U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

89–544 PDF 2014

S. HRG. 113–372 

PROGRESS REPORT ON PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION 

UNDER MAP–21 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

ON 

EXAMINING HOW THE PROGRAMMATIC REFORMS AND NEW AUTHORITY 

PROVIDED TO FTA IN THE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION TITLE OF THE 

MOVING AHEAD FOR PROGRESS IN MAP–21 HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED SINCE 2012 AND OTHER ISSUES CONCERNING PUBLIC 

TRANSPORTATION 

JANUARY 16, 2014 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

( 

Available at: http://www.fdsys.gov/ 

COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota, Chairman 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

JON TESTER, Montana 

MARK R. WARNER, Virginia 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KAY HAGAN, North Carolina 

JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia 

ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania 

MARK KIRK, Illinois 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

CHARLES YI, Staff Director 

GREGG RICHARD, Republican Staff Director 

LAURA SWANSON, Deputy Staff Director 

HOMER CARLISLE, Professional Staff Member 

PHIL RUDD, Legislative Assistant 

GREG DEAN, Republican Chief Counsel 

RACHEL JOHNSON, Republican Professional Staff Member 

DAWN RATLIFF, Chief Clerk 

TAYLOR REED, Hearing Clerk 

SHELVIN SIMMONS, IT Director 

JIM CROWELL, Editor 

(II)

C O N T E N T S 

THURSDAY, JANUARY 16, 2014 

Page 

Opening statement of Chairman Johnson ............................................................. 1 

Opening statements, comments, or prepared statements of: 

Senator Crapo ................................................................................................... 2 

WITNESSES 

Peter M. Rogoff, Administrator, Federal Transit Administration, Department 

of Transportation ................................................................................................. 3 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 29 

Responses to written questions of: 

Senator Crapo ............................................................................................ 54 

Senator Menendez ..................................................................................... 54 

Senator Heitkamp ..................................................................................... 56 

David Wise, Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues, Government Accountability Office ......................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 36 

Responses to written questions of: 

Senator Crapo ............................................................................................ 59 

(III)

(1) 

PROGRESS REPORT ON PUBLIC 

TRANSPORTATION UNDER MAP–21 

THURSDAY, JANUARY 16, 2014 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met at 10:05 a.m., in room SD–538, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Tim Johnson, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN TIM JOHNSON 

Chairman JOHNSON. This hearing will come to order. 

Today, the Banking Committee seeks to review how public transportation and the Federal programs that assist our Nation’s transit 

providers have advanced since the current surface transportation 

law, MAP–21, was enacted in 2012. This Committee worked well 

together on the transit provisions of MAP–21 and I look forward 

to continuing our Committee’s bipartisan work on public transportation issues. 

Reliable and accessible public transit is vital in rural areas like 

South Dakota, just as it is vital in large cities. Our transit systems 

connect workers with employers, keep cars off congested roads, and 

get people where they are going safely and affordably. 

The public transportation title developed by the Banking Committee for MAP–21 made many important changes to Federal transit programs. To name just a few, MAP–21 provided authority to 

the Federal Transit Administration to institute a much needed national framework for safety oversight; it created the Transit Emergency Relief Program that is helping New York and New Jersey 

transit agencies recover from Superstorm Sandy; and in Indian 

Country, MAP–21 provided new formula funds to 83 Tribes across 

the Nation to help them deliver safe and reliable transit services 

to one of the most underserved segments of the U.S. population. 

Our focus today will be on the implementation of MAP–21, but 

we cannot overlook the state of the Highway Trust Fund. The Mass 

Transit Account is expected to reach the end of MAP–21 on September 30 with only a very small positive balance, and the Highway Account could face a shortfall by late December. Without Congressional action, both accounts will be unable to support current 

program funding levels after MAP–21 expires. Federal transportation investment this year and beyond depends on the stability of 

the Trust Fund. The Banking Committee will be working with the 

Environment and Public Works, Commerce, and Finance CommitVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:48 Nov 21, 2014 Jkt 046629 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 L:\HEARINGS 2014\01-16 PROGRESS REPORT ON PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION UNDER 
2 

tees in the coming months to advance legislation to succeed MAP– 

21, but we must first review progress under the current law. 

Today, we will hear directly from FTA on how they have implemented MAP–21. I look forward to hearing details about FTA’s 

strategies to improve safety and asset management practices while 

minimizing any new administrative costs for grantees, particularly 

small and rural transit providers. The Committee will also hear 

about how MAP–21’s changes to project development and program 

structure are proceeding. Finally, the Committee will examine 

issues that GAO has profiled in its research, such as the need for 

coordination at the local level to ensure that the varied Federal 

programs that assist local transportation services are working together effectively. 

Now, I turn to Senator Crapo for his opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR MIKE CRAPO 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

In July 2012, Congress passed and President Obama signed into 

law the Moving Ahead for Program in the 21st Century Act, known 

as MAP–21, which authorized transportation programs through 

September 30, 2014. Since the enactment of this legislation, the 

Federal Transit Administration, or FTA, has been working to implement its transit provisions. At this point, MAP–21 programs are 

authorized for only another 81⁄2 months. Today, we will hear from 

witnesses on implementation of MAP–21’s transit provisions. 

Some of the provisions that are of interest to me: MAP–21 provided FTA with new authority in the area of transit safety. While 

public transportation is one of the most safe modes of transportation, I look forward to an update on what progress has been 

made to improve passenger safety. I also want to understand how 

FTA is approaching this issue. 

In Idaho and other States, many transit providers operate in 

rural areas and with very small staff, often only one to two or three 

people. It is important that new rules be tailored in a way that is 

not unduly or disproportionately burdensome to smaller or rural 

systems, especially as rural transit has a good safety record. 

Rural transit agencies in Idaho and elsewhere provide vitally important transportation services. For example, they facilitate transportation for the elderly and persons with disabilities to medical 

appointments and low-income individuals to jobs. If new regulations are burdensome, it will be harder for providers to deliver 

service. 

MAP–21 also directed the FTA to establish a National Transit 

Asset Management System to aid in understanding and assessing 

the condition of public transportation systems. Public transportation simply cannot be captured with a one-size-fits-all approach. 

There are many different types of transit systems and a great deal 

of diversity with respect to the needs of each system in our Nation. 

I look forward to hearing how FTA intends to implement the asset 

management provisions. 

I hope that the level of detail that transit providers will be required to provide to FTA will be practical and not excessive. For 

rural systems, reporting on the age and mileage of the vehicle 

could be enough. Understanding where the FTA is in implementing 

3 

MAP–21 will aid us when we begin to consider the reauthorization 

later this year. 

I recognize that short-term extensions do not allow the kind of 

predictability and security that a longer-term authorization can. 

However, as Federal dollars are collected for transportation and 

have fallen below our expenditures, it is no secret that the most 

difficult issue to be considered during the next reauthorization is 

how to refinance our transportation needs going forward. This includes finding a meaningful fix to the serious current inadequacies 

of the Highway Trust Fund. MAP–21, a bill with just over 2 years 

of authorization, was financed using 10 years of pay forwards. We 

must be very careful with what we do with respect to financing this 

bill in the future. 

Again, I thank our witnesses for being here and I look forward 

to their statements, and I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your attention to this issue. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Crapo. 

Are there any other Members who would like to give a brief 

opening statement or submit a statement? 

Senator REED. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Reed. 

Senator REED. Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit a statement 

for the record that echoes your questions and Senator Crapo’s questions about the adequate funding of the Mass Transit Account and 

the Highway Trust Fund. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Anybody else? 

[No response.] 

Chairman JOHNSON. I would like to remind my colleagues that 

the record will be open for the next 7 days for additional statements and any other materials. 

Now, I would like to introduce our witnesses: Peter Rogoff is the 

Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration. David Wise is 

Director of Physical Infrastructure Issues at the Government Accountability Office. I look forward to the testimony of both witnesses. 

Mr. Rogoff, please proceed with your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF PETER M. ROGOFF, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Mr. ROGOFF. Thank you, Chairman Johnson, Members of the 

Committee. Thank you for this opportunity to discuss the Federal 

Transit Administration’s progress in implementing the new MAP– 

21 law. 

Across the United States, transit ridership is on track to exceed 

10 billion trips annually for the seventh year in a row and transit 

has shown marked growth in 9 of the last 11 quarters. This is a 

remarkable milestone. Now, more than ever, Americans in cities, 

suburbs, and rural communities are asking for more transit, not 

less. They are seeing the benefits of spending less money on gasoline and less time in traffic. And at the State and local level, citizens are continually voting to tax themselves to help finance new 

transit services in their communities. 

4 

The MAP–21 law championed by this Committee on a bipartisan 

basis is a game changer that puts the FTA on the road to delivering transit better and more efficiently in communities nationwide. It has been called a 2-year authorization bill that contains 7 

years of policy changes, and I think that is about right. Not since 

the enactment of the ISTEA law in 1991 have there been such profound and substantive policy changes to our transit statutes. 

It is also quite complex, involving, at a minimum, 27 new and 

updated rulemakings, 14 new and revised circulars, 13 separate reports to Congress. At the FTA, we have an active and engaged 

team and an aggressive timetable to implement the law, and while 

much work remains, we have made significant progress despite the 

impact of the 2013 Continuing Resolution, a 5-percent cut to our 

administrative budget as a result of sequester, and a furlough that 

kept more than 95 percent of FTA’s employees from working for 

more than half a month. 

Let me begin with safety. I thank this Committee for working in 

such a bipartisan way to provide FTA with the tools the administration requested to establish minimum common sense safety 

standards for public transportation. We are making good progress. 

We have reached out to State safety oversight agencies in 30 

States, so they understand what is needed to enforce new safety 

guidelines consistently and free of any conflicts of interest. 

And in October, we issued a very comprehensive Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on both safety and transit asset management. While we were not required by MAP–21 to combine these 

two rulemakings, we did so quite deliberately to send a clear signal 

to our stakeholders that keeping a transit system as safe as possible goes hand in hand with adequately managing and maintaining the system’s physical assets. The transit industry faces an $86 

billion backlog in system preservation needs, and we are under-investing in that need by $2.5 billion a year. 

When it comes to our new safety authorities in MAP–21, we fully 

recognize that a one-size-fits-all approach will not work. Effective 

and affordable safety improvements for the New York City Subway 

System are going to be very different than those that will improve 

the safety of bus operations at Topeka Metro in Kansas. Our entire 

approach to our new safety regulatory authority is focusing on adding value and keeping a safe industry safe. We are rejecting approaches that add unnecessary costs and bureaucracy. 

As it relates to our New Starts/Small Starts Program, since 2009, 

FTA has executed 26 multiyear construction grant agreements. 

One hundred percent of the completed projects on this list were on 

time and on budget; the rest are very much on track to do so. 

Under MAP–21, we have continued to cut red tape and streamline the program. For example, just recently, we introduced a new 

software tool enabling some communities to reduce from 2 years to 

2 weeks the time needed to develop ridership forecasts on planned 

projects. This new tool could save taxpayers in some communities 

as much as a million dollars. 

Because of the constraint on time, we have obviously made huge 

progress on the Emergency Relief Program. This Committee authorized a new Emergency Relief Program, as requested in our 

budget, just in time for Hurricane Sandy, but since I have already 

5 

testified to this Committee at length on Hurricane Sandy, I am 

going to save that part of my testimony for later. 

Importantly, I do want to put out a word of warning consistent 

with what the Chairman said as it relates to the balances of the 

Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund. At the time 

MAP–21 was enacted, the cash balance of the Trust Fund was 

thought to be sufficient to last us through the end of this fiscal 

year. As I sit here today, I cannot be sure that this will be the case. 

We have very similar worries for our colleagues at the Federal 

Highway Administration, whose Trust Fund account is also rapidly 

approaching insolvency. 

We are working with the Treasury Department to update program outlay and revenue assumptions, which will be reflected in 

the President’s budget when it is submitted. Importantly, just yesterday, Secretary Foxx announced his plan to post on the DOT Web 

site the monthly updates that will show all of America how soon 

our Trust Funds will start bouncing checks to our highway departments and our transit agencies. 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with this Committee as 

we strive to make our vision of a better transit future under MAP– 

21 a reality and as we work to shore up our Trust Funds. 

This concludes my testimony and I will be happy to answer any 

questions you have at a later time. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Mr. Wise, you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID WISE, DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Mr. WISE. Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Crapo, and 

Members of the Committee, I am pleased to be here today to discuss GAO’s recent work on transit issues. 

Millions of passengers use transit services on a daily basis and 

many of the local transit agencies providing these services receive 

Federal funding. The Federal Government plays a key role in supporting public transportation, with MAP–21 having authorized over 

$10.5 billion in both fiscal year 2013 and 2014. 

While MAP–21 did not address long-term funding concerns, it did 

address a number of other issues, including strengthening Federal 

authority to oversee transit safety, emphasizing restoring and replacing aging infrastructure, consolidating some programs and 

grants, and streamlining project development, evaluation, and delivery. 

My statement today describes our recent work on three related 

transit issues, addressing long-term funding challenges, improving 

capital investment decision making in regards to maintenance and 

expansion of transit systems, and coordinating transit services 

among various Federal and State or local agencies. 

Federal funds available for the FTA’s transit programs come 

from two sources, the U.S. Treasury’s General Fund and the Mass 

Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund. Both these sources 

face challenges. Currently, Congressional budget discussions raise 

issues about the level of General Fund Federal spending. Another 

significant funding challenge is the declining revenue of the HighVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:48 Nov 21, 2014 Jkt 046629 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 L:\HEARINGS 2014\01-16 PROGRESS REPORT ON PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION UNDER 
6 

way Trust Fund. Revenues into the Fund have eroded over time, 

in part because Federal fuel tax rates have not increased since 

1993, and in part because of improvements in vehicle fuel efficiency. 

