a reasonable, cost-effective solution in 1989, the fleet and the entire industry would be accessible today. I must say, Mr. Chairman, this subcommittee was really in the forefront of requiring a cost-effective, a cost-efficient analysis be done before regulations be adopted.
This was back in 1990, and of course, here we are in 1995, and on the floor today is precisely such a bill for the rest of the Government. So in a way, you were far ahead of your time.
Page 224 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Those are the main points I'd like to make.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you very much.
Representative Mica, have you any questions of this panel?
Mr. MICA. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you. I read some of the testimony about some of the costs involved in compliance, for example, with the Americans with Disabilities Act. And you know, I understand the need to accommodate people with disabilities and comply with this. And I saw your proposal, which seems to make sense from an operating and investment standpoint.
Are these ouear. And that's simply not a viable option.
So that's why we think what we have suggested is a much more cost-effective approach. Thank you.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
Mr. Weisman, do you have any reaction to this?
Mr. WEISMAN. Yes, sir, thank you, Mr. Chairman. As long as we were going to rehash a little history, what happened when the ADA was being discussed back in 1989 and 1990 was that on a panel much like this, the Denver RTD was present, operating accessible over-the-road buses then. Technologically feasible existing buses that you could go look at and get on and board in your wheelchair, which they still are operating.
Page 225 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Greyhound did look at it. Denver testified at that time that their lift costs were $8,500 per unit, which included their research and development money. Greyhound testified that it would be about $35,000 a bus.
Today we heard the number $4 million a year to buy lift-equipped buses by Greyhound. But you only have to buy lifts when you buy buses. No one has ever talked about lift equipping a whole fleet at one time. Greyhound has downsized substantially, but they still buy about 100 buses a year. At $15,000 a lift, that's a million and a half dollars a year, not $4 million a year. It's a substantial difference and the numbers should be examined when Greyhound puts forward numbers.
I want to read to you an excerpt from Greyhound's testimony in September 1989. ''Today, we serve 10,000 locations. Under ADA we will eliminate service to 5,000 of those locations. Today, we employ 12,500 employees plus 8,000 working for contractors in terminals. Under ADA, the retrenchment will bring that down so we will need to eliminate approximately 10,000 of these 20,000 jobs.''
Since the passage of the ADA, Greyhound's been in—by the way, this has happened. These numbers all came true. They got the exemption, half the employees are gone, half the communities are unserved, and disabled people still are not on the bus. Now we're proposing, Greyhound is proposing, a labor-intensive solution to a problem.
Think about transferring a disabled individual. It's bad on the airlines. Remember we're talking about existing airlines, airplanes that are out there. That's how people board, using these boarding chairs. It's bad, but it requires at least two people to help a disabled person transfer.
Page 226 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
If you carry bus borne accessibility equipment, like a scalamobile, would have to go somewhere on the bus, or it would eliminate baggage space. In addition to that, so would the person's wheelchair have to go somewhere. An electric wheelchair, which is fairly large, and they're not foldable, would further eliminate baggage space.
If you allow the lift, which doesn't take up too much room, one seat, two seats, tops, in the front door of the bus, a disabled person remains in their chair, so you don't have to store it, and no scalamobile is necessary. This is only necessary, it is only available to disabled people on new buses, because Greyhound only has to buy lift-equipped buses when it buys new buses.
All the predictions that Greyhound would have financial problems under ADA came true without them being subject to ADA. There was a Chapter 11 right after ADA passed, I think bondholders have forced another one.
I don't believe that disabled people who have been uninvolved in this dispute and who are the poorest of poor minorities in this country, and the most dependent on least cost transportation alternatives, and the most isolated in rural communities, should be subjected to not having rides in the future because as the Wall Street Journal, which chronicled Greyhound's financial problems, points out that during the 3 year reign of Messrs. Schneider and Doyle at America's largest bus company, the two executives alienated employees, damaged relations with customers, misled investors while spending corporate funds heavily on new offices, first class travel and perks for themselves, and other officials.
Page 227 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
That behavior is indefensible, and they shouldn't balance their books at the expense of disabled riders, which is what's going to happen if they're given another extension or exemption from ADA.
In addition to that, there are other carriers. There's other over-the-road carriers. And Greyhound doesn't necessarily speak for the industry, and other carriers are making money. It would be, the largest growing segment of the population are the senior citizens. They travel all the time, retirees travel all the time, and are frequent users of your service on Greyhound.
Those are the folks that would benefit from this as well as our members. And it seems that since there's no other public place that can be built in 1995 in the United States that's inaccessible, it doesn't seem like Greyhound should be the, Greyhound's financial problems, which is at the root of all of this, at the heart of all of this, should be the reason to keep disabled people off the bus.
Mr. PETRI. Do you have any further response?
Mr. KNAPPEN. Yes, sir, if I could. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, with regard to the issue of cost, just so it's clear where the $4 million number comes from, Greyhound right now has a 2,000 bus fleet. And it has a very new fleet, actually, 6.3 is the average age of the fleet. And the intent is to turn the fleet on a 10-year cycle. It's been running about 11, but I suspect it will get back to 10. So that means 200 new buses purchased every year.
Page 228 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
The latest wheelchair lift figures are taken from the DOT workshop conducted as part of this rulemaking, where the lift manufacturers indicated that their fully installed cost of lifts was $18,000 to $25,000. We took a round figure towards the low end of that range, $20,000 a year times 200, gives you the $4 million. So that's where that comes from.
