39–010 

Calendar No. 94 

109TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 1st Session 109–62 

AMENDING CHAPTER 53 OF TITLE 49, UNITED STATES 

CODE, TO IMPROVE THE NATION’S PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

APRIL 28, 2005.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. SHELBY, from the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 

Affairs, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

[To accompany S. 907] 

[Including cost estimate of Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, reported an original bill (S. 907) to amend chapter 53 of title 49, 

United States Code, to improve the Nation’s public transportation 

and for other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon without amendment and recommends that the bill do 

pass. 

HISTORY OF THE LEGISLATION

The bill reported by the Committee incorporates proposals developed in consultation with the Administration, leading transit authorities, and transit-related industry leaders from across the country. Beginning soon after passage of the Transportation Equity Act 

for the 21st Century (TEA–21), the Committee began an aggressive 

schedule of hearings to evaluate the effectiveness and implementation of TEA–21 policies. The below descriptions detail the series of 

hearings that went into development of the Federal Public Transportation Act of 2005. 

In 2000, the Committee held hearings on labor protection provisions of the Federal transit program. The first hearing, entitled 

2 

‘‘The Ability of the U.S. Department of Labor to Delay or to Derail 

Mass Transit Projects that have been Approved and Funded by 

Congress,’’ was held on April 25, 2000. Testifying on behalf of the 

Administration was the Honorable Nuria Fernandez, Acting Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and Mr. 

Bernard Anderson, Assistant Secretary for the Employment Standards Administration at the U.S. Department of Labor. Also testifying were: Mr. John Anderson, Jr., Director of the Transportation 

Issues, Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division at the Government Accountability Office (GAO); Mr. James La 

Sala, International President of the Amalgamated Transit Union; 

Mr. Charles Moneypenny, Legislative Representative at the Transport Workers Union of America; Mr. Roger Snoble, President and 

Executive Director of the Dallas Area Rapid Transit Authority; Mr. 

Lee Gibson, Assistant General Manager for Transit and Chief Operating Officer of the Regional Transportation Commission of Clark 

County, Nevada; and Mr. James Stoezel, Railroad Operations and 

Management Consultant at Transit Safety Management (on behalf 

of Bay State Transit Services, Inc.). 

The second hearing, entitled ‘‘The FTA’s Approval of Extending 

the Amtrak Commuter Rail Contract’’ was held on July 11, 2000. 

The hearing examined conflicts between State and Federal laws 

concerning competitive bidding requirements after a prolonged contract dispute involving Amtrak. The Honorable Nuria Fernandez, 

acting Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration, testified on behalf of the Administration. Mr. George Warrington, President and Chief Executive Officer of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) also testified. 

On October 4, 2001, the Committee held a hearing entitled 

‘‘Transit Safety in the Wake of September 11,’’ in order to scrutinize the various security threats potentially facing public transportation and evaluate Federal, state and local efforts to combat them 

and improve transportation security overall. The Honorable Jennifer Dorn, Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration 

testified on behalf of the Administration. Also testifying were: Mr. 

William Millar, President of the American Public Transportation 

Association (APTA); Mr. Robert Molofsky, General Counsel to the 

Amalgamated Transit Union; and Mr. Richard White, General 

Manager of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority 

(WMATA). 

On March 13, 2002, the Committee held a hearing on implementation and reauthorization of TEA–21, entitled ‘‘Transit in the 21st 

Century: Successes and Challenges (Part I).’’ The hearing explored 

the Administration’s principles for reauthorization and ways in 

which the Congress could further improve upon current law. The 

Honorable Norman Mineta, Secretary of the Department of Transportation (DOT) testified on behalf of the Administration. Also testifying were: Mr. William Millar, President of the American Public 

Transportation Association; Mr. Dale Marsico, Executive Director 

of the Community Transportation Association of America; and Mr. 

John Inglish, General Manager of the Utah Transit Authority. 

On April 25, 2002, the Committee held a hearing entitled ‘‘Transit in the 21st Century: Successes and Challenges (Part II).’’ The 

hearing explored the diversity of transportation needs in urban, 

rural and suburban communities and the various challenges each 

3 

of these communities must try to satisfy. The Honorable Jennifer 

Dorn, Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration testified 

on behalf of the Administration. Also testifying were: Ms. Faye 

Moore, General Manager of the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority; Dr. Beverly Scott, General Manager of the 

Rhode Island Public Transportation Authority; and Mr. Larry 

Worth, Executive Director of the Northeastern Colorado Association of Local Governments. 

Testifying on June 13, 2002, in a hearing entitled ‘‘TEA–21: A 

National Partnership,’’ were the Honorable Carolyn Kilpatrick, a 

U.S. Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan; also 

testifying were: the Honorable Kwame Kilpatrick, the Mayor of Detroit, Michigan; the Honorable H. Brent Coles, the Mayor of Boise, 

Idaho; and the Honorable Kenneth Mayfield, County Commissioner 

of Dallas County, Texas. This hearing continued to identify the 

particular public transportation needs of different regions and communities across the country and highlighted the similarity of benefits public transportation infrastructure confers on both urban and 

rural communities. 

On June 26, 2002, the Committee held a hearing entitled ‘‘TEA– 

21: Investing in Our Economy and Environment.’’ The Committee 

heard testimony from Mr. Carl Guardino, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group; Mr. Herschel Abbot, Jr., Vice-President of Governmental Affairs for the 

BellSouth Corporation; Mr. Robert Broadbent, Manager of the Las 

Vegas Monorail Company; Mr. Hank Dittmar, President of the 

Great American State Foundation (on behalf of the Surface Transportation Policy Project); and Mr. Michael Replogle, Transportation 

Director of Environmental Defense. The hearing examined the potential for conflicts between economic development and environmental protection and ways in which public transportation can 

help reconcile these two important objectives. 

On July 17, 2002, in a hearing entitled ‘‘Transit: A Lifeline for 

America’s Citizens,’’ the Committee received testimony from Ms. 

Jessie Tehranchi of Birmingham, Alabama; Ms. Gloria McKenzie of 

Albany, New York; Ms. Faye Thompson of Kenova, West Virginia; 

Ms. Lavada DeSalles, a Member of the Board of Directors for the 

American Association of Retired Persons (AARP); Mr. Andrew 

Imparato, President and Chief Executive Officer of the American 

Association for People with Disabilities; and Mr. John Porcari, Secretary of the Maryland Department of Transportation. The hearing 

explored the value of public transportation to many elderly, disabled and rural persons and the extent to which these individuals 

depend upon robust transportation systems in order to maintain 

their freedom, health and economic independence. 

On September 18, 2002, the Committee held a hearing entitled 

‘‘Transit Security: One Year Later’’ in order to review the security 

needs of transit providers after the events of September the 11th 

and to assess the impact of security measures already taken. The 

Committee heard testimony from the Honorable Jennifer Dorn, Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration on behalf of the 

Administration. Also testifying were: Mr. Peter Guerrero, Director 

of Physical Infrastructure Issues for the Government Accountability Office. 

4 

On October 8, 2002, the Committee held a hearing entitled ‘‘Perspectives on America’s Transit Needs.’’ The hearing examined the 

limitations of the current public transportation system in the face 

of growing demand; it also explored the specific needs of growing 

states and the importance of public transportation to many workers 

and to the economy. The Honorable Jennifer Dorn, Administrator 

of the Federal Transit Administration, testified on behalf of the Administration. Also testifying were: The Honorable Patrick McCrory, 

Mayor of Charlotte, North Carolina; Mr. Eric Rodriguez, Director 

of the Economic Mobility Initiative for the National Council of La 

Raza; Mr. Wendell Cox, Visiting Fellow at the Heritage Foundation 

and Principal at Wendell Cox Consultancy; Mr. Roy Kienitz, Secretary of the Maryland Department of Planning; Mr. David 

Winstead, of the Maryland Chamber of Commerce and Chairman 

of the Transportation Coalition, on behalf of the U.S. Chamber of 

Commerce. 

On June 10, 2003, the Committee held a hearing entitled ‘‘The 

Administration’s Proposal for Reauthorization of the Federal 

Transportation Program.’’ During this hearing, the Committee explored the Administration’s public transportation reauthorization 

proposal and ways in which the Congress could improve upon it. 

The Honorable Norman Mineta, Secretary of the Department of 

Transportation, testified on behalf of the Administration. Also testifying were: Mr. William Millar, President of the American Public 

Transportation Association; Mr. Jeff Morales, Director of the California Department of Transportation; Mr. Robert Molofsky, General 

Counsel to the Amalgamated Transit Union; Mr. Jim Seal, Consultant to the Federal Transit Administration; and Mr. Woody Blunt 

of the American Bus Association. 

On June 24, 2003, the Committee held a hearing entitled ‘‘Bus 

Rapid Transit and Other Bus Service Innovations.’’ This hearing 

examined Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), a new modal technology, and 

its significant quality and reliability benefits over traditional bus 

services, as well as its cost savings compared to other transportation alternatives, particularly light rail. The Honorable Jennifer 

Dorn, Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration, testified on behalf of the Administration. Also testifying were: Ms. 

JayEtta Hecker, Director of Physical Infrastructure Issues for the 

Government Accountability Office; Mr. Gary Brosch, Chairman of 

the National Bus Rapid Transit Institute at the University of 

South Florida and the Center for Urban Transit Research at the 

University of California, Berkeley; Mr. Kenneth Hamm, General 

Manager of the Lane Transit District, located in Eugene, Oregon; 

Mr. Oscar Diaz, assistant to Mr. Enrique Penalosa, Administrative 

Director of the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy; Ms. Anne Canby, President of the Surface Transportation Policy Project. 

On July 23, 2003, the Committee held a hearing entitled ‘‘Enhancing the Role of the Private Sector in Public Transportation.’’ 

During this hearing, the Committee attempted to ascertain ways in 

which the Federal Government could foster increased involvement 

by the private sector with public transportation and ways to foster 

partnerships between the private and public sectors. Testifying 

were: Mr. Irwin Rosenberg, President of the American Transit 

Services Council and Vice-President of Government Relations to 

5 

Laidlaw Transit Services, Inc.; Mr. Robert Molofsky, General Counsel to the Amalgamated Transit Union; Mr. Peter Pantuso, President and Chief Executive Officer of the American Bus Association; 

and Ms. Margie Wilcox, Co-Chair of the Paratransit and Contracting Steering Committee for the Taxicab, Limousine, and Paratransit Association. 

Finally, on March 17, 2005, the Committee conducted a mark up 

of an original bill, ‘‘The Federal Public Transportation Act of 2005,’’ 

to reauthorize the public transportation portion of TEA–21. The 

Committee, by unanimous consent, ordered the bill, as amended, to 

be reported. The reauthorization was for a period of six years 

through September 30, 2009. The bill authorized $51.6 billion for 

Federal transit programs over the six-year period from fiscal years 

2004 to 2009. 

NEED FOR LEGISLATION

Public transportation services are often the only form of transportation available to many citizens. These services provide mobility to the millions of Americans who cannot, for various reasons, 

use an automobile. More than 80 million Americans, almost onethird of the U.S. population, cannot drive or do not have access to 

a car. Senior citizens are the fastest growing segment of the U.S. 

population; many of them require access to public transportation in 

order to maintain their independence and to access vital healthcare 

services. Millions of Americans with disabilities also require reliable and safe public transportation in order to access basic services. 

An estimated 10 million people use transit each workday. Nearly 

30 million Americans ride transit during any given month. More 

than half (54 percent) of all trips on transit are for the purpose of 

employment. People who choose to use public transportation come 

from every income level and demographic background. Federal 

transportation programs are no longer solely urban-centered. TEA– 

21 has provided transportation funding to both urban and nonurban areas. As a result, transportation in rural America dramatically improved under TEA–21. Today, rural transportation providers carry riders a billion miles each year. Rural areas have a 

higher incidence of elderly and disabled populations, and a higher 

percentage of low-income persons than urban areas. It is estimated 

that the rural U.S. alone has 30 million non-drivers, including senior citizens, the disabled and low-income families. Today, the American public transportation industry consists of nearly 6,000 transit 

systems in both urban and rural areas. These transportation agencies operate a diverse array of vehicles, including subways, buses, 

light rail, commuter railroads, ferries, vans, cable cars, aerial tramways, and taxis. Non-profit elderly and disabled service providers 

constitute almost two-thirds of systems. 

In its report, 2002 Status of the Nation’s Highways, Bridges and 

Transit: Conditions and Performance, the U.S. Department of 

Transportation estimated that annual public transportation investment requirements, at a minimum, are $14.8 billion (in year 2000 

dollars) just to maintain the conditions and performance of the Nation’s transit systems at their 2000 level. To improve the average 

condition of transit assets to ‘‘good’’ by 2020, as well to improve 

performance by increasing transit speeds and reducing occupancy 

rates, would require an additional $5.8 billion per year for a total 

6 

average annual capital investment of $20.6 billion (in year 2000 

dollars). 

In the reports on highway, bridge and transit conditions and performance, the U.S. Department of Transportation also estimates 

the value of a variety of benefits generated by public transportation. These include benefits of basic mobility, location efficiency, 

and congestion management. The benefits of basic mobility have 

been estimated at $27 billion (in year 2005 dollars). These are benefits to low-income users who would otherwise not have access to 

jobs, shopping, and other needs, because they have limited or no 

access to automobiles. Location efficiency was estimated to be 

worth $23 billion. These benefits come from more efficient transitoriented land use patterns that help reduce the need for trips or 

the length of trips. The benefits of congestion relief provided by 

transit are estimated at $20 billion. This estimate is based on the 

travel-time savings from using transit and the reduction in highway user costs as trips are attracted from the highway system to 

transit. 

According to the Texas Transportation Institute’s (TTI) ‘‘2004 Urban Mobility Report,’’ congestion costs $63 billion, more than 3.5 

billion hours of delay and 5.7 billion gallons of excess fuel annually. 

The average driver loses more than a week of work (46 hours) each 

year sitting in gridlock. The same report finds that without public 

transportation, there would be 1.1 billion more hours (29% more) 

of delay. In sum, the TTI report also finds that public transportation reduces the cost of congestion by about $20 billion per year. 

Public transportation investments help create employment and 

sustain economic health. The Department of Transportation has estimated that for every $1 billion in Federal highway and transit investment, 47,500 jobs are created or sustained. Furthermore, according to a Cambridge Systematics, Inc. study, for every $10 spent 

on transit capital projects, $30 in business sales is generated. A recent report by Robert Shapiro of the Progressive Policy Institute 

and Kevin Hassett of the American Enterprise Institute estimated 

that U.S. companies and individuals derive over $788 billion per 

year in direct economic benefits from the nation’s surface transportation system (including public transportation). These benefits are 

produced by direct economic costs of $185 billion per year in building, operating, and maintaining the systems, leaving at least $603 

billion per year in net economic benefits. 

The air quality benefits of public transportation over single occupant vehicle use are also well documented. While diminishing roadway traffic, transit reduces auto-related pollution and fuel consumption. America’s transit travel, in replacing automobile travel, 

stops over 126 million pounds of hydrocarbons—a primary cause of 

smog—and 156 million pounds of nitrogen oxides from being released into the atmosphere. 

The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA–21) 

expired on September 30, 2003, and has temporarily been extended 

through May 31, 2005. The delay in providing a long-term authorization has had a significant impact on State and local governments which have been unable to develop long-term programs for 

funding. Public transportation represents an important part of the 

Nation’s transportation infrastructure, which by its nature requires 

long-term planning and project development. Delays in funding 

7 

have resulted in project delays which ultimately increase costs and 

delay the benefits which projects are designed to produce. The impact is particularly significant in States with short construction 

seasons since planning must be done well in advance of contracting 

for construction. The Committee has responded and taken action to 

reauthorize the public transportation title of TEA–21 in order to 

continue the Federal Government’s critical role in public transit 

programs. 