The CBO estimated in May 2013 that to maintain current spending levels plus inflation between 2015 and 2022, the Fund will require over $132 billion more than it is expected to take in over that 

period. About $35 billion of that amount would be in the Transit 

Account. To maintain current spending levels and cover revenue 

shortfalls, Congress has transferred more than $50 billion in general revenues to the Fund since fiscal year 2008. This approach 

may not be sustainable, given competing demands and the Federal 

Government’s growing fiscal challenges. For this and other reasons, 

funding surface transportation remains on GAO’s High-Risk List. 

Some of our recent work describes how sound capital investment 

decisions can help transit agencies use Federal and other transit 

funds more efficiently. MAP–21’s requirements to transit agencies 

to use asset management are consistent with our analyses. For example, our 2013 report recognized that many of the nearly 700 

public transit agencies struggle to maintain their bus and rail assets in good repair. We reported that to help prioritize capital investments, transit agencies would benefit from estimating the effects of those investment decisions. 

However, of the nine transit agencies we visited, only two measured the effects of capital investments on the condition of certain 

transit assets. Further, none of the agencies measured the effects 

on future ridership, in part because they lack the tools to determine those effects. Accordingly, we recommended that FTA conduct 

additional research to help transit agencies measure the effects of 

capital investments, including impact on future ridership. 

To expand or improve public transportation, transit agencies may 

use the capital funding available through FTA’s New and Small 

Starts Program. An example of this is bus rapid transit, whereby 

transit agencies can seek to improve service and encourage economic development at a cost relatively less than rail. We found 

that the median cost for the 30 BRT and 25 rail transit projects 

we examined from October 2005 to February 2012 were about $36 

million and $576 million, respectively. While many factors may 

contribute to economic development, officials in Cleveland, Ohio, 

told us that an estimated $4 to $5 billion had been invested near 

the HealthLine BRT project, associated with major hospitals and 

universities in the corridor and about one-third the cost of a comparable rail project. 

While essential in a constrained funding environment, effective 

transit coordination can be challenging. In our 2012 report on services for transportation disadvantaged populations, we found that 80 

different programs and eight agencies fund a variety of transportation services related to education, employment, medical, and 

other human services. We concluded that improved Federal leadership and guidance for further collaboration efforts could improve 

the coordination of transportation services among State and local 

providers. 

FTA has made some progress in enhancing coordination for this 

population. According to FTA officials, as a result of MAP–21, the 

7 

agency has been updating program guidance and has issued draft 

program circulars for a number of relevant programs. In addition, 

FTA continues to support Federal programs that play an important 

role in helping those populations by providing funds to State and 

local grantees that, in turn, offer services either directly or through 

private or public transportation providers. 

Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Crapo, and Members of the 

Committee, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer any questions at this time. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you all for your testimony. 

As we begin questions, I will ask the Clerk to put 5 minutes on 

the clock for each Member. 

Mr. Rogoff, last fall, FTA asked for extensive input from the public transportation industry on the new transit safety and asset 

management framework. The Committee has heard from many bus 

providers that requirements for safety and asset management 

should be closely tailored to their size and State DOTs should be 

allowed to assist rural bus systems with all reporting. How is FTA 

utilizing the feedback from providers to ensure that the new safety 

and asset management framework will not take resources away 

from delivering transit service? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We share the concern on 

the risk, or the pitfall, if you will, of stumbling into a regime where 

we are adding a bunch of bureaucracy that just distracts operators 

from their core mission that we are calling on them to do, and that 

is move people. We have been careful and crafted a number of 

questions in our ANPRM to solicit that industry input and we are 

currently digesting hundreds of comments that we have gotten 

from all sectors of the industry. But we are keenly aware that we 

gain nothing by creating a big paper tiger that does not add value. 

If we do this right, the transit operators at the local level, large 

and especially small, will see the value that comes from these reporting requirements and reflecting on their safety profile. 

It is worth remembering that in the initial transit safety legislation that the Obama administration submitted to this Committee, 

we had planned to focus on rail exclusively at the beginning. That 

is still our focus. The Committees went another way in terms of 

doing a broad-brush approach that captures both the rail industry 

as well as the bus-only operators, but we certainly plan to tailor 

that to the capabilities of those operators. 

Importantly, a lot of our work in this area is going to be guided 

by our Safety Advisory Committee, which was a formal advisory 

committee set up by Secretary LaHood when we first transmitted 

our legislation to Congress. We are now going in the wake of MAP– 

21 to recruit more bus-only operators onto that committee to advise 

us as we go forward. We are not going to do this in some vacuum 

in Washington, DC. As someone who puts forward taxpayer dollars 

in large percentages, especially to the small and rural operators, 

we have absolutely no incentive to see those dollars distracted by 

a bureaucracy and not into service. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Good. A question for David Wise and Peter 

Rogoff. GAO has reported on the difficulty in coordinating transportation for transportation disadvantaged individuals and providing duplicative services. Could you both offer thoughts on why 

8 

coordination is such a problem, and what are the next steps for improving coordination between Federal programs, particularly with 

Medicaid, which is estimated to spend between $1 and $3 billion 

annually on nonemergency medical transportation. Mr. Wise, your 

thoughts first. 

Mr. WISE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that question. Yes, we 

definitely share the view that transit coordination is a significant 

challenge, and as we noted in our statement, we had two recommendations to the Federal Transit Administration in this area. 

One of them is that DOT and the Coordinating Council that was 

set up to try to coordinate the services that are spread among eight 

Federal agencies and 80 programs, address this recommendation 

by developing a strategic plan. This has happened and so we have 

been able to close that recommendation. We feel that FTA has 

made some good faith efforts and is making progress in this area. 

It is a very difficult problem to deal with, especially in the rural 

States like South Dakota and Idaho because people are scattered 

over very large areas. We had some long discussions with both the 

Native American Tribes in Coeur D’Alene and in the Oglala Sioux 

Nation about how difficult it is to try to arrange these transit services because the agencies, as you mentioned in your opening statement, are very underresourced, have only a couple of people working in them, and the distances are vast. The weather conditions are 

harsh. The population is very impoverished. To see a medical specialist might mean a trip of 120 miles to Rapid City. So, there are 

some real challenges for transit, which makes the issue of coordination all the more important throughout the country. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Mr. Rogoff. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Mr. Chairman, what I would add to that, it is a 

problem. Coordination has been a problem that has been identified 

at the Federal level for some time and it is getting better. We certainly have room to improve. 

We have been successful in boosting the number of Mobility 

Managers that bring all these people together and helps professionalize the effort at the local areas to ensure that we are getting 

the maximum value out of all of the taxpayer funded and, in fact, 

charitably funded vehicles that are available. 

We still have the problem with stovepiped rules, agency by agency. Mr. Wise is correct. Medicaid is sort of the big dog in the room 

in terms of the dollars they put into it, but, obviously, they have 

very strict rules to ensure that the Medicaid transportation dollar 

only goes for the hospital or medical visit and cannot be used for 

a visit to shopping or to church, and we need to figure out a way 

to continue to improve on the levels of coordination. 

You asked, why is this such a problem? Part of it is Federal 

stovepipes, which I think we are doing a good job of tearing away. 

Also, we need to recognize that there are local social service agencies, State Action Councils on Aging. We have many, multiple different players here, different dollars, different rules, and we just 

need to stay about the business, especially as the rural community 

becomes more elderly going forward, to do a better job at tearing 

away at the stovepipes. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Crapo. 

9 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is evident that you 

and I both come from very rural States because you just used up 

a couple of my questions. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CRAPO. I will get into them in a little more detail, 

though. 

Mr. Rogoff, one of the questions—I think it was in the Chairman’s first question—dealt with the safety and asset management 

in the context of dealing with rural communities and small systems, and I appreciated your answer with regard to the fact that 

you are aware of the difficulties that could be placed on small systems in rural communities by a one-size-fits-all regulation intended 

to be focused on a large system. But I just want to be very clear. 

Am I understanding you to say that as you move forward for final 

rules, that there is the capacity for a distinction so that we will not 

face the fact that our small rural operations will have to face the 

same regulatory requirements in terms of scope that the larger operations will? 

Mr. ROGOFF. You have my assurance on that, sir, and as I said, 

it would be foolish to do otherwise. You pointed out yourself, we 

have operators that run with very few people, relatively few vehicles, and are, as a result, extremely efficient in the services that 

they provide. We definitely are coming at this from a, ‘‘if it is not 

broken, do not fix it,’’ approach. We do look at this from how are 

we going to add value, and we are going to be advised by those 

very small and medium-sized operators to ensure that we do it, 

which is why we started with an ANPRM, asking these questions, 

rather than take a first draft at regulatory requirements, because 

we really need to gather the data and get their take on where they 

think we can add value. 

Senator CRAPO. All right. Thank you. And you also in your answers got into the issue of, basically, the decision making on what 

priorities will be implemented first. I think you stated that rail 

would be exclusively focused on at the outset, but that we were 

going to get into moving forward with the remainder of MAP–21 

implementation. I guess my question is, how do you prioritize the 

remainder of the implementation requirements, how, and in what 

order are you proceeding? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Sure. Well, let me be clear on what I was saying 

about safety. Because of the risk, and we want to take all of this— 

bring a risk-based approach to all of our work on safety, the Administration put forward a bill that focused principally on rail because that is where the greatest risk is, and while the legislation 

goes in a somewhat different direction involving safety plans from 

everybody, we will still be putting the majority of our focus on the 

risk in high-speed rail accidents and in right-of-way worker fatalities and things like that. 

As it relates to prioritizing regulatory products writ large across 

all of MAP–21, we started first with the regulatory rules that 

would apply to the biggest sums of money and the largest number 

of passengers and what would be sort of, if you will, the most substantive policy changes. We did a lot of this through instructions 

on our apportionment notice and through guidance, because in 

order to put the 2013 money to work under the new rules, we did 

10 

not really have time to go through a long regulatory process. But, 

things like our multibillion-dollar formula program for the entire 

country, we wanted to make sure that those went out under the 

new MAP–21 rules. 

We have had dozens of webinars and consultations with the transit agencies so they know how to put this to work. Some of the new 

authorities that do not apply to either large chunks or money or 

a large number of operators have had to wait so that we can, if you 

will, capture as much of the thrust of MAP–21 in the earlier period 

as we can. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. 

And, Mr. Wise, in the discussion that you had with the Chairman—you did have a discussion with the Chairman on the coordination issues as we move forward, and GAO’s report on coordination highlighted the fact that the total Federal spending on services 

for transportation disadvantaged populations remains unknown because Federal departments did not separately track spending for 

roughly two-thirds of the programs, as identified by GAO. Why is 

this the case, and why is there such a problem in tracking this 

spending? 

Mr. WISE. Thank you, Senator, for the question. The problem 

really lies in that these agencies, transportation is not the major 

component of what they do. And so as a result, some of these costs 

are comingled with other programs and—their accounting systems 

are not set up in a way that you can extract these costs separately 

and understand what it is costing the agencies for transportation. 

Just as an example, the Department of Health and Human Services Medicaid program will reimburse States that provide Medicaid 

beneficiaries with bus passes, among other transportation options, 

to access eligible medical services. But it is not clearly delineated 

within their accounting system, so we are not able to get a full 

handle on exactly how much is being spent for transportation, but 

it is significant. I think, as Mr. Rogoff pointed out in his testimony, 

as the population continues to age, these things will become more 

important in terms of their budgetary impact. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I do have some more questions, but I will submit 

them for the record. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Senator Reed. 

Senator REED. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

First, Mr. Wise, let me commend you and your colleagues for 

your always thoughtful and careful analysis, and this is no exception today. Thank you. 

And Peter Rogoff is someone that I have had the privilege of 

working with on the Appropriations Committee, and then as the 

Federal Transit Administrator, you have done a superb job, so 

much so that Secretary Foxx has named you as the Acting Under 

Secretary for Policy, I believe—— 

Mr. ROGOFF. Correct. 

Senator REED. ——and I think he has made a very wise judgment and he is demonstrating his very effective leadership already, 

so commend the Secretary, also. 

11 

Just two basic questions. Mr. Rogoff, can you give us some ideas 

of what are the impacts, the practical impacts, if we do not move 

in a timely fashion to restore funding to the Mass Transit Account. 

What is going to happen, and when is it going to start happening? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, we have always come at this—I should not 

say always, but in recent years, we have determined that roughly 

the appropriate balance that we need to maintain in the Transit 

Account of the Trust Fund is a billion dollars. On the Highway 

side, it is about $4 billion for the Highway Account. And both the 

Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration have plans on file on how we would manage cash in the 

event of balances falling below that level. 

Within the Federal Transit Administration, it involves sometimes 

reimbursing a lower percentage on the dollar. So, someone is ready 

for reimbursement for 100 percent of an expenditure already made 

and we may only be in a position to reimburse them for 90 or 80 

percent. Another approach may involve, for those that can handle 

the float, holding bills until the time that we have cash in our coffers. 

My concern, and I know the Secretary’s concern, is not what will 

happen when we actually reach that point, but what happens in 

the months leading up to that point when it becomes quite clear 

that we are heading into a place where we will not be able to guarantee full reimbursement, and what does that mean for either the 

State highway commissioners or the transit agencies that need to 

make capital investment decisions right in the heart of the construction season, and what dampening effect will that have on 

keeping people at work, putting new people to work, and also making the improvements that our highway drivers and transit users 

need, which is why he is sounding the alarm as he is, making this 

information available on our Web site, and starting this dialog now 

rather than waiting for the spring and summer to have it. 

Senator REED. I think that is very appropriate, and I think, in 

addition to what you laid out, there are probably secondary and 

tertiary effects. One, service interruptions as they try to cover the 

capital costs by cutting back on operations, effects on bond ratings 

in terms of their ability to go to the market and fund projects. In 

addition to the money you cannot provide, they might not be able 

to raise adequate resources. So, this has a really significant cascading effect. I think that should be noted. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Unquestionably, Senator. And I think it is important to note, some people remember the days when our agency was 

called the Urban Mass Transit Administration and still somehow 

think of our program as an urban program. The reality is this. If 

we had an interruption on our availability to reimburse transit 

agencies, the larger transit agencies, the New Yorks, the Philadelphias, the Chicagos, the Miamis, San Francisco, certainly, it will be 

a hardship, but they have adequate funds from other sources to 

continue to maintain operations. 