I would point out, even if you took the most ridiculously lowball number, $8,500, and only had a million and a half dollar cost, it will still take you longer and cost roughly four times as much as the boarding chair alternative that we have suggested.
With regard to the 1989 statement, the point I would make is that if you go back and look at that statement, as actually I did and obviously Mr. Weisman did, you will see that Greyhound proposed a system of accessibility not too different from what we're talking about today.
However, there has been this rigid dogmatic insistence on a lift on every bus, which has led to this extended delay. If we had had a reasonable, cost-effective solution in 1989, the fleet and the entire industry would be accessible today. I must say, Mr. Chairman, this subcommittee was really in the forefront of requiring a cost-effective, a cost-efficient analysis be done before regulations be adopted.
This was back in 1990, and of course, here we are in 1995, and on the floor today is precisely such a bill for the rest of the Government. So in a way, you were far ahead of your time.
Page 229 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Those are the main points I'd like to make.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you very much.
Representative Mica, have you any questions of this panel?
Mr. MICA. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you. I read some of the testimony about some of the costs involved in compliance, for example, with the Americans with Disabilities Act. And you know, I understand the need to accommodate people with disabilities and comply with this. And I saw your proposal, which seems to make sense from an operating and investment standpoint.
Are these our only options, either/or, either what you've presented or what the Government is advocating, I guess, which is a substantial capital investment?
Mr. KNAPPEN. There are other things that should be examined more carefully. One is something called the scalamobile, which is an ingenious new invention which is essentially a motorized stair climber, which is really perfect for over-the-road buses. It's used often now in office buildings and other facilities. We'd like to have the flexibility to experiment with that also. So we think there are some other alternatives.
But the basic issue that separates the two sides, is Greyhound wants to do what the airlines are doing, what 90 percent of intercity passengers do today when they're in a wheelchair, and that is to transfer to a boarding chair, and then into a coach seat. We can do that with a level change device, so it's just like an airline boarding ramp. And we can do it at less than 10 percent of the cost of a lift on every bus.
Page 230 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Certain advocacy groups oppose that, because they believe that they have a right to be in their wheelchair in the vehicle and not have to transfer into a separate seat. So that is the crux of the issue.
Mr. MICA. And which groups are inflexible on this? I see the Paralyzed Veterans have also given testimony. Are you inflexible to what they're proposing?
Mr. WEISMAN. I think that he could answer a few more questions. The scalamobile is pie in the sky. I mean, it exists, it's a prototype, it may be slightly past the prototype stage. They can always experiment with scalamobiles. No one has prohibited it as far as I know. It's not against the law to experiment with scalamobiles. They could be doing it now. If it worked, and it was the answer, everybody would say it was wonderful.
But the scalamobile is big and heavy. It's a mechanical piece of equipment that will be stowed away and not looked at until disabled people want to board. It's likely that it won't work, because of that. In addition to that, it's cumbersome, it takes up the baggage space which 5 years or 6 years ago got them this exemption that they were worried about losing for the package express business.
And the disabled person's wheelchair, an electric wheelchair cannot be folded with a battery on it. That has to be stored somewhere also when you get them, because the scalamobile would require you to transfer out of your chair, into the scalamobile, then this device climbs the steps and you transfer into the bus seat, with a lot of assistance that Greyhound would have to provide, at least two strong people would have to do it.
Page 231 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
An airline terminal has hundreds of employees, none of whom like transferring disabled people, all of whom complain about it, and are also hard to find when it's time to board for those reasons.
This is—we're also talking about existing aircraft, not new aircraft. New widebodied aircraft have to be accessible to people with disabilities.
Mr. MICA. Well, the problem we have here, as I understand it, is retrofitting——
Mr. WEISMAN. No, we're not talking about retrofitting, sir.
Mr. MICA. No?
Mr. WEISMAN. We're talking about brand new buses.
Mr. MICA. Only brand new.
Mr. WEISMAN. By the way, DOT says you only buy a 100 buses a year now. That's the number they gave me. As of last July, when we met with DOT, they were saying Greyhound, which used to buy, at the time the ADA was being discussed, 400 buses a year.
Mr. MICA. So we're only talking about new buses.
Page 232 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Mr. WEISMAN. Well, we've always only been talking about new buses.
Mr. MICA. Okay.
Mr. WEISMAN. And the reason why is, we were willing to sacrifice this——
Mr. MICA. Well, this——
Mr. WEISMAN.——future that provides access for everyone.
Mr. MICA. Does the ADA not provide the flexibility to accommodate this request for just the new?
Mr. KNAPPEN. If I might address it, Mr. Mica, the financial situation is basically this. We have a 2,000 bus fleet, we buy 200 buses a year. At $20,000 a pop on the lift, that's $4 million, plus, you lose two seats, or if you have one that's based on the luggage bay, you lose one-third of your baggage capacity.
That compares with $350,000 a year for the airline style system that we're talking about. We carry passengers that have average incomes below the poverty level, $14,000 a year. It is not right to hold them to a higher financial standard, in our view, than what airline passengers are held to. And that's basically the issue.
Page 233 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Now, we're willing to look at the scalamobile. We think it has excellent potential. It also is in that price range. It's probably more than $350,000, but it's not too much more. So there is flexibility on our side to look at that kind of an option.
Mr. MICA. Well, my time's expired, but I think I've managed to stir it up a little. Thank you.
Mr. PETRI. Any further questions at all?
All right, well, thank you all very much for coming, and I apologize for it being a little bit longer. Maybe next time we can have you on as the first rather than the last panel. But we appreciate your testimony and your patience. Thank you.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:25 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]
Next Hearing Segment(3)