BACKGROUND

Although TEA–21 returned much of the decision-making authority to state and local Governments, TEA–21 maintained a strong 

Federal role in the capital financing of public transportation. TEA– 

21 has worked exceptionally well because of four basic principles: 

flexibility on funding decisions for state and local Governments, the 

encouragement of public participation in the planning process, an 

emphasis on intermodal connectivity, and the promotion of environmentally sound approaches to transportation delivery. TEA–21 provided opportunities for state and local officials to use highway and 

transit funds flexibly for surface transportation projects. This flexibility has provided local decision makers with the tools to invest in 

the best transportation solutions for that area, regardless of mode. 

The transportation planning provisions of TEA–21 are important to 

metropolitan areas and transit systems, as they allow for a balanced planning process that looks at all feasible local solutions and 

provides for appropriate citizen participation in the planning process. TEA–21 specifically requires that local governments consult 

with the public to decide among the various transportation options. 

While the program structure provided by TEA–21 is fundamentally sound, there are a number of areas in which improvements 

are needed. First, current funding formulae do not fully reflect the 

wide range of transit needs. Specifically, funding formulae look 

only at current population and transit service factors, and hence 

are not capable of providing resources to develop new services in 

areas now not well served by transit, nor to get ahead of problems 

before they become difficult to address. In response, the bill adds 

several new formulae, the better to represent growing transit needs 

throughout the country including: a Growing States Formula, a 

High Density Formula, a Rural Low Density Formula, and a Transit-Intensive Formula. In addition, the bill increases funding for 

bus/bus facilities and sets aside funding for intermodal bus facilities to address the needs of the majority of communities which 

have bus-only systems. Existing labor protections have not been 

changed since the program was first authorized in the 1960’s. To 

conform to changes in the industry, the economy, and other Federal 

programs, the bill harmonizes requirements for labor protection for 

transit workers with existing federal railway Class III labor statute. 

The improvements made by ISTEA and TEA–21 to the FTA New 

Starts program have significantly improved the accountability of 

the program. In general, New Starts projects are well supported by 

analysis, and are now producing good value for money. However, 

more can be done to assure that the widest range of public transportation investments are eligible for funding and to assure that 

project sponsors have the best information available when they deVerDate Aug 04 2004 10:28 May 06, 2005 Jkt 039010 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR062.XXX SR062
8 

velop projects. Accordingly, the bill makes less-expensive, more 

flexible Bus Rapid Transit an eligible project for Full Funding 

Grant Agreements (FFGA) by eliminating the limitation that only 

fixed guideway projects are eligible for Small Starts funding. It establishes a ‘‘Small Starts’’ program for projects seeking $75 million 

or less in New Start funds. These projects would undergo a more 

streamlined rating process than projects in excess of $75 million. 

The current exemption for projects under $25 million is eliminated 

and thus all projects receiving funding would get analyzed and 

rated. The bill allows FTA to reward transit agencies with a higher 

federal match for those projects whose cost and ridership estimates 

are within a 10% range of original forecasts available to decisionmakers at the time the particular transportation option was selected. It also establishes an annually-updated Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR) which analyzes the consistency 

and accuracy of cost and ridership estimates to provide transit 

agencies a tool to assist in choosing contractors with the highest 

success rates. Finally, it requires FTA to conduct ‘‘Before and 

After’’ studies to look at the extent to which New Starts projects 

met their cost and ridership projections. 

The flexibility and incentives provided by ISTEA and TEA–21 

have improved the performance and efficiency of public transportation. The bill being reported makes a number of changes to continue these favorable trends. It makes private operators of public 

transportation ‘‘sub-recipients’’ of federal grant funds, thereby fostering competition and creating an opportunity for lower costs and 

greater service improvements. It requires coordination of social 

service transportation throughout the program by providing incentives to States that eliminate duplication, reduce overlap, and improve service. Finally, the bill increases the focus on safety, security and crime prevention in response to the events of September 

11, 2001 and continued terrorist threats against transit systems by 

increasing the eligibility for security-related activities in each step 

of the process from planning to maintaining systems. 

SECTION BY SECTION ANALYSIS

Sec. 1. Short title 

The Federal public transportation program now covers rural and 

other non-urban constituencies, as well as urbanized areas. Accordingly, the title of this bill is meant to reflect this evolution by referring to ‘‘public’’ transportation instead of ‘‘mass’’ transportation. 

Sec. 2. Updated terminology; Amendments to title 49, United States 

Code 

For the reasons expressed above, throughout Chapter 53, the 

term ‘‘mass transportation’’ is replaced, where appropriate, with 

‘‘public transportation.’’ ‘‘Public’’ is more representative of the wider 

range of services now being provided throughout the country, and 

is the term more commonly used by the industry. 

Sec. 3. Policies, findings, and purposes 

Section 5301(a) currently states that it is in the national interest 

to encourage and promote the development of transportation systems because they maximize mobility and minimize transportationVerDate Aug 04 2004 10:28 May 06, 2005 Jkt 039010 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR062.XXX SR062
9 

related fuel consumption and air pollution. This provision highlights the positive impact on the Nation’s economy as a result of 

the development and revitalization of public transportation systems. 

The finding in Section 5301(b)(1) is updated to reflect the 2000 

Census of Population as the outdated census data referenced in the 

original section is not current. 

Currently, Section 5301(e) requires that a special effort be made 

to preserve the environment and important historical and cultural 

assets when carrying out capital programs funded under Sections 

5309 and 5310. These principles should apply to all Chapter 53 

public transportation programs. Therefore, this bill amends Section 

5301(e) to reflect this objective. 

Sec. 4. Definitions 

• Makes the intercity bus portion of intermodal terminals eligible for funding. • Makes capital costs related to crime prevention and security, 

as well as emergency response drills and training (but not other operating expenses), eligible program-wide. • Allows transit operators to fund debt service reserves with capital funds. • Defines ‘‘mobility management’’ as an eligible cost in the urbanized area formula program. • Restates the definition of ‘‘local public transportation.’’ 

The definition of ‘‘capital project’’ is amended to make the intercity bus portions of intermodal terminals or transportation malls 

eligible for assistance in all Chapter 53 programs. 

Capital costs for crime prevention and security currently are allowable as formula grant expenditures. In addition, specific capital 

grant making authority for crime prevention and security is only 

found in Section 5321 of Title 49, U.S.C. This section has never received a direct appropriation and, therefore, is repealed. In its 

stead, the definition of ‘‘capital project’’ under Section 5302(a)(1), 

which applies to the entire FTA program, is amended to include 

capital security needs and planning as well as emergency response 

drills and training, but not other operational costs related to crime 

prevention and security. 

The Committee believes that improved integrated, interoperable, 

emergency communications infrastructure are one way for transit 

operators to improve their response to emergency situations, and 

that such expenditures are eligible capital expenditures under the 

bill. 

The term ‘‘capital project’’ is expanded to include a debt service 

reserve to allow transit agencies to borrow money less expensively. 

Under this approach, a grantee would temporarily set aside grant 

funds to establish the reserve. The reserve would be available to 

make payments to repay a portion of the borrowing should other 

pledged funds become unavailable. By having such a reserve in 

place, the risk of the borrowing is reduced, and the interest rate 

is likely to be substantially lower, thus reducing the cost of the borrowing. 

Section 5307 is amended to allow grantees to use their urbanized 

area formula grants for ‘‘mobility management.’’ Therefore, Section 

5302, ‘‘Definitions,’’ is amended to define the term ‘‘mobility manVerDate Aug 04 2004 10:28 May 06, 2005 Jkt 039010 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR062.XXX SR062
10 

agement.’’ This term refers to an activity or project that tailors 

public transportation services to specific markets and manages demand for public transportation. Such goals could be accomplished 

by coordinating transportation service provider strategies and enhancing ridership growth in a cost-effective and efficient manner. 

Mobility management functions would involve managing public 

transportation travel logistics and would focus on resolving consumer mobility issues. Mobility managers could serve as transportation travel agents, consumer advocates, and service coordinators. 

The definition of ‘‘public transportation’’ is essentially the same 

as the definition of ‘‘mass transportation’’ in current law. An additional reference to ‘‘local’’ is added however, to codify current practice of providing transportation service that serves a specific urbanized or rural area and its environs. Intercity services (bus or rail) 

are not intended to be assisted under this Chapter, except for intercity bus services under Section 5311(f), and the newly-provided eligibility of the intercity bus portion of intermodal terminals and the 

already-eligible intercity rail portions of intermodal terminals. 

The definition of ‘‘urbanized area’’ is revised to reflect the Department of Commerce’s role in designating urbanized areas via 

the decennial Census. 

Technical changes are made to the definition of ‘‘capital projects’’ 

to clarify that new projects can be either innovative or improved, 

rather than having to be both innovative and improved. 

Technical changes are made to the definition of ‘‘transit enhancements’’ to clarify that a project may include any of the list of historic preservation activities. In addition, technical changes are 

made to clarify that projects may include pedestrian access or 

walkways. 

Sec. 5. Metropolitan planning 

• Locates all provisions for metropolitan planning in Section 

5303. • Maintains the requirement for separate Transportation Plans 

and Transportation Improvement Programs. 

• Requires certification of the planning process every four years. 

• The provision in current law allowing the planning process to 

be certified even if the requirements for private sector participation 

are not met is repealed; however, language is added to clarify that 

local criteria will be the basis for such decisionmaking. 

• Strengthens the requirement for public participation in the 

planning process. 

Section 3005 rewrites Section 5303 as a single section on Metropolitan Planning, to put all of these provisions in a single section 

identical to that in Title 23, U.S.C. Because transit and highways 

are authorized in separate Senate Committees, this is accomplished 

in Section 5303 and in Section 5304 for Statewide Planning. Since 

the entire section is rewritten, most of the language is repeated, 

but changes are not made unless where expressly noted. 

Section 5303(a) includes definitions used in Sections 5303 and 

5304 which are unique to the planning programs. 

Section 5303(b) provides general requirements for the planning 

process. Section 5303(b)(1) revises existing law by substituting the 

word ‘‘metropolitan’’ for ‘‘urbanized.’’ Metropolitan is a more accurate representation of the terms used in this section since the term 

11 

better represents urbanized areas and the areas that are anticipated to become urbanized over a twenty-year period. 

Section 5303(b)(4) provides that the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), the State DOT, and the appropriate public transit 

provider agree on the approaches that will be used in the metropolitan decisionmaking process regarding complex transportation 

improvements. This section indicates that planning and sponsoring 

organizations are jointly responsible for the planning and development of projects. 

Section 5303(c) provides procedures and requirements for designation of metropolitan planning organizations. Section 

5303(c)(1)(A) modifies existing law to reflect a change in procedure 

by the U.S. Census Bureau in defining central cities. 

Section 5303(c)(2) modifies existing law to clarify terminology regarding a transportation management area (TMA). The current 

statute uses the term ‘‘designation’’ regarding both the institution 

responsible for metropolitan planning (the MPO) and the kinds of 

areas which must be established as a TMA. It also links the two 

by indicating that when a TMA is ‘‘designated,’’ certain requirements apply, including changes in MPO board membership and 

certification. TMAs are established by the Secretary based on population information from the Census Bureau. MPOs may be designated and redesignated upon agreement of local officials and the 

Governor at any time. To clarify that the geography identification 

does not force a change in the MPO policy board, the word ‘‘identified’’ is used to denote the establishment of a TMA, leaving the 

term ‘‘designated’’ for the process of establishing an MPO. 

Section 5303(c)(2)(B) modifies existing law to remove an obsolete 

provision relating to MPO membership in 1991. There is no continuing need for this provision. 

Section 5303(c)(5) is a technical change to reflect that the Census 

Bureau has changed the terms it uses. The Census no longer uses 

the term ‘‘central city’’ and thus that reference is deleted and replaced by ‘‘largest incorporated city’’ which is used by the Census 

Bureau in naming the urbanized area. 

Section 5303(d) provides details on the way in which the boundaries of metropolitan planning areas are established. Section 

5303(d)(2)(B) is a technical change to reflect the reality that the Office of Management and Budget, not the Census Bureau, designates standard metropolitan statistical areas. 

Section 5303(d)(3) clarifies that a new MPO need not be created 

if a new urbanized area is designated inside an existing metropolitan planning area. Although it would not be prohibited under this 

provision, designation of a second MPO is not required. 

Sections 5302 (e) and (f) include requirements for how MPOs are 

to coordinate when plans and planned projects affect adjacent 

areas. 

Section 5303(f)(3) is added to emphasize the need for coordination where an improvement does not actually cross an MPO boundary, but still has impacts outside the boundary. 

Section 5303(f)(4) is added to encourage coordination of the 

transportation planning process with other types of planning activities that are affected by transportation, including State and local 

planned growth initiatives, economic development, environmental 

protection, airport operations, housing, and freight. 

12 

Section 5303(g) provides details on the scope of the planning 

process and the factors which are to be considered. Sections 

5303(g)(1)(B) and (C) modify existing law to give added emphasis 

to security and safety by making each a separate planning factor. 

Section 5303(g)(1)(E) is amended to provide more detail on how 

protection of the environment is to be considered and would add a 

reference to planned growth patterns. In addition, subparagraphs 

(A), (D), (F), and (H) under Section 5303(g)(1) reference opportunities to engage public and private operators in the metropolitan 

planning process. 

Section 5303(h) details how transportation plans are to be developed. The section modifies existing law by dropping the adjective 

‘‘long-range’’ in association with the plan. There is only one plan 

and it has a 20-year horizon. The continued use of ‘‘long-range’’ reinforces the perception that there is a ‘‘short-range’’ or another plan 

that must also be created. 

A new Section 5303(h)(2) provides details on the mitigation activities which must be considered in developing transportation 

plans. 

Section 5303(h)(3)(C) modifies existing law to strengthen the importance of operations and management in the planning process. 

Section 5303(h)(4) is added to ensure consultation between the 

MPO and various land use management, natural resource, and environmental protection agencies. Section 5303(h)(5) modifies existing law to encourage stronger coordination among transportation 

and air quality planning processes. 

Section 5303(i) provides details on public participation in the 

planning process. The list of parties participating in planning is expanded to explicitly include private providers. It also adds 

bicyclists and pedestrians to the list of parties afforded a specific 

opportunity to comment on the plan before its approval. The provision requires development of a participation plan in consultation 

with interested parties. Participation is required both on the plan 

itself, as well as on the process for developing the plan. MPOs must 

certify that they have complied with their participation plan before 

the transportation plan can be approved. 

Section 5303(j) provides details on the transportation improvement program. The program update cycle is set at every four years. 

Current project selection requirements are modified to indicate that 

the State is responsible for selection of projects in the State managed programs. A new provision is added at Section 5303(j)(4)(B) 

which requires publication of the projects for which funds have actually been obligated. A rulemaking is required within 120 days, 

specifying certain details about how such project lists should be 

published so that the public can better access the information. 

Section 5303(k) specifies how transportation management areas 

are identified and the planning processes required in such areas. 

The section modifies existing law to provide clarification to the 

meaning of transportation management areas. The term ‘‘designation’’ is replaced by ‘‘identification’’ to reduce confusion between institutional change and geographic area identification. The section 

allowing a request to designate an area below 200,000 in population is eliminated because it has seldom been used, and has no 

direct funding implications. The term ‘‘metropolitan planning orgaVerDate Aug 04 2004 10:28 May 06, 2005 Jkt 039010 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR062.XXX SR062
13 

nization serving’’ is added to clarify the fact that a TMA is a geographic area, not an institution that conducts planning. 

Section 5303(k)(3) modifies existing law to streamline and integrate the congestion management process into the overall planning 

process and plan development. 

Section 5303(k)(4) modifies existing law on selection of projects 

for implementation to highlight the role of the MPO as an institution, as discussed above. 