Look at the other side of the spectrum. Our medium-sized and 

rural operators, the Federal dollar is sometimes anywhere up to 60 

to 80 percent of the enterprise, both on the capital side and the operating side. And if we are not able to reimburse them in a prompt 

12 

fashion, that is where we are at risk of seeing services close their 

doors. 

Senator REED. There is another, I think, reality we have to come 

to grips with, is that the essence of the Highway Trust Fund, the 

funding mechanism is the gasoline tax, as I understand it. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, it has been, but it has covered less and less 

of the total bill over recent years. 

Senator REED. And the good news, it is going to be less and less 

and less because at the Detroit Auto Show this week, every car is 

very efficient. Pick-up trucks are getting lots of mileage they did 

not before. But, we are going to have to look for alternative funding 

mechanisms, frankly. I think you would concur? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Most recently, the President has spoken about the 

opportunities of corporate tax reform to look at a way to reinvest 

in our infrastructure, recognizing, in part, that the gas tax returns 

less and less for each gallon purchased, based on the observations 

you made, that we are using less and less gasoline, consistent with 

our goals to reduce our dependence on oil. 

Senator REED. Just a final point. When this program was 

launched under President Eisenhower, it was a sort of win-winwin. Building highways, transit systems, was supported by industry because it helped sell automobiles. It was supported by the petroleum industry because it helped sell gas, et cetera. But, the 

President was wise enough to say, we are going to pay for it and 

we are going to be able to expand, and we cannot contemplate 

America without the road systems that began in the Eisenhower 

administration, the productivity, our lifestyle. And, we are at a 

point now where if we do not move quickly and thoughtfully, we 

could just begin to slowly, or not so slowly, unravel our productivity, our lifestyle, our ability to function. 

Thank you very much, gentlemen. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Johanns. 

Senator JOHANNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank both 

of you for being here today. 

I come from a rural State, too, so I have a couple questions relative to that, but I did want to follow up on where Senator Reed 

was headed. Mr. Rogoff, not asking you to state a policy position 

on a preferable way to finance this area in the future, but I would 

be curious to know, just in your mind, what options might be available for Congress to look at. And, again, I am not asking you to 

state a preferred course. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, there is a wide universe of options, Senator. 

As I mentioned earlier, the one that the President has discussed 

most recently is the opportunity that corporate tax reform could 

present to deal with our infrastructure challenge. 

I would direct you, also, to a lot of measures that have been 

taken in the States recently, whether it is Pennsylvania, Wyoming, 

Virginia, a variety of mixes of taxes, user fees, done on a bipartisan 

basis, in the case of Pennsylvania, done by a Republican State 

House, State Senate, and Governor, to restore their trust funds 

that includes a mix of fuel tax, taxing oil at the wholesale level, 

moving to excise taxes in lieu of per gallon taxes, doing a variety 

13 

of measures that—as well as other unique revenue options that 

may be specific to that State. 

There is a wide universe out there, but clearly, we need to do 

something and we need to do something soon, considering the deadlines we are facing. 

Senator JOHANNS. And let me, if I might, focus on a couple of 

issues that would be more rural in nature. I have talked to transit 

people back in Nebraska. These would be systems that are somewhat rural, but having said that, they exist also in larger metropolitan areas in the State, and they have some questions about the 

safety requirements of MAP–21 and FTA. 

Initial FTA language suggests that each subrecipient entity 

would be required to have a trained safety officer. According to people back home, there is also an indication that the State Department of Transportation would be required to employ State safety 

officers who would be responsible for Statewide safety oversight. Of 

course, there are costs to that. That drains money away from other 

areas. This is a significant issue and it seems like there is some 

degree of overlap and duplication there. 

I am assuming there will not be additional funding, although if 

there is, I would appreciate you telling me that. But, what are your 

thoughts on these requirements, and I would like to hear your 

thoughts on any resources that might be available to folks back 

home to deal with this burden. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Sure. A couple of thoughts, Senator. First, we have 

not leveled a hard and fast requirement on anyone to date. What 

we have done is we have put out for notice and comment by the 

public concepts through an ANPRM. We have just taken all of 

those responses back—I am sure we received many from rural 

areas—and we will be taking those to heart as we move forward 

with a regulatory regime. So, I do not want to leave the impression 

that there is any hard and fast new requirement. 

Indeed, there are resources available for some of this, and that 

was one of the breakthroughs of the new safety regime passed by 

this Committee, that for at least the State safety organizations, 

there is some $22 million to be allocated for those. Those are principally in the rail area. 

But even at the State DOTs, I have spoken to the State transportation commissioners a number of times about this. They have the 

opportunity to draw for administrative expenses a percentage of 

the formula dollars we send to the State. Many of them do not 

draw down the maximum percentage. In some ways, that is a good 

thing, because that puts more of that money into direct service at 

the local level. The flip side is that if there is not adequate State 

oversight of the dollars, then we have challenges in making sure 

that those dollars are spent according to law and regulation. We 

end up having to go in as a result of Inspector General reports and 

things like that. 

So, I have actually encouraged a number of the States to take 

a look at whether they should draw, not lots, but additional administrative dollars to do a better job at the State DOT level. What 

many of them tell me is that they have a hiring freeze at the State 

level, and the way that hiring freeze is sometimes imposed at the 

State level is without regard to whether it is Federal dollars or 

14 

State dollars, which hampers their ability to grow their workforce 

even on someone else’s dime. 

Senator JOHANNS. OK. I will circle back around, and if there are 

additional questions or concerns, can we reach out to you to—— 

Mr. ROGOFF. Absolutely. And if it is helpful for us to have a conference call with your Nebraska operators, we would love to do it. 

Senator JOHANNS. OK. Great. 

Mr. ROGOFF. And let me just say parenthetically, sir, you are a 

rural State, but you are also now a rail car producing State. 

Senator JOHANNS. Yes, we sure are. 

Mr. ROGOFF. And we just went and celebrated the arrival of the 

new Washington Metro cars, the whole new generation, one of the 

largest rail car purchases in the United States history, all manufactured in Lincoln, Nebraska. It is a very good story. 

Senator JOHANNS. We are very proud of that. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Thank you. 

Senator JOHANNS. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Warren. 

Senator WARREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to ask you about another part of MAP–21. As you know, 

it aims to bring transit assets, the equipment, facilities, and so on, 

into a good state of repair, and the law requires that the FTA create objective standards for measuring progress toward this goal, 

and once those standards are in place, the law requires the recipients of Federal funds to develop plans for executing on those standards. 

Now, the FTA was supposed to issue objective standards by October 1 of 2013 and it has not done so yet, and the delay has put 

the Massachusetts Department of Transportation in a tight spot. It 

is working on an asset management plan, doing the responsible 

thing, but it is reluctant to do too much planning because it still 

does not know what the FTA’s objective standards will be. 

So, Mr. Rogoff, when will the FTA issue a final rule on asset 

management standards? 

Mr. ROGOFF. As it relates to a final rule, I will get you a target 

date. It may well be here in my book, but let me just speak more 

broadly to your observation. 

Transit asset management was a new and welcomed addition to 

MAP–21. As I said in my opening statement, we have been hampered somewhat on the resource front, trying to figure out what 

priorities to put the staff on most urgently. Transit asset management is a very high profile for us and we did just put out the 

ANPRM for them to comment on. So, just as I said on the safety 

front, we want to take industry comments so we do not come up 

with some kind of one-size-fits-all, very rigid approach. We started 

with an ANPRM to get the industry’s input on this. 

I will be honest, Senator. I am in fairly regular contact with Rich 

Davey at MassDOT and Dr. Beverly Scott, who was just in town 

yesterday, at the MBTA. We are working on many fronts to try to 

advance things there. They have not voiced that concern to me. Obviously, things—what we are most critically interested in there is, 

as you well know, Governor Patrick and the legislature have succeeded in now leveraging new dollars for transportation investment 

in the Commonwealth and we want to make sure that they put 

15 

them to work on the most critical transit infrastructure needs on 

the T, of which there are many, the Red Line especially, but many 

others, and we will be working with them. 

You know, Bev Scott is a real leader in this industry, having 

done turns in Rhode Island, at MARTA in Atlanta, in California, 

and we will be looking to her to help inform our approach on how 

transit asset management can work for big legacy systems like the 

T. 

Senator WARREN. Well, I appreciate that, and I particularly appreciate your working on the safety standards on the Red Line. I 

only live a few blocks from the Red Line and we use it. So, I am 

grateful for that, but I really do want to emphasize, there is a 

deadline built in. It was supposed to have been October 1, which 

means all of the question about pulling in all of the outside. You 

have got to plan against a deadline, and so I just am hopeful that 

we get this done quickly. I know that you are committed to improving the equipment and making sure we meet the highest safety 

standards. I know that is also true for the MBTA. So, thank you, 

but I am really going to keep a thumb in your back on this one. 

Mr. ROGOFF. And that is fine. I welcome it. I think, importantly—I want to be careful on how I phrase this—we have a number of statutory deadlines. I am not sure they were workable and 

reasonable when they were put in in the first place. We take them 

as very strong indications from the Committee on the priority they 

put against this. But I think, as you have also heard across the 

dais, they want us to get industry input before we start writing 

rules—— 

Senator WARREN. Fair enough. 

Mr. ROGOFF. ——and we need to strike that balance. 

Senator WARREN. Fair enough. Now, if I can, I want to ask you 

about one other thing, and that is, broadly speaking, Congress can 

distribute highway and transit money in two ways. It can distribute money through a formula, which spells out exactly how a 

particular State and local agency will receive money, or it can leave 

the distribution of the money at the discretion of the Department 

of Transportation and then provide grants to different State and 

local agencies based on a competitive process. 

Historically in transportation funding bills, Congress has distributed about 80 percent of the money through formulas and about 20 

percent as a discretionary matter. But in MAP–21, the number 

went up to 92 percent through formula, leaving you with very little 

discretionary money. So, we saw a real move away from discretionary spending. 

So, Mr. Rogoff, I just want to ask, and I have to ask briefly because I am running out of time here, do you think the decrease in 

discretionary funding has hurt the FTA’s ability to fund worthwhile 

projects? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, I think it is a little too early to tell that, but 

I can speak to the problems that have surfaced for the absence of 

those discretionary dollars. Over 3 years, we were very successful 

in competing the bus discretionary dollars that we had for bus operators, not only just bus-only operators, but also larger systems 

that do bus and rail operations. We put out over $2.5 billion over 

16 

those 3 years and it was done without earmarks. It was done strictly on a merit-based system and we felt like we did a very good job. 

The reduction in, especially on the bus operator side, the loss of 

discretionary dollars and redistributing some of those dollars—not 

all of those dollars, and that has been a source of considerable concern by the bus-only operators who took a financial hit, in their 

view, through MAP–21—the loss of the discretionary money has 

meant that when they have large single investments, like it is time 

to replace a sizable part of their bus fleet or build a new maintenance facility, they do not get a sufficient flow of formula dollars 

to be able to cobble together enough money to make that significant 

sizable investment, and that is what the discretionary program was 

for, and that may be something that this Committee wants to look 

at anew as they do reauthorization again. 

Senator WARREN. OK. Thank you very much, because we all 

want to see the money spent in the most effective way, and whether that means a little more discretion for the agency may accomplish that is something we certainly should be taking a look at. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Tester. 

Senator TESTER. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank both members for their testimony today. The 

rural aspect has been mentioned several times, and so I am going 

to mention it, too. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Awesome. 

Senator TESTER. Very quickly, when it comes to the National 

Public Transportation Safety Plan, I think the key is making sure 

we do not have a one-size-fits-all and making sure you are getting 

input from rural transit systems. All I need is a commitment from 

you to continue to do that. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Absolutely. 

Senator TESTER. That is it. Good enough. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator TESTER. I want to talk about Tribal transit programs. 

You mentioned this in your testimony. I think Congress has made 

some significant investments in Tribal transit through MAP–21. 

They have doubled some funds available for the Tribal Transit Program. They continue to build transportation infrastructure on Tribal lands. It is very important, whether it is for health care, education, economic opportunity, whatever it might be. Beyond the investments made in MAP–21, I think it is critical that Tribes continue to receive technical assistance and support from the FTA to 

grow and establish transit systems. You have done some outreach 

at FTA this fall and I look forward to learning about future efforts. 

I just need to have you share your perspective, your thoughts, on 

the success of the FTA’s outreach so far in Tribal America and 

what the FTA intends to do to continue to build on success. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, Mr. Tester, the Tribal Program was effectively 

doubled under MAP–21. 

Senator TESTER. Correct. 

Mr. ROGOFF. However, we moved from a $15 million—it sort of 

follows up on what Senator Warren was saying. We move from a 

$15 million discretionary program to a $30 million program of 

17 

which $25 million was by formula and only $5 million was discretionary. 

Senator TESTER. Right. 

Mr. ROGOFF. This left us with the charge of developing a fair formula that we could put out to the Tribes, and I will be honest, 

most of the outreach recently with the Tribal community has been 

around building that formula and informing them what amount of 

money they could expect. 

Capacity building in Tribal transit is absolutely critical. We 

spend a great deal of time trying to work with the Tribes to make 

them to be eligible grantees, to spend the dollars the right way. Especially given the critical mobility needs, that is absolutely a lifeline to the opportunities for employment for many of those Tribes. 

So, we are doing more and would expect to do more in the future 

once we have sort of nailed down the funding stream they could expect through this formula. We are concerned, quite frankly, that 

one of the outgrowths of the formula is some of the payments that 

sort of spit out from that formula are quite low, not—so, while 

Tribes are sort of given a guaranteed level of assistance, it may not 

be a sufficient sum to really do something meaningful in terms of 

launching and supporting a service on an ongoing basis, which may 

again be something that the Committee wants to look at going forward. 

But, absolutely, we want to make sure that the dollars we are 

putting out there are spent wisely. I think we will have a new challenge. When we had all of these dollars on a discretionary basis, 

frankly, we could make a judgment call as to whether an individual 

Tribe was ready to receive and put these funds to good use. Now 

that we are distributing them all by formula, we will certainly 

work to ensure that that is the case, but we must put that money 

against them, because they are entitled to it by formula, while we 

work to get them to that capable place and that is going to be an 

added challenge. 

Senator TESTER. Yes. I thank you, and you answered my second 

question with that answer, so I want to thank you very much. I 

mean, I just think you get it. I mean, the travel infrastructure is 

critical important. Poverty is rampant in rural Tribes, at least, and 

we need to figure out ways to lift them out of poverty and I think 

this infrastructure is a part of it. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Absolutely. 

Senator TESTER. You, according to Senator Reed, are up for 

Under Secretary for Policy. 

Mr. ROGOFF. I will be moved at the end of next week to be the 

Acting Under Secretary for Policy, yes, sir. 

Senator TESTER. OK. So, I do not want you to think this is a confirmation hearing in that regard, but I do want to know, since we 

are talking about policy, what role toll roads are going to be playing in the future of the Highway Administration. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, that is a very uncontroversial question. 

Thanks for it. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator TESTER. I am only here to help. 

[Laughter.] 

18 

Mr. ROGOFF. Yes. Right. Senator, I feel comfortable answering 

this as the Federal Transit Administrator because tolling has been 

an important source of funding for a number of transit expansions. 

There is a rich debate that we are going to need to have as a Nation over the issue of the concept that toll payers have paid for the 

road once and, therefore, should not pay again, which is sort of one 

argument, the other argument being that the maintenance and upkeep of that toll road requires more in continued investment, which 

the toll payers probably have not covered over the life of the structure. 

And, I think, importantly, tolls are clearly part of the mix, and 

somewhat consistent with the answer I gave to Senator Johanns, 

we need to look at every available revenue opportunity and look at 

both the fairness issues, but also what revenues they may present 

to us in terms of solving this Trust Fund problem. 

Senator JOHANNS. Yes, and I thank you for that answer and I am 

going to let it go for a second, but I think it is really important 

from my perspective, being part of the legislative branch in this 

business, that we have the debate before you enact the policy. I 

just think it is really important. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, there are Federal strictures in terms of what 

is and is not permissible on the toll road funds. 

Senator TESTER. I have got you, and I will just tell you this so 

you know. I mean, I think if the Department gets out in front in 

advocating, I think that is a problem. But for others on this Committee, they might think that is a good idea, too. So, that is why 

we need to have the debate. 

Mr. ROGOFF. No, I hear you, Senator. What I meant by that is 

there are Federal statutory rules that limit the Department’s discretion in this area, and if something was going to be done dramatic on the tolling front, obviously, we would need to have a dialog with Congress, which we would have anyway, even if we had 

the authority ourselves. 

Senator TESTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Manchin. 

Senator MANCHIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all 

for your appearance today and your testimony. 

I, too, come from a very rural State of West Virginia and we depend an awful lot on mass transit, and especially our bus transportation, and we do have some train transportation in our Eastern 

panhandle which we are very much concerned about, with the 

MARC train over there—— 

Mr. ROGOFF. Right. 

Senator MANCHIN. ——and, hopefully, you all would be attentive 

to that. 

With that being said, recently, I have heard from a number of 

the transit authorities in my State that the distribution of grant 

dollars from the FTA has slowed down significantly. What used to 

take a couple of months is taking more than a year now. Can you 

identify any specific causes for the increase of delay, and maybe 

with us on the verge of having our first budget, that might help 

relieve that some? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, Senator, I would like to work with your office 

and understand which particular pots of money they are referring 

19 

to because it is a little perplexing to me. I am not familiar with 

that dynamic, other than the fact—other than the dynamic that 

you just cited—— 

Senator MANCHIN. Almost universal from my—— 

Mr. ROGOFF. and that is that we are waiting—we have to, obviously, await a 2014 final appropriation—— 

Senator MANCHIN. Right. I understand that. 

Mr. ROGOFF. ——before we apportion that 2014 budget. 

Senator MANCHIN. But this is in the past. They have been telling 

me—we checked with everybody before I came to the hearing and 

all of them have been having the long delays in getting any grant 

monies whatsoever. But we will get with you, sir, after this if 

you—— 

Mr. ROGOFF. I would appreciate it. 

Senator MANCHIN. OK. 

Mr. ROGOFF. I think the issue here may be there have been years 

when we have gotten a CR for a longer period of time. As you 

know, some of the CRs stretched well into, like, March and April 

in the most recent year, and, therefore, we did a partial apportionment of funds. We did not do that this year in the hope and expectation, once the budget deal was announced, that we would be getting a budget in January, and it looks like we will be—— 

Senator MANCHIN. Yes. 

Mr. ROGOFF. ——in which case we will be getting out an apportionment notice very quickly. 

Senator MANCHIN. Let me—— 

Mr. ROGOFF. But if there is a larger problem, I would like to 

know about it. 

Senator MANCHIN. We will. We will get right with you on that, 

then, sir. Thank you. 

And also on that, you know, nationally, 53 percent of the public 

transportation is by bus. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Absolutely. 

Senator MANCHIN. But only 10 percent of the money goes toward 

bus transportation. Do you think that is a proportionate, proper 

mix? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, I think when you look at that issue, you also 

have to be cognizant of where the costs are. There are considerably 

lower costs to operate a bus system versus operating a rail system. 

As I said in my opening statement, we are under-investing nationally both in the bus infrastructure and in the rail infrastructure—— 

Senator MANCHIN. But does it not seem like 10 percent to 90 percent is disproportionate there as far as the mass transportation, 

when you are moving 53 percent of the people in America? 

Mr. ROGOFF. I—I do not—— 

Senator MANCHIN. I would hope so. 

Mr. ROGOFF. ——want to be baited into a formula fight, Senator, 

but—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator MANCHIN. OK. 

Mr. ROGOFF. ——I take your point. I have often reminded people, 

as I did just yesterday at the Transportation Research Board, of 

20 

the very point that you make, and that is that more than half of 

the transit trips in America is still taken by bus—— 

Senator MANCHIN. Maybe we can have those people come to a 

meeting, Mr. Chairman, at a future time, if it might be more helpful to us in rural States, sir. 

If I can go on to this, on transportation fuel. I have often said, 

when I was Governor of the State of West Virginia and talking in 

the National Governors Association, we were looking at different 

ways to maximize our fuel efficiency and taking advantage of what 

we have in our country. With the abundance of natural gas coming 

on in our State and our country right now, I thought that you all 

could really lead the charge on giving us the incentives to change 

toward natural gas-powered vehicles. The uptick from that is that 

going from diesel to natural gas-propelled vehicle is a little bit expensive and they are just kind of staying where they are unless 

they get that incentive. 

And here is the thing that it would lead to, sir. We looked at 

this, too. If you take that lead and we follow up with our State, 

with our school transportation, all of our school buses, every State 

could transform its commercial, what we call its commercial vehicular traffic away from petroleum into natural gas with you all taking the lead on mass transit. We are going in with public transportation, as far as our schoolchildren. And then we follow right up 

with our State vehicles and our State road vehicles. 

The reason I say that is it does not have to transform every utility or every infrastructure as far as gas station in my State or in 

the country. Those are all bulk stations. Most of the gas companies 

will convert those free if they get any type of a contract. No cost 

of conversion. The only cost we have is that first uptick, going to 

a natural gas-powered. If you could look at that differently, it 

would help us. We could reduce about 20 to 25 percent, I am told, 

our dependency on petroleum. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, a couple of thoughts, Senator. First, I think 

the agency has historically leaned very far forward to try to promote the development of natural gas buses, and if you look across 

how we spent our research dollars, we have been sort of on the cutting edge of—— 

Senator MANCHIN. Right. 

Mr. ROGOFF. So, now, we are actually on to the next generation 

in terms of trying to—you know, natural gas buses are very much 

embedded in the fleet now. I believe every bus now operating in the 

LACMTA system in Los Angeles is a natural gas bus. 

You are right that there is an added investment cost going in, 

but—— 

Senator MANCHIN. After you get there, you are OK. 

Mr. ROGOFF. ——it clearly pays itself back over the 12 years of 

the natural life of the bus, including, often, the cost of the fueling 

infrastructure. So, yes, we can. 

Now, you have mentioned some other ideas on what we can do 

with school buses. We obviously do not play in that space—— 

Senator MANCHIN. No. I am saying, you set the tone. The Federal 

Government setting the tone, that if we all started looking at our 

mass transportation first coming from the Federal grants that we 

get—— 

21 

Mr. ROGOFF. Mm-hmm. 

Senator MANCHIN. ——and there was an incentive for us to convert, I will assure you that States will start following. It gives them 

more of an impetus to do that. And if they do that, and if 50 States 

were able to do that, we would reduce, I am told, around 20 to 25 

percent of our dependency. And, basically, all of these are done locally, so county by county. You know, they run day—you can fill 

up a natural gas commercial vehicle and run all day in a county. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Right. 

Senator MANCHIN. You do not have to worry about, ‘‘can I find 

a filling station near there?’’ 

Mr. ROGOFF. Right. 

Senator MANCHIN. They are running out of bulk stations. It is 

the most doable thing that we have, to convert and remove about 

25 percent of our dependency—— 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, we can—— 

Senator MANCHIN. ——over that 5-year period. 

Mr. ROGOFF. We have had periodically in the program percentage incentives, which is to say—— 

Senator MANCHIN. Sure. 

Mr. ROGOFF. ——a lower local match in order to go with a cleaner fuel bus. I am not sure that that was the strongest and most 

effective impetus to make it happen. Part of this is whether we, as 

a matter of Federal policy, are going to try to dictate those local 

decisions. You know, that is something I think the Committee 

should debate. 

Senator MANCHIN. I am not saying dictate. Basically, the only 

thing I am saying is if—— 

Mr. ROGOFF. Incentivize them. 

Senator MANCHIN. You are giving us X-amount of dollars to buy 

a diesel bus, OK. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Right. 

Senator MANCHIN. Let us say that the same incentive—you give 

us the same amount of money to buy a natural gas bus. Let us 

make the decision. 

Mr. ROGOFF. We do give them the same. I mean, the vast majority of the bus dollars for purchase are done by formula. We have 

had a separate discretionary—it is converted to what is called the 

Low and No Emissions Bus Program, but heretofore, we have had 

a Clean Fuels Program where we have bought a lot of natural gas 

buses as well as sort of the first earliest generations of electric 

buses. 

Senator MANCHIN. Sure. 

Mr. ROGOFF. So, those incentives have been there, and I do believe we have advanced—we have made those vehicles commercially viable through those grants and building the critical mass of 

buys to make the manufacturers go into that space. And I think 

if Huntington, West Virginia, wanted to buy a natural gas bus and 

used their formula dollars for that versus a diesel bus, they are 

both eligible expenses and we do not blink either way. 

Senator MANCHIN. OK. I will work with you on that. I am way 

over my time, but I would like to work with you on this. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Absolutely. 

22 

Senator MANCHIN. It has great potential, and you all—we could 

lead the charge here. 

Mr. ROGOFF. I think there is also an opportunity to sit with the 

Energy Department at the same time when we do that for those 

issues that you talked about, conversion of stations, conversions of 

school buses—— 

Senator MANCHIN. The conversions will be done. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Mm-hmm. 

Senator MANCHIN. The private sector will come in and do the 

conversions at no cost to the taxpayers, none. They are going to 

have a 10-year return, now. They want—— 

Mr. ROGOFF. Right. 

Senator MANCHIN. And that is fine. We can work those details 

out—— 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, on the bus front, we are looking for a 12-year 

return, so—— 

Senator MANCHIN. OK. We can mirror those two up. 

Mr. ROGOFF. OK. I look forward to it. 

Senator MANCHIN. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Yes, sir. 

Chairman JOHNSON. I am told that Senator Schumer is on his 

way, so Senator Menendez, take your time. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator MENENDEZ. OK. I am happy to hear that, Mr. Chairman, 

and I would like to ask that a statement I have be included in the 

record. 

Administrator, first, let me say I welcome my colleague from 

West Virginia’s interest in mass transit. We need more advocates. 

As someone who is one of the leaders of the fight here on mass 

transit and all of its iterations, I can tell you, we can use all the 

help we can get because it is constantly a challenge, and that is 

why I appreciate hearing it, because it is constantly a challenge to 

understand the importance of mass transit in our funding formula, 

as we worked hard last year to get MAP–21 to ratchet it up a little 

bit, but we are still nowhere near where we should be for the demands that there are, whether they be light rail or bus or whatever. 

And I just want to compliment you, Administrator, for a very, I 

think, good job in the midst of a lot of challenges, and I appreciate 

your approach to the whole effort nationally on mass transit. 

In that regard, let me say that in MAP–21, I worked to create 

a new transit-oriented development planning pilot program to provide grants for communities to create mixed-use walkable developments around federally supported transit lines, and I sent a letter 

to FTA this December with seven of my colleagues, including three 

on this Committee—Senators Schumer, Warner, and Hagan—asking for this program to be expedited. To date, the FTA has not 

made an announcement of funds for this program, which is authorized at $10 million in fiscal year 2013 and 2014. And given the 

short timeframe of MAP–21, it is important that we get this program underway so we have results to evaluate sooner rather than 

later. 

23 

So, why has the FTA not yet announced the availability of funding for this program and what time line do you have for making 

this announcement? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Senator, we are well aware of the program and cognizant of the Committee Members’ interest, and most notably 

yours, as a champion for the program. We, quite frankly, in our 

prioritization scheme—I was asked earlier by Senator Crapo, what 

were we going to prioritize given all of the new requirements of 

MAP–21. As I said in my opening statement, MAP–21 for transit 

was, like, 7 years of policy in a 2-year bill and we had to prioritize 

what we were going to take on in what order. 