Section 5303(k)(5) modifies existing law to reflect the focus on 

the MPO planning process and to clarify that all Federal funds 

available to the metropolitan area can be withheld as a sanction for 

not being certified. The minimum cycle for certification is extended 

to four years in nonattainment and maintenance areas and five 

years in attainment areas. 

Current language prohibiting decertification for failure to meet 

the private sector participation requirements in Section 5306 is not 

reenacted. Section 5306 is modified to make clear that local criteria 

will be the basis for deciding on how to address these requirements. 

A provision related to transfer of ISTEA funds is removed because it is outdated. Transfer of funds is still covered by 23 U.S.C. 

104(k). 

Section 5303(l) modifies existing law to reflect streamlining and 

integration of congestion management planning into the overall 

planning process. 

Section 5303(m) provides additional requirements for nonattainment areas. 

Section 5303(n) continues current law with regard to the authority of MPOs with respect to other agencies. 

Section 5303(o) indicates that funds set aside under 23 U.S.C. 

104(f) and 49 U.S.C. 5308 are available to carry out the metropolitan planning process. 

Section 5303(p) continues current practice and law on the relationship of transportation plans and the National Environmental 

Policy Act. 

Sec. 6. Statewide Planning 

• Statewide planning requirements are included in Title 49 explicitly, rather than only by reference to 23 U.S.C. 135. 

• The statewide provisions currently in 23 U.S.C. 135 are modified to conform to the changes made to the metropolitan planning 

process. 

• A Statewide Transportation Improvement Program is continued with projects drawn from the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program. 

A completely revised Section 5304—Statewide Planning incorporates, with revisions, existing Section 135 of Title 23 and provides a common statewide planning section for both FTA and 

FHWA. The descriptions below refer only to the revisions made. 

The term ‘‘long-range’’ which modifies ‘‘transportation plan’’ is 

deleted, since the plan is already identified as a 20-year plan. 

TEA–21 used various references when describing local officials in 

rural areas. A consistent reference is now used throughout: ‘‘affected officials with responsibility for transportation.’’ 

14 

‘‘Non-metropolitan local officials’’ is defined in a new Section 

5303(a)—Definitions. 

Existing Section 135(a)(2) of Title 23 is incorporated in Section 

5304(a)(1), with amended language: ‘‘To accomplish the objectives 

stated in Section 5301(a)’’ inserted before ‘‘each’’ and ‘‘Subject to 

. . . Title 49’’ deleted; ‘‘subject to Section 5303’’ is added after the 

end of the paragraph. 

Existing Section 135(b) of Title 23 is now incorporated in Section 

5304(b), with added language: ‘‘with other related Statewide planning activities such as trade and economic development and related 

multi-State planning efforts,’’ after ‘‘areas of the State and’’ to recognize the importance of trade and economic development in each 

State and with other States. 

Section 5304(c) is added to allow States to enter into compacts 

or agreements for the purpose of formal planning cooperation and 

coordination, since so many projects have multi-State implications. 

A similar provision is included in existing Section 134(d)(2), Metropolitan Planning, and is included in the metropolitan planning section in Section 5303(d)(2). 

In Section 5304(d)(1), the phrase ‘‘and implementing projects and 

services’’ is added after ‘‘strategies’’ to reflect the concept that not 

only projects, but also transportation services, are developed 

through the planning process. 

In Section 5304(d)(1)(A), the term ‘‘non-metropolitan areas’’ is inserted into the planning factor related to economic vitality after 

‘‘States.’’ These have been often-neglected areas and this would require States to consider economic vitality for rural areas as well as 

urbanized areas. (‘‘Non-metropolitan areas’’ is defined in a recent 

amendment to the joint FHWA/FTA planning regulations). 

Sections 5304(d)(1)(B) and (C) refer to existing law, wherein ‘‘security’’ was a joint factor with ‘‘safety.’’ After the terrorism attacks 

of September 11, 2001, security has taken on a new dimension. Security would now be a separate factor in subparagraph (C) to highlight this concern at all levels of Government. 

In Section 5304(d)(1)(D), the term ‘‘options available to’’ is deleted after ‘‘mobility’’ so that it is clear that this is more complex 

than simply considering options. 

Section 5304(d)(1)(E) is expanded to include more details on the 

way in which environmental protections should be considered. In 

addition, more detail is added on how plans should be consistent 

with regional land use plans. Language is added to require consistency, so that investments are made where they will have the most 

significant impact. 

A new Section 5304(d)(3) is added to focus on how mitigation activities should be addressed in Statewide plans and programs. 

A new Section 5304(f)(2)(D) is added to require consultation with 

land use management, natural resource, environmental protection, 

conservation, and historic preservation agencies. 

The term ‘‘representatives of transportation agency employees,’’ 

is replaced in Section 5304(f)(3) by ‘‘representatives of public transportation employees,’’ and the term ‘‘representatives of users of 

public transit,’’ is replaced by ‘‘representatives of users of public 

transportation’’ to provide greater consistency with the definitions 

in Section 5303(a). The term ‘‘representatives of users of pedestrian 

walkways and bicycle transportation facilities,’’ is inserted after the 

15 

term ‘‘users of public transportation’’ to identify the importance of 

this class of users. In addition, new requirements are added to ensure adequate opportunity for public participation. 

A new paragraph, ‘‘Existing System,’’ is added in Section 

5304(f)(8) to address the need for assessment of the existing system 

to maximize its potential through various means, such as Intelligent Transportation Systems. 

A new Section 5304(f)(9) is added to provide for expanded publication of the Statewide plan. 

Section 135(f)(1)(B)(ii)(II) required that States submit to the Secretary, within one year of TEA–21’s passage, the details of their 

consultation process with non-metropolitan officials. This requirement has been accomplished, so the provision is deleted. 

Section 5304(g) provides for details on the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program. Section 5304(g)(3) (existing Section 

135(f)(1)(C)) substitutes the term ‘‘State’’ for the term ‘‘Governor.’’ 

This reflects current practice in most States. The same changes 

made for the listed parties in Section 5304(f)(3) above are made in 

this section as well. 

Section 5304(g)(4) establishes 4-year increments and updates for 

the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program. This is consistent with metropolitan planning requirements, which provide 

that projects in the metropolitan transportation improvement program may be selected for advancement. Provisions similar to those 

in Section 5303 for a cooperative process in arriving at the annual 

listing of obligated projects is included. An annual list is included 

in Section 5304 since the State is the recipient of substantial funds 

from both FTA and FHWA. 

Section 5304 (g)(4)(B)(ii) (existing Section 135(f)(2)(C)(ii)) is 

amended to ensure that the identical projects programmed in the 

metropolitan transportation plans are brought into the Statewide 

Transportation Improvement Program without modifications. 

In Section 5304(g)(5), Section 5311 of Title 49 is added to the National Highway System, bridge, and other projects that require 

‘‘consultation’’ and that are excepted from ‘‘cooperation’’ since this 

program is generally run by the States as a discretionary program 

after criteria are set. 

Section 5304(g)(6) (existing Section 135(f)(4)) is renamed ‘‘Statewide Transportation Improvement Program Approval’’ and would 

require a STIP approval ‘‘at least every four years by the Secretary.’’ A new Section 5304(g)(7), Planning Finding, (existing Section 135(f)(4)) is set out separately. 

Sec. 7. Transportation management areas 

Section 5305, which covers planning in Transportation Management Areas, is repealed since its provisions have been incorporated 

in Section 5303. 

Sec. 8. Private enterprise participation 

• Clarifying language is added to make clear that local criteria 

are to be the basis for deciding on how to involve the private sector. 

• A rulemaking is required to implement all of the changes made 

throughout the statute on private sector participation. 

Current language that prohibits decertification for failure to 

meet the private sector participation requirements in Section 5306 

16 

is not reenacted. All other planning requirements must be met in 

order for the metropolitan planning process to be certified. It is not 

appropriate to single out this requirement for lesser attention in 

the planning process. Section 5306 is modified to make clear that 

local criteria will be the basis for deciding on how to address these 

requirements. 

The bill makes a number of changes in Chapter 53 to enhance 

the role of the private sector in the provision of public transportation services. These include important enhancements to the role 

of private transportation providers in the planning process, 

changes in funding eligibility, and funding allocations. In the area 

of planning, the bill includes a requirement that private operators 

engaged in public transportation be considered in the policy and 

plan development activities of metropolitan areas, which include 

short-range program planning. 

Specifically, private operator services are to be considered with 

regard to the following planning factors: supporting economic vitality, increasing access/mobility, modal connectivity and integration, 

and preserving/enhancing the existing system. In the area of funding eligibility, private operators would be eligible as ‘‘sub-recipients’’ of Federal funds under the Section 5307 (urbanized area formula), 5309 (discretionary capital grants), 5310 (elderly and disabled formula), and 5311 (non-urbanized area formula) programs. 

As sub-recipients, private sector transportation providers would be 

permitted to do more than simply compete for contracts with a public transit provider; they would be eligible to receive grants through 

the designated recipient for the provision of public transportation 

services that they define and deliver. Further, every community 

seeking funds from the Section 5310 (elderly and disabled), and Job 

Access and Reverse Commute program would be required to engage 

in a coordinated local transportation/human service planning process that includes private sector participation in the planning process. In addition, mobility management activities, which include 

working with the private sector to coordinate transportation services to meet customer needs, would become an eligible expense 

under the Section 5307 (urbanized area formula) program. 

Finally, the intercity bus portion of intermodal terminals would 

be made eligible for FTA funding. This will facilitate linkages between local public transportation and intercity bus transportation 

(which is provided by private operators). In the area of funding, 

bus capital funding in the amount of $75 million per year would 

be set aside for intermodal terminals. In light of these changes, 

Section 5306 is amended to require the Secretary to publish a formal rule on how these provisions would be implemented. 

Sec. 9. Urbanized Area Formula Grants program 

• Transit enhancements program is administered as a certification rather than as a set-aside. 

• Private companies engaged in public transportation are eligible 

subrecipients of Federal grants. 

• Mobility management is made an eligible expense. 

• The eligibility requirements for local match within this section 

are streamlined to include all advertising revenue as well as contracts with social service organizations. 

17 

• Certain urbanized areas which grew to a population of over 

200,000 can use funds for operating assistance in 2006 through 

2007, with the amounts progressively phased down. 

Currently, Subsection 5307(h) requires streamlined administrative procedures for track and signal improvements. This subsection 

is deleted because separate treatment for track and signal projects 

is no longer needed. 

Currently, Subsection 5307(j) requires that grantees submit annual reports on sales of advertising and concessions. This subsection is deleted because it is redundant with a similar requirement of the National Transit Database. 

Subsection 5307(k) dealing with ‘‘transit enhancement activities’’ 

is mainstreamed into a new subparagraph (K) in Section 

5307(d)(1). Currently, that subsection allows for a one percent setaside for transit enhancements and requires a report listing the 

projects. Under new subparagraph (K), a recipient with at least a 

population of 200,000 in its urbanized area could instead certify 

that one percent of its Section 5307 funds has been expended on 

transit enhancements. 

Subsection 5307(a) is revised to include definitions for ‘‘subrecipient,’’ as well as ‘‘designated recipient.’’ A subrecipient includes any entity receiving funding from the designated recipient. 

This will facilitate private sector participation in public transportation. 

Subsection (b) is amended to state more explicitly the general authority for grants under Section 5307. Eligibility is expanded to include ‘‘mobility management’’ as defined in Subsection 5302(a)(7a). 

Paragraph (4) is struck since separate eligibility for reconstructing 

or rehabilitating rolling stock is no longer needed, since these 

terms have been included in the definition of capital project in Subsection 5303(a). 

Currently, urbanized areas over 200,000 may not use funds from 

the urbanized area formula program for operating assistance. A 

number of urbanized areas’ status changed unexpectedly as a result of the 2000 census, due to changes in the Census Bureau’s 

definitions and procedures for defining urbanized areas. These 

areas were allowed to continue to use funds for operating assistance for 2003 by P.L. 107–232, for 2004 by the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2003, and for the first eight months of 2005 

by the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2004, Part V. These 

provisions are extended for the remainder of 2005 as currently enacted. For 2006 and 2007, these provisions are phased out. Urbanized areas covered by these provisions would be allowed to use 50 

percent of their current limits on operating assistance in 2006 and 

25 percent in 2007. This should provide these areas with more than 

ample time to develop and implement transition plans. The Committee strongly opposes continuing these provisions beyond 2007 

and believes the more appropriate role for the Federal Government 

is in capital investment. 

Currently, the Urbanized Area Formula program allows the local 

match to include only those revenues from advertising and concessions that were generated above a 1985 baseline. This bill strikes 

this 1985 baseline in Section 5307(e) in an effort to foster aggressive local financing. In addition, Subsection 5307(e) is amended to 

permit revenues received from contracts with State or local social 

18 

service agencies to count as eligible to match Section 5307(e) 

grants. Such revenues are already eligible as non-Federal share in 

the Section 5311 non-urbanized area program. Allowing such revenues to count as non-Federal share will provide an incentive to coordinate services between transit agencies, a process that the Committee and the Administration have actively worked to foster. 

Section 5307(g)(4) is deleted to remove an obsolete standard for 

setting interest rates on advance construction projects. TEA–21 included a provision which required that the interest rate be set 

based on the most favorable terms available to the recipient and 

thus this is unnecessary. 

Under current law, Section 5307(n)(1) states that 18 U.S.C. 1001, 

regarding false or fraudulent statements, applies only to certificates or submissions provided pursuant to Section 5307, ‘‘Urbanized Area Formula Grants.’’ This paragraph is moved to Section 

5323, General Provisions on Assistance. Under Section 5223, 18 

U.S.C. 1001 applies to any Federal public transportation grant program. 

A technical amendment is made to Subsection 5307(k)(2) to provide a complete list of requirements with which grant recipients 

must comply. In addition, a provision is added to Subsection 

5307(k) to clarify that the Hatch Act does not apply to non-supervisory employees of grant recipients. This provision was included in 

the former Section 5 of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 

1964, as amended. However, it was inadvertently not included in 

Chapter 53 when the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as 

amended, was codified. 

Sec. 10. Planning Programs 

• The existing Clean Fuels Formula Program is merged into the 

Bus and Bus Facilities Program. • The Metropolitan and Statewide planning grant programs are 

consolidated into a new Section 5308; procedures and formulae for 

both are unchanged. 

• A new Planning Capacity Building ‘‘set-aside’’ is established. 

• Discretionary Planning Funding is made available for Alternatives Analysis; such studies are now funded from the New Starts 

program. 

The Clean Fuels Formula Grant program, established in TEA– 

21, set up a separate program to foster the procurement of alternative fuel vehicles. In each year of the authorization period, those 

funds were redirected into the bus and bus facilities program. Regardless, the purpose of this program is being fulfilled through capital grants for buses. Forty percent of buses procured with Federal 

transit assistance as part of the bus and bus facilities program use 

alternative fuels. 

Currently, the Metropolitan Planning Program is authorized in 

Sections 5303(g) and (h) and the Statewide Planning Program is 

authorized in Section 5313(b). The bill brings these provisions together into a unified Section 5308, funded as a takedown from the 

formula programs. While the takedown comes only from the formula and research program authorization, the amount is set at 

1.25 percent of the total amount in the capital and formula programs. This is an increase from funding under TEA–21, during 

which planning was authorized at an amount equal to about 1 perVerDate Aug 04 2004 10:28 May 06, 2005 Jkt 039010 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR062.XXX SR062
19 

cent of total funding. The current split of funding between metropolitan and statewide planning is maintained. 

Current Subsection 5303(g) is moved to Subsection 5308(a) and 

is changed from ‘‘Transportation Plans and Programs’’ to ‘‘General 

Authority’’ for consistency with FTA’s other program subsections. 

Language is added for transportation plans and programs since 

these are the primary products of the Federally funded transportation planning process. Section 5308(a)(3) explicitly authorizes eligibility for peer exchanges and activities related to peer reviews. 

Subsection 5303(h) moves to Subsection 5308(b) and is renamed 

from ‘‘Balanced and Comprehensive Planning’’ to ‘‘Purpose.’’ Existing Section 5303(h)(4) is eliminated since it is obsolete with the addition of new urbanized areas in the 2000 Decennial Census. 

Section 5303(h)(2) is moved to Section 5308(c)(2), and modified by 

directing States to make allocations of planning funds to MPOs 

promptly and eliminating any direct role for the Department of 

Transportation. FTA retains flexibility with respect to an administrative formula for areas over 1 million population currently added 

in the apportionments to States on a per capita basis. 

Section 5308(d) relocates the existing State planning and research program from 49 U.S.C. 5313(b). The formula for apportionments does not change and consolidates the formula planning programs in Section 5305. 

Section 5308(e) establishes ‘‘Capacity Building’’ as an eligible activity within transportation planning. Capacity Building promotes 

activities that support and strengthen the planning processes required under 49 U.S.C. 5303–6. Through this initiative, metropolitan planning organizations and transportation operators can use 

planning funds to plan, develop and implement innovations and enhancements that support and strengthen the planning processes. 

The Secretary is authorized to conduct research, engage in program 

development, collect and disseminate information, and provide 

technical assistance in connection with metropolitan and statewide 

planning processes. The initiative will be carried out jointly by FTA 

and FHWA. 

Subsection (g)(1) allocates $5 million for Capacity Building, and 

$20 million for discretionary grants for Alternatives Analysis. At 

present, Alternatives Analysis is inappropriately funded from the 

New Starts program. The current practice of funding the Alternatives Analysis of New Starts presumes that the result of the Locally Preferred Alternative will, in fact, be a New Start. If Alternatives Analysis is a true look at alternatives in the process of providing transportation, the appropriate place for these funds to be 

expended is within the planning program. The remainder of planning money is split 82.72% for metropolitan planning and 17.28% 

to carry out statewide planning and research program. 

Existing Section 5303(h)(5) is relocated to a new Section 5308(f), 

‘‘Government’s Share of Costs,’’ and applies to both planning programs. 

Section 5308(h) provides the period of funding availability that is 

identical to current funding availability under Section 5303. 

Sec. 11. Capital Investment Program 

• The Bus, New Starts and Fixed Guideway Modernization programs continue in the Capital Investment Programs; funds are 

20 

split approximately 23% bus, 40% New Starts and 37% Fixed 

Guideway Modernization. • Bus funds going to private non-profit organizations or rural 

transit systems as subrecipients are administered under the requirements of the Elderly and Disabled and Rural programs, respectively. The requirements for statewide transit providers depend 

on where the project is located. • Non-fixed guideway corridor improvements are eligible for New Starts funds for projects under $75 million. • Funding for Alternatives Analysis is made available from the 

Planning Program rather than the Capital Investment Program. • Current procedures and criteria apply to New Starts projects over $75 million in New Starts share while simplified procedures 

and criteria apply to New Starts projects under $75 million in New 

Starts share. • The current exemption for projects under $25 million is eliminated. • The current three level rating system (Highly Recommended, 

Recommended, Not Recommended) is replaced by a five level system (High to Low). • The maximum New Starts share is retained at 80 percent. • A higher than requested share can be provided for projects 

which keep cost and ridership estimates within 10 percent of the 

forecasts used as the basis for establishing the Locally Preferred 

Alternative. • Grantees will be allowed to keep a portion of the cost savings 

in the case where projects are completed under budget. • Before-and-After Studies will be required in law. • A Public Private Partnership Pilot Program is established. • The New Starts Report and Supplemental Report are replaced 

by reports issued three times a year focusing on changes to ratings 

and an annual report on budget recommendations. 

The General Authority section is amended to limit the program 

to focus on three activities: New Starts, fixed guideway modernization, and buses and bus facilities. 

References to ‘‘capital investment loans’’ are deleted from Section 

5309 since, historically, only capital investment grants have been 

awarded pursuant to this section. 

Both fixed and non-fixed guideway projects which make major 

improvements to transportation corridors are included in the New 

Starts program for projects under $75 million, to encourage, among 

other things, consideration of Bus Rapid Transit options. The $25 

million threshold is eliminated. All projects under the program will 

be subject to a rating and evaluation process. Fixed guideways will 

continue to be required of projects seeking over $75 million in New 

Starts funds. The Committee expects that the Federal Transit Administration will develop an appropriate methodology for evaluating the costs and benefits of non-fixed guideway projects, consistent with that applied to fixed guideway projects. 

As noted earlier, the eligibility for Alternatives Analysis is relocated to the planning grant program under Section 5308. Alternatives Analysis is a planning function and therefore it is not appropriate to fund these activities out of the capital program. 

Section 5309(a) is amended expressly to allow programs of 

projects of bus and bus related facilities. The individual agencies 

21 

included in such a program of projects would be treated as subrecipients. Under current law, private non-profit agencies which receive assistance through a State’s program of projects must be 

treated as contractors to the State and thus the assembly of such 

a program is treated as a procurement action, subject to all of the 

rules normally intended to apply to contractual relationships. This 

has inhibited State flexibility and added to the administrative burden on States interested in developing programs of projects for assistance under Section 5309. 

In addition, Section 5309(a) is amended to assure that grants 

under Section 5309 to transit agencies outside urban areas would 

be treated the same way as grants under Section 5311. Similarly, 

grants to private non-profit subrecipients would be treated the 

same way as private non-profit organizations are treated under 

Section 5310. Statewide transit providers would be required to follow the requirements which would apply under Section 5307 if the 

project is located in an urbanized area and under Section 5311 if 

the project is located outside urbanized areas. 

Section 5309(b) includes a new definition of Alternatives Analysis. An Alternatives Analysis will include a complete evaluation of 

a range of alternatives, selection and formal adoption by the metropolitan planning organization of a Locally Preferred Alternative, 

and produce the information needed to evaluate the Locally Preferred Alternative under this section. 

Before making an award under Section 5309, the Secretary must 

find that applicants (1) have complied with statutory planning and 

private enterprise provisions, (2) have the legal, financial and technical capacity necessary to carry out the project, (3) will have satisfactory continuing control of the project’s use and capability, and 

(4) will maintain project property. The amendment to Section 

5309(d) permits the Secretary to rely on a Section 5307 applicant’s 

certification containing the same project attributes when applying 

for Section 5309 funds. It also clarifies that the term ‘‘technical capacity’’ includes the safety and security aspects of a transit project. 

Section 5309(e) is amended to improve the evaluation of New 

Starts projects. The factors, considerations, and determinations in 

Section 5309(e)(2–4) are essentially those in current law, although 

new factors were added to ensure that the Secretary assess the reliability of the forecasts of costs and ridership and land use is elevated from a ‘‘consideration’’ to a justifying factor. Too often, as 

projects develop through the New Starts process, the estimated 

costs increase while the forecasted ridership decreases, reducing 

the cost-effectiveness of the proposed project. In addition, language 

in current law is strengthened to require the Secretary to assure 

that New Starts projects are implemented only if the quality of 

local bus services will not be degraded. 

Section 5309(e) applies in full to projects with a proposed New 

Starts share of more than $75 million. New starts projects proposing a Federal share of under $75 million will be subject to a 

streamlined rating process under a new Section 5309(f). These 

streamlined procedures include a simplified list of findings (which 

include cost-effectiveness, land use and economic development impacts) and determinations. Projects will have to be evaluated on 

the basis of forecasts made for project opening. Financial plans will 

be limited to the period during which the project is being conVerDate Aug 04 2004 10:28 May 06, 2005 Jkt 039010 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR062.XXX SR062
22 

structed and financed. A simplified Project Construction Grant 

Agreement is used to reflect the major features of Full Funding 

Grant Agreements. Under current law, projects with a Federal share of less than $25 

million are exempt from the New Starts rating process. The bill 

eliminates this exemption, thus requiring that all projects be rated. 

This will assure that all candidates for Federal funding, no matter 

how small, are the subject of appropriate analysis and evaluation. 

Current language which exempts projects funded with flexible 

funds from Title 23 is not continued, because it is unnecessary 

since Section 5309(e) applies to projects which are candidates for 

discretionary funding under the New Starts program. Because they 

have already been subject to analysis and rating, projects with 

FFGAs executed prior to enactment are exempt from the new requirements. 

A new Section 5309(e)(1) is added to make clear that all New 

Starts projects with a Federal share of over $75 million would be 

implemented under a Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA), be 

subject to ratings under this section, and authorized in law. A 

project would have to receive an overall rating of at least ‘‘medium’’ 

to receive an FFGA. 

The consideration under Section 5309(e)(3)(E) is expanded slightly to include the positive effect on capacity, utilization, or longevity 

of other surface transportation facilities. 

Under current law, the Secretary must evaluate and rate a 

project as ‘‘highly recommended,’’ ‘‘recommended,’’ or ‘‘not recommended.’’ In response to the Government Accountability Office’s 

recent suggestion that an approach be developed to better distinguish projects, the ratings are changed to ‘‘high,’’ ‘‘medium-high,’’ 

‘‘medium,’’ ‘‘low-medium,’’ or ‘‘low.’’ This enables FTA to better 

manage the pipeline of projects, educate grantees, and distinguish 

between projects. 

The requirement that projects be given priority if they are transportation control measures in State Implementation Plans for nonattainment areas is dropped, because air quality is already considered in the rating of a project, and it is therefore unnecessary. 

A new Subsection 5309(e)(8) is added to require periodic publication of the policies and procedures used in rating projects. This will 

help improve the transparency and predictability of the rating process. 

The Committee is seeking to identify cost drivers for critical, 

complex, and capital intensive transit New Starts projects. Public 

Private Partnerships (PPP) may provide an important way to 

achieve significant savings. These partnerships with qualificationbased selection and performance-based contracting integrate risk 

sharing, streamline project development, engineering, and construction, and preserve the integrity of the NEPA process, which 

results in the potential for significant schedule and cost advantages 

over traditional infrastructure development. The Secretary is directed, in Section 5309(g)(2)(e), to undertake a pilot program in 

which major investment projects are to be selected for PPPs, during 

the development phase of the projects, with a goal of demonstrating 

project cost savings. The Secretary also is directed to work with 

states and local entities to identify and eliminate existing impediments to successful implementation of PPP’s. The Committee exVerDate Aug 04 2004 10:28 May 06, 2005 Jkt 039010 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR062.XXX SR062
23 

pects the Secretary to initiate the pilot program as soon as practicable after enactment, in order that the benefits of PPP’s may be 

understood and potentially applied to other transit New Starts 

projects. 

A new statutory requirement for ‘‘Before and After Studies’’ as 

part of Full Funding Grant Agreements is added in Section 

5309(g). Such studies are already required by the regulation implementing Section 5309(e) and are an essential part of improving the 

New Starts program. By better understanding the actual costs and 

benefits of New Starts projects, especially the early planning stages 

when the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) is chosen, the planning process can be improved, and future projects can be based on 

estimates of costs and benefits which are more accurate. In addition, FTA would be required to produce an annual report each year 

which would summarize the results of these studies. 

Although there is a strong demand for New Starts funding, reduction of the maximum Federal share is not an approach taken 

in this bill. The maximum Federal share for highway and transit 

projects stays the same, in order to assure that there is a level 

playing field between highway and transit projects at the local 

level. Nonetheless, it does not prevent project sponsors from overmatching the statutory minimum local share or FTA from considering a sponsor’s overmatch as part of the process of evaluating the 

local share. 

Often there are significant increases in the scope and costs of the 

projects as they develop from concept to FFGA. In such cases, the 

cost-effectiveness of the alternative selected could very well be significantly inferior at the time of FFGA than when the original LPA 

was selected. To provide an incentive to local project sponsors to 

avoid such cost and scope ‘‘creep’’, the Secretary is to take into account the cost and ridership calculation of the project at the end 

of Alternatives Analysis in establishing the Federal commitment 

level to a project. The Secretary would be given the discretion to 

reward project sponsors with a higher proportional share if the cost 

and benefit analyses at FFGA are within 10% of the original calculation. In this way, more meritorious projects and those which 

have better controlled costs can be provided a higher Federal share. 

This provision will protect the integrity of the decision making 

process and will ensure that more accurate data is presented as the 

basis for selection of the LPA. As a result of this provision, however, no project would be eligible to receive a total Federal share 

of greater than 80%. 

In addition, the Secretary is given the discretion to allow project 

sponsors to benefit if an FFGA project is completed under budget. 

The provision in current law often prevents the grantee from keeping funds which remain and this potentially results in a perverse 

incentive to spend the remaining funds inappropriately. The new 

provision would expressly allow sponsors to retain a portion of the 

under-run for other eligible public transportation purposes, upon 

approval by the Secretary. 

The Committee believes that it may be appropriate for the contractors to public transit agencies to share in the cost savings if 

they have contributed to such under-runs as a result of good performance. Thus, the Committee directs the Department of Transportation to conduct a study on the appropriateness of applying the 

24 

principles of contractor performance awards contained in the Federal Acquisition Regulations, 48 CFR Subpart 16.4. 

Section 5309(g) is amended to allow the non-Federal share to include funding from a variety of sources, including contract revenues from other agencies (as is now the case for the non-urbanized 

area program). This can be a powerful spur to improve coordination 

of transportation services in a region, a top priority for the Committee. 

Current law allows use of up to eight percent of the amounts 

available in each fiscal year for Alternatives Analysis and Preliminary Engineering within New Starts. As amended, Section 5309, at 

Subsection (m)(2) limits the use of such funds to Preliminary Engineering, which marks the first substantive stage of a project. As 

noted earlier, funding for Alternatives Analysis would be available 

from the planning program, as well as from an urbanized area’s 

formula funds under Section 5307. 

A reference to 23 U.S.C. 103(e)(4) in Section 5309 is deleted since 

Subsection 103(e) was repealed by Section 1106 of TEA–21. 

Section 5309(i)(3) would continue to set aside $10,400,000 each 

year for Alaska and Hawaii ferry boats, the same amount as is in 

TEA–21. The factors in Section 5309(i)(6) to be considered by the 

Secretary in selecting bus and bus facilities grants is expanded to 

include both the age and condition of the buses, fleets, and facilities. 

In lieu of establishing a new program for intermodal facilities as 

proposed by the Administration, $75 million is set aside each year 

from the bus discretionary program for these facilities. Eligibility 

for the intercity portion of intermodal terminals is established by 

the amendment to Section 5302. 

The bill changes the New Starts reporting requirement to one 

annual funding report and three status reports as reflected in a 

new Section 5309(q). Currently, rating all projects for the annual 

report requires grantees not eligible for funding to rush their studies, frequently degrading their quality, so that information can be 

produced for the report. The annual report would describe only 

projects receiving funding based on evaluations and ratings and on 

existing commitments and anticipated funding levels for the next 

3 years. Every four months, a report would be released with FTA 

ratings of only those projects with significant changes in their summary rating or some other key feature, or those that recently have 

entered preliminary engineering or final design. Every report 

would contain a table with summary rating information for all 

projects currently in the New Starts pipeline. 

The requirement for an annual review by the General Accountability Office of the New Starts rating and evaluation process is 

continued. These reports have been useful to Congress by providing 

an objective overview of the New Starts rating process. 

The Federal Transit Administration is required to issue a ‘‘Contractor Performance Assessment Report’’ (CPAR). This report will 

analyze the consistency and accuracy of cost and ridership estimates made by contractors to public transportation agencies developing major capital investments. This would provide public transportation agencies with a tool to assist in choosing contractors with 

the highest success rates in predicting cost and ridership. 