As it relates to the TOD Development Program, we thought it 

wise, not just from our own selfish administrative responsibilities, 

but also for the opportunities for the communities to come in, to get 

2 years of money and then compete 2 years of money. So, we will 

have a competition for the full $20 million rather than $10 million 

1 year and $10 million the next. We thought that would be both 

efficient, also increase the opportunities for a diversity of players 

to come in at a more meaningful level of money. 

Our goal is to start that process and get notices out the door in 

the spring and compete it this summer. I apologize for the delay 

in getting to this. It is stacked up with a lot of other new MAP– 

21 requirements, most notably the safety requirements, which we 

very much welcome the changes to the formula programs, which we 

obviously had to put out on the street very rapidly. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Well, I appreciate that, and I realize what 

we did in MAP–21, because I was working with the Chair as the 

Subcommittee Chair. We put a lot of things in there. But, to the 

extent that we have a pilot program and resources dedicated for it, 

what I would hate to see is that the pilot program does not ever 

get to fruition because we have waited too late—— 

Mr. ROGOFF. No. That is not going to happen. It is strictly a matter of time. 

Senator MENENDEZ. All right. Next is, FTA recently announced 

the next round of Sandy recovery transit funding, $3 billion for resiliency efforts. And according to your announcement, this funding 

is, quote, ‘‘intended to protect public transportation infrastructure 

that has been repaired or rebuilt after Hurricane Sandy or that is 

at a risk of being damaged or destroyed by a future natural disaster.’’ It also goes on to state that you may consider geographic 

diversity and diversity between transit modes when making these 

awards. 

My question is, how high of a priority will FTA place on protecting assets that were hardest hit by Hurricane Sandy, and how 

are you going to balance the considerations of geographic and 

model diversity versus protecting the areas most devastated by 

Hurricane Sandy? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, I have said before, at this table, in fact, but 

in other venues, that our highest priority in allocating these funds 

is going to be protecting the existing transit infrastructure that 

serves millions of passengers each day. Those systems, those existing rail lines, have, in many cases, flooded multiple times. As you 

know, some of the infrastructures that flooded under Hurricane 

Sandy had flooded just 1 year earlier under Hurricane Irene. And 

24 

the President in requesting this resiliency funding made clear that 

he puts a strong priority on ensuring that the taxpayers will not, 

going forward, have to pay to restore the infrastructure a second, 

third, or a fourth time. That is going to be our priority as we look 

at it. 

We are going to be working carefully, and we have conferences 

set up with all the likely applicants, to talk about looking at a comprehensive plan and seeing how they are going to protect the most 

vulnerable elements of the system and look at it from the perspective of a system, which is to say, we are not very interested in an 

investment that will ensure that we have protected one portion of 

a rail line if, in fact, we are just going to have some other portion 

of the rail line that also is serving 80 percent of the same traffic 

washed out. That is not going to maintain mobility in the face of 

the next disaster. 

So, those are going to be our priorities going in. It is hard for me 

to say now, until we get all the applications in, how some of the 

other factors like geographic diversity and other things will play 

out. I think we have put out a good notice that takes into account 

all of the critical factors that we need to look at, and when we get 

the applications in, we will then have to rack and stack them, 

make sure that the investments are cost beneficial, capture the 

most critical infrastructure on both sides of the river, and also 

make sure that we are fulfilling the President’s commitment to ensuring that we do not pay a second and third and fourth time to 

restore it. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Well, I appreciate that. I mean, as someone 

who, along with Senator Schumer, led the fight for the Sandy 

money and particularly to make sure that the transportation elements of it were part of it, I certainly believe that the consequences 

of systems moving large numbers of Americans and who have a 

history of constant challenges due to flooding and weather-related 

issues make a highest priority use, just simply on the number of 

people being serviced and the reality that we have had repetitive 

loss. So, we want to avoid the repetitive loss for the taxpayers. We 

want to maximize the number of Americans who are using a transit system. So, while there is obviously a whole host of challenges, 

I look forward to that being the reality. 

Finally, if I may, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Wise, with reference to bus 

rapid transit projects, how do you see the role of the BRT playing 

in the future of U.S. transit services? These projects are very often 

appealing as a lower-cost, more flexible transit option, but they 

lack some of the service characteristics and economic development 

potential of others. 

Mr. WISE. Yes to both of those, Senator. Thank you. In the work 

we did for the Committee several years ago on BRT, I think the 

results of that are promising, but there are constraints, as you 

mentioned. A bus is not a train and some people view it that way. 

That said, given the funding environment that we are in right now 

and will be in for the foreseeable future, I think many see BRT as 

a good alternative and one that is much more feasible to implement 

than rail, which tends to be relatively more expensive. 

Now, that said, there are characteristics of BRT that are being 

implemented that make it stand apart from regular buses. In the 

25 

systems that we visited—Seattle, Eugene, a few other places— 

there are nicer, newer, more brightly painted buses. The bus stops 

will be nicer than regular bus stops. Passengers can buy tickets 

from special machines. So, there are some similarities to rail travel. 

Probably the poster child for the best BRT system in the world 

is in Bogota, Colombia, where it looks very much like a train. In 

fact, you have to look closely to see the difference. The stations are 

very ornate, similar to very nice rail stations. You do not really see 

that here, and the dedicated guideways are also kind of a mixed 

bag. There are some where they have more dedicated guideways 

than others, and some of that, again, is cost. 

I recall that, when we visited the system in Eugene-Springfield, 

Oregon, there were a couple areas where it is just impossible to 

have a dedicated guideway, due to a complex intersection. Most of 

the people that we talked to in the different systems see promise 

with BRT. It is much less expensive and much quicker to implement, compared to rail and they have generally encouraged economic development. 

The BRT line in Cleveland, Ohio, is a good example. Officials there told us they have seen $4 to $5 billion worth of development 

along that Euclid Avenue corridor that leads from downtown up to 

the Cleveland Clinic area. Another BRT line in Kansas City in a 

rather depressed area not too far from downtown Kansas City, the 

Troost System there has brought some additional development and 

obtained some additional urban development, grants, with the hope 

that the BRT was going to help spur development in that area. 

We also are seeing potential development here in Montgomery 

County, MD, which is looking to implement a fairly extensive bus 

rapid transit system along the Interstate-270 corridor. I think a lot 

of jurisdictions are seeing real promise in bus rapid transit. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Schumer. 

Senator SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to welcome you, Mr. Wise, and congratulate you, Mr. Rogoff, on your promotion. I know you from your days here. I know you are filling 

large shoes, because Polly Trottenberg, your predecessor—— 

Mr. ROGOFF. Very large shoes. 

Senator SCHUMER. ——worked for me for 9 years and now is 

going on to become DOT Commissioner in New York City. I know 

that office well, my wife having served there, and I know she will 

do a great job. But, I am glad you are there. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Thank you, sir. 

Senator SCHUMER. We feel very good about that. 

I have a few questions, first regarding capital grants under 5309. 

I know that under MAP–21, we tried to streamline and accelerate 

project delivery on both New Starts and Small Starts. I know that 

is working well, so I congratulate you on that. 

I have a couple of specifics here in terms of BRT. First, Albany, 

our Capital District Transportation Authority is becoming a leader 

in BRT. Albany is growing. They have a lot of economic activity 

and they are a city—they have three sort of core cities, Troy, Schenectady, and Albany, and all the people living amidst those, so it 

is made for—it has a metropolitan area of a little over a million 

26 

people. It is not large enough for a subway system, a rail system, 

but bus rapid transit, it is made for it. It fits to a T. 

I helped them get a grant to plan their BRT. They have been 

working with FTA regional offices in New York. They are poised 

to apply for an admission to the Small Starts Program. They are 

already working really well on this. They have a Red Line already 

from downtown Albany to downtown Schenectady. They have 

planned two more, one to go to Troy and one to go out to the University at Albany. It is great. So, are you familiar with the plan 

in Albany at all? 

Mr. ROGOFF. I am, and I have spoken with people at CDTA. We 

were pleased to help give them that planning grant, and you are 

right, they are well along in their development. I think the good 

news here, really, as it relates to this project and all of the interested new entrants to the New Starts and Small Starts Program, 

is the conference agreement that is currently pending on the floor. 

Senator SCHUMER. Right. 

Mr. ROGOFF. You will recall, last year, the combination of the 

Continuing Resolution and then the sequester below that left funding for the New Starts and Small Starts Program in a place where 

we could not even fulfill our existing obligations that we had already signed up. The appropriations bill currently pending before 

you is, through the combination of unobligated balances and new 

appropriations, gets us to our request level—— 

Senator SCHUMER. Right. 

Mr. ROGOFF. ——which means we are going to be about the business—we are back in the business of looking at—— 

Senator SCHUMER. Good. 

Mr. ROGOFF. ——new folks to admit to—— 

Senator SCHUMER. Can I have your commitment, you will work 

personally with CDTA and do everything you can to see that it is 

admitted to the Small Starts Program? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Sure. When they make the requisite request, we see 

no showstoppers right now—— 

Senator SCHUMER. Great. 

Mr. ROGOFF. ——to them coming in and having a successful 

project. 

Senator SCHUMER. Great. Now, our second one is Buffalo, similar. Buffalo has experimented with different kinds of transit, particularly the Main Street Project, which was a flop—— 

Mr. ROGOFF. Yes. 

Senator SCHUMER. ——and we are helping them undo that right 

now, 30 years later. But they, too, are made for this type of system. 

Again, similar size, about a million—a little more than a million 

and a half people in the metropolitan area. They want to study an 

extension of the Buffalo Transit System out to Amherst, which is 

an Eastern suburb and where the University of Buffalo is, and now 

University of Buffalo is in the Medical Corridor, so it is a perfect 

situation. Again, can I have your commitment to help them get into 

the Small Starts Program, as well? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Yes, we will look at their applications as they come 

in, but here again, I think it is fair to say that the NFTA has taken 

some time to figure out what it is they want to do. 

Senator SCHUMER. Yes. 

27 

Mr. ROGOFF. And, I think, Mr. Wise just pointed out some of the 

benefits we can really see when we do bus rapid transit the right 

way—— 

Senator SCHUMER. Yes. 

Mr. ROGOFF. ——which is to say, you do all of the full investments, the unique stations, the unique vehicles, level boarding, signal priority, which means they almost always get a green light 

when they hit a signal. You could really move quite a number of 

people at a very affordable cost compared to rail. 

Senator SCHUMER. Right. 

Mr. ROGOFF. So, we welcome NFTA—— 

Senator SCHUMER. Do you see any barriers in the way there? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Absolutely—well, there are, as pointed out, there 

are some geometric hurdles you cannot always overcome, but there 

are also great opportunities. And I think whenever you connect 

large employers like the University and the health center, those 

are the kind of segments that we see great success in servicing like 

this. 

Senator SCHUMER. Great. Next, I would like to go to Gateway. 

As you know, New Starts has been really helpful for both the Second Avenue Subway and East Side Access, two of the largest 

projects in the country that we have supported. Now, there is another being developed on the Western end, the sort of mirror image 

of East Side Access, is Amtrak’s Gateway Program to build—and 

I am sure Bob is very interested in this, as well—to build two new 

tunnels under the Hudson River into Manhattan. The current tunnels are 100 years old. They are not floodproof. They are at full capacity. It is not just a passenger rail project, but a critical transit 

project. New Jersey Transit runs two-thirds of the trains bringing 

workers from New Jersey to Manhattan. We had ARC—we had a 

fight with Governor Christie over that—and they had Federal funding. So, now we are going back at it because the need for tunnels 

is crucial. So, I had three questions on the Gateway program. First, 

do you agree it is a critical passenger rail and transit project? Second, do you believe it could be a candidate for the New Starts Program? And, third, do you need legislative authority to admit Gateway into the New Starts Program? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Let me take those in order. You correctly point out, 

we have had a very painful history in trying to get the necessary 

tunneling capacity under the Hudson, and the tunnels that are currently serving an extraordinary number of passengers, both on the 

Amtrak side and the New Jersey Transit side, are—— 

Senator MENENDEZ. That is very diplomatic, Mr. Chairman, the 

‘‘painful history.’’ 

Mr. ROGOFF. Those tunnels are over 100 years old. Your first 

question, do I agree that it is an essential investment, we absolutely must do something about those. I believe we are approaching 

110-year-old tunnels. 

Senator SCHUMER. Right. 

Mr. ROGOFF. They not only constrain capacity, but at a certain 

point, they will become a real safety risk. 

Senator SCHUMER. Right. 

Mr. ROGOFF. And, you know, think about the upheaval that will 

result if we were to lose that capacity all of a sudden. 

28 

Senator SCHUMER. Right. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Could it be a candidate for the New Starts Program? Yes, it could. What we would need is a local project sponsor 

to come forward and do all the development work, and most importantly, come up with the necessary local match. 

Senator SCHUMER. Yes. 

Mr. ROGOFF. And your final question, do I need special legislation to help make that happen, we will take a round turn on that, 

but I do not think so. 

Senator SCHUMER. Good. 

Mr. ROGOFF. I think—I mean, obviously, the entire program expires at the end of the year, but I think the question you may be 

alluding to is how do we deal with a New Start Project for which 

Amtrak is a participant. 

Senator SCHUMER. Yes. 

Mr. ROGOFF. I do not know if I need new legislation for that. I 

think that—— 

Senator SCHUMER. Would you check and get back to us? 

Mr. ROGOFF. You know, we can. I know we have had Amtrak do 

some necessary investments even as part of East Side Access. They 

are responsible for the Harold Interlocking, which is a very large 

portion of that project. So, there may be a way of doing this without special legislation, but if it is needed, we will certainly call it 

to your attention. 

Senator SCHUMER. OK. You do not think it will be. 