25 

Sec. 12. Formula Grants for New Freedom for Elderly Individuals 

and Individuals With Disabilities 

• The program is expanded and renamed to include activities 

which provide access to persons with disabilities, in addition to 

that which is required to meet the requirements of the Americans 

with Disabilities Act. • Medical access needs are given priority in the program. • Current formulae and program structure continue as in current law. • Matching requirements are expanded to include funding from 

other Federal programs and contracts with human service agencies. • The sliding scale match is applied in States with large 

amounts of public lands. • A requirement is inserted that projects must be drawn from a 

human service transportation coordination plan. 

Currently, under Section 5310, the Secretary may provide grants 

for the special needs of elderly individuals and individuals with disabilities directly (1) to a State or local Government authority; or (2) 

to the chief executive office of the State for allocation to private 

non-profit corporations or associations when such service is unavailable or insufficient, or (3) to Governmental authorities approved by the State to coordinate services for these two populations 

groups, if there are no non-profit corporations readily available to 

provide the service. Section 5310 is amended to authorize grants 

directly to a State, which would then be able to allocate the funds 

to a private non-profit organization or a Governmental authority 

under the same conditions required in current law. 

Persons with disabilities are particularly in need of service beyond that provided in response to the Americans with Disabilities 

Act. Funding for Section 5310 is expanded and explicit eligibility 

is provided for Governmental authorities providing services in excess of that provided by the Americans with Disabilties Act. This 

will help fulfill the goals of the President’s New Freedom Initiative, 

without creating a new program. In addition, language is added to 

clarify that a priority of Section 5310 program funds is the provision of access to medical care. 

Section 5310(a)(3) allows a State to use up to 15 percent of the 

amounts it receives under this section to administer, plan, and provide technical assistance. This is an increase from the present administrative practice of allowing up to 10 percent of the amounts 

for these purposes, and is necessary because of the added complexity of the program and the enhanced requirements for coordination of services. In addition, this additional authority makes this 

program consistent with the Section 5311 program, so that both 

state-administered programs essentially have similar structures. 

Consistent with existing Section 5310, grants would be made for 

capital public transportation projects planned, designed, and carried out to meet the special needs of this population and could include the acquisition of public transportation services as a capital 

expense. The Federal share cannot exceed 80 percent of the net 

capital costs of the projects, as determined by the Secretary. The 

remainder of the funds could be provided from a variety of other 

sources, including undistributed cash surpluses, or from amounts 

appropriated or made available for transportation from any other 

26 

Federal department or agency other than the Department of Transportation, except for Federal Lands Highway funds, as well as contract revenue received from human service agencies. These are the 

same sources as for the Formula Grants program for other than urbanized areas as proposed under Section 13 of this bill. Having 

identical requirements for local matching funds is intended to provide the same incentive to coordination of human service transportation as is now provided in the Section 5311 program. 

This section is also amended to allow for a sliding scale approach 

to the match requirements for capital expenses for those states 

that have a large percentage of public lands, and as a result, have 

a lower tax base from which to draw resources to fund the matching requirement mandated by these programs. It is similar in nature to a provision already in current law in the highway program. 

As is current practice, funds under Subsection (b)(1) are apportioned to States based on a formula administered by the Secretary. 

In administering this formula, the Secretary will consider the number of elderly individuals and individuals with disabilities in a 

State. Under current law, unobligated Section 5310 funds available 

during the fourth quarter of each fiscal year may be transferred to 

Urbanized Area or Other Than Urbanized Area Formula Grant 

programs in order to supplement funds apportioned under those 

sections. Subsection (b)(2) allows recipients of grants under this 

section to transfer Section 5310 funds to those programs at any 

time provided that the funds are used for the purposes originally 

authorized. This would eliminate the artificial fourth quarter requirement since States typically budget for such transfers in the 

beginning of each fiscal year. In addition, States could make funds 

available to a subrecipient in a single transaction that included 

several FTA program-funding sources. 

Under Subsection (d), a recipient of a grant is subject to all Section 5307 grant requirements to the extent the Secretary deems appropriate. Recipients would be required to certify that the projects 

for which funds are requested are drawn from a plan for human 

service transportation coordination. The effect of this provision and 

those included in the non-urbanized formula program and the Jobs 

Access and Reverse Commute Program will be to enhance coordination between these programs and with programs of other Departments, such as Health and Human Services, Labor, and Education. 

The Committee expects that FTA will give grantees an appropriate 

opportunity to develop these plans by phasing in this requirement 

during FY 2006. Finally, recipients are required to certify that allocations made to subrecipients were distributed in a fair and equitable manner. 

Subsections (e) through (i) are the same as in current law. Subsection (e) requires states to develop annual programs of projects. 

Subsection (f) allows vehicles acquired under this section to be 

leased to local Governmental agencies to improve service coordination. Subsection (g) allows vehicles acquired under this section to 

be used for ‘‘Meals on Wheels’’ services as long as the service does 

not interfere with use of the vehicles for public transportation purposes. Subsection (h) allows vehicles to be transferred to another 

eligible recipient if they are no longer needed by the original recipient. Finally, Subsection (i) states that fares do not have to be 

charged on services assisted by Section 5310 funds. 

27 

Sec. 13. Formula grants for other than urbanized areas 

• Indian tribes become eligible direct recipients of program 

funds, with a portion of funding set aside for tribes beginning in 

FY 2006. • Private companies engaged in public transportation are eligible 

as subrecipients. • The Rural Transit Assistance Program becomes a 2 percent 

takedown from the program. • Recipients must submit data on service levels, costs, and revenues to the National Transit Database. • A new formula tier is established based on land area to address the needs of low-density states. The remaining 80 percent of 

funds are to be allocated using the current formula. • Matching funds may come from contracts with human service 

agencies (as in current law) or from other Federal programs. • The ‘‘sliding scale match’’ is applied in States with large 

amounts of public lands for capital grants and proportionally for 

operating assistance. 

Section 5311(a) defines an eligible recipient and subrecipient of 

other than urbanized area program funds. Indian tribes are established as direct recipients. Private operators engaged in public 

transportation are made eligible as subrecipients of 5311 funds, 

providing for opportunities for involvement of the private sector, as 

was the original intent when the Urban Mass Transportation Act 

of 1964 was first enacted. The Administration proposed this change 

as part of their SAFETEA proposal with the belief that this would 

provide a better opportunity for private operators to participate in 

the decision-making processes regarding their role in providing 

public transportation services. 

Section 5311(b) allows other than urbanized area formula grants 

to be used for capital transportation projects, or operating assistance projects (as is currently allowed), including the acquisition of 

transportation services, provided the projects are contained in a 

State program of public transportation service projects (including 

agreements with private providers of public transportation services). 

Currently, urbanized area program grant recipients must submit 

data on service levels, costs, and revenues, in accordance with requirements of the National Transit Database. Current law is 

amended to require a simplified version of these data collection requirements for the other than urbanized area program. Given the 

large growth in funding for this program, it is crucial that recipients report basic information on the effectiveness of this program. 

The Committee expects that the data collection requirements will 

be tailored to the smaller size of the typical public transportation 

system in rural areas, while still providing enough information to 

judge the condition and performance of our Nation’s network of 

rural public transportation services. 

Under current law, recipients of grants and contracts for transportation research, technical assistance, training, or related support services, such as those given under the Rural Transportation 

Assistance Program (RTAP), must compete annually for National 

Planning and Research funds. Section 5311(b)(3), as redesignated, 

provides up to two percent of Section 5311 funds to carry out RTAP 

activities. This amendment better correlates funding for RTAP with 

28 

the amount of funding for rural service overall, thereby stabilizing 

the program. Since the formula funding level for rural transit increases, a proportionate increase in the level of funding for training 

and technical assistance delivered at the State level is available. 

New paragraph (4) allows the Secretary to use up to 15 percent of 

the two percent to sustain ongoing national project activities such 

as the National Transit Resource Center, production training modules, and occasional rural transit research projects of national interest. 

An increasing amount of funding is set aside for Indian Tribes 

each fiscal year beginning in fiscal year 2006. Of the remainder, 

eighty percent of the Section 5311 program amount is apportioned 

to States pursuant to the same formula currently being used and 

now set forth in Section 5311(c)(3), which uses population in nonurbanized areas to allocate funds. The remaining twenty percent is 

apportioned on land area in non-urbanized areas. This new factor 

is added to reflect the fact that rural public transportation services 

are more difficult to provide because of the long distances between 

homes and basic services and thus are more costly in states with 

low population densities. 

Section 5311(f) is amended to strike ‘‘after September 30, 1993,’’ 

since that date has passed. Section 5311(f)(2) requires the State to 

consult with affected intercity bus service providers before certifying that the State’s intercity bus service needs are being adequately met. Such consultation will help to ensure the State is 

aware of any unmet intercity bus service needs which private bus 

operators could fulfill. 

Subsection 5311(g) retains the Federal share for any capital 

project at 80 percent or less of the net costs of such a project, as 

determined by the Secretary. Also retained is the Federal share for 

operating assistance at 50 percent or less of the net costs of an operating project, as determined by the Secretary. Consistent with 

current law, the remainder does not include revenues from the operation of public transportation systems. Rather, the remainder can 

be provided from a variety of other sources, including undistributed 

cash surpluses, or from amounts appropriated or made available 

for transportation from any other Federal department or agency 

other than the Department of Transportation, except for Federal 

Lands Highway funds. Current Section 5311(e)(2), which prohibits 

a State from limiting the level or extent of the Government’s share 

for operating expenses, is moved to Section 5311(g)(2) under the 

heading ‘‘Government’s Share of Costs.’’ 

Subsection 5311(g) is also amended to allow for a sliding scale 

approach to the match requirements for capital expenses under 

this section for those states that have a large percentage of public 

lands, and as a result, have a lower tax base from which to draw 

resources. It is similar in nature to a provision already in current 

law in the highway program. The match for operating assistance 

is set at 5⁄8 of the match for capital projects. 

Sec. 14. Research, development, demonstration, and deployment 

projects 

• The current unutilized University Research and Fellowships 

programs are eliminated. 

29 

• ‘‘Other transactions’’ are allowed in addition to grants and contracts. 

Currently, Section 5312 does not address deployment of emerging 

technologies, and inappropriately includes training. As amended, 

Section 5312 authorizes public transportation service planning, and 

research, development, demonstration, and deployment projects. 

The former University Research and Fellowships programs authorized by Subsections (b) and (c) are repealed, as these programs 

have not been funded for many years. The intermodal University 

Research Program, which is administered by the Research and Innovative Technology Administration essentially has replaced the 

transit-only University Research program in Subsection (b). The 

need for a separate fellowship program in Subsection (c) is now addressed by the wide variety of transit training opportunities, such 

as the National Transit Institute through which many more transit 

managers receive training for the amounts of a single fellowship 

under the program in Subsection (c). 

Throughout the Federal Government, the term ‘‘other transactions’’ is used to provide executive branch agencies with broad 

discretion to enter into project agreements under terms that would 

encourage private parties to participate in Federally-assisted 

projects. Since the term ‘‘other agreements’’ in Section 5312(b)(2), 

as redesignated, provides the same authority, this section is 

amended to replace that term with ‘‘other transactions,’’ for consistency. 

Sec. 15. Cooperative Research Grant Program 

• The Transit Cooperative Research Program remains unchanged. 

Amendments to Section 5313 provide the correct funding authorization citation. Since the statewide planning program under current Subsection (b) would be merged into the new metropolitan and 

statewide planning grant program in Section 5308, Subsection (b) 

is stricken and the title of Section 5313 is changed to reflect the 

fact that only the Transit Cooperative Research Program is authorized by this section. 

Sec. 16. National research programs 

• Project Action is continued at current funding levels. 

• A new program of Medical Transportation Demonstration 

Grants is established. 

• A new National Technical Assistance Center for Senior Transportation is established. 

• A study on how to increase the use of Alternative Fuels in public transportation is required. 

• Operational demonstration contracts are allowed under conditions set by the Secretary. 

Section 5314 would be amended to delete the word ‘‘Planning’’ 

from the heading, since the focus of the section is on research, and 

planning has been provided for elsewhere in Chapter 53. 

Amendments to Section 5314(a)(1) would provide the correct 

funding authorization citation and reflect the fact that the University Transportation Centers program in existing Section 5317 has 

been moved to Section 5505 of Title 49. 

30 

Subsection (a)(2) continues to provide $3,000,000 for Project Action, which is designed to help ensure that public transportationrelated assistance, programs, research, education, and other activities comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. 

Under current law, operational demonstration projects involving 

public transportation must comply with the Department of Labor’s 

transit employee protection requirements under Section 5333(b). 

These new technologies are tested for short periods of time on single vehicles rather than on entire fleets. Moreover, these types of 

operational projects do not create an employee protective risk, the 

purpose for which Section 5333(b) was enacted. Therefore, Section 

5314(a)(3) is amended to relieve this compliance requirement. 

Current Section 5314(a)(4)(B) requires FTA to establish an Industry Technical Panel composed of transportation suppliers and 

others involved in technology development. This provision is deleted, as such a panel is unnecessary given FTA’s continuing working relationship with all facets of the transit industry. 

A new Subsection (a)(6) is added to establish a program of medical transportation demonstration grants. These grants will be focused on improving methods of transportation for persons in need 

of kidney dialysis. 

A new National Technical Assistance Center for Senior Transportation would be established in a new Section 5314(c). Similar to 

Project Action, the Center would undertake research, provide technical assistance, and make demonstration grants on methods to improve transportation for elderly individuals. 

A study is required by Section 5314(d) on how to increase the use 

of alternative fuels in public transportation. 

Sec. 17. National Transit Institute 

• The National Transit Institute will be continued at Rutgers 

University. 

Currently, Section 5315(a) requires establishment of the National 

Transit Institute (NTI) at Rutgers University. This subsection 

would continue the Institute at this location for the new authorization period. The Committee is concerned about the effectiveness of 

programs at the NTI and directs the Federal Transit Administration to exercise careful oversight over its operation to assure that 

the Institute is producing benefits commensurate with the investment being made. 

Existing Section 5315(b) requires the Secretary to delegate the 

NTI the authority to develop and conduct educational and training 

programs pertaining to public transportation. NTI already has sufficient authority to conduct any type of educational or training program, and therefore, this section is deleted. 

Sec. 18. Bus testing facility 

• Special testing requirements for ‘‘New Model’’ buses are continued. 

Technical changes are made in the requirements for the testing 

of new model buses. 

Sec. 19. Bicycle facilities 

Currently all bicycle facilities, have a Federal share of 90 percent, unless they are funded as ‘‘transit enhancements’’ which are 

31 

eligible for a Federal share of 95 percent. Because the enhancement program is being continued as a certification rather than a 

set-aside, a technical correction was needed. 

Sec. 20. Suspended light rail technology pilot project 

Section 5320, which authorizes a suspended light rail system 

technology pilot program, is repealed because it has proved to be 

impractical and has not been implemented. 

Sec. 21. Crime prevention and security 

As noted earlier, capital costs related to crime prevention and security have been explicitly authorized as part of a capital project 

throughout Chapter 53. Accordingly, Section 5321, which provides 

for separate eligibility, but which has never been separately funded, is repealed. 

Sec. 22. General provisions on assistance 

• Environmental and public hearing requirements are revised to 

conform with the applicable cross-cutting statutes. 

• Special terms and conditions for technology deployment 

projects will be allowed. 

• Revenue bond proceeds can be used as local match for transportation projects. 

• Debt Service Reserve Funds are made an eligible project activity. 

• Public transportation agencies can receive land which becomes 

available as a result of base closures. 

• Small and private non-profit agencies are exempted from preaward and post-delivery audit requirements. 

Subsection (a) is amended to include the term ‘‘private company 

engaged in public transportation’’ rather than ‘‘private mass transportation company’’ to utilize more current terminology and to comport with changes made to the term throughout Chapter 53. 