Mr. ROGOFF. I do not think so on its face, but I would want to 

go and dig into—— 

Senator SCHUMER. Could you get back to me in writing—— 

Mr. ROGOFF. Absolutely. 

Senator SCHUMER. ——in a couple of days on that? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Sure. 

Senator SCHUMER. Great. Finally, just the Montague Tunnel. As 

you know, we have a real interest in restoring this tunnel. Give me 

a status report on how it is going, how the repair is going. 

Mr. ROGOFF. My understanding is things are going along well. 

This is one of the benefits that you get from closing the entire facility, is you do not have to worry about the safety risks posed by the 

workers. You have the ability to put all kinds of equipment in the 

tunnel because you do not have to move trains through it at the 

same time. I have heard nothing to the effect that they are off 

schedule or over-budget, and indeed, in some of these tunnels, we 

are making through what we call our local resiliency funding some 

investments to just allow them to move the utilities to the roof of 

the tunnel, so should we have flooding again, we will not lose all 

the signaling capacity and all the cabling and stuff. 

Senator SCHUMER. So, it is full speed ahead. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Yes, sir. 

Senator SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman JOHNSON. I want to thank our witnesses for your testimony today. This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:31 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

[Prepared statements and responses to written questions supplied for the record follow:] 

29 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PETER M. ROGOFF 

ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORTATION

JANUARY 16, 2014 

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

you for inviting me to appear before you today to report on the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) progress toward implementing public transportation assistance 

programs under the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, known as 

MAP–21. This 2-year reauthorization codifies some of President Obama’s highest 

priorities for enhancing the safety of public transportation, strengthening our Nation’s transportation infrastructure, and streamlining Government to serve taxpayers’ needs more efficiently. 

I want to thank the Committee for its support in passing MAP–21, which has offered an opportunity for us to work together to support transit systems across the 

country at a time when national ridership is on track to exceed 10 billion trips annually for the seventh year in a row. Through investment in public transportation, 

we spur new economic development to help build strong communities in cities, suburbs, and rural areas alike. 

Progress Made Despite Fiscal Challenges 

MAP–21, which took effect on October 1, 2012, authorizes $10.6 billion in Fiscal 

Year (FY) 2013 and $10.7 billion in FY2014 for public transportation. FTA has made 

significant progress in implementing key provisions and providing guidance to 

States, metropolitan planning organizations and transit agencies. We have an active 

and engaged legislative implementation team and an aggressive timetable in place 

that helps to ensure that the American people can reap the benefits associated with 

investing in public transportation services that improve transportation equity, provide access to jobs and services, offer an efficient alternative to congested urban 

traffic, and stimulate economic development in cities and communities throughout 

the Nation. 

I discuss, below, several areas where FTA has made real progress to implement 

MAP–21. However, I fully recognize that much work and many challenges lie ahead. 

Chief among these challenges are significant annual funding constraints and the potential insolvency of the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund. 

The funding constraints imposed by the full FY2013 and the partial FY2014 continuing resolutions, coupled with cuts imposed by sequestration—including a $5 million cut in our administrative budget—have hampered our ability to move implementation forward at an even more rapid pace. The cuts have, for instance, affected 

our ability to implement significant new safety authority and reduced our ability to 

conduct outreach and training with stakeholders. Every budget request under my 

stewardship has sought additional funding to allow for additional staffing at FTA 

to better address our core responsibilities. Congress has yet to provide those resources. Moreover, in FY2013, FTA had more than 30 New Starts projects in the 

pipeline, but since that time, FTA has been unable to make new funding commitments to any of those projects for the first time in roughly 20 years. Consequently, 

for the first time, FTA was unable to keep its financial end of the bargain, cutting 

payments owed to communities with projects already under way, which potentially 

raises local costs as project sponsors and local governments seek to make up for the 

Federal Government’s shortfall. 

With respect to the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund, estimates 

of the account’s cash balance at the time MAP–21 was enacted were assumed to be 

sufficient through FY2014. We have reason for concern as to whether this will be 

the case going forward. The U.S. Departments of Transportation (DOT) and Treasury are currently in the process of updating program outlay and revenue assumptions used to estimate trust fund balances as part of the President’s FY2015 budget. 

These estimates will be important in determining whether the cash balance is sufficient through the remainder of the current authorization and will provide useful information on the cash balance needed beyond FY2014. Once the President’s budget 

is transmitted to Congress, FTA and DOT will brief the Committee on the new estimates, upon request. 

Despite such challenges, we have nevertheless achieved several significant milestones for implementing MAP–21, most notably with respect to safety; state-of-goodrepair needs; the capital investment grant program; and our new Emergency Relief 

Program. A summary of progress in these and other areas follows. 

30 

Safety Authority 

MAP–21 gave FTA long-sought authority to establish safety criteria for all modes 

of public transportation and establish minimum safety standards for public transportation vehicles used in revenue operations. Implementing the new safety provisions in MAP–21 has been among our highest priorities. In October 2013, FTA 

issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on Safety and Transit 

Asset Management. The ANPRM signals FTA’s commitment to ensure that efforts 

to keep transit systems in good working order go hand-in-hand with efforts to keep 

them safe. FTA is now reviewing over 150 comments submitted by safety advocates, 

industry leaders, and the general public on key topics, such as: 

• Developing and implementing meaningful national, State-level, and transit 

agency safety plans; and 

• Implementing a national transit asset management program to help transit 

agencies establish a systematic means for managing their assets and establishing performance measures for making improvements to the condition of 

their facilities, equipment, rolling stock, and infrastructure. 

While Congress has yet to appropriate additional administrative funds to carry 

out this new area of responsibility, FTA has established a new safety office using 

already strained existing resources. FTA is sensitive to stakeholder concerns on this 

new safety oversight authority and will build a 21st century regulatory program 

over a period of several years only after careful consideration of comments received 

from our stakeholders and the public. In May 2013, FTA made available for the first time approximately $22 million in 

Federal matching funds to help strengthen public transportation safety for millions 

of riders and transit workers nationwide. The funding notice included a proposed 

formula for the apportionment of those funds based on MAP–21 criteria. During the 

past 3 months, FTA has aggressively and proactively reached out to the 30 States 

with State safety oversight (SSO) obligations through face-to-face meetings and oneon-one conference calls to ensure that their programs will conform with MAP–21’s 

new requirements, thereby positioning those States to receive a share of the $21.9 

million available to carry out SSO responsibilities. FTA expects to release these 

funds in the near future. 

Going forward, FTA will act as the leader, facilitator, and final regulatory authority setting minimum safety standards, and be held fundamentally accountable for 

the overall safety performance of the Nation’s fixed-guideway rail transit systems. 

To achieve these goals, FTA will concentrate on strengthening the capacity of SSOs 

to serve as effective day-to-day safety regulators capable of holding transit systems 

accountable for safe operations at the local level and ensuring they comply with 

minimum safety standards. 

Additionally, FTA will work to adapt its comprehensive safety approach to all 

modes of public transportation within its safety authority. Specifically, we will work 

to ensure that the bus segment of public transportation, upon which millions of riders depend every day, receives the resources, tools and technical assistance it too 

will need to ensure the safety of the riding public. 

State of Good Repair and Transit Asset Management 

Since 2008, FTA has staked out a leadership role in highlighting the critical need 

to bring the Nation’s aging transit assets into a state of good repair, especially in 

large urban areas—and to hold transit agencies accountable for implementing a 

more strategic approach to managing the lifecycle of their assets. The momentum 

we have initiated is real, but the gains that will truly benefit the American people 

require sustained investment. FTA obligated $1.9 billion—about one-fifth of our 

share of funds under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009—and 

also allocated more than $2.2 billion in discretionary bus funds over the last 4 years 

for this very purpose. Indeed, the Administration has made increased funding for 

a new State of Good Repair program the centerpiece of its annual budget requests 

for FTA. Congress incorporated our proposal on this essential area into MAP–21 by 

creating a more needs-based state-of-good-repair formula program for rail, ferry, and 

busway systems. This new program will help further address our state-of-good-repair needs, so fixed guideway agencies have a predictable 2-year stream of Federal 

funds to help them address an enormous maintenance and repair backlog that exceeds $78 billion nationwide. By the end of FY2013, FTA had awarded 37 formula 

grants funded by the State of Good Repair program for over $675.6 million. We are 

working to award the remaining program funds as quickly as possible. 

FTA recognizes that while a sustained Federal contribution to our state-of-goodrepair needs is in the best interest of our Nation’s public transportation systems, 

this problem cannot be solved by Federal action alone. Tackling this problem reVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:48 Nov 21, 2014 Jkt 046629 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 L:\HEARINGS 2014\01-16 PROGRESS REPORT ON PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION UNDER 
31 

quires a concerted effort by Federal, State, and local resources in a coordinated, 

strategic manner. That is why FTA is establishing a national Transit Asset Management (TAM) System. The new section 5326 TAM program authorized under MAP– 

21 is vitally important to carrying out these infrastructure investments effectively 

and responsibly. 

This innovative program requires all FTA funding recipients to adopt a strategic 

approach for managing their capital assets and be accountable for leveraging all 

available resources to bring their systems into a state of good repair. FTA has sponsored a successful public dialogue with over 700 stakeholders to obtain critical input 

on policy implementation. Subsequently, in October 2013, FTA used the aforementioned Safety ANPRM as an appropriate vehicle for seeking public comment on its 

initial interpretations, proposals it is considering, and questions regarding the requirements of the national TAM System. This includes proposed options under consideration for defining and measuring state of good repair, and the relationship 

among safety, transit asset management and state of good repair. Comments we receive on the ANPRM will be very helpful to us in drafting a proposed definition of 

state of good repair in the future rulemaking we will issue on TAM. 

FTA will solicit comments in the Federal Register on ways to improve how asset 

inventories and asset conditions are reported to the National Transit Database—an 

important first step toward refining estimates of the Nation’s transit-related stateof-good-repair backlog. This is a very important initiative that will assist FTA in 

ensuring that local transit investment financed with Federal dollars are being effectively targeted on each transit agency’s greatest needs. It will also assist us in ensuring that Federal investments are being well-managed and well-utilized. 

Capital Investment Grants (New Starts/Small Starts) 

Managing costs on capital investment grant projects is a key area where FTA has 

made strides. Since 2009, FTA has executed 26 Full Funding Grant Agreements or 

Project Construction Grant Agreements for new major capital investments, and 100 

percent of those projects have either been completed or are on schedule to be completed on time; 96 percent of those are also on budget. This Administration has done 

its service to America’s taxpayers, who expect no less than responsible stewardship 

of their investments. 

Since MAP–21 went into effect, FTA has continued to cut red tape and bureaucracy so we can have more progress and less process related to New Starts planning. 

For example, FTA recently rolled out a new tool to help project sponsors estimate 

transit trips on proposed projects. The new method, known as Transit STOPS (Simplified Trips-on-Project Software), will enable some communities to reduce from 2 

years to 2 weeks the time needed for project sponsors to develop ridership forecasts 

on planned projects. This new tool may save taxpayers in communities that do not 

currently have travel forecasting tools as much as 1 million dollars. 

In addition, in August 2013, FTA issued final policy guidance to sponsors of New 

Starts and Small Starts projects, which accompanies the final rule for Major Capital 

Investment Projects promulgated in January 2013. The final rule adopted a more 

straightforward approach for measuring a proposed transit project’s cost-effectiveness; expanded the range of environmental benefits used to evaluate proposed 

projects; added new economic development factors to its ratings process; and streamlined the project evaluation process. The revised ratings and evaluation criteria will 

better capture the full range of benefits that FTA’s transit investments provide 

through the New Starts/Small Starts program, while continuing an appropriate 

level of oversight of taxpayer dollars. These revisions align with major purposes of 

MAP–21, including improving the development and delivery of capital projects and 

moving us toward a more performance-driven system. We appreciate the Committee’s support for this important achievement. 

Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program 

FTA has been very aggressive in implementing the provisions of MAP–21 in the 

area of emergency relief. The President’s budget proposed in FY2012 a new emergency relief program for FTA to parallel a similar capability in FHWA. The President proposed this program to strengthen the agency’s authority to provide disaster 

assistance to transit agencies in the wake of major natural disasters and other 

emergencies. The program was authorized by Congress in MAP–21. 

The authorization of this new program arrived just in time for Hurricane Sandy, 

which, based on the extent of storm damage, was the worst public transit disaster 

in the history of the United States. Hurricane Sandy devastated transportation systems in the hardest-hit parts of New York and New Jersey—which together include 

3 of the 20 largest transit operators in the Nation and represent nearly 40 percent 

of our Nation’s transit ridership—and triggered a very rapid implementation path 

32 

for the program. The Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of 2013 appropriated $10.9 

billion for the Emergency Relief Program for recovery, relief, and resiliency efforts 

in areas affected by Hurricane Sandy. Unfortunately, this amount was almost immediately reduced by $545 million as part of sequestration. FTA is allocating the 

remaining $10.4 billion in multiple tiers for response, recovery, and rebuilding; for 

locally prioritized resiliency projects; and for competitively selected resiliency work. 

FTA allocated to the hardest-hit transit agencies a total of $5.7 billion for critical 

Sandy recovery and resiliency work in a span of approximately 16 weeks, beginning 

1 week after President Obama signed the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act. Funds 

were allocated to the New York Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA), the Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corp. (PATH), New Jersey Transit (NJT), the Southeastern 

Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA), and others for expenses incurred 

while preparing for and recovering from Hurricane Sandy. 

On December 23, 2013, FTA announced the availability of approximately $3 billion in Disaster Relief appropriations to strengthen the resiliency of public transportation systems affected by Hurricane Sandy. FTA will award the funds on a competitive basis first and foremost for projects that protect critical transit infrastructure from being damaged or destroyed by future natural disasters. Our goal is to 

advance the best regionally coordinated projects, so taxpayers will not have to pay 

to restore the same transit services a second or third time. 

While FTA has been extraordinarily successful in responsibly and rapidly responding to the needs triggered by Hurricane Sandy, an important note of caution 

is in order. At present, FTA has only those emergency relief funds that Congress 

made available exclusively for Hurricane Sandy. The President’s FY2013 and 2014 

budget requests each sought $25 million to capitalize the Emergency Relief Program 

for disasters throughout the country. Congress did not appropriate those funds in 

FY2013, and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, currently under consideration, likewise does not include funding for the program. In the future, I strongly 

encourage Congress to appropriate the amount requested so, when the next disaster 

strikes and takes public transportation systems offline, FTA will be in a position 

to respond immediately. 

FTA has made an extraordinary effort to make emergency relief and recovery 

funding available as expeditiously as possible, to ensure that millions of riders have 

access to the transit services they depend on. To that end, FTA issued an interim 

final rule in March 2013 that established eligible activities, processes, and procedures for applying for grants. After considering comments, FTA anticipates publishing a final rule. 

Urbanized Area Formula Grants 

The largest of FTA’s grant programs, this program provides grants to urbanized 

areas to support public transportation. Funding is distributed by formula based on 

the level of transit service provision, population, and other factors. MAP–21 provides 

total funding of $4.9 billion in FY2013 and $5 billion in FY2014. The program remains largely unchanged with a few exceptions. Job access and reverse commute activities providing services to low-income individuals to access jobs have been consolidated into this program and are now an eligible expense. MAP–21 expanded eligibility for operating expenses for systems with 100 or fewer buses in urbanized areas 

with populations of 200,000 or more. Operating assistance remains an eligible activity for small urbanized areas. 

Rural Transportation Service 

The Administration recognizes that public transportation in rural areas functions 

not as a luxury but as a lifeline for low-income working families, seniors, veterans, 

individuals with disabilities, tribal residents, and others. Many people living in 

rural and tribal communities can ill-afford to travel considerable distances to work, 

medical appointments and other destinations. It is not surprising that, given these 

constraints, demand for public transportation in these areas has been rising. 

Thanks in large part to recent Federal investments in rural transit, there are now 

more than 1,400 operators in rural areas, providing more than 140 million rural 

transit trips each year. FTA anticipates that demand for rural service will continue 

to rise and, as a result, we will continue to need legislation and policy solutions to 

deliver transportation solutions that rural America needs. 

MAP–21 provides $1.2 billion in funds for rural communities and Indian reservations over the next 2 years. It increases rural area formula funds by 29 percent, 

from $465 million to $600 million. (Under MAP–21, urbanized area formula funds 

increased by 6 percent over the prior authorization, SAFETEA-LU.) Funding increased for rural areas because we recognize that public transportation in these 

areas is urgently needed, especially for residents who do not have access to personal 

33 

vehicles. Public transportation is important for providing links between workers and 

rural area employers, and encouraging rural economic development. Further, public 

transportation in rural areas can provide links to urban areas and provide access 

to opportunities found in those areas. For example, the VelociRFTA Bus Rapid 

Transit (BRT) line serving the Roaring Forks Valley, which just opened last September, is the first rural BRT line in the Nation. It allows commuters from Glenwood Springs and surrounding communities to reach employers in Aspen, about 40 

miles away, in an hour. That is roughly half the time the trip takes by regular bus 

service. FTA committed nearly $25 million to the $46.2 million project through its 

Very Small Starts Capital Investment Grant program. 

Tribal Transit Program 

The Administration understands that access to reliable, affordable transportation 

is a high priority for Indian tribes. We want to ensure that every American Indian 

or Alaskan native who needs a ride to earn a paycheck, attend school, see the doctor, or buy groceries has that opportunity to do so. MAP–21 doubles the funds available for the Tribal Transit program from $15 mil- lion in FY2012 to $30 million in FY2013 and FY2014. Under MAP–21, $25 million 

of the $30 million available for the program is distributed by formula. The remaining $5 million is provided for a discretionary grant program, and we encourage Indian tribes to apply for this funding as well. This resource will improve tribal public 

transportation in tribal areas throughout the United States. Tribal Transit program 

funds may be awarded for capital, operating, planning, job access and reverse commute projects, and administrative assistance for rural and tribal public transit services and rural intercity bus service. 

MAP–21 states that Indian tribes providing public transportation shall be apportioned funds consistent with formula factors that include vehicle revenue miles and 

the number of low-income individuals residing on tribal lands. Funds apportioned 

pursuant to the formula will provide Indian tribes operating public transportation 

with a steady and predictable stream of funding. FTA has actively reached out to 

tribal and rural stakeholders to discuss the impact of proposed program changes 

and funding priorities and considered comments before finalizing a formula allocation methodology published in the Federal Register on May 9, 2013. This Notice also 

established the framework and guidance for the Tribal Transit Program and terms 

and conditions for the formula and discretionary programs. FTA’s outreach with the 

tribes continued through the fall of 2013, with the delivery of three tribal transit 

workshops designed to provide hands-on training and technical assistance with the 

new program structure and applicable FTA requirements. 

Bus and Bus Facilities Program 

MAP–21 followed the Administration’s request to fold the discretionary bus program into a formula program. This capital program provides funding to replace, rehabilitate, and purchase buses and related equipment, and to construct bus-related 

facilities. MAP–21 authorized $422 million in FY2013 and $428 million in FY2014. 

Each fiscal year, each State will be allocated $1.25 million and each territory (including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico) will receive $500,000. The remaining funds will be distributed by formula. Funds are available to designated recipients and States that operate or allocate funding to fixed-route bus operators. Eligible subrecipients include public agencies or private nonprofit organizations engaged 

in public transportation, including those providing services open to a segment of the 

general public, as defined by age, disability, or low income. We have heard from our 

stakeholders, primarily states and recipients in small urbanized areas and rural 

areas, that the funding under this program is insufficient to meet rural bus acquisitions due to replacement or expansion needs. 

Formula Grants for the Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals With 

Disabilities 

The Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities program provides formula funding to increase the mobility of seniors and persons with disabilities. MAP–21 merges the former New Freedom program, which provided grants for 

services that went above and beyond the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), with this program. Projects selected for funding must be included in a locally developed, coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan; and the competitive selection process, which was required under the 

former New Freedom program, is now optional. 

A portion of program funds may be used for public transportation projects that 

exceed the requirements of the ADA; public transportation projects that improve access to fixed-route service and decrease reliance by individuals with disabilities on 

complementary paratransit (a comparable service to public transportation required 

34 

by the ADA for individuals with disabilities who are unable to use fixed-route transportation systems); or alternatives to public transportation that assist seniors and 

individuals with disabilities. 

Coordinated Transportation 

Senior and medical transportation is vitally important to the Nation’s growing 

senior population and citizens suffering debilitating illnesses and chronic diseases. 

For example, in South Dakota, 14.6 percent of the population is 65 or older and this 

segment of the population is projected to grow to 23.1 percent by 2030. We need 

to support seniors who want to continue living in communities they call home. This 

requires human services policies and programs that work for the traveling public, 

including seniors, individuals with disabilities, and all those seeking medical care. 

Moreover, transportation services focused on these populations are often fragmented, underutilized, or difficult to navigate, and can be costly because of inconsistent, duplicative, and often restrictive Federal and State program rules and regulations. And, in some cases, narrowly focused programs leave service gaps and the 

available transportation services are simply not able to meet certain needs. We are 

working to determine how best to integrate the full range of mobility needs, which 

include ADA paratransit, transportation for seniors, and medical transport programs, with public transportation operations and plans. This means focusing on the 

customer and coordinating the best solutions with public and private operators and 

volunteer programs in the mix, as well as coordinating with other Federal agencies 

that fund transportation for these targeted populations. 

MAP–21 continues the requirement that, to the maximum extent feasible, FTA 

should coordinate activities funded under the Enhanced Mobility program with similar transportation activities provided by other Federal agencies. 

Significant Rulemakings and New Guidance Activities 

MAP–21 changes require FTA to issue a number of rulemakings and guidance 

documents—a reflection of the law’s many new and innovative programs, initiatives, 

and requirements. FTA has worked diligently to advance several rulemakings, and 

to issue proposed new guidance, engaging thousands of stakeholders in the process. 

Our accomplishments in this area in 2013 include the following: 

• FTA is currently evaluating comments received on our ANPRM on Safety and 

Transit Asset Management. This was the first segment of a significant rulemaking related to FTA’s new safety authority under MAP–21, and the input we 

received will greatly inform our proposed regulations in the coming year. 

• FTA issued proposed guidance to assist grantees in implementing the Enhanced 

Mobility for Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities Program—a new program 

under MAP–21 that consolidates the New Freedom Program and the Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities Program. 

• FTA issued proposed guidance to assist recipients in their implementation of 

the Urbanized Area Formula Program, which changed under MAP–21. Final 

guidance is available for public inspection today and will be published in the 

Federal Register tomorrow. 

• FTA issued proposed guidance to assist recipients in their implementation of 

the Rural Area Formula Program. The purpose of the proposed guidance is to 

provide potential recipients with updated instructions on program administration and the grant application process brought about by MAP–21 changes. 

• FTA issued proposed guidance on the application of a new provision regarding 

corridor preservation for future transit projects. MAP–21 amended a previously 

existing provision such that FTA can now, under certain conditions, assist in 

the acquisition of right-of-way for corridor preservation before the environmental review process for any transit project that eventually will use that rightof-way and permit corridor preservation with local funds for a transit project 

that could later receive FTA financial assistance. 

FTA also cosponsored several important interagency proposals under MAP–21. 

• FTA and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) jointly published a final 

rule that amends their joint procedures that implement the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by creating a new categorical exclusion (CE) for 

emergency actions as required by Section 1315 of MAP–21. The final rule modifies the existing lists of FHWA and FTA CEs and expands the existing CE for 

emergencies. 

• FTA and FHWA jointly published an important final rule streamlining the environmental review process under NEPA that a proposed transit project seeking 

Federal funds must undergo. The rule established ten new CEs defined specifiVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:48 Nov 21, 2014 Jkt 046629 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 L:\HEARINGS 2014\01-16 PROGRESS REPORT ON PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION UNDER 
35 

cally for transit projects. CEs significantly expedite FTA’s environmental review 

of projects that have been shown to have little environmental impact while preserving critical community input on how planned transit projects affect the local 

environment. These NEPA revisions, like the New Starts changes, are closely 

aligned with the MAP–21 policy goals of accelerating the development and delivery of capital transportation projects. 

• FTA and FHWA jointly issued another final rule, adding new categorical exclusions for projects within an existing operational right-of-way and projects receiving limited Federal funding for purposes of improving project delivery. The final 

rule was published on January 13, 2014. 

• FTA and FHWA jointly issued proposed guidance on implementation of MAP– 

21 provisions that requires public transportation providers to be represented as 

part of each metropolitan planning organization (MPO) by the end of FY2014. 

• FHWA and FTA jointly issued interim guidance on implementing Section 1319 

of the MAP–21, which provides for the preparation of a Final Environmental 

Impact Statement (FEIS) by attaching errata sheets to the Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement (DEIS) if certain conditions are met, and requires, to the 

maximum extent practicable, that the lead agency will develop a single document that combines the FEIS and Record of Decision (ROD), except under certain circumstances. 

• FTA, FHWA, and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) issued proposed 

regulations for the Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program, which 

MAP–21 converted from a pilot to a permanent program. MAP–21 changes also 

helped to accelerate project delivery by allowing the Secretary to assign, and for 

States to assume, the Federal responsibilities for the review of highway, transit, 

rail and multimodal projects under NEPA and responsibilities for environmental review, consultation or other action required under any Federal environmental law pertaining to the review. 

Conclusion 

MAP–21 offers an important opportunity to recalibrate the way our Government 

evaluates and invests in our federally funded public transportation infrastructure. 

From a transit perspective, the law’s major provisions enable FTA to focus limited 

resources on strategic investments and policies that will result in a better and safer 

riding experience for millions of Americans, while repairing and modernizing transit 

systems for generations to come. I look forward to working with this Committee toward reauthorization. 

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

36 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID WISE 

DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

OFFICE

JANUARY 16, 2014 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

49 

50 

51 

52 

53 

54 

RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR CRAPO 

FROM PETER M. ROGOFF 

Q.1. You both indicated in your statements that the maintenance and repair backlog exceeds roughly $78 billion nationwide to rehabilitate or replace the Nation’s aging assets. What part of that $78 billion is for rehabilitation and what part 

constitutes replacement? Also, what is the time period proposed for 

these fixes? 

A.1. Recent data reported to Congress in the Department of Transportation’s 2013 Status of the Nation’s Highways, Bridges, and 

Transit: Conditions and Performance Report, identifies an $85.9 

billion state-of-good-repair transit backlog. This number is based on 

more recent information and replaces the $78 billion backlog estimate discussed at the hearing. 

FTA research indicates that deferred rehabilitation represents approximately $15.5 billion (18 percent) and deferred replacement 

represents approximately $70.4 billion (82 percent) of the estimated 

$85.9 billion backlog. This estimate is for capital reinvestment 

needs only and does not include routine maintenance costs. 

FTA assumes that all deferred capital needs can be addressed 

over a 20-year time period. The 20-year period recognizes that reducing an $85.9 billion backlog requires a long-term approach; the 

capacity of any industry to replace and/or rehabilitate $85.9 billion 

in assets is inherently limited and requires a long lead time—even 

if all of the needed investment were immediately available. 

RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR 

MENENDEZ FROM PETER M. ROGOFF 

Q.1. In 2009, FTA issued a report showing that the seven largest 

rail transit operators in the U.S.—which includes New Jersey 

Transit—had a state-of-good-repair backlog of $50 billion. MAP–21 

included reworked state-of-good-repair program, as well as new 

asset management requirements. It is important that these policies 

are implemented in a way that encourages tangible improvements 

in the condition of our transit system. 

How will FTA ensure that these changes result in more than just 

a stack of new paperwork from transit agencies? How will you ensure these policies lead to real, measurable improvements in the 

safety and reliability of transit service? 