The provisions of Section 5323(b) are edited to mesh the statutory requirements of Federal transit law more closely with current 

practice under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 

FTA does not depend on the ‘‘certificate of the applicant’’ that the 

environmental review was properly performed. Rather, NEPA 

makes consideration of a proposed project’s environmental record a 

direct Federal responsibility. Accordingly, FTA participates directly 

in the environmental process for a proposed project and reviews the 

final environmental record before accepting it. 

Methods for providing public comment have broadened considerably since the language regarding a public hearing was enacted in 

Section 5323(b). This section is amended to provide the same consideration to comments submitted by mail or electronic means, as 

the consideration given to comments transcribed at a hearing. In 

addition, non-English speaking persons or hearing-impaired persons are provided the opportunity to comment through special arrangements. 

This section eliminates the two-step process for announcing a 

hearing. Under the current process, the applicant announces the 

opportunity for a hearing and then waits for a response. This bill 

requires that a hearing be held whenever the project affects signifiVerDate Aug 04 2004 10:28 May 06, 2005 Jkt 039010 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR062.XXX SR062
32 

cant social, economic, or environmental interests in the community, 

regardless of whether one has been requested. 

A new Section 5323(e) allows grants for new technology, including the integration of innovative techniques, subject to the requirements of Section 5309, but only to the extent the Secretary deems 

appropriate. Federal grant requirements, particularly in the case of 

major capital projects, are often difficult and burdensome when imposed on the introduction of new technology. Revised Subsection (c) 

strengthens and leverages private sector participation by permitting the Secretary to establish appropriate terms and conditions for 

projects involving the integration of new innovative or improved 

products, techniques, or methods. Such discretion will facilitate 

new and improved public transportation resources, as well as benefit both the public and private sectors. 

The former Section 5323(e) required the Secretary to issue a bus 

passenger seat functional specification based on a finding by State 

and local governments of ‘‘local requirements for safety, comfort, 

maintenance, and life-cycle costs.’’ Industry has adopted an effective standard, the Secretary has issued a specification, and if the 

need were to arise again, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration would be the more appropriate agency to address the 

matter. Therefore, this subsection is deleted. 

Section 3011(a) of TEA–21 allows a recipient of an urbanized 

area formula grant under Section 5307 or a major capital investment grant under Section 5309 to use proceeds from the issuance 

of revenue bonds as a local match. Since this provision has been 

beneficial to transit operators, it is codified in Section 5323(f)(1). 

Section 5323(f)(2) provides transit grantees with an additional innovative financing tool. Typically, only a small portion of public 

transportation investment is financed with municipal bonds. Currently, a recipient deposits bond proceeds in a debt service reserve 

to ensure timely payment of principal and interest on the municipal bonds supporting the transit project. Regardless, the municipal 

bonds are typically rated below ‘‘AA’’ because they are secured by 

variable revenue streams and thus demand a higher rate of interest. Under Section 5323(f)(2), the Secretary could allow a recipient 

to use Section 5307 or 5309 dollars to reimburse it for deposits 

made to the debt service reserve. Because Federal transit funds are 

typically viewed as higher creditworthy revenues, transit bond ratings would be strengthened and interest costs reduced. As a result, 

State and local investment would increase, and there would be improved capital planning, lower costs, and speedier project development. 

Section 5323(h)(1), which prohibits a grant or loan from being 

used to pay ordinary Governmental or non-project operating expenses, is moved to Section 5323(p). 

Section 5323(h)(2), which prohibits a grant or loan from being 

used to support a procurement that uses an exclusionary or discriminatory specification, appropriately belongs in Section 5325 

and is relocated. 

Subsection (h) is revised to provide for the transfer of lands or 

interests in lands owned by the United States. The Department of 

Defense regulations (32 CFR Parts 90 and 91) provide for the disposition of surplus land resulting from the Defense Base Closure 

33 

and Realignment Act to be transferred free to ‘‘grantees’’ that have 

Federal sponsors with Federal land transfer statutes. 

However, within the Department of Transportation, only the 

Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Aviation Administration have such authority. By amending Chapter 53 to include 

a Federal land transfer statute under Section 5323(h), FTA grantees will be eligible to receive surplus Government land for authorized public transportation projects, under certain terms and conditions, but at no cost, just as other agencies would. 

Reference to the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 

Act of 1991 in Subsection (j)(5) is obsolete, and the provision is 

amended accordingly. 

Current Section 5323(l), which indicates that the planning and 

programming requirements of 23 U.S.C. 135 apply to grants made 

under 49 U.S.C. 5307–5311, is deleted because statewide planning 

has been included in the planning requirements under Sections 

5303 and 5304. Subsection (l) is then used to provide for the applicability of 18 U.S.C. 1001, dealing with false or fraudulent statements, to Federal transit programs. Currently, Section 1001 applies only to certificates or submissions provided pursuant to Section 5307, ‘‘Urbanized Area Public Transportation Formula 

Grants.’’ 

Section 5323(m) provides that an independent pre-award review 

and a post-delivery audit must be conducted when a grantee purchases rolling stock. These reviews must show compliance with Buy 

America requirements, the motor vehicle safety requirements, and 

the bid specifications. In addition to reviewing and documenting 

the origin of each component and subcomponent and the location 

and cost of final assembly, the grantee must use an on-site inspector when it purchases more than 10 vehicles. As a result, the 

grantee must have someone on site at the assembly plant to review 

and observe the actual manufacture of the vehicle. This is costly 

and burdensome on smaller grantees that may not have the staff 

or sophistication to devote to such audits. 

Therefore, Section 5323(m) would be amended to eliminate these 

requirements for private non-profit organizations and grantees 

serving urbanized areas with fewer than one million people. All 

manufacturers and suppliers would have to continue to certify compliance with Buy America during the bidding process, and they 

would remain bound by their original certification. However, these 

grantees will not have to certify twice in order for the vehicles to 

comply with Buy America. The vast majority of vehicles purchased 

will still undergo the audits. 

Sec. 23. Special provisions for capital projects 

• Environmental and relocation assistance requirements are revised to conform to applicable cross-cutting statutes (NEPA and 

Uniform Relocation Assistance Act). 

• Protective and hardship acquisitions are allowed, consistent 

with current regulations. 

• Advance Right of Way acquisitions are allowed under certain 

conditions. 

Currently, Section 5324 contains relocation program requirements as a condition of receipt of Federal assistance. The Secretary 

must make an affirmative finding that two of the numerous condiVerDate Aug 04 2004 10:28 May 06, 2005 Jkt 039010 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR062.XXX SR062
34 

tions contained in the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real 

Property Acquisition Policies Act (‘‘the Act’’), 42 U.S.C. 4601 et seq., 

have been fulfilled. All State agencies, defined in the Act as covering entities that would be FTA grantees, must comply with these 

two provisions of the statute to be eligible for Federal transit assistance. Therefore, in order to ensure that grantees are complying 

with the applicable requirements, Section 5324(a) is amended to 

reference the relevant sections of the Act directly. 

Section 5324(b) continues to allow protective and hardship acquisitions as defined in 23 CFR 771.117, but it also allows advance acquisition where the strict requirements associated with a protective 

acquisition are not met. At present, a protective acquisition is permitted only if the development of the property is imminent as evidenced by concrete steps taken by a developer to build, subdivide, 

or otherwise develop the land. Because it increases the cost of the 

property to the public when it is finally acquired for transportation 

purposes, outside market forces do not generally respect transportation project schedules for environmental review and unduly influence the sale and development of real property. This provision allows for the acquisition when market forces dictate, and thereby 

avoids multiple transactions on the same property and the associated escalation in cost. A strictly limited number of such advance 

acquisitions is allowed without prejudice to the consideration of alternative locations or alternative projects, because the resale of a 

few parcels if a different alternative is selected, is feasible, and presents little or no burden to the transportation agency. 

Section 5324(c) addresses FTA’s current practice of allowing the 

acquisition of pre-existing railroad right of way (ROW) in advance 

of any specific project decisions on how the ROW will be used. In 

some cases, a firm project proposal and the associated environmental review may still be years away at the time of the acquisition, but the commercial railroad that owns the ROW seeks to liquidate the asset through its sale, and its preservation as a transportation ROW can only be assured through its acquisition. Any 

changes in the use of the railroad ROW are subject to appropriate 

environmental review prior to the change. The purposes of other 

Federal laws regulating railroads (e.g., those governing the abandonment of rail ROW) would not be compromised by this provision. 

Section 5324(d) (formerly Section 5324(b)) meshes the statutory 

requirements of Federal transit law more closely with current FTA 

practice under NEPA, and 49 U.S.C. 303 (commonly called ‘‘Section 

4(f)’’), and other environmental laws. Of the Secretaries listed in 

current transit law, only the Secretary of the Interior frequently 

has an interest in FTA projects and routinely consults with FTA 

on those projects. Reference to the Secretaries of Agriculture, 

Health and Human Services, and Housing and Urban Development 

are removed since these agencies rarely have any interest in transit projects and the requirement for routine consultation with their 

Departments has not proven to be necessary or productive. FTA 

grant applicants are required by NEPA regulations to identify the 

Federal interests and parties affected by a proposed transit project. 

It is a very rare case that a transit project does affect one of the 

Departments on the list. 

The Council on Environmental Quality has delegated its routine 

project review responsibilities to the Environmental Protection 

35 

Agency (EPA). In addition, EPA is required by Section 309 of the 

Clean Air Act to review the environmental impact statements of 

every other Federal agency. Federal transit law should be consistent with current delegations of responsibilities and with other 

Federal law. The amendment deletes Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) and substitutes the Administrator of EPA. 

Methods for providing the public with adequate opportunity to 

present views have broadened considerably since the original language about a public hearing transcript was enacted. At present, 

FTA practice is to give full consideration to every public comment 

on the project, whether that comment was transcribed at the formal public hearing, was received in written form through the mail 

or by email, or, in some cases, was transcribed from a telephone 

voice mail service established for this purpose. Federal transit law 

should not single out the hearing transcript for greater attention 

than other valid forms of public comment on the project. Therefore, 

Section 5324(b) is redesignated as Section 5324(d) and is amended 

accordingly. 

FTA has not used the existing authority to hold its own separate 

hearing on a project proposed for FTA funding. The local transit 

agency planning the project and constructing, owning, and operating the project must be directly accountable to the public affected 

and served by the project. The agency must take responsibility for 

the public involvement process and must consider the public comments in deciding its course of action. FTA should not substitute 

its judgment in these local matters. The authority to hold a separate FTA hearing is therefore unnecessary and is deleted. 

Sec. 24. Contract Requirements 

• Current provisions regarding procurement and contracts are 

consolidated in a single section. 

• Competition in all procurements is explicitly established as the 

presumptive standard. 

• Brooks Act coverage in program management covers only architectural, engineering, and design contracts; performance and 

audit standards now referenced are incorporated in Title 49. 

• Current requirements in FTA guidance on the need for grantees to assure that contractors have adequate capacity to carry out 

a contract are included in law. 

• Grantees must refer to the Contractor Performance Assessment Report when selecting contractors to do work on projects 

seeking FFGAs. 

• Buses acquired under this title are exempt from State dealer 

requirements. 

Section 5326, ‘‘Special Procurements,’’ is consolidated with Section 5325, ‘‘Contract Requirements,’’ since the provisions of Section 

5326 fall within the scope of Section 5325. 

Existing Section 5307 requires the use of competitive procurement as defined or approved by the Secretary in carrying out procurement under that section. Section 5325(a) is amended to expressly require the use of competitive procurement procedures for 

any procurement carried out under Chapter 53. This amendment 

strengthens competition standards and stretches procurement dollars in third party contracting. 

36 

The revised language in redesignated Section 5325(b)—referred 

to as ‘‘The Brooks Act’’—clarifies that program management is limited to architectural, engineering, and design contracts. Also, the 

reference to 23 U.S.C. 112(b)(2)(C) through (F), which deals with 

performance and audit standards and indirect cost rates, is removed. Instead, Subsection (b) is revised specifically to include 

these provisions. 

TEA–21 allowed for turnkey system projects, also known as design-build contracting, in Federally funded public transportation 

projects, including demonstration projects. Section 5325(d) (existing 

Section 5326(a)), replaces the term ‘‘turnkey’’ with the more commonly used term ‘‘design-build.’’ Also, this section is amended to 

delete any reference to ‘‘demonstration projects,’’ since design-build 

contracting has matured beyond the demonstration phase. In addition, design-build contracting does not necessarily result in lower 

project costs or new technologies and, as a result, this concept, 

which appears in existing Section 5326(a)(2), is removed. 

Current provisions on multiyear rolling stock procurements now 

included in Section 5326(b) are relocated to Section 5325(e). Current provisions on the acquisition of rolling stock using a variety 

of procurement methods now included in Section 5325(c) are relocated to Section 5325(f). 

Section 5325 is amended to provide that buses purchased with 

assistance from the Federal Transit program are exempt from any 

state requirement to have such buses purchased only from in-state 

bus dealers. 

Currently, FTA and the Comptroller General can inspect contract 

records for capital projects receiving Federal transit assistance, but 

only in cases of ‘‘noncompetitive bidding.’’ Investigations of the 

merits of competitive bids are based on (1) whether a grantee violated what it certified to, or (2) the protest procedures in the Government-wide Common Grant Rule. New Subsection 5325(g), ‘‘Examination of the Records,’’ strengthens oversight by allowing FTA 

or the Comptroller General to inspect all contract documents. 

The ‘‘grant prohibition’’ provision, dealing with contract requirements, was erroneously included under Section 5323, ‘‘General Provisions On Assistance,’’ and is relocated appropriately under Section 5325(h). 

A new provision is added to Section 5325(i) to strengthen the requirements that contractors to public transportation agencies must 

have adequate technical and financial capacity to carry out a proposed contract. This elevates already existing FTA and OMB requirements on third-party contracting to a statutory requirement. 

Grantees must refer to the Contractor Performance Assessment 

Reports required under Section 5309 when selecting contractors to 

do work on major capital investments. 

Sec. 25. Project management oversight and review 

• Security is added to the issues to be included in a project management plan. 

• The takedown for oversight is increased to 1 percent in all programs. 

• Cross-cutting analyses of oversight results is allowed. 

Given the new security concerns—and in keeping with actual 

practice in the field—Section 5327(a) is revised to require that a 

37 

project management oversight (PMO) plan include ‘‘safety and security management.’’ 

Section 5327(c)(1) is amended to allow a one percent takedown 

for PMO activities related to the planning program (5308) and the 

expanded Formula Grants program for special needs of elderly individuals and individuals with disabilities (5310). These programs 

will require comprehensive agency oversight. 

Section 5327(c) is amended to strike the reference to 23 U.S.C. 

103(e)(4), which was repealed by TEA–21. 

The section also provides new authority for the use of oversight 

funds to conduct analyses which cut across multiple projects. At 

present, oversight funds may be used only to review each project 

in isolation. Cross-cutting analyses could help identify major problems which need attention and could help develop best-practice 

methods which could be gleaned from a review of a set of similar 

projects. 

Sec. 26. Project review 

• The schedules for FTA review of projects in the New Starts 

process are updated to clarify the relationship to the New Starts 

process and criteria; the advancement of projects is not automatic, 

but rather depends on meeting the requirements of that section. 

• The concept of Programs of Interrelated Projects is not continued. 

Section 3026 amends Section 5328(a), which established a firm 

schedule for various FTA approvals associated with New Starts 

projects and reporting to Congressional committees on failures to 

meet those schedules. The schedule for FTA review continues to be 

maintained to ensure that projects are not delayed inordinately. 

The section is amended to tie the schedule to the requirements of 

Section 5309(e). In addition, since the decision on whether to advance a project to a Full Funding Grant Agreement is not automatic and depends on the relative merits of projects being considered for funding, as well as the readiness of individual projects, 

Subsection (a)(4) is repealed. 

Subsection (c), which provides for a program of interrelated 

projects specifically identified in law, is now obsolete and is removed. 