A.1. FTA appreciates the critical importance of tangible improvement in the condition and safety of transit assets nationwide. Toward that end, FTA is implementing key MAP–21 provisions that, 

for the first time, will require annual measures certified by each 

transit agency chief executive regarding the condition of transit assets and the overall safety performance of the service provided with 

those assets. FTA will monitor the transit industry’s overall performance and report annually to Congress. 

Specifically to address state-of-good-repair issues, FTA requested 

comments on implementation of the National Transit Asset Management System, which would address the 5 pillars specified in 

MAP–21. Among these is a definition of state of good repair to be 

established by FTA, a requirement for our grantees to develop 

transit asset management plans, and new state-of-good-repair perVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:48 Nov 21, 2014 Jkt 046629 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 L:\HEARINGS 2014\01-16 PROGRESS REPORT ON PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION UNDER 
55 

formance measures to be established by FTA. These performance 

measures, which FTA will be developing based on the feedback and 

comments from our stakeholders in the industry, are designed to 

ensure that all of FTA’s efforts towards state of good repair remain 

focused on real outcomes. 

The National Public Transportation Safety Plan specified in 

MAP–21 requires FTA to address linkages between state of good 

repair, safety performance, and safety standards. To oversee these 

critical linkages, FTA has adopted the Safety Management Systems 

(SMS) approach used by aviation, maritime, and commercial trucking. As discussed in the National Public Transportation Safety Program and Transit Asset Management Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, FTA requested comment on establishing a framework 

that requires accountable executives to establish a process that 

identifies the agency safety risks, and either accepts those risks or 

implements controls to mitigate them. SMS encourages data-driven 

and evidence-based decisions regarding the allocation of resources 

for safety, including those needed to ensure the safe condition of 

aging assets. Using this approach, FTA anticipates significant 

gains in both the operational performance and state of repair of 

public transportation facilities. 

Finally, we expect to implement all of these new requirements by 

building on existing policies and procedures where practicable so as 

to minimize the burden on the transit industry while encouraging 

a cultural change in the way transit assets are managed. 

Q.2. MAP–21 provided new oversight and enforcement authority 

for FTA to ensure the safety of public transportation riders, similar 

to the oversight that already exists for the aviation, rail, and trucking industries. While this authority is a significant increase in the 

role of the Federal Government in transit safety, MAP–21 also retained the roles of the State Safety Oversight Agencies (SSOs), 

which in the past have had sharply different levels of authority and 

effectiveness. Your testimony notes that FTA has been meeting 

with the SSOs in recent months. 

What are FTA’s takeaways from these meetings? Will the grants 

and authority provided by MAP–21 be enough to ensure that all of 

the SSOs are strong and effective safety regulators? 

A.2. FTA believes that the grants and authority provided by MAP– 

21 will result in a robust State Safety Oversight (SSO) program nationwide. FTA is working closely with the States to ensure a committed implementation of MAP–21 SSO program elements. 

Establishing an effective SSO program requires interface at multiple levels of State Government. Therefore, FTA has adopted a 

three-pronged communication strategy to manage the transition to 

this new MAP–21 program, which includes the Governors of the 

States (ultimately accountable for the certification of their State’s 

programs), the highest-ranking transportation official in each State 

(charged with execution of MAP–21 requirements), and the existing 

SSO agency staff (day-to-day implementation of SSO program activities). Across the board, the SSO grant program and new MAP– 

21 requirements have raised the profile of the SSO program and 

heightened the awareness of senior leadership regarding the 

State’s responsibility for this function. 

56 

FTA is working with each SSO to address implementation and/ 

or capacity issues on a case-by-case basis. FTA is also requiring 

and approving a work plan for each State to track the specific action items and milestone schedule in place to guide the State’s implementation of the new MAP–21 program requirements. FTA is 

also working on a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the SSO rule, 

which will provide additional guidance for States. 

Q.3. MAP–21 created a series of performance measures to ensure 

that recipients of Federal funds are investing in projects that help 

us achieve our policy objectives. Some of these performance measures will be largely focused on highways, such as the congestion 

and performance of the Interstate System and National Highway 

System. But these will also have an impact on transit service and 

what priority States and communities place on developing their 

transit infrastructure. 

Is FTA working with the Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) on developing performance measures? How can DOT ensure that these measures fully capture the contributions of transit 

towards having a functional roadway network? 

A.3. As part of the new performance management framework, 

MAP–21 requires FHWA to establish performance measures to assess highway safety, bridge and pavement conditions, the performance of the interstate system and the National Highway System, 

freight movement of the interstate system, traffic congestion and 

on-road mobile source emissions. FTA is required to establish performance measures for transit safety and transit state of good repair. The FTA measures, and the locally set targets for these measures, must be considered side-by-side with the measures established by FHWA throughout Metropolitan and Statewide Planning 

processes. 

While the measures being developed by FHWA naturally originate with a focus on the highway system, FHWA and FTA are 

working together to develop outcome-based measures that will recognize the impacts of multimodal solutions to problems like highway congestion, mobile source emissions and the performance of 

the interstate and national highway systems. FTA is working closely with FHWA in developing the performance measures, soliciting 

public comment on the performance management framework, and 

on drafting the performance measures rulemakings. The U.S. Department of Transportation plans to propose outcome-based measures that will allow local communities to pursue transportation solutions that work best for their area, including those that are 

multimodal, in achieving the performance targets they set for future performance. 

RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR HEITKAMP 

FROM PETER M. ROGOFF 

Q.1. The Federal Transit Administration recently released an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) regarding transit 

safety and asset management. The notice posed over 100 questions 

to transit providers and the public. While I know that FTA has not 

yet issued proposed rules, when you ask over 100 questions, people 

wonder if a complex rule could be under development. I support 

57 

worthwhile efforts to formulate reasonable and effective policies to 

improve safety and asset management. However, rural transit has 

a good safety record and our real asset issue is not management 

but funding to acquire assets or replace old buses and vans. 

Can you assure me that the rural perspective will be taken into 

account in developing these rules and that FTA will not develop 

rules with big city transit systems in mind and impose them on 

rural systems with a handful of buses and employees? Can and will 

the rules be scaled to reflect the differences between big and small 

transit providers? 

A.1. From the very onset of FTA’s MAP–21 implementation activities, FTA has been focused on minimizing the regulatory and operational impact on small and rural providers. One of the reasons a 

joint ANPRM was issued that covered both safety and asset management was to limit the document review burden on providers 

with limited staff hours to devote to such efforts. 

FTA is committed to minimize the burden of these requirements 

on all transit agencies, but particularly those of small providers. 

Where possible, FTA has made suggestions in the ANPRM that 

would ease the burden on rural and small providers, such as using 

existing processes and procedures as a framework for the new requirements. For example, FTA is aware that most small and rural 

operators already have detailed revenue vehicle inventories in 

place as part of their National Transit Database reports, and the 

asset inventory requirements of the transit asset management 

plans can incorporate these. 

Additionally, FTA included more than a dozen questions in the 

ANPRM explicitly addressing the unique needs of small and rural 

operators in implementing these requirements. This was done to 

ensure that the rural perspective will be taken into account in developing these rules. The concerns of small and rural operators, 

and the need to minimize the burden of these new requirements on 

them, will be a primary consideration throughout the development 

process of these rules. 

Q.2. MAP–21 retains much of the prior rural formula prior structure, but new elements were added to the apportionment calculation. A service factor is added, which rewards rural areas with high 

levels of ridership. 

Can you give us an update on the progress of the implementation 

of the changes to the rural formula? Have the changes made to the 

program resulted in improved program delivery for rural Americans? 

A.2. FTA apportioned the rural program (5311) formula funds 

based on the new formula in MAP–21 on May 13, 2013, and will 

be issuing the FY2014 formula apportionments using the new formula in March 2014. In addition to new formula factors, these program funds were apportioned using 2010 Census data (as opposed 

to 2000 Census data). 

Although it is too soon to tell how the changes in the formula are 

impacting rural programs overall, FTA has done some analysis to 

isolate the impacts of change in the formula apportionments vs. the 

impacts of the new Census. The results indicate that the change 

in the formula resulted in an average increase in rural program 

58 

funding of 1.9 percent across all States and the change in the Census data resulted in an average increase of .75 percent across all 

States. This will continue to change annually based on the data reported to the National Transit Database. 

On the whole, FTA expects that a vehicle-mile based formula will 

provide a more-predictable funding stream to States with rural 

transit service. We also expect that over time, a vehicle-mile based 

formula will incentivize the expansion of additional transit services 

that will be able to take advantage of this funding stream. 

Q.3. MAP–21 authorized $30 million per year to be for the Tribal 

Transit Program. Of the $30 million authorized for the Tribal 

Transit Program each year, $25 million is distributed by formula 

and $5 million competitively. FTA announced changes to the Tribal 

Transit Program in accordance with MAP–21; however because it 

needed to consult with the Tribes about the Tribal Transit Program, FTA did not make the formula funds available in October 

2012, as it did with funds for other transit programs. 

A notice of funding availability (NOFA) for the discretionary 

Tribal transportation program was issued May 9, 2013, but an allocation of funds has yet to be announced. What has been the response from the Tribal community with regard to the program? 

When can we expect these funds to be out the door? Will the delay 

of these funds impact future discretionary dispersals? 

A.3. FTA published illustrative apportionments in October 2012 

when it published the partial apportionments (pursuant to the Continuing Resolution) for its other formula programs, primarily so it 

could engage with Indian Tribes to explain the changes to the program under MAP–21, the impacts of the new formula, and seek 

comment from Tribes on how it was interpreting the new formula 

and applying data from both the Census and National Transit 

Database for the first time under this program. Following this consultation process, FTA apportioned the full-year FY2013 Tribal formula program allocations concurrently with the full-year program 

funds for other formula programs in May 2013. 

Many Tribes have commended FTA for its Tribal outreach efforts 

throughout FY2013 to understand the program changes and program requirements. FTA conducted three workshops in the fall of 

2013, and through these various workshops, FTA provided technical assistance to approximately 30 Tribes. Due to the overwhelmingly positive response from the Tribes, FTA plans to continue 

these outreach efforts in FY2014. 

As in past years, FTA received an overwhelming response to its 

FY2013 Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for the discretionary Tribal Transit program, and the application period closed 

on July 9, 2013. FTA announced project selections for the FY2013 

discretionary Tribal program on March 18, 2014. These discretionary funds complement $25 million allocated by formula to eligible Tribal recipients, made available in the FY2014 Apportionment 

Notice. Given the availability of our FY2014 formula funds, we anticipate issuing the FY2014 NOFA for the discretionary Tribal 

funds during spring 2014. 

59 

1Since there has been some inflation since 2009, the cost of $78 billion in 2014 dollars, would 

be somewhat higher. 

RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR CRAPO 

FROM DAVID WISE 

Q.1. MAP–21 emphasized the need for asset management through, 

among other things, requirements for asset management activities 

and providing state-of-good-repair grants. How will this new focus 

on transit asset management address the national ‘‘state-of-goodrepair’’ backlog? 

A.1. The focus on transit asset management should help transit 

agencies prioritize their capital investments and optimize available 

funding, so they receive the ‘‘biggest bang for their buck.’’ In addition, asset management tools can help transit agencies identify the 

level of capital investment that would be needed to decrease or 

maintain its existing state-of-good-repair backlog. For example, 

MARTA (Atlanta) officials told us that a tool—TERM Lite—has 

helped them assess how much state-of-good-repair backlog is remaining or unaddressed over certain periods of time (for example, 

a 10-year or 20-year period). With a current state-of-good-repair 

backlog equaling $3.3 billion, TERM Lite calculated effects on the 

backlog and determined that investing the budget-constrained 

amount of $245 million per year would increase their backlog to 

$6.6 billion after 10 years and $13 billion after 20 years. 

In addition, recognizing the backlog can help direct available 

funding toward reducing that backlog. For example, according to 

the State of Good Repair Initiative Report to Congress, transit 

agencies that received Recovery Act funding used roughly $3.9 billion in funds to repair, rehabilitate, and replace existing transit vehicles (mostly buses), stations, maintenance facilities, control systems, track, and structures with deferred investment needs. FTA 

estimates the $3.9 billion in Recovery Act funding applied to rehabilitate and replace existing transit assets yielded a roughly equal 

reduction in the existing backlog. 

Q.2. You both indicated in your statements that the maintenance and repair backlog exceeds roughly $78 billion nationwide to rehabilitate or replace the Nation’s aging assets. What part of that $78 

billion is for rehabilitation and what part constitutes replacement? 

Also, what is the time period proposed for these fixes? 

A.2. FTA estimates that roughly $78 billion (in 2009 dollars) 1

would be necessary to cover the costs of rehabilitating or replacing 

the Nation’s transit assets and bring them to a state of good repair. 

This means that an investment of this amount would be required 

for the immediate replacement of all of the Nation’s transit assets 

that currently exceed their useful lives and to complete all outstanding station rehabilitations. 

We are not aware of any analysis that delineates which part of 

the $78 billion backlog would be required for replacement versus 

the rehabilitation of assets. However, according to GAO’s analysis 

of FTA data, in 2009, 55 percent (or $42.7 billion) of the $78 billion 

backlog was dominated by heavy rail assets that are over age, followed by bus and commuter rail assets. FTA also estimated that 

$13.5 billion and $12.6 billion would have been required to replace 

60 

all motor bus and commuter rail assets that are over age, respectively. 

As for proposed time periods to make these fixes, FTA calculated 

the average annual investment that would be required to simultaneously eliminate the existing backlog while concurrently meeting 

ongoing normal replacement and rehabilitation needs over a 6-year, 

12-year, and 20-year period. For example, FTA estimated the level 

of annual investment required to bring the Nation’s assets to a 

state of good repair over 6 years to be $27.3 billion including normal replacement needs, of which $12.9 billion annually would address the backlog, and thus $14.4 billion would be needed for normal replacement and rehabilitation.