Sec. 27. Investigations of safety and security risk 

• FTA investigation authority is expanded expressly to include 

security issues. 

• The penalty for failure to address issues is modified. 

• A Memorandum of Understanding between the Departments of 

Transportation and Homeland Security is required. 

Section 5329 authorizes FTA to investigate ‘‘safety hazards,’’ but 

does not authorize FTA expressly to investigate ‘‘security’’ matters. 

The provision could be interpreted as not permitting FTA to investigate or to assist with security matters absent some particular 

‘‘hazard.’’ Therefore, this section is amended to promote active cooperation between FTA and its grantees on security matters, by 

clarifying that FTA may assist grantees on security matters and investigate security concerns without notice of a specific breach of security at a transit system. 

38 

The existing section also contains an ‘‘all or nothing’’ provision 

that authorizes the Secretary to withhold ‘‘further financial assistance’’ upon a transit system’s failure to correct a safety hazard. 

Section 5329 allows the Secretary to determine the amount of funding to be withheld. 

Section 5329(b) required that a report on safety hazards in the 

transit industry be completed by 1992. The report has been completed and thus this provision is deleted. 

A new requirement is added for a Memorandum of Understanding between the Departments of Transportation and Homeland Security specifying the details of how the agencies would cooperate on setting national security standards for public transportation, would establish funding priorities for DHS grants to public 

transportation agencies, and would coordinate with each other and 

public transportation agencies on security matters. 

Sec. 28. Withholding amounts for non-compliance with state safety 

oversight 

• Safety oversight is required during the design phase of New 

Starts. • States can designate a single agency to handle oversight of systems serving more than one State. 

Section 5330 is amended to change the heading to ‘‘Withholding 

Amounts for Non-Compliance with State Safety Oversight Requirements’’ the better to reflect the requirements in this section. 

Amendments to Section 5330 ensure that safety is considered 

well before a rail fixed-guideway system begins revenue service, 

i.e., during the design phase of the project. 

Section 5330 allows a single transit system operating in more 

than one State to designate a single entity to oversee the safety of 

a rail fixed-guideway system. Because this provision is discretionary, a rail fixed-guideway system operating in two or more 

States may be subject to more than one oversight agency, each having different safety standards. In order to strengthen the provision’s goal of safety and reduce the burden on grantees having to 

comply with differing standards, Section 5330 is revised to make 

such a designation mandatory. 

Subsection (f) required the Secretary to issue regulations no later 

than December 18, 1992. Because the regulations have been issued, 

Subsection (f) is deleted. 

Sec. 29. Terrorist attacks and other acts of violence against public 

transportation 

• Controllers of public transportation are protected by laws 

against violence toward transportation facilities. 

The term ‘‘mass transportation’’ is changed to ‘‘public transportation’’ throughout Chapter 53 of Title 49, U.S.C., for the reasons 

set forth in Section 3001 of the bill. Section 1993 of Title 18, 

U.S.C., is a criminal statute prohibiting terrorist attacks and other 

acts of violence against the Nation’s transit systems, most of which 

receive Federal public transportation assistance under Chapter 53 

of Title 49. Section 1993 of Title 18 is amended to replace the term 

‘‘mass transportation’’ with ‘‘public transportation.’’ 

Section 1993(a)(5) makes it a Federal crime to interfere with 

anyone ‘‘dispatching, operating, or maintaining a mass transporVerDate Aug 04 2004 10:28 May 06, 2005 Jkt 039010 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR062.XXX SR062
39 

tation vehicle or ferry.’’ The statute does not address those who 

‘‘control’’ such vehicles, and arguably excludes rail system ‘‘controllers’’ (central command employees who control the movement of rail 

cars). Although such controllers ‘‘operate’’ vehicles in some cases, 

and thus may fall within the statute, the statute does not expressly 

cover them. The amendment to Section 1993(a)(5) explicitly provides that interference with a rail controller constitutes a Federal 

crime. 

Sec. 30. Controlled substances and alcohol misuse testing 

• Allows ferry boats to be covered only by Coast Guard requirements rather than both Coast Guard and FTA. 

Currently, Section 5331 authorizes the Secretary to exclude from 

FTA drug and alcohol testing requirements those public transportation providers that are covered adequately by the testing statutes 

of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) or 

the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). Section 5331 is amended to expand the Secretary’s authority to exclude from FTA testing 

requirements, those public transportation providers that are adequately covered under other Federal or Departmental testing statutes or regulations, such as the U.S. Coast Guard’s testing provisions applicable to ferryboat employees. 

Section 5331(f)(3) states that this section shall not prevent the 

Secretary from continuing in effect, amending, or supplementing a 

regulation governing drug and alcohol testing prescribed before October 28, 1991. FTA drug and alcohol regulations are now codified 

(49 CFR Part 655) and therefore Subsection (f)(3) is unnecessary. 

Sec. 31. Employee protective arrangements 

• The time for severance pay and benefits for transit workers is 

reduced to four years to comport with existing rail worker protections for Class III railroads. • This section does not automatically require labor protections to 

be continued after a change in contractor. 

• Grants for purchase of like-kind equipment or facilities do not 

have to be referred by the Department of Labor prior to certification. 

The Committee has substantial legislative history on the issue of 

Section 5333(b) labor protection, commonly referred to as ‘‘Section 

13(c)’’—a reference to the section as contained in the pre-codified 

Federal Transit Act. 

Current law provides for 6 years of severance pay at full pay and 

benefits in the case where public transportation employees’ jobs are 

lost as a result of a grant. This applies to nearly every transit 

agency, as few exist in the absence of federal support. The bill 

would change the length of severance pay required under Section 

5333(b) to 4 years. The precedent for this modification comes from 

changes resulting from the Interstate Commerce Commission’s sunset and subsequent replacement by the Surface Transportation 

Board. At that time, the requirement for severance pay for workers 

at Class III railroads (which are most analogous to transit agencies) was reduced from 6 years to 4 years. The Committee notes 

that this change does not alter requirements for severance pay for 

workers covered under other laws, such as those governing the 

rights of railroad workers. 

40 

On April 25, 2000, the Committee held a hearing entitled ‘‘The 

Ability of the U.S. Department of Labor to Delay or to Derail Mass 

Transit Projects that have been Approved and Funded by Congress.’’ The hearing highlighted numerous cases where Section 

13(c) had been an obstacle to effective management of public transportation. Transit agency representatives from Dallas, Texas; Las 

Vegas, Nevada; and Boston, Massachusetts testified about their 

particular experiences with delayed grants or interference with the 

transit agency’s ability to make effective choices to increase the efficiency of transit operations and capital investments. 

On July 11, 2000, the Committee held a hearing entitled ‘‘The 

FTA’s Approval of Extending the Amtrak Commuter Rail Contract.’’ Witnesses included Acting Administrator Nuria Fernandez 

and Amtrak President George Warrington. Amtrak had a contract 

to provide service to the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) since the mid–1980s, despite the fact that Federal 

Government grant rules require that contracts using federal funds 

be put out for competitive bid at least every five years. In 1998, 

FTA wrote a letter to the MBTA requiring it to compete the contract or risk losing federal funds. In response, MBTA put the contract out for bid and received four bids ranging from $175 million 

to Amtrak’s bid of $291 million. Additionally, MBTA rated the proposals on the basis of quality. Amtrak ranked worst based on measures of both price and quality. MBTA selected the best contractor 

on both factors, but when it came time to transition to the winning 

contractor, the Department of Labor’s reinterpretation of Section 

13(c) prevented the successful bidder from carrying out the contract 

and the contract with Amtrak was extended. Section 13(c) required 

the new contractor to maintain the same work force, the same 

rates of pay, and the same work rules, thereby eliminating any cost 

savings that would have been achieved by transition to the new 

contractor. The result was to render the competitive bidding process meaningless. 

The Committee believes that the current provisions contained in 

Section 5333(b) are in need of significant reform to prevent the abrogation of free-market principles and cost escalations deleterious 

to the effective provision of public transportation. Operational flexibility is a key foundation for competitive contracting. Accordingly, 

this bill provides that 13(c) requirements do not automatically attach to newly solicited contracts, or require that an identical workforce or rules be maintained under new contracts. Carrying over 

benefits from contractor to contractor was not envisioned when Section 13(c) was enacted and as such, this restores the original intent 

of Section 13(c). 

The bill codifies the Department of Labor’s decision (commonly 

referred to as the ‘‘Las Vegas’’ decision), which found that a change 

in contractors would not extinguish obligations under prior Section 

5333(b) arrangements. This provision is not intended to extend, expand, or contract labor protection collective bargaining terms and 

conditions applicable to subsequent contracts. 

In addition, the bill establishes in law a Special Warranty now 

applied by administrative practice in the Section 5311 program for 

other-than-urbanized-areas and applies it in the Job Access and 

Reverse Commute Program. 

41 

The Committee expects the Department of Labor to promulgate 

regulations to implement the changes made by this bill. 

Sec. 32. Administrative procedures 

• Provides FTA with explicit authority to issue regulations. • Allows the Secretary to regulate public transportation operations in the case of national emergencies. 

Questions with respect to FTA’s regulatory authority occasionally 

arise (e.g., with respect to the safety and security of transit systems and, some years ago, illegal drug and alcohol use). Amendments to Section 5334(a) clarify that the Secretary has the authority to issue regulations as necessary to carry out the Federal transit provisions in Chapter 53. 

Current Section 5324(c), ‘‘Prohibitions Against Regulating Operations and Charges,’’ is moved to Section 5334, ‘‘Administrative 

Provisions,’’ as a new Subsection (b). It is appropriate to house this 

prohibition in the ‘‘Administrative Provisions’’ section and make it 

expressly applicable chapter-wide, rather than on capital projects 

only. While it has been the practice of FTA to forego any regulation 

of operations or charges with respect to any grant based on legislative history, current law is ambiguous. Moving this provision will 

clarify that FTA may not regulate operations or charges, except in 

emergencies. The appropriate Federal role in public transportation 

is to provide financial assistance only, and not to regulate operations. Also, this provision is amended to specify that the Secretary 

is prohibited from regulating a recipient’s routes, schedules, rates, 

fares, tolls, and rentals, just as this provision had specified prior 

to the recodification of the Federal Transit Act into 49 U.S.C. 

Chapter 53 in 1994. In light of the September 11 terrorist attacks, 

this provision is further amended to allow the Secretary of Transportation, under direction by the President, to regulate the operation of and charges for public transportation systems for purposes 

of national defense or in the event of a national or regional emergency. 

Sec. 33. Reports and audits 

Section 5335(b), requiring that the Comptroller General submit 

‘‘transferability reports’’ to Congress, is removed, as the report is 

no longer needed on a recurring basis. Information on the use of 

flexible funding under Title 23 is readily available. 

Sec. 34. Apportionments of appropriations for formula grants 

• For basic apportionments, the existing urbanized area formula 

continues as in current law. 

• A Transit Intensive Cities Tier is added, allocating $35 million 

per year to those areas under 200,000 population which operate 

more service (revenue vehicle hours) per capita than areas 200,000 

to 1 million. 

• A study of rural and urban incentives is required. 

The formula in Section 5336 sees the addition of a new ‘‘Transit 

Intensive Cities’’ tier. Under current law, funds are allocated to urbanized areas with a population of less than 200,000 only on the 

basis of urbanized area population and population density. Fund 

allocations do not reflect the amount of transit service provided. 

Thus, certain small areas which sometimes have more transit servVerDate Aug 04 2004 10:28 May 06, 2005 Jkt 039010 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR062.XXX SR062
42 

ice than areas with more than 200,000 people do not get funding 

sufficient to recapitalize their transit systems. The ‘‘Transit Intensive Cities’’ tier would allocate funds to small urbanized areas with 

transit service levels (represented by revenue vehicle hours) per 

capita greater than the per capita service levels in areas with population of 200,000 to 1,000,000 on the basis of transit service levels. 

Funds from this tier are available for capital purposes only. 

The provision in Section 5336(h) regarding adjustments in apportionments from the Mass Transit Account and general funds is deleted. 

The redundant provision in Section 5336(j) which describes the 

grant requirements which apply to funds allocated by Section 5336 

is deleted. These requirements are already applied to the Section 

5307 program by Section 5307(n). 

The provision in Section 5336(k) which referred to treatment of 

former urbanized areas in Fiscal Year 1993 is deleted. 

A provision is added to require a study of incentives which might 

be added to the urbanized area and other-than-urbanized area formula programs. The Administration proposed a program of incentive allocations based on increases in ridership which the Committee seriously considered. However, in light of numerous questions about how such a program would work, the factors to be considered, and the manner in which grants could be used, the Committee instead calls for a study of the issues involved in establishing such a program. The Committee believes that there may be 

some merit in building incentives into the allocation of Federal 

funds. The report should address the possibility of rewarding improvements in ridership (as was proposed by the Administration) 

as well as improvements in efficiency (cost per unit of service provided), effectiveness (service utilization per unit of service provided), and cost-effectiveness (cost per unit of service utilization). 

The Committee is particularly interested in assessments of incentives for improvements in efficiency, which could spur public transportation agencies to explore more use of competition in the selection of service provider as well as increased use of privately provided service. 

Sec. 35. Fixed guideway modernization apportionments 

• The current formula for the fixed guideway modernization program is retained. 

The formula in Section 5337 is currently used to allocate fixed 

guideway modernization funds in Section 5309 and is retained unchanged. Section 5337(e) is removed, since that section provided for 

a special rule from October 1, 1997, through March 31, 1998. 

Sec. 36. Authorizations 

• Funds all programs except New Starts from the Mass Transit 

Account 

• Funds New Starts from the General Fund. 

Section 5338 authorizes amounts from the General Fund, and 

makes available amounts from the Mass Transit Account of the 

Highway Trust Fund, to carry out Federal public transportation 

programs in Fiscal Years 2005 through 2009. Funds from the Mass 

Transit Account are provided as ‘‘contract authority.’’ 

43 

Section 5338(a), provides funds for all programs for Fiscal Year 

2005 in accordance with the Consolidated Appropriations Act. 

Section 5338(b) Formula Grants and Research, provides funds for 

Fiscal Years 2006 through 2009 from the Mass Transit Account to 

carry out Sections 5305, 5307, 5308, 5309 (bus and fixed-guideway 

modernization), 5310–5318, 5322, 5335 and 5505 of Title 49, and 

Sections 3037 and 3038 of Pub. L. 105–178. It also provides for a 

takedown for grants to the Alaska Railroad for improvements to its 

passenger operations under Section 5307. 

Section 5338(c), Major Capital Investment Program Grants, authorizes appropriations from the General Fund in Fiscal Years 

2006 through 2009 to carry out Section 5309 (New Starts). Section 

5338(c) authorizes funds from the Trust Fund for administrative 

expenses. Amounts available under Subsections (a) and (b) remain 

available until expended and grants financed from amounts derived 

from the Mass Transit Account or through advance appropriations 

under those subsections would be contract authority. 

Throughout the life of TEA–21, planning funds to carry out 49 

U.S.C. 5303–5305 and 5313(b) were authorized and made available 

pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5338(c). Grants for both planning programs 

are mainstreamed into 49 U.S.C. 5308. Funding for the planning 

programs are authorized as a takedown from the Urbanized Area 

Public Transportation Formula Grants account. 

The bill provides that 1.75 percent of the funds are available for 

planning in Fiscal Years 2006 through 2009. This percentage represents a minimal increase over previous Fiscal Years. The amount 

proposed in fiscal year 2005 takes into account that this fiscal year 

will be the first year of reauthorization and is based on the Consolidated Appropriations Act. 

The bill provides funding for the National Transit Database 

(NTD) authorized under Section 5335 in fiscal years 2006 through 

2009. The NTD workload has increased substantially with the advent of monthly reporting on safety and security and with the new 

requirements for the phased in rural and asset condition reporting. 

Sec. 37. Apportionments based on growing and high density states 

formula factors 

• Adds a new formula to allocate funds to States based on their 

population growth and on their level of population density. This 

formula is split evenly between ‘‘Growing States’’ and ‘‘High Density’’ factors. 

• Adds a new formula to allocate funds to Growing States. 

Amounts are allocated to States based on amount of population 

forecast in 2015. In each State, the amount is split between urbanized areas and non-urbanized areas in proportion to the population 

in 2015. 

• Adds a new formula to allocate funds based on State population density in excess of a benchmark multiplied by the urbanized land area. 

A new Section 5340 is added to allocate funds to Growing and 

High Density states. For this section, the term ‘‘State’’ is defined 

only to mean the 50 States. 

With respect to Growing States, the current formulae in Chapter 

53 all look back to population in the most recent decennial census 

and to the most recent transit service level data in the National 

44 

Transit Database. While this is helpful in assuring that funds are 

allocated based on need, they focus on existing needs, not the potential needs which exist in growing areas. Thus, it is very difficult 

for areas which foresee the need for expanded transit services to 

use funds allocated by the current formulae to address those needs. 

The new Section 5340 allocates funds based on the population 

forecasts for fifteen years after the date of that census. Forecasts 

are based on the trend between the most recent decennial census 

and Census Bureau population estimates. Funds allocated to the 

States are then sub-allocated to urbanized and non-urbanized areas 

based on forecast population, where available. Funds allocated to 

urbanized areas are included in their Section 5307 apportionment. 

Funds allocated for non-urbanized areas are included in the states’ 

Section 5311 apportionments. 

Similarly, other States are of extremely high density, and have 

public transportation needs and abilities in excess of average and 

the ability to service those needs more effectively than average, 

and thus, the current formulae do not fully account for these needs. 

For States with population densities in excess of 370 persons per 

square mile, funds are allocated based on the amount by which 

their population exceeds the product of their land area and the percentage of total State population in urbanized areas as determined 

by the most recent Decennial Census. 

Sec. 38. Job access and reverse commute 

• Continues Job Access and Reverse Commute as a competitive 

discretionary program. • Tailors grant requirements to the type of recipient. • Requires projects to be drawn from a human service transportation coordination plan. • Expands definition of ‘‘eligible person’’ to allow States to conform definition of eligible clients to their own TANF definition. 

Section 3037 of TEA–21 authorized the Job Access and Reverse 

Commute (JARC) program to assist welfare recipients and other 

low-income individuals in getting to and from jobs. The JARC program is reauthorized by amending Section 3037 of TEA–21 to provide funding authorizations for Fiscal Years 2005 through 2009. 

The JARC program continues as a national competition. The coordination requirements are amended to conform to the changes 

made in Sections 5307, 5310, and 5311. Section 3037(b)(2) is 

amended to clarify that funds can be used for the provision of service as well as the development of service. 

Section 3037(b) is amended to expand the definition of ‘‘eligible 

low-income individual’’ to allow States the flexibility to use JARC 

funds to assist the same individuals as assisted under the Stateadministered Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program 

(TANF). At present, the JARC program sets up a nationwide definition at 150 percent of the poverty line, while some States may 

choose to define eligibility differently. The bill allows the continuation of current eligibility as well as the new eligibility, tied to the 

TANF program within the State. No change is made in the activities eligible under the JARC program. Hence, all activities which 

have been deemed eligible remain eligible. 

Section 3037(b) is amended to expand the definition of ‘‘eligible 

low-income individual’’ to allow States the flexibility to use JARC 

45 

funds to assist the same individuals as assisted under the Stateadministered Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program 

(TANF). At present, the JARC program sets up a nationwide definition at 150 percent of the poverty line, while some states may 

choose to define eligibility differently. The bill allows the continuation of current eligibility as well as the new eligibility, tied to the 

TANF program within the State. 

Section 3037(j) is amended to change the terms and conditions of 

JARC grants to match the type of recipient. Under current law, all 

JARC grants are subject to the terms and conditions of Section 

5307, including those to recipients in other than urbanized areas, 

or recipients who are private non-profit organizations. This represents a significant burden to these recipients, since the requirements are tailored to public agencies in urbanized areas. The bill 

makes grants to public transportation operators and to private 

companies engaged in public transportation in urbanized areas 

under the same terms and conditions as required under the urbanized area formula program. Grants to public transportation operators and to private companies engaged in public transportation outside urbanized areas will be subject to the requirements of the Section 5311 program. Grants to private non-profit organizations will 

be subject to the requirements of the Section 5310 program. 

Sec. 39. Over-the-Road Bus Accessibility Program 

• Continues Over-the-Road Bus Accessibility Program. 

The heading of Section 3038 is changed from the ‘‘Rural Transportation Accessibility Incentive Program’’ to its more commonly 

used name ‘‘Over-the-Road Bus Accessibility Program.’’ In addition, 

Section 3038 is amended to reflect authorization of funds for this 

program in Fiscal Years 2005 through 2009. 

Sec. 40. Transit in Parks 

• Authorizes grants for public transportation projects in National 

Parks and other public lands. 

This section funds, for the first time, a program to provide funding for public transportation in National Parks and public lands at 

a level of $25 million per year. The Departments of Transportation 

and Interior will work cooperatively to develop and select capital 

improvements. 

Under this program, the Departments of Transportation and Interior will work cooperatively to select capital projects for funding 

within and in the vicinity of sites in the National Park System, the 

National Wildlife Refuges, Federal recreational areas, and other 

public lands, including National Forest System lands. This program is intended to help these areas address the problem of overcrowding that has come with increased visitation. TEA–21 required 

the Department of Transportation to conduct a study of alternative 

transportation needs in the national parks and other public lands, 

and that study confirmed that the parks are able and willing to develop transit alternatives. This program will help the parks make 

investments in traditional public transportation, such as shuttle 

buses or trolleys, or other types of public transportation appropriate to a park setting, such as waterborne transportation or bicycle and pedestrian facilities. 

46 

Sec. 41. Obligation ceiling 

This section establishes the obligation ceiling for each fiscal year, 

equal to the total amounts authorized. 

Sec. 42. Adjustments for the Surface Transportation Extension Act 

of 2004 

This section provides that the amounts for Fiscal Year 2005 are 

in lieu of, and not in addition to, the amounts authorized for the 

first eight months of Fiscal Year 2005 by the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2004. In addition, the section provides for 

an adjustment to the calculations of apportionments for the fixedguideway modernization program, since that formula assumes a 

full year of funding. 

Sec. 43. Disadvantaged Business Enterprise 

This section continues the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise 

requirements contained in the Transportation Equity Act for the 

21st Century. 

COST ESTIMATE

APRIL 11, 2005. 

Hon. RICHARD C. SHELBY, 

Chairman, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for the Federal Public Transportation Act of 2005. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Susanne Mehlman. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS HOLTZ-EAKIN, Director. 

Enclosure. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

Federal Public Transportation Act of 2005 

Summary: CBO estimates that implementing the bill would cost $25.3 billion over the 2006–2010 period, assuming appropriation 

action consistent with the bill. The legislation would extend the authority for the surface transportation programs administered by 

the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). For those programs, 

CBO estimates that the bill would provide about $82 billion in contract authority (the authority to incur obligations in advance of appropriations) over the 2006–2015. The bill also would authorize the 

appropriation of about $6.2 billion for those programs over the 

same period. 

The amount of new spending on transit programs under the bill 

would add to outlays expected from funding previously provided. In 

total, CBO estimates that discretionary outlays would sum to about 

$37.3 billion over the 2006–2010 for the affected transit programs. 

Consistent with the rules set forth in the Balanced Budget and 

Emergency Deficit Control Act, CBO assumes that the contract authority for the transit programs would continue at the same rate 

47 

provided immediately before the authority for the programs would 

expire in 2009. Hence, this estimate includes an additional $8.6 billion in contract authority in each year over the 2010–2015 period. 

This bill contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). 

It would benefit state and local governments by reauthorizing federal funding for public transportation programs. While some provisions in the bill would result in additional costs for these governments, those costs would result from complying with conditions of 

federal assistance. 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of the bill is summarized in the table below. The costs 

of this legislation fall primarily within budget function 400 (transportation). 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 

SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

FTA’s Spending Under Current Law: 

Authorization Level a ................................................ 918 0 0 0 0 0 

Estimated Outlays ................................................... 6,844 4,619 3,382 2,293 1,217 470 

Proposed Changes: 

Estimated Authorization Level b .............................. 0 1,387 1,465 1,601 1,744 0 

Estimated Outlays ................................................... 0 1,231 3,764 5,666 7,359 7,280 

Total Spending Under the Bill: 

Estimated Authorization Level b .............................. 918 1,387 1,465 1,601 1,744 0 

Estimated Outlays .......................................... 6,844 5,850 7,146 7,959 8,576 7,750 

DIRECT SPENDING 

FTA’s Direct Spending Under the Current-Law Baseline: 

Estimated Budget Authority b .................................. 6,691 6,691 6,691 6,691 6,691 6,691 

Estimated Outlays ................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Proposed Changes: 

Estimated Budget Authority b .................................. 0 131 518 1,186 1,892 1,892 

Estimated Outlays ................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total Direct Spending Under the Bill: 

Estimated Budget Authority b .................................. 6,691 6,822 7,209 7,877 8,583 8,583 

Estimated Outlays ................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 

a This is the amount of budget authority appropriated for the transit programs for 2005; it does not include contract authority for that year. b Under current law, most budget authority for the transit programs is provided as contract authority, a mandatory form of budget author- ity. Outlays from those programs, however, are subject to obligation limitations contained in appropriation acts and are therefore discretionary. 

The legislation would provide contract authority for each of those programs and also would authorize the appropriation of discretionary funds 

for those programs as well. For this estimate, CBO assumes that obligation limitations will continue to control most spending from those pro- grams. 

Basis of Estimate 

For this estimate, CBO assumes that the bill will be enacted by 

May 31, 2005, when the current authority for most of the surface 

transportation program expire and that future appropriation actions will be consistent with the funding levels authorized in the 

bill. 

Contract Authority 

The legislation would extend the authority for the surface transportation programs administered by the FTA through 2009. Under 

current law, most budget authority for such programs is provided 

as contract authority, a mandatory form of budget authority. Outlays from those programs, however, are subject to obligation limitations contained in appropriation acts and are therefore discretionary. For this estimate, CBO assumes that obligation limitations 

48 

will continue to control most spending from those programs and 

that appropriation acts would include obligation limitations equal 

to the contract authority levels for those programs. For the transit 

programs, the bill would provide a total of $39.1 billion of contract 

authority over the 2006–2010 period, or $5.6 billion more than assumed under the CBO baseline for these programs. For the 2006– 

2015 period, projected contract authority would total $82 billion or 

$15.1 billion more than assumed under the CBO baseline for these 

programs. 

Spending Subject to Appropriation 

In addition to providing contract authority, this legislation would 

authorize the appropriation of $6.2 billion over the 2006–2009 period for various transit programs. Assuming appropriation action 

consistent with the authorization and obligation levels specified in 

the bill, CBO estimates that implementing the bill would cost 

about $25.3 billion over the 2006–2010 period. The amounts of new 

spending under the bill would add to outlays expected from funding 

previously provided. In total, CBO estimates that discretionary outlays would sum to about $37.3 billion over the 2006–2010 period 

for the affected transit programs. 

Estimated impact on state, local, and tribal governments: This 

bill contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in UMRA. 

The bill would benefit state and local governments by reauthorizing 

federal funding for public transportation programs. While some 

provisions in the bill would result in additional costs for these governments, those costs would result from complying with the conditions of federal assistance. 

Included in the bill are changes to existing transportation planning requirements imposed on states and local Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs). These requirements are conditions of 

receiving federal transportation assistance. According to MPO representatives, some of these changes would impose additional costs 

on MPOs, particularly a requirement that they include certain environmental considerations as part of the planning process. At the 

same time, states and MPOs receive funds from federal highway 

and transit programs to offset planning costs, and this bill would 

increase the amount of transit funds set aside for that purpose. 

Estimated impact on the private sector: The bill contains no new 

private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal Spending: Susanne Mehlman; impact on state, local, and tribal governments: Marjorie Miller; impact on the private sector: Jean Talarico. 

Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW (CORDON RULE) 

On March 17, 2005, the Committee unanimously approved a motion by Senator Shelby to waive the Cordon Rule. Thus, in the 

opinion of the Committee, it is necessary to dispense with the requirements of section 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the 

Senate in order to expedite the business of the Senate. 

(49) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

The legislation reported by the Committee is vitally important to 

keep America moving forward in the 21st century. The investment 

authorized in this bill is critical to our efforts to improve our citizens’ mobility and strengthen our national economy. The bill takes 

a responsible approach to addressing the various types of transit 

needs in communities all across the nation, and we appreciate this 

legislation. While we continue to support the investment level and 

the highway/transit balance reflected in the reauthorization bill 

which passed the Senate last year, we recognize the need to move 

forward and therefore supported the bill reported by the Committee 

with the understanding that we will continue to press for a more 

appropriate balance between these two programs on the Senate 

floor. 

While there are a number of provisions in the legislation that 

modify various aspects of the transit programs, for the most part 

of the bill not enact major changes to a program that has worked 

well. For example, while the bill enhances the role of private-sector 

transit providers in several ways, it was not intended to change the 

long-standing congressional policy that decisions involving the 

choice between public and private transit operators should be left 

to local authorities who are better equipped to make local transportation decisions, and the federal government should remain neutral 

with respect to such local decision-making. 

The bill makes several modifications to section 5333(b), known as 

section 13(c), the transit employee labor protections. Section 13(c) 

has been a part of every transit bill since 1964, providing important collective bargaining and job right protections. It has served 

to unify a broad coalition of transit industry and employee representatives who have worked together to expand the Federal transit program to what it is today: an unequivocal success. We do not 

agree with the characterization in the Section-by-Section of the testimony given in the Committee’s hearings, nor do we believe that 

the description of the events in Boston accurately reflects the circumstances of that case. In fact, the issue in Boston stemmed from 

the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority’s use of a flawed 

bidding process, which led to the selection of an unqualified contractor. Contrary to critic’s allegations, the U.S. Government Accountability Office has found that Section 13(c) does not delay processing time for grants, nor does it inhibit transit agencies from contracting out their services. Given the substantial benefits to Section 

13(c) to the nation’s transit systems, we do not believe that any 

modifications to Section 13(c) were necessary. 

However, given that modifications were made, we believe it is 

important that their scope be properly understood. One of the 

modifications addresses employee job guarantees when one private 

contractor replaces another private contractor through competitive 

50 

bidding. Legislative history shows that Congress intended Section 

13(c) to apply to grants in all such cases, with specific benefits dependent upon the facts of each case; this issue was addressed in 

the Department of Labor’s ‘‘Las Vegas decision,’’ dated September 

21, 1994, as amplified by letter dated November 7, 1994. The bill 

includes language to ensure that the Department of Labor’s decisions involving so-called ‘‘contractor to contractor rights’’ are governed by the standards set forth in the Las Vegas rulings, without 

otherwise affecting existing protective arrangements; this affirmation of existing DOL policy should not serve as a basis for objections under 29 CFR 215.3(d). 

In addition, the amendment to section 5333(b)3), which reduces 

the protective period from a maximum of 6 years to a period not 

to exceed 4 years, applies exclusively to the duration of a dismissed 

or displaced employee allowance, and does not otherwise affect the 

protections afforded employees under section 5333(b). Moreover, 

the protections afforded to workers on Class III Railroads have 

never before been connected to transit labor protections, and should 

not be viewed as a precedent for any change to Section 13(c). 

We believe that the Committee’s hearing record provides ample 

evidence that Section 13(c) has contributed to the development of 

a well-trained, professional transit workforce which allows the 

transit industry to operate effectively even as the range of transit 

services continues to expand and technology continues to improve. 

Æ